Since the introduction of the iPhone in January 2007, the platform hasn’t allowed Flash content to play in the browser — or anywhere else for that matter. Apple has always cited Flash’s performance as the problem. True, it’s performance is abysmal. Additionally, Flash is not an open standard, as it requires property software to both create and view content.
But Flash’s penetration on the desktop is virtually 100%. It’s a huge thing to ignore, and Apple has taken a lot of flack for it. Some of the flack is a bit unfair, since many other mobile handsets cannot play Flash content at this time. It’s only in beta for Android and WebOS, while Windows Phone 7 devices will lack Flash support once it hits shelves later this year.
However, until yesterday’s OS 4 announcement, Apple allowed native apps to be built using Flash, then converted to native binaries. In fact, Adobe is pushing this ability in the next version of Flash.
Gruber explains why he thinks Apple pulled the plug on such app development:
So what Apple does not want is for some other company to establish a de facto standard software platform on top of Cocoa Touch. Not Adobe’s Flash. Not .NET (through MonoTouch). If that were to happen, there’s no lock-in advantage. If, say, a mobile Flash software platform — which encompassed multiple lower-level platforms, running on iPhone, Android, Windows Phone 7, and BlackBerry — were established, that app market would not give people a reason to prefer the iPhone.
And, obviously, such a meta-platform would be out of Apple’s control. Consider a world where some other company’s cross-platform toolkit proved wildly popular. Then Apple releases major new features to iPhone OS, and that other company’s toolkit is slow to adopt them. At that point, it’s the other company that controls when third-party apps can make use of these features.
Lee Brimelow, a Flash platform evangelist, wrote:
By now you have surely heard about the new iPhone 4.0 SDK language that appears to make creating applications in any non-Apple-approved languages a violation of terms. Obviously Adobe is looking into this wording carefully so I will not comment any further until there is an official conclusion.
He then goes on to comment:
This has nothing to do whatsoever with bringing the Flash player to Apple’s devices. That is a separate discussion entirely. What they are saying is that they won’t allow applications onto their marketplace solely because of what language was originally used to create them. This is a frightening move that has no rational defense other than wanting tyrannical control over developers and more importantly, wanting to use developers as pawns in their crusade against Adobe. This does not just affect Adobe but also other technologies like Unity3D.
(I would like to note that he titled his post “Apple Slaps Developers In The Face.” I read it as “Apple Slaps Adobe In The Face.” Also, after he argues that no one at Apple can post on blogs, so we don’t know how most Apple employees really feel, he turned off comments, saying “Comments disabled as I’m not interested in hearing from the Cupertino Comment SPAM bots.”)
His post comes on the heels of Adobe’s recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission:
Additionally, to the extent new releases of operating systems or other third-party products, platforms or devices, such as the Apple iPhone or iPad, make it more difficult for our products to perform, and our customers are persuaded to use alternative technologies, our business could be harmed.
I don’t think the ban on Flash-to-iPhone apps will hurt Adobe that badly, but having Apple leading the HTML5 bandwagon sure might.
While it’s easy — and justifiable — to dismiss anything Lee Brimelow writes on the subject, this part raises an interesting concern:
Many of Adobe’s supporters have mentioned that we should discontinue the Creative Suite products on OS X as a form of retaliation. Again, this is something that Adobe would never consider in a million years. We are not looking to abuse our loyal users and make them pawns for the sake of trying to hurt another company. What is clear is that Apple most definitely would do that sort of thing as is evidenced by their recent behavior.
I don’t see Apple’s actions as abusive from a user standpoint — if anything, the company is trying to protect them from shitty, half-done apps. More so, they are protecting their platform, as Gruber pointed out.
Of course, Brimelow is all rainbows and puppies when it comes to Adobe. The ever-comical John Welch fired back on Twitter, reminding us of Adobe’s recent, similar actions:
So tell me, if Adobe’s so innocent, why’d they threaten MS in 2007 and force Microsoft to remove native PDF generation from OFfice 2007? That’s not a very ethical thing to do. What about all the lies and misdirection the Acrobat team has fed their Mac customers over the years? That’s not very ethical. Oh, one more, minor thing: when the flash team says their spec is open, that’s incorrect: your DRM forces the Adobe plugin. You may want to change how you PR the “openness” of the Flash spec. After all, you’d not want to be unethical, now would you?
The ethical bit aside, Apple is taking a risk by pissing off Adobe. The Mac is still wildly regarded as the industry-standard when it comes to the creative arts. Not having Adobe’s products in the fold would seriously hurt that position.
But Apple never takes uncalculated risks. They know a large chunk of Adobe’s profits come from Mac software sales. They know Adobe can’t afford to pull their software from the Mac over what is a relatively small thing.
I really think this whole SDK thing will blow over before we know it. That would be best for everyone.