Mike Chambers

Some personal thoughts on Apple and the trend towards closed platforms

with 70 comments

70 Responses to 'Some personal thoughts on Apple and the trend towards closed platforms'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Some personal thoughts on Apple and the trend towards closed platforms'.

1. Yeah, that’s pretty accurate. Saying “if they could get away with it, they’d do this or that” is moot. Wouldn’t anyone/any company do something in their self interest “if they could get away with it”?

   To me, the core question is why do Mac devotees see Apple as some kind of “good” corporation while they see Adobe/Flash and Microsoft as “bad”? Enough with the feel-good crap. I mean, has there been even one person who’s “recycled” an old iPod? They say it’s totally possible. The idea of controlling their system IS in fact to control quality but it goes way beyond that as you explain. I don’t think it’s lame for someone to accept Apple’s control over their environments… but don’t also think it’s “open” or anywhere near the world the open source folks dream about.

   Apple is a consumer products company now. I think that changes things a bit. Consider many things they do as marketing and positioning of their image. It’s hard to compare them to Adobe/Microsoft/Google.

   Finally, a more likely slipery slope is Apple just gets out of “desktop” computers. I can’t imagine their 50% revenue increase was due to developers gearing up for app development. Perhaps they need to keep it around as part of the bigger picture, but before they lock down the desktop I’d bet they’ll just abandon it.

   

   Phillip Kerman

   28 Jan 10 at 1:30 pm
2. Nice post, Mike. For the most part, I’m in complete agreement. Unfortunately, your quote gets to the heart of the matter,

   “Now, I completely understand WHY Apple is doing this. It makes great business sense for them (at least in the short to medium term). They get to sell a lot of hardware, control the experience, prevent competition, and monetize and control all of the content deployed to their platform. It also allows them to move into new markets, and monetize third party content they were not able to monetize before (music, videos, apps, books).”

   Apple is a business and Steve Jobs is not Linus Torvalds. I think the only way around this in the future is for either a) corporate consortiums must truly embrace design (especially UX) along with openness and/or b) the creation of a Linux-like movement along the lines of open-source design (including hardware) that also focuses on UX. Of course, a unified marketing effort would also be necessary.

   Just a thought.

   

   Jason Robinson

   28 Jan 10 at 1:33 pm
3. I could not agree more. The argument that Apple excludes Flash and other technologies because of its support for open web standards is just laughable. Whoever cam up with that nonsense anyway? Even Apple had the decency to blame Flash’s performance – I guess that was more plausible?
   Reading the blogs today I saw the tide turn in a positive way. Maybe the iPad is just one locked down gadget too many?

   

   Stefan Richter

   28 Jan 10 at 1:37 pm
4. I am not a Mac user but I have always view Apple as the Rockefeller of technology. They are basically building a monopoly around mobile devices. The only company who can stop them is Google.

   

   Michael Ramirez

   28 Jan 10 at 1:41 pm
5. “Why pay $3.99 for a game on the app store when you can have the same game and experience for free in a web browser.”

   Why would a developer sell a game for $4 on the App Store, and then turn around and create a free version in the browser? Answer: They won’t. They will maximize their profit. That means minimizing cost, i.e. development effort and maintenance, while maximizing revenue. So if it is easier to develop native (which it is currently) and you can charge more for it (which you can, at least in your example) then that is the only logical choice.

   

   Michael

   28 Jan 10 at 1:41 pm
6. @michael

   –
   Why would a developer sell a game for $4 on the App Store, and then turn around and create a free version in the browser?
   –

   They would not, and no one suggested they would.

   However, they may develop a game in HTML 5, monetize it on the web via advertising or sponsorship (as is done today with Flash games). Apple does not want users to be able to access that content on their device, as it then cuts Apple out of the revenue stream.

   mike chambers

   

   mikechambers

   28 Jan 10 at 1:51 pm
7. Judging by how little attention I’ve seen given to the Mac Pro and the release of more all-in-one devices (iPod, iPhone, iPad, iMac, Mac Book, Apple TV), it would be no surprise to me to see Apple go the way of the iPhone OS on all its hardware. Its a proven, successful platform made for the masses. The majority of users, I suspect, don’t see the problems that this could cause because they’re more happy than unhappy with the experience their devices provide. As a developer it scares me. If I wasn’t a developer I probably wouldn’t care so long as I get my email, videos, books, and photos in a glossy package.

   

   Matt

   28 Jan 10 at 1:55 pm
8. I share a lot of your fears about the platform. It made me uncomfortable yesterday. Even though the SDK and the App Store were clearly a move in the right direction for the iPhone, it seems exactly the opposite on the iPad, and I wonder if at some point we, the community, should not take back what’s ours, our freedom. Maybe we can’t wait for Apple to move, maybe the solution is to demistify the jailbreaking procedure, democratize it and expand development tools around it. And maybe Apple will listen to the community then. Maybe…

   

   Sebastien Arbogast

   28 Jan 10 at 1:57 pm
9. As far as Apple dropping Macs, I dont see that anytime soon. They are making a lot of money from Mac, and that revenue is growing:

   http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/01/26/apples_earnings_impress_but_analysts_hold_breath_for_latest_creation.html

   –
   The company sold a record 3.36 million Macs, which was a 33 percent increase over a year prior and represented the company’s best-ever computer sales.
   –

   mike

   

   mikechambers

   28 Jan 10 at 1:59 pm
10. I couldn’t agree more with you Mike. Well put.
    I’m a mac/iPhone/mobileme user and I can’t resist start looking elsewhere from now on. It’s a shame.

    

    Pablo PARRADO

    28 Jan 10 at 2:13 pm
11. I agree with you. I am concerned about the future, how it’s going to look like.

    Apple is trying to control too many things by giving a lame execue “for quality reasons”.

    Their products miss simple features like external storage slots, which they don’t do intentionally so they can roll out different pricing options?

    iPhone, AppleTV, iPad – who knows it would be Macbook or similar devices in future – as you correctly said.

    I love their hardware and software, but I hate the closed and controlled platform.

    Anyway, this is a problem, perhaps some other company, I hope, would solve. HTC, or others like that?

    

    Abdul Qabiz

    28 Jan 10 at 2:18 pm
12. Well put. In a nutshell, I also agree with Doc Searles when he says ‘”There’s more reason to be afraid of heights than of widths.”
    http://bit.ly/bkDX2Q
    What’s needed is a tablet equivalent of Nexus to the iPhone. Hope Google is listening…

    

    jimb

    28 Jan 10 at 2:34 pm
13. There was another company several years back that used the ‘quality’ and ‘user experience’ reasons for wanting to control everything. Little company called Microsoft.

    There does some to be quite a bit of backlash from potential users of the iPad about the lack of Flash support. You can’t say you are offering the best web experience when you don’t allow a plug-in that is on 98% of web browsers.

    

    Paul Conn

    28 Jan 10 at 2:43 pm
14. @paul

    –
    There was another company several years back that used the ‘quality’ and ‘user experience’ reasons for wanting to control everything. Little company called Microsoft.
    –

    Yeah, I think that is an apt analogy, although in Apple’s case they are taking it a step future, by being the gatekeeper of all content on the platform. It is the threat of them extending that control to the desktop that concerns me.

    mike

    

    mikechambers

    28 Jan 10 at 2:47 pm
15. if Microsoft was doing this there would be lawsuits…just saying.

    

    Discorax

    28 Jan 10 at 2:48 pm
16. Mike, completely agree with your view point. Apple makes great hardware, BUT their software policies SUCK!

    Great CLOSED business model and they will continue to make their millions using it. It just won’t involve Flash or anything else they deem “inappropriate” or “not allowed”.

    Suck as life. There is always the Android platform thought. I would LOVE to have a big, sexy touchscreen tablet with Android OS and Flash Player 10.1 =P

    

    Lee Graham

    28 Jan 10 at 2:56 pm
17. I’ve posted this on Serge Jespers blog as well, but I thought it were relevant here too hence the cross-post:

    I see this from another angle. As the designer, manufacturer and marketer of the product, Apple can do as they please with this device. They do not have to include anything on the device that they do not want, bar the stuff that would make it un-marketable.

    At some point, Apple have decided that they do not want browser plugins on the iPhone or iPad (which doesn’t just stop at Flash), and believe that open technologies such as Javascript and HTML will suffice.

    To be honest, in the two years I’ve had my iPhone, I don’t think I’ve missed Flash (or any other plugin) once.

    

    Neil Middleton

    28 Jan 10 at 3:01 pm
18. @Neil

    –
    I see this from another angle. As the designer, manufacturer and marketer of the product, Apple can do as they please with this device. They do not have to include anything on the device that they do not want, bar the stuff that would make it un-marketable.
    –

    Thats great. What this blog post is about, is that I, as a Mac user and developer, do not want to see the Apple platform (including OS X) on the desktop, evolve into a closed system, where the only way one can install apps or consume content, is if it is explicitly allowed by Apple.

    This post isnt about Flash on the iPhone / iPad, aside from Flash just being one of many examples of Apple restricting applications and content from their platform.

    mike chambers

    

    mikechambers

    28 Jan 10 at 3:12 pm
19. I don’t want the iPad to be a closed platform, but I see Apple doing this because it is, for them, a very successful money-maker. Period.

    This is also done (in a less user-visible way) by all the video-game console makers. Not saying it justifies it, but controlling the software allowed for a platform (including censorship of content), has been around for a long time without much noise to date.

    

    keith ray

    28 Jan 10 at 3:31 pm
20. With all due respect Mike, while I agree the iPad is an elegant slice of hardware, I’m a little underwhelmed with Adobe’s response thus far. Where is upper management’s take and their yarballs? I understood the lack of a Flash player for iPhone, but not the iPad. This was a statement, and a move akin to throwing down a ‘long live HTML5 gauntlet’. If it’s Apple’s desire to leverage their dominance in software engineering Hardware (MBP/OSX) to dictate the direction of their vision of the Web, then Adobe should leverage their patents on the software running on that hardware: check ATM & fonts for legitimacy, check for bootleg CS Suites, make an Adobe App Store and make it the only way to buy and update After Effects, InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator. Do what Microsoft did in China – turned off bootleg versions. What are the odds that the Adobe software used to create Steve Job’s presentation was 100% legit? I’d guess very low. Just food for thought – thanks.

    

    Michael Kaufman

    28 Jan 10 at 3:37 pm
21. fyi

    Interesting blog post on the same topic here:
    http://rc3.org/2010/01/28/is-the-ipad-the-harbinger-of-doom-for-personal-computing/

    mike

    

    mikechambers

    28 Jan 10 at 3:49 pm
22. Yes, but we have to allow the market to correct this. But there’s hope this model won’t survive past the iPhone…. but it’s a stretch.
    Last night I was surfing from my uMBP, eyes barely open, one finger on track pad… just dead tired but I was able to navigate just fine. Just like I do with one-thumbing my iPhone. And it hit me…
    Apple lost the “lazy usability factor” with ipad yesterday. The ipad takes too much effort to do anything with. I won’t be using it unless I’m awake and ready to do some work, which lends to the argument that my usecase would go back to my MBP/iPhone model.
    The iPhone will remain closed but it won’t go past that device for my pocketbook.

    

    Faisal

    28 Jan 10 at 3:56 pm
23. I spent a good part of today blogging and replying to comments about Flash support on the iPad. I have to say I’m astounded by how the general sentiment on a lot of sites seems to have turned positive with regards to Flash Player support.

    Clearly people expected a device with a form factor and tech specs like the iPad to support SWF content and give them the browsing experience they know from their desktop.

    Not to say that there weren’t people clearly opposed, coming from the “open web” camp as they like to call it.

    http://www.peterelst.com/blog/2010/01/28/apples-idea-of-the-best-web-browsing-experience/
    http://www.peterelst.com/blog/2010/01/28/trying-out-the-ipad-browsing-experience/

    Apple is not one to easily move on its principles but would imagine they will give an official statement on this soon. Performance reasons and CPU usage will be a hard sell for not allowing it this time round.

    

    Peter Elst

    28 Jan 10 at 4:01 pm
24. We need to get Flash 10.1 out and let consumers decide.

    When every smartphone competitor (Palm, Blackberry, Android) has the real Flash, and iPhones and iPads don’t, we’ll see if customers like having Flash or not on their smartphones.

    My guess is Apple will be forced to allow Flash – but maybe I’m wrong. Let the games begin…

    When is this happening? Any dates yet?

    

    Joel Fiser

    28 Jan 10 at 4:03 pm
25. Good article and exactly my thinking. Personally, I love my MacBook Pro, MacOS X and my iPhone.

    I use a MacBook Pro with MacOS X because it works and I can tune the system to my likings. As soon as Apple would impose some sort of limitation on me, through the system, I would immediately switch to Ubuntu or alike.

    But I highly doubt that they will ever to this to MacOS X or locking down their “pro” devices. Consumer devices are a different ball game and Steve Jobs is a genius in making money out of these.

    I used a BlackBerry for over 3 years before getting an iPhone and I have not regret it. But I have to be honest and say that I Jailbreak my phone, because I can’t stand not being able to make it work the way I want it to work for me.

    Kind Regards,
    Nitai

    

    Nitai

    28 Jan 10 at 4:05 pm
26. I don’t think you can ascribe the locked down nature of iPhone os to purely fiscal motivation. If you check their Q4 results the app store wasn’t very profitable, comparatively.

    

    Theo Denovan

    28 Jan 10 at 4:32 pm
27. I think the app store is more about control than money.

    Why do I think this? Because Apple doesn’t really make any money from the app store: http://www.thedailyswarm.com/headlines/apple-posts-record-profits-while-itunes-store-break-even-best-enterprise/

    I agree with your general dismay about Apple moving to closed platforms (comparisons with their 1984 super bowl ad are particularly cutting), but at the same time it is important to recognize something:

    We are power users. The iPad (out of the box, anyway) is not targetted at power users, it is targetted at the masses who want something that “just works”. And the iPhone has proven this model works.

    As long as Apple, for all practical intents, looks the other way when “power users” jailbreak their devices, I don’t see the big fuss.

    Bottom line is, the iPad is not intended as a general purpose computer. It is an appliance, like a microwave or toaster. Apple is targeting this at people who just want to push a button and have the damn thing work.

    I don’t think general purpose computing is going to vanish as a result. Jesus, we still have Unix from the 60′s kicking around.

    

    Brian

    28 Jan 10 at 4:40 pm
28. Well, I tend to see things a little differently mainly because of my experiences with Adobe apps over the past 15 years. It wasn’t too long ago, in fact right about the time Jobs become Interim CEO and Apple was about to disappear, that Adobe did not care much about the Mac platform. Microsoft had won the OS battle; Adobe was dropping the development of Mac apps left and right or moving very slowly on transitioning to the OS X platform. Just go over some of Jobs past keynotes to hear his remarks on stage. He did not take that well. You can’t blame Adobe because it did not make Business sense.

    The problem we experience today with Flash on the iPhone, iPod, and iPad started with Macromedia which never really tackled the issue that drove us crazy when building Flash apps for Mac as a projector or even as a swf. Every time you unplugged your laptop, animations/applications came to a crawl. Music, videos, and advanced animations were the worse. Our first experience was during a client presentation in 2000. Fast forward 10 years, the same thing happens. Unplug your laptop; same terrible performance. The problem was less apparent on Windows because the player has always been faster. There was little incentive to optimize the Mac player because it did not make business sense; the Mac audience was less than 5%.

    Now, with the success of Mac-based mobile devices, Apple matters to Adobe again. It’s the 80′s all over again. But the player is still not ready for unplugged devices. So, you can’t blame Apple. It hurts me to say that because we would like nothing more than run our native Flash apps on these devices. I can only guess that Adobe is trying to optimize the player for the Mac OS, but with all the processor-intensive goodies that have been added over the years, it must be difficult to produce a feature-rich version which also runs AS2 / AS3 code. So, it seems we won’t see Flash on the iPad either.

    A “closed” platform makes sense to Apple because it helps its profitability. An open platform makes sense to developers because it helps their profitability. Everyone is fighting for what benefits them. Let’s be honest.

    So, the next time you review product announcements, put your business hat on, analyze the situation, and see how best to position yourself in a pragmatic way.

    

    Charles

    28 Jan 10 at 5:09 pm
29. People used to wash their clothes by hand in the river. Now (around here, anyway) there are automatic washing and drying machines. Do I bemoan my constraint to only the few wash and dry settings on those devices? No, because I pour in detergent and push the ON button and my clothes get clean. That’s where Apple is headed with iPad™. I believe that most people will prefer that, if Apple does it right.

    Yet, there will always be nerds who want to “go down to the river” to write their own software and/or be tinkerers or developers for the devices that everyone else uses as-is. I also think that, properly monitored and shepherded, played against each other, companies like Apple and Google and Microsoft will keep a variety of options available to us.

    

    solak vaslovic

    28 Jan 10 at 9:18 pm
30. Nail on head. Apple has become a bad internet citizen, they take and don’t give back and in fact would be quite happy to see the web just go away. Apple is engaged in an extraordinarily brazen attempt to gate-keep all media. It’s nice to see some of the thought leaders of our industry finally begin to speak out. As long as the gurus of our business continue to advocate Apple, they will provide essential cover for Apple’s “magically” insidious plan. FYI: I have bought many Apple’s over the years and spent time as a Microsoft hater. I have dumped my Macs, iPhone and MobileMe in favor of Win 7, a Droid, Zune and Google services – I really don’t feel I’m missing anything and I know that I’m substantially more free to choose the apps and media I want to use and pay for (or not).

    

    Ed

    28 Jan 10 at 9:51 pm
31. The iPad is a pop culture consumer device. A device for people who aren’t power users. For many, the iPad (with the keyboard dock) might be their only computer.

    I think many of us here – developers – have migrated from the PC to the Mac. I say let them continue their lock-down trend all the way to the desktop! It’s about time you, I, and others began a rally to focus our development efforts into Ubuntu – a final migration.

    

    ash

    28 Jan 10 at 10:09 pm
32. I think in time Apple will have to become open. Adobe was not an open company either but the market and the community forced it to consider it. So its either open or die and it should not be more then 5 years until we see that

    

    Svetoslav Sotirov

    29 Jan 10 at 1:46 am
33. Thanks Mike, couldn’t agree more.

    

    Jörg

    29 Jan 10 at 2:28 am
34. [...] Edit: Mike Chambers has a great take on another fear I have, fueled by the moves Apple does lately. January 29, 2010 [...]

    

    Open Screen Project, iPad, and buzzwords : Mihai CORLAN

    29 Jan 10 at 6:27 am
35. [...] PS: Point taken on the general critic on closed platforms. [...]

    

    Why the web used to need Flash (and might not need it anymore) - aron / philipp development blog

    29 Jan 10 at 7:14 am
36. Hey Mike, great thoughts. One important history lesson that Apple needs to learn is that this very thinking is what burnt them in the past. People, including execs at Apple, tend to forget that Apple almost ended up a failed company. This was due tot he closed nature of their systems, and lack of willingness to play with others in the industry. This new breed of devices even has piqued my interest, and I haven’t been much interested in Apple products for many years. However, the fact that they are so unwilling to be more open with the platform is scary.

    Many of the things that people hated about MS for years they now just accept with Apple. Unfortunately, people let the “cool factor” cloud their judgment and fail to see the reality: Apple owns your Internet.

    

    TJ

    29 Jan 10 at 9:17 am
37. Personally I don’t have a problem with what they did with the iPad. They really only had two options – an Atom based device running OSX, possibly with a more fancy touch UI, or what they chose. It’s been proven time and time again that desktop UIs don’t work on tablets so why would Apple choose to also make that mistake or duplicate their iPhone efforts by porting their touch UI to OSX proper?

    Moreover, would the desktop app paradigm of buying from some online store, downloading, installing and managing apps manually really make for a good tablet experience? I don’t think so.

    A big Touch is exactly what a tablet should be and for the same reasons that people don’t mind a closed ecosystem for a phone, they won’t mind it on the tablet either.

    Don’t hold your breath for this idea on the desktop or laptop though, Apple isn’t that stupid.

    

    Graham J

    29 Jan 10 at 9:36 am
38. Oh, one thing I took exception to in your article: You make it sound like Apple controls what media can be consumed on the device. This is not true – it can play back any MP3/4 content you choose to load onto it. It’s only apps they control.

    

    Graham J

    29 Jan 10 at 9:38 am
39. I couldn’t have said it better brother. I love my MAC, but am really starting to dislike Apple. Their controlling nature will be the death of them. Man, do they even make computers anymore? :)

    

    chris mcandrew

    29 Jan 10 at 12:28 pm
40. That’s great. We already had Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and Gates and now we have Jobs. Oh dear…mankind will never learn…But seriously, we already had Microsoft era of monopoly…now it’s called Apple and it’s going by the same path, it’s just have nicer look…and looking around myself, it looks like there is another religion called Applesim. I really liked Apple in the past for their innovation, but recently my sympathy started turning into disgust. Who the hell are you Steve to decide what is the best web experience on the web?! I found it at least arrogant statement and very stupid.

    

    Pavel

    29 Jan 10 at 12:54 pm
41. [...] Mike Chambers said better than I can, having some support for HTML5 in Safari doesn’t make an open platform. One of the great [...]

    

    The Locked iPuzzle | Ryan Stewart – Rich Internet Application Mountaineer

    29 Jan 10 at 2:04 pm
42. The app store is not about making money for Apple from sales of apps. The app store is about enticing developers to develop in Cocoa, so Apple can sell more devices that run those third party apps.

    The reason there is Final Cut Pro and Logic at Apple now is entirely because large shops building expensive applications that make computer users money nearly abandoned Apple entirely. And they are just slowly using whatever wedge of influence they can provide by being successful with their ‘control’ of their platform to get Game Development back to their platforms, after their best bet earlier, Bungie, was bought out from under them.

    

    bud

    29 Jan 10 at 10:57 pm
43. Are you sure that you are in the good camp ?
    Apple refuse Flash in his ecosystem cause, Flash/adobe will be able to produce same sort of ecosystem take the money for himself.
    I’m complitely stupid to take a look to the adobe/flash platform ecosystem and see potential video DRM’s distribution (iTunesStore in Flash) like Microsoft with SilverLight !????
    Who are the bad, who are the good.
    Every firm attemp to grab more money. The only looser in it is the consumer, you, me…
    I love my Macs, i hate my iPhone, cause i’m not able to test interface/interaction design on it.
    And Flash CS5 have no public beta…
    What is the fabulous marketing plan of Adobe?
    It looks like Adobe shoot in his own foot.
    (sorry for my bad english).
    Take a look to Android and slate to see an exit and exiting way to play with flash on it.

    i stop, i’m not able to write more in english…
    but i think adobe plays to a vicious game.
    And i’m afraid to the future of Flashplatform.
    regards

    

    mrbbp

    30 Jan 10 at 4:09 am
44. http://www.hardmac.com/news/2010/01/28/is-adobe-flash-becoming-inexorably-irrelevant

    another point of view

    

    mrbbp

    30 Jan 10 at 7:04 am
45. I could not agree more Mike: it’s all about control. And not for any other reason. It has nothing to do with Flash Player performance, or the open web (don’t make me laugh), or 3G bandwidth, or the App store (which cannot threaten a billion dollar revenue stream), or the price of oranges in China, or any one of a zillion other tr0ll criticisms that are completely besides the point.

    Because the fact of the matter is, the major (front-end) technologies that make up the internet today are HTML, CSS, Javascript, and Flash. Take one away, and you have a crippled, stunted information delivery platform.

    And my feeling is, that’s exactly the way Apple wants it.

    The internet is the Matrix, and Steve Jobs is Agent Smith. Plain and simple.

    http://www.joeflash.ca/blog/2010/01/why-flash-is-not-on-the-ipad.html

    

    Joeflash

    30 Jan 10 at 1:46 pm
46. -
    However, they may develop a game in HTML 5, monetize it on the web via advertising or sponsorship (as is done today with Flash games). Apple does not want users to be able to access that content on their device, as it then cuts Apple out of the revenue stream
    -
    There are *many* free apps supported by advertising or other revenue models currently available in the app store. There are also many companies that target advertising in the mobile apps space. Apple is not part of these revenue models and yet they thrive.

    I doubt your assertion Apple wants a closed system to control content. During the iPad demo a native YouTube app was shown, exposing YouTube content to the device. I would guess other streaming services will become available on the iPad in the form of native apps (just as they have on the iPhone).

    I agree that a closed system for content creators is not desired. But the iPad (and similar devices) are designed for content consumers. It is unlikely the OS X desktop will morph into this function to only serve content consumers.

    I’m amazed it took this long for a closed tablet device to be developed. For years the average computer user has struggled with file management, program installations, system configuration, disk management, viruses, malicious software installations, task manager etc. These devices are simply designed for content consumers and now I have to get one for my parents.

    

    Robert Finlayson

    30 Jan 10 at 3:13 pm
47. A lot of comments saying that the iPad isn’t aimed a tech users it’s for the mass market. So I asked my mum what she thought of the iPad – she owns a iPhone and uses a MacBook- and saw the iPad on the tv news.
    Her first comment -’its crap isn’t it’ – I asked why and she explained that to her it was ugly, the wrong size and the interface looked child like. She then went on about how ‘pride is followed by a fall’ and that the Mac people had gone to far. She was completely unaware of the lack of support for flash but when I mentioned it she commented that it would mean she wouldn’t be able to access french fashion sites! So that’s what a mass-market user thinks – sometimes it’s nice for us tech users to get a different perspective.

    

    david doull

    31 Jan 10 at 12:49 am
48. Hi Mike,

    Well put. Very thoughtful post.

    For me the oddest contradiction in the whole discussion is the “open standards” folks who are “anti-Flash” but at the same time OK with Apple creating a very closed ecosystem where only content and apps that Apple can take a cut on are allowed onto the system. The iPad seems to me to be the antithesis of the spirit of the “open web” despite support for “web standards” like HTML5. If I want to watch 30 Rock on my desktop Mac, I can go to Hulu and watch-ad supported catch up TV for free. NBC can monetize this through advertising and we are both happy. NBC can innovate on monetization models and control their destiny (and hey, that is their right), and I get (at least for now) a pretty good viewing experience. On the iPad, I only have one choice, go pay $1.99 per episode and download on iTunes. That sucks and I can’t believe folks are supporting Apple in the name of the “open web”.

    I think many developers think this is a “battle” between Flash and HTML5. Really it seems to me it is a battle between Apple and everyone else on who can control pricing and make money on content, apps and games–the tech stuff is incidental.

    BTW, I’d love for Adobe to publish some actual stats on quality and performance on Flash on the Mac. I switched all my computing to Macs about 18 months ago. I browse constantly on multiple Macs (2 iMacs, one iBook) at home, use many Flash sites (and my kids spend most of their time on sites that are 100% Flash, like WebKins and MiniClip) and I have never once crashed or noticed a slowdown. Am I missing something?–lots of passion around this in many posts I see, but is it really a current issue? I’d love to see facts on this.

    Cheers,
    David

    

    David

    31 Jan 10 at 11:07 am
49. What’s really disturbing about this trend is that is has happened before and was not challenged. The EULA model we have in place now was invented by Microsoft in the 80′s. Before then, you could make and install as many copies of software you purchased as you wanted, on as many devices as you owned, without fear of licensing restrictions or copyright infringement, as long as you did not distribute or resell those copies. Then Microsoft came along and said “thou shalt have no other copies besides a back-up.” They were able to cram it down consumer’s throats because the Congress is always a couple of generations behind on understanding current technology. Things have loosened up a little since then, although I still have to pay for separate licenses for Mac and PC for certain applications. We still have a model that freely allows businesses to restrict how users can use a product they purchased. Sometimes they do, sometimes users are lucky and they don’t. In fact, technically, no one any longer ‘owns’ software they have purchased under the EULA model: they are only licensing it. It’s unlike any other product you purchase. If you buy a car, you own it. You can do anything you want with it as long as you don’t break the law. Imagine if you paid for a car in cash but the manufacturer forced you to sign a contract saying that they still owned the vehicle, and could specify which roads you could drive on. And by the way, this isn’t like renting or leasing in which it’s understood up front that you pay a premium for pay-as-you-go access to a product as a temporary service. This was supposed to prevent software piracy. It completely and absolutely failed to do that, as the bulk of pirates are overseas and generally don’t give a damn about US copyright law. However, law-abiding users are still saddled with this model. Everyone has forgotten that it used to be any different, it’s just part of the commercial landscape now. I kind of feel like this is just part of the same trajectory. Apple continued the trend with the ironically named FairPlay DRM model, actually restricting the number of devices you could access content on, and again no one objected too strenuously. It’s even more ironic that the current battle over access to content and software may be decided by a battle between 2 private companies, Adobe and Apple, both of whom have benefited from this model. I hope Adobe wins this particular battle… and then proceeds to allow me to purchase Flash for my PC and Mac with a single license :). By the by, it looked like Steve purposefully snubbed Adobe in his keynote by intentionally loading a site with prominently featured Flash content on the home page the first time he fired up Safari, and lingering on it a second or two allowing the audience to join in a chuckle tacitly acknowledging Apple’s (Steve’s) position. What bemuses me is that I fail to see how the Flash plugin is in any way threatening to Apple’s bottom line. Free Flash apps, free-to-play Flash social games with virtual currency and native free and paid apps are all completely different, non-competitive silos. There is plenty of room for all of them, as the market has amply demonstrated. I think in the case of the iPad, lack of Flash support and the locked down environment will actually hurt sales. It’s one thing in smartphone, but I think consumers will balk at it in a more expensive device that is essentially a desktop/laptop replacement. The thin client model never caught on in the past when others attempted it; hopefully Apple’s voodoo doesn’t conjure it into being.

    

    Steve Sedlmayr

    31 Jan 10 at 12:49 pm
50. [...] Mike Chambers What really surprises me though, is how the “open web” people are embracing this, especially as it relates to Flash. I am not sure if they are just being shortsighted, or are somehow kidding themselves because the iPhone includes a browser and is thus supporting the “open web”. Apple is not supporting the “open web”. In fact, they are doing the exact opposite by creating a platform which only allows a single browser (mobile Safari). Want to use Firefox or Opera on your iPhone? Tough. What about the iPad? Nope. [...]

    

    marks.dk – A collection of quotes and notes on the iPad

    31 Jan 10 at 1:10 pm
51. Now Adobe can have two takes
    Either they also enter into hardware development else none of Adobe future products and future versions of existing products should support MAC OS- like photoshop, illustrator dont work on Mac OS:)

    Thats the way we can do revenge agaist Apple

    

    David

    1 Feb 10 at 12:31 am
52. [...] are 3 short articles that I found good reads on this same subject at Gizmodo, idsgn, and Mike Chambers. Filed under: Apple, Hardware, [...]

    

    Brain Brian » Blog Archive » Thoughts on the iPad

    1 Feb 10 at 11:49 am
53. Do I want Flash on the iPad? As an AAPL shareholder, no because I want Apple to have a stranglehold on the market. As a developer, yes because I want my applications to work everywhere. As a consumer, I don’t care because I don’t buy overpriced hardware anyway.

    What if Flash were to disappear tomorrow, and suddenly everything written in Flash just stopped working? Millions of consumers and companies and employees would be disrupted, with no immediate alternative.

    What if all Apple products were to disappear tomorrow, and suddenly everything with an Apple logo just vanished? These products could all be replaced the next day by alternative manufacturers. The inconvenience and cost would amount to not much more than the price of the hardware itself.

    I’m not really sure what that means, but maybe this will get me one step closer to resolving my internal struggle.

    

    Harry

    1 Feb 10 at 2:53 pm
54. [...] and what it all means.The announcement that the iPad won't support Flash kick started a lightning bolt of opinions. The alleged issue at hand is that the iPad doesn't support Flash. This is a bad [...]

    

    Big Spaceship | Labs Blog - Will all the Flash devs please stand up?

    3 Feb 10 at 8:57 am
55. [...] Mike Chambers What really surprises me though, is how the “open web” people are embracing this, especially as it relates to Flash. I am not sure if they are just being shortsighted, or are somehow kidding themselves because the iPhone includes a browser and is thus supporting the “open web”. Apple is not supporting the “open web”. In fact, they are doing the exact opposite by creating a platform which only allows a single browser (mobile Safari). Want to use Firefox or Opera on your iPhone? Tough. What about the iPad? Nope. [...]

    

    marks.dk – A collection of quotes and notes on the iPad

    4 Feb 10 at 3:36 am
56. I really wish Adobe would IMPROVE a few things–I feel you are in great danger of losing any kind of developer support without these changes:

    Documentation–more explicit documentation. Try a numeric sort on AdvancedDataGrid someday. The ignoreCase property on the SortField object is by default set to TRUE, which ADG takes to mean the field is text, even after you set it to numeric. Nice. So you have to set it explicitly to FALSE.

    I have Flex, Air cookbooks, the WROX book, searched tons of blogs, Adobe documentation, and even the base class. Found the answer on an old nabble post from 2007.

    This was one of those time-wasting bugs that really cost me this week, and it’s one of many.

    SAMPLES: dammit, more samples please. lots of them, deeply commented. Not everyone’s a genius–I’m definitely not.

    BETTER ABSTRACTIONS: no rows? really? I can’t simply say ADG.row…it’s simply surprising. I wonder if there’s an arrogance informing decisions about architecture, API, and levels of abstraction. Hint: make it dead easy to code.

    MVC, sure, great, I’ll do that. But make every part of every control easy to access through some explicit declaration so I don’t have to create my own object layers on top. Like, hmmm, for data access? And no, I don’t want to use someone else’s data object layer, I want you to build it and support it.

    DEBUGGER: man, this thing gets hung up way too easily, and then when it does, the errors it throws often have nothing to do with the actual problem.

    Sorry to rant. I’m new to coding, love a lot of the platform, but see you failing on developer education and evangelism. Microsoft rocks with this. Apple’s doing a decent job–tough to match MSFT with dev education and evangelism. You nail this–make it dead simple, obvious, and highly documented and samples–and you have a fighting chance.

    Otherwise a lot of us will move over to HTML5, because in a choice between getting the job done faster without losing days of our lives in the process and having better video? Shit, I’ll choose faster job, the video in HTML5 will improve soon enough.

    

    Charlie Crystle

    4 Feb 10 at 7:28 pm
57. I feel about the same about Adobe AIR when I learned that I’d have to buy an expensive certificate from a trusted authority to distribute AIR apps that didn’t present frightening warnings to my customers. Of course Adobe has established business arrangement$ with those authorities and proclaims the required certificates gives the user a better experience, but we all know “that is incredibly naive” If Adobe had the leverage that Apple has, every application AIR application would have to be sold through the Adobe marketplace with very similar costs and impediments to developers.

    

    Aardvark

    10 Feb 10 at 3:06 pm
58. “…If you can be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you can be told what to say or think…”

    Boards of Canada – One Very Important Though (album: Music Has The Right To Children)

    This is what all the Apple’s move is making me think about. That’s fascism to me… but the good news is all of this is possible only by Steve Jobs’ charisma. Once he will get retired (like Bill Gates), things will change as nobody will have enough power to impose to the rest of the world what he thinks is the best (which for a Buddhist is very ironic, so much bad karma ^^).

    

    baz

    10 Feb 10 at 9:29 pm
59. The only reason Apple restricts the use of flash is because of it’s latest acquisition of a mobile ads company (Quattro). This mean that Apple want to be the dominate advertiser for IPhone user. Most likely Apple will push this even if user don’t want it, I’m talking about 9 zeros vs IPhone OS user.

    

    Yao

    12 Feb 10 at 6:50 pm
60. [...] announcement that the iPad won’t support Flash kick started a lightning storm of opinions. The alleged issue at hand is that the iPad doesn’t support Flash. This is a bad [...]

    

    Vie+Reve going WordPress « Vie+Reve Creative Agency

    21 Feb 10 at 4:19 pm
61. [...] vehicle. Mike Chambers, Principal Product Manager for Flash platform developer relations at Adobe, expresses his concerns over closed platforms. Interactive developer Grant Skinner reflects on the advantages of [...]

    

    The Ultimate Design: Design for you | Blog

    13 Mar 10 at 8:26 pm
62. Umm…. Isn’t Flash a “closed” system??

    Last time I checked, Adobe had a “stranglehold” on Flash creation and Flash plugin technology. In other words, Adobe doesn’t seem to want to make Flash an Open Standard the way it did with PDF (Apple supports PDF natively on OS X, btw).

    It sure sounds like you want Adobe to keep a closed system while criticizing Apple’s closed system. The irony and hypocrisy is pretty shocking.

    

    BIll

    24 Mar 10 at 5:41 am
63. But Mike — Don’t you see, that is what software companies do. They build stuff other people have to buy. Furthermore, they build it in a way that keeps others from copying it, hacking it, or redistributing it. I build my tool and I don’t expect anyone to use unless they pay me. Now this becomes hugely complex and intricate with Operating Systems, Browsers, Applications and Mobile Devices. But the concept here is the same = “MINE”. Apple, Google, Adobe, Microsoft, etc etc … are trying to get theirs. Apple is playing cut throat like every other executive out there. Your company ADOBE does it. Everyone does it. Steve Jobs wants to WIN. He is not really concerned with the Open Web and all that. He – and all the other software executives — want power and money and influence. Period. AND You are a part of the machine my friend. Have your “personal opinion” but realize you are one of the people enabling the environment where this happens.

    

    Brian Russel Davis

    2 Apr 10 at 7:16 am
64. [...] de faire passer l’information. Mike Chambers, chef de produit Flash, donne son opinion sur les plateformes fermées sur elles-mêmes. Et enfin Grant Skinner, développeur multimédia, parle des avantages de [...]

    

    Flash et HTML : la guerre froide du web | VersionBoite : création site internet et référencement à Paris

    4 Apr 10 at 4:12 am
65. @Bill

    –
    Umm…. Isn’t Flash a “closed” system??
    –

    Anyone can create and deploy Flash content anywhere there is a Flash player. Furthermore, Adobe has opened the SWF spec, and revised licensing to allow others to create their own SWF players.

    So no, we dont have a “stranglehold” on Flash content creation, delivery or even the plugin.

    –
    The irony and hypocrisy is pretty shocking.
    –

    Yes, perhaps, except that your assertions were incorrect, in which case there was no irony or hypocrisy.

    mike chambers

    mesh@adobe.com

    

    mikechambers

    20 Apr 10 at 3:31 pm
66. [...] native iPhone applications (including the AS3 Reference Guide, and Timetrocity). As I wrote previously, I think that the closed system that Apple is trying to create is bad for the industry, developers [...]

    

    On Adobe, Flash CS5 and iPhone Applications at Mike Chambers

    20 Apr 10 at 3:47 pm
67. I agree with most of what you are saying Mike. However, with regard to the Mac and the Web I think you’re wrong. Apple couldn’t get away with closing down the Mac like the iPhone/iPad/iPod. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Apple apply the iPhone app distribution model to the Mac as an alternative (and promoted as a safer) way to get apps to users. But Apple would face too much of a backlash trying to lock down the Mac platform now.

    As for the web, Apple is too invested in HTML5 (aka the “open” web) to try and put that genie back in the bottle now. Banning Flash is all about one thing for Apple – control of the platform. Apple doesn’t want to be reliant on another company for any part of the software stack, and who can blame them with regard to Adobe. Adobe has had years to make Flash on the Mac work right, and they can’t get it done.

    But I share your concerns. I believe Apple is working their hardest to make the Mac a smaller and smaller piece of their pie, so they can sell more and more of these devices that are closed down and generate more recurring revenue (through the app stores) for Apple.

    

    Ted

    21 Apr 10 at 11:23 am
68. [...] vehicle. Mike Chambers, Principal Product Manager for Flash platform developer relations at Adobe, expresses his concerns over closed platforms. Interactive developer Grant Skinner reflects on the advantages of [...]

    

    Flash and Standards: The Cold War of the Web : Flashflex.com

    14 Jul 10 at 4:03 am
69. Mike, I could agree with you. Nice article thanks …….
    I want the new feature in the mac/iPhone/mobile phone. I guess the company time to time will be increase the feature for the user.

    

    Jefftoch Adam

    20 Aug 10 at 7:46 am
70. Check the email I sent to Steve Jobs yesterday in response to his “Thoughts on Flash” published on Apple.com last year:

    Thoughts on Apple 
    http://applesucks.squarespace.com/blog/thoughts-on-apple-flash-developer-responds-to-steve-jobs-tho.html

    You can also follow the flight from my Twitter:
    http://www.twitter.com/flexengineer

    

    Stephane Beladaci

    28 Apr 11 at 1:22 pm

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website