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 Flash CS5 Exports Animations To HTML5 Canvas

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the take-this-jobs-and-shove-it dept.

Graphics 166

An anonymous reader writes "Adobe's Flash CS5 will seek to make the Flash runtime less relevant with support for exporting animations to HTML5 canvas. Seth Weintraub from 9to5mac writes, 'In a previous post, I'd wondered why Adobe didn't spend its time building HTML5 authoring tools rather than putting so much time/energy/money into its Flash -> iPhone Apps exporter tool for Flash CS5. As it turns out, Adobe does have some, albeit rudimentary, HTML5 Canvas exporting tools, as demonstrated in the video above.'"

cancel ×

166 comments

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

first post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31814862)

first first post attempt

Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas (5, Funny)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814866)

Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas except for animations approved personally by Steve Jobs.

Re:Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31815054)

Well actually, Safari was the first browser to implement a canvas, so "technically" it's Apple's invention.

Re:Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas (3, Insightful)

Vectormatic (1759674) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815396)

implementing != inventing

I don't know who actually invented it, but your logic isnt really flawless

Re:Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas (2, Interesting)

Spacezilla (972723) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815088)

This is a serious question: Why does Apple appear to be OK with HTML5, but not with Flash? There are lots of posts claiming Apple is "afraid" of Flash, because the app store is their cash cow and Flash is a threat to that.

Now, I realize there is a lot more Flash content than HTML5 content, but isn't the basic principle the same? Couldn't I go make just about any game in HTML5 right now and have it work on the iPhone and iPad?

Is it because the source for any HTML5 game is viewable that Apple think "serious" game developers will avoid it?

Or another reason I'm missing?

Re:Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas (4, Interesting)

ukdmbfan (904348) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815118)

In which case, you could take Steve Jobs' comments at face value, and it is just about the fact that Flash is crap, buggy, memory-hogging and inadequate to be run on a low-power, low-spec'd mobile device.

Re:Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas (2, Insightful)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815308)

I'm not sure HTML5 is much better. A lot of the (non video) demos I've tried use insane amounts of CPU. What's it going to be like when there's heavy HTML5 integrated into site functionality and banner ads?

Re:Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas (4, Insightful)

Tei (520358) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815410)

It will take years to optimize HTML5 to something comparable to Flash. And maybe it will still be a bit slower than Flash. The point is not speed. The point is not scripting. Scripting is as bad if not worst, than a binary stream vectorial format. The points is a document model, that is easier to examine by bots and archivers, that can be modified by external tools, that can be linked, and all the good and cool features we have learn a Hyper Text have.

A binary stream of bits that render vectorial stuff is not fun, because you can't do much with these bits. A greasemonkey script is fun, google page rank search engine is fun.

Even if Flash is fast, a what price?, you have to support a separate things, with his own memory management and probably bugs. And is not that good either, Linux users have bad experience with Flash banners that take the 100% of the CPU.

Having everything following the document model (dom), any optimization made will touch all. Any optimization on the memory handling will affect all. Any safety mechanism. Updating the browser will update the rendering of such canvas thing, or svg thing.

I don't think Flash game dev's will move to HTML5 in 5 or 8 years. Flash will still be more interesting. But there will be a "leak" of the good features of Flash into the web, so the web will get whatever good we have learn from Flash. So Flash will not be required for some things. At a point, you will not *need* Flash. Needing Flash is *mucho* wrong, and we DO NOT WANT.

Some people will argue that "Flash-like" features in the web are bad news. These people are right. Animated banners in HTML5 are not better than in Flash. But with a better model, these will be more easy to control, limit, optimize.
And people want these Flash features. I serve no one to ignore that Flash add value to the web. We will steal (with HTML5 and SVG and Canvas) part of these value, to make the web AWESOME.

Re:Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas (4, Insightful)

mgbastard (612419) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815812)

It will take years to optimize HTML5 to something comparable to Flash.

Why? The Flash Player has over a decade of poor design decisions in SWF, bug-for-bug reproduction, etc, that it has to keep backward compatibility with. HTML5 canvas gets a nice fresh start having (hopefully) learned those lessons. IMHO, you'll see a lot of work with phenomenal improvements optimizing the runtimes, just like we saw with Javascript, in a quick surge. A lot of the same engineers who did did the magic on javascript are working on the HTML5 canvas implementations.

I don't think Flash game dev's will move to HTML5 in 5 or 8 years. Flash will still be more interesting.

I think that depends on whether Adobe makes the judgment call as to whether its more important to keep their Flash tools on top or not. If they conclude that the future is HTML5, they will bring their Flash/Flex/Air dev tools to be first class development environments for targeting HTML5 canvas; rather than being marginalized and losing their market share to a competitor in web animation authoring. Or perhaps they'll choose to compete on the platform itself, so they can own it. Time will tell.

Re:Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#31816136)

Years? How long would it take to optimize it into something good?

Re:Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas (4, Insightful)

PenguSven (988769) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815466)

Yes, people are abusing Canvas just like they abuse Flash, but at least with Canvas, Apple, Google, Mozilla, etc can DO something about the poor performance, rather than just listening to Adobe piss and moan and blame others, because Apple doesn't give a fucking browser plugin direct access to hardware.

Re:Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31815522)

If those browser developers can do something about the poor performance of canvas, then why haven't they? Their browsers have supported it for years now, but it's horribly fucking slow for even simple graphics. If you try to render more than three or four frames per second, you'll lock up those browsers! It's pretty unbelievable, actually. It's like they're going out of their way to make canvas perform horribly.

Re:Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas (4, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815564)

I would suspect that Apple considers HTML5 to be "better", regardless of what benchmarks say today; because they have the power to improve it, subject only to the limitations of their engineering resources and any fundamental defects in the spec(which, because the process is at least moderately open and consensus based, and one where Apple has a fair seat at the table, they have some hope of ironing out). Flash, by contrast, is however Adobe wants it to be.

Further, I suspect that Apple doesn't really need Flash-level performance out of HTML5. By virtue of their market share(and their customers' willingness to buy widgets), the "If you want performance, make an App and shut yer trap." argument has worked pretty well for them. I suspect that their intentions for HTML5 basically boil down to "Achieve broad enough adoption for video purposes that, for any random video website our customers go to, they'll get a lump of h.246 for our hardware decoder and a couple of vector widgets, rather than a 'you don't have flash, so sad' embed box." and "Achieve performance decent enough that, if web designers and their idiot customers simply have to have their fancy flash-based menu effects, they can implement them in HTML5 and not break the experience for iPod users."(and, presumably, in the not so distant future, Mac users).

Long term, there isn't any particular reason why HTML5, which offers vector objects and bitmap canvases with javascript control, should be markedly slower than Flash, which offers vector objects and bitmap canvases with Actionscript control. In the short term, I suspect that Apple just doesn't care all that much.

Re:Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas (1)

Spacezilla (972723) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815670)

That makes sense, thank you, and that goes for everyone else who has posted insightful answers as well. :)

I really wasn't trolling, some people have just been arguing that Apple really doesn't want other ways to access applications than through the app store. (There was something about a C64 emulator being removed as well.)

So I just didn't understand why HTML5 was OK then, when it gives at least some of the same possibilities.

So again, thank you for your time everyone. :)

Re:Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas (1)

Poorcku (831174) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815484)

Flash runs *perfectly* on my Nokia E71 (low power mobile device). If I were the CEO of Adobe, I would bring out my next Photoshop versions to Windows only. Just in spite. :)

Re:Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31815828)

If you did that, you wouldn't be CEO for too much longer after flipping off the majority of your Photoshop customer base for no reason other than to spite the company who makes their computers. All that would do is hurt your customers and your own business much more than Apple.

I know you were trying to be funny, but come on... that was pretty stupid.

Re:Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas (3, Interesting)

greggman (102198) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815486)

Except of course it's been running on low-power, low-spec'd mobile devices in Japan since like 2003.

A large percentage of Japanese cell phones since around 2003 use flash for their UIs. This is great for the cell phone providers because they can contract out their UIs to graphic designers and UI/UX people can differentiate their UIs every 6 months.

I loved the selectable Flash based UIs on my both my 2003 and 2005 Japanese Casio phone

Re:Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas (4, Interesting)

auLucifer (1371577) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815124)

My bet would be, like most engineer posts I have seen, is flash sucks on the mac. It is apparently by far the most reported issue by the mac crash report, it is slow and very resource intensive so not likely to give a very good experience on the iphone. I don't have a link but that's what the engineers inside apple say. With the stamping out the flash compiler though perhaps it's grown to be something more ...

Re:Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas (3, Informative)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815300)

It's not just "resource intensive", it's outrageously dog slow for seemingly no reason. It seems almost incredulous that it could be as bad as it is, but a simple H.264 stream inside a flash container (ie, no fancy extra stuff, just video in a box) is a painful hog in OS X. A 2Ghz Core 2 Duo should not be pushing 30% usage per core to play back 480i content.

Interactive flash content like games, or just heavy pages (like Blizzard's Diablo 3 site) do work, but they don't half push the CPU hard - considerably harder than the same site on the same machine booted into XP. (and we'll assume no H.264 hardware decoding on either platform - we're talking the animations and other stuff that flash does as well, it's not just video playback).

On2's flash player that was part of the program for testing your flash builds (it had a feature to create little ready made flash players from your movies) was better, and XBMC (running on top of OS X) is excellent at playing video streams that the browser plugin makes such a meal of.

It really is atrocious on OS X. (despite the considerable developer documentation about OS X's innards, although you will hear some people claiming it was somehow Apple "denying Adobe access" to the core of OS X to make flash better.

Re:Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas (1)

Malc (1751) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815922)

I can attest to this. Watching Channel 4's video on demand (TV catch-up service) is impossible on my 2008 MBP running OS X 10.6 due to dropped frames, etc. Fire up a Windows Vista virtual machine in VM Fusion and try there instead, and it is perfectly watchable.

The BBC iPlayer also became unwatchable about September or October last year on OS X 10.5. I don't know if that's still the case as I switched to watching on my PS3 instead. Now I just have to put up with sound of a jet engine in the background :P

Re:Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas (0)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815130)

Canvas in HTML5 is dog slow. It's unusable for anything more than simple animations or board games. So Apple doesn't fear losing their control of the platform much.

Flash, on the other hand, is pretty powerful. Especially for low-power devices.

Oh, and I doubt that WebGL will be implemented on iPhone, because it has potential to make HTML5 just as powerful as Flash.

Re:Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31815164)

Dog slow? Obviously you haven't seen Google's Quake 2 port running in Canvas.
http://code.google.com/p/quake2-gwt-port/

Re:Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas (2, Informative)

FyRE666 (263011) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815184)

Actually that's mostly using WebGL. If it was rendered using an HTML5 canvas alone I'm guessing you'd see maybe 0.1fps on a fast machine.

Re:Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas (2, Interesting)

Spacezilla (972723) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815216)

Admittedly this is far from Quake 2, but it's still an HTML5 game for the iPhone:

http://purplefloyd.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/html5-platform-game-for-iphone/ [wordpress.com]

With proper optimization, don't you think most 2D games could run pretty well in HTML5?

Re:Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31815440)

on the basis of the linked game i would say you haven't had anything to do with either playing or making flash games. in the last few years, the growth in the sophistication of (and the demand for) casual games has grown massively (and this seems set to continue.)

if you can honestly believe that this demo bodes well for html5 and its feasibility, then people should be able to make their minds up on that alone.

to anyone who knows anything about this it should be clear that apple have everything to fear from flash and nothing at all to worry about from html5, and that's why they can allow it.

Re:Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas (1)

Spacezilla (972723) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815514)

on the basis of the linked game i would say you haven't had anything to do with either playing or making flash games. in the last few years

How did you guess? :)

if you can honestly believe that this demo bodes well for html5 and its feasibility, then people should be able to make their minds up on that alone.

The Flash games I have seen people play lately have certainly had better graphics, but I'm not sure they're more advanced. Usually it's something about hitting a ball or throwing a penguin or something like that. I don't see many people playing huge, deep games, it's usually something very simplistic.

to anyone who knows anything about this it should be clear that apple have everything to fear from flash and nothing at all to worry about from html5, and that's why they can allow it.

Alright, thank you for your time. :)

Re:Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815346)

Technically, WebGL is canvas - it uses a canvas tag, but with a 3D context - although most people refer to the 2D rendering context when they talk about the canvas tag.

Re:Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas (1)

AresTheImpaler (570208) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815204)

Flash, on the other hand, is pretty powerful. Especially for low-power devices.

umm, I'm not going to argue how powerful flash is, but the "especially for low-powered devices" is completely the opposite.

Re:Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas (1)

AresTheImpaler (570208) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815242)

Damn it. I hate replying to myself, but I forgot the facts :'( I guess I need more coffee.
According to the Nexus One specs [google.com] , it has up to 7 hours of video playback. Let's assume it does 6 hours. Hell, let's assume it's 5 hours. Now, according to this flash mobil evangelist [flashmobileblog.com] : "Our own tests show that video can be played for well over 3Hours over WIFI from youtube in H.264 (Baseline 1.2)." Then it gives an update on the blog and says: "My colleague Michael Chaize has also completed his own tests shown below. In addition to my own basic test he demonstrates the ability to play videos and gaming for over 4 hours and five hours respectively."
No thank you... I prefer no flash!

Re:Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31815252)

HTML5 Canvas is only as slow as the JavaScript engine in the browser in question...

Re:Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31815352)

To my knowledge, Apple controls the entire source code to the iPhone OS. That's not to say they wrote the whole thing from scratch. Many low-level OS components are open source. But they have the source. If there's a bug, they can fix it. If something is slow, they can optimize or re-write it. That is not true for Mac OS X, and Flash is a prime example. The single leading source of application crashes on Mac OS X is a component that Apple can't fix.

As it stands today, Apple is dependent on no one other than itself for the software on the iPhone. Apple controls the source code to the whole thing, from top to bottom. Why cede any of that control to Adobe?

Re:Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31815468)

That is not true for Mac OS X, and Flash is a prime example. The single leading source of application crashes on Mac OS X is a component that Apple can't fix.

The accelerator pedal in a car is the single leading source of car crashes, do we ban the accelerator pedal or just teach drivers how to use it properly (and accept that some of them will abuse the privilege and suffer the crashes).

Re:Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas (1)

smash (1351) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815434)

Because flash relies on adobe's shitty flash interpreter, which has more holes than swiss cheese.

Javascript/html is run by apple interpreters, which apple have QA control over.

If Flash gets exploited on the iphone and Adobe lag the typical x months before patching it, and people's iphones get owned - iphone, and thus apple, look bad.

I don't think jobs, or any sane person wants to put their company/product in that situation.

Re:Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas (1, Interesting)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815254)

You can already get Flash on your iPhone. Remote Desktop to any OS capable of running flash, and there you go. As long as you're within you're own personal network lag should be almost non-existent.

Re:Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas (3, Interesting)

Shin-LaC (1333529) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815350)

Heh. But it's not too far-fetched to think that Apple's infamous new rules for the iPhone have something to do with Adobe suddenly annoucing that they're working on Flash->HTML5 conversion. It looks like something good might come out of that decision after all.

Re:Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas (2, Informative)

Verunks (1000826) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815652)

Heh. But it's not too far-fetched to think that Apple's infamous new rules for the iPhone have something to do with Adobe suddenly annoucing that they're working on Flash->HTML5 conversion. It looks like something good might come out of that decision after all.

I doubt that, the video is from october 2009

Re:Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 4 years ago | (#31816006)

Next step: Apple bans HTML Canvas except for animations approved personally by Steve Jobs.

Why leave it there: Steve bans Javascript and HTML from Adobe, except for those personally approved by Steve Jobs ;)

Great idea! And finally a webstandard from Adobe! (3, Funny)

thijsh (910751) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814878)

... but I wanna bet Gordon will be pissed. ;-)

yabut (1)

djupedal (584558) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814892)

I'm not making the connection between "...wondered why Adobe didn't spend their time building HTML5 Authoring tools rather than putting so much time/energy/money into their Flash->iPhone Apps ", and "rather rudimentary".

Either we're being fed an admission that the ar was wrong about how Adobe spent their time, or the ar is giving 'rather rudimentary' a rather generous pass. If the ar was wrong, then maybe when the other shoe drops we'll find that the generous pass was a mistake as well and this is nothing but more blood on the saddle. In other words, nothing to see, please move along.

Re:yabut (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31815044)

Words coherent not is much, grammar good not is very, understandable.

Flashblock and cookies (4, Interesting)

Meneth (872868) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814930)

What does this mean for Flashblock and Flash cookies?

Re:Flashblock and cookies (5, Funny)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814970)

What does this mean for Flashblock and Flash cookies?

What a strange question. It seems about as relevant as asking what this means for Flashdance.

Re:Flashblock and cookies (3, Informative)

A Friendly Troll (1017492) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815004)

Nothing. Flash will never be replaced, and by the time you start seeing Canvas ads, you'll have Canvasblock :)

Re:Flashblock and cookies (1)

tokul (682258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815022)

What does this mean for Flashblock and Flash cookies?

html canvas element does not use Flash. It uses scripting.

Re:Flashblock and cookies (2, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815364)

The nice thing about Flash, from the perspective of someone who wants to turn it off, is that a Flash movie is self-contained. Each Flash thing in the UI is a separate blob of code. With canvas, this separation is not present. A browser can refuse to generate a drawing context from a canvas tag, but it can't isolate separate components of the page's script. JavaScript has a single global namespace and everything in a page is squished into this. You can't easily turn off JavaScript and canvas and then turn it back on selectively, just allowing the canvas tag that you want.

Re:Flashblock and cookies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31815452)

You should be able to turn off a single canvas element (by id or class), and then have all events generated from it go to /dev/null and all drawing requests for it also go to /dev/null. Sure, it wouldn't block all CPU usage associated with it (just some), but at least, it'd kill the ad in it...

Smart move and good news (4, Interesting)

mcvos (645701) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814936)

Adobe has always been more about good editing tools, rather than runtime platforms. If everybody starts dropping flash support, why would they cling desperately to the flash plugin? Having their tools export to HTML5 is a smart move. Keeps them relevant, and they won't have to support their own runtime platform anymore. Instead, they'll have to compete, which is good news for everybody else.

Re:Smart move and good news (5, Insightful)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815000)

Adobe has always been more about good editing tools, rather than runtime platforms.

Yeah, maybe when Photoshop and Illustrator were their main products. Since then (and particularly since the acquisition of Macromedia) they have been all about "owning the platform" and trying to tie their products into the web. It's not just Flash, they took PDF from being a nice WYSYWIG print document format, and then started embedding all kinds of interactive bullshit into it. Or Adobe AIR.

Since around the turn of the Century, they stopped being about creative tools and started marketing to executives as being "business tools." The rapid decline of their applications was very evident, as they lost focus and tried to shoehorn their "platform" thinking into every product, even if it didn't really belong there.

Re:Smart move and good news (1)

neumayr (819083) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815116)

Not to mention the DRM infrastructure they build around PDF (and EPUB).
But they do get away with it it seems, maybe because their SDK for those fileformats is without real competition (that I know of). Every E-Reader with support for those formats I've seen uses this SDK...

Re:Smart move and good news (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815120)

That seems true from observation of their actions, but I can't imagine the business case really lines up with it. From everything I can discern, Photoshop and Illustrator are still by far their cash cows. Their ownership of PDF helps them sell some PDF authoring tools, but it's not the revenue stream that Photoshop is.

Re:Smart move and good news (4, Insightful)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815202)

That seems true from observation of their actions, but I can't imagine the business case really lines up with it.

Nobody ever accused most executives that run big businesses today of being particularly competent at business. They mostly exist to enrich themselves by selling the company down the river for short-term gains.

From everything I can discern, Photoshop and Illustrator are still by far their cash cows.

I haven't seen any figures, but I wouldn't be so sure. Flash and Dreamweaver are very popular in web design and production. Anyway, nobody buys Illustrator or Photoshop as standalone products anymore, you buy the Creative Suite, and get the other stuff thrown in with it.

Their ownership of PDF helps them sell some PDF authoring tools, but it's not the revenue stream that Photoshop is.

Again, I'm not so sure about this. People may not buy Photoshop and Illustrator as standalone products, but businesses do buy Acrobat Pro as a standalone product in large quantities. Sure it costs less to buy, but it also costs less to develop, and when you buy Creative Suite it counts as an Acrobat Pro sale as well as a Photoshop sale.

I don't have any hard answers, but to me the weirdest thing is the change of culture. Having worked in design and photo editing, it used to be hell to try and get the boss to fork out for a copy of Photoshop. They would say "why can't we use something cheaper, like Corel, or [shudder] Microsoft Paint, or perhaps pirate it?" This was at a time when Photoshop had few serious competitors. Today, Photoshop has mounting competition, and the bosses have the opposite attitude - "If it's not Adobe, there must be something wrong with it. It can't be very good if it's that much cheaper." It's the "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM/Microsoft" syndrome all over again. And just like that syndrome, it is highly entrenched. There are courses all over the world in web design that basically teach Flash and Dreamweaver as the holy grail, and teach people to do web mock-ups in Photoshop, and those courses will address issues like HTML5 when hell freezes over.

It's a bit sad, as someone who has used Adobe stuff from almost the beginning, to see that people now miss the point. Rather than seeing the potential of the tools, it's become entrenched rote-learning and slavishness to the product, rather than the vision.

Re:Smart move and good news (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815366)

I Think what happened is that adobe courted schools and quark was an asshole.

When indesign came out creative suite was a very affordable easy way for schools to get a tool for all their needs (vector, raster, layout, cross platform archive). And while there was no educational discount on quark, the suite was deeply discounted (creative suite was cheaper than quark alone).

After a couple of versions indesign was even a usable product.

You can see the effect in the precipitous drop of quark upgrade prices. They are struggling to keep loyal customers even.

Re:Smart move and good news (2, Insightful)

gaspyy (514539) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815428)

This was at a time when Photoshop had few serious competitors. Today, Photoshop has mounting competition

Name one.

There is no serious competition for Photoshop. I wish it were. Corel stopped innovating years ago. Gimp is still a toy for professional work and I really don't know any other professional program that can do what Photoshop can.

I'm saying this as a former Corel user. It wasn't easy for me to fork money for PS, but I had to because I realized that no other tool comes close. Sure, there's Fireworks (also by Adobe) and Corel Painter but they are specialized tools.

Re:Smart move and good news (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815378)

they took PDF from being a nice WYSYWIG print document format, and then started embedding all kinds of interactive bullshit into it

Most of which is not used. The submitted PDF to ISO, and ISO also defines a few useful subsets of PDF that don't have any of the 'interactive bullshit'.

Re:Smart move and good news (4, Interesting)

jlebrech (810586) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815010)

This was the logical step to go from the start.

Adobe has kept that quiet whilst pretending to be worried about flash going down the pan.

Flash is just an export file format, and they can now export to a slightly less bloated/featured format. this type of technology will cement Adobe more into the web development industry.

If Adobe are smart they will be the number 1 HTML5 authoring tools around.

Very impressive.

Re:Smart move and good news (1, Interesting)

FyRE666 (263011) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815200)

How the hell do you think this will be less bloated? Instead of a binary plugin installed on your machine that just downloads compressed binary data to render an animation, now you'll need to download the entire runtime script, as plain text, plus additional js to run the same animation. If anything, this will INCREASE the download times significantly.

Re:Smart move and good news (1)

agrif (960591) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815362)

How the hell do you think that this data is not already transmitted with Flash, and how do you know that it is well compressed? Even given that, I think you should read up on "Content-Encoding: gzip" and friends.

Keeping software from being a commodity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31815048)

Instead, they'll have to compete, which is good news for everybody else.

I think you've answered your own question.

With more and more software becoming a commodity, any company that bases its revenue model on software development will be hanging on with dear life and will do anything to keep people coming back to them.

Re:Smart move and good news (5, Interesting)

stimpleton (732392) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815058)

"Adobe has always been more about good editing tools."

I really must disagree. While Macromedia made Dreamweaver, it has been under Adobe control for a while and very little has changed. My brief list of why Dreamweaver might be seriously hampered in the next evolution of web(HTML5):

- Data IDE to a database virtually unchanged since Dreamweaver 4.
- Broken layer support such as nested layers. Try positioning a layer mid vertical and horizontal and then try editing that in Dreamweaver.
- No virtualization for modern javascript techniques such as httpRequest, let alone HTML 5.
- GUI implementation of CSS is poor. Old Skool technique of writing the style sheet first is fastest.

In summary, Dreamweaver has not got these technologies right. I feel it is in real danger of dropping the ball. Adobe's attitude confuses me. But correct re Flash. It will be an IDE for HTML5 development or die. Within several years with a combo of increased processor specs and browser optimisations, the Canvas control will be the new VGA mode. With casual games being the biggest growth market, ignore this at your peril.

Re:Smart move and good news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31815556)

+5 interesting eh, and yet there probably isn't one comment on this page that is more clueless - it is laughable to think that html5 can compete with flash for casual games, even if flash were to stand still and stop innovating at its currently very rapid rate.

Re:Smart move and good news (3, Interesting)

snsr (917423) | more than 4 years ago | (#31816072)

it is laughable to think that html5 can compete with flash for casual games

Far from laughable - it's already happening: http://www.canvasdemos.com/type/games/ [canvasdemos.com]

Re:Smart move and good news (2)

snsr (917423) | more than 4 years ago | (#31816090)

In summary, Dreamweaver has not got these technologies right

Dreamweaver's WYSIWYG rendering engine is a joke, and it always has been. The app is a text editor with code highlighting, plain and simple.

Back to the Future (5, Interesting)

wombatmobile (623057) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814986)

Adobe was pro web standards until it bought Macromedia. It was the leading supporter of Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG [adobe.com] ) for the first half of last decade, publishing and distributing an SVG plugin for Internet Explorer and supporting SVG in Illustrator and GoLive. Adobe lost its moral compass when it bought Macromedia, After failing to halt the popularity of web standards and standing at the edge of a precipice, Adobe is now seeking forgiveness from developers.

Re:Back to the Future (3, Interesting)

virgilp (1774784) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815056)

Or another way to say it is:

"Adobe tried to compete with Macromedia by supporting web standards instead of Flash; after Macromedia kicked their ass due to the much faster development cycle (they were not constrained by any standards comitee), they learned the lesson, acquired Macromedia and did the development no their own".
Take a look at Apple... the only HTML5 standard they are supporting is the one already implemented in Webkit (coincidentally, it's their own platform). Sure, they've put up a "standards group" to make it seem like they care about others think, but the WHATWG standard is really "what Apple thinks best suits their interest".

I'm curious though how long it will take until browsers start becoming "CPU hogs", and "flash crashed my browser window" turns into "javascript/canvas/svg/whatever crashed my browser window" (or the full browser, depending on how good the browser implementation is.

(oh, btw, about multi-platform and "Mac users being second-hand citizens because Adobe is evil".... I hear that Safari implementation on Windows is pretty crappy compared to Mac. And how's Safari doing on Linux, does anybody care to tell me? :) )

Re:Back to the Future (1)

PenguSven (988769) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815542)

Sure, they've put up a "standards group" to make it seem like they care about others think, but the WHATWG standard is really "what Apple thinks best suits their interest".

Not quite, old chap.

WHATWG was formed by people from Apple, Mozilla and Opera. They invited a Microsoft guy but he declined.

The current editor of WHATWG specs is Ian Hickson, who works for Google.

Lock in Culture (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814988)

Imagine an industry which everyone won
Permanent profit in endless black
Indulge yourself, your every mood
Consider for a minute who code for
What you'd like to change, never mind the profit
Bury the past, empty the shell
Decide it's time to reinvent yourself
Like Adobe before TrueType, Flash after HTML5
Suddenly your missing, then you're reborn
Living in an Adobe fantasy

Re:Lock in Culture (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815018)

Uhh, was that post supposed to be read to the tune of "Fantasy" by Black Box? Don't do that.

Re:Lock in Culture (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815034)

The 1991 track DJ Culture by British electronic music group Pet Shop Boys.

Re:Lock in Culture (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815062)

The 1991 track DJ Culture by British electronic music group Pet Shop Boys.

Well, that cleanses the aural stain. A little.

Re:Lock in Culture (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31815064)

BURMA SHAVE!

Very telling post (4, Insightful)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#31814996)

"Adobe does have some, albeit rudimentary, HTML5 Canvas exporting tools"

Tells me they only had this as a backup plan for when shit hit the fan, which they never expected to have happen so soon.

Apple got Adobe with their pants down and now Adobe is scrambling.

Holy Shit Are You A Fucking Piece Of Garbage (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31815032)

Flash is owns 95 percent of the media web content.

Flash is getting standardized with auto updates in webbrowsers like Chrome.

Yeah, Apple and their 3 percent desktop marketshare, falling cellphone OS marketshare, and marketplace flop turd of tablet iPad are making Adobe 'scramble'.

Gonna be running your mouth off dipshit when Adobe drops Photoshop/Creative Suite for the Mac? Hug faggot?

The only outcome of Jobs little tantrum over Flash is developers are flocking like mad to Android.

 

Re:Holy Shit Are You A Fucking Piece Of Garbage (1, Insightful)

neumayr (819083) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815142)

Bashing Apple for the sake of bashing Apple doesn't bring your point across very well. That even stopped working for Microsoft, finally.
Face it, Apple's hugely popular, you don't have to like it or agree with it, but denying it brings you nowhere. And they're using their influence to further their own agenda. Who wouldn't?

Re:Holy Shit Are You A Fucking Piece Of Garbage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31815622)

You need to understand that Apple's strength is creating relatively shitty and very restricted gadgets (under the guise of "usability"), and then marketing those gadgets so much that people come to think of them as being good.

Everything the GP said is absolutely true. Even though we hear about them all the time, they do only have a 3% to 4% share of desktop systems. The don't sell nearly as many phones as companies like Nokia, Sony, Motorola or Samsung.

The iPad is nothing more than hype. It has been released now, people have used it, and we've heard the hype die off because it's pretty much a useless device.

After the latest shenanigans with Apple telling developers the languages they can use to develop iPhone apps, most sensible developers have said, "Fuck it!" and have moved to targeting Android.

Re:Holy Shit Are You A Fucking Piece Of Garbage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31815710)

the problem here is that apple are highly dependent on people that buy things with money that has been made and given to them by their parents. this means that when the economic circumstances change, as they have, this type of customer doesn't have as much money to spend. and because this typical customer tends to be 'less than the full shilling' if i can put it that way, they won't be able to find other sources of income. to get the same amount of cash out of them jobs and co will have to squeeze them even harder eg the ipad. now even though these apple lifestylers are used to taking it right up the bum from jobs, even they can tell when the petroleum jelly is being skimped on, especially when the delivery is aggressive, as it has been lately.

really, you can hardly blame jobs for lashing out at other companies. the thing about this latest outrage and the whole joke that is the ipad is that it won't just fade away like the cube, air etc, it will really blow up in his gaunt face - and instead of being happy as the king of itunes he will go down as a greedy and malevolent fool.

i truly hope he can shuffle off before things get too ridiculous, the other day i was reading from one apple diehard about how the iphone isn't really a phone, and it shouldn't be judged harshly for dropping and missing calls. priceless but unseemly.

Re:Very telling post (4, Funny)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815082)

Well, I don't know if I agree with this analysis, all I want to say right now is : Thanks Adobe ! Welcome to the open web ! Finally ! Stop being an enemy and let's be friends ! Let's make the web fantastic again !

Re:Very telling post (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31815102)

Please refresh my memory: when was it "fantastic" before?

Re:Very telling post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31815214)

"/b/ was never good", huh?

Re:Very telling post (3, Insightful)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815290)

When every text content was crawlable and accessible via links.

When you didn't have to go through a slow (but shiny) flash animation to get twenty bytes of content. When the only annoyances were the animated gifs and the <blink> tag

Re:Very telling post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31815818)

Yes. Flash is like those 2 sentence memos you get in e-mail -- in Microsoft Word format as an attachment.

Re:Very telling post (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815422)

Some time around 1993, when animated GIFs were the most irritating thing you could do, there were no search engines so you had to get people to recommend your page for it to be seen, most pages contained useful information, and any browser worked on any site. Of course, it was a lot less useful back then; less signal, but a much higher signal to noise ratio.

Re:Very telling post (1)

Peter Bortas (130) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815700)

Animated GIFs where introduced in Netscape 2.0, which didn't appear until late 1995. So '93 and '94 was animation free. I believe <blink> was available from '94 though.

Re:Very telling post (1)

Philip_the_physicist (1536015) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815490)

Between the launch of Mosaic and the start of the Eternal September.

Re:Very telling post (2, Funny)

thijsh (910751) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815294)

I would like to sign your petition to make the web fantastic *again*... We all love animated GIFs with text and background with blindness inducing color scheme... Oh and lets not forget the mandatory Java applets with water ripple effects and ActiveX object just for some 3D little animation. The web really was fantastic then, websites even tasted better... kinda like strawberry and kittens. So please Adobe, sprinkle some of your corporate magic unicorn dust over the interwebs.

Re:Very telling post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31815584)

Those things didn't go away because the technology didn't allow it, they went away because web design matured into a proper thing. The people making those crappy websites have all moved onto social networking, and the people who would make websites like that are also already into social networking.

Re:Very telling post (1)

DarkXale (1771414) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815126)

Perhaps, but it does also buy them a bit more time. HTML5 is currently not ready to be used mainstream. Far too many browsers still do not have HTML5 support. That said, once IE9 is released - we can probably expect a massive adaption of it on the Internet "market". It'll take time; i don't think too many people and sites will be quick to replace existing flash content. Likely all NEW content and adds will be HTML 5 however. Eventually as site upgrades/renovations become relevant though, the remaining flash objects will be replaced by HTML5 components where possible. Competitive sites will likely adapt it sooner however, in order to gain the edge over competition in regards to usability.

Re:Very telling post (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815412)

Just now ate sites starting to drop ie 6 support. We have years yet.

I can't read TFA! (4, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815002)

Or rather, can't view TF video - FlashBlock prevented it.

Re:I can't read TFA! (5, Insightful)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815038)

Just to clarify, I like it that way. I don't look forward to the day when any old site can peg my CPU and I can't prevent it. God knows, some people's JavaScript is bad enough.

Re:I can't read TFA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31815094)

I'm confident the advances in technology in the last 20 years means your CPU will be perfectly fine playing that video or running that badly written javascript.

You do not need 100% total control over your CPU, unless you have absolutely nothing else going on in your life.

Re:I can't read TFA! (2, Insightful)

oji-sama (1151023) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815238)

I'm confident the advances in technology in the last 20 years means your CPU will be perfectly fine playing that video or running that badly written javascript.

You do not need 100% total control over your CPU, unless you have absolutely nothing else going on in your life.

I'm confident that advances in technology will mean that there will be something else clogging the CPU in 20 years.

Re:I can't read TFA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31815436)

Disagreed. One badly written javascript my CPU handles fine, yeah, but when I reach a page with fifteen advertisement scripts and another twenty ajax libraries, all from different domains, things are not so smooth. And you would not believe how, even in reputed sites, many of those scripts are completely unnecessary even when want to go through the complete Web 2.0 ajax buzzword leveraging experience or whatever the designer intended.

I believe that one of the reasons I was less impressed by Chrome than a lot of other Firefox users was because I have a nice NoScript whitelist that prevents those atrocities from slowing down my rendering, so I didn't really have a need for insanely fast javascript engines.

Re:I can't read TFA! (1)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815836)

Thank you for being one of only of the only people that gets it. All this Flash/Adobe hate is going to come back and bite the geek community in the ass 1000 times worse when sites start not rendering unless you allow the canvas tag.

Re:I can't read TFA! (1)

neumayr (819083) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815148)

.o(Tsk. Humor-impaired mods.)

Patented by Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31815208)

HTML5 canvas is patented by Apple. I presume the double standards for patents don't apply here (ie. video)?

Re:Patented by Apple (2, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815430)

Apple has licensed those patents for free to anyone implementing the canvas tag as defined in the HTML5 standard. Does the MPEG-LA want to do the same with H.264? If so, I'd love to see it become part of the spec.

Re:Patented by Apple (3, Informative)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815462)

Apple disclosed the patents under the W3C's royalty-free patent licensing terms. This means means that Apple is required to provide royalty-free licensing for the patent whenever the Canvas element becomes part of a future W3C recommendation created by the HTML working group ....So Apple are not being "Evil" and so no double standards needed ....

Great now Apple will block HTML5 (1)

Bruha (412869) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815388)

If this were to take off with Adobe, I would seriously love to see what Jobs would do. No un-signed web pages allowed to load in mobile safari??

So, Linux? (1)

Trelane (16124) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815716)

Is their authoring suite going to be ported to Linux then? Between Apple banning them and Microsoft trying to kill them (PDF, flash) it seems that Linux is their last refuge.

Flash - iPhone vs Flash - HTML5 (1)

lloy0076 (624338) | more than 4 years ago | (#31815996)

Realistically, Flash to iPhone would be easier excepting for Apple's licensing and such. One thing Apple DOES do well is standardise its interface and APIs. HTML5 isn't well supported and won't be implemented for years and YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS from now by which time real people will have gotten fed up and the various implementations WILL have diverged. And then we'll have everyone bleating about HTML6 to solve all our problems...Flash -> iPhone seemed to be a proof of concept against a non-moving target. It's just that said target went and made it illegal to do so.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>