Archive for the '/Tr' Category

我对Flash的想法

苹果公司已经与Adobe有着长期的合作关系。 事实上,我们在众所周知的车库里就会见了Adobe的创始人。 苹果公司是他们的第一个大客户,我们当时新型的Laserwriter打印机就采用了他们的Postscript语言。 苹果投资Adobe并且持有大约20%的股份已有有多年。 两家公司密切合作,我们共同开拓桌面出版一起渡过了许多美好的时光。 从那个辉光的时代开始,我们两家公司便开始疏远。 苹果曾一度接近濒临死亡,Adobe那时通过他们的Acrobat产品进入了企业市场。 今天,两家公司还共同努力服务于他们共同的又有非凡创造力的客户们 – Mac用户购买了Adobe公司Creative Suite产品的近一半的份额 – 但除此之外,再没有其他太多共同利益。

我想草草记下一些我对Adobe的Flash产品的想法,这样我的客户和那些吹毛求疵的人也许可以可以更好地理解为什么我们不允许在iPhone,iPod和iPad上支持Flash。 Adobe认为我们的决定主要是出于商业利益 – 他们说,我们要保护我们的应用程序商店 – 但实际上它是基于技术上问题。 Adobe声称,我们是一个封闭的系统,而Flash是开放的,但其实正好相反。 请让我解释。

首先,关于“开放”。

Adobe拥有Flash产品100%所有权。 Adobe是唯一可以获取的渠道,而且Adobe在Flash产品未来发展和定价方面等等都有绝对的权利。尽管Adobe的Flash产品广泛使用,但这并不意味着它们是开放的,因为它们完全由Adobe控制,并且只能从Adobe获取。 几乎从任何角度考虑,Flash都是一个封闭的系统。

苹果公司有许多专利产品了。 iPhone,iPod和ipad的操作系统都是苹果全部所有,但我们坚决认为,所有有关互联网的标准都应该是开放的。 苹果不支持Flash,可我们支持HTML5,CSS和JavaScript – 所有的都是开放标准。 苹果卖出的每一台高性能,低功耗的移动设备都是开放标准的体现。 HTML5,苹果,谷歌和其他公司都采用了这个新的网络标准,它让网页开发者可以在不需要任何第三方浏览器插件(比如Flash)就能创做出出色的图形,版面设计,动画和过渡。 HTML5由一个标准委员会监管,是完全开放的标准,苹果只是是委员会的一员。

苹果公司甚至创造了网络的开放标准。 例如,苹果曾经的一个小的开源项目,我们创造了WebKit,这个完全开源的HTML5渲染引擎是我们所有产品中Safari浏览器核心。 WebKit的已被广泛采用。 谷歌的Android浏览器使用它,Palm使用它,使用它诺基亚使用它,RIM(黑莓)已经宣布,他们将来也用它。 几乎除了微软以外,大家都用它开发智能手机的浏览器。为了开放WebKit技术。,苹果已经设定了移动网络浏览器的标准。

第二,关于“完整的网页”。

Adobe已经多次表示,苹果的移动设备不能访问“完整的网页”,因为网页上75%的视频是Flash格式。 他们不愿提及的是,几乎所有的影片都是更现代的格式,H.264,而且是支持在iPhone,iPods和iPad上观看的。YouTube上的视频估计占互联网上视频数量的40%,通过捆绑在所有苹果移动设备的应用程序,都可以完美的观看,你要是用iPad观看的话那更是最棒的探索和体验。 再加上从Vimeo,Netflix,Facebook,ABC,CBS,CNN,MSNBC,Fox News,ESPN,NPR,Time,The New York Times,The Wall Street Journal,Sports Illusrated,People,National Geographic,还有其他等等。iPhone,iPod和iPad的用户根本不会错过多少视频。

Adobe还表示,苹果设备不能玩Flash游戏。 这是真的。 幸运的是,在苹果应用程序商店,有超过50000个游戏和娱乐程序,其中许多还是免费的。 我们程序商店为iPhone,iPod和iPad提供的游戏和娱乐程序比世界上其他的任何平台的都要多。

第三,有关可靠性,安全性和性能。

赛门铁克公司最近强调,Flash是2009年的安全纪录里最为不安全的。 我们也非常清楚的知道Flash是Mac电脑崩溃的首要原因。 我们一直与Adobe解决这些问题,但他们持续现在好几年都没有动静。 我们不希望Flash降低iPhone,iPod和iPad的可靠性和安全性。

再者,Flash在移动设备上的表现并不好。 这些年我们让Adobe展示下Flash在移动设备上的良好表现,好几年下来,我们都厌烦了。可我们从来没有见过。 Adobe公开表示,2009年初会在智能手机上搭载Flash,然后是2009年下半年,后来又2010年上半年,现在他们又说2010年下半年。 最终应该会发布的,不过还好我们没有一直等下去。 谁能知道它到底表现怎么样?

第四,关于电池的使用寿命。

要实现更长的电池续航,移动设备在观看视频时必须通过硬件视频解码;通过软件进行视频解码会耗费太多的电力。 在现代移动设备中使用的芯片,许多解码器都是H.264标准 – 这是用于在每个蓝光DVD播放机的行业标准,且已经用于苹果,谷歌(YouTube),Vimeo,Netflix和其他许多公司。

尽管Flash最近增加了对H.264的支持,可几乎所有Flash视频网站目前都是需要老版本的解码器,而移动芯片都没有植入这些解码器,必须在软件上运行。这差别是惊人的:在iPhone,例如, 一个H.264的视频可以播放长达10小时,那么通过软件运行视频解码的话,不到5小时电池就会完全耗尽。

当网站重新使用H.264编码视频时,他们不提供支持Flash。不需要任何插件,使用苹果的Safari浏览器和谷歌的Chrome浏览器就能完美的观看。而且在iPhone,iPod和iPad上效果也很棒!

第五,关于触摸。

Flash是专门为使用鼠标的PC机设计的,不是针对使用手指的触摸屏。 例如,许多Flash的网站依靠“鼠标替换”,即在一个特定的点鼠标箭头悬停,会弹出菜单或其他选择。 苹果革命性的多点触摸界面不用鼠标,也没有所谓鼠标替换的概念。 这些Flash的网站将需要重写以支持触摸的设备。 如果开发人员需要重写这些网站,为什么不直接使用像HTML5,CSS和JavaScript这些先进的技术?

即便iPhone,iPod和iPad支持,也解决不了问题,大多数Flash网站依然需要重写,以支持触摸屏的设备。

第六,最重要的原因。

除了Flash的封闭性,专有性,和重大的技术缺陷,又不支持触摸屏的设备,我们在iPhone,iPod和iPad上不支持Flash还有一个更重要的原因。我们讨论了使用Flash播放视频和对它网站内容交互方式上的缺点,可Adobe还要让开发者用Flash创建的应用程序,然后在我们的移动设备上运行。

我们有过痛苦的经验,知道让第三方软件层介于平台和开发者之间,只能带来一个低标准的应用,最终阻碍平台的加强和改进。 如果开发者开始依赖于第三方开发库和工具,他们就只能第三方选择采用新的功能时才能利用平台和增强功能。 我们不能把自己可以提供给开发者的增强平台交给第三方决定。

如果第三方同时提供一个跨平台的开发工具,这就更糟糕了。 第三方也许不会采用一个增强平台,除非所有增强平台都得到支持。 因此,开发者就只能被限制在功能最低的平台交集里。 同样,我们不能接受因为我们对手不支持,就不允许开发人员使用我们创新的平台和增强的开发功能。

Flash是一个跨平台的开发工具。 Adobe的目标不是帮助开发人员为iPhone,iPod和iPad编写的最佳的应用程序。 他们的目标是帮助开发者编写跨平台的应用程序。 另外,Adobe对于支持苹果的增强平台一直极度的缓慢。 你比如说,Mac OS X都已经开卖10年了,Adobe公司发布的CS5两星期前才刚刚在Mac下本土话(完全兼容Cocoa)。Adobe是主要的第三方开发商里,最后一个完全支持Mac OS X的。

我们的动机很简单 – 我们希望能够给我们的开发人员提供最先进和创新的平台。我们也希望他们能够直接站在这样一个平台的肩膀上,创造出世界上前所未有好的应用程序。 我们要不断增强这个平台,让开发人员可以创建更惊人的,功能强大,有趣和有用的应用程序。 每个人都是赢家 – 我们卖出更多的设备,因为我们有最好的应用程序,开发人员拥有更多更广泛的客户群,同时用户也会因为有更多更好的应用及平台而开心。

结论。

Flash是PC时代的产物 – 为PC机和鼠标产生的。 Flash是Adobe公司成功的生意,我们可以理解他们为什么要推动Flash跳出PC机到其他领域。 但移动时代是一个低功率设备,触摸界面和开放的Web标准的时代 – 这些都不是Flash擅长的领域。

各个媒体都在为苹果的移动设备提供内容,Flash已经不再是观看视频或者说浏览各种网页内容必不可少的了。而且苹果程序商店里那200,000个程序也证明,对于上万个开发者来说,Flash也不是开发图形效果丰富程序的必备了,包括那些游戏程序。

新的标准会开创一个新的移动时代。就像HTML5,它不仅会在移动设备上大放光彩也一样在PC机上展露头角。不要总是批评苹果,不要总对自己的过去念念不忘,看到未来,Adobe应该开专注于开发更好的HTML5工具。

史蒂夫 乔布斯
2010年4月

source: http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/

Thoughts on Google (v.0)

Statistics:

Adam Smith, such a genius and great man for the past few centuries, brought up a well known Hypothesis of Economic Man which states that rational man is selfish and  driven by economic interests. His statement has been a very hot debating topic, ups and downs, but still widely recognized.
But remember, there are assumptions on his statement. People makes bullshit which apparently makes sense simply because he or she does not notice those assumptions. For example, google’s interest theory.
Why google’s theory on interest is not consistent with the rational economic man hypothesis? Let the economics theory answer this for us.
From Adam Smith to utilitarians, and then Keynes, people are considered to be selfish for their own interests, but none of them has denied that people are sometimes non-selfish for their choices from the other perspective. However, the exceptions under the hypothesis do not prevent us using the hypothesis explaining the social phenomenon driven by interest. This is because the the hypothesis of rational economic man is based on the overall national statistics. Someone quotes the example saying, then why Martin Luther King quitted his decent job as a lawyer and why Oskar Schindler saved those Jews on his own risk for almost nothing? Statistics tells you it just doesn’t matter since those people are outliers in the normal distribution.
In fact, it is understandably that most of the excellent individuals and organizations are among the statistical outliers.
Only swindler plays around the hypothesis in that way, strict economist does not.


Logic:

There are people trying to make a convincing point that it’s for google’s benefit to pull out its service from China’s market.

And you can’t believe there are also a bunch of Wall Street genius really bet on this with their money. They hold the same point of view that it’s good for google to do so. (Assuming the market efficiency, then why the price of google’s stock dropped when google made the decision if it was a good news?)

Let’s assume it’s a valid hypothesis, then the question is,”so what?”

Here is the logic: if A is true then B is true, but we can’t simply make a conclusion that if B is true then A is also true based on the first half statement.
So logically, we can’t draw the conclusion to prove that google is doing this for its benefits.

Market:


Analyzing with the most unfavorable data drawn from the market, google’s decision is for sure violating its commercial interests.

Last year, China’s search engine market was worth about ¥6.95 billion RMB ($1.02 billion US dollar). From the most pessimistic data, Google should have taken up one third of the market. If we are more optimistically about the data, Google occupied 43% market share in China, and with a 15% monthly increase over the past 5 months. The profit generated in China’s market is expected to count 2% out of google’s total profit.
You may or may not notice, Microsoft and Yahoo with less than 10% market share in China respectively, are fighting badly for the huge potential market in China. There is just not any commercial or interest reason for Google to leave this growing market where it has already established a dominant advantage.

Under the modern cooperate system, the company is representing the interests of its shareholders. However, Google has offered another option.

Dual Option:


Dual options might be the answer for the above question.

Goolge’s two founders, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, together with CEO Eric Schmidt hold 1/3 of the stock in the company. There is a B stock, one counts for ten of the voting rights, comparing to stock A issued in the market. In other words, Page, Brin and Schmidt have the 80% voting rights for the company’s decision. Google is highly centralized.

The system is supposed to prevent their intervention on the operation while they can still receive their dividends. The problem occurs when it comes to this case, Google has made such an important decision based on the opinions of the three persons. (WJS also had a report on this.)

(By the way, Baidu has the same system as Google in this point. The only person who holds more than 10% of the shares is Li Yanhong (CEO of Baidu, a Chinese). And the rest of shares in the company are almost venture capital. The largest shareholder is DFJ, the company also has invested in Hotmail before. Baidu is nothing different but like a typical US company as what you can observe from

the board structure. Similarly, Li Yanhong also holds the B stock and he make decisions for Baidu with his partners.

Don’t be Evil:

It’s not a simple matter to distinguish “do evil” or “do good”. And sometimes it is just meaningless to do such a distinguish. In psychology,it is believed that human’s behavior is often driven by mixed motives. Say a young man saves a drowning girl, he must be a good boy to do so. At the same time, god knows he might have a sexual fantasy on the girl. Additionaly, people who write the reviews are always being too extreme on the topic. Save the girl, you are a hero; but sleep with the girl afterward, you are just a beast with hero’s Burberry dustcoat.

It doesn’t make any sense to make up the boy’s story and the motives parts to explain.
However, we can take Google as a very good example for this. There may be few people remember the defense Google made in the U.S. Congress for its motivation to enter China’s market in 2006. Just google it and compared it with the recent statement Google post on its blog. You will realize that Google could do both “evil” and “good” at the same time and both time plausibly.
And the definition of “evil” does not make any sense either.
As what HanHan¹ says, Government always plays trick. It teaches you a word, but never explains to you the definition. Like, recently it tells you do not send dirty-joke messages, but it never explains to you what is dirty-joke message. Actually, it does explain to you indirectly that “the government defines the meaning of the word!”
Just like the British governor tells us in the movie “The Boat That Rocked“, if the government can’t find any law to ban the Pirate Radio, then just makes a new law! Simple.

This is exactly the same situation for Google’s “don’t be evil” where the staff of Google concludes,” Brin defines the word “EVIL”.

Last but not least:

Google’s decisions are made by a small minority. One of the guy’s (Brin) childhood was spent in a totalitarian Soviet period. The behavior of the minority group might also be driven by mixed motives.
So let’s think retrospectively on google’s decision, it is more likely to be a final deal with the government, for its own interest, for the hate of centralism, for the faith on internet freedom, and for the anger over the hacking issue.

People only care about money but with no moral, they are not worth of you trust.

However, the sincere people singing the song of “don’t be evil” are not always doing the right thing.

For me, I don’t really care about the dignity of Google, or if it is for its own benefits or not. No matter Google’s leaving China or not, I hope it continues with its faith of the internet freedom.

And I don’t care what Brin defines “Evil”, what I believe is it’s better to have an internet with less censorship.
———
1. China’s best-selling novelist, champion amateur race-car driver, wildly popular bloggerRead more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1931619,00.html#ixzz0ljXlogCg
=========
很多地方我的理解有可能都是完全错误的,所以还请多多指教啊~~
有些用词也不准确,有些地方只好打比喻,可是又找不到更为恰当的例子。比如男孩救人的地方,上 岸,就是舍身救人的雷锋。上床,就是乘人之危的禽兽。 我想找两个电影人物 一个英雄一个乘人之危的假英雄来直接取代里头的Hero名词都找不到。。。英语素材太匮乏。。。

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!