While it's somewhat interesting to hear first hand information from what's arguably one of the defining moments of the last decade of the web, I can't work out

While it's somewhat interesting to hear first hand information from what's arguably one of the defining moments of the last decade of the web, I can't work out what crazy logic allows the following to make sense: > Burroughs relays that Jobs’ vehement refusal to support the technology may have had less to do with security considerations and more to do with the fact that Adobe, as a partner, couldn’t be relied upon to address said security issues The tweet's referenced actually compare the public "poor UI/power consumption" reason to a "lack of open dialog" with Adobe, which meant Steve (and thus Apple) couldn't count on Adobe to respond in a timely manner to security issues. That is the absolute definition of a security consideration. How/when the vendor responds (if at all) to security issues is absolutely in and of itself a security issue, when the answer seems to be "silently and with no words/never".