Trains? A bit of a tortured metaphor there. Apple would have to be a railway company serving a relatively small but affluent area; Adobe would have to be some kind of independent train manufacturer who uses a gauge that no-one else uses (call it ADB-gauge) and tries to give away gauge-conversion kits for free, while trying to maintain the impression that their trains are the standard way for circuses (well, it's travelling entertainment!) to get around. Apple Rail won't accept Adobe Trains' gauge conversion kits because of some grumbling about Adobe's trains damaging the track more than other trains do, but Adobe Trains are desperate to get their gauge on there because the Apple Rail areas are a hotbed of circus activity! I mean, yes, the circuses are getting around okay, but only the ones who've got Apple Rail gauge trains (the components of which are given away by Apple Rail for free) and, well, Adobe Trains is only championing the cause of the circus train operators who've bought Adobe's trains (and no others)!
Wow, I really shouldn't try to take things to their logical conclusions. It gets pretty surreal.
We don't want to play technology games when Apple is playing a legal game
Law is the means, always, not the end. It's not a legal game that Apple is playing, it's just plain old business. Having Flash on iPhone would lose stockholders' money, not having Flash on iPhone gains money (or is neutral). Likewise, for all the rhetoric, that's exactly what Adobe is doing: they believe (quite reasonably) that being supported on the iPhone will get them a lot of money, in terms of driving developers to buy more copies of Adobe CS. They do so love their developers' money.
The technology issue I think Apple has with us is not that it does work, but when it does work
That doesn't even begin to make sense.
All the innovation coming from all those companies [in the Open Screen Project] will dwarf what's coming from the one company that isn't participating
The Open Screen Project is all about standardising web sites on Adobe's proprietary, closed, Flash. The "open" part is that the device manufacturers all play nicely with Adobe, see? Hardware manufacturers are totally up for that, because it gives them one more little logo to put on their boxes and they don't really care about anything else. For them, the cost of compliance is offset by the expected additional sales (or mitigated loss). Notice the people who aren't in the list
: no Microsoft, Linux Foundation, RedHat, Ubuntu, Sun, no HP, Dell, Acer. All the big phone makers are there, yes (Nokia to RIM), and that does include Google (presumably for Android). If Flash ends up being dominant in the mobile space, Adobe will have won (against the OS makers), and then I'm sure Apple would be most deferential, just as if any other technology had become overwhelmingly dominant. But there's just no reason for them to be in the meantime.
It's not about HTML5 vs. Flash...
That, of course, is a matter of perspective. For developers in general, it is about HTML5 versus Flash versus a handful of other technologies. For Microsoft, it's about Silverlight versus Flash (what's HTML5??). For Adobe, it's about every possible competitor, including HTML5, versus Flash. Oh, wait a minute. Well, if you mean HTML5 as the thing that includes <video>, <audio> and <canvas>, that's versus Flash. If you mean all the other features of HTML5, then it's not. I think this is a pretty clear indication that Adobe intend to put support for everything but <video>, <audio> and <canvas> into Dreamweaver, and make it hook into Flash to emulate the rest, that way they can say they produce HTML5 output without actually competing with themselves.