Adobe's John Nack: Adobe is "sabotaging" HTML5?

http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/02/adobe_is_sabotaging_html5.html

by bensummers • 16 years ago

100 56 16 years ago

blogs.adobe.com

carson• 16 years ago

In the end will this debate really matter at all? So many browsers are already supporting html5 features like canvas and the video tag.

Batsu• 16 years ago

It depends on how you look at it.

If you look at it in the sense that some browsers support it and others will likely follow, no, it doesn't matter.

If you look at it like IE6 supported CSS, it won't matter tomorrow, but in a few years when everyone has to hack their site to pieces just to give a box a rounded corner that looks the same in every browser.... well, it will matter then.

pclark• 16 years ago

Adobe seem really great at communicating with their users. Pity their products have declined so much recently.

ThomPete4• 16 years ago

Adobe has a pretty large collection of products spanning a rather large and diverse group of disciplines and therefore users and customers.

So are you talking about all of them or just some? How did you get to that conclusion?

There is plenty of things that they don't do very well but that can be said about more or less anyone else out there can't it?

In general as a user of their Masters Collection I am pretty satisfied with how they allow my workflows to be optimized across the line.

That's what adobe is in the business of helping me with.

illumin84• 16 years ago

This is why it's so easy for companies like Apple and Adobe to fight over competing standards. You have both companies with developers that have years of training and work experience within their individual content creation pipelines. We call them "fanboys", but in reality they are just working people like you or I that have a particularly well developed skill set and don't want to have to re-train on a whole new platform.

I'm reminded of the great quote by Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it."

TerminalDummy• 16 years ago

I wouldn't blame them even if they did. Apple basically declared war in deciding not to carry flash on the iPad. However, 'sabotaging' HTML5 just seems like sensationalist tripe.

metatronscube• 16 years ago

Is Windows not doing the same with their new smartphone OS? Everyone should be declaring war on Adobe.

statictype• 16 years ago

To be fair, Apple isn't really waging war on Adobe. They simply decided that it wasn't in their best interest to support Flash on their devices.

The war is being waged mostly by the fanboy contingent

ThomPete4• 16 years ago

Isn't streaming video pretty processor intensive too?

sethg2• 16 years ago

Shelley Powers (http://shelleypowers.burningbird.net/about), who is quoted in the post, has worked in the industry for decades, has written several O’Reilly books about Web technologies, and used to be highly critical of the way HTML standards development has gone. (Yeah, and now she’s on the HTML WG. Veterans of volunteer organizations should be familiar with the “OK, if you think we’re doing everything wrong, you can join us on the committee” gambit.)

If she says Adobe is not to blame, Adobe is not to blame.

simonw• 16 years ago

Mark Pilgrim, who is not quoted in the post, has worked in the industry for a decade, has written several books about web technologies and remains highly critical of the way HTML standards development has gone. He says Adobe is to blame.

http://twitter.com/diveintomark

I don't think this one can be untangled by deferring to experts - at least not yet. There's still not enough information.

ubernostrum• 16 years ago

It's probably worth reading the quote in full, and recalling that Shelley's been party to a number of high-profile feuds involving the person she's going after in the quote. So I wouldn't exactly rate it as a neutral quote, and for this post to present it as such is a bit disingenuous.

Personally, I think the whole thing reeks of stupid standards-committee politics from all sides. Adobe, judging from what they've posted publicly, decided to play up technicalities and procedural issues to try to kill or hold up a competitor to Flash, and the WG chairs responded by publicly alluding to private discussions and painting it to look as bad as possible.

lambda• 16 years ago

Shelley Powers has tried to block the HTML5 standards process using procedural objections, long pointless process discussions, and personal attacks on the editor of the HTML5 standard, more than anyone else that I've seen, at least for the past year or two that I've been following the W3C side of the HTML5 process. I'm not sure she's the best person to reference when trying to defend people who are trying to put up procedural roadblocks to publishing the HTML5 working draft.

Larry Masinter is also a veteran of web standards. He seems to be the sort of person who thinks that standards purity, procedural issues, and the like are more important than actual, real world, shipping, interoperable implementations. "<masinter> well, I'm not sure 'matches reality' is always the most important goal" from http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20090922

So, I do not know if he is trying to slow down the HTML5 standards process because he is employed by Adobe and they consider it in their best interest to slow the process down, or if it's merely because he's an architecture astronaut standards wonk who truly believes that objections claiming that canvas is out of scope of the HTML working group and that it would be better served by splitting it off into some other (currently unspecified) committee. I will note that the W3C HTML working group was chartered with canvas present in the working draft it adopted from the WHATWG, and the only reason it is being split into a separate specification is because of more procedural objections from the very same parties who seem to be opposing any innovation that came from the WHATWG and browser vendors.

GHFigs• 16 years ago

Short answer: No.

Long answer: The W3C process is apparently so opaque that even the editor of the spec believed it to be so. Rumor travels faster than fact.

ZeroGravitas2• 16 years ago

You can get a better idea by reading some of the blog postings written by Adobe's Masinter here over the last year:

http://masinter.blogspot.com/

They include an explanation of why HTML5 being specified too well makes it anti-competitive, comments on why you shouldn't refer to HTML5 as a "standard", why Google is cheating at standards by employing people to work on them full time, and why irrational people hate Flash for no reason.

Basically it sounds like someone playing politics really well.

illumin84• 16 years ago

I read the public mailing list thread - starts here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0349... - and continues for quite some time.

I came to the conclusion that Larry Masinter from Adobe did issue a formal objection to the public list - this is quite obvious from this post: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Feb/0002...

However, there was then further communication that took place in a private, members-only list, where apparently this objection was handled.

What seems to be happening is either Adobe is innocently handling the process of raising objections incorrectly, by posting them in a public list, then withdrawing them privately later on, or Adobe is maliciously attempting to subvert the process through delaying tactics.

I encourage you to read the thread and decide for yourself if Adobe is really innocent or is deliberately delaying. In considering such things, I usually like to look at what the parties have to gain/lose, as well as their actions.

boucher• 16 years ago

Well, if you read what the gentlemen from Adobe has said since, his objection on the private list was about how the chairs of whatever committee he raised his objections to basically made a unilateral decision without discussing the objections. So, at least according to him, the private list material is essentially objecting to the process by which his public objections were handled.

invisible• 16 years ago

It sounds, to me, that he is frustrated with the decision making process internally at W3C and committees that make decisions without a group discussion. It also sounds, to me, that he thinks HTML5 is bloated with things that could a) finish early and do not require anything in HTML5, or b) prevent the publication of HTML5 in a timely manner.

zarski• 16 years ago

Adobe needs to embrace HTML 5 and start making great tools around the HTML 5 runtimes. Flash, the runtime makes them nothing. Yes, the build tools around Flash, however, they need to stop their belly aching around HTML,JS,and CSS and learn to embrace and profit.

nailer• 16 years ago

And that's what I really want to hear from John - not arguing over who did what, but a simple statement along the lines of:

'Adobe will modify existing tools, or create new tools that allow content creators to do 2D and 3D drawing, and/or video, using Canvas and HTML Video, with the output not relying on Adobe Flash technologies '

or:

'Adobe will not modify existing tools, or create new tools that output to Canvas and HTML Video'

Either answer shows whether they're committed to a rich web with these features built in as standard.

amadiver• 16 years ago

Their thoughts exactly: http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2009/10/sneak_peek_ai_fl_dw_can...

fnid2• 16 years ago

That they aren't doing this is why Jobs called them lazy. They are lazy. There is no reason it should take 40% of the CPU to show a video in a flash embed on a laptop.

If they can't optimize any better than that, how are they ever going to see success on mobile devices?

rortian3• 16 years ago

It's hard not to be condescending about this but this is super basic: Video is hard if it is not hardware accelerated.

Apple refuses to provide a public api for this, so flash video needs a lot of CPU time on OSX.

All cell phones that allow flash video will have hardware acceleration and will not have a problem with it.

hristov• 16 years ago

Riiight. And suppose you want them to compete with any other unwashed commoner that decides to make his/her own tools for HTML 5. I see you have never been to business school.

ZeroGravitas2• 16 years ago

Since the word "sabotage" is getting thrown around, here's some guidelines from an actual WWII sabotage manual.

http://boingboing.net/2008/06/11/sabotage-manual-from.html

(1) Insist on doing everything through “channels.” Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions. (2) Make “speeches.” Talk as frequently as possible and at great length. Illustrate your “points” by long anecdotes and accounts of per sonal experiences. Never hesitate to make a few appropriate “patriotic” comments. (3) When possible, refer all matters to committees, for “further study and consideration.” Attempt to make the committees as large as possible — never less than five. (4) Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible. (5) Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions. (6) Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision. (7) Advocate “caution.” Be “reasonable” and urge your fellow-conferees to be “reasonable” and avoid haste which might result in embarrassments or difficulties later on. (8) Be worried about the propriety of any decision — raise the question of whether such action as is contemplated lies within the jurisdiction of the group or whether it might conflict with the policy of some higher echelon.

Slightly uncanny resemblance.

gruseom• 16 years ago

I was going to post that I doubted the authenticity of this quote, since its style struck me as overly modern and all the sources on the web seemed to trace back to one talk from a 2008 conference. But then I googled the document's apparent title ("Simple Sabotage Field Manual") and discovered what appears to be the original:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/26184/26184-8.txt

Skimming around this thing is pretty interesting. They recommend plugging sewage systems by flushing sponges down toilets. And here is part of how they recommend setting fire to a factory:

To make another type of simple fuse, soak one end of a piece of string in grease. Rub a generous pinch of gunpowder over the inch of string where greasy string meets clean string. Then ignite the clean end of the string. It will burn slowly without a flame (in much the same way that a cigarette burns) until it reaches the grease and gunpowder; it will then flare up suddenly.

Sounds pretty authentic to me. Which makes the original quote all the greater. It opens a new possible explanation for the inefficiency of large companies, too: they're full of saboteurs!

jordanb• 16 years ago

That document was written for Norwegian resistance fighters during the occupation by Nazi Germany.[1]

You can tell from its reference to "Quislings", which were the collaboration government (like Vichy France) of Norway at the time.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Norway_by_Nazi_Ge...

hop• 16 years ago

Sounds like the way congress is run.

blasdel5• 16 years ago

As intended by the founders -- they didn't want things being done quickly.

silvestrov• 16 years ago

Dear John@Adobe, if you did due diligence, then you already would have talked to the people at Adobe that participates in the working group, have found out exactly what was said on the email lists, and would have posted all the details and an apology for holding up the work due to minor process details. And you would have ensured us, that such behavior will never again be seen from Adobe.

What you did was to post an almost-ad-hominen attack, calling names such as "total ignorance/laziness", lack of "due diligence". Your only 'content' is quotes from 2 blogs that says Adobe is a nice kid without telling the details about what happened, what the w3c emails said.

When Hixie says "blocked by Adobe", you better come up with better arguments than "these 2 guys I've selected myself says that Adobe is a nice kid". If anybody knows anything about html5, it is Hixie. He has done an incredible job getting html5 forward, and he has fully earned his respect. http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1265967771&count=1

And you would have pointed out, that Adobe would from now on take a back seat and not veto the canvas and other new html5 features as Adobe isn't a browser vendor.

sethg2• 16 years ago

The genius of that strategy is that many dysfunctional organizations already have people who work this way, so if you start imitating them, nobody will suspect that you have an ulterior motive.

intranation• 16 years ago

According to:

http://www.osnews.com/story/22874/Teacup_Meet_Storm_pt_IV_Ad...

there's no sabotage, it's just how things normally "work" (for some value of work).

nir2• 16 years ago

Reading the recent "Adobe Bad" threads is like watching HN lose brain cells.

Having owned only Mac/Linux hardware for the past 10 years I have my share of Adobe frustrations, but all this bandwagon jumping after Jobs made a few comments is ridiculous.

mbreese• 16 years ago

It's standard backlash-backlash.

First, it was against Apple - "Without Flash, the iPad will suck. Apple is evil for excluding it". Now, the pendulum has swung the other way - "Adobe is evil".

Eventually we'll settle on the agreed upon: Adobe is only mildly evil. :)

illumin84• 16 years ago

Adobe has been evil for a long time. Remember Dmitry Skylarov? Jailed for writing software that Adobe didn't like - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Sklyarov?wasRedirected...

freetard• 16 years ago

If anything, this debacle demonstrate that the process should be open to all and public, not opaque as it is today.

Spikefu2• 16 years ago

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/

Some things may be said in private mailing lists, face to face conversation, phone calls, IM etc. but the actual standards, the objections and the decision making process is all public.

Spikefu2• 16 years ago

Simon St. Laurent has an interesting analysis and commentary on the whole debacle: http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2010/02/the-widening-html5-chas...

It seems that the whole HTML5 standards process was broken from the start and is likely to remain that way. The recent hoopla is just some public airing of the dirty laundry that has always been there.

godDLL• 16 years ago

Ooh boy, shit just got real: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0439...

> Ian Hickson:

> Since I was mistaken about the formal objection, should I prepare the drafts for FPWD publication now? What date should I use?

epochwolf• 16 years ago

I can't wait to find out what's actually going on. I'm inclined to distrust adobe. Their track record this month has been less than stellar in the honesty category.

devin• 16 years ago

Forgive my ignorance. But could anyone link to or provide a brief summary of what the general process is here? I'm not familiar with writing specifications, etc. Any information explaining the process would be appreciated.

Adobe's John Nack: Adobe is "sabotaging" HTML5?

Related Stories