They lost on flash. Will they lose on html and CSS?
"If you can't improve them with your own plugin, join them."
Adobe & HTML
11–20 of 71 posts
Re: Adobe & HTML
#12They lost on flash. Will they lose on html and CSS?
They did not "lose" on Flash. 99% market penetration[0] is not losing. I doubt they'll "lose" on HTML and CSS any more than they lost on Dreamweaver, they'll simply pull an Autodesk[1] and target the education and training market. It's hard to beat the Flash IDE for ease-of-use, and I imagine their new HTML-based product(s) will be the same.
[0]: https://www.adobe.com/products/flashplatformruntimes/statist... [1]: http://students.autodesk.com/?nd=download_center
Re: Adobe & HTML
#13On the Tools and Services page, this piqued my interest: > Code > We think there’s a need for a different type of code editor – we’re working on something and will have more to share soon.
Same, but I've never used an adobe product thats fast, responsive, and made for power users. I don't want another editor that's trying to hold my hand like dreamweaver.
Not originally Adobe, but Homesite?
Bit embarrassing, but I actually still use Allaire's Cold Fusion Studio from 1999. I think that was, at the time, the big brother to Homesite.
Re: Adobe & HTML
#14Doesn't this work on Firefox? It has Canary, IE10 developer preview, Chrome and Webkit builds... no Mozilla!
Re: Adobe & HTML
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same, but I've never used an adobe product thats fast, responsive, and made for power users. I don't want another editor that's trying to hold my hand like dreamweaver.
Not originally Adobe, but Homesite? Bit embarrassing, but I actually still use Allaire's Cold Fusion Studio from 1999. I think that was, at the time, the big brother to Homesite.
Homesite was the first thing I thought of, which was definitely one of those trips down memory lane that leaves you thinking "wow, that was how long ago?!"
Re: Adobe & HTML
#16If you're not a designer, it might be hard to see, but the importance of this work is impossible to overstate. In 10 years, we'll look back on today and think about how barbaric and stupid it was that we didn't have re-flowable text in multi-box CSS layouts or absolute control of typefaces on the web.
I have come upon the edge of what CSS is capable of multiple times, especially when building http://dustincurtis.com, and what happened surprised me: after a while, I noticed that I had started to subconsciously alter my designs to fit within the limitations of the display technology. As I realized that the only sane way to build the layouts was to absolutely/manually position every paragraph, I slowly stopped writing and designing the articles. It was just too much work because the tools to do great custom layouts on the web just don't exist.
Compared to what should be possible by now, CSS is pretty primitive. It's a limiting factor in the digitization of traditional media, like magazines. What Adobe is doing here is awesome, and I commend them for pushing forward the status quo.
Re: Adobe & HTML
#17They lost on flash. Will they lose on html and CSS?
They did not "lose" on Flash. 99% market penetration[0] is not losing. I doubt they'll "lose" on HTML and CSS any more than they lost on Dreamweaver, they'll simply pull an Autodesk[1] and target the education and training market. It's hard to beat the Flash IDE for ease-of-use, and I imagine their new HTML-based product(s) will be the same. [0]: https://www.adobe.com/products/flashplatformruntimes/statist... [1]: ht…
> 99% market penetration
By that metric, Java has 73%, but I basically never encounter a Java applet on the web (except when digitally signing my taxes) and increasingly hardly any Flash.
Re: Adobe & HTML
#18On the Tools and Services page, this piqued my interest: > Code > We think there’s a need for a different type of code editor – we’re working on something and will have more to share soon.
Same, but I've never used an adobe product thats fast, responsive, and made for power users. I don't want another editor that's trying to hold my hand like dreamweaver.
Photoshop is fast, responsive and made for power users, illustrator and in-design more-so. In fact, all three are absolutely best in class with nothing even close to challenging them.
The problem is more that they don't compete well when the opposition are just text editors, and where people are perfectly happy to remove all the visual stuff.
Re: Adobe & HTML
#19I'm very cross with Adobe for forcing me to install Adobe Reader today. Makes it hard for me to have any interest in their new ideas.
https://plus.google.com/108917965951523281393/posts/MJqS8pF7...
Re: Adobe & HTML
#20They lost on flash. Will they lose on html and CSS?
They did not "lose" on Flash. 99% market penetration[0] is not losing. I doubt they'll "lose" on HTML and CSS any more than they lost on Dreamweaver, they'll simply pull an Autodesk[1] and target the education and training market. It's hard to beat the Flash IDE for ease-of-use, and I imagine their new HTML-based product(s) will be the same. [0]: https://www.adobe.com/products/flashplatformruntimes/statist... [1]: ht…
Oh, wasn't aware flash is now supported on apple products.
My comments were referring to the shift away from flash. Penetration in a constricting market is not ideal.