Steve Jobs: Here's Why We Don't Allow Flash On The iPhone And iPad en-us Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500 Sat, 12 Jul 2014 06:13:09 -0400 Steve Jobs hudaverdi Tue, 18 May 2010 06:55:10 -0400 AAPL knows software is an inherently short term business model and doesn't want to be the one propping up parasitic profits. Expect all hardware manufacturers to embrace open source, and software companies (like GOOG) to explore their hardware options. <a href="">sesli chat siteleri</a> Brian S Hall Wed, 05 May 2010 12:42:45 -0400 Forgot to mention my decryption of Jobs' statement: Florian Thu, 29 Apr 2010 21:59:01 -0400 Okay, you need to step back from your geek perspective. You're totally right of course, in that everyone could make their own choices and be smart about the consequences. However, in reality, people will blame poor battery life, bad performance, etc. on the iPhone. Apple is in the business of selling a certain user experience and quality and the consumer expectations are not clearly definitive and separate cause and effect like engineers like yourself do. Remember when iPhone OS allowed multitalsking and background apps for a minute? (It could always multitask, but non Apple Apps are prohibited from backgrounding for good reason - therefore the notification API). Everyone, including me and you and other engineering types were bitching about battery life. I am not exactly in love with Jobs, or Apple Corporate for that matter, but I welcome their challenge of Adobe. florian Thu, 29 Apr 2010 21:39:59 -0400 Nope, Jesse. Adobe's business are development tools. They've written badly performing interpreters for Apple platforms for 10 years. Of course Apple could write their own interpreter - thereby subsidizing Adobe. I'd be more happy if less real estate on the web was taken by flash. I hate it. It makes my macbook's fans come on, crashes, slows everything down. LOL (orig) Thu, 29 Apr 2010 20:29:40 -0400 OK, looks like last week Apple finally released APIs for Flash to supprt the GPU H264 acceleration for Mac OS. But what took them so long? To be able to say Flash (w/o HW acceleration) is a CPU hog? Soren Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:46:51 -0400 There won't be any legal case -- what basis would there be for a legal case in the first place. Bridge--of-contract? As far as I know there weren't an contract between Adobe and Apple. Both companies being private commercial operations there ain't any requirement for them to do anything they don't want. Or maybe you think I can sue Adobe for some of their product features not being supported on my Linux machine? jesse Sanford Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:36:25 -0400 Voting this up as well because it is a valid. Flash is not the best experience but it hasn't been surpassed by another product in yet. jesse Sanford Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:33:38 -0400 Then by the very same argument of voting with your dollar... can't you vote with your web traffic and not visit the sites that have flash on them? Or even better can't you vote with your download or lack of download of the flash player? No one is saying YOU or anyone else has to have flash installed on ANY of your devices/computers/platforms. Why is this even a discussion?! Don't you understand that this is about choice. The choice to install it if you wan't or NOT if you don't. HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT FROM YOUR MAC? jesse Sanford Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:29:40 -0400 Not at all. This has nothing to do with adobe. I just don't like the idea of a computing platform that so many people use being closed off in the sense that this is. Why doesn't anyone want to address the fact that they don't do this with their desktop operating system? king or tyrant? Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:26:40 -0400 Flash is widely used because of it's availability and ease of use, not because it's the "best thing for the market." Is it King or is it Tyrant? Flash just good enough not to die Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:24:30 -0400 Yeah....because consumers get a choice about what platform type a developer chooses to use for their product. Often times, if you like the content, it's the content that sells itself, not the technology that it's built on. As long as that technology doesn't create TOO much of a problem, the consumer won't let it deter them from picking up that content. Another way to say it is that Flash is "just good enough" to not be the deciding factor in making a software purchase or select content. Personally...I cringe every time Flash has to load on my PC. I hate the format, and feel that there are other substitutes that load quicker/smoother and don't have the security gaps. I'm glad a hardware manufacturer actually cares enough about the user experience that they push developers to stable/performance oriented platforms that ensure that experience is good. That's not closed minded or controlling, that's intelligent design. tradeking13 Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:17:49 -0400 I am waiting for the "Why We Don't Allow USB" post next. we knew Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:16:17 -0400 IMO, Adobe should have been more patriotic and made a better product. Moreover, consumers can't decided since web designers produce stuff and then the world has to put up with those choices. jesse Sanford Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:01:02 -0400 also voting your comment up jesse Sanford Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:00:27 -0400 Facist was a strong word and I retract that. I appreciate your calling me out on that. I also completely understand your points about the companies also having a choice as to what they want their user experience to be. BUT it's one thing to guiding the user experience and enforcing it with an iron fist. This is anti-competitive. It doesn't matter if it's adobe or any other company. Apple has the lions share of the smart-phone market and certainly the largest app market out there. They can now dictate how well a mobile software developer does by either allowing entry or disallowing entry to their platform. I don't understand how you don't see the parallels to Microsoft and their owning the majority of the desktop operating system footprint. ericl Thu, 29 Apr 2010 13:21:53 -0400 Not hard to follow at all. He made a very clear case. A. Running flash on these platforms degrades the user experience. B. There are lots of other options (open) to use if you want to run your software on Apple platforms C. No flash on touch platforms where battery life is critical. Eric in Austin Net Patriot Thu, 29 Apr 2010 13:21:12 -0400 "Fascist". Because they don't want to support something they choose not to. Nice. It's a free market and country. Vote with you dollars and don't buy Apple products. I think you might be getting a little heavy handed. I am pretty sure you are on a path to invoking Goodwin's law in reference to Steve Jobs in 3,2,1... (see URL above) Ralph Thu, 29 Apr 2010 13:15:13 -0400 @jesse - businesses also have choice. One of them is the experience they chose to deliver with the product and services they create, what price they charge for the experience, etc, etc. In this case, Apple has made a choice on the experience and it doesn't include flash. They don't really need to defend it as the market will judge whether the experience they deliver is worth the price compared to their competitors. CorporateTool Thu, 29 Apr 2010 13:13:14 -0400 Steve Jobs is attacking Adobe for not being open in the same way that he chose not to be open in only allowing the iPhone to run on AT&T's lame network: the end result will be more money and power for Steve Jobs. The rest was probably written by a room of Stanford-educated PR hacks. Net Patriot Thu, 29 Apr 2010 13:12:21 -0400 THE REAL ISSUE is that Apple has the freedom to choose what they want to do. Are you suggesting that YOU dictate what they should support and include in their platform? I am sorry but your "fight the power" rallying cry just is too thin. Your same logic that applies to the "consumer" applies to Apple. Freedom of choice Yo. Are you on the Adobe "street team" or something? Net Patriot Thu, 29 Apr 2010 13:06:57 -0400 Yes, you can let the consumer decide. You can also let a company decide whether to include and support another companies technology. I doubt that you are suggesting that we should force Apple to support something they choose not to. You know, freedom to choose is a patriotic ideal... Maybe you should have thought this through a little more? Riaan Thu, 29 Apr 2010 12:46:52 -0400 besides, what has "open" platforms realy given us but shoddy systems that work across networks if they feel like working? i suffer from this at work Autostore vs. SAP. by no means are these two systems small, but work together? my arse! people who harp on about "open" systems and platforms are those types that harp on Political correctness and equality for all, makes me think of a line from "the increadables" " and when everybody is special, then no one will be!" leave apple alone, let them get on with it, they do not force people into mac stores at gun piont! let people vote with thier feet! jesse Sanford Thu, 29 Apr 2010 12:44:46 -0400 I am also voting your comment up as this is the type of educated open discussion that is helpful for everyone. jesse Sanford Thu, 29 Apr 2010 12:42:24 -0400 Trust me I understand you on the battery life. It's not good. But your still playing the "our users are too dumb" card. Don't you think that the average iphone user when told that "flash is a battery" hog can consume and understand what you are saying? And there is no REAL difference between flash on a macbook and flash on an iphone. The average macbook gets about 3 hours on a brand new fully charged battery. Run a consuming flash movie on that and it will burn out some linear function of the same exact rate that the iphone would probably burn out at. We are not talking ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE here. These are false flags/Red herrings and you know it. I can tell that you are wise to the fact because you have also touched on the real reason they don't want flash on their closed platform. Competition. As soon as you allow flash on the iphone apple won't be able to take their 20% cut from ALL THE GAMES that they are pushing. 50k of them as Job's himself stated. This is a major revenue stream and they are protecting it. You may say rightfully so. I say Micro$oft. I say browser war. I say how is a game developed in objective c and a game developed in flash different to the end user who doesn't care about their battery life (or who has their phone plugged in). Microsoft locked other browsers out of their kernel and loaded most their browser into the kernel to make their browser work better and faster and avoid the overhead of usermode process/thread scheduling. Apple is just locking them out all together. What's worse?! LOL (orig) Thu, 29 Apr 2010 12:35:58 -0400 There are plenty of apps where Flash is just fine. Jobs's excuses are just that, excuses. Perhaps Jobs NEEDS to KILL Flash because the upcoming Flash 10.1's new H264 acceleration is available only for Windows? Look for Jobs to go bezerk in louder voices in coming days. louis cabeza Thu, 29 Apr 2010 12:34:42 -0400 Riaan- I think what people are responding to is a concern about Apple's intentions. I am concerned exactly because I am tightly tethered to their products and I am a long-term user, hardly a hater. There's a world of grey out there, it's not a question of love/hate and no one is accusing Apple or Adobe of being "criminals." They are concerned with their self-interest and I am concerned about mine, including not ending up with a substantial hardware/software investment that is increasingly walled off from third party innovation or subject to the whim of Apple (or Adobe). We've all been down this path and have been burned. Sun made great products too. someguy Thu, 29 Apr 2010 12:25:25 -0400 Steve Jobs really is a clever man. Dressing up a lie to look like its for the people. Look, accept Flash already. Do you know how much of a pain in the ass it is for me, as an AV tech, to work with Apple products at a hospital which uses only Microsoft / Adobe products for presentations? The hospital I work on won't budge on the matter. They've said "put it in a format we use or don't use it at all". F*** Apple, I'm sorry, but they've done nothing but make my job harder. Doctors want to use Apple products, Information Systems says no. I'm stuck in the middle. Riaan Thu, 29 Apr 2010 12:16:14 -0400 who has ever had a computer or phone crash on them? how anoying was it? did you blame the software or did you proclaime to the room at large "this pc/Mac is shite!!!". "this phone is crap!! the battery is poor!!!" ??? who is to blame?............................ i love my Mac, i love my iphone, and i love that if anything goes wrong i have apple to blame! but when i was a PC user i was sent from piller to post, "it is not our fault" "go else were" who still has issuse like this?? and when did it become acceptable for developers and retailers to treat us consumers so badly? i like my gilded cage, my Stuff "just works!!" like i want it to, yes apple is controling, and yes they are "closed" but they atleast take responsability for their products, and if flash is the reason stuff crashes and they do not give a rats ass who is the real criminal? mrdarklight Thu, 29 Apr 2010 12:13:24 -0400 Apple is supporting "open systems"? This is total bullshit. The whole Apple iPhone experience is and always has been closed. Try to buy an app outside of the App Store and see how far that gets you. Apple may have some valid reasons to dislike Flash, but their core reason for disallowing it, I'm convinced, is they want to keep their system closed to non-Apple approved devs. Scott Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:59:38 -0400 Not really a fair comparison on the browser front. They (MS) allowed other browsers to be installed but they got in hot water for preventing other browsers to be set as the default and the tight integration between the browser and the OS. The difference between running flash on your macbook and your iphone is battery life. As it was explained in the open letter, flash is a terrible battery hog because it uses software decoding rather than hardware decoding. Your macbook has a larger battery so running flash and taking the hit on decoding performance isn't as big of a deal. In a mobile platform though, it is crucial to optimize power utilization. You are correct that Apple should not be able to ban software from its desktop or mobile platforms (for technical reasons) if the software is developed with approved tools. What they are against, and I believe rightfully so, is allowing a third party platform for application development when that platform doesn't maintain and protect the characteristics of the device. Here's what I think it boils down to: If Apple allows flash applications and software video decoding, battery time goes to crap. The average consumer doesn't know/care what causes that and they think the Apple product is crap. Apple is well within their rights to product its brand by not allowing substandard technologies to operate on its platforms when it provides other alternatives. FunnyGuy Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:54:40 -0400 Oh, they pointed you the mistake, you addressed and sent them to the bleachers. Awesome, very nice of you! jesse Sanford Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:52:17 -0400 Sure it deserves to die if the users stop using it and it goes away due to "market sway". No one has to buy any of these products or install any of these products... that is the point. No one is saying apple HAS to include it pre-installed on their phone. If your argument about consumers being too dumb to know any better holds then they would never have flash on their phones anyway right? Because they would have to go and install it themselves. RM Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:43:04 -0400 This is dumb. People are trying to point fingers at everything to divert the fact that Apple has no realll argument as to why they're not supporting Flash on their mobile platforms. Seriously, there are so many great apps out there right now that run on Flash that we'd get for free if the support was enabled. Uhhh...quick...point fingers at Android. Weak. As people stated before, they're going to support Flash moving forward. And even if they weren't, still weak. Open - Don't make an argument about being open when you're being closed. Full Web - Guess what, some of the sites I visit via desktop use Flash. Having a little blue box indicating that Flash won't run equals limited web. It's slow and drains battery? That's the user's choice. Same reason why people bring laptops on planes and play DVD's w/out being plugged in - it sure as hell is draining that battery, but they're enjoying the movie while it is. Touch - Jobs, hit up Adobe and let them know you want to support them moving forward. I guarantee you they'll give you the touch support you've been wanting. Most Importantly - Give me a break. Try again with a better argument. Alex Schleber Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:42:40 -0400 Most consumers simply default into whatever comes along with the stuff they like for other, much more irrational reasons (just ask them about their new privacy settings for Facebook). You don't have to buy Apple products, but isn't it their right to determine what goes on them? Steve is simply fanatical about the experience you have with his devices (certain aspects of the experience at least). Flash is a resource hog, it deserves to die. Tommy Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:33:43 -0400 This is just Jobs pushing his h.264 again....there is nothing objective about what he is writing and it is certainly not some kind of journalism. louis cabeza Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:27:25 -0400 Umm, and, again, tell us who owns the "open" standard H.264? OMG what a load. Come on, this is just corporate trench warfare. Call it like it is. jesse Sanford Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:09:48 -0400 Again I think you missed the point. Apple does not and cannot ban software from it's desktop operating system. Microsoft was sued successfully for creating an unfair environment for desktop based web browsers on it's platform. How is it ok that apple ban software from it's handheld operating system. In fact... what the hell is the difference between running flash on your macbook and running it on your iphone. BOTH apple hardware. Both apple operating systems. I assume both interpreted, linked and compiled with apple brand development tools. Scott Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:05:34 -0400 You haven't done much technology development have you? Nowhere is there written a rule that says any hardware purchased by a consumer should be able to run any software that the consumer chooses. Apple is well within their rights to determine what type of software can run on their products. There are always technical limitations and trade offs when developing a product and Steve just did a good job elucidating on why Apple has chosen to not allow Flash based applications to run on their platform: there are too many negatives compared to the positives. Can Android devices run iPhone/iPad apps? Should we all yell at Google and demand they open up their platform to run Apple's applications. What about Microsoft? They don't run OS X applications? Android and Microsoft support a specific set of APIs from which you can develop your software. If you want your application to run on their hardware, use their software development kits and APIs and you are free to go. They are not, however, obligated to support third party software development kits unless it is in their or the customer's interest. Kurt Zweifel Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:02:01 -0400 Well done, Steve. Well done. bonecrusher Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:01:49 -0400 Anybody use QuickTime on their Windows PC? It's some kind of weird cross platform thing, and has a strange user interface. Microsoft should ban it from running on Windows. Also, Google Chrome is also some kind of cross platform application and just gets in between me and my OS. Bill Gates should ban Chrome from Windows. iTunes?? don't get me started. Let's just ban them all. jesse Sanford Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:56:58 -0400 I think you missed the point. The iphone runs an OS just as sophisticated as your computer... and would you just stop using your mac today and buy a different computer if you were told that you couldn't install software X? In fact why doesn't apple just up and declare that flash is not allowed on macbooks? I mean they suffer from the same problems right? just at a slightly different scale. Danny Choriki Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:49:04 -0400 I've been waiting for the open standards world to catch with with existing proprietary technology on the issue of animation in the web world. Flash currently has an enviable market position, but I personally have always been annoyed that a key delivery technology for the web was proprietary. Flash will only end up in the software dustbin when there are easy to use tools accepted by the development world to create HTML 5 objects. I haven't done the research, so I don't know if there are any candidates out there. Would be curious to hear from anyone who thinks that there are any such candidates. Mike Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:48:34 -0400 Apple uses lack of 'openness' as an argument et tu kettle? As specious as most of Jobs' other arguments. The funny part is, what seems to be making the current evolution of Apple succeed is the same infection that nearly (short of a well timed MSFT infusion of cash) killed it: namely, the systematic stranglehold of ever aspect of the devices. Apple is running a social hysteria fumes. They're products are better, but not to the degree that leaves them unassailable to competitors as this hysteria dies down. We'll see .... Franc Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:45:20 -0400 "How can you let one company dictate what software you run on hardware that YOU PURCHASED." It's simple! Just don't buy it! Olternaut Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:44:57 -0400 We'll find out soon with the froyo update. jesse Sanford Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:44:43 -0400 Jon, I am giving your comment a Thumbs up because you are at least understanding the fact that their should be choice. Choice for the consumer. Choice for the developer. It should never be dictated from the top down what can and cannot be used. What kind of facist censorship-ridden world is being created here? I want what I want on my phone and Apple be damned if I can't have it. Again What would you do if they said you couldn't install particular software on your MAC?! Olternaut Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:42:00 -0400 This rant changes nothing. It will still take a minimum of five years till html5 takes over the majority of the tasks that flash now does all over the net. And that is if Adobe and partners just sits around and does nothing about it. Until the market figures it out I've got stuff to do today. And today flash is still king. Jay Yarow Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:41:36 -0400 They're there just because we addressed that by adding a link at the top. They aren't relevant to the conversation about what Steve Jobs said here. So we put them in the bleachers. Not that they're offensive or anything. Jon Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:41:10 -0400 That makes perfect sense from a company and developer pov, but what about the user? Personally, I hate flash, and use a flash blocker. But some content--especially retail/mfr web sites--require flash to work at all. If I'm going to take an iPad on vacation as my only web access, I need to be able to see any web site. Perhaps Apple can put a big flashing sign in the corner of pages that use flash so I know they're evil and are killing my battery? Right now, too much of the web uses flash. Once Steve manages to convince the whole world to redesign their websites without flash, I'll be able to rely on an iPad to get work done. jesse Sanford Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:34:33 -0400 Someone else is a little controlling huh? Imhotep Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:33:23 -0400 The 2 comments sent to Bleachers, are CLEARLY not bleacher material jesse Sanford Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:32:15 -0400 Who cares if it performs slow?! I don't understand why you can't let a free-market decide what software is used and what isn't. Where are the patriots in this software development universe? Can't you let the consumer decide what they want to use and what they don't on their own hardware? Frank Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:28:57 -0400 So if Adobe is closed and that's bad... Apple is closed and that's good? So...when will I be able to share a song with my friend? Oh is that illegal? Over my big dead ass it is - I don't see no feds arresting me for making a mix-tape. And when will I own the apps I pay for? I mean, I paid for them. This steve jobs guy is pretty hard to follow. jesse Sanford Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:27:52 -0400 I knew that would come about. I have both in front of me as I write this. This is about freedom of choice not for end users but for developers. Your defense is limited to your parties talking point's memo. Come back with something real and tangible. Explain why you need to "protect your users" in a way that doesn't make them sound like neophytes and then we can have a proper argument. Don Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:27:29 -0400 LOL, so that is your reply. Your excuse to bad business is "don't buy it". Well, you do understand there are more than just fanboy opinions in this world. If there were nobody to complain and comment about this or that, nothing would be accomplished. oops Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:26:06 -0400 by not doing so, they're essentially suggesting that they believe that the iPhone ecosystem <b>isn't</b> a profitable business. horatio Sanz (yes..the Horatio Sanz...i love SAI) Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:25:04 -0400 last time I checked, you aren't force to buy an iphone. go have fun with your android phone. while all of us play with out iphones we knew Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:24:43 -0400 well, my MacBook fan turns on every time I watch flash video so it's harder to enjoy what I'm watching. in general, I didn't like System 9 and remained a PC user until OS X came out; as far as I know, OS X wasn't backwards compatible with System 9 since Apple saw the benefit of not being burdened by the past. hence, <i>App</i>le probably did the right thing by asking Adobe to futurize their product; by not doing so, they're essentially suggesting that they believe that the iPhone ecosystem is a profitable business. Don Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:24:00 -0400 Dan Frommer, may I present you with: Google confirms that the new Android OS will fully support Adobe Flash 10.1. Jesse Sanford Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:22:26 -0400 Who cares if they do it well?! If they don't then no one will install it or use it, adobe will loose face and money. Who cares?! Adobe does. Google and the android community don't. I don't understand how this is APPLES issue. Unless you consider your users completely stupid and in need of a "guiding hand" then why would you need to tell them what software they can and can't use? Jesse Sanford Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:20:40 -0400 Because Andorid is the REAL "open platform" it's kinda like a computer huh? You can download save open install whatever the heck you want. HOW BOUT THEM APPLES! Dan Frommer Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:20:33 -0400 They don't yet. And when they do, who knows if they'll do it well. Don Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:19:58 -0400 Ipod Touch can't do flash = Ipod Touch can't do multitasking These excuses are both made by Jobs & Co, but you'd be wrong. Jesse Sanford Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:18:57 -0400 Just cause there were 6 reasons doesn't mean any of them were good. I just can't believe that everyone is so short sighted? How can you let one company dictate what software you run on hardware that YOU PURCHASED. That phone is yours. NOT THEIRS. Don Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:16:35 -0400 Than may I ask in response, how does the Android phones do flash? Jesse Sanford Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:16:12 -0400 Why stop developers from creating new non-hover based applications? Legacy issues are no reason to completely ban a platform. Also how easy would it be to create a multi touch solution "two fingers close together" to hover for legacy apps. This is just a closed minded "I don't wanna hear it" tactic. Come on people. What ever happened to being creative? Give people the power to decide for themselves. How are smart phones any different than actual computers? Would you let apple dictate what software you could run on your mac. THAT IS THE REAL ISSUE. Brian S Hall Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:14:48 -0400 Do not anger Dear Leader! RBW Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:11:12 -0400 I hate it when facts get in the way of a good argument. Tom Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:08:16 -0400 Case closed - flash cant handle touch. The rest is irrelevant really - 99% of the flash operations in existence dont have touch capabilities. Whats the point even bothering? The Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:08:10 -0400 i once said to counter an argument you need 3 good reasons. steve just gave us 6. jesse sanford Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:05:23 -0400 The last most important point makes no sense. How is adobe's product more focussed on being cross platform than html5 and javascript? Basically Steve you are saying that you intend your product to extend the html5 spec in proprietary ways much the same way that Microsoft did with their own flavors of javascript and html with Internet explorer. You won't want to wait for the slow time to market that an open standards community like the w3c will take to extend the html5 spec again? How long did html5 take to come about? 10 years? How many cross platform revisions of flash were released in that time? This is about apple becoming the next Microsoft. Shoring up it's platform against outside innovation and flexing it's muscle against perceived dangers to it's bottom line. Why are you treating your customers like sheep that need to be led at every crossing? Don't you think they are savvy enough to realize for themselves when an app does not perform well? Security issues aside, nearly every point he makes in this article is audacious and controlling in nature. VirtuallyHere Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:03:10 -0400 This is a copy/paste from Apple's website... Paul Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:03:03 -0400 Case closed. Clampit Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:00:22 -0400 AAPL knows software is an inherently short term business model and doesn't want to be the one propping up parasitic profits. Expect all hardware manufacturers to embrace open source, and software companies (like GOOG) to explore their hardware options. Akintayo A. Olusegun Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:58:49 -0400 right on spot. I hope this gets to the whole wide web and shuts the haters up. Dogeye Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:58:46 -0400 read the first sentence sammy Sammy the Walrus IV Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:54:28 -0400 depending on who you are...this could be apple's "death-bow" to Flash. Up to now, we werent exactly sure what apple was thinking, besides getting inside from Gruber. Apple stated its case. More is opening up..from a PR standpoint. First the Steve emails and now this. Interesting to say the least. RattyUK Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:46:35 -0400 Clever idea Steve. Are you trying the "I am a journalist" excuse to get round any upcoming legal cases? Sammy the Walrus IV Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:41:46 -0400 wow.. SAI hired Steve Jobs as a writer. wonderful in all seriousness..where is this even from? another email?