hahaiamatwork

My argument isn't 'Flash is great'.

It's 'Flash works and I see no need to break a bunch of websites when the replacements are not yet up to the task'

These are all current arguments against HTML animations as well as Flash.

HTML also supports a 'mouseover' element, just as Flash does, so I don't consider that to be a strong argument.

I agree, but as another poster said, the technology simply isn't there.

I haven't tested an iPhone 4S yet, but I did develop some javascript canvas based animations for some time, and the performance was extremely poor. The old benchmark I used was http://themaninblue.com/writing/perspective/2010/03/22/ I believe, and I have yet to see HTML outperform flash on it.

Why? Can you present a coherent argument against enabling flash that isn't just "I don't want to use it so nobody else should be allowed to"?

The logic behind unannounced seizures is valid. If announcement was given and MU were violating the law, it's reasonable to believe they would immediately take action to obfuscate and obscure any evidence against them. It is also likely there is little to no physical evidence against them, and as we all well know, electronic evidence can easily be disposed of without trail.

Corporations are not people, and by seizing assets and personnel the authorities have committed no murder. If anything MU has now become a household name and I find it very hard to believe their business would simply vanish overnight if acquitted.

This isn't a conspiracy theory site. For the sake of polite conversation this isn't the place to start making such claims.

With respect, this is not how claims work. You can't make a claim and then expect your opponents to have the burden of proof to refute it.

If you make a claim such as 'GCC produces significantly worse code than alternate compiler A' then it's completely reasonable to ask for something to support it. Tone wise perhaps the post could have been improved, but the principle stands.

You don't even need to address common problems or have any remotely interesting commentary whatsoever!

This is fairly true, but it's still a potential factor depending on your SaaS setup.

Because IP addresses are hard to get? Because SSL adds computational overhead? Because it requires extra staff time to renew certificates? Because storing keys and even CSRs adds to the security budget and staff training?

Is it just me or is anyone else tired of these blogs on Hacker News? It seems that anyone who has a website and some time can get their opinion to the top of the list.

I should try it.

Why did they try and claim it was a criminal offence?

We're supposed to comment intelligently and politely, but I can't think of either to reply to this.

The reality of the situation is of course nothing like what you are saying.

In such a world, Jobs would be unemployed. Apple got their second wind by selling iPods. Imagine if Microsoft had prohibited their connection for 'safety reasons'.

Please detail which phone you use and which apps were unintuitive.

I hear complaints like this a lot, then try to replicate them on hardware I have to hand, and shockingly I am unable to do so! It's almost as if these stories are massively embellished versions of real interactions.

For example. Have you actually seen how complex the home button on an iPhone is?

You are incorrect. Android applications can be compiled against purely Android libraries, or Google's additional libraries. The ones which do not depend on Google's services specifically can be used anywhere you like.

For example: There's a company running Android apps on iOS now.

There's only really a couple of points in your post that are valid, so I'll go through each point you made.

1. Phones with the same class of processor have been available for some time now. Tegra 2 is a dual core 1ghz SoC and there are 1.2 and 1.5ghz dual cores from competitors, with a quad core 1.5ghz due from Nvidia within the next few months.

2. The camera may be excellent, but previous phones have applied some bad automatic settings to this, making adjusting of photos result in unnecessary detail loss.

3. iTunes and the App Store I won't argue against, but it's worthy of note now that competitors are approaching Apple with these features.

4. As far as the AI goes, I doubt it will ever see significant widespread adoption. Nobody has yet been able to give me a few good solid examples of use outside of 'play this album' and 'set a reminder for x'. Facetime was supposed to be the be-all and end-all of video chatting. I think I have used it once.

5. The general point about carriers is almost certainly stated by an American. iPhones have been available on many carriers in many countries, and still Android is advancing significantly.

6. You're ignoring the significant downsides to the iOS ecosystem. For example, if you purchase apps, you would be better off with an Android. Why? Because purchasing those apps on an iPhone means that the associated cost of switching to any other platform increases by the value of those apps. That cannot be justified as a 'good thing'.

I also notice that a large number of these complaints apply to mobile apps. For example, the difference in back button use between iOS apps and websites is marked.

I've been trying all day to get my hands on one, and yeah £90 is fantastic.

Tell your devs that I hate them, everywhere in the UK is now out of stock and we have only rumours to go on.