Sage words, Mr. Cohen!

Out of all the whiners, I wonder how many of them don't physically fit into big boy pants, and also how many others may NEVER fit into them (figuratively and emotionally speaking, not necessarily because of physical girth).

Happy Birthday, Jim, et al,

I read your articles regularly. I like your style of writing and find I agree with you more often than not.

I don't think we're going to see a repeat of the "theft" of the Mac's windows by Windoze in the new context of iPhone OS devices. I was talking to a stranger in a doctor's waiting room who had some sort of HTC Android phone. He had it in his hand, but didn't show it to me, nor did I ask to see it. When I did some web surfing on my iPhone, though, he looked at my phone enviously. He said he had to get his phone because his company was with T-Mobile. He said it was difficult to surf web pages without hitting an unwanted link. He said he'd love to have an iPhone.

I really didn't say anything before he said all that. He just volunteered it. He had a Mac at home he used for his music. He was also a musician.

Not odd at all. This is new stuff and first impressions count a lot--especially with this timing around WWDC. Why risk this golden opportunity by letting it run on other browsers. That'd be reckless, if not foolish.

No harm in promoting one's own browser, anyway.

You must not have much (or much good) experience with relationships. My marriage is good _BECAUSE_ of exclusivity. Must be a foreign concept to you that two companies could have such a relationship which was very good for both entities and then want to preserve it and be mutually faithful to it. And just like a couple, it's nobody's business but theirs exactly why it's so good.

It doesn't suck. It makes sense to continue successful actions. We don't know what all kinds of cooperative actions are involved with the Appple/AT&T exclusivity agreements. They have the right to determine their own strategies. The factual bottom line is that the iPhone continues to sell well, most likely due in no small part to the exclusivity.

Apple caught Adobe sleeping with the sudden success of the iPhone OS and its devices. Suddenly there was created a huge demand for content on mobile devices, and Flash was complacently gobbling resources on PCs. So where's the meat, Adobe? Where is a more efficient version of Flash for mobile? Is it even technically feasible? Perhaps not. Perhaps Flash is indeed old technology like Steve said. Not an attack, really. Just a candid statement of fact.

But now that even a Flash converter to iPhone native code is not welcome for other reasons, it seems that Flash has been dealt a KO 1-2 punch. Media clients are starting not to want it on their sites. So developers have to make careful decisions as to whether to support one or the other or both. No sympathy there, as the bottom line of client specification will dictate their operations.

I think we have yet to witness the full impact of iPhone OS devices. I think their general demand will escalate even further to the end that Flash will simply be dropped of necessity.

Hopefully, for Adobe's sake and ours, it moves on gracefully and develops new creative tools to support HTML5.

Flash is about my only contention with Adobe. They simply need to eat some crow, count their losses, and move on, or at least prepare to move on by gracefully stepping in with new tools for HTML5 composition to hedge their bets.

This move by Steve Jobs prohibiting Flash is simply similar to others such as dropping floppy drives and making some batteries non-removable. It's high time.

Also Apple shouldn't have to kow tow to third party development tools which compromise Apple's control of its third-party software development. There's plenty of wiggle room with Xcode and within Apple's developer policy for freedom and creativity while yet preserving the integrity of the iPhone OS ecosystem.

Customers and developers have already and will continue to vote on this issue via their iPhone OS device purchases, and continuing app submissions.

None of this is anti-competition. Quite the contrary. It's simply defining the rules of the game. Others are not being prevented from competing via other product/development systems.

We used to use Retrospect, but these days I just like Time Machine. It's so easy to use. And it's saved my bacon more than once with its easy restore procedure.

We keep hearing these keywords: "Choice", "Openness", "Freedom." And we keep hearing various rants about how Apple is somehow preventing those in various aspects of its business models. But even if those weren't the competition's feeble attempts at propaganda, if they were temporarily taken, for the sake of argument, as facts, they'd be CONTRARY to the much larger and more important FACTS of Apple's sales statistics. Who is twisting anyone's arm at this point or at any other point over the past three-odd years and more to buy Apple's products? And how are any of those individual purchases (in the hundreds of millions--and BILLIONS if you count iTunes songs) NOT the products of CHOICE, OPENNESS, and FREEDOM????

One of our clients, a staunch hold-out Blackberry user for years now, just yesterday "confessed" to my wife that she wanted an iPhone because she realized the Blackberry's limitations in keeping her from viewing her emails with their graphics attachments, while talking to my wife on the phone. Hers was not grim resignation to being "forced" to buy an iPhone, but real excitement over the prospect of the iPhone being a better tool for her in her business activities.

This is the true and obviously widespread news of Apple and its iPhone OS products which clearly refutes Brandt Dainow's parroting of his retainers' FUD. He his clearly a shill.