Here we go again--same lame excuses: dead technology, too complicated, Apple doesn't care about market share, verizon's control...blah blah.
Money talks people. And market share definitely matters, if you don't believe it matters to Apple, there's a bridge up for sale in you know where.
CDMA is a dying technology, but one that is dying very slowly. By the time it is completely dead we're probably talking towards the end of this decade--no VZ iPhone till then? Ha. As for it's just too damn hard to make a CDMA iPhone...yeah I suppose every single other manufacturer manages it, but I guess Apple is the lazy kid in the class then? Right. As for control? Verizon just allowed the most open platform in the business on their network with no problems--they do not cripple their android headsets nor their blackberries or other smartphones. Why would they cripple an iPhone?
This has never been about CDMA and has been about the exclusivity contract--you see it hasn't gone to the other GSM carrier in the US for 3 years either. They will tap the CDMA market because they want to make a lot of money, and as long as CDMA is around, and it will be years and years in some form or another, they cannot ignore it. They can't ignore Android either--Google isn't sitting with one provider in the US, they are expanding and if you think Apple doesn't care about the growth of Android, again there's that bridge up for sale you can look into.
good to see Apple going after Android and getting more market share. As more people use Apple products, it will move them to buy Mac computers as well. all about getting more people into the Apple ecosystem.
Apple would be wise to make a CDMA phone since Android is growing ever more popular. Yes CDMA is a dead end technology, but in those few years it might take to completely do away with CDMA in America, that's more market for Android to fill. A lot of people are waiting on their networks to get the iPhone and the vast majority are looking at Android to fill the void. Verizon has around 90 million suscribers, Sprint around 45 million and T-Mobile less than that. That's a lot of LOST sales if you ask me. Personally, I would ignore Sprint, but not the other two.
I agree. Though it's unpopular to say, I think the same can be said about Flash (I can already hear the Droid 2.0 ads, about all the "Do's" that Apple doesn't allow). For the iPad AND the iPhone I'd really like to see a ClickToFlash option. Anyone notice the timing of all this? In Boston I'm getting flooded with ads for the AT&T Backflip... I wonder if AT&T broke some agreement they had between Apple...Never seemed like there were any real Android phones on AT&T until this one... and sudenly there's all this talk of opening the iPhone to Verizon. Android is playing for keeps... Apple needs to take the fight to Verizon.
EDIT: To all those Verizon haters out there, you need to get over it... Google is the REAL threat... Everytime Apple has gotten hung up on old fueds it's hurt them....Look at their history with Microsoft... In interviews, Steve talked about his return to the company...That one of his biggest challenges was changing the attitude within the company that Microsoft had to die for Apple to win... Instead they opened up new partnerships, Steve completely changed the course of the company and the rest is history
Apple should assist ATT in imporving their network and help them takeover the top spot. The sooner ATT can boast a faster, farther reaching network the sooner more will make the move as I did a year ago. Got tired of waiting on VZ to get the iPhone technology and haven't regreted it at all. Admittidly early on I didn't get the same reception as I did with VZ in some places, but it has gotten better and should going forward. I rarely have dropped calls or complaints about service, currently awaiting the WWDC before getting my upgrade......
Here we go again--same lame excuses: dead technology, too complicated, Apple doesn't care about market share, verizon's control...blah blah.
Money talks people. And market share definitely matters, if you don't believe it matters to Apple, there's a bridge up for sale in you know where.
CDMA is a dying technology, but one that is dying very slowly. By the time it is completely dead we're probably talking towards the end of this decade--no VZ iPhone till then? Ha. As for it's just too damn hard to make a CDMA iPhone...yeah I suppose every single other manufacturer manages it, but I guess Apple is the lazy kid in the class then? Right. As for control? Verizon just allowed the most open platform in the business on their network with no problems--they do not cripple their android headsets nor their blackberries or other smartphones. Why would they cripple an iPhone?
This has never been about CDMA and has been about the exclusivity contract--you see it hasn't gone to the other GSM carrier in the US for 3 years either. They will tap the CDMA market because they want to make a lot of money, and as long as CDMA is around, and it will be years and years in some form or another, they cannot ignore it. They can't ignore Android either--Google isn't sitting with one provider in the US, they are expanding and if you think Apple doesn't care about the growth of Android, again there's that bridge up for sale you can look into.
It's all about business.
Very good comment and sums up the reality of this topic.
It seems like almost everyone here is such a downer when it comes to any news that reaches outside of the status quo. Nobody has any valid reasons NOT to bring the iphone to Verizon, but I see a heck of a lot of valid reasons TO bring it.
Let's face it: Android devices are getting to the point that they are going to be a major competitor to the iphone. The HTC Evo coming to Sprint is a great example of a CDMA phone that should definitely turn some heads.
I don't believe Apple is at all interested in selling a smart phone, what they want to build and sell are devices that run the iPhone OS platform.
What would you take away from the iPhone that would keep it from being a smart phone but still use the iPhone OS platform? I am not sure I understand this. Not a smart phone BUT use the iPhone OS platform - can you expand on what this might include? That is, what might a 'dumb-phone' using iPhone OS be like, what would the iPhone OS do?
BTW: You have made my original point - that Apple's efforts will be divided and that will ultimately take away from what the iPhone could be.
All this business about CDMA being obsolete and GSM taking over the world. Everyone here pretty much admits that this 4G technology wont be available for years. Fine. Make the CDMA phone now and I'll buy two of them and when 4G is available, I'll buy two of the new ones. Apple is a hardware company so this should be good business.
I get it that Apple is forward thinking and all that, but I don't understand this concept of abandoning a technology before another one is in place. There is no flash on the iPhone or iPad because it's so terrible, but how about making it available to those who choose to use it until the new HTML 5 is widely available.
Apple is cutting me off from websites I might wish to visit the same way they are cutting me off from using a cell provider that gives better service where I live and work. I'm trying to be a good customer here!
When the first iMac came out, it abandoned the floppy drive which I'm sure freaked a lot of people out. But it did come with a CD drive so you could copy files and back up your work.
I have doubts that they'll do it but you can't argue with the obvious business strategy of going to the network people don't want to leave and offer them the device they wish they could have.
I'm expecting a major jump in the stock from an official announcement. $10, $15, $20/share in a day?
Apple would nearly overnight double its U.S. iPhone users if it offered the iPhone on Verizon. What looked to be a good idea at the time (exclusive contract and monthly revenue sharing) failed miserably. Apple couldn't change the entrenched dynamics of a mobile phone industry by itself worldwide.
So now Apple is in an exclusive agreement with AT&T that is actually hurting sales in the U.S. I know many, many people who would jump to an iPhone, but they need Verizon because AT&T doesn't have good coverage where they live.
If Apple offers the iPhone on Verizon, Android sales will plummet. Blackberry will drop as well.
Sigh, I dislike when people don't use facts to make an argument
1) There is no Voice over LTE standard.
2) Verizon has already publicly stated that LTE will be for data initially and CDMA will be used for voice for much of the current decade (2015-2016 if I remember correctly).
3) Verizon will not finish it's nationwide built out of LTE until 2013.
4) Until both points 1 & 2 are met, there must be a fallback signal when not in LTE tower range.
5) The only logical fallback is CDMA, as it is extremely unlikely that Verizon will willingly choose to fallback on T-Mobile's or even worse, AT&T's network (in fact, you might as well just say it won't happen).
6) Because of all the previously stated points, regardless of what Steve Jobs says, Apple will have to make an iPhone with CDMA in it at some point. It is not wise to take what a CEO says at face value without looking at the facts. *See the time he stated video on an iPod doesn't make sense only months before the reveal of the iPod 5G with video*
7) Apple is not "just now finding out about the slow deployment of LTE". Again, because of points 1 & 2, LTE could be here today, but since it's there isn't a standard (and won't be one for a while), I don't see how Apple could even think of prepping a 4G phone for release of either this year or next. Chipsets have to be ready months in advance and they simply aren't right now.
Next few points are inferences based on current facts
8) No LTE phones have been announced. Apple shied away from 3G chips because they said they were "immature". Most likely they'll say the same about 4G chipsets.
9) It is cheaper to make a phone that supports both Verizon & *the rest of the world* than to separate them. It's likely Apple was waiting for such a chip to exist, but progress on that front might have been delayed.
I think that's all I have for now. Please let me know where my logic is flawed. People keep spouting sensationalist lies without walking through what they're saying in a stepwise fashion. This is a company with tons of engineers, analysts, and business-minded people. Random reasoning doesn't fit into their ethos.
All this business about CDMA being obsolete and GSM taking over the world. Everyone here pretty much admits that this 4G technology wont be available for years. Fine. Make the CDMA phone now and I'll buy two of them and when 4G is available, I'll buy two of the new ones. Apple is a hardware company so this should be good business.
I get it that Apple is forward thinking and all that, but I don't understand this concept of abandoning a technology before another one is in place. There is no flash on the iPhone or iPad because it's so terrible, but how about making it available to those who choose to use it until the new HTML 5 is widely available.
Apple is cutting me off from websites I might wish to visit the same way they are cutting me off from using a cell provider that gives better service where I live and work. I'm trying to be a good customer here!
When the first iMac came out, it abandoned the floppy drive which I'm sure freaked a lot of people out. But it did come with a CD drive so you could copy files and back up your work.
I get so frustrated with all the Flash haters. Stand alone video is one thing, but until ALL the interactive graphics and animations out there built in Flash and Silverlight, are rebuilt in HTML5, create some kind of solution. Don't simply take away functionality. No one has been able to explain to me what the drawbacks of a ClickToFlash-type app would be....Even if mobile phones aren't able to support Flash 10....if it's some older version like Flash 1, 2 or 3... the iPhone must at least be able to match the capabilities of the Android phones.
It has nothing to do with Android, its about sales figures and market penetration. If Apple iPhone sales figures are declining due to saturation then it would be worthwhile for Apple to pursue a CDMA iPhone for verizon.
Now whether Apple wishes to produce an iPhone which will be incompatible with verizons 4g network is another matter. Yes, Apple like to get users to upgrade but they always support the old hardware for a good few years, much longer than many electronics manufacturers.
At the end of the day Apple will sell the iPhone on Verizon as well as AT&T but I would not expect this until the sales figures drop.
Don't simply take away functionality. No one has been able to explain to me what the drawbacks of a ClickToFlash-type app would be....Even if mobile phones aren't able to support Flash 10....if it's some older version like Flash 1, 2 or 3... the iPhone must at least be able to match the capabilities of the Android phones.
1) No one has taken away functionality. iPhone OS has never had Flash. Android still doesn't have Flash (Flash Lite doesn't count).
2) The drawback of ClickToFlash on a desktop? There are none. On iPhone OS, it means there are now 2 plug-ins in iPhone OS, and that isn't going to happen.
3) The drawback of Flash Lite (the ONLY Flash available for mobiles when this silly argument for Flash on the iPhone cropped up in 2007) is it can't render most sites, can't play video, can't play all those Flash games. Even with a desktop version of Flash those games were designed for keyboards and a mouse pointer, not a finger-based touch screen so Adobe had to rewrite Flash to be smarter (which they are still doing with Flash 10.1 for mobiles) and the Flash apps have to be rewritten for the new input method, with the HW limitations in mind (eg: CPU, GPU, RAM, Display Size).
4) What would Flash 1, 2 or 3 do for any mobile? What benefit would it have except make pages load slower, the processor work harder while wearing down the battery faster, and make the scrolling more problematic by using a plug-in. Modern Flash already messed up 2-finger scrolling in browsers at time.
5) Why must the iPhone match every single capability of Android. Since when has entered a market specifically to bloat features in oder to sell a solution to its customers? Apple has always worked a certain way with competitors trying to scrape out a living by added features that only look good on a spec sheet, but rarely work well in the real world.
1) No one has taken away functionality. iPhone OS has never had Flash. Android still doesn't have Flash (Flash Lite doesn't count).
2) The drawback of ClickToFlash on a desktop? There are none. On iPhone OS, it means there are now 2 plug-ins in iPhone OS, and that isn't going to happen.
3) The drawback of Flash Lite (the ONLY Flash available for mobiles when this silly argument for Flash on the iPhone cropped up in 2007) is it can't render most sites, can't play video, can't play all those Flash games. Even with a desktop version of Flash those games were designed for keyboards and a mouse pointer, not a finger-based touch screen so Adobe had to rewrite Flash to be smarter (which they are still doing with Flash 10.1 for mobiles) and the Flash apps have to be rewritten for the new input method, with the HW limitations in mind (eg: CPU, GPU, RAM, Display Size).
4) What would Flash 1, 2 or 3 do for any mobile? What benefit would it have except make pages load slower, the processor work harder while wearing down the battery faster, and make the scrolling more problematic by using a plug-in. Modern Flash already messed up 2-finger scrolling in browsers at time.
5) Why must the iPhone match every single capability of Android. Since when has entered a market specifically to bloat features in oder to sell a solution to its customers? Apple has always worked a certain way with competitors trying to scrape out a living by added features that only look good on a spec sheet, but rarely work well in the real world.
I'm a huge Apple fanboy...it really bothers me when people talk about Apple as a closed, evil system... I think of everything Apple has pioneered in desktop publishing and print and how it continues to dominate in sound and video production....This move against Flash to me is just silly though... Let the user decide!!
Functionality has been taken away if you look at it from a certain point of view. Safari on the Mac has it and Safari on the iPhone and iPad does not.
And the argument made more sense on the first 2 iPhones...The 3GS though doubled the processing power and I'm sure the iPhone4 and iPad will be even faster...
6) Because of all the previously stated points, regardless of what Steve Jobs says, Apple will have to make an iPhone with CDMA in it at some point. It is not wise to take what a CEO says at face value without looking at the facts. *See the time he stated video on an iPod doesn't make sense only months before the reveal of the iPod 5G with video*
Comments
Money talks people. And market share definitely matters, if you don't believe it matters to Apple, there's a bridge up for sale in you know where.
CDMA is a dying technology, but one that is dying very slowly. By the time it is completely dead we're probably talking towards the end of this decade--no VZ iPhone till then? Ha. As for it's just too damn hard to make a CDMA iPhone...yeah I suppose every single other manufacturer manages it, but I guess Apple is the lazy kid in the class then? Right. As for control? Verizon just allowed the most open platform in the business on their network with no problems--they do not cripple their android headsets nor their blackberries or other smartphones. Why would they cripple an iPhone?
This has never been about CDMA and has been about the exclusivity contract--you see it hasn't gone to the other GSM carrier in the US for 3 years either. They will tap the CDMA market because they want to make a lot of money, and as long as CDMA is around, and it will be years and years in some form or another, they cannot ignore it. They can't ignore Android either--Google isn't sitting with one provider in the US, they are expanding and if you think Apple doesn't care about the growth of Android, again there's that bridge up for sale you can look into.
It's all about business.
Verizon's network is already prepared to handle the iPhone. Last year they welcomed jail-broken iPhones on their network.
Nonsense. Verizon uses CDMA and at present there is no CDMA iPhone version.
Apple would be wise to make a CDMA phone since Android is growing ever more popular. Yes CDMA is a dead end technology, but in those few years it might take to completely do away with CDMA in America, that's more market for Android to fill. A lot of people are waiting on their networks to get the iPhone and the vast majority are looking at Android to fill the void. Verizon has around 90 million suscribers, Sprint around 45 million and T-Mobile less than that. That's a lot of LOST sales if you ask me. Personally, I would ignore Sprint, but not the other two.
I agree. Though it's unpopular to say, I think the same can be said about Flash (I can already hear the Droid 2.0 ads, about all the "Do's" that Apple doesn't allow). For the iPad AND the iPhone I'd really like to see a ClickToFlash option. Anyone notice the timing of all this? In Boston I'm getting flooded with ads for the AT&T Backflip... I wonder if AT&T broke some agreement they had between Apple...Never seemed like there were any real Android phones on AT&T until this one... and sudenly there's all this talk of opening the iPhone to Verizon. Android is playing for keeps... Apple needs to take the fight to Verizon.
EDIT: To all those Verizon haters out there, you need to get over it... Google is the REAL threat... Everytime Apple has gotten hung up on old fueds it's hurt them....Look at their history with Microsoft... In interviews, Steve talked about his return to the company...That one of his biggest challenges was changing the attitude within the company that Microsoft had to die for Apple to win... Instead they opened up new partnerships, Steve completely changed the course of the company and the rest is history
Here we go again--same lame excuses: dead technology, too complicated, Apple doesn't care about market share, verizon's control...blah blah.
Money talks people. And market share definitely matters, if you don't believe it matters to Apple, there's a bridge up for sale in you know where.
CDMA is a dying technology, but one that is dying very slowly. By the time it is completely dead we're probably talking towards the end of this decade--no VZ iPhone till then? Ha. As for it's just too damn hard to make a CDMA iPhone...yeah I suppose every single other manufacturer manages it, but I guess Apple is the lazy kid in the class then? Right. As for control? Verizon just allowed the most open platform in the business on their network with no problems--they do not cripple their android headsets nor their blackberries or other smartphones. Why would they cripple an iPhone?
This has never been about CDMA and has been about the exclusivity contract--you see it hasn't gone to the other GSM carrier in the US for 3 years either. They will tap the CDMA market because they want to make a lot of money, and as long as CDMA is around, and it will be years and years in some form or another, they cannot ignore it. They can't ignore Android either--Google isn't sitting with one provider in the US, they are expanding and if you think Apple doesn't care about the growth of Android, again there's that bridge up for sale you can look into.
It's all about business.
Very good comment and sums up the reality of this topic.
It seems like almost everyone here is such a downer when it comes to any news that reaches outside of the status quo. Nobody has any valid reasons NOT to bring the iphone to Verizon, but I see a heck of a lot of valid reasons TO bring it.
Let's face it: Android devices are getting to the point that they are going to be a major competitor to the iphone. The HTC Evo coming to Sprint is a great example of a CDMA phone that should definitely turn some heads.
I don't believe Apple is at all interested in selling a smart phone, what they want to build and sell are devices that run the iPhone OS platform.
What would you take away from the iPhone that would keep it from being a smart phone but still use the iPhone OS platform? I am not sure I understand this. Not a smart phone BUT use the iPhone OS platform - can you expand on what this might include? That is, what might a 'dumb-phone'
BTW: You have made my original point - that Apple's efforts will be divided and that will ultimately take away from what the iPhone could be.
I get it that Apple is forward thinking and all that, but I don't understand this concept of abandoning a technology before another one is in place. There is no flash on the iPhone or iPad because it's so terrible, but how about making it available to those who choose to use it until the new HTML 5 is widely available.
Apple is cutting me off from websites I might wish to visit the same way they are cutting me off from using a cell provider that gives better service where I live and work. I'm trying to be a good customer here!
When the first iMac came out, it abandoned the floppy drive which I'm sure freaked a lot of people out. But it did come with a CD drive so you could copy files and back up your work.
I have doubts that they'll do it but you can't argue with the obvious business strategy of going to the network people don't want to leave and offer them the device they wish they could have.
I'm expecting a major jump in the stock from an official announcement. $10, $15, $20/share in a day?
Buy the rumor, sell the news.
Buy the rumor, sell the news.
As a rule of thumb, sure, but I'd bet that news would be pretty beneficial to the stock value.
So now Apple is in an exclusive agreement with AT&T that is actually hurting sales in the U.S. I know many, many people who would jump to an iPhone, but they need Verizon because AT&T doesn't have good coverage where they live.
If Apple offers the iPhone on Verizon, Android sales will plummet. Blackberry will drop as well.
1) There is no Voice over LTE standard.
2) Verizon has already publicly stated that LTE will be for data initially and CDMA will be used for voice for much of the current decade (2015-2016 if I remember correctly).
3) Verizon will not finish it's nationwide built out of LTE until 2013.
4) Until both points 1 & 2 are met, there must be a fallback signal when not in LTE tower range.
5) The only logical fallback is CDMA, as it is extremely unlikely that Verizon will willingly choose to fallback on T-Mobile's or even worse, AT&T's network (in fact, you might as well just say it won't happen).
6) Because of all the previously stated points, regardless of what Steve Jobs says, Apple will have to make an iPhone with CDMA in it at some point. It is not wise to take what a CEO says at face value without looking at the facts. *See the time he stated video on an iPod doesn't make sense only months before the reveal of the iPod 5G with video*
7) Apple is not "just now finding out about the slow deployment of LTE". Again, because of points 1 & 2, LTE could be here today, but since it's there isn't a standard (and won't be one for a while), I don't see how Apple could even think of prepping a 4G phone for release of either this year or next. Chipsets have to be ready months in advance and they simply aren't right now.
Next few points are inferences based on current facts
8) No LTE phones have been announced. Apple shied away from 3G chips because they said they were "immature". Most likely they'll say the same about 4G chipsets.
9) It is cheaper to make a phone that supports both Verizon & *the rest of the world* than to separate them. It's likely Apple was waiting for such a chip to exist, but progress on that front might have been delayed.
I think that's all I have for now. Please let me know where my logic is flawed. People keep spouting sensationalist lies without walking through what they're saying in a stepwise fashion. This is a company with tons of engineers, analysts, and business-minded people. Random reasoning doesn't fit into their ethos.
All this business about CDMA being obsolete and GSM taking over the world. Everyone here pretty much admits that this 4G technology wont be available for years. Fine. Make the CDMA phone now and I'll buy two of them and when 4G is available, I'll buy two of the new ones. Apple is a hardware company so this should be good business.
I get it that Apple is forward thinking and all that, but I don't understand this concept of abandoning a technology before another one is in place. There is no flash on the iPhone or iPad because it's so terrible, but how about making it available to those who choose to use it until the new HTML 5 is widely available.
Apple is cutting me off from websites I might wish to visit the same way they are cutting me off from using a cell provider that gives better service where I live and work. I'm trying to be a good customer here!
When the first iMac came out, it abandoned the floppy drive which I'm sure freaked a lot of people out. But it did come with a CD drive so you could copy files and back up your work.
I agree 100% See my post #25
I get so frustrated with all the Flash haters. Stand alone video is one thing, but until ALL the interactive graphics and animations out there built in Flash and Silverlight, are rebuilt in HTML5, create some kind of solution. Don't simply take away functionality. No one has been able to explain to me what the drawbacks of a ClickToFlash-type app would be....Even if mobile phones aren't able to support Flash 10....if it's some older version like Flash 1, 2 or 3... the iPhone must at least be able to match the capabilities of the Android phones.
(Of course, one could draw vague similarities between this scenario and Apple switching to Intel -- one step backward and then three forward.
and then back again.... A4
Now whether Apple wishes to produce an iPhone which will be incompatible with verizons 4g network is another matter. Yes, Apple like to get users to upgrade but they always support the old hardware for a good few years, much longer than many electronics manufacturers.
At the end of the day Apple will sell the iPhone on Verizon as well as AT&T but I would not expect this until the sales figures drop.
Don't simply take away functionality. No one has been able to explain to me what the drawbacks of a ClickToFlash-type app would be....Even if mobile phones aren't able to support Flash 10....if it's some older version like Flash 1, 2 or 3... the iPhone must at least be able to match the capabilities of the Android phones.
1) No one has taken away functionality. iPhone OS has never had Flash. Android still doesn't have Flash (Flash Lite doesn't count).
2) The drawback of ClickToFlash on a desktop? There are none. On iPhone OS, it means there are now 2 plug-ins in iPhone OS, and that isn't going to happen.
3) The drawback of Flash Lite (the ONLY Flash available for mobiles when this silly argument for Flash on the iPhone cropped up in 2007) is it can't render most sites, can't play video, can't play all those Flash games. Even with a desktop version of Flash those games were designed for keyboards and a mouse pointer, not a finger-based touch screen so Adobe had to rewrite Flash to be smarter (which they are still doing with Flash 10.1 for mobiles) and the Flash apps have to be rewritten for the new input method, with the HW limitations in mind (eg: CPU, GPU, RAM, Display Size).
4) What would Flash 1, 2 or 3 do for any mobile? What benefit would it have except make pages load slower, the processor work harder while wearing down the battery faster, and make the scrolling more problematic by using a plug-in. Modern Flash already messed up 2-finger scrolling in browsers at time.
5) Why must the iPhone match every single capability of Android. Since when has entered a market specifically to bloat features in oder to sell a solution to its customers? Apple has always worked a certain way with competitors trying to scrape out a living by added features that only look good on a spec sheet, but rarely work well in the real world.
1) No one has taken away functionality. iPhone OS has never had Flash. Android still doesn't have Flash (Flash Lite doesn't count).
2) The drawback of ClickToFlash on a desktop? There are none. On iPhone OS, it means there are now 2 plug-ins in iPhone OS, and that isn't going to happen.
3) The drawback of Flash Lite (the ONLY Flash available for mobiles when this silly argument for Flash on the iPhone cropped up in 2007) is it can't render most sites, can't play video, can't play all those Flash games. Even with a desktop version of Flash those games were designed for keyboards and a mouse pointer, not a finger-based touch screen so Adobe had to rewrite Flash to be smarter (which they are still doing with Flash 10.1 for mobiles) and the Flash apps have to be rewritten for the new input method, with the HW limitations in mind (eg: CPU, GPU, RAM, Display Size).
4) What would Flash 1, 2 or 3 do for any mobile? What benefit would it have except make pages load slower, the processor work harder while wearing down the battery faster, and make the scrolling more problematic by using a plug-in. Modern Flash already messed up 2-finger scrolling in browsers at time.
5) Why must the iPhone match every single capability of Android. Since when has entered a market specifically to bloat features in oder to sell a solution to its customers? Apple has always worked a certain way with competitors trying to scrape out a living by added features that only look good on a spec sheet, but rarely work well in the real world.
So is this simply untrue?
http://gizmodo.com/5374115/flash-101...ayable-hd-vids
I'm a huge Apple fanboy...it really bothers me when people talk about Apple as a closed, evil system... I think of everything Apple has pioneered in desktop publishing and print and how it continues to dominate in sound and video production....This move against Flash to me is just silly though... Let the user decide!!
1) No one has taken away functionality. iPhone OS has never had Flash.
Functionality has been taken away if you look at it from a certain point of view. Safari on the Mac has it and Safari on the iPhone and iPad does not.
Functionality has been taken away if you look at it from a certain point of view. Safari on the Mac has it and Safari on the iPhone and iPad does not.
And the argument made more sense on the first 2 iPhones...The 3GS though doubled the processing power and I'm sure the iPhone4 and iPad will be even faster...
6) Because of all the previously stated points, regardless of what Steve Jobs says, Apple will have to make an iPhone with CDMA in it at some point. It is not wise to take what a CEO says at face value without looking at the facts. *See the time he stated video on an iPod doesn't make sense only months before the reveal of the iPod 5G with video*
Ding ding ding ding