or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › iPad photos show slot for forward-facing video camera
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

iPad photos show slot for forward-facing video camera - Page 4

post #121 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMat View Post

The more I get the impression Apple released the iPad in a hurry. They might include iSight, and they should. The whole keynote looked less polished than usual and with less "wow" than what we got used to.
Moreover, in non-US sites the price is provided (which is unusual for a non released product) and all prices are still in US Dollars.

This tells me that the iPad is somehow still under development, at least software-wise. iWork is nice and interesting, but some software is missing big time:
- iLife. After all iLife is a major selling point for Apple and one thing the iPad could really use to be a compelling piece of hardware
- iMagazines. Besides books, on a gorgeous color display, one wonders why Magazines have not been included (National Geographic just to mention one).
- Multitasking. I believe multitasking, at least a couple of background apps running while doing other stuff, is a major missing feature


All this makes me believe that the iPad wasn't exactly "ready for market". Although I understand concerns related to keeping the price affordable I wonder how much of an impact would an iSight camera have made on one side and how much of an impact would iLife made on the other... As well as iMagazines which would even have repaid themselves.

I will not buy the iPad since I am not really in the target. But being an Apple fan I would have considered it if it had some of the mentioned features, which would have made it "better at certain tasks".

I had a similar impression that things were rushed or changed at the end. Steve's presentation seemed completely backwards, as there was none of his usual buildup and ka-pow! He basically went straight to the reveal and then seemed to be very low key and reserved the whole time. Also, Scott Forstall and Phil Schiller both looked nervous (especially Scott) and everyone looked like they hadn't slept in three days.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #122 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

Or it is a company that realises that a delivering a consistent experience is more important to users than playing Spotify while we read email. We asked the market what is the most important thing in a Smartphone?

Err. Multi-tasking?
Eh ehhhh - sorry. That isn't on the board. The market's top answer was consistency.

Consistency is helped when every app that launches gets 100% of the device's resources. The app doesn't have to share those resources with five or ten other apps in an unseemly bar-fight for CPU, RAM and battery.

I do think iPhone OS 4.0 will offer more ways of switching apps. And new ways of having some background activity.

But what Apple won't do is present you with a phone that is running at 10% of it's normal speed, and then have someone in tech-support explain that you have to open task-manager to shut down all the applications you forgot to close.

C.

Seriously, ask any iPhone user WHAT Multi-Tasking is. Hell ask any computer user NOT in a technical field what it is. They'll tell you it's when I minimize this window and work on this... So on the iPhone they already have "Multi-tasking" from their perspective.

What developers need is a Hybrid sleep system that will allow somewhat dynamic updating during sleep cycles IF the owner turns the Hybrid sleep function slider to ON. At which point whenever the phone is in sleep mode, awaiting a call, the hybrid functions can run on reduced cycles. Limit it to whatever you want. Although a new Apple iPhone app would be needed so when the phone owner realizes his full battery at 8am is now dead at noon WHAT application(s) killed it and allow him to turn Hybrid sleep OFF.

Just sayin...
post #123 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

I had a similar impression that things were rushed or changed at the end. Steve's presentation seemed completely backwards, as there was none of his usual buildup and ka-pow! He basically went straight to the reveal and then seemed to be very low key and reserved the whole time. Also, Scott Forstall and Phil Schiller both looked nervous (especially Scott) and everyone looked like they hadn't slept in three days.

Yea, first time for a no show "One more thing..."
post #124 of 203
. . .
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #125 of 203
I wouldn't rule out any surprise features for the iPad in the next few months. I don't think iPhone OS 3.2 will ever see the light of day on any device, for example. Seems to be a transitional OS for devs in the next 2 months to get some iPad apps out the door.
post #126 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

Consistency is helped when every app that launches gets 100% of the device's resources. The app doesn't have to share those resources with five or ten other apps in an unseemly bar-fight for CPU, RAM and battery.

10 apps running in the background?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

But what Apple won't do is present you with a phone that is running at 10% of it's normal speed, and then have someone in tech-support explain that you have to open task-manager to shut down all the applications you forgot to close.

So you agree that iPhone users are not competent to handle multitasking? I seem to have a higher estimation of my fellows than you do. I also have a higher estimation of Apple: I think that they can implement it in a competent manner so that it is easy to use.
post #127 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by xwiredtva View Post

Seriously, ask any iPhone user WHAT Multi-Tasking is. Hell ask any computer user NOT in a technical field what it is. They'll tell you it's when I minimize this window and work on this... So on the iPhone they already have "Multi-tasking" from their perspective.

Why do so many folks here twist words into pretzels?
post #128 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

I wouldn't rule out any surprise features for the iPad in the next few months. I don't think iPhone OS 3.2 will ever see the light of day on any device, for example. Seems to be a transitional OS for devs in the next 2 months to get some iPad apps out the door.

Despite the perceived hardware shortcomings, what really matters is the expansion of playground real estate for the devs. I expect amazing new apps!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #129 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

1 I also have a higher estimation of Apple: I think that they can implement it in a competent manner so that it is easy to use.

Isn't that what I just said?

Apple should allow apps to suspend and stay resident in memory for immediate resumption.
However, any abandoned app should be quitted by the OS - and not need the user to play policeman.

UI wise, I don't think Apple will distinguish between launching an app and resuming a suspended "active" app. They might do something minor like put a glow under the icon of apps which are suspended.

C.
post #130 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

Multitasking works quite well on the current chip. Believe it or not, its not a matter of "it can't", it is a matter of a massive international corporation not letting you...

Yes I want to have the same experience as droid and palm users, you know my battery dying every 5 hours. Sorry I don't need multi-tasking that bad.
post #131 of 203
It is NEVER a good idea to buy 1.0 of any product. This is especially true of Apple products. There generation 1 products are always missing key features that people want. I am going to have to pass on the iPad ( Although I like the design ) until they either support flash or the majority of the web moves away from flash. Since this is likely to take several years (to never), I'll probably pass on at least gen 1 & 2 and maybe 3....
post #132 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

. . .

My thoughts exactly.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #133 of 203
Please pretty please include a camera. Call it the iPad Pro. Once it has a camera for video conferencing, i'll get 2 of them!
Dancers are the Athletes of God - Albert Einstein
http://www.iPhoneSalsa.com

Proud owner of iMac, Macbook Pro, iPhone, Time Capsule
Reply
Dancers are the Athletes of God - Albert Einstein
http://www.iPhoneSalsa.com

Proud owner of iMac, Macbook Pro, iPhone, Time Capsule
Reply
post #134 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

. . .

Your best post ever!
post #135 of 203
There is also the adverse:

They may have been "asked" to leak it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

I'm sure this violates Mission Repair's confidentiality agreements. They must have done it to get publicity for their company. Apple may not be pleased. Risky stuff.
post #136 of 203
Amazing how many people believe this crap or think there is some kind of conspiracy as to why Apple left out a camera.

First of all, Apple would not be shipping out repair service parts for a product that is not even shipping yet. Second, why would anyone be surprised that Apple would design a product without the idea of future updates in mind?

The Power Mac G4 Cube was designed and included a mounting frame for an internal cooling fan; however, a fan was not needed in the 1st generation Cube. They obviously designed it with the possibility of faster Cubes requiring additional cooling. Later revisions could be cheaper since the design is already there. But the Cube was a major failure and it was discontinued without any faster models ever introduced.

Why would Apple go all out on a product that has no proven success rate? If it succeeds, they can add more features and have less cost since the design already includes the capability of future add-ons. If it fails, then Apple spent very little money developing the giant iPod Touch Grande.
post #137 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones View Post

Amazing how many people believe this crap or think there is some kind of conspiracy as to why Apple left out a camera.

You put your finger on one of the reasons why this discussion is so silly. Does anybody remember the arguments here about how the very idea that a slate computer would have a camera would be ridiculous? How would you hold it steady? Who'd want to video conference on a tablet? Front mounted, back mounted, the angle is all wrong! Etc., etc., etc.

The bottom line is, if Apple leaves the camera out, they blew it. If they put the camera in, they blew it. If they leave a space to put one in later, they blew it. No matter what they do, they've already blown it.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #138 of 203
As an iPhone developer myself I can tell you that there is in fact a space for a front facing camera. I happened to shine a flashlight on the top of the case of the demo units (a very bright one) you not only could see the space that the person shows (yes it's possible to order parts for authorized dealer if they know people). And second apple included in 3.2 SDK an ENTIRELY NEW take photo options that is TOO LARGE to be used on the iPhone. It's completely recreated. You can call the API, and it pops up in the emulator. It's very, very obvious there was a camera planned for this module.

Not only that of the 3 leaked shots that came out the night before, (the bolted down ipads) there is a cut-out area around the camera.

Two other "leaked" shots that were later confirmed also show a camera at the top as well.

I was at the announcement and held one myself. I've also talked with an authorized dealer in the bay area who is getting parts this weekend because he knows a guy who knows a guy yada yada. They do have access to the parts in advance.

I know the SDK had a special iPad camera interface, the photos show it, and this authorized dealer has on reason to lie, not to mention appleinsider and macrumors do check their sources.

Thanks.

hillstone and dr. millmoss, let me know when you have access to 3.2 SDK, write objective C, and get invited to apple media events. Stop spouting off stuff you no NOTHING ABOUT.

I'll put $5,000 on when you tear the iPad apart you see EXACTLY what was shown here. Care to wager. I've never lost a bet on AppleInsider, or Macrumors. In fact I've won $500.

-Drinking with Apple hardware engineers, later!
post #139 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by webmail View Post

hillstone and dr. millmoss, let me know when you have access to 3.2 SDK, write objective C, and get invited to apple media events. Stop spouting off stuff you no NOTHING ABOUT.

What the hell you coming at me for? My point was that people shouldn't necessarily believe something exists just because they've seen a picture on a web site. Or do I need to have access to a special SDK, write Objective C, and get invited to Apple media events to know that?
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #140 of 203
I bet the camera was left off intentionally so that Steve can debut a face detecting software feature for revision 2. This revision is about the app store and pushing the devices into enterprise where cameras may be banned.
post #141 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by webmail View Post

let me know when you have access to 3.2 SDK

http://www.apple.com/ipad/sdk/
What's difficult about that?
post #142 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by azzurri View Post

I have this gut feeling that Apple is going to have an iPhone OS event in March..

I think you have it absolutely on the money.
post #143 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by webmail View Post

As an iPhone developer myself I can tell you that there is in fact a space for a front facing camera. I happened to shine a flashlight on the top of the case of the demo units (a very bright one) you not only could see the space that the person shows (yes it's possible to order parts for authorized dealer if they know people). And second apple included in 3.2 SDK an ENTIRELY NEW take photo options that is TOO LARGE to be used on the iPhone. It's completely recreated. You can call the API, and it pops up in the emulator. It's very, very obvious there was a camera planned for this module.

Not only that of the 3 leaked shots that came out the night before, (the bolted down ipads) there is a cut-out area around the camera.

Two other "leaked" shots that were later confirmed also show a camera at the top as well.

I was at the announcement and held one myself. I've also talked with an authorized dealer in the bay area who is getting parts this weekend because he knows a guy who knows a guy yada yada. They do have access to the parts in advance.

I know the SDK had a special iPad camera interface, the photos show it, and this authorized dealer has on reason to lie, not to mention appleinsider and macrumors do check their sources.

Thanks.

hillstone and dr. millmoss, let me know when you have access to 3.2 SDK, write objective C, and get invited to apple media events. Stop spouting off stuff you no NOTHING ABOUT.

I'll put $5,000 on when you tear the iPad apart you see EXACTLY what was shown here. Care to wager. I've never lost a bet on AppleInsider, or Macrumors. In fact I've won $500.

-Drinking with Apple hardware engineers, later!

1-- You've broken your NDA. Maybe not the best time to be belittling people for not knowing stuff. You do know you signed an NDA, right? Maybe the Apple hardware engineers you'll be drinking with later will be amused.

2-- The handlers let you shine a very bright flashlight on the iPad, inspecting it for hidden features, while you got your 30 seconds of hands on time? Uh huh.

3-- Random independent repair shops are getting iPad parts 2 months before it ships? And not just any parts, but full on rebuild it from scratch parts? Why? We're expected to accept this on faith, just because, but it makes no sense whatsoever. Why would the notoriously super secret Apple send parts to independent shops way, way before the release of a product? It's not like those shops can start practicing repairs, because I don't think even the credulous are claiming that Apple is sending out entire iPads. So what possible reason would Apple have for doing that?
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 #144 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by slapppy View Post

I don't think these kind of leaks help Apple at all. I don't know how many will not [sic] hold back on the 1st gen because of this (if true) leak. But I believe it will affect sales.

What will affect sales to me is not including the camera - knowing they could have put it in is irrelevant. It unfortunately misses being a all-in-one low-maintenance video conferencing device if it doesn't have a camera or needs to start getting clunky add-ons to make it work for my parents and in-laws. I'd love to just give them a tablet, get the WiFi turned on, and tell them to call me on it when they have a problem with their stupid &^%*^&%&! PCs.

Anyway, here's to still hoping they surprise us and add one.
post #145 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

10 apps running in the background?

So you agree that iPhone users are not competent to handle multitasking? I seem to have a higher estimation of my fellows than you do. I also have a higher estimation of Apple: I think that they can implement it in a competent manner so that it is easy to use.

'Your fellows' probably aren't the average end user. In my mom's case, I have to explain that she's actually running a program called Internet Explorer that lets her get to google.com - no, mom, that's a website, you're not "running Google". "I'm running 'the E'?". Assuming apps intelligently save their state, I'm sure she'd never know/care whether a device is truly multitasking, and it's way easier not to have to explain how to close some runaway task that's killing the battery. (Hypothetically - she's a Windows user but I wouldn't expect her to grok the concept on an iPhone either.)

If music runs in the background while running Safari and email/phone calls come in while running other apps, that's probably close enough to multitasking for a lot of cases. Clearly Apple is letting themselves 'get away' with access to multitasking that we don't get as developers and there are exceptions where it clearly would enable better functionality (music streaming and turn-by-turn navigation come to mind). I think the lack of general outcry answers the question of how many people are really up in arms about it, and there's definitely an ease-of-use win.

Now me, I can't wait to see how that new 12-core Pro runs.
post #146 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

You are not a developer are you?

The iPhone and iPad both are already running OS X. It has a different UI and a different CPU. But it's OS X alright.

It's just not Mac OS X.

Apple could port the entirety of Mac OS X to the Arm processor. But what would be the point? To support applications which were never designed to run on a tablet? To acquire a UI that would be dreadful on a tablet?

Here's a suggestion: if you want to run Macintosh applications - Apple already make a range of computers to do exactly that. They are great. I have several. And Apple even make money selling them.

If you really want to see how a desktop UI works on a tablet, check-out Windows 7.

C.

Actually, I somehow entirely forgot about the OS X "internals" of the iPhone and iPad. I'm not a developer but I poked around ssh during the early iPhone jailbreak days. So yeah, it does run OS X!

What I am trying to say is that at some stage there will be a confluence of sorts between an advanced iPhone OS and powerful enough ARM stuff to run Mac OS X.

Just as some people said, oh, the iPad will never run iPhone OS, we can't say in a few years there won't be iPads that run Mac OS X.

Again, I'm not a developer, but an iPad running Mac OS X is not too difficult to conceive of, it just depends on how they decide on "touch-enabling" Mac OS X.

As to how Windows 7 does tablets, I'm not even remotely interested in that, if it was any good there would really be more PC-Windows tablets in use.

So to recap, I would not suggest Apple just blindly make an iPad run Mac OS X. But, an iPad running Mac OS X with appropriate software/ UI tweaks/ etc. would really take it to the next level... circa 2011/2012. Just sayin' it's a possibility.
post #147 of 203
BTW iPhone OS 4.0 announced in March, which will *NOT* be shipping on iPad, should have multitasking. My prediction. The multitasking will work differently on iPhone and iPad, but the improvement should be significant enough. iPhone OS 4.0 out officially during WWDC 2010 in June.

Oh, my brain is hurting now though, they can't announce iPhone OS 4.0 and NOT include it in the iPad, because people might hold out on it. Though, most people wanting an iPad wouldn't mind upgrading *later* to iPhone OS 4.0.
post #148 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Apple is supporting open format HTML 5. Flash will get no support UNLESS the device does not sell.

And that's a shame. Flash may not be very good, but it's here now and it's the defacto standard. HTML5 is YEARS away from being half as common as flash is. As of right now the vast majority of browsers in use (over 80%) don't even support HTML5.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamIIGS View Post

Yes I want to have the same experience as droid and palm users, you know my battery dying every 5 hours. Sorry I don't need multi-tasking that bad.

I've had multitasking running on my iPhone for years and never experienced any problems related to it. Your black and white straw man scenario (either it's no multitasking or a clusterfuck like Android or Windows Mobile) belies just how little you think of Apple's ability to make things usable. If any company can do it, it's Apple.
post #149 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

I had a similar impression that things were rushed or changed at the end. Steve's presentation seemed completely backwards, as there was none of his usual buildup and ka-pow! He basically went straight to the reveal and then seemed to be very low key and reserved the whole time. Also, Scott Forstall and Phil Schiller both looked nervous (especially Scott) and everyone looked like they hadn't slept in three days.

It was different to be sure. In the beginning he was not like himself at all but rather a lot like some of the laxer professors I've had.

"First I have some updates for you..."
"So those are the updates we had for you today."

Are we sure that Jobs hasn't been replaced by a Disney animatronic?

P.S. I want a camera too. *cry*
post #150 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by infinitespecter View Post

And that's a shame. Flash may not be very good, but it's here now and it's the defacto standard. HTML5 is YEARS away from being half as common as flash is. As of right now the vast majority of browsers in use (over 80%) don't even support HTML5.

So the only option is to support it since it's on so many PCs? At one point RealPlayer was a defacto on machines but that didn't mean users shouldn't adopt iTunes. HTML5 is the standard for the future and <video> tags are the way video will be streamed. That has been set for awhile now.

What about the fact that you can't even get it on other phone OSes? I don't see how it's Apple's fault there is no Flash on Android. I don't see how it's Apple's fault that once Flash is running on these phones they still won't be able to play video from sites like Hulu.

Quote:
I've had multitasking running on my iPhone for years and never experienced any problems related to it. Your black and white straw man scenario (either it's no multitasking or a clusterfuck like Android or Windows Mobile) belies just how little you think of Apple's ability to make things usable. If any company can do it, it's Apple.

You've never experienced a problem? We've all had problems with Apple's background apps. Run the iPod, load a few pages in Safari, go tot check Mail, go back into Safari and your pages reload again and the iPod app possibly stuttered with firmware up to v2.2. That is without jailbreaking and running apps in the background. There was 128MB RAM and about half of that used by the OS. Not hard to overload the memory with just default apps.

I have no doubt App Store multi-tasking will come with v4.0, but for the 3GS onward due to the increased RAM. I don't think we should expect the willy-nilly free-for-all clusterfuck in WebOS and Android. I'd expect something akin to the Push Notifications work. The developer will choose to allow their app to run in the background and you'll see it in a Settings option as one o the apps you can run in the background.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #151 of 203
iSight --- how many pix? 1,3M? iPhone was always better --- is becoming Apple's shame. Perhaps, the right time to overhaul...

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply
post #152 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrstep View Post

'Your fellows' probably aren't the average end user. In my mom's case, I have to explain that she's actually running a program called Internet Explorer that lets her get to google.com - no, mom, that's a website, you're not "running Google".

Again, IMO, the typical iPhone user is not so stupid as you seem to believe.
post #153 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by infinitespecter View Post


I've had multitasking running on my iPhone for years and never experienced any problems related to it. Your black and white straw man scenario (either it's no multitasking or a clusterfuck like Android or Windows Mobile) belies just how little you think of Apple's ability to make things usable. If any company can do it, it's Apple.

I am constantly amazed by the comments I see here of the type "Apple is not competent to develop it" and "iPhone users are too incompetent to use it".
post #154 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I have no doubt App Store multi-tasking will come with v4.0,


What is your explanation of why it has not appeared previously?
post #155 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

So the only option is to support it since it's on so many PCs? At one point RealPlayer was a defacto on machines but that didn't mean users shouldn't adopt iTunes. HTML5 is the standard for the future and <video> tags are the way video will be streamed. That has been set for awhile now.

What about the fact that you can't even get it on other phone OSes? I don't see how it's Apple's fault there is no Flash on Android. I don't see how it's Apple's fault that once Flash is running on these phones they still won't be able to play video from sites like Hulu.

HTML5 is a boondoggle at this point, and, with all due respect, if you think it is going to replace flash on the web anytime soon, you're delusional. The VAST majority of browsers (over 90%) on the web don't even support it. Open source king Firefox doesn't even support it. And once they do, how long do you think it's going to take for people to update to the newest browsers? The default browser on the computers where I work is IE6. You know, the browser from 2001 that doesn't support standards for crap. Webkit based browsers (all 8% of the market that they make up) are the only ones that do support it. That's not to mention that it doesn't replicate the majority of flash's capabilities.

So at BEST, you are looking at a scenario several years from now where HTML5 is supported on new browsers, but not on the majority of the ones people actually use. Versions of video sites done in HTML5 will coexist with alternate Flash versions. All those Flash ads and site elements will still be around because that's the easiest way to make sure that the majority of people can see them. Flash games will still be around. Until that scenario happens, what are we supposed to do? Apple is selling a web device now that won't work properly for years.

And as for your assertion that Flash isn't available on other mobile platforms, you're mostly wrong again. Adobe is pushing Flash on every platform it can get to. If it isn't available now, it will be soon on Android and the Web OS. If that was the case, no one would have a problem. The fact that Apple is actively preventing it from being developed is what irks people. And until you've actually used it on these platforms, you can't say with any certainty what they will be able to play.
post #156 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by infinitespecter View Post

HTML5 is a boondoggle at this point, and, with all due respect, if you think it is going to replace flash on the web anytime soon, you're delusional. The VAST majority of browsers (over 90%) on the web don't even support it. Open source king Firefox doesn't even support it. And once they do, how long do you think it's going to take for people to update to the newest browsers? The default browser on the computers where I work is IE6. You know, the browser from 2001 that doesn't support standards for crap. Webkit based browsers (all 8% of the market that they make up) are the only ones that do support it. That's not to mention that it doesn't replicate the majority of flash's capabilities.

So at BEST, you are looking at a scenario several years from now where HTML5 is supported on new browsers, but not on the majority of the ones people actually use. Versions of video sites done in HTML5 will coexist with alternate Flash versions. All those Flash ads and site elements will still be around because that's the easiest way to make sure that the majority of people can see them. Flash games will still be around. Until that scenario happens, what are we supposed to do? Apple is selling a web device now that won't work properly for years.

And as for your assertion that Flash isn't available on other mobile platforms, you're mostly wrong again. Adobe is pushing Flash on every platform it can get to. If it isn't available now, it will be soon on Android and the Web OS. If that was the case, no one would have a problem. The fact that Apple is actively preventing it from being developed is what irks people. And until you've actually used it on these platforms, you can't say with any certainty what they will be able to play.

So much FUD you're giving iGenius a run for his money.

1) HTML5 is neither wasteful or pointless. It's what the internet is turning to and it's being used already on Safari, Chrome, Firefox and even IE, with more support coming with each new release.

2) I never stated "[HTML5] will replace flash" I stated that "HTML5 is [...] the way video will be streamed."

3) Welcome to 2009. Firefox has supported the video tag since v3.5.

4) Your default browser on your work PC means nothing to the rest of the world. Progress will happen regardless how your secure or up to date you decide to be.

5) IE6 has less marketshare than IE8, compared to the total browser market and Google's reactive dropping support for it the internet is moving along quite nicely despite your stagnation.

6) WebKit has a lot more than 8% when you consider the fast growing smartphone market. You can claim that IE is the only support anyone needs but if that were the case then Firefox never would have gotten any ground despite websites not supporting it when it first appeared. That was an entire browser, not a simple HTML tag used in Safari, Chrome, Firefox and IE9.

7) Never said it would replicate all of Flash's capabilities. In fact, I've made plenty of posts detailing and demoing how even HTML5's Canvas element can be just as, if not more, resource intensive as Flash animation without providing an easy avenue for developers.

8) Again, HTML5 is already supported on new browsers.

9) Yeah, of course developers will use both Flash and HTML5 video options. That is what we've been discussing and what YouTube is doign right now.

10) "A web device that won't work properly for years." I suppose that means the iPhone doesn't work properly. That the Android OS doesn't work properly. The iPad is an accessory device, not a PC replacement. If you really want a Flash game then you are SOL but that has no bearing on HTML5 video tags coming to websites with increased momentum.

11) Abobe is pushing Flash, that is correct, but it's not slated to arrive until the middle of this year. Is that somehow Apple's fault, too? Somehow the iPhone back in 2007 kept a proper version of Flash off these other OSes? Care to explain how Apple is preventing Adobe to be competence for non-Apple platforms?

12) Once Flash 10.1 does arrive do you think that sites like Hulu will play video? Have you tried playing Hulu from a 1.8Ghz netbook with 1GB RAM, which is faster than a smartphone? I have and you can barely play their 360p and forget about smooth playback for 480p. That is on Windows, too, where Flash is much more efficient. Maybe they can get the HW acceleration worked out and a much more efficient method in place, but so far there is nothing but incompetence and failure leading from Adobe's Flash team.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #157 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

So much FUD you're giving iGenius a run for his money.

Please stop stalking me. You said that you had plonked me, but obviously you're obsessed. Go away.
post #158 of 203
The fact that much of the tech world is still fixated on "multi-tasking" shows how little much of the tech world understands the situation at hand. No matter how one sides on the "multi-tasking" debate, "multi-tasking" doesn't seem like the best choice of words to describe the topic of the debate.

"Multi-tasking" implies that the user is doing more than one thing at once. Given the the full-screen nature of app use on the platform in question, "multi-tasking" seems like an ill-chosen word. Perhaps "background applications" would be a better term. Or perhaps the phrase "run 3rd party applications in the background".

The OS is already multi-tasking. What users can't do however is run 3rd party applications in the background.

Now I'll be the first to admit that the term isn't being incorrectly used because it does have multiple definitions and contexts. But it does go to show that most people haven't truly given much thought to the functionality they're lamenting the lack of.

Similarly, the phrase "quick app switching" would also be better suited to the point many people are trying to make.

But instead... we'll continue to have people blindly slinging the term "multi-tasking" around, thereby helping to perpetuate the public's lack of comprehension.

If you think this point is obtuse, don't get me started on digital TV "converter boxes". Yeah, let's name everything in a manner that makes people even more confused than necessary.
post #159 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

So much FUD you're giving iGenius a run for his money.

1) HTML5 is neither wasteful or pointless. It's what the internet is turning to and it's being used already on Safari, Chrome, Firefox and even IE, with more support coming with each new release.

2) I never stated "[HTML5] will replace flash" I stated that "HTML5 is [...] the way video will be streamed."

3) Welcome to 2009. Firefox has supported the video tag since v3.5.

4) Your default browser on your work PC means nothing to the rest of the world. Progress will happen regardless how your secure or up to date you decide to be.

5) IE6 has less marketshare than IE8, compared to the total browser market and Google's reactive dropping support for it the internet is moving along quite nicely despite your stagnation.

6) WebKit has a lot more than 8% when you consider the fast growing smartphone market. You can claim that IE is the only support anyone needs but if that were the case then Firefox never would have gotten any ground despite websites not supporting it when it first appeared. That was an entire browser, not a simple HTML tag used in Safari, Chrome, Firefox and IE9.

7) Never said it would replicate all of Flash's capabilities. In fact, I've made plenty of posts detailing and demoing how even HTML5's Canvas element can be just as, if not more, resource intensive as Flash animation without providing an easy avenue for developers.

8) Again, HTML5 is already supported on new browsers.

9) Yeah, of course developers will use both Flash and HTML5 video options. That is what we've been discussing and what YouTube is doign right now.

10) "A web device that won't work properly for years." I suppose that means the iPhone doesn't work properly. That the Android OS doesn't work properly. The iPad is an accessory device, not a PC replacement. If you really want a Flash game then you are SOL but that has no bearing on HTML5 video tags coming to websites with increased momentum.

11) Abobe is pushing Flash, that is correct, but it's not slated to arrive until the middle of this year. Is that somehow Apple's fault, too? Somehow the iPhone back in 2007 kept a proper version of Flash off these other OSes? Care to explain how Apple is preventing Adobe to be competence for non-Apple platforms?

12) Once Flash 10.1 does arrive do you think that sites like Hulu will play video? Have you tried playing Hulu from a 1.8Ghz netbook with 1GB RAM, which is faster than a smartphone? I have and you can barely play their 360p and forget about smooth playback for 480p. That is on Windows, too, where Flash is much more efficient. Maybe they can get the HW acceleration worked out and a much more efficient method in place, but so far there is nothing but incompetence and failure leading from Adobe's Flash team.

1. Beyond a few proof of concept sites, it really isn't, at least not yet.
2. You're right. When I said that, I was referring to all the other people here and elsewhere that think that HTML5 is somehow a replacement for flash.
3.Firefox has PARTIAL support for the video tag. Oh, well, only a few hundred thousand other parts of the standard (that hasn't even been finished yet) to go. You do realize that there is a hell of a lot more than just the video tag to the standard, right?
4 & 5. IE6 was just recently overtaken by IE8 as the top browser. And guess what? IE8 doesn't support HTML5 either. If things continue at this pace, the top IE will support IE8 sometime around 2018.
6.Unless you have some sort of numbers that show combined desktop and mobile marketshare, I'm sticking with my desktop numbers.
7. Again, I wasn't so much speaking to you as to everyone else.
8. HTML5 isn't supported on the vast majority of browsers, new or not. Safari and Chrome make up a tiny part of the market.
9. We agree here.
10. Apple is promising the best browsing experience ever. Only it won't be a complete experience for years to come.
11. The point is that it is coming to those platforms. If it was coming around the same time to the iPhone OS, people would be grumbling at Adobe, like they did when Adobe was slow moving their apps to Intel. Again, it's the fact that Apple is actively preventing it that bothers most of us.
12. You must have missed my posts extolling the virtues of owning a netbook. I watch Hulu on mine all the time (an MSI Wind). I watch youtube on mine all the time. Hell, I watched Hulu in a hotel room on a Dell Mini 12 netbook with the super slow Atom Z520 (as opposed to the more powerful N270 series) without issue. I don't see the problem there.
post #160 of 203
The iPad does have a forward facing camera.

I am astonished people have not twigged to the micro revenue strategy Apple has been pursuing for some time.

After the iPad goes on sale, Apple will reveal that the suckers, sorry - lucky owners - can unlock the feature by purchasing a new version of the firmware.

Some Touch owners may experience a sense of DéjÃ* vu when this is announced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charel View Post

Has anyone seen a mobile camera that has the quality Apple would demand for products like the iPad?
I believe they pulled the camera from the iPod touch because it was not good enough.

I have seen plenty of mobile phones with excellent cameras and have one of them. Surely you are not suffering the delusion that the camera in the iPhone is as good as it gets?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nkhm View Post

it STILL has one. D'oh.

No, actually it doesn't, as you can clearly see from the specifictions for the device on the Apple website.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nkhm View Post

When was the last time many of you actually video conferenced?

Last Saturday.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › iPad photos show slot for forward-facing video camera