Print 69 comment(s) - last by Blight AC.. on Jun 24 at 9:45 AM

Open source advocates claim Adobe is showing open source animosity

When it comes to rich media on the Internet today, much of the media is powered by Adobe Flash. Flash has some competition like Microsoft Silverlight, but Flash continues to be one of the most supported rich media applications.

The future of Flash is not as clear as it once was with Google touting the ability to support rich media applications online with HTML 5. For its part Adobe insists that Flash will survive HTML 5 and Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen went so far as to dismiss HTML 5, reports InformationWeek.

Narayen said, "[T]he fragmentation of browsers makes Flash even more important rather than less important."

Perhaps the most interesting demonstration that could put fear into the hearts of Adobe and its shareholder is the demonstration by Google at its developer conference of a YouTube prototype using HTML 5 instead of Flash.

Adobe's John Dowdell posted a blog comment in response to numerous headlines and Tweets that called HTML 5 a "Flash-killer." Dowdell called Apple, Google, and Mozilla "a consortium of minority browser vendors" and considered the absence of Flash on the iPhone and Silverlight technology as an endorsement of the technology.

Dowdell wrote, "Silverlight's launch helped boost the popularity of Flash. ... iPhone helped to radically increase the number of phones with Flash support."

Adobe has taken a defensive tact with regards to HTML 5 leading to speculation that the company may be more afraid of the technology that it wants to let on. InformationWeek reports that some readers posted comments to Dowdell's blog calling the advocacy of Flash another sign of Adobe's "open standards animosity."

Adobe is trucking along in the poor global economy, but reported a 41% drop in profits for its last quarter. Despite the decline in profit the stock price remains steady, which InformationWeek believes is a sign that investors see the drop in profits as due to the economy and not issues with the company or its offerings. Strategy Analytics reported in February that MySpace and YouTube were driving the adoption of some forms of Flash. If YouTube movies to another platform it would be a significant blow to Adobe.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By MeesterNid on 6/19/2009 12:55:02 PM , Rating: 5
Hopefully HTML 5 video playback will cut down on the number of times my browser comes to a screeching halt while loading Flash controls.

By ipay on 6/19/2009 1:51:45 PM , Rating: 4
Actually it has more to do with Flash's slowness, which Adobe seems strangely reluctant to optimise.

By nuarbnellaffej on 6/20/2009 4:12:40 AM , Rating: 5
I have a Q6600@ 3.18 GHz, 4096Mb's of ram @ 950MHz, and flash OFTEN comes to a grinding halt for no apparent reason...

By B3an on 6/20/2009 11:14:36 AM , Rating: 2
Well it should'nt.
Could the people that complain of slow Flash be more detailed.

I'd like to know what exactly you'rre on about as i use Flash a lot for webdesign and dont experience this even on pretty slow systems.

Flash does use quite a bit of CPU usage though depending on the content, but a lot of people dont understand this has to do with the fact that it uses Vector based graphics in a lot of content. Vector has many benefits, like infinite zoom with no pixelation of the graphics for instance.

By tomd123 on 6/20/2009 11:54:35 AM , Rating: 5
try running hulu.
I have an amd 5050e (dual 2.7ghz) with 2gigs of ram and a hd3200, on a 1920x1200 resolution. Everytime I visit hulu, my computer slows down to what seems as 1 fps. I can reproduce this slow down on systems with core 2 duos, core 2 quads and even on an intel i7 system. And lets not forget about having MULTIPLE tabs which have multiple flash embeds. And forget about laptops. This is why the plugin for ff (noflash) exists.

I may be ranting but this is the truth that everyone experiences. To be honost, I can't wait till either flash dies or gets completely optimized.

Some more sites that use a lot of flash: google some car manufacturer websites. Some of those use flash exclusively and are unbearable to use (worse then hulu).

By eddieroolz on 6/21/2009 12:48:57 AM , Rating: 5
Right, blame it on IE and/or Vista.

Did you also know that the E.T. game's miserable failure was also caused by IE and Vista? Betcha you didn't know that!

Honestly, Flash lags my Firefox like crazy sometimes, especially if it's an game. 50% usage of a 3.34GHz C2D/GTS 250 is not right.

By nuarbnellaffej on 6/21/2009 5:21:52 AM , Rating: 2
So the problem is most likely your ocmputers software configs or cheezy video cards.

My computer's files are configured as they should be, trust me, and I wouldn't call a 4870 with 1 Gb's of memory "cheesy".

By MRwizard on 6/22/2009 5:50:18 AM , Rating: 3
it has nothing to do with your graphics card. it uses vector graphix that are calculated by your CPU

it moslty always depends on the content viewed, and the background process's. and the fact that flash is poorly optimized for all systems out there

By SLeeeper on 6/21/2009 3:14:36 PM , Rating: 2
Your problem sounds more like a network problem, not the flash app. Most Streaming flash content uses 700kbps, as for the tabs, once the app loads, it is stored in your cache and doesn't need to load again. Try using a good modem. or upgrade form that 512 DSL...LOL

By Blight AC on 6/24/2009 9:45:51 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I'd say something else was going on, if it's Hulu related. Now, on my Laptop which uses a Pentium M 1.86 Ghz processor I cannot run Hulu HD fullscreen as the framerate drops to annoying levels and my CPU peaks, but it works flawlessly on my Vista PC with an Intel Q9300.

I know Adobe has announced plans to make use of the GPU in the future. However, really, it's like Adobe has their heads up their rears at this point. 64-Bit CPU's have been around for close to a decade now and Adobe STILL doesn't have 64 bit support for Windows (I believe they have an alpha client for Linux though.)

And I'm sure Nvidia had to put some massive pressure on Adobe to get them to work on the GPU processing. Nvidia's Ion and Tegra Platforms, which have lower powered CPU processing, but good GPU to allow full 1080p HD content on apps that use the GPU to render it, need Flash to use the power of the GPU to be marketable. Since these platforms are designed for multimedia use and Flash is a major part of that with sites like Hulu and YouTube.

By mindless1 on 6/20/2009 1:10:58 PM , Rating: 2
I'd call infinite zoom without pixelation an undesirable thing, when I zoom I want to see a close-up of what something is, not a smoothed version of what it isn't.

Flash is a cancer on the internet, it is ludicrous you can't even watch many video clips without this bloat of an additional layer over it. It detracts from doing even the most basic of things by taking more time, consuming more system resources, increasing download amounts.

You might say "oh properly designed flash won't do this", to which I counter only if you contrast it with improperly designed non-flash alternatives".

By nuarbnellaffej on 6/21/2009 5:36:57 AM , Rating: 2
While I admit I haven't been a big fan of flash by any count, I think it's vector based graphics and infinite zoom are very useful for certain types of games etc...

It's not like you would try to zoom in on a picture or something like that in flash, if so than obviously it would pixelate.

By ImSpartacus on 6/21/2009 10:26:00 AM , Rating: 4
I don't think you understand what vector graphics entail. Flash aside, vector graphics use paths instead of raster's pixels. This can provide a genuine "close up" of what the image really is.

By MRwizard on 6/22/2009 5:58:26 AM , Rating: 2
in other words, it uses maths to draw lines and curves

By theslug on 6/19/2009 1:23:58 PM , Rating: 5
I just want them to fix screen tearing.

By theapparition on 6/19/2009 3:07:26 PM , Rating: 2
Will there be a 64bit version of HTML5.....cause there's still none of Flash.

I know there's no such thing as HTML bit compatibility.

By Etsp on 6/19/2009 4:20:26 PM , Rating: 2
It's not likely... unfortunately the video codec that the HTML5 standards looks like it will implement is OGG Theora...

Which from my basic understanding of video encoding is an older standard, that has been practically abandoned in recent years as far as enhancements are concerned... This may change after the HTML 5 implementation, revitalizing the codec. However, as it stands right now, there aren't many modern tools available for working with it, and it isn't nearly as efficient as many other standards...

I think that in terms of efficiency, OGG Theora is about on equal ground to Flash...

By sprockkets on 6/19/2009 7:17:00 PM , Rating: 4
While this is true, it isn't because Theora is just fooling around, but every method, save for Dirac's wavelet encoding, is patented.

Can't have a open domain standard depend on patented tech.

By Etsp on 6/19/2009 7:25:15 PM , Rating: 2
I wasn't bashing their choice, they simply chose what was best to adopt in terms of an open standard... when compared to other open standards, Ogg Theora is by far the best, but it sucks in comparison to H.264, which probably won't become open any time soon...

They are stuck between a rock and a hard place on this...

By neothe0ne on 6/20/2009 7:59:47 AM , Rating: 2
x264 is pretty open, too bad that using it would make that open standard pretty closed since lots of people actually DO still run on Pentium 3's... or worse (pentium 4 lol).

By sc3252 on 6/19/2009 8:05:26 PM , Rating: 2
I would like to know what look so amazing with the current crap they use. I mean at such low bit rates does it really matter? The only thing I could imagine that looks worse is pron websites, since at least they have much higher quality than youtube has.

Also Theora isn't dead, in fact it is getting quite a few upgrades to put it up to quality with everything else.

By smitty3268 on 6/19/2009 11:11:06 PM , Rating: 3
The actual standard doesn't define any codec, because the vendors wouldn't agree on anything. Firefox is going with Theora because it's free, Safari is just using it's QuickTime libraries, and if IE ever gets around to adding support you can be sure it will use their windows media codecs.

Browsers can actually add support for as many codecs as they want, so hopefully the future will become more compatible.

And theora isn't as bad as some people think. It's using the same kind of technology that's in DivX/Xvid, which is still pretty popular even if it's not the same as h.264. There was a recent comparison that showed it does pretty well at low bitrates compared to the newer codecs, so for standard YouTube type web videos it may be a pretty good choice.

By B3an on 6/20/2009 11:23:43 AM , Rating: 1
I think that in terms of efficiency, OGG Theora is about on equal ground to Flash...

Thats not true, the newer versions of Flash can play many different file types and codecs. The Flash player just loads them into it.
Flash is the best option for video playback as almost everyone has it and when used with a good codec, it is pretty much untouchable by anything else.

I dont understand why people on this site moan about Flash so much, if you want to moan about a web based video player/format, then do it for one that really deserves it, like Quicktime for instance.

By mindless1 on 6/20/2009 1:15:16 PM , Rating: 3
Flash is the worst option, when used with a good codec it is just additional overhead. Nobody (at least not me) suggested we use another bad playback mechanism, it's just ridiculous to use flash, they do so only in an attempt at more content control.

Note that web browsers were capable of video playback for years, and did so on slower systems than we have today without causing the high CPU resources flash does. You don't understand why people moan because you ignore this glaring contradiction to your supposition.

By omnicronx on 6/22/2009 11:08:19 AM , Rating: 2
Flash is the worst option, when used with a good codec it is just additional overhead. Nobody (at least not me) suggested we use another bad playback mechanism, it's just ridiculous to use flash, they do so only in an attempt at more content control.
Except for the fact you don't have to depend on the client system having certain codecs. Totally agree with the extra overhead though, and I really do hate flash for any video use.

By BikeDude on 6/22/2009 1:19:36 PM , Rating: 2
Can you point to a good youtube-like site that demonstrates how to use flash videos properly?

With youtube, my system used to crawl to a stop if I watched low-quality youtube-clips in full screen mode. I had 1.8 GHz Opterons and a GeForce 7800GTX. I've upgraded since, but still annoying that flash wasted one of my CPUs, whereas full quality DVD only consumed 5% at most... (with that setup I could almost watch blu-ray titles -- the "almost" is why I later upgraded)

Flash ads that spike users' CPU usage should be considered a DOS attack. IMO such attacks should be prosecuted.

By xRyanCat on 6/20/2009 4:04:27 PM , Rating: 2
Theora is completely based on an earlier version of the "Flash codec", VP3.

The problem isn't that they don't know where to improve the codec, the problem is H.264 already took the cake and patented it. H.264 is by far and large the best video codec out there today.

By dnd728 on 6/20/2009 4:44:22 PM , Rating: 3
And maybe they'll throw in an option to halt all animations or to halt all animations on non-active windows/tabs...
This thing alone can save entire forests.

Yes and No
By sprockkets on 6/19/2009 3:24:06 PM , Rating: 4
Flash is more than welcome for stuff like

But for playing actual video files, no. HTML5 with theora/vorbis in an ogg container is OK for now (works OK in Linux but poorly in Windows via FF3.5 B4).

What FF should do is use mplayer as a plugin to play the video. It's GPL, and can "plug" the video through the video card system like it should, rather than trying to poorly render it in the browser window.

Adobe should be worried. Youtube pretty much put Flash as a video player on the map - it can just as easily wipe it away.

And as I usually say, better Flash than various sites either using Real, WMV, or the plague of the internet, Quicktime.

RE: Yes and No
By freezer on 6/20/2009 2:04:08 PM , Rating: 2
But for playing actual video files, no. HTML5 with theora/vorbis in an ogg container is OK for now (works OK in Linux but poorly in Windows via FF3.5 B4).

Really? Why in the heck somebody would want to use another obscure video codec as you can use H.264/Mpg4 easily with Flash nowadays?

H.264 codec is used by blueray and some professional cameras which means its much more widely accepted format.

RE: Yes and No
By Yawgm0th on 6/21/2009 4:29:50 AM , Rating: 5
Ogg is a container format, not a codec, with Theora and Vorbis being the encoding formats (codecs) for video and audio, respectively. They are open standards and although not as widely used as they could be, they are anything but obscure. That said, there are much better codecs than Theora, and the only non-open standards are WMV and Quicktime, neither of which is the best anyway. Vorbis, conversely would be a sensible audio format for web radio and potentially other applications.

Ogg implemented in HTML alongside a good video codec would be superior to Flash in many respects. Flash is an all-in-one multimedia solution popular on the web because it can provide reasonable quality at very low bandwidth. But if HTML 5 allows that to be done reasonably or more effectively using open video standards and browser plug-ins (or better yet, browsers with built-in playback), it doesn't make any sense for flash to be utilized for video playback on sites like Youtube. It will be better for all parties except Adobe to move away from Flash.

By ltcommanderdata on 6/19/2009 12:51:56 PM , Rating: 2

While Internet Explorer is definitively still the most used browser in the world, it's browser share has now fallen below 2 thirds of the market, meaning with 1 third of internet users, the "minority" is not small.I'm not sure being dismissive and antagonistic of other browsers, their efforts, and their users is a smart strategy for Adobe in the long run.

RE: "Minority Browser Consortium" No Insignificant
By Yawgm0th on 6/19/2009 1:56:11 PM , Rating: 3
I think the bigger issue is that two (Google, Apple) of the three members of that "minority browser consortium" are major players in the tech industry that have about six and nine times the revenue of Adobe (based on Wikipedia numbers), respectively, and are undeniably more influential players in the tech industry.

It would be roughly equivalent to AMD and Intel saying "we're going to make XYZ major change to how the processor industry works" and VIA responding with "they are just a minority consortium in the low-power/SFF x86 system industry. We're not concerned."

By Murst on 6/19/2009 3:24:11 PM , Rating: 3
Nothing will happen w/o Microsoft here, no matter what Apple, Google, or Mozilla do. Just look at SVG as proof. Not having IE support the technology ( it supports VML instead ) killed it.

I'm sure HTML5 will be available on all browsers someday, but Flash & Silverlight will also have gotten new features that are not available today.

Statement from Rome
By ClownPuncher on 6/19/2009 2:31:07 PM , Rating: 2
Rome: The Byzantine Empire will not replace the Roman Empire.

RE: Statement from Rome
By Zingam on 6/19/2009 2:55:09 PM , Rating: 2
There is not such an Empire - The Byzantine Empire. That's a modern Western term for denoting the eastern and surviving part of the Roman Empire. It was called Roman empire and its' citizens considered themselves as Roman citizens. It kept the Roman tradition alive thousand years after the fall of the city of Rome.
The emperors of the so called Roman empire sought for a long time to restore the Roman empire to its full glory but eventually they failed. There were too many new powerful enemies but they stopped the invasion of Islam, the Persians and other Asian threats to Europe for several centuries.

RE: Statement from Rome
By ClownPuncher on 6/19/2009 3:33:30 PM , Rating: 4
Partially true. It was far more Hellenistic, as Greek was the language adopted. It was also Christian (Eastern Orthodox) vs. Rome which was originally "pagan" then turned to Catholics. Constantinople was also sacked by the Latins during the crusades, as Eastern Greek Orthodox was considered blasphemous to the Latins (Rome). Even the Emperors had a different title Imperator RomaniƦ vs. Imperator Romanorum.

But thank you, it is refreshing to discuss history with people that have more than a passing interest.

Why bother with this?
By CBone on 6/19/2009 12:45:35 PM , Rating: 5
InformationWeek: Adobe, HTML5 is poised to supplant your annoying, older technology! Are you going to be replaced by the new hotness?

Adobe:*leans into mic* No. Speaking of things that suck... they suck and HTML 5 sucks.

Seriously? What were they going to say? That they were doomed and had to cut the interview short to grab their ankles?

RE: Why bother with this?
By sprockkets on 6/20/2009 12:34:45 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe they could have said:

"Old plugins never die, they just slowly fade away."

By dontangg on 6/19/2009 2:51:55 PM , Rating: 2
I think that it would be awesome if HTML 5 and CSS 3 made Flash obsolete. And I think that it's very possible with all of the JavaScript animation and the new CSS animation as well as the video tags in HTML 5, etc.

However, just like many new web technologies, developers are severely held back because they have to support older browsers like IE6 that won't support HTML 5 and CSS 3. I think that because of this, Flash still has a very long time to live.

By Grudin on 6/20/2009 2:43:59 AM , Rating: 2
Hit the nail on the head. The browser developers tend to interpret things like CSS anyway they like and because of that web developers are left having to support all the different ways browsers implement the standards. I hate having to constantly fix code to support the way certain browsers implement a tag or how each browser seems to have their own version of javascript.

I think technologies like flash and silverlight will continue to grow and become the preferred developent tool rather than die off in the distant future.

"defensive tact"?
By Xaussie on 6/19/2009 6:59:31 PM , Rating: 3
"Adobe has taken a defensive tact with regards to HTML 5"

I think you mean tack, not tact.

By nemoshotyany on 6/19/2009 2:41:23 PM , Rating: 2
If YouTube movies to another platform it would be a significant blow to Adobe.


Why do they care?
By nathanvaneps on 6/19/2009 4:01:51 PM , Rating: 2
I can't think of a good reason why Adobe would care whether HTML5/JS replaced flash, if it supports everything flash does. It saves them having to make a plugin for a pile of platforms. They don't make any profit from the plugin. And their designer tools could be targeted at HTML5/JS rather than flash and still the same profit.

Is this just resistance to change? I suppose vendor lock, standards control, and elimination of competition are their reasons for sticking with flash.

movies a verb ?
By phervas on 6/19/2009 6:08:44 PM , Rating: 2
If YouTube "movies" to another platform it would be a significant blow to Adobe.


Of course they're not worried.
By PhatoseAlpha on 6/19/2009 10:49:45 PM , Rating: 2
They have no reason to be, at least in the near future.

The public has shown itself to be amazingly unwilling to upgrade to newer browsers. Realistically, Microsoft has precisely zero chance of patching HTML5 into IE7, let alone 6, and large portions of the public still use them.

Any website that wants to actually be usable by the public at large can't do just HTML5, even if it's amazingly useful, simply because it won't work for large portions of the browsers people use. And people largely do not upgrade their browser.

Which means that while youtube might implement HTML5 for compatible browsers, there will be a fall back mechanism. Any guesses what that fall back mechanism is gonna be?

So maybe in a couple of years HTML5 will be commonplace enough to be used without that flash fallback. But Adobe is already on notice that they need to advance or die, so it's not like they'll be sitting still all that time. Where will flash be when designers can finally use HTML to do what flash does now?

Don't forget about JavaFX...
By estarkey7 on 6/20/2009 7:38:49 PM , Rating: 2
At least this standard covers the Wondows/Linux/Mac OS base from a development standpoint (user as well). When Netbeans incorporates a GUI layout tool for JavaFX, its use will skyrocket, especially because of the ability to be leveraged on the mobile frontier.

By nirvanaman on 6/22/2009 3:48:24 AM , Rating: 2
bring it out already adobe, you are stopping 64bit firefox and chrome from being released by not having 64bit flash out!


iPhone Flash?
By smegz on 6/23/2009 1:17:26 PM , Rating: 2
... iPhone helped to radically increase the number of phones with Flash support."

Must be talking out of browser...cause iPhone's Safari browser don't support flash.

By Visk on 6/19/09, Rating: 0
HTML 5 does replace inappropriate uses of flash...
By Doormat on 6/19/09, Rating: -1
By Spivonious on 6/19/2009 12:49:22 PM , Rating: 5
Geez, HTML 5 isn't even finalized yet and you're already upset at MS for not supporting it in IE8?

By bhieb on 6/19/2009 1:17:27 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah that damn Win7 won't recognize my next holographic drive either /sarcasm.

By Doormat on 6/19/2009 5:20:26 PM , Rating: 2
There are parts of HTML 5 that are close to final - MS even implemented some pieces in IE8.

There are two main problems with MS and HTML 5. (I'll even skip over SVG and CSS3...)

One is their refresh cycle. It seems Apple, Google and Mozilla are working much faster implementing pieces of HTML 5 than MS is. I'd rather see IE 8.1, 8.2 with additional HTML 5 features as they come up for finalization vs IE9 in two or three years. The web is evolving rapidly and if MS doesn't have a 12-15 month release schedule then they're holding the rest of the internet back from cool new features.

The other problem with MS and HTML 5 is their refusal to accept OGG for audio and theora for video codecs for the AUDIO and VIDEO HTML 5 tags. Those tags will do no one any good if MS cant jump on board with what will otherwise be the defacto standard (along with H.264 for video, since Apple and Google are pushing that hard).

By Locutus465 on 6/19/2009 1:44:39 PM , Rating: 5
As a web developer I'm glaring back at Mozilla et. al. for taking MS's web post back libraries, and changing how they work making it far more difficult to build a valid XML document in javascript than it really should be.... Oh no, we can't let you add new childeren to the dom tree you just created in code, that would be too damn convinent. You can concatinate strings together. Leading to crap applications like disney's web BD-Live chat app (enter text from browser) which is exceedingly easy to break. Just enter characters that violates the XML doc structure, poof broken chat.

By nathanvaneps on 6/19/2009 3:26:03 PM , Rating: 2
Can't you use the w3 DOM library to do this?

By borowki2 on 6/19/2009 2:24:30 PM , Rating: 2
Agree, though I question what you listed as inappropriate use of Flash. Multimedia contents are Flash's raison d'etre. Why would you use HTML when you can accomplish the same thing ten times quicker in Flash?

By Bubbacub on 6/19/2009 3:17:50 PM , Rating: 5
is flash really that quick or efficient?

it seems to me to be as bloated and slow as anything adobe spit out (e.g. a 900mg pdf writing application!).

my (admittedly old) laptop can happily decode 720P h264 but is defeated into producing a laggy slideshow by a vaguely highish resolution (less than 720p) youtube video. i realise that there is a performance hit for running in a browser with code that runs on multiple oses - i just think that it is a bit excessive - interested to see if html 5 can force adobe to improve the performance of flash

By 67STANG on 6/19/2009 5:26:41 PM , Rating: 3
Flash had its time. Albeit the time it had, it was abused.

As a web developer, I find myself using Jquery for simple animations, and Silverlight for more complex animations (which I don't need most of the time).

I have even moved away from FLV's to playback over Silverlight. The playback is much better under Silverlight, IMHO.

Honestly, who really cares about HTML 5 anyhow? I'm much more interested in the advancement and support of the CSS3 spec than HTML 5...

By borowki2 on 6/19/2009 7:16:21 PM , Rating: 2
By quick, I mean on the development side. The power of Flash is in its authoring tool. Drag-and-drop a few things onto the timeline, add in a few motion tweens, then--viola!--you have something that looks pretty sophisticated. To me, inappropriate use of Flash is when people treat it as full development platform. The dumbest thing I've seen is probably an XML marked-up page layout manager written in ActionScript. It's like, hello morons, it's stupid to embed Flash in HTML only to have it emulate HTML.

By descendency on 6/19/2009 10:39:12 PM , Rating: 2
The only thing flash is good for now is those shotty effects using a timeline. As someone who has done a fair amount of silverlight development in the past 6 months, I can say, I will never use Flash/Flex ever again. Silverlight is faster, easier, and all around better for just about everything.

Youtube would be smart to find this out. Video playback quality is better in Silverlight, by far. (at least to make it an option... the player is practically already written for them)

The few things flash still does better are what you described.

Silverlight applets > Flash applets (and Java applets)

By descendency on 6/20/2009 12:07:18 AM , Rating: 3
MSDN is one of the highest quality things in the computing industry.

I hate DRM, but MSDN produces ultra high quality stuff (it was the industry leader in IDEs for a long time, maybe even still today. How many ideas did Eclipse incorporate because they were in Visual Studio? A lot.)

By Boze on 6/24/2009 7:00:10 AM , Rating: 2
I have to agree with the other guy that replied to your comment. For whatever reason, you don't like Microsoft, and there's nothing wrong with that, but to say they don't build high quality software would simply be downright untruthful. If open-source solutions were as easy to use, easy to maintain, and easy to implement as other avenues of creation, then you'd see widespread adoption - and quickly.

By freezer on 6/20/2009 2:54:19 PM , Rating: 2
The dumbest thing I've seen is probably an XML marked-up page layout manager written in ActionScript. It's like, hello morons, it's stupid to embed Flash in HTML only to have it emulate HTML.

I think you're missing the point. Most often such XML based systems for Flash are definitely not designed to "emulate HTML". These are usually used to control content and components in Flash, and to use some special features Flash allows. Its very easy to handle XML with ActionScript 3 compared to the previous version.

HTML in the other hand was never meant for anything serious in multimedia. For a long time, and still today, it was very hard to make exact layouts with it. It was newer designed from graphic designers point of view, it was newer really wysiwyg.

JavaScript may allow some tricks, but not anything that you couldn't do much more easily with Flash.

HTML is a mess because there's too many standards and too many different browsers which all utilizes these standards differently. This means often hell on earth for designers trying to make things work just like they want.

Flash is good because its fairly consistent in rendering. The plugin runs mostly same on different platforms and browsers (there is small differences however). Flash design tool combined with much more efficient AS3, AIR, PixelBender, Flex etc allow for very interesting stuff for developers.

Silverlight may have future, but last time I checked its version 3 beta had just included features that has been long time in the Flash. Whats the point?

By Doormat on 6/19/2009 5:11:32 PM , Rating: 2
Since I use a Mac at home, I will argue that the Flash software on the Mac is not resource-friendly. I cant even get flash 10 on hulu working properly (not dropping frames) on my Core Duo 1.83MHz Macbook. That chip should be plenty to play the SD video Hulu offers. But Adobe's flash implantation on the Mac is awful.

"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki