If you aren’t up to date on Apple’s decision to limit the programming languages that can be used to design iPhone apps, Steve Job’s open letter about Adobe Flash and Adobe’s response to those two entities, then you have some catching up to do before this article will make any sense to you.

If you are already well-versed in the above topics, then please read on.

As a primer about me being the author of this article:

• I paid $765 for the original iPhone and have owned one of each individual generation since its inception.
• I work in a recording studio that almost exclusively uses Apple iMacs, MacBook Pros and G5′s.
• I am a huge fan of the OSX operating system.

With those things being said, Apple is putting Adobe in a position that leaves both companies with only one conclusion: force the consumer to choose a side and see which company can better withstand the loss of the defectors.

This is an overall silly and unjust position to place any of your loyal customers. In this article, I’ll be looking at some claims being made by both companies and offering my advice as an open letter to both companies.

In short: Apple CEO, Steve Jobs and Adobe CEO, Shantanu Narayen, already have your money and now they want your unhappiness as well.

The whole issue rises from a change made to the terms of service laid forth for Apple iPhone and iPod Touch app developers. In a traditional programming environment, I could develop an application in any programming language I want (say C++ or Java) and then alter the code to conform to whichever programming language was required for the platform I choose for distribution (say Windows or Playstation 3). The change Apple has made, states that an application must natively be developed in whichever language they have required as the de-facto language of iPhone standards.

Now the problem with this, comes from the fact that Adobe had built an ability into one of their design applications to package an application built with Adobe Flash into an application for the Apple app-store. This was saving the developers of Flash programs and games an immense amount of time and resources. Apple was not happy with this, though, as they claim that Flash crashes their devices. Note: Adobe Flash currently does not work on iPhones or iPod Touches of any generation — it does work on Apple OSX operation systems and Apple Safari internet browsers, though.

So why don’t we take a look at what each, Apple and Adobe, is saying that deserves merit.

Apple:

• HTML 5.0 is far better in the long run than Flash is in terms of displaying audio and video on the internet (the primary factors in needing a flash-capable device).
• Adobe’s Flash-to-iPhone converter is buggy at best and produces sub par iPhone applications. iPhone apps should be either natively designed (in whatever coding language) or they should be manually converted to Objective-C and Cocoa for iPhone usage.

Adobe:

• Steve Jobs is being a giant hypocrite with his open letter. Don’t get me wrong, I love Apple and I love my Apple products. I highly respect Steve Jobs and he’s a fantastic businessman, but he is also a master manipulator. His company operates in the exact same manner.
• Flash not working on an iPhone is not because Flash is “buggy” or “causes iPhones to crash” natively. If it doesn’t work on iPhones it is because Apple won’t allow Adobe to build a version of it for the iPhone. Apple could call Adobe and have a natively integrated version of Flash within a month.
• It should not matter what language a program was initially created in if it ends up in the correct final code. If I feel more comfortable writing my program in Flash and then porting it over to a format that iPhone can handle, it shouldn’t matter at all. It wouldn’t affect Apple and they would have no idea what language you wrote it in at first unless they knew of the product before it had its iPhone version. This rule is essentially a way for Apple to just arbitrarily ban certain developers or programs from their store.

From looking at the two companies’ points of merit, it is clear to see that they both just have their own respective interests in mind; I can’t really say I blame either of them but there is one glaringly important aspect that is being overlooked: what about the consumer?

Adobe Flash is an archaic system that was really great for what it did in 1995. If it weren’t for Flash, we wouldn’t have a lot of the fantastic sites that we have now a days. Granted, now a lot of other programs/languages handled it better and Adobe is just trying to grasp onto their baby. Saying that Adobe formats should just be phased out, though, is just absurd. Adobe Air is a fantastic format and it very well could be the future of web-based applications. We might have HTML 5.0 performing our video (read:Youtube) and audio (read:Myspace) functions with Adobe Air handling our word processing functions. Adobe Photoshop is still untouchable when it comes to graphic editing capabilities.

So what would I do if I were either respective company?

What Adobe should do considering Apple is banning Flash and Flash-made programs from the App Store:

• If I were Adobe, I would pull every app that I had made from the App Store for the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad.
• I would then announce that Adobe Creative Suite 5 would be Windows only due to fears that Apple will be disallowing all non-natively developed applications. Apple is known as the creative man’s computer and if they do not have the Adobe Creative Suite, they can no longer be known as such.

What Apple should do considering Adobe is taking steps to heavily decrease their Apple support:

• If I were Apple, I would continue to harp the power of HTML 5.0 and make the average user more aware of its presence.
• I would single-handedly usher in the age of HTML 5.0 and convince sites to develop their mobile version using its technology; eventually leading them to completely transition the Flash-rendered pages into HTML 5.0 pages.

And most importantly:

What does it mean for you as a consumer:

• As a consumer, it means a whole lot of bad news and limited of your device whatever it may be. If you have an Apple product, you are going to get a limited experience from Adobe. If you are an Adobe user or developer, you will be getting limited support from Apple. For either company to “win,” you, the consumer, will have to lose unless they forgo this silly power struggle and cooperate.
• Realistically, you will be forced to choose a side: Apple or Adobe

This black and white ultimatum is not going to cut it for me. While it is a feasible move business-wise, it is horrible in terms of creating a fair and just ecosystem for customers. Let’s take a quick look at how it would affect me from an “at-home” standpoint… it’s easier to leave my job out of the situation. Products that I use at home by each company:

Apple: iPhone, MacBook Pro, Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro 9.0

Adobe: Photoshop CS4, Illustrator CS4, Fireworks CS4, Lightroom 2.0

So a quick glance at these lists brings a few points up for consideration. My iPhone is very important to me, but it works on Apple OSX and Windows. There is no way that Apple could justify making it Apple only because of Adobe (who does not make Windows) so it’ll remain being usable on both formats. Apple can’t use that as leverage against me.

My MacBook Pro is a fantastic computer and I love using OSX, but if Adobe made their Creative Suite (Photoshop, Illustrator, Fireworks, etc) unavailable on Macs, I would have to stop using a Mac. I just wouldn’t have a choice as there is no program that is even half as good as Photoshop and Adobe knows it. I would be forced to replace Final Cut Pro with Adobe Premiere and Logic Pro 9.0 with Adobe Audition. This would not be an ideal situation for me either, but it is the only manageable one for me. I would rather be working on a Windows-based computer and trying to edit graphics with Photoshop than sitting on an Apple-based computer trying to edit graphics without it. I can edit a movie with Premiere or Avid and I can record audio with Audition or ProTools.

You can see that either choice leaves one of the companies as a winner and ultimately costs you the convenience and choice that consumers are owed in today’s technological world. Some of you may prefer to edit graphics in Photoshop on Windows and that should be your choice to do so.

If either of you are reading this you may win this little head-to-head tussle, but it will be at the expensive of technological advancement. I guarantee you that if you continue down these routes, the open-source community will overpower you one day. They will have the manpower, the adaptability, the interoperability and most importantly, the choice to always be one step in front of you. I suggest you concede the battle and focus on the war or you both will be lost by the way side. Minor blips on a histogram or time line somewhere.

I would hate to be either of you when it comes to explain that caveat to investors.

As you can see, from time to time there will be rants and this is where I will get them out of my system. I promise, tomorrow we will get back to LSAT and jazz-playing robots.