From reading your post it seems that you agree with me.
That is a very strange conclusion to reach. All I did was giving an example of what Steve meant when he said they had been down that road before, and the solution was to remove the extra layer, which XCode did nicely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
If Apple provide developers with good tools for wring iPhone apps they'll naturally gravitate to them.
That has to be one of the most ignorant sentences I've ever read! And I don't mean ignorant in the vague insulting way, like "stupid" or anything like that. I mean it in the truest sense of the word, which is "incredibly unaware". The tools for writing iPhone apps are second to none and a large reason why there are so many apps available.
In other words, Apple DOES provide developers with such good tools, and that's WHY they have gravitated to them.
If you know so little about this particular aspect of the topic, you probably should move on to a different aspect of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
But I think there is another agenda here at work. Apple wish to make it difficult to write apps that can easily be ported to several platform in order to blunt the the success of Android. IMO, if they wish to blunt the success of Android they need to make the iPhone available to ALL US carriers. They are plenty of users who simply will not choose ATT as a a carrier, regardless of the device.
Adding the other US carriers will solve that problem.
Of course they want to maintain advantage over Android. They will eventually move to other carriers, but they are going to do it in a measured way, which is appropriate because of the dramatically changing technology landscape.
Uhm...the Slate hasn't been cancelled. The HP Slate is listed as having a 5 hour battery life
Well, OK, I suppose I jumped the gun on that one. (Although I still have my doubts.) In any case...
The HP Slate is not even shipping. Detail specs are not verifiable. How can it be used in a present tense argument? How can it be used in ANY argument outside of speculation?
You know, until there actually IS an HP Slate and we can all see the performance, it doesn't really seem appropriate to use it in an argument (especially in the present tense). That's just lame.
Thompson
See for yourself, two videos here, there is another floating around too.
What you are saying is undeniably false. HTML5 does not "include" h.264 for video playback, the format for embedding video with the video tag within HTML5 is currently undefined.
There are some Netscape extensions from before there was an HTTP standard. Everyone supports them today, but they are still not in the standards. Basically, if you get enough people to do it, it doesn't really matter what the standards say. So arguing that the video tag is undefined is pointless, when Youtube, Vimeo, and all the others are already doing it. You may never see it in the standard, but the real standard is already set.
I'm using a Mac Pro. The site very well may use more cpu in the actual game but since it is a pay to play situation I only viewed the demo..
You accused me of lying when I said that playing the game took the CPU to 120% and you said that you only got 58%.
NOW, it turns out that you were lying - you never played the game at all. Do you really expect that a demo is going to be the same as playing the full game?
Maybe before you accuse people of lying in the future, you could think about telling the truth yourself instead of making false accusations.
And yet, Adobe keeps slipping the go-live date. Repeatedly. As long as it's a prototype, it's a prototype. Call me when we can run some benchmarks on performance and battery life.
The thing is, I doubt anyone from the Android team at Google will have the stones to tell Adobe that performance sucks and it's not ready. So I'm sure it will eventually ship, but I'm unconvinced that it will be worth a sh!t when it does.
That has to be one of the most ignorant sentences I've ever read! And I don't mean ignorant in the vague insulting way, like "stupid" or anything like that. I mean it in the truest sense of the word, which is "incredibly unaware". The tools for writing iPhone apps are second to none and a large reason why there are so many apps available.
In other words, Apple DOES provide developers with such good tools, and that's WHY they have gravitated to them.
I never said Apple DON"T provide good development tools.
I said that's ALL that is necessary to ensure their adoption. No need for SDK restrictions, arm twisting and guns pointed at people's heads.
And some tools that are restricted by Apple's new SDK agreement are capable of producing good iPhone apps. Case in point, Now Playing. Consistently regarded as the best movie app on the iPhone. Apparently in was developed using tools that are forbidden by the SDK agreement.
You accused me of lying when I said that playing the game took the CPU to 120% and you said that you only got 58%.
NOW, it turns out that you were lying - you never played the game at all. Do you really expect that a demo is going to be the same as playing the full game?
Maybe before you accuse people of lying in the future, you could think about telling the truth yourself instead of making false accusations.
PM me your username and login and I will play the game to test it. Otherwise link to an example that doesn't require payment to view. The demo is Flash with a lot of animations. Your first statement was that the page used NO animations, So does the game use animations or not?
When Steve Jobs touts "HTML5" as a possible successor to "Flash", he's actually comparing H.264 to Flash. HTML5 is just a spec for markup language on the web. It doesn't specify a favored codec for video playback. HTML5 cannot play video without a codec. Steve Jobs uses HTML5 as a euphemism for H.264 when speaking about Flash's shortcomings, since Apple's implementation uses the H.264 codec. If I was unclear before, I apologize.
You write as if video is all Flash and HTML5 do. Maybe, Steve Jobs touts HTML5 as a euphemism for solving Flash's shortcomings across the board, plus all the other stuff that's in HTML5 -- i.e., HTML5 is a euphemism for HTML5. You're flogging a dead horse with a red herring.
This device is not, and may not be, offered for sale or lease, or sold or leased, until authorization is obtained.
Here we go again. What we have is a carefully edited video of some prototype that doesn't actually exist in the retail channel, and, isn't our stuff going to be sooooo cool someday in the future?
And, of course, we're all waiting for the Palm/WebOS version, you know, since HP is now "all in" with that technology.
I enjoy pointing out hypocrisy when the most closed, proprietary, paranoid company in history rails on about the evils of "closed" standards while at the same time pushing their own proprietary standard. ...
Well, I guess you aren't having any fun today at all then. Hope your tomorrow is better.
If it's not an actual SHIPPING product, and all we see is a choreographed YouTube video, we don't know how far beyond prototype stage it is. The actual specs can't be independently verified (and therefore used in an argument).
My point still stands. I am having a hard time articulating it to you apparently. Either that, or you get my point and are trying to spin it. Which is it?
I´m not arguing for Flash on the iPad, the device can´t handle it in itś present form factor.
My point is Steve is making a media fuss because he needs web sites to create iPad (and iPhone and iPod Touch) friendly versions of their sites in addition to the Flash versions for more normal computers.
Which is something he is quite open about. That was the premise of his point about Flash being designed for PC's and not mobiles (especially with touch interfaces).
Comments
Who said I was a fan of Microsoft? Far from it!
What exactly are you a fan of? Besides misrepresentation, of course.
From reading your post it seems that you agree with me.
That is a very strange conclusion to reach. All I did was giving an example of what Steve meant when he said they had been down that road before, and the solution was to remove the extra layer, which XCode did nicely.
If Apple provide developers with good tools for wring iPhone apps they'll naturally gravitate to them.
That has to be one of the most ignorant sentences I've ever read! And I don't mean ignorant in the vague insulting way, like "stupid" or anything like that. I mean it in the truest sense of the word, which is "incredibly unaware". The tools for writing iPhone apps are second to none and a large reason why there are so many apps available.
In other words, Apple DOES provide developers with such good tools, and that's WHY they have gravitated to them.
If you know so little about this particular aspect of the topic, you probably should move on to a different aspect of it.
But I think there is another agenda here at work. Apple wish to make it difficult to write apps that can easily be ported to several platform in order to blunt the the success of Android. IMO, if they wish to blunt the success of Android they need to make the iPhone available to ALL US carriers. They are plenty of users who simply will not choose ATT as a a carrier, regardless of the device.
Adding the other US carriers will solve that problem.
Of course they want to maintain advantage over Android. They will eventually move to other carriers, but they are going to do it in a measured way, which is appropriate because of the dramatically changing technology landscape.
Thompson
Uhm...the Slate hasn't been cancelled. The HP Slate is listed as having a 5 hour battery life
Well, OK, I suppose I jumped the gun on that one. (Although I still have my doubts.) In any case...
The HP Slate is not even shipping. Detail specs are not verifiable. How can it be used in a present tense argument? How can it be used in ANY argument outside of speculation?
Thompson
You know, until there actually IS an HP Slate and we can all see the performance, it doesn't really seem appropriate to use it in an argument (especially in the present tense). That's just lame.
Thompson
See for yourself, two videos here, there is another floating around too.
http://h20435.www2.hp.com/t5/Voodoo-...C0ABD6FFD08BE8
What you are saying is undeniably false. HTML5 does not "include" h.264 for video playback, the format for embedding video with the video tag within HTML5 is currently undefined.
There are some Netscape extensions from before there was an HTTP standard. Everyone supports them today, but they are still not in the standards. Basically, if you get enough people to do it, it doesn't really matter what the standards say. So arguing that the video tag is undefined is pointless, when Youtube, Vimeo, and all the others are already doing it. You may never see it in the standard, but the real standard is already set.
I'm using a Mac Pro. The site very well may use more cpu in the actual game but since it is a pay to play situation I only viewed the demo..
You accused me of lying when I said that playing the game took the CPU to 120% and you said that you only got 58%.
NOW, it turns out that you were lying - you never played the game at all. Do you really expect that a demo is going to be the same as playing the full game?
Maybe before you accuse people of lying in the future, you could think about telling the truth yourself instead of making false accusations.
You know it is not pretend stuff.
Adobe now taking beta testers for Flash Player 10.1 and AIR 2.0
http://www.betanews.com/article/Adob...oid/1271687589
And yet, Adobe keeps slipping the go-live date. Repeatedly. As long as it's a prototype, it's a prototype. Call me when we can run some benchmarks on performance and battery life.
The thing is, I doubt anyone from the Android team at Google will have the stones to tell Adobe that performance sucks and it's not ready. So I'm sure it will eventually ship, but I'm unconvinced that it will be worth a sh!t when it does.
That has to be one of the most ignorant sentences I've ever read! And I don't mean ignorant in the vague insulting way, like "stupid" or anything like that. I mean it in the truest sense of the word, which is "incredibly unaware". The tools for writing iPhone apps are second to none and a large reason why there are so many apps available.
In other words, Apple DOES provide developers with such good tools, and that's WHY they have gravitated to them.
I never said Apple DON"T provide good development tools.
I said that's ALL that is necessary to ensure their adoption. No need for SDK restrictions, arm twisting and guns pointed at people's heads.
And some tools that are restricted by Apple's new SDK agreement are capable of producing good iPhone apps. Case in point, Now Playing. Consistently regarded as the best movie app on the iPhone. Apparently in was developed using tools that are forbidden by the SDK agreement.
How is that a 'good' thing for the platform?
You accused me of lying when I said that playing the game took the CPU to 120% and you said that you only got 58%.
NOW, it turns out that you were lying - you never played the game at all. Do you really expect that a demo is going to be the same as playing the full game?
Maybe before you accuse people of lying in the future, you could think about telling the truth yourself instead of making false accusations.
PM me your username and login and I will play the game to test it. Otherwise link to an example that doesn't require payment to view. The demo is Flash with a lot of animations. Your first statement was that the page used NO animations, So does the game use animations or not?
When Steve Jobs touts "HTML5" as a possible successor to "Flash", he's actually comparing H.264 to Flash. HTML5 is just a spec for markup language on the web. It doesn't specify a favored codec for video playback. HTML5 cannot play video without a codec. Steve Jobs uses HTML5 as a euphemism for H.264 when speaking about Flash's shortcomings, since Apple's implementation uses the H.264 codec. If I was unclear before, I apologize.
You write as if video is all Flash and HTML5 do. Maybe, Steve Jobs touts HTML5 as a euphemism for solving Flash's shortcomings across the board, plus all the other stuff that's in HTML5 -- i.e., HTML5 is a euphemism for HTML5. You're flogging a dead horse with a red herring.
See for yourself, two videos here, there is another floating around too.
http://h20435.www2.hp.com/t5/Voodoo-...C0ABD6FFD08BE8
This device is not, and may not be, offered for sale or lease, or sold or leased, until authorization is obtained.
Here we go again. What we have is a carefully edited video of some prototype that doesn't actually exist in the retail channel, and, isn't our stuff going to be sooooo cool someday in the future?
And, of course, we're all waiting for the Palm/WebOS version, you know, since HP is now "all in" with that technology.
I enjoy pointing out hypocrisy when the most closed, proprietary, paranoid company in history rails on about the evils of "closed" standards while at the same time pushing their own proprietary standard. ...
Well, I guess you aren't having any fun today at all then. Hope your tomorrow is better.
See for yourself, two videos here, there is another floating around too.
http://h20435.www2.hp.com/t5/Voodoo-...C0ABD6FFD08BE8
If it's not an actual SHIPPING product, and all we see is a choreographed YouTube video, we don't know how far beyond prototype stage it is. The actual specs can't be independently verified (and therefore used in an argument).
My point still stands. I am having a hard time articulating it to you apparently. Either that, or you get my point and are trying to spin it. Which is it?
Thompson
I´m not arguing for Flash on the iPad, the device can´t handle it in itś present form factor.
My point is Steve is making a media fuss because he needs web sites to create iPad (and iPhone and iPod Touch) friendly versions of their sites in addition to the Flash versions for more normal computers.
Which is something he is quite open about. That was the premise of his point about Flash being designed for PC's and not mobiles (especially with touch interfaces).
Well said. Is he correct though that Adobe is the last major vendor to move to Cocoa? Isn't Office 2008 still a Carbon app?
Yeah, and isn't Apple's own Final Cut still Carbon?