Back in January, when the iPad was first unveiled, it was announced that in keeping with Apple's policy with the iPhone & iPod Touch, the iPad would not offer Adobe Flash support. Since then, there's been criticism not only from Adobe but others across the web about Apple's decision, since about 75% of websites are dependent on Flash for web video. The argument goes something like this; if you're going to spend anywhere between $500 to nearly a $1,000 (plus the cost of a monthly data plan for the 3G iPad) on something that is primarily a provider of entertainment & information, why can't the consumers have a choice on whether they want Flash?
Well this week Apple CEO Steve Jobs decided to answer this criticism with a 1,700 word essay on why he's not going to allow Flash on his products, claiming Flash is a relic that hinders performance, is unstable & unsecure, and also proprietary (with that last criticism striking a lot of people as funny coming from Apple). Adobe has responded by calling Jobs' claims "patently false".
No one has a "right" to an iPhone/iPad with Flash & Steve Jobs can sell whatever product he wants, but I thought Ars Technica had a great quote about this entire issue: "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."
From CNET:
In a rare open letter published Thursday, Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs has detailed the technological reasons behind his company's refusal to let Adobe Systems' Flash Player onto the iPhone: he thinks it's a relic, not the future.
"Flash was created during the PC era--for PCs and mice," Jobs said in the letter. "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." Jobs also knocked Flash for being proprietary, sapping battery power, not supporting multitouch interfaces, posing security risks, and being unstable. "Flash is the No. 1 reason Macs crash," Jobs said.
Overall, his message is this: Flash is flawed, Apple doesn't need it, and the company is using its considerable power and influence to make it obsolete.
After Jobs' published his thoughts on Flash, Microsoft echoed some of his criticisms. However, HTML5 is still being developed, and, for better or worse, Flash with all its memory hoggage is the standard today. Even beyond Flash, anybody that's watched their computer come to a screeching halt while opening a PDF, knows Adobe's software can be clunky as hell. However, if Jobs is so concerned about reliability & performance, could he possibly do something about the bloatware known as the PC version of iTunes. And before anyone says "it works fine on OS X", well the other 90% of the market isn't using OS X. Each new version of iTunes has some new software Apple feels the need to bundle-install on your computer, and also feels it MUST load at startup as well. Oh, and let's not forget Quicktime, which is about as good at bringing PCs to a halt as Adobe Acrobat.
Also, while many of Jobs' critiques of Adobe are arguably true, there are little things that pertain to Apple that he either brushes over or ignores. For example, as much as Jobs might deny it, Apple has an economic interest above any technical objection to allowing Flash on the iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad, since allowing Flash would undercut revenue for the App Store & their control over what apps can appear on Apple products. Apple's control of the App Store is such that Pulitzer winning cartoonist Mark Fiore’s app was refused because it "ridicules public figures."
Allowing Flash — which is a development platform of its own — would just be too dangerous for Apple, a company that enjoys exerting total dominance over its hardware and the software that runs on it. Flash has evolved from being a mere animation player into a multimedia platform capable of running applications of its own. That means Flash would open a new door for application developers to get their software onto the iPhone: Just code them in Flash and put them on a web page. In so doing, Flash would divert business from the App Store, as well as enable publishers to distribute music, videos and movies that could compete with the iTunes Store.
Adobe has responded to Apple by saying that if Macs are crashing, it's not Flash's fault, but defects with OS X. Adobe will also be handing out free Android Phones to its employees, with Google's open-source Android operating system running Flash Player 10.1 (to be introduced this month along with the Droid Incredible from HTC & Verizon).
Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen called Jobs' letter a "smokescreen" in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. That there are more than 100 applications available today built with Adobe's tool to translate Flash apps into native iPhone apps shows Apple's objections have "nothing to do with technology."
Narayen also turned around Jobs' complaint about Flash causing Mac crashes, pinning the blame on Mac OS X, and said Jobs' complaints about Flash draining batteries fast are "patently false." In addition, where Jobs complained of Flash shortcomings, "for every one of these accusations made there is proprietary [Apple] lock-in" that block Adobe from fixing it.
Moreover, with the release of OS 4 for the iPhone, Apple updated its license agreement for the iPhone developer program to say "Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine" to make it impossible for developers to use cross-platform development tools.
From Ars Technica:
The dreaded fine-print EULA is a primary tool software companies use to implement such restrictions. Looking at the EULAs for Apple and Adobe, we can see that they look pretty much the same, and that "iPhone OS" and "Apple" could be substituted for "Adobe" and "Flash" in Jobs's own quote. His implicit admission of this, that "Apple has many proprietary products too," is a comical understatement.
Adobe's license says:
You may install and use one copy of the Software on your compatible Computer.
This license does not grant you the right to sublicense or distribute the Software.
You may not modify, adapt, translate or create derivative works based upon the Software. You will not reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble or otherwise attempt to discover the source code of the Software except to the extent you may be expressly permitted to reverse engineer or decompile under applicable law.
Apple's own terms of service document covering all applications downloaded from the App Store, says (in Section 10b):
(ii) You shall be authorized to use the Products only for personal, noncommercial use.
(iii) You shall be authorized to use the Products on five Apple-authorized devices at any time, except in the case of Movie Rentals, as described below.
...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.