To put it another way iOS tops Linux and Android combined in web presence....
So I don't buy your troll.
But doesn't windows top all Apple products put together? And even if you add every other contender in the entire world along with Apple, doesn't windows top that too?
Maybe some sites that want to attract mobile browsers specifically will spend money to switch.
But most sites can't justify huge expenses when things already work well for 95% of their customers.
5% of traffic doesn't mean only 5% of customers, and even if it does, 5% of customers doesn't mean 5% of purchases.
It's all depending on the customer the site is catering to, some may find it unnecessary, but some others may find it essential.
Then there's the "latest trend" factor you have to consider. Most serious business website will refresh their site periodically. If flash's future is somewhat in doubt, people will err on the side of caution by seriously consider the platform that's not in doubt, which is HTML5.
Hmm. Interesting that they don't count android devices as linux devices. Android is built on Linux. Gee. Doesn't that mean that it is a linux device? It's amazing how when you play with numbers you get it look in your favor. Apple sure loves to make people think that they are the greatest thing in the world. Sorry. I don't buy it.
FYI, most servers on the internet today are Linux servers.
Of course than you would also have to count iOS devices with OSX..
Oh really? Flash is obsolete? Hmm. Still see it all over the web. Oh wait, you don't notice it because you don't have it.
Flash is a medium to expand the capabilities of the browser beyond popping up video and photos and maybe a sound or too. HTML5 has it's place, and it's great, but there are things that it just won't do and some that it doesn't do effectively. If you did professional web development for a living, you'd know that there are somethings that flash does a better job on and others that are best left to Javascript/HTML. I do not create an entire website in flash. And I hate websites that are completely flash, but some elements on a website might have Flash. (Not advertisements, btw. I hate those just as much as everyone else).
Adobe is working on adding accelerated 3D capabilities to flash. HTML5/Javascript definitely won't do that effectively. Maybe in the future it could be expanded to add more functionality, but it may take another decade.
Sorry to say this, but Steve Jobs can't kill Flash just by saying he won't allow it on his devices. He doesn't have that much of the market. And many of the people that I know have chosen android over iOS because it promised Flash. Adobe delivered. It's still beta, but it's impressive even on a single core 650mhz phone.
Oh really? Flash is obsolete? Hmm. Still see it all over the web. Oh wait, you don't notice it because you don't have it.
Flash is a medium to expand the capabilities of the browser beyond popping up video and photos and maybe a sound or too. HTML5 has it's place, and it's great, but there are things that it just won't do and some that it doesn't do effectively. If you did professional web development for a living, you'd know that there are somethings that flash does a better job on and others that are best left to Javascript/HTML. I do not create an entire website in flash. And I hate websites that are completely flash, but some elements on a website might have Flash. (Not advertisements, btw. I hate those just as much as everyone else).
Adobe is working on adding accelerated 3D capabilities to flash. HTML5/Javascript definitely won't do that effectively. Maybe in the future it could be expanded to add more functionality, but it may take another decade.
Sorry to say this, but Steve Jobs can't kill Flash just by saying he won't allow it on his devices. He doesn't have that much of the market. And many of the people that I know have chosen android over iOS because it promised Flash. Adobe delivered. It's still beta, but it's impressive even on a single core 650mhz phone.
If you read my post carefully instead of jumping to conclusions, I never said Flash is already obsolete. I said it's going to get obsoleted when new development projects choose to avoid the risk by minimizing flash content, thus decreasing it's relevance.
Yes, I don't have flash on my smartphone, but that's not because I'm an iPhone user. I have an Android phone, the HTC Eris Droid. I haven't heard any plans to update it with 2.2 yet. So not having Flash is not an experience isolated to iOS users, it's shared by a good chunk of Android users too. Since nobody from Android camp had complained about lack of flash on Android when this spat first came out, I seriously doubt the validity of the claim that flash is an essential part of full internet experience. So in response to your first statement, if you don't have a newest Android phone with 2.2 on it, or one that's updated recently, YOU DIDN'T NOTICE IT EITHER.
I as a consumer prefer a seamless experience when consuming information on the web whenever I try to access it. Although only a small amount of my total consumption is on my iphone, I tend to want to view similar sites on my iphone as I do from my mac at home and on my windows pc at work. If a website is incompatible with my iphone and as a result I can not access it when mobile, I will find a competitor that is. Then when I go back to my mac or pc, I will access that competitor for consistency. In this way, flash's incompatibility with almost all (except android 2.2) mobile devices can have a much larger impact than on just the small mobile browsing market (2.6% according to netmarketshare).
Edit: Also according to netmarketshare (the website this discussion was originally based on) Android 2.2 makes up only 0.03% of web browsing, meaning the other 0.17% that make up other versions of Android are in the same boat as ios devices: without flash.
How will they kill Flash if so few people browse the web with Apple products?
If your post is serious, then you aren?t understand how technology works. For example, how did serial and parallel ports go away when Apple dropped them in favour of USB? Others followed suit because it was the became the only sensible choice. Right now you have only one version of one mobile OS that can play 10.1 and even that isn?t even available for all devices that run Android 2.2. To make matters worse, all modern mobile OSes do run modern, open webcode that can do many of the things that people have been using Flash for years on the desktop. Most notably video playback, which is much more efficient from the browser or from a dedicated app. This is a real issue for Adobe. It, in itself, won?t kill Flash, but it will chip away at Flash?s percentage of use for such services.
so apple's total share of 'web browsing platform' is a wopping 5.5%?
You say that like it's not impressive, it's actually quite good. That low number is one of the reasons why companies are competing so heavily in the mobile market, there is still a lot of room for growth.
Hmm. Interesting that they don't count android devices as linux devices. Android is built on Linux. Gee. Doesn't that mean that it is a linux device? It's amazing how when you play with numbers you get it look in your favor. Apple sure loves to make people think that they are the greatest thing in the world. Sorry. I don't buy it.
FYI, most servers on the internet today are Linux servers.
You probably mean UNIX server not Linux server, wich is like OS X or iOS a UNIX derivate.
And iOS is on platforms that don't require a data plan (iPod and iPad) whereas android thus far is strictly on phones. it doesn't look like android is even going to bother to compete with devices like the ipod, but wait until the android powered tablets hit the shelves and report back.
Comments
To put it another way iOS tops Linux and Android combined in web presence....
So I don't buy your troll.
But doesn't windows top all Apple products put together? And even if you add every other contender in the entire world along with Apple, doesn't windows top that too?
Does that really matter to you?
Maybe some sites that want to attract mobile browsers specifically will spend money to switch.
But most sites can't justify huge expenses when things already work well for 95% of their customers.
5% of traffic doesn't mean only 5% of customers, and even if it does, 5% of customers doesn't mean 5% of purchases.
It's all depending on the customer the site is catering to, some may find it unnecessary, but some others may find it essential.
Then there's the "latest trend" factor you have to consider. Most serious business website will refresh their site periodically. If flash's future is somewhat in doubt, people will err on the side of caution by seriously consider the platform that's not in doubt, which is HTML5.
Hmm. Interesting that they don't count android devices as linux devices. Android is built on Linux. Gee. Doesn't that mean that it is a linux device? It's amazing how when you play with numbers you get it look in your favor. Apple sure loves to make people think that they are the greatest thing in the world. Sorry. I don't buy it.
FYI, most servers on the internet today are Linux servers.
Of course than you would also have to count iOS devices with OSX..
Oh really? Flash is obsolete? Hmm. Still see it all over the web. Oh wait, you don't notice it because you don't have it.
Flash is a medium to expand the capabilities of the browser beyond popping up video and photos and maybe a sound or too. HTML5 has it's place, and it's great, but there are things that it just won't do and some that it doesn't do effectively. If you did professional web development for a living, you'd know that there are somethings that flash does a better job on and others that are best left to Javascript/HTML. I do not create an entire website in flash. And I hate websites that are completely flash, but some elements on a website might have Flash. (Not advertisements, btw. I hate those just as much as everyone else).
Adobe is working on adding accelerated 3D capabilities to flash. HTML5/Javascript definitely won't do that effectively. Maybe in the future it could be expanded to add more functionality, but it may take another decade.
Sorry to say this, but Steve Jobs can't kill Flash just by saying he won't allow it on his devices. He doesn't have that much of the market. And many of the people that I know have chosen android over iOS because it promised Flash. Adobe delivered. It's still beta, but it's impressive even on a single core 650mhz phone.
Hello Blackintosh.
And many of the people that I know have chosen android over iOS because it promised Flash.
Okay... so what are we talking here... an extra 2 or 3 people.
Yup... iOS is dead for sure.
Oh really? Flash is obsolete? Hmm. Still see it all over the web. Oh wait, you don't notice it because you don't have it.
Flash is a medium to expand the capabilities of the browser beyond popping up video and photos and maybe a sound or too. HTML5 has it's place, and it's great, but there are things that it just won't do and some that it doesn't do effectively. If you did professional web development for a living, you'd know that there are somethings that flash does a better job on and others that are best left to Javascript/HTML. I do not create an entire website in flash. And I hate websites that are completely flash, but some elements on a website might have Flash. (Not advertisements, btw. I hate those just as much as everyone else).
Adobe is working on adding accelerated 3D capabilities to flash. HTML5/Javascript definitely won't do that effectively. Maybe in the future it could be expanded to add more functionality, but it may take another decade.
Sorry to say this, but Steve Jobs can't kill Flash just by saying he won't allow it on his devices. He doesn't have that much of the market. And many of the people that I know have chosen android over iOS because it promised Flash. Adobe delivered. It's still beta, but it's impressive even on a single core 650mhz phone.
If you read my post carefully instead of jumping to conclusions, I never said Flash is already obsolete. I said it's going to get obsoleted when new development projects choose to avoid the risk by minimizing flash content, thus decreasing it's relevance.
Yes, I don't have flash on my smartphone, but that's not because I'm an iPhone user. I have an Android phone, the HTC Eris Droid. I haven't heard any plans to update it with 2.2 yet. So not having Flash is not an experience isolated to iOS users, it's shared by a good chunk of Android users too. Since nobody from Android camp had complained about lack of flash on Android when this spat first came out, I seriously doubt the validity of the claim that flash is an essential part of full internet experience. So in response to your first statement, if you don't have a newest Android phone with 2.2 on it, or one that's updated recently, YOU DIDN'T NOTICE IT EITHER.
Can we have any discussion that doesn't descend into the Flash debate?
Some one here have a signature about Cretin's law.. That works to the T when it comes to digressions on Flash.
How will they kill Flash if so few people browse the web with Apple products?
Who is John Galt?
Your assumptions stray far from the facts of the matter.
And you are so fun to ignore!
I as a consumer prefer a seamless experience when consuming information on the web whenever I try to access it. Although only a small amount of my total consumption is on my iphone, I tend to want to view similar sites on my iphone as I do from my mac at home and on my windows pc at work. If a website is incompatible with my iphone and as a result I can not access it when mobile, I will find a competitor that is. Then when I go back to my mac or pc, I will access that competitor for consistency. In this way, flash's incompatibility with almost all (except android 2.2) mobile devices can have a much larger impact than on just the small mobile browsing market (2.6% according to netmarketshare).
Edit: Also according to netmarketshare (the website this discussion was originally based on) Android 2.2 makes up only 0.03% of web browsing, meaning the other 0.17% that make up other versions of Android are in the same boat as ios devices: without flash.
How will they kill Flash if so few people browse the web with Apple products?
If your post is serious, then you aren?t understand how technology works. For example, how did serial and parallel ports go away when Apple dropped them in favour of USB? Others followed suit because it was the became the only sensible choice. Right now you have only one version of one mobile OS that can play 10.1 and even that isn?t even available for all devices that run Android 2.2. To make matters worse, all modern mobile OSes do run modern, open webcode that can do many of the things that people have been using Flash for years on the desktop. Most notably video playback, which is much more efficient from the browser or from a dedicated app. This is a real issue for Adobe. It, in itself, won?t kill Flash, but it will chip away at Flash?s percentage of use for such services.
And you are so fun to ignore!
It would seem as though you are not having much fun at the moment. But I hope you have more fun soon.
so apple's total share of 'web browsing platform' is a wopping 5.5%?
You say that like it's not impressive, it's actually quite good. That low number is one of the reasons why companies are competing so heavily in the mobile market, there is still a lot of room for growth.
Hmm. Interesting that they don't count android devices as linux devices. Android is built on Linux. Gee. Doesn't that mean that it is a linux device? It's amazing how when you play with numbers you get it look in your favor. Apple sure loves to make people think that they are the greatest thing in the world. Sorry. I don't buy it.
FYI, most servers on the internet today are Linux servers.
You probably mean UNIX server not Linux server, wich is like OS X or iOS a UNIX derivate.
You probably mean UNIX server not Linux server, wich is like OS X or iOS a UNIX derivate.
actually i mistated earlier. i should have said darwin/xnu (x is not unix) not 'mach'.
i think it is safe to say they are both unix-like and not unix.
actually i mistated earlier. i should have said darwin/xnu (x is not unix) not 'mach'.
i think it is safe to say they are both unix-like and not unix.
Apple has been SUS since 2007 with Leopard. I’m not sure if they carries to their ARM variants of the OS X/Darwin.
Apple has been SUS since 2007 with Leopard. I?m not sure if they carries to their ARM variants of the OS X/Darwin.
Software Update Service?
Software Update Service?
This is a conversation about UNIX and UNIX-like OSes, right?
This is a conversation about UNIX and UNIX-like OSes, right?
familiar with POSIX not with SUS.
So i guess they better change the name of XNU huh?
but i was thinking more underlying code base of os x vs unix.
so call os x unix and linux linux if you like!