Steve Jobs publishes some 'thoughts on Flash'... many, many thoughts on Flash
By Paul Miller 
posted April 29th 2010 9:34AM
posted April 29th 2010 9:34AM
- It's not open. "While Adobe's Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system." Man, that's some strong irony you're brewing, Steve. Still, we get the point -- HTML5, CSS, and JavaScript are open web standards.
- The "full web." Steve hits back at Adobe's claim of Apple devices missing out on "the full web," with an age-old argument (YouTube) aided by the numerous new sources that have started providing video to the iPhone and iPad in HTML5 or app form like CBS, Netflix, and Facebook. Oh, and as for flash games? "50,000 games and entertainment titles on the App Store, and many of them are free." If we were keeping score we'd still call this a point for Adobe.
- Reliability, security and performance. Steve hits on the usual "Flash is the number one reason Macs crash," but adds another great point on top of this: "We have routinely asked Adobe to show us Flash performing well on a mobile device, any mobile device, for a few years now. We have never seen it." You've got us there, Steve, but surely your magical A4 chip could solve all this?
- Battery life. "The video on almost all Flash websites currently requires an older generation decoder that is not implemented in mobile chips and must be run in software." Steve Jobs is of course H.264's #1 fan, and it's hard to blame him, since he cites 10 hours of H.264 playback but only 5 hours with software decode on the iPhone. Still, those "older generation" sites that haven't moved to H.264 yet are pretty much the exact same sites that aren't viewable with HTML5, which means we're being restricted in the content we can access just because some of it doesn't perform as well.
- Touch. Steve hits hard against one of the web's greatest hidden evils: rollovers. Basically, Flash UIs are built around the idea of mouse input, and would need to be "rewritten" to work well on touch devices. "If developers need to rewrite their Flash websites, why not use modern technologies like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript?" That doesn't really address the Flash-as-app scenario (that's point #6), but it's also a pretty silly sounding solution to a developer: your website doesn't support this one UI paradigm exactly right, so why not rewrite it entirely?
- The most important reason. Steve finally addresses the third party development tools situation, but it's really along the lines of what we were hearing already: "If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features." We doubt this will end all debate, but it's clear Apple has a line in the sand.
Apple has a long relationship with Adobe. In fact, we met Adobe's founders when they were in their proverbial garage. Apple was their first big customer, adopting their Postscript language for our new Laserwriter printer. Apple invested in Adobe and owned around 20% of the company for many years. The two companies worked closely together to pioneer desktop publishing and there were many good times. Since that golden era, the companies have grown apart. Apple went through its near death experience, and Adobe was drawn to the corporate market with their Acrobat products. Today the two companies still work together to serve their joint creative customers – Mac users buy around half of Adobe's Creative Suite products – but beyond that there are few joint interests.
I wanted to jot down some of our thoughts on Adobe's Flash products so that customers and critics may better understand why we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. Adobe has characterized our decision as being primarily business driven – they say we want to protect our App Store – but in reality it is based on technology issues. Adobe claims that we are a closed system, and that Flash is open, but in fact the opposite is true. Let me explain.
First, there's "Open".
Adobe's Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe's Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system.
Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript – all open standards. Apple's mobile devices all ship with high performance, low power implementations of these open standards. HTML5, the new web standard that has been adopted by Apple, Google and many others, lets web developers create advanced graphics, typography, animations and transitions without relying on third party browser plug-ins (like Flash). HTML5 is completely open and controlled by a standards committee, of which Apple is a member.
Apple even creates open standards for the web. For example, Apple began with a small open source project and created WebKit, a complete open-source HTML5 rendering engine that is the heart of the Safari web browser used in all our products. WebKit has been widely adopted. Google uses it for Android's browser, Palm uses it, Nokia uses it, and RIM (Blackberry) has announced they will use it too. Almost every smartphone web browser other than Microsoft's uses WebKit. By making its WebKit technology open, Apple has set the standard for mobile web browsers.
Second, there's the "full web".
Adobe has repeatedly said that Apple mobile devices cannot access "the full web" because 75% of video on the web is in Flash. What they don't say is that almost all this video is also available in a more modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones, iPods and iPads. YouTube, with an estimated 40% of the web's video, shines in an app bundled on all Apple mobile devices, with the iPad offering perhaps the best YouTube discovery and viewing experience ever. Add to this video from Vimeo, Netflix, Facebook, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ESPN, NPR, Time, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Sports Illustrated, People, National Geographic, and many, many others. iPhone, iPod and iPad users aren't missing much video.
Another Adobe claim is that Apple devices cannot play Flash games. This is true. Fortunately, there are over 50,000 games and entertainment titles on the App Store, and many of them are free. There are more games and entertainment titles available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any other platform in the world.
Third, there's reliability, security and performance.
Symantec recently highlighted Flash for having one of the worst security records in 2009. We also know first hand that Flash is the number one reason Macs crash. We have been working with Adobe to fix these problems, but they have persisted for several years now. We don't want to reduce the reliability and security of our iPhones, iPods and iPads by adding Flash.
In addition, Flash has not performed well on mobile devices. We have routinely asked Adobe to show us Flash performing well on a mobile device, any mobile device, for a few years now. We have never seen it. Adobe publicly said that Flash would ship on a smartphone in early 2009, then the second half of 2009, then the first half of 2010, and now they say the second half of 2010. We think it will eventually ship, but we're glad we didn't hold our breath. Who knows how it will perform?
Fourth, there's battery life.
To achieve long battery life when playing video, mobile devices must decode the video in hardware; decoding it in software uses too much power. Many of the chips used in modern mobile devices contain a decoder called H.264 – an industry standard that is used in every Blu-ray DVD player and has been adopted by Apple, Google (YouTube), Vimeo, Netflix and many other companies.
Although Flash has recently added support for H.264, the video on almost all Flash websites currently requires an older generation decoder that is not implemented in mobile chips and must be run in software. The difference is striking: on an iPhone, for example, H.264 videos play for up to 10 hours, while videos decoded in software play for less than 5 hours before the battery is fully drained.
When websites re-encode their videos using H.264, they can offer them without using Flash at all. They play perfectly in browsers like Apple's Safari and Google's Chrome without any plugins whatsoever, and look great on iPhones, iPods and iPads.
Fifth, there's Touch.
Flash was designed for PCs using mice, not for touch screens using fingers. For example, many Flash websites rely on "rollovers", which pop up menus or other elements when the mouse arrow hovers over a specific spot. Apple's revolutionary multi-touch interface doesn't use a mouse, and there is no concept of a rollover. Most Flash websites will need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices. If developers need to rewrite their Flash websites, why not use modern technologies like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript?
Even if iPhones, iPods and iPads ran Flash, it would not solve the problem that most Flash websites need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices.
Sixth, the most important reason.
Besides the fact that Flash is closed and proprietary, has major technical drawbacks, and doesn't support touch based devices, there is an even more important reason we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. We have discussed the downsides of using Flash to play video and interactive content from websites, but Adobe also wants developers to adopt Flash to create apps that run on our mobile devices.
We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers.
This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor's platforms.
Flash is a cross platform development tool. It is not Adobe's goal to help developers write the best iPhone, iPod and iPad apps. It is their goal to help developers write cross platform apps. And Adobe has been painfully slow to adopt enhancements to Apple's platforms. For example, although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X.
Our motivation is simple – we want to provide the most advanced and innovative platform to our developers, and we want them to stand directly on the shoulders of this platform and create the best apps the world has ever seen. We want to continually enhance the platform so developers can create even more amazing, powerful, fun and useful applications. Everyone wins – we sell more devices because we have the best apps, developers reach a wider and wider audience and customer base, and users are continually delighted by the best and broadest selection of apps on any platform.
Conclusions.
Flash was created during the PC era – for PCs and mice. Flash is a successful business for Adobe, and we can understand why they want to push it beyond PCs. But the mobile era is about low power devices, touch interfaces and open web standards – all areas where Flash falls short.
The avalanche of media outlets offering their content for Apple's mobile devices demonstrates that Flash is no longer necessary to watch video or consume any kind of web content. And the 200,000 apps on Apple's App Store proves that Flash isn't necessary for tens of thousands of developers to create graphically rich applications, including games.
New open standards created in the mobile era, such as HTML5, will win on mobile devices (and PCs too). Perhaps Adobe should focus more on creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind.
Steve Jobs
April, 2010
I wanted to jot down some of our thoughts on Adobe's Flash products so that customers and critics may better understand why we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. Adobe has characterized our decision as being primarily business driven – they say we want to protect our App Store – but in reality it is based on technology issues. Adobe claims that we are a closed system, and that Flash is open, but in fact the opposite is true. Let me explain.
First, there's "Open".
Adobe's Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe's Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system.
Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript – all open standards. Apple's mobile devices all ship with high performance, low power implementations of these open standards. HTML5, the new web standard that has been adopted by Apple, Google and many others, lets web developers create advanced graphics, typography, animations and transitions without relying on third party browser plug-ins (like Flash). HTML5 is completely open and controlled by a standards committee, of which Apple is a member.
Apple even creates open standards for the web. For example, Apple began with a small open source project and created WebKit, a complete open-source HTML5 rendering engine that is the heart of the Safari web browser used in all our products. WebKit has been widely adopted. Google uses it for Android's browser, Palm uses it, Nokia uses it, and RIM (Blackberry) has announced they will use it too. Almost every smartphone web browser other than Microsoft's uses WebKit. By making its WebKit technology open, Apple has set the standard for mobile web browsers.
Second, there's the "full web".
Adobe has repeatedly said that Apple mobile devices cannot access "the full web" because 75% of video on the web is in Flash. What they don't say is that almost all this video is also available in a more modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones, iPods and iPads. YouTube, with an estimated 40% of the web's video, shines in an app bundled on all Apple mobile devices, with the iPad offering perhaps the best YouTube discovery and viewing experience ever. Add to this video from Vimeo, Netflix, Facebook, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ESPN, NPR, Time, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Sports Illustrated, People, National Geographic, and many, many others. iPhone, iPod and iPad users aren't missing much video.
Another Adobe claim is that Apple devices cannot play Flash games. This is true. Fortunately, there are over 50,000 games and entertainment titles on the App Store, and many of them are free. There are more games and entertainment titles available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any other platform in the world.
Third, there's reliability, security and performance.
Symantec recently highlighted Flash for having one of the worst security records in 2009. We also know first hand that Flash is the number one reason Macs crash. We have been working with Adobe to fix these problems, but they have persisted for several years now. We don't want to reduce the reliability and security of our iPhones, iPods and iPads by adding Flash.
In addition, Flash has not performed well on mobile devices. We have routinely asked Adobe to show us Flash performing well on a mobile device, any mobile device, for a few years now. We have never seen it. Adobe publicly said that Flash would ship on a smartphone in early 2009, then the second half of 2009, then the first half of 2010, and now they say the second half of 2010. We think it will eventually ship, but we're glad we didn't hold our breath. Who knows how it will perform?
Fourth, there's battery life.
To achieve long battery life when playing video, mobile devices must decode the video in hardware; decoding it in software uses too much power. Many of the chips used in modern mobile devices contain a decoder called H.264 – an industry standard that is used in every Blu-ray DVD player and has been adopted by Apple, Google (YouTube), Vimeo, Netflix and many other companies.
Although Flash has recently added support for H.264, the video on almost all Flash websites currently requires an older generation decoder that is not implemented in mobile chips and must be run in software. The difference is striking: on an iPhone, for example, H.264 videos play for up to 10 hours, while videos decoded in software play for less than 5 hours before the battery is fully drained.
When websites re-encode their videos using H.264, they can offer them without using Flash at all. They play perfectly in browsers like Apple's Safari and Google's Chrome without any plugins whatsoever, and look great on iPhones, iPods and iPads.
Fifth, there's Touch.
Flash was designed for PCs using mice, not for touch screens using fingers. For example, many Flash websites rely on "rollovers", which pop up menus or other elements when the mouse arrow hovers over a specific spot. Apple's revolutionary multi-touch interface doesn't use a mouse, and there is no concept of a rollover. Most Flash websites will need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices. If developers need to rewrite their Flash websites, why not use modern technologies like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript?
Even if iPhones, iPods and iPads ran Flash, it would not solve the problem that most Flash websites need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices.
Sixth, the most important reason.
Besides the fact that Flash is closed and proprietary, has major technical drawbacks, and doesn't support touch based devices, there is an even more important reason we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. We have discussed the downsides of using Flash to play video and interactive content from websites, but Adobe also wants developers to adopt Flash to create apps that run on our mobile devices.
We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers.
This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor's platforms.
Flash is a cross platform development tool. It is not Adobe's goal to help developers write the best iPhone, iPod and iPad apps. It is their goal to help developers write cross platform apps. And Adobe has been painfully slow to adopt enhancements to Apple's platforms. For example, although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X.
Our motivation is simple – we want to provide the most advanced and innovative platform to our developers, and we want them to stand directly on the shoulders of this platform and create the best apps the world has ever seen. We want to continually enhance the platform so developers can create even more amazing, powerful, fun and useful applications. Everyone wins – we sell more devices because we have the best apps, developers reach a wider and wider audience and customer base, and users are continually delighted by the best and broadest selection of apps on any platform.
Conclusions.
Flash was created during the PC era – for PCs and mice. Flash is a successful business for Adobe, and we can understand why they want to push it beyond PCs. But the mobile era is about low power devices, touch interfaces and open web standards – all areas where Flash falls short.
The avalanche of media outlets offering their content for Apple's mobile devices demonstrates that Flash is no longer necessary to watch video or consume any kind of web content. And the 200,000 apps on Apple's App Store proves that Flash isn't necessary for tens of thousands of developers to create graphically rich applications, including games.
New open standards created in the mobile era, such as HTML5, will win on mobile devices (and PCs too). Perhaps Adobe should focus more on creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind.
Steve Jobs
April, 2010
Apple isn't trying to be open, Apple is trying to use the latest and greatest development libraries to provide the best user experience across all of its products.
In the end, websites will use whatever paradigm provides the best user experience to the widest audience. Right now that's Flash, but it is very quickly becoming HTML5. The money isn't being lost by Adobe or by Apple, it's being lost by websites and internet businesses that rely on web user experience to drive the sale of their products and services. When websites start to believe that they are losing money because a customer cannot see their Flash website, they'll change to a different format. It's just that simple.
Plenty of internet programming languages and development tools have risen into the spotlight and then vanished again in a fraction of the time that Adobe has had with Flash. If they don't provide an ever increasing ease of use with new technology (i.e. touch interfaces, hardware decoding) at the rate required and with the penetration necessary to encourage web business to keep using flash, then Adobe will lose out.
The battle isn't between Apple and Adobe, it's between competing standards for ubiquity.
I personally don't miss a thing about not having Flash on my iPhone. How many people really thought they were going to sit and watch a NetFlix movie on their iPhone, anyway? Sure I'd load it up if I had it, but I'm not crying because it's not there.
@Infinity Oh my god. Since when have you ever had full control over a device until android came along? Carriers, devlopers and manufacturers have always made tons of decisions for you.
And concerning android, the going may be good now but sooner or later the extremely rapid and unregulated growth of the app store on android is going to lead to executable viruses and huge software problems.
Ultimately there needs to be structure which, as opposed to some of apple's positions as I am, is best implemented by apple and is completely not present on android.
As for flash on iPhone, flash already sucks on pc and mac. I wouldn't trust it anywhere near my iPhone.
@DTJ
"If they dont let you navigate flash web sites on their magical and revolutionary devices, THEY BLEW IT"
Andy Rubin
@dswatson83
"Couldn't he just make flash optional...even disable it by default but give the user the option of installing? Bluetooth and wifi eat the battery much more than flash...we just disable it when not in use or live with less battery. Why does he allow those techs if he is so concerned about battery life"
That is the most brilliant rebuttal of this you can possibly have.
But it seems the argument from the parrots here is that you are too dumb to figure stuff like that out, and that Flash needs to be kept from you because it destroys machines (no evidence).
It is obscene how these robots, and PR re-printers at tech blogs, just let this guy slide on this because they dont want to dent his aura.
@Fatherfork h.264 is a proprietary kodec ...
@DTJ
I do agree with Steve, however I don't see the web adopting a video codec standard anytime soon. Why not support flash in the meantime?
@andrewlowson He didn't say that Steve said that, he said that Steve thinks that. Try reading it properly.
Anyways Apple is closed and uses open standards. I say Adobe is open but uses closed standards. Both are in the wrong so acting like a saint is quite sad.
@TheLondonExchange
HTML5 is not even a full standard yet! In fact if steve is worried about flash eating battery life due to the need for software rendering then what on earth is he going to do if HTML5 goes with Ogg rather than H.264? Google has just invested a lot of money in Ogg which only increases the chance of it trumping h.264 and making it into HTML5. As a web devloper I can also not envisage many sites going over to HTML5 anytime soon, even some large corporate sites are still using non-standard HTML4 specific to IE and there are still many people that have not upgraded from IE6! It will be a good few years before most content is available in HTML5 as this requires most users to have compatible browsers first.
@HotFuzz
"Me, I'd be happy to see Flash fade into obscurity"
I see what you did there.
@zeroinfinity2 if they support flash in the mean time it will never get replaced.
Dear Steve
Flash works just fine on my ancient sprint touch using skyfire.
You're an idiot.
@Infinity
No one is forcing you to buy an Apple product. It's not like they are hiding the fact that it can't do these things. They have every right to design their product to do as little or as much as they want and if your choose to spend your own money on that product that you are choosing to have those limitations. If you don't like it then choose not to spend your own money on that product.
@Fatherfork but then again i wouldn't call Apple "open" either, seeing as how they JUST allowed low level access to the GPU... Now GOOGLE... thats a whole other story. those guys are more open than a prostitute's legs =D
@Recoil42
You are absolutely right about H.264. In fact Firefox is holding out supporting it because of licensing issues.
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/01/video_freedom_a.html
As far as Adobe and its formats, yes they are available to the public, but that does not make it open. Microsoft's docx format is available, but that does not make it open either. In both these examples, the decision making authority lies with one company, who can and do change the format on a regular basis.
@Darkroom
One one is arguing that Apple is open. The web is the only concern here, which does not have anything to do with the App Store.
@Leozno1
I have never made one comment saying that Apple is open. On the contrary, I believe they are not.
@Fatherfork
*No one...
Engadget: We need an edit button so we don't look like fools.
@James Sonne Oh wow, it's moose out in the wild once again.
@dswatson83
I'd love to see Apple just do (or allow) that - let Adobe create Flash for iPhone, but make it an addon which users have to willingly download and install. This way typical users won't ever experience the apparent higher battery drain, but people that need Flash can install it.
But hey, it's Apple so I don't think that'd happen. Not that it bothers me as I wouldn't need Flash on my phone anyway.
@TheLondonExchange
In my case, it's just hypocrisy.
I like Apple, but I don't like many of their decisions and reasonings. This is just an example.
I don't like Flash, but RIGHT NOW, it's a necessity for browsing the internet.
@HotFuzz Personally, it's not that I'm a champion of Flash, but I am a champion of choice. He could make all this go away by just making Adobe furnish a client that doesn't impact battery life: If they can't do it then fine. Then there is soooo much less for people to complain about.
I enjoy my ASUS 1201N more than an iPad right now because I can stream podcasts and other media that haven't hopped onto this HTML5 bandwagon. If I want to watch a podcast on my iTouch I have to download & sync.
Plus, I'm sorry, but the company behind iTunes and Quicktime can't lecture me on the necessity of efficient change. It's hard not to see other motivations behind his stance.
@Infinity
Yes, they can, as you've chosen to buy that device. Freedom is only promised to us from an all powerful government, not from a company that we CHOOSE to associate ourselves with. There is a huge difference.
from @odin from another site
from another site :
That varied on making some good points to utter facepalm moments that make me think old Jobso is just out of touch with computing.
Take for example:
"Flash was designed for PCs using mice, not for touch screens using fingers. For example, many Flash websites rely on "rollovers", which pop up menus or other elements when the mouse arrow hovers over a specific spot."
"Even if iPhones, iPods and iPads ran Flash, it would not solve the problem that most Flash websites need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices."
This is the same ridiculous notion put forth a while ago by a "flash developer", this being a developer who uses flash and not an actual developer for flash. And quite frankly it's ludicrous nonsense. Any such workaround for issues such as this would be implemented in the god damn mobile flash player. The idea that existing content would have to be rewritten to account for this is frankly silly.
Take for example games ported to the iPhone like Sonic the Hedgehog. Most of these are just ROMs packaged with an emulation shell. Now when faced with the lack of buttons on the iPhone did Sega say "Oh no we'll have to reprogram every game we want to port! Woe is us"? No, they just added touchscreen buttons in the damn emulator.
Next Jobs will be saying that everyone will have to rewrite their websites for the iPad because it doesn't support right click.
Also its pretty laughable that Jobs can even begin to talk about openness considering the iPhone is one the most tightly controlled and locked down platforms out there. Flash may be proprietary but Adobe exhibits no controls over who can develop or release content using flash. Jobs made the same mistake that executive that was quoted not too long ago made. He's confusing closed source with a closed platform.
I don't know how Jobs can even talk about "openness" without shooting himself in the foot at every turn.
Finally his points on app development, my my where to begin here.
"If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features."
So basically he wants to avoid a situation that shouldn't happen if Apple is doing their job correctly? If developers become dependant on a third party then that illustrates that the first party is obviously not offering them what they need. In fact this is the best situation as it keeps all involved parties on their toes.
No Apple doesn't want this because it forces them to continually improve their own tools. Clearly this is a bad thing. So rather than actually sucking it up and making sure people use their tools because they are in fact the best they're just going to remove the competition instead.
Also:
"We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers."
Despite the fact its in their best interests to make those enhancements available. That's the thing about competition and what makes it so healthy. It's in every ones best interests to stay ahead of the game lest they be overtaken by the competition. Developers are not stupid, they'll pick whatever tool is best for the job. If one particular tool is too slow to keep up then it'll get abandoned.
And please throw away your mistaken preconceptions that this latest developer agreement just concerns flash. Whatever your thoughts on flash, love it/hate it/whatever it's not the only party that's relevant here. So if you have an anti-flash agenda, fine I couldn't care less. They're only one part of this so stop trying to pretend this is entirely justified because in the almighty words of Jobs "Adobe are poo poo heads".
"We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform."
This is quite funny considering a lot of the top apps (even those from big name companies) use third party tools and are anything but sub standard. Also funny is that some of the worst apps are written using Apples own tools. Jobs says this like it's a hard and fast universal rule. It's not.
The changes to the developer agreement were never intended to be about improving things for users and developers. No, it's just been about increasing Apples strangling grip of control on the platform.
In closing I'd like to go back to:
"If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features."
Which is pretty dangerous territory for Jobs to wander into considering this basically describes Apple and the iPhone. Developers are dependant on Apple adopting new features into the OS before they can take advantage of them. Multitasking is a prime example of this. It's a platform enhancement that can only now be taken advantage of because Apple are only choosing to adopt it now. And developers are dependant on Apple letting their app into the app store.
I will concede there is reasoning behind this (though the first person to tell me its because Apple is doing multitasking best will get a slap up the jacksie) but to use it as a criticism is just hypocritical.
@DTJ
You guys are putting your heads in the sand if you think the reason Flash isn't on the iPhone is battery life or openness. Flash would provide an alternative route for all sorts of applications you currently have to use the Ap Store to obtain. If it sucks battery life and causes products to crash, then let the consumer decide how to browse.
If it's so terrible, why does Safari support it on Macbooks? Last I checked those use batteries.
@htd
It's Apple's device not Adobe's and Apple does not want Adobe owning a core development platform for it especially since Flash is and has been the Typhoid Mary of the internet. Adobe needs to first fix its softwares before expecting others hardwares to open up to it
@brrip
You Apple haters are so predictable, hell, if someone told you that the sky was blue, then proved it to you, you'd still argue that it's not..
@Darkroom i like your lego block there heheheheh
@HotFuzz The only thing Apple is "taking a stand" on is not having Flash on the phone/pad. And it's simply because of the potential threat to the app market. If they were honest & said that, no (or perhaps less) problem.
To dress it up as a stand for open standards is utter crap.
@Fatherfork
Exactly right.
The author said "Man, that's some strong irony you're brewing, Steve," but he misses the point. The only closed proprietary tech in Apple devices is APPLE proprietary tech. They just don't want to use someone else's closed system. If the tech is external to Apple, they want to use open standards. If it's internal to Apple, they get to decide if it's open or closed. (Mini DisplayPort, firewire, etc... are open Apple standards.)
@Fatherfork
No bitching, No whining. Just straight to the point. Wheather you like Apple or not you have to give Job's and Co props.
@DTJ
Sounds like ol' Stevo is getting a little scared. He should be, because Flash is about to be available for Android and WebOS, and people with iPhones are going to renew the question as to why they can't have it too. Apple is about to get pwnt and Steve knows it.
@DTJ Appholes:
http://tv.gawker.com/5526868/jon-stewart-slams-apple-over-its-handling-of-gizmodo-case
@Fatherfork Why the videos on Apple.com are QuickTime then?
@Fatherfork
Ummm... FDT?
Or if you want open source how about the FLEX SDK to create an entirely flash site?
@HotFuzz While he does have a point about using open standards, people are in an uproar because it's so blatantly hypocritical. Apple's App Store which is arguably the backbone of the iPhone/iPod/iPad success is NOT at all open. Sure, they allowed Opera's browser into the app store, but only because they're a tiny company. Do you think we'll *ever* see a Firefox, Chrome, or even IE browser in the app store?
@Mikeserena
Do you have to be an Apple hater to disagree with Jobs about Flash?
The irony is dripping from this post.
1. You know what caused my PC to crash ... Quicktime. Safari never worked right. iTunes is slow piece of crap. Now, I don't have to use Quicktime (thank goodness everyone has moved away from that) or Safari BUT I am forced to used that craptastic iTunes. Absolutely awful app for the PC.
2. You may not like Flash but to bury your head in the sand and pretend that it isn't the major rich content delivery system on the web today is silly. Of course, you may not realize that since you can see all the content out there that is Flash ... Point is, I'll take slow performance any day over not having access to the content.
3. The fact remains, as others have pointed out, Apple is blocking Flash for one reason, and one reason only - the App store. Prove me wrong Steve. Either give users the ability to toggle Flash on or off on the mobile devices OR remove it from Safari on desktops/laptops. If it really is that buggy then why compromise the user experience on your other hardware? And last check, your Macbooks use a battery. Why it allow it there?
It's about the App store, pure and simple. If you can't see that then you have really drunk the Kool-Aid.
@Kit
They may play in Quicktime, but "Quicktime" is not a codec.
@Fatherfork H.264 isn't an open standard either. Apple's just not charging royalty for it right now.
@Fatherfork Here you go: http://www.laszlosystems.com/
You can make huge apps for Flash without ever touching the Flash authoring tools from Adobe.
Oh, let me help you get your foot out of your mouth there.
@Fatherfork
The SWF format is actually open, and the compiler is open source, apart from a few things with fonts and such. Anyone can make their own Flash Player if they want to. I think it's perceived as being more closed because it is a compiled format, but that improves performance
@sweet greggo
You mean the flash that Adobe promised you in early 2009, when will they deliver it wise one?
@Fatherfork Incorrect. SWF is an open format. Anyone can write stuff that creates SWF. Anyone can write a plugin or app or anything that reads SWFs and renders correctly. Adobe won't stop you.
Flash authoring IS proprietary, but that doesn't stop other people doing what they want with the SWF file format.
@ahow628
Read this: http://daringfireball.net/2010/03/gif_h264_patents
Some good points, but I'll be the first to say it's speculation. At this point, H.264 seems to be the lesser of the evils with the best "open" outlook.
@DTJ - what is this all about anyway? I am watching flash enabled websites on my NON jail broken iPhone right now! Ask me how?
@Dig Deep
The way they deal with "accepting" applications into the app store really is onerous to say the least, I don't know what's used to make iPhone OS apps but whatever it is, it can't be that hard with all the plainly ridiculous but popular apps out there.
@bjsguess
And you're a moron if you think it's the app store. Apple is making hardly any money off the app store compared to how much they make selling hardware. People have this deluded notion that the app store is some big money maker for Apple and they would go broke if they didn't have it. The first iphone didn't have the app store but yet Apple survived.
@Shaduu
Flash MX is SO different than Flash CS5. It's hard to see the difference if you use the timeline, but very, very easy if you use Actionscript 3, which is a great language. Pair it with FlashDevelop and it's awesome
@brrip
Superb. Your thoughtful refutation of Steve's points have doubtlessly changed everyone's opinions.
@Dig Deep Totally agree. XCode vs. Flex Builder is like George vs. Seinfeld.
@DTJ
Kettle, meet pot. Apple should not be preaching about closed systems.
@Darkroom Apple's website has feedback rollovers, not rollover drop-down menus. His point is that interactions like rollover drop-downs would never work on a touch interface.