

Adobe and HTML - Brajeshwar
http://html.adobe.com/?hn

======
davidjgraph
<http://thegraphicalweb.com/meet-svg>

For those that don't remember, Adobe produced an SVG plugin for IE, which they
pulled in 2006. Having SVG on all browsers reduced their competitive advantage
they had with Flash having a higher penetration then SVG.

Adobe was doing their best to kill off open standards in favour of their
proprietary ones 6-7 years ago, a plan that failed due to the poor quality of
Flex, IE 9's support for SVG and iOS' dislike of the technology.

It's always amusing to see such folks eat some humble pie, particularly when
the technology they were trying to peddle was such a poor piece of
engineering.

The new adverts about IE 10 trolls are really an attempt to divert from the
real reason people have beef with MS and Adobe. They tried to kill open
standards, failed, now want to join the cool gang like nothing happened.

But don't limit our penetrating stare to just those that have historically
done this. Keep an eye on where Google are going with the various Chrome
extensions.

So, Adobe and HTML, fine, but they only joined us because they couldn't beat
us.

~~~
dheavy
And for instance, you could say that "iOS's dislike of the technology" was
nothing more than a strategic move from Apple and Jobs to win a battle of
content over the channel, where the money lies, but you chose or forget to
acknowledge this in your discourse; I just don't see how it is any different
from MS or Adobe or any other corporation trying to do what they are supposed
to do: making profit.

Also, _ouch_ on the "poor piece of engineering"... If I recall it has been
able to help push some usage of the web forward (Youtube? Before Flash?), and
foster creative content (anyone been working in the game or ad industry these
past decade could testify... I'm talking Art Directors and Flash devs on
websites, not annoying page ads). Or maybe I'm wrong on this - if so, please
someone correct me. I don't remember Java succeeded in this field.

I don't want to start a flame war, it's just this anti-someone view, whoever
that may be, raises my eyebrow all the time. As far as I know they do what
_every_ other company on the field does: use and protect their hero assets for
as long as they can, then catch up with the disruptive tech as soon as they
penetrate.

~~~
davidjgraph
I fully agree. I could have continued past Adobe and MS and started on the
likes of Apple, but it'd have been a very long post. I considered whether the
MS comment was out of context, that was my attempt at saying it goes beyond
just Adobe.

But the OA is about Adobe and HTML. Of course, it's not so much that they'll
jump to the tech that has displaced them, it's more the marketing language
(which, again, I know everyone's at it) suggests "yeah, cool, we always wanted
this one to win, honest". They even give a history lesson on the site, and
that's not the history I remember.

Poor engineering, that's aimed more at Flex than Flash. I spent many months
suffering at the hands of Flex and the Adobe IDE. We implemented exactly the
same app in both Flex and Java, Flex and its environment were painful,
relatively.

Companies will protect their own interests, but both I personally view Adobe's
decision to drop the SVG plugin, and Microsoft's decision to enforce their own
standard on IE as de facto, as having put a general drag on what could and can
be achieved in browsers. They're entitled to do so, but I think the decisions
have been detrimental to the Internet population as whole, that's all.

~~~
dheavy
>the decisions have been detrimental to the Internet >population as whole

Absolutely. We're still paying the price(s) now...

------
digitalengineer
Great topic! Adobe _and_ HTML. What's hot at Adobe right now? Digital
Publishing is. What are the main players? Adobe and Quark (yes they still
exist). One uses InDesign Postscript-to-Javascript and Air to create, build
and publish. The other (far older player, Quark) uses an HTML-engine to build
and publish, see: <http://www.appstudio.net/#2> So Adobe loves HTML? Doesn't
look like it from my perspective.

~~~
Volpe
... Right because Adobe ONLY produce InDesign.

For digital publishing, Adobe have Dreamweaver, Muse, Edge, (part of
InDesign), Flash... all linked with Creative Cloud, which allows you to
publish 'to-the-web' (Great for non-technical designers).

I would hazard a guess that you work for Quark, or are an Apple-like fanboy of
them, to present such a one sided argument with a fraction of the complete
information.

~~~
sbuk
"Apple-like fanboy" really? I come here to avoid idiocy like this. Your point
is valid, but you've rendered it moot by behaving like that.

~~~
Volpe
Great contribution, my point is still valid regardless of what you think of
me... you, on the other hand, didn't make a useful point.

To say Adobe is tied to Postscript unlike Quark comes across as fanboy-ism.
Given adobe are heavily invested in HTML. That said the OP clarified what he
means by Desktop Publishing and it makes more sense.

~~~
sbuk
No, it's moot. Especially given the GP's disclosure. Just because someone has
a differing opinion to yours, it doesn't make them a 'fanboy'.

------
angry-hacker
The custom fonts on Chrome (Windows) looks horrible, well known bug for
everyone, same time Chrome is the most popular browser in most of parts of the
world... are people who are using custom fonts on their pages ignoring this
issue because all the designers/developers user Mac's or I just dont
understand...

~~~
Surio
Thank you. Thank You. Thank you.

Fellow sufferer here. "looks horrible" is probably understatement. Some days
"makes me want to poke my eye out" is appropriate. I have resorted to custom
Stylish font replacement scripts to step around the problem.

------
sparkinson
Humorously, when their stats script gets blocked none of the links actually
work in my Chrome build.

------
andrewfelix
I can vouch for Edge as an animation tool. We've already started creating
commercial work using it.

But I wouldn't touch Reflow if Adobe Muse is anything to go by. Muse produced
horribly verbose and unreadable code.

~~~
dheavy
To be fair with Muse, I've tried the first public beta some time ago and I
admit the produced code was a sad laughable mess. I had to opportunity to
reopen my try-out site on the latest public release, did an export, and took
time to compare: it's much, much better. Seeing how fast their release
iteration is, and the short time between the two tests I did, I turned from
mocking skeptic to actual...hmmm... believer(?).

That is of course, considering the main target for the product is not me or my
peers but rather non-coders... I'm always better off on my own with my big
hairy hands on the keyboard typing my code.

------
est
I'd hope there's open source effort based on bootstrap, with actual human
maintainable css/js code generator.

~~~
nshankar
it is already a complete tool to create websites. what else do we want?

~~~
dheavy
If I understood correctly what est meant... For non coders, maybe an actual
WYSIWYG? Or even for coders, as a rapid-prototyping tool?

