Apple is closed and proprietary for native applications.
Flash is closed and proprietary for web applications.
From my vantage point, whether or not you approve of Apple's restrictions on native app development (like most, I don't), their refusal to allow Flash on the platform is good for the Internet; it's driving companies towards HTML5.
Basically what each is saying (and doing) is: "We support open standards for whatever isn't under our direct control (because if it was we would close it)."
Substitute 'free markets' for 'open standards' and you have a pretty good description of what happens in the world economy on a larger scale.
It isn't. That's why you were asked to clarify, which you haven't done. I'm even more uncertain of what you mean by all of this. It sounds like you think any company that uses both closed and open technology is hypocritical, but that's painting with such an incredibly broad brush that I find it hard to believe that that is what you really mean.
Apple controls what can run on the iPhone. Apple doesn't control content that comes in over the internet. Apple makes iPhone a closed proprietary system. Apple advocates for open standards for internet content.
Adobe 'controls' a sizable portion of content over the internet, by virtue of their Flash format being proprietary. Adobe doesn't control what software can run on end-user machines (specifically iPhone). Adobe advocates for openness in regard to what can run on iPhone (by enabling Flash apps to compile to native iPhone code). Adobe still keeps Flash a proprietary format.
If that doesn't make things crystal clear I don't know what will. Each controls X, which they keep closed and proprietary, yet doesn't control Y, which they push for Y be 'open' in some form or another.
The hypocrisy is here: Apple preferred to support more open standards which replicate everything Flash can do, added the statement.
Which we can translate as: Apple preferred to support more open standards, because they don't control Flash and don't want Adobe to gain control of what runs on iPhone (because that they do control and therefore want to keep closed).
What you're pointing to here would be hypocrisy if (for example) Apple were claiming to support these open standards but in fact made no effort to support them at all. The closed nature of their native platform is irrelevant in determining hypocrisy unless they were claiming to support openness there, which they aren't.
Your "translation" indicates you're more concerned about motives, but having a "bad" motive for acting in accordance with what you profess does not make you hypocritical any more than having a "good" motive for not acting in accordance with what you profess makes you not hypocritical.
You may find it disagreeable--and again, it sounds like you must feel the same way about most tech companies--but it's not hypocrisy.
If a gay person says, 'I support marriage rights for gay people but not for lesbians' -- is that not hypocritical?
My explanation earlier was meant to spell out the important facts related to which areas Apple and Adobe support open standards and which areas they don't. It's simply about what they control and what they don't control, and it's based on the same principles as when someone would want free markets.
For example, before the Industrial Revolution, England imported most of it's cotton from India, which was the supplier of most of the world's cotton. At that point, the English government made all sorts of hindrances to how much could be imported and so on, in order to protect local cotton producers.
After the Industrial Revolution, Britain became one of the leading producers of cotton fabric, and suddenly they were huge supporters of 'free markets' ...in places where they didn't explicitly control the pricing of cotton (aka India).
So free markets/open standards is the same thing. It's entirely about what someone controls and what someone doesn't control. And it's hypocritical for Apple to talk about supporting open standards for flash-like functionality, because they don't care about open standards, as evidenced by the way they close off nearly everything they touch (which are actions, not just motives). It's simply about market control.
...but...
it's hypocritical for Apple to talk about supporting open standards for flash-like functionality, because they don't care about open standards
See what I mean? You're saying it's hypocritical "because they don't care", not "because they don't do". That's why it was confusing.
But I think it's a bit off to think that the potential for hypocrisy is confined to the specific context of any particular comment.
If not for the fact that you're changing the meaning by ignoring the context, I'd agree, but you are. It is not "off" to consider things actually said in light of things actually done. What you've done here is add an additional statement that wasn't actually stated, i.e. turning "We support X." into "We support X and Y.", and then say it's hypocritical because they don't actually support Y. Perhaps this is clearer with the more specific original quote: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1292218
If a gay person says, 'I support marriage rights for gay people but not for lesbians' -- is that not hypocritical?
A statement alone can't be hypocritical. Without knowing the action (or in absence of action some other indicator of true belief) there is no way to be sure either way. Just specifying does not make it hypocritical.
Word: "I support marriage rights for some homosexuals but not others." Deed: Support marriage rights for some homosexuals but not others. Hypocritical: No.
Word: "I support marriage rights for some homosexuals but not others." Deed: Support marriage rights no homosexuals. Hypocritical: Yes.
Word: "I support marriage rights for all homosexuals." Deed: Support marriage rights for some homosexuals but not others. Hypocritical: Yes.
> The hypocrisy is self evident in both cases
> It isn't
Color me completely and totally flabbergasted. If this is not transparently hypocritical, please share with us a definition of "closed and proprietary" that does not include Apple squarely in the middle.
Apple's rules define a system so closed, that their own efforts in open and non-proprietary language, authoring and tool chains are unable to operate on their own platform!
Really, you don't see this on your own?
I do agree with this sentiment. But you're splitting hairs regarding your permissiveness of some kinds of close/proprietary software vs. others.
You also seem to have a strange disconnect where you don't realize that web applications built using flash are not permitted on the iP* platforms as well. Not just flash derived native apps.
> From where I sit, they gave an inch, and the peanut gallery is demanding a mile.
I think Apple would have been better served following a model more closely in line with video game consoles. Instead they tried for a hybrid open platform/licensed developer model (with centralized distribution of the channel). It's a very interesting approach that seems to have worked in terms of developing a large volume of apps and a robust ecosystem of development tools. But it's always seemed to me that what they really wanted was a Nintendo model, because that's how they seem to be behaving. I'm wondering how much Job's distaste for the gaming market figured into the current hybrid model rather than just doing a console licensing model from the start.
Not many people complain too loudly about the centralized distribution platform (Nintendo only cartridges), it seems to work pretty well. And until recently, nobody really complained about developing for the platform outside of the app approval process being irreparably broken, but that's not too different from the console model either (Nintendo Seal of Quality). Other things are representative of the console model, profit sharing (licensing costs), by saying "you must use this tool chain" it's not any different then having to use a certain dev kit and starts down the path of approving certain 3rd party development houses for the platforms instead of any ol' body. All Apple has to do is check that last box and they've pretty much managed to recreate the Nintendo licensing model from the 80's and 90's.
I'm not saying it's bad, it was extremely profitable for Nintendo, kept the quality reasonably high (unlicensed games for the NES pretty much blow donkey balls). It's just that they should call the model they are using the model they are using. Maybe they are, but most developers seem to be under the mindset that Apple is not following this model and that there is some hope that if they just pull enough the other way, the iP* platforms will open up like Androids.
Apple's original push for 'open' web apps is just an example of exactly what I was talking about -- they controlled iPhone and didn't want to share at all. They pushed for web apps because they can't control the web anyway. The fact that the App Store is raking in billions for them is a happy accident in their eyes.