4 ms·

Don't people have better things to do? Apple could just as easily argue that they are displaying a version of the homepage that doesn't use flash — there are ot

by mr_eel 17y ago

Don't people have better things to do? Apple could just as easily argue that they are displaying a version of the homepage that doesn't use flash — there are other plausible explanations for how interactive elements or video are displayed. For this to qualify as deceptive in any substantial way, Apple would need to be strongly implying that it is Flash in particular that is allowing the display of these particular features. Secondly the presence or absence of Flash needs to be demonstrated as a factor in the purchase of the iPad. That frankly is a load of bully. Most people don't care either way. _Most_ being the operative word.

jonknee 17y ago
Except you can find out that the actual nytimes.com site does use Flash (it was even obvious in the real life demo by Jobs). You can probably even find a copy of the HTML from the time that Apple cut the video, proving that they faked it. Screen images in videos like that are usually simulated, this isn't a huge surprise. They should have just used a site that didn't use Flash.
- Lazlo_Nibble 17y ago
  The complaint assumes that those portions of the NY Times site will still require Flash by the time the iPad ships. I wouldn't recommend assuming that.
  - jonknee 17y ago
    I would. They have an app for the iPad that will be used if you want to access the NY Times.
    - Lazlo_Nibble 17y ago
      Good point -- I had missed that, obviously.
- hga 17y ago
  It has been speculated that using the NYT site with all its missing Flash items was No Accident....
- mr_eel 17y ago
  My argument still stands. This is only matters if you can argue that substantial numbers of people say "OMG it has Flash, _now_ definitely want one". The question is one of intent. Did they want to intentionally want to make people believe the iPad has flash, or did they just want to have the NYT site look good/un-broken in the ad? This complaint is making a mountain out of a molehill.

by mr_eel 17y ago

jonknee 17y ago

Except you can find out that the actual nytimes.com site does use Flash (it was even obvious in the real life demo by Jobs). You can probably even find a copy of the HTML from the time that Apple cut the video, proving that they faked it. Screen images in videos like that are usually simulated, this isn't a huge surprise. They should have just used a site that didn't use Flash.

Lazlo_Nibble 17y ago
The complaint assumes that those portions of the NY Times site will still require Flash by the time the iPad ships. I wouldn't recommend assuming that.
- jonknee 17y ago
  I would. They have an app for the iPad that will be used if you want to access the NY Times.
  - Lazlo_Nibble 17y ago
    Good point -- I had missed that, obviously.
hga 17y ago
It has been speculated that using the NYT site with all its missing Flash items was No Accident....
mr_eel 17y ago
My argument still stands. This is only matters if you can argue that substantial numbers of people say "OMG it has Flash, _now_ definitely want one". The question is one of intent. Did they want to intentionally want to make people believe the iPad has flash, or did they just want to have the NYT site look good/un-broken in the ad? This complaint is making a mountain out of a molehill.