Alex, Well, as far as Apple is concerned on that end, it was kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. They said people can live without SWFs, and then used their clout to force everyone to recreate their content without Flash, so the content was still there in some handicapped form, but it was a passable solution that people could get by with. If Jobs hadn't released his "I Hate Flash" manifesto, I highly doubt it would have happened on its own just because "People can live without SWFs."
Nick On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > On 10/30/13 7:38 AM, "Tom Chiverton" <t...@extravision.com> wrote: > > >On 29/10/2013 17:02, Alex Harui wrote: > >> to debug and test on all of the various browsers and platforms out > >>there. > >> It was doable at one point in time, but with the explosion of mobile > >That was what the Open Screen Project was meant to achieve, I thought, > >outsourcing the Player development to the respective distributors- much > >like what happened waaaay back with Flash on the Maemo Nokia's. > Yup, and again this is just my opinion and not Adobe's position, I think > that there was never a Flash SWF that folks "had to have" such that there > was fear that your device wouldn't sell if it couldn't run it. So I'm not > sure enough device manufacturers signed up. Even Google seems to have > bugs specific to Pepper Flash Players. And Apple gambled that folks could > live without SWFs and so far, have been right. > > In FlexJS, it is a desired outcome to be able to produce smaller and > faster SWFs such that someone can truly compare SWF apps vs JS apps. Flex > apps today are burdened by RSLs and big SWFs caused by lots of > "just-in-case" code. Then we'll see if there really is something about > Flash for applications (there clearly is something about Flash for > "immersive experiences" that leverage lots of the rendering features). > > -Alex > >
