News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:“We will stop updating and distributing the Flash Player ... by Joeri on Tuesday July 25, 2017 @04:00PM (#14851361)
The security argument was convincing.

The battery argument was weak and I'm sure Jobs knew. Video was a significant chunk of flash's use case, but not the only part, and flash was much more battery efficient than HTML5 at all the other stuff it did. Even today you can't do buttery smooth flash-style animations in javascript without some major hacks (like using webgl). Even simple effects like full-screen fade-in that flash could handle on a pentium can't be done smoothly at all in CSS.

Re:“We will stop updating and distributing the Flash Player ... by eridius on Tuesday July 25, 2017 @07:56PM (#14852850)
The battery argument was not weak. It was actually one of the strongest arguments. Flash was a battery hog. Disabling flash on a laptop could double your battery life.
Re:“We will stop updating and distributing the Flash Player ... by Joeri on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @03:43AM (#14854304)
Do exactly the same animation with js or even css as you did with flash, and it will use more battery. Disabling flash turned off the animations, so obviously it saved on battery, but the reason for flash being a battery hog was how it was used, not an innate aspect of the technology.

Jobs' proposed alternative to flash, html5, did not solve the battery hogging problem, just made it move over to html5. If anything, it made it worse because you lost the quick fix of disabling flash (or rather click-to-play). That's why even iOS devices have ad blockers now, the mobile web is horrible without them.

Re:“We will stop updating and distributing the Flash Player ... by eridius on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @04:08AM (#14854386)
Citation please? This is the first time I've ever heard anyone claim that flash uses less battery than html5 and I'm extremely skeptical.
Re:“We will stop updating and distributing the Flash Player ... by m_t on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @06:44AM (#14855079)
Just try it out, especially at the time Job wrote his piece.

Of course your MBP would spin its fan and drain battery when playing a flash game. But it would do the same, and faster, when playing the same game implemented in Javascript, even more so at the time.

Re:“We will stop updating and distributing the Flash Player ... by eridius on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @01:17PM (#14858140)
That's not actually evidence. I can't "just try it out", because I don't have a collection of flash games with html5 equivalents. And I still don't believe you.

Having my fans go on full blast because of Flash is something I remember happening quite often. Having my fans go on full blast because of html5 is not something I remember at all.

And your use of games here is a red herring. Nobody complained about games using up battery. The complaint was flash ads using up battery.

Re:“We will stop updating and distributing the Flash Player ... by exodust on Tuesday July 25, 2017 @11:56PM (#14853567)
That's an outdated statistic. There's way too much javascript and unwanted video and other effects on the web today that your battery is still getting hammered. Turn off javascript today and you'll probably get huge battery savings.
Re:“We will stop updating and distributing the Flash Player ... by Longhanks on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @02:44AM (#14854086)
Of course it's outdated. This post was from 2010. Flash was used everywhere in 2010, of course disabling it gave you more battery life.
Re:“We will stop updating and distributing the Flash Player ... by eridius on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @02:05AM (#14853948)
There is a bunch of cruft on the web today but that doesn't change the fact that Flash ads suck up far more battery than any other ads.
Re:“We will stop updating and distributing the Flash Player ... by rimliu on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @04:23AM (#14854443)
Flash was efficient on Windows only. On OS X anything flash was sure way to make the fans spin.