Support NeoGAF

[Opus Angelorum]

@ RoH

Access to free Wi-Fi is very poor, certainly in most areas of Northern Ireland. So 3G support is absolutely necessary for me.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

I'm I the only one that see's 3G support as not being very useful for this device? I Have a phone a Desktop and a Laptop. The only thing that really needs 3G is my phone and Laptop, and I only use the 3G on my laptop for emergencies. I just really don't see a situation where I'm gonna be "OMG I just need to get on the net right to do XYZ" on this device, odds are it will be used in an environment with WIFI, or it will be in a bag until you get to a spot to sit down and pull it out.

And I'd rather pay $30 a month than the like $85 or whatever it is for the most basic plan on at&t. I see this as much better than overpriced phone plans, especially with how much more I can do on this device. It won't be used in an environment with Wifi most likely for me.

 

[Gio_CoD]

I really don't understand how people can defend the lack of Flash in this device. I was kind of pissed off about the iPhone, but I thought it was a technical limitation, and plus it had the Youtube app, so I guess I was ok with it. Now that I know it's some dick-waving thing, I'm ready to get a different phone.

Anyway, like others have said, I can look past it for my cell phone, but for a device that is ostensibly a home PC, to not be able to view Flash videos is ridiculous. How in the fuck would it harm Apple to include Flash and still have options for the HTML5 or other open standards implementations? This, to me, is the same thing as the Nintendo guys that defend multiplayer Nintendo games coming without any online modes. It makes you look stupid.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

I really don't understand how people can defend the lack of Flash in this device. I was kind of pissed off about the iPhone, but I thought it was a technical limitation, and plus it had the Youtube app, so I guess I was ok with it. Now that I know it's some dick-waving thing, I'm ready to get a different phone.

Anyway, like others have said, I can look past it for my cell phone, but for a device that is ostensibly a home PC, to not be able to view Flash videos is ridiculous. How in the fuck would it harm Apple to include Flash and still have options for the HTML5 or other open standards implementations? This, to me, is the same thing as the Nintendo guys that defend multiplayer Nintendo games coming without any online modes. It makes you look stupid.

Have you even read this thread or you just want attention? It's been stated hundreds of times why they believe what they have and has been regurgitated in the past page or two. Just read the thread, you may disagree but it's not dick waving like you're trying to say for the most part.

 

[tokkun]

I'm I the only one that see's 3G support as not being very useful for this device? I Have a phone a Desktop and a Laptop. The only thing that really needs 3G is my phone and Laptop, and I only use the 3G on my laptop for emergencies. I just really don't see a situation where I'm gonna be "OMG I just need to get on the net right to do XYZ" on this device, odds are it will be used in an environment with WIFI, or it will be in a bag until you get to a spot to sit down and pull it out.

Well if you already have a laptop with 3G, then I'm not surprised that you wouldn't want to pay for 3G in the tablet. But I would guess that most buyers won't have 3G laptops, and some won't even have smartphones.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

Well if you already have a laptop with 3G, then I'm not surprised that you wouldn't want to pay for 3G in the tablet. But I would guess that most buyers won't have 3G laptops, and some won't even have smartphones.

Plus it's a lot cheaper too, unless you live somewhere that lets you tether for cheap.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I really don't understand how people can defend the lack of Flash in this device.

The same way I didn't care years ago when most popular sites were messed up in Opera and Firefox because IE was king.

Some people care about principles and ideology, and some just want it all now.

 

[Gio_CoD]

The same way I didn't care years ago when most popular sites were messed up in Opera and Firefox because IE was king.

Some people care about principles and ideology, and some just want it all now.

You make it sound like the two are mutually exclusive. Including Flash doesn't mean that Apple has to remove support for open standards. Or are you making the point that Apple is really a shining Knight of Principle who shall use their might to push open standards (LOLOLOL) to the benefit of all us miserable peasants who only THINK we're happy with Flash?

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

You make it sound like the two are mutually exclusive. Including Flash doesn't mean that Apple has to remove support for open standards. Or are you making the point that Apple is really a shining Knight of Principle who shall use their might to push open standards (LOLOLOL) to the benefit of all us miserable peasants who only THINK we're happy with Flash?

You're happy watching videos and playing games, not using Flash. Flash is just the plugin that currently enables that content.

Replace "Flash" with "RealPlayer" and all of these arguments for it sound just as dumb.

Like I posted pages and pages ago, Microsoft Silverlight is starting support for sending users a proper MP4 video stream through IIS Media Server when it detects an iPhone. What's Adobe's excuse?

 

[D4Danger]

old? I skipped back a few pages and didn't see it

http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplatform/2010/01/enabling_innovation_isnt_magic.html

Unfortunately, a lot of the speculation I'm hearing for why Flash Player isn't on the iPad doesn't make sense:

"Flash technology isn't open" -- The Flash file format specifications are open and unrestricted, so Apple can build their own Flash Player if they want. If Apple wants the source code to the Flash Player, we're happy to provide it, just as we have to many other device manufacturers.

"Apple doesn't want to pay for Flash Player" -- Apple can put it on the iPad (and iPhone) without paying Adobe or anyone a dime. The Flash Player has always been free to all consumers worldwide, and is available to device makers royalty free through the Open Screen Project. There are dozens of other devices that do that today.

"I don't want Flash on my iPad (or iPhone)" -- That's fine, we support your ability to choose, and don't want to require Flash Player on any device. But we do want it to be an option for the millions of people who have requested it.

"Flash won't perform well on the iPad (iPhone)" -- It's fast enough for other devices that have similar chips (and even less powerful chips) built on the ARM architecture. The Palm Pre, Google Nexus One, Motorola Droid, and other devices all run beta versions of Flash Player 10.1 beautifully.

"HTML5 is replacing Flash" -- This is a red herring to justify keeping a platform closed by drawing attention to another open technology. HTML5 and Flash are in no way exclusive. As with HTML4 and Flash, there are some use cases that can be served with either technology, but there are also many cases where the technologies serve different purposes. As on Android devices, HTML 5 and Flash can both easily be supported on this and future devices.

But I want to be very clear. My concern isn't just about Flash on the iPad. It's about a disturbing trend where Apple is starting to inhibit broad categories of innovation on their platforms. On the iPad, it looks like developers won't be able to write applications in Java, .net, Python, Ruby, Perl, or any number of other languages (including Flash). And users won't be able to install Firefox, Opera,IE, or any third party browser. There are countless other examples of applications and technologies that Apple doesn't allow. Why? Apple won't say.

And innovation isn't just about technology, it's also about business models. Developers on this new platform aren't able to innovate there either. At best, developers targeting the iPad are subject to a 30% Apple Tax in the App Store. And at worst, developers invest time and money building a product that can never be brought to market, because the only channel is one that is centrally controlled and entirely opaque. In every case, Apple is a gatekeeper on how developers are able to deliver content to their consumers.

Over time, restrictions on technology and business opportunity have a chilling effect on innovation on closed platforms.

 

[Gio_CoD]

You're happy watching videos and playing games, not using Flash. Flash is just the plugin that currently enables that content.

Replace "Flash" with "RealPlayer" and all of these arguments for it sound just as dumb.

Like I posted pages and pages ago, Microsoft Silverlight is starting support for sending users a proper MP4 video stream through IIS Media Server when it detects an iPhone. What's Adobe's excuse?

I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. I only know that most videos on the internet require Flash to view them, and Apple is taking some sort of principled stand on not including Flash for whatever fucking imaginary reasons they have, and the end result is that their devices are gimped. As a consumer, I would prefer to be able to view Flash videos on my iPhone, but Apple doesn't give a fuck. If they think they're somehow doing me a favor by making my phone less useful, they need to stop doing me favors. But like I said, I can excuse it to a degree for a cell phone, but I'm not going to spend $600 bucks on a device that can't do what $300 netbooks can.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

I can tell.

As a consumer, I would prefer to be able to view Flash videos on my iPhone, but Apple doesn't give a fuck.

You don't get it. Flash video isn't really what you're wanting. Given a choice, no one would want Flash video over any other video format. You just want to view streaming video on the web on your iPhone, and it happens to be that Flash is just the most popular current application of the technology.

If Microsoft Silverlight understands Apple's position and is creating a slick workaround for getting Silverlight video on the iPhone, what's Adobe's excuse? Especially considering almost all Flash videos are just MP4 videos in a Flash container anyway.

Like I said though, some people have ideology, and some people just want it all now no matter what.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. I only know that most videos on the internet require Flash to view them, and Apple is taking some sort of principled stand on not including Flash for whatever fucking imaginary reasons they have, and the end result is that their devices are gimped. As a consumer, I would prefer to be able to view Flash videos on my iPhone, but Apple doesn't give a fuck. If they think they're somehow doing me a favor by making my phone less useful, they need to stop doing me favors. But like I said, I can excuse it to a degree for a cell phone, but I'm not going to spend $600 bucks on a device that can't do what $300 netbooks can.

:lol Then don't buy one? No one, and trust me we mean no one, is putting a gun to your head so get over it.

 

[Gio_CoD]

You don't get it. Flash video isn't really what you're wanting. Given a choice, no one would want Flash video over any other video format. You just want to view streaming video on the web on your iPhone, and it happens to be that Flash is just the most popular current application of the technology.

See, I don't think that you get it. If Flash is running successfully on the Google phones (and the Palm Pre), and that user base is watching millions of videos that I can't because Apple is trying to do me a favor, then Apple's favor sucks. It sounds like you're saying that Adobe needs to make up some workaround specifically for the iPhone, when really the onus is on Apple to run the god damn Flash client on their phone.

If Microsoft Silverlight understands Apple's position and is creating a slick workaround for getting Silverlight video on the iPhone, what's Adobe's excuse? Especially considering almost all Flash videos are just MP4 videos in a Flash container anyway.

Like I said though, some people have ideology, and some people just want it all now no matter what.

I think it's hilarious that you really think Apple is doing this for principle. Like, that giant corporate entity has collectively meditated on this quandary and come to the conclusion that this is the best option. The same corporate entity (and really the same fucking guy) that previously pushed closed PCs so hard and so fast that it nearly drove the company out of business is now pushing a new closed device, and we're supposed to think that's awesome. Those who cannot remember the past etc... etc...

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

See, I don't think that you get it. If Flash is running successfully on the Google phones (and the Palm Pre), and that user base is watching millions of videos that I can't because Apple is trying to do me a favor, then Apple's favor sucks. It sounds like you're saying that Adobe needs to make up some workaround specifically for the iPhone, when really the onus is on Apple to run the god damn Flash client on their phone.

Where are people watching millions of videos? YouTube has an app and an HTML 5 site, and Vimeo and Dailymotion have HTML 5 versions of their sites.

I can't believe we're all arguing this much just because Hulu hasn't made an app.

I think it's hilarious that you really think Apple is doing this for principle. Like, that giant corporate entity has collectively meditated on this quandary and come to the conclusion that this is the best option. The same corporate entity (and really the same fucking guy) that previously pushed closed PCs so hard and so fast that it nearly drove the company out of business is now pushing a new closed device, and we're supposed to think that's awesome. Those who cannot remember the past etc... etc...

I think this because Apple is the driving force behind Webkit, the free and open web browsing engine that is behind Safari and Chrome, and which has also been the driving force behind HTML 5 and open standards adoption on the Internet. So yeah, I think they're doing it out of principle and a vision for a plugin-independent Internet. What evidence do you have otherwise outside of revisionist history?

 

[Flo_Evans]

As a flash developer I can totally understand not including flash on a touch based device. 90% of flash games/interactions are based on keyboard input, mouse rollover/out states and cursor position. Shit would be broken beyond belief!

That said adobe is adding multi-touch event handling to CS4 and is going to support exporting as native iphone (and ipad) apps directly to apple so.... :lol

 

[Kung Fu Jedi]

Yay! Another day another drawn out discussion about Flash. Sheesh!

 

[Meier]

I'm kind of tempted to get this thing just to have it in the room with me. I've been considering a Netbook but haven't pulled the trigger on one yet. The only reason I'm on the fence is the amount of storage.. it's just so damn limiting..

 

[Kano on the Phone]

Yay! Another day another drawn out discussion about Flash. Sheesh!

This thread is like Street Fighter.

"A New Challenger With Limited Understanding Has Appeared!"

 

[Gio_CoD]

Where are people watching millions of videos? YouTube has an app and an HTML 5 site, and Vimeo and Dailymotion have HTML 5 versions of their sites.

The youtube app doesn't have all of the videos on youtube. The HTML5 version is experimental and doesn't have all of the videos, and the same goes for Dailymotion. Also, plenty of news sites, sports sites, etc... use Flash as their video client.

I think this because Apple is the driving force behind Webkit, the free and open web browsing engine that is behind Safari and Chrome, and which has also been the driving force behind HTML 5 and open standards adoption on the Internet. So yeah, I think they're doing it out of principle and a vision for a plugin-independent Internet. What evidence do you have otherwise outside of revisionist history?

Again, why can't they include both? Is including Flash going to restrict their ability to implement HTML5? We shouldn't have the choice of using Flash if we want to watch the millions of flash videos on the net? Sure, a plugin-free internet sounds great, but it's not here yet, so why is Apple not allowing me and millions of other folks to experience the most predominant form of streaming video on the net now?

 

[MasterTeacher]

I have a Iphone and a New IMAC and I want a Macbook pro because my laptop is not that great anymore. Should I get a Ipad to? I was thinking about waiting for the second generation Ipads. I'm pretty sure it will stun all the naysayers. I hope it has a camera and microphone built in

 

[Battersea Power Station]

Really what we need is a few popular porn sites to make a stand and offer only non-Flash video.

 

[SnakeXs]

I have a Iphone and a New IMAC and I want a Macbook pro because my laptop is not that great anymore. Should I get a Ipad to? I was thinking about waiting for the second generation Ipads. I'm pretty sure it will stun all the naysayers. I hope it has a camera and microphone built in

It already has a microphone.

And, it depends what you do with your laptop and what your needs are.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Again, why can't they include both? Is including Flash going to restrict their ability to implement HTML5?

Because every user without Flash is a reason to use HTML for streaming in the same way that every user that isn't using IE is a user that can have a standards-compliant website using proper HTML, CSS, and JS served to them.

With every user of an iPhone, iPad, etc. on the Internet that doesn't have Flash, the more the argument about Flash being ubiquitous becomes untrue. It's the exact same story as how web designers used markup and stylesheets tailored specifically to IE until the last few years when IE usage went down. It was no longer necessary to cater to a specific product and it became viable and smart to follow proper web standards.

Principles vs "I want it now, mom." It's all right to be the latter, but then you just have to understand that the product is not for you and move on.

 

[Vennt]

The youtube app doesn't have all of the videos on youtube. The HTML5 version is experimental and doesn't have all of the videos, and the same goes for Dailymotion. Also, plenty of news sites, sports sites, etc... use Flash as their video client.

I've never noticed this being raised before, can you link me a video that's available via a browser that's not available on the iPhone app?

 

[Gio_CoD]

Because every user without Flash is a reason to use HTML for streaming in the same way that every user that isn't using IE is a user that can have a standards-compliant website using proper HTML, CSS, and JS served to them.

With every user of an iPhone, iPad, etc. on the Internet that doesn't have Flash, the more the argument about Flash being ubiquitous becomes untrue. It's the exact same story as how web designers used markup and stylesheets tailored specifically to IE until the last few years when IE usage went down. It was no longer necessary to cater to a specific product and it became viable and smart to follow proper web standards.

Principles vs "I want it now, mom." It's all right to be the latter, but then you just have to understand that the product is not for you and move on.

Which is what I figured your argument would be. People are too stupid (and impatient, apparently) to know what they want, so thank God the benevolent leaders of Apple are around to force their decision on us. You don't sound so tremendously confident in your open standards if you don't think it can convince users to switch on it's own merits; rather that Apple has to try to strong arm the competition out of existence.

 

[Keylime]

Really what we need is a few popular porn sites to make a stand and offer only non-Flash video.

You can already watch YouPorn clips on your iPhone.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Which is what I figured your argument would be. People are too stupid (and impatient, apparently) to know what they want, so thank God the benevolent leaders of Apple are around to force their decision on us. You don't sound so tremendously confident in your open standards if you don't think it can convince users to switch on it's own merits; rather that Apple has to try to strong arm the competition out of existence.

How is Flash competition for Apple in any way?

Apple doesn't control open web standards. I'm arguing in support of open web standards, and Apple just happens to agree just like Mozilla, Opera, Google, and even Microsoft now also agree. Do you also think Mozilla were being benevolent leaders forcing their decision on the stupid population when they made Firefox standards-compliant instead of just copying IE for instant compatibility?

I don't see my analogy to the history of IE as being too hard to understand. Did you get it at all, or were you just waiting for more words so you could discredit me because I'm not sharing your opinion?

 

[Jack Random]

Again, why can't they include both? Is including Flash going to restrict their ability to implement HTML5? We shouldn't have the choice of using Flash if we want to watch the millions of flash videos on the net? Sure, a plugin-free internet sounds great, but it's not here yet, so why is Apple not allowing me and millions of other folks to experience the most predominant form of streaming video on the net now?

Because Apple has a vested interest in flash failing and are using their market influence to make that happen, it's the same thing we've seen for years.

 

[Kung Fu Jedi]

Which is what I figured your argument would be. People are too stupid (and impatient, apparently) to know what they want, so thank God the benevolent leaders of Apple are around to force their decision on us. You don't sound so tremendously confident in your open standards if you don't think it can convince users to switch on it's own merits; rather that Apple has to try to strong arm the competition out of existence.

Hey! We get it! You want Flash on the device. We've gone round and round on this topic a dozen times in this thread. The iPad isn't going to have Flash. It isn't for you. This topic has been beaten to death. The horse has ceased to be. Move on!

 

[Gio_CoD]

How is Flash competition for Apple in any way?

Apple doesn't control open web standards. I'm arguing in support of open web standards, and Apple just happens to agree just like Mozilla, Opera, Google, and even Microsoft now also agree. I don't see my analogy to the history of IE as being too hard to understand. Did you get it at all, or were you just waiting for more words so you could discredit me because I'm not sharing your opinion?

Personally, I switched to Mozilla because I liked tabbed browsing and IE didn't have it. It also seemed to load a lot faster than IE did back in the day. Even now with IE8 it still seems to take IE several seconds longer to open a new tab than FireFox does. My point is that I didn't switch because I had some sort of affinity for open standards and wanted to show my support; and I'd be willing to bet that the majority of people who switched didn't do so for activism either. I would guess that most people switched because they found Firefox to be a more productive product. Also, your analogy doesn't work because switching from IE didn't really require a sacrifice from anybody. Sure, there was the occasional site that didn't render well in FireFox, but then that user still had fucking IE that he could open up and view that occasional site with. On the iPhone, I can't prefer to view things over HTML5 and then fall back to Flash when it's not available.

Also, stop being such a prick, dude. You're coming off as extremely condescending and nerdy. I know you think you're totally radical because you are able to see the hidden intricacies of Apple's altruistic intent here; but there's no need to be rude.

 

[Kano on the Phone]

Which is what I figured your argument would be. People are too stupid (and impatient, apparently) to know what they want, so thank God the benevolent leaders of Apple are around to force their decision on us. You don't sound so tremendously confident in your open standards if you don't think it can convince users to switch on it's own merits; rather that Apple has to try to strong arm the competition out of existence.

What are they forcing on anyone? Since when do you have to buy an iPhone/iPad?

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

My point is that I didn't switch because I had some sort of affinity for open standards and wanted to show my support; and I'd be willing to bet that the majority of people who switched didn't do so for activism either.

Absolutely agreed 100%. You don't need to have an opinion, you just have to use the product. But thankfully Mozilla had an opinion and stuck to their guns instead of just folding because users wanted everything to work exactly as it did in IE.

 

[Gio_CoD]

I've never noticed this being raised before, can you link me a video that's available via a browser that's not available on the iPhone app?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC--NX8252c

 

[SnakeXs]

Personally, I switched to Mozilla because I liked tabbed browsing and IE didn't have it. It also seemed to load a lot faster than IE did back in the day. Even now with IE8 it still seems to take IE several seconds longer to open a new tab than FireFox does. My point is that I didn't switch because I had some sort of affinity for open standards and wanted to show my support; and I'd be willing to bet that the majority of people who switched didn't do so for activism either. I would guess that most people switched because they found Firefox to be a more productive product. Also, your analogy doesn't work because switching from IE didn't really require a sacrifice from anybody. Sure, there was the occasional site that didn't render well in FireFox, but then that user still had fucking IE that he could open up and view that occasional site with. On the iPhone, I can't prefer to view things over HTML5 and then fall back to Flash when it's not available.

Also, stop being such a prick, dude. You're coming off as extremely condescending and nerdy. I know you think you're totally radical because you are able to see the hidden intricacies of Apple's altruistic intent here; but there's no need to be rude.

What you're missing is the real analogy. When you switched to Firefox you gave up, for a period of time, compliance with some sites. Some wouldn't work at all, and some rendered funny, depending on when you switched. Given, you didn't switch because Firefox complied to web standards far better than IE, but in using it you helped support that move.

Same thing is happening now. In exchange for what you can experience on another browser, you gain a more user friendly web experience, and help expedite the shift to something better, in this case HTML5.

 

[Gio_CoD]

What you're missing is the real analogy. When you switched to Firefox you gave up, for a period of time, compliance with some sites. Some wouldn't work at all, and some rendered funny, depending on when you switched. Given, you didn't switch because Firefox complied to web standards far better than IE, but in using it you helped support that move.

Same thing is happening now. In exchange for what you can experience on another browser, you gain a more user friendly web experience, and help expedite the shift to something better, in this case HTML5.

Maybe so, but like I said, when I needed to view an IE only site, I had that option.

 

[Mr. Dobalina]

What you're missing is the real analogy. When you switched to Firefox you gave up, for a period of time, compliance with some sites. Some wouldn't work at all, and some rendered funny, depending on when you switched. Given, you didn't switch because Firefox complied to web standards far better than IE, but in using it you helped support that move.

Same thing is happening now. In exchange for what you can experience on another browser, you gain a more user friendly web experience, and help expedite the shift to something better, in this case HTML5.

Yup and anyone who agrees should start using the You Tube HTML5 beta. The resources used goes down DRAMATICALLY when you use HTML5 versus Flash.

Flash will still have a place on something like gaming sites (pogo.com, e.g.), but for video, it needs to go the way of the dodo.

 

[SnakeXs]

Maybe so, but like I said, when I needed to view an IE only site, I had that option.

And few people's main/only devices will be iPads, though, and as this thread has stated many times, the number of flash heavy sites, and Flash-exclusive video sites, is small, and shrinking every day. There's also nothing "vital" about 99.9% of web videos, unlike, say, using online banking.

 

[Schlep]

It's not a completely ideological or an act of altruism, either. The reality is that Flash sucks battery and performs poorly. Apple is not going to give Adobe hooks into the core OS even if they did allow the plugin. That would leave users with the ability to load Flash pages that would bog down the system to the point of being unusable. I can't count how many times I've had to force quit a browser because Flash brought things to a screeching halt.

There are videos that I would like to see on the iPad that are delivered by Flash like those on Giant Bomb and Gametrailers. Fortunately Gametrailers seems like it's building a site for iPhone/iPad, and hopefully Giant Bomb can do something as well. If not, it sucks, but those constitute maybe 5% of what I do on the web. The Flash proponents act as if Flash makes up 95% of their browsing.

Guess how much Flash I had to overcome to write this post? :lol

Yup and anyone who agrees should start using the You Tube HTML5 beta. The resources used goes down DRAMATICALLY when you use HTML5 versus Flash.

Yep. The same Flash vid takes 95% CPU compared with 10% CPU under HTML5. Also, I can view HD content with Quicktime HD (thanks to ClickToFlash), and it takes about 80% CPU. That's compared with Flash where I get maybe 1 frame per 3 seconds.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Giant Bomb has an iPhone application.

 

[Schlep]

Giant Bomb has an iPhone application.

Which costs money, and I've read is a buggy, awful mess. :/

 

[SnakeXs]

Giant Bomb has an iPhone application.

And some Gametrailers videos play, even if it's far from perfect. The fact is they acknowledge it and are working towards parity is all that matters.

 

[Kano on the Phone]

Maybe so, but like I said, when I needed to view an IE only site, I had that option.

I can only imagine how irrationally angry you got when you bought a 360 and realized you could only play 360 games on it. I bet GameFAQS was on fire that day.

 

[Vyer]

So if I go straight to youtubes html5 site, I should be able to play those videos on my iPhone?

 

[Gio_CoD]

And few people's main/only devices will be iPads, though, and as this thread has stated many times, the number of flash heavy sites, and Flash-exclusive video sites, is small, and shrinking every day. There's also nothing "vital" about 99.9% of web videos, unlike, say, using online banking.

I get that it won't be most people's main device, but I thought (and maybe this is my bad for not understanding what market this thing is trying to target), that this was like a living-room, quick browsing, media-friendly type device. Wasn't Jobs showing off the video viewing capabilities in the reveal conference? Now with that sort of marketing, why would you cut off the vast majority of online video? I really don't see how that even begins to make the slightest hint of sense.

 

[mj1108]

old? I skipped back a few pages and didn't see it

http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplatform/2010/01/enabling_innovation_isnt_magic.html

I had read something that part of the real reason Apple doesn't want Flash is due to content. Apple doesn't want you to be able to watch Hulu, etc... on your phone or iPod Touch because then you would be less likely to buy content from the iTunes store.

I don't know how true that may be or if it's just a conspiracy theory but considering how Apple seems to be I wouldn't put it past them.

 

[D4Danger]

I can only imagine how irrationally angry you got when you bought a 360 and realized you could only play 360 games on it.

That analogy doesn't make sense. If you don't know what you're talking about just stop.

I had read something that part of the real reason Apple doesn't want Flash is due to content. Apple doesn't want you to be able to watch Hulu, etc... on your phone or iPod Touch because then you would be less likely to buy content from the iTunes store.

I don't know how true that may be or if it's just a conspiracy theory but considering how Apple seems to be I wouldn't put it past them.

That's about it. Apple want you to build apps and they want publishers to use iTunes.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Now with that sort of marketing, why would you cut off the vast majority of online video?

They don't. There is a YouTube application.

 

[Schlep]

Now with that sort of marketing, why would you cut off the vast majority of online video?

The vast majority of online video is YouTube, and that's fully supported. What you're talking about is individual sites like IGN that provide no alternative to Flash.

 

[Gio_CoD]

Yep. The same Flash vid takes 95% CPU compared with 10% CPU under HTML5. Also, I can view HD content with Quicktime HD (thanks to ClickToFlash), and it takes about 80% CPU. That's compared with Flash where I get maybe 1 frame per 3 seconds.

I think your computer is broken. It doesn't take 95% of my processor to view a flash video. Watching HD does strain it, but I certainly get more than 1 frame per 3 seconds. It's also like 5 or 6 years old.

They don't. There is a YouTube application.

The vast majority of online video is YouTube, and that's fully supported. What you're talking about is individual sites like IGN that provide no alternative to Flash.

Again, not all of Youtube is supported. It does seem to have converted a lot of the videos (especially compared to when I first got my iPhone), but I still run into videos that I can't view on the iPhone. I posted one earlier. I would assume that will be the same situation with the iPad.