So did anyone with a pulse. :) The only part that garnered widespread opposition was the sixth point ("the most important reason"). Apple later reversed course on that particular position.
That's some impressive revisionist history. The whole reason Steve published that list was because of the backlash Apple received for not supporting Flash.
And yet in his own words, the "most important reason" was to prevent other companies from using cross-platform libraries (such as Adobe Air) on the platform.
That reason was reversed, and Adobe Air (including what was essentially compiled Flash) became available on iOS.
It was never reversed, and you're missing the point. Flash as a runtime environment -- with its own stack, VM, APIs, and process ID -- was never allowed on iOS, and only barely was available on other mobile devices. What you linked to was Air, which allowed you to write applications in ActionScript and then generate Objective-C.
This is worlds away from a reversal. You were still using Cocoa to interact with the device, not Flash.
There were an awful lot of people, with hot blood and full pulses, that objected to things other than the sixth point. I think it was a mixture of several types of people, among these one type perhaps being those that would object to anything Steve Jobs said, and another type perhaps being those that had never experienced the misery of Flash on non-Windows platforms.
I think the parent commenter meant that disagreement with Apple on point six was widespread, rather than that disagreement with Adobe on point six was (uniquely) widespread.
The complete failure of Flash on Android was probably a bigger factor. A web technology could conceivably survive without iOS support, but not when you've proved the point that it's inappropriate for any mobile platform.
“The International Organization for Standardization approved the QuickTime file format as the basis of the MPEG-4 file format. The MPEG-4 file format specification was created on the basis of the QuickTime format specification published in 2001.” — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuickTime_File_Format
Not so fast there ... This registration authority for code-points in "MP4 Family" files is Apple Inc. and it is named in Annex D (informative) in MPEG-4 Part 12.[18]
(from your link)
Apple did in fact control Quicktime AND keep it very proprietary.
To insinuate that they were pro open source on video is revisionism.
The file format is still an ISO standard and pretty much anything reads it. Even Apple itself doesn't use the Quicktime container anymore (and hasn't for years). I didn't insinuate anything regarding open source, which doesn't appear anywhere in the part I quoted.
Edit: Oh, I noticed you significantly modified your first comment, that's why you now talk about open source when I never did. When I responded your comment read: “From the guy that tried to force QuickTime on us?”.
Fair enough.
Looks like some Apple fanatics are out today.
If you criticize apple ; you have to be careful otherwise you get whited out pretty quick.
So I toned it down.
My point was the Steve Jobs complaining about proprietary video is very ironic ... when he was pedaling his own proprietary video tech.
Oh please, stop it with the fanatics. The first version of your comment is not only incorrect but also not the type and tone of contribution appreciated on HN, and you have been here long enough to know it.
<i>More than 250 million copies of QuickTime 6 have been downloaded in
> less than two years since its release. According to Frost & Sullivans
> 2004 Global Media Streaming Platform Report, between 2002 and 2003
> Microsofts and Real Networks worldwide market share percentages were
> either stable or declining while QuickTimes market share increased to
> 36.8 percent, a close second to Microsoft. Real Networks came in third
> place with less than 25 percent of the worldwide streaming market
> share.</i>
Apple was never an "open source/open technology" white knight in video.
