Ordered my iPad last week

[mia1994]

There is nothing specious about it at all. The issue boils down to choice.

If Flash is going to give me a bad experience, then it will motivate me to turn off flash myself and steer me away from sites which use it. If Apple is going to tell me that I simply can't access that content, or be allowed to make that choice for myself, then it is going to motivate me to use purchase from another provider. The fact is, Jobs has made Flash's deficiencies into Apple's problem. When I don't have access to the content, it is because Apple won't let me have it, not because Adobe made its product poorly.

The whole argument that Flash sucks is really just a smoke screen, in any event. The problem for Apple is that allowing flash, or a flash like product, onto their platform means that they will take a hit to their application market place. Apple gets a cut from the app manufacturers and from the consumers, and they want to protect those margins. Flash is competition... and that is the reason why it is not on the iPhone.

To this point Apple has run away with it, because there hasn't been a competitive product in the market. The problem is as Android starts closing in, Apple has been spending more effort on holding google back than they are on growing their lead. They did the same thing with Microsoft in the 80s and got absolutely blown out of the water... and things are starting to head that direction again.

For me it comes down to choice. If the cost of Apple is that they get to choose which content I can see, which network I will use and what applications I choose to run, it is going to factor into my decision. To this point, my alternatives have been spare, but those start to improve I'm not going to stick around if Apple can't let me make some choices myself.

 

[Dionysus]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[HoustonHorn]

I would rather have the option than not. If you look at the tests referenced in the article, of course there is going to be a difference in the amount of time it takes to load the page - it has to load the entire webpage, not just part of it. This isn't difficult to understand. But the great thing is that its possible to get both the speed/performance improvements AND flash.

First you have to download Flash from Adobe in the Market. So right there, the user makes the choice if they want flash or not. They aren't forced to use flash and they aren't prevented from using flash. Second, you can set the default for flash to "On Demand." This means that the browser won't load the flash elements UNLESS specifically directed by the user. This is the best of both worlds, you get the faster speed of Froyo, and if you come to a page that has some flash elements that you WANT to view, you can. That simple. I don't know why a lot of people are ignoring this and simply stating that Flash sucks and it slows down the browser. It's like being on the top floor of a tall building and you have three options for getting down, jumping out a window, taking the stairs, or taking the elevator. You can't say getting out of the building sucks because you chose to jump out the window or go down the stairs when there is a perfectly good option available that you chose to ignore.

And while I understand the argument that Dionysus makes regarding Steve Jobs not wanting the iPhone to get blamed for Adobe's shortcomings (and I agree that Flash needs a lot of improvement), this issue is a perfect example of Steve's philosophy with everything. The user isn't smart enough, so we need to dumb the product down as much as possible. Don't give them choices because they are going to mess something up and they aren't smart enough to realize its Flash, not the iPhone that is slowing things down.

Having read some of Apple's design guidelines, this philosophy is clear - its better to not give the user the option or to limit the options to reduce potential confusion. I personally disagree with that philosophy, but its obvious that a lot of people would rather not have the option and have those decisions made by someone else. That's their choice to make, so to speak.

 

[mia1994]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Dionysus]

Apple didn't force anyone to use AT&T - it's my understanding from reading the history on this that Apple shopped the iPhone to all the major carriers, and AT&T was the only one willing to meet Apple's terms. AT&T then demanded an exclusive period in exchange for Apple's demands. I don't know this firsthand of course, but it seems plausible. So Apple probably didn't have much choice in a launch partner. I'm not a fan of AT&T as my iPhone drops calls fairly regularly, but Apple had to start somewhere.

Anyway, the topic is tiresome. Whatever motives are to be ascribed to Apple in the Flash debate, it seems unlikely that this technology will ever show up on the iPhone. It's a gamble for Apple, especially if Adobe manages to get a solid mobile version of Flash working well on other devices and without the performance problems. Android looks to be a serious competitor, which is what Apple needs and the mobile market as well. As a tech dork I'm very excited about the innovation going on and what it will bring in the coming years.