Interesting if fatally cynical Wired video on Adobe turf.
I think it is amazing that Creative Director of Wired, Scott Dadich, says the following line when commenting on the design and construction of a typical Wired issue.

‘The advertising content is as important as the editorial material in Wired.’

I wonder if this doofus realises that, as a publisher, you are wholly reliant on the humble reader, not the advertiser. The reader is the cake. The ads merely the icing on the top. A publisher like Condé Nast won’t know its readers personally, or meet with them by choice, but they are the ones who buy the magazines….with their discretionary spending money. They give a publication life and a commercial raison d’etre therefore. But publishers choose to forget about readers and give preference and greater import instead to the expectations of their advertisers, whom they do know well and meet with often.

But as publishers you conveniently forget that, while the advertisers may wine and dine you, and they may even bed you, they only want you for one thing. And no, it’s not that. They want you for your readers.

Advertisers never forget the reader. Magazine publishers like Wired, always do. That’s why the ads are as important as the editorial to Doofus Dadich and his kind of creative whore.

They are your readers and they will often remain loyal to you in hard times. You ignore them and rank them low in your priorities at your peril.

With a Creative Bozo in chief like Dadich on board, you just know that Wired is doomed. Not a moment too soon imo.

And I forgot to add the punchline too, doh! It goes like this .....

Doh! of the Day Lesson to publishers: No cake. Definitely no icing.

If any reader doesn’t understand the REAL reason Jobs doesn’t want flash on Apple mobile devices you’re either sophomoric, naive or just plain stupid.

Apple can’t control the distribution or sale of flash. Simple. Period. Done.

PulSamsara -If it was purely for the reasons you outlined, there would be no support for equivalent technologies (SVG, Canvas, CSS animations, HTML5 video) in WebKit / Safari, or for free ad-subsidised apps in the App Store – and where, exactly, can developers sell Flash apps today??

My take on it runs like this – iPhone-only apps sell the iPhone, while Flash apps would run on any phone, undermining Apple’s advantage. Apple isn’t going to voluntarily give away it’s advantage, until it’s hand is forced.

It will be interesting to see how Flash support on mobiles is received – will people be disappointed by the reality – that a lot of existing content will be unusable.

And there is no getting away from the fact that by its very nature, any cross-platform runtime (i.e. Flash or Java) has to be slower / take more resource than the native runtime it runs on top of – it has to abstract the difference between operating systems, and run a simulated computer on top (preventing the operating system from being able to do things like idle the CPU). In fact, both Palm and Android have gone the other way, adding native development kits for games.

One reason for this – most iPhone games, like console games, tend to be written in C++ and OpenGL. Even Obj-C and Apple’s frameworks like CoreAnimation, etc, are considered too slow by experienced games developers writing for iPhone. This is actually relatively portable, provided you offer native executable and OpenGL support.