I no longer stay on any site that requires Flash. I'm tired of the constant, never-ending security holes it has. It has ceased to be installed on my Mac.
F*** you Adobe for continuing this botched experiment.
Thank God most Macs are so old, so outdated, that soon enough Adobe might drop flash support for Macs. At least we have that going..
For someone that talks a lot of trash about Macs, you don't seem to know a lot about them. It's not the age of the Mac that is the limiting factor with Flash,(though there is a correlation), it's the age of the browser that matters.
I have a nearly 10 year old white MacBook that is stuck on Lion, Lion will only support up to Safari 6.1.6, which Flash no longer supports. But if I use the last version of Firefox that still works on it, it will do Flash. (Though I haven't checked in a while.) And I think this was also true if I use the last version of Chrome, that can run on it. I'm not sure, as I never use Chrome. I have it installed just in case i need it. So even though the Mac is nearly 10 years old, it will still do Flash when using a browser that Flash still supports.
Now I also have an 8 year old iMac that can still run Yosemite, thus Safari 10.10. Safari 10.11 seems to the the newest version and runs on El Capitan. (I'm not sure if Yosemite is stuck on Safari 10.10) This "old" iMac will still run Flash and will do so for maybe a few more years. And maybe even more when using Firefox or Chrome. I have yet to hear that Apple will stop supporting Safari 10.10, even if Safari 10.10 is the last version of Safari for Yosemite.
Flash doesn't care how old the hardware is. It only cares how old the browser is.
I'm actually surprised you went through the effort to write all this for a troll. He's not worth the electrons to type for.
Adobe gives the impression that they have always had junior programmers working on Flash. Flash seems to be the hands-down winner of most perpetually defective software in the industry, forever evidencing major gaffes in programming. Does Adobe not realize how negatively this reflects upon their company in general, and leaves people to question the quality of their other products?
Flash seems to be the hands-down winner of most perpetually defective software in the industry
I think Microsoft Windows still retains that title. The problem with Flash is that it is an extremely powerful and complicated application and also has hooks into the browser and operating system. Connect that to the Internet and it is sort of like giving a turbo charged Hemi to a teenager. Always going to be a bad outcome.
Adobe gives the impression that they have always had junior programmers working on Flash. Flash seems to be the hands-down winner of most perpetually defective software in the industry, forever evidencing major gaffes in programming. Does Adobe not realize how negatively this reflects upon their company in general, and leaves people to question the quality of their other products?
If you used their other software on a regular basis, you'd know it doesn't take Flash Player to question the quality of their other products.
Flash Player may be obsolete, but Adobe Animate (formerly Flash Professional) is an incredibly useful tool for easily creating complex HTML5 interactive elements. Much better than any of the other HTML5 creation tools I've tried. You do have to load some of their JS frameworks but that is no different with JQuery. Writing HTML5/JS by hand is really tedious and difficult to debug.
This is what makes me so mad. Adobe can take the original Flash-created websites and easily convert them to HTML5 based. Why aren't people using it? Oh wait, Adobe overcharges for all their software so it's a simple business decision. It all comes down to money and people can't see past the short term.
Why would Adobe do that?
Adobe software bought and used by website designers. Is that more accurate. If you're asking why would Adobe create software that effectively gets rid of Flash, well they already have (Adobe Animate, formerly Adobe Professional (https://www.adobe.com/products/animate.html). It's "just" $20/mo, forever!
Amazing to think after ten years (which is not a long time to use a piece of software if you are in the business), this one app cost you $2,400 and the meter is still running. As a matter of interest anyone know how Animate stacks up against Hype from Tumult? http://tumult.com/hype/pro/ which just costs $49.95 or $99.99 for the Pro version (one time cost, not a rental).
Amazing to think after ten years (which is not a long time to use a piece of software if you are in the business), this one app cost you $2,400 and the meter is still running. As a matter of interest anyone know how Animate stacks up against Hype from Tumult? http://tumult.com/hype/pro/ which just costs $49.95 or $99.99 for the Pro version (one time cost, not a rental).
For developing a full blown web app, you'd be able to code the entire app within CC Animate. Hype is more for smaller animations but experienced developers can integrate Hype animations outside the app. Hype doesn't use Canvas or WebGL though, so it's unusable for any kind of game development:
Canvas and WebGL are hardware accelerated rasterizing buffers, which are essential when you need to draw lots of elements on screen and do things like maps. Hype outputs plain HTML elements.
Adobe software is expensive but Adobe employs a lot of people (>14,000). The Hype company looks like it has 4 people:
That is essentially what determines the difference in the software prices. It takes a lot of people to manage complex, powerful software and sustain a business model over decades. Not too many people need to build complex web apps, the vast majority of people will only need to make small web UIs, animated ads etc and apps like Hype would be suitable for this, even for some more advanced interactive documents:
That kind of thing with complex events, object management, audio, heavy animations is best done with a full IDE. There are alternatives to CC Animate for complex web authoring like Unity. The vast majority of uses of Flash online can be replaced with very basic HTML5.
Comments
http://forums.tumult.com/t/webgl-or-webkit-support/1467
Canvas and WebGL are hardware accelerated rasterizing buffers, which are essential when you need to draw lots of elements on screen and do things like maps. Hype outputs plain HTML elements.
Adobe software is expensive but Adobe employs a lot of people (>14,000). The Hype company looks like it has 4 people:
http://tumult.com/company/
That is essentially what determines the difference in the software prices. It takes a lot of people to manage complex, powerful software and sustain a business model over decades. Not too many people need to build complex web apps, the vast majority of people will only need to make small web UIs, animated ads etc and apps like Hype would be suitable for this, even for some more advanced interactive documents:
http://tumult.com/hype/gallery/
A game like the following would be much harder to make with Hype:
http://play.famobi.com/fruita-crush
You can see some of the code that goes into it:
http://api.famobi.com/assets/0.1.34-c1e8d25f/js/gameapi.js
That kind of thing with complex events, object management, audio, heavy animations is best done with a full IDE. There are alternatives to CC Animate for complex web authoring like Unity. The vast majority of uses of Flash online can be replaced with very basic HTML5.