I just wish all the criticism about not being able to change font size was applied by the author to its own blog RDM. It is a pain to use that site on the iPhone.
I don't read the author's blog any more. I am a great Apple fan, but find him over-the-top pro-Apple and anti-MS/Google/Adobe... whomever suits his current whim. Further, while some of his research is excellent, he tends to overlook/minimize things that don't jibe with his opinion... and often cites himself for reference!
That said, you certainly can read any web site on your iPhone and pinch-zoom the page (enlarging the fonts).
I think what you are asking for is: to enlarge the font and reflow the text so that it stays within the width of the display-- so you only need to scroll in the up/down axis.
I too, would like that capability. But, I think [for web pages] it is the responsibility of the browser (Mobile Safari) to provide that capability, globally.
For the iPad it makes sense for the OS to provide content-neutral pinch zoom and pan... And for the app to provide content-intelligent text resize and reflow... as well as font selection, text color, background color, contrast/brightness. Some things look great in print... not so much on a backlit LCD display.
The wired app/mag is a totally un-interactive experience. Seriously if that is what they think interactivity should be, they have missed the point.
Take a look at the sports illustrated demo, Time mag ipad video or website or even the wonder factory / woodwing sites to see how interactivity should be on these types of devices. The last 2 are the guys who made the SI/time demos work via HTML5. Woodwing actually appear to sell tools specifically designed to create this kind of content.
The time app is how this type of mag should be done. HTML5 dynamic content that is highly interactive, in app purchase for new issues and a file size that's actually manageable! Here's how they made it.
Yes, this stuff makes the Wired/Adobe effort look like a sorry joke.
THERE IS NO FLASH APPLICATION (SOFTWARE) FOR THE IPHONE. THREE YEARS AND ADOBE DID ZERO.
It also needs to be said that we can safely ignore posts from Sue Denim - such anger and contempt shows us clearly that she/he is not hearing or seeing anything but the righteous and silly outrage that characterizes those who have lost the plot.
Print magazines aren't doing well.
They are NOT interactive in any way, don't have sound files, cant be magnified except by physical means such as magnifying glasses.
Print magazines are losing readership, in one sense, because they aren't IMMEDIATE. They are close to being finished.
MAYBE the iPad can save these fools by making their content available immediately, but I doubt it.
If you don't know that Flash doesn't work on mobile devices, then I guess you aren't clear on the next step.
(Dilger, of course, is quite right in his assertions - they were SOLD a pup by Adobe and some fools in their IT dept.)
More to the point, The iPad, the iPhone, the rest of us humans etc. don't need these archaic 'content' delivery 'experts' (Sue Denim is obviously one of them, yawn.)
All we need is the web, and we need it to be accessible from touch screen devices, because thats where the actual customer, the READER (remember him/her?) is going, in increasingly large numbers.
The verity of sources will, as usual, be suspect and the quality of writers, will, as always, be mixed.
So? Thats how it is with published content of any kind.
Newspapers and magazines lost the plot many years ago for a variety of reasons - in magazines case, they forgot who they were selling to and only pandered to advertisers.
The selling price of the object did and does not represent the main income.
Its possible that only advertisers read the most expensive and glossy magazines....
Maybe these mags wont make it to the iPad. So be it. We wont be losing much.
If you really want to allow high-handed content providers like Sue Denim to tell you how to see your world, then you are in danger of not seeing the big picture.
Her/His 'go get 'em tiger' comment is contemptuous of all young people who want to start something new.
That alone makes the Sue Denim diatribes irrelevant.
Makes me laugh when I see any space given to such a pathetic last wag of the tail of a Dinosaur who is sinking into the swamp of change and is NOT aware of it.
Goodbye Sue Denim - we are done with you now.
Hello new young Web world, messy and unfinished and with a chance of showing something better, allowing the great unwashed and even the little washed to have their say, their moment - GO GET THEM, TIGER!!
Maybe the reason Adobe "did nothing" was that from the beginning, Apple's developers agreement strictly forbid third-party code from appearing on the device. They took the smarter approach and developed a method to convert Flash Actionscript to Objective-C (the iPhone programming language) so that it would comply with the developers agreement. Only after Adobe finished it and apps started appearing in the app store did Apple decide that they didn't want that either. So, Apple changed the agreement this Spring to cut Adobe out again.
Learn the facts, cupcake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by walter dithers
It needs to be said louder:
THERE IS NO FLASH APPLICATION (SOFTWARE) FOR THE IPHONE. THREE YEARS AND ADOBE DID ZERO.
And Premiere Pro, and AfterEffects. (And Lightroom and other apps). When is Apple going to fix all their Apps to be 64 and get them off Carbon? I mean it took until 10.6 to get a file browser over (Finder). And they still don't have QuickTime, iTunes, or FinalCut over, not to mention most of the iApps, and so on. Pot, meet kettle.
What you say about Apple apps (32 bit and Carbon) is largley true.
The big mistake Apple made is tightly integrating these app (especially the FCS apps) with QuickTime.
QuickTime is the Gordian Knot that is key for all the apps you mentioned.
Here's a little history of FCS (with a little Adobe and Macromedia thrown in)-- See History:
An interesting comment was made by Steve Jobs in Yesterday's "All Things D" interview, emphasis mine:
Quote:
7:09 pm: What are your thoughts on content creation on the iPad, Walt asks, noting that some people believe tablets aren’t good devices for content creation.
“Well, why wouldn’t they be good for content creation,” asks Jobs. “It can’t be that the software isn’t powerful enough, because the software is improving….These devices over time are going to grow to do new things.”
Yes they should have used pdf and no it would not cost more because it would have been dead simple to export it that way.
After they spent so much time and money on the Flash version they couldn't be talked out of the animated aspects for the kludge version. If they were smart, they would have put together a little free teaser app and then sell the full pdf version inside their app by building in an e-commerce feature within the app. That way it is reusable for next month at almost no cost.
Screw the interactivity and animation in the actual magazine part, That isn't their niche anyway. The template app can have enough flashy pizazz, eye candy whatever to give it an oh wow factor and let the actual magazine content stand on its own merits.
That's a very good idea. The Print publishers could get in the game (quickly and inexpensively) with an attractive front-end, and keep their content [mostly] intact (while exploiting some of the flexibility of the device).
Over time, as the Publishers and Consumers, both, gain experience, the app can be fleshed out to provide an enhanced user experience.
All my dumbass knows is wired's interactive magazine really opened my eyes at the possibility of the future of magazines and how we interact with them. I have a gut feeling about these kinds of things, and it tends to be correct: Interactive magazines WILL be around heavily someday as they streamline the production process.
For additional perspective have a look at the Alice app and the Marvel app...
These are not magazines but show some ways that the Print media can exploit the iPad and vice versa!
I don't read the author's blog any more. I am a great Apple fan, but find him over-the-top pro-Apple and anti-MS/Google/Adobe... whomever suits his current whim. Further, while some of his research is excellent, he tends to overlook/minimize things that don't jibe with his opinion... and often cites himself for reference!
That said, you certainly can read any web site on your iPhone and pinch-zoom the page (enlarging the fonts).
I think what you are asking for is: to enlarge the font and reflow the text so that it stays within the width of the display-- so you only need to scroll in the up/down axis.
I too, would like that capability. But, I think [for web pages] it is the responsibility of the browser (Mobile Safari) to provide that capability, globally.
For the iPad it makes sense for the OS to provide content-neutral pinch zoom and pan... And for the app to provide content-intelligent text resize and reflow... as well as font selection, text color, background color, contrast/brightness. Some things look great in print... not so much on a backlit LCD display.
.
Nop, I don't mean that.
The iPhone version of the blog does not have resize font capability. In contrast, the iPhone version of AI has font resize option. Nothing to do with the pinch and zoom.
Go to the AI website on an iPhone and you'll see at the top of each article two buttons to increase or reduce the font size. Pinch and zoom does not work in these pages.
RDM does not have that option, neither allows pinch and zoom (the iphone version of the site).
Go to the AI website on an iPhone and you'll see at the top of each article two buttons to increase or reduce the font size. Pinch and zoom does not work in these pages.
Could you post a screenshoy?
When I visit the AI web site with an iPhone 3GS (OS 4.0 beta 4) or an iPad (OS 3.2) I see no buttons to resize the fonts.
Sounds like adobe wasn't prepared and this was the best they could do in a week. I can't image this content wouldn't be vector based in the future. I would have assumed they used pdf to get it out the door quick... but whatever.
what i don't get is why anyone actually believed that they could use Flash in any form.
sure before we found out that the ipad was going to be iphone OS based and not Mac OSX. but they had 2 months of knowing that information.
The SDK says Objective C and I believe Javascript are the languages apps should be written in. No where does it say "or use whatever you want and slap a layer of translating code over it and that's fine too". So why did they believe that would be okay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by walter dithers
It needs to be said louder:
THERE IS NO FLASH APPLICATION (SOFTWARE) FOR THE IPHONE. THREE YEARS AND ADOBE DID ZERO.
more to the point, Adobe says "Flash works great on mobile devices" but hasn't achieved that outcome. Yes it works on Android, sort of.
Now if they could get it working and at a level that blows away all the negatives, then it would be easier to say 'Apple is just being a big douche to make money on apps'
Quote:
Goodbye Sue Denim - we are done with you now.
I don't like Sue and several of her 'go girl' pals. I think their opinions are highly biased against Apple etc. HOWEVER I will not, and do not support anyone else, telling Sue or any of them to shut up and go away. there's this thing called Free Speech and as an American I believe that all persons, even those not American should be granted that right. If anyone doesn't want to read their stuff, there's this fun little thing called an ignore button. learn to use it. Or simply just scroll right by.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DizyDevil
Maybe the reason Adobe "did nothing" was that from the beginning, Apple's developers agreement strictly forbid third-party code from appearing on the device.
And that's a major item. Adobe was creating this 'convertor' way before the ipad was in the picture with nothing to support the notion that it was going to be okay. And yet they still did it. and then basically tried to claim that because the agreement didn't say it was forbidden, they were granted approval to do it, etc. sorry but that's shoddy logic
The problem, though, is that the Print industry is dying. The world has moved on, Print has not!
Only for news, where the Internet can't be beat for timeliness.
I just came back from my local book store. It's one of three in my neighborhood, the most recent added last year even in the middle of the recession. It was packed, as always.
Books are more portable (who really reads 100 books at a time?), have a more intuitive interface, never need recharging, and you can't crack the screen by simply putting it into a shoulder bag with any hard objects in it.
More to the point, The iPad, the iPhone, the rest of us humans etc. don't need these archaic 'content' delivery 'experts' (Sue Denim is obviously one of them, yawn.)
Dude, what humans need is enough to eat. Only a small fraction of humanity even owns a computer of any kind at all. Half of the world goes hungry every day, and 99.9% of all school children learn with books.
Yeah, Steve is a visionary and all that, but in the here and now there's definitely a place for the sort of "archaic" content delivery you label as unnecessary. Indeed, it drives most of the world, no matter how many shiny new objects Steve Jobs asks us to buy.
Quote:
Her/His 'go get 'em tiger' comment is contemptuous of all young people who want to start something new.
That alone makes the Sue Denim diatribes irrelevant.
"Sue" being commonly a female name, I'd go with "her".
I didn't see where she made such a comment about "all young people" as you claim, and would venture to guess she's younger than you think.
Sue's only crime is that she's not old enough to be drunk on years of drinking Apple's cider. She says what she thinks, and dares to say it here.
You may disagree with her, but it would serve your case more if you presented arguments of merit rather than mere ad hominem attacks.
Forget html5, who cares (just because Jobs say so?!?)
Still NO 64 bit support for creative suite (only PS) still no 64 bit flash plugin and so on... x64 is more important than some html standard that won't even be around long (if it catches on at all).
What, you mean like the 64bit support in Apple's own Pro apps?
Comments
I just wish all the criticism about not being able to change font size was applied by the author to its own blog RDM. It is a pain to use that site on the iPhone.
I don't read the author's blog any more. I am a great Apple fan, but find him over-the-top pro-Apple and anti-MS/Google/Adobe... whomever suits his current whim. Further, while some of his research is excellent, he tends to overlook/minimize things that don't jibe with his opinion... and often cites himself for reference!
That said, you certainly can read any web site on your iPhone and pinch-zoom the page (enlarging the fonts).
I think what you are asking for is: to enlarge the font and reflow the text so that it stays within the width of the display-- so you only need to scroll in the up/down axis.
I too, would like that capability. But, I think [for web pages] it is the responsibility of the browser (Mobile Safari) to provide that capability, globally.
For the iPad it makes sense for the OS to provide content-neutral pinch zoom and pan... And for the app to provide content-intelligent text resize and reflow... as well as font selection, text color, background color, contrast/brightness. Some things look great in print... not so much on a backlit LCD display.
.
The wired app/mag is a totally un-interactive experience. Seriously if that is what they think interactivity should be, they have missed the point.
Take a look at the sports illustrated demo, Time mag ipad video or website or even the wonder factory / woodwing sites to see how interactivity should be on these types of devices. The last 2 are the guys who made the SI/time demos work via HTML5. Woodwing actually appear to sell tools specifically designed to create this kind of content.
The time app is how this type of mag should be done. HTML5 dynamic content that is highly interactive, in app purchase for new issues and a file size that's actually manageable! Here's how they made it.
Yes, this stuff makes the Wired/Adobe effort look like a sorry joke.
THERE IS NO FLASH APPLICATION (SOFTWARE) FOR THE IPHONE. THREE YEARS AND ADOBE DID ZERO.
It also needs to be said that we can safely ignore posts from Sue Denim - such anger and contempt shows us clearly that she/he is not hearing or seeing anything but the righteous and silly outrage that characterizes those who have lost the plot.
Print magazines aren't doing well.
They are NOT interactive in any way, don't have sound files, cant be magnified except by physical means such as magnifying glasses.
Print magazines are losing readership, in one sense, because they aren't IMMEDIATE. They are close to being finished.
MAYBE the iPad can save these fools by making their content available immediately, but I doubt it.
If you don't know that Flash doesn't work on mobile devices, then I guess you aren't clear on the next step.
(Dilger, of course, is quite right in his assertions - they were SOLD a pup by Adobe and some fools in their IT dept.)
More to the point, The iPad, the iPhone, the rest of us humans etc. don't need these archaic 'content' delivery 'experts' (Sue Denim is obviously one of them, yawn.)
All we need is the web, and we need it to be accessible from touch screen devices, because thats where the actual customer, the READER (remember him/her?) is going, in increasingly large numbers.
The verity of sources will, as usual, be suspect and the quality of writers, will, as always, be mixed.
So? Thats how it is with published content of any kind.
Newspapers and magazines lost the plot many years ago for a variety of reasons - in magazines case, they forgot who they were selling to and only pandered to advertisers.
The selling price of the object did and does not represent the main income.
Its possible that only advertisers read the most expensive and glossy magazines....
Maybe these mags wont make it to the iPad. So be it. We wont be losing much.
If you really want to allow high-handed content providers like Sue Denim to tell you how to see your world, then you are in danger of not seeing the big picture.
Her/His 'go get 'em tiger' comment is contemptuous of all young people who want to start something new.
That alone makes the Sue Denim diatribes irrelevant.
Makes me laugh when I see any space given to such a pathetic last wag of the tail of a Dinosaur who is sinking into the swamp of change and is NOT aware of it.
Goodbye Sue Denim - we are done with you now.
Hello new young Web world, messy and unfinished and with a chance of showing something better, allowing the great unwashed and even the little washed to have their say, their moment - GO GET THEM, TIGER!!
Learn the facts, cupcake.
It needs to be said louder:
THERE IS NO FLASH APPLICATION (SOFTWARE) FOR THE IPHONE. THREE YEARS AND ADOBE DID ZERO.
And Premiere Pro, and AfterEffects. (And Lightroom and other apps). When is Apple going to fix all their Apps to be 64 and get them off Carbon? I mean it took until 10.6 to get a file browser over (Finder). And they still don't have QuickTime, iTunes, or FinalCut over, not to mention most of the iApps, and so on. Pot, meet kettle.
What you say about Apple apps (32 bit and Carbon) is largley true.
The big mistake Apple made is tightly integrating these app (especially the FCS apps) with QuickTime.
QuickTime is the Gordian Knot that is key for all the apps you mentioned.
Here's a little history of FCS (with a little Adobe and Macromedia thrown in)-- See History:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Cut_Pro#History
An interesting comment was made by Steve Jobs in Yesterday's "All Things D" interview, emphasis mine:
7:09 pm: What are your thoughts on content creation on the iPad, Walt asks, noting that some people believe tablets aren’t good devices for content creation.
“Well, why wouldn’t they be good for content creation,” asks Jobs. “It can’t be that the software isn’t powerful enough, because the software is improving….These devices over time are going to grow to do new things.”
What sorts of things, asks Kara.
Productivity apps…video-editing software, says Jobs.
.
Yes they should have used pdf and no it would not cost more because it would have been dead simple to export it that way.
After they spent so much time and money on the Flash version they couldn't be talked out of the animated aspects for the kludge version. If they were smart, they would have put together a little free teaser app and then sell the full pdf version inside their app by building in an e-commerce feature within the app. That way it is reusable for next month at almost no cost.
Screw the interactivity and animation in the actual magazine part, That isn't their niche anyway. The template app can have enough flashy pizazz, eye candy whatever to give it an oh wow factor and let the actual magazine content stand on its own merits.
That's a very good idea. The Print publishers could get in the game (quickly and inexpensively) with an attractive front-end, and keep their content [mostly] intact (while exploiting some of the flexibility of the device).
Over time, as the Publishers and Consumers, both, gain experience, the app can be fleshed out to provide an enhanced user experience.
Best suggestion, so far!
.
All my dumbass knows is wired's interactive magazine really opened my eyes at the possibility of the future of magazines and how we interact with them. I have a gut feeling about these kinds of things, and it tends to be correct: Interactive magazines WILL be around heavily someday as they streamline the production process.
For additional perspective have a look at the Alice app and the Marvel app...
These are not magazines but show some ways that the Print media can exploit the iPad and vice versa!
.
Appleinsider has an App.. just use that.
I mean Daniel E. Dilger blog not apple insider. They are different things
I don't read the author's blog any more. I am a great Apple fan, but find him over-the-top pro-Apple and anti-MS/Google/Adobe... whomever suits his current whim. Further, while some of his research is excellent, he tends to overlook/minimize things that don't jibe with his opinion... and often cites himself for reference!
That said, you certainly can read any web site on your iPhone and pinch-zoom the page (enlarging the fonts).
I think what you are asking for is: to enlarge the font and reflow the text so that it stays within the width of the display-- so you only need to scroll in the up/down axis.
I too, would like that capability. But, I think [for web pages] it is the responsibility of the browser (Mobile Safari) to provide that capability, globally.
For the iPad it makes sense for the OS to provide content-neutral pinch zoom and pan... And for the app to provide content-intelligent text resize and reflow... as well as font selection, text color, background color, contrast/brightness. Some things look great in print... not so much on a backlit LCD display.
.
Nop, I don't mean that.
The iPhone version of the blog does not have resize font capability. In contrast, the iPhone version of AI has font resize option. Nothing to do with the pinch and zoom.
Go to the AI website on an iPhone and you'll see at the top of each article two buttons to increase or reduce the font size. Pinch and zoom does not work in these pages.
RDM does not have that option, neither allows pinch and zoom (the iphone version of the site).
How much do you pay for issues of RDM?
The same I pay for apple insider and this allows font size change in the iPhone version of the site.
Nop, I don't mean that.
Go to the AI website on an iPhone and you'll see at the top of each article two buttons to increase or reduce the font size. Pinch and zoom does not work in these pages.
Could you post a screenshoy?
When I visit the AI web site with an iPhone 3GS (OS 4.0 beta 4) or an iPad (OS 3.2) I see no buttons to resize the fonts.
TIA
Dick
.
Sounds like adobe wasn't prepared and this was the best they could do in a week. I can't image this content wouldn't be vector based in the future. I would have assumed they used pdf to get it out the door quick... but whatever.
what i don't get is why anyone actually believed that they could use Flash in any form.
sure before we found out that the ipad was going to be iphone OS based and not Mac OSX. but they had 2 months of knowing that information.
The SDK says Objective C and I believe Javascript are the languages apps should be written in. No where does it say "or use whatever you want and slap a layer of translating code over it and that's fine too". So why did they believe that would be okay.
It needs to be said louder:
THERE IS NO FLASH APPLICATION (SOFTWARE) FOR THE IPHONE. THREE YEARS AND ADOBE DID ZERO.
more to the point, Adobe says "Flash works great on mobile devices" but hasn't achieved that outcome. Yes it works on Android, sort of.
Now if they could get it working and at a level that blows away all the negatives, then it would be easier to say 'Apple is just being a big douche to make money on apps'
Goodbye Sue Denim - we are done with you now.
I don't like Sue and several of her 'go girl' pals. I think their opinions are highly biased against Apple etc. HOWEVER I will not, and do not support anyone else, telling Sue or any of them to shut up and go away. there's this thing called Free Speech and as an American I believe that all persons, even those not American should be granted that right. If anyone doesn't want to read their stuff, there's this fun little thing called an ignore button. learn to use it. Or simply just scroll right by.
Maybe the reason Adobe "did nothing" was that from the beginning, Apple's developers agreement strictly forbid third-party code from appearing on the device.
And that's a major item. Adobe was creating this 'convertor' way before the ipad was in the picture with nothing to support the notion that it was going to be okay. And yet they still did it. and then basically tried to claim that because the agreement didn't say it was forbidden, they were granted approval to do it, etc. sorry but that's shoddy logic
Could you post a screenshoy?
When I visit the AI web site with an iPhone 3GS (OS 4.0 beta 4) or an iPad (OS 3.2) I see no buttons to resize the fonts.
TIA
Dick
.
Te AI iPhone site seems to be down at the moment. I'll try later.
Regarding the tradeoff of the Wired app displaying a picture of text rather than the text itself.
I was curious about the cost in memory of displaying a picture instead of just the text.
So, I created a Photoshop png image of some text.
If I display the following as text it takes 4 Bytes (5 if you include trailing space).
Hell
The following picture of the same word is:
It takes 49KB... 49KB or More than 10,000* times the amount of space!
* 1KB == 1024 Bytes
Oh, and the result looks like Hell on a LCD display... just zoom in!
Looks as if someone(s) needs to rethink their goals and development process!
.
The problem, though, is that the Print industry is dying. The world has moved on, Print has not!
Only for news, where the Internet can't be beat for timeliness.
I just came back from my local book store. It's one of three in my neighborhood, the most recent added last year even in the middle of the recession. It was packed, as always.
Books are more portable (who really reads 100 books at a time?), have a more intuitive interface, never need recharging, and you can't crack the screen by simply putting it into a shoulder bag with any hard objects in it.
Books will be around for a while.
More to the point, The iPad, the iPhone, the rest of us humans etc. don't need these archaic 'content' delivery 'experts' (Sue Denim is obviously one of them, yawn.)
Dude, what humans need is enough to eat. Only a small fraction of humanity even owns a computer of any kind at all. Half of the world goes hungry every day, and 99.9% of all school children learn with books.
Yeah, Steve is a visionary and all that, but in the here and now there's definitely a place for the sort of "archaic" content delivery you label as unnecessary. Indeed, it drives most of the world, no matter how many shiny new objects Steve Jobs asks us to buy.
Her/His 'go get 'em tiger' comment is contemptuous of all young people who want to start something new.
That alone makes the Sue Denim diatribes irrelevant.
"Sue" being commonly a female name, I'd go with "her".
I didn't see where she made such a comment about "all young people" as you claim, and would venture to guess she's younger than you think.
Sue's only crime is that she's not old enough to be drunk on years of drinking Apple's cider. She says what she thinks, and dares to say it here.
You may disagree with her, but it would serve your case more if you presented arguments of merit rather than mere ad hominem attacks.
what i don't get is why anyone actually believed that they could use Flash in any form.
sure before we found out that the ipad was going to be iphone OS based and not Mac OSX. but they had 2 months of knowing that information.
I suspect that Adobe thought they could force their will [Flash] on Apple-- something like:
"if you don't allow Flash on the iPad, you will miss out on apps from the leading Magazine Publishers, like Condé Nast!"
Ironically, If Steve had backed down, Condé Nast wouldn't have any deliverable iPad app, and the full brunt of the blame would fall on Adobe.
Ya' might say: "Apple saved Adobe's [Flashy] ass!"
.
Seems like Apple needs to release some pro-level html5 authoring tools.
Why do you suppose they've recently invested so much lately in getting the world to doubt Flash?
I suspect we're only a few months from release....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDF
As described in detail at Wikipedia.ort, here is a short list of what the PDF format supports:
Text
Fonts
Text encoding
Raster images
Vector images
Video
Audio
Transparency
AcroForms
XFA Forms
Encryption
Digital signing
User Rights signatures
Embedded files
Metadata
Mars XML/XMP
SVG
3D artwork
Accessibility features
Interactive GUI elements
Color management
JavaScript (ECMAScript)
Annotations
XFA
. . .
No Flash Required.
All of these features are available in the Adobe format of eBooks as well. Adobe InDesign can create both formats.
Oops Condé Nast. Try again.
Adobe: SHAME ON YOU. 500 MB iPad app. HAHAHAHAHA! Dolts.
Forget html5, who cares (just because Jobs say so?!?)
Still NO 64 bit support for creative suite (only PS) still no 64 bit flash plugin and so on... x64 is more important than some html standard that won't even be around long (if it catches on at all).
What, you mean like the 64bit support in Apple's own Pro apps?