No, they do not. I have demonstrated it by my own video in this thread. You just will not concede.

More than you're making it out to be. There are plenty. WSJ, NYT, many porn sites. I've said it again and again, they make flash degrading pages AND they're making iPad specific ones - guess what, no flash means no content on iPad. Companies don't want that. Thus, they make a degrading page or an altogether different page.

You're right. Apple can't force them. But they are changing, anyway.

ROFL, this shows that you know the technical side but almost zero on the practical/user side. Almost all of YouTube is H264 WITHOUT flash, if you want. That, of course, is their going HTML5, but even if it wasn't, they could still play it with the current version of HTML5.

You've told me the technical specifications. Yes, it's a codec. Yes, it needs a plugin.

What you haven't seen is that the web is full of those things already. Flash is irrelevant. HTML5 is nearer. And, most importantly, the iPad doesn't need HTML5 to survive. IT can view h264 video RIGHT NOW. Which has been my point.

Go to my link on an iPad or iPhone. Tell me it doesn't work. Please do.

Silock or Zach.

Since you have them, would you mind telling us if my video: http://kobrien15.webfactional.com/DAVTAKE5.mov

Plays on the iPad?

Yes, it does.

You won't give up even when you don't know shite about the subject... that is a ****ING DIRECT LINK.. how many sites want to go back to 1996 and throwing direct links to raw video online???

yes it can view h264 video, never argued that.. but MOST SITES DON'T OFFER video up in HTML5(yet, and maybe never for h264 if the standard goes VP8) or as a direct link like a high school kid might.

You're out of your element here Donnie.

I'm going to go ahead and tour my regular pattern of sites with FLASH off and HTML5 enabled (Chrome) and see how much it sucks... do you need screenshots???

1 million sold:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20...=2547-1_3-0-20

Yet the direct link has nothing to do with it. It's neither flash nor HTML5, which is what you're talking about. I could throw up a simple HTML4 page right now and it would STILL WORK.


Yes, they do. HTML5 is irrelevant currently. The only reason it's relevant is a reason why they aren't allowing flash. Even if it's not fully here, they can still get the videos.

Youtube, CNN, WSJ, NYT - videos all available on the iPhone and iPad without HTML5 or Flash. I don't see why you keep insisting it's otherwise.

We must be arguing two different points then. First, we were talking about HTML5 and how it is replacing flash - which is true, I think we agree. Second, we talked about how fast this would occur. Third, we talked about the lack of flash on the web now and how Apple will/will not suffer without allowing flash on their devices. Fourth, I posted Steve Jobs Thoughts on Flash defending his move. Fifth, you called him a liar and I said bullshit. And we're there now. You've called him a liar and pointed out things in his write up that weren't true. Then we've discussed them.

You're entire claim has be the iPad and iPhone couldn't play the majority of the video on the web like Jobs claims. I've demonstrated that's just not true. And it's not because of flash OR HTML5 - both of which you keep bringing up. Flash IS dying and HTML5 is coming; HTML5 is replacing flash but flash is irrelevant CURRENTLY.

I have flash blocked on Safari with FlashBlock. It's generally a better experience. There are no doubt times when I need flash. The majority I don't.

WHAT??? YouTube, CNN, NYT all use HTML5 to serve video to an ipad

If you even halfway understood the underlying architecture, you wouldn't be making these basic mistakes....

Let's move one... try going to Hulu.com, TV.com, ABC.com, Fox.com, Comedycentral.com, mlb.com, kcchiefs.com, kcroyals.com...

How is the video? MORE IMPORTANTLY, how are the NFL, NHL, UEFA, NCAA gamecasts?

What? Oh you can buy an app for each of those... and soon an app for Hulu, and an app for...

Have fun helping Apple rid the world of quality FREE content.

Even if those apps(MOST of which don't exist yet) were free... what a complete pain in the ass.

(and direct links? get real, we are talking professional websites...)

ABC has an app for its video, as does TV.com, which are both FREE, and Hulu is making one.

Apple fan boy is funny to watch.

Exactly.

This is less Apple fanboyism than it is someone being dense and my SWOTI syndrome kicking in.

He didn't say ALL video. For every site that has no substitute, there's one that does.

MLB's app is superb. ESPN's app is superb. ESPN's web game cast is superb on the Touch.

Buy as in free, most of the time.

:LOL:

Oh, so now it's just a pain in the ass to download an app? And, I guess, if first you don't succeed, bitch about trivial things like that.

You continue to miss the point. Direct link or not, the video is playable on the touch/iPhone/iPad. It would be even if I put it in a simple HTML4 page or a wordpress blog. If CNN put it on their website, it would play. That's been my whole point which is contrary to your inane point about the iPad being irrelevant until HTML5 comes out. Obviously, it isn't.

Also, an app for each site system does have it's drawbacks but it also has a very big upside: UI advantages, offline processing and storage, consistency, design, etc etc.

So, basically, you're points are moot. Jobs hasn't lied about anything in his write up. The iPad isn't outdated yet. The iPad isn't dependent on HTML5. The iPad IS useful without HTML5.

Wow, so even though you don't actually understand the tech AND you make FALSE statements like "YouTube, Cnn, etc" don't use HTML5.. you continue to be obtuse.

So out of MILLIONS of sites with video.. Let's say I visit 100 every month... I'm going to download 100 apps to use to view their video? That is ridiculous and you know it.

My point IS and always has been... Jobs lied by saying that MOST video was already available...

Just because most video COULD be available if everyone uses html5 or provides an app or provides a direct link (which is inane).. doesn't make it so. And you are DEAD wrongin saying " For every site that has no substitute, there's one that does" maybe for the 5 sites YOU visit but that simply isn't true for the ENTIRE web.

I think the crux of your argument comes to this line... " If (insert any website) put it on their website, it would play" (in reference to direct links of h264 video in html4) .. yes it WOULD but no site wirth a damn ever WOULD... so aren't you the one who loves to bandy about the term "vaporware"... until the MAJORITY of sites switch to HTML5, or create an app or decide to go FULL reerun and put a direct link up... you are wrong... sorry but them's the ACTUAL FACTS... whether you want them to be or not.

You gonna man up and admit that you were once again dead wrong by saing YouTube, NYT and CNN don't use html5 for video to ipads?

To my knowledge, YT doesn't. Unless their app is using HTML5 in the background.

On the actual web, HTML5 has to be enabled in your preferences on YT. Either way, it really doesn't matter.

NYT and CNN I don't know and wouldn't really know how to find out, honestly. NYT has their own app, so HTML5 is meaningless to me in light of that.

I said YouTube didn't use HTML5? When?

No, and that's not the point. You've constantly said the iPad will only truly be usable when HTML5 is dominant. This is false.

No, he didn't. It is available.

And the same hyperbole from you isn't true: h264 isn't playable without flash and HTML5 which leaves very few sites delivering video to the iPad.

You continue to miss the point. You've said repeatedly that to play H264 videos you'd need HTML5 or Flash - one of which isn't here yet and one of which is not allowed on the iPad. This is what you've said. Do you want me to quote you like 1000 times in this thread saying similar things?

ROFL

Continue to ignore the fact that non-HTML5 sites can serve h264 video without flash. Please, continue to ignore it. Direct link is irrelevant.

DIRECT LINK IS IRRELEVANT.. to YOUR ARGUMENT.. are you ****ing reeruned???? NO REAL SITE WOULD SERVE VIDEO LIKE THAT... that leaves HTML5 an APP or FLASH...

I am about to move this to the general board to show everyone ese what a tool you are being...

YOU SIMPLY HAVE NO ****ING CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

let's start with

A) you have no clue how a professional website is structured
B) you have no clue about even the basics of HTML5
C) you have no clue why from a business/resource perspective .. even if it gets decided that html5 will be H264... it will TAKE TIME to convert a majority of sites over... some of the big guys have the money to do so... MOST do not.

I DO THIS FOR A LIVING AND HAVE FORGOTTEN MORE ABOUT THIS THAN YOU WILL EVER KNOW... and hearing you talk out of your ass about a topic you are CLEARLY lost on is getting tedious.

If this argument is to continue I feel I'm going to have to teach you more than it is worth my time to get you up to speed to even be able to UNDERSTAND the context in which we SHOULD be speaking.

SIMPLE FACT.. watch video on ipad = APP (I have explained a million times why this is an unstainable model to have 100s of apps for all the sites I frequent) or HTML5 (not deployed enough yet to be a factor) or direct links (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... this is the one that you brought up and wow oh wow just proves that you are out of your element Donnie)

Actually, Austin, it's irrelevant to any argument in this thread, yet you belabor the point. Here, I've taken the time to make it an embedded H264 file in a non-HTML5 page and it doesn't use flash.

http://kobrien15.webfactional.com/

Oh, look, it plays on iPod touch and iPad. Oh, look, it's not HTML5 nor is it flash. Oh, look, it's NOT A DIRECT LINK.

Please do. I have won every point in here aside from the technical aspects (H264 being codec, rather than plugin). I have Tech Crunch on my side. I have evidence from iPad, iPod and iPhone users.

But, please, go ahead.

Let's start with:

A) We haven't even talked about structure. So, how would you know if I have a clue or not.
B) Again, fact not in evidence.
C) H264 is independent of HTML5. They aren't dependent on each other. Moreover, with Apple's products being the hit they are, sites are already converting or creating degrading pages. Thus, if we accept YOUR timeline of HTML adoption, sites will be predominately caught up already.

Feel free to actually QUOTE me with regards to A and B.

:LOL:


Aside from codec vs plugin, you've really done nothing. That's all I've learned because that's all you've been right about.

Simple fact: not true.

As evidenced by my above html page with embedded video, Silock's testimony as an iPad user, Tech Crunch's article, and a plethora of other users, writers, and developers, you are just wrong for suggesting a black and white world.

Direct links aren't even relevant to anyone's point. Especially not mine.

And your FAIL is now complete...

Source from your page... THAT my friend is a direct link. You took the raw video and linked directly to it... I understand how you got confused due to it being an "embed"... embedding IS a direct link to the file...the tag just tells the browser "hey I've linked some multimedia... use whatever plugin/native player you have built in"... but either way... you are DIRECTLY LINKING to the raw file... the only difference is that instead of an href link the file "MAY" play inline instead of spawning a seperate window/app.

NOW do you see my point? Do I need to explain why that practice was abandoned years ago?

LOL

I won't lie; I've really been enjoying this fight.

So, what exactly is your point? By that logic, flash videos aren't okay because they are embedded. Just a link to a flv.

Still, it really does nothing to my points. The iPad can play the video. Neither HTML5 nor Flash was used.

In fact, what point are you trying to make? I could make it more complicated by introducing some JS to pull the video into a complicated div structure with caption and what not, similar to what NYT does (FYI, NYT's site as far as I can tell from their DOCTYPE is not HTML5 but HTML4.). But it's the same concept.

oh lord... you really aren't this uninformed, right?

MY POINT IS THAT NO REAL WEBSITE WOULD USE THAT METHOD... IT WAS DEPRECATED FOR GOOD REASON YEARS AGO.

The NYT uses html5 when it encounters an iPad (probably same for iphone, I didn't bother to look)... obviously you don't know that different sites can be served to different clients...

If you are on an iPad... you probably won't see what follows next...

<EMBED height=385 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=480 src=http://www.youtube.com/v/VDW0ZnZxjn4&hl=en_US&fs=1& allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></EMBED>

I can see it just fine on my iPhone. Ironic choice of video clips.

I see it just fine on my iPad...

HA, which is why I said probably.. youtube is smarter than I thought and compensates... does it play inline or in a youtube app that launches?

either way, the point of the clip was what it said not to demonstrate anything.. youtube is one of the few exceptions to the whole debate since I admit that they and a few others with the resources have implemented html5

Good, you can answer a question I have on youtube embeded implementation on the iPad ... does it play inline on your ipad or in a youtube app?

It's one of the few things I have been wondering.

nevermind.. found the answer... special code and app for youtube built into os. So same old same old.

I actually know he isn't using an ipad so it was just a meaningless jab. You can answer another question for me, what do you see on kcchiefs.com (besides a shitty team) I know what you should see, but I want to know if they are stone age or middle age in their tech at the moment.

It plays it inline.

well they got that part right! Unfortunately it appears that is a special bit of code built directly into the OS just for YouTube.

Are you guys STILL arguing about this? ROFL

Megavideo- only flash
Vureel- only flash
KCCHIEFS- only flash
KCRoyals- only flash
NFL- only flash
FC Barcelona - only flash

MLB - need app $15
ESPN - need app $5
NBA - need app $3
NHL - need app (price yet to be determined)
ABC - need app (free for now)
Hulu - need app (not yet built, price tbd)

YouTube - works fine
ChiefsPlanet - fine
CNN - fine
Google- fine

CBS Sportsline - no clue how well it works in ipad, I'll assume fine

So far those are all sites I have gone to in the last 4 hours...

5 work fine with an ipad, 6 require an app, and 6 don't work at all.

Over the course of a month I would probably end up collecting 20 or 30 apps at this rate... can everyone see how that method of delivery could become one hell of a clusterfuck very quickly.

I will concede that the ipad is JUST FINE for those who have extremely limited web usage and don't mind jumping thru a few hoops... I am not one of those people.

I think I pretty much ended the argument when IJ posted a direct link to a video and then bolded in super big letters that "Oh, look, it plays on iPod touch and iPad. Oh, look, it's not HTML5 nor is it flash. Oh, look, it's NOT A DIRECT LINK."


Now in all fairness, I made a slight on ipad about a youtube embed before looking up the info that Apple very cleverly worked around that problem (just for youtube) by putting a specific hook into the OS...

Although my slight was not meant to be on topic, I certainly didn't look very clever by adding it...

1 million and 1.

Posted from my iPad.

It's not just YouTube. It does it with all video files that the iPad/pod is capable of playing.

Just as an aside, you don't need to buy the ESPN app to browse the site on an iPad. It plays all the videos and such just fine, along with the gamecast stuff.

Really? I knew they had an app didn't realize they started site conversion as well.

Change those stats to 6-5-6 then...

BUT doesn't much change my point... as a matter of fact just missing megavideo would kill me... that is where I watch most of my videos, youtube is fine for a few funny clips or a quick music video but not terribly useful for much else for me... hulu is annoying and poorly programmed (although I will use it from time to time)... but megavideo, individual sports team pages and sites like justin.tv for live streams are most of mine if I had to guess

You still can't view ESPN3 on it, though, which kinda blows. It wouldn't surprise me if they just made the paid app into an ESPN3 viewer, which I would totally pay for.

Are you certain on that? I understand if you go directly to the SITE it would.. but I am talking embedded files that are embedded as FLASH? My guess is no.

I can see why they would put the code in for youtube... but hard to imagine HOW they could do that for any OTHER flash embedded content since those sites may not OFFER the video as raw h264.

http://newteevee.com/2010/05/03/micr...ver-say-never/

Microsoft backtracks on the ONLY h264 comment and is now open to other codecs... basically, Google is starting to flex nuts regarding vp8 and MS decided to sit the fight out.

in two weeks and 2 days we'll see exactly how far Google wants to take this... if they play hard ball, it will be Apple vs Google, Mozilla, Opera and Adobe... all regarding h264 vs VP8 which is a superior codec.. slightly better quality/performance with MUCH lower storage needs.

Want to make bets on who wins that fight?

Of course, may be a good chance that there is no fight and BOTH codecs get accepted and h264 instead dies a slow phase out death as people gravitate to the better, free codec...

I have NO CLUE at this point and wouldn't make a single prediction until after this month has played out... just stupid to do otherwise.

I doubt it.

ha, yeah you prolly need to read the linked article and the previous posts regarding MS supporting h264 video ONLY in their implementation of html5... this is basically a conditional retraction of that , somewhat

Honestly, I don't think Apple really gives a **** whether it's VP8 or H264. They just don't want whatever it is to cause battery or performance issues. Their main concern is the end-user experience. Lacking Flash isn't necessarily good, but having a device with poor battery life and bad Flash performance is probably seen as the worse option than none at all.

I can understand that BUT Flash 10.1 is FAR superior to previous versions and they could have dealt with it... either way, it's the WAY they did it that irks me...

BUT for the sake of all my arguing.. the reason I bring up VP8 is simply to prove my original point from ages ago... the HTML5 standard is far from settled and if Google heats the debate back up... media companies will take a wait and see approach rather than spend resources converting to one or the other with no clear idea of the outcome.

Apple's BEST move if Google pushes VP8 is to make a HARD push to get BOTH supported by HTML5 and then quickly build support into their machines... or even to give up on h264 and fully throw support behind VP8... ANYTHING to get the debate settled and everyone to move forward with HTML5

Once we KNOW which way to move, everyone in the industry can get down to business with no excuses left to dally.

The other option is for media companies to instead build custom apps that they CHARGE FEES for and blame the lack of a standard ... thereby helping Apple further monetize the web.

Apple hasn't supported Flash on its iPhones since they came out. I don't understand why it's all of a sudden a big deal. They've been pretty open about why they don't want it this whole time.

So you've finally seen my point.

iPad users are just fine with viewing video. HTML5 and Flash aside. For you and megaupload, it's a problem. That's also the first time you've brought up megaupload.

You're still hung up on direct link, which has NO BEARING on it. And, FTR, I'm well aware of user agents bring up different sites based on the browser/device. That's how the iPhone has soared with iPhone oriented sites.

AFAIK, Flash 10.1 is for desktops not mobiles. There isn't a Flash Mobile yet. In fact, the only one supporting Flash Mobile is stuff that isn't out (aka, next Android revision).

So, it seems we were arguing two points. Or at least you were arguing a side point in addition.

Apple has never said it would only use H264. If V8 comes out and doesn't hurt battery life, I see no reason why they won't include it - especially if it would break YouTube support or content providers went solely with it. Flash, on the other hand, has yet to demonstrate it has any capability to run smoothly on a mobile device.

Yeah, because Hulu and ESPN360 aren't doing that independent of Apple. :rolleyes:

Yes, it ended. For you. :evil:

Anybody used the Spirit jailbreak for their iPad yet?

http://spiritjb.com/

No I still disagree, when 6 of 17 sites I vist in a 4 hour span don't work at all and 5 more require a downloaded app... it is far from the claims I have heard from Jobs and others...if it had been 3 sites not working and 2 require an app and the remaining 12 worked fine.. I'd still say it isn't ready for prime time. As I said ages ago, if your primary use is an erader/media player with very very limited casual web surfing then it's probably just fine for that person... but it's not correct to claim it's a viable fully functional web surfing device for users like myself (and I don't think my surfing habits are terrible off beat) KCChiefs.com and KCRoyals.com and Justin.Tv are all pretty standard sites.

On a side note, you are correct, Flash 10.1 for mobile is not out of the lab yet... you can see it in pre-rel;ease beta on various devices but not in the wild. 2 months to go is my guess.

<object width="640" height="385">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7ug55F6_t74&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"></object>

After jailbreaking your iPad, you can install SNES4iPhone, which will not only play SNES romz—it will open the Bluetooth stack, allowing you to play Mario with a Wiimote. Nintendotacular! [Instructions via SwagLikeMe via notcot]

Damn, I need to stop clicking on this thread.

http://www.macrumors.com/2010/05/06/...ash-for-html5/

http://www.macrumors.com/2010/05/06/...ture-of-flash/

I was going to come and post the first link. :)


I'll supply another one.

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/mobile-d...-arm-40088854/

OK... now that some good iPad only apps are out, what's your favorites?

Some of my current favorites:

MLB At Bat 2010
Flight Control HD
ScoreCenter XL
Weather Channel HD
iTeleport
Wiki²
TVU Player
Netflix app

One of the first I'd buy is Things. The interface is gorgeous. That and their iPod app is stellar.

Air video
Plants v zombies HD
Sounddrop

Harbor Master is a fun, free game. Not the most in depth, but hey, it's free.

Yes easiest jailbreak ever highly recommend it. Upgraded my os on my iPhone and used spirit to jailbreak it in like 3 secs and didn't lose my errr ummm "test" apps.

Looks like Flash 10.1 will be built into Android 2.2 (to be released next week)

What little reports that are in, say that it runs great BUT no one mentions battery life, so I'm guessing even if it is bug free it's still probably suckin alot of energy... but won't know until next week.


Looks like a slew of Android 2.2 tablets will be hitting the market shortly... (a few in June and many more in July and August)

Not to mention the WebOS ones from HP and supposedly a Chrome one from Acer.


My best guess is that they will outperform the iPad AND offer a ton more functionality (FLASH, mobile hot spot, tethering, better ports, sd card slots, etc) BUT will have significantly less battery life.

What I'd LOVE to see this year is a feature rich tablet that can use Sprint's 4G... now THAT would own.... unfortunately, I don't expect to see one until next year though.

I believe the iPad, like the iPhone, supports mobile hot spot and tethering but ATT does not. That's still the big flaw in the iPhone.

http://www.shinyshiny.tv/2010/05/app...magazines.html

Apple can **** themselves. So reeruned I can't begin to express it.

Yup, but my problem is that even if ATT allowed it, their network is such crap that it would be a pain... really need a true 4G connection for it to be worthwhile to me.

Sprint has that now and Verizon will soon(ish) .. ATT and Tmobile will be ages away IMHO.

ATT said today that HSDPA+ (or whatever) is coming by the end of 2010.

Not that I buy it.

Heh. ATT is infamously bad in Austin at SXSW interactive. I wonder if that's because the majority of smartphone usage was occurring on ATT or if it's just how shitty their network is.

The ATT network is fine around here, but my wife's iPhone was completely useless on vacation in Florida.

And today we see the beginning of the end for h.264.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/the-ti...-project/34725

EVRYONE that matters is backing it as the HTML5 video standard... Apple better jump onboard or get left behind.


To further kick Apple in the nuts...tomorrow will be the launch of Android 2.2 with FLASH support. Ouch.

I'm sure they will... but how is what Google is doing any different from what Apple did? They each back something other than Flash and it's in their own interests to do so.

I'm sure Apple will support and be fine with it.

Hardly an Apple nut-kick. It is what it is. Apple is still doing just fine. They almost doubled their mobile phone marketshare from this time last year, from 1.5% to 2.7%. And iPhone OS accounts for 15% of all mobile traffic, good enough for 3rd place, ahead of Android by 5%. We'll see if that holds up, especially with the release of OS 4 and the new iPhone next month.

If Apple is going to support WebM... why are they the last to announce that? YouTube is already making the conversion... once completed, Google (if they choose) can flip a switch and make iPads obsolete. As I said, Apple better catch up QUICK or they risk major usability outages.

Regarding Android 2.2....
Where are you getting your figures? Not saying hey are wrong, but based on current SALES, Android passed Apple last month and will garner even MORE market share with the new releases. BUT the real nut-kick comes from all the tablets that can now be released based on Android. How does anyone defend the iPad when a competing tablet does everything and a whole lot more? (there may be a solid argument based on battery life... not sure yet on that)

The difference is that Google released an open source standard AND continues to support Flash. Hell, Adobe's CTO was a major part of today's event.

Apple backed a proprietary standard while eliminating support for a competitor...

BIG DIFFERENCE.

Apple better get on the ball...

Looks like Google is killing h.264 support.

Why don't we cross that bridge when we come to it instead of playing "What if?"

Gartner. http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1372013

H.264 isn't proprietary.

Maybe. We'll see.

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

Yes it is. It is wholy owned and controled by MPEG-LA, who have made it free FOR NOW... but that can change.

OK, those figures are worldwide, I was going off US figures.

http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_100510.html

What is a "mess" is that article... #1 it is full of speculation and fabricatiosn from a guy who couldn't possibly have gone through enough of the code to comment. #2 it contradicts EVERYONE elses opinion #3 The guy they quoted has a vested interest in protecting h.264.. since that is where he makes his money


I sincerely hope Apple gets into a pissing match with Google...

Why?

Just the humor of it... Google could destroy them without much effort.

In reality, Apple will probably jump on the WebM bandwagon at the last minute and be fine... just because Google released WebM doesn't mean we'll see much of it soon... just like I said about h.264, it's a long way from truly replacing Flash video.