Sydde
Feb 12, 07:01 PM
Ferris Bueller character? He makes me think of his father: in two or three years, Aaron Sorkin will put together a TV series where Charlie Sheen plays the (heretofore unmentioned) son of Jed Bartlett, who has somehow managed to become president...
The Wasted Wing?
The Wasted Wing?
xPismo
Aug 15, 02:58 PM
Progress is good, but I don't see any killer apps which will make me upgrade day 1. This might change, but really 10.4 does everything I need it to do so far.
I guess my pro apps will probably force me to upgrade at some point.
Does anyone else get a kitten ichat image with the third spotlight image? Is that a new feature? (/me missed something.)
[edit] ah I get it now. That image should have some context around it... its a preview image in spotlight... maybe I' slow today. :)
I guess my pro apps will probably force me to upgrade at some point.
Does anyone else get a kitten ichat image with the third spotlight image? Is that a new feature? (/me missed something.)
[edit] ah I get it now. That image should have some context around it... its a preview image in spotlight... maybe I' slow today. :)
FX4568
Apr 19, 04:27 PM
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 We shouldn't be saddled with an out-of-date processor or forced to subsidize "unnecessary" frame rate performance just to appease game-players.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.
Well, I shall say first of all, welcome to the MacRumors forum :) I believe CPU is important to the computer as the GPU is. As current computers are, CPU have set a milestone where most users are not even able to use 100% of the capabilities hidden in such a powerful processor.
Now, you were complaining I used 100/100 in the CPU analogy? fine, I will change it. CPU will be 90/100 and GPU is 80/100 as the 30% increase in cpu and 30% decrease in gpu, we will see a difference of 117/100 and 56/100. Am I arguing that there will be nothing to be gained from a bump in processor speed? Definitely not! Who doesnt love the little extra power when we need it? Who doesnt want the latest in tech? What im saying is that the downgrading of the GPU outweights the upgrading of the CPU in terms of OVERALL performance.
Futhermore HT and Turbo dont work 100% of the times.
For you and many other potential MBA purchasers, a CPU bump will be indeed welcomed. But as of me and the I believe majority of MBA owners and will be owners, the difference of processor speed is negligible to a certain extent, but the performance lack of GPU will be noticed the moment we start using the Macbook Air.
+1, besides, the 13" MBP + 128GB SSD provide far better value-for-money than any present 13" MBA.
The cheaper solution, the 11", tells another story but even then anything past the base model comes so close to the price of a 13" MBP+SSD that it's impractical to get a 11" from a performance point of view, especially when it's equipped with the slow 1.4 C2D. The 1.4 i5 will provide far better performance (certainly far more than 40% of speed boost). We will still be able to watch FullHD movies despite the less capable IGP. Games. Don't tell me you want to play WoW on a 11" monitor.
FX4568 said "We have enough to accomplish our tasks, and any more would be an overkill in the things we need our computer to process.". Overkill means the increased processor speed will not be of any use, or, in other words, useless.
You are comparing a cheaper price point by bringing a 128 SSD into the game. You must understand that even though many people have to choose between the 13 MBA and 13 MBP, both of them are made for a different purpose. You can play WoW on a 11" monitor. Why do you chain your MBA to tasks that you only think it will be able to accomplish.
Okay, sorry about my lack of further explanation, but I dont want this to sound personal, but what you are doing is taking my statement to a whole different level. I would like to infer that your intelligence would be above the mark where I dont have to expand on every single statement that I say. When I say that the C2D is enough to accomplish tasks, I am saying that it is good enough for the higher than average person. Handbrakers of course will face a time difference on the processor speed, but as many of us know, not everyone uses Handbrake, and if we do, it is not something we do daily. Processor speed is always welcome, but at the sacrifice of GPU from 320m to the Intel GPU is the difference between the ability to play Crysis on 19.3 FPS at Medium settings and not be able to playing it at all while the performance increase in CPU is the difference between 10-30 minutes in Handbrake.
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.
Well, I shall say first of all, welcome to the MacRumors forum :) I believe CPU is important to the computer as the GPU is. As current computers are, CPU have set a milestone where most users are not even able to use 100% of the capabilities hidden in such a powerful processor.
Now, you were complaining I used 100/100 in the CPU analogy? fine, I will change it. CPU will be 90/100 and GPU is 80/100 as the 30% increase in cpu and 30% decrease in gpu, we will see a difference of 117/100 and 56/100. Am I arguing that there will be nothing to be gained from a bump in processor speed? Definitely not! Who doesnt love the little extra power when we need it? Who doesnt want the latest in tech? What im saying is that the downgrading of the GPU outweights the upgrading of the CPU in terms of OVERALL performance.
Futhermore HT and Turbo dont work 100% of the times.
For you and many other potential MBA purchasers, a CPU bump will be indeed welcomed. But as of me and the I believe majority of MBA owners and will be owners, the difference of processor speed is negligible to a certain extent, but the performance lack of GPU will be noticed the moment we start using the Macbook Air.
+1, besides, the 13" MBP + 128GB SSD provide far better value-for-money than any present 13" MBA.
The cheaper solution, the 11", tells another story but even then anything past the base model comes so close to the price of a 13" MBP+SSD that it's impractical to get a 11" from a performance point of view, especially when it's equipped with the slow 1.4 C2D. The 1.4 i5 will provide far better performance (certainly far more than 40% of speed boost). We will still be able to watch FullHD movies despite the less capable IGP. Games. Don't tell me you want to play WoW on a 11" monitor.
FX4568 said "We have enough to accomplish our tasks, and any more would be an overkill in the things we need our computer to process.". Overkill means the increased processor speed will not be of any use, or, in other words, useless.
You are comparing a cheaper price point by bringing a 128 SSD into the game. You must understand that even though many people have to choose between the 13 MBA and 13 MBP, both of them are made for a different purpose. You can play WoW on a 11" monitor. Why do you chain your MBA to tasks that you only think it will be able to accomplish.
Okay, sorry about my lack of further explanation, but I dont want this to sound personal, but what you are doing is taking my statement to a whole different level. I would like to infer that your intelligence would be above the mark where I dont have to expand on every single statement that I say. When I say that the C2D is enough to accomplish tasks, I am saying that it is good enough for the higher than average person. Handbrakers of course will face a time difference on the processor speed, but as many of us know, not everyone uses Handbrake, and if we do, it is not something we do daily. Processor speed is always welcome, but at the sacrifice of GPU from 320m to the Intel GPU is the difference between the ability to play Crysis on 19.3 FPS at Medium settings and not be able to playing it at all while the performance increase in CPU is the difference between 10-30 minutes in Handbrake.
gpapava
May 3, 08:16 AM
Soooo....nice upgrade!!
BUT!
Can you plug in your console to the imac's monitor? With an adapter ofcourse!
BUT!
Can you plug in your console to the imac's monitor? With an adapter ofcourse!
more...
samcraig
Apr 14, 10:52 AM
It's for the new computer Apple is introducing called LISA
mrsir2009
Apr 13, 11:22 PM
Now I'd just wait for the iPhone 5
Yup. I'm going to get an iPhone 5. Come to think of it, it will be my first Apple product thats not a Mac.
Yup. I'm going to get an iPhone 5. Come to think of it, it will be my first Apple product thats not a Mac.
more...
iTattoo
May 4, 10:19 AM
I suspect that there are a couple of reasons for the change.
1 - there's a huge spike in sales with the release of any iOS device, having the iPad in the first half of the year and the iPhone in the second half of the year better levels the demand, the time required by the Apple team, and better levels traffic patterns in the stores.
2 - The iPod is becoming less and less important to Apple. Every iPhone includes and iPod, every iPad includes an iPod. In the past year we've seen something like a 17% decrease in sales of the iPod, with over 50% of them being the iPod Touch. The iPod classic is on it's last legs, the shuffle is the only click wheel iPod left, and a 2GB iPod Nano would be a compelling option, and then Apple is done with the traditional click wheels, and just have touch screen iPods across the board, with the "ultimate iPod" being the iPhone - all updated in September.
1 - there's a huge spike in sales with the release of any iOS device, having the iPad in the first half of the year and the iPhone in the second half of the year better levels the demand, the time required by the Apple team, and better levels traffic patterns in the stores.
2 - The iPod is becoming less and less important to Apple. Every iPhone includes and iPod, every iPad includes an iPod. In the past year we've seen something like a 17% decrease in sales of the iPod, with over 50% of them being the iPod Touch. The iPod classic is on it's last legs, the shuffle is the only click wheel iPod left, and a 2GB iPod Nano would be a compelling option, and then Apple is done with the traditional click wheels, and just have touch screen iPods across the board, with the "ultimate iPod" being the iPhone - all updated in September.
Scuby
Dec 29, 12:38 PM
The program in the US Army (basic training) was designed to burn 5000 calories a day. Basically you were moving 16 hours a day. Just can think of doing 12k or 30k calories a day.
Anyone know how many calories someone burns running a marathon?
An "average" sustainable long distance pace (12km/h, about 8mph) will burn through about 1000 calories an hour. I suspect she's not running quite that much ;)
I seem to remember people out in the Arctic / Antartic tend to eat ~ 6000 calories a day, since so much is lost due to cold, etc. Maybe she lives in her fridge most of the day? (Which would explain the calorie intake too!) :)
David
Anyone know how many calories someone burns running a marathon?
An "average" sustainable long distance pace (12km/h, about 8mph) will burn through about 1000 calories an hour. I suspect she's not running quite that much ;)
I seem to remember people out in the Arctic / Antartic tend to eat ~ 6000 calories a day, since so much is lost due to cold, etc. Maybe she lives in her fridge most of the day? (Which would explain the calorie intake too!) :)
David
more...
dXTC
Feb 25, 10:26 PM
They show will be on as long as the ratings are up. Maybe Sheen gets killed off when he crashes his car next season and then their long lost brother enters.
Now that I think about it, there's only one way this might work: if the producers can get Emilio Estevez. :D
Now that I think about it, there's only one way this might work: if the producers can get Emilio Estevez. :D
justflie
Sep 30, 08:59 AM
BS and unacceptable. That being said, I'm doing fine in the metro-west area of Boston/Worcester. Very rare to have a dropped call. I think this is just a case of a single carrier being unable to handle the volume of iPhone users. It's time to open it up to multiple carriers to spread the love and the cell tower load.
more...
doctor-don
Jun 7, 09:36 AM
$1000 worth of a beating he'd get if i were his parent. Luckily for kids, i hate them and would never have one. Ever.
Kids hating kids. Imagine!
ChrisGonzales90: You've ruined my week with that image!
Apple should have safeguards in place to ensure apps are not downloaded without a password when the cost exceeds $20. I even contest the addition of 1� to a bill when it was not part of the contract.
Kids hating kids. Imagine!
ChrisGonzales90: You've ruined my week with that image!
Apple should have safeguards in place to ensure apps are not downloaded without a password when the cost exceeds $20. I even contest the addition of 1� to a bill when it was not part of the contract.
JRM PowerPod
Jul 11, 08:19 PM
If Microsoft try to undercut the iPod in price. Steve will get revenge. He will start bundling all new macs with his pirated version of Windows XP Pro and Office Pro. hehe cop that Bill
more...
prady16
Oct 24, 08:05 AM
Told ya! :D
More RAM, faster and newer processor, FW800 port all at the same price!
The wait was worth it! :)
More RAM, faster and newer processor, FW800 port all at the same price!
The wait was worth it! :)
rovex
Apr 22, 05:41 PM
Um no, they do not break very easily. Maybe a gorilla might break it easily.
well mine sure did, and my iPad's not responding when I double click for multitasking. I'm no gorilla, it's called "wear and tear", maybe you haven't heard of it?
well mine sure did, and my iPad's not responding when I double click for multitasking. I'm no gorilla, it's called "wear and tear", maybe you haven't heard of it?
more...
littleman23408
Sep 13, 01:10 AM
Wat? :confused: $5????!!
That is by far my fav gaming franchise.
Yea, those games are awesome!
Got some more records!
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4085/4985258575_495756eda1_m.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4133/4985258781_1a64bbb9cb_m.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4105/4985859420_9284cd2166_m.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4132/4985259265_3f38193539_m.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4133/4985859978_7637a8d686_m.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4107/4985860206_a46f42232c_m.jpg
...more great purchases to come! :D
That is by far my fav gaming franchise.
Yea, those games are awesome!
Got some more records!
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4085/4985258575_495756eda1_m.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4133/4985258781_1a64bbb9cb_m.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4105/4985859420_9284cd2166_m.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4132/4985259265_3f38193539_m.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4133/4985859978_7637a8d686_m.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4107/4985860206_a46f42232c_m.jpg
...more great purchases to come! :D
BJMRamage
May 3, 07:36 AM
nice!
Gotta tell my friend who is looking to buy an iMac.
Gotta tell my friend who is looking to buy an iMac.
more...
jamesnajera
Mar 31, 12:53 PM
I do not like the leather look. Hopefully they make something more clean looking. This look is to childish.
Mattsasa
Apr 28, 11:25 AM
If apple got their dual-band world phone out a year earlier, for all carriers, it would have made a huge difference!!!! I can't believe apple is delaying the iPhone 5!!!!!!!!!!
I am not apple, so I am probably wrong, but delaying the IPhone 5 seems like the worst business decision ever!!!!!!!!!
The iPhone 5 better be a major upgrade that makes it better than all the other devices out there, and better be on all carriers!!!!
I am not apple, so I am probably wrong, but delaying the IPhone 5 seems like the worst business decision ever!!!!!!!!!
The iPhone 5 better be a major upgrade that makes it better than all the other devices out there, and better be on all carriers!!!!
iansilv
Apr 23, 08:57 PM
Oh this is good- this is really really good for consumers...
BigMacnChips
Apr 24, 02:27 AM
The T-Mobile US network uses different frequencies than AT&T's
Acquiring frequencies allocation is a huge premium, and with customer base and existing install too.
Acquiring frequencies allocation is a huge premium, and with customer base and existing install too.
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.
MacRumors
Nov 10, 02:22 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2010/11/10/skyfire-rakes-in-nearly-1-million-in-first-weekend/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/11/10/152110-skyfire_icon_125.jpg
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/11/10/152110-skyfire_icon_125.jpg
Silencio
Apr 11, 02:28 PM
USB 2.0 is definitely not fast enough to saturate a hard drives speed, it's very limiting.
Firewire 800 isn't fast enough to saturate multi-drive RAIDs, either.
I'm really looking forward to Mac minis with Thunderbolt. Hook them up to some nice 4+ drive external RAIDs with Thunderbolt and I can replace a bunch of aging Xserves and PowerMac G5 servers with much smaller and much faster replacements.
Firewire 800 isn't fast enough to saturate multi-drive RAIDs, either.
I'm really looking forward to Mac minis with Thunderbolt. Hook them up to some nice 4+ drive external RAIDs with Thunderbolt and I can replace a bunch of aging Xserves and PowerMac G5 servers with much smaller and much faster replacements.
steadysignal
Apr 26, 07:24 AM
i sometimes miss my imac. sold it in favor of mid 2010 15 mbp.
No comments:
Post a Comment