> But then it would be even worse on battery life. I'd claim the opposite: There's (at least) one less runtime needed when executing Flash within JS. Also, no

> But then it would be even worse on battery life. I'd claim the opposite: There's (at least) one less runtime needed when executing Flash within JS. Also, no extra graphic, audio, video, … stack that is executed alongside the browser stack. There's a lot of legacy stuff that will never be reimplemented. For this content, you can use e.g. Mozilla's Shumway[1]. [1] http://mozilla.github.io/shumway/ http://mozilla.github.io/shumway/