The system is trained with labelled views of pre-categorized images, i.e., "this is one view of a watch, " "this is another view of a watch," etc. What makes it novel is that it is not told what the identifying features of a watch (or any other object are). It figures out for itself that the circular face, the stem, etc. are the distinctive features of a watch.
Upper paleolithic european cave art used continuous, flowing lines, created by spit-painting (think prehistoric mouth airbrush), not short, overlapping, straight lines. The system described in TFA produces results that resemble the sort of lame, pseudo-cubist drawing one saw in art schools in the mid 20th c.
Let me play the role of grumpy geezer here and provide some perspective.
Every generation comes along and believes they are the first to feel what young people feel, first to socialize as their generation does, etc. etc., and every generation is wrong.
This has been increasingly true. Since the early 20th c., each succeeding generation has less and less time depth (i.e., they know less and less about how life was lived a half century ago), and less real difference with their predecessors in regard to the ease of long distance communication. As a result, each generation believes they are the first to socialize electronically. They are not.
There is very little functionally that social networking sites provide that hasn't been present since the advent of inexpensive nation-wide telephone plans about a quarter century ago (the only missing part back then was the mobile piece), and essentially nothing functionally new since the widespread use of mobile phones.
Those who claim that the means of communication (voice v. sms v. email v. blog v. etc. etc.) makes the difference are deluding themselves. It is these superficial differences that each generation clings to as its identity, so each new generation must find some "new" way to do pretty much exactly the same thing just so they can identify themselves as "young" in contradistinction to the "dinosaurs" who still communicate primarily by some "geezer" technology, be that supposedly "outdated" technology voice, or emaill.
Facebook is successful because they have sold young people the illusion that they are engaging in a fundamentally new form of socialization. They are not. They are hanging out with their friends just as people have done for 200,000 years or more, its just that the generational window dressing has changed.
As a result, TFA is yet another misguided attempt at a technological solution (open equivalent to Facebook) to a social problem (young people want a separate social identity from their parents' generation). Facebook and other social networking media provide that separate identity. Replacing it will be a matter of social engineering (i.e., convincing young people that what you're offering is their generation's social identity, and theirs alone), not primarily a matter of technology.
So in order to make their device the #1 portal for video consumption, they're going to push... an open standard format that anyone can make a viewer for?
Viewer, yes. Well designed, popular, searchable store, with millions of customers' credit card numbers on file? No.
No business cares how you watch stuff. They only care that you buy it from them. If you pay them for it, they're quite happy to have you watch it on a free linux based player embedded in the seat of your toilet if you like.
Apple believe that they can own any on line media distribution system because they can leverage the existing popularity of iTunes to do so.
Why did apps for the iPhone become so popular and profitable when Apple still had only a small overall share of the cell phone market? Because iTunes was a pre-existing channel with millions of paying customers into which they could push iPhone apps.
Apple gets this one thing that their competitors don't: a user-friendly channel in the immensely confusing and frightening (to most people) on line world will beat open source and/or superior technology every time.
Show me a single Apple machine with a Blu-Ray drive. Oh, that's right, there are none.
Big players like Apple, MS, etc. like to be part of various consortia for two reasons:
1. To control their direction (e.g., HTML5 and Apple's Mac, iPhone, iPad) 2. To know what they need to counter in their own offerings (e.g., Blu-Ray and Apple's iTunes Movies & TV Shows)
Granted his grammar is poor and he does ramble but his main point (which he takes forever to get to) is simple and worth taking note of:
Apple wants to dominate on line video the way they've come to dominate on line music - through iTunes/iPods/iPhones/iPads. For this to happen, Flash must die, since it is currently the #1 means of on line video delivery.
This also explains why Apple have resisted putting Blu-Ray drives in their desktops and laptops even though Blu-Ray won the format war two years ago. Apple wants to kill physical video distribution too so that users will choose Apple's on line video distribution through iTunes instead of buying HD video on physical media.
BP is in a commodity industry. That means that exactly what they sell is available from a dozen other firms. Not something like what they sell; exactly the same thing. They can't raise their prices - if they try, all their customers will just buy gasoline/crude oil/heating oil from shell, or exxon, etc. They have no choice but to eat the cost of this and have it directly impact profits.
This is a good thing. This is how it is supposed to work. BP's losses will serve as a very, very strong financial incentive to both BP and its competitors to get safety right in order to avoid multi-billion dollar losses in the event of any future accidents.
His work is only valuable because of the context in which it is created. If he had always done those stencils on the walls on someone's private property with their permission no one would pay $500K for them.
Sillyness. Art should be art independent of the context in which it is created or displayed. Otherwise it's just a form of performance art, and we know what utter crap that is.
Peter Gibbons: Um... the 7-11. You take a penny from the tray, right? Joanna: From the cripple children? Peter Gibbons: No that's the jar. I'm talking about the tray. You know the pennies that are for everybody? Joanna: Oh for everybody. Okay. Peter Gibbons: Well those are whole pennies, right? I'm just talking about fractions of a penny here. But we do it from a much bigger tray and we do it a couple a million times.
presumably because it was written by "overly precise wankers." I'm guessing that the "overly precise" bit is more of a barrier to effective communication than the "wanker" bit. Though maybe a wanker's ability to type is impaired because one his hands is busy...
Please mod parent up. The link points to the wikipedia article on Contracts of Adhesion.
In particular this quote is relevant to the discussion here: If the term was outside of the reasonable expectations of the person who did not write the contract, and if the parties were contracting on an unequal basis, then it will not be enforceable.
So for example, if a video camera is sold as a "professional" model, then it is completely outside the reasonable expectations of the purchaser that it could not be used for commercial purposes, since "for commercial purposes" is the very definition of "professional."
So this restriction would be unenforceable against any end-user/purchaser who purchased the camera as a "professional" model.
1. This places an additional burden on open source browsers to keep pace with the underlying platform WRT performance. History shows they will likely lag significantly.
2. This doesn't address features at all. Both Apple and MS will make sure that the HTML5 spec is always significantly less featureful than the native application platforms.
The result will be that the highest quality applications will need to be written to native platforms, not an OS neutral web platform. This means hardware and/or software vendor lock in, which is just what Apple and MS want.
This is Java all over again. MS embraced and extended it. They paid a billion in damages for doing so, but it was money well spent to cripple a potentially game changing, OS neutral platform.
Apple claimed to be the best Java platform bar none. You could even write native cocoa apps in java. Then, when Apple had leveraged their "open standards" act to attract enough developer mind share, they began systematically treating Java as a second class citizen. Launch a java app and get a frightening warning:
"! The application SuchAndSuch is requesting access to your computer"
You don't get this kind of warning running a native app of course.
And now you can't write cocoa apps using java anymore either. What a surprise.
MS Does embrace and extend. Apple does embrace and marginalize. Same end result.
Apple and MS are not your friend - they want your money. Google is not your friend either, but at least they don't want your money - they want advertisers' money. The lesser of two evils.
Because the real power behind a web platform is Google, not Adobe. If necessary, Google will provide an open source implementation of the Flash spec, and everyone will write to that, not to any Adobe-only version.
Apple is betting on its hardware/software integration platforms. It is paid for by consumer dollars - i.e., your money, and wants hardware and software vendor lock in.
Microsoft is betting on its software paltforms. It is paid for by your money. It wants software vendor lock in.
Adobe is betting on a web platform. it is paid for by advertising dollars. It wants software content creation vendor lock in (not even software platform vendor lock in - just tools to create the content).
Google is betting on a web platform. It is paid for by advertising dollars. It wants advertising vendor lock in - not software platform lock in, not even content creation lock in, just advertising channel lock in.
I think the last two, who have many common interests, are a much better deal for both consumers and developers. Consumers get lower priced hardware because with a web platform, hardware is commoditized. Consumers get lower priced software because with a web platform, software is commoditized.
Developers get to choose whatever tools they want as long as they target the web platform.
The only down side is that computing becomes like commercial TV in the last century - largely advertising supported. Personally I think this is better than hardware/software vendor lock in.
Makes sense for their bottom line you mean. Hasn't it occurred to anyone that you now have both dominant OS vendors supporting HTML5? Do they both want their proprietary platforms replaced by HTML5 and the net? Are they really that stupid?
Or maybe, just maybe, they know something that naive Web platform advocates don't:
HTML5 will always lag behind native applications in performance and features, and MS and Apple will be sure this is the case in their implementations, so the web platform will be no real threat to Windows, Mac OS X, iPhone/iPad OS, Windows Mobile, etc.
IOW, both Apple and Microsoft are big supporters of HTML5 over Flash because they know that you'll never get native app performance and features using HTML5, so HTML5 is no threat to their platforms. OTOH, Adobe has no such vested interest in Microsoft's or Apple's OS platforms, so it is distinctly possible that you might end up with native performance and features with Flash.
Just take a look at these tests comparing HTML5 animation with Flash animation on mobile platforms (Android and iPhone). Flash destroys HTML5 (25 fps v 5-10 fps). Both Apple and Microsoft are afraid of Flash because it represents a much higher performance, more fully featured web platform than HTML5. Like Java before it, Flash is a web platform with enough performance and features that web apps using it threaten traditional OS platforms. This is what Microsoft and Apple are afraid of, and they're certainly not supporting HTML5 because of their philosophical belief in "open standards."
I fail to see how this isn't a good deal for users and developers.
Because of the 50 person limit. It means that Apple becomes the de facto gatekeeper of free speech rights on the iPhone. Anything they don't approve of will not see wide distribution.
Porn? NO! Well, unless you're a major corporation like Playboy, then it's OK. Political cartoons? (arguably the most protected form of free speech BTW) NO! Well, unless you win a Pulitzer, then we'll make an exception.
It isn't a good deal for users because Apple has set themselves up as the gatekeepers of what software users may or may not run on their own devices. This is wrong. This is a deal with the devil.
This is simply false. HTML5 is slow and buggy compared with native iPhone apps, and Apple is happy to keep it that way.
How short people's memories are. Remember when Apple was the champion of Java. The Mac platform is the premier Java platform! You can write native Cocoa apps using the toll-free Java bridge!
Then, when it was convenient for Apple to let Java languish and become a second class citizen, they did so. When the iPhone was released, java was nowhere to be seen.
Apple will do the same with HTML5. They'll claim to be rah rah supporters, but the performance will always be distinctly inferior to native cocoa-touch iPhone apps. This way, users will be able to see a clear difference between cross platform apps on the one hand (HTML5, slow, lacking in features, buggy) and native cocoa-touch iPhone appss on the other (fast, featureful, just works).
Apple is all about differentiation - they need their proprietary stuff to be superior to cross platform. So they'll always claim to fully support cross-platform standards in order to keep developers on the platform, but they'll always be sure that the cross-platform stuff is visibly slower, buggier and lamer than their proprietary software stack.
But Apple prevents you from installing apps that don't come from the app store. Ubuntu doesn't prevent you from installing software that isn't part of the Ubuntu distribution, so your analogy is quite broken.
No one would have any argument with Apple if they chose to select certain apps for inclusion in their App Store. After all, they've been highlighting only certain Mac OS apps on the Apple website for years. But this never stopped anyone from downloading or otherwise installing apps that weren't featured on Apple's web site.
Now they've completely prevented the user from installing any app whatsoever unless it is Apple approved. This is a completely different situation. Even Microsoft doesn't dictate to users what applications they may install on a windows machine. Jobs has always been about control, but he's gone too far. It looks like Android will catch and overtake the iPhone as Jobs shoots himself in the foot once more.
The metric users care about is usability. The demo shows the iPhone with HTML5 running an animation at less than 2 frames per second!!! This is unusable crap! The same exact animation using flash on the NexusOne gets 30 fps!
Apple keeps pushing HTML5 so that cross platform apps that are foolish enough to use it will be second class citizens on the iPhone. Apple wants to lock developers into its closed system. If they choose the open path of HTML5 they can be guaranteed of poor performance.
Hear, hear. Safari crashes all on its own, on a platform where there is no flash at all. Safari is unstable (so is firefox on the Mac BTW, but not nearly as bad). So is the Finder on Mac OS X. Both Safari and the Finder have large non-objective-c portions (i.e., both contain sizable chunks written in C++ rather than objective-C). Coincidence? I think not. Cocoa apps are stable because they handle runtime errors gracefully - they don't always do what you want in an error situation, but they don't crash the app altogether. When a piece of C++ code dies, it dies catastrophically.
Slashdot Mirror
The system is trained with labelled views of pre-categorized images, i.e., "this is one view of a watch, " "this is another view of a watch," etc. What makes it novel is that it is not told what the identifying features of a watch (or any other object are). It figures out for itself that the circular face, the stem, etc. are the distinctive features of a watch.
No, because it doesn't.
Upper paleolithic european cave art used continuous, flowing lines, created by spit-painting (think prehistoric mouth airbrush), not short, overlapping, straight lines. The system described in TFA produces results that resemble the sort of lame, pseudo-cubist drawing one saw in art schools in the mid 20th c.
Let me play the role of grumpy geezer here and provide some perspective.
Every generation comes along and believes they are the first to feel what young people feel, first to socialize as their generation does, etc. etc., and every generation is wrong.
This has been increasingly true. Since the early 20th c., each succeeding generation has less and less time depth (i.e., they know less and less about how life was lived a half century ago), and less real difference with their predecessors in regard to the ease of long distance communication. As a result, each generation believes they are the first to socialize electronically. They are not.
There is very little functionally that social networking sites provide that hasn't been present since the advent of inexpensive nation-wide telephone plans about a quarter century ago (the only missing part back then was the mobile piece), and essentially nothing functionally new since the widespread use of mobile phones.
Those who claim that the means of communication (voice v. sms v. email v. blog v. etc. etc.) makes the difference are deluding themselves. It is these superficial differences that each generation clings to as its identity, so each new generation must find some "new" way to do pretty much exactly the same thing just so they can identify themselves as "young" in contradistinction to the "dinosaurs" who still communicate primarily by some "geezer" technology, be that supposedly "outdated" technology voice, or emaill.
Facebook is successful because they have sold young people the illusion that they are engaging in a fundamentally new form of socialization. They are not. They are hanging out with their friends just as people have done for 200,000 years or more, its just that the generational window dressing has changed.
As a result, TFA is yet another misguided attempt at a technological solution (open equivalent to Facebook) to a social problem (young people want a separate social identity from their parents' generation). Facebook and other social networking media provide that separate identity. Replacing it will be a matter of social engineering (i.e., convincing young people that what you're offering is their generation's social identity, and theirs alone), not primarily a matter of technology.
That's his point. Apple disallowed all plug-ins just to be sure Adobe couldn't put flash on the iPhone.
So in order to make their device the #1 portal for video consumption, they're going to push... an open standard format that anyone can make a viewer for?
Viewer, yes. Well designed, popular, searchable store, with millions of customers' credit card numbers on file? No.
No business cares how you watch stuff. They only care that you buy it from them. If you pay them for it, they're quite happy to have you watch it on a free linux based player embedded in the seat of your toilet if you like.
Apple believe that they can own any on line media distribution system because they can leverage the existing popularity of iTunes to do so.
Why did apps for the iPhone become so popular and profitable when Apple still had only a small overall share of the cell phone market? Because iTunes was a pre-existing channel with millions of paying customers into which they could push iPhone apps.
Apple gets this one thing that their competitors don't: a user-friendly channel in the immensely confusing and frightening (to most people) on line world will beat open source and/or superior technology every time.
Show me a single Apple machine with a Blu-Ray drive. Oh, that's right, there are none.
Big players like Apple, MS, etc. like to be part of various consortia for two reasons:
1. To control their direction (e.g., HTML5 and Apple's Mac, iPhone, iPad)
2. To know what they need to counter in their own offerings (e.g., Blu-Ray and Apple's iTunes Movies & TV Shows)
Ganash is a delicious chocolate glaze
You've misspelled it.
Ganache is a delicious chocolate glaze
Ganesh (or Ganesha) is an indian god with an elephant's head
Ganash therefore, is the equivalent of a chocolate Easter Bunny, but for Hindus.
Glad I could clear that up for you ;^)
Granted his grammar is poor and he does ramble but his main point (which he takes forever to get to) is simple and worth taking note of:
Apple wants to dominate on line video the way they've come to dominate on line music - through iTunes/iPods/iPhones/iPads. For this to happen, Flash must die, since it is currently the #1 means of on line video delivery.
This also explains why Apple have resisted putting Blu-Ray drives in their desktops and laptops even though Blu-Ray won the format war two years ago. Apple wants to kill physical video distribution too so that users will choose Apple's on line video distribution through iTunes instead of buying HD video on physical media.
For a similar view of the advanced use of content-aware fill see this video
BP is in a commodity industry. That means that exactly what they sell is available from a dozen other firms. Not something like what they sell; exactly the same thing. They can't raise their prices - if they try, all their customers will just buy gasoline/crude oil/heating oil from shell, or exxon, etc. They have no choice but to eat the cost of this and have it directly impact profits.
This is a good thing. This is how it is supposed to work. BP's losses will serve as a very, very strong financial incentive to both BP and its competitors to get safety right in order to avoid multi-billion dollar losses in the event of any future accidents.
I totally agree with you. Its really annoying when people get they're apostrophe's wrong.
Fixed that for you.
fixe'd tha't fo'r yo'u
o'h, an'd here's som'e spare's i'n cas'e yo'u ru'n ou't
' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
His work is only valuable because of the context in which it is created. If he had always done those stencils on the walls on someone's private property with their permission no one would pay $500K for them.
Sillyness. Art should be art independent of the context in which it is created or displayed. Otherwise it's just a form of performance art, and we know what utter crap that is.
Peter Gibbons: Um... the 7-11. You take a penny from the tray, right?
Joanna: From the cripple children?
Peter Gibbons: No that's the jar. I'm talking about the tray. You know the pennies that are for everybody?
Joanna: Oh for everybody. Okay.
Peter Gibbons: Well those are whole pennies, right? I'm just talking about fractions of a penny here. But we do it from a much bigger tray and we do it a couple a million times.
presumably because it was written by "overly precise wankers." I'm guessing that the "overly precise" bit is more of a barrier to effective communication than the "wanker" bit. Though maybe a wanker's ability to type is impaired because one his hands is busy...
Please mod parent up. The link points to the wikipedia article on Contracts of Adhesion.
In particular this quote is relevant to the discussion here:
If the term was outside of the reasonable expectations of the person who did not write the contract, and if the parties were contracting on an unequal basis, then it will not be enforceable.
So for example, if a video camera is sold as a "professional" model, then it is completely outside the reasonable expectations of the purchaser that it could not be used for commercial purposes, since "for commercial purposes" is the very definition of "professional."
So this restriction would be unenforceable against any end-user/purchaser who purchased the camera as a "professional" model.
And now Apple drops all pretense of being the underdog and joins the ranks of the FUD purveyors.
1. This places an additional burden on open source browsers to keep pace with the underlying platform WRT performance. History shows they will likely lag significantly.
2. This doesn't address features at all. Both Apple and MS will make sure that the HTML5 spec is always significantly less featureful than the native application platforms.
The result will be that the highest quality applications will need to be written to native platforms, not an OS neutral web platform. This means hardware and/or software vendor lock in, which is just what Apple and MS want.
This is Java all over again. MS embraced and extended it. They paid a billion in damages for doing so, but it was money well spent to cripple a potentially game changing, OS neutral platform.
Apple claimed to be the best Java platform bar none. You could even write native cocoa apps in java. Then, when Apple had leveraged their "open standards" act to attract enough developer mind share, they began systematically treating Java as a second class citizen. Launch a java app and get a frightening warning:
"! The application SuchAndSuch is requesting access to your computer"
You don't get this kind of warning running a native app of course.
And now you can't write cocoa apps using java anymore either. What a surprise.
MS Does embrace and extend. Apple does embrace and marginalize. Same end result.
Apple and MS are not your friend - they want your money. Google is not your friend either, but at least they don't want your money - they want advertisers' money. The lesser of two evils.
Because the real power behind a web platform is Google, not Adobe. If necessary, Google will provide an open source implementation of the Flash spec, and everyone will write to that, not to any Adobe-only version.
Apple is betting on its hardware/software integration platforms. It is paid for by consumer dollars - i.e., your money, and wants hardware and software vendor lock in.
Microsoft is betting on its software paltforms. It is paid for by your money. It wants software vendor lock in.
Adobe is betting on a web platform. it is paid for by advertising dollars. It wants software content creation vendor lock in (not even software platform vendor lock in - just tools to create the content).
Google is betting on a web platform. It is paid for by advertising dollars. It wants advertising vendor lock in - not software platform lock in, not even content creation lock in, just advertising channel lock in.
I think the last two, who have many common interests, are a much better deal for both consumers and developers. Consumers get lower priced hardware because with a web platform, hardware is commoditized. Consumers get lower priced software because with a web platform, software is commoditized.
Developers get to choose whatever tools they want as long as they target the web platform.
The only down side is that computing becomes like commercial TV in the last century - largely advertising supported. Personally I think this is better than hardware/software vendor lock in.
Makes sense for their bottom line you mean. Hasn't it occurred to anyone that you now have both dominant OS vendors supporting HTML5? Do they both want their proprietary platforms replaced by HTML5 and the net? Are they really that stupid?
Or maybe, just maybe, they know something that naive Web platform advocates don't:
HTML5 will always lag behind native applications in performance and features, and MS and Apple will be sure this is the case in their implementations, so the web platform will be no real threat to Windows, Mac OS X, iPhone/iPad OS, Windows Mobile, etc.
IOW, both Apple and Microsoft are big supporters of HTML5 over Flash because they know that you'll never get native app performance and features using HTML5, so HTML5 is no threat to their platforms. OTOH, Adobe has no such vested interest in Microsoft's or Apple's OS platforms, so it is distinctly possible that you might end up with native performance and features with Flash.
Just take a look at these tests comparing HTML5 animation with Flash animation on mobile platforms (Android and iPhone). Flash destroys HTML5 (25 fps v 5-10 fps). Both Apple and Microsoft are afraid of Flash because it represents a much higher performance, more fully featured web platform than HTML5. Like Java before it, Flash is a web platform with enough performance and features that web apps using it threaten traditional OS platforms. This is what Microsoft and Apple are afraid of, and they're certainly not supporting HTML5 because of their philosophical belief in "open standards."
I fail to see how this isn't a good deal for users and developers.
Because of the 50 person limit. It means that Apple becomes the de facto gatekeeper of free speech rights on the iPhone. Anything they don't approve of will not see wide distribution.
Porn? NO! Well, unless you're a major corporation like Playboy, then it's OK.
Political cartoons? (arguably the most protected form of free speech BTW) NO! Well, unless you win a Pulitzer, then we'll make an exception.
It isn't a good deal for users because Apple has set themselves up as the gatekeepers of what software users may or may not run on their own devices. This is wrong. This is a deal with the devil.
This is simply false. HTML5 is slow and buggy compared with native iPhone apps, and Apple is happy to keep it that way.
How short people's memories are. Remember when Apple was the champion of Java. The Mac platform is the premier Java platform! You can write native Cocoa apps using the toll-free Java bridge!
Then, when it was convenient for Apple to let Java languish and become a second class citizen, they did so. When the iPhone was released, java was nowhere to be seen.
Apple will do the same with HTML5. They'll claim to be rah rah supporters, but the performance will always be distinctly inferior to native cocoa-touch iPhone apps. This way, users will be able to see a clear difference between cross platform apps on the one hand (HTML5, slow, lacking in features, buggy) and native cocoa-touch iPhone appss on the other (fast, featureful, just works).
Apple is all about differentiation - they need their proprietary stuff to be superior to cross platform. So they'll always claim to fully support cross-platform standards in order to keep developers on the platform, but they'll always be sure that the cross-platform stuff is visibly slower, buggier and lamer than their proprietary software stack.
But Apple prevents you from installing apps that don't come from the app store. Ubuntu doesn't prevent you from installing software that isn't part of the Ubuntu distribution, so your analogy is quite broken.
No one would have any argument with Apple if they chose to select certain apps for inclusion in their App Store. After all, they've been highlighting only certain Mac OS apps on the Apple website for years. But this never stopped anyone from downloading or otherwise installing apps that weren't featured on Apple's web site.
Now they've completely prevented the user from installing any app whatsoever unless it is Apple approved. This is a completely different situation. Even Microsoft doesn't dictate to users what applications they may install on a windows machine. Jobs has always been about control, but he's gone too far. It looks like Android will catch and overtake the iPhone as Jobs shoots himself in the foot once more.
The metric users care about is usability. The demo shows the iPhone with HTML5 running an animation at less than 2 frames per second!!! This is unusable crap! The same exact animation using flash on the NexusOne gets 30 fps!
Apple keeps pushing HTML5 so that cross platform apps that are foolish enough to use it will be second class citizens on the iPhone. Apple wants to lock developers into its closed system. If they choose the open path of HTML5 they can be guaranteed of poor performance.
Do you realize the irony of pointing at a slew of html5 sites that don't function properly with the iPhone?
Hear, hear. Safari crashes all on its own, on a platform where there is no flash at all. Safari is unstable (so is firefox on the Mac BTW, but not nearly as bad). So is the Finder on Mac OS X. Both Safari and the Finder have large non-objective-c portions (i.e., both contain sizable chunks written in C++ rather than objective-C). Coincidence? I think not. Cocoa apps are stable because they handle runtime errors gracefully - they don't always do what you want in an error situation, but they don't crash the app altogether. When a piece of C++ code dies, it dies catastrophically.