MAC address are unique and therefore as valid to identify unique devices as any UDID.
The point is not about it being optimal, but instead that any one complaining about it existing in the iPhone or being transmissible is missing the bigger picture: every network connected device already has unique identifiers.
There may not be much mobile love between Google and Apple, but I'm quite sure that neither one wants Microsoft to win anything in such a market.
After all, if Microsoft wins this one, what's to stop them from contriving other overly-broad patents against Apple's iPhone at the first convenient moment?
I think Apple already licenses many of these technologies as part of their Exchange ActiveSync licensing. This is the reason why the iPhone had no Exchange support at release despite the demand, they first had to license it and likely decided to see if the thing succeeded before going after the license and functionality.
Companies like Apple tend to do all they can to make sure they are not infringing on technologies owned by other large companies. The problem with Android is that, technically, it's the device owner that should be pursuing the licensing. Many companies that implement Android may had not done the homework needed to realize they should had gone into licensing agreements here or there.
People keep clamoring for a Verizon iPhone, but Verizon is the last company you would want to see get its hands on something like that.
As an iPhone owner with unlimited internet I do am still expecting for a Verizon iPhone. It's not about the data, it's about plain signal. Verizon has very good coverage while my iPhone tends to black out in many spots I go to.
Due to the bad signal I end up using my data phone under WiFi and even had to go to the extreme of getting a Skype line number so I could make phone calls from my new home.
At this point I have already decided I will be leaving ATT in January. If the rumored iPhone 4 for Verizon comes out, I'll get it. If it does not, then I'll get the cheapest phone I can get without a contract and buy me an iPod Touch 4.
It all depends on what the goal is. If they are planning for the iPad as a reading device (given some are stopping the purchase of textbooks it sounds like it) you may only care about the device as a book reader. At that point the argument jumps from "why a closed iPad instead of an Android device" to "Why an iPad over a Kindle". That question may easily be answered by the content of the digital bookstores. If both stores offer all books they require, then it comes down to added features (like much smoother web browsing and email capabilities.)
As for a list of benefits of closed systems, in the general context (not just education,) well, it's not just about spyware but overall malicious applications (off which spyware is just a subset). I feel much more comfortable allowing my wife to use my iPad than my computer. I feel i nearly have to reformat my computer every other week when she uses it regularly due to all the accidental software installation that is either malicious or plain out resource hugging. This is not a problem with the iPad.
At the end of the day, though, the iPad is not THAT closed. Any institution that wants to open up their iPads for in-house app development just have to enter the proper Apple Dev Program. Sure, it's $500 a year, but that's nothing. Heck, that's the price of the cheapest iPad, and WAY less than what the institution will pay to the developer that will write their own apps. Pay that fee and you get access to the tools you need to publish your own apps within your institution.
As a lone Joe, I can subscribe to the paid Apple Developer program that goes for $100 a year and I get to set my devices as developer devices where I can test my own apps, maybe even just leave them there for my personal use.
At the end of the day, this program may prevent average Joe from bypassing iTunes as a method of distribution, or some one that want free access to it all, but the means are available.
I may only argue that it may, perhaps, be nice if Apple provided some way for the basement geek to do his own stuff and run it in his own iPhone/iPad at no cost even if it requires registration. I don't consider it a requirement for success or viability, though.
But it is an important thing. Openness results in: greater learning potential due to being able to tweak and study how what you're using works,
The way my car works internally is of no importance to me. In a similar fashion, the divice I use to make phone calls I just expect to work. If I need to know how it works, then something is horribly wrong with it.
I can see developers themselves being interested in finding out how the device work, but ranting about it is as bad as prospect doctors complaining they cant go left and right cutting people open to see how they work. Albeit Apple only provides Mac Tools, there do are free tools you can download to do your learning, if learning is all you want to do.
enforces an open market meaning the barriers to entry are low and anyone with a good idea can get stuck in more easily, prevents price hiking due to competition.
Look at the app store. It's flooded with competition. Software goes for an average of 99c. The fact that a Apple refuses to approve a very small set of things (and that set of things resently got smaller since removed many restrictions recently) seems to not be getting in the way of keeping prices low. Heck, I wish Windows software was as cheap as software in the extremely competitive iOS App Store.
In schools? I think trendiness is indeed a reason for their being handed out to pupils.
Having worked with people administrating education, I bet budget is the first and main reason for the institutions to approve this. Imagining all digital text books remained the same price as the printed ones, they still would save money by giving all students iPads instead of having to buy massive amounts of classic literature that can be downloaded for free from iBooks. I don't doubt trendiness encourage whoever made the proposal to come up the idea, but for the budget to be allocated they had to be smart and actually prove they would save money in the short run.
The other broswers in the App Store are not full browsers. They're still using elements of Apple's browser, such as the Javascript engine, or they would not be allowed in the App Store.
In either case, that would be "application with interpreter"... whether its Javascript or Actionscript, Apple won't have one they don't control. At least not yet.
You may have missed the story about apple relaxing it's rules. Apps with interpreters are starting to show up (like the return of BASIC to the C64 Emulator)
I didn't really find any iPhone all that usable as a web browser, simply due to the poor resolution. Once I got the Droid (854x480, plus no need for on-screen keyboard), it was a significant threshold -- I do more actual "browsing" on the device than the PC these days. I'm sure the same is true of the iPhone4, at least until you need to type.
The iPhone and iPods have depended heavily on the smart zoom feature that allows you to tap on paragraphs and page blocks to zoom it. That aside, the iPhone 4 and iPod Touch 4 have higher resolution than the Droid at 960x640. The keyboard has never been an issue for me, since I just bring it up to type and hide it once I'm done.
When Flash came out in 1996, the "hot new" PC processors were the original 150MHz and 166MHz Pentiums. In 1999-2000, I was part of a set-top box development project. Our web browser ran Shockwave quite nicely... on a 90MHz or 144MHz Coldfire CPU, and at 640x576, considerably more resolution than all but the top-end smartphones today. Sure, Flash has evolved, but you don't need a 2GHz CPU to run Flash.
Flash performance has gone south since it was acquired by Adobe. They have bloated the thing beyond recognition. You would be horribly hard pressed to get current Flash running on a 2000 machine. Flash has not really evolved as much as it has bloated. They keep adding stuff (and security holes that take forever to patch) but they don't seem to be improving the performance.
Look at the source dipshit, the CSS3 extensions are in the Apple name space and they aren't anything more than proposals, they aren't near standards. They are the equivalent of ActiveX components in JavaScript.
Before you even try to call people names you could avoid portraying yourself as a complete retard (too late now though) by doing a quick visit to http://www.css3.info/modules/
Once there, do go down to 3D Transformations and you will notice it's a Working Draft.
You already showed you wont bother reading so let me explain what a working draft is (or just quote the site on it):
Working Draft (WD)
A Working Draft is a document that W3C has published for review by the community, including W3C Members, the public, and other technical organizations. Some, but not all, Working Drafts are meant to advance to Recommendation.
Finalized standard? No. But just like a wedding, unless you have some drunk guy stand up and object to the two soul-mates marriage, it's very likely it will end up in the final specification. This applies to most of the HTML5 definition, though.
Oh and for your amusement I did look through the code. I am no CSS expert but the only thing that resembled a namespace was labeled -webkit, not -apple. So it's not Apple's namespace, but the engine that happens to be co-developed by Apple, Google, KDE, Rim, Samsung and many others.
Another angle to this... Apple is approving Flash translated and sold through them, where they take a cut of the profits, but is not approving Flash that exists out on the web for free or otherwise.
Now there is a horrendously weak conspiracy theory.
If it's out in the open it's free. These devs can put these in the app store for free. Apple gets nothing. You can even make it have google ads that may yield you money but not a penny going to Apple.
Apple only gets a cut if you decide to charge for your app (up to you) or use iAd as your ad provider.
I don't want Flash on my iPhone. There's no content that I'm missing out on and I use iOS way more than my desktop for general browsing.
Except it should be you making the decision, not Steve! I have an Android phone (HTC Aria) and I can use or not use Flash as I please since there's a browser setting for that (javascript too).
Steve Jobs claims to say he is not against Flash. He has stated this a few times. He is just not going to approve a clumsy implementation, and he claims Adobe has not shown up with something that worked decently. From what I understand, the baby Android Flash is extremely clumsy on all but the fastest Android Phones, making Job's assertions sound realistic as the new iPhone 4 is the first to have a 1ghz chip.
As of the most recent news, btw, Apple is now accepting apps that wrap flash software. They are just not adding flash to their browser. I do ponder if they will eventually allow 3rd party browsers that implement flash themselves (BTW: there are multiple browsers in the app store.)
I don't want Flash on my iPhone. There's no content that I'm missing out on and I use iOS way more than my desktop for general browsing.
This is something I want to put emphasis on. IF Steve Jobs decides to allow the clumsy Flash to make it into iOS safari, or if Adobe comes up with a version of Flash that is accepted by Steve, I still want an option not to have it at all. I want it to be a down-loadable app or perhaps a flash-enabled browser I'll have to download. I want to be the one to at the end decide if the thing goes into MY iPhone (hint, it wont be going into my iPhone if I have a choice.)
I'm guessing you missed that whole "HTML5 webpage showcase" that only worked on Safari and many of the functions weren't part of the normal sections of HTML5, and in fact needed OSX parts. These weren't the real HTML5 standards being discussed, but Apples version, right down to the fact it needed OSX to run properly (which happened to be proprietary)
You mean the HTML5 showcase that I just ran in Google Chrome and worked perfectly fine for the exception of the VR, however this same VR demo runs perfectly fine in the Chrome Canary build, meaning it's something that is indeed in the HTML5 definition.
Also, you may want to read this from the showcase: The demos below show how the latest version of Apple’s Safari web browser, new Macs, and new Apple mobile devices all support the capabilities of HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript. Not all browsers offer this support. But soon other modern browsers will take advantage of these same web standards — and the amazing things they enable web designers to do.
In other words: the whole point was bragging how they incorporated all that defined HTML5 goodness already. I doubt Google added the support to Chrome Canary just because Apple forced them to. Google is much more suborn than that.
How is SJ holding the web at ransom if he is in such a weak position?
He isn't, SJ is just trying to make it sound like he is able to hold the web ransom and making the same BS claims about Flash in an effort to hold it ransom to his whims. SJ hopes to spout enough lies about Flash so everyone will adopt his version of HTML5 (not the so far agreed upon version since nothing is completely official), and if he can make his version of HTML5 the standard it will give him a lot of power on the web that he wants to use to leverage things like the iOS to his standards to keep more competition out of the game (similar to how IE was the 'standard' in the late 90's and helped lock out others like Netscape with sites "recommending IE only").
Actually, Steve Jobs has made it very clear he does not care about "holding the web ransom". They already are allowing flash wrapping applications. But they will not support flash within their browser. It is their choice, not a ransom. Adobe is the one that makes it sound as if they were being held hostage for not being accepted into the iOS Safari club. The irony is that most people that complain about the lack of Flash in the iPhone are people that either don't have an iOS device (and will never get one even if there was flash) or work for Adobe.
First, "Obama" (really the US Legislature) wouldn't have this revenue to stimulate with. That titillating pleasure would go to Governor of Washington Chris Gregoire. Second, if the choice were Balmer and Obama, I'd say Obama would more likely spend it in a manner that benefits the most people in the USA; just look at the value of Micrsoft stock since Balmer took the reigns at MS.
That's the only good thing Balmer has done: open up the doors to competitors for a friendlier competitive market thanks to his own ineptitude. Who says idiot's cant do good things for the world?
Third, why does every time taxation and government spending come up, does Obama get blamed?
Simple minded people like to think any government decision should be blamed/credited to the president, no matter if we are talking about local cops shortening the duration of yellow lights to give more tickets, Obama will be blamed by many. Unfortunately, politicians sort of get themselves into it in campaigns. They promote things in a way that would make anyone that just arrived on Earth that indeed it all boils down to the one big guy.
Taxes were too low during the GB43 admin to support the level of spending his administration endorsed. The proposed increases in taxes of the Obama administration would be lower than during the Reagan administration. And a vast majority of the spending that has so far occurred during the Obama administration was congressionally scheduled spending from the GB43 administration. And of the remaining optional government spend, it went toward correcting the GB43 caused recession.
Now you toss facts in/.!!!!:P Seriously, though. It does not matter. The masses are full of fanatics. A lot of people are Republicans or Democrats and wont care much. Since all they care is to get their own deities a winning chance in the next elections, they will use anything they can to incite hellish fear in their opposition's followers. Simply saying "taxers will be higher than they were with Bush" is enough to scare many, even if the taxes wont change for them.
1) Love extremist bullshit. No one has proposed (seriously) to take 100% of anyone's income over certain bracket.
2) If poor people don't have more money, they won't consume the garbage that the rich sell at their stores or services they provide.
3) If these stores or services do not make more money, it wont matter how much more money the rich have, they wont invest it in these stores or serves to hire more people, since they know that wont make them any more money. They'll instead use the extra money to buy another vacation house in another country or to wallpaper their bathrooms with real $100 bills.
And you may not realize it, but it is indeed the "poor" that move the economy.
Give the poor more money and they will spend it locally immediately. This makes the stores and service providers money. This justify hiring more people, adding to family income or introducing new individuals into the spending game. In the end, it just keeps the poor afloat but the rich man (or smart start-up entrepreneur) ends with more money in their pocket.
The last is an interesting point. Start-ups have more chance of existing if you start feeding the stimuli from the poor up. When you give the stimuli to the rich, you just keep the rich rich or richer and make it harder for the poor to start his own business.
That is not the point. World wide western games are doing much better than japanese ones. Meiji does not seem to get why, though. Reading his answers makes me think he just has no clue why. He keeps going about studying the western market.
I think I have an idea, though: it's the sandbox element. Almost all western games incorporate the sandbox in one way or another. You may claim not everyone wants it, but once you get used to some level of freedom due to the sandbox elements, it's horribly though to go back and play a completely lineal game. Dead Rising did great, and it has a great sandbox incorporation.
This does not mean that every game has to try to emulate Grand Theft Auto, but the level based gameplay has to be designed in a more organic fashion, make those levels larger with multiple paths in enviroments that feel more real and not so corridor like. This specially applies to the lineal Japanese RPG.
The mailman who delivers my packages drives by every day regardless of me buying something or not... How does him walking to my apt door (that is by the building mailbox) makes his vehicle cause any more pollution?
I'm also very sure the plane that came my way with my package in it was going to go that way with or without my package.
Even if it was a separate application, your credit card information is in apple's servers, not on iTunes itself.
Quicktime has always been required by iTunes though, since iTunes does not have any native playback. All playback of music is being handled by quicktime libraries.
So while I want iTunes to run faster, I definitely don't want anything to do with this "Ping" service
Good news: Ping is optional. It wont be active until you go into that Ping icon, turn it on and then create an account. You can't even do this by accident. So you can have the speed of iTunes 10 minus Ping.
My biggest problem is that support seems to wax and wane with actually moving songs/videos on and off an iPod with open source alternatives... so that leaves me tied to the beast that is iTunes.
For what it's worth, yea, its inflated as an MP3 player, but iTunes stopped being about that long ago. iTunes is more of a store these days. There are bucketload of apps out there if what you want is just an MP3 player.
Doesn't matter if they don't know what flash really is.
You said it yourself: "They just enjoy what Flash brings into their desktops."... and on iOS devices they can't.
They keep buying the things, they seem to not care if their video is coming from a flash youtube, an HTML5 youtube, or a native youtube app.
That's what I was referring to. Flash importance gets diluted greatly when you realize that these users get native app alternatives.
So, ARM v7 has been around for how many years. The reason Flash only runs on certain Android models is that it's built for ARM v7.
I'm not the one that claimed 2 years ago to have Flash ready to work on iPhones and that Apple was the one making said no.
Never say never. As far as I can see, input is just a matter of interpretation.
You miss the point. The games I note mostly rely on current mouse/keyboard controls. Unless they get re-designed to work with touch-drags (there is no mouse hovering in touch-screens, something some flash games use.) Forget about using an on-screen keyboard as game input.
There may be some game in the future, but at this moment, there is no flash game that would be viable in a mobile that I would care to play.
Look, I don't know anyone who has gotten every video they come across mobile or otherwise to play every time. Even an Iphone will give you the "cannot play this codec" in the youtube app, and even your desktop will have problems loading video from news sites from time to time, especially if you are using Chrome. There is a lot more to look at here than flash.
Content owners wont just give you stuff for free. If they cant force you to watch ads (like every online TV show does) they just wont put the stuff for online viewing. It's a sad truth. Note I'm not talking about long commercial breaks, just one add twice per video like we already see while watching shows in Hulu, YouTube or TheDailyShow.com (love that one and never watched a show on TV)
Slashdot Mirror
MAC address are unique and therefore as valid to identify unique devices as any UDID.
The point is not about it being optimal, but instead that any one complaining about it existing in the iPhone or being transmissible is missing the bigger picture: every network connected device already has unique identifiers.
But any application that is installed within your computer can read it and transmit it wherever they want.
There may not be much mobile love between Google and Apple, but I'm quite sure that neither one wants Microsoft to win anything in such a market.
After all, if Microsoft wins this one, what's to stop them from contriving other overly-broad patents against Apple's iPhone at the first convenient moment?
I think Apple already licenses many of these technologies as part of their Exchange ActiveSync licensing. This is the reason why the iPhone had no Exchange support at release despite the demand, they first had to license it and likely decided to see if the thing succeeded before going after the license and functionality.
Companies like Apple tend to do all they can to make sure they are not infringing on technologies owned by other large companies. The problem with Android is that, technically, it's the device owner that should be pursuing the licensing. Many companies that implement Android may had not done the homework needed to realize they should had gone into licensing agreements here or there.
People keep clamoring for a Verizon iPhone, but Verizon is the last company you would want to see get its hands on something like that.
As an iPhone owner with unlimited internet I do am still expecting for a Verizon iPhone. It's not about the data, it's about plain signal. Verizon has very good coverage while my iPhone tends to black out in many spots I go to.
Due to the bad signal I end up using my data phone under WiFi and even had to go to the extreme of getting a Skype line number so I could make phone calls from my new home.
At this point I have already decided I will be leaving ATT in January. If the rumored iPhone 4 for Verizon comes out, I'll get it. If it does not, then I'll get the cheapest phone I can get without a contract and buy me an iPod Touch 4.
It all depends on what the goal is. If they are planning for the iPad as a reading device (given some are stopping the purchase of textbooks it sounds like it) you may only care about the device as a book reader. At that point the argument jumps from "why a closed iPad instead of an Android device" to "Why an iPad over a Kindle". That question may easily be answered by the content of the digital bookstores. If both stores offer all books they require, then it comes down to added features (like much smoother web browsing and email capabilities.)
As for a list of benefits of closed systems, in the general context (not just education,) well, it's not just about spyware but overall malicious applications (off which spyware is just a subset). I feel much more comfortable allowing my wife to use my iPad than my computer. I feel i nearly have to reformat my computer every other week when she uses it regularly due to all the accidental software installation that is either malicious or plain out resource hugging. This is not a problem with the iPad.
At the end of the day, though, the iPad is not THAT closed. Any institution that wants to open up their iPads for in-house app development just have to enter the proper Apple Dev Program. Sure, it's $500 a year, but that's nothing. Heck, that's the price of the cheapest iPad, and WAY less than what the institution will pay to the developer that will write their own apps. Pay that fee and you get access to the tools you need to publish your own apps within your institution.
As a lone Joe, I can subscribe to the paid Apple Developer program that goes for $100 a year and I get to set my devices as developer devices where I can test my own apps, maybe even just leave them there for my personal use.
At the end of the day, this program may prevent average Joe from bypassing iTunes as a method of distribution, or some one that want free access to it all, but the means are available.
I may only argue that it may, perhaps, be nice if Apple provided some way for the basement geek to do his own stuff and run it in his own iPhone/iPad at no cost even if it requires registration. I don't consider it a requirement for success or viability, though.
But it is an important thing. Openness results in: greater learning potential due to being able to tweak and study how what you're using works,
The way my car works internally is of no importance to me. In a similar fashion, the divice I use to make phone calls I just expect to work. If I need to know how it works, then something is horribly wrong with it.
I can see developers themselves being interested in finding out how the device work, but ranting about it is as bad as prospect doctors complaining they cant go left and right cutting people open to see how they work. Albeit Apple only provides Mac Tools, there do are free tools you can download to do your learning, if learning is all you want to do.
enforces an open market meaning the barriers to entry are low and anyone with a good idea can get stuck in more easily, prevents price hiking due to competition.
Look at the app store. It's flooded with competition. Software goes for an average of 99c. The fact that a Apple refuses to approve a very small set of things (and that set of things resently got smaller since removed many restrictions recently) seems to not be getting in the way of keeping prices low. Heck, I wish Windows software was as cheap as software in the extremely competitive iOS App Store.
In schools? I think trendiness is indeed a reason for their being handed out to pupils.
Having worked with people administrating education, I bet budget is the first and main reason for the institutions to approve this. Imagining all digital text books remained the same price as the printed ones, they still would save money by giving all students iPads instead of having to buy massive amounts of classic literature that can be downloaded for free from iBooks. I don't doubt trendiness encourage whoever made the proposal to come up the idea, but for the budget to be allocated they had to be smart and actually prove they would save money in the short run.
The other broswers in the App Store are not full browsers. They're still using elements of Apple's browser, such as the Javascript engine, or they would not be allowed in the App Store.
Opera for iPhone
In either case, that would be "application with interpreter"... whether its Javascript or Actionscript, Apple won't have one they don't control. At least not yet.
You may have missed the story about apple relaxing it's rules. Apps with interpreters are starting to show up (like the return of BASIC to the C64 Emulator)
I didn't really find any iPhone all that usable as a web browser, simply due to the poor resolution. Once I got the Droid (854x480, plus no need for on-screen keyboard), it was a significant threshold -- I do more actual "browsing" on the device than the PC these days. I'm sure the same is true of the iPhone4, at least until you need to type.
The iPhone and iPods have depended heavily on the smart zoom feature that allows you to tap on paragraphs and page blocks to zoom it. That aside, the iPhone 4 and iPod Touch 4 have higher resolution than the Droid at 960x640. The keyboard has never been an issue for me, since I just bring it up to type and hide it once I'm done.
When Flash came out in 1996, the "hot new" PC processors were the original 150MHz and 166MHz Pentiums. In 1999-2000, I was part of a set-top box development project. Our web browser ran Shockwave quite nicely... on a 90MHz or 144MHz Coldfire CPU, and at 640x576, considerably more resolution than all but the top-end smartphones today. Sure, Flash has evolved, but you don't need a 2GHz CPU to run Flash.
Flash performance has gone south since it was acquired by Adobe. They have bloated the thing beyond recognition. You would be horribly hard pressed to get current Flash running on a 2000 machine. Flash has not really evolved as much as it has bloated. They keep adding stuff (and security holes that take forever to patch) but they don't seem to be improving the performance.
That's odd, I just ran the video in Safari 5.0.1. The perspective on/off worked too.
Look at the source dipshit, the CSS3 extensions are in the Apple name space and they aren't anything more than proposals, they aren't near standards. They are the equivalent of ActiveX components in JavaScript.
Before you even try to call people names you could avoid portraying yourself as a complete retard (too late now though) by doing a quick visit to http://www.css3.info/modules/
Once there, do go down to 3D Transformations and you will notice it's a Working Draft.
You already showed you wont bother reading so let me explain what a working draft is (or just quote the site on it):
Working Draft (WD)
A Working Draft is a document that W3C has published for review by the community, including W3C Members, the public, and other technical organizations. Some, but not all, Working Drafts are meant to advance to Recommendation.
Finalized standard? No. But just like a wedding, unless you have some drunk guy stand up and object to the two soul-mates marriage, it's very likely it will end up in the final specification. This applies to most of the HTML5 definition, though.
Oh and for your amusement I did look through the code. I am no CSS expert but the only thing that resembled a namespace was labeled -webkit, not -apple. So it's not Apple's namespace, but the engine that happens to be co-developed by Apple, Google, KDE, Rim, Samsung and many others.
Unless you are managing web access sales yourself, manually processing every transaction, some one is always getting a cut.
You can even do that with the app store, setting up a "free" client for a paid service, just like Netflix does.
Another angle to this... Apple is approving Flash translated and sold through them, where they take a cut of the profits, but is not approving Flash that exists out on the web for free or otherwise.
Now there is a horrendously weak conspiracy theory.
If it's out in the open it's free. These devs can put these in the app store for free. Apple gets nothing. You can even make it have google ads that may yield you money but not a penny going to Apple.
Apple only gets a cut if you decide to charge for your app (up to you) or use iAd as your ad provider.
I don't want Flash on my iPhone. There's no content that I'm missing out on and I use iOS way more than my desktop for general browsing.
Except it should be you making the decision, not Steve! I have an Android phone (HTC Aria) and I can use or not use Flash as I please since there's a browser setting for that (javascript too).
Steve Jobs claims to say he is not against Flash. He has stated this a few times. He is just not going to approve a clumsy implementation, and he claims Adobe has not shown up with something that worked decently. From what I understand, the baby Android Flash is extremely clumsy on all but the fastest Android Phones, making Job's assertions sound realistic as the new iPhone 4 is the first to have a 1ghz chip.
As of the most recent news, btw, Apple is now accepting apps that wrap flash software. They are just not adding flash to their browser. I do ponder if they will eventually allow 3rd party browsers that implement flash themselves (BTW: there are multiple browsers in the app store.)
I don't want Flash on my iPhone. There's no content that I'm missing out on and I use iOS way more than my desktop for general browsing.
This is something I want to put emphasis on. IF Steve Jobs decides to allow the clumsy Flash to make it into iOS safari, or if Adobe comes up with a version of Flash that is accepted by Steve, I still want an option not to have it at all. I want it to be a down-loadable app or perhaps a flash-enabled browser I'll have to download. I want to be the one to at the end decide if the thing goes into MY iPhone (hint, it wont be going into my iPhone if I have a choice.)
I'm guessing you missed that whole "HTML5 webpage showcase" that only worked on Safari and many of the functions weren't part of the normal sections of HTML5, and in fact needed OSX parts. These weren't the real HTML5 standards being discussed, but Apples version, right down to the fact it needed OSX to run properly (which happened to be proprietary)
You mean the HTML5 showcase that I just ran in Google Chrome and worked perfectly fine for the exception of the VR, however this same VR demo runs perfectly fine in the Chrome Canary build, meaning it's something that is indeed in the HTML5 definition.
Also, you may want to read this from the showcase: The demos below show how the latest version of Apple’s Safari web browser, new Macs, and new Apple mobile devices all support the capabilities of HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript. Not all browsers offer this support. But soon other modern browsers will take advantage of these same web standards — and the amazing things they enable web designers to do.
In other words: the whole point was bragging how they incorporated all that defined HTML5 goodness already. I doubt Google added the support to Chrome Canary just because Apple forced them to. Google is much more suborn than that.
How is SJ holding the web at ransom if he is in such a weak position?
He isn't, SJ is just trying to make it sound like he is able to hold the web ransom and making the same BS claims about Flash in an effort to hold it ransom to his whims. SJ hopes to spout enough lies about Flash so everyone will adopt his version of HTML5 (not the so far agreed upon version since nothing is completely official), and if he can make his version of HTML5 the standard it will give him a lot of power on the web that he wants to use to leverage things like the iOS to his standards to keep more competition out of the game (similar to how IE was the 'standard' in the late 90's and helped lock out others like Netscape with sites "recommending IE only").
Actually, Steve Jobs has made it very clear he does not care about "holding the web ransom". They already are allowing flash wrapping applications. But they will not support flash within their browser. It is their choice, not a ransom. Adobe is the one that makes it sound as if they were being held hostage for not being accepted into the iOS Safari club. The irony is that most people that complain about the lack of Flash in the iPhone are people that either don't have an iOS device (and will never get one even if there was flash) or work for Adobe.
First, "Obama" (really the US Legislature) wouldn't have this revenue to stimulate with. That titillating pleasure would go to Governor of Washington Chris Gregoire. Second, if the choice were Balmer and Obama, I'd say Obama would more likely spend it in a manner that benefits the most people in the USA; just look at the value of Micrsoft stock since Balmer took the reigns at MS.
That's the only good thing Balmer has done: open up the doors to competitors for a friendlier competitive market thanks to his own ineptitude. Who says idiot's cant do good things for the world?
Third, why does every time taxation and government spending come up, does Obama get blamed?
Simple minded people like to think any government decision should be blamed/credited to the president, no matter if we are talking about local cops shortening the duration of yellow lights to give more tickets, Obama will be blamed by many. Unfortunately, politicians sort of get themselves into it in campaigns. They promote things in a way that would make anyone that just arrived on Earth that indeed it all boils down to the one big guy.
Taxes were too low during the GB43 admin to support the level of spending his administration endorsed. The proposed increases in taxes of the Obama administration would be lower than during the Reagan administration. And a vast majority of the spending that has so far occurred during the Obama administration was congressionally scheduled spending from the GB43 administration. And of the remaining optional government spend, it went toward correcting the GB43 caused recession.
Now you toss facts in /.!!!! :P Seriously, though. It does not matter. The masses are full of fanatics. A lot of people are Republicans or Democrats and wont care much. Since all they care is to get their own deities a winning chance in the next elections, they will use anything they can to incite hellish fear in their opposition's followers. Simply saying "taxers will be higher than they were with Bush" is enough to scare many, even if the taxes wont change for them.
1) Love extremist bullshit. No one has proposed (seriously) to take 100% of anyone's income over certain bracket.
2) If poor people don't have more money, they won't consume the garbage that the rich sell at their stores or services they provide.
3) If these stores or services do not make more money, it wont matter how much more money the rich have, they wont invest it in these stores or serves to hire more people, since they know that wont make them any more money. They'll instead use the extra money to buy another vacation house in another country or to wallpaper their bathrooms with real $100 bills.
And you may not realize it, but it is indeed the "poor" that move the economy.
Give the poor more money and they will spend it locally immediately. This makes the stores and service providers money. This justify hiring more people, adding to family income or introducing new individuals into the spending game. In the end, it just keeps the poor afloat but the rich man (or smart start-up entrepreneur) ends with more money in their pocket.
The last is an interesting point. Start-ups have more chance of existing if you start feeding the stimuli from the poor up. When you give the stimuli to the rich, you just keep the rich rich or richer and make it harder for the poor to start his own business.
That is not the point. World wide western games are doing much better than japanese ones. Meiji does not seem to get why, though. Reading his answers makes me think he just has no clue why. He keeps going about studying the western market.
I think I have an idea, though: it's the sandbox element. Almost all western games incorporate the sandbox in one way or another. You may claim not everyone wants it, but once you get used to some level of freedom due to the sandbox elements, it's horribly though to go back and play a completely lineal game. Dead Rising did great, and it has a great sandbox incorporation.
This does not mean that every game has to try to emulate Grand Theft Auto, but the level based gameplay has to be designed in a more organic fashion, make those levels larger with multiple paths in enviroments that feel more real and not so corridor like. This specially applies to the lineal Japanese RPG.
The mailman who delivers my packages drives by every day regardless of me buying something or not... How does him walking to my apt door (that is by the building mailbox) makes his vehicle cause any more pollution?
I'm also very sure the plane that came my way with my package in it was going to go that way with or without my package.
Now I have to have Quicktime on my machine ... which I am not a fan of. And what's worse is that reviews are telling me that it's faster but with a crappier UI while at the same time Ping concerns me if it has my credit card information and is just a spam portal.
Even if it was a separate application, your credit card information is in apple's servers, not on iTunes itself.
Quicktime has always been required by iTunes though, since iTunes does not have any native playback. All playback of music is being handled by quicktime libraries.
So while I want iTunes to run faster, I definitely don't want anything to do with this "Ping" service
Good news: Ping is optional. It wont be active until you go into that Ping icon, turn it on and then create an account. You can't even do this by accident. So you can have the speed of iTunes 10 minus Ping.
My biggest problem is that support seems to wax and wane with actually moving songs/videos on and off an iPod with open source alternatives ... so that leaves me tied to the beast that is iTunes.
For what it's worth, yea, its inflated as an MP3 player, but iTunes stopped being about that long ago. iTunes is more of a store these days. There are bucketload of apps out there if what you want is just an MP3 player.
Doesn't matter if they don't know what flash really is. You said it yourself: "They just enjoy what Flash brings into their desktops." ... and on iOS devices they can't.
They keep buying the things, they seem to not care if their video is coming from a flash youtube, an HTML5 youtube, or a native youtube app.
That's what I was referring to. Flash importance gets diluted greatly when you realize that these users get native app alternatives.
So, ARM v7 has been around for how many years. The reason Flash only runs on certain Android models is that it's built for ARM v7.
I'm not the one that claimed 2 years ago to have Flash ready to work on iPhones and that Apple was the one making said no.
Never say never. As far as I can see, input is just a matter of interpretation.
You miss the point. The games I note mostly rely on current mouse/keyboard controls. Unless they get re-designed to work with touch-drags (there is no mouse hovering in touch-screens, something some flash games use.) Forget about using an on-screen keyboard as game input.
There may be some game in the future, but at this moment, there is no flash game that would be viable in a mobile that I would care to play.
Look, I don't know anyone who has gotten every video they come across mobile or otherwise to play every time. Even an Iphone will give you the "cannot play this codec" in the youtube app, and even your desktop will have problems loading video from news sites from time to time, especially if you are using Chrome. There is a lot more to look at here than flash.
Like defining open standards?
Ick. You consider that as an advantage?
Content owners wont just give you stuff for free. If they cant force you to watch ads (like every online TV show does) they just wont put the stuff for online viewing. It's a sad truth. Note I'm not talking about long commercial breaks, just one add twice per video like we already see while watching shows in Hulu, YouTube or TheDailyShow.com (love that one and never watched a show on TV)
Some sites require flash for menues
Some web designers deserve to be shot.