You know I used to think that companies like MS, RIM, Motorola, etc., could put out subpar products with subpar interfaces/SW and the buying public would buy them over the obviously superior Apple products.
This is no longer the case.
For example the Zune's inglorious demise speaks to this, in that Apple has indeed turned a corner with the iPod, iPhone and iPad. The three post PC products have proven to the public Apple's attention to detail. I love it!
Best
A very good point. It's refreshing to see this happen. The iPad does stand out amongst Apple's product history as being cheaper than the competition. I think that helps people make the quality choice. It's a no-brainer with tablets at the moment.
To be fair, Flash is not "old technology". (though it's been around a long time, it's been significantly upgraded about every 2 years --contrast that with HTML, which is finally getting a 10-year-in-the-making update--one could just as easily call HTML OLDER technology).
And the technologies you mention hit a physical performance barrier which Flash hasn't (it can be updated tomorrow).
It's a good point about HTML4 being very old, but I'd argue that Flash cannot be updated as easily as you make out. Yes it's version number is advancing nicely, but it's still a battery killer and Adobe seem to be struggling to change that. Flash doesn't even run well on my i5 MacBook Pro, I daren't think what it would be like on my iPhone!!!
I'm not saying they should do it at all. It's definitely in Apple's interest to marginalize Flash.
I'm simply pointing out that they have the means and the rights to.
Actually, it's not. Apple has no need for flash and their sales volume speaks for itself. Anyone who claims to have flash running perfectly is flat out lying. It's buggy even on windows.
Unfortunately, I've become more and more disappointed in Daniel's articles. I want NEW news.
Not OLD news dressed up as NEW news. The Sencha article was quite a while ago. When I read the title, I thought, "Oh, some interesting news!" But, then reading it, I find its really OLD news masquerading.
The current wave of analysis is Playbook ships in next month, Amazon appstore launches after Apple launches lawsuit over trademark, Galaxy Tab 78910, and AT&T buys T-Mobile.
Loads of material. Stuff from over a week ago that's already been covered?
Eeeeh. Notsomuch.
And the worst thing is, I'm beginning to be able to pick out his article titles.
"iPad 2 tops HTML 5 scorecard, against Motorola XOOM and Galaxy Tab P1000"
Why bring "Honeycomb" into it, unless its just buzz worthy?
The last article title I thought was concerning was "T-Mobile gets the iPhone, Apple gets fast new HSPA+". The more accurate title: "Longterm: AT&T and Apple iPhone get T-Mobile customers and stronger coverage." 12-24 months is quite a long time, and the regulatory hurdles are HUGE... as the WSJ is reporting, people are less than certain about the outcome, which is unusual given the risks. AT&T's 3 billion dollars and ceded spectrum is a huge price to pay if it doesn't go through.
Actually, it's not. Apple has no need for flash and their sales volume speaks for itself. Anyone who claims to have flash running perfectly is flat out lying. It's buggy even on windows.
I think you misread the comment. But you're right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleverboy
And the worst thing is, I'm beginning to be able to pick out his article titles.
"iPad 2 tops HTML 5 scorecard, against Motorola XOOM and Galaxy Tab P1000"
Why bring "Honeycomb" into it, unless its just buzz worthy?
The last article title I thought was concerning was "T-Mobile gets the iPhone, Apple gets fast new HSPA+". The more accurate title: "Longterm: AT&T and Apple iPhone get T-Mobile customers and stronger coverage." 12-24 months is quite a long time, and the regulatory hurdles are HUGE... as the WSJ is reporting, people are less than certain about the outcome, which is unusual given the risks. AT&T's 3 billion dollars and ceded spectrum is a huge price to pay if it doesn't go through.
~ CB
Please never, ever write a newspaper headline!!
He brought Honeycomb into the matter because it was pertinent. Honeycomb will be the OS the competition all use and as he points out, most will not substantially alter the default browser.
As for HSPA+, you don't really have time to go into detail about timescales in a headline...that's what the article is there for :P
That's not quite the whole issue though. If you develop websites it is incredibly frustrating to know you cannot use certain superb features of a set of standards that ought to be ubiquitous because you will have a certain portion of your audience unable to view them.
Everyone developing high-quality, standards-compliant browsers is in everyone's interests except Adobe's. If they all had 100% HTML compliance, you'd see a richer web because developers could bank on the new features being supported and could make use of them in commercial work.
Sencha noted other improvements in Android 3.0, including support for SVG that was missing in the original Galaxy Tab's Android 2.2.
I have been very disappointed with the SVG reliability on Safari in particular, but also in general. Chrome does a better job with SVG but I'm beginning to think that Adobe's SVG invention is not ever going to be the solution for its acronym/abbreviation. Flash is much better for scalable vector graphics but unfortunately it is not available on many mobile platforms and if it was it would be immediately exploited by the ad tards.
To be fair, Flash is not "old technology". (though it's been around a long time, it's been significantly upgraded about every 2 years --contrast that with HTML, which is finally getting a 10-year-in-the-making update--one could just as easily call HTML OLDER technology).
And the technologies you mention hit a physical performance barrier which Flash hasn't (and there are more things Flash can do that HTML can't, than vice versa).
you're splitting hairs, bro. By "old tech" i don't mean years or version numbers. I mean it has outlived it's useful life. Flash, in all it's buggy, unsafe, resource-intensive glory, will never die if nobody takes the first step and shows that life goes on without it. Apple has done that, and they'd do it again in a heartbeat. All the people that say "HTML5 is promising but in the meantime Apple still needs to support Flash" are missing the entire point: as long as Flash is still supported, it will never, ever die.
The iPhone was announced FOUR years ago and Adobe has yet to produce a quality release of mobile Flash. That is a fact. Yes, they're closer than they were before, but do you really thing they would have made any progress whatsoever if Apple had allowed Flash in the first place?
Flash is the past. it won't disappear overnight, but gradually. in 10 years, all gone. maybe sooner. technology evolves.
the fact that Apple iOS has been such a huge success without it proves beyond argument it is unnecessary in market terms already. and the no-Flash high-value iOS user base continues to grow rapidly, speeding up adoption of alternatives. once HTML5 is fully outfitted then Flash will be literally obsolete as a tool - just a year or two more. so Adobe is already hedging its bets with crossover tools.
and no Mac user will miss it. it's sucked for years.
All the people that say "HTML5 is promising but in the meantime Apple still needs to support Flash" are missing the entire point: as long as Flash is still supported, it will never, ever die.
Flash is still better at many things than HTML. Eventually, I think Flash will be irrelevant but that will be predicated on the the percentage of IE 6,7,8, usage. As long as it is higher than 10% and as long as HTML cannot match the feature set of Flash, Flash should remain viable. It is all about developers providing alternatives to support their target audience and nothing to do with evangelizing one solution over another.
On a side note has anyone been playing around with Real Studio? Talk about retro implementations. I haven't heard anyone talk about FastCGI for about 10 years. Well I guess old tech doesn't always die. Let's bring back Perl too, it is really powerful although not getting so much 'glam' lately.
The acid 3 test is generally regarded as a showcase of features. To use is as a benchmark to evaluate the performance of a web browser is absurd and amateur. The developers of acid 3 have said themselves that it has nothing to do with standards compliance, and that some of the test have no relation to real usage and browsers will simply include them to raise their score.
Firefox 4 for example is regarded as having the best standard compliance of any modern browser. It scores 97 with errors. It would be pointless to implement features still in the development that are not in use just to increase the score. The fact that this vender used it to evaluate the Xoom just demonstrates its bias towards the platform it has invested in by creating non-standard web apps designed only for the iPad. No matter how "standard compliant" a browser is there will always be optimizations and other differences a web developer can take account of. Its unfair to take a wep app designed specifically for one platform and expect it to run perfectly on another.
Almost every single statement you make here is 100% incorrect. Your assessment of what the Acid 3 test is, your categorisation of the statements of the inventors of the test, your opinion of Firefox, everything. You can't just spew BS and hope it sticks, and your not entitled to your own personal "facts."
It's not worth the time to point out all the errors one by one, so instead let's put in the giant damning section of the article that you failed to quote.
" ... the Xoom and Honeycomb are a real disappointment. We found consistent and reproducible issues in CSS3 Animations and CSS3 Transitions among other things. We had issues where the browser either hung or crashed. Regular scrolling was slow or below full framerate. We had issues where media playback failed or performed incorrectly. At times it felt like we were using a preproduction device, but we bought our test device from a Verizon Wireless store."
Almost every single statement you make here is 100% incorrect. Your assessment of what the Acid 3 test is, your categorisation of the statements of the inventors of the test, your opinion of Firefox, everything. You can't just spew BS and hope it sticks, and your not entitled to your own personal "facts."
Well, the tradition of ACID has always been to see how forgiving the browser is to improperly formatted code. So in that regard the poster does have a point, although I have no doubt that the Xoom sucks as much as the reviewer has described.
come on. It's "neck and neck." That's pitiful. Jesus lord christ, that's the stupidest mistake I've ever read. "neck in neck." Just think about it. You do not deserve to be writing things with words. Your brain clearly doesn't work right. Christ.
Flash is dead and it was Adobe's bugs, marketing business' blinking ads, covert tracking, and Music & Movie studio enforced DRM that killed it in the minds of average users. Mobile users don't want that crap littering their limited screen real estate or covert spyware.
The flash trolls that I knew could never pass up this thread, are just stuck in the middle, like those still hoping Blue Ray will succeed!
This makes painful reading for Google and Motorola. I am constantly astonished at the lack of intelligence present at Apple's competitors. How on earth can they release a tablet like the Xoom -teasing Apple along the way for a lack of Flash support - without a fully-functional browser!?
They KNOW what tests will be run and how their browser will be judged. They KNOW that their browser will be a major feature point of the device. It just looks to me like they didn't care tuppence about HTML5 et al because they thought Flash support was their trump card...and it hasn't arrived. It's embarrassing.
P.S. Just look at those Galaxy Tab figures!! I pity the fools that bought one of those! It was awful just using it in the shop, I have no idea how anyone in their right mind could use it for 10 minutes and thing decide to get their wallet out and part with actual cash for one when there's an iPad right next to it in so many cases!
These are just signs that Androids revenue model doesn't work. They are not properly staffed to keep up with iOS. They keep the latest version of WebKit on Android, but all of the platform specific integration that needs to be done to make WebKit work falls short. Being a graphics oriented operating systems company probably helps too.
These are just signs that Androids revenue model doesn't work. They are not properly staffed to keep up with iOS. They keep the latest version of WebKit on Android, but all of the platform specific integration that needs to be done to make WebKit work falls short. Being a graphics oriented operating systems company probably helps too.
Google doesn't care to make Androids' revenue model work. Aside from the fact, they don't want to be party to the upcoming patent lawsuits. They have the software expertise to compete with iOS, but they only want ad money from Android. The licensing fees are just a part time job.
Microsoft hates Apple because Apple is so good at keeping their innovative technology secret long enough to stop MS from copying it. That's what they do best. Microsoft has very little innovative expertise. Everything they have they either bought, stole, or copied.
Adobe does have the expertise too make Android's revenue model work, even with the hardware fragmentation and software legacy problems in the platform, but it's not in their interest just like Google. They just want to hang on to their capitative software audience which comes from business' dollars not consumers. They sell marketing platforms like flash and overpriced software development tools not consumer products.
Everyone of these guys secretly have penis envy for what Apple has, but they hate the position they find themselves in, being forced to somehow answer Apple's successful revenue model which comes from their concern for the consumer, their innovative R&D, and economies of scale. Apple gives away free software development tools that rival Microsoft & Adobe's expensive tools.
Apple forces down the price of software for the consumer and makes more money on the hardware side. The wireless telcos, PC hardware companies, Hollywood, Music Industry, and everyone else who live to suck every dime out of the consumer, all hate Apple's business model. Apple is pro consumer first, industry second, and they have brand loyalty and huge revenues from that business model. It's the secret of Steve Jobs' success.
The only company, IMO, that Apple needs to worry about is HP and their future WebOS mobile products. HP has everything they need to be a real competitor. They have the software and hardware expertise to give Apple a run for its money.
Comments
You know I used to think that companies like MS, RIM, Motorola, etc., could put out subpar products with subpar interfaces/SW and the buying public would buy them over the obviously superior Apple products.
This is no longer the case.
For example the Zune's inglorious demise speaks to this, in that Apple has indeed turned a corner with the iPod, iPhone and iPad. The three post PC products have proven to the public Apple's attention to detail. I love it!
Best
A very good point. It's refreshing to see this happen. The iPad does stand out amongst Apple's product history as being cheaper than the competition. I think that helps people make the quality choice. It's a no-brainer with tablets at the moment.
To be fair, Flash is not "old technology". (though it's been around a long time, it's been significantly upgraded about every 2 years --contrast that with HTML, which is finally getting a 10-year-in-the-making update--one could just as easily call HTML OLDER technology).
And the technologies you mention hit a physical performance barrier which Flash hasn't (it can be updated tomorrow).
It's a good point about HTML4 being very old, but I'd argue that Flash cannot be updated as easily as you make out. Yes it's version number is advancing nicely, but it's still a battery killer and Adobe seem to be struggling to change that. Flash doesn't even run well on my i5 MacBook Pro, I daren't think what it would be like on my iPhone!!!
I'm not saying they should do it at all. It's definitely in Apple's interest to marginalize Flash.
I'm simply pointing out that they have the means and the rights to.
Actually, it's not. Apple has no need for flash and their sales volume speaks for itself. Anyone who claims to have flash running perfectly is flat out lying. It's buggy even on windows.
Not OLD news dressed up as NEW news. The Sencha article was quite a while ago. When I read the title, I thought, "Oh, some interesting news!" But, then reading it, I find its really OLD news masquerading.
It's March 22, 2011.
March 12, 2011
"iPad 2: The HTML5 Developer Scorecard"
http://www.sencha.com/blog/ipad-2-th...per-scorecard/
The current wave of analysis is Playbook ships in next month, Amazon appstore launches after Apple launches lawsuit over trademark, Galaxy Tab 78910, and AT&T buys T-Mobile.
Loads of material. Stuff from over a week ago that's already been covered?
Eeeeh. Notsomuch.
And the worst thing is, I'm beginning to be able to pick out his article titles.
Take this article for instance:
"iPad 2 beats Android 3.0 Honeycomb Xoom, Galaxy Tab in HTML5 savvy"
That's really just exaggeration... not reporting.
It should be:
"iPad 2 tops HTML 5 scorecard, against Motorola XOOM and Galaxy Tab P1000"
Why bring "Honeycomb" into it, unless its just buzz worthy?
The last article title I thought was concerning was "T-Mobile gets the iPhone, Apple gets fast new HSPA+". The more accurate title: "Longterm: AT&T and Apple iPhone get T-Mobile customers and stronger coverage." 12-24 months is quite a long time, and the regulatory hurdles are HUGE... as the WSJ is reporting, people are less than certain about the outcome, which is unusual given the risks. AT&T's 3 billion dollars and ceded spectrum is a huge price to pay if it doesn't go through.
~ CB
Actually, it's not. Apple has no need for flash and their sales volume speaks for itself. Anyone who claims to have flash running perfectly is flat out lying. It's buggy even on windows.
I think you misread the comment. But you're right.
And the worst thing is, I'm beginning to be able to pick out his article titles.
Take this article for instance:
"iPad 2 beats Android 3.0 Honeycomb Xoom, Galaxy Tab in HTML5 savvy"
That's really just exaggeration... not reporting.
It should be:
"iPad 2 tops HTML 5 scorecard, against Motorola XOOM and Galaxy Tab P1000"
Why bring "Honeycomb" into it, unless its just buzz worthy?
The last article title I thought was concerning was "T-Mobile gets the iPhone, Apple gets fast new HSPA+". The more accurate title: "Longterm: AT&T and Apple iPhone get T-Mobile customers and stronger coverage." 12-24 months is quite a long time, and the regulatory hurdles are HUGE... as the WSJ is reporting, people are less than certain about the outcome, which is unusual given the risks. AT&T's 3 billion dollars and ceded spectrum is a huge price to pay if it doesn't go through.
~ CB
Please never, ever write a newspaper headline!!
He brought Honeycomb into the matter because it was pertinent. Honeycomb will be the OS the competition all use and as he points out, most will not substantially alter the default browser.
As for HSPA+, you don't really have time to go into detail about timescales in a headline...that's what the article is there for :P
That's not quite the whole issue though. If you develop websites it is incredibly frustrating to know you cannot use certain superb features of a set of standards that ought to be ubiquitous because you will have a certain portion of your audience unable to view them.
Everyone developing high-quality, standards-compliant browsers is in everyone's interests except Adobe's. If they all had 100% HTML compliance, you'd see a richer web because developers could bank on the new features being supported and could make use of them in commercial work.
This is a good post!
Sencha noted other improvements in Android 3.0, including support for SVG that was missing in the original Galaxy Tab's Android 2.2.
I have been very disappointed with the SVG reliability on Safari in particular, but also in general. Chrome does a better job with SVG but I'm beginning to think that Adobe's SVG invention is not ever going to be the solution for its acronym/abbreviation. Flash is much better for scalable vector graphics but unfortunately it is not available on many mobile platforms and if it was it would be immediately exploited by the ad tards.
To be fair, Flash is not "old technology". (though it's been around a long time, it's been significantly upgraded about every 2 years --contrast that with HTML, which is finally getting a 10-year-in-the-making update--one could just as easily call HTML OLDER technology).
And the technologies you mention hit a physical performance barrier which Flash hasn't (and there are more things Flash can do that HTML can't, than vice versa).
you're splitting hairs, bro. By "old tech" i don't mean years or version numbers. I mean it has outlived it's useful life. Flash, in all it's buggy, unsafe, resource-intensive glory, will never die if nobody takes the first step and shows that life goes on without it. Apple has done that, and they'd do it again in a heartbeat. All the people that say "HTML5 is promising but in the meantime Apple still needs to support Flash" are missing the entire point: as long as Flash is still supported, it will never, ever die.
The iPhone was announced FOUR years ago and Adobe has yet to produce a quality release of mobile Flash. That is a fact. Yes, they're closer than they were before, but do you really thing they would have made any progress whatsoever if Apple had allowed Flash in the first place?
the fact that Apple iOS has been such a huge success without it proves beyond argument it is unnecessary in market terms already. and the no-Flash high-value iOS user base continues to grow rapidly, speeding up adoption of alternatives. once HTML5 is fully outfitted then Flash will be literally obsolete as a tool - just a year or two more. so Adobe is already hedging its bets with crossover tools.
and no Mac user will miss it. it's sucked for years.
and no Mac user will miss it. it's sucked for years.
none, never, all, always, is often not a good bet.
All the people that say "HTML5 is promising but in the meantime Apple still needs to support Flash" are missing the entire point: as long as Flash is still supported, it will never, ever die.
Flash is still better at many things than HTML. Eventually, I think Flash will be irrelevant but that will be predicated on the the percentage of IE 6,7,8, usage. As long as it is higher than 10% and as long as HTML cannot match the feature set of Flash, Flash should remain viable. It is all about developers providing alternatives to support their target audience and nothing to do with evangelizing one solution over another.
The acid 3 test is generally regarded as a showcase of features. To use is as a benchmark to evaluate the performance of a web browser is absurd and amateur. The developers of acid 3 have said themselves that it has nothing to do with standards compliance, and that some of the test have no relation to real usage and browsers will simply include them to raise their score.
Firefox 4 for example is regarded as having the best standard compliance of any modern browser. It scores 97 with errors. It would be pointless to implement features still in the development that are not in use just to increase the score. The fact that this vender used it to evaluate the Xoom just demonstrates its bias towards the platform it has invested in by creating non-standard web apps designed only for the iPad. No matter how "standard compliant" a browser is there will always be optimizations and other differences a web developer can take account of. Its unfair to take a wep app designed specifically for one platform and expect it to run perfectly on another.
Almost every single statement you make here is 100% incorrect. Your assessment of what the Acid 3 test is, your categorisation of the statements of the inventors of the test, your opinion of Firefox, everything. You can't just spew BS and hope it sticks, and your not entitled to your own personal "facts."
It's not worth the time to point out all the errors one by one, so instead let's put in the giant damning section of the article that you failed to quote.
" ... the Xoom and Honeycomb are a real disappointment. We found consistent and reproducible issues in CSS3 Animations and CSS3 Transitions among other things. We had issues where the browser either hung or crashed. Regular scrolling was slow or below full framerate. We had issues where media playback failed or performed incorrectly. At times it felt like we were using a preproduction device, but we bought our test device from a Verizon Wireless store."
Almost every single statement you make here is 100% incorrect. Your assessment of what the Acid 3 test is, your categorisation of the statements of the inventors of the test, your opinion of Firefox, everything. You can't just spew BS and hope it sticks, and your not entitled to your own personal "facts."
Well, the tradition of ACID has always been to see how forgiving the browser is to improperly formatted code. So in that regard the poster does have a point, although I have no doubt that the Xoom sucks as much as the reviewer has described.
The flash trolls that I knew could never pass up this thread, are just stuck in the middle, like those still hoping Blue Ray will succeed!
This makes painful reading for Google and Motorola. I am constantly astonished at the lack of intelligence present at Apple's competitors. How on earth can they release a tablet like the Xoom -teasing Apple along the way for a lack of Flash support - without a fully-functional browser!?
They KNOW what tests will be run and how their browser will be judged. They KNOW that their browser will be a major feature point of the device. It just looks to me like they didn't care tuppence about HTML5 et al because they thought Flash support was their trump card...and it hasn't arrived. It's embarrassing.
P.S. Just look at those Galaxy Tab figures!! I pity the fools that bought one of those! It was awful just using it in the shop, I have no idea how anyone in their right mind could use it for 10 minutes and thing decide to get their wallet out and part with actual cash for one when there's an iPad right next to it in so many cases!
These are just signs that Androids revenue model doesn't work. They are not properly staffed to keep up with iOS. They keep the latest version of WebKit on Android, but all of the platform specific integration that needs to be done to make WebKit work falls short. Being a graphics oriented operating systems company probably helps too.
These are just signs that Androids revenue model doesn't work. They are not properly staffed to keep up with iOS. They keep the latest version of WebKit on Android, but all of the platform specific integration that needs to be done to make WebKit work falls short. Being a graphics oriented operating systems company probably helps too.
Google doesn't care to make Androids' revenue model work. Aside from the fact, they don't want to be party to the upcoming patent lawsuits. They have the software expertise to compete with iOS, but they only want ad money from Android. The licensing fees are just a part time job.
Microsoft hates Apple because Apple is so good at keeping their innovative technology secret long enough to stop MS from copying it. That's what they do best. Microsoft has very little innovative expertise. Everything they have they either bought, stole, or copied.
Adobe does have the expertise too make Android's revenue model work, even with the hardware fragmentation and software legacy problems in the platform, but it's not in their interest just like Google. They just want to hang on to their capitative software audience which comes from business' dollars not consumers. They sell marketing platforms like flash and overpriced software development tools not consumer products.
Everyone of these guys secretly have penis envy for what Apple has, but they hate the position they find themselves in, being forced to somehow answer Apple's successful revenue model which comes from their concern for the consumer, their innovative R&D, and economies of scale. Apple gives away free software development tools that rival Microsoft & Adobe's expensive tools.
Apple forces down the price of software for the consumer and makes more money on the hardware side. The wireless telcos, PC hardware companies, Hollywood, Music Industry, and everyone else who live to suck every dime out of the consumer, all hate Apple's business model. Apple is pro consumer first, industry second, and they have brand loyalty and huge revenues from that business model. It's the secret of Steve Jobs' success.
The only company, IMO, that Apple needs to worry about is HP and their future WebOS mobile products. HP has everything they need to be a real competitor. They have the software and hardware expertise to give Apple a run for its money.