As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Apple To Developers: Fuck You

12324262829

Posts

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I'm "mad" that Jobs is trying to tell the entire industry to get rid of Flash just because he doesn't like it.

    Evander on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    I'm "mad" that Jobs is trying to tell the entire industry to get rid of Flash just because he doesn't like it.

    but that's not the reason.

    and apple has no control over what the market does outside of their devices.

    It's like saying that Toyota is trying to tell the entire industry to kill diesel by not offering diesel options in their cars.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I didn't come out swinging. The idea of me being "against" something is how other folks framed it.

    I was just comparing Apple to Sony. Both companies have a habit of making these declarative decisions.

    Evander on
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    I'm "mad" that Jobs is trying to tell the entire industry to get rid of Flash just because he doesn't like it.

    You prefer a world with Flash?

    enc0re on
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    I was thinking about considering Chrome as a solution to my various annoyances with Firefox.

    Now, I'm starting to think that's not such a good idea...

    It tends to eat a ton more ram when you have a lot of tabs open. So, i'm not ready to switch to it.... plus no Ad-Block?

    Firefox, with just a handful of extensions, already takes up a huge amount of memory, which I'm not pleased with. But apparently it gets worse.

    Plus, as unpopular as it is to admit, I like using Flash without getting repeated crashing. Come to think of it, I can't think of the last time I had flash crash period.

    Synthesis on
    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Flash is most stable by far on IE. It's not even a contest.

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Flash is most stable by far on IE. It's not even a contest.

    I'm not exactly sure if this is something worthy of praise...

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    It's not problematic on FF either. At least not in my experience, and I've been using Firefox nonstop for the last 4 to 5 years.

    Synthesis on
    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited April 2010
    I mean how can we even assess "Flash" as a market decision?

    I buy a phone or a computer and then I get these scroll-over ads on my internets and stuff that makes my computer crash with no realistic way of disabling it because it's an industry standard.

    There basically isn't a consumer option except to hope that a company will offer a flash-free experience. At which point I finally have an option as a consumer.

    If this turns out to be a poor market decision then apple will pay the price in sales. Certainly google has announced their continued support for Flash.

    But you and I both know that in all likeliness Apple will do okay because Flash is kind of a crappy standard and the market will migrate away from it.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Lanz wrote: »
    Flash is most stable by far on IE. It's not even a contest.

    I'm not exactly sure if this is something worthy of praise...

    In defense of IE, it's quite useful for downloading the FF or Chrome installer.

    enc0re on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited April 2010
    in my experience, flash is best on IE, worst on Chrome, and somewhere in-between on Safari and Firefox.

    It pretty much always beats the hell out of my computer though, even when it's working "fine"

    and 4/5 of the flash that ends up popping on my browsing is shit that I don't want anyways. banner ads, scroll-overs, hideous computer-crippling layouts on websites (ahem ign/ gamespot), popup pop-out and scroll-over video with sound, all this stuff running in the background inside of other tabs.

    god it's awful

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Synthesis wrote: »
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    I was thinking about considering Chrome as a solution to my various annoyances with Firefox.

    Now, I'm starting to think that's not such a good idea...

    It tends to eat a ton more ram when you have a lot of tabs open. So, i'm not ready to switch to it.... plus no Ad-Block?

    Firefox, with just a handful of extensions, already takes up a huge amount of memory, which I'm not pleased with. But apparently it gets worse.

    Plus, as unpopular as it is to admit, I like using Flash without getting repeated crashing. Come to think of it, I can't think of the last time I had flash crash period.

    I have a ton of ad-ons and Firefox runs using less memory then Chrome with the same pages loaded.

    Default one page use, Chrome is faster but it bloats up fast as you open more pages, and I needs me my ram.

    DanHibiki on
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    I was thinking about considering Chrome as a solution to my various annoyances with Firefox.

    Now, I'm starting to think that's not such a good idea...

    It tends to eat a ton more ram when you have a lot of tabs open. So, i'm not ready to switch to it.... plus no Ad-Block?

    Firefox, with just a handful of extensions, already takes up a huge amount of memory, which I'm not pleased with. But apparently it gets worse.

    Plus, as unpopular as it is to admit, I like using Flash without getting repeated crashing. Come to think of it, I can't think of the last time I had flash crash period.

    I have a ton of ad-ons and Firefox runs using less memory then Chrome with the same pages loaded.

    Default one page use, Chrome is faster but it bloats up fast as you open more pages, and I needs me my ram.

    Well, that rules out Chrome for certain. Though I'm not very pleased with the idea of sticking with FF either. That, and "ad block" increasingly does not do its job, nor do pop-up blockers.

    Synthesis on
    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • EndEnd Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    On my windows box, I haven't any issues with flash under Chrome. I have on my Linux box, but I've never actually crashed Chrome with it. YMMV.

    Anyhow, I'd probably dislike Apple trying to push people away from Flash, if I didn't basically agree on some of their points (although not necessarily all). Granted, my dislike of Flash is mostly due to my interaction with flash on websites.

    I'm somewhat concerned people will do things that annoy me with HTML5, but browsers and their extensions should be able to limit capabilities much better than what you can do with Flash.

    End on
    I wish that someway, somehow, that I could save every one of us
    zaleiria-by-lexxy-sig.jpgsteam~tinythumb.png
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    A little OT but firefox has a plug in called "flash blocker" which replaces all flash apps with a little button so if you want to see what is there you can click it otherwise it disables all those annoying flash apps.

    (FlashBlock for Chrome)

    CommunistCow on
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • EndEnd Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yeah, a flash blocker is definitely a most excellent thing to have. :)

    End on
    I wish that someway, somehow, that I could save every one of us
    zaleiria-by-lexxy-sig.jpgsteam~tinythumb.png
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I do question apple's motives. They're a business first and foremost. They don't hate flash because it's a proprietary format they hate it because it isn't their format. Part of Jobs' hatred of flash is probably due to it not being a great language but if you think he's being purely altruistic I think you are mistaken.

    nexuscrawler on
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I do question apple's motives. They're a business first and foremost. They don't hate flash because it's a proprietary format they hate it because it isn't their format. Part of Jobs' hatred of flash is probably due to it not being a great language but if you think he's being purely altruistic I think you are mistaken.

    Alternatively from a developer perspective it is really lame when a third party app or some middle ware has a problem/bug and you get blamed for it. Then again they should be doing proper sandboxing to prevent shitty apps from causing problems with the whole system.

    CommunistCow on
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    They want all ad dollars going through them, simple as that.

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • AtomikaAtomika She hungers. Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I do question apple's motives. They're a business first and foremost. They don't hate flash because it's a proprietary format they hate it because it isn't their format. Part of Jobs' hatred of flash is probably due to it not being a great language but if you think he's being purely altruistic I think you are mistaken.

    Is HTML5 their proprietary format?

    Atomika on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I do question apple's motives. They're a business first and foremost. They don't hate flash because it's a proprietary format they hate it because it isn't their format. Part of Jobs' hatred of flash is probably due to it not being a great language but if you think he's being purely altruistic I think you are mistaken.

    Is HTML5 their proprietary format?

    Apple tends to use open formats only when it's to their advantage. Remember the ADC, or a PCI and AGP bus with inverted endian format?

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2010
    Big Endian/Little Endian is a processor thing, and was a result of using PowerPC.

    FyreWulff on
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I do question apple's motives. They're a business first and foremost. They don't hate flash because it's a proprietary format they hate it because it isn't their format. Part of Jobs' hatred of flash is probably due to it not being a great language but if you think he's being purely altruistic I think you are mistaken.

    Is HTML5 their proprietary format?

    Apple tends to use open formats only when it's to their advantage. Remember the ADC, or a PCI and AGP bus with inverted endian format?

    Remember USB and Firewire?

    enc0re on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    enc0re wrote: »
    I do question apple's motives. They're a business first and foremost. They don't hate flash because it's a proprietary format they hate it because it isn't their format. Part of Jobs' hatred of flash is probably due to it not being a great language but if you think he's being purely altruistic I think you are mistaken.

    Is HTML5 their proprietary format?

    Apple tends to use open formats only when it's to their advantage. Remember the ADC, or a PCI and AGP bus with inverted endian format?

    Remember USB and Firewire?

    Added emphasis to the part you missed. The industry was already moving to USB when Apple shifted to it - Win95 had some support for it in the end, and 98 shipped with USB support out of the box. As for FireWire, it was a vast improvement over SCSI, and Apple didn't exactly espouse openness with it - there's a reason Sony called it iLINK.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Cyrus106Cyrus106 Registered User
    edited April 2010
    Rent wrote: »

    I am!

    How is Obama gonna use his homebrew "iLaunchNuclearBombAt<Country>" app now?!
    I lol'd. I'm neutral on this matter, but honestly I don't GIVE a shit about all these high tech phones, I just want a friggin phone so I can call people, kthx.

    Cyrus106 on
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    enc0re wrote: »

    Apple tends to use open formats only when it's to their advantage. Remember the ADC, or a PCI and AGP bus with inverted endian format?

    Remember USB and Firewire?

    Added emphasis to the part you missed. The industry was already moving to USB when Apple shifted to it - Win95 had some support for it in the end, and 98 shipped with USB support out of the box. As for FireWire, it was a vast improvement over SCSI, and Apple didn't exactly espouse openness with it - there's a reason Sony called it iLINK.

    That reason is that FireWire is an Apple trademark. The interface is IEEE1394. It does not get any more open. Ironically iLink isn't even IEEE1394.

    And your examples of proprietary technologies are silly, because AGP and PCI are open standards. Apple used a non-x86 architecture then. That's like saying OpenFirmware is proprietary.

    ADC was stupid which is why Apple has abandoned it.

    enc0re on
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2010
    there's a reason Sony called it iLINK.

    Because Sony's implementation dropped two pins (power) in favor of external power. Sony made their Firewire implementation non-standard (it was added to the standard later on.)

    FyreWulff on
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Apple abandoned ADC for their stupid miniport thing they're doing now

    it's just like a DVI port only you need to buy a 40 dollar adapter!

    nexuscrawler on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    enc0re wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »

    Apple tends to use open formats only when it's to their advantage. Remember the ADC, or a PCI and AGP bus with inverted endian format?

    Remember USB and Firewire?

    Added emphasis to the part you missed. The industry was already moving to USB when Apple shifted to it - Win95 had some support for it in the end, and 98 shipped with USB support out of the box. As for FireWire, it was a vast improvement over SCSI, and Apple didn't exactly espouse openness with it - there's a reason Sony called it iLINK.

    That reason is that FireWire is an Apple trademark. The interface is IEEE1394. It does not get any more open. Ironically iLink isn't even IEEE1394.

    And your examples of proprietary technologies are silly, because AGP and PCI are open standards. Apple used a non-x86 architecture then. That's like saying OpenFirmware is proprietary.

    ADC was stupid which is why Apple has abandoned it.

    Except there is a good argument to be made that they didn't actually use AGP or PCI as per the standard because they inverted the endian nature of the bus. And somehow, I think Apple could have made it so that their machines could accept standard add-on cards that conformed to the port format the rest of the world used.

    And it doesn't matter that Apple abandoned ADC - it's still an example of Apple eschewing standards for their own port. But if you want a current example, look at the bottom of a current iPod today.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    And it doesn't matter that Apple abandoned ADC - it's still an example of Apple eschewing standards for their own port. But if you want a current example, look at the bottom of a current iPod today.

    Talking about the dock connector?

    What alternative would you suggest?

    Would that alternative also be able to carry line-level audio and video, through a passive cable, as well as other control functions, as the current dock connector does? In the same form factor?

    If the dock connector only carried USB data, you'd have a point. Or if it only carried power...like the 8,231 different cellphone power adapters still being used in place of micro-USB. But the dock connector carries a lot of different functionality (some since abandoned, like dual USB/Firewire power/data) that can't (to my knowledge) be replicated with any open standard in a small form factor.

    EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I'm more than willing to bitch about Apple on a thousand other issues. But the dock connector and trying to drown Flash like the terrible mutant abomination that it is...those I'm fine with.

    mcdermott on
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    edited April 2010
    Apple abandoned ADC for their stupid miniport thing they're doing now

    it's just like a DVI port only you need to buy a 40 dollar adapter!

    Well, a whole bunch of people, not just apple, are switching to DisplayPort, because unlike HDMI, it doesn't have licensing fees.

    Just because Apple was first to market doesn't mean it was their idea; a whole bunch of folks think DisplayPort is a good idea.

    syndalis on
    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    And it doesn't matter that Apple abandoned ADC - it's still an example of Apple eschewing standards for their own port. But if you want a current example, look at the bottom of a current iPod today.

    Talking about the dock connector?

    What alternative would you suggest?

    Would that alternative also be able to carry line-level audio and video, through a passive cable, as well as other control functions, as the current dock connector does? In the same form factor?

    If the dock connector only carried USB data, you'd have a point. Or if it only carried power...like the 8,231 different cellphone power adapters still being used in place of micro-USB. But the dock connector carries a lot of different functionality (some since abandoned, like dual USB/Firewire power/data) that can't (to my knowledge) be replicated with any open standard in a small form factor.

    Older iPods were capable of outputting video via the headphone jack, much like numerous camcorders are able to.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    syndalis wrote: »
    Apple abandoned ADC for their stupid miniport thing they're doing now

    it's just like a DVI port only you need to buy a 40 dollar adapter!

    Well, a whole bunch of people, not just apple, are switching to DisplayPort, because unlike HDMI, it doesn't have licensing fees.

    Just because Apple was first to market doesn't mean it was their idea; a whole bunch of folks think DisplayPort is a good idea.

    The DisplayPorts on the new MBPs are capable of transmitting audio as well as video; I forget, does DVI have audio?

    KalTorak on
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    edited April 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    And it doesn't matter that Apple abandoned ADC - it's still an example of Apple eschewing standards for their own port. But if you want a current example, look at the bottom of a current iPod today.

    Talking about the dock connector?

    What alternative would you suggest?

    Would that alternative also be able to carry line-level audio and video, through a passive cable, as well as other control functions, as the current dock connector does? In the same form factor?

    If the dock connector only carried USB data, you'd have a point. Or if it only carried power...like the 8,231 different cellphone power adapters still being used in place of micro-USB. But the dock connector carries a lot of different functionality (some since abandoned, like dual USB/Firewire power/data) that can't (to my knowledge) be replicated with any open standard in a small form factor.

    Older iPods were capable of outputting video via the headphone jack, much like numerous camcorders are able to.
    Well, the reason that stopped is because they decided to use those bands to power the interface input mechanisms on the headphone remotes. TBH, I much prefer it this way; It is much more elegant to dock an iPhone/iPod into a cradle on your entertainment center and have the output show up on screen without having to fumble for the headphone jack as well.

    syndalis on
    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    syndalis wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    And it doesn't matter that Apple abandoned ADC - it's still an example of Apple eschewing standards for their own port. But if you want a current example, look at the bottom of a current iPod today.

    Talking about the dock connector?

    What alternative would you suggest?

    Would that alternative also be able to carry line-level audio and video, through a passive cable, as well as other control functions, as the current dock connector does? In the same form factor?

    If the dock connector only carried USB data, you'd have a point. Or if it only carried power...like the 8,231 different cellphone power adapters still being used in place of micro-USB. But the dock connector carries a lot of different functionality (some since abandoned, like dual USB/Firewire power/data) that can't (to my knowledge) be replicated with any open standard in a small form factor.

    Older iPods were capable of outputting video via the headphone jack, much like numerous camcorders are able to.
    Well, the reason that stopped is because they decided to use those bands to power the interface input mechanisms on the headphone remotes. TBH, I much prefer it this way; It is much more elegant to dock an iPhone/iPod into a cradle on your entertainment center and have the output show up on screen without having to fumble for the headphone jack as well.

    Besides, just because iPods used to output video through the headphone jack (to a composite video cable, how long do you think those are going to last?), it means they should get rid of the whole dock connector? What about all the other functionality? Obviously they can't have both input controls and video output all crammed into the headphone jack.

    KalTorak on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    syndalis wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    And it doesn't matter that Apple abandoned ADC - it's still an example of Apple eschewing standards for their own port. But if you want a current example, look at the bottom of a current iPod today.

    Talking about the dock connector?

    What alternative would you suggest?

    Would that alternative also be able to carry line-level audio and video, through a passive cable, as well as other control functions, as the current dock connector does? In the same form factor?

    If the dock connector only carried USB data, you'd have a point. Or if it only carried power...like the 8,231 different cellphone power adapters still being used in place of micro-USB. But the dock connector carries a lot of different functionality (some since abandoned, like dual USB/Firewire power/data) that can't (to my knowledge) be replicated with any open standard in a small form factor.

    Older iPods were capable of outputting video via the headphone jack, much like numerous camcorders are able to.
    Well, the reason that stopped is because they decided to use those bands to power the interface input mechanisms on the headphone remotes. TBH, I much prefer it this way; It is much more elegant to dock an iPhone/iPod into a cradle on your entertainment center and have the output show up on screen without having to fumble for the headphone jack as well.

    You could do that with the 5.5 gen iPods as well. And the big question remains - if the 30 pin connector is so great, why hasn't Apple submitted it to the IEEE?

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    edited April 2010
    syndalis wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    And it doesn't matter that Apple abandoned ADC - it's still an example of Apple eschewing standards for their own port. But if you want a current example, look at the bottom of a current iPod today.

    Talking about the dock connector?

    What alternative would you suggest?

    Would that alternative also be able to carry line-level audio and video, through a passive cable, as well as other control functions, as the current dock connector does? In the same form factor?

    If the dock connector only carried USB data, you'd have a point. Or if it only carried power...like the 8,231 different cellphone power adapters still being used in place of micro-USB. But the dock connector carries a lot of different functionality (some since abandoned, like dual USB/Firewire power/data) that can't (to my knowledge) be replicated with any open standard in a small form factor.

    Older iPods were capable of outputting video via the headphone jack, much like numerous camcorders are able to.
    Well, the reason that stopped is because they decided to use those bands to power the interface input mechanisms on the headphone remotes. TBH, I much prefer it this way; It is much more elegant to dock an iPhone/iPod into a cradle on your entertainment center and have the output show up on screen without having to fumble for the headphone jack as well.

    You could do that with the 5.5 gen iPods as well. And the big question remains - if the 30 pin connector is so great, why hasn't Apple submitted it to the IEEE?
    Sometimes companies are allowed to design novel solutions for their products and keep them as a value-added part of their product. Apple is not forcing the 30-pin connector on anyone except for the people who own iPods/iPads.

    Anyways, the 30 pin connector spins off into all the standard connections people have come to expect from devices like it (component/VGA video, USB, minijack audio, etc.) without having to put all those ports on the device itself.

    All the 30 pin connector is is a wrapper.

    syndalis on
    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Of all the Apple complaints, I have never understood the hatred of the 30-Pin connector, outside the need to buy a new one if you lose it.

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Lanz wrote: »
    Of all the Apple complaints, I have never understood the hatred of the 30-Pin connector, outside the need to buy a new one if you lose it.

    And considering you can get them for like eighteen cents on monoprice, even that's a stretch.

    mcdermott on
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2010
    Plus Apple couldn't get rid of it now if they wanted to, the gigantic accessories market would show up with pitchforks and cleave Jobs in two.

    FyreWulff on
Sign In or Register to comment.