Aldaris
Jun 6, 02:49 AM
Yeah it was on a touch not a computer.
If you have entered a password and the app downloads, and continue to browse the app store it doesn't require a repeat password entry until you sleep your iPod touch/iPhone.
If you have entered a password and the app downloads, and continue to browse the app store it doesn't require a repeat password entry until you sleep your iPod touch/iPhone.
brianus
Oct 24, 09:11 AM
I was disappointed that the resolution was not updated to 1920x1200...I would assume this would have added siginificant costs? or maybe they think the current resolution is good enough and that there is little noticable difference between the current vs 1920x1200 ? Anyone else feel this is a big deal? Reasons why the higher resolution is not necessary? Thanks
Why do people keep acting as though HD res on a laptop is somehow a self-evidently good idea? The correct question is, "Reasons why the higher resolution is necessary?" It seems utterly absurd to me. I don't think you guys realize the implications of extreme hi res + relatively small screen + lack of resolution independence.
Why do people keep acting as though HD res on a laptop is somehow a self-evidently good idea? The correct question is, "Reasons why the higher resolution is necessary?" It seems utterly absurd to me. I don't think you guys realize the implications of extreme hi res + relatively small screen + lack of resolution independence.
zachlegomaniac
Apr 13, 01:59 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
It's going to have to outperform the ATV2 by leaps and bounds for me to purchase it. Sounds cool if it does and comes in at a reasonable price point though.
It's going to have to outperform the ATV2 by leaps and bounds for me to purchase it. Sounds cool if it does and comes in at a reasonable price point though.
Intell
Apr 28, 12:06 PM
"appleguy213? I think I'm a Muppet." "I know how you feel." said appleguy321 as he looked around the futuristicly white room they where in. Curiously enough, there was also an orange Muppet with a childlike grin on its face. Then with a pop noise, chrmjenkins changed back to a human. While appleguy123 stayed a Muppet.
Then a door made an noise, that just so happened to sound like a woman in mid orgasm, and opened. In walked a robot with a small head and holding a banana. "Come on, to the bridge with you two." said jav6454. chrmjenkins and appleguy321 followed him, through the moaning doors and up a stair case to the bridge.
nies and lbro where pushing three buttons over and over again in an attempt to look like they where doing something, so that the intruders thought they where important. In walked jav6454 and the intruders. "Welcome to the ship of tomorrow!" announced lbor with enthusiasm that rivaled a fangirl seeing Justine Beaver.
appleguy312 upon seeing nies, squealed with a hatred so intense that his Muppeteer nearly blacked out. nies, not happy about seeing the creeper from the market on his ship, turned to leave. appleguy123, still wanting to be with him, grabbed jav6454's banana, ate it, and trough the peel in front of the overly pompous nies. Who consequently tripped and fell, cracking his head upon the control panel and turned into a trans-dimensional mouse.
more...
lars von trier the kingdom dvd
KINGDOM (LARS VON TRIER)
more...
Kingdom II, Lars von Trier,
Kingdom, Lars Von Trier
more...
Lars Von Trier (b. April
director Lars Von Trier at
more...
Lars von Trier#39;s quot;The Kingdomquot;
series by Lars von Trier.
more...
i natali a Lars Von Trier,
Creators: Lars Von Trier
more...
Lars von Trier Skins amp; Layouts
Lars Von Trier
more...
de chirico,
by Lars Von Trier, Kingdom
Interview with Lars Von Trier
Then a door made an noise, that just so happened to sound like a woman in mid orgasm, and opened. In walked a robot with a small head and holding a banana. "Come on, to the bridge with you two." said jav6454. chrmjenkins and appleguy321 followed him, through the moaning doors and up a stair case to the bridge.
nies and lbro where pushing three buttons over and over again in an attempt to look like they where doing something, so that the intruders thought they where important. In walked jav6454 and the intruders. "Welcome to the ship of tomorrow!" announced lbor with enthusiasm that rivaled a fangirl seeing Justine Beaver.
appleguy312 upon seeing nies, squealed with a hatred so intense that his Muppeteer nearly blacked out. nies, not happy about seeing the creeper from the market on his ship, turned to leave. appleguy123, still wanting to be with him, grabbed jav6454's banana, ate it, and trough the peel in front of the overly pompous nies. Who consequently tripped and fell, cracking his head upon the control panel and turned into a trans-dimensional mouse.
more...
tablo13
Apr 22, 05:08 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Tell that to the iPad 2.
At least the iPad 2 is big. Thin, small, and rounded edges don't go together, like how hard it is to hold an iPod touch.
Tell that to the iPad 2.
At least the iPad 2 is big. Thin, small, and rounded edges don't go together, like how hard it is to hold an iPod touch.
aperry
Apr 26, 02:46 PM
I'm confused. Everyone is arguing whether $20/yr for "this" is too expensive.
Anyone care to explain what "this" actually is?
Is it for music purchased through iTunes, or is it for *all* of your music (ripped, downloaded, emailed, created, legal, illegal, whatever)?
Is it only for music that happens to be sold by the 4 major labels that Apple apparently made agreements with?
If it's anything less than "a music locker for everything, with no exceptions", then count me out. I have tons of ripped music and I have no idea which labels they are from. I don't have any interest in having "some fraction" of my library in the cloud either. Oh, and I've never purchased music from iTunes.
Anyone care to explain what "this" actually is?
Is it for music purchased through iTunes, or is it for *all* of your music (ripped, downloaded, emailed, created, legal, illegal, whatever)?
Is it only for music that happens to be sold by the 4 major labels that Apple apparently made agreements with?
If it's anything less than "a music locker for everything, with no exceptions", then count me out. I have tons of ripped music and I have no idea which labels they are from. I don't have any interest in having "some fraction" of my library in the cloud either. Oh, and I've never purchased music from iTunes.
more...
Arnopoulos
Apr 14, 07:28 AM
My app isn't a universal binary and it still has that place holder.
Bubble Poppers (http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/bubble-poppers/id430732045?mt=8&ls=1)
Bubble Poppers (http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/bubble-poppers/id430732045?mt=8&ls=1)
kirk26
Apr 14, 02:44 PM
I'm noticing a little quicker general UI navigation, but the third party apps still don't show their launch animation unless opened first, exited, and then launched again. Only once loaded into the memory can you go from app to home screen to app and see the full animation.
Yet, oddly, Apple's stock apps are entirely unaffected.
Don't know what you mean by launch animation. Be gentle.
N/M
I opened Sirus, exited, opened FIFA 11, exited, went into Sirus again with no lag time. Is that what you are talking about?
Yet, oddly, Apple's stock apps are entirely unaffected.
Don't know what you mean by launch animation. Be gentle.
N/M
I opened Sirus, exited, opened FIFA 11, exited, went into Sirus again with no lag time. Is that what you are talking about?
more...
Kissaragi
Apr 28, 04:02 PM
Id be interested to know how much thicker it is. Its not issue for 99% of people, but can see how it might mess up some cases
Harker
Apr 25, 03:03 PM
She is NOT a woman
She's a MANfor crying out loud :mad:
Haha. Typically I'd think this type of reply would indicate considerable ignorance, but you used female pronouns, so I'm not sure..
She's a MANfor crying out loud :mad:
Haha. Typically I'd think this type of reply would indicate considerable ignorance, but you used female pronouns, so I'm not sure..
more...
sineplex
Apr 13, 11:41 PM
I'LL JUST WAIT FOR THE IPHONE 5 IN WHITE.
THANKS. :cool:
THANKS. :cool:
Lennholm
Apr 14, 09:27 AM
But the question remains - why is "Mac" in the variable name? On an App Store that doesn't support any Macs.
It could be nothing, a naming convention carried over, but it is odd.
Yes, we don't know what conventions Apple use for placeholder names, it could be that ix.Mac is a prefix for ALL their placeholder names. The reason could be something as far fetched as 'ix' as in all i-devices, 'Mac' for everything derived from Mac OS X, could be no real reason at all.
Many manufacturers use the term 'CPU' to referr to their entire computer branch of their business, which is also confusing since a CPU really is something very specific
It could be nothing, a naming convention carried over, but it is odd.
Yes, we don't know what conventions Apple use for placeholder names, it could be that ix.Mac is a prefix for ALL their placeholder names. The reason could be something as far fetched as 'ix' as in all i-devices, 'Mac' for everything derived from Mac OS X, could be no real reason at all.
Many manufacturers use the term 'CPU' to referr to their entire computer branch of their business, which is also confusing since a CPU really is something very specific
more...
KnightWRX
Apr 16, 02:14 PM
MacBook Air from late 2010 now boots standard with 64-bit Kernel and Extensions enabled!
Awesome news. Anyone test this with the old Unibody Macbook/White Macbook ? Is everything now booting into 64-bit by default ?
Awesome news. Anyone test this with the old Unibody Macbook/White Macbook ? Is everything now booting into 64-bit by default ?
rovex
Apr 14, 02:13 AM
iPhone 5 is releasing in September, no question about it now
more...
lkosak
Apr 22, 06:16 PM
It amazes me that people who claim to be closely following Apple can come up with stuff like this. Have you ever looked at an apple product? A "gesture" home button? A profile that gets thicker towards the top? Are you KIDDING me? It's a real testament to how bad most people's design sense is: even when they're trying to invent plausible rumors about Apple, they come up with the worst freaking designs in the world.
This is like all the slide out keyboard rumors, etc., that always seem to come up--what company do you think you're talking about? Do you REALLY think Steve Jobs is going to get up on stage and unveil a sliding keyboard as the future of the iPhone? Or a "gesture home button"? Can you imagine how absurd that would sound coming out of his mouth?
Just because you have to keep the news flowing doesn't mean that you have to broadcast (and try to partially defend) any ludicrous product rumor that comes your way. I've got your next killer headline: "iPhone 5 to feature stylus, four capacitative buttons".
This is like all the slide out keyboard rumors, etc., that always seem to come up--what company do you think you're talking about? Do you REALLY think Steve Jobs is going to get up on stage and unveil a sliding keyboard as the future of the iPhone? Or a "gesture home button"? Can you imagine how absurd that would sound coming out of his mouth?
Just because you have to keep the news flowing doesn't mean that you have to broadcast (and try to partially defend) any ludicrous product rumor that comes your way. I've got your next killer headline: "iPhone 5 to feature stylus, four capacitative buttons".
SuperCachetes
Dec 30, 11:53 AM
People pay to watch her eat! :eek:
Yes, and even I think this is weird, on two levels. One is the "watching her eat". The other is paying for the privilege.
This will be a thread hand-grenade, but let's face it - depending on her/your/our healthcare situation, you kindof are paying for this. What we have here with this woman is a pending and unnatural liability on the healthcare system and insurance network due to her socially- and personally-irresponsible whim.
Who's paying for her bypass surgeries, ER trips, and specialized healthcare infrastructure in order to deal with a person of her size? We are. The cost to sustain her life will with all probablity be more than an average person's: so your premiums (or taxes, if you're in a socialized-medicine country) go up. I'm all for personal freedoms and not letting people tell others what to do with their bodies, but I don't want to subsidize stupid behavior like this. I say make her carry her own weight, and I mean that both literally and figuratively.
Yes, and even I think this is weird, on two levels. One is the "watching her eat". The other is paying for the privilege.
This will be a thread hand-grenade, but let's face it - depending on her/your/our healthcare situation, you kindof are paying for this. What we have here with this woman is a pending and unnatural liability on the healthcare system and insurance network due to her socially- and personally-irresponsible whim.
Who's paying for her bypass surgeries, ER trips, and specialized healthcare infrastructure in order to deal with a person of her size? We are. The cost to sustain her life will with all probablity be more than an average person's: so your premiums (or taxes, if you're in a socialized-medicine country) go up. I'm all for personal freedoms and not letting people tell others what to do with their bodies, but I don't want to subsidize stupid behavior like this. I say make her carry her own weight, and I mean that both literally and figuratively.
more...
Shaneuk
Apr 8, 11:46 AM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5265/5600042921_6d023986a6_z.jpg (http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5265/5600042921_6d023986a6_b.jpg)
Not digital.
Click for large.
Not digital.
Click for large.
Aetherhole
Mar 16, 09:28 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Don't know if we have any here at FI yet, but I am hopeful after hearing that south coast got some!
Don't know if we have any here at FI yet, but I am hopeful after hearing that south coast got some!
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.
res1233
Apr 13, 10:45 PM
I'm not sure why we even need an iPhone 5.
The iPhone 4 is a great form factor. It does the job. At most what it needs is a spec jump (64GB, and maybe clock the CPU faster) and that should hold people over for another year.
I mean, before we had:
iPhone
iPhone 3G
iPhone 3Gs (pretty much the same form factor but faster CPU)
iPhone 4
I suspect we may get an iPhone 4 plus or something like that.
Also, do you people really need a new phone every year? I had my Treo 650 for nearly four years. The only reason I only kept my Palm Pre for less than a year was that it started having hardware problems.
This makes me sad. The palm pre part. It was a great phone, but unfortunately its hardware was terrible. It may have been to palm what the iPod was to Apple if only they hadn't slacked in that area. Quite a shame...
The iPhone 4 is a great form factor. It does the job. At most what it needs is a spec jump (64GB, and maybe clock the CPU faster) and that should hold people over for another year.
I mean, before we had:
iPhone
iPhone 3G
iPhone 3Gs (pretty much the same form factor but faster CPU)
iPhone 4
I suspect we may get an iPhone 4 plus or something like that.
Also, do you people really need a new phone every year? I had my Treo 650 for nearly four years. The only reason I only kept my Palm Pre for less than a year was that it started having hardware problems.
This makes me sad. The palm pre part. It was a great phone, but unfortunately its hardware was terrible. It may have been to palm what the iPod was to Apple if only they hadn't slacked in that area. Quite a shame...
doctor-don
Apr 24, 09:19 PM
True, long term it is a good plan. Though it looks like since the announcement that new phones becoming available on t-mobile have 850/1900 as well as 1700. Looks like it part of their plan to get devices out to t-mobile users that can work on both networks to be ready for this type of change.
Anyway, regardless of the buy out or not, once exclusivity ended it was only a matter of time before Apple added more bands to the iPhone. The qualcomm chip they use now supports all these bands anyway.
myTouch 4G has Band (frequency):850 MHz;900 MHz;1800 MHz;1900 MHz;UMTS: Band IV (1700/2100)
Anyway, regardless of the buy out or not, once exclusivity ended it was only a matter of time before Apple added more bands to the iPhone. The qualcomm chip they use now supports all these bands anyway.
myTouch 4G has Band (frequency):850 MHz;900 MHz;1800 MHz;1900 MHz;UMTS: Band IV (1700/2100)
tjsdaname
Dec 6, 12:46 AM
I think if there were no guns besides the law enforcements then America would be a much safer place.
you could not be more wrong.....
if you take guns away from the legitimate and responsible owners, then what does that help? did you really make a difference? no....
and all the criminals will still have there guns.
and all the sudden they have just as much power as the law enforcement, and now they don't have to be afraid that I might have my gun when they rob me. because we don't have our guns....
you could not be more wrong.....
if you take guns away from the legitimate and responsible owners, then what does that help? did you really make a difference? no....
and all the criminals will still have there guns.
and all the sudden they have just as much power as the law enforcement, and now they don't have to be afraid that I might have my gun when they rob me. because we don't have our guns....
erzhik
Apr 24, 11:52 AM
Why?
I thought AT&T's buyout means T-Mobile is going bye-bye?
408 area code, that means cali. is that steve jobs' personal number? :P
They won't. Even if this deal gets approved, T-Mobile will remain a separate company. Everything will remain as it is, except the fact that all revenue will go to AT&T.
I thought AT&T's buyout means T-Mobile is going bye-bye?
408 area code, that means cali. is that steve jobs' personal number? :P
They won't. Even if this deal gets approved, T-Mobile will remain a separate company. Everything will remain as it is, except the fact that all revenue will go to AT&T.
eemsTV
Apr 14, 10:12 PM
I'm a proud owner of a rooted Droid X, waiting for the Bionic to come out, once I saw this, I admit, I was taken with the sexiness of the phone. I'd be willing to get rid of my rooted sweet Android phone for the white. I'm such a nerd.
Hoping this phone has a spec update like the 3GS from 3G, that would be fantastic.
Steve guys are entrepreneurs geniuses.
Hoping this phone has a spec update like the 3GS from 3G, that would be fantastic.
Steve guys are entrepreneurs geniuses.