Choo, Choo, Choose Me
May 13, 2010 12:03 PM   Subscribe

Adobe's Latest PR Campaign should bring comfort to those who fear Adobe pulling products from the Mac, given that Adobe loves Apple, and have said so today publicly.

The so called "open war" is complicated. There are those who say HTML 5 and nothing but, like anointing the heir to the throne when they are but 14 years old and haven't fully matured yet. There are those who say HTML 5 wherever possible but Flash where not possible or practical. There are questions about performance for both technologies under the myriad of platforms and browsers. Web developers have been battling against Flash for site content use (but not for certain things like graphs and charts and animations) for years, as have Content Management Systems enabling clients to update their sites as Flash is neither easily indexed by Google or updated. In many cases it's a dispute of what was, what is now, and what is to come.

Recently, the arguments for and against have been taken to the public, or have they? Is it just a case of developers and corporations screaming in public while most of the passers by just cross the street and continue on with their lives. With an argument that many consumers don't really care and just use what makes sense to them at the time of purchase, the Open Screen Project may keep Flash around for years to come as Android, not being tied to a single hardware platform or provider continues to grow and Google will be building Flash right into Chrome. There are also rumours that Google bought On2 just to provide an open video codec for the web. Interesting times.
posted by juiceCake (112 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

 
Adobe kind of needs this of publicity after the doomed flash mobile demo. I think they come on a little too strong.
posted by The Devil Tesla at 12:16 PM on May 13, 2010 [3 favorites]


Good for them! I'm not the biggest Adobe fanboy in the house by any stretch, but this is a great retorte from the recent he said/he said snafu.
posted by cavalier at 12:17 PM on May 13, 2010


My open response to Adobe, nothing stopping you from making some circa-1995 Frontpage-esque crap to spew out HTML5 that will be able to run on iPhones.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 12:17 PM on May 13, 2010


I never thought I'd say this, but I think I'm actually HTML5/Flash/Adobe/Apple/iBlah'd out.
posted by kmz at 12:19 PM on May 13, 2010 [5 favorites]


Adobe has been a horrendous partner since before Apple bought NeXT, dragging their feet on updates, dropping Mac support left and right and treating it's Mac customers like 2nd class citizens despite them generating nearly 40% of Adobe's revenue.

I use Photoshop, Illustrator and After Effects daily, and mostly still like them, but the thrill is gone. Adobe is just another software vendor that no longer engenders any real brand loyalty from me.
posted by Scoo at 12:20 PM on May 13, 2010 [10 favorites]


Odd to see a corporate mission statement leading off a post. Reminds me of the Mayor of Jo'burg interview. As long as they write down their intentions, and post them around the office, my guess is that their asses are covered.
posted by jsavimbi at 12:20 PM on May 13, 2010 [1 favorite]


Adobe, you come off a little desperate here. Playing it cool and nonchalant is the way to go.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:20 PM on May 13, 2010 [1 favorite]


Openness is at Adobe's core.

*dies laughing*

Maybe I've just been hanging around with the wrong people, but when I read "openness," I don't associate it with "to sell you more stuff."
posted by lekvar at 12:21 PM on May 13, 2010 [6 favorites]


Adobe, you come off a little desperate here. Playing it cool and nonchalant is the way to go.

Yeah, not exactly getting the sense this will help much. To be fair Apples hate campaign has been going on for months, is anything but cool and nonchalant and includes one of the biggest dick moves in software development history.
posted by Artw at 12:26 PM on May 13, 2010 [3 favorites]


One more time, for those who haven't paid attention. None of this would be an issue if Adobe would just fix Flash.
posted by mrbarrett.com at 12:26 PM on May 13, 2010 [7 favorites]


when I read "openness," I don't associate it with "to sell you more stuff."
Dude, what's wrong with you? Dropping Camera Raw support for new cameras for anything other than the latest Photoshop/Lightroom is totally open.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 12:26 PM on May 13, 2010


Everybody should just go smoke Adobe and chill the fuck out.
posted by gman at 12:27 PM on May 13, 2010 [7 favorites]


Speaking of "open," aren't there a few threads about this that still are?
posted by koeselitz at 12:33 PM on May 13, 2010 [1 favorite]


I wish Apple would buy Adobe and either completely open Flash or shitcan it entirely, just out of spite.
posted by entropicamericana at 12:37 PM on May 13, 2010 [3 favorites]


Dude, what's wrong with you? Dropping Camera Raw support for new cameras for anything other than the latest Photoshop/Lightroom is totally open.

I'm not sure what's wrong with me, but I suspect it has something to do with my total inability to parse your second sentence. Can you explain it to me in small words?
posted by lekvar at 12:41 PM on May 13, 2010


I can't tell if you're sarcastic or not but: if you have a new camera, Camera Raw won't work with pictures taken by it unless you upgrade also to the latest Photoshop or Lightroom.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 12:44 PM on May 13, 2010


Not sarcastic at all. Thanks for the clarification.
posted by lekvar at 12:51 PM on May 13, 2010


given that Adobe loves Apple

Hahah. Is this an abusive relationship? (Or is Adobe just being stalkerish here?)

Someone suggested that Adobe just turn flash into an HTML5 authoring system. If they can export to Objective-C, then it should be possible to export to Javascript too. Why not? Or they should actually open source flash player at least. Leaving important internet plumbing in the hands of one company isn't good.

As much as I dislike Apple, honestly, I don't really like flash either. But h264 sucks too. The basis of the internet, web video, whatever, needs to be open.
posted by delmoi at 12:52 PM on May 13, 2010


Two giant companies ruthlessly guarding their monopolies on development tools for their platforms, at the expense of their customers. I don't see how anyone can support either side.
posted by miyabo at 12:54 PM on May 13, 2010 [9 favorites]


Someone suggested that Adobe just turn flash into an HTML5 authoring system. If they can export to Objective-C, then it should be possible to export to Javascript too. Why not?

Because HTML either sucks at or is incapable of a lot of what Flash does.
posted by Artw at 12:55 PM on May 13, 2010 [2 favorites]


But seriously, it is so bizarre to see two corporations have this, like, emotional fight in public.
posted by delmoi at 12:56 PM on May 13, 2010 [5 favorites]


(and what HTML5 does arguably do better, the Video tag, is pretty easily served by just slapping the tag into the page and letting the browser do the rest)
posted by Artw at 12:56 PM on May 13, 2010


I actually used to look forward to opening an Adobe app. But, my "love" for Adobe started to wane back around the time they launched Illustrator 9. Then came the CS families, and the relationship took a real turn for the worse. From the reports I've read from others, it looks like CS5 is going to turn us into a full-on dysfunctional couple.
posted by Thorzdad at 12:58 PM on May 13, 2010 [1 favorite]


OH NOES MUMMY AND DADDY ARE FIGHTING IN PUBLIC.

won't someone think of the pixels?!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:59 PM on May 13, 2010 [9 favorites]


Threeway Handshake: “I can't tell if you're sarcastic or not but: if you have a new camera, Camera Raw won't work with pictures taken by it unless you upgrade also to the latest Photoshop or Lightroom.”

That isn't strictly true, is it? I mean, I remember working with raw camera formats in Photoshop at least a decade ago, and it supported them then. I think the trouble is that camera raw isn't strictly a format but a couple of dozen different formats that different camera manufacturers have just decided upon separately; there's some noise about building a real standard, but until one emerges, all you can count on is either (a) a program with sufficient support for a wide variety of different raw formats (like Photoshop, especially later versions) or (b) good drivers / decoders provided by the manufacturers.

By the way, you can open almost all camera raw images produced on new cameras with GIMP, which will convert to a more common format. If you would like to edit camera raw files, you can use GIMP with the UFRaw plugin, which is usually way ahead of Adobe on supporting new camera raw formats.

Suffice it to say: camera raw is not a closed or proprietary standard by any stretch of the imagination, except in the possible cases in which the camera manufacturers inexplicably try to close the standards. And I don't know of any cases like that; it would be a bit silly to try to keep people who buy your cameras from opening the pictures they take with them.
posted by koeselitz at 12:59 PM on May 13, 2010


Fuck Adobe. Seriously, fuck them. I love some of the people who work there -- some really talented friends, hard working and smart -- but fuck Adobe. They keep churning out turd after turd with maybe just a few sparkles in each one, just enough to keep content creators coming back with another $800 upgrade or $2000 enterprise package every couple years. Fuck them, and fuck that. The only company that rests on its laurels more than Adobe is Microsoft, and both of them can just go get fucked. One of the reasons I like Apple despite some of Steve's asshole ideas is that they are actually advancing the state of the art and experimenting successfully in new and innovative ways. And seeing those ideas through into marketable (and best selling) products. MS and Adobe are just taking shits in the marketplace year after year and doing everything they can to preserve market share based on proprietary this and required that and fuck them. Innovate with excellence, you bastards. Make something we must have because it is awesome, cool, excellent, and makes our lives better. Not because you have a 98% browser share, or because people need your shit to run their work programs. That is protectionist bullshit, and fuck that, and fuck them. Innovate! Make me excited to see what you come out with next. Lazy fucks, you just keep squealing like a little piggy and you will never see the goddamn bus of technological revolution that runs your ass over.
posted by seanmpuckett at 1:00 PM on May 13, 2010 [29 favorites]


Hey, I just dropped by to say that sometimes I like Flash a lot. And HTML5 looks pretty nice too from what I've seen of it. And those Apple gadgets look really snazzy; I don't own any myself, but maybe someday I will. Sometimes I enjoy using Windows, although mostly I don't notice it's there.

What makes me really want to fucking strangle someone, however, is broccoli. Fuck those nasty fake little fucking trees. And fuck you for calling vegetables 'veggies'. You know who you are.
posted by le morte de bea arthur at 1:02 PM on May 13, 2010 [9 favorites]


Mmm broccoli. It's one of the few veggies I like.
posted by kmz at 1:05 PM on May 13, 2010 [1 favorite]


Because HTML either sucks at or is incapable of a lot of what Flash does.

I was using "HTML5" as a shorthand for the canvas, which is what I think most people mean when they talk about HTML becoming the standard for multimedia and interactive stuff. Javascript + Canvas should be able to do anything that flash can do, and people have demo'd realtime synthesized audio in browsers now. I'm not talking about doing stuff with the DOM tree.
posted by delmoi at 1:06 PM on May 13, 2010



I get that part of what Apple sells is the "user experience" . I get that Apple wants to deliver on that to the greatest extent possible.

What I don't get is where the hell Apple gets off telling me what I can and cannot run on hardware that I have purchased. It'd be one thing if there were some technical limitation - and certainly, if you squint your eyes and wave your hands there is one. But not really.

For Apple to decide from on high that I am too stupid to manage and take responsibility for my own "user experience" is the height of ridiculous arrogance.

There's a lot of reasons to like Apple stuff, but that attitude completely rubs me the wrong way.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 1:06 PM on May 13, 2010 [5 favorites]


seanmpuckett: You don't think Apple is doing the same thing with all their propritary lock in? the iPhone hasn't innovated since they launched the App Store (Which they were forced to do because people started jailbreaking their phones to install homebrew apps. Originally, they wanted everything done through the browser)
posted by delmoi at 1:10 PM on May 13, 2010 [1 favorite]


The Objective-C export needs a bit more clarification. Did it actually translate the entire Flash project to Cocoa? Or was it just a thin Objective-C wrapper around the Flash plugin implemented as a library?

I find it hard to take sides in this pissing match, because both sides are looking for their own continued monopolistic interest with customer as pawns.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:10 PM on May 13, 2010 [2 favorites]


Seriously, enough out of both of them.

Adobe, get your Flash act together.

Apple? This better be the most amazing walled garden ever, or I'm jumping over the wall.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:17 PM on May 13, 2010 [2 favorites]


Damn, I think I keep reading this on AskMefi and always the same set of answers:

1) get therapy to one or both of the parties;
2) DTMFA;
3) alternatives offered i.e, open source, open options, open relationships;
4) anecdotes and stories of how a similar experience with similar parties perspective *cough* browser/code/gui/udx *cough*;
5) debate of, in the classic words of the Clash, "should I stay or should I go. If I stay there will be trouble if I stay it will be double."

Hmmm...missing anything else?

Golly, but I can't quit you, baby, and read on. Oh I love you guys.
posted by jadepearl at 1:21 PM on May 13, 2010 [2 favorites]


But seriously, it is so bizarre to see two corporations have this, like, emotional fight in public.

Yeah, its like a facebook breakup. Adobe is coming across as really clingy and Apple is being really cold.

Adobe -- I hate to be the one to tell you this, but He's Just Not Into You.
posted by empath at 1:21 PM on May 13, 2010 [3 favorites]


Dude, what's wrong with you? Dropping Camera Raw support for new cameras for anything other than the latest Photoshop/Lightroom is totally open.

I don't know how Adobe writes Camera Raw for the various versions of Photoshop, but as a programmer myself, I can tell you that I certainly would have no interest in updating legacy software to support fancy new hardware. However, it seems like Adobe is releasing a new version of the CS suite every year or 2, so it *is* kind of a dick move to require you to upgrade to get support for the latest and greatest cameras.

Having said that - many cameras now support DNG, and Adobe has a free DNG converter to convert your raw files of whatever format to DNG, which is supported quite a ways back.
posted by antifuse at 1:21 PM on May 13, 2010


That isn't strictly true, is it?
Adobe Camera Raw isn't a format - it is the plugin for Adobe products to read raw files.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 1:22 PM on May 13, 2010 [2 favorites]


I can tell you that I certainly would have no interest in updating legacy software to support fancy new hardware.

Precisely why Flash is horrible on mobile phones.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 1:24 PM on May 13, 2010 [1 favorite]


But seriously, it is so bizarre to see two corporations have this, like, emotional fight in public.

Or at least pretend to be emotional about it in public.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:25 PM on May 13, 2010


delmoi: I write code for the iPhone, and while I don't LIKE being forced to use Obj-C, I can understand the reasoning (and Steve's claim about performance is true -- these devices are actually very underpowered). Here's the difference I see: Adobe doesn't sell a platform, they give it away, and they want developers to buy the tools to develop for it. Apple sells a device, but they give away the tools to develop for it.

What does that really mean?

It means Apple's income depends solely on creating a great user experience. The better the experience, the better their sales. Apple is telling developers: It's about the UX. Make it awesome. And bare metal tools like Obj-C are really the only way to make-it-awesome on these underpowered devices -- especially when every clock cycle is measured not only in microseconds, but in battery life.

Adobe's income doesn't depend at all on user experience, it depends on selling the tools. Follow the money: for Adobe to make bank, they must turn out turd after turd every year like clockwork, and they only do enough work on their "platform" to make it just a little shinier. Adobe is not in the business of UX, so they don't care about the user -- they are in the tool business. This shows in their crashy, slow bullshit platform, and the overpriced bloatware they sell.

When I write code, I follow some guidelines: It doesn't matter how hard it is for me to write it, as long a I write it to the best of my ability. I consider: only have to write it once, but it is going to be run millions or billions of times. I would rather pay a price up-front to make that running code as tight as possible, because my time, as a developer, is leveraged almost infinitely when my code runs in the real world.
posted by seanmpuckett at 1:25 PM on May 13, 2010 [12 favorites]


Hulu doesn't think that HTML5 replaces Flash (yet): HTML5 not ready for prime time. HTML5 doesn't have the security/DRM/content controls in place yet for video.
posted by bonehead at 1:26 PM on May 13, 2010 [2 favorites]


Adobe: it's time to use your sexuality as a weapon.
posted by mazola at 1:44 PM on May 13, 2010 [2 favorites]


It means Apple's income depends solely on creating a great user experience. The better the experience, the better their sales. Apple is telling developers: It's about the UX. Make it awesome. And bare metal tools like Obj-C are really the only way to make-it-awesome on these underpowered devices -- especially when every clock cycle is measured not only in microseconds, but in battery life.
Oh come on. this has been hashed and rehashed all over the blogsphere, and it's just ridiculous. The best way to make an awesome UI is to be an awesome UI designer. And the best way to be an awesome UI designer is to use a tool you're familiar with. A good designer will test and tweak their stuff before releasing it. Obviously it's easy to churn out crap with flash, but my understanding is there is a ton of crap in the app store anyway.
posted by delmoi at 1:56 PM on May 13, 2010 [3 favorites]


I haven't forgiven Adobe for killing Quickdraw GX yet.
posted by crataegus at 1:57 PM on May 13, 2010


Because HTML either sucks at or is incapable of a lot of what Flash does.

I was using "HTML5" as a shorthand for the canvas, which is what I think most people mean when they talk about HTML becoming the standard for multimedia and interactive stuff. Javascript + Canvas should be able to do anything that flash can do, and people have demo'd realtime synthesized audio in browsers now. I'm not talking about doing stuff with the DOM tree.


CANVAS benchmarks horribly compared to Flash. And on mobile devices? It benchmarks ridiculously horribly, especially on Apple's devices.

Not to mention that CANVAS support doesn't really exist in IE6-1E8. You can emulate it using X-Canvas or the like, but things start getting pretty dodgy pretty fast. In IE9 you could use SVG, but that benchmarks even worse than CANVAS does.

So basically CANVAS is competition for Flash in a bunch of peoples wishes, but in practical terms it really isn't. And if Adobe gave it a go regardless and it performed predictably badly, guess who would get the blame?
posted by Artw at 1:58 PM on May 13, 2010


CANVAS benchmarks horribly compared to Flash. And on mobile devices? It benchmarks ridiculously horribly, especially on Apple's devices.

Seems like the problem is that JS isn't multithreaded. They'll obviously have to figure out a way to fix that.
posted by delmoi at 2:03 PM on May 13, 2010


I really like this piece

http://www.asktog.com/columns/082iPad&Mac.html

Excerpts:

He did the same thing with the original Mac, although then, Flash was not the issue. Few will remember, but, when the Mac debuted in 1984, there were no arrow keys on the keyboard. That was a big deal. Almost every application then in existence depended on the arrow keys (then called cursor keys) for navigation. With that one stroke, Steve reduced the number of apps that could be easily ported to the Mac from tens of thousands to zero, ensuring that this new computer would have a long and painful childhood.

...

I added the cursor keys a year and a half later because the interface had taken hold and was growing vigorously. The Mac’s childhood was over. Not only had the value of the Mac interface been proven, but those few developers that had tried a straight port had been publicly humiliated by the press and had faced immediate financial failure. It was time to open the system up more, particularly to people who are visually impaired, by overlaying a complete keyboard-driven interface onto the primary, mouse-driven interface.


I think the idea that Apple is going to close up the world is ridiculous fear mongering. To be gross, don't forget that Jobs is on his second liver. I think he's trying to execute his vision as fast as he possibly can with the personal knowledge that nothing lasts forever.

The iphone and the ipad could open up just like the mac got arrow keys. Maybe, maybe not, but I sure as shit wouldn't bet a billion dollars that I'd be able to run my company right past Apple while they didn't make any big changes.
posted by Wood at 2:08 PM on May 13, 2010 [1 favorite]


Why should anyone who is not a cultist have to care about Jobs' liver and ego problems?
posted by Artw at 2:10 PM on May 13, 2010 [1 favorite]


Artw, what's your fucking point?
posted by Wood at 2:16 PM on May 13, 2010 [3 favorites]


That if you diefy Jobs and regard Apple as some kind of super special company then the "Vision" excuse for Jobs behaving the way he does to makes sense, regardless of the fallout, but if you don’t then it's just a bunch of jerk moves from a jerkish CEO.
posted by Artw at 2:25 PM on May 13, 2010 [1 favorite]


Having said that - many cameras now support DNG, and Adobe has a free DNG converter to convert your raw files of whatever format to DNG

I hope they're going to pay me for that. It sounds uncomfortable.
posted by dng at 2:27 PM on May 13, 2010 [2 favorites]


Meanwhile, the iPad keyboard has no arrow keys.
posted by kafziel at 2:30 PM on May 13, 2010 [1 favorite]


someone seriously needs to do an emo adobe vs. emo able bitchfest webcomic...
posted by oonh at 2:33 PM on May 13, 2010


apple, not able.
posted by oonh at 2:33 PM on May 13, 2010


I'd take Flash more seriously if it ran everywhere without hardware acceleration.

That said, Apple will probably never make open platforms that are cheap and easily modifiable as long as Jobs is at the helm.
posted by ZeusHumms at 2:37 PM on May 13, 2010


Oh, OK, so you're doing your own thing, that's great. I didn't understand where in my note you found any indication that people had to care about Jobs health. I thought maybe there was a new thing on mefi where we could only comment on things that were of mandatory universal interest.
posted by Wood at 2:40 PM on May 13, 2010


CANVAS benchmarks horribly compared to Flash. And on mobile devices? It benchmarks ridiculously horribly, especially on Apple's devices.

Until the 3d context gets added into the canvas element. Which will basically put the OpenGL ES hardware drawing support most of these devices already have into canvas.
posted by ecurtz at 2:50 PM on May 13, 2010


The so called "open war" is complicated.

it is not. adobe is a completely ordinary large company in that they have a layered management system in which nobody can sleep assured their respective superiors won't fire them if they don't beat historical earnings and profits. that is why you see them cutting corners. it's about putting something new out, adding features, not making a lean file format or a proper porting to macs. apple is rightfully offended and is using its voice the way any traditional large company would use against a smaller competitor. it's just like comcast insisting their charges are valid against you as an individual consumer. apple can pretty much do whatever they want. unless the guy at the very top at adobe says their out of the mac ecosystem there is no way anyone below would ever decide to no longer i.e. produce photoshop for the mac. losing a tiny percentage on the balance sheet is enough. it's the terror of numbers. this makes adobe so predictable. I'm actually hopeful we'll start to see a version of photoshop on the horizon that will actually work properly and not crash every two seconds. (no, cs5 is not it and cs6 won't be it either.)

numbers are also why it takes such a massive and open conflict in order to make adobe put out better applications. they would never put additional funds into something that has thus far been good enough unless they were forced.
posted by krautland at 2:52 PM on May 13, 2010


Canvas should have been OpenGL based from the start. Talk about a step backwards. I mean, at the time most PCs had 3D acceleration. Anything you can do on a canvas, you can do on a Texture, plus a lot more.
posted by delmoi at 2:54 PM on May 13, 2010


Until the 3d context gets added into the canvas element. Which will basically put the OpenGL ES hardware drawing support most of these devices already have into canvas.

So Canvas 3D will only be available to 46% of web users? I don't see Microsoft implementing OpenGL in IE anytime soon ever.
posted by ryoshu at 2:58 PM on May 13, 2010


WebGL is some spooky far off future thing that doesn't really enter into the situation. It's also the point at which I start scratching my head at all this stuff that's suddenly supposed to be built into browsers and how that's going to work in practical terms.
posted by Artw at 3:01 PM on May 13, 2010


ryoshu - Canvas as it is right now is kind of questionable, being pretty much a standard created by Apple and copied by others. Once it's formalised by the W3C micorsoft might be more keen on it, but that's assuming that Apple doesn't keep tweaking it to create new defacto standards after that point - there are some questionable precedents with Quicktime becoming a standard, for instance.
posted by Artw at 3:03 PM on May 13, 2010


Hulu doesn't think that HTML5 replaces Flash (yet): HTML5 not ready for prime time. HTML5 doesn't have the security/DRM/content controls in place yet for video.

Translation: HTML5 doesn't let us lock down our content enough to make it as hard as possible for people to actually view our content.
posted by gyc at 3:16 PM on May 13, 2010 [5 favorites]


My recent experiments with canvas suggest doing anything remotely interesting in it means that IE is going to be shafted. There are a couple of JS libraries that try to emulate it, but if your use requires anything other than shapes that can be replicated using SVG you're hosed.
posted by maxwelton at 3:16 PM on May 13, 2010


ryoshu, I was talking about the portable / phone / tablet market. As far as I know Apple still hasn't managed to banish Flash from regular browsers.

Artw, You can download and build a WebGL enabled version of any of the non-IE browsers today. It doesn't really seem that much more far off than Flash 10 on portable devices.

The browser market is innovate or die, even for IE. I actually wouldn't be too surprised to see Microsoft put a Direct3D context into their version of canvas in IE9.
posted by ecurtz at 3:24 PM on May 13, 2010


I'd feel klind of squicky about that as well, TBH.
posted by Artw at 3:30 PM on May 13, 2010


As far as I know Apple still hasn't managed to banish Flash from regular browsers.

Adobe have, on the Mac, in the sense that anyone with an Apple laptop who doesn't like a hot lap and the sound of fans spinning uses ClickToFlash.
posted by a little headband I put around my throat at 3:40 PM on May 13, 2010 [6 favorites]


Hulu doesn't think that HTML5 replaces Flash (yet)

Counterpoint: ABC, CBS, CNET TV , CNN, ESPN, Flickr, Fox News, MSNBC, National Geographic, the New York Times, NPR, People, Reuters, Sports Illustrated, Time, Vimeo, and the Wall Street Journal all use HTML for video for people using iPads. Maybe they haven't replaced Flash yet, but the wind's starting to pick up.

Scribd is replacing Flash with HTML5.

"Adobe is going to get double-boned by HTML5 / The iPad." (The same guy wrote Video for Everybody, a method of supporting HTML5 video in browsers that support it and falling back on Flash if they don't.)
posted by kirkaracha at 3:45 PM on May 13, 2010 [1 favorite]


numbers are also why it takes such a massive and open conflict in order to make adobe put out better applications.

I don't see why you think this will lead to any changes in Adobe's OS X applications. This is all about the mobile space, and Apple has no incentive to change what they're doing. So, Adobe likewise has no incentive to change what they're doing in the desktop space. All of these letters being posted by both sides are simply there to make the poster look like the good guy instead of the bad guy. But neither side is going to change what they're doing - Apple won't, and Adobe can't.
posted by me & my monkey at 3:47 PM on May 13, 2010


It doesn't really seem that much more far off than Flash 10 on portable devices.

TBH a stable, running 10.1 would mean the end of this little period in history, and I don't think Apple are unaware of that.
posted by Artw at 3:51 PM on May 13, 2010


I remember getting a pirated copy of Photoshop 4 back in the day. Taught myself some rudimentary design and HTML and somehow got to Silicon Valley, because in those days that's all it took. It was fun and tragic, but never enough to make me want to take some classes and get my bona fides to make it a lifelong career. I still have a legit copy of Photoshop 6 or 7 pilfered from my last and late dot com employer, which I keep around in case I need to do something more than Xnview or The GIMP can handle. I priced Photoshop recently considering an upgrade, but after hearing all the bad stuff about CS in general and since I don't make my living with graphics or website design anymore, think I'll wait it out.
posted by krinklyfig at 4:13 PM on May 13, 2010


it is not. adobe is a completely ordinary large company in that they have a layered management system in which nobody can sleep assured their respective superiors won't fire them if they don't beat historical earnings and profits. that is why you see them cutting corners.

To be fair this depends on corporate culture. That's why you have "best of breed" companies like Apple that has been around longer than Adobe and can still innovate. If there is a culture of being the best and producing the best products (backed with incentives), that will reflect in the quality of their work. Sure, you can ride it out like MS or Adobe, but that's also not very exciting to investors, either, which is why AAPL has soared over the last couple years but MSFT and ADBE have languished by comparison. Innovation involves risk, but this is where real growth comes from.
posted by krinklyfig at 4:22 PM on May 13, 2010


Artw - Canvas as it is right now is kind of questionable, being pretty much a standard created by Apple and copied by others.

Canvas is nice, but it doesn't have enough performance or penetration to make it a viable platform for main stream sites. I'm seeing more and more RFPs coming through where people want HTML 5! And augmented reality! In a website! On an iPad! (not kidding, that was an actual request).

I've played with plenty of HTML 5, but even the HTML Device draft is still in its very early stages, so HTML 5 is not a serious competitor for a variety of projects. Add to that the 800 lbs. Microsoft gorilla and there are very limited use cases where HTML 5 can be recommended.

When Quake 2 was ported to JavaScript in WebGL I immediately pulled it down and got a Chromium nightly. It's decent, but it has a ways to go. Maybe a year or two from now it will be ready, but unless Microsoft supports it I don't see how it will take off. I've been through VRML, WildTangent, Unity, Java, Silverlight, etc. and Flash is the only thing that has gained a foothold and kept it.

ecurtz - I was talking about the portable / phone / tablet market. As far as I know Apple still hasn't managed to banish Flash from regular browsers.

Well, no, they haven't. Apple would be stupid to do so. Flash 10.1 is due out this summer (?) and besides native multi-touch (I wrote a multi-touch API for Flash 9 a few years ago, so multi-touch isn't exactly new) and focused mobile support, they are adding neat things like multicast P2P (in-browser torrent client, anyone?). I know why Apple doesn't want Flash on the iP* devices: developers would bypass the App Store. I certainly would.
posted by ryoshu at 4:24 PM on May 13, 2010 [3 favorites]


if you have a new camera, Camera Raw won't work with pictures taken by it unless you upgrade also to the latest Photoshop or Lightroom

That's why you download the update from Adobe's website [windows | mac]. And most manufacturers are locking in on their RAW formats, so unless their specs change your software should keep working.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:26 PM on May 13, 2010


The Objective-C export needs a bit more clarification. Did it actually translate the entire Flash project to Cocoa? Or was it just a thin Objective-C wrapper around the Flash plugin implemented as a library?

I would like to know this as well; I keep hearing different things. What, exactly, does the Adobe Flash -> iPhone Converter do?
posted by rifflesby at 5:26 PM on May 13, 2010



H.264 is not free as in the users' freedom.

posted by lemonjel at 5:28 PM on May 13, 2010


H.264 is free as in works in VLC and makable by Handbrake. Am I a bad user for not giving a damn beyond that?
posted by mccarty.tim at 6:00 PM on May 13, 2010


Johnny Letter strikes again.
posted by mecran01 at 6:34 PM on May 13, 2010


H.264 is free as in works in VLC and makable by Handbrake. Am I a bad user for not giving a damn beyond that?
Well, right now H264 is in in a 'probationary' period where people can use the technology without paying for a license, but that's going to expire in 2015. But the patent applies to users not just hardware and software vendors. So if you make some video in handbreak, post it to youtube and make a ton of money, MPEG-LA could theoretically go after you. It's pretty unlikely, but still kind of a shitty situation.

Also, even if you buy a camera that encodes directly to h264, you're still not legally allowed to distribute the video for profit. Check the manual
You see, there is something very important, that the vast majority of both consumers and video professionals don't know: ALL modern video cameras and camcorders that shoot in h.264 or mpeg2, come with a license agreement that says that you can only use that camera to shoot video for "personal use and non-commercial" purposes (go on, read your manuals). I was first made aware of such a restriction when someone mentioned that in a forum, about the Canon 7D dSLR. I thought it didn't apply to me, since I had bought the double-the-price, professional (or at least prosumer), Canon 5D Mark II. But looking at its license agreement last night (page 241), I found out that even my $3000 camera comes with such a basic license. So, I downloaded the manual for the Canon 1D Mark IV, a camera that costs $5000, and where Canon consistently used the word "professional" and "video" on the same sentence on their press release for that camera. Nope! Same restriction: you can only use your professional video dSLR camera (professional, according to Canon's press release), for non-professional reasons. And going even further, I found that even their truly professional video camcorder, the $8000 Canon XL-H1A that uses mpeg2, also comes with a similar restriction. You can only use your professional camera for non-commercial purposes. For any other purpose, you must get a license from MPEG-LA and pay them royalties for each copy sold. I personally find this utterly unacceptable.
So probably it's not going to an issue, but theoretically it's quite problematic.
posted by delmoi at 6:54 PM on May 13, 2010 [5 favorites]


mccarty.tim: “H.264 is free as in works in VLC and makable by Handbrake. Am I a bad user for not giving a damn beyond that?”

The H.264 thing is actually an imminent danger, although I don't know if you know that – the holder, MPEG-LA, is keeping it free until a later date, at which time they can presumably start charging for this format that is already by then everywhere all over the internet. So theoretically it won't work in VLC, at least not unless you start paying for VLC.

The question is whether it'll even be possible to suddenly up and start charging for a format that is used by everybody and their dog. But that doesn't change the fact that H.264 is more than a little ominous.
posted by koeselitz at 6:57 PM on May 13, 2010 [1 favorite]


Bah. I'd love to completely dismiss Adobe as something I no longer care about, and I will as soon as someone makes a reasonable competitor to Photoshop*.


* If anyone says GIMP I'll dump a dozen angry ferrets in their bathtub.
posted by mmoncur at 9:12 PM on May 13, 2010 [2 favorites]


I haven't even had much exposure to Photoshop in the last ten years – I've wondered: is it still advancing? Because I remember being impressed with Adobe at one point a long time, but it's been a long, long time. For the last few years, my experiences with Adobe – Acrobat, Flash, etc – have led me to believe that they're half-witted monkeys who have been given keyboards. If Photoshop and CS are anything like Flash and Acrobat / PDF Reader, I assume it's the ugliest, slowest, stupidest program ever created.

I have every reason to believe that it's not, which is why Acrobat and Flash confuse the crap out of me. But seriously: has Photoshop been getting better and better over the last three years or so, or has it just about stayed the same (even if the quality was high to begin with)? It's shocked me how little development they've put into Flash recently. Flash is Flash – it's ubiquitous, and it's great for the internet – which is why you'd think they'd want to keep up, instead of giving Apple every reason to want to try to walk all over them.
posted by koeselitz at 9:28 PM on May 13, 2010


There's some cool stuff happening in Photoshop like content-aware fill and various other things, but I think that stuff actually originated outside of Adobe. There's also something with non-destructive non-linear filters, but honestly, I don't know what those are. A lot of people I know still use whatever version of Photoshop they bought 200 years ago.

PDF Reader has not been slow or crashy (on Windows at least) for a couple of versions. I was a huge Foxit fan a year or two ago, but now Adobe Reader is just as fast, and has much better font rendering to boot. On OSX, I can't imagine any reason you'd use PDF Reader.
posted by !Jim at 10:55 PM on May 13, 2010


!Jim: “PDF Reader has not been slow or crashy (on Windows at least) for a couple of versions. I was a huge Foxit fan a year or two ago, but now Adobe Reader is just as fast, and has much better font rendering to boot. On OSX, I can't imagine any reason you'd use PDF Reader.”

I know – they actually fixed that stuff. And exactly when they had the speed issues mostly worked out, they started in with the obnoxious perpetual-install bullshit that creeps into your browser and your desktop and nags you constantly. It's like they're contractually required to be doing something really annoying at any given moment.
posted by koeselitz at 11:31 PM on May 13, 2010


(I'm on Ubuntu now, though – so Adobe PDF reader isn't even an issue for me anymore. PDF reading is fast, stable, and native, with no extra installs required.)
posted by koeselitz at 11:33 PM on May 13, 2010


!Jim: PDF Reader has not been slow or crashy (on Windows at least) for a couple of versions.

It sure is for me, and Foxit is just as crashy (but less slow.) PDF technology is annoying. I remember, over a decade ago, opening the manual for Magic Carpet 2 on a CD, and being like "Wow, this is crashy and slow - I can't wait until they fix this sort of thing." I'm still waiting!

The worst part is, it doesn't feel like it does anything now that it didn't do then. I'm sure it technically does, but I'm not sure how much of it actually benefits the user. I suspect 95% of what's been added has been either stuff nobody ever, ever uses, stuff that is actively bad for most users like DRM, and annoying stuff like the vastly overused auto-update ability.
posted by Mitrovarr at 1:09 AM on May 14, 2010


and I will as soon as someone makes a reasonable competitor to Photoshop*.

Aldus Photostyler? Oh wait. Screw you Adobe.

I haven't even had much exposure to Photoshop in the last ten years – I've wondered: is it still advancing?

Yes, very much so. Some of those features are very wow.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:31 AM on May 14, 2010 [1 favorite]


Adobe brought this upon themselves.
posted by schmod at 6:05 AM on May 14, 2010 [1 favorite]


Mitrovarr: “The worst part is, it doesn't feel like it does anything now that it didn't do then. I'm sure it technically does, but I'm not sure how much of it actually benefits the user. I suspect 95% of what's been added has been either stuff nobody ever, ever uses, stuff that is actively bad for most users like DRM, and annoying stuff like the vastly overused auto-update ability.”

Yeah, I remember when they added Flash video to the PDF specification a year or two ago. That was a fucking brilliant move. Because, hey, you know what I need in the middle of my static documents? Loud music and moving shit, all in the name of making stuff more ridiculous and buggy.

I guess I'm thankful nobody seems to have actually used that functionality. Which I guess I should be delighted at, considering that people don't usually have sense with these things; I still get emails at work daily from sales containing spreadsheets embedded in Word documents.
posted by koeselitz at 6:14 AM on May 14, 2010


Yes, very much so. Some of those features are very wow.

Yeah, their new gimmicks are pretty cool to look at, and maybe even the content-aware fill is useful (I've only seen the demo videos of it. But I fear it will be about as useful as the heal brush), but there's been nothing truly "new" since they added layers. All the new wow! stuff has always been essentially timesavers for things that you could do with the previous tools.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 8:15 AM on May 14, 2010


but there's been nothing truly "new" since they added layers. All the new wow! stuff has always been essentially timesavers for things that you could do with the previous tools.

THIS THIS THIS. Layers and channels is where a huge amount of Photoshop's power resides, mastery of them obviates loads of the new "features" that have been tacked on over the years. Bert Monroe with Photoshop 4 could shop circles around ANYONE running the latest and greatest.

Photoshop used to be a long bow. It's being fashioned into a crossbow.
posted by Scoo at 8:29 AM on May 14, 2010


What new and innovate things do you think would be cool?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:31 AM on May 14, 2010


but there's been nothing truly "new" since they added layers

Disagree completely. Non-destructive filters, adjustment layers, inline vector support (when you cut and paste something from Illustrator now it no longer converts it to a bitmap, you have the option to keep it a vector, which is great for scaling), vastly improved selection tools, image compression and preview and tweaking for images destined for the web, 16 bit colour channels, content-aware, 64-bit support, to name a few.

Sure, some of these features may not be useful to everyone but this doesn't mean they are truly not new.
posted by juiceCake at 8:57 AM on May 14, 2010 [1 favorite]


The vector support isn't a flashy wow feature like the new context fill stuff, but in terms of changes to workflow when doing actual useful stuff it's huge.
posted by Artw at 9:11 AM on May 14, 2010


What new and innovate things do you think would be cool?
Yeah, that's the thing. There isn't much left to do with image editing that wasn't in, say, about PS 4.5. How about start with "make it not crash so much."

Disagree completely.
I'll grant you the vector thing, which I overlooked since I never use it. The other stuff, except maybe 16bit color channels are all just anti-lazy stuff. You could accomplish all of that with the prior versions.


That said! I do like what they've been doing with Lightroom.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 9:15 AM on May 14, 2010


Apple responds to Adobe's "We love Apple" ads.
posted by mazola at 9:27 AM on May 14, 2010 [2 favorites]


Flash seems to be very conspicuously not dead today, at least on MeFi.
posted by Artw at 9:50 AM on May 14, 2010


One more time, for those who haven't paid attention. None of this would be an issue if Adobe would just fix Flash.

I think they would have to cut off a few toes to get that slipper to fit
posted by thetruthisjustalie at 10:13 AM on May 14, 2010


"Dear Adobe, when the name of your 'open' product contains two uses of ® then it isn't open."

Adobe, You Brought an Advertisement to a Gun Fight
posted by kirkaracha at 10:52 AM on May 14, 2010 [1 favorite]


There isn't much left to do with image editing that wasn't in, say, about PS 4.5

Isn't Elements pretty much for people who think that?
posted by Artw at 10:56 AM on May 14, 2010


I'll grant you the vector thing, which I overlooked since I never use it. The other stuff, except maybe 16bit color channels are all just anti-lazy stuff. You could accomplish all of that with the prior versions.


Well we differ on the definition of lazy obviously. Having to replicate layers, try some filters or effects on them, until you get it right is indeed possible in previous versions of Photoshop that did not have new features like non-destructive adjustment layers and non-destructive filter layers. It saves a lot of time and if having the convenience of decreased time is lazy then so be it. The features are in fact, actually new. They didn't exist before in Photoshop. They're new. There are no adjustment layers in earlier versions of Photoshop, there are in the newer versions, hence it's new. But then why are you granting the "vector thing"? You could have just cut and pasted a vector into Photoshop before into it's own huge document and then drag it into another Photoshop document and scale it (down) there. And if you decreased it in scale to much, delete the Layer and drag from the original image again and try not to decrease it so much. So yeah, vector support in Photoshop isn't truly new by your definition either since you could do it another way before.
posted by juiceCake at 11:01 AM on May 14, 2010


Adjustment layers are fucking awesome, if I were still a heavy PS user you'd pry those out of my cold dead fingers.
posted by Artw at 11:04 AM on May 14, 2010


One more time, for those who haven't paid attention. None of this would be an issue if Adobe would just fix Flash.

I disagree. If you tout HTML 5 now, even though it's not ready, not fully supported across all browsers, not fully ratified, and has poor performance in some areas then saying Flash isn't ready yet for mobile devices is in effect holding it to a different standard. Neither is fully ready yet.

Sure Flash needs to be "fixed" on the Mac and Linux, though I use it on my Eee PC frequently without issue and my sister has her Macbook hooked up to her high-def set to watch soccer streamed in, you guessed it, Flash, and it works perfectly (not to mention the Flash games her kids play on the Mac), but it isn't available outside of the Lite version on portable devices yet, and they are apparently working on it for a release soon. It's taken some time, but so to has HTML 5, and so to does HTML 5 continue to take time.

There's an argument that Flash won't properly support touch interfaces and yet, Flash works on touch based devices.
posted by juiceCake at 11:07 AM on May 14, 2010


In my inbox this morning, from Apple itself:

"Adobe CS5 is here. Get your hands on it today at the Apple Retail Store or have it shipped free when you order online. (Buy Now)

"Adobe Creative Suite 5 has been completely redesigned with new features for design, web, video, and photography (Learn More)"

inline vector support [in Photoshop]

This kindof sets off my pet peeve about Photoshop: it's become the proverbial hammer that makes everything look like a nail to many people. It's a brilliant raster editor and photo manipulation tool, but I think it never should have been a design/layout tool. As a general rule, I'd think that if you're working with vectors in Photoshop, you're doing it wrong, though I'm sure there are some raster/photo corner cases where it's nice to have vector shapes.
posted by weston at 11:30 AM on May 14, 2010


mrbarrett.com: “One more time, for those who haven't paid attention. None of this would be an issue if Adobe would just fix Flash.”

juiceCake: “I disagree. If you tout HTML 5 now, even though it's not ready, not fully supported across all browsers, not fully ratified, and has poor performance in some areas then saying Flash isn't ready yet for mobile devices is in effect holding it to a different standard. Neither is fully ready yet. ¶ Sure Flash needs to be "fixed" on the Mac and Linux, though I use it on my Eee PC frequently without issue and my sister has her Macbook hooked up to her high-def set to watch soccer streamed in, you guessed it, Flash, and it works perfectly (not to mention the Flash games her kids play on the Mac), but it isn't available outside of the Lite version on portable devices yet, and they are apparently working on it for a release soon. It's taken some time, but so to has HTML 5, and so to does HTML 5 continue to take time. ¶ There's an argument that Flash won't properly support touch interfaces and yet, Flash works on touch based devices.”

But that has nothing to do with it. Look, I know HTML5 isn't ready, and it's certainly no alternative to Flash at this point. But Adobe have been shooting themselves in the foot for years on this, developing apparently as slowly as they possibly can on Flash and dragging their feet, whilst simultaneously adding all sorts of inane crap and stupid installers and pointless shit that users have to wade through.

I work in tech, so I meet a lot of different computers. My experience is that Flash works perfectly plug-and-play (without significant futzing) on about 75% of the computers out there. That may be pretty good for some things, but for a web programming framework that's as ubiquitous as Flash is – and moreover that's supported by a huge company that's raking in millions every year for it – it's atrocious. The Flash installer alone is too complicated and strange for the average user, and given the common experience of being totally unable to get Flash to start working again if a version gets switched or something updates partially, it's amazing to me that Adobe has let it go this long. If they'd just maintained their software, we wouldn't be having this argument now – Steve Jobs would just be an arrogant douchebag whining about problems that don't exist.
posted by koeselitz at 11:35 AM on May 14, 2010


This kindof sets off my pet peeve about Photoshop: it's become the proverbial hammer that makes everything look like a nail to many people. It's a brilliant raster editor and photo manipulation tool, but I think it never should have been a design/layout tool. As a general rule, I'd think that if you're working with vectors in Photoshop, you're doing it wrong, though I'm sure there are some raster/photo corner cases where it's nice to have vector shapes.

Why should vectors and rasters be handled by separate programs? Really, the only reason for Photoshop and Illustrator to be separate programs is figuring out how you could merge the two UIs without blowing people's minds.
posted by delmoi at 12:30 PM on May 14, 2010


Both Illustrator and Photoshop incorporate bits of each other, so there is strict separation of the two.

The pet peeve about Photostop is probably more about inexperienced using it for layout purposes and doing a bad job it. There's nothing inherently wrong with doing layout in Photoshop, especially if it's for one or two pages of intense photo and text layout or collages.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:22 PM on May 14, 2010


Why should vectors and rasters be handled by separate programs?

I didn't say that. I said they shouldn't both be handled by Photoshop.

Personally, I use Fireworks for everything targeting the screen, and it does both (and it does them pretty well, without much mind-blowing). But it seems to have been conceived from the beginning as having both rather than glomming a limited vector approach into a dedicated raster editor.

If I were going to work with both in targeting print, I'm not sure what I'd use, but I think it'd probably be better to bring your processed photos and/or more raster features into Illustrator or InDesign rather than your vector illustrations into Photoshop.
posted by weston at 1:23 PM on May 14, 2010


But that has nothing to do with it.

I think it does. If the performance of Flash wasn't an issue and it was fixed I don't think it would make a difference because not being ready for prime time isn't an issue with HTML 5 so I don't feel it is the main issue with Flash either. The emergence of HTML 5 has gone on for years as well and yet it's supported, so the idea that Flash isn't because it's not ready doesn't fly with me.

I work in tech, so I meet a lot of different computers. My experience is that Flash works perfectly plug-and-play (without significant futzing) on about 75% of the computers out there. That may be pretty good for some things, but for a web programming framework that's as ubiquitous as Flash is – and moreover that's supported by a huge company that's raking in millions every year for it – it's atrocious.

I work in tech too. Our Flash problems across a myriad of platforms and operating systems is extremely small, but I agree a number like 25% failure is atrocious, and we'd have something like that with HTML 5 today, not to mention that mobile Safari can't even run Google Docs properly.

As for the Flash installer being difficult for the common user, I don't see it as difficult whatsoever. I agree Flash needs improving and personally and professionally I campaign to not use at all and if we must, for very specific purposes, but that's because of Google and content management systems, not Apple or Adobe.

I don't believe for a moment that Flash's lack of being "fixed" is the prevalent factor so we'll obviously simply disagree.

This kind of sets off my pet peeve about Photoshop: it's become the proverbial hammer that makes everything look like a nail to many people.

All the professionals I know don't suffer from this problem at all.

It's a brilliant raster editor and photo manipulation tool, but I think it never should have been a design/layout tool.

Layout for print, I agree, we have InDesign for that and it's extremely inefficient for layout in that regard, though Adobe can't control how people use it of course. For web, I'd argue it's really quite good, though we tend to do layout in Illustrator or Photoshop (meaning layout design for the web). Photoshop is good for it because the web is primarily raster based and gives a much more realistic impression of what will actually happen than Illustrator, not to mention raster effects are easier in Photoshop, the same effects you might actually use for the screen. Vector support is great for lines, boxes, circles, etc, as well as logos and so forth. We don't use Photoshop to design logos for example. We use Illustrator for that.

As a general rule, I'd think that if you're working with vectors in Photoshop, you're doing it wrong, though I'm sure there are some raster/photo corner cases where it's nice to have vector shapes.

For logos and anything like illustrations absolutely, but using vectors in Photoshop is extremely useful in other ways, and is therefore hardly "wrong".
posted by juiceCake at 2:17 PM on May 14, 2010 [1 favorite]


but there's been nothing truly "new" since they added layers

This is so ludicrously wrong; I am guessing you've never really had to work with photos before. Because the #1 thing you do when working with photos is mask. Masking is your life, and masking fucking sucks. And the most sucky thing to mask in the universe is goddamned hair. If you're a hack and don't care you can go to town with your lasso, if you're a little more savvy you can start using channels to isolate the hair from the background and not lose too much in the edge blur.

The new selection tools are night and day improvements. They are as important as layers were. As the history palette. They fundamentally change your workflow by giving you your time back. Again, if you never use any of those features, great. Go join the line of GIMP'ers complaining they can't get no respect and "nobody uses CMYK, anyway!"

And I haven't even started on the content-aware fill. That's just gobsmacking. But, what? you think that's just no big deal… whatever, man… What would it take to impress you? I would say, "if it paints your picture for you, would that elicit more than a yawn?" except that's exactly what it's doing.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:34 PM on May 14, 2010 [1 favorite]


HTML5 Vs. Flash. What You Haven’t Heard.
posted by Artw at 9:38 AM on May 16, 2010


My take on the iPad: No Flash is foolish
posted by Artw at 6:00 PM on May 16, 2010


« Older A man in East Austin, Tx was removed from his home...  |  Halation can interfere with yo... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments