carltabet
Apr 14, 12:10 PM
amen, brother (sister?).. i, too, am in the original iphone club. i didn't think the 3G or 3GS were worthy of an upgrade.. but iphone 4 was beautiful and i was finally ready. unfortunately, i fell in love with the white so i waited.. and waited..
it's been a very painful 10 months, but now that i've waited this long, i'm trying to be strong and hold out for the iphone 5. i wish i knew whether it was coming out in june or september. if september for sure, i would just get the iphone 4.. argh.
I've become convinced the iPhone 5 isn't coming in June because iOS 5 won't be ready for it and tradition calls for every new iPhone hardware to be released with a new version of iOS. iOS 5 will be previewed at WWDC early June then probably released in September along with its corresponding iPhone 5 launch. I'm not waiting another 6 months with my 3G, I'll be getting the white iPhone 4.
it's been a very painful 10 months, but now that i've waited this long, i'm trying to be strong and hold out for the iphone 5. i wish i knew whether it was coming out in june or september. if september for sure, i would just get the iphone 4.. argh.
I've become convinced the iPhone 5 isn't coming in June because iOS 5 won't be ready for it and tradition calls for every new iPhone hardware to be released with a new version of iOS. iOS 5 will be previewed at WWDC early June then probably released in September along with its corresponding iPhone 5 launch. I'm not waiting another 6 months with my 3G, I'll be getting the white iPhone 4.
LightSpeed1
Apr 14, 01:06 AM
Will it blend???That's funny.
Please no, not another thing to add to my signature.:( :D
Please no, not another thing to add to my signature.:( :D
abrooks
Aug 16, 07:47 AM
Currently? That article's 3 years old! Did you see the size of those mobiles? Also parts where they mention that IMing could be the next big thing give away its age a bit.
OK if that's not good enough for you then this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_messaging) should be, scroll down to the User Base section, Neilsen still rates AIM the largest by a large chunk.
OK if that's not good enough for you then this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_messaging) should be, scroll down to the User Base section, Neilsen still rates AIM the largest by a large chunk.
MattInOz
Apr 18, 09:03 PM
I'm not really sure what the point would be. If you lay a 17 or 20 inch Mac down on your lap, give it a touch screen, and modify the interface so it's more suited to the less precise input of fingers� haven't you just created a bigger iPad? (Not that a bigger iPad wouldn't have it's uses, but it wouldn't be a Mac, and I'd question whether it would warrant yet another 'marketing name'.
I suppose it's possible, as many presume, that Apple is looking to merge OS X and iOS, but it's never been that convincing of an argument to me. There are some real incompatibilities between the two in my mind. Many OS X apps demand the precision and unrestricted visibility that a keyboard and mouse give you, but once you're using a keyboard and mouse, the display has moved away from your fingers. A vertical display keeps it within reach, but humans just aren't suited to using a vertical touch screen for more than a few minutes, as Steve Jobs has himself remarked.
If the future were some kind of OS X / iOS hybrid, why did Apple invent iOS in the first place? Why not just go straight for this touchable OS X Nirvana if it exists? I suspect it doesn't exist, and Apple understood that a usable touchscreen interface has a unique set of requirements, benefits and limitations.
As for what this 'ix.Mac.MarketingName' is, I actually haven't a clue. It's somewhat intriguing though. It's kind of exciting to think that the inventive minds at Apple might be hatching some new kind of device. A little optimistic maybe, but who knows?
Was thinking more of a desktop touch screen device. Different from the iPad which wants to be picked up and used, but is workable on your lap. This mythical desktop touch device would still need to be light enough that you could lift it up and just change it's orientation at will like an iPad. Yet with a stand so it could be standing upright in portrait or landscape yet moved and sit anywhere down to almost flat on the desk. That way if you want the screen upright you can have, yet small enough that your not putting it to far away and for the odd navigation touch command would not be to bad. Yet lying down you get the full advantage and directness of touch screen.
This device would be great for Graphics, CAD, 3D modeling, even FCP maybe where the ability to make the workflow even more direct and tactile would be a real advantage.
I can't see this device happening this year, but I can dream can't I. See the other part that seems to missing is something that has the directness of touch but and doesn't obscure what your doing like a mouse so you get the accuracy, but you can't do this at the expense of the other input means on there respective platforms. Or in other words a stylus but it has to work with fingers as well but not spongy like the current ones you can buy.
To me the keyboards a red herring, both OSX and iOS can use either real or on screen keyboard. The difference comes down to point device.
As for why they split off iOS as a branch, well where now five years in and only with Lion is it looking like the two will align. So if they waited till OS X was ready they would have forgone the last 4 years of iOS device revenue plus maybe the next 2-3 years as well before it was really ready for the general purpose touchable OS. Even then it would be doubtful if One Application Framework is diverse enough to cover 4 families of products each with there own tweaks to how you work with them.
It's funny for all the advantages of computers it's only now we see them becoming as intuitive as pencil and paper some time in the next 5ish years.
Yep so intrigued to what this new device maybe if it''s anything all. There some really fun possibilities. Just not sure which one is "ready" for this year.
I suppose it's possible, as many presume, that Apple is looking to merge OS X and iOS, but it's never been that convincing of an argument to me. There are some real incompatibilities between the two in my mind. Many OS X apps demand the precision and unrestricted visibility that a keyboard and mouse give you, but once you're using a keyboard and mouse, the display has moved away from your fingers. A vertical display keeps it within reach, but humans just aren't suited to using a vertical touch screen for more than a few minutes, as Steve Jobs has himself remarked.
If the future were some kind of OS X / iOS hybrid, why did Apple invent iOS in the first place? Why not just go straight for this touchable OS X Nirvana if it exists? I suspect it doesn't exist, and Apple understood that a usable touchscreen interface has a unique set of requirements, benefits and limitations.
As for what this 'ix.Mac.MarketingName' is, I actually haven't a clue. It's somewhat intriguing though. It's kind of exciting to think that the inventive minds at Apple might be hatching some new kind of device. A little optimistic maybe, but who knows?
Was thinking more of a desktop touch screen device. Different from the iPad which wants to be picked up and used, but is workable on your lap. This mythical desktop touch device would still need to be light enough that you could lift it up and just change it's orientation at will like an iPad. Yet with a stand so it could be standing upright in portrait or landscape yet moved and sit anywhere down to almost flat on the desk. That way if you want the screen upright you can have, yet small enough that your not putting it to far away and for the odd navigation touch command would not be to bad. Yet lying down you get the full advantage and directness of touch screen.
This device would be great for Graphics, CAD, 3D modeling, even FCP maybe where the ability to make the workflow even more direct and tactile would be a real advantage.
I can't see this device happening this year, but I can dream can't I. See the other part that seems to missing is something that has the directness of touch but and doesn't obscure what your doing like a mouse so you get the accuracy, but you can't do this at the expense of the other input means on there respective platforms. Or in other words a stylus but it has to work with fingers as well but not spongy like the current ones you can buy.
To me the keyboards a red herring, both OSX and iOS can use either real or on screen keyboard. The difference comes down to point device.
As for why they split off iOS as a branch, well where now five years in and only with Lion is it looking like the two will align. So if they waited till OS X was ready they would have forgone the last 4 years of iOS device revenue plus maybe the next 2-3 years as well before it was really ready for the general purpose touchable OS. Even then it would be doubtful if One Application Framework is diverse enough to cover 4 families of products each with there own tweaks to how you work with them.
It's funny for all the advantages of computers it's only now we see them becoming as intuitive as pencil and paper some time in the next 5ish years.
Yep so intrigued to what this new device maybe if it''s anything all. There some really fun possibilities. Just not sure which one is "ready" for this year.
mandis
Jul 21, 11:09 AM
Exciting to hear.
Hopefully they've entered a period of sustained growth, one that can carry them far into the future.
Given that they're at 4.7% (averaged), I'll guess they'll cross 5% within the next calendar year. (Though I suspect it may happen before MWSF)
Increased market share can only be a good thing.
Most people I know however, who were using macs at uni or at work, have all switched back to windows in the last year or so and they are not looking back. I suppose marketshare in the UK is not in par with the US. It would be interesting to do a survey of this increased user base and discover the role of the mac platform as it has evolved these days.
I suppose my question is: Has the mac/osx platform changed direction towards its function and purpose? What is a mac with osx good for these days?
A few years back the mac was the platform of choice for the creative class such as designers, photographers, Video editors, etc. Most of these people, with the exception of video editors, have now switched to windows because of the better choice of software and better upgradeability.
Hopefully they've entered a period of sustained growth, one that can carry them far into the future.
Given that they're at 4.7% (averaged), I'll guess they'll cross 5% within the next calendar year. (Though I suspect it may happen before MWSF)
Increased market share can only be a good thing.
Most people I know however, who were using macs at uni or at work, have all switched back to windows in the last year or so and they are not looking back. I suppose marketshare in the UK is not in par with the US. It would be interesting to do a survey of this increased user base and discover the role of the mac platform as it has evolved these days.
I suppose my question is: Has the mac/osx platform changed direction towards its function and purpose? What is a mac with osx good for these days?
A few years back the mac was the platform of choice for the creative class such as designers, photographers, Video editors, etc. Most of these people, with the exception of video editors, have now switched to windows because of the better choice of software and better upgradeability.
timinbovey
Apr 26, 07:01 PM
I'm curious to know exactly WHAT "cloud" they're going to store my music in? There IS no CLOUD! Cripes, people, it's the same darn internet it always was. Piles of servers and hard drives, all connected by cables and wires and fiber optics, et. al. right here on EARTH. There's NO CLOUD. Why the HECK they had to start calling it that is what? Basically a Microsoft marketing term, right? So, lets get past that BS right now.
Of COURSE they're going to charge for it. Do you think for a moment that Apple, or anyone else can provide storage for all the songs, videos., etc that users have on their individual devices, AND provide bandwidth for that much streaming, AND maintain it, etc for free? Be real people.
Remembeer, the record labels are DEMANDING that EACH song by EVERY user be uploaded and kept seperate. So if 126,577 people have the SAME exact song on their device, it will have to be uploaded 126,577 times so each has their own secure copy to access. Which also makes me wonder, will Apple (or anyone else) be allowed to have backups available? Or will hundreds of thousands of users and their files have to be re-uploaded when there's a failure?
Basically, this is the SAME THING as uploading your very own music files to your own server, or the server of your choice and accessing them as you choose. In effect, having your own "cloud". I have a web site. As part of the deal, I get unlimited server space and bandwidth. Presently have probably 80 gigs of mp3's there (all of my own creation, no music company stuff) but I could easily upload hundreds of gigs of music there, and have access whenever and where ever I want it, at no cost to me. Of course I don't have a spiffy user interface to facilitate easy retrieval and organizing like iTunes, etc. But still, I could do it easily enough. So could all of you.
This is just another way to get you to pay to listen to music you already own. Except for very specialized situations, I just don't see a need for it.
Of COURSE they're going to charge for it. Do you think for a moment that Apple, or anyone else can provide storage for all the songs, videos., etc that users have on their individual devices, AND provide bandwidth for that much streaming, AND maintain it, etc for free? Be real people.
Remembeer, the record labels are DEMANDING that EACH song by EVERY user be uploaded and kept seperate. So if 126,577 people have the SAME exact song on their device, it will have to be uploaded 126,577 times so each has their own secure copy to access. Which also makes me wonder, will Apple (or anyone else) be allowed to have backups available? Or will hundreds of thousands of users and their files have to be re-uploaded when there's a failure?
Basically, this is the SAME THING as uploading your very own music files to your own server, or the server of your choice and accessing them as you choose. In effect, having your own "cloud". I have a web site. As part of the deal, I get unlimited server space and bandwidth. Presently have probably 80 gigs of mp3's there (all of my own creation, no music company stuff) but I could easily upload hundreds of gigs of music there, and have access whenever and where ever I want it, at no cost to me. Of course I don't have a spiffy user interface to facilitate easy retrieval and organizing like iTunes, etc. But still, I could do it easily enough. So could all of you.
This is just another way to get you to pay to listen to music you already own. Except for very specialized situations, I just don't see a need for it.
pmz
Apr 12, 11:09 AM
I really don't care, as long as iOS 5 beta 1 gets here soon. If we really have to wait for June well that sucks, but whatever.
The problem I have with this delay is that 2 other phones on my account are due for upgrade, and both of those people EXPECT a new iPhone in June. If I tell them more like October/November, they won't be happy, and will end up getting the iPhone 4 instead.
I sure Apple cares more about selling iPhone 5s this year than they do clearing out old inventory, so this delay is pretty poor management on their part.
The problem I have with this delay is that 2 other phones on my account are due for upgrade, and both of those people EXPECT a new iPhone in June. If I tell them more like October/November, they won't be happy, and will end up getting the iPhone 4 instead.
I sure Apple cares more about selling iPhone 5s this year than they do clearing out old inventory, so this delay is pretty poor management on their part.
twoodcc
Nov 4, 05:14 PM
Welcome!
Please run the bigadv units, you will get much better PPD. It looks like you are running the regular SMP client for now.
Use -smp 8 if the are 2008 or earlier, -smp 16 if they are 2009 otco...
will -smp 8 be fast enough?
Please run the bigadv units, you will get much better PPD. It looks like you are running the regular SMP client for now.
Use -smp 8 if the are 2008 or earlier, -smp 16 if they are 2009 otco...
will -smp 8 be fast enough?
lmalave
Oct 19, 08:09 AM
Heh heh...yeah me too. Maybe that's what The Steve (tm) was referring to when he said that '07 was going to be one of the most exciting years for Apple yet.
Or it could just be a new colour range for the iPod nanos.
I don't think Apple will come out with a "consumer" tower for the foreseeable future. I think Apple's strategy is to make "consumer" products like the Mini which are made to look more like consumer electronic devices (e.g. look like a stereo or DVD players). A tower just does not fit that category. Apple makes the Mac Pro for professionals that will actually put in a specialized video or audio card for their *professional* work. And yes, a consumer like a gamer might want that expandability just so they can get the latest and greatest gaming video card, but Apple is *not* going to aim for that category anytime soon because: 1) it's a small fraction of the market compared to the overall consumer market, and 2) the PC owns the gaming market. And why would Apple want to go for the PC gaming market anyway? A disproportionate amount of gamers just build "white box" computers so they can optimize everything to their liking for the lowest cost, and that's *definitely* not Apple's market.
Or it could just be a new colour range for the iPod nanos.
I don't think Apple will come out with a "consumer" tower for the foreseeable future. I think Apple's strategy is to make "consumer" products like the Mini which are made to look more like consumer electronic devices (e.g. look like a stereo or DVD players). A tower just does not fit that category. Apple makes the Mac Pro for professionals that will actually put in a specialized video or audio card for their *professional* work. And yes, a consumer like a gamer might want that expandability just so they can get the latest and greatest gaming video card, but Apple is *not* going to aim for that category anytime soon because: 1) it's a small fraction of the market compared to the overall consumer market, and 2) the PC owns the gaming market. And why would Apple want to go for the PC gaming market anyway? A disproportionate amount of gamers just build "white box" computers so they can optimize everything to their liking for the lowest cost, and that's *definitely* not Apple's market.
gwsat
Apr 21, 03:46 PM
I am not a gamer but still will not buy an MBA with an i series chip if it means I have to suffer Intel's woefully weak integrated graphics processor. I bought an early 13 inch Ultimate in October and plan to keep it for at least three years. It handles everything I throw at it easily so until and unless it won't do that anymore I don't plan to replace it.
Jswoosh
Apr 26, 12:19 AM
So this tomorrow right? :p
Ok I guess I'll have to wait another week. (Assuming this is accurate).
Ok I guess I'll have to wait another week. (Assuming this is accurate).
emaja
Apr 26, 01:33 PM
I'll delete all the music that I've purchased via iTunes that will be available on the cloud, yes.
I wouldn't delete it. Local storage is so cheap that you'd be almost foolish to not have a local physical backup.
Personally, I wouldn't store my music in the cloud. I would back it up and stream it from the cloud, but it wouldn't be my only copy. Call me paranoid, but I like backups.
I wouldn't delete it. Local storage is so cheap that you'd be almost foolish to not have a local physical backup.
Personally, I wouldn't store my music in the cloud. I would back it up and stream it from the cloud, but it wouldn't be my only copy. Call me paranoid, but I like backups.
mjstew33
Jul 21, 10:26 AM
I say we'll have 5.5% next year. :) :D
bigjnyc
Apr 12, 10:43 AM
I'm starting to think this rumor may be true. And its actually not a bad thing, My iPhone 4 is working great right now, it's plenty fast and looks awesome. Waiting a couple more months wouldnt be a bad thing. I usually wait a month after new releases anyway for demands and lines to die down.
KPOM
Apr 21, 02:06 PM
Which would be better for video editing -- the current MBA or the upcoming Sandy Bridge MBA? (just family videos, nothing hardcore)
Likely the Sandy Bridge. Editing uses CPU power.
Consider that the Sandy Bridge chip has several advantages over the Core 2 Duo:
Strapless Wedding Dresses
Strapless Wedding Dresses
strapless wedding dresses
Likely the Sandy Bridge. Editing uses CPU power.
Consider that the Sandy Bridge chip has several advantages over the Core 2 Duo:
whooleytoo
Apr 14, 11:06 AM
On another note - wouldn't you hate to be an Apple content developer? You're working hard, just finishing up on a new piece of code... hoping there aren't any errors.
...
[mDeviceList addObject @"ix.Mac.MarketingName"];
...
You put it live, relax, sit back, check out some RSS feeds for a break. The first item:
"What is ix.Mac.MarketingName and what does it mean for Apple's future plans?" Aiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeee!
...
[mDeviceList addObject @"ix.Mac.MarketingName"];
...
You put it live, relax, sit back, check out some RSS feeds for a break. The first item:
"What is ix.Mac.MarketingName and what does it mean for Apple's future plans?" Aiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeee!
nowonder24
Apr 28, 06:10 PM
cases?
Cases?
CASES?
WTF ... who uses cases? And who cares for cases?
If I look at people with their iphones, i see like less than 5% using anything on their phones. And all of them use the Apple bumper on some iphone 4. I've seen hundreds of iphones in the wild, but I still have to see one non-bumper case in the wild.
Grow up guys ...
P.S.: WTF does one use a case for? To make the phone THICKER? UGLIER?
Cases?
CASES?
WTF ... who uses cases? And who cares for cases?
If I look at people with their iphones, i see like less than 5% using anything on their phones. And all of them use the Apple bumper on some iphone 4. I've seen hundreds of iphones in the wild, but I still have to see one non-bumper case in the wild.
Grow up guys ...
P.S.: WTF does one use a case for? To make the phone THICKER? UGLIER?
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.
Ball Gown Strapless Beading
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.
kirk26
Apr 14, 02:44 PM
I'm noticing a little quicker general UI navigation, but the third party apps still don't show their launch animation unless opened first, exited, and then launched again. Only once loaded into the memory can you go from app to home screen to app and see the full animation.
Yet, oddly, Apple's stock apps are entirely unaffected.
Don't know what you mean by launch animation. Be gentle.
N/M
I opened Sirus, exited, opened FIFA 11, exited, went into Sirus again with no lag time. Is that what you are talking about?
Yet, oddly, Apple's stock apps are entirely unaffected.
Don't know what you mean by launch animation. Be gentle.
N/M
I opened Sirus, exited, opened FIFA 11, exited, went into Sirus again with no lag time. Is that what you are talking about?
jafan pit
Nov 23, 11:04 PM
Yes, Microsoft is (and always has been) moving into other areas and fails in some, but their software machine is very strong in the client desktop software and server market. Their business and monopoly just keeps growing, they aren't desperate. All business tries to expand, especially when you have billions of spare profit to burn every quarter. Wish I was as "desperate" as them.
appleguy123
Apr 30, 04:09 PM
Apparently he is. Closest thing I'm going to get to another woman I guess.
You've got Nies the shewolf...
You've got Nies the shewolf...
Evangelion
Jul 12, 04:00 AM
Apple has in their favor the fact that many people now have ripped CDs and bought protected music in Apple formats.
You just demonstrated the risk of closed formats and DRM. Suppose a superior product does become available. That superior product would have hard time competing, since iPod-users are tied to FairPlay (if they have used iTunes that is).
That said: there has been rumors that Microsoft would make the songs the user has bought from iTunes available to "switchers" for free, eliminating the FairPlay-lock in (by replacing it with another lock-in).
You just demonstrated the risk of closed formats and DRM. Suppose a superior product does become available. That superior product would have hard time competing, since iPod-users are tied to FairPlay (if they have used iTunes that is).
That said: there has been rumors that Microsoft would make the songs the user has bought from iTunes available to "switchers" for free, eliminating the FairPlay-lock in (by replacing it with another lock-in).
solafide
Apr 29, 03:19 PM
Gain market share for Amazon. Like last year when they sold MP3 albums at a loss.
Apple has proven that market share does not = profitability. I think Apple's focus is right.
I don't see how market share helps Amazon, in this case, if they are losing money on it and have no off-setting profit generated by the loss.
Also, I wonder when this comes into effect. I was just at the Amazon store and most the music I looked at was at $1.29 or $.99 a song - I only saw one $.69 song. Of course, my tastes don't trend toward a lot of pop.
Apple has proven that market share does not = profitability. I think Apple's focus is right.
I don't see how market share helps Amazon, in this case, if they are losing money on it and have no off-setting profit generated by the loss.
Also, I wonder when this comes into effect. I was just at the Amazon store and most the music I looked at was at $1.29 or $.99 a song - I only saw one $.69 song. Of course, my tastes don't trend toward a lot of pop.
flopticalcube
Apr 11, 02:42 PM
I've seen what TB can do and it's great. But what I'm saying is that it will be HARD for TB to step into a USB-dominated computer industry and just kill USB altogether from all angles. Will TB be faster than USB 3.0?...in real world use by 90% of the consumers/prosumers out there? Maybe. Maybe not. It's like asking Bluray to come in and just dominate the DVD market...it's been trying and 3+ years BluRay is doing well, but the average Joe understands he needs to re-purchase all this movies as well as purchase a hi-def tv and stereo receiver to take advantage of all the features of Bluray (I love Bluray, by the way). It's time, money, and not everyone sees the value or HAS A NEED for that value.
Will people throw out all their USB devices and twiddle their thumbs waiting for TB devices other than hard drives (cameras, printers, video cams, keyboards, mice, flash keys,)? No. Of course not.
Speed vs. Speed is 1 argument...versatility is another. But again, what I'm really saying is to look around you and ask yourself if the world is just going to dump USB technology for TB? Nope. TB will likely coincide with USB 3.0 just like eSATA and Firewire.
We'll see in a few years where we are.
My issue with USB has always been that it goes through the CPU. At the speeds of USB 3.0, this could really bite performance.
Will people throw out all their USB devices and twiddle their thumbs waiting for TB devices other than hard drives (cameras, printers, video cams, keyboards, mice, flash keys,)? No. Of course not.
Speed vs. Speed is 1 argument...versatility is another. But again, what I'm really saying is to look around you and ask yourself if the world is just going to dump USB technology for TB? Nope. TB will likely coincide with USB 3.0 just like eSATA and Firewire.
We'll see in a few years where we are.
My issue with USB has always been that it goes through the CPU. At the speeds of USB 3.0, this could really bite performance.
