Slashdot Mirror
Steve Jobs Publishes Some "Thoughts On Flash"
teh31337one writes "Steve Jobs just posted an open letter of sorts explaining Apple's position on Flash, going back to his company's long history with Adobe and expounding upon six main points of why he thinks Flash is wrong for mobile devices. HTML5 naturally comes up, along with a few reasons you might not expect. He concludes in saying that 'Flash was created during the PC era — for PCs and mice.'"
Tacky that his first point is that Flash is proprietary, when Apple restricts the apps that can be installed on the phone. Pot, meet kettle.
Tacky that his first point is that Flash is proprietary, when Apple restricts the apps that can be installed on the phone. Pot, meet kettle.
Exactly, and the software/iPhone is not only proprietary, but actually restricted too. It's even worse than just proprietary software.
- Open source: Nobody restricts where you can install the application, and you get the source code too -- the best situation.
- Proprierary software: You dont get the source code, but nobody is restricting where or if you can install it, as long as its freeware or you have paid for it.
- Apple: Not only will you not get the source code and in most cases you have to pay for it, Apple is in total control what applications the user is allowed to install. They dont even give you the option to decide yourself.
If you want to sell your software in App Store, you are not allowed to redistribute the source code or your app outside of it.
While certainly true, making a comment about Flash being proprietary is just hypocrisy and at the same time hilarious from Steve Jobs and Apple.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Steve Jobs just posted an open letter of sorts
That facebook page that keeps friend requesting you is not the real Steve Jobs.
Tacky that his first point is that Flash is proprietary, when Apple restricts the apps that can be installed on the phone. Pot, meet kettle.
And of course, he knows this. Which is why he spends one paragraph railing against Adobe and the next paragraph justifying Apple as distinctively different products and then even another paragraph praising Apple for their WebKit work. From the original press release:
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.
Of course, he spends more time and words making sure that Apple's version of proprietary is justified while they have even been a leader in open web standards.
My opinion, if you care to hear it, is that it's really easy to jump on someone for not being open when it's not your bread and butter that's at stake. I don't like Adobe and I don't like Apple but what I see here is Adobe scrambling to maintain control and authority over Flash because they perceive (possibly correctly) that to be their lifeline in a turbulent marketplace. Essentially I feel like Jobs said "Adobe's not open and we're not open in our core business but there are auxiliary/complimentary efforts we've been instrumental with that are actually open." While he completely overlooks similar "good will" efforts by Adobe to release the source code of the Flex 3 SDK (I don't find it to be truly open source like they market it though). And he's being disingenuous towards his users in order to make more money which requires reduced functionality of his device. He's a businessman. They are known to not only make decisions like this but their stockholders often require it with threat of litigation.
My work here is dung.
I'm throwing this to the wolves, but isn't flash MORE open than the app store given the POSSIBILITY of reverse engineering?
Tacky that his first point is that Flash is proprietary, when Apple restricts the apps that can be installed on the phone. Pot, meet kettle.
That's kind of the whole point. Jobs admits that Apple has a closed system, when Adobe is claiming theirs is open. When he talks about open, he's referring to HTML5/CSS/JavaScript, which you DO NOT need to submit to the app store.
And what's he going to do if someone gets a bug up their ass and turns gnash into a standalone player/app for the iphone? Will he still be using the "proprietary" card then? The way I see it, the only open part of the iPhone itself is the compiler...
Of course you're going to get a bunch of corporate doublespeak out of Jobs, attempting to disguise base corporate greed under some sort of philosophical cover. But we all know that Flash apps would cut into Apple's bottom line, and it all comes down to that.
Steve doesn't like competition. Steve does like money. And Steve calls the shots.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
"Tacky that his first point is that Flash is proprietary, when Apple restricts the apps that can be installed on the phone. Pot, meet kettle."
A bit unfair in the resume as Steve Jobs does address this point in the letter:
"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. "
I, for one, do see the point of that and it has been mentioned here before that from the start iPhone, iPod touch en iPad web browser are not restricted.
This follows the same logic I see with Google. Keep the internet as unrestricted as possible and that open pltform will bring the best things for the most users.
This whole thing is riddled with hypocrisies. I mean, Steve is being a real douche here.. Even more then usual.
If they want to promote open standards, they should try not to look so fucking two-faced about it.
Turtleneck calling the kettle black?
My choice? It's Nokia. At least they have a happy medium of openness, functionality, and usability. Yes, they have Flash.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Java is open and proven in the mobile space and Apple (or anyone) could ensure the JVM used is up to date and allows the use of any new features or hardware.
I think apple mmeans they only want you to do it their way and preferably you do it their way on a mac when developing.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20003742-264.html?tag=mncol;txt
The real reason?
It competes with iAd.
I hope you get your phone and proceed to crawl under a rock before someone else tries to give you an STD. Hope it's not too late.
On second thought, I think we should all stay away from you.
Not only is he spitting out a bunch of ridiculous arguments, he's also trying to force his way into the hands of the users. Wake up Jobs, no one wants a PC without a fucking keyboard and a fucking mouse. Your iPad is cool, and that's about it: we all know it's not powerful enough to do anything interesting, so you're not going to sell that besides that tactic. No need to lecture people about how bad is Flash: we already know, and the people who might care about it simply aren't really buying your magic tablet.
Keep your niche public with hipsters and old women and let the rest of the world enjoy technology at its own pace. Geez.
Oblivion Awaits
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Adobe CS 6 - Now available for Windows 7, Linux...and that's it.
We said that's it! What, what!!?
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
Apple could have ruled the home PC market, but back in the 80's they made it such a pain in the ass to deal with them and make programs for the mac that they inadvertently strangled third party development. Android is not to iphone standards yet, it isn't, but it continuously gets closer and in many ways gets better. Apple wants to be a home entertainment company... okay... but take a lesson from game console manufacturers, third party software is life
Um, H.264 is proprietary, isn't it?
Personally, I just need a phone I can program
Don't you mean "scripting"? Java is nothing but a kiddy scripting language, nubtard.
When Jobs uses "proprietary" he means "not mine."
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
I can understand his stance - he doesnt want to use proprietary technology that isn't his. It's not a random hatred of proprietry (pretty sure I'm misusing that) it's stemming from the ideology that made the App Store so closed in the first place.
What is really tacky is all the whining about the lack of Flash on Apple devices. The people calling for it are undoubtedly the same people who were bitching about what an awful piece of garbage Flash is right up until they found out they couldn't get it on their iPhones. At a time where there are alternatives and better options are right around the corner, no less.
Whale
Yet, it is just fine with Steve Jobs if every iDeveloper is at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when their enhancements will be made available to their customers.
I hope you get your phone and proceed to crawl under a rock before someone else tries to give you an STD.
There's no worries there. To potentially get a STD one actually has to have the potential to have sex. The GP will never have such potential.
It is not "tacky". The word you wanted was "hypocritical".
I'll try anything once. Twice if it tastes good
I don't care if HE doesn't think it's the right product. I want it, and everyone uses it. Make it work dick, you said similar shit about text/pic messages. Thanks for making me wait to send pic's for years.
~Mekkah
As someone who routinely writes in Java (or JVM-targeting languages) because it will run anywhere, it is hard to read Jobs' criticism that Adobe has been too slow with Flash support for OS X with a straight face.
Apple's track record with Java--from having 1.6 appear years late, to dropping 32 bit support, to insisting on packaging it themselves--seems to strongly indicate that they have to be dragged kicking and screaming to cross-platform compatibility.
Notice that Apple's only making a fuss now that Adobe is stepping up its support. That'll teach anyone to try to make their cross-platform tools work better with Apple's products, won't it!
And the really strange thing, when I visit http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/ I'm prompted that the site wants to install and run some strange, closed plugin called 'QuickTime' from 'Apple computer' in order to properly display the content.... Hmm...
Steve Joby proclaims that Flash is only for porn?
bickerdyke
In fact any user can install standalone apps that does not come from the Mothership (a.k.a. App Store). iPhone OS supports localstorage and offline mode for HTML5/JS applications that can have their own space on the home screen and works without any browser.
Flash is just a big pile of bad coding. Make it awesome like h264 and I'll happily continue to use it. Otherwise, put it to rest already.
Gee, do you think maybe that was a big part of it? Yes, there's plenty of other reasons for him to not want Flash on iPhone and iPad. But if Flash on the Mac were a decent-quality product, I suspect Adobe might have at least had a prayer of convincing him. But when their current product is the single largest source of instability, why on earth would Jobs let a mobile version anywhere near his pet project?
I know that some people here will jump all over his assertion, and accuse him of lying. But let me tell you, I think it's true.
I'm a heavy web user, and around Safari 3 I started to really get fed up with how crash-prone Safari was. Always crashing when I had many windows and tabs open. Everything else on my system extremely stable. Only Safari crashing. For crying out loud, the 3rd major version, and they still couldn't make it stable? Ridiculous!
I started actually looking at the crash reports. Dozens of crashes, probably close to 100. And every single one of them was in the Flash plug-in. Not a single exception, not a single crash not in the Flash plug-in.
Now, how many users would read a crash report and discover that Flash is the problem? And how many would just assume that Safari is buggy and blame Apple?
That's why I knew with 99% certainty before the iPad was announced that there would be no Flash for it. To be blunt, it would have been irresponsible to let Flash near the iPad or iPhone until Adobe proves enough commitment and competence to get it working well on OS X, where it has access to vastly more resources in a far more forgiving environment.
Slashdot was created in the PC Era and is primarily a PC site. Let it die.
http://arstechnica.com
Except, of course, he praises HTML5, which Apple also didn't invent.
Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
When Flash is mentioned people (especially on here) first think of annoying advertisements, video, or games. These may be the most "in your face" implementations of Flash, but the fact of the matter is that Flash is used for MANY other purposes that people may not notice as much, which HTML5 simply cannot touch at all right now.
Nice *interactive* financial graphs on Google, Yahoo, etc, are extremely common, and while there are many HTML5 graphing examples out there, few are interactive at all, and even less are usefully interactive. (dragging to zoom, highlighting, drill-down, etc...)
Flash is also great for writing entire web-based business class applications in, just one example is Google's entire analytics site, it uses Flash extensively, so much so it doesn't work without it.
HTML5 and its related tools still have a *long* way to go to catch up... Flash will be with us for quite a while yet.
Open Source Time and Attendance, Job Costing a
1. It's not open - So are iPhone, iPad, iPod. Users can't develop and deploy custom software without "Approval"
2. The "full" web - Yup. Without the flash support, users miss out full web experience.
3. Reliability, Security & Performance - What you say may be true, but let the users decide whether to enable flash on the devices or not.
4. Battery Life - Same as above.
5. Touch - More BS from you. If the flash is not user friendly on your devices, its site owners' problem. Let them opt for HTML5, don't force them.
6. The most important reason - Yes we get it. People will bypass your app store and depend on third party apps. So, stop BSing, just tell us that it will hurt Apple's bottom line that's why you are not supporting flash.
...sticking HTML5 and wanting to use standards like it is all fine and well, but there is an assload more Flash content than HTML5 content out there right now. Why not support both HTML5 AND flash?
HTML5 may be the future, but Flash is still what is in use today.
Living With a Nerd
I remember the battle between Sony's higher-bandwidth Beta-Max standard and the rival standard, VHS. Sony took the position that it would not allow the publishers of adult films to sell their product on Beta tapes. In other words, all "naughty" films for home viewing were on the lower-quality VHS standard.
The VHS format used a larger, heavier tape to encode less bandwidth and therefore lower video quality.
Some of you may recall the VHS won this format battle. Many contemporary observers assigned causality to Sony's choice of censorship in the medium they controlled. Soon, we will observe the same scenario played out again: Apple's iPad with software to control content, or Google's Android on tablets and a more anarchy-oriented medium?
From TFPR: "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?"
Really, Steve? Javascript... modern ?!
This has caught my eye:
"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."
Well, according so some benchmarks, Flash actually performs better than HTML5 on Android.
Flash is open. Anyone is allowed to create swf files using whatever method they choose. They can write their own compiler if they wish.
America, Home of the Brave.
I don't use a mac all the time, but on the other hand, I can't think of a single instance in which Flash caused my browser or the machine to crash. Somebody else posted that they've looked at crash reports in Safari and discovered that they were all from flash plugin which may be true, but I've certainly never had that experience on a mac, and absolutely not on a pc. If that is the case, then how is that solely the fault of Flash plugin, when flash plugin works perfectly fine on other macs? When you take into account the recent change on their App store developers agreement, the hypocrisy in this press release reaches a staggering new level.
It's a good thing the iStuffs don't allow Flash, mainly due to his first point. It's anti-freedom, but the the whole platform is based on that, so getting one more little app/library doesn't wouldn't help much. And if the iStuff marketshare encourages web content providers to move away from Flash, then we all win, whether we use iStuff or not.
There's still a lot of bullshit in his points, though. One thing I'd like to go after is this, because I think it touches on something deep that people are really divided on, although they might not realize it.
And here's my assertion: Apple, you are a third party. Growing dependent on the iStuff's OS is already enough of a problem that adding more problems like it, doesn't make the situation worse.
"Wait, if they're the third, and the user is the first, who is the second?" Mu. I don't give a fuck. There is no second party. ;-)
"Bullshit. Apple is the second party." No they're not. The escape from getting fucked over by proprietary lockin is that second parties are no longer allowed to exist. It's the users-vs-the-world and don't try to tell me there's someone else on the user's side or a useful intermediary. I know better. I think a lot of us know better.
I know a lot of people will disagree with that. That's why you're running Apple or Microsoft products. You see the neutral device and the hostile OS as a single unified solution, and since it happens to work pretty well (in Apple's case), there's no big problem. So you haven't been assraped yet, huh? Ok, but some day you will, and you'll come crawling to Free Software. And after that day, when someone like Jobs rationalizes why it's for your own good that you not be given enough freedom, you'll be laughing at the absurdity with the rest of us.
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/
I'm still bitter that Adobe made Photoshop CS4 64bit for windows and not mac.
Jobs says "There are more games and entertainment titles available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any other platform in the world." To me, this rings quite hollow :
First, the vast majority of recent truly innovative small-form-factor or two-dimensional games are primarily flash games, possibly with ports to mobile platforms like the iPhone. Yes, the best such games are often rewritten for the iPhone, but ..
Second, the vast majority of older two-dimensional games are outdated console games that now run under emulation under linux, mac os x, and windows. I'm unsure if how well the iPhone handles these games, especially old arcade games, given the lack of keyboard. I'm also unsure how well the emulators run under Symbian, Android, Windows Mobile, etc. either, maybe the iPhone has the best emulators from among the mass market phones.
I know however that my N900 offers almost all the Linux emulators, the ones I've tried play well thanks to the keyboard, even dosbox.
Third, there are still vastly more strong titles for recent consoles or desktops that'll never play well on an iPhone within Jobs lifetime.
Jobs does however state the all important caveat "entertainment titles" by which he presumably means all movies sold via iTunes too. Yes, other mobile platforms are not making movies available like Apple, true but kinda irrelevant.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
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
The small open source project is KHTML, a complete open-source HTML(4 at the time but I suppose it reached 5 now) rendering engine. Instead of improving it, they forked. Which is legal and ok, but not enough to recognize Apple as a standards creator on the Web.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
You can say that about any language.
It can be BASIC, bash, C++ or even Java.
Personally, I would love to be able to write a "delete all SMS messages" script.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
... which is the real reason Apple wants to kill flash - it won't let Apple fully exploit their h264 patents via, among other things, html5 video codecs.
Why do you assume that any gay man would want to have sex with him?
Adobe's security track record has been pretty terrible. Flash and Reader security vulnerabilities are the most common way for malware attacks to get access to systems today. One of the main reasons Apple insists on having control of their products is to deliver a good user experience, and they currently enjoy a very positive reputation for not getting infected by viruses. I'm honestly surprised that lack of security isn't number one on the list.
With the market penetration of the iPhone, if it used Flash it would be a huge target for malware authors. While not having Flash can be irritating, disenfecting my phone would be far worse.
Um. I still have both. I know the letter is about his Jesus Phone, but Steve's being a bit of an elitist douche-bag here. PCs and mice are not obsolete technologies, nor would I ever want to replace them for either the iPhone or iPad.
Now for a little ranting...
I don't have any of these Apple devices, but the ones I've seen are pretty nice -- as content-delivery devices. However, the hoopla and mystique over everything Apple is over-hyped, over-contrived nonsense, with Apple themselves drinking the most of their own Kool-aid, see: lifetime iPad ban.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Flash was unstable on Linux for years, but in the last two years the problem has apparently subsided. No more crashes in Firefox, not even in Konqueror. How is this possible?
Steve Jobs is so full of crap. He goes on and on about how Flash is so buggy and doesn't work very well. I've used Flash since I don't know when, and I've only maybe had trouble with it one time. iTunes on the other hand is one of the buggiest monstrosities I have used. I can't play video I have bought on the iTunes store on a 3 ghz machine ever at any time. The audio goes off track, and / or the video starts and stops running at about 2 frames per second. I can't believe this dude had gotten away with his bullcrap comments. And it has a host of other annoying problems. Like music tracks that just disappear of from iTunes for no reason, and you have to go into your library and re-link to the file. A less experienced person might think the file was lost to the darkness and would have to re-buy it. A great plan to make more money. I think a whole forum could be made up of very significant bugs that iTunes has.
You know the reason he wants html 5 is so he can lock down users to his proprietery content. He is only going to allow html 5 to only run his proprietary codec. Alowing him to sell more stuff to his minions. Providing another cash stream for him.
Google is doing things right by providing Flash in their next version 2.2 . Google has really got to do more about not letting their software get so splintered by versions. Eris on Verizon is still running 1.5 with perpetual promises about an update in the next month or so. There is going to be a huge backlash for them if they don't keep things updated more or less reasonably for everyone. People are going to start going to iPhone just because they are treated a little more equally, and aren't neglected because they haven't bought the latest phone version that htc has made.
A Mac is in fact a Personal Computer.
Multi-touch is supported in 10.1.x, and h.264 has been supported since version 9 (which came out 3 years ago). The first one I can understand (since 10.1.x isn't production), but the second one is just ignorant.
And yes - multi-touch in flash works on Android.
Marvel Comics has an app for the iP*. DC Comics doesn't. I'm sure Steve's anti-Flash policy is to blame.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
A lot of Porn is in Flash:) Gotta keep the porn off mobile vices errr devices. Droid does Porn. No more Porn
When many apps are moving to cloud based syncing, desktop and mobile apps seem like an arbitrary line in the sand for forgiving yourself for being proprietary. Not only that but the SWF spec is open, and there are open source Flash development tools too. Adobe has other significant open source work too with Flex, Tamarin, BlaseDS, etc etc. Heck they originally wrote the JIT for firefox.
So yeah, his distinction rings hollow and untrue.
meep
One thing people overlook if HTML5 replaces Flash is how one would go about blocking annoying content. Right now, you can use a variety of methods to block the Flash plugin, even being able to reenable it for certain useful purposes. What happens when the annoying content is embedded in the basic HTML of the webpage, and there's *no way* to stop it?
HTML5 is a means to push Quicktime.
Once upon a time, Jobs hoped that Quicktime would be in the position that Flash is now wrt to web video.
Considering Apple's early dis-interest in supporting Linux, I'm damn glad that Apple didn't win that one.
The fact that you're forced to buy a mac to code for the iphone should be all that needs to be said.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The iPhone supported sending pictures taken on the phone using the built-in email client from the very beginning. The best part: this feature was basically free (you'd already paid for the data service regardless).
By contrast, MMS messages require an additional charge (either an additional data plan or a per-message fee).
The only reason Apple ever decided to support MMS was because US-based customers wanted this feature to send pics to non-email capable phone users.
The iPhone also has no serial port sticking off of it. That's how it goes with old, outdated technology.
I think that Jobs' point is that web content should not be based on a proprietary "standard" .
Many of us have been saying this for years, building websites with Flash has always been fail. And for my money it always will be.
That does not mean that I think that everything people do with flash is awful, or that flash developers lack skill or talent. As an average netizen I'm forced to use flash apps and websites if I want to do things like browse recent car models or (until recently) use youtube and I have to say that many of the things I've seen have impressed me. But in the grand scheme of things it gets in the way more than it helps.
Flash frequently gets used because there's nothing better for a particular task, not because it's the perfect tool or content delivery mechanism.
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
The letter said not open, not proprietary. The most accurate way to think of the App Store is it is analogous to a distribution In the linux world (roughly). If I want my software included in Ubuntu, I need their approval.
I dont understand why people seem insistent that everything they want should be included in a companies product, its not like there are not other choices. There are tons of phones and tablets out there to choose from, if Flash is a sticking point, why not get a competitors product? If say the Droid started outselling the iPhone don't you think Apple would get the hint and suddenly find Flash was important? If it doesn't happen would you also be able to summize the the masses really don't care? Its a path Apple has chosen, if you don't agree, find something else, its pretty simple.
My N900 have something to disgress on his toughts. Flash perform well on it, and even if it touchscreen, you can turn on the "mouse" for rollover and such things. Maybe the concern could be more related to capacitive vs resistive touchscreen, or the precision of it (no pen for iPhone/iPad by directive).
Like it or not, a good portion of the web is flash, not just videos or games, but actual content, navigation, and well...ads. Now there is a race between Adobe making a decent linux/mac/mobile flash player and Internet migrating to a flash free, html5/css/js full standard. And Adobe is already moving in that direction, there is a preview of 10.1 that does hardware acceleration streaming videos on macs, will release next version for Android too, and maybe Symbian or even Meego could have optimized versions. And in the internet side, well, you have countless sites using it and not hurrying on moving on, and one of the big players having little clue about what is html5.
Anyway, have to agree with him that flash is a bit heavy in cpu and battery for anything in linux/n900/mac so far, and have to respect his will to bet the future of his company on something that, if goes well, could be good for internet as a whole. But don't treat your users as hostages in a holy war.
Basically what Jobs says is: dont use things which dont work well, even if you kill off some things which work.
Its the counterexample off microsoft: Never kill things which work, even if some things dont work right.
n/m
I'm curious to know how most designers take this. On the one hand they're wholly dependent on Adobe and many use Flash extensively. On the other hand, the vast majority of them are die-hard Apple fanatics. My impression is that they generally don't give it much thought but will always side with Apple.
I personally don't much care for Adobe and am resentful of how they control the industry. But they don't do anything unusual for a software company. They still have the best software, by far, for design and more importantly, everyone in the industry uses it. It's extremely impractical to try to be the black sheep and go with something by some other company. In the print and publishing world they don't even take files created in anything other than Adobe applications.
The only way Flash is going away is if someone develops an authoring tool for HTML5 or any other language that is as robust and relatively straightforward to use as Flash. Flash, by and large, is targeted designers. And designers are not programmers. They aren't going to pick up HTML5.
The problem is that many programmers I've worked with are snobs when it comes to Flash. They don't see it as their responsibility to learn Actionscript, deeming Flash to be a designer's tool. This, despite the fact that AS2 and especially AS3 are very robust languages. AS3 actually changes things fairly dramatically, making for a more properly structured and cleaner language. It basically forces people to code the right way, but it also has alienated a lot of designers who have decided to stick with AS2. I've been seeing HTML5 demos showcasing things Actionscript has been capable of for years and, more importantly, with much better performance.
And compounding the problem is that the majority of design companies don't get enough Flash work to justify hiring a full-time Flash developer, and it's hard finding such a developer even if they needed one. I wont bother getting into the difficulty getting a programmer to even implement a design properly. It's especially problematic when the programmer produces sloppy work and tries arguing it's good enough in an attempt to avoid hard work. And regardless, the perception persists that it's a designer's tool. So designers are stuck doing a lot of Flash development. But it's feasible because Flash makes it relatively easy to do so.
Put a designer in front of a text editor and good luck having him build an interactive site in HTML5.
I'll concede that there may be legitimate issues with getting Flash on the iPhone or iPad. But let's face the facts, the real reason is competition. Get Flash on those devices and suddenly there's another source for gaming and apps.
If Adobe was able to actually make Flash ubiquitous and platform independent, it wouldn't suck so bad and would actually be used for much more useful stuff. If you look at Java, even as much as Sun screwed the pooch with it, they got it onto dang near any and every platform and it worked pretty much the same on every one. Flash on Windows works alright, on Linux it lags way behind (64 bit version in beta for how many years now???). Mac version buggy and crash prone, no availability on mobile devices. Doesn't really sound like a standard at all. Sounds like a 'feature' just waiting to be replaced by the thing that actually works.
Wow! The gloves are off! I wonder if anybody at Adobe is regretting mouthing off so much about Apple being closed?
Steve Jobs has something against us PCs, with our two button mice... WITH A SCROLL WHEEL.
Too many buttons for him.
First, lets clear up some terms: My PC is a computer. My MAC is a computer. The iPhone is and appliance. The iPad is an appliance. If you don't know the difference, do some research.
What is Apple's main business model on the iPhone, iPad, iPod? To market 3rd party software through their system and make money. If I was allowed to write Flash applications that ran in the browser on these platforms, then no one would have to rush out to Apple's iTunes store to buy anything for these appliances.
And you think that Steve will fully embrace HTML5? No way. iTunes would be dead if HTML5 was fully functional on any of Apple's products. You could write the same applications that would run in the browser and completely defeat the native apps that Apple sells.
Flash on mobile sucks.
That is true. so far Adobe has failed deliver a good mobile flash solution.
They produced "Flash lite" which sucks to high heaven.
I am not an Apple fanboy at all but lets be honest about this.
Instead of crabbing about Apple not letting Flash on the iPhone why not show us a good Flash experience on say? Windows Mobile? Adobe has had years to produce that. Or on WebOS which they announced about a year ago and still has not seen the light of day. I bet Android would put it on to day if it exists. How about S60 on Nokia devices? I am sure the N95 could run it.......
Really as far as Flash on the iPhone goes Adobe... PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
If all we get is another halfbaked Flash-Lite junk program then who cares?
Over all I am happy that Apple pushed for HTML5 as a solution. Those same sites work just great on my Android phone and my wifes Palm Pre!
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
From : Steve Jobs
To : All
Fuck you. You'll continue to do as I say. Get ready to open your wallets again. Cheers.
Neither the Engadget article nor the Slashdot summary seemed to include a link to the actual page on Apple's site. Seems like that would be more instructive reading than someone else's summary of it.
So here it is.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
The religious arguments of ye old days, this reminds me of. I wish he would just think like a businessman and provide flash so more ipads can be sold. The app store has plenty of apple approved, slowly responding, poorly written, battery sucking applications, developers don't need flash for that. And guess what Steve, the _web_ was written for pc's and mice, the touch argument falls flat there as well. We will see how this holds up as flash appears on all the other mobile devices and runs fine.
Why not support both HTML5 AND flash?
Because every scripting language/virtual machine you add to the browser is a nest of potential security holes. iPhone already has ECMAScript/DOM for HTML and its part of Apple's job to keep that patched. Why add more weak spots (especially 3rd party ones)..?
There's also the issue of how many existing Flash apps (including some video GUIs - remember that if you use Flash on your site you also have to supply the UI) will actually run on a touch-only device?
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
What I said is that if someone makes an open source implementation available, how is he going to use the proprietary software club to beat Flash.
While certainly true, making a comment about Flash being proprietary is just hypocrisy and at the same time hilarious from Steve Jobs and Apple.
Steve Jobs is speaking in the context of web browsing. Apple mobile devices support Javascript, HTML5, etc which are open standards- and in case you've forgotten, that was how many iPhone applications were initially developed and 'released'.
Flash is proprietary and closed-source. Whereas Microsoft used their marketshare to bring in proprietary standards, Steve is doing the opposite: holding fast and refusing to support Flash, using his market share to both force website owners to make their websites useable without Flash, and give web designers everywhere some ammunition to steer clients towards using technologies other than Flash. Most sites don't need Flash- XHTML and CSS wiped away most of the common uses of Flash (ie, Web Design Via Photoshop.)
Given how bitterly many Slashdotters have complained over the last 10 years about how Flash was proprietary, didn't work on Linux (recent Linux users won't remember this, but yes, Virginia, it used to be that you could not get Flash on your Linux machine), etc. etc- well, I'm a bit disappointed.
Please help metamoderate.
I happen to agree with practically of his points, and have been saying much the same thing about Flash since the beginning of this whole debate.
Honestly, I don't have much sympathy for Adobe here. No matter how loudly they whine - the fact remains that they rely too heavily on their products securing a place in the computing world simply because they're "good concepts", vs. making the effort necessary to ensure they're solid and reliable in actual use.
EG. Adobe Acrobat Reader is in such widespread use in the Windows world, it may as well be rolled into the operating system itself. BUT, if you actually stop and look around, you find plenty of better alternatives to work with your PDF documents. Kind of pathetic, really, when you consider PDF is Adobe's own invention, yet other people are handling the format better than they are! For example, people using the free PDF reader offered by Nuance get the ability to do document markup/annotation to their PDFs, and it launches a lot faster than Acrobat Reader too. And on the Mac side, the difference is even more striking. Apple's own "Preview" app in OS X is MANY times faster than Acrobat Reader for OS X, and even allows re-ordering pages in a PDF before printing or re-saving it. But all of that aside, look at Adobe's track record just handling installs/uninstalls/updates! Take a look at any Windows PC that's been around a while. If it has the latest (or even version 8.x) of Acrobat Reader on it, obtained through Adobe's automatic updates over time - go into C:\Program Files\Adobe and see what's in there. Betcha it's not just the folder for the current version of Acrobat Reader! I've seen multiple megabytes of leftovers in there on most systems from Acrobat 7 and even 5 or 6. They're TERRIBLE about doing housekeeping when updating their product!
And frankly, Acrobat Reader may arguably be Adobe's BEST piece of free software they let you download! Flash is multiple times worse! It crashes regularly, eats huge amounts of CPU time, and isn't consistently updated to work with the latest browser and OS technologies.
I'm not much of a Microsoft fan either, but let's face the facts. When have you heard the kind of negativity about Microsoft's competing Silverlight technology? It's basically the MS version of Flash, but it seems to run much better for people (even if that's just because it isn't as old, and doesn't have as much "legacy code" in it?) I've heard rumors they may release it for the iPhone at some point, too. That would further illustrate that this is a real failing on ADOBE'S part, not Apple's.
That's not what your girlfriend said when I was fucking her up the ass last night.
Having actually worked with Flash on multitouch enabled devices, he does have a point on lack of good support for touchscreen devices. The browsers support it just fine, but when you enter a flash application, you lose your ability to have multitouch or any significant responsiveness with the touch interface. My testing has been on one of the new Lenovo touch netbooks which I got to compare the UI to what apple has. It really doesn't compare with the touch side at all. By using HTML5, you still let the browser have control of the UI and touch interface. The same goes with java script as the browser handles that, not a separate plugin application. If adobe wants to truely compete with flash, they need to also start developing to use more hardware decoders and adding support for multiple pointers/Windows touch depending on whether you are Linux or Windows. I can't speak for Android as I haven't played with it on my devices yet, but it will be similar to how Linux supports multi-touch which isn't exactly refined at this point. Gestures and multitouch are a big hurdle and Apple has done well with making their UI touch enabled. Apple has set the standard for what to see from a touch enabled device, so it's time for companies like Adobe to step up to the plate and work on it if they intend to be a part of that market. Otherwise, I'm fine with html5 and h.264 for my devices and native hardware decoder. I would love to be able to have better support for flash on my multi-touch netbook, so lets hope they do actually work on things.
He just pulled the blinders down and people buy it.
The "Web" is not device compliant. I'm sorry, but HTML5 isn't touch aware, it isn't battery aware, it isn't "reliability, security and performance" aware - it is what it is. He knows this and he's baiting the industry hook line and sinker to think that the eco-system he is building is open when Steve knows full well people will chose the apps over the web experience. Jobs has NO incentive to lead the open standards industry into the future and has every incentive to do so with their proprietary solutions.
Apple could work with Microsoft, Adobe and Oracle to make everything touch aware and open up their patent portfolio to lead the industry to a standard touch interface but that is the LAST thing Apple wants to do.
Flash is no saint.. its not perfect by any means, however Apple isn't perfect either and the last thing i want to see is the industry deceived in the name of progress that is progress for all the wrong reasons.
Tacky that his first point is that Flash is proprietary, when Apple restricts the apps that can be installed on the phone.
Do you guys work at being stupid or does it come naturally?
Why bother
0/10.
I like my iPhone a lot, but Apple runs a ridiculously closed, proprietary system. So Steve's criticism of Flash as being closed and proprietary is so obscene as to be ridiculous.
Saying Apple supports open "web standards" is just splitting hairs. They support open standards when it's in their interest (trying to lure users away from competitors) but otherwise they are one of the biggest offenders when it comes to pushing lock-down, proprietary, our-way-or-the-highway systems.
The only reason Apple gets away with it is because of their small market share. If they had the size or influence of Microsoft they'd get their ass slapped with an antitrust suit just the same.
Steve only addressed half the equation. He is only talking about the Flash plug-in for web browsers. The web can get along just fine without that kind of Flash.
What concerns developers is Steve's belief that if I develop a standalone, fully-compiled, objective-C application that meets all of Apple's requirements - that Apple may reject it because I happened to use Flash as the development environment.
Steve Jobs did not claim Apple is an open-source shop. He said this: "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. " Why is this so hard to understand? Are there other motives other than being a pure "open source advocate" here? Hell yes. Is apple more open when it comes to web standards than Adobe? Sure. Do I care? Not much.
Currently hooked on AMP
Why shouldn't the developers and users get to decide what they want to use? Why does Apple feel they need to make everyone's decisions for them? If people want to stop using Flash let them decide.
If Apple did not use the OSI model and developed their own proprietary protocols then I would not care about what they are doing. But I think its pretty crappy that Steve will use layers 1-4 like everyone else but then he locks down 5-7 on his OS's. He simply uses open standards only when they suit his own purposes.
You know folks here seems to have a secret crush on Apple. Sure you tease it, but only because you want to kiss it and get it pregnant behind the firehouse.
I do think it's funny that you complain about the lack of Flash support in the iPhone at the same time you say it's a closed garden that you wouldn't want to play in anyway.
And every time I ask people what Flash piece they need to run on their mobile device, they always say the same thing: Video
Well guess what? No only does the iPhone support great h.264 video, sites like YouTube, NYT, and Facebook are transcoding to it, and it looks BETTER than those sites look in Flash on the desktop, using only a tiny fraction of the processing power.
Run any HTML5 app you want on your phone. Anything.
Download the FREE development tools and create your own app. Join the Dev program ($99) and distribute your app to 50 of your friends for FREE with no review by Apple.
Put your source code on the internet so ANYONE can compile your app and put it on their device, and up to 50 of their friends.
Submit your polished app to the app store, and apple will take care of distributing it, promoting it, managing updates, and if you decide to charge, collecting the money and sending you a check with your profits.
I fail to see how this isn't a good deal for users and developers.
... inside of another app platform (web browser) ... inside of another app platform (the OS). Why do we need all this? We need to re-think the app platform concept.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Except, of course, he praises HTML5, which Apple also didn't invent.
The point is:
Flash, for a vast number of reasons (battery consumption, inability to offer the same experience without rewriting a whole lot of websites/apps -> because of touch UI -, etc.), is bad for mobile devices. Period.
It doesn't matter whether someone likes Apple or not, the decision was well supported by his arguments.
The only (ONLY!) way to prove that Steve-o could be wrong with this move, would be if Adobe could actually release a version of Flash that "works good". This means, no battery draining, touch-oriented support, etc.
And about praising HTML 5 without inventing it. So? He never claimed that.
If I'm trying to make an argument that traveling(using/accessing web content) by car(using HTML5) is faster than a skateboard(Flash), would it be relevant if I'm praising the car, even though I did not invent it???
The web has traditionally been wide open to experimentation. Until now, all web browsers supported whatever plugin's people wanted to develop, things like Flash were able to emerge. And that's a good thing. You (or Steve Jobs) may not like Flash, but without it, we wouldn't have YouTube and thousands of other video sites.
Sure HTML5 may provide a better way to support video, but it wouldn't have, had Flash-enabled YouTube not convinced the standards body that video over the web was viable. Same goes for Flash-based games, etc. You may hate the implementation, but at least somebody out there was thinking creatively. And the open web/browser enviroment allowed them to implement their ideas cross-platform so they could catch on.
So where are the new web ideas going to come from? If Apple had their way and prevented (let's face it) anything that competes with native iPod/Phone and sanctioned webkit apps from running on their hardware - and that hardware became widespread enough that ignoring it was not an option, there'd be no way to get a great new idea off the ground... or even a lousy one.
Maybe we're far enough along that we have 'all the capabilities anyone could want' in the current web browser, but I kinda doubt it. Plugin's are the only viable way to get truly original stuff implemented. Integrated standards can't become standards until they exist and gain market acceptance.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Proof that Satan himself can occasionally have a valid point.
Didn't you watch after-school specials? This is the drug-dealer approach.
1. Get everyone to use your patented tech "for free" as a standard.
2. Jack up licensing once your tech is a "must have" all over the industry.
3. ??? (where each question mark denotes five minutes of laughing until you cry while kissing your fistfuls of money).
4. Actually profit.
Step 2 is likely to happen in 2016 a la this story. It was to be January 1st, 2011, but, surprise, there isn't enough industry adoption to pull that rug out yet. MPEG-LA will keep us on the hook a bit longer before really hitting us.
There are, of course, those out there (like Google with VP6, open-source nutters with Theora) that are doing their best to stop the obvious and, if you have ever licensed MPEG2, repeated abuses of this tactic, but they'll feel like Cassandra while being called Chicken Little.
In the grand Apple balance sheet, yeah, it's a small motivation. Nonetheless, it's an incentive that, combined with a clear adversarial hatred for, well, everyone else, might lead to things like feature restriction. Apple may be getting a bit ahead of themselves on taking the "most hated jerks in the tech industry" crown away from Microsoft before they have 90% market share.
And what say you apple fan boys... this is who you would have rather won than Gates?
So is your dishwasher, your wristwatch, and your television. Most cell phones also fall into this category. These things are appliances--items which live in a closed software ecosystem which is a big part of the reason that they "just work". It's fine for you to want a phone which is a platform that you are permitted to run arbitrary code on--but that's not what Apple is selling and frankly that's not what most people want out of a phone (even a smartphone)--but there are alternatives.
The internet is not an appliance--it should be open and not owned by any one vendor. There is no hypocrisy in wanting open web standards while continuing to manufacture closed ecosystem appliances. Just like there's no hypocrisy in insisting that one can run arbitrary code on his home computer but not insisting that he can run arbitrary code on his microwave.
The real reason Jobs doesn't like Flash and cross compiling others too like JVM or C# is:
You could create an iPhone app without purchasing Mac hardware.
Currently, the only possible way to develop an app for the app store is to compile it on a Mac.
Tacky that his first point is that Flash is proprietary, when Apple restricts the apps that can be installed on the phone. Pot, meet kettle.
how is that tacky? this is an opinion piece written by a person... to that person, apples products are not proprietary... he has full control over them. if they need to be updated to make something else he owns work, he can do it. flash, on the other hand, is very proprietary to him, and if he needs to update it to make something else he owns work, he can't do it...
seems like a pretty valid point, and not tacky at all.
I have to buy Windows to code for Windows Mobile. Your Point?
You want to hack devices and put your own finesse on the UI (or make it crudely ..) then android's waiting for you. Flash on android sux, and I am happy to say no to flash.
The target market for iphones and ipad and even macs are people who create content and consume content. Not people who program and want 'freedom' that they will never use.
First off, parent isn't saying anything about security, so I don't see at all why this was brought up.
As for Java being 'proven', well, depends who you talk to. Everyone I know that has developed J2ME apps has fled over the last few years to the app store. We are starting now to see the 'power of Java' (read fragmentation) with Verizon pushing their version of Android, Google/Nexus One another, HTC Sense another. Welcome to the world of (slow - for now) Java on mobile.
Now as far as Apple only wanting you to use the tools they want - so F*%&king what?! Why do people wine and moan about this so much? I really can't understand it. Hey, when I wanted to make an iPhone app I didn't sit there and whine and bitch and moan about it. I *did* something about it - I f*$#king learned Obj-C - it's not that hard. Jesus christ, developers have become such wimps over the years, it's unbelievable. What happens when you want to make a Windows Mobile 7 Series app? Do you whine that you can't code it in Java or Obj-C or Javascript or Ruby?! No, you learn C# (again *not* that difficult), buck up, and *do it*.
Flash and Java have made developers *lazy*. Lazy because they think they can learn one language and they are *entitled* to use it everywhere (I love Ruby, but I don't expect to use it for everything). There is no one ring to rule them all - never has been. But ya know, people bought into the whole Java/Sun marketing thing, and it's only a marketing thing - write once run anywhere *never, ever* worked right. Adobe, Sun (well, now Oracle) are *companies*, not people or your buddies, but FOR PROFIT CORPORATIONS. They are the same as Apple. Just like Apple they want you to use *their* tools so they can 'lock you in' to *their* platform and claim victory as the best and coolest company in the world. Anyone that thinks Google, Adobe, Palm, Oracle, or Apple are a bunch of nice dudes who wanna be your friend is seriously delusional. They're beholden to their shareholders and roping developers into their platform is how they keep the shareholders happy and how they stay in their mansions. You want freedom? Write for the web only.
Apple has *the right* to have control over *their* stack - just like Microsoft, Oracle, etc has before them. Now it just so happens their web steering has done some good and this *should* be as open as possible - HTML5 is a really good thing. But to whine and bitch and moan that you can't put your porn or torrent or low budget mafia wars like game done in Flash on the app store is just stupid. People need to focus on *doing* things vs. whining, complaining, feeling entitled, and being so hypersensitive. Jesus, get over it and just make something!
Steve Jobs has made his case against flash on the iPad. It's interesting, and I kept reminding myself about the presence of the well known reality distortion field that permeates his being.
As a programmer, and person, I hate reality distortion fields. This blog post is meant as an exercise in building skills to see through it.
First, the post was not just Steve, sitting in his office, jotting down a few notes. He's thought about it, long and hard, carefully avoiding certain areas that might cost him points, while pushing the strengths of his position. Lots of my stuff here is off the cuff, and might qualify as a jot... his definitely is not something quick and dirty.
First, there is "open", as Steve said. Just how do you send code to someone who owns an iPad? It appears to this observer that the way is definitely not open, but only goes through the Apple toll both. Open ports like USB would be nice too.
The there is the "full web"... Flash sucks because it's a layer between the web and the browser. It's a shim at best. However, it's the best shim out there for most cases. Allowing flash, with some disclaimers would be far better than denying the use of this shim.
Then there is security. If you can't protect your iPad from bugs in Flash, you certainly can't protect it from any other rogue applications either. It's just a matter of time before the holes start showing up. Steve - read up on Capability Based Security.
Battery life - good point. Hardware acceleration is good. It would be nice if I could replace the battery at some point as well.
Then there is Touch - If you don't allow cross compatibility, how are others going to figure out how to deal with touch? You'll always be a special case, and never mainstream.
Conclusion - Steve is good at distorting reality, but it's a near field effect with limited range.
Why do you have to insert logic and consistency into this debate?
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
When was the last time Jobs was in reactive mode? That's not his normal style.
Jobs is wrong on so many of his points. For example he points out that websites have been switching to .h264 video, and that other sites should convert their videos (which trust me, is not always a simple task), while then on the topic of Flash sites working properly with a "touch" interface his excuse is that those sites would have to be re-written.
The work required to fix up some incompatible buttons in a Flash site or game is trivial compared to the amount of work that would be required to re-code the entire thing in HTML5. We're talking a couple to a few hours VS weeks and months, with the accompanied proportionate cost. Jobs is insane if he thinks that's the better solution.
There's plenty more counter-arguments that could be made to many of the other points (not necessarily all of them) but when Jobs makes a declaration, his word is gospel.
I have had an iPhone since it was introduced and my wife and I currently have 3G and 3GS models. I also have an iPad 3G on order and hoping to receive it soon. I also have an iPhone developer account and working on releasing some minor, just for fun apps.I just wanted to state that up front.
Is Apple closed or open? Is Apple's position with Flash right or wrong? Is Apple's process for application acceptance/rejection good? These are all great questions and everyone seems to be doing a great job of flogging them to death. But let ask this question: Do I really care?
Since that is a question that is directed to me let me answer it: NO.
All I know is that I spend about 3-4 hours a day on my iPhone. I use my GPS functions, I use it with FB and Twitter, I use while in the stores looking for product reviews, I use it to place orders on the web, I use to manage my day-day tasks. In short, I use it all the time and a lot of different ways.
I really don't care what any else says, I'm very happy with what has been provided. Given the success of the iPhone, iTouch, and soon to be iPad, I think others share the same view. Is it 100% perfect, no. There are some things about the devices I don't like but each evolution has added/changed things for the better.
"First: It was Sun that decided (up until recently) that they wouldn't open-source Java. (I still don't know if all of it is open source...) If they had, then users could compile it themselves, with the options they want."
I'm sure the typical iPad user would have no problem compiling their own customized version of Java if it were open.
If someone's position is "Jobs is whining about flash because Apple didn't invent it. That's all." then the above HTML5 comment is perfectly relevant.
Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
Flash is proprietary ***language***. I swear, you people are either incapable of reading comprehensively or choose not to. And you get an F in syntax. Job's use of "open" is clearly in regards to ***developer language***. Why on Earth should a hardware developer like Apple design their products around another company's proprietary language!? ...That's a D in business-sense. (Adobe should design their products around Apple's OS and hardware.)
As for the app store, it is open but with restrictions. Apple allows 3rd party apps, but it retains the right to screen out that apps that conflict with it's business plan and key user demographics (family, education). If the app store were truly closed, there would be no 3rd party apps. As a share holder of Apple, I agree with their policy.
Apple wants to sue HTC for daring to sell a decent phone.
At the same time, Apple goes very far out its way to lock down the iPhone.
That's the Apple way. Sue your competitors and control your customers.
Nothing wrong with that, right...
"The only reason to build a device-specific App is to take advantage of device-specific features."
No. Another reason is to cope with device-specific limitations.
Just once, I'd love Apple to be honest. The real reason Apple doesn't want flash near the iPhone/iPad is that they don't control the player. The flash player would allow devs to make rich web apps that approach regular iPhone apps in there raw usefulness, but don't allow Apple to put its draconian control like they do with the app store. That is the primary reason why you will never see a flash player on the iPhone/iPad.
Another thing I really don't get is why people take this sort of thing from Apple. if MSFT tried this back in the day, people would have lynched em. I won't buy one thing from Apple until they either transfer the app store to some governing body, relax the requirement to install apps from the app store, or allow flash and such on it.
SWF is not entirely closed and your dire predictions seem to stem from misinformation.
I don't see it as misinfo as much as two-year-old info, given what happened in May 2008 (SWF player ban lifted) and in June 2009 (RTMP spec released).
Of course Apple can sell their products with whatever business license. But, is there not a bit of hypocrisy in Job's blasting Adobe for doing the same?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/29/jobs_on_flash/
'It's old. It's rubbish for mobile. Namaste'
Hehe.
Why is this linking to someone's retort and not the actual page.
The headline should read, "An Editor at Engadget Responds to Steve Job's Thoughts on Flash".
In Korea, In Korea jokes are for old people. :)
"In our tactical decisions, we are operating contrary to our strategic interest."
He is just scared because he is a control freak. Allowing Flash on the iphone would negate the whole app store. It's the same reason that iTunes only works with the ipod, Exclusivity, Control, Money. APPLE YOU ARE THE NEW SONY. FUCK U
Of course, expecting Steve "Apple is Open, everyone else is proprietary" to be consistent is a bit much
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
There are many things to criticize about Flash and ActionScript. However, your blanket statement about Flash being a CPU hog on *any* platform is patently wrong. I'm running Windows 7. In IE 8 with Flash 8 while watching YouTube video CPU usage peaks at about 2%. Most of the time, Flash (plus IE 8) cruise along under 1%. I've used Flash to create numerous art installations involving video manipulation and they actually work pretty well. CPU power is rarely a problem. I think like most of the posters that Job's is off the mark on his criticism of Flash as closed source (pot/kettle etc.) but you bolster his position by making exaggerated claims.
I think we are confusing two issues: the merits of Flash and Apple's blocking of Flash. Allowing this to happen is a bit like allowing a free speech debate to focus on the particular speech being surpressed.
I don't like Flash and I don't want it on my phone, but I don't want Apple controlling that.
Let me be more specific and practical about this. This time they are blocking something that I don't want, but in the vast majority of cases they are blocking something that I do want. As well, they usually do it because it might interfere with plans that they or their partners have for getting more money out of their users (e.g. Google Voice), or because it competes with their inferior technology (e.g. anything that competes with iAd).
Pot, meet kettle? Wasn't that exactly Job's first point--that Adobe, like Apple, offers proprietary technologies (Flash being one of these)? He wasn't criticizing Adobe for offering a proprietary product, but rather for attacking Apple for doing the same thing.
Uh, the problem with Flash was not just that it didn't take advantage of hardware acceleration on some Mac video cards--it was that it was constantly crashing on all Macs--to the point that Apple redesigned Safari to protect it from being brought down by Flash crashes. When Adobe has been unable, after years, to write a version of Flash that runs reliably on a Mac, why on earth would Apple want to have them on iPhone?
Why does slashdot has, at any time, at least 2 stories on apple?
This entire letter is crap and just to make Apple try to look good for its actions.
From the open letter:
Jobs says thats Adobe isn't open, then states MANY times in the letter that every video should be done in h.264 that they support. They fail to mention the fact the h.264 isn't open, it's a standard, not an open standard. Not to mention, the whole system for iPhone and iPad isn't open since to use after market software for the devices you need to either buy it from their App Store or pay another $100 for that option. This isn't open, in fact it's more closed then Flash is.
The second 'fact' he tries is claiming that 75% of video is in Flash and should be using something more modern like h.264. He refuses to mention at the point that hey, Flash does do this modern codec of h.264 which invalidates his claim here. Flash is a container, not a codec.
Third thing he tries to claim is Flash is bad for reliability, security and performance. Jobs as always forgets that OSX isn't noted for its high level of security 1 2 and averages around 6 months to pass on a patch, not even to patch it but just to bother to pass it on even though someone else did the work for them. Jobs then goes on claiming that "We have been working with Adobe to fix these problems' yet again 'forgets' that they hurt Adobe before when they switched from the PowerPC chip to x86 chips causing Adobe to lose money and waste time fixing up Adobe products and not having been kept in the loop (which would have prevented the issues). Same thing happened with 10.6 causing more issues for Adobe products that could have been prevented if Apple had just warned Adobe before hand instead of catching Adobe with their pants down. As a company of Adobe's size it would be harder and harder to want to support Apple, which have screwed them over before (not just once), and all to please 6% of the computer market? Thats not much.
Forth is battery life. And here he pulls a switch around, claims that Flash is bad for the battery life by claiming that most Flash videos aren't encoded in the modern codec of h.264. Here he forgets that other videos online are also not encoded in h.264 but formats like Windows Media Video, XviD, DivX and even Apple's own Quicktime format. He also forgets that Flash videos can be encoded in h.264 because at the time of the iPhone being released, Google just decided, with Apples help, to support h.264. Just in time for the iPhone, but was the only one to support it, the other sites came later. This change took time and help from the inside (remember Apple and Google worked together a lot back then before they started to drift apart).
Fifth 'point' is he claims that sites with Flash will have to be re-written to support touch interfaces. And yes they will, and most places will do that if they feel that the public at large wants that. Same happened with web pages. Web sites had to be re-written to 'support' smartphones since they were horrible on the smaller screen sizes and so those sites that deemed it a good move did just that, they re-wrote their pages to support the newer style of accessing the site. Not every site bothered though and same would happen with Flash sites. Jobs seems to feel that sites should have already been made to support touch devices before there was a need as his 'proof'.
Last 'point' is a mishmash of garbage, first re-claiming about how Flash isn't supported with touch in mind (yet it's on touch screen tablet pc's) then goes on to claiming that 'developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third part
Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
will they support an *open* intermediate portable platform? because there's a number of options (for example google's nacl) that are portable, and open (apple could have a say on what features get implemented on them), and don't force you to use xcode on a mac, which sucks.
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
Personally, I don't believe him for the simple reason that his arguments are fairly easy for people with a development background to debunk.
He claims, "Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary" and then attempts to relativise the fairly obvious answer to that with "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".
Firstly, like Flash or not, the format itself is an open specification. There are numerous open source libraries that produce Flash content, as well as some professional animation tools that output in Flash's SWF format, such as Toon Boom Studio . The proprietary parts of Flash are Adobe's Flash Software and its file format, which is not what the web gets to see.
As for comparing the propietrariness of Adobe's Flash to Apple's iPad, iPod and iPhone, where the entire system, including hardware, software and even the store is proprietary, to the extent where developers can not sell or even give away their apps unless Apple says its OK to do so is such a poor argument, I think you have to pretty much be willing to believe anything that Steve Jobs says.
Steve Jobs then goes on to make bold claims about how the whole web is switching to HTML5 and h264 video format. He names a whole host of large commercial websites that are or will soon be offering h264 video. What he doesn't say is that while the general tendency was certainly to html5 video in the long term, it is mainly due to these corporations not wanting to lose out on the iPad using visitors in the short term that h264 and html5 are suddenly sprouting out of the ground.
His next claim, that "There are more games and entertainment titles available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any other platform in the world" must rank up there amongst the most arrogant and boastful claims ever made in the IT world. To be sure, the IT world is full of boastful souls with huge egos, most of whom end up facing humiliating failure, but this one is simply ludicrous. The App Store and the iFamily of devices is a huge success, but how on earth do you actually count all the Flash games and PC and or Console games out there?
However, the success of the iPad might certainly spell the slow death of Flash on the web if things carry on at this rate. It seems there is such a rush to produce politically correct apps (ok, I put this in here to highlight Apple incredible arbitrariness in its behaviour towards App developers) that one sometimes feels that websites with rollovers/hovers will be dead by tomorrow (They won't).
Jobs then gets to the one absolutely true point, and that is Flash's performance, security and resource consumption, all of which are terrible. Point made. Flash has never been a sucess on mobile platforms before because a) no one made Flash apps for mobiles, b)Flash Lite was pretty terrible and c) mobiles were flakey enough without Flash crashing them, thank you.
But then Steve Jobs goes and blows it again with his claims that Flash somehow won't work because (insert some hand-waving here) it doesn't support "touch". I honestly wonder how he can claim this with a straight face while looking at your average website, which is a damn sight less flexible for "touch" than Flash is. I don't know of many websites, which Steve Jobs is claiming is a major target for the iPad/iPhone etc, that support multi-touch and that don't use some form of rollover. In fact, even Apple's own site supports rollovers, right at the very top.
Finally, and this is where Steve Jobs, in my opinion, twists the truth the most while perhaps inadvertently exposing the true reason for his anti-third party developer tools hatred. In his 6th claim, he states, "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" and goes on a violent rant even adding the Adobe Creative Su
http://hooptyrides.blogspot.com/2010/04/searching-and-replacing-jobs-flash.html
Replace "Adobe" with "Apple" and "Flash" with "closed."
Before:
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.
After:
Apple's closed products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Apple, and Apple has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Apple's closed products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Apple and available only from Apple. By almost any definition, closed is a closed system.
Can you name even one iPhone game that's actually "innovative"? I'm not that easy to please, but I quite liked Fantastic Contraption and Portal.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
It breaks the security model. Right now someone writes malware for the iPhone, Apple finds out, revokes the keys and the malware goes away except on phones it managed to jailbreak. It stops spreading and we move on. If Java apps are allowed in the JVM then, Apple has to revoke all Java apps and they all stop working the first time someone writes a Java-based malware.
Uh...no. If anything on the sandboxed JVM application has access to anything on the phone outside of its sandbox, there's a security exploit on the JVM. Apple (Oracle, whoever) patches it, which breaks the malware, and keeps every other application working fine.
The reason there aren't java malware for any of the other phones which support java is because there's no access to anything on the phone that is important through the JVM.
Most battles over technology are deep in nerd, geek and boffin space...
But Apple with customers from all over the creative space know, create and use flash all the time. It's not something that causes their eyes to glaze, but rather causes them to be enraged when they hear the news...
So while Jobs can lobby senior management at any company to adopt other technology or limit themselves to Apple approved technology, he is devaluing the skill set (flash) that many of his best customers count among their best skills.
If he is going to take it away he really needs to replace it with something just as easy, just as fun, just as simple to use.. or he risks losing his best customers.
If Apple thinks they can swap creative customers for adoption by the broader general public I think that is a hard bet to win. The are winning the broader public because creative types endorse Apple and it's products without that endorsement there is a problem.
http://www.hawknest.com/
LLVM is wonderful unless you need a debugger
And then it completely and totally blows: for breakpoints in code which has undergone basic block replication as part of code generation, or has used static symbols for data or code, or if you want the line numbers in the source debugging to match up to the actual source code.
There's a project declared for a debugger, but the label and other generation for use by what's available today (gdb) just utterly sucks and is almost completely unusable.
-- Terry
Actually, a pacifist will use physical force when necessary... such as defense, defense of others, and destruction of property. Even Ghandi, on occasion, supported the use of force.
You might want to look up "open platform" as well.
For fuck's sake, Steve, it's my goddamn hardware and I want Flash on it. Stop cock blocking.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
The restrictions on flash he gives are post-hoc justification and, frankly, a load of crap.
There is one main reason why they ban Flash, emulators, cross-compilers and the like: they would let developers bypass the App Store and Apple would no longer get a piece of every application sale. Anything they say to justify that is pure PR, because any other explanation fails to predict their actions. We either accept a load of convoluted BS technical explanations, or one simple explanation: that Apple knows where the money is and wants to keep it.
Just watch. Every time someone finds a way to make applications that bypasses the App Store, they'll find a reason to ban it. It has nothing to do with frameworks, openness or user experience. They'll never admit to their real goal, and they won't care that they never bothered to enforce whatever restriction they came up with until such time as it becomes a way to bypass the App Store.
But it's an easy prediction to monitor. I'll eat my words the day Apple permits people to make iPhone applications without having to go through the App Store, unless they're forced into that by a court order or other law.
Flash on the iPhone would be like Java on desktops - you get to run the same crappy, poorly designed applications on all platforms, using a UI that is inconsistent with every platform you use it on. In addition to that, Flash is a security hole and a processor hog, designed for an interface where mousing is assumed.
Start eating your words, since anyone can get the iPhone SDK and start writing apps for their own phone (and distribute to 99 of their closest friends). Alternately you can push those apps out to the phones in your business without going through the App Store.
> I have to buy Windows to code for Windows Mobile
But nobody tells you what hardware to buy. Or how how *old* your OS must be. I just finished coughing up money to upgrade OSX so that I could compile an app for an iPad, something impossible on the current version of OSX from just 6 months ago.
I'm sure you can even code for Windows Mobile in a VM on your *Mac* if you so feel like it.
Proprietary is a valid argument, one of many that Jobs made. Apple reserves the right to reject Apps that are obscene or otherwise would detract from their product, the hardware and OS. This is a very reasonable thing. But the development is done with non-proprietary tools and the Apps are non-proprietary. Flash is not a standard, it is Adobe's baby. Flash is also just used for junk on the web. I'm glad not to have it on my computer or on my iPhone or iPad.
Me? I just say no to Flash. Frankly the web is a friendlier place without Adobe. A great thing about not having Flash is I don't see most of the ads.
Personally I'm somewhat annoyed at Adobe. They have killed and delayed products for years that I needed for my work. I stopped buying from them. Vote with your dollars. Make choices.
...are the two rules of Jobs. And design flare. (...are the THREE rules of Jobs). All the visible policies seem to come from these rules. When everything is aligned to these policies, and people buy into the 'vertically restrictive' business model, Apple make billions. The trick is to make the punters evaluate all the positives as outweighing the negatives.
I wonder what would happen if Adobe said: "Allow Flash on the iPhone or we're pulling Photoshop from the Mac"
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
What, you mean the $29 dollars for the Snow Leopard CD? Cry me a river.
Regardless, you will have to make comparable upgrades to develop for Windows Phone 7. From the article on Windows 7:
While Visual Studio 2010 RC installs on Windows XP, the site says it is only supported on Vista or Windows 7 — and how much is that upgrade? The memory requirements for Visual Studio 2010 and Expression Blend are similar to those for Xcode for iPad development, and the Microsoft products may actually have higher video card and processor speed requirements than the Apple product.
So, yeah. Microsoft does tell you what hardware you have to buy, and how old your OS can be.
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
Streaming video should "just work" like inline images do - ie. as part of standard HTML. The browser shouldn't have to download a full interpreted application every time you want to view some video content. And every single web developer shouldn't have to get clever with Flash just to display video content.
HTML5 is definitely not a means to push Quicktime. It basically obsoletes the requirement to have Quicktime installed just to view streaming video in your browser.
Yeah, Quicktime can be used to encode H264 video content, but so can many other applications.
Here's what would happen:
Adobe would lose a LOT of money on lost/delayed sales of Photoshop. They'd anger their customers. Maybe they'd get a lot of people mad at Apple, too, but it would probably hurt Adobe a *lot* more than it would hurt Apple.
You don't hurt your own business a lot just to hurt someone else's business a little bit.
Unfortunately for Adobe, they don't really hold a lot of strong cards in this particular fight.
Personally, I would not be too sad to see Flash and Silverlight both die (although, honestly, I don't expect that to happen), and websites switch to HTML 5. But, the reason I don't really expect Flash or Silverlight to die is because of DRM. This is why some video will never leave flash or silverlight. For example, I've recently been streaming videos from Netflix, which uses a Silverlight player. I'm pretty sure that at least one of the reasons they use Silverlight, is that Silverlight allows them to enforce a DRM system on the video stream. I don't believe HTML5 has anything like that?
Umm... I'm holding in my hands a mobile device which shipped in the second half of 2009, which runs Adobe Flash 9 right out of the box, at reasonable speeds (some slowdowns, but overall runs without any jitters) -- the Nokia N900.
Am I missing something (is my phone not classed as a "mobile device?") or is Steve completely bullshitting?
You have to keep Web apps and native apps separate or you say nothing useful on this issue.
In Web apps: HTML5 Web apps are more open than Flash Web apps. Some of my favorite iPhone apps were developed and deployed on Linux, where there are no Flash tools. The Web app platform on iPhone OS is totally unmanaged, you run whatever you like.
In native apps: C is more cross-platform than Flash. Writing in ActionScript in Flash means you run only on the Flash platform. Write in C and you can go anywhere. Porting from PlayStation to iPhone to Palm happens without Adobe. With Flash you are at the mercy of Adobe to put their Flash platform on top of a platform, you're not really cross-platform. Adobe's iPhone OS v3 tools shipped one week after Apple's iPhone OS v4 tools, that is all you need to know to understand how impractical Adobe's position is.
> Tacky that his first point is that Flash is proprietary
Tacky that you missed him say that Apple has proprietary stuff too, but not for the Web.
I'd just like to point out there is alot going on here. Flash has not been ported to the ARM platform and adobe hasn't done so most likely due to technical difficulties. this is the main reason why you cant have it! Jobs likes to pretend he is in control and cool and whatnot.
But This is a lack of functionality for flash based games that will never be able to be reimplemented effectively on all platforms.
I Laugh at the ironicness of Jobs saying "adobe controls flash to closely! thats a closed platform its not good dont't use it!" What do you think apple is? heck they are worse! their platform is very closed off. You can't do anything without them restricting you and controlling what you do! whether it be software development. hardware etc. they go out of their way to restrict and control features just to gain money! why does the ipad or iphone have no SD slot? because they want to sell more expensive models! Why does apple get to dictate whats in the app store and what language it's written in? because they control and restrict things just like adobe! or worse! Nice try jobs take a good look at yourself and your company before you b**** about others.
I do think flash is a resource hog monopoly but can't be replaced in all cases
in video streaming yes. but have it is still a necessity in todays world as a lot of online apps use it/ and they can't be replaced with non flash that easy.
They are BOTH right (Steve Jobs and the less charismatic Adobe CEO). Yes, Apple is overly draconian, and despite being first to market with the iPhone (just like they were with the mouse on the original Mac!), they will soon be replaced by open alternatives. However, Jobs is definitely right about Flash, too: It's dated, it sucks, and it's irrelevant now with the ratification of HTML 5.
Granted, both of these truths will take time to play out in reality. But Android is definitely going to kill iPhone the same way Windows killed Mac, but faster, and more completely because Android is much more open than Windows was. Likewise, right now YouTube and FaceSpace and all the other stupid web 2.0 stuff is still running flash, but users are finicky, and the second there is a better alternative run on standards based computing..... Well, you get the idea.
Best of All: Google owns YouTube, pretty much the only thing 60+% of web users use Flash for. I'm quite sure they will switch the entire library to html 5 and Theora at some point, which will signal pretty much immediately the death knell for Flash. Not that Steve Jobs will do much celebrating when everyone owns an android.
Give it 5 years. Call me back then and congratulate me on my foresight of the obvious.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
I read a very well researched shoot out several weeks back between H.264, Theora and Dirac, and Dirac came a distant 3rd place well behind Theora, which in turn was well behind H.264.
Besides, you lot are focusing on the wrong thing. Apple are trying to land as many punches as they can on flash but the real reason they don't want it on the iPhone OS is this (direct quote from the original letter):
So it's really got nothing to do with whether something is open or not. It's all about having a 1-2-1 relationship with developers; being able to get future enhancements out into the hands of users as fast as possible (competitive edge) and finally, maintaining control.
Thus, both the point and counterpoint made by the GP and myself are unrelated to the iPhone/iPad.
The article is about the iPhone/iPad. Moderators like to apply Offtopic on replies to replies to replies to replies that diverge from the subject of article. So I sometimes try to bring the discussion full circle to the article in order to avoid Offtopic.
Flash supports multiple codecs, of which H.264 is a recent addition.
And most new web pages that use Flash video use the recent addition now that YouTube is serving "Your Flash Player is too old" notices to Flash 7 users.
video is a much larger market on the Internet than vector animation
Tell that to any regular visitor to Newgrounds.com. Flash menus and advertisements are also vector animation. Without advertisements, half the articles that Slashdot regularly links to would either behind a paywall or not have been created in the first place.
SVG animation does not appear to have widespread support yet
Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera, and IE 9 support SVG animation; only IE 8 and older do not. I have a 14-year-old cousin who tells me he's making SVG animations in JavaScript and playing them in Firefox. But you're right that MadSwatter, a graphical editor for SVG animation, has no milestone release yet.
but Google is apparently preparing to release the VP8 video codec as open source
Vapor until Google I/O.
Grandparent mentioned Homestar Runner. If you oppose the installation of Flash Player, then which method, whether built into the browser or as a plug-in, do you recommend for sites like Homestar Runner and Weebl's Stuff to present vector animations with synchronized audio? Or do I misunderstand you and you really prefer to install Flash Player, visit the site containing vector animation, and then uninstall Flash Player each time?
If you are consuming a web stie and it has flash ads and you turn it off it's about as close to piracy as you can come.
After the first page view, the site can determine that I'm not touching any SWF objects to activate them. For each page view after that, the site is free to serve ads as DHTML (HTML + JavaScript). If advertisers don't want to make DHTML versions of their ads, that's the advertisers' problem, not the site's.
Adobe let's you switch your license from OSX to Windows very easily and very cheap
In order to get a copy of Windows to run in Boot Camp or on your virtualization platform of choice, don't you have to buy the retail version of Windows at $200 per seat?
It depends on how you define innovative. By some measures, the last genre launch was the mid-1990s, when Parappa the Rapper started the rhythm game craze. Even Katamari Damacy is just Bubbles (1982) redone as a 3D platformer.
the vast majority of older two-dimensional games are outdated console games that now run under emulation under linux, mac os x, and windows.
But most of these are not licensed for distribution online. In order to emulate them on a PC, you have to buy the Retrode adapter to copy the data from the cartridge to the PC. Currently, Retrode works only with games for Sega Genesis, Super NES, and Atari 2600. Most notably, it doesn't work with NES games.
the iPhone has the best emulators
Apple prohibits emulators in the App Store. Are you talking about jailbreaking?
Irony, thy name is Steve Jobs
Yeah, right.
So you call Adobe, convert the license, and get a new set of discs. But in order to actually run that licensed software on the Intel-based Mac hardware, you'd have to install the appropriate operating system, which is where Boot Camp comes in. And unless Adobe actually starts making its Creative Suite for Linux (which I find unlikely), you'll have to spend a significant sum of money for that operating system.
Just make sure delivery uses peer-to-peer, so number of customers delivered to never exceeds the free-licensed
delivery amount...Then you could effectively have a million receivers in a system, but since they are all downloading from each other, the licensing fees would be negligible.
Come to think of it, hasn't Azareus(sp?) implemented some sort of video content distribution system into their client? Would be amusing if this type of licensing scheme is along the lines of what they are thinking about using this system to more 'optimally utilize'.
It annoys the hell out of me that this douchebag speaks of "the PC era", as if that's all in the past, and the billions of people who use PCs are lost tribes struggling to preserve an ancient way of life.
Fuck this guy. Many of the people I know don't even own computers. I'm interested in technology that gives everyone access to basic information and culture. I don't care about touchscreens. A touchscreen that I can't hold in my lap seems ridiculously awkward, and that automatically limits the applications. If the IPAD lets businessmen watch movies on long flights, I think that that's great, but I don't like the IPAD dictating terms to the rest of us. Before flash became prevalent, getting streaming media for Linux was a huge pain in the ass. Every site required a different player or plugin. And flash keeps getting better and better. I don't even own a TV anymore, just a couple of old Dells I bought at a police auction for 62 dollars each, shipping included. I never had a TV that looked as good as Hulu does at full screen. It pisses me off to see this rich guy trying to fuck with my good thing.