Google Swiffy converts Flash files to iPhone-compatible HTML5

Posted:
in iPhone edited January 2014
Google on Tuesday unveiled a new experimental tool for developers called Swiffy, which converts some .SWF Flash files into HTML5 code compatible with devices like the iPhone and iPad.



Swiffy is available at Google Labs, where the search giant's engineers create experimental applications that may not be ready for primetime or intended for the masses. Using the Swiffy website, anyone can upload an SWF file and convert it to HTML5.



Swiffy supports most of the Flash 5 ActionScript specification. The output file works in all browsers based on Apple's open-source Webkit engine, which powers the Mobile Safari browser found on the iPhone, iPad and iPod touch.



Also available on the site are a gallery of videos and games that have been converted to HTML5 from Flash, as well as a list of frequently asked questions. Among those questions is a query about what Adobe, the creator of Flash, thinks of Swiffy.



"Adobe is pleased to see the Flash platform extended to devices which don't support the Flash player," the site reads. "The result is that anyone creating rich or interactive ads can continue to get all the authoring benefits of Flash Pro and have the flexibility to run the ad in the Flash Player or HTML depending on what's available on the system. Google and Adobe look forward to close collaboration around efforts like these."







Google has made moves to support HTML5 in the past, including conversion of videos on the popular Web video destination YouTube. But Google also still includes Adobe Flash Player embedded in its Google Chrome browser.



The company is also pushing its own video playback format dubbed WebM over the Apple-backed H.264 format. The search company believes that its own WebM format will "enable open innovation."
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 46
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    The search company believes that its own WebM format will "enable open innovation."



    As opposed to H.264 MP4 which is free to license and an actual standard.
  • Reply 2 of 46
    kynmorekynmore Posts: 3member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    As opposed to H.264 MP4 which is free to license and an actual standard.



    At Google, we don't believe in standards. Who wants to use open, free software that we didn't make?
  • Reply 3 of 46
    sheffsheff Posts: 1,407member
    Instead of converting ads they should have made a tool to convert flash web sites to html5.
  • Reply 4 of 46
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Kynmore View Post


    At Google, we don't believe in standards. Who wants to use open, free software that we didn't make?



    I can EASILY see that as a line in one of their pitch manuals...



    Modify the wording a little bit and you have a Microsoft pitch line.



    "At Microsoft, we don't believe in open source. Who wants to use open, free software that we didn't charge you for?"
  • Reply 5 of 46
    walshbjwalshbj Posts: 864member
    I tried it on some screencast swf files I made. It said they weren't valid swf and didn't convert them. I didn't create the swf files with Adobe tools, maybe that's why, I don't know.
  • Reply 6 of 46
    ivladivlad Posts: 739member
    Anything for the sake of advertising, Google.
  • Reply 7 of 46
    gwydiongwydion Posts: 1,067member
    Quote:

    The company is also pushing its own proprietary video playback format dubbed WebM



    Propietary?
  • Reply 8 of 46
    jexusjexus Posts: 373member
    Come on AI, your missing the Google ball again.



    While your sitting here reporting this little standard conversion everyone else is getting Google's social networking service stories up.
  • Reply 9 of 46
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 1,792member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post


    Propietary?



    It sure is.



    It's open and free (for now) for anyone to license, use and implement, but it is still completely controlled and owned by Google who retain the rights to all implementations.
  • Reply 10 of 46
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 30,415member
    Of perhaps even greater interest is the fact that Google is now going all-out in their frontal assault on Facebook (they have no choice because the web is losing eyeballs to Facebook now... fewer searches = fewer ad dollars) with Google+. Now in beta and it looks like the beta is full up. Not sure they'll be able to make a dent at this stage, but then again, who remembers MySpace anymore?
  • Reply 11 of 46
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,699member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post


    It sure is.



    It's open and free (for now) for anyone to license, use and implement, but it is still completely controlled and owned by Google who retain the rights to all implementations.



    In case you weren't aware.

    http://blog.webmproject.org/2011/04/...ity-cross.html
  • Reply 12 of 46
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    As opposed to H.264 MP4 which is free to license and an actual standard.



    Erm, actually wrong - MP4 is not free to license due to Patents within it. From wiki





    MPEG-4 contains patented technologies that require licensing in countries that acknowledge software algorithm patents. Patents covering MPEG-4 are claimed by over two dozen companies. The MPEG Licensing Authority[61] licenses patents required for MPEG-4 Part 2 Visual from a wide range of companies (audio is licensed separately) and lists all of its licensors and licensees on the site. New licenses for MPEG-4 System patents are under development[62] and no new licenses are being offered while holders of its old MPEG-4 Systems license are still covered under the terms of that license for the patents listed (MPEG LA – Patent List).

    AT&T is trying to sue companies such as Apple Inc. over alleged MPEG-4 patent infringement.[63] The terms of Apple's Quicktime 7 license for users[64] describes in paragraph 14 the terms under Apple's existing MPEG-4 System Patent Portfolio license from MPEGLA




    ie. MP4 contains patents that are in principle licensable under FRAND terms, but AT&T are suing for infringement, and if they win then all bets are off.



    Google isn't completely nuts in pushing WebM, any more than people who insist on using PNGs are nuts for avoiding GIFs.
  • Reply 13 of 46
    gwydiongwydion Posts: 1,067member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post


    It sure is.



    It's open and free (for now) for anyone to license, use and implement, but it is still completely controlled and owned by Google who retain the rights to all implementations.



    BSD License, it's not propietary
  • Reply 14 of 46
    gwydiongwydion Posts: 1,067member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    As opposed to H.264 MP4 which is free to license and an actual standard.



    Tell Apple, MS or the same Google that H.264 is free to license.
  • Reply 15 of 46
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,699member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    Erm, actually wrong - MP4 is not free to license due to Patents within it. From wiki





    MPEG-4 contains patented technologies that require licensing in countries that acknowledge software algorithm patents. Patents covering MPEG-4 are claimed by over two dozen companies. The MPEG Licensing Authority[61] licenses patents required for MPEG-4 Part 2 Visual from a wide range of companies (audio is licensed separately) and lists all of its licensors and licensees on the site. New licenses for MPEG-4 System patents are under development[62] and no new licenses are being offered while holders of its old MPEG-4 Systems license are still covered under the terms of that license for the patents listed (MPEG LA ? Patent List).

    AT&T is trying to sue companies such as Apple Inc. over alleged MPEG-4 patent infringement.[63] The terms of Apple's Quicktime 7 license for users[64] describes in paragraph 14 the terms under Apple's existing MPEG-4 System Patent Portfolio license from MPEGLA




    ie. MP4 contains patents that are in principle licensable under FRAND terms, but AT&T are suing for infringement, and if they win then all bets are off.



    Google isn't completely nuts in pushing WebM, any more than people who insist on using PNGs are nuts for avoiding GIFs.



    According to the details of this suit, MPEG-LA licenses certainly aren't free:

    http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/regulati...decs-40089042/



    While it's a uphill battle, I think Google's competing WebM has it's advantages.
  • Reply 16 of 46
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,185member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    According to the details of this suit, MPEG-LA licenses certainly aren't free:

    http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/regulati...decs-40089042/



    While it's a uphill battle, I think Google's competing WebM has it's advantages.



    You act as if MPEG-LA isn't going to replace H.264. They are deeply working on advancing their position technically from where they current stand.
  • Reply 17 of 46
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    You act as if MPEG-LA isn't going to replace H.264. They are deeply working on advancing their position technically from where they current stand.



    Having said that, HEVC being finalized in 2013 is about a year later than it should be.
  • Reply 18 of 46
    This is a great idea, except for the fact that the current iteration has a 512K limit. So the conversion doesn't work with the single file, 999K, that I wanted to migrate.



    As to the ad for ConvertMyFlash, above, their price starts at $1,500 per site. I just need a single video converted. Obviously I want a more cost-effective solution.
  • Reply 19 of 46
    noirdesirnoirdesir Posts: 1,027member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


    Erm, actually wrong - MP4 is not free to license due to Patents within it.



    MP4 is free to license for use in web browsers, for the time being.
  • Reply 20 of 46
    s8er01zs8er01z Posts: 144member
    Size limit is 60kb short for my files. Was hoping to try this out.
Sign In or Register to comment.