Riiiight. Unfortunately, for me, the CBC website live streams World Cup matches using a Flash Player. If somebody can point me to a website that uses an alternative I'd use that.
Just wait. You are living in the past. Instead, as an Apple Soldier, you should be refusing to watch soccer until they switch to the format that cannot be viewed in the vast majority of currently installed web browsers.
In all fairness, Flash does run decently if it's set to "on demand". Even the reviewers have said that. But if you leave it on, all the time, like on a desktop, you'll definitely take a performance hit.
It's not so much Flash video that's the problem, it's Flash ads. No surprise there. That's why the "on demand" option, something to familiar to anybody who uses click2Flash is a good way to implement a resource hungry utility like Flash.
I would have considered uninstalling it before I tried it out set to "on demand". With the click2flash concept, I've got no complains. Let's me enjoy my comment without damaging the rest of my user experience on the phone.
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
you never said flash files "contain machine code". You said flash doesn't do machine code and that was false. You were caught in a lie, and now you're backtracking.
Now stop going in circles.
My position is, regardless of the fact that flash can use a JIT compiler for machine code, it still doesn't make flash more efficient than html5 bah blah, because html5 etc etc isn't really even a standard yet. We don't know if that's the case at all.
The argument is pointless. So why you're now splitting hairs on the machine code issue, is truly brainless. Really.
What Jobs specifically said about his stance on Flash for the iPhone. Is that Apple has limited resources.
Apple's R&D resources are likely greater than Adobe's entire market cap.
I recommend that you not believe anything that Steve says without independent verification and some thought. He's a tricky guy who uses words in the manner of Humpty Dumpty.
you never said flash files "contain machine code". You said flash doesn't do machine code and that was false. You were caught in a lie, and now you're backtracking.
Now stop going in circles.
My position is, regardless of the fact that flash can use a JIT compiler for machine code, it still doesn't make flash more efficient than html5 bah blah, because html5 etc etc isn't really even a standard yet. We don't know if that's the case at all.
The argument is pointless. So why you're now splitting hairs on the machine code issue, is truly brainless. Really.
Caught in a lie? You really are a pathetic fellow.
It's pretty clear from the context of the discussion that I was saying that as distributed to end users Flash is not machine code. It's also pretty clear that anything that makes something happen on a computer does so as machine code. So, to claim that they are machine code in your sense is about the same as saying that JavaScript is machine code. Now who's splitting hairs?
Obviously, you were so desperately grasping for something to argue about that you ended up grasping at straws.
And yet, iOS 4.0 was just released and it's already on the iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPod Touch 2G and iPod Touch 3G.
According to your reasoning and Android update cycle history it should hit the Touch 3G first for some unknown reason, shouldn't be available for the iPhone 4 even though it just came out, Apple will say that it's up to AT&T to update the 3GS who will promise us it's eventually coming, and anything else would have already been forgotten about or only had the update via the hacker community.
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.
The Flash engine is machine code, while the SWFs distributed on the web are bytecode.
In CS5 Adobe also delivered a means of compiling the SWF bytecode to native machine code, in compliance with Apple's published SDK at the time.
But of course we saw what happened with that: Apple changed the rules to add the "originally written in clause", and then held back that version of the SDK until two business days before the release of CS5.
Once the damage was done, Apple changed the rules again just a few weeks later when the outcry from developers was too intense: now they allow interpreted and bytecode languages on a case-by-case basis at Apple's sole discretion.
Caught in a lie? You really are a pathetic fellow.
It's pretty clear from the context of the discussion that I was saying that as distributed to end users Flash is not machine code. It's also pretty clear that anything that makes something happen on a computer does so as machine code. So, to claim that they are machine code in your sense is about the same as saying that JavaScript is machine code. Now who's splitting hairs?
Obviously, you were so desperately grasping for something to argue about that you ended up grasping at straws.
as distributed? Really now, do you really want to continue backtracking? It's pretty obvious you stepped into something you know dick all about.
You said flash doesn't do machine code. You were wrong. End of storey. You never made the distinction about whether it used a JIT compiler or not at all. But now that you realized your error, now you are.
Run around in circles all you like calling me pathetic, it's all you have. It's all you ever have, in any discussion. Which is why discussions are never in any way productive with you or a few others here, because now we've completely forgotten about the original issue, which I stated my position on, and you never even bothered to address. Because right now, the only thing important to you, is not the actual issue, but saving face.
as distributed? Really now, do you really want to continue backtracking? It's pretty obvious you stepped into something you know dick all about.
It's pretty obvious that I haven't backtracked at all. Pointing out that someone is taking your words out of context isn't backtracking, it's pointing out that they are being disingenuous, which, by the way, is a synonym for dishonest.
You have no good arguments in support of Flash, so you are simply trying to distract from the arguments against it by hijacking the thread with made up issues and misrepresentations. I guess that's one way to try to not lose an argument -- by interrupting the discussion with noise -- but it's not actually going to change anything that will happen.
It's pretty obvious that I haven't backtracked at all. Pointing out that someone is taking your words out of context isn't backtracking, it's pointing out that they are being disingenuous, which, by the way, is a synonym for dishonest.
You have no good arguments in support of Flash, so you are simply trying to distract from the arguments against it by hijacking the thread with made up issues and misrepresentations. I guess that's one way to try to not lose an argument -- by interrupting the discussion with noise -- but it's not actually going to change anything that will happen.
I am not "supporting flash" at all in my position on it. See there's your problem. You're so blind in your rage against flash you selectively read what people say and shoot off like a, er, jack-in-the-box...
If you slow down, and take the time to read, you will see I disagreed that flash can be considered more efficient because of it's ability to make use of a JIT compiler. And you're flipping out because you think I'm supprting flash?
Grow up.
and here, allow me to remind you:
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Premise:
Conclusion:
If flash content were compiled to machine code a) why would you need a player, and b) it wouldn't run on multiple platforms. (OK, he could almost be right if we take (b) as a defining test.)
Your premise is false, your conclusion incorrect as well as unsupported, and you really shouldn't be writing about stuff you have no clue about. You aren't doing yourself or Flash any favors.
Doesn't make any distinction there as far as I can see, only the statement 'if flash were compiled to machine code'. Which, it can.
Doesn't make any distinction there as far as I can see, only the statement 'if flash were compiled to machine code'. Which, it can.
There you go again, taking it out of the context of the thread.
And you not here to support Flash? As anyone can see, by looking at your posting history, that's a pretty funny claim by you.
You like to throw out the talking in circles thing at others, but a discussion with you is never anything but that. I guess just repeating your talking points over and over again, pretending they haven't been shown hollow or false, regardless of, and without addressing, anything anyone actually says is one way to argue when that's all you have to say, but after a while it's tiresome to come up with novel refutations of the same discredited assertions.
You may now have the last word in this particular discussion, if you wish.
I consider watching web videos to be a good reason to have Flash on a phone. I guess we'll agree to disagree.
You can watch web videos on an iPhone. YouTube is already there, Hulu will be there soon, Netflix is there now. Major TV networks are starting to convert their content to work on iPads.
Granted, you can't watch EVERYTHING, but you can complain to Adobe (because they never produced a version of Flash that worked on the iPhone) and the media vendors (for using a technology which doesn't work on 99.8% of mobile devices), not Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
They are bound by law to care only about making money.
Not quite. They have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder value. That is not the same as 'making money'. For example, many companies give to charity or support charitable activities because it fits with the desires and beliefs of their shareholders. If the goal were simply 'making money', they'd have to prove that they got enough additional revenues to cover the expense. In reality, they can contribute to charity simply on the basis of shareholder value - NOT tied to profits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz
In all fairness, Flash does run decently if it's set to "on demand".
I guess I can't argue with that. Flash isn't too bad as long as you don't use it. I'll buy that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
But that is for Geeks.
What about The Rest of Us? We need access to web videos!
Youtube, Hulu, ABC, CBS, and more every day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
Apple's R&D resources are likely greater than Adobe's entire market cap.
I recommend that you not believe anything that Steve says without independent verification and some thought. He's a tricky guy who uses words in the manner of Humpty Dumpty.
Sorry, I'll choose to believe someone who has a legal responsibility to tell the truth rather than from some anonymous troll who can't even get his most basic facts right (hint: you can look up both Apple's R&D expense and Adobe's market cap if you would like to take your first step out of ignorance).
There you go again, taking it out of the context of the thread.
And you not here to support Flash? As anyone can see, by looking at your posting history, that's a pretty funny claim by you.
You like to throw out the talking in circles thing at others, but a discussion with you is never anything but that. I guess just repeating your talking points over and over again, pretending they haven't been shown hollow or false, regardless of, and without addressing, anything anyone actually says is one way to argue when that's all you have to say, but after a while it's tiresome to come up with novel refutations of the same discredited assertions.
You may now have the last word in this particular discussion, if you wish.
you were wrong my friend. Pure and simple.
And then you tried the shriek I was only supporting flash. Which, once again, since you never bothered to read the posts, you were once again, wrong. I never supported flash in the argument at all. Merely set the record straight on something, which seems to have gotten you all bent out of shape and now you're yammering.
I'm here because I use apple products. In fact I just blew 3500 bucks last weekend at an apple store on a sweet i7 tricked MBP. So yeah go ahead and call me an apple hater.
Just see a lot of bullcrap and people talking like they know something here at times.
Comments
Speedtest.net is a free app on the iOS platform, and launches way quicker than even on a desktop browser.
But compared to owners of other mobile devices, instead of simply going to the standard website, you need to:
Know the app is available.
Go to the App Store ad find it.
Download it and install it.
Find it in Launchpad or whatever the UI is called.
Execute it.
Store it in memory.
I think a web app is more convenient.
Riiiight. Unfortunately, for me, the CBC website live streams World Cup matches using a Flash Player. If somebody can point me to a website that uses an alternative I'd use that.
Just wait. You are living in the past. Instead, as an Apple Soldier, you should be refusing to watch soccer until they switch to the format that cannot be viewed in the vast majority of currently installed web browsers.
It's not so much Flash video that's the problem, it's Flash ads. No surprise there. That's why the "on demand" option, something to familiar to anybody who uses click2Flash is a good way to implement a resource hungry utility like Flash.
I would have considered uninstalling it before I tried it out set to "on demand". With the click2flash concept, I've got no complains. Let's me enjoy my comment without damaging the rest of my user experience on the phone.
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
you never said flash files "contain machine code". You said flash doesn't do machine code and that was false. You were caught in a lie, and now you're backtracking.
Now stop going in circles.
My position is, regardless of the fact that flash can use a JIT compiler for machine code, it still doesn't make flash more efficient than html5 bah blah, because html5 etc etc isn't really even a standard yet. We don't know if that's the case at all.
The argument is pointless. So why you're now splitting hairs on the machine code issue, is truly brainless. Really.
I was curious if Adobe ever gave a release date?
Did you read the headline of the story you are responding to? It has been released.
The vapor meme is now dead. But there are plenty of others to use.
Adobe is lazy.
I don't want Flash anyways.
I like the iPhone.
YouTube, and most video sites, works without Flash.
Get a clue.
"For the end user like me, content is important. I just want to be able to watch some football. Is that so wrong?"
You have your answer. Don't watch football. Watch You Tube.
It wasn't the best quality but like you said it was better than nothing. (my boss is european and a big football fan so he was alright with it)
IPad with no Flash: Better than nothing?
I don't see that as a ringing endorsement.
I'd just use Logmein to get to my desktop computer and fire up Flash there.
But that is for Geeks.
What about The Rest of Us? We need access to web videos!
What Jobs specifically said about his stance on Flash for the iPhone. Is that Apple has limited resources.
Apple's R&D resources are likely greater than Adobe's entire market cap.
I recommend that you not believe anything that Steve says without independent verification and some thought. He's a tricky guy who uses words in the manner of Humpty Dumpty.
you never said flash files "contain machine code". You said flash doesn't do machine code and that was false. You were caught in a lie, and now you're backtracking.
Now stop going in circles.
My position is, regardless of the fact that flash can use a JIT compiler for machine code, it still doesn't make flash more efficient than html5 bah blah, because html5 etc etc isn't really even a standard yet. We don't know if that's the case at all.
The argument is pointless. So why you're now splitting hairs on the machine code issue, is truly brainless. Really.
Caught in a lie? You really are a pathetic fellow.
It's pretty clear from the context of the discussion that I was saying that as distributed to end users Flash is not machine code. It's also pretty clear that anything that makes something happen on a computer does so as machine code. So, to claim that they are machine code in your sense is about the same as saying that JavaScript is machine code. Now who's splitting hairs?
Obviously, you were so desperately grasping for something to argue about that you ended up grasping at straws.
If it works perfectly fine. Why is it only on one phone of one operating system?
Because it was just released.
Because it was just released.
And yet, iOS 4.0 was just released and it's already on the iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPod Touch 2G and iPod Touch 3G.
According to your reasoning and Android update cycle history it should hit the Touch 3G first for some unknown reason, shouldn't be available for the iPhone 4 even though it just came out, Apple will say that it's up to AT&T to update the 3GS who will promise us it's eventually coming, and anything else would have already been forgotten about or only had the update via the hacker community.
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.
The Flash engine is machine code, while the SWFs distributed on the web are bytecode.
In CS5 Adobe also delivered a means of compiling the SWF bytecode to native machine code, in compliance with Apple's published SDK at the time.
But of course we saw what happened with that: Apple changed the rules to add the "originally written in clause", and then held back that version of the SDK until two business days before the release of CS5.
Once the damage was done, Apple changed the rules again just a few weeks later when the outcry from developers was too intense: now they allow interpreted and bytecode languages on a case-by-case basis at Apple's sole discretion.
Just not for Adobe.
Caught in a lie? You really are a pathetic fellow.
It's pretty clear from the context of the discussion that I was saying that as distributed to end users Flash is not machine code. It's also pretty clear that anything that makes something happen on a computer does so as machine code. So, to claim that they are machine code in your sense is about the same as saying that JavaScript is machine code. Now who's splitting hairs?
Obviously, you were so desperately grasping for something to argue about that you ended up grasping at straws.
as distributed? Really now, do you really want to continue backtracking? It's pretty obvious you stepped into something you know dick all about.
You said flash doesn't do machine code. You were wrong. End of storey. You never made the distinction about whether it used a JIT compiler or not at all. But now that you realized your error, now you are.
Run around in circles all you like calling me pathetic, it's all you have. It's all you ever have, in any discussion. Which is why discussions are never in any way productive with you or a few others here, because now we've completely forgotten about the original issue, which I stated my position on, and you never even bothered to address. Because right now, the only thing important to you, is not the actual issue, but saving face.
And you call others, pathetic.
YouTube, and most video sites, works without Flash.
Get a clue.
Is youtube live streaming World Cup matches?
as distributed? Really now, do you really want to continue backtracking? It's pretty obvious you stepped into something you know dick all about.
It's pretty obvious that I haven't backtracked at all. Pointing out that someone is taking your words out of context isn't backtracking, it's pointing out that they are being disingenuous, which, by the way, is a synonym for dishonest.
You have no good arguments in support of Flash, so you are simply trying to distract from the arguments against it by hijacking the thread with made up issues and misrepresentations. I guess that's one way to try to not lose an argument -- by interrupting the discussion with noise -- but it's not actually going to change anything that will happen.
It's pretty obvious that I haven't backtracked at all. Pointing out that someone is taking your words out of context isn't backtracking, it's pointing out that they are being disingenuous, which, by the way, is a synonym for dishonest.
You have no good arguments in support of Flash, so you are simply trying to distract from the arguments against it by hijacking the thread with made up issues and misrepresentations. I guess that's one way to try to not lose an argument -- by interrupting the discussion with noise -- but it's not actually going to change anything that will happen.
I am not "supporting flash" at all in my position on it. See there's your problem. You're so blind in your rage against flash you selectively read what people say and shoot off like a, er, jack-in-the-box...
If you slow down, and take the time to read, you will see I disagreed that flash can be considered more efficient because of it's ability to make use of a JIT compiler. And you're flipping out because you think I'm supprting flash?
Grow up.
and here, allow me to remind you:
Premise:
Conclusion:
If flash content were compiled to machine code a) why would you need a player, and b) it wouldn't run on multiple platforms. (OK, he could almost be right if we take (b) as a defining test.)
Your premise is false, your conclusion incorrect as well as unsupported, and you really shouldn't be writing about stuff you have no clue about. You aren't doing yourself or Flash any favors.
Doesn't make any distinction there as far as I can see, only the statement 'if flash were compiled to machine code'. Which, it can.
Doesn't make any distinction there as far as I can see, only the statement 'if flash were compiled to machine code'. Which, it can.
There you go again, taking it out of the context of the thread.
And you not here to support Flash? As anyone can see, by looking at your posting history, that's a pretty funny claim by you.
You like to throw out the talking in circles thing at others, but a discussion with you is never anything but that. I guess just repeating your talking points over and over again, pretending they haven't been shown hollow or false, regardless of, and without addressing, anything anyone actually says is one way to argue when that's all you have to say, but after a while it's tiresome to come up with novel refutations of the same discredited assertions.
You may now have the last word in this particular discussion, if you wish.
I consider watching web videos to be a good reason to have Flash on a phone. I guess we'll agree to disagree.
You can watch web videos on an iPhone. YouTube is already there, Hulu will be there soon, Netflix is there now. Major TV networks are starting to convert their content to work on iPads.
Granted, you can't watch EVERYTHING, but you can complain to Adobe (because they never produced a version of Flash that worked on the iPhone) and the media vendors (for using a technology which doesn't work on 99.8% of mobile devices), not Apple.
They are bound by law to care only about making money.
Not quite. They have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder value. That is not the same as 'making money'. For example, many companies give to charity or support charitable activities because it fits with the desires and beliefs of their shareholders. If the goal were simply 'making money', they'd have to prove that they got enough additional revenues to cover the expense. In reality, they can contribute to charity simply on the basis of shareholder value - NOT tied to profits.
In all fairness, Flash does run decently if it's set to "on demand".
I guess I can't argue with that. Flash isn't too bad as long as you don't use it. I'll buy that.
But that is for Geeks.
What about The Rest of Us? We need access to web videos!
Youtube, Hulu, ABC, CBS, and more every day.
Apple's R&D resources are likely greater than Adobe's entire market cap.
I recommend that you not believe anything that Steve says without independent verification and some thought. He's a tricky guy who uses words in the manner of Humpty Dumpty.
Sorry, I'll choose to believe someone who has a legal responsibility to tell the truth rather than from some anonymous troll who can't even get his most basic facts right (hint: you can look up both Apple's R&D expense and Adobe's market cap if you would like to take your first step out of ignorance).
There you go again, taking it out of the context of the thread.
And you not here to support Flash? As anyone can see, by looking at your posting history, that's a pretty funny claim by you.
You like to throw out the talking in circles thing at others, but a discussion with you is never anything but that. I guess just repeating your talking points over and over again, pretending they haven't been shown hollow or false, regardless of, and without addressing, anything anyone actually says is one way to argue when that's all you have to say, but after a while it's tiresome to come up with novel refutations of the same discredited assertions.
You may now have the last word in this particular discussion, if you wish.
you were wrong my friend. Pure and simple.
And then you tried the shriek I was only supporting flash. Which, once again, since you never bothered to read the posts, you were once again, wrong. I never supported flash in the argument at all. Merely set the record straight on something, which seems to have gotten you all bent out of shape and now you're yammering.
I'm here because I use apple products. In fact I just blew 3500 bucks last weekend at an apple store on a sweet i7 tricked MBP. So yeah go ahead and call me an apple hater.
Just see a lot of bullcrap and people talking like they know something here at times.