Mikey Campbell
Contrary to a very public stance against the adoption of Adobe Flash, Apple at one point in the development of iPhone and its underlying iOS operating system attempted to build in support for the once-ubiquitous software.
The tidbit, revealed by former iOS chief Scott Forstall during a taped deposition for the upcoming Epic Games v. Apple trial, is salacious news for longtime Apple followers.
According to Forstall, Apple attempted to work with Adobe to get Flash working on iOS. The topic came up when the former executive was asked about integrating cross-platforming capabilities in iOS, a potential avenue of inquisition Epic could explore in the upcoming trial.
"We did not ship Flash," Forstall said. "We tried to make Flash work. We helped Adobe. We definitely were interested. Again, this is one where I thought if we could help make it work, this could be great."
When the collaboration took place is unknown, though late Apple cofounder Steve Jobs famously penned "Thoughts on Flash," an effective takedown of the software platform— in 2010. That was nearly three years after the first iPhone with iPhone OS debuted, and the same year in which Apple adopted the now-familiar iOS branding.
It is unclear whether Forstall is making a distinction between iPhone OS and iOS in his deposition.
In any case, the experiment was a failure, as Flash proved unsuitable for Apple's power-efficient mobile operating system. Indeed, Forstall echoed some of the same complaints Jobs outlined in his 2010 letter.
"Flash has been such a problem because the way that it hooks into systems, it's been a virus nightmare on Windows, even on the Mac," Forstall said. "And when we got it running on iOS, the performance was just abysmal and embarrassing and it could never get to something which would be consumer value add."
Jobs in "Thoughts on Flash" criticized the software's lack of openness; inability to access the "full web;" reliability, security and performance; battery life; lack of touch control integration; and substandard quality of third-party development tools. He said its exclusion from iOS was "based on technology issues," and declared there would be no tool for converting Flash apps to iOS. The decision to move to HTML5 and other protocols allowed Apple to remain in full control of its ecosystem and evolve iOS APIs
9to5Mac spotted Forstall's telling of Apple's Flash for iOS trial earlier today.
Following Jobs' lead, Apple consistently denigrated Flash for more than a decade prior to its denouement this year. That pressure, along with inherent flaws and an inability to adapt to an increasingly mobile-focused industry, contributed to the software's demise.
-m.jpg)
Charles Martin
Christine McKee
Wesley Hilliard
Malcolm Owen
Andrew Orr
William Gallagher
Sponsored Content
14 Comments
Yeah..... Flash on my Apple Watch would drain my entire battery in 1 second. Just... imagine it.
I'm pretty sure Jobs's famous editorial came well after Apple had tried to get Adobe Flash to work on iOS. Kudos to Apple for trying, but this was probably more of management telling their engineers to try even though it was obvious from engineers that Flash was never going to be good on iOS. A stripped down mobile version could've technically "worked" the way it worked on other smartphones at the time, but not for doing what people expected of a Flash at the time. I'd like to say that Apple made the right choice, but I only see one choice that made any sense at all.
And if this was going on NOW, Adobe would file an antitrust suit against Apple for not allowing Flash. Screw the consumers. Every company should be allowed to do what they want to another companies hardware...
I don’t see how this is “salacious” news! It’s almost “Meh! Who cares? Not oh wow! Really? We had no clue!” Of course Apple tried to port Flash. That’s how they knew all the things they said they knew about battery life diminishing by an order of magnitude.
What I am curious though is how does this pertain to the Epic case? How does Epic plan on twisting Forstall’s deposition against Apple? If at all it helps Apple’s case that they really did everything they could to make the best experience for their customers. And that a curated eco system is one of the plus points that a customer opts into when using Apple products. Not something that is slapped on them unwittingly.
Since only Epic’s side is being published, Apple’s side must have some damning information about Epic that the media is choosing to hide in an attempt to paint Apple in a bad light even though what is being published is old news that has nothing to do with what the court case is supposed to be about.