Steve Jobs: Funniest line of the decade
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Back illumination: The fraud that wimpered
Next: Ebel Classic Steel Mother-of-Pearl Mini Ladies Watch 1215420
From: SMS on 16 May 2010 13:01 On 13/05/10 5:25 PM, Rich wrote: <snip> > "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." The reasons for not allowing Flash have nothing to do with it being an open standard or not. 1. Flash applications typically max out the CPU resulting in higher power consumption and shorter battery life. 2. There are a great many free applications based on Flash. Obviously when you're trying to sell applications through the apps store you don't want to be competing against a plethora of free applications. 3. Flash web sites use a lot of bandwidth, and some of the carriers are already struggling with the capacity issues. The preferential data pricing of the iPad was almost certainly negotiated on the basis of no Flash and no tethering. But yes, it took a lot of chutzpah to say something like that. Ironically, Apple started out with Apple II which had a very open architecture, and ceded the bulk of the PC market to IBM compatibles when they closed the architecture with the first Mac. By the time the Mac opened back up with a PCI architecture, it was too late. It may be deja vu all over again in the phone market. A killer product like the iPhone with a closed architecture and limited distribution (now of both hardware and applications) could lose out to Android, a "good-enough" product with an open architecture and huge distribution. Android needs to get its act together. If you've used a Droid and an iPhone, there's just no comparison with the user interface. The Droid has more features and more advanced hardware but it's clunky and not nearly as intuitive as the iPhone. It's more for geeks than the mass market right now.
From: nospam on 16 May 2010 15:02 In article <4bf02500$0$1609$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: > The reasons for not allowing Flash have nothing to do with it being an > open standard or not. not completely, but it has a lot to do with it. > 1. Flash applications typically max out the CPU resulting in higher > power consumption and shorter battery life. true. plus since they're multi-platform, they don't use features unique to the iphone that aren't available on other devices. > 2. There are a great many free applications based on Flash. Obviously > when you're trying to sell applications through the apps store you don't > want to be competing against a plethora of free applications. except that there are free apps in the app store that nets apple absolutely nothing (actually it's a small loss due to hosting and downloading costs) and there are web apps that don't go through the store at all. > 3. Flash web sites use a lot of bandwidth, and some of the carriers are > already struggling with the capacity issues. The preferential data > pricing of the iPad was almost certainly negotiated on the basis of no > Flash and no tethering. there is no flash to put on it even if they wanted to. adobe says it will be done by the end of 2010 (they originally said 2009) and a *beta* version will be out soon. > But yes, it took a lot of chutzpah to say something like that. > Ironically, Apple started out with Apple II which had a very open > architecture, and ceded the bulk of the PC market to IBM compatibles > when they closed the architecture with the first Mac. By the time the > Mac opened back up with a PCI architecture, it was too late. actually, the mac had slots with the mac ii in 1987, just 3 years after it's introduction, and roughly a decade before pci slots. the pc market is what it is because of microsoft's predatory tactics and apple's mismanagement. > It may be deja vu all over again in the phone market. A killer product > like the iPhone with a closed architecture and limited distribution (now > of both hardware and applications) could lose out to Android, a > "good-enough" product with an open architecture and huge distribution. what limited distribution is that? iphones are sold all over the world. > Android needs to get its act together. If you've used a Droid and an > iPhone, there's just no comparison with the user interface. The Droid > has more features and more advanced hardware but it's clunky and not > nearly as intuitive as the iPhone. It's more for geeks than the mass > market right now. true.
From: SMS on 16 May 2010 15:33 On 16/05/10 12:02 PM, nospam wrote: <snip> > actually, the mac had slots with the mac ii in 1987, just 3 years after > it's introduction, and roughly a decade before pci slots. the pc market > is what it is because of microsoft's predatory tactics and apple's > mismanagement. The closed architecture of the first Mac could not have come at a worse time for Apple. By 1987, when they came out with NuBus for the Mac II it was too late. Incidentally, the Mac II was one of those clandestine projects done without the knowledge of the head honcho who didn't want any expansion slots. I worked for a company that made network cards for the Apple II (and the Commodore Pet!) back in 1979. There were hundreds of companies making add-on cards of various types for stuff like networking, industrial control, and commercial applications. When the ISA based PC came out they moved to that platform, and dropped Apple since of course the Mac had no expansion slots. We did PCI cards and Microchannel cards, but the market share for Apple by then didn't warrant NuBus cards. Besides the lack of expansion in the early Mac, Apple really suffered with their early networking approach of using the agonizingly slow AppleTalk at 230 kb/s, while the ROW was using Arcnet at 2.5 Mb/s. Of course nothing may have helped at that point since soon their were loads of companies manufacturing IBM compatible machines, with low margins and low prices, a market model that Apple didn't want to emulate.
From: Ray Fischer on 16 May 2010 15:52 Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Ray Fischer writes: > >> Which means that nobody does? > >No. I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. Because of what you wrote... "Flash doesn't really have any use or place on the Web except as an embedded video player" -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 16 May 2010 15:54
SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >On 13/05/10 5:25 PM, Rich wrote: > ><snip> > >> "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." > >The reasons for not allowing Flash have nothing to do with it being an >open standard or not. It has to do with Apple not wanting to support a competitor's products. >1. Flash applications typically max out the CPU resulting in higher >power consumption and shorter battery life. So what? >2. There are a great many free applications based on Flash. Obviously >when you're trying to sell applications through the apps store you don't >want to be competing against a plethora of free applications. Bingo. >3. Flash web sites use a lot of bandwidth, and some of the carriers are >already struggling with the capacity issues. Apple doesn't care about that. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net |