I think this is a key point: Adobe makes money selling tools, not distributing viewing software. Those tools must address customer needs. If Flash Player is the right choice for some projects & HTML/CANVAS for others, no problem: we get paid to help you solve problems, not to force one implementation vs. another.
Thanks for your reply, but no, it's not that easy to stop using existing technology. Firms invest hundreds of thousands (sometimes millions) of dollars in hiring, training, and licenses around particular technologies.
I cannot see anyone spending so much money on Flash development that they cannot move away from it. None of the major media companies invest themselves in one technology to the degree that they are inflexible. Disney is going to use what it can reach its audience, they aren't so dogmatic about which technology they need to use.
Quote:
Mind you, this (Flash) is a technology that apears to offer the required aesthetic flexibility for these companies. The simple fact is that it works fine for 95% of the folks they are trying to reach. You can't just 'stop using it' unless you have a compelling alternative that can be used productively by the folks already on your payroll. Otherwise, you are talking about creating an entire department from scratch to create iPad-friendly websites? (Notice, I didn't say Apps, but websites.)
Flash works well on desktops/notebooks. Machines with ample resources to drive its inefficient code. Flash has little to no presence on mobile devices. Mobile devices will soon be the primary way that most people access the web. That's why its important for Adobe that it doesn't get cut out.
Quote:
So, my question stands: "What is this 'better' alternative?"
HTML5/CSS/javascript work on all mobile devices right now and Flash doesn't.
History only repeats itself. These are the same people who initially criticized the iPhone. They now criticize the iPad right before Apple has a couple of other major announcements that will surely bring further functionality for the iPad. When will these people ever learn?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avidfcp
Actually I think he's refering too outside mac websites and its true. Many websites are saying what it can or cannot do with most ending on a negative note. Wow. J
think of all the headaches avoided if they just had a regular browser with flash.
HTML5/CSS/javascript work on all mobile devices right now and Flash doesn't.
And companies can update their browsers to support HTML5 while Flash can't simply update their software to run on mobile platforms.
With smartphones growing at a tremendous pace and mostly supporting HTML5-based browsers it's hard to imagine that web developers aren't going to focus on sites that don't require Flash.
The beauty of AJAX is that it can be copied and better by others with ease. Any bets on how long before Hulu announces a Flash-less option, or at least an iPhone app?
Great info from that Sublime Video demonstration is that fullscreen HTML5 playback is in the newer webkit nightly builds.
They don't say what in the WebKit nightlies makes it possible or even what the minimum nightly you have to use is. Their Surfin Safari blog has one non-reviewer blog for the year.
Flash is like a dinosaur dragging around a full, shitty diaper behind it. The code is ancient, bloated and inefficient. Can you image your battery life on your phone with Flash running on it?
My company uses HTML 5.
While Flash has its uses it t is too often the square peg in the round hole--used for things that could be done with some intelligent HTML or CSS.
I know the relationship very well and remember that because Apple shocked them with ending the support of Carbon there is no 64-bit Photoshop now available for the Mac.
So what we have now is a buggy Flash support on the Mac, no Flash on iPhone/iPod/iPad, no 64-bit PS. If customers want the full power of CS4 now they better use it on Windows. Maybe Adobe should consider to stop supporting CS5 on the Mac and give Mac users a $70 sales discount so they can put Win7 on their Macs Would be funny.
Shocked them? Come on, Carbon had been a way to transition from Classic to MacOS X with Cocoa as the planned replacement for that. The writing was on the wall regarding 64-Carbon. With Snow Leopard out John Nack's (Adobe Photoshop product manager) comeback of "Apple's Finder is written in Carbon." did a major crash and burn. Adobe has had since 2007 to get its act together and put out a 64-bit Photoshop.
LOL This is a pretty funny thing to read first thing in the morning. Besides Mozilla having such a hard time trying to get Firefox in the mobile arena Abobe Flash for Maemo, the only one that is even ready, is being turned off by default due to performance issues.
We’ve decided to disable plugin (not to be confused with add-ons, which are supported) support for this release. The Adobe Flash plugin used on many sites degraded the performance of the browser to the point where it didn’t meet our standards.
I'm starting to think that Apple's refusal to include Flash really is because of performance reasons instead of app store competition. I mean, the app store has tons of free apps already. There is no stopping someone from making a web app, like the Google voice one.
I'm starting to think that Apple's refusal to include Flash really is because of performance reasons instead of app store competition. I mean, the app store has tons of free apps already. There is no stopping someone from making a web app, like the Google voice one.
Moreover Apple is the biggest contributer to Webkit, which has done so much to allow various venders to make web based smartphone apps that actually work well (like, you know, all those cool Google services on Android).
If Apple is so dead set on killing the web and locking people to the App Store, why would that be? Webkit actually works against this nefarious scheme, so maybe someone ought to tell them.
Good boy Apple, sit, stay! Now if we could just teach AT&T to do tricks. Like say updating the B.S. AT&T Coverage Viewer data page as well as the Orange Data Maps in the TV Ads that are so overboard and inaccurate they look like they were painted by a Monkey!
My sons and me we were very interested in this new hardware masterpiece (The iPad) before the presentation by Steve Jobs. Then we detected the missing icon in the NYT website during the demo of internet surfing.
I understand the good intentions of Steve trying to push people to standards in the web, but in real life, no one will spend 499 dollars or more for something not allowing neither a COMPLETE surf experience nor a free instalation of third party software.
My sons and me we were very dissapointed with Apple OS and Safari in that demo and we decided not to buy the iPad for parctical reasons. Bye Steve!
All of the major news and media publishers are moving to deliver their content with newer web technologies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smayor
My sons and me we were very interested in this new hardware masterpiece (The iPad) before the presentation by Steve Jobs. Then we detected the missing icon in the NYT website during the demo of internet surfing.
I understand the good intentions of Steve trying to push people to standards in the web, but in real life, no one will spend 499 dollars or more for something not allowing neither a COMPLETE surf experience nor a free instalation of third party software.
My sons and me we were very dissapointed with Apple OS and Safari in that demo and we decided not to buy the iPad for parctical reasons. Bye Steve!
My sons and me we were very interested in this new hardware masterpiece (The iPad) before the presentation by Steve Jobs. Then we detected the missing icon in the NYT website during the demo of internet surfing.
I understand the good intentions of Steve trying to push people to standards in the web, but in real life, no one will spend 499 dollars or more for something not allowing neither a COMPLETE surf experience nor a free instalation of third party software.
My sons and me we were very dissapointed with Apple OS and Safari in that demo and we decided not to buy the iPad for parctical reasons. Bye Steve!
My sons and me we were very interested in this new hardware masterpiece (The iPad) before the presentation by Steve Jobs. Then we detected the missing icon in the NYT website during the demo of internet surfing.
I understand the good intentions of Steve trying to push people to standards in the web, but in real life, no one will spend 499 dollars or more for something not allowing neither a COMPLETE surf experience nor a free instalation of third party software.
My sons and me we were very dissapointed with Apple OS and Safari in that demo and we decided not to buy the iPad for parctical reasons. Bye Steve!
No free installation of third party software??? Hello? Have you ever used an iPhone or iPod Touch?
The Appstore is brilliant! There are loads of free Apps, wich are free to install...so I'm a little confused why you make such a statement? Did you read to much BS of people who actually never had a iphone/ipodtouch or ipad in their hands??
It is the best way to install programms, it's the easiest and fastest way hands down. There are even open-source Apps available!
Comments
I think this is a key point: Adobe makes money selling tools, not distributing viewing software. Those tools must address customer needs. If Flash Player is the right choice for some projects & HTML/CANVAS for others, no problem: we get paid to help you solve problems, not to force one implementation vs. another.
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2009/10...dw_canvas.html
Even Adobe can read the writing on the wall.
Thanks for your reply, but no, it's not that easy to stop using existing technology. Firms invest hundreds of thousands (sometimes millions) of dollars in hiring, training, and licenses around particular technologies.
I cannot see anyone spending so much money on Flash development that they cannot move away from it. None of the major media companies invest themselves in one technology to the degree that they are inflexible. Disney is going to use what it can reach its audience, they aren't so dogmatic about which technology they need to use.
Mind you, this (Flash) is a technology that apears to offer the required aesthetic flexibility for these companies. The simple fact is that it works fine for 95% of the folks they are trying to reach. You can't just 'stop using it' unless you have a compelling alternative that can be used productively by the folks already on your payroll. Otherwise, you are talking about creating an entire department from scratch to create iPad-friendly websites? (Notice, I didn't say Apps, but websites.)
Flash works well on desktops/notebooks. Machines with ample resources to drive its inefficient code. Flash has little to no presence on mobile devices. Mobile devices will soon be the primary way that most people access the web. That's why its important for Adobe that it doesn't get cut out.
So, my question stands: "What is this 'better' alternative?"
HTML5/CSS/javascript work on all mobile devices right now and Flash doesn't.
Actually I think he's refering too outside mac websites and its true. Many websites are saying what it can or cannot do with most ending on a negative note. Wow. J
think of all the headaches avoided if they just had a regular browser with flash.
Whatever. We shall see.
HTML5/CSS/javascript work on all mobile devices right now and Flash doesn't.
And companies can update their browsers to support HTML5 while Flash can't simply update their software to run on mobile platforms.
With smartphones growing at a tremendous pace and mostly supporting HTML5-based browsers it's hard to imagine that web developers aren't going to focus on sites that don't require Flash.The beauty of AJAX is that it can be copied and better by others with ease. Any bets on how long before Hulu announces a Flash-less option, or at least an iPhone app?
Great info from that Sublime Video demonstration is that fullscreen HTML5 playback is in the newer webkit nightly builds.
They don't say what in the WebKit nightlies makes it possible or even what the minimum nightly you have to use is. Their Surfin Safari blog has one non-reviewer blog for the year.
I think this says it all for Flash. Instead of giving us a future roadmap of how it will improve Flash, Adobe says Adobe isn't in the Flash business
They have a point, but it does spell the beginning of the end for Flash.
Flash is like a dinosaur dragging around a full, shitty diaper behind it. The code is ancient, bloated and inefficient. Can you image your battery life on your phone with Flash running on it?
My company uses HTML 5.
While Flash has its uses it t is too often the square peg in the round hole--used for things that could be done with some intelligent HTML or CSS.
I know the relationship very well and remember that because Apple shocked them with ending the support of Carbon there is no 64-bit Photoshop now available for the Mac.
So what we have now is a buggy Flash support on the Mac, no Flash on iPhone/iPod/iPad, no 64-bit PS. If customers want the full power of CS4 now they better use it on Windows. Maybe Adobe should consider to stop supporting CS5 on the Mac and give Mac users a $70 sales discount so they can put Win7 on their Macs
Shocked them? Come on, Carbon had been a way to transition from Classic to MacOS X with Cocoa as the planned replacement for that. The writing was on the wall regarding 64-Carbon. With Snow Leopard out John Nack's (Adobe Photoshop product manager) comeback of "Apple's Finder is written in Carbon." did a major crash and burn. Adobe has had since 2007 to get its act together and put out a 64-bit Photoshop.
I'm starting to think that Apple's refusal to include Flash really is because of performance reasons instead of app store competition. I mean, the app store has tons of free apps already. There is no stopping someone from making a web app, like the Google voice one.
Moreover Apple is the biggest contributer to Webkit, which has done so much to allow various venders to make web based smartphone apps that actually work well (like, you know, all those cool Google services on Android).
If Apple is so dead set on killing the web and locking people to the App Store, why would that be? Webkit actually works against this nefarious scheme, so maybe someone ought to tell them.
I understand the good intentions of Steve trying to push people to standards in the web, but in real life, no one will spend 499 dollars or more for something not allowing neither a COMPLETE surf experience nor a free instalation of third party software.
My sons and me we were very dissapointed with Apple OS and Safari in that demo and we decided not to buy the iPad for parctical reasons. Bye Steve!
Flash belongs on mobile devices in the same way that porcupine jugglers belong in a balloon folding competition.
C.
Did you not see the NY Times for the iPad, it did not need Flash
The MLB app for iPad , did not need Flash.
The Sports Illustrated Tablet Demo, will not need Flash
All of the major news and media publishers are moving to deliver their content with newer web technologies.
My sons and me we were very interested in this new hardware masterpiece (The iPad) before the presentation by Steve Jobs. Then we detected the missing icon in the NYT website during the demo of internet surfing.
I understand the good intentions of Steve trying to push people to standards in the web, but in real life, no one will spend 499 dollars or more for something not allowing neither a COMPLETE surf experience nor a free instalation of third party software.
My sons and me we were very dissapointed with Apple OS and Safari in that demo and we decided not to buy the iPad for parctical reasons. Bye Steve!
My sons and me we were very interested in this new hardware masterpiece (The iPad) before the presentation by Steve Jobs. Then we detected the missing icon in the NYT website during the demo of internet surfing.
I understand the good intentions of Steve trying to push people to standards in the web, but in real life, no one will spend 499 dollars or more for something not allowing neither a COMPLETE surf experience nor a free instalation of third party software.
My sons and me we were very dissapointed with Apple OS and Safari in that demo and we decided not to buy the iPad for parctical reasons. Bye Steve!
My sons and me we were very interested in this new hardware masterpiece (The iPad) before the presentation by Steve Jobs. Then we detected the missing icon in the NYT website during the demo of internet surfing.
I understand the good intentions of Steve trying to push people to standards in the web, but in real life, no one will spend 499 dollars or more for something not allowing neither a COMPLETE surf experience nor a free instalation of third party software.
My sons and me we were very dissapointed with Apple OS and Safari in that demo and we decided not to buy the iPad for parctical reasons. Bye Steve!
No free installation of third party software??? Hello? Have you ever used an iPhone or iPod Touch?
The Appstore is brilliant! There are loads of free Apps, wich are free to install...so I'm a little confused why you make such a statement? Did you read to much BS of people who actually never had a iphone/ipodtouch or ipad in their hands??
It is the best way to install programms, it's the easiest and fastest way hands down. There are even open-source Apps available!
I think I just read your post wrong I guess.