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 20

post #761 of 786
2/1/10 at 8:02am
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.
Reply
Reply
post #762 of 786
2/1/10 at 8:33am
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.
Reply
Reply
post #763 of 786
2/1/10 at 8:42am
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
Reply
Reply
post #764 of 786
2/1/10 at 8:54am
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.
Reply
Reply
post #765 of 786
2/1/10 at 7:07pm
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.
Reply
Reply
post #766 of 786
2/2/10 at 12:15am
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.
Reply
Reply
post #767 of 786
2/2/10 at 12:50am
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!
Reply
Reply
post #768 of 786
2/2/10 at 12:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

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.

Q: Which browser technology is most compliant with HTML5?

A: Webkit.

Q: Who develops Webkit?

C.
Reply
Reply
post #769 of 786
2/2/10 at 1:33am
Nokia and others are working with Qt WebKit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

Q: Which browser technology is most compliant with HTML5?

A: Webkit.

Q: Who develops Webkit?

C.

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply
post #770 of 786
2/2/10 at 1:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Nokia and others are working with Qt WebKit

That's not the whole truth.

Apple bought KHTML, and instead of keeping it in house, turned it into the open-source Webkit. This is the driving technology behind Safari, Chrome and Nokia's browsers.

C.
Reply
Reply
post #771 of 786
2/2/10 at 4:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

Q: Which browser technology is most compliant with HTML5?

A: Webkit.

Q: Who develops Webkit?

C.

So... not supported now, but safe to assume it will be at some time in the future?

Has there actually been any official announcement about this? What about planned codec support?
Reply
Reply
post #772 of 786
2/2/10 at 5:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

So... not supported now, but safe to assume it will be at some time in the future?

This is a demo of HTML5 video playback.
As a video player, it is far better than anything that Flash can deliver. Both in quality, playback controls and hardware acceleration. It scales to full screen playback without turning your computer into a hairdryer.

http://jilion.com/sublime/video

It works fine in Safari.
It works fine on the iPhone too.

C.
Reply
Reply
post #773 of 786
2/2/10 at 5:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

This is a demo of HTML5 video playback.
As a video player, it is far better than anything that Flash can deliver. Both in quality, playback controls and hardware acceleration. It scales to full screen playback without turning your computer into a hairdryer.

http://jilion.com/sublime/video

It works fine in Safari.
It works fine on the iPhone too.

C.

I'm impressed. So was Gruber.

Played the video on my iMac (C2D 2.6ghz) and the cpu utilization was around 10%. I like the controls as well.

Going to try it on my iPhone.
Reply
Reply
post #774 of 786
2/2/10 at 5:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

This is a demo of HTML5 video playback.
As a video player, it is far better than anything that Flash can deliver. Both in quality, playback controls and hardware acceleration. It scales to full screen playback without turning your computer into a hairdryer.

http://jilion.com/sublime/video

It works fine in Safari.
It works fine on the iPhone too.

C.

I love that page. I show that video to everyone I can with the tags "future of HD online".

People with laptops can't believe they're playing HD video. "It's almost like my computer will survive this!"
Reply
Reply
post #775 of 786
2/2/10 at 6:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

This is a demo of HTML5 video playback.
As a video player, it is far better than anything that Flash can deliver. Both in quality, playback controls and hardware acceleration. It scales to full screen playback without turning your computer into a hairdryer.

http://jilion.com/sublime/video

It works fine in Safari.
It works fine on the iPhone too.

C.

I get a "browser not supported" error in Firefox.
Reply
Reply
post #776 of 786
2/2/10 at 6:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

I get a "browser not supported" error in Firefox.

The evil makers of Firefox are clearly restricting your freedoms - and thereby forcing you into an Adobe-dominated content infrastructure!

C.
Reply
Reply
post #777 of 786
2/2/10 at 7:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

This is a demo of HTML5 video playback.
As a video player, it is far better than anything that Flash can deliver. Both in quality, playback controls and hardware acceleration. It scales to full screen playback without turning your computer into a hairdryer.

http://jilion.com/sublime/video

It works fine in Safari.
It works fine on the iPhone too.

C.

Dear C.

Thanks for that. Looks just beautiful on my iPhone. I avoid Flash but haven't really been up with HTML5. If this is what to expect, fantastic.

By the way, I didn't miss floppy drives when Apple abandoned them either!

All the best.
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
post #778 of 786
2/2/10 at 8:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

The evil makers of Firefox are clearly restricting your freedoms - and thereby forcing you into an Adobe-dominated content infrastructure!

Or rather they are trying to prevent an MPEG LA-dominated content infrastructure!

I honestly can't see Flash being replaced in the next 12 months when the alternative for one of Flash's functions (i.e. the video) hasn't even been decided on yet.

In any case I've bookmarked this thread for a 12 month follow up



Also, test results using Chrome on a Win7 box showed around 30% CPU at full screen for the mp4 vs 20% full screen for a 720p video in Flash. Also the full screen resize on the mp4 looks pathetic.

However that is in no way representative of the video content itself. I got 5% CPU usage and a perfect upscale using a stand-alone player. I think Google just need to put a bit more effort into their HTML 5 player.
Reply
Reply
post #779 of 786
2/2/10 at 9:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

I honestly can't see Flash being replaced in the next 12 months when the alternative for one of Flash's functions (i.e. the video) hasn't even been decided on yet.

Flash won't be replaced.
But content providers will introduce new delivery methods alongside Flash to reach the audience they want to reach. If you don't have Flash, the content will be delivered by another method.

HTML5 video - using h264 as the video standard - is what will be selected for video streaming. There's not chance of OGG being used. Because h264 runs in hardware.

YouTube, Vimeo and even the BBC iPlayer are already offering video streaming based on h264.

C.
Reply
Reply
post #780 of 786
2/2/10 at 12:37pm
http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/02/f...in-us-for-850/

Look at this Apple.

THis is a geeks wet dream come true.

Atom processor
5.6" Multi-touch screen!
Windows 7.

The performance and experience has got to be extraordinary.
Reply
Reply
post #781 of 786
2/2/10 at 1:11pm
The iPad is not for geeks.

 

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 #782 of 786
2/2/10 at 2:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

The iPad is not for geeks.

Who IS it for?
Reply
Reply
post #783 of 786
2/2/10 at 4:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by msantti View Post

http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/02/f...in-us-for-850/

Look at this Apple.

THis is a geeks wet dream come true.

Atom processor
5.6" Multi-touch screen!
Windows 7.

The performance and experience has got to be extraordinary.

The only MAJOR flaw in that is the Windows operating system!
Reply
Reply
post #784 of 786
2/2/10 at 4:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewMacMan View Post

The only MAJOR flaw in that is the Windows operating system!

How exactly would you operate Mac OS X or Windows 7 on a multi-touchscreen? The OSes aren't designed for that. The objects are too small, drag and drop of multiple files needs to be re-done for multi-touch (did you even watch the iPad keynote)

You do realize the iPad processor is much faster than the atom processor right? Yes it could run "FULL" os x if apple put it on instead of the light version they are, but it isn't ready for that yet. THE REASON TABLETS have failed so far is because they DON'T WORK WITH NORMAL OSes. You need an new OS.

Eventually the desktop version of OS X will support all the multi-touch gestures.
Reply
Reply
post #785 of 786
2/2/10 at 4:35pm
I think you quoted the wrong person... anyway I agree. The iPad would not work with a normal OS, and Apple is smart enough to know that. Apparently, nobody else could figure that out.
Reply
Reply
post #786 of 786
2/4/10 at 8:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

Who IS it for?

Everyone else. Welcome to ignore.
Reply
Reply
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'