what gets me is this guy Kotatsu talking about Apple being closed system because it does not support Flash. Do you actually know that Flash and Sliverlight are closed system apps.
Btw talking of big brother do you walk down your high street and not have every camera looking at you in UK, especially London, so please big brother is already looking at you, stop spouting crap paranoid when you already live in one.
Well done for completely missing the point.
An open system allows me to install whatever I like. Sure it's nice if people can pick apart the source, but as a non programmer all I want is the ability to install flash, firefox, photoshop, 3ds max etc etc. That's the key part, I install what I want on my hardware. Simple concept really.
And why on earth did you bring up the UK's network of spy cams? What am I expected to do about them? Seriously, what do you think I should do? Please try to at least be a little rational when arguing.
Read the article. I think Nokia's fairly pointed out why they sell more mobile devices every year. Plus, I'd argue it's a pretty WAG stat to mix phone, music player, and notebook sales in one stat. If you want that kind of cross-platform comparison, shouldn't you compare an operating system family? For example, let's talk all Windows mobile devices from laptops to cellphones.
And if the other poster is going to talk about Nokia's $4 phones being sold in the third world (and that really should be developing world btw), then are iPod nanos really relevant to this stat? At least every one of Nokia's '$4 phones' can access the web. Last I checked, my Shuffle can't do that.
Nokia is right that they sell more mobile devices. But Jobs said nothing about quantity of mobile devices. He said by revenue, Apple is the biggest mobile devices company in the world. And he is right.
Is not an iPod nano a mobile device? Does a mobile device only include cellular devices?
Sure, let's talk all Windows mobile devices. MS gets about $20 per Windows Mobile device and $50-70 per laptop device. Do the math. It's way short.
I'd say your original comment was the stupid one (if we are going to start throwing insults around)
Quote:
It is entirely the point to pull Apple up for the closed nature of the iPad.
This is the reality of the iPad for most people. Insulting people does not change that fact.
I'm not surprised Adobe is upset that the iPad still doesn't support flash.
Boo frigging hoo. Flash gained popularity due to limitations in HTML - those limitations are no longer there.
Despite the protesting (I like the metric of the louder the protesting the more successful an Apple product will be - genius!), the iPad will be successful and there will be even more pressure on sites to ditch flash - at least as the only method for navigating them.
I see this as a good thing. I look back at the howls of protest on Apple dropping the floppy and adopting this crazy "USB" technology.
Well, the protesting for the floppy was ridiculous because even back then there weren't many individual files that fit easily on a floppy never mind doing any kind of useful project work off of floppies. People just wanted them because they have always been there.
I'm FINALLY starting to see PC's that are completely legacy free be the norm rather than the exception. USB has been well entrenched for almost 8 years (due to the iMac no less) and ps/2 ports (PS/2!) are still floating around out there. I still run across things that require serial and parallel ports (and new devices - not stuff hanging around for 9 years).
The bottom line, without companies like Apple pushing boundaries and taking chances there would be few others pushing technology forward. Just look at the stagnation in the PC industry - other than faster CPU's, bigger hard drives and more memory you hardly ever see anything radical from the PC manufacturers. If you look at the directions Apple has pushed the industry (and not just in computers, look at the mess of commercial digital music before iTunes) you should be embracing Apple's willingness to try to "move the puck" - even if you don't care about using their products.
There are plenty of other companies doing things the "traditional" way - go use their products. Stop trying to ridicule Apple for doing something different from everyone else. Thank goodness they don't pay attention to people like you and keep on doing their thing.
An open system allows me to install whatever I like. Sure it's nice if people can pick apart the source, but as a non programmer all I want is the ability to install flash, firefox, photoshop, 3ds max etc etc. That's the key part, I install what I want on my hardware. Simple concept really.
Great! There is hardware out there that lets you do that - go buy it!
Why does Apple have to be just like everyone else to be successful?
Your argument is specious, irrational and pointless. If those things are important to you, the iPhone/iPad is not for you. Pretty simple concept, really.
To some extent, I think we all need to be careful about judging the iPad or any new product merely because it is not what we expect it to be. As people with experience with computers and technology, we can be blinded by own own preconceived notions of how things should be.
Exactly. The vast majority of criticism of the iPad is filtered through the critic's narrow vision of what "success" should be. And most of those visions are pretty myopic. Just like with the iPod and iPhone, most of them will more than likely be totally off the mark
I can see all kinds of opportunities for the iPad where the iPod Touch/iPhone aren't appropriate, and where a traditional notebook computer aren't appropriate. Coupled with an open SDK for a wildly successful app store and the incentives for developers to play and try radically new concepts is huge. I started to imagine how the Apple remote app could be enhanced to take advantage of the extra screen space and got positively giddy - they sky's the limit
"Wait they did not have any real smart phones when the iphone came out." Umm... the N95 was out long before the iPhone and to this day, still competes based on spec
Specs in and of themselves aren't useful. A fast CPU isn't going to do anything for me if the software I wan't isn't available to run on it. Sofware in and of itself isn't interesting if I can't get to it easily, or if it isn't useable on the device I have it loaded on. There are plenty of devices that blow the iPhone away in individual areas. None compete as equally in all areas as the iPhone does.
Your focused on specs, Apple is focused on experience.
Guess who's kicking who's butt in the smartphone space?
Ballmer rudely denounced the iPhone in Jan 2007 and has now made himself look like an ass because of it. The guy is so deluded that he compared the Motorola Q as being a great alternative to the iPhone.
Did he? All I saw in that interview was him listing some legitimate concerns about it such as it being $500, which ya he did kind of smirk but was that really rude? In the end of the video he actually said, paraphrasing here, you never know it could do really well, and if I'm not mistaken he also complimented them on their iTunes store. So at least give him credit for complimenting them.
pmz makes a great point about Flash that also works for the multitasking debate. 75 million users currently don't have either and seem pretty satisfied.
Some people, however, want to tell those 75 million that they are completely wrong.
Well... I'm one of those 75 mils and gess what - I'm not that happy with missing flash. So is my wife - can't play Facebook games on her iPhone. A colleague of mine would like flash as well, got very excited with perspective (probably false) that iPhone OS4 will support flash.
I could continue about most of the people I know having iPhone, but you should have got my point so far. 75 million users doesn't by default mean 75 million fully satisfied users. There is always space for improvement, and there is always danger competition will improve faster.
So why did I got iPhone at all? Well, when I was looking for new phone (September 2009) my estimate was that iPhone was the best overall device for me. Lack of Flash was minus, but Stanza, decent email client, well executed chat and address book sold it to me. At the end, screen size limitation is making iPhone browsing matter of necessity, not first choice. When I browse on iPhone, it is usually quick search for some text information, be it Wiki or any other source. If I want to browse for "experience" (look for house to buy or rent, check review of new car...) I'll use computer as, even without Flash on web pages, iPhone screen is too small for real web experience.
Thus lack of Flash is minus, but considering way I browse on iPhone, it is not that big.
But... iPad screen is big enough for full experience browsing. Big enough to show most web pages without resizing, zooming in an out... so I can see myself doing most of my browsing on device like iPad. Since I would browse on iPad not only for information, but also for experience, I feel that lack of Flash would be much more noticeable - and much more annoying, for me.
Who on earth would dream in 70's that any new computer company would start with a fruits name "Apple" for a personal computer. We got used to it and would have also gotten used to it even if they had called it" Mango" computer or "pomagranate" computer or whatever when the functionality is the best.
The banana jr is still my favorite computer named after a fruit.
Great! There is hardware out there that lets you do that - go buy it!
Why does Apple have to be just like everyone else to be successful?
Your argument is specious, irrational and pointless. If those things are important to you, the iPhone/iPad is not for you. Pretty simple concept, really.
Next!
You Macheads really are passionate defenders of the faith aren't you? And what on earth are you on about claiming my argument is specious and irrational? Now that's a strange thing to claim. Where is the irrationality in expecting a device which is sold as the best way to browse the web, to actually be able to browse the web in full? It's rather telling that in Apple's own advertising they faked the iPad playing flash content. Buying an iPad is akin to buying a car which can only drive in selected cities, or a TV which doesn't show anything Steve doesn't aprove of. In other words, it's a broken device.
This really is going in circles now. On one side the sensible masses who are, quite rightly pulling up Apple for making such a crippled device, and on the other, the devotees, who will defend Apple to the end no matter what. And I thought fanboys were bad when it came to videogames, but you guys are on an entirely different level.
You Macheads really are passionate defenders of the faith aren't you? And what on earth are you on about claiming my argument is specious and irrational? Now that's a strange thing to claim. Where is the irrationality in expecting a device which is sold as the best way to browse the web, to actually be able to browse the web in full? It's rather telling that in Apple's own advertising they faked the iPad playing flash content. Buying an iPad is akin to buying a car which can only drive in selected cities, or a TV which doesn't show anything Steve doesn't aprove of. In other words, it's a broken device.
This really is going in circles now. On one side the sensible masses who are, quite rightly pulling up Apple for making such a crippled device, and on the other, the devotees, who will defend Apple to the end no matter what. And I thought fanboys were bad when it came to videogames, but you guys are on an entirely different level.
I gave you a rational answer way back when, but you've chosen to ignore it. So this isn't going in circles at all.. You just choose to ignore whatever rational arguments are made because your mind is made up, or it's too narrow to see beyond.
Joe Hewitt left working on the Facebook app for iPhone because of Apple's requirement to vet every release of an iPhone app. Well, he sounds like he can't wait to get back, but for the iPad. He gets it.
Thanks for posting that link! His second to the last paragraph nails it. You are correct, he gets "it".
Great! There is hardware out there that lets you do that - go buy it!
Why does Apple have to be just like everyone else to be successful?
Your argument is specious, irrational and pointless. If those things are important to you, the iPhone/iPad is not for you. Pretty simple concept, really.
Next!
What is important to him may be easily be just as important to others. You dont sell a product with the tag name "The Best Web Browsing Experience Available" and not be able to support the most basic standards of the web which even a netbook can do. Flash wont stop me from buying one for myself, but i already know what im getting into and your average buyer wont or atleast thats what Melgross has taught me to assume.
We make the sacrifice with our phones (seems like thats only gonna be the iPhone soon...) because they were just phones but with the power and capability many people are looking for these solutions for a more robust mobile web surfing experience. Adobe and many manufacturers have been working to make Flash for smartphones and i'd say by the demos its paying off and well.
The lack of Flash is the way Apple is protecting itself from possibly butchering itself from loss content sales (why buy when you can stream and for free?) HTML 5 is no threat to Flash, and wont be for quite a few years (not even supposed to be done until 2020 iirc), but i doubt Apple will be able to continue to play coy while their competitors will be trumpeting these features when available.
You Macheads really are passionate defenders of the faith aren't you?
You don't sell 10's of millions of devices on faith. You had better be prepared to be frustrated and annoyed for a long time....
Quote:
And what on earth are you on about claiming my argument is specious and irrational?
Do you really want me to answer that? Wait, I don't have to - others have tried in addition to me. If you didn't get "it" from them or my earlier posts, I fail to see how another attempt could be fruitful.
Quote:
Where is the irrationality in expecting a device which is sold as the best way to browse the web, to actually be able to browse the web in full?
Because it's an argument that's becoming fast irrelevant - why do you think Adobe is so concerned?
Quote:
Buying an iPad is akin to buying a car which can only drive in selected cities, or a TV which doesn't show anything Steve doesn't aprove of. In other words, it's a broken device.
Are you sure you aren't being paid by someone to post here?
Quote:
This really is going in circles now.
No it's not. Your welcome to think that it is, though
As I said earlier, let's bookmark this thread and come back in a year. I triple dog dare you
What is important to him may be easily be just as important to others. You dont sell a product with the tag name "The Best Web Browsing Experience Available" and not be able to support the most basic standards of the web which even a netbook can do.
Flash is not the end all, be all. Sites are already rapidly moving away from it - that will just accelerate with millions of iPads in the marketplace (and at $500, there will be millions).
Quote:
The lack of Flash is the way Apple is protecting itself from possibly butchering itself from loss content sales (why buy when you can stream and for free?)
Sigh. Yes, Apple is so scared about competition in the content space their devices only support proprietary Apple formats. iTunes is so closed it's data base is encrypted.
Except neither of the above is true. Apple doesn't need "lock in" because people use their products because they want to.
I know for some, that's a radical and frightening concept - actually focusing on what normal, average people want instead of slavishly chasing after volumous feature lists... but here we are.
And I think Apple may just be considering that streaming thing. I vaguely remember reading about new data centers, aquisitions of companies that specialize in streaming... heck, being a large shareholder in this obscure company called Akami and releasing things like the quicktime streaming server. But your right, Apple is totally clueless about streaming
Quote:
HTML 5 is no threat to Flash, and wont be for quite a few years (not even supposed to be done until 2020 iirc), but i doubt Apple will be able to continue to play coy while their competitors will be trumpeting these features when available.
HTML5 is a HUGE threat to Flash. It renders it moot. Before the iPhone and now iPad, HTML5 wouldn't have been a threat to flash - it has too much momentum to be supplanted by HTML5 on it's own. Just as the iMac drove adoption of USB, the iPhone and iPad will drive adoption of HTML5. Once the tide starts to turn in earnest (look at the vimeo link provided earlier in this thread if you still think that's a pipe dream) the game is up. Adobe knows it. This is the zero hour. I wouldn't count on Apple blinking...
In some ways, Apple is taking a huge risk. In other ways, it's not if we think about it this way.
In 2001, Apple made an iPod, and it had to be used with iTunes, and for games, it had to use the iTunes Store. Not really open (though it could play mp3 so you could get music from other than the iTunes Store), but the masses loved it. Other companies made "open" mp3 players, but the masses only gave all of them just 30% of the market.
In 2007, Apple made an iPhone (and iPod touch), and it had to be used with iTunes, and the App Store. Not really open, but the masses loved it. And developers too to the tune of over 140K apps in 18 months. Other companies made "open" smartphones, but the masses haven't really flocked to them (Windows, Android, etc); neither have developers.
Now, Apple is making an iPad, and it has to be used with iTunes, and the App Store. It will likely be able to read books from other stores, though the iBooks Store is in a preferred position. Other companies made "open" tablets and netbooks; the masses have little interest in tablets, and the netbooks can only be sold at very cheap prices yielding their makers very little profit. Tablets have about 1% share, and netbooks maybe at most 5% share.
See the pattern. Isn't it clear why Apple sees an opportunity? Why they think being "closed" really doesn't make a big difference to users if the App Store has just about every app that a user would expect for a computer with a 1GHz processor (which is a slower speed than most netbooks!)*?
And that this new playground allows all developers to start on an equal footing - no more dominance by MS, especially if they won't write Office for iPad. (Well, almost equal, Apple's iWork will have a bit of an inside track.) Not only is Joe Hewitt excited, but the Omni Group (of OmniGraffle and more) has already said they'll bring all their apps to iPad, and many more are getting ready for what Apple sees as a "gold rush".
*I know GHz is not an apples-to-apples comparison, but most people don't get this.
Mobile products do not include laptops, they are single handheld devices
So says you - my MPB is sitting in my lap right now. If that's not mobile, I don't know what is. Nokia is fast being pushed into the high volume low margin space. In other words, they aren't a leader but a churner of low margin product. It must hurt to be coming to that realization, but it was their position of dominance to loose.
Comments
what gets me is this guy Kotatsu talking about Apple being closed system because it does not support Flash. Do you actually know that Flash and Sliverlight are closed system apps.
Btw talking of big brother do you walk down your high street and not have every camera looking at you in UK, especially London, so please big brother is already looking at you, stop spouting crap paranoid when you already live in one.
Well done for completely missing the point.
An open system allows me to install whatever I like. Sure it's nice if people can pick apart the source, but as a non programmer all I want is the ability to install flash, firefox, photoshop, 3ds max etc etc. That's the key part, I install what I want on my hardware. Simple concept really.
And why on earth did you bring up the UK's network of spy cams? What am I expected to do about them? Seriously, what do you think I should do? Please try to at least be a little rational when arguing.
Read the article. I think Nokia's fairly pointed out why they sell more mobile devices every year. Plus, I'd argue it's a pretty WAG stat to mix phone, music player, and notebook sales in one stat. If you want that kind of cross-platform comparison, shouldn't you compare an operating system family? For example, let's talk all Windows mobile devices from laptops to cellphones.
And if the other poster is going to talk about Nokia's $4 phones being sold in the third world (and that really should be developing world btw), then are iPod nanos really relevant to this stat? At least every one of Nokia's '$4 phones' can access the web. Last I checked, my Shuffle can't do that.
Nokia is right that they sell more mobile devices. But Jobs said nothing about quantity of mobile devices. He said by revenue, Apple is the biggest mobile devices company in the world. And he is right.
Is not an iPod nano a mobile device? Does a mobile device only include cellular devices?
Sure, let's talk all Windows mobile devices. MS gets about $20 per Windows Mobile device and $50-70 per laptop device. Do the math. It's way short.
Your response is way too rational and reasonable. I'll bet the guy won't respond, or if he does, it'll be some other nonsensical rant.
Yup, kotatsu came back but he's conveniently ignored all my questions from all my posts questioning his. C'est la vie.
Oh come off it, what a stupid thing to say.
I'd say your original comment was the stupid one (if we are going to start throwing insults around)
It is entirely the point to pull Apple up for the closed nature of the iPad.
This is the reality of the iPad for most people. Insulting people does not change that fact.
I'm not surprised Adobe is upset that the iPad still doesn't support flash.
Boo frigging hoo. Flash gained popularity due to limitations in HTML - those limitations are no longer there.
Despite the protesting (I like the metric of the louder the protesting the more successful an Apple product will be - genius!), the iPad will be successful and there will be even more pressure on sites to ditch flash - at least as the only method for navigating them.
I see this as a good thing. I look back at the howls of protest on Apple dropping the floppy and adopting this crazy "USB" technology.
Well, the protesting for the floppy was ridiculous because even back then there weren't many individual files that fit easily on a floppy never mind doing any kind of useful project work off of floppies. People just wanted them because they have always been there.
I'm FINALLY starting to see PC's that are completely legacy free be the norm rather than the exception. USB has been well entrenched for almost 8 years (due to the iMac no less) and ps/2 ports (PS/2!) are still floating around out there. I still run across things that require serial and parallel ports (and new devices - not stuff hanging around for 9 years).
The bottom line, without companies like Apple pushing boundaries and taking chances there would be few others pushing technology forward. Just look at the stagnation in the PC industry - other than faster CPU's, bigger hard drives and more memory you hardly ever see anything radical from the PC manufacturers. If you look at the directions Apple has pushed the industry (and not just in computers, look at the mess of commercial digital music before iTunes) you should be embracing Apple's willingness to try to "move the puck" - even if you don't care about using their products.
There are plenty of other companies doing things the "traditional" way - go use their products. Stop trying to ridicule Apple for doing something different from everyone else. Thank goodness they don't pay attention to people like you and keep on doing their thing.
An open system allows me to install whatever I like. Sure it's nice if people can pick apart the source, but as a non programmer all I want is the ability to install flash, firefox, photoshop, 3ds max etc etc. That's the key part, I install what I want on my hardware. Simple concept really.
Great! There is hardware out there that lets you do that - go buy it!
Why does Apple have to be just like everyone else to be successful?
Your argument is specious, irrational and pointless. If those things are important to you, the iPhone/iPad is not for you. Pretty simple concept, really.
Next!
To some extent, I think we all need to be careful about judging the iPad or any new product merely because it is not what we expect it to be. As people with experience with computers and technology, we can be blinded by own own preconceived notions of how things should be.
Exactly. The vast majority of criticism of the iPad is filtered through the critic's narrow vision of what "success" should be. And most of those visions are pretty myopic. Just like with the iPod and iPhone, most of them will more than likely be totally off the mark
I can see all kinds of opportunities for the iPad where the iPod Touch/iPhone aren't appropriate, and where a traditional notebook computer aren't appropriate. Coupled with an open SDK for a wildly successful app store and the incentives for developers to play and try radically new concepts is huge. I started to imagine how the Apple remote app could be enhanced to take advantage of the extra screen space and got positively giddy - they sky's the limit
"Wait they did not have any real smart phones when the iphone came out." Umm... the N95 was out long before the iPhone and to this day, still competes based on spec
Specs in and of themselves aren't useful. A fast CPU isn't going to do anything for me if the software I wan't isn't available to run on it. Sofware in and of itself isn't interesting if I can't get to it easily, or if it isn't useable on the device I have it loaded on. There are plenty of devices that blow the iPhone away in individual areas. None compete as equally in all areas as the iPhone does.
Your focused on specs, Apple is focused on experience.
Guess who's kicking who's butt in the smartphone space?
Ballmer rudely denounced the iPhone in Jan 2007 and has now made himself look like an ass because of it. The guy is so deluded that he compared the Motorola Q as being a great alternative to the iPhone.
Did he? All I saw in that interview was him listing some legitimate concerns about it such as it being $500, which ya he did kind of smirk but was that really rude? In the end of the video he actually said, paraphrasing here, you never know it could do really well, and if I'm not mistaken he also complimented them on their iTunes store. So at least give him credit for complimenting them.
pmz makes a great point about Flash that also works for the multitasking debate. 75 million users currently don't have either and seem pretty satisfied.
Some people, however, want to tell those 75 million that they are completely wrong.
Well... I'm one of those 75 mils and gess what - I'm not that happy with missing flash. So is my wife - can't play Facebook games on her iPhone. A colleague of mine would like flash as well, got very excited with perspective (probably false) that iPhone OS4 will support flash.
I could continue about most of the people I know having iPhone, but you should have got my point so far. 75 million users doesn't by default mean 75 million fully satisfied users. There is always space for improvement, and there is always danger competition will improve faster.
So why did I got iPhone at all? Well, when I was looking for new phone (September 2009) my estimate was that iPhone was the best overall device for me. Lack of Flash was minus, but Stanza, decent email client, well executed chat and address book sold it to me. At the end, screen size limitation is making iPhone browsing matter of necessity, not first choice. When I browse on iPhone, it is usually quick search for some text information, be it Wiki or any other source. If I want to browse for "experience" (look for house to buy or rent, check review of new car...) I'll use computer as, even without Flash on web pages, iPhone screen is too small for real web experience.
Thus lack of Flash is minus, but considering way I browse on iPhone, it is not that big.
But... iPad screen is big enough for full experience browsing. Big enough to show most web pages without resizing, zooming in an out... so I can see myself doing most of my browsing on device like iPad. Since I would browse on iPad not only for information, but also for experience, I feel that lack of Flash would be much more noticeable - and much more annoying, for me.
iTunes is too much of a cash cow so apple is building a walled garden like it did in the 1980's.
Wow, a walled garden that includes a browser that supports open standards.
No wonder Apple sucks so bad - they can't even do a good job building a walled garden!
Who on earth would dream in 70's that any new computer company would start with a fruits name "Apple" for a personal computer. We got used to it and would have also gotten used to it even if they had called it" Mango" computer or "pomagranate" computer or whatever when the functionality is the best.
The banana jr is still my favorite computer named after a fruit.
Although Apple doesn't do a bad job
Great! There is hardware out there that lets you do that - go buy it!
Why does Apple have to be just like everyone else to be successful?
Your argument is specious, irrational and pointless. If those things are important to you, the iPhone/iPad is not for you. Pretty simple concept, really.
Next!
You Macheads really are passionate defenders of the faith aren't you? And what on earth are you on about claiming my argument is specious and irrational? Now that's a strange thing to claim. Where is the irrationality in expecting a device which is sold as the best way to browse the web, to actually be able to browse the web in full? It's rather telling that in Apple's own advertising they faked the iPad playing flash content. Buying an iPad is akin to buying a car which can only drive in selected cities, or a TV which doesn't show anything Steve doesn't aprove of. In other words, it's a broken device.
This really is going in circles now. On one side the sensible masses who are, quite rightly pulling up Apple for making such a crippled device, and on the other, the devotees, who will defend Apple to the end no matter what. And I thought fanboys were bad when it came to videogames, but you guys are on an entirely different level.
You Macheads really are passionate defenders of the faith aren't you? And what on earth are you on about claiming my argument is specious and irrational? Now that's a strange thing to claim. Where is the irrationality in expecting a device which is sold as the best way to browse the web, to actually be able to browse the web in full? It's rather telling that in Apple's own advertising they faked the iPad playing flash content. Buying an iPad is akin to buying a car which can only drive in selected cities, or a TV which doesn't show anything Steve doesn't aprove of. In other words, it's a broken device.
This really is going in circles now. On one side the sensible masses who are, quite rightly pulling up Apple for making such a crippled device, and on the other, the devotees, who will defend Apple to the end no matter what. And I thought fanboys were bad when it came to videogames, but you guys are on an entirely different level.
I gave you a rational answer way back when, but you've chosen to ignore it. So this isn't going in circles at all.. You just choose to ignore whatever rational arguments are made because your mind is made up, or it's too narrow to see beyond.
Did you read this yet? http://joehewitt.com/post/ipad/
Joe Hewitt left working on the Facebook app for iPhone because of Apple's requirement to vet every release of an iPhone app. Well, he sounds like he can't wait to get back, but for the iPad. He gets it.
Thanks for posting that link! His second to the last paragraph nails it. You are correct, he gets "it".
Great! There is hardware out there that lets you do that - go buy it!
Why does Apple have to be just like everyone else to be successful?
Your argument is specious, irrational and pointless. If those things are important to you, the iPhone/iPad is not for you. Pretty simple concept, really.
Next!
What is important to him may be easily be just as important to others. You dont sell a product with the tag name "The Best Web Browsing Experience Available" and not be able to support the most basic standards of the web which even a netbook can do. Flash wont stop me from buying one for myself, but i already know what im getting into and your average buyer wont or atleast thats what Melgross has taught me to assume.
We make the sacrifice with our phones (seems like thats only gonna be the iPhone soon...) because they were just phones but with the power and capability many people are looking for these solutions for a more robust mobile web surfing experience. Adobe and many manufacturers have been working to make Flash for smartphones and i'd say by the demos its paying off and well.
The lack of Flash is the way Apple is protecting itself from possibly butchering itself from loss content sales (why buy when you can stream and for free?) HTML 5 is no threat to Flash, and wont be for quite a few years (not even supposed to be done until 2020 iirc), but i doubt Apple will be able to continue to play coy while their competitors will be trumpeting these features when available.
You Macheads really are passionate defenders of the faith aren't you?
You don't sell 10's of millions of devices on faith. You had better be prepared to be frustrated and annoyed for a long time....
And what on earth are you on about claiming my argument is specious and irrational?
Do you really want me to answer that? Wait, I don't have to - others have tried in addition to me. If you didn't get "it" from them or my earlier posts, I fail to see how another attempt could be fruitful.
Where is the irrationality in expecting a device which is sold as the best way to browse the web, to actually be able to browse the web in full?
Because it's an argument that's becoming fast irrelevant - why do you think Adobe is so concerned?
Buying an iPad is akin to buying a car which can only drive in selected cities, or a TV which doesn't show anything Steve doesn't aprove of. In other words, it's a broken device.
Are you sure you aren't being paid by someone to post here?
This really is going in circles now.
No it's not. Your welcome to think that it is, though
As I said earlier, let's bookmark this thread and come back in a year. I triple dog dare you
Nokia is (by far) the largest mobile company in the world.
Mobile products do not include laptops, they are single handheld devices
What is important to him may be easily be just as important to others. You dont sell a product with the tag name "The Best Web Browsing Experience Available" and not be able to support the most basic standards of the web which even a netbook can do.
Flash is not the end all, be all. Sites are already rapidly moving away from it - that will just accelerate with millions of iPads in the marketplace (and at $500, there will be millions).
The lack of Flash is the way Apple is protecting itself from possibly butchering itself from loss content sales (why buy when you can stream and for free?)
Sigh. Yes, Apple is so scared about competition in the content space their devices only support proprietary Apple formats. iTunes is so closed it's data base is encrypted.
Except neither of the above is true. Apple doesn't need "lock in" because people use their products because they want to.
I know for some, that's a radical and frightening concept - actually focusing on what normal, average people want instead of slavishly chasing after volumous feature lists... but here we are.
And I think Apple may just be considering that streaming thing. I vaguely remember reading about new data centers, aquisitions of companies that specialize in streaming... heck, being a large shareholder in this obscure company called Akami and releasing things like the quicktime streaming server. But your right, Apple is totally clueless about streaming
HTML 5 is no threat to Flash, and wont be for quite a few years (not even supposed to be done until 2020 iirc), but i doubt Apple will be able to continue to play coy while their competitors will be trumpeting these features when available.
HTML5 is a HUGE threat to Flash. It renders it moot. Before the iPhone and now iPad, HTML5 wouldn't have been a threat to flash - it has too much momentum to be supplanted by HTML5 on it's own. Just as the iMac drove adoption of USB, the iPhone and iPad will drive adoption of HTML5. Once the tide starts to turn in earnest (look at the vimeo link provided earlier in this thread if you still think that's a pipe dream) the game is up. Adobe knows it. This is the zero hour. I wouldn't count on Apple blinking...
In 2001, Apple made an iPod, and it had to be used with iTunes, and for games, it had to use the iTunes Store. Not really open (though it could play mp3 so you could get music from other than the iTunes Store), but the masses loved it. Other companies made "open" mp3 players, but the masses only gave all of them just 30% of the market.
In 2007, Apple made an iPhone (and iPod touch), and it had to be used with iTunes, and the App Store. Not really open, but the masses loved it. And developers too to the tune of over 140K apps in 18 months. Other companies made "open" smartphones, but the masses haven't really flocked to them (Windows, Android, etc); neither have developers.
Now, Apple is making an iPad, and it has to be used with iTunes, and the App Store. It will likely be able to read books from other stores, though the iBooks Store is in a preferred position. Other companies made "open" tablets and netbooks; the masses have little interest in tablets, and the netbooks can only be sold at very cheap prices yielding their makers very little profit. Tablets have about 1% share, and netbooks maybe at most 5% share.
See the pattern. Isn't it clear why Apple sees an opportunity? Why they think being "closed" really doesn't make a big difference to users if the App Store has just about every app that a user would expect for a computer with a 1GHz processor (which is a slower speed than most netbooks!)*?
And that this new playground allows all developers to start on an equal footing - no more dominance by MS, especially if they won't write Office for iPad. (Well, almost equal, Apple's iWork will have a bit of an inside track.) Not only is Joe Hewitt excited, but the Omni Group (of OmniGraffle and more) has already said they'll bring all their apps to iPad, and many more are getting ready for what Apple sees as a "gold rush".
*I know GHz is not an apples-to-apples comparison, but most people don't get this.
Mobile products do not include laptops, they are single handheld devices
So says you - my MPB is sitting in my lap right now. If that's not mobile, I don't know what is. Nokia is fast being pushed into the high volume low margin space. In other words, they aren't a leader but a churner of low margin product. It must hurt to be coming to that realization, but it was their position of dominance to loose.