In the same vein, I could say that you're not qualified to buy an iPhone -- it's bad for you and bad for the developers, and really, bad for everyone except Apple and web developers.
Aren't you glad you have a choice? Because if I made your choices for you, you'd be running Android, Maemo, Moblin, or maybe a netbook with Chrome OS.
I'm not saying users shouldn't have a choice of what phone to buy, I'm saying that (a) outside of a monopoly, vendors should be allowed to place whatever restrictions they like on their platform, and (b) it is reasonable for a vendor of a device that makes a point of being friendly towards the average user to restrict it such that it is difficult to screw it up. If you want to tinker, or want "freedom", there are other, more appropriate devices. Obviously I am against the availability of only one locked-down device from one vendor. Choice and competition is good – I am arguing within the scope of one device.
Then a similar rumor could be passed: "Just disable Flash when you don't need it, saves battery."
Also, funny you should mention those three: YouTube doesn't need Flash. I seem to remember something about Hulu going HTML5 at some point, and I wouldn't be surprised to find a native iPhone app. And there are tons of random shitty games in the App Store.
But the question is, again, is it better for sites like Hulu to drain battery, or is it better for sites like Hulu to not fucking work?
Hulu has just announced they don't think HTML5 is ready yet, but that's not the point, they were just examples. And it is better to not have to deal with the CPU hogging and vulnerability vector of Flash in the average ad-laden webpage to Hulu working. Enabling and disabling Flash is more silly UI fuss; tap-to-play-Flash is possible I suppose.
Thing is, it's a lot of fuss and bother for something that just isn't very good. Flash Player is slow as all hell, and I can depend on the WebKit team (an open-source project, no less!) to keep pushing the engine forward. Flash Player has shown virtually zero momentum, comparatively. HTML5 and whatnot are fast making Flash unnecessary. I strongly dislike Flash on the desktop, and don't care that it's not on my phone.
You're confusing two things. Freedom doesn't require you to make a certain choice, it allows you to make that choice. So, for example:
I like that I never even have to consider what is good and what isn't. It is a weight off my shoulders. And on my phone, I don't care enough. If it was my main computer, sure, I'd be clamouring for freedom with the best of 'em, but even then, that is because I am a geeky type. People are buying the iPad in droves and the closed nature of the app store is an advantage for most people. Again, if I want freedom, I will buy something else.
And there's nothing stopping you from picking an app store and just using that.
Take Android. I can install random crap from the Internet, or I can just use a few app stores I trust.
Linux distros have had this figured out for decades -- pick a distro and use the repositories, and you can install anything you want without worrying about screwing things up. But you have the option of cautiously going beyond that garden.
Sure, in a totally ideal world, my iPhone would let me install arbitrary apps off the web. But (a) that's not going to happen (b) every time I did so I'd be terrified it'd screw up my phone - my phone - (I've been bitten before by both Series 60 and WinMo) and (c) I don't care enough about non-app store apps anyway. The iPhone and iPad are not the in the same class as a desktop computer or server. They are appliances, things that just work, and I consider that an advantage. I keep my tinkering to my laptop or servers, and it serves me very well. I don't understand how other people can't be comfortable with that distinction too.
Granted, yes, Flash sucks. As a user, I'm not sure I'd install it.
But that should be up to the user, not Apple. If Apple allowed Flash on the iPhone right tomorrow, would you be required to install it? I suppose iPhone users are used to Apple making their decisions for you, but think about that -- what if they actually made it your choice?
Most users don't know what's good for them; they are not qualified to make this kind of choice. If Apple offered Flash as a downloadable option, it would have to be installed a Safari plugin (not possible at the moment, probably won't ever be, but let's put that aside for now). Around these 'average' users, the message would be passed "just install Flash to get Youtube/Hulu/random shitty game working on your iPhone", and they would. Then it would be shit, and they'd blame Apple.
And Adobe was offering to compile to Objective-C, so most of the bugginess and battery-draining would hopefully go away.
The issue Apple has with Flash-to-iPhone-OS-app compiling is the lowest common denominator problem. The bugginess and crashiness Jobs talked about is referring to Flash Player, the browser plugin. I don't understand why disallowing cross-compilers is evil, but hey. Apple isn't a monopoly; if you don't like their rules, go use something else.
I would call myself a geek, and I like that Apple is relieving me of decisions regarding my iPhone. I like that it is reliable, and I don't have to wonder whether installing an app will make things slow down, or erase my data, or drain my battery or whatever. It's my phone after all, and it working properly is important. There are plenty of other devices to geek out on, to tinker with and mess about with to your heart's content – I don't understand why some people insist this philosophy should apply to *everything*. On the cross-compilers issue, I'd rather have a few apps that were made with attention to detail and the particular advantages and form of the platform than a thousand shitty Flash games, but again that's me.
Slashdot Mirror
In the same vein, I could say that you're not qualified to buy an iPhone -- it's bad for you and bad for the developers, and really, bad for everyone except Apple and web developers.
Aren't you glad you have a choice? Because if I made your choices for you, you'd be running Android, Maemo, Moblin, or maybe a netbook with Chrome OS.
I'm not saying users shouldn't have a choice of what phone to buy, I'm saying that (a) outside of a monopoly, vendors should be allowed to place whatever restrictions they like on their platform, and (b) it is reasonable for a vendor of a device that makes a point of being friendly towards the average user to restrict it such that it is difficult to screw it up. If you want to tinker, or want "freedom", there are other, more appropriate devices. Obviously I am against the availability of only one locked-down device from one vendor. Choice and competition is good – I am arguing within the scope of one device.
Then a similar rumor could be passed: "Just disable Flash when you don't need it, saves battery."
Also, funny you should mention those three: YouTube doesn't need Flash. I seem to remember something about Hulu going HTML5 at some point, and I wouldn't be surprised to find a native iPhone app. And there are tons of random shitty games in the App Store.
But the question is, again, is it better for sites like Hulu to drain battery, or is it better for sites like Hulu to not fucking work?
Hulu has just announced they don't think HTML5 is ready yet, but that's not the point, they were just examples. And it is better to not have to deal with the CPU hogging and vulnerability vector of Flash in the average ad-laden webpage to Hulu working. Enabling and disabling Flash is more silly UI fuss; tap-to-play-Flash is possible I suppose.
Thing is, it's a lot of fuss and bother for something that just isn't very good. Flash Player is slow as all hell, and I can depend on the WebKit team (an open-source project, no less!) to keep pushing the engine forward. Flash Player has shown virtually zero momentum, comparatively. HTML5 and whatnot are fast making Flash unnecessary. I strongly dislike Flash on the desktop, and don't care that it's not on my phone.
You're confusing two things. Freedom doesn't require you to make a certain choice, it allows you to make that choice. So, for example:
I like that I never even have to consider what is good and what isn't. It is a weight off my shoulders. And on my phone, I don't care enough. If it was my main computer, sure, I'd be clamouring for freedom with the best of 'em, but even then, that is because I am a geeky type. People are buying the iPad in droves and the closed nature of the app store is an advantage for most people. Again, if I want freedom, I will buy something else.
And there's nothing stopping you from picking an app store and just using that.
Take Android. I can install random crap from the Internet, or I can just use a few app stores I trust.
Linux distros have had this figured out for decades -- pick a distro and use the repositories, and you can install anything you want without worrying about screwing things up. But you have the option of cautiously going beyond that garden.
Sure, in a totally ideal world, my iPhone would let me install arbitrary apps off the web. But (a) that's not going to happen (b) every time I did so I'd be terrified it'd screw up my phone - my phone - (I've been bitten before by both Series 60 and WinMo) and (c) I don't care enough about non-app store apps anyway. The iPhone and iPad are not the in the same class as a desktop computer or server. They are appliances, things that just work, and I consider that an advantage. I keep my tinkering to my laptop or servers, and it serves me very well. I don't understand how other people can't be comfortable with that distinction too.
The iP
Granted, yes, Flash sucks. As a user, I'm not sure I'd install it.
But that should be up to the user, not Apple. If Apple allowed Flash on the iPhone right tomorrow, would you be required to install it? I suppose iPhone users are used to Apple making their decisions for you, but think about that -- what if they actually made it your choice?
Most users don't know what's good for them; they are not qualified to make this kind of choice. If Apple offered Flash as a downloadable option, it would have to be installed a Safari plugin (not possible at the moment, probably won't ever be, but let's put that aside for now). Around these 'average' users, the message would be passed "just install Flash to get Youtube/Hulu/random shitty game working on your iPhone", and they would. Then it would be shit, and they'd blame Apple.
And Adobe was offering to compile to Objective-C, so most of the bugginess and battery-draining would hopefully go away.
The issue Apple has with Flash-to-iPhone-OS-app compiling is the lowest common denominator problem. The bugginess and crashiness Jobs talked about is referring to Flash Player, the browser plugin. I don't understand why disallowing cross-compilers is evil, but hey. Apple isn't a monopoly; if you don't like their rules, go use something else.
I would call myself a geek, and I like that Apple is relieving me of decisions regarding my iPhone. I like that it is reliable, and I don't have to wonder whether installing an app will make things slow down, or erase my data, or drain my battery or whatever. It's my phone after all, and it working properly is important. There are plenty of other devices to geek out on, to tinker with and mess about with to your heart's content – I don't understand why some people insist this philosophy should apply to *everything*. On the cross-compilers issue, I'd rather have a few apps that were made with attention to detail and the particular advantages and form of the platform than a thousand shitty Flash games, but again that's me.
Another reason why we all should speak Lojban instead