jeremychone

Thank Taybin, this is what I meant, and I just edited it.

Done, fixed. Opera does not seem to support backface-visibility, so, we do not flip it now in Opera, but we do for other browsers.

Yes, good point. We focused on Webkit and Firefox, but we should add opera. Will fix this in the next few days. It should be mostly CSS. Sorry about the inconvenience.

If you rename amber, please, do not rename it brite or bright, as I have already a project with solving the same problematic (with a different approach). https://github.com/jeremychone/brite

I am going to push brite quite a bit next year.

First, thanks for the discussion. Always appreciated.

What type of restriction did you encounter with the iPhone. Let's say I buy an unlocked iPhone (from France for example), and then, add the AT&T simcard, would it work?

Thanks for the info. I just updated the blog post with this.

I guess its a matter of opinion. I prefer a connection that get slower rather than being overcharged for it, and I consider unlimited because I do not have to pay more for it.

Ok, I found the Simcard only option. They still require to give the IMEI number to link it to the SIMCard.

I updated the blog post appropriately.

Ok, I found it now. If you select Sim Card, but they still ask you the IMEI number, and you can have only one phone per simcard. They tie it together.

With T-Mobile, just change phone, as long as it works for you, it works for T-Mobile.

throttles is still much better than not having it or being over charged.

Yes, the problem is the different 3G band. Otherwise, you can just buy a unlocked iPhone from France (without having the jailbreak it). Obviously, this makes sense only if you go to France for other purposes.

Do you have the link of the AT&T month to month? I found the pre-paid one (which is not the same)

Well, not really. Web Apps are faster, it is the "packaged apps" using a UIWebView that did not gain anything, and Apple is getting 30% of those as well.

So, it would not have make sense to slowdown UIWebView and accelerate Web Pages only for revenue point of view.

I think it is, as often, a interlaced tech-business issue:

1) Security: There might a genuin security concern the way the JIT works.

2) Exclusivity: I think Apple exec saw #1 as an opportunity to keep the performance gain as an exclusivity benefit for a while (Safari vs other browsers).

3) Developers: Apple's exec are probably realizing that there is a momentum starting to build around "Universal HTML5 Packaged apps," which would allow developers to decouple production from distribution. So, while they probably do not want to completely stop this momentum, slowing it a little might be seen as a good compromise for them.

Now, do not get me wrong, I am really disappointed at this news, and hope Apple will bring Nitro to UIWEbView soon.

I move to jquery-tmpl because I never understood why there was so much resistance to the dot notation.

BTW, jQuery-tmpl is supposed to become "jQuery/DOM" free in a few, which allow to use it on the server-side as well (assuming Javascript).

We have been using jQuery-TMPL and it is very cool.

Here are some of my thoughts on the iPhone and Android dynamics. Would love to hear people opinions about the subject.

ok, this is getting nowhere. You are not reading my comments. You are still stuck with your "multifaceted" counter argument.

Anyway, thank you for sharing your thoughts, they were very insightful , in a multifaceted way.

Ok, we are getting nowhere with your "not as simple & multifaceted" counter arguments. In an argument, don't patronize your opponent, just focus on defending and making your points.

Obviously things are not as simple as they look, otherwise, we would not be talking about it.

Now that this is out of the way. I think that quality is a pretext. Apple could have let developers distribute their application by other mean, and keep the same AppStore quality. The fact that AppStore is the only way to distribute an iPhone app does not make it higher quality. I would actually argue the opposite. If developers had other means to distribute their mobile application, Apple could fairly refuse the "iFart" type of applications and accept only applications that have real entertainment or productivity value.

Also, I know people developing iPhone apps, and while they welcome the additional income, it is not that easy to make a living out of it. Some might, but I do not think it is as big as people think it is.

Again, I give lot of credits to Apple, but having the Device/OS provider exclusively owning what can get distributed or not on this OS is a big step backwards. True, consoles and closed devices have this model, but Mobile was opening up.

If you step back and look at the consequence of having iStore model (exclusive control on application distribution) in the software industry, you cannot conclude that this is a good step forward.

The fact that Apple made the iStore the only way to distribute application is not about maintaining quality, experience, ..., it is about controlling the distribution. And this control does not exist in the PC world, and was going to disappear in the mobile world.

But point taken, I will be more diplomatic in my answers.

I am going to stop arguing against Apple, I am loosing all my karma ;)

Again, those have always been closed system. Mobile was opening up, and Apple is closing it back.

Well, iPhone is the only platform where the OS Vendor solely choose what application can be distributed or not.

This is what I am against.

Time will tell. Right now Adobe is bypassing entirely Apple workflow to produce a iPhone Apps. Other tools play along. Will see what will happen.

I would be happy to be wrong on this one.

Ok, not only "cute bouncing pixels." I think that 3 things made Apple the kind of the smart phone market:

1) Great product ahead of any other existing product at the time (not anymore though).

2) Understand that the mobile market value chain was vastly different than the PC one and architected a platform that would be attracting existing market players while creating a exclusive new market for themselves (this was so bold and smart).

3) Steve Jobs genius.

Now, the only thing that scares me is that they did it in the most proprietary way that any software companies have ever dare doing. Apple is the living proof that openness is not a required ingredient to create new technology based markets.

So, again, kudos to Apple to revolutionize a market that have been frozen for years. However, they are doing it in such as way that it could set a very bad precedence to the software industry.

I do not want to have to go through a iMicrosoftStore to publish my Windows application, a iGoogleStore to publish a Web Site, a iAndroidStore to publish a mobile application.

I have nothing against software stores, but they should be optional not required.

wow, 200% agree. Technologist that promotes open system should not buy iPhone.

To my understanding most non-XCode iPhone solution requires XCode at some point. Adobe is the only one that goes directly to .ipa.

See John's comment: http://www.bitsandbuzz.com/article/adobe-on-iphone-will-appl...

Ok, fair enough. I got confused about the bytecode.

BTW, John's comment is interesting: http://www.bitsandbuzz.com/article/adobe-on-iphone-will-appl...

Ok, fair enough, I removed the reference about the bytecode. I have been too long in the Adobe, Java, and Microsoft world and think that everything is bytecode.

Nice joke about the "Enterprise Web 2.0 Experts." Ironically, I was very involved in 2000 in the mobile space, before the "enterprise Web 2.0" stuff.

Not exactly. The console market was already closed.

The mobile market was opening up. Windows Mobile, Palm, J2ME devices lead the way of openness by allowing users to install new application on their devices as they did on PC. This was quite step forward given the fact that service providers wanted to charge for everything.

And here we go, Apple with their cute bouncing pixels comes and tells us that we need to live in a world where only one organization can decide what application we can use. And while everybody argue about applications should have been approved or not, nobody is asking the right question "do we want a gate keeper or not?". This is a huge step backward in the software industry. But somehow, people think that innovation is about flying pixels and forget that the ecosystem around a product is as important as the product in itself.

Are you really falling for this marketing scam? Every company does open source or have something prefixed with "open" nowadays.

Apple is the only software company that lock the service, software, and hardware together. Microsoft would have never been able to pull the iStore market scam. But somehow, Apple can do it. Apple can create an ecosystem where they are the only gate keeper of what people can create and distribute.

I really like Software, and for what I am concern, Apple's iPhone/iStore system is a disease for the software and Internet industry. If Microsoft, Palm, and Android, would start doing the same, then we would be in a world where innovation will be gated by the incumbents. No more Firefox, no more Skype.