As a developer, it has been with confusion and bewilderment how the media has been swallowing the SPIN from both Apple and to a lesser degree Google.  The battle for the “cross platform development toolset” required by all varieties of mobile devices will hopefully surface from the “SPIN” infested waters.

In this era of web and mobile (And the plethora of devices that represents) a developer aiming for these platforms needs to cover as many platforms as possible, obtaining a reliable and consistent experience  across them all..  And doing it fast and with the least amount of effort.  Effort = Cost.

This is why Flash has become so dominent.  It fullfils many ingredients of this formula. It has archived what producers and consumers want. It has done this largely because it IS proprietory.  Flash has brough us a long way from the static text and picture web of 10 years ago.

Mobile, on the other hand, is an express train with a destination of more eyeballs then we could have imagined.  It has limitations we once battled with but left behind as Computer power and internet speed grew.  But here we are again.  The future of the cross platform Web/Mobile.  Static pages that we slide around with our finger.

Considering the developer needs, the use of cross platform development tools are “the standard” for any large development house doing content production in a large scale.  Economics simply dictates that these techniques must be used to be competative.  The internet is about cheaper faster.  For the time being anyway.

Apple and Steve Jobs on the other hand SPINS it the complete opposite way.  Steve argues that it must be written in custom code specific to the iDevice technology to be acceptable. Dictating to the developer what he can and cannot do. As a developer I would like to stand up and categorically say that this is essentially ”Bullshit” (Using Steves colourful language.)  There is a degree of truth to this but it is for extreme cases such as games. (And in general Games especially use custom $$$ cross compilers usually written in house to archive cross platform implementation.) To any and all developers it is clear that this “postion” Steve takes is one of marketing.  To manipulate the truth as to obtain a percevable advantage.  It has nothing to do with pure intentions.

In general most applications, or specifically applications created with a wide scope of Web and Mobile, can easily be created on cross platform technologies and have a very good user experiance on all.  Its very possible. (But correctly not wanted by those producing these new mobile devices.)

Where to now?  My advice is to start looking at HTML in general and how it can work in with these devices.  And if you have time, play with HTML5, it will become relavent in a few years. For now its a developing standard that keeps moving, something any commercial developer should stay well away from.  Flash, unless something changes, is a political football that neither Apple (Especially Apple as it has produced mountains of lies about Flash and its capabilities) and Google (”Support” it to be “Not Evil” but bog it down in red tape. Java implementation only (Slow as hell), no generic C based versions allowed (Fast as Objective C and much faster then HTML5 currently)).  HTML is your only REAL heterogenious (Cross Platform) solution.  I know, its frustrating.

As a developer myself, I have no time to invest in the Apple Only eco-system. Its far worse then Flash.  Flash actually CAN work on all the platforms and most likely will at some stage as common sense eventually comes to all the AppleFanboy media and bloggers who do not question Steves “Gospel”.  As recent events have shown, Steve manipulates the facts as AntennaGate has shown even to the most die hard AppleFanBoy.  Maybe now they will go back and question many of the other “Letters” Steve has written.

We as developers need to tell Apple/Google what we need to archive our clients wishes, not the other way around.  It is only through a broad understanding of these technologies with their advantages and disadvantages can we make this argument.

Lets study the “Thoughts about Flash”

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.

Let’s get this straight.  Neither Apple iTechnology or Adobe Flash are OPEN.  They both use open and freely available standards. They both use proprietary standards such as H.264.  Steve Jobs claiming that Apple iTechnology is Open is a subjective point.  But let’s look it from another angle.

Free is usually associated with Open.  To use any of Apple’s iTechnology you have to purchase their hardware and be a registered($) developer to run software on them.  For Flash, you can use any computer using any operating system, obtain the Flash player for free, then download the open source compiler.  This is all free and Open, however the Player is closed source. (Or you could use the open source Flash Player called Ganash).

So comparing both, I can use Adobe flash technology and build workable results without paying Adobe a cent. I have access to all the source for the tools that make the swf files. Not so with Apple.  So who is more open again?

Apple has many proprietary products too. Though
the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad
is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards
pertaining to the web should be open. Rather
than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and
JavaScript – all open standards.

The issue here is not the openness of the web, but
the tools and costs to get you to this open web.  For
Apple you have to purchase expensive iTenchnology.
For Adobe, you get a free Flash Player.

Apple’s mobile devices all ship with high performance, low power
implementations of these open standards. HTML5,
the new web standard that has been adopted by Apple,
Google and many others, lets web developers
create advanced graphics, typography, animations and
transitions without relying on third party
browser plug-ins (like Flash). HTML5 is completely
open and controlled by a standards committee,
of which Apple is a member.

Has anyone bothered to tell Steve that HTML5 is a “developing standard” and is not slated to be completely ratified until 2012?   HTML5 is by no means a technology we should be putting out there on a large scale yet as the standard is likely to change.   Every time it does, every website using the current Draft and prototype example implementation will have to change their code to suit.  Any web developer pushing hard into this now is being foolish at best. Potential Darwin awards member of the web community at worst.

Second, there’s the “full web”.

The full web, to me, would mean the most common technologies, Open or otherwise. But let’s keep reading..

Adobe has repeatedly said that Apple mobile
devices cannot access “the full web” because 75% of
video on the web is in Flash. What they don’t say is
that almost all this video is also available in a more
modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones,
iPods and iPads. YouTube, with an estimated 40% of
the web’s video, shines in an app bundled on all
Apple mobile devices, with the iPad offering perhaps
the best YouTube discovery and viewing experience
ever. Add to this video from Vimeo, Netflix, Facebook,
ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ESPN, NPR, Time,
The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Sports
Illustrated, People, National Geographic, and many,
many others. iPhone, iPod and iPad users aren’t
missing much video.

Ok, let’s be specific here.  Flash, way back since Flash Player 9 Update 3, released on December 3, 2007, Flash has been able to play back any standards based MP4 container with H.264 and AAC video, all the way up to HD 1080.  (HD performance subject to Hardware acceleration, ie not on Mac).  Since then, any Video website would have likely switched over to H.264 media files. (Better utilisation of bandwidth  $$$)  Meaning EVERY website would be using them now.  Moving a Flash based Video site to the <video> tag would only take days of development. (No transcoding needed)

Flash has never claimed to be a video container.  It is what has made flash so popular, but that is not its core purpose.  So, cool, Adobe was actually not that bothered, IMHO, about this.   The <Video> tag has its purposes.  But then again Video in flash also has its purposes too.  Both will do some video interfaces better then the other. It depends on the application.  The <video> tag will in general do for 95% of what the web needs.  Adobe has never disputed that.  They have only tried to make it more innovative to keep it as relevant as possible.

Another Adobe claim is that Apple devices
cannot play Flash games. This is true. Fortunately,
there are over 50,000 games and entertainment
titles on the App Store, and many of them are free.
There are more games and entertainment titles
available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any
other platform in the world.

This is obviously a comparison between thousands of free flash games and thousands of $ games on the iTechnology platform.  It is a blatant admission by Steve Jobs that Apple would rather you pay for Games from the store and they get 30%.  And really, why the hell not.  Apple made these wonderful iTechnology products.

Steve, please come clean and do not make up false accusations and mislead consumers.  That’s bad form.  This is the core of why this fight is so high profile IMHO.

Third, there’s reliability, security and performance.

This is where it gets good. Steve has a point here, but chooses to leave out a lot of detail.

Symantec recently highlighted Flash for having
one of the worst security records in 2009.
We also know first hand that Flash is the
number one reason Macs crash. We have
been working with Adobe to fix these problems,
but they have persisted for several years now.
We don’t want to reduce the reliability and
security of our iPhones, iPods and iPads by
adding Flash.

Here Apple starts pointing the finger. Yes Adobe has security flaws. But so does your OSX and iTechnologes.  If Apple was so perfect, why can’t they stop the jail breakers?  How come they send out security patches on a regular basis?  Apple is also known for being one of the slackest when it comes to security fixes.

Yes, Flash has had some security issues, but like all complex tools, no more than its fair share.  Apple, you are just as guilty.  Again bad form Steve.

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. We
think it will eventually ship, but we’re glad we
didn’t hold our breath. Who knows how it will
perform?

Lets look at the facts.  There are over 200 apps on the AppStore known to be made from the FlashCS5 tool set. (Probably more but developers are not willing to say.. for good reason as Steve will probably kick them off)  These Apps passed the TEST to go onto the Apps store.  One would expect the test involves looking at performance issues.  One would expect Steve has likely looked at these apps as there are Blogs and articles all over the Web about them.  So are we supposed to believe that Steve has simply not bothered to have a look at them?  The statement above is obviously misleading.

Fourth, there’s battery life.
To achieve long battery life when playing
video, mobile devices must decode the video
in hardware; decoding it in software uses too
much power. Many of the chips used in modern
mobile devices contain a decoder called
H.264 – an industry standard that is used in
every Blu-ray DVD player and has been adopted
by Apple, Google (YouTube), Vimeo, Netflix and
many other companies.

I recommend you have a look at “HTML5 versus Flash: Animation Benchmarking” (See video explanationComparison of performance of Flash Player 10.1 and HTML 5 on Mobile Devices) in which Flash is 200-500% more efficient then HTML5 running on webkit on an android phone.  Meaning it would use less power then HTML5.  Ie, Steve Jobs’ suggestion that HTML5 has better performance is misleading and obviously not true.

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.

This is really good spin. Steve is right in that the very OLD version of flash before 2007 (3 years in internet time is a VERY LONG TIME), version 9, did use a CPU based codec.  But as stated above, H.264 is now the standard and all sites using flash are now using the same H.264 files in flash as is compatible with the Hardware accelerated decoders.  As such, Flash 10.1 is as efficient as it can possibly be on these mobile devices.  Steve implies Flash cannot do H.264 Hardware acceleration, which is again deceptive and untrue.

But lets get into the OSX story here.  Apple like to blame Adobe for the poor video performance on OSX.  Unfortunately, again, Steve has failed to supply the full story.  The reason Flash on OSX is so slow and buggy is as follows.

1. Video: Apple has refused to, until recently, supply the API required to implement it.  Flash 10.1 for OSX will have Hardware acceleration as, the API has only just been made available.  Steve conveniently failed to mention this. (See Adobe will accelerate Flash video using new Apple API)

2. General flash animation performance: Again, this is because those APIs available for rendering animated content on a web browser are old and not suitable.  Adobe has been waiting for better and supported APIs to become available.  Again, only recently because of the advent of HTML5 in the browser has Adobe now been able to implement Core Animation for use in Flash Player 10.1  The FlashPlayer development team say OSX flash player is likely to be even more efficient then the Windows version.

Looking at the facts, we can see it is Apple and not Adobe that is responsible for a lot the the problems Steve likes to blame Adobe for.  This, however, does not really make up for the stated CRASH level of Flash on OSX.  I personally have not had a lot of problems.  And this crash issue is likely more to do with authoring issues than the player itself.  Still, it’s an easy mark, and why has Adobe let it become such an issue?  I would say, simply because Apple has shown little interest in helping Adobe make a reliable and efficient Flash Player and as such, Adobe has shown little interest in fixing these issues.  A tool like Flash Player is only as strong as the foundations they sit on.  FlashPlayer OSX sits on the OSX API’s and as such, Apple, by definition and by action is partly responsible.

When websites re-encode their videos using
H.264, they can offer them without using
Flash at all. They play perfectly in browsers
like Apple’s Safari and Google’s Chrome
without any plugins whatsoever, and look
great on iPhones, iPods and iPads.

This sentence is obviously misleading as it’s a non-issue. As mentioned above, Flash Video migrated to H.264 over 3 years ago.

Fifth, there’s Touch.
Flash was designed for PCs using mice, not
for touch screens using fingers. For example,
many Flash websites rely on “rollovers”,
which pop up menus or other elements when
the mouse arrow hovers over a specific spot.
Apple’s revolutionary multi-touch interface
doesn’t use a mouse, and there is no concept
of a rollover. Most Flash websites will need to
be rewritten to support touch-based devices.
If developers need to rewrite their Flash
websites, why not use modern technologies
like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript?

Even if iPhones, iPods and iPads ran Flash, it
would not solve the problem that most Flash
websites need to be rewritten to support
touch-based devices.

This is a very good example of misdirection.  HTML/CSS sites are just as likely to use roll overs as Flash is.  And like HTML and the use of it in the Javascript apps for the iPhone, flash is just as usable in an interface designed in flash.  Flash 10.1 also support multi touch and pinch.

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.

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. 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.

There is some truth to this but, like all tools, you use the right tool for the right job.  If I am writing a Game, best to use the most low level code using the highest possible performance API’s available.  But if writing a simply end user App in that people read, input and view data.  This is completely WRONG.

The performance hit of cross platform tools that build tools for input and viewing of data (Anything but games mostly)  have little performance differences.  They save the developer massive amounts of money.  This is why cross development tools are so popular and expensive.  They are very important development tools that can make the difference between a tool being worth while doing or not.

This is a obvious attempt to lock in the developers and to get them to invest money into the closed Apple platforms.  As the more Apple can get them invested, the more power Apple can bring over them.

As a developer, Steve, you turn my stomach.  But at the same time, if that is where the money is, that is where the developer will go, even if he is selling his soul to make his living.

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.

This goes both ways Steve.  But obviously in your mind, Apple is the only company that can “Inovate”.  My stomach turns over again.

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.
And Adobe has been painfully slow to adopt
enhancements to Apple’s platforms. For
example, although Mac OS X has been shipping
for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it
fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped
CS5. Adobe was the last major third party
developer to fully adopt Mac OS X.

“It is their(Adobe)  goal to help developers write cross platform” Yes exactly. As a developer, that is exactly what I want.  HTML5/ Object C, they are all just more languages.  We have so many languages because like having a tools box full of many different tools, Hammer, screw driver, spanner, we use the right tool for the Job.  Imagine a tool box with only a Hammer in it.  That is what Steve is trying to justify here.

Our motivation is simple – we want to provide
the most advanced and innovative platform to
our developers, and we want them to stand
directly on the shoulders of this platform and
create the best apps the world has ever seen.
We want to continually enhance the platform so
developers can create even more amazing,
powerful, fun and useful applications. Everyone
wins – we sell more devices because we have
the best apps, developers reach a wider and
wider audience and customer base, and users
are continually delighted by the best and broadest
selection of apps on any platform.

What a great company statement.  The only problem is that, there is no reason why Flash Player could not be part of that statement apart from the deceptions mentioned above and the business model that places Adobe as a threat.

Conclusions.

Flash was created during the PC era – for PCs and mice.

The C programming language is one of the earliest languages created. Even today it is one of the most common languages in use.  Just because it is old does not make it out dated.  This statement is obviously bate for the general user, not developer type, to relate to.  Like how your older cars are not as good as new ones.  That does not hold water in this case and neither does Steve’s letter.

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
standards – all areas where Flash falls short.

That is your opinion Steve. Unfortunately facts appear to indicate Flash will be a very usefull cross platform technology applicable for mobile to browser.

The avalanche of media outlets offering
their content for Apple’s mobile devices
demonstrates that Flash is no longer necessary
to watch video or consume any kind of web
content. And the 200,000 apps on Apple’s App
Store proves that Flash isn’t necessary for tens
of thousands of developers to create graphically
rich applications, including games.

As long as everyone uses the web as Steve has dictated. Yes. Selling Apps in which Apple gets 30% or everything, yes.

Sorry but this is absurd.  The web is about using whatever works for you.  Be it open or closed.

Flash has a right to exist just as Apple has a right to sell locked down iTechnology.  However, Steve does not have the right to deceive and slander another company.  This is where Apple stepped over the line.  Adobe, on the other hand, has tried to follow Steve’s unrealistic laws and write the FlashCS5 Cross compiler. This has been slapped down with anti-competitive practices of changing the ULA for reasons that do not hold water.  This has never been about what Steve says.  Its about business models.  The CEO of Adobe is very right in saying that this is a smoke screen and this letter is nothing but FUD to try and justify anti-competitive behaviour.

New open standards created in the mobile era,
such as HTML5, will win on mobile devices (and
PCs too). Perhaps Adobe should focus more on
creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and
less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind.

Again, deception.  Adobe have not criticised Apple.  Adobe employees and specifically Flash evangelists who are most likely working on the Flash to iPhone tools did.  Can you blame them?  They put long hard work into following Steve’s ULA.  Implementing a method of making Flash Technology on the iTechnology platform while keeping to the conditions in the ULA, only for Steve to change the wording just before launch.

HTML5 is only a small part of this.  Steve knowns this but is using it as a magical platform, that for all intensive purposes in not real yet as the standard and implementation are only still in early implementation and subject to change.  Because of this unknown potentaial of HTML5, it is the “Fix All pill” we hope will come along and fix those issues we all dislike about the Web.  The truth is, its not going to be anything like that..  Exactly the opposite in reality.

Why Do We Hate Flash

Flash is the Advertisers big stick they hit us with to make us take notice.  Like everyone, we hate being hit by this big stick.  What we have here is similar to the slogan “Guns don;t kill people, people kill people.” which equates to “Flash does not annoy the web surfer, the advertisers making the Flash content annoy the flash user.”

The issue here is that the Web Surfer cannot see past the ad, so they focus on Flash.

The performance issue is a group effort.  FlashCS4 does not lend itself to optimised programming but for real programmers its not difficult at all.  The Advertisers using flash want active and very eye catching ads jumping around attracting your eye.  This of course kills your battery and annoys the user.  Flash can be programmed to archive better then javascript and HTML5 type performance.  The biggest problem here is that it is not generally commercial for web developers to do this.  And this will be true for HTML5 as well.

Every programming language can be programmer poorly.  Even ObjectiveC, C or C++.  Adobe is guilty for letting this get out of hand.  Actionscript3 has brought this back in line a lot as it is far more programmer centric.  You need to understand the code much more.  You cannot simply cut and past into the time line in AS2.  However, at the same time, this has reduced the number of flash programmers as many AS2 users say it is too hard to use now.  Its a double edged sword.

Performance on OSX does SUCK.  Its Crap.  But as mentioned above, Apple is just as responsible if not more then Adobe.

HTML5 is not what we hope it to be

One of the biggest misconceptions of many Flash haters is that HTML5 will save their battery and stop the crashes.

Unfortunately this is WRONG.  The big issue here is that once HTML5 replaces flash, and as a flash developer, I would expect it to. Those who enjoy the ad free internet by using an Ad Blocker or Flash Blocker..  That will be impossible once HTML5 is adopted.  The browser will not be able to tell the difference between an ad and the website.  Ads will be proxied directly into the application, as if they are part of the website.  The ad-blockers will simply not be able to tell the difference.  This is why Google and now Microsoft (with its announcement to drop flash from IE9) are so into HTML5.  No more blocking the premium animated and most profitable ads.  Its obvious any company who makes money from online ads will want flash to disappear from online ads ASAP.

As the “HTML5 versus Flash: Animation Benchmarking” (See video explanation Comparison of performance of Flash Player 10.1 and HTML 5 on Mobile Devices) indicate, those ads you will no longer be able to block will be running all over your open web pages eating up more battery then Flash 10.1 would.

The HTML5 future everyone is hoping for is exactly the opposite of what it will deliver.

Here comes the DOJ

Considering the level of deception and properganda Apple is generating, the DOJ would have to get involved at some stage.  Apple is being anti-competative while also producing large amount of misleading and false information to the general end users.  This is of course hurting Adobe.  In Australia, if Apple was located here, would be in very deep trouble.  Anti-competative behaviour is illigal no mater if you are a monopoly or not.  In the US, these DOJ investigation, altho on the surface, has no real merrit in US law, the DOJ will be compalled to do some type of investigation.

Apple is being anti-competative.  If this behaviour is seen to effect any area Apple is deemed to monopolise, Apple is likely in trouble.  This being such a complex area with so many subjective views, this is unlikely to go any where.  However, the bigger issue here is   “Steve has been seen deceiving end users.”  Ie lying for his own gain.

This establishes that Steve is deceptive.  Where does this stop.  The end user?  The investor? The government?

The DOJ is compelled to have a closer look now.

Why does Apple want to displace Flash?

Finally we need to look at why Steve is pushing this issue so hard.  They want to displace flash as a dominant platform on the web.  I have seen a number of interesting post looking at very holistic reasons. This one is especially interesting but essentially wrong. “A good problem to have“.

Apple/Steve is very smart.  The one market he has not been able to dominate to the degree you would expect is ONLINE VIDEO. The online video owners, unlike the music industry, are a bit more aware of what Apple is trying to archive.  As a result, they have fragmented the industry as much as possible to ensure no indeviduel company can gain enough control as to start dictating to them the conditions.

Steve is trying to manuvor the online video industry into a position in which they have no option but to sell their soul to Apple.  To do this they have looked at the future trends of video. Producer to consumer.

Producer to consumer with subscription or paid to view will be the future.  However, this future will need a transaction system and a video distribution system.  Currently we have two options.  Apple and Adobe.

Its quite simple. Take out Adobe before its Flash platform really starts to shine in this area.  With hardware playback, better then javascript/HTML5 performance, the best authoring tools on the net, cross platform agnostic (Run on anything from a mobile phone, computer, TV) DRM, for those who want it (And all big content owners WILL) AND.. built in TORRENT technology.

Once Flash materialises this technology coming in 10.1 towards the use of video distribution on the net.  Apple will not be able to catch up..  Its all out WAR now.  Crack and kill the egg before it hatches.

I am very much behind Adobe/Flash on this mainly because Adobe is a tools company.  I will be able to purchase the tools to distribute to my consumers directly. I will control my future.  I will not have to ask Apple/Steve permission to distribute my content through his gateway and toll booth, the iTunes store.

Conclusion

In conclusion, as a developer who likes Flash, to tell the truth, I can respect the business decision by Steve to not allow Flash on their iTechnology platforms for good old competitive reasons.  What is wrong here is that Apple is on a campaign of deception.  They are not happy to not use flash, but are also producing FUD to displace Flash as a relevant web technology.

As a Apple user who may be reading this blog entry (And congratulations if you got this far), consider your relationship with your Apple products.  You have just been told your friend is deceptive and will lie to you to get what he wants from you.  How would this go down if this was your partner or best friend?

Let me finish with a video of Adobe’s CTO Kevin Lynch.  Here is a simple and honest view of where flash fits.  I could not agree more with what Kevin says.

I love the aesthetics of the iPhone.  It is a very well made device.  However, as a developer that makes web applications, Flex/Flash is my tool of choice.  I mean REAL Internet apps with visualizations and non-transaction type AJAX “want to be” RIA.  (See this video for an example of my work.)

Considering Apples past comments on Flash performance, and that if any flash, a FULL flash plug-in is the only way forward, we are most likely looking at flash support for the iPhone co-inciting with the release of Flash10 for portable devices.  This will be a full ActionScript3 implementation with Flex support designed specifically for portable devices.

In any case, this means all the work I put into my RIA’s will soon be available on iPhones.

The lack of Flash support is quite ridiculous.  It forces developers to RE-MAKE their applications in a proprietary iPhone SDK.

Once Flash is on the iPhone, I will be able to utilise all my RIA’s by simply pointing the browser at a website.  No development needed.

The RIA development world rejoice.

“… developers will be free to use their own technological measures to secure content. The RTMP specification does not provide any requirement or restrictions on a developer’s own measures to secure content.”

See the full Adobe release here.

This is unexpected news as it means open source implementations of DRM type service will now be possible.  This greatly reduces the value of the the Flash Media Server and Adobe DRM-server, tho open source servers such as RED5, have already been ready to fill this space.

Unfortunately, in my mind, there may still be a big hole in all this development.  Being able to make the RTMP packets for the secure interface build into Flash is one thing.  A more interesting development would be the capability to sit in between the encrypted file and the video decoder.  This would allow progressive streaming, as done with most video providers such as YouTube, but with custom encrypted data. This would allow distributors to easily write a custom decoder in the Flash player.  However, it is not clear if this announcement makes this possible.

Example.

• Server has AES128bit encrypted video data with some tweaking to make it unique to that distributor.
• End user accesses the file using typical progressive download with offset capabilities. (Like YouTube)
• End user uses custom Flash video player that can decode the custom encrypted content.
• Flash player then has direct access to the H.264 codec in the Flash player.
• The end user has typical video experience we all use and understand today, however, the content cannot be viewed outside of the control of the distributor.
• This system can also be used with Adobe-AIR and media files based on local hard drive.

This is not a bullet proof DRM, but it will stop most people and at the same time, be cheap to implement and as cheap as it comes for distribution.  Anyone capable of bypassing this type of DRM is likely capable of bypassing even the most expensive DRM.  As every distributor can easily write their own custom DRM, it also means if  a distributor person has their system bypassed, it does not effect you with your custom version.

It is important to look at this with an eye to the future.  DRM content is definitely NOT the future for most content, however, custom content with neche appeal is likely to maximise the ROI utilising some of there techniques.  DRM is not completely dead, its just growing up and should only be applied when it actually does work for a specific business model.

It is simply more apparent now, those business models and not common.

This post is prodominatly about my frustration with the blogosphere in that much has been written about how open-web technologies and Javascript frame works will be the future of Web Applications.

This is flat out incorrect.  Tho I would admit it will be a substantial part of out near future.  Still, lets get real.

This morning as I was walking to the pool for a swim, an Idea in which I had a chance to over come the Mac Fanboy one eyed opinion came to me.

(Note before I continue, lets have a quick description of a Web Application.  A Web application, as seen on the Demo sites of Sproutecore and Cappuccino as real applications. They cannot be read by Search engines, similarly to other non-javascript RIA implementations (Silverlight, Flex))

Why Javascript is not the second coming as it was touched by god (Steve jobs).

As a Mac Fanboy, you must understand that before the OSX days, OS9 and all the preceding versions, however nice to use, was probably one of the worst operating systems, in terms if underlying foundations, that you had to pay money to get.  The older Mac OS was hammered into submission to get many of the highly respected applications to behave well.  However, OS9 was not a contender to move forward with where operating system where going.  Steve Jobs, with NextStep OS came to save the day.

Now, as a developer and a observer of the industry over many years.  IMHO, Open-web with Javascript frame works is the OS9 or the Web.  Yes it will take us a long way and give us amazing apps.  But the implementation simply does not carry to the future of what the Web will become.  Maybe I am jumping the gun a little.  Still, talk to any open-source developer and he will speak with pain at how slow the open-web is at evolving.

A more realistic implementation of where web applications are going is, unfortunately, Microsoft Silverlight.  Like usual, Microsoft is late to the game but they have the advantage of foresight and current trends to help them evolve Silverlight as the most refined technology available for what most see at the future or Internet Applications. (Don’t forget, Silverlight is Microsoft’s key to offering WORD and the Office suite on the web).  Adobe Flex and its RIA implementation for the flash player is also very close, and it does have a big advantage in that most of its technology is now open source. (Yes some key aspects are kept by Adobe, but realistically, they are being very generous.)

I am not saying, “Don’t use JavaScript Frameworks”.  They are likely to be a big part of the future and a common gateway to bridge between other RIA technologies, Ie Flex, Silverlight.  However, please take a step back and take a realistic over view of where each technology is best suited and what  their limitations are.

Microsoft, in recent times, has been making a big song and dance about developers. (The Steve Palmer “developers, developers, developers” dance for example)  Microsoft does have one thing right, developers are what makes platforms thrive.  They know this and have, over the years, done a very good job at giving the developers what they want, for example, the best IDE (Integrated developer environment) in the world.

Unfortunately, this is no longer good enough.  Microsoft tools have, in general, been very Microsoft centric. (They generally push you towards using (Paying) for a lot of Microsoft tools and end user licenses.) DOT.NET is also been quite a disaster in many ways with Microsoft themselves been unable to give a well defined description, and those you do use it, find it very buggy and monolithic.

While this has been happening, open source technologies have been thriving. Javascript frame works, Ruby and Rails, php, mysql, java going open source, the list goes on and on.  These technologies, most anyway, tend to be easy to learn and resonably lean.  For more applicable to the new generation of Rich Internet application (RIA) development.

It is important to point out here that all of the companies Microsoft sees as a threat are all based on such technologies.  Google, Yahoo for example.  In general, however, name any Web2.0 company and they are not using any Microsoft tools.  Its all open source and Mac driving towards there own proprietory software and patents.

Lets not forget Adobe/flash here.  Alltho the open source tools are quite capable, a tool set that is capable of making RIA (Rich Internet applications) such as Photoshop express or a Word replacement (buzzword) that is nearly as capable as Word is not possible, and is unlikely to be possible based on the committee based development and speed of open technologies.  This is quite a contentious issue especially as Apple has rejected Flash.  I would contend that this has more to do with who’s Video playing technology is dominant on the Web.  Adobe Flash is at the moment, but Apple with Quicktime X plans to change that. (Its all about video platforms not capabilities. (And the DRM capabilities there-in Philip) but thats another blog post.

As Adobe identified this trend and purchased Macromedia/Flash, Microsoft has now also identified this.  As tools like Word and Excel are to go to RIA (Rich Internet Application) type implementations, technologies like Flash are best suited.  (Small Note, Flash SWF files as in that created via the Animation tools in CS3 are not the issue here.  CS3 has a time line animation background and can tend to be CPU intensive as the programmers are generally not a real programmers as apposed to designers doing some programming)  It is flash created via the Adobe Flex FREE SDK that is where RIA on Flash lives.  Flash has grown into a RIA tool set as Macromedia/Adobe noticed end users using it in that way.  It is only recently that they have started optimizing it for this.

Microsoft is late to the game, as usual, and identifying this trend, has rushed out Silverlight.  Silverlight is very much based on the directions of Flash and its Flex development tools, with a Microsoft twist.

Finally, lets not forget, there will always be the need for fully client side tools.  Tools that cannot and never will be network based.  Example of these are all the Adobe CS3 tool set in which you are manipulating very large files and elegant and complex user interfaces. In general however, any tools that needs a lot of I/O (reading a lot of data) are not suitable (But not out of the question.)

Microsoft Office tools, however, are very suitable.  It is not unreasonable to reach a very equivalent RIA implementation.  And in general, a version that is well within the requirements of the growing Internet user.

With all that is happening “Where to now developer”.

Well, if your following the Web2.0 dream, its not Microsoft.  Its open ource based technologies with a touch of Flash (Youtube and any video sites…  Rockyou and other interactive tools.)

If your aiming at business, Microsoft is still hard to pass over.  SMS (Small business server) has made huge inroads into small business over the years, and most if not all larger companies very much rely on Microsoft.  Tho, Open source technologies are making decent inroads here as well.

Java, now part of open source, has become the black sheep of development in many ways.  It was once painted as the future of RIA, but has completely failed in this area and is barely if ever seen these days in a web browser.  However, as a enterprise back end technology it is doing very well.  It is also having some strength in desktop cross platform apps like Open-Office.

Finally lets not forget embedded devices.  An area in which Linux rules. (Ie your ADSL router.  ATM machines,  Petrol pumps.)  A very large industry very much over looked.  Embedded systems have tended towards open tools as there is usually a lot of low level development needed, so using an OS you have complete control of and has no licensing costs has tended to dominate.

Finally, the new kids of the block.  The Web site developer. Skilled in HTML, Javascript and other web techno loges, these developers are now being told they have the tools to make applications.  Javascript frames works have come a long way, and what was once a well made FROM, in some cases is now considered an RIA.  This is an area where the definition of what an RIA is a bit grey.  But we definitely have a lot of telent growing from this field.  And they all love and insist on standards based, if not open source, tools witch they know and love.

One trend is very evident.  Open source development is seen as the area where the larger opportunities exist. Good old Microsoft tools are a well payed IT lifestyle but not seen as the future.  Microsoft Mesh is their response, and we are yet to see how this will pan out.  Microsoft has also made some major inroads to accepting Open ssource as a part of the industry and choosing to live with it instead of fighting it. Has Microsoft has changed it spots, or a wolf in sheep’s clothing?  As an older blogger who has seen Microsoft at the peek of its evil empire, I will need a lot of convincing before I give them a chance. It takes a lot of star troopers to make an evil empire culture. Like any cancer, its very difficult to overcome.

My Web/Javascript programming friends do not even consider sproutcore is as good as many other javascript libraries on the net for example, the Yahoo libray, mootools etc.  However, because Apple is using it and promoting it and Apple has very publicly refused to support Adobe Flash.  This is a big deal.

Apple has given some relevant but ultimately hollow reasons to refuse the support of FlashLite (As a developer I never expected full Flash support), probably one of the most asked for features on the Iphone.  This leads everyone to ask WHY?

Sproutcore is the first sign of why.  In my opinion, this is the main reason why the hype engine is running into the red/extreme zone.  Ultimately it gives us a hint that Apple are actually considering introducing a competitive product to Flash and Silverlight.

As a developer Sproutcore, as an alternative to a real Internet application development environment, is laughable.  All these new javascript frameworks are, in a simplistic description, just an extension to the typical old HTML <FORM> type features and widgets but better looking and friendly-er with real time feedback.

A set of widgets does not an application make.

If we look at current Internet applications which only use Javascript frameworks.  You will notice they are extremely limited and simple.  Javascript frameworks are simply not well suited for extensive Internet Applications.  It gets over complex fast and slows down very quickly.  I have seen flash/flex internet applications that simply cannot be done in Javascript frameworks.  A good example of these are the online picture editing tools like, Photoshop Express.

Lets look at the other Internet God, Google.  Google is a flagship of businesses built on OSS (Open Source Software).  Much of their technology is based on it.  Android, the new Mobile Phone OS and much more.  Still, Google does use Flash extensively in all their analytics products.  The new Flash version of Google Maps API, in my opinion, is far superior then the AJAX version. (Faster, Zooms better, etc)

Google is not afraid to use the right technology for the right Job.

Adobe has also, in recent months, released much of the specifications of FLASH.  So much so that writing your own Flash player is now very possible (From my understanding a number of open source projects are chewing on this right now.)  Adobe did not , however, release much of the information regarding the video and DRM systems. (What did you expect)

Flash has its uses.  The lack of flash on ANY of apple websites and iPhone restrict it from any type of analytics and data representation.  It restricts if from more complex Applications that are possible in Flash and Silverlight.  Apple, proud of its superior OS and software, this simply does not jell.

Still, Apple is right about one thing.  Javascript frameworks like Sproutcore is very suitable for the iPhone applications.  the widgets it supports and the type of applications you would use on the iPhone can mostly be implemented with Sproutcore.

Reading other blog analysis of this issue, much weight is put into the issue that Steve wants to support non-proprietary standards for its tools.  This is a nice “Purist view” but nothing more then hot air.  Apple may encourage the use of open standard on its products, however, Steve knows more then most that, to make a superior and well defined product, open source development methodology simply does not work.  Look at Linux for the desktop.  It could be as refined and as good as OSX.  It has come a long way but has not and possibly never will reach that level of OSX as Linux is an OS with a vision sourced by hundreds of developers around the world. OSX is a vision of one man. Steve Jobs.

It is for these reasons that no open source attempts at making a technology like flash can reach the level flash has.  Steve knowns this, so rejecting Flash for the reasons stated is, in my opinion, a smoke screen.

As a developers, the big issue with the lack of Flash is the lack of cross development capabilities.  Flash is very popular, and right now, FLEX is one of the hottest programing languages around.  I personally have a lot of code I would like to drop onto the iPhone.  But right now, I have to go back to the drawing board and use javascript and a framework like Sproutcore.  That’s like asking a C++ programming he has to go back to BASIC.  It’s degrading.

Ultimately, one must concede that Apple has something up its sleeve.  And it was announced at WWDC with the feature list of Snow Leopard.  Quicktime X is likely to be more then a video engine.  I expect a new platform encompassing much of the features left out in the current restricted frameworks supported by Apple for the Web.  It is likely to be very standards friendly and cross platform (Windows, Linux, Apple)

One could even speculate that Snow Leopard is possibly an open version of OXS for any Intel based hardware.  A common rumour I like to push and feel would catapult Apple into a position where it really is competing with Microsoft.

Through sheer frustration I would to point out these bugs to the general community as one in particular is very serious. It is a major show stopper in my opinion. A bug that threatens the viability of Flash/Flex/AIR with actionscript 3. (Actionscript 2 does not have this problem) And the bug is a very simple and common one.

MASSIVE MEMORY LEAKS. See Adobe bug tracker FP-49

I am surprised this has not gotten more attention. Firefox, for example, has been slamed on memory problems in FireFox2. This memory leak could be a major cause of browser slow down and memory usage issues.

In simple terms, this bug does not free up memory properly. For example, you may have a rich internet ad in flash on your web page. It may be running over and over, and if using the latest Actionscript3 (I would, its 10 times faster then AS2) the ad could be slowly growing in memory usage.
I commonly leave tabs open for days like many other people I imagine. Imagine what this bug is doing to the broswer.

This issue also makes Adobe AIR unsuitable for many applications.  Writting an application that runs as a desktop application and lives in the task bar for days at a time is simply not very viable with this bug hanging over you.

If you are a developer, I urge you to have a read of FP-49 and vote for it. (Adobe lets flash/flex developers vote for bugs to fix first. The more votes, the faster it gets addressed.

Secondly I would like to mention bug “Security.loadPolicyFile() attempts to load file only once” FP-67
This bug basically makes flash used with socket communications near unusable. All my development depends on it. So if you can, please kick that one along too.

Follow this link for a good overview of the latest development in the Flash DRM.

Unfortunately Adobe appears to have lost the plot here.  The details regarding FMRMS are a strange departure from what appeared to be insightful business model.  The two main points that make Adobes push into DRM a large stumble for the company is as follows.

Firstly the $40,000 price.  I actually find this hard to believe.  Microsoft, for example, with Silverlight is actually giving FREE streaming services to help adopt its product.  The initial impression I was given by Adobe was that they planned the DRM to be just another feature introduced into FMS3 which has a reasonable price now. (It use to be an unrealistic price too and has recently had large price reductions) This made sense to me as serving video these days is as simple as putting it on a http server.  Everyone is doing it.  Especially, as many prominent digital media pundits imply, that content is likely to evolve to a type of free (see THIS post) distribution model.

This price makes this product only applicable to large companies like distribution companies and TV stations/networks.  Still, the future tends towards more direct models and less control from gatekeeper organisations is evident and evolving.  If this product was more like $1000 per server, that would have been a big evolutionary step.  Even if DRM is not the ultimate future. DRM is the security blanket used by the content production industry.

The other big fault in Flash DRM is that to utilise the DRM system, you will need to implement an AIR application using the AIR runtime.  Ie you need the user to install the 40meg AIR runtime.  It does not leverage of the 98% flash install base. It is not a simply point browser at site and go implementation.  Flash Media Player (FMP) will be a great product and has some good advantages over a typical web experience, however, this is a major fault in the implementation.  There is no reason that the Flash9 player in itself, could not implement the require details for progressive download on Web pages with 128bit encryption.

Flash Media Server 3 does implement STREAMING based encryption, but any form of progressive download cannot be done.  For example, youtube does progressive download from a HTTP server.  These VIDEO files can, if you don’t have the bandwidth, be cached.  Ie wait a while and the file trickles down.  You can still view the file.  Or if you return to the Video later, it is still in your cache and does not require downloading again.   This type of functionality is not possible with FMS3.  As an independent producer who may want to direct distribute content on a limited (cheap) server setup, there is no real way to do this effectively.  Unless you sign up with pricey CDN (Content Distribution Network) etc.

Don’t get me wrong, as a DRM implementation, FMP and FMRMS looks like a suitable if not best available solution for those organisations like, for example, the BBC doing the iPlayer or the ABC NOW (Australia) or even HULU.   By the looks of the price tag, Adobe does not expect much opportunity outside these potential clients.

To compare apple with apples, Microsoft does offer many of the features Adobe DRM will offer.  SilverLight and its functionality with Microsoft DRM is not something I am completely up to date with.  Silverlight is so new and being developed at an astonishing rate.  At the price Adobe is offering, Microsoft’s offering looks like it deserves a good look.  Microsoft price for its Media server, last time I looked, as not that bad.  It is the way that it was implemented into the browser that faded it into obscurity.  Silverlight may put the spotlight back on it in a big way.

In the long run, however, I do not see this hugely expensive pricing model for FMRMS to be a successful business decision for Adobe.  If you look at historical sales models like this one from Adobe/Macromedia in the past, for example, what is now Live Cycle Data Services for flash was viewed as a enterprise only product and also had a $30,000-40,000 price tag.  This model/price stoped any uptake by the general web community and gave open source AJAX the leverage to completely squash the potential of “Remoting” and other technology these products gave Flash. Only now is Adobe realising this mistake and have now made most of the functionality that was once mega dollars to purchase, open source with BlaseDS.  This, to me, is the same mistake again.

DRM is not about stopping piracy.  There is always a way to pirate content if not ultimately via the analog hole.  DRM is more about the wire fence with “Do not trespass” on it.  It is easy to jump the fence, but generally people will do what they are suppose to, especially if they can go to the gate and pay a reasonable price to get past the fence.

The ability to offer simplistic DRM incentives should not be kept to those who can control the standards.  Apple, (The standard personal music player)  Microsoft, XBOX, etc.  It should be an open system and integrated into the standard HTTP server we all use today.  Just like browser security is today.

During the presentation a few new technologies where mentioned.  This got me thinking and all of a sudden it came to me. (As I lift my small finger to my lower lip) I KNOW Adobe’s plan for world domination.

Before I spill my epiphany, I need to paint the picture.  Let us start with well known Adobe announcements and products.

1. 1. The adoption and release of Flash Player 9 revision 3 (MovieStar).  Apart from supporting H.264/AAC codecs, which is becoming the defacto standard for digital media, this new version of flash player also supports a new DRM.
This is a very important development as, for example, my demonstration on an older post here shows how a AVCHD camera can make files directly compatible with flash.  This allows me to simply drop a media file, be it from my AVCHD camera or something I just riped from a DVD onto my server.  I can then point any browser at it and watch any video I have on it.  Consider the future trends by end users with this functionality.

2. 2. Flash Media Server 3, with support for DRM type standards as 128bit AES encryption of streaming and PROGRESSIVE downloads. A new “very” reasonable lower price.
The improvements for FMS3 and the new price makes hosting your own content very reasonable and accessible.  You do not need to go to Apple/Microsoft Brightcove, etc and other media aggregators who charge you a premium to utilise their network that is optimised for hi-throughput content delivery (So watching the videos works well).
This technology does make it easy to do it yourself.  For many niche content producers, this is great news.
DRM, a four letter word to content consumers, is still high on the requested feature list of content owners.  Especially niche content producers whose content is only ever likely to go out contained within a DRM shell.  This will reduce the speed of content being moved into the general P2P network, and as such, maximise returns.  (Note, this form of DRM is very simple and straight forward, no CA’s and other complex issues exist.  I think it probably uses the one CA for all content from all FMS3 servers.  Still, not having to deal with key and CA’s is GREAT)
This, in my opinion, really lets the content owners decide which is the best way to monetise there content.  And it is being offered as a PRODUCT, not a SERVICE.  I.e. a service will usually scale its costs to your usage while a product is just that. You buy it and that is it.

3.3. Flash media player, a new BBC iPlayer type experience which ties into all the technology above.  Adobe Media Player will likely turn out to be the skinable iPlayer toolset that anyone can adopt and implement.  BBC may have spent big dollars on their implementation.  With Adobe Media Player, TV stations, or other content companies, SciFi channel, Disney Channel etc, could knock this stuff up very cost effectively.

4.4. All these technologies are based on Flex/Flash which predominantly has not been released as open source.  This is a huge deal to me, not that the media has picked up on it.  Sure, some aspects are still not open source, but the technologies that MOSTLY matter are.  What makes Flash what it is today, that type of information is open.  You could implement your own compatible versions of Flash Player, FlashCS3, FlexBuilder if you had the money.
Let’s not forget that Java, the flagship of the open source community has only recently been totally open sourced.  Flex/Flash is in a similar boat.  Some KEY issues are not open source, but those are where I feel they deserve to keep some cred as Flex/Flash is an amazing tool at an amazing price for what it does.
The open source community should really applaud Adobe here in my opinion.  They have donated a lot of code and specifications that they have spent years developing.  And to a degree, I feel Adobe and Flex/Flash have captured a lot of hearts and minds of open source developers.
But getting back to the “MOSTLY” part, and here is where the “World Domination” plan comes into play.  Of course all the aspects of the digital media delivery parts of the platform are not open.  One could justify this for security reasons.  But really, this is where Adobe captures the market and the “Capitalism stripes show”.

While talking to Daniel, he was not well informed about digital media directions of Adobe, apart from knowing the products well and the assumptions one can easily make from the information above.  I did, however, start asking him a lot of of where Flash Player was going.  And actually, there appears to be a lot of development in flahs player going on.  FlashLite3, for example can do H.264/AAC (From my understanding).  Also a lot of work is being done to optimise the ActionScript ECMAScript engine. This is obvious as the mobile phone is held high as the next major viewing platform. (Of some shape of form).

But really, mobile and the Y-generation is going to take some time to grow into this all pervasive video world.  What about the rest of us?

Let me now bring up some interesting post from others.

1.       Brightcove open letter to industry on Internet TV Standards.

2.       RSS-TV, a site set up to promote a new standard for Internet TV presentation of delivery.

Getting to reasons behind these ideas, what we need for our TV’s goes along these lines.

We need to implement a VERY SIMPLE implementation of Internet-TV into our televisions as was the channel changer of the original television we know so well. In the next few years, we are all going to have to switch over to DIGITAL-TV-Tuners.  Or Digital-Set-Top-Boxes.  These items have a small embedded OS which supports the minimal of features as switching channel and EPG.  Some also come with built in PVR with Hard Disk recording.

It is not a long stretch to ad, for example, an Ethernet port and some type of rich internet platform to make the TV into a window into the internet.

Is the light going on above your head?

Adobe has been spending a lot of time getting the flash player to run in these very limited and cheap embedded OS’s.  They have a lot of the hard issues already solved.  They have the products to enable this and knowledge already entrenched in to the Web development community.

Imagine a STB that you can not only program in your terrestrial Channels, but also rich media portals.  This would be as easy as telling it.

Channel 22 -> InternetTV/http://mediaportal.diseny.com
Channel 23 -> DVB-T/BBC
Channel 50 -> InternetTV/http://mediaportal.ANYONE.com

This will bring the Internet TV into the living rooms of our Mum’s and Dads or anyone who is internet-illiterate.  In my opinion, this is the tipping point of the end of TV as we know it. (Will not go away, Terrestrial is the best form of Mass streaming, Sports/news and general viewing)

Apple TV kind of does this now as it can NOW feed directly of RSS, but it is still designed to funnel people onto Itunes where you purchase content and Apple get a cut.  I disagree with walled gardens, and do not believe they will dominate mainly because of localisation issues (Another blog post topic really.)

Finally, let us look at Adobe’s business model.  Flash/Flex/FMS3, the costs for purchasing these products is quite reasonable.  Adobe is not trying to manoeuvre itself into the huge gatekeeper of content as Apple and Microsoft are.  They are selling products and give you the option to do it yourselves.  Some will, some will go with companies that offer different parts of the equation.  The real issue here is you, as a content producer, have a choice.

“Show me the money”.  And it is quite simple.  Adobe will make money out of all platforms with flash support.  Imagine a $5 cut on every TV and STB purchased, or purchased to upgrade your TV as analog TV is turned off in the next few years.

I must admit, I am very impressed.  As a blogger that analyses digital media trends from a technological stand point, Adobe “appear” to be giving us what we want.