I'm curious... does everyone realize that HTML5 isn't a complete standard yet? There seems to be this overt assumption that H.264 will be the video standard that HTML5 uses, when in reality it probably won't be due to licensing costs. Would everyone here be so gung ho about HTML5 if it integrated Ogg Theora or the Google VP8 codec (if they open source it) instead of H.264?
careful, I suggested this and practically got lynched around here.
I'm curious... does everyone realize that HTML5 isn't a complete standard yet? There seems to be this overt assumption that H.264 will be the video standard that HTML5 uses, when in reality it probably won't be due to licensing costs. Would everyone here be so gung ho about HTML5 if it integrated Ogg Theora or the Google VP8 codec (if they open source it) instead of H.264?
Complete? Of course not. Do we expect the video tag to go away? Of course not. I have no doubt that the video tag will remain in HTML5 and it will continue to get adopted by more browsers and will be used by more of the web thus negating the use of the resource hungry Flash as de facto delivery method for streaming video.
Despite the "licensing costs" of H.264 it's usage keeps increasing when the "free" Theora does not seem to be growing. The poor nature of the codec is it's failing. So, yes, I expect H.264 to be widely adopted as i already is in the HW of modern ARM CPUs I know of, in every modern x86-based CPU and is supported by the major companies like Google, Apple, Microsoft and even Adobe, as well as the major sites that want to stream video as effectively as possible.
The only "major holdouts seem to be Mozilla, Opera and Wikipedia. But that like having 3 ants against a dozen kids with magnifying glasses. It's not good.
The only thing that can change the game here is VP8, but there is much to discuss on that and we'll see the signs of that taking over long before it happens. Is it even added to Chrome or YouTube at this point?
careful, I suggested this and practically got lynched around here.
No you didn't. You made smug comments and got your ass handed to you by posters much smarter and more informed than you. Try coming in with an objective comment that isn't smarmy and see how you're responded to differently. Take a note from infinitespecter.
No you didn't. You made smug comments and got your ass handed to you by posters much smarter and more informed than you. Try coming in with an objective comment that isn't smarmy and see how you're responded to differently. Take a note from infinitespecter.
my ass handed? No I don't think so.
I simply watched as you twisted and lied about what I said. I confronted you on it and you never responded.
Really? That's news to the 3 major studios that support Hulu. It's also news to the number #2 video site on the Web aside from YouTube.
This is an Apple Web site so a little fanboism is to be expected, but do people realize that the iPad/iPhone Web traffic is less than 3% of the entire Internet? What makes you believe that something with less WW market share than the Mac will control the fate of Flash, Hulu and hundreds/thousands of other Web sites?
Android 2.2 will support Flash, and many widely expect it to support Hulu (searching Google for "Android Hulu" for a while showed references to an Android Hulu app on the Hulu Web site until it was removed).
Oh brother. What a non-story. Hulu will be on HTML5. It's just going to take time. There's no way they'll pass on the chance to be on iPhones and iPads. Adobe had a good run with Flash, and it'll still find plenty of use, but HTML5 is the future and there's no getting around that fact.
You are one bitter hater. Hulu cannot NOT support the iPhone and the iPad. Apple knows it and so does Hulu. There are too many of the device out there already. Money talks and bullshit walks, just like Adobe's little "We -heart- Apple" ad campaign that debuted today.
I'm going to assume you meant to reply to someone else's post. Recommending a MacBook Pro to anyone is the best advice in the world. There was no hatred in my post, bitter or otherwise. Have a great day.
So you are okay with Adobe claiming "We are the Web" and basically saying you MUST use Flash if you want to view any video on the internet? And you hate Apple for saying no to that proposition?
Again with the word hate. I don't hate Apple. I find Apples rather tasty, especially those green ones.
As for Flash, I am not a developer so I don't think I have a right to an opinion about it's pros and cons. I am an end user. Even worse, I am an Apple end user. Which means I am a complete knucklehead when it comes to technology. The big draw of Apple products for me is there simplicity and that they work right out of the box.
All I know is that as an end user, if I were to buy an iPad and try to surf many of my favorite web sites, all I would see is broken links. I find this unacceptable for a product who's killer app is surfing the web.
All I know is that as an end user, if I were to buy an iPad and try to surf many of my favorite web sites, all I would see is broken links. I find this unacceptable for a product who's killer app is surfing the web.
Too true. And Apple of course realises this and must realise that it hurts their customers - to a degree. I can't imagine Apple would take this stand without the strength of Steve Jobs personality. Apple are knowingly restricting current content of their customers for the sake of ensuring that what content is available is optimised for their products. I can see their point too. But I don't understand why Apple simply don't provide an option to disable Flash. If Flash really did make the iPhone experience unstable, then we could turn it off. Or am I missing something? Is this whole affair to do with some old visceral festering resentment about Adobe using the Windows platform as their design foundation rather than the Mac? Is it because Adobe's development treats the Apple platform as second rate?
It's a bit like the floppy drive isn't it? The outrage about the early iMacs not having a floppy drive was pretty loud. But the choice was there for people to by PCs with floppy drives. By taking this obdurate stand Apple are forcing change - even though it can only hurt them in the short term.
Incidentally we here in the UK can't receive the hulu service. We can use seesaw and BBC iPlayer which are similar services. Seesaw is purely Flash-based, but iPlayer is available on the iPhone. However, to be honest, given the amount of spare time I have (or anyone who wants to lead a well-rounded life) to watch TV, if they didn't exist my life would be none the worse. I'm not ungrateful that the services are available, it's just that if they weren't, it wouldn't /really/ matter.
The phrase "it just works" has become attached to Apple products. So say someone is showing off their phone and they go to run a video and it crashes the phone. Or the phone overheats so much it becomes defective. Or when asked how they like their phone by a friend they reply that it has been giving them trouble. They may not even know they have the ability to turn off Flash. They just know the fabulous phone they bought doesn't work very well.
If Apple is assuring that things run more smoothly by doing this then I think they are doing the right thing.
What do you mean you won't support the standards in place? They are called Standards for a reason.
.
The current standard is HTML 4. HTML 5.0 is NOT the standard in place. From Wikipedia:
"This working group published the First Public Working Draft of the specification on January 22, 2008.[3] The specification is an ongoing work, and is expected to remain so for many years, although parts of HTML5 are going to be finished and implemented in browsers before the whole specification reaches final Recommendation status."
The phrase "it just works" has become attached to Apple products. So say someone is showing off their phone and they go to run a video and it crashes the phone. Or the phone overheats so much it becomes defective. Or when asked how they like their phone by a friend they reply that it has been giving them trouble. They may not even know they have the ability to turn off Flash. They just know the fabulous phone they bought doesn't work very well.
If Apple is assuring that things run more smoothly by doing this then I think they are doing the right thing.
Yes. Apple targets the naive user, and disallows functionality which might get some of their users in trouble.
What are your favorite sites, that absolutely require Flash? Next I would ask is there absolutely no other way to obtain the information or content these sites provide?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerseymac
All I know is that as an end user, if I were to buy an iPad and try to surf many of my favorite web sites, all I would see is broken links. I find this unacceptable for a product who's killer app is surfing the web.
Too true. And Apple of course realises this and must realise that it hurts their customers - to a degree. I can't imagine Apple would take this stand without the strength of Steve Jobs personality. Apple are knowingly restricting current content of their customers for the sake of ensuring that what content is available is optimised for their products. I can see their point too. But I don't understand why Apple simply don't provide an option to disable Flash. If Flash really did make the iPhone experience unstable, then we could turn it off. Or am I missing something? Is this whole affair to do with some old visceral festering resentment about Adobe using the Windows platform as their design foundation rather than the Mac? Is it because Adobe's development treats the Apple platform as second rate?
There is no option to disable Flash, because there is no version of Flash that works on mobile devices yet. So it's not even an option.
What you are missing is that Apple does not want it's users to have to deal with a potentially unstable feature in the first place. It either works well or it's not included. That is the reason why Apple is selling iPhone's and iPad's as fast as they can make them.
Quote:
It's a bit like the floppy drive isn't it? The outrage about the early iMacs not having a floppy drive was pretty loud. But the choice was there for people to by PCs with floppy drives. By taking this obdurate stand Apple are forcing change - even though it can only hurt them in the short term.
This is perfectly analogous to what Apple is doing with HTML5. Not having floppy drive in the iMac did not hurt Apple at all. The iMac was one of the best selling computers in Apple's history. CD-ROM was a better storage technology than floppy. That is the reason why abandoning floppy worked.
That's quickly about to change. Every browser has committed to supporting HTML5. Somewhere between this year and next year smart phones and other general mobile web devices will outsell PC's. From that point on more people will have mobile internet devices than computers. Flash will not be supported on the far majority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie
Many more people have access to Flash than have access to HTML 5.0 as of now.
Comments
I'm curious... does everyone realize that HTML5 isn't a complete standard yet? There seems to be this overt assumption that H.264 will be the video standard that HTML5 uses, when in reality it probably won't be due to licensing costs. Would everyone here be so gung ho about HTML5 if it integrated Ogg Theora or the Google VP8 codec (if they open source it) instead of H.264?
careful, I suggested this and practically got lynched around here.
I'm curious... does everyone realize that HTML5 isn't a complete standard yet? There seems to be this overt assumption that H.264 will be the video standard that HTML5 uses, when in reality it probably won't be due to licensing costs. Would everyone here be so gung ho about HTML5 if it integrated Ogg Theora or the Google VP8 codec (if they open source it) instead of H.264?
Complete? Of course not. Do we expect the video tag to go away? Of course not. I have no doubt that the video tag will remain in HTML5 and it will continue to get adopted by more browsers and will be used by more of the web thus negating the use of the resource hungry Flash as de facto delivery method for streaming video.
Despite the "licensing costs" of H.264 it's usage keeps increasing when the "free" Theora does not seem to be growing. The poor nature of the codec is it's failing. So, yes, I expect H.264 to be widely adopted as i already is in the HW of modern ARM CPUs I know of, in every modern x86-based CPU and is supported by the major companies like Google, Apple, Microsoft and even Adobe, as well as the major sites that want to stream video as effectively as possible.
The only "major holdouts seem to be Mozilla, Opera and Wikipedia. But that like having 3 ants against a dozen kids with magnifying glasses. It's not good.
The only thing that can change the game here is VP8, but there is much to discuss on that and we'll see the signs of that taking over long before it happens. Is it even added to Chrome or YouTube at this point?
careful, I suggested this and practically got lynched around here.
No you didn't. You made smug comments and got your ass handed to you by posters much smarter and more informed than you. Try coming in with an objective comment that isn't smarmy and see how you're responded to differently. Take a note from infinitespecter.
No you didn't. You made smug comments and got your ass handed to you by posters much smarter and more informed than you. Try coming in with an objective comment that isn't smarmy and see how you're responded to differently. Take a note from infinitespecter.
my ass handed? No I don't think so.
I simply watched as you twisted and lied about what I said. I confronted you on it and you never responded.
I can guess why.
Whatever. Hulu has no future.
Really? That's news to the 3 major studios that support Hulu. It's also news to the number #2 video site on the Web aside from YouTube.
This is an Apple Web site so a little fanboism is to be expected, but do people realize that the iPad/iPhone Web traffic is less than 3% of the entire Internet? What makes you believe that something with less WW market share than the Mac will control the fate of Flash, Hulu and hundreds/thousands of other Web sites?
Android 2.2 will support Flash, and many widely expect it to support Hulu (searching Google for "Android Hulu" for a while showed references to an Android Hulu app on the Hulu Web site until it was removed).
Hulu isn't going anywhere, and neither is Flash.
Wonder if Apple should start it's own streaming service with popular TV entertainment?
Pretty much have all of the companies on payroll now, so what's a few more content negotiations ?
You are one bitter hater. Hulu cannot NOT support the iPhone and the iPad. Apple knows it and so does Hulu. There are too many of the device out there already. Money talks and bullshit walks, just like Adobe's little "We -heart- Apple" ad campaign that debuted today.
I'm going to assume you meant to reply to someone else's post. Recommending a MacBook Pro to anyone is the best advice in the world. There was no hatred in my post, bitter or otherwise. Have a great day.
So you are okay with Adobe claiming "We are the Web" and basically saying you MUST use Flash if you want to view any video on the internet? And you hate Apple for saying no to that proposition?
Again with the word hate. I don't hate Apple. I find Apples rather tasty, especially those green ones.
As for Flash, I am not a developer so I don't think I have a right to an opinion about it's pros and cons. I am an end user. Even worse, I am an Apple end user. Which means I am a complete knucklehead when it comes to technology. The big draw of Apple products for me is there simplicity and that they work right out of the box.
All I know is that as an end user, if I were to buy an iPad and try to surf many of my favorite web sites, all I would see is broken links. I find this unacceptable for a product who's killer app is surfing the web.
All I know is that as an end user, if I were to buy an iPad and try to surf many of my favorite web sites, all I would see is broken links. I find this unacceptable for a product who's killer app is surfing the web.
Too true. And Apple of course realises this and must realise that it hurts their customers - to a degree. I can't imagine Apple would take this stand without the strength of Steve Jobs personality. Apple are knowingly restricting current content of their customers for the sake of ensuring that what content is available is optimised for their products. I can see their point too. But I don't understand why Apple simply don't provide an option to disable Flash. If Flash really did make the iPhone experience unstable, then we could turn it off. Or am I missing something? Is this whole affair to do with some old visceral festering resentment about Adobe using the Windows platform as their design foundation rather than the Mac? Is it because Adobe's development treats the Apple platform as second rate?
It's a bit like the floppy drive isn't it? The outrage about the early iMacs not having a floppy drive was pretty loud. But the choice was there for people to by PCs with floppy drives. By taking this obdurate stand Apple are forcing change - even though it can only hurt them in the short term.
Incidentally we here in the UK can't receive the hulu service. We can use seesaw and BBC iPlayer which are similar services. Seesaw is purely Flash-based, but iPlayer is available on the iPhone. However, to be honest, given the amount of spare time I have (or anyone who wants to lead a well-rounded life) to watch TV, if they didn't exist my life would be none the worse. I'm not ungrateful that the services are available, it's just that if they weren't, it wouldn't /really/ matter.
If Apple is assuring that things run more smoothly by doing this then I think they are doing the right thing.
What do you mean you won't support the standards in place? They are called Standards for a reason.
.
The current standard is HTML 4. HTML 5.0 is NOT the standard in place. From Wikipedia:
"This working group published the First Public Working Draft of the specification on January 22, 2008.[3] The specification is an ongoing work, and is expected to remain so for many years, although parts of HTML5 are going to be finished and implemented in browsers before the whole specification reaches final Recommendation status."
This forum is going down a typical path. If Apple doesn't allow you to have something, then you didn't want it anyway.
It is generally called "sour grapes" as in "I don't want THOSE grapes anyways! They are sour!". From Aesop's Fables.
Oh yeah, the dinner conversation probably went something like this:
Adobe: stick with Flash
Hulu: ok, we aren't too interested in more viewers anyway
Many more people have access to Flash than have access to HTML 5.0 as of now.
The phrase "it just works" has become attached to Apple products. So say someone is showing off their phone and they go to run a video and it crashes the phone. Or the phone overheats so much it becomes defective. Or when asked how they like their phone by a friend they reply that it has been giving them trouble. They may not even know they have the ability to turn off Flash. They just know the fabulous phone they bought doesn't work very well.
If Apple is assuring that things run more smoothly by doing this then I think they are doing the right thing.
Yes. Apple targets the naive user, and disallows functionality which might get some of their users in trouble.
But what about the rest of us?
All I know is that as an end user, if I were to buy an iPad and try to surf many of my favorite web sites, all I would see is broken links. I find this unacceptable for a product who's killer app is surfing the web.
Too true. And Apple of course realises this and must realise that it hurts their customers - to a degree. I can't imagine Apple would take this stand without the strength of Steve Jobs personality. Apple are knowingly restricting current content of their customers for the sake of ensuring that what content is available is optimised for their products. I can see their point too. But I don't understand why Apple simply don't provide an option to disable Flash. If Flash really did make the iPhone experience unstable, then we could turn it off. Or am I missing something? Is this whole affair to do with some old visceral festering resentment about Adobe using the Windows platform as their design foundation rather than the Mac? Is it because Adobe's development treats the Apple platform as second rate?
There is no option to disable Flash, because there is no version of Flash that works on mobile devices yet. So it's not even an option.
What you are missing is that Apple does not want it's users to have to deal with a potentially unstable feature in the first place. It either works well or it's not included. That is the reason why Apple is selling iPhone's and iPad's as fast as they can make them.
It's a bit like the floppy drive isn't it? The outrage about the early iMacs not having a floppy drive was pretty loud. But the choice was there for people to by PCs with floppy drives. By taking this obdurate stand Apple are forcing change - even though it can only hurt them in the short term.
This is perfectly analogous to what Apple is doing with HTML5. Not having floppy drive in the iMac did not hurt Apple at all. The iMac was one of the best selling computers in Apple's history. CD-ROM was a better storage technology than floppy. That is the reason why abandoning floppy worked.
Many more people have access to Flash than have access to HTML 5.0 as of now.