Adobe: Apple Bad For Open Government

Apple's recent decision to block Adobe's video player on the iPad is an affront to open government, officials at the software company claimed on Monday.

In a blog post, Rob Pinkerton, director of government solutions for Adobe Systems, poses the question, "Will you read the open government memo on an iPad?," noting that users are able to use the popular tablet computer to view President Obama's promise of a more transparent, collaborative and participatory government--but there is irony in doing so.

Apple recently prohibited developers of apps for the iPhone from using certain features--including programming tools required to run Adobe's video software Flash. Adobe says Apple is at odds with the broader developer community.

But some in the developer community have said the same thing about Adobe. Open government activists argue the company's proprietary Flash, which is found on many federal Web sites, does not allow them to duplicate or modify government graphics. Now Adobe is pointing out that, following this logic, Apple is even less transparent.

"At Adobe, we have been lauded and criticized for our role in enabling open government. When we have been criticized we listen and learn so we can improve our business strategy to support the goals of open government," writes Pinkerton. The company currently is co-sponsoring a Web design contest run by the government accountability group Sunlight Foundation, which had once questioned the openness of Adobe's products.

"Apple's recent actions reflect no understanding of open government's true possibilities or principals. I still find it hard to believe that a company that founded one of the most generative platforms in the PC era (the Apple II - which shaped an innovative spirit that enabled the Internet era to follow) could possibly work so hard to close down the openness of the Internet. Yet that is exactly what the iPad and iPhone strategy does--a strategy that contradicts the president's open government goals and undermines Internet era innovation," Pinkerton says.

He then goes on to ask readers "to consider whether you think that Apple's strategy contradicts the principals of open government along the three main pillars of transparency, participation and collaboration." Here is what he has to say:

Development for the App Store is not transparent. The open government memo "promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their government is doing." But if government wants to use the app store to do this, they'll have to acquiesce to publishing restrictions, development guidelines and performance metrics that are defined by a closed process dictated solely by Apple. Open government developers will not find transparency at the app store.

The iPhone and iPad are not participatory. The open government memo encourages participation through "public engagement (that) enhances the government's effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions." Mobile devices are a great new platform to enable this type of participation. You can get this kind of information on your iPhone from the White House iPhone application, for example. But if you are one of the 298 million Americans who choose to use a different mobile platform, you don't get the same access. Download is limited to Apple-controlled devices.

Apple is not collaborating for mobile platform openness. The open government memo charges government with collaborating across agencies, private sector and non-profits to innovate. What a great way to evolve formative ideas! If you want to see what collaborative mobile application development looks like check out the Open Screen Project (OSP) where dozens of mobile technology companies like Google, RIM, Intel, Motorola, and Verizon Wireless are working to provide a consistent environment for open web browsing and standalone applications. OSP includes 19 of the top 20 major mobile manufacturers--Apple chose not to collaborate.

Six months ago, when government executives held up iPhone apps as examples of open government, I cheered because the elegant and intuitive design of these devices helped people understand the possibilities of open government. But now I cringe because they are self-limiting examples of a closed world where only the most fortunate have access.