"This comes at about the same time that Apple deprecates Oracle's Java from OS X."

That isn't what they are doing at all. You read whatever you read incorrectly. Apple is deprecating their own version of Java on OSX.

> Apple is deprecating their own version of Java on OSX

Isn't it also the only version of Java known to run reliably on OSX?

I would imagine Oracle will fix that problem.

Indeed, they were somewhat forced to maintain their own port of Sun's JDK because Sun was in a position of power and Apple was perpetually "beleaguered" back then. In contrast, Sun had no choice but to put resources into maintaining the Windows version of the JDK. Perhaps Apple has grown to the point where they can expect Oracle to deliver the JDK on Mac if they want to have a presence there.

If not Oracle, then the OpenJDK community. Either way, if it's wanted badly enough, it will happen.

The long-shot bet would be an LLVM/VMKit implementation that is clean of Sun code.

Maybe they will, maybe not. But for the moment Apple is effectively dropping Java support, and that's not a minor thing.

I'm writing this on an MBP and might well post from a Macbook Air someday but I think Hacker News is giving Apple a very non-Hackerlike treatment. They're clearly moving their computers to a much more controlled iPhone/iPad model.

Somehow I don't think so. Oracle is a pure B2B play. Apple computers are still a rarity in the enterprise, and in those companies that do have Apple computers are most likely not Oracle's target market.

Oracle might try to remedy this situation eventually, but my bet is that it will be too little, too late.

Oracle's products are available for OS X and they need Java for their installers / management consoles.

"Perhaps it stems from Apple's claim that Flash is bad for battery life"

Supporting multiple similar runtimes (HTML+JavaScript vs Flash vs Java vs SilverLight vs somebody else's kitchen sink) may make sense, but eats disk space, and, once people start using them, RAM and CPU bandwidth (due to less sharing of code between programs).

Including Flash and Java made sense a couple of years ago on the Mac, but when designing the iPhone, Apple, as they always do, revisited earlier decisions, and decided they should go. Given RAM constraints, I can see why.

On these new MacBooks, I guess Flash was dropped not because of RAM constraints, but because the disk is relatively small. It is but a tiny part of that 64 GB, but they probably must make many small cuts to give the user as much space as possible for his own stuff.

> Whereas I can understand the motivation for it missing from iDevices, this makes far less sense.

How about support costs. If Apple doesn't supply it, and you install it, then have problems, who ya gonna call ?

I'd say, call Adobe. Let their support call numbers spike off the chart.

> Perhaps it stems from Apple's claim that Flash is bad for battery life. This can matter even when there aren't obvious Flash widgets on pages you visit. Flash is used for ads and any number of tracking processes.

If that's true, it still doesn't help mot users. I would guess that most users will install Flash pretty quickly after getting their laptop. They will then be subject to flash on all webpages, negating any battery savings.

Adobe needs a good kick in the ass. Spend a day in any of their flagship design apps and let the pain begin. Inconsistant UI, constant errors... their products have gone down hill and Flash is no exception.

Adobe needs product leaders that care. I think Apple is not so subtly trying to send them that message.

You might even be looking into it to far ... the last time Apple shipped Flash with their OS they pressed a vulnerable version onto their DVD's that were used to install the OS and that made them look bad. This time around that just won't be possible.