Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Steve Jobs: Funniest line of the decade

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Steve Jobs: Funniest line of the decade

 
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2010
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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2010
In article <4bf02500$0$1609$(E-Mail Removed)>, SMS
<(E-Mail Removed)> 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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2010
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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ray Fischer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2010
SMS <(E-Mail Removed)> 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
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)

 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2010
In article <4bf0487c$0$1591$(E-Mail Removed)>, SMS
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > 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.


nonsense. back then, mac market share was growing. as i said, it was
illegal business tactics and mismanagement that screwed apple.

> 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.


where *do* people come up with this stuff. the head honcho left the
company two years earlier.

the mac ii was driven largely by jean louis gassee, who had 'openmac'
as his license plate.

> 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.


macs had localtalk built-in, so it didn't really need networking cards
until ethernet was common, at which point ethernet was built-in.

> 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.


and how much did that cost? localtalk may have been slow but it was
pretty good at the time, very inexpensive (ordinary telephone cord
worked), and *very* easy to set up.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2010
In article <4bf04d89$0$1617$(E-Mail Removed)>, Ray Fischer
<(E-Mail Removed)> 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.

> >1. Flash applications typically max out the CPU resulting in higher
> >power consumption and shorter battery life.

>
> So what?


because users don't want mobile devices with dead batteries or that run
hot. the wepad has a built in fan! who wants that crap?

> >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.

> >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.


true.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2010
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mxsmanic
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > nonsense. back then, mac market share was growing. as i said, it was
> > illegal business tactics and mismanagement that screwed apple.

>
> Are there still people who believe that urban legend?


it's exactly true, and microsoft is still paying the penalties.

<http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRU00634320080227>

BRUSSELS, Feb 27 (Reuters) - The European Commission fined Microsoft
(MSFT.O) a record 899 million euros ($1.35 billion) on Wednesday for
defying sanctions imposed on the software giant for antitrust
violations, far exceeding the original penalty.

> Apple shafted itself. It could have been number one, but it made itself number
> two through its own deliberate management decisions.


apple did **** up too.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2010
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mxsmanic
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Some people want CPU power to spare, and long-lasting battery charges. A CPU
> hog conflicts with that goal.


the joojoo tablet when running flash, drops from a rated 5 hour battery
life to 2.5 hours, *half* of its already lousy battery life.
 
Reply With Quote
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2010
On 16/05/10 1:24 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
> nospam writes:
>
>> nonsense. back then, mac market share was growing. as i said, it was
>> illegal business tactics and mismanagement that screwed apple.

>
> Are there still people who believe that urban legend?


Apparently so.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ray Fischer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2010
nospam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>In article <4bf04d89$0$1617$(E-Mail Removed)>, Ray Fischer
><(E-Mail Removed)> 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.

>> >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.

>> >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.

--
Ray Fischer
(E-Mail Removed)

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Steve Jobs: Funniest line of the decade Mr. Strat Digital Photography 38 05-18-2010 09:56 PM
Re: Steve Jobs: Funniest line of the decade nospam Digital Photography 9 05-15-2010 02:40 PM
Re: Crocodile Hunter - DEATH VIDEO - Steve Irwin - crocodile hunter - death video - steve irwin.exe (1/1) Mikey DVD Video 3 09-14-2006 05:52 PM
SGI had it right a decade ago! Steven T. Hatton C++ 5 09-13-2004 04:57 PM
DVD Verdict reviews: A DECADE UNDER THE INFLUENCE, ROGER AND ME, and more! DVD Verdict DVD Video 0 09-24-2003 09:04 AM



Advertisments