You do have the ability to install whatever you want. It's called jailbreaking. No one is stopping you from it. It's just that there are consequences to it-your warranty is voided.
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.
Flash Player 10.2 is out, do you want the optimized Flash Player on iPad?
- Thread starter flexengineer
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
You do have the ability to install whatever you want. It's called jailbreaking. No one is stopping you from it. It's just that there are consequences to it-your warranty is voided.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Until now i can live w/o Flash on my iPad. Don't miss it at all. Only in one case on a site to learn a language Flash was required. Asked them to provide HTML5 but they couldn't so I moved on ... For only one page I would install flash.
Until now i can live w/o Flash on my iPad. Don't miss it at all. Only in one case on a site to learn a language Flash was required. Asked them to provide HTML5 but they couldn't so I moved on ... For only one page I would install flash.
Really? You're going to try to turn this around and try to make me the bad guy?
Answer the original question: As a developer, should I trust devices running Flash to store sensitive data? Say, if I wrote bank software?
Under the normal SDK, nothing could take said information. However, a device running hacked Flash could. Your UUID comparison is garbage.
The UUID logging isn't even at all comparable to this. I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. One is logging a unique number on your iPhone. The other is stealing passwords and sensitive information. Why are you even bringing them up in the same context?
Furthermore, there isn't anything illegal about a web browser not supporting plugins. I'm not sure why you're falling back to a legal argument. Apple allows normal applications to run Flash. They just don't allow it as a web plugin because they don't allow any plugins. If Apple was singling out Adobe, there might be an antitrust case. But in this case, they simply just don't support web plugins.
Last edited:
You could not chose a better example, 50% of Wall Street investment banks including Morgan Stanley and UBS have built their entire trading platform on Flash so maybe you want to give them a call and a lecture on security, I am sure they are waiting for you. In the meantime their traders and clients around the world are trading billions using Flash interfaces and they do just fine.
Haha, that is a nice one too! No Apple did not allow anything, as a matter of fact Apple specifically changed the TOS back in 2010 to block Adobe in its attempt to port Flash app to iOS, and it is only after Adobe got the FTC and European Commissioner involved in Spring 2010 that Apple reversed the TOS in October 2010, during that period Adobe had to stop development and reassign the entire project management, product management and engineering teams all that for some lunatic megalomaniac CEO who think he's so big that he can pull anything off and get away with it. There is no doubt that Apple has been up to no good since day 1 and is only playing nice now because they do not have a choice, regulators put them together and gave them a reality check.
OCTOBER 2010
The European Commission ("Commission") announced in October 2010 that it is to close two preliminary investigations into Apple's business practices in relation to the iPhone. The announcement follows a change in policy in the EEA by Apple and means that a formal investigation has been averted.
http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=111860
The two parallel preliminary investigations were opened in spring 2010 following initial concerns that Apple's policies could breach EU competition law:
1 - Apple had been applying a "country of purchase" rule which limited repair services to the country where the iPhone had originally been bought. The Commission feared that this could amount to a territorial restriction deterring consumers from buying iPhones in countries other than their country of residence, and may lead to a partitioning of the internal market.
2 - In addition, in April 2010, Apple decided to restrict the terms and conditions of its licences with independent applications ("apps") developers. In particular, independent developers were required to only use Apple's native programming tools and approved languages when developing iPhone apps. The Commission was concerned that this could ultimately shut out competition from devices running alternative platforms.
Apple has now announced that it is no longer enforcing the "country of purchase" rule in the EEA and that an independent authorized service provider will provide cross-border warranty services in those EEA Member States where Apple does not offer any repair services.
Apple also announced that restrictions on development tools have been lifted, which should give developers more flexibility.
Commissioner Almunia welcomed Apple's response to the preliminary investigations, which he stated showed that competition rules could be used to achieve "swift results" without the need to open formal proceedings. This is not the first time that the Commission has raised concerns with Apple regarding possible territorial restrictions - in January 2008, the Commission investigated agreements between Apple and record companies in relation to on-line music sales. That formal investigation was closed when Apple announced that it would equalise the price of downloads from its iTunes online store across the whole of Europe.
EVENT AFTER THAT...
To add insult to the offense, Apple issued a statement to justify the lift by saying "Apple heard the developers community". Yes right Apple heard us, just not as loud as the regulators. Got to love Apple PR's.
MARCH 2011 (6 MONTHS LATER)
Adobe just released AIR 2.6 allowing to put Flash apps into iPhone and iPad, WebOS, BlackBerry Playbook, Android tablets, Android smartphones, connected TV, Chrome Store... Develop once, deploy EVERYWHERE. As far as iOS is concerned, it includes support for new features in iOS 4 like multitasking, Retina display for higher screen resolutions, and front and back camera support. Developers can now build application that capture audio with the microphone and take advantage of the same graphics hardware method used in AIR for Android using OpenGL ES2 for fast graphics. Of course, AIR 2.6 also brings features parity between iOS and Android. That was for developers, now from the user perspective this is how it looks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rp7UNCWbyc
Last edited:
You have now joined the creepy group of posters that are willing to exploit the serious illness of a man to promote your own conspiracy agenda. Congratulations. exactly, they made the device, they know what runs well on it and what doesn't i'd rather that than they let things on it willy nilly and the whole thing starts slowing down/dying, etc. Then you get the paranoid consipiracy people saying it's all part of a war against flash and cannot accept that the experts that designed and made the device and software actually know what they are doing....
yea, its funny how people go on about that, but look at the facts, he was on stage for the iPad 2 for 10 mins or so? a deposition can take WAY longer and can be much more stressful, especially with his condition.
LOL. Please pass some of whatever you are smoking this way.
AIR apps completely ignore native platform HIG rules, which is a terrible idea, and they add a "middleman" layer that needs constant updates in addition to the apps that run on it. I removed any AIR apps from my Windows 7 install just so I could avoid using AIR. Horrible user experience.
Same can pretty much be said about Flash.
And also, they both pretty much kill any accessibility for those needing to use such tools built into the OS.
Yeah look at how well that worked out for Java. The one thing iOS users generally DON'T want are apps designed using the lowest-common denominator approach. Those apps can stay on Android.
I was waiting for that one, go ahead victimize your CEO now that he lost the upper hand and his big mouth, I did not order him to stand trial, the judge did so go complain to him or her.
The judge considered based on Steve's appearance that he was vigorous enough to testify, period, he also limited it to 2 hours and very specific topics. That's a court order, I have nothing to do with it.
You guys blow me away, you will pull whatever you can. Google Flash / Flex / AIR accessibility, then check the specification of AIR 2.6, I get everything from the iPhone and Android I want. We're wasting word really, nothing you or anyone else say will change the fact that a tsunami of Flash and AIR applications are coming in 2011 and when people get tired to see stuff not working on their iOS browser just because Steve Jobs decided, let's see how the public will react. He can't come on record trash the competition anymore, he is closely watched.
Java is a nightmare on the front end, the future is Java on the back end and Flex/AIR on the front. You can carry on Apple's bogus excuses, we have now full access to the iPhone no matter how hard Apple made it, there is nothing Apple can take away from us thanks to the European Commissioner, like hardware acceleration that took us years to get access to... Now it is showtime.
Victims once again are the public who will systematically pay more on iOS for the same games and applications than on any real Flash enabled phone, because they can't run our apps in the browser, so we will make them available as native apps (using exact same code), we will have no choice but to pay 30% to Apple on our sales and advertising revenue, then we will pass that extra cost straight to the user. Apple gets richer, its customers are overcharged and we get our apps everywhere anyway no matter Steve or you have to say about it. As I said, Apple's very own customers are those being squeezed and screwed at the end.
Last edited:
I really can't believe this isn't an option... So lame. I've gone to several sites now where I couldn't watch a video because it was in flash. At least give us the freaking option of turning it on. Hell, default it to the "off" position but don't limit me to what I can and can't view on MY expensive/shiny/sexy new toy!
Hater's gonna hate. I love my new ipad but screw apple and their "ecosystem." Flash [option] ftw!
Hater's gonna hate. I love my new ipad but screw apple and their "ecosystem." Flash [option] ftw!
Not being funny, but having gone thru similar stuff, standing up doing what he did for 10 mins is ok, but really drains, theres no chance he'd make 2 hours. he most likely spent the next few hours recovering just from those 10 minutes, i know i would have done.
so if i were you, i'd stop on that avenue of discussion as you do not know what the hell you are talking about.
In my experience any Flash application that's built with any sophistication performs horrible on my Android phone, and it's supposedly a very fast one.
And gaming is one of worst argument you can use. You could say anything else, but the last thing iOS users are complaining about is lack of games on iOS. You can ask Android users how wonderful Flash gaming has been. I can tell you it's terrible.
The only reason you want Flash is video/animation or website menus and that's about it. Cross-platform Flash has been a disaster for touch devices and, again, the last thing you want to complain about iOS is its lack of games.
I already responded to that:
I am sorry to hear that, I would recommend you do not install Flash Player or AIR applications on your phone and leave everyone else decide for themselves. There is no reason you could not turn it off and those who want it turn it on. If Apple can't pull that off then that is really too bad for Apple, it's certainly not anyone else's business or fault. Nobody forces you to install AIR app, just pick or buy another one! As far as browser is concerned, simple switch is all it takes. Adobe is already working on 10.3 with privacy and security settings built in the browser, no one refrains Apple from leveraging that but they wont and it has nothing to do with security, user experience or anything else than Apple's corporate agenda.
Last edited:
Man, I couldn't tell you off the top of my head but I found through reddit. Honestly, 9 out of 10 times when I'm looking through videos or being linking to one, it's youtube and of course there are no problems there. It's just that 10% that bugs me still.
It's not like I'm going to be playing flash games on the thing, that's what apps are for. I just hate being limited. I should be able to drain my battery any way I please.
Take for instance: I've heard of several ways to increase battery life by doing simple things such as turning off Ping and fetch data for email. Why not have the same thing for flash? All I'm saying is make it an option. Those who want it can turn it on. Those that are content with the way it is and "haven't missed flash at all" will go on as if nothing has happened.
I'm just very surprised with all the "no" votes for even making it optional...
EDIT - flexengineer had a better answer than my vague, "some sites I got to through reddit," above. I've most definitely run into the problem more than a few times over the past few days of owning an ipad.
So if I work at Morgan Stanley I can't use my iPad (ruh roh); if I want music and movies I still have infinite options except now Amazon won't get my money; I will have to read the beeb instead of sitting through videos which is a million times faster anyway; brilliant.
But that's all besides the point: Apple has no obligation to include Flash. Just because people want it doesn't mean Apple has to offer it, that's ridiculous, and Apple's reasons strike me as irrelevant. 'I want Flash' is a long leap from 'Apple has an obligation to include Flash'. If the products aren't worth the money, people will stop buying them, I imagine.
I'm still wondering what the argument is, because people are getting pretty heated for . . . ?
EDIT: The argument Apple should include Flash strikes me as silly without clearly-presented ends. Apple should do this - to increase sales? To satisfy consumers (who've already bought their product)? I don't care what they should or should not do, I just evaluate their products and whether they are worth my money or not. Making demands on MR about what Apple oughta do just wastes people's time.
But that's all besides the point: Apple has no obligation to include Flash. Just because people want it doesn't mean Apple has to offer it, that's ridiculous, and Apple's reasons strike me as irrelevant. 'I want Flash' is a long leap from 'Apple has an obligation to include Flash'. If the products aren't worth the money, people will stop buying them, I imagine.
I'm still wondering what the argument is, because people are getting pretty heated for . . . ?
EDIT: The argument Apple should include Flash strikes me as silly without clearly-presented ends. Apple should do this - to increase sales? To satisfy consumers (who've already bought their product)? I don't care what they should or should not do, I just evaluate their products and whether they are worth my money or not. Making demands on MR about what Apple oughta do just wastes people's time.
Wait, but you claimed "Victims once again are the public who will systematically pay more on iOS for the same games and applications than on any real Flash enabled phone." So in your mind having Flash will somehow create games and applications that will have utility on a lower cost and suckers will the iOS users.
To counterpoint your claim I pointed out those values of Flash don't exist as it is on Android world. Care to back up your claim with any evidence?
He's actually Apple's CEO, not mine. I don't work for Apple or Pixar. I simply own two of their products. Same as you. We've been discussing this for three months. You know my position on Flash has nothing to do with Apple.
The complex conspiracy and hatred that you have developed based on a letter, a short-lived development term, and two short public comments is amazing. All because you lost access to 2% or so of web traffic in your development environment of choice.
And Apple hasn't lost anything.
He was not ordered to stand trial. He was ordered to answer questions in a deposition. Where do you get this stuff? And once again, being sued or investigated is not proof of illegal conduct.I have no reason to complain to the judge. The order seems perfectly legitimate to me.
On the other hand, your attempt to imply that Jobs' illness is less severe than he claims or that he is using it as an inappropriate excuse is just plain sleazy.
That's correct, you will not be able to use Morgan Stanley Mattrix:
http://www.morganstanley.com/matrixinfo/
It is also the case for many other banks that base their systems on either Flash or Silverlight. Check this out, they are the largest financial application development agency in the country and build massive trading systems for banks all over wall street, check what technology they use and let me know if you see HTML5 or Javascript anywhere lol:
http://lab49.com/approach/expertise
Last edited:
I think you missed the point. The point is this: Nobody relying on interfaces for trading at Morgan Stanley or working on critical accounts at a Wall Street bank is going to care that an iPad doesn't have Flash. It's a completely different market.
EDIT: I don't care if people don't quote everything I type, but it bugs me when they fail to address the substantive portions of what I post in order to focus on a specific example - especially when I explicitly say that those very things are besides the main point I am making. I am curious what flexengineer thinks of the rest of my post.
Same here. He had claimed having Flash will somehow provide users with low-cost/free usable apps. I used the Android ecosystem as an example where his claim is shown to be utterly wrong. He hasn't answered my main point and instead said something generic about having a choice outside Apple's corporate agenda. So I asked him specifically to present evidence to back up his claim and so far he hasn't answered it.
Fair enough, sorry about that, was sarcasm and did not really make sense I agree.
No, Apple clearly tried to make "develop once and deploy everywhere" impossible and clearly wanted developers to focus all their time and effort on iOS, pushing as far as requiring us to buy a Mac if we want to put apps on IOS at a time when Apple was still controlling probably anywhere between 75 to 90% of mobile application market and 75% of music market. I made those points dozens of time and it is outdated anyway, we won, we can now with AIR 2.6 put our Flash apps everywhere including iPad and iPhone, but we only won because European Commission constrained Apple to reverse their change of terms of service for native apps, so now it is really down to the browser only and that one will be hard to win, I will not be surprised if iOS users never get Flash in the browser and on the web unless the public starts to vote with their wallets, which might very well happen based on the success of Flash Access, Flex 4.5 and Air 2.6. Those are going to be kick ass apps and I am sure lot of them will be sold as native apps on iOS and free in the browser on Android and all other Adobe Flash certified devices.
You are right, I actually have to be honest I do not know the difference, I thought that answering question as a defendant was standing trial but I might be wrong, if it is the case let's say he was ordered to testify instead.
I do not imply anything, the judge considered so, the judge considered after seeing his appearance to launch iPad that Apple's lawyers request to not have Steve testify does not stand, just read the case filling, you can even read what the filed today!
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/5:2005cv00037/26768/
Last edited:
Yep. The part where we disagree is why you don't think Apple has a right to do this.
No, the were controlling 75 to 90% of the paid native mobile application market. A market that they basically created. Nothing wrong with that.
He is not a defendant. Apple is. He was ordered to testify. He was ordered to answer questions in a deposition.
Of course you did. Why else would you bring up the illness at all?
- Status