I don't feel Adobe relented to Apple. For this to be this far advanced, Adobe had to have Edge in the works for quite a while, don't you think? I just wonder why they never mentioned it back when it would have been a great answer to Apple's decision not to support Flash on iDevices.
This is a question 'cuz I don't know....was Adobe working on this before Apple clotheslined them? Can a software company come this far, this fast with a product like this?
It's been nearly 4 years since this flash topic became a topic. Android had used "support flash" as a feature since 2009.
Adobe had became a lazy company. They don't really improve their product until forced to do so, even then they fail a lot of times.
why should they have? Flash was the golden goose, why would they want to release a competeing product too soom and take money away from a mature product that at this point is in maintenance mode -- the development costs from Flash are long since paid for so copies of that are just basically money in the bank as version changes now a days are minor tweaks barely enough to justify a new version number.
"Skate to where the puck will be..."
Adobe could've easily been the premier (small "p") developer of leading-edge HTML5 tools. They probably still can be, with the right amount of focus and effort.
IMO, it's risky on Adobe's part to ignore a developing market with a huge upside, but it's sheer hubris to ignore it over a spat with Apple over Flash on iOS devices.
So how much do you think Adobe will sell this for? 2, 3 hundred pounds?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
Oh come on! Apple introduced the iOS in 2007. Adobe has done nothing but kick and scream ever since then about Apple's "heavy-handed, closed, proprietary, walled-garden" approach towards Flash. Apple had everything to do with Adobe getting its butt in gear!
Apple showed the world how inept and unprepared Adobe was back then, and Adobe did just fine on its own showing how clueless they were. Mobile Flash was beta at the best, and the endless security flaws and updates just made it worse.
Flash is essentially broken and out-dated no matter how the iHaters try to spin it. I seriously doubt that Adobe had anything remotely HTML5-related till at least a couple/few years after the iPhone.
I'd bet that once Adobe saw how truly successful the iPad had become, and the anemic Android Flash-capable tablets were, Adobe saw the writing on the wall: Adapt or die.
And it will cost a thousand dollars and will install fifteen programs you didn't want, ask for or even know it was installing, and drop about 2 Gigabytes of trash in the Library folder.
Agreed but animation simply for the sake of pizazz is really annoying whether it be HTML or Flash. If your presentation needs animation to communicate an idea such as rotating a 3D object with user interaction, a training simulation etc. then fine, but to just fade and move objects for no useful purpose is so passé. I really like the new simplicity web page style that has emerged recently.
But to say HTML5 is going to be as full featured as Flash is just incorrect and has nothing to do with an IDE or GUIs in a content creation application. To do really useful things with HTML5 you need to code by hand. To drag and drop animations is just pathetic.
How do you think a lot of stuff is done in flash? Hand coding. The useful stuff anyway - and the actionscript language is also a subset of EMCA script, same with Javascript. Webkit browsers now have 3D accelleration (WebGL) and Javascript now has threads (workers) where actionscript does not. HTML5 has already shown it can be just as capable as Flash (search for html5 demos, or web gl demos if you use chrome or safari on lion with gl enabled in the developer menu). Saying HTML5 is not as capable as flash is a crock of bull.
Saying HTML5 is not as capable as flash is a crock of bull.
HTML5 cannot even query a database without the help of php. There are tons of functions that Flash has that HTML5 does not. Sure there are a great many things that can be done with HTML5/JS/CSS but the point I'm was attempting to make is that simply making animations more accessible for artists does not impress me. I code by hand for both Actionscribpt as well as for all my web code projects.
Nothing, just pointing out that HTML5 is not as full featured as Flash. HTML5 cannot send email either. Both platforms are very useful, but to say HTML5 is this or that, what is usually implied is that HTML5 with Javascript with CSS with PHP can do quite a bit but HTML5 by itself != Flash.
And it will cost a thousand dollars and will install fifteen programs you didn't want, ask for or even know it was installing, and drop about 2 Gigabytes of trash in the Library folder.
Well, you can always buy stand alone program if you don't want fifteen programs. But it's not a bad deal to buy the whole Suite.
For instance non-Adobe prototyping tool iRise cost $10,000 and it offers only a small fraction of features you would get form CS. iRise is a bad deal.
Nothing, just pointing out that HTML5 is not as full featured as Flash. HTML5 cannot send email either. Both platforms are very useful, but to say HTML5 is this or that, what is usually implied is that HTML5 with Javascript with CSS with PHP can do quite a bit but HTML5 by itself != Flash.
Considering that it's usually written with a variation of 'HTML/CSS/JS" it's well known that no single part of open web standards can compete with the entirety of Flash. That doesn't mean that Flash is superior because it tries to be everything to everyone. We've seen and have been dealing with the inefficiencies of Flash on our limited system resources for years now. Adobe has had 4.5 years to get Flash to work well and they still have yet to make it a great even under the Android handsets yet within that time we've seen web standards solidify and WebKit take hold as a de facto efficient browser engine. Adobe has no choice but to adapt or die.
Considering that it's usually written with a variation of 'HTML/CSS/JS" it's well known that no single part of open web standards can compete with the entirety of Flash. That doesn't mean that Flash is superior because it tries to be everything to everyone. We've seen and have been dealing with the inefficiencies of Flash on our limited system resources for years now. Adobe has had 4.5 years to get Flash to work well and they still have yet to make it a great even under the Android handsets yet within that time we've seen web standards solidify and WebKit take hold as a de facto efficient browser engine. Adobe has no choice but to adapt or die.
I'm not promoting anything. I just took exception to the original comment that "Saying HTML5 is not as capable as flash is a crock of bull." mostly because it is an emotional outburst with no substantive argument to which I easily offered a couple of very provable counter arguments. I like HTML5 just fine. It has its shortcomings as do all applications, but it is certainly not the second coming of the Messiah as some on this board would lead you to believe.
I'm not promoting anything. I just took exception to the original comment that "Saying HTML5 is not as capable as flash is a crock of bull." mostly because it is an emotional outburst with no substantive argument to which I easily offered a couple of very provable counter arguments. I like HTML5 just fine. It has its shortcomings as do all applications, but it is certainly not the second coming of the Messiah as some on this board would lead you to believe.
I don't read that statement as strictly as you do. I see that mean all open web code like PHP, JS, CSS, et al. If there is a second coming of the internet it is HTML5 as the messiah and the open standards wire men, not Flash with its resource-sucking demonism.
I don't read that statement as strictly as you do. I see that mean all open web code like PHP, JS, CSS, et al. If there is a second coming of the internet it is HTML5 as the messiah and the open standards wire men, not Flash with its resource-sucking demonism.
Resource sucking is a relatively arbitrary argument because all you can do is say when I visit a movie page my battery is depleted more rapidly than it would using HTML5. There is no control in that experiment because the code is only roughly equivalent. As another poster pointed out, well written Flash does not drain the battery any more than well written HTML5 and I'm sure the inverse of that is just as true. But again I'm not here to promote Flash except in the instances where it is a better tool for a particular application, of which are quite few and far between. I'm very content with no animation whatsoever of any type because it is generally a distraction to the informative content on the page.
No question Flash is over used and quite annoying to have to suffer through when there is no point or it is an offensive advertisement, but until HTML5 is rendered with equally dependable results on all browsers Flash will remain the fall back solution for those applications that do need dynamic multimedia content. Developers still need to write at least three contingencies to any page that relies on such content, especially video.
Comments
I don't feel Adobe relented to Apple. For this to be this far advanced, Adobe had to have Edge in the works for quite a while, don't you think? I just wonder why they never mentioned it back when it would have been a great answer to Apple's decision not to support Flash on iDevices.
This is a question 'cuz I don't know....was Adobe working on this before Apple clotheslined them? Can a software company come this far, this fast with a product like this?
It's been nearly 4 years since this flash topic became a topic. Android had used "support flash" as a feature since 2009.
Adobe had became a lazy company. They don't really improve their product until forced to do so, even then they fail a lot of times.
why should they have? Flash was the golden goose, why would they want to release a competeing product too soom and take money away from a mature product that at this point is in maintenance mode -- the development costs from Flash are long since paid for so copies of that are just basically money in the bank as version changes now a days are minor tweaks barely enough to justify a new version number.
"Skate to where the puck will be..."
Adobe could've easily been the premier (small "p") developer of leading-edge HTML5 tools. They probably still can be, with the right amount of focus and effort.
IMO, it's risky on Adobe's part to ignore a developing market with a huge upside, but it's sheer hubris to ignore it over a spat with Apple over Flash on iOS devices.
Oh come on! Apple introduced the iOS in 2007. Adobe has done nothing but kick and scream ever since then about Apple's "heavy-handed, closed, proprietary, walled-garden" approach towards Flash. Apple had everything to do with Adobe getting its butt in gear!
Apple showed the world how inept and unprepared Adobe was back then, and Adobe did just fine on its own showing how clueless they were. Mobile Flash was beta at the best, and the endless security flaws and updates just made it worse.
Flash is essentially broken and out-dated no matter how the iHaters try to spin it. I seriously doubt that Adobe had anything remotely HTML5-related till at least a couple/few years after the iPhone.
I'd bet that once Adobe saw how truly successful the iPad had become, and the anemic Android Flash-capable tablets were, Adobe saw the writing on the wall: Adapt or die.
Case closed.
I think I love you!
And it will cost a thousand dollars and will install fifteen programs you didn't want, ask for or even know it was installing, and drop about 2 Gigabytes of trash in the Library folder.
I'm still figuring wtf does Adobe Bridge do!
Agreed but animation simply for the sake of pizazz is really annoying whether it be HTML or Flash. If your presentation needs animation to communicate an idea such as rotating a 3D object with user interaction, a training simulation etc. then fine, but to just fade and move objects for no useful purpose is so passé. I really like the new simplicity web page style that has emerged recently.
But to say HTML5 is going to be as full featured as Flash is just incorrect and has nothing to do with an IDE or GUIs in a content creation application. To do really useful things with HTML5 you need to code by hand. To drag and drop animations is just pathetic.
How do you think a lot of stuff is done in flash? Hand coding. The useful stuff anyway - and the actionscript language is also a subset of EMCA script, same with Javascript. Webkit browsers now have 3D accelleration (WebGL) and Javascript now has threads (workers) where actionscript does not. HTML5 has already shown it can be just as capable as Flash (search for html5 demos, or web gl demos if you use chrome or safari on lion with gl enabled in the developer menu). Saying HTML5 is not as capable as flash is a crock of bull.
just great, the first thing created was an ad
Apple shows the way again, by supporting the superior HTML5.
All platforms will benefit.
Saying HTML5 is not as capable as flash is a crock of bull.
HTML5 cannot even query a database without the help of php. There are tons of functions that Flash has that HTML5 does not. Sure there are a great many things that can be done with HTML5/JS/CSS but the point I'm was attempting to make is that simply making animations more accessible for artists does not impress me. I code by hand for both Actionscribpt as well as for all my web code projects.
Oh goody, crap flash animation ads now in HTML5. What an improvement!
Hopefully "Click to Flash", whoops "Click to HTML", will function.
HTML5 cannot even query a database without the help of php.
What's wrong with using PHP?
Hopefully "Click to Flash", whoops "Click to HTML", will function.
The solution is in blocking ad domains. Then it doesn't matter what containers they use.
What's wrong with using PHP?
Nothing, just pointing out that HTML5 is not as full featured as Flash. HTML5 cannot send email either. Both platforms are very useful, but to say HTML5 is this or that, what is usually implied is that HTML5 with Javascript with CSS with PHP can do quite a bit but HTML5 by itself != Flash.
And it will cost a thousand dollars and will install fifteen programs you didn't want, ask for or even know it was installing, and drop about 2 Gigabytes of trash in the Library folder.
Well, you can always buy stand alone program if you don't want fifteen programs. But it's not a bad deal to buy the whole Suite.
For instance non-Adobe prototyping tool iRise cost $10,000 and it offers only a small fraction of features you would get form CS. iRise is a bad deal.
Nothing, just pointing out that HTML5 is not as full featured as Flash. HTML5 cannot send email either. Both platforms are very useful, but to say HTML5 is this or that, what is usually implied is that HTML5 with Javascript with CSS with PHP can do quite a bit but HTML5 by itself != Flash.
Considering that it's usually written with a variation of 'HTML/CSS/JS" it's well known that no single part of open web standards can compete with the entirety of Flash. That doesn't mean that Flash is superior because it tries to be everything to everyone. We've seen and have been dealing with the inefficiencies of Flash on our limited system resources for years now. Adobe has had 4.5 years to get Flash to work well and they still have yet to make it a great even under the Android handsets yet within that time we've seen web standards solidify and WebKit take hold as a de facto efficient browser engine. Adobe has no choice but to adapt or die.
It's sad that Hype doesn't support vector graphics last time I checked... does it?
Hype does support SVG
http://tumultco.com/hype/documentati.../#elementtypes
Considering that it's usually written with a variation of 'HTML/CSS/JS" it's well known that no single part of open web standards can compete with the entirety of Flash. That doesn't mean that Flash is superior because it tries to be everything to everyone. We've seen and have been dealing with the inefficiencies of Flash on our limited system resources for years now. Adobe has had 4.5 years to get Flash to work well and they still have yet to make it a great even under the Android handsets yet within that time we've seen web standards solidify and WebKit take hold as a de facto efficient browser engine. Adobe has no choice but to adapt or die.
I'm not promoting anything. I just took exception to the original comment that "Saying HTML5 is not as capable as flash is a crock of bull." mostly because it is an emotional outburst with no substantive argument to which I easily offered a couple of very provable counter arguments. I like HTML5 just fine. It has its shortcomings as do all applications, but it is certainly not the second coming of the Messiah as some on this board would lead you to believe.
I'm not promoting anything. I just took exception to the original comment that "Saying HTML5 is not as capable as flash is a crock of bull." mostly because it is an emotional outburst with no substantive argument to which I easily offered a couple of very provable counter arguments. I like HTML5 just fine. It has its shortcomings as do all applications, but it is certainly not the second coming of the Messiah as some on this board would lead you to believe.
I don't read that statement as strictly as you do. I see that mean all open web code like PHP, JS, CSS, et al. If there is a second coming of the internet it is HTML5 as the messiah and the open standards wire men, not Flash with its resource-sucking demonism.
I don't read that statement as strictly as you do. I see that mean all open web code like PHP, JS, CSS, et al. If there is a second coming of the internet it is HTML5 as the messiah and the open standards wire men, not Flash with its resource-sucking demonism.
Resource sucking is a relatively arbitrary argument because all you can do is say when I visit a movie page my battery is depleted more rapidly than it would using HTML5. There is no control in that experiment because the code is only roughly equivalent. As another poster pointed out, well written Flash does not drain the battery any more than well written HTML5 and I'm sure the inverse of that is just as true. But again I'm not here to promote Flash except in the instances where it is a better tool for a particular application, of which are quite few and far between. I'm very content with no animation whatsoever of any type because it is generally a distraction to the informative content on the page.
No question Flash is over used and quite annoying to have to suffer through when there is no point or it is an offensive advertisement, but until HTML5 is rendered with equally dependable results on all browsers Flash will remain the fall back solution for those applications that do need dynamic multimedia content. Developers still need to write at least three contingencies to any page that relies on such content, especially video.