Slashdot Mirror


Adobe Is Killing Contribute, Director, and Shockwave (venturebeat.com)

Reader Krystalo writes: Adobe today announced Adobe Contribute and Adobe Director will no longer be for sale nor supported as of February 1, 2017. At the same time, Adobe is also stopping Shockwave for Mac updates and support on March 14, 2017 after the last release of the product. The reason Adobe gives for the death of Contribute and Director is simple: The company's customers are embracing "the new features and efficiencies offered by Creative Cloud." As for Shockwave, its content is made with Director, so the company is merely tying up loose ends. It's about time.

58 comments

  1. That's a start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Now let's get Adobe to kill Flash, and then the entire company.

    1. Re:That's a start by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I wish they'd offer both a CC AND stand alone license of their products.

      Seems they'd cover all their bases with that, as that there are still a lot of holdouts that do not want to rent their software.

      I'm still holding at their CS6 suite of tools...while there have been some nice additions to like Photoshop, there's nothing that radical that I can't still do in CS6 for the most part.

      I'm working a lot with the Affinity Photo, and even their Affinity Designer....both are about 98% of what Adobe offers in PS and AI...and I gotta say, AF is quite a bit faster and less of a resource hog than PS, and the updates are free, and is a stand alone license.

      I like Adobe products, but I am still not able to allow myself to go for the rental model.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:That's a start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Flash isn't going away. It's just changed it's audience. Flash is the premier animation creation tool and it's used to make most of the animated shows you see today.

      You know all those kids that cut their teeth making animations on newgrounds a decade ago? Now they're grown up and they do it for a living.

    3. Re:That's a start by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Very much this. Adobe had a good run, when they invented Postscript and later PDF and they had some good tools. By now, they are just lingering around as an utterly incompetent tech-zombie that needs to die.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:That's a start by quetwo · · Score: 2

      Other than the money grab of reoccuring licensing, there's another reason why they can't do a "rent" and "own" on the same product line is because of Sarbanes-Oxley. Essentially, when you create a software version, you book R&D costs against that version. So, you make version 11.0, and it takes you three years to make that version, you book all of your costs against that version. You then identify features and push it out. When people buy that new version, you then report revenue against that version and you start to book new R&D against the future version. What that means is you need to create demarcations in the sand of what features ship with which versions, and generally you have to set timetables against those versions.

      With the way Adobe is doing the cloud versions, they changed their revenue model. They are able to book R&D against current monthly income and book revenue against current product. This allows them to do continual development and continual deployment on their products. People don't have to wait for the next version to get the next feature, and there isn't a huge rush to get new features in by X date in order to ship. It stabilizes the workload of R&D across the year, and makes it so you don't have huge pushes every 18 months to get everything done.

      Now, Adobe could make two product lines like Microsoft does (Office vs. Office 365 for example) that share a common code base, but that does make it harder, to book development costs correctly.

      You can thank Enron and Worldcom for these rules....

    5. Re: That's a start by BLToday · · Score: 2

      Adobe does have both a rent and standalone license for Lightroom. They're just using that accounting rule as justification and forcing people onto a rental model.

    6. Re:That's a start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The great thing about alternative facts is that you can make up anything you want, not be held accountable, and some people will believe you every time. Must feel empowering.

    7. Re:That's a start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but most of the animated shows I watch are of Japanese origin! pretty sure they've never touched Flash.

  2. Why does Shockwave exist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why did Shockwave ever exist? I don't understand what the differences between it and Flash were.

    1. Re:Why does Shockwave exist? by ZorinLynx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My memory is hazy, but Flash was a subset of Shockwave that was optimized for the web.

      I vaguely remember it being called "Shockwave Flash" for a brief time.

      Of course, it's been a while so I could be wrong. :)

    2. Re:Why does Shockwave exist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      That seems right. Back in the day it seemed that Macromedia Flash was used for animations while Macromedia Shockwave was used for games.
      I miss the Shockwave Machine.

    3. Re:Why does Shockwave exist? by EvilSS · · Score: 2

      Why did Shockwave ever exist? I don't understand what the differences between it and Flash were.

      To be a malware vector that everyone forgets about seems to be it's main purpose these days. "Our Flash plugins are always up to date!" "Yea, what about shockwave?" "Shock-what?" Scans machines "It's only 5 years out of date, so not the worse I've seen."

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    4. Re:Why does Shockwave exist? by idontusenumbers · · Score: 2

      Shockwave was a brand that macromedia had. It was used to describe the web viewers and players they had for all their software. There was Shockwave Flash (SWF ring a bell?), Shockwave Director, and Shockwave Freehand. The branding was understandably confusing and they simplified it later to just Shockwave player (the browser plugin to view content created in Director) and Flash player (the browser plugin to view content created in Flash). The Freehand plugin died quickly; it was replaced with the ability to export Freehand documents to SWF (flash) directly.

    5. Re:Why does Shockwave exist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yep. Hence the ".swf" extension.

    6. Re:Why does Shockwave exist? by avandesande · · Score: 2

      I actually used to make a living with Director a few decades ago. There was a period when interactive CDs were really popular (at least to sell as a service. I don't think anyone actually watched any of them). We made things like training modules to go with stuff like printers or complex animated sales presentations. Shockwave was an attempt to provide a plug-in to play Director content in a browser.

      Flash was a completely different product and code base...

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    7. Re:Why does Shockwave exist? by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      No. They kind of pretended it was, but it was actually a completely separate product that Adobe acquired from a company called FutureSplash. Later on, they rolled it into the Shockwave plugin along with support for Shockwave for Director.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    8. Re:Why does Shockwave exist? by shadowknot · · Score: 2

      I attended college back in 2000, a "Multimedia" course that focused heavily on teaching us Director with the intention of sending us out into the world to create interactive CDs. It was the very tail end of the interactive CD era but I always enjoyed using Director. Shockwave games were awesome for browser-based games in the early 2000's when compared to their Flash cousins.

    9. Re:Why does Shockwave exist? by adolf · · Score: 3, Informative

      Close, gramps.

      Macromedia, the company who had a presentation product called Director and a browser plugin called Shockwave for Director, bought Flash (and the rest of FutureSplash) in 1996.

      Adobe then bought Macromedia in 2005 for $3.4 billion.

  3. Flash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    As a courtesy to everyone they could discontinue Flash, too.

    1. Re:Flash by OzPeter · · Score: 2

      As a courtesy to everyone they could discontinue Flash, too.

      Then who would be the savior of the universe?

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:Flash by Briareos · · Score: 1

      Kid Flash - duh.

      --

      "I'm not anti-anything, I'm anti-everything, it fits better." - Sole

  4. Contribute by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    At the time, Contribute was a decent idea which, unsurprisingly, Adobe implemented badly. The idea, though, was to provide a way to allow non-technical people to directly maintain web pages containing information they know about, without hitting them with too much complexity and also limiting what they were allowed to edit. A payroll manager, for instance, could keep payroll policies on an intranet page up to date without having to know how Dreamweaver worked.

    With the proliferation of Content Management Systems nowadays, the need for something like Contribute is waning. The thing that CMSes don't really do very well (compared to Contribute), though, is permissions lockdown.

    It's typical of Adobe, in any case, to say "you don't need this inexpensive product anymore - just buy lots of expensive subscriptions to Creative Cloud for everyone!"

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Contribute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MS Office products are ubiquitous in environments where you'd want a payroll manager updaing a policy page. MSFT SharePoint fills the niche and, from what I've seen, has pretty much taken over the intranet publishing market.

    2. Re:Contribute by ls671 · · Score: 1

      As for Director, I first thought that they had fired their director...

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  5. Speaking of starts... by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yeah, Adobe. Just finished dealing with them this morning. And by "finished", I mean finished.

    I just set up a Mac with MacOS Sierra 10.12, and attempted to install my copy of Photoshop CS5. Sierra advised me to throw the installer in the trash. Seriously. That's the dialog I got. Adobe "support" told me "not compatible with 10.12", and also "there is no fix or upgrade" other than enter into a permanent wallet-sucking fest for their "subscription" based product. No. Not a chance.

    So, that's the end of a multi-hundred dollar investment. Thanks, Adobe. Also, thanks, Apple. Whoever is responsible for the idiocy. Both, perhaps.

    Well. So I'm screwed, right?

    Not necessarily.

    I know a "little bit" about image manipulation from making Windows image manipulation software. I'm retired, and previously really lacked the motivation to build an image manipulation app of my own for the Mac. Previously.

    Insofar as my own needs go, I can definitely handle this, and in fairly short order, too. Others might end up benefitting as well. We will see.

    Surely just an empty claim, amiright?

    Well, take a Look: My bonafides begin right here.

    Let's just see how many of those features I can move over from my (mostly very portable) existing image manipulation code. And how quick. Today serves as the starting line. Assuming age doesn't kick me nipples north in the short term, and no other unforeseen disaster shows its ugly face, I expect to be raising my figurative middle finger in Adobe's direction quite soon as these things go.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Speaking of starts... by m-kirkcaldie · · Score: 4, Informative

      Uh, Photoshop CS5 runs perfectly well on Sierra, I use it daily (along with Illustrator CS5) on 10.12.3. Sierra offers to trash installers after installation as a matter of routine. Feel free to write a Photoshop killer if you must, but not because you can't use perfectly functional software.

    2. Re:Speaking of starts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What issue did you run into specifically? Adobe even has instructions for installing on CS 5 on sierra.

      Older versions like CS5 can run on Sierra if you install the legacy Java Runtime from here: https://support.apple.com/kb/dl1572?locale=en_US

      For instructions on installing older versions of Creative Suite on Sierra: https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-cloud/kb/install-creative-suite-mac-os-sierra.html

    3. Re:Speaking of starts... by OzPeter · · Score: 2

      Let's just see how many of those features I can move over from my (mostly very portable) existing image manipulation code. And how quick. Today serves as the starting line. Assuming age doesn't kick me nipples north in the short term, and no other unforeseen disaster shows its ugly face, I expect to be raising my figurative middle finger in Adobe's direction quite soon as these things go.

      In other words you want to compete with people like Affinity Photo which sells for $US40 or even The GIMP. Both of which are mature projects. So what are you going to do to differentiate yourself in the market?

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    4. Re:Speaking of starts... by quetwo · · Score: 1

      So, your complaint is that software you bought 8 - 10 years ago won't run on the most modern operating system without a bit of fidgeting? Oh, and you are pissed at the company you haven't bought anything from in that amount of time won't make it instantly compatible for you? You do realize that version is 6 version behind now, and it was designed for an OS that is now 7 versions behind now too.

      I need to try calling up Microsoft to see how well IE 6 installs on Windows 10. I'm sure it will work just as well. Or maybe Apple with the older version of Final Cut...

    5. Re:Speaking of starts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, the problem is that Adobe wants to force you into their subscription model. This is not about the age of his software.

      And if you think subscriptions are no big deal, there are early termination clauses for these annual subscriptions. I just got hit with a $100 credit card charge because my daughter's dingbat college professor bought into the annual plan when the class is one semester. Fine, I'll eat the cost because an agreement was entered into.

      But the point is to look at the bigger picture for proprietary software and let this sink in for a minute...software with early termination fees just like your cell phone.

    6. Re:Speaking of starts... by Daltorak · · Score: 2

      Yeah, Adobe. Just finished dealing with them this morning. And by "finished", I mean finished.

      I just set up a Mac with MacOS Sierra 10.12, and attempted to install my copy of Photoshop CS5. Sierra advised me to throw the installer in the trash. Seriously. That's the dialog I got. Adobe "support" told me "not compatible with 10.12", and also "there is no fix or upgrade" other than enter into a permanent wallet-sucking fest for their "subscription" based product. No. Not a chance.

      I hear your frustration, but don't lose sight of the fact that this is actually on Apple for failing to ensure their operating system is compatible with some of its most commonly-used products.

      Back in the day, the Classic -> 10 and PPC -> Intel transitions were pitched to us as necessary one-time jumps to ensure the future health of the Mac. And we could accept it because we could see that we were talking about fundamentally different operating systems and fundamentally different hardware architectures. There's no justification for Mac OS X 10.6 software not working on macOS 10.12... they aren't fundamentally different. For the most part, it's just some API differences. Apple just doesn't really give a shit about backwards compatibility, simple as that.

      Also, it has to be said: Adobe CS5 is known to work on the latest versions of Windows 10 with the exception of Premiere. Microsoft sinks a lot of time and effort into ensuring software that runs on Windows 7 continues to do so under Windows 10.

    7. Re:Speaking of starts... by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      There's quite a bit I can do differently, for one thing - such as far more and far more functional layer modes. Been there, done that - but for the other, who says I'm going to be marketing it? This isn't about competition in the marketplace. This is about "Screw me? No, screw you." I just said others might benefit, that's all.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    8. Re:Speaking of starts... by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Sierra refused to run the installer. Pretty straight up. I linked to a screencap of the problem.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    9. Re:Speaking of starts... by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      It may run as an upgrade or something, or by jumping through some hoops I was not informed of, but when I went to install it, I was not given the opportunity to let the installer run by the OS, so that was a pretty solid roadblock in this fresh install of 10.12. And Adobe tech support straight-up told me it wouldn't work. So that leaves three possibilities: They are lying; they are ignorant; or you are wrong.

      I expect the vendor of a particular bit of software to be informed, and to inform me clearly in turn. Do you think that's out of line?

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    10. Re:Speaking of starts... by m-kirkcaldie · · Score: 1

      Right, so your guesswork trumps my actual experience. Would you like screenshots or something? I guess those could be faked too. Maybe I'm a secret shill for software that can no longer be purchased. One can never be too careful.

    11. Re:Speaking of starts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Runs perfectly? Screw that.

      If you attempt to launch a CS5 product from the GUI, you'll receive an error message that the app requires Java SE 6. Your options are to either install Java or launch the apps from the command line.

    12. Re:Speaking of starts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically, you don't need the Java runtime installed. You can launch the apps from the command line. It's just a hassle. You may be able to script around that, but I never bothered trying.

    13. Re:Speaking of starts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've just installed CS4 on Sierra with no hitch at all.

      Much as I dislike Adobe, I have to say I am amazed that Director still exists. I was using this in the early 90s and hadn't thought it survived the demise of Macromind. So Adobe's support of longevity software is double-edged. I have huge issues with the way Indesign would be incompatible two version bumps up or down. Maybe things have changed since CS5. I can't abide their rental model so stopped at 5.

    14. Re:Speaking of starts... by m-kirkcaldie · · Score: 1

      This has been the case for at least 3-4 years, ever since Apple stopped including the JRE on OS X / macOS installs. It's nothing Adobe did, the application has been unchanged and perfectly stable for that entire time. More than I can say for Microsoft Word, to pick a random example.

    15. Re:Speaking of starts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1993 called; they want their web design back.

    16. Re:Speaking of starts... by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      Right, so your guesswork trumps my actual experience.

      Well, if Adobe can't tell people how to do it and you can't tell people how to do it then your actual experience means jack diddly.

      Would you like screenshots or something?

      Yes. Installation instructions with a screenshot walkthrough. Thanks for offering.

      Maybe I'm a secret shill for software that can no longer be purchased.

      Definitely you're equally useless as of the quoted reply. But there's room for improvement.

  6. Dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Adobe has been dying (at least in my eyes) since the implementation of subscription based products. Also.. make a fucking linux version...

  7. Eventually they will learn... by jpellino · · Score: 1

    but when? When they collapse? They didn't learn from the Xcode / Intel debacle, they haven't learned from grinding machines to dust with CC (10 daemons, 50+ threads for background?!) They need self-contained standalone apps. They are the reason I suggest Pages, GIMP Acorn Pixelmator with PS / ID as a (very) last resort. PS5 was the last thing I bought with my own money. Bigger is not always better.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  8. Old versions for super cheap by sixsixtysix · · Score: 1

    There's still no reason for them not to sell older versions for super cheap. CS6 should be like $50 at this point. It's not like they have to offer support or anything.
    As a pirate of their software going back to PS3, that's about the only way they'd get me to pay.
    The same goes for windows. I only recently bought my first legit copy(sans pre-install on laptops and the only non-self-built, a Compaq back in 98) of 7 to upgrade to 10, because I bought the key off G2A for under $30.
    If you want to compare digital IP to physical goods, then the prices should depreciate like a motherfucker.

    --
    ...
  9. Cat got your tongue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Adobe killed Director since long time ago not really something that is a geek news, but a designer dept news.

    Director was the big daddy for made multimedia presentations that even popped up in CD musics that added it as a bonus if played in PC. The trouble? "big daddy" is the name of the game, your presentation ended gobbling even a whole CD and writing apps like a game of a calendar were really impossible to do as you need to buy "actions". You pay for extend the code of Director and Flash and other Adobe products (an idea that comes back from things like visual basic). So when Flash come with a decent (in the time) proposal, around V5-V8 people jumped to Flash and never looked back.

    Before bash me about the hell that is flash, imagine a "language" where you call all your variables "actors", all your functions "performance" and the main code "stage". Yes, director used these gimmicks for code and used a worst timeline-workflow than flash (!!!) as you needed to put your things in different windows and communicate them using extra code. I think that i have a license and some apps for Director 4 and really I dunno use again that thing, as all these were ported to flash.

    Director was a zombie that died decades ago and finally Adobe took it an put it in a coffin. Next is Flash.

  10. Slashdot's AC provides the key. Read at 0! by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    For instructions on installing older versions of Creative Suite on Sierra:

    Yes, this was correct; it didn't solve everything, but with that in hand, above to point out to their customer service that they had a page on it, I got Adobe to get me the rest of the way. Then, installing the "legacy java" from Oracle handled the rest.

    Guess it was really a good idea to blow a huge bitch here. :)

    Thank you very much.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  11. It's bitztream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the autism-hating, custom EpiPen-hating, Musk-hating Slashdot troll!

  12. It's bitztream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the autism-hating, Musk-hating, custom EpiPen-hating, Slashdot troll!

  13. I did not know it was still around by Barabul · · Score: 1

    I used Macromedia Director extensively about 15 years ago. It had a scripting language called lingo, with a few unique features. It supported an old syntax, something like "set the visible of sprite 10 to true", and a new syntax, more like "sprite(10).visible = true". While most usual statements could be expressed in any way, some statements could only be expressed in the old syntax, and some other statements only in the new syntax. Worse even, there were a few corner cases where a statement written in the old syntax behaved slightly different from its new syntax counterpart. For example, the old syntax would return 0 while the new syntax would throw an error, I can't remember the exact details, but something like that, so you'd have to be very careful. It took me more than a year, maybe two, to find and work around many of these idiosyncrasies. It was, simply put, awful. It also had many bugs, some of them reported and not fixed for years.

    1. Re:I did not know it was still around by azav · · Score: 1

      We worked our asses off to make Director not awful in 1994 - 1998. After that, the team was shuffled off to the basement and then the product shipped off to India and they fucking destroyed it.

      --
      - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
  14. It's bitztream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that autism-hating, custom EpiPen-hating, Musk-hating Slashdot troll!

  15. So..... by BitztreamNotARealNam · · Score: 1

    How's life in the hypocrite lane?

  16. No one should bring up Trump here by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    No, my guesswork was precisely accurate. Adobe told me the upgrade would not run. They were either ignorant or uninformed, and, the way to get this to run, according to their own web pages, was to go inside the installer bundle and execute code from within the MacOS section of the bundle directly as well as downloading Oracle's legacy Java support, which is exactly what I meant when I said "jumping through hoops I was not informed of." Neither the installer or Sierra suggested any such thing, nor did you.

    Also, whether Sierra "offers to trash installers as a matter of routine" isn't the issue: The issue was that Sierra refused to run the installer. Advice is one thing. Refusal is something else entirely.

    All's well, though, as other posts pointed me to the procedure required, and it worked. I appreciate that.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  17. Director made my career. by azav · · Score: 1

    I'll miss it so much.

    --
    - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...