Adobe to charge Flash coders to use 'premium' features

Kneejerk response:

"What th... seriously? It's almost like they WANT flash to lose to HTML5.."

Adobe sounds pretty clueless on this. I personally don't use Flash (unless I really, really can't help it); I look forward to the day when it's gone the way of the dinosaur.

I think... I mean I guess it sounds like Adobe sees that Apple is able to get a percentage of revenue and be successful attracting developers, and they somehow think that they can do the same thing and also attract developers? Sounds like... a winning proposition to me!

More info at: http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplayer/articles/premium-fea...

Specifically:

Premium features licensing will only be needed when both of the following APIs are used in the same application run in Flash Player:

* ApplicationDomain.domainMemory, which provides access to domain memory

* Stage3D.request3DContext, if using hardware acceleration

--

From the article, it looks like ApplicationDomain.domainMemory is required when using the Alchemy compiler which allows compiling and running C/C++ code in Flash Player. (Hmmm.. seems like a competitor to Google's NaCl)

While Stage3D.request3DContext is required for using Stage3D which enables hardware acceleration in Flash Player. Angry Birds on Facebook already uses this.

Most games coded natively in Flash/AS3 won't require both. However, I'm not sure whether Unity's export to Flash and Unreal's export to Flash require Alchemy.

In any case, the revenue share is only required when both features are used. However, again the media aren't communicating the whole deal and again it's Adobe's fault for coming up with such weird/complex terms.

Edit:

After some quick research, it seems both Unity and Unreal's export to Flash Player feature require both Alchemy and Stage3D to work. So it looks like what Adobe are trying to do here is to generate some revenue from their 'platform' as otherwise they wouldn't receive a dime from all those Unity devs who would have easily exported their project to run on Flash Player which has a ton more penetration than Unity Web Player.

I think it is unfortunate though that they chose a 'revenue share' model.

It would have been a lot better for the end developers if Adobe just charged Unity and Epic a licensing fee for targeting Flash Player.

Is it out the question that that's part of the equation here? Adobe is making Canvas tools after all. Flash is going to increasingly become a cost center for Adobe (support cost remain as profits diminish), so why not cannibalize that business by sending developers to another one of your products? And grab some cash from the suckers who refuse to leave Flash behind.