Linked by Kroc Camen on Thu 6th May 2010 07:54 UTC
Permalink for comment 422942
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-10-12
The logic is a little obscure here.
Why could they not introduce a notebook without flash, like Apple has, if Adobe was late with it? Apple has done it by means of a ban, but it shows they could have launched without it, if Apple can.
Why is it a reasonable response to this for Apple to ban flash based applications from their notebook? I understand that if its not there, you can't include it, but why do you have to ban it if it eventually becomes available?
The argument makes no sense. What most people think is, introduce whatever hardware and systems you want, and let people run whatever they want on it. Nothing in the history of Adobe makes that an unreasonable thing to want.