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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
'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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
When was the last time many of you actually video conferenced?
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.
The camera either exists or it doesn't firmware won't make it come into being.
Comments
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.
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?
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.
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'?".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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*
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.
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.
'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.
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".
I have no doubt App Store multi-tasking will come with v4.0,
What is your explanation of why it has not appeared previously?
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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".
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
When was the last time many of you actually video conferenced?
Last Saturday.
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.
The camera either exists or it doesn't firmware won't make it come into being.
Some Touch owners may experience a sense of DéjÃ* vu when this is announced.
For that to be deja vu a camera would have to exist in the iPod Touch.