Quite the contrary. I, and many other designers will always use their other products, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Illustrator and the like -- which runs best on a Mac.
Until something better comes along (hopefully soon). I have been disappointed with the performance of these apps (save Photoshop) for several years now. Rather than fix existing flaws Adobe trends toward feature-bloat.
I don't see the point of Adobe making Apple look like the bad guy if Flash 10.1 for mobile devices isn't even out yet. It would seem to me like Apple isn't bothering to use something that doesn't even exist yet. I feel that if Adobe is so confident that Flash is as good as they say it is then they shouldn't worry about what Apple chooses to use on its own platform. That's just a case of freedom of choice. Apple isn't going around telling other companies not to use Flash. They only said they don't like to use it for power and security reasons. Any other company can easily tell whether Apple is lying or not. I just don't see how Apple choosing another video delivery technology is undermining Adobe to any large degree since there are already technologies out there that can deliver video sans Flash. Adobe is lucky Apple still allows Flash plug-ins on the desktop. It would only be a minor hassle for me if Apple didn't since all my Intel Macs also have Windows XP and Windows 7 installed.
I just think this whole Adobe vs Apple matter is being blown out of proportion. Adobe still seems to be sitting in a pretty nice position with Flash on the desktop and it should only be a matter of time before it gets its mobile Flash working. Why they are so insistent that Apple should use Flash is beyond me.
I think Flash is OK for powerful desktops even with OSX, but way less than optimum for any mobile device due to the nature of poor battery efficiencies for such small devices. Why current smartphone users think Flash is so great for their devices is puzzling to me. I guess I'll just see how this Flash battle turns out, but I'm certain it's not going to hurt Apple iPhone/Touch/iPad sales one bit. The advertisers may not abandon Flash completely, but they are definitely going to provide alternative means for Apple mobile users. There's just too much money for advertisers to let go by.
If Adobe can't ship a decently-performing mobile version for Flash on at least one major smartphone OS by the end of this calendar year, I think their window of opportunity will be gone.
The onus is entirely on Adobe to get it done. Time is running out.
The fact that this new version of Flash will only run on a very small portion of the most advanced phones by MAYBE the end of the year means that their time has already come and gone. The fact of the matter is they can't get it to work right. And since it won't work on the overwhelming majority of phones when it does launch, the game is over. Apple is proven to be absolutely right. Die Flash Die.
I am referring to the canvas tag and how intense the draw function code is. Nothing like your typical js, cut and paste ajax or html. Like I said GO DO SOME HTML5 and get back to us afterward.
Also another note on the canvas tag, which is the only interesting thing about HTML5 for me since I don't care about the video tag, is that it is not supported in any version of IE, which is too big of a market to ignore. There are some things in the works to enable Flash to interpret the canvas tag in IE but very preliminary at this point in time.
FYI, I code HTML daily. By hand. Along with CSS and JavaScript and Ruby. Did I mention that I code daily?
Also, MS is saying that they're gonna support HTML5 in IE9 (whenever it actually ships), and, well, canvas is part of HTML5 (unless somebody kills it). And Google reveals that in addition to the canvas->Flash abomination, there's a Javascript library that does the same with IE's VML. So there's another option for you.
FYI, I code HTML daily. By hand. Along with CSS and JavaScript and Ruby. Did I mention that I code daily?
Also, MS is saying that they're gonna support HTML5 in IE9 (whenever it actually ships), and, well, canvas is part of HTML5 (unless somebody kills it). And Google reveals that in addition to the canvas->Flash abomination, there's a Javascript library that does the same with IE's VML. So there's another option for you.
I'm afraid I cannot come down to your level to discuss this because you are mistaken on all of your assertions so far and I have no patience.
I'm afraid I cannot come down to your level to discuss this because you are mistaken on all of your assertions so far and I have no patience.
Well, how about Adobe's assertion that working with <canvas> within Dreamweaver might be a good idea? Sure, it didn't ship this version, but maybe an upcoming point release. In case you missed it the first time: http://www.9to5mac.com/Flash-html5-canvas-35409730
You are missing the point. In many many cases Flash is not a good platform even on the desktop, and is grossly abused and used out of laziness. Its unbelievable that you have some idiots that actually design their entire website out of flash. Creating a flash free and flash version of a website really isn't the solution. The solution is don't build it in flash at all. The industry needs to get busy building and improving tools that bypass this resource hog. We should settle for nothing less. It is a pig of a product.
Well, how about Adobe's assertion that working with <canvas> within Dreamweaver might be a good idea? Sure, it didn't ship this version, but maybe an upcoming point release. In case you missed it the first time: http://www.9to5mac.com/Flash-html5-canvas-35409730
That video has been around for many months, but I don't want to discuss this anymore unless you need troubleshooting your canvas tag or you have invented some new implementation because I don't want to argue, I just want to code.
HTML5 <canvas> and <video> may be able to supplant the two things Flash is used for: animation and video. The sooner that happens, the better, IMO. It was also interesting to me that Adobe's own Dreamweaver CS5, at least a pre-release version, was able to take some subset of Flash and produce an HTML5 canvas with appropriate Javascript to update the canvas content, without requiring a plug-in, especially a crash-prone one like the Flash plug-in. I thought that was pretty awesome.
I agree that Flash is overused. Have you installed ClickToFlash, only to discover some stupid designer has little Flash rollover widgets scattered all over, that could have been implemented with a few lines of Javascript and a couple of PNGs? GRRRRRR!
That video has been around for many months, but I don't want to discuss this anymore unless you need troubleshooting your canvas tag or you have invented some new implementation because I don't want to argue, I just want to code.
The age of the video is irrelevant. It illustrates that even Adobe thought working with <canvas> within Dreamweaver was worth investigating, even though you think it's a horrible idea. I thought their demo was pretty spiffy, actually. Especially how it automatically generated the Javascript to animate the canvas.
I am one of the biggest opponents to Flash... I only use Mac computers and Apple mobile devices. However, I agree with the above... with one caveat: Ever since Flash MX, Flash has sucked on the Mac desktop!
I also agree with this... same caveat.
I run Click2Flash and it has killed all the annoying ads (and their performance hits). When I want, I can enable Flash for a given [Flash] window and this works well... eliminates most hangs and browser crashes.
Actually, this should be relatively easy to resolve... press-hold a Flash window and up pops a feature like a loupe-- that when moved over a mouse-over becomes a loupe-over.
I wholeheartedly support this last statement... and Adobe should lead that effort, IMO.
.
IMHO it'd better for ads to keep using Flash. I cannot block AJAX / HTML ads (e.g. Google ads, etc) effectively by most available ad blockers plugins...
Actually, it looks like Google are going to open-source VP8. So if the licensing on h.264 ever reignites, it could be left behind too. But I don't think that is going to happen. And because Adobe and sites like Wikipedia (which would have to re-encode everything) have such a big market share in the desktop world, Flash and Ogg Theora aren't going to die straight away.
And in 5-10 years the necessary infrastructure to make VP8 the defacto will have been left behind with some other variant from the MPEG-LA group, which Google is a member.
HTML5 <canvas> and <video> may be able to supplant the two things Flash is used for: animation and video. The sooner that happens, the better, IMO. It was also interesting to me that Adobe's own Dreamweaver CS5, at least a pre-release version, was able to take some subset of Flash and produce an HTML5 canvas with appropriate Javascript to update the canvas content, without requiring a plug-in, especially a crash-prone one like the Flash plug-in. I thought that was pretty awesome.
I agree that Flash is overused. Have you installed ClickToFlash, only to discover some stupid designer has little Flash rollover widgets scattered all over, that could have been implemented with a few lines of Javascript and a couple of PNGs? GRRRRRR!
The thing about HTML5 is it is the domain of hand coders. There are not WYSIWYG authoring development environments for it (nor should there be IMO). Dreamweaver is presented as a split screen code/design application, not that many people use it that way but never the less anyone promoting HTML5 should go code some before posting so authoritatively about its merits and ease of use, as many on this board routinely do.
that sounds like a great business opportunity for some enterprising company, ideally one with expertise in wysiwyg authoring development environments!
The fact that this new version of Flash will only run on a very small portion of the most advanced phones by MAYBE the end of the year means that their time has already come and gone. The fact of the matter is they can't get it to work right. And since it won't work on the overwhelming majority of phones when it does launch, the game is over. Apple is proven to be absolutely right. Die Flash Die.
Frankly, I think that Adobe is hoping that Moore's Law will get them to the point where Adobe Flash for mobile devices is usable. However, without substantial engineering effort on Adobe's part, I don't think they can attain this milestone before Flash starts losing relevance.
Heck, I'm guessing that Flash already is losing relevance every single day.
Adobe really can't afford to wait 2-3 years for mobile device CPUs to make up for p!ss-poor Flash performance. They have about six, maybe nine months to deliver a truly useful mobile version.
Frankly, I think that Adobe is hoping that Moore's Law will get them to the point where Adobe Flash for mobile devices is usable.
It's more complex than that. Adobe will have to add features to Flash which, historically, make it more resource heavy. Flash Lite was built from older desktop versions of Flash. Another example is Desktop OSes. If we kept with simpler code we'd have had instant-on a long time ago.
For the plug-in, Adobe's best bet seems to make Flash 10.1 in itself more efficient, not hold out for better HW. For their professional apps, where they actually make money, I think their best bet is to make Flash the backup for browsers that don't support more streamlined methods like HTML video tag, certain codecs or, in the future, Canvas so that they can continue to profit. After all, IE6-8 will still be around for many years to come even if IE9 supports the latest HTML5 features.
It's more complex than that. Adobe will have to add features to Flash which, historically, make it more resource heavy. Flash Lite was built from older desktop versions of Flash. Another example is Desktop OSes. If we kept with simpler code we'd have had instant-on a long time ago.
For the plug-in, Adobe's best bet seems to make Flash 10.1 in itself more efficient, not hold out for better HW. For their professional apps, where they actually make money, I think their best bet is to make Flash the backup for browsers that don't support more streamlined methods like HTML video tag, certain codecs or, in the future, Canvas so that they can continue to profit. After all, IE6-8 will still be around for many years to come even if IE9 supports the latest HTML5 features.
Yes, yes, however, I'm not counting on much.
I've been an iPod touch owner for a couple of years and I'm honestly rather used to not having Flash on this little mobile device. Yes, there's certain content that I can't get at this time, but in the end, it doesn't really matter. Something else will occupy my time.
The longer this drags on, the more non-Flash options I will have and they will have increasing amounts of appeal and functionality.
The world is moving to mobile devices and Flash is being left behind. It's just the nature of progress: adapt or die. Time is running out for Adobe. They are not adapting fast enough.
Comments
Quite the contrary. I, and many other designers will always use their other products, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Illustrator and the like -- which runs best on a Mac.
Until something better comes along (hopefully soon). I have been disappointed with the performance of these apps (save Photoshop) for several years now. Rather than fix existing flaws Adobe trends toward feature-bloat.
I just think this whole Adobe vs Apple matter is being blown out of proportion. Adobe still seems to be sitting in a pretty nice position with Flash on the desktop and it should only be a matter of time before it gets its mobile Flash working. Why they are so insistent that Apple should use Flash is beyond me.
I think Flash is OK for powerful desktops even with OSX, but way less than optimum for any mobile device due to the nature of poor battery efficiencies for such small devices. Why current smartphone users think Flash is so great for their devices is puzzling to me. I guess I'll just see how this Flash battle turns out, but I'm certain it's not going to hurt Apple iPhone/Touch/iPad sales one bit. The advertisers may not abandon Flash completely, but they are definitely going to provide alternative means for Apple mobile users. There's just too much money for advertisers to let go by.
If Adobe can't ship a decently-performing mobile version for Flash on at least one major smartphone OS by the end of this calendar year, I think their window of opportunity will be gone.
The onus is entirely on Adobe to get it done. Time is running out.
The fact that this new version of Flash will only run on a very small portion of the most advanced phones by MAYBE the end of the year means that their time has already come and gone. The fact of the matter is they can't get it to work right. And since it won't work on the overwhelming majority of phones when it does launch, the game is over. Apple is proven to be absolutely right. Die Flash Die.
I am referring to the canvas tag and how intense the draw function code is. Nothing like your typical js, cut and paste ajax or html. Like I said GO DO SOME HTML5 and get back to us afterward.
Also another note on the canvas tag, which is the only interesting thing about HTML5 for me since I don't care about the video tag, is that it is not supported in any version of IE, which is too big of a market to ignore. There are some things in the works to enable Flash to interpret the canvas tag in IE but very preliminary at this point in time.
FYI, I code HTML daily. By hand. Along with CSS and JavaScript and Ruby. Did I mention that I code daily?
Also, MS is saying that they're gonna support HTML5 in IE9 (whenever it actually ships), and, well, canvas is part of HTML5 (unless somebody kills it). And Google reveals that in addition to the canvas->Flash abomination, there's a Javascript library that does the same with IE's VML. So there's another option for you.
FYI, I code HTML daily. By hand. Along with CSS and JavaScript and Ruby. Did I mention that I code daily?
Also, MS is saying that they're gonna support HTML5 in IE9 (whenever it actually ships), and, well, canvas is part of HTML5 (unless somebody kills it). And Google reveals that in addition to the canvas->Flash abomination, there's a Javascript library that does the same with IE's VML. So there's another option for you.
I'm afraid I cannot come down to your level to discuss this because you are mistaken on all of your assertions so far and I have no patience.
I'm afraid I cannot come down to your level to discuss this because you are mistaken on all of your assertions so far and I have no patience.
Well, how about Adobe's assertion that working with <canvas> within Dreamweaver might be a good idea? Sure, it didn't ship this version, but maybe an upcoming point release. In case you missed it the first time: http://www.9to5mac.com/Flash-html5-canvas-35409730
Well, how about Adobe's assertion that working with <canvas> within Dreamweaver might be a good idea? Sure, it didn't ship this version, but maybe an upcoming point release. In case you missed it the first time: http://www.9to5mac.com/Flash-html5-canvas-35409730
That video has been around for many months, but I don't want to discuss this anymore unless you need troubleshooting your canvas tag or you have invented some new implementation because I don't want to argue, I just want to code.
You are missing the point.
Me? I'm actually taking the same view as you.
HTML5 <canvas> and <video> may be able to supplant the two things Flash is used for: animation and video. The sooner that happens, the better, IMO. It was also interesting to me that Adobe's own Dreamweaver CS5, at least a pre-release version, was able to take some subset of Flash and produce an HTML5 canvas with appropriate Javascript to update the canvas content, without requiring a plug-in, especially a crash-prone one like the Flash plug-in. I thought that was pretty awesome.
I agree that Flash is overused. Have you installed ClickToFlash, only to discover some stupid designer has little Flash rollover widgets scattered all over, that could have been implemented with a few lines of Javascript and a couple of PNGs? GRRRRRR!
That video has been around for many months, but I don't want to discuss this anymore unless you need troubleshooting your canvas tag or you have invented some new implementation because I don't want to argue, I just want to code.
The age of the video is irrelevant. It illustrates that even Adobe thought working with <canvas> within Dreamweaver was worth investigating, even though you think it's a horrible idea. I thought their demo was pretty spiffy, actually. Especially how it automatically generated the Javascript to animate the canvas.
I am one of the biggest opponents to Flash... I only use Mac computers and Apple mobile devices. However, I agree with the above... with one caveat: Ever since Flash MX, Flash has sucked on the Mac desktop!
I also agree with this... same caveat.
I run Click2Flash and it has killed all the annoying ads (and their performance hits). When I want, I can enable Flash for a given [Flash] window and this works well... eliminates most hangs and browser crashes.
Actually, this should be relatively easy to resolve... press-hold a Flash window and up pops a feature like a loupe-- that when moved over a mouse-over becomes a loupe-over.
I wholeheartedly support this last statement... and Adobe should lead that effort, IMO.
.
IMHO it'd better for ads to keep using Flash. I cannot block AJAX / HTML ads (e.g. Google ads, etc) effectively by most available ad blockers plugins...
Actually, it looks like Google are going to open-source VP8. So if the licensing on h.264 ever reignites, it could be left behind too. But I don't think that is going to happen. And because Adobe and sites like Wikipedia (which would have to re-encode everything) have such a big market share in the desktop world, Flash and Ogg Theora aren't going to die straight away.
And in 5-10 years the necessary infrastructure to make VP8 the defacto will have been left behind with some other variant from the MPEG-LA group, which Google is a member.
Me? I'm actually taking the same view as you.
HTML5 <canvas> and <video> may be able to supplant the two things Flash is used for: animation and video. The sooner that happens, the better, IMO. It was also interesting to me that Adobe's own Dreamweaver CS5, at least a pre-release version, was able to take some subset of Flash and produce an HTML5 canvas with appropriate Javascript to update the canvas content, without requiring a plug-in, especially a crash-prone one like the Flash plug-in. I thought that was pretty awesome.
I agree that Flash is overused. Have you installed ClickToFlash, only to discover some stupid designer has little Flash rollover widgets scattered all over, that could have been implemented with a few lines of Javascript and a couple of PNGs? GRRRRRR!
SVG 1.2 is turning out to be a win.
Notes for SVG2.0: http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG2Reqs/
http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGTiny12/
The thing about HTML5 is it is the domain of hand coders. There are not WYSIWYG authoring development environments for it (nor should there be IMO). Dreamweaver is presented as a split screen code/design application, not that many people use it that way but never the less anyone promoting HTML5 should go code some before posting so authoritatively about its merits and ease of use, as many on this board routinely do.
that sounds like a great business opportunity for some enterprising company, ideally one with expertise in wysiwyg authoring development environments!
...They have one shot to get this right or risk losing Flash to better, more efficient options for the foreseeable future.
Well said.
The fact that this new version of Flash will only run on a very small portion of the most advanced phones by MAYBE the end of the year means that their time has already come and gone. The fact of the matter is they can't get it to work right. And since it won't work on the overwhelming majority of phones when it does launch, the game is over. Apple is proven to be absolutely right. Die Flash Die.
Frankly, I think that Adobe is hoping that Moore's Law will get them to the point where Adobe Flash for mobile devices is usable. However, without substantial engineering effort on Adobe's part, I don't think they can attain this milestone before Flash starts losing relevance.
Heck, I'm guessing that Flash already is losing relevance every single day.
Adobe really can't afford to wait 2-3 years for mobile device CPUs to make up for p!ss-poor Flash performance. They have about six, maybe nine months to deliver a truly useful mobile version.
Frankly, I think that Adobe is hoping that Moore's Law will get them to the point where Adobe Flash for mobile devices is usable.
It's more complex than that. Adobe will have to add features to Flash which, historically, make it more resource heavy. Flash Lite was built from older desktop versions of Flash. Another example is Desktop OSes. If we kept with simpler code we'd have had instant-on a long time ago.
For the plug-in, Adobe's best bet seems to make Flash 10.1 in itself more efficient, not hold out for better HW. For their professional apps, where they actually make money, I think their best bet is to make Flash the backup for browsers that don't support more streamlined methods like HTML video tag, certain codecs or, in the future, Canvas so that they can continue to profit. After all, IE6-8 will still be around for many years to come even if IE9 supports the latest HTML5 features.
It's more complex than that. Adobe will have to add features to Flash which, historically, make it more resource heavy. Flash Lite was built from older desktop versions of Flash. Another example is Desktop OSes. If we kept with simpler code we'd have had instant-on a long time ago.
For the plug-in, Adobe's best bet seems to make Flash 10.1 in itself more efficient, not hold out for better HW. For their professional apps, where they actually make money, I think their best bet is to make Flash the backup for browsers that don't support more streamlined methods like HTML video tag, certain codecs or, in the future, Canvas so that they can continue to profit. After all, IE6-8 will still be around for many years to come even if IE9 supports the latest HTML5 features.
Yes, yes, however, I'm not counting on much.
I've been an iPod touch owner for a couple of years and I'm honestly rather used to not having Flash on this little mobile device. Yes, there's certain content that I can't get at this time, but in the end, it doesn't really matter. Something else will occupy my time.
The longer this drags on, the more non-Flash options I will have and they will have increasing amounts of appeal and functionality.
The world is moving to mobile devices and Flash is being left behind. It's just the nature of progress: adapt or die. Time is running out for Adobe. They are not adapting fast enough.