Yeah, I don't get the Book part at all. Book means something that opens and closes . . . like a book. Notebook computer, laptop, netbook, etc. Why call something coming from a completely different paradigm--slate, tablet, pad--a book?
The content for these devices are still called books and when you read a book and this may come in a nice leather case that folds over giving it a book-like appearance. In any event, I think the usage of book will change to match this change in our culture as these "e-readers" become more popular.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
OK! At least some hardware exists. Plus 1 for RIM!
Though something bothers me about that video -- the display seems too large or the aspect ratio is wrong... I can't quite define it...
As I and others (probably you, too) have stated in this thread, even though we are calling it vaporware, we fully expect RiM to have a final product shipping next year. The HW is the easy part, what remains to be seen is how the SW works. I'll be surprised if it's as slick as the protohyping ad suggests.
PS: I think it's cool how this has a built-in pico projector that can work on pretty much any surface, as seen in the video. That part was real, right?¡
OK! At least some hardware exists. Plus 1 for RIM!
Though something bothers me about that video -- the display seems too large or the aspect ratio is wrong... I can't quite define it...
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arorat
Good point, just opened a mag and they are showing Samsung TV, line underneath reads "Simulated picture". A lot of companies do this, when you check they are normally cr@p. they may as well write "Simulated design" as well
Mmm.... maybe onto something. It looked more like watching a TV than watching a video on a computer screen -- don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing. One of the Dual CEOs clutches a PlayBook with what looks a color printout pasted on the surface (it never changes). He walks around for a few minutes with this "ClutchBook" and never once raises it to look at or show the screen... Odd.
But he made a big deal that you could play a video to an attached TV while showing something else on the device's screen -- According to him, it was because of the Dual cores and the "1 GigaHertz of RAM".
Actually, that's a nice feature I'd like to see in the iPad for AirPlay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
As I and others (probably you, too) have stated in this thread, even though we are calling it vaporware, we fully expect RiM to have a final product shipping next year. The HW is the easy part, what remains to be seen is how the SW works. I'll be surprised if it's as slick as the protohyping ad suggests.
I think you've hit on what bothers me most -- At this stage, the should be able to show some hardware doing something other than displaying a fixed image or a video. After all, they are only 3-4 months from their initial rollout.... and the (analysts) expected sales of 6-300 million units in 2011.
Quote:
PS: I think it's cool how this has a built-in pico projector that can work on pretty much any surface, as seen in the video. That part was real, right?¡
Ha! That is one fancy-shmancy pico projector, all right -- rear projection on any moving 3D surface that intelligently mirrors the content and masks the display area to the surface.
Mmm... the phrase "rear-projection" creates an unusual mental image-- kinda' like: "a titter ran through the crowd".
I think the natural evolution of technology would take care of part of it -- eventually.
But it takes someone with Steve Jobs' prescience, audacity (and the stones) to make it happen -- it's kinda' magical!
.
What if he was never put up for adoption, would his drive had been the same?
What if he had never met Woz, would he not had seen the potential of consumer focused computing so early on or at all?
These can?t be answered but I do wonder how much of greatness and tragedy is dumb luck. In Jobs case, there are too many successes for him to have Forrest Gumped his path in computer history, and let?s assume that the first opportunity was luck, he still would have had to have seen the opportunity and decided to focus on it. Jobs wasn?t the only one who knew Woz and know what he was capable of.
I know I?ve seen an opportunity and then quickly dismissed it with ?that would be too much work? or ?this is so obvious that if it hasn?t been by now I must be missing something.? Really the opposite end of the megalomaniac entrepreneur personality? though I like to play one on internet forums.
PS: I blame my lack of drive and focus on my good upbringing. Damn you mom and dad!¡
I think you've hit on what bothers me most -- At this stage, the should be able to show some hardware doing something other than displaying a fixed image or a video. After all, they are only 3-4 months from their initial rollout.... and the (analysts) expected sales of 6-300 million units in 2011.
I put a timeline of the AppleTV announcement to release earlier in the thread as an example of how long this could take to come to market. In that example I noted that Apple had a shoe in with every part of that product being something they were very familiar with, and it still took 6 months despite the working demo and was still delayed.
I put a timeline of the AppleTV announcement to release earlier in the thread as an example of how long this could take to come to market. In that example I noted that Apple had a shoe in with every part of that product being something they were very familiar with, and it still took 6 months despite the working demo and was still delayed.
And how is development of Flash 10.1 for this OS?
That's the big question, isn't it?! As I understand the announcement material, It appears that Flash is the UI and Presentation Services (Cocoa Touch for iOS fans) for the Tablet, with QNX as the underpinning (analogous to the common lower levels of iOS and OS X).
It is quite possible that the reason RIM had nothing to show is the Flash-QNX hybridization was not up to snuff.
Given that QNX has some history and Flash 10.1 mobile does not -- I suspect that the Flash components were incomplete (or performed poorly.
And, if you can't show the UI and Presentation components -- ya' got nothin' to show!
EDIT: To be fair here, combining Flash with an OS is different than adding a browser plug in or developing a Flash app... likely, it is much more complex and requires different skills.
I have had past (web) dealings with a couple of the Adobe people working on this: Mike Chambers and Christian Cantrell -- both are top-notch and probably are the "experts" in the Flash side of things. If anyone can make it happen, it's these guys.
As of now, my understanding is that it will only be Web apps + Flash. Whether they will later add native apps hasn't been addressed, I don't think. Obviously, they went this direction because, with a new OS, they have no time to put a native SDK together.
Ah... Then my fears are confirmed. Does anyone else besides me see a potential problem with this?
One which comes to mind are how will developers make money? Also, how will they control security/ malware/ etc.
And of course... On PlayBook, (almost) all your apps are belong to Flash. Mmm hope them Flash on QNX runs real smooth and low power draw/heat...
Ah... Then my fears are confirmed. Does anyone else besides me see a potential problem with this?
One which comes to mind are how will developers make money? Also, how will they control security/ malware/ etc.
And of course... On PlayBook, (almost) all your apps are belong to Flash. Mmm hope them Flash on QNX runs real smooth and low power draw/heat...
Well, I said Web apps, because of the technologies used, and because I'm too lazy to write out HTML/JavaScript/CSS, but I think it's actually pretty much the same as webOS apps, which aren't really web apps, even though they use web technology. I'm not 100% certain about that, though.
But, yeah, the Flash part will be a fun time, I'm sure.
Ah... Then my fears are confirmed. Does anyone else besides me see a potential problem with this?
One which comes to mind are how will developers make money? Also, how will they control security/ malware/ etc.
And of course... On PlayBook, (almost) all your apps are belong to Flash. Mmm hope them Flash on QNX runs real smooth and low power draw/heat...
I think the reason (necessity?) for the 1GHz Dual Core CPU and 1 GB RAM is to mitigate Flash performance issues.
What remains to be seen is if they can resolve the battery issue.
It's been a while, but AIR, Flash runs like a continuous movie clip with the ability to detect and handle mouse (touch) events and some other events. Even when idle, the "clip" is running.
If they just skin QNX with Flash (or vice versa) then both will be competing for resources to perform similar, overlapping functions. Because of the hardware, that's probably OK (at least as an interim solution).
But, to resolve the battery issue, they will need to shut down some of the hardware (display, CPU Core, a block of RAM, etc). Who (QNX or Flash) detects when and what should be done, and who actually does it-- requires some interoperability between Flash and QNX at a much lower level than that in which Flash usually runs (an app using OS services or a plugin app using browser services).
If they are successful, there are some interesting potentials:
1) An OS with Flash built-in to provide the UI and presentation components
It's been a while, but AIR, Flash runs like a continuous movie clip with the ability to detect and handle mouse (touch) events and some other events. Even when idle, the "clip" is running.
No. Listener events, do not run, like a "movie" whatsoever.
What provides the animation when a Flash app is idling, listening for events?
.
dude. timelines are really passe. you don't need, a timeline for any of that. But you need to understand the way things are done now, it's changed radically in the last few editions. Some projects I have been involved with, I don't go near the timeline.
You don't need a 'movieclip', or timeline for the new event model.
dude. timelines are really passe. you don't need, a timeline for any of that. But you need to understand the way things are done now, it's changed radically in the last few editions. Some projects I have been involved with, I don't go near the timeline.
You don't need a 'movieclip', or timeline for the new event model.
Duda!
OK, then what is responsible for the high CPU usage when a Flash app/window/whatever is open and idling--- not getting any events?
Are you saying that things like this aren't necessary?
He clearly said that none of the videos were fake.
That was after he was "questioned" on his earlier post (74) where he clearly implied Apple was just as guilty of using fake videos. .... just another attempt to deflect the blame, imo. Don't take my word for it .... check post #74.
He made an outrageous claim and has spent the rest of the thread ignoring that he even made that claim. IMO, that's an irresponsible thing to do. that's all.
as you should well know, any application dev platform requires knowledge of optimization, keeping memory use low, etc. etc.. They -all- have it. It's my view a good number of bad flash sites out there is because of very, poor coding practices.
I don't get the high cpu usage on windows, and I used to with pre 10.1 pre 10.1 was not good, this is why they've begun with a completely rewritten player. It was about freaking time, thx to SJ for lighting the fire finally.
as you should well know, any application dev platform requires knowledge of optimization, keeping memory use low, etc. etc.. They -all- have it. It's my view a good number of bad flash sites out there is because of very, poor coding practices.
I don't get the high cpu usage on windows, and I used to with pre 10.1 pre 10.1 was not good, this is why they've begun with a completely rewritten player. It was about freaking time, thx to SJ for lighting the fire finally.
OK!
I just checked -- I use click2Flash, but have 2 YouTube Flash windows open -- one paused, one finished with the "Just Watched" Flash Display. I use latest OS X, Latest Safari with the latest GPU assisted Flash Plugin. Here's the stats:
Contrast this with one from a year ago on the same hardware. 1 Flash window had been open, but that window had been closed:
That's a significant improvement -- the difference between unusable and acceptable.
The CPU and memory figures are great-- I wonder about the threads, though.
So, say I am willing to accept your assertions (or at least consider them)..
How does Adobe or the end user avoid the bad Flash sites or apps?
Should Adobe, after appropriate public notice, enforce a backward compatibility limit (or some such) in the player that assures acceptable performance/quality of the apps?
Well, it?s amazing. The miracle has been done. Hat?s off. Well done, as we know that ?hard work always pays off?, after a long struggle with sincere effort it?s done.
I just checked -- I use click2Flash, but have 2 YouTube Flash windows open -- one paused, one finished with the "Just Watched" Flash Display. I use latest OS X, Latest Safari with the latest GPU assisted Flash Plugin. Here's the stats:
Contrast this with one from a year ago on the same hardware. 1 Flash window had been open, but that window had been closed:
That's a significant improvement -- the difference between unusable and acceptable.
The CPU and memory figures are great-- I wonder about the threads, though.
So, say I am willing to accept your assertions (or at least consider them)..
How does Adobe or the end user avoid the bad Flash sites or apps?
Should Adobe, after appropriate public notice, enforce a backward compatibility limit (or some such) in the player that assures acceptable performance/quality of the apps?
.
I don't know the answers really to those questions. But it is a tough one, and bad developers will cause all sorts of problems.
I'd expect some pretty interesting html5/js/canvas etc etc monsters to take out my browser some time down the road. With luck, that hopefully won't be a serious problem. But I do recall all the horrible JS stuff in the 90s. Mouse followers blah blah.
Perhaps adobe putting out IDEs that enforce better garbage collection, memory management, I don't know.
Comments
Yeah, I don't get the Book part at all. Book means something that opens and closes . . . like a book. Notebook computer, laptop, netbook, etc. Why call something coming from a completely different paradigm--slate, tablet, pad--a book?
The content for these devices are still called books and when you read a book and this may come in a nice leather case that folds over giving it a book-like appearance. In any event, I think the usage of book will change to match this change in our culture as these "e-readers" become more popular.
OK! At least some hardware exists. Plus 1 for RIM!
Though something bothers me about that video -- the display seems too large or the aspect ratio is wrong... I can't quite define it...
As I and others (probably you, too) have stated in this thread, even though we are calling it vaporware, we fully expect RiM to have a final product shipping next year. The HW is the easy part, what remains to be seen is how the SW works. I'll be surprised if it's as slick as the protohyping ad suggests.
PS: I think it's cool how this has a built-in pico projector that can work on pretty much any surface, as seen in the video. That part was real, right?¡
OK! At least some hardware exists. Plus 1 for RIM!
Though something bothers me about that video -- the display seems too large or the aspect ratio is wrong... I can't quite define it...
.
Good point, just opened a mag and they are showing Samsung TV, line underneath reads "Simulated picture". A lot of companies do this, when you check they are normally cr@p. they may as well write "Simulated design" as well
Mmm.... maybe onto something. It looked more like watching a TV than watching a video on a computer screen -- don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing. One of the Dual CEOs clutches a PlayBook with what looks a color printout pasted on the surface (it never changes). He walks around for a few minutes with this "ClutchBook" and never once raises it to look at or show the screen... Odd.
But he made a big deal that you could play a video to an attached TV while showing something else on the device's screen -- According to him, it was because of the Dual cores and the "1 GigaHertz of RAM".
Actually, that's a nice feature I'd like to see in the iPad for AirPlay.
As I and others (probably you, too) have stated in this thread, even though we are calling it vaporware, we fully expect RiM to have a final product shipping next year. The HW is the easy part, what remains to be seen is how the SW works. I'll be surprised if it's as slick as the protohyping ad suggests.
I think you've hit on what bothers me most -- At this stage, the should be able to show some hardware doing something other than displaying a fixed image or a video. After all, they are only 3-4 months from their initial rollout.... and the (analysts) expected sales of 6-300 million units in 2011.
PS: I think it's cool how this has a built-in pico projector that can work on pretty much any surface, as seen in the video. That part was real, right?¡
Ha! That is one fancy-shmancy pico projector, all right -- rear projection on any moving 3D surface that intelligently mirrors the content and masks the display area to the surface.
Mmm... the phrase "rear-projection" creates an unusual mental image-- kinda' like: "a titter ran through the crowd".
.
What if Apple never invented the iPhone or iPad, where would all these companies be today?
Good question.
I think the natural evolution of technology would take care of part of it -- eventually.
But it takes someone with Steve Jobs' prescience, audacity (and the stones) to make it happen -- it's kinda' magical!
.
Good question.
I think the natural evolution of technology would take care of part of it -- eventually.
But it takes someone with Steve Jobs' prescience, audacity (and the stones) to make it happen -- it's kinda' magical!
.
What if he was never put up for adoption, would his drive had been the same?
What if he had never met Woz, would he not had seen the potential of consumer focused computing so early on or at all?
These can?t be answered but I do wonder how much of greatness and tragedy is dumb luck. In Jobs case, there are too many successes for him to have Forrest Gumped his path in computer history, and let?s assume that the first opportunity was luck, he still would have had to have seen the opportunity and decided to focus on it. Jobs wasn?t the only one who knew Woz and know what he was capable of.
I know I?ve seen an opportunity and then quickly dismissed it with ?that would be too much work? or ?this is so obvious that if it hasn?t been by now I must be missing something.? Really the opposite end of the megalomaniac entrepreneur personality? though I like to play one on internet forums.
PS: I blame my lack of drive and focus on my good upbringing. Damn you mom and dad!¡
I think you've hit on what bothers me most -- At this stage, the should be able to show some hardware doing something other than displaying a fixed image or a video. After all, they are only 3-4 months from their initial rollout.... and the (analysts) expected sales of 6-300 million units in 2011.
I put a timeline of the AppleTV announcement to release earlier in the thread as an example of how long this could take to come to market. In that example I noted that Apple had a shoe in with every part of that product being something they were very familiar with, and it still took 6 months despite the working demo and was still delayed.
And how is development of Flash 10.1 for this OS?
I put a timeline of the AppleTV announcement to release earlier in the thread as an example of how long this could take to come to market. In that example I noted that Apple had a shoe in with every part of that product being something they were very familiar with, and it still took 6 months despite the working demo and was still delayed.
And how is development of Flash 10.1 for this OS?
That's the big question, isn't it?! As I understand the announcement material, It appears that Flash is the UI and Presentation Services (Cocoa Touch for iOS fans) for the Tablet, with QNX as the underpinning (analogous to the common lower levels of iOS and OS X).
It is quite possible that the reason RIM had nothing to show is the Flash-QNX hybridization was not up to snuff.
Given that QNX has some history and Flash 10.1 mobile does not -- I suspect that the Flash components were incomplete (or performed poorly.
And, if you can't show the UI and Presentation components -- ya' got nothin' to show!
EDIT: To be fair here, combining Flash with an OS is different than adding a browser plug in or developing a Flash app... likely, it is much more complex and requires different skills.
I have had past (web) dealings with a couple of the Adobe people working on this: Mike Chambers and Christian Cantrell -- both are top-notch and probably are the "experts" in the Flash side of things. If anyone can make it happen, it's these guys.
.
He clearly said that none of the videos were fake.
Thank you.
As of now, my understanding is that it will only be Web apps + Flash. Whether they will later add native apps hasn't been addressed, I don't think. Obviously, they went this direction because, with a new OS, they have no time to put a native SDK together.
Ah... Then my fears are confirmed. Does anyone else besides me see a potential problem with this?
One which comes to mind are how will developers make money? Also, how will they control security/ malware/ etc.
And of course... On PlayBook, (almost) all your apps are belong to Flash. Mmm hope them Flash on QNX runs real smooth and low power draw/heat...
Ah... Then my fears are confirmed. Does anyone else besides me see a potential problem with this?
One which comes to mind are how will developers make money? Also, how will they control security/ malware/ etc.
And of course... On PlayBook, (almost) all your apps are belong to Flash. Mmm hope them Flash on QNX runs real smooth and low power draw/heat...
Well, I said Web apps, because of the technologies used, and because I'm too lazy to write out HTML/JavaScript/CSS, but I think it's actually pretty much the same as webOS apps, which aren't really web apps, even though they use web technology. I'm not 100% certain about that, though.
But, yeah, the Flash part will be a fun time, I'm sure.
Ah... Then my fears are confirmed. Does anyone else besides me see a potential problem with this?
One which comes to mind are how will developers make money? Also, how will they control security/ malware/ etc.
And of course... On PlayBook, (almost) all your apps are belong to Flash. Mmm hope them Flash on QNX runs real smooth and low power draw/heat...
I think the reason (necessity?) for the 1GHz Dual Core CPU and 1 GB RAM is to mitigate Flash performance issues.
What remains to be seen is if they can resolve the battery issue.
It's been a while, but AIR, Flash runs like a continuous movie clip with the ability to detect and handle mouse (touch) events and some other events. Even when idle, the "clip" is running.
If they just skin QNX with Flash (or vice versa) then both will be competing for resources to perform similar, overlapping functions. Because of the hardware, that's probably OK (at least as an interim solution).
But, to resolve the battery issue, they will need to shut down some of the hardware (display, CPU Core, a block of RAM, etc). Who (QNX or Flash) detects when and what should be done, and who actually does it-- requires some interoperability between Flash and QNX at a much lower level than that in which Flash usually runs (an app using OS services or a plugin app using browser services).
If they are successful, there are some interesting potentials:
1) An OS with Flash built-in to provide the UI and presentation components
2) Flash with an integral OS
.
It's been a while, but AIR, Flash runs like a continuous movie clip with the ability to detect and handle mouse (touch) events and some other events. Even when idle, the "clip" is running.
No. Listener events, do not run, like a "movie" whatsoever.
No. Listener events, do not run, like a "movie" whatsoever.
Isn't there a timeline and a stage?
What provides the animation when a Flash app is idling, listening for events?
.
Isn't there a timeline and a stage?
What provides the animation when a Flash app is idling, listening for events?
.
dude. timelines are really passe. you don't need, a timeline for any of that. But you need to understand the way things are done now, it's changed radically in the last few editions. Some projects I have been involved with, I don't go near the timeline.
You don't need a 'movieclip', or timeline for the new event model.
dude. timelines are really passe. you don't need, a timeline for any of that. But you need to understand the way things are done now, it's changed radically in the last few editions. Some projects I have been involved with, I don't go near the timeline.
You don't need a 'movieclip', or timeline for the new event model.
Duda!
OK, then what is responsible for the high CPU usage when a Flash app/window/whatever is open and idling--- not getting any events?
Are you saying that things like this aren't necessary?
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/air/arti...ng_on_air.html
.
He clearly said that none of the videos were fake.
That was after he was "questioned" on his earlier post (74) where he clearly implied Apple was just as guilty of using fake videos. .... just another attempt to deflect the blame, imo. Don't take my word for it .... check post #74.
He made an outrageous claim and has spent the rest of the thread ignoring that he even made that claim. IMO, that's an irresponsible thing to do. that's all.
Duda!
OK, then what is responsible for the high CPU usage when a Flash app/window/whatever is open and idling--- not getting any events?
Are you saying that things like this aren't necessary?
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/air/arti...ng_on_air.html
.
Dick,
as you should well know, any application dev platform requires knowledge of optimization, keeping memory use low, etc. etc.. They -all- have it. It's my view a good number of bad flash sites out there is because of very, poor coding practices.
I don't get the high cpu usage on windows, and I used to with pre 10.1 pre 10.1 was not good, this is why they've begun with a completely rewritten player. It was about freaking time, thx to SJ for lighting the fire finally.
Dick,
as you should well know, any application dev platform requires knowledge of optimization, keeping memory use low, etc. etc.. They -all- have it. It's my view a good number of bad flash sites out there is because of very, poor coding practices.
I don't get the high cpu usage on windows, and I used to with pre 10.1 pre 10.1 was not good, this is why they've begun with a completely rewritten player. It was about freaking time, thx to SJ for lighting the fire finally.
OK!
I just checked -- I use click2Flash, but have 2 YouTube Flash windows open -- one paused, one finished with the "Just Watched" Flash Display. I use latest OS X, Latest Safari with the latest GPU assisted Flash Plugin. Here's the stats:
Contrast this with one from a year ago on the same hardware. 1 Flash window had been open, but that window had been closed:
That's a significant improvement -- the difference between unusable and acceptable.
The CPU and memory figures are great-- I wonder about the threads, though.
So, say I am willing to accept your assertions (or at least consider them)..
How does Adobe or the end user avoid the bad Flash sites or apps?
Should Adobe, after appropriate public notice, enforce a backward compatibility limit (or some such) in the player that assures acceptable performance/quality of the apps?
.
======
robet
stretching exercises
OK!
I just checked -- I use click2Flash, but have 2 YouTube Flash windows open -- one paused, one finished with the "Just Watched" Flash Display. I use latest OS X, Latest Safari with the latest GPU assisted Flash Plugin. Here's the stats:
Contrast this with one from a year ago on the same hardware. 1 Flash window had been open, but that window had been closed:
That's a significant improvement -- the difference between unusable and acceptable.
The CPU and memory figures are great-- I wonder about the threads, though.
So, say I am willing to accept your assertions (or at least consider them)..
How does Adobe or the end user avoid the bad Flash sites or apps?
Should Adobe, after appropriate public notice, enforce a backward compatibility limit (or some such) in the player that assures acceptable performance/quality of the apps?
.
I don't know the answers really to those questions. But it is a tough one, and bad developers will cause all sorts of problems.
I'd expect some pretty interesting html5/js/canvas etc etc monsters to take out my browser some time down the road. With luck, that hopefully won't be a serious problem. But I do recall all the horrible JS stuff in the 90s. Mouse followers blah blah.
Perhaps adobe putting out IDEs that enforce better garbage collection, memory management, I don't know.