brainwave89
Jun 16, 07:36 AM
There was no reason why this issue shouldn't have been resolved at the Apple store level. That store manager deserves needs to be enlightened.
guzhogi
Jul 23, 10:03 PM
Furthermore, I have issues with the comments about marketshare increase alone as a primary contributor to getting Macs back into schools. The reason I have a problem with that is that school boards and school superintendants are typically in the back pocket of the IT staffs of the district, and so many of those staffs out there are all MS-heads. Until you can replace those folks (not convert, not convince, but replace) you're hardly likely to see much penetration into the educational market.
I'm the techie guy at an elementary school and 99.9% of all the computers in the district (not just my school, the entire district) are Macs. The last director of technology was really pro-Mac, along w/ a lot of the other schools' techies, which was a good thing. However, the kindergarten teacher @ my school has some peecees which she got on a grant to run some Windows only software (but didn't get them set-up since, according to the last director of technology, didn't fit into the district's technology plans). Also, each techie is getting a MacBook w/ dual boot because we're going to a new program that rates how well the kids to in reading & math where you can see the progress online, but the only way you can upload the results is on Windows. Boo!!! :mad: That's one reason why Macs still have low marketshare: no programs. It's a chicken & the egg problem. Mac marketshare won't go significantly up until more software is ported, but not very much software will be ported until mac marketshare is up.
One problem with increased market share is that there will be more attacks on them. One of the Mac's sources of security is security through obscurity. So, why go after an OS that only has 5% marketshare while another OS has 90%? I don't know whether Windows or Macs are more secure in terms of actual bugs and security holes, but we probably would if Windows & Macs get equal marketshare.
There are two main reasons that I know of to hack into computers, write viruses, or something: (1) to gain entry to a computer to get files, damage the company's infrastructure or (2) to be a jackass. The first one is probably for personal gain and Macs may be a target, the second to make yourself feel good at other people's expense and would probably be Windows-based to inflict the most damage. Anyone want to add something, be my guest.
I'm the techie guy at an elementary school and 99.9% of all the computers in the district (not just my school, the entire district) are Macs. The last director of technology was really pro-Mac, along w/ a lot of the other schools' techies, which was a good thing. However, the kindergarten teacher @ my school has some peecees which she got on a grant to run some Windows only software (but didn't get them set-up since, according to the last director of technology, didn't fit into the district's technology plans). Also, each techie is getting a MacBook w/ dual boot because we're going to a new program that rates how well the kids to in reading & math where you can see the progress online, but the only way you can upload the results is on Windows. Boo!!! :mad: That's one reason why Macs still have low marketshare: no programs. It's a chicken & the egg problem. Mac marketshare won't go significantly up until more software is ported, but not very much software will be ported until mac marketshare is up.
One problem with increased market share is that there will be more attacks on them. One of the Mac's sources of security is security through obscurity. So, why go after an OS that only has 5% marketshare while another OS has 90%? I don't know whether Windows or Macs are more secure in terms of actual bugs and security holes, but we probably would if Windows & Macs get equal marketshare.
There are two main reasons that I know of to hack into computers, write viruses, or something: (1) to gain entry to a computer to get files, damage the company's infrastructure or (2) to be a jackass. The first one is probably for personal gain and Macs may be a target, the second to make yourself feel good at other people's expense and would probably be Windows-based to inflict the most damage. Anyone want to add something, be my guest.
Moyank24
May 1, 09:08 PM
I get sucked into nothingness, and the game goes to He**.
I don't think it's a coincidence.
I don't think it's a coincidence.
redchannel
Apr 22, 04:15 PM
That is one ugly mock-up :eek:
more...
tablo13
Apr 22, 05:08 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Tell that to the iPad 2.
At least the iPad 2 is big. Thin, small, and rounded edges don't go together, like how hard it is to hold an iPod touch.
Tell that to the iPad 2.
At least the iPad 2 is big. Thin, small, and rounded edges don't go together, like how hard it is to hold an iPod touch.
NT1440
May 1, 11:53 PM
People's perception of reality matters more in these situations than actual reality. The fact that the average guy in the street probably still thinks/thought of him as the head of al-Qaeda is the important part.
This acceptance of perception being more important than reality is exactly why everyone hates politics, its how this kind of thing works. It's a huge part of the problem when reality doesn't matter any more. It's an immense danger.
This acceptance of perception being more important than reality is exactly why everyone hates politics, its how this kind of thing works. It's a huge part of the problem when reality doesn't matter any more. It's an immense danger.
more...
eightball0
Nov 3, 08:04 PM
There's a manual here:
http://www.vmware.com/products/beta/fusion/fusion_getting_started_100.pdf
The beta is probably floating around the Internets by now, if you know where to look. I can't confirm that directly, but these things do leak fast.
http://www.vmware.com/products/beta/fusion/fusion_getting_started_100.pdf
The beta is probably floating around the Internets by now, if you know where to look. I can't confirm that directly, but these things do leak fast.
twoodcc
Oct 2, 06:56 PM
I recently rejoined. I haven't folded for a very long time but my mac pro is folding again during the days. We need to get this team going again. :D
sounds good! and yes we do!
sounds good! and yes we do!
more...
LagunaSol
Apr 28, 06:19 PM
*long list of forgettable Android dreck with a few good models tossed in the mix*
Thats all i can think off.
Care to prove how these phones are "more reliable" than the iPhone?
This should be good.
Thats all i can think off.
Care to prove how these phones are "more reliable" than the iPhone?
This should be good.
Stridder44
Aug 15, 08:53 PM
i like the new Preview look :)
http://images.macrumors.com/downloads/preview.png
Am I the only one that thinks this is potentially the new UI?
http://images.macrumors.com/downloads/preview.png
Am I the only one that thinks this is potentially the new UI?
more...
batchtaster
Nov 10, 05:11 PM
just goes to show people still want to be able to see flash on their iphones reguardless of how bloated
Nonsense. It means nothing of the sort. Check back in 6 months, 3 months or even 1 month and see a) how many ppl are still using it, and b) how many ppl are buying it once the first blush of excitement is over.
Opera's browser went nuts when it was released (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=897606). It was the Bellepheron to the Chimera of Apple's Safari lock-in. Now where is it? It doesn't even appear on the Top 200 Free (http://appshopper.com/bestsellers/free) list.
Nonsense. It means nothing of the sort. Check back in 6 months, 3 months or even 1 month and see a) how many ppl are still using it, and b) how many ppl are buying it once the first blush of excitement is over.
Opera's browser went nuts when it was released (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=897606). It was the Bellepheron to the Chimera of Apple's Safari lock-in. Now where is it? It doesn't even appear on the Top 200 Free (http://appshopper.com/bestsellers/free) list.
sinsin07
Apr 13, 02:42 PM
Precisely!
This is utter nonsense, Apple doesn't enter markets where they can't succeed if not dominate. With all the less expensive options out there, how well do the $999 Cinema Displays sell? Exactly. :)
Besides, there already is an Apple TV.
Another case where fantasy trumps fact. Question: what happened to Xserve?
This is utter nonsense, Apple doesn't enter markets where they can't succeed if not dominate. With all the less expensive options out there, how well do the $999 Cinema Displays sell? Exactly. :)
Besides, there already is an Apple TV.
Another case where fantasy trumps fact. Question: what happened to Xserve?
more...
iTravis
Apr 26, 12:54 PM
Well that definitely counts me out as a potential user. (Yes i'm cheap)
I bet you're one of the users who has over 50GB of music too, right? :rolleyes:
Sorry everything isn't free. If $20/Year is "too much" for some, maybe you guys should rethink having the internet or a cell phone as well.
As for me this is a great deal! Regardless if it's $20/year or free I'll still use the service. And hopefully iTunes syncs better/faster. . . but I digress.
I bet you're one of the users who has over 50GB of music too, right? :rolleyes:
Sorry everything isn't free. If $20/Year is "too much" for some, maybe you guys should rethink having the internet or a cell phone as well.
As for me this is a great deal! Regardless if it's $20/year or free I'll still use the service. And hopefully iTunes syncs better/faster. . . but I digress.
Cbswe
Apr 15, 06:47 AM
LOL. White iPhone 4 will be the duke nukem forever of iPhones.
+1 :D
Does anyone have any id�a how come it took such a long time? Isn't the only difference the color of the plastic? oO
+1 :D
Does anyone have any id�a how come it took such a long time? Isn't the only difference the color of the plastic? oO
more...
junker
Jul 28, 08:17 AM
This news will hopefully inspire Apple to make the next generation iPods even more amazing. However, I don't see MS as the biggest threat to the iPod. I am much more concerned about mp3 cellphones with 4Gb flash (see e.g. SonyEricsson).
Apple needs come up with a revolutionary device that integrates an iPod with a cellphone and possibly even a GPS, in order to keep their mp3 marketshare.
And when MRAM comes to the market - I hope Apple gets that first, it'll mean a HUGE advantage for whomever.
Apple needs come up with a revolutionary device that integrates an iPod with a cellphone and possibly even a GPS, in order to keep their mp3 marketshare.
And when MRAM comes to the market - I hope Apple gets that first, it'll mean a HUGE advantage for whomever.
thadoggfather
Apr 28, 08:27 PM
some comparisons with my iResQ back:
http://i.imgur.com/gJSle.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Xd8yb.jpg
:)
http://i.imgur.com/gJSle.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Xd8yb.jpg
:)
more...
iRobby
Apr 25, 04:14 PM
I don't understand why is the article saying Apple delaying orders when the Apple Online Store says ships in 24 hrs not 1-3 weeks
Smellovision
Apr 26, 04:05 PM
If it is as good as Ping, I'm IN!
longofest
Dec 1, 02:43 PM
Sober up, Steve. Less time on Time Machine and more time on solidifying the system.
AppleTalk: Who uses it, and why?
I'm pretty sure that any time you use Personal file sharing, you are using AppleTalk.
EDIT: More info... Personal File Sharing is based off of Apple Filing Protocol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Filing_Protocol). From wikipedia:
AFP versions 3.0 and greater rely exclusively on TCP/IP (port 548 or 427) for establishing communication, supporting AppleTalk only as a service discovery protocol. The AFP 2.x family supports both TCP/IP and AppleTalk for communication and service discovery. Many third-party AFP implementations use AFP 2.x, thereby supporting AppleTalk as a connection method. Still earlier versions rely exclusively on AppleTalk. For this reason, some older literature refers to AFP as "AppleTalk Filing Protocol". Other literature may refer to AFP as "AppleShare," the name of the Mac OS 9 (and earlier) AFP client.
AppleTalk: Who uses it, and why?
I'm pretty sure that any time you use Personal file sharing, you are using AppleTalk.
EDIT: More info... Personal File Sharing is based off of Apple Filing Protocol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Filing_Protocol). From wikipedia:
AFP versions 3.0 and greater rely exclusively on TCP/IP (port 548 or 427) for establishing communication, supporting AppleTalk only as a service discovery protocol. The AFP 2.x family supports both TCP/IP and AppleTalk for communication and service discovery. Many third-party AFP implementations use AFP 2.x, thereby supporting AppleTalk as a connection method. Still earlier versions rely exclusively on AppleTalk. For this reason, some older literature refers to AFP as "AppleTalk Filing Protocol". Other literature may refer to AFP as "AppleShare," the name of the Mac OS 9 (and earlier) AFP client.
crees!
Jul 26, 01:23 PM
Has anybody thought these might all just be preventative filings? It's possible but they better not do this (not release such a product). I WANT this.
gnasher729
Oct 24, 05:09 AM
Ummmm ... The Oct 18 Update in that link says exactly what we've been saying here: you can't legally run Vista Home editions in a VM. Period.
I would be careful. Macintosh users are probably a bit unusual in that they want to run Vista in a virtual machine _only_, and not as the real operating system. Most PC users would want to run Vista _both_ as their operating system and on a virtual machine; that would be two copies, whereas Macintosh users only want to run one copy. (Of course, most Mac users actually want to run zero copies of Vista...) So anybody issuing any clarification might not have given the Macintosh situation any thought.
And it doesn't say anywhere that the "dedicated machine" couldn't be a virtual machine in the first place.
I would be careful. Macintosh users are probably a bit unusual in that they want to run Vista in a virtual machine _only_, and not as the real operating system. Most PC users would want to run Vista _both_ as their operating system and on a virtual machine; that would be two copies, whereas Macintosh users only want to run one copy. (Of course, most Mac users actually want to run zero copies of Vista...) So anybody issuing any clarification might not have given the Macintosh situation any thought.
And it doesn't say anywhere that the "dedicated machine" couldn't be a virtual machine in the first place.
MagnusVonMagnum
Nov 20, 10:40 AM
If you don't address those very good reasons, your argument won't be very convincing. We do not want the CPU suck, the identity leaking, the UI inconsistencies, and the very real risk of "zero day" Adobe bugs.
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
Parkin Pig
Apr 10, 08:02 AM
In one of the cooling towers at the abandoned power station is this foreboding text.
Hope I won't get too much flak for the heavy use of photoshop.
Vignetted, poster-edged, and graduated-blurred, but I was pleased with the comic book result
Hope I won't get too much flak for the heavy use of photoshop.
Vignetted, poster-edged, and graduated-blurred, but I was pleased with the comic book result
iSingandiDance
Nov 10, 06:17 PM
Many Porn sites are smart enough to provide HTML5 alternative.Not the free ones. Instead, they offer a mobile solution that can be had at a nominal fee.
No comments:
Post a Comment