I?m not here to bash the iPad 2?in fact, I?d like to get one. But at the end of the day, which tablet is better for propping open heavy doors on a windy day? Because for every person who wants to make music or play games, I bet there are three people who live in an area with doors and wind.
I don?t think the iPad is thick and heavy enough, and I worry that the ?copycats? are going to go the same route. Thin and light does not always = better.
I own and Evo so I don't have to go by what others report. THe Evo not only runs Flash 10.1 well it also had the framerate cap lifted in a sofware update. There are many times I am streaming 57fps.
You are only addressing flash video, which .flv, and not addressing all the other intended purposes for flash under .swf file formats.
Yes will they have improved on the .flv frame rate, you still have not addressed the main reason flash was developed. Video was added back when Macromedia owned it back on Flash 8, before then, Macromedia flash was intended to bring SVG to the web, animations, and interactions beyond the .jpgs and .gifs which did not allow for interaction but did add some crude animations. Both of the file formats suffered from one thing, they based on rasterized bit images. Flash was intended to bring scalable vector graphics with the ability to make more dynamic images, animations and interactivity. Macromedia tacked on video later on to "keep up" with webs dramatic changes in bandwidth. With that interaction came a javascript copycat, actionscripting. Actionscripting needs hit areas or code that compliments the user interactions with active areas on the screen. These interactions have 4 on() states, a touch-based system is not based on an input device that in itself is interactive with button functions. A touch-based system has the screen as the only interactive element needed and your fingers interact with screen as the input device. Basically, it backwards the screen on desktop represent the virtual desktop and you are receiving the feedback via the screen. You then make your interactions with your input device accordingly and rinse, repeat. Whereas a touch-based system, is the virtual desktop and input device.
How can you reconcile a device-input based software on a touch-based system? a 10.2, 10.3 or 11.2 won't address those issues. The only issues Adobe is currently addressing are performance issues, not critically flawed interaction based functions.
People are trying to say that Flash is 90% of the web...what the mean is 90%+ web penetration...far different.
I hardly think they will be able to completely revise their product before launch without creating a huge delay. These things are not just slapped together over a weekend.
actually, they are. they're called 'dells' or 'hp's' or 'sony's' or 'acer's'...you get the picture.
i think Sammy watches Apple closely because Apple steve jobs was right about the DOA tab hahaha. That is a life of a copycat, you have to wait till Apple coming out with something and trying to copy it. Sorry, but why would you want a beta knockoff product anyway, only the Apple haters like to be a beta testers. Life is hard for them, they have to choose an inferior product, because they hate Apple hahahah. Apple's A5 is like Gallardo with custom Underground Racing turbo. it will run circle around others, eat them, and spit them out, and still faster than all of them, copycats
I think all competitors in the tablet market are just playing a numbers game. They are not stupid, just cautious. It is way easier to not spend anything on R&D and just copy Apple. They know they can't beat them so it is a race to be in second place. If Apple sells 10 million, the number two tablet might sell 250,000, which could still be profitable if they they keep the costs down.
I?m not here to bash the iPad 2?in fact, I?d like to get one. But at the end of the day, which tablet is better for propping open heavy doors on a windy day? Because for every person who wants to make music or play games, I bet there are three people who live in an area with doors and wind.
I don?t think the iPad is thick and heavy enough, and I worry that the ?copycats? are going to go the same route. Thin and light does not always = better.
dude, if you want to get a doorstop, get a doorstop?or a (non-apple) pc.
What makes me chuckle is when someone hasn't even used the other product and puts it down based on what someone else says. Or brings up Flash when the iPad will never have Flash enable. How did Flash all of a suddent become important?
The Xoom hardware has nothing to do with Flash. Flash is a plugin that is not really yet for Honeycomb. That will be a simple updated from Adobe that will come from the Android market.
The Xoom hardware is really nice as is the OS the problem with many of these products and the reason Apple will outsell all of htem is the ecosystem and the lack of apps for the Tablets.
I play flash video all the time on my iPad with the sky fire browser, works great.
It could be because Apple has an exclusive agreement,where Samsung can't use the parts designed by Apple and/or Samsung doesn't supply all the parts for Apple, including some of the more expensive parts.
Besides, Motorola is the only Tablet that can compete with the iPad 2, simply because it has the ability to support 4G. Motorola either needs to look at massive improvements or bringing costs down.
Samsung assembles a product with parts supplied by multiple vendors. Samsung sure as hell isn't going to be able to use the unibody design molding from Apple without being in hot water. LG supplies the Panels, not Samsung. So basically, Samsung chose to be a conglomerate with various businesses; one of them is just being an assembler while others design panels, memory, etc.
I was one of the first people on the forum to have the first Gen iPad. My guess is I will be one of the first to also have the second gen. I am a fan of technology I don't bash products simply because they aren't made by Apple. Which seems to be the culture on this forum. I speak my mind when I don't like something but I am am avid supporter of Apple and their products.
Before the iPad was released, you crapped all over it. According to your own account, the only reason you have an iPad is that they gave it to you at work, and you still claimed it was just a big iPad Touch. No, you don't bash products because they aren't made by Apple, you bash products because the are made by Apple. You are not in any way an avid supporter of Apple and its products. Quite to the contrary, based on your posting history.
It would be as if Apple announced the IP4 with front and rear cameras touting FaceTime and then shipped without it: "Coming soon in an update."
I'm not saying I disagree with you or agree with the guy your debating on here, but you may recall that Apple released iPad with the hardware ability to multi-task months before iOS was released with that capability. iPod touch and iPhone had iOS upgrades with this ability for months before it came to iPad. Its things like that which caused me to wait for iPad 2. I didn't want to buy 1.x hardware because I knew it was not fully baked by Apple (In hardware and in software). I also expected a nice bump in capabilities with 2.x, again because this is what Apple does.
From what I've seen Apple does not release features and capabilities to their customers until they (the features) are REALLY ready (e.g. cut, copy, paste), and I like them for that. It also means the full potential of their products are not fully realized on launch day. I expect my Apple products to improve over time, and I haven't been disappointed in that area yet. Apple isn't perfect, but they're more reliable than other vendors by a long shot.
Before the iPad was released, you crapped all over it. According to your own account, the only reason you have an iPad is that they gave it to you at work, and you still claimed it was just a big iPad Touch. No, you don't bash products because they aren't made by Apple, you bash products because the are made by Apple. You are not in any way an avid supporter of Apple and its products. Quite to the contrary, based on your posting history.
Seriously, how can an executive be that dumb to say that about their own product? The iPad/iPad2 are not perfect (darn close) but at least executives at Apple are smart enough not to point out the inadequate parts.
You have touched on one of Apple's most endearing traits, their unswerving honesty and openness in admitting to faults and inadequacies in their own products. Industry leading, standard setting performance in that category.
Last year, Apple took its first public step into a whole new product category amid a lot of criticism and snarky comments. Tablets products have been around for quite a while - and while they have always seemed to be a neat idea with lots of potential, they always turned out to be a reformatted PC, with no real niche in the real world - other than being more portable, with all the downsides that a really portable PC might have. Those existing tablets also carried the burden of also sharing the overarching evolutionary path/goal that PCs have - which is to say none. So most people were critical of Apple venturing into this very blind alley of technology.
So, Apple cut out a bunch of the dead-end features, tapped into its "closed" but very open-ended development platform and App base and presented the iPad. Nobody, not even Apple seemed to know if it would work out. It seems that it did - at least for 90% of people who never could quite fit themselves into the PC world and make the PC a value add contributor to their life.
The mystery to me is, "Why cannot any of these other companies do the same?" Why didn't they? Where are all the announcements and visions of the future of computing for the real world? All the "roadmaps" I see are pretty bleak (almost 100% technical) and are seemingly based on Moore's Law, which is just updates and upgrades of yesterday. Tools making more tools, faster.
Making tools is fine if you are selling to businesses. From a marketing view, that is like shooting fish in a barrel - and surprisingly, the fish love it. Enhancing peoples lives is a much harder proposition - but as Apple has shown, it does have a monetary upside. These companies have some incredible talent working in them - it seems they should be able to do better - or even something different.
I prefer to be treated like a person, not a customer, not a client, not a user (with or without the drug double entendre ). It is a mystery to me why so many companies do not do this and continue to addict and not enable.
Personally... It makes little practical sense that anyone would consider such a dubiously useful design feature as unnecessary thinness a point of 'inadequacy'.
There's little practical point in being overly concerned with a sub-9mm thickness on a device with as much surface area as a (near) 10 inch tablet computer (where's the balance?) - Other than bragging rights, and all that engineering effort would probably be better served keeping a near .5 inch profile and adding a larger battery, a more durable Gorilla glass screen, or more features.
It's all good and well that Apple is obsessed with 'thinness', but they've rode that claim into the ground at this point... the point of diminishing returns.
Now, if only we could somehow diminish the chances of your return.......
the iPad 2 is just a copy cat product - and Apple shamelessly claims that it is better in every way than the iPad that Apple sold last year - oh wait, can you copy cat yourself? and if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery then a lot of folks in the tech world have been flattering themselves a bit too much - oh wait there I go again, can you flatter yourself? (and if you do, will you go blind?)
Comments
I don?t think the iPad is thick and heavy enough, and I worry that the ?copycats? are going to go the same route. Thin and light does not always = better.
I own and Evo so I don't have to go by what others report. THe Evo not only runs Flash 10.1 well it also had the framerate cap lifted in a sofware update. There are many times I am streaming 57fps.
You are only addressing flash video, which .flv, and not addressing all the other intended purposes for flash under .swf file formats.
Yes will they have improved on the .flv frame rate, you still have not addressed the main reason flash was developed. Video was added back when Macromedia owned it back on Flash 8, before then, Macromedia flash was intended to bring SVG to the web, animations, and interactions beyond the .jpgs and .gifs which did not allow for interaction but did add some crude animations. Both of the file formats suffered from one thing, they based on rasterized bit images. Flash was intended to bring scalable vector graphics with the ability to make more dynamic images, animations and interactivity. Macromedia tacked on video later on to "keep up" with webs dramatic changes in bandwidth. With that interaction came a javascript copycat, actionscripting. Actionscripting needs hit areas or code that compliments the user interactions with active areas on the screen. These interactions have 4 on() states, a touch-based system is not based on an input device that in itself is interactive with button functions. A touch-based system has the screen as the only interactive element needed and your fingers interact with screen as the input device. Basically, it backwards the screen on desktop represent the virtual desktop and you are receiving the feedback via the screen. You then make your interactions with your input device accordingly and rinse, repeat. Whereas a touch-based system, is the virtual desktop and input device.
How can you reconcile a device-input based software on a touch-based system? a 10.2, 10.3 or 11.2 won't address those issues. The only issues Adobe is currently addressing are performance issues, not critically flawed interaction based functions.
People are trying to say that Flash is 90% of the web...what the mean is 90%+ web penetration...far different.
I hardly think they will be able to completely revise their product before launch without creating a huge delay. These things are not just slapped together over a weekend.
actually, they are. they're called 'dells' or 'hp's' or 'sony's' or 'acer's'...you get the picture.
I?m not here to bash the iPad 2?in fact, I?d like to get one. But at the end of the day, which tablet is better for propping open heavy doors on a windy day? Because for every person who wants to make music or play games, I bet there are three people who live in an area with doors and wind.
I don?t think the iPad is thick and heavy enough, and I worry that the ?copycats? are going to go the same route. Thin and light does not always = better.
dude, if you want to get a doorstop, get a doorstop?or a (non-apple) pc.
What makes me chuckle is when someone hasn't even used the other product and puts it down based on what someone else says. Or brings up Flash when the iPad will never have Flash enable. How did Flash all of a suddent become important?
The Xoom hardware has nothing to do with Flash. Flash is a plugin that is not really yet for Honeycomb. That will be a simple updated from Adobe that will come from the Android market.
The Xoom hardware is really nice as is the OS the problem with many of these products and the reason Apple will outsell all of htem is the ecosystem and the lack of apps for the Tablets.
I play flash video all the time on my iPad with the sky fire browser, works great.
I play flash video all the time on my iPad with the sky fire browser, works great.
Doesn't mean you would be able to jailbreak iPad2.
I play flash video all the time on my iPad with the sky fire browser, works great.
that's for video, what about the interactive websites that use flash?
streaming what? Industry standard H.264 video in an unnecessary and proprietary flash wrapper?
Well right now I am watching local Atlanta news which is is Flash and I am showing 42fps. I get that or above on any FLV.
I play flash video all the time on my iPad with the sky fire browser, works great.
I am fairly certain Skyfire makes a digital to digital converstion from Flash to HTML5. I could be wrong.
Well right now I am watching local Atlanta news which is is Flash and I am showing 42fps. I get that or above on any FLV.
we have ESTABLISHED .flv will play on a broswer.
what about all the websites that are also in browsers that are based on interactions that required buttoned input devices....what about those..
of course you have no answer, cause Adobe does not an answer either as they have completed ignored flash developers concerns about this major flaw.
It could be because Apple has an exclusive agreement,where Samsung can't use the parts designed by Apple and/or Samsung doesn't supply all the parts for Apple, including some of the more expensive parts.
Besides, Motorola is the only Tablet that can compete with the iPad 2, simply because it has the ability to support 4G. Motorola either needs to look at massive improvements or bringing costs down.
Samsung assembles a product with parts supplied by multiple vendors. Samsung sure as hell isn't going to be able to use the unibody design molding from Apple without being in hot water. LG supplies the Panels, not Samsung. So basically, Samsung chose to be a conglomerate with various businesses; one of them is just being an assembler while others design panels, memory, etc.
I was one of the first people on the forum to have the first Gen iPad. My guess is I will be one of the first to also have the second gen. I am a fan of technology I don't bash products simply because they aren't made by Apple. Which seems to be the culture on this forum. I speak my mind when I don't like something but I am am avid supporter of Apple and their products.
Before the iPad was released, you crapped all over it. According to your own account, the only reason you have an iPad is that they gave it to you at work, and you still claimed it was just a big iPad Touch. No, you don't bash products because they aren't made by Apple, you bash products because the are made by Apple. You are not in any way an avid supporter of Apple and its products. Quite to the contrary, based on your posting history.
Have the decency to at least be honest here.
It would be as if Apple announced the IP4 with front and rear cameras touting FaceTime and then shipped without it: "Coming soon in an update."
I'm not saying I disagree with you or agree with the guy your debating on here, but you may recall that Apple released iPad with the hardware ability to multi-task months before iOS was released with that capability. iPod touch and iPhone had iOS upgrades with this ability for months before it came to iPad. Its things like that which caused me to wait for iPad 2. I didn't want to buy 1.x hardware because I knew it was not fully baked by Apple (In hardware and in software). I also expected a nice bump in capabilities with 2.x, again because this is what Apple does.
From what I've seen Apple does not release features and capabilities to their customers until they (the features) are REALLY ready (e.g. cut, copy, paste), and I like them for that. It also means the full potential of their products are not fully realized on launch day. I expect my Apple products to improve over time, and I haven't been disappointed in that area yet. Apple isn't perfect, but they're more reliable than other vendors by a long shot.
Before the iPad was released, you crapped all over it. According to your own account, the only reason you have an iPad is that they gave it to you at work, and you still claimed it was just a big iPad Touch. No, you don't bash products because they aren't made by Apple, you bash products because the are made by Apple. You are not in any way an avid supporter of Apple and its products. Quite to the contrary, based on your posting history.
Have the decency to at least be honest here.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who remembers this.
Open mouth, insert foot.
Seriously, how can an executive be that dumb to say that about their own product? The iPad/iPad2 are not perfect (darn close) but at least executives at Apple are smart enough not to point out the inadequate parts.
You have touched on one of Apple's most endearing traits, their unswerving honesty and openness in admitting to faults and inadequacies in their own products. Industry leading, standard setting performance in that category.
Last year, Apple took its first public step into a whole new product category amid a lot of criticism and snarky comments. Tablets products have been around for quite a while - and while they have always seemed to be a neat idea with lots of potential, they always turned out to be a reformatted PC, with no real niche in the real world - other than being more portable, with all the downsides that a really portable PC might have. Those existing tablets also carried the burden of also sharing the overarching evolutionary path/goal that PCs have - which is to say none. So most people were critical of Apple venturing into this very blind alley of technology.
So, Apple cut out a bunch of the dead-end features, tapped into its "closed" but very open-ended development platform and App base and presented the iPad. Nobody, not even Apple seemed to know if it would work out. It seems that it did - at least for 90% of people who never could quite fit themselves into the PC world and make the PC a value add contributor to their life.
The mystery to me is, "Why cannot any of these other companies do the same?" Why didn't they? Where are all the announcements and visions of the future of computing for the real world? All the "roadmaps" I see are pretty bleak (almost 100% technical) and are seemingly based on Moore's Law, which is just updates and upgrades of yesterday. Tools making more tools, faster.
Making tools is fine if you are selling to businesses. From a marketing view, that is like shooting fish in a barrel - and surprisingly, the fish love it. Enhancing peoples lives is a much harder proposition - but as Apple has shown, it does have a monetary upside. These companies have some incredible talent working in them - it seems they should be able to do better - or even something different.
I prefer to be treated like a person, not a customer, not a client, not a user (with or without the drug double entendre ). It is a mystery to me why so many companies do not do this and continue to addict and not enable.
Personally... It makes little practical sense that anyone would consider such a dubiously useful design feature as unnecessary thinness a point of 'inadequacy'.
There's little practical point in being overly concerned with a sub-9mm thickness on a device with as much surface area as a (near) 10 inch tablet computer (where's the balance?) - Other than bragging rights, and all that engineering effort would probably be better served keeping a near .5 inch profile and adding a larger battery, a more durable Gorilla glass screen, or more features.
It's all good and well that Apple is obsessed with 'thinness', but they've rode that claim into the ground at this point... the point of diminishing returns.
Now, if only we could somehow diminish the chances of your return.......
the iPad 2 is just a copy cat product - and Apple shamelessly claims that it is better in every way than the iPad that Apple sold last year - oh wait, can you copy cat yourself? and if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery then a lot of folks in the tech world have been flattering themselves a bit too much - oh wait there I go again, can you flatter yourself? (and if you do, will you go blind?)
Hello?