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

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 01:59:46 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 12 August 2015 22:37:48 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 04:58:20 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 12 August 2015 04:39:36 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:


You should learn to make better distinctions. St. Steve blocked Flash
for iOS, not Mac OS.

Sheesh.

Sheesh yourself. Not even Steve jobs could uno the past. Flash was
installed where Flash had already been admitted. But at that point in
time he wanted no more of Flash and said so in no uncertain terms.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens


My recollection was that steve jobs didn;t want a buggy version of the mobile flash plugin on Aple devices because they were bugy and used a lot of resources compared to the newer HTML 5.

I wasn't arguing that Steve Jobs was wrong in any way (although there
are some here who automatically go into anti-bash mode). It is merely
a statement of fact that he wanted to stop Flash .

He failed there then didn;t he. I have installed flash on my Mac, we even have the CS suite here installed on 24 27" iMacs for teaching things including flash.

As I have already commented, he couldn't go back and undo that which
was done. By that time, Flash in the Mac was a fait accompli.

(and no doubt for
perfectly good reasons). It is also a statement of fact that had he
done more than he did he ran the risk of getting in trouble with
anti-trust laws or similar.

Well I'm not sure that is true not sure what more he could have done
and whether it has anything to do with anti-trust.
Considering it's adobe that set the flash 'standard'

This popped up in this morning's news
http://www.pcworld.com/article/29710...-for-java.html
He could have tried something like this.

It does seem that whatever happeded flash isn't running on IOS
So why hasn't an anti-trust been raised ?

Because Apple has a legitimate defence?

Because Adobe has more to lose by upsetting Apple than it has to gain?



https://forums.adobe.com/message/4522108

here you see people having problems NOT because steve jobs banned flash though, otherwise someone at adobe would have pointed this out surely.

They are having problems because Flash hasn't been implimented?
I dunno.




https://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/

Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript - all open standards. Apple's mobile devices all ship with high performance, 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 graphics, typography, animations and transitions without relying on third party browser plug-ins (like Flash). HTML5 is completely open and controlled by a standards committee, of which Apple is a member.
--
That's probably Apple's first line of defence.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

My recollection was that steve jobs didn;t want a buggy version of the
mobile flash plugin on Aple devices because they were bugy and used a lot of
resources compared to the newer HTML 5.

I wasn't arguing that Steve Jobs was wrong in any way (although there
are some here who automatically go into anti-bash mode). It is merely
a statement of fact that he wanted to stop Flash (and no doubt for
perfectly good reasons).

so far so good.

It is also a statement of fact that had he
done more than he did he ran the risk of getting in trouble with
anti-trust laws or similar.

that's where the problem begins, as it has no basis in anything.

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 16:35:23 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

My recollection was that steve jobs didn;t want a buggy version of the
mobile flash plugin on Aple devices because they were bugy and used a lot of
resources compared to the newer HTML 5.

I wasn't arguing that Steve Jobs was wrong in any way (although there
are some here who automatically go into anti-bash mode). It is merely
a statement of fact that he wanted to stop Flash (and no doubt for
perfectly good reasons).

so far so good.

It is also a statement of fact that had he
done more than he did he ran the risk of getting in trouble with
anti-trust laws or similar.

that's where the problem begins, as it has no basis in anything.

Incorrect. I spent a good twenty years watching companies trying to
hobble each other with all kinds of dirty tricks and I have a fairly
good idea of what a bunch of lawyers can turn into a court case.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

My recollection was that steve jobs didn;t want a buggy version of the
mobile flash plugin on Aple devices because they were bugy and used a lot
of
resources compared to the newer HTML 5.

I wasn't arguing that Steve Jobs was wrong in any way (although there
are some here who automatically go into anti-bash mode). It is merely
a statement of fact that he wanted to stop Flash (and no doubt for
perfectly good reasons).

so far so good.

It is also a statement of fact that had he
done more than he did he ran the risk of getting in trouble with
anti-trust laws or similar.

that's where the problem begins, as it has no basis in anything.

Incorrect.

there's nothing incorrect about it. there is absolutely no way adobe
would have grounds to sue for apple blocking flash. zero. zilch.

I spent a good twenty years watching companies trying to
hobble each other with all kinds of dirty tricks

none of which matter

and I have a fairly
good idea of what a bunch of lawyers can turn into a court case.

ok. pretend you're the lawyer. what would be the reasons for a lawsuit?

first of all, when the iphone came out, there was no mobile flash to
support.

how is that apple's fault? it isn't.

by the time the ipad came out, adobe was about to release mobile flash,
which is when the controversy came about.

apple explained what was necessary for flash to be supported but adobe
chose not to pursue any of it.

in other words, it's entirely *adobe's* fault.

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 17:58:05 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

My recollection was that steve jobs didn;t want a buggy version of the
mobile flash plugin on Aple devices because they were bugy and used a lot
of
resources compared to the newer HTML 5.

I wasn't arguing that Steve Jobs was wrong in any way (although there
are some here who automatically go into anti-bash mode). It is merely
a statement of fact that he wanted to stop Flash (and no doubt for
perfectly good reasons).

so far so good.

It is also a statement of fact that had he
done more than he did he ran the risk of getting in trouble with
anti-trust laws or similar.

that's where the problem begins, as it has no basis in anything.

Incorrect.

there's nothing incorrect about it. there is absolutely no way adobe
would have grounds to sue for apple blocking flash. zero. zilch.

Good. You are coming up to speed. Do you not realise that that was
what I said in the beginning?

I spent a good twenty years watching companies trying to
hobble each other with all kinds of dirty tricks

none of which matter

and I have a fairly
good idea of what a bunch of lawyers can turn into a court case.

ok. pretend you're the lawyer. what would be the reasons for a lawsuit?

You should try reading for comprehension. I said there was none in the
situation under discussion.

first of all, when the iphone came out, there was no mobile flash to
support.

how is that apple's fault? it isn't.

Who said it was?

by the time the ipad came out, adobe was about to release mobile flash,
which is when the controversy came about.

apple explained what was necessary for flash to be supported but adobe
chose not to pursue any of it.

in other words, it's entirely *adobe's* fault.

Who on earth is talking about fault.

This thread is now a classic example of you trying to build an
argument about nothing.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

My recollection was that steve jobs didn;t want a buggy version of the
mobile flash plugin on Aple devices because they were bugy and used a
lot of resources compared to the newer HTML 5.

I wasn't arguing that Steve Jobs was wrong in any way (although there
are some here who automatically go into anti-bash mode). It is merely
a statement of fact that he wanted to stop Flash (and no doubt for
perfectly good reasons).

so far so good.

It is also a statement of fact that had he
done more than he did he ran the risk of getting in trouble with
anti-trust laws or similar.

that's where the problem begins, as it has no basis in anything.

Incorrect.

there's nothing incorrect about it. there is absolutely no way adobe
would have grounds to sue for apple blocking flash. zero. zilch.

Good. You are coming up to speed. Do you not realise that that was
what I said in the beginning?

that's not what you said at all.

you said had jobs gone further, adobe could have sued.

there is no basis for that. none. zip. nada.

On 8/15/2015 7:52 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

My recollection was that steve jobs didn;t want a buggy version of the
mobile flash plugin on Aple devices because they were bugy and used a
lot of resources compared to the newer HTML 5.

I wasn't arguing that Steve Jobs was wrong in any way (although there
are some here who automatically go into anti-bash mode). It is merely
a statement of fact that he wanted to stop Flash (and no doubt for
perfectly good reasons).

so far so good.

It is also a statement of fact that had he
done more than he did he ran the risk of getting in trouble with
anti-trust laws or similar.

that's where the problem begins, as it has no basis in anything.

Incorrect.

there's nothing incorrect about it. there is absolutely no way adobe
would have grounds to sue for apple blocking flash. zero. zilch.

Good. You are coming up to speed. Do you not realise that that was
what I said in the beginning?

that's not what you said at all.

you said had jobs gone further, adobe could have sued.

there is no basis for that. none. zip. nada.


Wrong. Anybody can sue anyone for anything.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

It is also a statement of fact that had he
done more than he did he ran the risk of getting in trouble with
anti-trust laws or similar.

that's where the problem begins, as it has no basis in anything.

Incorrect.

there's nothing incorrect about it. there is absolutely no way adobe
would have grounds to sue for apple blocking flash. zero. zilch.

Good. You are coming up to speed. Do you not realise that that was
what I said in the beginning?

that's not what you said at all.

you said had jobs gone further, adobe could have sued.

there is no basis for that. none. zip. nada.

Wrong. Anybody can sue anyone for anything.

once again, you're arguing to argue.

adobe isn't stupid enough to file a frivolous lawsuit.

On 8/15/2015 8:23 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

It is also a statement of fact that had he
done more than he did he ran the risk of getting in trouble with
anti-trust laws or similar.

that's where the problem begins, as it has no basis in anything.

Incorrect.

there's nothing incorrect about it. there is absolutely no way adobe
would have grounds to sue for apple blocking flash. zero. zilch.

Good. You are coming up to speed. Do you not realise that that was
what I said in the beginning?

that's not what you said at all.

you said had jobs gone further, adobe could have sued.

there is no basis for that. none. zip. nada.

Wrong. Anybody can sue anyone for anything.

once again, you're arguing to argue.

adobe isn't stupid enough to file a frivolous lawsuit.


Do learn to state your position accurately. You argue just to argue more
than any three people here. When caught being wrong or making an asinine
statement, you change the subject, or attack. No one here needs a lesson
from you.


--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

It is also a statement of fact that had he
done more than he did he ran the risk of getting in trouble with
anti-trust laws or similar.

that's where the problem begins, as it has no basis in anything.

Incorrect.

there's nothing incorrect about it. there is absolutely no way adobe
would have grounds to sue for apple blocking flash. zero. zilch.

Good. You are coming up to speed. Do you not realise that that was
what I said in the beginning?

that's not what you said at all.

you said had jobs gone further, adobe could have sued.

there is no basis for that. none. zip. nada.

Wrong. Anybody can sue anyone for anything.

once again, you're arguing to argue.

adobe isn't stupid enough to file a frivolous lawsuit.

Do learn to state your position accurately.

it was accurate.

You argue just to argue more
than any three people here. When caught being wrong or making an asinine
statement, you change the subject, or attack. No one here needs a lesson
from you.

projection.