Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Steve Jobs Publishes Some "Thoughts On Flash"

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the what's-under-that-turtleneck dept.

Iphone 944

teh31337one writes "Steve Jobs just posted an open letter of sorts explaining Apple's position on Flash, going back to his company's long history with Adobe and expounding upon six main points of why he thinks Flash is wrong for mobile devices. HTML5 naturally comes up, along with a few reasons you might not expect. He concludes in saying that 'Flash was created during the PC era — for PCs and mice.'" Tacky that his first point is that Flash is proprietary, when Apple restricts the apps that can be installed on the phone. Pot, meet kettle.

cancel ×

944 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

proprietary and apple (5, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#32030576)

Tacky that his first point is that Flash is proprietary, when Apple restricts the apps that can be installed on the phone. Pot, meet kettle.

Exactly, and the software/iPhone is not only proprietary, but actually restricted too. It's even worse than just proprietary software.

- Open source: Nobody restricts where you can install the application, and you get the source code too -- the best situation.
- Proprierary software: You dont get the source code, but nobody is restricting where or if you can install it, as long as its freeware or you have paid for it.
- Apple: Not only will you not get the source code and in most cases you have to pay for it, Apple is in total control what applications the user is allowed to install. They dont even give you the option to decide yourself.

If you want to sell your software in App Store, you are not allowed to redistribute the source code or your app outside of it.

While certainly true, making a comment about Flash being proprietary is just hypocrisy and at the same time hilarious from Steve Jobs and Apple.

Re:proprietary and apple (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#32030824)

- Open source: Nobody restricts where you can install the application, and you get the source code too -- the best situation.

You either need a new level of "open source" here or some RMS style ranting to really understand what I assume you mean when you say "open source." A lot of this is specific to the license, of course, but just to scratch the surface of what some people expect:

  • You are free to fork the code at anytime and run with it so long as it remains open source.
  • The direction of the code and feature set has at least some amount of community influence. I'm not saying you're required to implement it but if someone hacks together a new encoding for Flash video and everyone in the community is using it, it's your responsibility to at least investigate merging the decoder into the trunk. This is regulated by the function of my first point.
  • Whatever open source code you release cannot ever be proprietary. No backsies.

Again, these are just a few caveats to consider. If you don't consider the above then (by your definition) the Flex SDK is actually open source [adobe.com] and Steve Jobs would be wrong in saying that Flash isn't open source. Of course, Job's veil of concern is that the standards are not community driven and Adobe holds that in a tight grip. A valid concern but when something is truly "open" (like in my second point) then you can either try to convince Adobe or (as in my first point) just say "screw 'em" and run with your own implementation of the standard and ask the members of the community to come with you.

Re:proprietary and apple (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031390)

His comment on Open Source was perfectly valid.

Free Software is another definition altogether (as given by RMS). Both however meet the criteria of not restricting where you can install the software and giving you the source code.

Re:proprietary and apple (3, Insightful)

skelterjohn (1389343) | more than 4 years ago | (#32030856)

How is this hypocritical? Jobs makes no assertion one way or another about how Adobe should handle licensing flash to developers. He's just saying "If you want to see something in my store, it may not be flash." You may think it's a bad idea, but bad-in-your-opinion and hypocritical are two different concepts.

Re:proprietary and apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32031048)

Hypocrisy is the act of persistently professing beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that are inconsistent with one's actions.

Re:proprietary and apple (5, Insightful)

MBCook (132727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031234)

But he's not denying Flash apps in the app store because they're not open while being closed himself. That would be hypocritical.

The real reason is the last one he gives: stuff made through Flash is made to the lowest common denominator between mobile platforms. That's why people want to use Flash to write things: multiple platforms. They'll have to wait for Flash to support newNeatFeatureX before they can use it, and Steve doesn't want that.

The other points (like openness) are there to rebut Adobe's "We're open, everywhere, and necessary" argument. They're not open the way HTML/JS/CSS is. Remember you can make anything you want for the iPhone, no matter how pornographic, if you make it via the web. It's only applications that get restricted. The web is open to anything.

Re:proprietary and apple (3, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031442)

He is protesting that Flash is pushing a closed standard when he is the biggest pusher of closed standards on the planet.

All of his multitudes of apps are by definition "closed".

So are the vast majority of the media he pushes in his store.

While it is true that he recently recanted on music, there's still a lot of legacy music out there
that is trapped in DRM and is essentially being held hostage. Sure, Apple customers can cough over
a ransom but they really shouldn't have to.

Adding DRM to an open standard makes it a closed standard.

Steve's binary standards are under his thumb. That's kind of the whole point of him trying to ban
any sort of intermediate programming layer. He's not content to trap customers on his devices, he
also wants to make sure that programmers are too.

Programmers are a little more unwieldy in this respect.

Re:proprietary and apple (4, Insightful)

sqlrob (173498) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031268)

- Proprierary software: You dont get the source code, but nobody is restricting where or if you can install it, as long as its freeware or you have paid for it.

Ubisoft would like a word with you

Obligatory Reference to Tuesday November 30, 2004 (1, Funny)

conner_bw (120497) | more than 4 years ago | (#32030586)

In Korea, Flash is only for old people...

How many times do I have to tell you (0, Offtopic)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32030626)

Steve Jobs just posted an open letter of sorts

That facebook page that keeps friend requesting you is not the real Steve Jobs.

He Is Quick to Forgive Apple, Of Course (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#32030654)

First off, the original press release is strangely hidden behind a div below the paraphrase of the press release -- why not press release and then commentary? A minor gripe but reading them in the order they presented them, I got the feeling I was being told what to think about what Jobs said prior to reading what it actually was that he said. Then there's always the fear that the reader doesn't bother with the actual press release.

Tacky that his first point is that Flash is proprietary, when Apple restricts the apps that can be installed on the phone. Pot, meet kettle.

And of course, he knows this. Which is why he spends one paragraph railing against Adobe and the next paragraph justifying Apple as distinctively different products and then even another paragraph praising Apple for their WebKit work. From the original press release:

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.

Of course, he spends more time and words making sure that Apple's version of proprietary is justified while they have even been a leader in open web standards.

My opinion, if you care to hear it, is that it's really easy to jump on someone for not being open when it's not your bread and butter that's at stake. I don't like Adobe and I don't like Apple but what I see here is Adobe scrambling to maintain control and authority over Flash because they perceive (possibly correctly) that to be their lifeline in a turbulent marketplace. Essentially I feel like Jobs said "Adobe's not open and we're not open in our core business but there are auxiliary/complimentary efforts we've been instrumental with that are actually open." While he completely overlooks similar "good will" efforts by Adobe to release the source code of the Flex 3 SDK [wikipedia.org] (I don't find it to be truly open source [adobe.com] like they market it though). And he's being disingenuous towards his users in order to make more money which requires reduced functionality of his device. He's a businessman. They are known to not only make decisions like this but their stockholders often require it with threat of litigation.

Re:He Is Quick to Forgive Apple, Of Course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32030872)

And of course, he knows [that Apple restricts the apps that can be installed on the phone]. Which is why he spends one paragraph railing against Adobe and the next paragraph justifying Apple as distinctively different products ...

So he's a hypocrite, but at least he knows he's a hypocrite. How lovely.

Re:He Is Quick to Forgive Apple, Of Course (2, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32030984)

So if Apple embraces an open web, how come I can't run anything but Safari and Opera on the iPhone?

I don't know..... If it didn't say "Steve Jobs" at the top, I might think I was reading a letter written by Bill Gates. Or the GM CEO. ("We paid back the money loaned to us by taxpayers," except they really didn't.) Typical double-speak. I think Steve would have been better off just saying, "It uses too much battery power," and been done with it.

Uh oh.
Here come the Church of Apple monks.
There goes my karma.

Re:He Is Quick to Forgive Apple, Of Course (5, Insightful)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031108)

Steve Jobs aknowledges that he of course the Mac OS X platform is totally proprietary, but he then raises his concerns about the fact that he believes that the WORLD WIDE WEB should ALWAYS be OPEN.

And Steve Jobs completely nailed it:
"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."

Kaboom!

Signed,
-Fedora user that buys AMD hardware to support AMD's new FLOSS and non-NDA-restrcited freely available documentation for everyone to be able to write a fully working driver for Radeon hardware

Re:He Is Quick to Forgive Apple, Of Course (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031242)

>>>he believes that the WORLD WIDE WEB should ALWAYS be OPEN.

So how come I can't run Firefox or seaMonkey on the iPhone?

Re:He Is Quick to Forgive Apple, Of Course (3, Informative)

bsane (148894) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031362)

So how come I can't run Firefox or seaMonkey on the iPhone?

"Last year, Mozilla claimed it was “too hard” to develop for the iPhone, claiming Apple placed too many restrictions on the user interface. Instead, Mozilla looks set to continue focusing its development effort on rival platforms."

From:
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/357601/no-firefox-for-iphone-despite-opera-s-success [pcpro.co.uk]

Re:He Is Quick to Forgive Apple, Of Course (4, Insightful)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031402)

Because those things aren't the web, those are browsers which are tools used to access the web. Get the difference? In Jobs' view, a company should be able to sell whatever software/hardware they want to access the web, BUT, those things should access the web in an open way. It's a nuanced position, but it's not hypocritical in any way. To use a car analogy, Ford can put whatever proprietary parts they want in their cars and void your warranty if you the owner put anything but Ford-approved parts into the vehicle*, but the gas it runs on and "the interface" that the car uses to the outside world (i.e., the road) should be accessible to anyone driving any type of car and not rely on a single manufacturer.

* By the way, car manufacturers actually do this, there's an issue with Toyota FJ cruisers developing cracks in their bumpers that Toyota is claiming is due to the modifications for 4-wheeling that the people who are reporting this issue have put in their vehicles and thus won't honor the warranty.

Re:He Is Quick to Forgive Apple, Of Course (4, Insightful)

macshome (818789) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031432)

Because those are applications to browse the web with and not the web.

Re:He Is Quick to Forgive Apple, Of Course (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32031224)

Have you checked the AppStore? Just search 'browser' and more than Opera appears.

PERFECT Browser 3
Atomic web Browser
Full Browser
BOLT - IE Browser
Mercury Web Browser Pro
iCab Mobile
Full Screen Web Browser
Journey Web Browser
Privately - Web Browser
Alternate Web Browser

There's more

You can search on iTunes if you don't have an Apple device to verify this.

Re:He Is Quick to Forgive Apple, Of Course (2, Informative)

dunkelfalke (91624) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031322)

Which are nothing more than different GUI for WebKit.
And Opera Mini isn't a web browser at all.

Re:He Is Quick to Forgive Apple, Of Course (5, Insightful)

TheNumberless (650099) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031280)

Jobs' argument is poorly stated. But I do see a difference here:

One is devices that all view the same open web. Apple pisses you off for not letting your run your browser of choice on the iPhone? You can buy any other phone and get to exactly the same content. This approach puts the power in the market, and it's what Jobs appears to be, advocating, in a half-assed, self interested way, of course. And if I want to buy a locked down phone? That's my business, not yours.

The other is devices that view a web where the good bits are all controlled by Adobe. Now suppose Adobe pisses you off for not including some feature, or performing poorly on your device of choice. Your option here is basically to conform to Adobe's wishes or do without the content they lock up.

Basically, I'm okay with Apple doing what they want as long as I have the option of not buying or using their products (disclaimer: I currently own an iPhone. They haven't crossed my personal line yet). I don't really have that option with Adobe, although it's getting a lot better lately.

Re:He Is Quick to Forgive Apple, Of Course (5, Insightful)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031084)

My opinion, if you care to hear it, is that it's really easy to jump on someone for not being open when it's not your bread and butter that's at stake. I don't like Adobe and I don't like Apple but what I see here is Adobe scrambling to maintain control and authority over Flash because they perceive (possibly correctly) that to be their lifeline in a turbulent marketplace

Probably at the urging of the biggest users of flash - advertisers. For everyone wanting flash - I dare you to disable all addons that block flash - including NoScript, AdblockPlus, FlashBlock and others. You'll find that a good majority of pages will have some flash ad or other on it, and sites that require flash like YouTube, Vimeo, HomeStarRunner and the like are the narrow minority of sites.

You'll probably turn flash blockers on again after a few minutes of browsing. Now imagine that on your phone, except you've got a processor that's a third as fast (since the Nexus 1 and iPad have Ghz CPUs), and which is probably spending more time rendering the flash than rendering the page.

I've got devices that have full Flash. Let's just say having the page stop rendering so I can view the ad in real time isn't exactly the best browsing experience I've had. Or even worse, videos that still drop frames (on my Nokia N810), or one site that consumed so much CPU time, it was effectively locked up trying to play a video (1 frame every 30 seconds, 2 seconds of audio every 30 seconds, UI unresponsive). Easiest way to back out of that was remove the battery, losing other data (yay multitasking).

Adobe's probably getting pressure from advertisers. Surprisingly, Adobe hasn't fast-tracked a Flash player for the more open platforms out there - 3 years of griping about Flash on the iPhone, and they don't have anything for Android.

Live Free or Die (of AIDS) (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32030668)

The HTC Incredible for Verizon Wireless was released today. I'll be picking one up this weekend. If you care about freedom and don't need turtle neck wearing fascists controlling your phone, I suggest you choose Android over iPhoney.

Personally, I just need a phone I can program without buying an overpriced Mac and getting AIDS from Steve Jobs.

Re:Live Free or Die (of AIDS) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32030906)

I hope you get your phone and proceed to crawl under a rock before someone else tries to give you an STD. Hope it's not too late.

On second thought, I think we should all stay away from you.

Re:Live Free or Die (of AIDS) (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031006)

I hope you get your phone and proceed to crawl under a rock before someone else tries to give you an STD.

There's no worries there. To potentially get a STD one actually has to have the potential to have sex. The GP will never have such potential.

Re:Live Free or Die (of AIDS) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32030980)

Personally, I just need a phone I can program

Don't you mean "scripting"? Java is nothing but a kiddy scripting language, nubtard.

Flash More Open? (1)

iamnafets (828439) | more than 4 years ago | (#32030674)

I'm throwing this to the wolves, but isn't flash MORE open than the app store given the POSSIBILITY of reverse engineering?

Re:Flash More Open? (4, Insightful)

MBCook (132727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32030752)

Flash is a standard. There are projects that try to implement it (like gnash, if I've got the name right). But the problem is that's just like Wine or ReactOS: you're always chasing the pack leader. When Flash 11 comes out with neatNewFeatureX, you have to scramble to try to implement it and make it work well while many people see broken content. And since it may have taken Adobe with all their engineers 3+ years to make that feature perform well, as someone making an alternate implementation, you're going to be quite behind.

Re:Flash More Open? (3, Interesting)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 4 years ago | (#32030882)

Not to mention that you know iPhone will always lag waaaayy behind the desktop versions of Flash.

Meanwhile, hackers will make Flash on iPhone the preferred target just for bragging rights.

Flash is a CPU hog on *any* platform, it has to either go on a diet or go away.

PS:Can't wait for the annoying HTML5 ads to replace the annoying Flash ads. Is a HTML5-blocker add-ons in the works?

Re:Flash More Open? (3, Insightful)

bickerdyke (670000) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031330)

A browser with HTML-Blocker???

Whoosh! (4, Insightful)

Akido37 (1473009) | more than 4 years ago | (#32030700)

Tacky that his first point is that Flash is proprietary, when Apple restricts the apps that can be installed on the phone. Pot, meet kettle.

That's kind of the whole point. Jobs admits that Apple has a closed system, when Adobe is claiming theirs is open. When he talks about open, he's referring to HTML5/CSS/JavaScript, which you DO NOT need to submit to the app store.

Re:Whoosh! (3, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#32030808)

Exactly, hes using the HTML5 argument against one portion of the Flash discussion, while completely ignoring the other half of said discussion - Flash native apps versus Cocoa native apps. Proprietary vs proprietary.

His point about Flash sites being built for hover overs, which isn't supported on touch capable devices, is also a bit strange since a lot of JavaScript requires hover overs as well - don't see him take issue with that, do we?

Re:Whoosh! (5, Insightful)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031204)

He doesn't ignore that argument at all. He makes it very clear that they are rejecting flash applications because they don't want it to become a primary way of developing applications. If it *did* become a primary way of developing applications, apple would add features to the iPhone, and no one would use them, because adobe hadn't yet got round to adding support to flash. They don't want that situation.

Re:Whoosh! (1)

DIplomatic (1759914) | more than 4 years ago | (#32030838)

Tacky that his first point is that Flash is proprietary, when Apple restricts the apps that can be installed on the phone. Pot, meet kettle.

That's kind of the whole point. Jobs admits that Apple has a closed system, when Adobe is claiming theirs is open. When he talks about open, he's referring to HTML5/CSS/JavaScript, which you DO NOT need to submit to the app store.

That's not why the OP called him tacky. Consider a vegetarian giving many reasons for not wanting to eat a cheeseburger, like "it's too greasy" or "it comes with the wrong kind of cheese" or "the chef burned the meat". Those reasons are silly because a vegetarian is not going to eat meat!

Re:Whoosh! (1, Interesting)

Touvan (868256) | more than 4 years ago | (#32030918)

Did you catch his ridiculous shift there? He said Flash Player is closed (didn't mention swf format, or open screen project), then he switched to talking about "open standards" - platform on one hand, standard on the other.

Swf standard vs HTML standard - there are important differences, including one being engineered entirely by one company, and the other engineered by a group of companies. But they are both well defined standards.

To compare a runtime to a standard is simply boneheaded.

Re:Whoosh! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32031028)

When he talks about open, he's referring to HTML5/CSS/JavaScript, which you DO NOT need to submit to the app store.

Which is nice, but the reason you don't need to submit them to the app store is because THEY AREN'T APPS. They're webpages. Which is sort of stating the obvious, but you lose out on quite a few things by being limited to HTML5.

The biggest one being that rather than being an icon on the "home" screen, you're a bookmark in the web browser. Users first have to open Safari, and then have to open your webapp, which is tedious and annoying.

You also lose out on minor things like access to the accelerometers, access to 3D, access to the vibration feature, access to the sound device (so no recording or playback except what HTML5 offers), and so on.

If you want to create a Flash-like webapp for the iPhone, you're back into closed, proprietary features. To implement touch, you have to throw those lovely HTML5 standards out the window and implement proprietary Apple extensions. So, yes, it's the pot calling the kettle black.

Re:Whoosh! (4, Informative)

Wingsy (761354) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031370)

"The biggest one being that rather than being an icon on the "home" screen, you're a bookmark in the web browser. Users first have to open Safari, and then have to open your webapp, which is tedious and annoying."

Then what are these icons on my iPhone home screen that open bookmarks with just a touch?

You can make any website or URL a home screen icon by pressing the "+" button while viewing the page.

Re:Whoosh! (2, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031030)

Just for reference, the AppStore restrictions have nothing to do with 'proprietary'.

If you don't know the difference between proprietary and closed system you shouldn't be commenting.

The AppStore and everything on it could be entirely open source and still have the same approval process.

Likewise, you could have the anarchy of the Android store with totally proprietary applications.

People need to actually learn the words they are speaking or writing before writing them.

CmdrTaco clearly doesn't know the meaning of either of the words judging by his little jab.

Re:Whoosh! (4, Insightful)

Darth Snowshoe (1434515) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031138)

NO, nearly everybody in this thread is, again, missing the point. Steve had six, 6, different points or items or arguments he brought up. EVERYONE here wants to rail about openness. I get it, we all get it already. That argument would be the same whether iPad supported flash or not. But what about security, performance, reliability? No one here has anything to say about that, and I'll take that as tacitly agreeing that Steve is right on those issues. Likewise, what about the HW vs SW argument? It's easy for code developers, some of whom I'm guessing have invested a fair about of time and training in becoming adept at flash, to just wave their arms and say "battery life is somebody else's problem". Well, yes, the hardware manufacturer's, for one. Here is a hardware manufacturer's response. Etc. Maybe you could just post an open thread each day in which people could gripe about the App store and its closed system, instead of allowing every thread about Apple to devolve into that.

Re:Whoosh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32031182)

Tacky that his first point is that Flash is proprietary, when Apple restricts the apps that can be installed on the phone. Pot, meet kettle.

That's kind of the whole point. Jobs admits that Apple has a closed system, when Adobe is claiming theirs is open. When he talks about open, he's referring to HTML5/CSS/JavaScript, which you DO NOT need to submit to the app store.

h.264 is not open which kind of ruins his whole point. His vision of HTML5 is NOT OPEN.

Ok... (1)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 4 years ago | (#32030706)

And what's he going to do if someone gets a bug up their ass and turns gnash [gnu.org] into a standalone player/app for the iphone? Will he still be using the "proprietary" card then? The way I see it, the only open part of the iPhone itself is the compiler...

Re:Ok... (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 4 years ago | (#32030826)

It is an interpreter platform, so it wouldn't be allowed any more than Java, Perl etc.

Re:Ok... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32030844)

I don't think there's much risk of that, seeing as how gnash is useless.

Justifying the real reasons (1, Troll)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#32030748)

Of course you're going to get a bunch of corporate doublespeak out of Jobs, attempting to disguise base corporate greed under some sort of philosophical cover. But we all know that Flash apps would cut into Apple's bottom line, and it all comes down to that.

Steve doesn't like competition. Steve does like money. And Steve calls the shots.

Re:Justifying the real reasons (2, Funny)

conner_bw (120497) | more than 4 years ago | (#32030930)

I like money. We should totally hang out.

Re:Justifying the real reasons (1)

sribe (304414) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031236)

But we all know that Flash apps would cut into Apple's bottom line...

We do? I don't know that! In fact, I think it's false. Please enlighten us, explain how Flash would take revenue away from Apple.

Re:Justifying the real reasons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32031346)

Maybe the real reason is that Flash enables viewing porn videos in the browser. He's restricting flash For The Children. I know it's silly, but it makes about as much sense as the official reasons he gave.

Open web, not open computing (1, Informative)

laurensv (601085) | more than 4 years ago | (#32030754)

"Tacky that his first point is that Flash is proprietary, when Apple restricts the apps that can be installed on the phone. Pot, meet kettle."
A bit unfair in the resume as Steve Jobs does address this point in the letter:
"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. "
I, for one, do see the point of that and it has been mentioned here before that from the start iPhone, iPod touch en iPad web browser are not restricted.
This follows the same logic I see with Google. Keep the internet as unrestricted as possible and that open pltform will bring the best things for the most users.

Re:Open web, not open computing (1, Insightful)

Joe U (443617) | more than 4 years ago | (#32030898)

So, we'll get a full version of Opera for the iPhone any day now?
(Not Opera Mini, mini is a hybrid browser)

Re:Open web, not open computing (2, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031338)

So, we'll get a full version of Opera for the iPhone any day now?

Opera is an application that can view the Web, not the Web itself. Jobs actually has a very good point. Being able to view a video or read a page should not be dependent upon if you are using a phone, desktop, game console, or any other device, and the only way we can do that is adherence to open and interoperable standards on the Web. If Apple is using it's closed and popular phone to push that agenda, I say, "FUCK YEAH!". I don't have to buy an iPhone, but I do have to use the Web. He can keep the iPhone as locked down as he wants so long as he supports open standards and does not have monopoly influence on the market.

hypocrite (1, Flamebait)

coniferous (1058330) | more than 4 years ago | (#32030802)

This whole thing is riddled with hypocrisies. I mean, Steve is being a real douche here.. Even more then usual.

If they want to promote open standards, they should try not to look so fucking two-faced about it.

Re:hypocrite (1)

skelterjohn (1389343) | more than 4 years ago | (#32030914)

An open standard is not the same thing as an open app store.

(insert random invectives here)

Re:hypocrite (1)

gabereiser (1662967) | more than 4 years ago | (#32030920)

i completely agree. While I love my iPhone and I own a MacBook, I know Apple's "platform" is completely closed. You can't call your platform "open" and have to review everything that gets submitted for "quality assurance". That's not open, that's a closed system. Adobe's Flash may be proprietary but at least there are open source options to generate flash content. Until Apple has an open source option to build apps for the iPhone and iPad, I'm sorry to say but Steve, your completely wrong. While I don't want thousands of crappy flash apps on my phone or iPad, I still would like to option to have them if I so choose. The first thing my daughter did when she played with my iPad was visit Nitrome.com..... ....completely flash. Needless to say, she said "This iPad sucks!"

What's the saying about hypocrisy? (4, Interesting)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 4 years ago | (#32030814)

Turtleneck calling the kettle black?

My choice? It's Nokia. At least they have a happy medium of openness, functionality, and usability. Yes, they have Flash.

Re:What's the saying about hypocrisy? (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031366)

Nokia owns Qt and is keeping it open, so I'll give them that. But they rigorously enforce a bunch of software patents and fought to keep open codec standards out of HTML5.

so what about Java? (3, Insightful)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#32030822)

Java is open and proven in the mobile space and Apple (or anyone) could ensure the JVM used is up to date and allows the use of any new features or hardware.

I think apple mmeans they only want you to do it their way and preferably you do it their way on a mac when developing.

Re:so what about Java? (5, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031194)

Java is open and proven in the mobile space and Apple (or anyone) could ensure the JVM used is up to date and allows the use of any new features or hardware.

It breaks the security model. Right now someone writes malware for the iPhone, Apple finds out, revokes the keys and the malware goes away except on phones it managed to jailbreak. It stops spreading and we move on. If Java apps are allowed in the JVM then, Apple has to revoke all Java apps and they all stop working the first time someone writes a Java-based malware.

Now take the same concern and apply it to multitasking etc. and add in the fact that every time Apple adds a feature they have to update the JVM to work with it as well as their normal APIs. Apple does not want to go back to maintaining their own fork of the JVM like they used to do for the desktop.

The actual letter (2, Informative)

mgrivich (1015787) | more than 4 years ago | (#32030886)

Re:The actual letter (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32030942)

And for those who care about the original source, it's right here on Apple's website [apple.com] .

Both Engadget and CNET are too afraid of sending precious ad clickers away from their site to link to the original of course.

Re:The actual letter (1, Interesting)

owlnation (858981) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031296)

Thank you. Please mod parent informative.

The actual letter is more useful. The endagadget article is a troll -- hardly surprising considering the 4G iphone theft.

Personally, I don't care what Jobs reasons for standing up to Flash are, the net result is good for everyone. Flash is not user-oriented. It's a top-down technology. It has needed to die for a decade. Adobe are not actually to blame here really, they didn't develop Flash after all, Macromedia did -- Adobe just bought them.

And considering the mess that Google has just made over the YouTube redesign (virtually unusable now with Firefox on a Mac) -- the sooner Flash dies the better for everyone using the Internet.

iAd (1, Troll)

LBArrettAnderson (655246) | more than 4 years ago | (#32030890)

The real reason?

It competes with iAd.

Typical (-1, Troll)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 4 years ago | (#32030904)

Jobs is whining about flash because Apple didn't invent it. That's all. He's right about its license, its old technology, it will be gone in, I dunno, 10 years or so, but its no reason to whine about it. Just deal with it. People still use flash today, just put it in already ya lil b*tch Jobs.

Re:Typical (3, Insightful)

Anonymusing (1450747) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031222)

Except, of course, he praises HTML5, which Apple also didn't invent.

Steve Jobs is a Troll. (1, Interesting)

dskzero (960168) | more than 4 years ago | (#32030926)

Not only is he spitting out a bunch of ridiculous arguments, he's also trying to force his way into the hands of the users. Wake up Jobs, no one wants a PC without a fucking keyboard and a fucking mouse. Your iPad is cool, and that's about it: we all know it's not powerful enough to do anything interesting, so you're not going to sell that besides that tactic. No need to lecture people about how bad is Flash: we already know, and the people who might care about it simply aren't really buying your magic tablet.

Keep your niche public with hipsters and old women and let the rest of the world enjoy technology at its own pace. Geez.

Future Announcement: Adobe Creative Suite 6 (5, Funny)

RevWaldo (1186281) | more than 4 years ago | (#32030932)

Adobe CS 6 - Now available for Windows 7, Linux...and that's it.

We said that's it! What, what!!?

.

Re:Future Announcement: Adobe Creative Suite 6 (5, Funny)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031238)

Adobe CS 6 - Now available for Windows 7, Linux...and that's it. In other news Shantanu Narayen is fired from Adobe as sales tank now that over half the install base can't get the new version of CS without buying a new computer. What a bone head eh Debrah... now on to the weather.

Re:Future Announcement: Adobe Creative Suite 6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32031422)

I thought you could upgrade from Leopard to Windows 7 anyway. No new hardware required, just some software that is much cheaper than CS anyway.

Re:Future Announcement: Adobe Creative Suite 6 (3, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031406)

Avatar's effects were all done on Linux. I believe WETA uses Linux exclusively for effects.

If Creative Suite moved over, a lot of audio/video/effects professionals would move to Linux. I read an article about how sound engineers are moving over to Linux because of the RT kernel.

It's the 80's again (0)

Bullfish (858648) | more than 4 years ago | (#32030966)

Apple could have ruled the home PC market, but back in the 80's they made it such a pain in the ass to deal with them and make programs for the mac that they inadvertently strangled third party development. Android is not to iphone standards yet, it isn't, but it continuously gets closer and in many ways gets better. Apple wants to be a home entertainment company... okay... but take a lesson from game console manufacturers, third party software is life

Re:It's the 80's again (4, Informative)

sribe (304414) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031308)

...but back in the 80's they made it such a pain in the ass to deal with them and make programs for the mac...

Funny, unlike most people here, I was actually alive and developing software back in the 80s. The tools sure weren't as good and I would never want to go back. But the level of support and attention from Apple DTS back then was just phenomenal--I do miss dealing with the smaller Apple where a tiny company with a tiny product could deal directly with engineers and nearly always get next-day answers.

On the other hand, these days, there's far fewer questions that aren't answered by the documentation ;-)

Re:It's the 80's again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32031378)

That's why Microsoft is all about "Developers, developers, developers!" and why they keep the same bloody APIs for sooooooo lloooooooooong. Once you write something for WIndows, it basically is guaranteed to continue to function for a long time.

Apple has changed their development toolkit a bunch of times..

http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/documentation/Carbon/Conceptual/Carbon64BitGuide/PortingTo64Bit/PortingTo64Bit.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40004381-CH3-SW2

"Because most Carbon UI functions are not available to 64-bit applications, you have two possible development paths. You can continue modernizing and improving your Carbon UI with the expectation that your application will remain a 32-bit application for the foreseeable future."

H.264 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32030972)

Um, H.264 is proprietary, isn't it?

Re:H.264 (3, Funny)

Joe U (443617) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031052)

To be fair, he didn't outright say H.264 was an open standard. He just lumped it in and said it was super awesome and gives 10+ hours of battery life and unlimited rice pudding.

Tacky... point... flash is proprietary (5, Insightful)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 4 years ago | (#32030988)

When Jobs uses "proprietary" he means "not mine."

Proprietary (2, Insightful)

cyp43r (945301) | more than 4 years ago | (#32030990)

I can understand his stance - he doesnt want to use proprietary technology that isn't his. It's not a random hatred of proprietry (pretty sure I'm misusing that) it's stemming from the ideology that made the App Store so closed in the first place.

Tacky (4, Insightful)

qoncept (599709) | more than 4 years ago | (#32030992)

What is really tacky is all the whining about the lack of Flash on Apple devices. The people calling for it are undoubtedly the same people who were bitching about what an awful piece of garbage Flash is right up until they found out they couldn't get it on their iPhones. At a time where there are alternatives and better options are right around the corner, no less.

Mercy mercy!! (3, Insightful)

burris (122191) | more than 4 years ago | (#32030994)

"We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers."

Yet, it is just fine with Steve Jobs if every iDeveloper is at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when their enhancements will be made available to their customers.

Tacky? (1)

Slash.Poop (1088395) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031056)

It is not "tacky". The word you wanted was "hypocritical".

Like SMS? (1, Flamebait)

Mekkah (1651935) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031086)

I don't care if HE doesn't think it's the right product. I want it, and everyone uses it. Make it work dick, you said similar shit about text/pic messages. Thanks for making me wait to send pic's for years.

Hypocritical cross-platform support story (3, Informative)

Ichoran (106539) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031094)

As someone who routinely writes in Java (or JVM-targeting languages) because it will run anywhere, it is hard to read Jobs' criticism that Adobe has been too slow with Flash support for OS X with a straight face.

Apple's track record with Java--from having 1.6 appear years late, to dropping 32 bit support, to insisting on packaging it themselves--seems to strongly indicate that they have to be dragged kicking and screaming to cross-platform compatibility.

Notice that Apple's only making a fuss now that Adobe is stepping up its support. That'll teach anyone to try to make their cross-platform tools work better with Apple's products, won't it!

Strange.. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32031102)

And the really strange thing, when I visit http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/ I'm prompted that the site wants to install and run some strange, closed plugin called 'QuickTime' from 'Apple computer' in order to properly display the content.... Hmm...

Let me guess..... (2, Funny)

bickerdyke (670000) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031116)

Steve Joby proclaims that Flash is only for porn?

Summary is incorrect (0, Troll)

inpher (1788434) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031146)

Tacky that his first point is that Flash is proprietary, when Apple restricts the apps that can be installed on the phone. Pot, meet kettle.

In fact any user can install standalone apps that does not come from the Mothership (a.k.a. App Store). iPhone OS supports localstorage and offline mode for HTML5/JS applications that can have their own space on the home screen and works without any browser.

Re:Summary is incorrect (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031404)

In fact any user can install standalone apps that does not come from the Mothership (a.k.a. App Store). iPhone OS supports localstorage and offline mode for HTML5/JS applications that can have their own space on the home screen and works without any browser.

Too bad HTML5 and Javascript are, you know, MARKUP and SCRIPTING languages, not PROGRAMMING languages.

There is no such thing as an HTML5 application or a Javascript application.

Bad coding (1)

waltew (764415) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031150)

Flash is just a big pile of bad coding. Make it awesome like h264 and I'll happily continue to use it. Otherwise, put it to rest already.

"Flash is the number one reason Macs crash..." (5, Insightful)

sribe (304414) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031184)

Gee, do you think maybe that was a big part of it? Yes, there's plenty of other reasons for him to not want Flash on iPhone and iPad. But if Flash on the Mac were a decent-quality product, I suspect Adobe might have at least had a prayer of convincing him. But when their current product is the single largest source of instability, why on earth would Jobs let a mobile version anywhere near his pet project?

I know that some people here will jump all over his assertion, and accuse him of lying. But let me tell you, I think it's true.

I'm a heavy web user, and around Safari 3 I started to really get fed up with how crash-prone Safari was. Always crashing when I had many windows and tabs open. Everything else on my system extremely stable. Only Safari crashing. For crying out loud, the 3rd major version, and they still couldn't make it stable? Ridiculous!

I started actually looking at the crash reports. Dozens of crashes, probably close to 100. And every single one of them was in the Flash plug-in. Not a single exception, not a single crash not in the Flash plug-in.

Now, how many users would read a crash report and discover that Flash is the problem? And how many would just assume that Safari is buggy and blame Apple?

That's why I knew with 99% certainty before the iPad was announced that there would be no Flash for it. To be blunt, it would have been irresponsible to let Flash near the iPad or iPhone until Adobe proves enough commitment and competence to get it working well on OS X, where it has access to vastly more resources in a far more forgiving environment.

Re:"Flash is the number one reason Macs crash..." (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031318)

I wish I had mod points - please consider this +1 Insightful.

Slashdot, too, is dead (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32031186)

Slashdot was created in the PC Era and is primarily a PC site. Let it die.

http://arstechnica.com

HTML5 isn't quite there yet... (1, Troll)

IpSo_ (21711) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031258)

When Flash is mentioned people (especially on here) first think of annoying advertisements, video, or games. These may be the most "in your face" implementations of Flash, but the fact of the matter is that Flash is used for MANY other purposes that people may not notice as much, which HTML5 simply cannot touch at all right now.

Nice *interactive* financial graphs on Google, Yahoo, etc, are extremely common, and while there are many HTML5 graphing examples out there, few are interactive at all, and even less are usefully interactive. (dragging to zoom, highlighting, drill-down, etc...)

Flash is also great for writing entire web-based business class applications in, just one example is Google's entire analytics site, it uses Flash extensively, so much so it doesn't work without it.

HTML5 and its related tools still have a *long* way to go to catch up... Flash will be with us for quite a while yet.

More BS from Apple (1)

billy8988 (1049032) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031270)

1. It's not open - So are iPhone, iPad, iPod. Users can't develop and deploy custom software without "Approval"
2. The "full" web - Yup. Without the flash support, users miss out full web experience.
3. Reliability, Security & Performance - What you say may be true, but let the users decide whether to enable flash on the devices or not.
4. Battery Life - Same as above.
5. Touch - More BS from you. If the flash is not user friendly on your devices, its site owners' problem. Let them opt for HTML5, don't force them.
6. The most important reason - Yes we get it. People will bypass your app store and depend on third party apps. So, stop BSing, just tell us that it will hurt Apple's bottom line that's why you are not supporting flash.

yeah well... (4, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031274)

...sticking HTML5 and wanting to use standards like it is all fine and well, but there is an assload more Flash content than HTML5 content out there right now. Why not support both HTML5 AND flash?

HTML5 may be the future, but Flash is still what is in use today.

Flash apps don't go through Apple approval (1, Interesting)

TwineLogic (1679802) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031310)

I remember the battle between Sony's higher-bandwidth Beta-Max standard and the rival standard, VHS. Sony took the position that it would not allow the publishers of adult films to sell their product on Beta tapes. In other words, all "naughty" films for home viewing were on the lower-quality VHS standard.

The VHS format used a larger, heavier tape to encode less bandwidth and therefore lower video quality.

Some of you may recall the VHS won this format battle. Many contemporary observers assigned causality to Sony's choice of censorship in the medium they controlled. Soon, we will observe the same scenario played out again: Apple's iPad with software to control content, or Google's Android on tablets and a more anarchy-oriented medium?

Javascript as alternative? (1)

Ossifer (703813) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031312)

From TFPR: "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?"

Really, Steve? Javascript... modern ?!

Flash performance on devices (3, Interesting)

gaspyy (514539) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031336)

This has caught my eye:
"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."

Well, according so some benchmarks, Flash actually performs better than HTML5 on Android [visualrinse.com] .

Open (1)

Stooshie (993666) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031376)

Flash is open. Anyone is allowed to create swf files using whatever method they choose. They can write their own compiler if they wish.

I'm still not getting this 'buggy' claim (1)

TravTrav (1236742) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031380)

I don't use a mac all the time, but on the other hand, I can't think of a single instance in which Flash caused my browser or the machine to crash. Somebody else posted that they've looked at crash reports in Safari and discovered that they were all from flash plugin which may be true, but I've certainly never had that experience on a mac, and absolutely not on a pc. If that is the case, then how is that solely the fault of Flash plugin, when flash plugin works perfectly fine on other macs? When you take into account the recent change on their App store developers agreement, the hypocrisy in this press release reaches a staggering new level.

The OS **is** a Third Party Dependency (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32031414)

It's a good thing the iStuffs don't allow Flash, mainly due to his first point. It's anti-freedom, but the the whole platform is based on that, so getting one more little app/library doesn't wouldn't help much. And if the iStuff marketshare encourages web content providers to move away from Flash, then we all win, whether we use iStuff or not.

There's still a lot of bullshit in his points, though. One thing I'd like to go after is this, because I think it touches on something deep that people are really divided on, although they might not realize it.

"If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools..[whatever whatever]

And here's my assertion: Apple, you are a third party. Growing dependent on the iStuff's OS is already enough of a problem that adding more problems like it, doesn't make the situation worse.

"Wait, if they're the third, and the user is the first, who is the second?" Mu. I don't give a fuck. There is no second party. ;-)

"Bullshit. Apple is the second party." No they're not. The escape from getting fucked over by proprietary lockin is that second parties are no longer allowed to exist. It's the users-vs-the-world and don't try to tell me there's someone else on the user's side or a useful intermediary. I know better. I think a lot of us know better.

I know a lot of people will disagree with that. That's why you're running Apple or Microsoft products. You see the neutral device and the hostile OS as a single unified solution, and since it happens to work pretty well (in Apple's case), there's no big problem. So you haven't been assraped yet, huh? Ok, but some day you will, and you'll come crawling to Free Software. And after that day, when someone like Jobs rationalizes why it's for your own good that you not be given enough freedom, you'll be laughing at the absurdity with the rest of us.

The definition of irony... (1)

Schnoogs (1087081) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031430)

Steve jobs criticizing another company/technology for being "closed". HAHA!!!

Everyone knows the real reason Steve Jobs is against flash...it would kill the whole idea of an app store. with flash developers can circumvent having to get apple's approval, etc. their apps would be freely available to anyone. This is so transparent and obvious it makes me laugh that jobs thinks he's fooling anyone. He's gotten arrogant and thinks that we're all drunk off the kool aid and will buy his every word.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>