It used to be bundled with Chrome somehow so if you really needed it, you had it. Now I just don't use it. If something requires Flash then well, too bad for me.
I can understand why, I feel like the Chrome team has announced 3 or 4 times over the last 5 years that Flash was going away, but the only change was that you had to click to play it, and the other announcements seemed useless.
I know of a very large company that has been over the last couple of years moving from Java to Flash, so it will be amusing to what their reaction will be to this news.
Supposedly upgrading the vSphere web interface to HTML5 is on the roadmap, but I'm not sure when. I'm just happy that they give you an external console app now.
Now that we're down to the last few sites running flash it really drives home what an annoyance they are. I don't run flash on my main browser (I work in security), so I have to keep Chrome handy to log into VMWare, and because even the login page is Flash there's little password manager support.
Then once I'm logged in the non-native styling and controls really drive me up the wall.
Although it's not clear from just a game being in Flash if it's in Haxe and compiled to Flash or actually in AS, but still. It's so convenient for games.
It was a path to programming for a lot of artistic minded kids who enjoy learning things on their own. They could start by slowly adding programming to animations until it became a game they could share with their friends. A lot of these people grew up into development jobs. I think if the barrier to learning was picking up ES6 and React or Unity before being able to make a functional game, a lot of them would not have gotten started.
Flash is one of the best workflows for animators ever. This is equivalent to Photoshop being EOL'd because Apple doesn't like the pictures you can make with it.
VMware vCenter's Web UI by default runs in Flash, even on the newest vCenter 6.5. There's an option for an HTML5 interface, but it's not feature-complete and is far buggier and laggier than the already buggy Flash client. ESXi 6.5's web interface is HTML5, and it appears to have a lot of common codebase with vCenter's HTML5 interface, but is far more mature and accessible. I hope that this gives VMware the kick in the pants to finally lose the Flash vCenter client and finish up the HTML5 version.
Just a couple of years ago, someone from EMC came to our data storage team and proudly announced their brand new interface, written in Flash. I laughed in his face when he said that.
That's amazing, I haven't used EMC much and didn't realize they used Flash for their interface also.
I (with protest) use Java UIs so much for configuring various networking gear (old Cisco MDS switches still in use, etc) that I have to have three Win7 VMs with different Java versions and settings to make sure I can access them all. At least using Flash for the UI makes it so I can access it on just about any machine with Flash enabled so I don't have to have crazy configs to get things working.
I totally agree. In the past week I deployed a new VMware cluster with vCenter, and found myself constantly wishing for the desktop client. A lot of the issues I had were related to bugs in the web interface itself, I had to SSH in to fix random things. Apparently, certain 'invalid' VM configurations can cause the web interface to error out completely until the VM is disassociated or edited, even on a brand new cluster. For VM stuff I can use Workstation to administrate them so I was able to change the VM settings from there, but for anything above individual VM control you pretty much need the web UI.
An awfull lot of UI component in desktop and mobile application seems to be using flash under the hood, and yes that is including games as well, but not just the "farm ville" type (world of tanks is a prime example).
Vmware, ADP, and Several Other very large Enterprise Vendors use Flash, Infact some of them just made a transitions from Java to Flash after Java announced the EOL of Web Browser Applets.
Tons of animators still use Flash, the tools are by far the best and easiest for making animated and interactive content. It used to also have an awesome publishing path, but Apple killed that off. All the animators I know still work with it, but record the flash animations as videos and post 'em on youtube.
> will be phased out by the end of 2020. At that point, Adobe will stop updating and distributing Flash.
Adobes stance on backwards compatibility in Flash has always been "Don't break the web". Where does this leave all the existing flash content that still exists around the web after 2020? As far as I know, those JS emulators are way to slow for most content.
The saga behind media conglomerates, tech firms, pornography distributors and the W3C is pretty unpleasant, and (suffice to say) it has brought us to where we are today. As fast in-browser decryption hits broader swaths of the world's internet users, we should expect to see more and more sections of the web walled off to unregistered users.
Considering most/all users are accustomed to being required to register and log in to websites to view content, the outrage will be minimal and isolated to enthusiastic commenters like the parent above you.
Let's put this in a familiar context -- remember how Twitter decided to close off its platform to third-party apps? Now most users need either Twitter for Twitter-sanctioned apps.
This similar sequence of events can be replicated over all sources of content of the web with mini-walled gardens popping up.
I don't know anything about the state of JS emulators, but I'd imagine three years of hardware and software advancements will go a long way to making this feasible.
Don't worry, you will still be able to run SWF files after 2020 using the latest Flash Player Standalone Projector, Swiff Player, iSwiffy, Eltima SWF Player, Gnash, etc.
What about Adobe Connect? They have been talking about moving to HTML5 for years, but nothing seems to happen. Then recently they announce that if you don't have Flash you can instead download an executable:
I say this every time someone brings up Flash's failure, but ... It's a tragic failure on Adobe's part. The tools for 2D animations and games in Flash are far beyond anything else out there from a creative standpoint. There isn't a product on the market that comes even close. Everything now is too technical, too specialized.
There are lots and lots of artists and developers out there who learned Flash's toolset and got good at it -- and now all that knowledge is useless. And there aren't even better tools to replace it.
It could have been different. Too bad they let it fail.
I wonder how hard would it be to recreate the Flash (application) for HTML5 webgl and JavaScript. I know that there are some converters and so on but from I gather the creator was what made flash easy to use. I see very few HTML5 games out there though. Maybe one of the drivers is that flash games were a single file that could be moved around easily?
Much like Unity today, one of the drivers of Flash popularity was that you could hack something together pretty quickly in a single interface. Throw a bunch of elements onto the "stage", add some scripting, and you're done.
In reality, though, serious applications or games seldom used the Flash IDE other than for designing/managing assets and packaging them (and sometimes not even for that). It was pretty bad in many ways for serious work. I used to create fully animated Flash websites and my work was 100% using FDT (an Eclipse plugin) and the external compiler (Flex SDK). It was way more sustainable.
Stripping the Flash IDE itself (or whatever it's called today) down to the animation essentials and allowing it to export in a number of formats (SVG, GIF, etc) would be the best thing for the app. Not sure it's the direction they're going, however.
Animate CC (the new name for the Flash IDE) can do what you're talking about these days(exporting multiple formats, creating animation texture atlases, etc).
I wrote a CAD viewer app on flash 7.2 / 8 and definitely avoided the flash IDE as much as possible since it wasn't a particularly good IDE. I had just two frames on the stage, one for a loading message, one for the app ui container, with all behavior and ui creation in actionscript files, which I edited with an external editor. I moved up to the flex sdk eventually, completely abandoning the flash ide and not even using the flex ui framework (since it was too bloated). In the end though, the entire CAD viewer (essentially an SVG subset parsing and rendering engine with some ui decorations) was a 91 kb .swf, including the assets (like custom mouse pointers). That was the mixed blessing of flash: amazing abilities locked into a compromised platform.
Flash/Flex had amazing tooling. I still pop open Flash from time to time to make animated gifs. For building custom interfaces, Flex was way better then what iOS and Android currently provide.
I haven't worked with Flex that much but from what I remember their tooling was pretty nice. I think if they had rendered HTML instead of flash applets they could have done something better than whatever a lot of the modern JS frameworks are.
This seems to have very little to do with "tools for 2D animations and games". For starters, it seems to be a "toolkit" and the first example is a piece of code.
In Flash, you can open up the program and make an animation without knowing any code whatsoever. I can guarantee a site like Newgrounds would never have existed if all those teenage flash animators needed to understand object-oriented programming paradigms first.
I think Haxe (the language) is awesome, but the toolkit as a whole has too many moving pieces.
I tried to do some stuff with OpenFL back in 2014, and sometimes the problem was in the C++ backend, sometimes in OpenFL, sometimes in Lime...
It sounds nice on paper: write in Haxe and the magic will convert it to any target, but when each piece of a build chain that sustains the toolkit is maintained and developed independently (sometimes by a single dev) you really don't have assurances about long term support.
The standard library is also very limited so you end up writing language/target specific code that you can't just recompile for a different language or target without a rewrite.
They should've open sourced it and invested heavily in security, stability and performance.
People blamed Apple back in the day for not including it on iOS but given that how many critical bugs have been found in the time since then you can't blame them.
A company like Adobe, constantly struggling with accusations of greed and carelessness, should consider this as a PR exercise and budget accordingly.
My guess is that they won't do it because there might be proprietary stuff they don't own, in the codebase. Macromedia wasn't that huge a company, I wouldn't be surprised to learn they embedded 3rd party components here or there. At that point, untangling legals might become very hard.
I wish they'd just come up with Flash X (sub X for whatever), where the tooling was flash in a flash interface, and geared towards react in a flex-like (flashbuilder) interface. Where the output was a directory with assets that could run directly in a browser/iframe, and svg for vector assets.
If they would have open sourced flash player I think we'd be in a much different place today. Not like they'd lose any ground on their actual profit center - the Flash animation tool and development environment, which is still seriously something fairly unique.
Maybe they can still reach that state if they invest serious effort in making their tool able to export HTML5.
Someone from Adobe once told me the main reason holding back open sourcing the player was licensing. Apparently the player consists of quite a bit of licensed technology that Adobe obviously couldn't open up, and some of these are so core to the player that refactoring it wouldn't really be feasible or not really worth doing. Rewriting it to not use these technologies or use them in such a way that they could be plugged in with alternatives would be too expensive and for little apparent business gain.
I paraphrase of course and I can't really vouch for the veracity of these claims, but I'm hoping someone with first hand information might be able to corroborate or deny. Sounds plausible to me.
I worked at Adobe in those days and AFAIK this is correct. The Flash player includes a bunch of codecs (mp3, on2, nellymoser, sparc, and I think others), and I believe there's a variety of other licensed code but I don't remember the details.
A lot went downhill after Adobe bought Macromedia. Flash use to be light weight, small and incredibly good for displaying vector graphics. You can scale up older Flash content to 1080p and it still looks great. You can't do that with YouTube videos of older flash content.
Many animation studios still use Flash .. to make their YouTube videos.
It ran on three platforms (Mac, Linux, Win) and was a much better portable web app platform than Java applets.
Sure a lot of newer stuff uses cool Javascript frameworks for making games and vector graphics, but there are a lot of old games people won't be able to play anymore. There's a lot we'll lose once Flash goes away forever, in a way that can't be archived like old Geocities pages (unless someone makes a Flash player in Javascript O_o)
I just got paid $6784 working off my laptop this month. And if you think that's cool, my divorced friend has twin toddlers and made over $9k her first month. It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less. This is what I do,
========http://www.smartfinancemedia.com/?682
I don't know about Linux, but back when Flash was relevant the Mac version always felt like an inefficient crashy dumpster fire to me. I don't have a source to back this up, but I always assumed that was a big part of why Jobs was so uninterested in supporting it on iOS.
"We also know first hand that Flash is the number one reason Macs crash. We have been working with Adobe to fix these problems, but they have persisted for several years now. "
That's... interesting, and it also smacks of quite a bit of PR to me. If an app causes your OS to crash, and that problem persists for several years, you can no longer blame that squarely on the app. Your OS should not allow an app to crash it. It happens anyways, and that means you have a bug in your OS at best (and possibly an exploit).
All this means is that Apple was unable to figure out how to keep their OS from crashing. Sure, flash was crap, but keeping crap software from crashing your computer is one of the things the OS does.
That's definitely not what that phrasing means, and I find it hard to believe that it would have been accidentally overlooked in a PR piece like this. To me that means the likely explanations are that either it actually caused Macs to crash (which I seem to recall from experience it could, at least occasionally), or that Jobs is purposefully trying to shift OS instability blame to an application, which I think is possible. Or some combination thereof.
I believe that also applies to most UNIXes and UNIX-likes.
<rambling>
I really like that terminology though, it makes quite a bit of sense. When you witness a crash(you are not part of the crash, you were simply witnessing/interacting with the thing that crashed. You are not necessarily harmed), it is not like the whole world is falling apart. There was a crash, it is horrible and now you have to save what you can. This applies both digitally and in real life. Think crashing a drone or watching a plane crash. You rush to the scene and call for help, but you are not harmed.
Now when the OS fails, it stops everything and can potentially result in significantly more data loss than a standard application crash. Much like when a person is in an accident involving a vehicle. It is no longer just a crash, it is now a panic. When you end up in an accident you don't think "oh ya that crash" you think panic, not the word, the feeling.
</rambling>
Sorry for the rambling on, it kinda just happened. But ya that terminology is great.
If that's so, then the way it was worded seems needlessly unclear. It specifically says it caused Macs to crash. The normal terminology (and proper English) would be to say "cause Mac applications to crash" when referring to the applications and not the OS or hardware. It's like someone saying "Windows crash" is supposed to refer to Windows applications because people say blue screen instead of crash usually. Even if you accept the terminology, it's applied to the wrong subject.
As I said, I can't imagine that distinction having escaped notice in a PR piece such as this.
Yes, but he didn't say panic, he said crash. Crash is often used to refer to both application crashes, and os crashes, which are also often called kernel panics. Saying something causes "Macs to crash" when you mean applications running on a Mac, as people are suggesting, is very unclear.
I agree, the wording isn't great. Kernel panic is a specific thing, yes, but there are other system-wide crashes that are much more common on Macs than kernel panics.
"Sleep Wake Failure" comes to mind. When the 2016 MBP was new I'd get one literally every night that I left my computer asleep. It's now much less frequent (a couple a month, still more than it should be), but more often than panics (haven't had one yet).
You need to let this go. You're trying to argue something that everyone understood well at the time. Thousands of news stories followed up on every detail in that letter and it was very clear what Apple meant.
To clarify, because I think people may be misinterpreting what I meant by that. I wasn't implying a definitive intent to the statement, but stating that the suggested interpretation is not what that statement means in English, as the the subject is a "Mac", which could logically be construed as the OS, the hardware, or both, but not an application running on a Mac. So either it means something other than the suggestions put forth (that he's referring to application crashes), or it's a misstatement, on purpose or not.
This was also published not too long after Snow Leopard came out (August 2009), which is when Safari first split plugins out to a separate process, as long as you were running it in 64-bit mode. Before that it could bring down the whole browser, after it would only kill itself and require pages to be reloaded. So it's not like Apple wasn't doing anything about it.
Obviously a positive change in general, but the push to prioritize that and get it done must have been 99% aimed at problems caused by Flash.
And even after that was implemented, an ad crashing flash in one window would still bring down a video player in another, if I'm remembering right. Still a crappy user experience.
They mean application crashes, not the entire OS. And Flash was the reason they rewrote Safari's plugin system to load them in a separate process so as not to crash the entire browser. This was released around the same time as the open letter.
IIRC at the time, Flash lite powered or existed on many more mobile phones than did iOS. Neat stuff to read into the history of. Many of the things in this letter were true, but Apple itself was holding back some things. iOS had it's own battery management issues at this time (even though it was 1-2 generations ahead of Android power management). Cutting to the bone of power management has paid dividends for Apple, the iPhone generally manages power much better than any Android phone I use. The latest Nexus phones from Google started to change that drastically and I hope that continues.
Exactly, and the Linux version was similarly bad and unmaintained. I don't think they released a 64-bit x86 version until 2008/2009 when Linux on amd64 had been common since 2005 if not before. I remember having to either keep a 32-bit browser around just for Flash or use (impressive) hacks like nspluginwrapper.
I suspect the crappiness of the Mac/Linux versions was not because of developer incompetence, but a severe lack of developers/resources for those teams.
Hopefully there are some managers at Adobe who realize that, if they hadn't shipped a crappy product for so many years used by every Mac user, they could have made an actual case for their ability to support high-quality Flash on iOS.
The Linux version was really badly maintained for ages.
Circa 2014, I had to do weird stuff like sed on the .so flash plugin to bump artificially its version string from 11 to 12
This was to work around a requirement for VMware VCenter UI which required flash versions newer that
the one available for Firefox at that time (11.2 IIRC).
I hope that at some points, Adobe will release the Flash source code. It's probably not the most beautiful code in the world, but at least, it would provide a reference implementation and help other implementations a lot.
As much as I personally dislike Flash, I have to agree that making it open source would be a net benefit to the world, even if only for preservation of existing media.
Even back then you had to do hacks to get it to work. But after that it became very hard to get anything to work. Eventually someone came out with a service called pipelight that I used to use that would allow you to use windows only plugins in Firefox: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pipelight. It worked great until I didn't need it anymore.
>I hope that at some points, Adobe will release the Flash source code.
We can hope but there were big-ish campaigns to get them to open source Freehand and then Fireworks and they just don't care and would rather you keep their monthly CC cheques flowing.
I guess my feeling could be summed up with... if you're going to be on an unpopular system, expect a less-polished experience. When Windows took up 90% of desktop marketshare, and the rest was squabbled over by Mac, Linux, etc., the fact that Flash supported them at all should be seen as a blessing.
Yes and no. It was nice to have support for that whole community of animations and games, even with crappy performance. And we could get to the godawful interactive-restaurant-websites where framerates didn't matter. But the existence of a terrible Mac port helped fuel its adoption as a web technology (versus something like ActiveX where you were Windows/IE only). Without that, maybe those restaurants would have stuck to HTML like they should have to begin with.
Especially on the video side where people stared to pick FLV as a format, we'd have been much better off just getting an MPEG in the QuickTime plugin, probably with better frame rates and definitely not crashing my browser so often.
As a portable web application platform, I suppose it was better than Java and I'm glad to have gotten access to those. But honestly that was a pretty niche use case.
It was bewildering how bad Flash on the Mac was. Simple animations and videos would spin all of my cores up into the high 90s%. I installed a CPU throttling command line tool and would set the flash process to 30% of one core and the animation or video would still play fine, with no noticeable degradation in quality or framerate. I've always wondered whether part of the monetization of Flash was an embedded Bitcoin Miner or other such code to make use of our spare CPU cycles.
Flash has always been crap on the Mac. Always. I was working with it around 2000-05 and the player was always like half as fast as a similarly specced Windows machine. Plus there were some wonderful Mac-only bugs in v5 of the editor that cropped up when you tried to edit files big enough to contain a whole cartoon. And by "wonderful" I mean "I lost a week of my life to editing a cartoon in five minute bursts of work, followed by having to reboot the entire system because Flash had crashed so hard it refused to run until I did that."
Adobe always used to blame OS X for being literally half the performance of the Windows version claiming it wasn't their fault (Mac team was a fraction of the size I heard).
Then Jobs wrote "Thoughts on Flash" and magically a month or so later the Mac version ran a ton better and continued to get better for about a year.
Have little sympathy for such a reactionary approach to user experience when the majority of Flash authoring occurred in ad agencies running Macs.
There's a lot we'll lose once Flash goes away forever, in a way that can't be archived like old Geocities pages (unless someone makes a Flash player in Javascript O_o)
With some work, it can be revived and used to port old content to the web. One of the difficulties with Shumway was being but-for-bug compatible with the Flash player, which turned out to be nearly impossible... If the developer is in the loop, the task is a lot easier.
In this mode, the browsers run remotely and stream the video to your browser. We are still working on the audio support but hope to have audio support soon. It should be possible to archive Flash in this way, though we could use more help/research in this area.
Once the last version of Flash is released, we'll include the latest browsers that can run it.
If the Mozilla Shumway project or similar picks up again (we hope), Webrecorder can integrate that as well to offer a native JS based Flash-recording and replay.
If anyone is interesting in helping out, let us know!
It might be possible to also run Flash in a mini VM. Who knows, maybe someone will figure it out playing flash in WebAssembly in "legacy mode" which disables a vast swath of file and other security issues. Introducing sandboxing could be one angle, but I'm sure someone far more experienced has already thought of this.
I remember Flash under Macromedia... I also started disabling it after I found out that you could access the local file system through some hacks. Actually had to do this for storing state on a project (around 2002 iirc).
I agree that it's great for 2-d animation, one of the best tools around, and why it's still used for education/training. Flex/Flash Builder also wasn't bad at all, and AS3, while verbose was interesting. Having XML as a first class citizen at the time was nice, and paired really well with VB.Net on the server, where XML is also first class.
There are a couple Flash players in JS... I do hope that Adobe opens the format up so a lot of the stuff made in flash can be preserved... the content itself was so much smaller than video files, and the interactions are much harder to setup and match using JS alone. I'm actually a little sad when I see converted flash animations to video (youtube) only because the originals were significantly smaller, without all the noise compared to video.
When Adobe bought Macromedia, my hope at the time was that the output format would evolve into straight, browser runnable JS, vector, movie and audio assets in a zip file with a manifest. So that the actual container format could be built into and supported by browsers directly. Where Adobe could concentrate on the tooling, which is where they made their money anyway.
The funny thing is, I thought Silverlight was FAR closer to what I'd wanted Flash to be, but there was just no way it would take hold, as the tooling was nothing close to Flash.
> A lot went downhill after Adobe bought Macromedia
Still annoyed Fireworks was killed, it was pretty much the feature set of Sketch and more with a decade of work behind it. Then they killed it and are now left scrambling to replicate Sketch not realising they already had it and lost it.
Flash also made distribution very easy: all the code and assets could be bundled in one compressed SWF file. Now we have lots of js files that are minimized and bundled and other loose asset files.
This is the biggest letdown of Flash being discontinued. How can an artist distribute interactives as a single file now? How can a gallery site host user-uploaded interactive animations without allowing its users a platform to inject arbitrary javascript? (At least .swf provides an attempt at sandboxing.)
AS3 is one of the best languages I've ever used. Easy to use, dynamic but also statically typed when you want it with many of features from Java and C# which still aren't available in JS.
As others said Adobe is at fault here, same as Microsoft is at fault of not open sourcing Silverlight and now we end up with html5/js mess that was not designed for what is used.
Flex4 is really good and after you learn it you get good GUIs that are efficient and that are easy to reuse and much more efficiient then HHTML based GUIs
IIRC, the format for Silverlight output was well documented, and open. It was a zip file with a manifest, assets and JS. The down side is they didn't get the penetration. Silverlight was FAR closer to what I'd hoped that Flash would have become when Adobe bought Macromedia. Adobe was really pushing SVG before that, and my hope was that flash content would become a zip, with assets and a manifest, where 2D assets were svg, and the tweaning was something similar to CSS.
Either could have been adopted. Would still love to see an HTML "package" format that was similar, where the whole content and assets could be downloaded as a single container, and run offline easily like flash could.
Silverlight was not open source though and it was not cross platform either. Having Silverlight/.Net and Flash/Flex/Air open sourced and competing would have been great, as a copmpany I would have made money from the IDEs and tools, why you need to keep it proprietary and then kill it.
Silverlight was available on Mac and Windows, and Moonlight was available on Linux. Again, the plugin itself didn't have to be open-sourced, the format was, which is why Moonlight worked.
In my opinion having Linux support done by community and lagging behind in features and in release scheduling is not cross-platform, Flash had the advantage in this point, Adobe AIR also worked on linux until a point.
Do you think that having this platforms opened source would help or not the adoption? Looking at Java I see it is still going strong with plenty on languages, tools and libraries/frameworks still going strong.
My entire point wasn't that Silverlight was/wasn't open sourced... it was that the underlying structure was FAR closer to what I thought was a good package structure, compared to .SWF
Only Silverlight v1 was Javascript based. From version 2 upwards a small CLR implementation was the runtime. It allowed .net languages (C# and F# mainly) to be run.
Having Flash on iOS, even through the browser, would have allowed people to develop apps for iOS without going through Apple. It would also allow trivial Android porting. Flash was not in Apple's strategic interests.
It was a risk not supporting Flash in 2007, one that has paid off in Spades. Apple made the right choice for Apple.
In retrospect, Macromedia would have needed to open source Flash, and aim it as a viable open web standard circa 2007 or 2008 (making it even more difficult for Apple to reject). This would have required starting the process in 2003 or 2004 at the latest. But IE6 was still dominant in 2003/2004, Firefox's success was far from assured, and open web standards were a joke.
The original iPhone was amazing in 2007, it was really a game changer for the open web. I don't think Macromedia could have anticipated the reasoning behind the death of Flash in 2003, never mind make the contemporary case to save it...
The real question I have is: Has Adobe ported their Flash dev tools to produce HTML5/JS/CSS? Are they as good the Flash version, and do they provide most of the same features? I ask because that shift has been foreseeable, and should have been a top priority (to minimize the rise of alternative platforms).
I agree, but look at electron apps, the situation is not better, Flash is similar to a game engine so it had a "game loop" running at a certain FPS. I coded AIR apps, and I know Flash was misused in websites but we have same misuse now with JS where sites with text and images don't work without JS, You had the option to turn off Flash but can you afford to turn off JS>
Adobe is at fault, they should have open source it or make improvements/
Adobe opened some parts like a compiler they were working on and the Flex SDK but Flash was not opened, this was a mistake, I mean they announced a few years ago that HTML is the future so why not put a few people work on Flash code, remove the parts they can't open and make it open source, similar with Open JDK. It is weird they support AIR but Flex was donated to Apache.
Don't forget E4X, it's here in AS3 as a first class citizen, while every single browser vendors either did not bother to implement it (google) or deprecated it after some times (mozilla).
It was quite nice to use client-side in Flash and AIR for such things as SOAP etc. but it is also quite powerful when used server-side for web scrapping and HTML templating.
Not sure I agree. If you use some of the good transpiling languages that output JS, the syntax is far better than what AS3 had. In TypeScript/Flow, for example, you get "real" generics syntax while in AS3 you had the magic Vector<> stuff and that's it. And on top of that you have union types, dynamic interfaces, etc.
And thanks to JavaScript VM performance, running the same code is ahead of what the Flash VM could do.
AS3 was way ahead of its time when introduced, but browsers have moved past it since it stopped evolving.
Flex vs frameworks is more of a matter of preference and contextual requirements so I can't comment on that.
I do not disagree, but the comparisons are not fair,first though , I am not advocating of people building new stuff with Flash so I am not trying to convince you to use it in present day.
-comparing a new language TS with the old AS3 is not fair, when AS3 was around TS was not yet here, also AS3 is compiled and in theory games that are well coded in AS3 should be faster
-comparing new js frameworks and libraries that are not built-in to the platform with built in Flash/Flex feature is not fair, we should compare the built-in stuff in the browser vs built-in stuff in Flash/Flex , and if we add frameworks for html/js then there are frameworks that people used for Flash/Flex.
P.S. If I had a choice in what tools to use in a new SPA I would chose today TS and React(or something like react), if you have experience with React are there good components already built, I mean good that are not buggy(dropdowns going offscreen, or if you have more then one component things go crazy), sometime back when I checked there were only basic stuff and wrappers for jQuerry quality ones.
Flex had some good ideas but many things made it a pretty bad experience to work with: Adobe abandoning WYSIWYG editing in Flash Builder, having two ways to do everything (XML and code) made things more confusing than it had to be, and the official components from Adobe generally weren't very good. I much prefer building by own in React.
AS3 was awesome for its time but TypeScript has surpassed it in my opinion.
After building up components directly in the language with React there's no way I could go back to using Flex.
I thought the message on Flash vs Flash Builder was a bit confusing.. but it came down to Flash being more for animation tasks, and Flash Builder more for building crud-like apps. There was overlap, but both targeted differing audiences.
I did find some object model inconsistencies annoying all the same, and some of the security implications in the early 00's frankly scared me. Even though I worked with it, I disabled it.
React + JS is nice, but the animation tooling in Flash itself was second to none. And still better than many options. If I still made a lot of elearning content, I'd be much more upset by the fall of flash.
Do you have WYSIWYG in React?
How much it will take you to implement from scratch in React an AdvancedDataGrid ?
I also like TS and React is my favorite way of rendering SPAs, unfortunately at my work we are stuck with JS,and angular1 so the fact that there may be nice things but are not built-in into html5/js is a huge issue.
Also how can I ask my boss or the other devs to start using X when next year X may be bad or outdated.
I worked extensively with flex, and I think you give it too much credit. Typescript beats AS3, and modern complete frameworks like angular or ember are just as good as flex.
Same. My first programming job was doing Flex stuff (Adobe Air desktop apps in an enterprisy way) and after that I did tons of Edge Animate work (in an environment where things needed to run in IE9 at best). I am glad those helped me to kickstart my career, but modern JS libraries, frameworks and paragdims are so much ahead what we had then I can only wonder if I have truly forgotten something really magnificient.
What JS combination of tools can you use to get similar to Flex, you would have to add a build tool, some JS framework like angular or react+friends then bootstrap or similar to get some basic widgets or pick the widgets you need from the web(ex pick a jQuery advanced calendar widget and wrap it in angular or React , I saw a lot of code that did bad such wrappings that were single use)
I LOVE VueJS. But you're right- nowhere near as easy as Flex Builder with AS3.
I built an app with Flex Builder that got me my first job. The application is still in heavy use every day, and I've never even once had someone report that something went wrong with it.
I think long term stability is more an indication of your competence as a software engineer than flex builder's stability.
not bashing flash/flex though, my first job was making educational flash games. I wish I could be as productive and have as much fun when working in html and js.
Not uncommon for these kind of giant step backwards in the world of computing.
I was in a plane the other day sitting next to an elderly gentleman who saw me using Apple products. He then proceeded to tell me how he's been on mac since 1984, and absolutely loved Apple products before, but now he's stuck on OS X 10.6 because it's the last version that supports AppleWorks, a tool he's been using for over 20 years. No currently supported tool gives him the flexibility and power he had with Apple Works - embedding multiple documents of different types (spreadsheet, word processing, etc) within one another, not to mention the thousands of AppleWorks documents he's accumulated over the years. However, most websites and new products don't work on 10.6, so he has another modern computer just for browsing the web. (George R R Martin similarly has an old computer sitting around just to use his favorite 20 year old word processor of choice)
Flash is similar - I have animator friends who maintain an old copy of Windows XP because they love Flash's interface and no other tool comes close.
The news yesterday about MSPaint potentially going away (I think MS back pedaled on it?) falls in the same category - powerful tools that pretty much can't be improved upon that get randomly EoL'd.
Another thing that happens pretty often - tools randomly losing functionality in an update because the developer felt that it should be removed for whatever reason.
Maybe there would be a niche for a minimal Linux distro that comes with a set of powerful, minimalistic creation tools (office documents, multimedia manipulation + viewing, etc - whatever covers the computing needs of 90% of the population) that gets updated with security updates etc but has 1) backwards compatibility and 2) a user interface that mostly never changes as primary goals.
You can chalk that up to a market failure. Those products you mentioned all "won" the market and enjoyed monopolistic power. Had the economy allowed for more variety then their EOLs wouldn't be fragmenting.
> tools randomly losing functionality in an update because the developer felt that it should be removed for whatever reason.
More likely a Product Manager, rather than a developer, prioritizing certain "core" features in a rewrite/redesign to align with the product/corporate strategy better.
(Unless you meant "developer" in the very generic sense, or an indie developer.)
My experience is that the "whatever reason" to remove features is that they're a pain to maintain (often in ways that aren't obvious to the end user) and only a tiny number of people use them. It sucks for the people who do use them (and believe me, I have been in that position myself), but it also sucks to not have new development happen because all of the resources are being consumed maintaining something that 10 people care about.
main reason why products are discontinued usually is that it's not worth for company to maintain old product if user base is small or decreasing and product is not profitable anymore. Even if company is not actively developing new features in that software, still it requires maintenance - fixing bugs, updating libraries to keep it working with new OSes and so on, and it has a huge cost, assuming that there are big teams dedicated to products.
Also sometimes vision changes for whole company and existing products does not fit that vision anymore and company decides to kill it.
Regarding "never changing" software idea: it inherently is doomed because by default user base will be shrinking - majority of people would move on newer (with better features) software and only handful of users would continue using old "not changing" software. It's jut not worth it, and is too small niche.
Failure is a bit strong, IMO. Flash played a role, and now it is done.
Meanwhile, it was (as you say) years ahead of standards and the most ubiquitous non-standard standard on the web. In early years it let web designers expirement. Most of those expirements went badly, but many ulitmately preceded and shaped the web of the "future."
Animated interactive UIs, video, audio, rounded corners.... These appeared as flash first and challenged html+ to keep up (with the better parts).
We've all been talking s--t about flash for years. But ultimately it was in use because it was useful and the web may have turned out worse without it.
On tools, this is inevitable. Tools don't last forever and professional these days need to retool periodically. As flash exits left, there is room for new entrants into the 'tools for ex-flash designers' segment.
Rounded corners as in on the fly rounded corners, as in vector rounded corners. Flash was first on the web for rounded corners that weren't pre-created bitmaps.
I guess it played a role in getting html5/css3/web-standards features up to speed
The Adobe Flex thing had lot of css3 features early. Funny to see how 'easy' it is to release specs and implementation when you are the sole owner of the tech
Yeah, the Flash creation tools will remain in development, simply rebranded as "Animate". The plugin is no longer needed, since Animate can export to HTML/JS/SVG or to video files. This is by far the best outcome: We get to keep the awesome creation tools, but it exports on free/open formats.
You're forgetting that Flash had a lot more than animation at heart. What about the components? They were very useful for both animators and casual developers to easily create interactive animation - which was the whole point. Static animation was only the beginning. The best Flash was interactive.
A huge variety of components from the Flash community. You were presented with an interface within Flash where you could configure the component's options, and very little code was needed to get professional results quickly.
Adobe Animate has nothing like that, and besides Adobe only makes their CC stuff available by subscription which is unappealing to a lot of people.
You need to remember that at the time HTML5 wasn't around so if a developer wanted something more "multimedia" then it meant resorting to Flash. This meant that Flash ads had a lot of annoying traits like audio effect which you wouldn't get with HTML+JPEG/GIF ads.
Plus even back then Flash had a tendency to grind modest hardware to a halt (particularly if you were running OS X or Linux).
So Flash definitely made ads worse. However whether you want to blame Flash or the developers for that is really just a philisophical question. But suffice to say the most annoying adverts around that time wouldn't have been possible without Flash.
I agree with you. Before working with flash I scoffed at it, but after I realized just how good the IDE was/is. Just how good the resulting executable were (without the browser). Everything that HTML5/CSS3 is trying to be, Flash has been for years. Yeah it is closed and buggy, but it filled a gap that pushed the web forward. And having to learn AS3 allowed me to easily get into the newer JS stuff later
You know, it's pretty easy to make a fast, responsive fun car to drive if you ignore all the safety precautions required to make it street legal. As a bonus, when all you have is a steel tubing chassis and no body panels, working on the car and adding new components is really easy. That doesn't mean we should all drive that type of car, or allow them on the public roads.
Why can't they make Flash better and open like other people did with JavaScript? e.g. emScripten, WebAssembly, and WebGL
I left this question intentionally vague / and possibly wrong in order to give the person responding some leeway and the opportunity to dispel some myths that people might have about JavaScript technologies and the history of both JavaScript and Flash e.g. me.
Adobe's marketing team dropped the ball on this one, and now it seems like there's a ton of FUD about what they're doing.
In 2020 the Flash player shouldn't be needed any more, because HTML5 will hopefully be good enough in every browser by that point. All the rest of their tools are still going to be useful.
Why they didn't make this clear to everyone just baffles me.
So hi, I made a living doing Flash animation and development around 2000-2007. I don't do it any more, I draw comics now, but I still keep the Flash editor installed just in case I need to scratch the itch to make something move.
The SWF format, and the plugin that plays it, is going away.
The program that started life as FutureSplash Animator, and became Macromedia Flash, then Adobe Flash, is not going away. It got rebranded as Adobe Animate last year.
Animators working on stuff for Youtube or TV probably haven't touched a .SWF in years. You export a .MOV and post that to Youtube. Or you drop it in a video editor along with the .MOVs of all your other scenes for this project. The Los Angeles TV animation industry still uses Flash for some projects; check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Flash_animated_televis... sometime, you'll probably recognize a few shows you or your friends love.
If you're using it to make interactive content? You can export to HTML5 now. And to WebGL and WebAssembly. I haven't ever done that myself, I dunno how much hassle it is to convert an old Actionscript/.SWF project to those platforms. I would assume that the 'Animate' rebranding coincided with Adobe feeling that the HTML5 capabilities for interaction were on par with .SWF's; they've been working on that ever since Jobs refused to let the Flash plugin onto iThings.
.SWF is dead, and good riddance. Its plugin was a CPU-hogging binary blob that needed regular updates. It was amazing back in 2000 when it was all we had; it's a lot less amazing now.
The program that compiled a bunch of art and code into .SWF files will live on. The penultimate sentence of Adobe's press release? "...we’ll continue to provide best in class animation and video tools such as Animate CC...". The tool ain't going nowhere. The tool's just distancing itself from its now-much-loathed first export format.
But I would bet money that Animate's file format - the .PSD to its Photoshop - is gonna continue to be called .FLA for the next ten years.
yeah i think people forget (or just don't know) that flash became animate. Most of the "html5" animations we see are made in animate. so in a way, it's all still in the same family and toolset, just the delivery format has changed
that said, i'm really curious as to what's going to happen to actionscript. Starling really ran with that and it's an otherwise really nice language (as3, that is). i'm glad they open sourced it and I hope it still gets developed.
i also hope they keep developing and supporting AIR
AIR support remains and there are always features being added. AIR as a cross platform platform for Win/Mac/iOS/Android is still alive and has quarterly releases. Any missing functionality can be added via extensions written in native code. I've open sourced a few for desktop including a webview. It uses Chromium Embedded Framework (via C#) on Windows and WKWeview on OSX (via Swift) https://github.com/tuarua/WebViewANE/
Others include FFmpeg, libtorrent,toast ports as well as porting of the C extension interface to C# and Swift.
There are lots and lots of artists and developers out there who learned Flash's toolset and got good at it -- and now all that knowledge is useless.
One can say that about a lot of things. FoxPro made me a good living for probably 6-7 years, and it got me in the door at Microsoft. I would also argue that for creating a data-centric LOB application, there are not better tools to replace it (even to this day). But times changes, technology moves on, yada, yada. Now I do other stuff with other tools. I miss that little smirking fox logo, I miss slapping together a CRUD app in no time at all, but FP had it's shortcomings, too, so I try not to get too nostalgic about how it was better in the old days.
As for Flash, well, I try to stay away from web dev, but I won't miss it taking down my browser on a regular basis. In fact, I miss it so little that I haven't had Flash installed on a machine in years (and promptly rip it right the hell off there if a client's policy sticks it on the machine they hand me).
> The tools ... in Flash are far beyond anything else out there from a creative standpoint.
Very much this. The next-closest tech, HTML5, offers the same multimedia capabilities and runtime ubiquity as Flash— but no native tooling for designers/animators.
Instead, every design and interaction must be funneled from design tool through code, handed off from designer-brain to engineer-brain, across each and every iteration. Productivity and creative expression are a couple of the casualties of this "hand-off" workflow.
> There isn't a product on the market that comes even close.
Have you seen Haiku? https://haiku.ai (I'm on the Haiku team.) We're young but we've got some funding, a functional product, and some big-brand early users. We're going squarely after "modern Flash without the plugin," integrated deeply with modern design/dev tools & workflows.
It's a hard problem we're tackling, and we've still got some work ahead of us—but each of us on the team believes so strongly in the need for a solution (as you outlined here) that we're doing something about it.
I don't have any numbers but my impression is the number of people making games in unity dwarfs the number of people who ever made games in flash. it's ridiculously easy now. any coffee shop I visit I see several people in unity.
Shumway is not under active development. The actionscript runtime itself is pretty good, but getting compatibility with the Flash API surface turned out to be practically unachievable.
Is there any attempt to save all the classic Flash animations and games like they did with old arcade games? Any "emulators" which can be used to preserve them?
There are a lot of serious attempts underway, I've been involved with some of those discussions.
Nothing perfect and turn key exists at the moment, but all the necessary pieces are basically there.
It depends on what sort of preservation strategy you're going after.
1) "Emulation" style:
-- Open source flash player (a la Shumway)
2) "Automated Conversion" style:
-- Load-time conversion to a different format (ie, HTML5)-- Ahead-of-time conversion to a different format
3) Convert by hand
-- Rewrite in JS/HTML5
-- Rewrite in Haxe using a library like OpenFL (Haxe compiles to JS/HTML5, C++, also Flash)
There's a lot of options available, and a lot of useful primitives. Parsing and rendering Flash (SWF) content is basically solved (OpenFL has made particular strong strides in this area, Shumway is impressive too).
The really big missing piece is ActionScript execution. There are in fact various open source ActionScript VM's out there, and there are ways to parse ABC (Action Script Byte Code) and convert it -- either ahead of time or at load-time -- to something else, whether that's directly to JS, or something like Haxe (which then compiles it to JS or C++ or whatever), but to my knowledge nobody has a working solution that as of today combines Rendering + ActionScript Execution + RigorouslyTestedConvenientUX.
But all the pieces are there. You just need someone motivated enough and well funded enough to put it all together. Hopefully this news spurs that fire.
I really don't get the downvotes here. Yes, there are umpteen ways to run a Flash program. But if you goal is "preserve the experience of running a Flash program for future generations", the most obvious solution is to simply emulate the platform on which Flash runs. (This solution also has the benefits of being simple and a solved problem, which the GP admits is not true of other solutions.)
Proposing to preserve Flash apps through a bytecode emulator is frankly somewhat absurd if you consider analogies. HTML 2.0 sites don't render on modern browsers either, but no-one seriously proposes maintaining a modern HTML 2.0 browser to view them. They simply run an old copy of Netscape Navigator, in a Windows 95 VM if necessary. Likewise with old BASIC programs on an Apple 2: no-one (from a preservation standpoint) runs them on an AppleSoft BASIC emulator; they run them on real AppleSoft BASIC inside an emulated Apple 2.
ActionScript3 (or AVM2) is fairly well documented and Shumway did a fairly good job executing ABC files, I think we got to like 99%+ compatibility on the reference tests. Getting Rendering + Timeline + Library working correctly, ... that's another story. You have to bug-for-bug compatible AND do different things for different versions of SWF and AVM versions. If anyone needs a decent emulation of AVM2 bytecode, Shumway has a pretty good one in there.
and added native implementations to render UI with OpenGL API, QT API, etc.
Now, even if it is technically feasible it is not like providing a plugin for the browsers, so that would be mainly to target desktop GUI apps which Adobe AIR is already doing very well.
As for converting the whole Flash API to HTML5/JS, some parts could be done but many parts would be missing or would be impossible to port because the Browser API can not support some of those, TCP/UDP sockets for example (possible with chrome non-standard API but then does not work everywhere).
ActionScript3 (or AVM2) is fairly well documented and Shumway did a fairly good job executing ABC files, I think we got to like 99%+ compatibility on the reference tests. Getting Rendering + Timeline + Library working correctly, ... that's another story. You have to bug-for-bug compatible AND do different things for different versions of SWF and AVM versions. If anyone needs a decent emulation of AVM2 bytecode, Shumway has a pretty good one in there.
I seem to recall there was a way to play .swf files without a browser. It might be cool to see a standalone flash player, maybe a little like the Electron framework.
> Letting flash run outside the browser sandbox, what could go wrong?
It would be like any other desktop application. You're running code of which you presumably know and trust the provenance. It's not like a malware Flash ad written by someone who found a security hole in the Flash player, that is loaded into a random web page by an unsuspecting user.
I used to work at a company called Spaceport.io (now defunct) where we had a nearly complete implementation. It included an impressive GPU-accelerated renderer and an optimising compiler from AS3 to JavaScript—we could run on mobile, desktop, and even WebGL, and do neat things like update over WiFi instead of USB during development.
It was intended for Flash game development, and worked pretty well for that purpose. Unfortunately, we spent a lot of time dealing with large customers who wanted to use it to port existing Flash games to mobile, which was basically a neverending treadmill of having to implement obscure features that they didn’t even know they were relying on. :/
Parts of it have been open-sourced, but I wish the parent company would just release the whole thing. Last I knew, there was one guy maintaining it for one customer after the main engineers were acquihired.
I see one of the investors was the BBC - so that's where my licence fee goes :)
" neverending treadmill of having to implement obscure features that they didn’t even know they were relying on,"
I been coding emulators for fun (i.e. NES, Scratch) and it's been an interesting journey with all the gotcha's involved - however I don't think I have the motivation for any flash based ones, the only exception I've worked on my scratch2apk emulator (javascript) which has plenty of games going for it!
YouWeb, an incubator. It was shut down in ~2013, but I think still exists to own the IP of the startups. The person to contact would probably be the owner, Peter Relan; I dunno what he’s doing these days.
There was a good attempt (Mozilla Shumway), but Mozilla for some reason dropped it. I guess it was too resource draining, and wasn't their core priority.
Arcade emulators emulate the arcade hardware itself, not any bytecode which the arcade games may be written in (such as the TI-99/4's GPL [1]). For preservation purposes, it is likely that Flash is preserved likewise (by emulating the PC platform, rather than Flash bytecode). This is the easiest way to ensure exact reproduction of the original execution.
New episodes of Homestar Runner are already being distributed as normal videos, e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0nuQ5o2DYU (which is incidentally about the death of Flash)
The only real* browser I can think of that isn't listed there is Opera, and they're only barely hanging on. The numbers I've seen peg them at roughly 1% of desktop browsers, mostly in Europe.
*: That is, one that isn't just a reskin of another browser on the list.
Safari never shipped with Flash to begin with, and Apple has regularly published metadata updates, which blacklisted old, insecure versions of flash that the user might have had installed.
Of course that describes what they are doing now, not their plans. Which is not surprising, because Apple never says anything about plans, as a matter of corporate policy...
Whoops, I totally didn't notice that was missing from the list.
That being said, while Apple hasn't explicitly said they plan to remove Flash from desktop Safari, they've implicitly signalled it -- they've already got features in place which make it often only load on demand.
There's not much to remove. You install Flash on macOS separately and Safari will load that in as a plugin. It seems obvious that Safari will remove that plugin functionality on or before 2020.
I disabled flash on my browsers in 2014, and I have had to manually reenable it exactly twice in the last three years to get content I needed. Both times were for restaurant menus, of all things.
I have fond memories of newgrounds and the real early explosion of browser games, but I'm not going to miss the lag, memory overhead, and security hell one iota.
Hate flash however much you want. I learned to program with old ActionScript and wrote my first game as a kid (that actually taught me OOP and laid good foundations for JavaScript which is almost identical). To this day, all the applications I wrote still work perfectly. That's an achievement. Not to mention, Macromedia (later: Adobe) Flash was a fantastic environment for minigames and I haven't yet seen anything replace it properly. I weep for today's children, is there a good alternative? I mean, a program where you can scribble, make a movie clip out of it and make it move with code, just like that. And then publish it on the internet effortlessly.
Same here. "I learned to program with old ActionScript and wrote my first game as a kid (that actually taught me OOP and laid good foundations for JavaScript which" ... was way inferior to AS3. AS3 was based on ECMAScript 4 that was later abandoned by JS vendors. Until TypeScript came along JS was horribly inferior to AS3.
I will be forever glad for AS3 and the Flash ecosystem.
I started to learn AS3 but quickly transitioned to other technologies because even back then, the end of flash was forseeable. I liked AS3 but it was time to move on for a variety of reasons, among them a desire to have more control over hardware accelerated rendering and general performance concerns.
Fun fact: At university, a teaching assistant at "Introduction to programming" asked in which languages we've programmed before and I said ActionScript and he said that is not a programming language :)
This is Adobe's fault. They could have open-sourced the player anytime they wanted, they didn't. I don't blame Apple, or Flash-haters or anybody else but Adobe and all its stupid policies. Adobe killed Flash. Nobody else did.
As things like Flash and Silverlight due i can't help but think that there will be another one of these in-browser techs that is just bound to come back around. What's new is old and what's old is new :D
> Specifically, we will stop updating and distributing the Flash Player at the end of 2020 and encourage content creators to migrate any existing Flash content to these new open formats.
Why not open source it and make Flash the open format instead?
My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do, ========http://www.smartfinancemedia.com/?682
There are a lot of bad things about Flash, but it still has not been adequately replaced. AFAIK there is nothing web-centric that comes close to the developer experience it offered.
Yes, things can be pieced together: animation programs and sprite exporters here, some custom scripting there, throw in your own tween, sound, and networking libraries, etc., but this is much less efficient than a unified write-once, run-anywhere platform with an integrated development environment for all aspects of the content, which is what Flash offered.
That meant that Flash didn't really do any one thing exceptionally well, but it provided a way to reason about the program as a cohesive whole, and from a very visual perspective. I think that opened doors for a lot of people and I think the simplicity made it a productive platform.
I am no Flash fanboy, but there is a reason it was so popular, and we're ignoring that with the HTML 5 platform, which ultimately just leaves an opening for a new Flash imitator (Unity is the leading candidate, though it hasn't really broached web in a major way yet), which means we will repeat this cycle over the next 20 years.
No, I'm aware of that. Animate's HTML 5 export only exports the animations (in a relatively simplistic manner), leaving all of the logic and interactivity in the dust.
That's a big change. It downgrades Flash from an all-in-one development solution to a single piece of the art pipeline. Users are left to their own devices to try to figure out everything else.
People mainly want Flash to die because it's a closed standard/platform that can't be improved by third parties and has lagged behind modern web standards as a result. Opening up Flash would address that problem and make the idea of Flash on a modern website significantly less horrid.
Whatever flash is, it’s the opposite of “lagged behind modern web standards”. If anything that was the one thing it didn’t do in its lifespan since it enabled apps that are only now html5 achieving parity.
It enabled a consistent cross platform interpreter for javascript and xml based apps.
Flash's selling point was compatibility, which is why people put up with the clunky APIs, performance, etc. If you changed very much of that you end up with something which isn't Flash and is on a steep mismatch in resources versus the huge investment going into web technologies. I don't think there are enough places with massive Flash codebases to support anything like the work going on in the web space.
Anyone know of any command line tools available out there that can convert Flash assets to PNG assets? I have a large number of Flash assets that I will eventually need to (finally) convert over. Hoping there are some easy tools out there available.
swf is just a generic container like a zip, so there's plenty of tools to actually extract the original resources from there (no "conversion" necessary, that is).
How hard it is to EOL anything. How non-standard standards can play a giant role. How important deign/dev tools can be. How hard it is to get designers to accept limits (there were all flash websites just for minor design capabilities)..
Yes and no. I agree that standards make things easier, but standards probably make it harder or at least not easier to really come to an EOL for dated technology.
See how browsers still have to support non CSS styling and similar.
What I meant with standards making it harder to EOL technologies is that a standard leads to more implementations, which is a good thing, but certainly not for EOLing a technology.
506 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 349 ms ] threadThey could have fixed most of it. Instead they were like "Nah, fuck it"
VMWare is one large one.
I know of a very large company that has been over the last couple of years moving from Java to Flash, so it will be amusing to what their reaction will be to this news.
Then once I'm logged in the non-native styling and controls really drive me up the wall.
http://www.kongregate.com/top-rated-games?sort=newest
Although it's not clear from just a game being in Flash if it's in Haxe and compiled to Flash or actually in AS, but still. It's so convenient for games.
(though from my impression they have a pretty good dev team, so surely they're working on a replacement)
I assume some of the 'Farm Ville' style web games are probably in Flash still these days.
This is not a small thing.
Flash is one of the best workflows for animators ever. This is equivalent to Photoshop being EOL'd because Apple doesn't like the pictures you can make with it.
I guess it's a step up from java?
I (with protest) use Java UIs so much for configuring various networking gear (old Cisco MDS switches still in use, etc) that I have to have three Win7 VMs with different Java versions and settings to make sure I can access them all. At least using Flash for the UI makes it so I can access it on just about any machine with Flash enabled so I don't have to have crazy configs to get things working.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encrypted_Media_Extensions
Tons of animators still use Flash, the tools are by far the best and easiest for making animated and interactive content. It used to also have an awesome publishing path, but Apple killed that off. All the animators I know still work with it, but record the flash animations as videos and post 'em on youtube.
Adobes stance on backwards compatibility in Flash has always been "Don't break the web". Where does this leave all the existing flash content that still exists around the web after 2020? As far as I know, those JS emulators are way to slow for most content.
The majority of content that is still in flash and active use probably won’t get ported... the iPhone 10 years ago set that trend.
Hopefully in their quieter moments they'll be reflecting on the wisdom of building on top of closed-source systems.
Flash wasn't the web. Opaque, unsearchable blobs break the web. Screwing around with controls etc break the web.
Adobe's hope was to replace the open web.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encrypted_Media_Extensions
The saga behind media conglomerates, tech firms, pornography distributors and the W3C is pretty unpleasant, and (suffice to say) it has brought us to where we are today. As fast in-browser decryption hits broader swaths of the world's internet users, we should expect to see more and more sections of the web walled off to unregistered users.
Considering most/all users are accustomed to being required to register and log in to websites to view content, the outrage will be minimal and isolated to enthusiastic commenters like the parent above you.
Let's put this in a familiar context -- remember how Twitter decided to close off its platform to third-party apps? Now most users need either Twitter for Twitter-sanctioned apps.
This similar sequence of events can be replicated over all sources of content of the web with mini-walled gardens popping up.
https://blogs.adobe.com/adobeconnect/2016/02/add-in.html
Could this be the end of AC, or will they pull something out of a hat at the last minute?
- go to a downloadable .exe
- move to HTML5
They appear to be moving towards the .exe path at the moment, which seems like a bad idea.
http://blogs.adobe.com/adobeconnect/2017/07/adobe-connect-on...
There are lots and lots of artists and developers out there who learned Flash's toolset and got good at it -- and now all that knowledge is useless. And there aren't even better tools to replace it.
It could have been different. Too bad they let it fail.
In reality, though, serious applications or games seldom used the Flash IDE other than for designing/managing assets and packaging them (and sometimes not even for that). It was pretty bad in many ways for serious work. I used to create fully animated Flash websites and my work was 100% using FDT (an Eclipse plugin) and the external compiler (Flex SDK). It was way more sustainable.
Stripping the Flash IDE itself (or whatever it's called today) down to the animation essentials and allowing it to export in a number of formats (SVG, GIF, etc) would be the best thing for the app. Not sure it's the direction they're going, however.
Haxe? http://haxe.org/
In Flash, you can open up the program and make an animation without knowing any code whatsoever. I can guarantee a site like Newgrounds would never have existed if all those teenage flash animators needed to understand object-oriented programming paradigms first.
> The tools for 2D animations and games
I tried to do some stuff with OpenFL back in 2014, and sometimes the problem was in the C++ backend, sometimes in OpenFL, sometimes in Lime...
It sounds nice on paper: write in Haxe and the magic will convert it to any target, but when each piece of a build chain that sustains the toolkit is maintained and developed independently (sometimes by a single dev) you really don't have assurances about long term support.
People blamed Apple back in the day for not including it on iOS but given that how many critical bugs have been found in the time since then you can't blame them.
My guess is that they won't do it because there might be proprietary stuff they don't own, in the codebase. Macromedia wasn't that huge a company, I wouldn't be surprised to learn they embedded 3rd party components here or there. At that point, untangling legals might become very hard.
Maybe they can still reach that state if they invest serious effort in making their tool able to export HTML5.
I paraphrase of course and I can't really vouch for the veracity of these claims, but I'm hoping someone with first hand information might be able to corroborate or deny. Sounds plausible to me.
Many animation studios still use Flash .. to make their YouTube videos.
It ran on three platforms (Mac, Linux, Win) and was a much better portable web app platform than Java applets.
Sure a lot of newer stuff uses cool Javascript frameworks for making games and vector graphics, but there are a lot of old games people won't be able to play anymore. There's a lot we'll lose once Flash goes away forever, in a way that can't be archived like old Geocities pages (unless someone makes a Flash player in Javascript O_o)
But they're all dormant/dead. Compatibility is really hard.
https://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/
"We also know first hand that Flash is the number one reason Macs crash. We have been working with Adobe to fix these problems, but they have persisted for several years now. "
All this means is that Apple was unable to figure out how to keep their OS from crashing. Sure, flash was crap, but keeping crap software from crashing your computer is one of the things the OS does.
<rambling>
I really like that terminology though, it makes quite a bit of sense. When you witness a crash(you are not part of the crash, you were simply witnessing/interacting with the thing that crashed. You are not necessarily harmed), it is not like the whole world is falling apart. There was a crash, it is horrible and now you have to save what you can. This applies both digitally and in real life. Think crashing a drone or watching a plane crash. You rush to the scene and call for help, but you are not harmed.
Now when the OS fails, it stops everything and can potentially result in significantly more data loss than a standard application crash. Much like when a person is in an accident involving a vehicle. It is no longer just a crash, it is now a panic. When you end up in an accident you don't think "oh ya that crash" you think panic, not the word, the feeling.
</rambling>
Sorry for the rambling on, it kinda just happened. But ya that terminology is great.
As I said, I can't imagine that distinction having escaped notice in a PR piece such as this.
Yes, but he didn't say panic, he said crash. Crash is often used to refer to both application crashes, and os crashes, which are also often called kernel panics. Saying something causes "Macs to crash" when you mean applications running on a Mac, as people are suggesting, is very unclear.
"Sleep Wake Failure" comes to mind. When the 2016 MBP was new I'd get one literally every night that I left my computer asleep. It's now much less frequent (a couple a month, still more than it should be), but more often than panics (haven't had one yet).
To clarify, because I think people may be misinterpreting what I meant by that. I wasn't implying a definitive intent to the statement, but stating that the suggested interpretation is not what that statement means in English, as the the subject is a "Mac", which could logically be construed as the OS, the hardware, or both, but not an application running on a Mac. So either it means something other than the suggestions put forth (that he's referring to application crashes), or it's a misstatement, on purpose or not.
i invite you to learn about idioms! they're interesting.
equivocating over idiomatic language is basically a waste of time.
Obviously a positive change in general, but the push to prioritize that and get it done must have been 99% aimed at problems caused by Flash.
And even after that was implemented, an ad crashing flash in one window would still bring down a video player in another, if I'm remembering right. Still a crappy user experience.
I suspect the crappiness of the Mac/Linux versions was not because of developer incompetence, but a severe lack of developers/resources for those teams. Hopefully there are some managers at Adobe who realize that, if they hadn't shipped a crappy product for so many years used by every Mac user, they could have made an actual case for their ability to support high-quality Flash on iOS.
The Linux version was really badly maintained for ages.
Circa 2014, I had to do weird stuff like sed on the .so flash plugin to bump artificially its version string from 11 to 12
This was to work around a requirement for VMware VCenter UI which required flash versions newer that the one available for Firefox at that time (11.2 IIRC).
I hope that at some points, Adobe will release the Flash source code. It's probably not the most beautiful code in the world, but at least, it would provide a reference implementation and help other implementations a lot.
Even back then you had to do hacks to get it to work. But after that it became very hard to get anything to work. Eventually someone came out with a service called pipelight that I used to use that would allow you to use windows only plugins in Firefox: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pipelight. It worked great until I didn't need it anymore.
We can hope but there were big-ish campaigns to get them to open source Freehand and then Fireworks and they just don't care and would rather you keep their monthly CC cheques flowing.
Especially on the video side where people stared to pick FLV as a format, we'd have been much better off just getting an MPEG in the QuickTime plugin, probably with better frame rates and definitely not crashing my browser so often.
As a portable web application platform, I suppose it was better than Java and I'm glad to have gotten access to those. But honestly that was a pretty niche use case.
Then Jobs wrote "Thoughts on Flash" and magically a month or so later the Mac version ran a ton better and continued to get better for about a year.
Have little sympathy for such a reactionary approach to user experience when the majority of Flash authoring occurred in ad agencies running Macs.
Looks like it's possible:
https://github.com/mozilla/shumway
http://mozilla.github.io/shumway/examples/inspector/inspecto...
http://www.i-programmer.info/news/86-browsers/9473-mozilla-k...
http://rhizome.org/editorial/2016/oct/25/rhizome-releases-ma...
Example: Record Flash: https://webrecorder.io/_new/temp/flash-example/record/$br:ch...
An archived Java applet: https://webrecorder.io/demo/java/20170505193641$br:firefox:4...
In this mode, the browsers run remotely and stream the video to your browser. We are still working on the audio support but hope to have audio support soon. It should be possible to archive Flash in this way, though we could use more help/research in this area.
Once the last version of Flash is released, we'll include the latest browsers that can run it.
If the Mozilla Shumway project or similar picks up again (we hope), Webrecorder can integrate that as well to offer a native JS based Flash-recording and replay.
If anyone is interesting in helping out, let us know!
I agree that it's great for 2-d animation, one of the best tools around, and why it's still used for education/training. Flex/Flash Builder also wasn't bad at all, and AS3, while verbose was interesting. Having XML as a first class citizen at the time was nice, and paired really well with VB.Net on the server, where XML is also first class.
There are a couple Flash players in JS... I do hope that Adobe opens the format up so a lot of the stuff made in flash can be preserved... the content itself was so much smaller than video files, and the interactions are much harder to setup and match using JS alone. I'm actually a little sad when I see converted flash animations to video (youtube) only because the originals were significantly smaller, without all the noise compared to video.
When Adobe bought Macromedia, my hope at the time was that the output format would evolve into straight, browser runnable JS, vector, movie and audio assets in a zip file with a manifest. So that the actual container format could be built into and supported by browsers directly. Where Adobe could concentrate on the tooling, which is where they made their money anyway.
The funny thing is, I thought Silverlight was FAR closer to what I'd wanted Flash to be, but there was just no way it would take hold, as the tooling was nothing close to Flash.
http://home.broadpark.no/~kboye/jones/jones.html
Still annoyed Fireworks was killed, it was pretty much the feature set of Sketch and more with a decade of work behind it. Then they killed it and are now left scrambling to replicate Sketch not realising they already had it and lost it.
AS3 is one of the best languages I've ever used. Easy to use, dynamic but also statically typed when you want it with many of features from Java and C# which still aren't available in JS.
I wrote this a couple of months back: https://medium.com/@Pier/ecmascript-4-was-too-ahead-of-its-t...
Either could have been adopted. Would still love to see an HTML "package" format that was similar, where the whole content and assets could be downloaded as a single container, and run offline easily like flash could.
It was a risk not supporting Flash in 2007, one that has paid off in Spades. Apple made the right choice for Apple.
In retrospect, Macromedia would have needed to open source Flash, and aim it as a viable open web standard circa 2007 or 2008 (making it even more difficult for Apple to reject). This would have required starting the process in 2003 or 2004 at the latest. But IE6 was still dominant in 2003/2004, Firefox's success was far from assured, and open web standards were a joke.
The original iPhone was amazing in 2007, it was really a game changer for the open web. I don't think Macromedia could have anticipated the reasoning behind the death of Flash in 2003, never mind make the contemporary case to save it...
The real question I have is: Has Adobe ported their Flash dev tools to produce HTML5/JS/CSS? Are they as good the Flash version, and do they provide most of the same features? I ask because that shift has been foreseeable, and should have been a top priority (to minimize the rise of alternative platforms).
Additionally, I'll add that we can use Adobe AIR to build native apps for iOS or Android or Desktop computers and that's been around for even longer.
It was quite nice to use client-side in Flash and AIR for such things as SOAP etc. but it is also quite powerful when used server-side for web scrapping and HTML templating.
I see that every day with Redtamarin
https://github.com/Corsaair/redtamarin
it does only AS3 on the command-line, there is no GUI rendering of any kind, and yet the programming language that is AS3 shine.
And thanks to JavaScript VM performance, running the same code is ahead of what the Flash VM could do.
AS3 was way ahead of its time when introduced, but browsers have moved past it since it stopped evolving.
Flex vs frameworks is more of a matter of preference and contextual requirements so I can't comment on that.
Sure, but that's the comparison invited when one says that AS3 is still better than what's out there today.
AS3 was awesome for its time but TypeScript has surpassed it in my opinion.
After building up components directly in the language with React there's no way I could go back to using Flex.
I did find some object model inconsistencies annoying all the same, and some of the security implications in the early 00's frankly scared me. Even though I worked with it, I disabled it.
React + JS is nice, but the animation tooling in Flash itself was second to none. And still better than many options. If I still made a lot of elearning content, I'd be much more upset by the fall of flash.
Making simple CRUD SPAs using HTML5/CSS3/JS/whatever frameworks is way more complicated than using AS3 to do the same thing.
It all feels like a giant kludge.
What have we gained by going into using modern web stack to make application like pages?
Perhaps source is shared more freely and code is more "open", but as the React licensing ruckus shows that is not clear cut.
We have certainly not gained more consistency over AS3.
There really wasn't anything wrong with the idea of flash compiler doing the heavy lifting for app like pages.
I built an app with Flex Builder that got me my first job. The application is still in heavy use every day, and I've never even once had someone report that something went wrong with it.
not bashing flash/flex though, my first job was making educational flash games. I wish I could be as productive and have as much fun when working in html and js.
I was in a plane the other day sitting next to an elderly gentleman who saw me using Apple products. He then proceeded to tell me how he's been on mac since 1984, and absolutely loved Apple products before, but now he's stuck on OS X 10.6 because it's the last version that supports AppleWorks, a tool he's been using for over 20 years. No currently supported tool gives him the flexibility and power he had with Apple Works - embedding multiple documents of different types (spreadsheet, word processing, etc) within one another, not to mention the thousands of AppleWorks documents he's accumulated over the years. However, most websites and new products don't work on 10.6, so he has another modern computer just for browsing the web. (George R R Martin similarly has an old computer sitting around just to use his favorite 20 year old word processor of choice)
Flash is similar - I have animator friends who maintain an old copy of Windows XP because they love Flash's interface and no other tool comes close.
The news yesterday about MSPaint potentially going away (I think MS back pedaled on it?) falls in the same category - powerful tools that pretty much can't be improved upon that get randomly EoL'd.
Another thing that happens pretty often - tools randomly losing functionality in an update because the developer felt that it should be removed for whatever reason.
Maybe there would be a niche for a minimal Linux distro that comes with a set of powerful, minimalistic creation tools (office documents, multimedia manipulation + viewing, etc - whatever covers the computing needs of 90% of the population) that gets updated with security updates etc but has 1) backwards compatibility and 2) a user interface that mostly never changes as primary goals.
More likely a Product Manager, rather than a developer, prioritizing certain "core" features in a rewrite/redesign to align with the product/corporate strategy better.
(Unless you meant "developer" in the very generic sense, or an indie developer.)
MSPaint is a powerful tool? Do you also consider notepad a powerful editor?
Also sometimes vision changes for whole company and existing products does not fit that vision anymore and company decides to kill it.
Regarding "never changing" software idea: it inherently is doomed because by default user base will be shrinking - majority of people would move on newer (with better features) software and only handful of users would continue using old "not changing" software. It's jut not worth it, and is too small niche.
Meanwhile, it was (as you say) years ahead of standards and the most ubiquitous non-standard standard on the web. In early years it let web designers expirement. Most of those expirements went badly, but many ulitmately preceded and shaped the web of the "future."
Animated interactive UIs, video, audio, rounded corners.... These appeared as flash first and challenged html+ to keep up (with the better parts).
We've all been talking s--t about flash for years. But ultimately it was in use because it was useful and the web may have turned out worse without it.
On tools, this is inevitable. Tools don't last forever and professional these days need to retool periodically. As flash exits left, there is room for new entrants into the 'tools for ex-flash designers' segment.
I don't see this as being a flash thing. You could do that in paint, photoshop or fireworks or ...
It's not a big deal, but it's a fact.
I doubt it. The Mac had rounded corners in may 1981 (https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Round_Rects_Are_...), and the OS had windows with rounded corners when it shipped in 1984 (for an example, look at the calculator in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculator_(Mac_OS)#History)
My condolences to all web developers who had to use whacky hacks to get them working on older IEs.
The Adobe Flex thing had lot of css3 features early. Funny to see how 'easy' it is to release specs and implementation when you are the sole owner of the tech
A huge variety of components from the Flash community. You were presented with an interface within Flash where you could configure the component's options, and very little code was needed to get professional results quickly.
Adobe Animate has nothing like that, and besides Adobe only makes their CC stuff available by subscription which is unappealing to a lot of people.
Ads are as shitty as ever in HTML5.
Plus even back then Flash had a tendency to grind modest hardware to a halt (particularly if you were running OS X or Linux).
So Flash definitely made ads worse. However whether you want to blame Flash or the developers for that is really just a philisophical question. But suffice to say the most annoying adverts around that time wouldn't have been possible without Flash.
I left this question intentionally vague / and possibly wrong in order to give the person responding some leeway and the opportunity to dispel some myths that people might have about JavaScript technologies and the history of both JavaScript and Flash e.g. me.
I assume the Adobe AIR will live on, which is basically "Flash Player for Desktop and Mobile Apps".
That appears to be the case:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14851400
This is only the death of the player software, not the toolkit.
In 2020 the Flash player shouldn't be needed any more, because HTML5 will hopefully be good enough in every browser by that point. All the rest of their tools are still going to be useful.
Why they didn't make this clear to everyone just baffles me.
The SWF format, and the plugin that plays it, is going away.
The program that started life as FutureSplash Animator, and became Macromedia Flash, then Adobe Flash, is not going away. It got rebranded as Adobe Animate last year.
Animators working on stuff for Youtube or TV probably haven't touched a .SWF in years. You export a .MOV and post that to Youtube. Or you drop it in a video editor along with the .MOVs of all your other scenes for this project. The Los Angeles TV animation industry still uses Flash for some projects; check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Flash_animated_televis... sometime, you'll probably recognize a few shows you or your friends love.
If you're using it to make interactive content? You can export to HTML5 now. And to WebGL and WebAssembly. I haven't ever done that myself, I dunno how much hassle it is to convert an old Actionscript/.SWF project to those platforms. I would assume that the 'Animate' rebranding coincided with Adobe feeling that the HTML5 capabilities for interaction were on par with .SWF's; they've been working on that ever since Jobs refused to let the Flash plugin onto iThings.
.SWF is dead, and good riddance. Its plugin was a CPU-hogging binary blob that needed regular updates. It was amazing back in 2000 when it was all we had; it's a lot less amazing now.
The program that compiled a bunch of art and code into .SWF files will live on. The penultimate sentence of Adobe's press release? "...we’ll continue to provide best in class animation and video tools such as Animate CC...". The tool ain't going nowhere. The tool's just distancing itself from its now-much-loathed first export format.
But I would bet money that Animate's file format - the .PSD to its Photoshop - is gonna continue to be called .FLA for the next ten years.
You won't get audio from it, but a lot of other stuff works.
that said, i'm really curious as to what's going to happen to actionscript. Starling really ran with that and it's an otherwise really nice language (as3, that is). i'm glad they open sourced it and I hope it still gets developed.
i also hope they keep developing and supporting AIR
Flash support within AIR is going to continue:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14851400
Others include FFmpeg, libtorrent,toast ports as well as porting of the C extension interface to C# and Swift.
One can say that about a lot of things. FoxPro made me a good living for probably 6-7 years, and it got me in the door at Microsoft. I would also argue that for creating a data-centric LOB application, there are not better tools to replace it (even to this day). But times changes, technology moves on, yada, yada. Now I do other stuff with other tools. I miss that little smirking fox logo, I miss slapping together a CRUD app in no time at all, but FP had it's shortcomings, too, so I try not to get too nostalgic about how it was better in the old days.
As for Flash, well, I try to stay away from web dev, but I won't miss it taking down my browser on a regular basis. In fact, I miss it so little that I haven't had Flash installed on a machine in years (and promptly rip it right the hell off there if a client's policy sticks it on the machine they hand me).
Very much this. The next-closest tech, HTML5, offers the same multimedia capabilities and runtime ubiquity as Flash— but no native tooling for designers/animators.
Instead, every design and interaction must be funneled from design tool through code, handed off from designer-brain to engineer-brain, across each and every iteration. Productivity and creative expression are a couple of the casualties of this "hand-off" workflow.
> There isn't a product on the market that comes even close.
Have you seen Haiku? https://haiku.ai (I'm on the Haiku team.) We're young but we've got some funding, a functional product, and some big-brand early users. We're going squarely after "modern Flash without the plugin," integrated deeply with modern design/dev tools & workflows.
It's a hard problem we're tackling, and we've still got some work ahead of us—but each of us on the team believes so strongly in the need for a solution (as you outlined here) that we're doing something about it.
Some technologies are meant to come, leave their mark, and then go. That's just the way it is sometimes. But that doesn't mean Adobe failed.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Mortar_Project
Nothing perfect and turn key exists at the moment, but all the necessary pieces are basically there.
It depends on what sort of preservation strategy you're going after.
1) "Emulation" style:
-- Open source flash player (a la Shumway)
2) "Automated Conversion" style:
-- Load-time conversion to a different format (ie, HTML5)-- Ahead-of-time conversion to a different format
3) Convert by hand
-- Rewrite in JS/HTML5
-- Rewrite in Haxe using a library like OpenFL (Haxe compiles to JS/HTML5, C++, also Flash)
There's a lot of options available, and a lot of useful primitives. Parsing and rendering Flash (SWF) content is basically solved (OpenFL has made particular strong strides in this area, Shumway is impressive too).
The really big missing piece is ActionScript execution. There are in fact various open source ActionScript VM's out there, and there are ways to parse ABC (Action Script Byte Code) and convert it -- either ahead of time or at load-time -- to something else, whether that's directly to JS, or something like Haxe (which then compiles it to JS or C++ or whatever), but to my knowledge nobody has a working solution that as of today combines Rendering + ActionScript Execution + RigorouslyTestedConvenientUX.
But all the pieces are there. You just need someone motivated enough and well funded enough to put it all together. Hopefully this news spurs that fire.
Proposing to preserve Flash apps through a bytecode emulator is frankly somewhat absurd if you consider analogies. HTML 2.0 sites don't render on modern browsers either, but no-one seriously proposes maintaining a modern HTML 2.0 browser to view them. They simply run an old copy of Netscape Navigator, in a Windows 95 VM if necessary. Likewise with old BASIC programs on an Apple 2: no-one (from a preservation standpoint) runs them on an AppleSoft BASIC emulator; they run them on real AppleSoft BASIC inside an emulated Apple 2.
https://github.com/Corsaair/redtamarin
and added native implementations to render UI with OpenGL API, QT API, etc.
Now, even if it is technically feasible it is not like providing a plugin for the browsers, so that would be mainly to target desktop GUI apps which Adobe AIR is already doing very well.
As for converting the whole Flash API to HTML5/JS, some parts could be done but many parts would be missing or would be impossible to port because the Browser API can not support some of those, TCP/UDP sockets for example (possible with chrome non-standard API but then does not work everywhere).
It would be like any other desktop application. You're running code of which you presumably know and trust the provenance. It's not like a malware Flash ad written by someone who found a security hole in the Flash player, that is loaded into a random web page by an unsuspecting user.
I recall seeing it on Windows too.
It was intended for Flash game development, and worked pretty well for that purpose. Unfortunately, we spent a lot of time dealing with large customers who wanted to use it to port existing Flash games to mobile, which was basically a neverending treadmill of having to implement obscure features that they didn’t even know they were relying on. :/
Parts of it have been open-sourced, but I wish the parent company would just release the whole thing. Last I knew, there was one guy maintaining it for one customer after the main engineers were acquihired.
" neverending treadmill of having to implement obscure features that they didn’t even know they were relying on,"
I been coding emulators for fun (i.e. NES, Scratch) and it's been an interesting journey with all the gotcha's involved - however I don't think I have the motivation for any flash based ones, the only exception I've worked on my scratch2apk emulator (javascript) which has plenty of games going for it!
There's also https://github.com/tobytailor/gordon/wiki
I guess most of them are more or less dead :-/
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Instruments_TI-99/4A#VDP...
Firefox: https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2017/07/25/firefox-r... and https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Plugins/Roadmap Google: https://www.blog.google/products/chrome/saying-goodbye-flash... and https://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/flash-roadmap Microsoft (Edge+IE): https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2017/07/25/flash-on-wind...
*: That is, one that isn't just a reskin of another browser on the list.
Of course that describes what they are doing now, not their plans. Which is not surprising, because Apple never says anything about plans, as a matter of corporate policy...
That being said, while Apple hasn't explicitly said they plan to remove Flash from desktop Safari, they've implicitly signalled it -- they've already got features in place which make it often only load on demand.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14848840
I have fond memories of newgrounds and the real early explosion of browser games, but I'm not going to miss the lag, memory overhead, and security hell one iota.
It was the best years of my life as a programmer.
Flash was first and foremost a community where the goal was to further creativity with the "web" as a medium.
No thanks to Elop who "Eloped" Macromedia.
I will be forever glad for AS3 and the Flash ecosystem.
Fun fact: At university, a teaching assistant at "Introduction to programming" asked in which languages we've programmed before and I said ActionScript and he said that is not a programming language :)
Why not open source it and make Flash the open format instead?
Yes, things can be pieced together: animation programs and sprite exporters here, some custom scripting there, throw in your own tween, sound, and networking libraries, etc., but this is much less efficient than a unified write-once, run-anywhere platform with an integrated development environment for all aspects of the content, which is what Flash offered.
That meant that Flash didn't really do any one thing exceptionally well, but it provided a way to reason about the program as a cohesive whole, and from a very visual perspective. I think that opened doors for a lot of people and I think the simplicity made it a productive platform.
I am no Flash fanboy, but there is a reason it was so popular, and we're ignoring that with the HTML 5 platform, which ultimately just leaves an opening for a new Flash imitator (Unity is the leading candidate, though it hasn't really broached web in a major way yet), which means we will repeat this cycle over the next 20 years.
http://www.adobe.com/products/animate.html
That's a big change. It downgrades Flash from an all-in-one development solution to a single piece of the art pipeline. Users are left to their own devices to try to figure out everything else.
It enabled a consistent cross platform interpreter for javascript and xml based apps.
`swfextract file.swf` should list resources in it, then `swfextract -p 12 file.swf` will get the PNG with id 12.
How hard it is to EOL anything. How non-standard standards can play a giant role. How important deign/dev tools can be. How hard it is to get designers to accept limits (there were all flash websites just for minor design capabilities)..
See how browsers still have to support non CSS styling and similar.
What I meant with standards making it harder to EOL technologies is that a standard leads to more implementations, which is a good thing, but certainly not for EOLing a technology.