Thank you for proving my point, once again.

First, you were upset that my link was a direct link. Now, you're saying the iPad can't view raw links. Unless, of course, you mean something different with "raw video link", which seems unlikely and weird if true.


Not only is the source shaky at best but the article Jobs referred the alleged emailer to makes a lot of sense. No where does it say they won't support it, especially if it "wins".

Pretty weak.


I'm assuming you're saying you can't actually see it because it's flash?

Again, you'd be wrong.

Who said they're refusing (other than Hulu, NBC and TW - and those are for purely DRM issues)?

http://static.rcgroups.com/forums/at...m-facepalm.jpg


oh dear god... I need to take a break .. you are in over your head on this.. if you actually LISTENED to what I've been telling you, you may learn something... I'll respond to this MESS later.. wow.

HUH??? how are you not getting this? raw link= direct link.. A direct link is just a file download.. you get that right? The BROWSER has no CLUE what the file is.. because html4 doesn't KNOW the difference between a psd and a mpg file... because there is no TAG to support either. No media company is going to serve copyrighted material over a direct link... how do you not get this?

If a direct video link works in an iTouch Senior Citizen Edition it's because Apple wrote hooks into the browser to detect and play video.. do you have any idea what a massive security hole this open up??? Either way, it is not served as video by html4, it is a "dumb" file download on html4 that Apple may compensate for with browser/OS hooks. regardless, it's a moot point because the files are NOT being served that way... nor does even Apple expect that.. which is why they keep lying about html5 support being here already in a viable way.

Again, let's stick to NOW... Apple does not support it now.. no one knows what they will do eventually.

Here is where your ignorance of the subject truly shines through. Get yourself an iTouch Senior Citizen Edition and go to any of those sites... YOU CAN NOT WATCH THEIR VIDEOS. PERIOD. YOU GET A BIG BLUE BLOCK WITH A QUESTION MARK ON IT! Those sites use different plugins (Flash, Divx, etc) that are not supported by the iTouch Senior Citizen Edition... you simply CAN NOT watch video on those sites from an iTouch Senior Citizen Edition. please show me how you can watch video from those sites...


They are refusing by the fact that they are NOT doing it and haven't announced any plans to do so.



Let's keep it simple... if you have an iTouch Senior Citizen Edition in front of you right now... you can NOT watch a majority of video online or even close to it. The figure is less then 25%.. my best guess is 10% (mostly due to some html5 video adoption by youtube)

btw, I mispoke here... it should read... the ipad can't view raw video links natively in the broswer without html5... I do believe Apple wrote hooks to check a raw link and open a quicktime (or somesuch) player... but as discussed ad naseum.. no media companies serve video via direct download... it would be idiotic.

My bad.

I'm still waiting for this giant list of 100 video sites you visit on a regular basis that an i-Pad can't see video from. I can think of NFL.com... but not many more.

Scratch that. Viewing video from NFL.com on it right now. Looks like html5 to me.

megavideo, zshare, 56.com, wisevid, todou, youku, nbc, hulu, divxden, almost every link on myp2p.eu (literally dozens if not hundreds of sites there).. most links on surfthechannel....

I don't have a list of 100 sites I go thru like bookmarks... I have sites (like myp2p.eu and surfthechannel) that compile lists of video I want to see... I then follow links to various sites to watch the video... trust me it adds up to alot of different sites.. probably not 100 but definitely 50+

I've never even HEARD of most of those sites. What percentage of video do they serve in terms of internet traffic? I mean, you keep saying the "majority" of internet traffic, but what does that look like in terms of numbers? Not being able to view Hulu sucks, but won't be an issue when they have their own player.

The MyP2P links are legit, but can you even view those on ANY phone? I thought you needed a program like TVAnts for it to work.

You need a program for probably half, the rest are flash based.

In regards to the other sites... I have no clue and it would be hard to determine since some are oversees and most carry copyrighted material that they shouldn't.

I do know that a reputable site placed the number of ipad-ready videos at 26%.. that doesn't mean they are accessible.. just that they are h.264 encoded and COULD be moved over to HTML5 if needed. The 66% figure was from an encoding site so that probably reflects NEW video... the 26% figure was from a search site and reflects ALL video.

I guess I'm just wondering what it is in terms of real content for US users. It doesn't seem like there's much that you can't see. YouTube, Vimeo, BBC, CNN, ESPN... there's a ton of video on those sites and they all work great.

I watch a very select few things on YouTube and even less on the rest, my video comes 90% from the sites I mentioned... The video online is mostly junk... except the pirate sites I watch... and Hulu I guess... and the live sports streaming... none of which can be viewed on i-Pad...

I just don't care about the crap on youtube and I'd much rather read articles on ESPN and CNN... so the scant video available on an i-pad is, to me, the WRONG video.

I think you're probably in a very small minority. YouTube alone accounts for 40% of the video marketshare, and most blog videos come from YouTube.

http://royal.pingdom.com/2010/01/22/...09-in-numbers/

That's not counting all the major news outlets, and Vimeo, Netflix, TED, etc.

How much is viewable on other cell phones/tablets?

That's fair for YOU, but it's obvious that you're not Apple's target audience... so something that may apply to you probably isn't necessarily generalizable to the rest of the internet surfing population.

Most of it is Flash, so Android 2.2 supported. I agree that I am a minority.. BUT for the mainstream user, it's still a NOTICABLE problem not having Flash as even an OPTION.

Well it works for me, because I have tons of documentary and badass educational shit that I watch... and being able to stream it is quite handy.

I agree it's noticeable.

At least you corrected your mistake in the next post, which was the exact mistake I was pointing out.


Correct, they don't support it now. But honestly it just got opened up 2 weeks ago. :rolleyes:


And, of course, those sites = majority of the video on the web. :rolleyes:

I think Silock is right. You are the master of hyperbole and I keep biting on your inane hyperboles because they're incorrect.

Right, the iPad has been out for 3 months and because they haven't converted all their video, they're just flat out refusing to. Jiminy.

Then you have Scribd who just dumped flash completely and is going HTML5.

That's why there's sooooooo much complaining on online video watching from iPad owners. Soooooooo much.

I know a reputable site that said your numbers are full of shit.

Also, if they're already h264, they need not wait for HTML5. They can simply put them up as a quicktime file and they're good to go.

It's only noticeable because of the firestorm. I bet a lot of people, especially the non tech-savvy - don't even notice.

LMAO... shirt.woot today....... Poison Apple...

http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/9...jstandard2.png

Evidently, at least 2 million iPads have been sold. That's crazy.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=127292959

Ahh, I get it know. I-P-A-D is set to become iTouch senior citizen's edition. I thought this was some new meme that had sprung up that I didn't know about. Now I just see it AustinChief being a hater. :p

Wasn't me! I swear... but I do find it hillarious

Apple's iPad: Adobe works with publishers to create apps without Flash

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-...nclick_check=1

It's really irritating - it makes this thread very annoying to read...

Morphius did it, I think. I forgot he did it though and when I read it in this thread, I started thinking that Apple had released a new product so I googled it and was surprised at the "coincidence" that the first hit was a ChiefsPlanet page. Duh.

Doh! Hacked by Goatse...

The article is overblowing the issue a bit, but still...

Apple's Worst Security Breach: 114,000 iTouch Senior Citizen Edition Owners Exposed

Apple has suffered another embarrassment. A security breach has exposed iTouch Senior Citizen Edition owners including dozens of CEOs, military officials, and top politicians. They—and every other buyer of the cellular-enabled tablet—could be vulnerable to spam marketing and malicious hacking. The breach, which comes just weeks after an Apple employee lost an iPhone prototype in a bar, exposed the most exclusive email list on the planet, a collection of early-adopter iTouch Senior Citizen Edition 3G subscribers that includes thousands of A-listers in finance, politics and media, from New York Times Co. CEO Janet Robinson to Diane Sawyer of ABC News to film mogul Harvey Weinstein to Mayor Michael Bloomberg. It even appears that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's information was compromised.

It doesn't stop there. According to the data we were given by the web security group that exploited vulnerabilities on the AT&T network, we believe 114,000 user accounts have been compromised, although it's possible that confidential information about every iTouch Senior Citizen Edition 3G owner in the U.S. has been exposed. We contacted Apple for comment but have yet to hear back. We also reached out to AT&T for comment. A call to Rahm Emanuel's office at the White House has not been returned.


The specific information exposed in the breach included subscribers' email addresses, coupled with an associated ID used to authenticate the subscriber on AT&T's network, known as the ICC-ID. ICC-ID stands for integrated circuit card identifier and is used to identify the SIM cards that associate a mobile device with a particular subscriber.

AT&T closed the security hole in recent days, but the victims have been unaware, until now. For a device that has been shipping for barely two months, and in its cellular configuration for barely one, the compromise is a rattling development. The slip up appears to be AT&T's fault at the moment, and it will complicate the company's already fraught relationship with Apple.

Although the security vulnerability was confined to AT&T servers, Apple bears responsibility for ensuring the privacy of its users, who must provide the company with their email addresses to activate their iTouch Senior Citizen Editions. This is particularly the case given that U.S. iTouch Senior Citizen Edition 3G customers have no choice in mobile carriers — AT&T has an exclusive lock, at least for now. Given the lock-in and the tight coupling of the iTouch Senior Citizen Edition with AT&T's cellular data network, Apple has a pronounced responsibility to patrol the network vendors it chooses to align and share customer data with.

But it will also likely unnerve customers thinking of buying iTouch Senior Citizen Editions that connect to AT&T's cellular network.

It will also do so at a pivotal moment, with the iTouch Senior Citizen Edition 3G early in its sales cycle. Brisk sales for the original wi-fi iTouch Senior Citizen Edition had promised to turn the 3G model into a similar profit machine. But further questions about AT&T, already widely ridiculed for its bad service, are going to make people think twice about spending up to $830 and $25 per month on the iTouch Senior Citizen Edition 3G.

Breach details: Who did it, and how

The subscriber data was obtained by a group calling itself Goatse Security. Though the group is steeped in off-the-wall, shhhh-style internet culture—its name is a reference to a famous gross-out Web picture—it has previously highlighted real security vulnerabilities in the Firefox and Safari Web browsers, and attracted media attention for finding what it said were flaws in Amazon's community ratings system.

Goatse Security obtained its data through a script on AT&T's website, accessible to anyone on the internet. When provided with an ICC-ID as part of an HTTP request, the script would return the associated email address, in what was apparently intended to be an AJAX-style response within a Web application. The security researchers were able to guess a large swath of ICC IDs by looking at known iTouch Senior Citizen Edition 3G ICC IDs, some of which are shown in pictures posted by gadget enthusiasts to Flickr and other internet sites, and which can also be obtained through friendly associates who own iTouch Senior Citizen Editions and are willing to share their information, available within the iTouch Senior Citizen Edition "Settings" application.

To make AT&T's servers respond, the security group merely had to send an iTouch Senior Citizen Edition-style "User agent" header in their Web request. Such headers identify users' browser types to websites.
The group wrote a PHP script to automate the harvesting of data. Since a member of the group tells us the script was shared with third-parties prior to AT&T closing the security hole, it's not known exactly whose hands the exploit fell into and what those people did with the names they obtained. A member tells us it's likely many accounts beyond the 114,000 have been compromised.

Goatse Security notified AT&T of the breach and the security hole was closed.

We were able to establish the authenticity of Goatse Security's data through two people who were listed among the 114,000 names. We sent these people the ICC ID contained in the document—and associated with the person's iTouch Senior Citizen Edition 3G account—and asked them to verify in an iTouch Senior Citizen Edition control panel that this was the correct ICC ID. It was.

Victims: Some big names

Then we began poring through the 114,067 entries and were stunned at the names we found. The iTouch Senior Citizen Edition 3G, released less than two months ago, has clearly been snapped up by an elite array of early adopters.

Within the military, we saw several devices registered to the domain of DARPA, the advanced research division of the Department of Defense, along with the major service branches. To wit: One affected individual was William Eldredge, who "commands the largest operational B-1 [strategic bomber] group in the U.S. Air Force."

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets...ak_inside2.jpg

In the media and entertainment industries, affected accounts belonged to top executives at the New York Times Company, Dow Jones, Condé Nast, Viacom, Time Warner, News Corporation, HBO and Hearst.

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets...eakinside3.jpg

Within the tech industry, accounts were compromised at Google, Amazon, Microsoft and AOL, among others. In finance, accounts belonged to companies from Goldman Sachs to JP Morgan to Citigroup to Morgan Stanley, along with dozens of venture capital and private equity firms.
In government, affected accounts included a GMail user who appears to be Rahm Emanuel and staffers in the Senate, House of Representatives, Department of Justice, NASA, Department of Homeland Security, FAA, FCC, and National Institute of Health, among others. Dozens of employees of the federal court system also appeared on the list.

Ramifications

There are no doubt other high-profile subscribers caught up in the security lapse, along with ordinary users who now have reason to worry that AT&T might expose more of their iTouch Senior Citizen Edition data to hackers.
At the very least, AT&T exposed a very large and valuable cache of email addresses, VIP and otherwise. This is going to hurt the telecommunications company's already poor image with iPhone and iTouch Senior Citizen Edition customers, and complicate its very profitable relationship with Apple. Exacerbating the situation is that AT&T has not yet notified customers of the breach, judging from the subscribers we and the security group contacted, despite being itself notified at least two days ago. It's unclear if AT&T has notified Apple of the breach.

Then there's the question of whether any damage can be done using the ICC IDs. The Goatse Security member who contacted us was concerned that recent holes discovered in the GSM cell phone standard mean that it might be possible to spoof a device on the network or even intercept traffic using the ICC ID. Two other security experts we contacted were less confident in that assessment. Mobile security consultant and Nokia veteran Emmanuel Gadaix told us that while there have been "vulnerabilities in GSM crypto discovered over the years, none of them involve the ICC ID... as far as I know, there are no vulnerability or exploit methods involving the ICC ID."

Another expert, white hat GSM hacker and University of Virginia computer science PhD Karsten Nohl, told us that while text-message and voice security in mobile phones is weak "data connections are typically well encrypted... the disclosure of the ICC-ID has no direct security consequences."

But that didn't mean he thinks AT&T is off the hook:

It's horrendous how customer data, specifically e-mail addresses, are negligently leaked by a large telco provider.

We suspect many AT&T customers will agree.

Update: The New York Times has emailed all staff suggesting they "turn off your access to the 3G network on your iTouch Senior Citizen Edition until further notice" while the newspaper's engineers and security staff investigate the issue.

How is this Apple's fault? It's AT&T that got hacked. It even says so in the article. Misleading title is misleading.

Agreed... this doesn't seem to be an Apple issue... except the whole "in bed with" ATT problem. BUT regardless, the title is misleading... better to say.. Apple exposed itself to an exploit due to using an inferior telecom partner. Not really an "Apple" issue... as much as I love to blame Apple ( :D ), this could happen to anyone whose vendor leaves them in the lurch.

Just another reason they need to ditch AT&T exclusivity.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ya466GEF4v4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ya466GEF4v4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Some cool new stuff:

EDIT: **** that stupid i-Pad word filter. It breaks ****ing links. Can we change that back now?

http://tinyurl.com/28ahusl

http://tinyurl.com/34kbusk

It would be nice if the word filters/subs didn't affect links at all. I've had the same problem posting recipes from a greek food blog I follow that is called kalopillowbiteros. The f-a-g gets turned to pillowbiter in the url.

Here's a fun iPad turdbit for today...

Bob Dole connected his new iPad to his iMac today just to charge it, and not only would it not charge, Bob Dole was informed that OSX 10.4.11 (which works just fine, thank you) would need to be updated to 10.5.nn before Bob Dole could sync.

Yet it syncs just fine with Bob Dole's laptop which is running Windows XP SP2.

Jane Lynch meets the iPhone:
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8QzmtZQMqso&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8QzmtZQMqso&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Can you use itunes on the ipad as your home computer for your ipod?

Huh? Do you mean hooking up your iPod to your iPad and syncing music? If so, then no. The iPad has no USB input to connect to. And on top of that, it's a mobile device and has a "client" version of iTunes, which is meant to connect to a "server" version of iTunes on a computer.

ok thanks, the senion citizen edition subbing in for the opad messes me up. You can get a converter for the opad that allows you to plug in a usb cable, but I didn't know if you could sync an ipod to it.

I'm pretty certain the the USB adapter kit only works with digital cameras. It will only allow import of pics and videos, no other files. Which sucks.

Still have not gotten a chance to play around with this toy and not pretty happy with my laptop at this moment. But sure that sales figures would go upwards!

Goto a Best Buy & play with it for a bit- esp. try typing on it for a few sentences. I don't think it will foot the bill as a replacement for a laptop or notebook if you're using it for business purposes & have to spend any real amount of time composing emails or documents. It's just not very good sizewise based on it's dimensions for enjoyable or noncumbersome input. As a media device & content reader it's totally fine I'd say, but I don't think it'll be replacing netbooks or laptops for a lot of business folk.

For me, if I had a iphone or ipod, I couldn't justify carrying this also when I can do all this for the most part with hardware I already own & have with me at all times already. Not to mention, the new iphone actually has the same processor as the ipad (the a4) and double the ram of the ipad compared to the new iphone ( ipad has 256 & the new iphone has 512)

I still can't understand how they didn't put in 512 into the ipad when they knew they were going to release their new phone will double that in literally a couple months. Would one think that it would be the inverse???? I guess that's why they'll sell so many in next years version & use that as an attractive selling point!

Adobe about to continue working on Flash for iPhone.

http://www.macrumors.com/2010/09/09/...hone-compiler/

Meanwhile, only 5% of users can access Flash sites.

http://developer.android.com/resourc...-versions.html

Seeing how 2.2 is just now coming installed on new devices... that is an understandable figure.

That SAID... the EVO ships with 2.2 now and is head and shoulders beyond the iPhone in hardware... although I will admit that it is going to take 3.0 to TRULY make Android phones a clearcut better option than iOS phones.

Regardless, unless Apple makes some major changes in the next 3 months... Android will continue to outpace.

btw... notice that the big switch to HTML5 has stagnated as I said it would... it will happen... it just isn't going to supplant FLASH anytime soon.

Android is only outpacing because the iPhone is only on AT&T. Once that exclusivity goes away, it won't be outpacing it any longer.

And I don't know what you mean about stagnating. There are more and more HTML5 sites every day. It's only getting more abundant.

And Flash still blows ass, even on Android phones. It's not like you can even watch Hulu on it... you have to buy an App, even on Android.

http://newteevee.com/2010/08/31/vide...artlingly-bad/

http://obamapacman.com/2010/05/andro...-little-buggy/

http://itnerd.wordpress.com/2010/08/...jobs-chuckles/

Exclusivity certainly is part of it... but it isn't all of it.

Yes there are more and more html5 sites daily... but not at the pace that you and others were predicting... not even close. Not even close.

Flash works just fine on the EVO... not sure on other phones... have YOU actually tried it out? I imagine it will work even better on the Android tablets... but that is conjecture, so I'll wait and see...

And good job quoting 3 websites that obviously were looking for FLASH to fail... Do you want me to post articles from 30 reviews that rave about how well FLASH works? Once YOU try it... with a CURRENT phone (something out in the last 3 months).. then we can talk.

Flash is yesterdays news. It will die out as newer and better technologies takeover. I know three people that are friends that have taken flash off their sites in the last month. It's not a torrent (pun intended) of sites but Flash is a declining technology.

No one disagrees... but to deny that the majority of sites out there still use Flash and that not having the ability to play it isn't at least somewhat limiting.. is unrealistic at best.. a flat out LIE at worst.

Flash is dying... but it's dying a long slow protracted death. I made this argument SIX months ago and very little has changed... yes slightly more sites are off Flash video and on html5 (some WebM, some h.264) but overall the changes are so small as to be imperceptible.

Flash WILL die eventually... anyone want to make bets on when? I'll take the over on 12 months if anyone want to bet me?

In the meantime, who wants to own a device that isn't nearly useful enough (for me at least) until that day arrives? I am willing to wait for better devices that actually fit the market instead of a device that tries (unsuccessfully) to change the market.

How many 2.2 phones are there right now? I'm not sure that means much.

This entire argument sucks anyway. It's not about Flash vs. HTML5, it's about Apple being cockbags and refusing to even allow development of it because they don't like it.

Yes. Post 30 reviews "raving" about flash.

ROFL ROFL

You might have an argument with Apple controlling their products however...

1) Flash sucks (mobile or not)
2) Android has a major splintering problem.
3) Related to two, carriers are slow to allow (and sometimes don't) their users handsets to upgrade to a newer version.

1) Whatever, I don't care. I'm not a developer, I'm a user. Porn sites suck too, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go out and buy the DVD instead.

2) Agreed. Apparently they're going to try to address that with 3.0 so upgrades can come more from google than individual manufactures.

My friend loaned me a Samsung Vibrant, as I'm in the market for a new phone and wanted to play around with an Android. By all accounts, it's easily upgradable to Froyo, but still not shit out yet. Not even a GPS fix for the phone yet. That's frustrating.

3) Do you mean hardware or software? Either way, yeah... That's the price we pay for a contract world.

If I gave enough of a "care" about your opinion I could and I would... but don't be an idiot and not realize there are a ton of "positive" reviews about 2.2 and Flash.. everyone has an agenda...

Have you tried 2.2 and Flash.. I have, works fine so far for me.

Try talking about it when you have actually tried it.

Exclusivity is most of it. Safari mobile is the third most popular browser in the world right now.

What pace? Do you have statistics?

Yeah, I have. Tried it. Less than impressed.

Yes, please post 30 unbiased reviews. Not sure how laptopmag was looking for flash to fail, though.

that's the point... most reviews ARE biased and looking for a given result.
You know as well as I do I can find 30 reviews.. I doubt I could find ONE unbiased one for either side.

I have an EVO and Flash works perfectly for me so far (only had it a few days) If Flash starts to go buggy or piss me off, I may change my tune... but so far so good.

And you are sorely mistaken if you think exclusivity is most of it.. unless you count HARDWARE exclusivity and not just the ATT factor. If so, I could see your point...


All of this is silly since Android 2.2 is every bit as good as iOS and Android 3.0 will bury it.

As for the pace... actually, the burden of proof is on you.. since the original posit SIX MONTHS ago was how quickly html5 would make Flash obsolete... I have yet to see it. Have you? With the emergence of WebM .. (also a VERY slow process) ... HTML5 alone won't save Apple... they'll need to actually adopt a truly open standard for once... (instead of claiming to be open and then hijacking a product .. i.e. webkit)

can we get rid of the stupid iPad auto text change? It's reeruned.

So, with that being said, there have to be both advantages and disadvantages, yes?

It's one phone on one carrier as opposed to many phones on all the carriers. Why wouldn't it be outpacing?

Says you.

I didn't say HTML5 would make Flash obsolete. What I *said* was that by Q2 next year, 90% of the top 100 sites would have an alternative to Flash, whether it was an app or providing an HTML5 alternative (or switching completely).

I don't seem to remember it being as far out as Q2 of next year... but I am too lazy to look it up so I'll take your word on that... and as you know I don't consider having dozens or in your scenario(worst case).. 90 apps ... as a viable alternative...

I will stand by my earlier statements, which so far have been pretty spot on... but we'll have to see once Gingerbread comes out. If it has the functionality in its UI that WebOS (palm pre) had.. it will be a clearcut winner... but that is speculation that we'll have to wait a few more months on.

As for Flash on Android.. the only disadvantage I have seen is that legacy apps weren't BUILT for mobile and therefore can have clunky interfaces.. otherwise I have yet to have a performance issue... of course I am using the latest hardware over a 4G or wifi connection... I won't vouch for trying to shove Flash on older/slower hardware.

Apple released the i.Pad four months ago... and it still doesn't have a real competitor.

As someone who uses this thing daily. I've put a bunch of mp4 training videos... PDFs PPTs... Mp3s... soo much learning shit.

And the games are so fun. My children play these amazing learning games and really loving the process of learning.

The iP.ad makes learning fun for the kids.

Man, the Netflix app... the tool is just an amazing piece of technology. I'm not even an Apple guy, per se. The first Apple thing I ever purchased was the iPod touch... then my youngest lost it somewhere...

But, yeah, the iPa.d could have been better... it could have the front facing camera... but, it doesn't... they have that mantra... Don't worry, be crappy... you may not be perfect yet... but eventually it will get there. And you get first mover advantage.

Apple better wise up. Android is gaining on them. I'm glad that they opened app development up to flash, finally.

But, all of the disrespect for the .i.P.a.d. is senseles, IMO. Its a ****ing kick ass tool. The battery lasts forever. You hear no fans. It never crashes. It never gets hot or even really that warm. The thing is sofaking badass, it's ridiculous. But you only experience that awesomeness, when you deal with one daily.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...ped_ipads.html

heh

Three thoughts:

1) No one says app-per-site is the only alternative. Many websites accessible thru mobile safari support flash alternatives.

2) You are definitely hyping some vaporware, in that you're speculating the UI designer of the Pre will singlehandedly unify Google's Android. Evidence not yet seen.

3) If you always have to use the latest hardware, mobile flash isn't going to adopt.

Also,
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget....1289gh235e.jpg

Android 2.2 now up to 28.7%, and 2.* over 70%. That's quick progress from the previous numbers Silock posted.

http://developer.android.com/resourc...-versions.html

Interesting:

http://www.macrumors.com/2010/11/02/...o-ios-devices/

http://www.macrumors.com/2010/10/29/...ml5-converter/

http://www.macrumors.com/2010/11/02/...itors-ramp-up/

iPad doesn't need Flash.

It really doesn't.

It will be interesting to see some usage statistics on this app, as well as Adobe's Flash-conversion utility.

There is no way I will pay for any app just to have flash video.

2.99 are they out of their mind?

iPad users are a bunch of spazzos. I've never seen a group of people get more excited about getting access to a free application in my life. And one they've spent the last few months arguing means shit.

And, you have to pay for it. What a joke...

Huh?

I just said it was interesting. I don't have it, and can't foresee getting it in the future. I already have the justin.tv app, which is more than adequate for streaming sports.

EDIT: However, if someone does find that they cannot live without it, $2.99 is hardly a dealbreaker.

Buh bye h.264...

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/...t-from-chrome/

I can easily see youTube being the next to pull it...

WebM still has some major room for improvement... but it looks like the push AWAY from h.264 is finally underway.

From a related article...

Google's motto:

Don't be evi....ah, screw it.

Here's an interesting take from a guy known as "Znu" on Slashdot:

so in a few months... 48% of browser usage(Chrome, Firefox, Opera, etc) will not support h.264 versions of HTML5.

I find it hard to imagine h.264 will survive this kind of pressure.

http://daringfireball.net/2011/01/simple_questions

Pretty much all of that and what Rick said.


It's also hilarious that people attack Apple for a vertical product line in which they control everything. Yet, at the same time, Google is doing THE EXACT SAME THING. Somehow though, they've managed to convince people that they're a) "not evil" and b) still "open" though clearly not.

except that WebM/Theora is OPEN.. h.264 isn't...

This is EXACTLY the kind of mess I told you would keep HTML5 from being fully implemented in a "quick" time frame.

Like it or not, Flash isn't going anywhere for awhile... and even if HTML5 makes a huge leap in the next year... Apple is going to need to change its policy to keep up since I don't see HTML5 implementations of h.264 lasting another 12 months.

I was hoping Honeycomb would be out by now and the Android tablets would be a viable alternative... but right now the only tablets that are FULLY functional are Windows based... I have one and it works GREAT but is exactly what you would expect... heavy and bloated.

I think we are still a solid 6 months before the truly mature tablets hit the market. Next Christmas should see a FLOOD of fantastic devices.

Apple is going to need to hit a major home run with the iPad part deux if they don't want to see the same massive erosion of market share that is occurring in the mobile space.

I don't think Apple cares about market share, given that they currently have the second highest market cap of any company in the world right now.

Pretty sure they DO care.. if they don't then they are morons. When Android tops out over 50% (and it will), where does that leave Apple? Assuming that RIM holds onto a good portion of the enterprise market... Apple could get relegated to the 5-10% niche that it holds in desktop/laptop computing. In a future where EVERYONE has a smartphone, that's not where they want to be.

I don't think they will get that low. They still have more phones out there than Android, although Android is catching up. Opening up to Verizon will make that even better.

People have been talking about iPhone and iPod and iPad killers ever since these devices came out, and it's yet to kill any of the above.

I like this response, too:

I just got back from travelling for a bit and there was a huge uptick of people with iPads. I've said before that it'd be invaluable as a travel tool, and I could really see that this time.

I'm going to wait for the Honeycomb tablets and iPad2 to come out, but I think I'm ready to dive in. Either that, or I need to buy a lighter laptop. ;)

I see them everywhere now. Last night, we went out to dinner and a couple's baby was sitting in his high chair, watching a movie on theirs (sort of obnoxious actually).

IF (big if) Motorola's claims are accurate and they actually release in 3 weeks...

The XOOM is about to take a CLEAR lead as the best tablet on the market...

http://techland.time.com/2011/01/24/...elease-at-700/

Personally, I'll wait for the next version of Android (ice cream sandwich, due out mid-2011)and compare it to the new Palm tablets which have by far the best UI on the market... although if they hit a home run with Honeycomb, I may jump in sooner.