txmatt
Apr 19, 02:04 PM
But my point is that even if we get a 40% boost in our CPU, it is near useless.
For example, lets say you have 100/100 in a test. Having a theoretical 40% boost will give you a 140/100. I mean, thats cool. Overkill. That is currently the CPU we have. We have enough to accomplish our tasks, and any more would be an overkill in the things we need our computer to process.
On the other hand, on the GPU side, you have a 80/100 (which is what the NVIDIA 320m is) and we see a 30% performance drop, that will result to a 42.5/100. At lower levels, difference between a 80/100 and 42.5/100 is the difference between a pass and a fail.
Of course, having a better CPU might be fulfilling to you and might give you the sense that you are the "latest in tech," but seriously, it is not about the CPU any more, it is about SSDs, ergonomics, GPU, and ultimately, Software.
I had to finally register to comment on the hypocrisy in this and many other threads like it. Because some people want frame rates for gaming on an MBA, then your needs for GPU performance are valid, and others who don't game but could use CPU performance have invalid needs? Rubbish.
A perfect example is the above. So the C2D rates as a 100/100 for CPU performance and thus any improvement is useless? Really?! Nice to see that you framed the argument such that any improvement you don't see as needed is useless.
On Sunday I combined 6 or 8 short 720p video clips into a 7 minute video for YouTube with a simple title screen and transitions. It took the C2D ~40 minutes to process the video and save in a new format. So you're really going to argue that there is nothing to be gained from a significant bump in processor speed?
For me and many other potential MBA purchasers, a CPU bump from the media processing abilities of the Core i processors would be welcome, and GPU performance over and above the ability to play real-time HD video is useless. We shouldn't be saddled with an out-of-date processor or forced to subsidize "unnecessary" frame rate performance just to appease game-players. And that perspective is as valid as yours.
For example, lets say you have 100/100 in a test. Having a theoretical 40% boost will give you a 140/100. I mean, thats cool. Overkill. That is currently the CPU we have. We have enough to accomplish our tasks, and any more would be an overkill in the things we need our computer to process.
On the other hand, on the GPU side, you have a 80/100 (which is what the NVIDIA 320m is) and we see a 30% performance drop, that will result to a 42.5/100. At lower levels, difference between a 80/100 and 42.5/100 is the difference between a pass and a fail.
Of course, having a better CPU might be fulfilling to you and might give you the sense that you are the "latest in tech," but seriously, it is not about the CPU any more, it is about SSDs, ergonomics, GPU, and ultimately, Software.
I had to finally register to comment on the hypocrisy in this and many other threads like it. Because some people want frame rates for gaming on an MBA, then your needs for GPU performance are valid, and others who don't game but could use CPU performance have invalid needs? Rubbish.
A perfect example is the above. So the C2D rates as a 100/100 for CPU performance and thus any improvement is useless? Really?! Nice to see that you framed the argument such that any improvement you don't see as needed is useless.
On Sunday I combined 6 or 8 short 720p video clips into a 7 minute video for YouTube with a simple title screen and transitions. It took the C2D ~40 minutes to process the video and save in a new format. So you're really going to argue that there is nothing to be gained from a significant bump in processor speed?
For me and many other potential MBA purchasers, a CPU bump from the media processing abilities of the Core i processors would be welcome, and GPU performance over and above the ability to play real-time HD video is useless. We shouldn't be saddled with an out-of-date processor or forced to subsidize "unnecessary" frame rate performance just to appease game-players. And that perspective is as valid as yours.
EricNau
Apr 14, 02:40 AM
It's the mythical xMac! :p
How do you pronounce that? Ex-Mac or Ten-Mac? ;) :D
How do you pronounce that? Ex-Mac or Ten-Mac? ;) :D
![ville valo tattoos. Ville valo tattoo mai | ville valo autograph - [ville valo tattoo mai]](http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs26/i/2008/150/a/d/Photo_Pass_by_Habjan.jpg "Ville valo tattoo mai | ville valo autograph - [ville valo tattoo mai]")
netdog
Jul 12, 03:34 AM
I think that some of us may be overestimating the coolness of the player as the factor. While that worked in the early days, it may not now.
Apple has in their favor the fact that many people now have ripped CDs and bought protected music in Apple formats. If that base is solid enough, Urge won't fly, and hence there won't be a large installed base of protected WMA files in search of a player. If a significant number of Vista users are just starting their collection, or building on existing MP3s, there is a very strong chance that they will do the easiest thing and buy protected WMA files from Urge. This could spell disaster for Apple, particularly if Microsoft is willing to replace any protected AAC files in people's collections free of charge.
Finally, while in the early days of online music sales, it was the players and not the music downloads that drove the market, we are inevitably going to find that the players become the razor and the downloadable music the blades. Microsoft will probably price their player based on that model.
Apple has in their favor the fact that many people now have ripped CDs and bought protected music in Apple formats. If that base is solid enough, Urge won't fly, and hence there won't be a large installed base of protected WMA files in search of a player. If a significant number of Vista users are just starting their collection, or building on existing MP3s, there is a very strong chance that they will do the easiest thing and buy protected WMA files from Urge. This could spell disaster for Apple, particularly if Microsoft is willing to replace any protected AAC files in people's collections free of charge.
Finally, while in the early days of online music sales, it was the players and not the music downloads that drove the market, we are inevitably going to find that the players become the razor and the downloadable music the blades. Microsoft will probably price their player based on that model.
![ville valo tattoos. Ville valo tattoo mai | ville valo autograph - [ville valo tattoo mai]](http://spb.fotolog.com/photo/43/26/89/sexy_gaga/1299726902481_f.jpg "Ville valo tattoo mai | ville valo autograph - [ville valo tattoo mai]")
Chase R
Dec 4, 03:38 PM
well, im only 17 and .223 is just to expensive for me to shoot...
and I dont know why I like the sig so much, I was at gander mountain the other day, and was feeling out all of the other .22's and it just feels the best to me...
it's going to be ether the sig, or the smith and wesson M&P 15-22. that is a nice gun also...
The .223 is pretty cheap to shoot if you buy bulk ammo. You can get 500 rounds for less than $150.
and I dont know why I like the sig so much, I was at gander mountain the other day, and was feeling out all of the other .22's and it just feels the best to me...
it's going to be ether the sig, or the smith and wesson M&P 15-22. that is a nice gun also...
The .223 is pretty cheap to shoot if you buy bulk ammo. You can get 500 rounds for less than $150.
fenixx
Jul 24, 04:53 PM
hmmmm, tomorrow's Tuesday...
qtx43
Apr 12, 01:47 PM
4G data for tethering (probably unlimited when in 4g) as well as a better screen (Not more pixels, just sharper pixels with better color balance. Perhaps a bigger screen.)
Hmm...the display is already outstanding. I suppose it will probably have 4g, but what if it doesn't? Still upgrading sight unseen? No doubt there will be improvements, but exactly which parts they are nobody knows.
Hmm...the display is already outstanding. I suppose it will probably have 4g, but what if it doesn't? Still upgrading sight unseen? No doubt there will be improvements, but exactly which parts they are nobody knows.
NT1440
May 1, 11:54 PM
are you suggesting we give him a pass? :rolleyes:
Where the **** did I ever suggest anything of the sort?
Because I'm not jumping for joy and mindlessly chanting it means I didn't want justice done for a mass murderer?
Who was talking about stretches earlier? :mad:
Where the **** did I ever suggest anything of the sort?
Because I'm not jumping for joy and mindlessly chanting it means I didn't want justice done for a mass murderer?
Who was talking about stretches earlier? :mad:
Chef Medeski
Oct 18, 07:10 PM
I think the mouse may be killed in '07 by multi-touch innovations.
talk about innovation
talk about innovation
Westside guy
Oct 23, 11:01 AM
Doesn't affect me either way - I'm staying away from Vista for as long as I can. It took them what - 5 years? - to get XP to some reasonable semblance of semi-security. Even now it's no great shakes; it just means some South Korean kid can't pull another large-scale Blaster type of hack.
Steve Gibson (http://grc.com/) (love him or hate him) reports that Vista's rewritten network stack, through the various betas, has been shown vulnerable to a number of the exploits that more mature stacks (e.g. BSD's stack, the one MS used to quietly use) have fixed over the past decade! It just seems ludicrous.
Steve Gibson (http://grc.com/) (love him or hate him) reports that Vista's rewritten network stack, through the various betas, has been shown vulnerable to a number of the exploits that more mature stacks (e.g. BSD's stack, the one MS used to quietly use) have fixed over the past decade! It just seems ludicrous.
milo
Jul 28, 10:07 AM
Then it is an HD CONSOLE not an HD PLAYER. Player implies HD media.
I don't know about that. You should probably just ask the OP for clarification, it's possible you're just misunderstanding his choice of words.
Nintendo never sold any console at a loss.
Really? What's your source on that?
I don't know about that. You should probably just ask the OP for clarification, it's possible you're just misunderstanding his choice of words.
Nintendo never sold any console at a loss.
Really? What's your source on that?
WeegieMac
Apr 16, 09:52 AM
How is that different from how Apple "acquired" iOS and OS X ? Yet no one is going to claim Apple didn't build those 2 OSes.
Again, some of you guys need to put the Google hate to rest. This is not the thread for it and to diminish their efforts on Chrome OS and Android is to do the same to OS X since the histories and origins are similar (acquisitions and open source projects).
And I will not stand by anyone who does that to Apple's efforts with OS X.
Google bought Android and with Schmidt on the Apple board hoovering up ideas from the iPhone, Android became what it is today.
Anybody who refutes that is either blind or stupid.
I loathe Google for their Microsoft-esque lack of imagination, just as much as I loathe Samsung and their utterly lazy attempt at R&D for their Galaxy S smartphones, the logic of which equates to:
iPhone 3GS design + we like it + let's copy it + bigger screen + cheap imitation look = Galaxy S.
iPhone 4 design + we like it + let's copy it + bigger screen + cheap imitation look = Galaxy S2.
Again, anybody who cannot see the obvious similarities is either blind or stupid.
Again, some of you guys need to put the Google hate to rest. This is not the thread for it and to diminish their efforts on Chrome OS and Android is to do the same to OS X since the histories and origins are similar (acquisitions and open source projects).
And I will not stand by anyone who does that to Apple's efforts with OS X.
Google bought Android and with Schmidt on the Apple board hoovering up ideas from the iPhone, Android became what it is today.
Anybody who refutes that is either blind or stupid.
I loathe Google for their Microsoft-esque lack of imagination, just as much as I loathe Samsung and their utterly lazy attempt at R&D for their Galaxy S smartphones, the logic of which equates to:
iPhone 3GS design + we like it + let's copy it + bigger screen + cheap imitation look = Galaxy S.
iPhone 4 design + we like it + let's copy it + bigger screen + cheap imitation look = Galaxy S2.
Again, anybody who cannot see the obvious similarities is either blind or stupid.
Lesser Evets
Apr 11, 03:10 PM
It's a great step. I can't imagine needing more speed than a Thunderbolt connection, for the next decade, IMO. Most people don't specifically need such speed, but it is good to have. As for professional use for large files and video editing: boffo. Looks brilliant.
DrDomVonDoom
Apr 26, 01:33 PM
wow, this is awful, ****ing capitalists apple. This is why I'll use soundcloud and NOT apple cloud.
Then we got this guy over here. If you don't like capitalists what the **** are you doing on a macrumors forum? If 20 bucks made you just **** your pants, how did you afford a Mac or a iPad or iPhone. Not to be a dick but, Shouldn't you be buying some horse **** 3rd world version of the iPad from a lepar off the back of a horse buggy or something? SoundCloud has over a million subscribers, for a argueably less intuitive platform. Thats not capitalism?
Then we got this guy over here. If you don't like capitalists what the **** are you doing on a macrumors forum? If 20 bucks made you just **** your pants, how did you afford a Mac or a iPad or iPhone. Not to be a dick but, Shouldn't you be buying some horse **** 3rd world version of the iPad from a lepar off the back of a horse buggy or something? SoundCloud has over a million subscribers, for a argueably less intuitive platform. Thats not capitalism?
simX
Oct 18, 07:51 PM
Why, my friend, do you think that a "cash cow" has to be the thing that gains the most revenue/profit? Not sure what dictionary you're using; please let me know.
Why, my friend, by "the iPod is Apple's cash cow", you imply that there is only one cash cow. But if you want to use the traditional definition (http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=cash+cow) of "cash cow", "a project that generates a continuous flow of money," then the Mac would be more of a cash cow than the iPod, because it has always represented a larger proportion of Apple's profits and revenues. Not once has the iPod represented more of Apple's revenues. So the Mac generates a larger continuous flow of money.
Not sure what set of rules of logic you are using, but either way you are wrong. The Mac is still more important to Apple's bottom line than the iPod. Apple is also innovating more on the Mac than with the iPod.
By the way, you might want to look up the definition of the word "emotional" as well. I'm using facts, you're making things up.
Why, my friend, by "the iPod is Apple's cash cow", you imply that there is only one cash cow. But if you want to use the traditional definition (http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=cash+cow) of "cash cow", "a project that generates a continuous flow of money," then the Mac would be more of a cash cow than the iPod, because it has always represented a larger proportion of Apple's profits and revenues. Not once has the iPod represented more of Apple's revenues. So the Mac generates a larger continuous flow of money.
Not sure what set of rules of logic you are using, but either way you are wrong. The Mac is still more important to Apple's bottom line than the iPod. Apple is also innovating more on the Mac than with the iPod.
By the way, you might want to look up the definition of the word "emotional" as well. I'm using facts, you're making things up.
batchtaster
Jun 6, 09:53 AM
sure. apple has no problem giving a refund, as they keep their 30% that the developer now has to pay. that's a cool $300 that apple just ripped off from the developer all to protect their mistake and their idiot customers.
And you're basing this conclusion jumping on, what? You win for the most ill-informed, knee-jerk, baseless response in this thread.
And you're basing this conclusion jumping on, what? You win for the most ill-informed, knee-jerk, baseless response in this thread.
iMikeT
Jul 24, 08:08 PM
After seeing the update along with the photos, I'm really going to have to fight the urge to get one of these.
What makes it worse is that I will have to purchase a Bluetooth dongle.
What makes it worse is that I will have to purchase a Bluetooth dongle.
mattk39
Jul 28, 12:02 PM
Because of their money ? :confused:
In what is shaping up to be a clash between computer titans, many are keeping close watch to see whether Microsoft will break through or break down (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20060728/microsoft-zune-apple-ipod.htm) in the face of iPod dominance.
In what is shaping up to be a clash between computer titans, many are keeping close watch to see whether Microsoft will break through or break down (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20060728/microsoft-zune-apple-ipod.htm) in the face of iPod dominance.
Jason Beck
Apr 5, 10:27 PM
She glows! I really like this just as it is, but I was thinking the same thing as Rowbear. How would it work if you went even lower, so the camera was looking up at her just a little?
I'll try and remember that next time I shoot. I also think maybe just a little lower probably would have been more dramatic. Toddlers/young kids are a blast to shoot with when they get along good. I'm getting better at coaching them to be nice more so than when I started!
I'll try and remember that next time I shoot. I also think maybe just a little lower probably would have been more dramatic. Toddlers/young kids are a blast to shoot with when they get along good. I'm getting better at coaching them to be nice more so than when I started!
Waybo
Apr 13, 08:51 PM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5227/5614995836_34cb024583_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/stefanctf/5614995836/)
I like this. I see a commercial use for this one ... I don't know what the product would be, but I see it used in an ad for something.
Here's mine for today: Public bathrooms in Cozumel, Mexico.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5110/5617480873_47f653a94d_b.jpg
ISO 400, 50mm, f/4.5, 1/1000
I like this. I see a commercial use for this one ... I don't know what the product would be, but I see it used in an ad for something.
Here's mine for today: Public bathrooms in Cozumel, Mexico.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5110/5617480873_47f653a94d_b.jpg
ISO 400, 50mm, f/4.5, 1/1000
DeathChill
Apr 30, 11:05 PM
Of course there is. iOS runs on two currently available Apple smartphone models: 3GS and 4. The iOS that runs on these phones is sufficiently different in feature sets from the iOS that runs on Tablets, media consumption devices, and Apple TVs:
-Larger resolution on tablets
-Communications handled separately - No phone app or visual voicemail on Tablet or iPod Touch
-No installable apps on Apple TV
I think you already understand the differences. You just would like to lump everything together so that it seems that Apple still has dominant marketshare.
Pretty disingenuous use of statistics, if you ask me..
You are honestly trying to act as if slight hardware and software features and differences make it a completely different platform, regardless of whether or not it has an effect on applications? Seriously? That's like saying Android devices from different manufacturers can't be lumped together because of different resolutions or skins.
EDIT: Also, I was only mentioning that AppleTV technically runs iOS, not that it should be officially be counted.
The only thing disingenuous is to try and compare an entire platform against a single device in a platform and call it fair.
-Larger resolution on tablets
-Communications handled separately - No phone app or visual voicemail on Tablet or iPod Touch
-No installable apps on Apple TV
I think you already understand the differences. You just would like to lump everything together so that it seems that Apple still has dominant marketshare.
Pretty disingenuous use of statistics, if you ask me..
You are honestly trying to act as if slight hardware and software features and differences make it a completely different platform, regardless of whether or not it has an effect on applications? Seriously? That's like saying Android devices from different manufacturers can't be lumped together because of different resolutions or skins.
EDIT: Also, I was only mentioning that AppleTV technically runs iOS, not that it should be officially be counted.
The only thing disingenuous is to try and compare an entire platform against a single device in a platform and call it fair.
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.
Master-D
Apr 4, 02:16 AM
My 1 year-old a couple of days before his first birthday (click for larger).
http://gallery.me.com/crebelein/100053/IMG_5637/web.jpg
He will love this pic when he is older. tough like rocky :)
http://gallery.me.com/crebelein/100053/IMG_5637/web.jpg
He will love this pic when he is older. tough like rocky :)
Troll
Apr 28, 06:25 PM
Uhh... this thread is about LAST Tuesday... Or do you guys just plan on recycling it every week??
Aetherhole
Mar 16, 09:28 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Don't know if we have any here at FI yet, but I am hopeful after hearing that south coast got some!
Don't know if we have any here at FI yet, but I am hopeful after hearing that south coast got some!
0 comments:
Post a Comment