When it comes to Flash-based video, the question of the touch vs. mouse-based interface may not be as important, but for Flash-based ads and apps, the mouse pointer is a fairly critical element for interacting with Flash.
Here is where the train starts to leave the tracks. I have to wonder if Jobs could even type this part with a straight face. "Adobe's Flash products are 100 percent 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."
Um, isn't that Apple's entire business model? Is it me, or is it more than just a little ironic for Steve Jobs and Apple to penalize another vendor for developing a closed, proprietary platform? Apple prides itself on its ability to deliver higher quality products and an exceptional user experience because of its tight control of its proprietary platforms, yet cites those same attributes as weaknesses for Adobe.
It is also ironic for Jobs to champion H.264--a patented, proprietary platform requiring licensing fees--over Flash video in the same letter that he claims to reject Adobe Flash because it's not open.
Jobs does acknowledge Apple's proprietary nature, but claims that Web-based technologies should not be proprietary. I agree. I have said as much in debating the whole issue of depending on Flash. However, I'm not Apple so I can make that distinction without seeming like a complete hypocrite.
Then, we get to the crux of the matter--what Jobs claims is "the most important reason." In the ultimate ironic twist, Jobs explains that the most important reason for rejecting Adobe Flash on the iPhone and iPad is that it takes control out of Apple's hands.
Jobs states "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."
Aye, there's the rub. I agree with Jobs assessment that "Flash is a cross platform development tool. It is not Adobe's goal to help developers write the best iPhone, iPod and iPad apps. It is their goal to help developers write cross platform apps."
So, Apple doesn't want to allow Flash as a development platform because it doesn't want the advancement and innovation of the iPhone or iPad platforms to be at the mercy of Adobe. That seems fairly reasonable, but it doesn't fully explain why Apple took the extra--seemingly petty--measure of banning iPhone and iPad apps that are ported from Flash.
I'll give Jobs points for the Full Web, Security, and Touch points. The Battery Life argument, in my opinion is a draw--I could go either way. But, when it comes to the Open, and Platform Dependence arguments, I have to cry foul.
It boils down to Apple wanting to maintain tight, proprietary control over app development for the iPhone and iPad, and not wanting to share the pie. It also seems suspicious given Apple's foray into mobile advertising with the iAd platform--competing directly with the fairly ubiquitous Flash-based ads.