While I agree Flash isn't dead, Flash is going to be around for a long time.
Where Flash is behind and not likely to ever dominate in the same way is on mobile devices. Adobe is working on getting Flash to work on mobile devices, still does not mean it will work well, or widely embraced. If it continues to cause browser crashes, or quickly drains the battery, and the annoyance of ad banners will all deter people from using it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensi
Oh jeez, reading your completely out of touch die-hard "fanboist" comments make me feel real pity. The html5 web video codec(s) upcoming debacle is more and more obvious day after day (Apple & MS supporting the h.264 exclusively, Mozilla supporting Ogg Vorbis exclusively because of the h.264 patents, Google pushing forward a free VP8 that Jobs -childishly- quickly dismissed, etc), while flash has specifically fixed this cross-platforms multiple video codecs problem long ago: one example among many which indicates that it is here to stay, full flash player is just coming on Android OS (cf. numerous previews) and should be made available on most if not all others mobile OSes, excepting the iPhone OS of course, again because of control freak Big Brother Jobs telling you that this won't be allowed for you.
Does Google perhaps have a long-term contract to pay Apple increasingly large sums of money for Google to be the default search engine on all Apple products? If not, then I'd like Apple to provide a way to change the default search engine.
Presumably, there is. That's not to say that it's inherently illegal or that wrong-doing would be found, but it is illegal to use a monopoly in one market to leverage your entry into another market.
In all likelihood, it's not an issue unless they give Android access to Google services that no one else has.
I don't even know if that's an anti-trust issue. For example, there' Google Navigation now. It's only Android. I daresay anti-trust would be difficult in this case because Android allows you to not use Google's services at all if you wish. The OEM's can use Android and build features with absolutely no reliance on Google's services at all. I believe Samsung's building Android phones with Yahoo's services right now.
I still dont get how Google is going to make money from an open source OS if they dont make the hardware either?!?
Get more eyeballs on the mobile web and more people using Google's services. Most Android implementations come with some basics that are tied to Google like Search, News, etc. More eyeballs on those services = more ad revenue for Google.
I was told in college there's actually no such thing as more than 100% when correctly talking about percentages
For instance, instead of saying 1 to 8 is a rise of 800%, you just say 8 times. If that 1 drops to .5, you can say 50%. Companies use things like 800% as a way to wow people. It just sounds better.
While I agree Flash isn't dead, Flash is going to be around for a long time.
Where Flash is behind and not likely to ever dominate in the same way is on mobile devices. Adobe is working on getting Flash to work on mobile devices, still does not mean it will work well, or widely embraced. If it continues to cause browser crashes, or quickly drains the battery, and the annoyance of ad banners will all deter people from using it.
The reason it's already dead, or at least condemned without possibility of appeal, is that content providers are essentially technology neutral, they just want eyeballs, and it's become clear to them that Flash won't give them the eyeballs they want, quite the contrary. HTML5 will give them the eyeballs, on mobile and on the desktop, and that will drive the adoption, which will accelerate over the next 2 years. It won't be that long until Flash is simply a niche product, if it's still used at all.
Flash proponents can argue till they are blue in the face that Flash isn't going anywhere because HTML5 can't do this or that. The reality is that a) if HTML5 can't do something Flash can do, site designers, at the command of content providers, will make HTML5 do something else which is just as, or more, effective, and b) what HTML5 can do will expand, driven by the desire of these same content providers to reach those eyeballs.
"If Google did not act, we faced a Draconian future where one man, one company, one device, one carrier would be our only choice," Gundotra said. "That's a future we don't want."
He conveniently missed out one search engine and one OS. They want to be the OS of choice which then gives users no choice but to only get Android when they buy a phone and could easily be some crippled version of it by the carrier to encourage you to get a more expensive contract or phone.
Google make money from their search engine and nobody else's ads are allowed to appear on Google, you have to pay Google directly. Apple make their money on hardware. Their choices are not so much Draconian as simply a different business model. In the UK, you now get a list of carriers that support the iPhone.
There seems to be lot of namecalling in the industry these days. Apple calls Adobe lazy, Google evil; Google and Adobe call Apple Draconian/Big Brother.
Good point.. as well these are sales figures from a time from when a vast majority of the market is well aware that a brand new iPhone is right around the corner.
Those are worldwide numbers, comparing quarter to quarter.
Verizon doesn't matter. I live in Canada, every single major carrier has the iPhone and Android is still selling like hotcakes and growing fast.
The "new iPhone coming soon" argument doesn't hold any water because the exact same thing was true at the exact same time as last year.
Those are worldwide numbers, comparing quarter to quarter.
Verizon doesn't matter. I live in Canada, every single major carrier has the iPhone and Android is still selling like hotcakes and growing fast.
The "new iPhone coming soon" argument doesn't hold any water because the exact same thing was true at the exact same time as last year.
I thought you left and weren't coming back?
By the way, it seems you were pretty far off on your claims that Android is on more carriers than iPhone, so your credibility has taken a bit of a hit while you were sulking.
geekdad, if Apple held a majority position in the market (like RIM or Nokia for example) then your argument would hold water - but they don't. What IS happening is that Google has targeting Apple as being the most geek-tastic and therefore worthy of inflammatory rhetoric and the whole "freedom" argument. These sorts of arguments do nothing to mitigate the obvious popularity with the consuming public of the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad. So Google has to address it's attack elsewhere. By crying "FREEDOM" they hope to peel as many devs away from Apple as they can, hoping that none of the other players in the smartphone market gain/regain any traction with consumers.
It is far easier to just ignore RIM and Nokia (and Microsoft) and focus on attacking Apple than to construct a well-thought-out and comprehensive approach to the market over the long term. Remember just like the Google fanboys, Google has a notoriously short attention span (remember the Nexus One?) And while they are selling koolaid by the gallons to the current fan club, there's every indication that once they hit too many obstacles, or just simply get bored, the enthusiasm will evaporate leaving devs and fans alike with empty cups and unrequited thirst. The degree to which the likes of Stevie, AsianBob and Asharian are championing Google/Android indicates the success of the attempt.
And Android kiddies, let's review a little history shall we?
Google purchased Android (a modified Linux kernel)in 2005
2007 they announced the Android distro, together with the consortium they put together of a bunch of carriers, hardware and software suppliers (essentially a significant body of competitors to the iPhone). And Apple announced an dreleased the first gen iPhone - note that Schmidt sat on Apple's BOD this whole time, reaping the information out of Apple's development plans.
2008 Google releases Android as open source - allowing vendors to add proprietary extensions without referencing the open-source community
Android Market started out with only free apps but now supports paid-for apps as well effective 2007
2009 Google sues Cyanogen for modding/re-distro of the closed Google apps. Google reserves their own apps from open modification.
Now, with Google TV coming, the word from the inside is the desire to produce a walled garden of TV-optimized web services.
And of course from the dev conference itself: don't use our private APIs (even tho a while back we were told "we have NO private APIs")
So even content provisioning is limited:"there are more Content Providers in the system than are documented in that package, and while you can use them, you probably shouldn?t. They?re there because some of the Google-provided apps use them internally to access their own data resources."
So yeah, the front room is wide open - windows open, doors open even ceiling is open - but you don't get to go in the back rooms. At all. Just sayin'.
When something is open, it either is open or it isn't. Something that is mostly open but not completely open, isn't really open, and just saying the word doesn't change that simple fact.
I hate threads like this. It isn't like RIM, MS, Nokia, and HP/Palm will suddenly vanish and the only smartphones will be Android and iPhone. The game is still young and anything can happen. You really don't need to sync once you've set up your phone. I rarely sync my iPhone.
I don't even know if that's an anti-trust issue. For example, there' Google Navigation now. It's only Android. I daresay anti-trust would be difficult in this case because Android allows you to not use Google's services at all if you wish. The OEM's can use Android and build features with absolutely no reliance on Google's services at all. I believe Samsung's building Android phones with Yahoo's services right now.
Perhaps you are correct with respect to the amount of freedom Android OEMs have in using Google services, but "allowing" a user access to other services isn't necessarily an antitrust defense if extra steps are required to enjoy that access -- as Microsoft learned. Still a great burden of evidence would be required to find Google in violation of antitrust laws. The first step would be demonstrating market power in a given market, presumably in this case, online advertising. The second would be showing that they are using that market power and the Android platform to leverage themselves into other markets, to the disadvantage of competitors.
Verizon doesn't matter. I live in Canada, every single major carrier has the iPhone and Android is still selling like hotcakes and growing fast.
.
I live in Canada too. Got to play with an android phone and its pretty much an iphone OS copycat, only with garbage multi-touch. The android phone (Sansung) multi-touch I tried is no where near the iphone.
And imo Android is a steal of the iphones OS, so I rather buy an iphone and help the people who really invented the thing.
I dont think Apple is more of a big brother than any other company. You dont "have" to buy from itunes, you can put external music,TV,movies,books into any Apple device. The only thing I see Apple controling is apps in the appstore and you can always jailbreak is you really want to install some wierd app.
Right. So let's not pretend it's all about "the user experience". It's not. It's about Apple's profit margins. Nothing wrong with that. But nobody should pretend that Apple (or Google or anybody else for that matter) is some kind of benevolent overlord who really cares about your "user experience". They care, only insofar as it helps them sell gadgets.
Lol I think you and I are actually on the same page :P.
You just sound like it pisses you off more then it does me..
I still dont get how Google is going to make money from an open source OS if they dont make the hardware either?!?
They make money tangentially.
Here's one example: When people use Google apps on Android OS Google can make money by selling advertising. When people use Apple apps on a iPhone, they may well be shuttled to iAds instead.
These sorts of factors may become more compelling as time marches on. Then again, the whole Android thing might end up a huge waste of Google's capital. I doubt it, though.
What a laugh. Google has always - ALWAYS - been in the advertising business. Search has only been their primary platform for it. Now they advertise in gmail, google docs, google maps... Android is only another means to an end: advertising revenue.
With iAd, Apple is treading on Google's turf!
Steve, sorry, but this time, you're wrong.
Also you're big brother. Open the freaking app store.
Does Google perhaps have a long-term contract to pay Apple increasingly large sums of money for Google to be the default search engine on all Apple products? If not, then I'd like Apple to provide a way to change the default search engine.
Ummm....Apples DOES provide a way to change the default search engine. Don't they?
Comments
Where Flash is behind and not likely to ever dominate in the same way is on mobile devices. Adobe is working on getting Flash to work on mobile devices, still does not mean it will work well, or widely embraced. If it continues to cause browser crashes, or quickly drains the battery, and the annoyance of ad banners will all deter people from using it.
Oh jeez, reading your completely out of touch die-hard "fanboist" comments make me feel real pity. The html5 web video codec(s) upcoming debacle is more and more obvious day after day (Apple & MS supporting the h.264 exclusively, Mozilla supporting Ogg Vorbis exclusively because of the h.264 patents, Google pushing forward a free VP8 that Jobs -childishly- quickly dismissed, etc), while flash has specifically fixed this cross-platforms multiple video codecs problem long ago: one example among many which indicates that it is here to stay, full flash player is just coming on Android OS (cf. numerous previews) and should be made available on most if not all others mobile OSes, excepting the iPhone OS of course, again because of control freak Big Brother Jobs telling you that this won't be allowed for you.
I still dont get how Google is going to make money from an open source OS if they dont make the hardware either?!?
By using it as a means to harvest user identifiable information, which they will use as they see fit.
Presumably, there is. That's not to say that it's inherently illegal or that wrong-doing would be found, but it is illegal to use a monopoly in one market to leverage your entry into another market.
In all likelihood, it's not an issue unless they give Android access to Google services that no one else has.
I don't even know if that's an anti-trust issue. For example, there' Google Navigation now. It's only Android. I daresay anti-trust would be difficult in this case because Android allows you to not use Google's services at all if you wish. The OEM's can use Android and build features with absolutely no reliance on Google's services at all. I believe Samsung's building Android phones with Yahoo's services right now.
I still dont get how Google is going to make money from an open source OS if they dont make the hardware either?!?
Get more eyeballs on the mobile web and more people using Google's services. Most Android implementations come with some basics that are tied to Google like Search, News, etc. More eyeballs on those services = more ad revenue for Google.
I was told in college there's actually no such thing as more than 100% when correctly talking about percentages
For instance, instead of saying 1 to 8 is a rise of 800%, you just say 8 times. If that 1 drops to .5, you can say 50%. Companies use things like 800% as a way to wow people. It just sounds better.
You were told wrong!
.
While I agree Flash isn't dead, Flash is going to be around for a long time.
Where Flash is behind and not likely to ever dominate in the same way is on mobile devices. Adobe is working on getting Flash to work on mobile devices, still does not mean it will work well, or widely embraced. If it continues to cause browser crashes, or quickly drains the battery, and the annoyance of ad banners will all deter people from using it.
The reason it's already dead, or at least condemned without possibility of appeal, is that content providers are essentially technology neutral, they just want eyeballs, and it's become clear to them that Flash won't give them the eyeballs they want, quite the contrary. HTML5 will give them the eyeballs, on mobile and on the desktop, and that will drive the adoption, which will accelerate over the next 2 years. It won't be that long until Flash is simply a niche product, if it's still used at all.
Flash proponents can argue till they are blue in the face that Flash isn't going anywhere because HTML5 can't do this or that. The reality is that a) if HTML5 can't do something Flash can do, site designers, at the command of content providers, will make HTML5 do something else which is just as, or more, effective, and b) what HTML5 can do will expand, driven by the desire of these same content providers to reach those eyeballs.
"If Google did not act, we faced a Draconian future where one man, one company, one device, one carrier would be our only choice," Gundotra said. "That's a future we don't want."
He conveniently missed out one search engine and one OS. They want to be the OS of choice which then gives users no choice but to only get Android when they buy a phone and could easily be some crippled version of it by the carrier to encourage you to get a more expensive contract or phone.
Google make money from their search engine and nobody else's ads are allowed to appear on Google, you have to pay Google directly. Apple make their money on hardware. Their choices are not so much Draconian as simply a different business model. In the UK, you now get a list of carriers that support the iPhone.
There seems to be lot of namecalling in the industry these days. Apple calls Adobe lazy, Google evil; Google and Adobe call Apple Draconian/Big Brother.
Good point.. as well these are sales figures from a time from when a vast majority of the market is well aware that a brand new iPhone is right around the corner.
Those are worldwide numbers, comparing quarter to quarter.
Verizon doesn't matter. I live in Canada, every single major carrier has the iPhone and Android is still selling like hotcakes and growing fast.
The "new iPhone coming soon" argument doesn't hold any water because the exact same thing was true at the exact same time as last year.
Those are worldwide numbers, comparing quarter to quarter.
Verizon doesn't matter. I live in Canada, every single major carrier has the iPhone and Android is still selling like hotcakes and growing fast.
The "new iPhone coming soon" argument doesn't hold any water because the exact same thing was true at the exact same time as last year.
I thought you left and weren't coming back?
By the way, it seems you were pretty far off on your claims that Android is on more carriers than iPhone, so your credibility has taken a bit of a hit while you were sulking.
It is far easier to just ignore RIM and Nokia (and Microsoft) and focus on attacking Apple than to construct a well-thought-out and comprehensive approach to the market over the long term. Remember just like the Google fanboys, Google has a notoriously short attention span (remember the Nexus One?) And while they are selling koolaid by the gallons to the current fan club, there's every indication that once they hit too many obstacles, or just simply get bored, the enthusiasm will evaporate leaving devs and fans alike with empty cups and unrequited thirst. The degree to which the likes of Stevie, AsianBob and Asharian are championing Google/Android indicates the success of the attempt.
And Android kiddies, let's review a little history shall we?
Google purchased Android (a modified Linux kernel)in 2005
2007 they announced the Android distro, together with the consortium they put together of a bunch of carriers, hardware and software suppliers (essentially a significant body of competitors to the iPhone). And Apple announced an dreleased the first gen iPhone - note that Schmidt sat on Apple's BOD this whole time, reaping the information out of Apple's development plans.
2008 Google releases Android as open source - allowing vendors to add proprietary extensions without referencing the open-source community
Android Market started out with only free apps but now supports paid-for apps as well effective 2007
2009 Google sues Cyanogen for modding/re-distro of the closed Google apps. Google reserves their own apps from open modification.
Now, with Google TV coming, the word from the inside is the desire to produce a walled garden of TV-optimized web services.
And of course from the dev conference itself: don't use our private APIs (even tho a while back we were told "we have NO private APIs")
So even content provisioning is limited:"there are more Content Providers in the system than are documented in that package, and while you can use them, you probably shouldn?t. They?re there because some of the Google-provided apps use them internally to access their own data resources."
So yeah, the front room is wide open - windows open, doors open even ceiling is open - but you don't get to go in the back rooms. At all. Just sayin'.
When something is open, it either is open or it isn't. Something that is mostly open but not completely open, isn't really open, and just saying the word doesn't change that simple fact.
Right. So let's not pretend it's all about "the user experience". It's not. It's about Apple's profit margins. Nothing wrong with that.
Actually, it's not all about the profit margins. It is all about the total profit.
I don't even know if that's an anti-trust issue. For example, there' Google Navigation now. It's only Android. I daresay anti-trust would be difficult in this case because Android allows you to not use Google's services at all if you wish. The OEM's can use Android and build features with absolutely no reliance on Google's services at all. I believe Samsung's building Android phones with Yahoo's services right now.
Perhaps you are correct with respect to the amount of freedom Android OEMs have in using Google services, but "allowing" a user access to other services isn't necessarily an antitrust defense if extra steps are required to enjoy that access -- as Microsoft learned. Still a great burden of evidence would be required to find Google in violation of antitrust laws. The first step would be demonstrating market power in a given market, presumably in this case, online advertising. The second would be showing that they are using that market power and the Android platform to leverage themselves into other markets, to the disadvantage of competitors.
Verizon doesn't matter. I live in Canada, every single major carrier has the iPhone and Android is still selling like hotcakes and growing fast.
.
I live in Canada too. Got to play with an android phone and its pretty much an iphone OS copycat, only with garbage multi-touch. The android phone (Sansung) multi-touch I tried is no where near the iphone.
And imo Android is a steal of the iphones OS, so I rather buy an iphone and help the people who really invented the thing.
I dont think Apple is more of a big brother than any other company. You dont "have" to buy from itunes, you can put external music,TV,movies,books into any Apple device. The only thing I see Apple controling is apps in the appstore and you can always jailbreak is you really want to install some wierd app.
Right. So let's not pretend it's all about "the user experience". It's not. It's about Apple's profit margins. Nothing wrong with that. But nobody should pretend that Apple (or Google or anybody else for that matter) is some kind of benevolent overlord who really cares about your "user experience". They care, only insofar as it helps them sell gadgets.
Lol I think you and I are actually on the same page :P.
You just sound like it pisses you off more then it does me..
I still dont get how Google is going to make money from an open source OS if they dont make the hardware either?!?
They make money tangentially.
Here's one example: When people use Google apps on Android OS Google can make money by selling advertising. When people use Apple apps on a iPhone, they may well be shuttled to iAds instead.
These sorts of factors may become more compelling as time marches on. Then again, the whole Android thing might end up a huge waste of Google's capital. I doubt it, though.
What a laugh. Google has always - ALWAYS - been in the advertising business. Search has only been their primary platform for it. Now they advertise in gmail, google docs, google maps... Android is only another means to an end: advertising revenue.
With iAd, Apple is treading on Google's turf!
Steve, sorry, but this time, you're wrong.
Also you're big brother. Open the freaking app store.
-Clive
Does Google perhaps have a long-term contract to pay Apple increasingly large sums of money for Google to be the default search engine on all Apple products? If not, then I'd like Apple to provide a way to change the default search engine.
Ummm....Apples DOES provide a way to change the default search engine. Don't they?