Steve Jobs live from WWDC 2010

Two versions of the bitmaps - even scaling during run time - would increase the app image footprint by 4 as well. For a 10mb 3G download limit, making it that more difficult to fit the initial download in the small space they give you. Not to mention the high screen resolution doesn't give you 4 times the memory for native apps.

This will work great for the web - but when initial size is a factor (along with video memory that is still shared with the OS - is there more video memory in this version?) this actually creates more of a limitation as you could reach the ceiling quicker with no more functionality - just higher res images.

So two versions isn't likely - scaling down is time consuming, battery consuming, and a waste of space. For optimum distribution, you would need a 3G version, a 4G version, possibly an iPad (HD) version, and maybe even a lite version of all three. You now have six version on the App Store.

One compromise is to make a 3G version and a 4G retina display version - of which would probably look ok on the iPad because it has 78% of the pixels.

I've developed multiple graphical applications and games for the iPhone so my perspective comes only with experience. Textures were always a hardware/memory limitation (it also only accepts textures in the size of a power of 2 - meaning you will need a sprite sheet layer as well) which made development-for-delivery a little tricky.

I didn't hear anything about more on-board memory so despite my fragmentation comment this actually doesn't help much. a 300x200 transparent PNG takes almost a meg of RAM.

It seems like you are very gung-ho about painting me as a conspiracy theorist without any real ground.

I don't know about you but in my world when someone say they wonder whether something is the case I would either ask the the reason for this or tell them why it can't be the case. I wouldn't lash out as you did and accuse them of putting forward conspiracy theories and saying other people are lying.

"And this is where it turns into proper conspiracy logic. Instead of banning flash because Jobs/Apple thinks it wont run well and provide a good user experience, as claimed, you suggest that: Apple think they could provide a good flash user experience if they want to, but they would rather ban it to convert advertisers to their ad platform, but the CEO has no idea about either the possibility of making it work or the company's actual motives, and honestly believes his own claims that they are banning flash because it cannot be adequately fixed."

That is you reading words into what I say, talk about conspiracy theories!

I am beginning to realize that I am speaking with one of Lenins "useful idiots" and that makes this conversation fruitless.

You know my opinion you haven't made any arguments to change that.