Adobe, Apple working together on Flash for iPhone

1234568»

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 152
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I agree. I'm certainly not saying that Flash Ads are the most wonderful thing. mostly, I ignore the movement and flashes of colors etc.



    The only ones that really bother me are the very rare (I've only seen three so far) ones that actually move into the text space of the article itself, and stay for tens of seconds. THAT'S annoying! Otherwise, I don't find flashing, moving Ads annoying. Ignoring them is very easy. I don't understand why some people seem to have such problems with them. I can only assume that people with ADD have trouble keeping their eyes where they want them to be, and wander over to these Ads.



    I do keep the pop-up setting though. Opening an entire page is just wrong.



    But RobG is saying exactly what I'm saying. Web sites need income. It's one way or the other.



    The problem is that people seem to think that the digital world, because it's so easy to steal things there, should always be totally free. Free of fees, free of advertising to pay for it.



    Ain't gonna happen!



    As you and I have concurred before, the more one gets stuff for "free" the more they want for free. Fortunately, nothing is for free. And it is unfortunate that those that don't understand the concept want those that do, to pay it for them.
  • Reply 142 of 152
    pmjoepmjoe Posts: 565member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Most Flash Lite implementations actually depend on an app that runs entirely outside of the web browser and are often based on older versions of Flash that limit their performance and feature set; Jobs has argued for a "product in the middle" that does more.



    Said "product in the middle" would be incompatible with everything that's in Flash today. So, what's the point? Just use existing open web standards.



    Apple can put Flash in Safari on the iPhone if they want, but there'd better be a big "Flash OFF" button in the Safari preferences.
  • Reply 143 of 152
    pmjoepmjoe Posts: 565member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    This is ridiculous. I know, absolutely, 100%, that I will not purchase anything or subscribe to anything through an online ad. Therefore, the ad serves no purpose to me, except making my browsing experience less enjoyable.



    Likewise, me looking at ads on the internet has absolutely no benefit for the advertiser, nor for the site. Therefore, me not looking at ads on the internet has absolutely no negative effect.



    Some web sites receive payment for ad views (i.e. the number of times their ads are displayed), not your purchase or subscription through the ad. In other words, by blocking the ads (ad blockers usually work by not downloading content from known ad sites), you are depriving the web site of revenue.
  • Reply 144 of 152
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pmjoe View Post


    Some web sites receive payment for ad views (i.e. the number of times their ads are displayed), not your purchase or subscription through the ad. In other words, by blocking the ads (ad blockers usually work by not downloading content from known ad sites), you are depriving the web site of revenue.



    Flash blocking and ad blocking are two seperate things.



    I'm on an iPhone now, yet I can stiill see ads on this site.



    By relying solely on Flash a website would be alienating potential customers and reducing their revenue potential.
  • Reply 145 of 152
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    That's interesting. So what DO you use? You aren't saying that you are typing your posts on a Next, are you?



    Linux, OS X, NeXT, FreeBSD and soon OpenSolaris.
  • Reply 146 of 152
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,870member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    NeXT



    You still use NeXT? What for? On what system?
  • Reply 147 of 152
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    Linux, OS X, NeXT, FreeBSD and soon OpenSolaris.



    Pictures please!



    Hardware or software, preferably both.



  • Reply 148 of 152
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    Linux, OS X, NeXT, FreeBSD and soon OpenSolaris.



    I was thinking that, as you said that you were a Next guy, you might actually be using one. Do you have one that you use for the net? Is it really possible today? That is, is there a browser that is modern enough to function well enough?
  • Reply 149 of 152
    I really hope this is true.
  • Reply 150 of 152
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post




    I don't know about that. It's been gaining over time. One very small setback doesn't change that.



    Apache has always done well and will continue to do well.



    Quote:

    Of course they did. The reason why IE gained marketshare was because it went to a free model, when everyone else had tocharge. That's the old monopoly profits talking. Netscape charged from the very beginning. I paid $39.95 for it when it first came out, and even got a Netscape cap.



    No. NOBODY charged which is why the Netscape move was particularly stupid. NCSA Mosaic was always free and that was the standard price for browsers. MS simply went with the flow and Netscape decided to try to monetize what was always free. Netscape was free from day 1 until they started charging.



    "Netscape announced in its first press release (October 13, 1994) that it would make Navigator freely available to all non-commercial users, and Beta versions of version 1.0 and 1.1 were indeed freely downloadable in November 1994 and March 1995, with the full version 1.0 available in December 1994. Netscape's initial corporate policy regarding Navigator is interesting, as it claimed that it would make Navigator freely available for non-commercial use in accordance with the notion that Internet software should be distributed for free.[3]"



    From wikipedia which I hate to quote but is the easiest source at the moment. They typically don't get this kind of thing wrong anyway.



    IE appeared in 1994 and had zero traction until after a) it improved and b) netscape started charging for something that you could get for free from everyone else. Had Netscape kept to their original 1994 policy then IE3 never would have gotten the legs it had.



    Same for Windows NT. Had Sun released Solaris X86 for $250 or less when Windows NT was trying to get traction MS would have very limited server marketshare today.



    These guys did it to themselves.



    Quote:

    It was only after IE made little momentun against it that MS decided to give it away.



    IE never cost money other than originally it was part of the Plus! package. Most folks never got the Plus! package so it really wasn't available until it was a free download or simply part of the OS. It has never been a for pay download.



    Quote:

    As is well known in economic theory, a so so free product often can drive a good but paid product out of existence.



    This isn't the only time MS has done this.



    Mosaic and other Mosaic based browers had always been free.



    Quote:

    You also forget that MS lost the case against them over this.



    Yes, undeservedly in some cases. Yes, bundling gave them a competitive advantage but it still should not have affected the final outcome. Both Unix and Netscape was in the dominant position. It was their race to lose.



    Quote:

    You've gotten history backwards. Totally.



    Really? Then find something to prove me wrong. You cannot because if you look at the history you will see that Netscape started charging for its browser just as IE started not sucking.



    Quote:

    I didn't say you wrote it. You were hinting it though. It's just a fact.



    Yes, mischaracterization of what others write is a "fact".



    Quote:

    That's not a sly question. It's a pointless one. We're talking about a company that does have that power. What's the point in bringing up something that never existed? Do you want to write a book about alternative history?



    It's the same question folks ask when people say US dominance of the world is bad. Compared to whom? If you say that MS has been such an evil influence on the computing world then it should be easy to point to another company and say "They could have done far better for these reasons and they've proven they are more trustworthy".



    I can confidently say that the US, with all it's faults, is a better superpower than any other nation could be because I cannot point to another country that has done better or could likely do better.



    I can confidently say that MS, with all it's faults, was a better monopoly for computing than any other computing company because i cannot point to another company that did better or could likely do better.



    Not Apple, Not Novell, Not IBM, not Sun, not DEC, not Commodore, not Atari, etc.



    Quote:

    I already said, in response to this question, that I wouldn't want to see any company in that position. That should be a good answer. I even included Apple. That should have been a GREAT answer.



    Then you would have preferred the balkanization of the Unix market to the monopoly dominance of Windows? Show me another model where we get to the commoditization of computing without MS? Apple vs IBM would have resulted in PC prices staying at the $3K plus range for a very long time.



    Quote:

    That's one of the biggest jokes going around, MS innovating.



    MS Research is probably the closest we have left to a Bell Labs or Xerox PARC.



    Quote:

    That's not an answer to the previous point.



    Sure it is. IBM has changed Java. Apple has changed Java. MS has changed Java.



    Quote:

    MS didn't make anything cheap in the 80's. IBM made the OS cheap. MS followed along.



    it was Digital Research's royalty payments that made CP/M on the IBM more expensive than DOS.



    Quote:

    It wasn't MS that was responsible for that. MS didn't even come up with the idea of a computer OS. If They weren't lucky, and a bit underhanded, they wouldn't even of had the OS for IBM, as we all know. They would have been relegated to making the Basic program for IBM for which they were hired in the first place, and today, MS might not even be around.



    Underhanded in what way? They SENT IBM to Digital Research. When DR balked for whatever reason they paid for PC-DOS. Had DR not been such idiots then we'd have been running CP/M (at $200 more per computer) instead of PC-DOS.



    Quote:

    MS didn't even come up with the first word processing program. XYWrite, and Wordperfect were much earlier and far more popular until Windows came out. electric Pencil was one of the first easy to use word processors, and there were some very good ones for the Atari, Amiga, Commodore, etc., before Apple hired MS to write Word for them.



    Which has what to do with anything? Apple wasn't first with the GUI either.



    Quote:

    Yes, they are relevant for business. business and government still buys at least 50% of PC sold. But even for individuals, the Mac is a good buy. You can poll the people here.



    Except that most folks prefer to pay less for their computers. In the 80s-90s damn few folks could afford $3K for a PC.



    Quote:

    It could have been, but it might have been better. We just don't know! There's no way to know, and what matters is what did happen, and what we do know.



    You're making the assertion that MS has been bad for computing and yet we're in about as good a place as you can be so the onus is on you to show how it would have been so much better.



    Quote:

    BS yourself Vinea. Why even say that? You're talking about mainframe and mini computer manufacturers. not only did they all have their own flavor of Unix, but they all had their own processors, etc.



    The PC world is very different. Now, everyone uses the same chip families. There is a price mindset. Competition would drive software prices down, not up.



    A price mindset instilled by MS, not by IBM, not by Sun, not by DEC, etc. Yes the PC world IS different and I say it is because of the Wintel alliance which was very different mindset from the rest of the computing world.



    Quote:

    Advances were coming no matter what. And as I said, it's been considered that they slowed down with the advent of the PC (as opposed to the pc).



    Yes, and again, they have NEVER shown another reasonable path to where we are today.
  • Reply 151 of 152
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    He has far more influence than that. He personally stopped the 3.0 project, because he felt the 2.xxx was good enough.



    And he was right unless you're a freetard. GPL 2 is superior for business over GPL 3 because it makes no limitations on what you use something for. The FSF has it's own agenda and it is not business friendly even if it makes the occasional concession to Google.



    There was no "3.0 project". It was the adoption of the GPL 3 license that he stopped.



    Quote:

    He also has a major say in licensing, and personally approves much of what goes into the kernel, which is all Linux is, for those out there who still don't know that.



    Yes, he approves what goes in the kernel because he's the kernel maintainer and he's a damn good one. And no, Linux isn't just the kernel any more than OSX is just mach.



    Jobs has far more influence in what happens in OSX than Linus has in what Linux looks like. Heck, i'd say that Shuttleworth has more say in end product than Linus since he funds ubuntu.



    Stick to what you know.



    Quote:

    He also make off the cuff remarks that are criticised both within the Linux community, and without. Remarks that are, more often than not, ill thought out. Often those are derogatory when pointing to Apple, the Mac and OS X. That annoys me as well.



    He is criticized within the Linux community for being a pragmatist rather than a freetard. He's much more open source than FSF as a religion. So he gets criticized for the same reason that you get annoyed when he dares to say something about OSX.



    He gets a lot less flack than Theo. But you don't know who that is do you?



    Quote:

    There are some. but there are many open source projects just directed to OS X, though some of them filter out to Linux and even Windows later on.



    Other than Apple funded initiatives very few OS projects start in OS X and filter out. Arguable none of Apple's are native to OS X either. I can't think of any OS X native open source projects that have moved outwards so since there are "many" perhaps you can name more than one?



    Most, if not all, Windows based open source projects stay within Codeplex and on the .NET platform although I suppose many Java open source project are done on Windows. But those are more java platform than windows based so they really don't count.
  • Reply 152 of 152
    vandilvandil Posts: 187member
    I've had my 16GB iPhone 3G since August 2008 and I have yet to miss not being able to access Flash content when using Mobile Safari. Usually, if I am visiting a site using my iPhone, it's for quick information. Websites with fancy flash menus often have a flash-less version of the site, so I didn't even notice a difference in usability.



    When I want to watch flash videos and other flash-intensive stuff, I save that for when I am at a desktop browser.
Sign In or Register to comment.