bit-tech.net

Apple explains why no Flash on iPhone

Apple explains why no Flash on iPhone

Steve Jobs has explained how Apple's avoidance of Flash is because it is a closed platform.

Apple boss Steve Jobs has published a rare open letter on the official Apple site which explains comprehensively why none of Apple's mobile products support or make use of Adobe Flash.

The main reason is, unsurprisingly, that Apple would rather make use of open standards like HTML5 than closed platforms that are dependant on third parties.

Jobs' letter starts by explaining how the decision is not a personal one, highlighting how Adobe and Apple have a long history and have worked closely together in the past, before laying down six reasons why Apple avoids Flash on the iPhone and iPad - including the technical failings and slowness of Flash.

"Adobe has repeatedly said that Apple mobile devices cannot access “the full web” because 75% of video on the web is in Flash," says Jobs. "What they don’t say is that almost all this video is also available in a more modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones, iPods and iPads...Although Flash has recently added support for H.264, the video on almost all Flash websites currently requires an older generation decoder that is not implemented in mobile chips and must be run in software. The difference is striking: on an iPhone, for example, H.264 videos play for up to 10 hours, while videos decoded in software play for less than 5 hours before the battery is fully drained."

As well as picking problems with the third-party nature of Adobe and the impact on battery life, Jobs also said that Flash applications were designed for PCs with mice and that Apple's touch-based interface therefore made usability a problem.

"Flash was created during the PC era – for PCs and mice," Jobs said in summary. "Flash is a successful business for Adobe, and we can understand why they want to push it beyond PCs. But the mobile era is about low power devices, touch interfaces and open web standards – all areas where Flash falls short."

"The avalanche of media outlets offering their content for Apple’s mobile devices demonstrates that Flash is no longer necessary to watch video or consume any kind of web content."

You can read the whole letter at Apple's site, but be sure to let us know your thoughts in the forums.

106 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
DirtyH 30th April 2010, 11:01 Quote
i thought the real main reason was this:
Quote:
[...]
Current Flash sites could never be made work well on any touchscreen device, and this cannot be solved by Apple, Adobe, or magical new hardware.

That’s not because of slow mobile performance, battery drain or crashes. It’s because of the hover or mouseover problem.

Many (if not most) current Flash games, menus, and even video players require a visible mouse pointer. They are coded to rely on the difference between hovering over something (mouseover) vs. actually clicking. This distinction is not rare. It’s pervasive, fundamental to interactive design, and vital to the basic use of Flash content.
[...]

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2010/02/20/an-adobe-flash-developer-on-why-the-ipad-cant-use-flash/
Tyrmot 30th April 2010, 11:05 Quote
And let's not forget that Apple would probably rather you bought games etc from the App Store rather than nice and free in embedded flash....
Leitchy 30th April 2010, 11:20 Quote
He can go bugger himself. Long Live Android!
Nedsbeds 30th April 2010, 11:27 Quote
HTML is no more suited to touch than flash.
Common interactions involve rolling / hovering. Just look at drop down menus!
and Javascript does not natively support multiple cursors (or fingers)
Spuzzell 30th April 2010, 11:38 Quote
So.. *FLASH* is the closed platform. In comparison with the iPhone.

Really, Steve? REALLY?
gavomatic57 30th April 2010, 12:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuzzell
So.. *FLASH* is the closed platform. In comparison with the iPhone.

Really, Steve? REALLY?

No, in comparison to HTML5, like the open letter says.
Nedsbeds 30th April 2010, 12:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by gavomatic57
No, in comparison to HTML5, like the open letter says.

Even the closed apple specific extensions to javascript in safari!? I don't think so
hexx 30th April 2010, 12:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrmot
And let's not forget that Apple would probably rather you bought games etc from the App Store rather than nice and free in embedded flash....

what flash games are you talking about? haven't played a good one yet, and quite a lot of games on app store a free
hexx 30th April 2010, 12:18 Quote
example of old games - html, css, javascript:

http://www.kesiev.com/akihabara/
l3v1ck 30th April 2010, 12:29 Quote
You can argue whether or not websites should use Flash or HTML 5 all day long.
The fact is they DO use Flash, so it would make life easier for Apple users if Apple supported it.
Tyrmot 30th April 2010, 12:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by hexx
what flash games are you talking about? haven't played a good one yet, and quite a lot of games on app store a free

http://www.amanita-design.net/samorost-1/

And all those people who like to play *shudder* farmville etc are bang out of luck too... And yes a lot are free - but usually trials to tempt you into splashing out for the full version, for which Apple of course takes a cut.... etc etc.
crazyceo 30th April 2010, 12:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by l3v1ck
You can argue whether or not websites should use Flash or HTML 5 all day long.
The fact is they DO use Flash, so it would make life easier for Apple users if Apple supported it.

+1 Apple have no real excuse here
cybergenics 30th April 2010, 12:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by l3v1ck
You can argue whether or not websites should use Flash or HTML 5 all day long.
The fact is they DO use Flash, so it would make life easier for Apple users if Apple supported it.

Exactly.
wuyanxu 30th April 2010, 12:49 Quote
who needs flash anyway? Flashblocker r the win!

flash takes up resource, flash makes your netbook unusable, flash makes a website cluncky. i really like Apple's move, Flash should die!
GreatOldOne 30th April 2010, 12:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyceo
+1 Apple have no real excuse here

To: crazeyceo
From: Steve Jobs
Re: Apple have no excuse

We don't need one. Thhhhppppppppppppppppt!

Sent from my iPad.
l3v1ck 30th April 2010, 12:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
flash makes your netbook unusable
You could argue that the terrible Intel Atom makes your netbook unusable. [/devil's advocate]
Icy EyeG 30th April 2010, 12:57 Quote
If anyone is interested here's an interview with Adobe CEO about this that I find very interesting an elucidative:
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/04/29/live-blogging-the-journals-interview-with-adobe-ceo/

And about Flash being a closed platform the Adobe CEO says:
Quote:
Responding to a question about Mr. Jobs's assertion that Adobe is a closed platform, Mr. Narayen chuckles. "I find it amusing, honestly. Flash is an open specification," he says.

One other thing: regarding HTML5, isn't H.264 proprietary?
julianmartin 30th April 2010, 13:06 Quote
There is no getting away from it, there could have been far better solutions to embedded video on the web than flash (flash apps and games aside, here), and I for one welcome the embrace of HTML5, it's a much better solution and my only wish is that it could have been brought in sooner.
Javerh 30th April 2010, 13:07 Quote
Kinda reminds me how Apple doesn't want to pay for Nokia's patents. They'd prefer to use them for free.
leveller 30th April 2010, 13:07 Quote
rickysio 30th April 2010, 13:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyH
i thought the real main reason was this:



http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2010/02/20/an-adobe-flash-developer-on-why-the-ipad-cant-use-flash/

Well, apparently Nokia needs to advertise the hover mode in MicroB more, since it solves the issue. N900 IS FTW! A winrar is Maemo/Nokia!
Quote:
Originally Posted by leveller
MS jumping into the HTML5 H.264 debate.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20003838-264.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

Which is quite full of crap, since H.264 requires a YEARLY royalty fee of 5 MILLION. If they wanted open and accessible, they would have gone for the (free) Ogg Theora, but apparently they just want to prevent Mozilla from getting a slice of the pie. Either Apple and Microsoft pays the fee for Mozilla and other less rich companies, or they can just STFU.
gavomatic57 30th April 2010, 13:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by leveller
MS jumping into the HTML5 H.264 debate.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20003838-264.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20


aaaaand what's eating a big chunk out of IE's market share at the moment...firefox! Of course they are going to side with Apple, who's Safari browser is barely used by anyone in Windows, isn't available in linux and I'd imagine even Mac users are using Chrome or Firefox now.
Kyser Soze 30th April 2010, 14:42 Quote
Apparently Gizmodo found the draft version of Steve Jobs' letter on the recovered iPhone4. Read only if terribly bored. Am drunk.


Apple has a long relationship with Adobe (see Deliverance) In fact, we met Adobe’s founders when they were in their proverbial garage. Apple was their first big customer, adopting their Postscript language for our new Laserwriter printer. Apple invested (sounds better than bought shares for profit) in Adobe and owned around 20% of the company for many years. The two companies worked closely together to pioneer (rip off bell labs and xerox) desktop publishing and there were many good times. (1982) Since that golden era, the companies have grown apart. Apple went through its near death experience (Luke Skywalker), and Adobe was drawn to the corporate market (Darth Vader) with their Acrobat products. (Apple are not interested in corporate markets. We give away our machines for free.) Today the two companies still work together (but a bit less after this press release) to serve their joint creative customers (misguided punters) – Mac users buy around half of Adobe’s Creative Suite products – but beyond that (massive crossover) there are few joint interests. (apart from making money)

I (we) wanted to jot down (after considerable consultation with our lawyers) some of our (lawyer approved) thoughts on Adobe’s Flash products so that customers (disciples) and critics (everyone else) may better understand why we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. Adobe has characterized our decision as being primarily business driven (it is in fact charity driven) – they say we want to protect our App Store – but in reality (Narnia) it is based on technology issues. Adobe claims that we are a closed system, and that Flash is open, but in fact the opposite is true. (and yet false) Let me explain.

First, there’s “Open”. (or possibly The Word. Interpretations vary)

Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary. (unlike Apple products) They are only available from Adobe, (unlike Apple products) and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. (unlike you know who) While Adobe’s Flash products are widely (planet Earth) available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any (apart from some) definition, Flash is a closed system. (the mountain of freely available third party Flash content, Flash tools and Flash websites is irrelevant to this discussion)

Apple has many proprietary products too. (sorry for apparently contradicting earlier 'in fact the opposite is true' statement.) Though the operating system for the iBreak, iTiny and iCan'tchangethe****ingbattery is proprietary (ie closed), we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. (If we owned the web this statement wouldn't be meaningless) Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript – all open standards. Apple’s mobile devices all ship with high performance (most amusing), low power implementations of these open standards. HTML5, the new web standard that has been adopted by Apple, Google and many others, lets web developers create advanced (for 1995) graphics, typography (words), animations and transitions without relying on third party browser plug-ins (like Flash). HTML5 is completely open and controlled (open and controlled? Linda, can you run this sentence past the Logic Department) by a standards committee, of which Apple is a member.

Apple even creates (adapts) open standards for the web. (in addition to the many non-web based standards outlined above) For example, Apple began with a small open source project (see 'KHTML', 'KDE' and 'bitter failure') and created (forked) WebKit, a complete open-source HTML5 rendering engine that is the heart of the (slow, buggy, insecure and generally laughable) Safari web browser used in all our (shiny) products. WebKit has been widely adopted. (where widely <= 30 percent of the web browser market) Google uses it for Android’s browser, Palm uses it, Nokia uses it, and RIM (snigger) (Blackberry) has announced they will use it too. Almost every smartphone web browser other than Microsoft’s (whoever they are) uses WebKit. By making its WebKit technology open, Apple has set the standard for mobile web browsers. (and parted the seas)

Second, there’s the “full web”.

Adobe has repeatedly said that Apple mobile devices cannot access “the full web” (ie all of the things on the web) because 75% of video on the web is in Flash. (Adobe also employ lying shitbags) What they don’t say is that almost all (or some of) this video is also available in a more modern format, H.264, and viewable on iStuff, iHope and iRun. YouTube, with an estimated 40% of the web’s video, shines (is fully supported?) in an app bundled on all Apple mobile devices, with the iPad offering perhaps (possibly the best lager in the world) the best YouTube discovery and viewing experience ever. (fact) Add to this video from Vimeo, Netflix, Facebook, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ESPN, NPR, Time, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Sports Illustrated, People, National Geographic, and many, many others. (youporn, redtube), iToss users aren’t missing much video. (apart from the stuff they're missing)

Another Adobe claim (those corporate *******s!) is that Apple devices cannot play Flash games. This is true. (we acknowledge our shitness) Fortunately, there are over 50,000 (unique, flawless) games and entertainment titles on the App Store, and many of them are free. (all the really professional stuff) There are more games and entertainment titles available for iPfreely, iCrash and iRedundant than for any other platform in the world. (we have never heard of the Amiga or the PC)

Third, there’s reliability, security and performance. (we have also never heard of the 2009 pwn2own 5 second hack of Mac OS)

Symantec recently highlighted Flash for having one of the worst security records in 2009. We also know first hand that Flash is the number one reason Macs crash. (although oddly not for PCs, despite its ubiquity. That is weird. If we could only pin down a difference between the two platforms) We have been working with (shouting at) Adobe to fix these problems, but they have persisted for several years now. We don’t want to reduce the reliability and security (yet further) of our iCame, iSaw and iMisquoted by adding Flash.

In addition, Flash has not performed well on mobile devices. We have routinely asked Adobe to show us Flash performing well on a mobile device, any mobile device, for a few years now. We have never seen it. (proof) Adobe publicly said that Flash would ship on a smartphone in early 2009, then the second half of 2009, then the first half of 2010, and now they say the second half of 2010. (we have never missed a shipping date, apart from when we have) We think it will eventually ship, but we’re glad we didn’t hold our breath. (humour) Who knows how it will perform?

Fourth, there’s battery life.

To achieve long battery life when playing video, mobile devices must decode the video in hardware; decoding it in software uses too much power. (fact) Many of the chips used in modern mobile devices contain a decoder called H.264 – an industry standard that is used in every Blu-ray DVD player and has been adopted by Apple, Google (YouTube), Vimeo, Netflix and many other companies. ( Flash can only play video, so this paragraph makes sense.)

Although Flash has recently added support for H.264 (making above paragraph broadly redudant) the video on almost all Flash websites (not that they matter because there are hardly any of them - er. Linda, I've got a bit of a headache coming on. Please bring me my medication) currently requires an older generation decoder that is not implemented in mobile chips and must be run in software (our limitations are a virtue!). The difference is striking (shocking!): on an iPhone, for example, H.264 videos play for up to (less than) 10 hours, while videos decoded in software play for less than (up to) 5 hours before the battery is fully drained. (completely molested)

When (if) websites re-encode (at no cost) their videos using H.264, they can offer them without using Flash at all. They play perfectly in browsers like Apple’s Safari and Google’s Chrome (explorer? what's that?) without any plugins whatsoever, and look great (the same) on iLick, iSuck and iSwallow.

Fifth, there’s Touch.

Flash was designed for PCs (evil!) using mice, not for touch screens using fingers. (come here Linda) For example, many Flash websites rely on “rollovers”, which pop up menus or other elements when the mouse arrow hovers over a specific spot. Apple’s revolutionary (evolutionary) multi-touch interface doesn’t use a mouse, and there is no concept of a rollover. (hope somebody's buying this) Most Flash websites will need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices. (fact) If developers need to rewrite their Flash websites,( for instance because they don't run on the iPad), why not use modern technologies like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript?

Even if iHuff, iPuff and iBlowyourhousedown ran Flash, it would not solve the problem that most (some) Flash websites need (don't need) to be rewritten to support touch-based devices.

Sixth, the most important reason.

Besides the fact (fact!) that Flash is closed and proprietary (*****!), has major technical drawbacks, and doesn’t support touch based devices (at all), there is an even more important reason (than profit) we do not allow Flash on iOld, iSlow and iFrequentlywetmyself. We have discussed (listed) the downsides of using Flash to play video and interactive content from websites, but Adobe also wants developers to adopt Flash to create apps that run on our mobile devices.

We know from painful (unprofitable) experience that letting a third party layer of software (Cocoa, Objective-C, Xcode, iTunes) come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps (Objective-C, iTunes, OS-X) and hinders the enhancement and progress (market share) of the platform. If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools (instead of coding in pure machine code), they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. (Or we choose to) We cannot be at the (terrified) mercy of a (vicious) third party (apart from standards committees and Intel) deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers.

This becomes even worse (and horrific) if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. (we think that's what the cross and platform bits refer to) Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we cannot (and will not!) accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor’s platforms. (This is not the end. This is not even the beginning of the end. We will fight them on the beaches!)

Flash is a cross platform development tool. (see evil things, above) It is not Adobe’s goal to help developers write the best iShake, iRattle and iCantthinkofanymore apps. It is their goal to help developers write cross platform apps. (what *******s!) And Adobe has been painfully (for us) slow to adopt (all the hundreds of) enhancements to Apple’s platforms. For example, although Mac OS X has been **** for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X. (for any given creative definitions of the word major and fully)

Our motivation (profit) is simple - we want to provide the most advanced and innovative platform to our developers, and we want them to stand directly on the shoulders of this platform and create the best apps the world has ever seen. We want to continually enhance the platform so developers can create even more amazing, awe-inspiring, fabulous, powerful, fun and useful applications. We want to walk together into the sunny uplands and we want the world to sing in perfect harmony. Everyone wins – we sell more devices because we have the best apps, developers reach a wider and wider audience, if we let them onto the app store, and (closeted, myopic and broadly insane mac) users are continually delighted by the best and broadest selection of apps on any platform. (fact)

Conclusions. (In summation. To rigorously and objectively draw together.)

Flash was created during the PC era (now long gone) – for PCs and mice. Flash is a successful business for Adobe, and we can understand why they want to push it beyond PCs.(profit) But the mobile era (sunny uplands) is about low power devices, touch interfaces, smudgy fingerprints and open web standards – all areas where Flash falls short. As we have conclusively proved.

The avalanche (a destructive rockslide that wipes out everything in its path) of media outlets offering their content for Apple’s mobile devices demonstrates that Flash is no longer necessary to watch video or consume any kind of web content. Apart from Flash sites. Or sites containing Flash. And the 200,000 (flawless) apps on Apple’s (open and uncensored) App Store proves (Q.E.D.) that Flash isn’t necessary for tens of thousands of developers to create graphically rich applications, including games.

New open standards created in the mobile era, such as HTML5, will win on mobile devices (and PCs too). Perhaps Adobe should focus more on creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind.

Steve Jobs,

The Tiny Mansion,
Messiah Avenue,
Jesus Wept,
The Bahamas,
April 2010.
wuyanxu 30th April 2010, 15:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by l3v1ck
You could argue that the terrible Intel Atom makes your netbook unusable. [/devil's advocate]
that Atom is what making netbook usable.

Flash are not needed at all. i browse all websites with flashblocker, and apart from youtube being whitelisted, never had any problem with other websites. if there's a website that insists using flash as their menu, i tend to simply not visit them due to their stupidity in deciding to use Flash.
tron 30th April 2010, 15:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
that Atom is what making netbook usable.

Flash are not needed at all. i browse all websites with flashblocker, and apart from youtube being whitelisted, never had any problem with other websites. if there's a website that insists using flash as their menu, i tend to simply not visit them due to their stupidity in deciding to use Flash.

I agree that website designers need to get with the times and design sites that are touch-screen-device friendly.

I use a multi-touch capacitive touch screen Windows mobile phone which does support flash. Some of the flash content on certain websites can seem 'broken' and do not function correctly due to the phone's lack of an old-school mouse pointer.

However, what I generally don't like about Apple's products and policies are their own 'locked down', 'closed' and 'proprietary' software environments that restrict me from having the freedom to visit a website that may contain 'broken' FLASH elements so I can at least get an idea of what's supposed to be displayed.
thehippoz 30th April 2010, 16:11 Quote
I can agree with jobs on his thinking.. flash will always have a place in a lot of web designers hearts though.. it's like all adobe products, those guys are freaking aliens.. they make products where if you want to stretch your imagination you can.. really no limits

the problem with being so open is a bad flash programmer can display the same thing a good one can- but it eats up resources :o
Woodspoon 30th April 2010, 16:37 Quote
Sometime in the future, hopefully not too far off, all this, "you can use this but you cant use that, we say what you can and cant do with the thing that you paid for, because we know so much more than you" thing is going to turn round and bite Apple in the ass very hard indeed.
And I will laugh
Loudly.
leveller 30th April 2010, 16:42 Quote
Surely all you guys should be pro-HTML5? Instead of pro-Adobe-monopoly.
hexx 30th April 2010, 17:01 Quote
flash sucks
eddtox 30th April 2010, 17:36 Quote
Flash sucks. Apple sucks. Yet you can't get away from either of them atm.

openftw
hexx 30th April 2010, 17:40 Quote
flash is ok on win platform, on mac it's real pain - click2flash :)
HourBeforeDawn 30th April 2010, 19:53 Quote
It would mean that Apple would have to pay Adobe to use Flash, and well Apple is all about screwing people over and forcing them to use their proprietary stuff and have no personal freedoms, so of course they wouldnt Support Flash.
VipersGratitude 30th April 2010, 20:00 Quote
This isn't about browsers; This is about keeping the App Store proprietary. (You can write a flash app for free on any platform using the open source flex framework, but to write an iWhatever app you have to first buy a Mac)

I wonder if there'll still be Flash vs HTML5 arguments in 2 years time, when HTML5 gets to its first candidate reccomendation, or 2022 when it reaches the final release :/
thehippoz 30th April 2010, 20:12 Quote
yeah I don't see why he can't allow flash apps on apple products really.. he just wants full control over what you see.. I mean youtube plays on phones just fine.. but lets say a user goes to a site with a badly written swf and it bogs down the phone

his audience (apple buyers) aren't the smartest bunch.. they'll take that the phone is weak.. so I can see his reasoning- he's trying to make his hardware look better than it is- but it works for them.. people buy it
hexx 30th April 2010, 22:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehippoz
yeah I don't see why he can't allow flash apps on apple products really.. he just wants full control over what you see.. I mean youtube plays on phones just fine.. but lets say a user goes to a site with a badly written swf and it bogs down the phone

his audience (apple buyers) aren't the smartest bunch.. they'll take that the phone is weak.. so I can see his reasoning- he's trying to make his hardware look better than it is- but it works for them.. people buy it

sorry but you're wrong, completely wrong. there's no flash only on multitouch devices from apple. youtube has written app for iphone, one of the first and is part of the package. youtube if you know has html5 player if you opt for it instead of flash player - quality of videos is much better.

your opinion about apple buyers is immature and probably corresponds your age :) after 15 years of ****ing around with windows i installed at first mac os x86 version on my quad desktop and after few months of use i jumped on apple products.

if you want a computer for daily use and not a tamagochi than apple is way to go. your comments are shortsighted and obviously you haven't got any clue about flash adobe and adobe's products on mac platform.

They just released CS5 which finally now is 64-bit and is written in Cocoa framework - after 10 years of existence of mac os x - adobe was last third party developer who was using old framework.

when apple had difficult times in late 90s adobe switched focus on windows platform and every single CSA suite until now for mac was inferior to win versions.

if you think that apple buyers aren't smart enough how would you explain their growing customer base? I can see it at my work where during last 5 years nr of apple computers tripled and it's almost 30:70 split.

if you need to work apple computers are the only way not stupid win boxes which always need maintenance every now and then. I haven't restarted my macbook pro in for other reason than update since october when i bought it.

experience yourself then comment. i've been working with computers since early 90s, which is almost 20 years now and i guess i know what i'm talking about.
Constructacon 30th April 2010, 23:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by hexx

if you think that apple buyers aren't smart enough how would you explain their growing customer base? I can see it at my work where during last 5 years nr of apple computers tripled and it's almost 30:70 split.
.
It's called marketing. Everywhere you look Apple is telling us (in 50 foot high glowing letters) that we should be buying their products. If you look at any movie/tv show lately you'll see that Apple has paid for a(t least one) product placement (with very prominent logos) there on the desk. In fact I can't remember the last time I saw a PC in a movie. People are dumb (I try not to be, but occasionally succumb myself) and buy what we are told to buy.
Sloth 30th April 2010, 23:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by hexx
sorry but you're wrong, completely wrong. there's no flash only on multitouch devices from apple. youtube has written app for iphone, one of the first and is part of the package. youtube if you know has html5 player if you opt for it instead of flash player - quality of videos is much better.

your opinion about apple buyers is immature and probably corresponds your age :) after 15 years of ****ing around with windows i installed at first mac os x86 version on my quad desktop and after few months of use i jumped on apple products.

if you want a computer for daily use and not a tamagochi than apple is way to go. your comments are shortsighted and obviously you haven't got any clue about flash adobe and adobe's products on mac platform.

They just released CS5 which finally now is 64-bit and is written in Cocoa framework - after 10 years of existence of mac os x - adobe was last third party developer who was using old framework.

when apple had difficult times in late 90s adobe switched focus on windows platform and every single CSA suite until now for mac was inferior to win versions.

if you think that apple buyers aren't smart enough how would you explain their growing customer base? I can see it at my work where during last 5 years nr of apple computers tripled and it's almost 30:70 split.

if you need to work apple computers are the only way not stupid win boxes which always need maintenance every now and then. I haven't restarted my macbook pro in for other reason than update since october when i bought it.

experience yourself then comment. i've been working with computers since early 90s, which is almost 20 years now and i guess i know what i'm talking about.
I'm sorry in advance if English isn't your primary language, but my brain hurts after reading that.

thehippoz has a valid point. Supporting standards shouldn't be entirely about what's outdated, what's profitable, or what the future trends are. Many users want to at least have access to Flash content, even if it's not fully functional or drains their battery life. If people didn't want Flash there would be no issue in the first place. Are the consumer's desires not considered at all? Has the mobile trend reached such a level that what the consumer wants is irrelevant and products are designed around what manufacturers say they want? That also applies to the issues browsers are facing. Do consumers want HTML5 over Ogg Theora? Not particularly, but you can bet MS and Apple will say they do. But that's another story.

I will say, though, that saying Apple buyers specifically aren't the brightest isn't entirely true. Most buyers, especially in the rapidly growing mobile market, aren't too savvy. Show someone a poorly writtten page on their Droid and they'll complain that it's the phone's fault just the same as if it was an iPhone.

Oh, and to 'feed the flames': Your work may be 30:70, but the 360,000+ computers where I work are 100% PC.
wuyanxu 1st May 2010, 00:16 Quote
hexx is a true apple fanboy, written in codes us mortals don't quite understand.

the only reason i can explain their growing market base was because of the bad publicity on Vista. there is also the fact that proprietary software for their handheld devices are inferior on Windows machines. there's also marketing and product placement, as Constructacon said.


FYI, my Windows desktop hasn't restarted "in for other reason than update" and installing latest hardware since 2007 when i first got it. also my desktop is acting as a server for my housemates to access TV series with zero problem.

i have experienced Apple products. their OS is just a prettier version of FreeBSD (since Windows machines at my uni are always being used); their hardware is well made, but low-end (think crappy graphics cards and lack of sound card/SSD's in Mac Pros); their phones are badly made (i own one, home button only registers half the time) and finally their music device require proprietary software.


i do agree with Apple on Flash though. it ought to go, and i personally won't miss it a single bit. Javascript and plain text is all i need (and youtube in HTML5)
general22 1st May 2010, 02:05 Quote
This is the best thing I have read in recent times and while some points are valid when you apply them to apple they also hold.

1. Sure adobe flash is not open but are apples products or platforms open either? Sure they might push some open standards but their business model for their touch devices revolves around a locked down app store which doesn't sound very open to me.

2. Yeah you don't need flash to view the web but it would be great to give your customers the choice since Apple is such an open company o wait.

3. Developers misusing flash basically isn't adobe's fault. I hate the stupid flash menus and stuff as much as others but adobe isn't really to blame.

4. Battery life argument is bunk, there is no flash on apple touch devices so no comparison can be made. Also HTML5 isn't the silver bullet when it comes to this anyway, I have seen some battery life tests of HTML5 vs Flash video playback and I dont see a definitive advantage to HTML5.

5. Good point here on touch interfaces but I would like to see javascript, HTML5 and CSS produce an interactive app of similar quality to a flash app/game without random additional plugins.

6. the last point jobs makes is the most laughable one of all, Unity 3D is a third party layer of software and I don't see how that hasn't helped the iphone platform immensely. He even has the nerve to say that Adobe was slow to adopt Cocoa, hey jobs what about all the first party apple apps like itunes and final cut pro which are still Carbon based.

The real reason they don't want flash is because it will completely undermine their app store and the new iAd initiative and reduces the stranglehold they have on the platform.
thehippoz 1st May 2010, 02:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by hexx
sorry but you're wrong, completely wrong. there's no flash only on multitouch devices from apple. youtube has written app for iphone, one of the first and is part of the package. youtube if you know has html5 player if you opt for it instead of flash player - quality of videos is much better.

your opinion about apple buyers is immature and probably corresponds your age :) after 15 years of ****ing around with windows i installed at first mac os x86 version on my quad desktop and after few months of use i jumped on apple products.

if you want a computer for daily use and not a tamagochi than apple is way to go. your comments are shortsighted and obviously you haven't got any clue about flash adobe and adobe's products on mac platform.

They just released CS5 which finally now is 64-bit and is written in Cocoa framework - after 10 years of existence of mac os x - adobe was last third party developer who was using old framework.

when apple had difficult times in late 90s adobe switched focus on windows platform and every single CSA suite until now for mac was inferior to win versions.

if you think that apple buyers aren't smart enough how would you explain their growing customer base? I can see it at my work where during last 5 years nr of apple computers tripled and it's almost 30:70 split.

if you need to work apple computers are the only way not stupid win boxes which always need maintenance every now and then. I haven't restarted my macbook pro in for other reason than update since october when i bought it.

experience yourself then comment. i've been working with computers since early 90s, which is almost 20 years now and i guess i know what i'm talking about.

yeah should have made myself more clear.. thought it was obvious we were talking about the iphone and ipad :D

I love adobe products myself.. I use them practically every day from photoshop to premiere cs4- even do some after effects and have done quite a bit of flash programming back in the day

but to bag on pc's for a mac.. that's typical apple user for you.. they are clueless imo XD maybe back in the day of windows 95 they had a point in graphic arts.. but nowdays please

yeah we discussed html 5 on youtube back before it came out.. remember trying to get it to work on these forums.. but anyways youtube is a good example of flash programming and what it can do right..

think what jobs was getting at is- what if a typical iphone user bogs down because of a badly written flash ad.. how will that user comprehend it's not the phone.. apple rely on their image to rip everybody off like they do- don't get me started on their viao laptops!
rickysio 1st May 2010, 03:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
I agree that website designers need to get with the times and design sites that are touch-screen-device friendly.

I use a multi-touch capacitive touch screen Windows mobile phone which does support flash. Some of the flash content on certain websites can seem 'broken' and do not function correctly due to the phone's lack of an old-school mouse pointer.

However, what I generally don't like about Apple's products and policies are their own 'locked down', 'closed' and 'proprietary' software environments that restrict me from having the freedom to visit a website that may contain 'broken' FLASH elements so I can at least get an idea of what's supposed to be displayed.

Try the N900. Your HD2 uses Flash Lite, which is not fully featured. The N900 at least uses full desktop flash 9, which means that whatever site I go, most will run fully and quickly, especially since apparently only Nokia thought about how to solve the hover mode issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehippoz
think what jobs was getting at is- what if a typical iphone user bogs down because of a badly written flash ad.. how will that user comprehend it's not the phone.. apple rely on their image to rip everybody off like they do- don't get me started on their viao laptops!

Vaio is a Sony brand (In fact, the only laptop line they have, and will have, according to one of their execs). Unless Apple bought Sony... What? :|

The N900 doesn't lag with any site I go to, but then unless I have a site with a 100% confirmed badly coded advert, I can't really say about the potential effects. Also, considering that the iPhone uses a smaller res display, it would require lesser processing grunt, unlike the N900, which has a much higher display resolution. Or they could ship the iPhones with Flash disabled, but let those with some more tech knowledge flip a toggle switch in the settings to enable flash? I call bullshit on his argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by general22
This is the best thing I have read in recent times and while some points are valid when you apply them to apple they also hold.

1. Sure adobe flash is not open but are apples products or platforms open either? Sure they might push some open standards but their business model for their touch devices revolves around a locked down app store which doesn't sound very open to me.

2. Yeah you don't need flash to view the web but it would be great to give your customers the choice since Apple is such an open company o wait.

3. Developers misusing flash basically isn't adobe's fault. I hate the stupid flash menus and stuff as much as others but adobe isn't really to blame.

4. Battery life argument is bunk, there is no flash on apple touch devices so no comparison can be made. Also HTML5 isn't the silver bullet when it comes to this anyway, I have seen some battery life tests of HTML5 vs Flash video playback and I dont see a definitive advantage to HTML5.

5. Good point here on touch interfaces but I would like to see javascript, HTML5 and CSS produce an interactive app of similar quality to a flash app/game without random additional plugins.

6. the last point jobs makes is the most laughable one of all, Unity 3D is a third party layer of software and I don't see how that hasn't helped the iphone platform immensely. He even has the nerve to say that Adobe was slow to adopt Cocoa, hey jobs what about all the first party apple apps like itunes and final cut pro which are still Carbon based.

The real reason they don't want flash is because it will completely undermine their app store and the new iAd initiative and reduces the stranglehold they have on the platform.

2. You DO need flash to view some of the web, when these websites are completely flash based. ;)

4. The battery life argument is NOT really bunk. MicroB without flash chews through my battery at a smaller pace, but not very significant drain. HTML5 should draw similar amounts of current.

5. Just enable a curser mode. Google for N900 videos for more info on how that would work - and it works like a treat.

6. Please remember Steve Jobs has a reality distortion field. No, I'm not joking. He could probably sell poop with an Apple logo on it, and it'd sell millions in a month.
thehippoz 1st May 2010, 03:21 Quote
lol trippin man.. yeah nm that it's just another one of those things XD I dunno why I was thinking it was apple- probably cause I tend to bunch them all up into one big pile

my mom owns one and I can't believe how much she spent on it.. think my pops was leaning towards getting a vaio too until I found a better deal for him
general22 1st May 2010, 03:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickysio


2. You DO need flash to view some of the web, when these websites are completely flash based. ;)

I am aware of that but I am of the opinion that sites that use flash and silverlight etc in this way are generally quite terrible for actually providing the information that the user came to the website for as quickly and efficiently as possible so in effect they are bad websites.
Quote:

4. The battery life argument is NOT really bunk. MicroB without flash chews through my battery at a smaller pace, but not very significant drain. HTML5 should draw similar amounts of current.

I don't deny that flash reduces battery life because it is something additional that uses CPU cycles but is it worse than HTML5 in a video playback situation? I haven't seen that shown objectively.
Quote:

5. Just enable a curser mode. Google for N900 videos for more info on how that would work - and it works like a treat.

I have heard lots of good things about the N900, good to see that Nokia is back in the smartphone market with a non-Symbian entry.
Quote:

6. Please remember Steve Jobs has a reality distortion field. No, I'm not joking. He could probably sell poop with an Apple logo on it, and it'd sell millions in a month.

lol
Nexxo 1st May 2010, 08:19 Quote
Er... Has anyone actually seen Flash work well on a mobile device yet?

Only when I read reviews of Flash capable mobiles and tablets they all complain about slow, jittery framerates. Does anyone out there have, say, an Android-based phone who can enlighten me?

EDIT: Never mind, I did some Tube-Fu. Flash does appear to work well on the Google Nexus phone (hope it scales up well to a bigger screen, but I don't see why it shouldn't). So I'm not really seeing Steve Jobs' objections. The hardware is capable; I don't buy the argument that it is to protect the App Store. People can give away their games for free on it (yes, often they are demos enticing you to buy the full version, but they could and Apple would not stop them).
rickysio 1st May 2010, 08:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehippoz
lol trippin man.. yeah nm that it's just another one of those things XD I dunno why I was thinking it was apple- probably cause I tend to bunch them all up into one big pile

my mom owns one and I can't believe how much she spent on it.. think my pops was leaning towards getting a vaio too until I found a better deal for him

Vaio branded Sony's are expensive because of the quality. Sony has the ability to chuck very high end internals in slim cases without it being a (HP) Envy/MacBook Pro (Or is it CookBook Pro now?), AND preserving decent battery life. You pay for what you get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by general22
I am aware of that but I am of the opinion that sites that use flash and silverlight etc in this way are generally quite terrible for actually providing the information that the user came to the website for as quickly and efficiently as possible so in effect they are bad websites.

True - but sometimes these websites are the only way I can get my information, so I'm sort of glad that I didn't pick another phone over my N900 - otherwise I'd need to haul a netbook around, which is a pain (vs the size of an N900).
Quote:
Originally Posted by general22
I don't deny that flash reduces battery life because it is something additional that uses CPU cycles but is it worse than HTML5 in a video playback situation? I haven't seen that shown objectively.

http://www.streaminglearningcenter.com/articles/flash-player-cpu-hog-or-hot-tamale-it-depends-.html
Nexxo 1st May 2010, 10:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickysio
Vaio branded Sony's are expensive because of the quality. Sony has the ability to chuck very high end internals in slim cases without it being a (HP) Envy/MacBook Pro (Or is it CookBook Pro now?), AND preserving decent battery life. You pay for what you get.
The same realistic assessment could be made about Apple laptops. In terms of quality, reliability and indeed customer support they are pretty much comparable. In fact, they share a lot of the same innards and batteries. ;)
rickysio 1st May 2010, 10:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
The same realistic assessment could be made about Apple laptops. In terms of quality, reliability and indeed customer support they are pretty much comparable. In fact, they share a lot of the same innards and batteries. ;)

BreakHinge Air, iCan'tConnectPhone, CookBook Pro, BoilBook Pro...

Nothing more needs to be said about the (lack of) quality.
Nexxo 1st May 2010, 11:17 Quote
Yeah, and Sony has none of those problems. Vaio's have problems with overheating (to the extent of deforming the plastic casing), boiling batteries, faulty memory sockets (always the second one, for some reason), cooling fan failures (VGN-CS series and VGN-BZ series), hinge problems (screws falling out or the hinge just snapping, on four different models) and wobbly power connectors.

As i said: pretty much comparable. I would even go as far to say that Apple customer support is slightly better --even though that still is not saying much.
VipersGratitude 1st May 2010, 11:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
I don't buy the argument that it is to protect the App Store. People can give away their games for free on it (yes, often they are demos enticing you to buy the full version, but they could and Apple would not stop them).

Not from a sales perspective but from a quality control perspective.

Given the amount of iPhone App submissions I'm sure Apple have some sort of automated unit testing process. This is easy to implement for them as the entire development process is completely locked down by the various proprietary frameworks apple employs.

Now imagine the logistics cost of expanding that quality control process to include the more open-ended actionscript, the pixel bender kernel language, and custom C++ routines written with flash alchemy...nah better to force people to buy more apple hardware so they can deploy on mac hardware...screw the desires of the developers, and as for the end-user, we'll easily win him over with our marketing machine.

I actually have a way of proving Jobs to be full of crap, but I can't talk about it yet... ;)
hexx 1st May 2010, 13:16 Quote
:) hehe i got lot of feedback. yes, english isn't my first language, i'm trying hard though. calling me an apple fanboy for owning mbp is a bit too harsh. things just worked out for me that way. I had my quad/4GB/4870x2 and mbp for roughly 3 months but i've been using big desktop less and less and i sold it. for all i do at home my laptop is more than enough and for gaming i've got ps3 (xbox died in september).

i can't wait to develop fully in html5 and css3 but currently you'd address mostly audience using webkit browsers (btw webkit was developed by apple and is open source and is used in most mobile browsers and google chrome).

Unfortunately lot of our customers are using our service at work which means mostly on IE6 - bummer.

HTML5 is future and i guess adoption of this new specification (not finalised yet) will be much quicker than for example css2. there are already loads of users using html5 ready browsers . MS is going to support html5 in IE9 which will be of course offered as part of automatic updates.

Personally i've got nothing against flash if it's correctly written but this where the problem is. most of the flash sites/animations are created by designers not coders and therefore they're not fully optimised. Power of flash lies in action script which is very similar to javascript but designers don't know action script and can't optimise their work as a coder would do. I'm blocking flash by default as i find most of the flash content annoying.
Nexxo 1st May 2010, 13:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by VipersGratitude
Not from a sales perspective but from a quality control perspective.

Given the amount of iPhone App submissions I'm sure Apple have some sort of automated unit testing process. This is easy to implement for them as the entire development process is completely locked down by the various proprietary frameworks apple employs.

Now imagine the logistics cost of expanding that quality control process to include the more open-ended actionscript, the pixel bender kernel language, and custom C++ routines written with flash alchemy...nah better to force people to buy more apple hardware so they can deploy on mac hardware...screw the desires of the developers, and as for the end-user, we'll easily win him over with our marketing machine.

I actually have a way of proving Jobs to be full of crap, but I can't talk about it yet... ;)

Stevie is focused on two things: the long-term and the user experience.

If shaping products to fit like perfect puzzle pieces into his long-term strategy means making apparently strange choices now, then so be it. It is not the first time he has gone out on a limb and was rewarded with spectacular success.

If keeping an iron-fisted control over what goes on the iMobiles guarantees a certain level of quality, then so be it. Annoying for us geeks who can get around bugs and imperfections just fine, but for the regular end-user who gets baffled by such things a godsent. You don't want to have to debug your car either, no? Or worry whether the fuel you put in your tank will bugger your engine. You just want to turn the key and know it will work; fill up the tank and know it will play nice with the engine. That's the way most non-geek people approach computers too --especially mobile devices designed for transparent use.

You don't have to agree with it (I don't), but it undeniably does make sense, and has met with a lot of success.
frontline 1st May 2010, 13:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constructacon
If you look at any movie/tv show lately you'll see that Apple has paid for a(t least one) product placement (with very prominent logos) there on the desk. In fact I can't remember the last time I saw a PC in a movie..

Not sure about Macs in films lately, but i saw 2012 and i lost count of the number of Sony Vaio laptops on the screen for the duration of it.
Nexxo 1st May 2010, 13:29 Quote
Or Dell. Dell is friggin' everywhere. All the CSI series run on Dell.
rickysio 1st May 2010, 14:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
If keeping an iron-fisted control over what goes on the iMobiles guarantees a certain level of quality, then so be it. Annoying for us geeks who can get around bugs and imperfections just fine, but for the regular end-user who gets baffled by such things a godsent. You don't want to have to debug your car either, no? Or worry whether the fuel you put in your tank will bugger your engine. You just want to turn the key and know it will work; fill up the tank and know it will play nice with the engine. That's the way most non-geek people approach computers too --especially mobile devices designed for transparent use.

It's about choice. Mozilla allows all users to tweak the heck out of Firefox, even the way it renders, by providing an avenue known as about:config, where most regular users have absolutely no idea about the existence of this master key.

Do the same thing for flash? Make the geek need to enter about:config in the Safari browser AND as additional safeguard, enter the Konami Code () to enable Flash?
Nexxo 1st May 2010, 14:58 Quote
I can see where you are coming from, but most ordinary people don't want choice. Choice only confuses them. What they want is for things to just work. Steve Jobs is mindful of the user experience: he'd rather that his gadgets either do things well or not do them at all, then do them badly.

I'm not entirely sure why Jobs is down on Flash, but I suspect it is not just a matter of commercial control.
rickysio 1st May 2010, 16:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
I can see where you are coming from, but most ordinary people don't want choice. Choice only confuses them. What they want is for things to just work. Steve Jobs is mindful of the user experience: he'd rather that his gadgets either do things well or not do them at all, then do them badly.

I'm not entirely sure why Jobs is down on Flash, but I suspect it is not just a matter of commercial control.

Which is why all users that want to have THAT choice will need to go through quite the complicated process - don't advertise it, don't put it in the manual, let Adobe release it, code a few lines to disable it by default but allow for it to be enabled, which will allow the more technologically inclined to have a choice, yet not confusing the ordinary people...?
BLC 1st May 2010, 20:54 Quote
After reading all these comments, my head hurts.

I wrote a blog post about Apple and their products the other day; I doubt many will be bothered to sit through my ramblings, so let me summarise.

I used to hate Macs and by extension Apple. Then I started using their products (iPod Nano, iPod Touch, some brief dalliances with OSX/hackintoshing) and realised they're actually not all that bad. I see why they sell well and I see the appeal. My cock didn't drop off when I bought an iPod and I didn't start slaughtering goats in Satan's honour when I used OSX. I grew up a little bit and stopped being childish. I'm not a 100% convert, because I like my PC games. I also like being able to tinker and overclock, or even install watercooling.

Apple aren't all good of course and they do have their faults. But before people start pointing the finger at others, let's not forget that other software/hardware companies don't exactly have a squeaky clean reputation. Why does it take a monster PC to run Vista well, when a free operating system will deliver a comparable user experience on hardware that is less than a third of the power? Let's not also forget that most software companies in existence are devious, thieving, scheming gits. Microsoft's way of competing with someone? Buy them. They pretty much ripped off their first operating system. Both Apple and Microsoft ripped off Xerox's interface; Xerox invented the mouse/pointer interface, Apple and Microsoft saw it and made their own. Almost every single desktop OS now uses a WIMP-style interface.

Bottom line: Apple has it's faults, and so do PC's/PC manufacturers. Different strokes for different folks. You don't have to like someone's choice, but their choice doesn't make them a bad person.
wuyanxu 1st May 2010, 21:23 Quote
no, their choice doesn't make them a bad person, but their ignorance (once they became Apple fan) does make them an irritating person.

i've used both, more on Windows/PC but have experienced fair share of OSX and its hardware. i can safely say it is not what hexx or other Apple fanboy made it out to be.
gavomatic57 1st May 2010, 22:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu


i've used both, more on Windows/PC but have experienced fair share of OSX and its hardware. i can safely say it is not what hexx or other Apple fanboy made it out to be.

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.
woodshop 2nd May 2010, 03:26 Quote
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.
rickysio 2nd May 2010, 05:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLC
Bottom line: Apple has it's faults, and so do PC's/PC manufacturers. Different strokes for different folks. You don't have to like someone's choice, but their choice doesn't make them a bad person.

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.
HourBeforeDawn 2nd May 2010, 06:20 Quote
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.
wuyanxu 2nd May 2010, 10:11 Quote
Microsoft's "I'm a PC" adverts didn't exactly help.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gavomatic57
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.

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.
gavomatic57 2nd May 2010, 11:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu

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 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.
rickysio 2nd May 2010, 13:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by gavomatic57
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.
Nexxo 2nd May 2010, 13:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLC
I used to hate Macs and by extension Apple. Then I started using their products (iPod Nano, iPod Touch, some brief dalliances with OSX/hackintoshing) and realised they're actually not all that bad. I see why they sell well and I see the appeal. My cock didn't drop off when I bought an iPod and I didn't start slaughtering goats in Satan's honour when I used OSX. I grew up a little bit and stopped being childish. I'm not a 100% convert, because I like my PC games. I also like being able to tinker and overclock, or even install watercooling.

Apple aren't all good of course and they do have their faults. But before people start pointing the finger at others, let's not forget that other software/hardware companies don't exactly have a squeaky clean reputation. Why does it take a monster PC to run Vista well, when a free operating system will deliver a comparable user experience on hardware that is less than a third of the power? Let's not also forget that most software companies in existence are devious, thieving, scheming gits. Microsoft's way of competing with someone? Buy them. They pretty much ripped off their first operating system. Both Apple and Microsoft ripped off Xerox's interface; Xerox invented the mouse/pointer interface, Apple and Microsoft saw it and made their own. Almost every single desktop OS now uses a WIMP-style interface.

Bottom line: Apple has it's faults, and so do PC's/PC manufacturers. Different strokes for different folks. You don't have to like someone's choice, but their choice doesn't make them a bad person.
+ 1. And the bit in bold is quote-worthy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
no, their choice doesn't make them a bad person, but their ignorance (once they became Apple fan) does make them an irritating person.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickysio
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.
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.
rickysio 2nd May 2010, 14:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
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.
gavomatic57 2nd May 2010, 14:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickysio
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>
Nexxo 2nd May 2010, 14:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickysio
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?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickysio
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.
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.
rickysio 2nd May 2010, 15:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by gavomatic57
<<Cough>> Apple Newton <<cough>
That could access the tubes? :|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
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.

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).
gavomatic57 2nd May 2010, 15:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickysio
That could access the tubes? :|

It was 1989 - for all intents and purposes, there were no tubes to access.
rickysio 2nd May 2010, 16:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by gavomatic57
It was 1989 - for all intents and purposes, there were no tubes to access.

Well, I was talking about internet tablets, after all! :|
AshT 2nd May 2010, 19:05 Quote
Of course you were! That makes a massive difference to whether you WIN or LOSE.

:'(
Nexxo 2nd May 2010, 20:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickysio
That could access the tubes? :|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickysio
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.)
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickysio
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).
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.
rickysio 3rd May 2010, 04:17 Quote
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.
AshT 3rd May 2010, 08:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickysio
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?
BLC 3rd May 2010, 09:11 Quote
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.
rickysio 3rd May 2010, 09:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLC
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!
Nexxo 3rd May 2010, 11:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickysio
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.
Yes, but you don't have the videos to prove it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickysio
Just a note : Before Newton, there was Psion.
Yes, in 1984. It looked like this, but kudo's for being the first. Nine years later though PSION brought out the Psion 3. Oh, look, it is a ickle little laptop-a-like with a tiny screen and keyboard and separate apps.

The same year Apple brought the Newton MessagePad 100. Touch screen, handwriting recognition, active input interpretation and integral data sharing across apps (the calendar can refer to names in the address book; a note in the notepad can be converted to an appointment, and so forth). Aftermarket add-ons integrated seamlessly into existing apps.

Now, which represents a new benchmark in technology?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLC
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.
'nuff said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickysio
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!
If anything, the popularity of the iPad will probably encourage an HTML5 standard as websites scramble to cater to this device. Which in a way is not a bad thing.
rickysio 3rd May 2010, 11:37 Quote
I certainly don't have videos, but I certainly can write scripts and buy a video camera. And that's ALL you'd get from me about this issue again! :X

And as for the Psion vs Newton, which is known as the UNSURPASSED PDA?

And as about the popularity of the iPad pushing HTML5 standard, that wasn't what I was referring to - I was talking more about how 30+% of the internet (firefox + opera users) will be locked out when non Ogg HTML5 is used. It is after all, most likely that HTML5 will be mainly used for video - sure, most of us here might use Flash for games and etc, but for the general public? Youtube.

Well, more than 50% will be locked out because IE supports nothing, but that's not really the point. Microsoft will support H264 codec, as evident by one of the blogposts by an employee.
Sloth 3rd May 2010, 22:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo

If anything, the popularity of the iPad will probably encourage an HTML5 standard as websites scramble to cater to this device. Which in a way is not a bad thing.
It really isn't a bad thing at all. Most of us are at an agreement that HTML5 is superior to Flash, I believe. It's just a matter of the in between.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Or worry whether the fuel you put in your tank will bugger your engine. You just want to turn the key and know it will work; fill up the tank and know it will play nice with the engine. That's the way most non-geek people approach computers too --especially mobile devices designed for transparent use.
This analogy fits well to what I'm getting at. There's plenty of Flash based fuel out there, and now we're getting more and more HTML5 fuel entering into the mix as well, offering better miles to the gallon at the same or less cost. This gets to be a slight problem when shiny new motors in iDevices only take HTML5-fuel and users can't just fill their tanks/browsers with Flash-fuel and drive off when their preferred website has no HTML5-fuel pumps.
impar 4th May 2010, 09:58 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Report: U.S. Government to Launch Apple Antitrust Probe Over iPhone Flash Lockout
Apple may have just overstepped the bounds of anticompetitive tactics
...
Now The New York Post reports that the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission are "locked in negotiations" about who will be the first to file antitrust charges against Apple. Both are interested in launching inquiries; inquiries are used to determine if a full investigation is needed. An investigation can lead to big fines as Microsoft and Intel have found out.

Apple's new policies not only lock out Adobe's Flash, but also Sun's Java and Microsoft's Silverlight/Mono. Josh Kosman, author of the piece in The Post wrote, "Regulators, this person said, are days away from making a decision about which agency will launch the inquiry. It will focus on whether the policy, which took effect last month, kills competition by forcing programmers to choose between developing apps that can run only on Apple gizmos or come up with apps that are platform neutral, and can be used on a variety of operating systems, such as those from rivals Google, Microsoft and Research In Motion."
rickysio 4th May 2010, 11:29 Quote
And if Nokia wins their lawsuit against Apple, it'd really put the hurt on Jobs.
Unknownsock 4th May 2010, 11:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by hexx
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehippoz
yeah I don't see why he can't allow flash apps on apple products really.. he just wants full control over what you see.. I mean youtube plays on phones just fine.. but lets say a user goes to a site with a badly written swf and it bogs down the phone

his audience (apple buyers) aren't the smartest bunch.. they'll take that the phone is weak.. so I can see his reasoning- he's trying to make his hardware look better than it is- but it works for them.. people buy it

sorry but you're wrong, completely wrong. there's no flash only on multitouch devices from apple. youtube has written app for iphone, one of the first and is part of the package. youtube if you know has html5 player if you opt for it instead of flash player - quality of videos is much better.

your opinion about apple buyers is immature and probably corresponds your age :) after 15 years of ****ing around with windows i installed at first mac os x86 version on my quad desktop and after few months of use i jumped on apple products.

if you want a computer for daily use and not a tamagochi than apple is way to go. your comments are shortsighted and obviously you haven't got any clue about flash adobe and adobe's products on mac platform.

They just released CS5 which finally now is 64-bit and is written in Cocoa framework - after 10 years of existence of mac os x - adobe was last third party developer who was using old framework.

when apple had difficult times in late 90s adobe switched focus on windows platform and every single CSA suite until now for mac was inferior to win versions.

if you think that apple buyers aren't smart enough how would you explain their growing customer base? I can see it at my work where during last 5 years nr of apple computers tripled and it's almost 30:70 split.

if you need to work apple computers are the only way not stupid win boxes which always need maintenance every now and then. I haven't restarted my macbook pro in for other reason than update since october when i bought it.

experience yourself then comment. i've been working with computers since early 90s, which is almost 20 years now and i guess i know what i'm talking about.

Oh come on?
I don't know one person who likes Macs that know a single thing about computers, 90% of Mac users think its pretty, and just look at their in your face marketing.

That is not a mature comment its more a less fact. And i can almost say this for definite as i went to an art college. So i got used to the snobbery about Apple.

You can use your restrictive Mac but ill stay with my PC which does alot more than yours. And is half the price.
hexx 4th May 2010, 11:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknownsock
Oh come on?
I don't know one person who likes Macs that know a single thing about computers, 90% of Mac users think its pretty, and just look at their in your face marketing.

That is not a mature comment its more a less fact. And i can almost say this for definite as i went to an art college. So i got used to the snobbery about Apple.

You can use your restrictive Mac but ill stay with my PC which does alot more than yours. And is half the price.

It wasn't a simple switch, as i said in one of the other comments, i've been using my quad box as win7/hackintosh for few months before i decided to buy a macbook pro. I found myself using quad with win7 less and less and then i sold it. I play games (if i've got time) on ps3. and my development and photo work is now done on macbook pro which does the job perfectly. I've given up on constant upgrades, my pc box used to cost me roughly £700 a year to keep it up to date. I guess that macs don't 'age' that quickly or at least i don't feel any need for an upgrade, i must admit that most of my pc upgrades where on the gaming side (gfx, psu...).
rickysio 4th May 2010, 12:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by hexx
It wasn't a simple switch, as i said in one of the other comments, i've been using my quad box as win7/hackintosh for few months before i decided to buy a macbook pro. I found myself using quad with win7 less and less and then i sold it. I play games (if i've got time) on ps3. and my development and photo work is now done on macbook pro which does the job perfectly. I've given up on constant upgrades, my pc box used to cost me roughly £700 a year to keep it up to date. I guess that macs don't 'age' that quickly or at least i don't feel any need for an upgrade, i must admit that most of my pc upgrades where on the gaming side (gfx, psu...).

You know why?

There's no games for the Mac.
gavomatic57 4th May 2010, 13:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickysio
You know why?

There's no games for the Mac.

You know that is factually incorrect...you'll also know that it's going to be even more incorrect on 12th May when Steam launches for the mac.

The idea that most mac users don't know anything about computers is spurious at best, however, if true it would actually be a positive thing - mac users don't really need to know about computers because they don't spend half their life fixing problems. I'm sure there are more people like me who switched to the mac because they just can't be bothered with the hassle anymore.
rickysio 4th May 2010, 13:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by gavomatic57
You know that is factually incorrect...you'll also know that it's going to be even more incorrect on 12th May when Steam launches for the mac.

The idea that most mac users don't know anything about computers is spurious at best, however, if true it would actually be a positive thing - mac users don't really need to know about computers because they don't spend half their life fixing problems. I'm sure there are more people like me who switched to the mac because they just can't be bothered with the hassle anymore.

Yes - because Mac has so many games Apple had to introduce Boot Camp.

AND, my statement was made for dramatism. If I went
Quote:
You know why?

Because Mac has limited games, like etc etc etc.

It'd have defeated my deadpan/heard all your arguments/sick of it tone. Or as much of a tone one can bring across in words.

Seriously, you Mac users seem to see any negative comment, even one made in jest, as something very BAAAAD.
VipersGratitude 4th May 2010, 14:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by gavomatic57
I'm sure there are more people like me who switched to the mac because they just can't be bothered with the hassle anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gavomatic57
Core i7 920 (D0), 6GB RAM, Geforce GTX 275, Seasonic M12-600, Samsung 226BW, Ubuntu 9.04 & Vista x64 & a Macbook Pro 13" for when I want to look smug in Starbucks...

;)
Sloth 4th May 2010, 18:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by gavomatic57
You know that is factually incorrect...you'll also know that it's going to be even more incorrect on 12th May when Steam launches for the mac.
Really? Reeaallllyyy?

Well then, if we're going to get all semantic and dickish, Steam releasing for Mac OS (after all, the operating system is the deciding factor as to whether or not the game will run, not the hardware) will not make him "more incorrect" (last I checked there were only two possible states: correct or incorrect.) because Steam is not a game. The various games which will be available on Steam make him "more incorrect".
Volund 4th May 2010, 18:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by gavomatic57
You know that is factually incorrect...you'll also know that it's going to be even more incorrect on 12th May when Steam launches for the mac.

The idea that most mac users don't know anything about computers is spurious at best, however, if true it would actually be a positive thing - mac users don't really need to know about computers because they don't spend half their life fixing problems. I'm sure there are more people like me who switched to the mac because they just can't be bothered with the hassle anymore.

There is a huge difference between wanting to fix problems, and enjoying/caring enough to know exactly how what you built/bought is working. Every Mac user THAT I HAVE HAD PERSONAL CONTACT WITH has no idea what is in the machine they spent so much money on, they have no idea what the difference between RAM and Harddisk space is, the difference between application software and an Operating system. They are, hugely, ignorant, and choose to be. They buy their machine for looks, and because the ads on TV told them that it was a better product.

I don't know a single Mac user who could tell you the reason that they bought the hardware configuration they did, other than it was the cheapest/most expensive spec Mac they could buy... :(
hexx 4th May 2010, 18:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volund
I don't know a single Mac user who could tell you the reason that they bought the hardware configuration they did, other than it was the cheapest/most expensive spec Mac they could buy... :(

now you know me :) - well, not in person of course

there's no point to do this mac vs pc. everybody uses what's good for them. i prefer gaming on consoles and prefer to have a portable computer with really good battery and enough performance to run what i use (aperture is the most demanding app i'm using on it). I just got tired of building rigs, tweaking them and do all those things to keep the tamagochi alive. just got tired and can't be bothered any more.
Volund 4th May 2010, 19:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by hexx
now you know me :) - well, not in person of course

For the sake of my sanity, and to avoid getting my anus ripped out by people who wish to disagree with my statements, I only refer to people who I know in real life, and who I have spoken to at length about technology.
Nexxo 4th May 2010, 19:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickysio
I certainly don't have videos, but I certainly can write scripts and buy a video camera. And that's ALL you'd get from me about this issue again! :X
I hear that the moon landings were faked too! I mean, they gotta be, right? Right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickysio
And as for the Psion vs Newton, which is known as the UNSURPASSED PDA?
The PalmPilot? :p But we were talking about technological progress, remember?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickysio
And as about the popularity of the iPad pushing HTML5 standard, that wasn't what I was referring to - I was talking more about how 30+% of the internet (firefox + opera users) will be locked out when non Ogg HTML5 is used. It is after all, most likely that HTML5 will be mainly used for video - sure, most of us here might use Flash for games and etc, but for the general public? Youtube.

Well, more than 50% will be locked out because IE supports nothing, but that's not really the point. Microsoft will support H264 codec, as evident by one of the blogposts by an employee.
Market forces being what they are, either websites will cater to the most popular browsers, or browsers will cater to the most popular standards. Expect non-Ogg HTML5 to be incorporated into Firefox and Opera soon. And IE will be forced to catch up if it does not want to lose even more of its already dwindling share to Firefox and the likes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickysio
You know why?

There's no games for the Mac.
There are fewer games for the Mac. There are fewer graphic design and audio programs for the PC. Your point? It's horses for courses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volund
There is a huge difference between wanting to fix problems, and enjoying/caring enough to know exactly how what you built/bought is working. Every Mac user THAT I HAVE HAD PERSONAL CONTACT WITH has no idea what is in the machine they spent so much money on, they have no idea what the difference between RAM and Harddisk space is, the difference between application software and an Operating system. They are, hugely, ignorant, and choose to be. They buy their machine for looks, and because the ads on TV told them that it was a better product.

I don't know a single Mac user who could tell you the reason that they bought the hardware configuration they did, other than it was the cheapest/most expensive spec Mac they could buy... :(
You know, there is this whole world out there, called Real Life, where people work with computers because they need to do tasks that can only reasonably be done with computers... for who computers are tools, just like, say, cars are a mode of transport.

They are not like us geeks, who lovingly poke and mod and upgrade and build our own personal machine, as a reflection of our interests and personality. They don't care about what is the latest graphic card and how many texture units and ROPs it has. If they want to play games, they buy a console. The choice of which, incidentally, is determined by the games it allows them to play, not the technical specs of the console itself.

Just as some people are not Max Power readers preoccupied with aftermarket air filters and engine tuning chips, big bore exhausts, low profile wide alloys and ICE with subwoofers in the boot, but just want a car for, you know, going to work and shopping, that runs reliably and economically and if it can play their favorite CD that's kind of nice as well, so there are also people who don't care what a computer looks like on the inside, as long as it does the job they want it to do reliably.

Some people just want to turn the key and go, and not have to do anything more technical than fill the tank every week. They are not inferior beings. They are pragmatic people who know what they need, are happy with whatever fills that need reliably, and don't get precious about it because to them it's just a tool. They may get precious about other things like wine, or gardening, or sports because everybody has their own interests and passions; it is just that technology is not one of them. That doesn't mean they don't wash their car every weekend, or didn't buy one in Racing Green because they liked the colour. Just because a car is a tool doesn't mean you don't want it to look smart.

So yeah, there will be people who buy a Mac because it is easy to use (and sorry but compared to a PC it is), does not look like an intimidating eyesore on their desk and does the job they want it to do, and they don't really know what goes on inside the thing. And there is nothing wrong with that.

And frankly, mate, I do not have to go too far on these forums to meet with some real ignorance on PCs, even amongst modders. I mean, how many of you really know how a CPU works? I mean, really works? Can you write assembly code? Can you explain how to write a really tight config.sys and autoexec.bat file like we used to in the good old days and why it was important to do so? Can you tell me what a Landing Zone is? Or a Bernoulli Drive? No peeking now...
thehippoz 4th May 2010, 20:27 Quote
yeah dos was fun.. config.sys the trick was to load everything into high memory using emm386 and load the cd rom drivers ect..

the thing with apple is they do overcharge and you can have a comparable rig for much less if you build it yourself.. not saying apple users aren't smart, I mean you obviously use computers to get things done.. but in general I always go back to this guy I seen walk into radio shack and say 'I'm an idiot.. I don't know anything about vcr's.. please tell me exactly what I need to buy to get it working'

true story.. and he was wearing a trench coat and looked all business like.. there's your apple customer in the flesh nexxo :D
Nexxo 4th May 2010, 20:33 Quote
It's a smart man who acknowledges his limitations. ;)

Some people can't build their own rig, or are simply not interested in learning how to do so. They just want a quality rig that is easy to use, reliable and does not look like it has been hit with the ugly stick (and to be honest, a lot of PCs offend my aesthetic sensibilities). They are prepared to pay a premium for that. So what?

I'm sure I could build my own car, but do I want to? Or do I want a decent ride that looks smart, is reliable, does the job and I just have it serviced once a year? For some people, cars are a hobby. For others it's a mode of transport. Computers are the same deal.
Volund 4th May 2010, 20:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
You know, there is this whole world out there, called Real Life, where people work with computers because they need to do tasks that can only reasonably be done with computers... for who computers are tools, just like, say, cars are a mode of transport.

They are not like us geeks, who lovingly poke and mod and upgrade and build our own personal machine, as a reflection of our interests and personality. They don't care about what is the latest graphic card and how many texture units and ROPs it has. If they want to play games, they buy a console. The choice of which, incidentally, is determined by the games it allows them to play, not the technical specs of the console itself.

Just as some people are not Max Power readers preoccupied with aftermarket air filters and engine tuning chips, big bore exhausts, low profile wide alloys and ICE with subwoofers in the boot, but just want a car for, you know, going to work and shopping, that runs reliably and economically and if it can play their favorite CD that's kind of nice as well, so there are also people who don't care what a computer looks like on the inside, as long as it does the job they want it to do reliably.

Some people just want to turn the key and go, and not have to do anything more technical than fill the tank every week. They are not inferior beings. They are pragmatic people who know what they need, are happy with whatever fills that need reliably, and don't get precious about it because to them it's just a tool. They may get precious about other things like wine, or gardening, or sports because everybody has their own interests and passions; it is just that technology is not one of them. That doesn't mean they don't wash their car every weekend, or didn't buy one in Racing Green because they liked the colour. Just because a car is a tool doesn't mean you don't want it to look smart.

So yeah, there will be people who buy a Mac because it is easy to use (and sorry but compared to a PC it is), does not look like an intimidating eyesore on their desk and does the job they want it to do, and they don't really know what goes on inside the thing. And there is nothing wrong with that.

And frankly, mate, I do not have to go too far on these forums to meet with some real ignorance on PCs, even amongst modders. I mean, how many of you really know how a CPU works? I mean, really works? Can you write assembly code? Can you explain how to write a really tight config.sys and autoexec.bat file like we used to in the good old days and why it was important to do so? Can you tell me what a Landing Zone is? Or a Bernoulli Drive? No peeking now...

I feel you took my comment slightly out of context Nexxo,

I am a firm believer in having at least a basic knowledge about the products I use, people who want things to "just work", aka the "magic smoke" folks, are in my opinion idiots. People need to have at least some small bit of self reliance.

Can I build an internal combustion engine from scratch? No I can't, but I drive a car, and I can change a tire, change my air filters, fluids, etc. I know the basic parts of the drive train, and have a basic knowledge of how and why they work.

Do I know how to work dos? No, I don't, as I have never used it, or have had any need to. If, at some point, I do use it, I will learn.
BLC 4th May 2010, 20:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknownsock
Oh come on?
I don't know one person who likes Macs that know a single thing about computers, 90% of Mac users think its pretty, and just look at their in your face marketing.

That is not a mature comment its more a less fact. And i can almost say this for definite as i went to an art college. So i got used to the snobbery about Apple.

You can use your restrictive Mac but ill stay with my PC which does alot more than yours. And is half the price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volund
There is a huge difference between wanting to fix problems, and enjoying/caring enough to know exactly how what you built/bought is working. Every Mac user THAT I HAVE HAD PERSONAL CONTACT WITH has no idea what is in the machine they spent so much money on, they have no idea what the difference between RAM and Harddisk space is, the difference between application software and an Operating system. They are, hugely, ignorant, and choose to be. They buy their machine for looks, and because the ads on TV told them that it was a better product.

I don't know a single Mac user who could tell you the reason that they bought the hardware configuration they did, other than it was the cheapest/most expensive spec Mac they could buy... :(

If we're going to go with personal experience, then I could equally tell you that all the hardcore Mac zealots I know absolutely do know what hardware is in their computer, how it all works, what each part is for, etc. They chose to go with a Mac because it's a good looking system (most of them are laptop users), rarely ever crashes, runs quickly on modest hardware, has a short upgrade cycle, doesn't need anti-virus subscriptions or monthly updates to fix holes in the OS that have been there for over 10 years, does not require maintenance/cleaning of the OS after a year in order to keep it running smoothly, etc... In fact, most of the Mac users I have ever encountered have been more knowledgeable that the average home PC user I encountered (I used to work in retail tech support - no, not in PC World, it was an independent store where we didn't B.S. people or oversell).

Does this make my argument better or my opinion "more right" than yours? No. Does this make your argument better? No. Macs are just different to PCs. They are not inherently better or worse; it is simply a different product with it's own strengths and weaknesses. Who gives a toss if you can't open the box and tinker? The vast majority of people simply don't care about doing that.

Apple might have a better marketing department than Microsoft or Dell, but that doesn't mean that their customers are sheep that swallow everything that is shoved in their face. Stating that Mac users are simply idiots who have to have their choices dictated to them is a testament to the arrogant and smug superiority of PC users. And you wonder why the Apple crowd is so vocal in their own defense?
Nexxo 4th May 2010, 21:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volund
I feel you took my comment slightly out of context Nexxo,

I am a firm believer in having at least a basic knowledge about the products I use, people who want things to "just work", aka the "magic smoke" folks, are in my opinion idiots. People need to have at least some small bit of self reliance.

Can I build an internal combustion engine from scratch? No I can't, but I drive a car, and I can change a tire, change my air filters, fluids, etc. I know the basic parts of the drive train, and have a basic knowledge of how and why they work.

OK, let's get to the basics:

Can you cook a meal? Can you cook more than one type of meal?
Can you sow and mend clothes?
Can you run a family household on, say, £90,-- a week?

Believe it or not, there are ordinary people who can (some can even look after a baby!); there are computer geeks who can't. I'd say they are pretty essential life skills myself.

And as a PC user, I consider DOS pretty essential too (never know when Windows goes down on you and there's just you and an emergency boot disk) but that's just me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volund
Do I know how to work dos? No, I don't, as I have never used it, or have had any need to. If, at some point, I do use it, I will learn.
No offence dude, but if you don't know DOS you have no right to call an Apple user an idiot.

There are Apple users who have never had the need to learn how to swap or format a HDD, or expand the memory. They think that if they have reason to, they will --else they'll get the Apple shop to do it. Again, nothing wrong with that.
BLC 4th May 2010, 21:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
No offence dude, but if you don't know DOS you have no right to call an Apple user an idiot.



I can't remember the last time I used DOS... A Linux LiveCD/LiveUSB is far more effective for system repair ;) :D
AshT 4th May 2010, 22:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
Really? Reeaallllyyy?

Well then, if we're going to get all semantic and dickish, Steam releasing for Mac OS (after all, the operating system is the deciding factor as to whether or not the game will run, not the hardware) will not make him "more incorrect" (last I checked there were only two possible states: correct or incorrect.) because Steam is not a game. The various games which will be available on Steam make him "more incorrect".

But you of course know that Steam is also coming with some Valve games ... ?
Sloth 5th May 2010, 20:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by AshT
But you of course know that Steam is also coming with some Valve games ... ?
Yes, but that does not change the fact that Steam is not a game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gavometric87
You know that is factually incorrect...you'll also know that it's going to be even more incorrect on 12th May when Steam launches for the mac.
The quote only uses Steam as evidence of there being more games for Mac, no mention was made of the various Valve games for Mac being sold through Steam. According to just that quote the only thing coming to Macs on 12th May is Steam, and Steam is not a game. It fails to prove Rickysio incorrect.

[QUOTE=]You know that is factually incorrect...you'll also know that it's going to be even more incorrect on 12th May when Steam launches for the Mac along with various Valve games for Macs.[/QUOTE]
The sentence above would have worked.
AshT 5th May 2010, 21:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
Yes, but that does not change the fact that Steam is not a game.

Of course it isn't.

Noboddy is saying that it is
Sloth 5th May 2010, 22:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by AshT
Of course it isn't.

Noboddy is saying that it is
Gavomatic87's post was worded in a way such that he/she was saying that it is if one was to read it very literally. Just giving a little "taste of your own medicine" for being so literal when reading Rickysio's claim that "There's no games for Mac". We all know what both parties meant by their respective posts, just making sure that when people try to get semantic they are ready to have their own statements scrutinized.
AshT 5th May 2010, 23:09 Quote
Do you mean pedantic?

J/Kidding!

;)
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums