As a long time Flash developer to me this looks like Adobe continuing to expand on the success they have had with open sourcing the Flex framework, rather than any reaction to the HTML5 video tag. In the past Flash components that Macromedia and then Adobe released were part of the Flash IDE, where Macromedia/Adobe would own the ActionScript source code. This proved problematic to Flash developers, as no software is ever completely bug-free and there would always be unforseen use cases where problems would occur with these components. Unfortunately, Flash developers couldn’t share their fixes publicly online because they did own the source code. With the Flex framework, everything is much more complex as there’s a lot more ActionScript code involved that does a lot more work and had Adobe not open sourced the code, I don’t think the code base would be as nearly as good as it is. There’s a large community around the Flex framework, with all sorts of patches, fixes and extensions that would not exist had the Flex code not been made open source. Adobe’s would have had a weaker product and possibly sold fewer copies of their tooling Flex Builder as the result of it.

Now Adobe could have sold just the compiled files to their video framework without the ActionScript source code to Flash developers separately or included it with either the Flash IDE or Flash Builder 4. However, I think Adobe recognizes that making it open source means a lot better product in the end and benefits their business better than if they kept ownership of the code.

I imagine we will continue to Adobe building things in ActionScript and then open sourcing the code, as it proves to be a successful business plan for Adobe. Especially as Adobe seems to be taking more of an approach of providing low-level API for things in the Flash Player and then building a higher level API in ActionScript. This is what Adobe has done with the new text engine in Flash Player 10 and the Text Layout Framework. Developers can use the high-level commands of the TLF to develop quickly, however if they are not happy with something they still have access to the low-level API. However, Flash developers would not have that freedom if Adobe had built the TLF directly into the Flash Player. If Adobe continues with this approach then expect more frameworks to created and then open sourced by Adobe in the future.

Meanwhile, Adobe AIR uses WebKit (which Adobe contributes to) to render HTML content and I imagine a future version of AIR will support the new HTML5 tags including the video tag. With that support it only makes sense for Adobe to build in HTML5 support for Dreamweaver. Adobe gives out the Flash Player for free and even gives out a free open source compiler, so where they make their money is providing tooling. Ignoring the HTML5 tag would likely result in lost of revenue for Dreamweaver as other HTML editors will likely include support.

Of course, some of their goals were achieved — and awareness was raised — but their impact was also watered down.

Any successful movement will see this happen to them — especially if they want to affect the mainstream. I understand that — but that doesn’t mean that I won’t be vigilant about the process as it’s happening.

For what it’s worth, I do welcome Adobe’s moves into more transparent development and that both Microsoft and Adobe are talking about openness in very different ways. At some point you have to look at the actions and evaluate them for what they are — rather than colored by the past. Still, demanding more openness and more transparency is worthwhile, in my estimation, if it continues to force companies that have a history of being less-than-forthcoming to toe the line and embrace openness and all the benefits that I believe come with it.

Your clarification is helpful — though I’m not completely convinced. Of course I’ll just have to watch this space and see how things play out. If Adobe were embracing and promoting the HTML5 video work, of course I’d have no ground to stand on, but that’s why this is an interesting story, no?

… I used to work in the organic produce field in San Francisco in the 1980s, and we had issues with “all-natural”, “organic”, “certified” and the rest. We were making progress to getting these words defined and enforced when NRDC & Meryl Streep flooded-the-zone with the Alar story, and the definition got changed out from under us. No direct relevance to “open” today, but I’ve been affected by similar campaigns going astray in the past, for what that’s worth.

For “how Adobe intends the OSMF to be understood in terms of the HTML 5 video tag”, I’d tend to go with “only peripherally related”… the initiative is seeking ways to more easily construct video interfaces that others can understand, particularly when third-party features such as viewing analytics or social layers are added in. These would only become relevant when the browser invokes Adobe Flash Player via the OBJECT/EMBED tags, and the proposed VIDEO tag seems a distinctly separate mechanism.

btw, for “coopting ‘open’”, there’s an interesting description from Adobe cofounder Charles Geschke about what they had to do to make PostScript succeed:
http://blogs.adobe.com/jd/2008/09/geschke_on_practical_standards.html

jd/adobe

I would say yes, you’ve summarized my concerns fairly well.

I think a major challenge is, as you’ve said, the fluid definition of “open” — and as I tried to suggest with this post — how one should parse the many iterations found in the wild. For example, is Adobe using “open” in the same way that Ubuntu does? And if not, then why? And how is their definition different?

Perhaps my biggest concern is what “open” conceals — especially when it comes to software patents. As you know, the online video space is littered with all kinds of patents that inhibit freely implementing video solutions — and in some cases, even in freely consuming content with whatever software, applications or devices I might choose.

I’ve also pointed out that the lack of visible source code for most Flash and Adobe Air applications also imperils the “freedom” that “open” once indicated — and that I believe is essential for the health of the web at large.

What I would most like to see along with this announcement is a clear indication of how Adobe intends the OSMF to be understood in terms of the HTML 5 video tag — whether it is a competitor, complement or completely unrelated. At least then I could allay my suspicions and speak more credibly about this strategy and whether I think it’s good or bad.

Until then, unfortunately, I’m only able to ask more questions about this approach — and cast aspersions on Adobe’s approach to going “open”.

I’d love to be enlightened!

Or perhaps the core is “Can my JavaScript/Theora efforts align with the Adobe-initiated video client conventions?”

(I don’t think the assumption in your sixteenth paragraph is well-founded, as recent events should have proven… the Strobe project makes it easier and more predictable to create fully-featured video interfaces.)

jd/adobe