Adobe Should Open Source Flash: "Adobe and Apple follow proprietary models of product development. Adobe Flash is a vendor locked proprietary technology. Today more than 78% users are dependent on Adobe Flash; they are locked into a proprietary technology. Advocates of open/free web are concerned about this situation.
When you use a proprietary technology, you do not know what it does to, and on, your machines. But users are forced to install such technologies to access many rich features of the web. In order to have a Free/Open Web, it is very important that a user doesn't have to install any proprietary software to access the features of the world wide web.
Let's come back to the Apple vs Adobe fight. Apple doesn't want Flash on its mobile platforms. Adobe has abandoned all the efforts to: a) persuade Apple to consider Flash; b) invest further in making Flash work for Apple. [John Grubar has written in detail as to why Apple doesn't want Flash (click here to read). We are not getting into that discussion; our concern about Flash is its non-free or proprietary nature.]
So where do Adobe and Apple go without each other? Adobe is banking on non-Apple platforms like Android; and Apple is counting on HTML5 which will free the world from the proprietary Flash.
Apple's Safari has decent support for HTML5. The Safari site says, ' HTML5 media tags, CSS animation, and CSS effects, web designers can create rich, interactive web applications using natively supported web standards. Thanks to HTML5 offline support, designers can build web applications that store themselves on your computer, where you have immediate access to them.'
It seems that HTML5 will solve the problem for Apple, but not for the advocates of a lock-free web.
HTML5 meets opposition
The original HTML5 draft specification recommended the use of open video formats as it was considered to be free from any patent issues. Section 3.14.7.1 of HTML5 draft 'Video and audio codecs for video elements', clearly mentioned that 'User agents should support Ogg Theora video and Ogg Vorbis audio, as well as the Ogg container format.'
But the new HTML5 draft specification does not specify which video formats that browsers should support in the video tag. Companies are free to support any video formats that they feel are appropriate – H.264 or Ogg Theora. How did this 'redrafting' happen?
There was, and is, heavy support for Ogg from companies like Opera and foundations like Mozilla. They supported the inclusion of Ogg formats into the HTML standard. Google Chrome included support in their 3.0 release.
But companies like Apple and Microsoft lobbied and opposed the usage of Ogg format, a free format, on non-proven grounds of quality.
Patent war
Companies like Apple and Nokia seemed to be 'worried' about patent issues around Ogg, which is available under one of the most free licenses -- BSD. These companies created hypothetical scenarios such as: what if the owners of Ogg were waiting with their patents for someone with deep pockets to start using it, and then sue them. Thus, they should not be forced to use a format which doesn't ensure patent protection.
The fact of the matter is that software patents do not make much sense. Software patents do not ensure 'quality' of the product; they do not guarantee benefit to end users or the company. All they do is create nuclear arsenals to nuke competitors. They should be made irrelevant and illegal considering the nature of software development and production.
There is no evidence of software patents benefiting customers. But it does waste a lot of money and court time as companies settle their patent lawsuits. Companies use patents to threaten competitors; which indirectly hinders development of better products for customers. Patents leads to monopolies. Some companies go to extremes with patents. It is notable that Microsoft accused Linux of infringing on its patents but could never prove it. Despite its public defeat, Microsoft used this threat to force Linux companies to sign cross-licencing deals and thus cut them off from the Free Software community.
Apple and Nokia have been fighting over patent infringement of proprietary technology, so there is no guarantee that H.264 is free from such 'risks'.
It's all about control
The real deal seems to be neither the patent threat nor the quality; the real issue is control. The body which owns the patent over H.264 – MPEG, LA --is a group of patent-holders including Microsoft and Apple. Anyone using H.264 has to pay licensing fees to the MPEG LA.
Members like Apple and Microsoft endorse H.264 because they control the format. It has less to do with quality or patent protection; its all about control and monopoly.
Eventually, Ian Hickson, the editor of HTML5 (and a Google employee), budged under the pressure and edited the draft 'removing' references to Ogg. The move was heavily criticized by the community; but the situation has not yet changed.
Flash does more than just playing movies. It creates a platform (read John's post); and Apple doesn't want a parallel platform on their devices which they cannot control. Apple wants to keep other players locked out of its its devices; so as to keep its users locked in. Apple wants to have their cake and eat it too. Apple's refusal to Adobe's Flash will do good as it would add more muscle behind the deployment of HTML5, but it will do no good to users and the community if it uses the proprietary H.264.
Google brings hope
The so-called concern around quality and patent risk around Ogg may soon come to end. Google recently purchased On2, the creator of VP8. The company also gets credit for developing proprietary VP3 which was later released into public domain. Theora, developed by Xiph.org foundation, is a derivative of VP3 codec. There are reports that Google may open soure VP8, thus ending the non-proven quality issues of 'free' Ogg Theora vs propriatry H.264.
Even if Google opens VP8 there are slim chances that arch rivals like Microsoft, especially Apple, will adopt Ogg format, despite its superior quality and openness.
Google should add more weight to Ogg by dropping support for proprietary H.264 and encouraging usage of Ogg. Considering its ownership of YouTube, Chrome browser, Android and upcoming Chome OS, Google is in a very strong position to boost deployment of Ogg over H.264. IE is weakening; Firefox is gaining market, Chrome is picking up; Opera already supports Ogg, this would be the best move for Google to 'force' a free format.
But what will Adobe do with Flash? There is an interesting point in Mike's post where he criticized Apple, '....I think that the closed system that Apple is trying to create is bad for the industry, developers and ultimately consumers, and that is not something that I want to actively promote. Don’t worry though, I definitely plan to get both Pew Pew and Bacon Unicorn Adventure running on Android and am planning on open sourcing both.'
Mike, don't you think the best thing 'for the industry, developers and ultimately consumers' would be to open source Flash itself?
HTML5 is either way around the corner. Considering the push from players like Apple, Google and communities like Firefox, its matter of months or years. If Adobe wants to keep a nice product like Flash alive, the best decision would be to open source it."
