If you could have any kind of camera (even non-existant ones) what would you choose?

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 23:13:09 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

You seem to have some bone to pick with the late St. Stephen Jobs.
That's fine. But don't criticize one of the few level headed people who
inhabit this forum. Your appetite for contention seems unlimited. Grow up!

I have no bone to pick with Steve Jobs or Apple. I do have a bone to
pick with some people who flare up whenever they can jump to the
conclusion that Steve Jobs or Apple are being criticised. 'nospam'
stands first amongst this group.

i 'flare up' when someone (not just apple) is criticized for stuff they
didn't do, or is the same as other companies do. in other words, bogus
criticism.

There was no criticism of Apple in the text that I wrote to which you
responded.

actual valid criticisms, as i said before, i might agree with.

The discussion originally started around the subject of whether
software developers/suppliers ever stop other software/suppliers from
installing software.

the original statement was not about stopping *other* developers.

Publishers it was, not suppliers, but you argued that publishers and
developers were the same.

I mentioned copyright.

but you didn't mention specific cases.

Why should I. You are old enough to have heard of copyright litigation
between publishers/developers.

Someone else mentioned
Steve Jobs in the context of flash.

that is an entirely different issue, and as i linked before, writing
iphone apps in flash is supported.

But not now, are they. Not since Steve Jobs made clear that Flash had
no future as far as Apple was concerned.

what isn't supported are browser plug-ins, and not just adobe's.

flash was singled out because a lot of people had a vested interest in
keeping the status quo even though it was a bad idea.

After a certain amount of toing
and froing by other people I came in with the line quoted above "And
Steve Jobs made that clear in uncertain terms": which he did.

he said that because flash is garbage, and it is.

And he did say that, and it killed the development of flash in th
relevant Apple direction. That's a clear example of a
developer/supplier stopping other developer/suppliers from entering a
particular market area.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2015-08-11 04:19:59 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

You had better have a look at your too.

Is that "too", "two", or "toe"?


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 21:31:15 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-08-11 04:19:59 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

You had better have a look at your too.

Is that "too", "two", or "toe"?

It's 'yours'.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Steve jobs wanted to prohibit users from installing Flash. He probably
went as far as he could without risking litigation.

there was no grounds for litigation.

That's what I said.

not really. you insinuated that there could have been litigation had he
gone further. there was nowhere further to go and nothing he did was
illegal thus there could not have been any litigation.

You are using loaded language. I did not 'insinuate'.

what do you call this?
He probably
went as far as he could without risking litigation.

I will say quite
clearly that there could have been grounds for litigation if he had
gone further.

there is no further to go.

You surely will recall litigation between Digital
Research and Microsoft over the latter's use of spurious warning
messages for DR-DOS users?

that's not even remotely close to being the same.

there were no spurious warning messages. microsoft is also well known
for sleazy business tactics. apple is not.

ios didn't support *any* browser plugins, no matter who wrote it. it
wasn't only flash.

flash also crashed a lot, so much that it was the #1 cause of crashes
on macs.

html5 is much better and why it ultimately replaced flash. that's
called progress.

the people who bitched the loudest were ones who had a vested interest
in *not* moving forward, mainly web developers who wrote flash based
web pages and didn't realize just how locked into a proprietary system
they were. they made a bad decision. sucks for them but that's how
things roll sometimes.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I have no bone to pick with Steve Jobs or Apple. I do have a bone to
pick with some people who flare up whenever they can jump to the
conclusion that Steve Jobs or Apple are being criticised. 'nospam'
stands first amongst this group.

i 'flare up' when someone (not just apple) is criticized for stuff they
didn't do, or is the same as other companies do. in other words, bogus
criticism.

There was no criticism of Apple in the text that I wrote to which you
responded.

which one? i responded to a bunch of things you said.

actual valid criticisms, as i said before, i might agree with.

The discussion originally started around the subject of whether
software developers/suppliers ever stop other software/suppliers from
installing software.

the original statement was not about stopping *other* developers.

Publishers it was, not suppliers, but you argued that publishers and
developers were the same.

they are the same in nearly every case. since this thread has drifted
to flash, adobe is an example of one that's both.

I mentioned copyright.

but you didn't mention specific cases.

Why should I. You are old enough to have heard of copyright litigation
between publishers/developers.

unless you mention a specific case, it's meaningless.

like everything, some have merit and some don't.

Someone else mentioned
Steve Jobs in the context of flash.

that is an entirely different issue, and as i linked before, writing
iphone apps in flash is supported.

But not now, are they. Not since Steve Jobs made clear that Flash had
no future as far as Apple was concerned.

yes they most certainly are now.

as i said in another post, i respond to bogus statements and that is an
example of a bogus statement.

http://www.adobe.com/inspire/2012/12/ios-apps-flash-cs6.html
When Apple announced that Adobe Flash Player would not be supported
on iOS, many people assumed erroneously that Flash content couldn't
exist on the iPhone, the iPad, or other mobile devices. However, the
reality is that many iOS and Android apps have been built and
deployed using Flash technologies, and Adobe continues to invest in
tools and frameworks to make it easier to create and deploy such
apps. In fact, there are currently more than 20,000 mobile apps and
games built using Flash technology available in Google Play and the
Apple App Store. Using Flash Professional CS6 and other Adobe tools,
you can easily publish and package iOS and Android apps.


writing ios apps in flash is stupid, partly because it provides a
substandard user experience, but if someone has a huge existing
codebase already in flash, they might consider using it rather than
rewrite it natively.

now if you want to talk about when apple rejected the google voice app,
that was dumb and a valid criticism of apple. nobody ever mentions that
one though.


After a certain amount of toing
and froing by other people I came in with the line quoted above "And
Steve Jobs made that clear in uncertain terms": which he did.

he said that because flash is garbage, and it is.

And he did say that, and it killed the development of flash in th
relevant Apple direction. That's a clear example of a
developer/supplier stopping other developer/suppliers from entering a
particular market area.

nope.

apple said that if adobe could make it not suck, they'd support it.

adobe didn't. they tried and gave up.

as it stood at the time, flash was a buggy mess on the mac (still is)
and the #1 source of crashes. it is also a security nightmare and a
battery hog.

why would anyone want that on a new platform, especially on a device
that has a *much* smaller battery than a laptop does?

adobe could not resolve those issues on android and ultimately gave up
on mobile flash entirely.

in other words, apple set a high bar and adobe failed to reach it.

even google ditched flash, but nobody ever mentions that part.

have you ever used flash on android? it wasn't very good, and that's
being very generous.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/velocity...-smartphones-i
s-finally-here-and-it-is-terrible/
PocketNow*recently put a Nexus One with Android 2.2 through a series
of speed tests against an iPhone 3GS and and HTC HD2 running Opera
for Windows Mobile. The Nexus One outperformed the other phones by a
comfortable margin ‹ but only when Flash was disabled.

With Flash enabled, the Nexus One was the slowest of the three
phones.

Speed isn¹t the only problem with Flash in Android.*A snap review
from Gizmodo on Thursday pointed out that it¹s also a huge battery
drain, and outside of sites specifically optimized for mobile, isn¹t
yet all that reliable.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Of course I am guessing. So is everyone else until someone in Apple
takes another step which does initiate litigation. In any case Steve
Jobs got what he wanted. In my opinion he was quite justified in
holding back the advance of Flash in forthcoming Apple products. Do
you think I'm bashing Apple when I say that?

No, since that is a better explaination than the inuendo infused
statement which prompted my "So you are guessing" remark.

There was no innuendo in the statement " Steve jobs wanted to prohibit
users from installing Flash. He probably went as far as he could
without risking litigation." The first sentence is a well recognised
fact. The second is my opinion and is probably correct.

it isn't, since there's nowhere further to go.

On 2015-08-11 04:58:20 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 21:03:27 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-08-11 03:24:23 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:36:28 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

That "Kool-Aid" remark alone indicates a particular prejudice towards
those who favor one system over another.

No, Duck, that is not a prejudice against the user of a particular
platform. It is a prejudice against those who whine about being
picked on.

Nice spin.
You use the "Kool-Aid" comment as if those who have always used, or who
have migrated to Macs have somehow joined some cult when they extole
their experience of being cut loose from some of the eccentricities of
Windows. Admittedly they tend to overlook the particularly odd
eccentricities of OSX.

It really isn't "spin" unless you have some definition of "spin" that
I don't know about.

Then just why did you use the "Kool-Aid" remark if not to imply some
odd state of mind held by Mc users?

"Spin" is a term that means turning something around. If there's
something bad reported, a spin artist will attempt to turn it around
by either making it something good or directing the blame somewhere
else. I can't see how that relates to my Kool-Aid reference.

Those who own Macs, and incessently whine about being picked on, can
be said to be drinking the Kool-Aid because they think that any
reference to a Mac that is not a positive comment is somehow a
negative comment.

For the origin of this term, Wiki does a pretty good job:

I am well aware of the origins of the term, and I am quite familiar
with all that hppened with the Peoples Temple. The group has Bay area
origins which drew extensively from the East Bay black communities.
Needless to say, I had some contact with some Templ survivors who had
not made the trip to Jonestown, but still needed the suport of a group,
in this case the many ended up as members of the "Kumi 415" and "Black
Guerrilla Family" gangs. Many are now incarcerated where they have a
different type of community.

"'Drinking the Kool-Aid' is a figure of speech commonly used in North
America that refers to a person or group holding an unquestioned
belief, argument, or philosophy without critical examination. It could
also refer to knowingly going along with a doomed or dangerous idea
because of peer pressure. The phrase oftentimes carries a negative
connotation when applied to an individual or group. It can also be
used ironically or humorously to refer to accepting an idea or
changing a preference due to popularity, peer pressure, or persuasion.
The phrase derives from the November 1978 Jonestown deaths, in which
over 900 members of the Peoples Temple, who were followers of Jim
Jones, committed suicide by drinking a mixture of a powdered soft
drink flavoring agent laced with cyanide. Although the powder used in
the incident included Flavor Aid, it was commonly referred to as
Kool-Aid due to the latter's status as a genericized trademark."

That's how I used it: people who find argument without critical
examination of what they're arguing with. Not "Mc" users, but those
Mac users that find fault with any non-positive Mac reference.

From time to time I have seen both OS and software used enter the discussion.

There is no reason to mention the OS unless the software is something
that is only available on a particular OS and not all OSs.

And there are some OSX only image processors which are workable PS
alternatives, including the newly released and impressive Affinity
Photo. I am sure that you will have no interest in its existence, but
those Mac owners who are non-PS CC subscribers might like the option.
https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/photo/

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

Andreas Skitsnack:
Of course it's a "bash". A silly one, at that. Any statement
remotely critical, or even non-supportive, of Mac/Apple is
considered to be a "bash" by nospam. That first sentence at the
top of this post is right on.

nospam:
it's not a bash and i have *no* problem with criticisms of apple
or any of their products *when it's valid*.

what i do have a problem with is *false* criticism, where people
make up stuff that simply isn't true or they spread fud.

What bull****! *All* comments that are even the slightest bit
critical of Macs are "false" in your view.

Any support for this claim? No? Didn't think so... Move along.

--
Sandman

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens:
After a certain amount of toing and froing by other people I
came in with the line quoted above "And Steve Jobs made that
clear in uncertain terms": which he did.

nospam:
he said that because flash is garbage, and it is.

And he did say that, and it killed the development of flash in th
relevant Apple direction. That's a clear example of a
developer/supplier stopping other developer/suppliers from entering
a particular market area.

Well, Flash was just the most used one. The iPhone didn't, and doesn't, allow for
any browser plugins. The buggest browser plugin is flash, but this also blocks
all other plugins, such as Java. Java was equally "stopped" by this decision.

While Apple bashers want to paint this as Apple exerting "control" over
developers and users, the main reason was that Flash (and other plugins) was a
liability. Back in the day, Flash was one of the most insecure pieces of code you
could run on your computer, and I'm not sure that has changed since then. It's
also one of the worst performing codes and requires vast amounts of cpu cycles to
do what open standards does effortlessly. Which of course also affects battery
life, which is important to Apple and its users.


--
Sandman

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 01:23:41 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Steve jobs wanted to prohibit users from installing Flash. He probably
went as far as he could without risking litigation.

there was no grounds for litigation.

That's what I said.

not really. you insinuated that there could have been litigation had he
gone further. there was nowhere further to go and nothing he did was
illegal thus there could not have been any litigation.

You are using loaded language. I did not 'insinuate'.

what do you call this?
He probably
went as far as he could without risking litigation.

That's a directly expressed opinion. No insinuation involved.

I will say quite
clearly that there could have been grounds for litigation if he had
gone further.

there is no further to go.

I've already referred you to Microsoft's treqaatment of DR-DOS.

You surely will recall litigation between Digital
Research and Microsoft over the latter's use of spurious warning
messages for DR-DOS users?

that's not even remotely close to being the same.

Of course it is. Apple could, if it wanted to, have treated Flash in
the same way.

there were no spurious warning messages. microsoft is also well known
for sleazy business tactics. apple is not.

And if there were spurious warning messages Adobe would have been
entitled to sue.

ios didn't support *any* browser plugins, no matter who wrote it. it
wasn't only flash.

flash also crashed a lot, so much that it was the #1 cause of crashes
on macs.

html5 is much better and why it ultimately replaced flash. that's
called progress.

the people who bitched the loudest were ones who had a vested interest
in *not* moving forward, mainly web developers who wrote flash based
web pages and didn't realize just how locked into a proprietary system
they were. they made a bad decision. sucks for them but that's how
things roll sometimes.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens