Macromedia Looking at Opening Flash Player 84
duder writes "Well, it appears that Macromedia is going to open source their Flash player. There is a article at benews which contains an purported e-mail from Macromedia's Flash Player Manager. " From what the e-mail says they will be "releasing the Flash Player Source Code SDK & Flash
File Format (SWF) SDK, in mid January."Update: 01/07 02:39 by H :A very big thank you to David Michie who helped bring me up to speed-looks like SWF has been open for quite some time, and Macromedia had announced the opening of the source back in May. Check out OpenSWF.org for more information.
Re:Freaky! Open source IS a marketing thing! (Score:1)
It's a Good Thing, sice we'll be able to create a new flash file format based on XML. I suggest that this new format is called "xfl", eXtended Flash Language. It should be open, so anyone can right-click on a xfl animation and see its source, just like html.
Re:Not Open Source (Score:1)
I received this piece of information from a Xara engineer about 6 weeks ago:
I submitted it [the Xara vector format] at the sixth annual World Wide Web Conference in San Jose a few years back. Unfortuantely at that time interest in vector formats was low among most attendees. Xara is a small company and simply doesn't have the resources to continually push the format. Chris Lilley was very supportive, but I guess we were overtaken by events. That said, our format is an open format, with a specification freely available on the web. It's a shame no one else decided to take it up as an option.
Lies! (was: Re:Quotes from Macromedia) (Score:1)
Since Flash is written for Macs and Win32, how the fsck do you think they're going to produce a "Flash tarball"?!
Re:Quicktime handles Flash files (Score:1)
Flash might give QTVR a run for it's money, but I doubt it.
The End Result is the Same.... (Score:1)
Quotes from Macromedia (Score:1)
"I get a nice flamey email about once a week from some ass who calls me a hypocrite and slams me for not getting out a new release. My usual response is to tell them that I delay the release by 24 hours each time someone asks me when a new Flash tarball will be out. "
...
"It's really easy for someone to complain that I didn't release a new version of the source code every week. Its also easy to forget that in the last 6 months we've doubled in traffic and we've had to optimize our code and hardware to handle that. A new source release is secondary: Our job is running Macromedia. We want to release new versions of Flash, but it is a definite second priority to keeping Macromedia moving."
...
"Finally, it's coming soon. It'll be out when its finished. And if you ask me again I'll postpone it again."
--
Re:Lies! (was: Re:Quotes from Macromedia) (Score:1)
--
Re:Not Open Source (Score:1)
Yes, as a matter of fact, I *do* like it. (Score:1)
For instance, I love a lot of the new movie advertising sites which present the movies with Flash trailer-like pieces.
Mind you, I don't want Slashdot using Flash.. But if you have a site that wants to be entertaining, dynamic, and maybe a bit different, Flash rocks.
Why does it give you the creeps?
I think that SVG has them worryed (Score:1)
they make money from selling the tools now what happens if you become sidelined and the player dosnt work on 1/2 the machines that you addvertise to well you are not going to use it !
SVG rules I just hope ani is in there for latter standards
regards
john
a poor student @ bournemouth uni in the UK (a deltic so please dont moan about spelling but the content)
Flash Maker? (Score:1)
Or am I living under a rock, and there already exists one for Linux? To my knowledge, there is nothing like Director for Linux/UN*X.
Re:Flash sucks (Score:1)
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
Re:Lies! (was: Re:Quotes from Macromedia) (Score:1)
ROTFLMAO!
Re:What does this mean for SVG? (Score:1)
Sendy
If Adobe would make a SWF maker... (Score:1)
While it is a decent product, I really prefer the interface of Adobe products to those of Macromedia. Having used Dreamweaver, Firecracker and Flash next to Photoshop, Illustrator and GoLive, I find that Adobe puts together products that are more streamlined and polished. Maybe I'm just used to their style.
As far as open sourcing Flash, people could check out OpenSWF.org [openswf.org].
I have thought for a while that with the depth of market penetration that Flash has, it would be nice to have it as a sort of standard so that other companies could be involved, because web streamable vector graphics are a lot bigger than just Macromedia.
I do respect the work they have done, and don't want to see the excluded from reaping the benefits of their work. We all need a vector graphic standard, though, and it isn't for the better to have one company to have complete control of anything, as Macromedia has now with the delivery of vector graphics.
I hope they don't Sun on this one (we want a standard, no, we want us to control it, but we want a standard).
YES! (Score:1)
Re:Potential Synergy (Score:1)
Most of the flash sites I've seen seem to have no idea about design from the perspective of usability.
For example, why is it that many of these sites have navigation systems in which you can only see where a particular button leads when you move your mouse over it. In one example, The graphical buttons had been passed through a blur filter so the text on them was illegible until you floated above them, then they snapped into focus. I was slapping my head at the stupidity of it all.
God have mercy on us all, and not let the flash designers get their hands on mainstream applications.
The Format is Open NOW (Score:1)
Jes! (Score:1)
Re:A worthy adversary to Quicktime! (Score:1)
Re:Flash sucks (Score:1)
WOOHOO! (Score:1)
Re:Arrgh (Score:1)
It is the article's claims that are incorrect: the letter they quote is a confirmation that the SDK will be available. The authors of the article have spiced this up as 'Flash going Open Source'.
-- Andrem
Re:Arrgh (Score:1)
Re:Arrgh this is old news, and is fact not rumor (Score:1)
.. Looking at Opening Flash Player (Score:1)
Says the headline and then presents a neat summary of the e-mail.
I guess you just read too fast.
Re:Freaky! Open source IS a marketing thing! (Score:1)
Macromedia [macromedia.com] makes their money off the tools, not the viewers/players. The more people that have the viewers, the more viable Macromedia's products [macromedia.com] are.
Basically, with the open source for the viewers, Macromedia now will get to either a) put mor emoney into development of the tools or b) make more money, or most likely (because they're cool) c) both.
Re:Lynx featuring Flash? (Score:1)
[I fail to see what Lynx has to do with this. Please explain.]
Freaky! Open source IS a marketing thing! (Score:1)
More information at: OpenSWF.org (Score:1)
Re:Arrgh (Score:1)
I'm the lead engineer for the team (Middlesoft) that wrote the SDK's and I can assure you they exist. And have for some time, for that matter. Release awaits resolving the licensing issue.
Macromedia has a press release for it, buried in their sight somewhere.
lee
Flash Player Source Code & Flash File Format (SWF) (Score:1)
It is true that Macromedia has announced plans to make available in the near future the Flash Player Source Code & Flash File Format (SWF) Software Development Kits (SDK). However, Macromedia is not pursuing an "open source" strategy as your article indicates. "Open source" is a term used for the historical development model utilized by the UNIX and Internet communities to facilitate distributed development of complex software. With open source software, the development and maintenance of the code base is the responsibility of the development community. With free source licensing, Macromedia maintains the code base, which downloaders may modify, use, and deploy.
We apologize for any confusion. Stay tuned for further information about Macromedia's free source licensing program.
Regards,
The Flash Team
Troy Evans, Flash Player Product Manager
Flash-to-XML (Score:1)
FUD (Score:2)
Re:DreamWeaver (Score:2)
On a semi-related note: Can anybody recommend a good web editor for Linux? Pico has been my tool of choice for a long time but I need something more full-featured (visual table design, DHTML would be nice, etc) so I can stop rebooting to Windows.
Shockwave would be nice... (Score:2)
Look at http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/alte
Why haven't they ported shockwave yet, anybody know?
Maybe it'll work better now? (Score:2)
On the other hand, it's really nice that a standard that is becoming very popular on the net is going to be available like this. If you use it on the net, it should be publically available, free and open.
--
Re:What does this mean for SVG? (Score:2)
I don't want to sound too 'monopolistic paranoid'. In, this news appears to be just confirmation of earlier promises that Macromedia has made. I just want to present another perspective.
SVG would be a real advance in web graphics. Instead of paying for authoring tools basic graphics and even animation can be done by hand scripting in a text editor. IBM's alphaworks has an excellent java SVG viewer and some example files, I'd suggest everyone with an interest in Flash and web graphics have a look at what the possibilities are.
Plugin is available (Score:2)
I've got it installed at work and at home. And I'm actually very impressed with the Shockwave format:
Compact vector animations which download quickly over a modem. Okay, it can be overused, but then so can DHTML.
Chris Wareham
This is not news! (Score:2)
But the truth is that the SWF format is never going to be a usable Web format until it comes out from under Macromedia's control. As it stands, they can just change the format slightly any time competing development packages are released (hence no-one really has tried releasing a competing application to Flash). The Flash 4 plugin has been around for ages. Why hasn't the revised file format already been released?
One link of interest if you're looking into generating Flash under Linux is Paul Haeberli's library at http://reality.sgi.com/grafica/flash [sgi.com]. Bear in mind that it doesn't come with source and it only outputs version 3 SWF.
K.
-
Re:It's a nice start... (Score:2)
Open SWF (Score:2)
There's a bunch of good info there.
License? (Score:2)
(see This page at the Free Software Foundation [fsf.org] to find out the difference between open source software and free software.)
Re:Arrgh (Score:2)
from http:// www.macromedia.com/macromedia/proom/pr/2000/index
"Macromedia published its Flash file format as an open Web standard in 1998, allowing other companies to both export the Flash file format or playback Flash content within their applications. Macromedia also makes the Flash Player source code available at zero cost to platform and device developers, further extending Flash's broad reach."
or if you want to read the press release from 1998 go here:
http://www.ma cromedia.com/macromedia/proom/pr/1998/flashstanda
Also this was not presented as fact, but as a rumor. Thats why words like "appears" and "purported" are used. There is also no reason why Slashdot should contact Macromedia. They themselves are not a news organization nor are they the source of this information.
I think the fact that this was a rumor was adequately explained. If you are not interested in reading industry rumors then don't. I'm also tired of anybody who complains about the articles being posted getting an automatic mark up from the moderators.
Potential Synergy (Score:2)
Is any one working on creating GUI's that are as cool/neat/whatever as those that Flash sites have? Are there any design principles that can enhance productivity, either on the desktop or in a handheld interface to a real world system?
Maybe I watch SciFi too much, but their interstitial interface eye-candy is really appealing. (And I don't mean themes, damnit!)
The Format IS open - w/ link (Score:2)
http://www.macromedia.com/softw are/flash/open/spec/ [macromedia.com]
Re:MACROMEDIA != LYNX FRIENDLY (Score:2)
Lynx featuring Flash? (Score:2)
Re:Freaky! Open source IS a marketing thing! (Score:2)
OpenSWF.org (Score:2)
The Flash File Format (SWF) has been "open" since April 1998, but the spec was (is) very buggy and poorly supported.
Macromedia announced they would release the source code for the Flash Player in May 1999, but the have been very slow in delivering.
Everything you ever wanted to know about Flash is here: OpenSWF.org [openswf.org]
That press release looks familiar... (Score:2)
But as the lead engineer for the team that created the SDK's I'd like to contribute a few things:
I hope those of you who can use them, enjoy them!
lee
It's not open source (Score:3)
This is clearly an attempt by Macromedia to kill truly free implementations of the Flash format. Should another implementation of the Flash format become the de-facto standard, Macromedia would lose a lot of their strength and control of this market.
I suspect, in particular, that this may be related to the next release of Netscape this year: it will almost certainly need to include some kind of Flash player, and if they didn't make some kind of source code available, it would be the free implementation, giving an alternative implementation of the Flash format an instant big market share.
I think Macromedia's meddling and their implementation are best disregarded. If vector graphics is to become a web standard, we need truly free implementations, not the proprietary "free source" mess that Macromedia is offering.
What does this mean for SVG? (Score:3)
Does this indicate Macromedia is shedding some enthusiasm for the SVG format? Flash is already the de facto vector graphics standard. I understand and appreciate the fact that the W3C (with reps from Macromedia as members of the working group) is working on a standard for vector graphics, but I don't think it will ever take off, especially if Macromedia does open-source the Flash format.
I understand there are philsophical differences between SVG [w3.org] and Flash, but I just can't find any benefits to using SVG. Flash is small, comes with the browser, and very powerful.
Thanks W3C for all your work, but if this article is true then it will all have been in vain. Maybe the Flash format will change in the future to incorporate the XML DOM so that it will be more in line with what the W3C is shooting for, but who knows?
Macromedia FAQs on Flash Releases (Score:3)
Macromedia FAQs [macromedia.com]
Not Open Source (Score:3)
They state quite clearly that they aren't releasing it as 'open source'. Instead the Flash SDK will be released under a royalty free license. You will not be able to distribute the source with any derived products.
However, the Flash file format IS genuinely Open. So you can write your own Flash player from the ground up.
Flash has several advantages over SVG (http://www.w3c.org/Graphics/SVG/). SVG is XML based, so will not be small. From my understanding, achieving Flash style animation in SVG will involve a lot more work.
However, SVG may have its place. A single renderer should be able to handle SVG and Flash formats, so the standards needn't compete. SVG will be hand craftable, so simple objects (can we say bullet-point spheres and horizontal rules?) won't be difficult to create.
What ever happened to Xara's incredibly tiny Flare vector format?
-- Andrem
any difference between platforms? (Score:3)
this is similar to the fox fiasco of a few weeks ago (although they prevent the viewing of the entire web site) and i'm shure there are plenty of other sites that do the same thing. I guess my question is: is this the result of web site designer's ignorance or does the linux version of flash have some "bugs" which requires the redesigning of the flash site?
does anybody know?
Dan
It's a nice start... (Score:3)
Still, it's just one more step towards better software! I just wish M$ would Open up their file formats for
Moderator - Too late to kill this story, but (Score:4)
This news/rumor is lame because it is yet ANOTHER example of slashdot making a news announcement out of something generally known to flash oriented people and especially all those programmers that ceased reverse engineering Flash specifically because of the original news release to release source to flash rasterizer interpreter.
Macromedia only went Open source to heed off Public Domain style BSD source code efforts that competitors could use in proprietary products.
Basically its a shameful and transparent move of theirs.
Kind of like 3dfx hiring a guy who got the first glidelib stuff done for voodoo and taking his source and coercing the guy to shut down his 3dfx reverse engineering efforts.
I hate this. I wish theyed hurry up. Its not like flash 3 and 4.0 are that good for animation anyway (frozen frame count, cpu affected, no velocity based animation paths, etc etc)
A worthy adversary to Quicktime! (Score:4)
Though based around and on the web, the Flash file format is an incredibly efficient and versatile format - the Flash Player, for those not familiar with it, is the desktop standalone player for Flash files.
To those who think this is simply a marketing ploy, this is simply part of a progression - the Flash file format was Open Sourced about a year ago, to allow exporting in other packages to Flash format, for instance.
Hopefully this will both catalyse the use of Flash as one of the most extensible and versatile multimedia formats available, and act as another "toe in the water" for one of the biggest multimedia companies entering the Linux waters. Let's welcome them aboard.
Fross
Arrgh (Score:4)