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.

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.

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.

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.

That's an outdated statistic.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.

Of course it's outdated.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.

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.