Adobe Responds to Jobs

For example, it contains intrinsically weak arguments. e.g. the section headed "Fifth, there's Touch" is equally applicable to HTML5 and infact most of the rest of the internet technologies. If you can fix "Touch" well enough for HTML5 then you must be able to fix it well enough for Flash, the requirements are identical.

The h.264/battery life argument is similarly weak in that it can be turned against almost any video codec, suggesting that h.264 is some kind of silver bullet "optimal" solution, which it most certainly is not. It also closes the doors to open solutions and user choices of codec - what if I want to host video myself and don't want to waste resources and money on h.264?

The layers argument is good, but unfortunately in this context it is extremely weak - Apple love adding their own layers. Look how many layers there are in OS X... should Cocoa be ditched just because its an extra layer? It provides similar functionality to Flash of "making something hard, easier".

The open argument is pretty irrelevant to whether Flash is useful or not, but I actually like it... my traditional reason for disliking Adobe has been PDF and Flash and the way they have degraded the internet, although that has as much to do with bad use as it does with being proprietary formats.

The remaining arguments are the "full web" and "security" arguments, both of which are valid although I am distracted midway through the "full web" argument by this blatant lie - "There are more games and entertainment titles available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any other platform in the world.". Maybe he means you can buy more titles - that would be almost believable...

The security argument is great but I'd be careful of making too much of it - iPhone is secure by obscurity and I suspect Flash is such a "security problem" because it is so heavily used. You can compare Safari and IE in the same way, IE is much, much, MUCH, more secure - but to a pretty good approximation, nobody uses Safari - still IE gets a worse image for security because so many people are using it that its 1) a worthwhile target 2) got a large enough user base that complaints come in significant volumes.

Did any of that sound remotely good?

It's a pretty weak retort by Adobe.

On a more historical note, mobile Flash did exist in 2007. I was using it to watch Youtube on my Nokia N800. It was slow -- the device didn't have enough CPU power to simultaneously download and playback, so you had to pause the video and let it cache completely first. But it most definitely did exist, and I am convinced that implementation would have worked well on 2009 hardware. The N800 wasn't exactly a breakthrough device, nor was it super popular. Yet Adobe somehow managed to deliver for Nokia.

The N800 was introduced in early 2007. Its predecessor, the 770, was introduced in late 2005, with Flash out of the box. I never owned one so I cannot comment on the performance.

I would also challenge your statements regarding Apple delivering HTML video for mobile devices -- mostly the HTML years ago part. Also, H.264, which Apple is pushing, is by no means an open standard, which some of their competitors have issues with.

This may come as a surprise to some, but there's a whole mobile world outside of the Apple iPhone... you get far better hardware, no lock-in, and (now with Android/Maemo) a very solid UI.

That's why smart phones have also mostly sucked until recently too (no, it isn't that the iPhone's suddenly created demand, its just due to an evolution in technology).

Besides, you miss the point. H.264 IS a patent encumbered format, and Apple is going out of their way to jab at its loyal developers.

For that reason (and many others), I will now be replacing OSX on my mac with Windows 7 and will not personally be supporting OSX for my project (Nightingale). In fact, I'll be asking the community if it is the right thing to do shortly.

Apple's disrespect for other developers is absolutely incredible, and I have NEVER seen such a disrespectful person. He doesn't give a damn if other companies spend months developing a software package for his platform, or if they have bent over for Apple for years. I'm totally done with Apple now.

It works well enough, but frankly I don't like the default browser and it isn't portable because it's custom built... not to mention downloading large flash files is not something you want to do on Sprint's network.

I'm not saying that Adobe's Flash has had a huge impact on the Symbian world, but just to get the facts straight.

Adobe has been trying to get Flash on the iPhones since Day 1, and has been unable to do it because of some honestly pretty shitty business practices on Apple's part. Now you may love Flash or hate it, but the bottom line is this: the iPhone can never be considered a best-of-breed gadget when it still provides a second-rate web browsing experience in which about 40% of the Internet is forever closed to you.

The reason that Apple does not, will not, can not support Flash is simply this: it would gut the App Store like a week-old fish.

Kindly remove the blinders from your eyes, then get back to us. :)

If Adobe had simply failed to deliver a product, no one would care. Instead, they did deliver it (or were just about to deliver it), and Apple freaked out.

For the first time, Apple choosing "not-Flash" actually has enough weight to force content publishers to choose "not-Flash" more often. This will eventually influence more of the tech industry. Personally, I'm thrilled.

http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfw9fng6_2cscxq6hq

And with this paragraph you exactly proved why Flash doesn't have sense on the iPhone.

Flash works on my blackberry just fine, btw.

in fact i run ubuntu on a mac mini (in addition to lots of generic pc hardware). i like mac hardware. some of it is overpriced, but some of it is fine.

You're confusing best practices with common practices. The vast majority of sites are developed with the assumption that javascript will be enabled in the viewer's browser.