Adobe Flash doesn’t run on the iPhone, iPad, or anywhere mobile.

That said, many major websites still do not support HTML 5 fully, so iPhone and iPad users will contine to have a broken experience when it comes to the Web.

And so will every other mobile platform user.

With the possible exception of a Nokia device only 50 people have heard of, there’s nothing that has a Flash experience like the desktop (i.e., the kind Adobe likes to brag about). And Adobe has already stated smartphones pre-installed with this alleged support have been pushed back to the last half of the year.

Meanwhile, the JooJoo (with better hardware than the average smartphone), runs the infamous Flash 10.1 — allegedly the saving grace of Flash on mobile devices — and the results are horrendous. Adobe distanced themselves from the JooJoo as fast as they could, but shortly thereafter pushed back the date as mentioned above.

I have no issue with everybody pointing out that Flash doesn’t run on the iPad/iPhone. I do have an issue with those people not mentioning in the same breath that neither does anybody else to speak of.

Adobe can’t get Flash to work on mobiles, and have delivered nothing but promises. How about taking them to task for that instead of pointing out that today’s devices don’t run what doesn’t exist?

Microsoft cuts out paste on new phone OS

Microsoft has confirmed comments made at MIX10 that Windows Phone 7 Series devices won’t be able to cut and paste between applications

You might expect me to blast Microsoft for this, but I only do so partially. If they’re holding off because they have other priorities (as Apple did) it makes sense. The iPhone proved two things: 1) We can get by w/o copy/paste better than we thought; 2) Once you get it done right, it’s a huge time saver.

If Microsoft is waiting until they can do it “right”, and in the meantime rely on their number- and address-recognition to help with some cases, more power to them.

What I do find odd, however, is that Microsoft is delaying the same things Apple did (multi-tasking, too). It can’t be a coincidence their “priorities” match Apple’s exactly. It seems they’re following Apple’s path because it worked for Apple, but that’s likely a mistake. Microsoft’s base is not the same. Besides, it shows a lack of confidence in what features to delay, and how to explain it, that concerns me more than anything else.

Should Apple Worry Android’s Getting U.S. Market Share Gains From Microsoft?


Philip Elmer-DeWitt paints this as Android making Steve Jobs nervous, but I don’t see it that way. It’s not like Apple lost share, they gained. And they did so while selling on just one carrier, without lowering prices or offering rebates or BOGO deals.

What I see is Android gaining most of the share Microsoft is losing.

And why shouldn’t Android pick up Microsoft’s lost users? After all, WinMo users are used to a myriad of fragmented models with different hardware features and screen sizes. They run varying versions of the OS, with each manufacturer slapping their own apps or front-end on them. It’s just like Android. Yes, a WinMo user will feel right at home there.

Microsoft Phones to Have Physical Keyboards. They’re Doomed.


Images of the Microsoft’s upcoming phones has leaked. I guess Microsoft feels “old school” about this; that people really want “real” keyboards, but that tide is rapidly turning.

RIM knows it, hence the Storm and now Storm 2. Google knows it, which is why Android has a software keyboard. I believe even Palm knows it, but they couldn’t get a software keyboard ready in time for the Pre/Pixie. (They also couldn’t get desktop software or a decent API developed, but I digress.)

I’ve outlined the differences and advantages between hardware/software keyboards before, and since that time have become even more convinced they’re the only way to go. They simply make too much sense for the user and the manufacturer.

For example, with the 3.0 OS upgrade Apple was able to add a landscape keyboard option to every iPhone owner. Just like that. They’ve also added new keys and shortcuts. Even the Japanese Emoji symbols are available via the App Store. All because of the tremendous flexibility of a software keyboard.

Meanwhile, not having a physical keyboard means the device can be thinner and lighter. It also means it doesn’t change shape when using the keyboard (like the Pre), or sacrifice screen size (like Blackberrys).

The only advantages to physical keyboards are:

  • Getting a “touch” phone to market sooner because you don’t write one,
  • Satisfying the people used to them who think they can’t switch.

The former is a matter of being late to the party, and in Palm’s case hurt them because the keyboard they’re using is cheap. The latter is a perception that will change as people find a software keyboard is even more usable.

Here’s my prediction: In about three years time the physical keyboard holdouts will be complaining about their lack of choice in the marketplace. All the “cool” phones will be using software keyboards.

More Apple-Bashing Nonsense: Since Microsoft Was So Bad, Shouldn’t Apple Be Stopped?


Previously I wrote that the trolls are out for Apple, and to expect more ridiculous articles. Well, who better to supply one than Paul Thurrott, that constant source of Microsoft disinformation and FUD? Occasionally Thurrott reaches a new high in low, and did so with his post on Apple’s “culture of lies”. His ranting in this piece rivals that of Jason Calacanis’ recent nonsensical babbling about Apple; it’s that bad.

So Many Words, So Few That Matter

The only two things worth noting in the entire screed are these:

As I write this, Apple doesn’t quite have a monopoly in any given market

Yep, thanks, that covers Apple.

Microsoft got into antitrust trouble because they behaved in a manner that was illegal, but only for a company that holds monopoly power.

This is Paul’s way of admitting that Microsoft was operating illegally. Though he normally spends most of his time ignoring their history or re-writing it, today he’s coming clean. He added the last bit to setup the real purpose of his piece, which I’ll get to shortly. The bottom line is you can’t abuse a monopoly unless you are a monopoly, and simply becoming a monopoly doesn’t mean you’ll abuse it.

If you read the piece and think the above two quotes aren’t the only ones that matter, I suggest you check your driver’s license to see if your name is Ed Bott, or Randall Kennedy, or Mary Jo Foley, or Rob Enderle, or… well, you get the idea.

Why The Confession?

What it boils down to is that Microsoft is incredibly abusive. The Microsoft Tax was real, stolen code was real, back door deals and threats of retribution were real. There are thousands of pages of sworn testimony and emails from numerous court cases attesting to this. Microsoft is a text-book monopoly abuse case. (Just like past abusive monopolies, when cracks in the armor appeared the founder ran off and began his philanthropy.)

So why is Paul copping to Microsoft’s true history now? Simple. If he claims Apple could become the same thing, maybe he can get the public and government to do what Microsoft and their partners can’t: Put a dent in Apple’s growth and prevent them from stomping most everyone in the marketplace with their superior products.

Apple Abuse?

But to suggest potential abuse by Apple down the road is kind of silly. What are they gonna do?

  • Threaten the non-Apple 90% of PC manufacturers that they must bundle iTunes on their PCs or Apple will crush them? Heck, iTunes isn’t even bundled now, customers have to download and install it. There is a bundled media player, but that would be Microsoft’s.
  • Sell music tracks with DRM tied only to their own players with no way to defeat it? No, that was Microsoft. Apple never did, and ultimately removed DRM on music altogether.
  • App Store rejections? Compared to the ~70,000 apps approved, the percentage is tiny, and many were reconsidered and accepted. Most have shown to be a misunderstanding, or telling only one side of the story, or simple PR. Apple has admitted they’re working on the acceptance process, that’s not abuse.
  • Refuse to let iTunes “see” third-party devices? Nope. The devices are seen as external storage free to drag tracks onto. They don’t use Apple’s wonderful “sync” because Apple made that an advantage of their software. Other companies are free to do the same.
  • Refuse to let other companies write sync software for their devices? Nonsense. As I’ll discuss later, RIM already has.

Where is the abuse when there are no barriers of entry to compete with Apple? Microsoft’s proven this time and again as they continue to enter contestants (that keep getting clobbered). Google entered the fray with Android and nary a ripple from Apple. RIM made the Storm and Apple couldn’t have cared less. Palm did their Pre and, except for their pirating iTunes software by hacking, Apple doesn’t care. Further, any of these guys can write their own desktop software for their own devices to compete with iTunes any time they want.

The reason companies don’t want to write their own software now is because it takes time and effort, and they’re already so far behind they want to take shortcuts, including hacking into Apple’s good work. Wah! We didn’t have Apple’s foresight and vision, so they must let us use their stuff! It’s like the squealing two little pigs banging on the door of the house of bricks.

“I Know You Are But What Am I?”

For a while now, Microsoft and their press buddies have utilized a campaign to make Apple out to be just like them. They do this because they know they’re hated while Apple is not. Windows 7 is a service pack? Yeah, well so is Snow Leopard. Windows 7 leaves XP users in the dust (upgrade to painful)? Yeah, well Snow Leopard doesn’t work on non-Intel Macs. Windows is strewn with viruses? Hey, the Mac had a Trojan Horse so it’s just the same.

It’s odd that no one at Microsoft questions this strategy. I mean, when the worst insult you can hurl at your competitor is that they’re just like you, it reflects more on you than the competitor. It’s an acknowledgment that you suck, but the competitor rightfully says “No, we’re not like you, but thanks for admitting you suck”.

What Thurrott Really Wants

The real purpose of Thurrott’s piece is to get somebody, anybody, to stop Apple. So he threatens us with the only “weapon” he has, which is to claim Microsoft’s been a tyrant for 20 years and, gee whiz, let’s not let Apple be the same. He admits Apple isn’t there, but apparently Microsoft was so bad that we shouldn’t even wait this time! Let’s stop Apple before they’re guilty of anything. Wow.

There are just a few things wrong with Thurrott’s plea:

  • Exclusive phone deals were (and are) commonplace, and he never cared until Apple did it with a vastly superior smartphone, crushing Windows Mobile in the process.
  • Zune’s software works with Zunes and not, say, the Palm Pre, but he never cared about this type of software being “open” until Microsoft’s failed while Apple’s remained successful.
  • Microsoft’s Plays For Sure partners were completely screwed when the exclusive Zune came out, but he never cared about that.
  • Every company is free to compete with Apple with their own software without any retribution from Apple or demands to “knife the baby“. But Thurrott didn’t care that they foolishly chose not to until it was obvious they missed the boat and have a lot of catching up to do. Catching up Thurrott apparently feels won’t happen.
  • Even the mighty Google is free to put Google Voice on their own mobile OS (Android) and compete in the marketplace — which Apple reminded them they should do. But Thurrott doesn’t care because, like Google, he knows it’s not compelling enough for people to consider as an alternative to the iPhone.

This is the most ridiculous plea Thurrott has made since he begged those who value “your very livelihood” to band with him in demanding that Microsoft “respond to the challenges”. Well, now we see how they responded. Too bad it’s in the form of shameless rhetoric, not in the market place.

Thurrott’s apologies in the past, and rant of the present, seem to indicate that a free market and competition are foreign to him. He simply can’t imagine any company doing business without either being an illegal bully, or bullied by some other company or government. The whole concept of actually earning your place by making game-changing products that work as expected and are backed with stellar customer service completely eludes him. It eludes Microsoft as well.

Is There No Alternative?

Of course there is. For example, Research in Motion gets it. They stayed true to their successful BlackBerry devices while toying with an iPhone competitor in the Storm. They’ve also brought their own desktop software to the Mac. They didn’t whine or cry like Microsoft or Palm. They’re not trying to hack into Apple’s technology and leach their hard work and foresight. They’re building their own.

Instead of crying for help, they focused on their own core strategies and business plans. It’s clearly paid off; they’ve been as successful — maybe even more so — in the iPhone era as they were before it. And if their new stuff isn’t quite up to snuff yet, at least it’s a start, and they’ll make it better (witness the Storm 2).

But Apple Must Be Evil!

Thurrott’s shameless begging for someone to stop Apple from something he admits they’re not even doing reminds me that there are only two possible reasons for which these types of articles are written:

  • To stop Apple, or slow them down, in any manner possible except via the marketplace, where attempts by all comers have failed. In short, the articles are propaganda. Thurrott’s piece, and those of the rest of the Microsoft shill choir, fall into this category.
  • Page hits, tied to ego and self-importance. Face it, if you write a “Microsoft is Evil” piece, no one cares. Everyone already knows it; it’s nothing new. But if you write an “Apple is Evil” piece, people flock to it wondering if there’s some smoking gun. Instead, it’s just self-serving FUD, innuendo, and speculation. Arrington’s recent ravings, as well as the aforementioned Calacanis crap, fall into this category.

Both categories contain nothing but garbage.

Microsoft to Mobile App Developers: Strap This On Your Back and Race To Market


There are times when it’s simply not possible to avoid making fun of Microsoft. They bring it on themselves with stuff like this.

With the opening of Windows Marketplace for Mobile (Microsoft’s version of Apple’s App Store), Microsoft is having a contest in order to garner interest from developers. Normally, the best way to interest developers is with a consistent hardware platform and a modern OS with a mature API. But Microsoft doesn’t have that in the mobile space, so they’re having a contest instead.

That’s fine, but look at what Microsoft is giving away (emphasis mine):

The Race to Market Challenge will reward the developer whose paid application earns the most revenue… and the developer whose free application is downloaded the most… a prize package including a Microsoft Surface table

Stop right there. Think about it. Other companies might have given a mobile-centric prize for a mobile-centric contest, but not Microsoft. I can see the conversation now:

Microsoft: Congratulations on your winning mobile app. To show our gratitude, here’s a completely unrelated computer the size of a nightstand.

Developer: Um.

Microsoft: Here, we’ll help you put it on.

Developer: It’s kinda heavy. (*groan*)

Microsoft: Come on now. Race! Race to market!

Developer: Ugh. (falls down)

Microsoft: Get up! We need apps for both platforms, dammit! We’re losing in every space we enter. Turn those machines back on! Turn those machines back on!…

Windows Mobile: Microsoft Licenses A Feature No One Wants.

So Microsoft licensed FlashLite from Adobe for use in their Windows Mobile software. Not sure when it will be available in a mobile release, likely later this year.

Some have speculated this was to buy time until their own Silverlight product is ready for mobile use (with a few sites actually using it).

Others have said Microsoft can’t ignore that millions of phones (mainly Symbian-based) are already running FlashLite, so they had to keep up.

Personally, I think it’s less either of those, and primarily a marketing game. MS is trying the same tactics they tried with the Zune vs. iPod. The iPod has no FM transmitter, we do! The iPod has no cool WiFi feature (well, not at the time), we do!

The flaw in this thinking is that the lack of an FM transmitter is no more a problem with the iPod than the lack of FlashLite is for the iPhone.

Doesn’t Microsoft, or any of the iPhone’s competitors, review the numbers? People are browsing the web on the iPhone like crazy! And they’re doing it despite the lack of Flash of any kind. Or Java for that matter.

I’m sure analysts will hail this, and think it’ll force Apple’s hand, but Apple’s hands are busy right now counting their money and finishing iPhone 2.0.

Oh well, the more clueless the iPhone’s competitors remain, the further ahead Apple will pull. It’s getting to the point that it seems like an unfair fight.

Windows SuperSite Blinding Flash of the Obvious.

From Paul Thurrott’s Windows SuperSite today, a shocking revelation:

In the second half of 2007, Microsoft’s partners shold [sic] 14.3 million Windows Mobile phones. This compares to 4 million iPhones that Apple sold in the same time period.

Put another way, Windows Mobile outsold the iPhone by over 3 to 1.

Most would compare iPhone sales to other smartphone sales, but not Paul. Windows Mobile is on many phones no one would consider “smart”. So, put even another way, non-smartphones outsell smartphones in general.

Thanks for the newsflash, Paul. Got any updates on the Hindenburg?