News Apple explains why no Flash on iPhone

Actually it is. I used to be a hater as well, until Windows 7 disappointed the hell out of me and pushed me in Apple's direction. The build quality of the unibody macbook pro's are 2nd to none, OSX is a delight to use and it works brilliantly with the multi-touch trackpad. I get around 7 hours of use out of the battery between charges and having had the back off it to upgrade the hard drive, I can see that it is very well put together and thought has gone into its layout. The screen is fantastic too.

Of the three platforms I'm currently using, the mac is in a different league as far as I'm concerned. If it wasn't for games I wouldn't bother with Windows at all.

 

I'd be more then happy to see flash die altogether..
I started using http://clicktoflash.com/ a year ago.
And have not looked back since.

 

It's not their choice that makes them a bad person.

It's the way some will attempt to shovel their choices down everyone's throat obsessively and compulsively.

I myself has owned an iPod Touch (sold off for a Cowon D2), and briefly a unibody MacBook Pro while I was troubleshooting it for my friend, who went overseas at that point so I ended up with a MBP for a week... And I never went back. It's all about personal choice and priorities, but some people just don't seem to understand that.

Sure, Windows do have it's own fanboys, but no other companies manage to raise so much mindless zombies that will defend any and every choice Apple makes so religiously.

 

Lol Ricky hey you reminded me of something, oh and that LOL was me agreeing with you not disagreeing, every Mac fanboi needs to watch two movies one Pirates of Silicon Valley so they can see how horrible of a person and how big of a hypocrite Steve Jobs really is and the second movie Mac Heads.

As to that brain washing one big one that seems to have been successful with nearly everyone is this simple one, that a Mac is a Mac and everything else is a PC but this is brainwashing what the hell is a PC people, hmm lets see PC means Personal Computer, so what the hell does that makes a Mac hmm lets see oh I know a freaking Personal Computer lol but thats brain washing for you, so instead of the proper form being Mac versus Windows as they clearly always try to market again they go with a vague term that technically includes themselves when they use it lol.

 

Microsoft's "I'm a PC" adverts didn't exactly help.

the hardware quality is undoubtedly excellent. but same can be had for all other manufacturers if you buy similar priced laptops to Macbook Pros. for the OS, it's really a personal preference, obviously you were disappointed with Windows 7.

there's also the case of defending one's purchase, like your last paragraph. i used to defend my gtx260 on forums against waves of 4870 users. Mac users also defend their purchase rigorously due to the huge amount of money they put in. i don't blame you


i, on the other hand, feels OSX to be very hard to use: expose shuffles window position so every time have to search for the thumbnails; multi-touch is good on touchpads, but mouse are always superior; dock's way of bring forward all window of same type is annoying, i only wanted 1, same with command-tab; huge amount of mouse acceleration is irritating, for 1920x1200 screen, mouse is only usable with a 2000dpi mouse.

 

I don't feel like I need to defend my purchase - I bought a great laptop, at the end of the day. I have a spare Windows license so I could run Windows on it if I wanted to, but I don't - I don't need to and prefer using OSX. The wife now wants one and I'm getting a desktop next.

 

Then good for you, but I just happen to have the exact opposite experience.

As mentioned prior I had a week with one of the newer (not the iX series, though) MBP's, and the experience repulsed me off Mac OS X.

 

+ 1. And the bit in bold is quote-worthy.

And your superior knowledge is based on what? You're all are as biased as the next person. the Hippoz even criticised Apple for the price of its Vaio range of laptops.

Sorry, but I'm not seeing that. In the iPad thread I do not see hordes of Apple zombies worship the iPad. I see a lot of Apple hating though, and a lot of name calling of Apple owners, with reference to them as "dumb", "shallow" and "sheep", but no informed, rational judgement of the product on its own merits at all. Very objective.

And sorry to point this out again, but the Apple haters were all wrong. The iPad is selling hundreds of thousands; the MS Courier and HP Slate died before they even left the prototype stage. Obviously designing a Tablet is a bit hard. Obviously Steve Jobs, for all his megalomania and hype and Reality Distortion Field is onto something here. Again. As with the iPhone and the iPod, and OSX which had Microsoft running to The Icon Factory (which normally designs Apple stuff) to tart up the Windows XP icons.

We need Apple's competitive force. Apple made computers look good and user friendly. Else trust me: Windows 7 would still be Windows 2000. Computers would still be office-beige boxes. MP3 players would still look like this instead of this. And if your better Flash-playing Tablet with USB ports and camera (and yes, that's a suspiciously Apple-like design) comes along it will be because Apple has proved there to be a market for it. We need someone who thinks outside the beige box rather than complacently going with what is a safe bet and conventional, and us complacently going along with it because there is no alternative. Even if he does act like an evil mad scientist bent on world domination at times. But would you prefer Bill Gates rules the world?

Apple is a Big Bad Company? So is Microsoft (remember, Bill Gates invented the EULA). So is Sony. So, even, is Google. So are all big companies. As consumers we do well to choose objectively what suits us, to vow allegiance nor emnity to anyone, and to realise that different things work differently for different people. Otherwise you are just indulging in a geeky sort of fascism.

 

Nokia invented an Internet Tablet prior Apple...? Nokia N770, N800, N810, and now N900? That's 4 tablets before the iPad.

All of them had a keyboard too, BTW, and possess comparable battery lives, and was as unconventional as heck when they came out?

I'm not calling Apple BIG BAD. Just calling them Big Brother, who has the ability to render many people defensive of them. It might not occur here, but hell, I HAVE faced hordes of such people before.

 

<<Cough>> Apple Newton <<cough>

 

Tablets have been around for some time. They all failed because they were designed badly. The Nokias were too small to be useful (and the earlier versions lacked 3G). The OS on the N770 sucked (I mean, no calendar/diary? No office tools? WTF?).

The Windows PC tablets have very poor battery life and the OS was poorly adapted to Tablet use (still is). The units are heavy and the case a bit fragile.

Apple got it bang-on: a decent size, a solid case, an excellent battery life, Wifi and 3G, an OS that is made for mobile touch screens and so elegant one could weep with joy. And all the apps that you could reasonably want on a portable device.

And the kicker is: was it so hard to work that one out? I always knew what would make a good Tablet. You probably always did. But no manufacturer ever made one. They all dicked about with these half-assed lazily designed devices that were just small variations on what they'd always done: the Nokias were just another mobile phone but without the phone; the Tablet PC was a laptop without a keyboard. Complacency: going with what they had always done.

Yeah, and I've seen the same with fanboys of any brand. And try football fans. They're scary. But you can't react to fanaticism with fanaticism. Someone has to stay objective. Else we keep getting crap products.

 

That could access the tubes?

The N900 has a phone, and certainly had a solid case (I've dropped mine six times from above waist height by accident, and there has been absolutely no damage.) "an excellent battery life, Wifi and 3G, an OS that is made for mobile touch screens and so elegant one could weep with joy. And all the apps that you could reasonably want on a portable device." (Cue the entry of those who may start saying that the OVER 9000 apps in the App Store > Maemo's, while not understanding the meaning of reasonable.)

I'm just going to say that usability of the OS is dependent on people. I've heard people complain about how lousy the iPhone OS is (my average joe parents), and heard people said that their grandparents pondered why their iPhone was less userfriendly than Maemo 5 (not me, some maemo.org member).

 

It was 1989 - for all intents and purposes, there were no tubes to access.

 

Well, I was talking about internet tablets, after all!

 

Of course you were! That makes a massive difference to whether you WIN or LOSE.

 

The Newton was a PDA. Now check the specs. Its GUI inspired all GUIs for mobiles since, from the PalmPilot to the Nokias, Androids and iPhones. It is also the only PDA on which you could scrawl on the notepad: "meeting next Tuesday 10.00am" and it would make an entry in the calendar called "meeting" at 10.00am next Tursday; It tried to interpret your input and all apps shared relevant data automatically. It was the first to even try handwriting recognition even though it took technology to catch up before it really worked well in the Newton 2000. But at least some new benchmark was set.

My point is that the iPhone got there first. It set the standards that others now follow (very obviously with Android) and will hopefully improve upon (e.g. Windows Mobile 7 --possibly). Without Apple the Nokia 900 would be another Nokia 770.

On the other hand, 100-year old grannies and three-year old toddlers are learning to use an iPad with practically no assistance. Like it or not, it was not Nokia who has put Tablets on the map; it was Apple.

 

On the other hand, I could claim too, that 1200-year old fogies and 1 month old babies are using the N900 with 0 assistance.

I could, also, claim, perchance, that even foetuses can use the N900 while developing. It might be ludicrous, yes, but unless scientific tests are carried out no conclusion can be had.

Then again, I really tire of arguing about the usability/time of release/etc, which has NO relevance to the matter at hand (Flash on iPhone), so I will refrain from replying to any counter-argument, no matter how applicable it is. If you want, we can take it to another more appropriate thread, but we're quite far off tangent here.

Just a note : Before Newton, there was Psion.

 

Did it have a touchscreen and did it access the internet?

 

To get back to the point of the post, I think Jobs' explanation was quite reasonable. I don't agree necessarily with his definition of what is a closed or open platform, but he does have some good points about usability.

Personally, I have never liked flash. There are so many half-arsed, badly coded, inefficient and bloated flash apps/objects out there that we could all do without. The idea of using a virtual cursor to use rollovers properly is not going to wash; that's a major diversion from Apple's UI, and something they are never going to implement.

I also agree about HTML5. If you need any examples of the possibilities of HTML5, then look no further than Google's effort to get Quake 2 running in a browser. That makes Jobs' point about Flash vs HTML5 better than he did, and was all the proof I needed.

 

The issue is, HTML5, even before being rolled out, is already fractured as heck, with some companies choosing to support 1 type of video codec, and the others another, and some both.

It's pretty much like the same situation with Android - hopefully HTML5 will have its Froyo!