Slashdot Mirror
FSF Response To Steve Jobs's Letter
boilednut writes "Steve Jobs's recent missive on the deficiencies of Adobe's Flash is still reverberating around the Internet. In this editorial, John Sullivan of the Free Software Foundation responds, arguing that Apple is presenting users with a false choice between Adobe's proprietary software and Apple's walled garden."
I think that what many people are missing is that what Apple is offering is a proprietary implementation of open standards, vs a proprietary implementation of a closed standard. If Apple finds a problem in Safari, it can fix it. If it finds a problem with Flash, it can't. An iPhone owner who doesn't like Apple's implementations of HTML5 or IMAP can get a different smart phone. If he doesn't like Adobe's implementation of Flash, he's hosed.
If you had read the next paragraph as well, you would probably have held your idiotic comment as well:
Jobs doesn't say why open standards are good, because then it would be obvious that that the "freedom" Jobs offers just isn't.
I mean, really. The free software guys care about something that is irrelevant to most of Apple's customers, and vice-versa. What's the point?
The point is Jobs presented a false argument for Apple's refusal to allow Flash on iPads.
'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' - Mao Tse-tung
This is pretty typical for a confidence man or a salesman - he doesn't ask "do you want my product or not" but rather, "do you want the green one, or the blue one?" The trick is accepting the false premise in the first place. As soon as you try to follow the red queen as it jumps around from left, right, and center, the con man has you.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Apple is presenting users with a false choice between Adobe's proprietary software and Apple's walled garden.
It is a real choice, but there are obviously more options to chose from than the enumerated two.
What's that supposed to mean? Apple's approach conflicts with the FSF's philosophy, so they're telling people why. Users are obviously still let decide; advising people one way or the other doesn't change that.
And it's not like the FSF is meddling in other people's business, because the question of what standards are commonly supported/used is relevant to everyone who wants to use a computer.
--
The FSF isn't hijacking it. It is correctly framing the discussion. HTML5 isn't going to do anything to replace the bulk of Flash web content out there. Most of that is already replaced with "apps".
That's the single most annoying thing about the iPhone/iPad. It takes a common protocol and a common interface that works the same across multiple diverse operating systems and takes us back to the 80s and 90s where every little thing like Google Maps would be a seperate single-platform-only probably windos-only proprietary application.
HTML5 is infact just a red herring.
HTML5 isn't going to replace Flash. Proprietary Apple apps are. Proprietary Apple apps already do.
I can choose between a platform that's more closed than a Nintendo and proprietary apps to match, or another proprietary standard that at least lets me pick the OS of my choice.
Jobs is all about the vendorlock. His populist rantings are just a smokescreen.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
For example:
A free Web needs free software. You cannot have a free Web if your access to the software you use to engage the Web is limited to an arbitrary number of computers, or if you are not allowed to conduct business on the Web using the software, or if you are forbidden from asking someone to develop additional features you need.
The web is a separate entity to the client software that accesses it. If somebody accesses the "free web" with a proprietary client, that doesn't make the web any less free or open. The "free web" is dependent on open standards, not the open source nature of browsers. As long as open source browsers exist, I don't see what the FSF's problem is, users still have a choice.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Many parts of apple's API are not proprietary: Look at OpenAL, OpenGL, OpenCL. Others are proprietary (Cocoa/Core).
Between a flash app and an apple app, both apps are closed. They run on one closed system. But at least apple's closed systems is partially open... (I heard that flash was apparently also opened a bit recently... but I haven't seen any result from that yet)
Steve Job's isn't a tech visionary, he's a *salesman*! That's all you need to know.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Its news for me because Apple got an operating system for free (BSD and Mach underlie OSX) because of those free software guys.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Except Jobs isn't offering "freedom". He never really argued that in the essay.
Job's argument was that with open web standards, if he/Apple/or_it's_customers are unhappy with the browsing experience, Apple can throw money at it and make a better browser. But if they hate flash on the iPhone, there is NOTHING apple can do to improve it. In essence, Apple has been selling a seamless user experience. It has never been selling freedom and often times you trade in some freedom for convenience. That is Apple's market and his argument.
I own one of the last generation of PPC notebooks Apple made. It's true, it has a slow 1.67GHz G4 processor. But at it's speed it should offer somewhat decent flash, but nearly all video's are choppy for it. I never got a satisfactory answer. Apple points to Adobe saying they code a crappy implementation. Adobe points to Apple talking about not having accent to libraries they need. All I know is flash is ultra slow.
Frankly, while I think Apple is crummy on things sometimes, I know the Internet is also one giant waambulance too. If Apple wanted a super closed off garden, it's not going to get that with HTML5 anyway. I also think flash sucks, so I'd rather have it die as well.
Personally, I don't want root access to my phone. I'm happy to give up full freedom on my phone in exchange for it NEVER failing to do what I need it to do.
That's a false choice.
This is ripe for a car analogy actually. You can pop the hood, swap in OEM parts, and tinker to your hearts content, and accept the consequences. Or you can leave it alone, and have it serviced exclusively by factory trained technicians in factory authorized dealers.
The point is, most people leave their engines unmodified (and receive the security of the factory stock maintained engine), but EVERYONE has the freedom to pop the hood.
Why exactly do you think you need to give up that freedom?
I doubt that the developers of BSD would consider themselves "free software guys" in the FSF sense.
Steve Jobs has one reason and one reason only for disallowing Flash on his platforms: If flash could be run in the browser, the entire app market would fall apart--the same useless apps would be available for free on the internet. Apple wouldn't make any more from the app store. Anything else Stevo says about Flash is complete BS and misdirection. /story
funny thing is, if flash has access to a api for talking to the hardware decoder, its video playback drain is probably no worse then a html5 stream. This as in either case the rest of the interface is done in software anyways.
Jobs is basically using the flash issue to pull a smoke and mirrors on the larger issue, the choice of codec for html5.
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Jobs doesn't say why open standards are good, because then it would be obvious that that the "freedom" Jobs offers just isn't.
I think I speak for everyone at Slashdot when I say open standards *are* good, for reasons that don't need to be explained.
Apple is not being hypocritical here, Apple's platforms do support all of the open standards of the web. Apple doesn't even offer a proprietary standard for the web, other than quicktime, which they are openly and aggressively working to replace with plugin-less HTML5 video.
If your concern is that they are pushing H.264, then you'd better not run into Adobe's arms, because flash supports it too. I would argue that the video codec discussion is only tangentially related (especially since adobe and apple support the same codec here), and that what's being proposed for HTML5 is the big step forward that we need right now (plus we're limited by mobile, power-efficient hardware decoding -- it sounds to me like we'll have two standards, Google's VP8 for patent freedom, and MPEG LA's H.264 for low power, mobile functionality -- a big improvement overall for the web).
I don't think he's perplexed. Someone who spends that much time arguing that freedom is the greater good clearly understands that other people are valuing convenience, appearance, ease of use etc. over freedom.
Part of 'moving on' is making the rest of the world around you aware of the shortcomings of Apple's strategy.
I mean, there are millions of less tech people out there who rely on us tech types to advise them and help them make the right choices. We have the right to, and are actually responsible to communicate and discuss and raise our objections to what we see as a bad deal.
I don't know if Jobs presented a false argument, really. He just presented the Apple viewpoint. It's as if Adobe were saying, "I Like Bananas," and Jobs responded, "We do bananas better, and we let you have oranges and kiwifruit as well!"
The EFF has come in and said, "Look, people, there's 50000 varieties of edible fruits, vegetables and animals. Make yourself a slingshot a net and a spear and you can have any of them!"
I didn't see anything in Jobs' statement that indicated that there weren't other ways to skin the cat as well; he simply indicated why Flash wasn't going to be supported. Supporting Flash wouldn't have made the EFF any happier.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Why was this modded insightful? As the originator of the free software movement Stallman simply wants the software people receive on the phone to be "free." See the definition of that here: http://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software This has nothing to do with the ridiculous notion that people must write any software themselves (though they could if they chose to). For an example that comes closer to the mark, see Android.
And some subset of users of Apple iProducts 'jailbreak" them. Sounds like they have freedom, too. And Apple has the freedom not to support that activity. Everyone's free. Free not to buy a company's products, free to modify them if they don't need vendor support. Free Free Free!
The CB App. What's your 20?
The response has been clear, and it's the same response as free software people have given everywhere: "show us your patents". Even the current US legal system is pretty clear about this. If you are aware that your patent is being infringed, you have a duty to come forward to tell the person who is doing that. If you don't; when it comes to damages it is completely obvious that you didn't do your best to minimise the damage caused to yourself and you don't deserve to be paid off.
What Apple and Microsoft are doing is either a) allowing people to continue doing "damage" by using a patent they don't have the right to when Apple or Microsoft could stop that by clearly stating which patent it is or more likely, b) spreading FUD. In case a) since MS and Apple are the only ones who know what the patents are, they should be liable for the continued "damage" from the use of patents from the point where they decided to speak about the patents without stating which ones.
Someone should take this up in a court e.g. in Germany where some parts of the legal system still seem to function.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
My problem is with how the FSF is implying that Jobs is a hypocrite. It seems that they're more interested in making his thoughts into something that they're not than they are about promoting free software. I like the idea of free software, but the FSF is coming across as your typical zealot, trying to twist people's words to better suit their own agenda. Maybe it's not intentional and they're simply incapable of comprehending that another person's values may be just as valid as their own, even if they conflict. Either way, I'm disappointed that Ars ran with this article rather than going with something less bias.
I doubt that these people actually realize they are handing in freedom, just like they didn't realize that stricter airport security meant that they needed to hand in freedom in airports and airplanes.
I see a major misunderstanding here between Free(as in speach), free(as in beer), and "open". Apple is promoting "Open". They are still a for-profit company selling closed devices to access an "open" system. They have no shame here, nor should they.
They make a device to access the web, one non-standard plugin doesn't make the grade for being usable on their hardware so it's not supported. Their options are: 1. Request Adobe fixes their product for mobile devices (10.1, sure we will see with Android being the guinea pig) 2. Apple makes their own workaround (good, but this hack job will probably not good enough or legal). 3. Exclude it as other, more open, standards can fill the void. Apple chose #3. Sorry Adobe, its just business.
Other companies are captalizing on this, as they should be! They are betting on farmville addicts choosing their (possibly inferior) platform over Apple's because of flash support, so they get some sales from people that wouldn't have chosen them without it.
Apple has no problem with that, they just want the people that bought their product having a better overall experience, and then buying v2.0 and v3.0, and also telling their friends. We long-time mac users know what it's like to not have everything, but the stuff we do have actually works
Being a hypocrite and being a cunt are not mutually exclusive.
WTF are you talking about ? How is iPhone OS an "open" platform as opposed to any of its competitors ? I see how you could try to (dishonestly) convince us that Apple's software is more Open than adobe : that's arguable but why not. What I cannot see is how iPhone OS is an open platform, when you compare it to other similar platform (i.e. mobile OSs) The iPhone OS locks you into the Appstore, which is itself censored by Apple. How is that open ? Symbian, Android, WebOS (RIP), MeeGo, Blackberry OS are all more Open. (Not to mention Symbian and Android are Open-source but that another debate) Jobs is just using the fact that Adobe's software (which is rather closed) doesn't work on the iPhone (which is also a very closed system) to attack adobe but in fact the only thing that we see here is the following : systems have to be open because else we don't have interoperability which is exactly what we get when we take the champions of closed system together : Adobe and Apple. Now I already am hearing morons yelling in the back of the room about how Apple supports Open-source and blahblahblah webkit blahblahblah. Webkit is not an Apple product.It's not developed by Apple. Apple just uses it and by paying very little money has ensured the control over it's development strategy. But don't be fooled Apple and Adobe has very similar approach to the CE business. Both this company use free (as in beer) sotfware to capture an audience and then lock these people into their integrated solution. So yes this article says Jobs is a hypocritical lying piece of crap. Because he is.
Your reading comprehension needs some work. Your first sentence shows that you couldn't understand the parent post's first sentence.
He said that Apple makes a closed device (iPhone) for accessing an open platform (the web). Please learn to read with both your eyes and mind open before typing your next rant.
I want to shoot the messenger!
My problem is with how the FSF is implying that Jobs is a hypocrite.
Jobs is clearly a hypocrite. (Link to opinion piece on my website, no ads)
It seems that they're more interested in making his thoughts into something that they're not than they are about promoting free software.
It seems to me like they're talking about what his thoughts mean. Jobs is trying to anticompetitively support H.264.
Either way, I'm disappointed that Ars ran with this article rather than going with something less bias.
You must be new [t]here.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Hypocrisy is putting forth a set of philosophical arguments against Flash while performing the exact same business practices that he's decrying.
Adobe would like to control the user experience through its proprietary application framework (Flash). Apple would like to control the user experience through locked down firmware and their App store.
Look, I have two iPhones. I love the iPhone. It is mostly what it is because Apple is in control and makes good design decisions. I have friends with Android phones and they're a bit of a mess IMHO. You can definitely see where the lack of a good strong single voice in the design has kept the current implementations from matching the iPhone experience.
That said, Jobs is being a hypocrite. He's playing a marketing game to give fan boys (ahem... you?) ammo in the Adobe battle for control over the Interwebs. Fair enough. I hope he wins it since I think that Flash sucks. That doesn't mean that I don't think he's being a hypocrite, though.
Don't let your admiration of Apple or its products cloud your ability to be objective about arguments put before you.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Steve said "We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers."
Yet, that is the same situation he imposes on all iDevelopers. That, my friend, is hypocrisy.