No 64-bit (x64) Firefox 4.0, 32-bit (x86) Only – List of Supported....

bobtran said:

Actually I think that the real story here is the complete and total indifference that Adobe has shown the public in general. Apple screwing Adobe....please, Adobe has been screwing the people as a whole for a long, long time and they are simply reaping what they have sown. Carma, plain and simple.

Plain and simple, besides the fact that you misspelled it, of course.

I still don't understand all this. Last time I checked, Flash is still at the top. Everyone is speaking as though it's already dead, which is definitely not the case. Every new iPhone that comes out is still attacked for lack of Flash support, Android supports Flash, that really doesn't sound like a "dead" software to me.

No one thinks that, even if HTML5 comes to compete with Flash, Adobe won't simply make Flash more advanced to counter it? Flash is an industry standard, plain and simple. No different than Windows, MS Office, and Photoshop. Until people stop using it completely, that's the way it's going to stay. I can think of several major websites that only stopped using Flash (or used it less) because Apple iOS, a massive market, doesn't support it. I'm not saying this is all Apple's fault, but you can't deny they've played a huge role here, despite the fact that their customers WANT Flash.

I can't even remember why we're talking about Flash instead of Firefox now. But I'd be very curious to know why, after years and years of dominance, you think Adobe has been "screwing" the people?

BCXtreme said:

bobtran said:

Actually I think that the real story here is the complete and total indifference that Adobe has shown the public in general. Apple screwing Adobe....please, Adobe has been screwing the people as a whole for a long, long time and they are simply reaping what they have sown. Carma, plain and simple.

Plain and simple, besides the fact that you misspelled it, of course.

I still don't understand all this. Last time I checked, Flash is still at the top. Everyone is speaking as though it's already dead, which is definitely not the case. Every new iPhone that comes out is still attacked for lack of Flash support, Android supports Flash, that really doesn't sound like a "dead" software to me.

No one thinks that, even if HTML5 comes to compete with Flash, Adobe won't simply make Flash more advanced to counter it? Flash is an industry standard, plain and simple. No different than Windows, MS Office, and Photoshop. Until people stop using it completely, that's the way it's going to stay. I can think of several major websites that only stopped using Flash (or used it less) because Apple iOS, a massive market, doesn't support it. I'm not saying this is all Apple's fault, but you can't deny they've played a huge role here, despite the fact that their customers WANT Flash.

I can't even remember why we're talking about Flash instead of Firefox now. But I'd be very curious to know why, after years and years of dominance, you think Adobe has been "screwing" the people?

+1 for the spelling of Karma.
+1 for saying Flash is alive and well

We're talking about FF and Flash in the same breath b/c it's prevalent on the Internet, yet not supported by the 64-bit version of FF (or IE).

In all fairness, here is an interesting article discussing Flash and HTML5
Flash Player: CPU Hog or Hot Tamale? It Depends.

BCXtreme said:

But I'd be very curious to know why, after years and years of dominance, you think Adobe has been "screwing" the people?

I'm curious about this comment as well. I think most people screw Adobe as they often pirate Photoshop and don't pay for it....but that's a different matter altogether.

pparks1 said:

BCXtreme said:

But I'd be very curious to know why, after years and years of dominance, you think Adobe has been "screwing" the people?

I'm curious about this comment as well. I think most people screw Adobe as they often pirate Photoshop and don't pay for it....but that's a different matter altogether.

Well, I can certainly say if it wasn't outrageously priced then not many would pirate it (at least not as many as there are currently pirating it).

DarkNovaGamer said:

Well, I can certainly say if it wasn't outrageously priced then not many would pirate it (at least not as many as there are currently pirating it).

Well, that's a whole different argument. I mean, the Windows OS is like $200, but people pirate that. Games are usually $39 or $49...but many still pirate these. Heck cd's are only like $10 and people pirate these. I'm not sure you could agree on a price to stop piracy.

pparks1 said:

DarkNovaGamer said:

Well, I can certainly say if it wasn't outrageously priced then not many would pirate it (at least not as many as there are currently pirating it).

Well, that's a whole different argument. I mean, the Windows OS is like $200, but people pirate that. Games are usually $39 or $49...but many still pirate these. Heck cd's are only like $10 and people pirate these. I'm not sure you could agree on a price to stop piracy.

Free would, but that isn't the point. I'm not saying that we can stop it all together, I AM saying we can reduce it by making prices more reasonable. Especially to the average person.

On a more related note (to the thread), why is Mozilla still working on 64-bit builds of Firefox 4 if they are not releasing it?

DarkNovaGamer said:

pparks1 said:

DarkNovaGamer said:

Well, I can certainly say if it wasn't outrageously priced then not many would pirate it (at least not as many as there are currently pirating it).

Well, that's a whole different argument. I mean, the Windows OS is like $200, but people pirate that. Games are usually $39 or $49...but many still pirate these. Heck cd's are only like $10 and people pirate these. I'm not sure you could agree on a price to stop piracy.

Free would, but that isn't the point. I'm not saying that we can stop it all together, I AM saying we can reduce it by making prices more reasonable. Especially to the average person.

On a more related note (to the thread), why is Mozilla still working on 64-bit builds of Firefox 4 if they are not releasing it?

Because they do intend to at some point in the future. It's just that it won't be 4.0

BCXtreme said:

DarkNovaGamer said:

pparks1 said:

Well, that's a whole different argument. I mean, the Windows OS is like $200, but people pirate that. Games are usually $39 or $49...but many still pirate these. Heck cd's are only like $10 and people pirate these. I'm not sure you could agree on a price to stop piracy.

Free would, but that isn't the point. I'm not saying that we can stop it all together, I AM saying we can reduce it by making prices more reasonable. Especially to the average person.

On a more related note (to the thread), why is Mozilla still working on 64-bit builds of Firefox 4 if they are not releasing it?

Because they do intend to at some point in the future. It's just that it won't be 4.0

I figured that was the case, though I thought I'd ask just in case I was wrong. Thank you for clearing that up. :)