Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Jobs calls Adobe Flash a closed system. Pot/Kettle?!?!

Apr 29, 2010 3:24AM PDT

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
It is ironic. But there are differences.
Apr 29, 2010 4:01AM PDT

One is proprietary OS. The other is a proprietary web standard.

But it is good that Jobs laid it all out so people will stop speculating and inventing paranoid conspiracy theories. Oh who am I kidding. This is the web! Speculation and conspiracy theories grow like weeds here.

- Collapse -
There are differences, but...
Apr 29, 2010 6:15AM PDT

you don't get to define a term the way you want to. In their own way, both are closed systems, so to attach that as some kind of pejorative vs. another "closed" company doesn't wash. Closed is closed. Case closed, lol.

Agreed on the speculation and conspiracy theories on the web!

- Collapse -
"case closed" only if you ignore the other 6 reasons
Apr 29, 2010 7:48AM PDT

Job's letter says they have chosen to not bring flash to the iPad/iPhone ecosystem. I think he has several valid points.

I think the caller on today's BOL (ep. 1217) also had a good point. Everybody talks about how important flash is but how many people actually notice its absence in their day to day lives on a phone? Nobody I know who has an iPhone knows (or notices) that they don't have flash (and neither do many Android users as evidenced by the BOL crew not noticing it on any of their phones). So is flash on mobile devices REALLY that a big deal or is it just an excuse for geeks to argue about philosophical issues.

Personally I've never missed flash on my iPhone and I consider myself a power user. Multitasking? Totally. Bad notification system? Yep.

- Collapse -
Don't lose my point...
Apr 29, 2010 8:22AM PDT

It's not about how valid Jobs is in his criticism of Flash. It's about a guy who has a closed system of his own trying to use that term to disparage another company's closed system.

In that case, the details don't matter. If "closed system" is a pejorative for one firm because closed means something undesirable, then by all rights it needs to be consistently applied.

- Collapse -
Yes but
Apr 29, 2010 11:18AM PDT

But he's also entirely right in his criticism of flash. I'm not going to disregard what he said just because he's a hypocrite. I'm just going to hope he re-reads his own letter and thinks more about what Apple is doing.

- Collapse -
He's a CEO. Of course he's going to pepper the truth with
Apr 29, 2010 12:55PM PDT

more than a little bit of propaganda (I hope he didn't use "magical and revolutionary" again when describing the iPad... that is just obnoxious). But in spite of the fact that Apple is very closed OS and appstore wise, his other points about open web standards, software issues, and the limitations of a standard designed for mice and desktops are still valid.

I need to reread the letter because it sounds as though he might have been saying its no so much bad that adobe was closed but that Apple was closed and Adobe was closed so they will never see eye to eye.

- Collapse -
Oy vey...
Apr 29, 2010 1:06PM PDT

You guys are driving me nuts. For the last time, he could be 100 percent right on his criticism of Flash. That has nothing to do with trying to throw the label "closed system" around like that's a huge negative, when he in fact is head honcho of a...yes...closed system. I don't know how else to say it. That's the chutzpah of the story.

Jobs: "Well, you're this, you're that, and you're this other thing, and to top it off, you're...why, you're...YOU'RE A CLOSED SYSTEM!!!"

Get it? See the irony? This, that, and the other thing could possibly be true, but the gall of laying the "closed system" rap on Adobe like it's some kind of huge negative is absurd, considering the source. And really, I shouldn't have had to go this far to explain all of that, lol. That's the only point I'm making.

- Collapse -
What you think is crazy talk I see as
Apr 29, 2010 1:16PM PDT

typical marketing double speak. Nothing surprising here. The fact that corporations spin the truth and side step issues is not a huge revelation in my opinion.

- Collapse -
Well...
Apr 29, 2010 9:53PM PDT

It reminds one of the glory days of "It depends on what the meaning of "is" is...", lol.

- Collapse -
Yes Now
May 5, 2010 12:48PM PDT

The other companies in the computer business have saved Apples bacon too many times for them to be so arrogant.
The Power PC chip bone that IBM threw them to keep Apple from going belly up. The continuation of Microsoft losing money porting Office to the Mac. And last but not least, Intel helping them back up off the floor when their THIRD chipmakler couldn't keep up with the speed of Intel chips.
Apple is a sad joke. Woz should throw Jobs out a Window.

- Collapse -
You Really Had To Explain THAT?
May 1, 2010 7:34AM PDT

To be honest it's kind of funny you felt you had to go that far to explain that Jobs is being a hypocrite when its kind of implied in the title of this topic, I mean, that is what a "pot calling a kettle black" implies lol. I don't think everybody is "missing your point" I just don't think anybody else is as surprised by this kind of hypocrisy in the tech world as you seem to be.

- Collapse -
Not often
Apr 29, 2010 11:13AM PDT

I miss it most with being unable to view CNET live while on the bus. And some web videos that aren't on YouTube. Otherwise don't really give a crap about the lack of flash.

- Collapse -
He's right though
Apr 29, 2010 7:35AM PDT

Why is everyone complaining about lack of support for a propeitary standard, that just needs to die already.

- Collapse -
There are points on both sides as there always has been
Apr 29, 2010 10:41PM PDT

Hey People,
I do clearly understand some of the tension and emotion related to this discussion. All of us in one way or another are in the IT industry so when discussing this topic, keep in mind, there two sides to every argument. Happy

Point 1: Proprietorship

Adobe:
Technically, Jobs is correct, licensing and patent ownership of "Flash" solely belongs to Adobe, therefore under Patent and copyrights law, Adobe is a closed proprietary system.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1040-898061.html

Apple:
Apple's iPhone, iPod, & iPad are all solely own by Apple. Apple's iTunes and App Stores are solely own by Apple. With this being the case, Apple has sole ownership, patent and copyrights to these products making them proprietary to Apple.
http://www.mad4mobilephones.com/the-21-most-important-iphone-patents/562/

Point 2: Open Standards

Adobe:
Flash is not listed in the W3C consortiums standards and drafts for Internet web development. In this case, Jobs is correct in that Adobe Flash is not an open standard.
http://www.w3.org/TR/

Apple:
Apple's iPhone, iPod, & iPad all use iPhone OS which is based on Apple's OSX operating system. The iPhoneOS is a proprietary operating system solely owned by Apple. Although you can use open source tools to develop for iPhone OS, the core operating system is a closed standard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_OS

Point 3: Mobile Compatibility

Adobe:
Adobe has made great strides in getting Flash Lite support for mobile devices. If you review Adobe's own support forum, you will see that Flash Lite uses many features of some devices but it does support all the advance features of most of the mobile devices. In this case, Jobs is correct in that Flash does not utilize the advance features and functions of mobile devices. This includes both touch as well as energy consumption utilization modules of most mobile devices.
http://www.adobe.com/mobile/supported_devices/handsets.html

Apple:
Apple has admittedly been very vague regarding their App Store guidelines, submission and approval process which has been frustrating for developers. Apple's products are not the only mobile products available but in order to add distinction and innovation in the marketplace, Apple chose to break away from the normal architecture of mobile devices. Although this has led them to great success, they have chosen to remain distinctive. So Apple's devices are unique which makes them only compatible with other Apple products.
http://www.pdastreet.com/articles/2007/1/2007-1-10-The-iPhone-Effect.html
http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/AppleHIGuidelines/XHIGIntro/XHIGIntro.html

Summary:
Both Adobe and Apple have closed proprietary systems.
Both Adobe and Apple want marketshare in the mobile arena.
Both Adobe and Apple are corporations striving to gain a competitive edge over other companies as well as each other.
Both Adobe and Apple support open mobile standards from W3C consortium but both do not utilize all of its functionality.

Bottom-line:
There is no real right or wrong in this discussion regarding the two companies. It is just a matter of determining which distinctive technology people will ultimately rally behind. Just as those days when the arguments were IBM PCs vs Commodore or Apple, MSDOS vs DRDOS, Netscape vs Internet Explorer, or even Windows vs Linux; discussion and arguments will always be present as new and innovative technologies come to the marketplace. It is just how it works. Happy

Steve Jobs Open Letter regarding Flash
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/

Later People. Happy

- Collapse -
You entirely miss the point
Apr 30, 2010 7:22AM PDT

Which is the web is supposed to be an open standard that is owned by everyone and runs every where. That's not so important a feature for operating systems and 3rd party apps. Which generally are incomparable even if they are open.

- Collapse -
Holy Hell!!!! Common Sense on the Internet!!!
May 1, 2010 7:23AM PDT

I couldn't agree more. People are getting way too caught up in trying to make a "good guy" and a "bad guy" out of this. Wow! Steve Jobs was spreading on a little self-indulgent hypocrisy. . .isn't that like a prerequisite of being in any position of power in ANY (especially tech) company? He's right about HTML5 and open standards. . .in the long run, they will replace flash. Adobe is also justified in their position. . they want to make money and keep market share. Is Jobs calling the kettle black? YES, but is Adobe trying to milk the market with a dying platform? YES. If you are going to demonize somebody like Jobs just for acting like a typical tech CEO and pretend that other companies like Adobe and Microsoft aren't just as interested in their bottom lines than go ahead and be naive. The people taking the middle ground here aren't "missing the point". . .we're just not taking sides when both companies have valid points and both companies are just as dollar driven as the other. It's like taking sides in a fight between Goldman Sachs and AIG. . . and possibly just as pointless.

- Collapse -
It's another case
May 2, 2010 12:13PM PDT

Like the movie and music industry, of companies trying to fight the future rather than jumping on board to be ready for what's happening.
Adobe needs to create tools for easy HTML5 authoring, they can win by only battling for a soon to be obsolete flash technology. They need to get behind both. That way they win whatever happens.

- Collapse -
only true if apple denies own closed-ness...
Apr 30, 2010 3:40AM PDT

I dunno maybe they deny it, but I dont remember hearing them say one way or another...

- Collapse -
All this parsing...sheesh...
Apr 30, 2010 3:56AM PDT

Who cares if they deny it or not? Another example:

Let's say Steve Jobs looked like "The Elephant Man". And let's assume for the sake of the argument that most people...again...most people would probably not find the Elephant Man attractive. OK?

Jobs (looking like Elephant Man) to Adobe CEO: "...and you're UGLY, too!". So, it's not like Jobs is denying he, himself, is ugly. He's trying to say someone else is, and somehow that's a pejorative; a criticism; an unflattering comment.

He's the one who brought the "closed system" term into the argument when he, himself, is "guilty" of the same condition. Again, I don't know how else to explain it, and it really should be self-evident, lol.

- Collapse -
It is self evident. Its just not earth shattering news.
Apr 30, 2010 4:03AM PDT

Corporations and politicians routinely spin the facts to flatter themselves and conveniently sidestep their own failings. Adobe and Apple both claim that their way is "best for consumers". Of course each of their ways is also best for the self interests of their stock prices too.

- Collapse -
Good read from John Sullivan of ars technica
Apr 30, 2010 6:14AM PDT
- Collapse -
Correction...
Apr 30, 2010 6:32AM PDT

John Sullivan via ars technica.

- Collapse -
(NT) yes, but there's nothing worse than being a hypocrite...
May 2, 2010 11:00AM PDT
- Collapse -
How is Job's a hypocrite?
May 2, 2010 11:40AM PDT

Please point to passage in his open letter where Jobs actually claims that Apple is any more open than Adobe or that Apple believes everything involving computers must be open. In fact he readily admits that "Apple has many proprietary products too...". He simply says that "we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open.". (my emphasis)

That's it. That's all he said. He didn't say all proprietary products are evil. He simply stated that, with regard to the web, he believes open standards are the best. You can disagree with his conviction. You can ask why he thinks this way. But you can't pretend he is trying to be some open source champion (and therefore a hypocrite) because he is not.

- Collapse -
H.264 is proprietary
May 2, 2010 10:58PM PDT

Both Apple and Microsoft are pushing H.264 as a proprietary standard in HTML 5.
Yes H.264 is more open than Flash but not by much.

- Collapse -
"open" and "free" are not the same
May 2, 2010 11:31PM PDT

h.264 is open but not free. just like the mp3 standard is open but not free. These standards are open for anybody to use and implement in their software for a licensing fee.

- Collapse -
well...
May 8, 2010 11:29AM PDT

maybe hypocrite isn't the best descriptor, but...


the point wasn't that he claimed apple is open source and did otherwise, it's for criticizing another company for doing something he himself supports in his own company.

-k

- Collapse -
He never claimed Apple was "open source"
May 9, 2010 10:49AM PDT

He simply said that in spite of the fact that they are closed in some aspects, he believes that when it comes to the web, open standards are best.

I'm not standing up for Steve Jobs (I'm pretty sure he could care less what anyone thinks of him or his methods). There are a lot of things I think he is guilty of but pretending to be an open source advocate is not one of them.

I just don;t think it's good practice to spin stories into something they are not in order to bolster one's cause. That's the stuff of slimy political pundits looking to sell books, not the foundations of an intellectually honest philosophy.

And that's exactly what happened with this letter. Some people immediate looked for an angle to further criticize Apple and to support their open source agenda (and of course to pen a sensational blog post or two in the process getting a whole lot of page hits). They ignored what was actually written and just filled in the gaps to make the letter say what they wanted it to say. Open source advocates have a valid point but lying, embellishing the truth and ignoring facts does not make a strong argument for any cause.

- Collapse -
that's totally cool
May 14, 2010 12:56PM PDT

I Was just basing it on my own opinion, but it could def be influenced by the media i guess.

im not saying he claimed or said anything, ever, tho.

its just my impression that that's what apple ethos is about, not about what one person said at some time or another, again, i could be totally wrong, that's just where my statement came from Happy

- Collapse -
Don't take it personally.
May 14, 2010 11:41PM PDT

I'm more upset with the way this story has been spun around the web by bloggers and tech pundits. Its unseemly when people who know better purposefully ignore the facts just to make their angle on the story more sensationalistic.