Oh yeah? Well you're a big poopy-head. Not really: I love you man. -- Sent from my ************* iPad
A lot of the Flash video is embedded news clips and such which I avoid. I'd much rather skim or read the story. YouTube now plays in HTML5, so that's not an issue. There's hardly anything on Hulu that interests me that I can't get from non-Flash sources. Netflix and iTunes are the heavy hitters and their videos play just fine. Regardless, it doesn't really matter. Flash is doomed to die a fairly quick death and it will be a non-issue just like multi-tasking.
So I can legally watch the same content that Netflix and iTunes provide for a fee if I just use a Flash player? Sign me up. BTW, you ignored the bottom line. Before long, it won't matter.
I watch very little TV, but you're right about the Hulu option for that. I was referring to movies, and should have been more specific. iPhones, iPod Touches, and iPads will force any significant video providers to support HTML5 or they will miss out on a very large segment of the market. Apple is in the enviable position of dictating such transitions whether Flash supporters like it or not. BTW, ABC seems to get it. Note that Flash is no where in sight.
So let me get this straight. I cannot watch movies unless I purchase them on itues or netflix on my ipad. I cannot watch hulu because it does not support flash. It does not come with a CD player or usb ports. How do you input information into your ipad if you do not currently own a mac? Is it compatible with a PC via a USB? I think the things are very cool but why would I buy one? Seems like a neat web browser without the capability of watching video content.
So I finally dragged the wife to the Apple store and I sat with one of these devices for about 30 minutes. The screen is snappier than the iPhone/Touch and the keyboard is not nearly the issue that some claim it to be. Yes, you have to one hand type but it is not too much of an impediment and I was able to crank out a few repetitions of "Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country" without feeling like it was a pain. Which is to say, I don't really have any criticisms of the base hardware in the iPad. This form factor and interface are very usable for the majority of most people's basic computer needs. That said, my reaction to the software was fairly negative. It is just a big Touch, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but means it is pretty limited in what you can do with it. You can check your mail, you can use some of the internet, you can read a book on it, but the experience of doing these things is not revolutionary or evolutionary. Ultimately it is pretty clear to me after using this device for a while is that its primary and perhaps exclusive purpose is to steer traffic to the iTunes store, which honestly makes the asking price for this device seem even more galling than it did previously. I mean, say what you will about windows, but they at least include Solitaire in their OS. For a device so completely walled in and controlled they really don't offer a compelling use case just picking up the device. It is like they said, we are going to narrowly define what and how you will use this device, but you are going to figure out our vision on your own. Drop the price $200 per sku, let me opt in to running flash, find some way for me to manage media content without connecting the device to an actual computer AND let me at least have the option of purchasing content from a provider other than Apple and this becomes a device which might be competitive for my business. Before I just didn't understand the device, but now having used it I'm more than a little irritated by it. It is far to expensive for a device whose sole purpose is to be a gateway to more pay content.
For some twenty years, I thought the PC was the king of the world. Even with all its problems...blue screens...viruses...slow loading...multiple Microsoft windows os...and on and on. Two years ago, I bought a Mac desktop along with an airport hard drive and router. I have never been happier. I don't worry about blue screens, crashes, lost info, and the ever deadly virus. Best thing is that I don't have to fork over money for the yearly upgrades of Nortorn's anti virus programs. I am also on my second IPHONE...the 3G and will skip the 3GS for the new 4HD which is set for sale in July. And again, I am happy as hell with them. Did you know that you can continue using your old IPHONES? They will do everything except connect to 3G or use it as a phone. You can connect to wifi and continue using your old Apps or can use it to listen to music over its IPOD App. I always pack the old one and use it on trips listening to music or using the APPS. This conserves the battery on my IPHONE. I usually sync both IPHONES to ITUNES and thus have an extra unit (with all my info) in case I was to lose my main phone. You don't know what you're missing until you try one. BTW...I pre-ordered my Wifi-3G IPAD and can't wait to get my hands on it.
Another interesting point: While Theora/ ogg is being incorporated as a standard for internet video (it's equivalent to h.264 now, by the way), it's main draw is the fact that it's an open standard while the MPAA codecs are not. Google recently bought On2, creators of the VP8 codec, which reportedly reduces bandwidth needs for a given video quality by 1/2. By all accounts, they will open up this at the end of the month, making any implementation royalty free and unencumbered by licensing (standard FOSS terms). The real test is whether Apple supports that codec. My strong suspicion is that they will not for the simple reason that it is a.) open and b.) not theirs. The reason that Windows seems to have stalled is not that it is less advanced or that less work went into it; quite the contrary. MS employs some of the best programmers in the world, and a lot of them at that. The reason that Windows seems to be advancing more slowly is the fact that development no longer needs to progress on the user side because adoption is forced by their near monopoly; development now is focused on preventing users from stealing the software. The fundamental goal of any modern seller of copyrighted materials (in the broadest possible sense) is the prevention of unauthorized use. Apple would like to be the middle-man for media consumption, and to accomplish that they need a rock solid pipeline. Apple wants a closed, proprietary system that they can control for the purpose of guaranteeing that any media that they sell is used only in the manner that they prescribe. This is the model preferred by studios and record companies, which fundamentally depend upon outdated copyright laws (see Richard Stallman's take on this). Others on this thread have mentioned that Apple is changing the way that we live, while others have pointed out that the stock is doing phenomenally. I pointed out that marketing (see the link above) is the link between the "changing the way that we live" mantra and their financial success. They need to convince people that they are innovating in unique and novel ways that preclude the need for any other solutions, which allows consumers to feel that they aren't missing anything by joining the technological ecosystem equivalent of Texas A&M. The problem here is that Apple's innovations are bland, their patents are laughable, and their hardware is cobbled together from heavily marked-up off-the-shelf parts (albeit in a severely limited number of patterns which makes it reliable). Marketing is the force that allows the shiny apple logo to smooth over all of those ills in the mind of the consumer. People on this thread have repeatedly accused me of disliking Apple, but that's untrue and probably stems from the assumption that I really mean that "Windows PCs are better than Apple PCs". That's not my argument at all. I am in favor of open computing, whether that means standards, software source code, or bandwidth allocation. While I despise Microsoft, I find that Apple is the true antithesis of open computing. Everything that they do is based on making entire ecosystems out of closed, proprietary hardware and software whose chief goal is to prevent end-users from doing things with it. Even then, it's hard for me to really blame Apple or Jobs for selling products to make a profit for their shareholders (which I have been at several times in the past)- it's what they do. The only real anger is toward the people who buy into the Apple culture, because they are indirectly hurting me. When someone votes with his wallet in favor of the "I don't care if you f**k me, just so long as it's easy to use" business model that Apple preaches, it gives Apple more power to influence the market. The list of things that you can't do on an iPad makes linux look like a rock star (despite the fact that this is the major criticism of linux), yet people still line up to buy them. This list of deficiencies is deliberate, yet even on this thread there are a number of people defending Apple's decision to randomly remove features. An open marketplace renders companies that pull this kind of stunt uncompetitive, and forces them to change or kills them. I want a marketplace in which businesses compete for my dollar, rather than telling me what useless shiny thing they're going to allow me to use in place of the real functionality that has been missing for more than a decade. Supporting Apple (or MS, for that matter) by purchasing their products is a direct and long-lasting harm to all consumers of computing products.
i think it is going to be funny when some of the hackers feelings get hurt and they start to target mac's. surely the virus free status of mac has to get under some hacker's skins.
For those who think that Apple is not doing well. This was just posted on a computer website.... Apple is flirting with the prospects of overtaking Microsoft in the S&P 500 stock index, an estimate found Thursday. Following another rapid climb to a record high share price of $266.47, Apple's market cap when float-adjusted has reached $241.5 billion, or just past Microsoft's $239.5 billion. The achievement puts Apple only behind oil giant Exxon Mobil on the index. The Mac creator is still behind Microsoft in absolute market cap as the new calculations don't include shares held by large-scale controllers such as other public companies. Near-constant upward growth in April, particularly after successive stock rallies in the two days since Apple's record winter quarter, has nonetheless closed the gap considerably and leaves a relatively small gap between Microsoft's $275.3 billion non-adjusted cap and Apple's $241.63 billion. Much of Apple's performance in recent months has come from its consistently outperforming guidance from both analysts and itself, constantly outpacing the industry in computer sales, and expanding its potential through new devices like the iPad. Microsoft's share value has been largely stable over the past decade as its near-monopoly over operating systems and productivity apps has showed little signs of change. Most of its ventures beyond its core Windows and Office businesses, such as Windows Mobile and Zune, have either struggled to eke out profits or have often been money-losing prospects; its online services have regularly been drags on the entire company's revenue. The market cap situation is likely to change in the wake of after-hours trading but may still favor Apple, as Microsoft's quarterly results have so far triggered a more than three percent drop in trading in share price where Apple's has moved less than a fifth of a point.
