Apple in antitrust crosshairs? If so, Jobs' Flash rant makes more sense
Summary: The Feds are reportedly poking around on Apple's requirement that software developers only use its---or neutral---programming tools. Perhaps Steve Jobs' Thoughts on Flash missive was geared toward regulators.
The Feds are reportedly poking around on Apple's requirement that software developers only use its---or neutral---programming tools.
The New York Post reports that the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission are pondering an antitrust inquiry into Apple's Section 3.3.1 in its iPhone 4.0 software developer kit license agreement.
Here's the section, which is largely viewed as the no Adobe Flash allowed part:
3.3.1 — Applications may only use Documented APIs in the manner prescribed by Apple and must not use or call any private APIs. Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited).
Now the Feds may just poke around on the section and decide not to pursue an antitrust complaint. These inquiries are started to find out if there needs to be an antitrust suit. However, it's possible that either the DOJ or FTC will pursue something.
Although the Post's track record isn't exactly perfect---the paper is citing on unnamed source---an antitrust move does add up. Ever since Apple CEO Steve Jobs penned his Thoughts on Flash missive, which panned Adobe's software, noted a bevy of problems like stability and security and outlined why the iPhone and iPad don't support Flash, there has been a nagging question in my mind. That question can be summed up in one word: Why?
Why would Jobs post his Flash thoughts? Were developers whining about section 3.3.1? Was Adobe winning a PR offensive by saying Apple wasn't open? Could Adobe show damages? Why does Jobs have to make the case against Flash now?
Assuming the Post is correct, then Jobs' Flash rant makes a lot more sense. Jobs' blog post about Flash was really geared to regulators. His Flash rant outlines the reason Adobe's software is limited---a few of those points are hard to argue---and lays out Apple's rationale for section 3.3.1. In other words, Jobs is laying out the case for the Feds.
Related:
- Apple puts another nail into Flash's coffin
- Adobe: Apple's anti-Flash movement a risk to business
- Apple Mobile: Jobs vs Ad Industry, Adobe, Microsoft & Developers?
- Adobe casts Flash lot with Android; Drops iPhone plans
- Steve Jobs pens Adobe missive: 'Flash falls short'
- Microsoft on Adobe: Flash has "issues" but remains important
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Hardly a rant
reasonable. You may not agree with his point of view, but his
arguments are quite strong. Three in particular are solid:
1. The pervasive use of rollovers in Flash applets means they'll
need to be rewritten to support touch devices, it's not simply a
matter of putting Flash support into phones.
2. Decoding Flash encoded video is very expensive in resource
and battery terms, much better to use plain H.264
3. Flash creates a layer between the OS and user that Apple
would rather not allow another proprietary company to control.
MS is able to screw PC OEMs because they depend on Windows
to show their hardware's qualities. Apple doesn't want users to
be dependent on Adobe implementing new features that might
have been available in the OS for some time.
These are very good arguments, well supported by the fact that
not one smartphone currently has Flash support. Perhaps Jobs'
words will prompt Microsoft to expedite Flash on its mobile
platform, but I suspect not - MS likely has exactly the same
misgivings as Apple.
Adobe promised in February 2009 that Flash would be in most
smartphones by early this year[1]. Apparently it will be in
Android 2.2 in June[2], and maybe Windows Phone 7 by the end
of the year[3].
I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens, but I
suspect it will be restricted to advertisements and banners for
some time.
1. http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13970_7-10164745-78.html
2. http://thesmartphonehub.com/smartphone-hub/it?s-
official-adobe-flash-support-will-be-built-into-android-2-2/
3. http://www.mobilecrunch.com/2010/02/25/adobe-flash-
10-1-holds-out-for-windows-phone-7-6-5-devices-can-
haz-upgrade-to-wp7/
--
FF
Excuse you?
not one smartphone currently has Flash support."[/i]
The Droid Incredible currently supports Flash Lite 4 AND all Android 2.x devices have the ability to install the Skyfire browser which will play flash based videos. Then as you said, in June we should see Android 2.2 with Flash 10.1.
Yes, Excuse...
it uses Flash Lite 4.0 rather than the newer Flash Player 10.1! The Flash
Player lite is buggy, and only displays some Flash, not all. HTC has not
announced whether or not HTC or Adobe plan on releasing a Flash Player
10.1 plugin for the HTC Droid Incredible."
So it does not at present support flash. Like what he said.
Bottom line is....
Flash Lite is not Flash
finally, after years of empty promises, finish Flash 10.1.
So, no, your precious Droid doesn't have Flash on it until Flash 10.1 is
released and you install it, assuming it is compatible with you
phone/OS.
Flash, thank goodness is already dead anyway. I spent some time
surfing blogs with lots of embedded video yesterday and all of the
videos, from sites like YouTube, Vimeo, Daily Motion, etc. played
beautifully in full screen mode on the iPad. No fans, no egg frying heat,
no battery drain. Welcome to HTML5.
the problem is...
A broken watch although right twice a day is still broken.
... and the question is...
We'll never know. Might be fun to ask Jobs, but my money is on something like "I'm not going to answer hyopthetical questions about situations that never occurred."
In any event, Adobe being late to the party gave Apple plenty of reasons, and/or excuses, to omit Flash from the first-generation iPad.
Adobe is just too slow, or maybe Flash is just too damned hairy, to keep up with Apple's relentless product development. If I were H-P, I'd be worried about the first-generation Slate having to face off against a second-generation iPad (running OS4, no less.)
Even on pads
Jobs is BSing
applets means they'll need to be rewritten to
support touch devices, it's not simply a matter
of putting Flash support into phones.</i>?
Really? A lot of Flash applets do not use
rollover effects. Some of those that do work
perfectly fine even if they cannot sense the
rollover. And yes, some Flash applets do rely
on a mouse being hovered. <b>But so do many
websites</b> based on CSS and Jobs? beloved
HTML. You don?t even need JavaScript to create
a dependency on mouse hovering. So Jobs?
position is really a strawman: The issue is
most of the <i>web</i> is designed with mouse
hovering in mind. This is orthogonal to Flash.
?<i>2. Decoding Flash encoded video is very
expensive in resource and battery terms, much
better to use plain H.264</i>?
Again, strawman argument. Flash video is also
based on H.264. If Safari is using hardware
acceleration to decode the video stream it may
be lighter on cpu/battery <i>right now</i>. But
this is a <u>minor technical issue</u> which
BTW is solved with Flash 10.1. Banning Flash
based on this argument is clearly the result of
desperately looking for a reason. All Jobs had
to do was to call Adobe and ask when they would
be ready to take advantage of hardware support.
?<i>3. Flash creates a layer between the OS and
user that Apple would rather not allow another
proprietary company to control. MS is able to
screw PC OEMs because they depend on Windows to
show their hardware's qualities. Apple doesn't
want users to be dependent on Adobe
implementing new features that might have been
available in the OS for some time.</i>?
<b>Nobody</b> forces developers to use Flash.
The argument that this creates a ?layer? is ?
again ? simply not true. If it benefits
developers they will use it. If they cannot
create the applications they want using Flash
they will use something else. If Jobs are so
concerned about the <b>quality</b> of apps,
Apple could just set standard requirements for
apps. Hell, the current (arbitrary) approval
process could easily be used to reject sub-
standard apps.
----
Jobs does not have a point whatsoever. The
banning of Flash <b>and other cross platform
techs</b> is so obviously a business decision
designed to protect the app store from
competition.
True, but...
This may be true - unfortunately, USERS get no choice but to use whatever crap the developers foist on them. As a user I say good riddance to Flash. As a proponent of open standards I say good riddance to flash.
Do you NOT see the supreme irony in your post?
It DOESN'T really matter WHAT technology a developer uses - open or proprietary! You're STILL stuck with whatever they've 'foisted' on YOU.
[b]As a user I say good riddance to Flash. As a proponent of open standards I say good riddance to flash. [/b]
You say you support 'open standards' and yet, we're talking about the iP/P/P here - which is THE most proprietary platforms. Ever.
Gotta love them double standards...
Do you NOT see the supreme ignornace in your post?
Flash is trying to be part of the Web standards and its closed proprietary.
iPhone is closed [i]Platform[/i] & its something totally different then the Web Open Standards.
Compare Apples with Apples.
Not really BSing
banning of Flash and other cross platform
techs is so obviously a business decision
designed to protect the app store from
competition. >>>
Certainly it's a business decision, what isn't, and not just about the App Store but future Apple products.
Why should Apple (or any company) be reliant on a 3rd party to control it's own product development?
As per Abobe (products) and OS X, Mac users have often had to wait for features found in similar Windows Adobe apps or not have them at all. Why should Apple be held back and have to wait for Adobe to get it's butt in gear if Apple wants to introduce a product or feature but is reliant on Adobe?
Why be prevented or stifled from introducing a "new/innovative" feature that sets your product apart from competitors because you have to rely on Adobe's cross-platform strategy or creating for the lowest common denominator amongst platforms?
(one of Job's Flash points... "It is not Adobe's goal to help developers write the best iPhone, iPod and iPad apps. It is their goal to help developers write cross platform apps. And Adobe has been painfully slow to adopt enhancements to Apple's platforms.")
Apple wants to control it's own destiny (product development) and not have to rely on Adobe's timeline or agenda or "laziness" (write once and "fudge it" to work cross-platform).
One reason Apple is often ahead of the competition and creates something better and "different".
However...
is using hardware acceleration to decode the video stream it may be
lighter on cpu/battery right now."
If you wrap H264 in Flash you don't access the hardware acceleration. So
not a strawman argument at all.
Oh yes, Flash 10.1 will feature hw acceleration
artificially using the iPhone market share to
fence off competition.
HW acceleration = RESOURCE HOG
In other words it will still be a resource hog.
But wait ...
"These are very good arguments, well supported by the fact that
not one smartphone currently has Flash support."
This may be true but the reality is that Apple is trying to sell the iPad not as a smartphone replacement but as a netbook replacement. What it is is an over-sized iPod Touch.
If it cannot do everything that a notebook can do, it cannot replace a road warrior's notebook/netbook. It doesn't support voice so it doesn't even replace the iPhone.
Jobs cannot have it both ways. Either it is a tool or it is a toy. If it is a tool, it needs to do <i><b>everything</b></i> the tool it is intended to replace does. Otherwise, it is a toy - just the the iPod Touch, but bigger.
Yet more misinformation
The iPad most certainly does support voice -- Skype works on it just
fine. It of course is not intended to replace your cell phone due it its
size.
But anyone whose actually used both a NetBook and iPad can tell you
the iPad does way more than a NetBook, and Flash isn't missed one bit -
- it works fine with every major video site except Hulu and they are
hard at work on an iPad app. If you have used ABC or Netflix on the
iPad you'll know there is much to look forward to. As it stands the main
thing not having Flash on it does is act like a bonus ad blocker.
Point Is...
Apple IS antitrust...they control hardware, software, and now content. Apple is the EXACT OPPOSITE of "open".
I would think that people who rant about open standards would realize this and see that Jobs is a hypocrite that only seeks to control everything. Good business model for a company, not very good for consumers.
7% market share warrants antitrust?