Adobe Hopes Wallaby Can Vault Apple’s Flash Blockade: Online Video News «

Ever since Steve Jobs issued his “Thoughts on Flash” almost a year ago, there’s has been a lot written about the conflict between Adobe’s favorite runtime and Apple’s iOS platform, supported by the powerful new capabilities of HTML5.

We’ve certainly given it plenty of attention as Adobe has tried, and largely failed, to get Flash onto the iPhone, iPad and iPod.

It’s starting to look like those arguments won’t matter any more, however, since Adobe appears to be switching its strategy and launching new products that can cope with Apple’s restrictions. The first major example: Wallaby, a system it is launching today to convert basic Flash files — such as animations and banner ads — into code that will work on iOS.

Wallaby in action

Wallaby in action

The application is straightforward: it’s an AIR program that allows you to drag and drop a Flash file into it, at which point the system analyzes the file and outputs a sequence of HTML-friendly files that produce the same effect. By using HTML, CSS and SVG, the company says most simple Flash files can be recreated in ways that will work on Apple mobile products.

A prototype of the system was first shown off at Adobe’s MAX conference in October, but this time it’s real: as of now it should be available to download from Adobe Labs.

I spoke to Adobe’s Tom Barclay about the launch, who said that the project had a specific purpose — to make Apple’s Flash ban less painful for developers — but pointed out that it was still very much experimental.

“There’s still room for improvement, but I think we’ve addressed a very specific use case for banner ads on iOS,” he told me.

He’s right to emphasize the limitations, because Wallaby certainly has them right now.

While it can port over simple animations and transitions, there’s a lot of information that it can’t handle: notably ActionScript instructions (which are used to program inside Flash) don’t convert, although Barclay suggested that they may come into the picture further down the line. Similarly, some of Flash’s higher-end features — such as filters and blend modes — aren’t being ported through Wallaby yet. And it doesn’t convert audio and video because HTML5 has its own dedicated tags for those.

It’s also, for now, focused on Webkit browsers like Apple’s Safari and Google Chrome. In the future, if there’s demand, Adobe says it will extend the system to other browsers with different code bases, like Firefox or Opera (but not, he suggested, Internet Explorer — at least any time soon).

So is this Adobe capitulating?

It’s likely to be painted that way in much of the technology press, but that’s probably unfair. In one way, Adobe might have to take this route: after all, short of an antitrust lawsuit, it can’t force Apple to support a system it doesn’t like. But to think that this is a case of Steve Jobs emerging victorious over his rivals is a dramatic — and dangerous — simplification of what’s going on.

Of course Adobe wants wider support for Flash, but it also already has a foot in the HTML camp too. That’s because Adobe is about a lot more than Flash — even in its own product lineup, it isn’t the only game in town. The company also produces HTML editing software like Dreamweaver, which can hardly ignore the advances being made in the Web’s native language.

Adobe has admitted that it didn’t realize mobile would take off so quickly, but now it is trying to get itself back on track. As Paul Gubbay, the company’s VP of engineering for design and web, told me last year: “We have to be realists about what’s happening.”

So, will Wallaby fix the enmity between Apple and Flash? Not entirely. For a start it can’t handle complex Flash objects like games or applications. But it does solve a major and valuable problem, advertising. And it sends a clear signal that Adobe has decided it is more productive to build answers rather than just stamp its feet in protest.

 

ie6countdown.com – a wolf in sheep's clothing — statichtml.com

It seems that Microsoft are just as sick of users sticking with IE6 as web developers are, if their latest ie6countdown.com venture is anything to go by. You'd think that web developers – at least the ones who haven't already abandoned support for IE6 – would get behind this movement in their droves, and they may… but at what cost?

You see, Microsoft is asking developers to join in their crusade by adding a standard banner to their site wrapped in conditional comments so that it only shows for users of IE6 and below. The banner looks like this:

Yes, the banner is fugly - and inaccessible, thanks to the missing alt text – but that's not as much of a problem as where the banner links to: the IE homepage on microsoft.com. Given that everyone using IE6 is, at best, running Windows XP, and given that Microsoft have stated that IE9 won't be available for pre-Vista SP2 OSs, the most recent version of Internet Explorer they could ever hope to upgrade to is IE8.

Yes, that's right; a 2-year old browser on the verge of obsolescence, with zero support for HTML5, destined to become the new ball and chain that keeps web development firmly rooted in the past. No thank you!

If you're considering running this banner on your site, please (pretty please) link to Firefox or Chrome or Opera. And while you're at it, find a designer friend to create a banner that wont make your users want to poke their eyes out with a stick.

Steve Jobs' reality distortion takes its toll on truth

Apple twisted facts and used an erroneous quotation to try to convince crowds that all other tablets had no shot at de-throning the iPad in 2011.

In what seems like a ritual at this point, I watched Apple's iPad 2 keynote in disbelief, noting the factual errors that kept coming up minute after minute.  See previous:

So, let's get started: As part of the opening iPad bullet points, Apple included this gem:

"First dual core tablet to ship in volume." That's funny, I tested a Dell (DELL) Streak 7, which had a dual core Nvidia Tegra 2 chip in January. They've been shipping ever since on T-Mobile.

In volume.

Of course, the Motorola (MMI) XOOM also has this same dual core processor and is certainly shipping in volume as well. In fact, I've been using an Android phone (the Atrix) with a dual core chip for weeks and it wasn't the first to ship in volume.  As for Apple (AAPL), they haven't shipped one iPad 2 yet -- iPad 2's hit shelves on March 11.

Perhaps this has to do with Jobs' subjective view of 'Volume' which may start at whatever numbers iPads are currently selling?  And 'ship'? Well, I don't know.

That was just the beginning.  He next pulled out a thoroughly debunkedmis-translated quote from a Samsung VP:

Some people only hear what they want to hear, but that quote should have ended with "quite smooth."  That translation was officially corrected a long time ago. Here's the recording.  Shame on Apple Keynote fact-checkers, if such a role even exists.

That leads us to:

">90% market share".  OMG Math.

Both Apple and Samsung measure sales the same way -- into the channel.  Apple has just as many points of sale for the iPad as Samsung has for the Tab and likely many more.  So Samsung sold 2 million (in the last quarter) in 2010.  Apple sold 14.8 million (in three quarters).  That seems like a pretty fair comparison.

Apple would have needed to sell 3.2 million more to reach 90% of 2010's tablet market share against just Samsung alone (in triple the time).  That's not including all of the Android-powered Nooks out there, those cheap $100 Androids you can buy at Walgreens or Amazon and even Windows-powered Tablet PCs (which are mentioned two bullet points above!).  If you choose to include the Kindle, Apple may not have even reached 50% of the market.

Perhaps Jobs meant market share of tablets that start with the letter "I."

And finally, pricing:

As for pricing, Jobs compared the most expensive Android tablet -- the XOOM --against the iPad.  While specs don't matter to the typical consumer, components do largely affect the price of a device.  The XOOM's are simply better.  It has (expandable) 32GB of storage built in and 3G built in (upgradable through a painful mail-in process to 4G).  So, on that alone, it compares with the $729 iPad.

But then consider that the XOOM has a much better, bigger 720P+ screen compared to the iPad's 1024x768 job (it has less Retina™).  Then, add far superior cameras (w/flash), stereo speakers (iPad 2 has one), 4G and a micro-USB/SD Card reader.  Apple won't say how much RAM the iPad has, but I'm willing to bet it is about half of the XOOM's 1GB.

You see, Apple loves to talk about specs when it is in its best interest (speeds and feeds).  There are plenty of specs on size and weight that were repeated over and over:"8.8mm thin", "1.3 lbs".  Tech Specs?  Lots: "Retina display has 326PPI", "1GHz Dual Core Processor", "64GB of storage", "Fingerprint-resistant oleophobic coating", "Back camera: Video recording, HD (720p) up to 30 frames per second with audio; still camera with 5x digital zoom", etc. etc.  But ask them how much RAM the iPad has and they'll tell you it doesn't matter.

Perhaps Jobs could have also compared the iPad 2 to other Android tablets' prices? Samsung's Galaxy Tab and Dell's Streak both now start at $499 and have better cameras, 3G radios and GPS, which seem to compete well with Apple's $499 Wifi-only offering.  Reality distorted.

I have a lot of respect for Steve Jobs and Apple's products.  It's just a shame that all the truth-bending destroys the keynotes.

Here's the whole video (play distortion bingo with a double shot of Kool-Aid?):