Errr... from what I see here, it's not Mr. Jobs that seems to have to worry.

Hint: see Wovel's suggestion.

Yea — I'm using a full-sized bluetooth keyboard on my iPad ... I just love it.

The funny thing is: I would never trade it in for a netbook.

Sounds like we both win.

Funny — I'd been classifying no Flash is a "feature" ...

Let's identify success metrics on this: tell me what specific performance points you'd be examining, as well as the threshold they would have to exceed in order that you'd be satisfied iPad is not a "mistake" of a product. Is it sales volume? Is it sales in the first year? Is it a percentage comparison against another tablet device that preceded it in the market, or against netbook sales, or...?

If you propose some sane evaluation points, I'm kinda ready to make some loot off you, sir, if you're the gambling type ;-)

I been saying this throughout the thread, so pardon my (re)redundancy, but I really think Adobe's wisest move at this juncture would be to create authoring tools as great as the Flash authoring environment and Flex IDE for HTML5 (SVG + Canvas, etc) production.

And hey - remember <blink> and ridiculously large paychecks?- good times... ;-)

No mental gymnastics here: just happy to have a likely "win" for HTML5 and web standards in general. If Adobe were smart, they'd stop divert money from Flash, and focus on building out great Flash-like authoring tools that put out HTML5 content.

Anyone who claims differently is a deluded apologist Apple fanboy.

Or appreciates standards, amigo. Relax.

They're (finally) meant to be working on this... except I don't see it as a useful technology any more, now that Canvas and the rest are available. My take is that if Adobe were smart, they'd spend their resources on creating a Flash-like authoring environment for producing HTML5 content.

How exactly is this a misstep? Are we talking from a market success perspective, or from a Flash developers' perspective?

I'm a web professional of 13 years experience... and it's my professional opinion that websites ought to be built with open standards and web technologies ;)

On the UX tip, it's certainly possible to design and implement Flash content that doesn't rely on hover states, but the story's main point is that a great number of existing websites would have to be rewritten to do so... the thing is, while you're rewriting, you may as well just go standards.

I presently work at a major media company in NYC that has websites that use plenty of Flash (including a number of children's sites that are WAY flash heavy); my team produces both HTML and Flash-based sites. And, being that I'd get paid either way (forgive me for raising that point, but it does seem like your viewpoint is likely to suffer from no small amount bias, since your livelihood is presently tied to Flash development), I'd still always recommend going HTML.

That said, Flash does offer a great "fallback" solution for rendering SVG, Canvas content, and audio / video media in browsers that don't yet support HTML 5 :)

Doesn't mean that this particular point is without (strong) merit, amigo.

Who ever said there needs to be just one reason? Your proposed reason is an excellent one (from the business perspective), no doubt, but banning Flash is just a Great Idea for a metric ton of reasons ;)

Or, just adopt progressive enhancement as a implementational methodology :) websites can certainly leverage hover state interactions to provide "additional awesome," but should be fully accessible in cases where hover is not possible... including, say, the Lynx browser or audio interfaces for the hearing-impaired.

You may have already seen the comment I'm about to link to, but just in case not, here's the main point: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1558048&cid=31219426

He's talking about existing sites. Sure, one could rewrite existing sites so that there is no reliance on hovers, but at that point you really ought to be considering web standards.