The real reason why Steve Jobs hates Flash

Meta-comment: I don't agree with everything in this post, but it made me <i>think</i>. It's a refreshing change from the echo-chamber posts that simply parrot whatever was last posted and either agree in breathless terms or disagree vociferously.<p>Suggestion to bloggers: When you read something that makes you excited or angry, resist the impulse to respond on the same terms. Ask yourself what important factor is being ignored in the current debate.

I agree with a lot of this, but one point seems to contradict facts:<p><i>Even if he's reduced to giving the machines away, as long as he can charge rent for access to data (or apps) he's got a business model.</i><p>Hasn't Apple repeatedly stated the case that the App Store runs at break even? The whole idea is to drive sales of machines. Now if it is for some cloud based services in the future that might work - still an iPhone unsubsidized is ~$600 so that is a good deal of cloud service revs that need to make up for that.

This article highlights my problem with Apple. They really suck at cloud services. Google on the other hand is the leader and runs amazing cloud services. The reason my next device will be an Android, is because Apple has decided to block Google's excellent cloud services(gVoice). I think Google has the edge in the future described in the article, not Apple. I think it is going to be easier for Google to make a better device, than for Apple to start running the kinds of datacenters that Google does.

The 70's: Own the data center (IBM)<p>The 80's: Own the desktop (Microsoft)<p>The 90's: Own the network (AOL)<p>The 2000's: Own the browser (Microsoft, et. al.)<p>The 2010's: Own the 'Experience' (Apple)<p>If Apple can entice us all into their walled garden, they'll own our entire experience - not just our desktops or data centers. It'll be AOL, pre-Internet, except it'll be way, way nicer - nice enough that most of us will not complain.

Yes, the PC era is coming to a close, and every company involved is panicking, EXCEPT for Apple, because they're clearly out in front with their iPhone/iPad OS ecosystem.<p>Also, Apple makes relatively little money from the App Store; they still make most of their money from hardware, even if its increasingly mobile hardware.<p>The real people they're trying to please are users. They only court developers to the extent that enough apps are generated that it enhances the experience for users. And as both a developer and a user, even though it pisses me off a little bit, objectively, I think that's a good business decision. A locked down App Store, while shitty for developers, does probably create a better user experience and sells more hardware...

Interesting read but the headline is a misleading, very little of the article is in relation to the Apple vs Adobe debate.

Apple has 40 billion plus in cash. If you listen to the calls, they say they're going to use it for something big. It's done in a very understated way. My belief? They're hoarding it to roll out essentially a wireless high speed network as described in this post. That's why you hoard what will eventually be 50+ billion dollars in cold hard cash. Just my theory though.

PCs are not "becoming commodity items". PCs have been commodity items for over 20 years. The difference now is that improvements in speed and capacity are no longer compelling reasons for mainstream users to upgrade every couple of years.

This is The Innovator's Dilemma, of mainframes to minis to workstations to PCs... when a small portable device is "fast enough", its other benefits enable it to beat a desktop (even though a desktop remains more powerful - just as a mainframe does). And there's a changing of the guard.<p>I have my doubts about multi-touch; but always-connected-portable-devices is definitely the future IMHO.<p>I think Steve loves the idea of pioneering and owning the new computing UI (multi-touch). Maybe he sees this as an end-game, as he has a family, gets older and has had health scares... but insofar as we're reading minds, I don't think he really cares about owning it in the long-term. He'll go off to develop the next new technology, because that's where he enjoys making money. If the iPad isn't a huge hit (or if it is), I bet there are a bunch of other projects in the wings... for the future.

Google saw it, Android phones and Chrome OS netbooks are targeted into this space. Difference from Apple: Google thinks it can deliver both hardware <i>and software</i> at knock down prices or free, without needing to curate an in-house ecosystem, and profit by monetizing what the devices provide access to - the whole internet.

To the author:<p>Sorry, but physics is against you. There isn't enough wireless bandwidth to do what you suggest. It doesn't exist, we're pretty much saturated as it is.<p>The only hope is micro cells, tons and tons of them, each with high bandwidth, and low range. Or very directional devices (but that's not practical).<p>But micro cells with the high bandwidth you hope for don't exist now, and probably won't any time soon.<p>And if such high bandwidth did exist, I really hope the future of computing is not iPhone type devices.

As long as people care there will always be PCs(PERSONAL COMPUTERS) and OSS for them even if proprietary software becomes tied to hardware.<p>And I don't really see this happening in much of the developing world (most of the world/fastest growing markets) in the coming decades.

Though the title says 'The real reason why Steve Jobs hates Flash', he talks more about overall industry dynamics than Flash. And he is definitely right about one thing: the PC industry needs to re-invent itself or it will die. I have been using Windows XP as my work laptop for all my career and I still don't know if MS has any good replacement.

Ill believe the PC is dead, and the cloud is the way to go when i get bandwidth in NYC like I get in Japan.

he knows what he is talking about. the only problem -&#62; there is no longterm future for splinternetssss <a href="http://tinyurl.com/yeg6bbg" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/yeg6bbg</a> the model apple follows? change -&#62; make money -&#62; change again -&#62; make money -&#62; ... problem? as change accelerates it becomes nearly impossible to hold on as a company. the real model apple follows? selling rotten apples from an ever growing tree of disruptive technology.

It is a cool idea but there is a major flaw in the premise. And that flaw is that Apple depends on AT&#38;T to deliver data.

This is a really verbose post, but he does get around to alluding to a very good point: if iStuff supported Flash, you could develop in Flash and bypass the App Store.<p>I think it's a pretty compelling argument.