titatom
Apr 13, 02:38 PM
If this happens I might own a television once again ! :D
digitalnicotine
Jan 31, 01:47 AM
@neko girl
Um... what? I mean what did you purchase? (looks cool) :)
Um... what? I mean what did you purchase? (looks cool) :)
Eidorian
Oct 23, 11:32 AM
Steve Gibson (http://grc.com/) (love him or hate him) reports that Vista's rewritten network stack, through the various betas, has been shown vulnerable to a number of the exploits that more mature stacks (e.g. BSD's stack, the one MS used to quietly use) have fixed over the past decade! It just seems ludicrous.And if someone wants to listen to it...
Security Now! 51: Vista's Virgin Stack (http://www.twit.tv/sn51)
Microsoft's Vista EULA says:
4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.
This means you can't use the *same* installation of Vista Home inside a virtualization technology on the "licensed device".It still looks like they don't want you to install it on a VM if you have it already installed on your system. Still, that's up in the air and we just LOVE Microsoft.
Security Now! 51: Vista's Virgin Stack (http://www.twit.tv/sn51)
Microsoft's Vista EULA says:
4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.
This means you can't use the *same* installation of Vista Home inside a virtualization technology on the "licensed device".It still looks like they don't want you to install it on a VM if you have it already installed on your system. Still, that's up in the air and we just LOVE Microsoft.
SciFrog
Oct 18, 01:53 AM
This is not a bigadv unit... The fastest machines out there do a frame in 22 mins...
PS: I am folding on an air, good for 800PPD...
PS: I am folding on an air, good for 800PPD...
ucfgrad93
Jan 30, 03:26 PM
Charlie Sheen is on the short track of life ... soon to depart from this world.
Sadly, I have to agree with this.
Sadly, I have to agree with this.
Edmoil12
Apr 21, 10:56 PM
All I'm saying is that if, in the event Apple, or ANY other company REMOVES once-standard features ... to later then call them 'luxary' features ... those companies deserve a big round of boos from us - the consumers. That's a pathetic and cynical way to try to goose sales for your higher end products.
Fair enough, but it seems all we can do as consumers is vote with our dollars if we don't like it.
Fair enough, but it seems all we can do as consumers is vote with our dollars if we don't like it.
spydr
Mar 31, 05:21 PM
Would like to see the week and month view too before I pass my final judgement though.
Month is my most common view in my ical and sometimes, week. Seldom use day view.
Month is my most common view in my ical and sometimes, week. Seldom use day view.
EarthDawn
Oct 5, 07:14 PM
Man thats some sad #'s .... thank god its not like that on the Island....
nastebu
Oct 1, 04:10 AM
I'm not questioning those reporting their first-hand experience with an unacceptable level of dropped calls, but the posted repair report drafted by a Genius Bar tech is hardly documentation of AT&T's service levels, much less an official tolerance of that level. This tech was only reporting that he examined the iPhone and it was performing according to spec, and that its performance in use would be consistent with whatever level of service AT&T was providing at the time.
I realize this is beside the point for those disappointed with their AT&T service, but someone was wrong on the Internet, and it's my lot in life to stay up past 1 a.m. to straighten things like this out. <sigh>
This has been said a bunch of times in the thread, but people are still acting as if this is a definitive statement on iPhone service in NYC. It is not. The headline is very deceptive. All that's shown in this case is that one person experienced at least a 22% dropped call rate, and that an Apple technical service person determined that this drop rate was not caused by the iPhone's hardware. That's it.
I realize this is beside the point for those disappointed with their AT&T service, but someone was wrong on the Internet, and it's my lot in life to stay up past 1 a.m. to straighten things like this out. <sigh>
This has been said a bunch of times in the thread, but people are still acting as if this is a definitive statement on iPhone service in NYC. It is not. The headline is very deceptive. All that's shown in this case is that one person experienced at least a 22% dropped call rate, and that an Apple technical service person determined that this drop rate was not caused by the iPhone's hardware. That's it.
bassfingers
Apr 23, 11:06 PM
I don't believe ithttp://us.cdn4.123rf.com/168nwm/denisnata/denisnata0904/denisnata090400015.jpg
chanerz
Sep 17, 01:20 PM
gt5 ftw!!!!
powers74
May 5, 09:27 AM
OMG....I would NEVER take information as fact from an "ATT customer service agent". I have received so much wrong info or even been dare I say lied to, I would never trust what a random ATT rep said.
Not to mention, the service reps are so far down the chain of command, they would not have info on when the next iphone is being released.
Not only that, most of them aren't even actual ATT employees.
I still say the update is moving to Jan.
Not to mention, the service reps are so far down the chain of command, they would not have info on when the next iphone is being released.
Not only that, most of them aren't even actual ATT employees.
I still say the update is moving to Jan.
(eciv)
Apr 5, 08:15 PM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5230/5594013398_365372cba1_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/57812430@N07/5594013398/)
hayesk
Jul 26, 04:02 PM
They most certainly did have physical feedback. You had to touch them to activate the buttons or drag your finger across the scroll wheel to use it. This would constitute a tactile feedback, even if there is no click.
Just touching it is not tactile feedback. That would be like saying a piece of paper provides feedback if you touch it. Feedback means a signal is sent back to the user to acknowledge the the pressing of the control. The 3G iPod buttons gave an audio click - that is aural feedback. They also showed things on the screen - that is visual feedback. But they didn't spring, or have a physical barrier that you push through, so there was no tactile feedback (i.e. nothing that can be physically felt) to let you know that you pressed the button.
When you press a button on a dead iPod, it does nothing, and it feels exactly the same as pressing a button on a working iPod - no tactile feedback.
What you're describing is far less revolutionary, and wouldn't really constitute a none-touch interface.
Who said it was revolutionary? And it could consitute a none-touch interface. It depends on if the patent is describing the control or the entire iPod. If there is a cover, you are not touching the control (the screen underneath), but the cover over it - hence none-touch.
The current displays all have a durable, transparent cover over them, and they still get scratches and finger prints from handling. I think the reason that this interface idea is so exciting is that it offers the possibility of having a full screen for viewing without needing to worry about the act of touching the screen for controls making the screen dirty so you can't watch.
A better (i.e. more scratch-proof) cover would be better. Who cares about fingerprints? You can clean those off. I don't want to hover my finger over something to control it - I'd always have to be careful not to touch the screen (unless it was durable). Not very good when on a bus, train etc., where the vehicle is shaking.
Just touching it is not tactile feedback. That would be like saying a piece of paper provides feedback if you touch it. Feedback means a signal is sent back to the user to acknowledge the the pressing of the control. The 3G iPod buttons gave an audio click - that is aural feedback. They also showed things on the screen - that is visual feedback. But they didn't spring, or have a physical barrier that you push through, so there was no tactile feedback (i.e. nothing that can be physically felt) to let you know that you pressed the button.
When you press a button on a dead iPod, it does nothing, and it feels exactly the same as pressing a button on a working iPod - no tactile feedback.
What you're describing is far less revolutionary, and wouldn't really constitute a none-touch interface.
Who said it was revolutionary? And it could consitute a none-touch interface. It depends on if the patent is describing the control or the entire iPod. If there is a cover, you are not touching the control (the screen underneath), but the cover over it - hence none-touch.
The current displays all have a durable, transparent cover over them, and they still get scratches and finger prints from handling. I think the reason that this interface idea is so exciting is that it offers the possibility of having a full screen for viewing without needing to worry about the act of touching the screen for controls making the screen dirty so you can't watch.
A better (i.e. more scratch-proof) cover would be better. Who cares about fingerprints? You can clean those off. I don't want to hover my finger over something to control it - I'd always have to be careful not to touch the screen (unless it was durable). Not very good when on a bus, train etc., where the vehicle is shaking.
thermodynamic
Apr 24, 04:44 PM
Oh please, get off your PC high horse for a second and come back to reality. Yeah, no one should get beat up and bullied. I'd also love for the world to be filled with rainbows and unicorns all the time too. However, if I walk around drunk in a bad part of town flashing a suitcase full of cash, well I shouldn't be shocked that I get robbed. I know people don't like to take personal responsibility for their actions these days and everyone's ready to sue someone else because nothing is ever their fault. But most reasonable people should realize that being drunk in the ghetto as a transgendered guy isn't the brightest idea.
And rape victims deserved it because they wore miniskirts too.
Being drunk in a 'bad part of town' and flashing whatever is one thing. But that's no excuse, reason, or justification for you being attacked as a result.
Being a transgender, drunk, and in a rich country club isn't going to be very bright either.
Just being transgender is more than enough.
Especially with bigger issues in this world and people would rather prod each other out of a perceived sense of sensibility or lack thereof. Indeed, in the ideal environment, everybody would flash cash and could do so in absolute safety. I think they're currently called "gated communities". I wonder why.
And rape victims deserved it because they wore miniskirts too.
Being drunk in a 'bad part of town' and flashing whatever is one thing. But that's no excuse, reason, or justification for you being attacked as a result.
Being a transgender, drunk, and in a rich country club isn't going to be very bright either.
Just being transgender is more than enough.
Especially with bigger issues in this world and people would rather prod each other out of a perceived sense of sensibility or lack thereof. Indeed, in the ideal environment, everybody would flash cash and could do so in absolute safety. I think they're currently called "gated communities". I wonder why.
wordoflife
Apr 22, 09:25 AM
So what is Apple waiting for with the iPhone 5?
If there are no chips until 2012, then just give us the iphone 5 now :)
If there are no chips until 2012, then just give us the iphone 5 now :)
pink-pony115
Jul 29, 12:56 PM
I will give the microsoft zune a chance. But keep mind microsoft was created as a by-product of apple. I haven't had the best experience with mircosoft. Sooo I'm just curious.
JGowan
Oct 19, 08:41 PM
Wow, amazing how emotional people always get whenever I make a statement that could sound slightly anti-iPod... I know you love your iPod and all (I am very fond of mine myself), but over the last few years Apple has been focusing a dispropotional amount of energy into their cute little gadget which has massively boosted their profits. For those of us that don't salivate over all things iPod, I think this is too bad.
That is all.Dude...
INTEL TRANSITION >> BRAND NEW ARCHITECTURE for the newest Towers >> 24" IMACS >> NEW MACBOOKS >> BUMP IN SPECS for MAC MINI >> LEOPARD soon and will be KICKASS
Just because people won't buy a $1200-$4000 computer as fast as they buy a $249 iPod is not Apple's fault. It's economics. Plus the same people who are buying the iPod are oftentimes the same people buying 2, 3 or more 'Pods for their relatives as gifts.
Give Apple a break. Their computer line-up is excellent.
That is all.Dude...
INTEL TRANSITION >> BRAND NEW ARCHITECTURE for the newest Towers >> 24" IMACS >> NEW MACBOOKS >> BUMP IN SPECS for MAC MINI >> LEOPARD soon and will be KICKASS
Just because people won't buy a $1200-$4000 computer as fast as they buy a $249 iPod is not Apple's fault. It's economics. Plus the same people who are buying the iPod are oftentimes the same people buying 2, 3 or more 'Pods for their relatives as gifts.
Give Apple a break. Their computer line-up is excellent.
leekohler
Mar 8, 09:16 AM
You have many good qualities, lee, and you just showed us another one: a capacity for introspection; for looking back, recognizing and admitting that you might've made an all-too-human mistake.
A lot of us would probably have done the same thing, were we in your shoes. I take a looooooong time to let people who've wronged me back into my life.
Wow- thanks for the compliment. That was very nice. Yeah, he was a very difficult person to deal with.
A lot of us would probably have done the same thing, were we in your shoes. I take a looooooong time to let people who've wronged me back into my life.
Wow- thanks for the compliment. That was very nice. Yeah, he was a very difficult person to deal with.
Corey Grandy
Jan 30, 12:41 PM
- MacBook Air
- iPad
- iTouch
- Apple Accessories
Am I part of the Apple Family Now?
You're also part of the insanely big spender family if that entire group is your last purchase.
- iPad
- iTouch
- Apple Accessories
Am I part of the Apple Family Now?
You're also part of the insanely big spender family if that entire group is your last purchase.
joshuarayer
Apr 15, 03:55 PM
This is true, the liger really is the biggest of the big cats.
Also, like most hybrids, they are born sterile so it really would be the last of the line... :D
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.restorationfarms.com/gifs/liger4.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.restorationfarms.com/liger.html&h=531&w=353&sz=65&tbnid=CyJJwsA-8sxxEM:&tbnh=132&tbnw=88&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dliger%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=liger&usg=__ae2HocKmmiThzFfogPvFu_jTB9o=&sa=X&ei=Q6-oTbW_K4SzhAfa3-zECQ&ved=0CDQQ9QEwAQ
Actually, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiglon) anyway, there are second generation hybrids from a Tiger and Tigon called a Litigon and a Titigon depending on which is the male and which is the female. No wiki page for it but it is mentioned under the Tigon wiki page.
Also, like most hybrids, they are born sterile so it really would be the last of the line... :D
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.restorationfarms.com/gifs/liger4.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.restorationfarms.com/liger.html&h=531&w=353&sz=65&tbnid=CyJJwsA-8sxxEM:&tbnh=132&tbnw=88&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dliger%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=liger&usg=__ae2HocKmmiThzFfogPvFu_jTB9o=&sa=X&ei=Q6-oTbW_K4SzhAfa3-zECQ&ved=0CDQQ9QEwAQ
Actually, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiglon) anyway, there are second generation hybrids from a Tiger and Tigon called a Litigon and a Titigon depending on which is the male and which is the female. No wiki page for it but it is mentioned under the Tigon wiki page.
supremedesigner
Jul 28, 07:46 AM
<snip>
I hate the name Zune.<snip>
That word remind me of: dune or even worse - DOOM! :D
I hate the name Zune.<snip>
That word remind me of: dune or even worse - DOOM! :D
FloatingBones
Nov 25, 12:34 AM
For the last time, STOP SPEAKING FOR OTHER PEOPLE!!! You have NO right what-so-ever to speak for anyone but yourself and yet you continue to state that EVER SINGLE iOS USER hates Flash and is glad to be rid of it and yet this Skyfire app proves just the opposite.
What I said: Users of the 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash plugins is completely true. There are no Flash plugins for this device. Nobody can run a shred of Flash content in their browser on this device.
No amount of nonsensical shouting will change the facts.
You have every right to give your opinion on the matter, but it is your opinion, not the opinion of every single iOS user in existence.
But owners of those 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash. Nobody forced them to buy those devices. If they were somehow "disappointed" because there are no Flash plugins available, nobody prevented them from returning them or reselling them.
That is NOT a shortcoming of Flash dude.
Also incorrect. There are huge shortcomings of Flash, and you've never addressed them.
You've never addressed the identity-leaking of Flash cookies: Flash doesn't honor the cookie privacy settings of the browser. More than half of the top 100 websites are now using Flash cookies to track users and store information about them. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt) Do you actually like the fact that those sites do an end-run around the cookie privacy settings by using Flash? I can't find a single rational person that likes the identity-leaking.
You've never addressed the quirkiness that Flash brings to the browser UI. On my Mac, scrolling works differently when my mouse is over a Flash region. Certain keyboard shortcuts cease to work. Text that appears in a Flash window is not searchable with the browser's text-finding feature. My Mac doesn't behave like a Mac inside of a Flash window.
The engineering choice made for iOS is simplicity. Layering Flash on top of the browser would compromise that simplicity. Click-to-flash semantics would add yet another layer of clutter and obfuscation to the UI.
You've never addressed Adobe's inability to deal competently to secure their software. Security experts believe that Adobe is going to surpass Microsoft as the #1 target for security attacks. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-231.htm) Besides Flash, Adobe Reader is a vector for zero day bugs (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt). I really don't know how you do that: it's a PDF reader! The bugs have been around in Adobe Reader for years and Adobe still hasn't fixed them.
If Apple enabled Flash in iOS Safari, they would be farming out the correct operation of their iOS browser to a company that has proven to be one of the least competent companies in dealing with malware attacks. Noted security expert Steve Gibson mocks their cluelessness:
"[Adobe:] how is that quarterly update cycle going for you?" (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I have yet to find a single Flash enthusiast who can address those issues. I'm hardly surprised that you can't address them, either.
That is a shortcoming of Steve Jobs' choosing.
Nonsense. They are engineering and design choices. If Apple made bad engineering and design choices, they would never have sold 120M+ of these devices.
If you think they are a "shortcoming": there are simple solutions. Don't buy an iOS device. If you did buy one, sell it. Or maybe you can see if it will blend (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAl28d6tbko).
One thing is certain: Apple will not compromise their iOS browser with Flash, and complaining about that is rather silly.
Even if Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete, that doesn't mean people don't want to be able to access the entire Web in the here and now.
Adobe Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete. Even Adobe acknowledges the fact (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999).
Between the 120M+ iOS devices, the click-to-flash plugins disable Flash downloads on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux machines, and Adobe's new Flash-to-HTML5 conversion tools (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999), the abandonment of Flash will continue to accelerate.
You just don't seem to comprehend that.
You are correct. Flash is a legacy technology, and its day has passed.
You seem to have this deep seated hatred of Flash
There are fundamental failings in both the design and deployment of Flash. I listed three of those earlier in my reply.
The thing that got my attention was when I realized that Flash was maintaining its own set of cookies and that those cookies did not honor the privacy settings of my browser. I then learned about click-to-flash plugins to minimize my exposure to Flash. The shocking thing to me was how much disabling Flash improved the browsing experience: faster page loads, less flashing advertisements, and far less CPU usage.
and I can tell that if Steve had said "I LOVE Flash" instead you would almost undoubtedly be here fighting against HTML5 and for Flash.
You imply that I blindly agree with Apple's (and Jobs's) decisions. That is not the case.
I strongly disagree with Apple's decision to prevent Hypermac from selling external batteries for Mac computers (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1032695). Hypermac makes a quality product, and they are filling a niche that Apple ignores. Magsafe is a wonderful technology, but they should be licensing this tech to third-party vendors. I fondly hope that Apple addresses this deficiency in their strategy and product accessories soon.
If you search, you can find where I commented on this in the public record weeks ago.
Yes, I honestly believe that. You have no vested interest in either one. You're just being Steve's doormat.
Now you know better.
I see no reason why ANYONE should have to convert to HTML5.
Too many laptop users are tired of the CPU loading and battery suck of Flash apps.
Too many users don't like that Flash alters the UI inside of the browsers: altered scrolling behavior, keyboard shortcuts that don't work in Flash, text searches that don't work with text in a Flash app.
Too many privacy advocates are bothered that Flash maintains a separate set of cookies and those cookies do not honor the privacy settings of the browser. Commercial websites are using those Flash cookies to track users. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt)
Too many security advocates are wary of using Adobe products because of Adobe's poor track record against security attacks.
Even if all those four large concerns were addressed, websites have to deal with the growing number of users that use Flash-blocking plugins. Advertisers that deliver their ads with Flash have no guarantee that users will allow those Flash apps to be downloaded and run on their machines.
Those are the reasons why Flash's viability for delivering web content is in decline. Even if you don't see the reasons, Adobe does (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/10/adobe-demos-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool.html).
What I said: Users of the 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash plugins is completely true. There are no Flash plugins for this device. Nobody can run a shred of Flash content in their browser on this device.
No amount of nonsensical shouting will change the facts.
You have every right to give your opinion on the matter, but it is your opinion, not the opinion of every single iOS user in existence.
But owners of those 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash. Nobody forced them to buy those devices. If they were somehow "disappointed" because there are no Flash plugins available, nobody prevented them from returning them or reselling them.
That is NOT a shortcoming of Flash dude.
Also incorrect. There are huge shortcomings of Flash, and you've never addressed them.
You've never addressed the identity-leaking of Flash cookies: Flash doesn't honor the cookie privacy settings of the browser. More than half of the top 100 websites are now using Flash cookies to track users and store information about them. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt) Do you actually like the fact that those sites do an end-run around the cookie privacy settings by using Flash? I can't find a single rational person that likes the identity-leaking.
You've never addressed the quirkiness that Flash brings to the browser UI. On my Mac, scrolling works differently when my mouse is over a Flash region. Certain keyboard shortcuts cease to work. Text that appears in a Flash window is not searchable with the browser's text-finding feature. My Mac doesn't behave like a Mac inside of a Flash window.
The engineering choice made for iOS is simplicity. Layering Flash on top of the browser would compromise that simplicity. Click-to-flash semantics would add yet another layer of clutter and obfuscation to the UI.
You've never addressed Adobe's inability to deal competently to secure their software. Security experts believe that Adobe is going to surpass Microsoft as the #1 target for security attacks. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-231.htm) Besides Flash, Adobe Reader is a vector for zero day bugs (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt). I really don't know how you do that: it's a PDF reader! The bugs have been around in Adobe Reader for years and Adobe still hasn't fixed them.
If Apple enabled Flash in iOS Safari, they would be farming out the correct operation of their iOS browser to a company that has proven to be one of the least competent companies in dealing with malware attacks. Noted security expert Steve Gibson mocks their cluelessness:
"[Adobe:] how is that quarterly update cycle going for you?" (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I have yet to find a single Flash enthusiast who can address those issues. I'm hardly surprised that you can't address them, either.
That is a shortcoming of Steve Jobs' choosing.
Nonsense. They are engineering and design choices. If Apple made bad engineering and design choices, they would never have sold 120M+ of these devices.
If you think they are a "shortcoming": there are simple solutions. Don't buy an iOS device. If you did buy one, sell it. Or maybe you can see if it will blend (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAl28d6tbko).
One thing is certain: Apple will not compromise their iOS browser with Flash, and complaining about that is rather silly.
Even if Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete, that doesn't mean people don't want to be able to access the entire Web in the here and now.
Adobe Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete. Even Adobe acknowledges the fact (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999).
Between the 120M+ iOS devices, the click-to-flash plugins disable Flash downloads on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux machines, and Adobe's new Flash-to-HTML5 conversion tools (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999), the abandonment of Flash will continue to accelerate.
You just don't seem to comprehend that.
You are correct. Flash is a legacy technology, and its day has passed.
You seem to have this deep seated hatred of Flash
There are fundamental failings in both the design and deployment of Flash. I listed three of those earlier in my reply.
The thing that got my attention was when I realized that Flash was maintaining its own set of cookies and that those cookies did not honor the privacy settings of my browser. I then learned about click-to-flash plugins to minimize my exposure to Flash. The shocking thing to me was how much disabling Flash improved the browsing experience: faster page loads, less flashing advertisements, and far less CPU usage.
and I can tell that if Steve had said "I LOVE Flash" instead you would almost undoubtedly be here fighting against HTML5 and for Flash.
You imply that I blindly agree with Apple's (and Jobs's) decisions. That is not the case.
I strongly disagree with Apple's decision to prevent Hypermac from selling external batteries for Mac computers (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1032695). Hypermac makes a quality product, and they are filling a niche that Apple ignores. Magsafe is a wonderful technology, but they should be licensing this tech to third-party vendors. I fondly hope that Apple addresses this deficiency in their strategy and product accessories soon.
If you search, you can find where I commented on this in the public record weeks ago.
Yes, I honestly believe that. You have no vested interest in either one. You're just being Steve's doormat.
Now you know better.
I see no reason why ANYONE should have to convert to HTML5.
Too many laptop users are tired of the CPU loading and battery suck of Flash apps.
Too many users don't like that Flash alters the UI inside of the browsers: altered scrolling behavior, keyboard shortcuts that don't work in Flash, text searches that don't work with text in a Flash app.
Too many privacy advocates are bothered that Flash maintains a separate set of cookies and those cookies do not honor the privacy settings of the browser. Commercial websites are using those Flash cookies to track users. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt)
Too many security advocates are wary of using Adobe products because of Adobe's poor track record against security attacks.
Even if all those four large concerns were addressed, websites have to deal with the growing number of users that use Flash-blocking plugins. Advertisers that deliver their ads with Flash have no guarantee that users will allow those Flash apps to be downloaded and run on their machines.
Those are the reasons why Flash's viability for delivering web content is in decline. Even if you don't see the reasons, Adobe does (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/10/adobe-demos-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool.html).
bloodycape
Jul 12, 01:58 PM
Not if you tie the iPod to iChat. "Videoconferencing, on the go".
I see where you are getting at but who would want to use an ipod for video conferencing when the business user which it is aimed at rather use a phone like the Razr V3x, a pda or that new 4.5in Sony tablet pc.
I see where you are getting at but who would want to use an ipod for video conferencing when the business user which it is aimed at rather use a phone like the Razr V3x, a pda or that new 4.5in Sony tablet pc.
No comments:
Post a Comment