{"id":12772,"date":"2008-05-29T19:38:20","date_gmt":"2008-05-29T19:38:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.adobe.com\/jnackdev\/2008\/05\/good-intentions-gone-awry.html"},"modified":"2008-05-29T19:38:20","modified_gmt":"2008-05-29T19:38:20","slug":"good_intentions_gone_awry","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jnack.com\/blog\/2008\/05\/29\/good_intentions_gone_awry\/","title":{"rendered":"Good intentions gone awry"},"content":{"rendered":"

Note to self: "Blog first & ask questions later" is a really bad approach. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

On Saturday I posted a blog entry<\/a> in which I tried to clarify some details of what we’ve been developing in Photoshop.  Unfortunately, looking back, it’s clear I did a poor job of communicating what I intended.  In particular I regret the way I went about pointing out some errors I’d seen in stories. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Let me give you a little context about how things unfolded.  A few weeks ago I demonstrated<\/a> some "potential future Photoshop technology" (more on what that means in a minute) during Adobe’s meeting with financial analysts.  Some folks at NVIDIA saw that demo and asked whether we’d mind repeating it at a press gathering they’d scheduled for last Thursday.  We said sure, and I got busy testing everything on a system they supplied.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

On Friday I saw Theo Valich’s story<\/a> on TG Daily covering the demo.  One detail jumped out at me: "The package is expected to be released on October 1."  As anyone who’s dealt with Adobe will tell you, we very rarely share details about when most products are expected to ship.  In fact, during my demo I’d noted a number of times that I was just showing some possible future technology, not announcing a new version, timing, etc.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Throughout the next day and a half, I kept getting Google Alerts linking to articles that repeated and amplified the news, occasionally misstating various details.  I started getting mail from colleagues to the effect of, "You said what??"<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

At that point, watching the story morph and replicate, I decided to try to nip things in the bud by sharing some clarifications.  Given that we were in the middle of a long holiday weekend, I opted to act quickly–too quickly.  I ended up overreacting, and whereas I should have dropped a line to at least some of the various media outlets, I called them out here.  The irony is that I was complaining about people blogging too quickly without checking all their facts, and in the process I was blogging too quickly without checking my facts!<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

On Sunday I got a quick & courteous note from Jonathan Fingas of Electronista thanking me for the clarifications & noting that they’d updated their story<\/a>.  Similarly I heard from staff at Gizmodo & TG Daily noting that they’d made updates.  I greatly appreciate that, and in the future I’ll find a much better way of pointing out needed changes. <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

As for the content of my post, I know there’s been some lingering confusion, so let me try to clarify a few points for the record: <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n