Adobe v. Apple Misses an Important Point
Well, the internet is roiling with accusations, conspiracy theories, cross-complaints -- you name it -- regarding Apple's much ballyhooed smackdown on Adobe's Flash. I found this comment to be particularly telling:
"The iPad is an anti-technology device targeting consumers who are too lazy/stupid to use or want a keyboard or mouse or stylus. Why should a website focusing on tech-savvy people modify their code to play along with the silly-ass marketing scheme Apple plays making its airhead users _think_ they're some kind of pioneers?"
Let's stipulate that Apple is not too fond of Adobe. Why? Who knows. And it was particularly cold-blooded of them to let Adobe develop their Flash-to-iPhone technology, dropping this bombshell only a few days before the release of CS5. Let's stipulate, in fact, that Apple is bristling with its own power -- and is using it with shocking disregard for what other members of the tech community think.
But we techies miss an important point that Apple does not: computers are too damned hard for normal people to use. In the tradeoff between power and ease-of-use, techies will always choose power. Apple really does seem intent on making a computer "for the rest of us" -- and that means that power must/will be sacrificed to make the device(s) simple to use. And reliable. And having a decent battery life.
Does Apple's decision to cut Flash off at the knees make sense? It depends on whose interests you're thinking of. Is it good for you and me who crave all the power we can get? No. But is it good for the vast numbers of people who just want a computer that works and are frustrated by the unintended side effects of power run amok? Reluctantly, I have to say yes.
I am glad you made your statement, most people would rather bash the thing than realize it is not for them...
Flash vs battery life or flash vs usability? How Flash apps can jeopardize iPhone's usability or "easibility of use".
I see why "my mother" don't care about Apple's conflict with Adobe, but, on the other hand, most games she play are flash games.
I have no argument with the idea of the computer that works and doesn't frustrate the user.
Explain to me why Flash is so bad but letting Microsoft stream SilverLight videos to the iPad is fine?
http://bit.ly/d2sKK0
- flash is only banned to conserve the great apple business model : all good application in the internet are based on plugins (hobnox in flash, 3d games in Unity3d, 2d games in flash etc...). If flash could be played on iphone it could be the death of apps
- Apple refuse apps only in terms of business (Google voice app and Google Lattitude were refused only because its Google)
- Apple doesn't want "cross-compiling", because if an iphone app could be on internet, or even worth on Android, it will break apple business model.
- the restriction of a programming language is a great recession for all developpers.
Its like you have a car, but you can't install rims made by another brand, and you're constraint to refuelled it only at apple gaz station.
But its Apple, but think if Windows were doing this...
One day people will look at Apple with the right way : Apple is a giant company who is attempting to establish monopoly (with video and audio codec), no more the little company trying to give the "choice" opportunity.
Dangerous, dangerous precedent being set here. This is a hardware/OS platform equivalent of Internet Service Providers attempts to kill net neutrality and China censoring content to their citizens. What's next? DVD manufacturers telling us what DVD's we're are allowed to watch on their players? Car manufacturers telling us what roads we are allowed to drive on?
If I were Adobe, I'd take a stand like Google did and prevent Flash from playing on Safari browsers to make a point.
Correction. Apple won't be making money off HTML5 content displayed in Web pages. As far as I know, only the stuff that goes through iAds will generate revenue for Apple. Web developers are still free to develop their Web apps using open standards. Seriously, it's not the end of the world.
Just watch what happens when HTML5 is released. I've got twenty bucks that says Apple kills much of it's functionality from running on their devices.
I didn't say anything about Flash. I was only referring to content that's publicly available within your browser, i.e. anything displayed using JavaScript, HTML, and CSS. Apple does not make money off that. You can at least admit to that, right?
At the end of the day, we as Web developers have to make the choice. If we want RIA within the browser, what tool fits the job best? If it's Flash, then at this point we'll just have to live with the fact that it won't be viewable on iPhones and iPads. If that's okay, then go with it. If not, look at your other options. It's really that simple.
Thanks for the conspiracy theories, anyway.
And I agree with those who point out that, however good Apple may be at creating consumer products, they're still ruthless bastards who Microsoft could learn from when it comes to being draconian. Still -- what is fascinating to me is what there is to learn from as far as creating great user experiences and how badly we err when we automatically think that preference and power trumps simplicity and ease of use.