Thoughts on Flash and the iPad and the Freedom of Choice

Justice for the World

A debate started earlier this year due to Apple's decision not to let users run Flash based content on their iPads. Steve Jobs from Apple (Apple Inc.) has argumented as to why. In this debate, some of which is displayed on the Web, the "defense" tried to dismantle his arguments. But this base may not be the right one to built the defense arguments upon. This seems to be more of a simple matter of freedom of choice, which is in all fairness also claimed by the defense also known as Adobe. However this impacts more people as we will learn later on. So who's freedom of choice is more important here? That seems to be the major question.

To run Flash on your computer is not a crime, so why would a company decide for its customers' sake what they can do with their new products?! This may be another argument said in defense and maybe this debate should have taken place the other way around, since one could easily argue that Apple is the offender here, depriving users and developers of their time, entertainment and income. Of course, the argument for Apple's choice is based partly on quality. However as reasonable as that preference may be, one would assume that whether or not to use a Flash player to watch Flash based content on the Web, would still be a consumer's own choice to make. Why, Apple, not ask your customers a simple question, asking which applications to install, especially one so essential and widely used, or make it available or at the very least make it able to install? Why should this be such a principled point? Did Apple even consider how this would impact Flash designers the world over?

Its CEO, Steve Jobs, argued that Flash is controlled only by Adobe.

He said that:

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.

Steve seems to be misleading the jury by intentionally withholding the just distinction between Flash, the technology - which is the subject matter in this discussion - and Adobe Flash, the brand. Of course legally speaking here Steve would be right were discussion only about Adobe Flash, since Flash indeed is a brand owned by Adobe. Adobe indeed asks other manufacturers not to refer to 'Flash X' as Flash, but this has become common use however and strictly speaking this debate is about the technology. If however Adobe was indeed the only manufacturer and Apple prefers open standards, still, what is the point? Both developers and owners of websites have chosen to use Flash and they did so for a good reason. Despite that, Apple decided to do what it did and let Steve start a debate on it on the Apple website and, by the way he did it, made it into a discussion about who is right and who is wrong rather than looking for solutions which are mutual beneficial.

According to Adobe, 98% of Internet connected personal computers have flash players installed, so, if that is true, then there is a preference amongst users which is at odds with Steve's, though one could argue that users have just followed the trend. However to make it so that a user of an iPad cannot even by his own choice decide whether or not to install a flash player, Apple is affecting users, website owners and developers worldwide, being so principled that it decides for others what is right and wrong. Of course, no one is compelled to buy an iPad, but many may and Apple is therefor affecting many people as a result of that.

All arguments aside about who is right and who is wrong, it may be best for Apple to cooperate with Adobe to both make the software and its platform safer. On a bright note, the CEO's still seem to be on speaking terms and it is possible that Steve means well and is looking beyond business models. The wisest men do reflect especially on their most basic principles and believes, and so may Steve. Of course, in all fairness, Adobe has in this debate received constructive criticism to consider as well.

So, who will decide what and who will have the most impact and with it affect the choices of others? Such a question, however depicted in a greater context, the Internet and the future of it, asked Jonathan Zittrain, who took 354 pages to answer it and in it analysis Apple's choices and how they are affecting others. But, in this case, to ask the question is to answer the question, since that is what the future of Flash depends on.

Links

References

Six reasons why Steve Jobs is wrong on Flash
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2010/04/30/six-reasons-why-steve-jobs-is-wrong-on-flash/
3rd-party guidelines for use of the Flash trademark
http://www.adobe.com/misc/pdfs/flash_3rd_party_trademark_guidelines_020708.pdf
SWF & FLV Player is a free Flash player for Mac OS X
http://mac.eltima.com/freeflashplayer.html
Apple Wants To Own You
http://www.slate.com/id/2250993