2 ms·

This reads like paranoia... Twitter had nothing to gain or lose from controlling the fate of DabbleDB. Chances are they were on a classic, mindless acquisition

by toyg 4y ago

This reads like paranoia... Twitter had nothing to gain or lose from controlling the fate of DabbleDB. Chances are they were on a classic, mindless acquisition spree, and Dabble folks saw their chance to make bank. > It is the same reason why they destroyed Flash Lol, Flash destroyed itself. Adobe thought they could forever extract rent from Flash's early gains, slowing development momentum in order to assimilate it in their products and processes; and then they underestimated the power of Apple's influence on the web ecosystem.

vfclists 4y ago
Really? How easy would it be to create a Flash product competing with Adobe's current online offerings back then it Flash existed? The simply truth is that any of Adobe's competitors could have developed an even before Adobe decided to rent their software. To what extent would software developers depend on Apple's app store if high quality applications could be delivered through the browser? What would happen to the 30% tax Google and Apple levy on app store sales? Mozilla even started via Shumway then canned it because they are in Google's pocket. Did Microsoft's Silverlight have these problems? Why has HTML5 turned out to be such a horrible after more than a decade? It still has nothing on Flash. I'm amazed about the kind of economic blindness that exists among "developers" which for the most part means people trying to force square pegs into round holes that characterizes web based development.
- toyg 4y ago
  > How easy would it be to create a Flash product competing with Adobe's current online offerings back then it Flash existed? They did, Silverlight was it. MS pushed it as hard as they could, and... it bombed. Because it had the same problems as Flash, which most developers already reviled: it produced proprietary, black-box binary blobs that only one vendor knew how to run properly, and it presented big security and performance challenges. Meanwhile, plain old html was something that everyone could work with, as long as the spec was public. The browser had a hard sandbox and very well-delimited capabilities. And that worked just fine, before Chrome ate the marketshare (thanks in no small part to Mozilla losing the plot, chasing ghosts in the OS space while Firefox floundered). > Why has HTML5 turned out to be such a horrible after more than a decade? Because shit is hard and browsers have different priorities. > I'm amazed about the kind of economic blindness Says the one with a broken website.

by toyg 4y ago

vfclists 4y ago

Really? How easy would it be to create a Flash product competing with Adobe's current online offerings back then it Flash existed? The simply truth is that any of Adobe's competitors could have developed an even before Adobe decided to rent their software. To what extent would software developers depend on Apple's app store if high quality applications could be delivered through the browser? What would happen to the 30% tax Google and Apple levy on app store sales? Mozilla even started via Shumway then canned it because they are in Google's pocket. Did Microsoft's Silverlight have these problems? Why has HTML5 turned out to be such a horrible after more than a decade? It still has nothing on Flash. I'm amazed about the kind of economic blindness that exists among "developers" which for the most part means people trying to force square pegs into round holes that characterizes web based development.

toyg 4y ago
> How easy would it be to create a Flash product competing with Adobe's current online offerings back then it Flash existed? They did, Silverlight was it. MS pushed it as hard as they could, and... it bombed. Because it had the same problems as Flash, which most developers already reviled: it produced proprietary, black-box binary blobs that only one vendor knew how to run properly, and it presented big security and performance challenges. Meanwhile, plain old html was something that everyone could work with, as long as the spec was public. The browser had a hard sandbox and very well-delimited capabilities. And that worked just fine, before Chrome ate the marketshare (thanks in no small part to Mozilla losing the plot, chasing ghosts in the OS space while Firefox floundered). > Why has HTML5 turned out to be such a horrible after more than a decade? Because shit is hard and browsers have different priorities. > I'm amazed about the kind of economic blindness Says the one with a broken website.