Take a good look at the Pad you just ordered!
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: Wes Groleau on 3 Apr 2010 18:31 On 04-03-2010 18:02, Tim McNamara wrote: > It is *such* an odd omission that there must be some kind of plan > already in the works for dealing with this. After all, Apple has used > Flash on its own Web site from time to time. My guess is that Apple demanded something that Adobe wasn't willing to give. I heard that Apple insisted resellers of the first iMacs buy equal quantities of each color, and that Best Buy responded by not selling _any_ Apple products for years. But that might just be urdan legend. Still, it's something I think Apple is "capable of." :-) -- Wes Groleau You be the judge http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=463
From: JF Mezei on 3 Apr 2010 19:50 Wes Groleau wrote: > My guess is that Apple demanded something that Adobe > wasn't willing to give. I suspect that political/financial issues are important in this decision. But one must not forget that FLASH is bloatware that consumes inordinate amounts of CPU and memory. So if you have a web page displatying some 5 separate flash based advertisements, they will keep your CPU at 100% instead of idle. Makes a big difference in battery longetivity and heat generation.
From: MaxS on 3 Apr 2010 21:10 On 04/03/2010 07:50 PM, JF Mezei wrote: > Wes Groleau wrote: > >> My guess is that Apple demanded something that Adobe >> wasn't willing to give. > > I suspect that political/financial issues are important in this > decision. But one must not forget that FLASH is bloatware that consumes > inordinate amounts of CPU and memory. So if you have a web page > displatying some 5 separate flash based advertisements, they will keep > your CPU at 100% instead of idle. Makes a big difference in battery > longetivity and heat generation. True, but the real reason is that, since Flash is all over the net, anytime you'll want to have "moving pictures" on the Pad, iTune will be the "natural" choice. There was no way Apple was to provide a tablet, even stripped down to bare bones, for $500, unless it was to bring in additional revenue.
From: MaxS on 3 Apr 2010 21:12 On 04/03/2010 04:47 PM, sbt wrote: > In article<hp8367$7q2$2(a)news.eternal-september.org>, MaxS > <maxs(a)ljhjkjkhkh.com> wrote: > >> <http://technaute.cyberpresse.ca/images/bizphotos/569x379/201004/03/160203.jpg> > > Ours arrived today. Is it really as ugly as portrayed on the picture?
From: nospam on 3 Apr 2010 21:15
In article <hp8oui$pni$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, MaxS <maxs(a)ljhjkjkhkh.com> wrote: > True, but the real reason is that, since Flash is all over the net, > anytime you'll want to have "moving pictures" on the Pad, iTune will be > the "natural" choice. there's a youtube, netflix, slingbox apps ane even a hulu app coming sometime, as well as others. > There was no way Apple was to provide a tablet, even stripped down to > bare bones, for $500, unless it was to bring in additional revenue. except they did exactly that. there's no requirement to buy/rent video from apple. use your own or any of the aforementioned apps. |