
Adobe on "HTML5" - radley
http://blogs.adobe.com/jd/2009/06/adobe_on_html5.html
======
bonaldi
_"This whole "HTML5" campaign will likely benefit Flash, because few remain
who oppose the idea that "experience matters"_

Sadly for him, many people who back the idea that "experience matters" are
_also_ against Flash, in all its nasty, proprietary, CPU-killing ways.

It has taken a long time, but Adobe's chickens are finally coming home to
roost. Profits are way down this year, because customers are ignoring CS4, and
in a recent conference call they admitted they've had to begin hiring R&D
staff again, which must really stick in the craw of the marketers who took
over.

It's amazing how often people forget the old "be nice on the way up the
ladder" maxim. But then you get to enjoy the schadenfreude of watching them
come down.

------
johnnybgoode
That's some great spin there. The only good argument they have is that HTML5
will take a while. Compared to HTML5, Flash isn't so much better that it's
worth sacrificing openness to use it. We'll have libraries that take care of
the cross-browser differences. Sure, there will be problems along the way, but
it'll be worth it to kill Flash.

~~~
rimantas
"some great spin" is being put too mildly. Looks like they don't know what
HTML5 is nor the state of its support in current browsers: pretty much all
(but IE, of course) already have some support for it. Not sure how that makes
minority of browsers, not to mention, that browsers on the new smartphones
which are worth something are Webkit based—and that means support for HTML5.
Apple specifically advertises HTML5 and CSS3 on its Safari webpage (
<http://www.apple.com/safari/what-is.html> ).

I completely fail to see how the release of iPhone "helped to radically
increase the number of phones with Flash support". If it did help something
this is to realize that we can do just fine without Flash.

So no, you don't need to wait ten years before HTML5 arrives, it is already on
your doorstep (have you seen Google Wave?). There will be no wait, so "during
that wait, Flash becomes more and more powerful" doesn't come to fruition.
Adobe still cannot make Flash to run without hogging resources on anything but
Windows, do they think I will buy this "more powerful" crap?

I don't think that HTML5 will kill Flash though, but if it forces Flash out of
the places there it does not belong (full flash sites, flash navigation, etc.)
Web will be a better place and I will be a lot happier.

~~~
ROFISH
Part of the anti-HTML5 crowd is more about simplicity and ease of tools. While
you and I may understand HTML5 and it's underlying technologies (ECMA4, CSS3),
it's confusing to developers who don't understand the reasoning behind certain
features. Like the CSS vs. Tables argument, Flash seems easier to do glitzy
effects, and have it supported by all browsers.

That said, I'm all for HTML5. Whenever YouTube officially supports the video
tag, I'll me more than happy to uncheck that "Enable Plugins" on my browser
preferences.

~~~
tfinniga
In case you haven't seen it, it looks like they're interested:
<http://www.youtube.com/html5>

~~~
llimllib
Important to remember that where Microsoft's strategy is to compete with flash
via silverlight, Google's was just to build a new browser and create a better
HTML by hiring all the people important in the process and throw its weight
behind them.

So, yes, youtube is interested in HTML5 video, for the same reason google is
interested in Chrome.

------
enomar
I agree that it might be a while before the standard is final. And it will be
even longer until all the non-HTML5 browsers are gone. But a decade? C'mon.
All 5 major browsers should have a released browser with at least a few HTML 5
capabilities by the end of the year.

If your audience is targeted to newer browsers or if you're using a framework
that can degrade gracefully, it shouldn't be long until you can start using
this stuff on real sites. Some pretty popular sites (gmail) are already using
this stuff.

------
ATB
It's interesting to see PR in action, especially as Proggit, HN, and several
popular blogs have been sounding the HTML5-induced death knell for Flash in
the last week or so. Translating the double-speak is actually good fun in this
case. With all due respect to Jon Gruber, here is the PR-to-Human translation
of this link:

 _The current WhatWG proposals called "HTML 5" have been stirring up a lot of
polarizing speech lately_

Positive attention to new technologies is only beneficial if Adobe has a clear
monetization strategy for them. So we will introduce a controversy and try our
best to make it "polarizing."

 _It's hard for Adobe to have an official opinion_

But unofficially, Adobe will do everything possible to undermine the
excitement over HTML5 and torpedo it at all cost.

 _whatever this consortium of minority browser vendors chooses to do_

MINORITY. Get it? Unsupported! Unofficial! What happens if the minority goes
away? Don't buy Tucker. Buy GM.

 _seeing what the final agreement turns out to be, and how it is eventually
manifested in the world, both are prerequisites for practical tool-making_

Given that we are a tool vendor, this is the only interesting part. And since
we largely control the tool market for our tech, this is a major threat to us.

 _Still, I'm glad that an analyst asked a question about it at the quarterly
financial call. Here's what Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen had to say_

What a threatened tool vendor CEO has to say is what you should use to form
your opinion about a technology and its future viability.

 _I think the challenge for HTLM 5 will continue to be how do you get a
consistent display of HTML 5 across browsers_

The biggest challenge for HTML5 will be the constant undermining from
companies that see their current tool strategy and quasi-monopoly threatened,
such as us.

 _And when you think about when the rollout plans that are currently being
talked about, they feel like it might be a decade before HTML 5 sees
standardization across the number of browsers that are going to be out there._

If we keep repeating the fear of how long it might take to implement again and
again, it will take even longer. Your hesitation equals cold hard cash for us.

 _we still think that actually the fragmentation of browsers makes Flash even
more important rather than less important_

When asked about a potential competitor, I always mention how its rise will
make our product more important. Because that's what the board pays me to do.

 _Adobe's about communicating your ideas -- publishing to various channels --
not just about Flash. Dreamweaver, ColdFusion and the imaging tools all
benefit from an increase in HTML._

Hey guys, remember ColdFusion? ... Guys?

 _Adobe profits from easing communication in general_

Positive communication about Adobe products. And sowing FUD about competitors.
But since Slashdot posters ran the term 'FUD' into the ground ten years ago,
you can't use it anymore without being derided. SCORE!

 _Flash is a strong bet for emerging platforms_

I'm high as a kite.

 _I'm increasingly uncomfortable with calling the WhatWG proposals "HTML 5"
though_

Giving something that might become a standard the appearance of legitimacy is
dangerous to our business model. Open standards are the enemy of our
proprietary tools.

 _What counts is not a press release, but a realworld deliverable_

What is not deliverable, for instance, is Flash on iPhone and possibly many
other portable devices, which appear to be the biggest growth market/land rush
of the next decade. Allowing an open competitor like HTML5 to dominate that
market would be fatal for us.

 _Shantanu's last point in there really resonates with me_

Please give me a raise.

 _this whole "HTML5" campaign will likely benefit Flash, because few remain
who oppose the idea that "experience matters"_

Our experience in making cold hard cash from selling Flash tools matters the
most. Using "scare quotes" will help de-legitimize HTML5.

 _Things are quite a bit different than five years ago._

We now have a virtual monopoly on serving casual video on the web. We will
fight anything that threatens us.

 _iPhone helped to radically increase the number of phones with Flash support_

The new QuickTime X plays Flash videos natively. We might be screwed.

 _the "HTML5" publicity helps marginalize those few who still argue that
images, animation, audio/video and rich interactivity have no place on the
web_

HTML5 uses open standards to play those file formats natively, which severely
undercuts our tool/server profits.

 _Flash will be able to deliver on those heightened expectations, regardless
of what each separate browser engine does._

Fuck you, WHATWG, Chrome, Mozilla, Safari.

~~~
amadiver
Firstly, I respect the idea of cutting through PR speak. I hate it as much as
you do. That said, there are some things in your comment I think you're way
off on.

 _MINORITY. Get it? Unsupported! Unofficial! What happens if the minority goes
away? Don't buy Tucker. Buy GM._

The vendors with minority market share are really putting their weight behind
this spec, and adopting features as quickly as they can. The majority browser
vendor, Microsoft, is not. They have a conflict of interest now that
Silverlight is out. MS has displayed reticence in cannibalizing functionality
from their other products in the past; IE is unlikely to subsume Canvas and
Video features since its the domain of Silverlight ( for the time being ). We
have been in this situation before - how many of us have banged our head
against the desk for hours fixing a "bug" for IE6? Though many web devs are
brave enough to only support current gen browsers, many of us do not have that
luxury. I love HTML 5, but I can't imagine any of the features to be "killer"
enough to make users switch to more modern browsers. That said, I'm not big on
prognostication, and if it turns out I'm wrong, I'll be a happy man.

 _What a threatened tool vendor CEO has to say is what you should use to form
your opinion about a technology and its future viability._

100% agreed. But I also wouldn't discount that opinion just because it comes
from someone in a weakened position. Every one of us is a geek, and every one
of us has been in a seemingly losing position when we actually know we're
right. I'm with you, about not trusting the source, but not on the idea that
it invalidates the position of that source.

 _The biggest challenge for HTML5 will be the constant undermining from
companies that see their current tool strategy and quasi-monopoly threatened,
such as us._

This I have the biggest problem with, and I'll project onto it some other
sentiments I've seen from HN and Redditors, just to make it interesting :)
I'll posit this: a monopoly, kept in check with free and open source
alternatives, is healthy for our web ecosystem. I'll go further: we would not
have AJAX if Microsoft didn't invent it. It's a hell of a good idea, but maybe
not good enough, alone, to force users to switch browsers. Since MS invented
it, and since it had the dominant browser ( a quasi-monopoly ), and since it
was a great feature, other browsers could implement it. We all benefited. If
it came from Mozilla, web devs would have been bending over backward to not
totally ruin the experience of their AJAXified apps for IE users, and no one
would have bothered to switch browsers. I know that I'm picking on subtext
from your comment, and that's what I'm most disagreeing with, but I wanted to
share that opinion.

 _If we keep repeating the fear of how long it might take to implement again
and again, it will take even longer. Your hesitation equals cold hard cash for
us._

Everyone knows that HTML 5 will be faithfully implemented in at least
FF/Webkit/Opera before long. But, for right now, IE is still the lynch pin.
Adoption of HTML 5 features will occur as rapidly as they're introduced into
IE ( if history holds true - I pray for some really feisty and ballsy web
devs, but I'm not holding my breath ). This, obviously, sucks, but for the
time being, Adobe is right - if we're going to wait for IE, and if IE remains
the dominant browser, we're going to be waiting a while.

 _Flash is a strong bet for emerging platforms - I'm high as a kite_

How is this not accurate? I can reliably replicate any feature from HTML 5 in
Flash today, and it'll work on any platform I want (* except all the platforms
geeks get cranky about ;) ). Those features have been around for a while now.
Flash's been a test bed for new ideas, and we all reap the benefits when it
fails miserably ( intro movies = suck // never use a monolithic binary model
for the web ) and when it succeeds spectacularly ( cross-platform, single-
codec video player: <video>; audio player: <audio>; custom fonts; vector
illustration <canvas>; animation [ more CSS3 ]; persistent local storage; etc
]).

_I'm increasingly uncomfortable with calling the WhatWG proposals "HTML 5"
though_ I'm offput by this statement as well. I don't know why he's
uncomfortable... It does seem like he's trivializing it.

 _Open standards are the enemy of our proprietary tools._

Again, I wouldn't count Adobe out on this one. The <video> tag isn't going to
kill Adobe. Proprietary means Adobe can implement DRM. Yes. I know. WE ALL
HATE THE FUCK OUT OF DRM. YouTube could thrive without DRM, but Hulu, for
right now, could not. It is because Hulu offers protection on their videos (
Netflix, too ) that they're allowed to stream content to us. We could all
"send a message" by torrenting those shows, cutting out Hulu/Netflix until
they switch to <video> in lieu of Flash. But no one else will. Most people
don't even understand what a plug-in is. They don't care that it has DRM
attached. And frankly, me watching a few adverts so that the writers of The
Office can buy a couple more ivory backscratchers is really not that
bothersome for me. Again, Adobe implemented the first successful browser plug-
in - they paved the way for <video> in the HTML 5 spec, so while we're
chanting for its death, let's not forget that it's done _some_ good.

 _Fuck you, WHATWG, Chrome, Mozilla, Safari._

Now you're just projecting ;)

~~~
bad_user
> _I love HTML 5, but I can't imagine any of the features to be "killer"
> enough to make users switch to more modern browsers._

Funny you should say that. Users don't really care about features. What they
care about is being able to view the content.

Flash is so popular today only because of services like YouTube. It only takes
a YouTube to make HTML 5 popular, and speaking of YouTube, guess who owns it
;)

> _Adoption of HTML 5 features will occur as rapidly as they're introduced
> into IE_

Complementary to the point above, Microsoft doesn't have any options but to
implement it, otherwise they'll lose more market share.

Not to mention that plugins can be developed by third parties for IExplorer to
add HTML 5 functionality. Google already started doing that with Gears.

~~~
amadiver
Right on - they care about viewing the content. So if YouTube switched to
<video>, over night, tons of users would switch browsers. Except that's never
going to happen. My guess is that YouTube might serve up content using the
<video> tag if the user isn't using a modern browser, and Flash content if
they're using IE. I can't see them making such a reckless business move ( some
users wouldn't/couldn't switch browsers, and there goes millions of paying
customers ["paying" in that they view the ads]).

With companies like Google playing it conservative ( as all web devs do ), and
adapting content to allow IE users to view it, there's not going to be an
incentive for users to switch browsers.

------
pj
His claim that it'll be 10 years until HTML5 works is absurd. Adobe makes some
of the worst software in the software industry. _Great_ marketers though.

~~~
joezydeco
After working with Flash Lite for way too long, I gotta agree.

I'm still convinced it's all about <video>. All this clamoring for Flash on
iPhone, Flash on Android, Flash on GE Ovens etc is all about people getting
their video (cough cough PORN) on their handsets.

Give them H.264 and a <video>-tag enabled browser, throw in a little JQuery
for animating menus and eye candy, and we'll leave Flash in the dust for good.

Javascript is the new bytecode.

------
Ennis
_"HTML5" publicity helps marginalize those few who still argue that images,
animation, audio/video and rich interactivity have no place on the web_

I don't understand what he means by this. I'm assuming he isn't articulating
his thoughts well. For as long as I remember there were images, cheesy
animations and background music on pages around the web - long before flash
and shockwave.

Does he mean that some people argue Flash is bad for the web because it's
contents can't be indexed by search engines? Now that is a different story and
a losing arguement since Adobe itself has admitted it's an issue.

~~~
jdowdell
[ Original poster here ]

The stance that "images have no place on the Web" is the oldest of the lot,
dating back to Netscape 2.0 days... it's hard to remember or even believe now,
but people did rail against the IMG tag.

Back in the late 90s there was much argumentation that "things shouldn't move
on webpages". This has died down as people have realized how motion can help
clarify interfaces (iPhone's intertial drag helped lots), but we're still not
at the point of universal acceptance that animation helps increase the total
number of people who find the message accessible.

My point was that the arguments against richer interfaces have died down, as
the browsers slowly advance to bring such abilities within reach. There will
always be criticism of the leading edge, but Silverlight, iPhone, and "HTML5"
have each helped convert camps away from the belief that only permissible
medium is lengthy English text.

(SEO has had the gosh-darnedest amount of misinfo spread about... search
engines have reached inside SWF for years and years, as the old Slashdot
example query of "'contrary evidence' filetype:swf" showed. Start by
visualizing the terms on which people will likely seek your services...
research the competition you have for the first ten Google hits on the term...
then optimize your pages for those terms in the usual way, as recommended by
the search engines' guidelines. The "every little bit of dynamic text"
fascination is starting to bite Ajax now too, so I have hope it will soon go
away. ;-)

jd/adobe

~~~
Ennis
Well thanks for clearing that up. I appreciate both of the comments of
feedback. You are right about the IMG tag. I'm not old enough to remember if
there was actually a community with positions or if Netscape was single-
handedly deciding how HTML should look like.

------
makecheck
For me it's not even about _how_ the content is displayed (which is Adobe's
concern), it's the user interface.

HTML 5 could present everything in mostly the same way, but still be an
improvement because the browser would be aware of it all.

Problems that I see only in Flash:

\- Fixed-size text in a fixed-size box in the browser.

\- Text that can't be selected/copied/pasted.

\- Unnecessary customizations to video player interfaces.

\- "Navigation" that is completely unable to interact with the rest of my
browser, e.g. can't figure out what URLs things go to, or how to go back.

\- Needing to go to Adobe's own web site to bring up Flash configuration
panels to edit further redundancies like Flash's own cookie storage, etc.

------
bonaldi
Hoo, the comments thread on this is still good. It's OK for Flash to suck,
because sometimes other apps suck as well. _the Flash plugin on Windows is far
more efficient and performs massively better than in the same page on
Macintosh. [jd sez: I haven't tested that, but it's reasonable -- 3D and video
tools are often claimed to work better on Windows too.]_
[http://blogs.adobe.com/jd/2009/06/adobe_on_html5.html#commen...](http://blogs.adobe.com/jd/2009/06/adobe_on_html5.html#comment-2005744)

------
benreesman
holding my finger in the dyke is hard, let's go shopping!

