Joly MacFie wrote: > > > Forest - are you suggesting that flash is more > cpu-intensive than baseline h.264? > > Is that so? >
I was referring to the flash player in general and wasn't suggesting the flash container itself requires significantly more resources on the client side. (Also, flash is a container format; 264 is a compression format, so not completely sure what your question is.) Even so, when Adobe/Apple rolled out their 'compromise' last year, there was the usual hang-wringing about battery life & browser performance; although to my mind it's not clear how a custom rolled app that plays flash video from a specific site (eg. Hulu) would *necessarily* realise significant performance gains. (At just 5MB the whole binary itself weighs in on the low side of a typical app, and not likely the app porter is going to improve its performance.) But then I haven't built an app such as that, myselfÂ… yet. stay tuned, forest mars -- mnn.org http://mnn.org
