I'm not sure who is following this chain of logic. I would not say I want flash to fail. I would like it to have some competition and an industry wide call for its use to be more disciplined.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I'm going by the logic of people here. They think that if Flash fails on the iPhone, it will fail everywhere else. Fail on the iPhone, fail on every other mobile device, then fail on laptops, then desktops.
Why? If you feel that way then I recommend you stop computing. There's a high likelihood that some site you like is running ASP or has some MS technology somewhere. Silverlight and WPFe are actually very cool technology and in many ways superior to Flash. Not only that, Moonlight is an open source implementation under Mono. Heck the DLR and Silverlight 2.0 controls have been released as MS-PL.
Silverlight 3 will even support H.264 video and AAC.
And frankly it was MS that enabled Ajax by adding XMLHttpRequest in 1999 to IE5. So you should stop using any ajax enabled site at all. No google maps, no Facebook, etc.
I for one want Silverlight to be successful because for too long Adobe/Macromedia has been a complete ass about the Flash monopoly. IMHO the only reason that SWF has become an open standard again and Adobe has made some stabs at opening up Flash is because of Silverlight.
All I'm saying it that MS tends to want much tighter control over things than does Adobe.
Do you really want everything on the web to be an MS technology?
Do you think that's a good idea?
Would you also like to see MS controlling search rather than Google?
I don't think its a good idea for one company to control the "airwaves" so to speak. It's much better when several companies, opposed to each other, do it.
Written like somebody working for a commercial website.
He's right nevertheless.
Do you work for free? Do you pay no rent? Is your food, clothing, entertainment (except for much on the web now) all for free?
Who is supposed to pay for the people working in AI? who pays for the writers? Who pays for th server bandwidth? The webmasters? What about the accountants? All the rest?
How about chipping in a few thousand?
I know we joke about this stuff, and I'm pretty sure you're joking as well, from what I see of the rest of your post, but this is pretty serious, and there are some others who don't understand it..
Quote:
Agreed. I never had a problem with any ads in newspapers or magazines. In fact, I enjoy a well-designed clipping-worthy ad with witty copy and/or a beautiful photograph.
Unfortunately, Flash is necessary for a growing number of websites. Just a few days ago, I read a column in an online newspaper decrying how virtually all restaurants are suckered by web developers into buying fancy Flash-only, animation-heavy websites. It's a great revenue stream for the developers, especially with the hefty annual maintenance fees, but it's a nightmare to keep updated and won't work on any mobile browsers to date.
Adobe?s Flash, used to view online video and animation, is installed on 98 percent of the world?s personal computers. While the software is on more than 800 million handsets, it isn?t available on the iPhone. Apple CEO Steve Jobs said last March that Flash runs too slowly for the iPhone, and a slimmed-down version, called Flash Lite, ?isn?t capable enough to be used with the Web.?
800 million handsets & 98% of desktop computers disagree with Steve Jobs.
Just because it runs lousy on a Mac doesn't make it bad technology. Maybe Apple should get off there Ass and make Safari a little more stable and get inline with the rest of the Browsers and OS's because Flash isn't going away anytime soon.
Since his post was in answer to mine, I'm assuming you're referring to me.
But it's certainly not true that I hate everything not Apple, and it's dubious logic on your part to say so.
Flash isn't an Apple technology, though you seem to think it is since I'm pleading its case, and you think I don't like anything thats not Apple. Very strange.
I'm just concerned that we don't allow one company to take over all the standards used on the web.
There's already enough problems with too many companies hewing to IE's proprietary "standards". So if we get more proprietary standards, I'd rather they came from others than MS. There must be a balance, if we can't get what we all want (I assume), which is a totally open standards net.
Flash is about as much a standard as is anything else, for good or ill. I'm certainty not against it, though others are.
Their are a lot of things that are annoying in life, so that's a diatribe that can go on forever.
Speaking specifically to flash. Yes I acknowledged that the abuse of flash isn't necessarily the fault of the technology itslef. But to the end user that is a distinction with little difference when you are being inundated with flash's annoyances.
I'm not sure who is following this chain of logic. I would not say I want flash to fail. I would like it to have some competition and an industry wide call for its use to be more disciplined.
It's the logic I'm seeing from several posters. The total train of thought doesn't have to be spelled out to see where it's going.
Since his post was in answer to mine, I'm assuming you're referring to me.
But it's certainly not true that I hate everything not Apple, and it's dubious logic on your part to say so.
Flash isn't an Apple technology, though you seem to think it is since I'm pleading its case, and you think I don't like anything thats not Apple. Very strange.
I'm just concerned that we don't allow one company to take over all the standards used on the web.
There's already enough problems with too many companies hewing to IE's proprietary "standards". So if we get more proprietary standards, I'd rather they came from others than MS. There must be a balance, if we can't get what we all want (I assume), which is a totally open standards net.
Flash is about as much a standard as is anything else, for good or ill. I'm certainty not against it, though others are.
And it?s sheer arrogance to think I was referring to you on my reply to Vinea?s well worded post.
It?s the 90% of the other postings in this forum that want Flash gone and have gone as far to call it ?evil?.
Although not unexpected to see in this room but purely wrong. I programming language, browser etc can?t be evil.
Adobe is and has lead the market on streaming video (and yes Flash ads) right now and since Jobs doesn?t like Adobe the sheep in this room spew nonsense that Flash isn?t used and nobody wants it.
I visit ESPN & CNN many times a day and the iPhone is useless on it and since it?s on 98% of all desktop computers I don?t seem to be alone.
I don?t have the Internet in my pocket if I can?t view Flash on ESPN & CNN, I have a website with a bunch of little blue squares.
And it’s sheer arrogance to think I was referring to you on my reply to Vinea’s well worded post.
It’s the 90% of the other postings in this forum that want Flash gone and have gone as far to call it “evil”.
Although not unexpected to see in this room but purely wrong. I programming language, browser etc can’t be evil.
Adobe is and has lead the market on streaming video (and yes Flash ads) right now and since Jobs doesn’t like Adobe the sheep in this room spew nonsense that Flash isn’t used and nobody wants it.
I visit ESPN & CNN many times a day and the iPhone is useless on it and since it’s on 98% of all desktop computers I don’t seem to be alone.
I don’t have the Internet in my pocket if I can’t view Flash on ESPN & CNN, I have a website with a bunch of little blue squares.
Arrogance? You clearly misunderstand the meaning of the word.
Generally, when one responds to a post, and that poster responded to was about something that the previous poster was speaking to, and you then say that some seen to only like something specific, then that first poster has every right to ASK if this was directed to him.
All you had to do was to say "no".
We do this all the time. You don't have to be a wiseguy about it.
The odd thing here is that you are too blinded by your clever use of the word arrogant, to address the rest of my response, which amusingly enough, is about the same as yours.
We actually seem to AGREE on this, though you don't seem to understand it.
Both ESPN and CNN have iPhone optimized sites that use no flash. The ESPN site has interactive graphics built from AJAX and streaming video.
I don't want a site that is optimized for the iPhone. I wan't what I'm used to on my desktop and I want all of the streaming video not just what they have optimized for phones that don't support a full browser.
That wasn't supposed to be the point of the iPhone, If I wanted a scaled down version of any site then any smart phone with a browser would work.
All I'm saying it that MS tends to want much tighter control over things than does Adobe.
Hardly. Adobe has shown itself capable of being as ham fisted as MS. So has Apple for that matter.
Quote:
Do you really want everything on the web to be an MS technology?
I'd rather Silverlight succeed than fail to keep Flash honest.
Quote:
Do you think that's a good idea?
MS has never really dominated the web. Even so, it has done far better than other corporate entities. Do you really think Netscape or even Google to be more altruistic than MS?
Quote:
Would you also like to see MS controlling search rather than Google?
What are the quantifiable benefits of Google dominance over MS dominance? In what way would MS search be different today than Google search to the general public? That Google is more efficient at managing and paying adwords is a given...but in what way does this benefit the consumer of web searches?
Quote:
I don't think its a good idea for one company to control the "airwaves" so to speak. It's much better when several companies, opposed to each other, do it.
Then you should be hoping that Silverlight can take significant share from Flash.
Personally, I've never minded Microsoft dominance because I came from the Unix world. Better that MS conquered the world than ANY of those guys or we'd be paying $5000 per app on $20,000 machines as the dominant business model.
Even Mac was never as consumer friendly as the Wintel platform. The UI was fantastically better but the costs have always been significantly higher. Sufficiently so that had Apple and not MS been dominant I would guess that widespread use of computers by the general public would have been pushed back by a decade.
Unreasoned hatred of MS is just as silly as unreasoned adoration of Apple.
Here's a test for you. Name another computer company anywhere in the world of that same period that would have been more trustworthy with monopoly power than Microsoft from the consumer perspective?
Not Univac, Sperry, DEC, Sun, or even Digital Research (CP/M) would have charged so little for their operating system on systems so inexpensive as IBM, MS and Intel did during those crucial years IMHO. $40 for an OS? Nor would IBM had been any better a custodian in the long haul.
Adobe is and has lead the market on streaming video (and yes Flash ads) right now and since Jobs doesn’t like Adobe the sheep in this room spew nonsense that Flash isn’t used and nobody wants it.
I think few on this site follow like "sheep", however many of us share the same ideals as Jobs, which will lead us to the same conclusions, which is often misconstrued by people such as yourself as "sheep" like behavior, or fanboyism.
I believe most people here are objective in comparison to other technology forums.
If we possessed "sheep" like personality traits we would be using windows.
Arrogance? You clearly misunderstand the meaning of the word.
Generally, when one responds to a post, and that poster responded to was about something that the previous poster was speaking to, and you then say that some seen to only like something specific, then that first poster has every right to ASK if this was directed to him.
All you had to do was to say "no".
We do this all the time. You don't have to be a wiseguy about it.
The odd thing here is that you are too blinded by your clever use of the word arrogant, to address the rest of my response, which amusingly enough, is about the same as yours.
We actually seem to AGREE on this, though you don't seem to understand it.
EDIT,
Read Vinea's posting that answered your question much better than I could have.
He also clearly doesn't agree worth you logic either.
Please insight us with an answers to his questions. He seems to have a better understanding of the situation than you and I and backs it up with logic.
It doesn't sound like you had your Gmail auto forwarded to your MM account. I had initially set up both on my iPhone, and the Push was working by day 4. It is quite good. In fact, my Mac checks Gmail every 60 seconds, yet I'll hear/feel my iPhone vibrate first so I'll know to check OS X Mail. Remember, that is first being firerded from Gmail to MM a d then Pushed to my iPhone. If all that beats Mail's 60 second interval check to Gmail then I'd say it is working great.
I have had no issues with MM SMsibce day 4, and I think Apple learned the hardway just how big it has gotten as we have since seen a lit more staggered product releases since that fiasco last summer.
No. I had Gmail forward my mail to MM. I am a graduate student and most of my email goes through my University account. I always had that forwarded to my Gmail account. When MM came out, I didn't want to have it forwarded to Gmail and then forwarded to MM. That was just too much forwarding. So, I just had it forwarded to MM. But, MM doesn't save all messages as Gmail does, so I ended up losing messages b/c I accidentally deleted them and had no way to retrieve them. That, I admit is my fault and not MM's. But, Gmail has the fabulous "Archive" feature and huge server space so I never lose messages. But, my major problem with MM was that they would just randomly lose messages. People would send me messages and I would never get them or I would get them 24-48 hours after they sent originally sent the message. That was just unacceptable. I switched my university account to forward to Gmail and the problem went away. Sorry, but Gmail is just a nicer email account and it's free.
There's already enough problems with too many companies hewing to IE's proprietary "standards". So if we get more proprietary standards, I'd rather they came from others than MS. There must be a balance, if we can't get what we all want (I assume), which is a totally open standards net.
I prefer de facto vs de jure standards, mostly because many de jure standards are designed by committee and have more than passing resemblances to camels as opposed to horses.
I prefer KML over GML...at least in the areas that KML addresses.
In that sense, I should prefer Flash to HTML5 but Flash has had such crappy implementations on non-Windows platforms that it might as well be a MS product. And Adobe is no less protective of its monopoly status (within its markets) than any other company.
I think you are being overly critical. Their are clear reasons for optimized sites. The iPhone has an entirely different UI convention than a desktop.
The page is laid out to fit the size of the screen. The page uses larger words that are easier to read, larger buttons that are easier to touch with a finger. The page uses less graphics so that it can load faster.
Standard web pages built for desktop interfaces are too large for the phone's screen, the words are too small to read, the buttons are too small to touch. So you end up shrinking and enlarging constantly to navigate the page.
The problem with your logic is that you think of it as a scaled down page. Its not scaled down, its optimized for the interface.
Not all smartphone browsers support full HTML, but yeah the point should be that all smartphones can use the same optimized websites.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacOldTimer
I don't want a site that is optimized for the iPhone. I wan't what I'm used to on my desktop and I want all of the streaming video not just what they have optimized for phones that don't support a full browser.
That wasn't supposed to be the point of the iPhone, If I wanted a scaled down version of any site then any smart phone with a browser would work.
Historically the problem with MS is that Windows is their bread and butter. So their motivation is to keep everything tied into an ecosystem that revolves around Windows. That would limit innovation into other technologies and platforms that would not be dependent on revolving around Windows.
I would argue that Google, Macromedia, Yahoo, AOL, and other web services have forced MS to focus more on providing web services that don't necessarily tie directly into Windows the way MS would have without the competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
What are the quantifiable benefits of Google dominance over MS dominance? In what way would MS search be different today than Google search to the general public? That Google is more efficient at managing and paying adwords is a given...but in what way does this benefit the consumer of web searches?
Comments
I'm going by the logic of people here. They think that if Flash fails on the iPhone, it will fail everywhere else. Fail on the iPhone, fail on every other mobile device, then fail on laptops, then desktops.
Why? If you feel that way then I recommend you stop computing. There's a high likelihood that some site you like is running ASP or has some MS technology somewhere. Silverlight and WPFe are actually very cool technology and in many ways superior to Flash. Not only that, Moonlight is an open source implementation under Mono. Heck the DLR and Silverlight 2.0 controls have been released as MS-PL.
Silverlight 3 will even support H.264 video and AAC.
And frankly it was MS that enabled Ajax by adding XMLHttpRequest in 1999 to IE5. So you should stop using any ajax enabled site at all. No google maps, no Facebook, etc.
I for one want Silverlight to be successful because for too long Adobe/Macromedia has been a complete ass about the Flash monopoly. IMHO the only reason that SWF has become an open standard again and Adobe has made some stabs at opening up Flash is because of Silverlight.
All I'm saying it that MS tends to want much tighter control over things than does Adobe.
Do you really want everything on the web to be an MS technology?
Do you think that's a good idea?
Would you also like to see MS controlling search rather than Google?
I don't think its a good idea for one company to control the "airwaves" so to speak. It's much better when several companies, opposed to each other, do it.
Come to think of it, why is Adobe even at the World Economic Forum?
Is it any wonder the world economy is in such bad shape?
Written like somebody working for a commercial website.
He's right nevertheless.
Do you work for free? Do you pay no rent? Is your food, clothing, entertainment (except for much on the web now) all for free?
Who is supposed to pay for the people working in AI? who pays for the writers? Who pays for th server bandwidth? The webmasters? What about the accountants? All the rest?
How about chipping in a few thousand?
I know we joke about this stuff, and I'm pretty sure you're joking as well, from what I see of the rest of your post, but this is pretty serious, and there are some others who don't understand it..
Agreed. I never had a problem with any ads in newspapers or magazines. In fact, I enjoy a well-designed clipping-worthy ad with witty copy and/or a beautiful photograph.
Unfortunately, Flash is necessary for a growing number of websites. Just a few days ago, I read a column in an online newspaper decrying how virtually all restaurants are suckered by web developers into buying fancy Flash-only, animation-heavy websites. It's a great revenue stream for the developers, especially with the hefty annual maintenance fees, but it's a nightmare to keep updated and won't work on any mobile browsers to date.
Your post, IMO. is correct in everything you are saying but you're dealing with too many people here that HATE anything non Apple.
By the way thanks, I didn't know MS enabled Ajax with the addition of XMLHttpRequest.
Quote from an article on Bloomberg that AppleInsider left out.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aFYb.P__vEfY
Adobe?s Flash, used to view online video and animation, is installed on 98 percent of the world?s personal computers. While the software is on more than 800 million handsets, it isn?t available on the iPhone. Apple CEO Steve Jobs said last March that Flash runs too slowly for the iPhone, and a slimmed-down version, called Flash Lite, ?isn?t capable enough to be used with the Web.?
800 million handsets & 98% of desktop computers disagree with Steve Jobs.
Just because it runs lousy on a Mac doesn't make it bad technology. Maybe Apple should get off there Ass and make Safari a little more stable and get inline with the rest of the Browsers and OS's because Flash isn't going away anytime soon.
Since his post was in answer to mine, I'm assuming you're referring to me.
But it's certainly not true that I hate everything not Apple, and it's dubious logic on your part to say so.
Flash isn't an Apple technology, though you seem to think it is since I'm pleading its case, and you think I don't like anything thats not Apple. Very strange.
I'm just concerned that we don't allow one company to take over all the standards used on the web.
There's already enough problems with too many companies hewing to IE's proprietary "standards". So if we get more proprietary standards, I'd rather they came from others than MS. There must be a balance, if we can't get what we all want (I assume), which is a totally open standards net.
Flash is about as much a standard as is anything else, for good or ill. I'm certainty not against it, though others are.
Their are a lot of things that are annoying in life, so that's a diatribe that can go on forever.
Speaking specifically to flash. Yes I acknowledged that the abuse of flash isn't necessarily the fault of the technology itslef. But to the end user that is a distinction with little difference when you are being inundated with flash's annoyances.
I find it no worse than many other things.
I'm not sure who is following this chain of logic. I would not say I want flash to fail. I would like it to have some competition and an industry wide call for its use to be more disciplined.
It's the logic I'm seeing from several posters. The total train of thought doesn't have to be spelled out to see where it's going.
Can anyone explain why Flash on the iPhone is even being discussed by Adobe at the World Economic Forum?
Come to think of it, why is Adobe even at the World Economic Forum?
Is it any wonder the world economy is in such bad shape?
Adobe is far more suited to be at that forum than were such luminaries and economic powers as Bono, in years past.
Adobe's software is widely used in commerce, and in developing much that we see around us. This affects their business as much as any other.
Since his post was in answer to mine, I'm assuming you're referring to me.
But it's certainly not true that I hate everything not Apple, and it's dubious logic on your part to say so.
Flash isn't an Apple technology, though you seem to think it is since I'm pleading its case, and you think I don't like anything thats not Apple. Very strange.
I'm just concerned that we don't allow one company to take over all the standards used on the web.
There's already enough problems with too many companies hewing to IE's proprietary "standards". So if we get more proprietary standards, I'd rather they came from others than MS. There must be a balance, if we can't get what we all want (I assume), which is a totally open standards net.
Flash is about as much a standard as is anything else, for good or ill. I'm certainty not against it, though others are.
And it?s sheer arrogance to think I was referring to you on my reply to Vinea?s well worded post.
It?s the 90% of the other postings in this forum that want Flash gone and have gone as far to call it ?evil?.
Although not unexpected to see in this room but purely wrong. I programming language, browser etc can?t be evil.
Adobe is and has lead the market on streaming video (and yes Flash ads) right now and since Jobs doesn?t like Adobe the sheep in this room spew nonsense that Flash isn?t used and nobody wants it.
I visit ESPN & CNN many times a day and the iPhone is useless on it and since it?s on 98% of all desktop computers I don?t seem to be alone.
I don?t have the Internet in my pocket if I can?t view Flash on ESPN & CNN, I have a website with a bunch of little blue squares.
I visit ESPN & CNN many times a day and the iPhone is useless on it and since it’s on 98% of all desktop computers I don’t seem to be alone.
And it’s sheer arrogance to think I was referring to you on my reply to Vinea’s well worded post.
It’s the 90% of the other postings in this forum that want Flash gone and have gone as far to call it “evil”.
Although not unexpected to see in this room but purely wrong. I programming language, browser etc can’t be evil.
Adobe is and has lead the market on streaming video (and yes Flash ads) right now and since Jobs doesn’t like Adobe the sheep in this room spew nonsense that Flash isn’t used and nobody wants it.
I visit ESPN & CNN many times a day and the iPhone is useless on it and since it’s on 98% of all desktop computers I don’t seem to be alone.
I don’t have the Internet in my pocket if I can’t view Flash on ESPN & CNN, I have a website with a bunch of little blue squares.
Arrogance? You clearly misunderstand the meaning of the word.
Generally, when one responds to a post, and that poster responded to was about something that the previous poster was speaking to, and you then say that some seen to only like something specific, then that first poster has every right to ASK if this was directed to him.
All you had to do was to say "no".
We do this all the time. You don't have to be a wiseguy about it.
The odd thing here is that you are too blinded by your clever use of the word arrogant, to address the rest of my response, which amusingly enough, is about the same as yours.
We actually seem to AGREE on this, though you don't seem to understand it.
Both ESPN and CNN have iPhone optimized sites that use no flash. The ESPN site has interactive graphics built from AJAX and streaming video.
I don't want a site that is optimized for the iPhone. I wan't what I'm used to on my desktop and I want all of the streaming video not just what they have optimized for phones that don't support a full browser.
That wasn't supposed to be the point of the iPhone, If I wanted a scaled down version of any site then any smart phone with a browser would work.
All I'm saying it that MS tends to want much tighter control over things than does Adobe.
Hardly. Adobe has shown itself capable of being as ham fisted as MS. So has Apple for that matter.
Do you really want everything on the web to be an MS technology?
I'd rather Silverlight succeed than fail to keep Flash honest.
Do you think that's a good idea?
MS has never really dominated the web. Even so, it has done far better than other corporate entities. Do you really think Netscape or even Google to be more altruistic than MS?
Would you also like to see MS controlling search rather than Google?
What are the quantifiable benefits of Google dominance over MS dominance? In what way would MS search be different today than Google search to the general public? That Google is more efficient at managing and paying adwords is a given...but in what way does this benefit the consumer of web searches?
I don't think its a good idea for one company to control the "airwaves" so to speak. It's much better when several companies, opposed to each other, do it.
Then you should be hoping that Silverlight can take significant share from Flash.
Personally, I've never minded Microsoft dominance because I came from the Unix world. Better that MS conquered the world than ANY of those guys or we'd be paying $5000 per app on $20,000 machines as the dominant business model.
Even Mac was never as consumer friendly as the Wintel platform. The UI was fantastically better but the costs have always been significantly higher. Sufficiently so that had Apple and not MS been dominant I would guess that widespread use of computers by the general public would have been pushed back by a decade.
Unreasoned hatred of MS is just as silly as unreasoned adoration of Apple.
Here's a test for you. Name another computer company anywhere in the world of that same period that would have been more trustworthy with monopoly power than Microsoft from the consumer perspective?
Not Univac, Sperry, DEC, Sun, or even Digital Research (CP/M) would have charged so little for their operating system on systems so inexpensive as IBM, MS and Intel did during those crucial years IMHO. $40 for an OS? Nor would IBM had been any better a custodian in the long haul.
Adobe is and has lead the market on streaming video (and yes Flash ads) right now and since Jobs doesn’t like Adobe the sheep in this room spew nonsense that Flash isn’t used and nobody wants it.
I think few on this site follow like "sheep", however many of us share the same ideals as Jobs, which will lead us to the same conclusions, which is often misconstrued by people such as yourself as "sheep" like behavior, or fanboyism.
I believe most people here are objective in comparison to other technology forums.
If we possessed "sheep" like personality traits we would be using windows.
Arrogance? You clearly misunderstand the meaning of the word.
Generally, when one responds to a post, and that poster responded to was about something that the previous poster was speaking to, and you then say that some seen to only like something specific, then that first poster has every right to ASK if this was directed to him.
All you had to do was to say "no".
We do this all the time. You don't have to be a wiseguy about it.
The odd thing here is that you are too blinded by your clever use of the word arrogant, to address the rest of my response, which amusingly enough, is about the same as yours.
We actually seem to AGREE on this, though you don't seem to understand it.
EDIT,
Read Vinea's posting that answered your question much better than I could have.
He also clearly doesn't agree worth you logic either.
Please insight us with an answers to his questions. He seems to have a better understanding of the situation than you and I and backs it up with logic.
It doesn't sound like you had your Gmail auto forwarded to your MM account. I had initially set up both on my iPhone, and the Push was working by day 4. It is quite good. In fact, my Mac checks Gmail every 60 seconds, yet I'll hear/feel my iPhone vibrate first so I'll know to check OS X Mail. Remember, that is first being firerded from Gmail to MM a d then Pushed to my iPhone. If all that beats Mail's 60 second interval check to Gmail then I'd say it is working great.
I have had no issues with MM SMsibce day 4, and I think Apple learned the hardway just how big it has gotten as we have since seen a lit more staggered product releases since that fiasco last summer.
No. I had Gmail forward my mail to MM. I am a graduate student and most of my email goes through my University account. I always had that forwarded to my Gmail account. When MM came out, I didn't want to have it forwarded to Gmail and then forwarded to MM. That was just too much forwarding. So, I just had it forwarded to MM. But, MM doesn't save all messages as Gmail does, so I ended up losing messages b/c I accidentally deleted them and had no way to retrieve them. That, I admit is my fault and not MM's. But, Gmail has the fabulous "Archive" feature and huge server space so I never lose messages. But, my major problem with MM was that they would just randomly lose messages. People would send me messages and I would never get them or I would get them 24-48 hours after they sent originally sent the message. That was just unacceptable. I switched my university account to forward to Gmail and the problem went away. Sorry, but Gmail is just a nicer email account and it's free.
There's already enough problems with too many companies hewing to IE's proprietary "standards". So if we get more proprietary standards, I'd rather they came from others than MS. There must be a balance, if we can't get what we all want (I assume), which is a totally open standards net.
I prefer de facto vs de jure standards, mostly because many de jure standards are designed by committee and have more than passing resemblances to camels as opposed to horses.
I prefer KML over GML...at least in the areas that KML addresses.
In that sense, I should prefer Flash to HTML5 but Flash has had such crappy implementations on non-Windows platforms that it might as well be a MS product. And Adobe is no less protective of its monopoly status (within its markets) than any other company.
The page is laid out to fit the size of the screen. The page uses larger words that are easier to read, larger buttons that are easier to touch with a finger. The page uses less graphics so that it can load faster.
Standard web pages built for desktop interfaces are too large for the phone's screen, the words are too small to read, the buttons are too small to touch. So you end up shrinking and enlarging constantly to navigate the page.
The problem with your logic is that you think of it as a scaled down page. Its not scaled down, its optimized for the interface.
Not all smartphone browsers support full HTML, but yeah the point should be that all smartphones can use the same optimized websites.
I don't want a site that is optimized for the iPhone. I wan't what I'm used to on my desktop and I want all of the streaming video not just what they have optimized for phones that don't support a full browser.
That wasn't supposed to be the point of the iPhone, If I wanted a scaled down version of any site then any smart phone with a browser would work.
I would argue that Google, Macromedia, Yahoo, AOL, and other web services have forced MS to focus more on providing web services that don't necessarily tie directly into Windows the way MS would have without the competition.
What are the quantifiable benefits of Google dominance over MS dominance? In what way would MS search be different today than Google search to the general public? That Google is more efficient at managing and paying adwords is a given...but in what way does this benefit the consumer of web searches?
Men watch Porn.
Porn sells.
Enough said?