The technology hardware and software world has been a-buzz in recent months with a modern day corporate battle: Apple v. Adobe. But this war of attrition is not new. I recall the same topic emerging with the first release of the iphone in 2008.
The sentiment of today’s battle though is changing. It’s slightly more salty, more acidic even then the propriety shown in the teaser episodes of ’08. Then, there was still a glimmer of hope in Adobe’s eye that Apple would recant and decide to extend the invitee list to the exclusive party. Playing the accommodating friend, Adobe was seen to be saying the right things, working on a work-around, ‘Flash-lite’. This slimmed down version though was really a Flash-in-the-pants that Apple never really contemplated implementing. What is emerging in this spectacle though is a clear example of capitalist class distinctions: the ruler from the ruled.
Surely when big business takes such an aggressive stance on an issue, the vulnerability bells start ringing. The public protestations made by Apple that Flash has too many bugs, drains batteries too quickly and is too oriented to PCs caused a media storm. Exercising good spin – I mean – good communications practice #1, Steve Jobs posted a well articulated piece entitled ‘Thoughts on Flash’. Freedom of speech via the internet (after all, wasn’t freedom to information, free speech, and open access the original premise on which the ideologies of the internet was built?) was similarly exercised by Adobe. While Adobe talks about openness in its right of response, let’s remember that the Adobe products aren’t of an open source nature. Nor are they entirely cheap – irrespective of the purchaser being an amateur or professional. Economically then, both Apple and Adobe are proprietary enterprises, both seeking to maximise profits through the products they produce. While the past presents examples in the technology industry of software and hardware enterprises working together to provide mutually beneficial outcomes, these arrangement can only suffice for as long as those involved continue to share similar values and philosophies. Through a philosophical prism then the core of this Apple v. Adobe riff is based on different ideas of standards and acceptable levels of service.
Good communication practice #2 – address the issues that opponents are citing even if they make your argument vulnerable. Within the opening of the ‘Thoughts on Flash’ piece Jobs identifies the Adobe’s criticism of Apple not accommodating Flash saying ‘Adobe has characterized our decision as being primarily business driven – they say we want to protect our App Store..’. Without doubt, it really is hard to overlook the fact that by not allowing Flash, Apple retains certain aspects of its revenue streams that, with Flash, would be flowing in other streams not owned by apple. It’s easy to discern how this could happen: multimedia created in Flash can house applications that are downloadable from the web. Seeing that the ‘i’ Apple products obviously connect to the web, applications downloaded via Flash would circumvent the need to purchase downloadable applications via the ‘i’ Apple shops. With media devices other than the humble desktop computer now pervading society the logical question is 'what does the future hold for Flash as a marketable product'?
No comments:
Post a Comment