«

Mxsmanic <> wrote:
>Ray Fischer writes:
>
>> So what?
>
>Some people want CPU power to spare, and long-lasting battery charges.

Some people want flash animations and videos.

> A CPU
>hog conflicts with that goal.

And so EVERYBODY should be forced to obey?

--
Ray Fischer

In article <4bf06b4f$0$1673$>, Ray Fischer
<> wrote:

> >> It has to do with Apple not wanting to support a competitor's
> >> products.
> >
> >basically yes. apple doesn't want to be at the mercy of what adobe
> >decides to do.
>
> Bullshit propaganda. Adobe isn't controlling Apple. Apple is
> blocking Adobe.

they aren't blocking anyone. adobe can still support flash and
developers can still write for it.

if you want flash buy something that runs it. very simple and the
market will decide whether it matters or not.

so far, it does not appear to matter at *all*. the ipad is one of the
fastest selling products ever (1 million in less than a month, and only
in one country, and with limited supplies) along with nearly 100
million iphones and ipod touches in the last couple of years.

android doesn't run flash either. although the next release supposedly
will have flash, it will only work on recent android devices with a
fast enough cpu. that means most android devices won't be able to run
flash, at all.

windows phone 7 won't have flash either, because microsoft wants you to
run silverlight. in fact, apps for windows phone 7 need to be written
in silverlight. nice platform lock-in there, even more so than apple,
but you don't hear about how microsoft is anti-flash, do you?

> >> >1. Flash applications typically max out the CPU resulting in higher
> >> >power consumption and shorter battery life.
> >>
> >> So what?
> >
> >because users don't want
>
> Users want Flash.

actually they don't. what they want is to watch video and play games.
they don't care *how* that happens, only that they can do it.

they can easily do both of those on an iphone or ipad *without* flash.
youtube has been streaming h.264 for three years, starting when the
iphone first came out, and now vimeo and other sources do too. a lot of
video does *not* require flash.

farmville will be an iphone native and mafia wars already is. there are
tens of thousands of other games available, *right now*.

almost all of mobile app sales is for an iphone device, that does not
run flash. users don't seem to give a flying **** that it can't. in
fact, the top complaints about the iphone doesn't even mention flash at
all.

> >> >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.
> >
> >nope, or apple would prohibit free apps and web apps, neither of which
> >they do.
>
> Apple has already done that. They blocked Google's iPhone app that
> would have allowed free phone calls.

that was not rejected because it was free.

apple doesn't block skype which allows free phone calls, not to mention
that apple doesn't make money if you make a phone call or not, that's
at&t or whatever carrier the user has. there are also apps that can
send/receive text messages for free. apple even *demoed* skype when
they announced iphone os 4.0.

nospam <> wrote:
>In article <4bf06b4f$0$1673$>, Ray Fischer
><> wrote:
>
>> >> It has to do with Apple not wanting to support a competitor's
>> >> products.
>> >
>> >basically yes. apple doesn't want to be at the mercy of what adobe
>> >decides to do.
>>
>> Bullshit propaganda. Adobe isn't controlling Apple. Apple is
>> blocking Adobe.
>
>they aren't blocking anyone.

Oh? They're allowing Flash to run on iPhones now?

>> >> >1. Flash applications typically max out the CPU resulting in higher
>> >> >power consumption and shorter battery life.
>> >>
>> >> So what?
>> >
>> >because users don't want
>>
>> Users want Flash.
>
>actually they don't.

You really are full of ****.

>> >> >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.
>> >
>> >nope, or apple would prohibit free apps and web apps, neither of which
>> >they do.
>>
>> Apple has already done that. They blocked Google's iPhone app that
>> would have allowed free phone calls.
>
>that was not rejected because it was free.

I didn't say that it was, moron.

--
Ray Fischer

In article <4bf074be$0$1669$>, Ray Fischer
<> wrote:

> >they aren't blocking anyone.
>
> Oh? They're allowing Flash to run on iPhones now?

buy something that runs whatever it is you want to run. nobody,
including apple, is preventing you from doing that.

> >> Users want Flash.
> >
> >actually they don't.
>
> You really are full of ****.

nope. ask iphone users if the lack of flash matters.

other than a few vocal blowhards, very few care. multiple user
satisfaction surveys put at&t at the top of the list of problems. flash
isn't even *listed*.

<http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/2...would-like-to-
replace-battery-att/>

> >> >> >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.
> >> >
> >> >nope, or apple would prohibit free apps and web apps, neither of which
> >> >they do.
> >>
> >> Apple has already done that. They blocked Google's iPhone app that
> >> would have allowed free phone calls.
> >
> >that was not rejected because it was free.
>
> I didn't say that it was, moron.

then what does 'has already done that' mean in response to prohibiting
free apps, if not rejecting it because it was free?

Per SMS:
>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.

I've been playing with my new iTouch for the past week or so -
coming from a Palm TX and a 60-gig iPod "Classic".

Sheesh!.... everything they say about Apple being the shiznit
UI-wise is true IMHO.

The UI on this thing is soooooo intuitive and soooo functional.

No question in my mind that the Palm is still better for
tightly-focused functionality like Calendaring and Contacts....
but now that I've gotten a taste of the iTouch's integration of
Contacts, Skype, Mapping, and so-forth I have stopped looking
back.
--
PeteCresswell

Per Ray Fischer:
>Apple has already done that. They blocked Google's iPhone app that
>would have allowed free phone calls.

Skype's working for me. Are it's days numbered?
--
PeteCresswell

In article <>, PeteCresswell
<> wrote:

> >Apple has already done that. They blocked Google's iPhone app that
> >would have allowed free phone calls.
>
> Skype's working for me. Are it's days numbered?

no.

In article <>, Mxsmanic
<> wrote:

> > it's exactly true, and microsoft is still paying the penalties.
>
> The penalties to which you refer have nothing to do with Apple's failure to
> improve market share.

yes it does. that's what abuse of monopoly means.

In article <>, Mxsmanic
<> wrote:

> > yes it does. that's what abuse of monopoly means.
>
> The article mentions specific practices and says nothing about Apple.

doesn't need to. it affected the industry.

> Apple lost the game because Steve Jobs felt he had a higher calling than just
> making money. He wanted to start a religion, not a revenue stream. He more or
> less got his wish.

steve jobs wasn't at apple during that time.

nospam <> wrote:
>In article <4bf074be$0$1669$>, Ray Fischer
><> wrote:
>
>> >they aren't blocking anyone.
>>
>> Oh? They're allowing Flash to run on iPhones now?
>
>buy something that runs whatever it is you want to run.

So, in fact, you lied your ass off and now you're trying to change the
subject.

--
Ray Fischer