bdkennedy1
Mar 31, 03:43 PM
I thought I created a word to describe how I feel about this new iCal, but it appears in the urban dictionary. BLORF!
gamer.pro.2000
Apr 18, 11:37 AM
4.3.2 for ATT/Europe iPhone, 4.2.7 for Verizon iPhone...........funny how Apple says Android is fragmented, but has slight fragmentation themselves. I know its an old argument, but its true. Apple need to bring all updates to the same version number with the same feature set. I mean, when the heck is the Verizon iPhone going to get 4.3 already? Also, 2.3.3 Gingerbread for Android is about 80mb ;) .
Michaelgtrusa
Apr 21, 11:06 PM
Really?
fily
Sep 15, 08:44 PM
The bundle is 250gb.
Have to say, I'm jealous of the Reach buyers. Getting ready to move so need to stick to essential expenditures :(
In the UK, there's a 4GB Reach bundle. Only reason I mentioned it.
Have to say, I'm jealous of the Reach buyers. Getting ready to move so need to stick to essential expenditures :(
In the UK, there's a 4GB Reach bundle. Only reason I mentioned it.
more...
SchneiderMan
Jan 26, 01:27 PM
Everyone has to bash PSN because its free, only problem I have with that game is people playing CTF for kills...camping with the flag. NFS: Hot Pursuit is a good game, just got it monday and so far I like it, a lot better than GT5
I could care less about campers. They are just noobs who I kill right after I respawn if they get me first..
I could care less about campers. They are just noobs who I kill right after I respawn if they get me first..
fcortese
Apr 7, 08:43 AM
A bunch of great looking photos and very good work this month from everyone!
Here's hoping that the weather gets better to get a few in here myself :)
Ditto. Miserable "spring" out here. It's still snowing!
Here's hoping that the weather gets better to get a few in here myself :)
Ditto. Miserable "spring" out here. It's still snowing!
more...
joueboy
Apr 28, 04:43 PM
So you've waited this long for the white iPhone 4, then you put it in the case!? ROFL!
Macnoviz
Jul 27, 04:18 PM
Yeah, if you read the whole patent (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1902), you'll notice that it makes mention of "force sensors" underneath the display to tell if it is a "light" or "hard" touch. A finger being waved above an object doesn't have force to sense, and in looking at the more tablet-oriented part of the patent, you can see that a hand is clearly holding the object (http://images.appleinsider.com/patent-ipod-touch19.gif). The document also makes several references to the input devices appearing or disappearing based on the proximity of a finger.
It would seem that the main purpose of this is to make overlays like this possible:
http://guides.macrumors.com/images/thumb/d/dd/1fullipodav.jpg/800px-1fullipodav.jpg
This isn't a "none-touch" patent.
iPod shown sith a Dreamworks animation movie?
It would seem that the main purpose of this is to make overlays like this possible:
http://guides.macrumors.com/images/thumb/d/dd/1fullipodav.jpg/800px-1fullipodav.jpg
This isn't a "none-touch" patent.
iPod shown sith a Dreamworks animation movie?
more...
AndroidfoLife
Apr 24, 04:38 PM
Thanks for the anecdote.
The iPhone sets the bar. Google has to flood the market with a lot of junk to achieve higher share. That's hardly impressive. Google is the MS of mobile. Hardly a compliment. License out your beta OS to anyone that can slam together a box, give it away, and away you go.
The iPhone is still the #1 selling handset. Where are the iPhone killers? There aren't any. Because the competition doesn't know how to make one. Because Apple approaches tech from a totally different place.
The iOS platform still dominates, and given the iPad's success, it'll be that way for the foreseeable future.
Android enjoys highest smartphone market share. Yet the OS is pretty brutal and their ecosystem is a mess. So why do they have greater share? Not because they make a superior product, but because the only alternative to an iPhone was an Android-based device, and Eric T. Mole got to work licensing it out to everyone with no regard for design or User Experience. If you flood the market with what, 70+ (probably a lot more) devices and let everyone and their dog make the devices you'll eventually enjoy force of numbers.
Android is given away free to anyone to manufacture, to make as many POS devices as they wish, to sell for peanuts, in massive volume.
That's all it is. Market flooding at every price point and you get some sort of touchscreen and some sort of app store. And given Google's Microsoftian horizontal business model, that's all it'll ever be.
For instance, THIS is the kind of total junk that Google puts their name to:
http://www.gsmarena.com/zte_racer-reviews-3423.php
And guess what: Dell went ahead and copied it. The DELL XCD28. Same junk. But Android market share just went up!
Here's another amazing Android device:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/reviews/2010/11/worst-gadget-ever-ars-reviews-a-99-android-tablet.ars
Anything to be proud of? But hey, they're dirt cheap. And uh . . . "open" or whatever.
If Google actually *cared* about what they put the Android name to, if they actually gave a damn about the USER, would they allow this? Ask yourself that. That's the difference. There are some things Apple *will not* allow to exist - namely: garbage.
Yes, highest market share. Until you go hunting for the REASON.
Its only in opinions which OS is better. I know Windows is better for me because it allows me to build my own hardware. Not all android phones are dirt cheap. The top selling ones are not the dirt cheap ones it is the ones that compete directly with the iPhone in the high end smart phone. There are a lot of phones out there that top the iPhone. The Atrix, the G2X, Evo and multiple other ones are all better phones then the iPhone 4. The iPhone is a good phone, But is far from the best. It will never turn into a one horse game. There will never be an "iPhone Killer", And android is here to stay.
The iPhone can not meet everyones needs some people need a physical keyboard, Larger screen, SD slot, Smaller screen, HDMI, High end camaras, various things that end the end the Single model of the iPhone will not work for them
The iPhone sets the bar. Google has to flood the market with a lot of junk to achieve higher share. That's hardly impressive. Google is the MS of mobile. Hardly a compliment. License out your beta OS to anyone that can slam together a box, give it away, and away you go.
The iPhone is still the #1 selling handset. Where are the iPhone killers? There aren't any. Because the competition doesn't know how to make one. Because Apple approaches tech from a totally different place.
The iOS platform still dominates, and given the iPad's success, it'll be that way for the foreseeable future.
Android enjoys highest smartphone market share. Yet the OS is pretty brutal and their ecosystem is a mess. So why do they have greater share? Not because they make a superior product, but because the only alternative to an iPhone was an Android-based device, and Eric T. Mole got to work licensing it out to everyone with no regard for design or User Experience. If you flood the market with what, 70+ (probably a lot more) devices and let everyone and their dog make the devices you'll eventually enjoy force of numbers.
Android is given away free to anyone to manufacture, to make as many POS devices as they wish, to sell for peanuts, in massive volume.
That's all it is. Market flooding at every price point and you get some sort of touchscreen and some sort of app store. And given Google's Microsoftian horizontal business model, that's all it'll ever be.
For instance, THIS is the kind of total junk that Google puts their name to:
http://www.gsmarena.com/zte_racer-reviews-3423.php
And guess what: Dell went ahead and copied it. The DELL XCD28. Same junk. But Android market share just went up!
Here's another amazing Android device:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/reviews/2010/11/worst-gadget-ever-ars-reviews-a-99-android-tablet.ars
Anything to be proud of? But hey, they're dirt cheap. And uh . . . "open" or whatever.
If Google actually *cared* about what they put the Android name to, if they actually gave a damn about the USER, would they allow this? Ask yourself that. That's the difference. There are some things Apple *will not* allow to exist - namely: garbage.
Yes, highest market share. Until you go hunting for the REASON.
Its only in opinions which OS is better. I know Windows is better for me because it allows me to build my own hardware. Not all android phones are dirt cheap. The top selling ones are not the dirt cheap ones it is the ones that compete directly with the iPhone in the high end smart phone. There are a lot of phones out there that top the iPhone. The Atrix, the G2X, Evo and multiple other ones are all better phones then the iPhone 4. The iPhone is a good phone, But is far from the best. It will never turn into a one horse game. There will never be an "iPhone Killer", And android is here to stay.
The iPhone can not meet everyones needs some people need a physical keyboard, Larger screen, SD slot, Smaller screen, HDMI, High end camaras, various things that end the end the Single model of the iPhone will not work for them
bennettave
Apr 26, 03:39 PM
The usual pattern is to get some small teaser for free ... like I got hooked on the free dropbox and now pay for the 100GB plan because I love it so much
Yeah, a free period or small amount free would be nice in order to find out if it's something you'll continue to use after the first few weeks. Most of the apps I download only keep their flavor about 5 days. I agree that Dropbox is the bomb though. It's iDisk done right - and free to boot!
Yeah, a free period or small amount free would be nice in order to find out if it's something you'll continue to use after the first few weeks. Most of the apps I download only keep their flavor about 5 days. I agree that Dropbox is the bomb though. It's iDisk done right - and free to boot!
more...
robeddie
Apr 19, 08:03 AM
But my point is that even if we get a 40% boost in our CPU, it is near useless.
For example, lets say you have 100/100 in a test. Having a theoretical 40% boost will give you a 140/100. I mean, thats cool. Overkill. That is currently the CPU we have. We have enough to accomplish our tasks, and any more would be an overkill in the things we need our computer to process.
On the other hand, on the GPU side, you have a 80/100 (which is what the NVIDIA 320m is) and we see a 30% performance drop, that will result to a 42.5/100. At lower levels, difference between a 80/100 and 42.5/100 is the difference between a pass and a fail.
Of course, having a better CPU might be fulfilling to you and might give you the sense that you are the "latest in tech," but seriously, it is not about the CPU any more, it is about SSDs, ergonomics, GPU, and ultimately, Software.
+1
I agree. I think the 'gain' in processor speed will be hard to notice. But for many of us, the 'drop' in gpu performance (which is already marginal with the 320m) will be deadly.
For example, lets say you have 100/100 in a test. Having a theoretical 40% boost will give you a 140/100. I mean, thats cool. Overkill. That is currently the CPU we have. We have enough to accomplish our tasks, and any more would be an overkill in the things we need our computer to process.
On the other hand, on the GPU side, you have a 80/100 (which is what the NVIDIA 320m is) and we see a 30% performance drop, that will result to a 42.5/100. At lower levels, difference between a 80/100 and 42.5/100 is the difference between a pass and a fail.
Of course, having a better CPU might be fulfilling to you and might give you the sense that you are the "latest in tech," but seriously, it is not about the CPU any more, it is about SSDs, ergonomics, GPU, and ultimately, Software.
+1
I agree. I think the 'gain' in processor speed will be hard to notice. But for many of us, the 'drop' in gpu performance (which is already marginal with the 320m) will be deadly.
lewis82
Jan 26, 06:04 PM
http://i.ebayimg.com/07/!CB,sQCwBGk~$(KGrHqUOKj8EzYVfgwz-BNHjtNwKgg~~_3.JPG
http://i.ebayimg.com/22/!CBYTMKwB2k~$(KGrHqQOKpkE0VI1KNiEBNH(1hwEiw~~_3.JPG
Super impulse buy, but this is an awesome looking pencil :D Can't wait for it to be delivered!
http://i.ebayimg.com/22/!CBYTMKwB2k~$(KGrHqQOKpkE0VI1KNiEBNH(1hwEiw~~_3.JPG
Super impulse buy, but this is an awesome looking pencil :D Can't wait for it to be delivered!
more...
Doctor Q
Jun 6, 01:23 AM
How long after you make a purchase does the App Store remember your password so you don't have to enter it again? I presume that's what happened in this case.
samcolak
Apr 22, 11:41 AM
Uh ? GNU is a project, not a license. GNU stands for GNU's Not Unix. It includes things like the GNU Libc, Bash, Emacs, a full OpenSTEP implementation known as GNUStep and various fileutils. It also includes licensing, like the GPL for instance.
This GNU project that includes amongst many things Bash and the GPL license were launched by the Free Software Foundation and Richard M. Stallman as part of the man's vision of software freedom.
Don't correct me if you aren't at least going to provide factual and true information. Again, I know what I meant and I know this stuff as I've been dabbling in it for the last 12 years if not more.
Here are some links you might find interesting if you really want to learn about this stuff, none of these will be on Apple.com (please don't use Apple.com to prove points about Free Software) :
GNU GPL : http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
List of GNU projects : http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/ (notice Bash)
An explanation of the GNU project : http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu.html
So to correct your post which attempted to correct mine : Bash is a GNU sub-project that is licensed under the GPL. Thank you, I knew all of that already. And technically, you're quite wrong, every GPL package that Apple ships is under GNU licensing since the GPL is a GNU project license.
I can read Wiki too...
GPL is a license. GNU is a foundation. I corrected as to the licensing terminology..
Per your 12 years, trump - my 25...
This GNU project that includes amongst many things Bash and the GPL license were launched by the Free Software Foundation and Richard M. Stallman as part of the man's vision of software freedom.
Don't correct me if you aren't at least going to provide factual and true information. Again, I know what I meant and I know this stuff as I've been dabbling in it for the last 12 years if not more.
Here are some links you might find interesting if you really want to learn about this stuff, none of these will be on Apple.com (please don't use Apple.com to prove points about Free Software) :
GNU GPL : http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
List of GNU projects : http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/ (notice Bash)
An explanation of the GNU project : http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu.html
So to correct your post which attempted to correct mine : Bash is a GNU sub-project that is licensed under the GPL. Thank you, I knew all of that already. And technically, you're quite wrong, every GPL package that Apple ships is under GNU licensing since the GPL is a GNU project license.
I can read Wiki too...
GPL is a license. GNU is a foundation. I corrected as to the licensing terminology..
Per your 12 years, trump - my 25...
more...
Mac-Addict
Oct 24, 09:02 AM
For the "why only MBP's and not MB's too"
As said, less press coverage, but also maybe more important is that now there is a gap between the [rosumer line and the consumer line ;)
Is that good or bad..?
As said, less press coverage, but also maybe more important is that now there is a gap between the [rosumer line and the consumer line ;)
Is that good or bad..?
whooleytoo
Jul 25, 10:49 AM
The 3G iPod did not have physical feedback, and they worked.
Although it still isn't perfect - if you listen to music in the dark (I often listen to music in bed), it's difficult to find the buttons without pressing the wrong one. The 1G iPod was better in this regard.
Although it still isn't perfect - if you listen to music in the dark (I often listen to music in bed), it's difficult to find the buttons without pressing the wrong one. The 1G iPod was better in this regard.
more...
Leondunkleyc
Aug 15, 04:19 PM
.
Waybo
Apr 5, 08:45 PM
http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/094/2/5/porter_shoot_ii_apr_2011_by_jasonbeck-d3d9c2o.jpg
Maybe lowering yourself a bit to be at her eye level would also make a good picture ?
She glows! I really like this just as it is, but I was thinking the same thing as Rowbear. How would it work if you went even lower, so the camera was looking up at her just a little?
Maybe lowering yourself a bit to be at her eye level would also make a good picture ?
She glows! I really like this just as it is, but I was thinking the same thing as Rowbear. How would it work if you went even lower, so the camera was looking up at her just a little?
juicedropsdeuce
Apr 28, 07:11 PM
.
Hey, Jonny I've for CEO!!!! Not.
Looks like his brain went to England but he left his body behind to do some last minute 'designs'. Nice attention to detail, all you had to do was change the color, genius. :rolleyes:
Hey, Jonny I've for CEO!!!! Not.
Looks like his brain went to England but he left his body behind to do some last minute 'designs'. Nice attention to detail, all you had to do was change the color, genius. :rolleyes:
kalsta
May 3, 08:22 AM
To work well it needs to contain all your apps and system files. For most people this means at least 100GB these days. Shockingly when I got my MBP in 2008 I thought a 200 GB drive would do it all for me. That really didn't last long at all.
Out of the factory, all the system files and bundled apps take up about 20GB. I can't imagine many people then install an addition 80GB worth of apps. If you're using up that sort of space, I'm guessing you're storing a fair bit of video.
My own personal setup is 128 GB SSD for current work. Old stuff gets archived to an external 2TB HD. It works for me.
Out of the factory, all the system files and bundled apps take up about 20GB. I can't imagine many people then install an addition 80GB worth of apps. If you're using up that sort of space, I'm guessing you're storing a fair bit of video.
My own personal setup is 128 GB SSD for current work. Old stuff gets archived to an external 2TB HD. It works for me.
blipmusic
Apr 19, 04:33 PM
Games. Don't tell me you want to play WoW on a 11" monitor.
I want to. Stop projecting. The 11" MBA will become my only computer when I get it in a few months and that includes playing the odd game, possibly including WoW.
Heck, the *iPad* could probably be my only computer with a keyboard dock if it did untethered OS updates and could compile LaTeX documents natively. But you're probably about to burst now so I'll stop.
I want to. Stop projecting. The 11" MBA will become my only computer when I get it in a few months and that includes playing the odd game, possibly including WoW.
Heck, the *iPad* could probably be my only computer with a keyboard dock if it did untethered OS updates and could compile LaTeX documents natively. But you're probably about to burst now so I'll stop.
woolfgang
Jul 25, 10:21 AM
I tried the MM that came with my last computer, and I thought it sucked. Steve Jobs is brilliant, but also stubborn. He didn't want to make a 2 button mouse, so he found a way to make a mouse that didn't actually have 2 buttons, but could work like it did. I have a Logictech that works amazingly. It's comfortable, and I can do everything really fast and easy. I think most people that do/will buy the MM, do so because it's Apple.
FloatingBones
Nov 25, 12:34 AM
For the last time, STOP SPEAKING FOR OTHER PEOPLE!!! You have NO right what-so-ever to speak for anyone but yourself and yet you continue to state that EVER SINGLE iOS USER hates Flash and is glad to be rid of it and yet this Skyfire app proves just the opposite.
What I said: Users of the 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash plugins is completely true. There are no Flash plugins for this device. Nobody can run a shred of Flash content in their browser on this device.
No amount of nonsensical shouting will change the facts.
You have every right to give your opinion on the matter, but it is your opinion, not the opinion of every single iOS user in existence.
But owners of those 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash. Nobody forced them to buy those devices. If they were somehow "disappointed" because there are no Flash plugins available, nobody prevented them from returning them or reselling them.
That is NOT a shortcoming of Flash dude.
Also incorrect. There are huge shortcomings of Flash, and you've never addressed them.
You've never addressed the identity-leaking of Flash cookies: Flash doesn't honor the cookie privacy settings of the browser. More than half of the top 100 websites are now using Flash cookies to track users and store information about them. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt) Do you actually like the fact that those sites do an end-run around the cookie privacy settings by using Flash? I can't find a single rational person that likes the identity-leaking.
You've never addressed the quirkiness that Flash brings to the browser UI. On my Mac, scrolling works differently when my mouse is over a Flash region. Certain keyboard shortcuts cease to work. Text that appears in a Flash window is not searchable with the browser's text-finding feature. My Mac doesn't behave like a Mac inside of a Flash window.
The engineering choice made for iOS is simplicity. Layering Flash on top of the browser would compromise that simplicity. Click-to-flash semantics would add yet another layer of clutter and obfuscation to the UI.
You've never addressed Adobe's inability to deal competently to secure their software. Security experts believe that Adobe is going to surpass Microsoft as the #1 target for security attacks. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-231.htm) Besides Flash, Adobe Reader is a vector for zero day bugs (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt). I really don't know how you do that: it's a PDF reader! The bugs have been around in Adobe Reader for years and Adobe still hasn't fixed them.
If Apple enabled Flash in iOS Safari, they would be farming out the correct operation of their iOS browser to a company that has proven to be one of the least competent companies in dealing with malware attacks. Noted security expert Steve Gibson mocks their cluelessness:
"[Adobe:] how is that quarterly update cycle going for you?" (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I have yet to find a single Flash enthusiast who can address those issues. I'm hardly surprised that you can't address them, either.
That is a shortcoming of Steve Jobs' choosing.
Nonsense. They are engineering and design choices. If Apple made bad engineering and design choices, they would never have sold 120M+ of these devices.
If you think they are a "shortcoming": there are simple solutions. Don't buy an iOS device. If you did buy one, sell it. Or maybe you can see if it will blend (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAl28d6tbko).
One thing is certain: Apple will not compromise their iOS browser with Flash, and complaining about that is rather silly.
Even if Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete, that doesn't mean people don't want to be able to access the entire Web in the here and now.
Adobe Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete. Even Adobe acknowledges the fact (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999).
Between the 120M+ iOS devices, the click-to-flash plugins disable Flash downloads on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux machines, and Adobe's new Flash-to-HTML5 conversion tools (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999), the abandonment of Flash will continue to accelerate.
You just don't seem to comprehend that.
You are correct. Flash is a legacy technology, and its day has passed.
You seem to have this deep seated hatred of Flash
There are fundamental failings in both the design and deployment of Flash. I listed three of those earlier in my reply.
The thing that got my attention was when I realized that Flash was maintaining its own set of cookies and that those cookies did not honor the privacy settings of my browser. I then learned about click-to-flash plugins to minimize my exposure to Flash. The shocking thing to me was how much disabling Flash improved the browsing experience: faster page loads, less flashing advertisements, and far less CPU usage.
and I can tell that if Steve had said "I LOVE Flash" instead you would almost undoubtedly be here fighting against HTML5 and for Flash.
You imply that I blindly agree with Apple's (and Jobs's) decisions. That is not the case.
I strongly disagree with Apple's decision to prevent Hypermac from selling external batteries for Mac computers (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1032695). Hypermac makes a quality product, and they are filling a niche that Apple ignores. Magsafe is a wonderful technology, but they should be licensing this tech to third-party vendors. I fondly hope that Apple addresses this deficiency in their strategy and product accessories soon.
If you search, you can find where I commented on this in the public record weeks ago.
Yes, I honestly believe that. You have no vested interest in either one. You're just being Steve's doormat.
Now you know better.
I see no reason why ANYONE should have to convert to HTML5.
Too many laptop users are tired of the CPU loading and battery suck of Flash apps.
Too many users don't like that Flash alters the UI inside of the browsers: altered scrolling behavior, keyboard shortcuts that don't work in Flash, text searches that don't work with text in a Flash app.
Too many privacy advocates are bothered that Flash maintains a separate set of cookies and those cookies do not honor the privacy settings of the browser. Commercial websites are using those Flash cookies to track users. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt)
Too many security advocates are wary of using Adobe products because of Adobe's poor track record against security attacks.
Even if all those four large concerns were addressed, websites have to deal with the growing number of users that use Flash-blocking plugins. Advertisers that deliver their ads with Flash have no guarantee that users will allow those Flash apps to be downloaded and run on their machines.
Those are the reasons why Flash's viability for delivering web content is in decline. Even if you don't see the reasons, Adobe does (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/10/adobe-demos-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool.html).
What I said: Users of the 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash plugins is completely true. There are no Flash plugins for this device. Nobody can run a shred of Flash content in their browser on this device.
No amount of nonsensical shouting will change the facts.
You have every right to give your opinion on the matter, but it is your opinion, not the opinion of every single iOS user in existence.
But owners of those 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash. Nobody forced them to buy those devices. If they were somehow "disappointed" because there are no Flash plugins available, nobody prevented them from returning them or reselling them.
That is NOT a shortcoming of Flash dude.
Also incorrect. There are huge shortcomings of Flash, and you've never addressed them.
You've never addressed the identity-leaking of Flash cookies: Flash doesn't honor the cookie privacy settings of the browser. More than half of the top 100 websites are now using Flash cookies to track users and store information about them. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt) Do you actually like the fact that those sites do an end-run around the cookie privacy settings by using Flash? I can't find a single rational person that likes the identity-leaking.
You've never addressed the quirkiness that Flash brings to the browser UI. On my Mac, scrolling works differently when my mouse is over a Flash region. Certain keyboard shortcuts cease to work. Text that appears in a Flash window is not searchable with the browser's text-finding feature. My Mac doesn't behave like a Mac inside of a Flash window.
The engineering choice made for iOS is simplicity. Layering Flash on top of the browser would compromise that simplicity. Click-to-flash semantics would add yet another layer of clutter and obfuscation to the UI.
You've never addressed Adobe's inability to deal competently to secure their software. Security experts believe that Adobe is going to surpass Microsoft as the #1 target for security attacks. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-231.htm) Besides Flash, Adobe Reader is a vector for zero day bugs (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt). I really don't know how you do that: it's a PDF reader! The bugs have been around in Adobe Reader for years and Adobe still hasn't fixed them.
If Apple enabled Flash in iOS Safari, they would be farming out the correct operation of their iOS browser to a company that has proven to be one of the least competent companies in dealing with malware attacks. Noted security expert Steve Gibson mocks their cluelessness:
"[Adobe:] how is that quarterly update cycle going for you?" (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I have yet to find a single Flash enthusiast who can address those issues. I'm hardly surprised that you can't address them, either.
That is a shortcoming of Steve Jobs' choosing.
Nonsense. They are engineering and design choices. If Apple made bad engineering and design choices, they would never have sold 120M+ of these devices.
If you think they are a "shortcoming": there are simple solutions. Don't buy an iOS device. If you did buy one, sell it. Or maybe you can see if it will blend (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAl28d6tbko).
One thing is certain: Apple will not compromise their iOS browser with Flash, and complaining about that is rather silly.
Even if Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete, that doesn't mean people don't want to be able to access the entire Web in the here and now.
Adobe Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete. Even Adobe acknowledges the fact (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999).
Between the 120M+ iOS devices, the click-to-flash plugins disable Flash downloads on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux machines, and Adobe's new Flash-to-HTML5 conversion tools (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999), the abandonment of Flash will continue to accelerate.
You just don't seem to comprehend that.
You are correct. Flash is a legacy technology, and its day has passed.
You seem to have this deep seated hatred of Flash
There are fundamental failings in both the design and deployment of Flash. I listed three of those earlier in my reply.
The thing that got my attention was when I realized that Flash was maintaining its own set of cookies and that those cookies did not honor the privacy settings of my browser. I then learned about click-to-flash plugins to minimize my exposure to Flash. The shocking thing to me was how much disabling Flash improved the browsing experience: faster page loads, less flashing advertisements, and far less CPU usage.
and I can tell that if Steve had said "I LOVE Flash" instead you would almost undoubtedly be here fighting against HTML5 and for Flash.
You imply that I blindly agree with Apple's (and Jobs's) decisions. That is not the case.
I strongly disagree with Apple's decision to prevent Hypermac from selling external batteries for Mac computers (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1032695). Hypermac makes a quality product, and they are filling a niche that Apple ignores. Magsafe is a wonderful technology, but they should be licensing this tech to third-party vendors. I fondly hope that Apple addresses this deficiency in their strategy and product accessories soon.
If you search, you can find where I commented on this in the public record weeks ago.
Yes, I honestly believe that. You have no vested interest in either one. You're just being Steve's doormat.
Now you know better.
I see no reason why ANYONE should have to convert to HTML5.
Too many laptop users are tired of the CPU loading and battery suck of Flash apps.
Too many users don't like that Flash alters the UI inside of the browsers: altered scrolling behavior, keyboard shortcuts that don't work in Flash, text searches that don't work with text in a Flash app.
Too many privacy advocates are bothered that Flash maintains a separate set of cookies and those cookies do not honor the privacy settings of the browser. Commercial websites are using those Flash cookies to track users. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt)
Too many security advocates are wary of using Adobe products because of Adobe's poor track record against security attacks.
Even if all those four large concerns were addressed, websites have to deal with the growing number of users that use Flash-blocking plugins. Advertisers that deliver their ads with Flash have no guarantee that users will allow those Flash apps to be downloaded and run on their machines.
Those are the reasons why Flash's viability for delivering web content is in decline. Even if you don't see the reasons, Adobe does (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/10/adobe-demos-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool.html).
Unspeaked
Jan 28, 02:13 PM
Bottom line: It's not always possible to rationally explain why the market does what it does on a short-term basis.
B-but... the informercials!
They say I can channel stocks!
;)
B-but... the informercials!
They say I can channel stocks!
;)
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น