or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by wbrasington

I have to throw a flag on this one. It's clearly illegal procedure. The entire post makes no sense. If I put faith in someone's predictions, it's usually BECAUSE I feel I understand the market and have some idea that the person I put faith in understand's what they are doing and that they are not guessing. If I put faith in someone's models or approach to the market, it is usually because I am doing more work to come to that conclusion, and not blindly giving up and just...
It is true I give them little credit. However, the first reaction that leaders at Adobe had to the SDK announcment from Apple was an announcement that they would shortly have their flash plug-in running for the iPhone using the SDK. They then, with a great deal of embarrassment, had to put out a retraction admitting they could not in fact use the SDK to do that. So they have a history of talking about that which they know not. Again, if you read this article with the idea...
I'm not sure I have any interest in having an App on the iPhone that is another browser. One from Apple, one from Adobe. I use the Adobe one when I want to go to websites that have flash, and I use Apple's when I want.... what?...... compatible fast browsing? Kind of like waiting for FF to come to the iPhone. I'm sure there are FF fans that think they would like that to happen, but somehow in a mobile world I just don't see the user interface issues of the menus being...
The iPhone browser, isn't Safari. You can call it that if you want, but it's better to think of it as Apple's web browser for the iPhone built with Webkit. If you think of it that way, then you have to ask yourself why Apple would have built plug-in capability into it? And opf course, you'd have to show me where in the SDK it's explained, or anywhere else in Apple documentation. You can't, it can't, so it would have to run in the background. Now, it is possible Adobe...
The flash player, would have to run in the background. Not allowed to do that.....
They describe deploying flash as an app. They can't destribute their own browser to use it, as that would mean the flash app would have to run in the background. (not allowed) The only alternative, would be to distribute their own browser app that had flash directly built into it. That is not what they are describing. So..... what they are describing makes them sound like they don't know what they are talking about.
I may be missing something, because this looks to me like the entire story is complete BS. So I'll let you guys fill me in. 1st, you CAN'T have flash be an app in the app store that you download. Adobe tried to describe what they were doing before like that, and it's complete bullshit. Flash is NOT an application. 2nd Flash is something that needs to run from the browser, as you surf the web. (a plugin?) That means Adobe thinks they are developing something...
Guess we have a better idea now on what's going on with RIM. (OUCH!)
Well I'm sure the legal counsel never thought of trying that approach and is probably not nearly as smart as you are. Apple must be quaking in their boots at the thought of YOU filing the next lawsuit..... Excuse me while I walk away laughing...... at you.....
Need to tell China to go pound sand. I remember all that constant talk about how "China never shares revenue"! Well, ok. Don't share revenue. You won't see 400,000 iphones on the network with Wifi..... you'll see 4 million! Tell China that sharing revenue has it's benefits. Mouthing off about how they are powerful enough to not have to go for that deal..... ok we got yer Wi-Fi right here!
New Posts  All Forums: