

Adobe abandons iPhone code tools - blahedo
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8639240.stm

======
Qz
_Apple responded in a statement to technology news site CNet in which it
described Flash as "closed and proprietary". Apple preferred to support more
open standards which replicate everything Flash can do, added the statement._

So heaped in hypocrisy that they can't even see it -- this is getting
ridiculous.

~~~
tptacek
Can you be more specific about the hypocrisy you're seeing here?

Apple is closed and proprietary for _native_ applications.

Flash is closed and proprietary for _web_ applications.

From my vantage point, whether or not you approve of Apple's restrictions on
native app development (like most, I don't), their refusal to allow Flash on
the platform is _good for the Internet_ ; it's driving companies towards
HTML5.

~~~
Qz
Apple isn't interested in 'what's good for the internet' (and neither is
Adobe). Closed and proprietary for _X_ is still closed and proprietary,
regardless of what you slot in for _X_. The hypocrisy is self evident in both
cases, and frankly not uncommon in this sort of corporate competition. What I
found funny was the sheer boldness of the statement.

Basically what each is saying (and doing) is: "We support open standards for
whatever isn't under our direct control (because if it was we would close
it)."

Substitute 'free markets' for 'open standards' and you have a pretty good
description of what happens in the world economy on a larger scale.

~~~
GHFigs
_The hypocrisy is self evident in both cases_

It isn't. That's why you were asked to clarify, which you haven't done. I'm
even more uncertain of what you mean by all of this. It sounds like you think
any company that uses both closed and open technology is hypocritical, but
that's painting with such an incredibly broad brush that I find it hard to
believe that that is what you really mean.

~~~
Qz
I'll spell it out:

Apple controls what can run on the iPhone. Apple doesn't control content that
comes in over the internet. Apple makes iPhone a closed proprietary system.
Apple advocates for open standards for internet content.

Adobe 'controls' a sizable portion of content over the internet, by virtue of
their Flash format being proprietary. Adobe doesn't control what software can
run on end-user machines (specifically iPhone). Adobe advocates for openness
in regard to what can run on iPhone (by enabling Flash apps to compile to
native iPhone code). Adobe still keeps Flash a proprietary format.

If that doesn't make things crystal clear I don't know what will. Each
controls X, which they keep closed and proprietary, yet doesn't control Y,
which they push for Y be 'open' in some form or another.

The hypocrisy is here: _Apple preferred to support more open standards which
replicate everything Flash can do, added the statement._

Which we can translate as: _Apple preferred to support more open standards,
because they don't control Flash and don't want Adobe to gain control of what
runs on iPhone (because that they do control and therefore want to keep
closed)._

~~~
GHFigs
I understand where the confusion lies now: you're using the word hypocrisy to
mean something else. Hypocrisy concerns the relation between statement and
action, not motives.

What you're pointing to here would be hypocrisy if (for example) Apple were
claiming to support these open standards but in fact made no effort to support
them at all. The closed nature of their native platform is irrelevant in
determining hypocrisy unless they were claiming to support openness there,
which they aren't.

Your "translation" indicates you're more concerned about motives, but having a
"bad" motive for acting in accordance with what you profess does not make you
hypocritical any more than having a "good" motive for not acting in accordance
with what you profess makes you not hypocritical.

You may find it disagreeable--and again, it sounds like you must feel the same
way about most tech companies--but it's not hypocrisy.

~~~
Qz
No no no. I don't care about their motives. And I realize that with regards to
internet content (aka Flash) there isn't anything explicitly hypocritical
about supporting open standards instead of Flash. But I think it's a bit off
to think that the potential for hypocrisy is confined to the specific context
of any particular comment.

If a gay person says, 'I support marriage rights for gay people but not for
lesbians' -- is that not hypocritical?

My explanation earlier was meant to spell out the important facts related to
which areas Apple and Adobe support open standards and which areas they don't.
It's simply about what they control and what they don't control, and it's
based on the same principles as when someone would want free markets.

For example, before the Industrial Revolution, England imported most of it's
cotton from India, which was the supplier of most of the world's cotton. At
that point, the English government made all sorts of hindrances to how much
could be imported and so on, in order to protect local cotton producers.

After the Industrial Revolution, Britain became one of the leading producers
of cotton fabric, and suddenly they were huge supporters of 'free markets'
...in places where they didn't explicitly control the pricing of cotton (aka
India).

So free markets/open standards is the same thing. It's entirely about what
someone controls and what someone doesn't control. And it's hypocritical for
Apple to talk about supporting open standards for flash-like functionality,
because they don't care about open standards, as evidenced by the way they
close off nearly everything they touch (which are _actions_ , not just
motives). It's simply about market control.

~~~
GHFigs
_No no no. I don't care about their motives._

...but...

 _it's hypocritical for Apple to talk about supporting open standards for
flash-like functionality, because they don't care about open standards_

See what I mean? You're saying it's hypocritical "because they don't care",
not "because they don't do". That's why it was confusing.

 _But I think it's a bit off to think that the potential for hypocrisy is
confined to the specific context of any particular comment._

If not for the fact that you're changing the meaning by ignoring the context,
I'd agree, but you are. It is not "off" to consider things actually said in
light of things actually done. What you've done here is add an additional
statement that wasn't actually stated, i.e. turning "We support X." into "We
support X and Y.", and then say it's hypocritical because they don't actually
support Y. Perhaps this is clearer with the more specific original quote:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1292218>

_If a gay person says, 'I support marriage rights for gay people but not for
lesbians' -- is that not hypocritical?_

A statement alone can't be hypocritical. Without knowing the action (or in
absence of action some other indicator of true belief) there is no way to be
sure either way. Just specifying does not make it hypocritical.

Word: "I support marriage rights for some homosexuals but not others." Deed:
Support marriage rights for some homosexuals but not others. Hypocritical: No.

Word: "I support marriage rights for some homosexuals but not others." Deed:
Support marriage rights no homosexuals. Hypocritical: Yes.

Word: "I support marriage rights for all homosexuals." Deed: Support marriage
rights for some homosexuals but not others. Hypocritical: Yes.

------
elblanco
This is actually really bad for Apple. For people that don't know what this is
all about, but know who Adobe and Apple are (my parents), it may appear that
the iPhone is becoming a failing platform and Adobe is jumping ship (actual
conversation I just had about this).

~~~
catch23
Doubtful -- those who don't know the underlying reasons will still look at one
thing: their stock price / market cap. Adobe has an unstable stock price over
2yrs with a 20bn market cap and Apple has a hockey stick stock price over 2yrs
with a 250bn market cap.

~~~
elblanco
I did not realize that my parents were stock investors, who look up Price:Cap
ratios when deciding what phone to buy.

Not to be snarky, but most people don't care about a company's stock value or
market cap. They tend to care about less meaningful things like "is it
popular?", "is it pretty?", "is it easy to use?", "is it affordable?"...if
they are particularly shrewed "what's the return/replacement policy?" and/or
"can I get this on sale?". Not everybody in the world cares about the latest
tech news or stock market reports. In fact, _most_ people don't care about
those things.

They heard about Adobe and Apple, and they know vaguely that Adobe makes
things that allow people to make things that work on computers, and that Apple
makes computers and iPods and iPhones (they don't yet know about the iPad). In
their minds, their question was "if a company that makes things that allow
people to make things for computers isn't going to make those things for
Apple, it must really be a powerful signal that Apple isn't worth Adobe's
time. Should I get an Android for my next phone?"

I filled them in on the details, and Apple's rationality for causing the
issue, but not every person has somebody who can lay it out for them because
honestly, most people don't care enough. If I hadn't done that, their next
phone would not have been an iPhone.

------
tvon
Nothing new here if you've read any of the other posts covering the story.

------
schwit
Good.Adobe should have in its flash licensing a prohibition against having
tools that convert to video formats viewable on an iphone.

------
Tycho
Was this part of Apple's game plan all along - to turn Android into a Flash
ghetto?

