Steve Jobs pens open letter about Flash

I don't see anything wrong with what Apple does.

Do I typically buy their competitor's products instead because of the restrictions Apple puts on their own products? Yes... But Apple has every right to make their products their way and I have every right to not buy it.

rvdw98 wrote in post #10120695
From you. 50 million units sold says that not everyone feels so restricted though.

Most of people are herd of blind sheep. In a world where 400 millions people intentionally publish their private data on the Internet and 5,5 billions people are voluntary slaves of ridiculous brainwashing called "religion" it´s no surprise that 50 millions don´t feel restricted by iPhone.

rvdw98 wrote in post #10120695
There is no perfect phone. What may be perfect for you, may be completely inadequate for someone else.

I admit that someone can miss hardware keyboard but I can´t imagine someone feeling indignant about too many features or options.

RWatkins wrote in post #10113870
I may be incorrect about this, but I did not thing that H.264 was an open standard but was actually a proprietary one.

H.264 codec is detailed in the MPEG-4 Part 10. It is an open standard and anyone can write algorithms to encode or decode it. After all, that's the basis of ffmpeg used by so many applications (e.g., XBMC). The .mov container is simply that - a container. If you have an app (and there are many of them) that can open .mov containers AND handle the decode of the video and audio codecs then you can play it without using Quicktime.

MMX wrote in post #10122053
Most of people are herd of blind sheep. In a world where 400 millions people intentionally publish their private data on the Internet and 5,5 billions people are voluntary slaves of ridiculous brainwashing called "religion" it´s no surprise that 50 millions don´t feel restricted by iPhone.

Tell us how you really feel... lol

Todd Lambert wrote in post #10121487
Apple is proprietary about their products. There is nothing wrong with that.

And Adobe is proprietary about their's. So what's the problem? Flash hasn't been forced on anyone. Publishers can choose not to use it, manufacturers can choose not to support it, and users can choose not to run it.

This whole hullabaloo from Jobs is more of a rally call to Apple fans than anything else. Make Flash look like an enemy while you avoid support for it, all in the name of maintaining a totally closed system where you control content and pricing. That's what's hypocritical. If you don't want to support Flash, fine. But don't lecture me about openness and use those very same words to further lock down your own system. Make no mistake about this: Open standards are not at stake here. Apple's breadth of control is. Flash would threaten their app store ecosystem, and there's not much more to this story. The success or failure of HTML5 adoption will be a side effect.

One could go into politics with talk like this; it's weapons grade.

Apple makes good products, no doupt, I have a few.... but Steve Jobs loves to control what you can and can not do with them. For that reason I plan on not buying many more Apple products in the future, just recently I replaced my iMac with a Windows 7 quad-core system at a fraction of the cost of a Mac equivalent and it runs whatever I want it to run.

If you buy any Apple product you have to be willing to accept that what you see is what you get and unless you buy a Mac Pro, you can forget getting your hands into any of their equipment, I made the choice to simply go the other way as I really don't like to be held down by any limitations, and I know all systems have some limitations one way or the other but Apple takes the cake on this one.

Mike Deep wrote in post #10122168
And Adobe is proprietary about their's. So what's the problem? Flash hasn't been forced on anyone. Publishers can choose not to use it, manufacturers can choose not to support it, and users can choose not to run it.

This whole hullabaloo from Jobs is more of a rally call to Apple fans than anything else. Make Flash look like an enemy while you avoid support for it, all in the name of maintaining a totally closed system where you control content and pricing. That's what's hypocritical. If you don't want to support Flash, fine. But don't lecture me about openness and use those very same words to further lock down your own system. Make no mistake about this: Open standards are not at stake here. Apple's breadth of control is. Flash would threaten their app store ecosystem, and there's not much more to this story. The success or failure of HTML5 adoption will be a side effect.

One could go into politics with talk like this; it's weapons grade.

The difference is that the iPhone is a product that Apple sells - you like it, you buy it. Don't like it, don't buy it. Simple, right?

Flash on the otherhand is a platform that is currently integral to doing things on the web. It is something that you need to use whether or not you want to or not. You're stuck, because there is no option. It's not the same as buying a "restricted/locked down/proprietary - whatever" iPhone. Flash is holding the web back, much the same that Microsoft was/is.

I have no illusions that Apple is only doing this for bettering the web(or doing it for that at all). It serves their interest to not have Flash where it is. It also serves Microsofts interests, as well as Googles, to have Flash, gone. Google and Microsoft have voiced their support for this cause as well. They are fully behind it.

Apple's just getting tagged on this, because of the comments by Jobs. Like him or hate him, he doesn't mince words and his bargaining tactics are legendary. He's soley responsible for us having DRM free, downloadable music by the track.

Maybe, I'm a bit biased because I'm a web developer and I make my living inside a browser window... but I want what's best the web as a whole. If Apple is the one to help that goal, then so be it. If it was Microsoft, Google, or even Adobe that was doing, it I would support them instead. Simple.

rvdw98 wrote in post #10121485
While I firmly believe that most of the rejected apps were in conflict with the "family friendly" nature of the App Store, I do acknowledge that some were banned because they competed with Apple's own apps, which I admit is dubious.

On the other hand, I can install whatever I want on my Macs, so the "devices" you mentioned only encompass the iPod/iPad/iPhone range.

that's the point though. you suffocate choice, the very concept of free and open development when you restrict distribution like that. as for devices encompassing the ipod/ipad/iphone.. yes. i wasn't aware of any other mainstream products apple puts onto the market. up until apple's more recent adoption of intel processors, mac users were closed off from the vast world of software available to the rest of the world. this is largely what i'm referencing. when a company makes decisions which force software vendors to create different versions of the same applications just to reach a broader audience, that is not anywhere near the embodiment of openness and standardization to facilitate the full potential of an industry. mac users have always in consequence been at the mercy of whatever decision jobs made at his own pace.. the very issue he takes aim at against adobe.

i have plenty of friends who love their macs, but i find it a bit ridiculous that they had to own two computers for years just to play current game titles. the technology was there to allow apple to embrace the de facto standard, but they chose not to. again, not something inherently wrong as it is their choice, just don't bash others when you start seeing the practice as an obstacle yourself.

rvdw98 wrote in post #10121485
Because they have designed their OS to work in concert with their hardware and made a conscious decision not to support it on configurations they cannot control. This is how they can assure the quality and user experience they advertise with.

people like choices. wouldn't you have issue if canon prohibited sigma, tamron, zeiss, etc from manufacturing lenses for the EF mount?

the quality and user experience point is questionable, but something that i'd have to concede to being their right as a private company. i see it like a car company limiting the maximum speed of their cars to 55mph on the highway so they can make the claim "you'll NEVER get a speeding ticket!" true.. but people like the choice to be able to if they want.

rvdw98 wrote in post #10121485
I judge the message by its content, not by the messenger.

you wouldn't find it strange if tony hayward wrote a scathing letter to the world about environmental responsibility and capitalistic restraint?

rvdw98 wrote in post #10121485
By that reasoning, and given the (proven) fact that every one of "them" is as hypocritical as the next, I assume that you refuse to accept any criticism at all?

no, it's just that i haven't read any other articles by company CEOs that are quite this ironic.

Todd Lambert wrote in post #10121487
Apple is proprietary about their products. There is nothing wrong with that.

i don't see how this is any different. apple creates proprietary products. the justification being, if you don't like it, don't buy it. adobe has created a proprietary plugin. if people don't like it, they don't have to use it. it is the web designers and developers who have integrated it so heavily in the last few years. i don't see how you can justify one type of closed system and not the other.

Todd Lambert wrote in post #10121487
You and everyone else can **** all you want about pot/kettle crap, hate on Apple as much as you want, but they are the most (and dare I say the only) company truly innovating today.

no need to get defensive. accusing me of being a "hater" is a bit out of line. if steve ballmer wrote this article, i'd criticize it just as much.

as for the innovation point.. there are plenty of open source projects and movements that are both creative and progressive. apple just knows how to package ideas and market them very well. i'll admit their advertising is devastatingly effective since they were able to do what so many others failed at. (ie: there were portable mp3 players before the ipod, apple just marketed the product better. bill gates heralded the advent of a new age in computing.. the introduction of the tablet pc last decade. jobs just had a better sense of when the technology was ripe and how to market it.)

i suppose what i'm saying is.. good ideas will always push us forward. sometimes they from employees at apple, sometimes they're from intel, microsoft, or even independent. linus torvalds didn't need to work for apple or microsoft to revolutionize and change the landscape of computing as we know it.. and now linux is actually a widely used as the kernel for servers all over the world. jobs is one player, albeit a powerful one, in the grand scheme of things.

Todd Lambert wrote in post #10121487
I think most people just jump on the bandwagon and **** because they don't truly understand what is taking place or maybe even where we've come from. They don't understand the major issues and agenda that is coming. They're blinded by the light of some super small, stupid issue with a proprietary little product by a company called Adobe. Look at the bigger picture and realize where the web HAS to go. Who do you think is going to get it there? Microsoft? Sun? IBM? Dell? HP? Intel? Adobe? Ha. The only company currently capable of moving the web forwards, is Google and Apple. (You can make a small argument for MS here, but...) - guess what? They're all on the same side here. They all are doing the same thing. The only issue is Apple is on point for this. They're taking the blame. Google wants Flash gone as badly as Apple doe, MS does, etc..

People need to think for themselves and stop blindly parroting crap that they read on some website. Apple is not a bad guy here.

Do I think Apple is totally rosey with everything they do? Hell no... but they're doing good stuff that in the end, will help/enrich all of us.

**** and bandwagoning is completely subjective to personal opinion, so it's hard to even address. you see people making this observation as bandwagoning, while others see your support of it bandwagoning for the other side. let's not get into the needless name calling of calling others haters and bandwagoners shall we?

i think microsoft has gotten complacent in their current position and have therefore been less innovative with their products, however i'm hesitant to embrace apple as the knight in shining armor here to save the day and press us forward. these are all profit-seeking corporations and rhetoric regardless of its company of origin should be taken with a grain of salt. when bill gates announced that every household in the country would have a tablet pc and that computing was moving out of the office and into the living room, why was he not innovative? simple answer: he didn't market it as well and the technology was not ripe. steve jobs is no doubt a smart man, but his ideas are not groundbreaking and fresh nor should his words be taken out of the context of the position he currently holds: the CEO of a publicly traded corporation.

companies sometimes move us forward, but this should not make them immune to criticism when it is due.

I don't really mean to be defending them, as I'm not. I agree that Apple didn't necessarily invent or innovate everything. Hell, they're credited with the mouse, when it was really Xerox-Parc.. but nobody else was able to make it work with an OS and get people to use it. Apple did.

Apple has done this over and over again, most times doing it despite the fact that it has no marketshare even.

Apple is pushing their agenda hard, because the last time they had the opportunity to drive a market, IBM and MS beat them to the punch.

Jobs learned from the mistake and he is ensuring that they won't make the same mistake twice. Apple is going to be the next Microsoft(in market leadership and direction setting), and he is positioning Apple to be that role in the future.

And I still think there is a big difference between Flash and an iPhone in models. You don't see any difference, but the iPhone is a choice by the purchaser or end-user. Flash is not. It's something that is unavoidable, just as RealPlayer, Windows Movie Player, Quicktime, etc.. was long ago.

As a web developer, I finally see a glimmer of hope that we might finally get web standards and an even base for everyone to play on, when it comes to the web. I am a vocal advocate for that, at almost any cost. Certainly at the cost of a crappy plugin that has done more damage to the web's growth than possibly any other. Good bye Flash and good riddance.

Good Bye Flash, good riddance? If all of Flash were gone tomorrow, would we be so happy -- greeted with blank screens. As an end user Flash always seems so slow, but what's Jobs' alternative? H.264? It's not gonna be widely available soon. Mozilla refuses to use it. Many are scared of it for the impending royalties in the years to come. Jobs is clearly trying to fracture the market, but Google may eat him for lunch. We'll see ... they support Flash. I guess what irks me is that Jobs comes across as being incredibly arrogant, but to his credit, incredibly smart.

You're right.. there would be tons of unhappy people who wouldn't be able to play Farmville, or wouldn't be able to watch porn, or wouldn't be able to get annoying banner advertising, etc... That'd be a real loss there.

I think you need to understand a bit more about the true stats of things you're talking about.

About licensing of prop formats - these are paid by browser companies, and others, not the end user, not the content creator. MP3 is a privately owned format - does that affect anyone?

You may want to read this: http://www.engadget.co​m …t-licensing-and-you/?s=t5

And this: http://news.cnet.com …30685_3-20000101-264.html

and this: http://blogs.msdn.com …n-html5-video-in-ie9.aspx

And if you think H.264 is not going to be widely available any time soon, you may want to re-think that as well:

According to Tech Crunch it's already at 66% and it's growing double the rate of Flash. http://techcrunch.com …264-66-percent-web-video/

As that number grows, the sites that will serving media in both formats (flash and html5) will be growing as well. I would imagine that within a year, almost all video content authored for the web, will be available in H.264 with a flash wrapped version available for backwards compatibility.

This allows for the media to be authored once, and displayed in the vintage flash format for older browsers, and in html 5 for newer browsers and mobile devices.

Also, this is key... I think a lot of these flash complainers forget that there isn't even a mobile version of Flash available yet from Adobe to put on the iPhone! Yep, everyone is complaining about something that doesn't exist. In fact, it's vaporware! Adobe said on record that it would ship Flash shortly after the original iPhone shipped. That was 3 YEARS AGO! It's supposed to ship for Droid in June, yeah, hold your breath for that.

What does Farmville, porn have to do with anything? red herring :< I realize it's not the end-user who pays, it's the developers and their willingness to pay for the licensing agreements. Some who have the patents like Apple and Microsoft stand to gain from all this, not sure where Mozilla and Google stands to gain or not. I'm not a lover of Flash (nor a hater of Apple). It's just the Jobs' letter is mostly a marketing ploy, to drive a wedge in the market (and get Microsoft support as well).

If the Ipad is as big as people are thinking HTML5 could take over very quickly. We have already started to get big websites using HTML5?

Just remember people said the same thing about Flash and how it will never be popular.

http://www.wired.com …-the-microsoft-of-mobile/

If flash dies, where would HTML 6 get its ideas from?


http://www.waxpraxis.o​rg …tle-boxes-in-the-browser/