http://tumult.com/hype/

While Google hasn't announced pricing, it is probably safe to say it is going to be free. This is a business for us, so we charge $29.99. I don't like competing against free, but that just means we'll be continually pushed to provide that much more value!

Google's free offering is cross platform already.

And, I guess, most of the marketers, too.

I'm guessing most (all?) the developers you know work in the US?

Mac OS is close to nonexistent in that area in the rest of the world.

Trying to sell an app competing against a free product from Google is already challenging enough, you should seriously consider the original advice and extend your tool to work on Windows as well.

  > Mac OS is close to nonexistent in that area in the rest
  > of the world.

I'm fortunate to be working for a consultancy company that just gives everyone a budget to buy their computer. Most people have a Macbook, with the odd exception that simply has a hatred for Apple or can't get used to it.

I would argue that development tools are much better for OSX. It's like Linux, but usable. A lot of commandline tools just work out of the box under OSX, where you have to go through hoops, hope there's a port, or install a bash emulator under Windows.

Of course, .NET developers will be using Windows.

And this is a two year old observation.

That's what we call a filter bubble

The Microsoft world might also be used by large corporations, who also happen to have lots of money, with which you can buy things like software.

(There's also these other platforms based on *nix, but meh :-p)

|pushes button to delete nix|

Hey, where did 60% of my favorite website go? Oh, I'll just google how to undelete *nix... wait... crap!

You're actually discounting the entire world outside of SV right now?

That is an amazing thing to write on the internet.

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNS66CcUJ1o

SIDENOTE: If Adobe made linux-versions of all their stuff, combined with the already-existing linux versions of Maya and 3DSMax, I believe it would be very good for the digital-art industry.

People will use the enviroment where the tools run stable.

No sir!

</sarcasm>

You really need to get some perspective about just how big the IT industry is outside of America.

1) Big corporations don't like to overspend on PC hardware and can have great deals with anyone but Apple.

2) A company that work mostly on Windows platform (.Net, MSSql)

4) As weird as it sound some people might actually not like OSX.

On the other hand, I REALLY like the idea of an app and all its dependencies being installed all in one folder. That REALLY needs to happen everywhere. This would make migration between installs SO much easier, and would eliminate DLL hell (or shared library hell in the case of linux).

Just my 2cents

I also dont like the dock, i like to have a taskbar with the open windows on each of my monitors which is no problem in Windows and Linux. I dont like the Menubar stuck on the main monitor.

As a web developer i really like the unix base of OSX for different reaons though and i need to use some software for game dev (Unity3D) which isnt available on Linux.

But i thought about running Windows for game dev/office stuff and Linux in a VM for web development.

Oh yes. I wouldn't take a job if they offer Apple only choices.

Most of the people i know just use Windows (Belgium)

I remember being a very little kid and buying shareware games with their "PC-Compatible" labels. At the time, that sticker actually meant "DOS Compatible", and being I just about 10 years old, I believed PCs and DOS were the only possible match, the same way my first MSX ran MSX-Basic and my cousin's Amstrad CPC ran CP/M. I didn't know it was even possible for machines to run different OSes. For that matter, I didn't even know what an OS was. I just knew different machines worked differently, the same way different TV sets worked differently.

So it's not just a matter of human language, it's a matter of intentionally confusing terms in favour of the market. Everybody knew there were other "walkmans" around. Not everybody knows there are other OSes.

Besides, that gives them a single competitor to fight against.

Prescriptivists.

In tech, things should be called by their name, or you risk future confusion.

Yes, you'd drastically expand your potential client base – but end up with worse revenue and higher support costs per customer.

(I'm on a Mac, still I have Windows machines and know a huge amount of web-developers who abide by Windows)

We've moved nearly all of our other videos to youtube, so if it really is our server you can click the "watch more" buttons on the main page to still get a feel for the app.

http://html.adobe.com/edge/animate/

Flash = almost dead

Dreamweaver = Zombie mod

Fireworks = Dead despite its powerfull features like jquerymobile skinning,project files as png files,games graphics, native app design, easily customizable through js.

Thank you Elop (who sold MM to Adobe ), thank you Adobe.

Flex with IntelliJ beats the javascript crap sauce anyone tries to push down my throat. The VM is extremely capable (yet terrible advertised and documented) and the language is superb and easily approachable.

If Adobe wasn't such a butt hole* at PR, we'd be in a different situation.

*:understand that Adobe shot itself in the foot in every possible way in the last 3 years.

As a former Flex developer, I must admit that Flex was the best thing that ever happened to web development, but unfortunately the Flash team wasn't strong enough to bring the runtime to mobile with enough quality. Building a RIA in Flex was so incredibly easy, and debugging was easy, and you really could use anything you wanted for a backend (I've used Perl, PHP, and Java). Bidirectional data binding, an excellent widget library, and a lot of help from the default IDE (custom build of Eclipse) allowed me to build software, full stack, with an engineering team of 1 on a weekly release cycle.

I've spent more time debugging HTML5/JS/CSS than building entire applications in Flex. The AdvancedDataGrid component alone was worth the price of admission.

I used to work for Macromedia but I knew the moment Flex was released they'd taken the wrong turn from complimenting web standards to trying to build their own proprietary platform on Flash. To the user it was only marginally better than Java applets.

Flex is still good for some $100-$120/hr consulting gigs on the side, mostly maintaining or changing something for a company who no longer employees a full time flex dev. Each year since Adobe "killed Flex" this hourly rate has gone up while the # of gigs has gone down. I would not, nor recommend, anyone start a Flex app today for a new project.

AngularJS is the closest thing to Flex that I've used, and only recently has tooling started to come close to what Flex had years ago.

JS/CSS is painful in comparison (esp when you consider large corps are still on IE6, 7, or 8), but still the right choice today for new RIAs. One can only hope the death of XP next year gets these corps to to do something...

For a web app (RIA) I would pick Flex or Silverlight any day over the whole HTML mess if they would only run properly in all browsers, desktop and mobile.

Agreed. I started doing a lot of projects in Fireworks because of how powerful and flexible it is. I actually stopped using Illustrator and Photoshop and was using Fireworks exclusively. I was really pissed when they killed it after the Creative Cloud.

Money grubbing scum.

You can create animations in Google Web Designer in two modes, Quick mode and Advanced mode.

In Quick mode, you build your animation scene by scene: you add a new view of the entire page, change the elements you want to animate, and, optionally, modify your transition times and easings.

For more complex animation, Advanced mode lets you individually animate each of the the elements, optionally modifying transition times and easing as well. Advanced mode also shows layers, which let you change where each element is in the stack of elements.

Check out more information on how to use the two different timeline modes in our help center: https://support.google.com/webdesigner/topic/3181123?hl=en&r...

Thanks, Google Web Designer team

Our docs team has updated the help links.

Thanks, Google Web Designer team

If you create a truly brilliant ad which is targeted to the right audience and let them do something with your brand inside the ad for example people are more willing to view them in my opinion in stead of just forcing them the same old banner over and over again only with a different brand in them..

Do companies actually believe this? Flash is the easiest to remove of all ads.

  "If you create a truly brilliant ad which is targeted to 
   the right audience and let them do something with your 
   brand inside the ad for example people are more willing 
   to view them in my opinion in stead of just forcing them 
   the same old banner over and over again only with a 
   different brand in them."

Unfortunately the industry was built on the grounds that the users had no choice, so the notion of good advertising I think will never come. Old men in stuffy suits don't change unless they go bankrupt.

Our ambition while building Google Web Designer is that it be a general-purpose, awesome HTML5 content builder.

Hence the name Web Designer & not Ad Designer.

We aim to learn from our users, iterate & push quickly to reach our ultimate goal of being a kick- general purpose HTML5 builder!

I'd agree that it was not the original goal of HTML to develop full applications.

There seem to be a hidden agenda in everything Google does these days.

But its Branded as Google Web Designer. :)

#1 Wait, couldn't the ad designer you've been working so hard on actually be used by anyone to just make web pages?

#2 Well...I mean I guess so, but it wouldn't--

#1 Awesome! It's really a Google Web Designer! This can be a much bigger PR splash than just a nice tool for making ads! Gotta think outside the box. Generalize.

#2 OK, but the actual goal here is to make it easier to create ads, and the product's completely designed around--

#1 BAM! Name changed! Two minutes to create a whole new product. That MBA has paid for itself in spades!

More likely:

#1 "we need an ad builder tool"

#2 "OK, but it can do more than ads..."

#1 "Good one. Then it it will seem like we're giving back."

#2 "?"

#1 "Don't worry. Just make sure the focus of using the app will be ads. That will help our users the most, and provide the biggest impact with our limited resources."

One of the other purposes of Advertisements are also to create impressions and Branding. You don't have to necessarily click every ad. :)

And with such visual tools ad making is very easy and reachable to all. A great project by Google. Kudos. With Visual tools like this we can interact with more depth. And lets not forget this is free too.

They might bring better ad-making experience overtime with built in ad-templates. All this will bring more Appealing ads.

And Eye catching ads serve as — Branding and Brand-remembering for Publishers, users notice them and remember(clicks not important in Branding)