It's great they put it up that way as that seems to be the native resolution the demo was recorded at. That way, you get the optimum display quality of the text. Since most of the screen stays the same much of the time, it isn't that much of a bandwidth waster after all even at the higher resolution.
If clang could come up with better C++ template error messages that would be really sweet. STL related error messages in g++ (and MSVC) are really hard to figure out, especially when C++ is not your main language; so you're not exposed to those problems on a daily basis.
Thesis (established view): SQL/ACID solves all you data problems
Antithesis: Nobody needs SQL/ACID, let's throw it all out
Synthesis: By carefully considering data integrity constraints we can find a more optimal data management solution for a particular problem (alternatively: let's go to the pub!)
Yep. I'd go as far as saying that the fact that Android users, on average, are downloading a similar number of apps as iphone users is hardly interesting at all. The average smartphone user just seems to get around 9 free and one or two paid apps per month. What is important is the number of users that are doing this on a particular platform and maybe any associated trends, if they exist.
The correct headline for this information is "iphone and android users have similar app download behavior". The actual headline implies that Android app download volume would be similar to iphone volume. That would have been a bit of a sensation (to me)... But that's just not what happened.
Honestly I'm kind of surprised the Android numbers aren't higher, since Android device sales so far have presumably skewed heavily toward "geeks" who seem more likely to download stuff just to try it out.
Perhaps it's a function of there just being fewer apps available and, of those apps that are available, many may be coming from non-Android Market suppliers?
What I find problematic about this approach is that it leads to an implementation that represents the least common denominator. Protocols that have some conceptual overlap were devised for a reason and represent some sort of evolution. Treating them all the same is, to a certain extent, nullifying this evolutionary aspect.
FTP, Gopher and HTTP are related in a way where it doesn't hurt too much if a HTTP client also support Gopher and FTP. However, there are cases where this doesn't work out so well (E.g. cross platform GUI frameworks).
Consequently, I'd say that it is nice to provide a unified interface for conceptually related technologies. On the other hand, I'd be really careful about overplaying this sort of design principle where it may lead to sub-optimal or overly complex solutions, simply for the sake of supporting more technologies (who needs Gopher these days?)
It's not like they're making money from flash player. They're making money from content creation tools (i.e. Creative Suite). At this point it may be a bit easier for them to create Flash content but adding HTML5 to that mix should be doable. They are already creating native iphone apps with Flash authoring in CS5 (see http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashcs5/appsfor_iphone/)
Content creators will want to create content that is accessible to a wide audience with a good user experience. They will buy the tools that will allow them to do so efficiently. If that means HTML5 then that is where the money is and that is what shareholders will demand Adobe to support (follow the money).
Furthermore HTML5 over Flash makes a good argument for people to buy upgrades to their Content Creation Tools. So there is even more money to be made with HTML5 for Adobe.
Adobe make the tools for creating Flash content. Not the only tools, I know, but the most widely used and supported tools. They also control the player, meaning new features added to the player will appear in Adobe tools first.
They'll adapt their tools to output HTML5, sure, just like Illustrator outputs SVG. They lose the control that they had with the Flash platform, though.
It also means all those people trained on Flash are going to have to be retrained. Flash is kind of like Adobe's stake in the web world. Flash ruled the online video and graphics world. Everything else, there's a good enough competitor. But not flash, not really. Not until there is some real competition.
Adobe can make a lot of money on this, but it will be hard work and Steve Jobs called them lazy for a reason.
The left vs. right spiel is nothing but a simple exploitation of the human tendency to not think about actual facts when a simple (and convenient) explanation seems readily available.
