Thoughts on Flash

[ … ] Not shown: Apple’s long history with Adobe, and how they grew apart.

I wanted to jot down some of our thoughts on Adobe’s Flash products so that customers and critics may better understand why we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. Adobe has characterized our decision as being primarily business driven – they say we want to protect our App Store – but in reality it is based on technology issues.¹ (Editorial note 1)Editorial · 1Known at the timeThe letter opens by denying a business motive, then spends its sixth and “most important” reason on control of the app platform. Both can be true, but the order matters: it leads with the arguments a customer can check, and keeps the strategic one for readers who reach the end. Adobe claims that we are a closed system, and that Flash is open, but in fact the opposite is true. Let me explain.

First, there’s “Open”.

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.² (Editorial note 2)Editorial · 2Known at the timeJobs turns Adobe’s charge around by redefining “open” as open web standards. He concedes in the next paragraph that Apple’s own operating system is proprietary. The move works because it changes the question from who controls the device to who controls the web format.

[ … ] Not shown: Apple’s backing for HTML5 and WebKit; video and games without Flash.

In addition, Flash has not performed well on mobile devices. We have routinely asked Adobe to show us Flash performing well on a mobile device, any mobile device, for a few years now. We have never seen it. Adobe publicly said that Flash would ship on a smartphone in early 2009, then the second half of 2009, then the first half of 2010, and now they say the second half of 2010.³ (Fact note 3)Fact · 3With hindsightThe memo claims Adobe promised a smartphone release four times, from early 2009 to the second half of 2010. We have not found an independent source for those dates. What followed: on 23 June 2010 GSMArena reported that Adobe had released Flash Player 10.1 for phones running Android 2.2, while noting that no device yet ran Android 2.2 officially. On 9 November 2011 Adobe said it would stop developing Flash Player in the browser for new mobile device configurations after Flash Player 11.1.SourcesApple (Internet Archive copy)Thoughts on FlashApr 2010GSMArenaFlash 10.1 final available for smartphones with Android 2.223 Jun 2010Adobe (Internet Archive copy)Flash to Focus on PC Browsing and Mobile Apps; Adobe to More Aggressively Contribute to HTML59 Nov 2011 We think it will eventually ship, but we’re glad we didn’t hold our breath. Who knows how it will perform?

[ … ] Not shown: Mobile devices need hardware video decoding to save battery.

Although Flash has recently added support for H.264, the video on almost all Flash websites currently requires an older generation decoder that is not implemented in mobile chips and must be run in software. The difference is striking: on an iPhone, for example, H.264 videos play for up to 10 hours, while videos decoded in software play for less than 5 hours before the battery is fully drained.⁴ (Fact note 4)Fact · 4Known at the timeThe memo claims software decoding cuts video playback on an iPhone to under 5 hours. We have not found an independent source. The 10-hour figure matches Apple’s own specification for the iPhone 3GS, “Video playback: Up to 10 hours”, which is Apple’s claim, not an independent test.SourcesApple (Internet Archive copy)Thoughts on FlashApr 2010Apple (Internet Archive copy)Apple - iPhone - Technical SpecificationsApr 2010

[ … ] Not shown: Flash was built for mice, not touch screens.

Sixth, the most important reason.

Besides the fact that Flash is closed and proprietary, has major technical drawbacks, and doesn’t support touch based devices, there is an even more important reason we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. We have discussed the downsides of using Flash to play video and interactive content from websites, but Adobe also wants developers to adopt Flash to create apps that run on our mobile devices.⁵ (Editorial note 5)Editorial · 5Known at the timeHere the letter moves from the browser to the App Store. The dispute over video and web pages is about what users can see; this one is about who sets the terms for developers, and that is the one Apple says it cannot concede.

We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform.⁶ (Editorial note 6)Editorial · 6Known at the timeThe strategic core of the letter. A cross-platform layer lets developers write once for every platform, which commoditises the platform underneath and sets the pace at which its new features reach apps. Apple names the cost to itself plainly; the cost to developers, who lose a write-once option, it leaves unsaid. If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers.⁷ (Fact note 7)Fact · 7With hindsightOn 9 September 2010 Apple said it was “relaxing all restrictions on the development tools used to create iOS apps, as long as the resulting apps do not download any code”, citing developer feedback. The statement names neither Adobe nor Flash. By November 2011 Adobe was pointing Flash developers to packaging native apps with Adobe AIR for app stores, including the iTunes App Store.SourcesAppleStatement by Apple on App Store Review Guidelines9 Sep 2010Adobe (Internet Archive copy)Flash to Focus on PC Browsing and Mobile Apps; Adobe to More Aggressively Contribute to HTML59 Nov 2011

[ … ] Not shown: Cross-platform tools, Adobe’s slow Mac adoption, and Apple’s motive.

Conclusions.

Flash was created during the PC era – for PCs and mice. Flash is a successful business for Adobe, and we can understand why they want to push it beyond PCs. But the mobile era is about low power devices, touch interfaces and open web standards⁸ (Editorial note 8)Editorial · 8Known at the timeThe conclusion recasts a vendor dispute as a change of era, with Flash on the wrong side of it. That framing is hard to argue against, because it does not depend on any one benchmark in the letter being right. – all areas where Flash falls short.

[ … ] Not shown: Media outlets and App Store apps show Flash is unnecessary.

New open standards created in the mobile era, such as HTML5, will win on mobile devices (and PCs too).⁹ (Fact note 9)Fact · 9With hindsightIn November 2011 Adobe wrote that “HTML5 is now universally supported on major mobile devices”. The W3C published HTML5 as a Recommendation on 28 October 2014. In July 2017 Adobe announced it would end Flash, saying open standards such as HTML5, WebGL and WebAssembly had become a viable alternative.SourcesAdobe (Internet Archive copy)Flash to Focus on PC Browsing and Mobile Apps; Adobe to More Aggressively Contribute to HTML59 Nov 2011W3COpen Web Platform Milestone Achieved with HTML5 Recommendation28 Oct 2014AdobeFlash & the Future of Interactive Content25 Jul 2017 Perhaps Adobe should focus more on creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind.

Steve Jobs