Eight, freakin, hours. I couldn't believe it. In my lightest test, the new 15-inch MacBook Pro lasted eight hours and eight minutes. That's with the screen at half brightness (completely usable) and no funny optimizations. The notebook is just playing music and surfing through a lot of my old reviews.
My heaviest workload delivered just under 5 hours of battery life, a figure that the old MBP could only attain while running my lightest workload. This thing rocks.
Either way, Apple's 7 hour claim is well within reason. For light workloads, even on WiFi, you can easily expect 6.5 - 8 hours out of the new 15-inch MBP. As I write this article on that very system I'm told that I have nearly 8.5 hours left on my charge. If you do a lot of writing on your notebook, the new MBP is exactly what you'll want; it will easily last you on a cross-country flight if you need to get work done.
or anything else really for that matter, not just flash.
But truthfully, after the powerbooks I had where I'd start with maaaaybe close to 3 hours time, it'd be 2ish hours before long. So I'm fine with 4 or 5 hours really. Just to attain 8 or 9 hours is silly.
Eight, freakin, hours. I couldn't believe it. In my lightest test, the new 15-inch MacBook Pro lasted eight hours and eight minutes. That's with the screen at half brightness (completely usable) and no funny optimizations. The notebook is just playing music and surfing through a lot of my old reviews.
My heaviest workload delivered just under 5 hours of battery life, a figure that the old MBP could only attain while running my lightest workload. This thing rocks.
Either way, Apple's 7 hour claim is well within reason. For light workloads, even on WiFi, you can easily expect 6.5 - 8 hours out of the new 15-inch MBP. As I write this article on that very system I'm told that I have nearly 8.5 hours left on my charge. If you do a lot of writing on your notebook, the new MBP is exactly what you'll want; it will easily last you on a cross-country flight if you need to get work done.
I'm typing this post on the latest brand new macbook pro 15" i7 with 8gigs of ram.
I can tell you, it is not possible, to get 8 hours of battery time on my mbp at half brightness, surfing the web and listening to music.
But that doesn't mean I'm not at all happy with it. Far from it. it gets much better battery life than the older MBP for sure. Personally, I take the blogs tests with a grain of salt.
I should also mention, that if you're going to buy any laptop right now, this thing with 8 gigs freaking screams. Both logic and CS5 runs like a dream.
ALL the TV sites I would like to watch on my mobile devices are flash based. So it does matter. For me it will make the difference on my next purchase and my recommendations to friends.
Verizon is coming in July with an android phone that is better than the iphone 4 and its on a better network than AT&T. That will hurt iphone sales for sure. Flash support on the iphone/ipad could ease off the impact. The lack of HDMI out and lesser photo/movie recording specs makes the iphone4 already obsolite.
Flash is not the web. It is in fact the opposite. Proprietary...
Things Steve Jobs forgot to mention in his Why I Hate Flash paper:
1. h.264 is proprietary.
2. Apple owns part of it.
3. Anyone using it to write playback software must pay money to do so. True, those fees are not called specifically "royalty" fees - yet. But while this nomenclature trickery allows Jobs to say it's "royalty free", there are fees just the same, and they will only get more expensive because:
4. On top of the existing fees, royalty fees will be added in just a couple years. No one know exactly how expensive h.264 will be to support, since the royalty fee schedule will not be disclosed until after it's become more widely adopted.
If you don't believe me, look it up. It's on Wikipedia and darn near every other place Jobs doesn't control. Why he works so hard to keep h.264's proprietary nature from being more of a talking point isn't much of a mystery, but given how easy it is to find out his "royalty free" claim is such a legalistic ruse it just makes him look bad. Heck, even Bill Gates would be embarrassed to pull that.
You can watch web videos on an iPhone. YouTube is already there, Hulu will be there soon...
Hulu says otherwise:
Quote:
May 13, 2010 4:43 PM PDT
Hulu improves its player, commits to Flash
If you've been holding your breath for Hulu to offer an HTML5 video player, your skin's about to get purpler.
Eugene Wei, Hulu's VP of product, posted a missive on the popular video site's company blog that goes over various improvements while adding a decisive note about sticking with Adobe's Flash technology over using an HTML5 video player. At least for the time being.
"We continue to monitor developments on HTML5, but as of now it doesn't yet meet all of our customers' needs," Wei said. "Our player doesn't just simply stream video, it must also secure the content, handle reporting for our advertisers, render the video using a high performance codec to ensure premium visual quality, communicate back with the server to determine how long to buffer and what bitrate to stream, and dozens of other things that aren't necessarily visible to the end user. Not all video sites have these needs, but for our business these are all important and often contractual requirements."
The news does put a chill on the rumor that the company was working on a version of the site for devices that can run HTML5 video but not Adobe's Flash. A report last August claimed that Hulu was just months away from releasing a TV show watching application for the iPhone. The recent spat between Apple and Adobe over the inclusion of Flash on the iPhone and iPad has done little to give hope of that becoming true without Hulu changing the underlying technology of its player.
Though to that end, Hulu on Thursday rolled out a new version of its Flash-based player that builds upon the old one in several key areas. Besides being 25 percent larger than before and eschewing on-screen controls, it now features adaptive bitrate streaming, which will change the quality of the feed based on the live connection of the user.
Man that is just genius. Flash is simply one of lots of technologies used. It has it's pros and cons, but quite a few jack in the boxes get their panties in a bunch should anyone dare try to be somewhat objective about it.
Hulu: Not all all. They're sticking with Flash, saying HTML5 is inadequate for their needs (see above).
ABC: Going along with Apple only reluctantly, while executives there have referred to Apple's requirement that they spend thousands recoding their content that already works for everyone except iOS users "deeply annoying", and will continue to use Flash for some of their online content:
CBS: As of June 17, CBS is offering only a single show in what they refer to as a "small, little experiment", still very much in testing almost half a year after Jobs' announcement that the big players were spending so much money to show their content on his devices. Moreover, CBS also plans to stick with Flash for others not using iOS, and note problems finding tools that let them work as efficiently as they do with Flash:
Quote:
CBSi plans to move towards HTML5 parity with Flash video but first Soohoo and his team need to find the right mix of tools. It's not hard to offer the video in both versions but it's far more complicated than that.
"Our goal is over time at some point having content parity. The tools aren't mature yet - security needs to be there...".
Meanwhile, NBC and TimeWarner are both sticking with Flash completely:
Quote:
Sources said several large media companies, including Time Warner and NBC Universal, told Apple they won't retool their extensive video libraries to accommodate the iPad, arguing that such a reformatting would be expensive and not worth it because Flash dominates the Web.
Score so far: Some are spending all sorts of extra money to make their content play as well on iOS as it already does on every other system, others are holding back, and among those complying with Jobs' request include some of the biggest players in the industry who find it "deeply annoying" and are dragging their feet, and none appear to be ditching Flash entirely except Jobs himself.
Comments
Eight, freakin, hours. I couldn't believe it. In my lightest test, the new 15-inch MacBook Pro lasted eight hours and eight minutes. That's with the screen at half brightness (completely usable) and no funny optimizations. The notebook is just playing music and surfing through a lot of my old reviews.
My heaviest workload delivered just under 5 hours of battery life, a figure that the old MBP could only attain while running my lightest workload. This thing rocks.
Either way, Apple's 7 hour claim is well within reason. For light workloads, even on WiFi, you can easily expect 6.5 - 8 hours out of the new 15-inch MBP. As I write this article on that very system I'm told that I have nearly 8.5 hours left on my charge. If you do a lot of writing on your notebook, the new MBP is exactly what you'll want; it will easily last you on a cross-country flight if you need to get work done.
Apple's 2009 MacBook Pro: Battery Life to Die For
or anything else really for that matter, not just flash.
But truthfully, after the powerbooks I had where I'd start with maaaaybe close to 3 hours time, it'd be 2ish hours before long. So I'm fine with 4 or 5 hours really. Just to attain 8 or 9 hours is silly.
Eight, freakin, hours. I couldn't believe it. In my lightest test, the new 15-inch MacBook Pro lasted eight hours and eight minutes. That's with the screen at half brightness (completely usable) and no funny optimizations. The notebook is just playing music and surfing through a lot of my old reviews.
My heaviest workload delivered just under 5 hours of battery life, a figure that the old MBP could only attain while running my lightest workload. This thing rocks.
Either way, Apple's 7 hour claim is well within reason. For light workloads, even on WiFi, you can easily expect 6.5 - 8 hours out of the new 15-inch MBP. As I write this article on that very system I'm told that I have nearly 8.5 hours left on my charge. If you do a lot of writing on your notebook, the new MBP is exactly what you'll want; it will easily last you on a cross-country flight if you need to get work done.
Apple's 2009 MacBook Pro: Battery Life to Die For
I'm typing this post on the latest brand new macbook pro 15" i7 with 8gigs of ram.
I can tell you, it is not possible, to get 8 hours of battery time on my mbp at half brightness, surfing the web and listening to music.
But that doesn't mean I'm not at all happy with it. Far from it. it gets much better battery life than the older MBP for sure. Personally, I take the blogs tests with a grain of salt.
I should also mention, that if you're going to buy any laptop right now, this thing with 8 gigs freaking screams. Both logic and CS5 runs like a dream.
ALL the TV sites I would like to watch on my mobile devices are flash based. So it does matter. For me it will make the difference on my next purchase and my recommendations to friends.
Verizon is coming in July with an android phone that is better than the iphone 4 and its on a better network than AT&T. That will hurt iphone sales for sure. Flash support on the iphone/ipad could ease off the impact. The lack of HDMI out and lesser photo/movie recording specs makes the iphone4 already obsolite.
You’re ignorant.
Flash is not the web. It is in fact the opposite. Proprietary...
Things Steve Jobs forgot to mention in his Why I Hate Flash paper:
1. h.264 is proprietary.
2. Apple owns part of it.
3. Anyone using it to write playback software must pay money to do so. True, those fees are not called specifically "royalty" fees - yet. But while this nomenclature trickery allows Jobs to say it's "royalty free", there are fees just the same, and they will only get more expensive because:
4. On top of the existing fees, royalty fees will be added in just a couple years. No one know exactly how expensive h.264 will be to support, since the royalty fee schedule will not be disclosed until after it's become more widely adopted.
If you don't believe me, look it up. It's on Wikipedia and darn near every other place Jobs doesn't control. Why he works so hard to keep h.264's proprietary nature from being more of a talking point isn't much of a mystery, but given how easy it is to find out his "royalty free" claim is such a legalistic ruse it just makes him look bad. Heck, even Bill Gates would be embarrassed to pull that.
Welcome to the New Apple.
You can watch web videos on an iPhone. YouTube is already there, Hulu will be there soon...
Hulu says otherwise:
May 13, 2010 4:43 PM PDT
Hulu improves its player, commits to Flash
If you've been holding your breath for Hulu to offer an HTML5 video player, your skin's about to get purpler.
Eugene Wei, Hulu's VP of product, posted a missive on the popular video site's company blog that goes over various improvements while adding a decisive note about sticking with Adobe's Flash technology over using an HTML5 video player. At least for the time being.
"We continue to monitor developments on HTML5, but as of now it doesn't yet meet all of our customers' needs," Wei said. "Our player doesn't just simply stream video, it must also secure the content, handle reporting for our advertisers, render the video using a high performance codec to ensure premium visual quality, communicate back with the server to determine how long to buffer and what bitrate to stream, and dozens of other things that aren't necessarily visible to the end user. Not all video sites have these needs, but for our business these are all important and often contractual requirements."
The news does put a chill on the rumor that the company was working on a version of the site for devices that can run HTML5 video but not Adobe's Flash. A report last August claimed that Hulu was just months away from releasing a TV show watching application for the iPhone. The recent spat between Apple and Adobe over the inclusion of Flash on the iPhone and iPad has done little to give hope of that becoming true without Hulu changing the underlying technology of its player.
Though to that end, Hulu on Thursday rolled out a new version of its Flash-based player that builds upon the old one in several key areas. Besides being 25 percent larger than before and eschewing on-screen controls, it now features adaptive bitrate streaming, which will change the quality of the feed based on the live connection of the user.
...
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-20004969-248.html
What... a revelation.
Man that is just genius. Flash is simply one of lots of technologies used. It has it's pros and cons, but quite a few jack in the boxes get their panties in a bunch should anyone dare try to be somewhat objective about it.
Youtube, Hulu, ABC, CBS, and more every day.
Hulu: Not all all. They're sticking with Flash, saying HTML5 is inadequate for their needs (see above).
ABC: Going along with Apple only reluctantly, while executives there have referred to Apple's requirement that they spend thousands recoding their content that already works for everyone except iOS users "deeply annoying", and will continue to use Flash for some of their online content:
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/175652...-annoying.aspx
CBS: As of June 17, CBS is offering only a single show in what they refer to as a "small, little experiment", still very much in testing almost half a year after Jobs' announcement that the big players were spending so much money to show their content on his devices. Moreover, CBS also plans to stick with Flash for others not using iOS, and note problems finding tools that let them work as efficiently as they do with Flash:
CBSi plans to move towards HTML5 parity with Flash video but first Soohoo and his team need to find the right mix of tools. It's not hard to offer the video in both versions but it's far more complicated than that.
"Our goal is over time at some point having content parity. The tools aren't mature yet - security needs to be there...".
http://www.macrumors.com/2010/06/17/...ivery-methods/
Meanwhile, NBC and TimeWarner are both sticking with Flash completely:
Sources said several large media companies, including Time Warner and NBC Universal, told Apple they won't retool their extensive video libraries to accommodate the iPad, arguing that such a reformatting would be expensive and not worth it because Flash dominates the Web.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/busines...QOkAEn3lVNOX9O
Score so far: Some are spending all sorts of extra money to make their content play as well on iOS as it already does on every other system, others are holding back, and among those complying with Jobs' request include some of the biggest players in the industry who find it "deeply annoying" and are dragging their feet, and none appear to be ditching Flash entirely except Jobs himself.