or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Adobe working to sabotage HTML5
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Adobe working to sabotage HTML5 - Page 3

post #81 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by EGlasheen View Post

Forget about us web designers, what about our clients who spent thousands on all Flash sites cause we told them it was the shit. Now it is shit.

Ed

That advice has never been good advice, even when Flash was apparently "the sh*t".

I've never advised anyone to build any significant part of any website with Flash, because more most people actually want their content searchable.
post #82 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

How can Hulu use HTML5 and protect the content?

I don't know. ...but as per the last 2 paragraphs in the link below, it could happen very soon.

http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/10/hul...8TechCrunch%29

Time will tell.
post #83 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post


We don't even know the reason for Adobe's objection. What if it is violation of Adobe's patents? Anyone really expects they should play Mother Teresa and let it be?

Really?

We don't really know what happened, or why. Any conclusions drown from the article have no real basis.
post #84 of 173
What's with the Adobe employees scrambling to do damage control in Apple forums over their broken multimedia platform?

Oh wait, that's exactly what they'd be doing.
post #85 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeo View Post

Flash developers are not web designers. Web designers would never develop an all Flash site.

Web designers are not artists. Artists would never design web sites.
post #86 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post

Incompetent fools. Adobe is dead to me!

Steve said mean things about Adobe. That is all we need to know.
post #87 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by shelleyp View Post

Why accept, at face value, the unbelievable and the absurd?

Years of practice, listening to iSteve's bullshit. And believing it. Despite the evidence to the contrary.
post #88 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsad23 View Post

Flash is on life support

Flash powers the vast majority of video on the 'web. If that is life support, then a 25 room mansion is basic shelter.

Let the grand word redefinitions begin!
post #89 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by EGlasheen View Post

If only Apple would make a pro version of iWeb. In a few versions Pixelmator will replace Photoshop. Pages just needs export to EBook format. Then all we need is a good replacement for Illustrator.

Who would need Adobe and their bloated $500 plus a year upgrades?

Ed

Agree 100%.

To bad livemotion went down, I bet Apple could come out with a slimmer CPU hungry flash builder. Some say it's here to stay, others dissagree.

You can do some cool things with flash but like i stated before livemotion was so much cooler to use. Would love a pro iWeb. Are there companies that make templates for iWeb. Can't say I've ver seen them, plus if you know what you're doing, you can make your own.
post #90 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by shelleyp View Post


Adobe, a company largely dependent on the good will of web developers, designers, and the like, indulges in nefarious backdoor skullduggery with the W3C, which is also dependent on the good will and trust of web designers, developers, and the like -- just to kill HTML5 and/or the Canvas element. Kill Canvas, an element which already has broad adoption and use. Why? Because, the implication is, Adobe is "afraid" that people will stop using Flash in--how long will it be before Flash isn't really needed? Ten years? More?

When a rumor isn't based on anything that remotely resembles reality, why believe it? Why accept, at face value, the unbelievable and the absurd?


At one time the following would have been dismissed as unlikely/absurd:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates was called "evasive and nonresponsive" by a source present at a session in which Gates was questioned on his deposition.[2] He argued over the definitions of words such as "compete", "concerned", "ask", and "we".[3] BusinessWeek reported, "Early rounds of his deposition show him offering obfuscatory answers and saying 'I don't recall' so many times that even the presiding judge had to chuckle. Worse, many of the technology chief's denials and pleas of ignorance have been directly refuted by prosecutors with snippets of E-mail Gates both sent and received."[4] Intel Vice-President Steven McGeady, called as a witness, quoted Paul Maritz, a senior Microsoft vice president as having stated an intention to "extinguish" and "smother" rival Netscape Communications Corporation and to "cut off Netscape's air supply" by giving away a clone of Netscape's flagship product for free. The Microsoft executive denied the allegations.[5]

A number of videotapes were submitted as evidence by Microsoft during the trial, including one that demonstrated that removing Internet Explorer from Microsoft Windows caused slowdowns and malfunctions in Windows. In the videotaped demonstration of what Microsoft vice president James Allchin's stated to be a seamless segment filmed on one PC, the plaintiff noticed that some icons mysteriously disappear and reappear on the PC's desktop, suggesting that the effects might have been falsified.[6] Allchin admitted that the blame for the tape problems lay with some of his staff "They ended up filming it -- grabbing the wrong screen shot," he said of the incident. Later, Allchin re-ran the demonstration and provided a new videotape, but in so doing Microsoft dropped the claim that Windows is slowed down when Internet Explorer is removed. Mark Murray, a Microsoft spokesperson, berated the government attorneys for "nitpicking on issues like video production."[7] Microsoft submitted a second inaccurate videotape into evidence later the same month as the first. The issue in question was how easy or hard it was for America Online users to download and install Netscape Navigator onto a Windows PC. Microsoft's videotape showed the process as being quick and easy, resulting in the Netscape icon appearing on the user's desktop. The government produced its own videotape of the same process, revealing that Microsoft's videotape had conveniently removed a long and complex part of the procedure and that the Netscape icon was not placed on the desktop, requiring a user to search for it. Brad Chase, a Microsoft vice president, verified the government's tape and conceded that Microsoft's own tape was falsified.[8]
post #91 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by masinter View Post

No part of HTML5 is, or was ever, "blocked" in the W3C HTML Working Group -- not HTML5, not Canvas 2D Graphics, not Microdata -- not by me, not by Adobe.

Claims otherwise are false. Any other disclaimers needed?

Do we need to stick to the dictionary while we discuss the word "blocked"? I'm pretty certain that a meaning could be invented which would paint a very nasty picture of the Enemies of Steve.
post #92 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

Flash powers the vast majority of video on the 'web. If that is life support, then a 25 room mansion is basic shelter.

Let the grand word redefinitions begin!

When Apple sneezes, the rest of the industry grabs a Kleenex.

The anti-Flash movement is being fuelled by Apple and Google. There is only one way this can end well for Adobe:

Adobe reads the writing on the wall and creates tools for HTML5.
post #93 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon T View Post

What nonsense. Daniel Eran Dilgers' articles are some of the best researched, most enlightening content available anywhere.

His vocal, and personally rude, critics are the original trolls from Microsoft's own brand of the Taliban

Keep up the good work AppleInsider, this debate has brought a great deal of information out into the open for many of us like myself.

"Best researched"?

Yeah, if you think that missing out fundamentals like getting names right is good research (it's Ian Hickson - Hixie is his nickname as even a cursory trip to Wikipedia would have told "Prince").

Seriously, if your quality threshold is so low that you think this is "well-researched" you should probably work for Microsoft in user interface testing.
post #94 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

That advice has never been good advice, even when Flash was apparently "the sh*t".

I've never advised anyone to build any significant part of any website with Flash, because more most people actually want their content searchable.

True about SEO.

How many car dealer websites are all Flash with hidden divs full of keywords? Tons. While the advice not to use all Flash has been given over and over, what a client wants a client gets.

Ed
post #95 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by knightlie View Post

No this isn't MacRumours, it's an(other) AppleInsider post where the very basic facts have been called into question. Can you, in turn, drop the inter-board politics? Not very professional, IMO.

Sorry, I wasn't casting aspersions, I'm just saying we don't have the same policies with regard to how mention of national politics are handled. I have no beef with them. Assuming you're serious, I took out mention of their name in my offending post.
post #96 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

Web designers are not artists. Artists would never design web sites.

Your kidding right? You are still using tables...aren't you.

Ed
post #97 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by EGlasheen View Post

True about SEO.

How many car dealer websites are all Flash with hidden divs full of keywords? Tons. While the advice not to use all Flash has been given over and over, what a client wants a client gets.

Ed

Anyone that thinks that kind of SEO works deserves the traffic they will get (none).
post #98 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

Web designers are not artists. Artists would never design web sites.

Not sure what your point is. Art and Design are two very different things. I'm a great designer. I'm a horrible artist. My point is that a Flash movie is not a website. It's a movie. It's a black box. It may be pretty (or more likely... hideous and annoying)... but it's not a website. Google can't read it. Screen readers can't read it. Users can use their back button. You can't even link to "pages" within it. Linking is the very essence of the web. Flash is not the web. It's a movie that's hosted on the web. It should die. That's always been the case. Hopefully it will finally come to pass with HTML5. I'm all for immersive animated websites for certain projects (like movie sites for example)... but if the same thing can be accomplished using standards instead of a black box... why would anyone choose the black box? HTML5 and the canvas element is a GOOD thing.
post #99 of 173
nevermind.
post #100 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilMole View Post

Anyone that thinks that kind of SEO works deserves the traffic they will get (none).

I agree.

Ed
post #101 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by EGlasheen View Post

Your kidding right?

Ed

Right.
post #102 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon T View Post

What nonsense. Daniel Eran Dilgers' articles are some of the best researched, most enlightening content available anywhere.

To the untrained eye, yes they are.

However, once you start to dig deeper, you soon realise that Daniel's articles are very misleading. Data is cherry-picked. Facts are twisted. Only one side of the story is ever reported. Daniel's articles wouldn't even be allowed on Engadget, let alone the real press.

The fact that he owns APPL stock and writes very pro-Apple articles should set the alarm bells off in your head at the very least.
post #103 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

The anti-Flash movement is being fuelled by Apple and Google. There is only one way this can end well for Adobe:

Adobe reads the writing on the wall and creates tools for HTML5.

MS are not supporting Flash for their new mobile platform either.
This is not a conspiracy or a movement.

Flash was not designed for mobile platforms. And mobile platform holders have two choices.

1) To attempt to implement Flash, with all of the performance penalties and risks to stability that involves.

or

2) Support alternative mobile-friendly methods for streaming video etc. and encourage content creators to use those alternative methods.

The better solution for everyone is option 2.
If the dominant mobile hardware vendors move away from Flash, then the content providers will simply shift to supporting hardware-friendly delivery methods.

And the breaking news is...
They already are. The mobile market is too valuable to let it be ruined by bad technology.

This is not a conspiracy, it's just technology doing what it does best. Adapting.

C.
post #104 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

MS are not supporting Flash for their new mobile platform either.
This is not a conspiracy or a movement.

...

This is not a conspiracy, it's just technology doing what it does best. Adapting.

C.

""Microsoft and Adobe are working closely together. While the newest version of Windows Phone won't support Flash at initial availability, both companies are working to include a browser plug-in for the full Flash player in future versions of Windows Phone. More details will be shared at Microsoft MIX next month.""

http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/14/a...dows-mobile-7/
post #105 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

""Microsoft and Adobe

But we hate Microsoft and Adobe! And Dell!
post #106 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by EGlasheen View Post

Forget about us web designers, what about our clients who spent thousands on all Flash sites cause we told them it was the shit. Now it is shit.

Ed

You must be new ( just kidding )

You go back to that customer and tell them about the rapidly changing world they are no a part of. To "stay competitive" in "today's rapid firebusiness world", they are going to have to be able to move quickly and to invest in compelling new technologies... bla bla hblah...
then you hit them with the site redesign.

If adobe were smart, they would be selling an html 5 conversion product.

If they were truly smart they would have "opened" flash and shockwave years ago for adoption into the HTML spec. But they got greedy and never thought they would have a competitor.
post #107 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

When Apple sneezes, the rest of the industry grabs a Kleenex.

The anti-Flash movement is being fuelled by Apple and Google. There is only one way this can end well for Adobe:

Adobe reads the writing on the wall and creates tools for HTML5.

That's far too progressive for a company that has long done nothing but retain it's iron grip on digital image production and internet multimedia content by sabotaging or simply buying out their competition (Macromedia).

They've had years to produce a quality Flash product but have failed to do so. They've had years to revise and refine Photoshop, but only deliver prima facie GUI changes and the inclusion of a handful of new features every 3 years. Updates between that time are sparse to none.

Their recent spat with Apple over Flash has toppled one of their legs. They may feel that Apple will feel the sting of a Flash-less gadget, but it is Adobe that has made the critical mistake. People and businesses don't care about Flash, they care about sales and quarterly statements. In fact, the only people that care about Flash is Adobe.

YouTube and Vimeo have already started offering their content in HTML5. The former redesigned their content for h.264 distribution specifically for the iPhone. This should strike fear in the heart of Adobe as these businesses don't care how it's done, they simply want to deliver multimedia to the waiting masses.

No one is in Adobe's corner because it doesn't benefit them to be. That's business. There are no friends at the end of the day. No loyalty. Everyone follows the dollars.

It's over Adobe. There is no place for proprietary multimedia in the future of the internet. There was certainly a niche for Flash in 1996, but now, things have changed. It's just that more rewarding to see them fall because of their sheer smugness when it comes to their relationship with Apple.

You can be the cock of the walk when you're the only kid in school with a car, but when other's start getting rides, you find that you are quickly the cock of nothing
post #108 of 173
Adobe today announced an Air environment that will work on mobiles, including the iPhone. Since you can publish to Air from Flash OR use HTML/Javascript I'm assuming Adobe will be going the HTML route with mobile Air for iPhone. Very sensible. Now we need a kick-ass authoring environment from Adobe for HTML5.

Daniel has actually published some excellent long-form technical articles in the past. Its not all rumour and spec.

I am amazed to see real, live actual people from the standards committee commenting on this forum. Don't they realise we are just demented Apple fanbois? Don't take us seriously for God's sake.
post #109 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokheed View Post

In fact, the only people that care about Flash is Adobe.

Right. All Joe Shmoe will care about is "WTF!? I just spent over $800 on this damn thing and it won't work on lots of my favorite websites!?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokheed View Post

It's over Adobe.

Well, not quite yet. They power the majority of web video. Maybe someday it will be different, and the 'Pad will be a viable surfing device that the average Shmoe is satisfied with. In the meantime, expect the wrath to be directed at the expensive device. Nobody cares about flash. Instead, they want devices that just work.
post #110 of 173
I found this thread very interesting, since the people who were supporting FLash in previous discussion threads have not shown their 'faces' and keeping very quite.

Hmm maybe TEKSTUD or extremeskater will provide some comments on this situation.
post #111 of 173
To the Adobe slammers on this thread: you fools are a bunch of mindless miscreants delighted to be let out of your cages for a few minutes, let out only on the blatantly false premises of this article written by one of your ilk.

To the rest of you: read John Nack's response on his blog: http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/02...ing_html5.html

Daniel Swanson

Reply

Daniel Swanson

Reply
post #112 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by CU10 View Post

Fear? But they do their own stunts..

ONE OF THE BEST F!NG MUSIC VIDEOS OF ALL TIME. Screw this Lady GaGa garbage, man... This IS THE BENCHMARK.
post #113 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtdunham View Post

so they're morally wrong but we shouldn't denounce them? What? Why don't I understand? Oh! Because that doesn't make sense.

Dont hate the player, hate the game
post #114 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

How can Hulu use HTML5 and protect the content?

One method that will work for iPhone OS and Mac OS X is HTTP Live Streaming. Apple owns the rights to it but has offered it up to the standards body with no licensing costs, as required. HTTP Liv Streaming offers content protection with both encryption and authentication for the distributor. I say this is s a shoe in because nothing else is as lightweight or as versatile for the future of video.

Here is more detailed info from Apple: http://developer.apple.com/iphone/li...MediaGuide.pdf (PDF)


Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul View Post

I found this thread very interesting, since the people who were supporting FLash in previous discussion threads have not shown their 'faces' and keeping very quite.

I think most posters here support Flash, just not Flash as the ideal for mobile devices or video streaming. It still does things that Canvas won't be able to do for a very long time, if ever, with the same ease of development.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #115 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

One method that will work for iPhone OS and Mac OS X is HTTP Live Streaming. Apple owns the rights to it but has offered it up to the standards body with no licensing costs, as required. HTTP Liv Streaming offers content protection with both encryption and authentication for the distributor. I say this is s a shoe in because nothing else is as lightweight or as versatile for the future of video.

"14. Does the Apple implementation of HTTP Live Streaming support DRM?
No. However, media can be encrypted and key access can be limited using HTTPS authentication."

This method doesn't answer my question, when you enter your credentials you're accesing and unencripted content and you can save it.
post #116 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

"14. Does the Apple implementation of HTTP Live Streaming support DRM?
No. However, media can be encrypted and key access can be limited using HTTPS authentication."

This method doesn't answer my question, when you enter your credentials you're accesing and unencripted content and you can save it.

How can you quote the FAQ that specifically say it can be encrypted and authenticated but then state that it's "unencripted content"?

This is for an open standard, so what DRM scheme would they use? How would they maintain it? Why would they want DRM at all when it's only being stored in RAM? Again, files can be encrypted and/or authenticated, if the sender so desires.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #117 of 173
On Safari, you can install "ClicktoFlash".

On Firefox, use "Flashblock".

After installing these utilities, my computer runs much more smoothly. I no longer hear my CPU fan whirring up for no particular reason. And I no longer experience random browser crashes. When I need to view a flash video, I have the choice of clicking on the Flash frame to start the Flash video. Also, YouTube is testing an HTML5 system so you can play videos without Flash, though it doesn't yet support fullscreen viewing.

Flash is an inefficient and buggy abomination of the web. If enough of us band together to block it, we can relegate it to the trash bin of history, along with RealPlayer/Realmedia. Once companies start to realize that their advertisements written in Flash are being blocked, they will switch to HTML5.
post #118 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

How can you quote the FAQ that specifically say it can be encrypted and authenticated but then state that it's "unencripted content"?

Ejem, I've said "once you have entered your credentials you have an unencripted stream"

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

This is for an open standard, so what DRM scheme would they use? How would they maintain it? Why would they want DRM at all when it's only being stored in RAM? Again, files can be encrypted and/or authenticated, if the sender so desires.

Tell this to Hulu, Disney et al and why they're using Flash and not HTML5 video tag.
post #119 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

One method that will work for iPhone OS and Mac OS X is HTTP Live Streaming. Apple owns the rights to it but has offered it up to the standards body with no licensing costs, as required. HTTP Liv Streaming offers content protection with both encryption and authentication for the distributor. I say this is s a shoe in because nothing else is as lightweight or as versatile for the future of video.

Here is more detailed info from Apple: http://developer.apple.com/iphone/li...MediaGuide.pdf (PDF)

HTTP Live Streaming may support encryption and authentication, but that's not really what hulu needs. What hulu needs is DRM, and that's something HTTP Live Streaming as an open standard can't support for a fundamental reason. DRM is security through obscurity, and for it to work a proprietary, closed client is absolutely required in order to hide the decryption key from the user. In order for HTTP Live Streaming to openly support all clients, there's no way to implement DRM as the client will know where the decryption key is. So HTTP Live Streaming doesn't really offer much over RTP/RTSP. Using HTTP over TCP rather than UDP is nice for getting through firewalls, but there's significant overhead and extra bandwidth with this approach compared to using UDP.
post #120 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Ejem, I've said "once you have entered your credentials you have an unencripted stream"

Entering your credentials is the secure authentication. I have absolutely no idea why you think the encryption would automatically fall off when they specifically state "media can be encrypted", not "your login can be encrypted". These are two distinct actions that can be used together or separately to streaming media securely.

Quote:
Tell this to Hulu, Disney et al and why they're using Flash and not HTML5 video tag.

Go to Disney's site using an iPhone, which supports these technologies. Disney made an iPhone optimized site a long time ago. Hulu is rumoured to be working on it and they'd be foolish not to with the smartphone market growing so rapidly and Flash still not being a good option for these slow devices, even after Flash 10.1 is finished.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Adobe working to sabotage HTML5