To be clearer, I meant they install updates provided by 3rd party app developers, which they don't do in MacOS (Software Update in MacOS only updates Apple software). Tthey don't change other's apps or install their own things in them. So, actually I guess they don't, in the sense you are meaning.
Actually, on the iOS, unlike in MacOS, they do, but that's part of why they have a testing process for app submissions. Of course the anti-Apple folks like to look at it... no actually they just prefer to turn away and imagine what it might be like.
Google's web search platform dominates the search market in a big way. Google does not let its direct competitors, such as Bing, insert search results and ads in Google's search platform. Google is a monopoly! Google is illegally taking advantage of their monopoly status! Down with those miserable-monopoly-advantage-taking-Google-bastards!
Seriously, though, even setting aside the fact that Apple does not even remotely have a monopoly in this market, Google started all this and what Apple's doing is an obvious, and completely understandable move - they aren't going to let their direct competitor profit from their platform. Why should they? Especially when Apple knows that Google's input into the iPhone platform is largely over - Google Maps navigation on the iPhone? Yeah right. That is never going to happen, and why would it? Google gains nothing by giving their direct competitor that feature.
I wonder how long it will be before Apple changes the default search engine to Bing and the Maps app to a Bing Maps & Navigation app, no doubt making a deal with Microsoft that will benefit both, at Google's expense.
So you think Google should let Microsoft insert Bing search results and ads into Google search results pages? Google search is Google's platform, and they should be open to 3rd parties, even direct competitors, profiting from it. Right? If they don't, they are a monopoly seeing how they dominate the search business, and by a wide margin. The bastards!
Besides that, with these new rules, independent 3rd parties *can* collect metrics and advertise in iOS apps, though they need to request permission from the user in a standard fashion before collecting such information. That's *great* for the user. Google isn't so kind.
Google chose to compete with Apple in this market. Apple is not obligated to give their direct mobile platform competitor the opportunity to profit from Apple's mobile platform. The analogy that comes to mind is that it would be like if Bing (Microsoft) inserted search results into Google's search results pages. Google search is Google's platform, and they aren't obligated to give their direct competitors the opportunity to profit from it. If Microsoft tried to pull that off anyway, Google would cut them off right quick... and no one would say Google was a monopoly for doing it, nor in the wrong.
Besides that, Google and AdMob still have plenty of opportunity to profit from the iPhone via their ads in web pages viewed with the browser.
I am glad that Google is profiting from the gulf oil spill and providing us top and center links to valuable, BP provided web sites that keep me informed on the gulf oil spill goings on. If it weren't for that I'd think this thing was a disaster. Thanks, Google, for putting my mind at ease!
No, it's gone now even inside the US. When I wrote the above it was still in the store. So I was wrong - they simply hadn't pulled it yet. The question now is can the developer make changes that would make it pass the review process? Will they try?
... that makes those fancy little arrow keys on my Mac mini's keyboard work with Flash applications on the web (regardless of Browser). That one seems to be stumping Adobe, and has been for quite some time, so maybe other developers can step in and figure it out for them. Oh, wait, only Adobe makes the Flash 10.1 plugin. Damn.
Actually the overage charges are pretty reasonable. With the 2 GB plan each extra 1 GB is $10. For the 200 MB plan each extra 200 MB is $15, however you can change plans at any time and even apply the change retroactively for the month, meaning if you usually are 200 MB or below, you could go with the cheaper plan and if you ever go more then 200 MB over that you can switch to the 2 GB plan temporarily and apply the change retroactively for the month. That's pretty reasonable. Even nice. Since I'm mostly well under 2 GB per month (over past 6 months, highest I've gone was 480 MB), the new plans will save me money.
Actually the overage charges are pretty reasonable. For the 2 GB plan, each extra 1 GB is $15. Also you can switch between the plans at any time and even apply the change retroactively for the month. So if usually you are using only 200 MB or less, but then you go way over that in a month, you can switch to the 2 GB plan for that month and apply the change retroactively to it, then switch back in the next month. That's not bad.
Of course it's for all their phones and of course Apple gets blamed for it. Unjustified bad press is par for the course for Apple recently.
Having said that, I looked at my monthly data usage for the past 6 months, and the most I used was something like 480 MB, usually hovering around 200 MB. So, for me, the 2 GB plan for $5 less per month makes a lot of sense. It may even be the case that the lower plan would work. I need to do the math. I have a feeling that for a lot of people the 2 GB plan would work well for them. For some the lower plan would be more then adequate. Also it's also worth noting that you can switch between them at any time, and even apply the change retroactively. That's decent. Also if you go over you aren't hung out to dry as the overage rates aren't too bad.
For the Android version, replace frying pan with Android 2.2 phone playing a Flash Video. But it doesn't work because the egg ends up too runny after the battery dies.
Slashdot, in an effort to be "Wild West-ish", seems to just accept every article submitted to them. Their motto may be, in these patriotic, freedom loving, phone times, "Let us not forget the soldiers who fought and died for our right to post articles without first verifying that they are true."
Yep, it's there. More mindless ranting against Apple? Maybe. I don't know why the developer would make this up. Maybe it was a mistake and Apple has corrected it?
I'm not sure I understand what else it's about if it's not about Flash itself. Flash does suck. I don't like it on our Macs. Either it performs poorly, it crashes or the arrow keys don't work, or all the above (we experience all of these on our Macs at home, the latter being just as irritatingly vexing as the other two issues). But what is the reason for not wanting Flash apps to be convertible to iPhone apps? iPhone apps, if sold, make Apple money. if they aren't sold, they don't, but there's lots of free apps available so Apple doesn't have a problem with free games and other apps. The claims that access to free Flash games and such on the web are what Apple doesn't want are ridiculous. Just look at the app store. There are not only a ton of free games and apps, but Apple is *paying* to distribute them. Clearly Apple believes that access to free apps adds value to the iPhone. Flash apps on the web would cost Apple nothing at all to provide access too... except that Adobe has never produced a reliable flash plugin for any Apple product, and in fact has shown no interest or motivation ever in providing such, and that would lead to higher support costs and also a reduction in customer satisfaction with the iPhone. Apple's concerns about a Flash plugin are justified.
So why are they blocking non-natively built apps? One guess I have is that Jobs does not want apps, or what appear to be native apps, that don't conform to the interface of the iPhone, which I presume is what we end up with via Flash conversions. He doesn't want native apps that don't work like native apps.
Pretty nifty anyway, and if the browser has (much) faster Javascript, maybe it will run well? Did anyone try this on an Android 2.2 phone which is suppose to have such?
Right, but Wii Fit and MotionPlus were made for the #1 game system, only after it was far in the lead. You could have a percentage of Wii owners and still be a substantial market. Also, Nintendo is now shipping all systems with MotionPlus in the box. You can't buy a Wii without getting MotionPlus. That's not going to be the case for Move nor Natal. When you buy a new Xbox, most will not include Natal. In fact the "Premium" systems won't include it, which right there seems to be saying that Natal is not a central focus for Microsoft, that it's likely to languish and end up abandoned. Ditto for Move on the PS3, where no PS3 systems at all will include it.
Of course they could change that, but they also have to deal with being a smaller market then the Wii, thus making their motion peripheral market even smaller, and they are starting off on the wrong foot.
The problem Natal has (and Sony's Move) is that the vast majority of 360 and PS3 owners will not have it. It didn't come with the system originally and many aren't going to be willing to pay $100 or $150 to add it. As a result the market, already smaller then the Wii, is going to be infinitesimal. Sure, 3rd parties often produce crap for the Wii, but if you think it's bad there, just wait for the 3rd party games for Natal and Move. Only the most foolhardy of game developers will put any substantial amount of money toward Natal or Move games. These add-ons shouldn't have been add-ons, rather they should start shipping all 360's and PS3s with the respective technology. You shouldn't be able to buy one without Natal/Move. Then at least all new buyers would have it. As it is, they might as well give up now.
Slashdot Mirror
To be clearer, I meant they install updates provided by 3rd party app developers, which they don't do in MacOS (Software Update in MacOS only updates Apple software). Tthey don't change other's apps or install their own things in them. So, actually I guess they don't, in the sense you are meaning.
Actually, on the iOS, unlike in MacOS, they do, but that's part of why they have a testing process for app submissions. Of course the anti-Apple folks like to look at it... no actually they just prefer to turn away and imagine what it might be like.
Google's web search platform dominates the search market in a big way. Google does not let its direct competitors, such as Bing, insert search results and ads in Google's search platform. Google is a monopoly! Google is illegally taking advantage of their monopoly status! Down with those miserable-monopoly-advantage-taking-Google-bastards!
Seriously, though, even setting aside the fact that Apple does not even remotely have a monopoly in this market, Google started all this and what Apple's doing is an obvious, and completely understandable move - they aren't going to let their direct competitor profit from their platform. Why should they? Especially when Apple knows that Google's input into the iPhone platform is largely over - Google Maps navigation on the iPhone? Yeah right. That is never going to happen, and why would it? Google gains nothing by giving their direct competitor that feature.
I wonder how long it will be before Apple changes the default search engine to Bing and the Maps app to a Bing Maps & Navigation app, no doubt making a deal with Microsoft that will benefit both, at Google's expense.
So you think Google should let Microsoft insert Bing search results and ads into Google search results pages? Google search is Google's platform, and they should be open to 3rd parties, even direct competitors, profiting from it. Right? If they don't, they are a monopoly seeing how they dominate the search business, and by a wide margin. The bastards!
Besides that, with these new rules, independent 3rd parties *can* collect metrics and advertise in iOS apps, though they need to request permission from the user in a standard fashion before collecting such information. That's *great* for the user. Google isn't so kind.
Google chose to compete with Apple in this market. Apple is not obligated to give their direct mobile platform competitor the opportunity to profit from Apple's mobile platform. The analogy that comes to mind is that it would be like if Bing (Microsoft) inserted search results into Google's search results pages. Google search is Google's platform, and they aren't obligated to give their direct competitors the opportunity to profit from it. If Microsoft tried to pull that off anyway, Google would cut them off right quick... and no one would say Google was a monopoly for doing it, nor in the wrong.
Besides that, Google and AdMob still have plenty of opportunity to profit from the iPhone via their ads in web pages viewed with the browser.
I am glad that Google is profiting from the gulf oil spill and providing us top and center links to valuable, BP provided web sites that keep me informed on the gulf oil spill goings on. If it weren't for that I'd think this thing was a disaster. Thanks, Google, for putting my mind at ease!
No, it's gone now even inside the US. When I wrote the above it was still in the store. So I was wrong - they simply hadn't pulled it yet. The question now is can the developer make changes that would make it pass the review process? Will they try?
... that makes those fancy little arrow keys on my Mac mini's keyboard work with Flash applications on the web (regardless of Browser). That one seems to be stumping Adobe, and has been for quite some time, so maybe other developers can step in and figure it out for them. Oh, wait, only Adobe makes the Flash 10.1 plugin. Damn.
Actually the overage charges are pretty reasonable. With the 2 GB plan each extra 1 GB is $10. For the 200 MB plan each extra 200 MB is $15, however you can change plans at any time and even apply the change retroactively for the month, meaning if you usually are 200 MB or below, you could go with the cheaper plan and if you ever go more then 200 MB over that you can switch to the 2 GB plan temporarily and apply the change retroactively for the month. That's pretty reasonable. Even nice. Since I'm mostly well under 2 GB per month (over past 6 months, highest I've gone was 480 MB), the new plans will save me money.
Actually the overage charges are pretty reasonable. For the 2 GB plan, each extra 1 GB is $15. Also you can switch between the plans at any time and even apply the change retroactively for the month. So if usually you are using only 200 MB or less, but then you go way over that in a month, you can switch to the 2 GB plan for that month and apply the change retroactively to it, then switch back in the next month. That's not bad.
Of course it's for all their phones and of course Apple gets blamed for it. Unjustified bad press is par for the course for Apple recently.
Having said that, I looked at my monthly data usage for the past 6 months, and the most I used was something like 480 MB, usually hovering around 200 MB. So, for me, the 2 GB plan for $5 less per month makes a lot of sense. It may even be the case that the lower plan would work. I need to do the math. I have a feeling that for a lot of people the 2 GB plan would work well for them. For some the lower plan would be more then adequate. Also it's also worth noting that you can switch between them at any time, and even apply the change retroactively. That's decent. Also if you go over you aren't hung out to dry as the overage rates aren't too bad.
For the Android version, replace frying pan with Android 2.2 phone playing a Flash Video. But it doesn't work because the egg ends up too runny after the battery dies.
1. Release version 1.2
2. Let everyone know that Apple is going to pull it
3. ????
4. Profit!
5. Release version 1.3.
Slashdot, in an effort to be "Wild West-ish", seems to just accept every article submitted to them. Their motto may be, in these patriotic, freedom loving, phone times, "Let us not forget the soldiers who fought and died for our right to post articles without first verifying that they are true."
Apparently you don't draw it at My Frame 1.2 seeing how it's in the App store. Who is writing these articles? Google?
The fact that My Frame 1.2 is in the app store... that doesn't change anything does it?
My Frame 1.2 is in the app store: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/my-frame-alarm-clock-displays/id364532249?mt=8
As pointed out by Anonymous Coward, My Frame 1.2 is in the app store right this second:
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/my-frame-alarm-clock-displays/id364532249?mt=8
Yep, it's there. More mindless ranting against Apple? Maybe. I don't know why the developer would make this up. Maybe it was a mistake and Apple has corrected it?
I'm not sure I understand what else it's about if it's not about Flash itself. Flash does suck. I don't like it on our Macs. Either it performs poorly, it crashes or the arrow keys don't work, or all the above (we experience all of these on our Macs at home, the latter being just as irritatingly vexing as the other two issues). But what is the reason for not wanting Flash apps to be convertible to iPhone apps? iPhone apps, if sold, make Apple money. if they aren't sold, they don't, but there's lots of free apps available so Apple doesn't have a problem with free games and other apps. The claims that access to free Flash games and such on the web are what Apple doesn't want are ridiculous. Just look at the app store. There are not only a ton of free games and apps, but Apple is *paying* to distribute them. Clearly Apple believes that access to free apps adds value to the iPhone. Flash apps on the web would cost Apple nothing at all to provide access too... except that Adobe has never produced a reliable flash plugin for any Apple product, and in fact has shown no interest or motivation ever in providing such, and that would lead to higher support costs and also a reduction in customer satisfaction with the iPhone. Apple's concerns about a Flash plugin are justified.
So why are they blocking non-natively built apps? One guess I have is that Jobs does not want apps, or what appear to be native apps, that don't conform to the interface of the iPhone, which I presume is what we end up with via Flash conversions. He doesn't want native apps that don't work like native apps.
Pretty nifty anyway, and if the browser has (much) faster Javascript, maybe it will run well? Did anyone try this on an Android 2.2 phone which is suppose to have such?
Right, but Wii Fit and MotionPlus were made for the #1 game system, only after it was far in the lead. You could have a percentage of Wii owners and still be a substantial market. Also, Nintendo is now shipping all systems with MotionPlus in the box. You can't buy a Wii without getting MotionPlus. That's not going to be the case for Move nor Natal. When you buy a new Xbox, most will not include Natal. In fact the "Premium" systems won't include it, which right there seems to be saying that Natal is not a central focus for Microsoft, that it's likely to languish and end up abandoned. Ditto for Move on the PS3, where no PS3 systems at all will include it.
Of course they could change that, but they also have to deal with being a smaller market then the Wii, thus making their motion peripheral market even smaller, and they are starting off on the wrong foot.
It worked wonders for the Xbox 360, so why not? Especially the not fixing it part.
The problem Natal has (and Sony's Move) is that the vast majority of 360 and PS3 owners will not have it. It didn't come with the system originally and many aren't going to be willing to pay $100 or $150 to add it. As a result the market, already smaller then the Wii, is going to be infinitesimal. Sure, 3rd parties often produce crap for the Wii, but if you think it's bad there, just wait for the 3rd party games for Natal and Move. Only the most foolhardy of game developers will put any substantial amount of money toward Natal or Move games. These add-ons shouldn't have been add-ons, rather they should start shipping all 360's and PS3s with the respective technology. You shouldn't be able to buy one without Natal/Move. Then at least all new buyers would have it. As it is, they might as well give up now.
The game is not filthy. However, what I tended to say while playing it was.