or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple strikes back at Adobe, says Flash is 'closed and proprietary'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple strikes back at Adobe, says Flash is 'closed and proprietary' - Page 4

post #121 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by graxspoo View Post

You know, the app store pretty much sucks IMO, and the reason is, there are too many apps, and most of them are not high quality. There are many thin wrappers around internet content, or other free content. There are many similarly named apps without good ways of distinguishing between them. How can you find anything? How do you know which is best?

Also, you can't try before you buy. I've bought many apps only to realize it doesn't do what I want. Is it worth going through the hassle of trying to get a refund for $2, no, but I'm left feeling burned. I see all these apps advertised in Apple ads, but I would never know they existed otherwise. I don't have hours to spend sifting through all these apps. Its a big mess.

And then, there's Apple's dumb rules that restrict what app developers can do. For example, I'd like an app that can stream media over m WiFi in my house so I don't need to sync it through iTunes. As far as I can tell, there are no apps that let you do this very basic function, and probably because Apple wants iTunes to be the alpha and omega of your media life.

And BTW, I'm focused on my craft, so up yours buddy.

You forgot to mention how the App Store loves fart apps.
lmao internet
Reply
lmao internet
Reply
post #122 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"Adobe's Flash is closed and proprietary,"

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black... Because everyone knows that Apple's platforms are not closed and proprietary...
post #123 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by druble View Post

"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk" - Steve Jobs

Price of an iPad - $499

Well, they do now. Isn't progress nice?
post #124 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

I get the distinction you were making and I somewhat agree. It just sounded like you were taking the idea of the iPad being only for media consumption a bit too far. Ironically, I think I probably have a bit of a problem with that characterisation because it's kind of true at the moment.

My disappointment with the iPad (even though I will get one anyway), is exactly that it's (so far) pretty poor for creating things. All I expected/hoped for before it was introduced was that I could write and possibly do a bit of drawing on it, and I was really disappointed that this is not really possible yet. It's technically possible, but only in the same vein as cruising the web was on a Pocket PC in 1995. It works, but it isn't really useable.

However, it's a new platform and I think over time, the iPad will become capable of taking over a large part of content creation even though we will still need desktops for the more complex creation tasks. I think the iPad could easily displace the laptop though as most people with laptops are not really into content creation in a big way and they mostly buy the laptop for it's portable characteristics.

The thing you said that I really agree with is the idea that the words we have right now are inadequate. iPads are not "real" computers in that they aren't desktops and have extremely limited content creation possibilities, but they are still computers of some kind. As I said, I'm buying the current one anyway, but in reality, I'm thinking the iPad I really want (one that you can write on etc.), won't be available until about 2013 or so.

The resources and processing power needed for media creation (At least business grade) is well beyond the abilities of the current iPad. You could be right about 2013. Technology changes at a rapid pace, and in 3 years. mobile technology should be catching up to what desktop technology is now. So I would have to say that by then, you could be right. Some competitors like HP though are already ahead of the game developing a product with a full OS on it. Other manufactures developing similar devices will also go the full OS route. This will trigger hardware developers to increase efforts on mobile technologies that drive slate devices and netbooks. It is already possible to get netbooks with power equal to entry level gaming machines, and the slates with tegra 2 processors that are coming out very quickly will already be powerful enough for the likes of Photoshop or CAD. It's going to get interesting.
post #125 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

I'd love to be able to transfer my license via iTunes to another user for store credit. We're talking about digital data here which almost by definition is portable.

Yes, similarly, I made the mistake of setting my work computer up with a different iTunes account than my home computer. Now some of my app purchases show up as being associated with my work iTunes ID, and some show up as being associated with my home iTunes ID. Apparently there's no way for me to consolidate my accounts, so forever more I have to juggle these two different ID/password combinations on my iPhone, or re-purchase the apps. What a bunch a bunk.
post #126 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by druble View Post

Copycats galore? The world does not revolve around Apple. It revolves around PC's. Name one single technology Apple has used that someone did not use before Apple. Even at their roots, the GUI that made Apple so famous was licensed from Xerox. Seems Apple copies others. They just have good marketing, thats all. Some people do try to copy Apple, but a lot of people are not trying to copy Apple. The sooner people realize that, we will stop seeing pointless comparisons of products to Apple products.

You mean like Firewire? They were also the first computer company to release a MIDI interface for their system. Just a couple off the top of my head
post #127 of 282
[/QUOTE=druble]Don't forget the droid has better hardware! I love my WM6 phone, but when I upgrade again, I am going to droid. Microsoft is even jumping on the band wagon and locking things down, so I have to abandon them. I love what they are doing with the new phones, the WP7 phones will be amazing and possibly superior to the iPhone based on the leaked specs, but in the end I don't need someone looming overhead ready to tell me what I can and can't do.[/QUOTE]


Most phone users do not look at specs, they only care about how it works for them and about what their friends say about their phones. They probably don't think about whether the company who sells the (smart)phone is telling them what they can or can't do; they do want to know if they can get calls at home and at work and if there are games that they like available for download.

Better hardware only matters if consumers recognize it as a part of their experience with the product. They often do, but if two products are each perceived to have good hardware, then other factors are going to guide their choice.

If Microsoft is jumping on the bandwagon, it might be because they have some smart people working for them who recognize a model that is working with consumers. These are consumer products.
post #128 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by blullama View Post

Didn't say that it couldn't be done. I said it's not feasible.

A distinction without a difference.

Quote:
A whole new environment would have to be written. One does not exist for your precious objective-c. The environment would have to catch up to the tweening and filter capabilities with Flash. Believe me, if someone wrote such an environment, it could make a killing.

Someone will, and they will make a killing, but it doesn't look like it will be Adobe.

As far as Flash goes, sometimes Shiva has to destroy the world so Brahma can create it anew.
post #129 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

You mean like Firewire? They were also the first computer company to release a MIDI interface for their system. Just a couple off the top of my head

Please quote your source for Apple being the first. 1983 was a long time ago, and Apple Macintosh, Commodore 64, Commodore Amiga and the PC-DOS all received MIDI interfaces in 1983 after MIDI was standardized. However, there were computers prior to 1983 that were using non-standardized midi interfaces. I don't think you are going to find a pre 1983 source, sorry. As far as Firewire (Apple's name for IEEE 1394) it was a joint development with major contributions made by engineers from Texas Instruments, Sony, Digital Equipment Corporation, IBM, and INMOS/SGS Thomson (now STMicroelectronics). As an additional note, hardly anyone uses firewire. That is not something for Apple to hang their hat one. It was never that successful outside of niche markets. The same could be said for midi.
post #130 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryb View Post

Most phone users do not look at specs, they only care about how it works for them and about what their friends say about their phones.


[Removed comment] Thanks for clarifying what you meant. Initially it sounded like you meant something else.
post #131 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by xyz001 View Post

whats the problem with flash? It might not be perfect, but it's everywhere on the web and i don't see anyone paying royalties to use it?...why not just support it already? It would just make the iphone/ipad a better device...

It's personal. Jobs dislikes it. I can see his point. Flash doesn't belong on the iPhone and by inheritance, the iPad. Flash sucks because it is so damn easy to program that any idiot can make it work. Work well or tastefully that is an entirely different subject.

The thing that will happen is that we go back to the bad old days where you have to detect the user's browser and show whatever is appropriate. No Flash, fine HTML5 for you. Oops, no Flash but IE, okay, Silverlight for you, etc, etc. The developers have actually had a couple year reprieve from sniffing the smelly under garments of the browsers and now we go back to spending 10x the amount of time to code because this CEO doesn't like that CEO and this spokeswoman said this about that apologist. It is all so petty, but necessary because there are so many advertising eyeballs at stake. Money grubbing slime the whole lot of them.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #132 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

A distinction without a difference.



Someone will, and they will make a killing, but it doesn't look like it will be Adobe.

As far as Flash goes, sometimes Shiva has to destroy the world so Brahma can create it anew.

Om Namah Shivaya
post #133 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

It's personal. Jobs dislikes it. I can see his point. Flash doesn't belong on the iPhone and by inheritance, the iPad. Flash sucks because it is so damn easy to program that any idiot can make it work. Work well or tastefully that is an entirely different subject.

The thing that will happen is that we go back to the bad old days where you have to detect the user's browser and show whatever is appropriate. No Flash, fine HTML5 for you. Oops, no Flash but IE, okay, Silverlight for you, etc, etc. The developers have actually had a couple year reprieve from sniffing the smelly under garments of the browsers and now we go back to spending 10x the amount of time to code because this CEO doesn't like that CEO and this spokeswoman said this about that apologist. It is all so petty, but necessary because there are so many advertising eyeballs at stake. Money grubbing slime the whole lot of them.

I truly hope that this is not the case....Either companies will have to develop for all the possibilities, or some of us just won't get to see websites in their full glory anymore. Flash bridges so many gaps between browser compatability it's not even funny, but if Steve dosn't like it, I guess we can reset ourselves to the 90's again. With all the different browsers now days, it will take quite a bit of coding to compensate for the differences between browsers. Anyone who has wrote W3C compliant sites knows all about how different browsers display things differently. At least with flash, you could expect the same results from browser to browser.
post #134 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by druble View Post

Ouch, actually I don't really think most people care what others think about their phone. Only certain kind of people care what others think about stuff they own. That is a sad way to live life if you need other people to envy something you own...

I think you misunderstood me. I think that people who are considering buying a phone often ask others if they are happy with their phone and if they recommend it for others. I know that I have discussed phone experience several times over the last ten years or so.
post #135 of 282
Ummm H.264 is not open. MPEG LA has just allowed royalty free licensing until 12/31/2015. Close but not quite.
post #136 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by graxspoo View Post

And then, there's Apple's dumb rules that restrict what app developers can do. For example, I'd like an app that can stream media over m WiFi in my house so I don't need to sync it through iTunes. As far as I can tell, there are no apps that let you do this very basfunction andand probably because Apple wants iTunes to be the alpha and omega of your media life.

And BTW, I'm focused on my craft, so up yours buddy.

AirVideo and StreamToMe do exactly what you describe and they are awesome on the iPad. Air video has been out for iPhone for almost a year.
post #137 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woode View Post

Where are the usual Flash apologists now that Adobe has caved?

Right here. Till there are HTLM 5 tools that do the sort of interactive type things like playhousedisney.com, pbskids, nickjr.com etc. we will keep using Flash. Now, once HTML 5 gets a tool kit that provides what Flash does with a strong scripting and design environment, we will look at moving over. Not that I am an Adobe apologist though - the CS5 update is over priced and under whelming but CS4 does everything we need.
post #138 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by str1f3 View Post

Adobe had better pray that there is never an iPhone on Verizon because the Droid is the only reason why Android has any market share.

Droid is the Creative Zen that competed with the iPod early on. I was once such user, who thought a more feature fitted device would trounce Apple's offering readily. When I finally sat down with an iPod, I then came around, soon after I made my / - and I never bought Creative again.

This is where Droid is eventually headed.
post #139 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tummy View Post

AirVideo and StreamToMe do exactly what you describe and they are awesome on the iPad. Air video has been out for iPhone for almost a year.

Well, I spent like an hour trying to find an app to do that, and I bought something for $5 that didn't, though from the description it seemed like it would. Case in point.

Also, looking at these products, you need to run a server on the other side. This is not what I want. I just want to browse my network, find a folder with a bunch of stuff in it, pick a file and say "play this now" just like you can on a Mac. Why can't I do this? Why do I need server software running. I already have a server running, and its called OS X.
post #140 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by blullama View Post

Obviously, you don't know anything about Android or what Jailbroken means.

...

Jailbroken means that you remove the lock on the wireless carrier that the phone is locked down to. In Apple's case, that's AT&T.

So, stop spreading around lies.

That is not entirely correct. "Jailbroken" refers to the ability to install apps that have not been approved by apple and are available via a source like cydia. "Unlock" refers to being able to use your iPhone on a different cellular network. It is possible to jailbreak your phone without unlocking it, but you can't unlock your phone without jailbreaking it first.
post #141 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDonG4 View Post

Ummm H.264 is not open. MPEG LA has just allowed royalty free licensing until 12/31/2015. Close but not quite.

H.264 is free for anyone to use, which means that while not an open specification, it is a feature rich and low cost alternative to support.

If you want truly open, the OGG is okay, but being that it is open, it has the Linux complex, which is "open" but doesn't really go very far. The 264 specification is privately owned, which means investment is driving innovation. Yeah, they could choose to not keep it royalty free someday but that is not likely as it lead by a consortium of companies that want it as their leading format for their consumer devices.

I could use a political analogy to further my point, but I'll be wise in this case
post #142 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Outside of the publishing industry their reputation amongst Mac users is poor. Much like Microsoft, many Mac users today are actively looking to rid themselves of Adobe software.

I'm going with Aperture as soon as I get my Canon DSLR. Probably would never need Photoshop for my basic needs.

Check out the number of Mac users of Aperture v Lightroom:

http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2009/09...erture_09.html
post #143 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post

Check out the number of Mac users of Aperture v Lightroom:

http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2009/09...erture_09.html

I don't dispute the numbers. Adobe's been smart about running extended Beta for past version of LR which basically got Photogs hooked on their workflow. Couple that with Apple's silence on Aperture's future and voila.

Though Scott Bourne has restored my faith that Aperture is a worthy program. He's testing both LR and Aperture and will report his findings.

http://photofocus.com/2010/03/27/ape...or-prime-time/
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #144 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by blullama View Post

Jailbroken means that you remove the lock on the wireless carrier that the phone is locked down to. In Apple's case, that's AT&T.

The Nexus One, by the way, is only available through Google, and not through a wireless carrier. But, it currently only works with T-Mobile, which has a limited userbase in the first place.
So, stop spreading around lies.


In point of fact, Jailbroken means that you can load any software you like on your iPhone, rather than being restricted to software only sold by Apple. The term you are thinking of is "unlocked".

And the Nexus One is available for ATT as well as T-Mobile.
post #145 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post

Check out the number of Mac users of Aperture v Lightroom:

http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2009/09...erture_09.html

LOOL Apoorture.

But when Apple needed Logic to be awesome they put forth the effort and now it is indeed awesome. They can do the same with Aperture but I wish they'd go even further and do something to take on Photoshop proper.

Like, say, buying Adobe.
post #146 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryb View Post

I think you misunderstood me. I think that people who are considering buying a phone often ask others if they are happy with their phone and if they recommend it for others. I know that I have discussed phone experience several times over the last ten years or so.

Understood. I will edit my other post if it will let me. We all type things too fast that others might misinturpret at times
post #147 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilogic View Post

Droid is the Creative Zen that competed with the iPod early on. I was once such user, who thought a more feature fitted device would trounce Apple's offering readily. When I finally sat down with an iPod, I then came around, soon after I made my / - and I never bought Creative again.
This is where Droid is eventually headed.

Maybe if Apple had come out on all major carriers out of the gate, this is the scenario we'd be looking at. However, they didn't. Not being on Verizon and the others gave Apple's competitors an opening. So in the last 3 years, the competition has been gaining ground, and I'd say the Droid has just about caught up.

According to Wikipedia: "In October, 2009, Gartner Inc. predicted that by 2012, Android would become the world's second most popular smartphone platform, behind Nokia's Symbian OS, which is very popular outside the US. Meanwhile, BlackBerry would fall from 2nd to 5th place, iPhone would remain in 3rd place, and Microsoft's Windows Mobile would remain in 4th place."

More than 50 different Android based phones are predicted to ship in 2010. That's the advantage of an open and free OS.

The iPhone is just one product in a crowded market. The Android platform is strong, and growing.
post #148 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momus View Post

They can do the same with Aperture but I wish they'd go even further and do something to take on Photoshop proper.

Like, say, buying Adobe.


I don't think they would do that. It is not like when Adobe bought Macromedia. They killed Freehand because they had Illustrator and GoLive because they acquired Dreamweaver. If Apple bought Adobe they would have to do something with Flash and since they don't have anything to replace it they would have to support it God forbid, Right?

They might do better buying Pixelmator, Coda, Opacity, Elgato, first. That way they have the full publishing suite plus better TV support with eyeTV. After they get most of the creatives weaned off Adobe then develop something to take on Flash.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #149 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post

Check out the number of Mac users of Aperture v Lightroom:

http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2009/09...erture_09.html

BTW, Lightroom is created using the Qt cross platform library.
According to Jobs this makes is a substandard product.
Apparently a lot of users disagree.
I'm real glad he can't control what I install on my Mac.
post #150 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by druble View Post

Please quote your source for Apple being the first. 1983 was a long time ago, and Apple Macintosh, Commodore 64, Commodore Amiga and the PC-DOS all received MIDI interfaces in 1983 after MIDI was standardized. However, there were computers prior to 1983 that were using non-standardized midi interfaces. I don't think you are going to find a pre 1983 source, sorry. As far as Firewire (Apple's name for IEEE 1394) it was a joint development with major contributions made by engineers from Texas Instruments, Sony, Digital Equipment Corporation, IBM, and INMOS/SGS Thomson (now STMicroelectronics). As an additional note, hardly anyone uses firewire. That is not something for Apple to hang their hat one. It was never that successful outside of niche markets. The same could be said for midi.

1) Apple sure did invent Firewire. Once they submitted it to IEEE for standards certification, those other companies joined the working group and helped to add to the standard.
2) Apple licensed the GUI from Xerox? You should tell Xerox because they tried to sue Apple for the GUI because it was unlicensed. But then Xerox lost that suit, IIRC, because Xerox had never used the concept outside of a lab and had never initiated any attempt to bring a product to market that used a GUI. Apple was obviously inspired by the very early and very rough work at Xerox and admit as much. But they were the first to bring a GUI to the PC market and all GUIs after were far more than inspired by the Mac implementation of a GUI. A GUI could have meant any virtual representation of a physical work flow. Stacks, tubes, cups and saucers. Instead, they all went with folders, files, icons, trash cans..essentially exactly what Apple pioneered with their specific GUI implementation of representing an virtual office space. This isn't really even in question anymore. Apple lost the lawsuit against MS because at the time the courts decided the look and feel (virtual office paradigm) could not be patented. Today would be a very different story if MS was a blatant with borrowing from Apple.

A couple other items Apple brought to market first (i.e. not developed in a lab and unreleased):
-The modern PDA and smartphones are directly descended from the Newton
-Digital camera. Kodak might have invented it, but decades later, Apple sold the first.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #151 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

I don't dispute the numbers. Adobe's been smart about running extended Beta for past version of LR which basically got Photogs hooked on their workflow. Couple that with Apple's silence on Aperture's future and voila.

Though Scott Bourne has restored my faith that Aperture is a worthy program. He's testing both LR and Aperture and will report his findings.

http://photofocus.com/2010/03/27/ape...or-prime-time/

I wanted to use Aperture but just finally gave up with it. I will go and take another look but LR works really well for me. I guess I was questioning the assumption that Mac users outside of the publishing industry are abandoning Adobe more than I was trying to promote the relative merits of Aperture vs Lightroom. I should have been more clear about that. Maybe Mac users outside of the publishing and pro photography realms are abandoning it but, without numbers to back it up, I suspect that in most creative studios and agencies you are still going to find a lot of Adobe products. What are viable alternatives to Photoshop (for more than photo retouching), Illustrator, InDesign (Quark is too expensive and the licensing issues were simply too frustrating to deal with), After Effects (Nuke starts at more than twice the price and has a very different node based workflow which while useful in some situations the keyframe approach of AE works better for a lot of our artists), Flash (I have yet to find a viable alternative that does everything Flash does), Acrobat Pro (yes, Preview is underrated but there are features in Acrobat Pro that preview does not have). Plus all of Adobe's products play nice with each other so it is easy to move stuff from one program to the next. We have looked at some of Corel's products and use Painter and have even looked at GIMP but for the immediate future, it will be CS4 from Adobe that will play a large part in our production pipelines and I am sure many other Mac based creative ad agencies as well. Other plusses for the use of Adobe software for us is that it is a lot easier to find people who are trained on Adobe software when we are hiring and there is a massive 3rd party plugin world out there for Photoshop and AE. Adobe is also ahead of Apple in making PremierPro 64 bit so, while we currently use FCP exclusively, I will be trying out Premier Pro CS5 to see if it can speed up our workflow. For us, it really is about which tools will give us the best ROI than asking if it was made by Apple or Adobe before making a decision.
post #152 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by druble View Post

The resources and processing power needed for media creation (At least business grade) is well beyond the abilities of the current iPad. You could be right about 2013. Technology changes at a rapid pace, and in 3 years. mobile technology should be catching up to what desktop technology is now. So I would have to say that by then, you could be right. Some competitors like HP though are already ahead of the game developing a product with a full OS on it. Other manufactures developing similar devices will also go the full OS route. This will trigger hardware developers to increase efforts on mobile technologies that drive slate devices and netbooks. It is already possible to get netbooks with power equal to entry level gaming machines, and the slates with tegra 2 processors that are coming out very quickly will already be powerful enough for the likes of Photoshop or CAD. It's going to get interesting.

OMG, you have now gone and shot yourself in the foot.

What a shame, I was interested and found it reasonable reading at first.

Tegra 2, running Android no less, will do Photoshop/CAD, hehe.

Do you think Apple has spent all this money and time on the SoC A4 combined with a PowerVR SGX GPU and are then going to sit on their hands while Google develops Android into a mystical OS that can run CAD?

You're outta your psychological-tree.
May the Blue Bird of Happiness leave a deposit with you and yours.
Reply
May the Blue Bird of Happiness leave a deposit with you and yours.
Reply
post #153 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

1) Apple sure did invent Firewire. Once they submitted it to IEEE for standards certification, those other companies joined the working group and helped to add to the standard.
2) Apple licensed the GUI from Xerox? You should tell Xerox because they tried to sue Apple for the GUI because it was unlicensed. But then Xerox lost that suit, IIRC, because Xerox had never used the concept outside of a lab and had never initiated any attempt to bring a product to market that used a GUI. Apple was obviously inspired by the very early and very rough work at Xerox and admit as much. But they were the first to bring a GUI to the PC market and all GUIs after were far more than inspired by the Mac implementation of a GUI. A GUI could have meant any virtual representation of a physical work flow. Stacks, tubes, cups and saucers. Instead, they all went with folders, files, icons, trash cans..essentially exactly what Apple pioneered with their specific GUI implementation of representing an virtual office space. This isn't really even in question anymore. Apple lost the lawsuit against MS because at the time the courts decided the look and feel (virtual office paradigm) could not be patented. Today would be a very different story if MS was a blatant with borrowing from Apple.

A couple other items Apple brought to market first (i.e. not developed in a lab and unreleased):
-The modern PDA and smartphones are directly descended from the Newton
-Digital camera. Kodak might have invented it, but decades later, Apple sold the first.

Wow, ok the Xerox 8010, a.k.a. "Star". went on sale in 1979.

Texas Instruments patented a film-less electronic camera in 1972, the first to do so. In August, 1981, Sony released the Sony Mavica electronic still camera, the camera which was the first commercial electronic camera.

I wont even bother with the rest of what you said. Your credability is shot.

P.S. Microsoft Liscensed the GUI from Xerox too.... Nobodys perfect, but Apple surly dosn't deserve credit for that invention.
post #154 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzExige View Post

OMG, you have now gone and shot yourself in the foot.

What a shame, I was interested and found it reasonable reading at first.

Tegra 2, running Android no less, will do Photoshop/CAD, hehe.

Do you think Apple has spent all this money and time on the SoC A4 combined with a PowerVR SGX GPU and are then going to sit on their hands while Google develops Android into a mystical OS that can run CAD?

You're outta your psychological-tree.

Apple cannot compete with NVidia in processing and graphics. That is out of Apples element. History will repeat itself with Apple getting their hands in designing processors again. Apple has nothing on NVidia when it comes to that kind of hardware. Why do you think Apple changed to Intel hardware in their computers. They cannot match or keep pace with the rest of the industry.
post #155 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Flash isn't going away but its best days may be behind it. 100 million Flashless devices will get advertiser attention.

Right on. You might even say, 100 million Flashless devices in the dream income segment to which Apple sells will get advertiser attention.
post #156 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post

InDesign (Quark is too expensive and the licensing issues were simply too frustrating to deal with)

Prices are on par, actually, unless you buy an Adobe Design Suite. But Quark is also shitloads easier to pirate.
post #157 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

The only people calling it a computer are those criticizing it. It's a media consumption device with a few "computer-like" features built in. If you want an Apple computer that is a computer be prepared to pay $1K.

You forgot the Mac Mini at $599 (or less if you buy refurb).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr_Wizard View Post

I find that a very funny statement coming from Apple. Didn’t they just squelch a company for selling hardware with Apple OS on them. They also have no open market for software developers within the IPhone only what they approve of. Pot calling the Kettle black I would say...

Do you REALLY need someone to explain the difference between supporting open internet standards and being happy when someone steals your intellectual property?

Open standards is in no way inconsistent with intellectual property rights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by druble View Post

Meh, Adobe dosn't need Apple. They have over 90% of the computers in the world using Flash. They must be doing something right. Besides, there are many things you can do with flash that you won't be able to do with HTML 5.

I've been trying for weeks to get someone to say what can be done with Flash that can't be done with open standards. You keep making that statement - how about an example?

Oh, and before answering, look at the Toy Story iAd to get an idea of what html 5 is capable of.

Since no one has been able to give an example in spite of the fact that I've asked at least a dozen times on this forum in the past 2 weeks, I guess it's safe to assume that you're lying.



Oh, and Apple is doomed.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #158 of 282
Chambers: "Mr. Jobs tear down this wall !!!"
Jobs: "No - flarn filth flarn are better than yours so - flarn!"
Chambers: "I would flarn filth flarn , but i can't get over your god damned proprietary wall!"
Jobs: "Its your mouth that is proprietary otherwise i'd tear down this wall myself and filth flarn filth!"
Chambers: "filth flarn filth flarn filth flarn filth"
Jobs: "Just kiddin, flarn filth ls. Last time you did i nearly died from heat exhaustion."

Chamber turns away from the wall and grabs shmidts and balmers hand. He glares back up at Jobs: "I learned my lesson,flarn filth flarn filth."

Chambers looks back once more to see Jobs on top of his wall practicing yoga as he has for many years - flarn filth flarn filths.
post #159 of 282
That oughta piss off the Flash fanbois!

Edit: Apple is doomed.

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

  Google Maps: ("Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.")

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #160 of 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunabku View Post

Flarn filth filleted.

What the Flarn.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple strikes back at Adobe, says Flash is 'closed and proprietary'