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!

Will Adobe's HTML5 Strategy Help Developers?

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the i'm-sure-it's-foremost-on-their-minds dept.

Programming 129

snydeq writes "Fatal Exception's Neil McAllister sees Adobe's shift toward HTML5 as a boon for developers only if the company secures its place in the Web developer tools market — but initial signs suggest that this won't be the case. 'The opportunity for Adobe now lies in filling the gaps in today's IDEs, code editors, and graphics software with new tools that can help designers and developers more easily take advantage of the multimedia capabilities of HTML5,' McAllister writes. 'Unfortunately, however, it sounds like Adobe is going to drop the ball. In this week's meeting with financial analysts, the company said its emphasis is not on building great tools but on subscription pricing, Web-based content creation software, and — most important of all — growing its digital marketing, advertising, and analytics businesses. That's right: Adobe wants to be Google. It's too bad because Web developers could really use an Adobe right now.'"

cancel ×

129 comments

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

Doesn't Dreamweaver fit the bill? (2)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023664)

I haven't really used it, but maybe someone who has can.

The article says Adobe's HTML5 offerings aren't up to snuff, but doesn't specifically mention Dreamweaver and its (possible) shortcomings.

Re:Doesn't Dreamweaver fit the bill? (3, Interesting)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023786)

A lot of developers like Adobe design for development and will find it useful.
However I think the demise of Flash isn't all good for Adobe. As some of the developers only used Adobe products because they kinda had too.

Re:Doesn't Dreamweaver fit the bill? (2)

xouumalperxe (815707) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023862)

What we're discussing here is replacing the flash video and flash application niche, not more "static" web design. Dreamweaver helps with the latter, but not the former.

Re:Doesn't Dreamweaver fit the bill? (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024002)

Got it. But I would have thought that the DOM should have been developed enough by now + Javascript + jQuery + some more HTML5 goodies (Canvas) that it'd be able to simulate whatever you'd be using Flash for.

Re:Doesn't Dreamweaver fit the bill? (1)

bberens (965711) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024466)

There's not really great IDEs for javascript IMHO. If you're lucky and happen to code the way your IDE wants you *might* get autocomplete/intellisense. You won't get integrated unit testing and lots of other things we've come to expect out of IDEs over the years.

Re:Doesn't Dreamweaver fit the bill? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38024104)

Crap, is anyone working on an "HTML5block"? We'll soon miss the ease of flashblock.

Re:Doesn't Dreamweaver fit the bill? (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024152)

Use your head. You want to block Javascript and a <canvas> element. A combination of NoScript and AdBlock Plus (element hiding) should do just fine.

Flashblock is content-neutral (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024342)

Your argument for blocking <canvas> is a good one, but I have two nitpicks:

First, it's a lot easier for the operator of a web site to rationalize blocking access to the web site by viewers who use an extension specifically designed to block a web site's source of revenue than by viewers who use an extension that is "content-neutral". Web site operators that use Flash ads appear to find Flashblock acceptable because SWF objects are a specific element type, and Flashblock intentionally doesn't care whether a particular SWF object is an advertisement or not. For example, whitelisting SWF on Newgrounds.com will whitelist both the works and the ads surrounding them. If Flashblock were to add <canvas> element hiding the way it currently handles SWF element hiding, that might be easier for web site operators to live with.

Second, you're still not blocking animated SVG ads on web sites that otherwise have a good reason to use JavaScript.

Re:Flashblock is content-neutral (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024530)

it's a lot easier for the operator of a web site to rationalize blocking access to the web site by viewers who use an extension specifically designed to block a web site's source of revenue than by viewers who use an extension that is "content-neutral"

As long as we're picking nits, I think you got that backward.

you're still not blocking animated SVG ads on web sites that otherwise have a good reason to use JavaScript

AdBlock Plus can selectively block scripts based on URL (as long as they're not in-line with the page's HTML; a page can't run a script if it can't load it). And I'm reasonably sure that you could write element hiding rules to block whatever SVG elements are used.

AdBlockBlock (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024770)

AdBlock Plus

My point is that web site operators would block viewers who use AdBlock Plus. It's a lot harder for web site operators to block viewers who use Flashblock because they're next to indistinguishable from viewers who use a web browser without an SWF player, viewers behind a proxy that blocks application/x-shockwave-flash, or just viewers with a dodgy Internet connection.

Re:AdBlockBlock (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024862)

My point is that web site operators would block viewers who use AdBlock Plus

Easy answer: then I don't need their dumb site.

Less easy answer: they think they're better at blocking me than I am at blocking them? That's a can of worms they probably shouldn't want to open.

Re:Doesn't Dreamweaver fit the bill? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38024346)

Noscript can be used to block audio, video, @font-face, WebGL, maybe more. You can also click on the placeholders for videos/audio you want to run.

Re:Doesn't Dreamweaver fit the bill? (2)

mrsnak (1818464) | more than 2 years ago | (#38025436)

Dreamweaver continues to be a sad web program. Never updated with the better site management and GUI of the excellent Golive and very cumbersome to use. They are working on Edge, an beta version HTML 5 animation authoring tool, but some smaller companies, like Tumultco's Hype have already taken the lead on this. Adobe is becoming no longer the relevant company is once was to designers and creative.

Re:Doesn't Dreamweaver fit the bill? (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#38027458)

Personally I'd say the bigger problem is HTML V5 isn't up to snuff. In every test I've run it sucks up more resources than flash, hits the CPU harder than flash, and from the looks of things Apple if gonna make H.264 be the "standard" so it'll be more proprietary than flash. Finally there is the question of protected content and since MSFT and Apple both are part of MPEG-LA and both allow kernel level DRM I frankly wouldn't be surprised if to please the MPAA overlords they add some seriously nasty DRM.

Sucks more resources, hits the CPU harder, more proprietary, and possibly (more like probably, I can't see the MPAA allowing their content unencrypted, which is why we had protected flash) nastier DRM. Are we sure that this isn't "progress" as specified by Dilbert's PHB?

Why should they? (-1)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023686)

When they have a competing product? If people want easier to use content creation, they use flash. Most artists learn, use, and most importantly pay for flash. Why should adobe make html5 more popular when they cannot control it?

Re:Why should they? (2, Informative)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023744)

Yeah, I didn't rtfa. My bad. Mod me down.

Re:Why should they? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38024054)

Yeah, I didn't rtfa. My bad. Mod me down.

Congratulations! You will now be promoted to an editor position.

Re:Why should they? (2)

rainmouse (1784278) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023816)

When they have a competing product? If people want easier to use content creation, they use flash. Most artists learn, use, and most importantly pay for flash. Why should adobe make html5 more popular when they cannot control it?

By giving people the opportunity to pay the premiums to develop content using Flash development environment fairly quickly and easily and then export it to html 5, http://blogs.adobe.com/conversations/2011/03/flash-to-html5-conversion-tool-on-adobe-labs.html [adobe.com]

Jack of all trades (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38023772)

Master of none.

I mean, seriously. Have there been any *significant* changes to their main products since version 6 or 7 or so, other than useless bloat and annoying DRM schemes? Oh, and price increases.

Adobe News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38023860)

Adobe Systems(ADBE) announced this week that it plans to eliminate 750 jobs, or roughly 8% of its work force, as part of a restructuring.

Adoibe screwed up big time.. (4, Interesting)

Junta (36770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023868)

De-emphasizing Flash is probably the worst move they could have made as a business. The user experience may come out better in the end as a result, but at the expense of Adobe's bottom line. They pretty well *still* have control over much of the web (particularly streaming sites with DRM demands).

I think the key factor is Adobe trying to emphasize a strategy to make nice with iOS, but they are trying to do so at the expense of a pretty robust core and I simply don't see them succeeding in the IOS world, with or without flash.

Re:Adoibe screwed up big time.. (2)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#38023954)

The thing that makes Adobe money is the Flash IDE not the technology itself. That's why they'll repurpose it to export HTML5.

Re:Adoibe screwed up big time.. (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024348)

Except that I'm sure there will be more competition to create the HTML5 export than there was for Flash. If I were an Adobe shareholder I would not be pleased by the development.For the most part if you wanted to produce Flash you had to use their product, now it's questionable if that's going to be the case for much longer.

Re:Adoibe screwed up big time.. (1)

BorgDrone (64343) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024652)

Except that I'm sure there will be more competition to create the HTML5 export than there was for Flash.

That competition will exist wether Adobe decides to join the HTML5 camp or not. And with Flash' horrible UX on mobile the competing products that output to HTML5 will have a very good selling point compared to Adobe's proprietary player. I think this is a very good move by Adobe, their tools are ahead of the rest now, best to stay in the lead instead of losing market share to a new player that offers HTML5 functionality.

Re:Adoibe screwed up big time.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38024844)

I'm on the terrible idea side. They should have just open sourced the flash player. No corporation knows more about flash than adobe, and they would have started much farther ahead. HTML5 with make them a dime a dozen.

Re:Adobe screwed up big time.. (1)

jabbany (2425264) | more than 2 years ago | (#38025818)

A big +1 to this, Flash player should have been open sourced a long time ago. Opening it up allows HTML5 to adapt to possibly better technology and with sources platform manufactures can create optimized code and probably solve the power issue in mobile devices. It's a win-win solution and flash already doesn't earn money from the plugin. It won't hurt their profits. On the problems, I can only think of possible problems with rights management as they might be implemented differently if the plugin were open-sourced and possibly unreliably or even compromise content. Maybe they should do it like Chrome and Chromium with DRM protection only avaliable in non-open source versions.

Re:Adobe screwed up big time.. (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#38026150)

Technology that is probably licensed from a 3rd party who would laugh in Adobe's face for asking to open source it.

Re:Adoibe screwed up big time.. (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#38026132)

Most likely they can't open source it even if they wanted to. I'd bet money it most likely contains licensed code from other people who don't want their code open sourced. Lastly they gain nothing by open sourcing it since their control of the platform ensures consistency.

Competition to create the HTML5 export (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024724)

Except that I'm sure there will be more competition to create the HTML5 export than there was for Flash.

Which free software vector animation editor do you recommend? Last I heard, Inkscape was just for stills.

Re:Competition to create the HTML5 export (1)

dzfoo (772245) | more than 2 years ago | (#38026134)

"Will be more" usually implies a future tense. Flash was crap and proprietary, so not many other enterprises had a desire to complete with Adobe in creating content creation tools for it.

Sure, the Flash container format may have been documented publicly, but the standard was controlled exclusively by Adobe, which meant that Adobe always had the upper hand in its definition and implementation. This was further reason for third-parties to avoid competing with it.

Now that Adobe has effectively blessed HTML 5 as the future platform for the mobile Web, there's every reason to believe that third-parties will join the band-wagon as the popularity of the platform increases. After all, being fully open and consortium-driven means that all competitors have the same standing.

            -dZ.

Re:Adoibe screwed up big time.. (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38026450)

Why? Decent HTML5 tools are no harder to write than decent Flash tools. Back in the '90s, Macromedia made the flash spec open for people creating tools to export Flash. A few years ago it was made open for implementing for any purpose. There are already competing Flash authoring tools and have been for over a decade. People pay for Adobe's because they are (at least, perceived to be) better. Deemphasising Flash just means that Adobe gets to outsource the client development to browser makers and doesn't even have to pay for it.

Re:Adoibe screwed up big time.. (4, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024328)

As the other guy pointed out to you, the problem is Adobe makes absolutely no money from the Flash plugin, and maintaining that on an ever increasing amount of platforms is getting prohibitively expensive for them.

Their money is made in selling tools, and if mobile plugin development is beginning to cost them more than the tools bring in there is little reason to continue the tools.

I'm not sure the downfall of Flash is too big a deal for Adobe, frankly I imagine they make much more money from Photoshop, Premier, Illustrator and Acrobat than they do selling the Flash development tools.

Note also of course that they haven't given up on Flash on the desktop, they've only given up on Flash on mobile devices.

Realistically they just seem to be cutting away the areas of Flash that are costing a lot to develop, and bringing nothing back in return, and it may be that Flash on the desktop suffers in an increasingly mobile world, but does it matter when the profits from the Flash developer IDE just aren't that great anyway and they have little other monetisation of it? Marketshare isn't too useful if you're not making a penny from each installed Flash plugin.

Re:Adobe screwed up big time.. (2)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024424)

That is just it, Flash is not a robust core on mobile.
Take video for example, Flash drops a good percentage of frames on the Atrix which is not a slow devices.
Then you have the fact that most flash games just will not work on mobile devices. There is no mouse and pointer on mobile devices and most Flash games depend on that type of input.
Then you have the battery draining issues.
Then you have the fact that Adobe has failed to fix the performance issues of flash
And the final blow was when Hulu blocked mobile devices! It would seem that they think a tablet running on wifi is different than a latptop running on wifi. So the idea of full web experience was shot down.
The final problem was that Flash will never be a standard on the mobile platform. There are just too many devices just do not support it.
Their you have it Flash died on mobile because of performance issues, Adobe's failure to fix the issues, lack of vendor support, and it's failure to deliver on it's full web experience.

Mouseover (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024708)

There is no mouse and pointer on mobile devices and most Flash games depend on that type of input.

While the screen is touched, move the simulated mouse pointer to the touch location. I admit that mobile devices lack mouseover, but if that's what you're talking about, what makes you think SWF games will use mouseover more than HTML5 games?

Then you have the battery draining issues.

Wouldn't a full-screen HTML5 canvas drain the battery just as much?

And the final blow was when Hulu blocked mobile devices!

For that blame National Amusements, Disney, Comcast, General Electric, and News Corporation, not Adobe.

Much less drain (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#38025686)

Wouldn't a full-screen HTML5 canvas drain the battery just as much?

No, because the web browser is usually HEAVILY optimized for the OS and system, to a greater degree than Adobe can do - look how long it took for them to get hardware accelerated video everywhere. You simply cannot get the deep integration with onboard graphics from Flash, they just don't have the time or resources to do it right.

In real world terms, I have flash-block on my browser because just small flash ads would KILL performance. But HTML5 canvas stuff can run some pretty detailed animations without the system fans coming on.

Re:Mouseover (1)

dzfoo (772245) | more than 2 years ago | (#38026270)

While the screen is touched, move the simulated mouse pointer to the touch location. I admit that mobile devices lack mouseover, but if that's what you're talking about, what makes you think SWF games will use mouseover more than HTML5 games?

Wait, I can't keep up with these changing arguments... I thought the appeal of Flash was that it was ubiquitous on the Web because of the sheer number of applications available already.

If most of them now need to be re-written to support an interface paradigm that is in essence incompatible with a touch interface, doesn't that invalidate the benefit of ubiquity? I mean, at the point of deciding to re-write an application, an enterprise has an opportunity to choose competing platforms, such as HTML, or native app.

On the other hand, HTML 5 being so new, offers an opportunity: the mobile Web is growing quickly, so in order to take advantage of it the interface needs to be designed to support touch-driven devices. So any new HTML 5 game is more likely to be "touch-friendly," more so than a Flash game built 3 or 4 years ago for desktop PCs.

          -dZ.

Badgers don't need no stinkin' rewrite (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38026422)

If most of them now need to be re-written to support an interface paradigm that is in essence incompatible with a touch interface

The fans of Flash on mobile would claim that not all existing SWF objects out there require hover. For example, the "play" button on a web cartoon does not: when the user taps the digitizer, just send the mouseover event followed by the click event and the SWF object will behave. Those existing Flash applications that do require hover at the moment can be tweaked, not completely rewritten [joelonsoftware.com] , to support hover-free interaction, with the obvious exception of a tech demo of goal-crossing interaction [dontclick.it] .

Re:Mouseover (1)

romanval (556418) | more than 2 years ago | (#38027390)

There is no mouse and pointer on mobile devices and most Flash games depend on that type of input.

While the screen is touched, move the simulated mouse pointer to the touch location. I admit that mobile devices lack mouseover, but if that's what you're talking about, what makes you think SWF games will use mouseover more than HTML5 games?

Okay, but how can a touch interface differentiate between rolling over a button versus of clicking it? Better yet, how does one roll over a button without blocking it with your finger?

Re:Mouseover (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38027772)

but how can a touch interface differentiate between rolling over a button versus of clicking it?

They can't regardless of the choice of Flash or HTML5. But can you show a public example of an SWF where this distinction (hover with click vs. hover with no click) is necessary for navigation, other than a tech demo [dontclick.it] ?

Re:Adoibe screwed up big time.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38024744)

This seems like part of a recent trend of companies trying to "do the right thing" but jumping in way too soon before the market is ready (see also: Netflix, etc). This alienates their market because everyone else isn't ready yet. I think it's a combination of companies finally realizing that they can't stay static all their lives and trying to emulate Apple. The former is just growing pains, the latter is poor judgment because nobody can do what Apple does without pissing off their customer base.

Yes, streaming video for everything is the future (re Netflix). Yes, HTML5 is the future. However the market isn't there yet. You have to bide your time and do your preparations behind the scenes. Then when the time is right you flip the switch and everyone will be impressed with your foresight. Jumping too soon makes you look like an ass that doesn't understand the current market (which is true).

On a side note, it seems that China is very good that doing that "behind the scenes" stuff. Infiltrating and probing the system to find weaknesses with very long term planning. Diety help us all when they flip the switches because I'm afraid most people are too stupid to realize what is happening before it's too late.

Oops Adobe did it again (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38023902)

Adobe sure loves to misstep.

Adobe builds a good SVG player to be a flash killer... SVG is still early and nobody supports it
Adobe buys Macromedia so they get flash
Adobe essentially opens the SWF file format, but doesn't open source the flash player
Adobe focuses on using the flash player to stream video (eg sell it's streaming server products)
Advertisers adopt video for ads, thus ensuring a poor performance on many sites
Apple puts it's foot down and says no crap on the iphone, that includes Flash
Apple's iPad, iPhone and iPod get 3% of all internet traffic, thus sites start recoding their sites
HTML5 and javascript basically makes it possible to replicate all the features in the flash player ( http://gizmodo.com/5552545/smokescreen-converts-flash-to-javascript-on-the-fly )
Adobe fails to keep ahead of better animation tools, thus losing the animator group.
Adobe fails to create 64bit plugins on the desktop, thus ensuring that developers create html5 pages for 64bit browsers, meanwhile browser developers delay 64bit versions because of no flash plugin.
Adobe fails to create power efficient flash plugins for mobile devices, and subsequently abandons it.
Firefox, MSIE and Chrome/Safari naively support SVG

So you see, it's just snowballing. The next version of flash CS6 better have an "Export to animated SVG" otherwise the flash tool is doomed. Which is a pity as it's the easiest vector drawing tool there is.

Re:Oops Adobe did it again (1, Funny)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024094)

Very good summary, Mr. Coward. If I had modpoints I would mod you up.

Re:Oops Adobe did it again (4, Insightful)

tacroy (813477) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024188)

One comment on this; and only because I see it repeated so often I assume most consider it fact. Flash does WAY more than video streaming, and html5 has not yet even come close to the robustness that flash offers. Smokescreen made it possible to convert the animation part to html, but not much of the actual programming.

People tend to view flash as "A web video player" when in reality its much closer to "java + good video playing"

Yes, most peoples view of flash is based on youtube and worthless animated website intro videos. But it's also used to create very robust web applications, eLearning, and games. HTML5 can do some of that, but there are still MANY uses for which flash and actionscript are far superior.

Re:Oops Adobe did it again (4, Interesting)

rvw (755107) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024480)

One comment on this; and only because I see it repeated so often I assume most consider it fact.
Flash does WAY more than video streaming, and html5 has not yet even come close to the robustness that flash offers. Smokescreen made it possible to convert the animation part to html, but not much of the actual programming.

Recently I tried to take an SVG worldmap from Wikimedia Commons and use it directly in a webpage. The resulting file was about 1.5MB big, and an average webbrowser would grind to a halt. Then I imported this vector image into Flash, and the resulting SWF with a lot more was about 40KB, had the same level of detail, and was about 1000 times faster. I have no idea how they do it, but I think that it's a great peace of work, and fun too. I wonder how that SVG would work on an iPad...

svg.gz (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024648)

Recently I tried to take an SVG worldmap from Wikimedia Commons and use it directly in a webpage. The resulting file was about 1.5MB big

How big is SVG if you 1. remove comments and unnecessary whitespace, 2. remove unnecessary coordinate precision, and 3. gzip it? Most major web browsers can use the gzip transfer encoding.

Re:svg.gz (1)

anonymov (1768712) | more than 2 years ago | (#38025446)

Wouldn't help with "average webbrowser would grind to a halt" part, it'll still have to parse and render same number of svg nodes, with most time wasted by parsing.

That's a bug in the user agent. Report it. (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38025626)

Good point. If browsers are choking on vectors that Flash handles fine, that's a bug in the browsers. I recommend that you file a bug report to bugzilla.mozilla.org, attaching both your .svg.gz file and the .swf file that renders so much faster.

Re:That's a bug in the user agent. Report it. (1)

anonymov (1768712) | more than 2 years ago | (#38025946)

Choking != freezing. Browser != Mozilla (with IE pre-9.0 still taking almost half of market, btw, good luck with SVG there). Me != GGP, so I can't provide you those, but it's easy to find SVGs in 1.5Mb size range, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Anime_Girl.svg [wikimedia.org] for example.

After testing on that image, I see why you mentioned FF - it takes about 8-10 seconds to render in FF8 here, with Opera and Chrome and Opera Mobile on Android netbook doing it in 2-3 seconds, with loading time excluded. What's worse it hogs the CPU on each redraw of that tab - WTF, is caching not invented in Mozilla world?

Re:Oops Adobe did it again (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#38025106)

Flash is a compressed container not a format.

iPad renders it just fine (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#38025822)

I tried this [wikipedia.org] world map on an iPad 2 - it renders almost instantly and I can zoom in and out quickly.

On my desktop browser it was slower to render but then it was fast zooming around.

Yes, the iPad was quicker than the desktop rendering a 2MB SVG...

Browsers are good enough now that Canvas can be used for interesting things.

Re:Oops Adobe did it again (1)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 2 years ago | (#38026494)

I'll tell you how they do it. As a vector artist who has worked with flash in the past, I've noticed that it moves your bezier curve control points around -- often to the extent of distorting the shapes. It's very aggressive with its simplification of vector shapes. To the extent that I can't stand to use it with vectors, every time I want to make an adjustment, I find it's moved all my points around.

Re:Oops Adobe did it again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38024534)

Superior, perhaps, but not impossible to replicate.

Even with the terrible video element, it is still possible to make streaming work using some very basic javascript arrays and some simple server-side to split the file up based on information from client-end requests. (such as split file in 4k chunks or whatever)
SVG handling is pretty fine.
Audio is... messy, but doable.
Hardware control is still very, very early stages. The hardware API is still being done.
File APIs and local storage allow for much more flexibility than Flash does. The default lowest limit I believe is in IE implementations at 5MBs last time I checked.

Games are very possible in it too. Even on Canvas 2D or SVG. Admittedly they will be simple, but still doable. And they are being hardware accelerated too.
I'm not sure of the status for Canvas 3D context, or WebGL. I know there was a big setback for WebGL on security issues recently.
All I know is Quake was able to run under WebGL. Quake 2 I think it was. Or 3, I can't remember.

Web apps, don't think we need to cover that.
eLearning pretty much falls under that too. Be it slideshow applications, simple canvas science engines for physics experiments and the like, etc.

People just need to step back and think a little differently (ugh) when designing with HTML5+JS.
Until the hardware and file APIs are sorted, Flash has the upper hand in that respect.
Oh, also, the one thing Flash will continue to have over HTML+JS is portability.
Flash can deal with binary better (for obvious reasons). While you CAN embed some binary directly in to JS documents, it is pretty limited.
You'd probably need to reformat quite a bit of it to prevent quotation termination.
Base64 is just no substitute for binary. Even if it is only 130~% over.

Re:Oops Adobe did it again (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024540)

in reality its much closer to "java

That's supposed to be a good thing?

Re:Oops Adobe did it again (1)

Merk42 (1906718) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024836)

Same for HTML5, people think it's "A web video player".

HTML5 and Flash each have their own feature sets. In some areas they overlap, in others they don't

Re:Oops Adobe did it again (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38026590)

HTML5 includes SVG for retained-mode 2D vector animations, canvas for immediate mode 2D vector animations (with raster compositing), WebGL for 3D effects, video and audio tags for video and audio. There are two things that you can do with flash that you can't do with HTML5:
  • Put your entire applet into a single file.
  • (Currently) use RTMP or similar for streaming video (nothing stops you doing this, but most browsers only support HTTP streams).

The thing HTML5 lacks is authoring tools.

Re:Oops Adobe did it again (1)

PerfectionLost (1004287) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024414)

Honestly, I like fireworks better for vector based drawings. Though it doesn't really handle animations.

IE does not support SVG (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38026076)

Firefox, MSIE and Chrome/Safari naively support SVG

Internet Explorer for Windows XP still does not, as anonymov points out [slashdot.org] .

Please Explain (1)

kikito (971480) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024004)

"Web developers could really use an Adobe right now"

What is that supposed to mean? Why?

Translated (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024418)

What is that supposed to mean?

Web developers could really use a company that makes tools for them comparable to the tools that Adobe makes for the SWF/AIR platform.

Why?

Say no more SWFs were ever to be created. Using what technology would the next web cartoon, not unlike Homestar Runner or Weebl and Bob, be created and presented?

Re:Translated (1)

kikito (971480) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024606)

Oh. But Adobe isn't going away. They are just abandoning flash.

"Using what technology would the next web cartoon, not unlike Homestar Runner or Weebl and Bob, be created and presented?"

With Adobe HTML5 creator. Or whatever they call it.

Re:Translated (1)

Kool Moe (43724) | more than 2 years ago | (#38025984)

They are just abandoning flash.

FUD: No, they're not...just the mobile web plugin.

With Adobe HTML5 creator. Or whatever they call it.

Which is exactly his point.
KM

Re:Please Explain (1)

PerfectionLost (1004287) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024496)

Adobe (/Macromedia/Alaire) built their empire by building quality development software (Photoshop, Fireworks, Dreamweaver/HomeSite, InDesign, etc). The CS# suite has/had some of the best pieces of editing software out there for a long time. It seems like there are a couple other contendors out there these days, like Visual Studio (Pretty Awesome) or Eclipse (I'm not a fan), but not a lot.

Re:Please Explain (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#38025024)

I was wondering the same thing. If you can write HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and can type ffmpeg -i inputvideo.file outputvideo.flv what does Adobe add?

Web developers could really use an Adobe right now (1)

Cajun Hell (725246) | more than 2 years ago | (#38025868)

It means that web developers need tools which, by default, save in formats that other tools can't use (PSD), or which few other tools can partially use (SWF), text which can't even reflow when you change the window size or display device's aspect ratio (PDF), and they need otherwise-working streams crippled so that nothing else can play them (RTMPE).

In other words, people are getting spoiled and need someone like Adobe to come rescue them from big scary world of interoperative and Just-Works technology.

This Article is stupid (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38024034)

HTML5 is the future.

Adobe wants to stay relevant.

Author of Article doesn't understand reality.

End of Story.

Re:This Article is stupid (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#38025516)

Or how about this nonsense [wsj.com] . The premise of the story is that Apple opposed Flash in favor of HTML5. Adobe is now abandoning Flash in favor of HTML5. Thus this could spell trouble for Apple if everyone uses HTML5 instead of making apps. I think there should have been a "???" in one of those steps.

Re:This Article is stupid (0)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#38026182)

Apple have already psuedo-crippled HTML5 apps in IOS, as the embedded WebKit that PhoneGap uses, and the WebKit instance that your "saved to the desktop" HTML5 app uses, don't have the same accelerations applied that the standard mobile Safari does.

Re:This Article is stupid (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#38026238)

That limitation applies only to embedded browsing features as far as I know. Using mobile Safari does not have the limitations. But the premise and conclusion explained by the author seems to be missing a link.

Re:This Article is stupid (1)

dzfoo (772245) | more than 2 years ago | (#38027100)

They did not "cripple" HTML5 apps in iOS. They added JIT-compilation of JavaScript code for Safari with an exception in their kernel access controls for code execution. They have not added the same to apps using embedded WebKit.

Presumably this is because the special security privileges required for JIT-compilation of JavaScript from data have a potential risk which is currently localized to Safari.

It is expected that the acceleration will eventually come to the embedded control, though of course, this is not official.

Anyway, the point is that not enabling a bleeding-edge, experimental feature is not the same as crippling currently functioning features.

        -dZ.

Video in HTML5 (3, Interesting)

iONiUM (530420) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024086)

This blurb is a bit old, but it's still relative (from dive into html5 [diveintohtml5.info] :

There is no single combination of containers and codecs that works in all HTML5 browsers. This is not likely to change in the near future. To make your video watchable across all of these devices and platforms, you’re going to need to encode your video more than once.

While many of us don't like Flash, for various reasons, there's no denying that video streaming over HTML5 is a real big pain in the ass for developers. This is one of the problems with "open" formats; nobody agrees, everyone squabbles around and tries to push their own agenda. Sometimes it's better to have a dictator than a democracy (I'm sure I'll get modded down just for saying that..).

Video vs. animation (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024524)

Moreover, there's a difference between video and what I'll call "animation". "Video" is live action or prerendered CGI, represented as block transforms of a sequence of bitmap images, while "animation" is represented as vectors and rendered on the viewer's device. Before Adobe added video support in Flash 6, Flash was primarily a platform for animation. Animation can be converted to video, but my experiments show that doing this increases an SWF's file size tenfold. HTML5 theoretically supports animation playback by manipulating the SVG DOM or drawing to a 2D canvas, but Flash Player is still far more CPU-efficient at this than existing web browsers.

Re:Video vs. animation (1)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | more than 2 years ago | (#38026580)

but Flash Player is still far more CPU-efficient at this than existing web browsers

Do you know how to call the scripts you got to write for Flash? ECMA script. Wait ... ECMA script, isn't this javascript?
I'm sure it used to be truth that flash was faster than native browser's javascript, but we're in 2011. Can you care to point me to a recent benchmarks to make sure you're correct?

The AS interpreter isn't the only part of Flash (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38027228)

I'm sure it used to be truth that flash was faster than native browser's javascript

The ActionScript interpreter isn't the only part of Flash. The other part is the rendering engine, and Flash is still a bit faster at that than Firefox's canvas and far faster than Firefox's SVG.

Can you care to point me to a recent benchmarks to make sure you're correct?

This benchmark [themaninblue.com] on Firefox 8.0 on Windows gives canvas at 21 FPS, SVG at 3 fps, and Flash at 40 FPS on my PC.

Re:Video vs. animation (1)

anonymov (1768712) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028378)

Do you know how to call the scripts you got to write for Flash? ECMA script. Wait ... ECMA script, isn't this javascript?

Nope, not really. Modern Flash's ActionScript 3 is based on ECMAScript 4th edition, which was too radical and so got scraped (with parts salvaged for ECMAScript 5 - current iteration of Javascript in most browsers, and ES.Harmony, whih is a future planned standard). It differs from JS as it has static typing (which makes it _much_ easier to optimize) and class-based OOP (which makes it much easier for programmers unacustomed to prototype-based OOP)

All in all very nice language, and no, modern JS engines still aren't fast enough, though they're working on it.

Extensions to JS like typed arrays - which work like JS arrays, but are backed by primitive-typed native arrays, so they're quasi-statically-typed and in theory give quite a boost to number-crunching parts of algorithms - show that dynamic-typed languages aren't all that hot when they get to heavy interactive multimedia stuff.

Re:Video in HTML5 (1)

Merk42 (1906718) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024874)

This is one of the problems with "open" formats; nobody agrees, everyone squabbles around and tries to push their own agenda. Sometimes it's better to have a dictator than a democracy (I'm sure I'll get modded down just for saying that..).

I don't think it's really a problem with an "open" format per se if you're referring to WebM.

Google, Mozilla, and Opera support a standard that is free of licensing
Microsoft and Apple support a standard that is well established

Re:Video in HTML5 (1)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | more than 2 years ago | (#38026790)

Google, Mozilla, and Opera support a standard that is free of licensing Microsoft and Apple support a standard that is well established

H.264+AAC+MP4 are only available in Microsoft and Apple products. So, with what you said above, we can deduct that a "standard" can be considered "well established" when Microsoft and Apple support it, and no one else? That might be truth on desktops, but it's Android that has the best position on mobile phones. So you got me: I don't agree with your above statement. I'd say:

Mozilla, and Opera are all supporting Theora+Vorbis+Ogg and WebM, and are actively pushing for a free codec adoption
Google don't care, and supports both free and non-free codecs, while being nice enough to open WebM, hoping for the best
Microsoft and Apple are trying to lock down users, supporting ONLY the codec with patent attached while REFUSING to add the free alternatives, when it would be so easy to use free open source codecs

So, fuck the self called standards, Microsoft and Apple just SUX in this case, and are annoying everyone. If they finally agreed to support Theora+Vorbis+Ogg OR WebM, we'd have no issue at all. The issue really IS a problem of supporting the open and free of patent formats, since it doesn't cost much development to the biggest software giants to support these free alternative. They are following their own agenda, that's 100% a fact.

Re:Video in HTML5 (1)

Merk42 (1906718) | more than 2 years ago | (#38027496)

When I said established I meant you can find A LOT of devices (not just desktops/phones which include my Google Android phone) that read/write mp4, not so much OGG/WebM.

"They are following their own agenda," of having to pay money to an entirely different company? How is that helpful to them?

I do agree that it's frustrating that Microsoft and Apple don't at least support WebM in addition to h.264, I don't feel it's some sort of self serving agenda though. The only way it would be that I can think of is if they both felt WebM infringed on patents so they'll just use h.264 which they have the license for.

Re:Video in HTML5 (1)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028544)

they both felt WebM infringed on patents

What patents is that exactly? Is there an ongoing h.264 vs WebM justice case?

Re:Video in HTML5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38025554)

That "blurb" ain't the W3C specification. So it is very irrelevant.

Go sell H.264 elsewhere and without manipulative lies.

Re:Video in HTML5 (1)

iONiUM (530420) | more than 2 years ago | (#38025832)

Oh I'm sorry, let's all live in specification land. Except there's that small problem, where in the real-world, you actually have to make shit work, and in order to do that you're at the mercy of the browsers. Thanks though, for those completely useless and naive words of wisdom.

Re:Video in HTML5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38025958)

Well neither is H.264 supported in all HTML5 browsers.

WebM, which is supported in all HTML5 browsers (in IE per plugin) is a free and open codec and therefore superior.

And spare us that H.264>WebM bull. That is a dead horse pro-H.264 lobbyists are beating and only the most uninformed people actually still believe.

Re:Video in HTML5 (1)

iONiUM (530420) | more than 2 years ago | (#38026428)

Nobody promoted, neither in that article or in my posts, H.264. So I have no idea what you're rambling on about.

Adobe's Revenue Model (1)

wombatmobile (623057) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024088)

Adobe earns most of its income selling authoring tools.

Sure, Adobe would rather the internet was Flash and PDF. But if it isn't, which it isn't, Adobe makes money by selling authoring tools. HTML5 authoring tools, as it turns out.

Standards win in the browser. Adobe sells authoring tools. Punters get good content. Win - Win - Win.

Business vs Design (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38024090)

Adobe is falling into the trap most companies fall into when business people take over - rather than focusing on making great products and letting the products generate money (hello Apple), they're letting bean counters set company strategy and they're focusing on the wrong things, such as pricing models (hello virtually everyone else). This focus on pricing strategies pretty much guarantees they're going to create a subpar product which will only open the door allowing another company that is actually interested in making a great product to swoop in and dethrone them. Once their product is no longer desired, no pricing strategy will save them.

Simply put, make the best product possible and consumers will come with money in hand. Make the best pricing strategy possible and there's no guarantee the customers will be there. Seems pretty basic and obvious to me.

subscription pricing (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024224)

Ick.

Great news for developers. (3, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024484)

Think of all the restaurant sites that where dumb enough to have flash heavy websites. For the small developer they will make a mint writing mobile friendly sites. It is kind of funny that the sites you may most want to look up on a Mobile device are often the worst sites to try and use on mobile.

Umm..doesn't Adobe Edge fill the tools role (3, Informative)

Scyber (539694) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024696)

I realize it is still a preview, but isn't it exactly what the developers/designers would want (an HTML5, CSS3, Javascript tool):

http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/edge/ [adobe.com]

"Adobe® Edge is a new web motion and interaction design tool that allows designers to bring animated content to websites, using web standards like HTML5, JavaScript, and CSS3. Edge will be updated regularly to add new functionality, stay ahead of evolving web standards, and incorporate user feedback to provide the best functionality and experience possible. This is an early look at Edge with more capabilities to come."

Re:Umm..doesn't Adobe Edge fill the tools role (1)

Scyber (539694) | more than 2 years ago | (#38024728)

Woops, guess I should rtfa. It is mentioned, but said it isn't ready from prime time yet. My assumption is that Adobe will refocus its efforts on the edge tool now that they have officially sidelined flash for multiple platforms.

Newsflash! (1)

Lord of the Fries (132154) | more than 2 years ago | (#38025018)

Ahem... there's not a lot of money to be made in IDE tools now days.

I know, I work for a tool vendor. Oh sure, if you're just one person and you make a nice little widget that you can sell for a couple of bucks, it'll give you a short term chunk of change. But really good tool development takes a lot of work for a lot of time. The market's willingness to remunerate that kind of effort with the kind of bucks it takes to support a group of really focused people has been on the wane for a long time.

Re:Newsflash! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38025676)

I've been re-wax-ing on VB6 for awhile now, so I hear ya.

Jobs. Steve jobs. (1)

v(*_*)vvvv (233078) | more than 2 years ago | (#38025084)

One of the things he mentioned was Adobe's lack of attention to the stability of Flash on (his) mobile devices.

So what will change with their new focus on HTML5?

If they had the right focus, they'd be on iPhones right now. They're focus probably sucks.

Just sayin'.

Re:Jobs. Steve jobs. (2)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | more than 2 years ago | (#38026346)

One of the things he mentioned was Adobe's lack of attention to the stability of Flash on (his) mobile devices.

You're putting this very gently. Adobe policy on the flash player for ARM is a total disaster, and a huge security hole in every pockets. Zero updates in years, still version 9 which has multiple dozens of exploits. Jobs wasn't the only one to say it, he was just only the one to act in a reasonable manner.

Dreamweaver (2)

james_van (2241758) | more than 2 years ago | (#38025212)

At the risk of riling up the anti-DW crowd, it is a decent environment for writing HTML and JS. I wouldn't touch the WYSIWYG portions if you paid me, and I'm the first to get up in arms when someone claims to be a developer and uses any of that stuff (seriously, if you can't hand code HTML, get out of the pool). But for writing code, it's good. Color coding, code hinting, etc. It's not the best by far, but all Adobe needs to do is add a few features and DW will be the goto application for developers that want to use HTML5. It wouldn't be hard to add some timeline animation stuff in there (didn't they already add something like that?) and that would cover all the bases. I personally feel they're shooting themselves in the foot right now though, and it's a damn shame. Not looking forward to the next few years in the development world, things are gonna get ugly. HTML5 can't do all the things that Flash can, but Flash is now the bastard child that no one wants. Clients are expecting developers to deliver a high end experience, but refusing to let us use the proper technologies. They're hard core on the HTML5 bandwagon without any real understanding of the limits it currently imposes. Maybe it's time to jump ship and pursue embedded controller programming, I heard there's lots of work there

Re:Dreamweaver (1)

Kool Moe (43724) | more than 2 years ago | (#38026046)

QFT

Clients are expecting developers to deliver a high end experience, but refusing to let us use the proper technologies. They're hard core on the HTML5 bandwagon without any real understanding of the limits it currently imposes.

This is the real issue. Adobe shouldn't have so publicly declared this drop of support for mobile - it should have just been quiet. This announcement will drive Flash many developers away. Adobe may get around it all by just buying the next set of non-Adobe HTML5 dev tools if they grow more popular than their own....but the move was poorly handled, and puts current content developers in a very difficult position.
KM

one thing needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38025344)

One problem with adobe.
The path to the file being modified or modifying system files must be denied, and that control must come from the operator who must build a system slowly and learn what processes run to get work done. This vague BS of "storage" has to have a path and the path needs serious rules to lock down what happens there. Even cloning might not be an answer to exploits if the operator can't tell a good working system's files from an infected one waiting for C&C. seriously what the fuck?

Ultimately until this is addressed, it will be humanity pounding at the server for the latest adobe patch. Or latest apple quicktime, or xyz. meanwhile instead of learning the skills to keep the os uptime and productivity up the time will be wasted re-installing the os and never getting past the install process's to evolve.

Need Adobe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38026128)

"It's too bad because Web developers could really use an Adobe right now.'"

Surely you jest! We need Adobe just as bad as we need a bullet hole in the head!

Security on my phone (1)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | more than 2 years ago | (#38026258)

I don't know if it will help developers, but I know for a fact that Adobe strategy doesn't protect the security of my (arm) mobile phone browser. They always have been crap with the ARM version of flash player, stuck at version 9. Frankly, because of this, I wish my phone didn't have flash support at all...

more subscriptions? (1)

Wandering Voice (2267950) | more than 2 years ago | (#38028322)

Is it me or does it seem as if nearly every product or market is trying to implement a subscription model?

WTF - pick a side (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38029180)

I've been reading all this crap on Slashdot regarding how Flash sucks for the last 2 years... then bam, Adobe says they are ending it for mobile and now a ton of the comments are about how Flash really is a good technology and they shouldn't have let it go. Is this a bunch of new Slashdotters today or all most all of us contrarians and bashers?

 

In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38029328)

Slashdot isn't a bunch of people agreeing with each other 100% of the time about everything.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>