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 Releases Flash To HTML 5 Converter

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the hospital-bed-conversion dept.

Programming 168

An anonymous reader writes "Adobe has released its Flash to HTML 5 conversion tool, codenamed 'Wallaby.' Wallaby is an application to convert Adobe Flash Professional CS5 files (.FLA) to HTML5 and its primary design goals were to get the best quality and performance on browsers within iOS devices like iPhone and iPad."

cancel ×

168 comments

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

Finally, but (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35418640)

I wonder how efficient this is going to be. We don't want HTML5 to get a bunch of autogenerated bogged down code and become the next flash (performance wise, anyway).

Re:Finally, but (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35418728)

Only time will tell, in terms of Adobe's specific implementation; but given that Flash consists of Actionscript(practically Javascript), bitmap and vector graphics(canvas/SVG), A/V decode support for specific codecs(HTML5 video), and flash cookies/data storage(HTML5 local data store), there is no broad reason to expect that HTML5(at least in the medium term) shouldn't be able to do the majority of Flash stuff(omitting specific cases like some special streaming capabilities and DRM) with efficiency on roughly the same order as Flash(better if the browser maker is more competent/platform integrated than Adobe, worse if they are less competent, or if Adobe's conversion tool produces pathological code)...

Unfortunately, drawing lots and lots of fancy vectors with an interpreted language is always going to be more computationally expensive than more... restrained... tastes in web design; but at least it won't all be crammed into a proprietary runtime with a ghastly security record...

Re:Pathological Code (0)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35418812)

(Complete Font Specs Here) &nbsp Auto (/Font) &nbsp (More Complete Font Specs) generating (/Font) &nbsp (Because one font spec) programs (isn't enough) &nbsp do (Facebook Hook) LikeThis.(/Facebook Hook)

Re:Finally, but (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35418952)

ActionScript is practically JavaScript? Good god, that's like saying VB is practically C.

Re:Finally, but (4, Informative)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419178)

ActionScript is practically JavaScript? Good god, that's like saying VB is practically C.

If VB and C were based on the same standard, you might have a point.

Recent versions of JavaScript and ActionScript are both (partial or complete) implementations of ECMAScript version 3.

Not that silly... (4, Informative)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419526)

ActionScript is practically JavaScript? Good god, that's like saying VB is practically C.

If I've got my version numbers right....

ActionScript 1 was an implementation of ECMAScript - i.e. the language was virtually identical to Javascript.

ActionScript 2 diverged from Javascript in that it included some elements that were being discussed for the next version of ECMAScript but never materialised (e.g. class-based OOP).

ActionScript 3 diverged a bit more (e.g. package-management stuff).

...AFAIK most of this was just "syntactic sugar" so, e.g. you can declare a class Java-style rather than creating a function and appending methods to its prototype JS-style. So cross-compiling ActionScript to Javascript should be mainly a job of translating shortcuts added in AS2&3 back into "longhand"

Of course, that's just the language - the Flash API is nothing like HTML DOM, but SVG seems a fairly good substitute for Flash's vector graphics. Pity that, unlike Apple, Android disabled SVG in their web browser (people forget that when they're ragging on iOS for not having Flash...) :-(

Re:Finally, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35419596)

Actionscript is a nice little language. Don't hate on the language just because it's associated with Flash.

Re:Finally, but (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419748)

ActionScript is practically JavaScript? Good god, that's like saying VB is practically C.

No it's not. They are practically identical.

Re:Finally, but (1)

Defenestrar (1773808) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419206)

Especially as:

...this initial version of Wallaby offers no support for conversion of ActionScript, Movies and Sound.

Personally, the main utility that I could use would be a (free) method of converting .swf into just about any other video format so I can watch my online lecture courses outside of the browser (and at 1.25 fractional speed). I understand the technical benefits for using a shockwave video (e.g. file size), but there's something to be said for avoiding closed sources in an academic setting. Sorry, sideline rant there.

Re:Finally, but (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419252)

You still need the Adobe plugin(unless Gnash just happens to support your specific .swf files); but VLC has support for treating the contents of the screen as an input stream, which should allow you to do an ugly-but-functional transcode... There is another cute utility that emulates a VNC client; but, instead of doing the usual VNC client thing, writes out an flv movie of the on-screen action (vnc2flv, I think is the name). If you install a VNC server on the machine being used to show the swf, you could also get a video file out of it that way... Also ugly; but might be good enough.

Re:Finally, but (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419296)

Most video is streamed via RTMP, which HTML5 cannot handle, so there is no point in converting the player since the video is not part of the original file.

Inverse Embrace and extend (1)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419448)

Adobe is setting up HTML5 to be "flash-lite". Like the embrace and extend concept, they can offer more features leading people genetly away from HTML5. For example, you want to build a website but are not sure what the future holds. You could build it in HTML5 and then hope you don't get stuck with some content protection or interaction issues that demand HTML5. (e.g. maybe you think your social networking ite might someday offer simultaneous feature movie viewing that will demand FLASH DRM or something) Or you could build it in Flash and translate it to HTML5. and that will work till you really need flash, if ever. Going the other route: build it in HTML5 and then get stuck and have to rebuild it in Flash might look unappealing.

Re:Inverse Embrace and extend (4, Informative)

mcelrath (8027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419664)

OTOH, Adobe makes their money from selling Flash authoring tools. I'm sure they couldn't give a crap less what the target format for their tools is, if people still buy their authoring tools. Being able to dump the expense of maintaining and distributing the Flash player, but still selling authoring tools that output HTML5 and let Flash slowly die? Sounds like a damn good business decision.

Re:Inverse Embrace and extend (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419696)

Adobe makes money on the editor, not the player. If they can get people to develop pages in Flash and "sidegrade" to HTML5 that's fine by them as long as they are the first and forefront of rich HTML content development suites.

Re:Finally, but (-1, Redundant)

devxo (1963088) | more than 3 years ago | (#35418792)

Well, to begin with it lacks support for ActionScript so it's quite useless for applications and games and such.

That's what HTML5 is missing and why Flash will still stay around - they have concentrated too much on the video side only. Flash is a lot more than that. While you can use canvas and javascript to make things with HTML5, it really isn't the same. You have to give out the source code, don't get the extra performance from it being bytecode and you can't package it nicely like Flash.

That's why Flash is still going to stay here. Adobe of course doesn't really care as the development tools are important for them, but they will keep developing Flash until better technology comes along. HTML5 is becoming too problematic with its lack of support for those things and the fighting of what codec to use.

Re:Finally, but (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35419014)

Congratulations, you win the dumbest post of the day award.

Re:Finally, but (1)

Old97 (1341297) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419592)

Unless you explain why you think his post is dumb/dumber or dumbest, you are just trolling. What exactly do you think is so dumb about what he wrote? Did he get a fact about how the technology works wrong or do you disagree with his analysis of how businesses and the marketplace really work? Or maybe his conclusion conflicts with what you'd like to believe?

Re:Finally, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35420148)

I'm not the GP but no he's not trolling. There is at least 3 statements in the GGPs post which are outright stupid and don't need to be pointed out.

Re:Finally, but (0)

Old97 (1341297) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420342)

Why doesn't it need to be pointed out? If one feels it necessary to share their judgment about a post with the entire community, shouldn't they explain why the think that way? This isn't Facebook or Twitter where you just spew random emotions to your real and imagined friends. It is a forum for sharing ideas and information. Tell us what the 3 statements are and why you think they are stupid, please. It may not be as obvious as you think.

Re:Finally, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35419070)

Well, to begin with it lacks support for ActionScript so it's quite useless for applications and games and such.

Quite fine by me .. I don't want Flash for applications and games and such.

I think it's a steaming turd and don't have it installed on any of my PCs if I can avoid it. I also don't trust it in terms of security, and never have.

Flash is an ugly hack that tries to turn a web-browser into god only knows what. Web sites that use it cause me to give up and leave -- if it's work related and I have no choice, I'll dig up a VMWare image that has it installed on it.

Re:Finally, but (0)

alen (225700) | more than 3 years ago | (#35418848)

stop drinking the steve jobs kool aid

once htm5 matures and you get more dev tools it will be the same performance monster as flash animations

Re:Finally, but (1)

dingen (958134) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419108)

Since there is competition however in the browser market, much will be done to improve rendering speed of complex and heavy HTML5 applications. This is in sharp contrast with Adobe, who as sole provider of the Flash plugin has no incentive at all to improve things.

Re:Finally, but (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419230)

Since there is competition however in the browser market, much will be done to improve rendering speed of complex and heavy HTML5 applications. This is in sharp contrast with Adobe, who as sole provider of the Flash plugin has no incentive at all to improve things.

Sure they do. If Adobe doesn't improve Flash, then there's no reason for Flash designers to buy new versions.

Considering that Flash Professional CS5 has a list price of $699 per copy on its own.

Re:Finally, but (3, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419322)

You're confusing two different issues. Adobe has an incentive to add new features to the Flash authoring tools, much less incentive to improve the plugin: it doesn't directly generate revenue and it's got no competition.

If HTML5 support matures a bit more, Flash Professional will probably evolve into an HTML 5 rich content authoring platform. This is great from Adobe's perspective - they get to keep the profitable bit (the authoring tool) and let other companies absorb develop their their loss leader.

Flash Player is currently a strange beast. It has some amazing technology (the JIT compiler is pretty impressive), and some really hideous legacy stuff (like doing colour space transforms and compositing entirely on the CPU, because that made sense 15 years ago) that cripples performance. There's no incentive for Adobe to rewrite the legacy parts that are 'good enough', but if Mozilla's canvas implementation is significantly slower than the one in IE or WebKit then they lose marketing points so they have a strong incentive to improve it.

Re:Finally, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35419340)

Except for the fact that the browser developers are far more competent than the incompetent fools at Adobe (and previously at Macromedia). Every single tool ever published by Macromedia was a buggy nightmare. I remember the bad old days of Director, where development was pretty much a matter of tying one bug workaround to another. Flash has improved on this, but nowhere near enough to make it efficient to develop in.

On the other hand, the current slate of browser developers know about a little something called testing, which should go a long way to making the HTML5 implementations actually useable by enterprise developers who value their productivity, rather than the number of billable hours they can sucker their clients in accepting for a given piece of functionality.

Re:Finally, but (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419642)

I suppose only time will tell. At least with HTML5 a lot more work has been done with optimizing the engines, but we still aren't immune to the endless "for" loops that take up all the CPU - maybe that would take some code that would detect a CPU crushing "for" loop and de-prioritise the code? Either way I would be curious to see how much they decide to optimise the generated code. I don't want to see something akin to the mess generated by programs such as "MS FrontPage".

Re:Finally, but (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419712)

I wonder how efficient this is going to be. We don't want HTML5 to get a bunch of autogenerated bogged down code and become the next flash (performance wise, anyway).

The answer to that is "probably less efficient than just running flash". Now you potentially have 4 or 5 JS scripts on timers all in contention on the same thread of your browser, all screaming to be updated every 1/30th of a second.

creators; big flash imminent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35418654)

just kidding? either way, we'll see you there? no hard feelings, ever again? that's whacky?

Good news for linux? (1)

Jack Malmostoso (899729) | more than 3 years ago | (#35418658)

Of course I did not RTFA, however is there any way this technology could be used to convert flash-heavy websites to HTML5, thus benefiting those platforms which don't have a flash plugin available? Linux/PPC comes to mind, but I am sure there are others. And no, Gnash and company do not even come close.

Re:Good news for linux? (3, Informative)

RobbieThe1st (1977364) | more than 3 years ago | (#35418698)

You mean like say... Smokescreen? http://smokescreen.us/ [smokescreen.us]
Looks like exactly what you want, though it seems a bit slow on my cellphone.

Re:Good news for linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35418718)

Perhaps you should RTFA?

Re:Good news for linux? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35418800)

Not really, at least currently. There is no actionscript support, so this is really only for animation exclusive flash files. Obviously you could modify the code it generates and use that as a basis to convert your flash application, but it would basically mean maintaining your code base in two, admittedly similar, languages. This is really aimed at the animation only crowd who have little to no interactivity (ie, advertisers) and keeping them happy on the flash platform.

Re:Good news for linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35419042)

Mod AC up please, before everyone has a nerdgasm. This is for animation and not interactivity.

Actionscript? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35418692)

No support for actionscript or nested timelines? So it makes animated gifs?

Is a subject really necessary? (2)

LizardKing (5245) | more than 3 years ago | (#35418724)

So is this the best of both worlds for all of us? Adobe can still sell Flash authoring software, while the need for their buggy plugin fades away. End users benefit from portability and (given Adobe's track record with the plugin) security perspective. There must be a catch.

Re:Is a subject really necessary? (2)

gmueckl (950314) | more than 3 years ago | (#35418958)

There is a simple catch: performance. Some parts of Flash are really highly optimized (like the vector rendering engine - yup, that was once the primary purpose of the whole beast...). I highly doubt that any potential HTML5 counterpart to these parts reaches even remotely the same performance. End result: choppy animation, poor battery life, you name it.

Re:Is a subject really necessary? (3, Interesting)

dingen (958134) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419150)

Why wouldn't browsers be capable of the same level of performance in rendering vector graphics as Flash? Especially since hardware acceleration is already implemented by most browsers on most platforms and Javascript engines are already highly optimized, creating smoother canvas / SVG animations could well be the next big thing browser developers will aim for.

Re:Is a subject really necessary? (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419762)

"aim for" - Sure. But today, the race is on to keep people developing in Flash and porting it to HTML5 for Adobe. They've put their foot in the door. How many browsers are working on fast SVG? I hear more about JavaScript performance that I have about SVG in any form. SVG is still very much in an infant stage on the browsers. Yes, there is some support, but it's limited.

Re:Is a subject really necessary? (1)

dingen (958134) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420056)

But as more content will be provided in SVG, the support for it in browsers will also improve. It's a chicken/egg situation, I know, but I see absolutely no reason why Adobe would be the sole provider of fast rendering vector graphics on the web.

Re:Is a subject really necessary? (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419194)

There is. This only supports animation, not ActionScript. Interactive applications like games, charts, menus, etc don't get to come along for the ride.

True, you get to dump the buggy Flash plugin, and that's a good thing. On the other hand, you lose all the things that make Flash more than just a video player.

Re:Is a subject really necessary? (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419292)

IIRC Smokescreen [smokescreen.us] supports ActionScript.

Meh (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35418738)

I just hate it when companies end up wasting time and effort to prove Jobs right.

Adobe should have just stood their ground, and used THEIR bulk to break Apple, not the other way around.

Re:Meh (3, Insightful)

Galestar (1473827) | more than 3 years ago | (#35418866)

You must be new here. Adobe has come out publicly and said that HTML5 doesn't scare them because they know their plugin does not have much of a future. They want to sell authoring software, that is their entire business model. As far as Apple is concerned I don't think they really care what SJ has to say one way or another.

Re:Meh (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35418916)

I must have missed that article.

So HTML 5 is as powerful as Flash? I always imagined Silverlight dying with HTML 5 - but I always thought Flash had something extra above HTML 5. Talking about actionscript mostly and not about the animation.

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35419036)

Actionscript is basically Javascript with a nicer API. Say hello to jQuery...

Re:Meh (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419836)

You could do jQuery in Actionscript, but I feel jQuery was mainly a workaround to working with the DOM. (jQuery has some nice additions for dealing with Arrays and Collections as well) AS never needed that since it always dealt with SVG and raw data, but the side features that come with jQuery I find missing when working with AS.

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35419946)

A MUCH nicer API. 90% of the pain from Javascript is struggling with the terrible document model it inherits from the browser. I don't really like the clickn'drag Flash development tools, but writing stuff in Actionscript is nice and smooth. Nice enough I would sometimes use it for one-off programs that don't require high performance (scripting tasks, etc.).

Re:Meh (1)

Galestar (1473827) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419100)

Actionscript is neat and all, but javascript is a decent replacement for it. Javascript just has a bad name because so many amateurs use it poorly, and it is a slightly different paradigm (functional, prototype-based) than traditional c++/java/VB that professionals are used to. Its proper use has come a long way in the past few years though.

I've been looking, and while I've seen a few bloggers back up my story, I haven't been able to find an article I read last year, which quoted them as saying such.

Just think about their *profitable* product lines though - all authoring tools (think Photoshop, Acrobat, Dreamweaver and their ilk)

Re:Meh (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419280)

and it is a slightly different paradigm (functional, prototype-based) than traditional c++/java/VB that professionals are used to

Except that's not really obvious when you're reading about the language -- it's got more traditional procedural syntax and structures. One doesn't tend to think of a language with a "while" loop as being functional.

Maybe one of the reasons "amateurs" don't use it the way you think they should is that the people who built the language have done a piss-poor job of conveying to people how it's actually "supposed" to be used. Or, they've been gradually slapping more into the language than the original thing we think of as "javascript".

I'll definitely concede you can do more in javascript than most people realize ... I saw some javascript code a couple years in which someone implemented closures [wikipedia.org] , and I had to do some looking to understand what it was doing.

It's just never really been obvious that javascript was a functional language since it's basically borrowed most of C's syntax. So, as languages go, it's a bit of a hodge-podge.

Re:Meh (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419804)

It's just that the barrier of entry is extremely low, so everyone can DIY its own script in notepad, while not understanding a single line of what they wrote. That's why we end up with so many poorly written javascript.

Re:Meh (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419882)

I love it's "hodge-podge" though... because that's what makes it so great to work with. It just feels like there are no limits when coding. I've always loved the C-Syntax languages, but I always felt confined working with them until I learned how to use Javascript.

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35420352)

Closures have been around in JS for ages now, it's hardly a new thing. It's also fairly widely used by programmers that specialise in Javascript, though less so as you go down the talent levels.

Re:Meh (1)

dingen (958134) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419164)

There's nothing Actionscript can do which Javascript can't.

Re:Meh (4, Insightful)

Galestar (1473827) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419174)

Aha here it is Interview with Kevin Lynch, CTO of Adobe [techcrunch.com]

Q: How is Adobe going to react to HTML5?
A: I wouldn’t say reacting to HTML5. We see whatever people are using to express themselves. We’re going to make great tooling for HTML5. We’re going to make the best tools in the world for HTML 5.

It’s not about HTML 5 vs Flash. They’re mutually beneficial. The more important question is the freedom of choice on the web.

Re:Meh (1)

ludwigf (1208730) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419400)

It isn't about actionscript anyway. From TFA:

ActionScript 1,2 -- Status: Unsupported
ActionScript 3 -- Status: Unsupported

Seems pretty useless to me..

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35419520)

Adobe said that did they? I've seen some sad fanboys on this website (most especially apple & htlm5 idiots) but this is just the best yet! Keep it up!

Re:Meh (1)

arielCo (995647) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419012)

Adobe should have just stood their ground, and used THEIR bulk to break Apple, not the other way around.

Not much of a chance:

ADBE [yahoo.com] :
Revenue: US$3.8 billion
Net income: US$775 million

AAPL [yahoo.com] :
Revenue $26.7 billion
Net income: US$6 billion

Re:Meh (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419118)

Adobe should have just stood their ground, and used THEIR bulk to break Apple, not the other way around.

Adobe isn't worried about their plugin. They want to sell authoring tools. They can sell tools that build HTML5 stuff just as easily as tools that build Flash stuff.

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35419528)

This is made painfully obvious by the code quality: Photoshop and Flash are both useable applications for professionals: flash player, acrobat reader, and so on are notoriously bad.

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35419562)

It's not about Adobe. The GP is worried about being forced to admit that Apple was right all along!!

It's a sin for Adobe to succumb to the MIGHT OF THE EVIL EMPIRE OF APPLE.

Re:Meh (1)

sorak (246725) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419474)

Nah. They're just trying to make it so that developers do not have an either/or decision; they develop in flash and then crank out an auto-generated HTML5 version*. It's embrace and extend all over again.

* Of course, I am curious if, like Embrace and Extend, this will involve being 90% compatible, but always having a slight monkey-wrench so that people who don't go with the 800LB gorilla will always assume that the little guy is to blame when their standards-compliant implementation does not look as good as the proprietary counterpart...
</tinfoilhat>

Hallelujah (1)

grilled-cheese (889107) | more than 3 years ago | (#35418774)

And there was much rejoicing from the internet.

In Other News... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35418824)

...Apple now demanding 30% of all sales and ad revenue derived from Flash->HTML5 applications.

Huzzah!

I'm amazed (1)

Kosi (589267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35418912)

This is like MS offering a converter for Windows applications to run on Linux. I'm fine with that, although I don't get what sense Adobe sees in that help to kill off one of their cash cows.

Re:I'm amazed (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#35418984)

No, wrong, I refuse to believe it. This is some sort of sick and twisted trolling joke. It has to be. It simply MUST be. ***head asplodes in disbelief***

Re:I'm amazed (1)

gutnor (872759) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419034)

Adobe is making tons of money on the Editor to make the flash applications. Flash is to Adobe what iTune is to Apple: a way to get people on its platform.

Microsoft gets the bulk of its money from Windows, so it has no interest of giving people reason not to use it.

Re:I'm amazed (1)

Kosi (589267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419638)

People use that Adobe stuff to make their sites, because it is so widely spread. Now, if there is an alternative like HTML5, where you can do about the same without having to buy Adobe's expensive stuff, the sales of their Flash creation tools will decrease greatly.

Re:I'm amazed (2)

tixxit (1107127) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419040)

What, exactly, about Flash do you think Adobe makes money on? It isn't the free Adobe flash player, but rather the tools to create content for the flash player. Adobe knows that HTML5 will be a mean competitor, so why wait while it gains momentum? If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. They'll still get lots of sales for their HTML5 compliant authoring tool that lets artists make cool, inaccessible, fancy things, rather than forcing companies to hire a JavaScript Guru to do the same thing.

Re:I'm amazed (1)

Kosi (589267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419600)

If you want to make a Flash site, you need to buy stuff from Adobe, or at least stuff where Adobe gets license fees. If you want to make a HTML5 site, you can do that without Adobe earning a cent.

Re:I'm amazed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35419050)

I don't think that's the angle they're going for. The way I see it, they are encouraging people to develop on Flash, knowing there is a fallback to HTML5 if the device doesn't support it. Adobe wins either way. Either you develop on Flash and distribute it that way, or you buy their creative suite and convert stuff to HTML5.

Re:I'm amazed (2)

trollertron3000 (1940942) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419060)

I would bet that they would gladly give up their flash player because they don't really sell it. If you think about it the world is doing Adobe a favor by providing a file format and viewers for the content created by it's tool sets, that it actually sells. They sell their creative tools, the flash player was always needed to provide a way to view these creations. Now that HTML5 can accomplish much of this they see a way out of the constant development on their player.

Steve Jobs probably thought he was punching them in the balls, but in reality he just handed them more cash. The adobe creative suite is on almost every designer machine in the western world. "Flash", meaning SWFs might be going away, but the creative tool sets are here to stay for a long while. Then throw in their new "Flash Builder", aka Flex, and you have a powerful set of tools. That's what they sell.

Re:I'm amazed (1)

StuartHankins (1020819) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419504)

It's a mutually beneficial decision... Apple's decision to disallow Flash becomes a moot point, and Adobe gets an excuse to create another tool to sell. The end-users don't care what it's called so long as it works on all their devices.

Re:I'm amazed (1)

Kosi (589267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419586)

But then the people could decide between many different toolsets, they weren't bound to Adobe's as they are with Flash.

Re:I'm amazed (1)

trollertron3000 (1940942) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420226)

Yeah and that is the down side to it all. They have to make their tools more attractive to developers, which they are working on. But it's a long row to hoe. They have a bad reputation and their tool set leaves a lot to be desired when compared to other "Rich Internet" tools.

Re:I'm amazed (1)

zoward (188110) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419066)

This is like MS offering a converter for Windows applications to run on Linux. I'm fine with that, although I don't get what sense Adobe sees in that help to kill off one of their cash cows.

It won't kill of their cash cow. The point is that you would theoretically be able to code your site in Flash, then convert it to HTML5 to make an "iphone version" available. This would presumably help keep sites already heavily invested in Flash from outright jumping ship to HTML5.

Re:I'm amazed (1)

Kosi (589267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419552)

It would make Flashplayer obsolete. That would lead to more and more site owners making their sites in HTML5 directly instead of doing it in Flash and then converting it. Which would be a fine thing for me.

Re:I'm amazed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35419110)

Easy answer: how much money Adobe makes from the millions of people downloading the Flash Player? None, it cost them money. Adobe makes money on tools for building Flash content, not from the player.

Makes sense for them to avoid the -possibly huge- overhead of developing and testing a player for each Flash platform. Well, no, they have replaced it with the cost of testing a lot of HTML 5 platforms. Which on second tought are likely to be smaller.

Re:I'm amazed (1)

RingDev (879105) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419224)

No, this is like MS offering a converter that would allow you to look at pictures of Windows applications on Linux.

No action script, no functionality. This is just converting Flash's vector graphics to HTML 5's SVG.

And interestingly enough, I'm pretty sure that the Microsoft alternative (Silverlight & Expression Studio 4) already offers the functionality to convert XAML to SVG.

-Rick

Re:I'm amazed (1)

cjb658 (1235986) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419356)

You'd have a point if Adobe charged for Flash player.

Re:I'm amazed (1)

Skidborg (1585365) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419810)

So long as people are still using Flash to build their games and web applications, it doesn't really matter what they convert it into for the web. Flash is an excellent work environment for building things, and so far it is far from equalled in HTML 5 authoring tools. If Adobe can make Flash output to HTML 5 well then they have just conquered a new market and survived the fall of their old one.

Writing on the wall. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35418922)

As everyone who lacks unbiased hatred towards Apple already realized, Flash is both archaic and redundant. It needs to go away. Adobe knows this, they are accepting the new reality, and they probably realize their advantage to ditch it. Why pay to maintain something that poorly offers the same functionality better delivered by browsers?

Re:Writing on the wall. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419146)

That wasn't why we criticized Apple for refusing to support Flash, we criticized it because it was another instance of Apple telling their customers what they can do with their property. I think most of us support anything that makes Flash less viable.

And unfortunately, Adobe and Macromedia's efforts to make Flash too bloated to run on any existing system seems to have failed...

Where's the catch? (1)

skywatcher2501 (1608209) | more than 3 years ago | (#35418928)

Very nice, but where's the catch with this?

Re:Where's the catch? (1)

dingen (958134) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419180)

The catch is you'll still have to use Flash to create the animations to begin with.

Makes me realize how much we need Flash (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35418948)

I downloaded and tested the Wallaby Technology demo on a few fla files I have.

The stop actions in the timeline don't work. Anything utilizing 3d doesn't work. The text was converted into lines (svgs). Buttons inside of buttons don't work. Videos don't play. It's Flash without all the benefits of Flash. Whats the point?

All websites display perfectly on my HP slate. Who needs backwards compatibility for the iPad anyways?

babys et al; it's always all about us, all of us (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35419056)

no kidding. do the math. see you there?

HTML5 outperforming Flash? (1)

Dr Egg (1451323) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419076)

It will be interesting to see if the HTML5 code this generates actually runs faster than Flash on Linux and Mac (or anywhere else which has an competent HTML5 browser and incompetent Flash plug ins).

Re:HTML5 outperforming Flash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35419190)

Considering that by and large Flash already outperforms HTML5 for comparable tasks, I'm not sure how it you'd expect this to be.

Re:HTML5 outperforming Flash? (1)

StuartHankins (1020819) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419568)

Flash on Mac is a dog... the temps go way up causing the fans spin up noisily, and the browser actually stutters. You can almost feel it straining. Nothing else I run causes this behavior; it's immediate as soon as you wander over to a page using Flash (AutoCAD under DOSBox, XP under Parallels, OpenOffice / LibreOffice, Gimp, Thunderbird, iPhoto / iLife '09, iTunes, X11 etc -- as well as all kinds of other web content and other sites all work fine without the high temps or fans kicking in).

Re:HTML5 outperforming Flash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35419670)

Not if you're bought an apple computer; then html5 will usually run a bit better under safari. having said that you're not going to have much joy running any kind of animated content on the mac unfortunately.

And with apple's falling market share it doesn't really make sense for adobe to care that much about supporting their machines. They can just wait a few months for Stevey boy to give up the ghost and the few remaining customers will drift away as the rdf dissipates.

Banner-ware (1)

roger_pasky (1429241) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419114)

No ActionScript, no audio, no video... It's a good starting point, but useless out of banner scope. Then you have the HTML code openess vs. FLA decompiling.

ah well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35419212)

No actionscript support means this will go nowhere, just like the rest of the html5 hack-fest.

Even when it comes to video, flash html5 is failing to get anywhere (see youtube), and that was its only real shot. Its animation support is laughable and its sound capabilities are virtually non-existent. Flash is about to get Q3 engine gpu support (e.g.) with its next version, and seems to go from strength to strength. Unity export is looking nice as well!

In tandem with Android, it's mobile capabilities are getting better and better - e.g much of the BB Playbook interface is built with accelerated Flash. The Xoom runs Flash like a dream.

Really, isn't it time another lost cause came along...? Html5 is over now.

It's a shame apple kit doesn't run Flash content nicely but you can't really blame adobe for that. Macs have never been that great for animation really, 3D or otherwise.

From the Article.. (1)

papasui (567265) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419374)

The focus for this initial version of Wallaby is to do the best job possible of converting typical banner ads to HTML5 and supported Webkit browsers include Chrome and Safari on OSX, Windows, and iOS.

I was happier before they released this, last thing I care about is more blinky crap ads on websites.

"Unsupported" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35419494)

Would be awesome if they actually supported a lot more... Check out TFA. It has a table of what is supported... (hint: not a lot).

Interesting. (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419538)

I expected someone to come out with this, but I didn't expect it to come from Adobe. I was under the impression they were fighting HTML5 to keep flash dominant tooth and nail. Granted, I never really looked very far into their position on that.

Re:Interesting. (2)

Skidborg (1585365) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419930)

Adobe makes their money on the flash authoring tools, not the player. The more things that their tools can be used for the better.

Link???? (1)

Iceman4234 (453874) | more than 3 years ago | (#35419896)

Any one know the link for this software???

Re:Link (1)

Iceman4234 (453874) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420188)

I found the link
http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/wallaby.html
  if anyone is interested

Re:Link???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35420212)

Any one know the link for this software???

http://goo.gl/Qy5Bh/ [goo.gl]

isn't it odd (1)

milkmage (795746) | more than 3 years ago | (#35420050)

that they release something like this... if apple thought their users were missing out, they'd support flash.
but adobe goes and does this because... why?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?