3 ms·
"But we're not saying Steve Jobs is neutral are we?" I would argue that that's a reasonable point to make. Steve Jobs doesn't have a vested interest in seeing
by danudey 17y ago
"But we're not saying Steve Jobs is neutral are we?"
I would argue that that's a reasonable point to make. Steve Jobs doesn't have a vested interest in seeing Flash die, he has a vested interest in seeing the iPhone platform succeed. If he saw any way Flash could help that, I'm sure he'd be all for it, but he's seen how Adobe's behaved in the past (late with PPC versions, late with OS X versions, late with Intel versions, late with 64-bit versions, crashy Flash, slow Flash, etc.), and he has no interest in subjecting the iPhone to the same issues that the Mac platform has had to endure at the hands of a slow-moving corporation who has little interest in being a good citizen.
I would argue that Jobs is 'neutral' in the sense that he's not supporting anyone else's agenda. He's made his choice based on the facts before him, and while you may not agree with how he got there, I would say that he got there from an initial position of neutrality.
- kevinh 17y agoThe very moment flash was not included in the iPhone, Steve Jobs had a vested interest in seeing Flash fail. If Flash expands, user satisfaction with the iPhone goes down. If Flash fails completely, one of the strongest negative components of the iPhone disappears.
- pyre 17y agoWhy does he have a vested interest in making it fail? Could he not change his mind and allow Adobe onto the platform? It's not like he's never changed his mind in the past (the Intel vs PPC 'Megahurtz Myth' comes to mind).
- slantyyz 17y agoI would argue that it was even sooner that that. The Steve has probably hated Flash for a long, long time.
- dejavidor 17y agoYes, this goes back to 1989 fight over fonts, and the 1993 fight about Display Postscript and the 1999 fight about Photoshop on Windows, and the 2007 withdrawal of 64-bit Carbon toolkit at the last minute.