Adobe Releases Last Linux Version Of Flash Player
ubuntuvibes.com
ubuntuvibes.com
The best they could have done is to completely open source it. Open source the spec fully, the players and the server. But even then, frankly it is too late. There are standards worked on that will completely replace it: Websockets, WebGL, WebRTC and so on.
It was interesting how in the WebRTC discussion they were absent. Google was there, Ericsson, but not them. They could have clearly provided some input or helped out with insight since they had a similar product for so many years.
They thought they would build a web platform and rule the world, but I think they failed in that.
What can they do? Well, I think they can make (and they probably already have it) a snazzy editor/creator to generate HTML5, javascript that would work with WebRTC, WebGL, etc.
There are plenty of designers who like to use flash because they are familiar with the toolset, what they need is to use the same tools with a different output format.
Of course the killer app that is missing from HTMl5/JS seems to support for stuff like webcams/mics and being able to stream in realtime. That and of course Internet Explorer staying years behind everyone else.
I'll call out Steve Jobs on this one. Another good one!
The best they could have done is to completely open source it...frankly it is too late. There are standards worked on that will completely replace it: Websockets, WebGL, WebRTC and so on.
"Incumbent" is a temporary state. "Leader" is a decoration that is assigned dynamically. You stay a leader by siphoning potential energy off of the commoditization of your current golden goose, to set up your next one.
Oh, and open standards trump proprietary defacto standards in the end. Ask Microsoft about that one. (And Apple: pay attention!)
'pay attention' does /not/ refer to the open standards themselves, to which Apple /does/ pay attention. Oh, they do, they do, very much so. For instance, by sabotaging attempts to make Ogg Vorbis the standard for the HTML5 <audio>-tag.
Indeed many website owners liked having flash content on their site, it is only in the last few years that developers can point to a growing and lucrative demographic or users/devices that can't consume flash content.
It makes sense from Adobe's point of view, because the adoption on Linux is minimal, but for someone creating content on flash (for example - for video, games, or even some old school websites), this is just making it harder. Now these content creators have to worry about their clients on Linux platform.
Adobe might as well say that Flash is done on all platforms.
Note: I am not taking sides, if Flash is good/bad but just trying to argue that if Adobe wants their Flash platform to be taken seriously on Windows/Mac, they really cannot ignore Linux this way.
What as a consumer of flash platform I need form Adobe is clarity and commitment. Today I see it has gone another step backward. Just reinforces the public opinion of wanting to move away from Flash even more.
The section on Flash player for desktop does say they are keen on making it better, especially with on the multimedia front (I have to admit there are some pain points they do solve for multimedia). Nevertheless, I am with you in predicting that this is a sure sign of their slow but sure move towards killing it. I just hope people read it faster than we can and not pour money on building flash based solutions. (A lot of enterprise still use flash).
Chrome currently ships with both an NPAPI version of Flash, and a PPAPI (Pepper - basically a replacement plugin API developed by Google, as an offshoot of NaCl) version. The PPAPI version will still be updated, so when the next version of Flash comes out, Chrome will just use the PPAPI version.
But the PPAPI version will only be shipped with Chrome, and only Chrome / Chromium support PPAPI plugins. Any Linux users using any browser other than Chrome will basically be out of luck.
I don't thing many content creators worry that much about clients on the Linux platform.
Some don't even care about OS X clients (like those that rushed to adopt Silverlight back in the day), and that platform has 10x the Linux desktop share.
The sort of content creators who care about this (ie good ones) already had to worry about the tens of millions of ios devices out there. Linux is barely a blip on the content consumption radar
Lightroom 4 was also a very good update.
Oh, and Premiere is in the right track.
Killing Flash is best for Adobe in the long term. That, more refinement for their CS suite, and some new HTML5 tools like Edge will keep them afloat for many years to come.
It doesn't have to be perfect inside to be an amazing product. People could care less about how PSD is structured or if the code is a spaghetti mess. The organic growth is also inevitable when you have something that evolved over 20+ years and want to keep backward compatibility as much as you can --including with tons of external third party tools. It's not like they are idiots and can't get it right if they are given the chance to do it from scratch.
The thing it: it works, it works great, and nothing compares to it in it's field.
For the actual graphic designers, photographers, illustrators, etc that use it, there is no alternative that is as capable. There is also no alternative that can be integrated with a full ecosystem of products, from TV/Cinema work (Premiere) to print work (InDesign/Acrobat), to Web (Flash/Edge/Fireworks), to Vector (Illustrator), with all being leaders (or almost) in their particular field.
I'm talking for professional workflows. For just getting some pics up to a webpage, without any chance of it be used in other contexts, YMMV.
Compared to GIMP for example, there are tons of stuff that make it better for a professional workflow. From better text support, to a complete RAW file import/edit support, to a complete (and working for years before Gimp got any) CMYK support with gamut warnings and the whole kitchen sync, to Smart Objects, to vector support, etc.
Though, latest releases and transitions (like to 64bit Win/Mac, to Cocoa, to the new UI etc), seem to have given Adobe also chances to rework parts of the code.
I love to be that guy, and I think you mean "couldn't care less".
Just Do It.
Windows desktop PCs & laptops, on Mac desktops & laptops (for how much longer?) and that's about it.
Well , looks like everyone should sharpen up those JS skills.
If adobe wanted their runtime to survive (I'm not sure they do) they would be showing commitment to supporting their runtime in as many places as possible.
Right now the only place it really runs well is on Windows which means they are quite firmly shackled to Microsoft and it's not even clear that MS see flash as part of their vision for their products.
My guess is that Adobe has given up on the runtime and is cutting costs while investing in the authoring tools (which is where they make their money anyway) for HTML5.
What about 2 years from now?
According to stat counter , mobile usage in Jan 2010 was 1.56%, by Dec 2010 it was 4.1%. By Feb 2012 8.53%.
That's an astonishing growth to have roughly doubled in a year. Although the growth proportionally is less than in 2010 which might suggest that there is some slow down.
Big companies like adobe need to plan for the long term, even if "mobile" peaks at 30% + all the people running Windows 8 using Metro + all the Linux users.
That's certainly a big enough base of non-flashers for any web developer to seriously think twice about using it for anything.
Most people do not own tablets, outside of pretty narrow demographics. Most people who have a smartphone do way less browsing on it, by number of site visits, than they do on their computer.
It seems that their strategy is to depreciate Flash Player and focus on compiling for js/iOS/whatever.
[1]http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplatform/2011/09/flash-based-mac...
[2] http://blogs.aerys.in/jeanmarc-leroux/2012/02/02/air-3-2-sta...
One benefit of Adobe abandoning Flash in the medium-term, will be a push for improvements on the functionality and speed of SVG.
Google (Chrome) seems to mostly care about the canvas, re acceleration and all, whereas Adobe has much more interest in SVG because it needs it as a vector replacement for Flash.
Case in point, this just came in today: http://blogs.adobe.com/webplatform/2012/03/30/svg-animations...
And I very much doubt with this recent news from adobe that I will bother to use flash for a commercial project ever again. Especially given what you can get canvas tags to do these days.
Flash support has been poor on Linux for a very long time. For example, 64-bit Linux desktops have been popular for most of the last decade, and I'm not sure there's ever been an official 64-bit release. Sure, it's been possible to get it working, but it's a hassle. The poor Linux support is one of the main reasons so many Linux users dislike Flash and are always saying how it needs an open source alternative version.
Since Linux support has never been a big deal for people choosing Flash in the past, I can't see this having a big impact on their decisions now.
The point is, it being a PITA to use Flash on Linux never stopped many developers from creating pages that required it, so it's unlikely to stop them from creating Flash pages now.
Currently however it seems to be contracting on all fronts, while at the same time adobe is making life more difficult for the developers by giving them extra costs. So the trajectory really does not look good at this point.
It has not been a pain in the ass on amd64 since the fall of 2008.
That did not stop large numbers of sites being built around it though.
For one, they are a very small niche. All "web stats" reports (the most accurate way of measuring such things) put them somewhere around 1%.
Plus, they are not paying for Flash. Flash, the paid-for tool, doesn't even run on Linux.
And merely serving Flash doesn't mean you are an Adobe customer. The guy that writes the Flash content in Adobe Flash (in a Mac or a Windows PC) is their customer.
I am writing this reply from within Firefox.