🚀 go-pugleaf

SMS wrote:
> John Slade wrote:
>> JC Dill wrote:
>>> John Slade wrote:
>>>> The iPad uses watered down everything and I don't know how well it 
>>>> will do given the netbook market and how the typical netbook is far 
>>>> more powerful and versatile than the iPad.
>>>
>>> Not everyone wants (or needs) the most powerful and versatile item.  
>>> For many people, ease of use is far more important, 
>>
>>        I think ease of use means you can go on the Internet and use 
>> every web site without any problem. As it is, the iPad does not 
>> support Adobe Flash and a lot of web sites use flash extensively.
> 
> Well maybe Apple is the only company that can make a stand against the 
> extensive use of Flash.

      Stand against Flash? Don't make me laugh, oh wait, it's 
too late for that. Apple is not producing an alternative to 
Flash. There are alternatives like Silverlight, HTML5 and 
others. I think the main reason Apple didn't want to implement 
Flash is the same reason other mobile devices didn't use it. The 
iPad is not powerful enough to run Flash well. However during 
the development of the iPad, Adobe has put out a mobile version 
of Flash that seems to work well for many devices. Why Apple 
didn't work with Adobe to put it on the iPad is anyone's guess. 
I guess Job's playing up the shortcomings of Flash prevents him 
from adopting the mobile version for use on the iPhone, iPad and 
iPod Touch.

       I don't think Apple is being the lone voice against the 
overuse of Flash even though it is overused. Maybe if Apple had 
not allowed Flash to run on OS X, then I might change my mind 
but that's not the case.

John