or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple reveals long-awaited multi-touch 'iPad'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple reveals long-awaited multi-touch 'iPad' - Page 19

post #721 of 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

I guess that means Android is for the rest of us?

God, I hope so. Aren't there Android discussion boards?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #722 of 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

An Apple tablet would be preferred, but at over three times the cost, no thanks. I like Apple products (my original black MacBook is by far my most used system), but I am a practical person who can do a simple cost-to-benefit analysis - i.e. I get a lot more for $500 than I do for $1700.

I like the black MacBook. It looked so cool. However I don't know about you but I never got the $150.00 more if you wanted it in black. True, it gave the illusion of a larger display but that's all, an illusion.

I still think if Apple plays there cards right and sees all the negative press, they can make a lot of changes to the OS. You're crazy if you do t believe they have a flash, multitasking, stylus, voice to text model, with Wacom capabilities somewhere in their lab.

I know the jailbroken iPhones have multitasking which I've tried. It works really easy.

Again, Apple can still make this one heck of a device if they've got their nose to the ground and a feel for the Apple Nations pulse. Almost all of the complaints (less camera), can be fixed via OS. I might get one. We'll see but the thing about Apple is you know they know they can release this now, get sales, then release a camera, video conferencing, gaming (high end GPU), down the road and sell it all over again to the loyal. I think this is good marketing 101, but with all the hype, it should have been this now then down the road the pixel camera so we are talking straight on and other perks. Just my op.
post #723 of 779
"Almost all of the complaints (less camera), can be fixed via OS."

I agree. The OS is the main problem with the device. The hardware (except for the ugly bezel) is pretty cool.
post #724 of 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avidfcp View Post

I still think if Apple plays there cards right and sees all the negative press, they can make a lot of changes to the OS. You're crazy if you do t believe they have a flash, multitasking, stylus, voice to text model, with Wacom capabilities somewhere in their lab.

I know the jailbroken iPhones have multitasking which I've tried. It works really easy.

I'll bet you Steve Jobs has a multitasking iPhone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avidfcp View Post

We'll see but the thing about Apple is you know they know they can release this now, get sales, then release a camera, video conferencing, gaming (high end GPU), down the road and sell it all over again to the loyal. I think this is good marketing 101, but with all the hype, it should have been this now then down the road the pixel camera so we are talking straight on and other perks. Just my op.

I'm wondering how long they can play that game with the loyalists. I've been as loyal as they come the last 5-6 years (see my post a couple above this one). I'm a little burned out on the buying a slightly crippled device (iPhone 2G) this year, slightly less crippled (3G) this year, finally fully functional device (3G[s] next year treadmill they're putting us on. It wouldn't be so bad if each year it really was revolutionary new hardware, but the 2G wasn't (close, but lack of 3G hurt it) the 3G wasn't, and the 3G[s] was barely.

Apple may just burn out the loyal, especially with the move towards locked down devices instead of open devices. They've certainly burned me out, and it's not because of the upgrade costs, the fact that I purchased an unsubsidized Nexus One shows I'll pay up for the latest and greatest, it's the fact that Apple wants to control my experience with artificial restrictions, instead of letting me control it. VERY DISAPPOINTING direction they're taking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

I agree. The OS is the main problem with the device. The hardware (except for the ugly bezel) is pretty cool.

Which wouldn't even be an issue for me, except you know Apple's done its damnedest to lock it down so that jailbreakers will have a difficult, if not impossible time modifying it to meet it's fullest potential.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

God, I hope so. Aren't there Android discussion boards?

Don't write us all off to some other forum. I still like Apple and it's product, and look forward to intelligent discussions re: their pros and cons. Android's success is good for both Android and Apple. Intelligent discussion is good, too. When you weed out the kool-aid drinking, Steve Jobs worshiping fanboys around here, there's some really sharp people with some great points of view, whether pro-Apple, or not-so-pro-Apple, don't you think?
post #725 of 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by DistortedLoop View Post

I'd also like to see some acknowledgment that, for the most part, allowing it as an advanced option, perhaps with dire warnings about whatever battery risks and responsiveness times you think might occur, would not harm any of the fanboys who blindly spurt out "Apple knows best" or "I don't want the ability to multitask to ruin my experience." If you don't want the impacts of multitasking, don't turn on the option - simple, huh?

The ability to switch push\
otifications on\\off is similar to the multi-tasking argument.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DistortedLoop View Post

Will Apple fail because of this design decision? Of course not. Will some geeks leave the fold over this continued refusal to give features the hardware/OS support? Definitely. And we'll stop recommending Apple products as much as we do currently. It won't be a huge difference on sales, perhaps, but it will happen.

I actually think it could have quite a big big impact, not just a few geeks.

There is a whole new class of consumers that are starting to trust Apple products now (look at the increase in iMac sales off the back of iPod\\iPhone).

If Apple say "this is the best internet browsing experience you'll ever have" people are going to believe that. When they unwrap their shinny new iPad and realise hug chunks of the WWW are simply not supported and they can't even sit on Facebook chat and watch YouTube at the same time... they're going to be disappointed and disillusioned.
post #726 of 779
I think this whole lack of multi-tasking issue is FUD. I call bullshit.
For instance on my iPod touch, I can pause the recording app and still play chess.
That's multi-tasking.
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp

Never argue with idiots, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. - a bumper sticker

Never quote idiots, they just clog up...
Reply
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp

Never argue with idiots, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. - a bumper sticker

Never quote idiots, they just clog up...
Reply
post #727 of 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by icyfog View Post

I think this whole lack of multi-tasking issue is FUD. I call bullshit.
For instance on my iPod touch, I can pause the recording app and still play chess.
That's multi-tasking.

You haven't read a lot of the posts have you?

Of course the hardware and OS can support multitasking, as you've pointed out.

The issue is Apple's business decision to restrict background operations (aka multitasking) to applications written by Apple only.

Many of us with jailbroken iPhones are happily backgrounding several 3rd party applications right now, so it's ridiculous to say that the iPhone can't handle it. I'd almost find this acceptable, except for Apple's continued efforts, in both the OS and the latest hardware, to prevent jailbreaking at all. At least Google doesn't prevent you from "rooting" (aka jailbreaking) Android phones - they simply pop up a warning about the risks and voiding of warranties. If you're willing to risk it, root away. Apple on the other hand, well, they're not so friendly about it.
post #728 of 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by icyfog View Post

I think this whole lack of multi-tasking issue is FUD. I call bullshit.
For instance on my iPod touch, I can pause the recording app and still play chess.
That's multi-tasking.

Yes, you are correct. The device is fully capable of multitasking - and quite nicely. It is NOT a matter of the hardware or the OS being unable to do it elegantly. Indeed, the shovelware apps play quite nicely in the background.

Instead, it is a matter of policy by a huge multinational corporation. They won't let you.
post #729 of 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post

The lack of multi-tasking is totally indefensible.

The inability of Apple bashers to ever check their facts before posting their inaccurate whining is indefensible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

For all the same reasons you run more than one app on any computer. Is that irrational? Or not specific enough?

How's this: I want to surf the web while waiting for an IM to come in, or while downloading a movie. Is that irrational?

My iPhone allows me to surf the web while waiting for an IM. It allows me to download an app while surfing the web (I never tried to download a movie). It allows me to talk on the phone while surfing the web. So what makes you think the iPad won't allow me to do that?

I'm still waiting for an explanation of why you'd want to play two games at the same time or surf the web while playing an action game. The things that most people need multitasking for work just fine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post

Funny, the lack of multi-tasking is why my wife went from wanting an Apple tablet (she has a Macbook and an iPhone) to having zero interest in one. All she wants to be able to do is browse the web while instant messaging at the same time. Not too much to ask, but far too much for iPad to deliver on.

Multi-tasking has been standard since the late 1980s. It's absurd not to have it now.

It's absurd that the iPhone has been out nearly 3 years and you still don't have a clue how it works.

I use the IM app on my iPhone while browsing the web all the time. So why are you giving your wife incorrect information - and what are you going to do when she finds out you're lying to her?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

WWhen it comes right down to it.
-Can't run multiple applications.
-Can't watch hulu because of a complete lack of flash. Yes, it sucks, but many many things use it.
-Can't do video conferencing
-Too big to fit in your pocket.

Can't run multiple apps? Then why are there 140,000 apps on the App Store? Or maybe you mean at the same time? You can do almost everything you'd want multiple apps for - browse the web while downloading your email. Download an app while reading your email. Talk on the phone (on the iPhone) while browsing the web. Use Skype while browsing the web. Listen to music while browsing the web.

The only thing it won't let you do is use multiple third party apps at the same time - and no one has yet explained why you need to play two action games at the same time, for example.

Video conferencing? Third parties are already working on something for that (Belkin, for one). If you really want it, it will be available. Most people won't, so there's no reason to include it on millions of units for people who don't want it.

Hulu? Just a matter of time. Youtube is already going away from Flash. Hulu won't be far behind.

Fit in your pocket? Your laptop won't fit in your pocket. Your big screen TV won't fit into your pocket. Your refrigerator won't fit into your pocket. Your city's buses won't fit into your pocket. Who made the rule that everything has to fit into your pocket to be useful? If fitting into your pocket is a requirement, buy an iPod Touch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DistortedLoop View Post

And no one has given a rational reason why it would not be worth the MINIMAL sacrifice in performance and battery life to multitask a couple of 3rd party apps.

No one has yet made a convincing argument to Apple that it's worth while. It means extra programming, extra debugging, reduced battery life (even if you're not using it, the code's there and has to be used), and extra expense for everyone. If you can think of a single thing that requires it, feel free to explain it to Apple.

So far, every time someone comes up with something that requires multitasking (checking your mail while browsing the web, for example), it's something that iPhone OS already does. So why is it important enough to require all the extra time and money?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #730 of 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

No one has yet made a convincing argument to Apple that it's worth while. It means extra programming, extra debugging, reduced battery life (even if you're not using it, the code's there and has to be used), and extra expense for everyone. If you can think of a single thing that requires it, feel free to explain it to Apple.

So far, every time someone comes up with something that requires multitasking (checking your mail while browsing the web, for example), it's something that iPhone OS already does. So why is it important enough to require all the extra time and money?

The code is already there, or all those things that already multitask wouldn't, would they? So there's no extra code to be written. It was probably more effort (code added) to impose these artificial limitations in the first place. That kind of blows away your argument there.

The only way you can convince Apple to step out of their business model is to stop giving them your business. When they've pissed off enough people with artificial restrictions on functionality, they'll feel the pinch, and maybe change. Until then, they've got the Apple-can-do-wrong fanboys like yourself who just happily take the crumbs.

Enjoy your hobbled Apple devices - I'm getting tired of having to hack my iPhone's and AppleTV to get the functionality the hardware supports but Apple has chosen to keep from me. This Nexus One is a fine replacement for the current iPhone. Maybe it's time to get a Roku to replace the AppleTV...
post #731 of 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by DistortedLoop View Post

The issue is Apple's business decision to restrict background operations (aka multitasking) to applications written by Apple only.

I think it's more about keeping control of perceptions. Flash and background apps are both the same in that if they crash, it looks to the user like something else is faulty. If Flash crashes and takes down Safari it looks like Apple is to blame. If you're working in Keynote and the Skype background process starts taking all the CPU, it looks like Keynote is slow and buggy.

Banning plugin and background processes ensures that buggy 3rd party apps do not make the device as a whole (and therefore Apple) look bad.
post #732 of 779
Does Apple offer explanation for choosing 4:3 aspect ratio screen for the iPad?

I read in this article that it's proving to be one of the deal breakers.

I'm sure Apple has reason for putting it there though. Can anyone shed some light on this?

Thanks!
post #733 of 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by circuslife View Post

Does Apple offer explanation for choosing 4:3 aspect ratio screen for the iPad?

I'm sure Apple has reason for putting it there though. Can anyone shed some light on this?

Thanks!

4:3 is the shape of a sheet of paper.
Always has been - always will be.

C.
post #734 of 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

4:3 is the shape of a sheet of paper.
Always has been - always will be.

C.

That's very 20th century. Where's the innovation?
post #735 of 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

That's very 20th century. Where's the innovation?

Paper. Go to an office supply shop and ask them for 16:9 paper. They don't have it.

One part of the iPad is as a book reader. Another major app (iWork's Pages) is for creating paper documents. There are other apps for calendar and note taking and emailing and net surfing. Most of those do not use a 16:8 form factor. It is not purely a video player.

Another thing would be shape and style: take a piece of cardboard (better yet heavy wood) and cut in to the dimensions of the iPad. Cut another piece in a slightly longer form. Imagine holding it, taking into account balance and the average user's hand. I think the iPad is the right size and weight. Any longer and it would possibly be awkward to hold (and look weird). I did this and found the current shape to be much easier to hold and it felt much lighter although it was only slightly so.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #736 of 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

4:3 is the shape of a sheet of paper.
Always has been - always will be.

C.

Well, in the US, anyway. In much of the world, A3/A4, etc is the standard. Not to mention that the US sizes are not exactly 4:3, either (8.5 x 11 is 3.87:3 and 11 x 17 is 4.6:3).

No one really knows. I've heard the argument that reading a book in 16:9 looks like you're reading off a scroll, but that's probably just rationalization.

Bottom line is that it's 4:3. If you don't like it, don't buy one. Or go out and design and build your own slate product.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #737 of 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Any longer and it would possibly be awkward to hold (and look weird). I did this and found the current shape to be much easier to hold and it felt much lighter although it was only slightly so.

They could have adjusted the width of the bezel to both have a wider screen for videos and still be close to the current outside dimensions.

I thought Apple had the slickest design engineers in the biz?
post #738 of 779
If you don't like it, don't buy it.

I'm getting one; and I work in video (and print) and I'm more than happy with it as it is. Lots of people will buy it. Many won't. That's life. Not everybody runs out and buys a MacPro, or a Zune.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #739 of 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

If you don't like it, don't buy it.


Canned answer No. 543: My way or the highway.

Personally, I've been waiting for a cool Media Internet Device for YEARS.

The (presumed) lack of codec support and the lack of widescreen kills the Media device aspect for me. The lack of access to lots of popular websites kills the Internet device aspect for me.

So I'm still waiting. I'm hoping someone gets it right using Android. Now THAT would be killer.
post #740 of 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post


Thus it is my belief that 3rd party multi-tasking was prevented because the majority of users would have a worse experience. Sure, it sucks for power users. But if it were enabled, even as a non-default option, the majority of users would suffer.

That design decision is reasonable for the iPhone. I'm not sure that its reasonable for the iPad. That just makes the pad a larger iPhone/Touch. That may be good enough for many but it seems like it ignores the possibilities that the more robust cpu and larger screen make possible.

And the Palm Pre shows that multitasking CAN be done properly on a hand held device. I'm not totally negative on the pad. I like it for the most part. But there are limitations to the device and this is one that seems unnecessary and isn't outweighed by the benefits IMO.
post #741 of 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

Canned answer No. 543: My way or the highway.

Personally, I've been waiting for a cool Media Internet Device for YEARS.

The (presumed) lack of codec support and the lack of widescreen kills the Media device aspect for me. The lack of access to lots of popular websites kills the Internet device aspect for me.

So I'm still waiting. I'm hoping someone gets it right using Android. Now THAT would be killer.

Welcome to my ignore list.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #742 of 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Use Skype while browsing the web.

How do you do that??
post #743 of 779
As far as Im concerned, there's a 99% chance the iPad will be jailbroken within a week of it's release, and all of us that use Backgrounder on our iPhones will immediately begin using it on the iPad.
The dumb public remains unaffected. Power users have a tried and true option.

Solved.
post #744 of 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by DistortedLoop View Post

Wow, you managed to roll class, ethnicity and religion into one bigoted sentence there. Congrats.

I guess in your world African-Americans, Catholics, Jews, Asians, Indians, rich people, middle class folks, etc don't like to read or surf the web, huh? Nice place.

[CENTER]Well...

I certainly don't care for any half-hearted web surfing experience that refuses to support an industry standard like Adobe Flash.[/CENTER]
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #745 of 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

[CENTER]Well...

I certainly don't care for any half-hearted web surfing experience that refuses to support an industry standard like Adobe Flash.[/CENTER]

Can you link to some sites, other than porn, low-quality free tv shows, and games for 13 year olds, which won't function without flash?
post #746 of 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevegmu View Post

Can you link to some sites, other than porn, low-quality free tv shows, and games for 13 year olds, which won't function without flash?

How about The New York Times? Oops!
post #747 of 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

How about The New York Times? Oops!

Last I checked, the NYT will have an app for the iPad. I am assuming it is flash-free.
post #748 of 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevegmu View Post

Last I checked, the NYT will have an app for the iPad. I am assuming it is flash-free.

Yeah, but that is silly. When using Google News, if I want to go to a story on the NYT site, I don't want to quit the damn browser to do it. And when I go to the site, I don't want a blank space where the video or slideshow should have been.

Maybe you like it better that way, or like being relegated to apps instead of the regular 'web.

But for the rest of us, we don't want to worry about which websites might or might not work. We want the damn thing to Just Work. And it don't.
post #749 of 779
Quote:
I certainly don't care for any half-hearted web surfing experience that refuses to support an industry standard like Adobe Flash.

The number of website visitors with Flash installed is falling.

So most websites are dropping Flash or providing alternatives. YouTube and Vimeo already offer h264 playback.

HTML5 will render vector animation without draining your battery.

Flash-only is like Explorer-only websites. If you want to attract the largest possible audience, you'll have to move to using web standards.

C.
post #750 of 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

The number of website visitors with Flash installed is falling.

So most websites are dropping Flash or providing alternatives. YouTube and Vimeo already offer h264 playback.

HTML5 will render vector animation without draining your battery.

Flash-only is like Explorer-only websites. If you want to attract the largest possible audience, you'll have to move to using web standards.

C.

I don't have any stats to back it up, but anecdotally the consensus among the dev community is that Flash is indeed on the way out... but certainly not in the next few months.

Maybe in 5 years time the usage of Flash will have reduced to a point where Apple will be able to release the Gen4 iPad without all of the gimped browser criticism.

Either that or they just get flash support and make everyone happy.
post #751 of 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

The number of website visitors with Flash installed is falling.


But in the meantime, the inability to display popular or interesting or valuable web sites is a deal-killer for me. I was told by iSteve himself this device would be "the best way to surf the internet". But it is not.
post #752 of 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

But in the meantime, the inability to display popular or interesting or valuable web sites is a deal-killer for me. I was told by iSteve himself this device would be "the best way to surf the internet". But it is not.

You could make the same argument for Internet Explorer-only websites.
There used to be plenty of sites that would not work on Firefox and Safari. Now they all work.

Yesterday, I installed ClickToFlash. To see what a flashless world is like.
So far, the biggest difference is that a lot of annoying advertising disappears.

C.
post #753 of 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

Yesterday, I installed ClickToFlash. To see what a flashless world is like.
So far, the biggest difference is that a lot of annoying advertising disappears.

That's great for you. But what about the rest of us?
post #754 of 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

That's great for you. But what about the rest of us?

Well if you really need Flash, then you are going to have to avoid the iPhone and the iPad.

I am curious though, given the fact that a lot of sites are now offering Flash alternatives.....
(I just tried out Flashless YouTube)
...which Flash-powered website can you simply not live without?

C.
post #755 of 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

Well if you really need Flash, then you are going to have to avoid the iPhone and the iPad.

I am curious though, given the fact that a lot of sites are now offering Flash alternatives.....
(I just tried out Flashless YouTube)
...which Flash-powered website can you simply not live without?

C.

"Simply can...not live without" is way too high a standard. "would like to access" is perhaps more appropriate.

I could live without any flash websites whatsoever. I could even live without the internet as a whole. But that is irrelevant.
post #756 of 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

You could make the same argument for Internet Explorer-only websites. There used to be plenty of sites that would not work on Firefox and Safari. Now they all work.

Exactly. It took a good five years for devs to move away from IE code towards web standards (or at least find a work-around), just like it's going to take a good five years to move away from flash. Something needs to fill in the interim whilst we all wait.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

Well if you really need Flash, then you are going to have to avoid the iPhone and the iPad.

Unless Apple get flash on the iPad, which I think they will. If not a lot of the users the iPad is aimed at just won't "get it" when they can't access certain sites or content which is going to be a terrible user experience. I don't think Jobs is going to compromise on something that important.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

I am curious though, given the fact that a lot of sites are now offering Flash alternatives.....
(I just tried out Flashless YouTube)
...which Flash-powered website can you simply not live without?

Does this work without Flash?

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles..._of_music.html
post #757 of 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

Does this work without Flash?

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles..._of_music.html

No it does not.
But when I activated Flash. It didn't work either!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

It took a good five years for devs to move away from IE code towards web standards

Really? It seemed much faster to me. The sites that cared, got their act together quickly - and switched to web-standards.
The sites that didn't care sent out a big signal out saying "we don't want your custom". That was quite helpful.


C.
post #758 of 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

No it does not.
But when I activated Flash. It didn't work either!

That's odd. You should see an embedded video link. No wonder you didn't notice a difference when you switched off flash!!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

Really? It seemed much faster to me. The sites that cared, got their act together quickly - and switched to web-standards.

The sites that didn't care sent out a big signal out saying "we don't want your custom". That was quite helpful.
C.

It was actually much slower. It's only in the past 3 or 4 years that we've got what looks like a true cross-browser internet.

In a sense it's still ongoing however, because the only reason most websites look the same on IE\\Firefox\\Chrome\\Safari\\Opera is because devs do a lot of browser detection and custom work arounds.
post #759 of 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

It was actually much slower. It's only in the past 3 or 4 years that we've got what looks like a true cross-browser internet.

But it was only in the last 3-4 years we got a credible rival to IE. Firefox was launched in 2004 and really picked up steam a couple of years later.

As soon as 10% of users were using Firefox - we saw IE-only websites start to get fixed. Most of this changeover happened between 2006-2008. It was pretty quick! Even though that meant re-writing entire sites.

Content providers have been coping with a Flashless internet for a while. The iPhone has been a force in encouraging providers to move to an alternative delivery method for video and advertising. So the process is already underway.

Adobe's blogger, Lee Brimelow made this post - arguing that the reference sites would not work without flash.
http://theflashblog.com/?p=1703

But already most of these sites offer alternative iPhone friendly versions.

Flash was a useful intermediate technology which allowed the web to push content, when the underlying web technologies had not caught up. And I am sure Flash will be around for many years to come.

But Flash is a terrible technology for mobile devices. It was never designed with mobile devices in mind. Nothing scales, nothing renders in hardware. It's a dog.

So Flash-only content is a bad idea for most content providers. Because most content providers want to reach the largest possible audience and that includes mobile devices. In a year's time, I think it will be difficult to find a major site that does not offer a Flash-free alternative method for accessing its content.

C.
post #760 of 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

But it was only in the last 3-4 years we got a credible rival to IE. Firefox was launched in 2004 and really picked up steam a couple of years later.

As soon as 10% of users were using Firefox - we saw IE-only websites start to get fixed. Most of this changeover happened between 2006-2008. It was pretty quick! Even though that meant re-writing entire sites.

Content providers have been coping with a Flashless internet for a while. The iPhone has been a force in encouraging providers to move to an alternative delivery method for video and advertising. So the process is already underway.

Adobe's blogger, Lee Brimelow made this post - arguing that the reference sites would not work without flash.
http://theflashblog.com/?p=1703

But already most of these sites offer alternative iPhone friendly versions.

Flash was a useful intermediate technology which allowed the web to push content, when the underlying web technologies had not caught up. And I am sure Flash will be around for many years to come.

But Flash is a terrible technology for mobile devices. It was never designed with mobile devices in mind. Nothing scales, nothing renders in hardware. It's a dog.

So Flash-only content is a bad idea for most content providers. Because most content providers want to reach the largest possible audience and that includes mobile devices. In a year's time, I think it will be difficult to find a major site that does not offer a Flash-free alternative method for accessing its content.

C.

If sites start offering the mobile version of their website to the iPad it will be an even worse browsing experience than not having flash.

Here is a question. Does the mobile Safari version even support the HTML 5 video and audio elements? It doesn't seem to work for me.

If not then that's obviously something Apple need to work on as well. It's no use wanting sites to use a Flash alternative for video if they aren't even offering an alternative!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple reveals long-awaited multi-touch 'iPad'