But I know Macs are not too complex to use and maintain because Steve says they are intuitive. Have Macs suddenly become too complex for Apple customers?
"But when their current product is the single largest source of instability, why on earth would Jobs let a mobile version anywhere near his pet project?"
We only have Apple's word that that's the case, and it is a convenient argument to divert attention from Apple's clear goals. I personally don't believe that Flash is "the single largest source of instability" in OS X and I'm sure not going to take the word of professional liars that say it is so. Flash sucks and the world would be better off with alternatives, but omitting it causes Apple's customers to suffer and it's being done to benefit the company, not to provide the "best internet experience".
"That's why I knew with 99% certainty before the iPad was announced that there would be no Flash for it. To be blunt, it would have been irresponsible to let Flash near the iPad or iPhone until Adobe proves enough commitment and competence to get it working well on OS X, where it has access to vastly more resources in a far more forgiving environment."
You are demonstrating a clear lack of understanding of the issues, and since you seem to think that Apple's product is Safari I'd say your opinion doesn't count for much.
I largely agree with this. Apple is pursuing the same control over the iPad that they did over the Mac and they will lose out to Android for the same reasons. Android, like the PC, will win because it will become a vastly larger and more diverse platform. That is assuming, of course, that iPad-like devices won't fail entirely. Smartphones will succeed in any case, but a closed app environment is less a problem for phones.
It's amusing that you think that's the security model. Why would such malware exist when Apple approves the apps and distributes them?
No, the reason for the model is so that Apple can tightly control the competition. Alternative runtimes prevent that so they are not allowed. All the other reasons for denying Flash are a smokescreen.
No but bitching about a closed standard, which isn't really closed, while pursuing the most closed platform ever and advocating an open standard, HTML5, as an alternative that makes use of a closed standard, H.264, is being a hypocrite.
"...and I'll take that as tacitly agreeing that Steve is right on those issues."
Of course you would.
"Maybe you could just post an open thread each day in which people could gripe about the App store and its closed system, instead of allowing every thread about Apple to devolve into that."
Since for Apple it's all about control and ownership of a closed system, and since Apple would like to divert the argument in just the manner you are attempting to do, I'd say "allowing every thread about Apple to devolve" is appropriate. No reason to call it anything other than what it is.
"Most people are served by simpler interfaces, not more complex ones."
Or so says Apple now that they have one to sell.
"But above all you are in the minority."
This has not been shown to be true, but it plays nicely into Apple's narrative.
"It is repeatedly brought to light, but no one cares."
Again, not shown to be true. Certainly some people care, and it's too early to tell just how many care with regards to the iPad. I am annoyed at the approach with the iPhone, but I more strongly object with the iPad.
"For those for whom this is important, they already know this."
I thought you said no one cares because no one cares. You are a douche.
"In other words, when everyone else seems to like something that you don't, it's time to consider that you're the odd one out."
It's clear that not everyone likes these particular products.
"Burden to a few, benefit to most."
Frankly, I fail to see how tight integration and exclusion of Flash are at all related, nor do I see how the exclusion of Flash is a benefit to most.
"Not quite. Apple forces technology to conform itself to humans, which benefits most people."
Utter nonsense. The omission of Flash is entirely to benefit Apple and in no way enable the device to conform itself to humans. You are full of shit.
Apple or no Apple, we would not still be using floppies or parallel ports. The PC industry, mainly Intel, engineered the replacement for parallel ports entirely without Apple's help yet Apple piggybacked on and took credit. Apple was also not first to remove floppies from their machines nor did they contribute any engineering to either the MO, CD-R or rewritable CD technology used to replace them. Apple may be the face of such progress to the uninformed, but they are not deserving of credit.
It's important to understand that the PC industry is driven very much by large business accounts. Those customers require stability, compatibility, and long product lifecycles. Since Apple doesn't play in those markets, it can get away with being more of a progressive, boutique provider. Apple was seen as a leader in "legacy free" because there was so little downside for them to do so and because they needed an angle to avoid bankruptcy. Meanwhile, all the legwork was done by the boring companies behind the scenes. That Apple takes credit for USB is one of the great myths and offenses in the PC market.
"...and knowingly having purchased stolen property."
I'm not getting how you concluded this part. Up until the time Gizmodo examined and concluded the device was actually Apple's property, they could not have known it was a lost prototype and who knows whether they had verified that a credible effort had not been made to return it.
Police have almost no care, either, and it's unlikely they would bother to follow up regardless of how easy it might be. Who the victim is counts for a lot.
Re:There is competition in embedded processors
on
Apple To Buy ARM?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Apple is only happy when they are using old, obsolete, failing technology that the industry has moved on from and that they can claim is superior and exclusive to them. They would do this so that they could deny competitors technology and claim that the best hardware comes from them. Competitors will simply move to other suppliers and that will succeed in the long run. Apple has never proven itself able to drive hardware successfully over time and this would be typical of their failed attempts in the past.
Apple did not engineer the A4, engineers that Apple acquired through it's PA Semi purchase did, and the A4 is an integration effort, it's core components where designed by engineers outside of Apple/PA Semi.
"...the point is there is absolutely no evidence that Apple would ever stop selling ARMs to competitors."
Nor could there be any because Apple doesn't own ARM right now, yet Apple has cut off licensees in the past. Besides, they don't need to cut off anyone, they just need to institute prejudicial terms (something Microsoft likes to do). I'm curious what this would do for their Intel relationship.
Re:I wonder what the DOJ will have to say...
on
Apple To Buy ARM?
·
· Score: 1
Being illegal has nothing to do with the claim being FUD. Neither does it have anything to do with the claim being true or not. There is precedent for this sort of activity.
"What kind of apps do you use on the Android that aren't available on the iPhone, but are so important that you have to use them immediately, and can't wait until you're back on a desktop/laptop?"
One could ask that question of any cellphone. Fact is that smartphones have existed far longer that the iPhone that did everything I had to do immediately. Apple broke no new ground there and there's no iPhone app I absolutely must have that can't be do on an Android.
There's an assumption that iPhone == iPad regarding customer expectations. I think that is wrong. I don't like lack of flash on the iPhone but I can accept it. I won't accept it on a tablet computer nor will I accept anti-competitive app store practices.
People do care about flash and they do care about an open app store, just in the right context.
"Apple has always been very clear about not allowing non-native frameworks on the iPhone OS..."
No, they have not. Apple was always clear on not allowing any technology that could download and execute programs of its own. Never was it about frameworks until now.
"Bitchy and controlling perhaps, but not unexpected in the least. "
Yes, but not for the reason you gave.
"Adobe was foolish to pursue this in the first place - Apple is not going to cede control of this platform, for better or worse."
See, you understand the real issue. It's curious why you pretended it was something else earlier.
and yet the doom predicted by that has failed to materialize over the 20+ years we've been hearing about it. Huge amounts of "dirty things" don't necessarily translate to large amounts if die size or anything else other than engineer's tears.
There's a large body of proof that says that you should stop displaying your ignorance. Modern x86 designs are approached the same way as other processors. RISC, in original justification, is dead. x86 is not "die inefficient" any more than RISC is why you consider the greater demands RISC places on memory bandwidth and subsequent cache sizes.
Slashdot Mirror
I have never owned a laptop with screen resolution as low as an iPad. How does moving the screen closer help with that?
I tried it when it came out 3 years ago. It's not any different, after all, than an iPhone.
But I know Macs are not too complex to use and maintain because Steve says they are intuitive. Have Macs suddenly become too complex for Apple customers?
"But when their current product is the single largest source of instability, why on earth would Jobs let a mobile version anywhere near his pet project?"
We only have Apple's word that that's the case, and it is a convenient argument to divert attention from Apple's clear goals. I personally don't believe that Flash is "the single largest source of instability" in OS X and I'm sure not going to take the word of professional liars that say it is so. Flash sucks and the world would be better off with alternatives, but omitting it causes Apple's customers to suffer and it's being done to benefit the company, not to provide the "best internet experience".
"That's why I knew with 99% certainty before the iPad was announced that there would be no Flash for it. To be blunt, it would have been irresponsible to let Flash near the iPad or iPhone until Adobe proves enough commitment and competence to get it working well on OS X, where it has access to vastly more resources in a far more forgiving environment."
You are demonstrating a clear lack of understanding of the issues, and since you seem to think that Apple's product is Safari I'd say your opinion doesn't count for much.
I largely agree with this. Apple is pursuing the same control over the iPad that they did over the Mac and they will lose out to Android for the same reasons. Android, like the PC, will win because it will become a vastly larger and more diverse platform. That is assuming, of course, that iPad-like devices won't fail entirely. Smartphones will succeed in any case, but a closed app environment is less a problem for phones.
It's amusing that you think that's the security model. Why would such malware exist when Apple approves the apps and distributes them?
No, the reason for the model is so that Apple can tightly control the competition. Alternative runtimes prevent that so they are not allowed. All the other reasons for denying Flash are a smokescreen.
No but bitching about a closed standard, which isn't really closed, while pursuing the most closed platform ever and advocating an open standard, HTML5, as an alternative that makes use of a closed standard, H.264, is being a hypocrite.
"...and I'll take that as tacitly agreeing that Steve is right on those issues."
Of course you would.
"Maybe you could just post an open thread each day in which people could gripe about the App store and its closed system, instead of allowing every thread about Apple to devolve into that."
Since for Apple it's all about control and ownership of a closed system, and since Apple would like to divert the argument in just the manner you are attempting to do, I'd say "allowing every thread about Apple to devolve" is appropriate. No reason to call it anything other than what it is.
"Most people are served by simpler interfaces, not more complex ones."
Or so says Apple now that they have one to sell.
"But above all you are in the minority."
This has not been shown to be true, but it plays nicely into Apple's narrative.
"It is repeatedly brought to light, but no one cares."
Again, not shown to be true. Certainly some people care, and it's too early to tell just how many care with regards to the iPad. I am annoyed at the approach with the iPhone, but I more strongly object with the iPad.
"For those for whom this is important, they already know this."
I thought you said no one cares because no one cares. You are a douche.
"In other words, when everyone else seems to like something that you don't, it's time to consider that you're the odd one out."
It's clear that not everyone likes these particular products.
"Burden to a few, benefit to most."
Frankly, I fail to see how tight integration and exclusion of Flash are at all related, nor do I see how the exclusion of Flash is a benefit to most.
"Not quite. Apple forces technology to conform itself to humans, which benefits most people."
Utter nonsense. The omission of Flash is entirely to benefit Apple and in no way enable the device to conform itself to humans. You are full of shit.
Apple or no Apple, we would not still be using floppies or parallel ports. The PC industry, mainly Intel, engineered the replacement for parallel ports entirely without Apple's help yet Apple piggybacked on and took credit. Apple was also not first to remove floppies from their machines nor did they contribute any engineering to either the MO, CD-R or rewritable CD technology used to replace them. Apple may be the face of such progress to the uninformed, but they are not deserving of credit.
It's important to understand that the PC industry is driven very much by large business accounts. Those customers require stability, compatibility, and long product lifecycles. Since Apple doesn't play in those markets, it can get away with being more of a progressive, boutique provider. Apple was seen as a leader in "legacy free" because there was so little downside for them to do so and because they needed an angle to avoid bankruptcy. Meanwhile, all the legwork was done by the boring companies behind the scenes. That Apple takes credit for USB is one of the great myths and offenses in the PC market.
"...and knowingly having purchased stolen property."
I'm not getting how you concluded this part. Up until the time Gizmodo examined and concluded the device was actually Apple's property, they could not have known it was a lost prototype and who knows whether they had verified that a credible effort had not been made to return it.
Police have almost no care, either, and it's unlikely they would bother to follow up regardless of how easy it might be. Who the victim is counts for a lot.
I'm curious to know why you think "people" means "all people". Why should I care what the majority think?
I used previous Palm PDAs :((
Apple is only happy when they are using old, obsolete, failing technology that the industry has moved on from and that they can claim is superior and exclusive to them. They would do this so that they could deny competitors technology and claim that the best hardware comes from them. Competitors will simply move to other suppliers and that will succeed in the long run. Apple has never proven itself able to drive hardware successfully over time and this would be typical of their failed attempts in the past.
Not by Apple's definition of winning.
Apple did not engineer the A4, engineers that Apple acquired through it's PA Semi purchase did, and the A4 is an integration effort, it's core components where designed by engineers outside of Apple/PA Semi.
This is typical fanboy ignorance.
"...the point is there is absolutely no evidence that Apple would ever stop selling ARMs to competitors."
Nor could there be any because Apple doesn't own ARM right now, yet Apple has cut off licensees in the past. Besides, they don't need to cut off anyone, they just need to institute prejudicial terms (something Microsoft likes to do). I'm curious what this would do for their Intel relationship.
Being illegal has nothing to do with the claim being FUD. Neither does it have anything to do with the claim being true or not. There is precedent for this sort of activity.
"What kind of apps do you use on the Android that aren't available on the iPhone, but are so important that you have to use them immediately, and can't wait until you're back on a desktop/laptop?"
One could ask that question of any cellphone. Fact is that smartphones have existed far longer that the iPhone that did everything I had to do immediately. Apple broke no new ground there and there's no iPhone app I absolutely must have that can't be do on an Android.
There's an assumption that iPhone == iPad regarding customer expectations. I think that is wrong. I don't like lack of flash on the iPhone but I can accept it. I won't accept it on a tablet computer nor will I accept anti-competitive app store practices.
People do care about flash and they do care about an open app store, just in the right context.
"Then putting out Lightroom after Apple came out with Aperture."
How is introducing products an example of cancelling products? You realize Lightroom was in development for years prior to Aperture's release, right?
I guess if you are saying that Apple is annoyed that Lightroom is better than Aperture, that's probably true.
"Apple has always been very clear about not allowing non-native frameworks on the iPhone OS..."
No, they have not. Apple was always clear on not allowing any technology that could download and execute programs of its own. Never was it about frameworks until now.
"Bitchy and controlling perhaps, but not unexpected in the least. "
Yes, but not for the reason you gave.
"Adobe was foolish to pursue this in the first place - Apple is not going to cede control of this platform, for better or worse."
See, you understand the real issue. It's curious why you pretended it was something else earlier.
and yet the doom predicted by that has failed to materialize over the 20+ years we've been hearing about it. Huge amounts of "dirty things" don't necessarily translate to large amounts if die size or anything else other than engineer's tears.
There's a large body of proof that says that you should stop displaying your ignorance. Modern x86 designs are approached the same way as other processors. RISC, in original justification, is dead. x86 is not "die inefficient" any more than RISC is why you consider the greater demands RISC places on memory bandwidth and subsequent cache sizes.
Or neither one.