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."

Comments

And Theora?

[Hatta]

I'd be more interested in a response from Xiph on Job's email concerning Theora.

Re:And Theora?

[WrongSizeGlass]

I'd be more interested in a response from Xiph on Job's email concerning Theora.

They have a comment from him here.

Re:And Theora?

[rtfa-troll]

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.

Re:And Theora?

[initialE]

Finally a law where "pics or it didn't happen" applies.

Let the users decide

[walshy007]

Letting the users decide is the best option, what's that? the users can't decide because of apple, of course they can, they aren't forced to buy the product. Their own stupid fault if they buy something so locked down and don't like it.

As far as stallman is concerned, it is still another choice, just one that doesn't make sense from the freedom perspective.

Re:Let the users decide

[cupantae]

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.

Re:Let the users decide

[Anonymous Coward]

The people aren't being informed of the CHOICE though. They aren't told about DRM. They aren't told about the problems of proprietary software. Even when they are they aren't given a choice. Companies lock them into it. Other users that need to exchange files with each other have forced yet others into making the same bad choices of using the same vendors products. No choice here.

Re:Let the users decide

[eloki]

He is perplexed as to why anybody would choose to pay for Apple's platform and accept the restrictions imposed by it.

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.

Re:Let the users decide

[green_abishi]

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.

Re:Let the users decide

[Burz]

And that's Stallman's problem. His ideal phone boots a GNU/HURD kernel and comes with nothing but a copy of emacs and the specifications of the hardware.

No... it would come with printer drivers too.

Re:Let the users decide

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

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.

Re:Let the users decide

[El_Muerte_TDS]

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.

Re:Let the users decide

[rmav]

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."

And not only - it is ok to pay for free software. Source must come with it, you must be allowed to modify and install it. You can pay for the service, for assistance. Open source is not incompatible with commercial use. Only, it is more difficult to do that, because you have to rely on the quality of your services, and not on lock-in.

For an example that comes closer to the mark, see Android.

I find Android even worse than the iPhone OS (that is my platform), because it gives control of the firmware to the cellular phone manufacturers and cellular service providers - but not to the end user.
Roberto

Re:Let the users decide

[Runaway1956]

"I miss TeX on my iPhone."

So, donwload a picture of your guy, and save it to the iphone.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:HB_dKdvH5jP9wM:http://farm1.static.flickr.com/93/207891426_773fe934b5.jpg

Re:Let the users decide

[daveime]

Being a hypocrite and being a cunt are not mutually exclusive.

 

Re:Let the users decide

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Let the users decide

[osgeek]

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.

Re:Let the users decide

[burris]

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.

Re:Let the users decide

[FredHStein]

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.

Go back and read Steve's statement. He doesn't want someone else to control "his" developers. He is blatantly pursuing his self-interest. Is that hypocrisy? iPhone/iPad developers and customer are not forced into this. They opt in. My last count says iPhone has about 1% of the world's cell phones and less than 20% of the "Smart" phones.

To me, it's a question of mobility.

[WilliamBaughman]

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.

Re:To me, it's a question of mobility.

[aussie_a]

That's stupid. If a user doesn't like Adobe's implementation of Flash, he can choose not to Flash. At the moment the user has less choice, not more.

Re:To me, it's a question of mobility.

[jedidiah]

Apple wants me to be dependent on Apple.

I would rather not be dependent on Apple. I would rather not be dependent on Adobe either. However, I would like to be able to choose for myself.

At least Microsoft allows me the freedom to be "tasteless".

This is "why I shouldn't buy an iPad". This is also why "no one else should buy an iPad".

No one should actually buy into the idea that Jobs is some sort of nice-guy-hippie. He just wants people to buy into his brand of vendorlock.

Re:To me, it's a question of mobility.

[cbreak]

There is a big difference between a proprietary software and a proprietary format. If the format is open, you can chose which software to use to view it. Just look at Office and it's format: It is a massive factor in the dominance of the software. But Internet Explorer is a proprietary software rendering an open format, you can easily pick or even implement yourself a different reader. That's why there is a competition in the browser space, much more than in that for office software.

Re:To me, it's a question of mobility.

[mr_lizard13]

This is also why "no one else should buy an iPad".

It's why you shouldn't buy an iPad, sure, but to be fair, being dependant on Apple is one of the things that makes this device appeal to me. Simple reason being, I've seen Apple products time and time again trump their competitors in terms of usability, and that's the one thing that matters to me.

I buy it knowing full well it's locked down like fort knox, but it's their control over the thing that makes it as easy to use as possible.

It's not for everyone, I know.

Re:To me, it's a question of mobility.

[Q-Hack!]

H.264 is NOT an "open standard."

Err...

This may just be semantics, but it is an 'open standard' what it is not is 'open source'. There is a difference.

Re:To me, it's a question of mobility.

[maxume]

No, it's like people are complaining that their refrigerator can't keep chicken cold, it only works with beef.

Re:To me, it's a question of mobility.

[dangitman]

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Are you?

If you own a Windows computer, you are free to write, use, sell or give away applications with zero involvement from Microsoft other than your initial purchase.

And, if you own a Mac, you are free to write, sell or give away applications with zero involvement from Apple.

If you own an iPod/iPad/iPhone, you are required to interact with Apple to do any of those things.

And if you own a Zune/Kin/Windows 7 Phone you are required to interact with Microsoft to do any of those things.

So, what's the difference that makes Microsoft more free?

Re:To me, it's a question of mobility.

[shinobiX]

actually its more like only allowing you to buy groceries from the place that sold you the refrigerator!

Re:To me, it's a question of mobility.

[xigxag]

Your original comment specifically brought up "Microsoft Windows" as a direct comparison to the iPad (iPhone OS). My reply was, of course, to that remark, not to these new issues you are raising. However, if you want to move the goalposts to include the companies' strategies as a whole, then fine, in that case I agree with you in principle. Both companies are equally unfree. There's a crucial difference, however. In the market where it is most dominant, the desktop, Microsoft is restricted both by custom and the threat of government retribution from using the kind of strongarm tactics that Apple is getting away with in the market where it is most dominant, mobile "app" sales. Had the DMCA and similar laws existed in the 1970s, Microsoft might be likewise exploiting its dominant position with impunity.

Re:To me, it's a question of mobility.

[dangitman]

Microsoft is restricted both by custom and the threat of government retribution from using the kind of strongarm tactics that Apple is getting away with in the market where it is most dominant, mobile "app" sales.

This comparison is specious. Microsoft positioned itself as the default OS and software for a whole industry, to be implemented on third-party hardware. Microsoft abused this position by forcing those third-parties to only support their software, and no others. This was but one of their anti-trust abuses.

Apple, on the other hand, make their own hardware and software ecosystem. They don't manipulate third parties to do anything, or prevent them from making products on other platforms.

Your idea that Microsoft is "restricted" is absurd. Yes, they had some impotent lawsuits leveled against them, but they certainly weren't holding back on abusing their monopoly in the 1990s. And what about gaming systems? The Xbox is more dominant in gaming consoles than Apple is in mobile phones, yet you rarely hear anybody decrying the closed Xbox platform.

Re:To me, it's a question of mobility.

[amRadioHed]

You do know that Flash video can and frequently does use H.264, right?

Re:To me, it's a question of mobility.

[QuantumG]

Except that on iPhone, iPad, etc there is no choice. Apple prohibits any product which competes with their own.

Re:To me, it's a question of mobility.

[catmistake]

Err...

This may just be semantics, but it is an 'open standard' what it is not is 'open source'. There is a difference.

Wrong and wrong. It is "open source" as there exist an open source implementation of it, what its not is an "open standard",

You are incorrect. H.264 is an open standard. The fact that H.264 is an open standard speaks zero towards, yes, the fact that it has patents. x264 is the open source implementation of H.264, yet it also has patents associated with it.

as it requires royalties to be implemented legally

you don't understand what an open standard is... it has nothing to do with whether or not there are patents

(the open source implementation is illegal in any country that recognizes software patents).

This is also false. And a little ridiculous.

Sure, the specification itself is available to be read, but that applies to *all* standards, otherwise they couldn't be called as such. What differentiates an open standard from a closed one is the aspect of the latter of having one entity controlling who gets to implement it and who doesn't, and in h.264's case that's MPEG-LA through its patent portfolio.

Patent holders just get paid. They don't set standards. The standards are set by those that use the standard (whether they have to license the right to do so or not). You don't understand what an open standard is. It has nothing to do with patents.

Re:To me, it's a question of mobility.

[kanweg]

"Apple prohibits any product which competes with their own."

Sweeping statement and not true. Want faster downloading? Get Opera and use that instead of Safari.

Bert

Re:To me, it's a question of mobility.

[dhobbit]

No, it's like people are complaining that they're not allowed to modify their refrigerator to fly them to the moon.

I've used linux since '94, I've used bsd since 2000, and purchased a Mac because of the bsd unix underpinnings and the ease of use. I own an iPhone and iPad, I've jail broken and unjail broken the iPhone and I'll probably jail break the iPad at least once. But at this point I've seen very little user impact of the restrictions imposed by Apple. Remember people (normal people not nerds) don't care about codecs, html5, flash, or anything of this. They care about farmville, AppStore games, and having to learn as little as possible to get their work done.

Re:To me, it's a question of mobility.

[eluusive]

Not only that, you don't have to buy an iPhone if you don't want! HOLY SHIT!

Re:To me, it's a question of mobility.

[TehDuffman]

They care about farmville,

Farmville is flash....

Re:To me, it's a question of mobility.

[Yfrwlf]

...and SWFdec, and others...but the reason they are all "far from implementing the full spec" is that it's closed, and the new specifications in the next version of Flash will never be implemented by the open ones. Thus, Adobe will always "lead", because they are the masters of Flash, and "the others" will always follow, and perpetually be "not as good". The thing is, many sites will always be upgrading to the newer versions of Flash as well, so part of Adobe's tactic is that by getting most sites to upgrade, they will keep the Flash world fractured and Adobe Flash will always be the "reliable one that always works with every site" while Gnash and SWFdec will always be the unreliable, crappy version.

It's pretty similar to the .NET/Mono tactic too no doubt.

Re:To me, it's a question of mobility.

[CowboyBob500]

Within the USA, only people with the express permission of the patent holders can implement H.264 legally.

FTFY

So you can't implement it in the US without paying a fee? My heart bleeds. For me, it's an open standard and free to use. Companies should just implement H.264 for HTML5 - as its clearly the best tool for the job - and keep a separate branch for US downloads that continue to use Flash as they do now. At least that way it's only the US that gets left behind. It's not impossible, they did it when the US had export restrictions on RSA key length.

Re:To me, it's a question of mobility.

[Amarantine]

Windows 7 mobile - since when do you need Microsoft's involvement to release an app for that? I haven't used windows 7, but previous stuff, like windows CE, was an open platform - not FOSS, but you could do whatever you wanted with what you had.

Since, well, Windows 7 mobile. Quoting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Mobile_7 : "Windows Phone 7 will only run applications that have first been approved by Microsoft and will only be available via the Windows Phone Marketplace."

Re:To me, it's a question of mobility.

[Lars T.]

Your original comment specifically brought up "Microsoft Windows" as a direct comparison to the iPad (iPhone OS).

No, his original comment was to a comparison of Apple and Microsoft "Apple wants me to be dependent on Apple. [...] At least Microsoft allows me the freedom to be "tasteless"."

Re:To me, it's a question of mobility.

[kirbysuperstar]

Actually, you can play Super Mario World on the PS2. It's not legitimate in the least, but it's there and it's possible.

Re:To me, it's a question of mobility.

[drinkypoo]

It's why you shouldn't buy an iPad, sure, but to be fair, being dependant on Apple is one of the things that makes this device appeal to me. Simple reason being, I've seen Apple products time and time again trump their competitors in terms of usability, and that's the one thing that matters to me.

"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

If it's that predictable, is it really news?

[dr2chase]

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?

Re:If it's that predictable, is it really news?

[OrwellianLurker]

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.

Re:If it's that predictable, is it really news?

[jedidiah]

"free software guys" make some of the most popular Mac downloads actually.

So clearly there is an interest there from "Apple users". Even members of the flock tend to stray when they are given the liberty.

Re:If it's that predictable, is it really news?

[dr2chase]

Corporate CEO not entirely honest? Oh, my, bring the smelling salts, I feel faint.

I think it would be different if he were selling addictive poison, cooking the planet, or selling tainted food. Otherwise, this is just standard issue corporate deception.

As I see it, there are several things going on that he doesn't want to talk too much about. First and foremost, above and beyond the slowdown, is that there are no standards for Flash advertising. It's a race to the bottom, and it causes everyone with a modicum of technical skills (i.e., 90th percentile or better among Apple's customers and would-be customers, I think) to install a Flash Blocker. We do this, why? Because it makes browsing better. How can Apple get that same improvement for the other 90%? One option is, he can ban Flash, and promote alternatives for popular Flash applications while he has the market ability to do it. Then there's the slowdown, and the desire to control the platform's evolution, and I would be surprised if he were not looking into the problem of HOW do you present advertising that doesn't annoy people. The App Store may be a model for that, too.

Another obvious problem, not discussed, is the difficulty of virus-proofing the platform. It's not a matter of "user education" -- saying that, is another way of saying, "won't happen, ever". A side-effect of the no-interpreters rule, is that the only "programs" that run, are those that are eyeballed and approved at the app store. Flash, as a programmable widget implicated in previous hacks (e.g., the Flash+UPNP attack on DNS from home routers) is certainly on the list of things to avoid. Acrobat Reader in its full form (recently the cause of a PDF-hosted hack) is another bad guy -- another Adobe product. I don't know quite why Jobs doesn't talk about this (does this make relations with Symantec and McAfee difficult? Is this like talking about death in a hospital?), but it's an obvious reason to rule with an iron hand.

So, I think it's just plain silly to complain about this. He's got good reasons, he's not talking about them, and I think the not-talked-about reasons are much more interesting than the official ones, or the complaints about how this chokes off innovation.

And by-the-way, here's one way to think about what Apple might do, that has not much effect on the consumer, might make life better for them, but would be devastating to other corporations. Supposing that Apple did for the iPod/iPad/iPhone, what I like to do on my home router, which is just plain block all the popular advertising sites. If you want your advertising to be seen by Apple customers, you go through Apple. Why should I complain, that I am deprived of the ability to see ads that I already take actions to avoid? If Apple does a better job with the advertising, bully for them. But the advertisers, whoo-hoo, won't that be fun?

Re:If it's that predictable, is it really news?

[MichaelSmith]

Its news for me because Apple got an operating system for free (BSD and Mach underlie OSX) because of those free software guys.

Re:If it's that predictable, is it really news?

[ClosedSource]

I doubt that the developers of BSD would consider themselves "free software guys" in the FSF sense.

Re:If it's that predictable, is it really news?

[hitmark]

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.

Re:If it's that predictable, is it really news?

[bennomatic]

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.

Re:If it's that predictable, is it really news?

[dhobbit]

I'm glad you pointed out something so oft-overlooked.

It wasn't just the kernel: they got a top-notch compiler (GCC) and toolchain (GNU bintuils) for free. And an HTML rendering engine (KHTML/WebKit). And garden-variety utilities like a decent shell and scripting languages and build tools and ...

In other words, stuff that would have delayed the first usable versions of OS X for years and years if Apple had to write them from scratch. Stuff that might have taken so long to re-write that Apple may not have survived its near-death experience.

Most of OS comes from NextStep which already used gcc and bsd binutils. Actually most the system utils are from bsd not gnu. Apple is also replacing gcc with llvm/clang which are also gpl and developed in house.

Apple took KHTML fixed, cleaned it up and released it as WebKit which ultimately replaced the core of KHTML.

It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that Apple survived and is prospering today at least partly because it had been able to fold so much free software into its codebase early on. For them to turn around afterward and build a closed software stack counter to the principles of openness that saved them really feels like a betrayal of sorts.

Actually the "openness" that saved them was bsd and the bsd definition of free software. And Apple is in true sprit of that legacy. The free/open source forms the foundation on which Apple is standing. Apple is a good open source citizen and contributes code back and in a lot of case have created new projects that it released into the open. I guess I don't see the betrayal.

Re:Meh

[MrHanky]

If you had read the next paragraph as well, you would probably have held your idiotic comment as well:

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

Jobs doesn't say why open standards are good, because then it would be obvious that that the "freedom" Jobs offers just isn't.

A good criticism, but...

[A. Bosch]

I RTFA, and I think it's the most well-thought-out criticism of Jobs' anti-Flash editorial I've seen so far The author maintains "the way out of the Adobe vs. Apple cage match is straightforward, and exists already: free software operating systems like GNU/Linux with free software Web browsers, supporting free media formats like Ogg Theora" and later concludes, "So, the correct decision in the dispute between Apple and Adobe is "none of the above." The past we need to leave behind is not just Flash, it's Apple's proprietary software as well." I agree with that in principle. I guess where I get stuck is, I do like OS/X. I like it a lot better than Linux. I'm not involved in cutting video but I work with someone who is, and they tell me they like H.264 a lot better than Ogg Theora. So...am I part of the problem? Is the Free Software movement not up to the task of competing with proprietary software? I feel like the trade-off I'm currently making with OS/X is acceptable -- for now. I don't see myself buying an iPhone (or iPad) anytime soon, but neither do I see myself getting rid of my iMac.

Re:A good criticism, but...

[A. Bosch]

> Where would we be if you had to use a restricted format to read normal web pages? Oh, absolutely; I agree. I'm not a video expert; I was told the quality of the Ogg Theora video paled in comparison to H.264, which is why I mentioned that comparison. I feel like "Open/Free vs Proprietary" sometimes means "Pretty Good vs Very Good." And sometimes "Pretty Good" isn't good enough.

Re:A good criticism, but...

[wrook]

If the trade-off you are making for yourself is acceptable to you, then be happy with your choice. From your post, it seems that you understand the benefits of software freedom. You realize that you are giving up those freedoms, but you are willing to do so because it seems that the software you use has features that you haven't seen in Free* software. As a personal choice, I, for one, won't criticize you. However, I will caution you that your support of a company that isn't necessarily working in your best interest may cause you problems in the future.

I think it would be fair to categorize me as a software freedom evangelist. Maybe not a "big E" evangelist, though. I'm not going to say that you will go to hell for using proprietary software. But willingly giving up your freedoms does make it slightly harder for others to help you out. Free software tends to get "paid" through wide adoption. More users create more business opportunities to make money. By choosing to use proprietary software, you select for a future where software freedom is more difficult; for example where big business ties up software development to the point where nothing can be written without a patent deal. Some claim this is already the case with respect to video codec development.

There are alternatives, though. I don't like the normal Gnome or KDE environments very much. But I use Compiz with GnomeDo to achieve a desktop environment that is similar and even more powerful in some cases than what is available on OSX. I can sympathize with your friend over the choice of suitable video codecs. Hopefully the opening up of the V8 codec will address his concerns. But in the end, you need to choose the tools that will allow you to succeed in your endeavors.

Wherever possible it is great if you can adopt Free software into your usage patterns. It will be beneficial to a great number of people. I understand if you have to use some proprietary software where you don't have any choice. But in other areas if you can use Free software, comment on it, send bugs, etc, etc, that software has a better chance of improving. It does make a difference.

* Sorry for using a capital F in "Free". I've lately adopted it in order to distinguish the difference between freedom and free of charge. I suppose I could use FLOSS, but Open Source is a movement (which I also support) which tends to focus more on process rather than end results. They aren't necessarily interested in software freedom or the plight of the end user. They are more interested in efficient development. Anyway, the F is not intended to seem pompous.

Re:A good criticism, but...

[MidnightBrewer]

Unfortunately, the criticism is pretty self-serving. The FSF is saying how this clearly illustrates their point that free software is the only way to go, but pretends not to notice that their free software doesn't do any good unless they have hardware to run it on. Until there is an equivalent competitor to the iPad that is also open-source friendly (which will literally never happen), then people are just going to have to deal with Apple and Adobe's competition with each other. Apple is trying to protect its own customer base by ensuring they have a good experience on their hardware. I *want* that. Adobe wants to subvert the application development structure of the mobile computing market for their own financial gain, and in doing so, threatens to ruin my day by encouraging the development of second-rate, lowest-common-denominator software that doesn't actually take full advantage of the capabilities of the device and hampers Apple's attempts to upgrade the operating system should Adobe decide that it's not in their best interests to upgrade their software to keep up with Apple's development cycle. They would, in effect, have a say in that development cycle, which would result in a bunch of pissed-off users who blame it on Apple.

Adobe has a terrible track record in their arrogant disregard for their supposed partners, or even their customers. They are very strongly driven by what they determine to be the most profitable direction to go in at any given moment, and spend the rest of the time smiling and playing lip service as if it was all part of some bigger plan. They have over a decade-long history of burning Apple and specifically in the area of OS development cycles, which has forced their users to refrain from upgrading their operating systems (or even better, forced them to buy all-new hardware), just to cater to Adobe's dictates.

The FSF may have a philosophical interest in this argument, but even they should acknowledge that the users are the ones who need to be taken care of, and that's exactly what Apple is trying to do. When there is an open-source friendly, comparable product released in the next year or so, then they will have a leg to stand on, but until then, they're offering nothing for something; not exactly a bargain.

Re:Meh

[oztiks]

He doesnt care that you should care, or not.

Flash apps circumvent the app store, you can make a website app through flash for free (such as a game) and Jobs doesn't get to enforce his Apple Tax.

No closed OSes ever??

[RoadNotTaken]

He's implying that no-one should access the web with a closed OS under any circumstance. That seems ridiculous. There are many items that may benefit from web-access that don't need full/open access. I think right now people are arguing over whether or not a phone is such an item. 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.

Re:No closed OSes ever??

[vux984]

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?

Re:No closed OSes ever??

[bennomatic]

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!

Re:No closed OSes ever??

[vux984]

And some subset of users of Apple iProducts 'jailbreak" them. Sounds like they have freedom, too.

Jailbreaking your phone is like buying a car with a locked hood, and a contract not to open it. The fact that you can still take a crowbar to it when you get home and likely not get sued for it is not: 'sounds like they have freedom'.

Freedom is having the right or privilege to do something. Being able to get away with doing something is not freedom, and relying on being able to get away with something as a substitute for a right/privilege will eventually fail you.

Re:No closed OSes ever??

[drinkypoo]

This is ripe for a car analogy actually.

No, it isn't.

You can pop the hood, swap in OEM parts, and tinker to your hearts content, and accept the consequences.

It's illegal to make emissions modifications in some states, without approved parts... i.e. they paid taxes, mostly in the form of application fees. These fees must be paid every year to get a new C.A.R.B. E.O. number, even if the parts have not changed, nor has the engine upon which they are installed. I have an ATS 088 Turbo kit. It is an upgrade for the ATS 085. ATS 085 was made in 1985 and has new E.O. numbers for '86 and '87, for which filing fees were paid, though neither the engine they were installed upon nor the kit changed one whit. The CARB signed off on each new year without testing, because nothing changed... but they still get paid, even though nothing changed. In '88 they changed it and went through a whole new application process. Each subsequent year up until 1993 or 1994 or whenever the Powerstroke took over for the 6.9/7.3 liter International motor (actually, the powerstroke is based on the same block, then modified, but never mind that) the kit was simply blessed by the CARB again, because nothing had changed on kit or truck. I have a '92 and there's no difference in the turbo kit or its installation from '88. They still had to fork over cash every year for certification of that fact.

Or in other words, it's all about the money. Jobs' goal is to stop you from using flash to access boatloads of free apps that don't go through the store, because then he can't even advertise to you.

Or you can leave it alone, and have it serviced exclusively by factory trained technicians in factory authorized dealers.

False dichotomy proving that an automotive analogy does not fit here. By law you can have your car serviced anywhere, using OE-spec parts, without voiding your warranty, due in part thanks to the Magnuson-Moss warranty act. The same is true of commodity computers.

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.

But numerous states put the modifications you're permitted to make in a walled garden... though none are so egregious as California, where I live... but since we have more people and more cars than anywhere else in the nation, it's relevant.

Typical con

[DNS-and-BIND]

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.

It is a choice

[cbreak]

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.

Re:Why not ....

[jedidiah]

The problem with letting the market decide on fascism is that you no longer get to choose anything else.

That is what closed standards do.

Between a Flash app and an Apple app, the Apple app is the one that is more closed.

Plus, with an Apple app it's not just the proprietary API but the whole walled garden that comes with it.

Re:Ol' Jobby-Boy

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel! :)

Re:Just hijacking thé dedate

[jedidiah]

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.

Article doesn't make sense

[dangitman]

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.

Re:Article doesn't make sense

[dangitman]

Incorrect. The users have the option of changing the code themselves and buying whatever personal licence they need to use the H.264. Thats the point!

That's a pretty pathetic point. Mozilla says that they don't want you to use H.264, so the solution is to code it yourself, and buy a license? Not exactly user-friendly.

Re:Article doesn't make sense

[oiron]

And Mozilla users don't get the option of H.264 on their platform. So, why no outrage at Mozila and Firefox?

I think that should be obvious - Mozilla has literally no way of offering H.264 without illegally implementing patented code.

And yet Firefox supports the proprietary Flash plugins. Outside of certain sites, the web isn't particularly "free."

Not support so much as allow; something that Apple refuses to do on the iPad and iPhone...

Re:Article doesn't make sense

[dangitman]

I think that should be obvious - Mozilla has literally no way of offering H.264 without illegally implementing patented code.

Why would they have to implement H.264 itself, rather than allow the user to add it via a plug-in, just as with Flash?

Besides, your statement is not true - what's to stop Mozilla licensing H.264 just like everybody else does?

Not support so much as allow;

Yet this is what Mozilla is saying - they won't allow H.264 support via the HTML5 video tag. So, if you're upset about Apple not allowing Flash on the iPhone, it would be hypocritical to also not be upset at Mozilla for not allowing H.264 in Firefox.

Search and Replace per Mr Jalopy

[MauiMaker]

Mr Jalopy posted a note on doing a search & replace of Adobe w/Apple and Flash w/closed. It reads rather well. Probably NOT what Steveo intended but if the turtleneck fits...

Re:Why not ....

[cbreak]

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)

Everybody has Jobs all wrong

[tkrotchko]

Steve Job's isn't a tech visionary, he's a *salesman*! That's all you need to know.

Re:Everybody has Jobs all wrong

[MichaelSmith]

This was the bit of pure luck which got Apple off the ground. If Jobs and Woz had been even five years older Jobs would have laid all these NDAs and contracts and such onto Woz and he would have bailed out of the partnership in disgust.

And Apple wouldn't have happened. It needed the tech guy and the marketing guy to be young and immature enough not to hate each other.

Re:Everybody has Jobs all wrong

[Cronock]

Steve Job's isn't a tech visionary, he's a *salesman*! That's all you need to know.

A salesman that has an uncanny sense of knowing where the market is going, the flexibility to quickly adapt and be there right on time, and a company behind him that churns out products that continue to be top notch in satisfaction year after year.

Re:Wasted argument

[MichaelSmith]

ubuntu is the closest thing (rich dictator at top making decisions) to OS X that linux has. But he's not talking about ubuntu, he's talking about the FSF. How many Aunt Millies use HURD?

Ubuntu is loaded with software owned by the FSF. The entire GNU userland for example.

Re:Meh

[rolfwind]

Jobs doesn't say why open standards are good, because then it would be obvious that that the "freedom" Jobs offers just isn't.

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.

Steve jobs is a liar

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Steve jobs is a liar

[gyrogeerloose]

You can write completely free apps for the iPhone using XCode too. Sure you have to join the developer program, but $99 a year for tools is cheap compared any equivalent flash tools.

Oh, yeah, certainly. And the tools are actually a free download, the yearly fee is strictly for access to the App Store. The limitation for apps built in this way is that you have to distribute them via Apple's App Store. That's the one advantage to building Web apps--you can distribute them freely on the Web.

In any case, either sort of iPhone development is way cheaper than Flash ($599 for the authoring tools) or WiMo development, where not only do you have to buy the tools ($799 for Visual Studio) and pay a $99 yearly fee, you have to pay a $99 application fee for each app you wish to distribute in addition to the 30% cut Microsoft takes.

Re:Steve jobs is a liar

[gyrogeerloose]

Correction: the $99 yearly fee for iPhone development is for the signing key needed to distribute apps, not strictly for access to the App Store. You do get that as well, though.

Defending a closed Web?

[gig]

There is no choice when it comes to open standards. It's a Web developer's responsibility to build HTML5, it's a platform vendor's responsibility to include HTML5, it's a browser maker's responsibility to render HTML5, it's a tool-maker's responsibility to make their tools compliant with HTML5. The spec is not optional. Your website also has to use UTF-8 and TCP/IP and ISO MPEG-4.

Consumers use the Web now. Regular people with phones, not tech people with PC's. You can't ask them to patch their system, use an alternate browser, install a plug-in, update a plug-in, or do any kind of I-T work at all. The model is CD/DVD players. A CD put into a CD player has to work. You have to make your CD to Red Book spec, and CD Players have to be to Red Book spec. End of story.

Flash developers do not use the Flash tool to make Flash ... that is an Adobe conceit. They use Flash to make Web apps. In the HTML4 era (1999 through 2007), a Web app was HTML4 plus an embedded plug-in for Mac/PC. The entire Web was Mac/PC, and most users were techies. In the HTML5 era (2007 forward), a Web app is HTML5 on any unknown platform. The users are everybody. That is the reality. There are dozens of HTML5 platforms and only Mac/PC has a Flash plug-in. Adobe's FlashPlayer team is less than 8 people. How are that going to support dozens of platforms? How will the 3-4 updates per year be distributed to what will soon be 10 billion devices? Stop holding your breath.

What has to happen is Adobe has to upgrade their nonstandard, proprietary, closed Web app tool to export HTML5 Web apps. They have to respect the Web app spec just as music tool makers had to respect Red Book. End of story.

It's unbelievable to see FSF support a tool where developers write JavaScript, HTML, CSS, and include ISO MPEG-4 and wrap it up in a closed binary that only proprietary software from one vendor can render. Not to mention, Flash is 14 years old and has had 3 different owners. What if Microsoft buys Adobe (with cash) and screws it up even further, or Apple buys Adobe (with cash) and shuts it down? The Web cannot depend on a single $599 Mac/Windows tool to create and publish audio video. In 5 years, the Web will look like TV. Adobe cannot be the only one who makes VCR's. There is not even a Flash authoring tool for Linux!

Standards are not an issue of choice. See HD-DVD and Blu-Ray DVD which together killed the fucking DVD! No, we are not going to have both standard and nonstandard Web apps. There is only one Web, and it's open, and you can build and publish whatever you want, with any tools, on any platform, as long as you respect the HTML5 spec. Users can use any device, from any manufacturer, to view the Web, as long as that device respects the HTML5 spec. The lack of choice with regards to the spec enables unlimited choice in everything else. See the billion CD/DVD players and exponentially more media and the world enriched by music and movies. Now, we are doing that for the Web with HTML5.

 

It's the name of a logical fallacy.

[Anonymous Coward]

> It is a real choice, but there are obviously more options to chose from than the enumerated two.

It's called "false choice" because the limit on the number of choices is artificial. The fact that you actually can choose one of the options is irrelevant. The important part is that you have more than just the choices presented to you and someone is using false rhetoric to distract you from that fact.

So no, it really is a false choice, even though you really can choose one of the options presented to you (as well as other options not shown).

Re:It's the name of a logical fallacy.

[mr_matticus]

It's called "false choice" because the limit on the number of choices is artificial

Yeah, but in this case, it's the same "false choice" as asking someone whether they are traveling by car or taking public transit to a destination 25 miles away.

It's technically true that someone could bike or run, and some people might even advocate that biking is the "right" approach, but it's thoroughly impractical expectation that cars and public transit should shut down, and everyone should just bike.

I don't see anything in Jobs' letter that would preclude the use of free and unpatented standards in addition to, or in place of as a personal choice, but the FSF's notion that something like Theora is a practical option to the exclusion of H.264 is completely unrealistic, bordering on deluded.

Re:People don't WANT free...

[dangitman]

I paid $199 for my iPhone and I can't play Facebook games?

That's not a bug, it's a feature.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

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 can't wait to buy the FSF gnuPad

[Junior J. Junior III]

When will it be out?

Re:Jobs needs to get off his high horse!

[Kristoph]

Your argument might make sense if it were not for the fact that you can, in fact, watch YouTube videos in the iPhone os browser :-)

K

Re:It's not a debate.

[Bing Tsher E]

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.

Steve Jobs makes sense

[herdnerfer]

The way i see it, Steve Jobs is just trying to make the easiest, crash free computing experience possible. I don't think Steve Jobs had the average slashdot reader in mind when he came up with the iPad, iPod, or even iPhone. He had joe sixpack and aunt jemima in mind. Coming from a large family, and being one of the few with extensive computer knowledge, i am always called upon to fix viruses, remove spyware, reinstall OSes due to unrecoverable crashes and when i see the iPad, i see a solution to MOST of this. I know my sister with an iPad to do her internet surfing with isn't going to click on some stupid pop up and download a virus, or play some new facebook game and get some crappy software installation required message. And without flash, she isn't going to suffer from computer freezes and crashes. Even if it does get some unrecoverable error, she would just hook it up to her computer, click restore from backup, and a few minutes later she is off to the races. I know the iPad cannot replace all computing tasks, especially with lack of printing support, but for everything most people do, this "closed system" works better and protects them from theirselves. Now it would be nice if they gave advanced users the option to unlock certain restrictions, but it is just not practical. There are plenty of people out there who know just enough about computer to want to unlock protected settings and still end up calling me every weekend to fix it. There are plenty of full tablet PCs out there, and have been for a while. Go get one of those if you cannot stand the restrictions iPhone OS brings. I for one say, boo flash, yay iPhone OS, and go Steve.

Re:Just hijacking thé dedate

[gyrogeerloose]

HTML5 is infact just a red herring.

HTML5 isn't going to replace Flash.[...]

I wouldn't bet on that.

One of Adobe's biggest Flash users is YouTube; however, for the last six months or so it's been possible to view YouTube videos using HTML5 if one chooses. Go try it out some time. It's still in beta and there's a few bugs in it but it works and doesn't cause the fan on my laptop to run the entire time like it used to when I was viewing in Flash.

Forget about all the other bullshit about Apple and Steve Jobs and Adobe. Flash is a resource hog, it requires software available from only one source to view and very expensive software to develop. The Web will be better for everybody once it's gone. Well, everybody but Flash developers, and I suspect that they're the people who are currently rushing to its defense.

Re:Jobs needs to get off his high horse!

[bennomatic]

Who modded this insightful? YouTube now supports direct H.264 video without the Flash wrapper. It works fine!

Re:Meh

[DeadboltX]

Ladies and Gentlemen! Friends and Colleagues! Acquaintances and Strangers alike! You’ve all been duped! Hoodwinked! Bamboozled! What this here computery programy thingy you’ve all been using is closed! Closed! Now let me ask you this! If there’s a door, and you’d like to go through it, is it better if it is open or if it is closed? Why open of course! And how about this fine young lass right next to you sir, imagine it’s Friday night and she’s at your place and you’re ready to go, would you rather her legs be closed or open? You’d be a damn fool to say anything but open! And we all know of those unfortunate situations where a fool mother leaves her infant locked in the car on a hot summer day, and that poor little boy or girl ends up dying from the heat. Now tell me folks, couldn’t this all have been avoided if the window was open, instead of closed? So tell me, why on earth would you want software on your phone that’s closed? Well I’m here to tell you that you need to fear not when it comes to the iPhone because we support technologies that are open! So come on down, and buy what I’m sellin'!

Re:Jobs needs to get off his high horse!

[eluusive]

Yes it does. http://www.youtube.com/html5

Re:People don't WANT free...

[dhobbit]

In the end the user wants to play his Facebook games and Apple says 'you can't on My iPhone or iPad' and they say 'okay' and play on their computer instead.
Do they ditch the iPhone or iPad? Nope..... They go buy another one!
When the general public actually decides to grow a pair things will change.

I wouldn't necessarily put it that way.

I paid $199 for my iPhone and I can't play Facebook games? Well, I guess that's just the way it is. At least until my best buddy starts doing it with his Android/WebOS/Symbian phone. When I see someone in my peer group doing that, that's when I'll say, "Wow! I know what my next phone is going to be!"

Kind of like the Mac and Windows--you'll see one person switch and show off what they can do. That'll inspire someone else. That'll inspire a few more people. And so on and so on.

There are several assumptions in that statement.

1) Adobe will actually deliver desktop flash on Android. This is still a huge question all the demos I've seen are flash video. Haven't seen a lot of demos of farmville.
2) Android manufactures will actually deliver the updates needs to use flash. Most of the currently shipping Android phones won't take the 2.2 update, of the ones that will OS updates are released by the hand manufacturer or the carrier which take weeks or month to get their customizations made and update images released.
3) Flash on Android won't suck. Adobe doesn't have a great record here and could easily get this wrong and cause all the OS to crash, run slowly, kill the battery and drive 1000s of Android users to the iPhone.
4) And all of that needs to happen before Facebook and others start releasing games in html5 or the AppStore.

Free? Or just open?

[Cronock]

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

Re:Free? Or just open?

[LaRainette]

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.

Re:Free? Or just open?

[NekSnappa]

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.

Re:Free Software is up to the task

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

But proprietary vendors don't want the competition. Steve Jobs mentioned the MPEG-LA consortium is looking through their patents to see if they can shutdown Ogg Theora before it takes root.

Ogg Theora has been out there since 2001. If it hasn't taken root by now, it ain't gonna.

ugh bad link

[drinkypoo]

Forgot to delete edit off the end... try this link if the other doesn't work.

Re:It's not a debate.

[Wovel]

Are there shortcomings? Why does everyone but me and Steve and like 3 other people seem to live in an alternate universe where Flash runs on all these mobile devices and the dang iPhone is just lagging behind?

Adobe MIGHT have flash working on Android by the Q4 2010, don't hold your breath. When would that update reach users?

Missing the Point

[eyendall]

Surely whether Apple/Jobs are good or bad, have an agenda, have misbehaved in the past, want to rule the world etc. is irrelevant here; Jobs made some telling points about Flash's shortcomings which rang true to me. Don't shoot the messenger. I use a Mac and Flash is one big pain in the ass for me. I have to use Flashblock or all I see is that damned spinning ball.

"We are all born ignorant but one has to work hard to remain stupid". Steal this sig.: I did