"Does this mean Adobe is not committed to video on mobile devices? Absolutely not. We continue to innovate and solve mobile video fragmentation challenges. Specifically, on Android, we solve this with Adobe AIR, with high-end video features such as Adobe Access DRM.
We made the decision to discontinue support for Android mobile browser because of two reasons: 1) Premium experiences on mobile devices are typically being delivered through apps and 2) Mobile websites mostly rely on HTML5 based video delivery."
"The Flash Player browser plugin integrates tightly with a device’s browser and multimedia subsystems (in ways that typical apps do not), and this necessitates integration by our device ecosystem partners. To ensure that the Flash Player provides the best possible experience for users, our partner program requires certification of each Flash Player implementation. Certification includes extensive testing to ensure web content works as expected, and that the Flash Player provides a good user experience. Certified devices typically include the Flash Player pre-loaded at the factory or as part of a system update."
"For the past decade, Flash Player and, more recently, Adobe AIR have played a vital role on the web by providing consistent platforms for deploying rich, expressive content across browsers, desktops, and devices. Beginning as a platform for enabling animation, the Flash runtimes have evolved into a complete multimedia platform, enabling experiences that were otherwise not possible or feasible on the web.
Looking forward, Adobe believes that Flash is particularly suited for addressing the gaming and premium video markets, and will focus its development efforts in those areas. At the same time, Adobe will make architectural and language changes to the runtimes in order to ensure that the Flash runtimes are well placed to enable the richest experiences on the web and across mobile devices for another decade.
With the growth of competition in the browser market, browser vendors are increasingly innovating and providing functionality that makes it possible to deploy rich motion graphics directly via browser technologies, a role once served primarily by Flash Player. Increasingly, rich motion graphics will be deployed directly via the browser using HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript and other modern web technologies. While the primary role of Flash Player as an engine for innovation on the web remains the same, what it is used for will change."
When the whole thing kicked off with Apple and Adobe, Apple stopped using Flash at a point where web video was pretty much entirely Flash-based. This left a gaping whole in web content for iOS users but nobody else really had anything competitive anyway so no big deal. HTML5 hadn't taken off so it's not as if Adobe had the option of dropping Flash because all that would have achieved is removing the only option for delivering rich content online.
As time went on, they rightly stuck to making sure publishers had the option to deliver rich content while the web standards groups slowly churned through their specs to the point that in 2011, HTML5 deployment for rich content was a reality.
Adobe and Apple were both right. There wasn't an alternative to Flash to allow Adobe to drop it and Flash wasn't suitable for mobile devices. Adobe tried to improve what they had control over - Flash, Apple tried to improve what they had control over - Webkit.
In the end, they both come out on top. Adobe no longer has to deal with the arduous certification process for every Android device, security updates, being blamed for sluggish performance and security vulnerabilities. Apple (and indeed every mobile device manufacturer) no longer has to be concerned about their users missing out on rich content. There's no sense in turning this into a winner/loser scenario when they both stand to gain from the changes and each of their arguments were fully justified.
In the end, they both come out on top. Adobe no longer has to deal with the arduous certification process for every Android device, security updates, being blamed for sluggish performance and security vulnerabilities. Apple (and indeed every mobile device manufacturer) no longer has to be concerned about their users missing out on rich content. There's no sense in turning this into a winner/loser scenario when they both stand to gain from the changes and each of their arguments were fully justified.
Uh huh. And Japan and Germany came out on top of WWII, as well. The Allies didn't win.
"Does this mean Adobe is not committed to video on mobile devices? Absolutely not. We continue to innovate and solve mobile video fragmentation challenges. Specifically, on Android, we solve this with Adobe AIR, with high-end video features such as Adobe Access DRM.
Not sure how AIR and Adobe DRM solves anything on Android... Except for packaging AIR into Android apps? And who uses Adobe DRM, let alone purchases anything much on Android? Maybe I'm missing something. If Adobe is so committed, why can't I easily view Flash videos from any website on any Android device?
We made the decision to discontinue support for Android mobile browser because of two reasons: 1) Premium experiences on mobile devices are typically being delivered through apps and 2) Mobile websites mostly rely on HTML5 based video delivery."
Right, for all their hue and cry, Adobe failed for five years. Why can't Flash mobile deliver "premium experiences"? Why do mobile websites now use HTML5? Even so, a heck of a lot of desktop websites still need Flash video, heck, honestly, porn on mobile devices is probably Flash's best hope, and Adobe failed.
"The Flash Player browser plugin integrates tightly with a device’s browser and multimedia subsystems (in ways that typical apps do not), and this necessitates integration by our device ecosystem partners. To ensure that the Flash Player provides the best possible experience for users, our partner program requires certification of each Flash Player implementation. Certification includes extensive testing to ensure web content works as expected, and that the Flash Player provides a good user experience. Certified devices typically include the Flash Player pre-loaded at the factory or as part of a system update."
Right, and how many user-friendly, operating Certified devices are out there, I wonder? Also, has Flash Abuse changed, thanks to Adobe, for the mobile space? Not sure.
"For the past decade, Flash Player and, more recently, Adobe AIR have played a vital role on the web by providing consistent platforms for deploying rich, expressive content across browsers, desktops, and devices. Beginning as a platform for enabling animation, the Flash runtimes have evolved into a complete multimedia platform, enabling experiences that were otherwise not possible or feasible on the web.
Yes and No. In say 2000-2006 there was some compelling Flash content and ideas, but AIR never really made it to the desktop, and Adobe Media Player and AIR did fade out of favour because Windows apps are so rampant. As for the web, well, the rest is history. Flash is a compelling multimedia platform for the ~desktop~ web. Not for handheld devices or tablets. It just ~never~ made the transition.
Looking forward, Adobe believes that Flash is particularly suited for addressing the gaming and premium video markets, and will focus its development efforts in those areas. At the same time, Adobe will make architectural and language changes to the runtimes in order to ensure that the Flash runtimes are well placed to enable the richest experiences on the web and across mobile devices for another decade.
Highly dubious. The most relevant gaming market is mobile and tablet, or console at best. No Flash here. "Premium video market"? I don't even know what that means. Nobody will do "premium video" over 3G or 4G. For WiFi, well, mobile, tablet and PC can do everything Flash can do and more. So, not sure what Adobe is trying to do here.
With the growth of competition in the browser market, browser vendors are increasingly innovating and providing functionality that makes it possible to deploy rich motion graphics directly via browser technologies, a role once served primarily by Flash Player. Increasingly, rich motion graphics will be deployed directly via the browser using HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript and other modern web technologies. While the primary role of Flash Player as an engine for innovation on the web remains the same, what it is used for will change."
Adobe's clearly grasping at straws. They're saying, well, HTML5, CSS3, JS and other modern technologies are where the action's at. And we're not in the game at all. But, we're cheering in the stands, yeah?" ..."And what it is used for will change"... What exactly is Flash now, in 2012, supposed to change to? At the end of the year can I buy Flash CS6.5 and it automatically creates standard-compliant, HTML5, CSS3, JS and non-JS websites? It's looking very grim for Flash. No site created now would even dream of being done in Flash. Videos, sure. But then everyone will be trying to do video for mobile from this point onwards, so in that case why the heck would you make Flash videos? Encode once, play everywhere.
As time went on, they rightly stuck to making sure publishers had the option to deliver rich content while the web standards groups slowly churned through their specs to the point that in 2011, HTML5 deployment for rich content was a reality. Adobe and Apple were both right. There wasn't an alternative to Flash to allow Adobe to drop it and Flash wasn't suitable for mobile devices. Adobe tried to improve what they had control over - Flash, Apple tried to improve what they had control over - Webkit.
In the end, they both come out on top.
That's true for video, which Flash could have hung on to past 2010, but if Flash video on mobile was truly successful, we would see more of that. But the BitTorrent scene, YouTube and so on was already moving beyond Flash and Adobe just didn't keep up. Apple improved Webkit ~and~ Apple apps ~and~ 3rd party apps. I'm not sure what Adobe Flash did in the past 4 years to be honest.
Adobe no longer has to deal with the arduous certification process for every Android device, security updates, being blamed for sluggish performance and security vulnerabilities.
But I'm not sure if Adobe even "dealt" with that in the first place? What did their certification actually do?
Apple (and indeed every mobile device manufacturer) no longer has to be concerned about their users missing out on rich content. There's no sense in turning this into a winner/loser scenario when they both stand to gain from the changes and each of their arguments were fully justified.
Well, not sure about Adobe, but Apple certainly seems to be doing alright.
Just think about it... Ignoring mobile for a while, what tool is best for making HTML5, CSS3, and Javascript? A text editor/IDE, like Coda. Dreamweaver CS4 was the peak of Adobe's web tools. Sure, Photoshop is king, but Pixelmator and Keynote can do a lot of stuff too.
Like Microsoft, Adobe sat on their laurels in a crucial point in 21st century technology, ran a disgraceful smear campaign against Apple, and now, the time has come to pay the piper.
It's simple really. Once IOS devices became insanely popular, Flash was doomed. There are too many IOS devices running to be ignored by anyone running a web site. Besides there is a standard that can work on all devices so why support one that ignores an important segment of folks surfing the web.
Sorry Mike but Apple should get ALL the blame. How dare they dislike, and refuse to support, a tightly proprietary software that is a battery and memory suck on devices with limited battery and memory. Shame on them
The fact that Adobe is finally giving up cause they can't make a well working mobile Flash player on any platform just backs up Apple's reasoning.
A good while back (I don't remember how long ago it was, now), I stated in these forums that Flash had a life expectancy of 2-5 years. It's starting to look like it's going to be closer to 2 years than 5, at this point. Another year and it will largely be abandoned on the desktop.
But, but, but.... What will all the Fandroids come up with as a replacement to whine about that iOS doesn't support when Flash is officially gone? I guess there's always that "sheeple that follow crapple" statement that is overused.
A good while back (I don't remember how long ago it was, now), I stated in these forums that Flash had a life expectancy of 2-5 years. It's starting to look like it's going to be closer to 2 years than 5, at this point. Another year and it will largely be abandoned on the desktop.
Indeed. It's happening faster than I expected. Abandoning the web for apps. Abandoning desktops for laptops. Abandoning laptops for iPad. Abandoning tablets for 4" smartphones.
A few clients came to me recently and were like, "We want an e-commerce site. Then maybe later apps". Then it hit me a few days ago. Why would you not just make a web app to start off, cut out all the desktop-webby-fluff-crap, go clean, lean, tight, right, sweet with the web app that runs on browser and mobile? Boom! Perfect entry. Then when business kicks in you can start doing apps.
Web apps are the perfect starting point for everyone trying to get into the "Internet Commerce Age". You don't need to source the very tight iOS/Android dev market, and you don't need to waste endless time and money trying to make "a web site with shopping cart" which by the time you finish looks like it was made in 2004... Because "full e-Commerce websites" are either very expensive and time-consuming to get right, or so cheap and nasty it looks like a granny from Eastern Europe made it overnight.
Tricky times. Maybe I'm inspired by Steve, trying to see the very bloody obvious that's invisible to everyone... until they see it for themselves.
"But… But how will we have the REAL web without Flash?!
How… how will we feel superior to everyone else?!"
And on another note, how much longer does everyone think we'll even have Flash for desktops? 2015?
It's not about feeling superior. It's about accessing videos and content you were able to access on the desktop, on your mobile phone. Neither apple nor adobe has made this ubiquitously possible. Not every site supports H.264 and not every flash site supports mobile encoded video content, so you can stop thinking YOU are superior for dissing Flash.
I am so ready for Flash to just die completely. Even on my Mac, it lags and is buggy. This includes running it under Windows 7 on VMware so it doesn't matter what platform you are running, Flash simply is a broken relic that needs to be put down. So many other video options that play smoothly and allow full screen, fast forwarding without hiccups and doesn't try and crash your browser. This is a good thing.
Damn.... this is only going to make ad providers jump ship on flash faster. I miss the days when click-to-flash had the side effect of blocking a huge percentage of ads....
I am so ready for Flash to just die completely. Even on my Mac, it lags and is buggy. This includes running it under Windows 7 on VMware so it doesn't matter what platform you are running, Flash simply is a broken relic that needs to be put down. So many other video options that play smoothly and allow full screen, fast forwarding without hiccups and doesn't try and crash your browser. This is a good thing.
I'm with you on that one. Flash has always been awful.
Well, the Flash jockeys infesting AI are nowhere to be found. Guess they're stuffing their faces full of crow.
They're going to hate hearing this, but STEVE JOBS WAS RIGHT YOU JACKA$$E$!!
What I figured out was that the Flash supporters, if not pushed into the future, we're going to cling to aging de facto standards like Flash forever, and Adobe would hold back the future adoption of truly open standard (as opposed to de facto, proprietary) Web technologies. The interesting thing is that by opening up Web standards for OS and hardware makers, it allows for deep integration with devices. for example, HTML5 supported video codecs like H.264 enjoy smooth and energy-efficient playback in iOS devices, whereas Flash will always have to go through Adobe's layers of code, and one thing Steve never liked about Adobe (and before that, Macromedia) was the lack of parity the companies gave to developing Flash on different platforms: usually, Windows won over Mac OS, and mobile Flash was always lagging the desktop versions.
Entertaining forum gloating aside, this important step in the increasing irrelevancy of Flash is a win for everybody, even Adobe, if they could see far enough into the future.
"We could have streamed the video with QuickTime, but we couldn’t have delivered such rich interaction. We could have deployed to multiple environments using Java, but without the great customization. We could have used HTML, but getting full-screen video would have been a problem and there would be no picture-in-picture feature. So it is really a combination of all the functionality that Flash Professional, Flex, and AIR bring to the table that makes this project so compelling.” The same code base is deployed on the Mac and PC, and it even works on Linux®"
Like Microsoft, Adobe sat on their laurels in a crucial point in 21st century technology, ran a disgraceful smear campaign against Apple, and now, the time has come to pay the piper.
They posted images saying they loved Apple, most marketing videos they send out they use Apple products. They were just making noise about dropping Flash not being an option and they were right. They shouldn't have gone the route of suggesting it was about Apple's control but still, it wasn't an option until recently. Look how long it has taken to get a video tag on the web, why would Adobe have believed anything major would happen with web standards in the short term?
I don't think there's anything to be gained by making Adobe out to be the enemy, the Mac platform would be much weaker without their presence on it.
Uh huh. And Japan and Germany came out on top of WWII, as well.
Well in a way they did. Look at all the cars, cameras and consumer electronics that came from those countries once the US helped them rebuild their infrastructure after the war.
Perhaps that explains why we never saw a Vietnamese auto industry materialize. The US lost that war.
Comments
That was a quote from last year. Here's what their stance is now:
http://blogs.adobe.com/digitalmedia/2012/06/impact-on-android-video-delivery/
"Does this mean Adobe is not committed to video on mobile devices? Absolutely not. We continue to innovate and solve mobile video fragmentation challenges. Specifically, on Android, we solve this with Adobe AIR, with high-end video features such as Adobe Access DRM.
We made the decision to discontinue support for Android mobile browser because of two reasons: 1) Premium experiences on mobile devices are typically being delivered through apps and 2) Mobile websites mostly rely on HTML5 based video delivery."
http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplayer/2012/06/flash-player-and-android-update.html
"The Flash Player browser plugin integrates tightly with a device’s browser and multimedia subsystems (in ways that typical apps do not), and this necessitates integration by our device ecosystem partners. To ensure that the Flash Player provides the best possible experience for users, our partner program requires certification of each Flash Player implementation. Certification includes extensive testing to ensure web content works as expected, and that the Flash Player provides a good user experience. Certified devices typically include the Flash Player pre-loaded at the factory or as part of a system update."
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplatform/whitepapers/roadmap.html
"For the past decade, Flash Player and, more recently, Adobe AIR have played a vital role on the web by providing consistent platforms for deploying rich, expressive content across browsers, desktops, and devices. Beginning as a platform for enabling animation, the Flash runtimes have evolved into a complete multimedia platform, enabling experiences that were otherwise not possible or feasible on the web.
Looking forward, Adobe believes that Flash is particularly suited for addressing the gaming and premium video markets, and will focus its development efforts in those areas. At the same time, Adobe will make architectural and language changes to the runtimes in order to ensure that the Flash runtimes are well placed to enable the richest experiences on the web and across mobile devices for another decade.
With the growth of competition in the browser market, browser vendors are increasingly innovating and providing functionality that makes it possible to deploy rich motion graphics directly via browser technologies, a role once served primarily by Flash Player. Increasingly, rich motion graphics will be deployed directly via the browser using HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript and other modern web technologies. While the primary role of Flash Player as an engine for innovation on the web remains the same, what it is used for will change."
When the whole thing kicked off with Apple and Adobe, Apple stopped using Flash at a point where web video was pretty much entirely Flash-based. This left a gaping whole in web content for iOS users but nobody else really had anything competitive anyway so no big deal. HTML5 hadn't taken off so it's not as if Adobe had the option of dropping Flash because all that would have achieved is removing the only option for delivering rich content online.
As time went on, they rightly stuck to making sure publishers had the option to deliver rich content while the web standards groups slowly churned through their specs to the point that in 2011, HTML5 deployment for rich content was a reality.
Adobe and Apple were both right. There wasn't an alternative to Flash to allow Adobe to drop it and Flash wasn't suitable for mobile devices. Adobe tried to improve what they had control over - Flash, Apple tried to improve what they had control over - Webkit.
In the end, they both come out on top. Adobe no longer has to deal with the arduous certification process for every Android device, security updates, being blamed for sluggish performance and security vulnerabilities. Apple (and indeed every mobile device manufacturer) no longer has to be concerned about their users missing out on rich content. There's no sense in turning this into a winner/loser scenario when they both stand to gain from the changes and each of their arguments were fully justified.
Uh huh. And Japan and Germany came out on top of WWII, as well. The Allies didn't win.
Not sure how AIR and Adobe DRM solves anything on Android... Except for packaging AIR into Android apps? And who uses Adobe DRM, let alone purchases anything much on Android? Maybe I'm missing something. If Adobe is so committed, why can't I easily view Flash videos from any website on any Android device?
Right, for all their hue and cry, Adobe failed for five years. Why can't Flash mobile deliver "premium experiences"? Why do mobile websites now use HTML5? Even so, a heck of a lot of desktop websites still need Flash video, heck, honestly, porn on mobile devices is probably Flash's best hope, and Adobe failed.
Right, and how many user-friendly, operating Certified devices are out there, I wonder? Also, has Flash Abuse changed, thanks to Adobe, for the mobile space? Not sure.
Yes and No. In say 2000-2006 there was some compelling Flash content and ideas, but AIR never really made it to the desktop, and Adobe Media Player and AIR did fade out of favour because Windows apps are so rampant. As for the web, well, the rest is history. Flash is a compelling multimedia platform for the ~desktop~ web. Not for handheld devices or tablets. It just ~never~ made the transition.
Highly dubious. The most relevant gaming market is mobile and tablet, or console at best. No Flash here. "Premium video market"? I don't even know what that means. Nobody will do "premium video" over 3G or 4G. For WiFi, well, mobile, tablet and PC can do everything Flash can do and more. So, not sure what Adobe is trying to do here.
Adobe's clearly grasping at straws. They're saying, well, HTML5, CSS3, JS and other modern technologies are where the action's at. And we're not in the game at all. But, we're cheering in the stands, yeah?" ..."And what it is used for will change"... What exactly is Flash now, in 2012, supposed to change to? At the end of the year can I buy Flash CS6.5 and it automatically creates standard-compliant, HTML5, CSS3, JS and non-JS websites? It's looking very grim for Flash. No site created now would even dream of being done in Flash. Videos, sure. But then everyone will be trying to do video for mobile from this point onwards, so in that case why the heck would you make Flash videos? Encode once, play everywhere.
That's true for video, which Flash could have hung on to past 2010, but if Flash video on mobile was truly successful, we would see more of that. But the BitTorrent scene, YouTube and so on was already moving beyond Flash and Adobe just didn't keep up. Apple improved Webkit ~and~ Apple apps ~and~ 3rd party apps. I'm not sure what Adobe Flash did in the past 4 years to be honest.
But I'm not sure if Adobe even "dealt" with that in the first place? What did their certification actually do?
Well, not sure about Adobe, but Apple certainly seems to be doing alright.
Just think about it... Ignoring mobile for a while, what tool is best for making HTML5, CSS3, and Javascript? A text editor/IDE, like Coda. Dreamweaver CS4 was the peak of Adobe's web tools. Sure, Photoshop is king, but Pixelmator and Keynote can do a lot of stuff too.
Like Microsoft, Adobe sat on their laurels in a crucial point in 21st century technology, ran a disgraceful smear campaign against Apple, and now, the time has come to pay the piper.
It's simple really. Once IOS devices became insanely popular, Flash was doomed. There are too many IOS devices running to be ignored by anyone running a web site. Besides there is a standard that can work on all devices so why support one that ignores an important segment of folks surfing the web.
Sorry Mike but Apple should get ALL the blame. How dare they dislike, and refuse to support, a tightly proprietary software that is a battery and memory suck on devices with limited battery and memory. Shame on them
The fact that Adobe is finally giving up cause they can't make a well working mobile Flash player on any platform just backs up Apple's reasoning.
A good while back (I don't remember how long ago it was, now), I stated in these forums that Flash had a life expectancy of 2-5 years. It's starting to look like it's going to be closer to 2 years than 5, at this point. Another year and it will largely be abandoned on the desktop.
Indeed. It's happening faster than I expected. Abandoning the web for apps. Abandoning desktops for laptops. Abandoning laptops for iPad. Abandoning tablets for 4" smartphones.
A few clients came to me recently and were like, "We want an e-commerce site. Then maybe later apps". Then it hit me a few days ago. Why would you not just make a web app to start off, cut out all the desktop-webby-fluff-crap, go clean, lean, tight, right, sweet with the web app that runs on browser and mobile? Boom! Perfect entry. Then when business kicks in you can start doing apps.
Web apps are the perfect starting point for everyone trying to get into the "Internet Commerce Age". You don't need to source the very tight iOS/Android dev market, and you don't need to waste endless time and money trying to make "a web site with shopping cart" which by the time you finish looks like it was made in 2004... Because "full e-Commerce websites" are either very expensive and time-consuming to get right, or so cheap and nasty it looks like a granny from Eastern Europe made it overnight.
Tricky times. Maybe I'm inspired by Steve, trying to see the very bloody obvious that's invisible to everyone... until they see it for themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
"But… But how will we have the REAL web without Flash?!
How… how will we feel superior to everyone else?!"
And on another note, how much longer does everyone think we'll even have Flash for desktops? 2015?
It's not about feeling superior. It's about accessing videos and content you were able to access on the desktop, on your mobile phone. Neither apple nor adobe has made this ubiquitously possible. Not every site supports H.264 and not every flash site supports mobile encoded video content, so you can stop thinking YOU are superior for dissing Flash.
I am so ready for Flash to just die completely. Even on my Mac, it lags and is buggy. This includes running it under Windows 7 on VMware so it doesn't matter what platform you are running, Flash simply is a broken relic that needs to be put down. So many other video options that play smoothly and allow full screen, fast forwarding without hiccups and doesn't try and crash your browser. This is a good thing.
Damn.... this is only going to make ad providers jump ship on flash faster. I miss the days when click-to-flash had the side effect of blocking a huge percentage of ads....
Nah, because the Androiders who (now used to) do that couldn't care less about the actual argument. Flash-hating will always be in vogue.
I'm with you on that one. Flash has always been awful.
What I figured out was that the Flash supporters, if not pushed into the future, we're going to cling to aging de facto standards like Flash forever, and Adobe would hold back the future adoption of truly open standard (as opposed to de facto, proprietary) Web technologies. The interesting thing is that by opening up Web standards for OS and hardware makers, it allows for deep integration with devices. for example, HTML5 supported video codecs like H.264 enjoy smooth and energy-efficient playback in iOS devices, whereas Flash will always have to go through Adobe's layers of code, and one thing Steve never liked about Adobe (and before that, Macromedia) was the lack of parity the companies gave to developing Flash on different platforms: usually, Windows won over Mac OS, and mobile Flash was always lagging the desktop versions.
Entertaining forum gloating aside, this important step in the increasing irrelevancy of Flash is a win for everybody, even Adobe, if they could see far enough into the future.
I too wish Steve Jobs was around to see this day.
Wars are generally fought with opposing goals, Apple and Adobe were working to a common goal taking separate approaches.
It gives publishers an option for DRM video and makes cross-platform apps easier:
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/air/samples-mobile.html
It's what companies like Netflix or DirectTV deliver:
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/casestudies/air/direct-tv/pdfs/direct-tv-casestudy.pdf
"We could have streamed the video with QuickTime, but we couldn’t have delivered such rich interaction. We could have deployed to multiple environments using Java, but without the great customization. We could have used HTML, but getting full-screen video would have been a problem and there would be no picture-in-picture feature. So it is really a combination of all the functionality that Flash Professional, Flex, and AIR bring to the table that makes this project so compelling.” The same code base is deployed on the Mac and PC, and it even works on Linux®"
They posted images saying they loved Apple, most marketing videos they send out they use Apple products. They were just making noise about dropping Flash not being an option and they were right. They shouldn't have gone the route of suggesting it was about Apple's control but still, it wasn't an option until recently. Look how long it has taken to get a video tag on the web, why would Adobe have believed anything major would happen with web standards in the short term?
I don't think there's anything to be gained by making Adobe out to be the enemy, the Mac platform would be much weaker without their presence on it.
deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Uh huh. And Japan and Germany came out on top of WWII, as well.
Well in a way they did. Look at all the cars, cameras and consumer electronics that came from those countries once the US helped them rebuild their infrastructure after the war.
Perhaps that explains why we never saw a Vietnamese auto industry materialize. The US lost that war.