Turtle Tattoo Designs

I can't say I am a fan of Adobe Flash as I am a big supporter of an open web, but I must say that if cross-compiled apps are inferior then the customers in the app store will certainly vote with their dollars to favor the natively written apps.

However, I can see Apple putting this new restriction in their license agreement so as to protect themselves in case the Adobe folks find some way to sneak things onto the iPhone via their cross-compiling tools. Apple is protecting their turf, but by error on the side of caution they set themselves up for bad PR even if they intend to be more lax in acting on those restrictions.

Here is another example of that occurring.... certainly Apple is choosing to reserve the right to bend the rules where they see fit. But without the strict wording in the developer agreement they really wouldn't have a leg to stand on. They are doing the same with pornography by revoking/rejecting all those junk porn apps that polluted the app store while still allowing the "main stream" stuff from established publishers.

On one hand, its Apple's store and if they don't want to pollute their shelves with garbage then I applaud them. However, somebody is going to cry foul since there is not another legitimate store for iPhone apps, and I wonder if this will eventually blow-up as some sort of new anti-trust thing.

Here's what I think the cross-compiler issue is. Adobe had the same sort of problem before they bought flash, with their app that made flash files. It was called LiveMotion and it was great. The problem with that app though, was that Macromedia controlled flash, and adobe could only reverse engineer it after the latest version had been released. So, the features of Flash 7 couldn't be realized by the Adobe LiveMotion app until waaaay after the release of Flash 7. Usually near Flash 8, etc. Adobe was essentially always a version behind. Not such a big deal with apps made for desktops and laptops. But if Apple wants to control the experience and have all it's apps updated very quickly for new OS updates, they'd have to reveal all the new features to Adobe way beforehand so that all the people making apps via Adobe's compilier could update them quickly. And of course Apple would be reliant on those developers actually desiring to pay Adobe for an upgrade to flash, which usually only comes out every year and a half or so. Much slower than updates to iPhone and it's OS. So instead, if all the developers are using Apple's tools, Apple can simply slide them a free SDK update and have them recompile. Since updating apps is so simple this way, Apple can easily require that the developers recompile in a certain time frame. Pretty hard to do for the developers that would be going through Flash, and if Adobe didn't update their tools, then the devs couldn't update, and you've got a mess and the only people losing would be the iPhone users, and then of course Apple.

Not saying it's right or wrong. Just saying that's where Apple's coming from. I really don't think they are trying to piss off Adobe in particular. Why should they be angry at Adobe anyway? They're the ones that didn't allow flash. Adobe should be angry at Apple.

I agree, except for one little thing===> HD Content distribution. No real solution for that one yet. You can't very easily d/l a 25GB HD movie. Even compressed, it's a massive freakin' file. I don't think there's a comsumer level internet connection that could support such content offerings.


Faster internet connections will come, I have 24 Mbit/s, not unusual here in Sweden. Of course Target is looking at this as a threat in the future, not right now.

Might be just me but...where`s Ballmer?

- doesn't work on firefox (1.5) under WinXP

- still can't use an email address other than mac.com email address as "reply to"

At least they have fixed it so that it properly quotes previous emails in replies!

When Apple aired those Intel ads of the Intel fab plant talking about dull PCs, a lot of PC users got angry over that. There was quite a backlash against Apple when they do negative advertising like that, simply making PC users look stupid (which they are of course ;)). It harkens back to the days, post-1984 ad, when they shown PC users as lemmings walking off a cliff. Hehe. :)

Isn't that from Get Fuzzy?

/mmm, google. :DYes, but you only get 5 points because you cheated. ;)

Use AppCleaner (http://www.freemacsoft.net/AppCleaner/)

Why would customers be preferring the Verizon iPad? The (factory unlocked) GSM iPad can be used in nearly every country, and domestically AT&T has faster 3G service if I recall correctly. Although Verizon has better voice and better coverage, I can't see people in metropolitan areas actually being better off with the CDMA iPad. Since the iPad data payment can't be tied to a pre-existing AT&T or Verizon cell phone plan, I just don't see much advantage to getting a Verizon iPad unless you live in an area without AT&T service. Thoughts?

What a waste of taxpayers money. Here is a great idea, learn to be a parent!

Thank you.

Kinda late but I like pages!

Only the contemporary GOP would think that running a fat obnoxious trust-fund billionaire who is most famous for firing people, as a populist candidate would be a good idea.

People are throwing around "Unix" and "Windows" like they used to throw around "RISC" and "CISC". There is no reason of which I am aware why a future version of Windows cannot scale to as many processors as any version of Unix, just like the nasty ol x86 ISA has yielded top-notch processors like the P4 and Athlon.

I think that everyone here who argues otherwise is engaged in a desperate attempt to justify their worldview that equates Apple with perfection and wisdom, or perhaps equates Microsoft with evil and boundless stupidity.

Any know why some users photos don't sync? My photo doesn't show up on my wife's phone, but many of her friends photos' do.

btw, I have seen other info posted like my friend's Sister's name and etc.

even more good news for Apple and the ipod. more success for Apple ;)

Cut defense, raise taxes on the rich, and close corporate tax loopholes. Deficit solved without cutting any social services. In fact, the little "balance the budget" exercise I posted a few weeks ago proved we could add a surplus while still increasing money for social services, green energy and veterans benefits. All with a progressive tax increase on the top 10%.

As Maddow says, its not about the budget.