Why No Flash? The Bullet Points

In a lengthy piece posted here: http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash, Steve Jobs explains all the reasons why Flash is not allowed on its mobile lineup, which now includes the slate computer called the iPad as well.

Much of what he says has already been suspected to be the case. Technology pundits have (correctly) reasoned that there isn't just one reason why Flash is not permitted in the Apple mobile ecosystem - there are several.

To sum up quickly (the full release is below), Jobs says this of Flash:

1. It's proprietary.
2. Most Web video plays on the iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad
3. Who needs Flash games? We have apps for that.
4. Flash has poor security.
5. Flash doesn't perform well on mobile devices.
6. Flash negatively affects battery life.
7. Flash was designed for PCs, not touchscreens.

Jobs also addresses the recent decision to ban apps built with Adobe's iPhone-app-creation tool, a tool that allowed Adobe Flash developers to write iPhone apps using the skills they already had and then export those apps to an iPhone/iPad-compatible format. Says Jobs:

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. [...] This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor's platforms.

Does Google Scare Apple?

The deeper question that remains unanswered in this missive is: Why now? That is, why share all these thoughts now after remaining silent for so long?

Like the reasons for banning Flash, the reasons for Jobs revealing these sentiments are also multi-layered. For starters, there's the iPad. Positioned as a netbook replacement, the device functions in an unchartered, in-between zone where website owners aren't sure whether to display a mobile site or a regular site to iPad Web surfers... or maybe just build an app. That decision is made even more difficult as developers must debate whether to build an iPad-friendly website where the Flash content is rendered in another iPad-compatible format or removed entirely. Or again, should they build an app? Or both?

Despite "leading the way" to the new tablet era, the iPad will soon go up against a number of other tablet PCs running everything from Windows 7 to Google's mobile operating system, Android, and even an OS called Google Chrome OS, built on top of Linux but with the Chrome web browser as the only interface. An important side note here: Google has now partnered with Adobe to bundle Flash Player into its Web browser. Buggy or not, Google's position appears to be that "the most widely used web browser plug-in" (a quote from Google's VP of engineering, Linus Upson) should be made available to users, not kept from them.

Another issue that may have influenced the timing of this post: After the news about the Chrome/Flash partnership efforts, Google's Andy Rubin told the New York Times just this week that Google's Android mobile OS, currently the fastest-growing OS on the market thanks to numerous OEM partnerships, will receive full support for Adobe Flash in the next release, code-named Froyo (yes, for frozen yogurt - Google likes its desserts) and rumored to be released at the upcoming Google I/O Conference.

At the end of the day, it comes down to this: Apple is eschewing Flash in favor of open Web standards - most notably, HTML5, the upcoming version of the Web markup language that allows plugin-free video viewing. Google, however, is in favor of giving people what they want, says Rubin. "When they can't have something, people do care," he told the Times.

Now it's up to the consumers to vote with their wallets to declare a winner. An open OS with a closed, proprietary standard? Or a closed OS with support for open standards? What will you choose?