Jump to content
LCVG

Apple Discussion Thread


kelley
 Share

Recommended Posts

Wow, that second article seemed to be written by Steve Job's secretary. The whole flash thing is so stupid. If Flash is all that bad, then it will die naturally. Steve Job's getting in some war over it, and setting questionable policy that alienates sectors of the development community, seems like a net loss to me.

 

People love to hate the powerful. They want to hate Goliath and love David. The bigger and more powerful you get the more people want to hate you. And Apple has gotten very big and very powerful lately. People want to hate them real bad. And they're giving lots of fuel for that fire.

 

I'm starting to think that Steve Job's is a better leader for an up and coming niche product company rather than a mainstream industry-leading one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Flash is all that bad, then it will die naturally.

 

A curious thing to say, what does "naturally" mean in this context? And how do you delineate unnatural demises of software vs natural? And lastly, why does it matter if it's natural or not?

 

On the face of it, the statement seems tautological.

Edited by rustyjaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A curious thing to say, what does "naturally" mean in this context? And how do you delineate unnatural demises of software vs natural? And lastly, why does it matter if it's natural or not?

 

On the face of it, the statement seems tautological.

I was going to go point by point but instead I'll just get to the underlying point.

 

Adobe pushed Flash in a very competitive market, and they succeeded, Flash is ubiqutious. They beat out Microsoft, Apple, and Real head to head for web video.

 

I'm sure Microsoft isn't too happy with they're failure to make Windows Media the video platform of choice for the web. Perhaps they should annouce that Flash no longer will run in Windows operating systems for windows laptops and mobile phones.

 

They won't do that because Microsoft learned the hard way that it is anti-competitive to leverage platform dominance to squash competition in other markets.

 

Apple is manipulating things by using their present and growing platform dominance in a way that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. And I bet the FTC is gonna start to take notice. Tautologically speaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was going to go point by point but instead I'll just get to the underlying point.

 

Adobe pushed Flash in a very competitive market, and they succeeded, Flash is ubiqutious. They beat out Microsoft, Apple, and Real head to head for web video.

 

Actually, Adobe never had to push Flash, because it was popular well before Adobe purchased it. In fact, Adobe spent many years pushing an open competitor to Flash called SVG, arguing against the 'closed' nature of Macromedia's Flash.

 

Flash became popular because of it's vector animation abilities, which were, in the 90's, impossible to achieve any other way (until SVG came along). There was no competetive market for Flash. Future Splash (the original name) came out of nowhere, it was the originator and the only game in town for many years. Video was grafted into Flash late in the game, it worked for video because the plug-in was already widely installed...not because people loved Flash video. Flash video sucks, it's an unnecessary resource hog.

 

I'm sure Microsoft isn't too happy with they're failure to make Windows Media the video platform of choice for the web. Perhaps they should annouce that Flash no longer will run in Windows operating systems for windows laptops and mobile phones.

 

There's a reason Apple is working with Adobe to make Flash run better on the Mac, because desktops have the resources to run Flash (despite Adobe's utter incompetence to make it more efficient), and unlimited power supplies. Mobile devices are a whole other story. Apple's decision only covers mobile devices, there's a reason for that.

 

Now I'm not going to pretend that Apple would love to have Flash on the iPhone OS if it weren't for the technical issues. But I do believe the technical issues do exist, and they would drag down the user experience on the iPhone.

 

Apple is pretty well known for putting a stake in the ground around certain technologies it deems obsolete, and also occasionally for jumping on next technologies before the rest of the industry, but to the short-term detriment of their customers. Dropping floppy drives is one example of the former (I remember well the uproar about it), and making the original iMac USB only is an example of the latter (ditto). This isn't a unique situtation.

 

They won't do that because Microsoft learned the hard way that it is anti-competitive to leverage platform dominance to squash competition in other markets.

 

This is an apples to oranges comparison. MS had a 95% marketshare in the desktop OS, that's what made their abuse of the monopoly illegal. Android is growing in marketshare, RIM is holing steady and iPhone OS has shrunk this year. Comparing MS Windows and iPhone OS just isn't accurate. Especially since Apple has technical reasons for the decision, even if you don't buy them as the whole story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the Flash history lesson. And although I was already aware of a lot of it, though probably not the wikipedia-like details, I think it is a little besides the point. I mean, all that history was a counterpoint to my assertion that Adobe "pushed" Flash. Come'on. It's one of their flagship products. They've pushed it hard. You should have just conceded that point. Which I will do below:

 

Your point that Apple is known for leaving behind ubiquitous technology in the name of progress - that is a great point on so many levels and you've kinda won me over with that. I mean, me complaining about them dropping flash and its affect on Flash developers (etc.) is kinda like me complaining that Apple unjustly used their power to destroy floppy drive manufactures and engineers that specialize in that. So I'm totally with you.

 

So my opinion has softened. Apples and Oranges though with my comparison to Microsoft? I guess that, depending on your perspective, one person's anticompetitive behavior is another person's good business practice. I think the biggest thing that irked me about the Flash thing is the policy that prevents people from compiling applications using Adobe's tools. This really seemed sleezy to me. Really bothers me.

 

So now I'm really sensitive every time I see Apple wielding their power. I am going to react more negatively than I would have before.

 

 

Apple's power has grown exponentially in the last decade. And when they're seen wielding that power in an anti-competitive manner, I think people should take notice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the Flash history lesson. And although I was already aware of a lot of it, though probably not the wikipedia-like details, I think it is a little besides the point. I mean, all that history was a counterpoint to my assertion that Adobe "pushed" Flash. Come'on. It's one of their flagship products. They've pushed it hard. You should have just conceded that point.

 

I think Ed was just saying Flash was already popular before Adobe owned it, but of course, they subsequently "pushed" it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, all that history was a counterpoint to my assertion that Adobe "pushed" Flash. Come'on.

 

Not entirely. One point of the 'history lesson' was an attempt to show that Flash didn't become popular because it's a good video player, as was implied by your statement "They beat out Microsoft, Apple, and Real head to head for web video." (which is debatable, IMO, and eminently reversible given the superiority of open standards of HTML5 and H.264).

 

The point is that Flash once had a compelling and unique reason to exist; vector animation. It was a very smart idea. It's why the plug-in became so popular. Later on, Macromedia added video playing to flash, a task it was never very good at.

 

The other point was to recall that Adobe itself waged war against Flash by proposing SVG, using Adobe technologies, and offering it as an open standard. At the time, they recognized that, on the WWW which is almost the definition of an open system, having a proprietary plug-in become, for all intents and purposes a necessary component, was crappy. I'm not suggesting that Adobe is the only hypocritical party here, just that they are one of them. Their statements about Flash being necessary for the "full web experience" are annoying at best.

 

Apple's power has grown exponentially in the last decade. And when they're seen wielding that power in an anti-competitive manner, I think people should take notice.

 

I think people should take notice too, and be critical. It just so happens that I dislike Flash and am rooting for it to die. So I am sympathetic with Apple's goals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the biggest thing that irked me about the Flash thing is the policy that prevents people from compiling applications using Adobe's tools. This really seemed sleezy [sic] to me. Really bothers me.

 

I have a semi-related question. If I were a developer, and I decided I wanted to make and release a game for the Wii, would I be able to do so without having to go through Nintendo? I know that Nintendo sells SDKs to developers, but if I wanted to use another tool from a third party vendor, could I? Similarly, would I be able to make and release a game for the PS3 and Xbox 360 without paying a licensing fee or buying the development tools from Sony and Microsoft respectively?

 

My guess is no. Those are closed platforms that are entirely controlled by the entities that own them. I could be wrong about this; I'm not in the games industry. Still, I believe that this is the case. Could someone in the know please confirm or refute?

 

If I'm correct, I think you can see where I'm going with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, so we have a fresh set of marketshare numbers for the cellphone industry.

 

Among mobile phone manufacturers, Samsung narrowly beat out Motorola (MOT) for the top spot with a fraction of a percent more than the 21.9 percent its rival claimed. LG Electronics ranked second with a 21.8 percent market share and Research in Motion (RIMM), and Nokia (NOK) ranked fourth and fifth with dueling 8.3 percent shares...And where does Apple (AAPL) and its iPhone, which seems to have such broad mindshare these days, figure in the U.S. mobile OEM market? Andrew Lipsman, senior director of Industry Analysis at comScore (SCOR), tells me it ranks sixth with a five percent share.

 

This is why MS's 95% marketshare in the mid 90's is a completely different scenario compared to Apple's position in the phone market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Not surprising to those who follow both companies stock. Microsoft has been in the $25 range for a very long time. it's been flat. Apple is at $244.

 

Apple also has a ton of liquid cash to spend. Which they have been using recently to buy the chip company, streaming media company etc. Expect apple to start gobbling up more companies in the next few years.

 

Microsoft has a lot of cash on hand, but they already went through their big buying phase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With this whole Steam for Mac thing kicking off, I've been thinking of trying out this whole mouse and keyboard gaming thing. I know I won't be able to play anything high-end, but I'm looking for some help in deciphering graphics card requirements. I don't know anything about them or where my card falls in relation to what Steam lists as needed for different games.

 

My iMac is several years old, 2.4gHz and has an ATI Radeon HD2600 card. Common ATI cards I've seen mentioned are X1600 and HD 2400 I believe. How can I find out where my card performs in relation to these other cards, is there a website out there that compares them?

 

Portal seems to run just fine, although when I checked the framerate it was mostly running 20-30 or so. Sometimes lower and sometimes higher. Changing settings didn't seem to raise that too much. I wonder if I'd be able to run TF2? The Torchlight demo runs pretty well also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we don't know for sure about the iMac getting a refresh. However, signs are pointing to a refreshed Mac mini in the very near future.

 

Apple's supply of Mac minis dwindle ahead of new models

 

Who's up for a model with an HDMI port on the back (with the exception of me of course since I bought one back in February)?

Edited by J.Fo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...