IJ Reilly
Jan 29, 05:35 PM
Share price is all that matters :D
Well, yes and no. If I'd have paid attention to the technical analysts on AAPL I either (1) would not have bought in, or (2) have sold years ago. In over ten years of holding AAPL it would never have been the right move to sell, though I'm sure the chart gurus would have told me it was, many times.
Chartists come to absurd conclusions, such as AAPL having support at 60. This means a trailing P/E based on current earnings (without growth) of around 15. At 40, we're talking a P/E of ten. This assumes that AAPL's growth days are over, as of now. Does anything we know about the company, including its historical growth and product offerings comport with the idea of Apple turning into Dow Chemical? I don't think so.
So yes and no. Share price matters, but charts can't tell the entire story.
Well, yes and no. If I'd have paid attention to the technical analysts on AAPL I either (1) would not have bought in, or (2) have sold years ago. In over ten years of holding AAPL it would never have been the right move to sell, though I'm sure the chart gurus would have told me it was, many times.
Chartists come to absurd conclusions, such as AAPL having support at 60. This means a trailing P/E based on current earnings (without growth) of around 15. At 40, we're talking a P/E of ten. This assumes that AAPL's growth days are over, as of now. Does anything we know about the company, including its historical growth and product offerings comport with the idea of Apple turning into Dow Chemical? I don't think so.
So yes and no. Share price matters, but charts can't tell the entire story.
Stella
Mar 31, 11:04 AM
The brown header looks hideous, and very out of place. What are Apple thinking?
JackSYi
Jul 24, 10:00 PM
Although it sounds sketchy on paper, Steve will convince you that its the next big thing.
salmonstk
Apr 26, 12:42 PM
I don't really know what the BFD is with the hype around these music locker services. These services are nothing new (not that Apples does anything new), they have been around in smaller scale the past few years. Problem is, it took too long to upload music, the streaming quality was average at best, and they were too expensive.
I'd like to see how Apple would improve on these services. They will integrate into the iPod UI. That is great. Possibly better upload times (or no uploading at all). But the benefits end there. Cellular connection are slowing at a quicker rate than cellphones are becoming faster. And now we data caps?
Is anyone on here going to delete all the music on their iPhone to be able to pay $20 per year to regain a subpar stream of there very own music? And at a detriment to their limited data amount? Am I missing something??
THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE ABOUT STREAMING. It is going to be about smart syncing media across Macs & iOS devices. You wont delete all your music on your phone or Mac BUT you wont have to have all of it stored locally to have access to all of it. This is going to be how Apple transitions Macs to Flash storage but still allows one to have gigantic iTunes and iPhoto and iMovie libraries. Same with phones and iPads.
I'd like to see how Apple would improve on these services. They will integrate into the iPod UI. That is great. Possibly better upload times (or no uploading at all). But the benefits end there. Cellular connection are slowing at a quicker rate than cellphones are becoming faster. And now we data caps?
Is anyone on here going to delete all the music on their iPhone to be able to pay $20 per year to regain a subpar stream of there very own music? And at a detriment to their limited data amount? Am I missing something??
THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE ABOUT STREAMING. It is going to be about smart syncing media across Macs & iOS devices. You wont delete all your music on your phone or Mac BUT you wont have to have all of it stored locally to have access to all of it. This is going to be how Apple transitions Macs to Flash storage but still allows one to have gigantic iTunes and iPhoto and iMovie libraries. Same with phones and iPads.
more...
seanpholman
Mar 15, 10:12 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)
Apparently South Coast Plaza is selling none today
Still waiting here at Fashion Island - crossing fingers!
How do you know? I don't want to waste a trip.
--Sean
Apparently South Coast Plaza is selling none today
Still waiting here at Fashion Island - crossing fingers!
How do you know? I don't want to waste a trip.
--Sean
Cigsm
Apr 30, 07:35 PM
Where? I just checked the Top 200 Best Selling iTunes Songs & there's only ONE .69c song all the way at #196.
In fact, there's only 3 .99c songs, two of which are in the bottom 25.
I realize that this was the labels doing & not Apple, but that's crazy.
I've seen numerous $0.69 songs. If you're always looking at brand new stuff you may not see them.
In fact, there's only 3 .99c songs, two of which are in the bottom 25.
I realize that this was the labels doing & not Apple, but that's crazy.
I've seen numerous $0.69 songs. If you're always looking at brand new stuff you may not see them.
more...
electronique
Oct 28, 01:20 PM
The wife will be getting me
http://blog.iresq.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/apple-magic-trackpad_1.jpeg
and this
http://www.techfresh.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/apple_wireless_keyboard.jpg
http://blog.iresq.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/apple-magic-trackpad_1.jpeg
and this
http://www.techfresh.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/apple_wireless_keyboard.jpg
daio
Apr 14, 03:20 AM
^^^ You should install those updates ;)
Ha ha ha, I was actually installing them as I took the screenshot. No updates to do now ;)
Actually I reckon this product name is a code name for a virtual iOS machine for Mac devices enabling iOS apps on Macs.
Saying that, its also likely a 'split off for iPad 2', the reason I think that? Well, iBooks also has that product name. AppleTV would be lousy for book reading IMO. Perhaps some apps will only work on iPad2 and not on iPad(1), due to processor requirements or camera, for example, hence split the compatible apps into two categories. If so, why are games like Angry Birds HD not showing up, which are compatible for both?
Thats why I thought the Virtual iOS software for Mac is more likely, book publishers might want to see how their book looks like in iBooks
Ha ha ha, I was actually installing them as I took the screenshot. No updates to do now ;)
Actually I reckon this product name is a code name for a virtual iOS machine for Mac devices enabling iOS apps on Macs.
Saying that, its also likely a 'split off for iPad 2', the reason I think that? Well, iBooks also has that product name. AppleTV would be lousy for book reading IMO. Perhaps some apps will only work on iPad2 and not on iPad(1), due to processor requirements or camera, for example, hence split the compatible apps into two categories. If so, why are games like Angry Birds HD not showing up, which are compatible for both?
Thats why I thought the Virtual iOS software for Mac is more likely, book publishers might want to see how their book looks like in iBooks
more...
HasanDaddy
Mar 15, 09:43 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)
Apparently South Coast Plaza is selling none today
Still waiting here at Fashion Island - crossing fingers!
I really hope they have them in stock for you, man, and you emerge victorious. I just wanna see someone win today... besides Charlie Sheen.
Hahaha! Thanks man! Its a good day, no matter what!
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)
Apparently South Coast Plaza is selling none today
Still waiting here at Fashion Island - crossing fingers!
I really hope they have them in stock for you, man, and you emerge victorious. I just wanna see someone win today... besides Charlie Sheen.
Hahaha! Thanks man! Its a good day, no matter what!
CJM
May 3, 07:45 AM
Lol at the comparison specs... HL2, CoD4, Portal..
The only recent game there is SC2.
The only recent game there is SC2.
more...
bedifferent
Apr 11, 02:52 PM
if by "internal" you mean "inside the box," that seems unlikely. The main benefit of fiber optics is over distances greater than those inside a PC. Signals on PCB's travel at something like 25% of the speed of light (depending on dielectric), which may seem slow, but is very speedy compared to the long cables used to connect PCs to external peripherals.
Ah, gotcha. Guess I misread/misunderstood the info. So it's truly meant for peripheral devices and will not replace internal components. For some reason I thought it was a universal (internal/external) system. Oh well.
Still bummed there will not be a "Light Peak" PCIe for Mac Pro's.
Ah, gotcha. Guess I misread/misunderstood the info. So it's truly meant for peripheral devices and will not replace internal components. For some reason I thought it was a universal (internal/external) system. Oh well.
Still bummed there will not be a "Light Peak" PCIe for Mac Pro's.
bdkennedy1
Mar 31, 01:19 PM
That calendar is just ugly. I don't like where Apple is going with this UI realism. If I want a calendar that looks like that then I will go out and buy a real one.
more...
pdc123
Apr 14, 09:42 AM
Why on earth would this happen? Why would they edit it to include the ix.Mac.MarketingName? I don't understand. Is there any logical explanation? I don't think it is a typo because I don't think Apple is stupid enough to edit it just in order to put a typo in. Weird.
Software has bugs, Apple is no exception. It's most likely a key that should resolve to a value (e.g. maybe the marketing description "iPhone" really comes from a key-value pair labeled "ix.MobileDevice.MarketingName") and due to a bug it's showing the key instead of the value.
Speculating on what the product is makes sense, it's more likely than not that it refers to something. But speculation like "Why on earth would this happen?" "I don't think Apple is stupid enough to" is just headless-chickenry... bugs are bugs, don't read into them.
Software has bugs, Apple is no exception. It's most likely a key that should resolve to a value (e.g. maybe the marketing description "iPhone" really comes from a key-value pair labeled "ix.MobileDevice.MarketingName") and due to a bug it's showing the key instead of the value.
Speculating on what the product is makes sense, it's more likely than not that it refers to something. But speculation like "Why on earth would this happen?" "I don't think Apple is stupid enough to" is just headless-chickenry... bugs are bugs, don't read into them.
MacRumors
Oct 24, 07:38 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Today Apple released the Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro (Apple Store (http://www.dailytunes.com/applestore.php)).
more...
Pics+of+eyonce+knowles
Beyonce Knowles in Sweetly
more...
Britney Spears Picture 5091043 - Britney Spears visits a wedding dress .
Sasha fierce, eyonce knowles,
Today Apple released the Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro (Apple Store (http://www.dailytunes.com/applestore.php)).
more...
haveaniceday91
Apr 22, 04:40 PM
I switched from ios to android after selling my 3g and getting a Captivate. After owning the captivate and using my friends iphone 4 quite a bit there are 3 things that can get me to switch back.
1. Bigger screen. I'd take an decrease of pixel density over smaller screen size any day. I'd love a 4 inch screen but 3.7 is okay.
2. (puts up flame shield) Iphone 4 feels like a brick. HEAVY. My captivate with a case is feels MUCH lighter than i4. I'd like it if apple could trim the fat somewhere without sacrificing it's great battery life.
3. Better notification system with some sort of widgets (or at least some relevant lockscreen info and quick access to settings). I can't believe it's taken this long and the few rumors of ios 5 haven't been getting my hopes up.
I'm over flash on a phone, I barely ever use it, but I still would like something to fill the gap in the tablet space while html 5 matures.
To the iphone's credit, the overall package is much more polished than android (except for notifications-those are just embarrassing)
and as a bonus, my captivate gps doesn't work for jack so I'm not being tracked. :cool:
/rant
1. Bigger screen. I'd take an decrease of pixel density over smaller screen size any day. I'd love a 4 inch screen but 3.7 is okay.
2. (puts up flame shield) Iphone 4 feels like a brick. HEAVY. My captivate with a case is feels MUCH lighter than i4. I'd like it if apple could trim the fat somewhere without sacrificing it's great battery life.
3. Better notification system with some sort of widgets (or at least some relevant lockscreen info and quick access to settings). I can't believe it's taken this long and the few rumors of ios 5 haven't been getting my hopes up.
I'm over flash on a phone, I barely ever use it, but I still would like something to fill the gap in the tablet space while html 5 matures.
To the iphone's credit, the overall package is much more polished than android (except for notifications-those are just embarrassing)
and as a bonus, my captivate gps doesn't work for jack so I'm not being tracked. :cool:
/rant
BlackMax
Apr 18, 04:37 PM
I'm a little confused. People want to play games on this?
Would not be my first choice for gaming (not that I play games, but I did do flight sims once)
Is there anything else I should be concerned about? Maybe external monitor resolution? Movies?....I don't think so.
Big problem for intensive video stuff perhaps? but then again; an Air?
:confused:
I have a 11" MBA. I did not buy it to play games, but for work and ease of travel. BUT... I enjoy having the *option* to play the occasional game if the mood strikes me. :)
With my Black MacBook gaming was never an option because of the integrated Intel graphics.
I believe many MBA owners are like me and want a MBA that provides them with as many options as possible. Thus it is just a tad disconcerting when there is a good possibility the next generation MBA might reduce the number of options it provides to its owners. Then it again, it might not. Only time will tell. That is part of the fun of speculating on MacRumors.
Would not be my first choice for gaming (not that I play games, but I did do flight sims once)
Is there anything else I should be concerned about? Maybe external monitor resolution? Movies?....I don't think so.
Big problem for intensive video stuff perhaps? but then again; an Air?
:confused:
I have a 11" MBA. I did not buy it to play games, but for work and ease of travel. BUT... I enjoy having the *option* to play the occasional game if the mood strikes me. :)
With my Black MacBook gaming was never an option because of the integrated Intel graphics.
I believe many MBA owners are like me and want a MBA that provides them with as many options as possible. Thus it is just a tad disconcerting when there is a good possibility the next generation MBA might reduce the number of options it provides to its owners. Then it again, it might not. Only time will tell. That is part of the fun of speculating on MacRumors.
more...
daveschroeder
Oct 23, 08:04 AM
just to clear up the confusion, is this a legal or technical restriction? Can you still do this with the basic edition technically, but illegally. Or are there technical restrictions being applied?
It's neither, as I've already explained.
But to answer your question, even if there were a legal restriction, there is definitely not any technical restriction that would prevent it from being installed in a VM anywhere.
It's neither, as I've already explained.
But to answer your question, even if there were a legal restriction, there is definitely not any technical restriction that would prevent it from being installed in a VM anywhere.
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.
Beyonce#39;s natural hair:
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.
Legion93
May 2, 03:38 AM
Because they have to bury him within 24 hours and Saudi Arabia didn't want his body - probably neither did the Pakistanis.
What about the Afghani people?
What about the Afghani people?
jellybeanie
Apr 28, 04:08 PM
Uh no. This is a good thing for manufacturers. This means you have to buy another case. The last thing they want is for you to use the old one.
It's not, actually. Every time a change in the phone comes out, the manufacturer has to make new cases to reach those new customers, necessitating new tools/molds/whatever (so more cost on their end). Any manufacturer would prefer that the same case worked for all iPhone4s because then they would only have to spend the manufacturing dollars once to reach every iPhone4 customer. Plus, less confusion when people are buying cases.
It's not, actually. Every time a change in the phone comes out, the manufacturer has to make new cases to reach those new customers, necessitating new tools/molds/whatever (so more cost on their end). Any manufacturer would prefer that the same case worked for all iPhone4s because then they would only have to spend the manufacturing dollars once to reach every iPhone4 customer. Plus, less confusion when people are buying cases.
Intell
Apr 29, 11:19 AM
I'm sorry but I forgot to add that Moyank24 died in the last story.
Kingsly
Jul 25, 01:19 AM
reminds me of the controls in the 'Heart Of Gold'
goobot
Apr 23, 08:10 PM
They might just be testing it so when T-mobile is part of att it would work across the network instead of atts original network.
seanpholman
Mar 16, 11:06 AM
Ample supply of 64 Verizon at SCP for no, but was told by the mall cop that we were not allowed to "loiter" and he told everyone in the back of the line to leave or we would be forced to leave. Real nice.
--Sean
--Sean
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario