Assumptions versus Observed Facts: Adobe RoboHelp
My Beef With The Adobe Crew - Summarized
Sarah, an Adobe certified trainer, stated that I was incorrect regarding my posts about RoboHelp and that Adobe did in fact include RoboHelp within its Investor Relations documentations.
She said that I was wrong, and Bill / TechCommDood picked that ball up and ran with it. Without examining the raw data, he seconded her statement on his blog. Now they actually question what my intent is.
Let me be clear about why I write.
Easy:
It’s ethical to let other people decide what the facts mean to them. To give them information to make their own observations on.
I’m an insider who worked in the industry at the ground level and saw how the wheels turned for the winning Superbowl team who won, year after year. It’s like working for the Indianapolis Colts, contributing to their playbook, and watching some of the same players playing for other teams.
eHelp was that team because of their players. How well would the Colts play without Peyton Manning, or without their entire defensive line?
Adobe got the name of the team, but cleaned out the roster. That isn’t what a coach or team owner does if they intend to keep winning. It is what they do when they want to cut spending and drift along to maximize profits.
Back to the Beef: Is RoboHelp listed within the Investor Relations documentation from Adobe?
Previously I included just a link to the source document, but that was debated and I was informed, again and again, that I was wrong.
Oh, and if I’m not wrong, then my agenda is ‘questionable’.
Review my screenshots of the raw data, which can be seen in its entirety on the Adobe Investor Relations site. Read my analysis of that information and make your own determination.
Exhibit A: RoboHelp Not Listed Within ‘Other’ Category
Here is a screenshot of that raw data: 
The image clearly shows that we cannot observe RoboHelp included within the ‘Other’ category. Thus, the crux of my question to the HATT community. These are SEC related documents, however they are not filed with the SEC.
The 10-K referred to also makes no mention of RoboHelp within ‘Other’. Hence my dysfunctional label for Adobe concerning RoboHelp.
Exhibit B: RoboHelp 6 Release Not Listed
Another raw data screenshot from another Investor Relations document:
< snip> So here we’re seeing that the RoboHelp 6 release is not included. Even Captivate is listed which, at the time of the 2003 Macromedia merger, had less of a market capacity than RoboHelp.
With this fact observed, I’m not buying the theory/assumption/argument that RoboHelp is too small to matter, therefore was excluded due to revenue.
The Product Manager for Captivate, by the way, was Silke Fleischer. She is a consummate professional who is now the Product Marketing Manager for Captivate. She is also an ex-eHelper. Her blog can be found listed to the right and I read it regularly for information that helps me make money.
I make a lot of money using Captivate. However I feel that without someone like Silke running the show, within three years it’s going to drop in leadership of the market.
She’s the only one experienced and innovative enough in this highly competitive field. Read the full analysis post about Captivate here.
< /snip > Here’s the end of the page.
Is everyone on board with the observed fact that these documents do not show RoboHelp?
Assumption vs. Observations Part 1
Sarah did state in response that she ‘assumed’ that RoboHelp was included in the Other category.
Assumptions are based in feeling. Sorry we don’t all feel good about what I’m saying, it has nothing to do with the observed facts.
Sarah, I’m sorry, that’s not what you blogged previously. You said I was wrong. And inferred that you could prove it with your hyperlinked raw data source. I had even corrected one of my earlier statements which resulted from a ham-handed Find command mishap to be completely accurate prior to your post but you didn’t say that. You just linked into the same doc and said I was wrong.
It’s okay to make mistakes. You’re a high level resource who a lot of people count on to be accurate. Your word counts a lot. But let’s not shift the purpose of the posting to be about an assumption instead of observed fact.
For that matter, RJ or Vivek could have posted that RoboHelp was included in the Other category and put the matter to rest a week ago.
I wasn’t planning on having someone falsely state I’m wrong… and then, have another blogger jump onto the bandwagon and say, in effect, that regardless of whether or not Sarah’s correct, my motives are questionable!
For the record, I totally dig Sarah and Bill’s content in other areas. I also think they are movers and shakers in the technical communication game.
That’s fair, I initially assumed the same and fully expected the assumption to be confirmed by someone such as herself who was Adobe affiliated because, as I know software vendors who I have strong business relationships with, usually a simple email will yield a hardworking company rep’s reply with results.
That opinion did not come. Athough Sarah was kind enough to post she would look into the fact on my site.
I can assume that someone within Adobe contacted either her or Bill about my blogging recently. That assumption’s based only on Bill’s snipe about my blog being totally anti-Adobe, his post about a backlash on my HATT thread due to my previous post about Adobe’s Tech Support issues.
Sarah, Bill, feel free to tell me I’m wrong here, because it’s only an assumption, not an observable fact!
I’m feeling, intuitively, that someone at Adobe bird-dogged you and has fed you a little bit of the story to disseminate.That someone has told you that Adobe counts RoboHelp as ‘Other’ but they’re not coming forward to confirm it.
Hey, if they’re part of ‘Other’ that’s okay. That’s to be expected.
Hello, FrameMaker Sequel!
The exclusion of RoboHelp reinforces the statement you made about it not being important enough to mention.
That should be important to all of us HAT users. That Adobe doesn’t see RoboHelp as being important, therefore resources will be limited. Umm… Screams Legacy Software Management a/la FrameMaker.
Posted by Charles in Tech Writing |
September 14th, 2007 at 8:39 am
In reference to me:
“I can assume that someone within Adobe contacted either her or Bill [TechCommDood] about my blogging recently.”
And
“I’m feeling, intuitively, that someone at Adobe bird-dogged you and has fed you a little bit of the story to disseminate.”
You can assume anything you want, but in this case you’re wrong. Nobody from Adobe has contacted me about your blogging. Nobody from Adobe has asked me to disseminate their side of the story.
I’m disappointed to see this turn into a discussion of my motives. I already posted a comment on an earlier post of yours in which I said that my comments are not inspired, requested, or otherwise prompted by Adobe.
I’m done with this discussion. I’ve tried to provide some productive information, but it appears that People Who Disagree with You must be Shills for Adobe.
Sarah
September 14th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Hi Sarah,
The whole context of that statement was to demonstrate that reliance upon assumption is not as accurate as reliance upon observation.
Of course your comments were crossposted with my upload. Sorry about that. I did mention within that post that of course this was an ‘intuitive’ assumption and therefore could be untrue.
In all fairness, your post simply labeled me wrong and you didn’t state your assumption until challenged. Then, of course, it was clarified.
Of course I value your input and I value your productive information, but you did say I was wrong and then posted an assumption to back it up, which was wrong itself. Then Bill picked it up and he said I was wrong without even clicking on your raw data hyperlink.
I’m not saying you Shill for Adobe. But if we are going to operate from observation, let’s do so. If we are going to operate from assumptions, then I can assume just as well as you can.
By the way, I think all of us agree that the next step is to contact Investor Relations and find out the official Adobe stance on the matter. I have said that I will do this when I have time.
Of course I’ll post the raw data of the results. I, for one, am not expecting anything but a lengthy wait and then a firewall, but I could be surprised.