My point is that there is a very strong parallel here with what Adobe has with the Flash platform. In terms of developing an RIA, you could either build something using the Flash platform as a front end, or you could spend 10 times as long using Javascript and CSS and still have it look wonky on IE6. Sure, WebKit / HTML 5 is a step in the right direction, but it has the same achilles heel that Android does in the mobile sphere at this stage.

For some reason you’re all about the iPhone since it provides a unified platform but down on Flash b/c its proprietary. Then when it comes to open source, you’re all about Webkit / HTML 5 cause its open but think Android’s going nowhere b/c its too fragmented.

I understand that the parallel isn’t perfect, but I think the disparity in the mobile device world and be compared to the disparity in the differences btwn browsers.

I also think you can make a pretty good argument that to the extent that Adobe has proprietary control over the Flash plugin, it is primarily in service of promoting a unified platform. The same way most Apple technology is built on open standards until the point where it undermines the ability to provide a consistent platform, I think its pretty clear also that Adobe is interested in moving towards open standards where it won’t undermine the integrity of the platform. For instance, I can use completely open source technology like Javascript or HaXe and FlashDevelop to write content for Flash without buying into some kind of Adobe scheme. I don’t even have to touch Actionscript, even though that conforms to ECMA standards as well. Adobe could easily have made this impossible if they wanted to leverage their proprietary control of the Flash plugin. Instead, like Apple, they understand that embracing open standards and declining to charge licensing fees on both ends helps to further the platform.

I’m not sure what you mean. Most of Apple’s products are built on open standards, from its OS X to H.264 to HTML to AAC.

Apple takes an open standard and builds its own UI and connective tissue on top of it. Apple differentiates itself not at the file format/codec/standards level, but at the user experience realm built on top of them. I believe in that approach.

The Android’s Achilles Heel piece exposed the necessarily fragmented nature of the open source Android in the name of choice. As I’ve said before, choice-first approach is detrimental to open source, or any other platform, for that matter.

In There’s an App for That Joe Wilcox explains why a unified platform strategy is crucial to attract developer attention and build momentum. This is just the opposite of what Android’s doing.

In contrast, WebKit is open source, even to Apple’s direct competitors Google, Adobe, Nokia, Palm, etc. But still as a package, in practical use, Mobile Safari is still the best mobile browser out there, which is what distances Apple from others.

So I don’t see a contradiction here.

As you pointed out, the advantages of keeping a platform proprietary have helped the iPhone distance itself from its competitors. The same is true of the Flash platform and the vast difference between it and its open source alternatives (although they don’t really qualify as such).

I’m sure you’d agree that there are ups and downs to both approaches. Just try not to get too carried away on the Apple fanboy bandwagon.

Then you’ll love Ballmer’s definition from Mobile World Congress yesterday:

“Open means different things to different people,” Ballmer said. “To some people, open means open source. It means more than that and different than that to me. Open can mean an open platform that people can extend, or it can mean open standards that are baked in. Ultimately the companies that succeed will be open, maybe in different ways and at different times.”

To Ballmer, “open” refers to “the power and success of the partner ecosystem approach [that Microsoft] pioneered at the beginning of the PC revolution”.

This is the part the anti-Apple brigade misses. There are already 20-30 million users quite happy to pay a premium to own an iPhone without Flash. If the most popular smartphone in the U.S. can thrive without Flash, what does that say about the essentiality and inevitability of Flash?