Steve Job's perpetuates 6 myths about flash.

Here is a link to an engadget article including Steve Job's press release. (Press the "show press release button" at the bottom of the article...dumb, I know.)

Here are my points in response to the 6 points highlighted in the article.

1. "Flash isnt open" - it is actually. Its been open source for years, and there are hundreds of free tools out there that can create .swf files. The swf file spec is not ruled by a committee of volunteers, but that is likely why it has evolved so quickly, and why HTML 5 has effectively stalled. Check out "papervision.org" for a good example, or the "open screen project" at Adobe.

2. "50,000 apps are an effective replacement for the web's flash games" - well not really.

a)Flash game content is not controlled by a single governing body, so one can develop for the flash platform without fear of having their work blocked, censored, or taken offline by a centralized distribution force. IE if I spend $150K on some RIA using flash, Adobe cant shut me down arbitrarily as Apple has been doing to app developers. This means innovation will still happen on the flash side, and apps will copy.

b)Not all flash content out there is "games". There are literally thousands of flash based UI's for business applications, training, and content management. Many of these are behind corporate firewalls, only accessible to customers or internal employees. This is UI that is dependent on the capabilities of flash including rapid prototyping, object oriented class structure, and code sharing and management for scaling business needs. Flash can be the entire UI, or small bits here and there depending on the platform, but has far more robust support for security and tracking to a greater level of detail than any HTML or Javascript based technology.

3. "Reliability on the mac" - Adobe claims Apple consistently blocks adobe from having low level access to their systems, access that is necessary to optimize flash for them. Adobe flash VM2 supports h.264, so there is no technical advantage to HTML 5 even in that respect.

4. "Battery Life" see #3. Intel based PC's have solved the issue by including flash friendly hardware rendering. This, again, is a myth perpetuated by Apple apparently for its own petty self-interest.

5. "Touch not supported". EVERY UI technology currently assumes a keyboard and mouse. Every UI technology can be used to react appropriately to touch. This has absolutely nothing to do with flash in particular, it has to do with shifting all UI technology to support a touch based environment. Touch is simply a new set of UI events that need to be accounted for. Touch does not compete with keyboard/mouse, it augments. Many things are still a lot easier to do with keyboard / mouse than with touch. The idea that touch by itself is somehow the next "evolution" of UI is idiotic. I cant imagine typing this letter, for example, on my iPod.

6."Third party vs Apple's quality (I guess?)" What he appears to be indicating here is that Big Brother AKA apple knows what is best, and small, independent businesses are unreliable and incapable of providing quality tools. Adobe has a pretty good track record of providing the best and most popular tools for creativity that exist, and so I'm not sure how this is a point at all.

This latest trend for Apple seems to be shaping up as a battle for domination of the web by Steve Jobs, who appears to be taking an all or nothing stand where Apple is in 100% control of all online business, or they won't participate.

I think its important for developers to have HTML 5 based alternatives to flash only sites, and consider the app universe and exciting prospect for new business, as well as touch and other technologies it brings up. What upsets me is the closed nature of the Apple business model. As a consumer, I enjoy the ability to have windows media player, apple itunes, and google chrome all running on the same PC at the same time. Flash does not block HTML 5, or silverlight, or DHTML, or any other technology. It is simply another choice in a free society that enables innovation.
Apple's fight to kick everyone out of the sandbox and be the only one there is perplexing and seems uncharacteristically short sighted. I certainly hope they find a way to change their policy.

iPad? How about the "sharePad" .

Take the "i" out of iPad, and replace it with "we" or "share" and it might become obvious why Steve Jobs is right, this will be the most important and influential offering of his career.

Well, I watched this video, and it suddenly dawned on me. Steve Jobs is right, this is the most important thing he's ever built...only he forgot to tell us why.

Its a show and tell device, a sharing device. Something you would use to show content to someone else. Something to interact with content with someone else. One hand holds it, and three others can poke and prod at it.

As this time article points out, creating content is likely a futile exercise on the iPad, the mouse and keyboard are far superior to a multitouch interface for drawing pictures, writing a blog etc. BUT, if I want to show someone else my blog, or my latest picture, or movie, or whatever...the iPad is far superior to any PC as a show off my stuff device.

PC Gaming is generally a solitary experience although wii really introduced the idea of playing games with your friends, and the iPad really puts people together more intimately and outside of the livingroom/couch context.

I can see the iPad being an excellent and unequalled device for showing people photos (probably most importantly), exploring a map together, playing head to head games like chess, putting together a puzzle with your friend, watching movies or TV in bed, showing plans for architecture onsite, all kinds of new collaborative musical instruments, or working with someone else to organize information IE looking at my accounting spreadsheets with my accountant next to me.

The perfect configuration would be an iPad that doubles as a computer monitor, you plug it into a base that has a keyboard and mouse and all the computers heavy lifting processing power (until that becomes more portable), then you pull it off that device to take across the room, on the train, over to your client's office, to your friends house etc. to show off what you made and maybe get their input.

Steve Jobs device will, in my opinion, appear crude and almost comical in as little as 3-4 years, but the influence it will have on how we will interact with information and each other over the next several years will be huge. Steve didnt invent the tablet PC, but he was the one who got us to try it out...together. Only he didnt know that at the time.

Google needs to come clean

In recent news, Google executives in Italy have been convicted for participating in the dissemination of a video depicting the abuse of a child with Down's Syndrome.

Google responded, claiming this action represents the end of the internet as we know it.

Well, it could certainly mean the end of Google as we know it. The problem as I see it is, while Google execs didnt post the video or even know about it until after it was removed, what they fail to mention is they did automatically make money from the posting of the video, as they do with all videos. Ads placed next to videos automatically bill to the advertisers and the videos, regardless of content, immediately generate revenue for Google.

So, they financially benefitted from the abuse of a Downs Syndrome child. The amount may be vanishingly small given the number of hits, but it does bring up a serious point that, were I working at Google, would avoid making such a big stink in the news about.

The point this brings up is, Google financially benefits from all videos posted on youtube and google video in the form of traffic and ad revenue. This truly makes them fiscally responsible for the content contained therein. I'm not sure how they avoid this, but it does seem like a gaping loophole that may be exploited by these Italian lawyers.

Right now, if I try to apply for "revenue sharing" with Google, I get refused if I cannot provide significant legal documentation stating I own the rights in eternal perpetuity across all media for every molecule, concept, and brand displayed in my videos, as well as permission of all those depicted. Otherwise, I fail to be considered. They dont take the video down though, they leave it up and continue to profit from it even though they CLEARLY do not own permission if I the poster do not (by their unreasonably strict standards)

So, my advice to Google is, if you cant accept the responsibility for something, DONT accept the benefit. Actively avoid it. Do not place ads on or near any content for which you are unwilling to be held accountable for, and ONLY pay revenue to the poster and get them to share with you ONLY if they can prove 100% ownership of the content. That way, the responsibility is indeed 100% with the poster, and you are free of culpability.

In this case, I'm afraid, you are partially culpable, although were I the judge I would charge a small fine of $2000 or so payable to the family and you could be on your way, with a warning to change your business model.

The iPad vs flash issue is a red herring. The real issue is the iPad vs. the Keyboard and Mouse.

In a recent article shown to me by a co-worker, blogger and flash developer Dan Eran Dilger makes a case in support of keeping Adobe Flash technology off the iPad.

In the article, his chief arguments seems to be centered around UI elements such as mouseover, keyboard controls, and multiple mousebuttons so many flash applications depend on to function properly.

I would counter that the idea of slighting flash for supporting this functionality is backwards, instead, the argument should be leveled at the iPad for actively blocking this kind of functionality.

The fight of the iPad is not between it and flash, it is between it and humanity. It has thumbed its nose so to speak at the mouse and keyboard, and while multitouch certainly has much promise in adding significantly to the ways we interact with information, it is by no means an alternative for every user input device.

Further, flash is just a software development platform like C++, Java etc. The question isnt whether it will have multitouch and accelerometer support, the question is how will that become standardized across devices? Currently Apple is curiously vacant from Adobe's open screen project for example, and seems uninterested in a standardized approach to multitouch UI design outside of their own platform. This is shortsighted and disappointing.

Like Apple's "one button mouse" that looked like a hockey puck and every serious Apple user replaced the first chance they got with a real mouse, Apple is attempting to force users to interact with what is really the end users OWN content and information in a way Apple believes is the best, rather than providing end users with a pletora of tools and allowing them to pick and choose.

Personally, I believe Apple should jump off its "high horse" and simply support an external mouse and keyboard, and perhaps a small stand. That way, users could interact with the iPad like a normal computer OR use it like the tablet, depending on the context of the particular activity. That said, the list of things the iPad should be or should have is staggeringly long, so I'll cut it short there.

Apple, its not flash, keyboards, mice, or the internet that is being immature here, its you. You have some neat ideas but you need to grow up and share your toys.

What Apple should have introduced the other day.

Here is what truly would have revolutionized the technology world the other day. If I were CEO of Apple, this is what I would demand from my team.

1. A touch screen device that can interlock with another one, so they could be oriented like a keyboard/screen. This means you'd have one on the desk, flat, and the other one vertical on its wide edge held in place by the flat one. You could then have visuals by your hands using the touch screen to move around and manipulate the one that is vertical as a screen. They would interlock on any side, making all different kinds of combinations for use cases. Iphones could also interlock with the larger one for use together. Simple interlocking hinges use a "slide in" mechanism to hold themselves in place.

2. It should come with a bluetooth or wifi keyboard and mouse. AND the mouse should be flippable so it converts into a trackball.

3. The device should have the best possible CPU, Graphics, SSD memory, and power supply, and each of these major components should be easily removeable and replaceable without having to dismantle the entire thing. You should be able to exchange the CPUs of different devices for specific uses at any time. They should be mounted so they are similar to small plastic blocks with no visible pins when detached.

4. The device should include slots for every major kind of interface, including USB 2, RJ 45, optical, SSD cards, compact flash, memory stick, firewire etc.

5. The device should run every major operating system possible. Windows 7, Mac OS, and linux. The device should be capable of running an emulator for Mac OS 9 prior to carbon.

6. If the device could do all this, running the iPhone OS as an emulator would be trivial.

7. the device should have a camera that allows it to work like a transparent window, that is, you could hold the device up, see a picture, and capture that picture exactly as you see it framed by the device.

8. The device should be multitouch, be able to recognize cameras and download pictures from them when the camera is simply placed ON the device. It should also be able to synch contacts with any blue tooth capable cellphone.

9. The device should have an integrated cell phone, that allows one to keep the device in a backpack or on a desktop flat, while the user simply talks into a small bluetooth headset, which again comes with the device as standard equipment.

10. The device should support DVD's read/write and they should slide into the device's thin edge.

11. The device should cost NO MORE than $300 US. AND the device should be free for people who make less than $1500 a year via various charitable programs.

Unfortunately, all the big companies are developing products selfishly...constantly thinking about how the devices they offer will bring them profit, instead of thinking about how the device will make people's lives better. The Apple iPad is a primary example of this, as is the XBox, the Playstation, the iPhone, iTunes, Sony Home, pretty much every money-grubbing, locked down, proprietary platform that only "improves" in the direction of shareholders bottom line.

Many of us are disappointed because we know Apple can do better. Here's hoping they do!

Deleting discussions...closing discussions...deleting comments - is it ethical?

The more I am involved in social networking writing contributions to various sites, the more I am increasingly aware of the ethics of deleting other people's comments, closing a discussion to comments, or deleting an entire thread/post/network.

Right now, there are literally thousands of ning.com networks, and some of them have tens of thousands of members. The members can spend hours per week or even entire days preparing and posting blogs, comments, opinions, original ideas, creativity, research etc. They can develop close frienships with long, complicated email histories in private conversations, and they can also upload their pictures and videos to contribute.

Now the scary part. The network creator can delete the entire network with the click of a mouse. Years of contributions can be erased in a second by the Network Creator. Its not entirely easy to do by accident, it would require forethought, but, for example, if a network was taken over by someone other than the originator of a network, the content would all become jeopardized.

Slightly less scary but also worth considering is the fact that on most blog posts, the OP (original poster) can delete the discussion. For those of us familiar with how the internet works, quite often an OP's statement ends up merely being a catalyst for what turns into a very deep, involved conversation that will invariably involve countless man-hours of research, writing, proofing and posting, not to mention emotions. Friendships can often start or end in a thread, and people can have their world views altered or completely changed. Its big stuff!

Further along this line of thinking, OP's can generally delete individual comments as well. This exists obviously as a way to prevent spam, but it is also a very dangerous form of censorship, as the OP can spuriously delete dissent while allowing flattering comments to remain to alter the perception of the OP's message.

What do I propose to solve this? Well, a partial solution might be that a general feature be added internet wide to sites that emails your comment or an entire thread to you if your comment is ever deleted. This could get tricky for the case of an entire network, but might be OK if every thread you participated in was sent to you do on the deletion of an entire network.

There could be a standard on the web like the IEEE or some kind of best practice for social networks where you as a contributor are guaranteed a certain set of rights and can hold certain minimum expectations. Your contributions will not be deleted without your express permission could also be a solution. These would be difficult and time consuming to implement. Alternatively there is the concept that wikipedia.com offers with the history, which also seems very elaborate but seems to work in terms of ensuring everyone's say continues to exist (albeit hard to find in a massive list of historical versions and unsearchable)

Also, being able to close a discussion to new comments in context seems highly unethical, because then anyone who may disagree or enhance your statement, or even clarify for accuracy, becomes muzzled by the OP. This is not the mark of a civilized society, and truly seems like a form of oppression and censorship.

I feel as the social networking revolution takes over, new ethical dilemmas will come along that we as a species will need to grapple with and solve to ensure our collective rights and efforts are protected vigorously!

-Ryan Cameron, the Code HandyMan Feb 1, 2010

iPad becomes "iVe bEen hAd" upon purchase...

Watching the iPad become "unveiled" yesterday really got me thinking...these people at Apple are geniuses. Evil geniuses. The iPad is effectively a giant iPhone, but what is key about the iPhone is the monopoly Apple has on the app store and its stranglehold on the developers for it. If you want to develop for Apple's iPhone, you have to play by their rules, use their technology, and price based on their decrees. Deviate, and you cant play.

For now, they have given a fair amount of leeway to developers and creativity has poured out, but Apple knows almost better than anyone how to play that game. Give them a lot of toys up front, then start to cinch control once they are dependent on it for their livelihood. We saw how they have done that masterfully with the musical community and iTunes, and the Apps are the same thing. Sinister, but elegant and masterful too, like a spider stunning then slowly sucking the blood of its prey, keeping it just alive enough to aid in its own death.

My prediction based on what I saw is this. The iPad will grow an external wireless keyboard and a stand so it can be used like a monitor. It will quickly replace kiosks at points of sale and cash register types of computers in all retail stores. It will replace computers in schools as "apps" spring up that do every possible thing. People trust apple, and dont see a problem with its monopoly, and the government is weak on vetting these things.

Apple will then slowly phase out its desktop and laptop computers, OSX will disappear, and the iPad in various forms will replace it.

OS's are disadvantageous for software companies. They cost a lot to maintain and support, but can only be charged for once. You cant keep charging people for use of the OS, but you are expected to keep it working and shoulder the ongoing costs of maintenance and upgrades. All the while, software vendors can buy and sell their software and don't have to pay the OS maker any royalty for running their software on their OS.

The iPad and iPhone are an example of the end of this model. OS companies have finally figured out that this model is unprofitable and unsustainable, and are working to rebuild their OS's business models to give them better control over the revenue stream and make money on a transactional basis instead of in a one time license fee. Interestingly, Microsoft figured this out a long time ago and have been acting on it with the XBox/XBox live/Games for Windows, but are going to have a much harder time transitioning consoles to the areas of the market currently dominated by PC's because they have no path to convert a gaming console to a PC.

Apple, on the other hand, has established a perfect path, the smartphone to iPad to PC path. This is very logical and will, within a few years, push their technology in where PC's dominate, and likely also eventually encroach on gaming consoles, leaving sony, MS, and Acer type companies caught with their "pants on the floor".

Its a brilliant strategy, and my hat is off to them.

The future for Apple, and likely our world, is a utopia where Apple controls everything. Microsoft played their cards too fast, and got stuck on the anti trust thing, but Apple has managed to form intensely powerful monopolies while maintaining its "underdog" brand and keeping its perceived market share low, effectively allowing them to breeze past hallways once blocked by anti trust lawyers.

By the time we realize what's happened, Apple will have created a monoculture in the marketplace, and that is why we need to support anyone BUT them right now. Its very important for us as consumers to keep the PC afloat because it represents our power. Once we give that up, our ignorance, laziness, and desire for the convenient/cool will be our undoing...and Steve Jobs is counting on it. We'll end up with one device that does whatever makes the most money for Apple, not necessarily what is in the best interest of consumers.

I would like to add though, if the iPad totally bombs, then it will show that consumers are much smarter than Steve Jobs gives them credit for, and they'll have to come up with something that keeps the power where it belongs, in the hands of consumers.