February 14, 2010

Adobe is “sabotaging” HTML5??

In a word, bullshit.

Apple Insider–via an article whose writer can’t be bothered even to spell the names of several participants (Ian Hickson, Dave McAllister) correctly, to say nothing of doing other fact checking–accuses Adobe of saying one thing (that it supports the development of HTML5 and other standards) while working to delay & destroy those standards. Wow–so lurid, it must be true!!

Um, no. Here’s a clarifying comment from Adobe rep Larry Masinter:

No part of HTML5 is, or was ever, “blocked” in the W3C HTML Working Group — not HTML5, not Canvas 2D Graphics, not Microdata, not Video — not by me, not by Adobe.

Neither Adobe nor I oppose, are fighting, are trying to stop, slow down, hinder, oppose, or harm HTML5, Canvas 2D Graphics, Microdata, video in HTML, or any of the other significant features in HTML5.

Claims otherwise are false. Any other disclaimers needed?

There are some things that are wrong with the spec I’d like to see fixed. There are some things that are really, really, wrong with the process that I’d like to improve.

I’ve been working on web standards since the beginning of the web in the early 90s, and standards for even longer; long before I joined Adobe. My opinions don’t come from Adobe, and I don’t get approval or direction. I hate to see decades of work on web architecture messed up in the short-term interest of grabbing control of the web platform for a few vendors to own. If you think that position doesn’t match what you imagine Adobe’s position is, well, I’m glad Adobe’s planning to support HTML5 in its products.

As for the HTML standards process: I’ve worked in scores of standards groups in IETF and W3C, as well as a few others here and there, and I’ve never seen anything as bad as this one, with people abusing their official positions to grandstand and promote proprietary advantage. I’ve blogged some about this, but I’d rather fix things along.

I think progress of HTML5 in W3C could be faster if the subsections on graphics and metadata could (if not now, then eventually) be moved to separate subgroups focused on those topics. The organization of work in W3C is determined by the “charters” of working group and the “scope” of he charters, so saying work is “out of scope” even if you are marking a snapshot of the (already published) documents as “Working Draft”, means you might rewrite the “Status of This Document” section to say that it might move. That’s what I was asking for, in the somewhat stilted language of “objection”.

If you want to know who is sending in technical objections, you can see the working group mailing list at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/. And if you want to see more of my opinions, I’m also on the W3C Technical Architecture Group (TAG) and post there a lot, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/; the TAG often discusses HTML5.

Any more questions about my opinion? My email address should be easy to find.

I should note that I’m not involved in Adobe’s relationships with these standards bodies. Others with more direct involvement will likely share more detail soon. In the meantime, I’m posting this for two reasons:

  1. A number of people have posted angry, accusatory comments here & via my Twitter feed, demanding an explanation.
  2. I’m angry and depressed about the total ignorance/laziness of online “journalists” and the sheer credulity of their readers. For God’s sake, guys, do the most rudimentary due diligence before you start defaming people who’ve devoted their entire careers to the advancement of standards. Have enough respect for your profession to take the impact of your words seriously.

Addendum: Here are some comments from an HTML WG member, Shelley Powers, who is not affiliated with Adobe:

I’m a member of the HTML WG, but I’m not speaking for the HTML WG, or W3C. I’m only expressing my opinion, and what I know to be facts. I’m also not an employee of Google, Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, or any other company (I’m a writer, for O’Reilly).

There is no truth to this rumor. The posting here is inaccurate. Grossly inaccurate I would add.

This was an issue that has been under discussion, off and on, on the publicly accessible HTML WG for months. It has to do with scope and charter, not the specifications themselves. The Adobe representative to the HTML WG registered his concerns about the fact that the HTML WG is working on specifications that push, or exceed the group’s charter. This includes Microdata, RDFa-in-HTML, and the 2D Canvas API.

Adobe is not blocking any specification. There are dozens of issues that are “blocking” HTML5, if you want to use that term, of which I’m responsible for many at this time. Technically the HTML5 specification can’t advance to Last Call status until these issues are resolved. However, the W3C management can override my issues, and the issues of any individual or company. No one company can block the advancement of any specification without the concurrence of the W3C leadership.

All of these issues are based on improving all of the specifications, including HTML5 and Canvas. it’s unfortunate that the HTML5 editor, who is also the Google representative to the HTML WG introduced such wild, and unfounded speculation, causing harm not only to the Adobe representative, but distracting all of us from the work of finishing the HTML5 and other specifications.

I would hope that people would seek to get confirmation before posting unfounded accusations.

Posted by John Nack at 11:22 PM on February 14, 2010

Comments

  • Bob Watson — 12:26 AM on February 15, 2010

    Clearly this ‘John Nack’ fellow is part of the conspiracy.

  • Nick Hampson — 1:51 AM on February 15, 2010

    John, I’ve been a long time reader of your blog and using Adobe tools since Photoshop 5. It seems that there are a lot of people in a lot of different areas queueing up for a bash at Adobe.
    I’d certainly have to question the validity of this attack on all fronts as being genuine and not fuelled by parties who gain from your loss, see another unfounded conspiracy theory :-).
    While I am sure my comments will be trashed too, I’d like to simply say by business relies on Adobe tools and will continue to do so, keep up the good work and as they say “Illegitimi non carborundum” (the British version of bad Greek).
    Yeah I know it’s not real Greek, but cobbled together seems to be taken as gospel on the internet now-days.
    Hey I know Adobe is’nt perfect but its seems that everyone is willing to throw the first stone while overlooking companies who offer a great new upgrade which is little more than a few patches (final cut studio 3), or miss with their entire operating system version (Vista) the list of endless you want to see companies who really mess with their user base guys? Come and join me in the world of midrange and mainframe servers.
    So to counter some negatives even if its only from a Brit, “you guys rock, you let me do amazing stuff in very little time”, “I already have the money in the bank for Master collection CS5 upgrade, you can even have it now!”.
    Lastly great use of bad language, I know its not PC but I am 100% behind the ‘I swear because I care’ you were nicer than I would have been ;-)

  • OpenPlayer — 2:02 AM on February 15, 2010

    The best way for Adobe to be actively involved in the future of HTML5 is to help it to better work with their technologies. More and more people think that open sourcing the Flash Player to offer advanced functionalities to HTML 5 through DOM and JavaScript could help a lot on promote both technologies.
    If you think that’s a good solution too, you can sign the petition asking Adobe to open source Flash Player http://www.openplayer.net/.

  • ricardo galvao — 2:04 AM on February 15, 2010

    Microsoft gives no attention to the W3C, knowing that ActiveX is a vector of virus … and yet MS still supporting it …
    Similarly ADOBE, you say no. but that Adobe can do to prevent HTML5, for sure … or you will make as MS

  • karl — 2:14 AM on February 15, 2010

    No one needs HTML5. We need XHTML 2.

  • Goran Peuc — 2:37 AM on February 15, 2010

    People and their crazy ideas …
    Picard will illustrate how I feel:
    http://nivas.hr/pub/picard.gif

  • Torossian — 2:43 AM on February 15, 2010

    I’m extremely cynical of the entire process because billions of dollars are riding on this. Some need to realize how important proper, standards-based HTML5 ratification is. It’s the future of the web in the hands of handful of people (ostensibly representing a small contingent of giant corporations).
    I’m glad these obscure minutes are getting such widespread exposure on the web. It would make Adobe, Apple, Google, Opera, or Microsoft think twice before trying to ratf**k the process to serve their own short-term goals.
    People who are voicing their opinions regarding this latest incident are probably pointing their finger at Adobe because it stands to lose the most with HTML5 relative to others. Lets be honest, the shady campaign Microsoft waged against ODF adoption and committee stacking by trying to fasttrack OOXML through ISO/IEC JTC1 left some observers extremely suspicious of corporate motivations in standards creating bodies.
    There is nothing wrong with healthy skepticism. Even if this was FUD, the fact that it got such attention is a positive thing.

  • koogle — 3:20 AM on February 15, 2010

    as if you would tell us the truth!
    [Yes, I’m clearly lying, as are all the non-Adobe-affiliated people to whom I linked. It’s a big conspiracy. We’re *that good*. –J.]

  • John C. Welch — 4:03 AM on February 15, 2010

    any time AppleInsider is a leading source of a report, the bullshit sign’s already lit.
    however, Adobe has made it *extremely* easy for people to believe this kind of thing, and it’s almost entirely self-inflicted. When you look at the Flash team’s response to criticism, the tone is really clear: “Flash is doing just great, and if you don’t like it, you’re some kind of Steve Jobs Flavor-Aid swilling nutbar. You can’t have the internet without flash, and if you think otherwise, you’re a fanatic.”
    That really is the message John, from people on the Flash team. They are telling their customers that the complaints they have are their fault for not using a Flash blocker, or using a “weaker browser”. That’s what the customers hear, over and over and over again, and so when something like this bit of crap shows up, of *course* it’s easy to believe.
    If you’re going to stick your head in the friggin’ noose, you kind of have to expect that someone’s going to say “hey, wonder what THIS lever does” at some point.

  • erliiii — 4:22 AM on February 15, 2010

    We really want you out of all the working groups, Adobe!
    Your products are total crap. They annoy everybody. The flash player video embedding is even worse than video embedding was before.
    The only reason for your success is that Real Player was even crappier, Microsoft wanted to lock-in Windows Users and bandwidth is continually growing.

  • John C. Welch — 5:00 AM on February 15, 2010

    Also, the AppleInsider article ‘author’ is a sockpuppet for the ‘genius’ behind roughlydrafted.com
    [I was just amused that he named himself after a failed McDonald’s
    sandwich
    . –J.]

  • Sal — 5:08 AM on February 15, 2010

    I agree with the sentiments on the increase in ‘Adobe bashing’. It’s become really irritating to see people rail on Adobe for Flash, PS, etc. Not to say any of it is unwarranted but it’s the mob mentality that seems out of hand.
    A bit of intelligence lets one realise that all software has its issues; development in one direction can make some users feel ostracised, etc.
    Yeah, Flash has had its up and down moments but how long has Flash been around? A good number of years? Now, in those years what has it facilitated? Being able to have a richer experience of the web; the ability to create interactive presentations, animations, etc. I was using Flash way back at the beginning when it was Macromedia and while my type of work is no longer Flash-based I still appreciate what it can do. I haven’t forgotten how powerful it can be.
    If Adobe has lost sight of streamlining Flash, making it more stable (it rarely crashes for me); or the myriad of other problems people mention then let Adobe address them in time. I’m not going to come out with the usual, ‘Adobe must die’ or ‘can’t wait to not be using Flash’. Why say that? It doesn’t help.

  • Mike Skocko — 6:11 AM on February 15, 2010

    I was wondering how you’d react, John. (AppleInsider is about 12 tabs upstream from this one in my morning browsing.) Deep breath, buddy. It’s just a rumor site. Though, now that I think about it, this is how some stories catch fire in the frenetic 24-hour “news” cycle of the early 21st century.
    The real question is: How did the Photoshop PM get sucked into the Flash vortex?
    No good deed goes unpunished, eh?

  • Jeffrey Phillips — 6:45 AM on February 15, 2010

    The speed at which internet rumors catch fire can be balanced by the speed facts can be posted as well. Thanks for posting such a quick responce. Not that it should be your job to do so but it helps balance the random rumor. Thanks for being a voice of reason John…

  • justhost — 7:42 AM on February 15, 2010

    Ya, I too agree. I myseld expect some more changes in html5.
    thanks for your sounding words…

  • Aongus — 8:38 AM on February 15, 2010

    I was surprised and sceptical about the report, and even more surprised at the speed with which it gained currency.
    [That’ll happen when a respected voice like John Gruber repeats the news without question. The more surprising and disappointing thing is that Daring Fireball has left the “news” out there for nearly 24 hours without clarification or retraction. –J.]
    Reminds me of a New Yorker article which said that people read what they want to believe on the Web, and that there’s no shortage of bullsh*t/fantasy sites, uncontaminated by awkward facts, to support whatever belief system you favour.

  • Robin — 8:49 AM on February 15, 2010

    So what you’re trying to make us all believe, is that Adobe is no longer an enterprise, and that the absolute foundation for all business is no longer profit? Ok, buddy.
    The rest goes without saying: the Canvas API combined with the audio and video playback of HTML5 completely (and with better quality and performance) replaces 99% of what Flash is used for on the web today. Why WOULDN’T Adobe fear this?

  • Tom — 9:37 AM on February 15, 2010

    AppleInsider is garbage. The worst of the worst Apple apologists and fanboys.

  • OneMonkeysUncle — 10:12 AM on February 15, 2010

    Clever redirect, but…
    I believe what Adobe’s done is put a hold on the CANVAS spec. Now, you can truthfully say they haven’t put a hold on the HTML5 DOCUMENT – because the CANVAS spec has been broken out into a separate document. But it’s still a part of HTML5’s scope, and so Adobe IS blocking that by blocking CANVAS. Nice job tiptoeing around that one, but the reality is Adobe is desperate to stop CANVAS from getting into broad adoption because we’ll then have no need for a closed, proprietary runtime that has to be installed on every desktop or device to engage with content…
    [I don’t think anyone at Adobe believes that Canvas will or could be stopped or slowed down. Regardless of what Adobe does, the proliferation of predictable Canvas support will take time. It’s my sense that in that time, the Flash team intends to out-hustle the Canvas spec, delivering capabilities that keep Flash ahead. Whether or not they’ll succeed is an open question, but it’s clear to me that Adobe seeks to prosper through innovation, not sabotage. –J.]

  • John Dowdell — 10:28 AM on February 15, 2010

    Is “OneMonkeysUncle” is stagename for Ian Hickson? ;-) (We’re still trying to get him to follow up and speak clearly about his concerns, no matter how inartfully presented… until then, guessing his meaning is difficult.)
    jd/adobe

  • Aaron — 10:30 AM on February 15, 2010

    I’ve been developing Flash for nearly 7 years along with other web technolgies. I’ve always been a firm believer in Adobe Flash as the ideal way to publish web content. The problem was that the technology was not yet ready for Flash and many publishers / developers grossly misused it. This is when the fire for HTML and CSS caught on and people started trash talking Adobe Flash.
    Finally the hardware can handle the software and the world is ready for Flash to be a standard. I understand many HTML5 advocates are threatened by this along with social media experts and many others.
    In my opinion Flash is not a threat, merely a better way to reach an audience. BUT, Flash is only effective if HTML is supporting it, Flash cannot perform alone and I think many in the HTML world forget this, or are unaware of this.
    Flash falls back to HTML and not the other way around.
    I’ve even done a blog about the future of web video with Flash and HTML5:
    http://blog.nothinggrinder.com/future-of-web-video

  • ken — 10:38 AM on February 15, 2010

    Hey John,
    All this “yaking” is way over my pay grade, and have no idea what the geeks and speaks are saying.
    But here is what I have learned at age 63, envy is a wicked thread woven into the unseen code of our hearts…..at the end of the day, any day, there are no more, “Big Deals”.
    My best to you and Adobe, A fine company with whom I richly enjoy your products.
    By the way, Karen Eisman on Page 52 of Photoshop user Magazine(April issue) give a lesson in “great Skin”. By far the best, quickest way to to get a real face look. I work on about 5 photos yesterday, and WOW, best skin texture to date with this technique found in PhotoshopCS4…I hope you see it. I can now give more realism to my photos than ever before
    Most Kindly
    Ken in KY

  • A S BAKER — 10:40 AM on February 15, 2010

    Good god, no. XHTML2 was mercifully smothered at birth before it wasted any more of people’s time. We need standards with at least a small change of being adopted by the people who write web browsers. Politics aside, HTML5 is shaping up to be a much better standard.

  • Andy Baker — 10:46 AM on February 15, 2010

    “Adobe Flash as the ideal way to publish web content.”
    I really hope you don’t mean what that sounds like you mean. ‘All’ web content would be better off as Flash? I’m a great believer in Flash as an indispensable technology in the correct places but ‘all web content’?

  • Andy Baker — 10:52 AM on February 15, 2010

    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0360.html
    I don’t really buy into this being an Adobe conspiracy but at best Larry is looking like he’s a nitpicker. If the perception of Adobe ‘blocking HTML5′ is so damaging then maybe someone needs to have a quiet work with him?

  • Matthew Fabb — 10:56 AM on February 15, 2010

    I personally would rather that FUD didn’t get so much attention. That blog writers would take the extra 10 minutes to dig into a rumor and find more facts before spreading misinformation.
    [But, see, that would not only take time; it would drive down ad revenues. Gotta throw some bleeding red meat to people who want their biases reinforced. Facts are counterproductive. –J.]
    Because others like OSNews took the small amount of time to poke around the public mailing lists to find out that there is no truth to Adobe blocking the HTML5 spec.

  • KC — 11:49 AM on February 15, 2010

    I’m not sure it is worth being depressed/angry about online journalists being lazy and whatnot.
    Why? Well, the TV and newspapers (i.e. – every other form of media/journalism) is filled with just as much laziness, bias (political or otherwise), carelessness, and vagueness as the online journalists/bloggers.
    The traditional forms of media/journalism, and the Internet’s Web 2.0/social-media nonsense has only perpetuated this.
    We constantly see most (all?) large media streams taking political sides on topics, while purposely leaving out facts, hiring “experts” to say what they want people to hear/know, and bowing before political agenda. How is this issue any different?
    Then there is the long-standing FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) that large tech companies (Microsoft, anti-virus developers, etc.) that prey on misinforming people and scaring them into buying their product. This is as disingenuous as the TV/newspaper media outlets, or the online journalists you are upset about.
    Now, I am not saying that you have no right to be upset. Quite the opposite. This is just another nail in the coffin. The only way to combat this idiocy is to publish the facts, and call people on what they’ve done wrong. Unfortunately, too many hear the inaccurate data from too many sources, and not enough honesty and forthrightness from those in-the-know.

  • Tom Dibble — 12:03 PM on February 15, 2010

    John – You and I have disagreed in the past, but thank you for this clarification. The semi-opaque process at the HTML WG is at least in part to blame here; it’s good that the folks actually behind that screen are able to come out here and let us know what’s going on.

  • Glenn Fleishman — 12:41 PM on February 15, 2010

    What would be useful in preventing an Adobe v. HTML5 dichotomy is something I have been trying to mention every time I write about the Flash issue, and I’m not sure if Adobe has formally or informally agreed with me on this (not me, specifically).
    I expect that Adobe will update its creator tools to support every widely used standard to ensure that designers and producers can use all the formats that their users consume.
    So this whole “Adobe hates HTML5″ thing or “Flash is superior” or whatever – yes, there are structural issues, and platform debates, and whatever.
    But does anyone truly think Adobe won’t update Dreamweaver, Fireworks, etc., etc., to produce HTML5 compatible JavaScript + H.264 wrappers where possible? To use Canvas when it’s finalized and if it turns out to be widely supported?
    Adobe has skin in the game in that its tools produce Flash. But there are no sites that use Flash today that are going to abandon it overnight, whether they serve only video or not. Creative pros will need tools that cleverly handle output and browser detection so that the ideal format will be fed out.
    Adobe will sell more software when HTML5 becomes standard because it will make it easier to deliver more kinds of content to more browsers of all kinds.

  • Extensor — 12:56 PM on February 15, 2010

    Seems like a gross conflict of interest to have Adobe on the HTML5 Working Group in the first place.
    [That’s really unimaginative. Adobe makes great tools for designers (at least if you believe their buying & usage behavior). Why wouldn’t you want those tools to support the various standards in development? –J.]

  • David R — 1:16 PM on February 15, 2010

    So, Hixie and Anne were just lying? If someone makes an accusation like that, the appropriate response is not “No I’m not”, it’s explaining what you’re doing that would cause the ruckus in the first place.
    So “Adobe is not blocking any specification” is not convincing, even if it’s in bold. It just sounds like they’re defending themselves on a technicality and then launching attacks at anybody who would believe two of the most respected members of the HTML community.
    Even with this contrived ‘backlash’, I think it worked as a political move — everybody’s going to have to be more careful about even appearing to want to slow things down.
    ps. john, your header breaks in Firefox on the permalink pages. Could be an HTML or CSS problem — maybe somebody on the working group could help? :P

  • Frank C — 1:41 PM on February 15, 2010

    I’d take this blog post seriously if it didn’t succumb to rage and sarcasm in order to blow off bad press.
    [Rage? Apparently you haven’t seen me actually angry. :-) –J.]

  • LazyAdobe — 1:45 PM on February 15, 2010

    Not suprising at all, Adobe is like Microsoft, embrace, extend, extinguish. Not to mention the fact they’re LAZY, I mean, a known crash bug has been shipping since Sept 2008.
    Adobe needs to be kicked off the W3C and HTML5 committees for trying to protect a dying, unstable LAZY platform that no one wants or cares about.

  • Extensor — 1:53 PM on February 15, 2010

    Your response has nothing to do with what I said. If a company makes a product that is directly threatened by a standard, they shouldn’t be involved or at least not have a vote.
    [Is that right? Then I guess Apple, whose App Store control over the iPhone platform can increasingly be routed around via HTML5 (hello, Google Voice), shouldn’t be allowed to participate (despite their support of WebKit). And I suppose that Microsoft, because you could argue that the desktop Office franchise is threatened by Web-based apps, shouldn’t be allowed to participate, despite their making the most widely used (I won’t say “popular”) browser in the world. Come on, man… –J.]

  • Realist — 1:57 PM on February 15, 2010

    You might believe what you say, but in the realpolitik of this industry Adobe has nothing to gain from improvements to html and everything to gain from its sabotage.
    [Oddly enough, I didn’t get that memo. Here I thought that there were a bunch of great opportunities to develop richer, more powerful versions of Photoshop, Illustrator, Dreamweaver, InDesign, etc. that targeted a more powerful Web runtime–including via Flash Professional, if customers want it. –J.]
    You are a small cog in a bigger machine and do not understand the machinations around you.
    [I guess you know what I know better than I know what I know. –J.]
    The reason companies like Microsoft join standards bodies such as the W3C is to subtley stymie, delay and sabotage development of rational standards, which is one reason why they have sucked for so long. This isn’t a paranoid conspiracy, if you do your research you will see this is a matter of public record and not a just a ‘Microsoft’ phenomenon. It is standard operating procedure among all companies is similar situations.
    [I’m sure that has happened & does happen in some cases, but isn’t that why standards bodies have checks and balances? And by the way, how exactly does one determine who are the good guys (Apple, Google?) and who are the bad guys (Microsoft, Adobe?). I mean, clearly only the virtuous & pure of heart should be allowed to participate, and Apple and Google have never been known to seek control over anything. –J.]
    This is why nobody in business does business with anyone whose interests are not aligned, unless you’re trying to screw the other person of course.

  • Neuvio — 2:14 PM on February 15, 2010

    I believe that a punch in the face of Adobe will only serve the company well. I ‘ve been working with Adobe software for years now and it’s getting worse and worse. They are lazy – they can’t fix the issues with software and they are constantly delaying patches.
    Maybe the time has come to say to Adobe what we actually think about crap they brought to us. I think cold shower will not hurt :-).

  • Aaron — 2:59 PM on February 15, 2010

    Andy,
    Yes, ALL web content should be Flash. Flash should be the standard. Not only does it provide the most interactive experience available, but it is also a closed runtime environment. This means much faster code execution which leads to more power… mind you all this is said under the assumption Flash is implemented and programmed properly.
    There is a major difference between the crappy banner ads people are used to and the amazing website on display at http://www.thefwa.com
    Flash is technology, HTML is markup. Major difference. Once again, Flash on its own is not enough. It needs PHP and Mysql and XML and even HTML, but it should be the only form of display. The internet would be a better place. I

  • LazyAdobe — 3:27 PM on February 15, 2010

    http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/02/15/sources_offer_peek_at_adobe_creative_suite_5_for_mac.html
    “This functionality is not working in the current beta versions,” people familiar with the matter tell AppleInsider, adding “we don’t think serious developers will use Flash for creating iPhone applications. It also appears that Adobe continues to miss the boat with HTML 5, and is focused almost exclusively on trying to get users to depend more on Flash – even as the Web development community is looking elsewhere.”
    Good night, sweet prince Flash and good riddance.
    “A new CS5 version of InDesign will also aim to shore up the viability of Flash by encouraging traditional print publishers to enhance their print designs, such as brochures and magazines, with video and animations using Flash. Adobe reportedly hopes this content will be delivered on the web via proprietary Flash files, an approach reminiscent of its arch rival Quark, which attempted to add interactive features to QuarkXPress with a product called Quark Immedia.”
    LOL, now what was Adobe saying? Not Flash company, tools company? OH MY, WHAT BIG LIES YOU TELL, JOHN NACK & ADOBE.

  • A S BAKER — 4:26 PM on February 15, 2010

    I don’t quite know where to begin in disagreeing with that statement. I’ve produced a fair bit of both Flash content and HTML so I’m not unaware of the issues. Can I just ask you why there aren’t more Flash-only websites if it’s a suitable format for general content?

  • David Smith — 4:47 PM on February 15, 2010

    What part of ‘monopoly bad, competition good’ don’t you understand?
    [Are you addressing that question to me? What are you even talking about? Did you even read the reply, or did you just forge ahead with your preconceived notion? –J.]

  • KC — 4:54 PM on February 15, 2010

    John,
    Do you think it is entirely appropriate to use foul language on an Adobe-sponsored blog?
    [No, it’s not entirely appropriate, and as far as I remember it’s the first time I’ve used profanity in nearly 2000 posts here. But you know what? Sometimes you have to call something by its right name. I knew it wouldn’t work for everyone. –J.]
    What message does that send to the general public? Is that how Adobe truly wishes to be represented in public?
    While I am sure that the word used very easily sums up your feelings on the matter, is that the official consensus by Adobe?
    I posted earlier in regards to your depression and anger regarding online journalists. Should some of that anger and depression not be focused back on yourself? As a representative and employee of a publicly traded company, could you not have come up with wording that did not involve vulgar language?
    While I appreciate your disagreement on the topic, you must admit that Adobe has done little to ensure the general public that it does not have malicious motives. While I am not fully versed on the subject, I have to agree that the public-at-large is not impressed with Flash like it once was. Why are so many looking for alternatives, and so many excited about HTML5? If Flash was what Adobe makes it out to be, the alternatives and upcoming standards would do little to faze Flash’s popularity and use.

  • Adam Jones — 5:39 PM on February 15, 2010

    It is disingenuous of you to act like AppleInsider was behind this report. They’re just a conduit. You’re just picking on them to muddy the water and because they’re an easy target. Hixie had a real point with real evidence (read the minutes) which you did not address beyond calling him a liar. This is disgraceful behavior.

  • John C. Welch — 6:45 PM on February 15, 2010

    any time you quote a sockpuppet like Prince McLean, (who is really Daniel Eran Dilger from roughlydrafted), you show you’re not even trying to do your own work. quoting a sockpuppet on a rumor site? why not just ask the cat, you’ll get a better answer.
    (and before you even try, i am the LAST person you can even try to accuse of being an Adobe apologist.)

  • John C. Welch — 6:49 PM on February 15, 2010

    If PRince McDilger and appleinsider told me the sky was blue, i’d double-check. that’s how incompetent those prats are.
    (ye gods, i’m defending adobe here. that’s how stupid AppleInsider is.)

  • Adam Jones — 7:18 PM on February 15, 2010

    I’m not defending AppleInsider. They’re not reliable. This is only slightly less well known than the typical color of the sky.
    What I’m complaining about is that John Nack should have referred to Hixie’s post directly. I believe he was simply using the reference to AppleInsider as chum. I find it odd that a flat denial and accusations of unfounded accusations are posted and not the minutes, which clearly refer to a formal objection by Larry.
    [Fundamentally I’m less interested in debating the procedural mechanics of the W3C & more interested in how online journalists reposted it all without question or research. That’s why I zeroed in on Apple Insider. –J.]

  • Larry Masinter — 10:59 PM on February 15, 2010

    @Andy Barker
    Would you want a standard with nits? No! The entire standards process *is* a matter of picking on nits.
    Larry (professional nit-picker and proud of it.)

  • Christiaan — 11:31 PM on February 15, 2010

    So is Hickson calling your bluff?
    http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/02/15/hixie-adobe

  • alan statham — 11:31 PM on February 15, 2010

    I simply don’t trust Adobe, and here are more views http://bit.ly/bsmJH7

  • alan statham — 11:33 PM on February 15, 2010

    I simply don’t trust Adobe, and here are more views http://bit.ly/bsmJH7

  • SM — 3:41 AM on February 16, 2010

    Adobe will suffer when the standard HTML5 will be completely finished. Thanks for shared!

  • Andy Baker — 4:20 AM on February 16, 2010

    I’d just say there’s nits and there’s nits. My hunch that this is about personalities more than conspiracies but bearing in mind the peculiar concept of private discussion lists for standards bodies the conspiracy theories were a fairly inevitable outcome. You guys need to stop with the private lists. And after the damage done by XHTML2 you can’t take people’s respect for the W3C for granted.

  • Randy — 5:58 AM on February 16, 2010

    Thank you for your explanation. The sad thing here is, that a man (Steve Jobs)with “followers” who act like sect members, just threw a remark about Adobe, and Adobe feels it has to defend itself! Apple wants to confine its “followers”inside a walled, however flowery and beautiful, garden, with no possibility of choice except what it offers, and preferably through iTunes. I’ve been a user of Adobe products since Photoshop 3 and know how they listen to their users’ remarks to try to always improve their programs.
    Steve Jobs’ remarks about Flash and Adobe should have been dismissed altogether and did not even deserve the excellent explanation you gave.

  • sonicoliver — 6:15 AM on February 16, 2010

    the whole thing was a smear campaign by apple to rally it’s fan’s behind the ridiculous lack of flash.

  • karl — 7:11 AM on February 16, 2010

    HTML5 is anything. HTML5 isn’t a good standard for programmers, HTML5 is a standard for MSIE (how do I display this silly code?).
    We need a standard on top of XML.

  • A S BAKER — 9:03 AM on February 16, 2010

    OK. Now I have no idea what you’re talking about.

  • David Smith — 9:29 AM on February 16, 2010

    Ah. ‘None of the above’, then…

  • Steve — 11:36 AM on February 16, 2010

    No, no, no. No proprietary technology belongs as a standard on the web. Period. This applies to Microsoft’s Silverlight just as much as it does to Adobe’s Flash. The web, by definition and the content on the web should be available to all, not just to those platforms sanctioned by any one company. While we all love Adobe’s products for content creation, they need to step back in favor of more open standards like HTML 5. If elements of Flash are important, then open up the standard and push to have it included in HTML 5 (or 6), etc.
    Just take a look at Apple’s situation for example. Why should Apple be dependent upon Adobe when it comes time to switch to different processors (PowerPC, Intel, Arm, etc.) just to do something as simple as viewing web content? How about moving to 64bit? Flash is notoriously slow and buggy on the Mac as compared to the Windows version. I’m sure Apple is tired of that situation and likewise wants to take over responsibility for that function. If it means changing the way things are done through sales of popular devices, I say more power to them. That’s the catalyst needed to make change happen.

  • Steve — 11:37 AM on February 16, 2010

    No, no, no. No proprietary technology belongs as a standard on the web. Period. This applies to Microsoft’s Silverlight just as much as it does to Adobe’s Flash. The web, by definition and the content on the web should be available to all, not just to those platforms sanctioned by any one company. While we all love Adobe’s products for content creation, they need to step back in favor of more open standards like HTML 5. If elements of Flash are important, then open up the standard and push to have it included in HTML 5 (or 6), etc.
    Just take a look at Apple’s situation for example. Why should Apple be dependent upon Adobe when it comes time to switch to different processors (PowerPC, Intel, Arm, etc.) just to do something as simple as viewing web content? How about moving to 64bit? Flash is notoriously slow and buggy on the Mac as compared to the Windows version. I’m sure Apple is tired of that situation and likewise wants to take over responsibility for that function. If it means changing the way things are done through sales of popular devices, I say more power to them. That’s the catalyst needed to make change happen.

  • Steve — 11:38 AM on February 16, 2010

    No, no, no. No proprietary technology belongs as a standard on the web. Period. This applies to Microsoft’s Silverlight just as much as it does to Adobe’s Flash. The web, by definition and the content on the web should be available to all, not just to those platforms sanctioned by any one company. While we all love Adobe’s products for content creation, they need to step back in favor of more open standards like HTML 5. If elements of Flash are important, then open up the standard and push to have it included in HTML 5 (or 6), etc.
    Just take a look at Apple’s situation for example. Why should Apple be dependent upon Adobe when it comes time to switch to different processors (PowerPC, Intel, Arm, etc.) just to do something as simple as viewing web content? How about moving to 64bit? Flash is notoriously slow and buggy on the Mac as compared to the Windows version. I’m sure Apple is tired of that situation and likewise wants to take over responsibility for that function. If it means changing the way things are done through sales of popular devices, I say more power to them. That’s the catalyst needed to make change happen.

  • Steve — 11:39 AM on February 16, 2010

    No, no, no. No proprietary technology belongs as a standard on the web. Period. This applies to Microsoft’s Silverlight just as much as it does to Adobe’s Flash. The web, by definition and the content on the web should be available to all, not just to those platforms sanctioned by any one company. While we all love Adobe’s products for content creation, they need to step back in favor of more open standards like HTML 5. If elements of Flash are important, then open up the standard and push to have it included in HTML 5 (or 6), etc.
    Just take a look at Apple’s situation for example. Why should Apple be dependent upon Adobe when it comes time to switch to different processors (PowerPC, Intel, Arm, etc.) just to do something as simple as viewing web content? How about moving to 64bit? Flash is notoriously slow and buggy on the Mac as compared to the Windows version. I’m sure Apple is tired of that situation and likewise wants to take over responsibility for that function. If it means changing the way things are done through sales of popular devices, I say more power to them. That’s the catalyst needed to make change happen.

  • Steve — 11:40 AM on February 16, 2010

    No, no, no. No proprietary technology belongs as a standard on the web. Period. This applies to Microsoft’s Silverlight just as much as it does to Adobe’s Flash. The web, by definition and the content on the web should be available to all, not just to those platforms sanctioned by any one company. While we all love Adobe’s products for content creation, they need to step back in favor of more open standards like HTML 5. If elements of Flash are important, then open up the standard and push to have it included in HTML 5 (or 6), etc.
    Just take a look at Apple’s situation for example. Why should Apple be dependent upon Adobe when it comes time to switch to different processors (PowerPC, Intel, Arm, etc.) just to do something as simple as viewing web content? How about moving to 64bit? Flash is notoriously slow and buggy on the Mac as compared to the Windows version. I’m sure Apple is tired of that situation and likewise wants to take over responsibility for that function. If it means changing the way things are done through sales of popular devices, I say more power to them. That’s the catalyst needed to make change happen.

  • Morgan — 12:27 PM on February 16, 2010

    Okay; I’ve read what I can find of the relevant posts on the public-html mailing list (the entire ‘Publish * as FPWDs’ and ‘clarification on Adobe blocking’ threads) and IMO, there’s more than a grain of truth there.
    Sure, you can make the argument that they’re not blocking HTML5, but they ARE trying to block (via delay) Canvas as a separate specification. Requesting that a spec not be published until a not-yet-written spec can be published in its place is how you block progress in a specification process. It’s a passive aggressive approach, which is common in spec politics.
    If I’m reading the list right, they ARE explicitly opposing publication of the Microdata spec, which makes me a bit angry. RDFa requires XML to implement, whereas Microdata can be implemented in HTML directly without having to build an XML version of a document. This makes Microdata substantially better than RDFa for normal web use, and suggesting that the two standards are equivalent is at worst a lie and at best fundamentally ignoring ease of use for web developers.
    Now, to be specific, I’m not arguing bad faith on Adobe’s part as a company. I’m arguing passive-aggressive axe-grinding on the part of the specific members (for Microdata) and maybe a LITTLE bad faith on that person’s part regarding Canvas2D.
    Specifically arguing that Microdata should not be put forward as a working draft is a move that is designed to push the use of XML as an underlying format for web browsing, which has been shown pretty clearly (to rank and file web developers, as opposed to tool makers who spooge over the idea) to be a bad direction. That’s clear axe grinding, imo.
    Arguing that the Canvas 2D specification should be set aside until a competing proposal can be published is problematic. It would create a public perception that canvas is being set aside for an indeterminate amount of time, which would limit adoption, which would definitely benefit Adobe. That…smells at least a little like bad faith. Not having access to the private mailing lists, I don’t know if there were extensive objections not listed here, but the two that I’ve seen make me uncomfortable about the individuals working on the W3C side of the specification.
    That said, I strongly support the WHAT-WG as an entirely separate entity from the W3C. The W3C has demonstrated clearly that it can’t get $#!t done. Thankfully it appears most browser developers are building to the WHAT-WG spec, and are not waiting for the W3C to go through its motions.

  • LazyAdobe — 4:32 PM on February 16, 2010

    http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=5473
    “Report: Malicious PDF files comprised 80 percent of all exploits for 2009″
    Adobe, biggest security threat to your PC with Flash and PDF. Lazy company is LAZY.

  • curttech — 8:44 AM on February 18, 2010

    http://www.w3schools.com/xhtml/xhtml_why.asp

  • Randy — 12:19 AM on February 19, 2010

    Lazy, lazy! Wish more companies would be as lazy and give us wonderful programs like Photoshop, Illustrator, Lightroom,etc.

  • Randy — 12:26 AM on February 19, 2010

    Lazy, lazy! Wish more companies would be as lazy and give us wonderful programs like Photoshop, Illustrator, Lightroom,etc.

  • Carsten — 2:47 PM on February 22, 2010

    I really hope Adobe will take a look behind the Adobe-rant and see the Problem with Technologies like Flash on Macs or Mobile Devices in general. They are slow as hell and even a video raises up the CPU usage on my MacPro. WTF?
    I would really like to see (and code) Flash/Actionscript on top of HTML5, but only if the Technology gets a gigant leap forward in case of performance. There is a good reason for Apple’s beginning dislike of Flash beside Mr. Jobbs eccentric behavior…!

  • Luda — 5:55 AM on March 26, 2010

    No one needs HTML5. We need XHTML 2.

  • SkullKid — 2:11 AM on May 04, 2010

    All that ranting and “enforced” hatred towards flash won’t lead anywhere as flash won’t disappear any time soon, although I truly believe flash is replaceable on the long run by a unified and strong standard as HTML5 is aiming to be.
    There’s still time for Adobe to make Flash Player run smooth on Macs and mobiles. The funny thing is that some people are making that fuss too personal, but I ask them, for how long companies where using Adobe products, including Flash? This “flash is trash” thing is just marketing manipulation because Microsoft and Apple couldn’t do anything better themselves. They just want to take over the market share that Flash owns (I don’t blame their reasons, only their methods).
    Microsoft is discretely dropping Silverlight on long terms for HTML5 since it’s open standard and does what SL does simpler and better, also it’s a bit of redundancy against what Flash can do, and I ain’t even counting JavaFX on this amazing equation!
    People are falling to this cheap talking on purpose.

Copyright © 2014 Adobe Systems Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy and Cookies (Updated)