This is quite impressive. Combined with the codebase of Dashcode and Xcode 4, Apple now has everything it takes to make the HTML5 authoring suite that we've been waiting for. Imagine not having to code Canvas or SVG animations, just point and click. Once such a WYSIWYG app exists, there'd be no excuses left to use Flash online.
(EDIT) To clarify: what I have in mind is a pro app that is sold in the same way Apple's other pro apps are (Final Cut, Logic, Aperture). No dev account needed, pricing between $300-500. It would produce clean, readable code that would run on any platform that has a decent JavaScript engine and support for HTML5, Canvas, CSS3, SVG, and h.264.
I'm a professional Flash dev, but I spend my after work time on CoffeeScript/JavaScript/HTML5/Node/MongoDB (♥ ECMAScript). There's definitely still a use-case for Flash. It's still faster for some stuff I do (in Webkit{Safari,Chrome}). ActionScript has some nice additions to ES that were unfortunately left out of JS going forward (classes/packages/implicit getters+setters, type enhancement). Adobe's doing some really interesting stuff with 3d+gpu http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flash/molehill/
I don't blame people for statements like "Once such a WYSIWYG app exists, there'd be no excuses left to use Flash online". They're authoritative and are tapped into the zeitgeist. As an Interactive Dev, though, I hope my opinion can count as some kind of counterweight to what I sometimes view as polemic.
* Use AS3, so much better than AS2 and soon to be the ES Standard. Whoops!
* Use our new 3D API, it sucks less than our non-3D API you hacked to kind of do 3D.
* Use our new, new unreleased incompatible 3D API, it sucks much less than our existing 3D API.
* Please continue to use our runtime because it has three virtual machines for three different languages, a 15 year old graphics engine we still haven't really modified to take advantage of modern GPUs, and an IDE that's a cruel joke.
And that's just Flash. They also spent two years hyping Atmosphere before abandoning it. They added a 3D API to Director, then ripped it out, then added another one, then basically left it without an update for five years.
So, basically, yes there's a use-case for Flash. Animated / interactive ads that run on a lot of platforms and custom video players that let you implement ads overlaid on video. Oh, and some casual games where you can ignore the fact Flash doesn't like to handle dynamic screen refresh rates.
Any new functionality Adobe bolts onto its carcass needs to be avoided like the plague.
There is a huge market for Flash applications for enterprise. Do you mean Flash Pro when you refer to the IDE? IntelliJ IDEA is killer. FDT and Flash Develop are also excellent. 3d is virtually useless outside of games and those interactive banner ads you hate. The runtime was why I settled on Flash. I'd rather take it, with its warts, than wrestle browsers like it was 1999.
There are lots of things to gripe about with the Flash platform. Adobe doesn't seem to "get" what it means to support developers. They can't figure out how to run a proper open-source project, but I do them some credit for trying. We suffer from a "banner ad" culture that favors getting things done quickly without regard for craftsmanship at the code level. AS3 allowed developers to start improving this, and there are always notable exceptions to this generalization. This, to me, has been detrimental for the overall public perception of the Flash Platform.
Awesome. Now we'll just have to use an application that requires people to sign up and pay for a developer program to be allowed to use, that only runs on a single platform, and that can only generate content for a single ad platform on selected mobile devices.
That's quite better than the super-proprietary world of Flash... that allows me to use any of the 3 major platforms, using a number of free development environments, and publish anywhere and any way I want.
I don't think the OP means to use this exact tool as an alternative to Flash and its tools, but that Apple could adapt this tool and its other developer tools to create a really compelling "HTML5" development tool.
Trolling?
Either you compare HTML5 (which runs more than one platform and is open standard) vs Flash, or particular tools and then your "using a number of free development environments" does not apply.
If not talking about particular tool: well, you know, you can write html and js in many many editors…
Apple doesn't get designers and any HTML5 authoring suite they produce would most likely be shitty. I know people think Mac is the designer's platform, but that has not been the case for quite some time. Software such as Aperture is an amateur version of Photoshop. Oddly enough I would look to Adobe for innovation in the HTML5 space.
"I know people think Mac is the designer's platform, but that has not been the case for quite some time."
Maybe you should send out a memo to set them straight, the entire creative industry is still using those overpriced toys. Surely designers don't need high quality type display, font and color management, and built-in multi-language support.
Look, this is not a Mac vs. PC issue. It is merely Mac's target demographic not being designers any more. It has not been designers for a very long time.
Mac displays are not very good. Their color range is poor. It is the middle-top end of consumer displays, but it is by no means a professional display. I wouldn't even dream of doing anything requiring accurate colors on an Mac display. Their 30" is about as relevant as Xserve. It is not their target demographic any more.
I am not knocking Mac hardware. Their mobile hardware is the best on the market. However, the perception that Macs are design machines came from when Photoshop was a Mac exclusive. This has not been the case for a very long time and I would say the PC version of Photoshop is significantly better than the Mac version as it stands. I have a MacBook, but I also have a PC largely because I use Photoshop many hours each day and Photoshop on OS X is bad.
Color management, besides being supported by Windows, is more applicable to print design and pretty much irrelevant when it comes to design viewed on a screen.
Designers were never Apple's target demographic, even though Apple and Adobe started the desktop publishing revolution. Education and home use have always been the Mac's target demographic.
Ofcourse, the creative industry has always preferred Macs, and they still do. That's why it's the designer's platform, not because Apple targets them.
As for Apple's displays: you're right, they're not as good as high-end monitors from Samsung, Eizo or Barco. Apple's displays are not made for print designers, they're made for multimedia. This has been the case ever since Apple switched from CRT to LCD. However, the price is right: $999 for a 27" screen with LED backlighting and IPS is hard to beat.
As for Photoshop performance on Mac vs Windows: are you using an older version of Photoshop for Mac? Those weren't 64-bit, didn't utilize the GPU and didn't make use of multiple cores well. Try CS5 on Mac, it's stable and fast.
Actually Mac monitors are OK for print since print doesn't have the range of colors that a display has. What they are not ok for is designing for designed intended for screens.
I wasn't really talking about performance on Mac vs Windows. Photoshop on Mac is buggier, designed poorly, and very flakey overall. I have used both platforms. I own both platforms.
Yes, most designers do just fine with them. Most workspaces of high end design firms I've seen, or you can see photographed on the intertubes, are using Macs with Mac displays.
And they tend to do just fine against the competition at reviews too.
Did I forget to add sarcasm tags to my previous comment? My apologies.
Anyways, in most settings in the creative industry, the software on a workstation is more expensive than the hardware, no matter whether that's a Mac or a Windows machine. And yes, if the person operating the machine earns more than minimum wage, a couple of thousand for a computer really isn't the biggest business expense.
Actually, the fonts on the computer are generally more expensive than anything else. It's better with opentype, but a lot of agencies still have a ton of mac-only fonts that would be prohibitively expensive to update.
Plus, really good designers are like really good developers. If they don't get to work on the machines they like, they'll walk. Which is just too bad for anybody in IT that wants to push Windows.
But Aperture is NOT meant to be a Photoshop competitor but an Adobe Lightroom alternative. Aperture's primary function is photo management and is a step up from the very basic iPhoto; image editing and manipulation with heavy filters and layers were never its primary functions.
I know as a fact that Adobe intends to try, but I can't help but think whatever they cook up is going to be only marginally useful for serious development (which frankly is my first impression of Producer as well, though it does have potential)
Remember Golive CyberStudio? That used to be a great tool, but then it was bought by Adobe. In subsequent versions (>v3.1), all Adobe did was introduce bloat and instability. After Adobe bought Macromedia, they did the same to Dreamweaver. Because Adobe now had two web authoring suites, they simply killed the one they had put the most time into ruining.
However, I'm grateful for Adobe ruining WYSIWYG HTML editors for me. GoLive 5 crashed so often that I finally decided to start coding in BBedit. That was back in 2000, and I never looked back.
I remember that the first major release Adobe did for GoLive was to remove a huge feature that we used in a product we were selling. Namely the ability to write dynamic code that talked to a database. Version 6 had it, version 7 nothing. We had 100's of sites we supported on that platform. It was great because the designers could click and point to make new dynamic areas on the page. We actually saved quite a chunk of change by not "upgrading" to that version, not only in costs to Adobe to buy the software, but also in not having to hire an estimated 12 more developers to maintain the code by hand.
> Software such as Aperture is an amateur version of Photoshop.
And it's Apple that "doesn't get designers"?
Aperture is a photography workflow app, it's not an image editor. If you want to compare it to something, compare it to Adobe's own Lightroom, to Capture One, et al.
Stealth launch in plain sight. This thing's true form, a full web app SDK with built-in distribution and a podcast directory-like, sandboxed-widget version of the App Store is going to be unveiled at WWDC. Seriously, I'd give this at least a 50% probability.
This is Apple's preemptive assault against the WebOS Ares SDK. They know they could have a situation on their hands if HP doesn't botch the next generation of WebOS devices.
That sounds great to me, but I'm inclined to take pronouncements of this sort with a grain of salt. It was only a couple months ago, after all, that some industry watchers proclaimed that the new Apple TV with AirPlay was a trojan horse that would conquer every American living room and topple the cable TV industry.
But here's the thing: When Apple releases something that they think is significant, they say so.
Why would Apple create a serious competitor to their proprietary app stack when it's doing so well though? Seems to me the last thing Apple wants is to encourage cross-platform native-quality apps right now.
On apps sold through the App Store, Apple makes 30 percent. On free iAd-supported apps it makes 40 percent.
Personally, I don't think iAd Producer (or its sibling) will create "native-quality" apps. I can't imagine games like Infinity Blade being created in HTML5. But surely, database viewers (like many apps in the App Store are) should run fine.
That's the point – it's intended as anything but a serious competitor to the native stack. The thing is, to make a simple widget app (comparable to the built-in weather app), you don't need the kind of low-level access that a complex game like Infinity Blade needs. When you're making something that could be built in HTML5, why should you have to bother with an NSAutoReleasePool?
There's room for a secondary, more abstracted dev environment for the iPhone. Palm is proving it with Ares.
Anyone here ever clicked on an iAd? The experience is reminiscent of an early '00s Flash-based website, complete with 30 second loading screen, "skip intro" button, poorly-designed non-standard UI widgets to puzzle over, and terrible framerate. It's an experience I wouldn't put up with for a useful app, let alone an advertisement. Not sure what Apple was thinking...
I'm surprised Apple doesn't allow iAds to run natively as opposed to only HTML/JS. I mean, I'm sure once they open it up to everyone there will still be an approval process anyway, a la the App Store, so what would be the downside?
You could do a lot of cool, eye catching graphical stuff (3D, etc) that wouldn't suffer slowdown and would probably even use less memory (if well designed). Plus ad designers would have the full native UI library at their fingertips.
Native apps cost a lot more to develop, and WebKit frames are easier to sandbox UI-wise and are easier to integrate into other apps. Native apps has to be downloaded and installed and certificate-verified whereas html5 ads can just be launched.
So the iAd market will have to get really huge before native ads are worth the trouble.
I'd love to think so, but they released their original and very basic programmer-oriented JavaScript library back in May, and that didn't lead to anything.
I love how the first thing your eye sees is the phone with the map, and then a Google logo. I guess that rivalry is not as tough as Steve Jobs' 140 character email replies would lead one to believe...
SproutCore is already used for the MobileMe and iWork.com web interfaces. However, it is not the only web app framework Apple uses. Other known projects are Gianduia, Coherent, AdLib, TuneKit and PastryKit.
(EDIT) To clarify: what I have in mind is a pro app that is sold in the same way Apple's other pro apps are (Final Cut, Logic, Aperture). No dev account needed, pricing between $300-500. It would produce clean, readable code that would run on any platform that has a decent JavaScript engine and support for HTML5, Canvas, CSS3, SVG, and h.264.