Just want to post it as reference, please don’t mind that I copy and paste it here. It’s great press release anyway.

Thoughts on Flash

Apple has a long relationship with Adobe. In fact, we met Adobe’s founders when they were in their proverbial garage. Apple was their first big customer, adopting their Postscript language for our new Laserwriter printer. Apple invested in Adobe and owned around 20% of the company for many years. The two companies worked closely together to pioneer desktop publishing and there were many good times. Since that golden era, the companies have grown apart. Apple went through its near death experience, and Adobe was drawn to the corporate market with their Acrobat products. Today the two companies still work together to serve their joint creative customers – Mac users buy around half of Adobe’s Creative Suite products – but beyond that there are few joint interests.

I wanted to jot down some of our thoughts on Adobe’s Flash products so that customers and critics may better understand why we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. Adobe has characterized our decision as being primarily business driven – they say we want to protect our App Store – but in reality it is based on technology issues. Adobe claims that we are a closed system, and that Flash is open, but in fact the opposite is true. Let me explain.

First, there’s “Open”.

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.

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. 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.

Apple even creates open standards for the web. For example, Apple began with a small open source project and created WebKit, a complete open-source HTML5 rendering engine that is the heart of the Safari web browser used in all our products. WebKit has been widely adopted. Google uses it for Android’s browser, Palm uses it, Nokia uses it, and RIM (Blackberry) has announced they will use it too. Almost every smartphone web browser other than Microsoft’s uses WebKit. By making its WebKit technology open, Apple has set the standard for mobile web browsers.

Second, there’s the “full web”.

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.

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.

Third, there’s reliability, security and performance.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


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

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.

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.

Steve Jobs
April, 2010



皮膚這年都好像一直好不了,很有可能跟我的飲食習慣有很大的關係。多肉少菜是我這一個食肉獸由長出門牙的一刻至今絲毫不改的飲食習慣。長期不吃肉,我想我是頂不了,所以給自己一個短期目標,先茹素一個星期。茹素期間多吃一些蛋白質含量較高的豆類食品應該在長肉跟細胞生長方面沒有多大問題。足夠的澱粉質也不會令我動不動就累吧。一切都要看一星期之後的成果。如果有成效不排除會續着吃下去。今天上午只吃了一個田園菜沙拉,到晚餐時真的也挺餓,不過就沒有特別不適。茹素第一天,自我感覺良好。Keep it up!!

Teresa Carpio 杜麗莎 consert 2010 " I am a singer"

Teresa Carpio 杜麗莎,我不十分熟悉,但她的歌聲跟那見到就想跟着她笑的招牌笑容真我就十分欣賞。是次演唱會以她的一生作灌穿,在從影生涯,感情跟家庭生活史,一家大細都搬上台。還請了許多有名的音樂人。台的設計也像國際演唱會的模式,跟之前Elton John在香港博覽館的演唱會的台設計類似,不過不知是場地還是怎的,真的沒有那水準。



質素是有的,要不我不會去兩次,不過我朋友都說"咁價位我去eaton hotel食的lunch buffet好過啦"。心諗,啊你又岩,口講,試試新野又無防。


荃加褔祿壽這一個節目我一向都十分喜歡,因由是褔祿壽,而一直有很大的保留就是荃。如果說特首強姦民意,那啊姐一定是在強姦好歌。Handelababy講開,我接受唔到囉。今日一記少女的祈禱,shit~! 係少女啊,千嬅唱都中女啦。btw I love 千嬅。其實年齡只是我主觀到冇朋友的看法意見罷了。但用大戲子喉唱畢所有,同強姦有分別呼?? 當中仲要慢扳拖唱,用把薄到一直在走音邊緣的聲去拉,真的耳朵受罪。fusion係好不過並不是每一樣都可以好似火焰雪山般擦出火花。這一次的9唔搭8很明顯要拆伙,仲要as soon as possible。



一個二年級生,因為開學時兩星期沒有上同一科的堂而因此在group project被分到跟全班最不負責又行為極端的兩位同學去完成別人要5~6人完成的功課。三人行必有我師我不知道在此適用與否。不過要3人完成功課是不爭的事實。本可以組解放,不過沒有跟他們合作過也不可以只聽別人的傳言吧,這是我一向的做法.大不了辛苦一點,也不忍心讓他倆做6人份的事。就應了這樣的安排。

第一次也就是最後一次約見分工,中其中一人把要用的書在library全scan做pdf。給我說會有用,但大家都知道,那些reference book其實真的只是reference。何解要這樣做呢??我頭10 分鐘沒有出聲,都聽他們如何分。但一直都只是說一些連題目都沒分析過的人都可以說得出的觀點與做法。換句話就是吹水。聽他們吹了10 分鐘大概也有個底,也就是無底深潭。

心知不妙又不想功課泡湯,只有將part b分給他們倆做。因由是功課分兩parts。A 是70% B 是30%, 當然佔分也根據難度及份量而分。我現在是一個人做4個人的功課啦,shit!~。好在往後的日子有朋友相助,總算平安過渡,但幾晚不必要的通宵就免不了。到deadline前幾小時他們才把softcopy傳給我。我也鬆了口氣。因為分工表是這一份功課所必要的,對方也很醒目地打了一份分得很平均的分工表給我。這是之前講好的,也沒必要勞氣誰做得多少。因為如困寫整個part a 也是我做,又要被傳問話又可能令功課的grading更差,要知我們已經是3人做6人份的事,啊不,是1+0.5*2=2人做6人份的功課。再被減分就慘了。

事情總算過了。但總沒過得那麼易。第二份功課來了,原班人馬是preferable的。我馬上向course leader send了我上了大學最用心作的一次作文。 幾經交涉,我們都分開了,但就要自己找組。也就是就說,要找現時5人的group。在消息傳到同學的那一日,有一組主動找我加入。我十分樂意。但他們倆最後命運如何,我就沒有過問了。只知道有同學跟我抱怨,"你做咩唔頂埋佢地呢次ar??我唔想佢地入我呢組lo"。我雖被抱怨,但我當時沒有回敬,只是傻傻地笑笑,開懷的笑。