Searching \ for '[TECH] Steve Jobs: Thoughts on Flash' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/mems.htm?key=flash
Search entire site for: 'Steve Jobs: Thoughts on Flash'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[TECH] Steve Jobs: Thoughts on Flash'
2010\04\29@220419 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/

"I wanted to jot down some of our thoughts on Adobe's Flash products so that
customers and critics may better understand why we do not allow Flash on
iPhones, iPods and iPads. Adobe has characterized our decision as being
primarily business driven - they say we want to protect our App Store - but
in reality it is based on technology issues. Adobe claims that we are a
closed system, and that Flash is open, but in fact the opposite is true. Let
me explain."

2010\04\29@222403 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Vitaliy <spam_OUTpiclistTakeThisOuTspammaksimov.org> wrote:
> http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/
>
> "I wanted to jot down some of our thoughts on Adobe's Flash products so that
> customers and critics may better understand why we do not allow Flash on
> iPhones, iPods and iPads. Adobe has characterized our decision as being
> primarily business driven - they say we want to protect our App Store - but
> in reality it is based on technology issues. Adobe claims that we are a
> closed system, and that Flash is open, but in fact the opposite is true. Let
> me explain."
>

Quote:
"We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of
software come
between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps
and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. If developers grow
dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take
advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to
adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding
if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers.

This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform
development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one
platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms.
Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator
set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where developers
are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they
are not available on our competitor’s platforms."

Conclusion: Apple wants control the ecosystem. It is a CLOSED
system where Apple has the control. This is not a bad thing
for Apple as proved by the star business performance.



--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

2010\04\30@032009 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
"Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from
Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing,
etc. While Adobe’s Flash products are widely available, this does not mean
they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available
only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system."

That is rubbish! There are many example of Flash players and even Flash
creators. Everyone can download the Flash file format free of charge from
Adobe.

"Symantec recently highlighted Flash for having one of the worst security
records in 2009. We also know first hand that Flash is the number one reason
Macs crash. We have been working with Adobe to fix these problems, but they
have persisted for several years now. We don’t want to reduce the
reliability and security of our iPhones, iPods and iPads by adding Flash."

That is correct! However, there are more file formats that are vulnerable to
exploits, 2010 for example the year of PDF exploits. Therefore Apple
should abandon another Adobe standard just because of this (and then they
can say again, HTML5 is more portable than the Portable Document Format)

"Besides the fact that Flash is closed and proprietary, has major technical
drawbacks, and doesn’t support touch based devices, there is an even more
important reason we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. We have
discussed the downsides of using Flash to play video and interactive content
from websites, but Adobe also wants developers to adopt Flash to create apps
that run on our mobile devices."

...therefore we cannot sell apps to Mac anymore because everyone would
choose a platform that runs on Linux, iPad and even on Windows instead of
only Apple products...

"This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform
development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one
platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms.
Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of
features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked
from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available
on our competitor’s platforms."

In case you (stupid end-user) did not get it yet, we do not afraid of
competing Flash, as that is not so good. Not so good because that has many
boundaries as it is multi platform. And as we do not afraid of it, we just
do not let it run on our platform... just in case... no... we do not
afraid... until we block it we do not have to be afraid...

Guys, seriously, Apple II was the best computer. It was completely open,
everyone could develop their own expansion card to that. Even Microsoft
developed the CP/M card based on a Z80. But that was when Wozniak designed
the whole thing. Jobs however, wanted to go towards closed platforms (Apple
III, Apple Lisa etc). Complete failure!

With iPhone, most guys I know use jail broken devices -- therefore they can
run non-approved apps on it. Why is that so good for Apple, I am not sure?

Tamas


On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Xiaofan Chen <.....xiaofancKILLspamspam@spam@gmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

>

2010\04\30@054915 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Tamas Rudnai <.....tamas.rudnaiKILLspamspam.....gmail.com> wrote:
> With iPhone, most guys I know use jail broken devices -- therefore they can
> run non-approved apps on it. Why is that so good for Apple, I am not sure?
>

That seems to be the case here as well. But Apple sells the hardware
to the Mobile Phone Operators at a decent profit. So they do not really lose
money by selling more iPhones.

--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

2010\04\30@065932 by Matias Vidoni

picon face
I think that the way Steve is going is right. And right with what he says
about iPhone with no flash:
"You want porn in your mobile, then buy an android"
That's in fact what everybody needs to do, if you don't like iPhone because
of lack of some software, hardware
feature you want, then buy something that have them.
My little point of view.
Thank you
Matias

On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Xiaofan Chen <EraseMExiaofancspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> -

2010\04\30@071329 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Apple don't want apps that can be loaded outside of their store
They don't want people doing Cross platform (supporting OTHER handsets).

It's all about the money.


I'll only buy an iPad, iPhone, Mac if I can see a way to make money out
of it. Otherwise it's like buying a car that uses it's own brand of fuel
and own roads only. It's a closed appliance. It they could do it with
Mac too, they would. They nearly do as you are "forbidden" to run OS X
on your own HW. Apple makes a lot of profit from selling HW. Making
money from apps too, it only since iPhone.

2010\04\30@084803 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Matias Vidoni <KILLspammatiasvidoniKILLspamspamgmail.com>wrote:

> I think that the way Steve is going is right. And right with what he says
> about iPhone with no flash:
> "You want porn in your mobile, then buy an android"
> That's in fact what everybody needs to do, if you don't like iPhone because
> of lack of some software, hardware
> feature you want, then buy something that have them.
>

Having working in the computer security industry for very long time, I think
I have an overview on this subject. What I and everybody in this industry
had to learn through the decade is that this kind of attitude is a sign of
short sight and leads to serious security problems. Someone who owns and
leads a big company does not necessarily means he is a security expert.

The problem is not only with SWF nor PDF files, but with the fact that these
are so popular that is installed virutually on every singe PC and other
devices. Therefore if a blackhat person would like to deliver a malicious
code into my computer, he/she has much better chance than with anything else
(simple because the chance that I have Flash and PDF reader is quite high).
If you search for filetype:PDF for example on Google, it will show more than
280 million files. Just as a comparison, if you do that with filetype:SWF
shows more than 80 millions while filetype:DOC will get 'only' 30 million...

I analyse HTML pages as well, and that is just as bad as anything else. We
have hundreds of new sites infected everyday -- they use only malicious Java
scripts, iFrames, redirections and blackhat SEO attacks. These are not
connected to Flash at all... Drive by download is bigger hit, and for that
HTML5 will be no better than HTML4 or XHTML.

Now if we analyse the operating system iPhone use, it is based on the same
Darwin engine, which also used on Mac. If you search for Vulnerability or
malware on Mac, you will find quite a few problems. Actually it is quite
easy to bypass security features on Mac. The only reason we see much more
problems on Windows is that (again) it is so much popular than anything
else.

When someone is saying something like that: "You want porn in your mobile,
then buy an android", then I do not know if I shall laugh or cry.

If Mr Jobs would say "Look, we will not allow Flash as it would take down
our revenue", then I would still was not like the decision, but at least he
would have been honest instead of stupid.

Thanks,
Tamas




{Quote hidden}

2010\04\30@120513 by Marechiare

picon face
> Having working in the computer security industry for
> very long time,..
>
> When someone is saying something like that: "You
> want porn in your mobile, then buy an android", then
> I do not know if I shall laugh or cry.

I know, neither laugh, nor cry, take your black suit on, and with
extremely serious look on your face warn him about legal aspects of
giving advices to load that kind of content.

2010\04\30@124111 by Veronica Merryfield

picon face
>> Conclusion: Apple wants control the ecosystem. It is a CLOSED
>> system where Apple has the control. This is not a bad thing
>> for Apple as proved by the star business performance.
>>
> Apple don't want apps that can be loaded outside of their store
> They don't want people doing Cross platform (supporting OTHER handsets).
>
> It's all about the money.

Whilst I don't doubt that this is a factor, 'open platform' (perceived or actual) cause ripples with the operators. I suspect as part of the operator approval process, Apple have to show they are taking reasonable steps to ensure that the operators security concerns are being addressed. Now, there are many ways to do this and Apple have chosen this way which does include a revenue stream, but that won't be the only reason. Also, don't discount the user experience of this method - one place to search, one place to pay, direct to phone download if wanted - much better than some other vendors channels.

Vrnc



2010\04\30@124300 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>Conclusion: Apple wants control the ecosystem. It is a CLOSED
system where Apple has the control. This is not a bad thing
for Apple as proved by the star business performance.<

I think that most people understand that it was a marketing decision and has
little to do with technology.

Apple is basically saying that they know better than their users and
developers what they need. It's OK, markets are really good at punishing
arrogance.

Vitaliy

2010\04\30@125308 by Alexandros Nipirakis

picon face
I disagree --

While one might be able to make an argument that flash makes sense on
the iPad (larger screen) as a flash developer, I simply dont code
flash for mobile devices.

In other words, most flash is created for an optimized for at least a
1024x768 screen.  Flash documents are not all that scalable -- and if
you try to do something REALLY outrageous, then flash dies.


Why is it everyone critisizes for Flash only?  Silverlight isn't
available either, neither is Java Applet -- both of which are also
used for providing RIA.

Whatever the reason, I do not see this as being that big of a deal.  I
have never used flash on a small device, but suspect the experience
would be less than good.

Just my 0.02 dollars.

Aleksei


On 30 April 2010 12:42, Vitaliy <TakeThisOuTpiclistEraseMEspamspam_OUTmaksimov.org> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2010\04\30@132413 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
Alexandros Nipirakis wrote:
>I disagree --
>
> While one might be able to make an argument that flash makes sense on
> the iPad (larger screen) as a flash developer, I simply dont code
> flash for mobile devices.

That is your personal choice.


> In other words, most flash is created for an optimized for at least a
> 1024x768 screen.  Flash documents are not all that scalable -- and if
> you try to do something REALLY outrageous, then flash dies.

I remember when flash first came out in the 1990s, 640x480 was the norm. At
due to the fact that it's vector based, it scales very well.


> Why is it everyone critisizes for Flash only?  Silverlight isn't
> available either, neither is Java Applet -- both of which are also
> used for providing RIA.

I don't notice the absence of SL or Java, but I sure notice the absence of
Flash. Jobs singled out Flash too -- for a good reason.


> Whatever the reason, I do not see this as being that big of a deal.  I
> have never used flash on a small device, but suspect the experience
> would be less than good.

Why not let the consumers decide?

Vitaliy

2010\04\30@133346 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
Veronica Merryfield wrote:
> Whilst I don't doubt that this is a factor, 'open platform' (perceived or
> actual) cause ripples with the operators. I suspect as part of the
> operator approval process, Apple have to show they are taking reasonable
> steps to ensure that the operators security concerns are being addressed.
> Now, there are many ways to do this and Apple have chosen this way which
> does include a revenue stream, but that won't be the only reason. Also,
> don't discount the user experience of this method - one place to search,
> one place to pay, direct to phone download if wanted - much better than
> some other vendors channels.<

Android will support Flash. So the security challenges are not
unsurmountable.

When Jobs talks about banning flash out of concern for developers, it makes
me laugh. If Apple's dev tools are really as great as he says they are, why
is he afraid that if given a choice, developers would use Adobe tools?

I don't think it's "all about money", because history tells us that Apple's
position on Flash will cost them dearly in the end. It's all about Steve
Jobs' egomania and arrogance. He is known for putting his personal interests
above the interests of his company.

Vitaliy


2010\04\30@134037 by Alexandros Nipirakis

picon face
On 30 April 2010 13:23, Vitaliy <RemoveMEpiclistspamTakeThisOuTmaksimov.org> wrote:
> Alexandros Nipirakis wrote:
>>I disagree --
>>
>> While one might be able to make an argument that flash makes sense on
>> the iPad (larger screen) as a flash developer, I simply dont code
>> flash for mobile devices.
>
> That is your personal choice.
>
>
Not just my personal choice, the choice of the vast majority of flash
designers (at least the sites I have found and dealt with).

>> In other words, most flash is created for an optimized for at least a
>> 1024x768 screen.  Flash documents are not all that scalable -- and if
>> you try to do something REALLY outrageous, then flash dies.
>
> I remember when flash first came out in the 1990s, 640x480 was the norm. At
> due to the fact that it's vector based, it scales very well.
>
>

Perhaps scale well, but I think that any text would become
increasingly more and more unreadable (of course you could say that
you can zoom in and out -- which is also true).

It is that not only is there the obvious problem with the sites using
flash being designed for a larger screen, the other problem is
control.  Many flash developers use mous actions to do things.  What
mouse action do you have on the iPhone.  As well, I don't think that
flash implements the touch functionality (which is basically how Apple
has delt with the lack of a mouse). I could be wrong on this, I am
still using CS3.

In other words, I suppose that I should have said the bigger problem
is that most flash sites are designed for a mouse with at least a
single button, there is no coralary on the iPhone (or iPad for that
matter).

>> Why is it everyone critisizes for Flash only?  Silverlight isn't
>> available either, neither is Java Applet -- both of which are also
>> used for providing RIA.
>
> I don't notice the absence of SL or Java, but I sure notice the absence of
> Flash. Jobs singled out Flash too -- for a good reason.
>
>

I think what you are trying to say is that flash has higher market
penetration in RIA than SL or Java.  I think that SL will start taking
the market little by little though.  I like it a LOT better than flash
(C# is much more elegant -- IMHO -- than ActionScript).

>> Whatever the reason, I do not see this as being that big of a deal.  I
>> have never used flash on a small device, but suspect the experience
>> would be less than good.
>
> Why not let the consumers decide?
>
> Vitaliy
>

I am sure you already know the answer to this one.  There is
significant cost in letting the consumer decide.  Again, even if you
implemented flash, many sites may not operate correctly because of
design issues (screen size) or lack of mouse and perhaps even a full
keyboard -- since the on screen keyboard would effectively take over
half of the screen -- imagine a game where it is run by keyboard.

Aleksei

2010\04\30@134733 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Alexandros Nipirakis
<anipirakisEraseMEspam.....gmail.com>wrote:

> In other words, most flash is created for an optimized for at least a
> 1024x768 screen.  Flash documents are not all that scalable -- and if
> you try to do something REALLY outrageous, then flash dies.
>

That's what Jobs exactly said. That's cool, so let people develop crap apps
on Flash and cool apps on Apple proprietary development system. And then
people will buy cool Apple and Apple approved apps, others will use ugly and
non sophisticated Flash apps free or non-free. What is the problem with
that?

Tamas




{Quote hidden}

2010\04\30@134737 by Marechiare

picon face
> Android will support Flash. So the security challenges
> are not unsurmountable.
>
> When Jobs talks about banning flash out of concern for
> developers, it makes me laugh. If Apple's dev tools are
> really as great as he says they are, why is he afraid
> that if given a choice, developers would use Adobe tools?

"Giving a choice" costs huge money. His arguments are valid. The guy's
doing great job. I don't see any reasonable argument on your side.

2010\04\30@135629 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Alexandros Nipirakis
<RemoveMEanipirakisEraseMEspamEraseMEgmail.com>wrote:

> I am sure you already know the answer to this one.  There is
> significant cost in letting the consumer decide.  Again, even if you
> implemented flash, many sites may not operate correctly because of
> design issues (screen size) or lack of mouse and perhaps even a full
> keyboard -- since the on screen keyboard would effectively take over
> half of the screen -- imagine a game where it is run by keyboard.
>

Ah, I see the point now! So because _some_ site will not work properly,
let's single out _all_ sites!

Also, because of lack of hardware in a new device, you cannot ask people to
forget a technology that is there for many many years. You cannot ask all
web developers to start using Apple Whatever 2.0 because it will run on
iPhone (and maybe on Mac). I would not do that on my site. If you want to
access to my site from iPhone, however, and you cannot do that because of no
support for Flash, then that would be your problem, not mine (as I believe
still Windows platform is far bigger than Mac or iPhone or iPad). And yes,
buy Android as is much cheaper, same functionality and open -- good advice
after all :-)

Tamas


>
> Aleksei
>
> -

2010\04\30@141052 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:32:40 -0700, "Vitaliy" said:

> I don't think it's "all about money", because history tells us that
> Apple's
> position on Flash will cost them dearly in the end. It's all about Steve
> Jobs' egomania and arrogance. He is known for putting his personal
> interests
> above the interests of his company.

I don't see how you can say that. Apple did poorly only when Jobs was
not in charge. This is exactly what Jobs always does.

Apple is doing very well right now, and if Apple history has any
relevance, will probably continue to do well as long as Jobs is healthy.

Apple gadgets (maybe even their computers to some extent) are not a
commodity, they are fashion items, and Jobs is a fashion trendsetter.

-Bob

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - The professional email service

2010\04\30@185115 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 2:10 AM, Bob Blick <RemoveMEbobblickspam_OUTspamKILLspamftml.net> wrote:

> I don't see how you can say that. Apple did poorly only when Jobs was
> not in charge. This is exactly what Jobs always does.
>
> Apple is doing very well right now, and if Apple history has any
> relevance, will probably continue to do well as long as Jobs is healthy.
>
> Apple gadgets (maybe even their computers to some extent) are not a
> commodity, they are fashion items, and Jobs is a fashion trendsetter.
>

Well said. That will guarantee their success when Jobs is healthy.

On the other hand, building upon Apple's success and cash pile,
Apple has embarked on more filed, including chip sector. Rumor
has it now that Apple may acquire ARM.

Apple certainly have a lot of good technology as well.

And Apple has the content side as well -- so it is a media
company as well.

The above will probably keep Apple going for quite some time.


--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

2010\04\30@192622 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:51 PM, Xiaofan Chen <RemoveMExiaofancTakeThisOuTspamspamgmail.com> wrote:

> Well said. That will guarantee their success when Jobs is healthy.
>

As I said, nothing is wrong with making business -- however, telling people
nonsense and treating them as fool is wrong. He just should have said: "This
is my device, I decide who and what to develop on it and even how. Therefore
me, Steve Jobs I. decided to not to support Adobe products so I can make
more money." Then there would be no argument on that -- maybe comments, but
no arguments.

Tamas



{Quote hidden}

> -

2010\04\30@193420 by cdb

flavicon
face
I haven't used a Mac in anger (or otherwise) for years.

Whilst there is obviously a financial retention argument for Apple,
isn't there also the problem that Mac's and their offspring resolve
which is a major bind/annoyance for MS users and hardware?

That being it is a nightmare trying to work out why some apps work on
machine X but refuse on machine y (See the Acronis forums for people
announcing 'product X DOES not WORK on W7 64bit' when it works fine on
mine and others systems) , Mac's in the main from what I recall and
have seen don't suffer from this problem purely from the fact all
software/hardware/add ons are closed and sanctified by Apple!

It seems to me this is a great advantage for a PC user. From this
viewpoint if Flash could cause Mac users to end up with MS users
annoyances  then it seems the choice Apple have made is the correct
one.

Tangent Example:

Safari in Windows - cannot log onto one of my banks internet banking
site.
Firefox 3.xx doesn't display some web pages correctly but Chrome, Saf,
Opera and IE do.

Each browser has problems with some pages. Div-X refuses to work with
my copy of Firefox, but is happy with IE8 and Chrome.

As far as I know, Mac users don't have this type of problem due to
this closed circle development.

Colin
--
cdb, EraseMEcolinspamspamspamBeGonebtech-online.co.uk on 1/05/2010

Web presence: http://www.btech-online.co.uk  

Hosted by:  http://www.1and1.co.uk/?k_id=7988359





'[TECH] Steve Jobs: Thoughts on Flash'
2010\05\01@082132 by Xiaofan Chen
face picon face
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 7:34 AM, cdb <RemoveMEcolinKILLspamspambtech-online.co.uk> wrote:
> As far as I know, Mac users don't have this type of problem due to
> this closed circle development.
>

The problem is that some Mac Users do "Think Different" and want
to try out some other non-Apple sanctioned device. Then they
may run into troubles.

And most of the iPhone users around me do use Jail Break,
often after a short while -- since they run into so many
restrictions, or the dark side is so much more fun. ;-)

--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

2010\05\01@082342 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
BTW, I am not a fan of Flash or Acrobat either. Both of them
are often the main culprit slowing down the system or crash
the Firefox session. So Adobe is not any better than Apple,
I would say worse...

--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

2010\05\03@154340 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
Bob Blick wrote:
>> I don't think it's "all about money", because history tells us that
>> Apple's
>> position on Flash will cost them dearly in the end. It's all about Steve
>> Jobs' egomania and arrogance. He is known for putting his personal
>> interests
>> above the interests of his company.
>
> I don't see how you can say that. Apple did poorly only when Jobs was
> not in charge. This is exactly what Jobs always does.

Recently Apple pulled all John Wiley & Sons from the AppleStore shelves,
because they published Steve Jobs's biography:

http://tinyurl.com/y2b45rt

How he runs his business is his business, but as Tamas had said Jobs can't
expect everyone to believe that his decision is based solely on the merits
of the technology. IMO if you read between the lines you almost feel like
there is a grudge in there somewhere ("Apple and Adobe were very close, but
then Adobe went into the corporate market").


> Apple is doing very well right now, and if Apple history has any
> relevance, will probably continue to do well as long as Jobs is healthy.
>
> Apple gadgets (maybe even their computers to some extent) are not a
> commodity, they are fashion items, and Jobs is a fashion trendsetter.

Agree on both accounts. I seem to recall that when he took a leave of
absence, Apple shares went down by $1bn. All I'm saying is that not all of
his decisions appear to be rational, but in the end they seem to get enough
things right to offset the things they do wrong.

Vitaliy

2010\05\03@160616 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face

On Mon, 3 May 2010 12:43:24 -0700, "Vitaliy" said:

> Recently Apple pulled all John Wiley & Sons from the AppleStore shelves,
> because they published Steve Jobs's biography:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y2b45rt
>
> How he runs his business is his business, but as Tamas had said Jobs
> can't
> expect everyone to believe that his decision is based solely on the
> merits
> of the technology.

Yes, sort of the "Howard Hughes of the computer industry" was how I'd
recently heard him described.

When he announces a computer with spruce-accented case, we'll know for
sure!

Cheers,

Bob

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Faster than the air-speed velocity of an
                         unladen european swallow

2010\05\03@161006 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
Marechiare wrote:
>> When Jobs talks about banning flash out of concern for
>> developers, it makes me laugh. If Apple's dev tools are
>> really as great as he says they are, why is he afraid
>> that if given a choice, developers would use Adobe tools?
>
> "Giving a choice" costs huge money.

How's so? The way I understand it, Adobe is willing to do all the work, and
they're itching to do it.


> His arguments are valid. The guy's
> doing great job. I don't see any reasonable argument on your side.

:-)


2010\05\03@162059 by Mark Rages

face picon face
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Vitaliy <piclistSTOPspamspamspam_OUTmaksimov.org> wrote:
> http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/
>
> "I wanted to jot down some of our thoughts on Adobe's Flash products so that
> customers and critics may better understand why we do not allow Flash on
> iPhones, iPods and iPads. Adobe has characterized our decision as being
> primarily business driven - they say we want to protect our App Store - but
> in reality it is based on technology issues. Adobe claims that we are a
> closed system, and that Flash is open, but in fact the opposite is true. Let
> me explain."

I'm a big supporter of Flash.  It's no fun waiting for EEPROMs to erase.

Regards,
Mark
markrages@gmail
--
Mark Rages, Engineer
Midwest Telecine LLC
spamBeGonemarkragesSTOPspamspamEraseMEmidwesttelecine.com

2010\05\03@162659 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Bob Blick wrote:
> Yes, sort of the "Howard Hughes of the computer industry" was how I'd
> recently heard him described.
>
> When he announces a computer with spruce-accented case, we'll know for
> sure!

He's pretty much already built a spruce goose.  When Jobs was at Next, he
insisted on a particular alloy for the metal case, even though it was rather
more expensive than what was actually necessary.  Note that the failure of
Next is largely ignored, but was a case where Jobs got it wrong.  The
educational market, which is what Next was trying to go after, is very price
sensitive.  That market has no money to pay for fashion, so Jobs' hype
didn't go very far.  For hype to work, you need stupid people with money.
Stupid people are everywhere, but not always with money.  Apple has done a
nice job tapping the ones with money.

2010\05\03@162844 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Mark Rages wrote:
> I'm a big supporter of Flash.  It's no fun waiting for EEPROMs to
> erase.

But flash *is* Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory (EEPROM).


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2010\05\03@163242 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
Mark Rages wrote:
> I'm a big supporter of Flash.  It's no fun waiting for EEPROMs to erase.

:-)

A couple of weeks ago we had a meeting attended by engineers and
non-engineers. We were talking about ways to handle different hardware
revisions and one of the engineers commented that the only difference b/w
two of the revs, was a pull-up on UART Rx. One civilian commented that he
used to think "pull-ups" were a form of exercise. Another said "I'm
confused. What do diapers have to do with electronics?"

Vitaliy

2010\05\03@163836 by Mark Rages

face picon face
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Olin Lathrop <KILLspamolin_piclistspamBeGonespamembedinc.com> wrote:
> Mark Rages wrote:
>> I'm a big supporter of Flash.  It's no fun waiting for EEPROMs to
>> erase.
>
> But flash *is* Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory (EEPROM).
>
>

Shoot.  I screwed up the joke.

Regrads,
Mark
markrages@gmail
--
Mark Rages, Engineer
Midwest Telecine LLC
EraseMEmarkragesspamEraseMEmidwesttelecine.com

2010\05\03@164347 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
Mark Rages ha scritto:

> Shoot.  I screwed up the joke.

:)

2010\05\03@164942 by Oli Glaser

flavicon
face

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Rages" <@spam@markrages@spam@spamspam_OUTgmail.com>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <spamBeGonepiclistspamKILLspammit.edu>
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: [TECH] Steve Jobs: Thoughts on Flash


On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Olin Lathrop <.....olin_piclistspam_OUTspamembedinc.com>
wrote:
{Quote hidden}

I'd have blamed it on my keyboard repeat being set too quick..  :-)



2010\05\03@165844 by Mark Rages

face picon face
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Oli Glaser <TakeThisOuToli.glaser.....spamTakeThisOuTtalktalk.net> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

I blame it on muscle memory in my fingers.  Haven't typed EPROM in a
very long time.

Regards,
Mark
markrages@gmail
--
Mark Rages, Engineer
Midwest Telecine LLC
spamBeGonemarkrages@spam@spamspam_OUTmidwesttelecine.com

2010\05\03@172852 by Marechiare

picon face
>>> When Jobs talks about banning flash out of concern
>>> for developers, it makes me laugh. If Apple's dev tools
>>> are really as great as he says they are, why is he
>>> afraid that if given a choice, developers would use
>>> Adobe tools?
>>
>> "Giving a choice" costs huge money.
>
> How's so? The way I understand it, Adobe is willing to
> do all the work, and they're itching to do it.

Adobe can't do all the work because they are not developers of the
device. Giving them the choice would cost Apple huge amount of
developers time and later support time. The time that can be spent on
newest better technologies. Bolivar cannot carry double. If you want
to stay on bleeding edge of the technological development you have to
cut off not-so-efficient technologies. That's it, the technology
background of his decision.


>> His arguments are valid. The guy's doing great job.
> I don't see any reasonable argument on your side.
>
> :-)

???

2010\05\05@170637 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
cdb wrote:

> Tangent Example:
>
> Safari in Windows - cannot log onto one of my banks internet banking
> site.
> Firefox 3.xx doesn't display some web pages correctly but Chrome, Saf,
> Opera and IE do.
>
> Each browser has problems with some pages. Div-X refuses to work with
> my copy of Firefox, but is happy with IE8 and Chrome.
>
> As far as I know, Mac users don't have this type of problem due to
> this closed circle development.

If the banking site doesn't support your browser, you're in bad shape,
no matter the computer manufacturer or operating system. If it doesn't
support Firefox, chances are that you need IE... closed circle or not.

Gerhard

2010\05\11@112044 by SM Ling

picon face
> I think that the way Steve is going is right. And right with what he says
> about iPhone with no flash:
> "You want porn in your mobile, then buy an android"

I can't replace the battery, I can't watch porn with it.  No wonder in
a fight I saw, 2 drunken were smashing each other head with their
iPhone instead of their unfinished wine bottles.  Guess the wine
inside worth more than their iPhone and heads combined.

Ling SM

2010\05\11@141425 by M.L.
flavicon
face
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 7:34 PM, cdb <TakeThisOuTcolinspamspambtech-online.co.uk> wrote:

> Safari in Windows - cannot log onto one of my banks internet banking
> site.
> Firefox 3.xx doesn't display some web pages correctly but Chrome, Saf,
> Opera and IE do.
>

What websites don't display properly in Firefox? I haven't had a site that
didn't work in Firefox in several years. The last holdout was a bank website
that looked at my UserAgent field and decided that Firefox wasn't worthy
(which is not the fault of Firefox.)

--
Martin K.

2010\05\11@143119 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
Try http://www.Wunderground.com. With XP PRO SP2 Firefox, the upper left search
box is crunched in vertically, but displays OK with Ubuntu Firefox.

On 5/11/2010 2:14 PM, M.L. wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2010\05\11@143412 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
M.L. wrote:
>> Safari in Windows - cannot log onto one of my banks internet banking
>> site.
>> Firefox 3.xx doesn't display some web pages correctly but Chrome, Saf,
>> Opera and IE do.
>>
>
> What websites don't display properly in Firefox? I haven't had a site that
> didn't work in Firefox in several years. The last holdout was a bank
> website
> that looked at my UserAgent field and decided that Firefox wasn't worthy
> (which is not the fault of Firefox.)

Off the top of my head, I cannot use our Magento backend in FF to upload
images (it only works in IE). Granted, we haven't upgraded it in a while.

Vitaliy

2010\05\11@144305 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:14 PM, M.L. <RemoveMEmEraseMEspamspam_OUTlkeng.net> wrote:

> What websites don't display properly in Firefox? I haven't had a site that
> didn't work in Firefox in several years. The last holdout was a bank
> website
> that looked at my UserAgent field and decided that Firefox wasn't worthy
> (which is not the fault of Firefox.)
>

Any that is developed with .NET has a potential problem. Especially in
intranet serves I found these - one for example in my workplace cause
different problems on Chrome, FF, Safari, but works with IE. Not sure if FF
supports ActiveX?

BTW: Microsoft update site I think works only with IE -- anyone can confirm
that?

Tamas






>
> --
> Martin K.
> -

2010\05\11@150407 by M.L.

flavicon
face
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Tamas Rudnai <@spam@tamas.rudnaiRemoveMEspamEraseMEgmail.com>wrote:

> Any that is developed with .NET has a potential problem. Especially in
> intranet serves I found these - one for example in my workplace cause
> different problems on Chrome, FF, Safari, but works with IE. Not sure if FF
> supports ActiveX?
>
> BTW: Microsoft update site I think works only with IE -- anyone can confirm
> that?
>
> Tamas
>

Well yeah - it requires a proprietary plugin to work. This wasn't really
what I meant by "doesn't display properly in Firefox"

--
Martin K.

2010\05\11@161730 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
Carl Denk wrote:
> Try http://www.Wunderground.com. With XP PRO SP2 Firefox, the upper left search
> box is crunched in vertically, but displays OK with Ubuntu Firefox.
>  
Upgrade to SP3. Why on earth running SP2?

On XP pro SP3 and FF 3.6.3  that site is  perfect. I've been there in in
past on FF 3.5.x OK too.


This one was perfect in FF 3.5.x but the round panels are a bit out of
place on 3.6.x (too low)

http://www.radioway.info/

It's the ONLY one I know not working perfect. Since it's mine, I should
take a look at the CSS :-)


2010\05\11@162328 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
M.L. wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Tamas Rudnai <EraseMEtamas.rudnaispam@spam@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>  
>> Any that is developed with .NET has a potential problem. Especially in
>> intranet serves I found these - one for example in my workplace cause
>> different problems on Chrome, FF, Safari, but works with IE. Not sure if FF
>> supports ActiveX?
>>
>> BTW: Microsoft update site I think works only with IE -- anyone can confirm
>> that?
>>
>> Tamas
>>
>>    
>
> Well yeah - it requires a proprietary plugin to work. This wasn't really
> what I meant by "doesn't display properly in Firefox"
>
>  
Only a lunatic uses non-intranet public internet Active-X. windows help
files actually use the IE engine. I use IE for Windows or MS Update.
Firefox for everything else.

6 years ago I had the company IIS/MS-SQL .ASP webserver working fine
with Firefox. Even an  intranet Webserver shouldn't be using Active-X.

2010\05\11@162750 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Michael Watterson <@spam@mikespam_OUTspam.....radioway.org>wrote:

> 6 years ago I had the company IIS/MS-SQL .ASP webserver working fine
> with Firefox. Even an  intranet Webserver shouldn't be using Active-X.
>

I agree with you, should not :-)

Tamas



>
> -

2010\05\11@190041 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Carl Denk <spamBeGonecdenkEraseMEspamwindstream.net> wrote:
> Try http://www.Wunderground.com. With XP PRO SP2 Firefox, the upper left search
> box is crunched in vertically, but displays OK with Ubuntu Firefox.
>

Works here with FIrefox 3.6.3 under WIndows 7 Home Premium 64bit.

--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

2010\05\11@190402 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 2:14 AM, M.L. <mspamBeGonespamlkeng.net> wrote:

> What websites don't display properly in Firefox? I haven't had a site that
> didn't work in Firefox in several years. The last holdout was a bank website
> that looked at my UserAgent field and decided that Firefox wasn't worthy
> (which is not the fault of Firefox.)
>

There are still websites which do not work with Firefox, but there seem
to be more websites not compatible with IE8 without the compatible mode.

In the current job, we are stuck with IE 6 and XP SP2. Many web based
applications do not work with Firefox in the company Intranet. So I use
IE 6 for the Intranet application, but Firefox exclusively for web browsing.

--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2010 , 2011 only
- Today
- New search...