I hate flash because it is buggy and it is slow even on wicked fast machines. Sometimes I get an error window that lists about two dozen concurrent flash errors. HTML5 and Canvas are very exciting. I went through the list of Canvas examples that another poster suggested and not one error and very snappy performance.
Sounds like you're running the debug version of the Flash Player which is not meant for normal day to day use, but for debugging. This reveals shoddy Flash work and runtime errors which you'll see all over the web including YouTube. This isn't Adobe's fault, but the developers. Flash can run light and efficiently, its just common that people with no CS background create Flash content which runs horribly (especially in Mac OS X, which is Adobe's fault). It's not a perfect platform, but there are few that are. I think Flash a the video standard will be the start of its decline, but until IE supports Canvas (doesn't look likely), don't expect sans-Flash ubiquity.
It's posters (and too many) like this which keep me from coming back regularly to the AI boards.
Sounds like you're running the debug version of the Flash Player which is not meant for normal day to day use, but for debugging. This reveals shoddy Flash work and runtime errors which you'll see all over the web including YouTube. This isn't Adobe's fault, but the developers. Flash can run light and efficiently, its just common that people with no CS background create Flash content which runs horribly (especially in Mac OS X, which is Adobe's fault). It's not a perfect platform, but there are few that are. I think Flash a the video standard will be the start of its decline, but until IE supports Canvas (doesn't look likely), don't expect sans-Flash ubiquity.
It's posters (and too many) like this which keep me from coming back regularly to the AI boards.
Flash is inherently heavy. Good devs can make it lighter but it's still an issue that several areas of open source code are better at.
At this point, Canvas is not one of them for many heavy tasks but that may very well change as it evolves.
I have doubts he's running the debug version of Flash. In SL, when a process crashes there is usually an error window that pops up to get sent to Apple. I had the Flash plug-in crash on me twice yesterday, which is odd because it usually doesn't do that, but I am retesting 10.1 Beta (no debug).
I agree that Canvas won't be that common without IE's support. Canvas is just too processor heavy for any "Flashy" usage and like Flash it's just not a good fit for a mobile device at this point.
From reading this article it sounds to me that there is an internal fight with respect to the scope and ability of HTML5.
From the goals and scope of the WHATWG and it supporters, they do want HTML5 to completely replace Flash. While the W3C has members who would prefer to limit the scope of HTML5 so that it does not so directly compete with their services.
Ideally, I'd like to see the W3C take its consensus-based process seriously, and the WHATWG agree to abide by that.
Realistically, I just can't see either part of that happening. The W3C is too willing to bend; the WHATWG too unwilling. That seems to leave two options:
1)The W3C continues its wobbly HTML5 process, lending its imprimatur to a specification over which it has little real control, or
2)The WHATWG decides that the W3C's imprimatur isn't worth the effort of the process, drops the cooperation with the W3C, and fractures the HTML world severely.
I suspect that in the end, the WHATWG will take choice #2, likely because W3C members (like Adobe) rightly insist that the W3C behave like the organization it's claimed to be all these years.
It never ceases to amaze me here that so many have the "Apple can do no wrong" mindset.
Does nobody stop to ask why Flash works fine 99.999% of the time in Windows XP on 5 year old computers, as well as in Windows 7 on brand new computers, but is so frequently unusable on modern Apple computers with similar configurations, and totally unusable on iPhones, iPads, etc?
Could Apple not be involved in the problems?
Does the fact that Apple doesn't even attempt to make Flash work on its new devices, or the fiasco with CS4 when Apple waited until the last possible moment to tell Adobe there wouldn't be 64-bit Carbon after all (thus killing the possibility of 64-bit CS4 on the Apple platform while it exists on the Windows side) not make you think that Apple itself is maybe a large part of the problem?
I won't disagree that Flash is a rather bloated system, but there's no denying a major part of the web currently uses it, and will continue using it for a long time. There's also no reason to believe Adobe won't be making improvements on Flash in the future, either. For Microsoft to stick it's head in the sand and bar Flash from their mobiles in order to push Silverlight is counterproductive, as is Apple's decision to do the same and cross their fingers that HTML5 replaces all web programming before the iPad launches. (Remember when XHTML was expected to largely replace HTML 4.01 about 10 years ago? Hasn't happened yet. Does anyone really think that all of the millions of people who code and program in HTML 4.01 and Flash are going to switch to HTML 5 and ditch all of their previous experience to learn the new format? How long will that take?).
Anyways, this is an Apple fansite, so I guess I can't expect any other point of view, but if I could change 2 things about Apple, it would be having them improve their system's compatibility with Flash, which is practically a web standard now, and start supporting FLAC rather than the shit audio it pushes through the iTunes ecosystem...
I'm a member of the HTML WG, but I'm not speaking for the HTML WG, or W3C. I'm only expressing my opinion, and what I know to be facts. I'm also not an employee of Google, Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, or any other company (I'm a writer, for O'Reilly).
There is no truth to this rumor. The posting here is inaccurate. Grossly inaccurate I would add.
How would you know? You're not on the private mailing list.
"Since w3c-archive is Member-confidential, I'm not sure if I can convey
any more information than that on a public list. It is up to the
persons involved to decide whether to post any information publicly."
This was an issue that has been under discussion, off and on, on the publicly accessible HTML WG for months. It has to do with scope and charter, not the specifications themselves.
And they told you on the mailing list that this issue was already addressed by the WG chairs:
"Larry,
the scope of the charter says:
"This group will maintain and produce incremental revisions to the HTML
specification"
and the deliverables indicates:
"a language evolved from HTML4 for describing the semantics of documents
and applications on the World Wide Web."
I don't think it sets boundaries on what ought to be part of the HTML
specification. Whether the figure, video, or data-* is inside the HTML5
specification or in an adjunct doesn't make a difference. We've been
encourage on several occasion to modularize the HTML specification
itself in fact. The Context 2D API was part of the HTML5 specification
even before the creation of the charter and was accepted as such by the
Working Group. One can argue that the scope of the working group is too
broad or too vague, but that's the scope that has been approved by the
W3C and its Director. The charter itself is up for renewal (or extension
by the Director) at the end of the year. That's an opportunity we can
The Adobe representative to the HTML WG registered his concerns about the fact that the HTML WG is working on specifications that push, or exceed the group's charter. This includes Microdata, RDFa-in-HTML, and the 2D Canvas API.
And this assertion is rebutted:
"I cannot comment on the contents of the mails in the private lists,
but that mail from Larry Masinter is not the entire story. There are
further relevant details that are hidden in a member-only list, which
is what I explicitly disapprove of in my last email.
Next time I would ask that you all, please, withhold judgment until you actually have facts, rather than innuendo.
I would say the same of you. You accused the Google and Opera reps as essentially lying and creating FUD while you have zero visibility into the private mailing list.
If Larry has been making problems for HTML5 (and related specs that the chairs believe are part of the charter) in private emails it's pretty hinky from the get go and not at all defensible.
"I would like to register my strong disapproval of this entire affair.
This was an abuse of the member-only lists. Any Objection, potential
or not, should *always* take place on the public list. I am
disappointed in the author of the private emails for their actions.
I am glad that the Chairs are pretending that it doesn't exist until
it becomes public. It should never have *not* been public, however.
This is not conducive to open standards development. Such actions
should be condemned by all responsible parties in this working group.
Or are you calling TJ a liar and FUDster as well? Because from where I sit, with the same access to info that you do (ie the public mailing list) you look like an Adobe shill. Especially given that has bothered to run around to random forums to defend Adobe which no other WG folks have bothered to do and attempt to squelch external discussion based on your "authority" on the matter.
I'm a Software Analyst/Trainer here in NYC and i remember when I worked at Y&R advertising in NY back in 1999/2000/2001 when Adumbe decided that they would leave the Mac crowd behind on the Photoshop releases because Windoze users were more important (financially speaking probably) so they would always release a PC Windoze version with all the bells and whistles and make US Apple Mac users wait until the next version release to get what the PC crowd was getting first, never mind that the entire creative dept at the Ad agency i worked at and probably ALL the Ad agencies creative dept's use MAC's for creating ads and magazines but Adumbe just left the Macs out in the cold and now they are paying for it APPLE is single handily KILLING FLASH by not using it on the iphone or on the ipad and now HTML5 with be non-FLASH dependent... serves them RIGHT!!!! can't wait until APPLE makes a PHOTOSHOP KILLER!!!! dammit a CS5/CS6/CS7/CS8 KILLER TOO... screw adobe- they tried to KILL FLASH in its origins remember?? (boy how soon we forget!!) when FLASH PAPER came out and was going to replace ADOBE ACROBAT as a better alternative to Adobe's PDF reader- and when Macromedia had SHOCKWAVE and DREAMWEAVER was making in roads and taking market share away from PAGEMAKER-- so Adumbe just decided to BUY OUT MACROMEDIA then kill FLASH PAPER well I cannot wait until APPLE and THE INTERNET KILLS FLASH....AND ADUMBE
Calm down boy. Adobe realized that the Mac market is just too small to justify its best efforts. Just because YOU use a Mac doesn't mean that companies should use their scarce resouces for YOUR benefit, when there's so many other folks that they could be addressing.
Since when has the Mac EVER had the newest and best software? That comes with market share, which Apple has never been able to capture.
I didn't think this would have been a story or I would have submitted it a couple days ago. Anyway, I think Canvas as a real threat is a ways off. There would need to be a proper development tool that is as easy as Flash, which will take awhile, but Adobe should be scared of this impending threat. They've already lost video streaming to HTML5; it's all down hill for Adobe on that front.
One thing to note is that Canvas can be very processor intensive, just like Flash. At think point Flash is a much better alternative but I'm certain that won't be the case in a couple years.
Canvas works on the iPhone and likely Android phones though many aspects won't be usable because, like Flash, it is designed for a keyboard and mouse, not multi-touch. Like Flash, you can also see your phone have issue with the CPU-heavy uses of Canvas.
First of all, CPU usage on my Mac was really not all that bad when messing with some of the canvas demos, especially considering the graphics were all smooth for me with canvas apps but a simple flash animation might spike my CPU to like 80% with choppy graphics. The apps were also very snappy for me.
I also like the fact that if the animation is not occuring it isn't still hogging up CPU. Flash just seems to hog CPU like crazy for no explainable reason.
Like many others though our main frustration with Flash is that it is over used & everywhere. Even most banner ads are flash! Add to that how crappy flash video is & how it crashes the browser half the time I think we've all just had enough of the excuses.
Here is a better link for testing canvas apps, a lot more to choose from.
Calm down boy. Adobe realized that the Mac market is just too small to justify its best efforts. Just because YOU use a Mac doesn't mean that companies should use their scarce resouces for YOUR benefit, when there's so many other folks that they could be addressing.
Since when has the Mac EVER had the newest and best software? That comes with market share, which Apple has never been able to capture.
Approaching software development simply from a numbers standpoint is actually a terrible business model. Adobe sells a niche product & overall PC numbers don't really mean much, they have to look at what user types actually use their product.
All that being said though, Adobe mostly abandoned Apple because they were failing to progress & innovate the way they did back when they were actually Adobe's preferred platform. A lot of Mac users forget that Apple had a dark day in their history where they almost went the way of the dodo. Now that Macs are making a come back Adobe is taking up interest again.
Also, Apple has had a lot of major platform changes that have actually made development difficult for Adobe. Windows has remained largely unchanged, they've just been throwing a lot of lipstick on that pig. There are also differences in release times revolving around OS release dates.
Point being, it simply isn't as simple as overall market share or Adobe "abandoning Macs". Good graphics designers have recognized this & realized that having the new CS version on their platform first doesn't mean they are going to be able to create better graphics. Printing & Graphics industries have long used Macs because when really taxed the Macs just perform.
Most of this article, "Adobe working to sabotage HTML5," are by and large completely false.
w00master
Why? The blog posted nothing new. Larry still hasn't made public his private emails to the list so it's just he said she said stuff from both sides. Until those messages are made public only the members who can see them know what was actually written. Everything you see outside is just spin on what happened after the fact. That includes what Google wrote but really it's up to Larry to release the original emails for all to see.
Anyone that has been on standard committees understand there's a bit of sausage making process in there along with the usual backchannel chatter and deals and that some participants are more "equal" than others.
My guess is that Larry made some veiled (and therefore deniable) threats to private mailing lists to the effect that if Google pushes Adobe too hard that there are all these "issues" that could be raised. You know, ones that are meant to "improve the process" and fix a few "problems with the spec". Here's a little taste hixie: "I don't think that MicroData, RDFa and Canvas2D are in scope for the charter." I'm going to mention this in the public lists without making a formal complaint...but you know, I really could do a formal complaint but I'm a nice guy who want's to work with everyone and make sure HTML5 is the bestest spec ever...but gee, rechartering the group DOES take a long time doesn't it?
Hickson's twitter would then be calling Adobe's bluff..."try that and you'll look like the bad guy...here's a little taste of how easy that will be...".
Which is exactly what happened (Adobe looking like the bad guy regardless of what really happened) and why Adobe has been playing defense and denying being obstructionist ever since Friday. Ooops.
Not really. It's just a big jump standards document-wise as HTML was allowed to meander on it's own for way too long. But quite a bit of it is already in use, just not standardized.
Business concerns will force MS to update IE for HTML5 or IT departments will switch to FF in droves for several reasons.
Calm down boy. Adobe realized that the Mac market is just too small to justify its best efforts. Just because YOU use a Mac doesn't mean that companies should use their scarce resouces for YOUR benefit, when there's so many other folks that they could be addressing.
Macs market share wasn't the problem. Adobe began to invest more Windows back when Windows 95 took over the world. At the time it appeared Apple was going to go out of business. So Adobe bet more on Windows than it did on Apple.
Market share doesn't necessarily correlate directly with sales. Adobe sells just as much of its professional software to Mac users as it does to Windows users. From a percentage standpoint more Mac users are content creators than Windows users.
Quote:
Since when has the Mac EVER had the newest and best software? That comes with market share, which Apple has never been able to capture.
A lot of software was originally made for the Mac before Windows as we know it existed: Photoshop, Word, Illustrator, Excel, Avid. Windows versions were not created until Windows 95.
There are many great applications that are Mac only and don't have an exact Windows compliment.
Its a messy process because there isn't one company developing it. So you have different people with conflicting interests and views trying to come to an agreement for what HTML5 should be. That is the good and bad of open source.
Flash is GPU-accelerated on PCs, it is not on Macs.
Adobe has had a long time to fix this issue, but they haven't done it.
And with iSteve's recent remarks bout them, I think it increasingly unlikely that they will devote resources to such a small segment of computer users.
From what I have seen, most mobile platforms will have Flash, leaving Apple products as floating derelicts on a sea of blue lego pieces.
Well it isn't as though Adobe's customer base is all that large. There aren't very many people spendings $600 on professional software suites. There was a report from some years ago about Adobe's professional sales, cannot find it now.
A disproportionate amount of Macs are used by people who create media and graphics. If you worked in any of the creative or graphic fields you would see what I'm talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius
Yeah? I find that difficult to believe, given that Macs are a tiny sliver of the computer world.
Well it isn't as though Adobe's customer base is all that large. There aren't very many people spendings $600 on professional software suites. There was a report from some years ago about Adobe's professional sales, cannot find it now.
A disproportionate amount of Macs are used by people who create media and graphics. If you worked in any of the creative or graphic fields you would see what I'm talking about.
Back in 2004 Adobe's CEO stated up to 25%. That was when PPC was starting to have performance growth issues and Mac marketshare was considerably lower than today. I think Apple now sells more in a quarter than they did in an entire year in 2004 so it's likely increased in the past 6 years. Then there is also the stats stating Macs in the US account for over 93% of the all PCs over $1000, where you're more likely going to find graphical professionals.
Even without knowing specifics you'd think a self-proclaimed geniuss would have considered Adobe's professional market wouldn't include the cheap notebook and netbooks that make up the majority of PC sales. \
Well it isn't as though Adobe's customer base is all that large. There aren't very many people spendings $600 on professional software suites. There was a report from some years ago about Adobe's professional sales, cannot find it now.
A disproportionate amount of Macs are used by people who create media and graphics. If you worked in any of the creative or graphic fields you would see what I'm talking about.
Something to add to the list is that roughly half of photographers (amateur and pro) are Mac users.
Macs were known to be a mainstay of graphic design users, even in Windows-centric businesses. If anyone has Macs, it's that group. So it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone if Adobe's business disproportionately sells more Mac software than most other software shops.
Comments
I hate flash because it is buggy and it is slow even on wicked fast machines. Sometimes I get an error window that lists about two dozen concurrent flash errors. HTML5 and Canvas are very exciting. I went through the list of Canvas examples that another poster suggested and not one error and very snappy performance.
Sounds like you're running the debug version of the Flash Player which is not meant for normal day to day use, but for debugging. This reveals shoddy Flash work and runtime errors which you'll see all over the web including YouTube. This isn't Adobe's fault, but the developers. Flash can run light and efficiently, its just common that people with no CS background create Flash content which runs horribly (especially in Mac OS X, which is Adobe's fault). It's not a perfect platform, but there are few that are. I think Flash a the video standard will be the start of its decline, but until IE supports Canvas (doesn't look likely), don't expect sans-Flash ubiquity.
It's posters (and too many) like this which keep me from coming back regularly to the AI boards.
Sounds like you're running the debug version of the Flash Player which is not meant for normal day to day use, but for debugging. This reveals shoddy Flash work and runtime errors which you'll see all over the web including YouTube. This isn't Adobe's fault, but the developers. Flash can run light and efficiently, its just common that people with no CS background create Flash content which runs horribly (especially in Mac OS X, which is Adobe's fault). It's not a perfect platform, but there are few that are. I think Flash a the video standard will be the start of its decline, but until IE supports Canvas (doesn't look likely), don't expect sans-Flash ubiquity.
It's posters (and too many) like this which keep me from coming back regularly to the AI boards.
Flash is inherently heavy. Good devs can make it lighter but it's still an issue that several areas of open source code are better at.
At this point, Canvas is not one of them for many heavy tasks but that may very well change as it evolves.
I have doubts he's running the debug version of Flash. In SL, when a process crashes there is usually an error window that pops up to get sent to Apple. I had the Flash plug-in crash on me twice yesterday, which is odd because it usually doesn't do that, but I am retesting 10.1 Beta (no debug).
I agree that Canvas won't be that common without IE's support. Canvas is just too processor heavy for any "Flashy" usage and like Flash it's just not a good fit for a mobile device at this point.
From the goals and scope of the WHATWG and it supporters, they do want HTML5 to completely replace Flash. While the W3C has members who would prefer to limit the scope of HTML5 so that it does not so directly compete with their services.
Ideally, I'd like to see the W3C take its consensus-based process seriously, and the WHATWG agree to abide by that.
Realistically, I just can't see either part of that happening. The W3C is too willing to bend; the WHATWG too unwilling. That seems to leave two options:
1)The W3C continues its wobbly HTML5 process, lending its imprimatur to a specification over which it has little real control, or
2)The WHATWG decides that the W3C's imprimatur isn't worth the effort of the process, drops the cooperation with the W3C, and fractures the HTML world severely.
I suspect that in the end, the WHATWG will take choice #2, likely because W3C members (like Adobe) rightly insist that the W3C behave like the organization it's claimed to be all these years.
The Widening HTML5 Chasm
Does nobody stop to ask why Flash works fine 99.999% of the time in Windows XP on 5 year old computers, as well as in Windows 7 on brand new computers, but is so frequently unusable on modern Apple computers with similar configurations, and totally unusable on iPhones, iPads, etc?
Could Apple not be involved in the problems?
Does the fact that Apple doesn't even attempt to make Flash work on its new devices, or the fiasco with CS4 when Apple waited until the last possible moment to tell Adobe there wouldn't be 64-bit Carbon after all (thus killing the possibility of 64-bit CS4 on the Apple platform while it exists on the Windows side) not make you think that Apple itself is maybe a large part of the problem?
I won't disagree that Flash is a rather bloated system, but there's no denying a major part of the web currently uses it, and will continue using it for a long time. There's also no reason to believe Adobe won't be making improvements on Flash in the future, either. For Microsoft to stick it's head in the sand and bar Flash from their mobiles in order to push Silverlight is counterproductive, as is Apple's decision to do the same and cross their fingers that HTML5 replaces all web programming before the iPad launches. (Remember when XHTML was expected to largely replace HTML 4.01 about 10 years ago? Hasn't happened yet. Does anyone really think that all of the millions of people who code and program in HTML 4.01 and Flash are going to switch to HTML 5 and ditch all of their previous experience to learn the new format? How long will that take?).
Anyways, this is an Apple fansite, so I guess I can't expect any other point of view, but if I could change 2 things about Apple, it would be having them improve their system's compatibility with Flash, which is practically a web standard now, and start supporting FLAC rather than the shit audio it pushes through the iTunes ecosystem...
I'm a member of the HTML WG, but I'm not speaking for the HTML WG, or W3C. I'm only expressing my opinion, and what I know to be facts. I'm also not an employee of Google, Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, or any other company (I'm a writer, for O'Reilly).
There is no truth to this rumor. The posting here is inaccurate. Grossly inaccurate I would add.
How would you know? You're not on the private mailing list.
"Since w3c-archive is Member-confidential, I'm not sure if I can convey
any more information than that on a public list. It is up to the
persons involved to decide whether to post any information publicly."
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/...0Feb/0351.html
This was an issue that has been under discussion, off and on, on the publicly accessible HTML WG for months. It has to do with scope and charter, not the specifications themselves.
And they told you on the mailing list that this issue was already addressed by the WG chairs:
"Larry,
the scope of the charter says:
"This group will maintain and produce incremental revisions to the HTML
specification"
and the deliverables indicates:
"a language evolved from HTML4 for describing the semantics of documents
and applications on the World Wide Web."
I don't think it sets boundaries on what ought to be part of the HTML
specification. Whether the figure, video, or data-* is inside the HTML5
specification or in an adjunct doesn't make a difference. We've been
encourage on several occasion to modularize the HTML specification
itself in fact. The Context 2D API was part of the HTML5 specification
even before the creation of the charter and was accepted as such by the
Working Group. One can argue that the scope of the working group is too
broad or too vague, but that's the scope that has been approved by the
W3C and its Director. The charter itself is up for renewal (or extension
by the Director) at the end of the year. That's an opportunity we can
take to refine it.
Regards,
Philippe"
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/...0Feb/0016.html
The Adobe representative to the HTML WG registered his concerns about the fact that the HTML WG is working on specifications that push, or exceed the group's charter. This includes Microdata, RDFa-in-HTML, and the 2D Canvas API.
And this assertion is rebutted:
"I cannot comment on the contents of the mails in the private lists,
but that mail from Larry Masinter is not the entire story. There are
further relevant details that are hidden in a member-only list, which
is what I explicitly disapprove of in my last email.
~TJ"
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/...0Feb/0358.html
I would hope that people would seek to get confirmation before posting unfounded accusations.
The HTML WG thread related to this issue:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/...0Feb/0349.html
The Adobe Rep's initial concerns:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/...0Feb/0006.html
Next time I would ask that you all, please, withhold judgment until you actually have facts, rather than innuendo.
I would say the same of you. You accused the Google and Opera reps as essentially lying and creating FUD while you have zero visibility into the private mailing list.
If Larry has been making problems for HTML5 (and related specs that the chairs believe are part of the charter) in private emails it's pretty hinky from the get go and not at all defensible.
"I would like to register my strong disapproval of this entire affair.
This was an abuse of the member-only lists. Any Objection, potential
or not, should *always* take place on the public list. I am
disappointed in the author of the private emails for their actions.
I am glad that the Chairs are pretending that it doesn't exist until
it becomes public. It should never have *not* been public, however.
This is not conducive to open standards development. Such actions
should be condemned by all responsible parties in this working group.
~TJ"
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/...0Feb/0356.html
Or are you calling TJ a liar and FUDster as well? Because from where I sit, with the same access to info that you do (ie the public mailing list) you look like an Adobe shill. Especially given that has bothered to run around to random forums to defend Adobe which no other WG folks have bothered to do and attempt to squelch external discussion based on your "authority" on the matter.
I'm a Software Analyst/Trainer here in NYC and i remember when I worked at Y&R advertising in NY back in 1999/2000/2001 when Adumbe decided that they would leave the Mac crowd behind on the Photoshop releases because Windoze users were more important (financially speaking probably) so they would always release a PC Windoze version with all the bells and whistles and make US Apple Mac users wait until the next version release to get what the PC crowd was getting first, never mind that the entire creative dept at the Ad agency i worked at and probably ALL the Ad agencies creative dept's use MAC's for creating ads and magazines but Adumbe just left the Macs out in the cold and now they are paying for it APPLE is single handily KILLING FLASH by not using it on the iphone or on the ipad and now HTML5 with be non-FLASH dependent... serves them RIGHT!!!! can't wait until APPLE makes a PHOTOSHOP KILLER!!!! dammit a CS5/CS6/CS7/CS8 KILLER TOO... screw adobe- they tried to KILL FLASH in its origins remember?? (boy how soon we forget!!) when FLASH PAPER came out and was going to replace ADOBE ACROBAT as a better alternative to Adobe's PDF reader- and when Macromedia had SHOCKWAVE and DREAMWEAVER was making in roads and taking market share away from PAGEMAKER-- so Adumbe just decided to BUY OUT MACROMEDIA then kill FLASH PAPER well I cannot wait until APPLE and THE INTERNET KILLS FLASH....AND ADUMBE
Calm down boy. Adobe realized that the Mac market is just too small to justify its best efforts. Just because YOU use a Mac doesn't mean that companies should use their scarce resouces for YOUR benefit, when there's so many other folks that they could be addressing.
Since when has the Mac EVER had the newest and best software? That comes with market share, which Apple has never been able to capture.
I didn't think this would have been a story or I would have submitted it a couple days ago. Anyway, I think Canvas as a real threat is a ways off. There would need to be a proper development tool that is as easy as Flash, which will take awhile, but Adobe should be scared of this impending threat. They've already lost video streaming to HTML5; it's all down hill for Adobe on that front.
One thing to note is that Canvas can be very processor intensive, just like Flash. At think point Flash is a much better alternative but I'm certain that won't be the case in a couple years.
Here a couple nifty demos:Canvas works on the iPhone and likely Android phones though many aspects won't be usable because, like Flash, it is designed for a keyboard and mouse, not multi-touch. Like Flash, you can also see your phone have issue with the CPU-heavy uses of Canvas.
First of all, CPU usage on my Mac was really not all that bad when messing with some of the canvas demos, especially considering the graphics were all smooth for me with canvas apps but a simple flash animation might spike my CPU to like 80% with choppy graphics. The apps were also very snappy for me.
I also like the fact that if the animation is not occuring it isn't still hogging up CPU. Flash just seems to hog CPU like crazy for no explainable reason.
Like many others though our main frustration with Flash is that it is over used & everywhere. Even most banner ads are flash! Add to that how crappy flash video is & how it crashes the browser half the time I think we've all just had enough of the excuses.
Here is a better link for testing canvas apps, a lot more to choose from.
http://www.phpguru.org/static/html5-canvas-examples
Until several weeks ago I used a P4 machine running XP. I had no such experience with Flash.
Maybe you mean it is slow on Macs.
Flash is GPU-accelerated on PCs, it is not on Macs.
Adobe has had a long time to fix this issue, but they haven't done it.
Calm down boy. Adobe realized that the Mac market is just too small to justify its best efforts. Just because YOU use a Mac doesn't mean that companies should use their scarce resouces for YOUR benefit, when there's so many other folks that they could be addressing.
Since when has the Mac EVER had the newest and best software? That comes with market share, which Apple has never been able to capture.
Approaching software development simply from a numbers standpoint is actually a terrible business model. Adobe sells a niche product & overall PC numbers don't really mean much, they have to look at what user types actually use their product.
All that being said though, Adobe mostly abandoned Apple because they were failing to progress & innovate the way they did back when they were actually Adobe's preferred platform. A lot of Mac users forget that Apple had a dark day in their history where they almost went the way of the dodo. Now that Macs are making a come back Adobe is taking up interest again.
Also, Apple has had a lot of major platform changes that have actually made development difficult for Adobe. Windows has remained largely unchanged, they've just been throwing a lot of lipstick on that pig. There are also differences in release times revolving around OS release dates.
Point being, it simply isn't as simple as overall market share or Adobe "abandoning Macs". Good graphics designers have recognized this & realized that having the new CS version on their platform first doesn't mean they are going to be able to create better graphics. Printing & Graphics industries have long used Macs because when really taxed the Macs just perform.
I'm waiting for a retraction from AppleInsider:
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/02...ing_html5.html
Most of this article, "Adobe working to sabotage HTML5," are by and large completely false.
w00master
Why? The blog posted nothing new. Larry still hasn't made public his private emails to the list so it's just he said she said stuff from both sides. Until those messages are made public only the members who can see them know what was actually written. Everything you see outside is just spin on what happened after the fact. That includes what Google wrote but really it's up to Larry to release the original emails for all to see.
Anyone that has been on standard committees understand there's a bit of sausage making process in there along with the usual backchannel chatter and deals and that some participants are more "equal" than others.
My guess is that Larry made some veiled (and therefore deniable) threats to private mailing lists to the effect that if Google pushes Adobe too hard that there are all these "issues" that could be raised. You know, ones that are meant to "improve the process" and fix a few "problems with the spec". Here's a little taste hixie: "I don't think that MicroData, RDFa and Canvas2D are in scope for the charter." I'm going to mention this in the public lists without making a formal complaint...but you know, I really could do a formal complaint but I'm a nice guy who want's to work with everyone and make sure HTML5 is the bestest spec ever...but gee, rechartering the group DOES take a long time doesn't it?
Hickson's twitter would then be calling Adobe's bluff..."try that and you'll look like the bad guy...here's a little taste of how easy that will be...".
Which is exactly what happened (Adobe looking like the bad guy regardless of what really happened) and why Adobe has been playing defense and denying being obstructionist ever since Friday. Ooops.
Business concerns will force MS to update IE for HTML5 or IT departments will switch to FF in droves for several reasons.
Calm down boy. Adobe realized that the Mac market is just too small to justify its best efforts. Just because YOU use a Mac doesn't mean that companies should use their scarce resouces for YOUR benefit, when there's so many other folks that they could be addressing.
Macs market share wasn't the problem. Adobe began to invest more Windows back when Windows 95 took over the world. At the time it appeared Apple was going to go out of business. So Adobe bet more on Windows than it did on Apple.
Market share doesn't necessarily correlate directly with sales. Adobe sells just as much of its professional software to Mac users as it does to Windows users. From a percentage standpoint more Mac users are content creators than Windows users.
Since when has the Mac EVER had the newest and best software? That comes with market share, which Apple has never been able to capture.
A lot of software was originally made for the Mac before Windows as we know it existed: Photoshop, Word, Illustrator, Excel, Avid. Windows versions were not created until Windows 95.
There are many great applications that are Mac only and don't have an exact Windows compliment.
HTML 5 is a bag of hurt.
Add to that how crappy flash video is & how it crashes the browser half the time I think we've all just had enough of the excuses.
Maybe a better computer would solve your problems?
Flash is GPU-accelerated on PCs, it is not on Macs.
Adobe has had a long time to fix this issue, but they haven't done it.
And with iSteve's recent remarks bout them, I think it increasingly unlikely that they will devote resources to such a small segment of computer users.
From what I have seen, most mobile platforms will have Flash, leaving Apple products as floating derelicts on a sea of blue lego pieces.
Adobe sells just as much of its professional software to Mac users as it does to Windows users.
Yeah? I find that difficult to believe, given that Macs are a tiny sliver of the computer world.
Do you have a cite for your claim?
A disproportionate amount of Macs are used by people who create media and graphics. If you worked in any of the creative or graphic fields you would see what I'm talking about.
Yeah? I find that difficult to believe, given that Macs are a tiny sliver of the computer world.
Do you have a cite for your claim?
Well it isn't as though Adobe's customer base is all that large. There aren't very many people spendings $600 on professional software suites. There was a report from some years ago about Adobe's professional sales, cannot find it now.
A disproportionate amount of Macs are used by people who create media and graphics. If you worked in any of the creative or graphic fields you would see what I'm talking about.
Back in 2004 Adobe's CEO stated up to 25%. That was when PPC was starting to have performance growth issues and Mac marketshare was considerably lower than today. I think Apple now sells more in a quarter than they did in an entire year in 2004 so it's likely increased in the past 6 years. Then there is also the stats stating Macs in the US account for over 93% of the all PCs over $1000, where you're more likely going to find graphical professionals.
Even without knowing specifics you'd think a self-proclaimed geniuss would have considered Adobe's professional market wouldn't include the cheap notebook and netbooks that make up the majority of PC sales.
Well it isn't as though Adobe's customer base is all that large. There aren't very many people spendings $600 on professional software suites. There was a report from some years ago about Adobe's professional sales, cannot find it now.
A disproportionate amount of Macs are used by people who create media and graphics. If you worked in any of the creative or graphic fields you would see what I'm talking about.
Something to add to the list is that roughly half of photographers (amateur and pro) are Mac users.
Macs were known to be a mainstay of graphic design users, even in Windows-centric businesses. If anyone has Macs, it's that group. So it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone if Adobe's business disproportionately sells more Mac software than most other software shops.