No, but you can put your app logic code in a C/C++ library, and create thin layers of UI in the phone's native language. I know Android allows you to make native libraries in C/C++. However, I believe Windows Phone 7 is only managed (.NET) code.
So in order to make their device the #1 portal for video consumption, they're going to push... an open standard format that anyone can make a viewer for?
Flash takes WAY more resources to support. Also, Apple doesn't have any control over the performance of Flash on the iPhone. They do have control over their HTML5 performance. If their implementation of HTML5 isn't up to their standards of usability, they can work to improve it. With Flash, they'd be beholden to Adobe to improve it, which they may or may not get around to.
Yes, because there's absolutely no lock-in with Windows. They don't have Windows only devices, and Windows only applications. Or Windows only music. How's that Plays For Sure stuff working for ya?
Ever paid for an app on your Blackberry, or even just downloaded one? Then you're effectively locked in, especially if that app doesn't exist on one of the competing platforms.
No, Adobe was bitching that there wasn't a low level API for them to use. Completely ignoring the fact that Core Video had been doing hardware accelerated video playback since 10.4, and every one else was able to use it.
Except only Flash Lite has been running on most mobile devices, and so far not very well. They say its coming to Android, but I'll believe it when I see it, and can actually use it.
If I am willing to pay a few hundred to get the last mile stuff put in going to my house, that equipment should be mine, and I should be able to take that equipment to any other provider.
The only problem is that there likely would have to be some tweaking done to make sure that the app complies with Android HIG, that it performs well on Android, and basically that it behaves like a good Android citizen. Of course, a bunch developers would probably just convert, make sure it runs once, and then upload, meaning we get a bunch of half assed ports on Android now.
So if Apple gets the screws put to them, should Nintendo be next? Their system is even more closed than Apple's. How about Sony, with the PS3? Or Microsoft, with the Xbox?
BlackberryOS still doesn't have Flash either. If you write a game in Flash, your market is limited to those platforms which support Flash. The quality of your game is also limited by the quality of the Flash implementation on that platform. Right now, there isn't a good Flash implementation on a mobile phone, and Flash on Linux is still pretty sucky.
Mac OS X was 64 bit starting with 10.5, and 10.6 is fully 64 bit. On top of that, Adobe just used the Carbon API to port Photoshop over to OS X, despite knowing from the beginning that Carbon was only there as a compatibility layer with Classic MacOS (9 and before), and would not be going 64 bit. Everyone was told to go to Cocoa for continuing app support, but Adobe was much too lazy to do this, despite the long lead time they had. Then they suddenly started bitching that Carbon wouldn't be going 64 bit, like it was Apple's fault they weren't giving a 64 bit version of the legacy API that was included just for legacy purposes.
Slashdot Mirror
Care to point out how "proprietary apps" are impacting the web more than wrapping Web content up in proprietary plugins?
No, but you can put your app logic code in a C/C++ library, and create thin layers of UI in the phone's native language. I know Android allows you to make native libraries in C/C++. However, I believe Windows Phone 7 is only managed (.NET) code.
Then let the market decide.
Why not let the market decide whether or not people care enough about Flash to stop buying the iPhone?
So in order to make their device the #1 portal for video consumption, they're going to push... an open standard format that anyone can make a viewer for?
Didn't you just say that Flash is the fastest implementations of vector graphics animation? And now you're telling him to encode it in video instead?
Flash takes WAY more resources to support. Also, Apple doesn't have any control over the performance of Flash on the iPhone. They do have control over their HTML5 performance. If their implementation of HTML5 isn't up to their standards of usability, they can work to improve it. With Flash, they'd be beholden to Adobe to improve it, which they may or may not get around to.
Adobe still hasn't gone to Cocoa with CS5. Its part of the reason why CS5 isn't 64bit on OS X.
Yes, because there's absolutely no lock-in with Windows. They don't have Windows only devices, and Windows only applications. Or Windows only music. How's that Plays For Sure stuff working for ya?
They're a publicly traded company. They're required to keep those books open.
And they still have to pay for credit card processing and hosting fees on all of those apps. Remember most of the apps are either free or 99 cents.
Ever paid for an app on your Blackberry, or even just downloaded one? Then you're effectively locked in, especially if that app doesn't exist on one of the competing platforms.
no ssh client
There are plenty of these in the App Store. Most of them are free. Hell, my Android phone didn't come with one out of the box either.
Adobe could have used the Core Video API to get hardware accelerated video playback. Its been available since 10.4, and its what everyone else uses.
No, Adobe was bitching that there wasn't a low level API for them to use. Completely ignoring the fact that Core Video had been doing hardware accelerated video playback since 10.4, and every one else was able to use it.
Except only Flash Lite has been running on most mobile devices, and so far not very well. They say its coming to Android, but I'll believe it when I see it, and can actually use it.
How about they stop offering to sell me "unlimited" service which, apparently, isn't "unlimited"?
If I am willing to pay a few hundred to get the last mile stuff put in going to my house, that equipment should be mine, and I should be able to take that equipment to any other provider.
On your sidenote, $40 in 1982 is worth about $78.43 in 2004. So it kinda did happen, with inflation. Although by then Houston had moved on.
But they are quite tasty.
The only problem is that there likely would have to be some tweaking done to make sure that the app complies with Android HIG, that it performs well on Android, and basically that it behaves like a good Android citizen. Of course, a bunch developers would probably just convert, make sure it runs once, and then upload, meaning we get a bunch of half assed ports on Android now.
Couldn't someone come out with a tool which would convert an iPhone app to an Android app? There isn't much reason why that wouldn't be allowed.
So if Apple gets the screws put to them, should Nintendo be next? Their system is even more closed than Apple's. How about Sony, with the PS3? Or Microsoft, with the Xbox?
BlackberryOS still doesn't have Flash either. If you write a game in Flash, your market is limited to those platforms which support Flash. The quality of your game is also limited by the quality of the Flash implementation on that platform. Right now, there isn't a good Flash implementation on a mobile phone, and Flash on Linux is still pretty sucky.
Other way around. You can't use their APIs unless you're using ObjC, C/C++.
Mac OS X was 64 bit starting with 10.5, and 10.6 is fully 64 bit. On top of that, Adobe just used the Carbon API to port Photoshop over to OS X, despite knowing from the beginning that Carbon was only there as a compatibility layer with Classic MacOS (9 and before), and would not be going 64 bit. Everyone was told to go to Cocoa for continuing app support, but Adobe was much too lazy to do this, despite the long lead time they had. Then they suddenly started bitching that Carbon wouldn't be going 64 bit, like it was Apple's fault they weren't giving a 64 bit version of the legacy API that was included just for legacy purposes.