As for not suitable for use on the web, I suspect that's SJ's polite version of "it's shite".
Actually, he means its not suitable for the web. Flash Lite will not interpret or "play" any old SWF file or even work as a browser plugin - so it's basically useless to iPhone owners, because it won't display flash embedded in a browser anyway.
[blockquote] Guess what, everyone can see you there anyway[/blockquote]
Except under normal circumstances, everyone can't see you. When you are "public view", only the people in the near vicinity can see you, and that's the expectation that you have. In a lot of situations you would certainly behave differently if you had the expectation that EVERYONE, from your mother to the police could see you.
So you're insinuating that Apple withheld releasing a proper SDK when the iPhone launched because they purposefully wanted to stunt the platform?
Did it ever cross your mind that maybe the API for mobile OSX 1.0 might have been last priority behind everything else that had to be done to get a 1.0 product out the door? Talk to any iPhone app developer and they will tell you the same thing - iPhone 1.0 looks pretty darn good on the surface, but under the hood its quite ragged as the developers were obviously under pressure to meet a deadline.
During his keynote, Jobs mentioned that the iPhone is protected by over 200 patents (surely some of those cover the interface) - and that they intend to protect them.
The fickle commentaries crack me up. First it was WTF was Apple thinking? Then it was Cisco is in the right, Apple is wrong / evil / brazen. How stupid could they be. They're gonna have to rename it to @Phone. Blah blah blah.
Did anyone honestly think Apple would name their product the iPhone, full well knowing that Cisco had the trademark unless they were completely confident that it was both A) worth the legal headache and B) that they have a very good case and therefor chance of triumphing in this dispute?
Pixar did well with Steve Jobs at the helm because Steve gave them tons of money and didn't ask or try to control what they were doing. Pixar is a success because of John Lasseter, not Steve Jobs.
DRM only hurts Apple, as illustrated by parent. It's always been obvious to me that Apple only implemented DRM into the iTMS because there wouldn't be an iTMS without it. It was a necessary evil. No DRM, no support from the record labels.
Apple has always had a good attitude about Music and fair use. Remember the Rip. Mix. Burn. campaign? It's your music. Burn it on a Mac.
As soon as they filed for FCC approval for the iPhone, the cat would have been out of the bag, spoiling the surprise. I think that's why there is such a big lag time between the unveiling and the ship date.
Lets not forget that the original iPod made its debut at $499 as well. This thing does A HELL of a lot more than the original iPod did - and the perceived value of the iPhone is arguably much higher than the first iPod was.
If you're wondering if option will effect a menu item:
Click the menu so it expands
Tap the option key
Any items that have an "optional" behavior will dynamically change in the menu.
For example in Safari if I click the "Window" menu and hit option, "Minimize" becomes "Minimize All" and "Bring All to Front" becomes "Arrange All in Front"
Doesn't it seem reasonable that a downloaded copy should be a little bit cheaper than a physical copy? I mean after all, when purchasing a downloadable copy of a movie you save the cost of:
Stamping the disc
Printing the cover & case insert
Shipping the DVD through the distribution network
Stocking the item
Paying a clerk to check the item out
I'm sure there are more savings, those are just the few real obvious ones.
It sounds to me like the Tar*Mart's of the world are just being greedy.
Slashdot Mirror
Except under normal circumstances, everyone can't see you. When you are "public view", only the people in the near vicinity can see you, and that's the expectation that you have. In a lot of situations you would certainly behave differently if you had the expectation that EVERYONE, from your mother to the police could see you.
closed source = security through obscurity.
Let's not start this flameware / debate again.
How about the fact that everything (on 1.0) runs as root?
So you're insinuating that Apple withheld releasing a proper SDK when the iPhone launched because they purposefully wanted to stunt the platform?
Did it ever cross your mind that maybe the API for mobile OSX 1.0 might have been last priority behind everything else that had to be done to get a 1.0 product out the door? Talk to any iPhone app developer and they will tell you the same thing - iPhone 1.0 looks pretty darn good on the surface, but under the hood its quite ragged as the developers were obviously under pressure to meet a deadline.
Looks like It's been corrected
If my math is right, the new nano is just 2% bigger than the previous nano, yet has a 25% bigger screen.
I believe this is the list you were looking for.
During his keynote, Jobs mentioned that the iPhone is protected by over 200 patents (surely some of those cover the interface) - and that they intend to protect them.
In the words of bugs bunny: How now brown cow?
The fickle commentaries crack me up. First it was WTF was Apple thinking? Then it was Cisco is in the right, Apple is wrong / evil / brazen. How stupid could they be. They're gonna have to rename it to @Phone. Blah blah blah.
Did anyone honestly think Apple would name their product the iPhone, full well knowing that Cisco had the trademark unless they were completely confident that it was both A) worth the legal headache and B) that they have a very good case and therefor chance of triumphing in this dispute?
Pixar did well with Steve Jobs at the helm because Steve gave them tons of money and didn't ask or try to control what they were doing. Pixar is a success because of John Lasseter, not Steve Jobs.
DRM only hurts Apple, as illustrated by parent. It's always been obvious to me that Apple only implemented DRM into the iTMS because there wouldn't be an iTMS without it. It was a necessary evil. No DRM, no support from the record labels.
Apple has always had a good attitude about Music and fair use. Remember the Rip. Mix. Burn. campaign? It's your music. Burn it on a Mac.
As soon as they filed for FCC approval for the iPhone, the cat would have been out of the bag, spoiling the surprise. I think that's why there is such a big lag time between the unveiling and the ship date.
Lets not forget that the original iPod made its debut at $499 as well. This thing does A HELL of a lot more than the original iPod did - and the perceived value of the iPhone is arguably much higher than the first iPod was.
If you're wondering if option will effect a menu item:
Any items that have an "optional" behavior will dynamically change in the menu.
For example in Safari if I click the "Window" menu and hit option, "Minimize" becomes "Minimize All" and "Bring All to Front" becomes "Arrange All in Front"
In memoriam: James Kim, CNET senior editor, 1971 - 2006 (Flash Video)
Wikipedia Entry
That a RECORD PLAYER is over a dozen places higher in the list than the top selling Zune.
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/09/ 1444238
Dvorak? is that you?
http://daringfireball.net/2006/10/gartner_jackasse s
Maybe the planet just wants plastic all to itself?
Doesn't it seem reasonable that a downloaded copy should be a little bit cheaper than a physical copy? I mean after all, when purchasing a downloadable copy of a movie you save the cost of:
I'm sure there are more savings, those are just the few real obvious ones.
It sounds to me like the Tar*Mart's of the world are just being greedy.
of "PC" from the mac commercials trying to pick up chicks on myspace.
*shudders*