About Sixty-Four

Tinic has some stuff to say about Linux Flash Player development as it pertains to other CPU architectures, including x86_64, PowerPC, and ARM.

51 Responses to About Sixty-Four

  1. n3ldan says:

    For the lazy people out there:No 64 bit right now, no ARM or Linux PPC planned.They are “actively working” on 64 bit builds for Windows/Linux, but “the time table is completely unkown”Great.

  2. Ethan Lofton says:

    “…but there will be definitely no 64 bit version of the Linux plugin initially…Neither have we planned to have a Linux PowerPC or even ARM”This is very unfortunate, even if support for these processors isn’t imminent immediately, I would most certainly hope support for them would arrive in a *reasonable* amount of time. I believe it is extremely important to have support for these other processors. I believe thousands of others will be devistated if this isn’t achieved, again, in a reasonable amount of time.Thanks for keeping us informed!

  3. Sam says:

    Since Adobe has been being so absolutely averse to the idea of supporting Linux and other architectures, how’s this: Linux stops supporting Adobe until Adobe wakes up. Or better yet, we could even come up with a better alternative to Flash. That’s what open source does, it creates and it creates well.Good day.

  4. macewan says:

    Sam, maybe you’re right. We could start an ignoreAdobe.org site until they release a Flash upgrade for Linux. *rushes off to GoDaddy*

  5. Sterling Christensen says:

    Absolutely averse? What about the PDF viewer? And now the work on Flash Player 9?I agree that the sooner the beta the better, even if it’s 32 bit x86 only. (But that’s easy for me to say – I running an Athlon XP)

  6. Mike Perry says:

    Since Adobe has been being so absolutely averse to the idea of supporting Linux and other architectures, how’s this: Linux stops supporting Adobe until Adobe wakes up. It’d make more sense to help WINE and Codeweavers get Windows-only products such as FrameMaker to run under Linux and OS X. Demonstrate enough interest that way, and Adobe might listen to supporting a new OS.And WINE/Codeweavers has a marvelous advantage. Because it operates at the application level rather than as a substitute OS, it doesn’t leave the door open for Windows trojans and viruses.

  7. Anders Aagaard says:

    I’m on 64bit, and as most people on 64bit I’m willing to jump through hoops to get thigs working. Using plugins like nspluginwrapper or running firefox in 32bit is completely acceptable.That said, the current state of the linux flash player is not. Try imagine you got your hands on a dvd player, and you have tons of movies for it. But every movie you watch the sound is 3-4 seconds out of sync (oh but dont worry, a fix is scheduled sometime in the next 2 years).You could release a flash 7.1 for all I care with only the alsa code ported, just fix this massive bug!

  8. Glen Fullmer says:

    Yahoo now requires at least 8.0 of Flash to run some of its on-line apps (like beta-maps). Please don’t try to solve all the problems with the 9.0 port. Just get something out there that we can start using. OK, using that logic, you might not be supporting Linux at all! But then why support Mac? ;-)Glen

  9. Tristan Wibberley says:

    Yeah, put out 9.0-alpha 1 with just the basics – get rarely used features in later (eg, before releasing 9.0-beta 1)

  10. michosch says:

    Yes, please release something soon. Sites which need at least flash 8 or 9 become more frequent every day. In fact, this might be the biggest linux-on-the-desktop turnoff for me at the moment.

  11. Steven Hilton says:

    Sites which need at least flash 8 or 9 become more frequent every day.Yes. Especially sites my kids use. (nickjr.com, etc.) I hate having to boot into windows.If youtube starts using flash 8/9 before the linux version is out, there will be hell to pay. 🙂

  12. wouter says:

    I do consultancy for several companies, and this is why I’ve been advising them not to use technologies such as Flash in recent years. I’m a Linux user myself, but this is far bigger than just my personal opinion.It is not acceptable to produce websites using technologies that part of the intended audience can not view or run.While for some companies this is less of a problem, the public sector will loose all interest in technologies such as Flash. Government is pushing for open access technologies such as xhtml, css, odf and more xml data formats. This climate will also define business interests for the future, as is becoming increasingly clear now here in Europe and probably elsewhere.Flash has effectively locked itself out of the public sector already. It is now in danger of becoming a niche product, something which is nice to have but by no means necessary for any real web functionality (which arguably has always been the case).This whole Linux/MacOSX/64bit mess will backfire when not handled more seriously. You might have gotten away with it in the past, but the climate’s changing as accessability becomes a right rather than merely a privilege.90% will not do, Adobe…

  13. amd-linux says:

    @wouter:Agree 100% – lets hope that the management people at Adobe get the message.I doubt it – they even go the opposite way by locking away the specs for Flash and other formats, fearing competition:You are for example now required to sign a declaration for Adobe when you want to see the PSD specs, a grafic format used in Photoshop, as reported on a German Linux news site (www.prolinux.de). In order to replace PSD, the OpenRaster project has been started. They want to develop an ODF like file format for raster graphics.(http://create.freedesktop.org/specs/OpenRaster-draft.pdf)Fear never was a good advisor. The Adobe management, including the responsible product manager for Flash really dont seem to realize that there is a huge, although slow movement towards open standards, at least here in Europe.

  14. nonnano says:

    … Now we just need to get Adobe supporting the better platforms as well.. *BSD and Solaris.

  15. Madcow says:

    Mike, could you make a post about what the exact difficulties are that make it so hard to port flash?I guess that many people are just upset with Adobe because they think that the task is relatively easy, and an open source project supported by Adobe would finish the port a lot faster (and also include versions for other architectures).I think that if you tell us about those difficulties, you and the whole Flash team will get a lot more appreciation from “us”.Thanks!

  16. Bloody says:

    If you want support for Solaris, I’m willing to bet that Sun will have to throw in it’s weight.

  17. Chris says:

    As someone who is deploying Flash applications and who uses Linux every day, I see version ubiquity and features as a very important issue. It is important that Adobe stay committed to delivering a player that will work on the vast majority of users’ computers.Linux is on the rise in the desktop market and failing to provide decent, working versions of the Flash player *in sync with the Windows versions* is just a bad idea if they want to sell their Flash Server and Flash development kits. A lot of businesses are starting to use Linux desktops/thin-clients … don’t you want them to use Flash? The dev-kits and Flash server aren’t worth nearly as much in a world where SWF isn’t supported on everyone’s computer.The best idea would be for Adobe to open-source the codebase (not necessarily GPL) and allow people to work on the code and contribute. As already mentioned, this would speed up development for other architechtures as well as the main features. Some people would do it just to have a better-working Flash plug-in. Why not let other developers do the work for you?

  18. Nick says:

    Beware, rant below.I’ve been sitting patiently with Adobe awaiting a new Linux release for the last two years. This has simply become ridiculous. The project I’m managing is in Flex2, and I can’t even use my own system to do anything related with it. Linux Flash is 2 full releases behind the Mac/Windows counterparts, and even worse, it’s partially broken (audio latency anyone?). If we don’t see at the very least an alpha release in the next month, I’ll be moving our project to Ajax, meaning a lost sale for several Flex2/charting and Coldfusion licenses. While one lost corporate sale is not much in the grand scheme of adobe’s marketshare, it’d still be more than sufficient to pay for an additional two or three full time developers for several months. Wouldn’t it be wise to ensure more companies don’t pick up and go elsewhere at such a small cost? On a side note, I can’t even use Adobe’s store front without running into issues on Flash7.As more and more sites start utilizing Flash 8/9, a flood of angry users are going to start ranting, much like myself.

  19. Bloody says:

    I guess we will have to try pestering Gwenolé Beauchesne to add support for NS7 plugins* to nspluginwrapper then.* Well, I hope that the new flash plugin will be using the new NS7 API and not the old NS4 API (supporting Netscape 4 is of no interest anyway). Will it Mike?

  20. Fiete says:

    Hi MikeI am not sure if someone already asked the question, but is there (will there be) a stand alone flash player >6 for Linux ? The main target is this:http://oracle.2question.com/rss/linuxScr.phpand I would love to use a flash based screen saver for RSS feeds under Linux but I need the stand alone player. Or do you know another solution ?? I already appreciate your work and hope this “pro linux” mood will stay on at Adobe.

  21. marc says:

    >>I’ve been sitting patiently with Adobe awaiting>>a new Linux release for the last two years.i see two possibilities here:i) Adobe and MS have an agreement… a.la Corel with they no-bother-with-Linux-WordPerfect-version-and -we-will-pay-you-big-$$$ and they respect certain “market areas”ii) simply, Adobe has no clue about the MS menace ( XPS, Expression, Office 12, Sparkle, font technology , etc. ) and how to confront itanyway, thanks for Mike for the hard work, hope to see the FP9 Linux port soon …

  22. jzaun says:

    Mike, Thanks for working on a new version of flash for linux. I must say in the last few days I’ve been running into ALOT of sites that I just can’t view without the latest version. I do have to ask for the love of all PLEASE release a alpha/beta/something sooner than later. The web is unfortunatly just becoming less and less useable.

  23. jumanji says:

    This is *exactly* the problem with closed, non-interoperable software. Does everyone see what happens?I, for one, am delighted that the Linux port is taking so long. Maybe people will finally wake up, say enough is enough, and bury the monstrosity that is Flash.Judging by the inexperienced developers, *nix users will have plenty of opportunity to think about the needless use of Flash.The Web and indeed the Internet was build on open standards. No one has to ask anyones permission to write XHTML or needs to rely on a single company on the ability to view webpages. Want to play video? Use a standard format designed for video. Same for audio. Want to do navigation? Why the fuck aren’t you using regular HTML/DHTML? You can’t use any of the facilities designed for HTML in Flash navigation (back,forward, bookmarking, linking). The data in the page can’t be manipulated (see the semantic web, manipulation of pages using firefox extensions, text-to-speech for the blind [and even for the non-blind]…etc). I’m sure that some developers think that they are very clever and want to show off their l33t flash skills, but consider that *no* major website designed for a technical audience uses flash for navigation. Flash navigation is just stupid.Designing a webapp? Are you comfortable with the fact that your product is at the mercy of Adobe? Will Flash still be available/supported in 5 years? It isn’t even supported *today* on fairly common platforms (e.g. x64). Are you prepared to pay any price (monetary or otherwise) that Adobe asks? Do you really want your business to have to depend on Adobe? Why not use AJAX-style tools or even Java which is much more ‘free’ than Flash?There is little compelling reason to use flash for anything.

  24. jumanji says:

    Another thing,I suggest that no one get their hopes for a non-shitty v9 Flash player if version 7 is anything to go by as it is, by far, the worst piece of software I have ever used.The only thing it does consistently is crash Firefox. It uses *ridiculous* amounts of CPU, sound is out of sync… etc. It takes true skill to write software this f*cked up.

  25. Bloody says:

    @jumanji: This place isn’t slashdot (you’re a slashdotter aren’t you?) and most people here are eagerly awaiting flash 9 for linux. Personally, I think that if you don’t have anything constructive to say then don’t say it… or go say it on slashdot.

  26. jumanji says:

    @Bloody:The point, which you apparently missed, was that you would not have to ‘eagerly await’ (read: beg Adobe and hope they don’t fuck up) Flash 9 if everyone used the better, open formats available.I don’t know where ‘here’ is (Adobe maybe?) but I can assure you many tech savvy people view Flash with great disdain and can’t wait for it to just go away. It is an impediment on the Web. If you have something to say about the points I made above go ahead and say it.What, no criticism allowed ‘here’?

  27. Jim says:

    Keep it up Mike… I know it must be tough being the one to have to absorb all of this built up frustration that the Linux/OSS community has with Adobe. Don’t think that your efforts aren’t appreciated. We know you are doing your best to remove this huge thorn from our side.

  28. DarkMageZ says:

    flashplayer is unfortunantly a nessesary evil atm, because soo many newbie “webmasters” think it’s “cool” to use flash… and think that everyone has access to flash 8 (now flash 9!!!)…this is adobe’s fault!there should be a warning against making flash 8/9 files so that they know what they are doing is wrong, so then they don’t have an excuse…this flash 9 for linux is too little, too late and far too slowly. flash will hopefully just be a bad memory in afew years…

  29. dream says:

    I think flash has its strong points. There is currently no easier way to embed video/audio and rich multimedia content. What – use apple qt, real or wma/wmv? I think not. The problem is the slow and painful development of the flash player. This shouldn’t be the case! If Adobe doesn’t respond to demands soon, others will. Best way to ensure the product availability, useability and portability is to open source it. This way they can sell their products and let the comunity deal with the players’ development for all (not just the most common) architectures and OSs.P.S. Mike, keep us posted on the progress if possible.

  30. Madcow says:

    Oh great. metacafe has switched to a newer Flash version.dream: Thanks to mplayer and the mplayer plugin for firefox, playing videos just works. I can even route the audio through JACK!

  31. Steph says:

    > Oh great. metacafe has switched to a newer Flash version.It seems a lot of sites are re-compiling their existing stuff with Flash9. Apparently a whole bunch of MySpace profiles got hacked due to the music player using Flash7 (Although I have seen no explanation of exactly how / why), and Flash9 has much better security.If that is really the case, I would think many sites will be doing the same.. I guess we are really going to be stuck now.Some manufacturers sites I use for work have just re-done their menu system in Flash9, so I can no longer navigate their sites at all using Linux.We have no real argument for asking sites to stick with Flash7 if they are not using Flash8/9 feature now that there are security reasons for them to upgrade.Since my company site uses Flash7 menues, I will have to re-do them with Ajax / Java instead, as we have not purchased Flash8 or 9, seemed little point as I could not see the results of things I developed!

  32. Patrick says:

    Flash 9 for windows is out… where’s the linux version?

  33. Josh says:

    Myspace is switching to flash 9. This makes it the first really huge site to move over. If we don’t get at least an alpha flash 9 player for linux soon, I don’t know what we’ll do. Stop using myspace? Maybe that’s not a bad thing… ;)Anyway, please please please, alpha at least asap! You’ll get thousands of beta testers immediatly 🙂

  34. Bloody says:

    Agreed. An alpha would be nice. I too would be willing to test it (on my 32-bits laptop).

  35. Joerg says:

    YouTube just updated their video player.You can still watch videos, but the sound is muted and the volume control does not work with flash7 – great :/using wine + win32 firefox is no reasonable solution, so _please_ release some alpha/beta/whatever version of flash9 really soon now.i don’t care if it’s unsupported, it cannot get worse than unusable, which is the current status of the available flashplayer for linux…

  36. Thales C. says:

    Please release an Alpha version of Flash Player 9 to Linux!

  37. James T says:

    “The Web and indeed the Internet was build on open standards. No one has to ask anyones permission to write XHTML or needs to rely on a single company on the ability to view webpages.”Adobe may be developing this program, but they aren’t the ones who are designing for corporations or companies, who CHOOSE to develop Flash-based websites. Furthermore, you later argue that one should use Java, yet it (like Flash) requires a plug-in that’s not available on all browsers.“Want to play video? Use a standard format designed for video.”Flash has quickly revolutionized online video content by providing users a universal method of viewing a file format, whilst providing a good ratio of performance and bandwidth considerations. In other words, the user can view online content, and the client doesn’t kill themselves over bandwidth issues. I don’t see the point in them developing Flash around re-established video formats, if the formats don’t allow them the same code-based control as compared to something they would develop themselves. Furthermore, .AVI’s and .WMV don’t always work on an Apple (especially in the latter case, where codecs are involved), .MOV’s don’t always work on a PC.“You can’t use any of the facilities designed for HTML in Flash navigation (back,forward, bookmarking, linking).”I know for certain there’s are ways to implement back and forward, using both Flash and Javascript. It has been done. I will say the remainder are valid.“I’m sure that some developers think that they are very clever and want to show off their l33t flash skills, but consider that *no* major website designed for a technical audienceuses flash for navigation. Flash navigation is just stupid.”True, to an extent. However, some of the biggest companies in the world use Flash for promotional pieces, secondary elements (such as splash screens), or mini-sites. Some of the transitions, animations, and navigations developed can push the envelope on interactive design. Look at Yugo Nakamura for example. Rarely do I see any non Flash-based navigation compare with a lot of the ideas he has developed.Moreover, I think it’s interesting how you condescend interactive designers by saying that they want to show that they are clever by using “l33t flash skills.” How about, maybe they want to show users a unique interactive experience that they would never have imagined?“Designing a webapp? Are you comfortable with the fact that your product is at the mercy of Adobe? Will Flash still be available/supported in 5 years? It isn’t even supported *today* on fairly common platforms (e.g. x64).”Name me another web application that integrates motion graphics and interactive design inthe way that Flash does, on the same scale. Seeing as how we are seeing how important it is now, especially with the development of FLVs and the commercial implementation with Google, ESPN, and news sites, the chances for Flash surviving another five years is very good. As for not being supported by x64, what is the percentage of that of the common internet user? Furthermore, isn’t it possible for Adobe to eventually develop support for it?“Are you prepared to pay any price (monetary or otherwise) that Adobe asks? Do you really want your business to have to depend on Adobe? Why not use AJAX-style tools or even Java which is much more ‘free’ than Flash?”You say this as if this is a black or white issue. What about using Flash alongside some of these technologies, like YouTube and Google have done?Furthermore, a lot of industries rely on Adobe, for alternative products, such as Photoshop, Illustrator and After Effects.“There is little compelling reason to use flash for anything.”You’re right, sites like:http://www.travelersinsynch.com/challenge_popup.htmlhttp://www.nagaoka-id.ac.jp/gallery/gallery.htmlhttp://www.youtube.com/http://census.ancestry.com/microsite/censuscomplete.aspxAbsolutely useless.YouTube? Who goes to that site anyway?I don’t have a problem with criticism of Flash, because I do think there are several limitations that have yet to be resolved. Furthermore, I would never use Flash as the main format for a corporate website. But this is an incredibly biased and very narrow minded view.

  38. Jim says:

    As someone stated above YouTube has recently updated their flash player and has effectively cut the sound for all Linux flash users.Other major websites are updating to flash 8/9 content and leaving Linux users out in the cold as well. This is extremely detrimental to the quickly growing Linux desktop market. What will it take for Adobe to do something about this right NOW? This is beyond ridiculus at this point.

  39. Bloody says:

    Wow, James T. You actually took the time to write a complete rebuttal to that guy’s troll. You’re more motivated than I was.I hope he reads it but I also think he buzzed off when he noticed that people wouldn’t play his game for long and wouldn’t turn this blog into a flame war (I flamed him only once because someone had to then started ignoring him).

  40. jzaun says:

    10 days, not news, no alpha, not nothing… My bet is Adobe really doesn’t care much about Linux users at all. the sad thing is we really can’t do anything about it, at least in the short term.How hard is it to get some basic, non-supported, alpha level version out so we can at least attempt to view the large parts of the web that are not viewable to us at all right now.Make a build, put it up for us to download, then continue on the road to a formal release. Can’t take more than an hour to put a build up for us to use.I truely wonder if they are working at all on a Linux build, or just hired somone to put up a post every now and again? It sure would be nice if they gave more than a half-assed effort. The Windows and mac builds are out and have been for awhile now.

  41. jimbo says:

    So… this is a hoax, right? Like I said before? Adobe probably fired Mike.

  42. Steph says:

    I got it!Microsoft are paying Adobe to NOT develop Flash player for linux.. that people stop using Linux and go back to windows.. it all makes sense now! :-)Hey, if Mike has been fired.. we should all get together and help Gnash raise enough money to pay his salary, then he can work for them developing a non-Adobe flash player!!

  43. Quietus says:

    Originally posted by Joerg:YouTube just updated their video player.You can still watch videos, but the sound is muted and the volume control does not work with flash7 – great :/——————————Erm… it still works fine for me (apart from the sound being delayed) does this only affect new videos?Oh, and yes, it is highly frustrating to not have FP9 yet. Or even a FP8. What we really need Adobe to do is to synchronise their player releases so that people don’t make content for players that are not available on all platforms.

  44. Cem says:

    We -opensource users- known as “good programmers/sys admns”.. Why dont we tell people that FLASH IS USELESS!!!.. They always listen to us..

  45. amd-linux says:

    @jimbo, jzaun:Can you imagine that he is on vacation or maybe ill (hope not)? Do you think he has to announce every vacation here on this blog?I also dislike Adobes attitude towards Linux, but I do not see a conspiration against Linux when an employee does not feed his blog every day.So cool down, the weather is hot enough at the moment 🙂

  46. Argh! Well, now I know why youtube.com suddenly quit working… suspect that Google Video will be next (and then you’ll hear some real howls from us techies). See that MySpace is going to quit working this weekend… bleah. On the other hand, at least my kids won’t be bugging me to use my computer anymore. :/I run Mandriva 2006 on my desktop; and nothing else (wiped my XP installation a while ago and dumped it to a back up). Being limited to Flash 7 is the only major “incompatibility” I encounter on a day to day basis (besides embedded Windows Media files, which I have a functional work around for with Totem and PLF binaries).While I understand the whole mythical man month thing means that Adobe can’t just pile several dozen new developers into this project, they really need to figure out how to make this happen ASAP…. and I agree with other folks that the only sensible thing for Adobe to do is open-source the player; it isn’t like they make any money off it… and the broader the reach it has, the more back end licenses they’ll sell. Any legal issues with third-party licensed codecs, etc., should be able to be worked around (per the suggestions posted here). Surely Adobe has the legal heft in-house or on call to sort through the issues and make this happen.Furthermore, Adobe shouldn’t be threatened by the idea of releasing a true / open specification for the .swf format either… there are plenty of PDF readers, but almost everybody still uses Adobe Reader (even as a Linux user, I do so about half the time or more). If you don’t care to develop for all the myriad Linux implementations, why not let third party developers (Gnash, et. al) build Flash compatible players and/or rebuild a generic Adobe implementation for their platforms?

  47. jumanji says:

    @ James TI do not deny that many sites use Flash, nor that Flash can produces fancy, shiny, interactive animations.What I said was that they do so at the expense of usability and accessibility. You’re examples (besides Youtube) are excellent illustrations of that. They are extremely inconvienient, even painful to navigate. They sacrifice various basic and useful features of XHTML (e.g. plain text ‘find’). I am forced to wait for the large Flash animation to load. I am forced to wait for the animation to complete between interactions (‘intro’ movies before every navigational opportunity). I cannot quickly get to a specific ‘page’, I have to instead wait for all that bullshit again, navigating the Flash maze. And a new low that before this I have not experienced: Loading screens *between* elements. It feels like I’m playing PS2. Awesome! You’re right, it is indeed a “unique interactive experience that [I] would have never imagined.”It doesn’t make any sense to talk about the bandwidth usage, performance or quality of Flash, only the codecs used in Flash. It is believed to be a version of the H.264 codec (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorenson) and thus is not better than conventional video codecs (as H.264 is a conventional codec which can be embedded in the *containers* AVI and MOV). Pointing to the ‘portability’ or universality of Flash is ironic given the context of the discussion. Code based controls’ are almost never needed to play video (standard play/stop/seek controls suffice).The fact that Adobe *may* implement a 64-bit Flash player (if they feel like it, when they feel like it) is hardly a positive point. The fact that everyone must rely on Adobe to do this is a deficiency. Same for any other platform (in fact substitute Linux x86 for 64-bit in the last sentence). Smartphones and PDAs come to mind. Not big enough for Adobe? Too bad. You can’t seriously believe that having to rely on Adobe to be able to navigate a website is a good thing?The point about Flash being around in 5 years does not have anything to do with the popularity of Flash. A myriad of things could happen (e.g. bought out by Microsoft who has a competing technology they want everyone to migrate to, mismanagement, antitrust… etc). In fact you can’t enumerate all the possibilities. The point was that relying on one company introduces a level of uncertainty and risk that should not be discounted.Flash is like the ‘blink’ tag in the 90s. Everyone was using it because it enabled them to do something that no one knew could be done. But it was annoying as fuck and, it took a while, but novice users eventually stopped being mesmerized by the shiny thing and it died off. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.Anyway, I’m done. Make another ‘rebuttal’ if you wish. I will not respond. The technical and reasoning abilities of most commenters here is below what I had expected.

  48. Jim says:

    Thanksfully youtube has fixed the issue with the sound on Linux at this point.When I e-mailed YouTube to report the problem I got a prompt reply that they were aware of it and working on it. Apparently they realize that losing Linux users would not be good for YouTube. I wish other companies would realize this as well.

  49. James Jones says:

    “Flash has quickly revolutionized online video content by providing users a universal method of viewing a file format…”If it were universal, nobody would be complaining, would they?

  50. James T says:

    @ jumanji“ I am forced to wait for the large Flash animation to load.”In terms of video, it’s not unlike Quicktime or WMV which has a bit of a jumpstart on the loading, and then progresses to load the movie while playing. If you are referring to large Flash files, then that is the fault of the designer and developer than the actual application itself. It’s like me saying XHTML is faulty, because of the designers who overload a single page with uncompressed images.“I am forced to wait for the animation to complete between interactions (‘intro’ movies before every navigational opportunity).” Again, the fault of the designer or developer. Some will provide a skip options. Furthermore, it depends on the application. For promotional pieces, intro movies are common, but for secondary elements, they are usually non existent.“I cannot quickly get to a specific ‘page’, I have to instead wait for all that bullshit again, navigating the Flash maze.”Efficent information architecture prevents mazes. I see where you are getting at, whereby you can’t get to a specific page you want automatically. But it totally depends on reasoning behind using Flash as an application. As I said, most best practices of Flash as a primary holder of content, usually are micro-sites. Most corporate sites that utilize Flash, use as a secondary element, like a navigation or promotional piece. From my personal experience, there has been very few instances that have required me to bookmark a specific page within a Flash piece. “And a new low that before this I have not experienced: Loading screens *between* elements. It feels like I’m playing PS2. Awesome! You’re right, it is indeed a “unique interactive experience that would have never imagined.”Sarcasm notwithstanding, loading screens aren’t that much different from having to wait for a page to load. And most good developers will make sure that it’s cached (like a normal webpage) instead of having you to load it again if you proceed to another section of the website. There have been fewer examples of content provided as dynamic as Flash. Certainly, I’ve seen movement and overlays via Javascript and CSS, but it doesn’t quite come close to the same control or fluidity as Flash. Honestly, please find another webpage that develops unique and fluid navigations similar to the likes of Yugo Nakamura (e.g. http://www.nagaoka-id.ac.jp/gallery/gallery.html ) without Flash or a 3rd party program.“It doesn’t make any sense to talk about the bandwidth usage, performance or quality of Flash, only the codecs used in Flash. It is believed to be a version of the H.264 codec and thus is not better than conventional video codecs . Pointing to the ‘portability’ or universality of Flash is ironic given the context of the discussion. Code based controls’ are almost never needed to play video (standard play/stop/seek controls suffice).”My point is that in order to watch any video, you just need the latest version of Flash, whereas the plethora of codecs can often confuse people in other programs, such as Windows Media Player. The same can almost be said about Apple Quicktime. For a lot of users, the issue is also with extraneous installation methods associated with the program, specifically within the registry. It also has performance issues, and is more closely associated with Apple computers (thus requiring downloading). Hence, the happy medium (obviously, sadly not so much for Linux users) is Flash. I’m not going to sugarcoat that important point.On top of that, I don’t see how the On2 VP6 codec is a version of the H.264, considering both were developed from different companies, and are in competition with one another.Lastly, controlling the movies programmatically is important for integrating motion graphics within websites for such things as transitions, demo reels, customization of controls, etc. I mean, the sheer amount of difference in web design with Flash has dramatically changed because of this codec.“The fact that Adobe *may* implement a 64-bit Flash player (if they feel like it, when they feel like it) is hardly a positive point. The fact that everyone must rely on Adobe to do this is a deficiency. Same for any other platform (in fact substitute Linux x86 for 64-bit in the last sentence). Smartphones and PDAs come to mind. Not big enough for Adobe? Too bad. You can’t seriously believe that having to rely on Adobe to be able to navigate a website is a good thing?”The majority of websites used for practical use do not use Flash for anything beyond promotional pieces or extraneous content. And the websites who do use Flash primarily for content are clearly geared towards an audience that would have access to this program. It is necessary to discern how content should be developed for the internet. As I showed in the links I provided, it is difficult to achieve the results outside of Flash. If another company develops something better, I’m up for exploration. But right now, using what’s available outside of Flash, it’s very difficult to achieve ultimate creative control especially with the integration of video and multimedia.“The point about Flash being around in 5 years does not have anything to do with the popularity of Flash. A myriad of things could happen (e.g. bought out by Microsoft who has a competing technology they want everyone to migrate to, mismanagement, antitrust… etc). In fact you can’t enumerate all the possibilities. The point was that relying on one company introduces a level of uncertainty and risk that should not be discounted.”A lot of companies rely on Adobe for print, web and motion graphics. Right now, there are very few alternatives that exist in terms of quality, performance, and worldwide usage. If problems occur, such adjustments will be made accordingly. A good example was the migration from once widely used Quark Xpress to the growing Adobe InDesign. Plus, even if they were bought out by Microsoft, which is highly unlikely (though never impossible) for numerous reasons, Microsoft would be unlikely to scrap the file format due to the current market penetration.My point is that even though some of the most unpredictable stuff might happen, you cannot become too farsighted and lose track of what’s happening now, because in many cases, transitions happen gradually(e.g. IE to Firefox, QuarkXpress to InDesign).“Flash is like the ‘blink’ tag in the 90s. Everyone was using it because it enabled them to do something that no one knew could be done. But it was annoying as fuck and, it took a while, but novice users eventually stopped being mesmerized by the shiny thing and it died off. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.”Heck, I don’t even designers thought the blink tag was all that great. But the last sentence really seemed to yell out, “don’t try anything new and creative.” Yes, the gradual emergence of Web 2.0 (I do hate that term) has been impressive, but I have yet to see any such methods combine the worlds of programming, web design, and video, in the same or even better context than Flash.Instead, I think of Flash as the misunderstood gifted child. Amazing ability to do things, but didn’t totally have the ability to homogenize with the norm. Because of this, a lot of kids resented him, and called him a “weirdo,” when in fact, he just did things differently.“Anyway, I’m done. Make another ‘rebuttal’ if you wish. I will not respond. The technical and reasoning abilities of most commenters here is below what I had expected.”Personally, I thought it was interesting examination of the program that I hadn’t considered.

  51. GrogDog says:

    I think Adobe has made a successful product (more power to them there) that has taken the internet over, and since that’s the case, they could at least make it accessible to everyone. It reaches a certain point where you are pretty much required not to hold the internet hostage.I’m not buying Windows just to watch Flash content, but yes, it does truly suck not being able to view Flash content on various platforms.BSD, Linux PPC (Playstation 3 is effected here by this one also), Linux 64, ARM, etc. all should have Flash 9 just like Windows, Mac and (finally) Linux x86 do. I think it is pretty much blackmailing people into buying Windows and Mac, which should really be looked into by the government if Adobe themselves won’t acknowledge that they are limiting peoples ability to use the internet by not making the player available to everyone.Also, Adobe is shooting themselves in the foot by not making their other products available to other platforms. I think the majority of Linux and BSD users would gladly buy Photoshop, Flash, and other programs if they could actually install and use them on their computers. I know I certainly would. I support open source and all, but I also could really use these programs for work. But again, I’m not buying Windows just to run them.I don’t care how hard it is to do it, if the company can’t keep up with the demand then they are obviously doing something wrong. Most businesses would be happy that people were literally begging for all their products, and they would find a way to sell to them. Isn’t that the point of business, to make more and more money?If any company could benefit from selling to other platforms, it’s Adobe. No other company has (non-OS) software that is so highly in demand.Also, I make a good living and choose to use Linux and BSD for many reasons. But many poor people use free operating systems because it gives them access to technology. Adobe is single handedly making a vast array of content on the internet out of reach to them. Think of all the kids who could benefit from sites with Flash content on them, even many government sites use Flash.Adobe, you’ve reached a level where more is expected of you than the average company, and you did it to yourselves, so don’t act like everyone else is being unreasonable.