Apple buys small HTML5 design and marketing firm Particle
Apple has reportedly acquired creative consulting company Particle, a small San Francisco based collective of less than a dozen employees specializing in web applications and marketing using HTML5.
According to CNET, Apple finalized the purchase late last month, bringing over most of Particle's employees whose LinkedIn profiles now list their occupation as "creative technologists" and one as a "user interface engineer." It appears that the acquisition was more of a group hire than a move to secure IP, as has been the case in recent Apple purchases.
Founded in 2008 with the help of celebrity backer Justin Timberlake, Particle is a self-described "professional services business in creative concept work, visual and user experience design, and technical implementation."
From Particle's "About" page:
It is not known how Apple will implement the new team, but the Cupertino company has recently been pushing hard for HTML5 solutions, as evidenced by its war against Flash-based software.
The details of the deal are scarce, including the price Apple paid for the consulting firm, and neither party has issued a statement regarding the matter.
According to CNET, Apple finalized the purchase late last month, bringing over most of Particle's employees whose LinkedIn profiles now list their occupation as "creative technologists" and one as a "user interface engineer." It appears that the acquisition was more of a group hire than a move to secure IP, as has been the case in recent Apple purchases.
Founded in 2008 with the help of celebrity backer Justin Timberlake, Particle is a self-described "professional services business in creative concept work, visual and user experience design, and technical implementation."
From Particle's "About" page:
As for the new hires, a number have worked with Yahoo and Google on design projects, and the firm's website notes that its founders worked closely with Apple, Disney, Sony, Sony Ericsson, Google, Yahoo!, through other design and consulting agencies. In specific, Particle Founder and Chief Technology Officer Aubrey Anderson consulted for Apple between 2006 and 2008.HTML5 and the WebKit rendering engine already drive the web experience on devices like the iPhone, iPad, and Android, but are increasingly becoming the lowest common denomination on the desktop web in next generation browsers like Google's Chrome, and Apple's Safari. Particle has chosen to focus on this technology so intensely because we believe it will soon be the rendering engine that powers a new universe of light weight and embedded applications from set top boxes to game consoles to Chrome OS and Android devices to portable telephony and media devices of all kinds.
It is not known how Apple will implement the new team, but the Cupertino company has recently been pushing hard for HTML5 solutions, as evidenced by its war against Flash-based software.
The details of the deal are scarce, including the price Apple paid for the consulting firm, and neither party has issued a statement regarding the matter.
Comments
iWeb X!
Well, I guess iWeb 5 instead. Being, of course, the 4th version release.
The one thing I find difficult to understand is the constant comparison between Flash and HTML5.
HTML5 is a very flexible architecture but it is nothing like Flash, aside from the considerable similarities between ECMAScript and Actionscript.
One thing that still remains elusive in bringing HTML5 to the forefront is the lack of WYSIWYG editors. Sure there are a few, one notable one is Sencha, however no matter how you slice it, you need to be an absolute hand code expert to actually accomplish anything practical with HTML5.
Furthermore, in my experience, as the technology advances, the actual understanding of the code slips further and further from the people actually developing websites. The use of frameworks such as jQuery have obfuscated the actual functions to the point where they are almost completely beyond the understanding or the modifying of by web developer/designers.
To build an HTML5 site from scratch without the use of frameworks would cost ten times more than if you just repurposed a cookie cutter template but then of course you are unable to change anything for fear of breaking something you have no control over since it is all contained in a remotely downloaded js file.
Lastly, even though open standards should make things more accessible to average computer users, it does't really because you have to have a web server account, as any modern website cannot be run locally and almost always involves a server side scripting language such as php. Because you logically need to use include files for headers, menus, footers and often posting back to same file with conditional blocks of code, there is no such thing as WYSIWYG. The visual web designer does not have a chance in hell of actually building a modern site using HTML5, hence there will never be another iWeb.
Originally Posted by mstone
The one thing I find difficult to understand is the constant comparison between Flash and HTML5. HTML5 is a very flexible architecture but it is nothing like Flash, aside from the considerable similarities between ECMAScript and Actionscript.
One thing that still remains elusive in bringing HTML5 to the forefront is the lack of WYSIWYG editors. Sure there are a few, one notable one is Sencha, however no matter how you slice it, you need to be an absolute hand code expert to actually accomplish anything practical with HTML5.
What's your take on Hype in these regards?
The visual web designer does not have a chance in hell of actually building a modern site using HTML5, hence there will never be another iWeb.
Given what you've said, I think the challenge is to take all this incomprehensible code and be able to let designers ignore it. I mean, look at the code for a site made in iWeb. It's insane, and it's pre-HTML5 stuff. And yet iWeb was able to bring more than rudimentary website creation to people who'd never heard of the DOM or so much as a div tag.
If anyone can make a WYSIWYG application that lets people manage HTML5 with that same ease, while still affording the raw power desired by 'from scratch' site creators, it's Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
If anyone can make a WYSIWYG application that lets people manage HTML5 with that same ease, while still affording the raw power desired by 'from scratch' site creators, it's Apple.
I don't see how. If you subscribe to the notion that a modern website needs a server side scripting language to access databases, serve up session ids, include files, dynamically generate Javascript/Ajax and use conditional code blocks determined by type of post back, then you would need to consider all the different server side scripting languages in common usage today and be able to partner with those server providers. Let's see, off the top of my head there is PHP, RoR, Python, .Net, Coldfusion, Domino, JSP... shall I go on? Apple couldn't even partner with a single one of these organization let alone all of them. Without ubiquitous integration with servers the whole iWeb concept is a non-starter. That is why they killed it, as almost no one wanted a standalone HTML site, Everyone wants dynamic database connected, cookie enabled, template driven websites which is why they flock to WordPress,Expression Engine and the like.
Good reply. A Claris Homepage for HTML 5 .. now that'd be great! (Never too keen on iWeb: easy, elegant but very limiting).
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
[...] That is why they killed it, as almost no one wanted a standalone HTML site, Everyone wants dynamic database connected, cookie enabled, template driven websites which is why they flock to WordPress,Expression Engine and the like.
A very basic HTML site would be fine for me. More importantly it would be fine for my wife, and the existence of iWeb and MobileMe was a fundamental part of our decision to switch to Mac.
I work in TV, so to me iMovie looks like a woefully weak "toy" that I can't imagine anyone using. I'm wrong, of course, my vocational bias is affecting my perception. So, I suspect, is the perceptual bias of people who make software for a living clouding their view of how little it takes to keep most of us happy. We don't expect or even need anything more sophisticated than javascript.
What's a dynamic database? Do I have to feed it cookies?
Completely agree. The old iWeb could never compete with database-driven sites, hence the popularity of systems like WordPress. But I could imagine a future version of iWeb or whatever they would call it being more integrated with iCloud and Apple's servers. They could automatically set up a database for you in the same way that wordpress.com does. They'd never catch up to the insane ecosystem that WordPress has, but it might work well for people with simple needs who already have an iCloud account to set it up with.
I'd say as well as the HTML 5 experience these guys would also seem to be Webkit experts too judging from the quote from their About page...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
The one thing I find difficult to understand is the constant comparison between Flash and HTML5.
As far as Im concerned HTML5 as a new standard which seem pretty exciting where as Flash should go away and die. SInce upgrading to ML I haven't installed flash and can browse the net for as long as I want without the fan on my macbook kicking in.
Apple could easily do this too, they bundle Apache with every copy of OS X. They don't bundle MySQL but they could. They wouldn't have to offer upgrades via Software Update either because it would only be for building, not deployment and people could manually upgrade. It does run into more trouble when there is code other than PHP such as Smarty code but even if they handled the popular web software, it would be a big help to people. It would have to be unrestricted and allow inserting custom content without overwriting it.
The original comparison though was against Flash and an IDE, which has the same issues. I don't recall Flash integrating easily with server-side software either. The advantage the Flash IDE has is not requiring code for animated content like shape tweens and integrating video/audio but that's probably why Adobe made Edge Animate:
http://html.adobe.com/edge/animate/
Flash has an advantage that everything can be authored to a single scalable viewport including vector content but this gives it a lot of the restrictions the Canvas element has in that search engines can't really index the content properly. With companies like Particle developing the workflows for HTML 5 content, the tools will evolve.
There's no reason there can't be an full IDE using Javascript instead of Actionscript - both can be used for object-oriented code - but the openness of it means everyone has their own way of doing things. Adobe can port their Actionscript kit over to JS and find conflicts with other JS libraries. When everyone has to work to Adobe's standard, conflicts are far less likely but that can't be the way it works.
Personally, I'd like to see the Webkit implementation become the standard instead of the HTML spec. That way, you wouldn't have Mozilla, Microsoft and Opera doing their own thing. Everyone would have to use the same code and it could evolve at a faster pace. It would be like Android for the web. Browser developers would be free to build apps around it and even modify parts but the core standard for interpretation would be the same for everyone just like Flash.
Jeeze this is dead on. I had all the same commentary about CSS in the newer Dreamweaver. Totally destroyed wysiwyg. Websites are slowly leaving the realm of do it yourselfers just like programming did. The only people that can really do it are the ones that are not doing much of anything else.
Flash still has a good use: what it was originally made for. Animation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
The one thing I find difficult to understand is the constant comparison between Flash and HTML5.
HTML5 is a very flexible architecture but it is nothing like Flash, aside from the considerable similarities between ECMAScript and Actionscript.
One thing that still remains elusive in bringing HTML5 to the forefront is the lack of WYSIWYG editors. Sure there are a few, one notable one is Sencha, however no matter how you slice it, you need to be an absolute hand code expert to actually accomplish anything practical with HTML5.
Furthermore, in my experience, as the technology advances, the actual understanding of the code slips further and further from the people actually developing websites. The use of frameworks such as jQuery have obfuscated the actual functions to the point where they are almost completely beyond the understanding or the modifying of by web developer/designers.
To build an HTML5 site from scratch without the use of frameworks would cost ten times more than if you just repurposed a cookie cutter template but then of course you are unable to change anything for fear of breaking something you have no control over since it is all contained in a remotely downloaded js file.
Lastly, even though open standards should make things more accessible to average computer users, it does't really because you have to have a web server account, as any modern website cannot be run locally and almost always involves a server side scripting language such as php. Because you logically need to use include files for headers, menus, footers and often posting back to same file with conditional blocks of code, there is no such thing as WYSIWYG. The visual web designer does not have a chance in hell of actually building a modern site using HTML5, hence there will never be another iWeb.
This.
I'd even argue the WYSIWYG web development days were gone long before HTML5. I haven't been able to develop a functional site with offline tools or without at least one framework for at least eight years.
Also, I don't see why this acquisition has to be about a new product. Maybe they just wanted the talent for their own web team, you know, to help develop apple.com and icloud.com.
Apologize for the length. I'm a longtime lurker, newbie poster, but here goes:
I'm a Wordpress guy. Love using themes and I can change things around well enough to suit my needs. Still, the idea of building my own themes/templates from scratch is absolutely daunting. Truly deep customization is not in my skill set at this point. Some would say "who cares?" Just use the many, many premium templates, child themes, and customize to your heart's content, right?
My question is this: will that matter (and should it matter) in the near future? There's a real separation between hand-coders and developers and designers - and someone like me, who uses tools like CSSEdit and Smultron. (I'm looking into Espresso or Coda to streamline things.) I've designed sites to an extent, but most designers would refuse to call me a true "designer." Same with developers. They'd laugh at my feeble skills - yet, what I do is absolutely beyond Joe Average's comprehension.
Will this Apple move change things?
Some of you guys on this thread had some really good points. Will this Apple move result in a kind of democratization of the web? In other words, will this produce more people who can build sites (like iWeb) or will the knowledge gulf just be too wide?
Is it possible that Apple could make, like someone said, an Android of the web - where "regular folks" can build their own web experiences using a minimum of visible code?
As the tools and tech grow, would it be possible one day for one guy to easily develop a site to say, compete with Facebook? It's amazing that Apple has created an environment where a one-man shop can build an iOS app and take on EA. What is Apple going for here?
Question 2. You guys are savvy. What do you think the next move is for the browser? I've seen some HTML 5 sites that have some really cool, flowing aspects. Is Apple simply trying the move from the web from relatively static websites to more dynamic (and gesture-friendly) web "experiences"? Maybe I'm overthinking, and this Apple move is just to do this.
I may be totally off, but I'm imagining a future Apple.com where you can "try out" the iPhone using your trackpad on your computer. The "phone" on the site would be a virtual replica of the real thing. One day, the websites we use now will look as ancient as the old AOL looks today.
It's funny. I used to think Apple should've done what Wordpress did and build a "Super iWeb" IDE that would destroy the Adobe monopoly - take Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Fireworks, etc. down in one fell swoop.
And P.S. offtopic - I just returned to XBMC after ignoring it for a few years and I am in love! The experience has me using Hulu and Crackle! Apple TV needs to take notice!
I don't see a WYSIWYG app changing development. Facebook has a very simple front-end and the complexity is on the server-side dealing with scale and syncing everything as well as security.
I'd expect such an app to make it easier for independent publishers and designers.
I think websites will increase in interactivity but within a limit.
Websites don't cache themselves for long periods so the more complex they get, the longer they take to load. There's also a security issue because the source code has to be downloaded to the client so any complexity that isn't server-side can be stolen.
Apple tried to do web-apps alone on the iPhone originally and it just didn't fly. People wanted a native SDK. The App Store has shown what the future is. Rich apps won't be web-based, but self-contained apps.
The advantages apps have include that they are fully cached, they run with native performance, the code is quarantined for security issues, you don't have to click a URL to get to them and hope the app/site is still available. They also monetise content where the web has never been able to do this effectively. People are happy to pay for an app because you feel like you are getting a product. To pay to visit a website is like paying a bridge toll and the value doesn't feel the same.
There are exceptions like streaming games ( http://www.gaikai.com/ - now bought by Sony so you can't play demos ) and videos ( netflix ). In the example of streaming games, being able to run the highest-end games in a browser shows that there really aren't any limits to what can be presented via a browser. It comes down to what happens client-side and what happens server-side.
Due to the number of people playing, it makes sense for Facebook games to run client-side. Due to the size of high quality games, it makes more sense for them to run server-side or natively.
I can see 3 distribution/publishing methods co-existing and there never being a one-size fits all. I see the following happening:
The web continuing to be the main source of information and communication.
Apps being the main method for distributing monetised content up to a size limit.
Streaming being the main method for distributing AAA games and movies.
All 3 can be used together. In the example of Gaikai, they can use the web to tell people about the service, have an app to connect devices to and pay for the service and stream the content to the app in a protected way while running it server-side.
A seamless 1 foot, 3 feet and 9 feet experience.
Design the guidelines & interfaces avaiable so the whole app ecosystem for screens at our fingertips and screens at our desktop becomes seamlessly available for screens in our living room. Succesfully disturbing the concept of watching television as we know it is depending on creative and deep HTML5 understanding.
Don't underestimate this acquisition's consequences. I'd like to state we will remember this thread for years to come.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bolskevite
But I could imagine a future version of iWeb or whatever they would call it being more integrated with iCloud and Apple's servers.
This^^^