Bass said:

PaoloM said:

*snip*

Obviously Apple is also a platform vendor and would rather have their platform have the best web experience by introducing proprietary Apple OS X / iPhone only tech on the web if possible. The thing is they are in no position to make this happen.

 

Microsoft has a better shot at this. When people view the web it is usually through a Microsoft product (~90% on a Microsoft OS). Silverlight supports Mac OS X, but I think this is more to entice developers to the platform then anything else. There is no business case for it other then appeasing the demand for cross-platform development. Microsoft is a platform vendor, and as a platform vendor, a business case for cross-platform development (which means improving your competitor's platforms) is almost nonsensical.

 

If Silverlight ever gets popular I'm sure the Mac OS X version will go the way of the dodo, probably with Microsoft citing "lack of demand" as typical. This will lead to a greatly degraded web experience for everyone not using Windows. Which will make Windows more appealing. Which arguably was the whole point of the experiment.

Microsoft makes more Mac software than anyone else, besides Apple and has an entire business unit for Macs.  So no, they will continue to support Silverlight.

Now it seems that Adobe has given up on the idea of flash on any Apple device.

http://blogs.adobe.com/conversations/2010/04/moving_forward.html

Nah, all flashy boggust claims. All these claim has nothing, I repeat, has nothing to do with whether Apple should let iPhone to run Flash or not. I mean seriously, no touch, so what? lower bettery life? so what? performance? so what? That has nothing, I repeat, nothing related to those closed development agreement.

These are like those scapegoat religious people using, oh, I am afraid of death. And someone says, don't worry, you will go to heaven. Yeah, I am still afraid of death and I am still going to die. Going to heaven is completely out of topic. Those statements are off-topic and just trying to divert the real topic. And Jobs is using the same tatics. Or I should say, the same Mac vs PC bs over again. In order to make them look good, they just downplay Adobe to make people think Adobe is uncool and not needed.

Let's just be realistic, Apple is always an a-- and they always dictate everything. And they are lazy because they know allowing flash would takes more efforts in cooperation and maintaining their unstable OS. Instead of taking on the challange, they just block it off, so they can claim stuff like no virus and so-on. I respect their business model, but, I hate liars. If they can be honest about it, I will totally support their cause. Closed system has a lot of its benifits, both technical and business aspects. But, this trash talk BS is something I don't agree on. I have always respected Apple until their attacks on PC, freaking BS.

Just to make it clear. I am fine with Apple closed system model. I respect that. It is those BS claim to downplay Adobe that gets me mad. Just the same I hate those Mac vs PC BS. I respected Apple until they started those BS statements to downplay competition instead respecting competitors.

magicalclick said:

Nah, all flashy boggust claims. All these claim has nothing, I repeat, has nothing to do with whether Apple should let iPhone to run Flash or not. I mean seriously, no touch, so what? lower bettery life? so what? performance? so what? That has nothing, I repeat, nothing related to those closed development agreement.

 

These are like those scapegoat religious people using, oh, I am afraid of death. And someone says, don't worry, you will go to heaven. Yeah, I am still afraid of death and I am still going to die. Going to heaven is completely out of topic. Those statements are off-topic and just trying to divert the real topic. And Jobs is using the same tatics. Or I should say, the same Mac vs PC bs over again. In order to make them look good, they just downplay Adobe to make people think Adobe is uncool and not needed.

 

Let's just be realistic, Apple is always an a-- and they always dictate everything. And they are lazy because they know allowing flash would takes more efforts in cooperation and maintaining their unstable OS. Instead of taking on the challange, they just block it off, so they can claim stuff like no virus and so-on. I respect their business model, but, I hate liars. If they can be honest about it, I will totally support their cause. Closed system has a lot of its benifits, both technical and business aspects. But, this trash talk BS is something I don't agree on. I have always respected Apple until their attacks on PC, freaking BS.

 

Just to make it clear. I am fine with Apple closed system model. I respect that. It is those BS claim to downplay Adobe that gets me mad. Just the same I hate those Mac vs PC BS. I respected Apple until they started those BS statements to downplay competition instead respecting competitors.

 

 

That's another thing. The stuff about Flash not working on touch screens seems to be a bit of a lie.

Bass said:

PaoloM said:

*snip*

Obviously Apple is also a platform vendor and would rather have their platform have the best web experience by introducing proprietary Apple OS X / iPhone only tech on the web if possible. The thing is they are in no position to make this happen.

 

Microsoft has a better shot at this. When people view the web it is usually through a Microsoft product (~90% on a Microsoft OS). Silverlight supports Mac OS X, but I think this is more to entice developers to the platform then anything else. There is no business case for it other then appeasing the demand for cross-platform development. Microsoft is a platform vendor, and as a platform vendor, a business case for cross-platform development (which means improving your competitor's platforms) is almost nonsensical.

 

If Silverlight ever gets popular I'm sure the Mac OS X version will go the way of the dodo, probably with Microsoft citing "lack of demand" as typical. This will lead to a greatly degraded web experience for everyone not using Windows. Which will make Windows more appealing. Which arguably was the whole point of the experiment.

As CreamFilling has already pointed out, MS makes more money on Mac software than just about anyone else in the industry.  In fact, outside of Windows and WinOffice, it's one of the few MS divisions that actually makes a profit. If what you're saying is true, then why haven't they canned Office for the Mac? If not for Microsoft's efforts in this regard, the platform may shrunk to nothing years ago.

From the looks of it, MS is putting more effort into Macs on the desktop than Apple. It's great to watch Jobs bleat about Adobe not spending millions to convert all their software to Cocoa when so much of Apple's stuff is still running on Carbon.

Is there no end to Jobs' hypocrisy?

Ray7 said:

magicalclick said:

*snip*

That's another thing. The stuff about Flash not working on touch screens seems to be a bit of a lie.

 

 

It isn't a "lie."

Can you build Flash applications to work on touch screens? Yes.

Do existing applications inherently work on touch screens? No.

Even the article suggested reasons why existing applications would fail when you throw them very fast MOUSE.UP and MOUSE.DOWN events (menus opening and closing within a split second).

Let me also remind you what the quote was:
"Current Flash sites could never be made work well on any touchscreen device, and this cannot be solved by Apple, Adobe, or magical new hardware."

JoshRoss said:

I think the bigger issue is Section 3.3.1.  I can live without flash and yes *eek* silverlight. I think Steve is just beating a dead horse here.

 

-Josh

I think even putting Flash and...

Silverlight in the same line of text is wrong.

Flash = utter crap

Silverlight = Almost full Windows power in that little plugin.

Besides, I'm "moving" fully into Silverlight soon so it better not disappear.

Just my $0.02.

turrican said:

JoshRoss said:

*snip*

I think even putting Flash and...

Silverlight in the same line of text is wrong.

 

Flash = utter crap

Silverlight = Almost full Windows power in that little plugin.

 

Besides, I'm "moving" fully into Silverlight soon so it better not disappear.

 

Just my $0.02.

They're exactly the same. I don't know what Silverlight's long term future is but since it isn't an open standard and since the IE team thought so good of it they failed to integrated it into IE9 I am not holding out much hope.

brian.shapiro said:

Bass said:

*snip*

And Microsoft doesn't sue over re-implementations of .NET, so all of that is just technical details. The real issue is whether Steve Jobs is really being honest in supporting an 'open web' or whether its just political cover because they want to control the iPod platform.

What he said. I'm not against closed systems. It's just a different model, with it's own set of pros and cons. Better for some things, worse for others, and equal for the rest (barring crazy "religous" arguments that I tend not to get into). However, it's extremely dishonest to make claims about the HTML5 stack being open, when Apple/Steve is pushing hard to include their own non-open aspects in the standard. I agree with you that there's some debate about what open means in this specific case, and we did just fine with GIF on the web for many years, so I'm not claiming doom and gloom here. I'm simply pointing out the dishonesty.

Bass said:

brian.shapiro said:

*snip*

I think Apple has a bigger interest in an open web then Microsoft does. Actually, I don't see how Microsoft's business model fits in any shape or form into the idea of an open web. Microsoft wants control over the ways people develop software and ensure that software runs best on Windows only, if it even runs anywhere else. That way they can keep racking in the Windows royalties they bill to OEMs.

That claim isn't wholly accurate, but let's say you're right. How is Apple's businness strategy here any different, exactly? It seems more draconian than anything Microsoft has ever been accused of when it comes to "lock-in" business strategies.

ManipUni said:

turrican said:

*snip*

They're exactly the same. I don't know what Silverlight's long term future is but since it isn't an open standard and since the IE team thought so good of it they failed to integrated it into IE9 I am not holding out much hope.

What utter nonesense. I somewhat understand the "open" sentiment... though the tech industry in general, and the web in particular, has done just fine with "closed/proprietary" systems so far. But the claim about SL not being supported in IE9, which isn't even in beta form yet, is complete and utter whackery. Further, questioning Silverlight's future is a foolish thing to do. It's backed by the most powerful company in the industry, no matter what you think of them. They're pushing it hard, and not just on the web. It's being pushed on the web, on the PC, on the phone, on cable boxes, on embedded devices... hell, if it runs software, Microsoft thinks Silverlight should run on it, as far as I can tell. No, Silverlight is going to be pervasive, and is going to be around for quite some time.

wkempf said:

ManipUni said:

*snip*

What utter nonesense. I somewhat understand the "open" sentiment... though the tech industry in general, and the web in particular, has done just fine with "closed/proprietary" systems so far. But the claim about SL not being supported in IE9, which isn't even in beta form yet, is complete and utter whackery. Further, questioning Silverlight's future is a foolish thing to do. It's backed by the most powerful company in the industry, no matter what you think of them. They're pushing it hard, and not just on the web. It's being pushed on the web, on the PC, on the phone, on cable boxes, on embedded devices... hell, if it runs software, Microsoft thinks Silverlight should run on it, as far as I can tell. No, Silverlight is going to be pervasive, and is going to be around for quite some time.

I cannot run Silverlight natively in the IE9 development preview. I think it is safe to say it won't have native support.

ManipUni said:

wkempf said:

*snip*

I cannot run Silverlight natively in the IE9 development preview. I think it is safe to say it won't have native support.

It's not safe to say ANYTHING about IE9. It's NOT EVEN IN BETA. What's available to you as a CTP today is NOT BETA. Hell, it's not even ALPHA. It's a developer snapshot, that doesn't even include the proper frame. Why you're trying to guess (and I do mean guess) anything about Silverlight based on this IE9 CTP is waaaaaay beyond me.

ManipUni said:

wkempf said:

*snip*

I cannot run Silverlight natively in the IE9 development preview. I think it is safe to say it won't have native support.

"I cannot run Silverlight natively in the IE9 development preview"

I bolded the important parts *rolls eyes*

Harlequin said:

ManipUni said:

*snip*

"I cannot run Silverlight natively in the IE9 development preview"

 

I bolded the important parts *rolls eyes*

Wait what does he mean by natively

wkempf said:

ManipUni said:

*snip*

What utter nonesense. I somewhat understand the "open" sentiment... though the tech industry in general, and the web in particular, has done just fine with "closed/proprietary" systems so far. But the claim about SL not being supported in IE9, which isn't even in beta form yet, is complete and utter whackery. Further, questioning Silverlight's future is a foolish thing to do. It's backed by the most powerful company in the industry, no matter what you think of them. They're pushing it hard, and not just on the web. It's being pushed on the web, on the PC, on the phone, on cable boxes, on embedded devices... hell, if it runs software, Microsoft thinks Silverlight should run on it, as far as I can tell. No, Silverlight is going to be pervasive, and is going to be around for quite some time.

I couldn't agree more. Just like when .NET came out, I think and this is ofcourse just my own thought and opinion on it, there is something about Silverlight. Something important. I'm very confident that Silverlight has a very bright and important future... back then when .NET came out I knew a lot of people who bet against it, long story short, they no longer work in this industry.

I'm going to bet on Silverlight and I'll bet large. I'll move as many applications as I can to Silverlight ( once I learn it better ).

I do not claim in any shape or form that Windows applications will die, but I do see Silverlight becoming atleast as important if not much much more in the future.

brian.shapiro said:

Harlequin said:

*snip*

Wait what does he mean by natively

Beats me. Silverlight works fine here on IE9...

PaoloM said:

brian.shapiro said:

*snip*

Beats me. Silverlight works fine here on IE9...

I just found this article on Reuters,

Microsoft echoes Apple view on Adobe's Flash

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63T47V20100430?feedType=RSS&feedName=technologyNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+reuters/technologyNews+(News+/+US+/+Technology)">http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63T47V20100430?feedType=RSS&feedName=technologyNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+reuters/technologyNews+(News+/+US+/+Technology) 

Which seems pretty biased, by suggesting that Microsoft is endorsing Apple's position when there's no evidence they are. The general manager of IE just agreed with Apple that Flash has some technical issues. Obviously, because they're developing Silverlight, they think Flash has some place in the market too.