About time... I can't be the only one who thinks Experts-Exchange is lame...

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.

There used to be a scheme in towns in the UK whereby police would hand out lollipops to people leaving clubs. Many clubs kick out at the same time (2am), mixing large numbers of drunken people in a small area. Drinking means blood sugar levels drop, which means people get hungry and competitive, and the end result is more often than not a large and violent brawl in the nearest kebab shop. The reasons given for the lollipops were threefold: 1) it helps to return their blood sugar levels, reducing stress; 2) it gives them something to do with their hands (unwrap the lollipop, hold it), other than smashing them into the nearest face; 3) it keeps the noise levels down for the sake of the residents in the area, as your are less likely to yak incessantly at high volume with a delicious ball of sugar in your gob. I'm not sure whether they still have this scheme (maybe there are legal risks? choking? diabetes?) but for a while it existed in several trouble spots in the country.

That web page has shiny-excellent design. It immediately tells you what Less is, how to install and run it, and then launches into source code examples so you can immediately learn how to use it. Very smooth!

(Someone needs to recognize these things and give praise to the people who so richly deserve it.)

This doesn't bode well for me trying to use self-control to kick my sugar habit.

Somebody has been plagiarizing pg: http://www.paulgraham.com/ideas.html

OP: "Fix something that’s broken. In business, it seems to me that the traditional banking business models are broken or at least no longer fit the purpose. On the other end of the spectrum, Internet dating sites don’t seem to work. They have millions of users, so they must be promising something people want. And yet they work horribly. Just ask anyone who uses them."

to pg: "One way to make something people want is to look at stuff people use now that's broken. Dating sites are a prime example. They have millions of users, so they must be promising something people want. And yet they work horribly. Just ask anyone who uses them. "

Or "Take a luxury and make it a commodity. People must want something if they pay a lot for it. It is a very rare product that can't be made dramatically cheaper if you try. When you make something dramatically cheaper, you sell more, and people start to use it in different ways. For example, once cell phones were so cheap that most people had one, people started using them as cameras and Internet devices."

to pg's : "Another classic way to make something people want is to take a luxury and make it into a commmodity. People must want something if they pay a lot for it. And it is a very rare product that can't be made dramatically cheaper if you try.

This was Henry Ford's plan. He made cars, which had been a luxury item, into a commodity. But the idea is much older than Henry Ford."

Is it me or are these things insanely expensive. Maybe if you live in the bay area this is cheap, but I live in Indiana and in some places you could by a house way bigger than one of these for the same price. And that includes the price of a 1/8 to 1/4 acre lot.

The other problem is where do you put it? I am not going to live in my parents back yard.