Since the iPod & the iMac all the Apple doomsayers have said that each new product Apple introduced would fail for various reasons such as "too expensive, no floppy drive, no market for, or no flash". Now anytime Apple announces they are going to come out with something new EVERYONE jumps on the band-wagon and tries to copy it or release it first. Give me a break, please come up with something original of your own for crying out loud!!!!
Good riddance, Flash. Flash discriminates against disabled people, amongst other serious problems such as crashing Macs on a regular basis. More details here:
The significance of HP's marketing strategy is that they are chasing the leader. Even with the product not yet on the market, the leader is Apple. It's a very nice problem to have.
Oh, and what about the pinch gesture in the multi-touch. Isn't Apple suing on that right now? Is it possible to own a pinch gesture?
Apple does not nor does anyone have a patent on any kind of gesture. Apple does not even have a patent on pinch-to-zoom/open/close gesture. They have patents on certain touch screen UI mechanisms and designs.
Can's convert Flash to an iPhone app? You will be able to do this soon enough. At Max last year Adobe showed off Flash CS5 with an option to export to iPhone (and , I bet, iPad by the time of release).
I don't think Flash will die, but it will change in some way shape or form. It will have to.
Adobe made mention of not having iPad resolution support at the start but will have it in a subsequent update. I believe the details of the iPad and for Adobe the late availability of the SDK with iPad support didn't give them enough time to include exporting for iPad in the initial release of Packager for iPhone.
I'm disputing it. Like Steve said, Flash is old technology.
So what is this "something" that told you about battery life. . .a little birdie?
Apple didn't spend millions in R&D in designing their own processors to use in conjunction with the iPad and in conjunction with their battery technology, all with the aim of achieving THEIR battery life to yet squander it on allowing Flash to have it literally drained away.
All this precious "competition" will soon learn their respective lessons as their respective gadgets flop.
You're disputing it, but changing the argument. You CANNOT argue that flash is not currently used on websites. The iPad will not display flash, therefore it is an incomplete experience when viewing the web. You can argue all you want that it's dying tech, but it irrelevant as an argument to my statement.
And Apple didn't develop anything. I swear it took more R&D for them to figure out how to stamp a pretty little apple logo on the chip than anything else...
He in lies the problem of Apple showing and telling long before sales started.
Well, Apple really doesn't have a choice about that. It's an FCC issue. The reason both the iPhone and the iPad were announced before they could ship was because Apple had to submit them for FCC approval, which is a public disclosure process. They can't both keep a product under wraps and submit it to the FCC at the same time, so they just announced them when they were sending them in to the FCC.
It's true that doing this gives Apple's competition the opportunity to sweep in and scoop them, as HP is clearly trying to do here. But on the other hand, it gets Apple out in front and lets them capture the public interest. The iPad was on the front pages of newspapers when it was announced, for cryin' out loud. It made the front pages of CNN's, The New York Times' and the Washington Post's Web sites.
So I really don't know whether early announcement is a net gain or loss for Apple. It could go either way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
That tablet is a crystal clear violation of Apple's trademark they were granted a couple of weeks ago.
Apple got a trade dress trademark for the iPad? I totally missed that. Any chance you might happen to have a link to a news story about it? (Not challenging you; I just didn't hear about it before now is all.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gFiz
sadly, HP is right. from a pure web surfing experience, the HP is indisputably superior.
Well … sort of. They've got a strong selling point on the "surf the whole Web" thing. In fact, I seem to remember that Apple hit that same point very hard when they released the iPhone, back when WAP or whatever it was called was still considered a thing.
But HP's argument begs the question of whether Flash is really "part of the Web" or not. Take PDF for example. Lots of PDF documents are posted to the Internet. Is PDF therefore "part of the Web?" What about Microsoft Office documents? I still, bafflingly, run across Word documents, Excel spreadsheets and Powerpoint decks posted to Web sites for download. Are they "part of the Web?"
Apple's taking the position (for a couple reasons at least) that Flash isn't really "part of the Web." It's … like … Web-adjacent. Whether they've got a point, and whether the public at large will agree, remains to be seen.
But the bigger point is this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44
Flash depends heavily on hover, and click and drag. How many flash (games esp., since this is something that cannot be done in HTML5) are actually compatible with a touch interface?
EXACTLY. This is a vital point that many people list. Just this morning I got a link to a little Flash game from a friend, and I spent a minute messing with it. (You throw balls to knock blocks off platforms. It's cute, in a "this amused me for ten minutes" kind of way.) Trouble is, that game had keyboard controls built into it. I might have been able to play the first few levels on a touch interface — it was strictly click-and-drag at first, which can be emulated with gestures. But once I reached the point where the game said "press 'E' to make such-n-such happen," I would have been shit-out-of-luck on an HP slate.
If you think about it, Flash is used pretty much exclusively for four things on the Web today:
1. Video
2. Advertising
3. Casual games
4. As an alternative to HTML and CSS for designing Web pages.
Number four has been on its way out for a long time, and I think we can say that it's effectively dead now. The Virgin America thing (was it America? Virgin Airlines? Whatever) was the highest-profile instance of a Web site owner eschewing Flash in favor of Web standards, but it was hardly the first. We're rapidly reaching the point where #4 will be extinct.
Number one, similarly, is on its way out. Any minute now, the Firefox people are going to wake up and realize that leaving out support for today's universal video delivery codec in favor of one literally nobody has ever used would be an astonishingly stupid idea. "You can't watch Youtube in our browser" is not going to be a very good marketing position. (Though is Firefox a for-profit enterprise? Maybe they don't care about losing market share? I really couldn't say.)
There's already a significant push to move Web advertising away from Flash, for the simple fact that if your customers are on mobile devices without Flash support, they're not seeing your ads, which means you're not getting paid.
That leaves casual gaming. Apple is not stupid; they've thought this through already. They know that casual gaming is a big deal, which is why they've made sure that the iPhone and iPad are both at least generally suitable for developing and distributing casual games. Of course, writing an iPhone game and writing a Flash game are radically different things, but the iPhone and iPad owners don't care about that. If the question is, "Can I play casual games on this?" then Apple's answer is "Yes," and they're betting that's good enough. Seems to have worked out okay for the iPhone so far; we'll see how it scales as the customer base grows.
HP's position, in a nutshell, is, "Our device lets you surf the Web as it was a year ago, even to the point of having games and Web applications fail to function because they expect a mouse and keyboard." Apple's position is, "This is the way the Web is going, and our device is ready for it."
Which one of them will turn out to be right? That's up to about ten million people with credit cards and a few hundred bucks to blow on a pure luxury item. We'll have to wait and see.
Apple wouldn't want to get in the ring with HP. Best sticking to pushing around the small potatoes. Otherwise Apple wouldn't be pussy footing around with HTC, they'd have gone after Google.
That's funny. You compare these two like they're pro wrestlers.
As as company, what does Apple have to fear from HP? If Apple's argument has merit, they'll win. End of story. Doesn't matter what standing the company has in business right now.
As for the HTC comment, it's the hardware manufacturers that have infringed on the patents for the touch interface, not the software maker. Kill the hardware and the software had no where to go.
The significance of HP's marketing strategy is that they are chasing the leader. Even with the product not yet on the market, the leader is Apple. It's a very nice problem to have.
hmm, that's one theory. The other could be that HP has 4x the computing market share, and those users might be more inclined to stay within their brand security, much the same as Apple user do.
That's funny. You compare these two like they're pro wrestlers.
As as company, what does Apple have to fear from HP? If Apple's argument has merit, they'll win. End of story. Doesn't matter what standing the company has in business right now.
As for the HTC comment, it's the hardware manufacturers that have infringed on the patents for the touch interface, not the software maker. Kill the hardware and the software had no where to go.
Again, naive. The majority of lawsuits are settled out of court. In my opinion, and I'm not alone, Apple is being a bit frivolous with their claims of IP ownership. If they went against an HP with a like claim, they know HP can go the distance and can outspend them and might be a little reluctant to throw up a lawsuit just to see if it sticks.
To your other point...please think about that one. Because if you agree with that, then you also agree Apple should have gone after PC vendors and not Microsoft for patent infringement, since if there were no PC's, there would have been no place for Windows. Pick your poison, you can't have both.
No sacrifices? Let’s see how many Flash games are truly playable on that HP device that lacks a mouse. Because games are the long-term reason to demand Flash, not video.
hmm, that's one theory. The other could be that HP has 4x the computing market share, and those users might be more inclined to stay within their brand security, much the same as Apple user do.
I don't see any of the Windows OEMs enjoying much if any brand loyalty. It's not like any of them offer significantly different products from any of the others, or that owners of HP computers go into a store with the thought foremost in their minds of buying another HP computer. Apple is the company offering the differentiated products. No, I think when you see a company going after another company, it's not because the attacker sees themselves a being ahead in the game.
I agree that it is all about battery life. I think that HP will be LUCK to get 2 hours out of it's slate running Win 7. The hardware requirements for Win 7 are just so much higher that the extra energy spent on CPU/GPU will suck the batteries dry faster than iOS.
And that is, of course, if Apple doesn't get a 'cease and desist' order against HP for infringing on the multi-touch metaphor.
Well, to flesh this out a little; with any mobile device, it's not just about battery life. It's about battery life x size x weight
Easy to get better battery life from a device. Just put a bigger battery in it. (and accept the consequences vs. the benefits of that.)
Why do I want a small device to run Windows 7? I already have a laptop running Windows 7.
Don't get me wrong, I was hoping that the iPad was going to be a small device running full blown OS X. I won't lie, at first I was a little disappointed that it wasn't that. The more I thought about it though, I understand why Apple didn't go this route - and this is what sets the iPad apart from the HP Slate.
The iPad is designed from the ground up as a simple to use tablet device with superior touch screen capabilities. The performance will be amazing. The battery life will be amazing and the experience will be amazingly simple. Why? It was designed to be like that from the hardware right up to the software, that's why.
The HP Slate is a tablet designed to run Windows. So you'll get Flash. And Air. And all the problems that come with running a full version of Windows on a tiny, underpowered device (slow performance, short battery life, and a desktop OS with touch tacked on).
I believe that Flash will eventually become a "desktop class" standard and consumer devices like the iPad will make do without. Adobe has already released a Connect Pro app for the iPhone and it works super well. Connect is 100% Flash based on the web - so why can't this be done with things like the beloved Flash based games people are prattling on about? Can's convert Flash to an iPhone app? You will be able to do this soon enough. At Max last year Adobe showed off Flash CS5 with an option to export to iPhone (and , I bet, iPad by the time of release).
I don't think Flash will die, but it will change in some way shape or form. It will have to.
it's not a full version of Windows 7. MS has made Windows more modular so HP is using a smaller version.
It runs Windows 7. What a horrible joke. Imagine using Windows 7 on a touch-only slate and halfway through every interaction you come to the part where the 'touch-optimized' UI ends and the cursor UI begins. Broken.
And where again do I go to buy apps that just work?
And which machine's OS was specifically designed with its own hardware in mind?
And who's coming to market months before the other?
I agree that it is all about battery life. I think that HP will be LUCK to get 2 hours out of it's slate running Win 7. The hardware requirements for Win 7 are just so much higher that the extra energy spent on CPU/GPU will suck the batteries dry faster than iOS.
And that is, of course, if Apple doesn't get a 'cease and desist' order against HP for infringing on the multi-touch metaphor.
my iphone 3GS gets about 3 hours of constant surfing. i saw the youtube video and the Slate looks very nice. Neither the iPad or Slate is perfect and the Slate seems to be a bit slower but i'll take the functionality of the slate compared to a crippled giant ipod for the same price.
Comments
Oh, and what about the pinch gesture in the multi-touch. Isn't Apple suing on that right now? Is it possible to own a pinch gesture?
http://www.flashsucks.org
Nice try, but HTC is the one monetizing the IP violation.
not trying anything... but I think you're being a bit naive
Oh, and what about the pinch gesture in the multi-touch. Isn't Apple suing on that right now? Is it possible to own a pinch gesture?
Apple does not nor does anyone have a patent on any kind of gesture. Apple does not even have a patent on pinch-to-zoom/open/close gesture. They have patents on certain touch screen UI mechanisms and designs.
Can's convert Flash to an iPhone app? You will be able to do this soon enough. At Max last year Adobe showed off Flash CS5 with an option to export to iPhone (and , I bet, iPad by the time of release).
I don't think Flash will die, but it will change in some way shape or form. It will have to.
Adobe made mention of not having iPad resolution support at the start but will have it in a subsequent update. I believe the details of the iPad and for Adobe the late availability of the SDK with iPad support didn't give them enough time to include exporting for iPad in the initial release of Packager for iPhone.
I'm disputing it. Like Steve said, Flash is old technology.
So what is this "something" that told you about battery life. . .a little birdie?
Apple didn't spend millions in R&D in designing their own processors to use in conjunction with the iPad and in conjunction with their battery technology, all with the aim of achieving THEIR battery life to yet squander it on allowing Flash to have it literally drained away.
All this precious "competition" will soon learn their respective lessons as their respective gadgets flop.
You're disputing it, but changing the argument. You CANNOT argue that flash is not currently used on websites. The iPad will not display flash, therefore it is an incomplete experience when viewing the web. You can argue all you want that it's dying tech, but it irrelevant as an argument to my statement.
And Apple didn't develop anything. I swear it took more R&D for them to figure out how to stamp a pretty little apple logo on the chip than anything else...
He in lies the problem of Apple showing and telling long before sales started.
Well, Apple really doesn't have a choice about that. It's an FCC issue. The reason both the iPhone and the iPad were announced before they could ship was because Apple had to submit them for FCC approval, which is a public disclosure process. They can't both keep a product under wraps and submit it to the FCC at the same time, so they just announced them when they were sending them in to the FCC.
It's true that doing this gives Apple's competition the opportunity to sweep in and scoop them, as HP is clearly trying to do here. But on the other hand, it gets Apple out in front and lets them capture the public interest. The iPad was on the front pages of newspapers when it was announced, for cryin' out loud. It made the front pages of CNN's, The New York Times' and the Washington Post's Web sites.
So I really don't know whether early announcement is a net gain or loss for Apple. It could go either way.
That tablet is a crystal clear violation of Apple's trademark they were granted a couple of weeks ago.
Apple got a trade dress trademark for the iPad? I totally missed that. Any chance you might happen to have a link to a news story about it? (Not challenging you; I just didn't hear about it before now is all.)
sadly, HP is right. from a pure web surfing experience, the HP is indisputably superior.
Well … sort of. They've got a strong selling point on the "surf the whole Web" thing. In fact, I seem to remember that Apple hit that same point very hard when they released the iPhone, back when WAP or whatever it was called was still considered a thing.
But HP's argument begs the question of whether Flash is really "part of the Web" or not. Take PDF for example. Lots of PDF documents are posted to the Internet. Is PDF therefore "part of the Web?" What about Microsoft Office documents? I still, bafflingly, run across Word documents, Excel spreadsheets and Powerpoint decks posted to Web sites for download. Are they "part of the Web?"
Apple's taking the position (for a couple reasons at least) that Flash isn't really "part of the Web." It's … like … Web-adjacent. Whether they've got a point, and whether the public at large will agree, remains to be seen.
But the bigger point is this:
Flash depends heavily on hover, and click and drag. How many flash (games esp., since this is something that cannot be done in HTML5) are actually compatible with a touch interface?
EXACTLY. This is a vital point that many people list. Just this morning I got a link to a little Flash game from a friend, and I spent a minute messing with it. (You throw balls to knock blocks off platforms. It's cute, in a "this amused me for ten minutes" kind of way.) Trouble is, that game had keyboard controls built into it. I might have been able to play the first few levels on a touch interface — it was strictly click-and-drag at first, which can be emulated with gestures. But once I reached the point where the game said "press 'E' to make such-n-such happen," I would have been shit-out-of-luck on an HP slate.
If you think about it, Flash is used pretty much exclusively for four things on the Web today:
1. Video
2. Advertising
3. Casual games
4. As an alternative to HTML and CSS for designing Web pages.
Number four has been on its way out for a long time, and I think we can say that it's effectively dead now. The Virgin America thing (was it America? Virgin Airlines? Whatever) was the highest-profile instance of a Web site owner eschewing Flash in favor of Web standards, but it was hardly the first. We're rapidly reaching the point where #4 will be extinct.
Number one, similarly, is on its way out. Any minute now, the Firefox people are going to wake up and realize that leaving out support for today's universal video delivery codec in favor of one literally nobody has ever used would be an astonishingly stupid idea. "You can't watch Youtube in our browser" is not going to be a very good marketing position. (Though is Firefox a for-profit enterprise? Maybe they don't care about losing market share? I really couldn't say.)
There's already a significant push to move Web advertising away from Flash, for the simple fact that if your customers are on mobile devices without Flash support, they're not seeing your ads, which means you're not getting paid.
That leaves casual gaming. Apple is not stupid; they've thought this through already. They know that casual gaming is a big deal, which is why they've made sure that the iPhone and iPad are both at least generally suitable for developing and distributing casual games. Of course, writing an iPhone game and writing a Flash game are radically different things, but the iPhone and iPad owners don't care about that. If the question is, "Can I play casual games on this?" then Apple's answer is "Yes," and they're betting that's good enough. Seems to have worked out okay for the iPhone so far; we'll see how it scales as the customer base grows.
HP's position, in a nutshell, is, "Our device lets you surf the Web as it was a year ago, even to the point of having games and Web applications fail to function because they expect a mouse and keyboard." Apple's position is, "This is the way the Web is going, and our device is ready for it."
Which one of them will turn out to be right? That's up to about ten million people with credit cards and a few hundred bucks to blow on a pure luxury item. We'll have to wait and see.
Apple wouldn't want to get in the ring with HP. Best sticking to pushing around the small potatoes. Otherwise Apple wouldn't be pussy footing around with HTC, they'd have gone after Google.
That's funny. You compare these two like they're pro wrestlers.
As as company, what does Apple have to fear from HP? If Apple's argument has merit, they'll win. End of story. Doesn't matter what standing the company has in business right now.
As for the HTC comment, it's the hardware manufacturers that have infringed on the patents for the touch interface, not the software maker. Kill the hardware and the software had no where to go.
The significance of HP's marketing strategy is that they are chasing the leader. Even with the product not yet on the market, the leader is Apple. It's a very nice problem to have.
hmm, that's one theory. The other could be that HP has 4x the computing market share, and those users might be more inclined to stay within their brand security, much the same as Apple user do.
That's funny. You compare these two like they're pro wrestlers.
As as company, what does Apple have to fear from HP? If Apple's argument has merit, they'll win. End of story. Doesn't matter what standing the company has in business right now.
As for the HTC comment, it's the hardware manufacturers that have infringed on the patents for the touch interface, not the software maker. Kill the hardware and the software had no where to go.
Again, naive. The majority of lawsuits are settled out of court. In my opinion, and I'm not alone, Apple is being a bit frivolous with their claims of IP ownership. If they went against an HP with a like claim, they know HP can go the distance and can outspend them and might be a little reluctant to throw up a lawsuit just to see if it sticks.
To your other point...please think about that one. Because if you agree with that, then you also agree Apple should have gone after PC vendors and not Microsoft for patent infringement, since if there were no PC's, there would have been no place for Windows. Pick your poison, you can't have both.
HP attacks Apple iPad over Flash
I seemed to have missed the part of the article where this happened???
hmm, that's one theory. The other could be that HP has 4x the computing market share, and those users might be more inclined to stay within their brand security, much the same as Apple user do.
I don't see any of the Windows OEMs enjoying much if any brand loyalty. It's not like any of them offer significantly different products from any of the others, or that owners of HP computers go into a store with the thought foremost in their minds of buying another HP computer. Apple is the company offering the differentiated products. No, I think when you see a company going after another company, it's not because the attacker sees themselves a being ahead in the game.
I agree that it is all about battery life. I think that HP will be LUCK to get 2 hours out of it's slate running Win 7. The hardware requirements for Win 7 are just so much higher that the extra energy spent on CPU/GPU will suck the batteries dry faster than iOS.
And that is, of course, if Apple doesn't get a 'cease and desist' order against HP for infringing on the multi-touch metaphor.
Well, to flesh this out a little; with any mobile device, it's not just about battery life. It's about battery life x size x weight
Easy to get better battery life from a device. Just put a bigger battery in it. (and accept the consequences vs. the benefits of that.)
Why do I want a small device to run Windows 7? I already have a laptop running Windows 7.
Don't get me wrong, I was hoping that the iPad was going to be a small device running full blown OS X. I won't lie, at first I was a little disappointed that it wasn't that. The more I thought about it though, I understand why Apple didn't go this route - and this is what sets the iPad apart from the HP Slate.
The iPad is designed from the ground up as a simple to use tablet device with superior touch screen capabilities. The performance will be amazing. The battery life will be amazing and the experience will be amazingly simple. Why? It was designed to be like that from the hardware right up to the software, that's why.
The HP Slate is a tablet designed to run Windows. So you'll get Flash. And Air. And all the problems that come with running a full version of Windows on a tiny, underpowered device (slow performance, short battery life, and a desktop OS with touch tacked on).
I believe that Flash will eventually become a "desktop class" standard and consumer devices like the iPad will make do without. Adobe has already released a Connect Pro app for the iPhone and it works super well. Connect is 100% Flash based on the web - so why can't this be done with things like the beloved Flash based games people are prattling on about? Can's convert Flash to an iPhone app? You will be able to do this soon enough. At Max last year Adobe showed off Flash CS5 with an option to export to iPhone (and , I bet, iPad by the time of release).
I don't think Flash will die, but it will change in some way shape or form. It will have to.
it's not a full version of Windows 7. MS has made Windows more modular so HP is using a smaller version.
just as the "arrogance" of the dinosaurs spelled their doom ages ago.
I'm having trouble following you, would you care to explain?
And where again do I go to buy apps that just work?
And which machine's OS was specifically designed with its own hardware in mind?
And who's coming to market months before the other?
What a joke.
I agree that it is all about battery life. I think that HP will be LUCK to get 2 hours out of it's slate running Win 7. The hardware requirements for Win 7 are just so much higher that the extra energy spent on CPU/GPU will suck the batteries dry faster than iOS.
And that is, of course, if Apple doesn't get a 'cease and desist' order against HP for infringing on the multi-touch metaphor.
my iphone 3GS gets about 3 hours of constant surfing. i saw the youtube video and the Slate looks very nice. Neither the iPad or Slate is perfect and the Slate seems to be a bit slower but i'll take the functionality of the slate compared to a crippled giant ipod for the same price.