

The real reason why Steve Jobs hates Flash - protothomas
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/04/why-steve-jobs-hates-flash.html

======
raganwald
Meta-comment: I don't agree with everything in this post, but it made me
_think_. It's a refreshing change from the echo-chamber posts that simply
parrot whatever was last posted and either agree in breathless terms or
disagree vociferously.

Suggestion to bloggers: When you read something that makes you excited or
angry, resist the impulse to respond on the same terms. Ask yourself what
important factor is being ignored in the current debate.

~~~
samd
As background: Charles Stross is a prolific science-fiction author. He's a
smart guy with a lot of interesting things to say about the future of
technology.

~~~
tfh
He has written some great books about singularity like :

Singularity Sky : <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_Sky>

Accelerando: (free ebook)
[http://manybooks.net/titles/strosscother05accelerando-
txt.ht...](http://manybooks.net/titles/strosscother05accelerando-txt.html)

~~~
sabat
He's a pithy writer, and he's probably right about Jobs' intentions. I do wish
he'd drop that annoying British habit of referring to a company in the plural
("HP are ..."). It's distracting and flat-out bad grammar.

~~~
foldr
Relax. It's just a difference between British and American English. As for it
being "distracting", it's not distracting if you're British. (And I expect
it's no more distracting than certain features of American English are for
British readers.)

~~~
eru
We should campaign for female companies. Like ships, or countries used to be.

------
jsm386
I agree with a lot of this, but one point seems to contradict facts:

 _Even if he's reduced to giving the machines away, as long as he can charge
rent for access to data (or apps) he's got a business model._

Hasn't Apple repeatedly stated the case that the App Store runs at break even?
The whole idea is to drive sales of machines. Now if it is for some cloud
based services in the future that might work - still an iPhone unsubsidized is
~$600 so that is a good deal of cloud service revs that need to make up for
that.

~~~
tullius
How could the app store not be profitable? They are getting at least 30 cents
of every dollar at almost zero marginal cost.

~~~
jackmoore
If it isn't profitable they are doing something horribly wrong.

------
aero142
This article highlights my problem with Apple. They really suck at cloud
services. Google on the other hand is the leader and runs amazing cloud
services. The reason my next device will be an Android, is because Apple has
decided to block Google's excellent cloud services(gVoice). I think Google has
the edge in the future described in the article, not Apple. I think it is
going to be easier for Google to make a better device, than for Apple to start
running the kinds of datacenters that Google does.

~~~
jasonlbaptiste
Apple doesn't need to be building the actual apps. They need to run the
marketplace/transaction engine. That they do very well.

~~~
jacquesm
If you're going to be offering cloud services to developers they'll have to do
a lot better than they're doing right now in their marketplace.

Restrictions simply won't cut it in that market, and it needs to be seen if
something like what Apple is doing will survive without those restrictions.

------
rm-rf
The 70's: Own the data center (IBM)

The 80's: Own the desktop (Microsoft)

The 90's: Own the network (AOL)

The 2000's: Own the browser (Microsoft, et. al.)

The 2010's: Own the 'Experience' (Apple)

If Apple can entice us all into their walled garden, they'll own our entire
experience - not just our desktops or data centers. It'll be AOL, pre-
Internet, except it'll be way, way nicer - nice enough that most of us will
not complain.

~~~
silvestrov
The 2010's: Own the mobile (Apple, Android)

\- similar to the 80's: In the beginning of the 80's we had a large number of
computer types (IBM PC, Apple II, Commodore, Acorn, Sinclair, BBC Micro, CP/M,
etc). In the end of the 80's, only the IBM PC (and Mac) were left standing.

Today we have a large number of mobile companies. In 10 years time only Apple
and Android will remain.

(Android is like IBM PC compatibles today: several companies, but they don't
control anything as they have to follow MS rules, and they can easily be
replaced with another company: see history of Dell).

~~~
randallsquared
_In 10 years time only Apple and Android will remain._

Wow, I seriously hope not. I _like_ having a real unix-like userland on my
phone, and I want to keep it that way.

~~~
eru
I guess the comment was meant as "[...] only Apple and Android will remain
[with any significant market share]."

Today, Linux is a popular alternative to OS X or Windows on the desktop---but
the market share is minuscule.

------
waxman
Yes, the PC era is coming to a close, and every company involved is panicking,
EXCEPT for Apple, because they're clearly out in front with their iPhone/iPad
OS ecosystem.

Also, Apple makes relatively little money from the App Store; they still make
most of their money from hardware, even if its increasingly mobile hardware.

The real people they're trying to please are users. They only court developers
to the extent that enough apps are generated that it enhances the experience
for users. And as both a developer and a user, even though it pisses me off a
little bit, objectively, I think that's a good business decision. A locked
down App Store, while shitty for developers, does probably create a better
user experience and sells more hardware...

~~~
jaaron
Yes, it's all about hardware and that's not going to change, despite the
author's arguments otherwise.

PCs aren't going anywhere either. Offices will continue to use PCs even if the
consumer market switches to mobile phone/tablet devices.

And Apple isn't going to kill its line of computers with the iPad as they have
a very clear and healthy market there. iPads intentionally can't function
without a PC/Mac running iTunes. And while every other PC maker has slashed
prices and seen downturns, Apple's been growing for a decade. They know what
they're doing with their Mac market.

~~~
mechanical_fish
The author isn't necessarily arguing that PCs are "going anywhere", just that
the profit margins will largely be gone.

------
kjf
Interesting read but the headline is a misleading, very little of the article
is in relation to the Apple vs Adobe debate.

~~~
mortenjorck
The headline does feel a bit baiting, but if it suckered me, it was worth it.
This is a very interesting article about the next five years in computing.

What I'd disagree with is the idea that Apple is trying to transition into a
cloud provider with a merely incidental hardware business. I think that's a
misunderstanding of Apple's priorities as well as an overestimation of Apple's
tendencies to follow fashion.

Apple will stay a hardware company. They will go cloud, but here's the thing:
Apple's cloud will be federated. Five years from now you'll buy an iPad and
instead of a Mac, its home will be a port-less little monolith of aluminum and
rubber that functions as your own little slice of cloud. Even as LTE picks up,
a local server will always be ahead with the latest wi-fi revision and no
network congestion, and no shared processor load, and this will be Apple's
selling point for why their model is better for media use. And, most
importantly for Apple's survival, why they can sell you a new one in two
years' time.

~~~
Terretta
> _"Apple's cloud will be federated"_

In a sense, it already is.

A friend's Macbook Air SSD died. We plugged her Time Machine to a Mac Mini,
restored into a new account, and she had "her" computer. Had been a day or two
since her last backup, but MobileMe brought her latest appointments, contacts,
and bookmarks back down from the ".Mac" cloud.

She missed having the portable Air, so walked into a BestBuy, got an iPad,
logged into MobileMe, and was immediately checking her half dozen email
accounts along with, again, all her bookmarks, appointments, and contacts,
because those settings were stored in the cloud. Plugged it to the account on
the Mac Mini, and now had her 5GB of photos and 20GB of music.

Three weeks later, Apple gave her a fixed Macbook Air. At boot it asked if she
owned another Mac, and she plugged in her Time Machine drive. Slightly less
than 9 minutes later, a reboot, and "her" Mac was back, again with every app
and tweak. MobileMe sync ran, and by the time she opened her iCal, it was up
to date.

The hardware essentially didn't matter. "Her" settings, "her" data, were
accessible to her across phone, tablet, other person's computer, and a
replacement for her own computer, all with zero I.T. effort.

Best part -- she didn't even notice this was remarkable. She just logged into
the Macbook Air and started doing email, right at home, without a second
thought.

As for that little monolith? Maybe it's already here -- Time Capsule is an
Airport Extreme with built in dual channel 802.11a/b/g/n and another guest
WiFi DMZ, includes TimeMachine wireless backup, offers a USB printer hub, and
gives remote access that also syncs to MobileMe (which stores documents and
personalization in the cloud).

~~~
cstross
I am expecting, sooner rather than later, that Time Capsule will acquire the
ability to do OTA backup of iPad/iPhone. Either that, or that there'll be a
second-generation Apple TV that is basically a combined Apple TV and Time
Capsule -- streaming media to all your iDevices, feeding video out directly to
your TV, and acting as a backup hub and wireless router. The "home hub" with
cloud backup is clearly not that far off Apple's current road map ...

------
jasonlbaptiste
Apple has 40 billion plus in cash. If you listen to the calls, they say
they're going to use it for something big. It's done in a very understated
way. My belief? They're hoarding it to roll out essentially a wireless high
speed network as described in this post. That's why you hoard what will
eventually be 50+ billion dollars in cold hard cash. Just my theory though.

~~~
jamesshamenski
Aapl didnt bid on the last release of wireless spectrum gov't sales. I doubt
they'd be able to do this.

------
neonscribe
PCs are not "becoming commodity items". PCs have been commodity items for over
20 years. The difference now is that improvements in speed and capacity are no
longer compelling reasons for mainstream users to upgrade every couple of
years.

------
10ren
This is The Innovator's Dilemma, of mainframes to minis to workstations to
PCs... when a small portable device is "fast enough", its other benefits
enable it to beat a desktop (even though a desktop remains more powerful -
just as a mainframe does). And there's a changing of the guard.

I have my doubts about multi-touch; but always-connected-portable-devices is
definitely the future IMHO.

I think Steve loves the idea of pioneering and owning the new computing UI
(multi-touch). Maybe he sees this as an end-game, as he has a family, gets
older and has had health scares... but insofar as we're reading minds, I don't
think he really cares about owning it in the long-term. He'll go off to
develop the next new technology, because that's where he enjoys making money.
If the iPad isn't a huge hit (or if it is), I bet there are a bunch of other
projects in the wings... for the future.

------
JulianMorrison
Google saw it, Android phones and Chrome OS netbooks are targeted into this
space. Difference from Apple: Google thinks it can deliver both hardware _and
software_ at knock down prices or free, without needing to curate an in-house
ecosystem, and profit by monetizing what the devices provide access to - the
whole internet.

------
ars
To the author:

Sorry, but physics is against you. There isn't enough wireless bandwidth to do
what you suggest. It doesn't exist, we're pretty much saturated as it is.

The only hope is micro cells, tons and tons of them, each with high bandwidth,
and low range. Or very directional devices (but that's not practical).

But micro cells with the high bandwidth you hope for don't exist now, and
probably won't any time soon.

And if such high bandwidth did exist, I really hope the future of computing is
not iPhone type devices.

~~~
jrockway
Uh, Wimax? My Wimax connection is almost as fast as my DSL.

~~~
dangrossman
My Clearwire (Clear, Sprint 4G, Comcast 4G) stock is down 50% from when I
bought it. There's a Clear store in the city here (Philadelphia is 100%
covered by 4G) and in the malls in the area. I've never seen a customer walk
inside any of them. They set up tables to demo Clear 4G on netbooks outside,
and nobody ever walks up to it. I am not confident WiMax is going to catch on
any time soon, unfortunately.

~~~
qeorge
I've had Clear for a few years at my office. Its gotten a _bit_ faster
recently, but the latency is still terrible. It will also arbitrarily cut out
for a few hours with no explanation.

Unfortunately, there are no better deals for business internet around here,
unless you're willing to pay $400/month to TWC. But if you have any option, do
not sign-up for Clear.

~~~
jrockway
You can't get a T1!?

------
jorgecastillo
As long as people care there will always be PCs(PERSONAL COMPUTERS) and OSS
for them even if proprietary software becomes tied to hardware.

And I don't really see this happening in much of the developing world (most of
the world/fastest growing markets) in the coming decades.

------
ashishbharthi
Though the title says 'The real reason why Steve Jobs hates Flash', he talks
more about overall industry dynamics than Flash. And he is definitely right
about one thing: the PC industry needs to re-invent itself or it will die. I
have been using Windows XP as my work laptop for all my career and I still
don't know if MS has any good replacement.

~~~
weaksauce
I love my Mac but Windows 7 is pretty legit from Microsoft. Worth upgrading to
in my opinion.

------
doron
Ill believe the PC is dead, and the cloud is the way to go when i get
bandwidth in NYC like I get in Japan.

------
ujal
he knows what he is talking about. the only problem -> there is no longterm
future for splinternetssss <http://tinyurl.com/yeg6bbg> the model apple
follows? change -> make money -> change again -> make money -> ... problem? as
change accelerates it becomes nearly impossible to hold on as a company. the
real model apple follows? selling rotten apples from an ever growing tree of
disruptive technology.

------
btilly
It is a cool idea but there is a major flaw in the premise. And that flaw is
that Apple depends on AT&T to deliver data.

~~~
sshumaker
Apple doesn't 'depend on AT&T'. They're not locked in beyond a short-term
contract. They're using AT&T because it makes financial sense - they have a
sweetheart deal in the US. Worldwide, they use a whole bunch of providers.

When they decide that sticking to AT&T isn't in their best interest, they will
switch to a different provider.

------
TheSOB88
This is a really verbose post, but he does get around to alluding to a very
good point: if iStuff supported Flash, you could develop in Flash and bypass
the App Store.

I think it's a pretty compelling argument.

~~~
exit
so what are they going to do about html5 when it can do everything flash can
do?

~~~
jrockway
Don't worry, Apple has a lot of "HTML5" features that the other mobile
platforms don't. Embrace and extend.

~~~
mrvir
This is exactly what bothers me: Talking about open standards and then making
their own versions of them. The Redmond strategy.

Makes me want say the same comment about Jobs open standards sweet talk as he
made about Google's slogan... That's BS.

