And the tussle over Flash keeps on tussling: Now Apple’s publicly sniping at Adobe.
Apple spokesperson Trudy Miller’s response to Adobe complaining about Apple’s restrictive (read: anti-Flash) development policies for the iPhone and iPad:
Someone has it backwards—it is HTML5, CSS, JavaScript, and H.264 (all supported by the iPhone and iPad) that are open and standard, while Adobe’s Flash is closed and proprietary.
Of course, that doesn’t actually address what Adobe’s complaining about, but yeah, well. [Cnet via Daring Fireball]
Conrad
Thursday, April 22, 2010 at 8:39 AMiBurn!
Thepengwin
Thursday, April 22, 2010 at 8:52 AMH.264: open and standard?
Javascript & HTML5: Standard?
What?!
matt
Thursday, April 22, 2010 at 9:03 AMwhat the hell is wrong with closed and proprietary??? as long as you don’t HAVE to use it, it’s perfectly fine!!
do you want me to start listing the things in Apple products that are CLOSED and PROPRIETARY that you HAVE to use??? because I have got all day!
a sampler: umm… THE APP STORE!?
you are the worst thing to happen to devs ever apple. stop trying to act so high and mighty on the back of “standards” that you probably only use because you are too incompetent to come up with something better on your own!
Andrew
Thursday, April 22, 2010 at 9:21 AMI have no problem with the iPad not supporting Flash. 95% of the flash I encounter on the web is advertising banners anyway and I would use ad blocker or similar to turn them off anyway.
MIchael
Thursday, April 22, 2010 at 10:14 AMHere’s the problem. All those free websites have to make a crust somehow and they do it with flash advertising and then there’s also flash videos and games. If the iPad and iPhone supported Flash all that content would get through to users free and Apple cut is nothing. By not supporting Flash Apple cuts free websites off from their advertising income. It wants to apply pressure to those free websites to be paid portals on its devices and then Apple can sit back and collect the Apple tax.
Bern
Thursday, April 22, 2010 at 1:20 PMWell, you know, they don’t *have* to use animated in-your-face flash ads. They could be, I don’t know, plain jpegs or something? You know, like print ads? That don’t put annoying, flickering images in your peripheral vision while you’re trying to read the content that drew you to the site in the first place?
I’m perfectly happy to have non-animated ads on websites I read (for example, I’ve explicitly allowed Google’s ad domain, although their recent introduction of animated graphical ads is making me reconsider that). But animated ads are the *reason* I installed noscript, adblock & flashblock in the first place, and that doesn’t do anyone any good (other than me & my restricted usage quota, of course).
jeremy
Thursday, April 22, 2010 at 9:50 AMAh Apple, exemplar of openness :-) Try using thier “fairplay” system to protect web video on thier devices, for example. Oh you are not apple, no luck. Try to get an app on one of thier devices without paying excessive protection-racket money to this new morality cop. Oh, you want to use tools you find productive, and not use 80s dev tools? Good luck. Get buggered, Apple ;-)
jonny
Thursday, April 22, 2010 at 10:29 AMSo Apple admits that closed and proprietary is bad, yet they still make their closed ecosystem kiddy computers. What’s frightening is all the sad little ‘me too’s’ lining up to buy the stuff. Losers.
Jake
Thursday, April 22, 2010 at 10:42 AMPot. Kettle. Black. Enough said.
SF
Thursday, April 22, 2010 at 7:06 PMA clever move by Apple. They’ve probably got nothing against Adobe or flash. If they want iAd to work, blocking all competing flash ads would definitely help give them the market share in mobile ads that they want.