jd/adobe

I won't have access to the Adobe blog-publishing system for the next few weeks, and so won't be able to approve comments as the system requires.

Old blog entries will look like they're accepting comments, but they'll just get held up in the moderation queue. Sorry about this, but I don't know of a more graceful way to handle it.

Me? I'm going to explore Hong Kong's New Territories and outlying islands for a week, then visit Singapore for the first time. More info at my weblog, and I'll still be on Twitter. If you want to show off part of your hometown to an appreciative traveller, just let me know... otherwise, see ya'll mid-April!

Posted by John Dowdell at 7:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This is not a tightly-honed, logical, and factually persuasive essay. I cannot predict the future well enough to induce others to change from a dangerous course. Consider this as just an honest rant. I'm quite apprehensive of the future of HTML, if enough of us do not rant longly and loudly enough. Just an unedited draft of a rant; happy Friday to ya. ;-)

The tipping point for the rant? "An analogue clock using only CSS". Paul Hayes made an (admittedly studly) example where JavaScript queries the local system's time, and Cascading Style Sheets move the hour, minute and second hands around.

Stylesheets. For animation.

Not SVG. Not an internal browser-specific drawing language. Not bitmap rotations through JavaScript.

Stylesheets.

Pervy.

Styling guides themselves have been around since SGML days. It's handy to separate presentation and content.

The "Cascading" in CSS refers to how styling choices of the designer, the reader, and the browser vendor are reconciled together. It's a tricky task, and Wikipedia has an intro to the innovations in this area in the 1990s.

What's "a style"? The original intent was font, sizing, color, and other reading attributes. This makes sense. Later it was used for layout and positioning, instead of table-based layout. That's questionable scope-creep, but is a done deal.

Now Apple is promoting styles as animation engines, transition engines, even 3D engines.

That's kinky. Otaku, chikan. Ham sup. A Kraft-Ebbing candidate, just a wee bit too twisted.

Questions on CSS already dominate the web-design mailing lists, and have done so for many years. It isn't clear how to use and practically deploy this cascade of styling instructions between creator, consumer, and browser vendor. Adding 3D and other animation into it may serve the needs of browser vendors, but does not promise to help content creators or their audiences, and runs difficult-to-predict scope creep risks.

If you want to make an animating clock in a browser, then go for it. But please don't drag poor CSS in for that task! They're style sheets people... not the kitchen sink!

Think of how such a proposal could possibly evolve. Some browsers will do animation through CSS. Some won't. We already see it with the over-ambition of Ajax: tricksy sites will request visitors to change their browser brand, or will just outright fail on the smaller mobile browsers.

If animation becomes a mandated feature of CSS, competing proprietary browsers will run the risk of being labeled as non-compliant. It raises the barriers to new browser entrants. It serves to lock-in browsers which have already developed all this extra effluvia.

Sure you can code it. But how will people see it? (And by people I don't mean "just you and your enlightened friends"... I mean universal access.) Take a tip from Hari Seldon, and think of how the technology would grow.

(Caveat: I've "known" Dave Hyatt, Dean Jackson, and Chris Marrin for years online, and I trust them as people. What I'm objecting to is the corporate drive to use a standards body to "bless" Apple's internal needs for a media-savvy runtime engine via pollution of CSS's core mission.)

(Related: Sam Ruby on HTML5 Evolution; Doug Crockford on HTML5 reset.)

Here are some of the common objections I expect to the above:

"Oh, we don't want a full 3D engine like VRML, we just want little 3D effects."

The clock example shows that people will use technologies in unexpected ways. The creators of Usenet did not intend mass advertising. The creators of email did not intend to create spam. The inventors of IFRAME and mashups did not anticipate third-party exploits. Stuffing the genie back inside the bottle is harder than looking carefully at the bottle before opening it.

"We want patent-unencumbered codecs, so toolmakers can make video tools without licensing modern codecs."

I'm with you on the goal. But putting VIDEO into the Hypertext spec is not the way to do it. You cannot require new browser vendors to follow your lead. Make an Ogg Theora plugin, so that anyone can use it, with minimal impact on the overall spec itself. Don't enact dependencies on a particular browser brand.

"But we don't want a plugin -- we want Open Video to be a First Class Citizen on The Open Web!"

So improve your plugin support! WMODE layering is still flakey across the various browsers. JavaScript/plugin intercommunication is still messier and more variable than it should be by this point. Make plugins a first-class citizen in the browser brands you control, and your video will have a wider, more inclusive audience.

"You're just saying that 'cause Flash pays your salary."

Adobe actually benefits from increased browser fragmentation, because we sell the tools that reconcile the various browser brands. And the more over-ambitious HTML becomes, the better Flash will do in comparison. But I'd rather not have that income if it comes at increased cost to people actually trying to use HTML.

Apple makes more money when it locks people into Uncle Steve's Walled Garden. Google makes more money when it knows you better than you know yourself and can sell your attention to advertisers. Web pundits earn more self-esteem when they're seen as being ahead of new trends. Web journalists earn more when they increase the power of advertising networks. Web devs earn peer respect when they code something new.

All of us have self-interest. None of us are pure. Question the arguments, don't shoot the messenger.

Fortunately, there's hope. Check out the apprehension in some of the comments at the Ajaxian write-up:

"While this interesting and maybe a little bit cool, I think it is inappropriate for Webkit to take CSS (even if only for itself) in this direction. CSS was created to define style. This seems more like a behavior to me and that belongs to the Javascript problem space."

"CSS should be a style guide, not a programming language."

"To me, it seems like Webkit is trying create CSS behaviors similar to what MS did with IE’s CSS Expressions close to a decade ago (which they have since abandoned in the most recent release of IE). I’m really hoping the W3C doesn’t add these behaviors to the CSS spec - behavior is much better suited to JS."

"I thought the whole reason for CSS in the first place was separation of purpose, removing styling from content. Now we’re adding behavior into style?"

"Why is it bad when MS goes off in wild proprietary directions with CSS, but if Safari/Apple does it it’s newsworthy?"

"I for one want CSS to do CSS, Javascript to do Javascript, HTML to do HTML and ASP/PHP to do ASP/PHP. Once we start getting into overlap of these technologies it can only cause feature bloat, confusion and problems. I want each tech to be lean and mean to do be the best at what it does and leave other tasks outside their areas for the tech designed to handle those tasks."

We may not be able to persuasively articulate why this will eventually be considered a bad architectural decision. It's like when vendors of email clients started talking about how wonderful it would be to add hidden graphics and scripting to the emails strangers send to you. Vague warnings of an unsound future are at a disadvantage to self-interested "But I wanna do it!!" evangelists.

It's hard to persuasively document future risks. But encumbering HTML and CSS like this is not the way to bless your own multimedia engine.

This is not a sound path. Think it through. Trust your gut.

A clock... in stylesheets!? There is something deeply wrong with this picture.

Posted by John Dowdell at 1:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (7)

Summary: No news here, just some historical context on current events.

Ran across a press release today, titled "Java Application to play Adobe Flash Contents on low cost mobile phones without Adobe Flash Lite". I went to the website and downloaded PDFs, but didn't learn which parts of the SWF were rendered.

It's a reasonable initiative... lots of people are already comfortable creating SWF, so a licensor of a Java implementation can add to their pool of content developers by interpreting SWF. JFlash is another such SWF-in-Java project. I don't know of anything preventing anyone from writing a translator from SWF to JavaFX, XAML, SVG or whatever.

The key question, of course, is the subset of SWF functionality which would be translated. I didn't immediately see a list at either of the above sites. It's like writing an Ajax app; you'd have to test your instructions atop each variant runtime engine. Not impossible, just a little extra cost.

Macromedia distributed a Java runtime 'way 'way back... I think it was towards Flash Player 3 days. There was pretty good fidelity (for the limited feature set ;-) but it was dropped from the distribution catalog when features like alpha transparency and .MP3 support pushed too hard at the edges.

While searching for links still live on the web I came across this 2003 press release, about how Sun would be distributing Macromedia Flash Player in Java Desktop System. Now you can win trivia contests with your friends.... ;-)

(btw, there are some other news articles today about BSQUARE porting "Flash technology" to Android-driven phones. It's a little unclear to me... I know BSQUARE has worked with Macromedia and Adobe on specific porting projects (look! a 2001 press release!) but I don't see them in the list of current partners at the Open Screen Project. I'm not sure of the BSQUARE details, but do know that work to get the current Player 10 on Android and other devices is still proceeding.)

Update, May 1: Closing comments on this entry... it's apparently high in the search engines on "Why is my Android mobile so late?" or such. (Related: an old entry on a desktop runtime for a television show which continued to attract dozens of commenters who didn't know where they were, and didn't bother to check.)

Posted by John Dowdell at 3:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (11)

Strange news today... Mozilla announces an initiative for "3D on the Web".

Now, both VRML97 and Extensible 3D are already full ISO/IEC standards.

But Mozilla's proposal relies upon further proprietary extensions to the experimental CANVAS tag, as opposed to Apple's 3D extensions to Cascading Style Sheets, both of which are part of the contentious HTML5 discussions, some of which may eventually wind up as a W3C Recommendation, which might then possibly become an actual ISO/IEC Standard. (Yes, it's convoluted. ;-)

But such de-jure standards for Web 3D as ISO/IEC 14772 and ISO/IEC 19775 already do exist.

And projects like Papervision3D are already very successful, and work quite well in Firefox, or any browser brand, right now. You're welcome to contribute to this or any of the other existing opensource 3D projects that play in peoples' browsers today.

De-facto standards for Web 3D already exist too.

Thinking just a little past the press release and the coding strategies... how will the runtime code be distributed? If it's only embedded within one or two browser brands, that's a clear non-starter, at least for non-hobbyist audiences. If the renderer is available as a new cross-browser plugin, then that enfranchises the range of browser brands, but imposes adoption costs upon consumers. A rock and a hard place.

Mozilla folk? I share your overall goals about advancing web technology. But think things through, objectively. It may be fun to re-invent stuff yourself, but it's more productive to work well with others.

And you'd lose the moral fulsomeness of the "Web Standards for The Open Web!" pitch when focusing on your own proprietary alternatives to existing standards.

"Standards for thee, but not for me"... that's not the most convincing approach!

Posted by John Dowdell at 4:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (13)

Want CS4? Although the release has been very well-received on its own merits, political uncertainty over the current economic climate has slashed discretionary spending. Everyone is closely examining the return-on-investment of new purchases.

So Adobe hired Pfeiffer Consulting to benchmark over 120 bottlenecks to creative production workflows. The results are dramatic, as charts in the 1.5meg PDF overview show: "In some workflow situations, the ROI impact of Adobe Creative Suite 4 can be in excess of $10,000 per year and per workstation."

Time savings are about half-again for web work, twice as fast for design work and Photoshop, and four times as fast for video.

Much more source data is available on the productivity portal.

I knew that there was a lot of work done in CS4 on everyday efficiency. But I never expected to be able to see this measured and tested, much less with such dramatic results.

If you want the fun and features of Creative Suite 4, but couldn't convince the purchasing department before, then make sure they have access to these results from Pfeiffer Consulting... the numbers show, in black and white, that it's hard to afford using anything other than CS4!

Posted by John Dowdell at 11:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Neat story at a Mozilla contributor's weblog... online banking in Taiwan used bank-distributed encryption coding modules, which were previously only available as an ActiveX Control. They recently repackaged these modules in the classic cross-browser extension mechanism, Netscape Plugins.

Result? Now more people have choice in browsers, because third-party functionality could be included in each minority brand.

Opening up to standard cross-browser extensibility results in a much better situation than if plugins never were.

Posted by John Dowdell at 6:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I was expecting to hear news this week about cross-device Silverlight, so when I didn't, I spent some time hunting things down. Short story is that there doesn't seem to be a public timetable right now. But it took awhile to search up and disentangle the various accounts, so to save others time, here are the best hits I've found on Microsoft's timelines for mobile. If you've got additional links with more source info then a note in comments would be great, thanks.

April 2007 TechCrunch: "Silverlight was demonstrated today on a Windows mobile device as part of a new service that the NBL have built. The demo showed both Silverlight applications and media streaming running on a mobile phone - so Silverlight even at this stage is about more than just the desktop browser and desktop market."

May 2007 Staff weblog: "For those of you who didn't get to see the Silverlight Windows Mobile demo at MIX, here's Scott Holden, the Product Unit Manager for the Compact Framework team, giving us a closer look a the Major League Baseball (MLB) demo."

July 2007 Steve Ballmer keynote: "So, this is example of a prototype, a future look at potentially what we can do with Silverlight for mobile devices. And this is an experience that was built by Major League Baseball working with Frog Design on the design, both the mobile app and the desktop app. And we have the games that are live right now, and we can drill into a specific game, and actually see real time data flowing down...."

March 2008 Nokia press release says "Microsoft will demonstrate Silverlight on S60 during the opening keyote at Microsoft's MIX08 conference on March 5 in Las Vegas. Silverlight is intended to be available to S60 developers later this year with initial service delivery anticipated shortly thereafter for all S60 licensees."

March 2008 Apparently from the then-current version of the FAQ: "We will have the First Developer CTP for Silverlight for mobile available in 2nd Quarter of CY 2008 targeting Windows Mobile 6."

March 2008 CNET: "A version of Silverlight for Windows Mobile will be available later this year, said John Case, a general manager in Microsoft's developer division."

March 2008 Staff blog: "The team is planning to ship a CTP of version 1 in the 2nd quarter of 08 and then RTM the 4th quarter of 08. Along with the RTM of version 1, they are planning to release a CTP of version 2 which will match Silverlight 2 including the managed runtime."

May 2008 "We are still waiting for Silverlight 1.0 support on Windows Mobile. At Mix08 I attended various mobile talks (Amit Chopra: 'The wait is finally over, we have Silverlight for Windows Mobile' - from one of the less impressive sessions), where Silverlight 1.0 was promised shortly after Mix. According to Todd a CTP should be available soon - a CTP? of Silverlight 1? Come on guys, Silverlight 1 should be done and dusted by now, it was announced at Mix07, we need Silverlight 2 and a WPF-like UI."

May 2008 A developer puts together a timeline: "The first version of Silverlight for Mobile is going to be Silverlight 1.0 (JavaScript only - no .NET) and a CTP should be available any day now. We'll get the first 'official' Silverlight for Mobile (1.0) towards the end of this year, sometime after Silverlight 2.0 officially ships for the desktop. Around the same time we should get a CTP of Silverlight 2.0 for Mobile. Finally, around this time next year we'll get the .NET-loving version of Silverlight for Mobile."

June 2008 A third-party developer was apparently doing test apps on SL1/Mobile.

September 2008 In an article on the Windows Mobile delay: "Microsoft, for its part, has said very little about the next generation of Windows Mobile. The only public statement we know of came from Steve Ballmer, who said, 'The work we're doing on Windows Mobile 7, which is the next major release of Windows Mobile, not just in the Windows Mobile team, but across Windows Mobile, in Silverlight, the development platform, the e-mail, the back-end, I think you'll continue to see that as an area of major excitement and innovation for the company as we move forward.'"

November 2008 "According to a Microsoft FAQ, SilverLight Mobile will be a subset of SilverLight 2. The program will initially ship on S60 and Windows Mobile, and may become available for other platforms later. As for the initial shipment: it is scheduled for '2009'...."

March 2009 A staff weblog titled "Windows Mobile 6.5 – What’s in for developers?" does not mention Silverlight Mobile.

March 2009 Gavin Clarke at The Register got the chance to ask about timetables: "In a further change from last October, meanwhile, Microsoft has decided against a public beta of Silverlight for mobile this quarter. Guthrie said Microsoft felt 'pretty good' about the feedback it's getting from the private beta. He would not provide a date of a public beta."

March 2009 In a forum question about updated SL/Mob updates, a staffer says "I found a CTP version which is for internal only. Currently, we cannot assure you its release time or something else."

March 2009 Another forum conversation seems to contain current best-info. "Nothing official has come out of the MIX09 conference, but word on the street and on twitter is that it won't be available until Windows Mobile 7." "Hmm, that's very unfortunate. Windows Mobile 6.5 is planned for release in September this year. I have the feeling a final of Silverlight Mobile won't be here until the end of 2010."

March 2009 From the product FAQ: "Q: Where can I find Silverlight for mobile and associated SDK for download? When is Silverlight for mobile available? A: Silverlight for mobile is currently under development. We haven’t announced any further details around availability at this time."

Posted by John Dowdell at 6:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I watched part of Microsoft demos yesterday, and realized something that had been brewing for awhile... we saw it a few years ago with "RIA" demos, and the spread of "Experience Matters", but now it's coming down to a more granular level.

It was at the "spinning postcards" demo, which Apple had worked the week before in its 3D CSS extensions * ... in similar vein to the JavaScript homage to Papervision3D "cloth" demos of the week before, and a whole bunch of projects before that.

Innovative Flash work is the new standard to which other technologies aspire. Gifted people create intriguing examples to take advantage of new technology, and then these intriguing examples are the role models for others to work. "Can I code *that*!?" is the driving question.

No big deal, and we all had an awareness of it already. But it's getting more clearly defined these days... today's Flash grooviness becomes tomorrow's "Hello World".

* re: Apple's "3D CSS", WTF is up with putting "3D" libraries into a spec about styling? That's one of the worst examples yet of proprietary extensions to what should be sensible and implementable standards... why not call it something other than "Cascading Style Sheets", which is ostensibly about mediating styling options between creator choices and user choices? Only reason I see that Apple calls it "3D CSS" is that they hope to ride coat-tails in on a "standard", get some opensource blessing for Apple's proprietary "Safari" runtime. I hope someone can show me a way this makes sense, but right now, "3D in CSS" just seems sick, sick, sick.

Posted by John Dowdell at 6:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

I edited the last two hours' hits at search.twitter.com for term "flash iphone"... pulled out the robot autoposts from news sites, tweets with profanity, and some that were repetitious or didn't make sense. (I also left some out because I got tired of copy/paste. ;-)

The overall emotional tenor here is representative... I left in the few that said "I don't want Flash on iPhone" and such. Some of the non-English character sets have rough translations appended [in brackets] beneath.

(Adobe's position is that we want to enable universal publishing... we'll work with anyone and everyone to bring this about. We're working on an iPhone port, but without Apple adding plugin support to Safari, and without them permitting distribution to un-jailbreak'd phones, it's hard to see how it can occur. I have zero visibility into the business deals, but the refrain below about Flash endangering the monopoly revenue off of App Store makes the most sense of anything I've heard so far.)

Anyway, on with tha' tweets.... ;-)

Dave's right, don't get me started on mysteriously missing iPhone functionality! Video?Camera focus? Flash player?

New iPhone OS 3.0 announced today! Finally mms and copy and paste ... But no video recording or Flash support. Cmon Apple give us Flash!

from the Q&A it sounds like apple doesn't want the word "flash" anywhere near the #iphone, guess it's Spotlight for now. :)

News flash: iPhone OS 2009 to offer same features as Palm 2000. Be still my beating heart! Anyone else think Apple's late to the party?

we won't need Flash on the iPhone now that there's a mobile version of Sproutcore :-)

iPhone 3.0 = still no Flash. Come on guys, get with it.

Yeah I guess the only thing the iPhone is missing now is Video and Flash ... not bad IMHO

They have the capability of Flash in iPhone, but I think they haven't worked out the legality yet.

That is outstanding to hear that it's actually being worked on. Flash (someday) on iPhone. Yay!

Those iPhone 3.0 updates are really nice, shame about still no Flash though.

New Apple SDK...where the F is flash functionality????

boo no flash for iphone :(

...and more. available: "this summer." Free for iPhone 3G & it's enabled to work on the original iPhone as well. Still no flash though.

"Flash you vile piece of crap, you single-handedly took down my Mac." - or why the iPhone doesn't need Flash...

iPhone 3.0 Announced and Detailed. Everything you wanted except Flash. http://tinyurl.com/dfzuty

I hadn't considered HTML 5 + Js as a replacement to Flash. There are a lot of Flash sites unaccessible by iPhone. I'd like both.

Good stuff in 3.0 iPhone. Only gripes: no flash, no real multitasking.

I'm still disappointed with lack of Flash still. IPhone 3.0 that is.

They say June, but who knows. Flash-free web on the iPhone is a breath of fresh air man.

Good news about iPhone 3.0. Flash would be nice though.

iphone dev consultancy contacted me asking what im gonna do with 3.0 -- their site is 100% flash

Flash is coming for the iPhone, just waiting on Adobe, I expect by the time 3.0 is released, their just not announcing it.

Happy with C&P and MMS but still no Flash, when will #Apple put the Full Internet in my pocket??

iPhone 3.0 - Good: MMS, cut/paste, parental controls, spotlight. Bad: No Flash, iffy tethering capabilities, no updated camera support?

Pre still has (or will have flash) the iPhone still doesn't, so only time will tell

Apple won't allow flash on the iphone because it's a dev platform. Meaning, people can dev apps that Apple can't control.

Nice to hear 'cut-paste' has come to the iPhone in 3.0, but too bad flash support is still missing.

Still a lack of Flash on the iPhone. Kinda sad.

iPhone 3.0, umm Great But missing: Teahterhing and Flash!

Watching MacBreak Weekly, a little miffed about the lack of flash in iPhone 3.0, copy and paste is nice, but without flash, meesa not happy.

Where's my Flash, godammit, Mapple. You've brought basic functions two years late, bloody hurry up with it. Not that I HAVE an iPhone.

iPhone got cut/paste/MMS finally. Sheesh. Know what's next, right? FLASH.

Hmmmm iPhone 3.0 is defiantly leaning alot further towards media and games, and what use is that without flash, still got my eyes on a pre

I could live with out Flash on the iPhone. Apple wants quick mobile freindly web pages. Not giant bloated flash sites.

iPhone 3.0: copy/paste; YES! Flash support; NO!

Press: Hey Apple, where's Flash on the iPhone!? Video sucks! Apple: Here's H.264 now shut up!

Verdict on 3.0 -- not complete wish list (no multitasking, flash etc) but every iPhone user will want it asap. (wait till summer)

Why doesn't iPhone have Flash????? I live on mine, sone things can't be viewed... DUH!! ... but I'd never not have apple products.

You know, I like some of these new iPhone feature announcements... But where in hell is the flash support?!?

Is dissapointed with the new iPhone update 3.0 Still no flash!

haven't heard this, do u know the price it will b? luv my iPhone, but need more speed. and where is Flash!

Man...para cuando flash en el Safari de Iphone!!!!!!!!!

yeah... i wouldn't hold your breath for iPhone Flash support.

The new iPhone features sound cool but I would love to see Flash support

iPhone 3.0 will not have flash support, but it will play HTML 5 video (I'm not sure I know what that is) and the API is opened to developers

Cut and Paste coming to iPhone...no mention of Flash :(

Nothing new to announce on Adobe Flash on the iPhone though. Not a dealbreaker, just a disappointment.

why Flash on iPhone if you already have Flash on Nokia! :D

iPhone 3.0 still no flash, halfway 2 tethering; cut & paste, & search will be nice, MMS but not 4 iP2G users lk me - time 2 upgrade?

Not impressed w/iPhone OS3 features; no multitask, no push uptime guarantee, no flash, no video.

we're never gettting flash on an Iphone are we?

hmmmm... still no Flash for iPhone... but at least I got MMS, Copy/Paste, and tethering...

Still no Adobe Flash for iPhone. Wonder if Silverlight will show up first?

"attendais" je ne sais pas, mais espérais: flash, un nouvel iphone, la vidéo, le bluetooth...

Finished watching Apple event. Still no flash for iPhone... Seriously??

I can't wait! I love my iPhone but del it lacks some important things. Like flash player and mms.

all in all, i deem iPhone 3.0 a success. wasn't dying for flash support, nor was i expecting it so no disappointment.

Yay, iPhone gets copy/paste, A2DP stereo bluetooth, and MMS! Just add Flash, filebrowser, multitasking, and other networks and it's perfect!

Hell Freezes over!!! Copy/Paster for iPhone!! Finally. No Flash though.

So was iPhone 3.0 good for you or is it still lacking something? For me, give me Flash and Background Apps, but liked the other additions

yeah still nothing on the flash. Which sucks but all in due time. Rumors have it their releasing a new iPhone in June. Hopefully.

Is hearing that the iPhone still doesn't have flash support. Lame! Sticking to my BlackBerry Pearl.

So many twitts talking iPhone cut & paste...whopdy freakin do! Still no Flash capabilities?

Can't wait to play around with the new iPhone SDK 3.0. But why oh why, still no flash support :(

there will be no flash for the iphone for a while. The new update should help bring the phone up to speed with the rest of us ;)

Still no Flash, but I don't care. Now I just need a 3G instead of my dinosaur. Any more rumours about a new iPhone?

Apple allowing Flash on the iPhone would be like the Pope promoting premarital sex - it will never happen.

Any news on when Flash will be available on the iPhone?

really? but even though they have flash on it, i've heard they've had flash on the iPhone for a while yet no release...

Not everything you hoped for, but it's a start 8) Flash support was missing

sorry meant I don't understand why you need flash on the iPhone

lese ich richtig...? copy&paste kommt mit os 3.0 für's iphone? fehlt nur noch richtige flash-unterstützung für "mein nahezu perfektes ding"

Last time I heard, Adobe was pretty much good to go with Flash on iPhone, but the hangup with was Apple somehow.

iphone 3.0 - copy & paste, battery-friendly push and Bonjour are all good news. Lack of news on flash support is disappointing though.

How is it possible that I am so PUMPED and yet so DISSAPPOINTED about the #iPhone announcement? I guess it's cause I really wanted Flash.

When asked about Flash on iPhone Apple starts talking about how well iPhone already handles video. WTF?

iPhone 3.0 not here until June. Adds MMS, Copy/Paste, notification, landscape email, global search, notes sync but STILL no Flash support!

iPhone is free. iPod Touch is $10. I'll update to get the new features. Wished for Flash though...

So there you have it. No flash support yet but MMS plus Copy, Cut and Paste is confirmed in the iPhone 3.0 software update. Coming summer.

My take on iPhone 3.0? It does not disappoint in the least.Can't think of anything that is missing. Don't say flash, flash is a dead medium.

I'd be more interested in Flash on IPhone OS than background apps. But I'm a Flash enthusiast!

I'll agree with you on that. Flash on the iPhone = no time soon.

What ? Flash doesnt come to the iPhone? How sad ;-)

iPhone 3.0: NO Flash, NO background apps, YES to: MMS, copy/paste, Bluetooth stereo, global search (email, music etc), SMS forwarding.

New iPhone update is Sweeeeeet! No Flash:( everything else is pretty cool though. My fav, mms

Ahhh, se me olvidaba, no hay soporte para Flash en iPhone ... todavía... ¿lo ofrecerán algún día?

Flash บน iphone มันปัญหาการเมือง มากว่า ปัญหาทางเทคนิคครับ
["Flash on the iphone it political problem more than technical issues"]

Following the iPhone OS 3.0 conference...still no flash...you've got to be kidding me...

Hulu doesn't need Flash to be on the iPhone anymore than Youtube does.

WOW copy and paste, landscape texting, the finder, MMS, the IPHONE IS BEAST just waiting for flash now but other than that its perfect!

iPhone 3.0 update is looking gooooood! No Flash, but still a pretty nice list of features. Needs to come out sooner!

So with all the iPhone 3.0 talk there's still no Flash support. Is it a matter of money with Adobe? What's the hold up?

Do you REALLY want Flash on the iPhone? I don't. The iPhone's flashlessness has greatly helped web design. No gratuitous Flash!

iphone doesn't have flash support does it? I wouldn't have thought the CPU was powerful enough in most smartphones anyway

iPhone 3.0 pretty good but where is Flash support Apple?!

Here's my hypothesis on Apple's reasons for not porting Flash: http://bnsn.com/dSq

My guess is that Apple has an in house Flash player for the iPhone, but it sucks the battery extremely fast.

No flash on the iPhone. Thanks apple! #fail

Well, iPhone OS3.0 will have copy/paste; now everyone can switch to bitching about no Flash support for the iPhone

I admire Apple for rejecting Flash and favoring open standards. It took the iPod to kill DRM, maybe the iPhone can do the same with Flash.

Ah Apple, just minutes after making the iPhone complete, the tweetnerds have already found a flaw: where's the Flash?

I'd rather see Hulu create an iPhone app or a mobile version of the site. Or do what FunnyOrDie did and embed both Flash and non.

Disappointed by lack of video. Understand lack of flash. Enthusiastic about everything else about iPhone OS 3.0. Roll on the release...

If MS were smart, they would get Silverlight onto iPhone (at any cost) before Flash gets in.

No #Flash on #iPhone 3.0. Bummer dude!

I am like the new 3.0 os for the #iphone, I still want flash though.

Apple's iPhone OS 3.0 preview event now over. mildy impressed. really wanted video and flash. copy&paste/MMS/spotlight/tethering is cool.

IPhone 3.0 verkar ju riktigt sweet. Synd att de inte slängde in stöd för flash dock.
["IPhone 3.0 seem really sweet. Too bad they threw in support of the flash, however."]

flash on the iPhone? Nooo. Much better! Copy & Paste functionality. (although everyone else has flash)

oh btw , apple , where is my Flash support for Iphone ? with Iphone 17.2 ?

Dear Steve Jobs: Adobe's phone number is 800-833-6687. Please call them to get Flash technology for the iPhone. You would be a hero.

Uh...I wish I had flash on the iPhone.

methinks, for now, things look bad for adobe flash ever coming to iPhone as apple would prefer to drink adobe's milk shake.

iPhone gets cut&paste, but not until june. Still no flash

Mostly happy with iPhone 3.0 - tho' no flash support. Guess I'll have to upgrade my handset, yaaay!

Missing from iPhone 3.0: still no Flash support in safari? Ridiculous.

It's kinda ridiculous that the iPhone doesn't have flash. Adobe supposedly has had a port ready for ages.

será que a Apple mascarou a falta de flash no OS3 do Iphone com mais conectividade, jogos e tudo mais? Só falta vierem com essa desculpa
["Apple is the masked a lack of flash in the OS3 Iphone with more connectivity, games and everything else? Just come with that excuse absence"]

Pretty happy about iPhone 3.0 software updates. Still want video and flash on the thing.

iPhone 3.0 update looks cool - has pretty much everything I wanted, except still no Flash support in the browser. Oh, and no toaster

ALOT of great features coming to iPhone OS 3.0 this June, but it doesn't look like Flash support will be coming period.

Some things I miss from the iPhone3.0 OS: video recording, Flash Video support, backgrounding, multitasking, full fledged tethering

iPhone news was pretty good. Flash has to be the #1 desired feature now. I just don't see Apple doing that lest they make $ by it.

Screwed out of Flash support in the iPhone 3.0 announcement. I'm going back to a couple of cans and some string.

Sounds like iPhone OS 3.0 still missing flash support

Fending off the inevitable question: No Flash for iPhone. Not now, not in 3.0, probably not ever. Wrong for the form factor. Move on.

now all i needs is flash for iphone

Iphone chaps excited about version 3.0. My smart phone did copy & paste from day 1... Plus Flash.

Iphone OS 3.0 : bummer no flash for iphone but the peer to peer feature that has much the greatest potential..Look at my former posts

Still no Flash support for the iPhone...weak.

The continued lack of Flash support on the iPhone is a mystery. I really want to know what's going on behind the scenes on this one!

#iphone 3.0 update - no news on Flash. :(

Got 2 of 3 on my personal iPhone wishlist. Got Cut/Paste and MMS, but did not get Flash support. Flash sucks, but too pervasive to ignore.

Yay for copy and paste! Now is Flash support on Adobe?? Come on! It's about time for a feature complete iPhone!

econd bummer on iPhone 3.0: No Adobe Flash. C'mon, Apple.Well, HTC is coming on strong with Google phones

lo malo, nada con flash en iPhone

I read an article about Flash on iPhone (can't remember where) and it didn't sound very promising. We can always HOPE! :)

New features for the iPhone - yes! Cut and paste is a must, but bummed about no announcements re: Flash

ya, they said they have no announcement on flash today. DAMN. but get this it doesnt come out til "summer" and cause iphone 1st gen.....

UR joking. It's top on the wishlist for the iPhone, along with flash support.

yes finally! MMS and Copy/paste on iPhone! Thank you for bringing the jesusPhone into 2002! Now if we'd only get some embedded flash...

When Adobe make a Flash player that doesn't run like crap on a Mac, they're welcome to try porting it to iPhone.

Pas de support Flash pour le OS 3.0 du iPhone. Dommage sinon le reste des fonctionnalités est bien.

Not sure why I take so much joy in the fact that there is NO Flash support coming to the iPhone. Ohh yeah, it's because I HATE Flash.

Personally, I hope no Flash on the iPhone eentually kills off Flash. It's bloatware at its most addictive.

But still no Flash player for the iPhone... :-(

O pessoal pergunta sobre Flash no iPhone e eles respondem que estão trabalhando em outras soluções de vídeos... Mas e os sites e jogos?
["When asked about Flash they replied about video, but what about sites and games?"]

Where is the Flash for iPhone Apple?!

They're still pretty matter of fact with their Flash related responses. #Apple #iPhone

Impressive iPhone 3.0 preview. I thought Flash may be in there...

#iphone 3.0 My friend says question came up about flash. was told nothing happening & there's ways to work around flash. Doesn't sound good

From the Q&A -- it's clear that Flash is *not* coming to iPhone anytime soon (yay!), but tethering is. (yay!)

I still want flash player. Wanna watch LOST on iPhone

How can the iphone stream HDTV, yet be unable to render Flash? Perhaps it's more a threat to the app store than a technical challenge.

Disappointed that iPhone 3.0 may not support Flash. Sounds like Apple & Adobe are still butting heads.

Best part of the iPhone 3.0 OS pres: *NO FLASH SUPPORT!!!!!*

won't see flash. It's a dev platform (AIR) and Apple won't allow Adobe to have their own AIR store on iPhone

MMS, cut and paste, landscape keyboard, synced notes, YouTube subscriptions. iPhone OS 3.0 upgrade Done. Still No Flash for now :(

iphone ainda no escuro com o flash?!?! será que vai rolar no lancamento na wwdc? tipo com keynote superespecial com o jobs ainda no palco?

Count me among those grateful that the iPhone remains Flash-free.

no way. dude, my powerbook g4 can barely handle flash. you want the iphone to?

Don't count on flash support showing up for the iPhone, at least for a non-jailbreaked iPhone.

Features missing on iPhone updates: Flash support, tethering, anything else?

If they even make flash happen, I doubt it will be till they upgrade the iPhone hardware.

Still no Flash support in new iPhone OS; but will support HTML5-spec’d video, as well as HTTP streaming. Flash ain’t the only game in town.

#iPhone 3.0 update: suporte pra Flash? Nem pensar pra essa versão. Frustrante, vai!

Летом будет представлена следующая модель iPhone, которая благодаря более шустрым мозгам сможет тянуть flash.
["Summer will be provided with the following model of iPhone, which is due to a more nimble brain will be able to pull the flash."]

iPhone can barely handle HTML+JS! Throw Flash into the mix and it's an even bigger lagfest

Why does everyone find it unacceptable for there to be no flash on the iPhone? There is no other MOBILE PHONE that supports (full) flash!

New iPhone OS sounds great -- not sure how I feel about the new home page yet, and it needs Flash support, but otherwise, rock on!

Stoked about copy/paste on iPhone...not stoked about the STILL lack of Flash integration...wtf Apple!?!?

#iphone 3.0 - NO announcements on adobe flash support... continue waiting for this one...

so what's still missing? flash support, video recording and tethering

I forgot about the Flash whiners. Can anyone give me a flash site that doesn't have an iPhone app, that makes Flash on iPhone worthwhile?

awwww still no flash for iphone? ugh...

Man all I wanted was an iPhone flash annoucement.

To be honest - I think excluding Flash from the iPhone is a big win for the entire internet. Flash is obnoxious. The less Flash, the better!

still no support for flash on iPhone... damn.

Np flash for the iphone yet? well, they said they had no announcements for today. Flash will be it's own event.

Q: Video is still a blackhole if you visit a website with flash. A: We have no announcements on Flash today.

Still no #iPhone Flash. Sounds like they think people only want it for video.

Copy/paste and MMS on the iPhone is great, but come on, guys. No video camera? No Flash? Let's try to get AHEAD of the curve, Apple.

Okay the iPhone is now 99% perfect. We just need Flash. . .

I think Apple is still internally conflicted about Flash.

And from the q&a on iPhone OS 3.0, still no flash support? I was hoping for that one.

Ah, one more thing (and not in a good way), they're still avoiding the flash question...still no homestarrunner.com for iPhone...

AAAAHHHHH!!!!! iPhone 3.0 pretty much everything I was looking for!!! all but a Flash player... one day

hmm, Apple's take on Macromedia Flash on the iPhone/iPod Touch seems to be that people ONLY use it for video. ORLY?

I forgot about Flash support. I do wonder why there is no Flash support. Doesn't Apple work well with Adobe?

Only thing missing from iPhone 3.0: Flash. Other than that, it hit on all cylinders, and THEN some!

I'm not that worried about Flash.. I've rarely missed it on my iPhone. I watch video like that on my Mac.

In all the excitement, I completely forgot about no Flash on the iPhone. My high just dropped a little.

Posted by John Dowdell at 2:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

There's a common problem in each of these recent quotes... matter of fact, there are two problems, a smaller one and a larger one:

"Actually, canvas is an HTML 5 standard, not a proprietary solution. It’s a peer to any other feature of HTML." [link]

"There are huge differences between canvas and Flash: canvas IS an open standard (see HTML5) and there are multiple interoperable implementations, even multiple excellent open-source implementations." [link]

"If you needed further evidence that Apple will never allow Flash to sully its portable Internet devices, then 3D CSS transforms are it. Along with WebKit's support for HTML 5's advanced media handling capabilities, advanced Nitro JavaScript engine, and CSS-based transforms and animations, Apple is readying WebKit to be the best tool for providing web-based applications on a wide variety of platforms... If Apple enables the features on the desktop, they could kickstart the development of a whole new class of visually rich web applications, without Flash." [link]

"Safari was the first web browser to support HTML Canvas, and the standard is now supported by most popular browsers." [link]

"With Safari 4, and the upcoming Firefox 3.1, we’re going to see the beginning of the end for Flash. Why is this? One word, 'Canvas'." [link]

"We want standards that make it possible to do everything that Flash does." [link]

The smaller problem? People who say "CANVAS is an open HTML5 standard" either do realize they're speaking mendaciously, or do not realize they're speaking mendaciously, or maybe-sorta realize they're speaking mendaciously. There is no "HTML5 standard", only a process which might potentially lead to a Recommendation but more plausibly would lead to something like HTML 3, XHTML or ECMAScript 4. And its history doesn't seem very open.

Read through Sam Ruby's timeline or Doug Crockford's desire to see a larger context for why advertising "CANVAS is an open HTML5 standard" is so strange. But that's a smaller problem.

The bigger problem? Technologies which define themselves by what other technologies already provide tend not to do as well as those technologies which seek a novel, fitting and sustainable place in their larger ecology. There are opportunity costs for needless opposition.

SVG is the poster child. The idea for it originated about the same time as Flash appeared. It was even the very first W3C Recommendation. As a way to express curves in documents it still has potential. But its fans pushed it in competition with Flash, and feature proposals kept increasing. Now 14 years later its use is still stunted.

Silverlight was hailed as Flash Killer. They haven't been able to meet those expectations. Silverlight still has potential for cross-browser deployment of .NET applications and Windows Media workflows. But the earlier hype has made its path more difficult.

VIDEO tag is another... the different actors in the consortium couldn't even agree on basics like codecs, and leave absent metadata support, production workflows, streaming and multicast, much less two-way video communication. Even if the HTML5 process was "finished" tomorrow morning instead of in 2022, do you see any way it could be deployed in the world?

All of these "Flash Killers" have their fans -- you'll hear voices on both sides of such a debate. But over time, the "lookit what i can code!" crowd fades before the larger number of people actually trying to use the technology. Focusing on the smaller technical details does not replace considering the larger surrounding ecology of real people employing the technology.

Being defined in terms of an existing standard diverts a potential technology from its most fortuitous growth within the ecology. SVG collapsed under its own weight. The Silverlight wishlist is the current Flash feature list. And expanding the requirements for any hypertext browser to be its own full multimedia runtime will, at best, just crowd out diversity within browser development -- no more room for a small startup like Firefox to be born.

Look at how a technology can best be used. Seek out unique advantages which it alone can provide. Look beyond the code, to realworld usage. Be yourself.

I think HTML5 should improve hypertext use. Figure out how to solve the printing problem, the font problem, the mobile problem, the accessibility problem, the semantic problem. The World Wide Web was created for linking physics papers, yet still cannot display them! Think of why Berners-Lee did not just use SGML. Reduce the learning curve, make it easier for anyone to learn how to publish -- focus fiercely on lowering the barriers to communication.

Open up your browsers to third-party plugins -- fix WMODE visual integration, and fix NPRuntime scripting integration. Figure out the EMBED/OBJECT/VIDEO business, and agree on background-TAB CPU privileges and accessibility hooks. And if you could open up your Prefs UI to plugins (for an integrated user experience) then that would be great too.

You'll need some type of cross-browser ability yourself, if you ever want to offer new features beyond your current browser marketshare! So make it easier for other people to add standard support to your rendering capabilities. Let Adobe and others help provide realworld people a universal choice, spanning browser brands. Browsers and plugins are naturally synergistic, so be a part of the ecology which surrounds you.

But most of all, clean up hypertext. That's what the 5.0 version of the Hypertext Markup Language should do. Don't get distracted. Clean up hypertext.

We can't afford HTML5 to be called a "Flash Killer", then fail. We all need hypertext to succeed.

Posted by John Dowdell at 9:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (10)

Sorry, low-info post here... I'm just annoyed enough to correct some of the errors in Ben Charny's most recent DowJones/CNN article. Here's a snippet:

"Though a big hit on PCs, Adobe's video player isn't yet compatible with devices from Research In Motion, Apple's iPhone and phones based on Google Android software. The Palm Pre, due in June in the U.S., also isn't Flash compatible. Microsoft continued the pile-on last week, when it said an upcoming mobile version of its Windows operating system software won't be compatible in the short term, and that its Windows Marketplace for Mobile online software bazaar won't offer any Flash-based products. Apple is to update its iPhone software on Tuesday, and by all appearances, it still won't be compatible with the Adobe feature. The one success has been No. 1 cell phone maker Nokia. While it says a billion Nokia cell phones are now Flash-compatible, many are cell phones, rather than their souped-up cousins the smart phone."

Just off the top of my head:

Adobe Flash Player is more than "a video player".

Blackberry doesn't yet seem to have the oomph for rich-media type of applications, although there's hope that future generations will.

Apple is a weird case -- you've got to get them to talk about what they'll be doing. Adobe has stated we're working on making it run, but Apple's got to provide a plugin mechanism to do so. It's Apple's story.

Google Android isn't shipping yet, but they're Flash-happy.

Microsoft is on board with Flash Lite, although I have no idea when they're shipping. Puts a different spin on his Silverlight quote.

Palm Pre isn't shipping yet, but they've also announced.

The "only hit is Nokia" bit is wacky... Nokia's a great partner, and so are others. Flash Lite has been de-facto standard in Japan and Korea for years. We've shipped about a billion Flash Lite installations, not a billion Nokia Flash Lite installations. And that line about "Flash works only on the lower-end phones" collides straight with the blather about "Flash is too demanding for iPhone".

Sorry I'm so cranky to correct -- this off-kilter Ars Technica piece set it up, I guess -- but technology is complicated enough, why add to the confusion?

Posted by John Dowdell at 2:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (9)

It's good to have Web content available to the widest range of people -- to not turn people away because of their operating system or browser brand, or because of physical differences such as visual acuity or motor-skill difficulties.

In the Flash world we've been dealing with this inclusiveness issue for a long time -- figuring out how to improve the economics of providing a multi-modal experience -- and recently there have been exciting improvements in tasks such as captioning video. Still, the objection "but Flash isn't accessible" is often used when someone wants to nix your project.

Here's a different perspective on that "must be accessible" priority... David Baron of Mozilla, in "Web Accessibility as a Political Movement" responds to those who wonder why so many of the projects labeled as "HTML5" do not seem to be attending to the needs of diverse audiences. This is part of a lengthier conversation on the CANVAS tag and its use.

Here's one argument, which you may have seen in different form before: "Existing disability law, for example, might require installation of wheelchair ramps in places of 'public accommodation,' but doesn't require them to be installed in everybody's houses. Likewise, I would expect an online form on a government Web site that is required to visit the United States to be usable by blind people, and likewise expect good alternative text for an image on a government Web site describing how a bill becomes law. Yet I would not expect a bunch of photos that John Smith shares with a few friends on a Web site to be required to have reasonable alternative text. In other words, content on the Web varies widely in importance and amount of use. Yet some accessibility advocates insist that even John Smith posting a few photos online must be forced to provide equivalent alternative text to replace the photos."

There's also acknowledgment that purely idealistic positions may be difficult when brought into reality in the world: "Web accessibility involves tradeoffs, such as between burdens on those who send information and burdens on those who receive it. Sensible choices along this spectrum can vary depending on how the Web is being used; there's a big difference between publishing to an audience of five (that might be larger later, if you happen to succeed) and publishing to an audience already known to be in the millions."

Both of these emphasize the need to look at the total situation, and that a particular stance may not apply to every case... far from the usual absolutism of "but it's 'proprietary'".

I'm not sure I agree with his entire position though... sections like these seem to go too far: "I think the attitude that evil Web authors need to be forced to care about accessibility leads to technically worse solutions that require more work for authors and leave the Web less accessible to disabled users as a result... I think this community is in significant danger of being taken over by, or at least best known by, those within it who espouse such extreme positions that they risk causing the entire community to be ignored."

Read it yourself, figure out how you feel about it... accessibility is definitely an area in which we need to encourage better practices, but bringing that about is the hard part. I just found it refreshing that someone at Mozilla emphasized how pragmatism and idealism must necessarily balance each other.

There's one more wrinkle about "accessibility": the concept applies not just to differences in physical capability, but also intellectual capability, language, and cultural differences. Text itself imposes cognitive and language-skill restrictions (my own text here is discriminatory!). But imagery, animation and video all reach a wider range of people in the world than text alone can. It's hard to craft a message which reaches every potential audience member, but "rich media" should definitely be one tool in our toolbox when attempting to do so.

Posted by John Dowdell at 5:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Sometimes, application development is its own reward. But application distribution is harder, because you have to support people trying to use your application.

Last week MLB.tv started testing a new streaming video architecture for live baseball games. Comments in the forums are rather remarkable. I snipped out some while reading to give you a flavor.

(Background: MLB.TV has provided online viewing for years, and each season they try to improve the service. While their Gameday apps and many interface elements are delivered as SWF, their video production system (capture, editing, titling, compressing, streaming) has been Windows Media. Last year MLB.TV added support for Microsoft's Silverlight browser plugin, in addition to the prior support for the standalone Windows Media Player. This year they've converted their entire video ecosystem over to Flash.)

These quotes come from the MLB.TV weblog and support forum. (I haven't formally quoted each because most were pseudonymous, but if you wrote a quote and want it removed, just let me know and I will, thanks.) They're quite positive, but are also representative of the whole.

"I must say, after being a sub since day 1 of mlb.tv, this is BY FAR the best player yet. Very fast, beautiful interface, perfect layout of multi viewing frames."

"Loved it. Only problem that I saw was the scoreboard was too close to the center of the screen. It should have been more down to the bottom right corner. It got in the way too often. Fantasic picture and coverage. This is exactly what I paid my hard earned money for. Awsome. I can't wait for the full player. Great job so far."

"I had some concerns that Flash might be worse than Silverlight, but this is a definite improvement. This looks like its going to be great way to watch the season. Running on Firefox 3.0.7 on Vista 64-bit."

"Are some occasional glitches, but looks fantastic! Great interface, outstanding quality image. A very welcome change after the 2008 Silverlight/Mosaic disaster!"

"I like the New MLB.com MLB.TV Beta Media player. It's a nice layout and the video playback is smooth and not grany and jumpy like last year. I hope also the media player is going to be a standard on MLB.com's main media player."

"This is looking great! Thanks for all the improvements since last year. I'm having jumpy video problems too, but no worse than it's been in other years."

"Agree that the quality is a big step forward - even for non-premium users like me!"

"This looks as if it is going to be a great improvement on last year."

"Today is my first chance to see the new player and I kind a like it. It works pretty fast, for instance it doesn't even take a second for the control panel to vanish once you move the mouse out of the window. And although it is only 800k right now, the picture looks better than comparable sources on WMP which is a bit surprising to me."

"All in all, you guys are doing a tremendous job this year. Even in BETA-stages, this product looks ridiculously cool."

"I just tried again with IE 7 and it worked. Currently watching on my 50" with svideo connection on a wireless network. Excellent quality, probably as good as you can get with svideo. very little stuttering, but some of the best streaming video I've seen."

"Probably the best internet video I've seen."

"Hey guys, the new player is incredible. I'm excited!"

The tenor of the forums is quite a bit nicer than last year. The biggest problems are the installation of MLB.com's optional proxy manager NexDef, the expected streaming tweeks, the desire to work on one monitor while the same computer shows "fullscreen" on a second. But mostly, it just works -- the developers can concentrate on new features, not try to fix old issues.

This isn't a "sis-boom-bah, rah-Flash-rah" kind of affair. It shows a financial calculation which every business must perform.

What is the cost to your audience to hear your message, to use your service?

How many are excluded outright? How many are asked to install something new? How many are then asked to troubleshoot that installation? What are your support costs, your goodwill costs?

It's true for video publishing, and it's true for application publishing. How much does it cost your audience to use it?

At a hobbyist level, techblogs can argue about "which syntax is better" or "how many 3D polys" and so on. Those are important issues when you're making something.

But when you're trying to distribute something -- to make something which is actually used by different people -- then removing obstacles from your audience's path becomes more important.

It's much easier this year at MLB.TV. Consumer media playback is not an issue. There's nothing to install for regular viewing, and fewer people are excluded. They can concentrate on actual development, and don't have to do low-level support.

Audiences come easier when you remove obstacles from their participation. They seek friction-free use.

Posted by John Dowdell at 8:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Adobe Reader 9.1 is now available. It addresses a type of "malformed PDF can crash" exploit which was heavily blogged two weeks ago. I'd recommend installing it... although I haven't seen much discussion of actual exploits, the hack itself was promoted enough that it might spur people to try. (Those early press accounts also had a good deal of inaccurate information... the Adobe Security team is circumspect in what they say, and remains the best resource on issues like this.)

If you're on a locked machine where you must use Reader 8.x or 7.x, we expect the updaters for those versions online next week.

Also, last week's Flash Player update did have auto-update turned on... I checked after reading this article at The Register which wondered. You can set your own Player preferences for how frequently to check for updates -- the default is checking every 30 days. If you use both IE and some other browser on a PC, then you'll indeed need to update both wrappers for the common Adobe Flash Player -- that's the way the browsermakers have set it up. (The article at The Register invited comments, but it's hard to justify a site-specific password which doesn't edit anonymous comments.)

Posted by John Dowdell at 1:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Andy Plesser and the folks at Beet.tv do a lot of great interviews with people in technology... if they're not on your reading list, I'd recommend adding them. But today they had an interview with Adobe's Jen Taylor, which ended up on Techmeme with the title "The Vidoe Revolution Happened by 'Accident'". News to me! ;-)

If you watch the interview, at about 1:20, Jen says "It's funny, I don't think we ever anticipated the success we see today with online video. I often tell the story of how video got into the Flash Player, and it was a complete accident... I don't think we ever understood what we had seeded [?] in that."

True enough -- Jen was saying that we hadn't foreseen the explosion of digital video on the web, where everyone expects parallel over-the-air and over-the-web viewing of all types of realtime experiences, where people routinely upload videos of their own for people the world over to watch. That part was indeed a happy surprise.

But the capability itself wasn't an accident. Jon Gay and Robert Tatsumi brought FutureSplash to Macromedia, and stayed on the combined Player/Authoring team for a few years. Jon took a sabbatical, and came back with a vision of two-way video communications, all implemented by a single tiny codec inside the Player.

To get an idea on the emphasis on two-way video communication back at that time, check out Tim Anderson's interview with Jeremy Allaire, back in April 2002, during the introduction of the term "Rich Internet Applications":

"We're introducing a new technology for communications applications... The Flash player that was recently released includes within it all the client capabilities needed for these communications applications. It allows you to deliver real-time, peer-to-peer or one-to-many or many-to-many real-time communications applications, with shared data, audio and video. All that is built into the client today. We'll be introducing a new communications server later this year. It's codenamed Tin Can, and it allows you to build these communications applications... .. You can do real-time shared audio and video."

I spoke with Paul Betlem in the kitchen here on Townsend St today, and he said that his big memories from the time were the emphasis on two-way communication, the integration with a webpage instead of being a branded video "player" (like those from Real, Microsoft, Apple), and the concern that the addition of a codec, however small, might slow consumer adoption rates. It was a controversial decision internally -- a premeditated gamble -- and we all sort of held our breath on how it would turn out.

To get an idea of how advanced Flash developers saw it at the time, check out these notes from Mike Chambers, of a July 2002 session by Danny Mavromatis and Mike Davidson of ESPN.com. While Flash video may not have had all the features and options of existing video architectures, it had some unique, no-hassle, audience-inclusive benefits which helped bring about the situation we see today.

It took a few years for people to understand that video was now much easier to deliver... back in 2006 I noted that Flash video was a "voice in the wilderness" for its first few years. I think it was a few far-sighted Flash-savvy content developers who really proved to the world what could be done.

But I don't think anyone at Macromedia had a clear vision of how user-generated content would take off, and how there would soon be giant video sites and live-streaming of public events and such -- the technology was a very deliberate decision, and it was the global popularity which was the "happy accident".

Posted by John Dowdell at 1:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Just a simple thought here, one you've probably thought of before, but not one that we hear a lot of talk about.

When you're choosing a platform to build upon, you can compare them along four axes:

• How wide? How many people can you reach? If you're in Windows Presentation Framework or ObjectiveC, you can reach people using each distinct operating system. There are cross-OS platforms, but that still limits you to desktops and laptop -- there's work going on now for cross-devicetype platforms to reach mobile, but lowly paper and film can reach those who cannot afford a smartphone. The potential audience for your work is one criterion in determing a platform.

• How deep? What can you do in that development environment? Apple's iPhone offers both Ajax development and native development. The latter gives you deeper capabilities. For .NET developers, using Silverlight offers a deeper experience than using Ajax as the presentation layer. Digital displays give you more possibilities than linear video or a paper delivery. No-brainer here... judge platforms by what you can do atop them.

• How chunky? How homogenous is the platform? Java Micro Edition and Flash Lite both suffer versioning fragmentation on mobile, but even so, the differing implementations of J2ME across different phone brands resulted in 5:1 efficiencies for Flash Lite. A similar situation exists with trying to do vector-charts in desktop web browsers... much easier to do this in Flash than special-case each browser brand, version, and OS.

• How durable? How long will your work remain viable? Some people use this as an argument for things labeled "open" -- "Suppose Adobe starts to charge for Flash Player?" is one popular objection. Sudden shifts beneath you are not fun. Me, I don't much care about the decision process for a platform, whether it's a bigger multi-company committee or a smaller single-company committee... I'm looking more at the final result than the process. Still, things that become de-facto standards tend to become de-jure standards with time, as the history of PostScript, PDF, and Flash attest. If you're betting on a platform, you need to trust it'll stay around.
  

How many people can you reach? What can you do once you reach them? How much does it cost to reach them? And how long can you enjoy the benefits of your work?

Four simple questions that seem to slice through a lot of the discussion out there. How wide? How deep? How chunky? How durable?

Posted by John Dowdell at 6:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Last night Adobe and Time-Warner announced "a strategic alliance to foster collaboration on the development of next generation video and rich media experiences." There has been much discussion already.

I don't have any privileged information on the details. Here are some of the points I've been left with, after reading coverage and interviews today.

• There are some big properties involved here... Time-Warner includes Turner Broadcasting System (CNN, Headline News, TBS, Turner Network Television, Cartoon Network, Adult Swim, Boomerang, NBA TV, TruTV, Turner Classic Movies, more), Warner Bros. Entertainment (studios, movie, TV, animation, interactive, thewb.com, more), and Home Box Office. It's a big deal.

• There's not much information yet on which properties will do what. One of the few quotes I read was here: "Of the three properties, the initial one to witness a real benefit will be Home Box Office. Time Warner said that HBO.com would soon be relaunched 'making extensive use of the Adobe Flash Platform'... The alliance is worth noticing in part because the three Time Warner divisions in question pose three very different technology use cases and possible revenue models." That's Time-Warner's story to tell.

• There are three particular areas of collaboration noted in the press release: "As part of the alliance, these companies will also collaborate to accelerate the development of digital rights management for the Web and desktop, and metadata and audience measurement solutions to improve the discovery and monetization of content." Rights-management, analytics, and metadata... improvement is needed in all three areas.

• Why is metadata important? Here's an example. One CS4 feature which has been flying under-the-radar so far has been the speech-to-text capabilities in Adobe Premiere Pro CS4, and how this text metadata can then be manipulated by Adobe Flash Player. The result is similar to what Reuters has described for a new project: "The Thomson Reuters service has features that allow especially fast access to specific pieces of video, whether produced in a studio or recorded at a conference or a hearing. Each video is accompanied on screen by a searchable transcript, with a set of key words highlighted at the top. Clicking anywhere on the transcript causes the video to jump to that point." Video-with-metadata becomes "rich video", enabling "Rich Video Applications" in a way that cannot be approached by flat, atomistic video files alone.

• I got some perspective into Time-Warner's possible priorities from Saul Hansell at New York Times, based on an interview with CEO Jeff Bewkes: "Here's how 'TV Everywhere' would work: an individual, or a member of a household that subscribes to cable, satellite or any of telco's TV offerings, would be able to have online access to the programming included in their pay-TV package. With broad industry buy-in, it wouldn't matter if your TV provider is Verizon FiOS, Time Warner Cable, or DirecTV. You log in, put in some subscriber information for a pay-TV operator, and unlock a host of shows not currently on the web, such as HBO's 'The Wire' or TNT's 'The Closer.' For 85% of U.S. households, the added access would be, essentially, free. Mr. Bewkes said he anticipates there will be a web-only option for those who don't have pay-TV service."

• This is bigger than Flash. As Fritz Nelson mentions: "These three divisions are going to use pretty much every piece of Adobe's Flash and video platforms (as Adobe touts it: 'from planning to playback')." Take a fresh look at CS4 Production Premium... it's not just video-editing and effects, but goes all the way from pre-production and shooting tools like OnLocation through distribution packaging with Adobe Encore... with XMP metadata accompanying the assets every step of the way. The "Flash video ecology" has a whole back-channel of production support in the world today. (See video primers for more info.) This is about much more than a browser plugin.
  

What Time-Warner seems to be doing is to make it your subscription to their production, regardless of device, regardless of pipe. They're trying to find a sustainable way to create big-budget entertainment.

The flashy details of how a webpage looks or the functionality in a cross-OS desktop app are interesting, but it's really the realworld production pipeline behind it that makes the whole thing possible.

Interesting news. Will be fascinating how it turns out.

Posted by John Dowdell at 7:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I've got a problem, and I'm not sure how to address it. If you've got ideas then I'd love to hear, but mainly I think I just need to rant and whine a little. ;-)

I'm trying to find ways to improve public choices in topics such as accessibility, redaction, security, and user-experience. People get hurt, unnecessarily. But it's a hard thing to solve.

Here are some recent examples:

• Redaction: "Redaction" means to remove information from a document. This is an old problem, but we still see fresh cases like Facebook's $6 billion redaction error (which was done with non-Adobe PDF creation tools). Adobe can publish instructions on best-practices, but we can't force people to follow them... even if we could, it might seem a little creepy for us to do so. How can we help people use PDF and other technologies in ways that would benefit them? Hard problem.

• Accessibility: Last month WebAIM published a study with the troubling pullquote "71.5% of screen reader users reported that Flash is difficult". I don't put much faith in the study as it's worded -- any video would likely be "difficult" to turn into a stream of spoken text -- and using the word "accessibility" as a synonym for "text-enabled" misses the wider issues implied by accessibility as a whole (language differences, cognition differences, emotional vs abstract communication, etc). As the continuing conversation at Adobe Accessibility blog points out, authoring tools can make certain choices default choices, but the implementor still needs to pay attention to diverse needs. How to make rich-experiences easier to experience as text-only? This too is a hard problem.

• Security: It is, unfortunately, very easy to make insecure projects, even with secure tooling. HTML injection, cross-site permissions, third-party content and more... all require a lot of learning before they can be successfully avoided. Aftermarket tools such as IBM Rational AppScan can help, as can studying best-practices guides. I'd like to see Adobe make secure-authoring much easier, but I'm not sure how to best bring this about. Another hard problem.

• Installation: A disheartening note this week... the Koobface exploit has re-appeared on Facebook. In this, some untrustworthy third-party content is included in a trusted webpage, throwing up a dialog which urges an installation of something calling itself "Adobe Flash Player" -- another case of software impersonation. Even though mainstream reporters urge people to get their updates from legitimate sources, so long as ad-networks and social-sites cannot vet the content they broker, it seems like more consumers will be exposed to such exploits. Hard, hard, hard.
  

During early Flash days, some of us joked about putting an Easter Egg in the tool to detect the typing of "Skip Intro" and pop up a little dialog box asking "Are you *sure* you want to do that? Try this link for alternatives."

Even back during earlier Adobe days, audiences complained about designers going too wild with filters and channel operations, and back before that the "ransom note" style of Desktop Publishing could be seen as something that an authoring tool might be able to mitigate. I've got mixed feelings about toolmakers injecting "taste controls" into tooling, but this seems one of the few choices we have to improve such hard situations.

All of us have a stake in bad usage... lingering doubts about security or search-engine results or whatever do add up, and make a difference in our daily lives. It would be useful if Adobe could help improve designers' appropriateness. But even just typing that phrase, my stomach snarls in ambivalence... it's a very narrow road to walk between suggesting improvements and preaching on taste.

Anyway, that's my rant, thanks for listening. ;-) If you've got thoughts, perspectives on this whole set of issues, I'd be interested in hearing, thanks.

Posted by John Dowdell at 12:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)