Chrome is designed to monetize you, I have no idea why any intelligent person would use it. Especially since Firefox has a superior add-on base to draw from.
Safari is also fine, though 6 runs slow on my older hardware.
At least we're finally getting to where Jobs said the web needed to go. Just took a lot longer than it should have.
Chrome is designed to monetize you, I have no idea why any intelligent person would use it. Especially since Firefox has a superior add-on base to draw from.
Safari is also fine, though 6 runs slow on my older hardware.
At least we're finally getting to where Jobs said the web needed to go. Just took a lot longer than it should have.
1) I think that argument is as bad as people saying that you shouldn't buy from Apple because they make a profit off your purchase, instead you should buy from a company that can't figure out how to profit from you. I have no problem with a company wanting to profit. My interest in a profit is purely about the value to me. If it's the best product for my needs then I'll use it.
2) Apple's creation of Safari definitely gives them revenue and profit, albeit in a mostly indirect way. Their investment in all things is to make money from us at some point. They also make money on us whenever we use a search engine in the Safari URL.
1) I think that argument is as bad as people saying that you shouldn't buy from Apple because they make a profit off your purchase, instead you should buy from a company that can't figure out how to profit from you. I have no problem with a company wanting to profit. My interest in a profit is purely about the value to me. If it's the best product for my needs then I'll use it.
2) Apple's creation of Safari definitely gives them revenue and profit, albeit in a mostly indirect way. Their investment in all things is to make money from us at some point. They also make money on us whenever we use a search engine in the Safari URL.
in broad general terms, I agree with you–– a company is certainly entitled to a profit.
However, the way Google monetizes from us is not by a straightforward transaction, but from insidiously and relentlessly collecting data on us, our surfing habits, and so on. If you’re comfortable with that… well…
Curious about this, I fired up IE 11 on my Windows 7 VM and was immediately prompted to install Silverlight. A bit of Googling, and learned that Netflix supports the HTML5 player on IE11 on Windows 8.1 ONLY.
So, sure, it works in the Windows OS that has barely 5% of the Windows market... Just say'n.
And how did it work with Yosemite? Oh wait you don't have it yet. 5% doesn’t sound like much but it's still 5% more than 0%.
Finally, 7 years after the original iPhone. These things should have been implemented years ago so nobody would have any excuses to use Flash or Silverlight for DRM video.
Maybe someone could clarify this, but don't encrypted media extensions essentially replace a single universal plugin (Flash) with multiple site-specific and possibly browser-specific plugins? How are things any simpler for the user this way?
Curious about this, I fired up IE 11 on my Windows 7 VM and was immediately prompted to install Silverlight. A bit of Googling, and learned that Netflix supports the HTML5 player on IE11 on Windows 8.1 ONLY.
So, sure, it works in the Windows OS that has barely 5% of the Windows market... Just say'n.
5% of the OS that has ~90% overall share is still a sizeable portion, comparable to all the Macs that run Mavericks.
Netmarketshare has Windows 8.1 6.35% overall market share. So, about the same installed base of all versions of OSX combined...
You figure it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
5% of the OS that has ~90% overall share is still a sizeable portion, comparable to all the Macs that run Mavericks.
The point being was, saying "Netflix already works in IE 11!" is disingenuous.
If that were true, then it implies that Netflix already works with over 60% of the internet population TODAY. Instead, Netflix is only working for 5~6% of internet users. Big difference.
It would've been more accurate to say that Netflix is already working in Windows 8.1 today, not IE 11.
Maybe someone could clarify this, but don't encrypted media extensions essentially replace a single universal plugin (Flash) with multiple site-specific and possibly browser-specific plugins? How are things any simpler for the user this way?
Yes, that's exactly right-- encrypted media extensions essentially replace Flash (and Silverlight). And yes it is simpler.
1. For starters, everything you need will already be baked into the browser. No more having to separately download a plugin.
2. It also means that we no longer have to rely on Flash and Silverlight. Both of which needlessly slow down your browser, cause fans to kick in, and drain the battery faster than necessary. There's a reason why Flash isn't on mobile platforms, you know.
3. Finally, we're safer without plugins like Flash, Silverlight, and Java. Flash and Java are both actively targeted as exploit vectors by malware. And Silverlight has recently popped up on the radar for malware as well (see http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/05/move-over-java-drive-by-attacks-exploiting-microsoft-silverlight-on-the-rise/). Also, plugins are generally more difficult for ordinary users to keep updated, leaving them even more vulnerable with old versions installed.
"Incorrect" would have sufficed, since you don't actually know that the original post was knowingly withholding facts.
It's not technically incorrect which makes disingenuous an apt word if the original statement was purposely obfuscating the fact that it's not every version of Windows running IE11. Now if the OP was simply misinformed then I would say that the statement is simply incomplete as stated.
"Incorrect" would have sufficed, since you don't actually know that the original post was knowingly withholding facts.
Nope, I meant the word disingenuous.
Had the original poster said something like "but it's already working in IE!", I might've assumed (due to his ignorance) that something else is at play-- that he had Windows 8.1, or perhaps is computer came pre-loaded with Silverlight and he was not aware of it. But instead, he authoritatively proclaimed that Netflix works in IE 11, implying all platforms. It was a rather trollish post to begin with, I'm pretty sure he was knowingly withholding facts.
I actually have some information on testing Netflix under Yosemite. This doesn't violate the NDA because it has nothing to do with Yosemite but with Netflix.
I installed Yosemite this morning and accessed Netflix. It still asked for the Silverlight installation. I used their live chat and after the person checked with tech support I found out they are only allowing Macs with a Sandy Bridge or later CPU to run HTML5. I am hoping this is only for initial testing but we'll see.
Comments
I've been using Apple products since the Apple II. I'm not a troll and I will call it like it is.
Safari is bleh...Chrome is way better.
In IOS 8 will we be able to set Chrome or other browser as a default? Safari is bleh on iOS also. Worse, even.
Chrome is designed to monetize you, I have no idea why any intelligent person would use it. Especially since Firefox has a superior add-on base to draw from.
Safari is also fine, though 6 runs slow on my older hardware.
At least we're finally getting to where Jobs said the web needed to go. Just took a lot longer than it should have.
1) I think that argument is as bad as people saying that you shouldn't buy from Apple because they make a profit off your purchase, instead you should buy from a company that can't figure out how to profit from you. I have no problem with a company wanting to profit. My interest in a profit is purely about the value to me. If it's the best product for my needs then I'll use it.
2) Apple's creation of Safari definitely gives them revenue and profit, albeit in a mostly indirect way. Their investment in all things is to make money from us at some point. They also make money on us whenever we use a search engine in the Safari URL.
I would rather pay up front for the hardware and not have a company tracking everything I do to sell me ads.
1) I think that argument is as bad as people saying that you shouldn't buy from Apple because they make a profit off your purchase, instead you should buy from a company that can't figure out how to profit from you. I have no problem with a company wanting to profit. My interest in a profit is purely about the value to me. If it's the best product for my needs then I'll use it.
2) Apple's creation of Safari definitely gives them revenue and profit, albeit in a mostly indirect way. Their investment in all things is to make money from us at some point. They also make money on us whenever we use a search engine in the Safari URL.
in broad general terms, I agree with you–– a company is certainly entitled to a profit.
However, the way Google monetizes from us is not by a straightforward transaction, but from insidiously and relentlessly collecting data on us, our surfing habits, and so on. If you’re comfortable with that… well…
1) And that's a perfectly reasonable choice but my point against your comment is that all companies are trying to make money from you.
2) What search engine, if any do you use? Do block all ads on AI, tool, since ads are how they make their money?
And how did it work with Yosemite? Oh wait you don't have it yet. 5% doesn’t sound like much but it's still 5% more than 0%.
I wonder how many active users that is.
I wonder how many active users that is.
Netmarketshare has Windows 8.1 6.35% overall market share. So, about the same installed base of all versions of OSX combined...
You figure it out.
Thanks for nothing.
Finally, 7 years after the original iPhone. These things should have been implemented years ago so nobody would have any excuses to use Flash or Silverlight for DRM video.
Maybe someone could clarify this, but don't encrypted media extensions essentially replace a single universal plugin (Flash) with multiple site-specific and possibly browser-specific plugins? How are things any simpler for the user this way?
Netmarketshare has Windows 8.1 6.35% overall market share. So, about the same installed base of all versions of OSX combined...
You figure it out.
5% of the OS that has ~90% overall share is still a sizeable portion, comparable to all the Macs that run Mavericks.
The point being was, saying "Netflix already works in IE 11!" is disingenuous.
If that were true, then it implies that Netflix already works with over 60% of the internet population TODAY. Instead, Netflix is only working for 5~6% of internet users. Big difference.
It would've been more accurate to say that Netflix is already working in Windows 8.1 today, not IE 11.
Maybe someone could clarify this, but don't encrypted media extensions essentially replace a single universal plugin (Flash) with multiple site-specific and possibly browser-specific plugins? How are things any simpler for the user this way?
Yes, that's exactly right-- encrypted media extensions essentially replace Flash (and Silverlight). And yes it is simpler.
1. For starters, everything you need will already be baked into the browser. No more having to separately download a plugin.
2. It also means that we no longer have to rely on Flash and Silverlight. Both of which needlessly slow down your browser, cause fans to kick in, and drain the battery faster than necessary. There's a reason why Flash isn't on mobile platforms, you know.
3. Finally, we're safer without plugins like Flash, Silverlight, and Java. Flash and Java are both actively targeted as exploit vectors by malware. And Silverlight has recently popped up on the radar for malware as well (see http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/05/move-over-java-drive-by-attacks-exploiting-microsoft-silverlight-on-the-rise/). Also, plugins are generally more difficult for ordinary users to keep updated, leaving them even more vulnerable with old versions installed.
No one cares. This doesn’t matter.
So does “like it is” now mean “completely wrong”? Not sure how you think you can say this when everyone knows otherwise.
The point being was, saying "Netflix already works in IE 11!" is disingenuous.
"Incorrect" would have sufficed, since you don't actually know that the original post was knowingly withholding facts.
It's not technically incorrect which makes disingenuous an apt word if the original statement was purposely obfuscating the fact that it's not every version of Windows running IE11. Now if the OP was simply misinformed then I would say that the statement is simply incomplete as stated.
"Incorrect" would have sufficed, since you don't actually know that the original post was knowingly withholding facts.
Nope, I meant the word disingenuous.
Had the original poster said something like "but it's already working in IE!", I might've assumed (due to his ignorance) that something else is at play-- that he had Windows 8.1, or perhaps is computer came pre-loaded with Silverlight and he was not aware of it. But instead, he authoritatively proclaimed that Netflix works in IE 11, implying all platforms. It was a rather trollish post to begin with, I'm pretty sure he was knowingly withholding facts.
I actually have some information on testing Netflix under Yosemite. This doesn't violate the NDA because it has nothing to do with Yosemite but with Netflix.
I installed Yosemite this morning and accessed Netflix. It still asked for the Silverlight installation. I used their live chat and after the person checked with tech support I found out they are only allowing Macs with a Sandy Bridge or later CPU to run HTML5. I am hoping this is only for initial testing but we'll see.
The following Netflix announcement describes the new features but doesn't include system requirements: http://techblog.netflix.com/2014/06/html5-video-in-safari-on-os-x-yosemite.html (hopefully this won't get stripped)
For those of us who don't know what CPU model they are running, here's a wikipedia site listing them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Macintosh_models_grouped_by_CPU_type#Sandy_Bridge (Core i5 and i7 later than March 2011)