FSF Response To Steve Jobs's Letter 572
boilednut writes "Steve Jobs's recent missive on the deficiencies of Adobe's Flash is still reverberating around the Internet. In this editorial, John Sullivan of the Free Software Foundation responds, arguing that Apple is presenting users with a false choice between Adobe's proprietary software and Apple's walled garden."
And Theora? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd be more interested in a response from Xiph on Job's email concerning Theora.
Re:And Theora? (Score:5, Informative)
I'd be more interested in a response from Xiph on Job's email concerning Theora.
They have a comment from him here [slashdot.org].
Re:And Theora? (Score:5, Insightful)
The response has been clear, and it's the same response as free software people have given everywhere: "show us your patents". Even the current US legal system is pretty clear about this. If you are aware that your patent is being infringed, you have a duty to come forward to tell the person who is doing that. If you don't; when it comes to damages it is completely obvious that you didn't do your best to minimise the damage caused to yourself and you don't deserve to be paid off.
What Apple and Microsoft are doing is either a) allowing people to continue doing "damage" by using a patent they don't have the right to when Apple or Microsoft could stop that by clearly stating which patent it is or more likely, b) spreading FUD. In case a) since MS and Apple are the only ones who know what the patents are, they should be liable for the continued "damage" from the use of patents from the point where they decided to speak about the patents without stating which ones.
Someone should take this up in a court e.g. in Germany where some parts of the legal system still seem to function.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Finally a law where "pics or it didn't happen" applies.
Let the users decide (Score:2, Insightful)
Letting the users decide is the best option, what's that? the users can't decide because of apple, of course they can, they aren't forced to buy the product. Their own stupid fault if they buy something so locked down and don't like it.
As far as stallman is concerned, it is still another choice, just one that doesn't make sense from the freedom perspective.
Re:Let the users decide (Score:5, Insightful)
What's that supposed to mean? Apple's approach conflicts with the FSF's philosophy, so they're telling people why. Users are obviously still let decide; advising people one way or the other doesn't change that.
And it's not like the FSF is meddling in other people's business, because the question of what standards are commonly supported/used is relevant to everyone who wants to use a computer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My problem is with how the FSF is implying that Jobs is a hypocrite. It seems that they're more interested in making his thoughts into something that they're not than they are about promoting free software. I like the idea of free software, but the FSF is coming across as your typical zealot, trying to twist people's words to better suit their own agenda. Maybe it's not intentional and they're simply incapable of comprehending that another person's values may be just as valid as their own, even if they conf
Re:Let the users decide (Score:5, Insightful)
My problem is with how the FSF is implying that Jobs is a hypocrite.
Jobs is clearly a hypocrite. [hyperlogos.org] (Link to opinion piece on my website, no ads)
It seems that they're more interested in making his thoughts into something that they're not than they are about promoting free software.
It seems to me like they're talking about what his thoughts mean. Jobs is trying to anticompetitively support H.264.
Either way, I'm disappointed that Ars ran with this article rather than going with something less bias.
You must be new [t]here.
Re:Let the users decide (Score:5, Insightful)
Hypocrisy is putting forth a set of philosophical arguments against Flash while performing the exact same business practices that he's decrying.
Adobe would like to control the user experience through its proprietary application framework (Flash). Apple would like to control the user experience through locked down firmware and their App store.
Look, I have two iPhones. I love the iPhone. It is mostly what it is because Apple is in control and makes good design decisions. I have friends with Android phones and they're a bit of a mess IMHO. You can definitely see where the lack of a good strong single voice in the design has kept the current implementations from matching the iPhone experience.
That said, Jobs is being a hypocrite. He's playing a marketing game to give fan boys (ahem... you?) ammo in the Adobe battle for control over the Interwebs. Fair enough. I hope he wins it since I think that Flash sucks. That doesn't mean that I don't think he's being a hypocrite, though.
Don't let your admiration of Apple or its products cloud your ability to be objective about arguments put before you.
Re:Let the users decide (Score:5, Insightful)
Steve said "We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers."
Yet, that is the same situation he imposes on all iDevelopers. That, my friend, is hypocrisy.
Re:Let the users decide (Score:4, Insightful)
Being a hypocrite and being a cunt are not mutually exclusive.
Free? Or just open? (Score:4, Insightful)
I see a major misunderstanding here between Free(as in speach), free(as in beer), and "open". Apple is promoting "Open". They are still a for-profit company selling closed devices to access an "open" system. They have no shame here, nor should they.
They make a device to access the web, one non-standard plugin doesn't make the grade for being usable on their hardware so it's not supported. Their options are: 1. Request Adobe fixes their product for mobile devices (10.1, sure we will see with Android being the guinea pig) 2. Apple makes their own workaround (good, but this hack job will probably not good enough or legal). 3. Exclude it as other, more open, standards can fill the void. Apple chose #3. Sorry Adobe, its just business.
Other companies are captalizing on this, as they should be! They are betting on farmville addicts choosing their (possibly inferior) platform over Apple's because of flash support, so they get some sales from people that wouldn't have chosen them without it.
Apple has no problem with that, they just want the people that bought their product having a better overall experience, and then buying v2.0 and v3.0, and also telling their friends. We long-time mac users know what it's like to not have everything, but the stuff we do have actually works
Re:Free? Or just open? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Free? Or just open? (Score:4, Insightful)
Your reading comprehension needs some work. Your first sentence shows that you couldn't understand the parent post's first sentence.
He said that Apple makes a closed device (iPhone) for accessing an open platform (the web). Please learn to read with both your eyes and mind open before typing your next rant.
Re:Let the users decide (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think he's perplexed. Someone who spends that much time arguing that freedom is the greater good clearly understands that other people are valuing convenience, appearance, ease of use etc. over freedom.
Re:Let the users decide (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt that these people actually realize they are handing in freedom, just like they didn't realize that stricter airport security meant that they needed to hand in freedom in airports and airplanes.
Re:Let the users decide (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And that's Stallman's problem. His ideal phone boots a GNU/HURD kernel and comes with nothing but a copy of emacs and the specifications of the hardware.
No... it would come with printer drivers too.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"I miss TeX on my iPhone."
So, donwload a picture of your guy, and save it to the iphone.
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:HB_dKdvH5jP9wM:http://farm1.static.flickr.com/93/207891426_773fe934b5.jpg [gstatic.com]
To me, it's a question of mobility. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that what many people are missing is that what Apple is offering is a proprietary implementation of open standards, vs a proprietary implementation of a closed standard. If Apple finds a problem in Safari, it can fix it. If it finds a problem with Flash, it can't. An iPhone owner who doesn't like Apple's implementations of HTML5 or IMAP can get a different smart phone. If he doesn't like Adobe's implementation of Flash, he's hosed.
Re:To me, it's a question of mobility. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's stupid. If a user doesn't like Adobe's implementation of Flash, he can choose not to Flash. At the moment the user has less choice, not more.
Re:To me, it's a question of mobility. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Except that on iPhone, iPad, etc there is no choice. Apple prohibits any product which competes with their own.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You do know that Flash video can and frequently does use H.264, right?
Re:To me, it's a question of mobility. (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple wants me to be dependent on Apple.
I would rather not be dependent on Apple. I would rather not be dependent on Adobe either. However, I would like to be able to choose for myself.
At least Microsoft allows me the freedom to be "tasteless".
This is "why I shouldn't buy an iPad". This is also why "no one else should buy an iPad".
No one should actually buy into the idea that Jobs is some sort of nice-guy-hippie. He just wants people to buy into his brand of vendorlock.
Re:To me, it's a question of mobility. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is also why "no one else should buy an iPad".
It's why you shouldn't buy an iPad, sure, but to be fair, being dependant on Apple is one of the things that makes this device appeal to me. Simple reason being, I've seen Apple products time and time again trump their competitors in terms of usability, and that's the one thing that matters to me.
I buy it knowing full well it's locked down like fort knox, but it's their control over the thing that makes it as easy to use as possible.
It's not for everyone, I know.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's why you shouldn't buy an iPad, sure, but to be fair, being dependant on Apple is one of the things that makes this device appeal to me. Simple reason being, I've seen Apple products time and time again trump their competitors in terms of usability, and that's the one thing that matters to me.
"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
Re:To me, it's a question of mobility. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's like people are complaining that their refrigerator can't keep chicken cold, it only works with beef.
Re:To me, it's a question of mobility. (Score:5, Insightful)
actually its more like only allowing you to buy groceries from the place that sold you the refrigerator!
Re:To me, it's a question of mobility. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it's like people are complaining that they're not allowed to modify their refrigerator to fly them to the moon.
I've used linux since '94, I've used bsd since 2000, and purchased a Mac because of the bsd unix underpinnings and the ease of use. I own an iPhone and iPad, I've jail broken and unjail broken the iPhone and I'll probably jail break the iPad at least once. But at this point I've seen very little user impact of the restrictions imposed by Apple. Remember people (normal people not nerds) don't care about codecs, html5, flash, or anything of this. They care about farmville, AppStore games, and having to learn as little as possible to get their work done.
Re:Jobs needs to get off his high horse! (Score:4, Informative)
Your argument might make sense if it were not for the fact that you can, in fact, watch YouTube videos in the iPhone os browser :-)
K
Re:Jobs needs to get off his high horse! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Jobs needs to get off his high horse! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
At least Microsoft allows me the freedom to be "tasteless".
But if you choose Microsoft Windows, you are also dependent on Microsoft. How is this any different? How can Microsoft be considered open, when their products are utterly proprietary?
No one should actually buy into the idea that Jobs is some sort of nice-guy-hippie. He just wants people to buy into his brand of vendorlock.
Yet, you believe that Microsoft is somehow about freedom and not vendor lock-in. A very strange belief.
Re:To me, it's a question of mobility. (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Are you?
If you own a Windows computer, you are free to write, use, sell or give away applications with zero involvement from Microsoft other than your initial purchase.
And, if you own a Mac, you are free to write, sell or give away applications with zero involvement from Apple.
If you own an iPod/iPad/iPhone, you are required to interact with Apple to do any of those things.
And if you own a Zune/Kin/Windows 7 Phone you are required to interact with Microsoft to do any of those things.
So, what's the difference that makes Microsoft more free?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your original comment specifically brought up "Microsoft Windows" as a direct comparison to the iPad (iPhone OS). My reply was, of course, to that remark, not to these new issues you are raising. However, if you want to move the goalposts to include the companies' strategies as a whole, then fine, in that case I agree with you in principle. Both companies are equally unfree. There's a crucial difference, however. In the market where it is most dominant, the desktop, Microsoft is restricted both by custom
Re:To me, it's a question of mobility. (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft is restricted both by custom and the threat of government retribution from using the kind of strongarm tactics that Apple is getting away with in the market where it is most dominant, mobile "app" sales.
This comparison is specious. Microsoft positioned itself as the default OS and software for a whole industry, to be implemented on third-party hardware. Microsoft abused this position by forcing those third-parties to only support their software, and no others. This was but one of their anti-trust abuses.
Apple, on the other hand, make their own hardware and software ecosystem. They don't manipulate third parties to do anything, or prevent them from making products on other platforms.
Your idea that Microsoft is "restricted" is absurd. Yes, they had some impotent lawsuits leveled against them, but they certainly weren't holding back on abusing their monopoly in the 1990s. And what about gaming systems? The Xbox is more dominant in gaming consoles than Apple is in mobile phones, yet you rarely hear anybody decrying the closed Xbox platform.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Windows 7 mobile - since when do you need Microsoft's involvement to release an app for that? I haven't used windows 7, but previous stuff, like windows CE, was an open platform - not FOSS, but you could do whatever you wanted with what you had.
Since, well, Windows 7 mobile. Quoting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Mobile_7 [wikipedia.org] : "Windows Phone 7 will only run applications that have first been approved by Microsoft and will only be available via the Windows Phone Marketplace."
Re: (Score:2)
Re:To me, it's a question of mobility. (Score:4, Informative)
H.264 is NOT an "open standard."
Err...
This may just be semantics, but it is an 'open standard' what it is not is 'open source'. There is a difference.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Err...
This may just be semantics, but it is an 'open standard' what it is not is 'open source'. There is a difference.
Wrong and wrong. It is "open source" as there exist an open source implementation of it, what its not is an "open standard",
You are incorrect. H.264 is an open standard. The fact that H.264 is an open standard speaks zero towards, yes, the fact that it has patents. x264 is the open source implementation of H.264, yet it also has patents associated with it.
as it requires royalties to be implemented legally
you don't understand what an open standard is... it has nothing to do with whether or not there are patents
(the open source implementation is illegal in any country that recognizes software patents).
This is also false. And a little ridiculous.
Sure, the specification itself is available to be read, but that applies to *all* standards, otherwise they couldn't be called as such. What differentiates an open standard from a closed one is the aspect of the latter of having one entity controlling who gets to implement it and who doesn't, and in h.264's case that's MPEG-LA through its patent portfolio.
Patent holders just get paid. They don't set standards. The standards are set by those that use the standard (whether they have
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
FTFY
So you can't implement it in the US without paying a fee? My heart bleeds. For me, it's an open standard and free to use. Companies should just implement H.264 for HTML5 - as its clearly the best tool for the job - and keep a separate branch for US downloads that continue to use Flash as they do now. At least that way it's only the US that gets left behind. It's not impossible, they did it wh
Why not .... (Score:2, Insightful)
... Let the market decide? If people value walled gardens over open source or vice versatile, then let users vote with their dollars ornEuros or whatever?
Re:Why not .... (Score:4, Informative)
The problem with letting the market decide on fascism is that you no longer get to choose anything else.
That is what closed standards do.
Between a Flash app and an Apple app, the Apple app is the one that is more closed.
Plus, with an Apple app it's not just the proprietary API but the whole walled garden that comes with it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Between a flash app and an apple app, both apps are closed. They run on one closed system. But at least apple's closed systems is partially open... (I heard that flash was apparently also opened a bit recently... but I haven't seen any result from that yet)
Re: (Score:2)
Do iPhone/iPad apps run on non-apple hardware?
If it's that predictable, is it really news? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If it's that predictable, is it really news? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, really. The free software guys care about something that is irrelevant to most of Apple's customers, and vice-versa. What's the point?
The point is Jobs presented a false argument for Apple's refusal to allow Flash on iPads.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it would be different if he were selling addictive poison, cooking the planet, or selling tainted food. Otherwise, this is just standard issue corporate deception.
As I see it, there are several things going on that he doesn't want to talk too much about. First and foremost, above and beyond the slowdown, is that there are no standards for Flash advertising. It's a race to the bottom, and it causes everyone w
Re:If it's that predictable, is it really news? (Score:4, Insightful)
The EFF has come in and said, "Look, people, there's 50000 varieties of edible fruits, vegetables and animals. Make yourself a slingshot a net and a spear and you can have any of them!"
I didn't see anything in Jobs' statement that indicated that there weren't other ways to skin the cat as well; he simply indicated why Flash wasn't going to be supported. Supporting Flash wouldn't have made the EFF any happier.
Re:If it's that predictable, is it really news? (Score:5, Insightful)
funny thing is, if flash has access to a api for talking to the hardware decoder, its video playback drain is probably no worse then a html5 stream. This as in either case the rest of the interface is done in software anyways.
Jobs is basically using the flash issue to pull a smoke and mirrors on the larger issue, the choice of codec for html5.
Re:If it's that predictable, is it really news? (Score:4, Informative)
"free software guys" make some of the most popular Mac downloads actually.
So clearly there is an interest there from "Apple users". Even members of the flock tend to stray when they are given the liberty.
Re:If it's that predictable, is it really news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Its news for me because Apple got an operating system for free (BSD and Mach underlie OSX) because of those free software guys.
Re:If it's that predictable, is it really news? (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt that the developers of BSD would consider themselves "free software guys" in the FSF sense.
A good criticism, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not involved in cutting video but I work with someone who is, and they tell me they like H.264 a lot better than Ogg Theora.
A writer may like PDF or FrameMaker ahead of html but if they want people to read their stuff its going to have to be published in html. Where would we be if you had to use a restricted format to read normal web pages?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That has always been the crux of issue of why the FSF has not been more prominent then it is. It is long on making ideals short on making software that someone who is not a computer enthusiast would be enthusiastic about using.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If the trade-off you are making for yourself is acceptable to you, then be happy with your choice. From your post, it seems that you understand the benefits of software freedom. You realize that you are giving up those freedoms, but you are willing to do so because it seems that the software you use has features that you haven't seen in Free* software. As a personal choice, I, for one, won't criticize you. However, I will caution you that your support of a company that isn't necessarily working in your
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But proprietary vendors don't want the competition. Steve Jobs mentioned the MPEG-LA consortium is looking through their patents to see if they can shutdown Ogg Theora before it takes root.
Ogg Theora has been out there since 2001. If it hasn't taken root by now, it ain't gonna.
No closed OSes ever?? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No closed OSes ever?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I don't want root access to my phone. I'm happy to give up full freedom on my phone in exchange for it NEVER failing to do what I need it to do.
That's a false choice.
This is ripe for a car analogy actually. You can pop the hood, swap in OEM parts, and tinker to your hearts content, and accept the consequences. Or you can leave it alone, and have it serviced exclusively by factory trained technicians in factory authorized dealers.
The point is, most people leave their engines unmodified (and receive the security of the factory stock maintained engine), but EVERYONE has the freedom to pop the hood.
Why exactly do you think you need to give up that freedom?
Re:No closed OSes ever?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And some subset of users of Apple iProducts 'jailbreak" them. Sounds like they have freedom, too.
Jailbreaking your phone is like buying a car with a locked hood, and a contract not to open it. The fact that you can still take a crowbar to it when you get home and likely not get sued for it is not: 'sounds like they have freedom'.
Freedom is having the right or privilege to do something. Being able to get away with doing something is not freedom, and relying on being able to get away with something as a subst
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is ripe for a car analogy actually.
No, it isn't.
You can pop the hood, swap in OEM parts, and tinker to your hearts content, and accept the consequences.
It's illegal to make emissions modifications in some states, without approved parts... i.e. they paid taxes, mostly in the form of application fees. These fees must be paid every year to get a new C.A.R.B. E.O. number, even if the parts have not changed, nor has the engine upon which they are installed. I have an ATS 088 Turbo kit. It is an upgrade for the ATS 085. ATS 085 was made in 1985 and has new E.O. numbers for '86 and '87, for which filing fees were paid, though neither the engine they
Typical con (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a choice (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple is presenting users with a false choice between Adobe's proprietary software and Apple's walled garden.
It is a real choice, but there are obviously more options to chose from than the enumerated two.
It's the name of a logical fallacy. (Score:3, Informative)
> It is a real choice, but there are obviously more options to chose from than the enumerated two.
It's called " false choice [wikipedia.org]" because the limit on the number of choices is artificial. The fact that you actually can choose one of the options is irrelevant. The important part is that you have more than just the choices presented to you and someone is using false rhetoric to distract you from that fact.
So no, it really is a false choice, even though you really can choose one of the options presented to you
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's called "false choice" because the limit on the number of choices is artificial
Yeah, but in this case, it's the same "false choice" as asking someone whether they are traveling by car or taking public transit to a destination 25 miles away.
It's technically true that someone could bike or run, and some people might even advocate that biking is the "right" approach, but it's thoroughly impractical expectation that cars and public transit should shut down, and everyone should just bike.
I don't see anything in Jobs' letter that would preclude the use of free and unpatented standards in ad
Article doesn't make sense (Score:4, Insightful)
For example:
A free Web needs free software. You cannot have a free Web if your access to the software you use to engage the Web is limited to an arbitrary number of computers, or if you are not allowed to conduct business on the Web using the software, or if you are forbidden from asking someone to develop additional features you need.
The web is a separate entity to the client software that accesses it. If somebody accesses the "free web" with a proprietary client, that doesn't make the web any less free or open. The "free web" is dependent on open standards, not the open source nature of browsers. As long as open source browsers exist, I don't see what the FSF's problem is, users still have a choice.
Re:Article doesn't make sense (Score:4, Informative)
And Mozilla users don't get the option of H.264 on their platform. So, why no outrage at Mozila and Firefox?
I think that should be obvious - Mozilla has literally no way of offering H.264 without illegally implementing patented code.
And yet Firefox supports the proprietary Flash plugins. Outside of certain sites, the web isn't particularly "free."
Not support so much as allow; something that Apple refuses to do on the iPad and iPhone...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think that should be obvious - Mozilla has literally no way of offering H.264 without illegally implementing patented code.
Why would they have to implement H.264 itself, rather than allow the user to add it via a plug-in, just as with Flash?
Besides, your statement is not true - what's to stop Mozilla licensing H.264 just like everybody else does?
Not support so much as allow;
Yet this is what Mozilla is saying - they won't allow H.264 support via the HTML5 video tag. So, if you're upset about Apple not allowing Flash on the iPhone, it would be hypocritical to also not be upset at Mozilla for not allowing H.264 in Firefox.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Incorrect. The users have the option of changing the code themselves and buying whatever personal licence they need to use the H.264. Thats the point!
That's a pretty pathetic point. Mozilla says that they don't want you to use H.264, so the solution is to code it yourself, and buy a license? Not exactly user-friendly.
Search and Replace per Mr Jalopy (Score:5, Interesting)
Everybody has Jobs all wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Steve Job's isn't a tech visionary, he's a *salesman*! That's all you need to know.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This was the bit of pure luck which got Apple off the ground. If Jobs and Woz had been even five years older Jobs would have laid all these NDAs and contracts and such onto Woz and he would have bailed out of the partnership in disgust.
And Apple wouldn't have happened. It needed the tech guy and the marketing guy to be young and immature enough not to hate each other.
Re:Everybody has Jobs all wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Steve Job's isn't a tech visionary, he's a *salesman*! That's all you need to know.
A salesman that has an uncanny sense of knowing where the market is going, the flexibility to quickly adapt and be there right on time, and a company behind him that churns out products that continue to be top notch in satisfaction year after year.
apple should drop that $99y just to come free apps (Score:2)
apple should drop that $99y just to come free apps other phone systems do not have this level of lock in.
apple needs to drop the App Store censorship too!! (Score:2, Informative)
apple needs to drop the App Store censorship too!!
That is likely why no flash.
Steve jobs is a liar (Score:3, Insightful)
Steve Jobs has one reason and one reason only for disallowing Flash on his platforms: If flash could be run in the browser, the entire app market would fall apart--the same useless apps would be available for free on the internet. Apple wouldn't make any more from the app store. Anything else Stevo says about Flash is complete BS and misdirection. /story
Defending a closed Web? (Score:3, Interesting)
There is no choice when it comes to open standards. It's a Web developer's responsibility to build HTML5, it's a platform vendor's responsibility to include HTML5, it's a browser maker's responsibility to render HTML5, it's a tool-maker's responsibility to make their tools compliant with HTML5. The spec is not optional. Your website also has to use UTF-8 and TCP/IP and ISO MPEG-4.
Consumers use the Web now. Regular people with phones, not tech people with PC's. You can't ask them to patch their system, use an alternate browser, install a plug-in, update a plug-in, or do any kind of I-T work at all. The model is CD/DVD players. A CD put into a CD player has to work. You have to make your CD to Red Book spec, and CD Players have to be to Red Book spec. End of story.
Flash developers do not use the Flash tool to make Flash ... that is an Adobe conceit. They use Flash to make Web apps. In the HTML4 era (1999 through 2007), a Web app was HTML4 plus an embedded plug-in for Mac/PC. The entire Web was Mac/PC, and most users were techies. In the HTML5 era (2007 forward), a Web app is HTML5 on any unknown platform. The users are everybody. That is the reality. There are dozens of HTML5 platforms and only Mac/PC has a Flash plug-in. Adobe's FlashPlayer team is less than 8 people. How are that going to support dozens of platforms? How will the 3-4 updates per year be distributed to what will soon be 10 billion devices? Stop holding your breath.
What has to happen is Adobe has to upgrade their nonstandard, proprietary, closed Web app tool to export HTML5 Web apps. They have to respect the Web app spec just as music tool makers had to respect Red Book. End of story.
It's unbelievable to see FSF support a tool where developers write JavaScript, HTML, CSS, and include ISO MPEG-4 and wrap it up in a closed binary that only proprietary software from one vendor can render. Not to mention, Flash is 14 years old and has had 3 different owners. What if Microsoft buys Adobe (with cash) and screws it up even further, or Apple buys Adobe (with cash) and shuts it down? The Web cannot depend on a single $599 Mac/Windows tool to create and publish audio video. In 5 years, the Web will look like TV. Adobe cannot be the only one who makes VCR's. There is not even a Flash authoring tool for Linux!
Standards are not an issue of choice. See HD-DVD and Blu-Ray DVD which together killed the fucking DVD! No, we are not going to have both standard and nonstandard Web apps. There is only one Web, and it's open, and you can build and publish whatever you want, with any tools, on any platform, as long as you respect the HTML5 spec. Users can use any device, from any manufacturer, to view the Web, as long as that device respects the HTML5 spec. The lack of choice with regards to the spec enables unlimited choice in everything else. See the billion CD/DVD players and exponentially more media and the world enriched by music and movies. Now, we are doing that for the Web with HTML5.
I can't wait to buy the FSF gnuPad (Score:5, Interesting)
When will it be out?
Re: (Score:2)
If Mr. Sullivan needs [the fact that Jobs doesn't talk about the general problem with proprietary technology] explained to him then maybe he should hold his comments until he understands it. Does he actually expect *every* article, blog post or story to rehash this basic concept?
I think it's reasonable to expect an editorial that complains that Flash is "not open" as its first big bold bullet point would somehow address the reason why Jobs thinks we should care. I know why I care, but it's not at all clear why Jobs thinks I should care.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He doesnt care that you should care, or not.
Flash apps circumvent the app store, you can make a website app through flash for free (such as a game) and Jobs doesn't get to enforce his Apple Tax.
Re:Meh (Score:5, Insightful)
If you had read the next paragraph as well, you would probably have held your idiotic comment as well:
Jobs doesn't say why open standards are good, because then it would be obvious that that the "freedom" Jobs offers just isn't.
Re:Meh (Score:4, Insightful)
Except Jobs isn't offering "freedom". He never really argued that in the essay.
Job's argument was that with open web standards, if he/Apple/or_it's_customers are unhappy with the browsing experience, Apple can throw money at it and make a better browser. But if they hate flash on the iPhone, there is NOTHING apple can do to improve it. In essence, Apple has been selling a seamless user experience. It has never been selling freedom and often times you trade in some freedom for convenience. That is Apple's market and his argument.
I own one of the last generation of PPC notebooks Apple made. It's true, it has a slow 1.67GHz G4 processor. But at it's speed it should offer somewhat decent flash, but nearly all video's are choppy for it. I never got a satisfactory answer. Apple points to Adobe saying they code a crappy implementation. Adobe points to Apple talking about not having accent to libraries they need. All I know is flash is ultra slow.
Frankly, while I think Apple is crummy on things sometimes, I know the Internet is also one giant waambulance too. If Apple wanted a super closed off garden, it's not going to get that with HTML5 anyway. I also think flash sucks, so I'd rather have it die as well.
Re:Meh (Score:5, Insightful)
Jobs doesn't say why open standards are good, because then it would be obvious that that the "freedom" Jobs offers just isn't.
I think I speak for everyone at Slashdot when I say open standards *are* good, for reasons that don't need to be explained.
Apple is not being hypocritical here, Apple's platforms do support all of the open standards of the web. Apple doesn't even offer a proprietary standard for the web, other than quicktime, which they are openly and aggressively working to replace with plugin-less HTML5 video.
If your concern is that they are pushing H.264, then you'd better not run into Adobe's arms, because flash supports it too. I would argue that the video codec discussion is only tangentially related (especially since adobe and apple support the same codec here), and that what's being proposed for HTML5 is the big step forward that we need right now (plus we're limited by mobile, power-efficient hardware decoding -- it sounds to me like we'll have two standards, Google's VP8 for patent freedom, and MPEG LA's H.264 for low power, mobile functionality -- a big improvement overall for the web).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ladies and Gentlemen! Friends and Colleagues! Acquaintances and Strangers alike! You’ve all been duped! Hoodwinked! Bamboozled! What this here computery programy thingy you’ve all been using is closed! Closed! Now let me ask you this! If there’s a door, and you’d like to go through it, is it better if it is open or if it is closed? Why open of course! And how about this fine young lass right next to you sir, imagine it’s Friday night and she’s at your place and you’
Re: (Score:2)
I know quite a few Aunt Millies using Ubuntu who'd disagree with you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
ubuntu is the closest thing (rich dictator at top making decisions) to OS X that linux has. But he's not talking about ubuntu, he's talking about the FSF. How many Aunt Millies use HURD?
Ubuntu is loaded with software owned by the FSF. The entire GNU userland for example.
Re: (Score:2)
n general term it's still a PITA to use.
I know quite a few Aunt Millies using Ubuntu who'd disagree with you.
I bet those Aunt Millies didn't install it themselves.
Maybe they did, but if not so what?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel! :)
Re:Just hijacking thé dedate (Score:5, Insightful)
The FSF isn't hijacking it. It is correctly framing the discussion. HTML5 isn't going to do anything to replace the bulk of Flash web content out there. Most of that is already replaced with "apps".
That's the single most annoying thing about the iPhone/iPad. It takes a common protocol and a common interface that works the same across multiple diverse operating systems and takes us back to the 80s and 90s where every little thing like Google Maps would be a seperate single-platform-only probably windos-only proprietary application.
HTML5 is infact just a red herring.
HTML5 isn't going to replace Flash. Proprietary Apple apps are. Proprietary Apple apps already do.
I can choose between a platform that's more closed than a Nintendo and proprietary apps to match, or another proprietary standard that at least lets me pick the OS of my choice.
Jobs is all about the vendorlock. His populist rantings are just a smokescreen.
Re: (Score:2)
In the end the user wants to play his Facebook games and Apple says 'you can't on My iPhone or iPad' and they say 'okay' and play on their computer instead.
Do they ditch the iPhone or iPad? Nope..... They go buy another one!
When the general public actually decides to grow a pair things will change.
I wouldn't necessarily put it that way.
I paid $199 for my iPhone and I can't play Facebook games? Well, I guess that's just the way it is. At least until my best buddy starts doing it with his Android/WebOS/Symbian phone. When I see someone in my peer group doing that, that's when I'll say, "Wow! I know what my next phone is going to be!"
Kind of like the Mac and Windows--you'll see one person switch and show off what they can do. That'll inspire someone else. That'll inspire a few more people. And so
Re:People don't WANT free... (Score:5, Funny)
I paid $199 for my iPhone and I can't play Facebook games?
That's not a bug, it's a feature.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In the end the user wants to play his Facebook games and Apple says 'you can't on My iPhone or iPad' and they say 'okay' and play on their computer instead.
Do they ditch the iPhone or iPad? Nope..... They go buy another one!
When the general public actually decides to grow a pair things will change.
I wouldn't necessarily put it that way.
I paid $199 for my iPhone and I can't play Facebook games? Well, I guess that's just the way it is. At least until my best buddy starts doing it with his Android/WebOS/Symbian phone. When I see someone in my peer group doing that, that's when I'll say, "Wow! I know what my next phone is going to be!"
Kind of like the Mac and Windows--you'll see one person switch and show off what they can do. That'll inspire someone else. That'll inspire a few more people. And so on and so on.
There are several assumptions in that statement.
1) Adobe will actually deliver desktop flash on Android. This is still a huge question all the demos I've seen are flash video. Haven't seen a lot of demos of farmville.
2) Android manufactures will actually deliver the updates needs to use flash. Most of the currently shipping Android phones won't take the 2.2 update, of the ones that will OS updates are released by the hand manufacturer or the carrier which take weeks or month to get their customizations m
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Part of 'moving on' is making the rest of the world around you aware of the shortcomings of Apple's strategy.
I mean, there are millions of less tech people out there who rely on us tech types to advise them and help them make the right choices. We have the right to, and are actually responsible to communicate and discuss and raise our objections to what we see as a bad deal.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Are there shortcomings? Why does everyone but me and Steve and like 3 other people seem to live in an alternate universe where Flash runs on all these mobile devices and the dang iPhone is just lagging behind?
Adobe MIGHT have flash working on Android by the Q4 2010, don't hold your breath. When would that update reach users?