Probably not, since those sites won't work with Smokescreen in the first place...

It's a nice piece of work.

It would be even more impressive if it didn't use ~4x the CPU time that Flash itself does to render the same content....

[citation needed]

Yeah, there's nothing like inching across the Bay Bridge in stop-and-go to make you realize the "fun" of driving a stick....

FTFY

As soon as Adobe thinks they can make a buck at it, they will. What's the critical mass of (say) Desktop Linux that would buy a copy of Photoshop? What would tech support costs be for selling them? How many Linux variants could be reasonably supported?

SWF10, actually. While Gordon is a nice demo, the Flash apps it runs are barely above the Hello, World level... getting it to run SWF6 or later is going to be a nontrivial effort.

> the SDK agreement explicitly says that the code must be originally written in one of the approved languages (C, C++, Objective-C).

Does this mean that (say) most of Donald Knuth's work can't be used in iPhone apps? IIRC, none of those used any of those languages....

I work on the Flash Player team at Adobe, so I know what I'm saying when I say: you're completely mistaken.

Flash Player 10.1 supports *all* legacy content on *all* platforms -- content created all the way back to version 1.0 will continue to work.

It also continues to support H.264 better than it did for, due to additional support for hardware acceleration.

H.264 delivers video quality superior to Flash and with less bandwidth.

Your statement makes no sense: Flash has included H.264 in its suite of codecs since 2007 (along with VP6 and H.263).

no 64 bit for macs, only windows

Nope.

http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/04/photoshop_cs5_64-bit_benchmarks.html

Nope. The bytecode isn't included. There's no Interpreter or JIT present in the final app. The Packager actually compiles the SWF directly into native code. (Assets from the SWF are brought along in data form, of course, but all the code bits are cross-compiled.)

there's no gatekeeper yet

Fixed that for you. (Apple has already moved the goalposts once...)

As opposed to those sorts of caverns that are above-ground?

> I have problem believing Google will spend time and money hardware accelerating VP8 on, lets say PowerPC.

I have a problem believing they should bother. PowerPC has no desktop presence aside from aging Macs, which are underpowered compared to modern phones (!). The PPC-G4 was da bomb back before Y2K, but that was then, this is now.