I would give anything for someone to explain to me why the right move for Adobe wasn't to simply accept HTML5, pivot from Flash to making killer HTML5 authoring tools, and maybe even provide a way for people to take their existing Flash projects and repurpose them to HTML5? How would that have been worse then trying to wedge Flash where it doesn't belong?
Adobe CS5 has some rudimentary HTML5 Canvas export capabilities, and from what I've heard, they plan to develop HTML5 as a fully-supported platform in future releases. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v69S22ZBBqA
Do the videos need to be optimized for mobile because of API incompatibilities, or just to make up for dearer machine resources (CPU, RAM, network etc.) available on mobile? If the latter, wouldn't it presumably be just as possible to make HTML apps that don't work on mobile for the same reasons?
Ditto for the game control issue - if someone makes an game that's designed for keyboard control (or a site dependent on "hover"), it won't work well on mobile whether it's implemented in HTML, Flash, or whatever else, right?
I would give anything for someone to explain to me why the right move for Adobe wasn't to simply accept HTML5, pivot from Flash to making killer HTML5 authoring tools, and maybe even provide a way for people to take their existing Flash projects and repurpose them to HTML5? How would that have been worse then trying to wedge Flash where it doesn't belong?
If you can show me how to make audiotool.com or even something like captainforever.com in HTML5 I think I'll begin to see where you're coming from, but there are plenty of things Flash does that HTML5 does not. To flip the switch from Flash 10 to HTML5 would be cutting off a lot of functionality.
Saying HTML5 should replace Flash is like saying HTML5 should replace JPGs.
Do the videos need to be optimized for mobile because of API incompatibilities, or just to make up for dearer machine resources (CPU, RAM, network etc.) available on mobile? If the latter, wouldn't it presumably be just as possible to make HTML apps that don't work on mobile for the same reasons? Ditto for the game control issue - if someone makes an game that's designed for keyboard control (or a site dependent on "…
Most phones only have hardware H.264 playback, but flash supports many other formats as well via software rendering. My bet is that it was forced to use software rendering on some videos.
Do the videos need to be optimized for mobile because of API incompatibilities, or just to make up for dearer machine resources (CPU, RAM, network etc.) available on mobile? If the latter, wouldn't it presumably be just as possible to make HTML apps that don't work on mobile for the same reasons? Ditto for the game control issue - if someone makes an game that's designed for keyboard control (or a site dependent on "…
Yes, that's the point. The author is saying that if you have to go through and convert your existing Flash content to work on a mobile device, why not go the full distance and convert it to HTML5?
I would give anything for someone to explain to me why the right move for Adobe wasn't to simply accept HTML5, pivot from Flash to making killer HTML5 authoring tools, and maybe even provide a way for people to take their existing Flash projects and repurpose them to HTML5? How would that have been worse then trying to wedge Flash where it doesn't belong?
HTML5 is cool but it's not the end-all. You have a whole set of new issues to deal with when you use HTML5. You have to worry about cross-browser compatibility and specific rendering bugs, whereas Flash authors don't. You have to rely on the slow JavaScript VMs included in even the fastest browsers (even the "fast" JS VMs are still rather slow), and then you have IE, which is still used by > 50% of internet users, of which much is IE 6 or 7, which are outdated and _extremely_ slow. You have audio synchronization issues. There is no ready-made IDE like Adobe's Flash IDE, meaning HTML5 development is much harder for many people. There are other issues too.
The fact is that HTML5 is not a reasonable general replacement for Flash. If you want your thing to work for most people, you are going to have to write in Flash anyway. Realistically, only a relative handful of people could run a HTML5/JavaScript program at Flash-equivalent speeds. And that assumes that you just want something in Flash that HTML5 could do; there's still RTMP and significant swaths of other stuff that Flash does and HTML5 doesn't.
I would give anything for someone to explain to me why the right move for Adobe wasn't to simply accept HTML5, pivot from Flash to making killer HTML5 authoring tools, and maybe even provide a way for people to take their existing Flash projects and repurpose them to HTML5? How would that have been worse then trying to wedge Flash where it doesn't belong?
The much glossed-over answer is that JavaScript and HTML just isn't a good environment for rich app development, for many reasons. One "elephant in the room" kind of issue is that JavaScript's object system is not acceptable to most programmers, and most programmers require classical OOP.
Even prototype system fanatics probably would have to admit that the current state of JavaScript doesn't work very well, with its warts like the "this" keyword behavior, and the tendency for all framework authors to role their own mutually incompatible systems.
Even Google seems to have backed off from this space recently - have you heard much mention of Chrome OS lately?
Do the videos need to be optimized for mobile because of API incompatibilities, or just to make up for dearer machine resources (CPU, RAM, network etc.) available on mobile? If the latter, wouldn't it presumably be just as possible to make HTML apps that don't work on mobile for the same reasons? Ditto for the game control issue - if someone makes an game that's designed for keyboard control (or a site dependent on "…
Yes, that's the point. The author is saying that if you have to go through and convert your existing Flash content to work on a mobile device, why not go the full distance and convert it to HTML5?
But that's begging the question - there's still no reason to do that unless you already think Flash is a dead end, the future is HTML uber alles, etc. Which this guy apparently didn't, since at beginning of his article he writes, "I’m the last person on earth who wanted to believe Steve Jobs when he told Walt Mossberg at D8 that “Flash has had its day.” I took it as nothing more than showmanship ... " until he tried 10.1 on Android.
I would give anything for someone to explain to me why the right move for Adobe wasn't to simply accept HTML5, pivot from Flash to making killer HTML5 authoring tools, and maybe even provide a way for people to take their existing Flash projects and repurpose them to HTML5? How would that have been worse then trying to wedge Flash where it doesn't belong?
HTML5 is cool but it's not the end-all. You have a whole set of new issues to deal with when you use HTML5. You have to worry about cross-browser compatibility and specific rendering bugs, whereas Flash authors don't. You have to rely on the slow JavaScript VMs included in even the fastest browsers (even the "fast" JS VMs are still rather slow), and then you have IE, which is still used by > 50% of internet users, of…
This doesn't answer the question of why Adobe doesn't do that, it lists the things that Adobe could step up to do. Yes, we know there is no ready-made IDE like Adobe's Flash IDE: fixing this problem is something Adobe can do, by providing a ready made HTML5 IDE. Why isn't Adobe doing that and leading the charge? There are distinct problems with HTML5 replacing Flash, and Adobe is in a unique position to partner, consult, contract, and contribute to that. For example, if everyone else's javascript VMs are crap and Adobe's Flash interpreter (which is close to javascript, isn't it?) is awesome, then Adobe can help contribute rather than taking a beating from industry leaders (Jobs) and be part of the solution rather than be viewed as part of the problem.
Yes, that's the point. The author is saying that if you have to go through and convert your existing Flash content to work on a mobile device, why not go the full distance and convert it to HTML5?
But that's begging the question - there's still no reason to do that unless you already think Flash is a dead end, the future is HTML uber alles, etc. Which this guy apparently didn't, since at beginning of his article he writes, "I’m the last person on earth who wanted to believe Steve Jobs when he told Walt Mossberg at D8 that “Flash has had its day.” I took it as nothing more than showmanship ... " until he tried…
No, this guy thought that 10.1 on Android would mean that desktop content could be seamlessly consumed on a mobile device, thus invalidating most of Steve's complaints. I don't think that he believed that Flash was "better" than HTML5.