4 ms·

Do the videos need to be optimized for mobile because of API incompatibilities, or just to make up for dearer machine resources (CPU, RAM, network etc.) availab

Do the videos need to be optimized for mobile because of API incompatibilities, or just to make up for dearer machine resources (CPU, RAM, network etc.) available on mobile? If the latter, wouldn't it presumably be just as possible to make HTML apps that don't work on mobile for the same reasons? Ditto for the game control issue - if someone makes an game that's designed for keyboard control (or a site dependent on "hover"), it won't work well on mobile whether it's implemented in HTML, Flash, or whatever else, right?

someone_here 16y ago
Most phones only have hardware H.264 playback, but flash supports many other formats as well via software rendering. My bet is that it was forced to use software rendering on some videos.
cmelbye 16y ago
Yes, that's the point. The author is saying that if you have to go through and convert your existing Flash content to work on a mobile device, why not go the full distance and convert it to HTML5?
- contextfree 16y ago
  But that's begging the question - there's still no reason to do that unless you already think Flash is a dead end, the future is HTML uber alles, etc. Which this guy apparently didn't, since at beginning of his article he writes, "I’m the last person on earth who wanted to believe Steve Jobs when he told Walt Mossberg at D8 that “Flash has had its day.” I took it as nothing more than showmanship ... " until he tried 10.1 on Android.
  - cmelbye 16y ago
    No, this guy thought that 10.1 on Android would mean that desktop content could be seamlessly consumed on a mobile device, thus invalidating most of Steve's complaints. I don't think that he believed that Flash was "better" than HTML5.
- jonknee 16y ago
  "So it will still work on IE" is going to be a pretty common response for that question for the foreseeable future. Right now when you go the HTML 5 right you still need to fall back to Flash.
chopsueyar 16y ago
No, yes (dearer resources). For a VOD, streaming video, you don't just slap up one video file and be done with it. You must have multiple versions of the same file, but encoded for the playback device's characteristics (fps, screensize, bandwidth). It is not uncommon to have at least 3 encoded versions of a particular movie/video. (low, med., high quality) Flash can perform a bandwidth test prior to playing a video, to determine which file to load. However, if there is only one file, it cannot transcode on the fly to a lower bitrate/resolution. The author of the article stated it worked fine on certain sites, but others were choppy. So, it is not on the client side, it is on the server side. In the US, we can assume the majority of streaming video network connectivity would fall under broadband (dsl, cable, fios), cellular (gprs, 3g), and wifi (802.11b,g,n). Depending on how the device is connected, the encoded bitrate can make a huge difference. *Caveat: This is using h.264 (not VP6), with a Baseline profile of 3. If you encode at the baseline level 3, you can reuse your h.264 file to play on ipods/iphones at 640x480, but with iPad, you can push it to 720p, baseline 3.1

someone_here 16y ago

Most phones only have hardware H.264 playback, but flash supports many other formats as well via software rendering. My bet is that it was forced to use software rendering on some videos.

cmelbye 16y ago

Yes, that's the point. The author is saying that if you have to go through and convert your existing Flash content to work on a mobile device, why not go the full distance and convert it to HTML5?

contextfree 16y ago
But that's begging the question - there's still no reason to do that unless you already think Flash is a dead end, the future is HTML uber alles, etc. Which this guy apparently didn't, since at beginning of his article he writes, "I’m the last person on earth who wanted to believe Steve Jobs when he told Walt Mossberg at D8 that “Flash has had its day.” I took it as nothing more than showmanship ... " until he tried 10.1 on Android.
- cmelbye 16y ago
  No, this guy thought that 10.1 on Android would mean that desktop content could be seamlessly consumed on a mobile device, thus invalidating most of Steve's complaints. I don't think that he believed that Flash was "better" than HTML5.
jonknee 16y ago
"So it will still work on IE" is going to be a pretty common response for that question for the foreseeable future. Right now when you go the HTML 5 right you still need to fall back to Flash.

chopsueyar 16y ago

No, yes (dearer resources). For a VOD, streaming video, you don't just slap up one video file and be done with it. You must have multiple versions of the same file, but encoded for the playback device's characteristics (fps, screensize, bandwidth). It is not uncommon to have at least 3 encoded versions of a particular movie/video. (low, med., high quality) Flash can perform a bandwidth test prior to playing a video, to determine which file to load. However, if there is only one file, it cannot transcode on the fly to a lower bitrate/resolution. The author of the article stated it worked fine on certain sites, but others were choppy. So, it is not on the client side, it is on the server side. In the US, we can assume the majority of streaming video network connectivity would fall under broadband (dsl, cable, fios), cellular (gprs, 3g), and wifi (802.11b,g,n). Depending on how the device is connected, the encoded bitrate can make a huge difference. *Caveat: This is using h.264 (not VP6), with a Baseline profile of 3. If you encode at the baseline level 3, you can reuse your h.264 file to play on ipods/iphones at 640x480, but with iPad, you can push it to 720p, baseline 3.1