These are not web browsers; they are just some kind of plug-in like myIE.
So, don't believe this. We are not going to see Firefox on iPhone.
You need to read up on things a little.
These are browsers, built as apps using normal tools Apple approves of.
A Plug-in can't be done.....
We will not see Firefox on the iPhone any more than we will see Safari or I.E.
We could see someone build an App, like these, and make it look like FireFox.
It just wouldn't support Flash, support plug-ins, or do anything else anyone that like Firefox would want.
People need to just get over it.
Apps are great as far as they go, people just need to realize it's a safe close platform.
You can't build something unsafe because you can't call the levels you need to do what these other things require..... so you ain't going to get other things.
Make fun of me all you want, but someone has to pay for the content. If the advertisers don't, you either won't get it at all or everything will be subscription-based. I prefer banner ads. It would be great if there was a way to pay some company to remove all banner ads from the web and pay out the appropriate amount to each site. Until that happens, though, freeloaders will continue to work against good content on the web.
I understand your point of view, but everything you are saying goes against the actual history of the web.
The web was originally ad-free and academically oriented, it was originally supposed to be a way to "free" the worlds information and make it available to all. The commercialisation of the web came later, I remember because there was a huge argument over it at the time that went on for about a year at least. Most of us using the web at the time, and most of those creating the webpages (all the web "intelligencia" if you will), were strongly against having ads on the web, but commercial interests prevailed as they almost always do in today's world.
The advertisements don't actually "pay for the web." The advertisers and corporations that have in a sense "swallowed" the web need the adverts to keep their dominion, but that's still not the same as saying the web relies on them. Without advertising you would see a lot less commercial sites on the web, but also less crap and useless filler. To use a TV metaphor, think PBS and the nightly news, as opposed to the latest Jim Carey movie.
The web doesn't need advertising to run or survive, advertising needs the web (and anything else it can use) to spread it's message.
Edit: I forgot to add that your "freeloader" comment speaks volumes (and is wrong). No one is "stealing" anything by not looking at ads.
I am very excited for the palm it's looking very nice. But every silverlining has it's cloud and the palm pre's cloud is 'sprint' which probably has the least coverage area of any phone service in the US. Even t mobile covers more ground. I would love the palm pre on either at&t or verizon.
I really wish Apple would be a little more friendly to developers...these abrupt turnarounds only help to highlight the arbitrary nature of Apple's absurd regulations...
You obviously didn't read the article. The decisions aren't arbitrary, you follow Apple's rules or you don't get on... plain and simple. Doesn't seem to be arbitrary to me. If you don't use the stuff in the SDK and follow the rules, you don't get on. I think alot of people and developers would like to think Apple's decisions are arbitrary or self-serving.
Aple's tryingto make sure people follow some standards when coding for the iPhone so that it has a standard look and feel and that it doesn't break.
Make fun of me all you want, but someone has to pay for the content. If the advertisers don't, you either won't get it at all or everything will be subscription-based. I prefer banner ads. It would be great if there was a way to pay some company to remove all banner ads from the web and pay out the appropriate amount to each site. Until that happens, though, freeloaders will continue to work against good content on the web.
Right, and advertising is working FOR good content on the web? Am I missing something? Or are you just connected to that industry?
The fact is, some of the greatest schlock content on the web is created by advertisers (viral video astroturfing, etc), and some of the greatest blights on the web are kept alive by whoring themselves out with tons of ads. Spyware builds much of its revenue stream from the current advertising model on the web -- I guess those anti-spyware freeloaders are almost as bad as the adblocker freeloaders, right?
I don't use an adblocker, but those "losComcast.com" video ads on this site are about to drive me to start (I haven't decided which is worse, the people constantly fidgeting around while I'm trying to read, or me trying to rack my brain to figure out why I'm being targeted for these ads). Web advertising is a broken system. Using more and more disruptive methods to rob people of their attention and concentration -- which are hard enough to maintain in the modern world -- is not endearing us to your product.
Apple has already proved that there are new revenue streams to be found when you step back and rethink things. Shaming people into watching ads isn't going to work any more than suing people who pirate music worked for the RIAA. It's easier to get money from customers without antagonizing them, so if your entire business model is built on antagonizing your customers -- fooling them, distracting them, annoying them -- then there's something wrong with your business model.
There are better ways to make money on the web, and better ways to support good content. Some have been discovered, some haven't yet. I'll stop short of saying that people using adblockers are heroes who are destroying one of the Bad Ways, because in the near term, ads will go to new extremes of annoyance or sneakiness. But adblockers are at least helping to force a long-overdue conversation.
I am very excited for the palm it's looking very nice. But every silverlining has it's cloud and the palm pre's cloud is 'sprint' which probably has the least coverage area of any phone service in the US. Even t mobile covers more ground. I would love the palm pre on either at&t or verizon.
T-Mobile has recently ranked 2nd overall by (credible) studies such as JD Power & Asscociates & Consumers Union (Consumer Reports mag).
I looked into this after seeing, in a single day Sprint, Verizon and at&t all claim in some form to be best. at&t is the most laughable, since they have finished behind multiple carriers consistently of late their. Their "best coverage" claim based on number of countries in which they have a roaming agreement. Talk about misleading; number of customers using service overseas a fraction of total base. And they all have extensive ways to roam overseas, anyway.
Sorry in advance to everyone if this triggers "I've had XXX company since 1999 and it's been great" posts, but thought I'd add some of the unbiased data to the mix.
I'm indifferent to these new browsers as Safari seems fine to me.
What I'm much more interested in is other alternative applications. I hope that we could now see an alternative music player - more specifically an Audiobook/podcast player. Whilst it was really easy to scroll through a long track on a traditional iPod it's very difficult to find your spot in the narrative on the iPhone/iPod touch as the scroll bar is fine for a 3 minute tune but useless for a 90minute podcast - an on-screen click wheel would be relaly neat.
On the aside of web-advertising; it annoys me on nearly every site and I never click on them (except the occasional accident). I do have to conceed that where the advert is properly targetted - i.e. on Facebook where it can access my interests/sports etc, a few adverts have piqued my interest enough for me to purposefully follow them.
I think it comes up when you use a new device, for example if you have got a new iPhone you will need to go through this, just to verify it is you purchasing items from the store.
Comments
This article is very misleading.
These are not web browsers; they are just some kind of plug-in like myIE.
So, don't believe this. We are not going to see Firefox on iPhone.
You need to read up on things a little.
These are browsers, built as apps using normal tools Apple approves of.
A Plug-in can't be done.....
We will not see Firefox on the iPhone any more than we will see Safari or I.E.
We could see someone build an App, like these, and make it look like FireFox.
It just wouldn't support Flash, support plug-ins, or do anything else anyone that like Firefox would want.
People need to just get over it.
Apps are great as far as they go, people just need to realize it's a safe close platform.
You can't build something unsafe because you can't call the levels you need to do what these other things require..... so you ain't going to get other things.
(Flash for example)
Make fun of me all you want, but someone has to pay for the content. If the advertisers don't, you either won't get it at all or everything will be subscription-based. I prefer banner ads. It would be great if there was a way to pay some company to remove all banner ads from the web and pay out the appropriate amount to each site. Until that happens, though, freeloaders will continue to work against good content on the web.
I understand your point of view, but everything you are saying goes against the actual history of the web.
The web was originally ad-free and academically oriented, it was originally supposed to be a way to "free" the worlds information and make it available to all. The commercialisation of the web came later, I remember because there was a huge argument over it at the time that went on for about a year at least. Most of us using the web at the time, and most of those creating the webpages (all the web "intelligencia" if you will), were strongly against having ads on the web, but commercial interests prevailed as they almost always do in today's world.
The advertisements don't actually "pay for the web." The advertisers and corporations that have in a sense "swallowed" the web need the adverts to keep their dominion, but that's still not the same as saying the web relies on them. Without advertising you would see a lot less commercial sites on the web, but also less crap and useless filler. To use a TV metaphor, think PBS and the nightly news, as opposed to the latest Jim Carey movie.
The web doesn't need advertising to run or survive, advertising needs the web (and anything else it can use) to spread it's message.
Edit: I forgot to add that your "freeloader" comment speaks volumes (and is wrong). No one is "stealing" anything by not looking at ads.
Palm Pre seems to be shaking some feathers.
I am very excited for the palm it's looking very nice. But every silverlining has it's cloud and the palm pre's cloud is 'sprint' which probably has the least coverage area of any phone service in the US. Even t mobile covers more ground. I would love the palm pre on either at&t or verizon.
I really wish Apple would be a little more friendly to developers...these abrupt turnarounds only help to highlight the arbitrary nature of Apple's absurd regulations...
You obviously didn't read the article. The decisions aren't arbitrary, you follow Apple's rules or you don't get on... plain and simple. Doesn't seem to be arbitrary to me. If you don't use the stuff in the SDK and follow the rules, you don't get on. I think alot of people and developers would like to think Apple's decisions are arbitrary or self-serving.
Aple's tryingto make sure people follow some standards when coding for the iPhone so that it has a standard look and feel and that it doesn't break.
Make fun of me all you want, but someone has to pay for the content. If the advertisers don't, you either won't get it at all or everything will be subscription-based. I prefer banner ads. It would be great if there was a way to pay some company to remove all banner ads from the web and pay out the appropriate amount to each site. Until that happens, though, freeloaders will continue to work against good content on the web.
Right, and advertising is working FOR good content on the web? Am I missing something? Or are you just connected to that industry?
The fact is, some of the greatest schlock content on the web is created by advertisers (viral video astroturfing, etc), and some of the greatest blights on the web are kept alive by whoring themselves out with tons of ads. Spyware builds much of its revenue stream from the current advertising model on the web -- I guess those anti-spyware freeloaders are almost as bad as the adblocker freeloaders, right?
I don't use an adblocker, but those "losComcast.com" video ads on this site are about to drive me to start (I haven't decided which is worse, the people constantly fidgeting around while I'm trying to read, or me trying to rack my brain to figure out why I'm being targeted for these ads). Web advertising is a broken system. Using more and more disruptive methods to rob people of their attention and concentration -- which are hard enough to maintain in the modern world -- is not endearing us to your product.
Apple has already proved that there are new revenue streams to be found when you step back and rethink things. Shaming people into watching ads isn't going to work any more than suing people who pirate music worked for the RIAA. It's easier to get money from customers without antagonizing them, so if your entire business model is built on antagonizing your customers -- fooling them, distracting them, annoying them -- then there's something wrong with your business model.
There are better ways to make money on the web, and better ways to support good content. Some have been discovered, some haven't yet. I'll stop short of saying that people using adblockers are heroes who are destroying one of the Bad Ways, because in the near term, ads will go to new extremes of annoyance or sneakiness. But adblockers are at least helping to force a long-overdue conversation.
I'm on the US store but it says it's unavailable for download
I am very excited for the palm it's looking very nice. But every silverlining has it's cloud and the palm pre's cloud is 'sprint' which probably has the least coverage area of any phone service in the US. Even t mobile covers more ground. I would love the palm pre on either at&t or verizon.
T-Mobile has recently ranked 2nd overall by (credible) studies such as JD Power & Asscociates & Consumers Union (Consumer Reports mag).
I looked into this after seeing, in a single day Sprint, Verizon and at&t all claim in some form to be best. at&t is the most laughable, since they have finished behind multiple carriers consistently of late their. Their "best coverage" claim based on number of countries in which they have a roaming agreement. Talk about misleading; number of customers using service overseas a fraction of total base. And they all have extensive ways to roam overseas, anyway.
Sorry in advance to everyone if this triggers "I've had XXX company since 1999 and it's been great" posts, but thought I'd add some of the unbiased data to the mix.
What I'm much more interested in is other alternative applications. I hope that we could now see an alternative music player - more specifically an Audiobook/podcast player. Whilst it was really easy to scroll through a long track on a traditional iPod it's very difficult to find your spot in the narrative on the iPhone/iPod touch as the scroll bar is fine for a 3 minute tune but useless for a 90minute podcast - an on-screen click wheel would be relaly neat.
On the aside of web-advertising; it annoys me on nearly every site and I never click on them (except the occasional accident). I do have to conceed that where the advert is properly targetted - i.e. on Facebook where it can access my interests/sports etc, a few adverts have piqued my interest enough for me to purposefully follow them.
While I do agree Apple are paying attention to the Pre, I don't see how this particular story has anything to do with the Pre.
They seemed to be watching them so they could steal the multitasking, just like they stole the whole OS off of Palm OS.
You revived a five year old thread for that?