I've been hearing this nonsense for decades. If you think there is a 1-1 correspondence between the API set of iOS - from posix C, to core foundation, to foundation, to the app kit - and a scripting language well there is a bridge in Broklyn for sale - yours for a dollar.
Indeed the iPhone 5S is way ahead of the first iPhone - so where are the web apps which work at the same level as native apps.
It's sad that whoever built those applications to run on IE6 never thought to revisit those applications ever again.
What kind of support is that? Build it once then walk away?
I mean... they spent a lot of time, effort and money to build those applications in the first place. What were their future plans?
There was a time when there were NO web apps at all. Then suddenly there were TONS of web apps for IE6.
But they seem to have gotten stuck on IE6. I don't understand why.
The amount of software that never sees the light of day is amazing. The orphaned software is just as common. For all these questions, follow the money. In commercial software, not a line of code will be written without dollars behind it. Some is written speculatively, and when it doesn't bear fruit, it's dropped.
The amount of software that never sees the light of day is amazing. The orphaned software is just as common. For all these questions, follow the money. In commercial software, not a line of code will be written without dollars behind it. Some is written speculatively, and when it doesn't bear fruit, it's dropped.
Ah... that explains it.
My original question was... why was the software was written in the first place? You've shown that the answer was money. That makes perfect sense.
It just baffles me that they never thought they could make more money from updates or a new version.
It's also unfortunate that the companies who adopted this software are now stuck with using horribly outdated IE6 software. Yikes.
On a side note... what was it about that period of time that all this software was written? Apparently there was money flowing in software development back then... but never again?
My original question was... why was the software was written in the first place? You've shown that the answer was money. That makes perfect sense.
It just baffles me that they never thought they could make more money from updates or a new version.
It's also unfortunate that the companies who adopted this software are now stuck with using horribly outdated IE6 software. Yikes.
On a side note... what was it about that period of time that all this software was written? Apparently there was money flowing in software development back then... but never again?
I'm not really sure, as I wasn't paying that much attention at the time. In 2001, when IE6 was released, I had returned to console game development and wasn't following much of what was going on in the commercial and home computing world. The DotCom bubble had burst at that point, and there were a lot of companies folding, so maybe it was a lot of speculative software written for the release of IE6, then many of the companies that funded it started failing.
Given the shenanigans we saw with Chromecasts activating as tablets I have my own theory. Google has a hoard of Chromebooks it can't sell on it's floating barge "showrooms" that it has running continuously on the net to generate traffic. Now these "showrooms" and the Chromebooks on them will eventually become part of an artificial reef but in the meantime is generating a ton of hype for these worthless devices.
Explains the timeframe (ie not an education buying season even though this is supposedly in education), why no one has ever seen any of these Chromebooks, and how Google will dispose of all these unsold units (proclaiming a green initiative/writeoff)!!!!!
Truth is sacrificed early when your every dime comes from selling advertising.
Given the shenanigans we saw with Chromecasts activating as tablets.
It wasn't Chromecasts but I understand what you're trying to get at. Because it wasn't Chromecasts tho the comparison kinda misses. With Microsoft now targeting Chromebooks in it's Scroogled ads it does support the idea that they're seeing some success, at least enough to worry MS.
As I recall it was chromecasts but whatever it was I stand by my theory.
You're incorrect but I see why you're getting the info mixed up. It was USB dongles that were loaded with Android and activated as tablets but used as TV sticks, usually with bootleg movies preloaded.
Chromecast is mostly Android but I'm not sure it gets counted with Google's activation numbers. Regardless, the number of Chromecasts that are sold is a mere drop in the bucket to the number of Android OSes that are DLed, installed, and then activated.
To reiterate, Chromecast is a physical product from Google. I don't think it's available worldwide and I don't think you can download the code for it. It has an HDMI connector and a plug for the DC power source to run the system. It's small and with one primary plug, which is not unlike a USB flash drive, but it's very different and clearly not what part of the original story I linked to below.
BTW, if Google was going to artificially inflate numbers for Chromebooks it would make more sense to create and destroy them as VM's instead of building specific HW for each one this way they not only get activation numbers but usage numbers, which really don't exist. Plus, these numbers from NPD appear to come from what they've seen, not from anything inside of Google, if I'm not mistaken. NPD's methodology can be called into question but I haven't seen anything to suggest they are being duplicitous or in cahoots with Google on these results.
Why? I find it much more convenient to moderate forums, answer posts, reply to email and do general web research on a Chromebook compared to a tablet. Yeah there's obviously more apps available for both Android and iOS but most downloaded apps are used once and never again anyway so they were't all that needed to begin with. I still use a tablet on a regular basis and it's certainly more transportable. But for uses that require extensive typing the Chromebook (or a MacBook or a Mac Air) fills the need better IMO.
So why do you think a tablet would be a better value for a similar price?
"most downloaded apps are used once and never again anyway"... what?
"So why do you think a tablet would be a better value for a similar price?" well, apart from the example you gave about writing a lot on the web, I'd say the tablet form factor makes it more interesting in pretty much everything else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterrockets
Doesn't the NAS have a built-in web server? If it's a drive on a Windows machine, then a local Apache web server would be quick to set up. Not ideal, but it would enable writing files to the shared folder.
Setting an Apache, and a DNS to access it? Seems a lot of work when other computers simply show the drive on the desktop.
"So why do you think a tablet would be a better value for a similar price?" well, apart from the example you gave about writing a lot on the web, I'd say the tablet form factor makes it more interesting in pretty much everything else.
Cost me all of $30 to get an iPad case with a built in Bluetooth keyboard.
Do I need to go find other areas where Google earns revenue outside of ads?
You're right, waterrockets. Not every dime Google makes is from ads.
But Google is an ad company... no doubt about it. They make most of their money from ads.
How does Google make money? No less an authority than the company's CEO posed the question, hopefully rhetorically, in a recent letter to shareholders.
Or as the company's annual report succinctly puts it, "We generate revenue primarily by delivering relevant, cost-effective online advertising."
...In a word, AdWords. In some respects Google is essentially the world's largest bus shelter, deriving 96% of its revenues from ads.
One of the things that makes Google search especially valuable is that it’s completely free. So, how does Google make money and continue to drive constant innovation? We give advertisers the opportunity to place clearly-marked ads alongside our search results. We strive to help people find ads that are relevant and useful, just like our results.
It's not "my" desktop apps, and I'm not claiming the Chromebook as a PC or MacBook replacement. I'm just clarifying some misconceptions about what's going on. My point was that if you want to look at pages of application icons, you can do that in Chrome. If you install a game in Chrome, you will see its icon at the link I provided, and you can click on it to start your game session. That's core desktop functionality. Finder? CTRL-F and go.
I think you failed to understand the importance of the desktop paradigm used on every desktop OS ever since the original MacOS, there is no equivalent on ChromeOS, no matter what you said. Pointing a launcher apps is no where near addressing my point. The most basic core functionalities of every desktop operating system (originally Disk Operating System) are copy, move, rename and delete files from the disk.
Well, in me, you now know someone who's shared credit card info with Google. Did you know that if I buy a movie on Google Play, that I can watch it on an iPad? Yet, if I buy one on iTunes, I can't watch it on a Nexus 10. iOS <-> consumer relationship is more like a dictatorship. I have several friends who are ready to branch out to other products, but are tied to their iTunes dollars.
Good for you, has for movies dictatorship you know this was coming from the MPAA, it is not a choice made by Apple. Ok ill gives you a point, Google offers an HTML5 streams from a web browser of their movies, but you will never can retain a local copy and being able to watch your movie offline. iTunes in another hand let you download a local copy of every purchase and let you watch your movies offline. So iTunes in nor better or worst than any other online movie store out there, they all play with the same rules imposed by the MPAA. For my self, I still prefer rip my own blurays and keeps non-DRM version playable on every online and offline devices.
Java may have been overhyped on the cross-platform compatibility front, but it's not going away. It's the foundation of all Android apps, and I'll stand up latest hardware to software performance on that platform vs. Objective C on iOS. There is performance parity, and Java does fine. Shortcuts for lazy developers? All developers should be lazy -- don't write it if someone else has written it. Use other people's code and improve your own. Granted, any Objective C programmer can't be too lazy, so you're partially correct.
Mmm you don't seams to understand well how it work, first of all there is 2 runtimes API on Android. Most benchmark apps and high end games use the native API. Dalvik apps in another hand have been always more sluggish and more power hungry. Next time, before claiming anything foolish like performance parity between JVM and native apps, you should educate yourself on IDE. Beside you clearly show you have no understanding at all what is Objective-C.
No, Chrome apps target the Chrome API, so if other platforms don't support that API, then they won't work there. Do OS X apps work on other platforms? iOS? See the pattern? Yeah, MS and Google the bad guy when it comes to non-portable code. The problem is that these companies are trying to gain customers by improving the experience for people. Just because someone else's experience isn't available on your favored platform doesn't make the other guys evil.
This is exactly what promise Java, Flash, Silverlight and many many other cross-plateform runtime environment keeps telling us for a long time. I've seen my share of cross-platform JAVA ugliness like Gnutella, Azureus, Bittorrent, Bit Torrent, etc. I've seen a lot of web based apps, like Google Docs and iWorks, and nothing can be compared to a real native apps on any platform. Google only trying to create yet another apps market without having a competing desktop platform with OSX and Windows. If cross-platform VM was so great, we should have it on gaming console first, Triple-A Games Studio should make cross-platform Java and ChromesOS games for Xbox one and Playstation 4.
Now, tying everyone down to iOS for purchased media rights could be a different argument. I'll mention again that any media I purchase on Google Play can be consumed on any popular platform. I've bought the rights to consume the media, without constraint to a given platform.
Since you'll never own your media purchased on the Google Play movie store, You can't say you've bought all rights without constraint. Not having a local copy of your purchase and depend on live streaming thru a web service only sounds a pretty big constraint to me. If Google decides to pull the plug on this service like Microsoft done it before with their Playforsure things, you can kiss good bye to yours beloved untied to iOS movies.
But yeah, Google wants to show me relevant advertising, so they suck.
Yeah, Google views you and every "users" as their products, the advertisers are they're clients, Google have near zero obligation to you with their forever beta services.
I think you failed to understand the importance of the desktop paradigm used on every desktop OS ever since the original MacOS, there is no equivalent on ChromeOS, no matter what you said. Pointing a launcher apps is no where near addressing my point. The most basic core functionalities of every desktop operating system (originally Disk Operating System) are copy, move, rename and delete files from the disk.
Good for you, has for movies dictatorship you know this was coming from the MPAA, it is not a choice made by Apple. Ok ill gives you a point, Google offers an HTML5 streams from a web browser of their movies, but you will never can retain a local copy and being able to watch your movie offline. iTunes in another hand let you download a local copy of every purchase and let you watch your movies offline. So iTunes in nor better or worst than any other online movie store out there, they all play with the same rules imposed by the MPAA. For my self, I still prefer rip my own blurays and keeps non-DRM version playable on every online and offline devices.
Mmm you don't seams to understand well how it work, first of all there is 2 runtimes API on Android. Most benchmark apps and high end games use the native API. Dalvik apps in another hand have been always more sluggish and more power hungry. Next time, before claiming anything foolish like performance parity between JVM and native apps, you should educate yourself on IDE. Beside you clearly show you have no understanding at all what is Objective-C.
This is exactly what promise Java, Flash, Silverlight and many many other cross-plateform runtime environment keeps telling us for a long time. I've seen my share of cross-platform JAVA ugliness like Gnutella, Azureus, Bittorrent, Bit Torrent, etc. I've seen a lot of web based apps, like Google Docs and iWorks, and nothing can be compared to a real native apps on any platform. Google only trying to create yet another apps market without having a competing desktop platform with OSX and Windows. If cross-platform VM was so great, we should have it on gaming console first, Triple-A Games Studio should make cross-platform Java and ChromesOS games for Xbox one and Playstation 4.
Since you'll never own your media purchased on the Google Play movie store, You can't say you've bought all rights without constraint. Not having a local copy of your purchase and depend on live streaming thru a web service only sounds a pretty big constraint to me. If Google decides to pull the plug on this service like Microsoft done it before with their Playforsure things, you can kiss good bye to yours beloved untied to iOS movies.
Yeah, Google views you and every "users" as their products, the advertisers are they're clients, Google have near zero obligation to you with their forever beta services.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterrockets
That's fine, and common knowledge, but I'm not the one who was speaking in absolutes.
<sigh>
I've developed high performance Android apps to enterprise customers (augmented reality and custom mapping solutions with dynamically updated tiles). They were written in Java. You can go on about JIT vs VMs, but the point is that you can write Java code and have it perform well. One Game Developers Conference I attended, back in '97 had a keynote on Java in games. In a decade of game development (mostly console), I can tell you there is Java running there -- surely not in the core graphics and physics layer, but it's there.
You can download Play movies and watch them offline. But I'm the one who doesn't know what I'm talking about, right?
I've developed high performance Android apps to enterprise customers (augmented reality and custom mapping solutions with dynamically updated tiles). They were written in Java. You can go on about JIT vs VMs, but the point is that you can write Java code and have it perform well. One Game Developers Conference I attended, back in '97 had a keynote on Java in games. In a decade of game development (mostly console), I can tell you there is Java running there -- surely not in the core graphics and physics layer, but it's there.
You can download Play movies and watch them offline. But I'm the one who doesn't know what I'm talking about, right?
I've never purchase any media from Google Play, so I'll give you that I can't verify what I've claimed, but according to Google support the only way to watch a movie from a computer is thru a flash enabled web site. On Android and iOS device they have a special player that gives you the feature to download the movies, I can't say this is a more DRM free store than the iTunes store. My taught on DRM they screw the honest customer, so this is why I've never bought movie online and I still prefer having a physical and higher quality version on my beloved movies on disc, make me spend my money better.
Most problem with VMs are connection with resources outside of the VM, graphical and user interaction are negatively impacted most of the time. Most cross platform runtime can only hope about being as good as native apps, Its like saying because the amputated Oscar Pistorius can runs has fast as regulars sprint man, every one should go with artificial limbs. JVM and cross-platform IDE are developers crutches…
I've never purchase any media from Google Play, so I'll give you that I can't verify what I've claimed, but according to Google support the only way to watch a movie from a computer is thru a flash enabled web site. On Android and iOS device they have a special player that gives you the feature to download the movies, I can't say this is a more DRM free store than the iTunes store. My taught on DRM they screw the honest customer, so this is with I've never bought movie online and I still prefer having a physical and higher quality version on my beloved movies on disc, make me spend my money better.
Most problem with VMs are connection with resources outside of the VM, graphical and user interaction are negatively impacted most of the time. Most cross platform runtime can only hope about being as good as native apps, Its like saying because the amputated Oscar Pistorius can runs has fast as regulars sprint man, every one should go with artificial limbs. JVM and cross-platform IDE are developers crutches…
I agree wholeheartedly that DRM hurts the honest consumer. Nothing new there though.
Everything above pure assembler coding is a crutch. There's no arbitrary line anywhere. I've ported C, C++, Java, and C# all over the place. I'm language agnostic. One thing I've learned is that people like when you can develop stuff quickly. In college, one of my "customers" was my professor, and he was happy with a lunar lander game I produced in a week using C. Last week, my kids were happy that I could develop a lunar lander in Scratch in 20 minutes. Scratch is not fast, does not provide a great interface, but at least I can develop within my 8-year-old's attention span
I agree wholeheartedly that DRM hurts the honest consumer. Nothing new there though.
Everything above pure assembler coding is a crutch. There's no arbitrary line anywhere. I've ported C, C++, Java, and C# all over the place. I'm language agnostic. One thing I've learned is that people like when you can develop stuff quickly. In college, one of my "customers" was my professor, and he was happy with a lunar lander game I produced in a week using C. Last week, my kids were happy that I could develop a lunar lander in Scratch in 20 minutes. Scratch is not fast, does not provide a great interface, but at least I can develop within my 8-year-old's attention span
Thanks for the link, this is what I was referring to, It only offers offline playing on their proprietary Android or iOS apps, There is no way to keep the movie on a computer.
I agree with you, and forgive me if can be a little stubborn some time. From a developer stand point, I see how it make plenty of sense to choose the fastest route to get the jobs done. I'm not a professional programmer, I've done plenty of things in basic, logo, Pascal and C, and I do acknowledge own painful it is to maintain code of big software like Photoshop on multiple platform. But from the users side, they will be better serve by a native apps carefully crafted and designed for the platform it target than having a one app served all approach.
Comments
I've been hearing this nonsense for decades. If you think there is a 1-1 correspondence between the API set of iOS - from posix C, to core foundation, to foundation, to the app kit - and a scripting language well there is a bridge in Broklyn for sale - yours for a dollar.
Indeed the iPhone 5S is way ahead of the first iPhone - so where are the web apps which work at the same level as native apps.
Well, they are possible... this one works on iOS and Android: http://www.htmlcompass.com/
More developers will need to start exercising these interfaces, and they'll become more common.
I hear this story all the time. You're not alone.
It's sad that whoever built those applications to run on IE6 never thought to revisit those applications ever again.
What kind of support is that? Build it once then walk away?
I mean... they spent a lot of time, effort and money to build those applications in the first place. What were their future plans?
There was a time when there were NO web apps at all. Then suddenly there were TONS of web apps for IE6.
But they seem to have gotten stuck on IE6. I don't understand why.
I hear this story all the time. You're not alone.
It's sad that whoever built those applications to run on IE6 never thought to revisit those applications ever again.
What kind of support is that? Build it once then walk away?
I mean... they spent a lot of time, effort and money to build those applications in the first place. What were their future plans?
There was a time when there were NO web apps at all. Then suddenly there were TONS of web apps for IE6.
But they seem to have gotten stuck on IE6. I don't understand why.
The amount of software that never sees the light of day is amazing. The orphaned software is just as common. For all these questions, follow the money. In commercial software, not a line of code will be written without dollars behind it. Some is written speculatively, and when it doesn't bear fruit, it's dropped.
Ah... that explains it.
My original question was... why was the software was written in the first place? You've shown that the answer was money. That makes perfect sense.
It just baffles me that they never thought they could make more money from updates or a new version.
It's also unfortunate that the companies who adopted this software are now stuck with using horribly outdated IE6 software. Yikes.
On a side note... what was it about that period of time that all this software was written? Apparently there was money flowing in software development back then... but never again?
Ah... that explains it.
My original question was... why was the software was written in the first place? You've shown that the answer was money. That makes perfect sense.
It just baffles me that they never thought they could make more money from updates or a new version.
It's also unfortunate that the companies who adopted this software are now stuck with using horribly outdated IE6 software. Yikes.
On a side note... what was it about that period of time that all this software was written? Apparently there was money flowing in software development back then... but never again?
I'm not really sure, as I wasn't paying that much attention at the time. In 2001, when IE6 was released, I had returned to console game development and wasn't following much of what was going on in the commercial and home computing world. The DotCom bubble had burst at that point, and there were a lot of companies folding, so maybe it was a lot of speculative software written for the release of IE6, then many of the companies that funded it started failing.
Explains the timeframe (ie not an education buying season even though this is supposedly in education), why no one has ever seen any of these Chromebooks, and how Google will dispose of all these unsold units (proclaiming a green initiative/writeoff)!!!!!
Truth is sacrificed early when your every dime comes from selling advertising.
It wasn't Chromecasts but I understand what you're trying to get at. Because it wasn't Chromecasts tho the comparison kinda misses. With Microsoft now targeting Chromebooks in it's Scroogled ads it does support the idea that they're seeing some success, at least enough to worry MS.
You're incorrect but I see why you're getting the info mixed up. It was USB dongles that were loaded with Android and activated as tablets but used as TV sticks, usually with bootleg movies preloaded.
Chromecast is mostly Android but I'm not sure it gets counted with Google's activation numbers. Regardless, the number of Chromecasts that are sold is a mere drop in the bucket to the number of Android OSes that are DLed, installed, and then activated.
To reiterate, Chromecast is a physical product from Google. I don't think it's available worldwide and I don't think you can download the code for it. It has an HDMI connector and a plug for the DC power source to run the system. It's small and with one primary plug, which is not unlike a USB flash drive, but it's very different and clearly not what part of the original story I linked to below.
BTW, if Google was going to artificially inflate numbers for Chromebooks it would make more sense to create and destroy them as VM's instead of building specific HW for each one this way they not only get activation numbers but usage numbers, which really don't exist. Plus, these numbers from NPD appear to come from what they've seen, not from anything inside of Google, if I'm not mistaken. NPD's methodology can be called into question but I haven't seen anything to suggest they are being duplicitous or in cahoots with Google on these results.
Why? I find it much more convenient to moderate forums, answer posts, reply to email and do general web research on a Chromebook compared to a tablet. Yeah there's obviously more apps available for both Android and iOS but most downloaded apps are used once and never again anyway so they were't all that needed to begin with. I still use a tablet on a regular basis and it's certainly more transportable. But for uses that require extensive typing the Chromebook (or a MacBook or a Mac Air) fills the need better IMO.
So why do you think a tablet would be a better value for a similar price?
"most downloaded apps are used once and never again anyway"... what?
"So why do you think a tablet would be a better value for a similar price?" well, apart from the example you gave about writing a lot on the web, I'd say the tablet form factor makes it more interesting in pretty much everything else.
Doesn't the NAS have a built-in web server? If it's a drive on a Windows machine, then a local Apache web server would be quick to set up. Not ideal, but it would enable writing files to the shared folder.
Setting an Apache, and a DNS to access it? Seems a lot of work when other computers simply show the drive on the desktop.
"So why do you think a tablet would be a better value for a similar price?" well, apart from the example you gave about writing a lot on the web, I'd say the tablet form factor makes it more interesting in pretty much everything else.
Cost me all of $30 to get an iPad case with a built in Bluetooth keyboard.
Typing a lot on an iPad is no longer a big deal.
It's also sacrificed early when you don't have your facts straight. Many, many dimes, all possible to run on a completely private and disconnected network, such as used by the DoD in TS/SCI environments: http://www.google.com/enterprise/mapsearth/products/earthenterprise.html
Do I need to go find other areas where Google earns revenue outside of ads?
You're right, waterrockets. Not every dime Google makes is from ads.
But Google is an ad company... no doubt about it. They make most of their money from ads.
You're right, waterrockets. Not every dime Google makes is from ads.
But Google is an ad company... no doubt about it. They make most of their money from ads.
That's fine, and common knowledge, but I'm not the one who was speaking in absolutes.
It's not "my" desktop apps, and I'm not claiming the Chromebook as a PC or MacBook replacement. I'm just clarifying some misconceptions about what's going on. My point was that if you want to look at pages of application icons, you can do that in Chrome. If you install a game in Chrome, you will see its icon at the link I provided, and you can click on it to start your game session. That's core desktop functionality. Finder? CTRL-F and go.
I think you failed to understand the importance of the desktop paradigm used on every desktop OS ever since the original MacOS, there is no equivalent on ChromeOS, no matter what you said. Pointing a launcher apps is no where near addressing my point. The most basic core functionalities of every desktop operating system (originally Disk Operating System) are copy, move, rename and delete files from the disk.
Well, in me, you now know someone who's shared credit card info with Google. Did you know that if I buy a movie on Google Play, that I can watch it on an iPad? Yet, if I buy one on iTunes, I can't watch it on a Nexus 10. iOS <-> consumer relationship is more like a dictatorship. I have several friends who are ready to branch out to other products, but are tied to their iTunes dollars.
Good for you, has for movies dictatorship you know this was coming from the MPAA, it is not a choice made by Apple. Ok ill gives you a point, Google offers an HTML5 streams from a web browser of their movies, but you will never can retain a local copy and being able to watch your movie offline. iTunes in another hand let you download a local copy of every purchase and let you watch your movies offline. So iTunes in nor better or worst than any other online movie store out there, they all play with the same rules imposed by the MPAA. For my self, I still prefer rip my own blurays and keeps non-DRM version playable on every online and offline devices.
Java may have been overhyped on the cross-platform compatibility front, but it's not going away. It's the foundation of all Android apps, and I'll stand up latest hardware to software performance on that platform vs. Objective C on iOS. There is performance parity, and Java does fine. Shortcuts for lazy developers? All developers should be lazy -- don't write it if someone else has written it. Use other people's code and improve your own. Granted, any Objective C programmer can't be too lazy, so you're partially correct.
Mmm you don't seams to understand well how it work, first of all there is 2 runtimes API on Android. Most benchmark apps and high end games use the native API. Dalvik apps in another hand have been always more sluggish and more power hungry. Next time, before claiming anything foolish like performance parity between JVM and native apps, you should educate yourself on IDE. Beside you clearly show you have no understanding at all what is Objective-C.
No, Chrome apps target the Chrome API, so if other platforms don't support that API, then they won't work there. Do OS X apps work on other platforms? iOS? See the pattern? Yeah, MS and Google the bad guy when it comes to non-portable code. The problem is that these companies are trying to gain customers by improving the experience for people. Just because someone else's experience isn't available on your favored platform doesn't make the other guys evil.
This is exactly what promise Java, Flash, Silverlight and many many other cross-plateform runtime environment keeps telling us for a long time. I've seen my share of cross-platform JAVA ugliness like Gnutella, Azureus, Bittorrent, Bit Torrent, etc. I've seen a lot of web based apps, like Google Docs and iWorks, and nothing can be compared to a real native apps on any platform. Google only trying to create yet another apps market without having a competing desktop platform with OSX and Windows. If cross-platform VM was so great, we should have it on gaming console first, Triple-A Games Studio should make cross-platform Java and ChromesOS games for Xbox one and Playstation 4.
Now, tying everyone down to iOS for purchased media rights could be a different argument. I'll mention again that any media I purchase on Google Play can be consumed on any popular platform. I've bought the rights to consume the media, without constraint to a given platform.
Since you'll never own your media purchased on the Google Play movie store, You can't say you've bought all rights without constraint. Not having a local copy of your purchase and depend on live streaming thru a web service only sounds a pretty big constraint to me. If Google decides to pull the plug on this service like Microsoft done it before with their Playforsure things, you can kiss good bye to yours beloved untied to iOS movies.
But yeah, Google wants to show me relevant advertising, so they suck.
Yeah, Google views you and every "users" as their products, the advertisers are they're clients, Google have near zero obligation to you with their forever beta services.
I think you failed to understand the importance of the desktop paradigm used on every desktop OS ever since the original MacOS, there is no equivalent on ChromeOS, no matter what you said. Pointing a launcher apps is no where near addressing my point. The most basic core functionalities of every desktop operating system (originally Disk Operating System) are copy, move, rename and delete files from the disk.
Good for you, has for movies dictatorship you know this was coming from the MPAA, it is not a choice made by Apple. Ok ill gives you a point, Google offers an HTML5 streams from a web browser of their movies, but you will never can retain a local copy and being able to watch your movie offline. iTunes in another hand let you download a local copy of every purchase and let you watch your movies offline. So iTunes in nor better or worst than any other online movie store out there, they all play with the same rules imposed by the MPAA. For my self, I still prefer rip my own blurays and keeps non-DRM version playable on every online and offline devices.
Mmm you don't seams to understand well how it work, first of all there is 2 runtimes API on Android. Most benchmark apps and high end games use the native API. Dalvik apps in another hand have been always more sluggish and more power hungry. Next time, before claiming anything foolish like performance parity between JVM and native apps, you should educate yourself on IDE. Beside you clearly show you have no understanding at all what is Objective-C.
This is exactly what promise Java, Flash, Silverlight and many many other cross-plateform runtime environment keeps telling us for a long time. I've seen my share of cross-platform JAVA ugliness like Gnutella, Azureus, Bittorrent, Bit Torrent, etc. I've seen a lot of web based apps, like Google Docs and iWorks, and nothing can be compared to a real native apps on any platform. Google only trying to create yet another apps market without having a competing desktop platform with OSX and Windows. If cross-platform VM was so great, we should have it on gaming console first, Triple-A Games Studio should make cross-platform Java and ChromesOS games for Xbox one and Playstation 4.
Since you'll never own your media purchased on the Google Play movie store, You can't say you've bought all rights without constraint. Not having a local copy of your purchase and depend on live streaming thru a web service only sounds a pretty big constraint to me. If Google decides to pull the plug on this service like Microsoft done it before with their Playforsure things, you can kiss good bye to yours beloved untied to iOS movies.
Yeah, Google views you and every "users" as their products, the advertisers are they're clients, Google have near zero obligation to you with their forever beta services.
That's fine, and common knowledge, but I'm not the one who was speaking in absolutes.
<sigh>
I've developed high performance Android apps to enterprise customers (augmented reality and custom mapping solutions with dynamically updated tiles). They were written in Java. You can go on about JIT vs VMs, but the point is that you can write Java code and have it perform well. One Game Developers Conference I attended, back in '97 had a keynote on Java in games. In a decade of game development (mostly console), I can tell you there is Java running there -- surely not in the core graphics and physics layer, but it's there.
You can download Play movies and watch them offline. But I'm the one who doesn't know what I'm talking about, right?
<sigh>
I've developed high performance Android apps to enterprise customers (augmented reality and custom mapping solutions with dynamically updated tiles). They were written in Java. You can go on about JIT vs VMs, but the point is that you can write Java code and have it perform well. One Game Developers Conference I attended, back in '97 had a keynote on Java in games. In a decade of game development (mostly console), I can tell you there is Java running there -- surely not in the core graphics and physics layer, but it's there.
You can download Play movies and watch them offline. But I'm the one who doesn't know what I'm talking about, right?
I've never purchase any media from Google Play, so I'll give you that I can't verify what I've claimed, but according to Google support the only way to watch a movie from a computer is thru a flash enabled web site. On Android and iOS device they have a special player that gives you the feature to download the movies, I can't say this is a more DRM free store than the iTunes store. My taught on DRM they screw the honest customer, so this is why I've never bought movie online and I still prefer having a physical and higher quality version on my beloved movies on disc, make me spend my money better.
Most problem with VMs are connection with resources outside of the VM, graphical and user interaction are negatively impacted most of the time. Most cross platform runtime can only hope about being as good as native apps, Its like saying because the amputated Oscar Pistorius can runs has fast as regulars sprint man, every one should go with artificial limbs. JVM and cross-platform IDE are developers crutches…
I've never purchase any media from Google Play, so I'll give you that I can't verify what I've claimed, but according to Google support the only way to watch a movie from a computer is thru a flash enabled web site. On Android and iOS device they have a special player that gives you the feature to download the movies, I can't say this is a more DRM free store than the iTunes store. My taught on DRM they screw the honest customer, so this is with I've never bought movie online and I still prefer having a physical and higher quality version on my beloved movies on disc, make me spend my money better.
Most problem with VMs are connection with resources outside of the VM, graphical and user interaction are negatively impacted most of the time. Most cross platform runtime can only hope about being as good as native apps, Its like saying because the amputated Oscar Pistorius can runs has fast as regulars sprint man, every one should go with artificial limbs. JVM and cross-platform IDE are developers crutches…
Some help on Play and offline movies: https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/2851696?hl=en
I agree wholeheartedly that DRM hurts the honest consumer. Nothing new there though.
Everything above pure assembler coding is a crutch. There's no arbitrary line anywhere. I've ported C, C++, Java, and C# all over the place. I'm language agnostic. One thing I've learned is that people like when you can develop stuff quickly. In college, one of my "customers" was my professor, and he was happy with a lunar lander game I produced in a week using C. Last week, my kids were happy that I could develop a lunar lander in Scratch in 20 minutes. Scratch is not fast, does not provide a great interface, but at least I can develop within my 8-year-old's attention span
Some help on Play and offline movies: https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/2851696?hl=en
I agree wholeheartedly that DRM hurts the honest consumer. Nothing new there though.
Everything above pure assembler coding is a crutch. There's no arbitrary line anywhere. I've ported C, C++, Java, and C# all over the place. I'm language agnostic. One thing I've learned is that people like when you can develop stuff quickly. In college, one of my "customers" was my professor, and he was happy with a lunar lander game I produced in a week using C. Last week, my kids were happy that I could develop a lunar lander in Scratch in 20 minutes. Scratch is not fast, does not provide a great interface, but at least I can develop within my 8-year-old's attention span
Thanks for the link, this is what I was referring to, It only offers offline playing on their proprietary Android or iOS apps, There is no way to keep the movie on a computer.
I agree with you, and forgive me if can be a little stubborn some time. From a developer stand point, I see how it make plenty of sense to choose the fastest route to get the jobs done. I'm not a professional programmer, I've done plenty of things in basic, logo, Pascal and C, and I do acknowledge own painful it is to maintain code of big software like Photoshop on multiple platform. But from the users side, they will be better serve by a native apps carefully crafted and designed for the platform it target than having a one app served all approach.