1. Beyond a few proof of concept sites, it really isn't, at least not yet.
Flash was never designed for mobile devices. It wasn't even designed for GPUs. The engineering does not scale, does not exploit hardware playback and so on.
It's not just Apple. Nokia's Maemo team has just dropped Flash, because it "ruins the experience". We don't know if the Chrome OS will support Flash. But as more and more people are shifting to accessing the Web via mobile devices, the proportion of Flash enabled browsers is falling. Content providers know this.
Talk to Web developers and they have already dropped Flash from their future plans for this reason.
Content providers make their money from pushing content to an audience. They don't care how it's done. Flash is just one method.
As long as there is an alternative to Flash- then everybody wins.
And there will be an alternative to Flash. It is already happening.
So we already have YouTube delivering video by h264. Vimeo now has h264 - and the biggest video site in the UK. the BBC iPlayer offers h264.
Flash does not have to die - or "be replaced" there'll probably be people still using it in 10 years time.
But content providers are increasingly finding ways to by-pass it to reach a mobile audience.
If you are interested in seeing what the world looks like without Flash, you can download "clicktoflash" - which disables Flash unless you click.
The camera either exists or it doesn't firmware won't make it come into being.
For that to be deja vu a camera would have to exist in the iPod Touch.
When the 2G iPod Touch was released, it had the hardware to enable bluetooth but it was not functional. Touch users who wanted to enable the hardware had to pay $10 for new firmware that would enable the bluetooth.
Quote:
Apple intentionally crippled Bluetooth in iPod touch 2G, wants $10 to unlock it!
The iPad could ship with a camera that was not enabled by the firmware and Apple 'could' then charge for new firmware to enable it. There is certainly a historical precedent for such behaviour on their part.
If there is an iPad camera - and Apple did not reveal it, there's probably a simpler explanation.
They are waiting for something.
My guess is that there's going to be a forward-facing camera in the new iPhone. If that is true there's no way that a major new iPhone USP is going to be up-staged by a relatively minor feature on the iPad.
It's not just Apple. Nokia's Maemo team has just dropped Flash, because it "ruins the experience". We don't know if the Chrome OS will support Flash. But as more and more people are shifting to accessing the Web via mobile devices, the proportion of Flash enabled browsers is falling. Content providers know this.
Another viewpoint:
"Adobe is "on the verge" of Flash Player 10.1 for smartphones with "all but one" of the top manufacturers, including Google's Android, RIM's BlackBerry, Nokia, and the Palm Pre. Even the Nexus One will be Flash 10.1-equipped ? and, according to Lynch, it "will rock.""
We?ve decided to disable plugin support for this release. The Adobe Flash plugin used on many sites degraded the performance of the browser to the point where it didn?t meet our standards.
You can turn it on in settings. I can't wait to see it in action. People expect Flash to plus Hulu et al, but it can't even play an banner ad competently. This is gonna be fun.
You can turn it on in settings. I can't wait to see it in action. People expect Flash to plus Hulu et al, but it can't even play an banner ad competently. This is gonna be fun.
I think you mean that Macs are unable to play flash competently. It seems to work fine with Win7 on my Dell.
He was talking about Flash for a Nokia device, not Macs.
My only beefs with flash is that it's a little inefficient, and I don't like ads with motion and sound attached to content that is plain text.
I think "a little inefficient" doesn't quite explain the problem with Flash. Adobe only stated last year that they are getting a real version of Flash ready for smartphones.They still don't plan to be released until mid-2010.
There is evidence to support that Flash video sites like Hulu (and arguably the most likely reason people want Flash) still won't run on these weak devices. Flash games are a no go unless they are designed for a handheld touchscreen 9though Adboe addressed that with Packager for iPhone). Most sites are designed for larger displays, 800x600(?). Finally, besides the power usage sites load slower when waiting for Flash banners as we saw with the faster Droid being bested by the slower iPhone 3G.
Now there is a rumour that even WinMo 7 won't have Flash. I'd expect it to eventually come when Adobe builds it, but they have their hands full trying to get a decent version made for many other mobile OSes.
I am buying the 1st gen regardless of what it does or does not have now or in the future. If another one with an iSight and more options comes out later fine, I may turn mine in to Ebay and buy another. I refuse to guess what it will have. The thing is not even out yet. Remember cost was the issue. The iPad was not made to replace an iPhone or a Computer for that mater. It was created as a tool with the intentions of music, movies, and yea internet without the crappy flash code.
Definitely agree. the iPad is going to be even more awesome with a camera.
I just don't see a front facing camera as all that user friendly on iPad. Who wants to hold that at arms length to do any sort of video based chat. A forward facing camera would be far more useful on an iPhone and even there demand is limited.
In any event I suspect that people will wise up fairly quickly with respect to the camera desire. IPad is simply the wrong device for this use.
I just don't see a front facing camera as all that user friendly on iPad. Who wants to hold that at arms length to do any sort of video based chat. A forward facing camera would be far more useful on an iPhone and even there demand is limited.
In any event I suspect that people will wise up fairly quickly with respect to the camera desire. IPad is simply the wrong device for this use.
Dave
I would disagree?
I use iChat daily to keep in touch with friends & family around the US, and I could see video chatting with the iPad being a HUGE selling point. Sitting on the couch or in an armchair, the iPad could be cradled easily for iChatting; it could also be sitting 'upright' in the Apple carrying case on the coffee table. Sitting at a desk or countertop, the iPad could again be in the 'upright' position in the Apple carrying case, or easily used while in the Dock or Keyboard Dock?
I use iChat daily to keep in touch with friends & family around the US, and I could see video chatting with the iPad being a HUGE selling point. Sitting on the couch or in an armchair, the iPad could be cradled easily for iChatting; it could also be sitting 'upright' in the Apple carrying case on the coffee table. Sitting at a desk or countertop, the iPad could again be in the 'upright' position in the Apple carrying case, or easily used while in the Dock or Keyboard Dock?
So if it would be such a huge selling point, and so easy to use, then why didn't Apple do it?
This reminds me of the great bezel debate. It's so easy to design a product when you aren't the one who actually has to solve the problems.
I just don't see a front facing camera as all that user friendly on iPad. Who wants to hold that at arms length to do any sort of video based chat. A forward facing camera would be far more useful on an iPhone and even there demand is limited.
In any event I suspect that people will wise up fairly quickly with respect to the camera desire. IPad is simply the wrong device for this use.
Dave
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin
I would disagree?
I use iChat daily to keep in touch with friends & family around the US, and I could see video chatting with the iPad being a HUGE selling point. Sitting on the couch or in an armchair, the iPad could be cradled easily for iChatting; it could also be sitting 'upright' in the Apple carrying case on the coffee table. Sitting at a desk or countertop, the iPad could again be in the 'upright' position in the Apple carrying case, or easily used while in the Dock or Keyboard Dock?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
So if it would be such a huge selling point, and so easy to use, then why didn't Apple do it?
This reminds me of the great bezel debate. It's so easy to design a product when you aren't the one who actually has to solve the problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Why didn't they offer a limited app for IMing when there are already plenty of great apps on the App Store?
solipsism, Dr. Millmoss is actually referring to the lack of a forward facing camera, and my thoughts that video chatting will be a huge plus for the iPad?
I will stand by my comment that iChat video will be one of the 'killer apps' for the iPad, and I will wait until the iPad actually is released and on store shelves to see if a camera actually makes the mix?
If not this initial offering, I am sure Apple would include one on the next revision. If not this revision, many reasons as to 'why not?' could be true; short supply of cameras altogether, Apple wanting to get 'second sales' when they release revision two with a camera, cost considerations relating to the profit margin, etc. ?
I will stand by my comment that iChat video will be one of the 'killer apps' for the iPad, and I will wait until the iPad actually is released and on store shelves to see if a camera actually makes the mix?
If not this initial offering, I am sure Apple would include one on the next revision. If not this revision, many reasons as to 'why not?' could be true; short supply of cameras altogether, Apple wanting to get 'second sales' when they release revision two with a camera, cost considerations relating to the profit margin, etc. ?
Curious... what makes video chat a killer app for tablet computers?
If anything, the tablet form is the least suitable option for video chat. Tablets are handheld computers and as such, screen orientation in relation to the user's head is quite unpredictable. If video chat is to be a killer app, it seems like laptops or desktops would be more suitable.
(Or prehaps even pocket computers. While pocket computers (iPhones) suffer from the same unpredictable orientation, they're at least with users constantly. Thus, the non-optimal form might be reasonable because portability could justify the trade-off. It is the only computing form available much of the time.)
In summary, while video chat will certainly work with tablets, the tablet form provides about the worst video chat experience possible. Imagine trying to not move your hand a single milimeter while video chatting. It is a hugely annoying experience. Just try video chatting with a handheld camera if in doubt. I tried doing so when the iSight first came out. It quickly became apparent that I would need track down some more double sided tape if I was going to video chat on a regular basis. Having to hold the camera was a deal breaker.
Curious... what makes video chat a killer app for tablet computers?
If anything, the tablet form is the least suitable option for video chat. Tablets are handheld computers and as such, screen orientation in relation to the user's head is quite unpredictable. If video chat is to be a killer app, it seems like laptops or desktops would be more suitable.
(Or prehaps even pocket computers. While pocket computers (iPhones) suffer from the same unpredictable orientation, they're at least with users constantly. Thus, the non-optimal form might be reasonable because portability could justify the trade-off. It is the only computing form available much of the time.)
In summary, while video chat will certainly work with tablets, the tablet form provides about the worst video chat experience possible. Imagine trying to not move your hand a single milimeter while video chatting. It is a hugely annoying experience. Just try video chatting with a handheld camera if in doubt. I tried doing so when the iSight first came out. It quickly became apparent that I would need track down some more double sided tape if I was going to video chat on a regular basis. Having to hold the camera was a deal breaker.
Killer App from the standpoint of the average non-computer savvy end user who gets an iPad because they are simple and just work…
The grandparents will love the fact that they can video chat with their grandkids just as easily as making a telephone call…
And Killer App from the standpoint that it is not a desktop or laptop; it is not tied down to a desk or a suitable surface for setting a laptop; although laptops can be carried around while video chatting, the two planes make a laptop more cumbersome than a tablet for doing so…
I say we should all lay to rest this whole handheld tablet not gonna be good for video chat thing. There are already three options for stability while video chatting; the Apple carrying case (which can be oriented to stand upright for viewing movies, and is oddly similar to the orientation of a laptop screen/camera…), the Apple Dock & the Apple Keyboard Dock. I am sure third party vendors will also have goods to offer that allow one to easily prop up the iPad for viewing (and video chatting) pleasure…
And even if one were to hold the iPad in their hands while chatting, it is not like you have to hold it extended out at arms length forever… I chat regular with my kids, and they walk around the house with the laptop, the image is still pretty stable. Cradling the iPad in your arm while sitting would also be okay for chatting. The entire idea that the viewer on the other end is gonna see nothing but nose hairs is ridiculous! For that to happen, you would need to be constantly looking above/over the iPad; in my experience of video chatting with iChat, I find that I tend to actually look at the screen, which means I am also orienting my face towards the same plane as the camera is mounted…
Why didn't they offer a limited app for IMing when there are already plenty of great apps on the App Store?
I don't understand what you are driving at with this response. The argument was that a camera would be a "huge selling point" for the iPad. I asked why, if this so obvious, Apple apparently (at least initially) has passed on the idea.
I don't understand what you are driving at with this response. The argument was that a camera would be a "huge selling point" for the iPad. I asked why, if this so obvious, Apple apparently (at least initially) has passed on the idea.
Based on the wording I thought the focus was on iChat app being simple to add, not that the camera would be simple to add. I was separating a forward-facing camera as being iChat-specific or being named as such when I assume this will just be an API for developers to tie into. Too many threads, too many posts, too much skimming, my fault.
Comments
1. Beyond a few proof of concept sites, it really isn't, at least not yet.
Flash was never designed for mobile devices. It wasn't even designed for GPUs. The engineering does not scale, does not exploit hardware playback and so on.
It's not just Apple. Nokia's Maemo team has just dropped Flash, because it "ruins the experience". We don't know if the Chrome OS will support Flash. But as more and more people are shifting to accessing the Web via mobile devices, the proportion of Flash enabled browsers is falling. Content providers know this.
Talk to Web developers and they have already dropped Flash from their future plans for this reason.
Content providers make their money from pushing content to an audience. They don't care how it's done. Flash is just one method.
As long as there is an alternative to Flash- then everybody wins.
And there will be an alternative to Flash. It is already happening.
So we already have YouTube delivering video by h264. Vimeo now has h264 - and the biggest video site in the UK. the BBC iPlayer offers h264.
Flash does not have to die - or "be replaced" there'll probably be people still using it in 10 years time.
But content providers are increasingly finding ways to by-pass it to reach a mobile audience.
If you are interested in seeing what the world looks like without Flash, you can download "clicktoflash" - which disables Flash unless you click.
http://rentzsch.github.com/clicktoflash/
C.
The camera either exists or it doesn't firmware won't make it come into being.
For that to be deja vu a camera would have to exist in the iPod Touch.
When the 2G iPod Touch was released, it had the hardware to enable bluetooth but it was not functional. Touch users who wanted to enable the hardware had to pay $10 for new firmware that would enable the bluetooth.
Apple intentionally crippled Bluetooth in iPod touch 2G, wants $10 to unlock it!
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3988
My comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek humour.
The iPad could ship with a camera that was not enabled by the firmware and Apple 'could' then charge for new firmware to enable it. There is certainly a historical precedent for such behaviour on their part.
If your thought processes are so rigid that you can't see how a sense of DéjÃ* vu can apply to an experience, rather than literal specifics, then I would not be in the slightest bit surprised.
They are waiting for something.
My guess is that there's going to be a forward-facing camera in the new iPhone. If that is true there's no way that a major new iPhone USP is going to be up-staged by a relatively minor feature on the iPad.
C.
It's not just Apple. Nokia's Maemo team has just dropped Flash, because it "ruins the experience". We don't know if the Chrome OS will support Flash. But as more and more people are shifting to accessing the Web via mobile devices, the proportion of Flash enabled browsers is falling. Content providers know this.
Another viewpoint:
"Adobe is "on the verge" of Flash Player 10.1 for smartphones with "all but one" of the top manufacturers, including Google's Android, RIM's BlackBerry, Nokia, and the Palm Pre. Even the Nexus One will be Flash 10.1-equipped ? and, according to Lynch, it "will rock.""
http://www.pcworld.com/article/18848...e_is_lazy.html
Another viewpoint:
I love the notion that Flash was "presciently designed for 1980's tablets!"
Unfortunately it was not designed for GPUs and hardware video codecs which are essential in modern mobile devices.
I got my post wrong. It was the Firefox team for Maemo that has dropped Flash.
http://blog.pavlov.net/2010/01/27/fi...for-maemo-rc3/
We?ve decided to disable plugin support for this release. The Adobe Flash plugin used on many sites degraded the performance of the browser to the point where it didn?t meet our standards.
C.
I got my post wrong. It was the Firefox team for Maemo that has dropped Flash.
http://blog.pavlov.net/2010/01/27/fi...for-maemo-rc3/
You can turn it on in settings. I can't wait to see it in action. People expect Flash to plus Hulu et al, but it can't even play an banner ad competently. This is gonna be fun.
You can turn it on in settings. I can't wait to see it in action. People expect Flash to plus Hulu et al, but it can't even play an banner ad competently. This is gonna be fun.
I think you mean that Macs are unable to play flash competently. It seems to work fine with Win7 on my Dell.
Please pretty please include a camera. Call it the iPad Pro. Once it has a camera for video conferencing, i'll get 2 of them!
Definitely agree. the iPad is going to be even more awesome with a camera.
I think you mean that Macs are unable to play flash competently. It seems to work fine with Win7 on my Dell.
He was talking about Flash for a Nokia device, not Macs.
My only beefs with flash is that it's a little inefficient, and I don't like ads with motion and sound attached to content that is plain text.
He was talking about Flash for a Nokia device, not Macs.
My only beefs with flash is that it's a little inefficient, and I don't like ads with motion and sound attached to content that is plain text.
I think "a little inefficient" doesn't quite explain the problem with Flash. Adobe only stated last year that they are getting a real version of Flash ready for smartphones.They still don't plan to be released until mid-2010.
There is evidence to support that Flash video sites like Hulu (and arguably the most likely reason people want Flash) still won't run on these weak devices. Flash games are a no go unless they are designed for a handheld touchscreen 9though Adboe addressed that with Packager for iPhone). Most sites are designed for larger displays, 800x600(?). Finally, besides the power usage sites load slower when waiting for Flash banners as we saw with the faster Droid being bested by the slower iPhone 3G.
Now there is a rumour that even WinMo 7 won't have Flash. I'd expect it to eventually come when Adobe builds it, but they have their hands full trying to get a decent version made for many other mobile OSes.
Definitely agree. the iPad is going to be even more awesome with a camera.
I just don't see a front facing camera as all that user friendly on iPad. Who wants to hold that at arms length to do any sort of video based chat. A forward facing camera would be far more useful on an iPhone and even there demand is limited.
In any event I suspect that people will wise up fairly quickly with respect to the camera desire. IPad is simply the wrong device for this use.
Dave
I just don't see a front facing camera as all that user friendly on iPad. Who wants to hold that at arms length to do any sort of video based chat. A forward facing camera would be far more useful on an iPhone and even there demand is limited.
In any event I suspect that people will wise up fairly quickly with respect to the camera desire. IPad is simply the wrong device for this use.
Dave
I would disagree?
I use iChat daily to keep in touch with friends & family around the US, and I could see video chatting with the iPad being a HUGE selling point. Sitting on the couch or in an armchair, the iPad could be cradled easily for iChatting; it could also be sitting 'upright' in the Apple carrying case on the coffee table. Sitting at a desk or countertop, the iPad could again be in the 'upright' position in the Apple carrying case, or easily used while in the Dock or Keyboard Dock?
I would disagree?
I use iChat daily to keep in touch with friends & family around the US, and I could see video chatting with the iPad being a HUGE selling point. Sitting on the couch or in an armchair, the iPad could be cradled easily for iChatting; it could also be sitting 'upright' in the Apple carrying case on the coffee table. Sitting at a desk or countertop, the iPad could again be in the 'upright' position in the Apple carrying case, or easily used while in the Dock or Keyboard Dock?
So if it would be such a huge selling point, and so easy to use, then why didn't Apple do it?
This reminds me of the great bezel debate. It's so easy to design a product when you aren't the one who actually has to solve the problems.
So if it would be such a huge selling point, and so easy to use, then why didn't Apple do it?
Why didn't they offer a limited app for IMing when there are already plenty of great apps on the App Store?
I just don't see a front facing camera as all that user friendly on iPad. Who wants to hold that at arms length to do any sort of video based chat. A forward facing camera would be far more useful on an iPhone and even there demand is limited.
In any event I suspect that people will wise up fairly quickly with respect to the camera desire. IPad is simply the wrong device for this use.
Dave
I would disagree?
I use iChat daily to keep in touch with friends & family around the US, and I could see video chatting with the iPad being a HUGE selling point. Sitting on the couch or in an armchair, the iPad could be cradled easily for iChatting; it could also be sitting 'upright' in the Apple carrying case on the coffee table. Sitting at a desk or countertop, the iPad could again be in the 'upright' position in the Apple carrying case, or easily used while in the Dock or Keyboard Dock?
So if it would be such a huge selling point, and so easy to use, then why didn't Apple do it?
This reminds me of the great bezel debate. It's so easy to design a product when you aren't the one who actually has to solve the problems.
Why didn't they offer a limited app for IMing when there are already plenty of great apps on the App Store?
solipsism, Dr. Millmoss is actually referring to the lack of a forward facing camera, and my thoughts that video chatting will be a huge plus for the iPad?
I will stand by my comment that iChat video will be one of the 'killer apps' for the iPad, and I will wait until the iPad actually is released and on store shelves to see if a camera actually makes the mix?
If not this initial offering, I am sure Apple would include one on the next revision. If not this revision, many reasons as to 'why not?' could be true; short supply of cameras altogether, Apple wanting to get 'second sales' when they release revision two with a camera, cost considerations relating to the profit margin, etc. ?
I will stand by my comment that iChat video will be one of the 'killer apps' for the iPad, and I will wait until the iPad actually is released and on store shelves to see if a camera actually makes the mix?
If not this initial offering, I am sure Apple would include one on the next revision. If not this revision, many reasons as to 'why not?' could be true; short supply of cameras altogether, Apple wanting to get 'second sales' when they release revision two with a camera, cost considerations relating to the profit margin, etc. ?
Curious... what makes video chat a killer app for tablet computers?
If anything, the tablet form is the least suitable option for video chat. Tablets are handheld computers and as such, screen orientation in relation to the user's head is quite unpredictable. If video chat is to be a killer app, it seems like laptops or desktops would be more suitable.
(Or prehaps even pocket computers. While pocket computers (iPhones) suffer from the same unpredictable orientation, they're at least with users constantly. Thus, the non-optimal form might be reasonable because portability could justify the trade-off. It is the only computing form available much of the time.)
In summary, while video chat will certainly work with tablets, the tablet form provides about the worst video chat experience possible. Imagine trying to not move your hand a single milimeter while video chatting. It is a hugely annoying experience. Just try video chatting with a handheld camera if in doubt. I tried doing so when the iSight first came out. It quickly became apparent that I would need track down some more double sided tape if I was going to video chat on a regular basis. Having to hold the camera was a deal breaker.
Curious... what makes video chat a killer app for tablet computers?
If anything, the tablet form is the least suitable option for video chat. Tablets are handheld computers and as such, screen orientation in relation to the user's head is quite unpredictable. If video chat is to be a killer app, it seems like laptops or desktops would be more suitable.
(Or prehaps even pocket computers. While pocket computers (iPhones) suffer from the same unpredictable orientation, they're at least with users constantly. Thus, the non-optimal form might be reasonable because portability could justify the trade-off. It is the only computing form available much of the time.)
In summary, while video chat will certainly work with tablets, the tablet form provides about the worst video chat experience possible. Imagine trying to not move your hand a single milimeter while video chatting. It is a hugely annoying experience. Just try video chatting with a handheld camera if in doubt. I tried doing so when the iSight first came out. It quickly became apparent that I would need track down some more double sided tape if I was going to video chat on a regular basis. Having to hold the camera was a deal breaker.
Killer App from the standpoint of the average non-computer savvy end user who gets an iPad because they are simple and just work…
The grandparents will love the fact that they can video chat with their grandkids just as easily as making a telephone call…
And Killer App from the standpoint that it is not a desktop or laptop; it is not tied down to a desk or a suitable surface for setting a laptop; although laptops can be carried around while video chatting, the two planes make a laptop more cumbersome than a tablet for doing so…
I say we should all lay to rest this whole handheld tablet not gonna be good for video chat thing. There are already three options for stability while video chatting; the Apple carrying case (which can be oriented to stand upright for viewing movies, and is oddly similar to the orientation of a laptop screen/camera…), the Apple Dock & the Apple Keyboard Dock. I am sure third party vendors will also have goods to offer that allow one to easily prop up the iPad for viewing (and video chatting) pleasure…
And even if one were to hold the iPad in their hands while chatting, it is not like you have to hold it extended out at arms length forever… I chat regular with my kids, and they walk around the house with the laptop, the image is still pretty stable. Cradling the iPad in your arm while sitting would also be okay for chatting. The entire idea that the viewer on the other end is gonna see nothing but nose hairs is ridiculous! For that to happen, you would need to be constantly looking above/over the iPad; in my experience of video chatting with iChat, I find that I tend to actually look at the screen, which means I am also orienting my face towards the same plane as the camera is mounted…
Why didn't they offer a limited app for IMing when there are already plenty of great apps on the App Store?
I don't understand what you are driving at with this response. The argument was that a camera would be a "huge selling point" for the iPad. I asked why, if this so obvious, Apple apparently (at least initially) has passed on the idea.
I don't understand what you are driving at with this response. The argument was that a camera would be a "huge selling point" for the iPad. I asked why, if this so obvious, Apple apparently (at least initially) has passed on the idea.
Based on the wording I thought the focus was on iChat app being simple to add, not that the camera would be simple to add. I was separating a forward-facing camera as being iChat-specific or being named as such when I assume this will just be an API for developers to tie into. Too many threads, too many posts, too much skimming, my fault.