So this is the mysterious 12th iPhone app that folks were talking about after analyzing one of the iPhone adds. Am I right?
Its intersting that this app was also introduced for AppleTV. I wouldn't be surprised that in most cases an app written for one produce could work on the other.
Who knows maybe the next app will be a mobile ITNS (or for AppleTV the ability to buy directly from ITNS).
Note to Apple: Why don't you quit wasting time helping YouTube re-encode their videos, and instead spend time re-encoding the iTunes Store video content in 720p so there's a reason to actually buy the AppleTV?
Note to Apple: Why don't you quit wasting time helping YouTube re-encode their videos, and instead spend time re-encoding the iTunes Store video content in 720p so there's a reason to actually buy the AppleTV?
The problem is not Apple not wanting to upgrade the content, the problem is reaching an agreement with the content providers (ie the tv networks and Hollywood studios) which will allow them to sell HD content.. Apple doesn't own the content in the iTunes store, they are licensing it. Licensing HD content is a whole different deal.
None of the games from aol.com ( which has some great poker games) work with my Mac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
I might too generous in my interpretation, buy I think he was more getting at the idea that Apple is claiming the iPhone provides the "full web" experience yet doesn't (as fas as is known) support Flash. At work, Flash isn't installed and I've stumbled upon numerous sites that don't function fully without it. Likewise, at home on my Mac, I've stumbled upon numerous sites that don't play well with Safari. Put those two together and you're going to have a less than stellar web experience on the iPhone.
Note to Apple: Why don't you quit wasting time helping YouTube re-encode their videos, and instead spend time re-encoding the iTunes Store video content in 720p so there's a reason to actually buy the AppleTV?
I might too generous in my interpretation, buy I think he was more getting at the idea that Apple is claiming the iPhone provides the "full web" experience yet doesn't (as fas as is known) support Flash. At work, Flash isn't installed and I've stumbled upon numerous sites that don't function fully without it. Likewise, at home on my Mac, I've stumbled upon numerous sites that don't play well with Safari. Put those two together and you're going to have a less than stellar web experience on the iPhone.
Note to Apple: Why don't you quit wasting time helping YouTube re-encode their videos, and instead spend time re-encoding the iTunes Store video content in 720p so there's a reason to actually buy the AppleTV?
The fact that it would be less than 100% fully-functional web is something I can expect and live with, given the size of the device (since, even if it was 100%,the screen size would naturally limit the overall quality of the navigation experience). That said, I agree with you about 720p. I would buy @TV in a jiffy.
And, why don't they just enable Flash and be done with it!?
Bandwidth and data transfer cost?that is the question. Sounds good, but w/ an expensive data plan, where MB?s are metered at a specific rate, then this can become rather expensive.
I?m not up on the latest plans of ATT, but I would think you are given X amount of MB?s and are changed for use thereafter.
They have various plans ranging from 1Meg 5Meg to....Unlimited. I know it's a .01 charge per k if you go over you limited amount.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacillus
Bandwidth and data transfer cost?that is the question. Sounds good, but w/ an expensive data plan, where MB?s are metered at a specific rate, then this can become rather expensive.
I?m not up on the latest plans of ATT, but I would think you are given X amount of MB?s and are changed for use thereafter.
And, why don't they just enable Flash and be done with it!?
I know, it makes no sense to me either. If you are going to say "it's not kind of sort of the Internet. It is the Internet" then it has to support Flash. Otherwise it is just kind of sort of...
Simply reencoding the video does not replace Flash. Authoring in Quicktime is not quite the same as Flash when it comes to buttons and menus the way You Tube currently works in a regular browser.
The problem is not Apple not wanting to upgrade the content, the problem is reaching an agreement with the content providers (ie the tv networks and Hollywood studios) which will allow them to sell HD content.. Apple doesn't own the content in the iTunes store, they are licensing it. Licensing HD content is a whole different deal.
I believe much of the content (at least TV shows) available on iTunes is already available at 720p on XBox Live. I don't have an XBox 360 to know how much content is available in HD there, but it seems pretty clear the networks are willing to sell HD content online (unless MS entered into an exclusive deal for the HD content, but I can't really imagine the networks going for that).
And while I'm creating a wish list, I wish Apple would start a Complete My Season system like the Complete My Album feature.
So, apple added new demos to their website about iPhone. Did anyone else notice that the eMail app says something to the affect of "Sent from my iPhone." I'm wondering if this is a default tag, like yahoo puts on every message, or if it is just a removable signature?
Now, that's not going to stop me from getting a phone, but I'd be disappointed if I can't remove that, only because I HATE tag-lines in eMail messages.
I'm also not happy about the YouTube icon. It seems like an eye sore next to the modern, colorful icons, and then you have a 60s looking TV? Both youTube and Notes looks like they don't belong. Ahh well? Like I said, that won't stop me from buying the phone
**SLAPS FOREHEAD** I forgot about the no flash support.
It isn't just flash.
With H.264 encoding, the video's will download much more quickly. If you have to wait for a couple of minutes before play begins, particularly for the iPhone, then you won't bother.
Now that we see the iPhone's capability with this, the H.264 makes more sense. It wasn't really needed for the ATv, but with EDGE, it's required.
I might too generous in my interpretation, buy I think he was more getting at the idea that Apple is claiming the iPhone provides the "full web" experience yet doesn't (as fas as is known) support Flash. At work, Flash isn't installed and I've stumbled upon numerous sites that don't function fully without it. Likewise, at home on my Mac, I've stumbled upon numerous sites that don't play well with Safari. Put those two together and you're going to have a less than stellar web experience on the iPhone.
Note to Apple: Why don't you quit wasting time helping YouTube re-encode their videos, and instead spend time re-encoding the iTunes Store video content in 720p so there's a reason to actually buy the AppleTV?
Apple isn't helping YouTube.
720p will come when Apple thinks there is a big enough market for it, and the studios concur.
The problem is not Apple not wanting to upgrade the content, the problem is reaching an agreement with the content providers (ie the tv networks and Hollywood studios) which will allow them to sell HD content.. Apple doesn't own the content in the iTunes store, they are licensing it. Licensing HD content is a whole different deal.
Exactly, both Apple and ISP's want you downloading as much as possible so that you pay more. It is the content providers that put the brakes on this.
Exactly, both Apple and ISP's want you downloading as much as possible so that you pay more. It is the content providers that put the brakes on this.
Hmm? How do you pay more to Apple or to ISPs by downloading more? I don't think content providers are limiting Apple's movie/TV resolution. If they have the HD versions, I'm sure they'd let Apple sell them.
Here is an explanation as to the problem with Flash on the iPhone.
The last thought I had was about the lack of Flash on the handset. I’ve done a lot of work with Flash on the desktop lately on Windows and I have to say that despite Adobe’s efforts to modernize their infrastructure, Flash is still a very primitive technology with strong roots in education CD-ROMs on Mac OS 9 — they’ve made tremendous strides in terms of rapid application development and deployment, but I don’t think performance or reliability has ever really been on Adobe’s radar with this product.
Some of the problems I’ve encountered include random crashes on shutdown, enormous memory leaks in the runtime (a leak in something that draws at 24fps is a huge issue!) — not to mention Flash’s notoriously awful performance. On the application side, many Flash applications (no naming names) written to run in Flash in a browser just don’t care about performance or resource utilization because most web applications have a process lifetime of a page view, or about 10 seconds. Finally, in a mobile context, consider the effect that Flash’s inefficient programming model will have on battery life. The last thing to remember is that the Flash runtime’s performance is about 4-20x worse on Mac OS X than it is on Windows — I bet Apple evaluated its options and decided it didn’t want to have its browser experience marred by Adobe’s lack of focus. You can also bet that with all the crazy user-space scaling tricks that iPhoneSafari does, Flash wouldn’t work.
This isn’t to say that Flash on the handset wouldn’t be useful, but if you consider the use cases it’s really not as big a deal as you might think.
What are you talkin about 80K, do you live in a 3rd world country. On my el'cheapo DSL connection I get 3M (2.75M) downloads. I'm 100% sure you're talking about dl'ing over the Edge service, but I'm not. It has Wifi built in, why not put it into good use. I have no idea what SJ said about not allowing iTunes downloads, but I'm sure it was a bullshit reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Jobs already explained why Apple won't be doing that. Why don't you respond to what he said?
Also, do you really want to download a 4 MB song at a max (theoretical, but actually about half that) of 80 Kb/s?
At a "real" download speed of 40kb/s that would take about 13 minutes 20 seconds. A VERY enjoyable experience.
Hmm? How do you pay more to Apple or to ISPs by downloading more? I don't think content providers are limiting Apple's movie/TV resolution. If they have the HD versions, I'm sure they'd let Apple sell them.
It isn't whether they would LET them sell them.
It under what conditions they would let them sell them.
I'm sure that every studio would LET Apple sell their movies, but so far, they haven't.
Why? Money.
Apple isn't exactly known for its cooperation.
Even though Apple now sells movies for less, people here still complain that it's too high.
What would the studios want for 720p content then?
Here is an explanation as to the problem with Flash on the iPhone.
The last thought I had was about the lack of Flash on the handset. I?ve done a lot of work with Flash on the desktop lately on Windows and I have to say that despite Adobe?s efforts to modernize their infrastructure, Flash is still a very primitive technology with strong roots in education CD-ROMs on Mac OS 9 ? they?ve made tremendous strides in terms of rapid application development and deployment, but I don?t think performance or reliability has ever really been on Adobe?s radar with this product.
Some of the problems I?ve encountered include random crashes on shutdown, enormous memory leaks in the runtime (a leak in something that draws at 24fps is a huge issue!) ? not to mention Flash?s notoriously awful performance. On the application side, many Flash applications (no naming names) written to run in Flash in a browser just don?t care about performance or resource utilization because most web applications have a process lifetime of a page view, or about 10 seconds. Finally, in a mobile context, consider the effect that Flash?s inefficient programming model will have on battery life. The last thing to remember is that the Flash runtime?s performance is about 4-20x worse on Mac OS X than it is on Windows ? I bet Apple evaluated its options and decided it didn?t want to have its browser experience marred by Adobe?s lack of focus. You can also bet that with all the crazy user-space scaling tricks that iPhoneSafari does, Flash wouldn?t work.
This isn?t to say that Flash on the handset wouldn?t be useful, but if you consider the use cases it?s really not as big a deal as you might think.
Comments
Its intersting that this app was also introduced for AppleTV. I wouldn't be surprised that in most cases an app written for one produce could work on the other.
Who knows maybe the next app will be a mobile ITNS (or for AppleTV the ability to buy directly from ITNS).
Note to Apple: Why don't you quit wasting time helping YouTube re-encode their videos, and instead spend time re-encoding the iTunes Store video content in 720p so there's a reason to actually buy the AppleTV?
Amen!
Note to Apple: Why don't you quit wasting time helping YouTube re-encode their videos, and instead spend time re-encoding the iTunes Store video content in 720p so there's a reason to actually buy the AppleTV?
The problem is not Apple not wanting to upgrade the content, the problem is reaching an agreement with the content providers (ie the tv networks and Hollywood studios) which will allow them to sell HD content.. Apple doesn't own the content in the iTunes store, they are licensing it. Licensing HD content is a whole different deal.
I might too generous in my interpretation, buy I think he was more getting at the idea that Apple is claiming the iPhone provides the "full web" experience yet doesn't (as fas as is known) support Flash. At work, Flash isn't installed and I've stumbled upon numerous sites that don't function fully without it. Likewise, at home on my Mac, I've stumbled upon numerous sites that don't play well with Safari. Put those two together and you're going to have a less than stellar web experience on the iPhone.
Note to Apple: Why don't you quit wasting time helping YouTube re-encode their videos, and instead spend time re-encoding the iTunes Store video content in 720p so there's a reason to actually buy the AppleTV?
I might too generous in my interpretation, buy I think he was more getting at the idea that Apple is claiming the iPhone provides the "full web" experience yet doesn't (as fas as is known) support Flash. At work, Flash isn't installed and I've stumbled upon numerous sites that don't function fully without it. Likewise, at home on my Mac, I've stumbled upon numerous sites that don't play well with Safari. Put those two together and you're going to have a less than stellar web experience on the iPhone.
Note to Apple: Why don't you quit wasting time helping YouTube re-encode their videos, and instead spend time re-encoding the iTunes Store video content in 720p so there's a reason to actually buy the AppleTV?
The fact that it would be less than 100% fully-functional web is something I can expect and live with, given the size of the device (since, even if it was 100%,the screen size would naturally limit the overall quality of the navigation experience). That said, I agree with you about 720p. I would buy @TV in a jiffy.
And, why don't they just enable Flash and be done with it!?
I?m not up on the latest plans of ATT, but I would think you are given X amount of MB?s and are changed for use thereafter.
Bandwidth and data transfer cost?that is the question. Sounds good, but w/ an expensive data plan, where MB?s are metered at a specific rate, then this can become rather expensive.
I?m not up on the latest plans of ATT, but I would think you are given X amount of MB?s and are changed for use thereafter.
And, why don't they just enable Flash and be done with it!?
I know, it makes no sense to me either. If you are going to say "it's not kind of sort of the Internet. It is the Internet" then it has to support Flash. Otherwise it is just kind of sort of...
Simply reencoding the video does not replace Flash. Authoring in Quicktime is not quite the same as Flash when it comes to buttons and menus the way You Tube currently works in a regular browser.
The problem is not Apple not wanting to upgrade the content, the problem is reaching an agreement with the content providers (ie the tv networks and Hollywood studios) which will allow them to sell HD content.. Apple doesn't own the content in the iTunes store, they are licensing it. Licensing HD content is a whole different deal.
I believe much of the content (at least TV shows) available on iTunes is already available at 720p on XBox Live. I don't have an XBox 360 to know how much content is available in HD there, but it seems pretty clear the networks are willing to sell HD content online (unless MS entered into an exclusive deal for the HD content, but I can't really imagine the networks going for that).
And while I'm creating a wish list, I wish Apple would start a Complete My Season system like the Complete My Album feature.
Now, that's not going to stop me from getting a phone, but I'd be disappointed if I can't remove that, only because I HATE tag-lines in eMail messages.
I'm also not happy about the YouTube icon. It seems like an eye sore next to the modern, colorful icons, and then you have a 60s looking TV? Both youTube and Notes looks like they don't belong. Ahh well? Like I said, that won't stop me from buying the phone
**SLAPS FOREHEAD** I forgot about the no flash support.
It isn't just flash.
With H.264 encoding, the video's will download much more quickly. If you have to wait for a couple of minutes before play begins, particularly for the iPhone, then you won't bother.
Now that we see the iPhone's capability with this, the H.264 makes more sense. It wasn't really needed for the ATv, but with EDGE, it's required.
I might too generous in my interpretation, buy I think he was more getting at the idea that Apple is claiming the iPhone provides the "full web" experience yet doesn't (as fas as is known) support Flash. At work, Flash isn't installed and I've stumbled upon numerous sites that don't function fully without it. Likewise, at home on my Mac, I've stumbled upon numerous sites that don't play well with Safari. Put those two together and you're going to have a less than stellar web experience on the iPhone.
Note to Apple: Why don't you quit wasting time helping YouTube re-encode their videos, and instead spend time re-encoding the iTunes Store video content in 720p so there's a reason to actually buy the AppleTV?
Apple isn't helping YouTube.
720p will come when Apple thinks there is a big enough market for it, and the studios concur.
They should have a way to download directly from iTunes music store to the phone.
Jobs already explained why Apple won't be doing that. Why don't you respond to what he said?
Also, do you really want to download a 4 MB song at a max (theoretical, but actually about half that) of 80 Kb/s?
At a "real" download speed of 40kb/s that would take about 13 minutes 20 seconds. A VERY enjoyable experience.
I really don't think that any sane person would.
The problem is not Apple not wanting to upgrade the content, the problem is reaching an agreement with the content providers (ie the tv networks and Hollywood studios) which will allow them to sell HD content.. Apple doesn't own the content in the iTunes store, they are licensing it. Licensing HD content is a whole different deal.
Exactly, both Apple and ISP's want you downloading as much as possible so that you pay more. It is the content providers that put the brakes on this.
Exactly, both Apple and ISP's want you downloading as much as possible so that you pay more. It is the content providers that put the brakes on this.
Hmm? How do you pay more to Apple or to ISPs by downloading more? I don't think content providers are limiting Apple's movie/TV resolution. If they have the HD versions, I'm sure they'd let Apple sell them.
The last thought I had was about the lack of Flash on the handset. I’ve done a lot of work with Flash on the desktop lately on Windows and I have to say that despite Adobe’s efforts to modernize their infrastructure, Flash is still a very primitive technology with strong roots in education CD-ROMs on Mac OS 9 — they’ve made tremendous strides in terms of rapid application development and deployment, but I don’t think performance or reliability has ever really been on Adobe’s radar with this product.
Some of the problems I’ve encountered include random crashes on shutdown, enormous memory leaks in the runtime (a leak in something that draws at 24fps is a huge issue!) — not to mention Flash’s notoriously awful performance. On the application side, many Flash applications (no naming names) written to run in Flash in a browser just don’t care about performance or resource utilization because most web applications have a process lifetime of a page view, or about 10 seconds. Finally, in a mobile context, consider the effect that Flash’s inefficient programming model will have on battery life. The last thing to remember is that the Flash runtime’s performance is about 4-20x worse on Mac OS X than it is on Windows — I bet Apple evaluated its options and decided it didn’t want to have its browser experience marred by Adobe’s lack of focus. You can also bet that with all the crazy user-space scaling tricks that iPhoneSafari does, Flash wouldn’t work.
This isn’t to say that Flash on the handset wouldn’t be useful, but if you consider the use cases it’s really not as big a deal as you might think.
http://www.stuffonfire.com/2007/06/13/iphone-sdk/
Jobs already explained why Apple won't be doing that. Why don't you respond to what he said?
Also, do you really want to download a 4 MB song at a max (theoretical, but actually about half that) of 80 Kb/s?
At a "real" download speed of 40kb/s that would take about 13 minutes 20 seconds. A VERY enjoyable experience.
I really don't think that any sane person would.
Hmm? How do you pay more to Apple or to ISPs by downloading more? I don't think content providers are limiting Apple's movie/TV resolution. If they have the HD versions, I'm sure they'd let Apple sell them.
It isn't whether they would LET them sell them.
It under what conditions they would let them sell them.
I'm sure that every studio would LET Apple sell their movies, but so far, they haven't.
Why? Money.
Apple isn't exactly known for its cooperation.
Even though Apple now sells movies for less, people here still complain that it's too high.
What would the studios want for 720p content then?
Here is an explanation as to the problem with Flash on the iPhone.
The last thought I had was about the lack of Flash on the handset. I?ve done a lot of work with Flash on the desktop lately on Windows and I have to say that despite Adobe?s efforts to modernize their infrastructure, Flash is still a very primitive technology with strong roots in education CD-ROMs on Mac OS 9 ? they?ve made tremendous strides in terms of rapid application development and deployment, but I don?t think performance or reliability has ever really been on Adobe?s radar with this product.
Some of the problems I?ve encountered include random crashes on shutdown, enormous memory leaks in the runtime (a leak in something that draws at 24fps is a huge issue!) ? not to mention Flash?s notoriously awful performance. On the application side, many Flash applications (no naming names) written to run in Flash in a browser just don?t care about performance or resource utilization because most web applications have a process lifetime of a page view, or about 10 seconds. Finally, in a mobile context, consider the effect that Flash?s inefficient programming model will have on battery life. The last thing to remember is that the Flash runtime?s performance is about 4-20x worse on Mac OS X than it is on Windows ? I bet Apple evaluated its options and decided it didn?t want to have its browser experience marred by Adobe?s lack of focus. You can also bet that with all the crazy user-space scaling tricks that iPhoneSafari does, Flash wouldn?t work.
This isn?t to say that Flash on the handset wouldn?t be useful, but if you consider the use cases it?s really not as big a deal as you might think.
http://www.stuffonfire.com/2007/06/13/iphone-sdk/
Despite that, flash is still the most important standard on the web for the purpose it has.
Apple could, and should have, solved this problem by buying Macromedia when they put themselves up for sale, instead of letting it go to Adobe.