Now I'm an android user, and I'm registered to dev on both iOS and Android (with pet projects for each), but the set sampled in this survey is anything but statistically sound.
Apple has IP in the AVC patent pool, and they, like other AVC IP rightsholders, stand to make out from H.264 adoption.
Additionally, if you've made your bet on H.264, it makes sense to stick to it, as there are annual royalty caps per corporation ($5 Million for 2008-2010, last I looked). That makes it a zero-incremental-expense per unit for you if you've broken that barrier, but a non-zero expense for anyone else to play along.
The statement "He just chose it because it was the best" is neither confirmed nor even indicated by evidence readily available to the public.
So there are people who do. Don't fall prey to the single-minority-myth. We're all part of some minority (or minorities, more likely), and it's fair to want options.
It's as easy as can be to selectively use Flash in Android.
First it was precision pointer support vs. touch, then it was performance, then it was stability, then it was "Flash sucks," then it was "why would anyone want it?"
When the arguments keep changing, the arguments just sucked.
Considering that Flash runs passably (not great, but not horridly) on Android devices (which run on the same cores as iOS devices), I'm having a hard time buying this argument.
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.
Now there's a blind assertion. I have two iOS devices and two Android devices, and I've bitched about the closed-off nature of things in iOS, Flash included (and I think Flash sucks). Count me as one chink in your pulled-from-thin-air armor.
In case you haven't noticed, the licensing battle for video has been heating up. If Steve can get an early H.264 foothold for HTML5 video service, a select few are going to make a lot of money.
I think that the assertion is essentially that Steve is doing a bunch of posturing about having a dominant position in order to get one (or at least improve on his current one).
But we're willing to take a priori definitions of narcissists and people with low self-esteem?
We're way into the deep end of the soft-science pool here, and it's not a big pull-back reveal that narcissists and those with low self-esteem seek out essentially risk-free forms of socialization and fora for self-aggrandizement.
Worse still, the study was conducted on a set of just 100 students, which hardly seems like a statistically sound sample unless the biases are off the charts. Additionally, we couldn't say from a survey like this if the behaviors were correlative or causal. To her credit, the author doesn't appear to make such a leap.
Still, sampling bias, causation, statistical significance, and control all seem to interfere with the possible validity of any significant conclusions that we could draw, even the obvious ones. It's an undergraduate student, though. She's could be just passive-aggressive and looking to rip on her dorm-mates behind the veil of science.
Following link after link is exactly why I like Wikipedia. I can cruise by dense information if I already have the background or dig through articles to get the background I need for a particular topic.
On top of that, it really fits well with tabbed browsers, sort of an information nesting-doll model.
The absolutely ridiculous thing is that educational institutions won't take citations from wikipedia, but some will take citations from the internet at large. Understanding fail.
I only run (never walk), only eat gourmet food (never off the menu), only drive Ferraris (I'd run before driving a Toyota), and only view pages that compliantly render HTML5 (no plug-ins, ever).
Wait, you mean that HTML5 isn't finalized? Is this like when Apple dropped 1394 from the 13" Macbook Pro because USB 3.0 is better? Without putting USB 3.0 on the Macbook Pro 13"? Perfect. Apple knows that the only way to get people onto new and unfinalized technologies is to cripple the product right now so they'll have more reason to move to the next product when it is eventually released.
I, for one, welcome our new feature-snubbing overlords.
I used Linux largely for Cell development when I worked at Sony, but also for occasional browse-on-the-TV stuff.
It's a memory-constrained box, though there is a bit of hackery available (and in use, on mine) to use graphics memory for a little large-page help. The HDD is a laptop drive, and everything works fairly well with a wireless keyboard/mouse. You can rip/archive Blu-Ray (which I've never done) and do most Linuxy things. Still, Eclipse, big GIMP work, and anything else that leans hard on memory is in tight quarters. Picture the Flash working for FedEx, carrying one package at a time. The trucks would win.
I haven't started the system because I have Linux elsewhere, am not currently writing code for the Cell, and was pretty much sticking to gaming online. Since going online would mean making a cripple-the-system choice, I've just skipped it altogether, opting instead to buy some games on Steam. I'd been looking forward to several games, but the Linux removal killed my interest in the system.
We have subscription accounting (Sarbanes-Oxley) for products for which the manufacturer is obligated to support the advertised feature-set and ongoing work.
It hardly seems like a stretch to hold manufacturers to their advertised add-ins (especially "free" ones that have their cost built into the cost of the device) for the reasonable life-time of the product.
Sony totally boned the PS3 lifetime, though. The degree of cluelessness with the little things and the amount of damage that they have done to such a technically impressive platform is just mind-boggling.
That appears to be a case of stating too much. Sony simply advertised and supplied a feature, only to force users to choose between two features (linux, network gaming) later on. That should be sufficient to at least recover the cost of his PS3 and associated purchases (which are useless without a PS3). In Aussie dollars, that's like, what, $12 Million?
I skipped installing the linux-killing update and haven't switched on my PS3 since. I know it's indirect, but when Sony looks at the game sale rates not being what they'd hoped, I know that I've done my tiny, anonymous part for fairness in support of continuous features.
It's completely ridiculous, which shouldn't surprise anyone. We already know that going into court is a crapshoot, with somewhat random results, but the one thing that we can be certain of? Having money enough to have a team of attorneys permanently on staff (like Sony) is definitely going to help tug the randomness in your direction.
How could any court not view this as false advertising? My guess is that they have fresh Vaios and PS3s (i.e. hookers and blow) to spare.
Slashdot Mirror
Now I'm an android user, and I'm registered to dev on both iOS and Android (with pet projects for each), but the set sampled in this survey is anything but statistically sound.
The law in question has to do with recording, so "wiretapping" is really a misnomer. Though I'm pretty sure you were just jokin'...
God, I hope you're right. Given what Sheriff Joe has done, I'm not sure that's true.
Let's hear it for a sudden outbreak of common sense from the judiciary!
Now, of course, this judge is going to get pulled over every day, even if he walks to work.
I'm sorry...
Your message was too long for me to finish.
Can you make a video?
Apple has IP in the AVC patent pool, and they, like other AVC IP rightsholders, stand to make out from H.264 adoption.
Additionally, if you've made your bet on H.264, it makes sense to stick to it, as there are annual royalty caps per corporation ($5 Million for 2008-2010, last I looked). That makes it a zero-incremental-expense per unit for you if you've broken that barrier, but a non-zero expense for anyone else to play along.
The statement "He just chose it because it was the best" is neither confirmed nor even indicated by evidence readily available to the public.
All if those arguments were bogus against the *option* of Flash. Given the typo, is it safe to say that you typed that on iOS?
It's fine. I don't bother with it, and it doesn't bother me. On occasions when it matters, it's there. Think of it like a spare tire for your car.
So there are people who do. Don't fall prey to the single-minority-myth. We're all part of some minority (or minorities, more likely), and it's fair to want options.
It's as easy as can be to selectively use Flash in Android.
First it was precision pointer support vs. touch, then it was performance, then it was stability, then it was "Flash sucks," then it was "why would anyone want it?"
When the arguments keep changing, the arguments just sucked.
Considering that Flash runs passably (not great, but not horridly) on Android devices (which run on the same cores as iOS devices), I'm having a hard time buying this argument.
Now there's a blind assertion. I have two iOS devices and two Android devices, and I've bitched about the closed-off nature of things in iOS, Flash included (and I think Flash sucks). Count me as one chink in your pulled-from-thin-air armor.
In case you haven't noticed, the licensing battle for video has been heating up. If Steve can get an early H.264 foothold for HTML5 video service, a select few are going to make a lot of money.
I think that the assertion is essentially that Steve is doing a bunch of posturing about having a dominant position in order to get one (or at least improve on his current one).
Actually seems pretty smart to me.
Muphry.
He said "psuedo-intellectual" dude. Also, unless you're both using hipster slang, you both missed that the spelling is "pseudo."
Muphry? Perhaps I can go for the editing-fail trifecta.
We should run a study just to be sure.
But we're willing to take a priori definitions of narcissists and people with low self-esteem?
We're way into the deep end of the soft-science pool here, and it's not a big pull-back reveal that narcissists and those with low self-esteem seek out essentially risk-free forms of socialization and fora for self-aggrandizement.
Worse still, the study was conducted on a set of just 100 students, which hardly seems like a statistically sound sample unless the biases are off the charts. Additionally, we couldn't say from a survey like this if the behaviors were correlative or causal. To her credit, the author doesn't appear to make such a leap.
Still, sampling bias, causation, statistical significance, and control all seem to interfere with the possible validity of any significant conclusions that we could draw, even the obvious ones. It's an undergraduate student, though. She's could be just passive-aggressive and looking to rip on her dorm-mates behind the veil of science.
I mean, why not?
A neighbor is a bit more understandable. Are we bordered by twenty countries now?
You're right. We need to start invading other countries until we are bordered by 20. Otherwise these plans will have been a waste.
Following link after link is exactly why I like Wikipedia. I can cruise by dense information if I already have the background or dig through articles to get the background I need for a particular topic.
On top of that, it really fits well with tabbed browsers, sort of an information nesting-doll model.
The absolutely ridiculous thing is that educational institutions won't take citations from wikipedia, but some will take citations from the internet at large. Understanding fail.
I only run (never walk), only eat gourmet food (never off the menu), only drive Ferraris (I'd run before driving a Toyota), and only view pages that compliantly render HTML5 (no plug-ins, ever).
Wait, you mean that HTML5 isn't finalized? Is this like when Apple dropped 1394 from the 13" Macbook Pro because USB 3.0 is better? Without putting USB 3.0 on the Macbook Pro 13"? Perfect. Apple knows that the only way to get people onto new and unfinalized technologies is to cripple the product right now so they'll have more reason to move to the next product when it is eventually released.
I, for one, welcome our new feature-snubbing overlords.
I'm not sure what flash video you've been playing, but Hulu and others work pretty smoothly on my Macs. They hit the CPU hard, but they hold up.
Before you say that I'm just not seeing it, I've spent more than 10 years writing video editing software, and I notice stutters, drops, etc.
Performance sucks compared to what it should be, but it's still smooth (up until it goes retarded and crashes).
Maybe this guy really likes blue lego bricks.
I used Linux largely for Cell development when I worked at Sony, but also for occasional browse-on-the-TV stuff.
It's a memory-constrained box, though there is a bit of hackery available (and in use, on mine) to use graphics memory for a little large-page help. The HDD is a laptop drive, and everything works fairly well with a wireless keyboard/mouse. You can rip/archive Blu-Ray (which I've never done) and do most Linuxy things. Still, Eclipse, big GIMP work, and anything else that leans hard on memory is in tight quarters. Picture the Flash working for FedEx, carrying one package at a time. The trucks would win.
I haven't started the system because I have Linux elsewhere, am not currently writing code for the Cell, and was pretty much sticking to gaming online. Since going online would mean making a cripple-the-system choice, I've just skipped it altogether, opting instead to buy some games on Steam. I'd been looking forward to several games, but the Linux removal killed my interest in the system.
We now have a component Blu-Ray player.
It's a Samsung.
We have subscription accounting (Sarbanes-Oxley) for products for which the manufacturer is obligated to support the advertised feature-set and ongoing work.
It hardly seems like a stretch to hold manufacturers to their advertised add-ins (especially "free" ones that have their cost built into the cost of the device) for the reasonable life-time of the product.
Sony totally boned the PS3 lifetime, though. The degree of cluelessness with the little things and the amount of damage that they have done to such a technically impressive platform is just mind-boggling.
That appears to be a case of stating too much. Sony simply advertised and supplied a feature, only to force users to choose between two features (linux, network gaming) later on. That should be sufficient to at least recover the cost of his PS3 and associated purchases (which are useless without a PS3). In Aussie dollars, that's like, what, $12 Million?
I skipped installing the linux-killing update and haven't switched on my PS3 since. I know it's indirect, but when Sony looks at the game sale rates not being what they'd hoped, I know that I've done my tiny, anonymous part for fairness in support of continuous features.
It's completely ridiculous, which shouldn't surprise anyone. We already know that going into court is a crapshoot, with somewhat random results, but the one thing that we can be certain of? Having money enough to have a team of attorneys permanently on staff (like Sony) is definitely going to help tug the randomness in your direction.
How could any court not view this as false advertising? My guess is that they have fresh Vaios and PS3s (i.e. hookers and blow) to spare.