I agree. If Adobe doesn't want to continue Director, they should give it to someone who actually cares about keeping it going. At the moment I would love for there to be some open source alternative to Director.
If Adobe do intend to keep Director, then they should be a bit more vocal about what their plans are for it rather than keeping us all in limbo.
>If Adobe do intend to keep Director, then they should be a bit more vocal about what their plans are for it rather than keeping us all in limbo.
Keep an eye on the post I have for the online discussion as the plans for Director will eb covered in this upcoming talk. Also to be addressed is the price of Director.
I follow this thread and really appreciate your efforts...
Perhaps, it is not that busy, but that is because Adobe does have a monopoly on multimedia and has put its eggs in the wrong basket. Macromedia knew that Flash was in trouble. They thought Microsoft would kill it with Silverlight integration in Windows 7, but that didn't happen. Now Flash and Flash video are really in trouble because the WWW consortium has resurrected HTML and coming out with version 5 that has <video> and <audio> tags built in. That means you don't need Adobe Flash to include video and you don't need Microsoft, which few web developers want either. Naive web video and probably vector graphics means that Flash is in big trouble and now Adobe will regret that it didn't give enthusiastic support to Director. Microsoft is putting full HTML 5 capability into IE9 even though the WWW consortium is asking developers to hold off until the standard is final. Microsoft is not stupid and they know that is the their first real opportunity to screw Adobe in web applications. Director is still much more powerful than Flash for application development and so Adobe better wake up and start pushing it again or they will lose a lot of money.
Very well said Professor.
I fully agree. But if Director is revived then it obviously needs a full makup over on some aspects, especially the 3D Text functionality.
I still do not get how HTML5 is a competitior to Flash though.
So, they added the <video> and the <audio> tags to the HTML code, how does that make it a Flash killer?
Do these tags create aanimations?
Can you use HTML5 to create childrens cartoons like you see on Nickelodeon....emm....no!
The main idea behind those tags is to provide a container to allow different browsers the choice to pick the compatible video type so all users get the same experience and they do not get errors if their preferred video type is not available.
I have used it a bit lately when our company users throughout Europe use either IE6, IE7, IE8, Firefox, Safari, Google Chrome.
By putting several versions of the video in the video tags, all of the users see the video. They are not interested in how it works and they do not care about what is going on behind the scenes. they simply want to be able to view a video when they expect to.
I put FLV files in the tags and it works fine, so how is HTML5 going to kill Flash again?
This is just another attack I think by Microsoft and co against Flash because Silverlight was just too little too late.
This addresses many of the issues I have had with Director for years. It seems to among the most powerful tools for developing multimedia content, yet Adobe seems to forget they have it there in the room with them, as it were. I can't comprehend why something potentially so useful is bypassed . For Adobe
to give at least some indication of their future plans for the software would seem to be a matter of common decency. Wise business decisions neednt be incompatible with such decency, indeed, it is usually wise to be decent to the customer.
Thank you !
Cross posting a pit but just want to ensure all interested get the message. I thought it would be easier to have a thread just for the meeting summary and evaluation. It is at: