Com'on, Flash is already "standard" / fully documented & all. And ActionScript was supposed to become "JavaScript 2", Adobe worked with the standard bodies to standardize it as ECMAScript.... but nobody else seemed interested, so they eventually gave up. But a draft standard ECMAScript4 exists (much like a draft HTML5 exists:P ).
This decision is nothing about technical reasons, Apple didn't ban CS5's Flash2iPhone exporter because it doesn't work..... but because it DOES.
Check http://www.scribd.com/documents/30964170/Scribd-in-HTML5, it has a blue box to the right, with the title "Reading just got better", where you can switch to HTML5 mode (I'd really say "HTML mode" since it works in IE too.... the whole HTML5 vs Flash argument for Scribd is just flamebait/publicity stunt).
Furthermore, I find their "major reason" that HTML5 supports all the major points of the site's previous functionality to be a blatant lie. To give one example - ok, HTML5 supports webfonts... but how exactly are you going to license the fonts from Adobe (or any other font foundry that doesn't give away the font for free)?
Don't get me wrong: the ability to select, search (*) and so on is great, and could be a very good reason per se to switch. But I don't think that the solution is to flame things up.... just go the Google way, they added HTML5 video on youtube (where possible(!) ) and didn't make so much fuss about scrapping a plugin that enabled them to have a business in the first place.
I'm pretty sure that this is going to backfire for scribd in the future, as they have set some not-so-realistic expectations with their messaging, in the hopes of getting lots of publicity. This whole HTML5 craze reminds me of the similar period when XML was fashionable and thought (by some) that it will replace SQL databases, and would become the universal-good-for-all-storage-format. Guess what, Oracle is still around:)
(*) Search doesn't really work in my experience... check http://www.scribd.com/documents/30964170/Scribd-in-HTML5. If you select text in a box you can then search (& find stuff in that box), but not in all boxes; for instance, try searching "me three".
You have to use it... it's actually very useful - at least for a n00b like me:) (but I'm sure it saves time for a "pro", too; I only played with it for a few minutes on a colleague's computer, at work). Sure, it won't work directly on all situations, but you quickly grasp what it takes for it to work. For example, in the case of the penguins, I can bet that I could've removed them all in less than a minute (and remember that I have no artistic bone in my body). Just start right-to-left, make an approximate freeform selection for each penguin and press the "del" key; if not perfect the first time, re-select the artifacts and "delete" them again. I haven't worked with GIMP, but from what I saw in an online demo, it's slightly more cumbersome to use. You can get similar results with it, too... but hey, if you're willing to put in the time, I'm told you can get similar results with the "clone brush":) (so yes, there's probably nothing you can do with PS that you can't do with GIMP, it's just that you'll probably do it quicker with PS).
You see, the issue is that Adobe's reader ALREADY HAS this protection. It always did! Try reading the "researcher's" (notice the quotes) so-called attack, use a version of Adobe Reader however old, and see how it works - guess what, you get a warning telling you that the PDF is trying to execute code and you should only allow it in case you trust it.
Read the report people, this is a non-issue where Adobe's name was only mentioned because it is fashionable to bash Adobe for whatever "security" issues (saying Foxit had a security issue - because it did! - would not have been news; but put Adobe too in the press release - now you have something that people will read! ).
Well, but SWF format is open, did you know that? You're free to do your own player today. In fact some people are trying now to run SWF files in HTML5 (effectively a player made using HTML5 technologies - see http://paulirish.com/work/gordon/demos/ ) So your analogy is backfiring... if "text is open whyle AppleWorks is not", Adobe can say the very same thing: "SWF is open format, Flex SDK is open source, only Flash Player and Flash Pro are not". As for Webkit being open-source.... it's the engine of Safari, right? Safari is not. open-source, right? Now let's see... the engine of Flash Player is Tamarin. Flash Player is not open-source, but Tamarin itself *IS*.
What a surprise.... guess Adobe is just as open (scratch that, sorry, it's much more open... they don't restrict what you can and cannot run on their platform).
Actually, the first cellular mobile phones were as big as a brick as well; I wouldn't say that this was a "technical error", again, it's a failure of marketing to recognize that they wouldn't sell. And even the phone wasn't the biggest problem; the problem was the huge cost to make a phonecall... it was simply prohibitive. Had it been reasonably cheap, I'm sure there woulb've been plenty of uses (if only for enabling people in isolate places, adventurers, ship & oil platform crew etc. to communicate).
I don't get it, how does it "transcode" the VIDEO PLAYER? The main reason Youtube doesn't deliver all video through the tag is that some videos require overlays (e.g. for subtitles, or ads). The main reason why Hulu delivers video through Flash is (I think) DRM. How do they work around this? It's not about the video stream they need the video player itself (which is written in Flash) - so the only viable solution would be something like what Opera Mini does... but they don't seem to say they are doing this.
It's very good, except that it's wrong. Apple did know about the iPhone packager, of course (there are approved apps in the AppStroe built with the prerelease versions of it, and Adobe has been bragging about it for a while) - and they did nothing to hint they would prevent it, up till the very last second. (banning "interpreted code" does not count, the iPhone packager did not create interpreted code)
"Adobe tried to compete with Macromedia by supporting web standards instead of Flash; after Macromedia kicked their ass due to the much faster development cycle (they were not constrained by any standards comitee), they learned the lesson, acquired Macromedia and did the development no their own". Take a look at Apple... the only HTML5 standard they are supporting is the one already implemented in Webkit (coincidentally, it's their own platform). Sure, they've put up a "standards group" to make it seem like they care about others think, but the WHATWG standard is really "what Apple thinks best suits their interest".
I'm curious though how long it will take until browsers start becoming "CPU hogs", and "flash crashed my browser window" turns into "javascript/canvas/svg/whatever crashed my browser window" (or the full browser, depending on how good the browser implementation is.
(oh, btw, about multi-platform and "Mac users being second-hand citizens because Adobe is evil".... I hear that Safari implementation on Windows is pretty crappy compared to Mac. And how's Safari doing on Linux, does anybody care to tell me?:) )
Oh yes, can't wait the moment when all the flash haters/html5 lovers will get to have obnoxious ads written in HTML5. And probably harder to block by something as simple as "click to flash". I see Steve is really pushing for that. Yay for standards-compliant advertising !
Well... let's see what they understand by "fixing it" in FoxIt: they now give the warning dialog that Adobe's reader already gave.... except that for Adobe the default is "do not open" while for the "fixed" FoxIt the default is "open". Yeah, much more secure than Adobe, clearly....
In other news, let me remind you that all your web browsers are insecure: Someone can use "social engineering" techniques to get you to visit a web page, download a binary from there (trojan, maybe), and execute it. All you need to do is click a link, answer "Yes, run!" to the warning dialogs, and BAM! you're infected. Quite similar with this PDF "exploit", in fact.. So stop using your web browser, it exposes you to a serious security vulerability.... even if you disable Javascript!:D
It's amazing how many people from Slashdot are better at marketing and pricing than Adobe's executives. And yet, last time I checked Adobe turned in a nice profit.... people are still buying CS4 despite the fact that CS5 is about to launch;)
Slashdot Mirror
You've got it all wrong. on step 2. Solving for N gives:
P!=NP -> N=P!/P -> N = (P-1)!
See? Simple. Now if I only know how to profit from this....
I think I read somewhere that Apple decided that they won't fire him, instead as a punishment he would be relocated to Apple's office in Vietnam.
Fair enough. :P
On the other hand.... do you think that Scroogle really gets more than 1000 searches per day?
By your own argument - would you characterize Flash as "open"? AFAIK the Flash compiler + the FLEX SDK is open-source.
Com'on, Flash is already "standard" / fully documented & all. And ActionScript was supposed to become "JavaScript 2", Adobe worked with the standard bodies to standardize it as ECMAScript.... but nobody else seemed interested, so they eventually gave up. But a draft standard ECMAScript4 exists (much like a draft HTML5 exists :P ).
This decision is nothing about technical reasons, Apple didn't ban CS5's Flash2iPhone exporter because it doesn't work..... but because it DOES.
There - fixed that for you.
Check http://www.scribd.com/documents/30964170/Scribd-in-HTML5, it has a blue box to the right, with the title "Reading just got better", where you can switch to HTML5 mode
(I'd really say "HTML mode" since it works in IE too.... the whole HTML5 vs Flash argument for Scribd is just flamebait/publicity stunt).
Furthermore, I find their "major reason" that HTML5 supports all the major points of the site's previous functionality to be a blatant lie. To give one example - ok, HTML5 supports webfonts... but how exactly are you going to license the fonts from Adobe (or any other font foundry that doesn't give away the font for free)?
Don't get me wrong: the ability to select, search (*) and so on is great, and could be a very good reason per se to switch. But I don't think that the solution is to flame things up.... just go the Google way, they added HTML5 video on youtube (where possible(!) ) and didn't make so much fuss about scrapping a plugin that enabled them to have a business in the first place.
I'm pretty sure that this is going to backfire for scribd in the future, as they have set some not-so-realistic expectations with their messaging, in the hopes of getting lots of publicity. This whole HTML5 craze reminds me of the similar period when XML was fashionable and thought (by some) that it will replace SQL databases, and would become the universal-good-for-all-storage-format. Guess what, Oracle is still around :)
(*) Search doesn't really work in my experience... check http://www.scribd.com/documents/30964170/Scribd-in-HTML5. If you select text in a box you can then search (& find stuff in that box), but not in all boxes; for instance, try searching "me three".
You have to use it... it's actually very useful - at least for a n00b like me :) (but I'm sure it saves time for a "pro", too; I only played with it for a few minutes on a colleague's computer, at work). :) (so yes, there's probably nothing you can do with PS that you can't do with GIMP, it's just that you'll probably do it quicker with PS).
Sure, it won't work directly on all situations, but you quickly grasp what it takes for it to work. For example, in the case of the penguins, I can bet that I could've removed them all in less than a minute (and remember that I have no artistic bone in my body). Just start right-to-left, make an approximate freeform selection for each penguin and press the "del" key; if not perfect the first time, re-select the artifacts and "delete" them again.
I haven't worked with GIMP, but from what I saw in an online demo, it's slightly more cumbersome to use. You can get similar results with it, too... but hey, if you're willing to put in the time, I'm told you can get similar results with the "clone brush"
You see, the issue is that Adobe's reader ALREADY HAS this protection. It always did! Try reading the "researcher's" (notice the quotes) so-called attack, use a version of Adobe Reader however old, and see how it works - guess what, you get a warning telling you that the PDF is trying to execute code and you should only allow it in case you trust it.
Read the report people, this is a non-issue where Adobe's name was only mentioned because it is fashionable to bash Adobe for whatever "security" issues (saying Foxit had a security issue - because it did! - would not have been news; but put Adobe too in the press release - now you have something that people will read! ).
Well, but SWF format is open, did you know that? You're free to do your own player today. In fact some people are trying now to run SWF files in HTML5 (effectively a player made using HTML5 technologies - see http://paulirish.com/work/gordon/demos/ )
So your analogy is backfiring... if "text is open whyle AppleWorks is not", Adobe can say the very same thing: "SWF is open format, Flex SDK is open source, only Flash Player and Flash Pro are not".
As for Webkit being open-source.... it's the engine of Safari, right? Safari is not. open-source, right?
Now let's see... the engine of Flash Player is Tamarin. Flash Player is not open-source, but Tamarin itself *IS*.
What a surprise.... guess Adobe is just as open (scratch that, sorry, it's much more open... they don't restrict what you can and cannot run on their platform).
Actually, the first cellular mobile phones were as big as a brick as well; I wouldn't say that this was a "technical error", again, it's a failure of marketing to recognize that they wouldn't sell.
And even the phone wasn't the biggest problem; the problem was the huge cost to make a phonecall... it was simply prohibitive. Had it been reasonably cheap, I'm sure there woulb've been plenty of uses (if only for enabling people in isolate places, adventurers, ship & oil platform crew etc. to communicate).
my father and hist twin brother (my uncle). Seriously.
Oh, so I guess people buy the iPad because HTML5 is ubiquitous *TODAY*, and nobody uses Flash
Ah, and because Hulu already launched its iPad app.
I don't get it, how does it "transcode" the VIDEO PLAYER? The main reason Youtube doesn't deliver all video through the tag is that some videos require overlays (e.g. for subtitles, or ads). The main reason why Hulu delivers video through Flash is (I think) DRM. How do they work around this? It's not about the video stream they need the video player itself (which is written in Flash) - so the only viable solution would be something like what Opera Mini does... but they don't seem to say they are doing this.
It's very good, except that it's wrong. Apple did know about the iPhone packager, of course (there are approved apps in the AppStroe built with the prerelease versions of it, and Adobe has been bragging about it for a while) - and they did nothing to hint they would prevent it, up till the very last second.
(banning "interpreted code" does not count, the iPhone packager did not create interpreted code)
Or another way to say it is:
"Adobe tried to compete with Macromedia by supporting web standards instead of Flash; after Macromedia kicked their ass due to the much faster development cycle (they were not constrained by any standards comitee), they learned the lesson, acquired Macromedia and did the development no their own".
Take a look at Apple... the only HTML5 standard they are supporting is the one already implemented in Webkit (coincidentally, it's their own platform). Sure, they've put up a "standards group" to make it seem like they care about others think, but the WHATWG standard is really "what Apple thinks best suits their interest".
I'm curious though how long it will take until browsers start becoming "CPU hogs", and "flash crashed my browser window" turns into "javascript/canvas/svg/whatever crashed my browser window" (or the full browser, depending on how good the browser implementation is.
(oh, btw, about multi-platform and "Mac users being second-hand citizens because Adobe is evil".... I hear that Safari implementation on Windows is pretty crappy compared to Mac. And how's Safari doing on Linux, does anybody care to tell me? :) )
Oh yes, can't wait the moment when all the flash haters/html5 lovers will get to have obnoxious ads written in HTML5. And probably harder to block by something as simple as "click to flash". I see Steve is really pushing for that. Yay for standards-compliant advertising !
Well... let's see what they understand by "fixing it" in FoxIt: they now give the warning dialog that Adobe's reader already gave.... except that for Adobe the default is "do not open" while for the "fixed" FoxIt the default is "open". Yeah, much more secure than Adobe, clearly.... In other news, let me remind you that all your web browsers are insecure: Someone can use "social engineering" techniques to get you to visit a web page, download a binary from there (trojan, maybe), and execute it. All you need to do is click a link, answer "Yes, run!" to the warning dialogs, and BAM! you're infected. Quite similar with this PDF "exploit", in fact.. So stop using your web browser, it exposes you to a serious security vulerability.... even if you disable Javascript! :D
Name one successful Flash exploit out there. I could name several in the core windows services... Conficker, for one.
It's amazing how many people from Slashdot are better at marketing and pricing than Adobe's executives. And yet, last time I checked Adobe turned in a nice profit.... people are still buying CS4 despite the fact that CS5 is about to launch ;)