> > have been more constructive by pointing me towards creation of FLV > > files which are uploadable onto YouTube. > > I did.
I must have missed it in the rest of your non sense ;) > > Surely Adobe would not allow us to find ourselves in a situation that > > would require third party conversion utilities just to convert > > between Adobe SWF and FLV formats. > > If there are good free tools to do it, why should Adobe bother compeating > unless it can make a killer advantage. Is integration and a resulting much, much better experience not enough of a reason? As a matter of fact, good part of what Adobe does so well is already done in pieces elsewhere. The reason why Adobe does it well is in great part due to nothing more than better integration and a resulting better experience. If Adobe wrote such a SWF to FLV converter then they could offer it to YouTube and other sites so that they could accept uploading of SWF files, on which they would then do PERFECT conversion into FLV or some other format. There is another thing Tom that you totally fail to recognize and that is the quite poor quality of most of the videos that are currently up on YouTube. A lot of quality is lost in the process of using various settings of frames per second and Kb or Mb per second, that may or may not match what YouTube uses and then one's video ends up going through yet another conversion, resulting in yet another decrease in quality. Giving YouTube a perfectly beautiful looking SWF presentation and letting them convert it to FLV with whatever settings suit them the best, would most likely result in the best possible video quality. When all is said and done Tom, be assured that most of the folks out there (most of them not being technical) can not tell nor figure out why ADOBE FLASH MOVIES look so bad on YouTube. Most of them know how to right click on one that they are watching and BINGO, we know what they see will UNFORTUNATELY in most cases cause them to erroneously think that FLASH IS CRAP FOR VIDEO. > > Surely they would do that, if for no other reason than to keep us off > > the slippery slope of even contemplating exploring what MS and > > Silverlight might be capable of and from calculating just how long it > > might take, either way, before MS ends up eating everyone's lunch. ;) > > If people want to go in the direction of spending more money, as opposed to > less money, they should feel free to do so. We'll see them back again in a > few years :-) Sorry Tom but since (with a statement like that) you seem to know very little about how Microsoft operates, I will explain it to you. Time is the only thing that is on Adobe's side. Eventually, Microsoft will end up eating everyone's lunch, at least on the desktop. It causes me a lot of pain to say just that but it is true. While they have a lot of catching up to do, within a couple of years they WILL catch up to Adobe - technically speaking. With another 2-3 years, they will catch up in the field as well - in terms of deployments. Tom, like it or not, there will not be anything that will be more beatiful then an end-to-end .NET code (C#, VB, take your pick) that stretches from the clients/devices and all the way through the servers and into the database itself (stored procedures). Unfortunately, they WILL end up eating everyone's lunch because of the beauty and a much, much better developer experience due to such an end-to-end integration. Just the type of lousy integration, a small piece of which I suggested earlier. P.S. You just happened to be the closest official one on my path of frustration. Please take my comments constructively and not at all personally, even though that might end up being hard to do, at least from a first reading. And thanks for replying.
