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

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 01:23:49 -0400, nospam
wrote:

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.

I've already given you examples.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 01:23:47 -0400, nospam
wrote:

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.

The fact that _you_ responded does not mean that there was criticism
of Apple.

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.

It maybe to you.

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.

Not even me, and according to you I'm a basher.


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

Too busy making pigs fly.

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?

No good reason at all.

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.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 8/10/2015 11:13 PM, 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.

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

Your use of the word: "might," is duly noted.





--
PeterN

On 8/11/2015 12:31 AM, 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"?



Do you wear a tutu, too?

--
PeterN

On 2015-08-11 14:56:25 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/11/2015 12:31 AM, 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"?

Do you wear a tutu, too?

Only in the Spring.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


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.

that's totally different.

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.

nope.

it is not possible to install any browser plug-in (not just flash) so
no warning could be given specific to flash.

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.

there weren't spurious warnings. you're just making up ****.

again, apple didn't single out flash so adobe would have no basis for a
lawsuit. every plug-in was unsupported.

people bitched about flash because it was the most common plug-in and
because web developers had to rewrite their websites having chosen a
dead end technology, not realizing that flash was designed for the
desktop (mouse/kb) and their site would simply not work properly with
touch so they'd need to rewrite it anyway.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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

Too busy making pigs fly.

whatever the reasons, adobe didn't fix mobile flash and they still
haven't fixed flash on the desktop.

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?

No good reason at all.

nonsense. it's a very good reason.

who wants a phone that has a couple hours of battery life and crashes
all the time?

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.

I've already given you examples.

none that were relevant.

On 8/11/2015 11:15 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-08-11 14:56:25 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/11/2015 12:31 AM, 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"?

Do you wear a tutu, too?

Only in the Spring.


http://www.newelectronics.co.uk/image-store/article-images/7802%5CChange%20the%20World.pdf

--
PeterN

On 8/10/15 PDT 9:19 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:

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.

The first sentence is unsupported.

I've kept Flash installed on my computers, no biggie at all.