Then you'd have to do version-checks, if you're actually delivering content to audiences. Fewer people have it, fewer people use the current version. Most codecs on content sites are H.264 or On2 VP6 (successor to Theora). Easier to solicit Apple to open up their acceleration APIs to plugins.
<em>"The simple fact remains that Flash is so resource-hungry that it is undeniably badly written."</em>
Version checks on Mac OS X are not necessary: The system requirements for Flash 10.0 on OS X state that OS X 10.4 or later is required. Mac OS X 10.4 and later ship with QuickTime 7, which includes h.264 support. Quicktime 7 cannot be removed from the operating system. Thus, exactly everybody who can run the latest stable release of Flash for Mac already has an OS-provided h.264 decoder that has proven to be much more efficient than the one that is in Flash. Not using Quicktime on OS X is like not using DirectX 10 on Windows Vista and 7.
As to the current performance of the latest Flash beta, what is your justification for Flash requiring five times the computational resources of other video players? What is Flash doing that is not only more intensive than h.264 decoding, but four times more intensive?
Then you'd have to do version-checks, if you're actually delivering content to audiences. Fewer people have it, fewer people use the current version. Most codecs on content sites are H.264 or On2 VP6 (successor to Theora). Easier to solicit Apple to open up their acceleration APIs to plugins.
<em>"The simple fact remains that Flash is so resource-hungry that it is undeniably badly written."</em>
You're quite incorrect.