FloatingBones
Nov 25, 12:34 AM
For the last time, STOP SPEAKING FOR OTHER PEOPLE!!! You have NO right what-so-ever to speak for anyone but yourself and yet you continue to state that EVER SINGLE iOS USER hates Flash and is glad to be rid of it and yet this Skyfire app proves just the opposite.
What I said: Users of the 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash plugins is completely true. There are no Flash plugins for this device. Nobody can run a shred of Flash content in their browser on this device.
No amount of nonsensical shouting will change the facts.
You have every right to give your opinion on the matter, but it is your opinion, not the opinion of every single iOS user in existence.
But owners of those 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash. Nobody forced them to buy those devices. If they were somehow "disappointed" because there are no Flash plugins available, nobody prevented them from returning them or reselling them.
That is NOT a shortcoming of Flash dude.
Also incorrect. There are huge shortcomings of Flash, and you've never addressed them.
You've never addressed the identity-leaking of Flash cookies: Flash doesn't honor the cookie privacy settings of the browser. More than half of the top 100 websites are now using Flash cookies to track users and store information about them. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt) Do you actually like the fact that those sites do an end-run around the cookie privacy settings by using Flash? I can't find a single rational person that likes the identity-leaking.
You've never addressed the quirkiness that Flash brings to the browser UI. On my Mac, scrolling works differently when my mouse is over a Flash region. Certain keyboard shortcuts cease to work. Text that appears in a Flash window is not searchable with the browser's text-finding feature. My Mac doesn't behave like a Mac inside of a Flash window.
The engineering choice made for iOS is simplicity. Layering Flash on top of the browser would compromise that simplicity. Click-to-flash semantics would add yet another layer of clutter and obfuscation to the UI.
You've never addressed Adobe's inability to deal competently to secure their software. Security experts believe that Adobe is going to surpass Microsoft as the #1 target for security attacks. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-231.htm) Besides Flash, Adobe Reader is a vector for zero day bugs (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt). I really don't know how you do that: it's a PDF reader! The bugs have been around in Adobe Reader for years and Adobe still hasn't fixed them.
If Apple enabled Flash in iOS Safari, they would be farming out the correct operation of their iOS browser to a company that has proven to be one of the least competent companies in dealing with malware attacks. Noted security expert Steve Gibson mocks their cluelessness:
"[Adobe:] how is that quarterly update cycle going for you?" (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I have yet to find a single Flash enthusiast who can address those issues. I'm hardly surprised that you can't address them, either.
That is a shortcoming of Steve Jobs' choosing.
Nonsense. They are engineering and design choices. If Apple made bad engineering and design choices, they would never have sold 120M+ of these devices.
If you think they are a "shortcoming": there are simple solutions. Don't buy an iOS device. If you did buy one, sell it. Or maybe you can see if it will blend (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAl28d6tbko).
One thing is certain: Apple will not compromise their iOS browser with Flash, and complaining about that is rather silly.
Even if Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete, that doesn't mean people don't want to be able to access the entire Web in the here and now.
Adobe Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete. Even Adobe acknowledges the fact (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999).
Between the 120M+ iOS devices, the click-to-flash plugins disable Flash downloads on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux machines, and Adobe's new Flash-to-HTML5 conversion tools (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999), the abandonment of Flash will continue to accelerate.
You just don't seem to comprehend that.
You are correct. Flash is a legacy technology, and its day has passed.
You seem to have this deep seated hatred of Flash
There are fundamental failings in both the design and deployment of Flash. I listed three of those earlier in my reply.
The thing that got my attention was when I realized that Flash was maintaining its own set of cookies and that those cookies did not honor the privacy settings of my browser. I then learned about click-to-flash plugins to minimize my exposure to Flash. The shocking thing to me was how much disabling Flash improved the browsing experience: faster page loads, less flashing advertisements, and far less CPU usage.
and I can tell that if Steve had said "I LOVE Flash" instead you would almost undoubtedly be here fighting against HTML5 and for Flash.
You imply that I blindly agree with Apple's (and Jobs's) decisions. That is not the case.
I strongly disagree with Apple's decision to prevent Hypermac from selling external batteries for Mac computers (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1032695). Hypermac makes a quality product, and they are filling a niche that Apple ignores. Magsafe is a wonderful technology, but they should be licensing this tech to third-party vendors. I fondly hope that Apple addresses this deficiency in their strategy and product accessories soon.
If you search, you can find where I commented on this in the public record weeks ago.
Yes, I honestly believe that. You have no vested interest in either one. You're just being Steve's doormat.
Now you know better.
I see no reason why ANYONE should have to convert to HTML5.
Too many laptop users are tired of the CPU loading and battery suck of Flash apps.
Too many users don't like that Flash alters the UI inside of the browsers: altered scrolling behavior, keyboard shortcuts that don't work in Flash, text searches that don't work with text in a Flash app.
Too many privacy advocates are bothered that Flash maintains a separate set of cookies and those cookies do not honor the privacy settings of the browser. Commercial websites are using those Flash cookies to track users. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt)
Too many security advocates are wary of using Adobe products because of Adobe's poor track record against security attacks.
Even if all those four large concerns were addressed, websites have to deal with the growing number of users that use Flash-blocking plugins. Advertisers that deliver their ads with Flash have no guarantee that users will allow those Flash apps to be downloaded and run on their machines.
Those are the reasons why Flash's viability for delivering web content is in decline. Even if you don't see the reasons, Adobe does (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/10/adobe-demos-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool.html).
What I said: Users of the 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash plugins is completely true. There are no Flash plugins for this device. Nobody can run a shred of Flash content in their browser on this device.
No amount of nonsensical shouting will change the facts.
You have every right to give your opinion on the matter, but it is your opinion, not the opinion of every single iOS user in existence.
But owners of those 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash. Nobody forced them to buy those devices. If they were somehow "disappointed" because there are no Flash plugins available, nobody prevented them from returning them or reselling them.
That is NOT a shortcoming of Flash dude.
Also incorrect. There are huge shortcomings of Flash, and you've never addressed them.
You've never addressed the identity-leaking of Flash cookies: Flash doesn't honor the cookie privacy settings of the browser. More than half of the top 100 websites are now using Flash cookies to track users and store information about them. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt) Do you actually like the fact that those sites do an end-run around the cookie privacy settings by using Flash? I can't find a single rational person that likes the identity-leaking.
You've never addressed the quirkiness that Flash brings to the browser UI. On my Mac, scrolling works differently when my mouse is over a Flash region. Certain keyboard shortcuts cease to work. Text that appears in a Flash window is not searchable with the browser's text-finding feature. My Mac doesn't behave like a Mac inside of a Flash window.
The engineering choice made for iOS is simplicity. Layering Flash on top of the browser would compromise that simplicity. Click-to-flash semantics would add yet another layer of clutter and obfuscation to the UI.
You've never addressed Adobe's inability to deal competently to secure their software. Security experts believe that Adobe is going to surpass Microsoft as the #1 target for security attacks. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-231.htm) Besides Flash, Adobe Reader is a vector for zero day bugs (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt). I really don't know how you do that: it's a PDF reader! The bugs have been around in Adobe Reader for years and Adobe still hasn't fixed them.
If Apple enabled Flash in iOS Safari, they would be farming out the correct operation of their iOS browser to a company that has proven to be one of the least competent companies in dealing with malware attacks. Noted security expert Steve Gibson mocks their cluelessness:
"[Adobe:] how is that quarterly update cycle going for you?" (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I have yet to find a single Flash enthusiast who can address those issues. I'm hardly surprised that you can't address them, either.
That is a shortcoming of Steve Jobs' choosing.
Nonsense. They are engineering and design choices. If Apple made bad engineering and design choices, they would never have sold 120M+ of these devices.
If you think they are a "shortcoming": there are simple solutions. Don't buy an iOS device. If you did buy one, sell it. Or maybe you can see if it will blend (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAl28d6tbko).
One thing is certain: Apple will not compromise their iOS browser with Flash, and complaining about that is rather silly.
Even if Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete, that doesn't mean people don't want to be able to access the entire Web in the here and now.
Adobe Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete. Even Adobe acknowledges the fact (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999).
Between the 120M+ iOS devices, the click-to-flash plugins disable Flash downloads on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux machines, and Adobe's new Flash-to-HTML5 conversion tools (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999), the abandonment of Flash will continue to accelerate.
You just don't seem to comprehend that.
You are correct. Flash is a legacy technology, and its day has passed.
You seem to have this deep seated hatred of Flash
There are fundamental failings in both the design and deployment of Flash. I listed three of those earlier in my reply.
The thing that got my attention was when I realized that Flash was maintaining its own set of cookies and that those cookies did not honor the privacy settings of my browser. I then learned about click-to-flash plugins to minimize my exposure to Flash. The shocking thing to me was how much disabling Flash improved the browsing experience: faster page loads, less flashing advertisements, and far less CPU usage.
and I can tell that if Steve had said "I LOVE Flash" instead you would almost undoubtedly be here fighting against HTML5 and for Flash.
You imply that I blindly agree with Apple's (and Jobs's) decisions. That is not the case.
I strongly disagree with Apple's decision to prevent Hypermac from selling external batteries for Mac computers (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1032695). Hypermac makes a quality product, and they are filling a niche that Apple ignores. Magsafe is a wonderful technology, but they should be licensing this tech to third-party vendors. I fondly hope that Apple addresses this deficiency in their strategy and product accessories soon.
If you search, you can find where I commented on this in the public record weeks ago.
Yes, I honestly believe that. You have no vested interest in either one. You're just being Steve's doormat.
Now you know better.
I see no reason why ANYONE should have to convert to HTML5.
Too many laptop users are tired of the CPU loading and battery suck of Flash apps.
Too many users don't like that Flash alters the UI inside of the browsers: altered scrolling behavior, keyboard shortcuts that don't work in Flash, text searches that don't work with text in a Flash app.
Too many privacy advocates are bothered that Flash maintains a separate set of cookies and those cookies do not honor the privacy settings of the browser. Commercial websites are using those Flash cookies to track users. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt)
Too many security advocates are wary of using Adobe products because of Adobe's poor track record against security attacks.
Even if all those four large concerns were addressed, websites have to deal with the growing number of users that use Flash-blocking plugins. Advertisers that deliver their ads with Flash have no guarantee that users will allow those Flash apps to be downloaded and run on their machines.
Those are the reasons why Flash's viability for delivering web content is in decline. Even if you don't see the reasons, Adobe does (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/10/adobe-demos-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool.html).
ThePimento
Apr 26, 12:14 PM
$20/Year isn't bad at all. That's about $1.67 per month. However, unless they have a 'must-have' feature, I'll be sticking with AudioGalaxy to stream my iTunes library to my iPhone via 3G/WiFi.
That also depends on how much storage I get. My library is currently around 115GB. If they do what they're talking about (just have Apple's service look at your library and load tracks), that would be fine. That's what Lala used to do.
That also depends on how much storage I get. My library is currently around 115GB. If they do what they're talking about (just have Apple's service look at your library and load tracks), that would be fine. That's what Lala used to do.
rstansby
Jun 6, 04:40 PM
I always wonder why people decide to respond to the post below mine which says the same thing but with less proof...
Above I said the same thing with a specific example. It's not as fun to argue with someone who makes a good argument though, is it?
http://techcrunch.com/2009/03/25/apples-iphone-app-refund-policies-could-bankrupt-developers/
Great you posted some blog with an interesting interpretation of potential issues with the contract. Do you have any evidence that this policy has been enforced?
Above I said the same thing with a specific example. It's not as fun to argue with someone who makes a good argument though, is it?
http://techcrunch.com/2009/03/25/apples-iphone-app-refund-policies-could-bankrupt-developers/
Great you posted some blog with an interesting interpretation of potential issues with the contract. Do you have any evidence that this policy has been enforced?
Btrthnezr3
Jan 29, 01:52 PM
Ordered this last week...it arrived and I installed it today.
Super easy upgrade and cheap! 2x2gb...so my total iMac Ram is now 8gb.
http://eshop.macsales.com/imgs/ndesc/memory/PC10600/OWC1333DDR3S04S.jpg
Super easy upgrade and cheap! 2x2gb...so my total iMac Ram is now 8gb.
http://eshop.macsales.com/imgs/ndesc/memory/PC10600/OWC1333DDR3S04S.jpg
more...
Mobius 1
May 3, 09:06 AM
how do i reclaim the normal clocked speed of the CPU and GPU?
u know apple underclock and things like that
u know apple underclock and things like that
joshwest
May 3, 08:47 AM
It's awesome Apple is making a base iMac so powerful, a i5 Quad for 1199$ shows that apple is going to be having faster i7's in the future for the high end.
more...
VanMac
Jul 24, 08:33 PM
Very Cool.
One way to elimate scratches :)
One way to elimate scratches :)
ug.mac
Nov 3, 10:12 PM
Well. I have to say Bravo! VMWare!!!!
It use SOOOOOOO little amount of memory compare to Parallels (4xxMB vs 2.xxGB), so there is better system performance. I cannot wait to test it on my Macbook but the different on my Mac Pro was HUGE!!
It use SOOOOOOO little amount of memory compare to Parallels (4xxMB vs 2.xxGB), so there is better system performance. I cannot wait to test it on my Macbook but the different on my Mac Pro was HUGE!!
more...
dethmaShine
Apr 12, 09:30 AM
Oh I forgot...yes...the "Specs" argument. My bad. AND the Closed vs. Open debate. Yes...that too. It's so open that I can't upgrade to the latest Android version, because it's not available for carrier XYZ. But that's not Android's fault, or the Phone's fault. You can root it though. That's awesome...root it, then download the newest launcher, then reset it, and do this, and do that. Then when that's all done, it's no better than it was when I started. But hey, my icons are Green! Cool...
Also, Apple is Evil and you are living in Steve Job's RTF.
and... and... 4G.
and... widgets.
Also, Apple is Evil and you are living in Steve Job's RTF.
and... and... 4G.
and... widgets.
Icaras
Apr 26, 12:41 PM
Is anyone on here going to delete all the music on their iPhone to be able to pay $20 per year to regain a subpar stream of there very own music? And at a detriment to their limited data amount? Am I missing something??
I'll delete all the music that I've purchased via iTunes that will be available on the cloud, yes.
With over 100GB of music in my iTunes library, i'll finally be able to make room for music I've purchased outside of iTunes while enjoying the music I have purchased in iTunes via the cloud.
Sounds like the best of both worlds to me. I can't wait to sign up for this.
I'll delete all the music that I've purchased via iTunes that will be available on the cloud, yes.
With over 100GB of music in my iTunes library, i'll finally be able to make room for music I've purchased outside of iTunes while enjoying the music I have purchased in iTunes via the cloud.
Sounds like the best of both worlds to me. I can't wait to sign up for this.
more...
MacRumors
Apr 13, 01:47 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/13/analyst-claims-apple-branded-television-could-appear-later-this-year/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/02/18/144532-apple_tv_glee.jpg
will smith house pictures.
more...
the house)
will smith house inside. will
more...
inside will smith house
Will Smith
more...
will smith house pictures.
+of+will+smith+house
will smith house. Will+smith+house+pictures; Will+smith+house+pictures. flopticalcube. Apr 27, 09:33 AM. So many critical issues to discuss and serious
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/02/18/144532-apple_tv_glee.jpg
lilo777
Apr 23, 01:05 AM
Apple certainly can design a phone that supports LTE, but getting good battery life out of it is another thing. This is an area of focus for Apple so they won't make compromises here.
And that's exactly what's wrong with Apple philosophy. Consumers make compromises, companies make profits. There are plenty of people who would compromise battery life for speed. Are you saying that Apple does not care about them? Because they believe that battery life is always more important? Obviously the real reason is different. They are just trying to maximize the profits in their own way (i.e. keeping the number of models to a minimum) and that's why smart consumer should chose Android. With Android one can pick the phone they need (not the phone Apple think is best). Different people have different needs and with Android one can find a phone with a set of compromises that fits them best.
What do you don't seem to understand is that most people would rather not have to keep swapping the battery in their phone throughout the day, nor should anyone have to. There is demand for LTE, yes, but 4 hours of battery life is not what i would call good. What good is your phone to you if the battery is dead? You may be fine with switching your battery twice a day, but i think the majority of us would rather have a phone that we know is reliable and wont die on us. Also, 3G is good enough for me for now, and I know I'm not alone. When LTE/3G hybrid chips are here, i will welcome it.
What do you don't seem to understand is that every individual person does not care what most people need/want. I want to be able to buy the phone I need. If you go with what "most people" need it would be a dumb phone then (with great battery life BTW)
And that's exactly what's wrong with Apple philosophy. Consumers make compromises, companies make profits. There are plenty of people who would compromise battery life for speed. Are you saying that Apple does not care about them? Because they believe that battery life is always more important? Obviously the real reason is different. They are just trying to maximize the profits in their own way (i.e. keeping the number of models to a minimum) and that's why smart consumer should chose Android. With Android one can pick the phone they need (not the phone Apple think is best). Different people have different needs and with Android one can find a phone with a set of compromises that fits them best.
What do you don't seem to understand is that most people would rather not have to keep swapping the battery in their phone throughout the day, nor should anyone have to. There is demand for LTE, yes, but 4 hours of battery life is not what i would call good. What good is your phone to you if the battery is dead? You may be fine with switching your battery twice a day, but i think the majority of us would rather have a phone that we know is reliable and wont die on us. Also, 3G is good enough for me for now, and I know I'm not alone. When LTE/3G hybrid chips are here, i will welcome it.
What do you don't seem to understand is that every individual person does not care what most people need/want. I want to be able to buy the phone I need. If you go with what "most people" need it would be a dumb phone then (with great battery life BTW)
more...
FloatingBones
Nov 25, 12:34 AM
For the last time, STOP SPEAKING FOR OTHER PEOPLE!!! You have NO right what-so-ever to speak for anyone but yourself and yet you continue to state that EVER SINGLE iOS USER hates Flash and is glad to be rid of it and yet this Skyfire app proves just the opposite.
What I said: Users of the 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash plugins is completely true. There are no Flash plugins for this device. Nobody can run a shred of Flash content in their browser on this device.
No amount of nonsensical shouting will change the facts.
You have every right to give your opinion on the matter, but it is your opinion, not the opinion of every single iOS user in existence.
But owners of those 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash. Nobody forced them to buy those devices. If they were somehow "disappointed" because there are no Flash plugins available, nobody prevented them from returning them or reselling them.
That is NOT a shortcoming of Flash dude.
Also incorrect. There are huge shortcomings of Flash, and you've never addressed them.
You've never addressed the identity-leaking of Flash cookies: Flash doesn't honor the cookie privacy settings of the browser. More than half of the top 100 websites are now using Flash cookies to track users and store information about them. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt) Do you actually like the fact that those sites do an end-run around the cookie privacy settings by using Flash? I can't find a single rational person that likes the identity-leaking.
You've never addressed the quirkiness that Flash brings to the browser UI. On my Mac, scrolling works differently when my mouse is over a Flash region. Certain keyboard shortcuts cease to work. Text that appears in a Flash window is not searchable with the browser's text-finding feature. My Mac doesn't behave like a Mac inside of a Flash window.
The engineering choice made for iOS is simplicity. Layering Flash on top of the browser would compromise that simplicity. Click-to-flash semantics would add yet another layer of clutter and obfuscation to the UI.
You've never addressed Adobe's inability to deal competently to secure their software. Security experts believe that Adobe is going to surpass Microsoft as the #1 target for security attacks. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-231.htm) Besides Flash, Adobe Reader is a vector for zero day bugs (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt). I really don't know how you do that: it's a PDF reader! The bugs have been around in Adobe Reader for years and Adobe still hasn't fixed them.
If Apple enabled Flash in iOS Safari, they would be farming out the correct operation of their iOS browser to a company that has proven to be one of the least competent companies in dealing with malware attacks. Noted security expert Steve Gibson mocks their cluelessness:
"[Adobe:] how is that quarterly update cycle going for you?" (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I have yet to find a single Flash enthusiast who can address those issues. I'm hardly surprised that you can't address them, either.
That is a shortcoming of Steve Jobs' choosing.
Nonsense. They are engineering and design choices. If Apple made bad engineering and design choices, they would never have sold 120M+ of these devices.
If you think they are a "shortcoming": there are simple solutions. Don't buy an iOS device. If you did buy one, sell it. Or maybe you can see if it will blend (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAl28d6tbko).
One thing is certain: Apple will not compromise their iOS browser with Flash, and complaining about that is rather silly.
Even if Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete, that doesn't mean people don't want to be able to access the entire Web in the here and now.
Adobe Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete. Even Adobe acknowledges the fact (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999).
Between the 120M+ iOS devices, the click-to-flash plugins disable Flash downloads on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux machines, and Adobe's new Flash-to-HTML5 conversion tools (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999), the abandonment of Flash will continue to accelerate.
You just don't seem to comprehend that.
You are correct. Flash is a legacy technology, and its day has passed.
You seem to have this deep seated hatred of Flash
There are fundamental failings in both the design and deployment of Flash. I listed three of those earlier in my reply.
The thing that got my attention was when I realized that Flash was maintaining its own set of cookies and that those cookies did not honor the privacy settings of my browser. I then learned about click-to-flash plugins to minimize my exposure to Flash. The shocking thing to me was how much disabling Flash improved the browsing experience: faster page loads, less flashing advertisements, and far less CPU usage.
and I can tell that if Steve had said "I LOVE Flash" instead you would almost undoubtedly be here fighting against HTML5 and for Flash.
You imply that I blindly agree with Apple's (and Jobs's) decisions. That is not the case.
I strongly disagree with Apple's decision to prevent Hypermac from selling external batteries for Mac computers (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1032695). Hypermac makes a quality product, and they are filling a niche that Apple ignores. Magsafe is a wonderful technology, but they should be licensing this tech to third-party vendors. I fondly hope that Apple addresses this deficiency in their strategy and product accessories soon.
If you search, you can find where I commented on this in the public record weeks ago.
Yes, I honestly believe that. You have no vested interest in either one. You're just being Steve's doormat.
Now you know better.
I see no reason why ANYONE should have to convert to HTML5.
Too many laptop users are tired of the CPU loading and battery suck of Flash apps.
Too many users don't like that Flash alters the UI inside of the browsers: altered scrolling behavior, keyboard shortcuts that don't work in Flash, text searches that don't work with text in a Flash app.
Too many privacy advocates are bothered that Flash maintains a separate set of cookies and those cookies do not honor the privacy settings of the browser. Commercial websites are using those Flash cookies to track users. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt)
Too many security advocates are wary of using Adobe products because of Adobe's poor track record against security attacks.
Even if all those four large concerns were addressed, websites have to deal with the growing number of users that use Flash-blocking plugins. Advertisers that deliver their ads with Flash have no guarantee that users will allow those Flash apps to be downloaded and run on their machines.
Those are the reasons why Flash's viability for delivering web content is in decline. Even if you don't see the reasons, Adobe does (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/10/adobe-demos-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool.html).
What I said: Users of the 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash plugins is completely true. There are no Flash plugins for this device. Nobody can run a shred of Flash content in their browser on this device.
No amount of nonsensical shouting will change the facts.
You have every right to give your opinion on the matter, but it is your opinion, not the opinion of every single iOS user in existence.
But owners of those 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash. Nobody forced them to buy those devices. If they were somehow "disappointed" because there are no Flash plugins available, nobody prevented them from returning them or reselling them.
That is NOT a shortcoming of Flash dude.
Also incorrect. There are huge shortcomings of Flash, and you've never addressed them.
You've never addressed the identity-leaking of Flash cookies: Flash doesn't honor the cookie privacy settings of the browser. More than half of the top 100 websites are now using Flash cookies to track users and store information about them. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt) Do you actually like the fact that those sites do an end-run around the cookie privacy settings by using Flash? I can't find a single rational person that likes the identity-leaking.
You've never addressed the quirkiness that Flash brings to the browser UI. On my Mac, scrolling works differently when my mouse is over a Flash region. Certain keyboard shortcuts cease to work. Text that appears in a Flash window is not searchable with the browser's text-finding feature. My Mac doesn't behave like a Mac inside of a Flash window.
The engineering choice made for iOS is simplicity. Layering Flash on top of the browser would compromise that simplicity. Click-to-flash semantics would add yet another layer of clutter and obfuscation to the UI.
You've never addressed Adobe's inability to deal competently to secure their software. Security experts believe that Adobe is going to surpass Microsoft as the #1 target for security attacks. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-231.htm) Besides Flash, Adobe Reader is a vector for zero day bugs (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt). I really don't know how you do that: it's a PDF reader! The bugs have been around in Adobe Reader for years and Adobe still hasn't fixed them.
If Apple enabled Flash in iOS Safari, they would be farming out the correct operation of their iOS browser to a company that has proven to be one of the least competent companies in dealing with malware attacks. Noted security expert Steve Gibson mocks their cluelessness:
"[Adobe:] how is that quarterly update cycle going for you?" (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I have yet to find a single Flash enthusiast who can address those issues. I'm hardly surprised that you can't address them, either.
That is a shortcoming of Steve Jobs' choosing.
Nonsense. They are engineering and design choices. If Apple made bad engineering and design choices, they would never have sold 120M+ of these devices.
If you think they are a "shortcoming": there are simple solutions. Don't buy an iOS device. If you did buy one, sell it. Or maybe you can see if it will blend (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAl28d6tbko).
One thing is certain: Apple will not compromise their iOS browser with Flash, and complaining about that is rather silly.
Even if Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete, that doesn't mean people don't want to be able to access the entire Web in the here and now.
Adobe Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete. Even Adobe acknowledges the fact (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999).
Between the 120M+ iOS devices, the click-to-flash plugins disable Flash downloads on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux machines, and Adobe's new Flash-to-HTML5 conversion tools (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999), the abandonment of Flash will continue to accelerate.
You just don't seem to comprehend that.
You are correct. Flash is a legacy technology, and its day has passed.
You seem to have this deep seated hatred of Flash
There are fundamental failings in both the design and deployment of Flash. I listed three of those earlier in my reply.
The thing that got my attention was when I realized that Flash was maintaining its own set of cookies and that those cookies did not honor the privacy settings of my browser. I then learned about click-to-flash plugins to minimize my exposure to Flash. The shocking thing to me was how much disabling Flash improved the browsing experience: faster page loads, less flashing advertisements, and far less CPU usage.
and I can tell that if Steve had said "I LOVE Flash" instead you would almost undoubtedly be here fighting against HTML5 and for Flash.
You imply that I blindly agree with Apple's (and Jobs's) decisions. That is not the case.
I strongly disagree with Apple's decision to prevent Hypermac from selling external batteries for Mac computers (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1032695). Hypermac makes a quality product, and they are filling a niche that Apple ignores. Magsafe is a wonderful technology, but they should be licensing this tech to third-party vendors. I fondly hope that Apple addresses this deficiency in their strategy and product accessories soon.
If you search, you can find where I commented on this in the public record weeks ago.
Yes, I honestly believe that. You have no vested interest in either one. You're just being Steve's doormat.
Now you know better.
I see no reason why ANYONE should have to convert to HTML5.
Too many laptop users are tired of the CPU loading and battery suck of Flash apps.
Too many users don't like that Flash alters the UI inside of the browsers: altered scrolling behavior, keyboard shortcuts that don't work in Flash, text searches that don't work with text in a Flash app.
Too many privacy advocates are bothered that Flash maintains a separate set of cookies and those cookies do not honor the privacy settings of the browser. Commercial websites are using those Flash cookies to track users. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt)
Too many security advocates are wary of using Adobe products because of Adobe's poor track record against security attacks.
Even if all those four large concerns were addressed, websites have to deal with the growing number of users that use Flash-blocking plugins. Advertisers that deliver their ads with Flash have no guarantee that users will allow those Flash apps to be downloaded and run on their machines.
Those are the reasons why Flash's viability for delivering web content is in decline. Even if you don't see the reasons, Adobe does (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/10/adobe-demos-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool.html).
ArchaicRevival
Apr 28, 10:28 AM
Rock on, :apple:
more...
Small White Car
Apr 12, 09:23 AM
Aren't we quickly getting to the point where it's all about the software?
Yes. I really wouldn't care if iPhone hardware upgrades came every 2 years. Just keep those iOS updates coming! That's the more important part now.
Yes. I really wouldn't care if iPhone hardware upgrades came every 2 years. Just keep those iOS updates coming! That's the more important part now.
playaj82
Jul 26, 01:20 PM
Has anybody thought these might all just be preventative filings?
Apple is smart to file a patent on something that might be "similar" to technology they have developed just to maintain their exclusivity of the technology.
Apple might be filing this just so they can say, haha, Microsoft, you can't produce this because we invented it first....and then Apple moves on to the next big thing without ever producing a product based on the patent.
As far as the trademark stuff goes, it is the same logic. Apple needs to protect as many derivations of the "*Pod" mark in order to make their Pod trademarks even stronger. Apple will probably never produce something with the "doPod" trademark, but any other company thinking about naming their product the "doPod" will think twice before getting into a legal battle with Apple, who has one of the most recognized digital entertainment trademarks in the world.
You can show me Patent and Trademark filings all day long and I will simply reply with a "prove it"
Apple is smart to file a patent on something that might be "similar" to technology they have developed just to maintain their exclusivity of the technology.
Apple might be filing this just so they can say, haha, Microsoft, you can't produce this because we invented it first....and then Apple moves on to the next big thing without ever producing a product based on the patent.
As far as the trademark stuff goes, it is the same logic. Apple needs to protect as many derivations of the "*Pod" mark in order to make their Pod trademarks even stronger. Apple will probably never produce something with the "doPod" trademark, but any other company thinking about naming their product the "doPod" will think twice before getting into a legal battle with Apple, who has one of the most recognized digital entertainment trademarks in the world.
You can show me Patent and Trademark filings all day long and I will simply reply with a "prove it"
more...
blevins321
May 1, 11:38 PM
You know, I really wish that Osama wouldn't have died in the firefight. As a country, we could have come with a more unique sendoff that would have struck fear into our enemies a bit more than a quick gunshot. Reruns of Jack Bauer's tactics come to mind.
eekcat
Apr 28, 04:21 PM
I held one earlier today and it felt .0001 oz. heavier. Perhaps it is just my super human ability to weigh things instantly that told me this....but still....:cool:
Don't worry, Safari is .0078 nanoseconds snappier on it! ;)
Don't worry, Safari is .0078 nanoseconds snappier on it! ;)
IJ Reilly
Jul 21, 11:20 AM
I've been teaching Mac courses at a local junior college, and have found that quite a few of my students are new/returning Mac users. I think Apple has quite a bit of potential to grow the Mac's market share, particularly from the latter group -- people who abandoned the Mac during the dark days of the '90s, but are now prepared to take another look. On the pro side, I believe market share will probably continue to stagnate for some months to come, until the mission-critical applications are all dual-binary. I think we could be optimistically be looking at 5.5 - 6.0% market share by this time next year, depending on how well the launch of 10.5 goes, and how much thunder is taken away by Vista.
twcbc
May 4, 07:07 PM
Maybe you misunderstood me... I don't care about market share... either hardware share or software share. I don't think it matters how much of one thing there are against another thing.
You're right... Apple cares about profit... mostly from selling hardware. Which they do... lots of hardware. I think that's more important for a company.
Apple is, and has always been, a hardware company.
Google went down the route of putting their software on any device that wanted it... which is why I hate when people compare Android vs the iPhone.
It's not about you, point is "market share is very important" to Apple. Saying market share is not a goal is just wrong.
You're right... Apple cares about profit... mostly from selling hardware. Which they do... lots of hardware. I think that's more important for a company.
Apple is, and has always been, a hardware company.
Google went down the route of putting their software on any device that wanted it... which is why I hate when people compare Android vs the iPhone.
It's not about you, point is "market share is very important" to Apple. Saying market share is not a goal is just wrong.
KnightWRX
Apr 22, 09:44 AM
It's interesting how many people blast Apple. They completely retooled the smart phone/mobile phone platform.
Who's blasting Apple ? This shouldn't be an emotional discussion about the history of both corporations, this is about a specific case/cases. As such it should be rooted in facts and objective commentary, not in some subjective tangeant ranting like you went on.
Granted some of Samsung's phone are worse than others.
Blatant copying.
The copying isn't so blatant, and it's highly model dependant. Some biased Apple media is making it look worse than it is with cherry picked images. Here's a post where I clear up the muddied waters a bit :
Depends on which model. The AT&T/Rogers Galaxy S Captivate hardly ressembles the iPhone :
http://www.droiddog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/att-samsung-captivate-photo-1.jpg
I'm also hard-pressed to see how the Nexus S comes even close :
http://blog.eches.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/samsung-nexus-s.jpg
Let's not even go there with the Epic 4G :
http://handies.phandroid.com/media/samsung-epic-4g-1288875927-196.jpg
Yet they are all included in the complaint...
And here's one about the famous Icon grid :
I'd say even the icon grid claim is reaching. The pictures shown all show the Android application drawer. The actual home screen on Galaxy S devices, what shows up after unlocking, is not the icon grid with a dock. You have to dig into the phone to get to the grid of icons, which frankly again has been shown to be a pretty standard phone UI. Older Palm/Sony models had the "icon grid" UIs in their phones also. :
http://www.extragsm.com/images/phone/big/Sony%20Ericsson/T610/Sony-Ericsson-T610-01.png
http://www.mobileincanada.com/images/unlock/att-palm-treo-600.jpg
Let's face it, the "icon grid" has been a UI for quite a while now :
http://www.computerhope.com/jargon/p/progman.jpg
http://i55.tinypic.com/jzzc53.png
http://www.guidebookgallery.org/pics/gui/system/managers/filemanager/cde15solaris9.png
To claim "Blatant copying" at this point is only to get eat whatever the media is feeding you. The courts will decide how much Samsung does or doesn't infringe on Apple's various trademarks and the trade dress claims.
Who's blasting Apple ? This shouldn't be an emotional discussion about the history of both corporations, this is about a specific case/cases. As such it should be rooted in facts and objective commentary, not in some subjective tangeant ranting like you went on.
Granted some of Samsung's phone are worse than others.
Blatant copying.
The copying isn't so blatant, and it's highly model dependant. Some biased Apple media is making it look worse than it is with cherry picked images. Here's a post where I clear up the muddied waters a bit :
Depends on which model. The AT&T/Rogers Galaxy S Captivate hardly ressembles the iPhone :
http://www.droiddog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/att-samsung-captivate-photo-1.jpg
I'm also hard-pressed to see how the Nexus S comes even close :
http://blog.eches.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/samsung-nexus-s.jpg
Let's not even go there with the Epic 4G :
http://handies.phandroid.com/media/samsung-epic-4g-1288875927-196.jpg
Yet they are all included in the complaint...
And here's one about the famous Icon grid :
I'd say even the icon grid claim is reaching. The pictures shown all show the Android application drawer. The actual home screen on Galaxy S devices, what shows up after unlocking, is not the icon grid with a dock. You have to dig into the phone to get to the grid of icons, which frankly again has been shown to be a pretty standard phone UI. Older Palm/Sony models had the "icon grid" UIs in their phones also. :
http://www.extragsm.com/images/phone/big/Sony%20Ericsson/T610/Sony-Ericsson-T610-01.png
http://www.mobileincanada.com/images/unlock/att-palm-treo-600.jpg
Let's face it, the "icon grid" has been a UI for quite a while now :
http://www.computerhope.com/jargon/p/progman.jpg
http://i55.tinypic.com/jzzc53.png
http://www.guidebookgallery.org/pics/gui/system/managers/filemanager/cde15solaris9.png
To claim "Blatant copying" at this point is only to get eat whatever the media is feeding you. The courts will decide how much Samsung does or doesn't infringe on Apple's various trademarks and the trade dress claims.
Matt-M
Apr 28, 04:31 PM
Maybe you should have a look at the rest of the comparison (http://www.macrumors.com/c.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fryancash.net%2Fpost%2F5019047695%2Fwhite-iphone-4-is-thicker&t=1304024405) photos.
I just did that, and loaded one of them into Photoshop for a little measurement. Here is what I got:
http://www.marulla.com/files/thickness.png
I just did that, and loaded one of them into Photoshop for a little measurement. Here is what I got:
http://www.marulla.com/files/thickness.png
SeaFox
Jul 10, 04:57 PM
Dammit. I misread this article title as "Page 3 features" as in the Page 3 of Macrumors we had for April Fools.
:D
:D
troop231
Apr 25, 12:19 PM
Hope the refresh next week is true :)
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق