Sounds like user error. Those sites work fine on my iPod Touch.
I found a way to bypass Sony flash site, they have a non flash version, but no luck with Honda. I will test a lot more when I am done eating. Safari on the Iphone/Ipod is a great of preview of whats to come indeed
testing lots of sites... lots of problems on lots of features so far, most sites are just partly working. I didnt realize how much flash is used everywhere, unreal.
I found a way to bypass Sony flash site, they have a non flash version, but no luck with Honda. I will test a lot more when I am done eating. Safari on the Iphone/Ipod is a great of preview of whats to come indeed
testing lots of sites... lots of problems on lots of features so far, most sites are just partly working. I didnt realize how much flash is used everywhere, unreal.
Sure, the site might work, but with much reduced functionality.
It's not much surprise to me. I use flash blocking software as a matter of habit, I don't like animation trying to distract me from reading. As far as I'm concerned, for text & still image content, it has to be text ads or still images or it hits the curb.
The player is proprietary on the iPhone, but it could play in the browser if Apple wanted it to. The design makes sense for a 3.5" phone. Don't confuse that optimal choice as a requirement. HTML5 and H.264 are supported by WebKit and HTML5 and Ogg are supported by Gecko.
Most, not all Android phones will get it, at least not right away. Then there is the elephant in the room: resource usage. I don't expect many phones to be able to play any Hulu or YouTube video in Flash.
People are confusing a move to lightweight open standards for video streaming with a move from Flash altogether. Flash is going nowhere for a very long time, but Flash will be losing marketshare in video streaming from here on out.
I use over 40% with Flash (10.0) video streaming at 480p from YouTube on a 2.4GHz MBP. With HTML5 Beta I use about 12%. The hit to a MBP battery alone even if you can stream it is severe. Imagine a tiny phone battery in comparison.
I tried Flash 10.1 beta when it first came out. It was unstable and without HW acceleration it was not worth it. I'll give it another try.
I can see a battery issue on the phones and possibly the iPad. I can only stream 480p from Hulu for about 3.5hours on my Macbook Pro 2.66 with the GT card turned off. If I turn the GT card on it drops to about 2hr. If I just do normal web surfing with the occasional Flash video it last for about 5hr. I have noticed that the fan in my Little MacMini (2Ghz 2GB of Ram ) never turns on when I am simply playing Flash content from Hulu, ABC, CBS, etc... I have it hooked to a 52" 1080p TV via the digital video port at the native 1080p resolution ( looks great by the way ) The only time the fan turns on is when I play a DVD. I did put the beta of Flash 10.1 on it...
Even though it might run the battery down on a phone or iPad. I still do not like the idea of "Daddy" deciding for me what I can and can't see. I think I am intelligent enough to decide for my self if a flash video is worth the loss of battery life. That is my main issue with Apple refusing to allow it on their platforms and why I wont buy one. A simple click to view App should eliminate any reasonable argument that Apple could have against allowing flash on their devices.
I also do NOT like the idea that we have to have a special app to view every video site out there. That just seems silly and counter productive in my opinion.
From what I have read, all releases ( assuming Adobe finally release them) of Flash 10.1 are supposed to support hardware acceleration. I guess we will see what happens on Monday or Tuesday....
As for HTML5, I hope that it does eliminate the need for flash. I just don't what to be forced to live without most of the video content on the web for the next few years while the transition takes place.
I can see a battery issue on the phones and possibly the iPad. I can only stream 480p from Hulu for about 3.5hours on my Macbook Pro 2.66 with the GT card turned off. If I turn the GT card on it drops to about 2hr. If I just do normal web surfing with the occasional Flash video it last for about 5hr. I have noticed that the fan in my Little MacMini (2Ghz 2GB of Ram ) never turns on when I am simply playing Flash content from Hulu, ABC, CBS, etc... I have it hooked to a 52" 1080p TV via the digital video port at the native 1080p resolution ( looks great by the way ) The only time the fan turns on is when I play a DVD. I did put the beta of Flash 10.1 on it...
You have a 2.66GHz not a 400-600MHz ARM processor, like in the iPhones yet your battery still takes a huge tumble from just playing video on a website. Do you YouTube comparisons with HTML5 turned on (www.youtube.com/html5), but first install iStat Menus (www.islayer.com/apps/istatmenus) with CPU and Temp in the Menu Bar.
Your fans are on, just because you can't hear them as easily liek with cheaper machines isn't not any indication. The Temp will tell you your fan RPMs.
Quote:
Even though it might run the battery down on a phone or iPad. I still do not like the idea of "Daddy" deciding for me what I can and can't see. I think I am intelligent enough to decide for my self if a flash video is worth the loss of battery life. That is my main issue with Apple refusing to allow it on their platforms and why I wont buy one. A simple click to view App should eliminate any reasonable argument that Apple could have against allowing flash on their devices.
Apple isn't deciding what you can and can't see, Apple is deciding what they want to support. You are under no obligation to buy an iPad if it doesn't suit your needs. I'm not buying one.
They wish to market their device with a fast browser and long battery life but they lose out if they start adding everything that everybody wants instead of what they want. If you don't like it, dob't buy it. If enough people don't buy it because they can't play videos with Flash then Apple will have to reevaluate their product. It's that simple.
Quote:
I also do NOT like the idea that we have to have a special app to view every video site out there. That just seems silly and counter productive in my opinion.
So you 1/2" x 1/2" image of a video in a webpage, so you click it and plays as a 1/2" x 1/2" video. How to have controls on that? Is the user suppose to keep pinching until it's an ideal size that fits perfectly with the display size? You would that dynamic sizing from within the Safari window effect performance? I bet it wouldn't be good. It's a 3.5" display, it's the only option that makes sense.
Quote:
From what I have read, all releases ( assuming Adobe finally release them) of Flash 10.1 are supposed to support hardware acceleration. I guess we will see what happens on Monday or Tuesday....
For Windows, Android and WebOS they will, but not for Mac OS X. But note that just having Flash on your smartphone will allow you to play streaming video through Flash on your smartphone.
Quote:
As for HTML5, I hope that it does eliminate the need for flash. I just don't what to be forced to live without most of the video content on the web for the next few years while the transition takes place
Again, this is not about HTML5 eliminating the need for Flash. HTML5 with JavaScript and CSS can't even touch most of what Flash can do and the ease in which developers can do it. And when you start to get into the newer complex HTML5 like Canvas and CSS Animations you start to get very processor intensive that meets or beats Flash. This is about Flash delivering video. That is all!
Even on my 2.66GHz C2D MacBook Pro you see the battery drop because the processors are tasked. HTML5 video streaming eliminates a lot of this. Then think about how much slower an ARM processor is. This is the end of the road for Flash as the de facto way we stream video on the web. It's a long road, but it's still all downhill for Flash video streaming marketshare.
HTML 5 is not a standard, and there is no worldwide standards body. Even the W3C is not a standards body - it makes recommendations, but can't impose or enforce any standards (look at MSIE for an example). A lot of people on here get really riled up about standards! standards! when there really aren't many other than the ones that have evolved out of practice and usage.
Yes HTML5 is a standard created by the W3C. There can be more than one standards body. No, the W3C cannot force anyone to follow it. But then no one can force anyone else to follow any standard in the consumer electronics industry.
It becomes a matter of practicality that everyone agrees on some type of interoperability because its impossible for every company to create everything. So everyone agrees to some type of standard to lower costs and allow every computer to use the same peripherals and information infrastructure.
Quote:
HTML 5 is a proposed specification being written by The Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (WHATWG), which is made up of people from Apple, Mozilla, and Opera. Combined these companies have less than half the browser market share, the firefox browser having the vast majority of this groups share - apple and opera being the 2 smallest mainstream browsers on the web.
Yes but at one time IE held over 90% of the browser market share and was able to dominate the way the internet was developed. Apple, Mozilla, and Opera (Chrome too) have worked to shrink IE market share 30%. This collective has been able to force the web to stop developing exclusively for IE and begin to follow W3C standards.
That was a huge accomplishment.
Quote:
Microsoft opted not to join this group and has not implemented html 5 recommendations into its browsers, which have the other half of the browser market share. They have not indicated that they even plan to in the future. Microsoft can, if not kill HTML 5, at least hold it hostage for a long time.
Primarily the reason IE still holds a dominant market share is mostly because of the hundreds of millions of old Windows computers running IE6. As those computers are slowly retired the newer versions of IE are not making up the difference. Many web services are dropping support of IE6. That's the reason why IE market share is eroding.
What you also don't factor into the equation is that mobile web devices will soon outsell and out number desktop computers. Mobile devices will eventually become the dominant way most people access the web. The best mobile web browsers of today are built on HTML5, web developers are building tools for these browser based on HTML5. IE has little to no presence on the mobile web.
Quote:
HTML 5 is barely implemented in the browsers that support it and not at all implemented in over half the browsers on the web. It is not a foregone conclusion, and its certainly not a standard.
Elements of HTML5 are being adopted as soon as they become viably usable. Its true that all browsers do not support everything exactly the same way. But ultimately they all have the same goal to meet in the end.
Quote:
Web developers do not want to go back to developing and maintaining multiple sites for multiple browsers. Flash solved a lot of these problems especially when it comes to delivering video content. Flash works in all of the mainstream browsers (except the mobile version of safari), which means that content providers that want to deliver video can reach in the high 95+% of all browsers using flash. Right now, flash is still the best choice for delivering video on the web. You can reach the most people with the least development cost.
Right now the full version of Flash doesn't work in any mobile browser.
Flash did solve compatibility problems of years ago. But it causes other problems and is just not a good technology for our future needs. There is no problem today delivering video without Flash. Any media framework can play H.264 without Flash. That's the way video on mobile devices is delivered right now.
Quote:
It's great that HULU is working on this - not being able to get sites like hulu and netflix is a deal-breaker for me getting an iPad.
In light of the fact that you cannot currently watch Hulu or Netflix on any mobile device, I guess they are all deal breakers for you.
Even though it might run the battery down on a phone or iPad. I still do not like the idea of "Daddy" deciding for me what I can and can't see. I think I am intelligent enough to decide for my self if a flash video is worth the loss of battery life. That is my main issue with Apple refusing to allow it on their platforms and why I wont buy one. A simple click to view App should eliminate any reasonable argument that Apple could have against allowing flash on their devices.
Apple isn't deciding what you get to see. Anyone is free to deliver HTML5 or H.264 content.
Quote:
I also do NOT like the idea that we have to have a special app to view every video site out there. That just seems silly and counter productive in my opinion.
This is a bit confusing because in this situation Flash is the special app needed to run every video that is wrapped in Flash.
HTML5 and H.264 are free to run on any browser without any special plug ins.
Sure, sure Sol. I want to see if you can hold this stance after we see iPhone OS 4 and all of the great iPad apps...
It's not a hard fast rule, but it is the truth today based on the available info for the iPad. The price is right but it serves no need between my iPhone and 13" MBP life. iPhone OS 4.0 may change that. I have been buying a new Mac and iPhone every year so it's not the cost or principle, it's simply usefulness. I am likely getting a 15" MBP net so the window for the iPad will likely open up a bit. We'll have to see, but today I have no interest in buying one.
Again, getting back to the original claim, I ask, what did Apple add to the development of the mouse?
They added the mouse, which made MS scurry to add the mouse, which eventually led to GUIs other OSes. They set the standard for the industry. It's pretty fraking simple.
Now you're changing it up again to "add to the development of the mouse" (though I guess that is still an improvement over your last query). For additional development, just look to the multi-touch MM of the trackpad. There is your "addition" though that was never part of the original statement.
Apple took the mouse from obscurity (unknown, inconspicuous, or unimportant) and showed everyone it was a viable (capable of working successfully) input device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Again, getting back to the original claim, I ask, what did Apple add to the development of the mouse?
I'm also waiting to see what the iPad offers. I was seriously considering buying an iPod Touch because there are just too many apps on my phone. There are so many productive apps I can use on my phone that its becoming too much on one device.
I want my phone to primarily be a communications device. I've gotten to the point where I want another device for my work. The iPad may work perfectly for me. When I'm working I won't have to carry my MBP all the time, which I don't really like doing. I'd rather risk sacrificing a $500 tablet than a $3000 notebook.
One major advantage is the ability to download and view still photos while I'm out in the field. I secretly wish the iPad were able to download and playback compressed 1080 video from an SLR. I doubt it will be able to, but that would greatly help me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
It's not a hard fast rule, but it is the truth today based on the available info for the iPad.
I'm also waiting to see what the iPad offers. I was seriously considering buying an iPod Touch because there are just too many apps on my phone. There are so many productive apps I can use on my phone that its becoming too much on one device.
I want my phone to primarily be a communications device. I've gotten to the point where I want another device for my work. The iPad may work perfectly for me. When I'm working I won't have to carry my MBP all the time, which I don't really like doing. I'd rather risk sacrificing a $500 tablet than a $3000 notebook.
One major advantage is the ability to download and view still photos while I'm out in the field. I secretly wish the iPad were able to download and playback compressed 1080 video from an SLR. I doubt it will be able to, but that would greatly help me.
I know, but after reading your post I realized that if it ever does suit my needs there may be a poster or two here that might claim that I was never going to buy one. I figure a record wouldn't be a bad thing.
If they can ever get magazine and newspaper subscriptions on the iPad, that are delivered automatically so they are there waiting for like they are at your doorstep or mailbox I'll buy one.
If they offer a way for students to have physical book annotations so I can replace physical books I'll buy one. (most of what I read is "sciency" and I like to write in my books.
There is also the chance that something with iPhoen OS 4.0 or a 3rd-party could clinch the deal for me. This rumour is a good start, but it's still just a rumour.
Apple took the mouse from obscurity (unknown, inconspicuous, or unimportant) and showed everyone it was a viable (capable of working successfully) input device.
Again, what you just said doesn't match the statement the original person made, they didn't develop an industry standard, or define an industry stardard, in fact the mouse Apple developed (the one button mouse) is dead now.
They added the mouse, which made MS scurry to add the mouse, which eventually led to GUIs other OSes. They set the standard for the industry. It's pretty fraking simple.
Now you're changing it up again to "add to the development of the mouse" (though I guess that is still an improvement over your last query). For additional development, just look to the multi-touch MM of the trackpad. There is your "addition" though that was never part of the original statement.
Still making things up I see. The mouse is over 40 years old, how was adding multi-touch to a mouse in 2009 aiding the development of a standard was you claimed was introduced with the originial Macintosh released some 25 years ago? Well, maybe it was the simplification of the mouse buttons to one that they developed, but it wasn't really popular, and didn't really set the standard for the mouse in that regard.
HTML5: We also include the link to our 43 previously released Cross-Document messaging and DOM storage tests that we developed against the draft-phase HTML5 specification. These tests also include changes since the Internet Explorer 8 Release Candidate based on feedback from the development community. The W3C HTML Working Group currently does not have an official test suite, hence we are putting them on this site. We will formally submit these tests when the working group establishes an official HTML5 test suite. Please provide any feedback on these tests to the working group's mailing list ([email protected]).
I guess Microsoft didn't like being pushed along by Frame, Google's WebKit based plug in for IE.
Adobe Flash™ can be dumped in the recycle bin... err, trash.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdyates
Microsoft opted not to join this group and has not implemented html 5 recommendations into its browsers, which have the other half of the browser market share. They have not indicated that they even plan to in the future. Microsoft can, if not kill HTML 5, at least hold it hostage for a long time.
What exactly do you think setting a standard is? Before Apple used the mouse on the Macintosh no one really used it, today it would be impossible to use a computer without a mouse.
Who uses the same mouse they used nearly 30 years ago? Every mouse from that time is dead now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Again, what you just said doesn't match the statement the original person made, they didn't develop an industry standard, or define an industry stardard, in fact the mouse Apple developed (the one button mouse) is dead now.
Comments
Sounds like user error. Those sites work fine on my iPod Touch.
I found a way to bypass Sony flash site, they have a non flash version, but no luck with Honda. I will test a lot more when I am done eating. Safari on the Iphone/Ipod is a great of preview of whats to come indeed
testing lots of sites... lots of problems on lots of features so far, most sites are just partly working. I didnt realize how much flash is used everywhere, unreal.
I found a way to bypass Sony flash site, they have a non flash version, but no luck with Honda. I will test a lot more when I am done eating. Safari on the Iphone/Ipod is a great of preview of whats to come indeed
testing lots of sites... lots of problems on lots of features so far, most sites are just partly working. I didnt realize how much flash is used everywhere, unreal.
Sure, the site might work, but with much reduced functionality.
It's not much surprise to me. I use flash blocking software as a matter of habit, I don't like animation trying to distract me from reading. As far as I'm concerned, for text & still image content, it has to be text ads or still images or it hits the curb.
The player is proprietary on the iPhone, but it could play in the browser if Apple wanted it to. The design makes sense for a 3.5" phone. Don't confuse that optimal choice as a requirement. HTML5 and H.264 are supported by WebKit and HTML5 and Ogg are supported by Gecko.
Most, not all Android phones will get it, at least not right away. Then there is the elephant in the room: resource usage. I don't expect many phones to be able to play any Hulu or YouTube video in Flash.
People are confusing a move to lightweight open standards for video streaming with a move from Flash altogether. Flash is going nowhere for a very long time, but Flash will be losing marketshare in video streaming from here on out.
I use over 40% with Flash (10.0) video streaming at 480p from YouTube on a 2.4GHz MBP. With HTML5 Beta I use about 12%. The hit to a MBP battery alone even if you can stream it is severe. Imagine a tiny phone battery in comparison.
I tried Flash 10.1 beta when it first came out. It was unstable and without HW acceleration it was not worth it. I'll give it another try.
I can see a battery issue on the phones and possibly the iPad. I can only stream 480p from Hulu for about 3.5hours on my Macbook Pro 2.66 with the GT card turned off. If I turn the GT card on it drops to about 2hr. If I just do normal web surfing with the occasional Flash video it last for about 5hr. I have noticed that the fan in my Little MacMini (2Ghz 2GB of Ram ) never turns on when I am simply playing Flash content from Hulu, ABC, CBS, etc... I have it hooked to a 52" 1080p TV via the digital video port at the native 1080p resolution ( looks great by the way ) The only time the fan turns on is when I play a DVD. I did put the beta of Flash 10.1 on it...
Even though it might run the battery down on a phone or iPad. I still do not like the idea of "Daddy" deciding for me what I can and can't see. I think I am intelligent enough to decide for my self if a flash video is worth the loss of battery life. That is my main issue with Apple refusing to allow it on their platforms and why I wont buy one. A simple click to view App should eliminate any reasonable argument that Apple could have against allowing flash on their devices.
I also do NOT like the idea that we have to have a special app to view every video site out there. That just seems silly and counter productive in my opinion.
From what I have read, all releases ( assuming Adobe finally release them) of Flash 10.1 are supposed to support hardware acceleration. I guess we will see what happens on Monday or Tuesday....
As for HTML5, I hope that it does eliminate the need for flash. I just don't what to be forced to live without most of the video content on the web for the next few years while the transition takes place.
I can see a battery issue on the phones and possibly the iPad. I can only stream 480p from Hulu for about 3.5hours on my Macbook Pro 2.66 with the GT card turned off. If I turn the GT card on it drops to about 2hr. If I just do normal web surfing with the occasional Flash video it last for about 5hr. I have noticed that the fan in my Little MacMini (2Ghz 2GB of Ram ) never turns on when I am simply playing Flash content from Hulu, ABC, CBS, etc... I have it hooked to a 52" 1080p TV via the digital video port at the native 1080p resolution ( looks great by the way ) The only time the fan turns on is when I play a DVD. I did put the beta of Flash 10.1 on it...
You have a 2.66GHz not a 400-600MHz ARM processor, like in the iPhones yet your battery still takes a huge tumble from just playing video on a website. Do you YouTube comparisons with HTML5 turned on (www.youtube.com/html5), but first install iStat Menus (www.islayer.com/apps/istatmenus) with CPU and Temp in the Menu Bar.
Your fans are on, just because you can't hear them as easily liek with cheaper machines isn't not any indication. The Temp will tell you your fan RPMs.
Even though it might run the battery down on a phone or iPad. I still do not like the idea of "Daddy" deciding for me what I can and can't see. I think I am intelligent enough to decide for my self if a flash video is worth the loss of battery life. That is my main issue with Apple refusing to allow it on their platforms and why I wont buy one. A simple click to view App should eliminate any reasonable argument that Apple could have against allowing flash on their devices.
Apple isn't deciding what you can and can't see, Apple is deciding what they want to support. You are under no obligation to buy an iPad if it doesn't suit your needs. I'm not buying one.
They wish to market their device with a fast browser and long battery life but they lose out if they start adding everything that everybody wants instead of what they want. If you don't like it, dob't buy it. If enough people don't buy it because they can't play videos with Flash then Apple will have to reevaluate their product. It's that simple.
I also do NOT like the idea that we have to have a special app to view every video site out there. That just seems silly and counter productive in my opinion.
So you 1/2" x 1/2" image of a video in a webpage, so you click it and plays as a 1/2" x 1/2" video. How to have controls on that? Is the user suppose to keep pinching until it's an ideal size that fits perfectly with the display size? You would that dynamic sizing from within the Safari window effect performance? I bet it wouldn't be good. It's a 3.5" display, it's the only option that makes sense.
From what I have read, all releases ( assuming Adobe finally release them) of Flash 10.1 are supposed to support hardware acceleration. I guess we will see what happens on Monday or Tuesday....
For Windows, Android and WebOS they will, but not for Mac OS X. But note that just having Flash on your smartphone will allow you to play streaming video through Flash on your smartphone.
As for HTML5, I hope that it does eliminate the need for flash. I just don't what to be forced to live without most of the video content on the web for the next few years while the transition takes place
Again, this is not about HTML5 eliminating the need for Flash. HTML5 with JavaScript and CSS can't even touch most of what Flash can do and the ease in which developers can do it. And when you start to get into the newer complex HTML5 like Canvas and CSS Animations you start to get very processor intensive that meets or beats Flash. This is about Flash delivering video. That is all!
Even on my 2.66GHz C2D MacBook Pro you see the battery drop because the processors are tasked. HTML5 video streaming eliminates a lot of this. Then think about how much slower an ARM processor is. This is the end of the road for Flash as the de facto way we stream video on the web. It's a long road, but it's still all downhill for Flash video streaming marketshare.
Again, what did Apple add to the development of the mouse to make it an industry standard?
HTML 5 is not a standard, and there is no worldwide standards body. Even the W3C is not a standards body - it makes recommendations, but can't impose or enforce any standards (look at MSIE for an example). A lot of people on here get really riled up about standards! standards! when there really aren't many other than the ones that have evolved out of practice and usage.
Yes HTML5 is a standard created by the W3C. There can be more than one standards body. No, the W3C cannot force anyone to follow it. But then no one can force anyone else to follow any standard in the consumer electronics industry.
It becomes a matter of practicality that everyone agrees on some type of interoperability because its impossible for every company to create everything. So everyone agrees to some type of standard to lower costs and allow every computer to use the same peripherals and information infrastructure.
HTML 5 is a proposed specification being written by The Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (WHATWG), which is made up of people from Apple, Mozilla, and Opera. Combined these companies have less than half the browser market share, the firefox browser having the vast majority of this groups share - apple and opera being the 2 smallest mainstream browsers on the web.
Yes but at one time IE held over 90% of the browser market share and was able to dominate the way the internet was developed. Apple, Mozilla, and Opera (Chrome too) have worked to shrink IE market share 30%. This collective has been able to force the web to stop developing exclusively for IE and begin to follow W3C standards.
That was a huge accomplishment.
Microsoft opted not to join this group and has not implemented html 5 recommendations into its browsers, which have the other half of the browser market share. They have not indicated that they even plan to in the future. Microsoft can, if not kill HTML 5, at least hold it hostage for a long time.
Primarily the reason IE still holds a dominant market share is mostly because of the hundreds of millions of old Windows computers running IE6. As those computers are slowly retired the newer versions of IE are not making up the difference. Many web services are dropping support of IE6. That's the reason why IE market share is eroding.
What you also don't factor into the equation is that mobile web devices will soon outsell and out number desktop computers. Mobile devices will eventually become the dominant way most people access the web. The best mobile web browsers of today are built on HTML5, web developers are building tools for these browser based on HTML5. IE has little to no presence on the mobile web.
HTML 5 is barely implemented in the browsers that support it and not at all implemented in over half the browsers on the web. It is not a foregone conclusion, and its certainly not a standard.
Elements of HTML5 are being adopted as soon as they become viably usable. Its true that all browsers do not support everything exactly the same way. But ultimately they all have the same goal to meet in the end.
Web developers do not want to go back to developing and maintaining multiple sites for multiple browsers. Flash solved a lot of these problems especially when it comes to delivering video content. Flash works in all of the mainstream browsers (except the mobile version of safari), which means that content providers that want to deliver video can reach in the high 95+% of all browsers using flash. Right now, flash is still the best choice for delivering video on the web. You can reach the most people with the least development cost.
Right now the full version of Flash doesn't work in any mobile browser.
Flash did solve compatibility problems of years ago. But it causes other problems and is just not a good technology for our future needs. There is no problem today delivering video without Flash. Any media framework can play H.264 without Flash. That's the way video on mobile devices is delivered right now.
It's great that HULU is working on this - not being able to get sites like hulu and netflix is a deal-breaker for me getting an iPad.
In light of the fact that you cannot currently watch Hulu or Netflix on any mobile device, I guess they are all deal breakers for you.
Even though it might run the battery down on a phone or iPad. I still do not like the idea of "Daddy" deciding for me what I can and can't see. I think I am intelligent enough to decide for my self if a flash video is worth the loss of battery life. That is my main issue with Apple refusing to allow it on their platforms and why I wont buy one. A simple click to view App should eliminate any reasonable argument that Apple could have against allowing flash on their devices.
Apple isn't deciding what you get to see. Anyone is free to deliver HTML5 or H.264 content.
I also do NOT like the idea that we have to have a special app to view every video site out there. That just seems silly and counter productive in my opinion.
This is a bit confusing because in this situation Flash is the special app needed to run every video that is wrapped in Flash.
HTML5 and H.264 are free to run on any browser without any special plug ins.
You are under no obligation to buy an iPad if it doesn't suit your needs. I'm not buying one.
Sure, sure Sol. I want to see if you can hold this stance after we see iPhone OS 4 and all of the great iPad apps...
It's not a hard fast rule, but it is the truth today based on the available info for the iPad. The price is right but it serves no need between my iPhone and 13" MBP life. iPhone OS 4.0 may change that. I have been buying a new Mac and iPhone every year so it's not the cost or principle, it's simply usefulness. I am likely getting a 15" MBP net so the window for the iPad will likely open up a bit. We'll have to see, but today I have no interest in buying one.
Before the Macintosh the mouse was an obscure input device, after the Macintosh everyone used the mouse as an input device.
Again, getting back to the original claim, I ask, what did Apple add to the development of the mouse?
Again, getting back to the original claim, I ask, what did Apple add to the development of the mouse?
They added the mouse, which made MS scurry to add the mouse, which eventually led to GUIs other OSes. They set the standard for the industry. It's pretty fraking simple.
Now you're changing it up again to "add to the development of the mouse" (though I guess that is still an improvement over your last query). For additional development, just look to the multi-touch MM of the trackpad. There is your "addition" though that was never part of the original statement.
Again, getting back to the original claim, I ask, what did Apple add to the development of the mouse?
I'm also waiting to see what the iPad offers. I was seriously considering buying an iPod Touch because there are just too many apps on my phone. There are so many productive apps I can use on my phone that its becoming too much on one device.
I want my phone to primarily be a communications device. I've gotten to the point where I want another device for my work. The iPad may work perfectly for me. When I'm working I won't have to carry my MBP all the time, which I don't really like doing. I'd rather risk sacrificing a $500 tablet than a $3000 notebook.
One major advantage is the ability to download and view still photos while I'm out in the field. I secretly wish the iPad were able to download and playback compressed 1080 video from an SLR. I doubt it will be able to, but that would greatly help me.
It's not a hard fast rule, but it is the truth today based on the available info for the iPad.
I'm just messing with you.
I'm also waiting to see what the iPad offers. I was seriously considering buying an iPod Touch because there are just too many apps on my phone. There are so many productive apps I can use on my phone that its becoming too much on one device.
I want my phone to primarily be a communications device. I've gotten to the point where I want another device for my work. The iPad may work perfectly for me. When I'm working I won't have to carry my MBP all the time, which I don't really like doing. I'd rather risk sacrificing a $500 tablet than a $3000 notebook.
One major advantage is the ability to download and view still photos while I'm out in the field. I secretly wish the iPad were able to download and playback compressed 1080 video from an SLR. I doubt it will be able to, but that would greatly help me.
I know, but after reading your post I realized that if it ever does suit my needs there may be a poster or two here that might claim that I was never going to buy one. I figure a record wouldn't be a bad thing.
If they can ever get magazine and newspaper subscriptions on the iPad, that are delivered automatically so they are there waiting for like they are at your doorstep or mailbox I'll buy one.
If they offer a way for students to have physical book annotations so I can replace physical books I'll buy one. (most of what I read is "sciency" and I like to write in my books.
There is also the chance that something with iPhoen OS 4.0 or a 3rd-party could clinch the deal for me. This rumour is a good start, but it's still just a rumour.
Apple took the mouse from obscurity (unknown, inconspicuous, or unimportant) and showed everyone it was a viable (capable of working successfully) input device.
Again, what you just said doesn't match the statement the original person made, they didn't develop an industry standard, or define an industry stardard, in fact the mouse Apple developed (the one button mouse) is dead now.
They added the mouse, which made MS scurry to add the mouse, which eventually led to GUIs other OSes. They set the standard for the industry. It's pretty fraking simple.
Now you're changing it up again to "add to the development of the mouse" (though I guess that is still an improvement over your last query). For additional development, just look to the multi-touch MM of the trackpad. There is your "addition" though that was never part of the original statement.
Still making things up I see. The mouse is over 40 years old, how was adding multi-touch to a mouse in 2009 aiding the development of a standard was you claimed was introduced with the originial Macintosh released some 25 years ago? Well, maybe it was the simplification of the mouse buttons to one that they developed, but it wasn't really popular, and didn't really set the standard for the mouse in that regard.
HTML5: We also include the link to our 43 previously released Cross-Document messaging and DOM storage tests that we developed against the draft-phase HTML5 specification. These tests also include changes since the Internet Explorer 8 Release Candidate based on feedback from the development community. The W3C HTML Working Group currently does not have an official test suite, hence we are putting them on this site. We will formally submit these tests when the working group establishes an official HTML5 test suite. Please provide any feedback on these tests to the working group's mailing list ([email protected]).
SAUCE
I guess Microsoft didn't like being pushed along by Frame, Google's WebKit based plug in for IE.
Adobe Flash™ can be dumped in the recycle bin... err, trash.
Microsoft opted not to join this group and has not implemented html 5 recommendations into its browsers, which have the other half of the browser market share. They have not indicated that they even plan to in the future. Microsoft can, if not kill HTML 5, at least hold it hostage for a long time.
Who uses the same mouse they used nearly 30 years ago? Every mouse from that time is dead now.
Again, what you just said doesn't match the statement the original person made, they didn't develop an industry standard, or define an industry stardard, in fact the mouse Apple developed (the one button mouse) is dead now.
So what's this, then?
SAUCE
I guess Microsoft didn't like being pushed along by Frame, Google's WebKit based plug in for IE.
Adobe Flash? can be dumped in the recycle bin... err, trash.
Hixie posted on his blog today about some internal changes from Adobe.