Adobe renames Flash Professional to Animate, pivots focus to HTML5

“Adobe on Tuesday delivered an update to its Creative Cloud, but the biggest switch may be that it renamed its Flash Professional CC to Adobe Animate CC in a move that highlights the pivot from Flash to HTML5,” Larry Dignan reports for ZDNet.

Dignan reports, “In a blog post, Adobe outlined its reason for the name change to Animate CC: ‘Why the change? The use of open web standards and HTML5 has become the dominant standard on the web. Over the past few years, the Flash Professional CC product team has embraced this movement by rewriting the tool from the ground up, adding native support for HTML5 Canvas and WebGL as well as output to any format (such as SVG) with an extensible architecture. This flexibility has been a huge hit with Adobe customers. Today, over a third of all content produced in Flash Professional CC is HTML5-based, reaching over 1 billion devices worldwide. In order to more clearly reflect its role as the premier animation tool for the open web and beyond, we updated the name.'”

“With Animate CC, Adobe is trying to drive home the point that its tools are used to deliver animations using any Web standard,” Dignan reports. “Animate CC will be available in early 2016.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: As usual, Steve Jobs was right:

The avalanche of media outlets offering their content for Apple’s mobile devices demonstrates that Flash is no longer necessary to watch video or consume any kind of web content. And the 200,000 apps on Apple’s App Store proves that Flash isn’t necessary for tens of thousands of developers to create graphically rich applications, including games. New open standards created in the mobile era, such as HTML5, will win on mobile devices (and PCs too). Perhaps Adobe should focus more on creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind. — Steve Jobs, April, 2010

SEE ALSO:
Apple just banned some versions of Adobe Flash from Macs – October 21, 2015
How to rid your Mac of the scourge: Uninstall Flash Player – October 16, 2015
Adobe confirms major Flash vulnerability, and the only way to protect yourself is to uninstall Flash – October 15, 2015
Adobe’s bloated, insecure Flash must die – July 15, 2015
Steve Jobs posts rare open letter: Thoughts on Flash – April 29, 2010

27 Comments

  1. When the iPad came out, there were “competitors” who claimed their tablets were superior because they ran Flash (which was a disaster on tablets by the way) . . . I remember a funny ad for Staples in which the Staples Guy says to a customer, “And our tablets run Flash!”

  2. This is not a matter of whether Flash sucks or not (it does). It’s a matter of who decides whether, and how much, it sucks. That should be the user, that is, the owner of the machine. To me this is tantamount to deciding which sites I get to visit, or not.

    I do not want Apple, or anyone, as my IT department.

    1. Perhaps you don’t want someone else to make that decision for you but it’s Apple’s problem (and investment) to build in Flash functionality, deal with customer complaints from poor battery life, deal with the security issues and convince everyone to ensure that their Flash website is mobile compliant.

      Regular consumption of Flash on a mobile device (especially back then with much slower processors) would have rendered a very poor experience on the iPad.

      And consumers voted with their feet anyways, choosing not to embrace the devices that did support Flash.

      1. They don’t build in Flash functionality, they artificially forbid it from running via App Store censorship. Same for Java.

        Making for a very poor experience….
        Perhaps, but it’s my soup and I can choose to salt it.
        How about benchmark programs, they suck up battery life too. Most are useless. Why not forbid those too? Or is it only the one’s wrapped in a Confederate flag?

    2. Apple are free to choose what product they make. After that, you are free to choose whatever product you wish to buy.

      That way, I get to choose the non flash tablet that is my preference while you can choose whichever tablet does not violate your human rights. You are not the only one with rights of choice, you see.

      1. What you say is an admission of self censorship, and abdication of your choice and letting Apple handle that for you. This goes against the principles of ownership. It’s okay if the default settings are such, but forbidding deviation is not “Thinking Different!”.

    1. You beat me to the punch.

      I was going to ask if there is actually any difference (outside of the name change) in what Adobe has now and what they had before?

      Just because they rewrote the code and renamed the program doesn’t mean it produces an end product that behaves any differently.

    1. H.264 is a codec. It’s usually delivered in an MP4 container, but can be delivered in other containers such as MKV.

      Flash is a player/plugin (on the client side) which, among other things, can play H.264 encoded MP4 files.

      I don’t mean to be pedantic about this, but the correct technical distinctions are important in understanding the answer to your question.

      From the server side, the same exact H.264 encoded MP4 files can be served and even the server architecture can be the same.

      So many content providers long ago moved towards H.264 MP4 files not only for Flash, but also for mobile and other devices not Flash enabled. It’s a really great container and codec (soon H.265 will take the codec lead).

      For embedding H.264 MP4 files in the browser, one could use HTML5, Flash, or other worse choices (see Silverlight).

      However, on the browser side, there are problems with moving to HTML5 as the sole basis for the player, notably the issue of compatibility (specifically with old, but still in use versions of Internet Explorer). Additionally, there are issues of what HTML5 is capable of as compared to Flash in terms of interaction.

      Many content providers are facing a scenario where if they moved entirely to HTML5 on PCs, they would face audience loss from those not HTML5 compatible, as well as potentially feature loss from their current player, and face development costs, all for no real *direct* benefit… the video won’t look any better, their bandwidth costs remain the same, etc…

      There are ways to detect whether the user has Flash installed and if not, deliver HTML5 based video. But depending on the method used for this, if you have Flash installed, it will deliver that as opposed to the HTML5.

      I don’t know about Showtime or HBO, but you might want to try disabling Flash to see if a site will deliver an HTML5 embedded video when Flash is disabled. If not, write to the site and request this.

      The more requests they get for this, the more they’ll be willing to trade off the costs I mentioned earlier.

    1. It already is, and it’s not up to them.

      The authoring tools for Flash have always been (relatively) secure, it’s the player/plugin that has had issues. Animate CC will deliver standard HTML5 as published by the W3C.

      Any client-side security issues will be either an issue with the spec or an issue of the implementation in the browser.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.