You are not allowed to use your market strength in one market to force a company out of a different market.
Apple is within their rights to not include flash in their browser. They're not required to go out of their way to accommodate them.
Where Apple have (potentially) messed up though is selectively targetting Adobe. They've made public statements saying in no uncertain terms they want to destroy Flash.
They have been inconsistent with their app approval process in a way that attacks Adobe. Why is a C64 emulator bundled with games allowed but not a Flashplayer + flash games bundle allowed?
Worst of all is their recent 'no cross compilation' amendment to the app store T&Cs. It's pretty common knowledge this was drawn up to prevent compiled flash apps hitting the app store and Apple's justification in public has been pretty weak.
Competition in a market is healthy but only if it's done through fair means. You cannot use your control of a market in which you are dominant to actively make it hard or impossible for a competitor to operate in.
I've a sneaking suspicion they like HTML5 over flash, not only because they have the power to improve it but they have to power to limit it too, either by artificially poor performance of actions/functions troublesome for them or by outright disabling parts for 'security' reasons.
Will they always be perfectly happy to let you play HTML5 based games in the browser that you can also play on Android phones with no limitations of any kind? They've been saying this is their intention but it's largely at odds with their behaviour so far.
There's also the issue of stuff like JQuery. Will they be happy with you using that (and other non-Apple approved libraries) as a framework for a HTML5 app in the appstore?
I'm not sure HTML5 is much better. A lot of the (non video) demos I've tried use insane amounts of CPU. What's it going to be like when there's heavy HTML5 integrated into site functionality and banner ads?
anti-trust might make some small degree of success (well not really but let's pretend) if APPLE WROTE GAMES. They just provide the platform, you are quite free to continue to write games, just using the tools that Apple OK's. There's no anti-trust involved whatsoever.
It has nothing to do with Apple writing games or not. They are shutting Flash out at every avenue. No flash support in the browser is fine, they don't have to spend time and money putting it in. However other they are consistantly going out of their way to actively block Flash. They don't allow apps that play via a flash player(despite there being a C64 emulator), they changed rules of what code could be submitted in a way that specifically targetted Flash.
This isn't about "why should Apple go out of their way for Flash". This is about it being illegal to go out your way to crush a business through your control of a market. Apple are not simple being passive in their opposition to Flash.
When you enter Flash you left the web. When I can't arbitrarily highlight text that is text and not an image, I have left the web. When the whole browser settings as to font size and such have no effect, I have left the web.
You think HTML5 and Canvas are really going to be significantly different in this regards? There's going to be just as many inaccessible HTML5 based apps.
Take your own advice. Adobe can produce HTML 5 tools. They can even produce Objective-C tools. Heck, they can even produce tools that produce iPhone binaries, but in that case since Apple can't manage the backend compilation Apple will also not distribute them. But you could ship them out to jailbreakers.
And Netscape could've abandoned their browser and made IE plugins! You're pretty much saying "it's ok we've crushed them in this area, they can move on to a different area of the market!".
That is a horribly fanboyish article. Most of the points are basically "HOW DARE ADOBE QUESTION APPLE?!?", anyhow, lets refute the points.
1: Neither Nintendo or MS made any pretences about how open their development is (nintendo: follow our rules to the letter, MS: follow our rules, use XNA to make that easier). However not only have Apple made big noises about how easy it is for anyone to develop a huge range of apps for the iphone, they've actively forcibly removed a popular method of coding games by a company they're competing with (hello anti-trust!)
2: Apple like to say they have the complete web on the iphone. Without Flash it isn't the complete web. That is moot however as this point uses circular reasoning. Given that most of that smart phone traffic is from iphones, his point is basically saying "all iphones don't run flash! Therefore it is good that iphones don't run flash" (gotta love logical fallacies).
3: This isn't even a myth, it's something pissed off people would like to see Adobe do but no one really expects them to pull out of one of their main markets. He still struggles to try and make an argument here and basically settles on a vaguely straw man like agument; "Microsoft make some money on macs so this means it's impossible!".
4: Anti-trust. Look it up. you cannot abuse market dominance to actively force companies out of business, especially if the dominance is in a market area. They don't 'owe' Adobe a living but neither do they have the right to actively try to destroy them.
5: Yeah... This is pretty much entirely "HOW DARE YOU QUESTION APPLE" and deliberately obfuscates the difference between including flash in the browser and banning flash being used as a development platform for their devices or allowing a flash player.
Have the dialogue control specify that you are potentially allowing the PDF to alter other documents (maliciously or otherwise).
It's not exactly the first time a method of using social engineering to trick people has been part of a standard. Altering the status bar in JavaScript in order to aid phishing attacks was one.
I can't hear any rumbling through these tinny ipad speakers!
Re:Solution looking for a problem
on
Apple iPad Reviewed
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
Yep, I can't see any real practical use for this.
I can't think of a single situation where I wouldn't be far better served by an iphone, a netbook or an e-reader.
You can't pocket it, you're gonna need a carrying case for it (may as well carry a netbook/laptop). It's not a great portable.
As an e-reader; in the dark it burns out your eyes spending time reading it, in the sun, you can't read it at all.
Using it for work? Typing on a touchscreen is painful for large amounts of text. There is no comfortable way of holding the ipad and still being able to type with more than a single finger at a time. No multitasking makes it an utter joke for any real work. Imagine you're doing a company flier. You want to put in an image that needs some light editing so it blends in properly. Imagine the workflow for that without having more than one application open.
Gaming? How stupid are you going to look on a train using a tilt sensor in a 10" device? How tired will your arms get?
I just wish Firefox wouldn't go crazy when you get a popunder and switch to a random open window. This bug has been around for years and it's pretty irritating. Why hasn't it been addressed yet?
The article is a thinly disguised shill piece for the iPad. Pretty much every point is actually saying why the ipad is better that the tablets that have come before them.
It's never been about the interface, the power or the battery life. It's been about the fact they they offer no benefits over either a laptop or a PDA/smartphone. Here are the problems not addressed by that article (largely because the ipad doesn't address any of them).
-Typing on a hard solid surface for any length of time is painful. The iphone is great for texts and brief posts. Would I want to type something as verbose as this post? Hell no.
-There is no comfy way to hold them. "ok I'll rest it on my legs... I can't see the screen clearly", "I'll hold it with one hand... This makes typing slow and my arm and wrist are starting to ache from holding something with a high center of gravity", "I'll use a stand and use it on a desk... Why don't I just use a PC or laptop?".
Look at the Apple promo, whenever the ipad is being shown held (and not on an edited out swivelling stand), it's people lying down, sitting on the floor, not in positions people normally sit.
-They're not anymore portable than a laptop. 10" screen with no protection? If you take it out and about, you're going to want a protective case. One you have a protective case, the difference in portability between an ipad and a laptop is marginal. A laptop however has scores of advantages over the ipad.
Companies sometimes talk about products they plan to release in the future so people are informed and excited when the product hits the shelves. More at 9!
Police forces can put a condition on elements of CRB checks that threaten the employer with jail if they reveal what they say (including to the subject of the check). They're pretty rare but they do indeed exist.
Except Labour have been expanding the scope of CRB checks. It used to be, you do paid work with children every day, you need a check. Now it's "you could possibly come into contact with children, in a job or outside of one", you need a check.
However these records are now accessible outside of CRB checks (at the moment only in certain regions but it's being rolled out nationwide). Girlfriends can check to "see if you're a danger", families of girlfriends can check, parents of kids who your kids often play with can check.
Allowing Children on the internet to quickly and easily label anyone they like a child abuser. What could possibly go wrong?
It gets better though, if you are ever accused of child abuse, it goes on record and will be returned whenever an employer does a background check. Doesn't matter if the allegations are complete rubbish and everyone acknowledges this. It'll still haunt you for life.
To top it all off, there's a condition that the government can put on your record making the information on your background check confidential to anyone. Including yourself. You can fail a background check and never you have failed one. The employer can't tell you you've failed, so if there's a mistake on your background check, it is impossible to get it remedied and your life is basically ruined.
The problem with public voting is in today's politics is that they're not accountable to 'their voting public'. They're accountable to the press.
What's the headline likely to be "Senator John Smith is the lone person against giving orphans flags" or "Senator John Smith refuses to vote for the flags for orphans bill as he feels some unrelated legislation has been added by stealth and he thinks it's against his voter's wishes"?
A well run government often requires passing bills that voters would dislike for the good of the country (tax increases, spending cuts etc.). Fear of voting in line with your views and policies at both top and bottom levels results in a failure of democracy.
Personally I think there's a lot to be said about keeping these votes anonymous. You end up with 'flags for orphans' situations where a piece of draconian legislation gets snuck in a popular bill and people are too scared to vote against it for fear of seeing their name in negative headlines.
I enjoy having a parliament which actually has people in it.
Everyone makes mistakes, even the most pure and honest people and the rules for MPs are mind bogglingly complex. Do we really want a situation where someone has been in politics for 30 years, has helped move the country into a new age of prosperity, suddenly gets sacked and loses his pension because he ate a cookie a little girl baked for him as thanks for keeping their school open (accepting a bribe/not declaring a gift)?
Donations? Don't make me laugh, you cannot pay people's salarys on donations. People may donate to wikipedia or wikileaks. Once. They're not going to donate to a small tech news blog they visit once a week.
Merchandise? Do I want to be wearing a t-shirt showing a tech site's logo? No.
Paid subcriptions? Not an option for this tech site. No one is going to subscribe for light news content.
There is a problem but it's not the business model.
Car analogy time! Someone who visits a car dealer, spends 30 minutes with a sales guy, is about to get him to sign on the dotted line, only for him to pull out. That happens occasionally and the dealer can absorb the staff costs that results in it. However if enough people do it and the dealer doesn't have sales staff free to deal with real customers, the dealer will fold.
Going around the web with ad block fully on; You're a guy that spends 20 minutes talking to sales guys, takes a few of their glossy brochures but is perfectly happy with his push bike. Car dealerships are a tried and tested way of selling vehicles and the only practical way of selling lots of cars. You're being an ass and wasting their time then blaming them for your behaviour.
Slashdot Mirror
You are not allowed to use your market strength in one market to force a company out of a different market.
Apple is within their rights to not include flash in their browser. They're not required to go out of their way to accommodate them.
Where Apple have (potentially) messed up though is selectively targetting Adobe. They've made public statements saying in no uncertain terms they want to destroy Flash.
They have been inconsistent with their app approval process in a way that attacks Adobe. Why is a C64 emulator bundled with games allowed but not a Flashplayer + flash games bundle allowed?
Worst of all is their recent 'no cross compilation' amendment to the app store T&Cs. It's pretty common knowledge this was drawn up to prevent compiled flash apps hitting the app store and Apple's justification in public has been pretty weak.
Competition in a market is healthy but only if it's done through fair means. You cannot use your control of a market in which you are dominant to actively make it hard or impossible for a competitor to operate in.
I've a sneaking suspicion they like HTML5 over flash, not only because they have the power to improve it but they have to power to limit it too, either by artificially poor performance of actions/functions troublesome for them or by outright disabling parts for 'security' reasons.
Will they always be perfectly happy to let you play HTML5 based games in the browser that you can also play on Android phones with no limitations of any kind? They've been saying this is their intention but it's largely at odds with their behaviour so far.
There's also the issue of stuff like JQuery. Will they be happy with you using that (and other non-Apple approved libraries) as a framework for a HTML5 app in the appstore?
I'm not sure HTML5 is much better. A lot of the (non video) demos I've tried use insane amounts of CPU. What's it going to be like when there's heavy HTML5 integrated into site functionality and banner ads?
anti-trust might make some small degree of success (well not really but let's pretend) if APPLE WROTE GAMES. They just provide the platform, you are quite free to continue to write games, just using the tools that Apple OK's. There's no anti-trust involved whatsoever.
It has nothing to do with Apple writing games or not. They are shutting Flash out at every avenue. No flash support in the browser is fine, they don't have to spend time and money putting it in. However other they are consistantly going out of their way to actively block Flash. They don't allow apps that play via a flash player(despite there being a C64 emulator), they changed rules of what code could be submitted in a way that specifically targetted Flash.
This isn't about "why should Apple go out of their way for Flash". This is about it being illegal to go out your way to crush a business through your control of a market. Apple are not simple being passive in their opposition to Flash.
When you enter Flash you left the web. When I can't arbitrarily highlight text that is text and not an image, I have left the web. When the whole browser settings as to font size and such have no effect, I have left the web.
You think HTML5 and Canvas are really going to be significantly different in this regards? There's going to be just as many inaccessible HTML5 based apps.
Take your own advice. Adobe can produce HTML 5 tools. They can even produce Objective-C tools. Heck, they can even produce tools that produce iPhone binaries, but in that case since Apple can't manage the backend compilation Apple will also not distribute them. But you could ship them out to jailbreakers.
And Netscape could've abandoned their browser and made IE plugins! You're pretty much saying "it's ok we've crushed them in this area, they can move on to a different area of the market!".
Their marketshare in the MP3 player market more than meets the requirement to be considered a monopoly in lots of countries.
That is a horribly fanboyish article. Most of the points are basically "HOW DARE ADOBE QUESTION APPLE?!?", anyhow, lets refute the points.
1: Neither Nintendo or MS made any pretences about how open their development is (nintendo: follow our rules to the letter, MS: follow our rules, use XNA to make that easier). However not only have Apple made big noises about how easy it is for anyone to develop a huge range of apps for the iphone, they've actively forcibly removed a popular method of coding games by a company they're competing with (hello anti-trust!)
2: Apple like to say they have the complete web on the iphone. Without Flash it isn't the complete web. That is moot however as this point uses circular reasoning. Given that most of that smart phone traffic is from iphones, his point is basically saying "all iphones don't run flash! Therefore it is good that iphones don't run flash" (gotta love logical fallacies).
3: This isn't even a myth, it's something pissed off people would like to see Adobe do but no one really expects them to pull out of one of their main markets. He still struggles to try and make an argument here and basically settles on a vaguely straw man like agument; "Microsoft make some money on macs so this means it's impossible!".
4: Anti-trust. Look it up. you cannot abuse market dominance to actively force companies out of business, especially if the dominance is in a market area. They don't 'owe' Adobe a living but neither do they have the right to actively try to destroy them.
5: Yeah... This is pretty much entirely "HOW DARE YOU QUESTION APPLE" and deliberately obfuscates the difference between including flash in the browser and banning flash being used as a development platform for their devices or allowing a flash player.
Which is why you ensure programs display a fixed message for (or in addition to) these dialogs so it's impossible to mislead the user.
You clearly didn't read the article or even the summary. This exploit affects Foxit too. It's an exploit of the PDF standard itself
Have the dialogue control specify that you are potentially allowing the PDF to alter other documents (maliciously or otherwise).
It's not exactly the first time a method of using social engineering to trick people has been part of a standard. Altering the status bar in JavaScript in order to aid phishing attacks was one.
Office produces 100% compliant ODF files that Open Office can't properly handle.
I can't hear any rumbling through these tinny ipad speakers!
Yep, I can't see any real practical use for this.
I can't think of a single situation where I wouldn't be far better served by an iphone, a netbook or an e-reader.
You can't pocket it, you're gonna need a carrying case for it (may as well carry a netbook/laptop). It's not a great portable.
As an e-reader; in the dark it burns out your eyes spending time reading it, in the sun, you can't read it at all.
Using it for work? Typing on a touchscreen is painful for large amounts of text. There is no comfortable way of holding the ipad and still being able to type with more than a single finger at a time. No multitasking makes it an utter joke for any real work. Imagine you're doing a company flier. You want to put in an image that needs some light editing so it blends in properly. Imagine the workflow for that without having more than one application open.
Gaming? How stupid are you going to look on a train using a tilt sensor in a 10" device? How tired will your arms get?
The same Mozilla firefox that took a month to patch a publicly known exploit recently?
If anything, Firefox is more vulnerable to exploits because of its lack of sandboxing features.
I just wish Firefox wouldn't go crazy when you get a popunder and switch to a random open window. This bug has been around for years and it's pretty irritating. Why hasn't it been addressed yet?
The article is a thinly disguised shill piece for the iPad. Pretty much every point is actually saying why the ipad is better that the tablets that have come before them.
It's never been about the interface, the power or the battery life. It's been about the fact they they offer no benefits over either a laptop or a PDA/smartphone. Here are the problems not addressed by that article (largely because the ipad doesn't address any of them).
-Typing on a hard solid surface for any length of time is painful. The iphone is great for texts and brief posts. Would I want to type something as verbose as this post? Hell no.
-There is no comfy way to hold them. "ok I'll rest it on my legs... I can't see the screen clearly", "I'll hold it with one hand... This makes typing slow and my arm and wrist are starting to ache from holding something with a high center of gravity", "I'll use a stand and use it on a desk... Why don't I just use a PC or laptop?".
Look at the Apple promo, whenever the ipad is being shown held (and not on an edited out swivelling stand), it's people lying down, sitting on the floor, not in positions people normally sit.
-They're not anymore portable than a laptop. 10" screen with no protection? If you take it out and about, you're going to want a protective case. One you have a protective case, the difference in portability between an ipad and a laptop is marginal. A laptop however has scores of advantages over the ipad.
"Free as in use exactly what we want you to use and nothing else"?
Companies sometimes talk about products they plan to release in the future so people are informed and excited when the product hits the shelves. More at 9!
Police forces can put a condition on elements of CRB checks that threaten the employer with jail if they reveal what they say (including to the subject of the check). They're pretty rare but they do indeed exist.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ipm/2009/07/crb_checks_and_secret_letters.shtml
Except Labour have been expanding the scope of CRB checks. It used to be, you do paid work with children every day, you need a check. Now it's "you could possibly come into contact with children, in a job or outside of one", you need a check.
However these records are now accessible outside of CRB checks (at the moment only in certain regions but it's being rolled out nationwide). Girlfriends can check to "see if you're a danger", families of girlfriends can check, parents of kids who your kids often play with can check.
print a photo of her laughing with the headline:
"Harman laughs whilst children in Africa are dying!"
That's about the level of our tabloids.
Allowing Children on the internet to quickly and easily label anyone they like a child abuser. What could possibly go wrong?
It gets better though, if you are ever accused of child abuse, it goes on record and will be returned whenever an employer does a background check. Doesn't matter if the allegations are complete rubbish and everyone acknowledges this. It'll still haunt you for life.
To top it all off, there's a condition that the government can put on your record making the information on your background check confidential to anyone. Including yourself. You can fail a background check and never you have failed one. The employer can't tell you you've failed, so if there's a mistake on your background check, it is impossible to get it remedied and your life is basically ruined.
"one rule for us and one rule for them" then?
The problem with public voting is in today's politics is that they're not accountable to 'their voting public'. They're accountable to the press.
What's the headline likely to be "Senator John Smith is the lone person against giving orphans flags" or "Senator John Smith refuses to vote for the flags for orphans bill as he feels some unrelated legislation has been added by stealth and he thinks it's against his voter's wishes"?
A well run government often requires passing bills that voters would dislike for the good of the country (tax increases, spending cuts etc.). Fear of voting in line with your views and policies at both top and bottom levels results in a failure of democracy.
Personally I think there's a lot to be said about keeping these votes anonymous. You end up with 'flags for orphans' situations where a piece of draconian legislation gets snuck in a popular bill and people are too scared to vote against it for fear of seeing their name in negative headlines.
I enjoy having a parliament which actually has people in it.
Everyone makes mistakes, even the most pure and honest people and the rules for MPs are mind bogglingly complex. Do we really want a situation where someone has been in politics for 30 years, has helped move the country into a new age of prosperity, suddenly gets sacked and loses his pension because he ate a cookie a little girl baked for him as thanks for keeping their school open (accepting a bribe/not declaring a gift)?
Tell me, how do you make money?
Donations? Don't make me laugh, you cannot pay people's salarys on donations. People may donate to wikipedia or wikileaks. Once. They're not going to donate to a small tech news blog they visit once a week.
Merchandise? Do I want to be wearing a t-shirt showing a tech site's logo? No.
Paid subcriptions? Not an option for this tech site. No one is going to subscribe for light news content.
There is a problem but it's not the business model.
Car analogy time! Someone who visits a car dealer, spends 30 minutes with a sales guy, is about to get him to sign on the dotted line, only for him to pull out. That happens occasionally and the dealer can absorb the staff costs that results in it. However if enough people do it and the dealer doesn't have sales staff free to deal with real customers, the dealer will fold.
Going around the web with ad block fully on; You're a guy that spends 20 minutes talking to sales guys, takes a few of their glossy brochures but is perfectly happy with his push bike. Car dealerships are a tried and tested way of selling vehicles and the only practical way of selling lots of cars. You're being an ass and wasting their time then blaming them for your behaviour.