[HN Gopher] Photoshop's journey to the web
___________________________________________________________________
Photoshop's journey to the web
Author : feross
Score : 157 points
Date : 2021-10-26 14:48 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (web.dev)
(TXT) w3m dump (web.dev)
| Tajnymag wrote:
| Does that mean Photoshop is finally going to be supported on
| Linux?
| ISL wrote:
| Perhaps in a sense, but not in the sense that one can run it
| without an internet connection many years in the future.
| 0x4a42 wrote:
| It looks like it will.
| noveltyaccount wrote:
| How does an app like Photoshop protect its IP when algorithms are
| compiled in webassembly and downloaded to the browser? Or do they
| hide away the secret sauce behind service calls?
| vbezhenar wrote:
| It is not different from compiled machine code.
| matsemann wrote:
| Biggest difference is probably more people have the means to
| debug something when it runs in the browser. So technically
| the same, but it may be more available to look at.
| recursive wrote:
| I think that's because most things that run in the browser
| aren't using web assembly.
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| I'm not at all looking forward the future where "conveniences"
| provided by operating systems (like consistent GUI styling,
| preferences, accessibility, etc) are thrown by the wayside and
| each application effectively re-implements a GUI targeting a
| canvas "framebuffer".
| therealdrag0 wrote:
| The future is now.
| flohofwoe wrote:
| That ship has sailed for at least a decade, and DCC
| applications like Photoshop or Maya were the forerunners of
| custom UIs.
| linguae wrote:
| That day is already here and has been around for quite a while.
| Even before the proliferation of Electron applications there
| has been a push away from UI consistency in desktop
| environments. I believe the reasons are a combination of the
| following factors:
|
| - Easier cross-platform support easier for developers
|
| - "Branding" concerns
|
| - A philosophy that the app, not the operating system, is
| central to the user experience; one consequence is there's a
| strong emphasis on having that app behave as similar as
| possible across platforms even when the app's behavior violates
| the platform's UI guidelines.
|
| I lament the decline of the idea of a native desktop with an
| ecosystem of conformant applications. However, I see the
| economic incentives for writing cross-platform applications
| that emphasize consistency across platforms instead of
| consistency with each platform's UI standards. As long as we
| have app-centered desktop environments, the only way I see
| native applications that are conformant to that platform's UI
| standards being promoted is through market demand. Historically
| Mac users have shunned software that doesn't conform to the
| Mac's UI guidelines, though this may be changing in recent
| years thanks to the rise of Electron and Catalyst.
| syspec wrote:
| And once everything is running on Chrome, oops we mean uhh the
| open web, we'll be able to track everything everyone does all the
| time, without pesky cookies!
|
| - Them, probably
| vnglst wrote:
| Really cool to see what's possible in desktop browsers these
| days. Photoshop coming to our browsers is a huge achievement and
| milestone.
|
| But it also makes me kinda sad that none of the mentioned
| examples properly work on mobile. If even big web companies can't
| pull that off, is it impossible? (Mainly thinking about Gmail and
| Google Docs here). Or have we given up on web applications on
| mobile?
| djxfade wrote:
| Its not impossible. I think the biggest issue is that many of
| these ported web apps don't use the DOM for their UI. This
| makes it a much more difficult task creating responsive UI.
| bobajeff wrote:
| Except, according to the post, Photoshop uses Web Components
| for the UI.
|
| I'm guessing the actual reason if that most desktop apps
| aren't designed with expectations that a mobile app has.
| [deleted]
| mhoad wrote:
| I'm fairly certain the reason that is currently not officially
| a thing is due to Safari on iOS missing a huge chunk of
| features that would have made that possible. They spent over a
| decade by this point intentionally underfunding that team while
| maintaining a browser monopoly on their platform under the
| guise of "security".
|
| That seems like it's very slowly starting to change perhaps.
| vnglst wrote:
| Google could have made Gmail to work on Chrome (just on
| Android) as a show case what would be possible on a good
| browser. It's true that Safari is lagging behind in features,
| but I don't believe it's the only reason.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I'd assume that Gapps wanted native for the same reason FB did:
| more access to details on the device directly
| wgx wrote:
| A polite reminder that the (quite extraordinary) Photopea[0] is
| available which replicates most of Photoshop's features in the
| browser, and is free - with a paid ad-free option.
|
| 0. https://www.photopea.com/
| Shadonototra wrote:
| they only share a similar name and UI/UX
|
| it doesn't even support 10% of what Photoshop is capable of,
| including performance and handling of RAW files
| Jyaif wrote:
| Most people use less than 10% [1] of what Photoshop is
| capable of. It is the subset of features that is used by 90%
| [2] of people that Photopea covers. That means Photopea could
| take 90% of the market share of Photoshop, which is pretty
| good return on investment!
|
| [1][2]: Like in the parent's comments, all percentages are
| made up.
| [deleted]
| pupppet wrote:
| Wow even some of Photoshop's more obscure shortcuts are the
| same. Embarrassing that it feels snappier than my actual copy
| of PS.
| dperfect wrote:
| The fact that Photopea is better than GIMP in so many ways
| (does GIMP _still_ not have adjustment layers for non-
| destructive editing?), and was created by _one person_ is a
| little depressing, but also inspiring at the same time.
| chrismorgan wrote:
| _A lot_ of the best software is made by one person. Large
| codebases and organisations have significant inertia that
| make producing good stuff hard. You'll also get greater
| deviation from the mean in a single developer (so a lot of
| the _worst_ software is also made by one person).
| inDigiNeous wrote:
| Nomen est Omen, with a name like GIMP what can you expect. I
| mean, the software name is literally slang for a disabled
| person.
|
| Why don't they start from changing the name I don't
| understand.. Open Source projects have these odd ways of just
| sticking whatever somebody came up in the late 90s and
| rolling with that.
| tony_cannistra wrote:
| GIMP is an acronym (GNU Image Manipulation Program).
| inDigiNeous wrote:
| Yeah I know that. But do the people looking for a
| professional photo editing program know that. I'm just
| saying if you want to make it big or attract developers,
| maybe naming your software Gimp is not the best thing
| either..
| Tenoke wrote:
| Yes, GIMP layers are still in limited and a pain to use. I'll
| definitely try photopea next time.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _Better than GIMP in so many ways (does GIMP still not have
| adjustment layers for non-destructive editing?), and was
| created by one person_
|
| This makes total sense. GIMPs problem was never feature
| quality or quantity, it was mostly focus and coherence.
|
| A single person brings that.
| folmar wrote:
| The main trouble with GIMP (and Inkscape) is lack of first-
| class CMYK, making it irrelevant for any print-targeting
| activity. Otherwise the features have advanced in the last
| few years and the coherence is not bad, the photoshop crowd
| being in the same ballpark for me.
| avian wrote:
| You know what's more than little depressing? That each time
| any similar topic comes up you don't have to scroll down very
| far to find someone in the comments that will bash GIMP for
| some random thing.
|
| You're comparing an ad-supported/subscription web service
| making a good part of 6 figures per year with software
| maintained largely by volunteer work for the past 20+ years.
| Jyaif wrote:
| The takeaway is that a large community of volunteer can be
| beaten by a single full-time software engineer.
| dperfect wrote:
| I apologize - I truly don't mean to bash GIMP and I
| appreciate all the work the volunteers have done. It has
| come a long way and appears to be getting better with every
| release.
|
| My reliance on adjustment layers and non-destructive
| workflows probably doesn't represents the majority of
| GIMP's user base, and that's ok. I can't really use it
| seriously for photographic retouching until it does have
| that, but I'm glad other people get a lot of use out of it,
| and the other features that have taken higher priority
| surely make sense for a great number of those people that
| do use it regularly. I hope that drives more usage,
| donations, and development.
| keb_ wrote:
| Yep, I use this all the time when I need to do some quick image
| editing. I tried to get used to Krita, but PhotoShops hotkeys
| and menus were already burned into my brain. PhotoPea does a
| great job emulating them.
| dang wrote:
| Discussed in a few past threads:
|
| _Photopea: A free alternative to Photoshop used by millions of
| people_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26898836 - April
| 2021 (5 comments)
|
| _AMA: Ivan Kutskir, creator of Photopea_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26768550 - April 2021 (267
| comments)
|
| _AMA with the Creator of Photopea_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24143189 - Aug 2020 (6
| comments)
|
| _Reddit AMA on Photopea, a free alternative to Photoshop used
| by 1.5M people_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18397380
| - Nov 2018 (179 comments)
|
| _My name is Ivan and I want to make the best photo editor_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15924402 - Dec 2017 (80
| comments)
|
| _Surface Blur and Median_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12612720 - Sept 2016 (34
| comments)
|
| _Photo Pea 0.3 - New features_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6624264 - Oct 2013 (7
| comments)
|
| _HTML5 image editor wants to replace Photoshop and Gimp_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6396474 - Sept 2013 (4
| comments)
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| polite thank you -- not sure if I checked it out in the earlier
| days or something but hadn't been back and stunned at how GIMPy
| it is (in a good way). And totally jump-right-in useable.
| Impressive.
| Tenoke wrote:
| Wow, it even seems to work great on a phone, better than any
| free app I've tried.
| andai wrote:
| I wonder if this was what spurred it! A few years ago a free
| fan operated RuneScape server running an old version became
| more popular than the actual game. Jagex asked them to shut
| down, but they also launched their own version in kind:
| OldSchool RuneScape.
| throwaway889900 wrote:
| Moparscape was always running even before that, albeit not as
| polished and the server owners had full control over how
| ridiculous the game was.
| al3xandre wrote:
| How have I never heard about his before. This is amazingly
| useful.
| achow wrote:
| ...and created by 1 person.
|
| _My name is Ivan Kutskir and I am the only developer of
| Photopea. I am 27 years old graduate of the Charles University
| in Prague. I live in Prague, Czech Republic, but I was born in
| Ukraine._ https://blog.photopea.com/creating-photopea.html
|
| [Edit]
|
| Reddit AMA (3yrs ago) and HN discussion on it.
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18397380
| achow wrote:
| _He (Ivan Kuckir) has been building this online photo editor
| for 7 years now, and it's paying off. Last year (2020), he
| broke the line of $500,000 ARR, and it's still growing._
|
| https://www.lunadio.com/blog/the-story-of-a-unicorn-solo-
| fou...
| arthur_sav wrote:
| If i remember correctly, the whole app runs in the browser
| without a backend which is pretty amazing.
| jjice wrote:
| And no WASM either last time I checked. The author also has
| multiple open source imaging JS libraries on his GitHub
| that he created for PhotoPea
| 8eye wrote:
| that's impressive
| zz865 wrote:
| As someone who is bad at JS I really hoped webassembly would let
| me leapfrog JS/React etc. Is it time to start using it?
| orangepurple wrote:
| No, layout is all CSS with some JS mixed in, and will be for a
| long time. Webassembly will help accelerate heavy mathematical
| computations such as canvas graphics.
| jon-wood wrote:
| You could hypothetically use Webassembly to build your entire
| application around a canvas and either render directly with
| canvas calls or WebGL, but it would somewhat miss the point
| of the web unless you're explicitly building a game or
| something.
| TN1ck wrote:
| This is what Figma is doing for their main UI, they
| reimplemented everything [1]
|
| [1] https://www.figma.com/blog/building-a-professional-
| design-to...
| mhoad wrote:
| Flutter also does this but has an option to fall back to
| regular DOM elements on lower end devices if needed.
| mhoad wrote:
| There are a few things already here or "coming soon" that will
| 100% let you leapfrog JS.
|
| WASM still has no concept of garbage collection which means
| that by default it's limited to a smallish number of languages
| that are viable. That's changing in the not too distant future
| it seems as the plans for garbage collection are well underway
| already.
|
| It also has no ability to do DOM manipulation meaning you end
| up in a scenario like the one in the article where "algorithms"
| end up in wasm and the UI in web components / JS.
|
| I believe that too is going to change at some point.
|
| As for where things stand RIGHT now in 2021 if you want to skip
| JS I would say it probably depends a lot on what you want to
| build. I think for a lot of B2B enterprisey apps that mostly
| run on Desktop devices Flutter is already a viable option there
| and generally a much nicer experience.
|
| The performance / accessibility right now isn't at a level
| where it would make sense for a bunch of other options but as I
| mentioned elsewhere in this thread it is barely out of beta by
| a couple of months. It's improving a lot at a pretty rapid pace
| and is built upon solid tech choices and open standards. I
| think it has a decent future ahead of it.
| zz865 wrote:
| Thanks I wasn't sure why wasm was mostly limited to C++/Rust
| right now but the memory makes sense.
|
| Flutter is great except for Dart - another language.
| mhoad wrote:
| I felt the same way my desire to learn a new language was
| somewhere between low and none at all.
|
| I'm happy to say when I'm wrong though, it ended up as
| probably my favourite language of all after not too long.
|
| It's often described as the love child of Java and
| JavaScript where they took the best from both and got rid
| of the most hated parts of both too. But it ends up as a
| really nice and performant language to build apps in and is
| supported by a lot of amazing dev tooling to make life
| easier.
| zz865 wrote:
| That sounds awesome, I'm going to try it out, thanks.
| crumpled wrote:
| Yes
| paulgb wrote:
| I'd like the answer to be "yes", but at this point if you need
| to ship software I'd say "no". There are wasm counterparts to
| React (my favorite right now is yew.rs), but they're self-
| described as not production-ready. Overall, the tooling is just
| _much_ more developed on the JS /React side. Unfortunately.
|
| That said, you can get plenty of mileage out of using React as
| a frontend and wasm for the application core. I believe this is
| what Figma does. And you can sidestep the DOM entirely and use
| your own UI renderer, which seems to be what Adobe is doing
| here. https://makepad.dev/ is another (absurdly impressive)
| example of that approach, but that's a very involved approach!
| _fat_santa wrote:
| "Oh this is cool, lets give it a try"
|
| Goes to photoshop.adobe.com
|
| "Alright it's loading, lets see what it looks like!"
|
| ...Redirected to a Medium article.
|
| ---
|
| This is why nobody likes you Adobe.
| orangepurple wrote:
| > Why Photoshop came to the web
|
| The entire section is a deception. The real reason is to strong
| arm everyone into a subscription model where you never own the
| software that runs on your computer. That's the real end game,
| not this nonsense about how easy it is to launch an application
| if its a URL in a browser.
| jb1991 wrote:
| Subscription pricing models are hardly unique to Adobe. I can't
| even find any decent accounting software that doesn't require
| some kind of a subscription. It's pretty common, for better or
| for worse.
| modeless wrote:
| Adobe strong-armed everyone to the subscription model long
| before they supported web. There's no relation at all.
| emsy wrote:
| You can still get pirated versions of CC everywhere. Adobe
| didn't act like they had the benefit of their users in mind
| in recent years, so there's no reason to give them the
| benefit of the doubt.
| modeless wrote:
| If your reason for not wanting web is "I can't pirate it
| anymore", I don't have a lot of sympathy for you. And it's
| probably not even true. With a web app like this which is
| mostly client side, it will probably become possible to rip
| it and host it on non-Adobe servers or package it up with a
| local web server. Especially if they offer an offline mode.
| I imagine pirate groups are already starting to think about
| building tools for this.
| [deleted]
| emsy wrote:
| I'm not condoning piracy (cue for exceptions like defunct
| license servers), I merely tried to ponder why I don't
| think this change is for the benefit of the user and what
| its purpose is. I don't know whether it will be as easy
| to pirate, but it certainly is a step to give users even
| less control over their (the user's) software.
| kfprt wrote:
| There are a lot of casual users that the business model
| doesn't address. If you're a pro artist then CC is just a
| business expense and your clients pay for it. If you're
| not it's really hard to justify spending that amount of
| money for software you use once or twice a year. Don't
| forget the piracy to pro pipeline either.
| golergka wrote:
| It's the other way around. Photoshop is not forcing their
| customers, it's chasing after them, as they're already
| switching to Figma.
| enumjorge wrote:
| Speaking of ulterior motives, the way web.dev presents itself
| on the surface as a general web development learning resource
| feels a little icky, especially since it's clearly very Chrome-
| focused once you dig in. It's weird to me that what is
| essentially content marketing for Adobe gets a blog post on
| this site instead of the Chrome team's blog. As others have
| mentioned this browser-based Photoshop works only in Chromium.
| I've never seen MDN push Firefox-specific content like this
| before.
| franga2000 wrote:
| Yeah, I actively avoid web.dev becauee every time I read
| something there I end up being steered towards another
| Chrome-only nonstandard feature. MDN is always clear about
| what's supported where and when features are Firefox-only, it
| clearly warns you and provides alternatives and fixes for
| other browsers.
| winternett wrote:
| I am still able to run my copy of CS6 without problems thank
| God... I had to do some tweaks to get it to run on Windows 10
| though. Not upgrading to Windows 11 until I have to because I
| hear that is even more designed to force users into mandatory
| software updates by creating new incompatibility with older
| apps.
|
| It's really future OS updates that threaten that.
|
| There have been no major advancements in PhotoShop for my needs
| that really warrant an upgrade. No added value. I paid for CS6
| long ago, and it should run properly without artificial
| disruptions indefinitely, because that is how it was marketed
| to me.
| HeckFeck wrote:
| I've never met anyone who couldn't grasp the idea of programs
| running locally on a computer. Practcially every user of
| Android/iOS will understand it intuitevly. Back in the day
| _anyone_ of all ages and abilities I knew on 90s-2000s hardware
| could download and install programs. Anyone who couldn 't
| honestly wouldn't get much benefit from a computer.
|
| Indeed, the convenience argument is just a pretext. They long
| to see the back of the days when you could buy Photoshop 7.0
| for a one off fee and still use it today.
| Godel_unicode wrote:
| I see these comments in virtually every web app thread that
| there is, and it's immediately clear that the people making
| them have never worked somewhere with a vaguely incompetent
| IT department (most companies). There are companies where
| adding a new application to the image/getting IT to install
| it requires forms, waiting, and sacrificing a small animal.
| Those people are also not paying for it and thus don't care
| at all how much it costs.
| HeckFeck wrote:
| I was referencing my experiences of the average computer
| user in that time peroid, which was mostly but not
| exclusively home PCs. They managed. And I know nowadays
| many of them hate the constant UI changes and sluggish JS
| browser apps.
|
| But as to organisations, if it is that bad, it sounds more
| like an exacting support contract or overly bureaucratic
| processes. (Or how things are in the public sector.) In
| either case, if the company makes the process of getting
| its work done needlessly tedious, then it deserves to
| founder and give way to the agile competition.
|
| It is really unfortunate if this is a main reason that
| webapps are so popular with all their bloat, wastage and
| transience.
| karaterobot wrote:
| I think what they're saying is more or less true, though
| they're obviously putting a spin on it. This is them trying to
| catch up to what professional teams already expect, and what
| "prosumers" are increasingly expecting. Teams that collaborate
| on art and design, or who have to deliver assets to other
| people, moved to the web a few years ago. It's so much nicer.
|
| I also believe them when they say performance was an issue that
| kept them from doing this until now: the fact that the Photopea
| guy can do a large subset of Photoshop's functionality in the
| browser is astonishing, but power users expect _a lot_ more,
| and wouldn 't pay Adobe's organizational licensing fees for
| anything less.
|
| Yes, this will allow them to enforce their subscription model
| more tightly, and likely push all kinds of new monetization at
| users. You're right about that part, I just don't think it's
| the only reason.
| PeterBarrett wrote:
| Someone did a really funny presentation on all apps moving to the
| web and then eventually OS's, followed by OS's running on OS's on
| the web. If anyone know's where I can find it I would really
| appreciate a link!
|
| It's pretty relevant to this seeing as it does seem to be where
| we are going.
| rogue7 wrote:
| I believe you are looking for Gary Bernhardt's talk:
|
| https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and-death...
| Ralo wrote:
| I would love to see Photoshop in browser as a self-hostable
| option. I have many tools setup on my LAN and slowly been porting
| applications over to my local server so I can access all my
| applications on all my devices.
| Z_I_F_F wrote:
| What others tools do you have setup on your LAN? Curious of the
| possibilities with this
| Ralo wrote:
| Nothing too crazy but makes my work flow easy to swap between
| locations. I got VSCode server, PHPMyAdmin, Transmission (Web
| based torrent client), DIY Youtube downloader client, DIY
| video editor, A bunch of service managers, and a couple more
| things.
|
| It's basically a whole developer suite with remote
| processing. I could do AI training on my cellphone with this
| setup if I wanted.
|
| I've been working on a DIY spotify clone for a media player.
|
| It makes it really convenient having all my files on a
| central server, so I'm not juggling drives, and copying over
| data.
|
| As well, it's automatically backed up weekly so it's always
| safe.
|
| Works well for someone always on the go :)
| yepthatsreality wrote:
| I'm not sure if you're only accessing applications through a
| browser in this case but if you're using Remote Desktop then
| why not Gimp or similar FOSS alternative?
| Ralo wrote:
| Oh no, it's all in-browser apps. I use it when at work by
| connecting to my server through chrome and using those apps.
| We only have chrome access at work, in fact all port besides
| 80/443 are blocked.
| candiddevmike wrote:
| What is the best language to write web assembly in these days
| from a library/bundle size perspective?
| kidfiji wrote:
| Glad to see major industry applications such as Figma and now
| Photoshop pave the way for Wasm adoption
| irrational wrote:
| It worries me that this is so Chrome focused. I only use Firefox.
| Will it work in Firefox? Are we moving back to "Works best on
| Netscape Navigator 4"?
| detritus wrote:
| Well, I certainly don't like where this is going.
|
| Mind you, I suspect I'll not be alone and by the time Adobe
| transition to a fully web-based subscription lock-in, Affinity et
| al will be better positioned to entirely fill the void.
|
| Sod Adobe.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| Maybe, but AI tooling is becoming relevant and if Adobe plays
| their cards right that will let them maintain a premium edge
| for another decade or two.
|
| For sure, though, sod Adobe.
| pier25 wrote:
| The lock-in has existed for years, regardless of where the app
| is running.
| orangepurple wrote:
| The lock-in definitely does not exist. You just aren't aware
| of the jail breaks.
| detritus wrote:
| I professionally use a vector editing program all day long,
| in this case Illustrator, and absolutely will not consider
| mis-affording pirated software.
| runako wrote:
| Reminder that many people still routinely pirate software and
| can generally use downloadable software without paying for
| it. Going to a Web-only version would eliminate the ability
| of people to pirate it and use it free.
| andai wrote:
| What do you not like?
| detritus wrote:
| The present subscription model and the prospect of where an
| entirely web-based equivalent will lead.
|
| Also, most of the people _I_ know who use Creative Suite have
| absolutely zero need for any of the recent multi-user /
| social/web-based functionality. I've never in my twenty-plus
| years in design needed it and see a decreasing likelihood I
| would in future either.
|
| I appreciate that ages me and marks me as an old fogey, but..
| well, all for the best if competition gets to the point where
| I can go back to buying single releases every n years, at my
| leisure, again.
|
| Sod Adobe.
| toyg wrote:
| _> The present subscription model and the prospect of where
| an entirely web-based equivalent will lead._
|
| Aka the fact that, regardless of payment model, the latter
| is basically un-crackable. Photoshop has maintained some
| popularity, in spite of the SaaS move, because quite a few
| people can still get it by "sailing the high seas" (some of
| them pay for a while and then crack, others just get good
| ol' "releases"). I'm not so sure that turning off that tap
| for good will be a net positive for Adobe, but I guess
| we'll see.
| detritus wrote:
| Exactly.
| open-source-ux wrote:
| I'm still fond of offline desktop apps (non-expiring ones)
| and much prefer them over browser-based equalivents.
|
| The debate about the browser replacing desktop applications
| stretches back to the early 2000s. I was sceptical the
| browser could complete with desktop apps back then.
|
| Fast forward today and how wrong I was.
|
| I used to believe design and graphics apps would never work
| in the browser unless extremely limited in features. But
| even design and graphics apps have found success in the
| browser (e.g. Figma, WebFlow, Canva).
|
| Figma in particular is enjoying huge success and poses a
| challenge to desktop apps Sketch (Mac-only) and Adobe XD
| (Mac and Windows).
| DeathArrow wrote:
| Just because something is doable (running a complex app such as
| an OS or Photoshop or 3D Max in a browser)- doesn't mean that you
| should do it.
|
| Also, I'd rather own the application (and run it on my computer)
| and my data rather then rent the application and depend on a
| company to have access to my data.
| [deleted]
| maddyboo wrote:
| This isn't what I meant when I asked you for Linux support,
| Adobe!
| mpgs wrote:
| ssdsax
| tonymet wrote:
| Am I the only one longing for the fast, responsive and resource
| efficient GUI apps of yore?
| skadamat wrote:
| I'm conflicted. I love the technology and workflows that porting
| large apps to the browser bring you.
|
| But this further moves us away from local first software:
| https://www.inkandswitch.com/local-first/
|
| People sometimes talk about how crypto / bitcoin will
| decentralize things, but honestly we just need a better culture
| of native software. One that brings the best of what modern user
| interfaces and collaboration have to bring without the headaches
| of multi-OS development.
| astlouis44 wrote:
| WebAssembly is coming for games next.
|
| Near native performance, players can join with just a link, and
| no 30% cut that developers have to deal with.
| softfalcon wrote:
| I feel your excitement and wish it were true. I'm even building
| a game to leverage this newly supported tech. The good news is
| that the tech works really really well and is very performant
| in the browser. You can do a lot of cool stuff!
|
| The bad news is that it's not the tech that is holding back web
| based game dev. It's the users. Market research and testing has
| shown that users dislike "just playing" a game in the browser.
| This is particularly true in the AAA segment that webassembly
| and its perf gains would best serve.
|
| Players who play the high profile games that web assembly would
| allow you to make games for (think Fortnite, CS:GO, etc) all
| want to play games from a trusted download from a trusted
| store, not some random website. Please note, random is used
| very loosely here to mean "any store/website that isn't Apple
| Store, Play Store, Xbox Live, PSN, or Steam".
|
| I foresee that we'll need some major player with a big game
| like Fortnite, Roblox or Mojang to spearhead using web deployed
| games before we'll see anything happen in this space. The
| existing "install to disk and play" is working just fine and
| game devs don't really see any reason to change that.
|
| The other major thing is that most "slightly" big games (even
| smaller mobile ones) have assets in the minimum size of 4-10 GB
| of data. Even if you can render the game in browser, you have
| to download those assets. Yes, of course you can "load only
| what you need" but for many many games (source: my wife is a
| game designer and I'm a game programmer/web dev) that still
| entails at least 1 GB of data that would need to be loaded and
| is difficult to cache client side in the browser.
| astlouis44 wrote:
| What engine are you building it with?
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| > Market research and testing has shown that users dislike
| "just playing" a game in the browser. This is particularly
| true in the AAA segment that webassembly and its perf gains
| would best serve.
|
| > Players who play the high profile games that web assembly
| would allow you to make games for (think Fortnite, CS:GO,
| etc) all want to play games from a trusted download from a
| trusted store, not some random website.
|
| No doubt this is partially thanks to the numerous game-like
| ads that link to exceptionally cheaply made web games. I
| remember a time in the late 00s and early 10s when browser
| based games were starting to flower, but then the spammy
| stuff took over and their popularity dropped like a rock.
|
| I would hazard a guess that the overhead of navigating to a
| specific site and the clunkiness inherent to browsers being a
| 1024-in-one multitool doesn't help matters. It's nicer to
| just fire up Steam and have all your games neatly listed, all
| free of extraneous browser chrome and whatnot.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _Players who play the high profile games that web assembly
| would allow you to make games for (think Fortnite, CS:GO,
| etc) all want to play games from a trusted download from a
| trusted store, not some random website._
|
| People just don't want to invest/search for random new games
| on random websites.
|
| For games people want to play, and already have heard about,
| it wouldn't matter if they are on a website or a "trusted
| store". If Fortnite was made available to play only from a
| website starting tomorrow nobody would have a problem using
| it from https://www.fortnite.com as opposed to Epic's game
| platform.
|
| And for games sold by big companies, it also wouldn't matter.
| It's about trust (which Valve or Epic has), not about web vs
| a launcher/store.
|
| If devs can get that trust, then getting users to play the
| game on the web is not a problem.
|
| > _but for many many games (source: my wife is a game
| designer and I 'm a game programmer/web dev) that still
| entails at least 1 GB of data that would need to be loaded
| and is difficult to cache client side in the browser._
|
| You also need to download/cache that 1GB or 10GB if you use
| Valve or whatever.
|
| As for caching it client side in the browser, you can do it
| as well, either as browser cache (browser vendors will just
| add the technologies for that), or as locally downloaded
| assets with direct access granted from the browser (the
| article already talks about using a new API for mmapping-
| style access to files outside the browser).
| sofixa wrote:
| Cloud gaming also achieves this, although in quite a different
| way
| q_andrew wrote:
| Download time is the biggest setback for games in the browser
| in my experience.
| flohofwoe wrote:
| That's why games running in browsers need a different
| approach to asset loading, instead of downloading everything
| upfront, stream the asset data directly from CDN when needed.
| It's nothing new, games had to deal with streaming data from
| slow mass storage devices throughout their entire history.
| astlouis44 wrote:
| Our team is working on exactly this - an asset streaming
| system developers can utilize for Unreal Engine that only
| fetches what a players needs to see at any given moment,
| nothing more.
|
| Combined with compression, you can get players into
| desktop-quality games in WASM in seconds on most computers.
| jbnorth wrote:
| That's not an option for most games. That means I now
| either need to be online-only with a good enough internet
| connection and latency to stream this game (a la Stadia but
| worse since it's not just video) or I need to download it
| into an offline cache which now brings us back to the same
| spot.
| flohofwoe wrote:
| Traditional MMO games have the same requirements, and it
| works fine. Some of them also allow starting the game
| while only a fraction of the asset data has been
| downloaded and continue downloading while the game is
| running.
| anonymousab wrote:
| You only deal with the Steam or EGS or Gog cut if you're
| utilizing their storefront; if you are just hosting the game on
| your own site, then whether that game is a webassembly package
| or a desktop application, you don't have to pay some gatekeeper
| (other than your file host). Same thing with Android, though
| there is a bit more friction there.
| flohofwoe wrote:
| The "gatekeeper" in this case is Windows SmartScreen.
| SmartScreen will pop up a scare dialog unless the installer
| has enough "reputation points" by being popular or signed
| with an EV code signing certificate (which is a lot more
| expensive, and hassle to obtain and use than a regular code
| signing certificate). In any case, for ease of distribution
| nothing beats an URL which when clicked immediately starts
| the game.
| softfalcon wrote:
| Unfortunately, choosing to not use Steam, GoG, or similar is
| simply out of the question.
|
| The reality of you selling your game at a profit without the
| help of one of these app storefronts is improbable. Keep in
| mind that even if you somehow become successful in this
| regard, these storefronts have a vested interested in making
| sure you and your technologies fail.
|
| Edit: apologies if I seem dire, I'm actually on your side and
| WISH that the world was a free market without all these
| gatekeepers. Myself, my partner, and many of my close friends
| constantly battle with these "gate keepers" as game
| devs/designers and I wish they would go away, but the market
| (users) love (to use) them even when they hate them.
| anonymousab wrote:
| > Unfortunately, choosing to not use Steam, GoG, or similar
| is simply out of the question
|
| Sure but that situation doesn't change by simply
| distributing a webassembly package through a website. Or
| rather, that situation is no different than if you
| distribute a desktop binary through your website. In both
| cases you are eschewing the storefront.
| yesco wrote:
| This doesn't really solve the issues with advertising though.
| I believe the main reason so many developers want their games
| on Steam is because of the greater attention they get rather
| than the distribution side of things.
|
| That said, I think the niche of casual remote party games
| would probably work very well here. During the height of the
| pandemic my friends and I started doing a lot of "remote game
| nights" with various different kinds of games. However since
| most of them rarely played games, owned macs and weren't very
| technically inclined, the games that had the least friction
| were generally the browser based ones.
|
| Since party games by nature tend to be great at organic
| advertising and benefit the most from quick easy installs, I
| think there is a big opportunity here that not many have
| taken notice to yet.
| softfalcon wrote:
| This is it. What kills a game isn't its platform, but where
| and how you sell it. Sales and user eyeballs matter more
| than even what game engine you use.
|
| We use Steam, Xbox Live, PSN, etc not because we wouldn't
| prefer to use our own store, but because no one cares about
| anything else.
| astlouis44 wrote:
| Chrome has over a billion potential users of a game, and
| the reason it's so compelling is that fun is just a click
| away. Local installs of a client can be a thing of the
| past.
| Kapura wrote:
| I've been working in games for the better part of a decade, at
| AAA scale for the last three years, and this is pure fantasy.
| It is extremely difficult to develop high-quality games for a
| console, which has fixed hardware specs and a single vendor for
| the SDK. Any layer of emulation on top of that creates new
| problems and dilutes every single aspect of performance,
| sometimes in unpredictable ways.
|
| On top of that, building things that work consistently across
| browsers and across time is an extremely cursed problem.
|
| Insomniac Games, makers of the new Spider-Man games, spent
| several years trying to port all of their development tools and
| workflows to be web-based and work in Chrome. And then, when
| they got there, it turned out to be terrible. Google would
| update the browser and key tools would break and nobody would
| know why. The tools folks had to work in Javascript, while the
| majority of the engine was still in C++.
|
| The call was eventually made to migrate the tools back to
| native exes, which was another multi-year process, but nobody
| missed the Chrome tools. Clicking a bookmark in a browser turns
| out to be about as difficult as clicking a desktop icon, and
| the stability is significantly improved.
| wffurr wrote:
| Doesn't Nintendo sell a crapload of games written to run on a
| six year old mobile chip? Seems like there's a plenty large
| market for non-AAA games.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Yeah, with 3D abilities that no Web 3D API is capable of.
| aspenmayer wrote:
| Does Electron help with this?
| coldtea wrote:
| > _I 've been working in games for the better part of a
| decade, at AAA scale for the last three years, and this is
| pure fantasy._
|
| Maybe we should stop caring for AAA games then? What happened
| to gameplay instead of "this new game has 10% more detailed
| graphic assets"?
| Kapura wrote:
| Well, I'm a gameplay programmer and I seem to always be
| busy somehow, so idk maybe you need to play different
| things?
| coldtea wrote:
| A, the 'individual example supposed to refute general
| trend' fallacy...
|
| As if I said/meant that gameplay-based games didn't exist
| (as opposed that the industry and market has a heavy
| AAA/get newest GPU/ emphasis).
|
| Not to mention that AAA light on gameplay and full on
| assets also hire gameplay programmers. It's not about
| gameplay programmers being busy, or gameplay-heavy games
| existing.
|
| It's about having many more gamers stop chasing graphics
| to the detriment of gameplay - or in fact, stop chasing
| graphics, period.
| Godel_unicode wrote:
| Miles Morales was dope, really nice work.
| Godel_unicode wrote:
| The kind of games I really like are 4x strategy games, RPGs
| like Skyrim that have cinema-quality graphics, and highly
| mechanical games like Rocket League. The mobile equivalent
| for those games are always hot garbage when compared with
| the AAA version. The strategy games and mechanical games
| always fall apart because kbm/controller precision can't be
| achieved on a touchscreen, and the RPGs fall down because
| the graphics suck and the screens are way too small.
| flohofwoe wrote:
| If there's a new web game disruption it won't be started by
| the AAA-games industry, the AAA model depends on big platform
| owners like Valve, Nintendo or Sony, none of them have an
| interest in a distribution channel they have no control over.
| skadamat wrote:
| Yeah there's lots of alternatives to the app stores for windows
| games. You can also just sell direct to consumer.
|
| The real challenge with webassembly as it applies to games (at
| least large ones) is the asset size. AA - AAA games are 20-100
| GB and that can't just live in browser cache.
|
| Also, to be honest building a complex game and shipping it to
| the web is kinda crap shoot for other reasons. Games are power
| hungry, and don't want to be limited by browsers. Also, a
| browser is a massive application that sits around consuming
| resources that a AAA native game could use.
|
| But of course, I imagine games will be developed differently to
| take advantage of the web (smaller games, streaming in levels /
| textures as needed, etc).
| flohofwoe wrote:
| The total asset size doesn't matter much (see Google Earth
| which is probably backed by terabytes of data), but how much
| new data the game needs to present to the player per second
| (which means the games needs to be designed for a minspec
| bandwidth just like it needs to be designed for a minspec CPU
| and GPU).
| hypertele-Xii wrote:
| It's a long way from being a usable gaming interface. There's
| too much "convenience UI" baked into browsers that trips up
| gaming. Pressed the wrong button? It was a browser hotkey for
| history-back and you just unloaded the game. Have add-ons
| enabled? Whoops they are messing up the controls.
| lostinroutine wrote:
| How would the problem of huge (dozens of GB) graphics assets be
| solved? Is there a current/planned way to have the large WASM
| binaries and assets stored on the computer?
| Elidrake24 wrote:
| It's pretty clear you haven't worked in that industry. Per your
| logic, no one should have that issue now, you can sell your
| games on your own site without issue (in fact you can sell your
| own Steam keys without the 30% fee).
| [deleted]
| CincinnatiMan wrote:
| Really interesting how the browser is becoming the universal OS.
| It sort of gives more power/control to Google and reduces it from
| Apple and Microsoft. Would love to be in the executive meetings
| where they discuss the implications of this.
| open-source-ux wrote:
| _Really interesting how the browser is becoming the universal
| OS_
|
| Firefox spent 2011-2016 creating a browser-based operating
| system called FirefoxOS (for smartphones). I used to think it
| was a terrible idea and a waste of Mozilla's resources. Now I
| wonder if I was wrong, and perhaps it was a good idea - but
| simply too early and too immature?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_OS
| tadfisher wrote:
| WebOS and "iPhone OS 1.0" share those traits.
|
| I understand the desire to leverage the technologies and
| talent we've invested into the Web, but as a platform it
| still reeks of its roots as a tool to display remote
| hypertext documents, and I would personally prefer to write
| "native" apps in a more tailored and coherent API and runtime
| environment.
| VikingCoder wrote:
| If you haven't seen "The Birth And Death of Javascript," you
| should watch it.
|
| https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and-death...
| randomluck040 wrote:
| Is this something to be worried about? I also see more and more
| things in the field of geography , especially data
| visualisation, to start living in browsers and most people
| default to Chrome.
| JohnWhigham wrote:
| Yes, it is something to worry about. It's wresting control
| away from users via their no longer able to run native
| applications. And it's only going to continue with the
| continuing new generation of programmers who know nothing but
| JavaScript continue to implement everything in JavaScript
| because they've never known a world that doesn't have
| JavaScript.
| cromwellian wrote:
| Native applications already have subscription models so I
| don't get this.
|
| And are mobile apps running in locked down OSes truly
| "native" either? Whether they're written in WASM or Swift,
| if they are locked behind an App Store subscription,
| whether they're downloaded and stored on the device
| filesystem permanently or downloaded on the fly and cached
| as needed is irrelevant as the end user still lacks control
| and you still end up with an uncrackable walled garden.
|
| There some bizarre notions associated with "native" here
| which I don't think have anything to do with control over
| how people run stuff.
|
| Likewise, why is a world where most people learn JavaScript
| any better or worse than a world where most people learn
| Swift?
|
| There's never going to be a world where no minority
| languages exist and frankly, the more "pro" languages which
| have fewer users end up paying more $$$ as they are
| perceived to require more expertise than scripting
| languages. Seems like a win/win if concerned.
|
| We once celebrated the Web and the idea of ephemerality,
| portability, "view source" and inspect, etc and now somehow
| we're back to people wanting installable binary blobs
| locked into app stores as somehow superior.
| goatlover wrote:
| > We once celebrated the Web and the idea of
| ephemerality, portability, "view source" and inspect,
|
| Back when the web was mostly traditional websites and
| documents, not apps.
|
| > And are mobile apps running in locked down OSes truly
| "native" either? Whether they're written in WASM or
| Swift, if they are locked behind an App Store
| subscription, whether they're downloaded and stored on
| the device filesystem permanently or downloaded on the
| fly and cached as needed is irrelevant as the end user
| still lacks control and you still end up with an
| uncrackable walled garden.
|
| They're native if they're running on a native runtime,
| which is optimized for the device and has full access,
| instead of the more limited browser.
|
| > Likewise, why is a world where most people learn
| JavaScript any better or worse than a world where most
| people learn Swift?
|
| It's better if one language doesn't completely dominate
| the application space. Same issue when Java was all the
| hotness, and people thought everything was going to run
| on the JVM.
| cromwellian wrote:
| What do you mean by full access? Native apps on platforms
| like iOS and Android run within containers that present a
| narrowed view of the full platform.
|
| If you take a "native" library like QT or wXWindows or
| even OpenGL do you have "full access"? Any cross platform
| abstraction or portability layer will remove power and
| access.
|
| Do we really want to argue for a world where all software
| is written as if the target is a game console to the
| metal, even when 90% of apps don't need it?
| open-source-ux wrote:
| _Is this something to be worried about?_
|
| Yes. But it is mostly too late to doing anything. The move to
| the browser has been happening for years.
|
| As an example, look at ChromesOS - a cloud operating system
| (OS) that tracks and records all your activity the moment you
| sign in. A Google account is required to use the full
| functionality of the OS. It is used by millions of schoolkids
| with all the privacy implications that entails. Somehow,
| Google's promise to never build profiles of their school
| users is enough to placate developers. In fact, developers
| are more likely to defend Google rather than question or
| scrutinise the privacy implications of using a cloud OS.
|
| Google must be gleeful they've captured a whole generation of
| US kids to use Google services through the ubiquity of
| ChromeOS in US schools. And without any dissenting views from
| developers on the matter either.
| karmanyaahm wrote:
| Is Google paying Adobe to bring PS to Chromebooks through the
| web?
| chaz6 wrote:
| Only Chromium/Blink browsers are supported, so no Firefox or
| Safari. This is bad for the web.
| pier25 wrote:
| Just yesterday the Webkit team at Apple announced many open
| positions.
|
| https://twitter.com/Litherum/status/1452770092308054020
| mhoad wrote:
| I saw this on Twitter today also... however, this is after
| over a decade of taking a very very different approach though
| mind you. I'll believe them when we see the outcomes though.
| [deleted]
| mhoad wrote:
| Two very underfunded teams there trying to play catch up.
|
| Only one of them has an excuse though, the other is literally
| the most profitable company in the world who is strategically
| trying to make the web into a subpar platform for their own
| commercial interests.
| slig wrote:
| Half a billion/year from Google is hardly underfunded. Maybe
| if they used this money better they wouldn't have to kick 250
| engineers last year.
| vnorilo wrote:
| I'd like to support Firefox with a donation as I'm sure many
| others would, but I don't trust Mozilla foundation to
| allocate it to something that actually matters.
| burkaman wrote:
| I do trust the foundation and make a monthly donation, but
| those donations are not used for Firefox, and I'm not even
| sure they legally could be the way the foundation is
| structured. I too would really, really, really like a way
| to fund Firefox development. I don't use any of the
| features they make money from (search partnerships,
| sponsored suggestions, Pocket), and if I'm forced to I will
| stop using Firefox.
|
| I don't understand why they can't do a pay-what-you-want
| model. Keep the browser free, but encourage people to pay
| $20 or something if they like it. I would.
| automatic6131 wrote:
| Silence, user. The CEO has more mansions to purchase.
| anonymousab wrote:
| I think paying for Mozilla VPN would be one way of donating
| directly to the corp. But that's not a great option unless
| you were already looking to use Mullvad, and also doesn't
| signal intent.
| azakai wrote:
| As others already mentioned, funding is just one factor here.
|
| Mozilla decided to stop focusing on porting such applications
| to the Web before 2020's layoffs, when Mozilla was still
| growing. The decision came after some management changes,
| basically: I don't think any individuals changed their minds,
| just those people happened to leave, and their replacements
| had different ideas.
|
| (I personally disagreed with the new priorities at the time,
| and ended up leaving.)
| hbn wrote:
| Hey, I don't think you should discount all of the great work
| Apple has done on Safari lately, such as... making tabs ugly
| and hard to use
| ZetaZero wrote:
| Firefox has revenues of over $400M per year. I hear they have
| only 40 developers working directly on FF. Do the math
| fabrice_d wrote:
| Of course there are more than 40 full time devs working on
| Firefox. A quick grep over the last few months of commits
| of the main gecko repository surfaces more than 200
| committers with a mozilla.com email. Keep in mind that some
| employees don't use a corp address, and that I didn't look
| at other repositories like the Android specific components
| or any of the backend services (like sync and push
| servers). Also add people that work on UI/UX design etc.
|
| Yes there are issues with resources and resource
| allocations at MoCo, but claiming there are only 40 devs on
| Firefox is way off.
| Dracophoenix wrote:
| Firefox isn't even playing catchup. Mozilla aborted what
| scant work it's done on PWA support.
|
| From the horse's mouth:
| https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1682593
|
| Chrome and its variants have already won the PWA space, not
| by some brilliant strategy or sinister ploy on Google's part,
| but by default of its competitors.
| mhoad wrote:
| I mean I think they are already in an extremely rough
| position but if they find themselves in the situation where
| they are seen as a browser for Web pages rather than Web
| apps I think that could prove fatal for them.
|
| It's clear that there is a lot of new tech on the horizon
| for browsers that is closing the gap with native very
| quickly.
|
| If they are unable to make that transition which sadly
| seems like a real possibility then I don't know where that
| leaves them.
| cpeterso wrote:
| That bug is only about Single Site Browser mode (SSB),
| where a desktop link would open a website in a Firefox
| browser window with no browser controls.
| Dracophoenix wrote:
| The relevant information is presented in the comment
| section below the bug report proper. If you would like a
| particular post to be pointed towards, here is one
| reprinted and slightly edited for clarity:
|
| ---------------------------------------------------------
| ---
|
| Dave Townsend [:mossop] Assignee
|
| Comment 15 * 10 months ago
|
| (In reply to Hexandcube from comment #12)
|
| >I disagree, many people have been waiting for PWA
| support in Firefox. Removing this feature, may result in
| people (including me, a huge Firefox advocate) switching
| from Firefox, to a browser that supports PWA. I'm very
| disappointed.
|
| We already don't have the feature working in any decent
| fashion so I'm not sure removing it will have any impact
| here.
|
| >I also would like to see the results of the research,
| Dave was talking about.
|
| Unfortunately I think that the research is confidential
| at the moment.
|
| (In reply to joshas from comment #13)
|
| >You should reconsider this decision. It is
| understandable that currently there might not be enough
| resources to finish full PWA support, like in competing
| browsers, but removing it completely will not only make
| all work done on it a waste of time, but also send wrong
| signal to some users.
|
| >Leaving feature hidden under flag for enthusiasts to
| experiment on and, maybe, even submit patches that will
| nudge it closer to completion - that would be a bigger
| win, than removing feature altogether.
|
| The signal I hope we are sending is that * _PWA support
| is not coming to desktop Firefox anytime soon*_
| {emphasis: mine}. At this point I don 't think we would
| accept patches to improve the feature so I don't think
| leaving the code in Firefox makes any sort of sense.
| Speaking as the developer who spent a good deal of time
| writing most of the code I am frustrated to see it
| removed too, but it is the decision that makes sense at
| this time.
|
| ---------------------------------------------------------
| ---
| kushan2020 wrote:
| Seeing Firefox teams callous take on a critically important
| Native file system feature [1], it comes at no surprise that
| major products are dropping Firefox compatibility.
|
| [1] https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/154
| azakai wrote:
| That's not ideal, of course - the point of the Web is that you
| can visit a website from anywhere - but in practice, when this
| type of cutting-edge application arrives on the Web, often at
| least initially it doesn't run optimally in all browsers or has
| other limitations. That's been the case with things like
| Mozilla porting Unreal Engine to the Web back in the day, for
| example.
|
| In general, after the initial launch things tend to improve as
| both browsers and applications focus on compatibility.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| Apple is choosing to artificially limit the potential of web
| image work in Safari anyway.
|
| > Safari 15 has a canvas memory limit of 4096 x 4096 pixels
| where Safari 14 could deal with resolutions up to 16384 x
| 16384.
|
| https://twitter.com/rikschennink/status/1442443774748082185
|
| I'm definitely not one to advocate web apps that only work in
| one browser, but Apple is certainly going out of their way to
| make lives harder for developers who do want to support their
| browser and we all know why that is.
| kiryin wrote:
| I, for one, do not like this. Software that doesn't exist on your
| computer, but instead gets ephemerally downloaded from a server
| somewhere when you wish to use it, is about as anti-user-freedom
| as I can possibly imagine. I can ony hope this doesn't become the
| standard.
| [deleted]
| josefresco wrote:
| This reads like an ad for Google and "the Chrome team".
|
| "Chrome has been working to empower web applications that want to
| push the boundaries of what's possible in the browser"
|
| "Google Docs was a pioneer of this simplified access"
|
| "Early apps like Gmail showed that more complex interactivity and
| applications were at least possible"
|
| "No large project can be successfully completed without the
| appropriate tools for the job, and it's for this reason that the
| Chrome team developed full featured WebAssembly debugging
| support."
| malepoon wrote:
| Indeed. Also, using the generic web.dev domain to market Chrome
| reminds me a lot of Project NERA.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| Well, web.dev _is_ owned by Google after all
| pier25 wrote:
| I can see Illustrator and Photoshop running on a browser but I
| doubt we'll see After Effects and Premiere on WASM any time soon.
|
| IMO the solution will probably be a combination of browser based
| UI and cloud based processing. The drawback of this approach is
| that the server would need to host the project files.
| bjano wrote:
| WebCodecs is available since the latest Chrome, so it is now
| possible to use hardware accelerated codecs from the browser.
| Instead of uploading & downloading GBs of data and paying for
| someone else's processing power, you can do everything locally
| as long as you don't mind a few limitations.
|
| I am working on a project using this approach:
| https://vidmix.app
|
| (still plenty of minor bugs, I was planning for a proper Show
| HN soon)
|
| Also because both the preview and the rendering is done with
| WebGL the result is guaranteed to match what you see while
| editing, unlike with some cloud-based editors where a different
| stack on the rendering backend is trying to replicate what the
| browser is doing with js+css
| BuildTheRobots wrote:
| Somewhat tangential, but if people are looking for an After
| Effects / Premiere alternative, I highly recommend Davinci
| Resolve.
|
| I can only really speak to the editing, but it seems leaps
| ahead of premier in a lot of ways. Very quick for scrubbing
| through 4k footage (even the free version) and far more
| intelligence when it comes to certain jobs (eg throw a folder
| of RAW photos in there to make a hyperlapse and it'll recognise
| them as a sequence and let you treat it as video).
|
| The free version contains 90% of the features and is completely
| free - even for commercial use. The studio version is a one-off
| PS250 (two seats) with free major and minor updates for life.
| It ran on Linux before it could even run on Windows and has
| just been optimised for M1 Macs.
|
| Considering Adobe wants PS238/year just for Premier (editing)
| or PS600/year for the whole suite if I want After Effects
| (Resolve has "Fusion" built in for sfx, though admittedly the
| CS suite has far more to it than just that), for my uses it
| seemed like a no-brainer. And I got a free editor keyboard
| (PS250 retail) when I bought the license.
|
| My only annoyance is that Premier is so ubiquitous that you can
| need a license to be able to open projects from other editors.
| And that also requires you're all on the same version as the
| file format gets bumped every version (infuriating if you've
| deliberately stayed a version behind because it runs better on
| your older hardware). I find it quite ironic as the two big
| Premier users (companies) I know will do their final cut in
| Premier, render it and then throw it to a colourist who imports
| their final video into Davinci for colour grading anyway.
|
| One of them already has plans to transition across for the
| edit, but as they have decades of combined experience working
| with Premier, it's a difficult if not dangerous decision to
| deliberately loose productivity whilst people retrain. If
| you're just starting out, especially at home or in a small
| team, then the idea of starting with Premier seems crazy.
| jon-wood wrote:
| Second the recommendation for Resolve, just be aware it's the
| gateway drug to an expensive BlackMagic hardware habit.
| nereye wrote:
| For anybody thinking of getting the Davinci Resolve Studio
| (full version), you can buy the hardware editor (Davinci
| Resolve Speed Editor) and get Studio for free. The hardware
| is the same price as buying Studio on its own so it seems a
| no-brainer.
| matsemann wrote:
| I'd actually like that. Like running a jupyter notebook on a
| beefy server somewhere. Biggest issue is probably that one
| still needs to be able to quickly seek in the movie, and watch
| rendered results in correct resolution without too much
| delay/downloading. But that delay could in practice end up
| being shorter if the server is faster at rendering.
| okhobb wrote:
| There is a YC W22 company hoping to do just that:
| https://ozone.tech/
| lepouet wrote:
| Even for pro photographers, i doubt my 250Mb RAW images and
| 2-4Gb PSD files would be great to edit on the web...
| thegoleffect wrote:
| An offline-first web version of AE/Prem is what we're working
| on @ Vidbase. Internally, it works today better than the
| desktop apps imo. Others are working on similar tools as well.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-26 23:02 UTC)