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.
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'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.
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.
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
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.
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?
We don't really know what happened, or why. Any conclusions drown from the article have no real basis.
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
Agree 100%.
To bad livemotion went down, I bet Apple could come out with a slimmer CPU hungry flash builder. Some say it's here to stay, others dissagree.
You can do some cool things with flash but like i stated before livemotion was so much cooler to use. Would love a pro iWeb. Are there companies that make templates for iWeb. Can't say I've ver seen them, plus if you know what you're doing, you can make your own.
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?
At one time the following would have been dismissed as unlikely/absurd:
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates was called "evasive and nonresponsive" by a source present at a session in which Gates was questioned on his deposition.[2] He argued over the definitions of words such as "compete", "concerned", "ask", and "we".[3] BusinessWeek reported, "Early rounds of his deposition show him offering obfuscatory answers and saying 'I don't recall' so many times that even the presiding judge had to chuckle. Worse, many of the technology chief's denials and pleas of ignorance have been directly refuted by prosecutors with snippets of E-mail Gates both sent and received."[4] Intel Vice-President Steven McGeady, called as a witness, quoted Paul Maritz, a senior Microsoft vice president as having stated an intention to "extinguish" and "smother" rival Netscape Communications Corporation and to "cut off Netscape's air supply" by giving away a clone of Netscape's flagship product for free. The Microsoft executive denied the allegations.[5]
A number of videotapes were submitted as evidence by Microsoft during the trial, including one that demonstrated that removing Internet Explorer from Microsoft Windows caused slowdowns and malfunctions in Windows. In the videotaped demonstration of what Microsoft vice president James Allchin's stated to be a seamless segment filmed on one PC, the plaintiff noticed that some icons mysteriously disappear and reappear on the PC's desktop, suggesting that the effects might have been falsified.[6] Allchin admitted that the blame for the tape problems lay with some of his staff "They ended up filming it -- grabbing the wrong screen shot," he said of the incident. Later, Allchin re-ran the demonstration and provided a new videotape, but in so doing Microsoft dropped the claim that Windows is slowed down when Internet Explorer is removed. Mark Murray, a Microsoft spokesperson, berated the government attorneys for "nitpicking on issues like video production."[7] Microsoft submitted a second inaccurate videotape into evidence later the same month as the first. The issue in question was how easy or hard it was for America Online users to download and install Netscape Navigator onto a Windows PC. Microsoft's videotape showed the process as being quick and easy, resulting in the Netscape icon appearing on the user's desktop. The government produced its own videotape of the same process, revealing that Microsoft's videotape had conveniently removed a long and complex part of the procedure and that the Netscape icon was not placed on the desktop, requiring a user to search for it. Brad Chase, a Microsoft vice president, verified the government's tape and conceded that Microsoft's own tape was falsified.[8]
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?
Do we need to stick to the dictionary while we discuss the word "blocked"? I'm pretty certain that a meaning could be invented which would paint a very nasty picture of the Enemies of Steve.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
New enemies: Adobe and Google.
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.
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?
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
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.
What nonsense. Daniel Eran Dilgers' articles are some of the best researched, most enlightening content available anywhere.
You're kidding, right?
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.
Ed
That advice has never been good advice, even when Flash was apparently "the sh*t".
I've never advised anyone to build any significant part of any website with Flash, because more most people actually want their content searchable.
How can Hulu use HTML5 and protect the content?
I don't know.
http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/10/hul...8TechCrunch%29
Time will tell.
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?
We don't really know what happened, or why. Any conclusions drown from the article have no real basis.
Oh wait, that's exactly what they'd be doing.
Flash developers are not web designers. Web designers would never develop an all Flash site.
Web designers are not artists. Artists would never design web sites.
Incompetent fools. Adobe is dead to me!
Steve said mean things about Adobe. That is all we need to know.
Why accept, at face value, the unbelievable and the absurd?
Years of practice, listening to iSteve's bullshit. And believing it. Despite the evidence to the contrary.
Flash is on life support
Flash powers the vast majority of video on the 'web. If that is life support, then a 25 room mansion is basic shelter.
Let the grand word redefinitions begin!
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
Agree 100%.
To bad livemotion went down, I bet Apple could come out with a slimmer CPU hungry flash builder. Some say it's here to stay, others dissagree.
You can do some cool things with flash but like i stated before livemotion was so much cooler to use. Would love a pro iWeb. Are there companies that make templates for iWeb. Can't say I've ver seen them, plus if you know what you're doing, you can make your own.
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?
At one time the following would have been dismissed as unlikely/absurd:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates was called "evasive and nonresponsive" by a source present at a session in which Gates was questioned on his deposition.[2] He argued over the definitions of words such as "compete", "concerned", "ask", and "we".[3] BusinessWeek reported, "Early rounds of his deposition show him offering obfuscatory answers and saying 'I don't recall' so many times that even the presiding judge had to chuckle. Worse, many of the technology chief's denials and pleas of ignorance have been directly refuted by prosecutors with snippets of E-mail Gates both sent and received."[4] Intel Vice-President Steven McGeady, called as a witness, quoted Paul Maritz, a senior Microsoft vice president as having stated an intention to "extinguish" and "smother" rival Netscape Communications Corporation and to "cut off Netscape's air supply" by giving away a clone of Netscape's flagship product for free. The Microsoft executive denied the allegations.[5]
A number of videotapes were submitted as evidence by Microsoft during the trial, including one that demonstrated that removing Internet Explorer from Microsoft Windows caused slowdowns and malfunctions in Windows. In the videotaped demonstration of what Microsoft vice president James Allchin's stated to be a seamless segment filmed on one PC, the plaintiff noticed that some icons mysteriously disappear and reappear on the PC's desktop, suggesting that the effects might have been falsified.[6] Allchin admitted that the blame for the tape problems lay with some of his staff "They ended up filming it -- grabbing the wrong screen shot," he said of the incident. Later, Allchin re-ran the demonstration and provided a new videotape, but in so doing Microsoft dropped the claim that Windows is slowed down when Internet Explorer is removed. Mark Murray, a Microsoft spokesperson, berated the government attorneys for "nitpicking on issues like video production."[7] Microsoft submitted a second inaccurate videotape into evidence later the same month as the first. The issue in question was how easy or hard it was for America Online users to download and install Netscape Navigator onto a Windows PC. Microsoft's videotape showed the process as being quick and easy, resulting in the Netscape icon appearing on the user's desktop. The government produced its own videotape of the same process, revealing that Microsoft's videotape had conveniently removed a long and complex part of the procedure and that the Netscape icon was not placed on the desktop, requiring a user to search for it. Brad Chase, a Microsoft vice president, verified the government's tape and conceded that Microsoft's own tape was falsified.[8]
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?
Do we need to stick to the dictionary while we discuss the word "blocked"? I'm pretty certain that a meaning could be invented which would paint a very nasty picture of the Enemies of Steve.
Flash powers the vast majority of video on the 'web. If that is life support, then a 25 room mansion is basic shelter.
Let the grand word redefinitions begin!
When Apple sneezes, the rest of the industry grabs a Kleenex.
The anti-Flash movement is being fuelled by Apple and Google. There is only one way this can end well for Adobe:
Adobe reads the writing on the wall and creates tools for HTML5.