Android gives you choice in supporting both. More open than anything Apple will ever do.
Android give the vendor (and carrier) the choice of supporting both, not the user. As we?ve seen, the vendor (and carrier) can (and have) locked down, hobbled, crippled, and added crapware to Android devices in very inconsistence ways ?than anything Apple will ever do." This doesn?t mean all will go this route, but the ?open? nature of Android can be locked down before it ever gets to the user?s hand which can (and has) made Android a very unfriendly OS for many average users.
Quote:
Let's not forget who forced Apple to re allow 3rd party dev tools or Google Voice back in.
How exactly was Apple forced? Was there a court case I?m not aware of or are you assuming that because Apple changed it?s policies as the platform matured that it was forced? I guess that means Apple was forced to build the iPhone and forced to create an App Store, too.
Android give the vendor (and carrier) the choice of supporting both, not the user. As we?ve seen, the vendor (and carrier) can (and have) locked down, hobbled, crippled, and added crapware to Android devices in very inconsistence ways ?than anything Apple will ever do." This doesn?t mean all will go this route, but the ?open? nature of Android can be locked down before it ever gets to the user?s hand which can (and has) made Android a very unfriendly OS for many average users.
How exactly was Apple forced? Was there a court case I?m not aware of or are you assuming that because Apple changed it?s policies as the platform matured that it was forced? I guess that means Apple was forced to build the iPhone and forced to create an App Store, too.
That's better than forcing people to always stick with Att unless you jailbreak? Ok. And there are plenty of Android phones without added crap anyhow.
If Apple didn't relax those restrictions then the FTC would have sued them. It isn't the kindness of Apple's heart that 1 and a half years later Google Voice is re-allowed back in.
That's better than forcing people to always stick with Att unless you jailbreak? Ok. And there are plenty of Android phones without added crap anyhow.
So you are comparing an OS designed to be used by different vendors and has been picked up by vendors on the brink of death to one that is built by a vendor, and your complaining that the vendor who chooses to make their own OS for their own HW isn’t licensing or giving it away to other vendors? Really?!
Quote:
If Apple didn't relax those restrictions then the FTC would have sued them. It isn't the kindness of Apple's heart that 1 and a half years later Google Voice is re-allowed back in.
Yet you seem to be arguing that it’s the kindness of Google’s heart to have created an OS that is doesn’t give a shit about. Really?!
Google allows "choice" in areas that don't interfere with how they make their money. Allowing Flash has nothing to do with "openness", it's simply a feature bullet point that they can use for marketing. Google doesn't care if you're phone gets shitty battery life, that's not how they make their money
Which is why every Android handset does full Flash?
Yeah, and that battery life myth has been debunked by how HTLM5 does just as bad on iphones.
And while it's cute to point out not all Android phones support Flash 10.1, that isn't a problem with today's phones. The touchscreen argument vs. the mouse problem isn't an issue either.
So you are comparing an OS designed to be used by different vendors and has been picked up by vendors on the brink of death to one that is built by a vendor, and your complaining that the vendor who chooses to make their own OS for their own HW isn?t licensing or giving it away to other vendors? Really?!
Yes, really. Apple can't play that game in the EU where cell phones and plans are half sane.
Quote:
Yet you seem to be arguing that it?s the kindness of Google?s heart to have created an OS that is doesn?t give a shit about. Really?!
Where doesn't Google not give a shit about it? Strawman.
Yeah, and that battery life myth has been debunked by how HTLM5 does just as bad on iphones.
Prove it. Show me some links showing that video playback (that most common usage of Flash on the internet) is just as good or better with the Flash plug-in than native browser support using the HTML5 video tag.
I can play the video file from YouTube, one in Flash 10.1 and one in HTML5 and my Mac?s battery life is considerably higher when not using the Flash plugin. So why haven?t they ported this miracle code to desktop versions of Flash yet?
Quote:
And while it's cute to point out not all Android phones support Flash 10.1, that isn't a problem with today's phones. The touchscreen argument vs. the mouse problem isn't an issue either.
Now you?re arguing that because only a small percentage of Android phones support Flash 10.1 that there is no problem with today?s phones supporting Flash 10.1? Really?!
Prove it. Show me some links showing that video playback (that most common usage of Flash on the internet) is just as good or better with the Flash plug-in than native browser support using the HTML5 video tag.
I can play the video file from YouTube, one in Flash 10.1 and one in HTML5 and my Mac’s battery life is considerably higher when not using the Flash plugin. So why haven’t they ported this miracle code to desktop versions of Flash yet?
Your poor performance of Flash on OSX is due to Flash not having the same amount of acceleration that Safari does. Put both on equal footing as in Windows, its a moot point.
Correction to link, acceleration is added now for OSX.
And again, Flash is used in more than just video playback. Viewing videos on youtube with HTLM5 is much, much less feature rich than the Flash version.
Quote:
Now you’re arguing that because only a small percentage of Android phones support Flash 10.1 that there is no problem with today’s phones supporting Flash 10.1? Really?!
Who is this minority? Android took off with the original Moto Droid, and ever since then every one of those devices can use the latest version of 2.2 with Flash built in.
Hell, even the original G1 can use 2.2 if you want it to.
Arguments of CPU and such are becoming less and less relevant every day. This isn't 2007 anymore.
Jobs did say that Adobe should concentrate on creating HTML5 authoring tools instead of criticizing Apple. I doubt Flash will ever die but I think Adobe can recycle it as an HTML5 tool and stay alive.
This is true. But what incredible damage Adobe has done to its reputation with that ridiculous fight. That adobe CEO should be fired.
That's better than forcing people to always stick with Att unless you jailbreak?
The majority of iPhones are sold outside the US, so restriction to ATT is not an issue for most iPhone users. In quite a few countries, one can use an iPhone on several carriers.
Even if you "jailbreak" the iPhone, on which other network in the US will you use it? The only other national network in the US that it COULD be used on would be T-Mobile and it can't use T-Mobile's 3G, as that uses a different frequency than ATT's network. Thus, you'd be stuck with the much slower "EDGE" network. (You do know the difference between GSM--ATT, T-Mobile, much of the rest of the world--and CDMA--Verizon, Sprint, and some other networks outside the US, don't you? It's a bit like AM & FM radio.)
Comments
Android gives you choice in supporting both. More open than anything Apple will ever do.
Android give the vendor (and carrier) the choice of supporting both, not the user. As we?ve seen, the vendor (and carrier) can (and have) locked down, hobbled, crippled, and added crapware to Android devices in very inconsistence ways ?than anything Apple will ever do." This doesn?t mean all will go this route, but the ?open? nature of Android can be locked down before it ever gets to the user?s hand which can (and has) made Android a very unfriendly OS for many average users.
Let's not forget who forced Apple to re allow 3rd party dev tools or Google Voice back in.
How exactly was Apple forced? Was there a court case I?m not aware of or are you assuming that because Apple changed it?s policies as the platform matured that it was forced? I guess that means Apple was forced to build the iPhone and forced to create an App Store, too.
Android give the vendor (and carrier) the choice of supporting both, not the user. As we?ve seen, the vendor (and carrier) can (and have) locked down, hobbled, crippled, and added crapware to Android devices in very inconsistence ways ?than anything Apple will ever do." This doesn?t mean all will go this route, but the ?open? nature of Android can be locked down before it ever gets to the user?s hand which can (and has) made Android a very unfriendly OS for many average users.
How exactly was Apple forced? Was there a court case I?m not aware of or are you assuming that because Apple changed it?s policies as the platform matured that it was forced? I guess that means Apple was forced to build the iPhone and forced to create an App Store, too.
That's better than forcing people to always stick with Att unless you jailbreak? Ok. And there are plenty of Android phones without added crap anyhow.
If Apple didn't relax those restrictions then the FTC would have sued them. It isn't the kindness of Apple's heart that 1 and a half years later Google Voice is re-allowed back in.
That's better than forcing people to always stick with Att unless you jailbreak? Ok. And there are plenty of Android phones without added crap anyhow.
So you are comparing an OS designed to be used by different vendors and has been picked up by vendors on the brink of death to one that is built by a vendor, and your complaining that the vendor who chooses to make their own OS for their own HW isn’t licensing or giving it away to other vendors? Really?!
If Apple didn't relax those restrictions then the FTC would have sued them. It isn't the kindness of Apple's heart that 1 and a half years later Google Voice is re-allowed back in.
Yet you seem to be arguing that it’s the kindness of Google’s heart to have created an OS that is doesn’t give a shit about. Really?!
Google allows "choice" in areas that don't interfere with how they make their money. Allowing Flash has nothing to do with "openness", it's simply a feature bullet point that they can use for marketing. Google doesn't care if you're phone gets shitty battery life, that's not how they make their money
Which is why every Android handset does full Flash?
Yeah, and that battery life myth has been debunked by how HTLM5 does just as bad on iphones.
And while it's cute to point out not all Android phones support Flash 10.1, that isn't a problem with today's phones. The touchscreen argument vs. the mouse problem isn't an issue either.
So you are comparing an OS designed to be used by different vendors and has been picked up by vendors on the brink of death to one that is built by a vendor, and your complaining that the vendor who chooses to make their own OS for their own HW isn?t licensing or giving it away to other vendors? Really?!
Yes, really. Apple can't play that game in the EU where cell phones and plans are half sane.
Yet you seem to be arguing that it?s the kindness of Google?s heart to have created an OS that is doesn?t give a shit about. Really?!
Where doesn't Google not give a shit about it? Strawman.
Yeah, and that battery life myth has been debunked by how HTLM5 does just as bad on iphones.
Prove it. Show me some links showing that video playback (that most common usage of Flash on the internet) is just as good or better with the Flash plug-in than native browser support using the HTML5 video tag.
I can play the video file from YouTube, one in Flash 10.1 and one in HTML5 and my Mac?s battery life is considerably higher when not using the Flash plugin. So why haven?t they ported this miracle code to desktop versions of Flash yet?
And while it's cute to point out not all Android phones support Flash 10.1, that isn't a problem with today's phones. The touchscreen argument vs. the mouse problem isn't an issue either.
Now you?re arguing that because only a small percentage of Android phones support Flash 10.1 that there is no problem with today?s phones supporting Flash 10.1? Really?!
Prove it. Show me some links showing that video playback (that most common usage of Flash on the internet) is just as good or better with the Flash plug-in than native browser support using the HTML5 video tag.
I can play the video file from YouTube, one in Flash 10.1 and one in HTML5 and my Mac’s battery life is considerably higher when not using the Flash plugin. So why haven’t they ported this miracle code to desktop versions of Flash yet?
Your poor performance of Flash on OSX is due to Flash not having the same amount of acceleration that Safari does. Put both on equal footing as in Windows, its a moot point.
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives..._new_tests.php
Correction to link, acceleration is added now for OSX.
And again, Flash is used in more than just video playback. Viewing videos on youtube with HTLM5 is much, much less feature rich than the Flash version.
Now you’re arguing that because only a small percentage of Android phones support Flash 10.1 that there is no problem with today’s phones supporting Flash 10.1? Really?!
Who is this minority? Android took off with the original Moto Droid, and ever since then every one of those devices can use the latest version of 2.2 with Flash built in.
Hell, even the original G1 can use 2.2 if you want it to.
Arguments of CPU and such are becoming less and less relevant every day. This isn't 2007 anymore.
Android gives you choice in supporting both. More open than anything Apple will ever do.
Let's not forget who forced Apple to re allow 3rd party dev tools or Google Voice back in.
Face it: HTML5 doesn't fill the gap in what Flash can do, and it won't for awhile. There's more to flash than petty video playback.
What can Flash do that HTML5 can't?
What can Flash do that HTML5 can't?
This for starters.
http://apiblog.youtube.com/2010/06/f...html5-tag.html
Jobs did say that Adobe should concentrate on creating HTML5 authoring tools instead of criticizing Apple. I doubt Flash will ever die but I think Adobe can recycle it as an HTML5 tool and stay alive.
This is true. But what incredible damage Adobe has done to its reputation with that ridiculous fight. That adobe CEO should be fired.
That's better than forcing people to always stick with Att unless you jailbreak?
The majority of iPhones are sold outside the US, so restriction to ATT is not an issue for most iPhone users. In quite a few countries, one can use an iPhone on several carriers.
Even if you "jailbreak" the iPhone, on which other network in the US will you use it? The only other national network in the US that it COULD be used on would be T-Mobile and it can't use T-Mobile's 3G, as that uses a different frequency than ATT's network. Thus, you'd be stuck with the much slower "EDGE" network. (You do know the difference between GSM--ATT, T-Mobile, much of the rest of the world--and CDMA--Verizon, Sprint, and some other networks outside the US, don't you? It's a bit like AM & FM radio.)