Steve Job's Thoughts on Flash

Tpex

Teh Cyber Ninja
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
18,238
Thoughts on Flash

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. 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.

I wanted to jot down some of our thoughts on Adobe’s Flash products so that customers and critics may better understand why we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. Adobe has characterized our decision as being primarily business driven – they say we want to protect our App Store – but in reality it is based on technology issues. Adobe claims that we are a closed system, and that Flash is open, but in fact the opposite is true. Let me explain.

First, there’s “Open”.

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.

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. 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.

Apple even creates open standards for the web. For example, Apple began with a small open source project and created WebKit, a complete open-source HTML5 rendering engine that is the heart of the Safari web browser used in all our products. WebKit has been widely adopted. Google uses it for Android’s browser, Palm uses it, Nokia uses it, and RIM (Blackberry) has announced they will use it too. Almost every smartphone web browser other than Microsoft’s uses WebKit. By making its WebKit technology open, Apple has set the standard for mobile web browsers.

Second, there’s the “full web”.

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. 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.

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.

Third, there’s reliability, security and performance.

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.

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?

Fourth, there’s battery life.

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.

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.

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.

Fifth, there’s Touch.

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?

Even if iPhones, iPods and iPads ran Flash, it would not solve the problem that most Flash websites need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices.

Sixth, the most important reason.

Besides the fact that Flash is closed and proprietary, has major technical drawbacks, and doesn’t support touch based devices, there is an even more important reason we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. We have discussed the downsides of using Flash to play video and interactive content from websites, but Adobe also wants developers to adopt Flash to create apps that run on our mobile devices.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.
continues in next post.....
 

Tpex

Teh Cyber Ninja
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
18,238
Conclusions.

Flash was created during the PC era – for PCs and mice. Flash is a successful business for Adobe, and we can understand why they want to push it beyond PCs. But the mobile era is about low power devices, touch interfaces and open web standards – all areas where Flash falls short.

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. And the 200,000 apps on Apple’s App Store proves that Flash isn’t necessary for tens of thousands of developers to create graphically rich applications, including games.

New open standards created in the mobile era, such as HTML5, will win on mobile devices (and PCs too). Perhaps Adobe should focus more on creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind.

Steve Jobs
April, 2010
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/


hes sounding like a hypocrite now...
 

PaulMark

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
182
He makes a clear point. I hope people will stop complaining now.

Thats what I thought... until I started reading the comments on Engadget. Seems if people want to hate Apple they will find a reason no matter what.
 

Calico182

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
1,034
'Response' from Adobe - not really a direct response, but more a statement on how they're moving on regardless

This morning Apple posted some thoughts about Flash on their web site.
The primary issue at hand is that Apple is choosing to block Adobe's
widely used runtimes as well as a variety of technologies from other
providers.
Clearly, a lot of people are passionate about both Apple and Adobe and
our technologies. We feel confident that were Apple and Adobe to work
together as we are with a number of other partners, we could provide a
terrific experience with Flash on the iPhone, iPad and iPod touch.
However, as we posted last week, given the legal terms Apple has
imposed on developers, we have already decided to shift our focus away
from Apple devices for both Flash Player and AIR. We are working to
bring Flash Player and AIR to all the other major participants in the
mobile ecosystem, including Google, RIM, Palm (soon to be HP),
Microsoft, Nokia and others.
We look forward to delivering Flash Player 10.1 for Android
smartphones as a public preview at Google I/O in May, and then a
general release in June. From that point on, an ever increasing number
and variety of powerful, Flash-enabled devices will be arriving which
we hope will provide a great landscape of choice.

http://blogs.adobe.com/conversations/2010/04/moving_forward.html

i look forward to 10.1 on my Android phone :)
 
Last edited:

Keeper

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
23,624
Flash is the biggest POS software there is

who really uses it? honestly?

...and if you tell me you need it for silly mini games you are an idiot
 

Rudimental

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
1,457
Flash is the biggest POS software there is

who really uses it? honestly?

...and if you tell me you need it for silly mini games you are an idiot

Machinarium was made with Flash, wasn't it?

Porn sites also use it.
 

Tpex

Teh Cyber Ninja
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
18,238
damn looks like I'm in iZombie territory... GET BACK!
guns.gif
 

koffiejunkie

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
9,588
hes sounding like a hypocrite now...

How so?

I am, for one, glad I won't be required to put flash on my phone any time soon to get some piece of software working. His point about lowest common dinominator solutions is spot on. 99% of the flash I come in contact with, are either banner ads or video. HTML5 + H264 not only looks better, but is far more friendly on resources. And seriously, is there anyone here who like an animated video banner ad on a page? It annoys the living daylights out of me. I don't mind banner ads, but I don't want them to distract from my browsing exprience, and I certainly don't want uninvited tinny-sounding background noise.

Flash is a great idea. And it was good in the Macromedia days. But Adobe has seriously dropped the ball with it.
 

Rudimental

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
1,457
He's a hypocrite because the H.264 he supports as a replacement is just as proprietry and closed as Flash. It just happens to be more convenient and useful. Apple is also roundly cited as having poor security for its products. Many of the things he says could be applied to his own software, e.g. iTunes doesn't use Cocoa (because it is cross platform), and neither does Aperture, iirc, except maybe the recent iteration, which was only released a few months ago anyway... This specific issue is old news anyway, and a bit of a lie, since the Carbon API that <CS5 used was just as legitimately 'adopting OSX'. The Cocoa/Carbon distinction only become important because Apple changed their mind after initially saying they would create 64-bit Carbon, leaving developers in the lurch, since the APIs are quite different.

Edit: I thought I should add that Adobe's Lightroom was the first Cocoa 64bit app, beating anything from Apple.
 
Last edited:

koffiejunkie

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
9,588
He's a hypocrite because the H.264 he supports as a replacement is just as proprietry and closed as Flash.

I didn't claim H.264 wasn't propriatery. Neither did Steve-O, btw. It's covered by several patents (belonging to a variety of vendors, not just one) and requires licensing fees/royalties depending on what you're doing. But that doesn't mean it's the same as Flash. You don't need *one* application, available from only *one* vendor, in order to use it.

I thought I should add that Adobe's Lightroom was the first Cocoa 64bit app, beating anything from Apple.

Agreed, that was a cheap shot.
 

Rudimental

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
1,457
I didn't claim H.264 wasn't propriatery. Neither did Steve-O, btw.

Yes, but he attacked Flash for being proprietary.

"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."

And H.264, which is not open. It is really hypocritical to say that you believe in open standards and then use H.264 for the video replacement. You can't say, "I support open standards," and then only support them for animations, etc... and use a closed standard for video replacement. It doesn't matter whether it comes from a single or multiple sources, it is still closed and proprietary, and it costs money. Opera say they cannot afford to license it, and Mozilla refuses to because it would break its open source nature.
 

Tpex

Teh Cyber Ninja
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
18,238
Yes, but he attacked Flash for being proprietary.

"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."

And H.264, which is not open. It is really hypocritical to say that you believe in open standards and then use H.264 for the video replacement. You can't say, "I support open standards," and then only support them for animations, etc... and use a closed standard for video replacement. It doesn't matter whether it comes from a single or multiple sources, it is still closed and proprietary, and it costs money. Opera say they cannot afford to license it, and Mozilla refuses to because it would break its open source nature.

Thank you, you put it perfectly
 

koffiejunkie

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
9,588
Yes, but he attacked Flash for being proprietary.

Context context context. He attacked it for being a propriatary standard. And he was pretty specific in his scope. It's in the part you quote:

"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."

H.264 is a video standard. Not a web standard - at least no more than any other video format. "Open standard" doesn't necessarily mean it's a free for all and there are no rules to play by. And then we have to consider that there's no single, absolute and authoritative definition of what exactly an open standard is. At least one definition covers my argument (I'm sure you'll find one that refutes it, but that just proves my point). The Digital Standards Organisation says "an open standard must be aimed at creating unrestricted competition between vendors and unrestricted choice for users" - we have a choice of free software tools to encode and playback H.264. We can buy H.264 capable devices from just about every manufacturer in the space. Sounds to me like the "unrestricted competition between vendors and unrestricted choice for users" has been covered.

By contrast, have you seen any third-party software lately that allows you to playback flash? No? Know why? Because adobe is not sharing anything about it. Actually, there has been a few attempts. They all suck.

And H.264, which is not open. It is really hypocritical to say that you believe in open standards and then use H.264 for the video replacement. You can't say, "I support open standards," and then only support them for animations, etc... and use a closed standard for video replacement.

So, by your reasoning, he would only not be hypocritical if everything Apple made was open? I mean, do they have to opensource all their software? Publish the diagrams and hardware APIs of all their devices?

Mozilla refuses to because it would break its open source nature.

Debian refuses to use Mozilla's official branding because it's not "open" enough. I guess you can choose your extreme.
 

Rudimental

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
1,457
H.264 is a video standard. Not a web standard - at least no more than any other video format.

It goes like this. HTML5 has a <video> tag. Apple will only support this tag using H.264, and no other codecs. That is a de facto web standard. When I was talking about 'open standards' I was speaking in the same context that Jobs was: the web.

With the "unrestricted competition between vendors and unrestricted choice for users" did you somehow conveniently forget the millions of dollars in licensing fees vendors need to pay, as well as royalties? Court cases have already ensued about H.264 licensing, something that is simply not possible with an open standard, because it is not restricted in this manner. Really, all you are doing is finding confirmation bias and ignoring any contradictory evidence. H.264 is not open, and is not published as open, and no amount of weaseling about the term on your part will make it so.

Even your own definition shows H.264 not to be open. If Opera cannot afford H.264 licensing fees, then that is a restriction on competition, and restricts the choice of browsers for end users wanting to view HTML5 video (assuming that HTML5 video would only be served by H.264). Nothing about the open standard of HTML5 imposes these sorts of restrictions. Just because something is a popular and a standard doesn't make it an open standard. H.264 may be 'everywhere' but that has nothing to do with whether it is open or not. VHS was a very popular standard, but to say that it was open would be laughable. Not even the now ubiquitous DVD is an open standard - edit: well it may have changed to become one, I know that it was not initially.

Debian refuses to use the Mozilla brand because the art itself is copyright. It's a trademark issue and has nothing to do with open source nature of the software. Debian simply has software guidelines that state that every part of the software must be open, and this includes brand art. Debian, iirc, simply used the code and called its browser Iceweasel.

H.264 may possibly become the standard for web video, but unless the basic underlying licensing structure changes it will never be an open standard.
 
Last edited:

koffiejunkie

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
9,588
@Rudimental, you still don't get it. I'm not arguing H.264. I'm arguing your reasons for calling him hipocrytical. But never mind - I'm not going to bother any further.
 

Calico182

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
1,034
Also look forward to your battery being sapped.

haha, that always seems to be the immediate argument of iphone owners. now why on earth would i be running flash constantly until my battery runs out. i'm just talking having a better user experience on sites that have flash (for example menus - that would otherwise hinder navigation) while browsing sites. i'm not going to load up www.miniclip.com on my phone now...
 
Top