Steve Jobs Blogs On Why He Hates Flash, But Can't Get His Facts Straight

Added 4/30: Since I published this, I have gotten more than one email sent to me threatening me with bodily harm for writing this post. In fact, quite a few. So if you are reading my post, or any other post on this topic and then feel the need to want to hurt someone, I would suggest you stay calm, relax and then go about the rest of your day. This topic is not worth anyone getting that upset over it.

----

Clearly Apple must be feeling some pressure from the large group of consumers who are tired of not being able to get Flash content, specifically video, on Apple's iPad and iPhones because Steve Jobs just posted an article on Apple's website entitled "Thoughts On Flash".

Steve starts off by saying that, "Adobe has characterized our decision as being primarily business driven", which is correct, but of course Steve says that, "in reality it is based on technology issues". While Steve spends some time to talk about what an "open" environment really means, and rants about how Flash is not open, he also then says that "the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary". So on one hand he calls Flash out for not being open, then rightly states that neither is Apple when it comes to their OS, but also then says that in fact, Apple is the one that has an open system, not Adobe. Make up your mind Steve, do you think Apple is open or closed? The reality is both companies have proprietary systems.

Of all the things that Steve says in his article, he's flat out wrong when it comes to his description of the "full web" experience and he should be ashamed to try to think he can fool us. Steve says that, "Adobe has repeatedly said that Apple mobile devices cannot access “the full web” because 75% of video on the web is in Flash. What they don’t say is that almost all this video is also available in a more modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones, iPods and iPads." Steve also says that, "iPhone, iPod and iPad users aren’t missing much video."

This comment by Steve is simply a lie, which is not my opinion, but a fact. Anyone who uses an iPad can't get video from the websites of NFL.com, MLB.com, Petfinder.org, Amazon.com and many other really popular websites. So to say that users aren't missing much video and that almost all of this video is also available in H.264, is wrong and you can't argue with it. I guess Steve does not feel that the NFL and MLB sports leagues command that big of an audience. Use an iPad, go to those sites and see all the video you can't get. Does Steve think we don't notice that? Of course, he also goes on to list all of the websites that have video that works on the iPad, but as I pointed out weeks ago, many of those sites only have a limited amount of their video that works. Is that his idea of a "full web" experience, seeing only a portion of the content on a website?

Steve ends his post by saying that, "Flash was created during the PC era – for PCs and mice." Well I hate to tell you this Steve, but it's still the PC era. For all the growth of the mobile space in the U.S., how much of that content consumed on a mobile device is video? Very little. No one is getting rid of their PCs because they have a mobile device, the PC is not going anywhere and the volume of content that is delivered to PCs will always surpass what will be delivered to mobile. Apple's iPhone and iPad's are not going to replace the PC experience, ever.

If Apple does not want to support Flash, that's their right. But for Steve to think we're all dumb and that he can tell us something works, when we clearly see it doesn't, that's simply an insult to consumers. And for him to say that this is not about business, but rather a technology issue, his actions prove otherwise.

Apple knows that a lot of the ads on the web are delivered in Flash. So Apple clearly wants to divert some of those dollars over to Apple by having a platform that forces you to take webpages and convert them into micro apps making it impossible for the content creator to load any kind of ads. Then you launch your own proprietary mobile ad platform iAds and you make money by taking a small percentage of every ad impression on your closed platform. Steve needs to stop trying to make this into a "technology" issue when this is all about money. If you came out and said you're not supporting Flash because you can make more money without it, fine by me, I won't argue with that. But to try and disguise it as something else, that only makes Apple look bad, not Adobe.

Comments

[john busteed]

Actually what Steve Jobs said was that the Mac OS was proprietary but that Safari was open built on Webkit was open-source. I think you are misinterpreting the facts here. Also, I am watching MLB.com video on the iPad so I am not sure what you are saying there. Maybe I am misinterpreting what assertion you are trying to make.

[Mostly Correct]

Steve's comments are largely correct. H.264 video that is played back in the Flash Runtime can also be played back externally on devices such as the iPhone/iPad.

[Dan Rayburn]

I said, "Anyone who uses an iPad can't get video from the websites of NFL.com, MLB.com..." go to the MLB.com website on your iPad. Can you get video? No. You have to go and pay to download an app. I have no option but to pay to get it. I should be able to get highlights in the browser, or have the option to pay to get a better experience via the app. Point us, Apple keeps the user from having any choice.

[Kelly Denison]

Check your facts before you call somebody a liar on the webs, dude.
If you have the MLB app for ipad you can watch video.
Petfinder.com's Mobile Application does not play videos but works just like the website.
I guarantee you both Amazon and NFL will come out with apps for the ipad in the near future. It's easy money for them.
If you own a mac, then you know how bad Adobe has been over the years, forcing updates, breaking functionality and don't even get me started on Adobe reader.
You want open source?, get a chumby.

[ron]

"Clearly Apple must be feeling some pressure from the large group of consumers who are tired of not being able to get Flash content -- specifically, video -- on Apple's iPad and iPhones, because Steve Jobs just posted an article on Apple's website entitled 'Thoughts On Flash,'" Dan Rayburn, executive vice president at StreamingMedia.com and principal analyst at Frost & Sullivan, blogs for StreamingMedia.com.

MacDailyNews Take: Clearly? In whose loaded opinion it is clear, Dan? Here's something about which Dan probably hasn't heard: It's called a "fact." Only 9.3% of iPhone and iPod touch users have attempted to download Adobe Flash (2/11/2010). "Clearly," Dan's slanted setup's just been blown up.

Rayburn continues, "Steve starts off by saying that, 'Adobe has characterized our decision as being primarily business driven,' which is correct, but of course Steve says that, 'in reality it is based on technology issues.' While Steve spends some time to talk about what an 'open' environment really means, and rants about how Flash is not open, he also then says that 'the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary.' So on one hand he calls Flash out for not being open, then rightly states that neither is Apple when it comes to their OS, but also then says that in fact, Apple is the one that has an open system, not Adobe. Make up your mind Steve, do you think Apple is open or closed?"

MacDailyNews Take: "Clearly," the liar here is Dan Rayburn, not Steve Jobs - unless Dan has major reading comprehension issues, which, after reading that paragraph, is quite possibly the case.

[Dan Rayburn]

@Kelly, you need to read what I wrote, not what you "think" I wrote.

I can play Petfinder videos on the web, but you say they don't work with the mobile app. Yet then you say it works "just like their website". How does the mobile app work "just like their website" if the videos don't work. You make no sense.

[Jerry H]

You're definitely misrepresenting the facts. Safari uses the Webkit standard, and although it was originally developed by Apple, it is open source and used by a number of different browsers, including Apple's number 1 rival: Google. Anyone can write code for Webkit and have it render correctly on any browser that supports MODERN standards. It's not Apple's fault that third party companies are reliant on an antiquated and substandard closed "standard." Also, if you haven't noticed - the Personal Computing paradigm is shifting towards a primarily touch interface. As Steve eluded, Adobe hasn't taken this into account and is still peddling the same garbage they've been selling for the past decade.

Finally - Let's see some evidence that Flash can actually even run on a mobile device before you go berating Apple. It's 2 years behind schedule! I guess you're suggesting Apple should have left the iPhone OS in the oven until Adobe gets their act together.

[Kelly Denison]

In preparation of receiving my ipad, I've been running "Clicktoflash" on my desktop. It grey boxes any flash script on a page and you can click it if you want to open it, just to see how much I would miss flash-
It made my websurfing so much better and faster because there aren't any annoying pop-ups, float-overs, congratulations for winning an ipod, or bouncing ads.
I won't miss flash one bit.

[Mostly Correct]

Dan, not quite sure if the facts all align here. "Flash" is not a "format" per se, but rather there is the Flash Runtime and then the codec/wrapper combinations supported in the Flash Runtime. Most recent content has been encoded in either h.264/aac or On2VP6/MP3 from a video/audio codec perspective, and has been wrapped in either an FLV or MP4 container.

All of that technical jargon aside, if content owners have encoded content in h.264/aac in an MP4 container (for PLAYBACK in the Flash runtime), then there is NO COST to playing this content back on the iPad using progressive download HTTP as the delivery mechanism (and a native app or HTML5 as the presentation layer).

If content owners had encoded content as h.264/acc but had put it in an FLV wrapper instead of MP4, then they would simply need to re-mux/re-wrap the content (MUCH faster than re-encode and no video quality changes).

If the content owners have encoded content using proprietary codecs and wrappers that only the Flash runtime can play back like On2VP6 (codec) and FLV (wrapper), then yes, there would be a conversion cost. But this would be expected, as the content provider had chosen to use a format that is only recognized/supported in Flash (same as choosing any other proprietary format).

For content owners looking to use Apple's Adaptive HTTP spec, if they had already created the necessary different bitrate versions in h.264/aac in MP4 format, then they could use Apple's "free" (to iDevice developers @$99) segmenting tool.

[Charles Silverman]

Steve does an excellent job characterizing Flash's performance and shortcomings on the Mac. It's worth adding that Flash can be problematic for blind users who rely on screen readers.

[necniv]

My name is Dan and I don't like what Mr. Jobs said. "Waaaah."

He's a liar and he made me cry. Isn't he a jerk?

Oh, I didn't know that MLB has a bitchin' daily video podcast that has highlights and they have a paid app for iphone as well. I don't think NFL will do that next season though. That would be dumb to reach out to the 100 million (and growing) peeps in the iUniverse.

Okay, so maybe I'm the one who's being a little disingenuous.

Although I know for a fact that when Flash 10.1 for mobile does ship later this year, right, it's this year?, it will be awesome. Trust me.

[enrico kern]

the truth is that an ipod or iphone doesnt even play all h264 videos. iphone as example only supports baseline profile.

[Kelly Denison]

@Dan -Actually I do make sense- the app works just like the website but you can't play videos.
What don't you understand? Not being able to use flash makes the ipad BETTER.

[Dan Rayburn]

@Kelly: It works just like the website, but you CAN'T play videos?!? So how then is that "like the website"? It's not. If as a consumer you don't want to get a lot of videos on your iPad, and you think that makes it the iPad better, then you're probably not the average web consumer.

[Kelly Denison]

@Dan Me and 500,000 people who have purchased one in the first 3 weeks of release.

[Stephen]

I do not know if flame-bait is why your wrote this or a bias against Apple. Facts were quite straight from where I sit. It is quite simple really. If you are a website owner (I am, own several) you want to reach as many visitors as possible. So following web standards is the best way to do that. Trying to force visitors to use a proprietary plugin is stupid and no longer needed. It is also a task not worth pursuing. This would be like HomeDepot forcing their customers to ONLY pay with a certain credit card and no other payment method!

As always the marketplace will decide and so far it is deciding in huge numbers that Flash does not matter when it comes to the iPhone, iPad and iPod touch as they outsell all their competition.

Whats more is most of the major websites have already converted their video and/or created an app for Apple devices.

The real point made in Steve Jobs essay is
"We have routinely asked Adobe to show us Flash performing well on a mobile device, any mobile device, for a few years now. We have never seen it. Adobe publicly said that Flash would ship on a smartphone in early 2009, then the second half of 2009, then the first half of 2010, and now they say the second half of 2010. We think it will eventually ship, but we’re glad we didn’t hold our breath. Who knows how it will perform?"

So Adobe Steve Jobs is telling you PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

With all the money Adobe spent buying Macromedia they simply have not done much to improve Flash and it is quite clear going forward the web has moved on with better and more open solutions.

[Jerry H]

I'm interested to know why you're only replying to comments of people who make poor choice of their words, but have yet to reply to a credible and relevant rebuttal. Looks like you're just here posting this junk to get page views. Hello $$$, Goodbye credibility.

[david]

"And for him to say that this is not about business, but rather a technology issue, his actions prove otherwise."

Please tell me where Flash currently works, in a desktop state, on any mobile platform? I'll help you and say none is the right answer. He said for Adobe to show them a working version of Flash and they haven't so far, yet you blame him citing only your opinion. If you're going to make that charge you should at least have some proof that there is not a technological problem with Flash on mobile platforms.

Engadget's Review of the JooJoo and Flash and I suggest you watch the video:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/05/fusion-garage-joojoo-review/

From Engadget:
"First, it causes the entire tablet to get quite warm (especially when playing Flash video) and then it murders its battery life. The JooJoo's integrated three-cell battery repeatedly lasted 2.5 hours (just as we predicted!) during our moderate use, which included surfing the Web and playing short videos. JooJoo claims you can get 5 hours if you avoid Flash entirely, but that sort of defeats the purpose, right?"
-----------

"The reality is both companies have proprietary systems."

That is a half-truth because you conveniently neglected the other truth: That Apple's proprietary offering is it's platform and Adobe's proprietary offering affects all content across the web. It is not as simplistic as you make it out to be and it seems like you're making this point to win an argument.

Oh you're right that a lot of content is still in Flash but Jobs' intent is to end that. Many sites are moving away from Flash and it will increasingly happen once IE9 is released supporting HTML5.

Through all of this you neglected to say if Flash is what's best for the web and this is where the problem lies. You can flame Jobs all you want but at the end of the day he is right; the web is better off without it and it's best to move on. It was only Jobs who had the guts in the industry to directly confront the issue.

[AtlantaX]

You're clearly a hit-whore ass clown. I'm pissed that I even clicked on this page and gave you a hit to count when hocking ads on your site. You clearly have a personal beef with Apple and Jobs so you've bent the facts to support your rather lame article - and you didn't even do a very good job. OK - i've wasted enough time on your nonsense. Thanks for reminding me once again the difference between a journalist and a blogger. Hack.

[Thaylin]

To all the people speaking about how wonderful the iPad is because you can view any of your favorite websites just fine if you pay for their app, think about that. If EVERY website created an app just because it wanted to work good in the iPad would you pay money for every website you wanted to visit? The whole premise of the internet is worldwide knowledge a the tip of your finger, FREE.

Why would I want a device that forces me to buy an app to watch something that I can just view on my computer for free? Maybe there's an app you can buy to figure out how ridiculous this premise is?

[HCE]

I think Steve Jobs specifically said that **web standards** should be open. It think a good case can be made why it matters if something like web standards are open and it doesn't matter if operating systems are proprietary.

I am a user of both Mac as well as Linux systems Frankly, it does not matter much to me that OS X is proprietary and that Linux is open source. Even though I am a techie, I have never felt the need to tinker with the internals of either OS. All that matters to me is how well the operating systems work and I don't think I am disadvantaged in any way by OS X being proprietary. It is in Apple's interest to make the system work as well as possible - otherwise they know that they will lose customers.

When it comes to web standards open is better for a very obvious reason. Take something like HTML5. It is an open specification. There is no one canonical implementation of the standard. Each vendor implements it independently in his own products and it is in that vendor's interest to make his implementation as good as possible. If HTML5 on the Mac sucks, then Apple have no one to blame for it but themselves.

Contrast that with Flash. The only company that can implement a Flash player is Adobe. It is not in their interest to optimize their player on every platform. From a purely business point of view, it makes sense for them to focus on their big selling platforms and devote scant resources to the others. And this is precisely what has happened. Flash player runs well on Windows but on the Mac (and Linux) it has been pretty poor - and people end up blaming Apple (or the Linux distribution) for something they had no control over.

Things might have changed now - in Apple's case, at least. Apple is important enough now that Adobe is willing to devote a large amount of resources to improving Flash performance on their products. However, the problem still exists - if for some reason, Apple became less attractive to Adobe, then they would once again devote minimal resources to Flash on the Mac.

That is not a position that any company wants to be in. Neither do I (as a user of OS X and Linux) want to be at the mercy of Adobe's whims.

- HCE

- HCE

[Brett]

I completely agree with the blog post, I find it thorough, well-thought-out and objective. This isn't the first time Apple users have let loyalty blur their critical thinking.

Great Post, Dan. Thank you for expressing what many, many others are thinking.

[elder norm]

Dan, like Apple or not, thats fine. But when you go out so far on a limb to write against something, you should know that there seems to be a growing bunch of people that actually use and like Apple.

Telling them misleading "facts" tends to make them vocal. Note the comments here.

"So on one hand he calls Flash out for not being open, then rightly states that neither is Apple when it comes to their OS, but also then says that in fact, Apple is the one that has an open system, not Adobe. " Mis-stated. Apple is closed, it uses open system things like html5, etc.

Just a thought here, but I have noticed more and more of these anti-apple blogers being brought to task by commenters.

en

[J. Hall]

I start to wonder if Dan is just confused or if this is a genuine sighting of an ID10T error.

[zem]

Hey,

I think your article in spot on. I agree whole heartedly. Ignore the fanboys - they are just pissed off that they cant play around with audiotool, aviary and all the augmented reality. Flash is here to stay until html can catch up to the multimedia capabilities. Webcam anyone? _z