Jesse Warden sums it up nicely, his site is getting hammered so I copied and pasted his thoughts below. You can find the original here: http://jessewarden.com/2010/04/steve-jobs-on-flash-correcting-the-lies.html
Steve Jobs on Flash: Correcting the Lies
Apple has posted Steve Jobs’ “Thoughts on Flash“. There are a lot of lies and half truths. No one will care. The article has enough valid points that people won’t check up on them.
That said, here’s my attempts to correct the lies.
Lie #1: “Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary.”
The Flash IDE, yes. The Flash Player, no. Here is a list of technologies open sourced/published by Macromedia/Adobe that are in the Flash Player ecosystem:
1.ActionScript 3 runtime, called Tamarin. Given to Mozilla to hopefully utilize in future browsers.
2.RTMP (and it’s ilk), the protocol for real-time video & audio streaming as well as data (AMF). Yes, many want “more” open sourced. Red5 and Wowza seem to be doing just fine with what is there currently.
3.The SWF format itself, which is what Flash Player plays/runs, has most of it’s spec published in case you want to generate SWF files.
This street goes both ways, too. Macromedia/Adobe has adopted open source technologies into Flash Player with the hopes of embracing standards, not just the de-facto ones.
1.ActionScript 1, 2, and 3 are all based on EMCAScript. Yes, it’s not as compliant as many would like. Additionally, Adobe did participate in many ECMA Script discussions/debates. Yes, 4 didn’t turn out so well for Adobe.
2.The XML parsing is based on E4X, ECMA Script for XML.
I’m not saying Adobe’s open sourced a lot of the Flash Player. There’s open source, there’s published, and then there is open source.
Regarding their products, he’s wrong there too. The Flex SDK, one of the biggest boosts for the Flash Platform in the past 4 years, is also open source (yes, the real kind). Most utilize Flex Builder, built on top of the open source Eclipse.
Using a blanket statement saying Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary is a lie. It paints an incorrect & negative picture over all the wonderful things Macromedia/Adobe have done in open source around their products.
Lie #2: “HTML5 being adopted by Google”
Google created the first browser to fully integrate plugins, and continues to work with Adobe to do so. Google also utilizes Flash Player in Gmail for both file uploading, and configuring your web cam. Google utilizes Flash Player in their online maps product for street view. Google Finance utilizes Flash Player for a lot of their charts. Their video site, YouTube, utilizes Flash Player for their videos.
Google didn’t start out with Flash. They started with text, AJAX, and later Flash. They’ve done a lot of forays into HTML5, yes, and will continue to do so. Saying they are “adopting” it, and only it and not Flash Player, is incorrect.
Lie #3: “…75% of video on the web is in Flash. What they don’t say is that almost all this video is also available in a more modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones, iPods and iPads…”
Incorrect. If a video is H264, that doesn’t mean it can play on the iPhone. If you look at the iPhone specs, you’ll see the only support a subset of what H264 offers, specifically 2 major components to quality video: Using a maximum of the Baseline profile, with Simple for higher bitrates/resolutions, as well as 2.5 for maximum (ish) bitrate.
Not all H264 videos conform to these specs. YouTube converted a lot of their Spark (Flash 6/7) videos to H264 to support iPhone because there was money to be gained in the large investment. Even so, not all YouTube videos work on the iPhone, in part because of the aforementioned reasons. There is a reason why when you upload a H264 video to YouTube, they’ll often re-encode it.
I’ve been in web video for 7 years. Getting video to work in the browser is the easy part. Setting up video encoding farms to support thousands/millions of users is not. It’s hard and expensive. Not everyone has the resources (read money and time) Google has, and that’s why companies like Brightcove are trying to capitalize on this problem.
Most importantly, HTML5 currently has no universal DRM solution. That is why Flash Player’s RTMPE, and soon HTTP Streaming via Project Zeri, are the de-facto standard today. Those who deploy video content they either own or license the rights to will not utilize HTML5 because it cannot be protected. There is a reason you rent videos in iTunes using their ACC format vs. straight H264. Legally, those videos CANNOT be utilized via HTML5.
Also, Hulu.com and others aren’t using H264, they’re using On2’s VP6.
Lie #4: “users aren’t missing much video.”
Every time a user see’s a blue lego instead of the video they wanted to see, they are missing a video. There were so many people seeing the blue lego, including Steve Jobs himself on stage demoing the iPad, that they removed the blue lego as a PR effort to make it seem like there was something wrong with the website itself vs. the iPhone/iPad.
…thankfully, Grant Skinner added it back.
Lie #5: “…Flash has recently added support for H.264…”
Incorrect. It’s been there since August of 2007. That’s almost 3 years. That’s a long time in technology.
Lie #6: “…must be run in software…”
Not entirely correct. Apple FINALLY gave Adobe and others access to hardware for desktop systems, which Adobe has recently utilized. The #1 criticism for Mac’s & Flash video is lack of hardware acceleration. This move by Apple will go a long way to improving video experiences, not just for Flash, for browser based video. Meaning, cooler Macs and more battery life.
For mobile, Safari/WebKit is using H264 hardware decoding just fine. They just won’t expose it, forcing yet again, Flash to utilize a sub par video experience for iPhone (having to launch a URL to utilize the iPhone’s default video player vs. incorporating the video into the experience).
Lie #7: “…When websites re-encode their videos using H.264, they can offer them without using Flash at all…”
See #3. Also, not all Flash video is just a video block on a page. Some are immersive experiences, games, or involved in compositing with other objects (alpha channels, easier particle systems, etc). HTML5 does not currently support some of these features.
Finally, not all video is pre-recorded and progressive. Live and streamed events are currently done using Flash Player and Silverlight. Yes, I’ve seen systems that can do live H264 via progressive with only seconds latency over CDN’s, regardless, they aren’t what’s being used en masse today. This includes DVR like functionality that both technologies offer, including Adative Streaming capabilities to ensure you can see un-interrupted video regardless of your internet connections’s integrity.
Lie #8: “…Flash was designed for PCs using mice, not for touch screens using fingers…”
Incorrect. The whole reason Flash Player has continued to stay ahead of the curve is because Macromedia/Adobe innovates it. There are gesture & touch API’s in the Flash Player; I and many others have used them for the iPhone resulting in a 100+ apps on the App Store.
Lie #9: “For example, many Flash websites rely on “rollovers”, which pop up menus or other elements when the mouse arrow hovers over a specific spot.”
Incorrect. This was already discounted 2 months ago by Mike Chambers. Additionally, I tested both MouseEvent.CLICK, MouseEvent.MOUSE_DOWN, and MouseEvent.ROLL_OVER, and all 3 worked just fine on my iPhone. Additionally, I’ve seen video of a Nexus One using the native Flash Player 10.1 that plays a Flex website I made just fine with no code changes to support touch.
Lie #10: “Apple’s revolutionary multi-touch interface doesn’t use a mouse, and there is no concept of a rollover.”
Incorrect. There are roll over states for buttons on the iPhone/iPad because you can click/touch on something, which shows the roll over state, but then drag off to not trigger the up, thus canceling your button click if you didn’t meant to touch something. Works the exact same way as a mouse does.
Lie #11: “Most Flash websites will need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices.”
Incorrect, see Mike Chambers’ post in #9.
Lie #12: “If developers need to rewrite their Flash websites, why not use modern technologies like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript?”
Those same JavaScript Developers need to do the same work Flash Developers need to do: Nothing.
If both wish to utilize Gesture or Touch events, then BOTH need to re-write/adjust their content to support these events.
Lie #13: “The avalanche of media outlets offering their content for Apple’s mobile devices demonstrates that Flash is no longer necessary to watch video or consume any kind of web content.”
Incorrect. See #3. Media companies will have to create players like Netflix did to support those devices; these aren’t HTML5, they’re Cocoa.
Half-Truth #1: “Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X.”
iTunes, flagship Apple software product enabling the success of the iPod, selling over 1 billion songs, and empowering digital movie rentals, isn’t Cocoa.
Gruber, the same guy who Apple apparently used as an example of why Flash doesn’t belong on the iPhone, was quoted, when referring to why Apple hasn’t ported iTunes to Cocoa:
What really matters are features and user experience, not the developer technologies used to make them.
Conclusions
I agree with everything else the article says. While the spin is HTML5 is better than Flash, Apple wants you developing with Cocoa, not HTML5; that’s where the money and good user experiences are. While many have said that the PR person responsible for writing that article is doing Apple a disservice, I disagree. Yes, they do lose creditability writing that many lies, and yes, this just fuels the fire for many developers, not just Flash Devs, to focus on Android instead of iPhone.
However, iPhones and iPads still rock. While Apple is “only the 10th” largest phone manufacturer, they are the only mobile platform people care about right now in the USA (unless you’re a pissed off Flash/Flex Dev). Their app store, combined with the user experience, is un-matched.
Me? I’m still trying to learn Cocoa so I too can participate in building applications for these wonderful devices; devices whose sales won’t be hurt by that article. My colleagues in the industry? Most are heading towards Android along with Adobe. Those moonlighting in Flash & iPhone development simultaneously don’t say much, beyond correcting & helping me with my Objective C knowledge on Twitter (y’all rock!).
…oh yeah, and someone cast Cure 2 on Adobe.
Friday, April 30, 2010
HP Kills Tablet?
TechCrunch is reporting today that Hewlett Packard may have killed off the Slate Tablet due to poor windows 7 performance:
http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/29/hewlett-packard-to-kill-windows-7-tablet-project/
The real question is how would HP not know that performance would be bad when tons of people less familiar with the device knew this from the start.
YOU CANNOT PUT A DESKTOP OS ON A TABLET AND EXPECT WONDERLAND.
Hardware makers, please repeat the phrase above prior to any other wild ideas similar in nature.
Things could possibly be better if Microsoft would get a clue and use their new Phone OS 7 on these portable devices. When and whether that will happen will be up to Microsoft but it's really agonizing that they don't see the HUGE WHITE MOOSE staring right at them. I blame Ballmer.
HP's only hope at this point is to use their newly aquired WebOS software that they got access to when they bought Palm for 1.2 Billion. Knowing HP, they will still find some way to screw this up.
http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/29/hewlett-packard-to-kill-windows-7-tablet-project/
The real question is how would HP not know that performance would be bad when tons of people less familiar with the device knew this from the start.
YOU CANNOT PUT A DESKTOP OS ON A TABLET AND EXPECT WONDERLAND.
Hardware makers, please repeat the phrase above prior to any other wild ideas similar in nature.
Things could possibly be better if Microsoft would get a clue and use their new Phone OS 7 on these portable devices. When and whether that will happen will be up to Microsoft but it's really agonizing that they don't see the HUGE WHITE MOOSE staring right at them. I blame Ballmer.
HP's only hope at this point is to use their newly aquired WebOS software that they got access to when they bought Palm for 1.2 Billion. Knowing HP, they will still find some way to screw this up.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Steve Jobs Flash Thoughts aka Spin
Well today Steve Jobs let the world know his thoughts on Flash. He made some correct comments, some incorrect comments, some nice spin comments, and some outright fabricated comments. What do you expect from a guy who wants to extol the virtues of "open" standards while self admittedly keeping his own garden "closed". Lets take a look at his statements and talk a little about them. Let me preface this by saying I am not an Apple Fanboy, nor am I an Apple hater. I am a long time (25+ year) pc/apple user who will call anyone out on BS no matter what side it falls on. It just so happens that Jobs is spewing a lot of BS this year.
Mr. Jobs states:
"Apple has a long relationship with Adobe. In fact, we met Adobe’s founders when they were in their proverbial garage. Apple was their first big customer, adopting their Postscript language for our new Laserwriter printer. Apple invested in Adobe and owned around 20% of the company for many years. The two companies worked closely together to pioneer desktop publishing and there were many good times. Since that golden era, the companies have grown apart."
This is all well and good but Adobe weren't the original owners so back then they had NOTHING to do with Flash. Steve continues to spread his feel good rhetoric but never does he mention that Apple then created a competing product to their postscript language known as TrueType and then licensed this technology to Microsoft of all companies. So even back then, Mr. Jobs had his two face on and while he states that he was working with him, he was really just gaining knowledge to be able to compete with them which he and Microsoft went on to do.
"Apple went through its near death experience, and Adobe was drawn to the corporate market with their Acrobat products. Today the two companies still work together to serve their joint creative customers – Mac users buy around half of Adobe’s Creative Suite products – but beyond that there are few joint interests."
There, by Steve's own admission does he make it clear that beyond the creative suite there are few joint interests. This includes Flash player on Mac and how much it crashes Safari. A problem not entirely due to the fact that Adobe hasn't released a 64bit version of the Flash plugin to date meaning that when Apple switched Safari to 64bit, they still had to have the Flash plugin work so they run a 32bit plugin inside the 64bit Safari. Now Steve makes his comment about flash is the number one reason of crashing on OSX, but I did not see any source to his claim and that whole fiasco is moot when it comes to the iphone and ipad since those devices do not run 64bit code. Again, having Flash NOT crash on Safari isn't a priority, neither was video acceleration because if it had been you would have seen Apple allow low level access a lot sooner than THIS WEEK.
"Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe’s Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system."
Steve is spinning rapidly at this point. Notice the "by almost any definition" disclaimer, because really it's only his definitions and those who share his viewpoint. Users do not have to use Adobe products to create Flash files and on top of this there is an open source plugin for flash. If Steve is all about open, cares if OSX crashes, then why not devote some energy/time to the open source plugin which Adobe doesn't own. Why not create your own if an open source version can be made? Hint: Because it IS a business decision relating to the App Store and you will see Steve admit this later in this post.
"Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript – all open standards."
Nice try Steve except for the fact that HTML5 is a NEW standard that hasn't even been ratified. It is a DRAFT spec still after 6 YEARS!!! As much as he ballyhoos about it being STANDARD it is NOT. It is the PROPOSED STANDARD.
"Apple’s mobile devices all ship with high performance, low power implementations of these open standards. HTML5, the new web standard that has been adopted by Apple, Google and many others, lets web developers create advanced graphics, typography, animations and transitions without relying on third party browser plug-ins (like Flash). HTML5 is completely open and controlled by a standards committee, of which Apple is a member."
Spin, spin, spin Steve-O, did you see that? It's controlled by a STANDARDS committee which APPLE just happens to be a member of. Which means that Apple has SOME control over this "OPEN" standard. He also negates to enlighten people how this DRAFT standard cannot actually create everything that can be made in flash, nor does he care, it's more of a "HTML5 can do it good enough" attitude. It might take a dev. 5 hours to create something that a flash dev. could create in 3 hours but Steve doesn't care and you will see his ignorance by his own admission later in this post."
"Adobe has repeatedly said that Apple mobile devices cannot access “the full web” because 75% of video on the web is in Flash. What they don’t say is that almost all this video is also available in a more modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones, iPods and iPads."
Steve is outright lying at this point and he's doing it two-fold, Adobe claims that idevices don't get the "full web" because idevices don't support the flash player. Steve is twisting this to mean video ONLY, he completely ignores all the other uses such as animation, advertising, large scale database front ends, reservation systems etc...idevices cannot access any of this at all due to his limiting what his own users are allowed to use. He is also not telling you that H.264 is in itself a PROPRIETARY Specification.
On February 2, 2010 MPEG LA announced that H.264-encoded Internet Video that is free to end users would continue to be exempt from royalty fees until at least December 31, 2015.[11] However, other fees remain in place. The license terms are updated in 5-year blocks.
That is from the Wiki on H.264, as you can see it is currently free to end users but that could change come 2015, which is only 5 years away. Steve has no idea what they will do yet wants everyone to jump on that boat which may or may not charge you sometime later, now contrast that to the Flash plugin which has ALWAYS BEEN FREE EVEN BEFORE ADOBE OWNED IT.
"....YouTube, with an estimated 40% of the web’s video, shines in an app bundled on all Apple mobile devices, with the iPad offering perhaps the best YouTube discovery and viewing experience ever. Add to this video from Vimeo, Netflix, Facebook, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ESPN, NPR, Time, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Sports Illustrated, People, National Geographic, and many, many others. iPhone, iPod and iPad users aren’t missing much video."
Once again Steve is spinning bigtime, if you remember back to both the keynote as well as the first pics of the device which showed either the Times or the Journal you SAW very plainly that there was a flash video RIGHT ON PAGE ONE which didn't work due to Jobs flash policy. Now I don't know what he's trying to pull here with that statement above but it sure smacks of "it works good enough, whatever"! If you think that the videos on the sites he listed are anywhere near any REAL percentage of the web which doesn't work with idevices then you need some mental help in a big way.
"Another Adobe claim is that Apple devices cannot play Flash games. This is true. Fortunately, there are over 50,000 games and entertainment titles on the App Store, and many of them are free. There are more games and entertainment titles available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any other platform in the world."
BOOM, there it is, there he is admitting that its all well and good that you can't play the games YOU want on YOUR device because fortunately for you, his app store has 50,000 games and entertainment titles and he doesn't really care if they aren't the ones you want to play. If you count flash games as for PC/Mac platform in addition to all the software titles from the last 5-10 years, many of them still playable on current systems, it is easy to find his claim laughable. Maybe Steve is a medicinal pot user, who knows, but a blanket statement like that, again with no source, makes it harder and harder to believe anything he says.
"Symantec recently highlighted Flash for having one of the worst security records in 2009. We also know first hand that Flash is the number one reason Macs crash. We have been working with Adobe to fix these problems, but they have persisted for several years now. We don’t want to reduce the reliability and security of our iPhones, iPods and iPads by adding Flash."
Ok I'll concede Adobe has security issues with Flash, but the flash player on a mobile phone is not the same one that Symantec is talking about and as such, could be specifically hardened for Apple's idevices. Jobs then makes the wonderful claim of working with Adobe over several years to fix these issues but of course doesn't state how he FINALLY JUST THIS WEEK gave them the low level access they needed to have to ALLOW HARDWARE DECODING on OSX desktop devices. Yeah, he's been working with them for years, sort of like he worked with, and then against them way back with TrueType.
"In addition, Flash has not performed well on mobile devices. We have routinely asked Adobe to show us Flash performing well on a mobile device, any mobile device, for a few years now. We have never seen it. Adobe publicly said that Flash would ship on a smartphone in early 2009, then the second half of 2009, then the first half of 2010, and now they say the second half of 2010. We think it will eventually ship, but we’re glad we didn’t hold our breath. Who knows how it will perform?"
Hmm, Steve, we haven't even really SEEN devices with strong enough specs until recently. Even desktop computers from 5 years ago would have issues playing Flash. PC users don't have this huge crashing flash problem and haven't for awhile now yet we are still to believe this is all Adobe's fault and Apple has nothing to do with it?! Steve then continues to make a comment about when flash would ship on a smartphone and how he's glad they didn't hold their breath. It's funny how Steve forgets his own company making delivery promises and then setting those promises aside when they can't make their target time. Most recently you saw this with international iPad orders. Apparently it's ok for Steve to take his time NO MATTER WHAT THE REASON is but Adobe wanting their software to run well on smartphones is somehow a reason to bash them just because Steve says so. Gee Steve, we'll have to come up with a nice list for you of the times we as endusers are glad we didn't hold our breath waiting for you or Apple!! As for stability issues, how many people here have had the idevice issue where EVERY app would crash upon open, the DHCP issues that were in the ORIGINAL iPhone and are now in the NEW iPad? Jeesh Steve, maybe you should try a little quality control at home before attacking other companies. You have issues in new devices which were issues in devices 3 years ago and you still haven't fixed them, they cause all sorts of problems for your users but I don't see you blocking or ripping them from your idevices!
"To achieve long battery life when playing video, mobile devices must decode the video in hardware; decoding it in software uses too much power. Many of the chips used in modern mobile devices contain a decoder called H.264 – an industry standard that is used in every Blu-ray DVD player and has been adopted by Apple, Google (YouTube), Vimeo, Netflix and many other companies."
Blue-ray, haha, a technology that Apple doesn't support, and when asked if they would, Steve replied that YouTube now supports HD Videos. Steve would rather you upload personal, family based HD video to youtube to share rather than allowing you to burn your own blue-ray discs. Again, Steve is being sly here and not acknowledging that Flash video is only half of the equation. Games and apps made using flash are not going to use a built in h.264 video decoder at all, they are going to use the graphics chip that is in the idevice. Well they will if Steve allows them access which would then allow flash animations/apps to be hardware decoded by the idevice OS, his omission of this is beautiful, the short 3 sentence paragraph I quoted above is the ONLY mention of the other stuff flash does and he minimizes it becuase it his a hugely relevant issue.
"Although Flash has recently added support for H.264, the video on almost all Flash websites currently requires an older generation decoder that is not implemented in mobile chips and must be run in software. The difference is striking: on an iPhone, for example, H.264 videos play for up to 10 hours, while videos decoded in software play for less than 5 hours before the battery is fully drained."
Steve has an iPhone that lasts 10 hours? Hmm, how come just about NOBODY else can use their iPhone doing ANYTHING straight for that long and having the battery last? The last time I checked 5 hours straight doing ANYTHING on an iPhone 3G was all you could get from the batter. 4:45 exactly to be precise, oh look it seems Steve is trying to claim that it's Flash that cause this issue. Steven STOP LYING, you are only fooling the lazy ones who believe everything you say. YOU CANNOT DO ANYTHING ON AN IPHONE FOR OVER 5 HOURS BECAUSE THE BATTERY WONT LAST PERIOD. Don't believe me, look it up, check iPhone battery comparisons, they have no flash going at all and the most they get is just under 5 hours. The iPhone has ALWAYS had a bad rap for battery life and Steven trying to pin it on Adobe Flash is some serious BS. What Steve has ACTUALLY told us here is that EVEN when running Flash and it's doing SOFTWARE DECODING you STILL GET THE SAME BATTERY LIFE AS IF YOU HAD NO FLASH AT ALL! Thanks for providing that proof Stevey boy!!
"When websites re-encode their videos using H.264, they can offer them without using Flash at all. They play perfectly in browsers like Apple’s Safari and Google’s Chrome without any plugins whatsoever, and look great on iPhones, iPods and iPads."
Yeah, for now Steve, just hope that h.264 doesn't start to cost the end users as of 2015, you know as well as anyone who has knowledge of the standard that it is a closed, proprietary codec that COULD come back to bite you in the ass.
"Flash was designed for PCs using mice, not for touch screens using fingers. For example, many Flash websites rely on “rollovers”, which pop up menus or other elements when the mouse arrow hovers over a specific spot. Apple’s revolutionary multi-touch interface doesn’t use a mouse, and there is no concept of a rollover. Most Flash websites will need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices. If developers need to rewrite their Flash websites, why not use modern technologies like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript?"
Steve is lying straight to your faces yet again with the comment that there is no concept of a roll over. Really Steve? You better talk to the devs out there that have already implemented this without flash. It works pretty simple, you press and hold and that does the roll over and starts whatever action is needed. For video sites, this includes a short preview of what the video is. This is all done without flash currently, and since the latest flash has NATIVE support built in for touch, your point is wrong, or purposely misleading. You really should be punched square in your face for the last comment there. Flash devs don't have to REWRITE their ENTIRE app to use the touch controls, just a few lines of code added then recompile vs. what you would have them do: recreate the entire app is unproven, unstandardized technologies that actually create MORE work for the developer. Who the hell are you trying to kid with that line anyways? You damn well know that to rewrite an entire app from scratch to use the tech. you want is immensely more work then what it would take to edit an existing flash app to add touch support. This editing of the flash app isn't even NECCESSARY in a lot of the cases, thanks for conveniently leaving that out as well..jerk.
"We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform."
Really Steve? Is that why there are already over 100 apps being sold in the app store that were created this way? Or maybe you had such a painful experience that you had to also use one of those apps as a FEATURED APP. Lies, lies and more lies.
"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."
You aren't at the mercy, the developer is. The developer is the one who would be choosing to use Flash to develop in the first place. Your entire statement ignores situations such as: What if the dev. just decides he doesn't want to do an update? What if he decides to abandon the software and develop some other app? These things HAVE happened and continue to happen and Apple doesn't do a damn thing about it yet here with Flash you are the end user AND dev's saviour? I think not.
"This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor’s platforms."
Or they could just adopt the enhancements, do a check as to what device it's running on, and then enable or disable the ability to use those enhancements on the fly. So hard Steve and at this point you are really reaching. I wonder how many people you solicited to try and come up with this huge load of BS that is your press release. You have no problem blocking devs from using certain technologies but if another company does it they are bad.
"Flash is a cross platform development tool. It is not Adobe’s goal to help developers write the best iPhone, iPod and iPad apps. It is their goal to help developers write cross platform apps. And Adobe has been painfully slow to adopt enhancements to Apple’s platforms. For example, although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X."
As are Unity3D and other cross platform development tools which it seems you are going to allow in the App store. Allowing certain cross compiling dev. environments while not allowing others would seemingly negate your blanket statement about cross compiles apps.
"Our motivation is simple – we want to provide the most advanced and innovative platform to our developers, and we want them to stand directly on the shoulders of this platform and create the best apps the world has ever seen. We want to continually enhance the platform so developers can create even more amazing, powerful, fun and useful applications. Everyone wins – we sell more devices because we have the best apps, developers reach a wider and wider audience and customer base, and users are continually delighted by the best and broadest selection of apps on any platform."
Your motivation is simple alright, it's called greed and it's not by surprise that people are now referring to you as the Big Brother you showcased in your famous commercial. You are becoming worse than they ever were, it is becoming in fashion to hate your company which used to at least be respected, even by pc users. You are know losing that rapidly.
"Flash was created during the PC era – for PCs and mice."
Adobe aquired Flash in 2005 Steve, one year AFTER HTML5 became a draft spec. Adobe has updated Flash to use the new technology available in smartphones with touch screens, this doesn't matter to you. We should all use these other technologies, some with haven't been ratified yet and all of which are not has popular as flash or as widely used, simply because you, as the Chief at Apple thinks so. Thank you so much for FORCING your PERSONAL decisions on your end users. Because to allow Flash on idevices and give the end users a simple on/off switch would just be too complicated.
Keep it up Steve, you are currently killing the brand you helped to recreate because of your stupid personal decisions which even many of your longtime users now are at odds with. Unfortunately, you will never see Flash die as it will be here long after you are gone. Good day sir.
Mr. Jobs states:
"Apple has a long relationship with Adobe. In fact, we met Adobe’s founders when they were in their proverbial garage. Apple was their first big customer, adopting their Postscript language for our new Laserwriter printer. Apple invested in Adobe and owned around 20% of the company for many years. The two companies worked closely together to pioneer desktop publishing and there were many good times. Since that golden era, the companies have grown apart."
This is all well and good but Adobe weren't the original owners so back then they had NOTHING to do with Flash. Steve continues to spread his feel good rhetoric but never does he mention that Apple then created a competing product to their postscript language known as TrueType and then licensed this technology to Microsoft of all companies. So even back then, Mr. Jobs had his two face on and while he states that he was working with him, he was really just gaining knowledge to be able to compete with them which he and Microsoft went on to do.
"Apple went through its near death experience, and Adobe was drawn to the corporate market with their Acrobat products. Today the two companies still work together to serve their joint creative customers – Mac users buy around half of Adobe’s Creative Suite products – but beyond that there are few joint interests."
There, by Steve's own admission does he make it clear that beyond the creative suite there are few joint interests. This includes Flash player on Mac and how much it crashes Safari. A problem not entirely due to the fact that Adobe hasn't released a 64bit version of the Flash plugin to date meaning that when Apple switched Safari to 64bit, they still had to have the Flash plugin work so they run a 32bit plugin inside the 64bit Safari. Now Steve makes his comment about flash is the number one reason of crashing on OSX, but I did not see any source to his claim and that whole fiasco is moot when it comes to the iphone and ipad since those devices do not run 64bit code. Again, having Flash NOT crash on Safari isn't a priority, neither was video acceleration because if it had been you would have seen Apple allow low level access a lot sooner than THIS WEEK.
"Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe’s Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system."
Steve is spinning rapidly at this point. Notice the "by almost any definition" disclaimer, because really it's only his definitions and those who share his viewpoint. Users do not have to use Adobe products to create Flash files and on top of this there is an open source plugin for flash. If Steve is all about open, cares if OSX crashes, then why not devote some energy/time to the open source plugin which Adobe doesn't own. Why not create your own if an open source version can be made? Hint: Because it IS a business decision relating to the App Store and you will see Steve admit this later in this post.
"Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript – all open standards."
Nice try Steve except for the fact that HTML5 is a NEW standard that hasn't even been ratified. It is a DRAFT spec still after 6 YEARS!!! As much as he ballyhoos about it being STANDARD it is NOT. It is the PROPOSED STANDARD.
"Apple’s mobile devices all ship with high performance, low power implementations of these open standards. HTML5, the new web standard that has been adopted by Apple, Google and many others, lets web developers create advanced graphics, typography, animations and transitions without relying on third party browser plug-ins (like Flash). HTML5 is completely open and controlled by a standards committee, of which Apple is a member."
Spin, spin, spin Steve-O, did you see that? It's controlled by a STANDARDS committee which APPLE just happens to be a member of. Which means that Apple has SOME control over this "OPEN" standard. He also negates to enlighten people how this DRAFT standard cannot actually create everything that can be made in flash, nor does he care, it's more of a "HTML5 can do it good enough" attitude. It might take a dev. 5 hours to create something that a flash dev. could create in 3 hours but Steve doesn't care and you will see his ignorance by his own admission later in this post."
"Adobe has repeatedly said that Apple mobile devices cannot access “the full web” because 75% of video on the web is in Flash. What they don’t say is that almost all this video is also available in a more modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones, iPods and iPads."
Steve is outright lying at this point and he's doing it two-fold, Adobe claims that idevices don't get the "full web" because idevices don't support the flash player. Steve is twisting this to mean video ONLY, he completely ignores all the other uses such as animation, advertising, large scale database front ends, reservation systems etc...idevices cannot access any of this at all due to his limiting what his own users are allowed to use. He is also not telling you that H.264 is in itself a PROPRIETARY Specification.
On February 2, 2010 MPEG LA announced that H.264-encoded Internet Video that is free to end users would continue to be exempt from royalty fees until at least December 31, 2015.[11] However, other fees remain in place. The license terms are updated in 5-year blocks.
That is from the Wiki on H.264, as you can see it is currently free to end users but that could change come 2015, which is only 5 years away. Steve has no idea what they will do yet wants everyone to jump on that boat which may or may not charge you sometime later, now contrast that to the Flash plugin which has ALWAYS BEEN FREE EVEN BEFORE ADOBE OWNED IT.
"....YouTube, with an estimated 40% of the web’s video, shines in an app bundled on all Apple mobile devices, with the iPad offering perhaps the best YouTube discovery and viewing experience ever. Add to this video from Vimeo, Netflix, Facebook, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ESPN, NPR, Time, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Sports Illustrated, People, National Geographic, and many, many others. iPhone, iPod and iPad users aren’t missing much video."
Once again Steve is spinning bigtime, if you remember back to both the keynote as well as the first pics of the device which showed either the Times or the Journal you SAW very plainly that there was a flash video RIGHT ON PAGE ONE which didn't work due to Jobs flash policy. Now I don't know what he's trying to pull here with that statement above but it sure smacks of "it works good enough, whatever"! If you think that the videos on the sites he listed are anywhere near any REAL percentage of the web which doesn't work with idevices then you need some mental help in a big way.
"Another Adobe claim is that Apple devices cannot play Flash games. This is true. Fortunately, there are over 50,000 games and entertainment titles on the App Store, and many of them are free. There are more games and entertainment titles available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any other platform in the world."
BOOM, there it is, there he is admitting that its all well and good that you can't play the games YOU want on YOUR device because fortunately for you, his app store has 50,000 games and entertainment titles and he doesn't really care if they aren't the ones you want to play. If you count flash games as for PC/Mac platform in addition to all the software titles from the last 5-10 years, many of them still playable on current systems, it is easy to find his claim laughable. Maybe Steve is a medicinal pot user, who knows, but a blanket statement like that, again with no source, makes it harder and harder to believe anything he says.
"Symantec recently highlighted Flash for having one of the worst security records in 2009. We also know first hand that Flash is the number one reason Macs crash. We have been working with Adobe to fix these problems, but they have persisted for several years now. We don’t want to reduce the reliability and security of our iPhones, iPods and iPads by adding Flash."
Ok I'll concede Adobe has security issues with Flash, but the flash player on a mobile phone is not the same one that Symantec is talking about and as such, could be specifically hardened for Apple's idevices. Jobs then makes the wonderful claim of working with Adobe over several years to fix these issues but of course doesn't state how he FINALLY JUST THIS WEEK gave them the low level access they needed to have to ALLOW HARDWARE DECODING on OSX desktop devices. Yeah, he's been working with them for years, sort of like he worked with, and then against them way back with TrueType.
"In addition, Flash has not performed well on mobile devices. We have routinely asked Adobe to show us Flash performing well on a mobile device, any mobile device, for a few years now. We have never seen it. Adobe publicly said that Flash would ship on a smartphone in early 2009, then the second half of 2009, then the first half of 2010, and now they say the second half of 2010. We think it will eventually ship, but we’re glad we didn’t hold our breath. Who knows how it will perform?"
Hmm, Steve, we haven't even really SEEN devices with strong enough specs until recently. Even desktop computers from 5 years ago would have issues playing Flash. PC users don't have this huge crashing flash problem and haven't for awhile now yet we are still to believe this is all Adobe's fault and Apple has nothing to do with it?! Steve then continues to make a comment about when flash would ship on a smartphone and how he's glad they didn't hold their breath. It's funny how Steve forgets his own company making delivery promises and then setting those promises aside when they can't make their target time. Most recently you saw this with international iPad orders. Apparently it's ok for Steve to take his time NO MATTER WHAT THE REASON is but Adobe wanting their software to run well on smartphones is somehow a reason to bash them just because Steve says so. Gee Steve, we'll have to come up with a nice list for you of the times we as endusers are glad we didn't hold our breath waiting for you or Apple!! As for stability issues, how many people here have had the idevice issue where EVERY app would crash upon open, the DHCP issues that were in the ORIGINAL iPhone and are now in the NEW iPad? Jeesh Steve, maybe you should try a little quality control at home before attacking other companies. You have issues in new devices which were issues in devices 3 years ago and you still haven't fixed them, they cause all sorts of problems for your users but I don't see you blocking or ripping them from your idevices!
"To achieve long battery life when playing video, mobile devices must decode the video in hardware; decoding it in software uses too much power. Many of the chips used in modern mobile devices contain a decoder called H.264 – an industry standard that is used in every Blu-ray DVD player and has been adopted by Apple, Google (YouTube), Vimeo, Netflix and many other companies."
Blue-ray, haha, a technology that Apple doesn't support, and when asked if they would, Steve replied that YouTube now supports HD Videos. Steve would rather you upload personal, family based HD video to youtube to share rather than allowing you to burn your own blue-ray discs. Again, Steve is being sly here and not acknowledging that Flash video is only half of the equation. Games and apps made using flash are not going to use a built in h.264 video decoder at all, they are going to use the graphics chip that is in the idevice. Well they will if Steve allows them access which would then allow flash animations/apps to be hardware decoded by the idevice OS, his omission of this is beautiful, the short 3 sentence paragraph I quoted above is the ONLY mention of the other stuff flash does and he minimizes it becuase it his a hugely relevant issue.
"Although Flash has recently added support for H.264, the video on almost all Flash websites currently requires an older generation decoder that is not implemented in mobile chips and must be run in software. The difference is striking: on an iPhone, for example, H.264 videos play for up to 10 hours, while videos decoded in software play for less than 5 hours before the battery is fully drained."
Steve has an iPhone that lasts 10 hours? Hmm, how come just about NOBODY else can use their iPhone doing ANYTHING straight for that long and having the battery last? The last time I checked 5 hours straight doing ANYTHING on an iPhone 3G was all you could get from the batter. 4:45 exactly to be precise, oh look it seems Steve is trying to claim that it's Flash that cause this issue. Steven STOP LYING, you are only fooling the lazy ones who believe everything you say. YOU CANNOT DO ANYTHING ON AN IPHONE FOR OVER 5 HOURS BECAUSE THE BATTERY WONT LAST PERIOD. Don't believe me, look it up, check iPhone battery comparisons, they have no flash going at all and the most they get is just under 5 hours. The iPhone has ALWAYS had a bad rap for battery life and Steven trying to pin it on Adobe Flash is some serious BS. What Steve has ACTUALLY told us here is that EVEN when running Flash and it's doing SOFTWARE DECODING you STILL GET THE SAME BATTERY LIFE AS IF YOU HAD NO FLASH AT ALL! Thanks for providing that proof Stevey boy!!
"When websites re-encode their videos using H.264, they can offer them without using Flash at all. They play perfectly in browsers like Apple’s Safari and Google’s Chrome without any plugins whatsoever, and look great on iPhones, iPods and iPads."
Yeah, for now Steve, just hope that h.264 doesn't start to cost the end users as of 2015, you know as well as anyone who has knowledge of the standard that it is a closed, proprietary codec that COULD come back to bite you in the ass.
"Flash was designed for PCs using mice, not for touch screens using fingers. For example, many Flash websites rely on “rollovers”, which pop up menus or other elements when the mouse arrow hovers over a specific spot. Apple’s revolutionary multi-touch interface doesn’t use a mouse, and there is no concept of a rollover. Most Flash websites will need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices. If developers need to rewrite their Flash websites, why not use modern technologies like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript?"
Steve is lying straight to your faces yet again with the comment that there is no concept of a roll over. Really Steve? You better talk to the devs out there that have already implemented this without flash. It works pretty simple, you press and hold and that does the roll over and starts whatever action is needed. For video sites, this includes a short preview of what the video is. This is all done without flash currently, and since the latest flash has NATIVE support built in for touch, your point is wrong, or purposely misleading. You really should be punched square in your face for the last comment there. Flash devs don't have to REWRITE their ENTIRE app to use the touch controls, just a few lines of code added then recompile vs. what you would have them do: recreate the entire app is unproven, unstandardized technologies that actually create MORE work for the developer. Who the hell are you trying to kid with that line anyways? You damn well know that to rewrite an entire app from scratch to use the tech. you want is immensely more work then what it would take to edit an existing flash app to add touch support. This editing of the flash app isn't even NECCESSARY in a lot of the cases, thanks for conveniently leaving that out as well..jerk.
"We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform."
Really Steve? Is that why there are already over 100 apps being sold in the app store that were created this way? Or maybe you had such a painful experience that you had to also use one of those apps as a FEATURED APP. Lies, lies and more lies.
"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."
You aren't at the mercy, the developer is. The developer is the one who would be choosing to use Flash to develop in the first place. Your entire statement ignores situations such as: What if the dev. just decides he doesn't want to do an update? What if he decides to abandon the software and develop some other app? These things HAVE happened and continue to happen and Apple doesn't do a damn thing about it yet here with Flash you are the end user AND dev's saviour? I think not.
"This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor’s platforms."
Or they could just adopt the enhancements, do a check as to what device it's running on, and then enable or disable the ability to use those enhancements on the fly. So hard Steve and at this point you are really reaching. I wonder how many people you solicited to try and come up with this huge load of BS that is your press release. You have no problem blocking devs from using certain technologies but if another company does it they are bad.
"Flash is a cross platform development tool. It is not Adobe’s goal to help developers write the best iPhone, iPod and iPad apps. It is their goal to help developers write cross platform apps. And Adobe has been painfully slow to adopt enhancements to Apple’s platforms. For example, although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X."
As are Unity3D and other cross platform development tools which it seems you are going to allow in the App store. Allowing certain cross compiling dev. environments while not allowing others would seemingly negate your blanket statement about cross compiles apps.
"Our motivation is simple – we want to provide the most advanced and innovative platform to our developers, and we want them to stand directly on the shoulders of this platform and create the best apps the world has ever seen. We want to continually enhance the platform so developers can create even more amazing, powerful, fun and useful applications. Everyone wins – we sell more devices because we have the best apps, developers reach a wider and wider audience and customer base, and users are continually delighted by the best and broadest selection of apps on any platform."
Your motivation is simple alright, it's called greed and it's not by surprise that people are now referring to you as the Big Brother you showcased in your famous commercial. You are becoming worse than they ever were, it is becoming in fashion to hate your company which used to at least be respected, even by pc users. You are know losing that rapidly.
"Flash was created during the PC era – for PCs and mice."
Adobe aquired Flash in 2005 Steve, one year AFTER HTML5 became a draft spec. Adobe has updated Flash to use the new technology available in smartphones with touch screens, this doesn't matter to you. We should all use these other technologies, some with haven't been ratified yet and all of which are not has popular as flash or as widely used, simply because you, as the Chief at Apple thinks so. Thank you so much for FORCING your PERSONAL decisions on your end users. Because to allow Flash on idevices and give the end users a simple on/off switch would just be too complicated.
Keep it up Steve, you are currently killing the brand you helped to recreate because of your stupid personal decisions which even many of your longtime users now are at odds with. Unfortunately, you will never see Flash die as it will be here long after you are gone. Good day sir.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)