[irishjayhawk]

Originally Posted by kaplin42

[/COLOR]

On top of that, you are not even bothering to comment on anything else t he article said. No Flash, really? Needing adapters to connect devices to it, hell needing a special adapter to connect USB to it? F'ing Really?

Zach, John Gruber, et al are correct. Flash is dying. Apple's just accelerating it.

On top of all that, I still stand on this

No Multitasking
This is a backbreaker. If this is supposed to be a replacement for netbooks, how can it possibly not have multitasking? Are you saying I can't listen to Pandora while writing a document? I can't have my Twitter app open at the same time as my browser? I can't have AIM open at the same time as my email? Are you kidding me? This alone guarantees that I will not buy this product.

If this is true, then this device fails.

For the last ****ing time, it CAN multitask. It always has been able to. It runs the same OS as the iPhone. They're basically merging, ever so slowly, the desktop and mobile experiences.

Originally Posted by Saulbadguy

The more I think about it, I think this could be a cool device. I'd use it as a photo frame when not in use, and when i'm ready to use it, pick it up, and it is now a magazine, a web browser, a book, a newspaper, or digital pr0n delivery device.

If it just had flash...

Originally Posted by KC Fish

Man... that article is a piece of shit. And I'm not sure what the deal is, but the link you provided is for a different article than the one above. And amusingly, the article from the link you posted actually criticizes Apple for this move.

Regardless, the article is a reeruned rant that is full of incorrect info and hypocritical criticisms.

I don't think so. For one, even YouTube is killing Flash, though slowly. H.264 adoption, HTML5 convergence. Flash is an old, un-open, proprietary "standard". (Yes, I note the irony of Apple trying to kill that whilst every adjective other than old fits their whole business model, especially the App store's walled garden)

Let me point out a few:

Couple things wrong here. First, Flash isn't "content". It's a free product that simply helps you view more content. Second, Apple wouldn't be providing access through another company's platform. It would be allowing additional content through their own platform. There's no missed profit. Apple loses nothing by doing so. They don't sell a "Flash competitor" app that does what Flash does.

First, you are correct. But you also miss the point I highlighted above. HTML5 is coming - regardless of the BS with the standards committee and whether they'll adopt it or how quickly. Google is attempting to get it into the arena as is Apple. H.264 fits with every major browser except Firefox, and only because Firefox wants everyone to go with Ogg, which isn't going to happen anyway. H.264 isn't as closed off as Firefox claims.

Second, you're absolutely correct. Apple isn't making any money off of their quicktime plugin playing internet media. But that IS their platform. Well, technically, H.264 would be the platform and it's not theirs. Anyone can use it.

"Bag of hurt"? WTF? I've been running Flash on my iPhone for close to a year. Many many people have. It runs smoothly, performance has never been anything close to an issue. I've tested this on every version of the iPhone.

I can't comment on the performance, but bag of hurt is what Jobs used. Not for flash but blu-ray. And it shows in his stance once again re iPad vs Flash.

Anyway, flash on a desktop is utterly annoying, ridiculous, and completely closed-off. Click2flash on safari is one of my new favorite plugins. I wish flash would die on the desktop experience too.

Flash is the older brother of Silverlight and I freaking cannot stand Silverlight. They both should be done away with in favor of open standards and HTML5, which is gaining momentum feature-wise every day.

Simply not true. And Apple's engineers most certainly did not "go out of their way to create a new mechanism for running plugins" due to Flash. That change had nothing to do with Flash. They made that change because their Safari plugin support sucked overall and was miles behind other browsers in that regard. Safari is playing catch-up. And how logical is it to think that Apple "went out of their way" to redesign Safari to work better with a specific plugin that they refuse to allow on many of their devices? Yeah, makes perfect sense huh?

I think you're completely wrong here. I'm going to venture a guess that updating a safari plugin for flash would have taken less time - even with a complete rewrite - than their workaround.

They did go out of their way to simply work around flash and Youtube. The whole YouTube app is evidence of this.

OK, everybody else will just have to conform to Apple's method of publishing and consuming content.

That's not the point he was making and you know it. Per Apple's business model - whether you like it or not - they want to protect it. iTunes store and the App store are doing just fine. In fact, they're cash cows. Why would you want to slaughter them?

No one is saying you have to conform to them. Look at Amazon MP3. It took off when they came into the market. At least for the nerds who know what DRM is. [Ironically, they took off for the lack of DRM yet Amazon incidentally uses massive DRM on all books.]

Wait... check that, it's a bad idea to let one company control the publishing and consuming of content....

Except that they don't and won't.

And yeah, we can't wait until Apple has a stranglehold over video and gaming content. Did I mention the App Store?

That's just awful.

I agree with your point and sentiment, but once again, you're wrong. They won't be the only App Store and they won't be the only video-gaming source. They haven't been and will continue NOT to be.

Originally Posted by The Rick

I've been thinking about this quite a bit. I guess I'm starting to come around to the fact that the potential for the iPad doesn't lie in what we saw on Wednesday, the potential lies in the minds of the developers.

I'm starting to think the iPad will be huge because it's potential lies in the experience you'll get from the newspapers, magazines, games, etc. I think we're going to see some really cool stuff developed for this. Just gaming alone could be huge.

Yep.

Originally Posted by Laz

keep talking ...


you know the price is bloated as heck, they can't really be much more expensive to make than a gameboy DS or something and those go for $129 on sale. A PSP 3000 goes for $169.



ereaders are a ripoff tbh

Dunno. e-ink might cost more than you think?