Apple has also used some photographic magic on their site to make it look like the iPad's screen is a silky, beautiful matte instead of the hideous glare magnet that it actually is. I love being able to watch videos on my Touch, but the constant struggle to keep the screen held at an exact angle to avoid reflections is absurd. I'd be much more prone to pick up the cheapest iPad (for on-the-couch web reading only) if it had a matte screen.
If I'm not mistaken, there has to be a sheet of glass for the multitouch touch screen to work. Also, I've never had glare problems with my iPhone, ever. And my glossy 17" MBP doesn't bother me either.
Even if some customers may think that the web without Flash is a better one, Apple should support it and let the user decide weather to enable or disable it.
Adobe is Apple's seconds largest software partner (after MS). I hope Adobe will fight back this childish war and they will not release the next version of Photoshop for Mac OS X. Most designers are not able to switch from Photoshop but from Mac OS.
If I'm not mistaken, there has to be a sheet of glass for the multitouch touch screen to work. Also, I've never had glare problems with my iPhone, ever. And my glossy 17" MBP doesn't bother me either.
Hmm ... I don't think the glass is a requirement. I remember Apple talking about how they tried many different iterations for the surface when the original iPhone was announced, including non-glass surfaces. Maybe I am wrong ... though their new Magic Mouse is multi-touch, is the surface of that glass? I haven't used one yet, so not sure.
As far as reflections - I'm surprised you've never had an issue with it. I'm sure it depends on how/where the device is being used. I know, for me, I use it a lot on the train and the small lights above the seats and harsh fluorescent light of the train make it very hard to focus on the video playing and not my very-clear reflection. More diffuse lighting situations are less of an issue. Also depends on the material being played, darker movies cause more visible reflection, brighter stuff less so.
Even a mild anti-glare coating could help without destroying the contrast benefits of the glass.
I agree, but if the vast majority of the web uses flash, how can Steve Jobs boast a great web experience on the iPad? When is HTML 5 going to be universally adopted? in a year? 2 years? 5? I think half the value of iPad is the web experience on a screen larger than my iPhone's.
I love the thought of getting on the web quickly without powering up my laptop or desktop. But not being able to watch a TV show on Hulu or a video on CNN, what's the point? I'm just tired of Jobs peeing on my leg and telling me it's raining. It's not a great user experience if half the web is unavailable to me.
I don't think it's quite half the web but you're right, the HTML 5 spec won't be in action for a couple of years:
2007-05 HTML5 and Web Forms 2.0 specs adopted as basis for review
2007-11 HTML Design Principles First Public Working Draft
2008-02 HTML5 First Public Working Draft
2010-01 HTML5 Last Call Working Draft
2010-12? HTML5 Candidate Recommendation
2012-01? HTML5 Proposed Recommendation
2012-03? HTML5 Recommendation
This is why Flash and DirectX exist in the first place - open groups just can't push things forward fast enough so they create makeshift solutions and they become accepted and ingrained.
Adobe really doesn't help by keeping things closed up but then again they charge money for their Flash IDE and their business depends on these suites. If they open sourced it, not only does it make their IDE easy to replicate, it is easier for people to find security holes.
It's a sticky situation altogether because Adobe can't viably change to an HTML 5 solution immediately and change or drop their IDE. Others don't want one company controlling the web standard but there's no alternate IDEs that match Flash and the HTML specs take forever to be widely accepted.
I don't want to say it but I actually like Silverlight. Their XAML, AJAX approach looks very good and more or less what we want from HTML 5 and eventually Adobe.
The problem with that argument is that you still couldn't do it if Apple put Flash Lite on their iPhones. Some things to consider...
Flash Lite can't play video from the popular sites you mentioned.
Flash 10.1 looks to only be available for the Maemo on N900 right now, and that may still be in Beta.
If it's Apple fault that Flash wasn't on the 2007 iPhone then why isn't Flash slated to arrive on Android, WebOS, WinMo or Symbian until mid-2010, 3.5 years later? Surely that can't be Apple's fault too.
Flash 10.1 is going to require Android OS v2.0, leaving out a great many new Android handsets.
Netbooks with 1.6Ghz Atom processors and 1-2GB RAM can't play Flash videos from these sites without them being choppy so Flash 10.1 has got to be great for these videos to stream on 400-600GHz ARM processors with only a 128-512MB RAM. I have doubt.
Even if your goal is for Flash games, not video, how would one navigate since the controls won't work. The developer would have to rewrite Flash to accommodate the touchscreen device. Seems like a work for nothing.
The simple fact is that it's Adobe that dropped the ball a long time ago. They are the ones to blame for Flash not being available in 2007 or in 2010. You will see sites like Hulu change how they distribute video because they don't want to lose the potential customers of the quickly growing smartphone market. That doesn't mean they are dropping Flash from their sites for desktop OSes,
Great points, solipsism!
The other thing that gets me is when people make the claim (not here, so far) that it must be some huge conspiracy on SJ's part so as to increase its App Store revenue by preventing Flash-based competition for games. Quite apart from the fact that Apple makes very little on these sales (a la music or video sales through the iTunes Store), one has to wonder why Apple has no problems having competitors to Flash on the iPhone, iPod, and iPad.
I agree with the second half with regards to Apple's hubris, especially with their adoption of the whole "Magic" thing. It's very quickly becoming a turn off for me.
I feel like the lack of flash on a small device like the IPHONE/POD is acceptable but hardly so on a 10" device such as the IPAD. It will be very interesting to see how the general/non tech pubic reacts to this exclusion when these things hit the stores in two months.
Yeah, their marketing is getting a bit out of hand. I think most people will roll their eyes at the use of "magic." They should have used that for the iPhone - that truly was like magic when it first came out.
I'm kind of ambivalent about Flash. As others have pointed out, that is mostly Adobe's (and, previously, Macromedia's) fault for never bringing the software up to speed. I know even simple Flash applications can bring my MacBook Pro to it's knees, causing it to burn up and go into fan overdrive; I can't imagine what it'd do to a machine so much less powerful.
My bigger issue is Apple's attitude towards it, pretending like the need doesn't exist or like anyone's opinions outside of their cult are not relevant. I fully support their move to HTML 5 -- but why not reach out and work with Adobe (or buy them) to help them create something to bridge the gap. It's a snobbery thing with Apple, and that doesn't help anyone.
I agree, but if the vast majority of the web uses flash, how can Steve Jobs boast a great web experience on the iPad? When is HTML 5 going to be universally adopted? in a year? 2 years? 5? I think half the value of iPad is the web experience on a screen larger than my iPhone's.
The great majority of the web doesn't use Flash for anything that is actually useful outside of video. Mobile optimized sites and mobile apps have all adopted H.264 for video streaming. So its all working the way Apple wants it to.
Quote:
I love the thought of getting on the web quickly without powering up my laptop or desktop. But not being able to watch a TV show on Hulu or a video on CNN, what's the point? I'm just tired of Jobs peeing on my leg and telling me it's raining. It's not a great user experience if half the web is unavailable to me.
You can't watch Hulu on any phone right now anyway, so the exclusion of flash makes no difference. Youtube, Vimeo, ESPN, NYTimes, CNN and many others have developed mobile sites and mobile apps that stream H.264 that any phone can display. So really nothing has been lost.
Mabye those screenshots arn't just stuck on the ipad...
Maybe that iPad isn't running iPhone OS 3.2...
Maybe OS 3.2 was the OS apple were using to show off the iPad - apple wouldn't want OS 4.0 and multitasking to force their new product to SHARE the Attention and down the hype which could mean less sales.
(multitasking still doesn't mean definate flash)
OS 4.0 could be coming with POSSIBLE flash support.
Apple will probably announce OS 4.0 (with extra features for ipad) in a month or so's time to catch you off guard.
But it's unlikely and probably just wishful thinking.
I'm not sure what you mean. No one is waiting for the final ratification of HTML5, HTML5 is in action right now. All of its pieces are not finished yet, they are being adopted as soon as they are ready to be used.
The mobile web is being developed with HTML5 as the foundation with no input from Flash or Silverlight. Its not yet fully in place but it will be soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
I don't think it's quite half the web but you're right, the HTML 5 spec won't be in action for a couple of years:
I agree, but if the vast majority of the web uses flash, how can Steve Jobs boast a great web experience on the iPad? When is HTML 5 going to be universally adopted? in a year? 2 years? 5? I think half the value of iPad is the web experience on a screen larger than my iPhone's.
I love the thought of getting on the web quickly without powering up my laptop or desktop. But not being able to watch a TV show on Hulu or a video on CNN, what's the point? I'm just tired of Jobs peeing on my leg and telling me it's raining. It's not a great user experience if half the web is unavailable to me.
How great would the user experience be when the browser crashes every couple of minutes, and the battery is dead in an hour? It's not as if Steve can wave his magic wand and make flash work on devices like the iPhone/iPad. Let me know when your awesome device comes out so I can buy one.
The same way the general public reacts to no flash on the iPhone/iTouch right now. Few people will care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boogerman2000
I feel like the lack of flash on a small device like the IPHONE/POD is acceptable but hardly so on a 10" device such as the IPAD. It will be very interesting to see how the general/non tech pubic reacts to this exclusion when these things hit the stores in two months.
How would Flash even work on a touch device? I'm thinking about all the mouse over events and other non-click mouse movements some Flash apps need. If developers need to modify all their Flash code to have it work with touch devices, what's the point?
Mabye those screenshots arn't just stuck on the ipad...
Maybe that iPad isn't running iPhone OS 3.2...
Maybe OS 3.2 was the OS apple were using to show off the iPad - apple wouldn't want OS 4.0 and multitasking to force their new product to SHARE the Attention and down the hype which could mean less sales.
(multitasking still doesn't mean definate flash)
OS 4.0 could be coming with POSSIBLE flash support.
Apple will probably announce OS 4.0 (with extra features for ipad) in a month or so's time to catch you off guard.
But it's unlikely and probably just wishful thinking.
I guess only time can tell...
*LOL. No. Just no. Even Apple is not THAT stupid
The most funny party is that those videos are most likely done with the help of Adobe After Effects.
Why would website allow iPad users to access their website if they can't display their ads.
They are no better than adBlock users, also known as bad consumers.
Talk about dumping on the victim.
By what twisted logic is the consumer at fault for trying to block advertisements that they didn't request and don't want in the first place? That's like blaming a mugging victim for having a money belt cause it makes it harder for the robber to shake them down.
The internet was fine before advertisements ruined it, and it would have evolved just as well without them. There were many polls taken at the time as far as I recall and *no-one* was in favour of bringing advertisements to the web, but it happened anyway.
Also, the number of people that hate ads so much that they take the time to block them is minimal, and those particular individuals (me included) are never going to buy anything out of an advertisement anyway, so it has no affect on sales.
How would Flash even work on a touch device? I'm thinking about all the mouse over events and other non-click mouse movements some Flash apps need. If developers need to modify all their Flash code to have it work with touch devices, what's the point?
Well, it works great on the Nexus One. So why shouldn't it on the iPad?
. The internet was fine before advertisements ruined it, and it would have evolved just as well without them. There were many polls taken at the time as far as I recall and *no-one* was in favour of bringing advertisements to the web, but it happened anyway.
I think you went a bit far, the web would not have developed the same way without advertisements. The web needs advertisements. Advertisements is the reason why Google can give everything away for free.
Quote:
Also, the number of people that hate ads so much that they take the time to block them is minimal, and those particular individuals (me included) are never going to buy anything out of an advertisement anyway, so it has no affect on sales.
That's not true you buy a lot of things because of advertisements. People like to think they are immune to marketing, but its not true.
It's not a great user experience if half the web is unavailable to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
You can't watch Hulu on any phone right now anyway, so the exclusion of flash makes no difference. Youtube, Vimeo, ESPN, NYTimes, CNN and many others have developed mobile sites and mobile apps that stream H.264 that any phone can display. So really nothing has been lost.
By saying that the iPad will display mobile sites instead of the full sites, I think that you are making his point for him.
Comments
Apple has also used some photographic magic on their site to make it look like the iPad's screen is a silky, beautiful matte instead of the hideous glare magnet that it actually is. I love being able to watch videos on my Touch, but the constant struggle to keep the screen held at an exact angle to avoid reflections is absurd. I'd be much more prone to pick up the cheapest iPad (for on-the-couch web reading only) if it had a matte screen.
If I'm not mistaken, there has to be a sheet of glass for the multitouch touch screen to work. Also, I've never had glare problems with my iPhone, ever. And my glossy 17" MBP doesn't bother me either.
Adobe is Apple's seconds largest software partner (after MS). I hope Adobe will fight back this childish war and they will not release the next version of Photoshop for Mac OS X. Most designers are not able to switch from Photoshop but from Mac OS.
If I'm not mistaken, there has to be a sheet of glass for the multitouch touch screen to work. Also, I've never had glare problems with my iPhone, ever. And my glossy 17" MBP doesn't bother me either.
Hmm ... I don't think the glass is a requirement. I remember Apple talking about how they tried many different iterations for the surface when the original iPhone was announced, including non-glass surfaces. Maybe I am wrong ... though their new Magic Mouse is multi-touch, is the surface of that glass? I haven't used one yet, so not sure.
As far as reflections - I'm surprised you've never had an issue with it. I'm sure it depends on how/where the device is being used. I know, for me, I use it a lot on the train and the small lights above the seats and harsh fluorescent light of the train make it very hard to focus on the video playing and not my very-clear reflection. More diffuse lighting situations are less of an issue. Also depends on the material being played, darker movies cause more visible reflection, brighter stuff less so.
Even a mild anti-glare coating could help without destroying the contrast benefits of the glass.
I agree, but if the vast majority of the web uses flash, how can Steve Jobs boast a great web experience on the iPad? When is HTML 5 going to be universally adopted? in a year? 2 years? 5? I think half the value of iPad is the web experience on a screen larger than my iPhone's.
I love the thought of getting on the web quickly without powering up my laptop or desktop. But not being able to watch a TV show on Hulu or a video on CNN, what's the point? I'm just tired of Jobs peeing on my leg and telling me it's raining. It's not a great user experience if half the web is unavailable to me.
I don't think it's quite half the web but you're right, the HTML 5 spec won't be in action for a couple of years:
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/
The Working Group Schedule of Milestones is:
2007-05 HTML5 and Web Forms 2.0 specs adopted as basis for review
2007-11 HTML Design Principles First Public Working Draft
2008-02 HTML5 First Public Working Draft
2010-01 HTML5 Last Call Working Draft
2010-12? HTML5 Candidate Recommendation
2012-01? HTML5 Proposed Recommendation
2012-03? HTML5 Recommendation
This is why Flash and DirectX exist in the first place - open groups just can't push things forward fast enough so they create makeshift solutions and they become accepted and ingrained.
Adobe really doesn't help by keeping things closed up but then again they charge money for their Flash IDE and their business depends on these suites. If they open sourced it, not only does it make their IDE easy to replicate, it is easier for people to find security holes.
It's a sticky situation altogether because Adobe can't viably change to an HTML 5 solution immediately and change or drop their IDE. Others don't want one company controlling the web standard but there's no alternate IDEs that match Flash and the HTML specs take forever to be widely accepted.
I don't want to say it but I actually like Silverlight. Their XAML, AJAX approach looks very good and more or less what we want from HTML 5 and eventually Adobe.
The problem with that argument is that you still couldn't do it if Apple put Flash Lite on their iPhones. Some things to consider...
- Flash Lite can't play video from the popular sites you mentioned.
- Flash 10.1 looks to only be available for the Maemo on N900 right now, and that may still be in Beta.
- If it's Apple fault that Flash wasn't on the 2007 iPhone then why isn't Flash slated to arrive on Android, WebOS, WinMo or Symbian until mid-2010, 3.5 years later? Surely that can't be Apple's fault too.
- Flash 10.1 is going to require Android OS v2.0, leaving out a great many new Android handsets.
- Netbooks with 1.6Ghz Atom processors and 1-2GB RAM can't play Flash videos from these sites without them being choppy so Flash 10.1 has got to be great for these videos to stream on 400-600GHz ARM processors with only a 128-512MB RAM. I have doubt.
- Even if your goal is for Flash games, not video, how would one navigate since the controls won't work. The developer would have to rewrite Flash to accommodate the touchscreen device. Seems like a work for nothing.
The simple fact is that it's Adobe that dropped the ball a long time ago. They are the ones to blame for Flash not being available in 2007 or in 2010. You will see sites like Hulu change how they distribute video because they don't want to lose the potential customers of the quickly growing smartphone market. That doesn't mean they are dropping Flash from their sites for desktop OSes,Great points, solipsism!
The other thing that gets me is when people make the claim (not here, so far) that it must be some huge conspiracy on SJ's part so as to increase its App Store revenue by preventing Flash-based competition for games. Quite apart from the fact that Apple makes very little on these sales (a la music or video sales through the iTunes Store), one has to wonder why Apple has no problems having competitors to Flash on the iPhone, iPod, and iPad.
I agree with the second half with regards to Apple's hubris, especially with their adoption of the whole "Magic" thing. It's very quickly becoming a turn off for me.
I feel like the lack of flash on a small device like the IPHONE/POD is acceptable but hardly so on a 10" device such as the IPAD. It will be very interesting to see how the general/non tech pubic reacts to this exclusion when these things hit the stores in two months.
Yeah, their marketing is getting a bit out of hand. I think most people will roll their eyes at the use of "magic." They should have used that for the iPhone - that truly was like magic when it first came out.
I'm kind of ambivalent about Flash. As others have pointed out, that is mostly Adobe's (and, previously, Macromedia's) fault for never bringing the software up to speed. I know even simple Flash applications can bring my MacBook Pro to it's knees, causing it to burn up and go into fan overdrive; I can't imagine what it'd do to a machine so much less powerful.
My bigger issue is Apple's attitude towards it, pretending like the need doesn't exist or like anyone's opinions outside of their cult are not relevant. I fully support their move to HTML 5 -- but why not reach out and work with Adobe (or buy them) to help them create something to bridge the gap. It's a snobbery thing with Apple, and that doesn't help anyone.
I agree, but if the vast majority of the web uses flash, how can Steve Jobs boast a great web experience on the iPad? When is HTML 5 going to be universally adopted? in a year? 2 years? 5? I think half the value of iPad is the web experience on a screen larger than my iPhone's.
The great majority of the web doesn't use Flash for anything that is actually useful outside of video. Mobile optimized sites and mobile apps have all adopted H.264 for video streaming. So its all working the way Apple wants it to.
I love the thought of getting on the web quickly without powering up my laptop or desktop. But not being able to watch a TV show on Hulu or a video on CNN, what's the point? I'm just tired of Jobs peeing on my leg and telling me it's raining. It's not a great user experience if half the web is unavailable to me.
You can't watch Hulu on any phone right now anyway, so the exclusion of flash makes no difference. Youtube, Vimeo, ESPN, NYTimes, CNN and many others have developed mobile sites and mobile apps that stream H.264 that any phone can display. So really nothing has been lost.
Mabye those screenshots arn't just stuck on the ipad...
Maybe that iPad isn't running iPhone OS 3.2...
Maybe OS 3.2 was the OS apple were using to show off the iPad - apple wouldn't want OS 4.0 and multitasking to force their new product to SHARE the Attention and down the hype which could mean less sales.
(multitasking still doesn't mean definate flash)
OS 4.0 could be coming with POSSIBLE flash support.
Apple will probably announce OS 4.0 (with extra features for ipad) in a month or so's time to catch you off guard.
But it's unlikely and probably just wishful thinking.
I guess only time can tell...
The mobile web is being developed with HTML5 as the foundation with no input from Flash or Silverlight. Its not yet fully in place but it will be soon.
I don't think it's quite half the web but you're right, the HTML 5 spec won't be in action for a couple of years:
OS 4.0 could be coming with POSSIBLE flash support.
Apple will probably announce OS 4.0 (with extra features for ipad) in a month or so's time to catch you off guard.
I agree, but if the vast majority of the web uses flash, how can Steve Jobs boast a great web experience on the iPad? When is HTML 5 going to be universally adopted? in a year? 2 years? 5? I think half the value of iPad is the web experience on a screen larger than my iPhone's.
I love the thought of getting on the web quickly without powering up my laptop or desktop. But not being able to watch a TV show on Hulu or a video on CNN, what's the point? I'm just tired of Jobs peeing on my leg and telling me it's raining. It's not a great user experience if half the web is unavailable to me.
How great would the user experience be when the browser crashes every couple of minutes, and the battery is dead in an hour? It's not as if Steve can wave his magic wand and make flash work on devices like the iPhone/iPad. Let me know when your awesome device comes out so I can buy one.
I feel like the lack of flash on a small device like the IPHONE/POD is acceptable but hardly so on a 10" device such as the IPAD. It will be very interesting to see how the general/non tech pubic reacts to this exclusion when these things hit the stores in two months.
I know it is unlikely but consider this.
Mabye those screenshots arn't just stuck on the ipad...
Maybe that iPad isn't running iPhone OS 3.2...
Maybe OS 3.2 was the OS apple were using to show off the iPad - apple wouldn't want OS 4.0 and multitasking to force their new product to SHARE the Attention and down the hype which could mean less sales.
(multitasking still doesn't mean definate flash)
OS 4.0 could be coming with POSSIBLE flash support.
Apple will probably announce OS 4.0 (with extra features for ipad) in a month or so's time to catch you off guard.
But it's unlikely and probably just wishful thinking.
I guess only time can tell...
*LOL. No. Just no. Even Apple is not THAT stupid
The most funny party is that those videos are most likely done with the help of Adobe After Effects.
So iPad is basically worlds best adblocker?
http://www.bmson.is/bin/iPad/
Why would website allow iPad users to access their website if they can't display their ads.
They are no better than adBlock users, also known as bad consumers.
Talk about dumping on the victim.
By what twisted logic is the consumer at fault for trying to block advertisements that they didn't request and don't want in the first place? That's like blaming a mugging victim for having a money belt cause it makes it harder for the robber to shake them down.
The internet was fine before advertisements ruined it, and it would have evolved just as well without them. There were many polls taken at the time as far as I recall and *no-one* was in favour of bringing advertisements to the web, but it happened anyway.
Also, the number of people that hate ads so much that they take the time to block them is minimal, and those particular individuals (me included) are never going to buy anything out of an advertisement anyway, so it has no affect on sales.
How would Flash even work on a touch device? I'm thinking about all the mouse over events and other non-click mouse movements some Flash apps need. If developers need to modify all their Flash code to have it work with touch devices, what's the point?
Well, it works great on the Nexus One. So why shouldn't it on the iPad?
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashpla...1/popup10.html
.[*]Flash 10.1 looks to only be available for the Maemo on N900 right now, and that may still be in Beta.
. The internet was fine before advertisements ruined it, and it would have evolved just as well without them. There were many polls taken at the time as far as I recall and *no-one* was in favour of bringing advertisements to the web, but it happened anyway.
I think you went a bit far, the web would not have developed the same way without advertisements. The web needs advertisements. Advertisements is the reason why Google can give everything away for free.
Also, the number of people that hate ads so much that they take the time to block them is minimal, and those particular individuals (me included) are never going to buy anything out of an advertisement anyway, so it has no affect on sales.
That's not true you buy a lot of things because of advertisements. People like to think they are immune to marketing, but its not true.
Well, it works great on the Nexus One. So why shouldn't it on the iPad?
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashpla...1/popup10.html
It's not a great user experience if half the web is unavailable to me.
You can't watch Hulu on any phone right now anyway, so the exclusion of flash makes no difference. Youtube, Vimeo, ESPN, NYTimes, CNN and many others have developed mobile sites and mobile apps that stream H.264 that any phone can display. So really nothing has been lost.
By saying that the iPad will display mobile sites instead of the full sites, I think that you are making his point for him.