Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Fallout From Apple's Exclusion of Flash-to-iPhone Export Continues
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Becauase apparently our God is not the same god.
Off topic, but given your eyeroll, I don't have a god. But you guys please feel free to enjoy yours.
I also stopped reading his post because he pointed out that companies that aren't corporations have different rules, as if such companies were somehow relevant to this discussion.
They already did that with Premiere after Final Cut came out. If I recall correctly, rather than trying to consolidate their defecting Mac market, they abandoned it completely so I couldn't upgrade from Premier 6.5 to 7 Win-only so I had to buy Final Cut instead.
Adobe cut off their own nose to spite their face. Apparently after the geniuses at Adobe realised why that old saying existed, Premiere is now back on Mac.
Anyway, why is there an assumption that Flash will survive on Windows. Have you seen the price of Flash CS5? Have you seen the price of HTML5? Is Flash CS5 free on Windows, or am I missing something? Flash will die on both platforms. Maybe later rather than sooner, but it will die. As dead as an OpenDoc Dodo. Who's going to design a website in Flash when things like Joomla etc with free or affordable modules/extensions are maturing so rapidly.
I thought you were Jewish.
I worded my scentence slightly wrong, changed it to make sense.
I am. Just as not all Mac owners think alike, so too do Jews have different beliefs.
So you don't believe that Judaism has a God or that Christianity has a different God to Judaism?
I think I just confused myself.
So you don't believe that Judaism has a God or that Christianity has a different God to Judaism?
I think I just confused myself.
Too far off-topic, buddy.
Professional or Personal? What Profit? For Whom?
Greetings everyone.
I didn't have time to read all the posts, but this what I think in my leyman POV.
From my experience, flash simply kills performace. It slows everything down, increases CPU demand and of course, drains your battery in no time.
I do tests all the time with a G4 laptop and things that would take ms to run, take seconds, the fan goe to the noisy max speed... I think you know that better than me.
Therefore, Flash is a real pain to computing.
However, I don't like to be pushed anything, from clothing to technology...
I came from DOS. In 1996, I had to work on Mac because of ProTools and Avid Media Composer, then only available to Mac OS. I entered and evaluated this new world. As a result I changed to Mac OS, because no other plattform offered me better.
When Avid almost turn out exclusively for Windows, I started to rethink. Fortunately, Avid came back with more Mac products I stayed where I was.
The same thing when Apple moved to Intel.
I reanalized my situation.
Someone made a quite interesting post in another forum, claiming that Apple's move from IBM to Intel, had nothing to do with technology. It was all about business. In fact PS3 is IBM CPU based. Is Sony a dummy? Don't answer straight on, just think about it, check their results.
That ancient history everybody knows tells a lot not just about Apple, but about business world which is more and more technological.
Again I stayed in Mac OS because for me it payed off.
Now, we are watching something going on between Apple and Adobe.
Is this new? Of course not. And we'll se a lot more in the future.
So Apple is scratching Flash from iPhone, iPad, whatever...
Adobe obviously doesn't like it.
The thing is taking such a proportion that they are all cursing each other.
What's next? Adobe's and Apple's CEOs on the ring? Bit Wars?
Looks ridiculous doesn't it?
Most important will us the users-customers profit from this?
Abolutely not.
Neither will Apple nor Adobe.
You know poker better than me. It's bluffing to see who's folds first.
Imagine Apple wins.
In the future Apple might do the same with other Adobe products and technologies an go in the desktop market.
Will Apple win again. No way!
People love Adobe's Products, just as much they love Apple's or other companies'. People will leave Apple just like rats in a sinking ship. That will generate an inverse movement than the one cause by Apple moving to Intel.
As for Adobe they just have to show what they have to Apple.
Of course, Apple has the right to decide what goes in their plattforms. At their own risk.
I like both companies an others. But this is childish.
I wonder if the reason came with Apple's failure to show Flash compatibility in iPad release live event, as they announced? (a bit what happened with windows 95, which by the way ran over DOS). Then they corrected the ad.
I also wonder why does flash demand so much on machines that makes them slower and power hungry?
I think both companies should overcome their own faults instead of blaming each other. That would indeed be profitable to everyone - them and us.
Someone here mentioned HTML5 as not being a proprietary format and Flash is. How about Quicktime?
My advice is for all move to Unix/Linux, open source and work from there. Some say that's the path. And it's not proprietary. Let's really think different and make the change.
Also, we should all be educated people specialy CEOs or other Executives and Administrators or Managers.
To curse is not a fair example at all on how to solve things and there both Apple and Adobe were and are way out of line. Again, childish. Grow up.
Face the problems like adults and deal with them as adults, because if you Apple and Adobe are, you're not acting accordingly.
I begin to wonder if this stricly a professional quarrel or personal? Because when the level lowers this down it's a sign of unprofessionalism.
I expect more than this from any company. Even from the bakery down the corner.
I read about Adobe being a sore loser. What about Apple? Is it handling it in a different way?
The fight is over? Do we have winners and losers? I think this is just the beginning or at most the continuation of something.
I'd like to see Apple do this kind of thing to Google.
Yes, they tried it. Who won? And who's the sore loser? Did it take this proportions? Was there any profit for us?
Don't answer, don't go for me, just think for yourselves.
Finally, I will be attending Adobe's presentation today April 12, as I will attend Apple's preentations and other companies'. You know why companies do them?
Because the companies need us much more than we need them. Without us, they're out of business. If we don't like one, we move to another. It's all basic economy, offer and demand.
The companies are supposed to meet our needs, not the opposite. If they don't, it's their problem to solve, not mine.
More than Apple or Adobe or any other company we are the decision makers. And should be not just because of what they did, but mainly because of what they do.
We should be open minded and be ready to make any kind of change in order to suite our needs and profits, not theirs.
I've been happly in Apple's plattforms for more than 10 years.
That doesn't mean that I won't change if that's what it takes to suite my needs and have more profit.
But for know... yes I love Apple and Adobe and would absolutely not trade my Avid Media Composer for Final Cut Pro or Premiere.
It's all business and I'm most worried about mine than theirs and the opposite is true.
Thank you all.
Greetings everyone.
I didn't have time to read all the posts, but this what I think in my leyman POV.
From my experience, flash simply kills performace. It slows everything down, increases CPU demand and of course, drains your battery in no time.
I do tests all the time with a G4 laptop and things that would take ms to run, take seconds, the fan goe to the noisy max speed... I think you know that better than me.
Therefore, Flash is a real pain to computing.
However, I don't like to be pushed anything, from clothing to technology...
I came from DOS. In 1996, I had to work on Mac because of ProTools and Avid Media Composer, then only available to Mac OS. I entered and evaluated this new world. As a result I changed to Mac OS, because no other plattform offered me better.
When Avid almost turn out exclusively for Windows, I started to rethink. Fortunately, Avid came back with more Mac products I stayed where I was.
The same thing when Apple moved to Intel.
I reanalized my situation.
Someone made a quite interesting post in another forum, claiming that Apple's move from IBM to Intel, had nothing to do with technology. It was all about business. In fact PS3 is IBM CPU based. Is Sony a dummy? Don't answer straight on, just think about it, check their results.
That ancient history everybody knows tells a lot not just about Apple, but about business world which is more and more technological.
Again I stayed in Mac OS because for me it payed off.
Now, we are watching something going on between Apple and Adobe.
Is this new? Of course not. And we'll se a lot more in the future.
So Apple is scratching Flash from iPhone, iPad, whatever...
Adobe obviously doesn't like it.
The thing is taking such a proportion that they are all cursing each other.
What's next? Adobe's and Apple's CEOs on the ring? Bit Wars?
Looks ridiculous doesn't it?
Most important will us the users-customers profit from this?
Abolutely not.
Neither will Apple nor Adobe.
You know poker better than me. It's bluffing to see who's folds first.
Imagine Apple wins.
In the future Apple might do the same with other Adobe products and technologies an go in the desktop market.
Will Apple win again. No way!
People love Adobe's Products, just as much they love Apple's or other companies'. People will leave Apple just like rats in a sinking ship. That will generate an inverse movement than the one cause by Apple moving to Intel.
As for Adobe they just have to show what they have to Apple.
Of course, Apple has the right to decide what goes in their plattforms. At their own risk.
I like both companies an others. But this is childish.
I wonder if the reason came with Apple's failure to show Flash compatibility in iPad release live event, as they announced? (a bit what happened with windows 95, which by the way ran over DOS). Then they corrected the ad.
I also wonder why does flash demand so much on machines that makes them slower and power hungry?
I think both companies should overcome their own faults instead of blaming each other. That would indeed be profitable to everyone - them and us.
Someone here mentioned HTML5 as not being a proprietary format and Flash is. How about Quicktime?
My advice is for all move to Unix/Linux, open source and work from there. Some say that's the path. And it's not proprietary. Let's really think different and make the change.
Also, we should all be educated people specialy CEOs or other Executives and Administrators or Managers.
To curse is not a fair example at all on how to solve things and there both Apple and Adobe were and are way out of line. Again, childish. Grow up.
Face the problems like adults and deal with them as adults, because if you Apple and Adobe are, you're not acting accordingly.
I begin to wonder if this stricly a professional quarrel or personal? Because when the level lowers this down it's a sign of unprofessionalism.
I expect more than this from any company. Even from the bakery down the corner.
I read about Adobe being a sore loser. What about Apple? Is it handling it in a different way?
The fight is over? Do we have winners and losers? I think this is just the beginning or at most the continuation of something.
I'd like to see Apple do this kind of thing to Google.
Yes, they tried it. Who won? And who's the sore loser? Did it take this proportions? Was there any profit for us?
Don't answer, don't go for me, just think for yourselves.
Finally, I will be attending Adobe's presentation today April 12, as I will attend Apple's preentations and other companies'. You know why companies do them?
Because the companies need us much more than we need them. Without us, they're out of business. If we don't like one, we move to another. It's all basic economy, offer and demand.
The companies are supposed to meet our needs, not the opposite. If they don't, it's their problem to solve, not mine.
More than Apple or Adobe or any other company we are the decision makers. And should be not just because of what they did, but mainly because of what they do.
We should be open minded and be ready to make any kind of change in order to suite our needs and profits, not theirs.
I've been happly in Apple's plattforms for more than 10 years.
That doesn't mean that I won't change if that's what it takes to suite my needs and have more profit.
But for know... yes I love Apple and Adobe and would absolutely not trade my Avid Media Composer for Final Cut Pro or Premiere.
It's all business and I'm most worried about mine than theirs and the opposite is true.
Thank you all.
"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?
"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears not all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor--your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money, Is this what you consider evil?
"Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions--and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.
"But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made--before it can be looted or mooched--made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced.'
"To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss--the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery--that you must offer them values, not wounds--that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best that your money can find. And when men live by trade--with reason, not force, as their final arbiter--it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and highest ability--and the degree of a man's productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?
"But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality--the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.
"Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants: money will not give him a code of values, if he's evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he's evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?
"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth--the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?
"Money is your means of survival. The verdict you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men's vices or men's stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment's or a penny's worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you'll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?
"Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money?
"Or did you say it's the love of money that's the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It's the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money--and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it.
"Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.
"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another--their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.
"But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it. Men who have no courage, pride or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich--will not remain rich for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt--and of his life, as he deserves.
"Then you will see the rise of the men of the double standard--the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money--the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law--men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims--then money becomes its creators' avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.
"Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion--when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing--when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors--when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you--when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice--you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that is does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.
"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked, 'Account overdrawn.'
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, 'Who is destroying the world? You are.
"You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why it's crumbling around you, while you're damning its life-blood--money. You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities. Throughout men's history, money was always seized by looters of one brand or another, whose names changed, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honor. That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves--slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody's mind and left unimproved for centuries. So long as production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer, Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers--as industrialists.
"To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money--and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man's mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being--the self-made man--the American industrialist.
"If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose--because it contains all the others--the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to make money.' No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity--to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality.
"Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters' continents. Now the looters' credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide-- as, I think, he will.
"Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns--or dollars. Take your choice--there is no other--and your time is running out."
Francisco d'Anconia
Greed is good.
Ironworker808
One of the requirements to meeting the IRS guidelines to qualify for business deductions is the profit motive. If you aren't in business to make money, they can limit your ability to match expenses to revenues by calling your enterprise a "hobby". That applies as much to tech companies as it does to a photographer that does senior portraits. Believe me, a revenue stream for a "hobby" is a PITA at tax time.
And if you think that's out in left field, you should see the IRS position on God and religion!
Of course.
Simply posting greed is good would not have been nearly as powerful.
But that's what the quoted passage basically boils down to.
So you're saying its good for you to be selfish?
Hate to live in your world man.
First time in the big city gents?
I.e., please take your off-topic chitchat to the proper place: Politics, Religion, Social Issues
Selfishness = concern with one's own interests.
One must manifest a serious concern for one's own interests if one is to lead a healthy, purposeful, fulfilling life.
My world's not so bad.
Yes... it's all about you, isn't it?
Look... anyone who's been posting in forums for any length of time usually learns about the concept of "topics" and how to show consideration for others by moving their discussion to the appropriate area. Now i admit i was a little late to the Internet (1997), but did use dial-up to directly access bulletin boards (FirstClass) as far back as 1990. If you have been doing it longer than that, then bully for you. Unfortunately, your experience isn't showing.
Selfishness = concern with one's own interests.
One must manifest a serious concern for one's own interests if one is to lead a healthy, purposeful, fulfilling life.
My world's not so bad.
selfish |ˈselfi sh |
adjective
(of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure : I joined them for selfish reasons.
This...lacking consideration for others.
Has nothing to do with this...concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.
If you believe that you can't have one without the other...
Man, I'd hate to live in your world.
You know, I bought a Zune HD because I was tired of how BAD my iPhone 3G is for playing music (in general). I am also sick of how poor iTunes is on both OSX and Windows, I thought I would try the HD.
Turns out, the thing is awesome.. The zune software absolutely murders iTunes, and the zune pass has allowed me to get rid of basically my entire physical collection. Instead of hundreds of cds taking up space on my shelves (or requiring me to buy storage), I now have thousands and thousands of dollars of music downloaded to my PC and loaded onto my Zune, for 15 bucks a month. Plus you get to keep 10 tracks a month, so it's closer to 5 dollars a month in real cost, and in return you save thousands. Pretty great.
On top of that the Zune device itself is smaller, sleeker and more attractive than any iPhone or iPod I have ever owned. The UI is super fast, extremely intuitive and more visually appealing than anything Apple has put out in years...or maybe ever? As a result I'm really looking forward to the new Windows Phone stuff...it might just pull me away from the iPhone.
In conclusion, why don't you actually TRY something before mocking it. I actually own both devices and know which one is better from experience. Go look at the USER reviews of the Zune HD on amazon. The thing absolutely KILLS anything Apple has EVER put out for playing music/video/whatever, both the software and the hardware. They just don't have the marketing smarts to back up the product like Apple does. If the devices were switched I guarantee you you would be on here praising the heck out of it. It's the best "gadget" I have bought in years, along with the iPad.
Serious question, do the 10 tracks/month you get to keep get "un-DRM'ed" at that time? IOW, can you convert them to straight AAC/MP3?
For a guy that keeps claiming lack of time as a reason for not adding constructively to the conversation, you seem to have an awful lot of time...
Maybe you can draw upon your supposedly vast experience with embedded systems to add some insight to the discussion instead of posting the curt, impolite rubbish you've turned to instead.
Until then, I don't have the time.
You're (deliberately?) misinterpreting his statement. What he didn't have time for was that "rambling remedial" you requested. Odd how you didn't keep reading, as the rest of that post is one of the best in this thread, topic-wise. [methinks thou wanteth to merely protest.]