4 ms·
Two possible negative things : 1. It could be the Microsoft scenario : Embrace. Extend. Extinguish. 2. This tool could be used to spread FUD : "Look this is m
by mlok 16y ago
Two possible negative things :
1. It could be the Microsoft scenario : Embrace. Extend. Extinguish.
2. This tool could be used to spread FUD : "Look this is my project converted into html5, it looked much better in Flash"
- Newky 16y agoThis could really easily happen, and I take your points on board. Hopefully they are only doing the first 2 e's of point 1 and they can prove to be a notable addition to html5. Maybe I am being overly optimistic.
- andybak 16y agoHow is 1 even possible when they don't control the platform?
- windsurfer 16y ago1 is impossible because Adobe does not control the platform. 2 isn't really possible since Adobe could easily be proven wrong. Adobe is very much in favour of HTML5, and they only care about their development tools. By releasing a converter, they improve their expensive toos.
- queenOfEngland 16y agoAdobe makes authoring tools, and directly makes no money on Flash Player: If advertisers need a way to attack every iOS user with ads, Adobe wants to be there with a tool. However I laugh at point #2 -- it is simply inconceivable that Flash, with over a decade of a head start in heavy animation, actually does look better in many cases (which it does) -- it has to be FUD.
- jokermatt999 16y agoHowever I laugh at point #2 -- it is simply inconceivable that Flash, with over a decade of a head start in heavy animation, actually does look better in many cases (which it does) -- it has to be FUD. I don't think the FUD was that things will look better in the original Flash. That really only would make sense. The FUD was that "Oh, this thing that converted my Flash into HTML5 looked like crap afterward; therefore HTML5 must be crap", when it could really be an issue of the conversion process rather than HTML5 itself.