And for those on here who've claimed they'd be happier if the iPad ran Flash, have you ever used Flash on a mobile device? Did the Flash in this demo impress you? It looked almost as bad as the HTML5 animation on the iPad.
Let's face it:
Flash requires brawn to be useful. Thus, it will probably never be available on an Apple mobile device. The choppy Flash animation on the PlayBook looked like dung. Of all the sites to choose, too. Yikes. Why didn't they demo a Flash game on the PB?
And regarding HTML5, Adobe recently demonstrated a dev tool they're working on that converts Flash animations to HTML5 animations. That demo was impressive. Adobe can't force mobile platform makers to use Flash. And the government won't tamper with the free market (the co-called "investigation" is just pandering).
Adobe knows HTML5 is the wave of the future. They want to be the front-runner with dev tools to make it happen. If they release an IDE to facilitate HTML5 app development (like Flash Builder, but for HTML5), I'd pay through the nose for it.
Good. The iPad's browsers (all of them) need some serious work. Whether it's true or not, the attention this brings to the iPad will cause Apple to improve things.
Actually, QNX is very well regarded with respect to stability. One form or another of it has been around since the very early 1980s. So I wouldn't hold that fact against RIM.
BTW, I work on nuclear reactor control consoles that are powered by QNX. So I know a little bit about QNX's stability and reliability.
There are many other points you can complain about with respect to RIM's pad, but I would try the "stability and reliability" angle.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Dude, this is the kind of rigorous debate I'd like to see more often on this site! You come to the table informed, and you're reasonable. Don't get me wrong, I am definitely an Apple convert, so I have my own bias. However, the fanboy vs. anti-fanboy wars on this site get old at times, and you bypassed that queue altogether. Nice.
Good. The iPad's browsers (all of them) need some serious work. Whether it's true or not, the attention this brings to the iPad will cause Apple to improve things.
That's a good point. I have a hunch an improved mobile Safari has been in the works for a while, especially with the impending release of iOS 4.2.
A related thought is this:
Tablet makers engaging in comparisons with the iPad are caught in a catch-22. It brings attention to the iPad, the market leader. In other words, free advertising for Apple.
(I think this is one of the things that helped doom Borland way back in the day. They frequently took out full-page ads in dev rags compared their tools to Microsoft's, which just brought more attention Visual Studio. I was a VS developer in those days, and thought it was amusing how much free advertisement MS was getting from Borland. And I loved Borland's tools! Delphi anyone? But it was a bad marketing plan from the start. Never give free advertisement to your competitor.)
Interesting how my iPad is much faster than in the video. I cleared the cache and went to the sites at the same time as the two devices and I beat the Playbook. The iPad they are using must have something wrong with it.
I pinch and zoom all the time on my iPad as I find the text rendering on most web pages too crude and a little too small. A retina display would certainly help, but it would still be too small on some sites.
I don't know what page you visited *all the time* but when I play with my friend's iPad I rarely pinch-to-zoom while I did it *all the time* on my iPodTouch.
Beside, if 9.7" is too small for you, why do you have problem with the guy in the first place when he criticized screen size of Playbook? By your logic you should jump on the guy when the Playbook is larger, not smaller. You don't make any sense. Are all the people who're so anti-Apple like this? Illogical?
I don't know what page you visited *all the time* but when I play with my friend's iPad I rarely pinch-to-zoom while I did it *all the time* on my iPodTouch.
Beside, if 9.7" is too small for you, why do you have problem with the guy in the first place when he criticized screen size of Playbook? By your logic you should jump on the guy when the Playbook is larger, not smaller. You don't make any sense. Are all the people who're so anti-Apple like this? Illogical?
In civilized places the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.
What do you have?
It was just speculation on his part (I assume), but at the same time, we have no choice but to take the RIM video at it's word. The truth is, even IE9 on my office computer failed the acid 3 test. So I guess it doesn't say as much about the hardware as it does the browser.
And for those on here who've claimed they'd be happier if the iPad ran Flash, have you ever used Flash on a mobile device? Did the Flash in this demo impress you? It looked almost as bad as the HTML5 animation on the iPad.
It means what?
Your conclusion is that if Adidas did their website in HTML5 animation --- it will be just as bad.
BIG NEWS! not-yet-released device will be faster than year-old-technology!
The problem is that for the last 30 years, software lags behind hardware.
RIM CEO was already talking about the possibility of doing quad-cores yesterday at web 2.0 --- simply because QNX can. And we are talking about iOS that can't do real multi-tasking yet.
What was more telling was the supposed Flash killer canvas/js demos which reduced the ipad to a crawl.
While I agree that ipad 2.0 would be well served with at least doubling if not quadrupling the ram and even additional storage and a faster processor, I can't help but wonder if the issue was really the ipad and not poor coding on the page in question.
And I agree about giving this video too much weight. RIM created it so it stands as possible that they hand picked some sites they knew would 'fail' on the ipad.
Give me a similar test by an independent group (done of their own volition) and that stigma is reduced if not eliminated
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinitaBoy
Let REAL, SHIPPING, INNOVATIVE PRODUCTS speak for themselves . . . not VAPORWARE!
I have to agree there. I too am tired if hearing about this and that and how it is going to be better than the iPad. When it finally releases. Thing is, the ipad does what I need a tablet to do for me. And I can buy it now.
When these other tablets come out and I can mosey on over to Best Buy or the Verizon store and check them out, I likely will. But it will take more than Flash for me to pick one of those over still using my ipad or getting the 2.0. Especially if all that talk of a dual GSM/CDMA set was for the ipad and it's all pay as you need, no lock, no contract and perhaps with better tier amounts. THen no matter where I have to travel for work I can get a connection if there's no wifi. Double up some hardware and toss on a front facing camera and these other boys will really have to impress me. And I suspect some others. Sales numbers on these devices will be very interesting to follow. Starting with confirmation of the HP Slate which is rumored that they only made an initial run of 5k and have order of just over 9k. The ipad does that in about 3 hours each day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grking
so iOS 4.2 is vaporware? it is no more real than the Playbook, nor is it shipping, and its innovation is unknown, as it is not publicly available
And Apple is NOT doing videos about how it is so much better than the other guy's stuff. Which was the real point of the comment. Saying right now X is better than Y (and thus you should run out and buy X) is pointless when X is not available and by the time it is Y could be upgraded to Z and totally smoke X.
Quote:
Originally Posted by halfyearsun
i would question whether that really disqualifies it as a gold master.
The term Gold(en) Master is pointless and should be dropped from the language. It was the name for the final version of a software that was deemed as good as it could possibly be and locked for the pressing of disks. There's no such state when you are talking about downloaded software because it can and often is changed up to hours (sometimes minutes) of flipping the switch to start downloading to users.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macinthe408
I am going to laugh so amazingly hard when, on the day this thing ships, Apple announces iPad 2.
The best part is that it is very possible that that day will also be the day that the ipad 2 is available to buy, or at least the day the units are leaving the warehouses to go to the stores (meaning within 2-3 days they will be on sale).
Because, there may be no reason to pre announce and without that reason they won't. Apple pre announces items for only one reason. To trump leaks. Leaks from the developers updating their apps. Leaks from the FCC which makes paper work publicly visible. Cut out that stuff and Apple has no reason to talk early. Sure there will be rumors but those rumors lack the confirmable information that comes from the SDK etc.
And the beauty is that it is possible that Apple could release the ipad 2 a bit earlier than last year. They needed to give developers some time to get ready but that might not be in the game this time. And if the form factor is the same, you have no concerns for cases and bags. If they aren't changing the 3g components they don't have to wait for the FCC, etc. They might be able to have it hit the market more like late February. And perhaps even both sets (although really I wish the pricing could come down enough that they just drop the wifi only, maybe with 3.0).
Quote:
Originally Posted by halfyearsun
of course not.
but do you really believe anyone is contributing any semblance of original or provocative thought when they say "oh, this is great because competition will make apple better?"
Generally when I see that it comes off like a person that doesn't want to be labeled as a blindly following fanboi who would even call Jobs' farts 'magical'
In all this talk of retina displays you have still failed to define what a retina display is. I thought I opened that up with my previous comment, but I guess not. So? how do you define a retina display. 326ppi like the iPhone 4? Have you figured out the resolution for a 9.7? 4:3 display with 326ppi? 276 ppi, the minimum for 20/20 vision at 12? away from your eyes? Have you figured out that resolution? Have you figured what GPU from Imagination Tech can feasibly push that many pixels?
Its almost 6 months newer than the iPad, obviously they are going to have better hardware in it. What percentage of the speed up is from the hardware alone?
Comments
Let's face it:
Flash requires brawn to be useful. Thus, it will probably never be available on an Apple mobile device. The choppy Flash animation on the PlayBook looked like dung. Of all the sites to choose, too. Yikes. Why didn't they demo a Flash game on the PB?
And regarding HTML5, Adobe recently demonstrated a dev tool they're working on that converts Flash animations to HTML5 animations. That demo was impressive. Adobe can't force mobile platform makers to use Flash. And the government won't tamper with the free market (the co-called "investigation" is just pandering).
Adobe knows HTML5 is the wave of the future. They want to be the front-runner with dev tools to make it happen. If they release an IDE to facilitate HTML5 app development (like Flash Builder, but for HTML5), I'd pay through the nose for it.
Actually, QNX is very well regarded with respect to stability. One form or another of it has been around since the very early 1980s. So I wouldn't hold that fact against RIM.
BTW, I work on nuclear reactor control consoles that are powered by QNX. So I know a little bit about QNX's stability and reliability.
There are many other points you can complain about with respect to RIM's pad, but I would try the "stability and reliability" angle.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Dude, this is the kind of rigorous debate I'd like to see more often on this site! You come to the table informed, and you're reasonable. Don't get me wrong, I am definitely an Apple convert, so I have my own bias. However, the fanboy vs. anti-fanboy wars on this site get old at times, and you bypassed that queue altogether. Nice.
Nope. AC/DC.
Actually, I think it's Garth Brooks (The biggest selling solo artist of all time). Yeah, country, ugh! But facts is facts.
Good. The iPad's browsers (all of them) need some serious work. Whether it's true or not, the attention this brings to the iPad will cause Apple to improve things.
That's a good point. I have a hunch an improved mobile Safari has been in the works for a while, especially with the impending release of iOS 4.2.
A related thought is this:
Tablet makers engaging in comparisons with the iPad are caught in a catch-22. It brings attention to the iPad, the market leader. In other words, free advertising for Apple.
(I think this is one of the things that helped doom Borland way back in the day. They frequently took out full-page ads in dev rags compared their tools to Microsoft's, which just brought more attention Visual Studio. I was a VS developer in those days, and thought it was amusing how much free advertisement MS was getting from Borland. And I loved Borland's tools! Delphi anyone? But it was a bad marketing plan from the start. Never give free advertisement to your competitor.)
But Apple always comes through. They would never announce a product and then fail to ship it.
Bondai? (sp?)
I pinch and zoom all the time on my iPad as I find the text rendering on most web pages too crude and a little too small. A retina display would certainly help, but it would still be too small on some sites.
I don't know what page you visited *all the time* but when I play with my friend's iPad I rarely pinch-to-zoom while I did it *all the time* on my iPodTouch.
Beside, if 9.7" is too small for you, why do you have problem with the guy in the first place when he criticized screen size of Playbook? By your logic you should jump on the guy when the Playbook is larger, not smaller. You don't make any sense. Are all the people who're so anti-Apple like this? Illogical?
Actually, I think it's Garth Brooks (The biggest selling solo artist of all time*). Yeah, country, ugh! But facts is facts.
*In the USA
There fixed it for ya!
The iPad with retina display will be hard to beat.
i would love that, but how much would it cost.....
I don't know what page you visited *all the time* but when I play with my friend's iPad I rarely pinch-to-zoom while I did it *all the time* on my iPodTouch.
Beside, if 9.7" is too small for you, why do you have problem with the guy in the first place when he criticized screen size of Playbook? By your logic you should jump on the guy when the Playbook is larger, not smaller. You don't make any sense. Are all the people who're so anti-Apple like this? Illogical?
Pinch and zoom mmm
but does it give blow jobs like the iPad?
this is the reason Apple will win Jobs!
In civilized places the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.
What do you have?
It was just speculation on his part (I assume), but at the same time, we have no choice but to take the RIM video at it's word. The truth is, even IE9 on my office computer failed the acid 3 test. So I guess it doesn't say as much about the hardware as it does the browser.
And for those on here who've claimed they'd be happier if the iPad ran Flash, have you ever used Flash on a mobile device? Did the Flash in this demo impress you? It looked almost as bad as the HTML5 animation on the iPad.
It means what?
Your conclusion is that if Adidas did their website in HTML5 animation --- it will be just as bad.
BIG NEWS! not-yet-released device will be faster than year-old-technology!
The problem is that for the last 30 years, software lags behind hardware.
RIM CEO was already talking about the possibility of doing quad-cores yesterday at web 2.0 --- simply because QNX can. And we are talking about iOS that can't do real multi-tasking yet.
What was more telling was the supposed Flash killer canvas/js demos which reduced the ipad to a crawl.
While I agree that ipad 2.0 would be well served with at least doubling if not quadrupling the ram and even additional storage and a faster processor, I can't help but wonder if the issue was really the ipad and not poor coding on the page in question.
And I agree about giving this video too much weight. RIM created it so it stands as possible that they hand picked some sites they knew would 'fail' on the ipad.
Give me a similar test by an independent group (done of their own volition) and that stigma is reduced if not eliminated
Let REAL, SHIPPING, INNOVATIVE PRODUCTS speak for themselves . . . not VAPORWARE!
I have to agree there. I too am tired if hearing about this and that and how it is going to be better than the iPad. When it finally releases. Thing is, the ipad does what I need a tablet to do for me. And I can buy it now.
When these other tablets come out and I can mosey on over to Best Buy or the Verizon store and check them out, I likely will. But it will take more than Flash for me to pick one of those over still using my ipad or getting the 2.0. Especially if all that talk of a dual GSM/CDMA set was for the ipad and it's all pay as you need, no lock, no contract and perhaps with better tier amounts. THen no matter where I have to travel for work I can get a connection if there's no wifi. Double up some hardware and toss on a front facing camera and these other boys will really have to impress me. And I suspect some others. Sales numbers on these devices will be very interesting to follow. Starting with confirmation of the HP Slate which is rumored that they only made an initial run of 5k and have order of just over 9k. The ipad does that in about 3 hours each day.
so iOS 4.2 is vaporware? it is no more real than the Playbook, nor is it shipping, and its innovation is unknown, as it is not publicly available
And Apple is NOT doing videos about how it is so much better than the other guy's stuff. Which was the real point of the comment. Saying right now X is better than Y (and thus you should run out and buy X) is pointless when X is not available and by the time it is Y could be upgraded to Z and totally smoke X.
i would question whether that really disqualifies it as a gold master.
The term Gold(en) Master is pointless and should be dropped from the language. It was the name for the final version of a software that was deemed as good as it could possibly be and locked for the pressing of disks. There's no such state when you are talking about downloaded software because it can and often is changed up to hours (sometimes minutes) of flipping the switch to start downloading to users.
I am going to laugh so amazingly hard when, on the day this thing ships, Apple announces iPad 2.
The best part is that it is very possible that that day will also be the day that the ipad 2 is available to buy, or at least the day the units are leaving the warehouses to go to the stores (meaning within 2-3 days they will be on sale).
Because, there may be no reason to pre announce and without that reason they won't. Apple pre announces items for only one reason. To trump leaks. Leaks from the developers updating their apps. Leaks from the FCC which makes paper work publicly visible. Cut out that stuff and Apple has no reason to talk early. Sure there will be rumors but those rumors lack the confirmable information that comes from the SDK etc.
And the beauty is that it is possible that Apple could release the ipad 2 a bit earlier than last year. They needed to give developers some time to get ready but that might not be in the game this time. And if the form factor is the same, you have no concerns for cases and bags. If they aren't changing the 3g components they don't have to wait for the FCC, etc. They might be able to have it hit the market more like late February. And perhaps even both sets (although really I wish the pricing could come down enough that they just drop the wifi only, maybe with 3.0).
of course not.
but do you really believe anyone is contributing any semblance of original or provocative thought when they say "oh, this is great because competition will make apple better?"
Generally when I see that it comes off like a person that doesn't want to be labeled as a blindly following fanboi who would even call Jobs' farts 'magical'
In all this talk of retina displays you have still failed to define what a retina display is. I thought I opened that up with my previous comment, but I guess not. So? how do you define a retina display. 326ppi like the iPhone 4? Have you figured out the resolution for a 9.7? 4:3 display with 326ppi? 276 ppi, the minimum for 20/20 vision at 12? away from your eyes? Have you figured out that resolution? Have you figured what GPU from Imagination Tech can feasibly push that many pixels?
I can't help but wonder if the issue was really the ipad and not poor coding on the page in question.
Apple has historically been the slowest to update their webkit core in their browsers --- be it in desktop browser, iphone browser or ipad browser.
It is highly likely that ipad 4.2 will come with an older webkit core than some of the android tablets out there.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/27/r...kberry-tablet/
Its almost 6 months newer than the iPad, obviously they are going to have better hardware in it. What percentage of the speed up is from the hardware alone?