Microsoft to buy-out Flash from Macromedia??

[gotohamish]

Read The Register story here. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/28667.html)

Bring back proper HTML I say.:mad:

[dricci]

I hope not...

But then again, the story's from The Register :rolleyes:

[Blackcat]

The Reg is pretty acurate when it comes to industry news. Here's hoping Macromedia don't want to be bought out, and Sun makes a counter offer.

[gotohamish]

Originally posted by Blackcat
The Reg is pretty acurate when it comes to industry news. Here's hoping Macromedia don't want to be bought out, and Sun makes a counter offer.

I think the takeover would be for Flash and it's related technolgies, not the whole of Macromedia - if it does, then I'm switching from Dreamweaver to GoLive!:(

[Mr. Anderson]

Oh, the humanity! First Bungie and now Macromedia? Damn, I certainly hope this doesn't happen. Flash is fantastic, but put it in the hands of M$ and it might get top heavy. Anyone who's tried to make a webpage from a word document knows what I'm talking about. This would really suck :( :mad: :eek:

[Goblin2099]

Time to buy Studio MX before it become Studio MXP

[barkmonster]

Microsoft are likely to incorporate the flash plug-in as part of IE, make it run on windows only then make flash itself windows only.

Of course then they'd have another monopoly lawsuit on their hands.

[Blackcat]

Originally posted by barkmonster
Microsoft are likely to incorporate the flash plug-in as part of IE, make it run on windows only then make flash itself windows only.

Of course then they'd have another monopoly lawsuit on their hands.

Cool. In 5 years they'll be told not to do it again. Again.

:(

[Megaquad]

Maybe this is Microsoft's revenge because Apple bought all those companies?
So they gonna cut Mac version now? Scary..

If Microsoft buys Flash we're doomed..

[Billicus]

Originally posted by Megaquad
Maybe this is Microsoft's revenge because Apple bought all those companies?
So they gonna cut Mac version now? Scary..

If Microsoft buys Flash we're doomed..

If Micro$oft cuts all Apple support of everything, we're doomed. Not that I like them one ounce, but many, many users use their products.

[fixxion]

ehm. would not really matter to me since flash is much to slow for mac users from the beginning.. its becoming obvious to me that macromedia does not care for mac users... the animations lag like fat bastards boobs.. yes flash is cool .. but only if your a PeeCee user.. hey you'll never know.. something good might come out from Microsoft buyng the damn thing.. if you guys can remember OfficeV.x
was boasted as better than the pc version... but for the sake of the on-line community.. Pray that this wont happen...:)

[bluecell]

I seriously doubt that this would happen. M$ would have to buy out Macromedia and I don't think a merger is likely to happen. Flash is too important to Macromedia for them to just let it go.

On the other hand, a collaboration between Apple, Sun and Adobe would be nice to see. An open source format to compete directly with both Flash and Shockwave. For one thing, the Flash Communication Server and Flash Remote Server aren't available for Mac, and will probably never be. Both products are WAY too expensive and somewhat limiting. An open source competitor, if done correctly, would destroy Macromedia.

Another thing about Macromedia is that they seem to be pro-M$ and anti-Apple. I'm tired of seeing .NET all over their products.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Blackcat
The Reg is pretty acurate when it comes to industry news. Here's hoping Macromedia don't want to be bought out, and Sun makes a counter offer.

sun would be better as to keep the integrity of the product

but sun's financials at times are scary and their ceo sometimes sounds like newt gingrich or the boy who cried wolf

[Foocha]

I'm struggling the understand the connection that The Reg is making between J2EE and Flash here - there appears to be no connection to me - Flash is a client-side thing, and J2EE is server-side.

I've always thought that Microsoft would buy Flash one day, but not as a competitor to J2EE (??!) I think they'll use it as the new Graphics layer for Windows - enabling scaling interfaces and advanced compositing, it'll be their equivalent of Quartz. Imagine Windows commingled with Flash - sickening.

IMHO Flash was the worst thing to ever happen to the Web anyway - we're better off without it.

[Foocha]

OK, I've read the article again, and they're saying that Coldfusion is what MS are after as an alternative to ASP - somehow I doubt that. No one uses CFM these days surely, and if Microsoft wanted it so bad, why didn't they snap it up before Macromedia last year?

That story on the Reg is all over the place.

[Computer_Phreak]

wow...

"new animated blue screen of death!"


(I must admit, my friend said that)

[Les Kern]

Originally posted by Megaquad
If Microsoft buys Flash we're doomed..

I'm no M$ lover, but I couldn't care less if they grab Flash. It's a toy, and since it hit the net there has been a backlash against superfluous falsh animations wasting bandwidth. Of course my daughter likes barbie.com, but so what. I'll buy her something educational.
And GoLive is pretty robust.

[seven5]

"The acqusition is speculated to put the future of Java 2 Enterprise Edition at risk."



uhhhh... what exactly is that supposed to mean. I'm not EVEN gonna get into why NONE of macromedia's technologies "put the future of Java 2 Enterprise Edition at risk"

I dare someone to try to make the link.....

[macktheknife]

Flash has basically achieved what Java originally wanted to do--a platform-independent program that can run on multiple platforms. The potential of Flash is impressive when you think about it. Besides some nifty graphics animation, a programmer can use Flash Actionscript to create a front-end for web-based programs.

[seven5]

flash can't do ANYTHING by itself. Any functionality outside of tweening and other visuals is done using PHP. Flash cannot do anything java can. Java is a object oriented language. Flash scripts with javascript sudo code and can have PHP attached to it. Java is so much more robust than Flash its rediculous. Please don't even start this argument, i have to go to bed early tonight.

[electric]

Hiype,

Could this be related to the "Microsoft ordered to include Java" article?
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-978756.html?tag=fd_top

I use Flash and could not imagine any less support for Flash on a Mac, either production or play back. Perhaps Microsoft would make a more compatible version? Who knows.

It's funny to me that Macromedia has such bad support for Mac since Macromind Directors first debut was on Mac...... I think (don't quote me on that)

[julzmon]

I'm a Flash Designer on a Mac. I've been holding out for a long time for Flash to work equally on the Mac. Macromedia's Mac products have been very poor lately. Flash MX is sooo bug ridden and slow.

If this happens it would be a nightmare to me.

I would have to switch to PC.

I pray this does not happen.


Julz

[julzmon]

Originally posted by electric

It's funny to me that Macromedia has such bad support for Mac since Macromind Directors first debut was on Mac...... I think (don't quote me on that)

Flash was Mac only when they acquired it.

[sparkleytone]

Originally posted by Megaquad
Maybe this is Microsoft's revenge because Apple bought all those companies?
So they gonna cut Mac version now? Scary..

If Microsoft buys Flash we're doomed..

altho this statement may seem like hyperbole...i think it may indeed be accurate. flash is a standard in every way standard is defined. its cross platform and high performance on all platforms. if m$ got hold of it, armageddon could ensue.

m$ products being dropped from Apple really wouldnt be as devastating as it seems on the surface. Apple has alot of money, and they could easily throw it at the OpenOffice devs in order to get a Cocoa/Carbon mix port in 4-6 months. Many people, especially those already on other platforms, are ready for an alternative to m$ office.

[3G4N]

Originally posted by seven5
uhhhh... what exactly is that supposed to mean. I'm not EVEN gonna get into why NONE of macromedia's technologies "put the future of Java 2 Enterprise Edition at risk"

I dare someone to try to make the link..... [/B]

1) Macromedia Flash was originally named "Splash",
2) Tom Hanks starred in "Splash"
3) Hanks and Dan Akroyd were the leads in "Dragnet"
4) Akroyd and Steve Martin are "Two Wild and Crazy Guys"
5) Steve Martin was drinking "Java" in "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid"
6) J2EE

quite obvious, once you think about it. : )

[3G4N]

Originally posted by julzmon
Flash was Mac only when they acquired it.

Don't think so. I only ever saw a PC version of
FutureWave's Splash, and these sites say it
was cross-platform.

http://www.flashmagazine.com/html/413.htm
http://www.microon.net/flashStory/flash1.asp

[uberman42]

MS - sneaky little biatches. Well there goes a nice, fun to use product- destined to become some crappy product grouped next to the calculator in the accessories menu option in Win XPeePee

Apple and Adobe will get cozier...heck -how about apple buying adobe?

[bdkennedy1]

This would be a disaster for Mac web developers. Apple and it's followers wouldn't tolerate it. Plus Macromedia knows it has a large Mac following.

[louisa]

Apple and its followers wouldn't tolerate it. Plus Macromedia knows it has a large Mac following.
does anyone know if a petition is already circulating to give voice to the dismay felt by designers everywhere upon hearing this news? would a petition help? should i start one?

—louisa

[Foocha]

The confusion between Flash and Java exhibited by some in this forum appears to stem from the idea that Flash hasn't moved on since Applets.

When Flash first launched, it was promoted as a write once, run anywhere object oriented language that enabled developers to create mini applications that could be embedded into a Web page - Applets. These applets were executed client-side and in some respects are similar to Flash .swf movies.

Java applets, whilst still used on many sites, never took off in the way that the pundits predicted, and are not as popular as .swf movies. Since then, Java has moved on.

Java became a massive hit with the introduction of Servlets, J2EE and Enterprise Java Beans. These technologies have the support of very big players - Sun, IBM, Oracle, BAE... even Macromedia. Until recently, (with the release of .net) Microsoft did not have anything to compete with these Java technologies, which are used for the back-end development of Web sites. Part of J2EE is Java Server Page - .jsp, which is the Java equivalent of .cfm .asp or .php - it has nothing to do with Flash, or even Applets, since the Servlet is executed server-side, not client-side.

Java is extremely important to the future of the Mac platform - not least because Java tends to be deployed in a UNIX environment, whereas .net is always deployed on a Windows environment (naturally). Let's not start insulting the good name of Java with the slur that Flash, or even Coldfusion might replace it!

[Nebrie]

Originally posted by seven5
"The acqusition is speculated to put the future of Java 2 Enterprise Edition at risk."



uhhhh... what exactly is that supposed to mean. I'm not EVEN gonna get into why NONE of macromedia's technologies "put the future of Java 2 Enterprise Edition at risk"

I dare someone to try to make the link.....


uuuuuuh, try reading the damn article first. It says so exactly why J2EE is at risk.

[Foocha]

I'm not convinced that J2EE is "at risk" from Microsoft's purchase of Coldfusion - .net seems more of a threat to me.

It may be true that J2EE is not as easy to develop in than Coldfusion or Microsoft products. In the past this has not presented a problem - it's merely resulted in small, simple sites being developed and hosted on Windows, because this is the most appropriate and cost effective platform for such applications (at the low end I buy Microsoft's total cost of ownership arguement) whereas at the highend, UNIX / JAVA still leads.

[louisa]

well, for what it's worth, a
petition (http://www.petitiononline.com/macromic/petition.html) has been started. i guess, for those of us who have strong feelings about the matter, signaling our dread can't hurt...

[zoetropeuk]

I'm confused at the lack of intelligence most respondents to this thread are displaying. One of the problems with mac users is they don't look outside their own little world (and I AM A MAC USER, dual 867 and iBook). I also agree that the author of the register article is missing the point.
It would be impossible for microsoft to only aquire Flash, as Flash is too tightly integrated into Coldfusion, Director and the other Flash com products. If Macromedia lost Flash then that surely would be the end !!! But that will not happen unless the WHOLE company goes.


I'm not convinced that J2EE is "at risk" from Microsoft's purchase of Coldfusion - .net seems more of a threat to me.

No one is saying that it is at risk but with Macromedia's adoption of J2EE as the platform on which CFMX runs it has the potential to convert a lot developers from other platforms to J2EE. Until the MX release of CF and Flash the majority of Macromedia users were not Java developers as well, and the main reason for that was Macromedia's ease of use compared to J2EE and also the cost of ownership.
The MX products have now introduced a huge number of developers to the J2EE environment and its capabilities. Macromedia has also introduced versions of CFMX that run on top of existing J2EE environements ie IBM websphere, SUN ONE and JRUN. Another important note is that CFMX compiles it's pages into java allowing it to run on ANY java compliant platform eg OSX.

flash can't do ANYTHING by itself. Any functionality outside of tweening and other visuals is done using PHP. Flash cannot do anything java can. Java is a object oriented language. Flash scripts with javascript sudo code and can have PHP attached to it. Java is so much more robust than Flash its rediculous. Please don't even start this argument, i have to go to bed early tonight

Have you not heard of Flash communication server or Flash remoting ??? FlashMX is now tightly integrated with Coldfusion MX and the possibilities for this technology far out way anything that Microsoft has ever even envisaged !!!! Through the link between CFMX and Flash MX, Flash has the ability to access Java applets, JSP pages, Java beans and most other java technologies. Maybe this is the mysterious link people have been wondering about ????

Let's not start insulting the good name of Java with the slur that Flash, or even Coldfusion might replace it

No one is saying this, Java is now and integrated component of Macromedia's future and this is why Microsoft are so concerned, Macromedia is now introducing Java to 000,000's of developers that might never have even considered it. I don't know if people realise that Sun as a company is not in good shape at the moment and it needs all the support it can get. Macromedia is doing a fantastic job at helping the JAVA and SUN cause at the moment.

No one uses CFM these days surely, and if Microsoft wanted it so bad, why didn't they snap it up before Macromedia last year

Another ignorant comment ! Coldfusion has never been more popular or powerful since it's introducing and I can't see that changing anytime soon.

I'm no M$ lover, but I couldn't care less if they grab Flash. It's a toy, and since it hit the net there has been a backlash against superfluous falsh animations wasting bandwidth

I agree, before Flash MX, Flash was pretty much a toy but IT IS no longer a toy. It can and is being used to develop extremely sophisicated business critical applications linking J2EE, FlashMX and other technologies together. The problem is that most of the web community have yet to see any evidence of this but it is coming, believe me.

[Foocha]

No one is saying that it is at risk

Actually several people on this forum have said just that.

But you're right, I am ignorant when it comes to Coldfusion. I was not aware that you could use it with J2EE servers.

I haven't seen any evidence that Coldfusion adoption is on the increase - do you have any stats to support this?

It's great that Macromedia are supporting Java, all I'm saying is that J2EE's future is not entirely dependent upon this support.

[Megaquad]

Originally posted by Les Kern


I'm no M$ lover, but I couldn't care less if they grab Flash. It's a toy, and since it hit the net there has been a backlash against superfluous falsh animations wasting bandwidth. Of course my daughter likes barbie.com, but so what. I'll buy her something educational.
And GoLive is pretty robust.
Look, it is your problem you dont see flash beyond barbie.com. Some people pay bills with Flash. There are amazing *useful* interfaces that can be made with flash. And FYI flash animations are smaller than html.
Flash is so much easier to make then html, and good designer will make it better then html.

Some things cannot be done without flash.

[Blackcat]

Originally posted by Megaquad
Some things cannot be done without flash.

There's nothing that can't be done without Flash that actually needs doing... ;)

[mania]

you are all forgeting SVG - the xml based w3 recommended vector based web standard. go to w3.org and click on the svg link. yeah its not quite prime time yet but just wait a few years. flash was already doomed. if i was macromedia i would sell it fast. even microsoft is starting to support svg in some of its products.

[awulf]

Adobe LiveMotion is slowly catching up to Flash, this could be our saviour.

But lets hope Macromedia doesn't get bought.

I like Flash and Fireworks

[linescreen]

I am a partner of Macromedia. I do "ENTEPRISE" FLASH/JAVA applications for big clients. I am talking million dollar flash jobs.

1) FLash is not a silly toy. it is not just for animations anymore.

2) Its scripting language is more powefrull that Javascript because of its ability to consume XML Webservices and lot of other things....

3) FLash is the premier application building tool for building client side UI. JAVA Swing is dead, and flesh picks up were it left off with the new component architecture.

4) IF you hate flash, you probally don't know what it can do. YOu think of it as an animation tool.

5) Flash is going to be the GUI of more complicated web applications that can not be done with just the form submit model of HTML. If you don't get how huge this is....you about to be left behind in the web world.

6) BEA Weblogic, IBM Websphere, NOVEL, Oracle, are all heavily working with flash to bring the next generation of web application that function like "DeskTop" apps.

7) Forget the silly graphics,,,,,good Flash apps will look like JAVA Swing or Apple's Interface Builder (Okay sans Aqua).

8) Try to understand what a big deal this is going to be if $M buys flash and says it things like FLASH REmoting no longer work with JAVA. There is right now a huge Flash/Java connection.

9) Flash is all grown up, and if you think it is just for animations.....you really do not know what you are talking about.

actionscript@mac.com

[Les Kern]

Originally posted by Megaquad
There are amazing *useful* interfaces that can be made with flash. And FYI flash animations are smaller than html.
Flash is so much easier to make then html, and good designer will make it better then html. Some things cannot be done without flash.

I am one who actually likes to be wrong on occasion. As apps evolve, it's almost impossible to see the standard that will be in place in, say, 5 years. Some of my feelings are drawn from my own personal dislike of the technology as it stands right now, but I do realize that Flash just may evolve into something useful. Right now it's not. And it's my daughter that visits barbie.com. Crap-flash is 99% of the Flash presence on the internet. I'll wait for the technology to get past the crap.

[linescreen]

If you think the best flash and most usefull flash on the web is barbie, then you must never go to financial websites, or know anything about what is going on with "Enteprise" flash on intranets of the fortune 50 companies.

Flash is simply used to create a User-Centric experience that is closer to desktop applications.

Barbi.com is not an example of what flash does.

Its like saying photoshop is used to make bad filter art, and ignoring how it is really used in advertising.

[kpbpsw]

Flash can be fun but I have never seen it useful and I have seen many entertainment and biz sites!

The fact that it lets people create from scratch their own user interface is the problem as creating an interface is a major effort and flash is a major step backwards - it is like basic programing - maybe it could be done well but it never is.

Most people who really use the web do not go to flash based sites as they simply do not work well. It may have it's place but so far I have not seen it.

[Booga]

Originally posted by electric
It's funny to me that Macromedia has such bad support for Mac since Macromind Directors first debut was on Mac...... I think (don't quote me on that)

(Sorry about quoting you, but your message prompted a trip down memory lane.)

Yes, Macromedia Director was originally Macromind VideoWorks. It was released, if I recall correctly, around the time of the Mac ][ and its fancy 256 color graphics. They had the most impressive booth at MacWorld for a couple years running... a large array of monitors run off a single Mac ][ with several video cards, with movies playing across all of them.

When it changed to Director, I think they basically added scripting. All in all, there is nothing really revolutionary in any release since the original VideoWorks, in my humble opinion. They got it basically right from the start then rode it over a decade.

At the time, Windows was still struggling with the concept of putting one folder inside another, and Microsoft Word and Excel were still Macintosh-first releases (if they even had a Windows version at all yet.) Ahh, those were the days. Of course, I shouldn't mention what the Amiga's capabilities were at the time.

[grimmwerks]

Originally posted by bluecell
For one thing, the Flash Communication Server and Flash Remote Server aren't available for Mac, and will probably never be. Both products are WAY too expensive and somewhat limiting. An open source competitor, if done correctly, would destroy Macromedia.

Another thing about Macromedia is that they seem to be pro-M$ and anti-Apple. I'm tired of seeing .NET all over their products.

first - flash MX server is in beta for unix, I'm to understand.

Second, I don't think Macro is anti-apple - hell, the MAC in Macro is for...er...MAC. Director (then videoworks) was only mac back in the day.

If anything I'm more frustrated by the lack of support for director as compared to flash within Macr (I'm a director developer by trade). If anything Flash is Director's retarded younger brother. But DirMX certainly ups the anti with the new integration into flash mx objects.

In any case, if this happens - which I pray it won't - I'll go realbasic.

But I'm hopeful that apple would step into the fray. Hell Macr is where they got Final Cut from...

[pimentoLoaf]

The only good I can think of regarding a Microsoft buyout would be that Flash might then be compatible with the latest version of Photoshop, and not version 3.

Only reason I play with Adobe LiveMotion is due to this.

[grimmwerks]

Originally posted by pimentoLoaf
The only good I can think of regarding a Microsoft buyout would be that Flash might then be compatible with the latest version of Photoshop, and not version 3.

Only reason I play with Adobe LiveMotion is due to this.

Well....in what way? I use PS7 all the time with flash, save out as png and keep all the alphas......so.......er......?

[nero007]

Originally posted by bryank1
Plus Macromedia knows it has a large Mac following.

You'd wouldn't think it by the way they treat us (Mac users).

[Macmaniac]

Ack no!!!!!
Not Macromedia!!!
I'm still upset over Bungie:( God dam u M$!!!!!!

At least Macromedia has mac in its name. UGH NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

Sorry bout the rant, I'm just so sick of M$!!!

[andrewh]

Originally posted by linescreen
I am a partner of Macromedia. I do "ENTEPRISE" FLASH/JAVA applications for big clients. I am talking million dollar flash jobs.

1) FLash is not a silly toy. it is not just for animations anymore.

2) Its scripting language is more powefrull that Javascript because of its ability to consume XML Webservices and lot of other things....

3) FLash is the premier application building tool for building client side UI. JAVA Swing is dead, and flesh picks up were it left off with the new component architecture.

4) IF you hate flash, you probally don't know what it can do. YOu think of it as an animation tool.

5) Flash is going to be the GUI of more complicated web applications that can not be done with just the form submit model of HTML. If you don't get how huge this is....you about to be left behind in the web world.

6) BEA Weblogic, IBM Websphere, NOVEL, Oracle, are all heavily working with flash to bring the next generation of web application that function like "DeskTop" apps.

7) Forget the silly graphics,,,,,good Flash apps will look like JAVA Swing or Apple's Interface Builder (Okay sans Aqua).

8) Try to understand what a big deal this is going to be if $M buys flash and says it things like FLASH REmoting no longer work with JAVA. There is right now a huge Flash/Java connection.

9) Flash is all grown up, and if you think it is just for animations.....you really do not know what you are talking about.

actionscript@mac.com



Finally an intelligent post here. Most people are greatly underestimating the potential of Flash MX -- but Microsoft clearly isn't. Because they're worried about where it's going. Flash is not just for animating logos. With the MX version there is very powerful object oriented programming and it is becoming everything that Java based web clients were supposed to be. I built a fast, robust database connected job site using Flash MX and remoting and it works beautifully on Mac and PC and is under 80k. Show me a java based client with the same UI that runs as well on all platforms -- you won't.

Some of the weenies in the web design/development world have to come to grips with the fact that HTML is primitive and weak. Miniusa.com is an example of what websites should be. The internet is going to go through some huge changes in the next 10 years and fortunately a lot of people will be left behind.

Anyway, rumors of Microsoft's interest in Flash is proof of it's potential. Microsoft may be the evil empire, but they didn't get to where they are without paying attention to what everyone else was doing and being competitive. I don't care if they acquire Macromedia as long as they continue to develop for the Mac with the quality of Office X. Love or Hate MS, but those apps are excellent.

[gandalf55]

yes agreed - about 5% of the posters here truly realize what Flash MX is and can be. There is too much assumption and 2 year old thinking going on about this topic.

Flash MX is incredible. The GUI is being standardized (components), FCS and remoting can create intense, rich applications quickly and reliably. Flash apps on devices are MUCH better than c++ or java apps. The ocx integration isn't all there for security reasons but that may change moving forward.

Flash MX syntax has been greatly improved and made more OOP... which allows for much more serious coding resulting in some serious apps. Sorenson Spark Pro video codec, the audio codecs, device font integration, dynamic drawing api and masking, fast XML parsing, unicode integration, etc... its all there. And its still growing and getting better... for a plugin under 500k on a PC! Thats just insane.

Flash MX is beautiful and is changing the web today. You can ignore it if you'd like, but then you're left out. M$ attempted their own Flash killer app a few times already (using DHTML, etc) and they failed miserably. I think they would DEF want to buy Flash out. I hope it NEVER happens.

[phgreer]

Apple should buy Macromedia! :)

[bluecell]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there also a rumor circulating a while back that Apple was looking into acquiring Macromedia? And Sorenson, if I remember correctly.

[macktheknife]

Originally posted by andrewh
Finally an intelligent post here. Most people are greatly underestimating the potential of Flash MX -- but Microsoft clearly isn't. Because they're worried about where it's going. Flash is not just for animating logos. With the MX version there is very powerful object oriented programming and it is becoming everything that Java based web clients were supposed to be. I built a fast, robust database connected job site using Flash MX and remoting and it works beautifully on Mac and PC and is under 80k. Show me a java based client with the same UI that runs as well on all platforms -- you won't.

Agreed. Flash MX has the potential to be the front-end GUI for any web-based apps. Flash has essentially supplanted Applets as web-based animation tool of choice. However, it can do much more and is no mere "toy"--Actionscript is a simple yet powerful object-oriented language that can be used to deploy web-based apps.

I would disagree with the original article's assessment of ColdFusion MX, since it is hardly the only major J2EE application server. JBoss, BEA's Weblogic, etc. are more popular and just as capable.

BTW, if Microsoft or anyone wants to buy Macromedia, the minimum price will be about $688.8 million--Macromedia's current market cap. Assuming that the buyer will have to pay a 50% premium, the total price tag for Macromedia will be around one billion or so. This is chump change for Microsoft and its $40 billion stash.

[Foocha]

HTML, and JavaScript are open standards - Flash is proprietary.

Sure the latest version of Flash may have even more bells and whistles, but developing Web sites using this type of proprietary solution will inevitably open you up to this sort of risk - it gets bought out and changes direction...

Aren't we better off working with open standards when they are good, popular and widely supported?

[thelodger]

I develop J2EE software professionally and also know and use Flash on occasion. Comparing Flash to J2EE is like comparing an elephant and a walnut. Sure, they both have DNA and they are both carbon-based life-forms, but their purposes and capabilities are so different that they are not really related beyond that.

Flash is a presentation layer technology. As such it is comparable to Java/Swing which has not truly taken off (for good reason). The fact is, however, that few people actually use Swing or applets that often in J2EE development. The model that's been steadily gaining in popularity has been the use of the MVC design pattern with Struts and JSP/Servlets. Even THAT is actually not related to J2EE. J2EE = Enterprise Java Beans and EJB's are a concept that I will not attempt to make non-J2EE programmers understand here now. Suffice it to say, that the EJB standard as a distributed component model is not now, and will never be, threatened by Flash and ColdFusion in the arenas where real, boring, day-to-day work happens (banking, education, government, accounting, etc). .Net is a competitor, but that's it and MS already owns it.

Let's all calm down. Even if MS DID acquire Flash (which I do not believe they will) it would not leave the Mac web browser and it would not stop the majority of the real heavy server-side development from making use of J2EE.

[Foocha]

Hi thelodger - I agree with most of what you say, although it seems like the Macromedia mafia are in the forum today and will disagree.

I have to take issue with "J2EE=EJB" however - they are not one and the same thing.

[kpbpsw]

Originally posted by andrewh





Some of the weenies in the web design/development world have to come to grips with the fact that HTML is primitive and weak. Miniusa.com is an example of what websites should be. The internet is going to go through some huge changes in the next 10 years and fortunately a lot of people will be left behind.



miniusa.com is a perfect example of what is wrong with flash type of sites. Navigation is bad and the site is slow. If you are going to be entertained then fine but if you want to find something out (what people do who use the web all the time) then it is slow and you can not get to the data.

Flash is simply bad! You end up paying a lot to develop something that is good looking but it simply is not useful to do it all in flash. You could use flash for elements in a page but all flash sites are less than ideal.

[Foocha]

I agree with the above comments on the miniusa site.

I work in an interactive marketing company, and many of our clients come to us wanting to know why their sites can not be found on any search engines. The answer is invariably simple - their site was developed in Flash and will need to be entirely redeveloped before it can be search engine compatible.

Flash is great for producing vector-based animations, but to develop an entire site in Flash exhibits poor judgement on the part of the designer, in my opinion.

[jefhatfield]

off topic, i know, but it's been a long time

great to see you foocha:)

[Foocha]

Hi Jeff,

Good to see you too.

Wasn't it this time last year that you were considering retiring from this message board?

Glad you didn't :)

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Foocha
Hi Jeff,

Good to see you too.

Wasn't it this time last year that you were considering retiring from this message board?

Glad you didn't :)

i was going to make a jan 1, 2002 exit but i decided to stay but at times i cut back and many posters surpassed me, but that was a relief because i then became more annonymous

[andrewh]

Originally posted by kpbpsw


miniusa.com is a perfect example of what is wrong with flash type of sites. Navigation is bad and the site is slow. If you are going to be entertained then fine but if you want to find something out (what people do who use the web all the time) then it is slow and you can not get to the data.

Flash is simply bad! You end up paying a lot to develop something that is good looking but it simply is not useful to do it all in flash. You could use flash for elements in a page but all flash sites are less than ideal.


There are definitely challenges with authoring a site in Flash, like scrolling large amounts of text, bookmarking pages and the search engine issue. I completely agree.

The Mini site has always been lightning fast on every computer I've tried it on, and they use standard UI principles -- top menu with dropdown submenus (like the Mac OS), side navigation on the left, and interactive highlighting to let you know what is happening. I would think if you were smart enough to drive a car you could figure out that website. Sure, design is all opinion, but at least major design panels like Communication Arts, HOW and ID magazine agree that is is a well designed website.

I create websites in HTML and Flash, as my clients needs/desires dictate. From the designers perspective Flash is much more painless. Slicing up dozens of images in photoshop and creating dozens of HTML pages with multiple nested tables is a ridiculous amount of work. HTML is fundamentally limited and wasn't intended for what we're doing with it.

Maybe Flash as we know it isn't the full solution, but it's advancing in the right direction. Maybe there will be another technology like SVG or Interactive PDF's that will work the kinks out, but the web will be much different in the next ten years. Companies like Macromedia and Microsoft are thinking ahead. For now though, we will have a hodge podge of different technologies battling it out. Okay, this is way off topic....

[Foocha]

Hi Andrewh

I agree with much of what you say.

I don't like Web sites with lots of sliced up images and nested tables any more than I like sites developed entirely in Flash.

I don't think HTML is limited, I think a lot of designers don't understand the ideas behind it and therefore use it badly.

It should be a sobering thought for Web designers that one of the most successful sites on the Web today is Google. It's not necessary to have extensive use of images and animation on order to deliver a great site.

A designer should start by considering the purpose of the site, and then select a design approach and technologies that will best meet that sites needs. It may be appropriate to use Flash extensively in a site promoting a new movie, but it's almost certainly not appropriate to do so on a long copy corporate Web site. Using Flash to create a long copy Web page which you scroll down is an extremely inappropriate use of Flash, when HTML does it with greater simplicity and elegance.

Most Web designers these days don't even have a clue what basic HTML elements like <h1> are for, and they've never gone near CSS. As a result they spend all their time using Dreamweaver to create nested tables, using Flash for long copy, and slicing up images containing paragraphs of text in Fireworks. (Thanks Macromedia).

If designers used these technologies in the way in which they were intended, we wouldn't have any of these problems. Perhaps its time for a Web designers' Dogma Manifesto in the style of Lars Von Triers...

[andrewh]

Originally posted by Foocha

It should be a sobering thought for Web designers that one of the most successful sites on the Web today is Google. It's not necessary to have extensive use of images and animation on order to deliver a great site.

A designer should start by considering the purpose of the site, and then select a design approach and technologies that will best meet that sites needs. It may be appropriate to use Flash extensively in a site promoting a new movie, but it's almost certainly not appropriate to do so on a long copy corporate Web site. Using Flash to create a long copy Web page which you scroll down is an extremely inappropriate use of Flash, when HTML does it with greater simplicity and elegance.
...



Yes. I totally agree with your statements. True, sites like Google, Amazon, and eBay would never work in Flash. I don't claim to be an expert, but I guess I was just being philisophical, you know, wishing the internet was better. So where were we... oh yes, DIE Microsoft!

[dglow]

WARNING: lenghty, sometimes rambling, post ahead

Microsoft fears anything it doesn't control. Hence, Microsoft fears the potential of Macromedia's products and, specfically, the rich functionality that these now offer between the client and server.

The 'Soft has long desired, yet remained conflicted about, Flash from day one, always wanting a substitute technology to emerge. Why do I know this? Lets just say I became intimately familiar with Microsoft's thinking and actions in this space over the past many years.

You would be amazed at the litany of abandoned products, dead-end acquisitions, and failed standards Microsoft has pursued in its quest for a rich, multimedia, client-side experience. Each of these failed for many reasons. A few examples from this sordid history:

DirectX Media was an ActiveX pass-through that let Mickey Mouse's head to flip around in 3-D, smack-dab in the center of your webpage. Anyone who used a PeeCee in the heady days of IE4 and its 'Channels' will remember this. In traditional Microsoft form, use of DirectX Media was mandatory for websites seeking optimal placement of within IE's Channel Bar. DXMedia was difficult to use, unstable, and not cross platform. Microsoft soon abandoned its Channels strategy, and after lingering a while under the guise of CHROME (anyone remember that?) DXMedia was abandoned as well.

Instead the focus shifted to the browser itself: DHTML. There was a time when MS wanted Trident (the rendering engine for IE) to become the presentation layer for Windows. "Everything should be HTML" was the drunken mantra of the day. Of course this flavor of HTML was proprietary, archaic in syntax, and submitted to the W3C as an afterthought; likewise its implemetation (the Trident engine) was slow, a memory hog,* and buggy as hell. But low and behold, you could write a playable Asteroids game using only DHTML and script, so it must be the future of multimedia, yes?

* In computer science, the tradeoff between size and speed is common: sacrificing gain in one for loss in the other. Yet MS continues to fly in the face of conventional wisdom by sacrificing both in exchange for... what?

Alas, Trident and its sizable ambitions were eventually laid to rest, but not before we saw HTML-based UI infiltrate many corners of Windows, Office, Money, and other MS products. Want to know the #1 reason behind Windows 98's outlandish memory requirements and stability problems? One word: Trident. Anyone who's been foolish enough to use the (Over-)ActiveDesktop on a PeeCee knows the troubles of which I speak. Now the 'Soft is working on a completely new rendering engine/presentation layer designed to catch-up with Quartz. HTML-as-catch-all-mutltimedia/UI-layer is dead.

With the advent of Mozilla (an honest, W3C-approved implementation) we all know where DHTML satnds today. Interesting? Sure. Useful at times? Yes. A competitor to Flash? Certainly not. During all of this, the good folks at Macromedia kept plugging away, keeping Flash focused, small, and portable.

Continuing to search for an alternative, Microsoft discounted SVG as an invention of Adobe (which it is). Instead they introduced an incompatible 'standard' called VML (Vector Markup Language). For short while MS considered cosidered VML a stategic mutltimedia initiative; it was submitted to the W3C, and heavily used by the CHROME team. In reality, VML was created to solve a radically different problem. The Office team was trying to add 'full' HTML persistence to .doc files in Office 2000. A careful inspection of the VML standard will show it bears a remarkable resemblance to Windows' GDI graphics calls... which just happened to be the way Office documents persisted snapshots of embedded content (spreadsheets, charts, etc.). VML's multimedia plans were abandoned with CHROME, but it'll live on in Office 'til the end of time. 'Nuff said.

Last I heard, Microsoft's multimedia eggs were in the SMIL basket (SMIL = Syncrhonized Multimedia Integration Languagem, another W3C spec). In fact, MS acquired and introduced a product with SMIL authoring in mind, only to turn it into an authoring environment for PowerPoint.

And ultimately, this last example demonstrates a common thread at the root of its many failures in this space: Microsoft does not wish to enter the multimedia authoring space.

Unless it directly benefits Windows or Office, there just isn't enough money in it to justify Microsoft's effort. At one point, the Windows Media Division presented an ambitious plan to popularize its media formats by building a suite of authoring tools; the plan was rejected for this exact reason. Visual Studio (another authoring environment) lost money for many, many years before becoming profitable. But this loss was tolerated since it created a market of applications for Windows.

ANYWAY, let me wander back to the original point: despite its many attempts, Microsoft's scattershot responses have not unseated the king of web multimedia: Flash. So why didn't Microsoft acquired Macromedia sooner? Why wait all this time? A few reasons

1. Not invented here. Microsoft would've preferred to develop a solution in-house.
2. Fear of multimedia authoring as unprofitable (actually, not-profitable-enough for Microsoft's liking).
3. Multimedia has always been a relatively low priority for Microsoft; its real focus over the past several years has been penetrating the server space with NT and killing Java with .NET.

Okay, so why the change of heart? If the acquisition rumors are true (and I believe they are), what has changed? What does MS see in Macromedia now that they didn't before?

1. Macromedia has moved far beyond the multimedia authoring space. With the acquisition of ColdFusion, they started competing in an area where Microsoft still feels threatened. (ColdFusion has given folks in the Visual Studio team fits for years).
2. Flash has cross-browser and cross-platform penetration & functionality that no other rich browser technology has yet achieved. Hundreds of millions of people use it, and Microsoft loves to control widely-popular, dominant technologies.
3. Flash today is about much more than the client. Microsoft looks at the combination of Flash, the Remoting & Communication Servers, then ColdFusion and its integration with Java on the back-end and sees one thing: a popular, end-to-end (client to webserver to business logic) solution in which the 'Soft controls nothing. No browser control (DHTML is bypassed with Flash), no language control (ActionScript and Java will do just fine), no server control (IIS and .NET aren't mandatory) and no OS control (many of these products don't require Windows).
As if this were unbearable enough, there's a final nail in the coffin:
4. Flash MX does cross-platform video streaming and conferencing. With its pentration, Flash sits on the cusp of becoming the solution for broadband web authoring. Unlike standalone clients, Flash builds everything into the plugin. And Flash MX takes care of webcam and audio configuration for you, seamlessly, on both Macs and PeeCees. And all this A/V goodness happens without using a single Windows Media codec or server. Ouch.

Before ending this far-too-long post, let me conclude with my top 5 predictions should Microsoft acquire Macromedia:

1. All Macromedia server products are kept or become Windows-only.
2. Multimedia authoring tools remain Mac & Windows.
3. Java support is dropped from all products (or becomes "J#", aka Java .NET).
4. The bulk of Flash Communication server becomes part of the Windows Media product line. All Flash audio & video becomes Windows Media-based.
5. Flash is annointed the chosen front-end for .NET development.

As you may have guessed, Microsoft acquiring Macromedia is not something I feel would benefit the computer industry at large. Yet I personally doubt the acquisition will happen, as it would be an awfully bold move in light of recent antitrust business. As a Mac user, I hope my prediction is more than wishful thinking.

That's all, folks.

[macktheknife]

Originally posted by dglow
As you may have guessed, Microsoft acquiring Macromedia is not something I feel would benefit the computer industry at large. Yet I personally doubt the acquisition will happen, as it would be an awfully bold move in light of recent antitrust business. As a Mac user, I hope my prediction is more than wishful thinking.

That's all, folks.

<Sigh.> :( I agree almost 100% with your assessment. I am pretty certain that Flash will become the front-end GUI for any web-based apps in the future, be it .NET or J2EE (if it isn't already). A Macromedia purchase by Microsoft would cost around $1 billion at most (see my previous post)--chump change for a company who has $40 billion in the vault.

Such an acquisition will put Microsoft directly in competition with Adobe--the current undisputed king of graphic software. Adobe, of course, is the entrenched leader in its industry, but the road to Microsoft's current dominance is littered with past defeated competitiors: Novell, Borland, Netscape, and Corel, just to name a few. If Microsoft does indeed buy Macromedia, don't be surprised if Windows 2004 suddenly comes bundled with a free graphics and web-authoring kit. Sounds absurd? Think Netscape.

BTW, I've noticed some confusion in some posts. Flash and J2EE have no direct connection per se. The Register speaks of Microsoft's threat to J2EE development with the purchase of Macromedia's ColdFusion. In addition to being a web animation tool, Flash is also a front-end GUI to web-based apps. The two issues are separate.

[Vanilla]

Apologies for being slightly off-topic.
I am a PC user currently considering switching to Mac. My main tools are Flash, Fireworks, Dreamweaver and Photoshop. On reading this thread I noted a number of people complaining how slow Flash is on a Mac (unsure whether this refers to the authoring tool, playback of SWF files, or both), which has me more than a little concerned.
My global query therefore is for someone that wishes to develop in Flash, which is the best platform, PC or Mac?
Thanx in advance for any advice submitted.
Vanilla

[zoetropeuk]

Apologies for being slightly off-topic.
I am a PC user currently considering switching to Mac. My main tools are Flash, Fireworks, Dreamweaver and Photoshop. On reading this thread I noted a number of people complaining how slow Flash is on a Mac (unsure whether this refers to the authoring tool, playback of SWF files, or both), which has me more than a little concerned.
My global query therefore is for someone that wishes to develop in Flash, which is the best platform, PC or Mac?
Thanx in advance for any advice submitted.

Developing for Flash is definitely faster and easier on a Mac. Playback is a little slower but this is only the case if you use Flash incorrectly. If you use actionscript for animation instead of tweening or traditional animation techniques then you will end up with slower playback. On the other hand, if you use Flash correctly then you should be able to create content that plays smoothly on both platforms.

[Vanilla]

Developing for Flash is definitely faster and easier on a Mac. Playback is a little slower but this is only the case if you use Flash incorrectly. If you use actionscript for animation instead of tweening or traditional animation techniques then you will end up with slower playback. On the other hand, if you use Flash correctly then you should be able to create content that plays smoothly on both platforms.

Thanx for the response zoetropeuk, albeit it wasnt what I wanted to hear!. Just to clarify, are you saying that authoring on a Mac is fine but that if your Flash environment is predominately ActionScript based it will run slower not only in preview mode on your Mac authoring system but also for users accessing the final site via a Mac?

If this is correct it seems I have two problems where I suspected I had only one, namely:
1. Extensive ActionScripting is inadvisable on a Mac authoring platform
2. Users accessing actionscripted Flash sites via Macs will have viewing problems.

This essentially means that only PC users can truly enjoy Flash environments that fully utilise the power of ActionScripting, which to be glib for a moment, rather puts a positive light on Microsofts supposed interest in Macromedia.

As I enjoy developing ActionScript controlled Flash Environments and my audience base is predominately corporate and (sadly)hence PC based it does seem best to remain on a PC authoring platform. This is pretty sad as I really like the look and feel of OS X and was looking forward to moving to what I perceived to be the natural environment for Flash.

This sounds a little weird and I'll investigate further before making a final judgement, but I appreciate your response.
Kind regards
Vanilla

[Foocha]

The Mac's Flash plugin is very slow with Action Script. The only way we've found around this is to detect Mac clients and set the image quality to low - this speeds things up, but is clearly a bit of a compromise.

There are many reasons why I would recommend a Mac over a PC for Web development, but Flash alone is not one of them. My advice would be to stick with what you know / what your business already uses unless you have a compelling reason to swith.