They really have no principles that they live by other than greed, and their only commitment is to do anything they can to undermine whatever stands in their way.
Yes. And incorporating the world's most popular video format into thier mobile OS is a perfect example of this
Funny. I suspect the world would still be waiting for mobile Flash if SJ hadn't made such a public deal of it not being released.
Wow. So the vast majority of smartphone users will be happy that the Apple minority was screaming about how sour the grapes were!
Ironic, ain't it?
actually, he's probably right. If adobe -does- get it right, (I said IF before the forum shriekers shit their pants...) the one thing steve jobs may have done would be to help flash actually survive. Ironically.
You know, when this is the argument you have to resort to, you've already lost.
Quote:
I don't need to -claim- anything. Go do some research on the compiler. If you're going to jump all over someone, at least know what you're talking about k?
I don't need to do any research since the same Flash files run in the Flash player on my old PPC Mac, my current Intel Mac, now an Android device, all of which have different CPUs. They can't be machine code and exhibit this behavior.
Adobe says Apple is holding them hostage. But if Apple continues to rely on an outside provider (Flash) then Adobe can hold Apple hostage pretty much anytime they want to. A cleaner example would be: What if Apple did not provide iWork. Then Microsoft could hold Apple hostage over a wordprocesser.
No, the better example would be if Apple didn't make iWork, but made the OS in such a way that Office would not work on iOS.
And then iOS fans would tell us that we are all better off without Office functionality! Because someday, in the unknown future, Office format will be dead, replaced by a standard that nobody uses yet.
But now imagine if all web developers jumped on Flash because it was a universal and portable standard, and suddenly ALL the content you viewed and used (including your apps from the AppStore) was Flash. Not so good.
What would be worse is if all developers switched to a format that IE doesn't support.
Now THAT would affect a significant amount of users!
In the end, if the capability is not there, who's losing out? Me.
Not if you are an Apple Soldier marching off to war! By using a product that does not have that capability, you are making the world a better place. Or so say some...
If that's true (and not I'm saying it is or isn't) then Apple didn't make the decision to ban Flash from Appledom for the sake of its users, but did so for the sake of its business interests. Nothing wrong with that. But they should be honest about it.
Here's a vantage point for evaluating the decisions of any multinational mega-corporation:
Everything they do, EVERYTHING, is for the sake of their business interests.
Banning Flash is for the sake of their business interests. Not being honest about it is for the sake of their business interests.
If they ever did anything for any other reason, they would be doing something that would allow their shareholders to sue them.
But, seriously, I think your own experience points out quite clearly that Google and Adobe are just giving people false hope here. Flash just isn't suitable for mobile,
You know, when this is the argument you have to resort to, you've already lost.
You have shown multiple times shown you only know what you read on a blog and what Apple says.
Quote:
I don't need to do any research since the same Flash files run in the Flash player on my old PPC Mac, my current Intel Mac, now an Android device, all of which have different CPUs. They can't be machine code and exhibit this behavior.
Well that's a surprise. Ever heard of JIT compiler?
There are two parts to this. First, Apple doesn't want Flash or any meta-platform because it gets in the way of developers taking advantage of native capabilities. Secondly, they don't want Flash player because they don't want performance and user experience to suck. In both of these cases, what's good for Apple is also good for users. So, are they doing it for themselves or for the users? The right answer isn't apparent if you engage in dichotomous thought. In fact, they do it for users because it's good for them too, which doesn't mean they are being entirely altruistic, nor does it mean they are being entirely selfish. It means that they can and do make choices that are good for both parties, and it's mistaken to try to paint them into either corner.
What you say is true, but you mistake the means fir an end.
A good UX is not an end. It is a means to greater profits.
Apple is 0% altruistic. They are 100% profit motivated. Their means to that end is to sell product. Their means to that end is to give the best UX they can, so long as it does not reduce profits.
i fucking hate flash on mac. they REALLY need to fix it in a big way and stop dicking around making new products to leverage their flash frameworks.
I think they announced many years ago that they will deploy their resources in a manner intended to maximize profits. I think they said that therefore, they would put development resources into the Mac in proportion to its user base.
If I were Adobe, I would put very little investment into Mac software, and instead, concentrate on the established and the emerging markets, where there is money to be made.
Yes, I have heard of a JIT compiler, and the input to a JIT compiler is not machine code. Maybe you need to do a little research.
I've worked with it for over 10 years there genius. And of course it isn't machine code before it's compiled into it, how long did it take for you to figure -that- one out?
LOL
A slight backup from flash doesn't do machine code me thinks...
Flash is past and get over it. Look at the future.
I think that you mean that Flash is past and present. In the future, I'll likely have the capability to use the future tech. But in the present, it is nice to have tech which works in the present.
Some people disagree, and they value other things more highly than the ability to watch the vast majority of web videos. I can live with that.
I've worked with it for over 10 years there genius. And of course it isn't machine code before it's compiled into it, how long did it take for you to figure -that- one out?
LOL
Well, as they say, he who laughs last, laughs best. So which part of my statement of fact that Flash files do not contain machine code are you disagreeing with? LOLOL
Comments
In other words, does it really support all of the Flash content out there on Android etc?
No it does not support all of the Flash content out there. Only the sour content, so we wouldn't want to have it anyways.
They really have no principles that they live by other than greed, and their only commitment is to do anything they can to undermine whatever stands in their way.
Yes. And incorporating the world's most popular video format into thier mobile OS is a perfect example of this
Originally Posted by mrtotes
Funny. I suspect the world would still be waiting for mobile Flash if SJ hadn't made such a public deal of it not being released.
Wow. So the vast majority of smartphone users will be happy that the Apple minority was screaming about how sour the grapes were!
Ironic, ain't it?
actually, he's probably right. If adobe -does- get it right, (I said IF before the forum shriekers shit their pants...) the one thing steve jobs may have done would be to help flash actually survive. Ironically.
I still don't get the big deal over Flash. 95% of the flash content on the web is vomited out crap
That statistic is applicable to the App Store too. And videos. And music. And books. And TV shows.
The trick is to use your time to peruse the remaining 5%.
Why because Steve told you so?
You know, when this is the argument you have to resort to, you've already lost.
I don't need to -claim- anything. Go do some research on the compiler. If you're going to jump all over someone, at least know what you're talking about k?
I don't need to do any research since the same Flash files run in the Flash player on my old PPC Mac, my current Intel Mac, now an Android device, all of which have different CPUs. They can't be machine code and exhibit this behavior.
Adobe says Apple is holding them hostage. But if Apple continues to rely on an outside provider (Flash) then Adobe can hold Apple hostage pretty much anytime they want to. A cleaner example would be: What if Apple did not provide iWork. Then Microsoft could hold Apple hostage over a wordprocesser.
No, the better example would be if Apple didn't make iWork, but made the OS in such a way that Office would not work on iOS.
And then iOS fans would tell us that we are all better off without Office functionality! Because someday, in the unknown future, Office format will be dead, replaced by a standard that nobody uses yet.
There is simply no good reason to have Flash on a phone.
I consider watching web videos to be a good reason to have Flash on a phone. I guess we'll agree to disagree.
But now imagine if all web developers jumped on Flash because it was a universal and portable standard, and suddenly ALL the content you viewed and used (including your apps from the AppStore) was Flash. Not so good.
What would be worse is if all developers switched to a format that IE doesn't support.
Now THAT would affect a significant amount of users!
In the end, if the capability is not there, who's losing out? Me.
Not if you are an Apple Soldier marching off to war! By using a product that does not have that capability, you are making the world a better place. Or so say some...
Yes. And incorporating the world's most popular video format into thier mobile OS is a perfect example of this
You are referring to H.264, I guess, tekstud?
If that's true (and not I'm saying it is or isn't) then Apple didn't make the decision to ban Flash from Appledom for the sake of its users, but did so for the sake of its business interests. Nothing wrong with that. But they should be honest about it.
Here's a vantage point for evaluating the decisions of any multinational mega-corporation:
Everything they do, EVERYTHING, is for the sake of their business interests.
Banning Flash is for the sake of their business interests. Not being honest about it is for the sake of their business interests.
If they ever did anything for any other reason, they would be doing something that would allow their shareholders to sue them.
But, seriously, I think your own experience points out quite clearly that Google and Adobe are just giving people false hope here. Flash just isn't suitable for mobile,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fox_and_the_Grapes
You know, when this is the argument you have to resort to, you've already lost.
You have shown multiple times shown you only know what you read on a blog and what Apple says.
I don't need to do any research since the same Flash files run in the Flash player on my old PPC Mac, my current Intel Mac, now an Android device, all of which have different CPUs. They can't be machine code and exhibit this behavior.
Well that's a surprise. Ever heard of JIT compiler?
There are two parts to this. First, Apple doesn't want Flash or any meta-platform because it gets in the way of developers taking advantage of native capabilities. Secondly, they don't want Flash player because they don't want performance and user experience to suck. In both of these cases, what's good for Apple is also good for users. So, are they doing it for themselves or for the users? The right answer isn't apparent if you engage in dichotomous thought. In fact, they do it for users because it's good for them too, which doesn't mean they are being entirely altruistic, nor does it mean they are being entirely selfish. It means that they can and do make choices that are good for both parties, and it's mistaken to try to paint them into either corner.
What you say is true, but you mistake the means fir an end.
A good UX is not an end. It is a means to greater profits.
Apple is 0% altruistic. They are 100% profit motivated. Their means to that end is to sell product. Their means to that end is to give the best UX they can, so long as it does not reduce profits.
You have shown multiple times shown you only know what you read on a blog and what Apple says.
Like I said, you have no argument to make.
Well that's a surprise. Ever heard of JIT compiler?
Yes, I have heard of a JIT compiler, and the input to a JIT compiler is not machine code. Maybe you need to do a little research.
i fucking hate flash on mac. they REALLY need to fix it in a big way and stop dicking around making new products to leverage their flash frameworks.
I think they announced many years ago that they will deploy their resources in a manner intended to maximize profits. I think they said that therefore, they would put development resources into the Mac in proportion to its user base.
If I were Adobe, I would put very little investment into Mac software, and instead, concentrate on the established and the emerging markets, where there is money to be made.
ISTM that they are doing exactly that.
I think they care about open, but they care about making money more.
They are bound by law to care only about making money.
If open is a good path towards making money, they might choose it. If they decide that another path is better, they will choose another path.
This is not very complicated.
Like I said, you have no argument to make.
Yes, I have heard of a JIT compiler, and the input to a JIT compiler is not machine code. Maybe you need to do a little research.
I've worked with it for over 10 years there genius. And of course it isn't machine code before it's compiled into it, how long did it take for you to figure -that- one out?
LOL
A slight backup from flash doesn't do machine code me thinks...
Flash is past and get over it. Look at the future.
I think that you mean that Flash is past and present. In the future, I'll likely have the capability to use the future tech. But in the present, it is nice to have tech which works in the present.
Some people disagree, and they value other things more highly than the ability to watch the vast majority of web videos. I can live with that.
I've worked with it for over 10 years there genius. And of course it isn't machine code before it's compiled into it, how long did it take for you to figure -that- one out?
LOL
Well, as they say, he who laughs last, laughs best. So which part of my statement of fact that Flash files do not contain machine code are you disagreeing with? LOLOL