Thread: Flash on Apple Devices Discussion

I just got finished reading this short article here on CNN:

Steve Jobs: Why Apple snubs Flash – SciTechBlog - CNN.com Blogs

I'd rather not discuss (or make it the main point of discussion at least) whether or not Apple's decision is the right one or not. I'm sure we all have our own opinions on that.

To get it quickly out of the way, here's my brief opinion on that matter: I definitely think it's nice to not be Flash-dependent, although I really don't care. I don't own any Apple devices, and I don't plan on owning any Apple devices any time soon. I used to be an Apple fan, but Apple has really been angering me in many ways recently (not in the Flash vs. No Flash debate, but more along the lines of the hardware specs in their MacBook Pro line), so when it comes to Flash on Apple devices...I could care less.

Now to what I really want to talk about...

From a business point of view, what should Adobe do to retaliate?

Here is what I think: So far they are going about it all wrong. I think I remember reading a week or two ago that they filed a law suit. Sure...that may or may not help, but it will just get tied up in the legal system and take months to figure out. It will cost millions of dollars, and in the end probably have null effect.

If I was Adobe, this is what I would tell Apple:

"Guess what Apple. A large majority of your users use our software to do photo editing and other editing of various media. Without our software, half your user base would be gone...in the blink of an eye. So guess what? We are going to hereby stop supporting and stop selling all Adobe products for the Apple platform, effective right at this moment."

I bet that would make Apple cringe. Seriously...how many people do you know that use Apple computers because they are a photo editor? It is one of the primary markets that Apple targets, correct? Why doesn't Adobe use that to their advantage and make Apple hurt? Sure, it would cause a decrease in their own sales, but Apple would feel it too, and it might make them listen.

Now...I'm not saying this is what should happen. I'm just saying, if I was in Adobe's shoes, this is what I would do.

That's a little ridiculous. Just because group X works with group Y on some things does not mean they have to do so on everything, or that group Y should throw a hissy fit about it. What you are suggesting will never happen, because it is bad business sense -- it does not benefit consumers, and it would certainly go worse for adobe. If you were really in Adobe's shoes, I doubt you would seriously consider this at all.

Also, if they pulled photoshop from Apple over this, then they should pull it from MS too, since silverlight is a direct threat to flash too. Then there will be no platforms left for them at all.

Personally, I could care less about the future of both Apple and Adobe, but I read Steve Jobs' article about this:

Thoughts on Flash

And he's right, not just with regard to apple devices but in general. There are better video formats around than flash, and as far as web interfaces go, despite the fact that you can do a very slick job with it, this has still not taken off.* Which I would take as a sign that it never will. It's time to move on. As Jobs points out, HTML 5 will provide a lot more functionality, require no third party browser plug-ins, be much more efficient, and it's not proprietary.

Adobe could have foreseen all this coming and made some attempt to deal with these issues years ago, but they didn't bother. I imagine they are happy enough with flash as it is -- mostly for advertising. I'm sure that will remain.

* it's clunky

My beef with Apple is not so much their decision to pull off Flash from their platforms. They didn't. You will just not be able to buy from that gatekeeper they call Apple Store any software based on Flash. "black-market" flash players and application can still be made available to the iPhone and iPad.

Still it irks me the decision to actively move against a format. It's scary. Do not support format, if you will. But don't ban it. That's something absolutely...

But still, their decision to limit all development for Apple Store legible apps to their own APIs (inferior to many of the alternatives) and only to 4 or 5 programming languages is far more damaging to developers. And it's where my real beef with them is. Its a move that not even Microsoft ever dared to take. (Not that this will matter to any Microsoft grumpy out there. They always find excuses to grouch about Microsoft and reasons to glee about Apple. Such is the human mind).

So today, If I actually want to develop for Apple Store (and only Apple Store matters, really, in the Apple software market), I become a sharecrop developer. I'm completely tied to their choices of APIs and if the platform ever goes kaput, I go with it.

With this and other moves against their developer base, it's no wonder if they start experiencing a decline in numbers. But even if they didn't, I don't see many developers flocking to their closed platform either. And in a highly competitive market with all the heavyweights trying to define it, I'm just watching Apple digging again the exact same hole they dug back in the 90s.

I doubt Adobe will do more than "whitewash".

HTML 5 will provide a lot more functionality, require no third party browser plug-ins

O_o

That's a good joke man...

Its a move that not even Microsoft ever dared to take.

A lot of companies have made that move. You just haven't read enough of the "EULA" nonsense other companies have made. The "EULA" for the SDK for my telephone "forbids" using anything other than what is provided by the SDK. They even try to limit the licensing model a developer may choose.

Soma

Originally Posted by phantomotap

A lot of companies have made that move. You just haven't read enough of the "EULA" nonsense other companies have made. The "EULA" for the SDK for my telephone "forbids" using anything other than what is provided by the SDK. They even try to limit the licensing model a developer may choose.

Maybe you are right. I haven't read the EULAS for any of Apple's competitors in the mobile and devices market. But I have for Android. And there's nothing there stopping me from choosing my tools and my APIs. (Neither I think there's is for Microsoft, or we've had heard of it already)

In fact, while I have had little interest in devices development, Android is so far the only platform I have been contemplating as a possible candidate if I ever go that route. And this is indeed because of what I perceive could be the exposure of some commercial product I chose to develop. Despite some insisting on Apple's dominance in the devices market, there is no such a thing as the market is still being shaped. And I honestly never saw any future for Apple in any area whatsoever (as a dominant player, mind you), while the company keeps sustaining this business model of theirs.

From Adobe's blog:

We are working to bring Flash Player and AIR to all the other major participants in the mobile ecosystem, including Google, RIM, Palm (soon to be HP), Microsoft, Nokia and others.

Looks like Adobe is taking the news quite well. Three cheers for the free market.

Re: HTML5

There's a pretty neat HTML5 video demo here that involves a 3d canvas. I wonder if HTML5 <video> will replace flash video...

Another aspect of the HTML 5 canvas element is that it supports Web GL, which is a version of openES, and makes way better use of your fancy smancy video card than flash can.

WRT apple, openES is the lib used to do all the 3D apps on iphones, so this will mean fewer API's for apple device programmers to master. Not positive, but I doubt there is a 3D engine for flash.

I'm not even sure why we are discussing flash in terms of 3D or 2D. Who cares?

The question is, can I see flash on my iPhone? You know, Flash; that technology a little all around the web? No, I can't see that? Right, I think I'll buy some other device. Especially because, everybody else allows me to see it. So, it's just not going to go away.

And next time I want a manufacturer to remove from me the ability to use a certain web technology, I promise I will buy from Apple. That, or get myself one of those ISPs so keen on tampering with my bandwidth and tell me where I can go or not go.

I'm particularly keen on H.264 too. I never looked at Flash in any other way as simply a crappy format for video that was meant to eventually be replaced by something better... and open preferably.

But the whole patenting thing worries me. Of course Microsoft supports H.264. They are part of the group that gets the money (as is Apple, I'm afraid). And anyone wanting to include support for H.264 will have to cough up the money. And then, only for some: if Mozilla payed the ($5 million, I think) money to include H.264 they couldn't use it because of their open source status.

Then there's the current free use status of H.264 for personal use. It's currently free. But it may not be in 5 years. If H.264 is effectively pushed by Apple, Microsoft and a few others, and becomes a standard by the sheer force of the numbers of people using it, the free status could change. It's revised every 5 years. There's nothing stopping MPEG LA to decide to start charging for it. Lots of money to be had there.

So this whole Apple thing sickens me. Especially because behind a false veil of "Oh, we want open standards and Flash is closed", there's in fact a move to push a much more restrictive format that will probably come and bite consumers on their face in not such a distant future.

Flash, for all its flaws, has served us well and didn't impose such stringent legal limitations, while Theora on the other hand seems a much more reliable replacement to Flash that guarantees an open source and truly free alternative -- the aim of any web standard from the consumer perspective. Instead, fueled by their stupid loyalties or hatefulness, consumers are once again accepting all too easily moves like this one from Apple that are poised to simply serve the company interests and screw on their consumers.

Originally Posted by Bubba

Apple pushes open-source but what they really push is open-source as long as it benefits the goals of their company. If I see one more i<insert name of super cool gadget> I'm going to puke.

Yeah, they are pretty frank about that. Still, lip service is a step ahead of "no service".

Vis gadgetry, I don't even own a cell phone. BUT I do think they are good things. I do own an mp3 player, which coming from the walkman generation I think is like better than sliced bread. Someone has to produce, experiment with, and pay for all this stuff, it might as well be Apple and their consumers. I'm sure that tablet computers like the ipad will have an increasing presence in many walks of life in the future, and be useful there, so it's a good thing (tho I still have little desire to own one).