No, Apple customers don't want the CPU eating, computer crashing, battery eating, virus portal known as Flash. Maybe YOU do, but as can be seen by the wide adoption of iOS, most Apple customers don't care.
You can't say that most "don't care".
Anything useful (or entertaining) eats CPU - what's your battery after a six hour Angry Birds rampage? My tablet gets from 7 hours to 90 minutes battery life, depending on what I'm doing. (Light surfing/email - 7 hours. Visual Studio project builds with a couple of busy virtual machines - as low as 90 minutes.)
All you can say is that Apple users have either weighed the options and have decided that an Itoy is good for them even without flash support - or they're clueless and probably wouldn't even understand the question.
And, by the way, Android outsells IOS - and Android supports Flash.
_________________
Anyway - my point wasn't an argument for/against Flash.
It's that if Apple is really true to Steve's legacy, Tim&Co won't be afraid to try things.
Steve said that nobody read books - now we have Ibooks.
Steve said that nobody wants to watch videos on a handheld - right.
Steve said that Apple wouldn't make a phone - yeah, sure.
Steve has reversed course on lots of things - often because the hardware evolved. It would not have been possible to make a color video Ipod with acceptable battery life when Ipod I was released. A few years later, however, no problem.
If the A5 has the power, and Apple makes the acceleration APIs public so that Adobe can use them - it would be very "Jobs-like" to have a keynote and trumpet that "The Iphone 5 supports Flash".
People who don't realize that would flunk out of "Apple U".