Steve Jobs pens open letter about Flash

Okay, so now the argument that HTML 5 is not ideal for video because MPEG4 is not open can be put to rest.

MPEG4 is now free forever:
http://www.businesswir​e.com/news/home/201008​25006629/en

Just another stake in the coffin that is Flash. It's dead, Jim!

If you read it, Looks like it's only free if the end user gets it for free. That's a little different that just saying it's free.

I have no problem with Flash getting killed. I could care or less. But I do care about open and free competition. May the best win, not the one that kept everyone out by building false walls.

Yes, but even if it costs license fees to developers, big whoop. They all pay these for everything already, anyways. Look at Amazon's 1-click patent.

I'm sure that Firefox fanatics will be up in arms, but you know what? Google, Microsoft and Apple all support this. It's not like Firefox is a bunch of broke hippy programmers anymore. Mozilla makes TONS of money. They can pay for this fee easily, or they can stick to their guns and have the only browser out there that doesn't work for video. In but just a few years, this will be the case. They can keep trying to fight the good fight or just get on board and move on.

Adobe has to push Flash, they spent a ton of money to buy it just a few years ago. They bought an entire company just to get Flash.

John the Geek wrote in post #10795281
Adobe has to push Flash, they spent a ton of money to buy it just a few years ago. They bought an entire company just to get Flash.

QFT!

John the Geek wrote in post #10795281
Adobe has to push Flash, they spent a ton of money to buy it just a few years ago. They bought an entire company just to get Flash.

Haha, you say it like a company shouldn't push its product.

merlin2375 wrote in post #10795333
Haha, you say it like a company shouldn't push its product.

Well, not if it's too much of an uphill battle. I'm just saying that Macromedia would have had more ground to say "Ok fine, flash has run it's course and isn't well suited for mobile applications, here's some better technology for you instead." Adobe can't even consider that stance. Their shareholders would revolt if they moved Flash to the backseat and pushed a mobile-friendly technology. They could have done that without buying Macromedia. Surender isn't even an option for them.

merlin2375 wrote in post #10795205
I have no problem with Flash getting killed. I could care or less. But I do care about open and free competition.

You mean like how Adobe bought Macromedia, then promptly killed some of its application?

John the Geek wrote in post #10795281
Adobe has to push Flash, they spent a ton of money to buy it just a few years ago. They bought an entire company just to get Flash.

Unfortunately with that deal they also got Aldus' products through Macromedia, then promptly killed Freehand. Freehand is much more intuitive than Illustrator and I still use the last version instead of Illustrator.

John the Geek wrote in post #10795379
Well, not if it's too much of an uphill battle. I'm just saying that Macromedia would have had more ground to say "Ok fine, flash has run it's course and isn't well suited for mobile applications, here's some better technology for you instead." Adobe can't even consider that stance. Their shareholders would revolt if they moved Flash to the backseat and pushed a mobile-friendly technology. They could have done that without buying Macromedia. Surender isn't even an option for them.

Who says Flash isn't working on something new? Let 'em fight. They don't have to abandon a product just because Jobs says so.

Tony-S wrote in post #10795507
You mean like how Adobe bought Macromedia, then promptly killed some of its application?

There is no parallel here. Adobe deciding to do something with its product lineup is not the same as entirely banning something from a platform. I'm NOT saying Apple has to be the one to integrate flash into the iPhone (that's their choice) but I AM saying they shouldn't be able to simply block other people from developing for that platform.

I would love to your reactions if we were talking about Microsoft shutting someone out from the Windows Platform, oh the horror. Hell, they can barely bundle IE anymore.

Yeah, but Apple has the right to make their product do (or not do) whatever they like - it's their product. It's up to customers to decide whether or not that product succeeds based on its's merits, capabilities and value.

So far, I believe the sales show that Apple made the right decision.

Todd Lambert wrote in post #10795819
Yeah, but Apple has the right to make their product do (or not do) whatever they like - it's their product. It's up to customers to decide whether or not that product succeeds based on its's merits, capabilities and value.

So far, I believe the sales show that Apple made the right decision.

Just curious, how did you feel about the DOJ investigations and subsequent court case against Microsoft?

merlin2375 wrote in post #10796218
Just curious, how did you feel about the DOJ investigations and subsequent court case against Microsoft?

Honestly, I thought it was stupid but deserved. Microsoft stifled development of entire industries, over and over again. They set the Internet back by at least 5 years. They maliciously used their power to destroy companies.

I know you're going to try to say that Apple is doing the same thing, but it's still their product and their decision to make as to whether another company's product should be included as part of theirs. They took a HUGE gamble not including Flash on it. There was a real chance that this could've been a vital mistake that would've doomed their entire product line and strategy.

The difference between Apple and Microsoft in this situation is this:

Apple took a major gamble that happened to affect another company.

Microsoft would've just bought Adobe and then killed Flash or bastardized it so badly to make it essentially worthless. Embrace and extend.

Apple has made these same calls before, often influencing entire industries (as they do now) - Look at Floppies. Look at USB. Look at ADB. Look at music. They did the right thing in all of these cases, long before the rest of the industry figured out these were dead ends. Apple had the balls to make a decision and move their platform forward despite betting on new tech or new ideas - that could've spelled disaster in each case. That's the biggest reason why they've lasted this long and why they're now the strongest tech company in the world.

If I'm being honest, it sounds like you recognize the paralells between both situations but you're sympathetic with Apple because you like their products. What difference does it make what Microsoft "would" have done. As far as I'm aware, Apple owns (at least partially) the h.264 codec that they're pushing.

I just want to make it clear, again. I'm not demanding that Apple be the one to implement Flash or to any way take responsibility for its performance. I'm just saying if someone else wants to then that's between them and the owner of the phone who can choose to install or use it as desired.

merlin2375 wrote in post #10796491
I just want to make it clear, again. I'm not demanding that Apple be the one to implement Flash or to any way take responsibility for its performance. I'm just saying if someone else wants to then that's between them and the owner of the phone who can choose to install or use it as desired.

But that's the way it is now.. if you want to jailbreak your phone and install Flash, you're completely in the right to do so. Apple's not stopping that.

Apple is just not going to provide the capabilities to do so, that's all. Which is well in their rights to do.

I really don't see what the big hubub for people, is over this issue. Apple's not doing anything other than solidifying their platform. If they allowed Flash as a development platform, it could take hold and a large community of developers could then grow and establish something that Apple would not have control of. They'd then be at the mercy of developers and another company's product embedded inside their own.

Apple has been able to move swiftly and progress their platform over and over (os 9 to OS X, PPC to x86, carbon to cocoa) because they maintain this control. This is a huge advantage to having to support legacy crap like Microsoft did/does.

It's pretty widely known that Apple strongly opposes jailbreaking. So much so they tried to have it declared illegal by the US Copyright Office deem it so under the DCMA. They were not successful as the US Copyright Office declared jailbreaking was legal. Even with all that, Apple changed its tune and said "fine, you can jailbreak but if you do your warranty is void". Can you imagine all the hassle of jailbreaking your phone just to basically install an App? That's effectively trying to regulate flash out of existence and "maliciously destroy other companies".

Everyone likes to dump on Microsoft, and I've seen the legacy argument before as well. But like you said "it's still their product and their decision to make as to whether another company's product should be included as part of theirs". Microsoft has taken a risks on including legacy stuff and I think their sustained success is a tribute to their decisions, as well.