or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Adobe working to sabotage HTML5
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Adobe working to sabotage HTML5 - Page 2

post #41 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Good point. It was $3.4 billion, btw. (http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/invr...acromedia.html).

I stand corrected.
post #42 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post

Shouldn't Apple say something like "I am Apple. I have two cows. I sell them both to the neighbour with 60% margin and purchase 4 new ones from breeder in China"..?

No, honestly - isn't every corporation trying to protect what brings them money? Isn't Apple doing the same by preventing iDevices to sync with alternative media managers? Or by preventing people to run OSX on alternative (yet compatible) hardware?

We don't even know the reason for Adobe's objection. What if it is violation of Adobe's patents? Anyone really expects they should play Mother Teresa and let it be?

Really?

There are no patent rights by Adobe. Apple however has the patents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canvas_...ty_over_canvas

Quote:
Intellectual property over canvas

On March 14, 2007, WebKit developer Dave Hyatt forwarded an email from Apple's Senior Patent Counsel, Helene Plotka Workman[6], which stated that Apple reserved all intellectual property rights relative to WHATWG’s Web Applications 1.0 Working Draft, dated March 24, 2005, Section 10.1, entitled “Graphics: The bitmap canvas” [sic][7], but left the door open to licensing the patents should the specification be transferred to a standards body with a formal patent policy. This caused considerable discussion among web developers, and raised questions concerning the WHATWG's lack of a policy on patents in comparison to the W3C's explicit favoring of royalty-free licenses. Apple later disclosed the patents under the W3C's royalty-free patent licensing terms.[8] The disclosure means that Apple is required to provide royalty-free licensing for the patent whenever the Canvas element becomes part of a future W3C recommendation created by the HTML working group.
post #43 of 173
Is anyone really surprised that this story turned out to be a gross misrepresentation of the facts? This is AppleInsider after all. The tabloid of apple news.
post #44 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe View Post

It does if you think (ie. use your brain). FIX THE PROCESS. Stop Adobe from being able to do this! It's not as if asking them to stop is going to work, so remove their ability to do so (which never should have existed in the first place.) Duh?

I see this as an attempt to lay down a false dichotomy.
post #45 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Spare me the common Republican mantra of morality.

Please spare us the common insertion political parties and national politics when it wasn't in the topic in the first place. I don't even understand how you got there from the post you replied to, it looks like a topic shift without a clutch.

Politics is off topic for threads on AI unless the story is political or you're posting in Political Outsider. Wearing your politics on your arm band isn't the way things go here. Any further political posting is just going to be deletion fodder.
post #46 of 173
Grab what?
2011 13" 2.3 MBP, 2006 15" 2.16 MBP, iPhone 4, iPod Shuffle, AEBS, AppleTV2 with XBMC.
Reply
2011 13" 2.3 MBP, 2006 15" 2.16 MBP, iPhone 4, iPod Shuffle, AEBS, AppleTV2 with XBMC.
Reply
post #47 of 173
macromedia was a poison pill before macromedia when adobe bought out another company they would actually improve the programs (usually within a version or 2) it is very sad that 4 years later flash still is almost unusable. timeline still sucks and there still no decent workflow from PS to AE to Flash (something that existed with LiveMotion 10 years ago). don't even get me started with dreamweaver

There no question that we are no longer dealing with the adobe of old. if steve makes a pro version of iweb and something that can actually take the place of AI and PS then adobe deserves to loose it's lunch.
post #48 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

They spent > $4 Billion on a turd and want to grow that pile of crap.

Someone please 86 this jerk.

He does not contribute to this site.
post #49 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by EGlasheen View Post

Forget about us web designers, what about our clients who spent thousands on all Flash sites cause we told them it was the shit. Now it is shit.

Flash developers are not web designers. Web designers would never develop an all Flash site.
post #50 of 173
However, having read the links Shelley provided, and the public email Larry sent, it seems AI is correct in all assertions made. The Adobe rep is indeed assisting, at least, in stalling the progress of HTML5. Particularly the canvas element, attempting to appeal a judgement that it should be included within the scope of the proposed standard. This doesn't seem to serve any other purpose than trying to forestall competition to Flash, so all the points on morality made above still apply. This doesn't seem to be some kind of misunderstanding. One could argue that attempting to change the definition of what HTML5 means by trying to exclude certain elements that would clearly compete with, and perhaps obsolesce, extremely profitable products in your portfolio could be classed as anti-competitive behaviour, despite the fate of the standard as a whole. This, if true, would be an apalling violation of privilege and the concept of openness.

Personally, I see the iPad as a good Flash-slayer. Websites have been optimised for the iPhone. There will be more people (as a percentage of owners at least) who use Safari on their iPads guaranteed. With much more horsepower, the iPad should be a good candidate for rich HTML5 apps, something Adobe clearly fears greatly.

At the end of the day though, the onus will be in the developer to provide a system of gracefully "degrading" (not sure if that term applies to the Flash experience!) to support other browsers or operating systems. Hell we've been doing it for IE for years. And HTML5 is (excluding fullscreen video, apparently) more of an upgrade.
post #51 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel View Post

Down with Flash! Buggy, a doorway for malware, resource hog, and buggy. Oh, did I say buggy twice?

Yep, you sure did say it twice and I take it to mean emphasis. I second the motion (no pun intended).
post #52 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by ubernaut View Post

macromedia was a poison pill before macromedia when adobe bought out another company they would actually improve the programs (usually within a version or 2) it is very sad that 4 years later flash still is almost unusable. timeline still sucks and there still no decent workflow from PS to AE to Flash (something that existed with LiveMotion 10 years ago). don't even get me started with dreamweaver

There no question that we are no longer dealing with the adobe of old. if steve makes a pro version of iweb and something that can actually take the place of AI and PS then adobe deserves to loose it's lunch.

If only Apple would make a pro version of iWeb. In a few versions Pixelmator will replace Photoshop. Pages just needs export to EBook format. Then all we need is a good replacement for Illustrator.

Who would need Adobe and their bloated $500 plus a year upgrades?

Ed
post #53 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by shelleyp View Post

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.

The HTML WG thread related to this issue:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/...0Feb/0349.html

The Adobe Rep's initial concerns:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/...0Feb/0006.html

Next time I would ask that you all, please, withhold judgment until you actually have facts, rather than innuendo.

I see your point. However, it is a dilemma isn't it? Using your logic, again which I can totally see as valid in many cases, rumor sites should have no comments on any of their posts until the rumor is proven to be fact or fiction. They may as well close down in that case if you think about it. Then we'd just have news sites I guess. I wonder what your take on this is?
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #54 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by EGlasheen View Post

If only Apple would make a pro version of iWeb. In a few versions Pixelmator will replace Photoshop. Pages just needs export to EBook format. Then all we need is a good replacement for Illustrator.

Who would need Adobe and their bloated $500 plus a year upgrades?

Ed

I share your longing for a pro version of iWeb. It would be a grand thing. As Frank777 wrote elsewhere, "No one has really come up with a professional level easy-to-use web site builder. The iPhone, iPod Touch, Tablet/iSlate thing and Safari on Mac all cry out for an easy-to-use web authoring environment for consumers and prosumers. And Apple seems to hate Flash and embraces HTML5, so there's one more reason to run over Dreamweaver with an Apple-built solution. Can Apple take the iWeb philosophy upmarket? I have no idea."

As to Pixelmator slaying Photoshop and Pages usurping the throne of InDesign, my own view is that such thinking is oversimplified, but competition won't hurt.
post #55 of 173
Just like Microsoft in the old days...

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #56 of 173
Incompetent fools. Adobe is dead to me!

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply
post #57 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by shelleyp View Post

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.

The HTML WG thread related to this issue:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/...0Feb/0349.html

The Adobe Rep's initial concerns:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/...0Feb/0006.html

Next time I would ask that you all, please, withhold judgment until you actually have facts, rather than innuendo.

AppleInsider never let facts get in the way of a good innuendo-filled rumor. One of these days they will likely be sued into non-existence by an offended party... which would make all the kids cry. \

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #58 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I see your point. However, it is a dilemma isn't it? Using your logic, again which I can totally see as valid in many cases, rumor sites should have no comments on any of their posts until the rumor is proven to be fact or fiction. They may as well close down in that case if you think about it. Then we'd just have news sites I guess. I wonder what your take on this is?

snopes.com is a rumor site, except that it's focused on debunking false rumors, or verifying those that are true. There's value in posting rumors, but there's also a potentially larger value in providing the facts that either underlie the rumor, or that refute it.

Then there's also common sense. Let's look at the scenario being proposed in this rumor:

Adobe, a company largely dependent on the good will of web developers, designers, and the like, indulges in nefarious backdoor skullduggery with the W3C, which is also dependent on the good will and trust of web designers, developers, and the like -- just to kill HTML5 and/or the Canvas element. Kill Canvas, an element which already has broad adoption and use. Why? Because, the implication is, Adobe is "afraid" that people will stop using Flash in--how long will it be before Flash isn't really needed? Ten years? More?

When a rumor isn't based on anything that remotely resembles reality, why believe it? Why accept, at face value, the unbelievable and the absurd?
post #59 of 173
Flash is on life support and the lack of support in Windows mobile 7 is just another nail in the coffin for the bloated garbage that is flash.

Actually, I am stunned that even msft was smart enough to get off of the sinking ship that is flash.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/06/r...wc-launch-zun/
post #60 of 173
Holy disappearing comments, Batman!

Mods: If you're going to delete something, send a PM.
post #61 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Holy disappearing comments, Batman!

Mods: If you're going to delete something, send a PM.

Sorry, PMs just aren't practical when there were half a dozen or more posters in question. I tend to err towards keeping things in the open if anything.

My message was here:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...6&postcount=46

The posts aren't hard deleted, you can click "view post" if you must, but continuing a political discussion is off topic and inappropriate except in political outsider.
post #62 of 173
Neither I nor Adobe oppose, are trying to sabotage, stop, slow down, hinder, or harm HTML5, Canvas 2D Graphics, Microdata, video in HTML, or any of the other significant features in HTML5.

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

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.

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. Several parts of what is generally known as HTML5 are already handed separate groups, such as W3C WebApps, GeoLocation, DAP, and CSS groups.

The documents are already published, at WHATWG and as Editor's Draft. The question was about taking a snapshot of the published Editor's Draft and marking them "Working Draft". The organization of work in W3C is determined by the "charters" of working group and the "scope" of he charters. Saying some documents are "out of scope" for one group means you might move the work to another group, or might just rewrite the "Status of This Document" section of them to say that they might move later. Working group's publish documents that are "out of scope" all the time, they just don't claim otherwise in their Status section. So changing the Status section 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.
post #63 of 173
Thanks for the links, they prove to support your point..
All I can say it is obvious for me that Adobe no matter what will try to fight HTML5 cause it simply offers an alternative and it is open that in the end equals unlimited resources to expand, grow and mature in the market. Personally I welcomed HTML5 on YouTube, now I can watch a lot of videos quicker than I used with flash.
That makes me thing that at least there is a brighter and faster future for web browsing

Adobe can say all they want but they got hurt with Apple not embracing flash in their mobile devices, Apple will say that the user experience and performance of the device will be poor using flash. The fact that they don't support FLASH and align all those product with HTML5 is no biggie. What Adobe fears is the trend that comes behind Apple steps, wont be the first time others follow Apple and that... menace Flash market.
post #64 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeo View Post

Flash developers are not web designers. Web designers would never develop an all Flash site.

Some designers do design only, while some can design AND develop Flash. For those who can't, they simply hire a developer to work with. So, yes, web designers have developed all-Flash sites, including myself and other designers I know, mainly because at the time, some things Flash offered couldn't be done any other way. It doesn't mean it was fun though! ...Flash had it's day... Looking forward to seeing what HTML5 does.
post #65 of 173
Saw headline, instantly knew who the author would be.
post #66 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranReloaded View Post

If this is true, they're the new Microsoft. If I were a web designer I would just hate them so much now.

Yes.

Hello Micro$oft, hello A$obe.

But HOW will they be able to "sabotage" HTML5? They´ll be completely outside the team, if HTML5 will be standardized by the www-masters over the years (though).
post #67 of 173
Wow, I wouldn't have thought that Adobe would become the new Microsoft.
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp

Never argue with idiots, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. - a bumper sticker

Never quote idiots, they just clog up...
Reply
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp

Never argue with idiots, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. - a bumper sticker

Never quote idiots, they just clog up...
Reply
post #68 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

This isn't MacRumors, wearing your politics on your arm band isn't the way things go here. Any further political posting is just going to be deletion fodder.

No this isn't MacRumours, it's an(other) AppleInsider post where the very basic facts have been called into question. Can you, in turn, drop the inter-board politics? Not very professional, IMO.
My Android phone is the worst phone I've ever owned.
Reply
My Android phone is the worst phone I've ever owned.
Reply
post #69 of 173
What's their problem.

Can't they just change the export format of Flash Studio to HTML5 + js.

Bam, problem solved.
post #70 of 173
I'm no great Adobe lover but this article is garbage.

First off the guy's name is Ian Hickson nor "Ian Hixie." Hixie is a nickname for him but any half invested journalist would be able to figure that out.

And to top that off... Hixie isn't "a member of the html 5 working group" he's basically the guy in charge. That alone should tell you the writer didn't even try.

From there the writer just simply jumps to speculation that since Adobe's complaint is not public that they must be evil! This article is just full of half stated statements and unfounded ideas. It amounts to little more than caveman type speech of "Adobe mad Flash not on iPhone. ARGG! Adobe hate canvas. Adobe smash!" and offers nothing more than useless, unfounded conjecture.

Give me a break. I hate Flash and want it dead but i've seen better articles written by 6th graders. This doesn't have sources it only makes assumptions. I've come to expect better of this site. I am sorely disappointed.
post #71 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel View Post

Down with Flash! Buggy, a doorway for malware, resource hog, and buggy. Oh, did I say buggy twice?

Nope. Three times
post #72 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtdunham View Post

so they're morally wrong but we shouldn't denounce them? What? Why don't I understand? Oh! Because that doesn't make sense.

Because that's a waste of energy. Fix the process. ktappe has a very good point.
post #73 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by EGlasheen View Post

Adobe..."Run to the Hills". Flash is dying which is Adobe's fault. Have you ever tried to solve something thru customer service? Horrible!!! Macromedia was a much better company. To put all of your eggs in one basket ( Flash ) in todays tech world is suicide.

Ed

Sigh. The days of Macromedia.

I remember an article quite a while ago, when Apple bought emagic's Logic, Adobe were releasing all the top thing for PC only as Adobe saw it as being stepped on with their Premiere Pro. There's been a fued ever since.
I'm a bit surprised Apple hasn't created their own Photoshop/Fireworks.
Plus, pre Apple, while Logic was for both PC and Mac with 5.5 being the last for pcs, Logic had a huge earning curve. Now it is very simple but stil deep.
post #74 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by futureunwritten View Post

I'm no great Adobe lover but this article is garbage.

First off the guy's name is Ian Hickson nor "Ian Hixie." Hixie is a nickname for him but any half invested journalist would be able to figure that out.

And to top that off... Hixie isn't "a member of the html 5 working group" he's basically the guy in charge. That alone should tell you the writer didn't even try.

From there the writer just simply jumps to speculation that since Adobe's complaint is not public that they must be evil! This article is just full of half stated statements and unfounded ideas. It amounts to little more than caveman type speech of "Adobe mad Flash not on iPhone. ARGG! Adobe hate canvas. Adobe smash!" and offers nothing more than useless, unfounded conjecture.

Give me a break. I hate Flash and want it dead but i've seen better articles written by 6th graders. This doesn't have sources it only makes assumptions. I've come to expect better of this site. I am sorely disappointed.

You only had to see the title in order to know that this article is from Daniel Eran Dilger.

Each and every one of his articles are evil, biased and misleading.
They are to us, Apple fans, what tabloids are to real people: weapons in de hands of the corporations and opium for their consumers.

I love it.
post #75 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by shelleyp View Post

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).

OK, but does any member of your family or perhaps close friends work for Adobe?
Just kidding...

Sabotage refers to underhanded interference and as such would never be documented. In theses exchanges, I just don't know whom to trust since the one who sabotages always appears to support the cause.

For example, Adobe is pushing Flash in Spain and is accusing Apple of not using Flash on mobile devices because Apple wants all internet media to come from iTunes so that Apple can make more money. That is just ridiculous. Google and Hulu and everyone else will use HTML5 and Canvas on their multimedia sites for free. It's a big win for them.

Adobe however does stand to lose the most. If anyone on the inside were going to sabotage html5, I would most likely believe that it would be Adobe.

Time will tell.
post #76 of 173
And another biased, wrong post from Daniel.

New enemies: Adobe and Google.
post #77 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

OK, but does any member of your family or perhaps close friends work for Adobe?
Just kidding...

Sabotage refers to underhanded interference and as such would never be documented. In theses exchanges, I just don't know whom to trust since the one who sabotages always appears to support the cause.

For example, Adobe is pushing Flash in Spain and is accusing Apple of not using Flash on mobile devices because Apple wants all internet media to come from iTunes so that Apple can make more money. That is just ridiculous. Google and Hulu and everyone else will use HTML5 and Canvas on their multimedia sites for free. It's a big win for them.

Adobe however does stand to lose the most. If anyone on the inside were going to sabotage html5, I would most likely believe that it would be Adobe.

Time will tell.

How can Hulu use HTML5 and protect the content?
post #78 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by futureunwritten View Post

I'm no great Adobe lover but this article is garbage.

First off the guy's name is Ian Hickson nor "Ian Hixie." Hixie is a nickname for him but any half invested journalist would be able to figure that out.

And to top that off... Hixie isn't "a member of the html 5 working group" he's basically the guy in charge. That alone should tell you the writer didn't even try.

From there the writer just simply jumps to speculation that since Adobe's complaint is not public that they must be evil! This article is just full of half stated statements and unfounded ideas. It amounts to little more than caveman type speech of "Adobe mad Flash not on iPhone. ARGG! Adobe hate canvas. Adobe smash!" and offers nothing more than useless, unfounded conjecture.

Give me a break. I hate Flash and want it dead but i've seen better articles written by 6th graders. This doesn't have sources it only makes assumptions. I've come to expect better of this site. I am sorely disappointed.

And this is not one of the worst articles from Daniel.

If you want any examples of lies, paranoia and hate, read his blog
post #79 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doxxic View Post

You only had to see the title in order to know that this article is from Daniel Eran Dilger. Each and every one of his articles are evil, biased and misleading.

What nonsense. Daniel Eran Dilgers' articles are some of the best researched, most enlightening content available anywhere.

His vocal, and personally rude, critics are the original trolls from Microsoft's own brand of the Taliban

Keep up the good work AppleInsider, this debate has brought a great deal of information out into the open for many of us like myself.
post #80 of 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon T View Post

What nonsense. Daniel Eran Dilgers' articles are some of the best researched, most enlightening content available anywhere.


You're kidding, right?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Adobe working to sabotage HTML5