Re: Steve Jobs: Funniest line of the decade

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by SMS, May 16, 2010.

  1. SMS

    SMS Guest

    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.
    SMS, May 16, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. SMS

    nospam Guest

    In article <4bf02500$0$1609$>, SMS
    <> 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.
    nospam, May 16, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. SMS

    SMS Guest

    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.
    SMS, May 16, 2010
    #3
  4. SMS

    Ray Fischer Guest

    SMS <> 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
    Ray Fischer, May 16, 2010
    #4
  5. SMS

    nospam Guest

    In article <4bf0487c$0$1591$>, SMS
    <> 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.
    nospam, May 16, 2010
    #5
  6. SMS

    nospam Guest

    In article <4bf04d89$0$1617$>, 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.

    > >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.
    nospam, May 16, 2010
    #6
  7. SMS

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> 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.
    nospam, May 16, 2010
    #7
  8. SMS

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> 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.
    nospam, May 16, 2010
    #8
  9. SMS

    SMS Guest

    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.
    SMS, May 16, 2010
    #9
  10. SMS

    Ray Fischer Guest

    nospam <> wrote:
    >In article <4bf04d89$0$1617$>, 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.

    >> >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
    Ray Fischer, May 16, 2010
    #10
  11. SMS

    Ray Fischer Guest

    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
    Ray Fischer, May 16, 2010
    #11
  12. SMS

    nospam Guest

    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, May 16, 2010
    #12
  13. SMS

    Ray Fischer Guest

    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 shit.

    >> >> >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
    Ray Fischer, May 16, 2010
    #13
  14. SMS

    nospam Guest

    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 shit.


    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/20090821/iphone-owners-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?
    nospam, May 16, 2010
    #14
  15. 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
    (PeteCresswell), May 17, 2010
    #15
  16. 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
    (PeteCresswell), May 17, 2010
    #16
  17. SMS

    nospam Guest

    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.
    nospam, May 17, 2010
    #17
  18. SMS

    nospam Guest

    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.
    nospam, May 17, 2010
    #18
  19. SMS

    nospam Guest

    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, May 17, 2010
    #19
  20. SMS

    Ray Fischer Guest

    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
    Ray Fischer, May 17, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mikey
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    3,566
    Tonester
    Sep 14, 2006
  2. Roger Johnstone
    Replies:
    54
    Views:
    1,128
    Bruce Sinclair
    Feb 12, 2007
  3. Mr. Strat

    Re: Steve Jobs: Funniest line of the decade

    Mr. Strat, May 14, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    38
    Views:
    927
    nospam
    May 18, 2010
  4. nospam

    Re: Steve Jobs: Funniest line of the decade

    nospam, May 14, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    270
    Ray Fischer
    May 15, 2010
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    211
    Joe Makowiec
    Feb 6, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page