Apple, in rejecting Flash-based anything from the iOS universe, are telling iDevice users that they know what you and I want better than we ourselves do. Which is why, I suspect, the Feds haven't just ignored Adobe's complaint.
Care to wager on just how little comes of this "investigation"?
And how is Apple pulling a fast one here? They aren't exactly hiding the lack of flash, and all the overhyped fussing by people such as yourself hasn't exactly made it a stealth issue either.
And yet Apple still sells millions upon millions of iOS devices. So perhaps Apple isn't so stupid, arbitrary or capricious at all?
Quote:
I believe that the Apple stance isn't about security, or stability, or lazy programming, or outdated technology or any of the other herrings being dangled by SJ. It's much simpler than that. Apple simply won't let Adobe use the hardware-direct access that would provide the performance to make the Flash experience acceptable on the iOS platform.
First, Adobe would have to demonstrate that they could be trusted with that direct access - that they wouldn't bring down the whole device with their poor programming.
Second, Adobe would have to demonstrate they could deliver. So far Flash is a piece of crap on every other platform other than Windows - and it's not so hot overall on Windows either. And SJ has left the door open on multiple occasions. It's up to Adobe. I think Adobe was hoping they could whip up enough people like you that they could force Apple to accept their mediocre platform as it is. That's not working nor is it going to work. If they clean it up, Apple has said they are open.
Quote:
And SJ is never going to allow his iOS's performance look anything but stellar. Control freak? You betcha.
Yup. That's why I'm an Apple user. Apple has minimum standards, a user focus and the ability to cut crap when it's going to negatively affect the user experience. What other company in this industry would be willing (or able) to do so?
At least there is one.
The ability to prioritize the user experience above all else is a good thing to most people. Again, I refer to the millions and millions of continued sales. If you don't like it, there are pleanty of alternative platforms. Have fun!
[quoteIf SJ was honest about his claims about Flash's inferiority, he'd have banned it from OS X long ago. [/quote]
Apples to oranges. It's much harder to ban something that has existed for years than exclude it from a new platform from the start. It's also not the philosophy of Mac OSX. Mac OSX and the iOS serve two different purposes.
Also, Apple doesn't have to -there are plenty of tools on Mac OSX for users to manage Flash and prevent it from killing our computing experience - tools that wouldn't be practical in the iOS environment.
Quote:
But he hasn't. He's full of it.
Some one is full of it all right...
If Apple and SJ is so "full of it" why are you here exactly?
I don't think your analogy is accurate. It's more like Microsoft saying that only applications developed with Visual Studio are allowed to run on Windows
Microsoft can't because they are a convicted monopolist and operate under a consent decree that prevents this kind of behavior.
Quote:
Sony saying only Sony brand SD cards can be used in Sony products
For years they basically did that by only offering memory stick. Memory stick never did take off and you can now finally get Sony products with interfaces other than memory stick. That didn't take government interference to happen, either
Quote:
or GM saying you can only use GM brand windscreen wiper replacements.
GM could say that if you use non-GM wiper replacements and it damages the windshield or anything else in the wiper system we won't cover it. Then again, that's assuming GM offers some extra warranty with their brand wiper blades (pretty doubtful). So all you have done is pretty much describe the way warranties work today anyway
So far you have failed to draw any meaningful analogy between your examples and Apples situation. You got the closest with Microsoft, but they are already a convicted monopolist and Apple is no where near that so you might as well claim they are a little bit pregnant...
Quote:
I'm actually interested to know if Adobe abused any of Apple's patents in the process of creating iOS compatible applications.
Meh - while it might be an interesting secondary topic, it's largely irrelevant to this thread.
Firefox users have had complete control over that for years.
Via a third party plug in
Quote:
If Apple felt strongly about this maybe they could provide their users with the same flexibility in Safari that the rest of the world enjoys.
Huh? Why would Apple have to, when just like with the third party plug in on Firefox, there are third party plugins like http://clicktoflash.com/ that do the same thing?
Why is this Apple's problem? Why do people keep throwing up lame straw men comparing Mac OSX to iOS? They are different platforms, different philosophies. One is curated, the other is not. If you don't want a curated experience, don't use the iOS!
Pretty flipping simple and yet it sails completely over the heads of the haters. Why hate? Just move on and use something else! No one is forcing you to buy an iOS device.
Oh, and btw, I've seen that chart before. I wonder how all the Android fanboys rationalize that with their complaint that Apple gets 96% of online software sales? Must be a lot of android developers doing a lot of work for nothing.
Zing
Perhaps Apple isn't as full of crap with their quality and user experience focus as the techies are loath to admit?
Quality doesn't just sell, it's profitable.
I honestly think Apple couldn't care less about Android and Android's sales numbers. As long as they and their App store programmers continue to handily spank them in profit, who cares about sales numbers?
That's why Apple probably never considered notebooks a real threat, and instead probably was amused and even supportive of them. Talk about a resource-sucking barely break-even proposition - honestly, why would a sane company want to compete in that space? It's a no-win situation. Acer, HP, Asus - they aren't exactly lighting up the stock market with their massive profits from their millions of netbook sales. Neither is Microsoft from their Windows 7 essentials or whatever the low end version of Win 7 is - instead they have their OS running on sub-par hardware that causes people to further loathe the Microsoft experience. Microsoft's only fault was being suckered to compete in the netbook space in the first place.
Being able to say no - especially at the right time - is a very valuable skill. There is nothing wrong with saying no, if it's appropriate - even if it ticks off some potential customers. Not all customers are worth having. "The customer is always right" is a bunch of crap. "Valuable/Meaningful/Profitable customers are always right" is a much more accurate statement.
Flash cannot run on iPhone - WRONG Flash 1 can using Gordon.js
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42
If that's "flash" then why is there still a fuss about this?
(that was a rhetorical question - your statment is rediculous since the Gordon.js is hardly "flash" - hence we are all here still talking about it)
Your other comments are a matter of opinion which you are entitled to, however, the bit about Gordon.js is mistaken. Since you possibly are not understanding how it works let me offer an explanation.
Gordon is a javascript library that allows SWF files created with Flash ( or any other program that can export to SWF ) to run in Safari on iPhone. Although there is no Flash plugin, the Flash files do indeed run exactly as they would on any other device that has a Flash plugin installed. The only limitation is that it can only read SWF version 1. For most developers the absence of Actionscript is a deal breaker hence people are still talking about the desire, or lack there of, to include, or exclude, the real Flash plugin for iOS.
it means flash won't work well on Apple devices unless apple works with Adobe to develop the API hooks needed.
So says Adobe. Yet there are plenty of things like VLC that work just fine without secrete access via Apple.
Quote:
This is why, by the way, it won't work that well with Linux. There are so many distributions of linux that it would be impossible to properly hook the plugin into each OS/Browser.
Huh? I thought by definition open source was, well, OPEN! All the source code is there.
It's not impossible, it's either impractical or Adobe is unwilling. But it's far from impossible since all the source code is out there in plain view. It's also silly to say "we can't make it work with all so we give up" - well, they could but that would just support the Adobe only cares about Windows argument.
There is nothing from stopping Adobe from picking at least one distribution - say a really popular variant of Ubuntu - and making Flash work in a stellar manner there. Then they can do the open source thing and say "here is what you need to look at to make it work on other platforms". But they can't even bother to do that.
That's why their talk about multi-platform support really ring hollow. They have a demonstrated history of being full of it.
That's a really big difference, because it becomes a political choice* on Mozilla's part, not a cost budgeting issue for making a H.264 viewer native to the FF browser.
*Emphasis Mine.
Are you sure you are allowed to inject fact into an AI thread?
Excellent post and stated more succinctly than I would have been able to.
Besides that WebM shows to be as effective as h.264.
It's not been proven to be un-encombered by patents. What's to say that as it gets more popular that it won't be challenged?
At least with h.264 you know where you stand.
Quote:
It doesn't matter what the h.264 royalty holders do or don't do. It's a closed standard, one that cannot be adopted by the number two browser in the world (larger than safari, chrome, and opera COMBINED) because it's closed source, even if it was "free" which it's not. It's something that requires licensing, royalty payments, etc, which will be a huge barrier to entry for the "open" web.
MS is still the 800lb gorilla with IE, and if they support h.264 (and they are) then the whole market share issue is moot. Critical mass will be maintained.
Quote:
And those royalty holders WILL ream everyone. Because incase you missed it, they're some of the biggest voices against Flash, WebM, etc. So that when they bring out the hazing paddle, they'll be the only games in town. It's a bait and switch. Get everyone on board with the promise of a "universal codec" and then jack up the rates when those companies burn all other bridges.
And it if they are stupid enough to do so, it will have no more an impact than when Unisys pulled the GIF patent crap.
Been there, got the t-shirt, the world moved on.
Much ado about nothing. Which is precisely why the royalty holders won't do anything as stupid as what you are advocating.
Quote:
It's the same reason retail prices on cellphones are so insane.
Really? Why are they "insane"?
There's obviously the cost of parts, and that's where sites like iSupply generally stop but what about other costs:
Design?
Software?
Manufacturing tool-up?
Support?
Marketing?
and all the other overhead involved in product design? Only the blissfully ignorant or disingenuous casually throw out unfounded statements like this.
Go look at cell phones from 10 years ago, and compare them to what we are getting now for the equivalent dollars - it's no comparison. If you think smart phones are insane, then get a dumb feature phone that will still have more functionality than cell phones from 10 years ago - and they will be under $50. Heck, you can get disposable phones these days for well under $50!
Quote:
You really think MPEG-LA won't do the same thing once they have the chance?
Yes, because if you are smart you never give people a real reason to hate you and actively want to ditch your platform. If people no longer use it, you aren't gong to gather licensing for it - pretty simple, really. Make the terms of the deal bad enough and people will seek a better deal elsewhere. MPEG-LA has so far demonstrated that they aren't that stupid.
No need for conspiracy theories or whacky what-if scenarios that will never happen...
And again, why would Adobe waste time developing a plugin for jailbroken devices? It makes no sense.
To prove they are truly serious about being cross platform above all else?
I mean, this is the real reason, right? Isn't this about Apple preventing the benevolent Adobe from being all things to all platforms?
Quote:
Apple is the only company who said outright that they won't support flash. Blackberry, WebOS (at least before HP buyout), Android, Symbian, and Winmo are all working with Adobe to bring the plugin to their platform. So yes, people have every right to call Apple out on this.
Why need to "call them out"? If it's such a big deal, Apple will loose sale and the market will correct itself - right?
Or are all the pro-flash people (who probably have vested interests in the platform) really concerned that Apple is right, people won't care and flash will slip further into obscurity?
I suspect more the later than former.
Quote:
One was offered. WebM. Apple is pretty much (again) the only company that hasn't stated they'll support it.
Microsoft isn't directly supporting it, only indirectly:
And if it takes off, there is nothing holding Apple from supporting it as it's primary selling point is supposedly it's openness
And I wouldn't make the assumption that the author of that article makes in giving Google credit for doing research about patent encumbrances. All you have to do is look at the whole Google Books fiasco to see just how well Google takes legal subtext into account when doing things
Quote:
Apple has a VESTED interest in seeing h.264 succeed.
Sure they do. Probably the biggest reason is it's still better than webm. They have other reasons as well, but it's a safe assumption that performance and functionality are the primary motivator.
Gordon is a javascript library that allows SWF files created with Flash ( or any other program that can export to SWF ) to run in Safari on iPhone. [...] The only limitation is that it can only read SWF version 1.
The "only limitation"?!? Then it's not flash.
It's a sub set of flash, or an older version of flash, but it's not flash.
Quote:
For most developers the absence of Actionscript is a deal breaker hence people are still talking about the desire, or lack there of, to include, or exclude, the real Flash plugin for iOS.
How about this - people are still looking for flash because gordon.js isn't flash? It's an older subset, but it's still not todays flash.
Sheesh - I'm almost descending into "surfing all the Internet" territory here. Look, you can split the head of a pin all you want - if it was "flash" then why are people looking for (your words) "the real Flash plugin"?
It's a sub set of flash, or an older version of flash, but it's not flash.
How about this - people are still looking for flash because gordon.js isn't flash? It's an older subset, but it's still not todays flash.
Sheesh - I'm almost descending into "surfing all the Internet" territory here. Look, you can split the head of a pin all you want - if it was "flash" then why are people looking for (your words) "the real Flash plugin"?
Again I am wondering why is it really this hard?
I guess it is just a different perspective. Flash = ? In my opinion, the only important part of Flash is the content, the creative programming, the output that is displayed to the user. What allows it to display is irrelevant. I can run an SWF file in other applications as well. Does that mean that it is no longer Flash?
I designed something in the Flash development studio and exported it as a SWF and played it in a browser. To me that is Flash on an iPhone. If you contend that since the Flash plugin did not play the SWF file, by definition it was not Flash, that is simply your interpretation, but I don't think you can logically deny that Flash created an SWF file that plays on an iPhone.
Gordon is a javascript library that allows SWF files created with Flash ( or any other program that can export to SWF ) to run in Safari on iPhone. Although there is no Flash plugin, the Flash files do indeed run exactly as they would on any other device that has a Flash plugin installed. The only limitation is that it can only read SWF version 1. For most developers the absence of Actionscript is a deal breaker hence people are still talking about the desire, or lack there of, to include, or exclude, the real Flash plugin for iOS.
That was the very first thing I tried since I didn't want to reformat all of my Flash files at no charge to my clients. I was PAINFULLY slow just rendering a very simple vector graphic, I didn't even try something more elaborate.
It was then that I decided to change over to javascript, I only have so many hours to learn new stuff and Flash has never been my favorite scripting platform to begin with.
Right, mozilla should drop GPL so they can become more "open." Read why they have an issue with h.264.
Have you read the terms of h.264 licensing? How if you view a video that you bought/rented/streamed that was produced by someone without the right license, you've voided YOUR license, and you're subject to being fined/sued by MPEG-LA as well. Do you really think something that insanely constricted has any place in an "open web?" You'd be replacing one format you hate (flash) with a codec that is nearly as bad. It's still one group controlling content on the web. And no, it wouldn't be solved "if everyone adopted it" because everyone adopted flash, that didn't change that it was still one group (and if you want to talk about ideological blinders read Steve Jobs' thoughts on flash)
WebM wasn't put out there just for Mozilla. Watch the announcement again (or maybe for the first time).
You can't bash flash and praise h.264 at the same time. The same concepts that make flash "have no part" in the future of the web apply to h.264.
If any of the H.264 originators, including Apple, can be believed, WebM is in patent trouble. Just those statements are probably enough to keep MS and Apple from implementing it. Google will put it in Chrome, let Mozilla put it in FF and then pull the plug on the Google $5mil+ a year to Mozilla to develop FF to let Mozilla twist in the legal winds without a White Knight to bail out their legal biills. All so they can promote Chrome as the only relevant "Open" browser. Just wait... WebM is a perfectly developed indirect-fire Trojan Horse.
And again, why would Adobe waste time developing a plugin for jailbroken devices? It makes no sense.
Flash will run on any, I repeat, ANY phone running 2.2. This is over 50% of the android market once the updates go through. Flash is NOT tied to specific phones, it's tied to OS releases. The Droid, Droid Incredible, Droid x, LG ally, Evo, N1, My touch, my touch slide, all galaxy s phones, etc will ALL be able to run froyo. That's including phones with sub 600mhz processors.
Apple is the only company who said outright that they won't support flash. Blackberry, WebOS (at least before HP buyout), Android, Symbian, and Winmo are all working with Adobe to bring the plugin to their platform. So yes, people have every right to call Apple out on this.
One was offered. WebM. Apple is pretty much (again) the only company that hasn't stated they'll support it.
Apple has a VESTED interest in seeing h.264 succeed.
yup, it's coming, and very soon. It's already being rolled out on more phones OTA as we speak, Nokia has had flash on it for a long time now, so the nokia platform is a no brainer.
I think nokia has a lot of phones out there I'm not sure.
the win7 phones will support flash there's no doubt as it will support silverlight.
That was the very first thing I tried since I didn't want to reformat all of my Flash files at no charge to my clients. I was PAINFULLY slow just rendering a very simple vector graphic, I didn't even try something more elaborate.
You would have to completely redesign all of your Flash anyway since nobody programs in Flash to target version 1. That said, I did not see any speed issues on the files that I specifically designed for v1. It was very snappy. You just couldn't get any Actionscript going which kills it for advertising purposes.
Quote:
It was then that I decided to change over to javascript, I only have so many hours to learn new stuff and Flash has never been my favorite scripting platform to begin with.
Well you will certainly have your hands full trying to code in JS, Canvas and SVG to a level where it could be a replacement for Flash. The learning curve is REALLY, REALLY steep. In addition there are still no website deployments available for HTML5/JS in the mainstream advertising media distribution channels.
Adobe won't attempt (no would it be possible to) develop a mobile safari Flash plug-in without total consent and support from Apple. If you don't agree with that, fine... but I think you'd be wrong.
Then what's their excuse for not having a version that runs on Blackberry or Symbian or PalmOS? Or a version that runs on Android phones running less than 800 MHz (like all the earlier iPhones that they insisted Apple should put Flash on?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno
And again, why would Adobe waste time developing a plugin for jailbroken devices? It makes no sense.
I love the way people talk out of both sides of their mouth. They claim that a large percentage of iPhones are jailbroken, but when it comes to justification for Flash, they say there aren't many.
But have it your way. Forget iPhones. There are more Blackberry phones than iPhones out there. Why doesn't Flash run on Blackberry? I suppose in your crazy "let's hate Apple for any irrational reason our minds can dream up" world, that's Apple's fault.
Why doesn't Flash run on Symbian? PalmOS? Or any of the other choices? Is that Apple's fault, too?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno
Flash will run on any, I repeat, ANY phone running 2.2. This is over 50% of the android market once the updates go through.
ONCE THE UPDATES GO THROUGH. That's probably about 1% of Android phones TODAY. And about 0.1% of all phones.
My daughter has a Motorola Backflip. Brand new and it shipped with Android 1.5 or 1.6 (I forget which). They said that eventually, it would be possible to upgrade to 2.1, but there's still no sign of an upgrade. They're not even talking about 2.2. Only a tiny percentage of Android phones are using Froyo.
Face it, for all intents and purposes, Flash doesn't exist on mobile devices. ANY mobile devices (with that one minor exception). How is that Apple's fault?
Then what's their excuse for not having a version that runs on Blackberry or Symbian or PalmOS? Or a version that runs on Android phones running less than 800 MHz (like all the earlier iPhones that they insisted Apple should put Flash on?
I love the way people talk out of both sides of their mouth. They claim that a large percentage of iPhones are jailbroken, but when it comes to justification for Flash, they say there aren't many.
But have it your way. Forget iPhones. There are more Blackberry phones than iPhones out there. Why doesn't Flash run on Blackberry? I suppose in your crazy "let's hate Apple for any irrational reason our minds can dream up" world, that's Apple's fault.
Why doesn't Flash run on Symbian? PalmOS? Or any of the other choices? Is that Apple's fault, too?
ONCE THE UPDATES GO THROUGH. That's probably about 1% of Android phones TODAY. And about 0.1% of all phones.
My daughter has a Motorola Backflip. Brand new and it shipped with Android 1.5 or 1.6 (I forget which). They said that eventually, it would be possible to upgrade to 2.1, but there's still no sign of an upgrade. They're not even talking about 2.2. Only a tiny percentage of Android phones are using Froyo.
Face it, for all intents and purposes, Flash doesn't exist on mobile devices. ANY mobile devices (with that one minor exception). How is that Apple's fault?
You've been told multiple times, by multiple people, that the new plugin just out in public beta very recently. You've also been told that froyo is the first one to have it included publicly, and even that, was in beta, and is being rolled out on a limited basis. Recently more ohones have now been added to get the OTA updates. Nokia ohones have had flash for a long time already, so it's a no brainer that they'll all have the new flash on it. We all know if M$ finally gets it's win7 phones out, it will indeed, have flash on it. And I know RIM will have it. It's widely known the rollout will be spread out over this year, so, I'm not sure of the need to look smart and continually keep screaming about what, we don't know.
No one knows for 100%sure how this will play out though a small clique seem to think their crystal balls are astounding.
Just save it and let someone who actually knows something about it or can say something somewhat balanced without the nonsense shrieking reiterating the same... damn... thing, over and over.
Go find some tall mountain somewhere and scream you hate flash and flash will die til yer hoarse, at east like, a thousand miles from here thanks.
You've been told multiple times, by multiple people, that the new plugin just out in public beta very recently. You've also been told that froyo is the first one to have it included publicly, and even that, was in beta, and is being rolled out on a limited basis. Recently more ohones have now been added to get the OTA updates. Nokia ohones have had flash for a long time already, so it's a no brainer that they'll all have the new flash on it. We all know if M$ finally gets it's win7 phones out, it will indeed, have flash on it. And I know RIM will have it. It's widely known the rollout will be spread out over this year, so, I'm not sure of the need to look smart and continually keep screaming about what, we don't know.
No one knows for 100%sure how this will play out though a small clique seem to think their crystal balls are astounding.
Just save it and let someone who actually knows something about it or can say something somewhat balanced without the nonsense shrieking reiterating the same... damn... thing, over and over.
Go find some tall mountain somewhere and scream you hate flash and flash will die til yer hoarse, at east like, a thousand miles from here thanks.
For someone who seems to be all up in arms and ready to lay down smack you seem to be startling ill-informed.
I don't know what version of "Flash" you think that Nokia phones have "had for a long time now" but here's a hint: Flash Lite is not the Flash we're talking about.
And what we in fact "all know" is that the initial release of Windows Mobile 7 phones will not have Flash, because both Adobe and MS have said so.
Android and Adobe have managed to put together a beta of some software that requires the latest, highly specced phones to even run and by all accounts does grim things to battery life and browsing speed. Where are all these phones that are getting OTA Froyo updates and merrily running real Flash even as we speak? Maybe when we have some actual phones to consider we can make some judgements about how useful this version of Flash actually is.
Comments
One can dream.
Apple, in rejecting Flash-based anything from the iOS universe, are telling iDevice users that they know what you and I want better than we ourselves do. Which is why, I suspect, the Feds haven't just ignored Adobe's complaint.
Care to wager on just how little comes of this "investigation"?
And how is Apple pulling a fast one here? They aren't exactly hiding the lack of flash, and all the overhyped fussing by people such as yourself hasn't exactly made it a stealth issue either.
And yet Apple still sells millions upon millions of iOS devices. So perhaps Apple isn't so stupid, arbitrary or capricious at all?
I believe that the Apple stance isn't about security, or stability, or lazy programming, or outdated technology or any of the other herrings being dangled by SJ. It's much simpler than that. Apple simply won't let Adobe use the hardware-direct access that would provide the performance to make the Flash experience acceptable on the iOS platform.
First, Adobe would have to demonstrate that they could be trusted with that direct access - that they wouldn't bring down the whole device with their poor programming.
Second, Adobe would have to demonstrate they could deliver. So far Flash is a piece of crap on every other platform other than Windows - and it's not so hot overall on Windows either. And SJ has left the door open on multiple occasions. It's up to Adobe. I think Adobe was hoping they could whip up enough people like you that they could force Apple to accept their mediocre platform as it is. That's not working nor is it going to work. If they clean it up, Apple has said they are open.
And SJ is never going to allow his iOS's performance look anything but stellar. Control freak? You betcha.
Yup. That's why I'm an Apple user. Apple has minimum standards, a user focus and the ability to cut crap when it's going to negatively affect the user experience. What other company in this industry would be willing (or able) to do so?
At least there is one.
The ability to prioritize the user experience above all else is a good thing to most people. Again, I refer to the millions and millions of continued sales. If you don't like it, there are pleanty of alternative platforms. Have fun!
[quoteIf SJ was honest about his claims about Flash's inferiority, he'd have banned it from OS X long ago. [/quote]
Apples to oranges. It's much harder to ban something that has existed for years than exclude it from a new platform from the start. It's also not the philosophy of Mac OSX. Mac OSX and the iOS serve two different purposes.
Also, Apple doesn't have to -there are plenty of tools on Mac OSX for users to manage Flash and prevent it from killing our computing experience - tools that wouldn't be practical in the iOS environment.
But he hasn't. He's full of it.
Some one is full of it all right...
If Apple and SJ is so "full of it" why are you here exactly?
I don't think your analogy is accurate. It's more like Microsoft saying that only applications developed with Visual Studio are allowed to run on Windows
Microsoft can't because they are a convicted monopolist and operate under a consent decree that prevents this kind of behavior.
Sony saying only Sony brand SD cards can be used in Sony products
For years they basically did that by only offering memory stick. Memory stick never did take off and you can now finally get Sony products with interfaces other than memory stick. That didn't take government interference to happen, either
or GM saying you can only use GM brand windscreen wiper replacements.
GM could say that if you use non-GM wiper replacements and it damages the windshield or anything else in the wiper system we won't cover it. Then again, that's assuming GM offers some extra warranty with their brand wiper blades (pretty doubtful). So all you have done is pretty much describe the way warranties work today anyway
So far you have failed to draw any meaningful analogy between your examples and Apples situation. You got the closest with Microsoft, but they are already a convicted monopolist and Apple is no where near that so you might as well claim they are a little bit pregnant...
I'm actually interested to know if Adobe abused any of Apple's patents in the process of creating iOS compatible applications.
Meh - while it might be an interesting secondary topic, it's largely irrelevant to this thread.
Firefox users have had complete control over that for years.
Via a third party plug in
If Apple felt strongly about this maybe they could provide their users with the same flexibility in Safari that the rest of the world enjoys.
Huh? Why would Apple have to, when just like with the third party plug in on Firefox, there are third party plugins like http://clicktoflash.com/ that do the same thing?
Why is this Apple's problem? Why do people keep throwing up lame straw men comparing Mac OSX to iOS? They are different platforms, different philosophies. One is curated, the other is not. If you don't want a curated experience, don't use the iOS!
Pretty flipping simple and yet it sails completely over the heads of the haters. Why hate? Just move on and use something else! No one is forcing you to buy an iOS device.
Oh, and btw, I've seen that chart before. I wonder how all the Android fanboys rationalize that with their complaint that Apple gets 96% of online software sales? Must be a lot of android developers doing a lot of work for nothing.
Zing
Perhaps Apple isn't as full of crap with their quality and user experience focus as the techies are loath to admit?
Quality doesn't just sell, it's profitable.
I honestly think Apple couldn't care less about Android and Android's sales numbers. As long as they and their App store programmers continue to handily spank them in profit, who cares about sales numbers?
That's why Apple probably never considered notebooks a real threat, and instead probably was amused and even supportive of them. Talk about a resource-sucking barely break-even proposition - honestly, why would a sane company want to compete in that space? It's a no-win situation. Acer, HP, Asus - they aren't exactly lighting up the stock market with their massive profits from their millions of netbook sales. Neither is Microsoft from their Windows 7 essentials or whatever the low end version of Win 7 is - instead they have their OS running on sub-par hardware that causes people to further loathe the Microsoft experience. Microsoft's only fault was being suckered to compete in the netbook space in the first place.
Being able to say no - especially at the right time - is a very valuable skill. There is nothing wrong with saying no, if it's appropriate - even if it ticks off some potential customers. Not all customers are worth having. "The customer is always right" is a bunch of crap. "Valuable/Meaningful/Profitable customers are always right" is a much more accurate statement.
"will soon be" = "doesn't exist right now"
No less than flash on mobile OS's.
Originally Posted by mstone
Flash cannot run on iPhone - WRONG Flash 1 can using Gordon.js
If that's "flash" then why is there still a fuss about this?
(that was a rhetorical question - your statment is rediculous since the Gordon.js is hardly "flash" - hence we are all here still talking about it)
Your other comments are a matter of opinion which you are entitled to, however, the bit about Gordon.js is mistaken. Since you possibly are not understanding how it works let me offer an explanation.
Gordon is a javascript library that allows SWF files created with Flash ( or any other program that can export to SWF ) to run in Safari on iPhone. Although there is no Flash plugin, the Flash files do indeed run exactly as they would on any other device that has a Flash plugin installed. The only limitation is that it can only read SWF version 1. For most developers the absence of Actionscript is a deal breaker hence people are still talking about the desire, or lack there of, to include, or exclude, the real Flash plugin for iOS.
it means flash won't work well on Apple devices unless apple works with Adobe to develop the API hooks needed.
So says Adobe. Yet there are plenty of things like VLC that work just fine without secrete access via Apple.
This is why, by the way, it won't work that well with Linux. There are so many distributions of linux that it would be impossible to properly hook the plugin into each OS/Browser.
Huh? I thought by definition open source was, well, OPEN! All the source code is there.
It's not impossible, it's either impractical or Adobe is unwilling. But it's far from impossible since all the source code is out there in plain view. It's also silly to say "we can't make it work with all so we give up" - well, they could but that would just support the Adobe only cares about Windows argument.
There is nothing from stopping Adobe from picking at least one distribution - say a really popular variant of Ubuntu - and making Flash work in a stellar manner there. Then they can do the open source thing and say "here is what you need to look at to make it work on other platforms". But they can't even bother to do that.
That's why their talk about multi-platform support really ring hollow. They have a demonstrated history of being full of it.
That's a really big difference, because it becomes a political choice* on Mozilla's part, not a cost budgeting issue for making a H.264 viewer native to the FF browser.
*Emphasis Mine.
Are you sure you are allowed to inject fact into an AI thread?
Excellent post and stated more succinctly than I would have been able to.
Besides that WebM shows to be as effective as h.264.
It's not been proven to be un-encombered by patents. What's to say that as it gets more popular that it won't be challenged?
At least with h.264 you know where you stand.
It doesn't matter what the h.264 royalty holders do or don't do. It's a closed standard, one that cannot be adopted by the number two browser in the world (larger than safari, chrome, and opera COMBINED) because it's closed source, even if it was "free" which it's not. It's something that requires licensing, royalty payments, etc, which will be a huge barrier to entry for the "open" web.
MS is still the 800lb gorilla with IE, and if they support h.264 (and they are) then the whole market share issue is moot. Critical mass will be maintained.
And those royalty holders WILL ream everyone. Because incase you missed it, they're some of the biggest voices against Flash, WebM, etc. So that when they bring out the hazing paddle, they'll be the only games in town. It's a bait and switch. Get everyone on board with the promise of a "universal codec" and then jack up the rates when those companies burn all other bridges.
And it if they are stupid enough to do so, it will have no more an impact than when Unisys pulled the GIF patent crap.
Been there, got the t-shirt, the world moved on.
Much ado about nothing. Which is precisely why the royalty holders won't do anything as stupid as what you are advocating.
It's the same reason retail prices on cellphones are so insane.
Really? Why are they "insane"?
There's obviously the cost of parts, and that's where sites like iSupply generally stop but what about other costs:
Design?
Software?
Manufacturing tool-up?
Support?
Marketing?
and all the other overhead involved in product design? Only the blissfully ignorant or disingenuous casually throw out unfounded statements like this.
Go look at cell phones from 10 years ago, and compare them to what we are getting now for the equivalent dollars - it's no comparison. If you think smart phones are insane, then get a dumb feature phone that will still have more functionality than cell phones from 10 years ago - and they will be under $50. Heck, you can get disposable phones these days for well under $50!
You really think MPEG-LA won't do the same thing once they have the chance?
Yes, because if you are smart you never give people a real reason to hate you and actively want to ditch your platform. If people no longer use it, you aren't gong to gather licensing for it - pretty simple, really. Make the terms of the deal bad enough and people will seek a better deal elsewhere. MPEG-LA has so far demonstrated that they aren't that stupid.
No need for conspiracy theories or whacky what-if scenarios that will never happen...
And again, why would Adobe waste time developing a plugin for jailbroken devices? It makes no sense.
To prove they are truly serious about being cross platform above all else?
I mean, this is the real reason, right? Isn't this about Apple preventing the benevolent Adobe from being all things to all platforms?
Apple is the only company who said outright that they won't support flash. Blackberry, WebOS (at least before HP buyout), Android, Symbian, and Winmo are all working with Adobe to bring the plugin to their platform. So yes, people have every right to call Apple out on this.
Why need to "call them out"? If it's such a big deal, Apple will loose sale and the market will correct itself - right?
Or are all the pro-flash people (who probably have vested interests in the platform) really concerned that Apple is right, people won't care and flash will slip further into obscurity?
I suspect more the later than former.
One was offered. WebM. Apple is pretty much (again) the only company that hasn't stated they'll support it.
Microsoft isn't directly supporting it, only indirectly:
http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2010...-with-webm.ars
And if it takes off, there is nothing holding Apple from supporting it as it's primary selling point is supposedly it's openness
And I wouldn't make the assumption that the author of that article makes in giving Google credit for doing research about patent encumbrances. All you have to do is look at the whole Google Books fiasco to see just how well Google takes legal subtext into account when doing things
Apple has a VESTED interest in seeing h.264 succeed.
Sure they do. Probably the biggest reason is it's still better than webm. They have other reasons as well, but it's a safe assumption that performance and functionality are the primary motivator.
Gordon is a javascript library that allows SWF files created with Flash ( or any other program that can export to SWF ) to run in Safari on iPhone. [...] The only limitation is that it can only read SWF version 1.
The "only limitation"?!? Then it's not flash.
It's a sub set of flash, or an older version of flash, but it's not flash.
For most developers the absence of Actionscript is a deal breaker hence people are still talking about the desire, or lack there of, to include, or exclude, the real Flash plugin for iOS.
How about this - people are still looking for flash because gordon.js isn't flash? It's an older subset, but it's still not todays flash.
Sheesh - I'm almost descending into "surfing all the Internet" territory here. Look, you can split the head of a pin all you want - if it was "flash" then why are people looking for (your words) "the real Flash plugin"?
Again I am wondering why is it really this hard?
The "only limitation"?!? Then it's not flash.
It's a sub set of flash, or an older version of flash, but it's not flash.
How about this - people are still looking for flash because gordon.js isn't flash? It's an older subset, but it's still not todays flash.
Sheesh - I'm almost descending into "surfing all the Internet" territory here. Look, you can split the head of a pin all you want - if it was "flash" then why are people looking for (your words) "the real Flash plugin"?
Again I am wondering why is it really this hard?
I guess it is just a different perspective. Flash = ? In my opinion, the only important part of Flash is the content, the creative programming, the output that is displayed to the user. What allows it to display is irrelevant. I can run an SWF file in other applications as well. Does that mean that it is no longer Flash?
I designed something in the Flash development studio and exported it as a SWF and played it in a browser. To me that is Flash on an iPhone. If you contend that since the Flash plugin did not play the SWF file, by definition it was not Flash, that is simply your interpretation, but I don't think you can logically deny that Flash created an SWF file that plays on an iPhone.
Gordon is a javascript library that allows SWF files created with Flash ( or any other program that can export to SWF ) to run in Safari on iPhone. Although there is no Flash plugin, the Flash files do indeed run exactly as they would on any other device that has a Flash plugin installed. The only limitation is that it can only read SWF version 1. For most developers the absence of Actionscript is a deal breaker hence people are still talking about the desire, or lack there of, to include, or exclude, the real Flash plugin for iOS.
That was the very first thing I tried since I didn't want to reformat all of my Flash files at no charge to my clients. I was PAINFULLY slow just rendering a very simple vector graphic, I didn't even try something more elaborate.
It was then that I decided to change over to javascript, I only have so many hours to learn new stuff and Flash has never been my favorite scripting platform to begin with.
Right, mozilla should drop GPL so they can become more "open." Read why they have an issue with h.264.
Have you read the terms of h.264 licensing? How if you view a video that you bought/rented/streamed that was produced by someone without the right license, you've voided YOUR license, and you're subject to being fined/sued by MPEG-LA as well. Do you really think something that insanely constricted has any place in an "open web?" You'd be replacing one format you hate (flash) with a codec that is nearly as bad. It's still one group controlling content on the web. And no, it wouldn't be solved "if everyone adopted it" because everyone adopted flash, that didn't change that it was still one group (and if you want to talk about ideological blinders read Steve Jobs' thoughts on flash)
WebM wasn't put out there just for Mozilla. Watch the announcement again (or maybe for the first time).
You can't bash flash and praise h.264 at the same time. The same concepts that make flash "have no part" in the future of the web apply to h.264.
If any of the H.264 originators, including Apple, can be believed, WebM is in patent trouble. Just those statements are probably enough to keep MS and Apple from implementing it. Google will put it in Chrome, let Mozilla put it in FF and then pull the plug on the Google $5mil+ a year to Mozilla to develop FF to let Mozilla twist in the legal winds without a White Knight to bail out their legal biills. All so they can promote Chrome as the only relevant "Open" browser. Just wait... WebM is a perfectly developed indirect-fire Trojan Horse.
And again, why would Adobe waste time developing a plugin for jailbroken devices? It makes no sense.
Flash will run on any, I repeat, ANY phone running 2.2. This is over 50% of the android market once the updates go through. Flash is NOT tied to specific phones, it's tied to OS releases. The Droid, Droid Incredible, Droid x, LG ally, Evo, N1, My touch, my touch slide, all galaxy s phones, etc will ALL be able to run froyo. That's including phones with sub 600mhz processors.
Apple is the only company who said outright that they won't support flash. Blackberry, WebOS (at least before HP buyout), Android, Symbian, and Winmo are all working with Adobe to bring the plugin to their platform. So yes, people have every right to call Apple out on this.
One was offered. WebM. Apple is pretty much (again) the only company that hasn't stated they'll support it.
Apple has a VESTED interest in seeing h.264 succeed.
yup, it's coming, and very soon. It's already being rolled out on more phones OTA as we speak, Nokia has had flash on it for a long time now, so the nokia platform is a no brainer.
I think nokia has a lot of phones out there I'm not sure.
the win7 phones will support flash there's no doubt as it will support silverlight.
That was the very first thing I tried since I didn't want to reformat all of my Flash files at no charge to my clients. I was PAINFULLY slow just rendering a very simple vector graphic, I didn't even try something more elaborate.
You would have to completely redesign all of your Flash anyway since nobody programs in Flash to target version 1. That said, I did not see any speed issues on the files that I specifically designed for v1. It was very snappy. You just couldn't get any Actionscript going which kills it for advertising purposes.
It was then that I decided to change over to javascript, I only have so many hours to learn new stuff and Flash has never been my favorite scripting platform to begin with.
Well you will certainly have your hands full trying to code in JS, Canvas and SVG to a level where it could be a replacement for Flash. The learning curve is REALLY, REALLY steep. In addition there are still no website deployments available for HTML5/JS in the mainstream advertising media distribution channels.
Adobe won't attempt (no would it be possible to) develop a mobile safari Flash plug-in without total consent and support from Apple. If you don't agree with that, fine... but I think you'd be wrong.
Then what's their excuse for not having a version that runs on Blackberry or Symbian or PalmOS? Or a version that runs on Android phones running less than 800 MHz (like all the earlier iPhones that they insisted Apple should put Flash on?
And again, why would Adobe waste time developing a plugin for jailbroken devices? It makes no sense.
I love the way people talk out of both sides of their mouth. They claim that a large percentage of iPhones are jailbroken, but when it comes to justification for Flash, they say there aren't many.
But have it your way. Forget iPhones. There are more Blackberry phones than iPhones out there. Why doesn't Flash run on Blackberry? I suppose in your crazy "let's hate Apple for any irrational reason our minds can dream up" world, that's Apple's fault.
Why doesn't Flash run on Symbian? PalmOS? Or any of the other choices? Is that Apple's fault, too?
Flash will run on any, I repeat, ANY phone running 2.2. This is over 50% of the android market once the updates go through.
ONCE THE UPDATES GO THROUGH. That's probably about 1% of Android phones TODAY. And about 0.1% of all phones.
My daughter has a Motorola Backflip. Brand new and it shipped with Android 1.5 or 1.6 (I forget which). They said that eventually, it would be possible to upgrade to 2.1, but there's still no sign of an upgrade. They're not even talking about 2.2. Only a tiny percentage of Android phones are using Froyo.
Face it, for all intents and purposes, Flash doesn't exist on mobile devices. ANY mobile devices (with that one minor exception). How is that Apple's fault?
Then what's their excuse for not having a version that runs on Blackberry or Symbian or PalmOS? Or a version that runs on Android phones running less than 800 MHz (like all the earlier iPhones that they insisted Apple should put Flash on?
I love the way people talk out of both sides of their mouth. They claim that a large percentage of iPhones are jailbroken, but when it comes to justification for Flash, they say there aren't many.
But have it your way. Forget iPhones. There are more Blackberry phones than iPhones out there. Why doesn't Flash run on Blackberry? I suppose in your crazy "let's hate Apple for any irrational reason our minds can dream up" world, that's Apple's fault.
Why doesn't Flash run on Symbian? PalmOS? Or any of the other choices? Is that Apple's fault, too?
ONCE THE UPDATES GO THROUGH. That's probably about 1% of Android phones TODAY. And about 0.1% of all phones.
My daughter has a Motorola Backflip. Brand new and it shipped with Android 1.5 or 1.6 (I forget which). They said that eventually, it would be possible to upgrade to 2.1, but there's still no sign of an upgrade. They're not even talking about 2.2. Only a tiny percentage of Android phones are using Froyo.
Face it, for all intents and purposes, Flash doesn't exist on mobile devices. ANY mobile devices (with that one minor exception). How is that Apple's fault?
You've been told multiple times, by multiple people, that the new plugin just out in public beta very recently. You've also been told that froyo is the first one to have it included publicly, and even that, was in beta, and is being rolled out on a limited basis. Recently more ohones have now been added to get the OTA updates. Nokia ohones have had flash for a long time already, so it's a no brainer that they'll all have the new flash on it. We all know if M$ finally gets it's win7 phones out, it will indeed, have flash on it. And I know RIM will have it. It's widely known the rollout will be spread out over this year, so, I'm not sure of the need to look smart and continually keep screaming about what, we don't know.
No one knows for 100%sure how this will play out though a small clique seem to think their crystal balls are astounding.
Just save it and let someone who actually knows something about it or can say something somewhat balanced without the nonsense shrieking reiterating the same... damn... thing, over and over.
Go find some tall mountain somewhere and scream you hate flash and flash will die til yer hoarse, at east like, a thousand miles from here thanks.
You've been told multiple times, by multiple people, that the new plugin just out in public beta very recently. You've also been told that froyo is the first one to have it included publicly, and even that, was in beta, and is being rolled out on a limited basis. Recently more ohones have now been added to get the OTA updates. Nokia ohones have had flash for a long time already, so it's a no brainer that they'll all have the new flash on it. We all know if M$ finally gets it's win7 phones out, it will indeed, have flash on it. And I know RIM will have it. It's widely known the rollout will be spread out over this year, so, I'm not sure of the need to look smart and continually keep screaming about what, we don't know.
No one knows for 100%sure how this will play out though a small clique seem to think their crystal balls are astounding.
Just save it and let someone who actually knows something about it or can say something somewhat balanced without the nonsense shrieking reiterating the same... damn... thing, over and over.
Go find some tall mountain somewhere and scream you hate flash and flash will die til yer hoarse, at east like, a thousand miles from here thanks.
For someone who seems to be all up in arms and ready to lay down smack you seem to be startling ill-informed.
I don't know what version of "Flash" you think that Nokia phones have "had for a long time now" but here's a hint: Flash Lite is not the Flash we're talking about.
And what we in fact "all know" is that the initial release of Windows Mobile 7 phones will not have Flash, because both Adobe and MS have said so.
Android and Adobe have managed to put together a beta of some software that requires the latest, highly specced phones to even run and by all accounts does grim things to battery life and browsing speed. Where are all these phones that are getting OTA Froyo updates and merrily running real Flash even as we speak? Maybe when we have some actual phones to consider we can make some judgements about how useful this version of Flash actually is.