With the swf format being documented, and available, in theory there could be plenty of different implementation of the Flash Player.
But, none of the alternate players out there are 100%. Making their source available, it'd probably bring a flood of alternate players. Since the Flash Player is available for free, I'm unclear how open sourcing it would affect revenue. If there were more Flash Player options, I think there would be more demand for tools to create Flash Applications. On the flip side, if there were a lot of inconsistent implementations of the player, it may hurt the platform as a whole. --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, Karim Beyrouti <ka...@...> wrote: > > I think ( just a guess ) - they want to avoid different implementations of > the flash player - with different players supporting different features... > that could cause problems ( sounds like a headache to me ) ... however - if > they can avoid that - it could then also be a question of revenue. i think an > open source player - controlled by 'adobe' could be a great thing. > > Also, one thing i have been wondering about lately, and can't think of an > answer... Director shockwave was quite fast and had ok 3D ( a little out of > date now ). Used to really like director... > > why can't do the same with the flash player today... i know historically they > want to keep distributable file size low - and reach the lowest common > denominator - however - i just wonder why is this not achievable now days... > > - k > > > > > > > On 4 May 2010, at 00:19, Baz wrote: > > > I don't know much about how to answer this, so I'm not trying to take a > > position or anything: purely out of curiosity, what would Adobe lose if > > Flash were open sourced? Is it that competitors would more easily be able > > to make competing IDEs? > > > > > > Cheers, > > Baz > > > > >
