Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 6th May 2013 20:17 UTC
Graphics, User Interfaces "Adobe first launched Creative Suite 1 back in 2003, and now, ten years and six versions later, the company is taking a left turn: Adobe is abandoning its Creative Suite entirely to focus efforts on Creative Cloud."
Thread beginning with comment 560730
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: finally free of Windows?
by hhas on Tue 7th May 2013 10:51 UTC in reply to "RE: finally free of Windows?"
Member since:

Of course it's the same software. We're talking millions of lines of code (PS alone has 4.5M) and many many millions of man hours over 20 years. Adobe aren't about to magically poof that vast investment into HTML5 just to be trendy. The Web != HTML, contrary to what Mosaic and its many blighted descendents would have you behave. The Web is merely a mechanism for exchanging resources of every shape and kind; the only constant is hyperlinking as the means of discovering those resources.

All that's changed at this point is the distribution model, and while the primary motive is obviously financial (steadier income flow and [hopefully] less piracy) it may provide some user benefits too, e.g. smaller, more frequent rolling releases of new features and fewer hassles when exchanging files with others (not least since Adobe themselves won't be motivated to screw about with file versioning simply to drive sales).

In the long run it's harder to predict how this'll all play out, and who will win and who will lose. For example, decoupling revenue stream from shrinkwrapped product might encourage Adobe and other 'big app' vendors to evolve their unassailably monolithic products into a more flexible component-based platform, allowing users to customize their apps by adding/purchasing just the features they need from Adobe and/or 3rd-parties. Alternatively, it might kill competition by discouraging customers from purchasing individual apps from other vendors when their Adobe subscription means they're then effectively paying twice for the same general functionality, in which case expect to see antitrust suits raised before long.

Reply Parent Score: 3

arpan Member since:

Nope you're wrong... the web = HTML!!!

The Web refers to Web pages made up of HTML + CSS + JS + other tech.

You must be thinking of the Internet, of which the web is just one part.

Reply Parent Score: 6

hhas Member since:

Nope you're wrong... the web = HTML!!!

Wrong again: the web = hypertext documents, i.e. textual documents which contain and are interconnected by hyperlinks. (Although note there's no reason the web couldn't use non-textual hyperlinked documents as well; think HyperCard stacks, for example.)

HTML = HyperText Markup Language, i.e. a markup language that is one particular implementation of the hypertext principle. However, it is not the only way to encode a hyperlinked document: a JSON document containing hyperlinks is also a type of hypertext document, as is an XML document containing hyperlinks.

A PDF or Word document would also qualify as a hypertext document if the URLs within its text were explicitly flagged as hyperlinks so they can be readily identified and used by any application that knows how to interpret the proprietary PDF/Word document format.

(Note that you'd also need a PDF/Word document editor/viewer that knew how to retrieve those hyperlinked resources itself, assuming that a PDF/Word representation of that resource is available. Currently, such applications don't try to retrieve the resource themselves: instead, they mindlessly assume they must be HTML documents and kick the URL to an HTML viewer to handle.)

As you can see, there is only one true constant here: hyperlinks. The document encoding is irrelevant; the HTTP protocol that powers the Web was itself deliberately designed to be both completely agnostic and highly flexible with respect to document encodings. (Hence all of HTTP's powerful content typing and negotiation features, which remarkably few people and applications really understand.)


It is one of the great tragedies and losses of the modern Web that its early popular adopters [mis]interpreted the original concept as an HTML-only club that should consist of a small number of technical producers (professonal web developers) plus a large audience of dumb consumers (everyone else). Obviously that arrangement has enriched the first group very nicely, but at much cost to the second, who are now excluded - by both accident and intent - from being first-class citizens of the world wide web. (The mere fact I am authoring this mini-essay as a quickly-forgotten third-class web forum comment rather than a first-class document published and hyperlinked online as a full resource its own right is testament to this.)

The origin of this misunderstanding is simple enough: the first hypertext document format created specifically for the web was HTML, and the first popular application for accessing hypertext documents was Mosaic, which was an HTML viewer. But instead of seeing these as one example of how the web could be used, its early audience mistook form for function and formed the incorrect belief that it was the only way the web could be used.

And as the psychologists will tell you, once people have formed a belief, they are extremely reluctant to revise or replace it thereafter, even if it subsequently shown to be grossly incorrect. If anything, the more invested a person is in their belief, the harder they will fight to defend it against any perceived or actual threat. And with 20 years of ego and livelihood invested in their warped vision of the web, it is no surprise that web developers fight hardest of all.

But the harsh truth is: 99.99% of the web programming profession is wrong about how the web is supposed to work. And the other 0.01% is constantly frustrated whenever they try to do the right thing, because all of the popular tools for serving and accessing the web have inherited the same ballsed-up misunderstandings.

Thus, on the client side we have HTML viewers (the so-called 'web browsers') that cannot speak most of the verbs in HTTP and completely ruin content negotiation, and a whole bunch of other popular applications like Word and Acrobat that automatically accept their second-class status don't even bother to try to interact with the web themselves as first-class citizens, even though HTTP and hyperlink technology absolutely allows them to do so.

And then on the server side you get frameworks like Rails that tries to pretend the web is a local messaging OOP system. (Hint: it's not. The web is resource-, not message-, centric, more like a giant distributed collection of loosely interacting state machines. And see Deutsch's Fallacies of Distributed Computing as to why it's nothing like a local messaging system and should not be viewed as such.) Plus big-name web applications like Twitter and Github that claim to be RESTful but wouldn't recognize the REST interaction model if it bit them on the ass.

And all of this is enabled and encouraged by tens of thousands of 'web professionals' who never once stop to consider that their own understanding just might be incomplete or wrong, and a billion unwitting users like frogs in the proverbial saucepan being slowly brought to boil. And so the gross ignorance and rampant misconceptions are propagated ever further.


So, the mere fact you can easily muster a whole bunch of fellow web devs to all declare that the web is too HTML+CSS+JS doesn't change the fact that you are all largely wrong and I am roughly right. The only question now is: are you willing yet to fundamentally challenge your own beliefs, despite your considerable vested interests in defending them; and if not, then what exactly would it take to make you question them?

Edited 2013-05-08 12:49 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3