Acid 3 Test,
IE8: 14/100
Chrome: 78/100
Enough said. IE8 is another pathetic attempt at a good browser. As a web designer and developer I can tell you I look forward to mass acceptance of the final version of Chrome. Under no circumstances do I EVER expect to look forward to IE, any version.
Before I got too far into why I think what I do, I'd just like to point out for all that I'm a web designer. I have my own website. I pay my own hosting fees, and if I used FireFox for more than just development work (God I love FireBug and the Web Dev Plugin!) I'd install a plugin to block adverts.
Now to why.
First to start with why advert blocking, to me, is OK. First, the ads I'd block are those annoying Flash ones that pop-up and take up a large section of the screen. They force you to interact with them, if only to close them, and you can't ignore them. I despise that. I dent to avoid websites with those sorts of ads completely because I think it's sloppy for a designer to allow an ad to do that over their content and I think it's even more disrespectful to a site's users who came for the content, not the ads. Forcing your viewers to look at your ads just so you can avoid paying your hosting fees is wrong.
That being said, I have nothing against Google text adverts, or other simple adverts that don't take up large amounts of space or, in the best case, are actually related to the content of the site and somewhat match the site's design. Some designers say this can't be done. They're lying. If you control your own advertisements you simply say, "It matches the site or it doesn't go up." just such a line in your agreement with an advertiser will save you the issue. You can get extra bonus points for it if you offer to design the advert yourself at a discount to your regular fee. With this you get a little more than if you paid for a per-click ad service and your ads look nice with the rest of your site.
Now to those who block FireFox...
I don't care who you are. I don't care what you do. I don't care what your product is, you don't block FireFox. To do so is irresponsible in the extreme. As a web designer or developer you should be dying for your users to use FireFox! Remember, your loyalties aren't to the advertisers, it's to the users! They came to your site to see your stuff! Show it to them! And FireFox is the only other browser on the PC that's being used even marginally as much as IE. Ever built a site? IE makes you want to kill. I build my sites once, then usually again just for IE. It's that bad.
Secondly, and infinitely more important, regardless of legal issues, you're denying your users the use of their favourite browser. I'm going to let people in on a little secret, there is no website in the known universe, none, nada, that is so important to ANYONE that it should define their choice of browser. So you can't go to that stupid little blog now? Big deal. So you can't look at this new video site? Fine. The stuff is probably on YouTube as well, anyway, and you can use FireFox on that. So to all of you out there who are trying to ban FireFox, remember, you're not going to chance the way your users use the net. You're just going to make them stop coming to your site.
I swear, some of these people need to sit and think for a moment. What about those who use FireFox but don't block the adverts? Punish the innocent along with the guilty, I like that idea. Hey, it worked for Hitler and Stalin, why not these guys? I know that's a major exaggeration but hey, who cares? As long as some pseudo-Viagra company gets some woman to see their adverts then it's OK.
This really reminds me of back when I was in CAP back when I was a younger teenager in Vermont. We went to visit the National Guard base up in Burlington and they showed us their training simulator for the fighter pilots (F-16's). Imagine an arcade game, you sit in this chair with the controls all around you and a screen in front of you that shows a badly rendered world, only the world you see is the area around the airport, mountains and all. There was only enough time for one of the cadets to take a turn but the rest of us stood around asking questions. One of us asked if they ever did dog-fights among the pilots and they said yes, there was another simulator that they could connecto this one for just such a purpose.
This brought the expected question from a cadet, "Can we duel each other? Can we duel one of the pilots?!" Everyone looked excited at the prospect but the officer who was guiding us around said, "Actually we stopped allowing visitors to take on the pilots if only because it was embarrassing for us to lose." The reason why, as seems obvious now, is the pilots are trained to do specific maneuvers and follow certain rules and proceedures. Kids can fly how it was meant to be done and push the aircraft to the digital limit, even risking death in extreme low-level flying to get the advantage, something no real pilot would do because in real life that would likely get you killed.
I guess this leads to the point of kids tend to be better at games and the like because it's more natural for them. They don't see the reality behind it, it's all just play. They see how the story should go, how they can push things, what the real boundaries are of the game and not how it would really have to be done. In a game you can go that extra distance because if you die, you just restart. Kids know this about the games and don't have the natural inhibitions gained from age and experience to be warry of such actions by default.
Now that philanthropy is fashionable again, Bill Gates is handing out money like there's no tomorrow, and people think that makes him a saint? What choice does he really have, everyone else is doing it. 40+ billion dollars of it, his foundation (him and a bunch of other wealthy doners and other persons who donate small amounts to the fund) were only able to tie that. Tie it!
And why does no one remember how he barely gave out anything before he married his wife? He gave out money, true, but to him it was little more than pocket change. This is a man who makes what most people make in a week, he makes in a day. His gains and loses money at such a rate that his wealth can only be measured in the theoretical. And people think what he does give makes him a good person?
But beyond that, somehow this very recent bought of generosity is enough to cleans Microsoft of all it's sins? What bout all the monopolies they've tried to create? The ways they've screwed over users to cover their own tails legally time and time again? The fact that they tend to not listen to what people actually want and instead tell them and at the end of the day claim they were the first. The list goes on and on and yet somehow, after Gates decides to finally join the human race and truly support his fellow man by giving money to those in dire need of it, that suddenly makes up for the years of social apathy and commercial negligence?
Personally, I'm appalled to see that the sentiments and trust of people is so easily bought. Yes, he has recently given away large sums of money. I say it's the least he can do and that it's about time. Let me know when he fixes all the other ways he's screwing everyone over and then we'll talk about how good Microsoft is. I swear... This is like the Vatican announcing that they're OK with the use of condoms in Africa to help stop the transmition of STDs (a total reversal on their current policy) and everyone saying, "Oh how benevolent and wise is the Vatican! Truly they are a banner to follow in the battle for safer sex!"
Where is this guy getting his information? Is it all opinion? Sure sounds like it...
1. Jobs raised buyer expectations too high.
OK, OK... Give me a second... I need to catch my breath... Gotta stop laughing... Yes, because Apple has such a history on not delivering on what it claims it's products can do. In fact, I've been extremely dissatisfied with all of the Apple products I've ever bought. Which is exactly why I keep coming back. Oh, wait, that makes no sense. It is my experience, via by my own perceptions and those of my friends (not exactly a panel of experts but still...), that Apple is very good at delivering exactly what people expect from them when they release something. Look at the MacBook Pro. A lot of us squealed like little girls when we first heard about it. You know what's funny? I own one now. I still squeal. It's every bit as great as I was lead to believe. Same with my 5G 30GB iPod. My mother had a new nano, she loves it. My mates with Macs are whole-heartedly in love with them. And in all cases, no matter how great they thought they were going to be before they got them, they thought it was even better when they finally had it.
2. Jobs raised Wall Street expectations too high.
Yes, because Apple has a major history of not delivering when they release something new. I mean, the iPod was a major flop, no matter how great Apple said it was going to be. And who uses an Intel Mac? No one. Not a one. In fact, Apple's sales have dropped since their release. Wait, no they haven't. They've been climbing higher and higher, just like Apple made out that they would. Hmmm... Interesting...
3. Jobs gave competitors a head start.
Another one, right on the mark. OK, let's clear this one up quickly.
The iPhone uses technology that is new to the market and patented to Apple so not available to anyone else.
The iPhone is just as advanced compared to other phones as Apple claims. In order to catch up, everyone else will need to completely remake their products.
Making a new product and doing it right, like the iPhone was, takes a long time. It can take years. It will be at least a year before the other companies put something out on the level of the iPhone.
The biggest thing that really makes the iPhone better than all comers is the UI, that being the sweet mini-OS that Apple have built for it. Building a good UI isn't just a simple thing. I'm a web designer, it can take months to design and implement a good UI across a medium site. Get something on the level of the iPhone's and you're talking a while at full speed.
4. Jobs undermined Apple TV hype.
You know what? I'll give him this one, sort of. The iPhone did take center stage to the Apple TV. However, which will sell more? The Apple TV? Or the iPhone? Good question... Hard to decide. There is a reason they focused on the iPhone over the Apple TV. Firstly, the Apple TV was announced already. This was just the launch. Why focus on the product everyone knows about? Second, the iPhone is new and needed to be shown. Focus on the new product, especially with all the speculation running around the net. Though he's right about this one, in a way, he still misses the major reasons why it was done.
5. Jobs put iPod sales at risk.
Just like they did to the iPod when they released the iPod Nano... And the iPod Shuffle... Oh wait, that's not how it happened at all. Sales have gone up! $499 for just what you're going to use as an iPod? Besides, big deal, your product that has 80% of the market will only have 70% of the market now, with the lost 10% going to your other product. Yeah, great loss. I'm sure Apple is really crying about losing sales to a cheaper product for a more expensive one. I mean, who wants more money? Not me.
6. Jobs wrecked Cisco talks.
This is true, but Cisco also found out they had no rights to the iPhone name anyway. So who cares? And, if the unthinkable should happen and i
Putting your broswer in the OS and integrating it to the point that removing it can seriously harm the operating abilities of that OS is not quite the same as paying for ad placement.
As a web designer you do this stuff all the time. You word paragraphs a certain way, you tag your images and put in key words and descriptions into the header, all of this is to make your the most relevant site. You can also go out and buy ad-placement. Google does it itself on it's search engine with sponsored links, as well as the links that come up on the right.
This is something that's wide spread throughout the web community and all major companies do it. Google pays for it's placement, it pays for what it gets. Windows forces it on you by making it harder to use something else. An equivalent would be Google hijacking your computer and not allowing you to use any other search engine by constantly redirecting you back to Google.com if you tried or that it'd crash your browser all the time if you changed your home page.
If someone else wants the top spot, it's simple. You pay more money. There's nothing stopping someone else from walking in and saying, "Here's 1 billion dollars. I want the top ad slot for Instant Messenger." and you know what? They'd get it because no one else is going to pay more. They could, but they won't. That doesn't mean the option isn't very much there, it just means someone most likely won't.
Of course, if Microsoft chooses to pay me money to use it as my default browser, I'd be more than happy to. It'd take a lot of money, but I'd do it. Unfortunately they aren't and so I won't.
Slashdot Mirror
Acid 3 Test, IE8: 14/100 Chrome: 78/100 Enough said. IE8 is another pathetic attempt at a good browser. As a web designer and developer I can tell you I look forward to mass acceptance of the final version of Chrome. Under no circumstances do I EVER expect to look forward to IE, any version.
Before I got too far into why I think what I do, I'd just like to point out for all that I'm a web designer. I have my own website. I pay my own hosting fees, and if I used FireFox for more than just development work (God I love FireBug and the Web Dev Plugin!) I'd install a plugin to block adverts.
Now to why.
First to start with why advert blocking, to me, is OK. First, the ads I'd block are those annoying Flash ones that pop-up and take up a large section of the screen. They force you to interact with them, if only to close them, and you can't ignore them. I despise that. I dent to avoid websites with those sorts of ads completely because I think it's sloppy for a designer to allow an ad to do that over their content and I think it's even more disrespectful to a site's users who came for the content, not the ads. Forcing your viewers to look at your ads just so you can avoid paying your hosting fees is wrong.
That being said, I have nothing against Google text adverts, or other simple adverts that don't take up large amounts of space or, in the best case, are actually related to the content of the site and somewhat match the site's design. Some designers say this can't be done. They're lying. If you control your own advertisements you simply say, "It matches the site or it doesn't go up." just such a line in your agreement with an advertiser will save you the issue. You can get extra bonus points for it if you offer to design the advert yourself at a discount to your regular fee. With this you get a little more than if you paid for a per-click ad service and your ads look nice with the rest of your site.
Now to those who block FireFox...
I don't care who you are. I don't care what you do. I don't care what your product is, you don't block FireFox. To do so is irresponsible in the extreme. As a web designer or developer you should be dying for your users to use FireFox! Remember, your loyalties aren't to the advertisers, it's to the users! They came to your site to see your stuff! Show it to them! And FireFox is the only other browser on the PC that's being used even marginally as much as IE. Ever built a site? IE makes you want to kill. I build my sites once, then usually again just for IE. It's that bad.
Secondly, and infinitely more important, regardless of legal issues, you're denying your users the use of their favourite browser. I'm going to let people in on a little secret, there is no website in the known universe, none, nada, that is so important to ANYONE that it should define their choice of browser. So you can't go to that stupid little blog now? Big deal. So you can't look at this new video site? Fine. The stuff is probably on YouTube as well, anyway, and you can use FireFox on that. So to all of you out there who are trying to ban FireFox, remember, you're not going to chance the way your users use the net. You're just going to make them stop coming to your site.
I swear, some of these people need to sit and think for a moment. What about those who use FireFox but don't block the adverts? Punish the innocent along with the guilty, I like that idea. Hey, it worked for Hitler and Stalin, why not these guys? I know that's a major exaggeration but hey, who cares? As long as some pseudo-Viagra company gets some woman to see their adverts then it's OK.
I was at an exhibition at the Tate Modern in London called Global Cities a few weeks back and it was based around one simple fact:
For the first time in human history, more than 50% of Earth's population lives in cities. They figure by 2050 it will be up to 80%.
This really reminds me of back when I was in CAP back when I was a younger teenager in Vermont. We went to visit the National Guard base up in Burlington and they showed us their training simulator for the fighter pilots (F-16's). Imagine an arcade game, you sit in this chair with the controls all around you and a screen in front of you that shows a badly rendered world, only the world you see is the area around the airport, mountains and all. There was only enough time for one of the cadets to take a turn but the rest of us stood around asking questions. One of us asked if they ever did dog-fights among the pilots and they said yes, there was another simulator that they could connecto this one for just such a purpose.
This brought the expected question from a cadet, "Can we duel each other? Can we duel one of the pilots?!" Everyone looked excited at the prospect but the officer who was guiding us around said, "Actually we stopped allowing visitors to take on the pilots if only because it was embarrassing for us to lose." The reason why, as seems obvious now, is the pilots are trained to do specific maneuvers and follow certain rules and proceedures. Kids can fly how it was meant to be done and push the aircraft to the digital limit, even risking death in extreme low-level flying to get the advantage, something no real pilot would do because in real life that would likely get you killed.
I guess this leads to the point of kids tend to be better at games and the like because it's more natural for them. They don't see the reality behind it, it's all just play. They see how the story should go, how they can push things, what the real boundaries are of the game and not how it would really have to be done. In a game you can go that extra distance because if you die, you just restart. Kids know this about the games and don't have the natural inhibitions gained from age and experience to be warry of such actions by default.
Now that philanthropy is fashionable again, Bill Gates is handing out money like there's no tomorrow, and people think that makes him a saint? What choice does he really have, everyone else is doing it. 40+ billion dollars of it, his foundation (him and a bunch of other wealthy doners and other persons who donate small amounts to the fund) were only able to tie that. Tie it!
And why does no one remember how he barely gave out anything before he married his wife? He gave out money, true, but to him it was little more than pocket change. This is a man who makes what most people make in a week, he makes in a day. His gains and loses money at such a rate that his wealth can only be measured in the theoretical. And people think what he does give makes him a good person?
But beyond that, somehow this very recent bought of generosity is enough to cleans Microsoft of all it's sins? What bout all the monopolies they've tried to create? The ways they've screwed over users to cover their own tails legally time and time again? The fact that they tend to not listen to what people actually want and instead tell them and at the end of the day claim they were the first. The list goes on and on and yet somehow, after Gates decides to finally join the human race and truly support his fellow man by giving money to those in dire need of it, that suddenly makes up for the years of social apathy and commercial negligence?
Personally, I'm appalled to see that the sentiments and trust of people is so easily bought. Yes, he has recently given away large sums of money. I say it's the least he can do and that it's about time. Let me know when he fixes all the other ways he's screwing everyone over and then we'll talk about how good Microsoft is. I swear... This is like the Vatican announcing that they're OK with the use of condoms in Africa to help stop the transmition of STDs (a total reversal on their current policy) and everyone saying, "Oh how benevolent and wise is the Vatican! Truly they are a banner to follow in the battle for safer sex!"
...Please.
Where is this guy getting his information? Is it all opinion? Sure sounds like it...
1. Jobs raised buyer expectations too high.
OK, OK... Give me a second... I need to catch my breath... Gotta stop laughing... Yes, because Apple has such a history on not delivering on what it claims it's products can do. In fact, I've been extremely dissatisfied with all of the Apple products I've ever bought. Which is exactly why I keep coming back. Oh, wait, that makes no sense. It is my experience, via by my own perceptions and those of my friends (not exactly a panel of experts but still...), that Apple is very good at delivering exactly what people expect from them when they release something. Look at the MacBook Pro. A lot of us squealed like little girls when we first heard about it. You know what's funny? I own one now. I still squeal. It's every bit as great as I was lead to believe. Same with my 5G 30GB iPod. My mother had a new nano, she loves it. My mates with Macs are whole-heartedly in love with them. And in all cases, no matter how great they thought they were going to be before they got them, they thought it was even better when they finally had it.
2. Jobs raised Wall Street expectations too high.
Yes, because Apple has a major history of not delivering when they release something new. I mean, the iPod was a major flop, no matter how great Apple said it was going to be. And who uses an Intel Mac? No one. Not a one. In fact, Apple's sales have dropped since their release. Wait, no they haven't. They've been climbing higher and higher, just like Apple made out that they would. Hmmm... Interesting...
3. Jobs gave competitors a head start.
Another one, right on the mark. OK, let's clear this one up quickly.
4. Jobs undermined Apple TV hype.
You know what? I'll give him this one, sort of. The iPhone did take center stage to the Apple TV. However, which will sell more? The Apple TV? Or the iPhone? Good question... Hard to decide. There is a reason they focused on the iPhone over the Apple TV. Firstly, the Apple TV was announced already. This was just the launch. Why focus on the product everyone knows about? Second, the iPhone is new and needed to be shown. Focus on the new product, especially with all the speculation running around the net. Though he's right about this one, in a way, he still misses the major reasons why it was done.
5. Jobs put iPod sales at risk.
Just like they did to the iPod when they released the iPod Nano... And the iPod Shuffle... Oh wait, that's not how it happened at all. Sales have gone up! $499 for just what you're going to use as an iPod? Besides, big deal, your product that has 80% of the market will only have 70% of the market now, with the lost 10% going to your other product. Yeah, great loss. I'm sure Apple is really crying about losing sales to a cheaper product for a more expensive one. I mean, who wants more money? Not me.
6. Jobs wrecked Cisco talks.
This is true, but Cisco also found out they had no rights to the iPhone name anyway. So who cares? And, if the unthinkable should happen and i
Putting your broswer in the OS and integrating it to the point that removing it can seriously harm the operating abilities of that OS is not quite the same as paying for ad placement.
As a web designer you do this stuff all the time. You word paragraphs a certain way, you tag your images and put in key words and descriptions into the header, all of this is to make your the most relevant site. You can also go out and buy ad-placement. Google does it itself on it's search engine with sponsored links, as well as the links that come up on the right.
This is something that's wide spread throughout the web community and all major companies do it. Google pays for it's placement, it pays for what it gets. Windows forces it on you by making it harder to use something else. An equivalent would be Google hijacking your computer and not allowing you to use any other search engine by constantly redirecting you back to Google.com if you tried or that it'd crash your browser all the time if you changed your home page.
If someone else wants the top spot, it's simple. You pay more money. There's nothing stopping someone else from walking in and saying, "Here's 1 billion dollars. I want the top ad slot for Instant Messenger." and you know what? They'd get it because no one else is going to pay more. They could, but they won't. That doesn't mean the option isn't very much there, it just means someone most likely won't.
Of course, if Microsoft chooses to pay me money to use it as my default browser, I'd be more than happy to. It'd take a lot of money, but I'd do it. Unfortunately they aren't and so I won't.