http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/technology-gadgets/apple-misled-...
"It said the combined phone, music player and computer is flawed because of the absence of two common website programmes, Flash and Java. As a result, the authority said Apple's claim that the iPhone gave access to "all parts of the internet" misled customers about its power as a web browser."
Java is now free (OpenJDK). But Flash isn't.
What does Gnash need to be up to Flash 9/10? Otherwise a free software stack cannot claim to be "full Internet" in the UK.
- d.
2008/8/27 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/technology-gadgets/apple-misled-... "It said the combined phone, music player and computer is flawed because of the absence of two common website programmes, Flash and Java. As a result, the authority said Apple's claim that the iPhone gave access to "all parts of the internet" misled customers about its power as a web browser." Java is now free (OpenJDK). But Flash isn't. What does Gnash need to be up to Flash 9/10? Otherwise a free software stack cannot claim to be "full Internet" in the UK.
Oh, worse yet: http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,1000000567,10009097o-2000331761b,00.htm
"They said they could not ensure compatibility with every third party technology in the marketplace and, in order to create the best customer experience, had created their platform on open standards. They said Java and Flash were examples of proprietary software they had chosen not to enable on the iPhone."
So the proprietary argument was considered and expressly rejected by the ASA.
- d.
2008/8/27 Andy stude.list@googlemail.com:
David Gerard wrote:
So the proprietary argument was considered and expressly rejected by the ASA.
That would depend on whether the Java Language (not to be confused with the Sun Java JVM) is proprietary. I think that point would still be open for debate!
I don't think it actually does apply to Java any more - the only thing stopping Apple from putting Java on the iPhone is that they don't want it there. (Java has been part of Mac OS X for years.) It does, however, apply to Flash. And Gnash just isn't good enough yet to be a replacement.
- d.
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 04:38:56PM +0100, David Gerard wrote:
2008/8/27 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/technology-gadgets/apple-misled-... "It said the combined phone, music player and computer is flawed because of the absence of two common website programmes, Flash and Java. As a result, the authority said Apple's claim that the iPhone gave access to "all parts of the internet" misled customers about its power as a web browser." Java is now free (OpenJDK). But Flash isn't. What does Gnash need to be up to Flash 9/10? Otherwise a free software stack cannot claim to be "full Internet" in the UK.
Oh, worse yet: http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,1000000567,10009097o-2000331761b,00.htm
"They said they could not ensure compatibility with every third party technology in the marketplace and, in order to create the best customer experience, had created their platform on open standards. They said Java and Flash were examples of proprietary software they had chosen not to enable on the iPhone."
So the proprietary argument was considered and expressly rejected by the ASA.
"The proprietary argument" was displayed by Apple? The hypocrits...
Or maybe that's what they wanted, to have proprietary elements to be considered "essential part of the internet".
If you place foxes defending then henhouse, expect a sudden chicken count drop.
Rui
2008/8/27 Rui Miguel Silva Seabra rms@1407.org:
"The proprietary argument" was displayed by Apple? The hypocrits...
Well, yes!
Or maybe that's what they wanted, to have proprietary elements to be considered "essential part of the internet".
No, they argued the opposite.
(Though their problem is that Java and Flash contain virtual machines, which might be competition for the app store. I expect they were very annoyed they couldn't do Safari without JavaScript.)
If you place foxes defending then henhouse, expect a sudden chicken count drop.
Indeed. However, this issue is not in fact about Apple, it's about the ASA. FSFE may (or may not) be in a position to advocate against the decision that Flash is required to asdvertise "full internet" in the UK.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Indeed. However, this issue is not in fact about Apple, it's about the ASA. FSFE may (or may not) be in a position to advocate against the decision that Flash is required to asdvertise "full internet" in the UK.
In terms of "fair descriptions of goods", surely Flash is a necessity?
If we set aside the issue of free or non-free software for a moment, the number of sites which require Flash to work is sufficiently large that I would consider a system which couldn't access them to offer less-than-full access.
This is just about being honest with consumers, surely?
Thanks,
Alex.
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 06:04:25PM +0100, Alex Hudson wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Indeed. However, this issue is not in fact about Apple, it's about the ASA. FSFE may (or may not) be in a position to advocate against the decision that Flash is required to asdvertise "full internet" in the UK.
In terms of "fair descriptions of goods", surely Flash is a necessity?
If we set aside the issue of free or non-free software for a moment, the number of sites which require Flash to work is sufficiently large that I would consider a system which couldn't access them to offer less-than-full access.
This is just about being honest with consumers, surely?
If it's about being honest with consumers, than they should just say: "won't play flash content since it's a proprietary format we don't support"
I seldom notice that I don't have flash support installed anyway, thanks to wonderful tools like NoScript, and most of the times I notice, it's some moronic joke site someplace I don't even care to remember.
Rui
"David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/technology-gadgets/apple-misled-...
"It said the combined phone, music player and computer is flawed because of the absence of two common website programmes, Flash and Java. [...]
Please read the source material which is available online at http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_44891.htm rather than these inaccurate secondary sources. UK newspapers are particularly terrible when it comes to technical subjects and ZDnet sometimes isn't much better. The original says:-
"The ASA noted that Java and Flash proprietary software was not enabled on the iPhone and understood that users would therefore be unable to access certain features on some websites or websites that relied solely on Flash or Java. We noted Apples argument that the ad was about site availability rather than technical detail, but considered that the claims "You'll never know which part of the internet you'll need" and "all parts of the internet are on the iPhone" implied users would be able to access all websites and see them in their entirety. We considered that, because the ad had not explained the limitations, viewers were likely to expect to be able to see all the content on a website normally accessible through a PC rather than just having the ability to reach the website. We concluded that the ad gave a misleading impression of the internet capabilities of the iPhone."
I think the key point was that "Java and Flash were examples of proprietary software they had chosen not to enable on the iPhone".
Also, this isn't about "full internet" but "all parts of the internet". That's a silly claim for a mobile phone because it's never going to have all internet access tools on it. It's a particularly silly claim for a locked system like an iPhone which will never have all tools available because some will harm the profitability of the system for the providers. (I actually use some Java apps on my 3g phone which let me connect to my servers and avoid the provider's 10p-per-email charge most of the time, but that wouldn't be possible with an iPhone-type platform.)
The ASA ruling isn't brilliant, but the O2/iPhone adverts were awful, so I'm happy that one mustn't be broadcast again.
I think you could advertise a free software system as "all parts of the Internet" because it wouldn't be the system maker who had "chosen not to enable" Flash or Java if they weren't possible - it would be Adobe or Sun or whoever, choosing not to recompile to run on it.
Is that enough, or should we lodge a complaint with ASA that "websites that relied solely on Flash or Java" are not websites because they follow no standards from the World Wide Web Consortium or similar?