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

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.

[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.

[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.

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: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.

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: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?

[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: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).

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: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: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.