stroked
Apr 24, 08:00 PM
I was just trying to draw out what it is at the root of your violent nature.
Why do you assume that I'm violent natured?
Why do you assume that I'm violent natured?
MacRumors
Apr 13, 07:21 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/13/white-iphone-4-to-finally-arrive-by-end-of-april/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/03/09/121420-white_iphone_4_views.jpg
selena gomez and demi lovato
miley cyrus Taylor Swift Demi
more...
Miley Cyrus/Taylor Swift/Demi
taylor swift. selena gomez
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/03/09/121420-white_iphone_4_views.jpg
nabechu
Mar 12, 02:51 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Maybe 100
Yeah, just got in line. Yikes
Maybe 100
Yeah, just got in line. Yikes
twoodcc
Nov 3, 11:37 AM
too bad not everyone can get the beta
more...
mattster16
Sep 30, 01:25 PM
.......I still can't make, receive, send or get text messages or mail during any sporting event in my city. It was the same when it first came out and it is the same last week at the game.
And it will always be that way unless the FCC allows more frequencies to be used for cell transmission. Data is breaking the system. A cell tower can only handle 50-300 'calls' at any given time due to frequency limitations (you can only time multiplex so much...). Data is even more of a bandwidth hog, harder to time multiplex w/o slowing down transmission drastically. People also use data much more often than voice now (especially the iPhone). When you have 10,000 people packed into a small area for an event what more can you expect? The area is probably covered by one tower (or if you're lucky a few small cell sites in the venue).
Unfortunately extending and increasing capacity of cell service isn't as simple as setting up a wireless router. Takes a bit more work and planning than that. It's also hard in the US due to FCC regulations/state regulations/city regulations and high public opposition to new cell towers.
And it will always be that way unless the FCC allows more frequencies to be used for cell transmission. Data is breaking the system. A cell tower can only handle 50-300 'calls' at any given time due to frequency limitations (you can only time multiplex so much...). Data is even more of a bandwidth hog, harder to time multiplex w/o slowing down transmission drastically. People also use data much more often than voice now (especially the iPhone). When you have 10,000 people packed into a small area for an event what more can you expect? The area is probably covered by one tower (or if you're lucky a few small cell sites in the venue).
Unfortunately extending and increasing capacity of cell service isn't as simple as setting up a wireless router. Takes a bit more work and planning than that. It's also hard in the US due to FCC regulations/state regulations/city regulations and high public opposition to new cell towers.
Mexbearpig
Jan 28, 11:29 PM
Just found out the Acacia Strain case was empty. Furious would be an uderstatement for my rage right now. Mainly because I have a feeling the store i got it from wont to anything about it.
Not pictured: Monster Slim Jim Original
more...
lovato selena gomez cyrus,
Selena Gomez BFF With Taylor
more...
Miley Cyrus, Jonas Brothers,
selena gomez and demi lovato
more...
Taylor Swift. Miley Cyrus
Taylor Swift, Miley Cyrus,
more...
“BFFs Taylor Swift and Miley
Demi Lovato Taylor Swift
more...
miley cyrus, demi lovato,
Taylor Swift and Miley Cyrus
more...
miley cyrus and selena gomez
Demi was there
Selena Gomez and Demi
Not pictured: Monster Slim Jim Original
more...
KnightWRX
Apr 16, 10:56 AM
So you think, Google's Chrome OS invented or made all these things possible?
Were there no browsers before?
Where did I claim any of those things ? :confused:
*sigh*, at this point, I'll just ignore your comments, do the same for mine.
Were there no browsers before?
Where did I claim any of those things ? :confused:
*sigh*, at this point, I'll just ignore your comments, do the same for mine.
maclaptop
Apr 21, 11:47 PM
Actually, the irony is that the people who are looking at you and judging you based on your phone are the snobs.
Apple certainly doesn't come across as fools for protecting their designs. And if you know a little bit about how this works, you'd know that by not protecting it, they forfeit the right to protect it in the future if the same thing happens. Then again, that's for corporate lawyers to handle, it's not a marketing decision. And...being a public company, they have an obligation to their shareholders to not allow these kind of infringements. But yeah, I can see how this is easily percieved as bullying, or stupid, by people who can't see the forest through the trees such as yourself.
Attempted insults show your insecurity.
You're assumptions prove it.
Try your tactics on someone else :)
Apple certainly doesn't come across as fools for protecting their designs. And if you know a little bit about how this works, you'd know that by not protecting it, they forfeit the right to protect it in the future if the same thing happens. Then again, that's for corporate lawyers to handle, it's not a marketing decision. And...being a public company, they have an obligation to their shareholders to not allow these kind of infringements. But yeah, I can see how this is easily percieved as bullying, or stupid, by people who can't see the forest through the trees such as yourself.
Attempted insults show your insecurity.
You're assumptions prove it.
Try your tactics on someone else :)
more...
wordoflife
Apr 23, 07:37 PM
I like how the proximity sensor was casually cut off from the picture. I wonder if that iPhone has the "new" proximity sensor or the old one.
I bet if T-Mobile got the iPhone, they wouldn't need to sell the company since many people would go back to T-Mobile.
I bet if T-Mobile got the iPhone, they wouldn't need to sell the company since many people would go back to T-Mobile.
3rdpath
Oct 24, 08:32 AM
as others have mentioned, i'm a little surprised that only the 17inch model has a 7200rpm drive option. i'm going to check with apple directly to see if i can get a custom 15inch with a 7200 drive. my audio apps don't work well with the anything slower.
having said that, the ram, fw800 and dual layer burner are a nice addition
having said that, the ram, fw800 and dual layer burner are a nice addition
more...
tdream
May 3, 08:34 AM
Since when has the iMac had a TFT display? I thought it had an IPS display??
TFT = LCD
IPS = Panel type
TN = Panel type
TFT = LCD
IPS = Panel type
TN = Panel type
iRobo
Oct 24, 08:50 AM
Just for the record...
Originally Posted by iRobo
http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/
Just a note. If you look at the average of the average time between updates you discover that there are, amongst all the products, a 192 days period between updates.
Currently only 177 days have passed since the last update to the MBP. Oct 26 would be Mac Expo in the UK. If they anounced then (185 days) and shipped one week later they would be at the average (192 exactly).
Also noting that major US and Euro retailers are out of stock or low on stock is also a fairly good indicator.
Finally, I think it would be pretty damn sad if after 192 days of updating they merely give us a .16 processor upgrade...
/4 cents and counting
Originally Posted by iRobo
http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/
Just a note. If you look at the average of the average time between updates you discover that there are, amongst all the products, a 192 days period between updates.
Currently only 177 days have passed since the last update to the MBP. Oct 26 would be Mac Expo in the UK. If they anounced then (185 days) and shipped one week later they would be at the average (192 exactly).
Also noting that major US and Euro retailers are out of stock or low on stock is also a fairly good indicator.
Finally, I think it would be pretty damn sad if after 192 days of updating they merely give us a .16 processor upgrade...
/4 cents and counting
more...
DavidLeblond
Apr 15, 02:51 PM
You know full well that not everyone who comes here is a developer and are running Lion through other means. I am sick of these posts over and over with people acting all high up and saying things like "Why don't you just go look at the change log?" or "Why don't you send the bug report to Apple" or "Why don't you just post it on Apple developer forums?". Each of these posters know full well what they are doing and it is annoying.
MacRumors is for Mac enthusiasts and many of its members want access to previews/betas even without being a developer.
How come no one is ever upset when MR posts information they shouldn't be on the homepage? I don't see people getting upset about them posting change logs when they become available.
Gr!
All I was saying is don't be all pissed off because no one is posting changelogs for the illegal software you're running. I wasn't getting upset or high-and-mighty, but being "mad" because you want to illegally download software and no one is breaking NDA by posting changelogs is, IMHO, stupid.
MacRumors is for Mac enthusiasts and many of its members want access to previews/betas even without being a developer.
How come no one is ever upset when MR posts information they shouldn't be on the homepage? I don't see people getting upset about them posting change logs when they become available.
Gr!
All I was saying is don't be all pissed off because no one is posting changelogs for the illegal software you're running. I wasn't getting upset or high-and-mighty, but being "mad" because you want to illegally download software and no one is breaking NDA by posting changelogs is, IMHO, stupid.
svenn
Mar 8, 09:41 PM
We need an upvoting system like Reddit. Here's a +1 for you.
Who the hell are we to judge?
Who said we have to live til 105 years old?
I have met crazier "normal" people who weren't even on drugs!
Exactly! He is doing what he wants. Why does he have to do what other people want?
Also, the more we talk about him, the more he wins. If people continue to talk about him, he will just keep winning. There really is not anything else to discuss, but the media seems to enjoy rehashing his choices for some reason.
Congrats on the win, Charlie.
Who the hell are we to judge?
Who said we have to live til 105 years old?
I have met crazier "normal" people who weren't even on drugs!
Exactly! He is doing what he wants. Why does he have to do what other people want?
Also, the more we talk about him, the more he wins. If people continue to talk about him, he will just keep winning. There really is not anything else to discuss, but the media seems to enjoy rehashing his choices for some reason.
Congrats on the win, Charlie.
more...
AppleScruff1
Apr 28, 10:50 AM
This is the important part:
Apple's iPhone 4 ranked as the top-selling mobile phone in the U.S. during the quarter, and perhaps most surprisingly, the iPhone 3GS took second place in the rankings. Despite essentially being a nearly two-year-old device . . .
That speaks volumes.
.....About the the mentality of the people who buy a two year old phone just so they can say they have an iPhone.
Apple's iPhone 4 ranked as the top-selling mobile phone in the U.S. during the quarter, and perhaps most surprisingly, the iPhone 3GS took second place in the rankings. Despite essentially being a nearly two-year-old device . . .
That speaks volumes.
.....About the the mentality of the people who buy a two year old phone just so they can say they have an iPhone.
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.
more...
Brien
Mar 11, 02:26 PM
Brea Mall update:
Two employees came by about 10 minutes ago. They were counting the line, I am #204. line is at ~250-300, and they cannot guarantee stock for anyone just now getting here. For those who do come, I'm wearing a vintage Apple Mission Impossible shirt and am across from red robin.
Two employees came by about 10 minutes ago. They were counting the line, I am #204. line is at ~250-300, and they cannot guarantee stock for anyone just now getting here. For those who do come, I'm wearing a vintage Apple Mission Impossible shirt and am across from red robin.
Liquorpuki
Feb 27, 10:35 PM
the guy's an overpaid idiot.
and at least Mel Gibson can act �
But Mel's fists can't breathe fire
and at least Mel Gibson can act �
But Mel's fists can't breathe fire
WildCowboy
Jul 10, 12:29 PM
Ha ha... when I glanced at the RSS feed I thought it said "Page 3 Features?". I thought: "Why the heck would MacRumors add a 'Page 3'? Much of the 'Page 1' stuff never comes to pass, and they've got 'Page 2' for the even less substantiated stuff..."
Clearly you haven't had a look at Page 3 (http://www.macrumors.com/page3/)... ;)
Clearly you haven't had a look at Page 3 (http://www.macrumors.com/page3/)... ;)
SchneiderMan
Sep 16, 12:02 AM
No desire whatsoever for an iPad, actually, I'd never use it :p (Plus it's expensive, my Kindle was only $139; $39 after I sold my original Kindle!)
Exactly, it's expensive. But, worth it if you've got the monay :p
Going to watch this
Exactly, it's expensive. But, worth it if you've got the monay :p
Going to watch this
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.
dethmaShine
Apr 17, 08:24 AM
Trackpads and touch screens are quite different input devices. Touch screen input requires that you actually "touch" what you want to manipulate. With a trackpad, you don't have quite the precision to precisely put your finger on an object on screen, since the object is not displayed on the track pad.
It just doesn't translate that well. Trackpads still very much require cursors, which iOS's UI lacks.
Then all you need is a cursor overlay; just how you operate in an iOS simulator.
It just doesn't translate that well. Trackpads still very much require cursors, which iOS's UI lacks.
Then all you need is a cursor overlay; just how you operate in an iOS simulator.
bigjnyc
Apr 12, 04:03 PM
I heard the iphone 5 is delayed because the HTC Sensation has sent Apple back to the drawing board.
Are you planning on pre-ordering your HTC sensation so you can avoid the masses of people lined up to buy it?
Are you planning on pre-ordering your HTC sensation so you can avoid the masses of people lined up to buy it?
rdlink
Apr 22, 05:17 AM
1) I own both.
They are rectangular and have icons on home screens.
There's only so much one can do with smart phone styling.
It's not like Apples on the verge of going out of business.
Much ado over nothing.
Like a teenage bully, Apples beyond stupid.
2) You actually believe clueless sales people?
The fact that "there's only so much you can do with smart phone styling" does not give one company the inalienable right to copy another's patents, or blur the line between their product and the one which they're trying to copy.
The size of Apple's bank account has nothing to do with this. Disney has sued much smaller companies in the past, and won. Because the courts recognize the need to protect valuable intellectual property, even when sofa lawyers don't.
Whether I believe clueless sales people or not is irrelevant. Clueless consumers often do. How else can you explain Android's rise? (zing! :o).
They are rectangular and have icons on home screens.
There's only so much one can do with smart phone styling.
It's not like Apples on the verge of going out of business.
Much ado over nothing.
Like a teenage bully, Apples beyond stupid.
2) You actually believe clueless sales people?
The fact that "there's only so much you can do with smart phone styling" does not give one company the inalienable right to copy another's patents, or blur the line between their product and the one which they're trying to copy.
The size of Apple's bank account has nothing to do with this. Disney has sued much smaller companies in the past, and won. Because the courts recognize the need to protect valuable intellectual property, even when sofa lawyers don't.
Whether I believe clueless sales people or not is irrelevant. Clueless consumers often do. How else can you explain Android's rise? (zing! :o).
Підписатися на:
Дописати коментарі (Atom)
Немає коментарів:
Дописати коментар