Adding a mouse mode improves ability to use non-flash sites like Google Maps, etc. as well, so don't think it's an ugly crutch to make Flash work.
Yeah, you are right, it's obviously better to add a "mouse mode" to support things like Google Maps instead of shipping a native app with things like pinch-to-zoom.
Why is it a game a brinkmanship to create a tool to aid in creating native apps? You're logic makes sense up until you apply it to cross compiling native code. Why should I, as a developer, not get a tool to help me render animations?
You are absolutely right - maybe Adobe should create a tool that translates Flash into C code. Yeah right.
I'm not sure if it's escaped your intention, but something called the App Store came along which might just have skewed their business plan from its original course...
This prohibition does not condemn monopoly per se but only monopoly that has been acquired or maintained through prohibited conduct: Most businessmen don't like their competitors, or for that matter competition. They want to make as much money as possible and getting a monopoly is one way of making a lot of money. That is fine, however, so long as they do not use methods calculated to make consumers worse off in the long run.
Monopoly power alone, without some act of wrongful exclusion or other legally cognizable anticompetitive conduct, is not prohibited. To the contrary, as the respected jurist Learned Hand noted, "[t]he successful competitor, having been urged to compete, must not be turned on when he wins."[7] U.S. antitrust law thus does not attack monopoly power obtained through "superior skill, foresight and industry."[8]
>There is no anti-trust problems here. Apple has full rights to a monopoly on Apple branded hardware.
No, they don't. Vertical monopolies are just as illegal as horizontal ones.
You are absolutely right - in that they are not illegal.
A paragraph of my post last week about Opera Software, which makes browsers for cellphones and PCs, got a lot of notice on tech blogs. But, as often happens, the retelling of the story has created an odd snowball of misunderstanding.
...
The discussion has been raging about how Opera came to know that its software wasn’t going to be welcomed by Apple. In particular, iPhone fans wanted to know if the company submitted a fully working version of Opera to the iPhone App Store.
So I went back to Mr. von Tetzchner for more details. He said that the development of the iPhone browser was more an “internal project” of some engineers than a product that management was committed to introducing. Indeed, development was halted after the company looked at the details of the license agreement in Apple’s software development kit and realized that it would not be permitted.
A paragraph of my post last week about Opera Software, which makes browsers for cellphones and PCs, got a lot of notice on tech blogs. But, as often happens, the retelling of the story has created an odd snowball of misunderstanding.
...
The discussion has been raging about how Opera came to know that its software wasn’t going to be welcomed by Apple. In particular, iPhone fans wanted to know if the company submitted a fully working version of Opera to the iPhone App Store.
So I went back to Mr. von Tetzchner for more details. He said that the development of the iPhone browser was more an “internal project” of some engineers than a product that management was committed to introducing. Indeed, development was halted after the company looked at the details of the license agreement in Apple’s software development kit and realized that it would not be permitted.
Except of course it's been running on low-power, low-spec'd mobile devices in Japan since like 2003.
I guess you disagree with all the posters to this claiming Flash-less web-pages certainly do not exist because of the iPhone/iPad, but because there are so many low-power, low-spec'd mobile devices without Flash, then.
I really wasn't trolling, some people have just been arguing that Apple really doesn't want other ways to access applications than through the app store.
I guess those were the same people who blasted Apple for not having a way to bring any apps onto the iPhone when it came out, and instead asked people to provide web-apps instead. Which makes one question the motives of these people - no, really.
"AppleInsider is running an article about Apple's new SproutCore Web application development framework, utilizing Javascript and some nifty HTML 5 to offer a 'Cocoa-inspired' way to create powerful Web applications.
If you don't want apps with ads, don't download them. As with computer software, it is likely that many apps will be available in free versions without ads and also in paid, add-free versions.
But as an iPhone user you don't have a choice, you have to buy each and every one of the 20 odd apps available on the iStore (as well as every product advertised, of course), less the Apple black-ops commandos come to your home in their choppers and force you at gunpoint. Didn't you get the memo?
Slashdot Mirror
PS: if you're want to nitpick about the format of the name - screw you.
I can buy them in the United States, so they must be licensed to use FAT.
Sure, so they pay a fee in the US, but not where the patent isn't valid. Shouldn't make a difference to MS - apart from the fee.
Adding a mouse mode improves ability to use non-flash sites like Google Maps, etc. as well, so don't think it's an ugly crutch to make Flash work.
Yeah, you are right, it's obviously better to add a "mouse mode" to support things like Google Maps instead of shipping a native app with things like pinch-to-zoom.
Why is it a game a brinkmanship to create a tool to aid in creating native apps? You're logic makes sense up until you apply it to cross compiling native code. Why should I, as a developer, not get a tool to help me render animations?
You are absolutely right - maybe Adobe should create a tool that translates Flash into C code. Yeah right.
Oh, sure, all others also sold more than twice the units. And I'm the idiot.
Yeah, yeah I forgot that Apple didn't put a browser on the iPhone, and that they will send their black helicopters if you jailbreak it.
Nope. Google's Market does not allow porn. Steve is just being an asshole because
... because Google has the same policy. No, wait.
I prefer deep dicking some tight wet pussy over but I guess porn phone is ok for losers like you that sit home and jack off.
That is the point! If it is on your phone, you don't have to sit at home and jack off. You can jack off on the go!
And I thought the kids trying out all their new ringtones on the subway was bad enough...
Every quarter for the past year Android has been doubling its marketshare.
So they should have over 100% share in a few years.
With Apple's cellphone marketshare flat lining and starting to decline
Didn't read the news, ehh? http://www.gamezebo.com/news/2010/04/21/apple-has-%E2%80%9Cbest-non-holiday-quarter-ever%E2%80%9D-thanks-iphone-sales
Hardly sounds "flat", no, it actually sounds like more than double.
Answering a private email now counts as marketing?
to beat a dead horse to a bloody pulp.
You are assuming that app profit was suggested as the ONLY motivation for Apple.
Ohh, absolutely not - I hear something vague about world domination far ore often.
I'm not sure if it's escaped your intention, but something called the App Store came along which might just have skewed their business plan from its original course...
And then they go and sabotage their clever business plan: http://www.apple.com/webapps/
Just because we haven't really enforced them since Ma Bell was busted up doesn't mean they don't exist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law
Gee, mind reading them? How about:
>There is no anti-trust problems here. Apple has full rights to a monopoly on Apple branded hardware. No, they don't. Vertical monopolies are just as illegal as horizontal ones.
You are absolutely right - in that they are not illegal.
A paragraph of my post last week about Opera Software, which makes browsers for cellphones and PCs, got a lot of notice on tech blogs. But, as often happens, the retelling of the story has created an odd snowball of misunderstanding.
...
The discussion has been raging about how Opera came to know that its software wasn’t going to be welcomed by Apple. In particular, iPhone fans wanted to know if the company submitted a fully working version of Opera to the iPhone App Store.
So I went back to Mr. von Tetzchner for more details. He said that the development of the iPhone browser was more an “internal project” of some engineers than a product that management was committed to introducing. Indeed, development was halted after the company looked at the details of the license agreement in Apple’s software development kit and realized that it would not be permitted.
IOW you are wrong
A paragraph of my post last week about Opera Software, which makes browsers for cellphones and PCs, got a lot of notice on tech blogs. But, as often happens, the retelling of the story has created an odd snowball of misunderstanding.
...
The discussion has been raging about how Opera came to know that its software wasn’t going to be welcomed by Apple. In particular, iPhone fans wanted to know if the company submitted a fully working version of Opera to the iPhone App Store.
So I went back to Mr. von Tetzchner for more details. He said that the development of the iPhone browser was more an “internal project” of some engineers than a product that management was committed to introducing. Indeed, development was halted after the company looked at the details of the license agreement in Apple’s software development kit and realized that it would not be permitted.
IOW you are wrong
though it does give iPhone a tabbed browser now
Wait - surely the Iphone has a tabbed browser, right?
http://www.icab.de/mobile.html
Except of course it's been running on low-power, low-spec'd mobile devices in Japan since like 2003.
I guess you disagree with all the posters to this claiming Flash-less web-pages certainly do not exist because of the iPhone/iPad, but because there are so many low-power, low-spec'd mobile devices without Flash, then.
I really wasn't trolling, some people have just been arguing that Apple really doesn't want other ways to access applications than through the app store.
I guess those were the same people who blasted Apple for not having a way to bring any apps onto the iPhone when it came out, and instead asked people to provide web-apps instead. Which makes one question the motives of these people - no, really.
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/16/2340207:
What could possibly be gained by locking down the latter like is done on the former?
A cut of the price of the software for Apple.
... Of Final Cut. Do you have any idea who makes Final Cut?
While this is clearly aimed squarely at Adobe and their Flash compiler
So all they have to do is output C code instead of finished apps - ohh, wait, Apple is forcing Adobe to be more open.
I certainly never heard anything like "who needs touch based interfaces" - "yeah, Android" or "GUIs suck" - "yeah, Kubuntu"
Remember kids: the full quote is "The lack of runaway background processes is what made Apple products less useful." - timmarhy (659436)
If you don't want apps with ads, don't download them. As with computer software, it is likely that many apps will be available in free versions without ads and also in paid, add-free versions.
But as an iPhone user you don't have a choice, you have to buy each and every one of the 20 odd apps available on the iStore (as well as every product advertised, of course), less the Apple black-ops commandos come to your home in their choppers and force you at gunpoint. Didn't you get the memo?