I can totally see both sides of the argument here.
1. flash worked HORRIBLY on touch screen devices when the ipad first came out. Apple knew this and didn't want people put off. Flash content was simply not designed for touchscreens (back then especially). It was prudent of apple to avoid the bad experiences and push developers to use a better tool. I jailbroke an ipad and used flash a couple times, it was infuriatingly unpleasant.
2. I DID jailbreak mine because I HATE a company telling me what I can or can't do with hardware I own. If this hardware is capable of doing a thing, they shouldn't be stopping me from doing it.
So, I guess I agree with you that it was rude of them to presume they know better than me, but I completely see why they did it, and might have made that same decision if it were me in charge. Maybe I would have left it enabled but popped up a big nasty warning that, unless designed for a touch interface, it would not function correctly.
Yes, I've heard that reaction from others, but isn't it entirely beside the point? No one was asking Apple to develop web content using Flash. But to leave the users in the lurch, with some nonsense about low efficiency, at a time when just about all web video required a Flash player, is inexcusable.
I could say the same thing about roads. They can be terribly unsafe. Let's applaud the iCar for not being designed to use them!
If you've been a web developer at any point in the past, you would whole heartedly applaud them for dumping that horrible beast of flash. There were lots of fun things made with that horrible horrible tool, but it can go away forever and everyone will be better off.
I was actually referring to iPhones and iPads summarily dropping Flash, *the* de-facto standard still today, with some concocted excuse about inefficiency, and a promise that the world was moving to HTML5 anyway.
Don't know the answer to your question. What I do know is that some Internet radio stations do not use MP3, AAC+, Real, or WMA, so they won't play on devices that don't also support Flash and Silverlight. I can sort of see the problem faced by designers of single-purpose, low cost Internet appliances. What I can't buy is the attitude Apple had when they dropped Flash.
I was going to comment that my ipod would play anything, and I loaded music on it using a 3rd party application. However, I'm not sure if you can do that anymore. Can you use anything other than itunes to put music on an apple product now? I love my iphone (yes, yes, I've tried android phones, MANY of them), but I HATE itunes.
I can't even imagine apple buying tesla completely. While it is cute to talk about and imagine the internet buzzing about, it just seems incredibly unlikely. It would be much more feasible to assume apple would invest and contribute some design, or possibly improve the interface.
Imagine, for example, their partial ownership of pixar. We didn't see iMovies and there was no apple lock in.
I loved the tesla model S. However, I hated that giant ugly flat panel. Its like our display devices haven't caught up to the elegance that is designed into the dash or something. It stuck out like a sore thumb.
Since Apple has determined that existing roads are inefficiently designed, the new iCar will only travel on Apple roads. But all the Apple fanboys are happy, assuring us that these are the roads of the future anyway.
Honestly, I can see no combination better than Tesla and Apple, to get the press all a-twitter.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.