xbuddycorex
Sep 30, 06:33 PM
Would it be out of line for me to suggest that AT&T should hire an outside agency to determine what the normal dropped call percentage is in each market, and then offer those markets a monthly discount on their rate equal to that percentage?
I am in Southern California, Orange County area and would say my dropped call rate is around 20%. I spent some time in San Francisco in July and the service was horrible, my biggest problem was with data and the accuracy of maps ... which can be an issue when you're walking around a town like that and you've never been there.
I am in Southern California, Orange County area and would say my dropped call rate is around 20%. I spent some time in San Francisco in July and the service was horrible, my biggest problem was with data and the accuracy of maps ... which can be an issue when you're walking around a town like that and you've never been there.
rovex
Apr 28, 03:07 AM
lol. you have a huge boulder on your shoulder.
I think that has already been established, getting personal when I didn't even quote or made reference to him.
I think that has already been established, getting personal when I didn't even quote or made reference to him.
Schnebar
Apr 1, 07:57 AM
Took this over Spring Break in Delphi, Greece
-aggie-
Apr 29, 03:53 PM
Me too. Given the theme i was already picturing myself as the marquee artist of the production ;)
anyway, the situation right now is:
eldiablo: 4 (dontpanic, chrmjenkins, aggie, ucfgrad)
chrmjenkins: 1 (jav)
not voted yet: Lbro, eldiablo
not much room to maneouvre for eldiablo, except in deciding who to infect (if he hasn't done it already).
so tomorrow should be 4 vs 1 (or 5 vs 1 if the hunter is successful). with everyone with equal chances of being wolfized.
it's like starting a new game, a tricky one with two shots at finding the wolf
I wasn�t the one who held up the night, since I gave my scan request to intell early, so I�m guessing one of the hunters is either not playing or not participating enough. Anyway, I�d appreciate the hunter protecting me from whoever gets infected.
Feel free to recommend who you want scanned.
anyway, the situation right now is:
eldiablo: 4 (dontpanic, chrmjenkins, aggie, ucfgrad)
chrmjenkins: 1 (jav)
not voted yet: Lbro, eldiablo
not much room to maneouvre for eldiablo, except in deciding who to infect (if he hasn't done it already).
so tomorrow should be 4 vs 1 (or 5 vs 1 if the hunter is successful). with everyone with equal chances of being wolfized.
it's like starting a new game, a tricky one with two shots at finding the wolf
I wasn�t the one who held up the night, since I gave my scan request to intell early, so I�m guessing one of the hunters is either not playing or not participating enough. Anyway, I�d appreciate the hunter protecting me from whoever gets infected.
Feel free to recommend who you want scanned.
twoodcc
Oct 30, 06:17 PM
cool thats probably it then, the -16.
the processor trick is with the dev tools. there's a prefpane where u can turn off individual cores, and turn off hyperthreading. too bad there's not a dev tool for overclocking ;)
alright. let us know how the -16 works. i've read on the folding forums about some people having more success with -15, you might even give that a try also
We might take team Lituania today ;)
i hope so
the processor trick is with the dev tools. there's a prefpane where u can turn off individual cores, and turn off hyperthreading. too bad there's not a dev tool for overclocking ;)
alright. let us know how the -16 works. i've read on the folding forums about some people having more success with -15, you might even give that a try also
We might take team Lituania today ;)
i hope so
ericinboston
Apr 11, 05:05 PM
My issue with USB has always been that it goes through the CPU. At the speeds of USB 3.0, this could really bite performance.
Well, I guess in the beginning it could hurt the performance...for people, say, who are using 5 year old computers who pop in a USB 3.0 PCI card.
But for the folks who are buying computers these days with dual and quad cores that are tons of times faster than 5 year old chips, the performance hit will be minimized...and will continue to fade as the CPUs of tomorrow just keep getting better/faster while USB 3.0 stays the same.
I'm not an expert on USB...
Most people who have a computer that is 1-3 years old who upgrade to USB 3.0 are seeing 2-4x immediate performance improvements...which is killer for transfers that used to take 2 hours but now take <45 minutes. :) It might not be at its tip top best but for a $30 PCI card and the same price for a USB 3.0 drive vs. a 2.0 drive, the $30 is a great investment.
:)
Well, I guess in the beginning it could hurt the performance...for people, say, who are using 5 year old computers who pop in a USB 3.0 PCI card.
But for the folks who are buying computers these days with dual and quad cores that are tons of times faster than 5 year old chips, the performance hit will be minimized...and will continue to fade as the CPUs of tomorrow just keep getting better/faster while USB 3.0 stays the same.
I'm not an expert on USB...
Most people who have a computer that is 1-3 years old who upgrade to USB 3.0 are seeing 2-4x immediate performance improvements...which is killer for transfers that used to take 2 hours but now take <45 minutes. :) It might not be at its tip top best but for a $30 PCI card and the same price for a USB 3.0 drive vs. a 2.0 drive, the $30 is a great investment.
:)
vincenz
Feb 25, 11:25 AM
This guy sure is a mess. He really needs to clean up before something bad happens.
xVeinx
Oct 23, 02:28 PM
How would an operating system KNOW it is being run in virtualization? It cannot determine the difference from a real computer. We are talking about Vista like it is an artificial intelligence of some kind.
I suppose that depends on how you define artifical intelligence... Anyway, to answer your point, Vista can determine if you are running the software in a virtual environment. Virtualization requires the OS to be embedded in further software, and that software has distinct signitures that can be pulled out by the OS. It might be possible to add patches to prevent Vista from seeing those signatures, but who knows.
On another front, if MS were wise, they would take some advice from Apple's iTunes and use a deactivation feature. This would prevent a huge stress on their phone support and tremendously add to user happiness. If there ever became an issue with Windows, or someone needed to upgrade, then they could go ahead and deactivate that copy of windows or deauthorize the account (through safe mode in the case of OS problems). Then, the software could be reinstalled without worry and reactivated.
I suppose that depends on how you define artifical intelligence... Anyway, to answer your point, Vista can determine if you are running the software in a virtual environment. Virtualization requires the OS to be embedded in further software, and that software has distinct signitures that can be pulled out by the OS. It might be possible to add patches to prevent Vista from seeing those signatures, but who knows.
On another front, if MS were wise, they would take some advice from Apple's iTunes and use a deactivation feature. This would prevent a huge stress on their phone support and tremendously add to user happiness. If there ever became an issue with Windows, or someone needed to upgrade, then they could go ahead and deactivate that copy of windows or deauthorize the account (through safe mode in the case of OS problems). Then, the software could be reinstalled without worry and reactivated.
guzhogi
Nov 10, 02:46 PM
I wonder what battery life will be like.
Also, how many people downloaded it just so they could watch porn?
Also, how many people downloaded it just so they could watch porn?
solafide
Apr 29, 02:48 PM
I wonder if this new pricing scheme is being enabled by the record labels with lower wholesale pricing to Amazon (to try, yet again, to take power out of Apple's hands), or if Amazon is simply doing this at a loss?
Why would Amazon want to take a loss - to support non-Apple mp3 players?
For Apple, they are not making much, if any money - they always planned it as a break-even business - the real value was the content eco-system tied to their products (= value for customers).
Why would Amazon want to take a loss - to support non-Apple mp3 players?
For Apple, they are not making much, if any money - they always planned it as a break-even business - the real value was the content eco-system tied to their products (= value for customers).
crackpip
Jul 24, 11:21 PM
Without the third party economy and proprietary ports, there is also little to keep the MS Menace at bay, despite the coolness of such a product.
Bottom Line: there WILL be a regular dock connector for the foreseeable future on all iPods except the shuffle (which is on it's way out).
While, I am skeptical of the no non-wireless interfaces. I have to disagree that Apple cares much about third-parties when designing their iPods. The dock connector has been pretty standard, but other characteristics have not. For example, the remote port, that used to be near the headphones. It was also used by FM transmitters and microphones and maybe more. The size of the iPods also keeps changing (the new 5G are a bit wider and thinner than the 4G) making any devices that the iPod "fits into" need to be retooled.
The bottom line is that if Apple sees merit in changing the interface (like removing the remote port to conserve space), it will do it regardless of effects to accessory manufacturers. They will adapt to the new designs.
crackpip
Bottom Line: there WILL be a regular dock connector for the foreseeable future on all iPods except the shuffle (which is on it's way out).
While, I am skeptical of the no non-wireless interfaces. I have to disagree that Apple cares much about third-parties when designing their iPods. The dock connector has been pretty standard, but other characteristics have not. For example, the remote port, that used to be near the headphones. It was also used by FM transmitters and microphones and maybe more. The size of the iPods also keeps changing (the new 5G are a bit wider and thinner than the 4G) making any devices that the iPod "fits into" need to be retooled.
The bottom line is that if Apple sees merit in changing the interface (like removing the remote port to conserve space), it will do it regardless of effects to accessory manufacturers. They will adapt to the new designs.
crackpip
GroundLoop
Jan 25, 06:45 PM
The biggest cause of the stock drop was the quarterly earnings report. Essentially iPod sales in the US are flat (~5% growth year over year). That scared a lot of investors into thinking that the cash cow is almost milked dry. Then, on top of that, Apple gave an ultra-conservative estimate for Q2 base on the slowing economy and sales seasonality. Apples estimates for Q2 were WELL BELOW Wall Street's expectations.
Hickman
Hickman
daneoni
Apr 26, 01:45 PM
Entitlement? No offense as many feel the same way. I just don't understand how some can realistically expect such a product/service to be free for how new it is.
Entitlement? Nope. The remark was mostly tongue-in-cheek. I personally couldn't care less. I'm probably gonna try it out (if there's a free trial) and dump it later because I have no real need (or even want) for a cloud streaming service. Spotify has been sitting in my dock un-launched for about a year now.
I bet you're one of the users who has over 50GB of music too, right? :rolleyes:
Sorry everything isn't free. If $20/Year is "too much" for some, maybe you guys should rethink having the internet or a cell phone as well.
Wrong. Actually just a tenth of that at 5GB. Internet/Cellphone = Basic essential amenities...and even there i don't pay much. On the other hand, cloud streaming service =! Essential. For me anyway.
Entitlement? Nope. The remark was mostly tongue-in-cheek. I personally couldn't care less. I'm probably gonna try it out (if there's a free trial) and dump it later because I have no real need (or even want) for a cloud streaming service. Spotify has been sitting in my dock un-launched for about a year now.
I bet you're one of the users who has over 50GB of music too, right? :rolleyes:
Sorry everything isn't free. If $20/Year is "too much" for some, maybe you guys should rethink having the internet or a cell phone as well.
Wrong. Actually just a tenth of that at 5GB. Internet/Cellphone = Basic essential amenities...and even there i don't pay much. On the other hand, cloud streaming service =! Essential. For me anyway.
Sodner
Apr 15, 10:12 AM
Now although a white iPhone version does not appeal to me just as the white iPad did not, I'm pretty sure my wife would love to exchange her black iPhone for a white one.
The release of this new color sure does concern me (as others have stated) as to the release of the iPhone 5. This has to spell doom for a summer release and possibly pushes it to the Christmas holiday time frame. :(
The release of this new color sure does concern me (as others have stated) as to the release of the iPhone 5. This has to spell doom for a summer release and possibly pushes it to the Christmas holiday time frame. :(
840quadra
Dec 2, 02:15 PM
Perhaps you missed me saying "Now, certainly, these issues should be looked at with all due diligence"? Again, I agree that Apple needs to keep on top of these vulnerabilities. With a little luck, we'll see a new security update within the next week or two that will patch most, if not all, of these. My objection was not to wanting Apple to fix these vulnerabilities. My objection was to the tone that suggested that if we didn't mount a public outcry, Apple would ignore these altogether, and by January 1st there'd be as many viruses on OS X as on Windows. It's the alarmist nature of so many of the posts here that I found objectionable. Give Apple the credit it's due, and trust that they are working on patching all of these vulnerabilities right now. How hard it is to patch them will determine how long we'll have to wait for the security updates.
I now understand what you are saying and agree.
Los vestidos cortos son muy
vistiendo vestidos cortos
Vestidos cortos – Balenciaga
VESTIDOS CORTOS DE MODA 2011
I now understand what you are saying and agree.
cwir
Apr 14, 02:55 PM
what's about battery drain ? anybody noticed something ?
samcraig
Apr 29, 04:56 PM
I'm willing to bet you'll see Amazon's share price take a jump again as the media starts to say that Amazon is going to steal iTunes market share. Wall Street just loves market share. I think they just enjoy the controversy. They'll connect Android's growth rate with lowered mp3 costs and figure through some immediate impact that Amazon will steal away iPhone and iTunes customers away in the long run and pull them to the Android platform.
I say that it's not wise to just lower prices if you're going to lose money on every sale. I still believe Wall Street will let Amazon get away with it. I'll stick with Apple's pricing model since I'm sure they know how to balance their books the best. Since the record companies approved of Apple's tiered pricing model, I think Amazon might be sticking its neck out again if this new pricing model isn't approved by the record companies.
I wonder what your response would have been if Apple had reduced their pricing model and Amazon had the higher one....
I'm guessing you'd praise Apple for the strategy. Maybe I'm wrong. But I am sure plenty here would.
I say that it's not wise to just lower prices if you're going to lose money on every sale. I still believe Wall Street will let Amazon get away with it. I'll stick with Apple's pricing model since I'm sure they know how to balance their books the best. Since the record companies approved of Apple's tiered pricing model, I think Amazon might be sticking its neck out again if this new pricing model isn't approved by the record companies.
I wonder what your response would have been if Apple had reduced their pricing model and Amazon had the higher one....
I'm guessing you'd praise Apple for the strategy. Maybe I'm wrong. But I am sure plenty here would.
gwangung
Oct 18, 05:28 PM
Well, first of all, when I say iPod, I am including all things music/movies, iTV, etc. To put it very simply, I wish Apple would use more of the innovative spirit that is going into their "entertainment" branch and put it back into their computers.
The computers that are just finishing a CPU conversion, but are still rated as being good buys by non-Mac publications?
Perspective, my young padawan, perspective....
The computers that are just finishing a CPU conversion, but are still rated as being good buys by non-Mac publications?
Perspective, my young padawan, perspective....
splashnader
Jan 30, 08:40 PM
I really like that bag! Very nice.
Just had Five Guys with my brother. No one in my family but me takes him there. It's become our thing :)
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4091/5090304078_9d874f65fa.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/heyjuliette/5090304078/)
I love their fries. That picture makes me want a burger and I just ate. :p
Just had Five Guys with my brother. No one in my family but me takes him there. It's become our thing :)
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4091/5090304078_9d874f65fa.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/heyjuliette/5090304078/)
I love their fries. That picture makes me want a burger and I just ate. :p
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.
rdowns
Feb 25, 10:38 AM
Poor Jon Cryer. :D
cmaier
Apr 21, 11:13 PM
They're not suing them to make money, or protect their patents.
It's the trademark they are protecting. They'll probably lose in court, but win outside of it.
Apple sued on 7 utility and 3 design patents, plus the trademarks.
It's the trademark they are protecting. They'll probably lose in court, but win outside of it.
Apple sued on 7 utility and 3 design patents, plus the trademarks.
thermodynamic
Apr 24, 04:44 PM
Oh please, get off your PC high horse for a second and come back to reality. Yeah, no one should get beat up and bullied. I'd also love for the world to be filled with rainbows and unicorns all the time too. However, if I walk around drunk in a bad part of town flashing a suitcase full of cash, well I shouldn't be shocked that I get robbed. I know people don't like to take personal responsibility for their actions these days and everyone's ready to sue someone else because nothing is ever their fault. But most reasonable people should realize that being drunk in the ghetto as a transgendered guy isn't the brightest idea.
And rape victims deserved it because they wore miniskirts too.
Being drunk in a 'bad part of town' and flashing whatever is one thing. But that's no excuse, reason, or justification for you being attacked as a result.
Being a transgender, drunk, and in a rich country club isn't going to be very bright either.
Just being transgender is more than enough.
Especially with bigger issues in this world and people would rather prod each other out of a perceived sense of sensibility or lack thereof. Indeed, in the ideal environment, everybody would flash cash and could do so in absolute safety. I think they're currently called "gated communities". I wonder why.
And rape victims deserved it because they wore miniskirts too.
Being drunk in a 'bad part of town' and flashing whatever is one thing. But that's no excuse, reason, or justification for you being attacked as a result.
Being a transgender, drunk, and in a rich country club isn't going to be very bright either.
Just being transgender is more than enough.
Especially with bigger issues in this world and people would rather prod each other out of a perceived sense of sensibility or lack thereof. Indeed, in the ideal environment, everybody would flash cash and could do so in absolute safety. I think they're currently called "gated communities". I wonder why.
VanNess
Jul 28, 12:42 PM
Copying someone else stuff isn't competing. It's a strategy, but as business strategy targeting the iPod market, it's practically a non-starter as many potential "competitors" (including Microsoft) have already found out. DRM seems to be more of an issue with some tech journals than with the general public. Tens of millions of iPods have been sold, and the iTunes music store is well on it's way to posting another billion songs sold milestone. The anti-DRM arguments don't seem to be resonating in those numbers.
At this point, I don't see anyone else mounting a formidable run at the iPod market, unless they can come with something truly unique, something smart, something that just reeks of must-have desirability and not just like the iPod has now, but even more so. That's what's at stake. So does Microsoft have the answer? Not apparently. Since Ballmer already envisions five years or so of less than stellar expectations before it's even out in front of the public, what does that tell you about Microsoft's "Zune?"
Already handicapping your yet-to-be released product just isn't a good sign.
At this point, I don't see anyone else mounting a formidable run at the iPod market, unless they can come with something truly unique, something smart, something that just reeks of must-have desirability and not just like the iPod has now, but even more so. That's what's at stake. So does Microsoft have the answer? Not apparently. Since Ballmer already envisions five years or so of less than stellar expectations before it's even out in front of the public, what does that tell you about Microsoft's "Zune?"
Already handicapping your yet-to-be released product just isn't a good sign.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét