Steve Jobs On Apple's Dissing of Adobe's Flash

I am an Apple fanboy. I am also an Adobe fanboy. Ever since I left my Scitex Workstation behind a decade and a half ago, I have lived in a world where Apple and Adobe seemed like twins. Adobe’s software has always been an elegant fit to Apple’s hardware.

The beautiful world of technology is always evolving in unpredictable ways. Change is painful. Growth is painful. And sometimes it can cause a riff or two.

While many people have thought it was only a matter of time before Apple touch-screen products like the iPad would become Adobe Flash friendly, that time now appears unlikely to ever arrive. Here is a very open response Steve Jobs posted on the Apple website, stating six reasons their touch-screen products will never be Flash-friendly: Thoughts on Flash by Steve Jobs.

He starts with: “Apple has a long relationship with Adobe. In fact, we met Adobe’s founders when they were in their proverbial garage.” And ends with: “Perhaps Adobe should focus more on creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind.”

Regardless of what you know or how you feel about the technology in question, it is all the stuff in-between that makes this is a fascinating read. Love him or hate him, the diatribe is an intimate insight into the mind of one of technologies’ greatest entrepreneurs.

The Three Modes of Exchange -- Part Two

In a previous post, I talked about the two ways to voluntarily part with your property, charitable giving and free-trade. In this post, I am going to explore the more common method: theft.

No matter how “justifiable” the need or cause, taking something from someone else against their will is wrong. It is theft.

In fact, government, by it’s nature is an organization whose very existence is wholly sustained by involuntary coercion. Government produces nothing. It can only take and redistribute resources. For instance, no government has ever “produced jobs”.

The only job a government can “create” comes into existence by taking resources from it’s citizens and redistributing them (inefficiently) to other sources. Redistribution is not the same as creation. In fact, this by it’s very nature implies that something else had to be sacrificed in order to bring it into being. In economics, this is known as opportunity cost.

Now let’s examine how government “pays” for what it “creates”: taxation.

Taxation is theft. This is the most obvious form of involuntary coercion. Don’t believe me? Don’t pay your taxes and let’s see what happens to you.

Now some people would say taxes are a good thing. After all, they pay for schools and roads and libraries and parks. I frequently even hear people say, “I am glad to pay taxes for such things.” Good for you. That does not change the fact that this form of exchange is involuntary.

We often get sidetracked with “what” government is spending our money on. Maybe a new light rail system is a good thing, maybe it is not. It doesn’t matter. The real question should be, “who decides?” Your money and/or property is taken from you involuntarily to pay for whatever program is the latest whim.

Which brings me to the “rule of mobs”.

If my neighbor has something I want, I would never think of just walking over to his house and taking it. For some reason though, we find it okay to do so in other ways. For instance, let’s consider someone who doesn’t want to pay for their own healthcare. They can convince a “majority” to vote for it, thus passing legislation requiring you to pay for it.

Just because the majority wants your property to pay for “their” just cause does not change the fact that the action they are committing is theft.

We now live in a society where the mob rules. If the mob wants to send your sons and daughters to Iraq, the mob does so. If the mob wants to make you pay for it’s pet projects, the mob makes it so. In this kind of society, you have no property rights. Your property belongs to whoever is in the majority.

Ultimately, a truly free society can only exist where everyone respects the rights of every individual, where a person is seen as responsible for themselves and where their personal property is respected. A society where coercive force is randomly accepted is neither free nor just.

Do we want a society ruled by the whims of whatever group is in the majority? Or do we want a society that recognizes -- regardless of what group is in the majority -- all men are created equal, that they are all endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights? Ownership of oneself and one’s own property is at the core of protecting the rights of all.

The North Star News Now Offering Online Version

Well, my family’s old newspaper, The North Star News -- which was sold over a decade ago, but is still edited by my brother Bubba -- has finally joined the ranks of the new internet age. The North Star News, which serves the upper northwestern corner of Minnesota, now offers an online version for subscription.

It is amazing how newspapers have had to adapt and change, sometimes leaving a wake of laid-off editors and beat writers. Transforming from a print-only pub and getting online to compete with every yahoo blogger like me has not been pretty, especially for the bigger daily papers.

For the more localized small weeklies, the internet seems more inviting. There is less competition, fewer sources for people to get their local news. There also seems to be less demand for up-to-the second updates that the dailies have to dispense in order to compete with other timely outlets like television and the internet.

If you are from my old neck of the woods, check it out here. If you choose to subscribe, make sure you select the correct paper, as parent company, Page1Publications is heading into new territory, offering all four of it’s regional newspapers online on the same site.

The Three Modes of Exchange -- Part One

There are only three ways one can part with their money. The three modes of exchange are very simple: one can give things away through unconditional voluntary charity; one can willingly take part in trade/exchange/barter; or one can have something taken away from them through theft or collusion.

The first mode, charity, is very interesting. One may not receive anything material in return for their voluntary giving, yet, there is a payoff: the warm fuzzy feeling of having done something good in the world, the afterglow of gratitude.

The second mode, free trade, is essentially the accurate definition of capitalism. This oft-maligned concept is frequently mis-represented today, as detractors try to misrepresent it as the source of greed and corruption. More on that later.

The third mode, theft, is the defining concept on which our modern political/economic system is built: taking from one source and giving to another, usually in the name of “good”. As the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Yet, no matter what the ends, I would argue theft is still theft.

The first two modes are voluntary and require all parties involved to participate freely without coercion or use of force. The third mode is only achieved through use of force. People are required to relinquish their property or be punished.

There are many fallacies that can be exposed by these three simple definitions of exchange.

Let’s start with charity. In reality everything we do, we do for a reason. Everything we do, we do because we profit from it, including charitable giving. People who are very philanthropic are so because they find reward in it. The very definition of success is the recognition that, no matter what one may acquire materially, it is all meaningless without gratitude.

Charitable giving is the outward display of this gratitude. We share with others because of our recognition that we, ourselves have more than we need and are grateful for it. Some people mistakenly feel guilty when feeling good about giving. They shouldn’t. Ultimately, giving has two winners, the giver and the receiver. I would argue that is a good thing.

Essentially, those that give do so because they are happy with their lives and those that don’t, are not. Although we need more happy people in this world, that still does not change the fact that what is yours is yours. What you chose to do with what you have is your voluntary choice.

Our second mode, free trade, is often mis-defined. Free trade is, by it’s very definition, free. There is no coercion. Two people chose to exchange their property of their own free will. So why do people hate capitalism? I would argue that they don’t. They just have an incorrect definition of what capitalism is.

In free trade, there is risk and reward. Am I getting my money’s worth? Will I like my end of the bargain? Is this exchange beneficial to me? Those are choices individuals have to make. These choices require personal responsibility. These choices also require we suffer the consequences, good or bad.

Unfortunately, we try to allay that responsibility by getting someone else to “regulate” our interactions. Doing so makes free trade no longer “free”. Trying to mitigate risk creates a hybrid between control and free choice.

What we often fail to realize is that risk is good. Risk is what creates fear. Fear is what keeps us from making bad choices. Fear is what “regulates” our greed. Therefore, capitalism does not create greed. Regulation meant to diminish risk creates greed. The elimination of risk creates an artificial barrier to fear, fear that would normally hold the expansion of greed at bay.

Yet, why do so many people incorrectly associate capitalism with greed? I think it is a simple case of believing what we are told rather than thinking it through for ourselves. It is easier to subjugate to someone else’s regulation than to think for ourselves. Rather than be personally responsible for them, it is easier to convince ourselves that free choice is a bad thing.

Which brings me to the third mode, our new modern American way of exchange: involuntary coercion, better known as theft.

That will be part two.

Spark

With all the Internet and video McMurry does, it is hard to believe some people still think of us only a magazine publisher...

Here is a video highlighting some of the work done by our latest acquisition, Spark, a New York City based video production company.

These guys are too cool...

The Whigs Latest Video

I haven't seen them since the summer of '08, but I have my tickets for their Scottsdale show on Thursday. I am ready...