As an electrical engineer I take Apple's stance on Flash at face value and believe that it's system requirements would negatively impact a battery-powered phone. It has nothing to do with Apple telling me I don't need it...although I haven't had it on my phone for 3 years and I don't miss it.
However, maybe it is obvious that Flash works perfectly on phones as evidenced by the Droid having Flash from day 1 and the Droid's ability to play that "other half" of the internet as we speak. Oh...wait...
Funny how well Flash works when using hardware acceleration. Something I have been talking about for weeks now. Steve Jobs simply wants to control content, Flash isn't the issue. It was in the past and I admit Adobe didn't do much to help make Flash run better under OSX but that isn't the case now.
SJ is pushing his luck. Adobe could simply stop making the Create Suite to run under OSX.
The brave firefighters that ran into doomed skyscrapers on 9/11? Socialists.
Military men and women dying and losing limbs in our wars? Socialists.
Police? Socialists.
Libraries? Socialists.
Some things are important enough for us all to chip in. You shouldn't be asked for your credit card when your house is burning or your kid is kidnapped. Using these idealogical absolutes detracts from thoughtful discussions. Capitalism does great things but it isn't a form of government.
Capitalism destroyed communism. Now it's doing a number on democracy.
Funny how well Flash works when using hardware acceleration. Something I have been talking about for weeks now. Steve Jobs simply wants to control content, Flash isn't the issue. It was in the past and I admit Adobe didn't do much to help make Flash run better under OSX but that isn't the case now.
SJ is pushing his luck. Adobe could simply stop making the Create Suite to run under OSX.
Android OS phones have been on the market for a year and a half and it may be another 6 months before the first Flash player arrives for them. However, according to experts like yourself Flash runs perfectly. I'm sure Adobe and Google aren't paying attention at all to what Apple is saying. I'm sure they've got Flash ready to go. They're just too lazy to actually release it.
I don't think he's saying that the same people will buy multiple phones month after month.
Instead, I think he is saying that more and more DIFFERENT people will buy more and more Android phones. And when the state of the art keeps getting better and better, with more and more cool phones hitting the market every few months, more and more people will see their friends' new cool phones.
And they will want a new phone.
And when they go shopping, they might not want a nearly-year old iPhone.
I think that is what he is saying.
You are making too many assumptions. How exactly is the "state of the art" going to get better and better with each new Android phone? They will all be running the same OS, Android. Presumably, the latest version as offered by Google. If HTC offers a blue Android phone, and Motorola follows with a red Android phone, that's not the state of the art getting better, is it?
So, how is this different from Apple upgrading the OS every year, along with a new "better" iPhone?
The Nexus One is a flop. Not many people buying that one, are they? King of the Androids, and it's a flop !!
As an electrical engineer I take Apple's stance on Flash at face value and believe that it's system requirements would negatively impact a battery-powered phone. It has nothing to do with Apple telling me I don't need it...although I haven't had it on my phone for 3 years and I don't miss it.
However, maybe it is obvious that Flash works perfectly on phones as evidenced by the Droid having Flash from day 1 and the Droid's ability to play that "other half" of the internet as we speak. Oh...wait...
On a phone I would not miss flash content at all but on a device like a the Ipad which is billed as a magical internet device I want to be able to use the other half of the internet. If they need to put a larger battery in it, so be it. I like function over form, as an electrical engineer i think you can understand that. Let me turn on flash if I want to use it, and give me a warning it they think i need it.
On the other hand if the Google device does not have access to the other half of the web I won't buy it either or I will wait until the web moves past flash and on to html5 and then buy.
Android OS phones have been on the market for a year and a half and it may be another 6 months before the first Flash player arrives for them. However, according to experts like yourself Flash runs perfectly. I'm sure Adobe and Google aren't paying attention at all to what Apple is saying. I'm sure they've got Flash ready to go. They're just too lazy to actually release it.
I never said Flash runs perfectly. However 10.1 resolves several issues because it accesses the correct API's to use GPU hardware acceleration. A good example of this when using either a notebook or a desktop is run something using Flash 10.1 use Safari under OSX and it uses close to 30% CPU. Do the same using Safari for Windows and it runs 7.9% CPU.
Apple however will not give Adobe the information they need to access the correct API's to take advantage of hardware acceleration under OSX.
The are two issues here, Adobe sat on their ass for a long time and did very little for Apple in terms of Flash. The second issue is now SJ wants to act like a child and live in the past instead of working with Adobe to resolve this issue. The fact is 10.1 can resolve many of this using not only for OSX but as you can see for smartphones also.
SJ doesn't have the power or the market share to kill Flash, its going to be around for a long time.
The brave firefighters that ran into doomed skyscrapers on 9/11? Socialists.
Military men and women dying and losing limbs in our wars? Socialists.
Police? Socialists.
Libraries? Socialists.
Some things are important enough for us all to chip in. You shouldn't be asked for your credit card when your house is burning or your kid is kidnapped. Using these idealogical absolutes detracts from thoughtful discussions. Capitalism does great things but it isn't a form of government.
Capitalism destroyed communism. Now it's doing a number on democracy.
I think your tangent is pretty loco. Important enough for all of us to chip in? You're looking for a self-serving result, but trying to sell it as some great utopian concept. It's shallow and transparent.
Public libraries - Winnie the Pooh and Stephen King should be payed for with tax dollars?
Why? If you want to institutionalize morality and charity, I suggest trying religion, because that's what you're talking about. If you think a nation military or police force is an example of socialism, you're very confused. You're also forgetting the 2nd Amendment buddy, it proclaims that we get to arm ourselves in order to prevent force from being a government monopoly in case they overstep their bounds in respect to the very limited specific rights granted to them. Those founding fathers were smart enough to make a point of saying that ALL other rights belong to the people. Don't blame yourself, there is a very vested political machinery to convince you otherwise - happy tax week!
Defense:
Under the actual text of the Constitution it's "Provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare". There is a very distinct difference between the meaning of provide and promote. I suggest a re-read, maybe 3 or 4 times of the Federalist Papers. Your ideas were debunked a long time ago, with some pretty astounding insight, maybe it's time you get up to speed and stop being babysat by the TV. Nobody argues about how a toilet works, but why do people still invest their "faith" in these obvious ideological superstitions? Especially when mountains of contrary real world evidence is literally staring them in the face. It's kinda like denying evolution, beyond the confines and company of your 'church', it looks & sounds really ignorant. You don't have one economic argument to prove your point, only ideas about what's good for everybody - that's religion buddy.
Capitalism is destroying democracy? Obviously you're not a student of western civilization or basic economics (under any political system). Capitalism IS democracy, the two are inseparable concepts & realities. Attempts to mutate this 'cosmic' fact have proven to be utter failures, but the people who write the political prose for both sides always seems to leave these details out. I suggest less education thru political pamphlets & talking points and much more book reading, padawan. I guess I shouldn't point out that almost all human activity is capitalistic, it's essential to any evolution. Socialism is a fine belief system, just like Christianity, but I think you've made the same mistake that your poetry counts for fact in the tangible universe. I generally think it's best to operate with the available facts, until we start seeing drunken loser post-industrial philosophers float down from the heavens with bread and wine for all.
The obvious head slapper for you should be your own logic, read your own post and if you really believe all that, then why in the hell would you want government directly involved in your internet usage? They are better than Comcast at their supposed worst? That's insane.
Don't you remember that it was government non-interference in the tech sector that has allowed that segment to proliferate greatly and relatively unhindered? There's no intelligent reason to change that. There is a however a very heavy political reason to assume more authority and taxes over the internet.
You pay for food as you go. If you eat a billion cheeseburgers and your neighbor eats 1, why under any ideology should he have to pay for your gluttony instead of you? If you're right then I'll be happy to get free MacBook Pros and cheeseburgers, if you want to man-up on your talk, send me your credit card # and you can start paying for me right now.
Doctor David was only responding to someone else who was pushing there off topic "twisted ideologies". I for one would like to be spared that.
I was elaborating on the twisted logic of the oxymoron called net neutrality.
If you like your bubble, don't come up for air.
More importantly I was dismissing Google's blatant swipe of the iPhone as 'competition'.
A look at the iPhone vs Android phone development timeline is a very effective slam dunk for team oxygenhose on this point.
Just like I would argue with a Hindu or Christian trying to tell me it's a magical entity that powers my printer, I will continue to point out the obvious flaws in other popular ideological religions. All tangible evidence supports Capitalism. In fact... I believe Steve Jobs is one of its patron saints.
I think your tangent is pretty loco. Important enough for all of us to chip in? You're looking for a self-serving result, but trying to sell it as some great utopian concept. It's shallow and transparent.
Public libraries - Winnie the Pooh and Stephen King should be payed for with tax dollars?
Why? If you want to institutionalize morality and charity, I suggest trying religion, because that's what you're talking about. If you think a nation military or police force is an example of socialism, you're very confused. You're also forgetting the 2nd Amendment buddy, it proclaims that we get to arm ourselves in order to prevent force from being a government monopoly in case they overstep their bounds in respect to the very limited specific rights granted to them. Those founding fathers were smart enough to make a point of saying that ALL other rights belong to the people. Don't blame yourself, there is a very vested political machinery to convince you otherwise - happy tax week!
Defense:
Under the actual text of the Constitution it's "Provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare". There is a very distinct difference between the meaning of provide and promote. I suggest a re-read, maybe 3 or 4 times of the Federalist Papers. Your ideas were debunked a long time ago, with some pretty astounding insight, maybe it's time you get up to speed and stop being babysat by the TV. Nobody argues about how a toilet works, but why do people still invest their "faith" in these obvious ideological superstitions? Especially when mountains of contrary real world evidence is literally staring them in the face. It's kinda like denying evolution, beyond the confines and company of your 'church', it looks & sounds really ignorant. You don't have one economic argument to prove your point, only ideas about what's good for everybody - that's religion buddy.
Capitalism is destroying democracy? Obviously you're not a student of western civilization or basic economics (under any political system). Capitalism IS democracy, the two are inseparable concepts & realities. Attempts to mutate this 'cosmic' fact have proven to be utter failures, but the people who write the political prose for both sides always seems to leave these details out. I suggest less education thru political pamphlets & talking points and much more book reading, padawan. I guess I shouldn't point out that almost all human activity is capitalistic, it's essential to any evolution. Socialism is a fine belief system, just like Christianity, but I think you've made the same mistake that your poetry counts for fact in the tangible universe. I generally think it's best to operate with the available facts, until we start seeing drunken loser post-industrial philosophers float down from the heavens with bread and wine for all.
The obvious head slapper for you should be your own logic, read your own post and if you really believe all that, then why in the hell would you want government directly involved in your internet usage? They are better than Comcast at their supposed worst? That's insane.
Don't you remember that it was government non-interference in the tech sector that has allowed that segment to proliferate greatly and relatively unhindered? There's no intelligent reason to change that. There is a however a very heavy political reason to assume more authority and taxes over the internet.
You pay for food as you go. If you eat a billion cheeseburgers and your neighbor eats 1, why under any ideology should he have to pay for your gluttony instead of you? If you're right then I'll be happy to get free MacBook Pros and cheeseburgers, if you want to man-up on your talk, send me your credit card # and you can start paying for me right now.
What does that have to do with Google to pit Android-based tablet against Apple's iPad ?
Google sure looks like it is setting itself up for failure. I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
(i) They are trying to do too many things, throwing too many things at the wall and hoping that something will stick;
(ii) Their primary source of eyeballs and market share is their ability to give stuff away for free or cheap, and their primary source of revenue to back that up is advertising. But advertising is a fickle market, easy come easy go (as newspapers have learned) -- that also explains Google's panic in trying to get something else that works from a revenue-generation standpoint;
(iii) They have no idea how to manage a value chain that does both software and hardware (witness, e.g., customer complaint-handling problems with Nexus One); they will have to learn stuff like managing a supply chain, dealing with quality control issues, scheduling, delivery, after-sales service, managing retailers etc;
(iv) They do not seem to have the ability to compete successfully in major markets outside the US: witness their inability to do business in China, running into major battles in the EU (e.g., Streetview in Germany, how long they keep customer search data in Italy, Google Books copyright issues in many EU countries);
(v) They have too many collaborators with whom they are also current or potential competitors: soon, every one of Google's partners will be doing business with the company with a weary eye.
So, I say, bring on the GooglePad. We'll see how it pans out for them.
I think that the iPad is the birth of a whole new class of device which will eventually cover a huge range of uses both in the home and the workplace. The potential market for these devices is massive and Apple couldn't possibly cater for all the variations required, even if they wished to (which I doubt). Therefore there is plenty of scope for other device manufacturers to come to the party, and if they can come up with something half decent there is no reason why they couldn't happily flourish in such a diverse market, albeit a diverse market where Apple sets the standard.
Agree!!!
This is just the begining. My son is an Emergency RN and says the iPad could be used in the hospitals big time.
I have been using Tablets since 2003 (Toshiba M205 and MotionComputing LE1700). Love the active digitizer. If there was a device that had the capacitive touch of the iPad plus the active digitizer, I would jump in inmediately. Yeah, I know there are already some, I think the Lenovo. Don't like to wait two minutes for the OS to finally give me the Tablet for me to use!.
May be the Courier could be it. If they would just get with it!
Nope. These guys know the growth curve is in mobile. These new devices will eventually sub-plant traditional PCs. Just like the telecom land line business is dying a slow death because of mobile so will the traditional PC over time.
Actually, the growth curve isn't in Mobile. It's in extending platform functionality into an already mature Mobile market.
Billions of mobile phones already exist, just like portable/desktop solutions.
The iPad won't cannibalize Apple desktop/laptop sales. It is expanding them and with the iPad growing into areas often held by business professionals not interested in a MacBook/Mac Pro but would love a portable device bigger than a phone.
Google wants to play in that space and knows it has to or see it's cloud/enterprise markets weaken.
What next from Apple? Multi-tasking in iPhone OS? Surely not!
To say Google are copying Apple because they are making phones and tablets is absurd. Unless you've been living in a cave for 10 years, tablets have been around for a LONG, LONG time. And I suspect phones even a tiny bit longer than that.
(v) They have too many collaborators with whom they are also current or potential competitors: soon, every one of Google's partners will be doing business with the company with a weary eye.
Do you mean "wary" eye? As in not turning one's back on Google for fear of being knifed?
I wonder if Schmidt recused himself from iPad-related discussions while serving on Apple's board...?
Does anyone know the legal guidelines that bind a corporate board member, in terms of "firewalling" secrets revealed to them during their board tenure, lest they are liable for some type of confidentiality breach?
I never said Flash runs perfectly. However 10.1 resolves several issues because it accesses the correct API's to use GPU hardware acceleration. A good example of this when using either a notebook or a desktop is run something using Flash 10.1 use Safari under OSX and it uses close to 30% CPU. Do the same using Safari for Windows and it runs 7.9% CPU.
Apple however will not give Adobe the information they need to access the correct API's to take advantage of hardware acceleration under OSX.
The are two issues here, Adobe sat on their ass for a long time and did very little for Apple in terms of Flash. The second issue is now SJ wants to act like a child and live in the past instead of working with Adobe to resolve this issue. The fact is 10.1 can resolve many of this using not only for OSX but as you can see for smartphones also.
SJ doesn't have the power or the market share to kill Flash, its going to be around for a long time.
The biggest threat to Flash's future is it's usability. Almost all publishing platforms that fail to become easier for the end user, over time whither and die. I think you're seeing that already start to happen. Writing Flash content is totally alien compared to other web dev, they either have to fix that or Adobe is doomed.
I'm not certain, but it sounds a lot like Adobe is making a lot of excuses for why it doesn't work, then trying to meddle with well-thought out specs to prohibit an alternative. I was a really big fan and stock holder in Adobe, but I think their credibility and ability to deliver has slipped, while their whining has increased. If everyone else can write iPhone software that mostly works, obviously it's not Apple's problem that their internal 'special' requirements are prohibiting them from realizing their own product.
Adobe is making a huge deal about what exactly... blinking animations? I'm sure they wish they could be the sole source for displaying images in html too. I recently installed Click2Flash after seeing it promoted here, it's pretty obvious when loading all my usual sites on how much glut and garbage is directly coming from Flash content.
If they want more support, maybe less blog theatrics, more proving they can amaze with a Mac client. If they want Apple users to ping the mothership for help, they are doing the exact opposite. It's taken them a decade to make a true OS X version of their flagship product. They avoided the hard work there, seems like a corporate motivation issue. Maybe a new CEO with a big boot to incentivize their code monkeys?
Comments
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
- Inigo Montoya
Perhaps he's the six-fingered man.
As an electrical engineer I take Apple's stance on Flash at face value and believe that it's system requirements would negatively impact a battery-powered phone. It has nothing to do with Apple telling me I don't need it...although I haven't had it on my phone for 3 years and I don't miss it.
However, maybe it is obvious that Flash works perfectly on phones as evidenced by the Droid having Flash from day 1 and the Droid's ability to play that "other half" of the internet as we speak. Oh...wait...
Motorola Droid Running Adobe Flash 10.1 Demoed
http://www.infosyncworld.com/news/n/10822.html
Motorola Droid Running Adobe Flash 10.1 Demoed
http://www.infosyncworld.com/news/n/10822.html
Funny how well Flash works when using hardware acceleration. Something I have been talking about for weeks now. Steve Jobs simply wants to control content, Flash isn't the issue. It was in the past and I admit Adobe didn't do much to help make Flash run better under OSX but that isn't the case now.
SJ is pushing his luck. Adobe could simply stop making the Create Suite to run under OSX.
Motorola Droid Running Adobe Flash 10.1 Demoed
http://www.infosyncworld.com/news/n/10822.html
I'm going to "demo" having a million dollars in my checking account and see what I can buy with it.
The brave firefighters that ran into doomed skyscrapers on 9/11? Socialists.
Military men and women dying and losing limbs in our wars? Socialists.
Police? Socialists.
Libraries? Socialists.
Some things are important enough for us all to chip in. You shouldn't be asked for your credit card when your house is burning or your kid is kidnapped. Using these idealogical absolutes detracts from thoughtful discussions. Capitalism does great things but it isn't a form of government.
Capitalism destroyed communism. Now it's doing a number on democracy.
oh gosh! spare us your twisted ideologies doc.
Funny how well Flash works when using hardware acceleration. Something I have been talking about for weeks now. Steve Jobs simply wants to control content, Flash isn't the issue. It was in the past and I admit Adobe didn't do much to help make Flash run better under OSX but that isn't the case now.
SJ is pushing his luck. Adobe could simply stop making the Create Suite to run under OSX.
Android OS phones have been on the market for a year and a half and it may be another 6 months before the first Flash player arrives for them. However, according to experts like yourself Flash runs perfectly. I'm sure Adobe and Google aren't paying attention at all to what Apple is saying. I'm sure they've got Flash ready to go. They're just too lazy to actually release it.
I don't think he's saying that the same people will buy multiple phones month after month.
Instead, I think he is saying that more and more DIFFERENT people will buy more and more Android phones. And when the state of the art keeps getting better and better, with more and more cool phones hitting the market every few months, more and more people will see their friends' new cool phones.
And they will want a new phone.
And when they go shopping, they might not want a nearly-year old iPhone.
I think that is what he is saying.
You are making too many assumptions. How exactly is the "state of the art" going to get better and better with each new Android phone? They will all be running the same OS, Android. Presumably, the latest version as offered by Google. If HTC offers a blue Android phone, and Motorola follows with a red Android phone, that's not the state of the art getting better, is it?
So, how is this different from Apple upgrading the OS every year, along with a new "better" iPhone?
The Nexus One is a flop. Not many people buying that one, are they? King of the Androids, and it's a flop !!
As an electrical engineer I take Apple's stance on Flash at face value and believe that it's system requirements would negatively impact a battery-powered phone. It has nothing to do with Apple telling me I don't need it...although I haven't had it on my phone for 3 years and I don't miss it.
However, maybe it is obvious that Flash works perfectly on phones as evidenced by the Droid having Flash from day 1 and the Droid's ability to play that "other half" of the internet as we speak. Oh...wait...
On a phone I would not miss flash content at all but on a device like a the Ipad which is billed as a magical internet device I want to be able to use the other half of the internet. If they need to put a larger battery in it, so be it. I like function over form, as an electrical engineer i think you can understand that. Let me turn on flash if I want to use it, and give me a warning it they think i need it.
On the other hand if the Google device does not have access to the other half of the web I won't buy it either or I will wait until the web moves past flash and on to html5 and then buy.
Android OS phones have been on the market for a year and a half and it may be another 6 months before the first Flash player arrives for them. However, according to experts like yourself Flash runs perfectly. I'm sure Adobe and Google aren't paying attention at all to what Apple is saying. I'm sure they've got Flash ready to go. They're just too lazy to actually release it.
I never said Flash runs perfectly. However 10.1 resolves several issues because it accesses the correct API's to use GPU hardware acceleration. A good example of this when using either a notebook or a desktop is run something using Flash 10.1 use Safari under OSX and it uses close to 30% CPU. Do the same using Safari for Windows and it runs 7.9% CPU.
Apple however will not give Adobe the information they need to access the correct API's to take advantage of hardware acceleration under OSX.
The are two issues here, Adobe sat on their ass for a long time and did very little for Apple in terms of Flash. The second issue is now SJ wants to act like a child and live in the past instead of working with Adobe to resolve this issue. The fact is 10.1 can resolve many of this using not only for OSX but as you can see for smartphones also.
SJ doesn't have the power or the market share to kill Flash, its going to be around for a long time.
The brave firefighters that ran into doomed skyscrapers on 9/11? Socialists.
Military men and women dying and losing limbs in our wars? Socialists.
Police? Socialists.
Libraries? Socialists.
Some things are important enough for us all to chip in. You shouldn't be asked for your credit card when your house is burning or your kid is kidnapped. Using these idealogical absolutes detracts from thoughtful discussions. Capitalism does great things but it isn't a form of government.
Capitalism destroyed communism. Now it's doing a number on democracy.
I think your tangent is pretty loco. Important enough for all of us to chip in? You're looking for a self-serving result, but trying to sell it as some great utopian concept. It's shallow and transparent.
Public libraries - Winnie the Pooh and Stephen King should be payed for with tax dollars?
Why? If you want to institutionalize morality and charity, I suggest trying religion, because that's what you're talking about. If you think a nation military or police force is an example of socialism, you're very confused. You're also forgetting the 2nd Amendment buddy, it proclaims that we get to arm ourselves in order to prevent force from being a government monopoly in case they overstep their bounds in respect to the very limited specific rights granted to them. Those founding fathers were smart enough to make a point of saying that ALL other rights belong to the people. Don't blame yourself, there is a very vested political machinery to convince you otherwise - happy tax week!
Defense:
Under the actual text of the Constitution it's "Provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare". There is a very distinct difference between the meaning of provide and promote. I suggest a re-read, maybe 3 or 4 times of the Federalist Papers. Your ideas were debunked a long time ago, with some pretty astounding insight, maybe it's time you get up to speed and stop being babysat by the TV. Nobody argues about how a toilet works, but why do people still invest their "faith" in these obvious ideological superstitions? Especially when mountains of contrary real world evidence is literally staring them in the face. It's kinda like denying evolution, beyond the confines and company of your 'church', it looks & sounds really ignorant. You don't have one economic argument to prove your point, only ideas about what's good for everybody - that's religion buddy.
Capitalism is destroying democracy? Obviously you're not a student of western civilization or basic economics (under any political system). Capitalism IS democracy, the two are inseparable concepts & realities. Attempts to mutate this 'cosmic' fact have proven to be utter failures, but the people who write the political prose for both sides always seems to leave these details out. I suggest less education thru political pamphlets & talking points and much more book reading, padawan. I guess I shouldn't point out that almost all human activity is capitalistic, it's essential to any evolution. Socialism is a fine belief system, just like Christianity, but I think you've made the same mistake that your poetry counts for fact in the tangible universe. I generally think it's best to operate with the available facts, until we start seeing drunken loser post-industrial philosophers float down from the heavens with bread and wine for all.
The obvious head slapper for you should be your own logic, read your own post and if you really believe all that, then why in the hell would you want government directly involved in your internet usage? They are better than Comcast at their supposed worst? That's insane.
Don't you remember that it was government non-interference in the tech sector that has allowed that segment to proliferate greatly and relatively unhindered? There's no intelligent reason to change that. There is a however a very heavy political reason to assume more authority and taxes over the internet.
You pay for food as you go. If you eat a billion cheeseburgers and your neighbor eats 1, why under any ideology should he have to pay for your gluttony instead of you? If you're right then I'll be happy to get free MacBook Pros and cheeseburgers, if you want to man-up on your talk, send me your credit card # and you can start paying for me right now.
oh gosh! spare us your twisted ideologies doc.
Doctor David was only responding to someone else who was pushing there off topic "twisted ideologies". I for one would like to be spared that.
Doctor David was only responding to someone else who was pushing there off topic "twisted ideologies". I for one would like to be spared that.
I was elaborating on the twisted logic of the oxymoron called net neutrality.
If you like your bubble, don't come up for air.
More importantly I was dismissing Google's blatant swipe of the iPhone as 'competition'.
A look at the iPhone vs Android phone development timeline is a very effective slam dunk for team oxygenhose on this point.
Just like I would argue with a Hindu or Christian trying to tell me it's a magical entity that powers my printer, I will continue to point out the obvious flaws in other popular ideological religions. All tangible evidence supports Capitalism. In fact... I believe Steve Jobs is one of its patron saints.
I think your tangent is pretty loco. Important enough for all of us to chip in? You're looking for a self-serving result, but trying to sell it as some great utopian concept. It's shallow and transparent.
Public libraries - Winnie the Pooh and Stephen King should be payed for with tax dollars?
Why? If you want to institutionalize morality and charity, I suggest trying religion, because that's what you're talking about. If you think a nation military or police force is an example of socialism, you're very confused. You're also forgetting the 2nd Amendment buddy, it proclaims that we get to arm ourselves in order to prevent force from being a government monopoly in case they overstep their bounds in respect to the very limited specific rights granted to them. Those founding fathers were smart enough to make a point of saying that ALL other rights belong to the people. Don't blame yourself, there is a very vested political machinery to convince you otherwise - happy tax week!
Defense:
Under the actual text of the Constitution it's "Provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare". There is a very distinct difference between the meaning of provide and promote. I suggest a re-read, maybe 3 or 4 times of the Federalist Papers. Your ideas were debunked a long time ago, with some pretty astounding insight, maybe it's time you get up to speed and stop being babysat by the TV. Nobody argues about how a toilet works, but why do people still invest their "faith" in these obvious ideological superstitions? Especially when mountains of contrary real world evidence is literally staring them in the face. It's kinda like denying evolution, beyond the confines and company of your 'church', it looks & sounds really ignorant. You don't have one economic argument to prove your point, only ideas about what's good for everybody - that's religion buddy.
Capitalism is destroying democracy? Obviously you're not a student of western civilization or basic economics (under any political system). Capitalism IS democracy, the two are inseparable concepts & realities. Attempts to mutate this 'cosmic' fact have proven to be utter failures, but the people who write the political prose for both sides always seems to leave these details out. I suggest less education thru political pamphlets & talking points and much more book reading, padawan. I guess I shouldn't point out that almost all human activity is capitalistic, it's essential to any evolution. Socialism is a fine belief system, just like Christianity, but I think you've made the same mistake that your poetry counts for fact in the tangible universe. I generally think it's best to operate with the available facts, until we start seeing drunken loser post-industrial philosophers float down from the heavens with bread and wine for all.
The obvious head slapper for you should be your own logic, read your own post and if you really believe all that, then why in the hell would you want government directly involved in your internet usage? They are better than Comcast at their supposed worst? That's insane.
Don't you remember that it was government non-interference in the tech sector that has allowed that segment to proliferate greatly and relatively unhindered? There's no intelligent reason to change that. There is a however a very heavy political reason to assume more authority and taxes over the internet.
You pay for food as you go. If you eat a billion cheeseburgers and your neighbor eats 1, why under any ideology should he have to pay for your gluttony instead of you? If you're right then I'll be happy to get free MacBook Pros and cheeseburgers, if you want to man-up on your talk, send me your credit card # and you can start paying for me right now.
What does that have to do with Google to pit Android-based tablet against Apple's iPad ?
Why don't you go to some political blog.
(i) They are trying to do too many things, throwing too many things at the wall and hoping that something will stick;
(ii) Their primary source of eyeballs and market share is their ability to give stuff away for free or cheap, and their primary source of revenue to back that up is advertising. But advertising is a fickle market, easy come easy go (as newspapers have learned) -- that also explains Google's panic in trying to get something else that works from a revenue-generation standpoint;
(iii) They have no idea how to manage a value chain that does both software and hardware (witness, e.g., customer complaint-handling problems with Nexus One); they will have to learn stuff like managing a supply chain, dealing with quality control issues, scheduling, delivery, after-sales service, managing retailers etc;
(iv) They do not seem to have the ability to compete successfully in major markets outside the US: witness their inability to do business in China, running into major battles in the EU (e.g., Streetview in Germany, how long they keep customer search data in Italy, Google Books copyright issues in many EU countries);
(v) They have too many collaborators with whom they are also current or potential competitors: soon, every one of Google's partners will be doing business with the company with a weary eye.
So, I say, bring on the GooglePad. We'll see how it pans out for them.
I think that the iPad is the birth of a whole new class of device which will eventually cover a huge range of uses both in the home and the workplace. The potential market for these devices is massive and Apple couldn't possibly cater for all the variations required, even if they wished to (which I doubt). Therefore there is plenty of scope for other device manufacturers to come to the party, and if they can come up with something half decent there is no reason why they couldn't happily flourish in such a diverse market, albeit a diverse market where Apple sets the standard.
Agree!!!
This is just the begining. My son is an Emergency RN and says the iPad could be used in the hospitals big time.
I have been using Tablets since 2003 (Toshiba M205 and MotionComputing LE1700). Love the active digitizer. If there was a device that had the capacitive touch of the iPad plus the active digitizer, I would jump in inmediately. Yeah, I know there are already some, I think the Lenovo. Don't like to wait two minutes for the OS to finally give me the Tablet for me to use!.
May be the Courier could be it. If they would just get with it!
Nope. These guys know the growth curve is in mobile. These new devices will eventually sub-plant traditional PCs. Just like the telecom land line business is dying a slow death because of mobile so will the traditional PC over time.
Actually, the growth curve isn't in Mobile. It's in extending platform functionality into an already mature Mobile market.
Billions of mobile phones already exist, just like portable/desktop solutions.
The iPad won't cannibalize Apple desktop/laptop sales. It is expanding them and with the iPad growing into areas often held by business professionals not interested in a MacBook/Mac Pro but would love a portable device bigger than a phone.
Google wants to play in that space and knows it has to or see it's cloud/enterprise markets weaken.
First the Google Phone. Now the Google Pad.
What's next for these guys? The Google Mac?
What next from Apple? Multi-tasking in iPhone OS? Surely not!
To say Google are copying Apple because they are making phones and tablets is absurd. Unless you've been living in a cave for 10 years, tablets have been around for a LONG, LONG time. And I suspect phones even a tiny bit longer than that.
(v) They have too many collaborators with whom they are also current or potential competitors: soon, every one of Google's partners will be doing business with the company with a weary eye.
Do you mean "wary" eye? As in not turning one's back on Google for fear of being knifed?
Does anyone know the legal guidelines that bind a corporate board member, in terms of "firewalling" secrets revealed to them during their board tenure, lest they are liable for some type of confidentiality breach?
I never said Flash runs perfectly. However 10.1 resolves several issues because it accesses the correct API's to use GPU hardware acceleration. A good example of this when using either a notebook or a desktop is run something using Flash 10.1 use Safari under OSX and it uses close to 30% CPU. Do the same using Safari for Windows and it runs 7.9% CPU.
Apple however will not give Adobe the information they need to access the correct API's to take advantage of hardware acceleration under OSX.
The are two issues here, Adobe sat on their ass for a long time and did very little for Apple in terms of Flash. The second issue is now SJ wants to act like a child and live in the past instead of working with Adobe to resolve this issue. The fact is 10.1 can resolve many of this using not only for OSX but as you can see for smartphones also.
SJ doesn't have the power or the market share to kill Flash, its going to be around for a long time.
The biggest threat to Flash's future is it's usability. Almost all publishing platforms that fail to become easier for the end user, over time whither and die. I think you're seeing that already start to happen. Writing Flash content is totally alien compared to other web dev, they either have to fix that or Adobe is doomed.
I'm not certain, but it sounds a lot like Adobe is making a lot of excuses for why it doesn't work, then trying to meddle with well-thought out specs to prohibit an alternative. I was a really big fan and stock holder in Adobe, but I think their credibility and ability to deliver has slipped, while their whining has increased. If everyone else can write iPhone software that mostly works, obviously it's not Apple's problem that their internal 'special' requirements are prohibiting them from realizing their own product.
Adobe is making a huge deal about what exactly... blinking animations? I'm sure they wish they could be the sole source for displaying images in html too. I recently installed Click2Flash after seeing it promoted here, it's pretty obvious when loading all my usual sites on how much glut and garbage is directly coming from Flash content.
If they want more support, maybe less blog theatrics, more proving they can amaze with a Mac client. If they want Apple users to ping the mothership for help, they are doing the exact opposite. It's taken them a decade to make a true OS X version of their flagship product. They avoided the hard work there, seems like a corporate motivation issue. Maybe a new CEO with a big boot to incentivize their code monkeys?