Apple boss Steve Jobs explains ban on Flash

[DaBees-Knees]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10092298.stm

Steve Jobs has used an open letter to defend Apple's decision not to allow Flash on many of the firm's products.

Neither the iPod, iPhone nor iPad can run the software despite the widespread use of Flash technology on websites for video and animations.

He said Flash was made for an era of "PCs and mice" and performed poorly when translated to run on touchscreen smartphones and handheld devices.

The head of Adobe called the highlighted problems "a smokescreen".

'Restrictive practices'
 
The letter comes soon after Flash creator Adobe announced it would stop making tools that allow developers to quickly translate Flash code to run on Apple gadgets.

These allowed developers to make applications once and then distribute them for use on various phones and operating systems, including Apple's iPhone.

Adobe's announcement followed a change to the terms and conditions of the licence that software developers must sign when writing code to run on Apple products.

That change banned developers from using automatic translation tools, effectively forcing them to develop two applications - one for Apple products and one for everything else.

Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen told the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) that "when you resort to licensing language" to restrict development, it has "nothing to do with technology."

He said it was now "cumbersome" for developers who were forced to have "two workflows".

Crashing Macs
 
In his lengthy open letter titled Thoughts on Flash, Mr Jobs said the reason Apple did not want people to use Adobe's automatic translation tools was because experience had shown it results in "sub-standard apps".

He described Flash as a closed system and said that it was bad for the smartphone era because it did not support multi-touch systems and helped drain battery power unnecessarily.

He also pointed out that there were now alternatives to flash technology, particularly for web video.

The Apple boss added that Flash fell short on security and was "the number one reason Macs crash".

But Mr Narayen said that if Flash crashed Apple products it was something "to do with the Apple operating system."

He said he found it "amusing" that Mr Jobs thought that Flash was a closed platform.

"We have different views of the world," Mr. Narayan told the Wall Street Journal. "Our view of the world is multi-platform.

The letter provoked an avalanche of comments online, with many saying Apple's restrictions on what can be done with its software go far beyond those on Flash.

 I suspect a case of someone spitting their dummy (pacifier) out. 

[Pri]

As an Apple developer I agree. The main beef I have with Flash on the phone (For making applications, nothing to do with the in-browser flash) is that Adobe are so slow. If I develop my application in Flash for the iPhone and then iPhone OS 4.0 comes out which includes over 2000 new API's how am I going to make use of these? I have to wait for Adobes abstraction layer to be updated to support these new API's and that could be 6 months or more.

By using native tools such as Cocoa Touch (Object C basically) I can make use of all the latest API's on day 1 of release and my customers can get the best software possible. The Application Store is incredibly fierce when it comes to apps. If you have an app and its successful I guarentee that there will be atleast 5 apps that do the same thing within 2 months. That is why developers need newer API's all the time to up the capability of your applications.

Also using Flash as a middleman between the operating system and your software is not a good idea from a performance standpoint. In iPhone OS 4.0 it is going to include some new power efficiency code that allows it to pause or completely shut off the threads of an application that are not required while that app is running in the background. This is part of Apples multitasking plan. But if you have Flash wrapped around your app you simply can't do this because the Flash wrapper is all that the operating system sees and it cannot end the threads of your software running within that wrapper because it will just crash. There is no way around this unfortunately and that is why Flash from a performance standpoint is not something people want.

Now there is one more technical issue with Flash. When processing for example H.264 video you have a software player that hands off the decoding of the video to a specific piece of silicon on the phone (In the iPhones case it has a portion of the GPU dedicated to this purpose) which means it works like this:

Video Player -> Video File -> GPU -> Screen

This is a very efficient way to decode and display video and results in smooth video playback with very little cost (in power consumption). But Flash is simply not designed for this. Even when you accelerate Flash via a GPU this is what it looks like:

Without GPU Acceleration: Flash Player -> Video File -> CPU -> GPU -> Display
With GPU Acceleration: Flash Player -> Video File -> CPU -> GPU (Decoding) -> CPU -> GPU -> Display

What happens is the Flash Player even when it does have GPU hardware acceleration must send the video back to the CPU for frame organization once it has already been decoded by the GPU and then sent back to the GPU a 2nd time to then be outputted to the display. Every other video standard including Silverlight by Microsoft (which is a competitor to Flash) does not need to do this and it is wasteful.

HTML5 allows you to do everything that Flash does, it is fully open source and its faster. way way faster. H.264 video in a HTML5 player results in about 20% CPU usage on an average phone compared to 90-100% with Flash (Even with GPU acceleration). The worst thing about this is Flash actually uses h.264 for all its video. It is just the player itself that is the stopping block.

[GhostShip]

Your points may have merit Pri but none of those are suggested by SJ himself, instead he focuses on controlling what developement tools can be used in making apps for Apple products and thus has overstepped the mark in Adobes eyes, after all we all know SJ is very concerned about battery life since the ones Apple uses have a history of exploding.

[Pri]

Your points may have merit Pri but none of those are suggested by SJ himself

Did you even read it? Because he quite clearly did.

Here is his full letter to the internet: http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/

He touches on:
Performance
Late API Use
Battery Life
Quality for End Users

As-well as others.

[GhostShip]

I have now looked at what he said and read that he made that statement after Adobe make an annoucement based on his original announcement but the facts seem pretty simple, most apps at Apples store are pay apps and SJ wants you to go to his store and buy them so he can get a cut, if you get something like a flash game online it usually costs nothing.

 What I do find funny is that neither of the two companies involved deliver anything in open src but both simply talk about open standards, I actually find the whole situation ludicrous where the head of a big company simply wants more power over folks choices and is lashing out because another big company feels he has enough power already with his monopoly operating system that gives customers little or no choices as to upgrading when Apple want to change their terms and conditions unilateraly.

Both these companies need to get a grip and let the market decide, we are after all able to make a decision or two for ourselves.

On a related note this is how to force folks to go to Itunes and pay top dollar for low quality music.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20003855-261.html

 

[Pri]

I don't know what you mean about Steve made these statements after Adobe. This entire article is about Adobe replying to Steves Open Letter that he posted only yesterday on Apple.com (which is what I referenced above lol)

You mention that neither companies offer anything open source. But Apple offer Darwin (the underpinnings of OS X if you will) fully open source. And they also offer Webkit open source which is what Google, Nokia, Blackberry and Palm use for their browsers on the desktop and mobile. Apple have also offered other open source things in the past. But I'm under no allusions they only go Open Source when it is beneficial to them. I don't really see what is so bad with that, they are in it to make money and as we all know weekend programming doesn't bring fast or good quality results. People need to be paid full time to program and without a way to profit from their wares by keeping most of it closed there would be no incentive to deliver a product in the first place.

With respect to lala a lot of industry analysts expect Apple to release an online version of the store with streaming and possibly even a subscription model for enjoying Music from the store at any location with nothing more than a web browser. I really hope they do that because if the price is right (Like £9.99 a month) I'd sign up in a heart beat.

[GhostShip]

"Statement" singular not plural Pri, heres how I read this farcical set of events , Apple demanded serious changes in the terms and conditions developers have to sign up to before Apple will allow them access to their monopoly products, this in turn lead Adobe to feel their rights where being stamped on and they made a press release decrying Apple, SJ then upped the nastyness factor with his unprofessional style of rhetoric, the cycle will likely continue into some kind of vendetta squabble and will see many companies taking sides with one or the other of the combatants, whats not seen by either of these two industry giants is that to joe soap in the streets nothing they say is of any relevance, who actually cares if flash is dumped and html5 is employed.

I havent met anyone yet who would be remotely interested i the trivia of this battle of words all anyone is likely to be interested in is the price and if one company gains a monopoly then the price is always higher thus in the long term squabbles such as these do help deliver something to the consumer but what and when are not always so clear.

[GhostShip]

Yet more controversy 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/30/steve_jobs_claims_ogg_theora_attack/

I can see things getting very heated up if SJ  is going to take on open src projects.

[GhostShip]

And now joined by a new "friend" .

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/30/flash_on_android/

In his epic attack on Adobe Flash, Steve Jobs asks - in typically haughty fashion - when Flash will actually ship on a smartphone. Yes, the answer is still unclear, but just before Jobs unloaded his open letter, Adobe's new BFF committed to putting Flash on the world's second most important mobile OS.

Speaking with the New York Times, Google's Andy Rubin - who heads the development of Android - promised that the next version of the company's mobile OS would include "full support" for Adobe Flash.

With the exception of Apple, Adobe says its working with "every major hardware manufacturer" on Flash. In response to Jobs' open letter - which decries Flash because it lets developers developer for multiple platforms - Adobe told us: "In the end, we believe the multi-platform world will prevail."

This battle is continuing to warm up  for sure 

[GhostShip]

On a more pleasing note it seems hackers have made some inroads into freeing the iPad from Apples tight grip.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/03/ipad_jailbreak/

Hackers have once again wrested a measure of control from Apple's iron-fisted grasp of iPads and newer iPhones with the release of jailbreaking software that allows hundreds of unapproved apps to be installed on the devices.

The package, called Spirit, was released over the weekend for devices running firmware versions 3.1.2, 3.1.3, and 3.2, which until now weren't easily freed from Steve Jobs' Howard-Hughesian control. The software allows users to customize homescreen images, tether the devices to a PC so they can be used as a modem and do other things that Apple considers verboten. It also allows users to install third-party apps from unapproved repositories such as Cydia and RockYourPhone.

Terrible news eh Steve ? Allowing folks to decide what they do with their own hardware is just not on !!  

[Bluey_412]

And to think that so many people think Microsoft are nasty...

[Pri]

Microsoft recently also spoke out against flash and are also backing the h.264 video tags in IE9. Quote from Microsoft: "Flash is Proprietary, Has Performance issues and security problems".

HTML5 is the future. Hardware accelerated, full 3D Graphics via WebGL (I'm talking full 3D games in your browser, no longer this 2D Flash rubbish).

You can do a lot more with HTML5 than you can with Flash and with lower battery life and more complicated effects. Flash at the moment is just easier due to all the Adobe development tools, but realistically HTML5 will get tools that good eventually.

[GhostShip]

And in the meanwhile SJ gets more richer than he already is eh ?

If that wasnt the case one would ask why he didnt get some replacement tools lined up before he took on Adobe.

[Pri]

Because its not his job Ghost? HTML5 is fully open. Apple didn't make it. It existed regardless of this Flash thing.

And I don't really understand how this has anything to do with SJ getting richer? We know that Apple operate the App Store at a loss. Regardless of if Flash exsists or not Apple doesn't make any more money.

[GhostShip]

I dont believe Apple created anything at a loss, its whats called an "ongoing investment" and standard business practice, set up costs are recouped over many years and with a monoploy over the Apps its pretty easy to recoups any such initial outlay.

[Pri]

No we know they don't make money from it as they have to report it to their investors, they can't lie or they will be investigated by the SEC.

They don't make any money on the app store and they never will due to it being a 30/70 split of the profit. It's been 2+ years, no profit made they do not make anything on it.

And if they were so afraid of the free web taking money from them they wouldn't support HTML5 either which is far superior to Flash and allows much more engaging experiences in the web browser than flash can ever dream of. Already Quake 3 has been ported to pure HTML5 code. Something Flash could never accomplish.

I think you just don't have a solid understanding of how this is all working with Apple and what money they are making and stuff. Steves reasons for not allowing flash are pretty clear. It's closed (the web should be open) it's slow (They've asked to see fast versions for years) it has security issues (Flash can still read the contents of your clipboard just as an example) and it's still a bad thing to use from a developer standpoint.

Flash is rubbish. Adobe inhereted it from Macromedia and have been trying to fix it but really it's just rubbish. And I don't understand why you seem to be going after Apple as if they are the bad guy. They are complaining for developers to use HTML5 which is fully open source. What is wrong with that? Are people so biased that they can't see beyond the Apple logo?

Would you feel the same way if it was a Linux group complaining against Flash? - Cause you know Canonical (makers of Ubuntu) are now also backing HTML5 and have just licensed the H.264 technology for the operating system so that all browsers and apps can make use of the codec instead of Flash.

[GhostShip]

Ask yourself this simple question Pri, do investors invest to make money or lose it ?

I myself admit openly I dont have time for Apple or any of its rip off products made by child labour in poor countries, I hope thats clear enough.

Please dont take all this personally by the way I do enjoy a counterpoint to my own views and many others enjoy reading the cut and thrust of our discusions, I,m very pleased you at least take the time to articulate why you disagree with me  

[Pri]

Ghost, Apple do not make money off the App Store. They make money off the sale of the devices (iPod, iPhone, iPad) the App Store is simply a way to shift more hardware. They don't make any profit off the app store. For them having people access web games for the iPod, iPhone and iPad simply increases the sales. They have no reason to want to block developers from creating content for the device.

HTML5 as I've already said is head and shoulders above Flash. Apple want people to use HTML5 because of performance, security and the roadmap which extends HTML5 functionality quickly and indefinitely.

Flash development was stagnant for 3 years during which time Flash was top dog on the internet and there was nothing around to take it down a peg. Only now that OEM's are waking up and saying 'This flash is taking our battery life from 10 Hours to 5 Hours, we need something else' are Adobe finally attempting to do something. But their best effort (Using the GPU to process frames) is simply not good enough.

When flash is GPU accelerated as I already said in this thread it's sent from the CPU to the GPU then back to the CPU then back to the GPU for displaying. HTML5 doesn't suffer this issue. In games it can go CPU -> GPU -> Display, in Video it can go CPU -> GPU -> Display.

The way that Flash buffers its frames is stuck in the 90's and the entire thing needs to be scraped and started over.

The industry wants to move on to HTML5. And I also want to point out that Apple doesn't make money on their Software in general. For example Snow Leopard it cost them several million dollars to develop they sold it at a fixed £24.99 at this price they didn't make back the money on the OS. But they lose money on the OS to make money on the Hardware sales. Same as with the iPhone, all OS updates to the iPhone are completely free because the OS drives sales of the hardware. Again same with the App Store they break even on the App Store and make money on device sales.

It doesn't mater where people get there software from Apple win because their margins are in the Hardware. They make 60% profit on every iMac sold.

And I think that bit where you say you don't have time for Apple due to Child Labour is a bit of a rediculous thing to say when Apple are the only company that cold call their own factories and the only reason that we even know there were children working at Foxconns factories was due to Apples own report that they formulated and released themselves.

Dell, HP, ASUS, Lenovo, Sony, Intel, AMD, ATi, NVIDIA, Western Digital, Seagate, Samsung, Hitachi, Sharp, Microsoft, Nintendo are also all Foxconn customers who have things produced in identical factories in China as the ones that Apple use. So if you even use a computer you are using a product by the same company that has been shown (by Apple) to employ children.

[GhostShip]

Dont you mean Apple was shamed into doing it after this 2006 article and didnt release a report till april 2010 ?

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/06/71176

Some of us have been around a little longer than this year Pri and we remember the last time Apple was accused, it suprises me that folks think its ok to see other folks in sweatshop conditions so they can enjoy what is simply a glorified chunk of plastic with some chips and a display, is responsible production for western consumers now simply paying lip service to abuse reports and turning out product regardless of human cost ?

[Pri]

Um ghost, it clearly says in the first sentance of that very article:

"Apple Computer is investigating claims of poor working conditions at a Chinese iPod factory, the company said Friday, vowing not to tolerate any labor violations."

Where are all the other companies investigations? What computer do YOU use?

And I've made lots of valid points but you just ignore them all and go for whatever you think you can argue. I shouldn't need to remind you that this is about Apple explaining the ban on flash.