Flash on iPhone would be a huge revenue leak

http://smoothspan.wordpress.com/2008/06/11/is-the-iphone-application-store-the-problem-for-adobe-flash/

by pchristensen • 18 years ago

20 38 18 years ago

smoothspan.wordpress.com

wallflower• 18 years ago

Maybe Apple is just being Machiavellian...

"In any case, the iPhone is Apple's best shot at killing Flash, and Apple appears happy to be using it as such...Excluding Flash is a huge slap in the face of Adobe, which is pushing Flash as the basis of its AIR and Flex web application strategies. Adobe likes to advertise that nearly every PC has a Flash plugin installed. Suddenly, nearly every mobile that has access to the real Internet won't have Flash, making it far less attractive across the board."

"Were Flash Lite to gain momentum, it might make Adobe the Microsoft of mobiles, and Flash Lite the new Windows. That also makes it obvious why Apple wants to choke Flash to death before it falls into position as the new lowest common denominator in proprietary platforms on a new crop of mobile devices."

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q2.07/879DD82D-559...

tx• 18 years ago

Death of Flash, mobile Java and Silverlight... this is so awesome, go Apple go!

dsplaisted• 18 years ago

It doesn't sound too plausible to me. It's only a revenue leak if the flash applications are going to stop people from paying money for Apps at the App store. But I think flash would mostly be used for free stuff, and would only really compete with the free Apps in the app store.

drawkbox2• 18 years ago

You don't think apps from apple could contain flash? I think it is more of a video battle and a lock down on interface look and feel. If we remember, Apple played this closed market approach with the desktop and look where that got them. I would hate to see them make the same mistake a decade or two later.

allenbrunson• 18 years ago

"Apple played this closed market approach with the desktop and look where it got them:" It got them in the position of being the ONLY company making consumer computers that still has any margins to speak of. HP, Compaq, Dell, et al are all racing each other to the bottom, trying to eke out a minimal survival on razor-thin margins.

Apple's stumbles in the 80s and 90s weren't because they failed to license MacOS, it was because Jobs was immature and shot himself in the foot, taking his company down with him. These days they couldn't possibly be doing any better, and you can bet your ass Jobs still thinks licensing MacOSX is a terrible idea.

jrockway3• 18 years ago

Between the tagline ("For Executives, Entrepreneurs, and other Digerati who need to know about SaaS and Web 2.0.") and the photo, I knew this wasn't a post worth reading.

Also, this is nice: "Java is an interpreted language. The JVM is the Java interpreter."

sophist5• 18 years ago

Also, this is nice: "Java is an interpreted language. The JVM is the Java interpreter."

Technically this is true. The JVM interprets Java bytecode in the sense that it translates the bytecode into machine language on the fly.

jrockway3• 18 years ago

The JVM doesn't interpret Java, it interprets JVM bytecode. Java isn't interpreted, it's compiled to run on the JVM (or natively).

Basically, I'm in favor of a law that says "If you want to use the word compiled or interpreted in your blog post, you have to write a programming language first." That is the project you need to do to understand compiled vs. interpreted.

mattmaroon4• 18 years ago

Can we all just agree that whether or not Java is an interpreted language is not really relevant to the post? Let's direct further criticism at the arguments and conclusions rather than small technical gaffes.

sophist5• 18 years ago

I don't think anyone is claiming that Java is an interpreted language. The claim is that "interpreted language" to most managerial, non-hacker PHB types means "a language that at some point during execution requires interpretation."

axod2• 18 years ago

I don't see why anyone would want flash on their iPhone to be honest.

Video works fine on the iphone with youtube etc, and that's only really useful if you're on wifi.

Also as far as I know you can do quicktime video on the iPhone.

koblas2• 18 years ago

While I'm no flash fanboy, I will say that the crux is dead on. Apple is all about razor blades.. They'll sell you a iPhone or an iPod and the find a way to extract lots of small dollars from the sale of music or applications for your device.

Putting a full featured version of flash on the device would be a trivial way to avoid the Apple store, load your Kongregate (or other casual app core) then you've got access to that whole development community and disenfranchise Apple in the process.

Right now as long as you're shopping the isles of wallmart (oh, Apple.com) for your applications they can insure that you get no free stuff and have to pay for everything, thus controlling the pipe and the revenue.

mattmaroon4• 18 years ago

It's actually not the razorblade model. It used to be the exact opposite. Apple made their profit off of the razor (iPod) and gave the blades away. It was the reverse razor-blade model.

Some people think they're now profiting off of both, which is incredible.

tlrobinson2• 18 years ago

I don't think that's really true. Apple makes more money on hardware than anything else. The iTunes Store helps sell more iPods, not as much the other way around.

I think Apple's decision to require all iPhone apps be sold through the iTunes Store is partially a matter of control. If an app is malicious or misbehaves, they can easily pull it.

koblas2• 18 years ago

It might be true, tried to find the gross revenue per unit for an iPod (unable to). However, during my investigation I did find this interesting blog post.

  http://daringfireball.net/2008/01/aapl_q1_2008

The author makes a few interesting notes about Apples Q1: * Mac sales and iPhone sales were equal * The gross revenue per iPod was $181

Also, apple made $808M on iTunes.

There is one interesting bit of foretelling in the post (written 5 months ago)

     The market for third-party software for the iPhone and iPod Touch is already big, and I expect that by this time two years from now, there will be more iPhones/iPod Touches in use than Macs. (Imagine the unit sale numbers for a $199 iPhone two years from now.)

elai• 18 years ago

This might be my ignorance of virtual machines, but what prevents vm authors to compile bytecode into asm??

GrandMasterBirt2• 18 years ago

To install ANYTHING on iPhone you need to get apple's approval and have apple distribute it for you. iPhone won't run anything without the Apple private key.

Which means if you want to install a JVM or Flash VM you need to install the VM onto iPhone apple won't let you. If you compile the Java bytecode into C-code (as GCJ does) you still have the problem of actually installing that compiled code onto the iPhone.

rtf• 18 years ago

Not a whole lot, but compiling to the machine is a more difficult task than writing an interpreter. "Just-In-Time" VMs (Java and Flash 9 both do this) do some amount of this compilation as the program starts and executes. That lets them strike a balance between startup time(running a full compile can be quite slow) and execution speed.

GrandMasterBirt2• 18 years ago

The point is ability to INSTALL it. Compiling the bytecode of flash into C or whatever iPhone runs on is not the problem it can be done if necessary, its actually having anything run on the iPhone that is...

The advantage of bytecode is that it can run on any operating system/architecture, the VM will take care of executing it as binary code on whatever system it is installed on. This way you can go to youtube from any OS and if you have flash installed it works. Its not just about compiling into binary and startup times :)...

Now having said that when are the iPhone ruby and python VMs coming out?

lpgauth• 18 years ago

I call BULLSHIT!

god• 18 years ago

Same could be said about Javascript. But as far as I know, IPhone has Javascript.

axod2• 18 years ago

They have some pretty cool webapps also: http://www.apple.com/webapps/ on which you can get listed pretty easily.

I'd say webapps are still the way to go unless you need access to some hardware that isn't exposed to the browser.

raganwald• 18 years ago

Not just Javascript, but Mobile Safari has goodies to let you style web forms with iPhone UI appearance, such as sliders for toggling things on and off.

So given that there is already a huge trend away from standalone apps and towards browser apps, Apple is actually supporting that trend by making Mobile Safari apps look attractive and work well on an iPhone.

Herring• 18 years ago

Have you tried browsing without js? Doing without flash is considerably easier. There aren't that many apps written in js either.

philswenson• 18 years ago

this is silly... I think they just don't want it to suck and there probably isn't a good way to get flash to run on the iphone without sucking given the zoom in/zoom out feature in safari.

flash would not challenge a native iphone app, you wouldn't have access to all the cool iphone APIs. It would only be marginally better than a standard web app.

tlrobinson2• 18 years ago

Unless Adobe were allowed to break Flash out of the browser and store .swfs locally you would still need to load the app every time from the web. Of course you can already do the same sort of things with JavaScript. If SquirrelFish makes it to the iPhone (it would be silly not to) all JavaScript apps will receive a huge boost in performance.

Plus Flash most likely wouldn't have access to many of the features native iPhone apps do.

Jobs simply hates Flash and Java. I talked to someone who did some advertising work for Apple, and they had some Flash thing that Steve needed to approve, but supposedly he refuses to install Flash on his computer, so they had to do a screencast just for him.

BobWarfield• 18 years ago

There have been bytecode versions of many languages for ages. Smalltalk is a language most people view as interpreted that executed bytecodes way back when. Basic "compitlers" have generated bytecodes for ages. Lisp compilers, ditto.

This definition of interpreted, that leaves Java not being interpreted is interesting, but one would have to conclude if you buy that definition not much of anything is interpreted save a few scripting langauges.

Wikipedia is absolutely on target with the definition I used for an interpreted language. It's the one I was taught when I got a CS degree. One could've argued even then that most CPU's execute microcode, and that there were even CPU's you could download new microcode to, so that was the only "one true" compiled world. But this is not the general meaning of the word.

There are tons of apps available in Flex that do all kinds of useful things that Apple will want to charge for. Javascript is an interesting case. I wonder how complete the implementation is on the iPhone and whether all apps execute fine there? Anyone have any complex Javascript to try it with?

shimon• 18 years ago

There is a factual error in this article, in the razor/blades analogy. The monthly service fees for an iPhone don't just benefit the carrier; a portion of the service fees goes to Apple as well. I'm not sure what the portion is (or if that information is public) but this sort of revenue-sharing approach is now relatively common for big-name smartphones.

wmf• 18 years ago

For the iPhone 2G it is rumored that Apple gets a monthly kickback from AT&T. For the iPhone 3G it is rumored that Apple gets over $200 upfront from AT&T and nothing after that.

But as someone else pointed out, if you make money on the razor and the blades it's not the Gillette business model.

agentbleu• 18 years ago

This argument goes into some detail about the politics:

http://thenextweb.org/2008/05/03/what-is-adobes-crystal-ball...

"So a taste of what’s next: As Apple jostles it out with Adobe as to whether Flash is going to be incorporated on the iPhone we get a glimpse of what’s at stake for all involved. Live mobile streaming is the hot potato just out of the oven. With services such as Flixwagon and Qik setting new standards, I’m pretty sure that the Adobe Flash’s crystal ball is telling them they need to be at the forefront of mobile streaming.

To grease the wheels they are removing the paid license mobile operators have been incurring worth over 50 million USD annually to Adobe to incorporate Flash in their mobile devices and teaming up with every major player in the market, in effect forcing Apple to play the Flash game or be left out in the cold."

Flash on iPhone would be a huge revenue leak

Related Stories