7 Replies Latest reply on Sep 8, 2008 9:51 PM by ronnickname

    Is Director dying?

    hkrabye
      I was a Director developer and user for many years (and started with VideoWorks in 90's), but when Adobe bought MacroMedia, it looked like they stopped developing Director. There was no promis of an OSX and Intel Mac version. A few days ago, I discovered that they have finally updated both Director and the Shockwave plugin for Intel Mac. Great! However, when searching for info about Director 11 on the Adobe site, it was very hard to find the app. It's not included in the "Products" tab, not even in the "All products" collection... (I found it at last, by using the search box.)

      My question is: Is Director a dying product? I would like to upgrade from my Director 9 version, but spending almost USD 300 on a product that will soon be killed, is not a good idea. - I guess Adobe has much more success with Flash, and they want all of us to purchase Flash. - What do you think (I don't expect any response from Adobe, of course...)
        • 1. Re: Is Director dying?
          Level 7
          Adobe have publicly stated that they are working on the next version
          (D12). They haven't committed to a release date or feature set and
          probably won't (publicly)
          • 2. Re: Is Director dying?
            mziskandar Level 1
            My opinion is... YES. Director is dying...

            Adobe is a company that focusing on 2D graphics and they are good at it (at least, last time). Nowadays, when they come out with CS3 version, their product requires more power from the computers - I wonder why. It is acceptable if there are more extra requirement to do extra function at the moment of that extra being used. eg. I want to draw a simple box in Photoshop using CS3 - I still need better computers compared to before (CS2)!

            Macromedia was focusing on web media delivery - and they are good at doing that - delivering any sort of media online including 3D. The content creation methods are as optimized as the content itself.

            The similarity of Adobe and Macromedia is in 2D. That's the only thing that they can get from each other.

            2D artist and and 3D artist usually are not good in 3D programming. Programming 3D application is not as the same as programming a 2D application. So, when Adobe and Macromedia combines, 3D part got left out.

            Director is more to 3D engine. Most of the Director content developers are using codes to creates contents. When Director 11 came out, I was looking for GPU programming parts, shaders (GLSL/HLSL) - there's nothing. Even Director 11 looks outdated compared to older version of Virtools..

            I am still hoping for Adobe to develop better version of Director because Adobe carries a big name in the market. Shockwave player is well known - easier to distribute on the client machine.
            • 3. Re: Is Director dying?
              Level 7
              Though I do recognize the importance of 3D, personally, after 10+ years of
              experience in director, only twice did I use its 3D capabilites. The one
              because the project required it, and the other, cause I had the freedom to
              experience with the new, back in the day, engine.
              For me, Director is -or can be expanded to- a great RAD, or application
              prototyping tool. Still, it's always great seeing the amazing 3D stuff that
              others have done with it.

              As for the 2D, 3D, MM and Adobe stuff you mention, I have to disagree. Both
              of those companies had all it takes/took to add advanced 3D and other
              capabilites to Director. All except perhaps the motive -estimated profit- at
              least.

              "mziskandar" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
              news:g4n0d9$g39$1@forums.macromedia.com...
              > My opinion is... YES. Director is dying...
              >
              > Adobe is a company that focusing on 2D graphics and they are good at it
              > (at
              > least, last time). Nowadays, when they come out with CS3 version, their
              > product
              > requires more power from the computers - I wonder why. It is acceptable if
              > there are more extra requirement to do extra function at the moment of
              > that
              > extra being used. eg. I want to draw a simple box in Photoshop using CS3 -
              > I
              > still need better computers compared to before (CS2)!
              >
              > Macromedia was focusing on web media delivery - and they are good at doing
              > that - delivering any sort of media online including 3D. The content
              > creation
              > methods are as optimized as the content itself.
              >
              > The similarity of Adobe and Macromedia is in 2D. That's the only thing
              > that
              > they can get from each other.
              >
              > 2D artist and and 3D artist usually are not good in 3D programming.
              > Programming 3D application is not as the same as programming a 2D
              > application.
              > So, when Adobe and Macromedia combines, 3D part got left out.
              >
              > Director is more to 3D engine. Most of the Director content developers are
              > using codes to creates contents. When Director 11 came out, I was looking
              > for
              > GPU programming parts, shaders (GLSL/HLSL) - there's nothing. Even
              > Director 11
              > looks outdated compared to older version of Virtools..
              >
              > I am still hoping for Adobe to develop better version of Director because
              > Adobe carries a big name in the market. Shockwave player is well known -
              > easier
              > to distribute on the client machine.
              >





              • 4. Re: Is Director dying?
                Level 7
                Ok, replying to myself now, cause it seems I fell into the "director=low
                sales" trap, that's been around for quite some years now.
                We have no clue on what Adobe considers a viable product. The sure is that
                the larger the company, the higher the expectations.
                I can say that, after quite some time in Xtra developing, I have a
                sufficient knowledge of director internals. And it certainly is not the
                easier project for a new team to handle. Soon as you get the grip to it
                though -and this may take months- everything looks brighter. Adobe released
                dir11. After a long delay, sure, but I would justify it because of the new
                team+complexity. And even while developing dir11, there were talks about the
                next version. So, I believe that this is enough answer to the 'dying
                product' question. And, if it proves that the target group is indeed small,
                that will be in comparison with other products of one of the biggest
                software companies. Meaning that, even if Adobe decides to pull the plug in
                the long run, I doubt that there will be no interest by 'smaller' companies
                in purchasing/continuing the product.


                "alchemist" <unknown@domain.com> wrote in message
                news:g4nnf0$a69$1@forums.macromedia.com...
                > Though I do recognize the importance of 3D, personally, after 10+ years of
                > experience in director, only twice did I use its 3D capabilites. The one
                > because the project required it, and the other, cause I had the freedom to
                > experience with the new, back in the day, engine.
                > For me, Director is -or can be expanded to- a great RAD, or application
                > prototyping tool. Still, it's always great seeing the amazing 3D stuff
                > that
                > others have done with it.
                >
                > As for the 2D, 3D, MM and Adobe stuff you mention, I have to disagree.
                > Both
                > of those companies had all it takes/took to add advanced 3D and other
                > capabilites to Director. All except perhaps the motive -estimated profit-
                > at
                > least.
                >
                > "mziskandar" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
                > news:g4n0d9$g39$1@forums.macromedia.com...
                >> My opinion is... YES. Director is dying...
                >>
                >> Adobe is a company that focusing on 2D graphics and they are good at it
                >> (at
                >> least, last time). Nowadays, when they come out with CS3 version, their
                >> product
                >> requires more power from the computers - I wonder why. It is acceptable
                >> if
                >> there are more extra requirement to do extra function at the moment of
                >> that
                >> extra being used. eg. I want to draw a simple box in Photoshop using
                >> CS3 -
                >> I
                >> still need better computers compared to before (CS2)!
                >>
                >> Macromedia was focusing on web media delivery - and they are good at
                >> doing
                >> that - delivering any sort of media online including 3D. The content
                >> creation
                >> methods are as optimized as the content itself.
                >>
                >> The similarity of Adobe and Macromedia is in 2D. That's the only thing
                >> that
                >> they can get from each other.
                >>
                >> 2D artist and and 3D artist usually are not good in 3D programming.
                >> Programming 3D application is not as the same as programming a 2D
                >> application.
                >> So, when Adobe and Macromedia combines, 3D part got left out.
                >>
                >> Director is more to 3D engine. Most of the Director content developers
                >> are
                >> using codes to creates contents. When Director 11 came out, I was looking
                >> for
                >> GPU programming parts, shaders (GLSL/HLSL) - there's nothing. Even
                >> Director 11
                >> looks outdated compared to older version of Virtools..
                >>
                >> I am still hoping for Adobe to develop better version of Director because
                >> Adobe carries a big name in the market. Shockwave player is well known -
                >> easier
                >> to distribute on the client machine.
                >>
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >


                • 5. Re: Is Director dying?
                  Level 7
                  Well, I certainly hope NOT. Director has made it possible for me to
                  build sophisticated educational applications for students that I could
                  not do in C++ or Flash/Actionscript. Serious games is a going industry
                  and educators have a great resource for application development with
                  Director. Working in teams is also an important educational objective,
                  so the peer-to-peer feature is also very important. Professional
                  programmers already have C++ to do serious 3D games for entertainment so
                  I don't see why Adobe thinks this is the area to emphasize?
                  • 6. Re: Is Director dying?
                    Devant
                    It's not easy to download or install Shockwave for Director anymore.
                    • 7. Re: Is Director dying?
                      ronnickname
                      I hate to post this. But I'm starting to feel the squeeze.

                      Director and the ShockwavePlayer is a dying market. I've got alot of shockwave apps on websites and everytime I ask a client / customer / friends / family to check it out. There has ALWAYS been problems installing the player. Too many hurdles to get the app to play. LOTS of technical difficulties in getting it installed. Firewall apps blocking it, Security apps, etc. Then there is the big 'spyware scare. People don't like installing stuff because they feel that the app is spyware.

                      Adobe really dropped the ball on this one.

                      For god sake, they should have just combined the Flash and Shockwave player into ONE download. I mean when you download Flash or Shockwave, you get some stupid "would you like to install google toolbar, or yahoo tool bar, or norton virus checker" - I mean WTF??? If they can go the extra mile to offer a bundle install for some other crap- why not just bundle their own god damn software.

                      Sigh. I'm a little ticked at the Shockwave Player not being widely distributed like the Flash Player. It's a dying market because the market can't view the shockwave content. Doesn't matter if they update Director or not. It's the player that is important!

                      Nuf of my ramblings. I'm starting to look at Flash now as the future.