In a change from Apple’s classically opaque method of operating, Steve Jobs has stepped forward to explain why the iPhone and iPad do not use Adobe Flash, a topic that has caused abundant controversy.
The CEO gave six reasons for why he felt that Flash was an unsuitable technology for Apple, which are detailed below.
- It’s a closed technology: Jobs begins his argument by stating that Apple has moved away from Flash because it is not an “open” technology. Since Adobe owns and controls Flash completely, he considers it to be a closed tech, and looks to HTML5, CSS and JavaScript. Complaining that a technology is closed would definitely be the pot calling the kettle black, however, so Jobs is quick to point out that, while Apple’s technology is proprietary, Apple believes all web standards should be open. He also mentions that Apple created WebKit, the open source HTML5 rendering engine in Safari.
- Users aren’t missing anything: Adobe has made claims that Apple users are missing out on a huge chunk of the web by not using Flash, which Jobs says is incorrect. He points out that many videos are based on H.264, not Flash, and iPhone and iPad users can access that content without issue. He did cede that users could not access Flash-based games, but pointed out that the Apple App Store has over 50,000 games, many of which are free.
- Security: The third reason Jobs mentions for why Apple does not use Flash revolves around reliability and security concerns. Symantec said in 2009 that Flash had a horrific security record, and was frequently responsible for Mac crashes. Jobs claims that Apple has tried to work with Adobe to fix these issues, but as they are incredibly pervasive, not enough has been done to warrant the use of Flash on mobile devices.
- Bad battery life: Jobs also claims that Flash is simply bad for battery life. Flash uses an old decoder that sucks up much more energy than the modern H.264. Apparently, on the iPhone, video utilizing H.264 could play for up to 10 hours on battery, whereas Flash-based video could only run for five.
- Wasn’t created for a touch-based interface: Additionally, the Apple mogul claims that Flash-based websites were designed around the use of a keyboard and mouse. They simply aren’t properly set up for a touch-based interface, he says. A vast reworking of these websites would be necessary to make them usable for Apple products, and Jobs thinks that, in those cases, developers should move to using CSS, HTML5 and JavaScript for the new site.
- Not progressive enough for developers: Jobs’ last reason for not supporting Flash was his most important. He states that Adobe has long wanted to empower developers with the ability to create apps entirely in , which is simply out of the question for Apple. Allowing that, Jobs says, would limit applications to the features Adobe decides to add with a new version of Flash. Additionally, since Flash is a cross-platform development tool, apps created for multiple platforms often cater to the lowest common denominator, meaning that Apple developers could end up using sub-par tools. Jobs also pointed out that Adobe just completed its transition to the Cocoa API with Creative Suite 5, suggesting how slow they are to adapt. Basically, Jobs just wants to offer app developers the best possible software to create and update their applications.
Jobs concludes by saying that Flash is PC-based software and, while Adobe’s motivation to push it past that into the era of mobile technology makes sense, a sufficient level of development simply isn’t there yet.
He also had a snide parting remark: perhaps Adobe should stop complaining about Apple leaving them behind, and start developing excellent HTML5 tools for the future.
The Icrontic Viewpoint
Jacqueline DiOrio
I can see some of Jobs’ points here, but overall, I’m not buying it.
First of all, it’s absolutely ludicrous for him to complain that Flash is closed technology, considering that Apple is the king of closed tech. Furthermore, I disagree that Apple users aren’t missing out on a sizable chunk of the web without Flash. Steve Jobs’ point that the app store has tons of games only serves to point out how fully reliant Apple wants users to be on their approved applications.
I do understand Apple’s point about security to some degree. They want to remove any chance of their users getting some sort of virus or bug. I do not, however, buy their point about battery life simply because, in general, Apple (and many other tech companies, to be fair) tends to grossly overestimate the battery life of their devices. Viewing video in any form will drain the battery, no matter the tech, and I would like to see under what conditions they could run H.264 and have it last for ten hours.
Finally, I do understand Jobs’ point about using Flash for applications, but I don’t see why they can’t allow their products to use Flash while preventing developers from making Flash applications.
In short, while I believe that Jobs has some legitimate points here, I still don’t see why Flash can’t be allowed on Apple products. I think that Jobs is simply insecure with the fact that he doesn’t control Flash, and that’s why he won’t allow it on Apple mobile tech.
Robert Hallock
On matters of battery life, security and stability, Jobs’ opinion on recent versions of Flash can hardly be contested: they stunk on all counts. Despite these truths, Jobs’ missive rings strongly with a note of hypocrisy.
To begin, Steve rails on Flash for being a “closed” technology, preempting critics with a defense that cites Apple’s support of open projects like HTML5 or WebKit. Open standards, he declares, are the way forward; the future of the web will be built on the backs of HTML5, CSS and Javascript, he suggests.
A lie of omission is no less a lie. We learned this as children.
Jobs does not mention that Apple is a leading supporter of the movement to replace Flash with H.264 video delivered via HTML5, an initiative practically championed with the WebKit project. He also does not mention that H.264 is buried in a mountain of patents and copyrights, which will demand exorbitant licensing fees (PDF) after the “gracious” royalty-free period for web video ends in 2016. He also, and most critically, does not mention that Apple is a member of H.264′s licensing authority, the MPEG-LA. In other words, every H.264 license sold is another buck for ol’ Steve.
Encumbered technologies are evidently acceptable if you can work to ensure their success for untold billions.
Jobs continues by inferring that video sites such as YouTube already run H.264, which allows for the site’s content to be viewed on any H.264-compatible device, including the iPhone or the iPad. A noble endeavor, it would seem, were it not for the disingenuous suggestion that follows: if you want to play Flash games, why not just visit Apple’s app store?
Why not, indeed? By some estimates, it was a $1.2 billion cash cow for Apple in 2009.
Why allow Farmville when you can railroad people into giving you a cut of a game purchased on the App Store?
Why allow Hulu when you can railroad people into giving you you a cut of a movie or show purchased on the App Store?
Popcap? App Store.
Vimeo? App Store.
Kongregate? App Store.
I have long hypothesized that Apple’s resistance to Flash was a matter of money, but today I know it to be true. Twice did Jobs within three pages offer Apple-enriching alternatives to technologies and experiences people could get for free with Adobe.
As for the rest of Jobs’ duplicitous garbage, I’ll let it slide for the sake of brevity. I would appreciate it, though, if someone would let me know when iTunes and Final Cut Pro are finally rebuilt on Cocoa; since Adobe was apparently too slow to make the switch with CS5, I’m expecting those updates any day now… or not.
CB Droege
I think most of Jobs’ points are just so much noise. Honestly, all I see in his entire argument is, “blah blah blah. We don’t want people to have access to free games and apps, since we’re in the business of selling games and apps.”
I’d be happier with the whole thing if he just came right out and said that without all the double-speak. Even the arguments he does present, however, are dumb. He’s basically saying that users and developers aren’t smart enough to decide for themselves if Flash is what they want.
Flash wont work well on a touch-screen: So? Let me as the user, decide for myself whether or not I think Flash works well on a touch screen.
Flash isn’t ideal for developers who want to add features: So? Let me as the developer decide for myself that I don’t like operating in Flash.
If there is one thing I don’t like, it’s someone restricting my access to a tool or service because of their opinion of that service. No thanks, Jobs, I’ll be getting an Android.
Bobby Miller
From a gaming standpoint, I think that Apple is really missing out.
Jobs was quick to mention that, despite missing out on Flash games, there are tons of alternatives in the App Store, many of which are free. From my perusing of various smart phone app markets, including that of the iPhone, I find that statement a bit ambiguous. There are free games, but they are rarely worth your time. Almost all of the good games come with a price in Apple’s App Store. Beyond that, you still have to download and install these games to your device.
Flash gamers want the simplicity: you browse to the game, it loads in browser and you play. Your storage space is spared at the end of the day. We’re not missing much without having Flash? Yeah, right.
Also, Jobs’ remarks on Flash not being progressive enough for developers is quite pretentious. He said that Apple developers could start using sub-par tools. Developing for the lowest common denominator is not always a bad thing, however, and to suggest that Apple users and developers are above such a thing is complete rubbish. Let the users and developers make that call.
Articles RSS
