I'd much sooner have a Win7 tablet than the iPad. It may not look at pretty but at least it would be able to multi-task, run flash, use Skype video chat, and install any application I like.
The iPad is a worrying step in home computing, a move from open platforms to an incredibly closed, restrictive platform. People accept limitations on smart phones because they are tiny and underpowered, but on a laptop/netbook type system, no chance. It's either open or not worth considering for a second.
Apple should have just sold it as a Kindle competitor (although not of course outside the US, where Apple will not sell ebooks at all). By going after the netbook market all the do is illustrate how incredibly primative and limited the iPad is. My first computer ever (a Commodore 64) was more open than an iPad.
Even if that were true in theory, it certainly isn't true in practice. Much of the web depends on flash. Want to watch a video online? That'll be flash. Want to play a game online? That'll be flash. Want to play Farmville? (which if you hadn't noticed, a LOT of people do) That'll be flash.
Flash is EVERYWHERE online. It's not going away anytime soon. Apple need to stop their petty argument with Adobe and accept the total dominance of flash.
I watched video online prior to Flash so it certainly wasn't the originator of video on the web. Now with HTML5 and embedded video you have two high profile video for web companies moving towards HTML5 based players (Google and Vimeo)
I don't play Farmville or flash games. I find them boring.
The iPad isn't going to be for everyone and I accepted that prior to the launch of the product on Wed. Those want to play Farmville or look at Flash porn or whatever are probably better suited on a cheaper and less mobile product.
Since my son got his iPod Touch, he's not used his Nintendo DS once. Nintendo knows that these types of devices are hurting their business model of selling $30 games. Fortunately, for Nintendo, they control the Mario Brothers franchise so if you want these games it has to be an a DS or Wii (he still plays Wii).
As for Nokia and Microsoft, talk about sour grapes! These companies couldn't innovate their way out of a wet paper bag. Microsoft never could, they just copied Apple. But, Nokia? Shame on them for sitting on their arses and not brining anything new or innovative to market. They have become just like the 'old' cell phone makers such as Motorola and Ericsson. Play it safe and bring features to market after it's been validated by other vendors. Neither can compete effectively against Apple, Google, or RIM in smartphones.
Is the iPad perfect? No, far from it. Will Apple sell enough to justify continued investment in the platform? Most likely. One thing I would like to see Apple do is fall on their sword and change the name to something like iTablet or iSlate. While it would be painful and costly, in the short-run, I believe it would be to their benefit in the long run...
People will get used to the name, and the childish ones who are calling it all sorts of things will eventually let it go, especially if it turns out to be popular and good.
Apple also sells the device around the world and they needed a name that would be world-wide and easy to catch.
I don't see any reason why Apple is choosing this extremely closed path other than to being control freaks.
Because the App Store is huge success with its 140,000 apps and 3 billion downloads. Why not build on that success?!
The iPad will open up a whole new generation of apps with shared folders, new gestures, and larger interface area. Don't expect the iPad apps to look and function like the iPhone apps. The iPad apps will be faster, easier to use, and much better. From now to July people will think they don't need one. From July to October they will think why they didn't buy one yet. Just like what happened to the iPhone.
People will get used to the name, and the childish ones who are calling it all sorts of things will eventually let it go, especially if it turns out to be popular and good.
Apple also sells the device around the world and they needed a name that would be world-wide and easy to catch.
love the iphone. please make a tablet where i can visit at least 90% of the web sites out there and install software to play other media formats.
Hello there, If you browse a lot facebook games it will indeed be a problem... but the tendency of many websites and even the likes as you tube are rolling out HTML5 that is supported by Safari. It will take some time to have a large number out supporting it.. but it is the way everyone will go to bring a better product and reduce cost. No software or royalty to pay to Adobe's Flash product/designers. Flash is a Hog.. a really hunger one! Just compare how fast loads HTML5 on You Tube. If a giant like that one went that way others will follow. It is just a better experience without depending on an specific app/standard.
You know the guys on here talking incessantly about "closed" versus "open" systems aren't seeing the big picture.
When we queue and then dispatch tasks or Todo or whatever you wish to call them there's a workflow that exists. The concern is moving from Point A to wherever the end result is.
The question is, "does anyone really care about open versus closed systems?"
I don't.
A products's merit is wholly based on how easy or efficient it makes from going from Point A to completion of a task. I care not if the system is closed or open and why should I? Neither is inherently supeior to the other.
Some of you have clearly never been in Sales before. You will get nowhere by proclaiming something to be open or closed without providing persuasive data that supports your claims. Consumers don't care. They're used to aligning with systems that produce favorable results regardless of open or closed natures.
There is way too much complaining about what the iPad cannot do. It can do quite a bit and has some nice hardware to do it. I'm buying one, but I can see the benefits it will provide me personally. For all of you iPad haters... Stop hating for a second and think about what your going to be able to do with it once you can jailbreak it.
1) It's to stop the virus, spyware, trojan apps that plague Windows platforms.
Uh, no. No uninvited malware on Macs, haven't been for years.
Trojans can come in all sorts of ways, in fact on the App Store right now there are Apps gleaming information and sending it online without your knowledge or consent.
Quote:
2) Your free to develop an app and have it accessible by 70million touch users - that's not closed is it?
You mean like Google Voice?
Quote:
3) Microsoft will be doing this soon. Sony, Nokia and Google already do it this way - why single Apple out?
Because nobody has closed a computers OS before. Phones are one thing, but computers are designed to be open, until now that is.
Quote:
4) To make a delightful, safe and efficient way to get apps on your kit and give developers a platform to reach customers who LOVE the apps BTW!
Pure Koolaid. I want control over my machine.
If I don't like apps calling out over the internet, letting god knows who know exactly when, what and where I run a particular app, it's my choice to block that communication.
If Apple doesn't allow a app to multi-task or blocks the snitching app from the App Store, then that blocks my RIGHT to run what I want ON MY MACHINE.
Just like Google Voice...
Apple decides what is good for you and you can't decide for yourself.
Is that choice? No it's censorship and control.
Apple has been getting too buddy-buddy with China lately.
There is way too much complaining about what the iPad cannot do. It can do quite a bit and has some nice hardware to do it. I'm buying one, but I can see the benefits it will provide me personally. For all of you iPad haters... Stop hating for a second and think about what your going to be able to do with it once you can jailbreak it.
Agree.
Begin with Nokia 3390, all you can do were Start and End a call.
Moved on to Communicator? a bigger crap.
then comes wm5 like ATT 8525, too complicated. Could not do any easy task.
and iphone come in and keep me to keep it, from the first to 3GS.
Multitask: I have dual displays (win7) at home like stock broker and left and right, not bad.
Soon: having iPad, and I'll be complete, completely happier...
I'd much sooner have a Win7 tablet than the iPad. It may not look at pretty but at least it would be able to multi-task, run flash, use Skype video chat, and install any application I like.
The iPad is a worrying step in home computing, a move from open platforms to an incredibly closed, restrictive platform. People accept limitations on smart phones because they are tiny and underpowered, but on a laptop/netbook type system, no chance. It's either open or not worth considering for a second.
Apple should have just sold it as a Kindle competitor (although not of course outside the US, where Apple will not sell ebooks at all). By going after the netbook market all the do is illustrate how incredibly primative and limited the iPad is. My first computer ever (a Commodore 64) was more open than an iPad.
Wrong. Apple is pushing open standards, like HTML 5, so that no matter what Operating system you run the web & all it's glory will work for you. People want the web to remain more open, but people are not so keen on their computers being open. What people really want is a computer that will do what they expect it to do & do it well. In fact a lot of people really prefer to be able to buy their apps from one place than trying to hunt all over the place for them.
In addition to this people really like the fact that a closed system helps protect them from malware, a threat that has grown so out of control it has even driven some people to avoid the web all together.
You make the mistake of thinking your personal interests are that of everyone else, something that is clearly not hashed out in real life. Apple has blown away the competition because they are able to see what people really desire & not just what they say they want. Microsoft & others have fallen in large part because they try to promise people more than they can deliver & what they deliver doesn't even perform up to expectations as advertised.
Example:
Take any windows mobile device or even a windows tablet computer & try actually working with the multitouch. It looks so fantastic in the commercials, almost like the computer knows what I'm doing before I do it! Then I get the thing in my hand & it's a different story. stretching images is unreliable, responsiveness is not snappy, accuracy varies wildly, and over all you just get frustrated because you can't figure out how to get it to do what you saw in the commercial!!
Now take the iPhone, iPod Touch, or the iPad. What they demo for you isn't flashy, it's practicality with a nice clean finish. It's responsive & smooth. It's clean & easy. It's accurate & intuitive. It is what it is advertised to be, no surprises except when I find it exceeds what I originally thought it capable of.
The iPad may not do everything possible in the world, but what it does it does very very well! In the end that is what impresses people. No half met promises, no useless glitter that will wear off after only a few hours of use, it just works.
The upcoming Adobe CS5 suite utilizes a next-gen graphics format called FXG (Flash XML Graphics). It is an enhanced version of SVG supporting vector based graphics including Illustrator formats. It also has the capability of storing vector based animations found in flash.
The main feature about this new format is its HTML5 ready. It utilizes CANVAS tag as a vehicle and javascript (renderFXG.js) to have the ability of Flash including animations without any flash plugins.
According to Wikipedia: "The FXG rendering model follows very closely the Flash Player 10 rendering model and exposes all graphics capabilities of the Flash platform as well as offering expandable support to accommodate future capabilities of the Flash Player"
It seems like a pretty solid product, too bad it's a bit on the expensive side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
I agree. I can imagine a really large version set at a comfortable angle for editing stuff like Final Cut Pro. It would be like playing a piano. The contextual menus and finger controls they showed in the new iWorks seems to me at least the logical next step in graphical UIs. The cross over between OS X, iPhone OS X and iPad OS X will surely grow in all directions as needs demand.
I don't know about Final Cut anything, but I'd like them make iMovie for iPad like interface. Editing videos (and audio) is a very click-intensive exercise, and it seems that a touch interface might cut down the work by a large margin, possibly replacing multiple clicks with single gestures. Maybe next version, I don't know if the current A4 chip is efficient enough at encoding video.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu
By going after the netbook market all the do is illustrate how incredibly primative and limited the iPad is. My first computer ever (a Commodore 64) was more open than an iPad.
Whether we like it or not, people seem to be accepting closed systems well enough, there was a time where the computer was where most games were played, now game play is a lot more heavily weighted towards consoles and similarly closed handheld systems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeo
I don't think it will actually. I think that hard drives and file systems and such are a 1980's thing. The future Apple seems to be headed towards is one of the information appliance... think cloud computing and app-focused... where all you have is applications and they manage their own files. No confusing file system exposed to the user.
The file system doesn't have to be confusing. Not having a file system works fine if you don't have a lot of files, and you don't need to segregate files by project.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBoy58
A "bigger iPod Touch" will allow useful viewing of medical records for example. Or to read books comfortably. It could become the world's best universal remote control that can be used WHILE reading a newspaper with music in the background. All controlled easily from where you sit. An iPod can do that but not comfortably.
The only issue I see there is that you need to close the newspaper app to get to the remote, then close the remote app to get to the newspaper app. And hopefully both apps remember their state well enough so you don't have to do anything to get back to where you left off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by surferfromuk
1) It's to stop the virus, spyware, trojan apps that plague Windows platforms.
I've never understood why people think that is a good argument. OS X doesn't have that problem, why would iPhone OS suddenly be at risk?
The upcoming Adobe CS5 suite utilizes a next-gen graphics format called FXG (Flash XML Graphics). It is an enhanced version of SVG supporting vector based graphics including Illustrator formats. It also has the capability of storing vector based animations found in flash.
The main feature about this new format is its HTML5 ready. It utilizes CANVAS tag as a vehicle and javascript (renderFXG.js) to have the ability of Flash including animations without any flash plugins.
According to Wikipedia: "The FXG rendering model follows very closely the Flash Player 10 rendering model and exposes all graphics capabilities of the Flash platform as well as offering expandable support to accommodate future capabilities of the Flash Player"
You know the guys on here talking incessantly about "closed" versus "open" systems aren't seeing the big picture.
When we queue and then dispatch tasks or Todo or whatever you wish to call them there's a workflow that exists. The concern is moving from Point A to wherever the end result is.
The question is, "does anyone really care about open versus closed systems?"
I don't.
A products's merit is wholly based on how easy or efficient it makes from going from Point A to completion of a task. I care not if the system is closed or open and why should I? Neither is inherently supeior to the other.
Some of you have clearly never been in Sales before. You will get nowhere by proclaiming something to be open or closed without providing persuasive data that supports your claims. Consumers don't care. They're used to aligning with systems that produce favorable results regardless of open or closed natures.
How ironic, Google Voice was a app that did exactly what you say, get from Point A to Point B better than anyone else, but Apple banned it.
I can hear it now a few years from now...
"Anyone who wants choice is going to chose Windows."
It's a shame that jail breaking of the iPad will be mainstream, soon as people find out they can run this app or that app, they will be jail breaking and their machines will be insecure, and the machines they hook up too as well.
Comments
Oh the fanboys are out already I see.
I'd much sooner have a Win7 tablet than the iPad. It may not look at pretty but at least it would be able to multi-task, run flash, use Skype video chat, and install any application I like.
The iPad is a worrying step in home computing, a move from open platforms to an incredibly closed, restrictive platform. People accept limitations on smart phones because they are tiny and underpowered, but on a laptop/netbook type system, no chance. It's either open or not worth considering for a second.
Apple should have just sold it as a Kindle competitor (although not of course outside the US, where Apple will not sell ebooks at all). By going after the netbook market all the do is illustrate how incredibly primative and limited the iPad is. My first computer ever (a Commodore 64) was more open than an iPad.
Thanks for the funniest post of the day.
Even if that were true in theory, it certainly isn't true in practice. Much of the web depends on flash. Want to watch a video online? That'll be flash. Want to play a game online? That'll be flash. Want to play Farmville? (which if you hadn't noticed, a LOT of people do) That'll be flash.
Flash is EVERYWHERE online. It's not going away anytime soon. Apple need to stop their petty argument with Adobe and accept the total dominance of flash.
I watched video online prior to Flash so it certainly wasn't the originator of video on the web. Now with HTML5 and embedded video you have two high profile video for web companies moving towards HTML5 based players (Google and Vimeo)
I don't play Farmville or flash games. I find them boring.
The iPad isn't going to be for everyone and I accepted that prior to the launch of the product on Wed. Those want to play Farmville or look at Flash porn or whatever are probably better suited on a cheaper and less mobile product.
Since my son got his iPod Touch, he's not used his Nintendo DS once. Nintendo knows that these types of devices are hurting their business model of selling $30 games. Fortunately, for Nintendo, they control the Mario Brothers franchise so if you want these games it has to be an a DS or Wii (he still plays Wii).
As for Nokia and Microsoft, talk about sour grapes! These companies couldn't innovate their way out of a wet paper bag. Microsoft never could, they just copied Apple. But, Nokia? Shame on them for sitting on their arses and not brining anything new or innovative to market. They have become just like the 'old' cell phone makers such as Motorola and Ericsson. Play it safe and bring features to market after it's been validated by other vendors. Neither can compete effectively against Apple, Google, or RIM in smartphones.
Is the iPad perfect? No, far from it. Will Apple sell enough to justify continued investment in the platform? Most likely. One thing I would like to see Apple do is fall on their sword and change the name to something like iTablet or iSlate. While it would be painful and costly, in the short-run, I believe it would be to their benefit in the long run...
People will get used to the name, and the childish ones who are calling it all sorts of things will eventually let it go, especially if it turns out to be popular and good.
Apple also sells the device around the world and they needed a name that would be world-wide and easy to catch.
I don't see any reason why Apple is choosing this extremely closed path other than to being control freaks.
Because the App Store is huge success with its 140,000 apps and 3 billion downloads. Why not build on that success?!
The iPad will open up a whole new generation of apps with shared folders, new gestures, and larger interface area. Don't expect the iPad apps to look and function like the iPhone apps. The iPad apps will be faster, easier to use, and much better. From now to July people will think they don't need one. From July to October they will think why they didn't buy one yet. Just like what happened to the iPhone.
People will get used to the name, and the childish ones who are calling it all sorts of things will eventually let it go, especially if it turns out to be popular and good.
Apple also sells the device around the world and they needed a name that would be world-wide and easy to catch.
I actually like it. iPad is good for me.
Dear Steve Jobs,
love the iphone. please make a tablet where i can visit at least 90% of the web sites out there and install software to play other media formats.
Hello there, If you browse a lot facebook games it will indeed be a problem... but the tendency of many websites and even the likes as you tube are rolling out HTML5 that is supported by Safari. It will take some time to have a large number out supporting it.. but it is the way everyone will go to bring a better product and reduce cost. No software or royalty to pay to Adobe's Flash product/designers. Flash is a Hog.. a really hunger one! Just compare how fast loads HTML5 on You Tube. If a giant like that one went that way others will follow. It is just a better experience without depending on an specific app/standard.
90% of the web is not flash btw.
If you account for adds it might be close, but actual content we care to see is probably more like %40.
When we queue and then dispatch tasks or Todo or whatever you wish to call them there's a workflow that exists. The concern is moving from Point A to wherever the end result is.
The question is, "does anyone really care about open versus closed systems?"
I don't.
A products's merit is wholly based on how easy or efficient it makes from going from Point A to completion of a task. I care not if the system is closed or open and why should I? Neither is inherently supeior to the other.
Some of you have clearly never been in Sales before. You will get nowhere by proclaiming something to be open or closed without providing persuasive data that supports your claims. Consumers don't care. They're used to aligning with systems that produce favorable results regardless of open or closed natures.
1) It's to stop the virus, spyware, trojan apps that plague Windows platforms.
Uh, no. No uninvited malware on Macs, haven't been for years.
Trojans can come in all sorts of ways, in fact on the App Store right now there are Apps gleaming information and sending it online without your knowledge or consent.
2) Your free to develop an app and have it accessible by 70million touch users - that's not closed is it?
You mean like Google Voice?
3) Microsoft will be doing this soon. Sony, Nokia and Google already do it this way - why single Apple out?
Because nobody has closed a computers OS before. Phones are one thing, but computers are designed to be open, until now that is.
4) To make a delightful, safe and efficient way to get apps on your kit and give developers a platform to reach customers who LOVE the apps BTW!
Pure Koolaid. I want control over my machine.
If I don't like apps calling out over the internet, letting god knows who know exactly when, what and where I run a particular app, it's my choice to block that communication.
If Apple doesn't allow a app to multi-task or blocks the snitching app from the App Store, then that blocks my RIGHT to run what I want ON MY MACHINE.
Just like Google Voice...
Apple decides what is good for you and you can't decide for yourself.
Is that choice? No it's censorship and control.
Apple has been getting too buddy-buddy with China lately.
There is way too much complaining about what the iPad cannot do. It can do quite a bit and has some nice hardware to do it. I'm buying one, but I can see the benefits it will provide me personally. For all of you iPad haters... Stop hating for a second and think about what your going to be able to do with it once you can jailbreak it.
Agree.
Begin with Nokia 3390, all you can do were Start and End a call.
Moved on to Communicator? a bigger crap.
then comes wm5 like ATT 8525, too complicated. Could not do any easy task.
and iphone come in and keep me to keep it, from the first to 3GS.
Multitask: I have dual displays (win7) at home like stock broker and left and right, not bad.
Soon: having iPad, and I'll be complete, completely happier...
Oh the fanboys are out already I see.
I'd much sooner have a Win7 tablet than the iPad. It may not look at pretty but at least it would be able to multi-task, run flash, use Skype video chat, and install any application I like.
The iPad is a worrying step in home computing, a move from open platforms to an incredibly closed, restrictive platform. People accept limitations on smart phones because they are tiny and underpowered, but on a laptop/netbook type system, no chance. It's either open or not worth considering for a second.
Apple should have just sold it as a Kindle competitor (although not of course outside the US, where Apple will not sell ebooks at all). By going after the netbook market all the do is illustrate how incredibly primative and limited the iPad is. My first computer ever (a Commodore 64) was more open than an iPad.
Wrong. Apple is pushing open standards, like HTML 5, so that no matter what Operating system you run the web & all it's glory will work for you. People want the web to remain more open, but people are not so keen on their computers being open. What people really want is a computer that will do what they expect it to do & do it well. In fact a lot of people really prefer to be able to buy their apps from one place than trying to hunt all over the place for them.
In addition to this people really like the fact that a closed system helps protect them from malware, a threat that has grown so out of control it has even driven some people to avoid the web all together.
You make the mistake of thinking your personal interests are that of everyone else, something that is clearly not hashed out in real life. Apple has blown away the competition because they are able to see what people really desire & not just what they say they want. Microsoft & others have fallen in large part because they try to promise people more than they can deliver & what they deliver doesn't even perform up to expectations as advertised.
Example:
Take any windows mobile device or even a windows tablet computer & try actually working with the multitouch. It looks so fantastic in the commercials, almost like the computer knows what I'm doing before I do it! Then I get the thing in my hand & it's a different story. stretching images is unreliable, responsiveness is not snappy, accuracy varies wildly, and over all you just get frustrated because you can't figure out how to get it to do what you saw in the commercial!!
Now take the iPhone, iPod Touch, or the iPad. What they demo for you isn't flashy, it's practicality with a nice clean finish. It's responsive & smooth. It's clean & easy. It's accurate & intuitive. It is what it is advertised to be, no surprises except when I find it exceeds what I originally thought it capable of.
The iPad may not do everything possible in the world, but what it does it does very very well! In the end that is what impresses people. No half met promises, no useless glitter that will wear off after only a few hours of use, it just works.
The main feature about this new format is its HTML5 ready. It utilizes CANVAS tag as a vehicle and javascript (renderFXG.js) to have the ability of Flash including animations without any flash plugins.
According to Wikipedia: "The FXG rendering model follows very closely the Flash Player 10 rendering model and exposes all graphics capabilities of the Flash platform as well as offering expandable support to accommodate future capabilities of the Flash Player"
Here is a demo showing what Flash CS5 can do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v69S22ZBBqA
Skip to 3:30 to see Flash exporting to HTML5
More info:
http://kevinsuttle.com/how-adobe-mad...d-future-proof
Dear al_bundy, here you go: Axiotron Modbook. http://www.axiotron.com
It seems like a pretty solid product, too bad it's a bit on the expensive side.
I agree. I can imagine a really large version set at a comfortable angle for editing stuff like Final Cut Pro. It would be like playing a piano. The contextual menus and finger controls they showed in the new iWorks seems to me at least the logical next step in graphical UIs. The cross over between OS X, iPhone OS X and iPad OS X will surely grow in all directions as needs demand.
I don't know about Final Cut anything, but I'd like them make iMovie for iPad like interface. Editing videos (and audio) is a very click-intensive exercise, and it seems that a touch interface might cut down the work by a large margin, possibly replacing multiple clicks with single gestures. Maybe next version, I don't know if the current A4 chip is efficient enough at encoding video.
By going after the netbook market all the do is illustrate how incredibly primative and limited the iPad is. My first computer ever (a Commodore 64) was more open than an iPad.
Whether we like it or not, people seem to be accepting closed systems well enough, there was a time where the computer was where most games were played, now game play is a lot more heavily weighted towards consoles and similarly closed handheld systems.
I don't think it will actually. I think that hard drives and file systems and such are a 1980's thing. The future Apple seems to be headed towards is one of the information appliance... think cloud computing and app-focused... where all you have is applications and they manage their own files. No confusing file system exposed to the user.
The file system doesn't have to be confusing. Not having a file system works fine if you don't have a lot of files, and you don't need to segregate files by project.
A "bigger iPod Touch" will allow useful viewing of medical records for example. Or to read books comfortably. It could become the world's best universal remote control that can be used WHILE reading a newspaper with music in the background. All controlled easily from where you sit. An iPod can do that but not comfortably.
The only issue I see there is that you need to close the newspaper app to get to the remote, then close the remote app to get to the newspaper app. And hopefully both apps remember their state well enough so you don't have to do anything to get back to where you left off.
1) It's to stop the virus, spyware, trojan apps that plague Windows platforms.
I've never understood why people think that is a good argument. OS X doesn't have that problem, why would iPhone OS suddenly be at risk?
Microsoft is selling millions and millions and millions of phones a year, Apple is selling zero phones a year
Remember this? Now think iPad.
Classic!!
--- Field of Dreams
"If Steve builds it, we will come....... and bitch, and whine, and complain, and tell you 47 ways to Sunday why it will fail"
--- The Field of AI Trolls
:-p
The upcoming Adobe CS5 suite utilizes a next-gen graphics format called FXG (Flash XML Graphics). It is an enhanced version of SVG supporting vector based graphics including Illustrator formats. It also has the capability of storing vector based animations found in flash.
The main feature about this new format is its HTML5 ready. It utilizes CANVAS tag as a vehicle and javascript (renderFXG.js) to have the ability of Flash including animations without any flash plugins.
According to Wikipedia: "The FXG rendering model follows very closely the Flash Player 10 rendering model and exposes all graphics capabilities of the Flash platform as well as offering expandable support to accommodate future capabilities of the Flash Player"
Here is a demo showing what Flash CS5 can do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v69S22ZBBqA
Skip to 3:30 to see Flash exporting to HTML5
More info:
http://kevinsuttle.com/how-adobe-mad...d-future-proof
I would have loved a shot of CPU usage just to see. Great post though, thanks!
You know the guys on here talking incessantly about "closed" versus "open" systems aren't seeing the big picture.
When we queue and then dispatch tasks or Todo or whatever you wish to call them there's a workflow that exists. The concern is moving from Point A to wherever the end result is.
The question is, "does anyone really care about open versus closed systems?"
I don't.
A products's merit is wholly based on how easy or efficient it makes from going from Point A to completion of a task. I care not if the system is closed or open and why should I? Neither is inherently supeior to the other.
Some of you have clearly never been in Sales before. You will get nowhere by proclaiming something to be open or closed without providing persuasive data that supports your claims. Consumers don't care. They're used to aligning with systems that produce favorable results regardless of open or closed natures.
How ironic, Google Voice was a app that did exactly what you say, get from Point A to Point B better than anyone else, but Apple banned it.
I can hear it now a few years from now...
"Anyone who wants choice is going to chose Windows."
It's a shame that jail breaking of the iPad will be mainstream, soon as people find out they can run this app or that app, they will be jail breaking and their machines will be insecure, and the machines they hook up too as well.