Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Adobe Not Worried About the Future of Flash

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the better-be-worried-about-apple dept.

The Internet 328

An anonymous reader writes "Adobe company man John Dowdell isn't worried about the future of Flash. He writes in his company blog, 'There's really no "HTML vs Flash" war. There are sure people inciting to create such a war, and individual developers may have strong practical reasons to choose one technology over another, but at corporate levels that drive strategy, all delivery channels are important Adobe territory, whether SWF or HTML or video or documents or paper or ebook or e-mag or film or packaging or whatever. Adobe profits by making it easier for creatives to reach their audiences. We're on the verge of a disruptive change that, I think, will dwarf that of the World Wide Web fifteen years ago. It was great back then when any wealthy person with a workstation in a wired environment could easily reach any creative's webpage. With these cheaper devices we'll be reaching far more people, and with pocket devices we'll be reaching them throughout the day instead of just when "logged-on." The WWW was merely a pale precursor of the excitement we're going to see, I think.' It's interesting to note that he talks about the World Wide Web in the past tense. I find it instructive as to Adobe's perspective. Personally, I'm not worried about the future of Flash either. I don't think it has one."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What about Flash games and other stuff? (5, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31658806)

Personally, I'm not worried about the future of Flash either. I don't think it has one.

Except that it's pain in the ass to create Flash-like games with HTML5. You have to use all kinds of hacks to accomplish that, while designers and Flash game creators are familiar and love Flash authoring tools.

Flash isn't just about video, even if it's the most talked part of it here on slashdot.

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31658862)

Games and 'other stuff' are better off written in Open Source langauges using Open Source tools, to run on Open Source operating systems. Enough of this proprietary shit written with only corporate greed in mind, designed to run on DRM-laden, crippled, toy operating systems like Windows. Adobe are just beating their chests because they are terrified by OSS, and just like people are leaving Photoshop in droves to pick up superior OSS tools like GIMP, they will leave Flash too. Adobe will buried alongside Microsoft and Apple.

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (1)

mikerz (966720) | more than 4 years ago | (#31658942)

Nice! Are you commander of the OSS-R army? I want to sign up and kick some of that bourgeoisie Adobe Flash butt!

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (1, Insightful)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659138)

Games and 'other stuff' are better off written in Open Source langauges using Open Source tools, to run on Open Source operating systems.

I've never found that to be true, just look at the state of OSS gaming today - it's shit.

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (2, Interesting)

bigpet (1695756) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659380)

people are leaving Photoshop in droves to pick up superior OSS tools like GIMP, they will leave Flash too.

I know you are trolling but this just makes me laugh. Many people rather pirate Photoshop than use GIMP. The reasons for this are plentiful. Like not being able to organize layers into folders. This is a very minute detail but it's so annoying when having lots of layers.
One of the big points is that there's no native support for cmyk in GIMP that just makes it plain useless for print-productions.

I agree that it's usable for day to day stuff like quick touch-ups and resizing but doing anything seriously is just a pain in the butt. So much so, that I rather fire up a virtual machine with windows on it when I am using linux than use GIMP for a prolonged time.
That's not to say that GIMP doesn't have it's application because it's extensibility and some of it's scripts are very nice but it sure as hell isn't a finished useable Photo and Picture editing program for media designers and other professionals.

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31659392)

No, not really. I've played games written on open source platforms, and they almost always suck. Universally they're pretty much a clone of a real game, with some inane penguin reference or recycled Monty Python joke thrown in. Really, tell me when people start using open source to make professional quality games. And music... I've scoured the open source libraries looking for something half way decent. Seriously, I know the tools can do better, it's just that the authors are those kind of people who think "Animusic" is good stuff. Here's a hint: it's not. And your "music" isn't even that good. It has no emotional character whatsoever. And yes, scientifically minded people can learn to appreciate and even create good Art: Feynman, Jefferson, DaVinci, Franklin, Cox, etc for examples. Geeks don't want to put in the effort. And then geeks get exasperated when people don't fully understand computers, even though that person doesn't have tens of thousands of hours logged in fixing computer problems. Or they get spitting (literally) angry when someone thinks Ewoks are cute. But remember, not all technically inclined people are geeks. And most geeks aren't actually technically minded... they just haven't grown out of childish things yet (Star Wars, Lego, inability to talk to a girl, unhealthy eating habits, lack of hygiene, etc etc)

That being said, I do believe that open source tools are useful, and would love to see them expanded. For instance, the JACKS system has the potential to be the underpinning of a next gen DAW that revolutionizes the way an audio recording studio is set up, but some of the artificial limitations (only 32 bit sound) have to be removed, and a proper real time editor with a good clean interface needs to be implemented (Rosegarden is headed in the right direction, but it has a LONG way to go.) The GIMP? Sure, it does a passable job. But the insistence of the open source community on such a name really is hampering it's implementation. I can get people on to Firefox. Open Office works (as long as I don't call it Open Office dot Org... then people look at me like I'm an idiot. For good reason: that's a really horrible name for an office application. Sounds unprofessional and leads people to believe that it's just hacked together by some teenagers in their free time, when in reality it is the work of many paid professional developers that makes it functional.) Linux? Have distributions include support for fonts that aren't completely ugly and you may start getting somewhere. Seriously, it's painful to work with the included fonts... and don't say "Well, just install package XYZ" because I shouldn't have to do that just to browse the web or read a document without getting a headache.

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (0, Flamebait)

jim_v2000 (818799) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659536)

EVERYTHING IS BETTER IN OPENSOURCE! Like operating systems, office suites, games, video codecs, photo editing software, video editing software, music stores....oh what? Those categories are all dominated by proprietary solutions? Oh, well shit.

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31658886)

Flash isn't just about video, even if it's the most talked part of it here on slashdot.

Really, though, that is what Flash is about. If you were to go around and uninstall Flash Player from all the PCs in the world, almost all of the complaints would be "I can't watch YouTube, I can't watch Hulu, I can't watch CNN.com."

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (3, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#31658922)

Flash got nearly 100% browser penetration long before YouTube existed, though, and the reasons for that are still some of the main reasons Flash is used. In addition to complaints about online video, lots of the complaints would include things like, "I can't play FarmVille or Bejeweled Blitz anymore".

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31658962)

Or another complaint would be along the lines of 'ustream and justin.tv don't work anymore'.

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31658964)

Of course you can play your farmville. It's just called "Harvest Moon" now, and it's on a Nintendo DS.

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (1)

alen (225700) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659316)

farmville is free

harvest moon you have to buy in addition to this nintendo gizmo thing

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (2, Funny)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659394)

Except that it costs you a metric tonne of credibility, as well as most of your facebook friends. If these things are of no perceived value to you, by all means play Farmville.

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (5, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659072)

"Flash got nearly 100% browser penetration long before YouTube existed"

Which is a polite form of saying "they've been f*cking with my browser for too long now".

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659552)

That is very true but Flash is primarily used for video these days. People grew tired of of "see how far you can throw the baby/puppy/etc" games.

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31658892)

LIES! Flash is video! Flash didn't exist before video was popular online! YOU WILL TOE THE SLASHDOT PARTY LINE! Flash exists just for Hulu and Youtube and DON'T YOU FORGET IT.

- Anonymous Coward

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 4 years ago | (#31658906)

Exactly. There's something that flash could do better than all the other alternatives, web video, and now we're coming to HTML5 to do that one thing better still, but Flash does a LOT of things, and there's a lot of people using it that won't want to stop using it. Just look at how long they've been trying to phase out Director [wikipedia.org] .

Those "creatives" like to hang on to their familiar tools.

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31659084)

Because us "creative" don't want to spend time to learn a whole new program because it just takes us longer than the average geek to learn, and our managers/ boss don't care if we can find a shortcut with the OS. Not all of us are lucky to have a workplace who will pay to retrain us to learn completely new tools, and all they care is the product. It's the same reason an accountant will work on Mac/ Win to run their spreadsheet and tax programs instead of fussing with OSS accounting programs or figure out Ubuntu and trying to download every device driver, or at worst, compile their own kernel to make their graphics card work. At the end of the day, we want to concentrate on working on what we specialize in - delivering a creative product, not fuss with our computers. We have an IT dept. for that.

While IT dept learns new hardware and software, the accountants will learn new tax codes and exemptions, and us creatives are learning new trends in design and interaction. It's not that we're not willing to learn new things, it's just that choosing Adobe products vs. OSS is a bit counter-intuitive when all our colleagues and clients' art dept. speak Adobe. You're not going to hear a group of lawyers discussing whether to use MS Word or OpenOffice.

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (1)

WinterSolstice (223271) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659130)

Very true, and while I dislike Flash in general, it is a very powerful and accessible web platform.

Probably the best 'ramp' to Web 3.0 (gag) I've ever seen.

Stinking badgers (4, Funny)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31658946)

Once someone ports Badgers [badgerbadgerbadger.com] to HTML5 Canvas, then it'll be safe to put Flash to sleep.

Re:Stinking badgers (2, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31658968)

Badgers?! We don't need no stinking badgers!

Re:Stinking badgers (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659426)

I think perhaps you meant to type HomeStar Runner [homestarrunner.com] ?

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (5, Insightful)

nahdude812 (88157) | more than 4 years ago | (#31658994)

Definitely, there's a whole realm of rich applications for which HTML5 can only just barely begin to dream.

But beyond this, even in the arena of video (which as you point out, seems to be the only corner of the Flash world the doomsayers want to talk about), HTML5 lacks ubiquity and consistency. There isn't even one single codec which is supported by every browser that implements HTML5 (Mozilla won't support H.264 for patent reasons), and even if there were, it still lacks functions which have existed in Flash for what seems like eons, such as dynamic bitrates (connection quality goes down, the amount of data sent to you goes down to compensate), and real-time seeking (ever want to skip around in a long video before the whole thing has loaded?).

Plus it's still missing camera and microphone controls.

Let's not forget that ActionScript is a much stronger language than JavaScript, and that things you write in Flash work in all browsers on all OS's if they work on your desktop, while JavaScript and interacting with the browser's DOM to this day is widely different in each browser, and sometimes even different in the same browser on different OS's. So the testing surface area in Flash is n (where n is the complexity of the application), while it's n*bv*o for HTML5 (where bv is the set of browsers and browser versions you want to support, and o is the set of OS's you want to support).

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. HTML5 is moving in the right direction. But it's a long, long distance from seriously competing with Flash except ideologically. It will be five years before it's a serious competitor, and only if the backers of HTML5 all start pulling in the same direction (today they're pulling in different directions on things as simple as what codec video should use).

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659118)

"Let's not forget that ActionScript is a much stronger language than JavaScript"

Huh? I thought they were virtually the same language, only AS added some Java-lookalike class based object system (against the grain of the formerly dynamic language, following the finest tradition of PHP).

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (2, Interesting)

nahdude812 (88157) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659292)

No, ActionScript has a lot of high order OOP principles (interfaces, inheritance, classes, packages, abstract types, method and property visibility controls, language reflection, and so forth), is a compiled language, and has the option to be strongly typed throughout.

ActionScript 1.0 was a pretty similar language to JavaScript. AS 2.0 introduced a lot of OOP principles, and AS 3.0 brings it pretty close to the same level as Java.

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (2, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659432)

No, ActionScript has a lot of high order OOP principles (interfaces, inheritance, classes, packages, abstract types, method and property visibility controls, language reflection, and so forth)

That has very little to do with OOP, save for reflection, which is a pretty natural requirement.

is a compiled language

These days, JavaScript is usually compiled to native code. And guess what: Adobe's AS engine and Mozilla's TraceMonkey JavaScript engine share the same JIT core.

and has the option to be strongly typed throughout

That's an interesting feature, but it's neither a bug nor an ultimate selling point.

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (2, Insightful)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659378)

Well, there you go again.

The market forces include Silverlight-ish stuff, Flash, open-source wannabees, Fraunhofer Institute codec creations, and there's actually a wealth of stuff.

Some of it, however, is indeed encumbered by licensing problems. It's a big deal: we don't like to pay codec royalties. We're not enamored with Microsoft's Silverlight constraints. We worry about what Oracle will do to the Java Continuum.

And so HTML 5 isn't going to be a train wreck, but there are many details to sort thru as you cite. And so it's no wonder why Adobe feels like it can slipstream just about any angle that the center of the market future turns to. Fat and happy; nothing to see here; move along.

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31659530)

...and even if there were, it still lacks functions which have existed in Flash for what seems like eons, such as dynamic bitrates (connection quality goes down, the amount of data sent to you goes down to compensate), and real-time seeking (ever want to skip around in a long video before the whole thing has loaded?).

These 'features' as you call them, are not helping me at all. What help is a dynamic bitrate going to do when your connection is dropped? It used to be I could just start the stream and it would buffer the whole video in the background while I was viewing it, so if my connection was dropped, I already had the whole thing in buffer. Nowadays it seems only a a few seconds or minutes is buffered and the rest is only gotten when it is needed (despite the fact that I have a fast broadband connection and loads of memory that could be used to buffer the whole thing at once) which is inconvenient when your connection just had a hiccup. And there is no way to specify in the flash settings that I want to buffer the entire file as fast a possible. Realtime seeking would also be very easy if the whole file was buffered, so no need for funky streaming techniques.

They might do this for cost reasons or DRM. Whatever it is, it pisses me off! The whole streaming thing is annoying as it takes control away from you and you are forced to use a custom flash video player with a louse interface while accessing it via your preferred media player software would be so much better.

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (5, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659014)

I have no problem with Flash living on in games.
I can take or leave most "all" Flash games.
Flash games don't work will on mobile devices "if at all"
Once you drop Flash for video Flash becomes as necessary as say Java. Very nice to have but a lot of people will never miss it.

Flash will be pushed more and more to the margins if HTML 5 takes off. Frankly there are lot of benefits to dropping Flash once you don't need it for Video.
Security is probably the biggest. Getting rid of Flash drops an attack vector you must worry about and keep updated.

What Adobe is saying and I think is very telling.
We do not make money off of Flash. We make money from authoring tools. If Flash dies tomorrow we will just make great HTML 5 authoring tools instead.
Heck Adobe may make a tool that makes writing games in HTML 5 as easy as it is in Flash.

So IMHO Adobe is saying that "Flash could be dead but we will still make boatloads of money with our authoring tools."

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (4, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659184)

Flash will be pushed more and more to the margins if HTML 5 takes off. Frankly there are lot of benefits to dropping Flash once you don't need it for Video.
Security is probably the biggest. Getting rid of Flash drops an attack vector you must worry about and keep updated.

How does dropping flash for HTML5 remove an attack vector? It just replace one attack vector with another.

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (4, Insightful)

mrsurb (1484303) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659464)

It doesn't remove an attack vector. But it does replace an attack vector that is practically universal and can only be updated by one proprietary vendor (Adobe) with one that has a series of different implementations and (at least with open-source implementations) can be updated by anyone.

As genetic diversity increases a species' resistance to disease, digital diversity increases our resistance to malware.

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31659480)

No it removes it:

  Before: Buggy Flash Code + Buggy HTML 5 code
  After: Buggy HTML 5 code

Replacing it would be more like:

  Before: Buggy Flash Code + Buggy HTML 5 code
  After: Buggy Silverlight Code + Buggy HTML 5 code

assuming of course you didn't have Silverlight already.

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (4, Informative)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659526)

Because odds are you will have both a browser and Flash.
So dropping Flash from you system will leave you with just the browser.
Nobody that I know of just uses Flash without a browser. So by dropping flash you get rid of an attack vector. Now you only need to worry about your Browser and not your Browser and Flash.

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (3, Interesting)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659058)

I think you hit on the most important part there in your second sentence. Really, Adobe makes zero money from flash itself, everyone gets that for free. They make their money from the Flash development tools, tools that make it easy to build an awesome (ok, for varying definitions of awesome) web page. From their perspective, it doesn't matter if the underlying technology is Flash, HTML 5, or something different. They are confident they can build the best tools to work with whatever that technology is, and thus will continue to make money.

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (0, Redundant)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659088)

Adobe makes zero money from flash itself, everyone gets that for free

Adobe makes a LOT from Flash itself.

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659256)

Really, how? They give it away free to everyone. Just like they give Acrobat reader away free, but the software to produce a PDF is a little more expensive.

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (0, Troll)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659376)

Think about what you just said, then use your imagination to figure out how Adobe makes a ton of money from Flash.

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (1)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659304)

Try writing a flash app - that's where Adobe makes its money on Flash. It's the tools that they sell, just like for PDFs. The reader is free, but the writer costs bucks, and the primo publishing edition costs primo bucks.

The reason they give out the plugin for free is to make sure there is a good reason to write in Flash, and so long as Adobe keeps producing plugins there will always be a reason to write in Flash.

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659508)

Wow, I must not be writing very clearly today, because you just completely repeated what I was trying to say.

The rest of my point was that since Adobe makes money from their creation tools, it doesn't matter to them if the underlying technology is flash or HTML5 or something else. They can still make the creation tools and still make money off them.

There is nothing special about the Flash format, Adobe doesn't use file-format lockin like Microsoft does. You can even find free tools to create Flash [osflash.org] . Adobe wins by making better products than everyone else (or better advertising, I don't know), and they are confident they can continue winning, even if something replaces flash.

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (1)

jittles (1613415) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659232)

Flash isn't just about video, even if it's the most talked part of it here on slashdot.

You're right. One can't forget all of the vulnerabilities it opens up on your computer, too!

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31659306)

Except that it's pain in the ass to create Flash-like games with HTML5. You have to use all kinds of hacks to accomplish that, while designers and Flash game creators are familiar and love Flash authoring tools.

Flash isn't just about video, even if it's the most talked part of it here on slashdot.

It's a pain in the ass now, but it's really no different than all our current "Web 2.0" / AJAX stuff. Using the raw APIs to do it all is a huge pain, then there's dealing with browser differences, etc... so we have nice libraries like jquery and prototype and others that abstract all that and make things a lot better to work with. I expect the same will happen eventually with Canvas and other HTML5 technologies. Not right away, but it will happen and that's when HTML5 will *really* start to compete with Flash for more than just video.

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659370)

People will create libraries and authoring tool for HTML5.

People aren't going to rewrite sprite animation functions and collision detection over and over.

Bit of a non-issue, if you ask me. It's probably why people aren't talking about it on Slashdot.

Re:What about Flash games and other stuff? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31659522)

Except that it's pain in the ass to create Flash-like games with HTML5. You have to use all kinds of hacks to accomplish that, while designers and Flash game creators are familiar and love Flash authoring tools.

Quite so. Flash v1.0 results were awful. Why do people expect HTML5 v1.0 to be born shitting ice cream? It'll take years before developers and browsers and users catch up.

There's really no "HTML vs Flash" war (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31658844)

True, because one more or less works and one doesn't.

Adobe should be worried... (4, Funny)

creimer (824291) | more than 4 years ago | (#31658850)

Flash is out of luck [foxtrot.com] with Steve Jobs.

Re:Adobe should be worried... (2, Insightful)

nahdude812 (88157) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659034)

Apple should be worried. They've proven to me that they can't be trusted to wield as much market power as they've earned recently, because denying a third party technology is a decision which belongs to the owner of the device, not the maker of the device. In recent years, I'd become an Apple convert, and now I no longer consider anything bearing that logo when making purchasing decisions.

Re:Adobe should be worried... (1)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659164)

Answer me this, how should Flash on the iPhone handle an API call that asks where the mouse cursor is, so that (for example) video player controls can be shown when the mouse hovers over the bottom of the flash area?

Re:Adobe should be worried... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31659290)

The same way all-in-one computers with touch screens do: assume the mouse is still parked where you left it.

Re:Adobe should be worried... (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659348)

How do you do it on your track pad...
A finger down is a mouse cursor. A Tap is a left click... Two finger tap is a right click. Two Finger Drag is a scroll.

Re:Adobe should be worried... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31659614)

You say that like you think the iPhone is the first touch-screen device ever...

Re:Adobe should be worried... (1)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659396)

I'm sorry, but Adobe has nearly 100% penetration into their market while Apple has significantly less than that in theirs. The same people who will want an iPad will want to view flash based websites.

If the iPad ships with no flash, and no option for flash, people are going to be pissed.

Re:Adobe should be worried... (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659620)

If the iPad ships with no flash, and no option for flash, people are going to be pissed.

At whom? 32% at Apple, 32% at third party companies (Your website doesn't work on iPad!), 32% at Adobe (Make flash for iPad!), and 4% at themselves for not expecting the lack of flash?

Massive chutzpa from Adobe drone (1)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31658880)

"We're on the verge of a disruptive change that, I think, will dwarf that of the World Wide Web "
[Presumably referring to mobile devices]
Well, maybe. But what is the role of Flash and other Adobe stuff in this presumed new mobile revolution?
I'm confused.
Unless, of course, he's talking complete crap...

Re:Massive chutzpa from Adobe drone (4, Funny)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#31658986)

Corporate spokesmen are the Baghdad Bobs of capitalism: there to tell you everything is going great, there is no enemy in sight for hundreds of miles, if there is an enemy he was routed by our glorious products. Up until the moment the spokesman himself is laid off.

Re:Massive chutzpa from Adobe drone (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659156)

Agreed. Any CEO who claims he's not worried about his products future isn't a very good CEO. On the Video front, there is a very real possibility that Flash will be replaced, and rightly so. I don't care about flash games. Any smart phone worth it's weight will have apps to fill that void. It's the video I'm interested in.

Flash is annoying, and wasteful. Install flashblock and look at how many simple 'text' menus are now flash based. Why? Because developers are lazy. You can't tell me that a simple text tag doesn't work on any platform...

Re:Massive chutzpa from Adobe drone (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659284)

As far as I can tell, the Opera Browser on the Nintendo DS doesn't support Flash. Of course, it doesn't have enough memory to actually run a decent Flash app it if did support Flash anyway.

Not worried about the future? (1)

Jeoh (1393645) | more than 4 years ago | (#31658898)

I guess there's... *sunglasses* ...nothing to worry about.

Re:Not worried about the future? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31659216)

YYEEEEEAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!

Their strategy is embedded Flash? (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31658920)

Heavy and either reliant on a browser or stuck in a walled garden, Flash really doesn't have any fully realizable use.

Let's say it is provided as a plug-in on an embedded device. That means that a browser is already necessary, it being embedded, it's probably going to be based on Webkit, and thus it will have extraordinary support for HTML5 and all those goodies. With Youtube being the benchmark Flash site, its migration to HTML5-based content will take away Adobe's claim to rights in this area.

On the other hand, as a UI solution, it provides an interesting mix of high-end functionality and high memory usage. While it may be quite capable to provide a great UI, the cost on the hardware side, plus the high cost of Flash Lite licenses makes it really difficult to justify.

Flash as it is today is done. And the open licensing "program" they've got running is first an foremost their last attempt to try to retain customers. What's more, the OpenScreen project isn't as "open" as they make it out to be, with incredibly strange restrictions that no OEM with anything to lose would be willing to sign on to.

Re:Their strategy is embedded Flash? (1)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659410)

My interpretation of the "not worried about Flash" quote was "not worried about whether or not Flash has a future", what he's saying is "we'll move with the times, we'll keep building tools that help people to present their content whether or not that involves flash".

Re:Their strategy is embedded Flash? (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659582)

Let's say it is provided as a plug-in on an embedded device. That means that a browser is already necessary.

Because Adobe surely wouldn't make a version of AIR for embedded devices so Flash could be viewed without a browser!

Arrogant and Overconfident (1)

Ltap (1572175) | more than 4 years ago | (#31658926)

Seriously, do they think that any piece of crap content delivery system (to use their buzzwords against them) will supplant webpages? I just find it unbelievably arrogant for them to think that people will abandon a mature, (somewhat) stable system to use whatever crazy stuff they're cooking up.

SVG+video in IE 9 is the death blow (5, Interesting)

r00t (33219) | more than 4 years ago | (#31658930)

It'll take a while, because IE 9 doesn't support XP, but it'll happen. Flash dies once XP dies.

Microsoft would like to fully control the interfaces, but when they fail at that they'd at least like to stop any other company from controlling the interfaces. Microsoft will settle for open standards as required to kill things like flash.

We can thank Adobe for IE 9 getting SVG and HTML 5 video support.

If you think pocket device are the future (3, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#31658944)

then release Flash for the G1 already.

Ultimately, users care about use and content (2, Interesting)

Kashell (896893) | more than 4 years ago | (#31658948)

Who cares if your browser games are in flash or HTML5? Or if video is flash or HTML5?

I only how fast the video loads, and how responsive the games are. And from my testing of YouTube's HTML5, HTML5 loads faster and smoother than flash.

Re:Ultimately, users care about use and content (2, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31658996)

A lot of the Flash videos on Newgrounds aren't FLVs at all; they're vector animation over an audio soundtrack. Until someone comes up with an editor for HTML5 Canvas animations, Flash will still have its uses.

Re:Ultimately, users care about use and content (2, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659152)

Why an entire editor? I'm sure there are many fine editors around, you only need an export filter.

I hope this think hasn't a future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31658984)

It's the typical think of broadcast media. It's the think of bombings:

It was great back then when any wealthy person with a workstation in a wired environment could easily reach any creative's webpage. With these cheaper devices we'll be reaching far more people, and with pocket devices we'll be reaching them throughout the day instead of just when "logged-on." The WWW was merely a pale precursor of the excitement we're going to see

I don't care about your droppings reaching me, whatever you think that means. For me, the Internet is a means of communicating with my peers. Go away.

Re:I hope this think hasn't a future (1)

RemoWilliams84 (1348761) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659356)

If the internet is nothing but a means for you to communicate with your peers, you are doing it wrong. Unless of course your peers are porn stars.

Come to think of it, if your peers are porn stars and your using the internet to communicate with them, you're still doing it wrong.

I'm a porn star myself... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31659608)

...you insensitive clod!

Perhaps (0, Redundant)

Xacid (560407) | more than 4 years ago | (#31658992)

Perhaps I'm out of touch with technews but...

youtube.com. beatport.com newgrounds.com etc. There are still very valid markets for flash out there.

Re:Perhaps (1)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659074)

Youtube can switch. But newgrounds is flash! I love newgrounds, and the flash games on it. HTML will never replace that.

A Flash in the Pan? (2, Funny)

Smivs (1197859) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659002)

Says it all...

The fact that they're talking about it says a lot (4, Insightful)

DavidinAla (639952) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659032)

When you have to explain that you're not scared about a trend that could hurt your product, it means you ARE scared of the trend. :-)

Re:The fact that they're talking about it says a l (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31659132)

Right. But what will I do to get my Windows system infected, if I remove Flash? Are there other software products that can help in the absence of Flash?

Hopefully there will be a FireFox plugin for html5 (5, Insightful)

pgmrdlm (1642279) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659046)

Like there is to block flash.

I do not want any video type stream to load when i am going to a web page until I have made the decision to watch it.

That is not an anti flash statement because I do make the choice to watch a lot of flash. But it is at my discretion and not the web page designers.

If it wasn't for flash block, I would spend all day waiting for news sites to load instead of actually reading the news. I hardly ever watch the flash on those types of sites, and they are probably the worse offenders of loading up the crap flash. Now other sites, which by the nature of the site presents its content via flash. yes, I do watch it. But, only after I have clicked the specific flash object I want.

Re:Hopefully there will be a FireFox plugin for ht (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31659234)

Now other sites, which by the nature of the site presents its content via flash. yes, I do watch it. But, only after I have clicked the specific flash object I want.

By which to say you mean porn sites?

Makes Sense, Actually (5, Insightful)

KeithIrwin (243301) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659104)

When you really look at it, there's no reason that Adobe shouldn't embrace HTML 5. Fundamentally, maintaining a cross-platform plug-in is not a profit center for them, it's a cost. They don't make money on the plug-ins, they make money on the Creative Suite product which allows designers to create animations, games, and the like easily. All this work of maintaining their own actionscript standards and standard library just serves to make their pay products more useful.

Imagine for a moment that at some time in the near future, Adobe has a new option on the menu "Export to HTML5". Would this make their product less useful? Of course not. Widespread adoption of HTML 5 means that their product can now be used to create content for even more devices, including several, like the iPhone, from which they have previously been locked out. And it wouldn't even be surprising if over time they transitioned entirely to HTML 5, giving up the work involved in maintaining Flash. They probably won't do this in the short run, but in the long run, it's entirely plausible.

I'm sure some people will point out that the move to HTML 5 opens them up to more competitors, and it does. But they've already got competitors even with the Flash ecosystem. There are a variety of ways to make swfs, including swftools, FlashDevelop, and the free Actionscript compiler which Adobe itself released as part of the Flex SDK. There are even a few other pay products out there. So, essentially, they already are in a market where there are a bunch of other tools which are cheaper but either can't produce complex content or require a bunch of coding to produce similar content. If they switch over to HTML5, they will likely be in the same boat, just in a bigger lake. Sure they'll be competing with DreamWeaver or whoever, but they'll have a clear and immediate advantage when it comes to "Flash-like" stuff such as animations and games.

So in summary, if they manage the transition properly, moving towards HTML5 means less costs and a bigger market. That sounds to me like a pretty clear win.

Re:Makes Sense, Actually (2, Informative)

Cicada7 (1051002) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659518)

Sure they'll be competing with DreamWeaver or whoever...

Just an FYI, DreamWeaver is an Adobe product too.

Re:Makes Sense, Actually (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31659572)

Imagine for a moment that at some time in the near future, Adobe has a new option on the menu "Export to HTML5". Would this make their product less useful? Of course not.

Oh man, you are clearly thinking about things the right way. If they only have to maintain a compiler and let browsers be browsers, then they may lose a major cost center of their model. I wonder if that is their plan.

Of course they aren't worried. (4, Insightful)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659168)

Here's how it will go down: "Flash CS4 - Now with HTML5!"

They will fall back on their design environment to create HTML 5 compliant applications and continue to sell to the more design-oriented customer. So of course they aren't worried. They'll just use HTML 5 output and sell to their already established base.

Re:Of course they aren't worried. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31659412)

That would actually be fantastic.
As long as the end-consumer doesn't need proprietary just to watch cartoons and videos, I would be pleased.

I don't care much if the artists are charged $500 for a copy of the design tools and the tools are weird and closed-source, it's the browser plugin that shits in my Cheerios.

Mobile Devices!?! (2, Interesting)

Dan East (318230) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659172)

What is this guy smoking?

and with pocket devices we'll be reaching them throughout the day instead of just when "logged-on

Oh, you will, huh? And they aren't the least bit worried about establishing themselves in an entire market and hardware paradigm in which they have no influence or foothold in whatsoever? (And no, using Actionscript as a compiler language to build native iPhone apps doesn't count.)

Constant Change (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659174)

The web is still in its infancy so the technologies involved with it - especially those for publishing on it - are still developing and constantly changing. Roughly every three to four years, many "technologies" which were previously thought to be "standard" begin to shows signs of age and start to fall from grace. Flash has had a long run, considering how rapidly things are constantly changing but, like pretty much everything involved with the internet at this stage, it is now fading from grace. Other alternatives are beginning to rise which have specifically targeted Flash's weaknesses. And, in a handful of years, they'll be replaced as something new steps up.

The internet is still young and evolving and it will be some time (decades) before it really settles down and true standards establish themselves.

I find his comment about Adobe wanting to be involved in getting creative ideas out there - be it on the internet or paper or whatever - to be a promising sign. It _appears_ Adobe is well-aware that things are going to change and their only chance is to roll with the punches and evolve when needed. Time, of course, will tell if they put their money where their mouths are...

WWW in past tense. (1)

LaminatorX (410794) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659176)

I remember when I first saw the WWW in action back in Spring of '94. It was a Meyers-Briggs test you took with radio-buttons, perhaps the UR-ancestor of quizilla in a'borning. My immediate reaction was, "Cool. It's like gopher with inline graphics and mouse navigation. Damn shame it's so slow."

What we do on the web today bears little resemblance to Web 1.0, and the HTML5/ubiquitous-fast-wilreless/cheap-netbooks&spart-phones future will wander even farther. While I think his turn of phrase was marketing spin, the ripple affects of a number of enabling trends and technologies of the past decade continue to coalesce in new ways; both forseen and unforseen.

swf might die (1)

jlebrech (810586) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659236)

I doubt .fla will ever die. Adobe can change the output file to html5+js when it is mature enough. It's the authoring software that they make the most money on and not the players.

Oi, hippy, shut it. (2, Insightful)

NoSleepDemon (1521253) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659240)

Whenever I'm handed mod-points, the FAQ is quick to point out that I should not mod posts based on my opinion, in fact, I should be as impartial as possible. Considering the submitter's opinion is blatant to see, I'll just go and brazenly smash my point of view into his open-source skull. His, and everyone else's who think that Flash has everything to do with you-tube, and nothing to do with artistic license:

The submitter is a cretin. An arrogant fool. He or she probably thinks that HTML5 is the be-all and end-all of browser programming, and has wet dreams about Javascript one day pulling off something more complicated than a fade in/fade out effect. Flash exists because there is a gap between making disgusting prefabbed square forms, and fluid, interesting and deeply creative content; Something that tells your customers and competitors "hey, we have style!". Yes, it is possible to commit atrocities with Flash, but don't blame Adobe for that, the next time you see someone using AS1/2, tell them to use Flex instead.

Flash makes the web interesting, it's what powers the little widgets you find on the sides of blogs, it's what makes the Most Interesting Man in the World interesting, it's what lets me tell the designers "yes! I can render our company's portfolio in 3D". It lets people do stupid little games and animations that make things interesting. So, until one of your open source tree humping hippy tossers makes something as extensible, easy to use and creativity empowering as Flash, well, I'm sorry but Flash is going to be here to stay. Because let's face it, not everyone browses the web through Steve Job's little slab of crap.

Subdued flavors of 1984? (1)

Neuroelectronic (643221) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659264)

Perhaps someone at Adobe was told they have a golden opportunity to be a major player in the future of multimedia distribution. That someone probably doesn't want to see a decentralized or open multimedia distribution framework, and they would make sure Adobe has the opportunity to bring it to fruition themselves and be very profitable while they do it.

"One of the things I talk a lot about is the necessity to juggle all of the constituencies that have an interest in the business: shareholders, customers, employees, vendors, and the communities in which we operate. Those constituencies are all mildly in conflict with one another in terms of what's best for them. Your job as a leader in a company is to find an appropriate way to juggle those conflicting interests so everybody feels like they're getting a fair deal, without letting any one dominate the others because they'll drag your company down."

This long list of people who have a financial and power interest in the outcome of this little world; what they fail to see is that their customers and the artists are both used to getting things for free and the technology is only a placeholder for the culture. As soon as the technology is not capable of supporting it, they will find something else that will. Adobe is going to find that they didn't sell a multimedia format, they sold a SDK (Flash Pro, iirc) that offered the cheapest way for artists to work. When I say "sold" I mean provided to the market in one way or another.

I'm sure what will happen is Adobe will try to leverage their existing technologies to create a rights management framework on top or alongside the multimedia framework, something that will pay artists and charge customers. Most artists will find that not enough people are going to pay to play or not enough to pay for their investment. Adobe will be able to enforce use of their SDK using this rights management framework and will find soon afterward that artists can't pay either. With little customers left and a large number of artists looking for something to play with, I think you'll find that there will be plenty of people willing to create an artist friendly SDK on top of HTML5 that doesn't offer Adobe's DRM "services". Adobe will not be able to pay for the development of the monstrosity Flash will become when trying to mix security, super-DRM, other non-customer requested features, cross-platform support and a friendly UI.

Flash authoring will live on; Flash Player may die (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31659282)

Adobe doesn't give a rat's ass if everyone switches to HTML5 overnight. They will eventually have native HTML5 support within their Flash authoring tools, allowing content creators to export a Flash SWF, an HTML5 microsite, an AIR app etc. Flash player licensing revenue is insignificant compared to Creative Suite software revenues--as long as Adobe owns the authoring tools they'll continue to do well.

archival quality Internet, please (5, Interesting)

Fractal Dice (696349) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659368)

I couldn't care less what new gizmos and glitz the web has ... what I care about is that if I create apps, just like documents and databases, I want to still be able to access and use them 20 or 40 years from now without recoding and reformatting them. The gold rush is over. What I want now is bulletproof base of archival-quality standards, not ones that reinvent themselves every product cycle.

m2s (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31659388)

PERTAMAX!!!

movie2satu | download all movie [blogspot.com]

Flash replacement=Flash (1)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659420)

Flash will probably be flash's replacement. As a programmer I used curse every time I opened the flash app to program in that lousy IDE. Now I curse far less with Flex. But much of the cool stuff seems to be missing or hard to get in Flex. Thus the way forward is simple. Improve Flex and I, as a programmer, will be content. And for all the HTML5 screamers out there; keep in mind that I still have to check to see if my stuff works in IE6. I hate IE6 and my stuff works like crap in it but I am not about to toss a chunk of my users/revenue into the toilet. So it will be a very long time before I can even consider using any HTML5 coolness. And by then it will be HTML6. The bit that works best in IE6... flash.

Will Not Miss (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659454)

Will not miss Flash, eventually all of its capabilities will be replaced with open standard / open implementation efforts. Really waiting for that time.

Some of my projects with BellTV were about removing Flash components from the site, everything that was done in Flash was changed to Javascript + DOM manipulation + some images.

Once Youtube is in HTML5, I will never have to use Flash again ever in my life.

Creatives? (2, Insightful)

rochrist (844809) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659520)

I'm fairly certain that refering to 'reaching creatives' qualifies you for immediate douchehood.

O RLY? (1)

kaizendojo (956951) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659528)

Personally, I'm not worried about the future of Flash either. I don't think it has one.

Great, Dad and I will dump those shares today. (Way to rally the investors!)

Inside the Manager's Meeting at Adobe (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659554)

Boss: So, HTML5 and such? Thoughts? Concerns?

Monkey 1: HAH! Every fucking site worth a damn already uses Flash for no fucking reason.

Monkey 2: Yeah, good luck getting everyone to switch all their content and frameworks to HTML!

Token Female Monkey: Yes! I will hoot and holler along with you to assert that I fit in here!

Boss: So it's agreed - we're entrenched so firmly up the web's ass that we don't need to worry about performance, security, features, etc.?

Token Female Monkey: Yup!

Monkey 1: Right-o, boss!

Monkey 2: Business as usual!

Boss: Good meeting guys, good meeting! Have the baboon with the hot ass write something on our, what is it? Facetwit? Livebook?

Monkey 2: Who gives a shit?

Token Female Monkey: I do! Heads up!
Token Female Monkey squats, shits in her hand, and flings the steamy dregs at Monkey 2.

Monkey 2 (playfully): Oh you bitch! Now you're gonna get it!

The scene devolves into a shit-throwing, ass-chasing fest between Monkey 1, Monkey 2, and Token Female Monkey, with incessant hooting and hollering. Boss sits at the head of the table, looking over his employees. Boss nods approvingly and calmly smokes a cigar, ignoring the specks of shit that ricochet onto his face.

It'll be a long death, if it ever happens (1)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659602)

First, look at how long it took before CSS 2 became supported widely enough on browsers so that web developers could actually make use of it. That's probably about how long it'll take before HTML 5 becomes widely supported enough to be able to challenge Flash.

Next, consider how many flash objects have been built already, and recognize that they're most likely not going away.
While you're at it, consider how many sites are built out of HTML 4 or XHTML 1.x, and consider that many if not most of these are not going away either, but may still need to deliver a flash-like experience.

So, maybe in 20-25 years?

Keep in mind, too, that as long as the W3C continues to advance the standards at the glacial pace that they have been, that it will leave the door open for proprietary solutions that do more to supplant the open standards. W3C runs a serious risk of becoming irrelevant if they are not able to provide progress on the open standards that we rely upon for the open WWW. If Flash or, gob forbid, Silverlight eats their lunch, it'll only be because they failed to get there in a reasonable amount of time, and developers got sick of waiting around to build the next generation web.

Creatives = Clears? (1)

zero_out (1705074) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659618)

It sounds a lot like scientology propoganda. Didn't LRon claim that actors, writers, and artists are 'special' because they create worlds? This Adobe employee sounds like a scientologist trying to help creative (i.e. 'special') people become 'clears.'

HTML is for web pages, Flash is for apps. (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659626)

Not seeing what the conflict is. HTML5 is nothing compared to Flash Builder for web apps and Flash is not what you want to use for web pages. Despite stupid people trying.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?