4 ms·

Adobe searches for relevance in anticipation of web-video stranglehold being slaughtered by HTML5.

by collint 17y ago

mahmud 17y ago
Adobe's platform is a defacto web extension; more and more developers are targeting just flash for extra rich-client functionality instead of the messy business of trying to wrap ActiveX and XUL/XPCOM. And as Opera, Safari and Chrome gain more market share, we will see less and less ActiveX and Netscape centrism, and Flash offers that third alternative.
- tumult 17y ago
  What? Who's doing ActiveX or XUL for websites? Flash is already the most prevalent way to do a "media rich" website; it has nowhere to go but down from here. It's also proprietary and a nightmare to work with, and the runtime sucks for too many reasons to name here. Your comment reads like an ad.
  - mahmud 17y ago
    Sometimes when you spend too much time hating a proprietary technology and working hard to reverse engineer it and open its tools .. you might actually just end up accepting it. Adobe Flash didn't interest me at all until I couldn't find a nice portable platform that offers what it offers. My interest in flash is not for the love of flash, but flash as a target platform, using a language better than AS3 and development tools better than Flash or Flex builder. HaXe is an interesting experiment, but I would still want a Lisp on there. You will never see me defend Flex and AIR. I use Raphael.js now for my system's dashboard, for example. But the flash run time has replaced ActiveX and XPCOM as a non-standard standard that you can reach out to stuff like client-side storage, explicit sockets and data streams, audio and video, along with the usual eye-candy stuff. Accepting something as fate is not the same as advocating it.
cjbos 17y ago
I'm still somewhat confused by web-video with HTML5, specifically how do the users install the video codecs and does HTML5 enable a seamless experience for installing them similar to the express install of the Adobe Player? Alot more goes into streaming video to the web than just the choice of front-end plugin (Or lack thereof), rebuilding out your encoding/editing systems to handle other codec's could get very expensive, for example our small studio has poured over 6 figures into setting up just the editing rooms and encoding servers.

Adobe searches for relevance in anticipation of web-video stranglehold being slaughtered by HTML5.

by collint 17y ago

Adobe searches for relevance in anticipation of web-video stranglehold being slaughtered by HTML5.

Adobe's platform is a defacto web extension; more and more developers are targeting just flash for extra rich-client functionality instead of the messy business of trying to wrap ActiveX and XUL/XPCOM. And as Opera, Safari and Chrome gain more market share, we will see less and less ActiveX and Netscape centrism, and Flash offers that third alternative.

tumult 17y ago
What? Who's doing ActiveX or XUL for websites? Flash is already the most prevalent way to do a "media rich" website; it has nowhere to go but down from here. It's also proprietary and a nightmare to work with, and the runtime sucks for too many reasons to name here. Your comment reads like an ad.
- mahmud 17y ago
  Sometimes when you spend too much time hating a proprietary technology and working hard to reverse engineer it and open its tools .. you might actually just end up accepting it. Adobe Flash didn't interest me at all until I couldn't find a nice portable platform that offers what it offers. My interest in flash is not for the love of flash, but flash as a target platform, using a language better than AS3 and development tools better than Flash or Flex builder. HaXe is an interesting experiment, but I would still want a Lisp on there. You will never see me defend Flex and AIR. I use Raphael.js now for my system's dashboard, for example. But the flash run time has replaced ActiveX and XPCOM as a non-standard standard that you can reach out to stuff like client-side storage, explicit sockets and data streams, audio and video, along with the usual eye-candy stuff. Accepting something as fate is not the same as advocating it.

cjbos 17y ago

I'm still somewhat confused by web-video with HTML5, specifically how do the users install the video codecs and does HTML5 enable a seamless experience for installing them similar to the express install of the Adobe Player? Alot more goes into streaming video to the web than just the choice of front-end plugin (Or lack thereof), rebuilding out your encoding/editing systems to handle other codec's could get very expensive, for example our small studio has poured over 6 figures into setting up just the editing rooms and encoding servers.