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'd be more interested in a response from Xiph on Job's email concerning Theora.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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 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.
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains.
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.
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.
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.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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.
--
"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.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel! :)
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.
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...
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.
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
> 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).
I paid $199 for my iPhone and I can't play Facebook games?
That's not a bug, it's a feature.
... and then they built the supercollider.
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).
When will it be out?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
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.
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
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.
Who modded this insightful? YouTube now supports direct H.264 video without the Flash wrapper. It works fine!
The CB App. What's your 20?
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.
Yes it does. http://www.youtube.com/html5
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.
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.
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.