Flash 7/Linux

[toby]

I finally figured it out. The most likely explanation for why
Macromedia won't provide a current player for Linux, and Linux support
lags generally, is that M$ is leaning on them. It's all clear now. I
can't prove it, but nobody can prove it's not the case, either.

A case of plenty "quid pro quo" without any "pro bono publico"... Not
properly supporting Linux hurts Flash in huge deployment markets, guys.

--T

[timberfish]

On 2005-03-06 12:15:36 -0800, "toby" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> said:

> I finally figured it out. The most likely explanation for why
> Macromedia won't provide a current player for Linux, and Linux support
> lags generally, is that M$ is leaning on them. It's all clear now. I
> can't prove it, but nobody can prove it's not the case, either.
>
> A case of plenty "quid pro quo" without any "pro bono publico"... Not
> properly supporting Linux hurts Flash in huge deployment markets, guys.
>
> --T

I'm not sure where you get your information, but yes you're right it
does sound like it's just a "feeling" you have rather than a statement
based on any fact.

Think about it this way... if you're developing an app the size of
Flash, would you want to spend the enormous amount of money it costs to
port the app to Linux, when most Linux users are used to free or nearly
free software and they also only make up about 1 to 4% of the users in
the market? I would guess their motives are more financial than
political.

I use Linux myself as do many of my friends (some exclusively) and I
don't know a single one who would purchase a license for Flash if it
were to come to Linux. I'm sure Macromedia has done research on demand
and found it to be not cost effective.

But thanks for your thoughts.
--
{ timberfish }
{ [url]www.grassapple.com[/url] }

[toby]

timberfish wrote:

> On 2005-03-06 12:15:36 -0800, "toby" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> said:
>

> > I finally figured it out. The most likely explanation for why
> > Macromedia won't provide a current player for Linux, and Linux

support

> > lags generally, is that M$ is leaning on them. It's all clear now.

I

> > can't prove it, but nobody can prove it's not the case, either.
> >
> > A case of plenty "quid pro quo" without any "pro bono publico"...

Not

> > properly supporting Linux hurts Flash in huge deployment markets,

guys.

> >
> > --T

>
> I'm not sure where you get your information, but yes you're right it
> does sound like it's just a "feeling" you have rather than a

statement

> based on any fact.

It's based on the undisputable fact that Linux is not well supported.
Can you find a Flash 7 Player?

>
> Think about it this way... if you're developing an app the size of
> Flash, would you want to spend the enormous amount of money it costs

to

> port the app to Linux,

They ported it years ago. Updating the release is simple unless they're
not planning for portability (which they must: portability is perhaps
Flash's greatest selling point).

> when most Linux users are used to free or nearly
> free software and they also only make up about 1 to 4% of the users

in

> the market?

You're thinking desktops. There is probably greater volume in kiosk
deployments, where Linux (or BSD) is a very good choice.

> I would guess their motives are more financial than
> political.
>
> I use Linux myself as do many of my friends (some exclusively) and I
> don't know a single one who would purchase a license for Flash if it
> were to come to Linux.

I'm talking about the Player honey. Although the tools would be nice
too.

--T

> I'm sure Macromedia has done research on demand
> and found it to be not cost effective.
>
> But thanks for your thoughts.
> --
> { timberfish }
> { [url]www.grassapple.com[/url] }

[SpaceGirl]

toby wrote:

> I finally figured it out. The most likely explanation for why
> Macromedia won't provide a current player for Linux, and Linux support
> lags generally, is that M$ is leaning on them. It's all clear now. I
> can't prove it, but nobody can prove it's not the case, either.
>
> A case of plenty "quid pro quo" without any "pro bono publico"... Not
> properly supporting Linux hurts Flash in huge deployment markets, guys.
>
> --T
>

I would imagine there is indirect pressure. The Flash player is the ONLY
3rd party plugin to be shipped with IE in Windows I think. If MS were to
stop that it would be a big blow to Macromedia. Ont he other hand, Linux
is hardly a commercial OS yet. It's still a techies toy, so until it's
ready for the masses I dont think it really matters.

[toby]

SpaceGirl wrote:

> toby wrote:

> > I finally figured it out. The most likely explanation for why
> > Macromedia won't provide a current player for Linux, and Linux

support

> > lags generally, is that M$ is leaning on them. It's all clear now.

I

> > can't prove it, but nobody can prove it's not the case, either.
> >
> > A case of plenty "quid pro quo" without any "pro bono publico"...

Not

> > properly supporting Linux hurts Flash in huge deployment markets,

guys.

> >
> > --T
> >

>
> I would imagine there is indirect pressure. The Flash player is the

ONLY

> 3rd party plugin to be shipped with IE in Windows I think. If MS were

to

> stop that it would be a big blow to Macromedia. Ont he other hand,

Linux

> is hardly a commercial OS yet. It's still a techies toy, so until

it's

> ready for the masses I dont think it really matters.

It matters. For the third time: there are high volume non-desktop
applications where Linux is an ideal O/S and Flash is a good delivery
format. This is not idle speculation. Non-support of Flash 7 Player on
Linux discourages this solution. It is fairly obvious that this is
exactly what M$ would want, and as has been proven in court many times,
this is how they do business.

All of these dubious arguments that "Linux is not ready," "Linux is
only for technies," are particularly irrelevant here since Macromedia
has, in the past, produced players for it - a simple process, for the
reasons stated above. One can very easily imagine that earlier Linux
Players were shipped in the teeth of severe M$ disapproval. As of
today, the "indirect pressure" is working. I certainly can't think of
any other good explanation.

--Toby

[SpaceGirl]

toby wrote:

> SpaceGirl wrote:
>

>>toby wrote:
>>

>>>I finally figured it out. The most likely explanation for why
>>>Macromedia won't provide a current player for Linux, and Linux

>
> support
>

>>>lags generally, is that M$ is leaning on them. It's all clear now.

>
> I
>

>>>can't prove it, but nobody can prove it's not the case, either.
>>>
>>>A case of plenty "quid pro quo" without any "pro bono publico"...

>
> Not
>

>>>properly supporting Linux hurts Flash in huge deployment markets,

>
> guys.
>

>>>--T
>>>

>>
>>I would imagine there is indirect pressure. The Flash player is the

>
> ONLY
>

>>3rd party plugin to be shipped with IE in Windows I think. If MS were

>
> to
>

>>stop that it would be a big blow to Macromedia. Ont he other hand,

>
> Linux
>

>>is hardly a commercial OS yet. It's still a techies toy, so until

>
> it's
>

>>ready for the masses I dont think it really matters.

>
>
> It matters. For the third time: there are high volume non-desktop
> applications where Linux is an ideal O/S and Flash is a good delivery
> format. This is not idle speculation. Non-support of Flash 7 Player on
> Linux discourages this solution. It is fairly obvious that this is
> exactly what M$ would want, and as has been proven in court many times,
> this is how they do business.
>
> All of these dubious arguments that "Linux is not ready," "Linux is
> only for technies," are particularly irrelevant here since Macromedia
> has, in the past, produced players for it - a simple process, for the
> reasons stated above. One can very easily imagine that earlier Linux
> Players were shipped in the teeth of severe M$ disapproval. As of
> today, the "indirect pressure" is working. I certainly can't think of
> any other good explanation.
>
> --Toby
>

I hope you're wrong, but... you're probably right

[Brandon Bradley]

SpaceGirl wrote:

> I hope you're wrong, but... you're probably right

As a Macromedia Certified Instructor that teaches at a Macromdia
Authorized Training Partner, I have seen no evidence that MS has any
direct influence over these things. There has been a growing demand from
my experience for more Linux based players etc, but it has taken a back
seat to win/mac development due to that still being the overwhelming
majority of the market. From what I have seen, Macromedia does plan on
continueing support for the players on Linux, but they are due to the
volume of demand in comparison to other demands relegated to a lower
priority. The newest big push that I have noticed is Wireless devices
like PDA's and Cell Phones, which is also a rather sizable market.

So from my standpoint it is more of a market demand thing than a MS
throwing their weight around.

[This is not to bne taken as official word from Macromedia by any
stretch of the imagination however. These statements opinions and
observations are solely my own.]

--
Brandon Bradley
Macromedia Certified Instructor
[url]http://www.attconline.org/[/url]

[toby]

Brandon Bradley wrote:

> SpaceGirl wrote:
>

> > I hope you're wrong, but... you're probably right

>
> As a Macromedia Certified Instructor that teaches at a Macromdia
> Authorized Training Partner, I have seen no evidence that MS has any
> direct influence over these things.

I doubt that a Macromedia board member would see much direct evidence
either. But ask the guy who banks the kickbacks...

> There has been a growing demand from
> my experience for more Linux based players etc, but it has taken a

back

> seat to win/mac development due to that still being the overwhelming
> majority of the market. From what I have seen, Macromedia does plan

on

> continueing support for the players on Linux, but they are due to the

> volume of demand in comparison to other demands relegated to a lower
> priority. The newest big push that I have noticed is Wireless devices

> like PDA's and Cell Phones, which is also a rather sizable market.
>
> So from my standpoint it is more of a market demand thing than a MS
> throwing their weight around.

Since revving the Player to 7 is so trivial, I still find no better
explanation than M$'s unseen hand (as usual).

--T

>
> [This is not to bne taken as official word from Macromedia by any
> stretch of the imagination however. These statements opinions and
> observations are solely my own.]
>
> --
> Brandon Bradley
> Macromedia Certified Instructor
> [url]http://www.attconline.org/[/url]

[timberfish]

On 2005-03-06 16:14:23 -0800, "toby" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> said:

>
> timberfish wrote:

>> On 2005-03-06 12:15:36 -0800, "toby" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> said:
>>

>>> I finally figured it out. The most likely explanation for why
>>> Macromedia won't provide a current player for Linux, and Linux

> support

>>> lags generally, is that M$ is leaning on them. It's all clear now.

> I

>>> can't prove it, but nobody can prove it's not the case, either.
>>>
>>> A case of plenty "quid pro quo" without any "pro bono publico"...

> Not

>>> properly supporting Linux hurts Flash in huge deployment markets,

> guys.

>>>
>>> --T

>>
>> I'm not sure where you get your information, but yes you're right it
>> does sound like it's just a "feeling" you have rather than a

> statement

>> based on any fact.

>
> It's based on the undisputable fact that Linux is not well supported.
> Can you find a Flash 7 Player?

I wasn't disagreeing with this. I was talking about your information
that there's a big enough demand for Linux support to justify keeping
up with the player. It's just not a priority due to the "relative"
user-base.

>

>>
>> Think about it this way... if you're developing an app the size of
>> Flash, would you want to spend the enormous amount of money it costs

> to

>> port the app to Linux,

>
> They ported it years ago. Updating the release is simple unless they're
> not planning for portability (which they must: portability is perhaps
> Flash's greatest selling point).

I thought you were talking about the application. I see now that you
were only referring to the player.

>

>> when most Linux users are used to free or nearly
>> free software and they also only make up about 1 to 4% of the users

> in

>> the market?

>
> You're thinking desktops. There is probably greater volume in kiosk
> deployments, where Linux (or BSD) is a very good choice.

I'm talking about developers and users. The kiosk market surely isn't
a "huge" one relatively speakding, nor is there any reason a company
can't use Windows for a kiosk, which most do anyway. I know this
because one of our clients creates kiosks and they're one of the
biggest suppliers of them and they use Windows only. Make any argument
you like about the viability of Linux in this space, but similarly to
the user and developer markets, the kiosk market is dominated by
Windows too.

>

>> I would guess their motives are more financial than
>> political.
>>
>> I use Linux myself as do many of my friends (some exclusively) and I
>> don't know a single one who would purchase a license for Flash if it
>> were to come to Linux.

>
> I'm talking about the Player honey. Although the tools would be nice
> too.

Yes, I realize that now - that was my mistake.

>
> --T
>

>> I'm sure Macromedia has done research on demand
>> and found it to be not cost effective.
>>
>> But thanks for your thoughts.
>> --
>> { timberfish }
>> { [url]www.grassapple.com[/url] }

--
{ timberfish }
{ [url]www.grassapple.com[/url] }

[timberfish]

On 2005-03-07 03:00:18 -0800, "toby" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> said:

> SpaceGirl wrote:

>> toby wrote:

>>> I finally figured it out. The most likely explanation for why
>>> Macromedia won't provide a current player for Linux, and Linux

> support

>>> lags generally, is that M$ is leaning on them. It's all clear now.

> I

>>> can't prove it, but nobody can prove it's not the case, either.
>>>
>>> A case of plenty "quid pro quo" without any "pro bono publico"...

> Not

>>> properly supporting Linux hurts Flash in huge deployment markets,

> guys.

>>>
>>> --T
>>>

>>
>> I would imagine there is indirect pressure. The Flash player is the

> ONLY

>> 3rd party plugin to be shipped with IE in Windows I think. If MS were

> to

>> stop that it would be a big blow to Macromedia. Ont he other hand,

> Linux

>> is hardly a commercial OS yet. It's still a techies toy, so until

> it's

>> ready for the masses I dont think it really matters.

>
> It matters. For the third time: there are high volume non-desktop
> applications where Linux is an ideal O/S and Flash is a good delivery
> format.

Well, let's be clear - you only specified non-desktop markets in a
reply to me and then here, but not in your oginal post, so don't make
it sound like we're giving you crazy responses based on what you posted.

Also, keep in mind that besides Kiosks whic I already addressed in
another reply to you - the other deployments can and do include cell
phones, PDAs etc.. and Linux or not, the only player that runs on these
devices from MM is version 6. Unless they've launched a new portable
player recently.

> This is not idle speculation. Non-support of Flash 7 Player on
> Linux discourages this solution. It is fairly obvious that this is
> exactly what M$ would want, and as has been proven in court many times,
> this is how they do business.
>
> All of these dubious arguments that "Linux is not ready," "Linux is
> only for technies," are particularly irrelevant here since Macromedia
> has, in the past, produced players for it - a simple process, for the
> reasons stated above. One can very easily imagine that earlier Linux
> Players were shipped in the teeth of severe M$ disapproval. As of
> today, the "indirect pressure" is working. I certainly can't think of
> any other good explanation.
>
> --Toby

Key words you used "imagine" - "think" - your basing your arguments on
no related facts really. Also, no one's saying Linux isn't "ready" -
it's just that the market it represents isn't nearly as considerable as
the alternatives and you simply cannot debate this. That alone is a
compelling argument why NOT to keep up to date on player dev for the
Linux platform.

If you want to "imagine" all the indirect possibilities because
Microsoft has played dirty with others, then go ahead, but that's all
it is - your imagination.

--
{ timberfish }
{ [url]www.grassapple.com[/url] }

[timberfish]

On 2005-03-07 10:17:40 -0800, "toby" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> said:

Since revving the Player to 7 is so trivial, I still find no better
explanation than M$'s unseen hand (as usual).

--T

What makes you think the transition to the 7 player was trivial? It
was a huge upgrade and went through quite a big beta cycle as well as
several revisions after release. The transition to 8 will be even
bigger. I'm not sure why you think it was a trivial or easy update in
terms of development.
--
{ timberfish }
{ [url]www.grassapple.com[/url] }

[toby]

timberfish wrote:

> On 2005-03-07 03:00:18 -0800, "toby" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> said:
>

> > SpaceGirl wrote:

> >> toby wrote:
> >>> I finally figured it out. The most likely explanation for why
> >>> Macromedia won't provide a current player for Linux, and Linux

> > support

> >>> lags generally, is that M$ is leaning on them. It's all clear

now.

> > I

> >>> can't prove it, but nobody can prove it's not the case, either.
> >>>
> >>> A case of plenty "quid pro quo" without any "pro bono publico"...

> > Not

> >>> properly supporting Linux hurts Flash in huge deployment markets,

> > guys.

> >>>
> >>> --T
> >>>
> >>
> >> I would imagine there is indirect pressure. The Flash player is

the

> > ONLY

> >> 3rd party plugin to be shipped with IE in Windows I think. If MS

were

> > to

> >> stop that it would be a big blow to Macromedia. Ont he other hand,

> > Linux

> >> is hardly a commercial OS yet. It's still a techies toy, so until

> > it's

> >> ready for the masses I dont think it really matters.

> >
> > It matters. For the third time: there are high volume non-desktop
> > applications where Linux is an ideal O/S and Flash is a good

delivery

> > format.

>
> Well, let's be clear - you only specified non-desktop markets in a
> reply to me and then here, but not in your oginal post, so don't make

> it sound like we're giving you crazy responses based on what you

posted.

Fair enough... I should have said Player in my OP.

>
> Also, keep in mind that besides Kiosks whic I already addressed in
> another reply to you - the other deployments can and do include cell
> phones, PDAs etc.. and Linux or not, the only player that runs on

these

> devices from MM is version 6. Unless they've launched a new portable

> player recently.

That is the problem I am complaining about.

>

> > This is not idle speculation. Non-support of Flash 7 Player on
> > Linux discourages this solution. It is fairly obvious that this is
> > exactly what M$ would want, and as has been proven in court many

times,

> > this is how they do business.
> >
> > All of these dubious arguments that "Linux is not ready," "Linux is
> > only for technies," are particularly irrelevant here since

Macromedia

> > has, in the past, produced players for it - a simple process, for

the

> > reasons stated above. One can very easily imagine that earlier

Linux

> > Players were shipped in the teeth of severe M$ disapproval. As of
> > today, the "indirect pressure" is working. I certainly can't think

of

> > any other good explanation.
> >
> > --Toby

>
> Key words you used "imagine" - "think" - your basing your arguments

on

> no related facts really.

I would like to see another plausible theory. Pressure from M$ seems
very plausible given the circumstances.

> Also, no one's saying Linux isn't "ready" -

At least one poster did say that. Which is not a debate I care to enter
here. Certainly it's ready for most purposes. Except Flash
development, for instance... A bit chicken and egg, isn't it? It's
technologically "arrived" (shades of understatement there), yet the
software developers aren't biting.

> it's just that the market it represents isn't nearly as considerable

as

> the alternatives and you simply cannot debate this. That alone is a
> compelling argument why NOT to keep up to date on player dev for the
> Linux platform.
>
> If you want to "imagine" all the indirect possibilities because
> Microsoft has played dirty with others, then go ahead, but that's all

> it is - your imagination.

The only counterargument advanced so far is "the market might be a bit
too small". In truth, we're probably both right.

--T

>
> --
> { timberfish }
> { [url]www.grassapple.com[/url] }

[timberfish]

On 2005-03-07 14:54:28 -0800, "toby" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> said:

>

>>
>> Also, keep in mind that besides Kiosks whic I already addressed in
>> another reply to you - the other deployments can and do include cell
>> phones, PDAs etc.. and Linux or not, the only player that runs on

> these

>> devices from MM is version 6. Unless they've launched a new portable

>

>> player recently.

>
> That is the problem I am complaining about.

Okay, well if your issue extends to portable devices, then consider the
advanced features included in Player 7... FLV video format support, AS
2.0, new components and so on. These are heavy features that would not
scale well to a portable player. Obviously this doesn't apply to Linux
on the desktop or Kiosk, but the fact that only player 6 is available
for portable devices makes total sense. Right now most portable
devices couldn't handle these advanced features anyhow which is why we
see FlashLite 1.1 for mobile phones instead of trying to pack in a full
player version. I think you have to expect scaled down players from MM
when it comes to the mobile market, much the same way you have a scaled
down IE, Opera or coming Firefox on mobile devices.

>>
>> Key words you used "imagine" - "think" - your basing your arguments on
>> no related facts really.

>
> I would like to see another plausible theory. Pressure from M$ seems
> very plausible given the circumstances.

I guess I don't understand what "circumstances" you're talking about.
All you've said is that Microsoft practices unethical tactics and
therefore it's plausible that they are pressuring MM not to develop for
Linux. Again, I don't think that's plausible because it's all way too
circumstancial.

A hypothesis that makes more sense IS the alternative one given here,
which is the tiny market not being enough to draw MM's resources into
the Linux platform. As it is MM ports all of their apps to Mac and
there are many issues that exist on the Mac platform that don't on
Windows. This already shows a distinction by MM not to want to make
the same effort where the market is smaller. Apparently they'll be
fixing this with Player 8, but who knows.

So with that pattern well established, I see a very good connection
between that and their unwillingness to work on Linux hardly at all.
Although as you pointed out, they are only 1 version behind player-wise
and version 6 SWFs are still more prevalant than version 7 only due to
corporations' efforts to be mostly compatible with users.

>

>>
>> If you want to "imagine" all the indirect possibilities because
>> Microsoft has played dirty with others, then go ahead, but that's all

>

>> it is - your imagination.

>
> The only counterargument advanced so far is "the market might be a bit
> too small". In truth, we're probably both right.
>
> --T

--
{ timberfish }
{ [url]www.grassapple.com[/url] }

[toby]

timberfish wrote:

> On 2005-03-06 16:14:23 -0800, "toby" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> said:
>

> >
> > timberfish wrote:

> >> On 2005-03-06 12:15:36 -0800, "toby" <toby@telegraphics.com.au>

said:

> >>
> >>> I finally figured it out. The most likely explanation for why
> >>> Macromedia won't provide a current player for Linux, and Linux

> > support

> >>> lags generally, is that M$ is leaning on them. ...
> >>
> >> I'm not sure where you get your information, but yes you're right

it

> >> does sound like it's just a "feeling" you have rather than a

> > statement

> >> based on any fact.

> >
> > It's based on the undisputable fact that Linux is not well

supported.

> > Can you find a Flash 7 Player?

>
> I wasn't disagreeing with this. I was talking about your information

> that there's a big enough demand for Linux support to justify keeping

> up with the player. It's just not a priority due to the "relative"
> user-base.

You are only thinking about desktops. There are high volume
standalone/embedded/kiosk applications where Linux is the base O/S (for
obvious reasons) and the user interface is an exact fit for Flash's
capabilities. By refusing to release an updated player, Macromedia is
ceding those markets. It's unlikely kickbacks could compensate such an
enormous strategic loss.

>
> ...
>
> I'm talking about developers and users. The kiosk market surely

isn't

> a "huge" one relatively speakding,

It is (obviously).

> nor is there any reason a company
> can't use Windows for a kiosk, which most do anyway.

Yeah - ATMs on Windows are a great idea...

> I know this
> because one of our clients creates kiosks and they're one of the
> biggest suppliers of them and they use Windows only. Make any

argument

> you like about the viability of Linux in this space, but similarly to

> the user and developer markets, the kiosk market is dominated by
> Windows too.

Wonderful.

>

> >

> >> I would guess their motives are more financial than
> >> political.

Kickbacks are designed to convert political/strategic issues into
"financial" ones.
--T

[timberfish]

On 2005-03-19 21:12:41 -0800, "toby" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> said:

>>>

>>
>> I wasn't disagreeing with this. I was talking about your information

>

>> that there's a big enough demand for Linux support to justify keeping

>

>> up with the player. It's just not a priority due to the "relative"
>> user-base.

>
> You are only thinking about desktops. There are high volume
> standalone/embedded/kiosk applications where Linux is the base O/S (for
> obvious reasons) and the user interface is an exact fit for Flash's
> capabilities. By refusing to release an updated player, Macromedia is
> ceding those markets. It's unlikely kickbacks could compensate such an
> enormous strategic loss.

You're not looking at "relative" numbers which I've tried to point out
like 5 times now. The desktop market is FAR larger than the developer
and kiosk markets put together. FAR larger. Yes, those markets are
large, but compared to other markets they are small. Do you understand
what "relative" means?

Also consider that Flash 6 is available for Linux and that's the
version of the player with the most penetration and that a large number
of companies and developers create for. However, the reason for no
Version 7 is the relative size of the market you're talking about.

>

>>
>> ...
>>
>> I'm talking about developers and users. The kiosk market surely

> isn't

>> a "huge" one relatively speakding,

>
> It is (obviously).

RELATIVELY - no, it's not - you're telling me that compared to Desktop
users, corporate users, Windows developers and graphic professional
markets that the Linux Developer market and Kiosk market (which itself
is dominated by windows) is a considerable one? You can't actually
believe that. Sure those markets are a good size, but relative to the
other ones I listed they're tiny. Just like Firefox's market share is
huge, but compared to IE's it's tiny. It's called relative and it's
the word I've used to explain the lack of Version 7 on Linux several
times.

>

>> nor is there any reason a company
>> can't use Windows for a kiosk, which most do anyway.

>
> Yeah - ATMs on Windows are a great idea...

Yeah, and needing Flash 7 on an ATM is an even greater idea.

>>

>>>
>>>> I would guess their motives are more financial than
>>>> political.

>
> Kickbacks are designed to convert political/strategic issues into
> "financial" ones.
> --T

YES - their motives are financial and simply practical. As a company
you don't go out of your way to keep a product up to date for a very
small relative number of developers. It just doesn't make sense. It's
the same reason that the Mac platform doesn't have the latest and
numerous Gaming titles that Windows has. It's too much cost for not
enough return. It's business - not some conspiracy where Microsoft is
throwing weight around.

Keep in mind that Macromedia and Microsoft are about to go head to head
with their new products when Longhorn is released. So do you really
think that these competitors are going to let the other tell them what
to do?

--
The Grass Apple - { [url]www.grassapple.com[/url] } news?

[toby]

timberfish wrote:

> ... the reason for no
> Version 7 is the relative size of the market you're talking about.
> ... It's business - not some conspiracy where Microsoft is
> throwing weight around.
>
> Keep in mind that Macromedia and Microsoft are about to go head to

head

> with their new products when Longhorn is released. So do you really
> think that these competitors are going to let the other tell them

what

> to do?

I surrender. You have absolutely proven without a doubt that there is
no undue influence involved. Are you sure you're not a lawyer?

>
> --
> The Grass Apple - { [url]www.grassapple.com[/url] } news?

[Brandon Bradley]

timberfish wrote:

> Keep in mind that Macromedia and Microsoft are about to go head to head
> with their new products when Longhorn is released. So do you really
> think that these competitors are going to let the other tell them what
> to do?

Ok, I have not been keeping an eye on longhorn as I simply don't plan on
using it myself at this point, but I am curious. What is Longhorn going
to do that competes with Macromedia?

--
Brandon Bradley
Macromedia Certified Instructor
[url]http://www.attconline.org/[/url]

[timberfish]

On 2005-03-21 03:25:12 -0800, Brandon Bradley <brandonbradley@cox.net> said:

> timberfish wrote:
>

>> Keep in mind that Macromedia and Microsoft are about to go head to head
>> with their new products when Longhorn is released. So do you really
>> think that these competitors are going to let the other tell them what
>> to do?

>
> Ok, I have not been keeping an eye on longhorn as I simply don't plan
> on using it myself at this point, but I am curious. What is Longhorn
> going to do that competes with Macromedia?

Longhorn is set to introduce a new technology called Avalon which (and
I have limited understanding of this) is supposed to offer the same
services as Macromedia's Flex or at least compete with that product on
a certain level. Look up Flex vs Avalon or Avalon vs Flex on Google
and you'll see some basic info on the matter.
--
The Grass Apple - { [url]www.grassapple.com[/url] } news?

[timberfish]

On 2005-03-20 15:52:58 -0800, "toby" <toby@telegraphics.com.au> said:

>
> timberfish wrote:

>> ... the reason for no
>> Version 7 is the relative size of the market you're talking about.
>> ... It's business - not some conspiracy where Microsoft is
>> throwing weight around.
>>
>> Keep in mind that Macromedia and Microsoft are about to go head to

> head

>> with their new products when Longhorn is released. So do you really
>> think that these competitors are going to let the other tell them

> what

>> to do?

>
> I surrender. You have absolutely proven without a doubt that there is
> no undue influence involved. Are you sure you're not a lawyer?

LOL - I'm not trying to prove my point as much as force you to prove
yours. My overall point is that there's evidence for what I'm saying -
trackable statistics and for what you're saying there is only
conjecture and instinct.

And yes, I do think I supported what I was saying well :)

>

>>
>> --
>> The Grass Apple - { [url]www.grassapple.com[/url] } news?

--
The Grass Apple - { [url]www.grassapple.com[/url] } news?