Fiore mentions in the article that he would like to use flash, as his cartoons are all made in flash. I doubt he could have enough weight to affect the availability of flash, but people like him can make it a more common complaint.
If he does, he'll lose my support. I agree that Apple screwed the pooch and that his app shouldn't have been rejected. I still don't want Flash on my iPhone, however.
numerous studies show that, absent the tobacco smoke, nicotine is relatively harmless and comparable to caffeine.
Disregarding the highly addictive nature of nicotine (hey, whatever floats your boat and caffeine is addictive too), that statement isn't entirely true. From the Wikipedia article on nicotine:
nicotine and the increased cholinergic activity it causes have been shown to impede apoptosis, which is one of the methods by which the body destroys unwanted cells (programmed cell death). Since apoptosis helps to remove mutated or damaged cells that may eventually become cancerous, the inhibitory actions of nicotine may create a more favourable environment for cancer to develop
I'm not saying nicotine should be illegal or anything of the sort, just that its use shouldn't exactly be encouraged either and users should be made aware of its potential dangers.
The "average user" visits things like YouTube or blip regularly, or sites with embedded video, so having that missing is significant. Yes, YouTube's now moving to html5, but again, these are average users, who won't understand the need to upgrade their browser AND go find the appropriate codec. And they don't understand whitelisting either.
They won't have to. The automatic update feature included in every modern operating system will take care of the upgrade for them. Adobe and Flash developers need to face up to the facts of life--Flash will soon be obsolete. And, IMHO, the sooner the better.
You're just shilling for Adobe. I'm sorry if you're a Flash developer who's worried about losing his livelihood but face it--the handwriting is on the wall for Flash. It's unnecessary and it's days are numbered.
Flash content on the web represents a very large and significant portion of contemporary web experience. (And I can't believe anyone needs to state this.) The developing web standards are adopting most of the features presently provided by Flash. If a portion of the web experience is omitted, you know it is missed.
I've had ClickToFlash on my computer for months now and am only rarely forced to view the Flash content to use a site. As it turns out, Flash is used mostly for needless embellishments that add nothing to the content and ads. I don't miss either one at all.
Comparing Microsoft's intentional damage to actual Web standards to Apple's refusal to include proprietary additions is specious.
In fact, they HAVE had products that sucked AND tanked, like the G4 Cube. That thing was advertised just as much as anything else but it cost $200 more than a comparably-specced, more-expandable PowerMac G4. The Cube's failure is PROOF that Apple does not operate outside the laws of economics
The G4 Cube didn't really suck. Taken by itself, it was a very slick piece of industrial design and made sense for a certain subset of computer users, namely people to whom aesthetics are important and expandability is not. I know it's hard for Slashdotters to accept but the majority of computer users don't give a whit whether their computer is expandable. They buy it, use it for as long as it continues to work for what they use a computer for (typically Web browsing, e-mail and light word processing) then get rid of it and buy another. They do care what the thing looks like, however. But, as you said, the Cube was overpriced, and the one time in my life I actually had the ear of a fairly high-ranking (from Apple, of course, probably C-level) industry executive for ten seconds, that's what I told him. This was about two days before the product launch. I was rewarded with a dirty look, but at least I was eventually proven correct.
They don't *actually* serve drugged Kool-Aid; their customers are NOT ad-absorbing, check-writing, brainless zombies. But geeks seem to resent their success because they make things that people want to use, not what kernel-compiling Slashdotters think is cool.
My friend, that's so right on target I can't even fathom why you haven't been modded down as a troll yet.
I'm not sure I agree that Carbon isn't a native API. Sure, it was a wrapper to let people port to OSX, but my memory (admittedly dim) from when OSX launched is that the Cocoa Apple was pushing was for Java (though the Objective C was available)? [...] Still, I suppose at worst that's semantics.
I suppose you've got a point there. What I was trying to to get at was that Carbon wasn't the original set of APIs for OS X. Apple developed Carbon after Adobe, Microsoft and Macromedia (understandably) all balked at rewriting their existing System 7-8-9 apps at a time when Apple's continued existence wasn't a sure bet, let alone the acceptance of OS X. Still, it took Adobe a number of years before they even made the change to Carbon--it wasn't until 2003 that Illustrator and Photoshop no longer had to be run in "Classic" mode.
I'm with you on the memory thing; seems like all I can remember anymore are the six-mile walks to school I made every day as a kid, that they were uphill both ways and how there was a foot of snow on the ground all year long here in California back in those days.
But Apple did say they were going to port Carbon to 64-bit. They just changed their mind. Ultimately, that's their call to make, but I remember at the time I was pretty surprised.
Yeah, it was a pretty ruthless thing to do but it's certainly no worse than Adobe telling it's customers to abandon the Mac platform and migrate to Windows, as they did back when Apple was in serious trouble back in the late Nineties. That's my big problem with Adobe's current complaining--they have done far worse things to Apple in past. At one point Adobe even demanded that Apple pay them to port their apps to OS X. Considering that Adobe wouldn't exist if Apple hadn't licensed PostScript from them for use in their laser printers back in the Eighties, that's pretty shitty.
I guess Jobs thinks Adobe can't afford to drop Mac anymore than Apple can afford to lose them. He's probably right, though if he keeps pushing he might hit that tipping point.
In my opinion, Adobe needs Apple a lot more than Apple needs Adobe. While the printing and graphic design industry is still mostly Mac and a good source of income for Apple, they make more money selling computers, iPods and iPhones to home users now. And you can bet that if Adobe were to cease releasing Mac products, Apple would do what they did when Adobe let the Mac version Premier lag too far behind the Windows version--they bought Final Cut and put a lot of effort into turning it into a polished competitor. Result? Final Cut is now a major player in the professional film and video editing fields. Adobe ended up dropping the Mac version of Premier entirely and the Windows version is considered something strictly for amateurs.
There are currently several alternatives to Photoshop out there. At the moment, they're nowhere near as good, but if they suddenly had Apple's resources working to improve them, Adobe might be surprised. Having worked at various jobs in the printing and graphics field, I can tell you this: people in that industry would rather learn new software than convert to Windows. Adobe could become irrelevant in a very short time.
At any rate, even though we disagree on a few points, I appreciate the response:)
Hey, it's fun having a rational discussion with someone here on Slashdot! Kind of rare, too--most disagreements on this site tend to degenerate into personal attacks. You've no doubt noticed that our civilized discourse hasn't been moderated up at all...
If this thing can run Firefox and VLC then it will beat the snot out of the iPad for those of us that are interested in more than just the Walled Garden.
Of course, also unlike everything else on the Web, it crashes my browser about 40% of the time. That that's also been true for nearly fifteen years.
I installed ClickToFlash as soon as I was aware of it's existence and find I don't miss Flash at all. I certainly don't miss having to restart my browser regularly.
wasn't saying it as someone who goes to all of the new 3D movies, but just responding to the seemingly anti-progress message
I understand, and I'm not anti-progress by any means. I just don't see 3D movies as particularly progressive at this point in their development. That could certainly change should the right person (i.e., director) come along. Until he/she does, producers would be wiser to put their money into what good movies have always had in the past--good scripts--rather than an expensive technology that does nothing to improve a movie in and of itself.
It will consist of a 3D pictorial of Jennifer Love Hewitt, Scarlett Johansson, Jennifer Connelly, Halle Berry, Salma Hayek and Christina Hendricks from Mad Men.
The problem is that script development is one of those things you can't get by throwing money at it.
You're right to some respect, although paying a good screenwriter is generally a better (and cheaper) option than sinking millions into converting a crappy 2D movie into a still-crappy 3D movie in hopes of making it profitable.
On the other hand, James Cameron produced a crappy 3D movie and it's made millions, so who am I to say?
I say this as someone who _hasn't_ paid for any 3D movies yet
I say this as someone who has paid for several 3D movies over the last year and while I wouldn't go so far as to say 3D is completely worthless, I have yet to see a movie that was improved by the process either.
I'm a huge fan of the movies and I want to see good ones. If it's good and in 3D, that's fine. I saw Coroline in 3D and while I had no complaints about the movie itself, I don't think seeing it in 3D made it any better. Since I paid a premium (at my wife's behest), though, I felt a bit ripped off.
Perhaps some genius of a director will come along who will show what can be done with 3D beyond the gee-whiz aspects of seeing things jump out of the screen at you; that could change my mind. So far, however, it appears to me as nothing more than a gimmick used purely for novelty's sake.
It's the first of three books designed for hams, or people who want to become hams. Although it won't help you get your license, it will at least help you understand the test questions better and give a decent grounding (pun not intended, but happily accepted) in electronic fundamentals without too much advanced math.
Slashdot Mirror
Fiore mentions in the article that he would like to use flash, as his cartoons are all made in flash. I doubt he could have enough weight to affect the availability of flash, but people like him can make it a more common complaint.
If he does, he'll lose my support. I agree that Apple screwed the pooch and that his app shouldn't have been rejected. I still don't want Flash on my iPhone, however.
And here's the proof
Hey, you know what else can "cause" persistent sexual arousal syndrome? Basically anything.
Anything other than Slashdot readers, at least.
Uhm, wait a second, this is Slashdot, we aren't supposed to talk about how we meet lovely women and sleep with them
What is this "women" thing of which you speak?
From the summary:
numerous studies show that, absent the tobacco smoke, nicotine is relatively harmless and comparable to caffeine.
Disregarding the highly addictive nature of nicotine (hey, whatever floats your boat and caffeine is addictive too), that statement isn't entirely true. From the Wikipedia article on nicotine:
I'm not saying nicotine should be illegal or anything of the sort, just that its use shouldn't exactly be encouraged either and users should be made aware of its potential dangers.
...that this decision gets reversed before very long. Wouldn't be the first time something like that happened with Apple.
The "average user" visits things like YouTube or blip regularly, or sites with embedded video, so having that missing is significant. Yes, YouTube's now moving to html5, but again, these are average users, who won't understand the need to upgrade their browser AND go find the appropriate codec. And they don't understand whitelisting either.
They won't have to. The automatic update feature included in every modern operating system will take care of the upgrade for them. Adobe and Flash developers need to face up to the facts of life--Flash will soon be obsolete. And, IMHO, the sooner the better.
You're just shilling for Adobe. I'm sorry if you're a Flash developer who's worried about losing his livelihood but face it--the handwriting is on the wall for Flash. It's unnecessary and it's days are numbered.
Flash content on the web represents a very large and significant portion of contemporary web experience. (And I can't believe anyone needs to state this.) The developing web standards are adopting most of the features presently provided by Flash. If a portion of the web experience is omitted, you know it is missed.
I've had ClickToFlash on my computer for months now and am only rarely forced to view the Flash content to use a site. As it turns out, Flash is used mostly for needless embellishments that add nothing to the content and ads. I don't miss either one at all.
Comparing Microsoft's intentional damage to actual Web standards to Apple's refusal to include proprietary additions is specious.
t the fact that people are hating on a 12-y/o product in comparison to a 1month old one is ridiculous.
You're right, of course, although no one is actually hating on the product as much as they are on the guy who's claiming it's better than an iPad.
In fact, they HAVE had products that sucked AND tanked, like the G4 Cube. That thing was advertised just as much as anything else but it cost $200 more than a comparably-specced, more-expandable PowerMac G4. The Cube's failure is PROOF that Apple does not operate outside the laws of economics
The G4 Cube didn't really suck. Taken by itself, it was a very slick piece of industrial design and made sense for a certain subset of computer users, namely people to whom aesthetics are important and expandability is not. I know it's hard for Slashdotters to accept but the majority of computer users don't give a whit whether their computer is expandable. They buy it, use it for as long as it continues to work for what they use a computer for (typically Web browsing, e-mail and light word processing) then get rid of it and buy another. They do care what the thing looks like, however. But, as you said, the Cube was overpriced, and the one time in my life I actually had the ear of a fairly high-ranking (from Apple, of course, probably C-level) industry executive for ten seconds, that's what I told him. This was about two days before the product launch. I was rewarded with a dirty look, but at least I was eventually proven correct.
They don't *actually* serve drugged Kool-Aid; their customers are NOT ad-absorbing, check-writing, brainless zombies. But geeks seem to resent their success because they make things that people want to use, not what kernel-compiling Slashdotters think is cool.
My friend, that's so right on target I can't even fathom why you haven't been modded down as a troll yet.
Thanks. May you be touched by his noodly appendage.
I refuse to ever use C/C++, because I consider its outdated design [...] and its inelegance and programming inefficiency to be a pain to my brain.
No problem. All Lightwave development is done in LOGO. Just tell the turtle what you want it to do.
You can get a pretty good idea of that individual's development. Or the tweets on a day like 9/11.
True enough, although you do have to wonder how much help "9/11? ZOMG--WTF?!" is going to be to future researchers.
/p>yessir, i have no problem wiht a 40 hour weel of html coding and i >i>never,/i. maek a mistake.,
I'm not sure I agree that Carbon isn't a native API. Sure, it was a wrapper to let people port to OSX, but my memory (admittedly dim) from when OSX launched is that the Cocoa Apple was pushing was for Java (though the Objective C was available)? [...] Still, I suppose at worst that's semantics.
I suppose you've got a point there. What I was trying to to get at was that Carbon wasn't the original set of APIs for OS X. Apple developed Carbon after Adobe, Microsoft and Macromedia (understandably) all balked at rewriting their existing System 7-8-9 apps at a time when Apple's continued existence wasn't a sure bet, let alone the acceptance of OS X. Still, it took Adobe a number of years before they even made the change to Carbon--it wasn't until 2003 that Illustrator and Photoshop no longer had to be run in "Classic" mode.
I'm with you on the memory thing; seems like all I can remember anymore are the six-mile walks to school I made every day as a kid, that they were uphill both ways and how there was a foot of snow on the ground all year long here in California back in those days.
But Apple did say they were going to port Carbon to 64-bit. They just changed their mind. Ultimately, that's their call to make, but I remember at the time I was pretty surprised.
Yeah, it was a pretty ruthless thing to do but it's certainly no worse than Adobe telling it's customers to abandon the Mac platform and migrate to Windows, as they did back when Apple was in serious trouble back in the late Nineties. That's my big problem with Adobe's current complaining--they have done far worse things to Apple in past. At one point Adobe even demanded that Apple pay them to port their apps to OS X. Considering that Adobe wouldn't exist if Apple hadn't licensed PostScript from them for use in their laser printers back in the Eighties, that's pretty shitty.
I guess Jobs thinks Adobe can't afford to drop Mac anymore than Apple can afford to lose them. He's probably right, though if he keeps pushing he might hit that tipping point.
In my opinion, Adobe needs Apple a lot more than Apple needs Adobe. While the printing and graphic design industry is still mostly Mac and a good source of income for Apple, they make more money selling computers, iPods and iPhones to home users now. And you can bet that if Adobe were to cease releasing Mac products, Apple would do what they did when Adobe let the Mac version Premier lag too far behind the Windows version--they bought Final Cut and put a lot of effort into turning it into a polished competitor. Result? Final Cut is now a major player in the professional film and video editing fields. Adobe ended up dropping the Mac version of Premier entirely and the Windows version is considered something strictly for amateurs.
There are currently several alternatives to Photoshop out there. At the moment, they're nowhere near as good, but if they suddenly had Apple's resources working to improve them, Adobe might be surprised. Having worked at various jobs in the printing and graphics field, I can tell you this: people in that industry would rather learn new software than convert to Windows. Adobe could become irrelevant in a very short time.
At any rate, even though we disagree on a few points, I appreciate the response :)
Hey, it's fun having a rational discussion with someone here on Slashdot! Kind of rare, too--most disagreements on this site tend to degenerate into personal attacks. You've no doubt noticed that our civilized discourse hasn't been moderated up at all...
Just FYI, here's a link to an amusing history of the relationship between Apple and Adobe. It's a bit biased towards Apple but I think the facts are pretty accurate none the less.
Let's have an involuntary moratorium on "fixed that for ya" replies. They have long since ceased to be witty.
Fixed that for ya.
If this thing can run Firefox and VLC then it will beat the snot out of the iPad for those of us that are interested in more than just the Walled Garden.
Yeah. All 200 of you.
everyone puts up with it because of it's ubiquity
No, everyone puts up with it because:
Of course, also unlike everything else on the Web, it crashes my browser about 40% of the time. That that's also been true for nearly fifteen years.
I installed ClickToFlash as soon as I was aware of it's existence and find I don't miss Flash at all. I certainly don't miss having to restart my browser regularly.
wasn't saying it as someone who goes to all of the new 3D movies, but just responding to the seemingly anti-progress message
I understand, and I'm not anti-progress by any means. I just don't see 3D movies as particularly progressive at this point in their development. That could certainly change should the right person (i.e., director) come along. Until he/she does, producers would be wiser to put their money into what good movies have always had in the past--good scripts--rather than an expensive technology that does nothing to improve a movie in and of itself.
It will consist of a 3D pictorial of Jennifer Love Hewitt, Scarlett Johansson, Jennifer Connelly, Halle Berry, Salma Hayek and Christina Hendricks from Mad Men.
Trouble is, it's about a meter thick...
The problem is that script development is one of those things you can't get by throwing money at it.
You're right to some respect, although paying a good screenwriter is generally a better (and cheaper) option than sinking millions into converting a crappy 2D movie into a still-crappy 3D movie in hopes of making it profitable.
On the other hand, James Cameron produced a crappy 3D movie and it's made millions, so who am I to say?
I say this as someone who _hasn't_ paid for any 3D movies yet
I say this as someone who has paid for several 3D movies over the last year and while I wouldn't go so far as to say 3D is completely worthless, I have yet to see a movie that was improved by the process either.
I'm a huge fan of the movies and I want to see good ones. If it's good and in 3D, that's fine. I saw Coroline in 3D and while I had no complaints about the movie itself, I don't think seeing it in 3D made it any better. Since I paid a premium (at my wife's behest), though, I felt a bit ripped off.
Perhaps some genius of a director will come along who will show what can be done with 3D beyond the gee-whiz aspects of seeing things jump out of the screen at you; that could change my mind. So far, however, it appears to me as nothing more than a gimmick used purely for novelty's sake.
Try this:
Understanding Basic Electronics
It's the first of three books designed for hams, or people who want to become hams. Although it won't help you get your license, it will at least help you understand the test questions better and give a decent grounding (pun not intended, but happily accepted) in electronic fundamentals without too much advanced math.
73, KJ6BSO
No, I think you are approximately 90% FUD and 10% skin.
Old Romulan Proverb: "Humans are a waste of skin."
So where does that leave him?