I have no idea which system I use primarily. Is it the one at work? My laptop which I always bring along with me but never really use for a long time at once? My desktop at home which I use for my business in the evening and weekends? Or my server that connects all of my systems together and stores most of my data?
I never got people who were talking about using a Mac as "switching". Like you would suddenly not use the operating system you have been using for the past 20 years by buying a computer that runs something different.
I don't know a lot of people who are devoted to a single platform. Most people I know use one OS on their desktop, something else on their notebook, something else on their phone etc. So when someone buys a Mac, they just add that platform to the list of systems they were already using. There's no reason to stop using all of your other stuff because a Mac got into the house.
You're proving exactly what I'm trying to say: there is no official update route for most phones. Sure, some people may attempt to install unofficial firmware, just like people will jailbreak their iPhone or unlock their Android device, but how easy or hard this is, is completely irrelevant for most people, as they will only use official releases that are pushed to them. And for most of these people, there is no update at all.
You can't even upgrade most WinMo phones to this new release without hackishly installing an unofficial ROM. If you're a simple consumer, you'll get this update with a new phone, or you won't get it at all.
Not really though, because even if a JVM or Flash Player existed on the iPhone, you wouldn't be able to install stuff on the iPhone without getting it from the App Store.
The only way you could provide applications would be throug the web, but web apps are currently also not being screened by Apple.
If a complete Flash Player and Java are on the iPhone, everyone can develop for the iPhone without an SDK, everyone can publish/sell applications without the crApp Store.
Your argument makes no sense at all. First of all, there are already lots of ways to build iPhone apps without using a Mac, like Unity 3D or MonoTouch. So you don't need a Mac, even without a JVM or Flash player.
Secondly, you wouldn't be able to publish and sell apps if a JVM or Flash Player would exist on an iPhone, because without jailbreaking the device, the only way to install apps remains through the App Store. Supporting Java or Flash has nothing to do with the way apps are distributed.
Rant all you want, but at least make sense while doing so.
The main reason Apple and Adobe fight over Flash is because Adobe doesn't want to do a complete rewrite of Flash for the iPhone and instead just wants to modify its Mac-version to run in Safari Mobile.
Apple however isn't content with this, because it's their opinion that Flash for Mac/iPhone takes up too much resources, which will harm the "browsing experience" and drain the battery.
Basically, Apple demands something better than Adobe is willing to develop.
Effectively, that's the whole point of my comment: this announcement has nothing to do with my desire for Safari to either support Flash or for websites to ditch it, and that sucks.
I'm glad we both agree your reply has nothing to do with this article.
You do realize the news that Flash CS5 will be able to export iPhone Apps has absolutely nothing to do with Safari Mobile supporting Flash or websites ditching Flash for something else to show their videos, right?
Basically Google's operating system is open source like Apple's operating system is open source. You can fiddle with the geeky low level core stuff, but the things that are actually useful and make it valuable are proprietary and can't be messed with without being sued.
Indeed. And since nobody actually purchases software for their phones this way (how many apps for your phone have you bought from a store recently?), you make absolutely nothing with your app.
This is precisely my point. There is no realistic way of making money with your WinMo app because there is no infrastructure. Therefore not a lot of developers get into the game and therefore WinMo is a barren wasteland.
If you had actually read my reply, you would have known I am not saying that creating the app is the hard part. But now you've done what you've said and you've got an application... then what? How do you get your app to people and businesses? How do you get them to pay for it? How are you going to make sure they keep your app up to date? The short answer: you don't.
Microsoft provides no help at all in getting the investment of creating the app back. That's why there aren't a lot of WinMo apps out there and that's why MS has screwed up.
There is a huge infrastructure for distributing and payment in the desktop scene, because software for those platforms are available in regular stores. Software for mobiles however is not avaiable through such channels.
It was easier to write software fro WM 5 years ago than it is to write for iPhone today. There should be thousands of apps out there. But there aren't. Because WM after version 3 began to suck more and more.
I think there aren't so many apps for WinMo because there's no infrastructure for distribution, payment and updating your application. Sure, it's easy to create some application, but how do you get it to your users and (more important) how do you get them to pay for it?
You could stick it on your website and pray people will find it, but the reality of course is that most people won't find it. And if you want people to pay for it, you will have to figure out a way of doing so.
It requires a lot of effort from the developer to get things started. And even when he figures out how to get his infrastructure set up, it remains hard to get your application onto a user's phone. And then you release an update and it's even harder to get people to get the update on their phone.
All in all, it's a mess and no sane developer will get into it, no matter how easy it may be to create the application itself.
Well, if you just take a look at this monster I think you'll quickly will come to the conclusion that even providing the most basic functionality can lead to something quite complicated. And of course, "basic functionality" in 2009 means something else entirely when compared to 1991 when Linux started out.
It should be noted that of course the module-system works pretty good to keep things organised, so no developer needs to dig through millions of lines of code to make a few tweaks. But it's a monster nonetheless.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why I trust Net Applications. They measure something actually useful: what system people use to browse the web.
I have no idea which system I use primarily. Is it the one at work? My laptop which I always bring along with me but never really use for a long time at once? My desktop at home which I use for my business in the evening and weekends? Or my server that connects all of my systems together and stores most of my data?
There are *a lot* of free apps in the App Store right now. Apples makes absolutely nothing on these, but accept them anyway.
I never got people who were talking about using a Mac as "switching". Like you would suddenly not use the operating system you have been using for the past 20 years by buying a computer that runs something different.
I don't know a lot of people who are devoted to a single platform. Most people I know use one OS on their desktop, something else on their notebook, something else on their phone etc. So when someone buys a Mac, they just add that platform to the list of systems they were already using. There's no reason to stop using all of your other stuff because a Mac got into the house.
You're proving exactly what I'm trying to say: there is no official update route for most phones. Sure, some people may attempt to install unofficial firmware, just like people will jailbreak their iPhone or unlock their Android device, but how easy or hard this is, is completely irrelevant for most people, as they will only use official releases that are pushed to them. And for most of these people, there is no update at all.
You can't even upgrade most WinMo phones to this new release without hackishly installing an unofficial ROM. If you're a simple consumer, you'll get this update with a new phone, or you won't get it at all.
Why? Maybe I want to sell through Apple's App store but also through my site directly and avoid their fees.
You can't install apps from a website on an iPhone.
Not really though, because even if a JVM or Flash Player existed on the iPhone, you wouldn't be able to install stuff on the iPhone without getting it from the App Store.
The only way you could provide applications would be throug the web, but web apps are currently also not being screened by Apple.
If a complete Flash Player and Java are on the iPhone, everyone can develop for the iPhone without an SDK, everyone can publish/sell applications without the crApp Store.
Your argument makes no sense at all. First of all, there are already lots of ways to build iPhone apps without using a Mac, like Unity 3D or MonoTouch. So you don't need a Mac, even without a JVM or Flash player.
Secondly, you wouldn't be able to publish and sell apps if a JVM or Flash Player would exist on an iPhone, because without jailbreaking the device, the only way to install apps remains through the App Store. Supporting Java or Flash has nothing to do with the way apps are distributed.
Rant all you want, but at least make sense while doing so.
Until that is fixed, Steve Jobs doesn't want it on his precious platform.
Yeah, but the iPhone hasn't.
Then you haven't looked at your CPU usage while running Flash on a Mac.
The main reason Apple and Adobe fight over Flash is because Adobe doesn't want to do a complete rewrite of Flash for the iPhone and instead just wants to modify its Mac-version to run in Safari Mobile.
Apple however isn't content with this, because it's their opinion that Flash for Mac/iPhone takes up too much resources, which will harm the "browsing experience" and drain the battery.
Basically, Apple demands something better than Adobe is willing to develop.
Effectively, that's the whole point of my comment: this announcement has nothing to do with my desire for Safari to either support Flash or for websites to ditch it, and that sucks.
I'm glad we both agree your reply has nothing to do with this article.
You do realize the news that Flash CS5 will be able to export iPhone Apps has absolutely nothing to do with Safari Mobile supporting Flash or websites ditching Flash for something else to show their videos, right?
They do have a rule saying apps must be written using the iPhone SDK provided by Apple.
It's the past as well. As you might recall, MS-DOS 6 included a virus scanner.
Basically Google's operating system is open source like Apple's operating system is open source. You can fiddle with the geeky low level core stuff, but the things that are actually useful and make it valuable are proprietary and can't be messed with without being sued.
Indeed. And since nobody actually purchases software for their phones this way (how many apps for your phone have you bought from a store recently?), you make absolutely nothing with your app.
This is precisely my point. There is no realistic way of making money with your WinMo app because there is no infrastructure. Therefore not a lot of developers get into the game and therefore WinMo is a barren wasteland.
If you had actually read my reply, you would have known I am not saying that creating the app is the hard part. But now you've done what you've said and you've got an application... then what? How do you get your app to people and businesses? How do you get them to pay for it? How are you going to make sure they keep your app up to date? The short answer: you don't.
Microsoft provides no help at all in getting the investment of creating the app back. That's why there aren't a lot of WinMo apps out there and that's why MS has screwed up.
There is a huge infrastructure for distributing and payment in the desktop scene, because software for those platforms are available in regular stores. Software for mobiles however is not avaiable through such channels.
It was easier to write software fro WM 5 years ago than it is to write for iPhone today. There should be thousands of apps out there. But there aren't. Because WM after version 3 began to suck more and more.
I think there aren't so many apps for WinMo because there's no infrastructure for distribution, payment and updating your application. Sure, it's easy to create some application, but how do you get it to your users and (more important) how do you get them to pay for it?
You could stick it on your website and pray people will find it, but the reality of course is that most people won't find it. And if you want people to pay for it, you will have to figure out a way of doing so.
It requires a lot of effort from the developer to get things started. And even when he figures out how to get his infrastructure set up, it remains hard to get your application onto a user's phone. And then you release an update and it's even harder to get people to get the update on their phone.
All in all, it's a mess and no sane developer will get into it, no matter how easy it may be to create the application itself.
Nothing is slow on a Core 2 Duo.
That's because drivers are included in the Linux kernel.
Well, if you just take a look at this monster I think you'll quickly will come to the conclusion that even providing the most basic functionality can lead to something quite complicated. And of course, "basic functionality" in 2009 means something else entirely when compared to 1991 when Linux started out.
It should be noted that of course the module-system works pretty good to keep things organised, so no developer needs to dig through millions of lines of code to make a few tweaks. But it's a monster nonetheless.