How about Adobe and Apple work together on Flash for OS X that doesn't suck arse, first? Then work their way up from there?
Because the iPhone is Apple's future.
If you look back over the past year or so, the biggest moves Apple has made are to secure the future of the iPhone, not the desktop.
They go head to head with IBM so that Papermaster can run their iPhone/devices business.
They bought PA Semi for their expertise in low power chips.
They are actually working with Adobe to get Flash onto the iPhone.
And I wonder if this big OSX cleanup is to make it smaller and leaner, so that it runs more efficiently on a small rectangular phone-type device.
And what has the desktop business seen? A non-removeable battery that uses the same tech that HP has been shipping since before Christmas.
But that's not to say that any improvements made for the iPhone business won't help the Mac business. The improvements Adobe make to Flash could make it more efficient for everyone (Windows, Mac and Linux users).
I would cry no tears whatsoever if Flash were to die. The internet is one of the few things left in the world that's largely open and free, so the less control individual companies have the better.
.
On the one hand I agree but we must be careful not to let MS Silverlight get a foothold. Surely Flash is the lesser of two evils
What good do we get from it? the only usefull content in flash is embedded video, but it is far outweighed by the crap - the banner ads. the top, side and bottom banners that throttle the fuck out of my CPU when all i want is to read 2KB text file.
I would like optional flash, that is, just display a grey box with a play button where flash content is, that way I don't have to wait on flash ads when i am in a hurry or in the Styx using EDGE.
There's nothing annoying about the technology. It's the use some put to it that's annoying.
This argument comes out all the time. If you want a reductio ad absurdum, consider that open mail relays have likewise been defended until their public utility was eclipsed by the damage they caused.
Both Flash and open mail relays offer benefits to users in terms of functionality and convenience. For people who travel a lot and send mail from unpredictable locations, an open relay facilitates their tasks. But obviously, spammers took advantage of this technology and abused it until the general public decided that the inconvenience and added authentication overhead of closed mail relays outweighed any benefits of open ones.
Flash is similar (although not as inherently risky) in that it offers certain benefits to the browsing experience. But it also comes at a cost, which many people are now deciding outweighs the benefits. And even though it's just another 'technology', it can undeniably be abused, particularly if it means reduced battery life for portable devices that have to process it. Even on a desktop machine, I have personally seen my CPU load drop from over half available to under a tenth, simply by turning off Flash. I got zero benefit from Flash running in those instances (I did not have any video windows open - it was all ads) yet this one 'technology' was literally adding to my electric bill and slowing everything else down.
The internet community lost the convenience of open relays, but worked around it to the point that we generally don't notice. (There is still a network overhead and administrative burden associated with secured SMTP.) Has Flash reached a similar tipping point where people get so frustrated that they say it's just not worth it? Do we develop alternatives that render this problem moot? It seems like we're headed that way, and the only one oblivious to public sentiment is Adobe.
I would like optional flash, that is, just display a grey box with a play button where flash content is, that way I don't have to wait on flash ads when i am in a hurry or in the Styx using EDGE.
Then this will be your new favorite piece of software:
My Bookmarks sync over the air, it is an option listed in the settings.
But that is with MobileMe. I'm sure he wants it without that option being paid for or perhaps he is just unaware as he seems to be blaming Apple because Google doesn't offer Push with Gmail.
Personally, I have all my Gmail forwarded to my MM account, which is set up on my iPhone. I changed testing SMTP to Gmail so I am esssentially getting Push email Gmail. It has worked out very well.
? Despite what one poster wrote Apple is not giving up or ignoring the Mac.
? I really don't care for Flash, but I would like to watch my streaming TV shows on my iPhone. I understand why Hulu et al. aren't revamping their site like YouTube did, but. Would think, for example, that making a dedicated Hulu app for the iPhone would generate a good deal of advertising revenue.
? I find it funny that the general consensus when the iPhone fat arrived was that Apple was screwing the consumer by not including Flash, now it seems that the majority doesn't want it. Also, Im humoured by difficulty stated by Adobe, though a good part of that is surely the demands put on them by Apple.
? Is it not possible for Adobe to make a Flash HW chip whose specific purpose is to deal with Flash sites?
• Is it not possible for Adobe to make a Flash HW chip whose specific purpose is to deal with Flash sites?
Adobe could make one, but Apple would then have to buy said chip, make extra space to fit it in the case and then worry about the extra power requirements needed. All for a chip whose sole purpose is support a proprietary media format which does not really benefit Apple in any way.
And once the adjustments outlined above have been made to the iPhone and once customers have become accustomed to the smooth flash experience, Apple would then be duty bound to pay Adobe tax for every device they make in the near future to get the special flash playback hardware.
So yes, Adobe could this chip and they may sell a few to other manufacturers, but it would highly unlikely way to get Flash on the iPhone.
Personally, I have all my Gmail forwarded to my MM account, which is set up on my iPhone. I changed testing SMTP to Gmail so I am esssentially getting Push email Gmail. It has worked out very well.
I did that last year for a few months after MM was launched b/c I thought Gmail wouldn't arrive as fast on my Touch when I'm at work. I often have to work away from my desk and it's convenient to check my email on my Touch. I just have to log onto the server at work and presto! I have access to the internet and email. But, MM just sucks. Sometimes people would send me email and I would never receive it. It would just go into the "cloud" and never come out, I guess. I use the iDisk storage every now and then, but if MM isn't vastly improved by my August renewal date....it will be a distant, bad memory. The feature I love about Gmail is the 7.8ish GB of storage space you have. You never have to delete anything. I tried to switch my usage to MM, but I ended up losing email b/c I accidentally deleted it and there is no way to get it back. Gmail spoiled me with their Archive feature. I can go back and find emails I sent in '06. It's great. After I switched back to Gmail (to my great relief) the email just sort of shows up on my Touch. I don't have to tell it to refresh. I don't know how it does that, but it works and it seems to be just as fast as the MM account. I just have two accounts on there for now. My Gmail email is even there when I wake up in the morning and check my email on my Touch at home. It's so much quicker than opening up my laptop and checking it there. I love my Apple, but I love my Google, too.
Adobe could make one, but Apple would then have to buy said chip, make extra space to fit it in the case and then worry about the extra power requirements needed. All for a chip whose sole purpose is support a proprietary media format which does not really benefit Apple in anyway. And once Apple includes the chip and customers become use to it, they have to pay Adobe tax for every device they make in the near future to have the special flash playback hardware.
So yes, Adobe could make one but it would be a highly unlikely to get flash on the iPhone.
I guess the problem when building a platform is keeping it open and attractive to development (to build a strong eco-system and not having to do all the work, whilst at the same time avoiding leaving the door open for a third party to walk in and hijack a key ingredient.
Perhaps my opinion is not going to be extremely popular here, but I consider the iPhone browser as crippled without Flash capability. Flash is the de facto standard of the web when it comes to multimedia content, especially for live media viewing. I still find it rather ironic how, at iPhone's launch, Jobs criticized other phones for having "baby software" -- well, the other phones have caught up and surpassed Mobile Safari's capabilities. Apple has lost the edge - so what are they going to do about it?
Sure, Flash on the iPhone is going to need some radical optimizing, and probably not be quite as high-resolution as on a desktop or notebook. But the iPhone must have the capability to play most of the web's multimedia content to stay competitive. Simply deferring to YouTube links isn't the answer.
I did that last year for a few months after MM was launched b/c I thought Gmail wouldn't arrive as fast on my Touch when I'm at work. I often have to work away from my desk and it's convenient to check my email on my Touch. I just have to log onto the server at work and presto! I have access to the internet and email. But, MM just sucks. Sometimes people would send me email and I would never receive it. It would just go into the "cloud" and never come out, I guess. I use the iDisk storage every now and then, but if MM isn't vastly improved by my August renewal date....it will be a distant, bad memory. The feature I love about Gmail is the 7.8ish GB of storage space you have. You never have to delete anything. I tried to switch my usage to MM, but I ended up losing email b/c I accidentally deleted it and there is no way to get it back. Gmail spoiled me with their Archive feature. I can go back and find emails I sent in '06. It's great. After I switched back to Gmail (to my great relief) the email just sort of shows up on my Touch. I don't have to tell it to refresh. I don't know how it does that, but it works and it seems to be just as fast as the MM account. I just have two accounts on there for now. My Gmail email is even there when I wake up in the morning and check my email on my Touch at home. It's so much quicker than opening up my laptop and checking it there. I love my Apple, but I love my Google, too.
It doesn't sound like you had your Gmail auto forwarded to your MM account. I had initially set up both on my iPhone, and the Push was working by day 4. It is quite good. In fact, my Mac checks Gmail every 60 seconds, yet I'll hear/feel my iPhone vibrate first so I'll know to check OS X Mail. Remember, that is first being firerded from Gmail to MM a d then Pushed to my iPhone. If all that beats Mail's 60 second interval check to Gmail then I'd say it is working great.
I have had no issues with MM SMsibce day 4, and I think Apple learned the hardway just how big it has gotten as we have since seen a lit more staggered product releases since that fiasco last summer.
Perhaps my opinion is not going to be extremely popular here, but I consider the iPhone browser as crippled without Flash capability. Flash is the de facto standard of the web when it comes to multimedia content, especially for live media viewing. I still find it rather ironic how, at iPhone's launch, Jobs criticized other phones for having "baby software" -- well, the other phones have caught up and surpassed Mobile Safari's capabilities. Apple has lost the edge - so what are they going to do about it?
Sure, Flash on the iPhone is going to need some radical optimizing, and probably not be quite as high-resolution as on a desktop or notebook. But the iPhone must have the capability to play most of the web's multimedia content to stay competitive. Simply deferring to YouTube links isn't the answer.
I don't like to see Flash used as a substitute for normal website navigation. If turning it off ( as an option ) means I cannot navigate a website, then it becomes a barrier to the use of the internet on a broad range of devices.
... I really don't care for Flash, but I would like to watch my streaming TV shows on my iPhone. ...
I keep reading and hearing this sentiment over and over again, but it makes no sense to me.
Most North Americans using an iPhone have:
A hugely expensive data package that effectively doubles the price of using a phone from whatever they were using previously.
This huge increase in price gives us between 1 and 6 gigabytes of data depending on country and plan.
Streaming movies to a portable uses up gigabytes of data.
While walking around watching TV on your Phone sounds like a great idea, who would want to pay the equivalent of an extra cable bill to do so?
What's so great about live TV that you want to pay exorbitant data costs just to watch it? I watch a couple of news shows on the train every morning on my way to work. This "TV" is free, because it's a podcast that's automatically synced to my computer and thus the iPhone. It's about 12 hours old by the time I watch it the next morning, but why would I want to eat up my entire data contract for the month just to beat that 12 hour delay? And this is a news program, not just some dumb sitcom that it doesn't matter when you watch it.
I don't think people who are dreaming about live streaming to their iPhone are really thinking straight. I also think the number of people such services would serve (at least initially) would be tiny compared to the number of people who have an iPhone. In five years we will probably all be doing it because data will eventually revert to it's actual costs which are minimal, but now?
I keep reading and hearing this sentiment over and over again, but it makes no sense to me.
Most North Americans using an iPhone have:
A hugely expensive data package that effectively doubles the price of using a phone from whatever they were using previously.
This huge increase in price gives us between 1 and 6 gigabytes of data depending on country and plan.
Streaming movies to a portable uses up gigabytes of data.
While walking around watching TV on your Phone sounds like a great idea, who would want to pay the equivalent of an extra cable bill to do so?
What's so great about live TV that you want to pay exorbitant data costs just to watch it? I watch a couple of news shows on the train every morning on my way to work. This "TV" is free, because it's a podcast that's automatically synced to my computer and thus the iPhone. It's about 12 hours old by the time I watch it the next morning, but why would I want to eat up my entire data contract for the month just to beat that 12 hour delay? And this is a news program, not just some dumb sitcom that it doesn't matter when you watch it.
I don't think people who are dreaming about live streaming to their iPhone are really thinking straight. I also think the number of people such services would serve (at least initially) would be tiny compared to the number of people who have an iPhone. In five years we will probably all be doing it because data will eventually revert to it's actual costs which are minimal, but now?
This just makes no sense.
My iPhone on AT&T I get unlimited data, though I think of is technically a 5GB soft cap. I also pay $60/month for the same data for an AT&T card for my Mac. I stream dozens of shows each week. This isn't like Sprint's TV service on their phones, these are shows that have already broadcast and have been put on Hulu and other sites as low-data streams wrapped in Flash. Hulu now offers 480p, the rest are 360p or lower, but the bittate is low enough and the codec seems to efficient enough to keep it down to a nominal size.
I'm always traveling so I rarely get to see a show when it aires, and I prefer to watch them in chronological order so these sites work for me. I even torrent the ones that aren't available as streams, but I try not to to this as I have to wait until it finishes to watch and it does take up a lot more data.
I do have my laptop but sometimes it is more convenient to just use my iPhone. It is also more conservative on power. For instance, I can sync video to my iPhone and then after 4 hours of viewing plug it back into my Mav and recharge the iPhone to continue viewing and surfing. This can be done many times in a day, but watching that dame video in my Mac or surfing the web would not get me the same duration. This message was sent from my iPhone.
I guess Jobs' statement of any usable version of Flash being too resource heavy, is a signal that the version of Flash they're developing is intended for the new (upcoming) iPhone, about which rumors have been going round about much more powerful graphics hardware...
Flash is CPU heavy, not GPU heavy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ipodrulz
I don't think speed becomes an issue when it's something as simple as comparing if apps are updated, or sending over 4 or even 20 To Dos. Apple could do a simple 10MB limit. Though the point of my post was to say that Flash is no where important compared to all the other things Apple could be working on.
I suspect that people would still complain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arteckx
I could do without Flash for everyday use, but it's those random convenience type things that make it hurt. Need a restaurant menu so you can tell home what to pick up? Use the iPhone! Oh, wait, they decided to use flash for that. I guess I'd like one question mark blue cube with extra sauce because that's all I see on the menu.
I really don't see why those sites can't be done in AJAX if they need to be fancy. I would be curious if Flash Lite could handle those sites.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I don't think Jobs is trying to do that, and it would be stupid.
If Adobe's Flash fails because of this, which is almost impossible, then MS's Silverlight will take over.
I think that's a false dichotomy, it really depends on why Flash fails. If flash fails because iPhone doesn't have it, why would Silverlight succeed? I don't recall iPhone having Silverlight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2
I keep reading and hearing this sentiment over and over again, but it makes no sense to me.
(snip)
What's so great about *live* TV that you want to pay exorbitant data costs just to watch it?
(snip)
I don't think people who are dreaming about live streaming to their iPhone are really thinking straight. I also think the number of people such services would serve (at least initially) would be tiny compared to the number of people who have an iPhone. In five years we will probably all be doing it because data will eventually revert to it's actual costs which are minimal, but now?
(snip)
This just makes no sense.
Solipsism didn't say anything about streaming live TV, it looks like you are mentally inserting that term into his argument then flogging him for it, I think that's called a strawman argument. Solipsism's examples clearly weren't examples of live TV streaming.
Comments
How about Adobe and Apple work together on Flash for OS X that doesn't suck arse, first? Then work their way up from there?
Because the iPhone is Apple's future.
If you look back over the past year or so, the biggest moves Apple has made are to secure the future of the iPhone, not the desktop.
They go head to head with IBM so that Papermaster can run their iPhone/devices business.
They bought PA Semi for their expertise in low power chips.
They are actually working with Adobe to get Flash onto the iPhone.
And I wonder if this big OSX cleanup is to make it smaller and leaner, so that it runs more efficiently on a small rectangular phone-type device.
And what has the desktop business seen? A non-removeable battery that uses the same tech that HP has been shipping since before Christmas.
But that's not to say that any improvements made for the iPhone business won't help the Mac business. The improvements Adobe make to Flash could make it more efficient for everyone (Windows, Mac and Linux users).
I would cry no tears whatsoever if Flash were to die. The internet is one of the few things left in the world that's largely open and free, so the less control individual companies have the better.
.
On the one hand I agree but we must be careful not to let MS Silverlight get a foothold. Surely Flash is the lesser of two evils
What good do we get from it? the only usefull content in flash is embedded video, but it is far outweighed by the crap - the banner ads. the top, side and bottom banners that throttle the fuck out of my CPU when all i want is to read 2KB text file.
I would like optional flash, that is, just display a grey box with a play button where flash content is, that way I don't have to wait on flash ads when i am in a hurry or in the Styx using EDGE.
There's nothing annoying about the technology. It's the use some put to it that's annoying.
This argument comes out all the time. If you want a reductio ad absurdum, consider that open mail relays have likewise been defended until their public utility was eclipsed by the damage they caused.
Both Flash and open mail relays offer benefits to users in terms of functionality and convenience. For people who travel a lot and send mail from unpredictable locations, an open relay facilitates their tasks. But obviously, spammers took advantage of this technology and abused it until the general public decided that the inconvenience and added authentication overhead of closed mail relays outweighed any benefits of open ones.
Flash is similar (although not as inherently risky) in that it offers certain benefits to the browsing experience. But it also comes at a cost, which many people are now deciding outweighs the benefits. And even though it's just another 'technology', it can undeniably be abused, particularly if it means reduced battery life for portable devices that have to process it. Even on a desktop machine, I have personally seen my CPU load drop from over half available to under a tenth, simply by turning off Flash. I got zero benefit from Flash running in those instances (I did not have any video windows open - it was all ads) yet this one 'technology' was literally adding to my electric bill and slowing everything else down.
The internet community lost the convenience of open relays, but worked around it to the point that we generally don't notice. (There is still a network overhead and administrative burden associated with secured SMTP.) Has Flash reached a similar tipping point where people get so frustrated that they say it's just not worth it? Do we develop alternatives that render this problem moot? It seems like we're headed that way, and the only one oblivious to public sentiment is Adobe.
See also: RealNetworks, public feelings toward
I would like optional flash, that is, just display a grey box with a play button where flash content is, that way I don't have to wait on flash ads when i am in a hurry or in the Styx using EDGE.
Then this will be your new favorite piece of software:
http://github.com/rentzsch/clicktoflash/tree/master
My Bookmarks sync over the air, it is an option listed in the settings.
But that is with MobileMe. I'm sure he wants it without that option being paid for or perhaps he is just unaware as he seems to be blaming Apple because Google doesn't offer Push with Gmail.
Personally, I have all my Gmail forwarded to my MM account, which is set up on my iPhone. I changed testing SMTP to Gmail so I am esssentially getting Push email Gmail. It has worked out very well.
Both are not an option on a cell-phone.
How about Adobe and Apple work together on Flash for OS X that doesn't suck arse, first? Then work their way up from there?
I feel your pain, I also have a BlackBook which goes fan crazy for flash!
My hope is that optimisations for iPhone can be moved to the Mac OS X version. It should be possible due to the similar roots of both systems.
Apple is doing just this — moving the optimisations they made to Quicktime playback for iPhone to Mac OS X in the form of Quicktime X.
It's because Flash is a) slow and a resource hog and b) crashes in a catastrophic fashion all the fucking time.
Both are not an option on a cell-phone.
Great first post: short, to the point, analytical, and spot on accurate.
Welcome to the forums.
? I really don't care for Flash, but I would like to watch my streaming TV shows on my iPhone. I understand why Hulu et al. aren't revamping their site like YouTube did, but. Would think, for example, that making a dedicated Hulu app for the iPhone would generate a good deal of advertising revenue.
? I find it funny that the general consensus when the iPhone fat arrived was that Apple was screwing the consumer by not including Flash, now it seems that the majority doesn't want it. Also, Im humoured by difficulty stated by Adobe, though a good part of that is surely the demands put on them by Apple.
? Is it not possible for Adobe to make a Flash HW chip whose specific purpose is to deal with Flash sites?
• Is it not possible for Adobe to make a Flash HW chip whose specific purpose is to deal with Flash sites?
Adobe could make one, but Apple would then have to buy said chip, make extra space to fit it in the case and then worry about the extra power requirements needed. All for a chip whose sole purpose is support a proprietary media format which does not really benefit Apple in any way.
And once the adjustments outlined above have been made to the iPhone and once customers have become accustomed to the smooth flash experience, Apple would then be duty bound to pay Adobe tax for every device they make in the near future to get the special flash playback hardware.
So yes, Adobe could this chip and they may sell a few to other manufacturers, but it would highly unlikely way to get Flash on the iPhone.
Unless Tim Cook came down in the last shower.
Personally, I have all my Gmail forwarded to my MM account, which is set up on my iPhone. I changed testing SMTP to Gmail so I am esssentially getting Push email Gmail. It has worked out very well.
I did that last year for a few months after MM was launched b/c I thought Gmail wouldn't arrive as fast on my Touch when I'm at work. I often have to work away from my desk and it's convenient to check my email on my Touch. I just have to log onto the server at work and presto! I have access to the internet and email. But, MM just sucks. Sometimes people would send me email and I would never receive it. It would just go into the "cloud" and never come out, I guess. I use the iDisk storage every now and then, but if MM isn't vastly improved by my August renewal date....it will be a distant, bad memory. The feature I love about Gmail is the 7.8ish GB of storage space you have. You never have to delete anything. I tried to switch my usage to MM, but I ended up losing email b/c I accidentally deleted it and there is no way to get it back. Gmail spoiled me with their Archive feature. I can go back and find emails I sent in '06. It's great. After I switched back to Gmail (to my great relief) the email just sort of shows up on my Touch. I don't have to tell it to refresh. I don't know how it does that, but it works and it seems to be just as fast as the MM account. I just have two accounts on there for now. My Gmail email is even there when I wake up in the morning and check my email on my Touch at home. It's so much quicker than opening up my laptop and checking it there. I love my Apple, but I love my Google, too.
Adobe could make one, but Apple would then have to buy said chip, make extra space to fit it in the case and then worry about the extra power requirements needed. All for a chip whose sole purpose is support a proprietary media format which does not really benefit Apple in anyway. And once Apple includes the chip and customers become use to it, they have to pay Adobe tax for every device they make in the near future to have the special flash playback hardware.
So yes, Adobe could make one but it would be a highly unlikely to get flash on the iPhone.
Good point, I hadn't thought of that.
Good point, I hadn't thought of that.
I guess the problem when building a platform is keeping it open and attractive to development (to build a strong eco-system and not having to do all the work, whilst at the same time avoiding leaving the door open for a third party to walk in and hijack a key ingredient.
It's a tricky balancing act.
Sure, Flash on the iPhone is going to need some radical optimizing, and probably not be quite as high-resolution as on a desktop or notebook. But the iPhone must have the capability to play most of the web's multimedia content to stay competitive. Simply deferring to YouTube links isn't the answer.
I did that last year for a few months after MM was launched b/c I thought Gmail wouldn't arrive as fast on my Touch when I'm at work. I often have to work away from my desk and it's convenient to check my email on my Touch. I just have to log onto the server at work and presto! I have access to the internet and email. But, MM just sucks. Sometimes people would send me email and I would never receive it. It would just go into the "cloud" and never come out, I guess. I use the iDisk storage every now and then, but if MM isn't vastly improved by my August renewal date....it will be a distant, bad memory. The feature I love about Gmail is the 7.8ish GB of storage space you have. You never have to delete anything. I tried to switch my usage to MM, but I ended up losing email b/c I accidentally deleted it and there is no way to get it back. Gmail spoiled me with their Archive feature. I can go back and find emails I sent in '06. It's great. After I switched back to Gmail (to my great relief) the email just sort of shows up on my Touch. I don't have to tell it to refresh. I don't know how it does that, but it works and it seems to be just as fast as the MM account. I just have two accounts on there for now. My Gmail email is even there when I wake up in the morning and check my email on my Touch at home. It's so much quicker than opening up my laptop and checking it there. I love my Apple, but I love my Google, too.
It doesn't sound like you had your Gmail auto forwarded to your MM account. I had initially set up both on my iPhone, and the Push was working by day 4. It is quite good. In fact, my Mac checks Gmail every 60 seconds, yet I'll hear/feel my iPhone vibrate first so I'll know to check OS X Mail. Remember, that is first being firerded from Gmail to MM a d then Pushed to my iPhone. If all that beats Mail's 60 second interval check to Gmail then I'd say it is working great.
I have had no issues with MM SMsibce day 4, and I think Apple learned the hardway just how big it has gotten as we have since seen a lit more staggered product releases since that fiasco last summer.
Perhaps my opinion is not going to be extremely popular here, but I consider the iPhone browser as crippled without Flash capability. Flash is the de facto standard of the web when it comes to multimedia content, especially for live media viewing. I still find it rather ironic how, at iPhone's launch, Jobs criticized other phones for having "baby software" -- well, the other phones have caught up and surpassed Mobile Safari's capabilities. Apple has lost the edge - so what are they going to do about it?
Sure, Flash on the iPhone is going to need some radical optimizing, and probably not be quite as high-resolution as on a desktop or notebook. But the iPhone must have the capability to play most of the web's multimedia content to stay competitive. Simply deferring to YouTube links isn't the answer.
Which other phones surpass mobile Safari?
... I really don't care for Flash, but I would like to watch my streaming TV shows on my iPhone. ...
I keep reading and hearing this sentiment over and over again, but it makes no sense to me.
Most North Americans using an iPhone have:
- A hugely expensive data package that effectively doubles the price of using a phone from whatever they were using previously.
- This huge increase in price gives us between 1 and 6 gigabytes of data depending on country and plan.
- Streaming movies to a portable uses up gigabytes of data.
While walking around watching TV on your Phone sounds like a great idea, who would want to pay the equivalent of an extra cable bill to do so?What's so great about live TV that you want to pay exorbitant data costs just to watch it? I watch a couple of news shows on the train every morning on my way to work. This "TV" is free, because it's a podcast that's automatically synced to my computer and thus the iPhone. It's about 12 hours old by the time I watch it the next morning, but why would I want to eat up my entire data contract for the month just to beat that 12 hour delay? And this is a news program, not just some dumb sitcom that it doesn't matter when you watch it.
I don't think people who are dreaming about live streaming to their iPhone are really thinking straight. I also think the number of people such services would serve (at least initially) would be tiny compared to the number of people who have an iPhone. In five years we will probably all be doing it because data will eventually revert to it's actual costs which are minimal, but now?
This just makes no sense.
I keep reading and hearing this sentiment over and over again, but it makes no sense to me.
Most North Americans using an iPhone have:
- A hugely expensive data package that effectively doubles the price of using a phone from whatever they were using previously.
- This huge increase in price gives us between 1 and 6 gigabytes of data depending on country and plan.
- Streaming movies to a portable uses up gigabytes of data.
While walking around watching TV on your Phone sounds like a great idea, who would want to pay the equivalent of an extra cable bill to do so?What's so great about live TV that you want to pay exorbitant data costs just to watch it? I watch a couple of news shows on the train every morning on my way to work. This "TV" is free, because it's a podcast that's automatically synced to my computer and thus the iPhone. It's about 12 hours old by the time I watch it the next morning, but why would I want to eat up my entire data contract for the month just to beat that 12 hour delay? And this is a news program, not just some dumb sitcom that it doesn't matter when you watch it.
I don't think people who are dreaming about live streaming to their iPhone are really thinking straight. I also think the number of people such services would serve (at least initially) would be tiny compared to the number of people who have an iPhone. In five years we will probably all be doing it because data will eventually revert to it's actual costs which are minimal, but now?
This just makes no sense.
My iPhone on AT&T I get unlimited data, though I think of is technically a 5GB soft cap. I also pay $60/month for the same data for an AT&T card for my Mac. I stream dozens of shows each week. This isn't like Sprint's TV service on their phones, these are shows that have already broadcast and have been put on Hulu and other sites as low-data streams wrapped in Flash. Hulu now offers 480p, the rest are 360p or lower, but the bittate is low enough and the codec seems to efficient enough to keep it down to a nominal size.
I'm always traveling so I rarely get to see a show when it aires, and I prefer to watch them in chronological order so these sites work for me. I even torrent the ones that aren't available as streams, but I try not to to this as I have to wait until it finishes to watch and it does take up a lot more data.
I do have my laptop but sometimes it is more convenient to just use my iPhone. It is also more conservative on power. For instance, I can sync video to my iPhone and then after 4 hours of viewing plug it back into my Mav and recharge the iPhone to continue viewing and surfing. This can be done many times in a day, but watching that dame video in my Mac or surfing the web would not get me the same duration. This message was sent from my iPhone.
I guess Jobs' statement of any usable version of Flash being too resource heavy, is a signal that the version of Flash they're developing is intended for the new (upcoming) iPhone, about which rumors have been going round about much more powerful graphics hardware...
Flash is CPU heavy, not GPU heavy.
I don't think speed becomes an issue when it's something as simple as comparing if apps are updated, or sending over 4 or even 20 To Dos. Apple could do a simple 10MB limit. Though the point of my post was to say that Flash is no where important compared to all the other things Apple could be working on.
I suspect that people would still complain.
I could do without Flash for everyday use, but it's those random convenience type things that make it hurt. Need a restaurant menu so you can tell home what to pick up? Use the iPhone! Oh, wait, they decided to use flash for that. I guess I'd like one question mark blue cube with extra sauce because that's all I see on the menu.
I really don't see why those sites can't be done in AJAX if they need to be fancy. I would be curious if Flash Lite could handle those sites.
I don't think Jobs is trying to do that, and it would be stupid.
If Adobe's Flash fails because of this, which is almost impossible, then MS's Silverlight will take over.
I think that's a false dichotomy, it really depends on why Flash fails. If flash fails because iPhone doesn't have it, why would Silverlight succeed? I don't recall iPhone having Silverlight.
I keep reading and hearing this sentiment over and over again, but it makes no sense to me.
(snip)
What's so great about *live* TV that you want to pay exorbitant data costs just to watch it?
(snip)
I don't think people who are dreaming about live streaming to their iPhone are really thinking straight. I also think the number of people such services would serve (at least initially) would be tiny compared to the number of people who have an iPhone. In five years we will probably all be doing it because data will eventually revert to it's actual costs which are minimal, but now?
(snip)
This just makes no sense.
Solipsism didn't say anything about streaming live TV, it looks like you are mentally inserting that term into his argument then flogging him for it, I think that's called a strawman argument. Solipsism's examples clearly weren't examples of live TV streaming.
Another, the iPhone can be used over WiFi.