7 ms·

This is quite impressive. Combined with the codebase of Dashcode and Xcode 4, Apple now has everything it takes to make the HTML5 authoring suite that we've bee

This is quite impressive. Combined with the codebase of Dashcode and Xcode 4, Apple now has everything it takes to make the HTML5 authoring suite that we've been waiting for. Imagine not having to code Canvas or SVG animations, just point and click. Once such a WYSIWYG app exists, there'd be no excuses left to use Flash online. (EDIT) To clarify: what I have in mind is a pro app that is sold in the same way Apple's other pro apps are (Final Cut, Logic, Aperture). No dev account needed, pricing between $300-500. It would produce clean, readable code that would run on any platform that has a decent JavaScript engine and support for HTML5, Canvas, CSS3, SVG, and h.264.

whatever_dude 16y ago
Awesome. Now we'll just have to use an application that requires people to sign up and pay for a developer program to be allowed to use, that only runs on a single platform, and that can only generate content for a single ad platform on selected mobile devices. That's quite better than the super-proprietary world of Flash... that allows me to use any of the 3 major platforms, using a number of free development environments, and publish anywhere and any way I want.
- jbrennan 16y ago
  I don't think the OP means to use this exact tool as an alternative to Flash and its tools, but that Apple could adapt this tool and its other developer tools to create a really compelling "HTML5" development tool.
- rimantas 16y ago
  Trolling? Either you compare HTML5 (which runs more than one platform and is open standard) vs Flash, or particular tools and then your "using a number of free development environments" does not apply. If not talking about particular tool: well, you know, you can write html and js in many many editors…
oneplusone 16y ago
Apple doesn't get designers and any HTML5 authoring suite they produce would most likely be shitty. I know people think Mac is the designer's platform, but that has not been the case for quite some time. Software such as Aperture is an amateur version of Photoshop. Oddly enough I would look to Adobe for innovation in the HTML5 space.
- noisebleed 16y ago
  I know as a fact that Adobe intends to try, but I can't help but think whatever they cook up is going to be only marginally useful for serious development (which frankly is my first impression of Producer as well, though it does have potential)
  - Samuel_Michon 16y ago
    Remember Golive CyberStudio? That used to be a great tool, but then it was bought by Adobe. In subsequent versions (>v3.1), all Adobe did was introduce bloat and instability. After Adobe bought Macromedia, they did the same to Dreamweaver. Because Adobe now had two web authoring suites, they simply killed the one they had put the most time into ruining. However, I'm grateful for Adobe ruining WYSIWYG HTML editors for me. GoLive 5 crashed so often that I finally decided to start coding in BBedit. That was back in 2000, and I never looked back.
    - rograndom 16y ago
      I remember that the first major release Adobe did for GoLive was to remove a huge feature that we used in a product we were selling. Namely the ability to write dynamic code that talked to a database. Version 6 had it, version 7 nothing. We had 100's of sites we supported on that platform. It was great because the designers could click and point to make new dynamic areas on the page. We actually saved quite a chunk of change by not "upgrading" to that version, not only in costs to Adobe to buy the software, but also in not having to hire an estimated 12 more developers to maintain the code by hand.
- brisance 16y ago
amadiver 16y ago
I'm a professional Flash dev, but I spend my after work time on CoffeeScript/JavaScript/HTML5/Node/MongoDB (♥ ECMAScript). There's definitely still a use-case for Flash. It's still faster for some stuff I do (in Webkit{Safari,Chrome}). ActionScript has some nice additions to ES that were unfortunately left out of JS going forward (classes/packages/implicit getters+setters, type enhancement). Adobe's doing some really interesting stuff with 3d+gpu http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flash/molehill/ http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flash/molehill/ I don't blame people for statements like "Once such a WYSIWYG app exists, there'd be no excuses left to use Flash online". They're authoritative and are tapped into the zeitgeist. As an Interactive Dev, though, I hope my opinion can count as some kind of counterweight to what I sometimes view as polemic.
- podperson 16y ago
  If I may wax polemic... Here's Adobe/Macromedia's fairly recent tech history: * Use AS2, so much better than AS * Use AS3, so much better than AS2 and soon to be the ES Standard. Whoops! * Use our new 3D API, it sucks less than our non-3D API you hacked to kind of do 3D. * Use our new, new unreleased incompatible 3D API, it sucks much less than our existing 3D API. * Please continue to use our runtime because it has three virtual machines for three different languages, a 15 year old graphics engine we still haven't really modified to take advantage of modern GPUs, and an IDE that's a cruel joke. And that's just Flash. They also spent two years hyping Atmosphere before abandoning it. They added a 3D API to Director, then ripped it out, then added another one, then basically left it without an update for five years. So, basically, yes there's a use-case for Flash. Animated / interactive ads that run on a lot of platforms and custom video players that let you implement ads overlaid on video. Oh, and some casual games where you can ignore the fact Flash doesn't like to handle dynamic screen refresh rates. Any new functionality Adobe bolts onto its carcass needs to be avoided like the plague. That's really just about it.
  - joelhooks 16y ago
    There is a huge market for Flash applications for enterprise. Do you mean Flash Pro when you refer to the IDE? IntelliJ IDEA is killer. FDT and Flash Develop are also excellent. 3d is virtually useless outside of games and those interactive banner ads you hate. The runtime was why I settled on Flash. I'd rather take it, with its warts, than wrestle browsers like it was 1999. There are lots of things to gripe about with the Flash platform. Adobe doesn't seem to "get" what it means to support developers. They can't figure out how to run a proper open-source project, but I do them some credit for trying. We suffer from a "banner ad" culture that favors getting things done quickly without regard for craftsmanship at the code level. AS3 allowed developers to start improving this, and there are always notable exceptions to this generalization. This, to me, has been detrimental for the overall public perception of the Flash Platform.

whatever_dude 16y ago

Awesome. Now we'll just have to use an application that requires people to sign up and pay for a developer program to be allowed to use, that only runs on a single platform, and that can only generate content for a single ad platform on selected mobile devices. That's quite better than the super-proprietary world of Flash... that allows me to use any of the 3 major platforms, using a number of free development environments, and publish anywhere and any way I want.

jbrennan 16y ago
I don't think the OP means to use this exact tool as an alternative to Flash and its tools, but that Apple could adapt this tool and its other developer tools to create a really compelling "HTML5" development tool.
rimantas 16y ago
Trolling? Either you compare HTML5 (which runs more than one platform and is open standard) vs Flash, or particular tools and then your "using a number of free development environments" does not apply. If not talking about particular tool: well, you know, you can write html and js in many many editors…

oneplusone 16y ago

Apple doesn't get designers and any HTML5 authoring suite they produce would most likely be shitty. I know people think Mac is the designer's platform, but that has not been the case for quite some time. Software such as Aperture is an amateur version of Photoshop. Oddly enough I would look to Adobe for innovation in the HTML5 space.

noisebleed 16y ago
I know as a fact that Adobe intends to try, but I can't help but think whatever they cook up is going to be only marginally useful for serious development (which frankly is my first impression of Producer as well, though it does have potential)
- Samuel_Michon 16y ago
  Remember Golive CyberStudio? That used to be a great tool, but then it was bought by Adobe. In subsequent versions (>v3.1), all Adobe did was introduce bloat and instability. After Adobe bought Macromedia, they did the same to Dreamweaver. Because Adobe now had two web authoring suites, they simply killed the one they had put the most time into ruining. However, I'm grateful for Adobe ruining WYSIWYG HTML editors for me. GoLive 5 crashed so often that I finally decided to start coding in BBedit. That was back in 2000, and I never looked back.
  - rograndom 16y ago
    I remember that the first major release Adobe did for GoLive was to remove a huge feature that we used in a product we were selling. Namely the ability to write dynamic code that talked to a database. Version 6 had it, version 7 nothing. We had 100's of sites we supported on that platform. It was great because the designers could click and point to make new dynamic areas on the page. We actually saved quite a chunk of change by not "upgrading" to that version, not only in costs to Adobe to buy the software, but also in not having to hire an estimated 12 more developers to maintain the code by hand.
brisance 16y ago

amadiver 16y ago

I'm a professional Flash dev, but I spend my after work time on CoffeeScript/JavaScript/HTML5/Node/MongoDB (♥ ECMAScript). There's definitely still a use-case for Flash. It's still faster for some stuff I do (in Webkit{Safari,Chrome}). ActionScript has some nice additions to ES that were unfortunately left out of JS going forward (classes/packages/implicit getters+setters, type enhancement). Adobe's doing some really interesting stuff with 3d+gpu http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flash/molehill/ http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flash/molehill/ I don't blame people for statements like "Once such a WYSIWYG app exists, there'd be no excuses left to use Flash online". They're authoritative and are tapped into the zeitgeist. As an Interactive Dev, though, I hope my opinion can count as some kind of counterweight to what I sometimes view as polemic.

podperson 16y ago
If I may wax polemic... Here's Adobe/Macromedia's fairly recent tech history: * Use AS2, so much better than AS * Use AS3, so much better than AS2 and soon to be the ES Standard. Whoops! * Use our new 3D API, it sucks less than our non-3D API you hacked to kind of do 3D. * Use our new, new unreleased incompatible 3D API, it sucks much less than our existing 3D API. * Please continue to use our runtime because it has three virtual machines for three different languages, a 15 year old graphics engine we still haven't really modified to take advantage of modern GPUs, and an IDE that's a cruel joke. And that's just Flash. They also spent two years hyping Atmosphere before abandoning it. They added a 3D API to Director, then ripped it out, then added another one, then basically left it without an update for five years. So, basically, yes there's a use-case for Flash. Animated / interactive ads that run on a lot of platforms and custom video players that let you implement ads overlaid on video. Oh, and some casual games where you can ignore the fact Flash doesn't like to handle dynamic screen refresh rates. Any new functionality Adobe bolts onto its carcass needs to be avoided like the plague. That's really just about it.
- joelhooks 16y ago
  There is a huge market for Flash applications for enterprise. Do you mean Flash Pro when you refer to the IDE? IntelliJ IDEA is killer. FDT and Flash Develop are also excellent. 3d is virtually useless outside of games and those interactive banner ads you hate. The runtime was why I settled on Flash. I'd rather take it, with its warts, than wrestle browsers like it was 1999. There are lots of things to gripe about with the Flash platform. Adobe doesn't seem to "get" what it means to support developers. They can't figure out how to run a proper open-source project, but I do them some credit for trying. We suffer from a "banner ad" culture that favors getting things done quickly without regard for craftsmanship at the code level. AS3 allowed developers to start improving this, and there are always notable exceptions to this generalization. This, to me, has been detrimental for the overall public perception of the Flash Platform.