Will Adobe's HTML5 Strategy Help Developers? 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.'"
Doesn't Dreamweaver fit the bill? (Score:3)
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? (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
I agree with you. Flash was (and is) an excellent easy to use vector graphics format. There were replacements for video. Flash faced resistance, but Adobe could have opened it rather than killed it.
I think this is a major step back for Adobe. They've now lost most of what they got from Macromedia. Obviously they made their purchase money back, but they bought Macromedia to get them out of this position ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Macromedia_software [wikipedia.org] )
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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 w
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Adoibe screwed up big time.. (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:1)
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 HTM
Re: (Score:2)
horrible UX on mobile
If only Adobe had some sort of ability to refine that UX, like perhaps feature enhancement releases of the mobile flash plugin...
Re:Adobe screwed up big time.. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Technology that is probably licensed from a 3rd party who would laugh in Adobe's face for asking to open source it.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, doing that complicates the whole DRM benefit. Given the only thing that makes DRM even an annoyance is 'security through obscurity', an open implementation would be rather problematic to hulu and others.
Competition to create the HTML5 export (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
"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
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Adoibe screwed up big time.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Here's the thing, *before* people would buy the authoring tools either based on the merits of the tools *or* simply because they were the logical choice given their ironclad control of the ecosystem. Killing flash for them means the latter benefit evaporates and now it must sell solely on its own merits. Their position is simply weaker than it was. The users of the free flash plugin were, in essence, a valuable part of the offering Adobe had. If it's authoring HTML5/Javascript voodoo, well Adobe hardly
Re: (Score:2)
Flash will still have a big userbase even if it does become largely completely abolished from the public internet. It's got a massive userbase in terms of corporate and eduation sector clients related to e-Learning, whether it's for corporate data protection policy training, or science curriculum for schools. This doesn't mean it's secure indefinitely of course but it'll take a long long time to phase this stuff out, if not only because companies will be loathe to spend time and money retraining their staff
Re:Adobe screwed up big time.. (Score:3)
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
Mouseover (Score:2)
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 (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:1)
I get tired of this crap. Flash, in many tests it shown to be better optimised then HTML5 equivalents on common platforms.
How can you ever consider the HTML5 open source code is going to be optimised better then Flash. Whos paying the open source coders to do this optimization?? Adobe was doing that for Flash Mobile, but have decided to stop for obvious reasons.
This ignorance of people around flash is amazing. Flash in its current form is optimised, it in all respects is as good or better then HTML5 alte
Re: (Score:2)
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
Badgers don't need no stinkin' rewrite (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
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, st
Oops Adobe did it again (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Oops Adobe did it again (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
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. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Flash is a compressed container not a format.
iPad renders it just fine (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
SVG is an XML text file (you can open it with your favourite notepad app and look inside if you like). XML wastes *huge* amounts of space compared with the information it embodies, whereas a good binary format will try to store *only* the information that's needed. You can easily have a 100 to 1 space gain without losing any information at all by u
Re: (Score:1)
in reality its much closer to "java
That's supposed to be a good thing?
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
The thing HTML5 lacks is authoring tools.
Re: (Score:1)
Honestly, I like fireworks better for vector based drawings. Though it doesn't really handle animations.
IE does not support SVG (Score:2)
Firefox, MSIE and Chrome/Safari naively support SVG
Internet Explorer for Windows XP still does not, as anonymov points out [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:1)
XP is 10 years old. It is no longer relevant. If you say it is then I will say that office users are not supposed to go on the web during office hours anyway. XP has less than 1 out of 4 users left in the US and the rest are in China.
IE 9 not even beating IE 6 + 7, let alone IE 8 (Score:2)
XP is 10 years old. It is no longer relevant.
As of July, only 6.80% of people were using IE 9, compared to 9.22% on IE 6, 6.25% on IE 7, and 29.23% on IE 8. Data taken from Wikipedia, citing a paywalled report that I'm not willing to pay for right now [wikipedia.org].
office users are not supposed to go on the web during office hours anyway
Unless the break room PC has the same browser as the work PCs.
Please Explain (Score:2)
"Web developers could really use an Adobe right now"
What is that supposed to mean? Why?
Translated (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
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: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
HTML5 is the future.
Adobe wants to stay relevant.
Author of Article doesn't understand reality.
End of Story.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Video in HTML5 (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:3)
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: (Score:1)
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 sti
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that flash as an animation creation tool doesn't actually require a CS degree
That's what Adobe Edge is supposed to solve once it's released, but benchmarks still favor Flash Player.
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
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 ca
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
they both felt WebM infringed on patents
What patents is that exactly? Is there an ongoing h.264 vs WebM justice case?
Re: (Score:1)
Probably similar to the ones that Linux infringes on Windows. (Read: we'll never know, probably just FUD).
My point was that was the only situation I could think of that would make Apple/Microsoft support h.264 yet not WebM.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Nobody promoted, neither in that article or in my posts, H.264. So I have no idea what you're rambling on about.
Re: (Score:2)
WebM, which is supported in all HTML5 browsers
Is Safari for iOS an HTML5 browser? I don't seem to remember it supporting WebM.
Adobe's Revenue Model (Score:2)
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.
subscription pricing (Score:2)
Ick.
Great news for developers. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
If it had worked really well on mobile than it would have been a big advantage and would have killed the platforms that didn't support it.
It failed to do that so it do the adapt or die you wanted. In this case it died.
You got your wish.
Umm..doesn't Adobe Edge fill the tools role (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Newsflash! (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
I agree. This is part of the open source culture. Free (as in beer) open languages encourage open tools, in theory they don't have to but in practice they do. There are companies making some open development tools but I think fundamentally it is going to be platform owners subsidizing tool creation (i.e. XCode/Interface builder, Visual Studio...)
Jobs. Steve jobs. (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:1)
If all you are doing is typing code and not using the GUI tools than you just blew $700 down the toilet. I hate adobe tools but I do admit it is because I am not proficient at them and they are complex and difficult to work with. A flyer for a client took a many hour ordeal that I could do with paint.net in minutes for some effects that were simply. No need to recreate layers from a scanned photo from scratch for an hour just before I could *start* work. Rediculous!
The issue I have with Dreamweaver is Adobe
Security on my phone (Score:2)
more subscriptions? (Score:1)
Is it me or does it seem as if nearly every product or market is trying to implement a subscription model?
Low bandwidth, high CPU (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
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]