Warranty protection on your seatbelts? Well first of all I'm not sure a warranty is a piecemeal contract. But nevertheless I don't think modding your phone is a DMCA violation. Apple has tried to argue that, but as of right now I believe the law says you have the right to unlock your phone if it's to take it to another carrier. So the DMCA violation is false. As for voiding the warranty, it is perfectly understandable. Unknown software could have poor heat management, cause the phone to overheat and damage components. It's is completely reasonable to assume that putting software on a phone could damage the hardware.
Don't make electronic and software analogies until you understand electronics and software.
"False dichotomy. Android does not require tinkering any more than iPhone does. " - You're right, poor choice of words on my part.
"Arguably it requires less since most customers can get some kind of upgrade eventually" - Since you can get an upgrade on either eventually this point is false.
"The argument against the iPhone is that it prevents tinkering (or at least attempts to, and for most users that is the same thing) which does nothing to improve the experience for those users who will not tinker, but does everything to harm it for those who would like to." - It is not THE argument, but it appears to be YOUR argument. It does improve the experience if it makes the phone reliable and predictable for those who will not tinker. It most certainly does NOT harm anyone. That is a blatant lie.
"Windows mobile is a fantastic product. It has been doing things in the mobile world long before iCrap-phones and droid even existed."
- Which explains why their smartphones were soooo popular to the general public and why they now own so much marketshare. . . . . no, wait a minute . . . maybe that doesn't make sense.
If you don't like Apple or the iPhone then that is okay, but I honestly don't understand the criticism that " they make it so ridiculously difficult to customize your experience". This is Apple, they have a specific version of what they want to be and what they want to sell. You know that going in. I know that going in. If you don't like a Chevy because it's not like a Ford then it's time to realize a Chevy is a Chevy. If you want a Ford then buy a Ford.
I realize some people want to tinker and customize, but what I don't think the complainers realize is that the vast majority of the buyers want something that works, is reliable, is easy to use, and that does NOT require them to tinker. It sounds like your are in the Android demographic and just not in the iPhone demographic.
If you hate Apple then just have the balls to say it and move on, but your rant is not relevant to the discussion. Apple shipped a very good initial iPhone OS. It may not have had the features you wanted, but it was solid, stable and worked well.
You're just a hater, and that's alright, but at least be honest about it. You're equating a buggy, shitty product with a product that doesn't have the features you think it should have, and to you use your own phrasing, that is disingenuous.
You are right, it is a bullshit argument. I've been reading books on my iPhone for over a year now. Sometimes for hours at a time. It is not hurting my eyes. My eyes don't get tired, they don't feel fatigued, etc. While maybe it is technically true that e-ink is better, that does not necessarily mean the iPhone/iPad/etc. are bad and are hurting your eyes. It's just another pseudo-intellectual argument by Apple haters. They're grasping at anything lately.
" Please read it if you don't believe me: the browser vulnerability counts are on page 36, the browser bug fix lead times are on page 38, and the plugin vulnerability counts are on page 41. " - Okay, i used your link and pulled up a 12 page document. I can't get to the mythical page 36 in a 12 page document. As for browser vulnerability counts, that's a red herring. We're talking about Flash. Why are you attempting to misdirect me to a discussion about browsers.
"The study shows that Flash is actually less buggy than any browser security-hole-wise," - I don't see that in the report because the pages you reference aren't there when I pull it up. And again, browser statistics when we're talking about Flash is red herring.
"So, bloated in comparison to what exactly?" - Bloated in comparison to properly written code rather than using a lowest common denominator like Flash to create apps. Reference http://www.9to5mac.com/adobe_v_apple_big_stakes for the quote, "For example, a 'hello world' Flash app designed for the iPhone will consume 8MB of memory, rather than the few KB it should, one engineer told Wired." Unnecessarily bloated software which requires much more processor and battery to run, which to the end user's perception will look like the iPhone/iPad platform is to blame when actually it's a lazy developer and a bloated Flash app that is causing the issue.
"you're using it to argue that HTML+JS is better than Flash" - No, that is certainly NOT what I said. It may be what you think I said, but I simply said that Apple made the right choice not to include Flash and the reasons Jobs cited were all legitimate.
"he lectures Adobe about openness while pushing an unprecedentedly closed platform." -He correctly refutes Adobe's PR campaign that they are open. His exact quote is "Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript - all open standards. " 100% accurate.
" He talks about openness but pushes H.264." - Again, his exact statement is "decoder called H.264 - an industry standard" He does NOT say H264 is open as you're implying.
" He lectures Adobe about Cocoa support when major Apple software like Final Cut Pro and iTunes are still Carbon." - Most if not all of the added features in the last several version are in Cocoa. His real beef is "This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features." So his complaint is that advantages of improvements in the Apple platform are essentially held hostage by third party development platforms is true.
"He claims rollovers only exist in Flash and not in HTML+JS sites." -He most definitely does NOT say rollovers do not exist in HTML+JS sites. Please show me where he says that in Thoughts on Flash?
" He claims Flash doesn't support touch when in fact 10.1 supports it better than the HTML 5 draft. He implies anything conceived originally for desktops is hopeless on mobile (which is preposterous... " - He says "But the mobile era is about low power devices, touch interfaces and open web standards - all areas where Flash falls short." Flash falls short in those areas. 10.1 supports it? Really, just released 10.1? Where the hell has Adobe been for the last 3 years the iPhone has been out, they only just released this?
"He claims iPhone ships with a fast HTML 5 implementation, when it's actually slower than other smartphones and much slower than Flash." - Again, you make a grand statement and couple it with a misdirection. I don't see where in Thoughts on Flash he says it ship
"I love Macs myself, but it's not like there are no issues in the Mac world. There are some rational use cases for Windows."
- I totally agree. Macs are not perfect. There are a few areas where I like how Windows works much more, in fact I do run a Windows VM for the sole purpose of running Quickbooks for Windows because Intuit has neglected the Mac product and the Windows version is more mature. That being said, if I have to pick one or the other it's the Mac hands down. I was simply replying to a few things that I thought were patently false or were shell game comparisons.
I don't think so. As someone else pointed out the Developer Agreement specifically spells out the Developer's responsibility to make sure any FOSS licensing is adhered to. Apple will end up removing it and that will be the end of it. If they want to sue then have at it, but they won't get a dime.
I don't think Apple said they won't sell the song. They just didn't promote those songs. And to be honest why should they. If the RIAA is going to f*** Apple, their biggest online distributor, but giving Amazon some sweetheart deal in order to hurt Apple's market share, then why should Apple help them? I honestly don't see anything wrong with this. Would YOU continue to help your supplier if you knew the supplier was trying to kill part of your business?
Why is this news or being investigated? Oh, I get it. The RIAA is complaining to the DOJ in the hope that they can hurt Apple when the RIAA could not do it themselves.
Yeah, you should buy tons of Microsoft. Considering the stock has went nowhere in 10 years I'm not sure what the advantage of it would be, but it's your money, buy away.
Call me when you pull your head out and start to see reality. "iPads are going to end up being a bust for all the same reasons all other tablets are a bust"? Yeah, good luck with that prediction. Care to tell me how it's going to be a bust for all the same reasons, when it's very different than all the other tablets? I can't wait for your expert analysis considering your ridiculous, head in the sand "hippness" rationale for Apple's success. If you don't understand their success, then fine, you don't understand it, but please don't make patently stupid excuses like "hippness".
"the huge number of available applications" - OS X has that too
"compatibility with older versions of applications" - OS X has that too
"more polished system management tools for enterprise deployments" - I would tend to agree if you're only looking at it from a Windows enterprise environment. If you are looking at a Mac centric enterprise environment then OS X obviously has more polished system management tools.
"better support for newer hardware" - true, but then again this is an obvious apples to oranges comparison because OS X is not intended to be installed on commodity hardware, but rather on a Mac. I could just as easily say that OS X has better support for Mac minis and be just as true and as misleading.
"for gaming" - Don't game much, but from all I've heard there are a wider variety of titles on Windows. But is this the fault of OS X not being able to play games or just a lower number of third party developers are making games for the Mac?
"the best security record in OSes for the past couple years" - you mean aside from the viruses, zero day exploits, etc., right? This last point is utter bullshit on your part. Win 7 may be better than XP, but it is still swiss cheese in comparison to the ZERO viruses affecting the Mac
"I couldn't possibly see why someone who's informed would choose windows." - Apparently this last point is the only one we agree on. Why WOULD anyone choose Windows?
Yes, because OF COURSE the iPad is not a replacement to your PC, but rather an addition to it. And OF COURSE it is proving to be a wildly popular item so far. And OF COURSE your myopic understanding of what the iPad is doesn't contribute to your misunderstanding of its target demographic too much, does it?
Microsoft most definitely did NOT save Apple. Another reply to you already pointed this out so I won't bother duplicating his/her details, but you are absolutely incorrect on this issue.
" first time they fail the stock will tank. Remember the Newton?" - Incorrect again on many levels. First of all, the Newton was about 20 years ago and the landscape has changed drastically. Dragging this out again and again borders on ridiculous, especially considering your own example proves you wrong. Newton failed and Apple is not dead. Apple has also had what many consider failures in the last 5 years such as that apple boombox, AppleTV (not a big failure, but certainly has not been a standout product) and the stock has not tanked.
"Microsoft on the other hand makes huge margins selling the same thing" - Yes, they do. The same thing. Never changing. Never innovating. 10 years and the stock has been stagnant. Tell me again how great MS is?
I don't think anyone is making an argument about copyright in general, just at the hypocritical nature of the recording industry. They whine about people stealing their products, but don't have a problem stealing someone else's product (assuming the allegations are true). The reason this is on Slashdot is that many readers here feel the recording industry is full of shit, is led by shitheads, and we could give a shit whether their business model dies.
"I don't think accurately quoting statistics straight out of a core part of the report is "misrepresenting" it." - You DIDN'T quote anything out of the report. I did, but you didn't. And as for the misrepresenting it part, your attempt to downplay Flash's security record by playing a shell game with browser vulnerabilities may fool the weak minded person, but it's easy to see through.
"Which is the more attractive target?" - And that somehow gives it a free pass for its vulnerabilities, bloated and buggy implementation by Adobe. Another attempt at misdirection by you.
"what are you proposing as an alternative?" - I propose Adobe pull their head out of their asses and release a quality product or they should STFU and enjoy their slide into oblivion. I was simply quoting part of the recommendation from Symantec to refute your Flash vs browser vulnerabilities shell game. Perhaps you should ask Symantec what they propose as an alternative since it was their quote.
"Apple has said a lot of disingenuous and/or outright false things about Flash lately" - Name them please. Jobs mail was right on the money.
"especially when no one else has access to the data to back it up." - Considering how you've examined a Symantec report and found a way to either read it wrong or misrepresent it, I don't think giving you access to the data Jobs is using would really make much difference, would it?
"Actually, yes they do." - Actually NO they don't. They have a slow, processor spiking, battery eating implementation of it, which is exactly my point. It's
"Why do you think Apple's always pushed its elitist standard? To make it seem more niche, to avoid exactly what happened to Microsoft." - that doesn't even survive a basic test of logic. How exactly does being elitist avoid what happened to MS?
"There is absolutely no legitimate reason to lock an iPod or iPhone or iAnything to only use iTunes, except to promote hegemony." - There a lots of legitimate reasons, like quality control, control of an eco-system that "just works". It is exactly this control that is giving it such huge success now, because they exercise control over the experience and thus make it consistent.
Learn what you're talking about before dribbling this crap out of your mouth.
Actually your meme is more of a meme than a fact. According to the April 2010 Symantec Internet Security Report ( http://www4.symantec.com/Vrt/wl?tu_id=Lfsd1271711507050126203 ) the number 2 attacked vulnerability in 2009 was in Adobe products. Another quote from the report was "Browser security features and add-ons should be employed wherever possible to disable JavaScript(TM), Adobe Flash Player . . . ". Also, the number of vulnerabilities is a shell game. You can have one vulnerability, but if everyone uses is then it is a fatal flaw. Trying to do some cheese-ball comparison to throw people off the scent is a neat trick, but it didn't work. You sure did misrepresent that report, didn't you?
And regarding buggy, I'll take Microsoft and Apple's word on Adobe Flash's effect on their browser/OS. Adobe is NOT listening or they would have been working their ass off for years to fix it. It's been 3 years since the iPhone intro and Adobe still does not have a Flash runtime to show that runs fast, doesn't drain batter, etc. If Adobe is listening then that is all they are doing because they are not FIXING it.
Incorrect on many levels. Current iPhone OS is capable of multi-tasking. I can listen to iTunes and browse the web. So it IS capable of multitasking, but it just does not allow 3rd party apps to multi-task. The next iPhone OS will allow multi-tasking on a wider scale for certain types of applications. That being said, your statement of "TRUE multitasking" is pure BS. It's only true multi-tasking because that is the way you want to multitask. That doesn't make it "true multitasking" but rather your preferred way of multitasking. Try not to confuse the two because they are not the same.
Your next error is "multitasking on iPhoneOS is only possible through jailbreaking, which is a concern for a LOT of people", which I highly doubt, and I'm sure you can't prove with any credible data. I think it is only a concern currently with a tiny minority of people, and that a LOT of people not only don't care, but they don't think about it at all (which is pretty much not caring since if it was an issue they would be thinking about it).
If Android floats your boat then get one, but don't assume that the way you want something done is the "true" way or the only right way. It's just your preference.
So why don't you freedom fighters "choose" to develop your own syncing software for the iPod? You seem more interested in whining that someone else doesn't develop things the way you want them than going out and fixing it yourself. And therein lies the issue. You want everything handed to you. Apple wanted things done a certain way so it is easy for average consumers to use and they have accomplished it. If you want a different solution then get off your ass and make it.
" Simple documents such as music and pictures should have the capability to be dragged and dropped as if the iWhatever were just another removable drive." - Why should they have this? You make a grand statement like it is one of the elemental truths of the universe, but in the end this is just your opinion and what YOU want. Again, if you really want it so bad then get off your ass and develop your own MP3 player ecosystem and I'm sure you'll be able to do a better job. Until then shut up and quit whining.
What are they "forcing" you to do exactly? That's a bit of hyperbole, don't you think? You are FREE to buy the solution that fits your wants/needs best. If you buy an iPod that doesn't fit your lifestyle then isn't that YOUR fault? It is not Apple's responsibility to come up with every possible syncing scenario. I don't see you complaining that all other MP3 players don't offer syncing via iTunes. Apparently you're only for choice and freedom when people are free to choose the solution YOU want? You ignorance on this is staggering.
Slashdot Mirror
It is obviously another propaganda attempt by the biodiversity denialists who are funded by the Big Zoo industry.
I don't get the joke on this one?
Warranty protection on your seatbelts? Well first of all I'm not sure a warranty is a piecemeal contract. But nevertheless I don't think modding your phone is a DMCA violation. Apple has tried to argue that, but as of right now I believe the law says you have the right to unlock your phone if it's to take it to another carrier. So the DMCA violation is false. As for voiding the warranty, it is perfectly understandable. Unknown software could have poor heat management, cause the phone to overheat and damage components. It's is completely reasonable to assume that putting software on a phone could damage the hardware.
Don't make electronic and software analogies until you understand electronics and software.
"False dichotomy. Android does not require tinkering any more than iPhone does. "
- You're right, poor choice of words on my part.
"Arguably it requires less since most customers can get some kind of upgrade eventually"
- Since you can get an upgrade on either eventually this point is false.
"The argument against the iPhone is that it prevents tinkering (or at least attempts to, and for most users that is the same thing) which does nothing to improve the experience for those users who will not tinker, but does everything to harm it for those who would like to."
- It is not THE argument, but it appears to be YOUR argument. It does improve the experience if it makes the phone reliable and predictable for those who will not tinker. It most certainly does NOT harm anyone. That is a blatant lie.
"Windows mobile is a fantastic product. It has been doing things in the mobile world long before iCrap-phones and droid even existed."
- Which explains why their smartphones were soooo popular to the general public and why they now own so much marketshare. . . . . no, wait a minute . . . maybe that doesn't make sense.
If you don't like Apple or the iPhone then that is okay, but I honestly don't understand the criticism that " they make it so ridiculously difficult to customize your experience". This is Apple, they have a specific version of what they want to be and what they want to sell. You know that going in. I know that going in. If you don't like a Chevy because it's not like a Ford then it's time to realize a Chevy is a Chevy. If you want a Ford then buy a Ford.
I realize some people want to tinker and customize, but what I don't think the complainers realize is that the vast majority of the buyers want something that works, is reliable, is easy to use, and that does NOT require them to tinker. It sounds like your are in the Android demographic and just not in the iPhone demographic.
If you hate Apple then just have the balls to say it and move on, but your rant is not relevant to the discussion. Apple shipped a very good initial iPhone OS. It may not have had the features you wanted, but it was solid, stable and worked well.
You're just a hater, and that's alright, but at least be honest about it. You're equating a buggy, shitty product with a product that doesn't have the features you think it should have, and to you use your own phrasing, that is disingenuous.
You are right, it is a bullshit argument. I've been reading books on my iPhone for over a year now. Sometimes for hours at a time. It is not hurting my eyes. My eyes don't get tired, they don't feel fatigued, etc. While maybe it is technically true that e-ink is better, that does not necessarily mean the iPhone/iPad/etc. are bad and are hurting your eyes. It's just another pseudo-intellectual argument by Apple haters. They're grasping at anything lately.
" Please read it if you don't believe me: the browser vulnerability counts are on page 36, the browser bug fix lead times are on page 38, and the plugin vulnerability counts are on page 41.
"
- Okay, i used your link and pulled up a 12 page document. I can't get to the mythical page 36 in a 12 page document. As for browser vulnerability counts, that's a red herring. We're talking about Flash. Why are you attempting to misdirect me to a discussion about browsers.
"The study shows that Flash is actually less buggy than any browser security-hole-wise,"
- I don't see that in the report because the pages you reference aren't there when I pull it up. And again, browser statistics when we're talking about Flash is red herring.
"So, bloated in comparison to what exactly?"
- Bloated in comparison to properly written code rather than using a lowest common denominator like Flash to create apps. Reference http://www.9to5mac.com/adobe_v_apple_big_stakes for the quote, "For example, a 'hello world' Flash app designed for the iPhone will consume 8MB of memory, rather than the few KB it should, one engineer told Wired." Unnecessarily bloated software which requires much more processor and battery to run, which to the end user's perception will look like the iPhone/iPad platform is to blame when actually it's a lazy developer and a bloated Flash app that is causing the issue.
"you're using it to argue that HTML+JS is better than Flash"
- No, that is certainly NOT what I said. It may be what you think I said, but I simply said that Apple made the right choice not to include Flash and the reasons Jobs cited were all legitimate.
"he lectures Adobe about openness while pushing an unprecedentedly closed platform."
-He correctly refutes Adobe's PR campaign that they are open. His exact quote is "Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript - all open standards. " 100% accurate.
" He talks about openness but pushes H.264."
- Again, his exact statement is "decoder called H.264 - an industry standard" He does NOT say H264 is open as you're implying.
" He lectures Adobe about Cocoa support when major Apple software like Final Cut Pro and iTunes are still Carbon."
- Most if not all of the added features in the last several version are in Cocoa. His real beef is "This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features." So his complaint is that advantages of improvements in the Apple platform are essentially held hostage by third party development platforms is true.
"He claims rollovers only exist in Flash and not in HTML+JS sites."
-He most definitely does NOT say rollovers do not exist in HTML+JS sites. Please show me where he says that in Thoughts on Flash?
" He claims Flash doesn't support touch when in fact 10.1 supports it better than the HTML 5 draft. He implies anything conceived originally for desktops is hopeless on mobile (which is preposterous... "
- He says "But the mobile era is about low power devices, touch interfaces and open web standards - all areas where Flash falls short." Flash falls short in those areas. 10.1 supports it? Really, just released 10.1? Where the hell has Adobe been for the last 3 years the iPhone has been out, they only just released this?
"He claims iPhone ships with a fast HTML 5 implementation, when it's actually slower than other smartphones and much slower than Flash."
- Again, you make a grand statement and couple it with a misdirection. I don't see where in Thoughts on Flash he says it ship
"I love Macs myself, but it's not like there are no issues in the Mac world. There are some rational use cases for Windows."
- I totally agree. Macs are not perfect. There are a few areas where I like how Windows works much more, in fact I do run a Windows VM for the sole purpose of running Quickbooks for Windows because Intuit has neglected the Mac product and the Windows version is more mature. That being said, if I have to pick one or the other it's the Mac hands down. I was simply replying to a few things that I thought were patently false or were shell game comparisons.
I don't think so. As someone else pointed out the Developer Agreement specifically spells out the Developer's responsibility to make sure any FOSS licensing is adhered to. Apple will end up removing it and that will be the end of it. If they want to sue then have at it, but they won't get a dime.
I don't think Apple said they won't sell the song. They just didn't promote those songs. And to be honest why should they. If the RIAA is going to f*** Apple, their biggest online distributor, but giving Amazon some sweetheart deal in order to hurt Apple's market share, then why should Apple help them? I honestly don't see anything wrong with this. Would YOU continue to help your supplier if you knew the supplier was trying to kill part of your business?
Why is this news or being investigated? Oh, I get it. The RIAA is complaining to the DOJ in the hope that they can hurt Apple when the RIAA could not do it themselves.
Yeah, you should buy tons of Microsoft. Considering the stock has went nowhere in 10 years I'm not sure what the advantage of it would be, but it's your money, buy away.
Call me when you pull your head out and start to see reality. "iPads are going to end up being a bust for all the same reasons all other tablets are a bust"? Yeah, good luck with that prediction. Care to tell me how it's going to be a bust for all the same reasons, when it's very different than all the other tablets? I can't wait for your expert analysis considering your ridiculous, head in the sand "hippness" rationale for Apple's success. If you don't understand their success, then fine, you don't understand it, but please don't make patently stupid excuses like "hippness".
Call me when you can rationally discuss something instead of being a blind hater.
So, aside from . . .
"the huge number of available applications" - OS X has that too
"compatibility with older versions of applications" - OS X has that too
"more polished system management tools for enterprise deployments" - I would tend to agree if you're only looking at it from a Windows enterprise environment. If you are looking at a Mac centric enterprise environment then OS X obviously has more polished system management tools.
"better support for newer hardware" - true, but then again this is an obvious apples to oranges comparison because OS X is not intended to be installed on commodity hardware, but rather on a Mac. I could just as easily say that OS X has better support for Mac minis and be just as true and as misleading.
"for gaming" - Don't game much, but from all I've heard there are a wider variety of titles on Windows. But is this the fault of OS X not being able to play games or just a lower number of third party developers are making games for the Mac?
"the best security record in OSes for the past couple years" - you mean aside from the viruses, zero day exploits, etc., right? This last point is utter bullshit on your part. Win 7 may be better than XP, but it is still swiss cheese in comparison to the ZERO viruses affecting the Mac
"I couldn't possibly see why someone who's informed would choose windows." - Apparently this last point is the only one we agree on. Why WOULD anyone choose Windows?
Yes, because OF COURSE the iPad is not a replacement to your PC, but rather an addition to it. And OF COURSE it is proving to be a wildly popular item so far. And OF COURSE your myopic understanding of what the iPad is doesn't contribute to your misunderstanding of its target demographic too much, does it?
Microsoft most definitely did NOT save Apple. Another reply to you already pointed this out so I won't bother duplicating his/her details, but you are absolutely incorrect on this issue.
" first time they fail the stock will tank. Remember the Newton?"
- Incorrect again on many levels. First of all, the Newton was about 20 years ago and the landscape has changed drastically. Dragging this out again and again borders on ridiculous, especially considering your own example proves you wrong. Newton failed and Apple is not dead. Apple has also had what many consider failures in the last 5 years such as that apple boombox, AppleTV (not a big failure, but certainly has not been a standout product) and the stock has not tanked.
"Microsoft on the other hand makes huge margins selling the same thing"
- Yes, they do. The same thing. Never changing. Never innovating. 10 years and the stock has been stagnant. Tell me again how great MS is?
I don't think anyone is making an argument about copyright in general, just at the hypocritical nature of the recording industry. They whine about people stealing their products, but don't have a problem stealing someone else's product (assuming the allegations are true). The reason this is on Slashdot is that many readers here feel the recording industry is full of shit, is led by shitheads, and we could give a shit whether their business model dies.
"I don't think accurately quoting statistics straight out of a core part of the report is "misrepresenting" it."
- You DIDN'T quote anything out of the report. I did, but you didn't. And as for the misrepresenting it part, your attempt to downplay Flash's security record by playing a shell game with browser vulnerabilities may fool the weak minded person, but it's easy to see through.
"Which is the more attractive target?"
- And that somehow gives it a free pass for its vulnerabilities, bloated and buggy implementation by Adobe. Another attempt at misdirection by you.
"what are you proposing as an alternative?"
- I propose Adobe pull their head out of their asses and release a quality product or they should STFU and enjoy their slide into oblivion. I was simply quoting part of the recommendation from Symantec to refute your Flash vs browser vulnerabilities shell game. Perhaps you should ask Symantec what they propose as an alternative since it was their quote.
"Apple has said a lot of disingenuous and/or outright false things about Flash lately"
- Name them please. Jobs mail was right on the money.
"especially when no one else has access to the data to back it up."
- Considering how you've examined a Symantec report and found a way to either read it wrong or misrepresent it, I don't think giving you access to the data Jobs is using would really make much difference, would it?
"Actually, yes they do."
- Actually NO they don't. They have a slow, processor spiking, battery eating implementation of it, which is exactly my point. It's
"Why do you think Apple's always pushed its elitist standard? To make it seem more niche, to avoid exactly what happened to Microsoft."
- that doesn't even survive a basic test of logic. How exactly does being elitist avoid what happened to MS?
"There is absolutely no legitimate reason to lock an iPod or iPhone or iAnything to only use iTunes, except to promote hegemony."
- There a lots of legitimate reasons, like quality control, control of an eco-system that "just works". It is exactly this control that is giving it such huge success now, because they exercise control over the experience and thus make it consistent.
Learn what you're talking about before dribbling this crap out of your mouth.
Actually your meme is more of a meme than a fact. According to the April 2010 Symantec Internet Security Report ( http://www4.symantec.com/Vrt/wl?tu_id=Lfsd1271711507050126203 ) the number 2 attacked vulnerability in 2009 was in Adobe products. Another quote from the report was "Browser security features and add-ons should be employed
wherever possible to disable JavaScript(TM), Adobe Flash Player . . . ". Also, the number of vulnerabilities is a shell game. You can have one vulnerability, but if everyone uses is then it is a fatal flaw. Trying to do some cheese-ball comparison to throw people off the scent is a neat trick, but it didn't work. You sure did misrepresent that report, didn't you?
And regarding buggy, I'll take Microsoft and Apple's word on Adobe Flash's effect on their browser/OS. Adobe is NOT listening or they would have been working their ass off for years to fix it. It's been 3 years since the iPhone intro and Adobe still does not have a Flash runtime to show that runs fast, doesn't drain batter, etc. If Adobe is listening then that is all they are doing because they are not FIXING it.
You're so full of shit. You don't have to re-buy it on the iTunes store. You're either lying or ignorant beyond belief.
Incorrect on many levels. Current iPhone OS is capable of multi-tasking. I can listen to iTunes and browse the web. So it IS capable of multitasking, but it just does not allow 3rd party apps to multi-task. The next iPhone OS will allow multi-tasking on a wider scale for certain types of applications. That being said, your statement of "TRUE multitasking" is pure BS. It's only true multi-tasking because that is the way you want to multitask. That doesn't make it "true multitasking" but rather your preferred way of multitasking. Try not to confuse the two because they are not the same.
Your next error is "multitasking on iPhoneOS is only possible through jailbreaking, which is a concern for a LOT of people", which I highly doubt, and I'm sure you can't prove with any credible data. I think it is only a concern currently with a tiny minority of people, and that a LOT of people not only don't care, but they don't think about it at all (which is pretty much not caring since if it was an issue they would be thinking about it).
If Android floats your boat then get one, but don't assume that the way you want something done is the "true" way or the only right way. It's just your preference.
So why don't you freedom fighters "choose" to develop your own syncing software for the iPod? You seem more interested in whining that someone else doesn't develop things the way you want them than going out and fixing it yourself. And therein lies the issue. You want everything handed to you. Apple wanted things done a certain way so it is easy for average consumers to use and they have accomplished it. If you want a different solution then get off your ass and make it.
" Simple documents such as music and pictures should have the capability to be dragged and dropped as if the iWhatever were just another removable drive."
- Why should they have this? You make a grand statement like it is one of the elemental truths of the universe, but in the end this is just your opinion and what YOU want. Again, if you really want it so bad then get off your ass and develop your own MP3 player ecosystem and I'm sure you'll be able to do a better job. Until then shut up and quit whining.
What are they "forcing" you to do exactly? That's a bit of hyperbole, don't you think? You are FREE to buy the solution that fits your wants/needs best. If you buy an iPod that doesn't fit your lifestyle then isn't that YOUR fault? It is not Apple's responsibility to come up with every possible syncing scenario. I don't see you complaining that all other MP3 players don't offer syncing via iTunes. Apparently you're only for choice and freedom when people are free to choose the solution YOU want? You ignorance on this is staggering.