there are many posts about how bloated and hogish flash is, apple doensn't need flash and flash will become more irrelevant, adobe knows that this is why it keeps trying to get press about how "it will come to the iphone"--not iphone has defined the new moble paradigm just like windows did in the late 90's
some business insight: you buy an asset if it helps your business fulfill its strategic path.
adobe adds NOTHING to apple,
apple is developing the new paradigm, and flash, adobe is not part of it.
I am a apple stockholder, and buying adobe unless clearly addressed by SJ himself on how it helps build up apple, would cause me great concern of the apple leadership
simple
adobe needs apple MORE than apple needs adobe
adobe simply put adds no value to apple's vision....if so show me how
It would be a lot cheaper just to do a secret Photoshop clone (iPhoto Pro?) over a few years - I bet Apple has one already, just to hedge out the risk that Adobe goes Windows only.
I would like to see Apple and Microsoft support a Flash-like independent standard that isn't under the control of Adobe. I mean, seriously, do you really want another company monopolizing something else? The cable company and Microsoft are enough as it is...
I would like to see Apple and Microsoft support a Flash-like independent standard that isn't under the control of Adobe. I mean, seriously, do you really want another company monopolizing something else? The cable company and Microsoft are enough as it is...
MS doesnt control shit.
there is no reason for you to HAVE to use MS stuff, hell it would be cheaper to NOT use them, the reason a lot of people do is because they know the name, it is the standard, but you can easily get around using it if you so choose.
I don't think it's a bad idea - people have too many hopes for HTML5 and CSS3. The animation capabilities won't even come close to what Flash can do and how long will it take for someone to develop an IDE to the level that Adobe has with Flash CS3 with a full actionscript language and hundreds of thousands of graphics assets and templates?
I'd kind of prefer not to have animated ads done in HTML5 or CSS3 because right now, I can turn Flash off. There's no mechanism to disable CSS animation in browsers.
So what does flash do that HTML5 etc can't? Special effects: particles, blurs, animated video contexts, cross platform video, easily embedded content that won't risk disrupting the flow of code when included.
Developers will still aim for compliance and they can pretty much be assured of Flash 5+ compliance for 95% of computer users. HTML5 and CSS3 will take ages to gain any traction.
Flash has a number of downsides like having to author a single file on every change and having to run through an interpreter/plugin. It will also have a ton of legacy junk code. It's better to start with a modern, efficient standard but why has it taken so long? Sometimes open standards are the worst for progress because too many people decide what gets done and how.
If Adobe include some amazing feature in Flash 11, when is the open standard going to compete with it?
So what does flash do that HTML5 etc can't? Special effects: particles, blurs, animated video contexts, cross platform video, easily embedded content that won't risk disrupting the flow of code when included.
Its true that HTML cannot do many of these functions today. But its a long work in progress and most of these functions are planned in the spec. The question I would ask is exactly how functionally useful are many of these effects outside of creating annoying animations.
Quote:
Developers will still aim for compliance and they can pretty much be assured of Flash 5+ compliance for 95% of computer users. HTML5 and CSS3 will take ages to gain any traction.
The mobile internet is quickly growing and largely new with no dominant development standard. The most influential mobile platforms (Apple, Google, Nokia, Palm) are building their platforms based on HTML/CSS/Javascript. This technology has already gained crucial traction, Adobe is scrambling so that Flash does not get left behind.
It's true that HTML cannot do many of these functions today. But its a long work in progress and most of these functions are planned in the spec. The question I would ask is exactly how functionally useful are many of these effects outside of creating annoying animations.
The Flash Platform is powerful and ubiquitous, across platforms, inside the browser and on the desktop, occasionally connected online and offline, on computers and other devices .... and what are you comparing it to? - JavaScript!? You're joking, right?
ActionScript 3 is a well thought-out object-oriented language, with powerful features, a wealth of third-party classes, and a joy to program.
In answer to your question... do we really need all this power for anything more than annoying animations? - well... Yes! Of course we do.
Consider the capabilities of desktop applications and the control they have over what's displayed on the screen. Not only the graphics capabilities that you mention. You didn't bring up the text capabilities of the Flash 10 player, or the Text Layout Framework... so I'm bringing it up now.
If a desktop application has this kind of control over its user interface - why should an internet application be at a disadvantage? The comparison between the desktop and the browser is pertinent because RIAs are getting closer to the capabilities of the desktop. This is a trend. And Adobe are doing more than anyone to empower this trend.
I've written a powerful illustration application using AIR, and utilising some of the graphics capabilities that you refer to. It's not an "annoying animation" as you put it. Although still a beta, it indicates just how sophisticated RIAs might be.
Where I will agree with people on this thread is that Graphic Designers have used Flash to create a lot of pointless bloated eye-candy... and they've given the Flash Platform a bad reputation. Alas, the Flash and Flex authoring tools both contribute to bloating, although a programmer can get round this if need-be.
In answer to your question... do we really need all this power for anything more than annoying animations? - well... Yes! Of course we do.
Consider the capabilities of desktop applications and the control they have over what's displayed on the screen. Not only the graphics capabilities that you mention. You didn't bring up the text capabilities of the Flash 10 player, or the Text Layout Framework... so I'm bringing it up now.
That all may be true but no one is currently making productive use of these capabilities.
Quote:
If a desktop application has this kind of control over its user interface - why should an internet application be at a disadvantage? The comparison between the desktop and the browser is pertinent because RIAs are getting closer to the capabilities of the desktop. This is a trend. And Adobe are doing more than anyone to empower this trend.
I've written a powerful illustration application using AIR, and utilising some of the graphics capabilities that you refer to. It's not an "annoying animation" as you put it. Although still a beta, it indicates just how sophisticated RIAs might be.
Adobe is not doing the most. Adobe is basically the largest developer and backer of Flash. Adobe is attempting to develop Air into a major web development platform, but for the most part no one is excited about it. Targeting web applications for the desktop is the wrong trend, their isn't a need for web applications on the desktop.
Web applications on handheld devices is the big trend. Handheld devices need web applications. Google, Mozilla, Palm, W3C, Webkit, Apple are all pushing development of HTML/CSS/javascript/SVG for mobile web applications. None of these platform support Flash as a development tool and it will be difficult for Adobe to push Flash development by itself.
That all may be true but no one is currently making productive use of these capabilities.
On the contrary, I think some of the AIR applications are very impressive. What's really going to unleash the potential of Flash applications is a vibrant marketplace for these apps (money), which brings me to your second point...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Web applications on handheld devices is the big trend. Handheld devices need web applications.
I agree. But I believe that it is inevitable that the evolution of such devices will involve the ubiquitous (browser/desktop/device) Flash platform.
By the way, when the thread starter wrote...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BB Sting
make it compatible with a simple text editor.
... what did he mean by this?
By the way, who remembers Electrifier Pro? (The Quicktime-based contender to Flash)
On the contrary, I think some of the AIR applications are very impressive. What's really going to unleash the potential of Flash applications is a vibrant marketplace for these apps (money), which brings me to your second point...
I agree. But I believe that it is inevitable that the evolution of such devices will involve the ubiquitous (browser/desktop/device) Flash platform.
From what I have seen sites that make heavy use of Flash as a UI tend to be slow. They look nice but you can create a good site that does just about as much with HTML, CSS, and Javascript that works a lot smoother. They can also be problematic in execution giving slow script errors in Safari. Then there is the whole plugin model, sure the flash plugin is on most computers but is it the right version?
Flash has it's place, but it will take more and more of a backseat to Javascript and CSS in the future and portable device developers will continue to use the dev kits for those devices to make the fastest and most reliable apps for those devices.
As for Apple buying Adobe, not sure if they could or if it would be a good idea due to potential anti-trust issues with such a purchase. A lot of Adobe's technology like fonts, pdf, and post script printing are the backbone to output on most OS's and the courts might not allow Apple or Microsoft to gain control of Adobe for those reasons.
Is this like a fantasy discussion or real world situation discussions?
I mean NO ONE has even mention how financially is Adobe worth buying.
10 Billion to buy Adobe is TO expensive. Flash and Photoshop doesn't worth that much.
Compare HTML / CSS to Flash is like apple to orange. It should be SVG instead.
Apart from Flash and Photoshop, i dont see anything inside Adobe that is worth buying. Apple are not interested in maintaining more and more Windows Apps.
Photoshop and Flash doesn't worth 10billion to get.
Adobe has a lot of assets that are valuable besides Flash and PhotoShop:
Postscript. Still the heavyweight in the printing industry and high end printers, and Adobe gets a licensing fee from every printer sold with Postscript installed.
PDF. Next to Word it is the closest thing to a standard in electronic documents at every level of computing. It has also become the standard document format for delivering printer ready files for prepress. To get the most out of it and take advantage of the features you need Acrobat Pro so this is also a revenue generator. Don't forget that Apple's Quartz is based at least in part on PDF.
Fonts. Adobe has a very large font library of some of the most common fonts used today. I would imagine that every commercial printer has thier full library as well as most design studio's. There is also probably a large percentage of regular computer usere who have some of them that they have either bought or they recieved with a software install( ie licensed by the softwre developer from Adobe which again creates revenue for Adobe).
Dreamweaver. Like it or not it is one of the most used web development platforms.
InDesign. Quickly becoming the defacto king of DTP, and with the addtion of interactive features for PDF creation will continue to be relavent as we move more to electronic document delivery.
Illustrator. Still a heavyweight in vector artwork creation for the publishing industry.
After Effects. Still a solid condender in professional video production.
There are probable a lot of other technologies which could be attractive as well either for the product or the technologies behind them. For this reason I would be surprised if Apple could even buy Adobe, especially with the Anti-trust scrutiny that would come with it and the fight Microsoft would be sure to lead against such a merger.
Adobe has a lot of assets that are valuable besides Flash and PhotoShop:
Postscript. Still the heavyweight in the printing industry and high end printers, and Adobe gets a licensing fee from every printer sold with Postscript installed.
PDF. Next to Word it is the closest thing to a standard in electronic documents at every level of computing. It has also become the standard document format for delivering printer ready files for prepress. To get the most out of it and take advantage of the features you need Acrobat Pro so this is also a revenue generator. Don't forget that Apple's Quartz is based at least in part on PDF.
Fonts. Adobe has a very large font library of some of the most common fonts used today. I would imagine that every commercial printer has thier full library as well as most design studio's. There is also probably a large percentage of regular computer usere who have some of them that they have either bought or they recieved with a software install( ie licensed by the softwre developer from Adobe which again creates revenue for Adobe).
Dreamweaver. Like it or not it is one of the most used web development platforms.
InDesign. Quickly becoming the defacto king of DTP, and with the addtion of interactive features for PDF creation will continue to be relavent as we move more to electronic document delivery.
Illustrator. Still a heavyweight in vector artwork creation for the publishing industry.
After Effects. Still a solid condender in professional video production.
There are probable a lot of other technologies which could be attractive as well either for the product or the technologies behind them. For this reason I would be surprised if Apple could even buy Adobe, especially with the Anti-trust scrutiny that would come with it and the fight Microsoft would be sure to lead against such a merger.
What are you trying to say here? That these relics/artifiacts of the 90s should be bought? Or preserved? Or that they're going to remain valuable? This stuff may be the de facto standard now or maybe it was a few years ago...but are you saying they'll remain standard for a long time?
Times are changing fast. I don't think these assets will be worth much in the near future.
Comments
NOW ITS APPLE'S TURN.
FLUSH FLASH
Web standards should remain simple, open, and completely interoperable.
adobe adds NOTHING to apple,
apple is developing the new paradigm, and flash, adobe is not part of it.
I am a apple stockholder, and buying adobe unless clearly addressed by SJ himself on how it helps build up apple, would cause me great concern of the apple leadership
simple
adobe needs apple MORE than apple needs adobe
adobe simply put adds no value to apple's vision....if so show me how
I would like to see Apple and Microsoft support a Flash-like independent standard that isn't under the control of Adobe. I mean, seriously, do you really want another company monopolizing something else? The cable company and Microsoft are enough as it is...
MS doesnt control shit.
there is no reason for you to HAVE to use MS stuff, hell it would be cheaper to NOT use them, the reason a lot of people do is because they know the name, it is the standard, but you can easily get around using it if you so choose.
I'd kind of prefer not to have animated ads done in HTML5 or CSS3 because right now, I can turn Flash off. There's no mechanism to disable CSS animation in browsers.
So what does flash do that HTML5 etc can't? Special effects: particles, blurs, animated video contexts, cross platform video, easily embedded content that won't risk disrupting the flow of code when included.
Developers will still aim for compliance and they can pretty much be assured of Flash 5+ compliance for 95% of computer users. HTML5 and CSS3 will take ages to gain any traction.
Flash has a number of downsides like having to author a single file on every change and having to run through an interpreter/plugin. It will also have a ton of legacy junk code. It's better to start with a modern, efficient standard but why has it taken so long? Sometimes open standards are the worst for progress because too many people decide what gets done and how.
If Adobe include some amazing feature in Flash 11, when is the open standard going to compete with it?
So what does flash do that HTML5 etc can't? Special effects: particles, blurs, animated video contexts, cross platform video, easily embedded content that won't risk disrupting the flow of code when included.
Its true that HTML cannot do many of these functions today. But its a long work in progress and most of these functions are planned in the spec. The question I would ask is exactly how functionally useful are many of these effects outside of creating annoying animations.
Developers will still aim for compliance and they can pretty much be assured of Flash 5+ compliance for 95% of computer users. HTML5 and CSS3 will take ages to gain any traction.
The mobile internet is quickly growing and largely new with no dominant development standard. The most influential mobile platforms (Apple, Google, Nokia, Palm) are building their platforms based on HTML/CSS/Javascript. This technology has already gained crucial traction, Adobe is scrambling so that Flash does not get left behind.
Flash sucks. Web designers who use it for site navigation should be shot.
Amen brother! IMO, flash has kind of ruined the internet....
I'm actually glad its not available on the iPhone. If it ever comes available, there better be a way to disable it too!
It's true that HTML cannot do many of these functions today. But its a long work in progress and most of these functions are planned in the spec. The question I would ask is exactly how functionally useful are many of these effects outside of creating annoying animations.
The Flash Platform is powerful and ubiquitous, across platforms, inside the browser and on the desktop, occasionally connected online and offline, on computers and other devices .... and what are you comparing it to? - JavaScript!? You're joking, right?
ActionScript 3 is a well thought-out object-oriented language, with powerful features, a wealth of third-party classes, and a joy to program.
In answer to your question... do we really need all this power for anything more than annoying animations? - well... Yes! Of course we do.
Consider the capabilities of desktop applications and the control they have over what's displayed on the screen. Not only the graphics capabilities that you mention. You didn't bring up the text capabilities of the Flash 10 player, or the Text Layout Framework... so I'm bringing it up now.
If a desktop application has this kind of control over its user interface - why should an internet application be at a disadvantage? The comparison between the desktop and the browser is pertinent because RIAs are getting closer to the capabilities of the desktop. This is a trend. And Adobe are doing more than anyone to empower this trend.
I've written a powerful illustration application using AIR, and utilising some of the graphics capabilities that you refer to. It's not an "annoying animation" as you put it. Although still a beta, it indicates just how sophisticated RIAs might be.
Where I will agree with people on this thread is that Graphic Designers have used Flash to create a lot of pointless bloated eye-candy... and they've given the Flash Platform a bad reputation. Alas, the Flash and Flex authoring tools both contribute to bloating, although a programmer can get round this if need-be.
In answer to your question... do we really need all this power for anything more than annoying animations? - well... Yes! Of course we do.
Consider the capabilities of desktop applications and the control they have over what's displayed on the screen. Not only the graphics capabilities that you mention. You didn't bring up the text capabilities of the Flash 10 player, or the Text Layout Framework... so I'm bringing it up now.
That all may be true but no one is currently making productive use of these capabilities.
If a desktop application has this kind of control over its user interface - why should an internet application be at a disadvantage? The comparison between the desktop and the browser is pertinent because RIAs are getting closer to the capabilities of the desktop. This is a trend. And Adobe are doing more than anyone to empower this trend.
I've written a powerful illustration application using AIR, and utilising some of the graphics capabilities that you refer to. It's not an "annoying animation" as you put it. Although still a beta, it indicates just how sophisticated RIAs might be.
Adobe is not doing the most. Adobe is basically the largest developer and backer of Flash. Adobe is attempting to develop Air into a major web development platform, but for the most part no one is excited about it. Targeting web applications for the desktop is the wrong trend, their isn't a need for web applications on the desktop.
Web applications on handheld devices is the big trend. Handheld devices need web applications. Google, Mozilla, Palm, W3C, Webkit, Apple are all pushing development of HTML/CSS/javascript/SVG for mobile web applications. None of these platform support Flash as a development tool and it will be difficult for Adobe to push Flash development by itself.
That all may be true but no one is currently making productive use of these capabilities.
On the contrary, I think some of the AIR applications are very impressive. What's really going to unleash the potential of Flash applications is a vibrant marketplace for these apps (money), which brings me to your second point...
Web applications on handheld devices is the big trend. Handheld devices need web applications.
I agree. But I believe that it is inevitable that the evolution of such devices will involve the ubiquitous (browser/desktop/device) Flash platform.
By the way, when the thread starter wrote...
make it compatible with a simple text editor.
... what did he mean by this?
By the way, who remembers Electrifier Pro? (The Quicktime-based contender to Flash)
On the contrary, I think some of the AIR applications are very impressive. What's really going to unleash the potential of Flash applications is a vibrant marketplace for these apps (money), which brings me to your second point...
I agree. But I believe that it is inevitable that the evolution of such devices will involve the ubiquitous (browser/desktop/device) Flash platform.
From what I have seen sites that make heavy use of Flash as a UI tend to be slow. They look nice but you can create a good site that does just about as much with HTML, CSS, and Javascript that works a lot smoother. They can also be problematic in execution giving slow script errors in Safari. Then there is the whole plugin model, sure the flash plugin is on most computers but is it the right version?
Flash has it's place, but it will take more and more of a backseat to Javascript and CSS in the future and portable device developers will continue to use the dev kits for those devices to make the fastest and most reliable apps for those devices.
As for Apple buying Adobe, not sure if they could or if it would be a good idea due to potential anti-trust issues with such a purchase. A lot of Adobe's technology like fonts, pdf, and post script printing are the backbone to output on most OS's and the courts might not allow Apple or Microsoft to gain control of Adobe for those reasons.
I mean NO ONE has even mention how financially is Adobe worth buying.
10 Billion to buy Adobe is TO expensive. Flash and Photoshop doesn't worth that much.
Compare HTML / CSS to Flash is like apple to orange. It should be SVG instead.
Apart from Flash and Photoshop, i dont see anything inside Adobe that is worth buying. Apple are not interested in maintaining more and more Windows Apps.
Photoshop and Flash doesn't worth 10billion to get.
- Postscript. Still the heavyweight in the printing industry and high end printers, and Adobe gets a licensing fee from every printer sold with Postscript installed.
- PDF. Next to Word it is the closest thing to a standard in electronic documents at every level of computing. It has also become the standard document format for delivering printer ready files for prepress. To get the most out of it and take advantage of the features you need Acrobat Pro so this is also a revenue generator. Don't forget that Apple's Quartz is based at least in part on PDF.
- Fonts. Adobe has a very large font library of some of the most common fonts used today. I would imagine that every commercial printer has thier full library as well as most design studio's. There is also probably a large percentage of regular computer usere who have some of them that they have either bought or they recieved with a software install( ie licensed by the softwre developer from Adobe which again creates revenue for Adobe).
- Dreamweaver. Like it or not it is one of the most used web development platforms.
- InDesign. Quickly becoming the defacto king of DTP, and with the addtion of interactive features for PDF creation will continue to be relavent as we move more to electronic document delivery.
- Illustrator. Still a heavyweight in vector artwork creation for the publishing industry.
- After Effects. Still a solid condender in professional video production.
There are probable a lot of other technologies which could be attractive as well either for the product or the technologies behind them. For this reason I would be surprised if Apple could even buy Adobe, especially with the Anti-trust scrutiny that would come with it and the fight Microsoft would be sure to lead against such a merger.Adobe has a lot of assets that are valuable besides Flash and PhotoShop:
- Postscript. Still the heavyweight in the printing industry and high end printers, and Adobe gets a licensing fee from every printer sold with Postscript installed.
- PDF. Next to Word it is the closest thing to a standard in electronic documents at every level of computing. It has also become the standard document format for delivering printer ready files for prepress. To get the most out of it and take advantage of the features you need Acrobat Pro so this is also a revenue generator. Don't forget that Apple's Quartz is based at least in part on PDF.
- Fonts. Adobe has a very large font library of some of the most common fonts used today. I would imagine that every commercial printer has thier full library as well as most design studio's. There is also probably a large percentage of regular computer usere who have some of them that they have either bought or they recieved with a software install( ie licensed by the softwre developer from Adobe which again creates revenue for Adobe).
- Dreamweaver. Like it or not it is one of the most used web development platforms.
- InDesign. Quickly becoming the defacto king of DTP, and with the addtion of interactive features for PDF creation will continue to be relavent as we move more to electronic document delivery.
- Illustrator. Still a heavyweight in vector artwork creation for the publishing industry.
- After Effects. Still a solid condender in professional video production.
There are probable a lot of other technologies which could be attractive as well either for the product or the technologies behind them. For this reason I would be surprised if Apple could even buy Adobe, especially with the Anti-trust scrutiny that would come with it and the fight Microsoft would be sure to lead against such a merger.What are you trying to say here? That these relics/artifiacts of the 90s should be bought? Or preserved? Or that they're going to remain valuable? This stuff may be the de facto standard now or maybe it was a few years ago...but are you saying they'll remain standard for a long time?
Times are changing fast. I don't think these assets will be worth much in the near future.