blow45
Apr 14, 05:19 AM
it's for the atv!
sent from my ix.Mac.MarketingName
sent from my ix.Mac.MarketingName
mrfoof82
May 3, 07:46 AM
No 512GB SSD option. I would've gladly paid the premium for it (+$1200 instead of +$750), considering how much of a PITA it is to get at that (full logic board removal).
Choosing any SSD brings shipping time up from 1-3 days to 4-6 weeks.
Choosing any SSD brings shipping time up from 1-3 days to 4-6 weeks.
displaced
Jul 30, 06:32 AM
Well go and tell that to Dell and their massive market share and we'll see if they take you seriously and change their marketing strategy. Theres ideology and then theres reality, I suggest you take a trip into reality. People may think Apple is innovative but so what? Most people buy whats cheap, not whats innovative, and since Dell isnt innovative in anything they do they can afford to be cheap. We have solid proof that innovation doesnt sell as well as affordability, what is there to argue about exactly? I think Apple is perfectly fine with having such a tiny market share especially since iPod is keeping them afloat (how many billions does Jobs need? Hes probably in no rush to make mroe money), but if Apple fans expect Apple to try and get more market share then they should expect them to lower their prices and offer things like Dell.
This is why I'm not too concerned about Apple getting Dell-like levels of marketshare.
I see value in both Apple's hardware and their software. In fact, I see more value in the software than the hardware. However, they make most of the money from the hardware, so in effect I'm helping the continued development of Apple's software with my hardware purchases.
If Apple sold machines for Dell prices, they'd only be able to afford to produce machines and software like Dell. Goodbye iWork, OS X, CoreVideo, xnu, Darwin, Quartz, Cocoa, Carbon, Xcode, Filemaker, Safari, iChat, Final Cut, Aperture, iMovie, iDVD, QuickTime, GarageBand, AppleScript, Compressor, Motion, Soundtrack, Logic, Shake, Xsan, WebObjects, ARD, iTunes... Most of these products existed pre-iPod. Heck, the money for iPod development probably initially came from Mac and software sales.
Some of Apple's business does intersect with Dell's, but I don't think it's fair to compare the companies as a whole directly. What's good for Dell isn't necessarily good for Apple. Dell's business is low-margin, high-volume and is specialised(*). They integrate components, and shift boxes. If what you need is a box of parts that'll run Windows, then Dell's a good place to buy. But for a sizeable number of people (over a million per quarter), Apple's a better fit.
A 'large' market share isn't ideal for Apple's business, simply because of the concessions required to reach it would kill the company. What's ideal is a sustainable market share. I think they've got the strategy right: keep developing products which are attractive, price them according to the balance between customer acceptance and fiscal needs, and (above all) simply be around to provide a good platform which is self-sustainable.
Most people may well buy cheap. But there's a market for Apple's products, and it's looking stable, with signs of measured growth. Sounds good to me.
(* - it may seem odd to call Dell's products specialised. But they are. Dell's basically a one-trick pony. Their business model allows little else. Consider how long it took them to consider AMD processors. The contemporary wisdom has been that the reason was twofold. Firstly, they were quite likely getting superb prices for Intel processors, and advertising money from Intel that may have been threatened by including AMD models. But also, it was noted that adding AMD machines would introduce an amount of complexity to Dell's supply chain management that could impact their margins. They had to wait until the potential market for AMD-based Dell machines was guaranteed to be large enough that it would offset the costs of diversifying. Dell has very limited flexibility. It has historically worked for them, but investors have been twitch recently over multiple profit warnings from the company)
This is why I'm not too concerned about Apple getting Dell-like levels of marketshare.
I see value in both Apple's hardware and their software. In fact, I see more value in the software than the hardware. However, they make most of the money from the hardware, so in effect I'm helping the continued development of Apple's software with my hardware purchases.
If Apple sold machines for Dell prices, they'd only be able to afford to produce machines and software like Dell. Goodbye iWork, OS X, CoreVideo, xnu, Darwin, Quartz, Cocoa, Carbon, Xcode, Filemaker, Safari, iChat, Final Cut, Aperture, iMovie, iDVD, QuickTime, GarageBand, AppleScript, Compressor, Motion, Soundtrack, Logic, Shake, Xsan, WebObjects, ARD, iTunes... Most of these products existed pre-iPod. Heck, the money for iPod development probably initially came from Mac and software sales.
Some of Apple's business does intersect with Dell's, but I don't think it's fair to compare the companies as a whole directly. What's good for Dell isn't necessarily good for Apple. Dell's business is low-margin, high-volume and is specialised(*). They integrate components, and shift boxes. If what you need is a box of parts that'll run Windows, then Dell's a good place to buy. But for a sizeable number of people (over a million per quarter), Apple's a better fit.
A 'large' market share isn't ideal for Apple's business, simply because of the concessions required to reach it would kill the company. What's ideal is a sustainable market share. I think they've got the strategy right: keep developing products which are attractive, price them according to the balance between customer acceptance and fiscal needs, and (above all) simply be around to provide a good platform which is self-sustainable.
Most people may well buy cheap. But there's a market for Apple's products, and it's looking stable, with signs of measured growth. Sounds good to me.
(* - it may seem odd to call Dell's products specialised. But they are. Dell's basically a one-trick pony. Their business model allows little else. Consider how long it took them to consider AMD processors. The contemporary wisdom has been that the reason was twofold. Firstly, they were quite likely getting superb prices for Intel processors, and advertising money from Intel that may have been threatened by including AMD models. But also, it was noted that adding AMD machines would introduce an amount of complexity to Dell's supply chain management that could impact their margins. They had to wait until the potential market for AMD-based Dell machines was guaranteed to be large enough that it would offset the costs of diversifying. Dell has very limited flexibility. It has historically worked for them, but investors have been twitch recently over multiple profit warnings from the company)
stroked
Apr 27, 03:16 AM
Maybe you should just keep your daughter out of public bathrooms. The reality is that she has already shared a public bathroom with a transgender person, a lesbian, a criminal, someone who is a different ethnicity than she is, etc....And apparently she is still whole.
Are you going to interrogate everyone who shares a bathroom with her? How do you know some deranged female serial killer isn't in there with her?
I can understand your need to protect your daughter, but your ignorance and prejudice will hurt her more than sharing a bathroom with a transgender will.
ignorance, really? I was expecting that a lot sooner, because you people think, that everyone that disagrees with your life style is an ignorant bigot.
a different ethnicity, What makes you think I have a problem with that? Why are you trying to bring up the race card? Were not talking about lesbians or criminals either.
It might be possible to fool me when it comes to a transvestite, but it is hard to hide big hands, an adams apple, and wide shoulders, among other things.
I will teach her the morals that I believe in, and she will not be hurt at all. Believe it or not, there are a lot of woman, with conservative values, living happy, productive lives.
Are you going to interrogate everyone who shares a bathroom with her? How do you know some deranged female serial killer isn't in there with her?
I can understand your need to protect your daughter, but your ignorance and prejudice will hurt her more than sharing a bathroom with a transgender will.
ignorance, really? I was expecting that a lot sooner, because you people think, that everyone that disagrees with your life style is an ignorant bigot.
a different ethnicity, What makes you think I have a problem with that? Why are you trying to bring up the race card? Were not talking about lesbians or criminals either.
It might be possible to fool me when it comes to a transvestite, but it is hard to hide big hands, an adams apple, and wide shoulders, among other things.
I will teach her the morals that I believe in, and she will not be hurt at all. Believe it or not, there are a lot of woman, with conservative values, living happy, productive lives.
MacNut
May 1, 11:53 PM
To US its a big deal. It's a blow to the Al-Qaeda that doesn't exist anymore. The current one will still function just as it has for nearly a decade in its cell based way. If anything this will just piss off extremists. Don't think for a second some type of retaliation (most likely attacks in the Middle East) won't come about from this.We took down who they thought was invincible. That will hurt their ego and their pride. Will they try to retaliate, sure.
Who knows what information we may have found in that mansion that could hurt them.
Who knows what information we may have found in that mansion that could hurt them.
cslewis
Jul 24, 09:35 PM
How about a proto-telepathic interface? :cool:
toniv
Dec 2, 01:50 AM
Hi, you all!
This iAdware thing is old news and has been already fixed in latest security update by Apple.
Greetings from Finland,
Toni
Installer
CVE-ID: CVE-2006-4404
Available for: Mac OS X v10.3.9, Mac OS X Server v10.3.9, Mac OS X v10.4.8, Mac OS X Server v10.4.8
Impact: When installing software as an Admin user, system privileges may be used without explicit authorization
Description: Admin users are normally required to authenticate before executing commands with system privileges. However, the Installer allows system privileges to be used by Admin users when installing certain packages without requiring authentication. This update addresses the issue by requiring authentication before installing software with system privileges.
This iAdware thing is old news and has been already fixed in latest security update by Apple.
Greetings from Finland,
Toni
Installer
CVE-ID: CVE-2006-4404
Available for: Mac OS X v10.3.9, Mac OS X Server v10.3.9, Mac OS X v10.4.8, Mac OS X Server v10.4.8
Impact: When installing software as an Admin user, system privileges may be used without explicit authorization
Description: Admin users are normally required to authenticate before executing commands with system privileges. However, the Installer allows system privileges to be used by Admin users when installing certain packages without requiring authentication. This update addresses the issue by requiring authentication before installing software with system privileges.
kryten3000
May 1, 10:30 PM
Intel sources state that Osama was kill during bombing in Pakistan with the complicity of Pakistani Intelligence. Also various governments have been alerted to possible retaliation against western targets.
Bonsai1214
Jan 27, 10:49 AM
Why? I'd love to buy some Beats headphones. Like the style of it.
if you buy headphones for the style, you shouldn't be buying pairs that cost three digits.
if you buy headphones for the style, you shouldn't be buying pairs that cost three digits.
Surely
Sep 14, 11:36 AM
^^^^^^^ Pffft..... noob. I gots me a gold card. :D
SensaiMinstixs
Jun 6, 11:51 AM
$1000 worth of a beating he'd get if i were his parent. Luckily for kids, i hate them and would never have one. Ever.
You sound like a wonderful human being.
Your sarcasm is inappropriate. This poster has a right to her/his opinion. There are plenty of folks that think that kids are a bad idea, especially in their case. I'm proud of the fact I don't have kids: I'd beat them just like Joan Crawford did in Mommy Dearest. :mad:
So let get this right sarcasm is bad, but advocating the physical assault of children on a public MR forum is ok I'm new to MR so I'm still trying to figure how this whole thing works:confused:
You sound like a wonderful human being.
Your sarcasm is inappropriate. This poster has a right to her/his opinion. There are plenty of folks that think that kids are a bad idea, especially in their case. I'm proud of the fact I don't have kids: I'd beat them just like Joan Crawford did in Mommy Dearest. :mad:
So let get this right sarcasm is bad, but advocating the physical assault of children on a public MR forum is ok I'm new to MR so I'm still trying to figure how this whole thing works:confused:
jav6454
Apr 29, 10:51 AM
Chrmjenkins
That is all.
That is all.
gameface
Apr 14, 04:53 PM
Had the day off today and it was beautiful so I took a walk down to Granary Burying Ground.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5104/5620232962_6f7c4cb7f5_o.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5104/5620232962_6f7c4cb7f5_o.jpg
matticus008
Aug 16, 04:10 PM
Adding the Mail style buttons in Preview is just plain wrong, ugly, stupid, bad. If they do that OS wide, I'm skipping the upgrade until someone comes out with a tool like CageFighter to change the icons back like we got for Mail in Panther. If they persist with Aqua, Metal, Unified, Dark Unified and lord knows what else, I'm waiting for a port of UNO to Leopard. UNO has massively improved Tiger by banishing the metal and aqua stripes.
If that's your opinion, so be it, but the HIG was meant to avoid confusing icons, not create a puzzling array of button shapes. A consistent button (not icon) shape is not an interface crime, and to say it is borders on ludicrous.
Having all the buttons on a consistent bar is a superior integration of control surfaces and is in fact a useful visual indication of function grouping along what could otherwise be a long strip of control surfaces. It's just a modernized reimagination of the very dated-looking vertical separator.
Also, the sidebar is a retrograde step too. The drawer in Preview can be resized without changing the size of the content in the main window. You can't do that with a sidebar. It's also white, unlike Mail's light blue. Wrong, wrong, bad, ugly, inconsistent and stupid.
Sidebars can be changed without affecting the main window if they're implemented properly, but other than that you're basically right, if a bit imperious.
If that's your opinion, so be it, but the HIG was meant to avoid confusing icons, not create a puzzling array of button shapes. A consistent button (not icon) shape is not an interface crime, and to say it is borders on ludicrous.
Having all the buttons on a consistent bar is a superior integration of control surfaces and is in fact a useful visual indication of function grouping along what could otherwise be a long strip of control surfaces. It's just a modernized reimagination of the very dated-looking vertical separator.
Also, the sidebar is a retrograde step too. The drawer in Preview can be resized without changing the size of the content in the main window. You can't do that with a sidebar. It's also white, unlike Mail's light blue. Wrong, wrong, bad, ugly, inconsistent and stupid.
Sidebars can be changed without affecting the main window if they're implemented properly, but other than that you're basically right, if a bit imperious.
Jason Beck
Apr 11, 10:57 PM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5269/5612194178_d500f7c67e_z.jpg
I like what you have going on here. Great detail on the girl / hair too, bokeh is pleasing and vibrant. Epic shoot locale. Tell her to stand up straighter next time and I think it would be flawless. Fill light could go one notch down too.
I love this photo you know. Very good color harmony with the dress too!
I like what you have going on here. Great detail on the girl / hair too, bokeh is pleasing and vibrant. Epic shoot locale. Tell her to stand up straighter next time and I think it would be flawless. Fill light could go one notch down too.
I love this photo you know. Very good color harmony with the dress too!
TwoSocEmBoppers
Mar 14, 11:08 AM
Called Brea this morning (around 8 AM). They don't know if they are getting any today (I swear, retail employees don't know anything about anything), but there's already a line about 100 people deep. Yeesh.
Hahaha so true. Though the Brea employees are all pretty cool, and helpful! At least that's been my experience. Much more so than the Boston store.
Has anyone reserved with BestBuy and got any notification. Also, excuse my laziness, but does anyone know if the BestBuy reservation system is transferable between stores? (I.e. I'm leaving back to Boston on Sunday and don't want to get screwed if I reserve out here. Again lazy I know :p)
Hahaha so true. Though the Brea employees are all pretty cool, and helpful! At least that's been my experience. Much more so than the Boston store.
Has anyone reserved with BestBuy and got any notification. Also, excuse my laziness, but does anyone know if the BestBuy reservation system is transferable between stores? (I.e. I'm leaving back to Boston on Sunday and don't want to get screwed if I reserve out here. Again lazy I know :p)
fel10
Nov 8, 10:23 AM
Here are a few things I would like for Christimas!
iLife 11
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b47/babyboy_hot2005/Christimas%20Wishlist/ilife11.jpg
$50 iTunes Gift Card
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b47/babyboy_hot2005/Christimas%20Wishlist/147833.jpg
Final Fantasy 13 Soundtrack
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b47/babyboy_hot2005/Christimas%20Wishlist/ffxiii_le.jpg
iLife 11
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b47/babyboy_hot2005/Christimas%20Wishlist/ilife11.jpg
$50 iTunes Gift Card
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b47/babyboy_hot2005/Christimas%20Wishlist/147833.jpg
Final Fantasy 13 Soundtrack
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b47/babyboy_hot2005/Christimas%20Wishlist/ffxiii_le.jpg
TheUndertow
Apr 25, 12:39 PM
Here's hoping for more than just SB + TB...
Goldinboy17
May 2, 01:03 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Basically any modern media device can play MP4 which is what Apple uses on it's store. For example I can put music purchased from iTunes on my Android phone with no coversion at all.Can you name a few more? I have only seen Sony support AAC on their PMP devices.
How I wish Xbox would support their format. I like streaming music but it sucks having to convert my favorite song. My NookColor, Palm Pre Plus and Nexus can all play these songs just fine.
Basically any modern media device can play MP4 which is what Apple uses on it's store. For example I can put music purchased from iTunes on my Android phone with no coversion at all.Can you name a few more? I have only seen Sony support AAC on their PMP devices.
How I wish Xbox would support their format. I like streaming music but it sucks having to convert my favorite song. My NookColor, Palm Pre Plus and Nexus can all play these songs just fine.
rolfbert
Apr 22, 07:12 AM
Germany is a painful place to defend a patent suit.
because the law system actually makes sense?
because the law system actually makes sense?
hulugu
Dec 2, 06:56 PM
I voted "yes" becuase I'm concerned what this will do PR-wise for Apple, not so much about actual security concern. "LMH" may claim he's not an Apple-hater but a few things poke out from the interview:
What I read from this passage is:
What I read from this passage is:
MagnusVonMagnum
Nov 20, 10:40 AM
If you don't address those very good reasons, your argument won't be very convincing. We do not want the CPU suck, the identity leaking, the UI inconsistencies, and the very real risk of "zero day" Adobe bugs.
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
Full of Win
Apr 13, 07:58 PM
I would pay cash money to know how this sold relative to gender.
Lennholm
Apr 22, 07:40 AM
Have you seen the pictures in Nilay Patel's article about the suit (http://thisismynext.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analysis/)? They copied the look of the iPhone, exactly. Hell, they even copied some of the icons -- the Phone icon, the iTunes icon. Why would they make the phone icon a white handset angled up and to the right on a green background if they weren't deliberately trying to make it look like an iPhone?
If you're Apple, you absolutely have to sue over this. Otherwise you're saying, okay, anybody who wants to can just make a clone that looks exactly like the iPhone. Anyone who owns a valuable brand has to defend it.
Image (http://thisismynext.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/2011-04-19applesam7.jpg)
Image (http://thisismynext.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/avsamics2.jpg)
I hope this post is sarcastic.
The green angled phone icon!? The angled phone has been standard for phones since forever, it was usually the phone itself that was green, the only thing Apple did was making the background green instead. Very generic. Even the standard position for it, the lower left corner, is simply because that's where a phone answer button is normally located.
Chat icon? The only likeness I can see is that it uses a speech bubble, which have been a norm for IM applications since long before Apple introduced iChat. Note that Samsung added a smiley-face.
Nature images and particularly flowers have been a popular motif for photography-related stuff. Camera makers have been using it since the advent of photography.
Gearwheels for settings and configuration? Everyone have been using it since the birth of the GUI
Notes and contacts, both trying to look like their real world counterparts, extremely generic
A music and media related app having a musical note in it's icon, you think Apple came up with that and everyone else just followed? Come on
Look, Windows Media Player stole iTunes "look and feel", and method of starting playback of media content, sue em' Apple!
iTunes
http://www.mediahuman.com/howto/img/itunes-play-button.png
WMP
http://www.mydigitallife.info/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/wmp11-play.png
If you're Apple, you absolutely have to sue over this. Otherwise you're saying, okay, anybody who wants to can just make a clone that looks exactly like the iPhone. Anyone who owns a valuable brand has to defend it.
Image (http://thisismynext.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/2011-04-19applesam7.jpg)
Image (http://thisismynext.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/avsamics2.jpg)
I hope this post is sarcastic.
The green angled phone icon!? The angled phone has been standard for phones since forever, it was usually the phone itself that was green, the only thing Apple did was making the background green instead. Very generic. Even the standard position for it, the lower left corner, is simply because that's where a phone answer button is normally located.
Chat icon? The only likeness I can see is that it uses a speech bubble, which have been a norm for IM applications since long before Apple introduced iChat. Note that Samsung added a smiley-face.
Nature images and particularly flowers have been a popular motif for photography-related stuff. Camera makers have been using it since the advent of photography.
Gearwheels for settings and configuration? Everyone have been using it since the birth of the GUI
Notes and contacts, both trying to look like their real world counterparts, extremely generic
A music and media related app having a musical note in it's icon, you think Apple came up with that and everyone else just followed? Come on
Look, Windows Media Player stole iTunes "look and feel", and method of starting playback of media content, sue em' Apple!
iTunes
http://www.mediahuman.com/howto/img/itunes-play-button.png
WMP
http://www.mydigitallife.info/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/wmp11-play.png
No comments:
Post a Comment