What Jobs says is totally consistent from his perspective (or if you will, from within his reality distortion field): In a world, where there is only apple devices, Flash indeed has outlived its usefulness because there is no need for multi platform rich application/content development/authoring when there is only one platform left. Surely, that is how Jobs would like to perceive the state of affairs. Given how well Apple is currently doing in leading the mobile device space, his vision does seem to to converge with reality. Unless of course, the competition will get their act together and do something with Android that will have as much mainstream-appeal as the iPhone.
> In a world, where there is only apple devices, Flash indeed has outlived its usefulness because there is no need for multi platform rich application/content development/authoring when there is only one platform left.
If that is indeed Jobs' view, why is Apple putting so much effort into advancing open multiplatform technologies like HTML5 and WebGL? Surely if there was only one platform left, then everyone could write 3D content specifically for the iPhone OS. There wouldn't be a need for anyone to use WebGL, so why are they wasting their effort in implementing it in WebKit?
Here's another explanation. Jobs believes that in 2-3 years time, browsers and mobile CPUs will have advanced to the point where HTML5 is equivalent to Flash in most scenarios. So why bother wasting engineering resources on trying to get Flash working acceptably on the iPhone when the technology may be obsolete within a few years? Why not just get those engineers to instead work on improving JS performance in Mobile Safari?
I would like to know why people say "In a world, where there is only apple devices..." and make a claim. Please don't get angry or upset, but I am really curious. I think it comes across a bit negative.
If the author of the app provided a link to a full source code download in the app itself and on the appstore page, wouldn't that make the whole thing compliant, at least in spirit, with the GPL? Everybody would be able to download the source, build/modify it themselves and run it in the emulator and if they have a developer certificate install it on their phone.
But would your situation have been any better if you had just declined to speak to them? The amount of time wasted on your part could have been far greater (let alone expenses for an attorny)
If the cops/DA have any cause to arrest you, talking to them won't do anything to save you from it. They'll just use everything you say against you in addition to whatever they had on you to begin with. You can't dig yourself out of a hole with the police when your freedom is on the line. (Talking might help a little bit in traffic stops.) And if they might gain anything on you later on, you can't talk them out of it.
The purpose of not talking to the police is to avoid giving them cause to arrest you when they don't already have it. If they already have cause to arrest you, you aren't talking your way out of it.
It was plainly obvious in my situation that they weren't questioning me as a witness so much as they were playing word games, trying to trick me into incriminating myself. You can't actually get ahead with that. At best, you'll maintain your innocence and they'll get tired of playing games with you (which is what I did). You get the same outcome with less stress by shutting up. If you stand there talking, you might make a very costly mistake.
Finally, public defenders are free. They're overworked and they suck in a lot of places, but where I lived at the time (and still live now) it's pretty rural so that's less of a problem. In small towns, in fact, a public defender is often just as good as the best lawyer money can buy locally. (If you're in serious trouble you hire a lawyer from the nearest big city, of course.)
yes, as the video makes clear, you can't compel the police to testify to anything you said, but they can use it all against you. its hearsay when you want to use and the unassailable truth when its used against you.
I'm surprised that he is able to scan the latent image from the exposed photographic paper without developing it. Especially since the scanner will further expose the paper so it would be useless afterwards... Maybe this is just working because the paper gets way overexposed and that will make the latent image actually show without development. Does anybody know what's going on there?
I see this the same way. The TOS states that you are not allowed to use an intermediary layer to call the iPhone OS API. A C++ or C library that would abstract the underlying OS' API would clearly be such an intermediary layer and if there would be sort of a QtMobile or wxPhone or whatever framework that would allow you to write cross platform mobile applications in C++, Apple could ban it based on their new rules - even if you were sticking to the approved set of programming languages.
If you consider the output "object code" there would be no need to edit, let alone roundtrip. You don't edit the object-code or byte-code from your compiler either.
As far as the statement from unity is concerned, it sounded like it wasn't really backed by any real indication from Apple about their solution not being banned. However, there is also no actual evidence (yet) that it is actually banned and that Apple will enforce the ban. Consequently, as they are about to ship a new release, they want to sound as confident as possible. I am very doubtful though whether they have any real idea regarding if and how they will be affected. I think they're mostly trying to prevent panic.
