3 ms·

In principle a good idea (or just a logic step). It's kind of stupid that they haven't done that a long time ago already. It would have solved any performance,

In principle a good idea (or just a logic step). It's kind of stupid that they haven't done that a long time ago already. It would have solved any performance, arch support, security or whatever problems and also the whole debate about openness. It would have changed the view on Adobe/Flash a lot for many people. Although, if it happens now, I'm not really sure what Flash can offer over HTML5. They are both almost equal in features (with different concentrations though). Maybe Flash is still a bit more advanced in development about multimedia, so it maybe would have some improvements to implement something in Flash (if it is open) but I really cannot think of anything which would be interesting for me personally which cannot be done in a good/better way in HTML5.

benologist 17y ago
Flash/Silverlight/etc are very agile, it's May now and there's still plenty of time for any of them to roll out significant new features this year while browser vendors and the W3 debate which video format to use and consumers click ignore on the update your browser screen for the 1000th time.
- steveklabnik 17y ago
  There is plenty of time for them to improve this year. But since it's taken 3 years to get into beta, I'm not very confident that rapid improvement will be happening.
  - benologist 17y ago
    Right, but that's cause Adobe sucks at building software. But they do have the ability to deploy updates that actually reach consumers in a timely fashion, massively faster than any W3 spec or browser vendor can even dream of pushing something through. Everything Adobe, Microsoft, Unity etc push to their own platforms between HTML5 and HTML6 is stuff that HTML5 doesn't have and can't include until the next release beyond fragmented and browser-specific implementations.
    - steveklabnik 17y ago
      But the ability to do so still doesn't matter unless the code gets improved in the first place... As an aside, there won't be an "HTML6." HTML will become versionless from here on out.
    - poppysan 17y ago
      Photoshop, Illustrator, Indesign... all industry-leading software packages. They cant be too bad...
      - benologist 17y ago
        Industry leading is not the same as perfect. They get a lot of stuff right, they make some fantastic innovations, I love AS3 and make most of my income from building games in Flash. But if you use Adobe software you'll nod your head at a lot of stuff here: http://dearadobe.com/top_rated.php http://dearadobe.com/top_rated.php
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
    - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
      Your mixing things up here. Adobe Flash can push upgrades to everyone because they have 98% penetration and a built in update system. New versions are ubiquitous within a year. Silverlight and Unity can only push updates to people who have them installed. This means they basically face the same issue as browsers who can put things into the hands of their users (1/3 of users for Mozilla, 1/2 if all the browsers but IE support it).
- albertzeyer 17y ago
  Just curious: What significant features could that be?
  - benologist 17y ago
    It doesn't really matter what it is, Adobe can get x to consumers years ahead of the W3 and browser vendors.

benologist 17y ago

Flash/Silverlight/etc are very agile, it's May now and there's still plenty of time for any of them to roll out significant new features this year while browser vendors and the W3 debate which video format to use and consumers click ignore on the update your browser screen for the 1000th time.

steveklabnik 17y ago
There is plenty of time for them to improve this year. But since it's taken 3 years to get into beta, I'm not very confident that rapid improvement will be happening.
- benologist 17y ago
  Right, but that's cause Adobe sucks at building software. But they do have the ability to deploy updates that actually reach consumers in a timely fashion, massively faster than any W3 spec or browser vendor can even dream of pushing something through. Everything Adobe, Microsoft, Unity etc push to their own platforms between HTML5 and HTML6 is stuff that HTML5 doesn't have and can't include until the next release beyond fragmented and browser-specific implementations.
  - steveklabnik 17y ago
    But the ability to do so still doesn't matter unless the code gets improved in the first place... As an aside, there won't be an "HTML6." HTML will become versionless from here on out.
  - poppysan 17y ago
    Photoshop, Illustrator, Indesign... all industry-leading software packages. They cant be too bad...
    - benologist 17y ago
      Industry leading is not the same as perfect. They get a lot of stuff right, they make some fantastic innovations, I love AS3 and make most of my income from building games in Flash. But if you use Adobe software you'll nod your head at a lot of stuff here: http://dearadobe.com/top_rated.php http://dearadobe.com/top_rated.php
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
    Your mixing things up here. Adobe Flash can push upgrades to everyone because they have 98% penetration and a built in update system. New versions are ubiquitous within a year. Silverlight and Unity can only push updates to people who have them installed. This means they basically face the same issue as browsers who can put things into the hands of their users (1/3 of users for Mozilla, 1/2 if all the browsers but IE support it).
albertzeyer 17y ago
Just curious: What significant features could that be?
- benologist 17y ago
  It doesn't really matter what it is, Adobe can get x to consumers years ahead of the W3 and browser vendors.