backtop


Print 108 comment(s) - last by Alexstarfire.. on Nov 21 at 2:52 AM


Steve Jobs and his company Apple are the biggest threat to internet freedom, says a top Columbia professor.  (Source: AP Photo)
Apparently he didn't get Steve Jobs email about freedom from porn

Apple CEO Steve Jobs recently promised one irate customer some unusual "freedoms" -- freedom from Flash; "freedom from porn".  But is Apple's "freedom" really tyranny in disguise?

That's the sentiment voiced by Columbia law professor Tim Wu in a recent interview with 
The New York Times.  In a new book, The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires, Professor Wu details what he views as potentially dangerous "information empires" of the American past and present, including the pre-1984 American Telephone & Telegraph monopoly, the pre-1930 NBC monopoly, Google, and Facebook.

He describes this history, stating, "It's largely a story of the American affection for information monopolists and the consequences of that fondness."

Today, he says that one of the greatest realms of free technology is the internet and firms like Apple are trying to reverse that.  He states, "I know the Internet was designed to resist integration, designed to resist centralized control, and that design defeated firms like AOL and Time Warner. But firms today, like Apple, make it unclear if the Internet is something lasting or just another cycle."

When asked which company he fears the most at present, he comments unequivocally, "Right now, I’d have to say Apple."

When asked why he fears Apple's influence, he states, "As I discuss in the book, Steve Jobs has the charisma, vision and instincts of every great information emperor. The man who helped create the personal computer 40 years ago is probably the leading candidate to help exterminate it. His vision has an undeniable appeal, but he wants too much control."

As to whether the situation will improve after Apple's CEO and cofounder Steve Jobs eventually steps down, he remarks, "I think it may not matter. I think the mark of Steve Jobs is firmly placed on that firm, that it will continue to be him long after he passes from leadership."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

BS
By Ammohunt on 11/16/2010 2:42:18 PM , Rating: 1
As long as the Free Market is alive and well (no thanks to Columbia professors and alumni; Barrack Obama) Apple will always have to compete with something better or easier to use.




RE: BS
By Jjoshua2 on 11/16/2010 3:03:38 PM , Rating: 5
I would say that that is largely true. With android, windows, and linux there isn't a big threat from Apple shutting down our liberties. The big threat is the ignorant masses not knowing what freedom is and why it is good, or not caring enough to stop watching TV and do something.


RE: BS
By jimbojimbo on 11/17/2010 3:51:19 PM , Rating: 2
All it takes is 51% of the voting masses to take away all our freedom. Now that the US is getting dumber and fatter we're all screwed.


RE: BS
By SPOOFE on 11/17/2010 4:32:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All it takes is 51% of the voting masses to take away all our freedom.

Uh, no. Messy though the system is, "checks and balances" still haven't gone away.


RE: BS
By room200 on 11/16/2010 3:11:14 PM , Rating: 2
Another DT story seemingly unrelated to polictics stretched into bashing once again.


RE: BS
By DougF on 11/16/2010 3:16:30 PM , Rating: 1
Careful, the last time I mentioned that, I was told I was "stupid".


RE: BS
By Smilin on 11/16/2010 5:01:38 PM , Rating: 3
You sure that was why?


RE: BS
By Ammohunt on 11/16/2010 3:57:02 PM , Rating: 2
Only unrelated if you are either asleep or ignorant.


RE: BS
By The Raven on 11/17/2010 4:40:15 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I don't know how freedom would have anything to do with politics </sarcasm>


RE: BS
By theArchMichael on 11/16/2010 3:26:47 PM , Rating: 2
I think the professor was speaking more to the "invisible hand"(s)... that we allow to snatch up our liberties and entitlements... because Angry Birds is such an awesome app!


RE: BS
By hiscross on 11/16/2010 6:06:06 PM , Rating: 1
Here Here. Columbia is a liberal piece of crap university. They had Ahmadinejad give a speech in 2008. What a piece a crap. Apple, like all free capitalist companies are in business to make money pure and simple. If you liberals want it some other way, fine now is your chance. Once you fail, and you will fail go and ask Columbia and the rest of your liberal friends for help. It won't happen.Go ahead mark me down. I stand by my words.


RE: BS
By Targon on 11/16/2010 7:26:50 PM , Rating: 2
I thought conservatives were supposed to fight for freedom and to avoid having their rights removed by government or some other agency? Apple blocks the rights of their customers to view or use whatever they want on devices they have purchased.

Apple has the same mindset as the Chinese government, total control of their people, and anyone who stands against their edicts may be thrown in prison or killed, no matter how stupid those edicts may be.


RE: BS
By SPOOFE on 11/16/2010 10:26:21 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I thought conservatives were supposed to fight for freedom and to avoid having their rights removed by government or some other agency?

Apple is not a government agency, and THEY have the right to be as restrictive as they want. The issue is whether or not their restriction is a good idea; it's not about "rights".


RE: BS
By SPOOFE on 11/16/2010 10:23:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They had Ahmadinejad give a speech in 2008.

... And laughed their asses off at him. Bad example. :)


RE: BS
By foolsgambit11 on 11/16/2010 10:43:27 PM , Rating: 3
I don't agree with Ahmadinejad on about 99% of issues, but I support the principle of the free and open airing of ideas (even by those who don't support the free and open airing of ideas). And I was interested in hearing what he had to say, even though I ended up being unimpressed with most of it. It was nice to hear his viewpoints without the filter of the mainstream media, so I could decide on my own on the validity or invalidity of them.

As for your accusations of liberalism at Columbia University, I can't comment, though I don't think it's fair to classify the institution as a 'piece of crap'. Also, I think both liberals and conservatives (at least, those mainstream enough to fit within the big tents of the Republican and Democratic parties, which is the vast majority of them) agree that some degree of regulation on a company's ability to operate solely for profit is appropriate and necessary. A company's goal should be to maximize profit within the limits of the law, and the law should be carefully constructed to allow great freedom for companies to make decisions as they see fit, while curbing the excesses of pure capitalism. Laws we can probably agree on in principle include patents and copyright, false advertisement, monopolies, and some other actions like selling crack to kids or professional assassination services. And by 'in principle', I mean, we can agree that there should be laws governing these actions, even if we disagree about current laws in these arenas.

So, after that premise, I'll say that I think the government should be able to step in if a company controls an information empire large enough to excessively restrict the free marketplace of ideas. In practice, though, it is difficult to define a term like 'excessively restrict', so the government has to be very careful about taking action in a matter like this. And I don't think this Columbia law professor was suggesting that action needs to be taken now, only that we must be vigilant and prepared to take action should the need arise.


RE: BS
By Fritzr on 11/17/2010 10:38:51 AM , Rating: 2
Actually the definitions on restriction are simple:
Reasonable restriction==I'm okay with that/I think it's good
Unreasonable restriction:==They won't let me.../I don't think they should stop me from doing that.

The difficulty comes from every speaker having a different definition of Reasonable/Not Reasonable :P


Removable Thumb
By Mitch101 on 11/16/2010 3:03:50 PM , Rating: 3
That picture of Steve makes me think he was doing the removable thumb trick.




RE: Removable Thumb
By Smilin on 11/16/2010 3:08:56 PM , Rating: 5
It may appear so to a mere PC blasphemer.

If your eyes seeith pixels on thine retina display pluck it out! If your thumb toucheth the antenna wrong cut it off!

So sayeth the Jobs!
Hail Jobs!


RE: Removable Thumb
By morphologia on 11/16/2010 3:13:31 PM , Rating: 2
That piece of halibut was good enough for Jobs-hova!

:p


RE: Removable Thumb
By dayanth on 11/16/2010 9:43:23 PM , Rating: 2
Merry Stevannukka! Praise the Jobs, for He is Good. Don't forget to get your USB drive a Brit milah. :P


RE: Removable Thumb
By muhahaaha on 11/17/2010 9:28:31 AM , Rating: 5
"And Steve Jobs spoke all these words, saying: 'I am the LORD your God…

ONE: 'You shall have no other devices except for iGadgets before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a copy of any iTune--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD Steve Jobs in vain.'

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, and to keep it holy. New iGadgets will be forthcoming.'

FIVE: 'Honor your iPod and your iPad. Do to them as you would have someone do to you... Do not put them into the BlendTec Blender (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAl28d6tbko)'

SIX: 'You shall not murder Pirks or Tony Swash even though they are the plague of all things good in the IT world.'

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery by seeking an Android device which supports pr0n and other horribly nasty things like Flash.'

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal music even though iTunes DRM is the locust plague of the modern world.'

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor's faulty iPhone4, which has can't make a call without being 10 feet from a cell tower.'

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's iPod; you shall not covet your neighbor's iPod, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his iPhone4, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'


RE: Removable Thumb
By UNHchabo on 11/17/2010 5:27:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's iPod; you shall not covet your neighbor's iPod, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his iPhone4, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'


I think this should be "you shall covet...", because where would Apple be if their customers never coveted Apple devices?


RE: Removable Thumb
By Pirks on 11/18/2010 2:44:20 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You shall not murder Pirks or Tony Swash even though they are the plague of all things good in the DT world
Where's reader1, idiot?
quote:
iTunes DRM
Doesn't exist, moron.


RE: Removable Thumb
By RugMuch on 11/16/2010 3:32:11 PM , Rating: 5
That picture reminds me of Ken Ham, saying that man and animals are different because of thumbs. And somehow the soul must be in the thumb.


RE: Removable Thumb
By zippyzoo on 11/16/2010 3:33:32 PM , Rating: 2
LMAO!! you're such a piece! LMAO!!


RE: Removable Thumb
By The0ne on 11/17/2010 12:09:56 PM , Rating: 1
Steve is doing the Jedi mind trick. Even in still frame it works. Why else would the author use it? Good thing is he looks like he's almost dead.


RE: Removable Thumb
By SirKronan on 11/18/2010 2:52:30 AM , Rating: 2
I just wanted to point out some additional freedoms Jobs has granted us, and continues to grant us with the latest notebook lineup Apple offers:

1. Freedom from high speed and practically universal data transfer protocols such as USB 3.0 and/or eSATA!
2. Freedom from one of the leading sources of high definition content: Bluray!
3. Freedom from ever having to (or being able to) add more memory to your new Macbook Air!

Until recently Apple also offered their customers freedom from integrated card readers, despite their supposed "editing" mass appeal and integrated photo editing/organization software.

It's not really a "freedom" unless you have a choice. Users are not FREE from flash. They are restricted. If you could choose on your own blasted device: "Press here to enable flash content, even though performance and stability may suffer with some pages" or "Press here to disable flash."

If your iPod or iPhone had that option, THEN you can call it a "freedom."


Talk about paranoia...
By DKantUno on 11/16/10, Rating: 0
RE: Talk about paranoia...
By menting on 11/16/2010 3:36:17 PM , Rating: 2
If there are no government regulations, then you have real threat. It is in no company's interest to hold back what they can achieve otherwise if there are no regulations.


RE: Talk about paranoia...
By SPOOFE on 11/16/2010 5:36:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is in no company's interest to hold back what they can achieve otherwise if there are no regulations.

Huh? Balderdash. Nowadays we're so spoiled by government regulations, expecting them to "protect" us from any possible mischief, that consumers have lost their critical thinking. Sans regulations, sure, a lot of companies would pull tricks for short-term gain and then the principles would bail; but over medium and long terms, especially as consumers (hypothetically, in the absence of regulations) grow accustomed to the new situation, that mischief would diminish as those tricks wouldn't be nearly as effective.

Regulations aren't some Magic Bullet. I'd call it more of a wash. While they restrict some ne'er-do-wells from truly running amok, they also encourage craftier thinking while also luring the "victims" into a false sense of security. The REAL danger is in your mentality: That government is the only thing keeping all these E-E-E-EVIL corporations from gutting the consumer. Regulations are just words on pieces of paper... you want protection? Use your own brain.


RE: Talk about paranoia...
By JediJeb on 11/16/2010 6:01:29 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, it is more people's addictive nature that allows companies to take advantage of them. The simplest example is gasoline. Sure we need it to go to work, but beyond that we can do without a lot more than we think. If the price starts to rise, why don't people just refuse to drive and let the oil companies choke on it? The answer is people will say " I'm not going to let the oil company's greed stop me from doing all the things I want to do" and they just feed them more and more as they complain about the cost.

If the price of gas goes up, stop driving as much, if the cost of phone and internet goes up start sending letters again, if the cost of cable and satellite tv goes up, stop watching as much. If the demand goes down while the supply is up then the price will have to come back down to spur demand again or the suppliers will go out of business. But we just keep feeding the giants and letting them get away with the same old tricks.


RE: Talk about paranoia...
By Spuke on 11/16/2010 7:07:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But we just keep feeding the giants and letting them get away with the same old tricks.
I agree here and add that some of us (the royal us) want our product/service more than we want to reign in these companies.


RE: Talk about paranoia...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/16/2010 9:10:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I agree, it is more people's addictive nature that allows companies to take advantage of them.


Oh ok, so we need Government to come in and save us from our "addictions" ???

quote:
Sure we need it to go to work, but beyond that we can do without a lot more than we think.


So who determines what this magically "lot more" point is, and who's job is it to draw the line?

quote:
But we just keep feeding the giants and letting them get away with the same old tricks.


Ignoring your false premise that we're all addicted idiots being "tricked", I think we keep doing it because the alternative is obviously much worse.

You're being anti-Capitalist to the point of stupidity.


RE: Talk about paranoia...
By SPOOFE on 11/16/2010 10:35:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The simplest example is gasoline. Sure we need it to go to work, but beyond that we can do without a lot more than we think.

Sorry bud, but there's nothing "simple" about the example of gasoline. Almost everything that happens in our society has a dependency on gasoline at some point in its process stage. There's a reason why it's a ridiculously inelastic product; prices had to TRIPLE just to get us to stop using more!

You are correct that it comes down to people and their mentality, but I don't think it has anything to do with addiction. It's all about evolutionary psychology, and how the basic, ingrained engines and algorithms that our brains naturally formulate during development were "written" (via trial and error) when there were no cities, technologies, cars, gas, etc. We're very adaptive, but that doesn't change the fact that modern man has no precedent of behavior to draw upon. As such, our instincts for restlessness and acquisition - essentially useless in an age where most everyone in the first world experiences no real immediate threat to their life - have found new outlets.


RE: Talk about paranoia...
By kyleb2112 on 11/17/2010 5:59:45 AM , Rating: 3
What I hate is the notion that EVIL companies have agendas from which we must be protected, but governments don't. As if governments are composed of some wise elder race and not the same greedy/horny/corrupt bastards as the rest of us.


RE: Talk about paranoia...
By Fritzr on 11/17/2010 11:14:02 AM , Rating: 2
The article speaks of the actions of one corporation. In what way does this imply that government is good & honorable???


RE: Talk about paranoia...
By SPOOFE on 11/17/2010 4:43:53 PM , Rating: 2
These are all statements in response to the assertion that nothing but government regulations are protecting the public from sphincter violation.


Exactly why I won't buy Apple
By masamasa on 11/16/2010 4:43:29 PM , Rating: 3
They think their **** doesn't stink, force you to do everything 'their way' (half of which is lousy), and treat their customers like they are a communist regime.

They will fall sooner rather than later. Just wait and see.




RE: Exactly why I won't buy Apple
By michael2k on 11/16/10, Rating: 0
RE: Exactly why I won't buy Apple
By zmatt on 11/16/2010 8:37:55 PM , Rating: 5
Consensus does not make something right. Just because many people buy into the Apple image (and they do) is no indication of the quality of the products. Most don't know about the alternatives or are so comfortable not thinking about it that they take the easy route. I don't know many informed shoppers who chose Apple on a regular basis. Sometimes they do have a product that best fills a needs, however most of the time it's either an Apple fanboy or an uninformed and non-tech savvy shopper.


RE: Exactly why I won't buy Apple
By Pirks on 11/16/10, Rating: -1
RE: Exactly why I won't buy Apple
By SPOOFE on 11/16/2010 11:33:15 PM , Rating: 2
Well... if you accept the postulation that most people are dumb, especially when it comes to technology... well, yeah, it's mostly dumb people that buy Windows.

Me? I don't buy the "they don't know about alternatives" argument. I think they're well aware that there are alternatives. I think they also just plain don't care. I don't own any Apple products, and I confess I don't know what the appeal is, but it'd take a whole lot of effort to NOT know that there are alternatives to the iPod.


By themaster08 on 11/17/2010 3:00:41 AM , Rating: 2
Sticking to the status quo is beneficial to the average consumer.

It means less time, less effort, and less thought process about something they really don't care about in the first place.

You can't make people care about something they have no interest in. If marketing and hearsay are the basis of their purchasing decisions then I hold nothing against them.

But you also have to use your common sense when purchasing something. First and foremost...... can you afford?

Seriously, does anyone for a second think that everyone that purchased their i-devices shelled the money out right off the bat?

What I'd like to know is how many of those people purchased their i-devices (particularly the Mac lineup and iPad) on credit because they couldn't afford? How many of those people are struggling with their payments? Would they be struggling if they bought a cheaper alternative?

People have got into the horrible habit of see-and-buy. The more important aspect of being able to afford comes second to many people.


RE: Exactly why I won't buy Apple
By wempa on 11/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: Exactly why I won't buy Apple
By michael2k on 11/16/2010 11:40:18 PM , Rating: 2
Huh? Who said anything was right by consensus?

My point was that you can't sell crap for 9 continuous years. If it's crap the first year, why would anyone buy it the next?

You really think the first gen iPod was crap? It had to be good enough to convince more people to buy in year two, then three, etc.

The iPod was far from crap; there was real quality there lacking in the competitors. It was ultra dense, 5gb in a pack of playing cards, it was ultra fast, synching 5gb in less than an hour, it had great 12+ hour battery life, it had excellent response time due to the scroll wheel and menu system, and it kept getting smaller, larger storage, and longer battery life over the years.

The reason most shoppers are uninformed and non-tech savvy is because that's the normal status of the population.


RE: Exactly why I won't buy Apple
By SPOOFE on 11/17/2010 12:01:30 AM , Rating: 1
I think a lot of people get frustrated talking about iPods, especially the early ones, because there was no one single "feature" that really defined it. It was a lot of little things, many of which were already being done "just fine" in existing options, that Apple pulled together and refined just a little bit. It was that "little bit" that I'm guessing sealed the deal for the majority of customers.


RE: Exactly why I won't buy Apple
By jimbojimbo on 11/17/2010 3:46:57 PM , Rating: 2
The main reason people bought another iPod when their old one broke was because they wound up buying several songs on iTunes and guess what? It wasn't going to work on anything EXCEPT another iPod. They're stuck with it. The more tech savy downloaded software to rip their songs off of iTunes but most don't know how so what else can they do? They are pretty much stuck with an iPod either forever or they give up all the songs they legally purchased online. Apple I'm betting paid into DRM big time since it basically monopolized the mobile music industry for many customers.


RE: Exactly why I won't buy Apple
By Fritzr on 11/17/2010 10:23:35 AM , Rating: 2
Consensus when it drives purchasing is profitable. Apple right or wrong has a consensus among a large enough portion of the public to maintain profitability.

The opinion a single individual has is irrelevant to the profit margin.


RE: Exactly why I won't buy Apple
By stimudent on 11/17/2010 7:40:54 AM , Rating: 2
Steve Jobs does at times seem lately to resemble the guy on the big screen in the 1984 commercial.


Hmm...
By morphologia on 11/16/2010 3:11:12 PM , Rating: 5
First of all, I'd like to point out that the story did not involve any particular politician or political party. Politicizing the tech industry is like turning a sports rivalry into a sectarian religious conflict. It's ignorant, childish and foolish when someone tries to use every news article as a weapon against their chosen political enemy.

Secondly, I must say I agree with the prof from Columbia in that Apple's monomania goes beyond reasonable branding and competitive techniques...pretty anti-competitive, actually. Lots of companies claim to have superior products, but only one of which I know actually attributes their success to sorcery (with their "magical" products). No other company is so hell-bent on convincing consumers that all other choices are not only inferior; they are also immoral (witness, Jobs' anti-porn crusade). And no other company maintains such a firm, despotic grip on products that supposedly belong to their customers (although Google is catching up).

And finally, I'd like to say that anyone who wants to flame a specific person should probably try really hard to spell that person's name correctly.




RE: Hmm...
By Myg on 11/18/2010 6:12:38 AM , Rating: 2
Jobs may have decided to use Religious structure and idealism as a template for his company's marketing, but we can just hope we know whats he is doing so he doesnt get killed by one of his "followers" (this is actually a possibility when you apply such things to the world around you).

On a side note:

I agree with Job's anti-pornography stance; though I dont know if his intentions are the proper ones...

Pornography is a plague becomming particularly specific to those who use the internet. It destroys people's expectations of making love and destroys relationships/Marriages at its core by disrupting/interrupting/corrupting the main communication medium between men/women who are bonded. If you are looking at pornography you are doing something immoral to your body and the person's your looking at while commiting adultry in your mind with that person (generally).

Concerning people using it as a means of re-invigorating their sexual intimacy/etc: That is just completely disgustingly voyeuristic and sadistic behaviour that needs serious councelling for (If a marriage councellor recommended it, i suggest get a new one; asap : They will just make things worse).

The drive for uniting with your spouse must come from an internal desire in the heart and a decision in your mind to give yourself fully and completely to that person. There can exist no-one else, or anything else between you and your spuse to ensure that the full respect is given to the act. If you cant find that drive, you need to sit down and meditate on it and re-discover yourself and/or re-tame your body through denying pleasures or nice-ities for a period of time.

Hearing some of this will anger some of you here, but if you take the time to think of it; you may understand it and maybe learn that you gotta give the act more respect then what is usually found on the internet.


RE: Hmm...
By Alexstarfire on 11/18/2010 10:24:48 PM , Rating: 2
And this is why I like my freedom. I don't believe in any of what you said. Perfectly acceptable for you to believe what you want though. Impossible for there to be a correct belief when it comes to porn.


Don't Fear, Mr. Wu
By misterbarker on 11/16/10, Rating: 0
RE: Don't Fear, Mr. Wu
By SPOOFE on 11/16/2010 5:38:42 PM , Rating: 2
Apple's success is completely dependent on them being viewed as the "alternative" to the messy world of PC's. They have no incentive to change that perspective, as it's made them filthy, filthy rich.


Freedom form porn?
By AstroGuardian on 11/17/2010 3:44:14 AM , Rating: 2
Freedom from porn? Internet IS porn!




Wow.
By Wolfpup on 11/17/2010 4:16:19 PM , Rating: 2
"Freedom" means restrictions in Apple-speak. Gee wiz, I'm free from being able to use my computing device how I want. Thank goodness!




What a maroon
By superstition on 11/17/2010 5:37:44 PM , Rating: 2
People say a lot of stupid things to sell books.




Remixed, for Steve
By Phoque on 11/17/2010 5:47:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I got some genuine Imitation Bad Apples Free sample For your peace o' mind Only $9.95

Gold and caviar
Now why'nt you pour my apathy
I'd have all my bases covered
If I could teach my hands to see
But now we're down in the deep end
Where they'd love to watch you drown
I said your laundry could use washing
We'll hang it up all over town
I said Hollywood's like a dryer
An we're down on Sunset Strip
An you'll be suckin' down the Clorox
'Til your life's all nice and crisp

Why let one bad apple
Spoil the whole damn bunch


Guns'N'Roses




Will we ever learn?
By PsychoPif on 11/17/2010 2:52:17 PM , Rating: 1
I'm surprised no one brought up the MS monopoly yet.

Doesn't anyone remember that at one time, Netscape was crushed by a litle known software named IE. Crushed because it used shady tactics like hindering, or worse preventing, 3rd party interoperability. Tactics Apple is getting away with today.

Is Apple stealing my freedom no, but you can bet that if Apple get the marketshare the media and the fanboys are giving it, it will be in the exact same position that MS was 10 years ago.

Apple want Flash gone because it bypass its app store. If it was because it's that bad, it would die on its own.

Sent from my Windows PC running IE8 with Ad-Block.




Why?
By Tony Swash on 11/16/10, Rating: -1
RE: Why?
By menting on 11/16/2010 3:34:37 PM , Rating: 2
Apple does not support anything open unless it benefits them. Easy case to make. DRM on itunes. You can bet they only support Webkit and HTML5 because they think it'll make them more money.


RE: Why?
By Tony Swash on 11/16/10, Rating: -1
RE: Why?
By Pirks on 11/16/10, Rating: -1
RE: Why?
By Alexstarfire on 11/17/2010 3:56:29 AM , Rating: 2
I always find it funny when people talk shit about Flash, especially on mobile devices. They always talk about Flash being an insecure, buggy, nightmare ridden, battery eating POS. I'm not to sure about the insecure part since I not only haven't been infected by anything in years, but I also don't allow flash to run automatically. TBH, the latter part is a necessity for mobile devices, regardless of whether it's HTML5 or Flash. Guess how many times I've had Flash crash on me? Once. I have had certain sites on certain browsers load Flash incorrectly, but I hardly consider that Adobe's problem. Anyone can make a poorly designed website that functions improperly.

It might be anecdotal evidence, but it can't be that big a POS if it's functioned almost perfectly for years. Can't say I'm impressed with it's performance at times though. I never knew 2D could be so damn demanding.

As for the battery life, really? Are we actually go to go this route? It's been said before in a couple of articles that saying Flash kills battery life is like saying video kills battery life, or games, or anything else that uses the hardware. A couple places have shown that battery life and performance is better for Flash compared to HTML5. Not sure how it'll end up if/when HTML5 ever gets finalized but there is no reason they can't both co-exist. Having no choice only hurts consumers.


RE: Why?
By Pirks on 11/17/2010 7:54:01 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It's been said before in a couple of articles that saying Flash kills battery life is like saying video kills battery life, or games, or anything else that uses the hardware.
Nah that's different, Flash usually sucks battery with useless ad banners, while video/games suck battery for something USEFUL. Feel the difference now?
quote:
A couple places have shown that battery life and performance is better for Flash compared to HTML5
For desktop, not for mobile. I don't give a dam about desktop Flash if you care.


RE: Why?
By Alexstarfire on 11/17/2010 8:02:12 PM , Rating: 2
That's not the argument, so don't make it out to be.

I'm sure there are some out there for desktop performance, but there are also some out there for mobile performance. Considering we were talking about mobile devices to begin with you should have gotten the context. Of course, by now I should realize that you don't understand context. Battery life could only be referring to mobile devices anyway.

Please, stop making strawmen arguments.


RE: Why?
By HypocriteWatch on 11/16/2010 3:34:38 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, you seriously posted a youtube ad for someone (like you) who has enjoyed the Apple Koolaid?

Baloney!


RE: Why?
By Tony Swash on 11/16/10, Rating: -1
RE: Why?
By Luticus on 11/16/2010 11:26:47 PM , Rating: 5
I will now take the time to utterly refute EVERYTHING this moron says.

1. The guy jabbers on for the first minute about how the iphone has "the internet" on it as compared to a rival apple product from the past. This does not convince me that apple is a "great web company" because just about every cell phone, pda, etc. for the past ~8 YEARS has had internet capabilities. Although they were somewhat limited my old Kyocera cellphone from back in '02 had internet capabilities. This is not new, and it's not revolutionary.

2. then he proceeds to rant on about how mobile apps that pull data from or send data to the web are "web apps". This is ridiculous. Is EVERY multiplayer game i play a "web app" because it sends my coordinates in game to other players systems around the world... NO! Web apps are programs that are built, deployed, and run from the web. They have no native client; it's all done from the web. For instance, if i had an app on my phone that gets the weather it is not a web app. because the client is on my phone. If i had a game in which the entire thing ran from my browser and was downloaded and run "on-the-fly" requiring no native code, or download/installation... that is a web app. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_app
moron...

3. This moron says that everyone is using webkit and Microsoft are the only ones not on that bandwagon and then fails completely to mention opera and Firefox (Firefox’s market share alone destroys all the webkit browsers put together). webkit browsers make up maybe 15% of the market and that's giving them credit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebKit#Usage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_br...
I will agree that webkit is more dominate on mobile platforms though, I don't think anyone will dispute that.

4. "Used to be you chose windows and apple was left out". This part is hilarious. Way to sweep your crappy market share under the rug! Apple is included now because it has a web browser! Wow... real sad.

5. Then he shows us a Venn diagram in which he literally pulls conjecture out of his @$$ and draws circles seemingly randomly to "show us that apple is web friendly".

6. Then he says that the ipad is the best device to "just browse the web" without giving us any real reason or facts to back it up... unless you count the "it has a web browser" line and showing us what a blank desktop with nothing but the browser would look like. This is retarded, opinionated, and pure speculation.

5. He pulls his phone out and rattles off every app "he" uses on his "home screen". My list is strikingly different, and i really don't get why he bothered because this isn't the same for every user. I think his point was to show how well "integrated" apple is with the web. This logic is completely stupid because 90% of the apps today interface in some way with a server/website/or at least send information over the web to something/someone else.

6. The iphone denies its users about a third of all internet content, not because this content is incompatible. Not because the venders of this content aren't trying to support it, but because apple is ACTIVLY BREAKING... let me say this again in case you missed it, " APPLE IS ACTIVELY BREAKING " adobe flash to disallow it from its platforms. How is this "web friendly"?


RE: Why?
By Pirks on 11/16/10, Rating: -1
RE: Why?
By Reclaimer77 on 11/17/2010 12:36:10 AM , Rating: 5
Awww, the old Pirks is back :(

The crux of the argument is this, because you obviously don't understand. You can't claim to be an Internet friendly business and then decide to block something as widely adopted, standardized, and essential to a great amount of web content. I.E. Flash.

quote:
Apple is just not allowing Flash to run on its mobile platforms since it eats battery too much. For not having Flash you get a nice bonus - battery life, which is the best right now in iPhone 4, which is definitely not a coincidence.


Sure in the context of ANYTHING using more CPU eats too much batter. Watching video and playing games will also eat battery life, why aren't those abilities blocked as well?

The myth that Flash in particular excessively eats up battery life has already been dispelled. Stop spreading FUD.

quote:
If everybody would DESPERATELY need Flash


You know what? I don't need Quicktime, NOBODY does, but even Windows supports it. I don't want to buy into a company that arbitrarily decides what web standards and utilities I "need". Who the hell are you, Pirks, to say what we need anyway?


RE: Why?
By Pirks on 11/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: Why?
By Luticus on 11/17/2010 12:50:57 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Nah, Apple is not BREAKING Flash, where the heck did you get this stupid word from??
From the fact that adobe designed a work around for the app store which would allow flash to run fine without breaking apple “no native code” issue and apple released an update that squelched it.
quote:
If everybody would DESPERATELY need Flash on their smartphones then Apple hardly sold any iPhones
as apple phones are not sold with a sticker that says "we actively deny you the use of flash on this device", chances are the masses are ill-informed. It's only when you get an iphone home and try to view this content that you become painfully aware, unless of course you're a tech site news reader like us. If you do follow tech sites then you either don't own an iphone or you're probably an apple fan who would do without flash just to have the apple product.

quote:
most can leave without it on their smartphones
it's not a matter of can and can't live without it. The article is about internet freedom and apple is CLEARLY denying its users the freedom of choice here.

quote:
I even block Flash by default on all my desktops and laptops
as do i, but i also make heavy use of my ABILITY and CHOICE to unblock it at certain times when i would like to view flash content.

quote:
Anyway, there are tons of Android smartphones with Flash now so consumers are NOT deprived of mobile Flash
i never said they were deprived of mobile flash, in fact i have mobile flash on my own phone (winmo 6.1). This is not what the article is about; it's about apple being a threat to internet freedom. When companies can decide what i can and can't install on my own device then yes, i feel they are a threat to my freedom.

quote:
so all this Chinese/Columbia BS about spooky Apple consuming our freedoms is a moronic babble from some random idiot, nothing more.
no, that video posted by tony swash was moronic babble from some random idiot. Concerns over internet freedom and our rights as users to utilize the devices we paid for as we want are never idiotic. It's people like us that keep the internet free because we let companies know that we won't tolerate this kind of crap. If you want to live in a jobs bubble of "safety" go right ahead, I’ll take freedom... every time.

quote:
battery draining mobile Flash
HEY! this just in! When i play games on my cell phone my batteries die faster! Oh my god! if i watch a movie my laptop won't stay on as long?! Who'd have thunk it!


RE: Why?
By kyleb2112 on 11/17/2010 7:25:54 AM , Rating: 2
What gets me is there are still tons of Flash developers using the Mac. And suddenly their development tool is officially shunned by Apple in this huge upcoming mobile market. They should be grabbing pitchforks, but instead I see this "Steve knows best" look in their eyes. Man, that's creepy.


RE: Why?
By Pirks on 11/17/2010 8:23:31 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
adobe designed a work around for the app store which would allow flash to run fine without breaking apple “no native code” issue and apple released an update that squelched it
Apple unsquelched it since then, so moot point now.
quote:
It's only when you get an iphone home and try to view this content that you become painfully aware
Doh, you just take your iPhone back to the store and return it, then get your refund. Big deal eh? So why are you crying about Flash on iPhone then?
quote:
The article is about internet freedom and apple is CLEARLY denying its users the freedom of choice here
But Apple does not deny this freedom for everyone, now does it? It only does so for the people who VOLUNTARILY accepted these limitations. So why crying about those people then if they WANT to live with those limitations?
quote:
but i also make heavy use of my ABILITY and CHOICE to unblock it at certain times when i would like to view flash content
This is taken care of by Youtube app and HTML5 video, so no reasons to bother now. It's not like your lack of Flash on iPhone denies you from vewing Youtube stuff eh?
quote:
it's about apple being a threat to internet freedom
Moronic Chinese Columbian Bullshit. Apple can't be a threat to Internet freedom since it does not control all the Internet content and delivery frameworks. It controls only a PART of it, so why crying then? Users still have lotsa choice, they can choose non-Apple solutions if they want absolute freedom and stuff.
quote:
When companies can decide what i can and can't install on my own device then yes, i feel they are a threat to my freedom.
Yeah right, you don't use Apple solutions but still bother about poor little victimized Apple users. Hahaha, so dumb:))) Do you even realize how dumb this sounds? These poor users are ADULTS and they made THEIR OWN CHOICE, so why don't you stop lamenting them huh?
quote:
Concerns over internet freedom and our rights as users to utilize the devices we paid for as we want are never idiotic.
Yes they are as idiotic as it gets. If you don't like device - you DON'T BUY it. Simple! Why the need to lament those WHO VOLUNTARILY DECIDED TO BUY these devices?
quote:
It's people like us that keep the internet free because we let companies know that we won't tolerate this kind of crap
Well, other people seem to LOVE this kind of crap, so what's your point? You can't prove them that they chose THE WRONG THING, so why don't you just stop lamenting them? Everybody has their own taste, are you seriously going to lament other people's choices and tastes?! No, you can't be serious.
quote:
When i play games on my cell phone my batteries die faster
Games != ad banners


RE: Why?
By Alexstarfire on 11/17/2010 11:05:43 PM , Rating: 2
[quote]This is taken care of by Youtube app and HTML5 video, so no reasons to bother now. It's not like your lack of Flash on iPhone denies you from vewing Youtube stuff eh?[/quote]

No, it doesn't, but Youtube isn't the only site that uses Flash is it? Youtube app + HTML5 doesn't cover all of what Flash does, does it? What you fail to understand, or just simply ignore, is that you don't need to have Flash installed by default for something like the iPhone. It's having the option to use it if you want that most of use would like. Does just having the option decrease battery life? No.


RE: Why?
By Pirks on 11/20/2010 8:24:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Youtube isn't the only site that uses Flash is it?
That's the only site most ppl are interested in, the rest is random junk we can live without on our mobile devices


RE: Why?
By Alexstarfire on 11/20/2010 2:07:39 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, Hulu and Farmville are so useless. Guess the millions of people who use those two things every day are irrelevant.


RE: Why?
By Pirks on 11/20/2010 2:20:41 PM , Rating: 2
Both exist as native apps in Apple's app store

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/hulu-plus/id3765104...
http://itunes.apple.com/ca/app/farmville-by-zynga/...

I wish you were not so lame Alex :P heheheee


RE: Why?
By Alexstarfire on 11/21/2010 2:52:03 AM , Rating: 2
Yea, I knew about Farmville. Didn't know about Hulu Plus. Kinda hard since I don't have an iPhone. Regardless, you know that there are a lot of apps on Facebook that people play. Doubtful they have dedicated apps for all of them.

It's OK though. If you don't want to visit sites with Flash that's fine with me. I'd rather not have to download apps for everything that I could simply use Flash for. Useful for the apps you use a lot, not so much for ones that are rarely used.


RE: Why?
By Luticus on 11/18/2010 9:00:05 AM , Rating: 2
Interesting choice of words... "lament" and "crying", you seem to be under the impression that i care a lot more than i actually do. Don't confuse my commenting on the article with my personal feelings toward apple and it's user base. I honestly don't give a crap what devices people take home with them and why would I. I was simply engaging in a pleasant debate, nothing more.

quote:
Apple unsquelched it since then, so moot point now.
then where's flash?

quote:
Doh, you just take your iPhone back to the store and return it, then get your refund.
sure, if you realize it in time for your refund.

quote:
But Apple does not deny this freedom for everyone
Never said it does. This is exactly why I'm not one of their customers. Because i have choice and i choose to take my money elsewhere. I will, under no circumstances, give apple one red cent of my money (at least not directly, i realize jobs is getting money from places like Pixar, etc., and I'm sure he's got more than that going for him).

quote:
This is taken care of by Youtube app and HTML5 video
There's more to the internet than youtube... but i guess you can't see it without flash can you. (By the way, this is a joke... i understand that there are tons of sights that don't use flash. I thought I'd point this out because I've noticed that "certain people" have difficulties understanding sarcasm.

quote:
Apple can't be a threat to Internet freedom since it does not control all the Internet content
they are a threat to their own users internet freedoms. My concern (if you could call it that) is that other companies will mirror apples approach, which seems to be happening to some degree.

quote:
they can choose non-Apple solutions if they want absolute freedom and stuff.
that's what i do.

quote:
you don't use Apple solutions but still bother about poor little victimized Apple users.
Wrong, I don't care about them at all. If they choose it then they deserve it. I was just pointing out why i think it's stupid for someone to choose something like that "on purpose".

quote:
These poor users are ADULTS and they made THEIR OWN CHOICE, so why don't you stop lamenting them huh?
Again, don't care. If anything, I feel sorry for them... but that's about where that train stops.

quote:
are you seriously going to lament other people's choices and tastes?!
I don't "lament" anyone. You have SERIOUSLY overestimated how much I "care". I don't care... AT ALL. If someone wants to put their money in a device that's half functional and blocks you from installing the programs you might want, if you want to pay jobs money to make decisions about what you need and don't need for you, then good for you.

quote:
Games != ad banners

HA! For that you have iAds... Enjoy!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAd

If you seriously think that Flash is the only platform to harbor ads... you're gravely mistaken. If you do away with flash the ads will come on another platform. HTML5 is most likely a prime candidate. You enjoy that now...


RE: Why?
By Pirks on 11/20/2010 8:29:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
then where's flash?
You weren't talking about Flash per se, you were talking about iPhone development languages Apple used to squelch.
quote:
they are a threat to their own users internet freedoms
That's because their users don't need internet freedoms
quote:
For that you have iAds
That doesn't suck battery as bad as Flash, so moot point


RE: Why?
By ack on 11/16/2010 3:43:03 PM , Rating: 2
I guess in the case of HTML5, was Apple really trying to promote an open standard or eliminate a competitor? When Apple started pushing HTML5, it wasn't nearly ready. AFAIK, it still has not been ratified.

I think Apple's threat is that they are trying to push their choices onto all platforms, like the premature adoption of HTML5 and elimination of Flash. If they succeed enough times, then Apple can control all key IT decisions.

Personally, I don't think it will happen... too many people are now aware of Apple's excessive influence.


RE: Why?
By misterbarker on 11/16/2010 4:07:04 PM , Rating: 2
As if Apple has cornered the market on HTML5. Come on, for the love of Steve, Apple is wanting to contribute to the HTML5 standards because they've got a dog in the fight, namely Safari.


RE: Why?
By ack on 11/16/2010 10:02:12 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, come on. The moment Apple banned Adobe Flash *and* Adobe conversion tools, any pretense that Apple was promoting HTML5 as a "contribution" went out the window.

Apple is a business. Destroying the competition through any means is unfortunately, quite common. Jobs rants about Adobe every chance he gets.


RE: Why?
By Reclaimer77 on 11/16/2010 3:51:53 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
This is worth a watch


Not really. Five minutes in and he's still outlining basic web technologies that were news five or ten years ago. If there is a tie in somewhere to an actual point, I doubt it. But I'm sure not sticking around for it. Did he even rehearse this? It's like he's making up his points as he goes..

The idea that you would post a video of a guy who is obviously being paid by Apple, or has a vested interest in Apple, as some kind of objective informative insight on this topic is laughable.

Tony, you're brainwashed.


RE: Why?
By Tony Swash on 11/16/10, Rating: -1
RE: Why?
By Reclaimer77 on 11/16/2010 9:02:27 PM , Rating: 4
Tony you don't have the power to demand I waste 10 minutes of my life. And if you post that something is on topic, informative, and interesting it should actually be one of the above.

Do you see ANYONE saying "WOW what a great video, thanks Tony"?

Look man, I gave it an honest shot. I gave him 5 minutes to be interesting.


RE: Why?
By hiscross on 11/16/2010 6:26:20 PM , Rating: 1
Point out one error in the video and don't make things up, if you can't find anything.

Silence is golden


RE: Why?
By SPOOFE on 11/16/2010 10:28:57 PM , Rating: 2
A video can be completely error-free and still be not worth watching. I can go make a half-hour video of nothing but a blank piece of paper, and it will be absolutely lacking in errors. Still dull, though.


RE: Why?
By Luticus on 11/17/2010 12:50:43 PM , Rating: 2
As you can clearly see by my post starting off "I will now take the time to utterly refute EVERYTHING this moron says." which was in reply directly to Tony's video, i have been anything but silent on the issue.

I will not "double post" it, so you'll have to scroll up to see it in all it's glory. The gist of it is that the guy in the video is a moron who is referencing old technology and giving apple credit for doing things everyone else has been doing for years. I don't know if there is anything that i can call an outright "error" but i can say the video is misleading (no to mention boring) and anyone who believes it is a fool. And yes, I watched the stupid thing all the way through and gave it a proper rebuttal.


RE: Why?
By Shadowmaster625 on 11/17/2010 9:51:36 AM , Rating: 1
Money is the motive. By maintaining a lock on all the information that goes in or comes out of your net connection, they are able to sell that information to the highest bidder or use it in some other way to make the most money. So now we have clear motive to tighten and tighten the noose around internet freedom, since doing so seems to generate profits. That is why you never buy locked out locked down proprietary crap. In many cases they make more money off you than you even make in income. That is the road to serfdom.


inflammatory Title
By MDGeek on 11/16/10, Rating: -1
RE: inflammatory Title
By morphologia on 11/16/2010 4:43:01 PM , Rating: 3
Could it be that things here are presented the way they are in order to generate interest? Any response we make to an article would serve to prove that it is working.

This article's premise is factual. A Columbia prof did indeed call Apple the greatest threat to internet freedom. If the person in the spotlight didn't mince words, why should anyone reporting on it do so? To protect the tender sensitivities of the rabid commentards who wax extremist at the mere mention of a polarizing topic, the people who surge to one side or the other of the argument like the parting of the Red Sea?


How?
By Tony Swash on 11/16/10, Rating: -1
RE: How?
By Targon on 11/16/2010 7:23:37 PM , Rating: 2
Apple has been pushing for dominance in the smartphone arena, and by blocking Flash and other apps that Apple does not APPROVE of, they are limiting what their customers may or may not see or do on Apple products. This is like saying that the leading TV manufacturer does not allow the premium movie channels to be viewed on their products because there might be a bare breast.

Now, this may seem like a weak argument since the iPhone does not have a majority of the smartphone market, but notice how EVERY company out there is rushing to make apps that run on the iPhone and other Apple devices, yet most have not bothered to release the app for any other phone. This shows that while Apple may not have a dominance when it comes to phone sales, they DO have dominance when it comes to what companies feel they must support.


RE: How?
By Tony Swash on 11/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: How?
By SPOOFE on 11/17/2010 4:39:55 PM , Rating: 2
... Because pushing Enter after every sentence makes you more right? Huh?

"Don't buy Apple products."

"Stop whining about other people's purchase preferences."

You seem to acknowledge that there's a perfectly good reason to not want Apple products to be popular, yet you think people should just suck it up? Convincing other people to not purchase them either seems like a perfectly valid tactic. YOU, on the other hand, have no valid reason to tell anyone to "stop whining". Methinks you haven't thought this whole thing through very well.


RE: How?
By drycrust3 on 11/17/2010 2:45:21 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. Apple, as a company, made thousands of choices in the range and quality of services and software supplied with and available to users of the iPhone. Most of those choices were made without any consultation with the public. We might not like the choices Apple made, but as far as I can tell not one government in the world has actually got excited about those choices, which means Apple didn't push any censorship boundaries anywhere. I don't know what Apple's policy is concerning an iPhone being returned because someone couldn't see a porn movie and wasn't told they couldn't watch it on an iPhone, but I suspect they would just refund the money.
On the other hand, we have Microsoft that have regularly supplied Operating Systems and software that has bugs in it, and browsers that don't conform to accepted internet standards, and now the tide of malware is becoming so enormous that governments around the world are considering putting up firewalls "to keep malware out", which is censorship in disguise.


RE: How?
By robinthakur on 11/17/2010 11:35:30 AM , Rating: 2
I think you're a little confused. Apple designs the hardware and the software and then sells it. They decide its capabilities. Consumers choose whether to buy it or not based on those capabilities. It's not exactly secret that Apple devices (in common with most mobile devices currently in users hands) do not play back flash.

Being able to browse flash and porn on your phone is not a fundamental human right, though you have always been able to view porn quite happily on an iPhone either through the browser or through video which you sync with itunes, so I'm not sure what your point is?

You have a cooling off period if you buy the phone then decide having used it and not having being able to browse your Flash porn sites that its not for you. Try it and let us know how it goes ;-P

Read up on the definition of Malware, how is it in anybody's interest to let this through by virtue of freedom of expression? Governments are merely reflecting the security steps taken by big business in protecting key assets. Personally, if it means less scam and phishing activities, why is it a bad thing/.


Don't see how
By phantom505 on 11/16/10, Rating: -1
RE: Don't see how
By menting on 11/16/2010 3:41:30 PM , Rating: 3
because apple already controls what you can and cannot do before data hits the pipes. Nobody is saying that ISPs are not deterrents, but just that Apple is the biggest one of them all.


RE: Don't see how
By gescom on 11/16/10, Rating: -1
RE: Don't see how
By Shatbot on 11/16/2010 4:12:04 PM , Rating: 3
Ummm, you can't use flash on your iPhone? Therefore blocking any data transferred through that medium.


RE: Don't see how
By Pirks on 11/16/10, Rating: 0
RE: Don't see how
By Fritzr on 11/17/2010 10:53:01 AM , Rating: 2
The way it works as a restriction on content is to have endusers complain that they need an alternative, forcing providers to distribute 2+ versions or drop one of the formats.

Apple bans Flash
Apple users demand access to sites that are Flash only...usually by complaining to the site owner about their 'broken' content.
If 'site' has a large enough Apple interest, then Apple has 'forced' them to change format to avoid losing customers.

The Apple alternative HTML5 is NOT ready for use. The W3C which is responsible for maintaining HTML standards is currently recommending NON-USE of HTML5 for any serious purpose. The HTML5 standard has not been finalized, implementations are buggy and unreliable. For web animation Flash is recommended by most, Silverlight by Microsoft and the standard that end-users are warned by it's standards committee to not rely on is the one that Apple forces it's users to rely on.

Maybe this particular "Chinese idiot" was looking for publicity, but he was doing it by publicizing the fact that Apple is forcing it's users to use a buggy unreliable standard over a long established standard used by the majority of websites offering animation.

Until the world obeys Apple, the web will appear to be broken when using Flash disabled Apple products.


Columbia
By burnstagger on 11/16/10, Rating: -1
RE: Columbia
By jimbojimbo on 11/17/2010 3:53:24 PM , Rating: 1
I forgot, where are all the Apple products made in again?


"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki