Pot, meet kettle: a response to Steve Jobs' letter on Flash

[w1z4rd]

Steve Jobs' recent missive on the deficiencies of Adobe's Flash is still reverberating around the Internet. In this guest editorial, John Sullivan of the Free Software Foundation responds, arguing that Apple is presenting users with a false choice between Adobe's proprietary software and Apple's walled garden.

Watching two proprietary software companies deeply opposed to computer user freedom lob accusations back and forth about who is more opposed to freedom has been surreal, to say the least. But what's been crystal clear is that the freedom these companies are arguing about is their own, not that of their users. And what they are calling freedom isn't freedom at all—it is the ability to control those users. Adobe is mad at Apple for not letting Adobe control iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch users via Flash, and Apple is mad at Adobe for suggesting that Apple is arbitrarily abusing its control over Application Store users.

Steve Jobs's "Thoughts on Flash" is the latest volley in this bout between pot and kettle, and while it makes many dead-on criticisms of Adobe and Flash, it does not change the fundamental character of this disagreement, nor does it solve any concerns about Apple's broader intentions.

What's strangely absent from "Thoughts on Flash" is any explanation for why proprietary technology on the Web is bad, or why free standards are good. Noting this omission helps us understand why, though we agree with his assessment of the problems with Flash and the importance of free Web standards, Jobs is led to a solution that is bizarre and unacceptable.

If he had said anything about why user freedom on the Web is important, his hypocrisy would have been explicit. In a nutshell, he says, "Don't use Adobe's proprietary platform to engage with information on the Web. Use Apple's." He doesn't want users to freely wander and creatively explore the Web or their own computers; he wants them to move from the fenced-off "Freedom Zone" based in San Jose to the one based in Cupertino.

Freedom on the Web has multiple elements. Free standards like HTML5, which govern Web publishing, are critical and have amazing potential, but they are only one element. Standards are not enough on their own, because there is another layer between them and the computer user—the software used to interact with the Web, and the operating system surrounding it. Freedom in terms of Web publishing does no good if the software with which you access the Web filters it before it ever gets to you, or restricts you in other ways in order to grant access to the Web. Proprietary software can be compatible with free standards while simultaneously undercutting the values those free standards seek to achieve. Such "freedom" will always be contingent. In order to have an actual, irrevocably free Web, both the Web publishing standards and the software which accesses them will need to be free.

Although Jobs talks part of the talk when he says, "we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open," his walk goes the opposite direction, advocating both a proprietary video format, H.264, and proprietary software for engaging it—iPhone OS.

Read lots more: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2...-a-response-to-steve-jobs-letter-on-flash.ars

 

[ponder]

Although Jobs talks part of the talk when he says, "we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open," his walk goes the opposite direction, advocating both a proprietary video format, H.264, and proprietary software for engaging it—iPhone OS.

Yip, and that's were Job's logic failed.

H.264 is not an open standard, it's closed and you have to pay to use it.

The problem goes deeper than this with hardware decoder manufacturers not willing to support true open standards so your iphone or htc won't be able to do this at the hardware layer which is important for portable devices.

Ogg Theora (truely open) however is not up to scratch but could easily be brought up to scratch if all the players put their minds to it.

There is a rumour that Google might open source their VP8 codec after they aquired On2 Technologies. The FSF has also requested Google open this up. Hopefully this comes to fruition as it's a good codec. http://newteevee.com/2010/04/12/google-to-open-source-vp8-for-html5-video/
Those that own the content will dictate the codec and I really hope Google pushes VP8 and converts all their content to the format if open sourced.

The problem is all these bastards want to lock people in to their technology at the expense of the greater good of the net.