Who is "us"? According to <a href="http://labs.chitika.com/ipad/" target="_blank">this</a> site, which tracks unique iPads through their advertising network, they estimate over 800k have been sold in just over 2 weeks (I don't believe any official numbers have been released). That's US-only, and without the 3G model being available. I'd say it's selling extremely well...

Please tell me how pressing the app button is any different than navigating to the web browser and then scrolling down to the bookmark.

In this sense, the apps are no more complicated than links.

He'll argue cluttering the home screen.

No, I'll argue that it's not a sustainable model when you need a different app for every site... That's fine if you visit 20 or so sites, but I go to considerably more.

What if ChiefsPlanet had a significant amount of flash or video... do you honestly expect me to program an iphone app for the site? I imagine a number of sites feel the same way.

yes it is. Is it perfect? no, but if you want to put your head in the sand and ignore it, that's your choice... I just think it's silly to do so.

It IS a sustainable model... as proven by the hundreds of thousands of apps in the app store. Just sayin'.

If CP had a significant amount of flash or video, I'd just wait to access it until I was at my computer.

Actually, many sites are doing just that. Moreover, they have flash degrading pages for the main browsers so that if someone has it blocked or uninstalled, they get the same content in a different codec.

I don't see how saying it's dying is putting my head in the sand and ignoring it. Otherwise, how could I observe that it sucks tremendous balls.

And aside from perhaps emulators flash isn't really functional. Unless you count ads, which I never do.

Exactly.

Interesting factoid of the day: AustinChief now has 57 posts in this thread. He's posted 3,818 times on the site, which means that this thread accounts for 1.5% of AustinChief's total posts. :Poke:

LOL Bump...

http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/9...1837268100.jpg

One thing I'm not liking about the iPad.... is the apps created for the iPhone screen that they lazily ported over for the iPad with no regard for different screen size. So you're looking at this tiny little iPhone sized app on the big iPad screen. You can zoom in on it, but that's just makes it look worse.

I have to admit that book reading is much better than I expected.

For some reason my post yesterday didn't take.

The camera USB adapter apparently accepts other devices. Headsets for one are go. Zip drives I assume have been tried with no luck, but it appears they could be enabled at some point given that headsets work.

That's a developer being lazy than anything. If i'm a developer, I build a new app. I can charge more and it opens up possibilities. Now, what I wish is that iPhone apps could be like widgets on OSX where you could have them running and pull them up over the screen.

http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/

I was just coming here to post this and you beat me to it. :)

I think this is a great summary of the situation. Flash is the past. HTML5 is the future. Apple has never been shy about leading the pack when it comes to dumping old technologies without a future. Much like when they were one of, if not the first, to dump 3.5" floppy drives.

The irony of Steve Jobs criticizing another company for being "proprietary" is pretty amusing.

I think a more fair take is that he's criticizing Adobe for claiming to be open.

I read it like Pat does, below. In my mind, the weakest part of his statement is the framing that takes place when he conveniently ignores the App Store as being a closed system, which is what Adobe is referring to. Adobe is not stupid enough to think Apple is closed in regards to web standards. Hell, they practically pioneered them.

So, when he ignores the App Store point and frames it in terms of the web, he ignores Adobe's initial argument. Having said that, it really is all about the web and not the App store. Flash on the iPhone/iPad is not the big story here, it's flash becoming obsolete.

The reliability and performance aspect of Flash is way overblown in the article. Anybody with a jailbroken iPhone or iPod can easily attest to that. Flash video performs perfectly fine on many different mobile devices and has for some time. And Flash in OS X works great too. In Safari, Firefox, and Chrome.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

On what merits? I've experienced Flash on every model of iPhone, on several Winmobile phones, on 2 Android phones, and on Palm OS. It ran great on each one. I maintain multiple labs full of Macs ranging from G3s to the newest Mac Pros, running a wide range of OS X versions. They all access Flash content for online learning purposes every day. Never had any performance or reliability problems. None.

Any time my browser crashes, it's almost always because I was doing something in flash.

Not saying I don't believe you. But that has never been my experience. I manage well over 500 Macs at work. We do in house Flash development ourselves. I check log files very consistently and have to keep track of trends like browser crashes. ARD gathers reports on a daily basis on nearly every machine I manage. Flash can crash the browser sure, but it's not a noticeable trend by any means at all. And that's in collaboration with other campus's IT departments that have similar systems in place.

I'm willing to agree that it's slightly overblown but the continually understated argument is that flash is dying and it's a good thing.

Bottom line,

Until Apples customers complain and they start losing money because of lack of Flash support, they wont change.

and right now, Apple is winning.

WOW.. is anyone really dumb enough to buy this? Once you have to start using bold faced lies to prop up your argument.. you've lost in my book.


Let's start here... they rebranded KHTML from KDE... they didn't CREATE anything... they expanded on an Open Source project by developing a fork of their own in private... frankly, KDE should have sued them for the NUMEROUS license violations and shady practices they used to STEAL the KHTML project away from them. So, Jobs can **** himself for this statement.

Is ANYONE dumb enough to believe this? It isn't even close to true and won't be for quite awhile.


I have no specific data on this... but I have never seen this to be the case... and I'm not buying it sight unseen without ACTUAL data from an independent source.


Here he is right, but I for one would rather not buy into a product line that won't have fully functional access to content until that day arrives. To each his own I guess... but don't try to lie to me Jobs.

OH and Jobs also fails to mention that the majority of progress WebKit has made recently is due to development by the folks at GOOGLE.

I'm curious to see the lies.


Don't care, really. Has no bearing on the point at hand.


Actually, it's fairly accurate. Almost all sites have a flash degrading method which usually degrades to H264. The entire YouTube app goes this route. Porn sites have this method.

But I'm glad all you have is a "no it isn't, and won't be". Instead of, you know, examples.


I know from experience, but I too would like an independent source. Having said that, I really don't think it matters. Adobe's flash is horrendous. It's as bad as their installers and CS4 on a Mac.


So, he's lied a grand total of zero times. He was, perhaps, not fully truthful in the KDE webkit thing, but I don't count a single "lie".

If you're going to start saying Jobs is lying for exaggerating, I'm going to have to say you are too since this statement is reeruned. Yes, Google has contributed but I would bet a large sum they are not responsible for the "majority of progress Webkit has made".

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Cl7xQ8i3fc0&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/Cl7xQ8i3fc0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Well, then you don't know shit. Jobs is a **** for trying to play off webkit as an apple innovation... I was involved with KHTML and watched apple steal it and BREAK THE ****ING LAW to make it their own. It is one of my BIGGEST complaints with them at the moment... and if you don't know how much Google brought to the table WITHOUT having to steal it .. then you really need to bow out of this argument...

...if I had ANY legal standing I would right now be suing the shit out of the bastard ****S at apple that profiteered of KHTML. **** them and may Jobs burn in hell for what he did to Woz and for trying to PRETEND that apple "created" webkit as an open source product...

The burden of proof is on you and Jobs... the FACT is... he is LYING... the MAJORITY of sites do NOT support html5 ... man up and make a bet with me and I'll prove it. I'll even take the bet 5 months from now (I would say 6 but we have been arguing this point for a month already)

yes very funny, how many hours of your life has apple profiteered off you? Seriously, **** off. There are a number of people who they have made money off of and that may be ok enough... but to hear Jobs try to play webkit off as an apple open source innovation when it ws ****IN STOLEN.. is disgusting.

Geezus, dude. Calm down! That wasn't even directed at you personally, but at this entire shitfest of a thread.

But I suggest that if you have proof of what you claim, you should file suit. Don't just do nothing because you feel powerless.

Greatest nerd fight thread ever.

this could be an episode on Maury.

I still don't really see what this has to do with his arguments. Pretty much nothing.

H246 is independent of HTML5.

ROFL

It's awesome to see Austinchief get so worked up about something.

I sued Apple for $50,000,000. And I won. Does that count for anything??

This whole thing is getting to be pretty damn hilarious. Adobe's reaction: **** you Apple. We'll leave you in the dust.

http://blogs.adobe.com/conversations...g_forward.html

Moving Forward
POSTED BY KEVIN LYNCH, CTO ON APRIL 29, 2010 5:32 PM

This morning Apple posted some thoughts about Flash on their web site. The primary issue at hand is that Apple is choosing to block Adobe's widely used runtimes as well as a variety of technologies from other providers.

Clearly, a lot of people are passionate about both Apple and Adobe and our technologies. We feel confident that were Apple and Adobe to work together as we are with a number of other partners, we could provide a terrific experience with Flash on the iPhone, iPad and iPod touch.

However, as we posted last week, given the legal terms Apple has imposed on developers, we have already decided to shift our focus away from Apple's iPhone and iPad devices for both Flash Player and AIR. We are working to bring Flash Player and AIR to all the other major participants in the mobile ecosystem, including Google, RIM, Palm (soon to be HP), Microsoft, Nokia and others.

We look forward to delivering Flash Player 10.1 for Android smartphones as a public preview at Google I/O in May, and then a general release in June. From that point on, an ever increasing number and variety of powerful, Flash-enabled devices will be arriving which we hope will provide a great landscape of choice.

I love when the big boys start to flex at each other. I was hoping it was going to happen between M$ and Sony, but this is good enough.

:clap:

It has nothing to do with the core argument, just disgusting to see him use webkit to claim apple contributes to open source...

H264 is just a codec... without html5 to deliver the video... it doesn't do anything.

So he didn't really lie in the write up?

Also: :spock: H264 exists without HTML5...

There's a line of 50+ people at the Apple store near me. 3G model goes on sale today.

EDIT: Over 200+ now

You don't follow along very well...

he LIED at least twice... ONE in claiming webkit as apple's innovation

and TWO in claiming that "almost all this video" was available through h264.. it ISN'T and the reason it isn't is because h264 is simply a codec that requires a delivery system... like html5 or FLASH(which has supported h264 for ages now) or each site has to deliver a proprietary app... yay!

If he had said... "almost all this video" will one day be available without the need of Flash.. he would be right... but it IS NOT YET.

So one of the "lies" is about something that isn't the issue at hand. Got it.

Second "lie" is only a lie because you deem it so. I could equally say he's saying the truth, but it wouldn't mean much, just as your assertion that he is lying.

I realize H264 is a codec that requires a delivery system. That delivery system being HTML4 - THE CURRENT VERSION. So, he is not lying.

HUH? and what we have here is FAIL. HTML4 does not deliver video without a plugin (i.e. FLASH)

I WORK in this field so I really do know what I'm talking about.... my assertion actually carries some weight... oh and understanding the technologies involved helps.

A quick tutorial for those not in the industry...

h264 is a video codec owned by the MPEG group.. it is NOT open source... Adobe licensed the technology years ago and integrated it into FLASH... which is the NUMBER ONE reason h264 is so popular...

Now, let's switch gears .. MS has Internet Explorer, Apple has Safari... both companies are members of MPEG LA and license h264... On the other side are the supporters of open source Mozilla Firefox and Opera... they do not have licenses and therefore support the open source alternative Ogg Theora video.

Now here is where it gets wierd... Google Chrome supports BOTH formats... and to make it even wierder... Google bought On2 Technologies... a company that makes video codecs... they made the original Theora (then called VP3) and it's likely that next month Google will release the VP8 codec as open source... if they do so... the debate over which codec will be implemented in html5 will heat back up.

This issue is far from as settled as Jobs seems to indicate... Apple and Microsoft are setting themselves up against the open source community .. it will all come down to Google, in my opinion. If they release VP8 AND switch youtube over to VP8 AND throw their weight behind it as the html5 standard... then Apple and Microsoft are screwed unless they follow along.

As I have stated many times... this thing is a mess and far from being resolved.

I bought one today Line in Leawood was about 50

Stepping into the Flash debate just hours after Apple CEO Steve Jobs issued his "Thoughts on Flash" letter discussing why Apple has elected not to include support for Adobe's Flash on its iPhone OS devices, Microsoft general manager for Internet Explorer Dean Hachamovitch noted this his company is throwing its weight behind the H.264 standard promoted by Apple for future HTML5 video content.
The future of the web is HTML5. Microsoft is deeply engaged in the HTML5 process with the W3C. HTML5 will be very important in advancing rich, interactive web applications and site design. The HTML5 specification describes video support without specifying a particular video format. We think H.264 is an excellent format. In its HTML5 support, IE9 will support playback of H.264 video only.

Hachamovitch goes on to acknowledge that video on the web today is primarily Flash-based, and while Microsoft continues to work with Adobe on Flash, he also notes that it carries some issues related to reliability, security, and performance.

Hachamovitch's comments suggest that while Microsoft recognizes the dominant role played by Flash, it is also looking ahead to the future, where it sees a much more prominent role for HTML5 and H.264, a view shared and being pushed forward by Apple in its decisions and communications.

Yeah, so when I put up my .mov in H264, it will play without FLASH. If you want to tell me the .mov or quicktime file is the plugin, so be it. But that doesn't undermine my point.

Users still have access to almost all the video due to this. Both because flash degrading pages and iPhone/iPad specificly made pages. Now, if you want to argue that making a page specifically for the iPad or iPhone is bad practice, so be it. But the video is available.

This actually undermines your entire point. If Flash is the "plugin" for the codec and Apple has a problem with the plugin, they don't necessarily have a problem with the codec. Thus, it could easily be a case of Apple and Microsoft conceding and allowing both of the other codecs.

Which.....dun dun dun.....

Has nothing to do with flash.

Wow! you have once again missed the point...

I am NOT a big FLASH fan... but I am a REALIST not a ****ing bundle of sticksy apple fan boy which you are proving yourself to be... hey, do you NOW know that h264 is not served thru html4??? JESUS dude, you can't even admit that you didn't know SHITE about the basic tech involved...

You are clueless on the reality of the situation... wanna make a bet on V8? I'd say it's 50/50 on google BURYING this point and making apple their bitch... comes down to whether they want to or not....

as JOBS said.. youtube is 40% of all web video(also false but lets go with the **** you are dumb enough to believe) ... if so, google can make 40% of all web video unaccessible to apple in one stroke....
I'm sorry but I may be done arguing with you until you ACTUALLY get a ****ing clue as to the tech involved... YEP.. h264 (or any video codec) is served thru HTM4(get a clue)... dude, don't argue points that are told to you, argue point you may actually KNOW...

I actually hate to be so insulting, but you are insulting me by arguing a point that you really have NO STANDING on... you are embarrassing yourself at this point.

[quote=irishjayhawk;6728892]Yeah, so when I put up my .mov in H264, it will play without FLASH. If you want to tell me the .mov or quicktime file is the plugin, so be it. But that doesn't undermine my point.

Users still have access to almost all the video due to this. Both because flash degrading pages and iPhone/iPad specificly made pages. Now, if you want to argue that making a page specifically for the iPad or iPhone is bad practice, so be it. But the video is available.[quote]

Ok, going back to address your "points"... NO THEY ****ING DON'T HAVE ACCESS... CHRIST... take a class instead of listening to me or anyone elses propoganda... seriously, LEARN the tech... it's pretty obvious you are clueless at this point.

THE VIDEO IS NOT AVAIALABLE... as I have offered thrice before.. make the bet with me if you want to back your BULLSHIT up ... and I will show you.

FUTURE= 12 to 18 months or more

h.264= proprietary... and if google releases V8 then maybe not even worth mentioning.... MOZILLA and OPERA won't play ball... REGARDLESS.

put your money on Apple and MS versus EVERYONE ELSE... sorry I will go with whoever GOOGLE sides with... which we don't know for another 2 month who that is....

Actually, my points are still in tact. For example, H264 being served thru html4 was a point about you making a false point: HTML5 is needed to serve h264 content. That's not true as HTML4 can support H264 videos. The fact it needs a plugin is superfluous.

And you've been defending flash the whole time. That's been the argument.

At this point, V8 is meaningless. It doesn't have YT support, it doesn't have much ground in the web.

Please go cite your "false" assertions. Not that I believe 40% figure, but all you ever do is say "oh that's false" without actually backing anything up. Kinda like your "Jobs lies through the whole thing".


That's my goddamn point. Flash is irrelevant. Which is what Jobs is arguing. And that's why he says most video can be displayed on the iPad/iPhone.

Thank you for finally seeing my whole point.

What was my point as you saw it?

[QUOTE=AustinChief;6729162][quote=irishjayhawk;6728892]Yeah, so when I put up my .mov in H264, it will play without FLASH. If you want to tell me the .mov or quicktime file is the plugin, so be it. But that doesn't undermine my point.

Users still have access to almost all the video due to this. Both because flash degrading pages and iPhone/iPad specificly made pages. Now, if you want to argue that making a page specifically for the iPad or iPhone is bad practice, so be it. But the video is available./What are you talking about?

I have an iPod Touch. I know that many sites have flash degrading mechanisms or simply design a site knowing Apple doesn't allow flash. Therefore, the customers have the video.


Currently, I'm uploading an old video of mine. It's in H264 and it will be in on a webpage that isn't HTML5 nor is it in flash. Ergo, my ipod Touch will be able to play it, as anyone's iPad.

Okay . . . ? And . . . ?

Browser market is still DOMINATED by IE. Add in Safari and you're looking at nearly 60% of the total browsing done by these two alone.

http://kobrien15.webfactional.com/DAVTAKE5.mov

I'm betting that it works on iPods/iPads.

WOW... just wow. You are so out of your element Donnie...

#1 I was being sarcastic, I never "saw your point" because you never made a valid one... HTML4 CAN NOT SERVE VIDEO PERIOD. FLASH or QT or WHATEVER can serve video... so Jobs and his deuchey minions can WANT AND WISH AND HOPE for the iPad to be able to watch web video all they want... but it won't make it happen because the iPad doesn't support the necessary plugins... and HTML5 is NOT ****ING HERE YET.

I have not been defending Flash, I have been attacking a lack of Flash support as a good idea by Apple... BIG DIFFERENCE.

And don't comment on VP8.. what the **** is YT support? YouTube? You do realize Google owns YouTube and can convert the entire library over to VP8 in a matter of days, right?

Ok, I'm done, this has gotten silly, you clearly don't have a clue and at this point you are arguing based on the reality you WANT to exist not the observable one we actually are stuck with.

AND.. if 12-18 months is how long it takes to get a majority of the web converted to a standard that AS OF RIGHT NOW has yet to be determined... why buy a device NOW that will be outdated by the time it is useful?

Also, I don't care if IE and Safari are 60 or even 80% of the browser market.. if Google decided to put it's weight behind VP8... either IE and Safari will support it as well OR Chrome, Mozilla and Opera will replace them... end of story.

People will use whatever browser supports the content .. and right now Google controls the lion's share of content.

Weird. iPad and iPod do support the plugins. I don't understand how you don't get this. You even prove it.

Flash or QT can serve video. HTML4 allows flash or QT. Thus, iPad and iPod can, in fact, view H264 video via QT at the very least.


And you've completely proven MY point (technical points aside). Apple's products can use plugins outside of Flash to watch videos. Thus, sites with flash degrading pages and/or QT implementations of videos are available on their products.

That would account for "almost all video" as Jobs says.

I said currently. Currently, it's basically the software equivalent of vaporware. It has no entrenchment yet. I never said it couldn't or wouldn't. But as it stands now, it has nothing to do with Apple's non-inclusion with Flash, which is what we're talking about.

Is my video H.264? Yes.
Does my video play on an iPod touch? Yes.
Does my video play on an iPad? Yes.
Is my video flash? No.

Flash is important, for video, how?

The iPad is not useful now? Err what?

Or, alternatively, sites will continue to support both by offering degrading pages, just like flash right now. It's not always white or black.

Man, I wish I had this black-white view you do.

It's already useful. Just not for you.

If you say so. I disagree, but whatever. You obviously don't value my opinion, anyway.

You guys are on fringe land. I get where both sides are coming from, but both your arguments are meaningless to end consumers.

Unless Google can make a hardware move that counters Apple on the smartphone and tablet market, they'll have to capitulate. They can play hardball, but google survives off of advertising, not people downloading Chrome.

**** Apple, and everything they've done with the iPad. I think it's a shit product, as far as anything I'd buy. But they've made a huge success out of the iPhone OS product. So more power to them.

Google, it's your turn.

I just put 30 gb worth of comics on mine. Holy ****. AWESOME.

I don't know if you're being serious or not, but I agree that the iPad is awesome for certain situations. It's a dream travel companion. I'm tempted to buy it just for flights. Watch shows, movies, read, and so on. Incredible.

The closed architecture annoys the shit out of me. But that's how they make their money. At some point you get over it being a large iPhone and not an OS X tablet. Until someone creates something better, like I said, more power to them.

That's not to say I support them on Flash, or any of their other decisions. It's BS meant to support their bottom line. But that's what companies do. Apple doesn't give a **** about Adobe. With their consumer base, they don't have to.

But I don't get the anger either. It's Apple. Are people not used to this? They make a business off of pissing people off while still making a killing.

Google is the only company with the ability to counter Apple in this market, and we'll see what they do.

No, I'm serious! I really did. Of course, I use it for other things, but this is by FAR the coolest thing. I feel like a kid again. I put a bunch of eBooks on there, too, but they're all PDFs because Kindle books are too ****ing expensive.

I just can't come up with a rational reason to replace my Macbook Pro with it.

I don't mean replace, but to compliment I guess. But why buy an iPad when I can carry around my Macbook? It does more, I have full control, and then what...?

I have my cellphone, and I have my laptop. Where does the iPad come in?

I dunno. I see how it's not at all useful for some people. But for me, I just toss it in my bag and take it to school without worrying about batteries because it lasts for damn near 12 hours. I can stream movies from my home computer over the internet to my iPad, as well as music. I can surf all the sites I need to. It's much easier to read PDF files that are thousand pages long with it than on a computer.

All of that stuff you CAN do on a computer, and more. But for me, it's pretty damn handy to have around. I totally get why other people wouldn't care for it, though.

The form factor is perfect for me personally.

http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/01/h-2...8TechCrunch%29

They make my exact argument and not only that but don't dispute the numbers you dispute with Jobs. I'm not saying TC is the end all be all, far from it, but I do know what I'm talking about - technicalities aside, which you've proven more knowledgeable on.

Actually, I'm essentially making the consumers' argument. From a practical standpoint, they aren't missing much video purchasing an Apple device RIGHT NOW.

Actually, I'm not so sure about that. I think they can make Android a viable product. The main problem with it is fragmentation which I've mentioned in here or in another thread.

Yes, they won't make any money off Chrome but they do make boatloads off ads and they can make money off their OS if they play their cards right.

Having said that, if they took the vertical approach Apple has with the key difference being "open" on the app/software front, they'd have a considerable product. But google, thus far, hasn't been interested in that. They've outsourced the hardware building - HTC, for example.

What would have made the iPad better in your opinion?

As I've said numerous times, I don't think the current iteration is something that's for me. I just wonder what you wanted more of/less of, etc.

True, if I liked reading ebooks it would be useful to me... I guess it's ok for movies that I own, but otherwise it just doesn't have much use for me at all. (although I admit if I still read comics, that would actually be a great method.. hadn't thought of that before)

I am not saying Google WILL put its weight behind VP8 as the new HTML5 standard video format... but if they DO, they have the muscle to make it stick.. FAR more than Apple and even more than MS

You just refuse to listen man. h264 is a CODEC.. 100% of the web could be h264 and without sites using html5 or flash or another plugin.. it's not accessible. SO YES, ipad users are missing quite a bit of video... because very few sites (regardless of the fact that their video may be h264) use html5 to deliver it...

Even quite a few "ipad ready" sites only have the most recent content in html5... and often not all of THAT.

Unless Google pushes VP8, then EVENTUALLY h264 will be part of html5 and html5 will spread ... but people in the industry are still taking a wait and see approach until we KNOW.. Google will clear alot up this month ... but EITHER WAY.. by the time the gaping holes start to fill in... the ipad will have been made obsolete by the next big thing.

Right now it's all form and very little function (unless used primarily as an ereader a point I conceded from the get go)

By the time the "next big thing" is actually released, the iPad will be updated.

I totally agree, and if HTML5 is ubiquitous and the "new" iPad is head and shoulders above the rest without being priced off the charts and I have a need... I'd buy one... I am not against ALL Apple products . I have had great experiences with MACs in the past.

Hell my first PC was an Apple IIc. One of my first book reports was on the book WOZ, about Apple founder Steve Wozniak.

I have a feeling that there will soon be a slew of cheaper more powerful slates running open source OSes... hopefully Chromium based... but I'd settle for webOS if it can be made more robust. Just not sold on Android and can't stand iPhoneOS.

My point has been all along... why buy a device NOW that won't realize full functionality for more than likely a year or more... seems like more of a status/form move than one based on actually need or functionality.

as always, I exempt the use as an ebook/ecomic reader and pure travel movie viewer... if that is the majority of what you need.. it seems to fit the bill just fine.

Heed your own words. THEY CAN ACCESS THOSE VIDEOS NOW WITHOUT FLASH OR HTML5.

See above.

ROFL

ROFL

Seriously, you have no clue. The iPad is not the end all be all but it might as well be a paper weight as far as you're concerned.

Just got mine 3G version Friday. What are the comics you put on there.?

Oh and posting from it now. I really like this little turd :)

I just do not get your logic here. Not one iota of brain usage.

I bought Comic Zeal and put some comics that I downloaded a long time ago on it. It's cool, because it reads CBR, CBZ, RAR, JPG and PDF formats. I think it does some other formats, too, but I don't have any comics in those.

They can only access video that a site makes available as either HTML5 or using device-based transcoding... most DO NOT.... most have the video served via FLASH.

just because a video is encoded using h264 doesn't mean there is some magic way that apple can force a company to make it available... yes the iPad has a native h264 player built in... that would be the same as an h264 plugin, or QT or Flash plugin basically... here is the problem... VERY VERY VERY FEW sites are coded to make their video available directly to you in this way.

MOST video (though encoded using h264) is ONLY available using Flash.

Don't tell me I don't have a clue... I have tried and tried to explain the REALITY of this to you... but you continue to blunder about in the dark.

Sorry to be an asshole but it's insulting how you have lectured on this from the beginning when this is my field that I work in daily and have for many years... I truly do know what I'm talking about.