Apple didn’t kill Flash. Adobe did.
By failing to deliver a performant and secure version of Flash (under any architecture, but especially mobile), Adobe ensured Flash would be not be viable for the web as it evolved.
At this point, at least, I'm pretty sure WebGL can do most or all of what you could do in Flash. It's possible that the tools have never caught up, but it also seems possible to me that the space that used to be occupied by Flash games has largely been filled, ironically, by mobile gaming.
Youtube was completely built around Flash, the FLV format hit a sweet spot between "not looking like trash" and "not needing more bandwidth than the average user had" that else had before. I'm pretty sure we would be seeing a shit-ton of people filming themselves talking to the camera even if Flash was still a going concern - animation is a ton of work.
Youtube exists because of Flash. They were are the right time and place to have a flash object sitting on a webpage that could play video in a reasonably cross platform way.
Not sure this is entirely due to the flash web player being phased out. Kids just watched their friends play from the couch, or watched more generic broadcast television. Now they still watch and play together but remotely.
Edit: 'due' not 'sure', 'play' not 'pay'
Are they? Maybe in HN's niche community—and it is niche—but I suspect the vast majority of Apple's customers don't remotely associate web developers with the brand.
They demoed Docker on stage at WWDC. They've donated equipment to Docker. Apple built a significantly better virtualization framework for Big Sur/ Apple Silicon.
What makes you think they don't care about it?
This transition is in baby steps right now. It takes time to migrate software.
And even if we over come all those hurdles we still have to convince the avg joe to adopt them too otherwise it will just live in a small costly niche that the wider community just don’t bother supporting.
All we can do is try and pick the least abusive relationship we can afford and is practical to run.
My point is, I don’t it against people for using platforms others may find abusive. Sure us on HN are more likely to be in the position where we can switch platforms for fun just to see how they work out. But for most they simply don’t have the time or patience to swap and learn a new platform (let alone the cash).
Maybe this is a bad example because of what exactly happened with one manufacturer, but it’s why airlines like plane manufacturers to not go too far with design changes because it requires them to retrain their polits on the new aircraft.
If every time you purchased a new car you had to take into consideration that the control system was different between each manufacturer which may even require you to retrain in order to drive it you may very well consider with sticking with what you already know.
So I don’t hold it against anyone who simply wants to keep with what they know. They just want to fire up the platform at get to using it.
Anyways sorry for the rant, just my thoughts on the matter.
That way we don't duplicate effort for an ever closing dictated by one greedy body.
If Docker didn't support Apple devices going forward, they would lose a significant amount of users.
If Apple doesn't support docker going forward, they lose a tiny percentage point.
That being said, its mutually beneficial, so Apple should be putting their best effort to making the transition smooth (which I think, at least from an outsiders perspective, they are)