Restraint of trade is anti-trust by definition in 1886 and is generally referred to as anti-competitive now. The Sherman act was passed using restraint of trade terminology and modern courts have been referring to it using the anti-competiitive terminology. For all intents and purposes they are the same thing, may even be formally defined as the same thing someplace in US law written since 1886.
This terminology gets all balled up frequently, and while you are partially correct in your explanation, I think you may have introduced a new level of confusion to anyone who wishes to understand this issue better. First, a "trust" is another term for what we often call a "monopoly." The Sherman Antitrust Act was therefore created to combat the formation of trusts. Preventing the restraint of trade is the broader purpose of both the Sherman and Clayton acts. Also, the Sherman Act was passed in 1890, so I'm not sure where you get the 1886 date.
So "restraint of trade is antitrust by definition" is not an accurate statement. Restraint of trade was made unlawful by antitrust laws, is the meaning I think you wanted.
Well, not when Adobe has made it clear for many years that Macs are not a priority to them.
That's yet another Oops moment from Jobs' "Thoughts on Flash".
The facts tell a very different story:
Back in the late '90s Apple was a sinking ship, with 2.2% of the global market and two consecutive years of net losses.
During that time, Adobe did indeed release some of their products for Windows first, but still continued to invest substantially in their Mac line.
If memory serves (I don't have the specific numbers handy, but perhaps you can find some to refute this if you feel necessary), Adobe has never spent less than 25% of operating capital on the Mac platform, and most years much more than that.
So when we look at their investment relative to potential return based on market share, Adobe's investment in the Mac was an order of magnitude disproportionately favoring Apple's customers.
And in return, Apple's customers were loyal to Adobe, bringing in a disproportionately high percentage of the company's revenue.
This was happily the case between Adobe and Mac users- and pretty much remains so - until Steve Jobs launched his attack on Adobe.
Now, even though Mac customers still buy LOTS of Adobe products and Adobe continues to invest in Mac completely beyond its market share, there are a handful of zealous parrots here running about yelling "Adobe must die! Adobe must die!" without recognizing that nearly all of them never had such a battle cry until Steve Jobs told them to.
... If memory serves (I don't have the specific numbers handy, but perhaps you can find some to refute this if you feel necessary), Adobe has never spent less than 25% of operating capital on the Mac platform, and most years much more than that.
So when we look at their investment relative to potential return based on market share, Adobe's investment in the Mac was an order of magnitude disproportionately favoring Apple's customers.
And in return, Apple's customers were loyal to Adobe, bringing in a disproportionately high percentage of the company's revenue.
This was happily the case between Adobe and Mac users- and pretty much remains so - until Steve Jobs launched his attack on Adobe.
Now, even though Mac customers still buy LOTS of Adobe products and Adobe continues to invest in Mac completely beyond its market share, there are a handful of zealous parrots here running about yelling "Adobe must die! Adobe must die!" without recognizing that nearly all of them never had such a battle cry until Steve Jobs told them to.
If memory serves (I don't have the specific numbers handy, but perhaps you can find some to refute this if you feel necessary), the market share of Adobe's Mac CS products has always been well in excess of 25%. Mac vs. Windows market share is entirely irrelevant.
All of this is a delusional, revisionist, fictional rant by you. People on this forum, and elsewhere, have been waiting eagerly for the day that Flash is a non-entity long before Steve Jobs ever made in public statements regarding it. Many of us have disliked Flash from day 0, for exactly the same reasons we dislike it now, long before Steve Jobs ever voiced an opinion.
If memory serves (I don't have the specific numbers handy, but perhaps you can find some to refute this if you feel necessary), the market share of Adobe's Mac CS products has always been well in excess of 25%.
Precisely. Outside of Steve's office and this forum, Mac user love Adobe, and likewise Adobe has been investing heavily in the Mac platform, in spite of false claims to the contrary.
As for your claim that the folks here demanding "Death to Flash!" have been saying so for years, what percentage of them can point to any such posts prior to January 2010?
All of the major browser developers either support VIDEO now, or will very shortly. Then if we add the instances of browsers on platforms that Flash doesn't exist on, that adds to the count.
There are several video solutions right now as well as a tutorial on the Apple developer site.
It works on Firefox, Safari, Chrome and Opera, with flash fall back support for IE and works with H.264, Ogg and MebM. I don't have to code the flash support it has a link to embed a flashplayer that will play the H.264 file. Yes, I have to encode the video three times, but it is quick. So all of my videos are using the html5 tag right now. Within the tag is the fallback code for any browser not supporting html5 video tag directly. Yes, I still need to provide Flash support or rather it is the html5 that is providing access to the Flash alternative. Eventually that will not be needed once older versions of IE fade from use (please God make it sooner than later for a ton of reasons, not just Flash)
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
All of this is a delusional, revisionist, fictional rant by you. People on this forum, and elsewhere, have been waiting eagerly for the day that Flash is a non-entity long before Steve Jobs ever made in public statements regarding it. Many of us have disliked Flash from day 0, for exactly the same reasons we dislike it now, long before Steve Jobs ever voiced an opinion.
I agree with this statement!! I have been designing websites for such a long time that Claris Homepage was my first html editor! I remember when people started using Flash and they had to create two sites, one for Flash and another non-Flash site as many people did not have the plugin or had a browser that would support the plugin. Eventually most people had the plugin but which version??? It was always a nightmare when the Flash plugin got updated and people didn't update or their browser was incapable of running the latest Flash player plugin. Got tons of complaints that people couldn't see the content. So I had to use a Flash detector to redirect people to older versions. Sometimes the new techniques couldn't run on older Flash players so two versions of the swf file had to be made. It was (and still is) its own nightmare of difficulty. So in a way just coding a video file three ways is much simpler. I have never ever used Flash for any interactivity or navigation on any of my websites for the reasons stated above.
I do not however, in the past go on the internet to bitch about Flash except for maybe some boards for specific applications of Flash such as Slide Show Pro. But believe me, I did have issues and was not happy with using Flash, but until recently it was the thing to use. Now there are alternatives and I am more than happy to use them.
Doesn't H.264 come with five year licenses, capped at $5 million so $1 million a year would be closer.
Aren't h.264 licenses only necessary for content creators who are in the business of selling their content?
I thought the Mozilla problem with licensing H.264 was their fear that someday the consortium that administers H.264 may someday change the terms going from a free-to-implement-in-a-browser cost to a cost-per-view model. And that because that change of terms was not legally impossible, the H.264 standard wasn't viewed as a royaly-free Open Standard in Mozilla's eyes, even though there would be no royalties today, and therefore not a candidate for inclusion into FF.
That's a really big difference, because it becomes a political choice on Mozilla's part, not a cost budgeting issue for making a H.264 viewer native to the FF browser.
No - private interests most definitely. Law maybe if you mean unwritten which is often the case. Private interests and corporations run this country. It's a shame. This United States 'experiment' is a failure. It's time to vote out these interests for the sake of Americans and for our government to take care of it's people. We waste too much time. Time for change. We are young yes. But time to grow up.
I'm completely mystified as to why people are getting so exercised over Dr. Millmoss's straightforward remark that the FTC was "enforcing laws."
What are people suggesting? That if the FTC receives a complaint they reject it out of hand without any investigation? How would that work? Someone just glances at the paperwork and makes a summary judgement to tear it up, despite the enormously complex legal and economic ramifications of such decisions?
That's what the FTC's madate is. That's how they go about enforcing the law-- they investigate complaints and come to a decision as to whether any intervention is necessary. It's not an attack on Apple or an endorsement of Adobe to make such an entirely (I would have thought) uncontroversial observation, nor is it a vote for capricious government fiat or onerous, heavy-handed control of markets.
I'm completely mystified as to why people are getting so exercised over Dr. Millmoss's straightforward remark that the FTC was "enforcing laws."
Welcome back to the Land O' Mystery. I am selling tickets.
Two forces at work, as nearly as I can tell. The first is the "Apple is never wrong" crowd. Simply suggesting the possibility that Apple may have erred is too much for them to even consider. The second is the "government is always wrong" bunch. They live on private islands and are well armed. It's a Venn diagram exercise of course -- many in Set A also belong to Set B.
Adobe just needs to produce a working iOS version of Flash. Someone at Adobe surely has an iPhone they play with. Develop it, prove that it works and show us. If they can prove it works reliably and doesn't drain the battery too easily, what will Apple say now?
I know it will crash at times, but iOS isn't crashproof anyways. There will be battery drain, but that's to be expected. Just try to minimize it.
You are obviously missing the point - Flash is a proprietary POS and has no business being a platform on the internet. The internet should be based on open standards, not closed. That is apple's point. Further, by being a proprietary system, the whole world has to wait for Adobe to do upgrades, fix problems, make it workable, make it usable and therefore has no control over the performance or experience. Meanwhile, if this functionality were built into HTML5 it would be worked on and improved constantly by the open source community. KILL FLASH - FREE THE WEB!
Welcome back to the Land O' Mystery. I am selling tickets.
Two forces at work, as nearly as I can tell. The first is the "Apple is never wrong" crowd. Simply suggesting the possibility that Apple may have erred is too much for them to even consider. The second is the "government is always wrong" bunch. They live on private islands and are well armed. It's a Venn diagram exercise of course -- many in Set A also belong to Set B.
Or, dimwit, there is no law being broken! Apple is free to keep buggy POS crapware off their systems, and that is the definition of flash. Apple is the one that get the complaints, bad reviews etc. for sluggish performance, crashes, etc. Flash is crap! Put that in your Venn diagram.
Or, dimwit, there is no law being broken! Apple is free to keep buggy POS crapware off their systems, and that is the definition of flash. Apple is the ones that get the complaints, bad reviews etc. for sluggish performance, crashes, etc. Flash is crap! And, you arrogant FK, just because you slap a Dr. on front of your name, obviously doesn't make you any smarter.
I'm pretty sure you're taking Dr Millmoss out of context, you've apparently missed several other posts in this very thread.
I thought Dr. Millmoss was a comic character in the 30's. It's just a handle, not a reason to pick a fight.
Precisely. Outside of Steve's office and this forum, Mac user love Adobe, and likewise Adobe has been investing heavily in the Mac platform, in spite of false claims to the contrary.
Do you even read or think about the meaning of posts before you reply? More users, less investment per user than Windows. Kind of contradicts your point, doesn't it? So, "precisely" is hardly the right word here. More appropriate might have been, "Shit, I was so wrong."
Quote:
As for your claim that the folks here demanding "Death to Flash!" have been saying so for years, what percentage of them can point to any such posts prior to January 2010?
A very high percentage. If you don't believe it, feel free to peruse the archives, at which point an appropriate response will be, "Shit, I was so wrong."
You are obviously missing the point - Flash is a proprietary POS and has no business being a platform on the internet. The internet should be based on open standards, not closed. That is apple's point. Further, by being a proprietary system, the whole world has to wait for Adobe to do upgrades, fix problems, make it workable, make it usable and therefore has no control over the performance or experience. Meanwhile, if this functionality were built into HTML5 it would be worked on and improved constantly by the open source community. KILL FLASH - FREE THE WEB!
The problem with HTML5, is that it isn't defined in stone yet; both Apple and MS use browser-specific hooks on their "HTML5" demos page, so Webkit or Direct2D specific features don't do me a lot of good if I'm not using Safari or Windows on that particular page, and not all browsers do well at displaying all current HTML5 content even the 'open' bits - example, Safari sucks with the <canvas> element, while Chrome and Opera stomp all over it, and that's without any GPU acceleration either.
At least Flash is browser agnostic. HTML5 may the future, but it's not the present.
I would have been understanding if SJ has something to the effect, that Adobe needs to step up their game with Flash, before we consider allowing it on iOS, rather than shutting the door completely.
(I've seen jailbroken iPads running hacked Android Froyo builds of Flash, so it can't be a performance issue, and I haven't heard of complains from people running Froyo and Flash, so there's something more).
Do you even read or think about the meaning of posts before you reply? More users, less investment per user than Windows. Kind of contradicts your point, doesn't it? So, "precisely" is hardly the right word here. More appropriate might have been, "Shit, I was so wrong."
jragosta, is that you?
First you prove my point by demonstrating how much Mac users outside of this tiny little forum love Adobe and then try to say it somehow means Adobe is bad for Mac?
Comments
Restraint of trade is anti-trust by definition in 1886 and is generally referred to as anti-competitive now. The Sherman act was passed using restraint of trade terminology and modern courts have been referring to it using the anti-competiitive terminology. For all intents and purposes they are the same thing, may even be formally defined as the same thing someplace in US law written since 1886.
This terminology gets all balled up frequently, and while you are partially correct in your explanation, I think you may have introduced a new level of confusion to anyone who wishes to understand this issue better. First, a "trust" is another term for what we often call a "monopoly." The Sherman Antitrust Act was therefore created to combat the formation of trusts. Preventing the restraint of trade is the broader purpose of both the Sherman and Clayton acts. Also, the Sherman Act was passed in 1890, so I'm not sure where you get the 1886 date.
So "restraint of trade is antitrust by definition" is not an accurate statement. Restraint of trade was made unlawful by antitrust laws, is the meaning I think you wanted.
Should be a sucker bet then, eh? Go on, take my money: define measurable terms and let's do it.
If we're both still around here in 2-5 years, one of us will just admit that he was wrong.
Well, not when Adobe has made it clear for many years that Macs are not a priority to them.
That's yet another Oops moment from Jobs' "Thoughts on Flash".
The facts tell a very different story:
Back in the late '90s Apple was a sinking ship, with 2.2% of the global market and two consecutive years of net losses.
During that time, Adobe did indeed release some of their products for Windows first, but still continued to invest substantially in their Mac line.
If memory serves (I don't have the specific numbers handy, but perhaps you can find some to refute this if you feel necessary), Adobe has never spent less than 25% of operating capital on the Mac platform, and most years much more than that.
So when we look at their investment relative to potential return based on market share, Adobe's investment in the Mac was an order of magnitude disproportionately favoring Apple's customers.
And in return, Apple's customers were loyal to Adobe, bringing in a disproportionately high percentage of the company's revenue.
This was happily the case between Adobe and Mac users- and pretty much remains so - until Steve Jobs launched his attack on Adobe.
Now, even though Mac customers still buy LOTS of Adobe products and Adobe continues to invest in Mac completely beyond its market share, there are a handful of zealous parrots here running about yelling "Adobe must die! Adobe must die!" without recognizing that nearly all of them never had such a battle cry until Steve Jobs told them to.
If we're both still around here in 2-5 years, one of us will just admit that he was wrong.
Fair enough, but without defining "niche" we may never agree on what "wrong" means.
Just the same, if it's clear Flash has gone by the wayside I'll do one better: I'll buy you a beer at the next MacWorld.
... If memory serves (I don't have the specific numbers handy, but perhaps you can find some to refute this if you feel necessary), Adobe has never spent less than 25% of operating capital on the Mac platform, and most years much more than that.
So when we look at their investment relative to potential return based on market share, Adobe's investment in the Mac was an order of magnitude disproportionately favoring Apple's customers.
And in return, Apple's customers were loyal to Adobe, bringing in a disproportionately high percentage of the company's revenue.
This was happily the case between Adobe and Mac users- and pretty much remains so - until Steve Jobs launched his attack on Adobe.
Now, even though Mac customers still buy LOTS of Adobe products and Adobe continues to invest in Mac completely beyond its market share, there are a handful of zealous parrots here running about yelling "Adobe must die! Adobe must die!" without recognizing that nearly all of them never had such a battle cry until Steve Jobs told them to.
If memory serves (I don't have the specific numbers handy, but perhaps you can find some to refute this if you feel necessary), the market share of Adobe's Mac CS products has always been well in excess of 25%. Mac vs. Windows market share is entirely irrelevant.
All of this is a delusional, revisionist, fictional rant by you. People on this forum, and elsewhere, have been waiting eagerly for the day that Flash is a non-entity long before Steve Jobs ever made in public statements regarding it. Many of us have disliked Flash from day 0, for exactly the same reasons we dislike it now, long before Steve Jobs ever voiced an opinion.
If memory serves (I don't have the specific numbers handy, but perhaps you can find some to refute this if you feel necessary), the market share of Adobe's Mac CS products has always been well in excess of 25%.
Precisely. Outside of Steve's office and this forum, Mac user love Adobe, and likewise Adobe has been investing heavily in the Mac platform, in spite of false claims to the contrary.
As for your claim that the folks here demanding "Death to Flash!" have been saying so for years, what percentage of them can point to any such posts prior to January 2010?
h.264 would cost mozilla over 5 million dollars to license a year...
Doesn't H.264 come with five year licenses, capped at $5 million so $1 million a year would be closer.
That's yet another Oops moment from Jobs' "Thoughts on Flash".
The facts tell a very different story:
Back in the late '90s Apple was a sinking ship, with 2.2% of the global market and two consecutive years of net losses.
During that time, Adobe did indeed release some of their products for Windows first, but still continued to invest substantially in their Mac line.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y7XJI4NN7k
And flash on android doesn't consume any more battery than HTML5 or other active content.
When will Click-to-Flash be ready for Android? Inquiring minds want to know.
All of the major browser developers either support VIDEO now, or will very shortly. Then if we add the instances of browsers on platforms that Flash doesn't exist on, that adds to the count.
There are several video solutions right now as well as a tutorial on the Apple developer site.
I am mostly using Video Js by zencoder http://videojs.com/
It works on Firefox, Safari, Chrome and Opera, with flash fall back support for IE and works with H.264, Ogg and MebM. I don't have to code the flash support it has a link to embed a flashplayer that will play the H.264 file. Yes, I have to encode the video three times, but it is quick. So all of my videos are using the html5 tag right now. Within the tag is the fallback code for any browser not supporting html5 video tag directly. Yes, I still need to provide Flash support or rather it is the html5 that is providing access to the Flash alternative. Eventually that will not be needed once older versions of IE fade from use (please God make it sooner than later for a ton of reasons, not just Flash)
All of this is a delusional, revisionist, fictional rant by you. People on this forum, and elsewhere, have been waiting eagerly for the day that Flash is a non-entity long before Steve Jobs ever made in public statements regarding it. Many of us have disliked Flash from day 0, for exactly the same reasons we dislike it now, long before Steve Jobs ever voiced an opinion.
I agree with this statement!! I have been designing websites for such a long time that Claris Homepage was my first html editor! I remember when people started using Flash and they had to create two sites, one for Flash and another non-Flash site as many people did not have the plugin or had a browser that would support the plugin. Eventually most people had the plugin but which version??? It was always a nightmare when the Flash plugin got updated and people didn't update or their browser was incapable of running the latest Flash player plugin. Got tons of complaints that people couldn't see the content. So I had to use a Flash detector to redirect people to older versions. Sometimes the new techniques couldn't run on older Flash players so two versions of the swf file had to be made. It was (and still is) its own nightmare of difficulty. So in a way just coding a video file three ways is much simpler. I have never ever used Flash for any interactivity or navigation on any of my websites for the reasons stated above.
I do not however, in the past go on the internet to bitch about Flash except for maybe some boards for specific applications of Flash such as Slide Show Pro. But believe me, I did have issues and was not happy with using Flash, but until recently it was the thing to use. Now there are alternatives and I am more than happy to use them.
Doesn't H.264 come with five year licenses, capped at $5 million so $1 million a year would be closer.
Aren't h.264 licenses only necessary for content creators who are in the business of selling their content?
I thought the Mozilla problem with licensing H.264 was their fear that someday the consortium that administers H.264 may someday change the terms going from a free-to-implement-in-a-browser cost to a cost-per-view model. And that because that change of terms was not legally impossible, the H.264 standard wasn't viewed as a royaly-free Open Standard in Mozilla's eyes, even though there would be no royalties today, and therefore not a candidate for inclusion into FF.
That's a really big difference, because it becomes a political choice on Mozilla's part, not a cost budgeting issue for making a H.264 viewer native to the FF browser.
When will Click-to-Flash be ready for Android? Inquiring minds want to know.
Flash "load on demand" is a NATIVE part of the Froyo (2.2) browser. You don't need a separate plugin.
No - private interests most definitely. Law maybe if you mean unwritten which is often the case. Private interests and corporations run this country. It's a shame. This United States 'experiment' is a failure. It's time to vote out these interests for the sake of Americans and for our government to take care of it's people. We waste too much time. Time for change. We are young yes. But time to grow up.
I'm completely mystified as to why people are getting so exercised over Dr. Millmoss's straightforward remark that the FTC was "enforcing laws."
What are people suggesting? That if the FTC receives a complaint they reject it out of hand without any investigation? How would that work? Someone just glances at the paperwork and makes a summary judgement to tear it up, despite the enormously complex legal and economic ramifications of such decisions?
That's what the FTC's madate is. That's how they go about enforcing the law-- they investigate complaints and come to a decision as to whether any intervention is necessary. It's not an attack on Apple or an endorsement of Adobe to make such an entirely (I would have thought) uncontroversial observation, nor is it a vote for capricious government fiat or onerous, heavy-handed control of markets.
Jeesh.
I'm completely mystified as to why people are getting so exercised over Dr. Millmoss's straightforward remark that the FTC was "enforcing laws."
Welcome back to the Land O' Mystery. I am selling tickets.
Two forces at work, as nearly as I can tell. The first is the "Apple is never wrong" crowd. Simply suggesting the possibility that Apple may have erred is too much for them to even consider. The second is the "government is always wrong" bunch. They live on private islands and are well armed. It's a Venn diagram exercise of course -- many in Set A also belong to Set B.
Adobe just needs to produce a working iOS version of Flash. Someone at Adobe surely has an iPhone they play with. Develop it, prove that it works and show us. If they can prove it works reliably and doesn't drain the battery too easily, what will Apple say now?
I know it will crash at times, but iOS isn't crashproof anyways. There will be battery drain, but that's to be expected. Just try to minimize it.
You are obviously missing the point - Flash is a proprietary POS and has no business being a platform on the internet. The internet should be based on open standards, not closed. That is apple's point. Further, by being a proprietary system, the whole world has to wait for Adobe to do upgrades, fix problems, make it workable, make it usable and therefore has no control over the performance or experience. Meanwhile, if this functionality were built into HTML5 it would be worked on and improved constantly by the open source community. KILL FLASH - FREE THE WEB!
Welcome back to the Land O' Mystery. I am selling tickets.
Two forces at work, as nearly as I can tell. The first is the "Apple is never wrong" crowd. Simply suggesting the possibility that Apple may have erred is too much for them to even consider. The second is the "government is always wrong" bunch. They live on private islands and are well armed. It's a Venn diagram exercise of course -- many in Set A also belong to Set B.
Or, dimwit, there is no law being broken! Apple is free to keep buggy POS crapware off their systems, and that is the definition of flash. Apple is the one that get the complaints, bad reviews etc. for sluggish performance, crashes, etc. Flash is crap! Put that in your Venn diagram.
Or, dimwit, there is no law being broken! Apple is free to keep buggy POS crapware off their systems, and that is the definition of flash. Apple is the ones that get the complaints, bad reviews etc. for sluggish performance, crashes, etc. Flash is crap! And, you arrogant FK, just because you slap a Dr. on front of your name, obviously doesn't make you any smarter.
I'm pretty sure you're taking Dr Millmoss out of context, you've apparently missed several other posts in this very thread.
I thought Dr. Millmoss was a comic character in the 30's. It's just a handle, not a reason to pick a fight.
http://www.cartoonbank.com/1930s/wha...s/invt/117291/
In other news, Cap'n Crunch really isn't a ship's captain at all.
Precisely. Outside of Steve's office and this forum, Mac user love Adobe, and likewise Adobe has been investing heavily in the Mac platform, in spite of false claims to the contrary.
Do you even read or think about the meaning of posts before you reply? More users, less investment per user than Windows. Kind of contradicts your point, doesn't it? So, "precisely" is hardly the right word here. More appropriate might have been, "Shit, I was so wrong."
As for your claim that the folks here demanding "Death to Flash!" have been saying so for years, what percentage of them can point to any such posts prior to January 2010?
A very high percentage. If you don't believe it, feel free to peruse the archives, at which point an appropriate response will be, "Shit, I was so wrong."
You are obviously missing the point - Flash is a proprietary POS and has no business being a platform on the internet. The internet should be based on open standards, not closed. That is apple's point. Further, by being a proprietary system, the whole world has to wait for Adobe to do upgrades, fix problems, make it workable, make it usable and therefore has no control over the performance or experience. Meanwhile, if this functionality were built into HTML5 it would be worked on and improved constantly by the open source community. KILL FLASH - FREE THE WEB!
The problem with HTML5, is that it isn't defined in stone yet; both Apple and MS use browser-specific hooks on their "HTML5" demos page, so Webkit or Direct2D specific features don't do me a lot of good if I'm not using Safari or Windows on that particular page, and not all browsers do well at displaying all current HTML5 content even the 'open' bits - example, Safari sucks with the <canvas> element, while Chrome and Opera stomp all over it, and that's without any GPU acceleration either.
At least Flash is browser agnostic. HTML5 may the future, but it's not the present.
I would have been understanding if SJ has something to the effect, that Adobe needs to step up their game with Flash, before we consider allowing it on iOS, rather than shutting the door completely.
(I've seen jailbroken iPads running hacked Android Froyo builds of Flash, so it can't be a performance issue, and I haven't heard of complains from people running Froyo and Flash, so there's something more).
Do you even read or think about the meaning of posts before you reply? More users, less investment per user than Windows. Kind of contradicts your point, doesn't it? So, "precisely" is hardly the right word here. More appropriate might have been, "Shit, I was so wrong."
jragosta, is that you?
First you prove my point by demonstrating how much Mac users outside of this tiny little forum love Adobe and then try to say it somehow means Adobe is bad for Mac?
Correct order: read first, then reply.
Have a better day.