“Apple takes a non-negotiable 30% of the price paid”

What is the margin on software sold by Amazon or high-street retailers?

Well said. Hopefully strong competition from HP, RIM, and (of course) Android will force Apple to either abandon its anti-adobe strategy or face irrelevance in the tablet space.

I don’t understand why competition authorities don’t get involved. Surely Apple is abusing a dominant market position to stifle innovation?

Great article. Though the Android alternative is currently miles behind for many reasons, with the main one being the iPad’s great apps. Android will never have the same number of quality apps due to piracy. As a developer would you invest in a platform where 100% of its users can install pirated apps, or one where only a small proportion can?

I broadly agree with your criticism of Apple’s behaviour here. Jobs is behaving like a medieval absolute monarch whom none dare defy. I’m not sure Android is anywhere near ready to take over yet, but that could change rapidly if Google wishes it.

But I really do have to take issue with the idea that Flash is the best way to enjoy the internet. Flash is a massive pain in the arse and it’s only got the niche it has because the browser manufacturers (and MS are the major culprits here) took so long to get their act together. And why can magazines not publish in HTML5 format? Or even adapt one of the multiplicity of eBook standards to their ends. It’s mostly text and pictures after all (with maybe a bit of video or audio).

Too bad flash doesn’t actually work on Android. From what I’ve seen, Adobe has promised and promised and never really delivered anything but an unstable mess that eats battery.

Here’s the issue. Flash is was designed solely for interfaces using a pointer/mouse. Many flash games and apps rely on mouse overs and such to function.

We’ve been promised an even better Flash experience for the XOOM, but instead we got a nevermind. Apparently its coming later in 2011, I wouldnt bank on it.

Adobe is just struggling to hold onto their monopoly.

Apple wants to turn the web into apps. . . and charge 30% for anything that goes through their iTunes and devs $99/year to add these apps.

Android offers more flexibility, a real alternative to a PC, more functional, and without all the restrictions. Any wonder why Android smartphones are outselling the iPhone by such a large margin? And tablets will follow. . . only “believers of Steve Jobs” want to play in his garden.

A real Curate’s Egg of an article, but ultimately flawed. Firstly, there are elements that are inaccurate, for example the Economist allows IOS access free for magazine subscribers.

What Apple have realised is that most consumers want the Web (in its widest sense) but don’t want a PC, not just form factor, but all the other Anti-Virus, Device Driver updating burdens that come with them. Most consumers want something that looks nice, is easy to use and doesn’t need regular tweaking.

Apple have learned this and target the iPad at those people (amongst others).

I welcome variety and am excited about the Android and RIM tablets, but I am a bit Geeky and love my PC and the monthly updates and disk defragging and stuff.

Apple are a business and want to make money. There is a suggestion that the App Store and associated revenue share etc. is sinister, I think not. Apple provide a Quality Assurance and Distribution service for which it charges 30%. Nobody howls that Tesco takes a cut on every chicken you buy. People are not generally stupid, well not for long. The App store is successful with consumers because they get reasonable quality software, installed directly on their device for less money and less hassle than previous distribution channels. It even updates automatically when bug fixes arrive. Developers like or at least are prepared to tolerate the T’s & C’s because they get a shop window (iTunes), a distribution method and access to millions of affluent customers.

Look at the alternative – Android has only been out for a few years, there has been at least one major malware incident (dealt with by a central kill switch – my definition of sinister) and a shambolic upgrade process whereby the device owner is at the whim of the handset manufacturer and airtime provider to get updates.

I will stick to my iPad for now at least.

I think you’re all forgetting that quality is key when people buy these luxury items. And that’s what the iPad is. It’s not a necessity, it’s just pure luxury. People buy Apple equipment for the aesthetics as much as anything else, so they don’t care that Flash or whatever can’t run, because they can still do what they want to do, otherwise they wouldn’t buy it in the first place

Some balance, please. Flash and Silverlight are proprietary formats. That Adobe and MS are crying foul isn’t surprising. Apple’s stranglehold on the iOS ecosystem aside, HTML5 is the future.

I wanted to say that I think this is the best article I’ve read on the subject of Apple vs Flash. It would be nice if PC PRO published it in the magazine and showed Tom some support.

As a professional developer (who uses Flash along with a host of other technologies that have nothing to do with Adobe) I feel frustrated that so many people have fallen for the Steve Jobs Koolaid.

A lot seem to hate on Flash simply because of the ‘annoying banners’ they see on web pages. Do they seriously think that these annoying banners wouldn’t simply be created by another means (like HTML5) if Flash went away?

I accept there have been performance issues on Macs but I honestly think this has been exaggerated by the fanboys jumping on Steve’s bandwagon. I know plenty of people with macs that don’t appear to have had any problems with Flash.

Performance on mobiles is improving all the time – read the reviews of Flash peformance on the Motorola Atrix (dual core) and this will give an idea of the future – mobile processor power is going to explode over the next few years and will eat Flash apps/movies for breakfast.

The latest builds of the Flash Player are light years beyond HTML 5 in capability and this distance will only increase – standards bodies move at a glacial pace and Adobe have a burner under their behinds now. The people who say that HTML 5 can replace Flash capabilities are, forgive me, totally ignorant about what is involved. In fact, most of what I hear on this subject doesn’t even relate to HTML 5, it’s more about what you can already do with Ajax + CSS. And let’s see how the wonderful canvas object competes with Flash on performance when it’s used more.

Anyway, here’s why Flash isn’t going away for a very long time. What will content providers who require some form of DRM (ugly but they will insist) going to use? The video tag in HTML 5 is never going to support DRM – they can’t even agree on which codec to use. I know you can download youtube clips – just try downloading one of the BBC episodes on iPlayer. Yes, one can use apps but this can’t cover everything and there needs to be a browser solution.

A bit of a rant, I suppose, but wanted to throw my tuppence in.

*Finally* people are starting to wake up to the ugly truth about Apple — backed by facts and evidence unlike the baseless lambasting we see by Apple supporters (just read through some of the comments on this post to see what I mean — “blah blah blah and we don’t need to provide any evidence because God Jobs says so”)

one word: yay

well said that man

oh and @Patrick… Nice work.

Right..

My cell phone is still on Android 2.1

Maybe the carrier will graciously give me an approved update. Or maybe they are with holding it, to create more value on their future products.

There is loads of software on the phone I cannot remove.

I wonder if its even my phone.

I like Apple products, but agree this is anti competitive on a large scale. I don’t agree with one company trying to shape the whole internet just for their own profits.

I’ve never been a fan of flash before, but maybe it’s worth considering now, and present iPad users with a large “Sorry, the iPad cannot display this site”.

There has to be a fine balance among three aspects of electronic/human interface: accessibility, deliverabilty of content and pleasure of use of the device. If one of these is weak, then the whole cannot succeed.

Ok, just one more: Job’s hubris with his statement to Gawker last year seems to completely reveal his denial of his chronic, possibly fatal illness. I wonder how he has imagined that Apple will succeed when there is no longer a Jobs monarchy.

The world is full of companies exploiting their customers and making very large profits in the process. People buy Apple because of the reliability. You and everyone else has a choice. I use a Mac because it does not “fall over every 5 minutes”. I buy better quality products because they last. Unfortunately the competition is far behind and no doubt when they catch up they will exploit you to!

Great, provocative, article Tom. The argument some have made here about Android and its “lack of quality control” applies to most other forms of software distribution. If I buy a CD at PC World for my computer, the only quality control is what the manufacturer has put in place. Ultimately, high quality applications will rise to the top.

Apple wants a walled garden with paid entry points, that much is obvious. Their problem is that, with Android 2.2, “proper” Flash can now be incorporated. I’ve looked in depth at AIR for Android’s capabilities, for example, and very little has been left out of the desktop computer version whilst a lot of extra stuff for handling gestures and orientation (for example) added. It looks very exciting and performs well, at least in my tests. 2/3rds of Android smartphones already support it so critical mass is already there.

Once a credible Android tablet arrives that allows users to access the huge library of Flash based Facebook games then the iPad will have a real competitor. As with phones, I would anticipate Android tablets overtaking the Apple versions within a year or two and it’s a platform I am going to take a shot at via AIR. It is SO much easier to develop in AS3 than using the native Java SDK and tools. For me at least.

On the other hand. The “first generation” iPad is now available from £329 incl VAT. Now THAT is a bargain – especially if it remains on sale once iPad 2 arrives.

@patrick – Woa, some unchecked aggression there, dude. Never said I agreed with Apple’s business practices or that I wanted to have a good sniff up Job’s crack. You’re in a red mist and you’re projecting.

My point was that both Flash and Silverlight are proprietary formats, subject to licensing and corporate controls. HTML 5 aint. And that point is missing from this otherwise rather refreshing article.

I dont use subscription services to buy Kindle books through Amazon.

Great to see such a clear description of the issue. I have thought for some time that those people who have complained about a Microsoft hegemony were in for a shock when they realize what life under Apple will be like. Lambs to the slaughter! Problem is, the majority of people just see the attractive packaging and do not understand the implications of what’s under the hood. Apple’s attitude to its customers is about as cynical as it can get, another example being the fact that you can’t even change or renew the battery on many of their products. Apple’s greed says that you should consider even very expensive products as throw away. After all, why would you want to keep the old one when a newer, slightly slimmer version is available? Truly a triumph of style and fashion over real concern for customers.

An interesting article and it is always fun to see the “Pro and Anti” people battling it out. This time Apple, other times Linux, Windows and so on but I suspect that as is often the case, things will be self solving as Apple repeats its own history.

Apple made pretty much similar arguments to support the closed nature of the original Macs and in the end, that didn’t really work out too well for them, in personal computing terms, they became a “niche market player”, it was the open architecture of the IBM PC combined with spreadsheets that took the volume sales.
Things today are different again, the markets in the West no longer dominate and consumers in the BRIC countries will decide which format wins out and what the software supply chain consists of, not Mr Jobs.

Apple produce very high quality products but and as before, they will end up with their loyal fans as they try to evolve a new gizmo as novel as the iPlayer/Phone and the volume market will be owned by others, made in China with software written in India.

@Dominica – I’m curious about what Sony products fail to work. I have a Sony TV and A/V system which all works very nicely together using HDMI standards. It would continue to play very nicely if I had another make of A/V amplifier. Sony computers all have ports which conform to standards. Even Sony cameras now have SDHC as well as memory stick. Examples please.

One main thing that hasn’t been mentioned is the fact that our dear Mr Jobs has made sure that the connectivity to the ipad by bluetooth is more or less restricted as well, my ipad would recognise a bluetooth device but won’t pair with it. So MR Jobs another gripe.

Apple aren’t doing anything that other very large, very powerful corporations wouldn’t happily do in their place. Apple use the slave-labour facilities available in Shenzhen – but so do HP, Dell and many other major electronics manufacturers. As several people have rightly remarked, neither Flash nor Silverlight are open-source: both are proprietary. The fact that they are available for free is due to their owners’ desire to build up user dependence – there’s nothing altruistic about it. Just look at Oracle’s manoeuvres with Java! But Tom’s contribution to the debate is valuable – the debate itself, however, is not whether Apple as such is evil, but whether any very large digital corporation should have the kind of leverage that a handful of developers now have on that most wonderful of shared resources, the Internet. The same question applies to Google, Facebook and others who are attempting to funnel users into a carefully controlled experience that will make a very limited number of people a huge amount of money. How do we – the little people – control this? I have no idea. But it’s time we started discussing the issues more broadly, rather than defending our favourites simply because we like them.

Finally an article with a logical view on what iPad is busy doing. Monopolising made Microsoft very unpopular I would be careful for Apple not to follow the same path. RIA platforms like Silverlight and AIR have no competition, platforms where you can design and engineer applications in record time is the future, HTML 5 is not that, it will forever be a markup/script technology that is beyond painful and expensive to write real business applications.

The iPad 2 doesn’t support Flash – but neither does Windows Phone 7 – and the implementations on WebOS and Android 2 suffered months of delays. We can see this pattern once again with Android 3 and the Motorola Xoom – the device manufacturers are being held ransom to Adobe’s ability to deliver, and it’s Motorola that are left looking bad, not Adobe. Ask Linux users, whose Flash version lagged months behind Windows for a long time.

Equally, the claims of ubiquity are dubious – it’s ubiquitous like Internet Explorer 6 was ubiquitous – widely installed – compared to, say, Java – which was ubiquitously available on every system.

I’m not defending Apple’s closed model here – but it’s also worth ‘following the money’ on the Adobe side. They’ve taken what was a perfectly useful plugin, that added necessary missing features to the web browser, and are trying to turn it into a replacement for native platforms. Flash is not even ‘cross-platform’ in the sense that Java was – it makes no attempt to use native look-and-feel. It’s a ‘cuckoo’ platform.

Adobe’s goal is obviously to make the underlying operating system irrelevant – for developers to write in Flash, rather than native applications. That might sound great on one level – hooray, we can buy whatever device we like and run the same apps – but on the downside, progress would only move at the pace of Adobe.

Now to me that’s a bad thing – look how competition between Android, iOS, WebOS et al has driven progress in the same time period Adobe took to deliver a working version of Flash 10.1. I’d much rather iOS and Android continue to compete, than Android native development be wiped out by Flash.

Tom,
Android is free as of now.
Google is not doing charity. Even they are doing something under the hood.
As for choice. let others first match to Apple hardware. then people will change. Just being a champion of Android without a respectable hardware is stupid.i love the Apple hardware.and i dont mind paying for it. if you love the tabs buy with Android (oh they have kill switches in it. they can even have ads in it, nothing is free, not even open source).
Tab, xoom etc are long way to match

Bored bored bored. When are people going to understand that Apple are a COMPANY with SHAREHOLDERS interested only in PROFIT? They are not there to serve the wider interests of humanity or the web, let alone the concerns of those who support open platforms. As someone who didn’t buy Apple products ever, and then did, I say… Either buy them or don’t!

Your assertion that ‘just about all newspapers and magazines are produced using the two main publishing packages, InDesign and QuarkXPress’ is wide of the mark. Magazines do make use of them but newspapers are produced by integrated digital publishing systems such as Tera and Atex, which have publish-to-web modules.

@ Adam

“So the answer is Android? Really? I have an android phone, and I am growing in my distaste for its unpredictable upgrade cycle, it’s unstable OS, and general lack of speed (and I have a droid X…a flagship device).”

There’s something seriously wrong with your handset then! I’ve been running Android 2.2 on a handset it was never designed to run on (a HTC HD2) for the past few months and it is rock solid reliable, fast and silky smooth. If you’re going to attack Android, at least have some valid facts!

“I suppose in some ways you can’t blame Apple or Jobs. They after all are a large US profit driven corporation and not a charity”

But surely they should be consumer driven, not just profit driven…? Treat those who buy our stuff like morons as long as we roll in the money!

This will only work as long as people who are morons continue to buy their stuff…

Oh wait… /facepalm!

For those old enough to remember this has happened before. Apple v PC’s. Apples were better but didn’t allow cloning. Result more PC sales. This will happen again. Lock out users from making choices and pay the price. Tablets will be powerful enough in the future to run any plug in. Ipad users will have restricted access, android can have whatever they want. I know what I want!!

A couple of years ago, I was looking at selling some stuff I’d created through a web-store run by a US company. It was one of several covering the same general field. And in the end I decided the stuff I’d made was not good enough.

But the App Store 30%, for doing all the work of web hosting and payment processing and being a marketplace, that’s actually a pretty good deal.

You’re complaining about something that is a pretty good deal.