Apple never had 50-60% gross margins on iPods or iPhones, either.
The rest of your argument simply supports what I said.
The original poster claimed that Apple used to have lower cost computers and no longer does that. The fact is that Apple's prices have declined over time (AS WELL AS offering better computers for the same price as before) so the person making that claim was wrong.
P.S. you also need to read my comments carefully, since I was the one who replied initially to the original post by TYancy saying the person used a bad example. You are supporting my comments not other way round.
P.S. you also need to read my comments carefully, since I was the one who replied initially to the original post by TYancy saying the person used a bad example. You are supporting my comments not other way round.
Most of those are wild ass guesses based solely on someone's estimate of the cost of components. Aside from the fact that they're guessing on component costs, it leaves out all the other costs of manufacturing a product. That's not all that different than saying that GM has a 90% gross margin because there's only $3,000 worth of steel in one of their cars.
The last one is interesting. They claim that the ADJUSTMENT had a GM of 48% - which is less than the 50-60% you claimed. More importantly, the adjustment overstate's the products GM. In subscription accounting, a significant percentage of the cost must be booked up front and the revenues accrue over time. The adjustment they are citing is when they pulled future revenues back into the present due to a change in SEC/GAAP rules. Since a large portion of the expenses have already been incurred, the GM adjustment will ALWAYS have a higher margin than the total GM for the product. So we know from that article that the iPhone's GM is considerably less than 48% - which again disproves your claims that the iPhone had a 50-60% margin.
Another example is Maya. Alias used to promote the heck out of it and it was the top application of its kind, then AutoDesk bought Alias and, while AD continues to tweak Maya, it does absolutely nothing to promote it (as with Adobe and Director). As a result sales dropped precipitously, just as with Adobe and Director. As for Maya, this is a mixed blessing. While you no longer have to pay $8 K for Unlimited, the value of Maya on a resume has been greatly diminished and it is extremely rare to see Maya on a job posting.
Do you have actual sales data to back up the claim that Maya "sales have dropped precipitously"? As a Mac-based Maya user, I haven't gotten a sense that Maya sales have significantly declined. It's always been a niche product with a significantly smaller user base than, say, C4D. Nor have AD's updates been quasi-maintenance releases. Director was all-but-left for dead once Adobe got Flash, but Maya has prospered under AD. Re: Freehand vs. Illustrator, I suspect which one is superior is much more akin to the constant Max/Maya/XSI/C4D/Houdini debates. I always vastly preferred Illustrator for the workflow and integration with Photoshop. If I had started with Freehand, I might feel differently, but the only thing I find significantly missing in Illustrator is robust scripting (relative to Maya, all Adobe products are weak sauce).
Yeah, in addition to the Adobe/Apple spat, there are more similarities as well. Like the fact that a lot of the technologies in iPhone and iPad didn't come originally from Apple, but from Xerox, Palm, and others. And like Jobs taking technologies developed elsewhere and claiming that it is Apple innovation. And the fact that Apple is trying to use lawsuits to prevent other companies from using touch interfaces through lawsuits, just like they tried to keep other companies from using GUIs through lawsuits in the 1980's. And let's not forget what happened with Apple's own font technologies: they were just as bad and threatening towards others as Adobe was towards them.
Wow, you are really stretching your similarities there. You see the phrase "Xerox Park" and can't wait disparage Apple with it. The reference to Xerox Park for Adobe was about Post Script. Apple's "Xerox Park" moment came (30 years ago) when Steve saw a GUI and said "Eureka, that's the future", we are going to make computers with GUI's, and we are going to use our expertise and attention to detail and commitment to the end user to make the best GUI out there. Who is being copied now.... that's right, Xerox Park.
Of course, Steve went on to found Next himself, which became the basis for OS X. So really, Steve's companies can hardly be said to be similar to those (without naming names) whose corporate culture is all about conquer/embrace and extend. Apple's OS X, iPhone OS, iTunes platform, Stores and hardware really do not rely in any way on Xerox Park. Seems like you and a few others would love to think that Apple didn't do one thing for itself, ever. For fans of other companies, however, I can see how they would make those assumption since their favorites are less inclined to think ahead and innovate for themselves (to put it politely).
Yet, Flash did come to Adobe via Macromedia. And Apple was able to compete with PostScript with its own TrueType. So, if Adobe was a true innovator, they would have no problem in making Flash work on mobile devices, or retooling some creative tools to create HTML5 media instead of the dinosaur that is Flash. If there really were some true similarities between these two companies, Adobe wouldn't be protesting so loudly and would be 5 years ahead of Apple instead of 5 (10) years behind.
Some of these final paragraphs seem to be one-sided. The fact Flash is a cross-platform development tool (by providing consistent rendering and behavior across browsers) makes it a very compelling reason for developers to adopt the technology. It will probably continue to be this way until web development cross-browser is not so difficult and/or time consuming...
I think Daniel's point is correct. Developers are being compelled to take a fresh look at the web and the direction web technologies are moving. The browser wars are pretty much over -- even MS is feeling compelled to support standards (though admittedly very gradually). But this is not really about desktop browsers. It is about the increasing importance of the mobile space.
Apart from the fact that there IS NO successful implementation of Flash on ANY mobile device, Apple does not want to be dragged down to waiting on intermediary platforms that promote a lowest-common-denominator approach. Adobe has repeatedly proven it is a laggard and will not keep up with Apple advances. Why should Apple wait around for Adobe's closed system to attempt to take over iPhone OS development? Looked at this way, what is this Adobe "technology" that developers would be expected to find compelling enough to adopt? Full Objective-C output? Apparently it's dumbed down (doesn't support all of the 1000s of Apple's latest APIs) and apparently it produces loads of junk code -- like the "HTML" rubbish that MS Front Page produces, as it throws in loads of tables (not best practice by any means) and inline styling.
Maybe what is compelling to developers is the iTunes/App Store phenomenon! Of course, Flash "developers", who are used to writing once and compiling for a number of platforms, find the App Store compelling -- they would love to have their apps in the iTunes App Store.
If cross-platform compiling of Flash to other languages is the selling point of Adobe's new CS, then they must hope it is "compelling" to someone. Do Flash developers even fell "compelled" to upgrade. I get the feeling from these boards that Adobe CS users really are not holding their breath for the latest bloat-ware upgrade that takes them to the cleaners! But I suppose someone committed to Flash development will feel compelled to have the latest and greatest.
Real app developers, though? Sounds like they can already deal with Objective-C or take steps to learn something new and make a leap... why, because they actually do feel compelled to make the best app they can and take advantage of the latest advancements. And they feel compelled to look at the markets and make a decision as to where to invest their time and energy and money. I think they feel compelled to focus on their app and a viable business plan. This doesn't really have to involve paying thousands for Adobe products and then spraying out loads of mediocre versions of their app for every possible platform out there. Since Adobe doesn't feel compelled to get its act together, I think developers feel compelled to make some hard, clear, rational, well-informed choices.
I don't understand all the freaking out and arguing about Flash, and I especially don't understand people denouncing Apple for it. Beyond Postscript, we've seen this time and time again in tech. Flash would be on its way out with or without Steve Jobs writing open letters about it and Apple refusing to put it on their mobile gadgets. It's the way things work. Any tool that languishes the way Flash has under Adobe is dead. Couple that with the coming of HTML5, and Flash's demise is pretty much a foregone conclusion. Apple has simply identified yet another direction the industry is going and has decided to go that way full force without apology. They've done it many times before.
But there's no decent Flash that will run on mobile devices. Now that Apple has made that pointedly clear, Adobe is working on a version and, last I heard, it crashes the phone every time in the demo. Not exactly what we're looking for, is it?
Funny. Where you get that crap from ? I just bought HTC Desire and Flash is preinstalled there and works just fine : I can use all the web pages in the same way as on the desktop. Haven't noticed any crashes, problematic performance, or battery drain.
The article says that Adobe let Apple down when they approached them about Flash for iPhone...at that time, Flash already was an open standard so Apple was free to implement their own version of flash player for iPhone. Yet it seems they didn't explored this "alternative"...
Next time anybody claims that internet types can't do journalism, here's the rebuttal. Not that the ?journalism? label and solid factual reporting hides the author's attitudes.
A couple amplifications, please:
Another history suggested that TrueType's ability to do on-screen font rendering had to wait until AFTER Adobe opened up the PostScript format, and ATM, with on-the-fly on-screen character rendering was created. TT was originally released as a printer-only technology. Izzat so? (Minor point)
The article says, ?? Jobs gave a ?maybe? for Flash?? at the debut of the iPhone. Can you provide a cite? (Kinda important here in defining when/why ?maybe? turned into, ?no.?)
A suggestion: ?greed? gets tossed around a lot in articles about Apple, and an over-emphasis on the writer's emotional take can serve to distract from actions. I have previously commented elsewhere about my dislike for the high cost of Adobe fonts where they held a de facto monopoly, so I'm with the argument but the motivation is NOT known to be greed more than any business's goal of profits.
A related story: BusinessInsider.Com has an interesting story, too, about the way that Adobe canned Macromedia's Flash efforts to expand onto phones, at precisely the worst possible time: 2006, as Apple must have been working feverishly to get the iPhone into production. Adobe's statements from the time, if available, might make it clear that Adobe saw no future for Flash on phones. Kinda like the little red hen story, now, it would seem.
Finally, although it wasn't your intent to get into the can of worms around the Mac/Photoshop issues, this article might here or there enjoy a mention of the various interactions. A history of that scope might be a hoot, too.
?My friend also insisted on the excellence of plunger coffee?(which tasted like crap to me).
Pfft
There's taste and there's quality of execution. I happen to like a nice, strong dark roast, and a press pot is the next-best way to consume coffee (after espresso).
Funny. Where you get that crap from ? I just bought HTC Desire and Flash is preinstalled there and works just fine : I can use all the web pages in the same way as on the desktop. Haven't noticed any crashes, problematic performance, or battery drain.
Look up the definition of the word 'beta'. Flash 10.1 has not been released yet. And the beta has crashed in every demo that Adobe has done so pardon me if I assume that your standards for 'works just fine' must be awfully low.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainless
The article says that Adobe let Apple down when they approached them about Flash for iPhone...at that time, Flash already was an open standard so Apple was free to implement their own version of flash player for iPhone. Yet it seems they didn't explored this "alternative"...
You're even more confused than I thought. Flash has NEVER been an open standard, nor has it ever been possible for anyone to write their own Flash player.
Most of those are wild ass guesses based solely on someone's estimate of the cost of components. Aside from the fact that they're guessing on component costs, it leaves out all the other costs of manufacturing a product. That's not all that different than saying that GM has a 90% gross margin because there's only $3,000 worth of steel in one of their cars.
The last one is interesting. They claim that the ADJUSTMENT had a GM of 48% - which is less than the 50-60% you claimed. More importantly, the adjustment overstate's the products GM. In subscription accounting, a significant percentage of the cost must be booked up front and the revenues accrue over time. The adjustment they are citing is when they pulled future revenues back into the present due to a change in SEC/GAAP rules. Since a large portion of the expenses have already been incurred, the GM adjustment will ALWAYS have a higher margin than the total GM for the product. So we know from that article that the iPhone's GM is considerably less than 48% - which again disproves your claims that the iPhone had a 50-60% margin.
I provide you quotes all wild guesses except for one, at least i had good grace to admit when I was wrong. Also provided numerous quotes, so i would not be biased out like you. Sorry but I know now what type of person you are. I prefer to admit when I am wrong then cut data left and right to make a point and not actually focus on the point. I will not ignore your comments but know now to take them with a pinch of salt, actually a LOT of salt.
I provide you quotes all wild guesses except for one, at least i had good grace to admit when I was wrong. Also provided numerous quotes, so i would not be biased out like you. Sorry but I know now what type of person you are. I prefer to admit when I am wrong then cut data left and right to make a point and not actually focus on the point. I will not ignore your comments but know now to take them with a pinch of salt, actually a LOT of salt.
Wow. I proved that you didn't know what you were talking about and you launch into some bizarre (and ungrammatical) rant. Go figure.
As far as I m concerned Adobe and their over priced produts and upgrades can go to blazes.
Clickto Flash keeps my computer from crashing in Safari. Will be glad to see the final transition to HTML5.
I keep seeing comments about how Flash keeps crashing Safari. Isn't the new Safari in Snow Leopard supposed prevent plugins from crashing the entire browser?
I keep seeing comments about how Flash keeps crashing Safari. Isn't the new Safari in Snow Leopard supposed prevent plugins from crashing the entire browser?
I use Opera and Firefox instead on Snow Leopard to avoid crashes. Safari Mobile crashes without flash on the iphone.
That's Flash lite and does not run all of Flash, so it does not use 100% of the internet either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainless
Funny. Where you get that crap from ? I just bought HTC Desire and Flash is preinstalled there and works just fine : I can use all the web pages in the same way as on the desktop. Haven't noticed any crashes, problematic performance, or battery drain.
It will crash that one page without bringing down the entire browser. We would prefer no crashes though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar
I keep seeing comments about how Flash keeps crashing Safari. Isn't the new Safari in Snow Leopard supposed prevent plugins from crashing the entire browser?
Comments
Apple never had 50-60% gross margins on iPods or iPhones, either.
The rest of your argument simply supports what I said.
The original poster claimed that Apple used to have lower cost computers and no longer does that. The fact is that Apple's prices have declined over time (AS WELL AS offering better computers for the same price as before) so the person making that claim was wrong.
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/artic...no_Pushing_50/
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...0_percent.html
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/03/...fit-an-iphone/
http://www.financeoid.com/calculatin...4q08-3067.html more detailed look at gross margins for iPhone 3GS.
P.S. you also need to read my comments carefully, since I was the one who replied initially to the original post by TYancy saying the person used a bad example. You are supporting my comments not other way round.
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/artic...no_Pushing_50/
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...0_percent.html
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/03/...fit-an-iphone/
http://www.financeoid.com/calculatin...4q08-3067.html more detailed look at gross margins for iPhone 3GS.
P.S. you also need to read my comments carefully, since I was the one who replied initially to the original post by TYancy saying the person used a bad example. You are supporting my comments not other way round.
Most of those are wild ass guesses based solely on someone's estimate of the cost of components. Aside from the fact that they're guessing on component costs, it leaves out all the other costs of manufacturing a product. That's not all that different than saying that GM has a 90% gross margin because there's only $3,000 worth of steel in one of their cars.
The last one is interesting. They claim that the ADJUSTMENT had a GM of 48% - which is less than the 50-60% you claimed. More importantly, the adjustment overstate's the products GM. In subscription accounting, a significant percentage of the cost must be booked up front and the revenues accrue over time. The adjustment they are citing is when they pulled future revenues back into the present due to a change in SEC/GAAP rules. Since a large portion of the expenses have already been incurred, the GM adjustment will ALWAYS have a higher margin than the total GM for the product. So we know from that article that the iPhone's GM is considerably less than 48% - which again disproves your claims that the iPhone had a 50-60% margin.
Another example is Maya. Alias used to promote the heck out of it and it was the top application of its kind, then AutoDesk bought Alias and, while AD continues to tweak Maya, it does absolutely nothing to promote it (as with Adobe and Director). As a result sales dropped precipitously, just as with Adobe and Director. As for Maya, this is a mixed blessing. While you no longer have to pay $8 K for Unlimited, the value of Maya on a resume has been greatly diminished and it is extremely rare to see Maya on a job posting.
Do you have actual sales data to back up the claim that Maya "sales have dropped precipitously"? As a Mac-based Maya user, I haven't gotten a sense that Maya sales have significantly declined. It's always been a niche product with a significantly smaller user base than, say, C4D. Nor have AD's updates been quasi-maintenance releases. Director was all-but-left for dead once Adobe got Flash, but Maya has prospered under AD. Re: Freehand vs. Illustrator, I suspect which one is superior is much more akin to the constant Max/Maya/XSI/C4D/Houdini debates. I always vastly preferred Illustrator for the workflow and integration with Photoshop. If I had started with Freehand, I might feel differently, but the only thing I find significantly missing in Illustrator is robust scripting (relative to Maya, all Adobe products are weak sauce).
Yeah, in addition to the Adobe/Apple spat, there are more similarities as well. Like the fact that a lot of the technologies in iPhone and iPad didn't come originally from Apple, but from Xerox, Palm, and others. And like Jobs taking technologies developed elsewhere and claiming that it is Apple innovation. And the fact that Apple is trying to use lawsuits to prevent other companies from using touch interfaces through lawsuits, just like they tried to keep other companies from using GUIs through lawsuits in the 1980's. And let's not forget what happened with Apple's own font technologies: they were just as bad and threatening towards others as Adobe was towards them.
Wow, you are really stretching your similarities there. You see the phrase "Xerox Park" and can't wait disparage Apple with it. The reference to Xerox Park for Adobe was about Post Script. Apple's "Xerox Park" moment came (30 years ago) when Steve saw a GUI and said "Eureka, that's the future", we are going to make computers with GUI's, and we are going to use our expertise and attention to detail and commitment to the end user to make the best GUI out there. Who is being copied now.... that's right, Xerox Park.
Of course, Steve went on to found Next himself, which became the basis for OS X. So really, Steve's companies can hardly be said to be similar to those (without naming names) whose corporate culture is all about conquer/embrace and extend. Apple's OS X, iPhone OS, iTunes platform, Stores and hardware really do not rely in any way on Xerox Park. Seems like you and a few others would love to think that Apple didn't do one thing for itself, ever. For fans of other companies, however, I can see how they would make those assumption since their favorites are less inclined to think ahead and innovate for themselves (to put it politely).
Yet, Flash did come to Adobe via Macromedia. And Apple was able to compete with PostScript with its own TrueType. So, if Adobe was a true innovator, they would have no problem in making Flash work on mobile devices, or retooling some creative tools to create HTML5 media instead of the dinosaur that is Flash. If there really were some true similarities between these two companies, Adobe wouldn't be protesting so loudly and would be 5 years ahead of Apple instead of 5 (10) years behind.
Some of these final paragraphs seem to be one-sided. The fact Flash is a cross-platform development tool (by providing consistent rendering and behavior across browsers) makes it a very compelling reason for developers to adopt the technology. It will probably continue to be this way until web development cross-browser is not so difficult and/or time consuming...
I think Daniel's point is correct. Developers are being compelled to take a fresh look at the web and the direction web technologies are moving. The browser wars are pretty much over -- even MS is feeling compelled to support standards (though admittedly very gradually). But this is not really about desktop browsers. It is about the increasing importance of the mobile space.
Apart from the fact that there IS NO successful implementation of Flash on ANY mobile device, Apple does not want to be dragged down to waiting on intermediary platforms that promote a lowest-common-denominator approach. Adobe has repeatedly proven it is a laggard and will not keep up with Apple advances. Why should Apple wait around for Adobe's closed system to attempt to take over iPhone OS development? Looked at this way, what is this Adobe "technology" that developers would be expected to find compelling enough to adopt? Full Objective-C output? Apparently it's dumbed down (doesn't support all of the 1000s of Apple's latest APIs) and apparently it produces loads of junk code -- like the "HTML" rubbish that MS Front Page produces, as it throws in loads of tables (not best practice by any means) and inline styling.
Maybe what is compelling to developers is the iTunes/App Store phenomenon! Of course, Flash "developers", who are used to writing once and compiling for a number of platforms, find the App Store compelling -- they would love to have their apps in the iTunes App Store.
If cross-platform compiling of Flash to other languages is the selling point of Adobe's new CS, then they must hope it is "compelling" to someone. Do Flash developers even fell "compelled" to upgrade. I get the feeling from these boards that Adobe CS users really are not holding their breath for the latest bloat-ware upgrade that takes them to the cleaners! But I suppose someone committed to Flash development will feel compelled to have the latest and greatest.
Real app developers, though? Sounds like they can already deal with Objective-C or take steps to learn something new and make a leap... why, because they actually do feel compelled to make the best app they can and take advantage of the latest advancements. And they feel compelled to look at the markets and make a decision as to where to invest their time and energy and money. I think they feel compelled to focus on their app and a viable business plan. This doesn't really have to involve paying thousands for Adobe products and then spraying out loads of mediocre versions of their app for every possible platform out there. Since Adobe doesn't feel compelled to get its act together, I think developers feel compelled to make some hard, clear, rational, well-informed choices.
http://www.loopinsight.com/2010/05/1...ck-the-battle/
But there's no decent Flash that will run on mobile devices. Now that Apple has made that pointedly clear, Adobe is working on a version and, last I heard, it crashes the phone every time in the demo. Not exactly what we're looking for, is it?
Funny. Where you get that crap from ? I just bought HTC Desire and Flash is preinstalled there and works just fine : I can use all the web pages in the same way as on the desktop. Haven't noticed any crashes, problematic performance, or battery drain.
The article says that Adobe let Apple down when they approached them about Flash for iPhone...at that time, Flash already was an open standard so Apple was free to implement their own version of flash player for iPhone. Yet it seems they didn't explored this "alternative"...
A couple amplifications, please:
Another history suggested that TrueType's ability to do on-screen font rendering had to wait until AFTER Adobe opened up the PostScript format, and ATM, with on-the-fly on-screen character rendering was created. TT was originally released as a printer-only technology. Izzat so? (Minor point)
The article says, ?? Jobs gave a ?maybe? for Flash?? at the debut of the iPhone. Can you provide a cite? (Kinda important here in defining when/why ?maybe? turned into, ?no.?)
A suggestion: ?greed? gets tossed around a lot in articles about Apple, and an over-emphasis on the writer's emotional take can serve to distract from actions. I have previously commented elsewhere about my dislike for the high cost of Adobe fonts where they held a de facto monopoly, so I'm with the argument but the motivation is NOT known to be greed more than any business's goal of profits.
A related story: BusinessInsider.Com has an interesting story, too, about the way that Adobe canned Macromedia's Flash efforts to expand onto phones, at precisely the worst possible time: 2006, as Apple must have been working feverishly to get the iPhone into production. Adobe's statements from the time, if available, might make it clear that Adobe saw no future for Flash on phones. Kinda like the little red hen story, now, it would seem.
Finally, although it wasn't your intent to get into the can of worms around the Mac/Photoshop issues, this article might here or there enjoy a mention of the various interactions. A history of that scope might be a hoot, too.
?My friend also insisted on the excellence of plunger coffee?(which tasted like crap to me).
Pfft
There's taste and there's quality of execution. I happen to like a nice, strong dark roast, and a press pot is the next-best way to consume coffee (after espresso).
Maybe he was using the wrong kind of plunger?
Funny. Where you get that crap from ? I just bought HTC Desire and Flash is preinstalled there and works just fine : I can use all the web pages in the same way as on the desktop. Haven't noticed any crashes, problematic performance, or battery drain.
Look up the definition of the word 'beta'. Flash 10.1 has not been released yet. And the beta has crashed in every demo that Adobe has done so pardon me if I assume that your standards for 'works just fine' must be awfully low.
The article says that Adobe let Apple down when they approached them about Flash for iPhone...at that time, Flash already was an open standard so Apple was free to implement their own version of flash player for iPhone. Yet it seems they didn't explored this "alternative"...
You're even more confused than I thought. Flash has NEVER been an open standard, nor has it ever been possible for anyone to write their own Flash player.
Most of those are wild ass guesses based solely on someone's estimate of the cost of components. Aside from the fact that they're guessing on component costs, it leaves out all the other costs of manufacturing a product. That's not all that different than saying that GM has a 90% gross margin because there's only $3,000 worth of steel in one of their cars.
The last one is interesting. They claim that the ADJUSTMENT had a GM of 48% - which is less than the 50-60% you claimed. More importantly, the adjustment overstate's the products GM. In subscription accounting, a significant percentage of the cost must be booked up front and the revenues accrue over time. The adjustment they are citing is when they pulled future revenues back into the present due to a change in SEC/GAAP rules. Since a large portion of the expenses have already been incurred, the GM adjustment will ALWAYS have a higher margin than the total GM for the product. So we know from that article that the iPhone's GM is considerably less than 48% - which again disproves your claims that the iPhone had a 50-60% margin.
I provide you quotes all wild guesses except for one, at least i had good grace to admit when I was wrong. Also provided numerous quotes, so i would not be biased out like you. Sorry but I know now what type of person you are. I prefer to admit when I am wrong then cut data left and right to make a point and not actually focus on the point. I will not ignore your comments but know now to take them with a pinch of salt, actually a LOT of salt.
Apple is now focusing entirely on open standards
is not true at all. The H.264/MPEG-4 AVC is a patent technology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/M...tent_licensing. Apple choose not to use an open standard and encourage Google to do the same.
I provide you quotes all wild guesses except for one, at least i had good grace to admit when I was wrong. Also provided numerous quotes, so i would not be biased out like you. Sorry but I know now what type of person you are. I prefer to admit when I am wrong then cut data left and right to make a point and not actually focus on the point. I will not ignore your comments but know now to take them with a pinch of salt, actually a LOT of salt.
Wow. I proved that you didn't know what you were talking about and you launch into some bizarre (and ungrammatical) rant. Go figure.
is not true at all. The H.264/MPEG-4 AVC is a patent technology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/M...tent_licensing. Apple choose not to use an open standard and encourage Google to do the same.
That doesn't mean it can't be an open standard. Open is not the same as free.
As far as I m concerned Adobe and their over priced produts and upgrades can go to blazes.
Clickto Flash keeps my computer from crashing in Safari. Will be glad to see the final transition to HTML5.
I keep seeing comments about how Flash keeps crashing Safari. Isn't the new Safari in Snow Leopard supposed prevent plugins from crashing the entire browser?
I keep seeing comments about how Flash keeps crashing Safari. Isn't the new Safari in Snow Leopard supposed prevent plugins from crashing the entire browser?
I use Opera and Firefox instead on Snow Leopard to avoid crashes. Safari Mobile crashes without flash on the iphone.
Wow. I proved that you didn't know what you were talking about and you launch into some bizarre (and ungrammatical) rant. Go figure.
That doesn't mean it can't be an open standard. Open is not the same as free.
I suggest that jragosta should read the post before responding to them: Here is a link:
http://socialmediagraphics.posterous...ash-and-h264-1
H.264 is not an open standard.
Funny. Where you get that crap from ? I just bought HTC Desire and Flash is preinstalled there and works just fine : I can use all the web pages in the same way as on the desktop. Haven't noticed any crashes, problematic performance, or battery drain.
is not true at all. The H.264/MPEG-4 AVC is a patent technology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/M...tent_licensing. Apple choose not to use an open standard and encourage Google to do the same.
I keep seeing comments about how Flash keeps crashing Safari. Isn't the new Safari in Snow Leopard supposed prevent plugins from crashing the entire browser?