The media woke up Thursday to what is being presented as a definitive statement from Steve Jobs about the controversial decision to block Flash from Apple’s mobile platform. No doubt Apple’s critics are busy dissecting what is a pretty straightforward post to find evidence of corporate spin and deception.

The problem, however, is that what Jobs says is basically true in every respect. He is very much repeating things that tech commentators have been saying for quite a while about Flash and its potential pitfalls on the Mac and mobile platforms. So from the start, it’s going to be hard to find points with which to legitimately disagree.

In his blog post, which you can find on Apple’s site, Jobs first recounts the company’s long history with Adobe, beginning when the founders, computer scientists John Warnock and Charles Geschke, invented the PostScript page description language that basically begat the desktop publishing revolution. As Jobs states, Apple licensed the technology for the original Apple LaserWriter. Having lived through that period, I can tell you that, were it not for Apple, Adobe may have remained in that garage, because the association between the two companies, which included a financial stake on Apple’s part (since divested), basically caused a revolution.

Indeed, the reason the Mac still exists and prospers today may well be because content creators embraced the platform in the early days as the result of its suitability for printing and publishing. I rather suspect I might be in a different business too, since I had been working with traditional typesetting computers in those days. Most of my former employers, in fact, have been out of business for years.

In any case, Jobs raises the well-known problems with Flash, which include its subpar performance on the Mac, and those notorious security issues. Says Jobs: “Symantec recently highlighted Flash for having one of the worst security records in 2009. We also know first hand that Flash is the number one reason Macs crash. We have been working with Adobe to fix these problems, but they have persisted for several years now.”

When it comes to the mobile version, Jobs claims that, because it uses software rather than hardware graphics and video decoding, it would cut the estimated battery life of an iPhone in half. Those of you who are already concerned about how often you have to locate a recharger can understand this dilemma.

Another significant issue is just as important, which is that Flash was designed to work with PCs and traditional input devices, such as a mouse or trackpad. It doesn’t understand touch, and therefore such common Flash features as mouseovers wouldn’t work. Worse, even if Adobe fixed all the performance and power management issues, millions of Webmasters would have to redesign their sites to be compatible. So Jobs concludes: “If developers need to rewrite their Flash websites, why not use modern technologies like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript?”

More to the point, there would be no power management issues, no performance, stability and additional security concerns. Any modern browser that works on a Mac, PC or mobile platform would be compatible. Jobs mentions, by the way, the fact that Apple’s own open WebKit engine powers the best mobile browsers not just on the iPhone, but on Android, Palm’s WebOS and even the forthcoming version of RIM’s OS for the BlackBerry.

The blog also addresses Apple’s concerns about cross-platform compiling tools. Jobs points out that the unique features touted by Apple help them sell more gear, thus earning higher profits. Nothing wrong with a company trying to be successful. Because they are designed to work with different mobile platforms, the cross-platform scheme may make it easier on the developer, at the expense of catering to the lowest common denominator. What Jobs doesn’t say, of course, is that this problem would impact any mobile platform. If Google wants to deliver unique features to Android, a development environment that doesn’t support the new features doesn’t serve their best interests either. Nor does it serve the interests of the software company that wants to build the best products it can to achieve the highest possible sales and, of course, profits.

In the end, Apple has the right to do what they want in the way they want. They don’t have to justify their decision not to support Flash or cross-platform methods to build iPhone apps. As far as I’m concerned, Jobs’ comments are written simply, with few flourishes and aren’t overwhelmed with corporate spin. As I said at the outset, many media commentators have already raised the same concerns about Flash that Jobs voices.

His post also serves as a clarion call for Adobe to move on and not expect Apple to budge from its decision. Adobe can still make great profits on its other content creation tools, although Web developers will not find it easy to ditch Flash. On the other hand, no other mobile platform generates near the Web traffic as the iPhone, so what choice do they have?

Predictably, Adobe’s response, calling the blog a smokescreen, resolves nothing.

For reasons that have little to do with what Apple is actually doing, they’ve managed to dominate the headlines in recent days, mostly because of that brouhaha over that loss and eventual recovery of a prototype of the next generation iPhone. But that, of course, has little to do with Apple’s existing products and services. Indeed, it’s quite possible that the final form factor of the next iPhone and its internal workings will be quite different from the one widely splattered over the net in recent days. And, no, I don’t think Steve Jobs would alter the design out of spite.

However, there’s plenty of real Apple news to talk about, such as the recent MacBook Pro refresh and what may be announced during the WWDC in June. That’s where Apple is expected to unleash the next iPhone along with the announcement of the final shipping date. Sure, the media will be closely examining the spec sheets to see how closely they match that infamous prototype. There’s also the possibility that you’ll get an early look at Mac OS 10.7, although that is debatable I suppose.

But remember that Apple provided preliminary details for Snow Leopard well over a year before it was released, just to prepare developers. Assuming that 10.7 doesn’t arrive until late summer or fall 2011, which would be a fairly sensible timeframe, that doesn’t stop them from delivering a technology preview this year, so developers know what to expect, and you can discover more features for Microsoft to imitate in their next version of Windows.

When it comes to the hardware, it doesn’t seem as if Apple is yet poised to do anything drastic in terms of changing product form factors. Even the hot selling iMac doesn’t look that much different from its predecessors, and that includes the imposing 27-inch model.

The WWDC is likely to bring a long-awaited update to the Mac Pro lineup, but there’s little or no indication that it will look any different from the current models, even as the internal parts are updated with the latest Intel chips. And, no, I don’t expect to suddenly see AMD chips on new Mac workstations, despite those published reports of a possible deal. If it happens, you might see AMD processors in, say, a Mac mini to provide a cheaper road to a performance boost. But whether AMD equals, matches, or exceeds Intel is a matter for the PC magazines that benchmark those things. Most computers are sufficiently fast these days.

Indeed, if you look through the entire history of the Mac in the aftermath of the Intel transition, you won’t see serious alterations in how the actual products look. The tapered construction of the latest and greatest Mac portables is, at best, a minor change over the previous models. You can, for example, take a Titanium PowerBook G4, place it next to the Early 2010 MacBook Pro and see a direct family resemblance between the former to the latter. On the other hand, that may be a good thing, because it delivers a consistent look from model to model, in the same fashion that you can compare a vintage Mercedes-Benz to a 2010 model and know they came from the same company.

Beyond the expected Mac Pro upgrade, you probably won’t see much if anything new when it comes to Mac hardware until the fall, when the MacBook and iMac will probably get refreshes to reflect the latest and greatest Intel hardware — or perhaps a mixture of some AMD parts.

Some suggest that Apple might choose to design their own processors for Macs, but it appears that their acquisitions of chip design establishments are focused towards the mobile platform, which will likely provide the lion’s share of the company’s income in the years to come.

However, I do not expect Apple to slow development of new Macs, since they are still the “hub of your digital lifestyle.” That remains true even though the majority of iPad, iPhone and iPod owners actually use Windows. You can’t argue with the sale of roughly three million Macs each quarter, and it’s not beyond the realm of possibility to see that figure grow to four million by the end of the year. Apple’s computer sales continue to beat the PC market by a fair margin, even if some of Microsoft’s shills want you to believe that Windows 7 upgrades are moving at a faster clip. That’s why Microsoft’s stock has remained relatively flat for years, whereas anyone who invested in Apple during the bad days would see a huge profit from even a modest investment.

Indeed, were I not a tech writer, I would have made that investment way back when, and would now be sitting pretty and preparing for a lucrative retirement. Then again, writing these columns and hosting two radio shows is much more fun, even if it’s not as profitable.

In any case, I expect you’ll see loads of neat stuff in forthcoming Macs and the Mac OS. But the days of revolutionary changes are probably gone, at least for now.

It appears to me that lots of people reading about the skirmish between California authorities, Gizmodo and Apple are on the right side of the equation. As you know, California’s Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team served a warrant at the home of Gizmodo editor Jason Chen last Friday, seizing computers, servers, and other tech gear. All because of the infamous iPhone 4.0 prototype affair.

As most of you have already heard, Gray Powell, identified as an Apple engineer, supposedly left an iPhone prototype at a bar in Redwood City. Rather than return the gadget to the bartender, for eventual pickup by its owner, the “Good Samaritan” who found the device allegedly tried to cash in on this windfall, and shopped it around. Gawker Media, owners of Gizmodo, reportedly paid $5,000 to get ahold of the unit, after which they did a teardown and published an article complete with detailed photos about their discovery.

Supposedly Apple’s servers disabled the phone, so it wasn’t functional, although a lot of information was available about possible new features, including a front-facing camera, tinier components and a larger battery. The new squarish form factor is a substantial change from the tapered design of the current models, but there’s no way of knowing if this prototype was meant to represent a final or near-final case, or just something with which to test the internal workings and how they interacted with AT&T’s mobile network.

To be sure, Apple sent the expected legal letter requesting return of the unit, which certainly confirmed it was genuine. Although Gizmodo reportedly returned their iPhone, the authorities are investigating, which is why that subpoena was served at Chen’s home, and his tech gear confiscated.

Now according to published reports, the district attorney in the Silicon Valley jurisdiction that’s involved in this case is expected to soon decide whether to seek prosecution or not. Because of the amount of the transaction for the possibly stolen goods, it could be considered a felony, and charges might be filed not just against the members of Gizmodo’s staff allegedly involved in this caper, but the person who originally sold the phone to them.

It’s not that an honest effort wasn’t made to recover the phone. The stories indicate that Powell called the bar a number of times, although the owner of the establishment claimed he had not heard from anyone. Regardless, the legal problems began once the person who recovered the phone opted not to return it, but to profit from his good fortune.

There are, predictably, pros and cons about the case. Some suggest that Gawker Media is protected by California’s wide ranging “shield law,” which allows them to protect their sources. However, this is not a matter of a confidential source providing information to a news source. It involves the sale and purchase of what appears to be a stolen product, and that’s where the authorities are rightly concerned.

If Gizmodo got the phone free of charge and then returned it, they’d probably face no liability. The exchange of money changes the situation and I can see where this is potentially a serious legal issue.

Yes, the public has a right to know, but that doesn’t mean that a company cannot protect its trade secrets by the appropriate legal methods. Some people are apt to suggest that the person who purloined that iPhone was acting as a whistle-blower, but the health and safety of the populace is not being impacted by the disclosure of information about a prerelease smartphone.

We will probably know in a week or so whether Gizmodo and its staff may face criminal or civil action. At the same time, I have to wonder just what they were thinking in getting involved in this mess in the first place. Were they foolish enough to believe that Apple wouldn’t demand return of the prototype and, perhaps, notify the police about what happened? Of course, it may well be that the theft report was filed even before the financial transaction occurred, assuming that the Apple worker who misplaced his iPhone contacted his employer and told them what happened. If the bar didn’t have it, it makes perfect sense to ask the police to serve and protect.

This doesn’t mean that the media shouldn’t continue to seek out information about the goings on at Apple. That’s perfectly legitimate so long as it doesn’t take publishers and reporters into the uncharted territory of committing a possible criminal act. Yes, I realize it’s become common practice to pay sources for a story, even though most of the mainstream press frowns upon the practice, at least publicly.

As you gather, I’m quite sympathetic about Apple’s interests here. Although it’s fun to learn something new about one of their forthcoming products, true or otherwise, if getting that information involves breaking the law, I’m no longer interested.

I do feel sorry for the people at Gawker Media for making the foolish decision to get involved in this matter, but having done so, they must be prepared to face the consequences, whatever they might be.

A recent blog posting from none other than Steve Wozniak, Apple’s co-founder, reports on the sad tale of an Apple employee who got fired for breaking Apple’s nondisclosure agreement. Seems the employee in question let Woz, who remains part of Apple’s staff, spend a couple of minutes using a prerelease 3G iPad. Unfortunately it was done outside of Apple’s “secure areas,” and thus that person, an Apple engineer, is now looking for another job.

End of story — or is it?

The tech press continues to go after Apple for its secretive nature, but pretty much all companies that actually build products require that their workers sign some sort of NDA that addresses trade secrets. Those terms might cover whether you can remove a prototype product from the test labs, who has access to a software release, and what you can say about the product in question to a third party, even to your own family.

If you break that agreement, the company has the right to go after you. They might let you go, file legal action or maybe just give you a stiff reprimand. It all depends on the terms of the agreement, and Apple isn’t alone in choosing to enforce such agreements. Once you allow some employees to break the agreement, and try to enforce it with others, the folks who suffer the consequences may have the right to complain about favoritism. It may be enough to sustain a legal complaint.

In short, as much as I don’t want to see someone lose their job, once they agree to protect their employer’s trade secrets, they will face the consequences if they break that agreement, however innocent the act may have been.

I realize that Woz’s article is no doubt meant to create public sympathy for the Apple engineer who got canned. As much as you have to respect Woz for his early contributions to the PC industry, the fact of the matter is that he has been essentially out of the picture for decades, even though Apple continues to send him a paycheck. He is clearly not involved in company affairs, although he supposedly remains close to his fellow co-founder, Steve Jobs.

Now it may just be that the employee in question was naïve enough to believe that showing a prototype gadget to Woz would be all right because of who he is, even if he did violate an Apple NDA in doing so. If that’s the case, maybe Woz should contribute some of his great wealth to helping the affected party file a legal action to get that his job back, or maybe give him some extra cash to tide him over until new employment is found.

At the same time, the Apple worker who allegedly left a prototype iPhone at a bar, identified as Gray Powell, evidently is still employed. Maybe the action was deemed accidental rather than deliberate, although it was clearly monumentally stupid. If this device is truly a prototype of a fourth generation iPhone, surely Powell had enough common sense to know that one has to observe supreme care. Maybe Apple expected people like Powell to test the iPhone’s network connectivity in different locales, and perhaps a bar was a suitable test bed. But why was it left there? Did Powell have a little too much to drink, did someone lift it from his backpack or shirt pocket?

What we do know is that, rather than return it to the bartender, which is the normal way of handling lost items, the person who recovered that prototype contacted the media and tried to sell it. Gizmodo bit the bait, reportedly to the tune of five thousand dollars. But was that the ethical thing to do?

In the end, Gizmodo claims that they answered an Apple legal demand to return the device by shipping it back. However, there is the open question of whether they are complicit in a possible crime, acting in concert with the person who originally recovered this lost property and opted not to return it to its owner, or someone who could keep it safe until the owner returned.

In the end, the authorities probably have other concerns, such as chasing after speeders and drug dealers. Then again, several computers, servers, an iPhone and other items used by Gizmodo editor Jason Chen have reportedly been seized by the authorities as part of their ongoing investigation of the incident. This case may have legs, and the outcome might not be so pleasant for the online publication, since this may be a felony offense.

As I’ve said in the past, Apple has the right to keep product development plans secret. They also have the right to require employees and third-party developers to sign NDAs agreeing not to disclose trade secrets.

Feel free to complain about Apple’s policies, if you don’t approve of them. You also have the right not to buy their products in protest, or simply because you prefer the way other companies handle their product marketing and release strategies.

But Apple will still continue to act in their own best interests, and that approach has made them supremely successful.