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!

Is Apple's Attack On Flash Really About Video?

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the makes-a-lot-of-sense dept.

Media 595

jamiegau writes "Here we have a long and in-depth blog post analyzing the faults in Steve Jobs's Letter about Flash. The writer concludes with an interesting idea that it is all about online video."

cancel ×

595 comments

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

Games too (5, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098192)

It also makes sense with Flash games. Apple has tons of games it sells in the market place. If people could just play free Flash games (and there would be a lot more of them created), Apple wouldn't get so much $$$$$.

I know someone comes to say that most Flash games require mouse and keyboard, but that doesn't make any sense. Obviously the games would be created specially for iPhone and iPad. Just like theres such Flash games for Wii [wiiplayable.com] .

Re:Games too (3, Insightful)

drachenstern (160456) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098250)

I think the primary complaint (at least for me) for most flash games is the on hover effect. How do you replicate that with a touch interface? Now we have all sorts of wild gestures, so it reduces the simplicity.

If you can resolve that, I might reconsider my personal stance.

Re:Games too (4, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098314)

I think the primary complaint (at least for me) for most flash games is the on hover effect. How do you replicate that with a touch interface? Now we have all sorts of wild gestures, so it reduces the simplicity.

So Apple hasn't already solved this for the billion or so webpages that use hover effects? That must suck.

Re:Games too (2, Insightful)

SoupIsGoodFood_42 (521389) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098412)

Doesn't seem to be a problem for most sites I encounter. Any decent web dev should be developing sites that still work without hover, the same way they should work as much as possible without CSS or JS.

Re:Games too (2, Insightful)

Jaxim (858185) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098698)

There are many HTML/JS only sites that do not work for these new touch devices because the developers are still stuck in the mouse click/hover mindset. Same holds true for Flash sites/games. Like HTML/JS developers, Flash Developers also need to be mindful to ensure that their creations work on these new touch devices. Developers need to make tweeks to existing code. There shouldn't be a need to rewrite a site/game from scratch just because one individual deems it so.

Re:Games too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098318)

why is it flash's responsibility to deal with apples non standard bullshit?

Re:Games too (2, Insightful)

medcalf (68293) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098482)

Why is it Apple's job to modify their platform to accommodate Flash?

Platform vendors are under no obligation to build a platform that works just like all other platforms so that a particular software vendor doesn't have to rework something that makes money for them (the software vendor). If Adobe can't build Flash to fit within the constraints of the device, then too bad.

You as a consumer can decide to not buy the platform if it doesn't run the applications you want, of course. And if enough people agree with you, I am willing to bet that the platform vendor would either accommodate the application, or be rendered irrelevant in the market.

Re:Games too (5, Insightful)

siloko (1133863) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098858)

If Adobe can't build Flash to fit within the constraints of the device, then too bad.

Given the constraints aren't technical but political then the chances that Flash could jump through the requisite hoops are zero.

Re:Games too (4, Insightful)

ray-auch (454705) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098868)

> If Adobe can't build Flash to fit within the constraints of the device, then too bad.

They can and they have - at least the technical constraints.

Legal constraints are the issue - Apple have banned any other programming languages like flash from the platform. Adobe were working round that with a pre-processor / converter but Apple have changed the licence to demand that all apps be written directly in Apple-approved programming languages - no pre-processors allowed.

Emacs for iPhone - not allowed (before). Now, if you even use Bison / Yacc or anything similar to create your app, it's not allowed.

Re:Games too (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098884)

But Adobe did find a way to make Flash work on Apple's devices - they added the ability to export Flash as native iPhone code.

Apple responded by changing their rules to require all iPhone apps to be orginally developed with Apple tools.

That's not about the constraints of the device - that's about artificial constraints created for business reasons.

Re:Games too (2, Insightful)

twistedsymphony (956982) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098932)

It's apple's job to accommodate Flash in so far as they want their platform to support the features and functionality that their consumers are sold and expecting from the platform.

Why should apple support HTML or Javascript? or JPGs or any other form of web-media... they support it because it gives their product additional functionality that is desirable to their consumers and expected from the type of product they're selling. It doesn't matter if Flash is the biggest bloated POS closed source platform on the planet... customers want it, and expect it to be supported. And that means Apple should have an interest in making it work and work well with their device. That doesn't mean Adobe shouldn't have a similar interest. but an open Dear John to Adobe from Jobs hardly makes up for the fact that their product still lacks that ability.

Would you have accepted as much if things were reversed and the iPhone supported flash but no-name company would not... how well do you think sales would be going for the iPhones competitor?

With serious competition from Google and HTC Apple doesn't have as strong of a foothold in being able to bully around 3rd parties as they once did.

Re:Games too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32099006)

Adobe has mentioned enough times that Apple did not LET them use acceleration APIs for video.

http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplayer/articles/fplayer10.1_hardware_acceleration_02.html

See the part where MacOS X does not expose required APIs (despite letting QuickTime use them).

Re:Games too (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098346)

It really wouldn't be that hard (from an interface standpoint) to modify/create flash games that are designed specifically for a touch interface.

Take a game series like Diablo, or Torchlight. Different gestures could be used as a shortcut for different things (such as switching weapon configs, hotkeys for different spells, etc), or you could just make the interface conducive to two-handing it (one hand for movement and fighting/magic, the other for interface manipulation)

Obviously, there are certain genres that just plain wouldn't work, but hack n slash, RPGs, tower defense games, strategy games...there are a lot of genres that would work quite well with an all-touch interface.

Re:Games too (5, Interesting)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098276)

Not sure why you got modded down...games are a huge part of why Apple won't allow it. Places like Newgrounds, Kongregate, etc...they would be filled with games that worked on the iPad and iPhone, yet would be free...meaning Apple wouldn't get their cut.

They don't want you gardening outside of their walls, especially if the plants are "given" to you for nothing. They can claim security and stability (which are valid points), but it all comes down to money.

Re:Games too (3, Insightful)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098316)

This argument fails because Apple makes barely any profit on the App market itself.

They make all of their profit on selling the Devices themselves.

Re:Games too (4, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098392)

This argument fails because Apple makes barely any profit on the App market itself.

To paraphrase Dr. Seuss (and subsequently send him spinning in his grave), a profit is a profit no matter how small.

Re:Games too (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098508)

It can still come with large opportunity costs.

Re:Games too (2, Interesting)

medcalf (68293) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098876)

Hardly. In order for a company to stay in business, they have to make enough profit to invest back into their business to create new products. I mean, look at all the stuff Apple has done that is new and innovative, particularly in the last five years. It takes a lot of money to do that, particularly since for every successful concept that you sink billions into developing, there are dozens of other concepts that you also sink money into but that fail. For a business, unless you are providing a commodity, a small profit margin may as well be a loss.

I can buy a lot of arguments about what Apple is doing being bad for consumers, though consumers don't seem to mind. I can buy a lot of arguments about what Apple is doing being bad for developers, though developers still seem to be developing for the platform. But I don't see the meagre profits from the app store, or from video rentals, or similar low-margin operations (possibly, in fact probably, including their music sales) as being reasonable; they strike me as ignorant of how businesses think. Yes, it's all about money with Apple (and every other successful corporation), but for Apple, the money is in the device sales.

Let me expand that a bit. Apple sells digital music because an easy source of high-quality music that requires little thought to access leads to more sales of music which leads to more sales of music players, which Apple manufactures and gets a high margin on. If Apple could sell enough more music players to pay for the costs of hosting the songs just by giving away the songs, they would probably do it. The problem is that if the songs are all free, then Apple's costs go up (both hosting/bandwidth costs and the costs of royalties to the music companies) astronomically, so it's probably not possible to make more profit on music players from giving away music than from selling it at a nominal cost. If Apple could make more money giving away videos than selling them, they probably would for the same reason. And so on.

So why does Apple so tightly control the app store? Why is it that they want to ensure that apps are not crashing, or even worse crashing the device? Why is it that they want to ensure that applications are not poor performers, or that they don't drain the battery of the device? Why were they so long in allowing multi-tasking, and even then only allowing it in very restricted contexts? Quite simply, if apps for the platform were to do these things, then the ordinary, unsophisticated user would blame the platform rather than the software vendor for the crashes and performance problems they experience. This already happens on PCs: Microsoft gets blamed for badly written third party device drivers, poor third party software and the like. And if users start seeing the platform as poorly performing and underpowered and crash-prone, Apple would sell fewer of those devices and would make less money.

And honestly, this has been borne out by many platforms. Quick, name successful tablets with high volume sales. As far as I can tell, that's just Apple. Quick, name successful smart phone vendors with high volume sales. Discounting Microsoft (though this may change with Windows Phone 7), Nokia, and Palm, all of which are flailing about and unable to adapt to the current market, there are basically Apple and RIM (which both tightly control their platforms) and Google (which doesn't). But note that Apple and RIM are hardware vendors, and Google is a software vendor: they have different priorities. We will see which philosophy is preferred by users, but my long-term bet is that Apple and RIM will survive, and any other smart phone vendors will be basically niche market vendors at best.

So I can't really blame Apple for a lot of the decisions they've made, even the ones I disagree with. They are just trying to represent the interests of their shareholders by making a profit, which is their job after all.

Re:Games too (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32099004)

To paraphrase Dr. Seuss (and subsequently send him spinning in his grave), a profit is a profit no matter how small.

And that's exactly why Adobe wants Flash on the iPhone. That and keeping their stranglehold on developers.

Re:Games too (1)

jaymz666 (34050) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098466)

The lock-in to the app market makes the devices harder to move away from.

Re:Games too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098982)

The lock-in to the app market makes the devices harder to move away from.

Mod parent up!

This is the exact reason why I haven't bought a single Apple product. I have been struggling to justify why I don't wish to download iTunes (I use WinAmp), why I don't like to have an iPod (I have a couple of Sansa MP3 players with built in radio, listen to music on my BlackBerry), why i don't have an iPhone (use a BlackBerry), why not a Mac desktop (use dumb PCs running Ubuntu, Open Office and Firefox), why not buy an iMac (use a Dell laptop with dual boot - XP and Ubuntu).

This one sentence explains exactly why I steer clear of Apple products. I do not wish to be painted into a corner and forced to use, what currently seems to be, a user friendly, but expensive, product.

I can walk away from any of my products - not miss them. I can rebuild them - cheaply - with newer, relatively open, hardware and software. The only chink in my armour is the BlackBerry. What to do? The rest of new phones are too new for me to try them.

Re:Games too (2, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098488)

Barely any profit? They get 30% from all the sales. All of it free no-work money, because developers make them and take the risks.

In top of that the App Stores enable them to sell developer licenses ($99/year) and Apple computers, because every developer has to use Apple tools. Even if you have no interest in a Mac, you have to get them to yourself or your developers anyway.

Re:Games too (1)

dc29A (636871) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098752)

Yes barely. [lmgtfy.com]

Re:Games too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098602)

Wrong, having a nice paid app ecosystem benefits them as well..

Re:Games too (1)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098788)

Of course it does, but they aren't making the profit directly from the 30% cut they take.

Re:Games too (4, Insightful)

Skuld-Chan (302449) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098710)

So why not sell the apps without a cut?

http://gorumors.com/crunchies/how-much-money-does-apple-make-from-app-store/ [gorumors.com] - suggests they make anywhere between 240-440 million dollars a year off the app store. Vs. Zero if people just played games on Flash websites.

Many app-store games are former flash website games too...

Re:Games too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098794)

This argument fails because Apple makes barely any profit on the App market itself.

They make all of their profit on selling the Devices themselves.

And I guess you would know that by reading the open books Apple keeps on their finances. Don't be ridiculous.

Re:Games too (1)

everynerd (1252610) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098866)

The apps are the main selling point of the devices. Selling devices produces profit. Ever heard the catch-phrase "there's an app for that"?

Re:Games too (1)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098898)

Posters on slashdot seem to suffer immensely from amnesia.

The OP said

yet would be free...meaning Apple wouldn't get their cut.

My retort is Apple does not make that much from "their cut."

Yes of course the App store is a huge selling point of the iDevices, but the 30% that Apple is getting from them is mostly covering the cost to provide those apps in the first place and to provide the development environment.

Re:Games too (1, Troll)

dc29A (636871) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098416)

He got modded down because he is clueless. Apple App Store was never intended to be profitable [appleinsider.com] . That said, the high markup on iDevices makes up for it. Yes there are a huge number of games on App Store but its there to fuel the iDevice sales so that people won't have any incentives to switch to Android or WM7 (when it's out). Apple can say: Hey! We got 200k Apps! Buy our iDevices because if you go with Android they got only 50k!

Re:Games too (1)

Bakkster (1529253) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098822)

Apple may not have a profitable App Store, but they probably want to keep it from becoming any more un-profitable.

Re:Games too (4, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098434)

They can claim security and stability (which are valid points), but it all comes down to money.

And maybe a touch of sour grapes. Adobe treated Apple like a second class platform back in the 90's when Apple was at its weakest. Now that Apple is on top of this market I think Steve Jobs is handing out a little payback. Loyalty, or the lack of it, is hard to forget.

Flash: The Internet's Undead Ghoul (0, Troll)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098660)

It's like asking, "Hmmm, do we hate vampires because they feed on the living, or because of their ridiculous Goth fashion sense and their stench of formaldehyde?"

Who Cares?! Just drive a stake threw 'em, and the sooner the better...

Re:Games too (2, Interesting)

dogzilla (83896) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098692)

This argument makes no sense to me. HTML5 can already replicate pretty much anything these Flash games do and is also outside of Apple's control. Are you suggesting that Apple somehow doesn't realize this?

You should really take some time to look over what's currently possible with HTML5. Quake2 has been ported as a proof of concept, and the first level or so of Out Of This World.

http://web.appstorm.net/roundups/browsers/10-html5-games-paving-the-way/ [appstorm.net]

Re:Games too (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098852)

I completely agree, HTML5 is the way of the future...but you are ignoring the fact that although HTML5 is the way of the future, Flash is the way of today. Using your argument as a base, what harm would there be in supporting both HTML5 AND Flash on the same device?

Future proofing is awesome, but not if you lose access to current technology in the process.

Re:Games too (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098716)

Places like Newgrounds, Kongregate, etc...they would be filled with games that worked on the iPad and iPhone, yet would be free...meaning Apple wouldn't get their cut.

Can Flash games support touch input and touch gestures well? :-/

It's In the Article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098278)

It also makes sense with Flash games. Apple has tons of games it sells in the market place. If people could just play free Flash games (and there would be a lot more of them created), Apple wouldn't get so much $$$$$.

I know someone comes to say that most Flash games require mouse and keyboard, but that doesn't make any sense. Obviously the games would be created specially for iPhone and iPad. Just like theres such Flash games for Wii [wiiplayable.com] .

If you read the article, perhaps you wouldn't have felt the need to be redundant:

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.

This is obviously a comparison between thousands of free flash games and thousands of $ games on the iTechnology platform. It is a blatant admission by Steve that Apple would rather you pay for Games on the store and they get 30%. And really, why the hell not. Apple made these wonderful iTechnology products.

Re:Games too (3, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098772)

That doesn't make sense on several levels.

-Apple said that it was still breaking even on music in the Itunes store. (Not sure if to take their word for it, but still.)
-There are plenty of free games in the app store
-pushing HTML5 is opposite of the walled garden people argue. There is a hulu, Netflix, pandora and Rhapsody apps where people can get videos and music outside of Apple's itunes.

I don't think this is about making money directly. My guess is that Apple's real money will come from selling them new and shiny iPhones every 2 years that perform better and better and have that perpetual upgrade path.

I think the whole flash thing is because is for the reasons Apple says, basically on a 3 inch screen without mouse, you can't offer a satisfactory flash experience and having to rely on Adobe and flash developers to consider mobile devices in their coding -- basically a losing gamble.

I KNEW IT! (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098288)

Apple is a secret sponsor of Betamax, its making a comeback!

Re:I KNEW IT! (1)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098618)

Not just Betamax, but BoIP (Betamax over IP). We all now 350x480 should be enough for everyone.

Hard to take him seriously (4, Insightful)

SoupIsGoodFood_42 (521389) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098306)

Advice from someone who requires horizontal scrolling to read the text they're quoting? I don't think so.

Re:Hard to take him seriously (2, Funny)

bwalling (195998) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098406)

Oh, please. Your discussion of the scrolling text boxes is what this article's author would call "a very good example of miss direction[sic]."

Bad Grammar, Insightful Point (1)

Raffaello (230287) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098576)

Granted his grammar is poor and he does ramble but his main point (which he takes forever to get to) is simple and worth taking note of:

Apple wants to dominate on line video the way they've come to dominate on line music - through iTunes/iPods/iPhones/iPads. For this to happen, Flash must die, since it is currently the #1 means of on line video delivery.

This also explains why Apple have resisted putting Blu-Ray drives in their desktops and laptops even though Blu-Ray won the format war two years ago. Apple wants to kill physical video distribution too so that users will choose Apple's on line video distribution through iTunes instead of buying HD video on physical media.

Re:Bad Grammar, Insightful Point (2, Informative)

the_B0fh (208483) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098674)

err, no, according to apple, it's the crazy licensing requirements.

Re:Bad Grammar, Insightful Point (2, Insightful)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098842)

err, no, according to apple, it's the crazy licensing requirements.

It makes no sense to use as counter point that the subject said otherwise.

Obviously Apple wouldn't say "We don't install blurays because we plan to destroy flash and monopolize online video.".

Re:Hard to take him seriously (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098474)

Sorry, to discredit him you have to write an even longer in depth blog post analyzing the faults in the blog post. Then someone can discredit you with an even longer one and so on.

Re:Hard to take him seriously (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#32099036)

Yeah, that was the first red flag. Second was the repeated use of the term "iTechnology". Is he trying to coin a term? Third, it's long. Too long. Not that I'm opposed to long articles, but his arguments are unfocused and padded with silly things like this:

If apple was so perfect, how come they cannot stop the jail breakers. How come they send out security patches on a regular basis.

No it's not (4, Interesting)

dc29A (636871) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098308)

It's all about keep selling high markup iDevices. To achieve that they need to make sure to have a lock-in. Lock in is achieved by making sure developers only code for your platform. Ballmer's "Developers! Developers! Developers!" might have been funny, but that is exactly what Apple is aiming for. Video lock-in won't work because it's H.264 and other big players can/will just as well sell H.264 format videos.

When 40% or so your profit comes from iDevices, and a fraction of that from AppStore and/or iTunes, you want to protect your iDevice markup. If Apple allows cross compilers, guess what? People won't be 'loyal' to Apple and will migrate to Android, BB or WM7 devices because their apps are on those platforms as well. The iPhone becomes a commodity, and Apple's profits crater. It's about software lock-in and not about content lock in.

Re:No it's not (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098622)

Squirrel turds are polyphonic orses phleg0julw pant.

G(a)nash (1)

TheOV (1640259) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098310)

*gnashes teeth* - the author of the article called it Ganash instead of Gnash. Ganash is a delicious chocolate glaze, but Gnash is just a bland flash replacement. :(

Re:G(a)nash (1)

extrasolar (28341) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098404)

I saw that too. The way to look at it, I guess, is that Gnash is the GNU replacement for Adobe's Flash program and a counter to their proprietary technology. On the other hand, Ganash is the open source version of Adobe's Flash technology that justifies putting Adobe Flash in all Apple products and, indeed, in all products period.

Re:G(a)nash (2, Funny)

Raffaello (230287) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098766)

Ganash is a delicious chocolate glaze

You've misspelled it.

Ganache [wikipedia.org] is a delicious chocolate glaze

Ganesh [wikipedia.org] (or Ganesha) is an indian god with an elephant's head

Ganash therefore, is the equivalent of a chocolate Easter Bunny, but for Hindus.

Glad I could clear that up for you ;^)

It's not all about video (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098320)

Seriously, since I disabled plug-ins Safari doesn't crash or freeze every day. In fact it's now so rare that I'm actually shocked when it happens. Adobe let all their non-Windows software rot away and can't be bothered to code properly, so screw them.

Re:It's not all about video (1)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098760)

I guess I am not following the issue - I have been running various versions of Safari since it first appeared, and it has crashed, at most, 2-3 times in however many years it has been. What is it that people are doing that causes it to crash? I am not doing anything special, and I haven't even bothered to block any plugins, or Javascript. Flash seems to be fine - an abomination, to be sure - but functionally fine.

poorly written response (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098344)

So, why is a poorly written response by a Flash developer who's mad that they can't use Flash on the iPhone/iPad something we should care about?

Re:poorly written response (1)

Altus (1034) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098784)

Really, this is poorly written and poorly argued. He pretty much lost me when his response to the first Jobs quote turned out to be focused solely on the openness of video standards when the quote was just about flash in general and not about video specifically.

There are reasons to disagree with steve but this guy misses the mark by miles. Also, its pretty clear that Apple's reasons have little to do with video and everything to do with having fully features native apps instead of flash apps dominating their platform. From Apples point of view, this makes a lot of sense. It may not be what some people want, but it makes sense for Apple.

It's about the App Store (2, Informative)

Kagato (116051) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098352)

Why develop an app with XCode for one platform when you could develop it in Flash and have it run on multiple devices. Flash represents a threat to the App Store. Jobs can say it's about the power and crashes, but he could have set expectations with Adobe when the iPhone first came out. It's all about money and controlling the market place.

Re:It's about the App Store (3, Insightful)

Graff (532189) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098586)

Why develop an app with XCode for one platform when you could develop it in Flash and have it run on multiple devices.

Because you can develop an app with XCode and have it run on multiple devices. It really isn't that difficult.

Flash is just another layer of middleware which is not necessary and ultimately just gets in the way. It gives quick results but the true headaches are borne by the users and also by developers down the road once you are locked-in to using Flash and want to do something that it doesn't yet support.

Apple's stance helps all of us. It promotes an alternative to Flash which forces Adobe to clean up its act and open and improve Flash even more. Perhaps it will even get them to come up with some nice HTML5 authoring tools and technologies. We all win.

Oh God (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098662)

What fucking rock did idiots like you crawl out from?

Someone needs to smack the fuck out of you.

Re:It's about the App Store (1)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098778)

Flash is just another layer of middleware which is not necessary and ultimately just gets in the way. It gives quick results but the true headaches are borne by the users and also by developers down the road once you are locked-in to using Flash and want to do something that it doesn't yet support.

Then let the market decide. GP was right. It is all about locking the developers in, making them choose between creating software for Apple, or all of the other platforms. It's a despicable business practice and as a hobbyist developer I will not have my toolset dictated to me so long as the end result runs natively on the device.

Re:It's about the App Store (1)

pitdingo (649676) | more than 4 years ago | (#32099042)

Obviously you have no clue what you are talking about. You _can_ develop cross platform via XCode as the parent said. C and C++ are not Apple's tech last i checked. The market is deciding. Bad devs who only know Flash will have to learn real development. The vast majority will fail and make room for those who know how to develop. No one is forcing you to develop for Apple products. I know i will enjoy less competition.

Re:It's about the App Store (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098770)

Ok, so why not make an ObjC/C/C++ to Flash compiler like the Flash to Apple App compiler?

I'd also like to point out that there are free apps, even games, in the app store. X% of 0 is *drumroll* 0, so there is a segment of the app market that generates no direct profit for Apple other than the dev fee and may even be generating revenue for the dev by in app ads (that need not be done through the upcoming baked in Apple ad services).

Oh, Jamie, oh Jamie (5, Interesting)

zeromorph (1009305) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098360)

Either a strange coincidence or an badly disguised case of self-promotion:

jamiegau writes:"Here we have ... The writer concludes ..."

and the blog's name is "JamieG Analysis".

If you submit your own article why not say it?

Re:Oh, Jamie, oh Jamie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098396)

Because unlike Glyn Moody this person is apparently at least trying to look like he isn't just shilling his own site.

Re:Oh, Jamie, oh Jamie (1)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098782)

And Jamie - learn to write. The possessive form of "Jobs" is "Jobs's", and the comparative conjunction is spelt "than", not "then". I haven't read enough of your article to pick out any more errors, since it's evidently not worth my time to read it if it isn't worth your time to write it correctly.

Re:Oh, Jamie, oh Jamie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098922)

...

Re:Oh, Jamie, oh Jamie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098986)

And Jamie - learn to write. The possessive form of "Jobs" is "Jobs's".... not worth my time to read it if it isn't worth your time to write it correctly.

Really? I thought it was " Jobs' " was the correct possessive (example) of anything ending in "s". As in , "Steve Jobs' megalomaniacal ambition, coupled with his lawyers' assaults on anything that might promote competitive behaviour to the market, have been a consistently destructive force, undermining free democratic society, for over a decade."

Is the opinion of a Flash dev. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098486)

Here is what this flash dev thinks:

"The issue here is not the openness of the web.. But the tools and costs to get you to this open web. For Apple you have to purchase expensive iTenchnology. For Adobe, you get a free Flash Player."

Yea, because you create new SWF files using that "free" Flash Player.

I think will be unfair to criticize him too much. He "don't get it" already. The people that is developing in Flash, don't understand internet. Thats why you can't browse some webpages with Flash 9, because these sites ask for Flash 10, even if don't need it. Flash designers don't understand the web. And we have tried to explain to these people the minimals of usability, and these people still don't understand the web.
Give me a SWF file composed on pages I can print and hotlink, that I can bookmark and copypaste (yes, images too). I can't, because SWF is a impenetrable closed binary philosophy.

Internet is the victoria of the opennes over closed gardens. Any SWF file is a closed garden.
Where is the Greasemonkey of the SWF files?
Why these SWF files takes soo much % of the cpu of a modern computer? Is not like is tryiing compute 3D graphics or something.

Re:Is the opinion of a Flash dev. (1)

Altus (1034) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098870)

Never mind the fact that you don't need an iAnything to use the web or to have a high quality web browsing experience. If you don't have flash though, you are locked out of a lot of content. Flash is impacting the openness of the web; Apple, with their iPhones and iPads does not impact the openness of the web.

Its a clear distinction and an extremely important one.

it's what it's always been (1)

lapsed (1610061) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098492)

What makes the Internet so threatening to incumbent companies is the way in which it's layered and platform-independent. New protocols can be deployed on the existing network as long as they conform to its rules. Flash is different, in that it is not as open as the Internet's underlying layers, but the way in which it threatens Apple's vertically-integrated hold on everything from the user to the bandwidth provider operates in the same way. It's a mistake to focus on the killer app -- the real threat is a platform that enables the distribution of a range of applications, some of which have not yet been imagined.

What other plugins will Apple block? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098504)

The end user should have full control over what software they want to install and use. Apple's blocking of this end-user decision should be criminal. Once the hardware is purchased, it and how it is used should belong to the end user. But Apple does not seem to be interested in selling devices or hardware that are user-compliant, instead they appear to only want to sell content and look at their physical products as nothing more than delivery agents needing to be sold so-as-to allow for their costly content to be consumed. Think Differently!

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098514)

How am I supposed to believe this guy has a clue he knows what he is talking about when he can't even spell?

Re:Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098680)

How am I supposed to believe that you have a clue when you create run on sentences?

God save flash! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Crobar (1143477) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098516)

Before Apple sunk their teeth into flash, a lot of the posters here also bashed it. It is ironic that as soon as an 800 lb gorilla attacks it, taco and dawson rush to defend it as a superior alternative. Does everyone remember what a pain in the ass it was to get flash support on linux systems? Now that it is available, it is just another user-approved attack vector. H.264 is not perfect, or "free" at all but every criticism Jobs has made of flash is spot on: flawed security, resource pig AND THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR for cross platform development. For God's sake, can we please just flash die for a more modern alternative?

Re:God save flash! (1, Flamebait)

melikamp (631205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098804)

I agree completely. Jobs' diatribe, while hypocritical, was also spot on. Flash has virtually no redeeming qualities. Using it for watching videos when every major browser can simply download video files and stream handles and "open them with", is freaking retarded. Flash was obsolete long before HTML 5 was even on a drawing board.

Re:God save flash! (4, Informative)

Skuld-Chan (302449) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098828)

For God's sake, can we please just flash die for a more modern alternative?

Which is?

And don't say html 5 - have you played with that? I doesn't really seem ready to deliver RIA's like Java and Flash have been delivering for years because its buggy (what do you know - its an unfinished standard). I think this video illustrates it best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfmbZkqORX4 [youtube.com]

My own experience with html 5 video btw was buggy at best - anytime you paused you couldn't resume and had to reload the entire clip. His experience in that video above was it didn't work - because the video he tried to view was Theora/OGG - which the iPad/iPhone don't support.

Re:God save flash! (1)

cpghost (719344) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098872)

Does everyone remember what a pain in the ass it was to get flash support on linux systems?

Still painfully aware of it here on FreeBSD/amd64. But, on the sunny side, sometimes it's a bliss not to be "supported" by Adobe.

Re:God save flash! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098894)

Before Apple sunk their teeth into flash, a lot of the posters here also bashed it.

Yeah, and I think everyone agrees that Flash is a bloated piece of crap and that it would be great if we could replace it with HTML 5.

But that's not why people are complaining about Apple's dickhead move. I can accept them deciding not adding Flash support to Mobile Safari.

But what I won't accept is:

1. Them disallowing a competing browser to be written for their phone that DOES support Flash.
2. Them disallowing Adobe to write a plugin for Mobile Safari to add Flash support.
3. Them disallowing ANYONE from using Flash as the basis for a mobile app on the iPhone.

So, I don't like Flash. But Adobe isn't being the anti-competitive dicks here. Apple is. Adobe wrote a technology that allows a Flash app to be translated to an iPhone app. People who use that will still have to fork up money for the iPhone developer's license and Apple will still get their percentage of sales on the App Store, so why the fuck would they ban that?!

Simple: they're anti-competitive dicks.

Re:God save flash! (1)

pkphilip (6861) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098990)

Pray tell, what alternative do you have for flash apps (not video)? HTML5? Show me a single authoring environment for HTML5 which can compare with Adobe's flash authoring environment - I am referring to authoring environment for scripted apps not video.

Who defended Flash? Only seen advocacy of freedom. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098998)

taco and dawson rush to defend it [Flash] as a superior alternative

Citation needed. Find one example where Taco did that. And Dawson is actually dumb enough to do that, but again, try actually finding it.

Why does it all have to be either pro or anti? (3, Insightful)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098528)

Apple's post was anti-adobe. This post is Anti-Apple, and pro-Adobe.

How about just putting them where they belong? Apple makes computers. Adobe makes software. We are talking about standards and the web. Any standard on the web should be completely free, period. The best free standard we have so far is HTML5 + Ogg + Theora. Period. The fact that a huge patent troll is saying they've got something against Theora doesn't make Theora any less free. The same thing was said against virtually all Free Software. And to this day, noone has ever been able to remove a Free Software project from us based on patents. Every single patent troll out there has said that they have patents covering everything from drinking water to clicking buttons for 20+ years. And Free Software is still there. Free standards are still there.
The has been cases of Privative software stealing code from GPL projects, where the GPL won and this guys had to either arrange a settlement or release their code to be GPL compliant.
But there has not been A SINGLE CASE of infringing GPL code loosing a legal battle. So, why are we taking MPEG-LA more seriously than we took SCO? It's the same crap, different smell. Just another troll that we need to ignore until it goes away.

So, Apple, Adobe: Sell your shit and STFU. Regardless of how much you pretend that standards, and the whole industry revolves around you, it doesn't. You're just another company trying to succeed in this market. We will buy your stuff, or we'll buy somebody else's stuff. What you say is not important. And what you pretend to be standards, are NOT. In the meanwhile, we will continue developing Free Open standards, and Free Open software that uses them. We will eventually prevail. We always do.

Re:Why does it all have to be either pro or anti? (1)

Skuld-Chan (302449) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098856)

So standards on the web should be free, but its ok to have proprietary lock in for the iPhone?

Having Flash on the iPhone might be a false choice, but I don't honestly see what leg Apple has to stand on with this issue.

Re:Why does it all have to be either pro or anti? (1)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098984)

So standards on the web should be free, but its ok to have proprietary lock in for the iPhone?

It's their product. Don't buy it. Was that so hard?

Standards allow you to choose who you buy from. All of your data is YOURS, and you can transfer it anywhere you want. With open standards, vendor lock-in is very hard to achieve. You can just move all of your stuff away to a new device after all. It is all this gray areas of do-what-you-want-and-patent-it that allow vendor lock-in to exist.

Where Apple should stand is very obvious: Sell your devices just like everyone else, realize the device belongs to the user, remove all the locks, and implement free standards. Not that hard.

Off course, Apple believes that they have a more profitable position made of draconian limitations and patent-encumbered formats. Time will prove them wrong, hopefully.

Re:Why does it all have to be either pro or anti? (4, Informative)

pkphilip (6861) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098966)

All this discussion about Flash vs HTML5 seems to miss the point that Flash isn't just video - there are tons of apps and interfaces out there written in Flash - not just slideshows and ads. There are games, presentations, demos etc.

There is not a SINGLE content creation tool for HTML5 which can hold a candle to Adobe's flash authoring environment.

Yes, (1)

Mr Stubby (1122233) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098534)

Next...

video (4, Insightful)

J-1000 (869558) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098556)

videos decoded in software play for less than 5 hours before the battery is fully drained.

This is really good SPIN. Steve is right in that the very OLD verion of flash before 2007 (3 years in internet time is a VERY LONG TIME.) version 9, did use a CPU based codec. But as stated above, H.264 is now the standard and all sites using flash are now using the same H.264 files in flash as is compatible with the Hardware accelerated decoders. As such, Flash 10.1 is as efficient as that can possibly be on these mobile devices. Steve implies Flash cannot do this. Again deceptive and untrue.

But lets get into the OSX story here. Apple like to blame Adobe for the poor video performance on OSX. Unfortunately, again, Steve has failed to supply the full story. The reason Flash on OSX is so slow and buggy is as follows.

1. Video, Apple has refused to, until recently, supply the API required to implement it. Flash 10.1 for OSX will have Hardware acceleration as, the API has only just been made available. Steve conveniently failed to mention this. (See Adobe will accelerate Flash video using new Apple API)

That's a pretty dang good point.

It has never been about videos (1)

bdunogier (1703556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098558)

It comes as a surprise to me that some would conclude apple doesn't want flash because of videos... It doesn't happen much, but flash & videos is one of the few areas where I agree on the long term: flash has brought us http video streaming, but it has now been accepted as a mandatory feature, and HTML5 will make it available without flash, and will let us benefit from HW decoding. Flash for videos is dying, imho.

Now, as many have said, it is about apps and games. It is very easy to implement any kind of app or game using flash, and there are tons of skill developers around. If flash was available on iPhone, it would just mean less iBucks for apple, and that is not gonna happen.

We're getting played (0, Flamebait)

inKubus (199753) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098570)

No one seems to realize we're getting played if we continue to talk about this. Steve Jobs said something about a competing technology. Who cares? Just because beyond-proprietary-Apple doesn't want it doesn't mean it serves a purpose. It's good at a lot of what it does and it definitely drove HTML5 and CSS3. It's good to have a plugin to do advanced graphics and interactivity until the specs and the javascript and browser compatability are solved problems, which they aren't (be we're finally getting close).

flash needs to die anyway (0, Flamebait)

flannelbeard (1803254) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098628)

as a developer i absolutely loathe everything about flash. regardless of the reasons, some valid, some not so much, if it helps make flash go away then its a win/win as far as i am concerned. i don't care for the finger pointing and childish bickering amongst billionaires for more billions... but flash needs to die, IMHO.

Hard to Believe (2, Informative)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098656)

Is it really so hard for people to believe that Flash on a Mac is so poorly implemented as to suck, Flash on mobile devices is poorly suited (due to touch interface) and is a significant memory drain, and that Apple really does not want to be at the mercy of a 3rd party developer when providing features to their customers. Why are people so intent on find some alternate reason when the reasons that have been outlined are actually valid and true? When Flash doesn't suck on a Mac (including iPhone OS); when Flash isn't a memory drain; when Flash is suited to (multi)touch interfaces; when Adobe actually steps up to the plate and takes development within the Mac ecosystem seriously (how long did it take Adobe to release Creative Suite optimized for OSX?...), then, and only then, can we discuss other reasons that Apple may be interested in keeping Flash off their mobile devices. Until then, however, there are some very significant and glaring reasons that Adobe doesn't deserve to have Flash on the iPhone/iPad.

Translation: Adobe, get your shit together. When half your market uses a Mac, you need to take them a lot more seriously than you currently do.

What a joke... (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098668)

From his rant:

For Apple you have to purchase expensive iTenchnology. For Adobe, you get a free Flash Player.

What kind of rubbish is this?

Is he comparing a free software plugin to manufactured hardware? What's going on here?

AFAIK, Apple provides free access to H.264 movies, since Safari is free as well.

Re:What a joke... (1)

Mr Stubby (1122233) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098724)

I think he just means that to develop for Flash vs App store there is a payment required to Apple for the later while flash is free.

Re:What a joke... (1)

Xuranova (160813) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098834)

You can dl a quality free Flash developer tool?

Re:What a joke... (1, Insightful)

dingen (958134) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098846)

Yeah, he does this all the time. Even when referring to HTML5, CSS3 and Javascript, he states:

So compare both, I can use Adobe flash technology and build workable results without paying Adobe a cent. I have access to all the source for the tools that make the swf files. Not so with Apple. So who is more open again?

This is a ridiculous statement and makes no sense whatsoever. Why the hell would anyone pay anything to Apple in order to create a website powered by HTML5, CSS3 & Javascript and featuring H.264 video?

What it is *really* about... (4, Insightful)

CondeZer0 (158969) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098756)

It is all about control.

Apple's control over users, over developers, over content providers...

Re:What it is *really* about... (5, Insightful)

bobmax48 (1804950) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098918)

Do you really believe that it is about control? I am not sure why there is so much animosity on this subject. None of the phones are now using the newest Flash and so why is everyone bitching? I know that every time I go to a Flash site I can watch my laptop battery running out of a charge and the fans on the processor are running at full speed. I use Flash in most of the video work that I do only because the students do not want to upgrade to Quicktime or any other players. Personally I don't care if Flash is used or not although I do know that anything in H.264 is much more efficient then Flash when it comes to the use of the processor.

Misinformed, illiterate, adobe-lover (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098814)

Why are we reading this illiterate fool's ramblings on /.?

Message to Steve (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098844)

Mr. Jobs,
If you don't give us Flash on the iPhone SOON, I'm giving up my iPhone and switching to another smart phone! Hmmm, what's that you say? I'm only ONE of the millions of iPhone users?

Well, scores of users will end up following suit. You *really* need to respond positively to popular demand Steve!

Learn English (1)

aitikin (909209) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098994)

Last I checked, .au TLDs were from Australia, an English speaking country. I have read two paragraphs and it's getting painful. Hell, the headline almost turned me completely away when I got to it. "Apples attack on Adobe..." What are apples throwing themselves on some bricks somewhere?! I hate being the grammar nazi, but sometimes, it has to be done.

Flash only has three uses (4, Informative)

MBCook (132727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32099044)

Flash only has three big uses on the web.

The first is video. Flash is not needed for video. It became the standard because it could do things the object tag couldn't, but it's not needed. The video tag does what most users need, and people will figure out ways to do the rest. For most users (who just want to see Hulu/Vimeo/YouTube/whatever), the video tag will be all they need. Flash isn't necessary here for most users (especially mobile).

The second is animations. There are some very impressive things done in HTML5 and JS, and most of the stuff I see on the web done with flash could be done in HTML5 (or really just needs a redesign). Very few sites do more than make objects show and hide and move around. iPhone users don't need a special plugin to use terrible interfaces, they should be made in HTML5 or have a simplified version available. So Flash isn't necessary here for most users, especially mobile.

Games are the best argument for flash, it's the standard and works well (when the programers know what they're doing and don't code an idle loop to use 100% CPU). Steve Jobs is right that a great many of these wouldn't work on the iPhone because of the keyboard and mouse expectations that can't be translated. Native code would work better, and being able to get to farmville but having a horrible time trying to play it would make iPhone users mad.

Games is the best reason Adobe has, I'd like to be able to play 'em on my iPhone some times. Steve is right that it's better for most users that the games get made for the device instead of trying to rejigger the interface.

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>