Jobs posts open letter about Flash position.

[Data Holmes]

http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/

Too long to quote.

 

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

He danced around the "full web" issue, by essentially saying "well, SOME of that is available in iPhone specific forms". iPhone/iPad cannot access the full web and there's a SHITLOAD of content that isn't available for it.

Not really such a big deal on iPhone though since we expect less from a mobile pocket device. I'm okay with no Flash on a phone. I wouldn't ever get something as big an iPad though without Flash though, or until after a far more serious transition to html5 has taken place (i'm talking, 3 years down the road).

Right now, I can't access at least half of my favorite sites.


I'm not even touching the "it's a closed system" comment. LOL!

 

[Robert Maxwell]

He does make some good points, although I think the technical ones are far more valid than the "openness" issue. There are other environments that can output to Flash, and there are non-Adobe Flash runtimes available (of varying quality, it must be said.) ActionScript is based on ECMAScript, which is standardized.

Jobs dances around the closed nature of the App Store, but on the technical side of it he seems to be correct. Flash is unstable and resource-intensive, and it is designed for PCs, not mobile devices.

 

[Defiant]

Jobs is a smart guy. I loved his comment recently that if people wanted to look at porn, they should by Android... pretty witty, actually...

 

[Lindley]

I don't like the anti-cross-platform bent it takes towards the end. Cross-platform is generally a good thing, and even if it does limit developers to the "lowest common denominator" of features----it should still be an option for programs not requiring the other features.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I don't like the anti-cross-platform bent it takes towards the end. Cross-platform is generally a good thing, and even if it does limit developers to the "lowest common denominator" of features----it should still be an option for programs not requiring the other features.

Apple has taken a very firm stand on cross-platform development when it comes to their portable devices, though. I believe they've kicked other cross-platform apps out of the App Store for crimes as grievous as, for instance, having an Android version.

Seems the rule for iPhone apps is that it better run on the iPhone only.

 

[Lindley]

See, that just makes me want to develop an app for both, but give it a slightly different GUI on each platform and a different name, then see how long it takes for someone to notice....

 

[Robert Maxwell]

See, that just makes me want to develop an app for both, but give it a slightly different GUI on each platform and a different name, then see how long it takes for someone to notice....

It wouldn't surprise me at all if people are doing that already.

 

[Shaw]

Apple has taken a very firm stand on cross-platform development when it comes to their portable devices, though. I believe they've kicked other cross-platform apps out of the App Store for crimes as grievous as, for instance, having an Android version.

Seems the rule for iPhone apps is that it better run on the iPhone only.

I know developers who develop for both... so this really seems like a statement that is both erroneous and inflammatory.

I'm sure that Apple does more than enough real stuff that you can site that you can avoid posting things like this. And to date the only real thing Apple has done was remove any app from the App Store that advertises the Android platform.


I would also point out that the underlying foundations of the iPhone's application environment has been open since 1993 (when NeXT/Sun published the OpenStep Specifications), and if the Android platform wanted to, it could have built it's application environment based on GNUstep, which would make it much easier for developers to make cross-platform apps.

Just a thought.

 

[Arrqh]

Apple has taken a very firm stand on cross-platform development when it comes to their portable devices, though. I believe they've kicked other cross-platform apps out of the App Store for crimes as grievous as, for instance, having an Android version.

Seems the rule for iPhone apps is that it better run on the iPhone only.

I know developers who develop for both... so this really seems like a statement that is both erroneous and inflammatory.

I'm sure that Apple does more than enough real stuff that you can site that you can avoid posting things like this. And to date the only real thing Apple has done was remove any app from the App Store that advertises the Android platform.

Uh, no. Apple has done a lot to try and hinder cross platform development. The reason for this should be obvious; anything they can do to discourage developers from deploying on both Apple and Android the better from their perspective because that's what drives a platform.

I think I've linked to this article about a dozen times in the past month, but here it is again: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/04/apple-takes-aim-at-adobe-or-android.ars

As well as hurting Adobe, and certainly tarnishing the company's brand new product, this move hurts Android. In fact, I think the harm done to Android could end up being even more substantial than the harm to Adobe. Although I would say that the biggest virtues of these banned tools are faster, easier development, the fact is that they also often encourage cross-platform development. Flash is perhaps the most obvious example of this, but MonoTouch, Unity3D, and Titanium all enable developers to write applications that are more easily ported to non-Apple platforms such as Windows and Android. Such conversion is not necessarily automatic—applications will typically need some amount of tailoring to adapt them to the different environments—but it's a big help.

 

[Tom Hendricks]

This reminds me of the good old days when Apple removed the floppy drive from their computers and everyone had a minor conniption. People wondered how we could survive without floppies. Now a whole generation is not even aware of their exsistance. To me in the letter this is the most important thing Steve Jobs said: "If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers."

 

[Arrqh]

To me in the letter this is the most important thing Steve Jobs said: "If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers."

And that's nonsense.

Lets look at this from the opposite side... the users. If we're talking about Apps only the users don't care at all what frameworks or libraries went in to developing an app. Why should they? They just want good apps that run well. And this is all that Apple should care about... making sure that all the apps in their store perform well for what they do. As it turns out, they already did this before when they were perfectly happy to deny apps from their store for performance reasons. So that being the case, why the new restrictions on third party frameworks? The users don't get any benefit to this. Developers are hurt by it because it makes things harder to do both cross platform work and because tools they use to make quality iPhone apps are now restricted.

The only side who has anything to gain by restricting 3rd party frameworks is Apple. Which is bully for them and as a business I wouldn't expect them to behave any other way, but that doesn't mean it's beneficial. And that's why comparing it to something like the floppy drive makes no sense.

Here's a follow up to the article I posted before: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/04/steve-jobs-weighs-on-iphone-os-dev-controversy.ars

The first argument remains unconvincing to us for empirical reasons; just look at the App store! There are many excellent applications for iPhone that use the now-restricted frameworks (for example, the enjoyable and well-received games Colorbind, Battle Bears: Zombies, and Zombieville USA all use the Unity3D framework), while many sub-standard ones that do not (see: every fart application, ever). The use of frameworks is orthogonal to quality.

In fact, some of the very applications that Jobs demonstrated at the Apple event appear to use techniques that are now forbidden—Tap Tap Revenge makes use of Lua scripting, for instance. One thing shown off during this demonstration was how the game interacted with iPhone OS 4's multitasking support; this has significance because some commentators have speculated that the framework ban is somehow due to an inability of programs using these toolkits to support multitasking. Clearly, that is not the case.

If an application is good enough for Apple to highlight on-stage, it seems disingenuous to suggest that the app is sub-standard. If high-quality applications are what Apple is after, then that is what Apple should insist on; native code is no promise of quality.

This isn't hypothetical, users and developers are already being hurt by this: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/04/apple-scratch-app/

About 40 years ago, tech legend Alan Kay invented the idea of a lightweight tablet computer that children could use to learn programming.
Apple’s iPad delivers on the tablet part of that vision — but the company has blocked a kid-friendly programming language based on Kay’s work from getting onto the iPad.
Apple removed an app called Scratch from its iPhone and iPad App Store last week. The Scratch app displayed stories, games and animations made by children using MIT’s Scratch platform, which was built on top of Kay’s programming language Squeak, according to MIT.

“I think it’s terrible,” said Andrés Monroy-Hernández, a Ph.D. candidate at the MIT Media Lab and lead developer of the Scratch online community. “Even if the Scratch app was approved, I still think [clause 3.3.2] sends a really bad message for young creators in general. We have a forum where kids post comments, and they were really upset about this.’”
Monroy-Hernández added that reinstating Scratch wouldn’t solve the bigger problem with the App Store.
“Even if Apple approves it now, it sends the wrong message that you have to be backed by MIT, or be famous for a Pulitzer-winning cartoon, to be accepted as part of this digital democracy, and I feel that’s really, really bad,” he said. “More than accepting the app, I hope Apple will change their policies into something more open.”

Apple has one concern: control over the platform to make the most money out of it. Everything else is a PR smokescreen. What their users want and what is best for developers isn't even on their radar.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

There's a platform called PhoneGap that's cross-platform and apparently in compliance with the new Apple License, but that appears to be because it builds apps entirely out of HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. However, in the past, large numbers of PhoneGap applications were rejected from the App Store with little or no reason.

Apple has definitely not been supportive of cross-platform development, and I have not seen them take a firm stance one way or the other as to whether they find it acceptable for an app to run on both the iPhone and [insert random smartphone platform].

 

[Arrqh]

And here's a great reply to Jobs' letter: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2...-a-response-to-steve-jobs-letter-on-flash.ars

Watching two proprietary software companies deeply opposed to computer user freedom lob accusations back and forth about who is more opposed to freedom has been surreal, to say the least. But what's been crystal clear is that the freedom these companies are arguing about is their own, not that of their users. And what they are calling freedom isn't freedom at all—it is the ability to control those users. Adobe is mad at Apple for not letting Adobe control iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch users via Flash, and Apple is mad at Adobe for suggesting that Apple is arbitrarily abusing its control over Application Store users.

...

What's strangely absent from "Thoughts on Flash" is any explanation for why proprietary technology on the Web is bad, or why free standards are good. Noting this omission helps us understand why, though we agree with his assessment of the problems with Flash and the importance of free Web standards, Jobs is led to a solution that is bizarre and unacceptable.
If he had said anything about why user freedom on the Web is important, his hypocrisy would have been explicit. In a nutshell, he says, "Don't use Adobe's proprietary platform to engage with information on the Web. Use Apple's." He doesn't want users to freely wander and creatively explore the Web or their own computers; he wants them to move from the fenced-off "Freedom Zone" based in San Jose to the one based in Cupertino

...

Jobs has hit the nail on the head when describing the problems with Adobe, but not until after smashing his own thumb. Every criticism he makes of Adobe's proprietary approach applies equally to Apple, and every benefit attributed to the App Store can be had without it being a mandatory proprietary arrangement. Apple can offer quality control and editorial selection over available free software, and encourage users to exclusively—but voluntarily—use their store. Instead, Apple chooses to enforce legal restrictions, the transgression of which is punishable by criminal law, on users who want to make changes to their own computers, like installing free, non-Apple, software.

 

[Mr. B]

I stopped reading after "Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary."

 

[Shaw]

I stopped reading after "Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary."

Wow, I'm surprised that you were able to read that far... I figured your eyes would burst into flames just by visiting Apple's web site.

Apple has taken a very firm stand on cross-platform development when it comes to their portable devices, though. I believe they've kicked other cross-platform apps out of the App Store for crimes as grievous as, for instance, having an Android version.

Seems the rule for iPhone apps is that it better run on the iPhone only.

I know developers who develop for both... so this really seems like a statement that is both erroneous and inflammatory.

I'm sure that Apple does more than enough real stuff that you can site that you can avoid posting things like this. And to date the only real thing Apple has done was remove any app from the App Store that advertises the Android platform.

Uh, no.

...

No to what? You didn't even address what I said.

It is sad that you don't seem to have the ability to speak on this subject yourself (and have to rely on quotes of talking heads). There isn't any real reason to respond to your posts because I would be responding to people who aren't even here taking part in this discussion.



It is funny seeing how people are reacting to this... makes me realize how short people's memories are.

I know a number of people who work at Adobe (and have worked there since the mid 1990s), and I can recall them making similar complains about Flash when it was a Macromedia product.

In fact, one conversation on this subject came up when I was complaining to one of them about the fact that Adobe was discontinuing production of LiveMotion. What I got in response was a laundry list of issues that were very similar to Apple's list... including complaints that Macromedia's moving target specification was the reason for LiveMotion 2.0 being one of the most unstable applications Adobe had ever released.

And Adobe and Apple have been at odds with each other on a number of fronts for quite some time. Adobe abandon the Mac version of Premiere after Apple's Final Cut Pro became the most widely used professional video editor on Macs (Final Cut Pro started out life at Macromedia)... but they didn't just stop production, they released a final crippled version of Premiere on the Mac and then launched a campaign called PCs Preferred where they showed how Premiere ran so much better on PCs than Macs (Adobe made sure that Premiere only used one processor on Macs).

Adobe also dragged it's feet on releasing a Mac OS X version of Photoshop (it was the last major Adobe app to be made Mac OS X native) even though three years earlier the head of Photoshop development was able to port it over to Rhapsody with Carbon within two weeks for a WWDC 98 keynote demo. That was because Adobe felt cheated out of a revenue source when Apple dropped Display Postscript from Mac OS X early in it's development (the Display Postscript license that NeXT/Apple had required that Adobe get paid for every copy of the OS sold).

So most of this stuff is just more of the same. I'm sure we'll see the same stories a few years from now with the names shuffled around a little... there is a sad lack of innovation in pettiness in the computer industry.

 

[Arrqh]

It is sad that you don't seem to have the ability to speak on this subject yourself (and have to rely on quotes of talking heads). There isn't any real reason to respond to your posts because I would be responding to people who aren't even here taking part in this discussion.

You think Ars Technica qualifies as a talking head? Did you even read any of the articles? Probably not. And further, referencing people who know what they're talking about isn't "sad" and your condescending attitude is completely misplaced and inappropriate.

Further, I absolutely addressed what you said. You said that the only thing Apple had done to hinder cross platform development was to remove an app advertising Android from their app store. This is incorrect. The change they made to their licensing agreement was designed to hinder cross platform development by forcing developers to only write completely native code. It has the bonus of also attacking Adobe, as their new version of Flash was going to be able to export apps to the iPhone platform, this of course being a different topic from Flash running in the browser.

So next time, try actually reading what's posted in reply to you instead of dismissing it out of hand without bothering to understand what was said. Generally that's how discussions happen. Would you care to participate in one? Because so far, it doesn't look like it.

 

[The Doctor]

And here's a great reply to Jobs' letter: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2...-a-response-to-steve-jobs-letter-on-flash.ars

Not so much, no. That article was nothing more than the standard freetard boilerplate. Sullivan advocates for a fantasy world filled with unicorns and quality free software that is maintained out of love.

In the meantime, it takes companies like Apple and Google to invest the billions of dollars required to advance open standards like HTML5 and the WebKit browser. It takes the efforts of a for-profit company like Canonical to get Linux even close to ready for the browser and the massive efforts of vendors like Novell and IBM to get it to the point where enterprise admins are willing to take a risk on server-side Linux.

There is no evidence, none whatsoever, that free and open software provides a good experience for the user, who just wants the fucking widget to work already. Apple's approach is severely limiting to users who want to tweak things but eminently usable for the vast majority of the public who views computing as something akin to voodoo.

In any event, we will see if Apple's restrictions start driving developers away from the platform in any great numbers. Personally, I doubt it.

 

[Data Holmes]

Microsoft general manager for Internet Explorer Dean Hachamovitch noted this his company is throwing its weight behind the H.264 standard promoted by Apple for future HTML5 video content...

http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2010/04/29/html5-video.aspx

This is a good opportunity to talk about Microsoft’s point of view.

The future of the web is HTML5. Microsoft is deeply engaged in the HTML5 process with the W3C. HTML5 will be very important in advancing rich, interactive web applications and site design. The HTML5 specification describes video support without specifying a particular video format. We think H.264 is an excellent format. In its HTML5 support, IE9 will support playback of H.264 video only.

H.264 is an industry standard, with broad and strong hardware support. Because of this standardization, you can easily take what you record on a typical consumer video camera, put it on the web, and have it play in a web browser on any operating system or device with H.264 support (e.g. a PC with Windows 7). Recently, we publicly showed IE9 playing H.264-encoded video from YouTube. You can read about the benefits of hardware acceleration here, or see an example of the benefits at the 26:35 mark here. For all these reasons, we’re focusing our HTML5 video support on H.264.

Other codecs often come up in these discussions. The distinction between the availability of source code and the ownership of the intellectual property in that available source code is critical. Today, intellectual property rights for H.264 are broadly available through a well-defined program managed by MPEG LA. The rights to other codecs are often less clear, as has been described in the press. Of course, developers can rely on the H.264 codec and hardware acceleration support of the underlying operating system, like Windows 7, without paying any additional royalty.

Today, video on the web is predominantly Flash-based. While video may be available in other formats, the ease of accessing video using just a browser on a particular website without using Flash is a challenge for typical consumers. Flash does have some issues, particularly around reliability, security, and performance. We work closely with engineers at Adobe, sharing information about the issues we know of in ongoing technical discussions. Despite these issues, Flash remains an important part of delivering a good consumer experience on today’s web.

And Adobe turns another page in it's battle with Apple:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-20003922-94.html

Following Apple CEO Steve Jobs' public attack on Flash this week, Adobe is now reportedly planning to give its employees Android phones running Flash.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Ogg Theora support in HTML5 being killed in favor of H.264 is a story that doesn't get enough attention. How curious that a completely royalty-free codec with an open source license was rejected in favor of the patent-encumbered H.264--which will one day require royalties, but apparently not until it has just about taken over the video market. Ugh.