solvs
Jul 22, 12:37 AM
looks like he's love'n the bunny:D
No, that's this guy (http://www.lebonze.co.uk/playground/bunnylove.htm).
No, that's this guy (http://www.lebonze.co.uk/playground/bunnylove.htm).
Iconoclysm
Apr 21, 11:52 PM
You are totally awesome, guy. It's not just your phone, it's a message about your whole lifestyle. I too care way more about what a stranger who sees me using a phone might think than I do how it actually works. All these dime a dozen sheep buying iPhones because they're easier to use and more elegant than Android phones are total losers. Don't they know that being seen is the most important feature of a phone? High five, man.
This is incredibly true, and hilarious.
This is incredibly true, and hilarious.
SchneiderMan
Sep 15, 08:40 PM
Deathstars...
I wouldn't buy Hitatchi, buy hey, it's as you wish...
No HDD brand is fail proof.
I wouldn't buy Hitatchi, buy hey, it's as you wish...
No HDD brand is fail proof.
appleguy123
Apr 28, 01:06 PM
What kind of story kills the main character a quarter of the way through???
more...
bloodycape
Jul 12, 02:16 PM
1. HELLO, the current ones are old already, they are bound to have better batteries. Its been a year. a year ago that was the best apple could do. Its not the best anymore.
2. If this is a VIDEO IPOD... 2hrs-3hrs of battery life for videos, sure as hell wont cut it. the current ipod makes video as more of a cool feature as opposed to MAIN feature. music was most important.
I see what you are saying however there were PMP's that came out the same time as the 5G iPod that gets 5 hours out of video from a removable battery with a 4in screen. When the iPod color came it had the same battery life as the monochrome ipod. So if history is a good indication of the past then the next ipod will have similar specs out of a larger screen machine? But I could be wrong.
I think for Apple to be competitive in the pmp market against the best currently out now they need to do a few thing. The main thing this is have a player that gets 5 hours or more of video with 25hours of audio. Then they need to have video recording if they want to compete with the likes of the Cowon A2, and Archos AV500 series. And then there is the open source Digital Cube V43 with its touch screen and linux/unix based.
2. If this is a VIDEO IPOD... 2hrs-3hrs of battery life for videos, sure as hell wont cut it. the current ipod makes video as more of a cool feature as opposed to MAIN feature. music was most important.
I see what you are saying however there were PMP's that came out the same time as the 5G iPod that gets 5 hours out of video from a removable battery with a 4in screen. When the iPod color came it had the same battery life as the monochrome ipod. So if history is a good indication of the past then the next ipod will have similar specs out of a larger screen machine? But I could be wrong.
I think for Apple to be competitive in the pmp market against the best currently out now they need to do a few thing. The main thing this is have a player that gets 5 hours or more of video with 25hours of audio. Then they need to have video recording if they want to compete with the likes of the Cowon A2, and Archos AV500 series. And then there is the open source Digital Cube V43 with its touch screen and linux/unix based.
DeathChill
Apr 23, 12:55 AM
Nope. I see every issue from the consumer perspective - as I should (being a consumer). Any other perspective would be an abomination (unless for those who hold tons of AAPL shares).
Phrases like "in Apple's eyes" is a good example of what I am talking about. Apple does not use iPhones, consumers do. Consumer eyse are the only eyes that matter. And that is exactly why people are switching to Android. If Apple cares more about what they think is right than what I think is right (for me) it would be stupid for me to care about what Apple thinks or does.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. You say that it would be stupid for you to care about what Apple thinks or does, yet you're on here berating them left and right. It makes zero sense to me.
Consumer eyes do matter and that's who Apple builds devices for. They don't build them for the spec junkie who has to have everything in the spec list checked off. They want people to have a great experience on their device in areas that matter in their mind.
I doubt that but even if that was the case then what? Every other phone manufacturer on the planet can design a phone that has LTE and Apple could not? Because they spend on R&D much less than any other hi-tech company of comparable size?
It is definitely true currently. No chip supports LTE and the other specifications (CDMA, GSM) yet.
Apple certainly can design a phone that supports LTE, but getting good battery life out of it is another thing. This is an area of focus for Apple so they won't make compromises here.
Phrases like "in Apple's eyes" is a good example of what I am talking about. Apple does not use iPhones, consumers do. Consumer eyse are the only eyes that matter. And that is exactly why people are switching to Android. If Apple cares more about what they think is right than what I think is right (for me) it would be stupid for me to care about what Apple thinks or does.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. You say that it would be stupid for you to care about what Apple thinks or does, yet you're on here berating them left and right. It makes zero sense to me.
Consumer eyes do matter and that's who Apple builds devices for. They don't build them for the spec junkie who has to have everything in the spec list checked off. They want people to have a great experience on their device in areas that matter in their mind.
I doubt that but even if that was the case then what? Every other phone manufacturer on the planet can design a phone that has LTE and Apple could not? Because they spend on R&D much less than any other hi-tech company of comparable size?
It is definitely true currently. No chip supports LTE and the other specifications (CDMA, GSM) yet.
Apple certainly can design a phone that supports LTE, but getting good battery life out of it is another thing. This is an area of focus for Apple so they won't make compromises here.
more...
FireStar
Nov 15, 04:10 PM
Very nice watch.
Heh, and people are flipping out over a $250 Burberry shirt.
OH MY GOD!!! :eek::eek::eek: That's ridiculous!
Heh, and people are flipping out over a $250 Burberry shirt.
OH MY GOD!!! :eek::eek::eek: That's ridiculous!
mlrproducts
Jul 28, 08:51 AM
Why doesn't everyone copy the AACs from all of their iTunes purchasing friends. Have those friends authorize that machine, and then go buy a ZOOM or whatever. Let MS scan for purchased tracks, and then pay $100's in licensing fees for the one purchased zoon. Then, pass the zuun onto a friend so they can do the same.
Only available once? Resell on eBay and at least that is 1 less new one being purchased and produced. (Plus then THEY'LL be pissed they can't get all their itunes songs in zuun format for free, haha!)
Only available once? Resell on eBay and at least that is 1 less new one being purchased and produced. (Plus then THEY'LL be pissed they can't get all their itunes songs in zuun format for free, haha!)
more...
celebrian23
Jul 24, 08:53 PM
I wonder if all of these possibilities for the 6G are all compatible with each other.
nefan65
Apr 12, 09:52 AM
Well. You have answered my questions and thank you for that.
This is all the argument that I could ever hear from my colleagues who are not pro-apple or are anti-apple.
This is what you would here from an android fanboy as well.
I really like android. The reason I have Nexus S; though I was forced to some extent.
For me, there's no way for an android phone over an iPhone. In the US? Yes due to carrier interference but not otherwise.
OK? :D
Yes, can't really comment on non-US stuff. I'm sure overseas that the carriers are better, regarding updates, etc. At least that's what I hear...
This is all the argument that I could ever hear from my colleagues who are not pro-apple or are anti-apple.
This is what you would here from an android fanboy as well.
I really like android. The reason I have Nexus S; though I was forced to some extent.
For me, there's no way for an android phone over an iPhone. In the US? Yes due to carrier interference but not otherwise.
OK? :D
Yes, can't really comment on non-US stuff. I'm sure overseas that the carriers are better, regarding updates, etc. At least that's what I hear...
more...
dethmaShine
Apr 12, 05:49 AM
The major difference between TB and FW adoption is that FW was 100% Apple whereas TB was envisioned by Apple and then handed off to Intel for development and implementation.
Since Intel is a major supplier of MBs to PC box manufacturers it can more easily push TB than Apple could FW. Moreover USB 3 is an Intel creation too so it has even greater power to play puppet master.
A dumb question (probably?):
I am not a video expert; not a music producer; not a sound engineer; no relation with servers, whatsoever.
So from that perspective, what is in store for me with respect to thunderbold?
- A normal consumer
I am not a strict normal consumer but I guess 99% of the world is.
Since Intel is a major supplier of MBs to PC box manufacturers it can more easily push TB than Apple could FW. Moreover USB 3 is an Intel creation too so it has even greater power to play puppet master.
A dumb question (probably?):
I am not a video expert; not a music producer; not a sound engineer; no relation with servers, whatsoever.
So from that perspective, what is in store for me with respect to thunderbold?
- A normal consumer
I am not a strict normal consumer but I guess 99% of the world is.
Crosbie
Apr 14, 02:19 PM
The link in this thread still causes me problems:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=12349432
Though now Safari crashes a short time after showing the white box problem.
Anyone else able to test the YouTube link in this thread?
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=12349432
Though now Safari crashes a short time after showing the white box problem.
Anyone else able to test the YouTube link in this thread?
more...
appleguy
Aug 18, 03:58 AM
I have had Leopard running tonight
it feels so much nicer and faster on my G4 1.4 Mac Mini (w 1GB of RAM)
anyone got any questions??
it feels so much nicer and faster on my G4 1.4 Mac Mini (w 1GB of RAM)
anyone got any questions??
Legion93
May 1, 11:37 PM
Another completely misrepresented group in western media....
What, so he wasn't important? What about the president?
What, so he wasn't important? What about the president?
more...
.jpg "johnny depp wallpaper")
reflex
Oct 24, 09:06 AM
No where on the sites does it mention 64-bit capabilities, unless i'm missing it. Can 64-bit be safely assumed?
Yes.
Yes.
Chopstick217
Apr 19, 11:11 AM
+1
I agree. I think the 'gain' in processor speed will be hard to notice. But for many of us, the 'drop' in gpu performance (which is already marginal with the 320m) will be deadly.
Agreed, even though I mainly game on my desktop. I still occasionally play wow and starcraft on my air. The drop in GPU performance would most definitely affect me more than the marginal CPU increase.
I agree. I think the 'gain' in processor speed will be hard to notice. But for many of us, the 'drop' in gpu performance (which is already marginal with the 320m) will be deadly.
Agreed, even though I mainly game on my desktop. I still occasionally play wow and starcraft on my air. The drop in GPU performance would most definitely affect me more than the marginal CPU increase.
more...
Psilocybin
Apr 20, 10:39 AM
that's easy, macbook without backlit keyboard is too ugly to me.
Lol ok buddy. Hope your not waiting for there to be a backlit keyboard in the air because I doubt there will be. Apple took it out of the MBA for a reason not for the heck of it
Lol ok buddy. Hope your not waiting for there to be a backlit keyboard in the air because I doubt there will be. Apple took it out of the MBA for a reason not for the heck of it
leekohler
Apr 27, 12:42 PM
Nice metric you have there, $some people on the internet have said it, thus it must be true.
:rolleyes:
Pretty amazing. Now "speculation" is considered "fact". No wonder this country has so many problems.
:rolleyes:
Pretty amazing. Now "speculation" is considered "fact". No wonder this country has so many problems.
MagnusVonMagnum
Nov 20, 10:40 AM
If you don't address those very good reasons, your argument won't be very convincing. We do not want the CPU suck, the identity leaking, the UI inconsistencies, and the very real risk of "zero day" Adobe bugs.
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
arnop
Nov 11, 03:54 PM
Luminor Panerai. Can't beat that!
h0mi
Apr 26, 12:16 PM
$20 a year on top of the $100 a year for mobileme would not be appealing. If the $100 a year for mobileme goes away, that's different.
andiwm2003
Apr 13, 10:02 PM
I wouldn't buy one with a two year contract. It makes no sense to be locked in with a phone that technically is already 1 year old unless you have a specific reason (e.g. your current phone breaks or gets stolen).
I wonder what Apples plan for iP5 are. It makes no sense to shift the release date because too many people have their contracts expire in June/July/August and won't buy a new phone until iP5 is out. That means the revenue that Apple could have had in June will be shifted by a few month and that is not good.
I wonder what Apples plan for iP5 are. It makes no sense to shift the release date because too many people have their contracts expire in June/July/August and won't buy a new phone until iP5 is out. That means the revenue that Apple could have had in June will be shifted by a few month and that is not good.
abrooks
Aug 16, 07:47 AM
Currently? That article's 3 years old! Did you see the size of those mobiles? Also parts where they mention that IMing could be the next big thing give away its age a bit.
OK if that's not good enough for you then this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_messaging) should be, scroll down to the User Base section, Neilsen still rates AIM the largest by a large chunk.
OK if that's not good enough for you then this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_messaging) should be, scroll down to the User Base section, Neilsen still rates AIM the largest by a large chunk.
davidgrimm
Apr 24, 05:41 PM
I had service with T-mob (not with an iPhone) and the only difference I noticed with ATT and T=mob was the T-mob service was WAY cheaper. Its hard to imagine that will continue if ATT buys them up.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий