Apple CEO Steve Jobs gives a series of reasons why Apple does not support Adobe's Flash on its mobile platforms. But it's all about control.
In what amounts to a pot meets kettle moment, Apple CEO
Steve Jobs has laid out a series of reasons
why Apple does not
support Adobe's Flash on its mobile platforms.
In essence, Jobs said Flash is not fit for Apple's iPhone, iPad and iPod
platforms, claiming that, among other things, Flash is not secure, reliable or
touch-compatible enough and doesn't perform well enough to run on Apple's hot
mobile consumer products.
But perhaps the boldest statement in Jobs' April 29 post was that he
believes Adobe Systems is closed and Apple is open. If that is not the pot
calling the kettle black ... Said Jobs: "Adobe claims that we are a closed
system, and that Flash is open, but in fact the opposite is true."
Jobs further explained, "Adobe's Flash products are 100 percent
proprietary." Indeed, they are. He acknowledged that "Apple has many
proprietary products too." Then, setting the tone for his entire argument,
Jobs added:
"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."
First off, neither has an "open" leg to stand on here. Both
companies are closed, and as Bobby Brown said, that's their prerogative.
Jobs listed all the ways that Apple supports open standards with HTML5 and
so on, and delivering the WebKit engine. And Adobe argues that Flash is not 100
percent proprietary because
the Flash file format is available here.
But the bottom line is this whole argument is about control. Apple wants and
deserves control of its platform, and
clause
3.3.1 of its iPhone 4.0 developer license agreement spells that out. That
clause reads:
"Applications may only use
Documented APIs in the manner prescribed by Apple and must not use or call any
private APIs. Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++,
or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written
in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented
APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary
translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited)."
Moreover, Jobs said: "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."
Well, it is and it isn't. Indeed, there is merit to each of Jobs' technological
claims about Flash. Practically every user has at some point had some kind of
negative experience-such as a crash or other glitch-due to Flash or
applications and Websites built with Flash. But this is still about control.
Jobs can talk all he wants about video support, security, battery life and the
like, but the key is Apple's control over the development process. Apple cannot
and will not afford to let Adobe and Flash get in the middle of Apple's
pipeline to its developers. And as his last, most cogent point, Jobs said
exactly that:
"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."
Mike Sax, founder of Sax.net and an iPhone application developer, told
eWEEK: "Steve [Jobs] is saying they don't want anyone to slow them down.
Apple understands that developers drive the platform, and whoever owns the
dominant development tool owns a big part of the value and the future of the
platform."
Sax said he believes Microsoft and Apple both understand this very well but
have very different approaches in dealing with it.
"Microsoft has invested tremendous resources and talent in development
tools," said Sax, who also said he is interested in developing
applications for the upcoming Windows Phone 7 platform. "They allow third-party
tool vendors to do whatever they want (and even encourage them) but they
compete with their own partners vigorously to make sure Microsoft provides the
best set of developer tools."
However, "Apple has decided to kill the babies before they become
strong," Sax said. "Unfortunately, they ignore [the fact] that tools
like Appcelerator, Mono and Flash are becoming popular primarily because of
developer productivity, not their cross-platform capabilities. Apple's mobile
development tool set is lacking in developer productivity, with a unique
language and no support for basic enhancements like garbage collection."
In a blog post entitled,
"Thoughts
on 'Thoughts on Flash,'" Adam Banks, an editor, writer and designer,
said of Jobs' statement about being at the mercy of a third party:
"Sort of get that. Problem: at
the moment, for the thousands of developers and creatives who do have the
skills to use Flash but don't have the first glimmer of a clue how to code in
Objective-C, none of the enhancements of the iPx platform are available. The
platform isn't available at all. (I wrote about this in my reaction to 3.3.1.)
And the only way it's ever going to be available is via some kind of third
party tool. One with full typographical support. You know, like Adobe TLF."
Tim Bray, a Google engineer on the Android team, tweeted: "On Jobs'
letter: Flash filled a need, there might not be one on mobile, but Apple [is] shortsighted
in blocking it."
Meanwhile, Al Hilwa, an analyst with IDC,
called for a truce. Hilwa said:
"I think what everyone would prefer is that Apple and Adobe should be
working together on this and not talking at each other in this way. Apple has
to define what it means for applications to be compliant [with] its interface
and other platform and development tools vendors should be given the chance to
adapt. The translation layer argument is weak. Translated software or software
that runs on virtual machines is not necessarily inferior and can be made to be
effectively as good while offering specific advantages, namely being able to
address multiple devices or platforms with one development effort, one team,
one set of skills. We have to remember that some of the greatest innovations in
languages over the last 15 years are virtual machines-based technologies such
as Java and .NET that essentially translate
in real time under the covers. While there may be legitimate technical concerns,
technology partnerships are precisely for addressing them."
Email
Print
