The App Store supports free apps of any size, and iOS allows web apps too. Blocking Flash from iOS was never about trying to block free Flash content from competing with the App Store. It was about blocking technology that wasn't ready for mobiles, and still isn't. I have yet to see an error on iOS saying "This video isn't optimized for mobile" and a chunky 5fps playback. I instead get video I can easily make full screen, and plays with no performance issues since hardware is helping out. Apple is, and will always be a consumer focused company. As such, they will make decisions at times that rile up the tech community, but in the long term still provide a better consumer experience. General consumers don't understand, nor care about the little details about why Flash doesn't work well on Android. All they will do is blame the Android phone/tablet they own for being crappy. Apple understands this, Google doesn't either understand it, or they don't care.

The decision is ultimately up to developers and content producers. Hulu is one of those content providers who does rely on Flash heavily, and actively blocks anything thats not a desktop or laptop computer even if it does support Flash. On the other side are companies like CBS and ABC who don't care about the lack of Flash on iOS, and provide superior experiences on those devices with either native apps, or HTML 5 video.

There are a surprising number of videos out there beyond ones hosted on YouTube that work fine without Flash. Main problem is that sites only present them at HTML 5 video when an iPad or iPhone visits the site. The proper thing to do would be to detect capabilities and fall back. I'd love to see more HTML 5 video on my desktop browser.

I didn't realize how many worked until I tried an Android phone last summer after owning an iPad and iPhone. The Samsung Captivate came with some crappy Flash Lite prior to the update to 2.2, and it resulted in tons of video that I could play on iOS becoming unavailable on the Android side. Sometimes embeds blogs do won't work, but hitting the source link for the story leads to a page doing proper HTML 5 for iOS.

From a business standpoint, I can see why Google did what they did in regards to Skyhook. However, they could have handled the situation better. Instead of throwing a fit only after "Company X" in the complaint had already shipped phones, they could have raised the issue ahead of time. Their inaction earlier, and green light probably cost Company X a decent bit of engineering time. Their touting of "open" led Skyhook to believe they could replace the location API, and Motorola and "Company X" were also under this same impression.

From an "Open" standpoint, what Google did was just wrong. If they really want their OS to be open, then they need to let it be open even if it's not the exact result they intended. If they want to close things down, then fine. But they need to make a decision and hold to it, instead of trying to straddle the line. Their indecisiveness is harming more then just Skyhook, Motorola and "Company X". I'm sure Barnes & Noble picked Android for their Nook e-readers due to the promise of "open", and their engineers are now stuck maintaining the Nook Color on an OS that Google says is only for phones. The more appropriate tablet OS is closed off to them for now, possibly halting progress on a Nook Color 2.

And as far as Microsoft and the OEMs of the time, several did want to remove Internet Explorer. Microsoft prevented this by embedding it deeper into the OS then any other optional component. I don't remember which companies exactly wanted it out, but it's all in the findings of fact published from the antitrust case.

Everyone else who is closed is up front about it. They never set an expectation, so people aren't pissed. Google may be admitting they were too ambitious with the schedule, but they haven't had Motorola recall the Xoom. So either Honeycomb is done, or Google is admitting to using the public as beta testers with an $800 device and an unfinished OS.

Google yaps about how open they are, and then aren't. Other companies have sprung up around this openness, and depend on it. Archos for example is probably mildly irritated about the Honeycomb delay, as they won't be able to ship a non "Google experience" Honeycomb device until much later. This isn't the first incident either. The Skyhook situation has both Motorola and Samsung slightly irritated at Google already, for initially certifying phones with a new location API, then later issuing stop ship orders.

Microsoft pulled similar stunts in the OEM market, and it pissed off vendors to no end. The only difference here is that Android is not the only licensed smartphone OS, so vendors do have a choice to go elsewhere. Google needs to be more professional about how they handle licensing their "open" OS and how they meet commitments, or OEMs may choose to go elsewhere.

It was intentionally replacing the Google location API, a component that was considered on the open side of the OS. The phones with Skyhook passed all of Google's certification procedures, and several phones have it today. Only over time did Google get pissy about it, likely because they wanted to own the location API for ad revenue reasons.

Just as Microsoft got pissy with OEMs for making deals to bundle Netscape Navigator, since it meant people might not use Internet Explorer.

If it's not finished, why are Google and Motorola trying to get $800 out of people for the Xoom?

I'm mad about Google because they haven't been up front about any of this. They bash others for calling out their Open claims, spout off about being Open to avoid a dark and closed future at their keynotes, then change the procedures.

At least with people like Carmack, they state up front it will only be open later, after the main licensees have moved onto the next engine version.

Exactly. "Hey Google, we want to ship a new location API inside your open OS, you mind?" "Sure, thats cool, go ahead, and we will even certify the devices since it passes our tests. Oh, wait, you convinced two manufacturer to ship this? STOP SHIP!!!!"

Calling pirates freeloader is pretty fitting actually in the modern day. Many pieces of software (both free and paid) have hidden costs these days. One big hidden cost is the servers necessary to host the download, to run services, and to provide support forums. By pirating an app, you deprive the author the revenue necessary to recoup the cost of those servers, while possibly adding load to those servers. It's not a "zero harm" situation anymore. Even if the app is free and mirrored without permission, it may be depriving the author of ad revenue if they host ad banners on their site where the download comes from.

At the end of the day, not everyone in the entertainment or software industry can afford to provide all their work and effort for free. While someone may disagree with the value proposition of paying for that work is one thing, it's crossed the line when piracy starts occurring. If you don't want to pay, then find an alternative, or go write/create your own.

Are they also going back and wiping any reference to earthquakes and tsunamis? So far, tens of thousands have been confirmed to have died to those events, but we don't feel the need to be sensitive about that. But a nuclear accident that hasn't killed anyone is worth rewriting history of a comedy cartoon? It's not like the jokes were made at the expense of the current situation, being that they have existed for years.

I never did understand the removal of the twin towers from things either. Do we really want to show our respect to those that passed by trying to erase any mention or footage of the buildings?

EFI has nothing to do with it, as all Macs use the BIOS compatibility later to support and run Windows. Microsoft requires EFI 2.0 to use the EFI boot feature of Windows Vista and 7, and Apple has stuck with version 1.1.

http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1846 has a list of hardware Apple officially supports 64 bit Windows on. If it's a 2008 MacBook Pro, it might be supported. If it's the standard MacBook, just 32 bit, but that should be fine for his wife to use based on the needs put forth in the question.

Haven't really felt the need for USB 3 for hard drives, as I bought an enclosure with USB 2, Firewire 800 and eSATA a while back. Really a shame Firewire didn't take off, since it brought most of the benefits of USB 3 to machines ages ago. Lower CPU usage, device to device transfers, and the spec was prepared to jump to 1600mbit then 3200mbit using the same 800 connector. 1600 (200MB/s) would have been plenty of headroom for hard drives. USB 3 speeds that outpace FW3200 are only useful once you have a newer SSD in the mix, or a decently sized RAID of hard drives.

Looking farther back, I always figured USB would remain in the realm of low speed peripherals (keyboards, etc), and Firewire would be the high speed bus. USB (until 3) is just so CPU heavy at times to be really annoying.

The difference here is that historically, Google has released the source in a somewhat timely manner. This has then allowed people to grab the source and begin working on custom ROMs for older devices to bring them up to speed. A Galaxy Tab owner could in theory bring their device up to 3.0 and continue to use the new apps. But because of this delay, those users will be stuck both officially and unofficially.

It's not a FOSS product, so some people will call it proprietary for that reason alone. It's also proprietary in the way it stores photos, using a custom database for organization. The DB part doesn't bother me much, since there isn't a "standard" for photo management, but some people may prefer date stamped folders or something more hands on with the files.

In a way, yes. If a developer writes an app targeting the specific Tablet Android SDK (aka 3.0), then the 2.2 owners get hosed with access to actual tablet apps. The people I feel really bad for are the ones who were suckered into buying a Galaxy Tab with a contract for 2 years of service. They may not see anything new just 6 months after the device came out.

I'll admit I haven't paid close attention to the previous release delays between when Google and a partner ships Android on a phone, and when it hits their open source repository. If this is a normal trend of theirs, then overall I'd say it's not very open. Palm/HP seem to be doing a better job with WebOS being open as far as ship/source release, and they don't beat people over the head with "Open" messages.

As far as release early and often vs waiting for something more stable, I just want Google to stay consistent with their messaging. If they want to claim Android is open, the source should have been available when the Google experience Xoom shipped. If Honeycomb wasn't ready, the Xoom shouldn't have shipped, and then they could have kept the source close to improve it.

My personal feelings is that a device marketed towards consumers should ship when it's ready, especially ones that tie people to contracts if they take a subsidized version. I think if Google moved away from the early and often mentality, it would help the Android image greatly. The G1 was a joke, and abandoned early, with official updates never bringing it beyond 1.6. I'm betting the same fate for the Samsung Tab, and Google willingly let Samsung ship it with the Marketplace for some reason. Even if they want to keep Android open and let anyone use it, they could exercise more control over the Marketplace and other Google apps, to ensure that "with Google" devices are always known to the consumers as the premiere products to go for.