Is Apple's Attack On Flash Really About Video?

jamiegau writes "Here we have a long and in-depth blog post analyzing the faults in Steve Jobs's Letter about Flash. The writer concludes with an interesting idea that it is all about online video."

Comments

Games too

[sopssa]

It also makes sense with Flash games. Apple has tons of games it sells in the market place. If people could just play free Flash games (and there would be a lot more of them created), Apple wouldn't get so much $$$$$.

I know someone comes to say that most Flash games require mouse and keyboard, but that doesn't make any sense. Obviously the games would be created specially for iPhone and iPad. Just like theres such Flash games for Wii.

Re:Games too

[drachenstern]

I think the primary complaint (at least for me) for most flash games is the on hover effect. How do you replicate that with a touch interface? Now we have all sorts of wild gestures, so it reduces the simplicity.

If you can resolve that, I might reconsider my personal stance.

Re:Games too

[Pojut]

Not sure why you got modded down...games are a huge part of why Apple won't allow it. Places like Newgrounds, Kongregate, etc...they would be filled with games that worked on the iPad and iPhone, yet would be free...meaning Apple wouldn't get their cut.

They don't want you gardening outside of their walls, especially if the plants are "given" to you for nothing. They can claim security and stability (which are valid points), but it all comes down to money.

Re:Games too

[bill_mcgonigle]

I think the primary complaint (at least for me) for most flash games is the on hover effect. How do you replicate that with a touch interface? Now we have all sorts of wild gestures, so it reduces the simplicity.

So Apple hasn't already solved this for the billion or so webpages that use hover effects? That must suck.

Re:Games too

[TheKidWho]

This argument fails because Apple makes barely any profit on the App market itself.

They make all of their profit on selling the Devices themselves.

Re:Games too

[Pojut]

This argument fails because Apple makes barely any profit on the App market itself.

To paraphrase Dr. Seuss (and subsequently send him spinning in his grave), a profit is a profit no matter how small.

Re:Games too

[WrongSizeGlass]

They can claim security and stability (which are valid points), but it all comes down to money.

And maybe a touch of sour grapes. Adobe treated Apple like a second class platform back in the 90's when Apple was at its weakest. Now that Apple is on top of this market I think Steve Jobs is handing out a little payback. Loyalty, or the lack of it, is hard to forget.

Re:Games too

[Skuld-Chan]

So why not sell the apps without a cut?

http://gorumors.com/crunchies/how-much-money-does-apple-make-from-app-store/ - suggests they make anywhere between 240-440 million dollars a year off the app store. Vs. Zero if people just played games on Flash websites.

Many app-store games are former flash website games too...

Re:Games too

[rolfwind]

That doesn't make sense on several levels.

-Apple said that it was still breaking even on music in the Itunes store. (Not sure if to take their word for it, but still.)
-There are plenty of free games in the app store
-pushing HTML5 is opposite of the walled garden people argue. There is a hulu, Netflix, pandora and Rhapsody apps where people can get videos and music outside of Apple's itunes.

I don't think this is about making money directly. My guess is that Apple's real money will come from selling them new and shiny iPhones every 2 years that perform better and better and have that perpetual upgrade path.

I think the whole flash thing is because is for the reasons Apple says, basically on a 3 inch screen without mouse, you can't offer a satisfactory flash experience and having to rely on Adobe and flash developers to consider mobile devices in their coding -- basically a losing gamble.

Re:Games too

[siloko]

If Adobe can't build Flash to fit within the constraints of the device, then too bad.

Given the constraints aren't technical but political then the chances that Flash could jump through the requisite hoops are zero.

Re:Games too

[ray-auch]

> If Adobe can't build Flash to fit within the constraints of the device, then too bad.

They can and they have - at least the technical constraints.

Legal constraints are the issue - Apple have banned any other programming languages like flash from the platform. Adobe were working round that with a pre-processor / converter but Apple have changed the licence to demand that all apps be written directly in Apple-approved programming languages - no pre-processors allowed.

Emacs for iPhone - not allowed (before). Now, if you even use Bison / Yacc or anything similar to create your app, it's not allowed.

Re:Games too

[Anonymous Coward]

But Adobe did find a way to make Flash work on Apple's devices - they added the ability to export Flash as native iPhone code.

Apple responded by changing their rules to require all iPhone apps to be orginally developed with Apple tools.

That's not about the constraints of the device - that's about artificial constraints created for business reasons.

Re:Games too

[jedidiah]

Apple benefits from lock-in.

The more you buy from them that's Apple-only, the more you will be forced to by another Apple product.

Vendor-lock in games, video and books prop up future iSales.

Old DRM Music files probably help do the same since many people probably don't care to pay the ransom.

The less tied my Apple experience is to Apple-only elements, the more free I am to dump them when it's time to upgrade.

Re:Games too

[ircmaxell]

Why is it Apple's job to modify their platform to accommodate Flash?

Well, it's not. However, it's a straw argument to not provide the APIs to let Flash use the GPU, and then complain that it doesn't use the GPU. That's the problem... Not that Flash is programmed bad, but that it doesn't take advantage of something that Apple's software does when Apple doesn't make it available.

If Adobe can't build Flash to fit within the constraints of the device, then too bad.

Correct. If it was Adobe complaining about Flash performance on Apple products, you'd have a point. Heck, even if it was a third party complaining, you'd have a point. But it's Apple that's complaining. They are not giving Adobe the tools to be able to make it better, and then slamming them publicly for not making it better...

It would be like Balmer saying that PowerPC sucks because it can't run Windows, even though it's MS's fault that they don't compile Windows for PowerPC... It would be like you complaining that I can't drive your car, after you removed the engine from it. It would be like a conference denying you entry, and then complaining that you never showed up... It would be like your company revoking your computer access, and then complaining that you don't do any work...

Most of Jobs' complaints are straw arguments (and some are blatant lies). That's what TFA was talking about. Sure, there is a decent thought or two in Jobs' letter. But the vast majority of it is pure FUD.

Re:Games too

[nomadic]

And maybe a touch of sour grapes. Adobe treated Apple like a second class platform back in the 90's when Apple was at its weakest.

You mean, back when it WAS a second class platform?

Now that Apple is on top of this market I think Steve Jobs is handing out a little payback. Loyalty, or the lack of it, is hard to forget.

Apple owes a tremendous amount to Adobe; without Photoshop Apple would even today be in a weaker position.

Re:Games too

[nine-times]

Apple still needs to run the app store. That requires a datacenter for the servers and a lot of bandwidth. It requires an IT staff to maintain those servers, and designers and software engineers to maintain the store itself. It requires customer service reps to answer complaints, another team to analyze and approve apps and service developers, and a legal team to analyze all the legal implications of all of those things. Then it requires some management time to keep all of those people working together.

You're asking why Apple doesn't just do all that for free? Hmmm.... let me think.

Re:Games too

[Anonymous Coward]

If Adobe can't build Flash to fit within the constraints of the device, then too bad.

But Adobe did that! A major feature of the latest version of Adobe's Flash tools is that they can compile Flash directly for the iPhone so the Flash player isn't required. Apple responded by changing their developer rules so that only applications originally written in ObjC, C, and C++ are allowed.

Adobe's been bending over backwards to make this work, and Apple keeps inventing more obstacles. We're well past the point where Apple can use the platform as an excuse. It's about obsessive control at all costs.

Re:Games too

[Bazar]

Why is it Apple's job to modify their platform to accommodate Flash?

I'm not sure where that question came out of.
The real debate is how apple changed the developer EULA to effectively deny any possibility of a flash developed app running.

History lesson:
The first developer EULA prevented any apps from interperting code. So no emulators, or on the fly compliers. This meant that everything had to run as a native executable.
This denied flash or java from running on the system, in addition to preventing a potential backdoor to the apple shop. (Otherwise you could download a compiler type app (ie: java), and run any program you wished, instead of having your choices controled/taxed by apple's iStore)

Adobe worked around this EULA limitation, by allowing flash developers to create a native executable for the iphone. It was written using flash, but was an actual native execuitable for the iphone.
Apple still controled the iStore, but flash developers could now develop for the iPhone.

Lo and behold, our saviours of the internet, Apple, got around and changed the developer EULA, to explicitly fix that "loophole". Making it against the EULA to write a program that wasn't in objective C (or whatever language apple now demands, i forget)

The ONLY reason i can comprehend for that change to the EULA was to ban the native flash executables. Theres no other practical reason for it.

Adobe went out of their way to support the iPhone, and in return Apple pulled the rug out from under them and banned any use of their application for development/use on the iphone/ipad.
Thats a dick move by apple, the likes of which i haven't seen since Microsoft in the 90's

And to top it off, now they come out telling us how they are only doing whats best for the ipod/iphone. Well that's bloody obvious. Apple want to force as much vendor lockin as possible, and cross-platform tools are the bane to any company trying to force an OS lock-in. Lock-in is great for apple, the iphone, and ipad.
Its terrible for everyone and everything else, including the actual iphone consumers!

Re:Games too

[mounthood]

> If Adobe can't build Flash to fit within the constraints of the device, then too bad.

They can and they have - at least the technical constraints.

Legal constraints are the issue - Apple have banned any other programming languages like flash from the platform. ...

The iPhone isn't done until Flash won't run.

Re:Games too

[UnknowingFool]

I can buy a lot of arguments about what Apple is doing being bad for developers, though developers still seem to be developing for the platform.

One argument I hear again and again is that this restriction by Apple will make it hard for developers to develop cross platform apps. This is a valid point. But I disagree with the characterization that this is a new kind of evil that Apple is creating for developers. This situation already exists. If a developer wants to develop a game for the Wii, Xbox, PS3, and PC, it will require lots of work. There is no magical button you can press that allows a developer to compile a game for all platforms. Flash is the closest thing however each platform will require the developer to tweak each version of the game. Otherwise the game has to conform to the lowest denominator and not be able to use platform specific features like motion control, force feedback, etc. Developing any cross platform app on the iPhone is the same. It won't take advantage of multi-touch gestures, acceleronmeter, etc without tweaking.

The other complaint is that Apple is forcing developers to use Apple tools rather than their own. Not technically true. These restriction state that C or Objective-C must be used. A developer familiar with any text editor and gcc can use them to build; however, using XCode makes things easier.

I think forcing developers to learn Objective C is the true intent of Apple. If a developer only uses Flash and then exports it to iPhone code that developer never has to learn Objective-C. This makes it easier for Flash developers to write code; it makes it hard for everyone to debug code. Remember Apple has to approve apps so they are invovled. If there was some bug in the app, it makes hard to determine where it is. It could be in the Flash code, the Flash API, the translation, or the iPhone API. A Flash developer never learning Objective C would not be able to determine whether the translation had the bug or it is in Apple's API. All that developer would know is that Apple is not approving their app because of bugs they can't find. If the app has already been approved then the developer can't issue patches to his/her customers. Apple would rather not have this situation at all. No porting; learn Objective-C.

Re:Games too

[uglyduckling]

WinAmp - OK, where do you get those mp3's from - you know you can use those with iTunes too, so you wouldn't be locked-in if you used iTunes. Even if you used the iTunes store, that's now DRM-free for music. For movie downloads that might be a problem, but I'm not aware of any source of DRM-free mainstream movie rental or purchase so no disadvantage with Apple here.

iPod - OK, you're semi-right with that, although there are third-party utilities to sync the iPod, if you're keen to be completely hassle and lock-in free then the iPod probably isn't the best choice.

BlackBerry - OK, right, so RIM will freely provide you with equivalent apps for the Android or iPhone if you decide to jump ship? Thought not.

iMac / Mac Desktop - OK, you know you can install Ubuntu and/or XP if you want to. Again - I'm sure Dell or Microsoft won't supply you with equivalents of the commercial apps that you've bought if you choose to switch to another platform, so you're no worse with Dell/XP than you are with iMac/OSX. If you want FOSS then most popular packages are available for Windows, Linux and OSX so no disadvantage there.

So pretty much, the only valid argument you make is to steer clear of the iPod, but only on the basis that you might not want to use iTunes, but since you can use iTunes in a non-lockin manner for music that's not really a firm argument either. So I can't really understand why you would be more locked-in using Apple products compared to Microsoft, RIM and Canonical. I really would like to understand - can you explain?

Re:Games too

[nine-times]

Apple sells digital music because an easy source of high-quality music that requires little thought to access leads to more sales of music which leads to more sales of music players, which Apple manufactures and gets a high margin on.

It's also worth noting that when Apple opened the iTunes store, there weren't really other decent online stores out there. This meant that you had to go to the store, buy a CD, and then rip it into iTunes. Or pirate. And my point isn't, "Look at how Apple pioneered a new market," (though they did) but rather that they needed an online store to market their product decently. If the record labels had gotten off their asses and done a good job of it themselves, Apple might have simply built iTunes to use one of the existing stores. If Amazon's MP3 store had existed back then, I think it's possible that Apple wouldn't have bothered setting up their own store. However, Amazon's MP3 store was only allowed to exist because Apple set up shop first.

I think Apple must have learned something from that experience: if you want high-quality content delivered to your content-consumption devices, and you want the experience of delivering that content to be good, then you should just do it yourself.

Re:Games too

[cowscows]

The solution that they have is that the first tap reads as a hover, and the second tap reads as a click. And yes it does suck. It's a pain, but it's just barely useable for browsing through menus or whatever. But as for a low latency input such that a game might require, it would not work at all.

This isn't just a problem inherent to Apple, it's inherent in the differences between a touch interface and a mouse driven interface. The reality is that websites/applications/whatever that want to work on both types of interfaces are going to have to come up with a design that doesn't rely on the hover effect, or settle for the fact that it'll be cumbersome and crappy on a touch screen.

Re:Games too

[s73v3r]

Except only Flash Lite has been running on most mobile devices, and so far not very well. They say its coming to Android, but I'll believe it when I see it, and can actually use it.

Re:Games too

[s73v3r]

Adobe could have used the Core Video API to get hardware accelerated video playback. Its been available since 10.4, and its what everyone else uses.

Re:Games too

[mjwx]

The solution that they have is that the first tap reads as a hover, and the second tap reads as a click

No,

Tap and hold counts as hover, tap counts as click. Android has implemented this system from the start and is is quite easy to use. Amongst Android users it's known as "tap and hold" or the "long click" and is often used in lieu of a second mouse button (Android really is a phone sized computer, so it requires a "Windows XP" level of literacy to operate).

Is this level of sophistication beyond the Iphone?

But really, anyone who still claims the war on Flash is anything else then Apple maintaining dictatorial control over what runs on their Iphone is beyond deluded.

Hard to take him seriously

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Advice from someone who requires horizontal scrolling to read the text they're quoting? I don't think so.

No it's not

[dc29A]

It's all about keep selling high markup iDevices. To achieve that they need to make sure to have a lock-in. Lock in is achieved by making sure developers only code for your platform. Ballmer's "Developers! Developers! Developers!" might have been funny, but that is exactly what Apple is aiming for. Video lock-in won't work because it's H.264 and other big players can/will just as well sell H.264 format videos.

When 40% or so your profit comes from iDevices, and a fraction of that from AppStore and/or iTunes, you want to protect your iDevice markup. If Apple allows cross compilers, guess what? People won't be 'loyal' to Apple and will migrate to Android, BB or WM7 devices because their apps are on those platforms as well. The iPhone becomes a commodity, and Apple's profits crater. It's about software lock-in and not about content lock in.

It's not all about video

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, since I disabled plug-ins Safari doesn't crash or freeze every day. In fact it's now so rare that I'm actually shocked when it happens. Adobe let all their non-Windows software rot away and can't be bothered to code properly, so screw them.

Re:It's not all about video

[pjrc]

Adobe's Flash player causes Firefox on Linux to regularly lock up. In fact, playing video from pretty much anywhere but Youtube and Vimeo seems to do it. I installed the flashblock extension, so all flash comes up as a blank box and I can click on it if I really want to see what it is. But I cringe every time, because more often than not, my browser is going to lock up either while that flash object is doing whatever it does, or shortly after.

It's pretty clear Adobe only invests serious effort in quality for Windows. People who only experience Flash on Windows just don't have any idea how horribly buggy it is on other platforms.

Oh, Jamie, oh Jamie

[zeromorph]

Either a strange coincidence or an badly disguised case of self-promotion:

jamiegau writes:"Here we have ... The writer concludes ..."

and the blog's name is "JamieG Analysis".

If you submit your own article why not say it?

God save flash!

[__aagbwg300]

Before Apple sunk their teeth into flash, a lot of the posters here also bashed it. It is ironic that as soon as an 800 lb gorilla attacks it, taco and dawson rush to defend it as a superior alternative. Does everyone remember what a pain in the ass it was to get flash support on linux systems? Now that it is available, it is just another user-approved attack vector. H.264 is not perfect, or "free" at all but every criticism Jobs has made of flash is spot on: flawed security, resource pig AND THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR for cross platform development. For God's sake, can we please just flash die for a more modern alternative?

Re:God save flash!

[Skuld-Chan]

For God's sake, can we please just flash die for a more modern alternative?

Which is?

And don't say html 5 - have you played with that? I doesn't really seem ready to deliver RIA's like Java and Flash have been delivering for years because its buggy (what do you know - its an unfinished standard). I think this video illustrates it best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfmbZkqORX4

My own experience with html 5 video btw was buggy at best - anytime you paused you couldn't resume and had to reload the entire clip. His experience in that video above was it didn't work - because the video he tried to view was Theora/OGG - which the iPad/iPhone don't support.

Why does it all have to be either pro or anti?

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Apple's post was anti-adobe. This post is Anti-Apple, and pro-Adobe.

How about just putting them where they belong? Apple makes computers. Adobe makes software. We are talking about standards and the web. Any standard on the web should be completely free, period. The best free standard we have so far is HTML5 + Ogg + Theora. Period. The fact that a huge patent troll is saying they've got something against Theora doesn't make Theora any less free. The same thing was said against virtually all Free Software. And to this day, noone has ever been able to remove a Free Software project from us based on patents. Every single patent troll out there has said that they have patents covering everything from drinking water to clicking buttons for 20+ years. And Free Software is still there. Free standards are still there.
The has been cases of Privative software stealing code from GPL projects, where the GPL won and this guys had to either arrange a settlement or release their code to be GPL compliant.
But there has not been A SINGLE CASE of infringing GPL code loosing a legal battle. So, why are we taking MPEG-LA more seriously than we took SCO? It's the same crap, different smell. Just another troll that we need to ignore until it goes away.

So, Apple, Adobe: Sell your shit and STFU. Regardless of how much you pretend that standards, and the whole industry revolves around you, it doesn't. You're just another company trying to succeed in this market. We will buy your stuff, or we'll buy somebody else's stuff. What you say is not important. And what you pretend to be standards, are NOT. In the meanwhile, we will continue developing Free Open standards, and Free Open software that uses them. We will eventually prevail. We always do.

Re:Why does it all have to be either pro or anti?

[pkphilip]

All this discussion about Flash vs HTML5 seems to miss the point that Flash isn't just video - there are tons of apps and interfaces out there written in Flash - not just slideshows and ads. There are games, presentations, demos etc.

There is not a SINGLE content creation tool for HTML5 which can hold a candle to Adobe's flash authoring environment.

video

[J-1000]

videos decoded in software play for less than 5 hours before the battery is fully drained.

This is really good SPIN. Steve is right in that the very OLD verion of flash before 2007 (3 years in internet time is a VERY LONG TIME.) version 9, did use a CPU based codec. But as stated above, H.264 is now the standard and all sites using flash are now using the same H.264 files in flash as is compatible with the Hardware accelerated decoders. As such, Flash 10.1 is as efficient as that can possibly be on these mobile devices. Steve implies Flash cannot do this. Again deceptive and untrue.

But lets get into the OSX story here. Apple like to blame Adobe for the poor video performance on OSX. Unfortunately, again, Steve has failed to supply the full story. The reason Flash on OSX is so slow and buggy is as follows.

1. Video, Apple has refused to, until recently, supply the API required to implement it. Flash 10.1 for OSX will have Hardware acceleration as, the API has only just been made available. Steve conveniently failed to mention this. (See Adobe will accelerate Flash video using new Apple API)

That's a pretty dang good point.

Re:video

[BitZtream]

Steve didn't mention it because its bullshit.

I've had HW accelerated video for ... 5 ... 6 years ... I donno, whenever I started writing that particular app.

There were NEW APIs introduced recently to make it so even the Geico cavemen could figure out how to do it, but anyone who hasn't been capable of playing h264 video in a hardware accelerated window in the last 5 years should not be called a developer. Hell, there are freaking xcode examples on Apples website dated 4 years ago.

Like I said ... been playing hardware accelerated video on my mac for years in my own apps.

Re:video

[Just Some Guy]

That's a pretty dang good point.

No, it's not..

Oh, that's right: VLC is developed by a megacorporation with close knowledge of Apple's secret internal APIs, and not a small team of Open Source developers. That's why their software can play back the same MP4 stream with 1/3 the CPU of Adobe's.

Re:It's about the App Store

[Graff]

Why develop an app with XCode for one platform when you could develop it in Flash and have it run on multiple devices.

Because you can develop an app with XCode and have it run on multiple devices. It really isn't that difficult.

Flash is just another layer of middleware which is not necessary and ultimately just gets in the way. It gives quick results but the true headaches are borne by the users and also by developers down the road once you are locked-in to using Flash and want to do something that it doesn't yet support.

Apple's stance helps all of us. It promotes an alternative to Flash which forces Adobe to clean up its act and open and improve Flash even more. Perhaps it will even get them to come up with some nice HTML5 authoring tools and technologies. We all win.

What it is *really* about...

[CondeZer0]

It is all about control.

Apple's control over users, over developers, over content providers...

Re:What it is *really* about...

[bobmax48]

Do you really believe that it is about control? I am not sure why there is so much animosity on this subject. None of the phones are now using the newest Flash and so why is everyone bitching? I know that every time I go to a Flash site I can watch my laptop battery running out of a charge and the fans on the processor are running at full speed. I use Flash in most of the video work that I do only because the students do not want to upgrade to Quicktime or any other players. Personally I don't care if Flash is used or not although I do know that anything in H.264 is much more efficient then Flash when it comes to the use of the processor.

Flash only has three uses

[MBCook]

Flash only has three big uses on the web.

The first is video. Flash is not needed for video. It became the standard because it could do things the object tag couldn't, but it's not needed. The video tag does what most users need, and people will figure out ways to do the rest. For most users (who just want to see Hulu/Vimeo/YouTube/whatever), the video tag will be all they need. Flash isn't necessary here for most users (especially mobile).

The second is animations. There are some very impressive things done in HTML5 and JS, and most of the stuff I see on the web done with flash could be done in HTML5 (or really just needs a redesign). Very few sites do more than make objects show and hide and move around. iPhone users don't need a special plugin to use terrible interfaces, they should be made in HTML5 or have a simplified version available. So Flash isn't necessary here for most users, especially mobile.

Games are the best argument for flash, it's the standard and works well (when the programers know what they're doing and don't code an idle loop to use 100% CPU). Steve Jobs is right that a great many of these wouldn't work on the iPhone because of the keyboard and mouse expectations that can't be translated. Native code would work better, and being able to get to farmville but having a horrible time trying to play it would make iPhone users mad.

Games is the best reason Adobe has, I'd like to be able to play 'em on my iPhone some times. Steve is right that it's better for most users that the games get made for the device instead of trying to rejigger the interface.

Pot calls kettle black, kettle complains

[Omnifarious]

But it's just as black.

Flash is a despicable disgrace. Most of the time when I talk to a Flash developer, the thing they're the happiest about is the control they get over my computer. This is directly because the Flash player is a piece of garbage closed source tool that purposely caters to developers over end-users. The Open Source gnash (not ganash) player has an option to pause a Flash program. The Adobe player will never, ever end up with that option, ever. Giving me control over my own computer is against Adobe's best interest. Adobe's Flash player is little more than a widely deployed trojan horse that, IMHO, is little better than spyware (Flash cookies anyone? Where's my control over those?).

I wouldn't complain so bitterly about this if the gnash player were actually a decent drop in replacement for the closed source Flash player, but it isn't. I have to either choose my freedom and Flash that is broken most of the time, or Flash that works while giving up my freedom. I will choose my freedom, thank you very much, but I will be bitter about the stupid choice I'm forced to make.

So, when one maker of a closed, proprietary platform that steals people's freedom purposely does things to the detriment of another closed proprietary platform that steals people's freedom, I can't help but cheer. And I hope Adobe finds a way to play nasty games with Apple too. The more these two companies can find ways to hurt eachother, the more the rest of us benefit.

Adobe Disinformation

[catchblue22]

After reading Steve Job's very logical list of reasons for not supporting Flash, and the tit for tat response of the Adobe executive, I suspect that Adobe is trying to create an astroturfing campaign to "refute" Steve Job's claims. I found the Adobe executive's points were similar to the Monty Python "Argument Sketch", in that they were mostly just contradiction, with little evidence or logic provided.

On my mac, Flash just sucks. It is plain awful. I use ClickToFlash to avoid flash applets, so I am very aware of the effect of opening Flash. When I open a Flash web video, after a short period of time my CPU cooling fan comes on, and gets faster and louder. Even after the video is finished, my CPU fan continues and continues. Only after quitting the browser does the CPU cool back down and the fan stop. My laptop is almost always nearly completely silent. The only other apps that rev my CPU fan up are video editing programs such as Final Cut Pro. And even then, this only happens when I am rendering movies.

Before Safari started separating the browser processes from the Flash processes, I used to have many browser crashes. When I explored the crash reports, I would inevitably see that Flash played a prominent role. And browsing crashes were the only crashes I was getting on my system. Thus Steve Job's assertion that Flash is the main cause of OS X crashes gybes with my personal experience.

For the Adobe executive to assert that Flash's poor performance is due to OS X is a patent absurdity worthy of a global warming denier. And I find it suspicious that after hearing the Adobe executive sound off on his opinions, that we are beginning to see blog postings suddenly appearing that support his assertions. The timing of this makes it seem that a corporate decision has been made to counter Apple by paying or influencing bloggers to tow the Adobe line.

Re:Fixed some typos

[Drakino]

"because Steve Jobs prohibits open source apps from being offered via the app store."

Odd. Why am I able to download the source code for Doom iPhone version then?

Besides, the point of that part of Steve's letter was because Adobe keeps throwing the open word around, Apple isn't. "Open screen" this, and "open flash" that. Wheres the "open" flash player, and other bits needed to allow someone to play back Flash 10.1 content without any Adobe involvement?