Flash 9's codename ? Blaze !

[AGRO]

Found here (http://www.sephiroth.it/).

We just had the most successful launch of Flash in history and we're already working on the next version. It's too early to give away much information on the release but I do have a few things to tell you.


With these words Mike Donway announce that Macromedia is already working on Flash 9!
Obviuosly there aren't news about new features or similar things...but it's sure that Flash 9 will support Actionscript 3 (that will be introduced by Flex 2 and Flash Player 8.5), and it seems that - also for give to developers the opportunity to "meet" As3 as soon as possibile - in Spring 2006 (when Player 8.5 will be released) Macromedia will release a public beta for Flash Professional 8 or Studio 8 registered users!

You can find more news here (http://weblogs.macromedia.com/md/archives/2005/10/codename_for_th.cfm).

[Corey]

Why he would announce that is beyond me. There's more to this than meets the eye that's for sure. They're making a mistake I think...

FWIW Other than yourself and 1-2 others here in the forum I haven't come across anyone who has bought Flash 8 yet so I'm not sure where some of the claims I've been reading are coming from. On the street level there's been almost no buzz at all. I haven't even seen many people discussing Flash 8 other than the developers who work closely with Macromedia and a small hardcore crowd. Here in our busy forum full of multimedia developers we've had only a handful of posts about Flash 8, so it's hard for me to buy their "most spectacular release ever!!!" line. I'm not sure who they're talking about, but it sure isn't evident on any of the multimedia developer forums I've been too so far...

We're going to grab an upgrade pretty quick, I'm excited about the dynamic effects. But I would say our lack of urgency to upgrade is pretty indicative of how most companies are proceeding. I asked around a bit but none of the usual suspects I know have upgraded yet and none of them seemed to be in any hurry. I think that the people at Macromedia have a case of locutary corporalis where they believe that if they simply repeat the same marketing mantra over and over that eventually we will buy their line and make it a self fulfilling prophecy. Who knows, maybe we will, but I doubt it... :o

Just curious, Eric Darling did you upgrade to version 8?

[AXXESS]

I believe I am one of the 1-2 others. :)

I too am surprised they are already talking about the next version. Flash 8 is barely out of the box!! Feels like buying the latest year model car, only to have your car turn 1 a month after you buy it. :)

I was a little surprised to see that a lot of the same old templates were included. And even more surprised that a quiz template fla designed in Flash MX will not function properly when exported to Flash 8.

On the upside, its great to have crisp text with filter options. Also, being able to use video with alpha channel will have lots of applications too. :yes

[Corey]

I believe I am one of the 1-2 others.

Yep, for sure. :) Announcing 9.0 now definitely diminished sales appeal for 8.0. There's no question about that at all. IMHO those guys are nuts not to use every single media moment they get this quarter to evangelize version 8.0. The term "version 9.0" should not have even been uttered for at least 2-3 months, *especially* here during Q4 where their 8.0 sales are going to be seriously critical to their stock price.

Anyhow it leads me to believe that they held back features which could have made it into 8.0. Sure 8.0 has some good stuff but it's really not that fanatastic. New text, video alpha, and runtime effects covers 99% of the appeal. Video alpha is one of those things which looks super neat but which one probably won't end up using too much in reality. And I've never heard anyone complain about Flash text, not once, so it might be neat but it's certainly not something that users care about. Honestly I'm buying the upgrade for one single reason, the new dynamic effects, and I'm not doing it because it adds new functionality for me (I've been getting those effects for years by using PNGs from Photoshop) but rather because it will save me time. :yes

[AXXESS]

I use the video alpha for 3D logos and models in created in After Effects, then import into Flash with the new codec. Works great.

The text issue, for me, is huge. Until now, to have *decent* text in Flash you had to either:

a) Import the text as PNGS from Photoshop. Being able to enter acceptable text on-the-fly in Flash is a real time saver (and swf file size reduction too :yes)

b) Use Dynamic Text, which has its drawbacks too.

I've never heard anyone complain about Flash text

That's surprising... even non-dev people can/should be able to tell the difference between text on a standard HTML site vs. a Flash site that doesn't use dynamic text.

[Corey]

Sure, fair enough, no question the new system is much better. But have you ever heard a Flash movie viewer complain about the quality of Flash text?

Without exception the only comments I've ever heard on Flash text over the years have been complimentary. Flash text, being vector based, has always been viewed as quite good quality amongst designers as far as I know.

My point being that it's a good thing but 99% of viewers won't notice. As for 3D logos, yes that's great, but how many 3D logos are you going to deploy in a year? Again, it's a very nice option, I'm just not sure it constitutes a good reason for an average designer to purchase Flash. In your case, you are a power user, and power users always upgrade. But they make up a very tiny sliver of the "Total Sales" pie chart. In order to have what Macromedia calls, "The most successful launch ever!" you would have to reach all corners of the market and I've not seen any evidence at all that they have. That's the hard part for me, I have a very difficult time being manipulated. There's a fine line between good honest marketing diligence and outright manipulation. :)

Here's some numbers to back up my thoughts:
129,000
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22Flash+8.0%22&btnG=Search&meta=
20,100
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22Setup+Factory+7.0%22&meta=

Now, we just put out Setup Factory 7.0 and we're just a tiny company. Are they really trying to tell me that one of the "most successful multimedia software launches of 2005" (and in Macromedia history, and which was leaked a year ahead of time) generated only 6 times more links than our humble offering? Baloney, I don't buy it. They put millions into advertising, we didn't. And for reference, Photoshop CS2 searched in the same way has over 2 million links:
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22Photoshop+CS2%22&meta=

I'd say those numbers, despite not being scientific in any way, still *clearly* indicate some underlying truth which contradicts the position Macromedia is promoting. If you still doubt it, ask any software reseller how sales for 8.0 are. For the record, the numbers also indicate that we're a snappy little company with a lot of pluck. For our numbers to be *anywhere* near theirs on any sector of Google is a great accomplishment. :)

Again, I'm, not knocking Flash, I *love* Flash. I just question their approach. Honestly I wouldn't even bother with version 8.0 if I weren't the main support conduit for design related questions here in the forum. As you can see by our existing Flash, we already more or less get everything we need out of the current version. The real reason I've decided to upgrade is that I feel I owe it to you guys to maintain current knowledge of Flash. :yes

[AXXESS]

how many 3D logos are you going to deploy in a year

OKOK, a few... :) But, its a capability that wasn't there before. Don't worry, I will constrain myself.. :)

[Corey]

Hee. :) :yes

[AXXESS]

ever heard a Flash movie viewer complain about the quality of Flash text?

Check out this example from Lucas Arts... state of the art everything... but kinda *blah* text..

Battlefront II (http://www.lucasarts.com/games/swbattlefrontii/indexFlash.html#GamePlay.Alliance.Characters)

Look under the character descriptions and News... :o

[Corey]

Not my bag but it certainly shows how far the internet has come in a very short time. It's amazing to think that just a few years ago it was a big deal if you knew how to code image rollovers. Hee. :) :yes

[eric_darling]

Just curious, Eric Darling did you upgrade to version 8?
Nope. Still waiting for the next compression gig currently. Been slammed with more traditional video production of late (thankful for it!).

[Corey]

Seems to be what most people have been doing, waiting until a specific job where they need the new features to upgrade. Sounds cool on the video work, have fun! :)

[yosik]

I have been working on demo ver8 for a few weeks now and I do agree with you, Corey. In my case, the video codec is the No1 reason for upgrading.
As a note, Google is using that codec for the video.google site and THAT should say something about it. At first the quality was low, but now it is improved (I checked it with some of the material I uploaded to google).

WHat bothers me is the constant race for upgrading. We, the users, feel (and that go for almost ANY software program) that we are chasing our own tail, never getting time to breath. You, consciencelly, have to make an effort and stop.

Yossi

[Corey]

I agree, but here in North America that pretty much applies to everything. The amount of marketing material the average North American kid gets exposed to each day is staggering. And almost all of it is painstakingly designed for maximum manipulation. I don't mind the general upgrade cycle for software in a sense if the value is there, but Macromedia is become known for lackluster upgrades... :o

[Intrigued]

Macromedia is become known for lackluster upgrades

Ah, publically traded company game plan again rearing it's ugly head!

:eek: