Apple has a long relationship with Adobe. In fact, we met Adobe’s founders when they were in their proverbial garage. Apple was their first big customer, adopting their Postscript language for our new Laserwriter printer. Apple invested in Adobe and owned around 20% of the company for many years. The two companies worked closely together to pioneer desktop publishing and there were many good times. Since that golden era, the companies have grown apart. Apple went through its near death experience, and Adobe was drawn to the corporate market with their Acrobat products. Today the two companies still work together to serve their joint creative customers – Mac users buy around half of Adobe’s Creative Suite products – but beyond that there are few joint interests.

I wanted to jot down some of our thoughts on Adobe’s Flash products so that customers and critics may better understand why we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. Adobe has characterized our decision as being primarily business driven – they say we want to protect our App Store – but in reality it is based on technology issues. Adobe claims that we are a closed system, and that Flash is open, but in fact the opposite is true. Let me explain.

First, there’s “Open”.

Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe’s Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system.

Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript – all open standards. Apple’s mobile devices all ship with high performance, low power implementations of these open standards. HTML5, the new web standard that has been adopted by Apple, Google and many others, lets web developers create advanced graphics, typography, animations and transitions without relying on third party browser plug-ins (like Flash). HTML5 is completely open and controlled by a standards committee, of which Apple is a member.

Apple even creates open standards for the web. For example, Apple began with a small open source project and created WebKit, a complete open-source HTML5 rendering engine that is the heart of the Safari web browser used in all our products. WebKit has been widely adopted. Google uses it for Android’s browser, Palm uses it, Nokia uses it, and RIM (Blackberry) has announced they will use it too. Almost every smartphone web browser other than Microsoft’s uses WebKit. By making its WebKit technology open, Apple has set the standard for mobile web browsers.

Second, there’s the “full web”.

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. YouTube, with an estimated 40% of the web’s video, shines in an app bundled on all Apple mobile devices, with the iPad offering perhaps the best YouTube discovery and viewing experience ever. Add to this video from Vimeo, Netflix, Facebook, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ESPN, NPR, Time, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Sports Illustrated, People, National Geographic, and many, many others. iPhone, iPod and iPad users aren’t missing much video.

Another Adobe claim is that Apple devices cannot play Flash games. This is true. Fortunately, there are over 50,000 games and entertainment titles on the App Store, and many of them are free. There are more games and entertainment titles available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any other platform in the world.

Third, there’s reliability, security and performance.

Symantec recently highlighted Flash for having one of the worst security records in 2009. We also know first hand that Flash is the number one reason Macs crash. We have been working with Adobe to fix these problems, but they have persisted for several years now. We don’t want to reduce the reliability and security of our iPhones, iPods and iPads by adding Flash.

In addition, Flash has not performed well on mobile devices. 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?

Fourth, there’s battery life.

To achieve long battery life when playing video, mobile devices must decode the video in hardware; decoding it in software uses too much power. Many of the chips used in modern mobile devices contain a decoder called H.264 – an industry standard that is used in every Blu-ray DVD player and has been adopted by Apple, Google (YouTube), Vimeo, Netflix and many other companies.

Although Flash has recently added support for H.264, the video on almost all Flash websites currently requires an older generation decoder that is not implemented in mobile chips and must be run in software. The difference is striking: on an iPhone, for example, H.264 videos play for up to 10 hours, while videos decoded in software play for less than 5 hours before the battery is fully drained.

When websites re-encode their videos using H.264, they can offer them without using Flash at all. They play perfectly in browsers like Apple’s Safari and Google’s Chrome without any plugins whatsoever, and look great on iPhones, iPods and iPads.

Fifth, there’s Touch.

Flash was designed for PCs using mice, not for touch screens using fingers. For example, many Flash websites rely on “rollovers”, which pop up menus or other elements when the mouse arrow hovers over a specific spot. Apple’s revolutionary multi-touch interface doesn’t use a mouse, and there is no concept of a rollover. Most Flash websites will need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices. If developers need to rewrite their Flash websites, why not use modern technologies like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript?

Even if iPhones, iPods and iPads ran Flash, it would not solve the problem that most Flash websites need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices.

Sixth, the most important reason.

Besides the fact that Flash is closed and proprietary, has major technical drawbacks, and doesn’t support touch based devices, there is an even more important reason we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. We have discussed the downsides of using Flash to play video and interactive content from websites, but Adobe also wants developers to adopt Flash to create apps that run on our mobile devices.

We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers.

This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor’s platforms.

Flash is a cross platform development tool. It is not Adobe’s goal to help developers write the best iPhone, iPod and iPad apps. It is their goal to help developers write cross platform apps. And Adobe has been painfully slow to adopt enhancements to Apple’s platforms. For example, although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X.

Our motivation is simple – we want to provide the most advanced and innovative platform to our developers, and we want them to stand directly on the shoulders of this platform and create the best apps the world has ever seen. We want to continually enhance the platform so developers can create even more amazing, powerful, fun and useful applications. Everyone wins – we sell more devices because we have the best apps, developers reach a wider and wider audience and customer base, and users are continually delighted by the best and broadest selection of apps on any platform.

Conclusions.

Flash was created during the PC era – for PCs and mice. Flash is a successful business for Adobe, and we can understand why they want to push it beyond PCs. But the mobile era is about low power devices, touch interfaces and open web standards – all areas where Flash falls short.

The avalanche of media outlets offering their content for Apple’s mobile devices demonstrates that Flash is no longer necessary to watch video or consume any kind of web content. And the 200,000 apps on Apple’s App Store proves that Flash isn’t necessary for tens of thousands of developers to create graphically rich applications, including games.

New open standards created in the mobile era, such as HTML5, will win on mobile devices (and PCs too). Perhaps Adobe should focus more on creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind.

If the iCrap wasn't a fad among dumbass trend followers, Apple would still be a speck on the radar. Sure they have some useful stuff, but most people buy their crap because they want to be cool with their friends.

I don't think it matters why people buy their products. They are bought, and they gives them a big voice.

I don't use any of their products, myself. They're too controlling of how you use their stuff. But, at least they're finally adopting more industry standards.

If the iCrap wasn't a fad among dumbass trend followers, Apple would still be a speck on the radar. Sure they have some useful stuff, but most people buy their crap because they want to be cool with their friends.

Yeah, for real, **** you guy who invented the snuggie, I hope you choke on a dick and die

I dunno. I mean I the damn thing.

But I gotta give credit to the guy for being able to sell a blanket with sleeves.

It's a pretty retarded concept. WEAR SOMETHING WARMER or USE A BLANKET. You don't need a friggin snuggie.

It absolutely matters why. Take Microsoft for example.. everyone hates them, yet, they sell billions of copies of their hated software... why? Because it's really useful, and there aren't many alternatives.

Apple on the other hand, is banking on a trend. When, and it is when (because all trends die), it dies... hopefully so will Apple, and with any luck, Steve Jobs as well.

The mouseover thing is valid.

It absolutely matters why. Take Microsoft for example.. everyone hates them, yet, they sell billions of copies of their hated software... why? Because it's really useful, and there aren't many alternatives.

Apple on the other hand, is banking on a trend. When, and it is when (because all trends die), it dies... hopefully so will Apple, and with any luck, Steve Jobs as well.

The mouseover thing is valid.

Why can't you just have a pointer icon like a mouse does, and move it around by dragging it?

simple solution...:suicide:

Also, battery life is a non-issue. If people want to use their battery up, let them.

Finally, the third party framework "they might not implement all of our APIs as fast/as well!" is a complete load of BS. All they want to do is force people to use their proprietary platform. It is EXACTLY the closed platform that they say they hate about Adobe.

Because nothing apple makes is remotely productive or useful, and it's all Steve Jobs fault so yeah lets hope he dies. Jesus christ dude, get a little dramatic? DEATH TO STEVE JOBS BECAUSE HE HELPED DESIGN PRODUCTS PEOPLE BUY!

And who the hell are you to tell people what they should or shouldn't buy. Let them buy their "worthless crap" if they want to. THEY obviously don't find it worthless or else they wouldn't buy it. Just because they want it and you don't doesn't mean you are right and they are a bunch of *******s. I didn't realize you were such a superior human being. Are you really that superior that you will criticize people for buying what maximizes their happiness? If people want an iPod to be cool, so what? That's not Apple's fault. They are doing what they are supposed to be doing, making money. You should maybe go wish death among people who make Apple successful, not Apple themselves. Apple wouldn't be where it is without PEOPLE buying their product. It's not like one day they flipped a switch and became an awesome power.

Looks like someone loves their Apple products a lot.

To me, that's like paying for a movie only to have a banner scroll across the bottom advertising trojan condoms. It's offensive that I'm paying for an ad.

Ads need to stay in free media, TV, Radio, Busses, Billboards... whatever. Paying for ads is wrong, I'm sorry. That's just how I see it.

"Oh but the ads make the app cheaper." Like hell, anyone who believes that is a fool unless there is specifically two versions, one without ads, and one with. In which there is a price difference.

To me, that's like paying for a movie only to have a banner scroll across the bottom advertising trojan condoms. It's offensive that I'm paying for an ad.

I thought HTML 5 used H.264 codecs so doesn't that mean it's not really truly open either?

This is a philosophical question of letting people do what they want with their devices or ensuring that devices work a certain way (designated by the company) for all customers and for Apple's positioning and brand strategy it makes sense to do the latter.

Apple thinks open standards are good for Web but bad for OS, which is a position that they have to take if they want to control the way their products operate and are used as mentioned before

Apple does not think open standards are an inherently good thing but it knows the developer community does think so and that's why it is taking this stance

To me, that's like paying for a movie only to have a banner scroll across the bottom advertising trojan condoms. It's offensive that I'm paying for an ad.

Ads need to stay in free media, TV, Radio, Busses, Billboards... whatever. Paying for ads is wrong, I'm sorry. That's just how I see it.

"Oh but the ads make the app cheaper." Like hell, anyone who believes that is a fool unless there is specifically two versions, one without ads, and one with. In which there is a price difference.

If you'll take the time to skim back through the thread you'll see that there are examples of people accusing Apple of doing things that Microsoft also does. Your sarcastic statement doesn't change that fact. I recognize the fact that people get up in arms about Apple instead of Microsoft because Apple is always in the limelight. We see the same thing w/ Walmart. However, it'd be nice, just for once, if you guys would stop pretending that Apple is the only company doing bad things & admit that other companies (whose products most of you use) are doing many of the same things. However, I recognize that it's an Apple thread, so feel free to move along & ignore me.

I actually don't think many of the 'bad things' (for example, dictating how products should be used, maintaining a closed/proprietary platform, trying to shut out Flash from competing with the App Store on mobile Apple devices) they are doing are bad but that's just me

Everything they do essentially comes back to having obsessive control over their products and ecosystem -- everything associated with anything with their name on it has to be as controlled as possible to fit their idea of what is right. Everything they do is more or less consistent with this.