I'm not a kid so I'd appreciate it if you dropped the tone ("...and this may come as a surprise"). I've been working on mobile development for quite a few years now.
I was a bit terse in my comment admittedly. What I meant with my comment is that Apple cannot allow multiple applications to run on that memory, unless they have rigorously tested each app: 256 MB is plenty of course (I was still doing development work on a laptop with half a gig just a couple of years ago), but not that much when you're running badly coded apps that do who knows what... I'm willing to bet real money that the fear of the OOM killer is why Apple (and most everyone else) is going through all this trouble.
You have to remember that 256 is the hard limit: there's no swap to rely on. Oh, and 256 includes the video memory as well...
Robert Love wrote good posts on this: 1, 2. rlove's not exactly the objective observer but the pieces are good.
jepaton here comments on embedded systems and what is possible with very little memory... that has no relevance here as, like I said, Apple has to run code created by idiots with no regard for resource use at all.
do you really think that change makes it more understandable? As far as I can tell the ipad won't work before "X" -- whether X is "activation" or "syncing".
Flash is a good format for you, that's great. Just don't assume it'll be available or installed on all clients in the future... Video is by far the largest reason for Flash to be so widespread. If that reason disappears, the Flash install base will start declining fast -- many people will still install it, no doubt, but you won't be able to assume it'll be there.
It's a much more closed device. Thus it is more secure by default. Similar software isn't the same.
I'm sorry but like I mentioned in a another reply, I think that's just hand waving: Safari is Safari. Skype is Skype. whatever libraries are used to process the data from the network are the same. Remember: we are talking about the same use case for both machines. I'm not arguing that a generic laptop doesn't have a larger vulnerability "exposure", I'm arguing that a macbook used for the same things as a ipad is about as secure.
Installation of new apps and updating them is consistent and basic.
That would be relevant if installation was an issue, but we've already established that dc29A's mom isn't going to want to install anything (probably won't even have the permissions).
I'm just a lowly mobile linux developer and I have to admit I am not able to follow that logic. Mobile operating systems are not magically more secure: As an example, if you offer the user more or less the same browsing experience, you expose more or less the same amount of potential vulnerabilities to the hostile internet...
The potential security problems are in the components that actually touch data from the internet. It's true that on my laptop that means a huge array of software, but that's not the point: We were discussing a very specific use case "Mom who only uses email, web and skype". Could you tell me why the email/web/skype apps (and the libs they use) on the ipad do not need updates but the ones on the Macbook do?
So... she'd run similar software on both devices. How does the pad not need patching, updating, securing and whatnot?
I mean, the device sounds quite good for what you planned it for but the reasoning doesn't make sense to me... To keep other things things similar, let's compare to a Mac. Why is the ipad less maintenance-heavy than a Macbook with same exact usage model?
The reports don't actually say that (appstore and itunes numbers are combined) and there's no telling if they make $0 or $100M profit. Still, quick back-of-the-envelope calculations will show you that appstore is quite probably not a major revenue source for Apple, it's just a way to add value to the real revenue: the hardware sales.
Did you read the post I replied to? The question we're trying to answer is "is appstore profit a logical explanation for banning Flash?". I'm saying it's not because Apple makes their money on hardware sales, appstore sales are minuscule compared to them.
The reasons people have for buying Apple hardware may be interesting (and the apps are no doubt an important part), but they just aren't relevant to this discussion.
We all know Apple bans Flash because it would allow third party apps that don't have to forfeit 30% of revenue to Apple. Plain and simple. All other explanations are just someone's absurd mental gymnastics to justify Apple's stupid and shortsighted iPhone OS policies.
People keep talking like the appstore is hugely profitable for Apple: Do the math, it's quite likely not. I'm not saying it's irrelevant but hardware sales dwarf the appstore revenue by such a wide margin that the appstore just cannot be anything but an additional business for Apple.
I might accept your argument if you exchange profit for the lock-in angle: Apple wants native apps so people "can't" move to other platforms.
Some people are not able to see the big picture or recognise shades of gray, that's true. Your comments on the browser issue seem to put you in that group.
To be more specific, there is nothing illogical in thinking that Microsoft did try to extinguish the web earlier with their proprietary technologies and have later been dragging their feet in implementing new features that could be available to all browser manufacturers (standards or not). Notice the trend? MS-only features: Microsoft is interested. Common features: Microsoft is not interested.
The above is not only possible but a very, very logical thing for a company to do in the situation they were in (monopoly, customers who didn't know better): a sound business decision in other words. Does believing the above make me a shill or a religious fanatic?
Have you seen the interview? I have, and I don't understand what you mean. I didn't extrapolate (well, I'm not sure what "extrapolating a sentence from it's context" is but I think I didn't): In the interviewthat sentence is used fairly independently.
When I first saw that, I was pretty shocked. The guy really seemed to think what he said -- it might have been a fumble or a malicious edit by the NBC but like I said, the difference between the sentences I pointed out earlier is pretty damn simple...
badpazzword, tell me how should I understand Schmidts interview, if you think my interpretation is wrong?
You are the one being stubborn. The guy used clear words "something that you don't want anyone to know about" instead of "something illegal". Even a child understands the difference and would know when to use one or the other.
The second sentence does make it clear that the case at hand was terrorism (how handy) but that doesn't change the fact that the first sentence is a clear indication of how Schmidt thinks.
It's been proven again and again that Adobe is not capable of coding a flash player with good performance or reliability on any platform -- especially so if the platform != Windows.
If Adobe had a single example of that, I would have some sympathy for them. They don't.
There are hundreds of plain old method patents on H264, accepted in almost every jurisdiction. If you have H264 codecs in use and MPEG LA hasn't been paid off, someone is breaking the law -- probably you and/or the distributor.
Let me quote the important part: "Anyone who makes a site completely out of Flash should be _shot_".
Keep writing your apps in Flash if that makes you happy. Just remember that some of us will still leave your _website_ immediately if you code it in Flash.
Nintendo really shot themselves in the foot with the Wii.
Wii has been a runaway success of such gigantic proportions that no-one really expected Nintendo to pull something like that off. You don't have to like the device or the games, but don't be an idiot: stuffing your fingers in your ears and going lalalaa won't make the console go away.
The game market mechanics are different with Wii, this was obvious to anyone with half a brain: after all, Nintendo managed to sell consoles and games to a totally new market.
I don't know who they appeal to. I don't know anybody that plays a Wii with any kind of regularity.
Hi, long time gamer here. I've owned both playstations and quite a few earlier games systems, as well as gamed on PCs when I was younger (on anything between an 8088 and whatever gear was state of the art ten years ago). Wii is my first Nintendo device and I've been quite happy so far.
In other words: you don't need to understand why people do what they do (not everyone is good at that), but accepting reality as it is helps when you want to have a discussion with other people.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not a kid so I'd appreciate it if you dropped the tone ("...and this may come as a surprise"). I've been working on mobile development for quite a few years now.
I was a bit terse in my comment admittedly. What I meant with my comment is that Apple cannot allow multiple applications to run on that memory, unless they have rigorously tested each app: 256 MB is plenty of course (I was still doing development work on a laptop with half a gig just a couple of years ago), but not that much when you're running badly coded apps that do who knows what... I'm willing to bet real money that the fear of the OOM killer is why Apple (and most everyone else) is going through all this trouble.
You have to remember that 256 is the hard limit: there's no swap to rely on. Oh, and 256 includes the video memory as well...
Robert Love wrote good posts on this: 1, 2. rlove's not exactly the objective observer but the pieces are good.
jepaton here comments on embedded systems and what is possible with very little memory... that has no relevance here as, like I said, Apple has to run code created by idiots with no regard for resource use at all.
There's a pitiful 256 MB of memory inside the chip. Apple may have planned ahead, but I doubt real multitasking is included in those plans.
do you really think that change makes it more understandable? As far as I can tell the ipad won't work before "X" -- whether X is "activation" or "syncing".
Goddamit, mismoderated again (I meant 'Informative')
I would care because I'm not an asshole. Don't know about you.
Flash is a good format for you, that's great. Just don't assume it'll be available or installed on all clients in the future... Video is by far the largest reason for Flash to be so widespread. If that reason disappears, the Flash install base will start declining fast -- many people will still install it, no doubt, but you won't be able to assume it'll be there.
I'm sorry but like I mentioned in a another reply, I think that's just hand waving: Safari is Safari. Skype is Skype. whatever libraries are used to process the data from the network are the same. Remember: we are talking about the same use case for both machines. I'm not arguing that a generic laptop doesn't have a larger vulnerability "exposure", I'm arguing that a macbook used for the same things as a ipad is about as secure.
That would be relevant if installation was an issue, but we've already established that dc29A's mom isn't going to want to install anything (probably won't even have the permissions).
I'm just a lowly mobile linux developer and I have to admit I am not able to follow that logic. Mobile operating systems are not magically more secure: As an example, if you offer the user more or less the same browsing experience, you expose more or less the same amount of potential vulnerabilities to the hostile internet...
The potential security problems are in the components that actually touch data from the internet. It's true that on my laptop that means a huge array of software, but that's not the point: We were discussing a very specific use case "Mom who only uses email, web and skype". Could you tell me why the email/web/skype apps (and the libs they use) on the ipad do not need updates but the ones on the Macbook do?
So... she'd run similar software on both devices. How does the pad not need patching, updating, securing and whatnot?
I mean, the device sounds quite good for what you planned it for but the reasoning doesn't make sense to me... To keep other things things similar, let's compare to a Mac. Why is the ipad less maintenance-heavy than a Macbook with same exact usage model?
The reports don't actually say that (appstore and itunes numbers are combined) and there's no telling if they make $0 or $100M profit. Still, quick back-of-the-envelope calculations will show you that appstore is quite probably not a major revenue source for Apple, it's just a way to add value to the real revenue: the hardware sales.
How can you tell?
Did you read the post I replied to? The question we're trying to answer is "is appstore profit a logical explanation for banning Flash?". I'm saying it's not because Apple makes their money on hardware sales, appstore sales are minuscule compared to them.
The reasons people have for buying Apple hardware may be interesting (and the apps are no doubt an important part), but they just aren't relevant to this discussion.
People keep talking like the appstore is hugely profitable for Apple: Do the math, it's quite likely not. I'm not saying it's irrelevant but hardware sales dwarf the appstore revenue by such a wide margin that the appstore just cannot be anything but an additional business for Apple.
I might accept your argument if you exchange profit for the lock-in angle: Apple wants native apps so people "can't" move to other platforms.
Some people are not able to see the big picture or recognise shades of gray, that's true. Your comments on the browser issue seem to put you in that group.
To be more specific, there is nothing illogical in thinking that Microsoft did try to extinguish the web earlier with their proprietary technologies and have later been dragging their feet in implementing new features that could be available to all browser manufacturers (standards or not). Notice the trend? MS-only features: Microsoft is interested. Common features: Microsoft is not interested.
The above is not only possible but a very, very logical thing for a company to do in the situation they were in (monopoly, customers who didn't know better): a sound business decision in other words. Does believing the above make me a shill or a religious fanatic?
posting to remove mod-mistake: meant to click Insightful...
whoops, it seems the illiteracy is contagious. Apologies, mr. Commodore64_love.
Maybe for some people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Unemployment_1910-1960.gif
Have you seen the interview? I have, and I don't understand what you mean. I didn't extrapolate (well, I'm not sure what "extrapolating a sentence from it's context" is but I think I didn't): In the interviewthat sentence is used fairly independently.
When I first saw that, I was pretty shocked. The guy really seemed to think what he said -- it might have been a fumble or a malicious edit by the NBC but like I said, the difference between the sentences I pointed out earlier is pretty damn simple...
badpazzword, tell me how should I understand Schmidts interview, if you think my interpretation is wrong?
You are the one being stubborn. The guy used clear words "something that you don't want anyone to know about" instead of "something illegal". Even a child understands the difference and would know when to use one or the other.
The second sentence does make it clear that the case at hand was terrorism (how handy) but that doesn't change the fact that the first sentence is a clear indication of how Schmidt thinks.
It's been proven again and again that Adobe is not capable of coding a flash player with good performance or reliability on any platform -- especially so if the platform != Windows.
If Adobe had a single example of that, I would have some sympathy for them. They don't.
It is illegal everywhere, as far as I can see. Many H264 patents are method patents, accepted all over the world.
There are hundreds of plain old method patents on H264, accepted in almost every jurisdiction. If you have H264 codecs in use and MPEG LA hasn't been paid off, someone is breaking the law -- probably you and/or the distributor.
Let me quote the important part: "Anyone who makes a site completely out of Flash should be _shot_".
Keep writing your apps in Flash if that makes you happy. Just remember that some of us will still leave your _website_ immediately if you code it in Flash.
Wii has been a runaway success of such gigantic proportions that no-one really expected Nintendo to pull something like that off. You don't have to like the device or the games, but don't be an idiot: stuffing your fingers in your ears and going lalalaa won't make the console go away.
The game market mechanics are different with Wii, this was obvious to anyone with half a brain: after all, Nintendo managed to sell consoles and games to a totally new market.
Hi, long time gamer here. I've owned both playstations and quite a few earlier games systems, as well as gamed on PCs when I was younger (on anything between an 8088 and whatever gear was state of the art ten years ago). Wii is my first Nintendo device and I've been quite happy so far.
In other words: you don't need to understand why people do what they do (not everyone is good at that), but accepting reality as it is helps when you want to have a discussion with other people.
S40 is not based on Symbian.