491–500 of 522 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple do not have a Monopoly, unless you use a diseased meaning of the word Monopoly to mean devices produced by Apple. In that case, almost every company has a monopoly.
At a certain point, if you execute so much better than the competition and set yourself up differently (controlling and innovating in hardware too) and you maintain total control of your platform, you can dominate in the market to such an extent that you have a virtual monopoly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get this argument, but couldn't you say Apple gives the customer the best of both worlds? Web & HTML 5 support: developers can make or do anything they want to on the platform. App Store: Cultivated catalog of high quality apps for customers. At the end of the day, we don't need PhoneGaps or Titaniums-- we need MobileSafari to have the same hooks into the hardware (gps, compass, accelerometer, camera, etc) as Cocoa…
What I'm arguing for is not technology (which already exists), but technology support in the form of official frameworks, which subverts the "3rd party middleware" argument, and for equal access to distribution and payment channels. I have no motivation to create iPhone web apps if I can't easily get them in front of iPhone users monetize them. A few other points: - MobileSafari already has access to many hardware fu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What flash ads? Just use AdBlock.
My point was that that is one of the main uses of Flash, and that an extremely simple/common flash implementation is enough to burn a huge number of CPU cycles for no benefit.
What he describes as the "most important reason" is also the big mistake here. If using certain libraries or cross-platform development tools truly did result in worse apps, then the market would take care of that. He also doesn't seem to understand that such tools do not all totally hide the underlying APIs. They fall along a continuum in that respect. And in trying to ban extreme cases like Flash, Apple has also ba…
There are 2 things that stand out to me which aren't being discussed. 1) Apple has maybe the very best record in supporting their customers' software through various multiplatform upgrades. If you've been on board with them, they've taken you from 68000 to PowerPC to Intel and they've had bloody seamless transitions. Perhaps that has something to do with their desire to specify how apps are built and which tools are used to build them. FWIW, they did their own iPad chip but they bought one off the shelf for iPhone, I'd imagine that they will have their own phone chip before too long. This just seems logical and sensical to me and it's possible they might alter the architecture in some way and maybe want to dynamically translate the existing apps.
2) If you look at iPhone and iPad, they clearly had some foresight and vision when they did the phone. They didn't accidentally build the iPad and it turned out to run the same software and be compatible. Perhaps there is something else that they have in mind in the coming years or two. Maybe you'll be able to use app store apps on AppleTV. Who knows, maybe there will be some other device too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I'm arguing for is not technology (which already exists), but technology support in the form of official frameworks, which subverts the "3rd party middleware" argument, and for equal access to distribution and payment channels. I have no motivation to create iPhone web apps if I can't easily get them in front of iPhone users monetize them. A few other points: - MobileSafari already has access to many hardware fu…
I don't see any reason why HTML5/Javascript apps couldn't be in the App Store as some sort of "featured" section, with a means to install them as icons on the home screen, except that Apple would be diluting the market for the native apps. That's not in the developer's interest, but it might well be in Apple's interest to have more decent free stuff on the iPhone.
I love this paragraph, check their hypocrisy, switch Adobe/Apple: [Apple]'s products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from [Apple], and [Apple] has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While [Apple]'s products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by [Apple] and available only from [Apple]. By almost any definition, [Apple] is a…
The point is that he is specifically taking about the web being open. Again: at no point does he say being proprietary or closed is inherently a bad thing. Only being so in the context of the web they consider bad. And Apple's actions in the context of the web support that.
There are so many things wrong with Jobs explanation I don't know where to begin. But two claims really pisses me off. Battery Life If I activate push notification it sure isn't nice to my battery. So I switch it off. The same thing could be done with flash. Or even better, make flash an opt in. What's the problem. Yes I know apple can claim that it will affect peoples impression of their products, but so do not havi…
The web without Flash would be a better place, but the fact is that there isn't any viable open replacement. Yes, HTML5 can replace Flash for video. That's great and all, but it's probably the least interesting thing that Flash does. Want to use Google Analytics? Sorry. Need Flash. Want to see StreetView? Need Flash. Hulu? Need Flash. Aviary? Need Flash. Games? Need Flash. Apple's answer to everything but video is to…
Google analytics: http://analyticsapp.com/ Street view: http://googlemobile.blogspot.com/2008/11/google-maps-for-iph... (since 2008) Hulu: coming as a native app ( http://gizmodo.com/5506892/hulu-app-coming-to-ipad ) Aviary: neat app; there are image editors on the iPhone, but I'm not familiar enough with Aviary to find something comparable. Maybe there isn't anything. Games: There are tons of games on the iPhone and…
As he said: "Buying shit from the App Store is not the Internet I signed up for.", but that's Apple's vision for internet. One they control, pre-approve and sell in their market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point was that that is one of the main uses of Flash, and that an extremely simple/common flash implementation is enough to burn a huge number of CPU cycles for no benefit.
No user benefit. But there's nothing stopping advertisers from making crappy HTML5 canvas ads, and those are guaranteed to burn even more of your CPU cycles. So I call shenanigans on that argument.