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
@LAY
I don't really understand that comment. HTML and Javascript are very old technologies as well.
The one thing that I haven't seen anyone comment about is I think one of Adobe's greatest strengths. Browser and Platform independent.
I don't know about everyone else out there but I was getting sick and tired of tweaking javascript and HTML depending on what version of IE or Firefox I was using. Flash takes all of that away! You are able to write it once for all browsers. That is a huge advantage.
Also I here some people saying that Adobe really hasn't done anything innovative with Flash. What about the Flex SDK! AIR! Those two things are huge!
The new UI's and skinning capabilities in Flex 4 make it a lot easier to develop slick applications in Flex.
I think the main reason why Apple doesn't want flash on the iPhone is because he doesn't want Adobe's cross platform capabilities. He wants specific apps developed specifically for the iPhone and that's it. He wants developers to decided if they have the time/money to re-work their app on any other system. He wants to control EVERYTHING!
@LAY
Steve Jobs has pretty good track record for knowing when to ditch old tech and move on to new things. I would venture to say that five years from now, Flash won't be that important because of the new standards Jobs talks about. You'll always have those guys that hang on to the old tech longer than others, but eventually Flash loses because of Adobe's unwillingness to progress Flash.
@windywoo You missed the "not that I agree with him" part I guess. Also, my issue was with the dudes argument which has no bearing on whether or not Steve Jobs thinks he is smarter than everyone else.
@Liquidmark
Flash 10.1 has multitouch support
@xsacha God so much idiocy on this site, but your crap is horrible.
The team that works on webkit is made up of employees from a ton of different companies and they release a NIGHTLY build of new features, up to the minute of what is being worked on.
Commenters here are pathetic parroting morons with absolutely no knowledge beyond running a wow patcher. You should mostly all just shut up because you seem to collectively know and comprehend less than 1% of the actual topics at hand. And the people who do actually know something are being down ranked for not being a frothing at the mouth android walking billboard fanboy.
Jobs is just full of shit. We all know he only prevents Flash because Flash would eat into the market of crappy little waste-of-time games that are the very core of the Apple apps store.
Jobs isn't fooling anyone (except maybe the Apple cultists).
"I think the main reason why Apple doesn't want flash on the iPhone is because he doesn't want Adobe's cross platform capabilities. He wants specific apps developed specifically for the iPhone and that's it. He wants developers to decided if they have the time/money to re-work their app on any other system. He wants to control EVERYTHING!"
Interesting perspective. This would certainly explain a lot if the new terms for iPhone developers does end up locking out development tools like Unity, which support other mobile platforms like Android. This would be an incredibly low move by Apple if it turns out to be the case, but it's certainly a plausible scenario. Force developers to choose between the device everyone wants or try chasing the niche devices and beg for scraps.
@Liquidmark http://lmgtfy.com/?q=flash+multitouch
@Tsing Tao
Other companies send patches but Apple maintains it and accepts patches they choose. The review process is very similar to the Appstore.
I actually know what I am talking about and was a KHTML developer.
Anyway, whether you believe that or not: the fact is they ONLY have opensource projects where it was essentially required for them to do so. Their modifications to existing opensource programs require them to opensource their modifications. Basically, they have never chosen to be open in any way whatsoever.
Please stop with your mindless defence of Apple.
"Flash was created during the PC era – for PCs and mice"
You could make the same argument for the internet itself. Remember when Apple was bragging about you being able to surf the real internet (not the mobile one) on the iPhone? Seems like the focus has changed to "repackage the internet into little apps we can make you pay $1 each for."
@greenmonkey
His argument is flash doesn't work on touch devices (it doesn't, I agree) and he suggests instead of reworking flash to "work", something that has a history of causing problems (especially on Apple products) why not use HTML5, CSS3, and Javascript ... something that anybody can learn and use without having to buy into a program.
Anybody is welcome to create a game and play it via the Safari Browser - some people have and those games can be played without even having to download anything. So the idea Apple only wants you to pay money is nonsense.
@vonchambers
Flash works fine on devices, it's just that stuff targeted to KB/Mouse doesn't work. It even supports multitouch. The problem lies in that users will just expect it to work, then blame Apple, when it's really up to the Flash developer to make it work.
@greenmonkey I keep seeing the argument "Apple want you to buy apps, that's the only reason to do anything!" but it's bullshit, frankly. They readily accept free apps (there are tens of thousands of them).
Now, if you were to say "Apple wants you to be reliant on apps so you don't migrate away from their platform." you might actually have a point.
@vonchambers he isn't "suggesting" anything, he is mandating it.
If he was suggesting it this wouldn't even be an issue. Flash haters could block Flash and everyone else could view it normally just like they do on desktops right now.
@vonchambers
"So the idea Apple only wants you to pay money is nonsense. "
Really? The thought of a company wanting your money is nonsense?
Jeez, how much did the iPad cost to make compared to it's sale price? It's almost double.
Basically, Apple is calling Adobe incompetent and lazy. Yet, they come out with a flash update 6 days after the Mac update.
Why not use HTML5? Because it isn't the same. Jobs will tell you they are but they're not. Flash isn't perfect but is more functional than HTML5 and is much more common. Why ban the use (even banning developer use)? Give me that option. I'd bet 99% of buyers would pick flash over not having it. (same goes for adding a freaking camera)
If you guys think you can completely overhaul internet content, then good luck with that. I don't love flash but it's here and it's everywhere. How can you have the best web browsing experience when most of your content will be blocked? Work with Adobe -- they aren't as stupid as Jobs thinks they are.
@greenmonkey A lot of the anti-Apple arguments regarding flash that I read run along the lines of "Apple blocks flash so that they can sell you apps in their app store instead of letting you use free apps on the web."
1) Apple promoted html+javascript web apps from the launch of the iPhone.
2) Apple makes no sizable profits from the App Store, they run it at basically break even according to their official statements during quarterly earnings calls.
So Apple does not block flash to line their pockets, they block flash to take control of the quality of their platform.
I personally think that they take too much control. I think that they will eventually be forced to open things up a bit as antitrust issues bite them in the rear.
@vonchambers On the other hand, Apple bans software from the iPhone solely because they weren't originally written in Objective C, even if they have no compatibility or performance issues at all.
So they are not exactly the advocates of free and open multiplatform software development tools...
@strikethree The app developer has the choice of how much their App costs or doesn't cost - Apple is only there to approve the App. So you can make the greatest App and sell it for 12.99 or give it away for free. The App store offers numerous apps for free - just take a look in the store.
Profits from the App store are very small compared to what they make off Hardware sales. Apple doesn't make much of it's money from software.
@strikethree Im an HVAC contractor but this holds true for about any contractor. When I do a job my material is about half of what I charge. Does that mean I'm greedy? What about my labor and overhead? Don't my employees deserve a good wage, office, shop, work vehicle ex…
Jeez, how much did the iPad cost to make compared to it's sale price? It's almost double.
Plus if you don't like it's price now just wait three yrs and you'll be able to get one cheep.
@vonchambers
the only reason is, that Apple wants absolute control over their platform and anything that's written for.
Most of his arguments are not really true. The performance point for example: It's true that lots of flash-content may not work well on a mobile platform. But this is only because it wasn't meant to run on such underpowered devices. If you try to produce something similar with another technology (Java script or (the not even half finished "Standard" HTML5)) you'll notice that it will not perform well too.
For example the iPad with their "great" A4 Processor is not usable for browsing script intensive Web 2.0 sites, because it's too lame.
And their touch UI paradigm often don't work for those scripted sites either.
I would say it's Apple's work to adjust their touch UI in a way, that everything is usable. And for their thousands of apps: Most of them are only needed, because the iPhone is not able to serve the full web. This is perfectly ok for a phone and it's little screen.
But the iPad is for web use just underpowered. It should be able to bring the full web. Today i tried to find an old PC which equals the javascript performance of the iPad, but even my old Pentium3 with 800Mhz, 256MB Ram, Win XP and Opera 10.5 was more than twice as fast in sunspider....
Thats his way of saying "we are childish and we are going to win this argument even though everyone that owns our product just wants flash"
I wish both sides would just shut the eff up. Adobe is being somewhat childish, and Steve Jobs is just being a dick telling people how they want to use computers.
The man does make some valid points.
@DTJ
I am not a Apple fan but I agree that he does have some good points. I kind of wish they would just make it an option in the browser like HTC does with Flash Lite. Then people can decide for themselves' to use it or not. I just don't see how that hurts the product but giving the consumer a choice doesn't seem like the Apple thing to do these days though.
@blindguymcsqueezy
although people deciding for themselves would work well for geeks who know what they are doing and know the issues, for everyone else (probably 90%) all they would see is the crap batterylife and blame it on apple .. and therefore they loose because noone want a phone that only lasts half a day.
@Darkroom
So go ahead and debate them. All I'm hearing here is "Apple isn't open either!" which has nothing to do with the truth of his argument.
@t2af
if you turn bluetooth or wifi on all day your battery will crap out too. I don't see anyone complaining and telling Jobs to take bluetooth away. Just about everyone has figured out how to disable it. Why is flash the only battery hog he doesn't allow. Be consistent
@dswatson83
funny cause i've had loads of people who complain about this very problem. You assume a lot of the average person, when lots of people don't even know the app store exists.
@dswatson83
Indeed; enable Flash playback in the OS, but give me a toggle in system preferences that I can turn off if I wish.
I understand Job's insistance on quality control, I see his point on battery performance- but I really would rather have the choice myself as to whether I view flash or not.
@DTJ Valid points? This is what it sounds like to me:
1. It's not open. "While Apple's products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Apple and available only from Apple. By almost any definition, the iPhone/iPod/iPad are a closed system." - See what I did there?
2. The "full web." "Umm... *nervous looks* Hey, look over there, App store!"
3. Reliability, security and performance. "If we gave better, more direct hardware access to Adobe's developers so they could write better hardware accelerated code for Flash it might run just fine! But we won't."
4. Battery life. "If we ran flash our battery life would be no better than the HP Slate! Can't have that now can we?"
5. Touch. "Touch won't work well with maybe 3-5% of what Flash is used for, so we can't include any of it."
6. The most important reason. "You have to use Adobe software to develop Flash content!. Not at all like our iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad SDK which is only available for Macs and is required for software development for those systems. Well... ours is free anyway, if you don't consider buying a Mac to do development work part of the cost. Because hey, you probably already have one anyway, and if not, you should go buy one!"
If you search hard enough you can find any number of reasons to, or not to do something. It really seems to me like Steve's grasping at straws because he personally just doesn't care for Flash.
Yeah ... Apple still does not feel the heat of Flash on mobile phone, because NONE so far made a decent solution.
Wait until Flash 10.1 with full hardware accelerated is implemented on the upcoming Android 2.2 :)
Then people will see that they want one on their mobile platform.
Not long, it will be announced next month, May 19 - 20 on Google IO.
@ewlung
This is acknowledged in the letter.
Downranked cause you clearly didn't bother to read it.
“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.”
@ewlung
n900? i thought it was implemented quite well. more than decent if you ask me.
I got to "Adobe claims that we are a closed system, and that Flash is open, but in fact the opposite is true" In steves PR letter... realized what an immense tool he is... and gave up.
>
@TheChaosEngine
But he's correct. You're effectively saying “I can't handle the truth”.
@(Unverified) He isn't right, Apple is not an open system, Adobe isn't either, but that isn't my issue here. My issue is his trying to contrast apple against adobe and slam them for operating under the same pretenses. They are both closed systems, they are both platforms that developers are free to utilize. Jobs spouts off more and more propaganda to his followers...
@TheChaosEngine
if you read the press release, he never said apple was open. i think what you are having difficulty understanding is,:- adobe is closed, uses closed standards; apple is closed ,but uses open standards. developers can use which ever closed standard they want,
@TheChaosEngine
"... Apple is not an open system, Adobe isn't either, but that isn't my issue here. My issue is his trying to contrast apple against adobe and slam them for operating under the same pretenses."
Yet Apple's closed system doesn't affect the whole web. It only affects their own devices.
"Jobs spouts off more and more propaganda to his followers..."
Funny, but up until now I've seen propaganda only from Adobe and their supporters. Except the "lazy" stuff this is the first time Jobs makes a statement about this and frankly I can't qualify it as propaganda.
I personally agree with Steve.
@LCDBox
Until I read his letter, I just thought Apple was being incredibly stubborn on this... but I've been swayed. I think his points were well made. Apple has every right to do what they think will give their users the best possible experience on the devices they produce, since those experiences will reflect on their reputation and affect further sales of their devices. Given their success, I think they're right on this.
And until now I never thought I'd say that. Logic seems to have prevailed.
It's about time Apple told their story on this. They've been taking a kicking for far too long and some of it is unjustified.
@(Unverified)
I agree. It seems a lot of people want Flash simply to have flash, to hell with the consequences. Then they'll blame Apple because Safari crashed on their iPhone.
@DTJ The consequences should be up to the user to handle. You install it, you deal with it.
@polter
That's not reality. You install it, Apple tech support deals with the consequences. And it degrades the entire user experience. Even Apple tech support saying "Sorry, you enabled flash, that's why your phone is crashing" degrades the perception of the stability of the platform, and takes time and staff.
@DTJ
"I agree. It seems a lot of people want Flash simply to have flash, to hell with the consequences. Then they'll blame Apple because Safari crashed on their iPhone."
Oh I'm sure it isnt because they actually want to use it. Noooooo.
They need to be told what is good for them. They simply aren't capable of making a decision as an adult.
"to hell with the consequences"?
Such an absurd line of thought. If you folks cant handle the big bad internet as it is, then dont use it, and dont force your narrow vision of it on us because "stevo" told you that was the right way.
If flash is that bad, then it will die eventually, why not let the market decide instead of Steve Jobs deciding for everyone?
@spawn782
The market is deciding. Notice the long list of websites that now offer h.264 video. They do this because they don't want to miss out on the massive audience of iPhone, iPod, iPad owners.
@DTJ
true, but that doesn't mean that ipad / ipod users don't want the option. To me thats as if a web developer says he is not going to support Internet Explorer because he thinks its crappy.
@spawn782
Any web developer worth his salt will NOT support Internet Explorer. He will support the HTML standard, which will render perfectly in ANY well-designed web browser.
@spawn782 Web developers HAVE done that. Remember back in the 90's when some web sites would "recommend" specific browsers.