[opendtv] Re: Apple dashes hopes of Flash on iPhone
- From: dan.grimes@xxxxxxxx
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 13:55:38 -0700
"Here is a good counter argument in support of Apple's position." -Craig
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2010/04/10/five-tremendous-apple-vs-adobe-flash-myths/
Five Tremendous Apple vs. Adobe Flash Myths
April 10th, 2010
----------------------
Craig:
I am not sure I agree that those are good counter arguments. I think they
are simply trying to deflect them.
If these "myths" are the arguments against Apple, I would agree that there
is no case. But in reality, most, if not all, are not the arguments...at
least not my arguments.
I would respond to the writer in this way:
"Myth 1: Apple’s great ‘restraint of trade’
"The first argument being thrown at Apple is that its new restriction on
the source languages that can be used to link to its iPhone SDK APIs is a
“restraint of trade,” apparently because Apple has a legal obligation to
support third parties who want to apply their tools to build iPhone apps."
Are we talking about what is or should be legal or what we should be doing
for a congruent media experience for the benefit of the consumer? Are we
talking about "obligation to support" or are we talking about those that
want to enable the Apple products to receive a world of content out there?
Is not the question whether Apple is trying to choke Flash? Perhaps they
have a legal right to try and do so, but is that really for our benefit?
"Never mind that such accusations have never been thrown about when the
subject was developing titles for the
Xbox 360, Wii, PlayStation 3, or any other game console. Those developers must
not only use the languages and
tools the vendor outlines, but typically must also pay thousands of dollars
for licensing fees, specialized
development hardware, and jump through a variety of other hoops."
Isn't this trying to deflect the argument to someone else? Is Apple trying
to limit SDK's for product performance or to prevent the use of a
particular format? I doubt that can be answered but I think some are
taking it as the latter.
"Myth 2: Flash is ubiquitous"
Who says that? We have many other formats, codecs and players. But why
keep things exclusive? Naturally, we all know the answer and many are
guilty of it, not just Apple. That doesn't change the fact that Apple is
guilty.
"Myth 3: Adobe’s gonna get Apple
"With Apple making no effort to bail Adobe out from the consequences of its
own incompetence, the Flash Brigade
is calling for a merciless reaction from Adobe."
If there is a push to retaliate, it is just as wrong as what Apple is doing
and the consumer will be the victim
of yet another war. We already are and we all have many scars from previous
format wars. I dare anyone to say
Apple is not warring.
"Myth 4: Apple owes Adobe a living
"The Flash Brigade also likes to tell tales about how Adobe (like Microsoft)
lovingly rescued Apple back when
the company was having hard times, so Apple should be paying Adobe back by
establishing Flash as the
proprietary alternative to open web standards."
I've not heard this before and I would agree that Apple does not owe Adobe a
living. I doubt we'll find anyone
that thinks we should be "establishing Flash as the proprietary alternative to
open web standards." I would
say this is a myth in the author's own mind.
"Myth 5: Apple should just solve Adobe’s problems by offering Choice
"With hearts bleeding more dramatically than even the most tortured religious
figures ever imagined under
centuries of Christendom, the Flash Brigade next insists that no matter how
justified Apple is in restricting
its own platform, no matter how incompetent Adobe was in screwing up mobile
Flash, without regard for how
powerless Adobe is to demand that anything really change, and ignoring how
awful Adobe and Macromedia were to
Apple in the past, it’s Apple’s duty, no, moral obligation, to support Flash
as a Choice."
I'm not sure who would say this; it is not their moral obligation to support
it. But it appears to me that
Apple is going to great lengths to prevent the customer from being able to use
a particular media format and I
do find this morally reprehensible. Is this not the issue? And I realize
there is a long list of companies
doing this very thing and I find it to be just as problematic. In the end, if
I can't watch it, I don't. If a
media display product won't play a large portion of the media that is out
there, I won't buy it.
"Who needs a web based on open, interoperable standards when you can have the
Choice of all dynamic content
being locked up in Flash?"
So is this about trying to break the use of Flash? If so, this supports the
idea that it is about control.
"Similarly, while Adobe wasn’t so keen on offering users a Choice of Cocoa
support, or a Choice of both HTML5
and Flash output from its development tools, it is really interested in Apple
offering users a choice between
the HTML5 open web Apple is cultivating and the Flash weeds it wants to see
choke out any potential for change
on the web."
If I understand the author's meaning, they freely admit that Apple wants to
choke Flash. Would HTML5 be
better? Perhaps. Should Apple choke Flash? You decide. Is Flash choking
others? Perhaps. Does that
justify Apple?
To me, the author is merely trying to deflect the arguments and in so doing,
supports that Apple is trying to
accomplish something that does not support media providers or customers. At
least not at the present.
From a pragmatic view (which I don't necessarily believe in but is certainly
prevalent in our society), can I
play the video from a website? No? I'll look at other options. I,
personally, have still not heard a
reasonable argument why Apple iProducts can't view Flash.
Dan
Other related posts: