I'm pretty convinced now that a lot of my temperature problems on my MBP were caused by the way Snow Leopard handles Flash compared to how Leopard handles it. Apparently, in comparison between the two, Snow Leopard handles pretty much everything the same EXCEPT Flash, when it the power useage skyrockets DRAMATICALLY. Once I disabled Flash with a Flashblocker, my temperatures immediately dropped, and my browser (as well as my computer) were much faster.

Evil Apple plot to try and piss people off with Flash? i could see it

Why would you have sex with an ipad?

feels good man

OooooOHHHNNEGHGHGHRYREAHYHHHHHH YUNFUN UNFUN UNF JNFUNFUFNF SPLURT

Why is that a reason not to buy it?

No USB, no Flash, no camera. Can't believe any of this.

Not for me.

No competition = bad thing.

I like my convertible tablet that lets me use Windows 7 and do whatever the hell I want to with it.

Windows 7 tablet? That's awesome.
Could I install XP on it and play Dark Forces?

If you wanted to be the biggest social outcast since gbk, sure.

I prefer the device's Spanish name, IPHONE GIGANTE.

Attempting to establish a new standard or push out an old one is itself competition so basically boycotting it for that reason would be to encourage future competition by discouraging current competition

Well as Buck said I did pick up an iPad, and as such have come to give a few thoughts regarding it. First off, I can recall watching the keynote address a few months ago and being incredibly disappointed with what I saw. I mean, to my eyes the thing looked like a giant iPod Touch/iPhone, why would someone need that and furthermore where would it fit in Apple's lineup? Right before a MacBook? Is it even a netbook? Could it replace your laptop? Everybody had these questions, and having used it now for about two days I think I am starting to get some answers.

The first point to make is that this device is not for the hardcore computer user, or rather the experienced user who demands much of their machines. For example, someone who intended to game seriously, or type up their spring semester term paper would be wise to not use the iPad. Much as Apple would have you think, this device does not equate to the functionality of a notebook, from an overall perspective.

My biggest "fear"/question was using the device itself giving its form factor. When they demoed it at Macworld, I remember thinking how do you type on something like that? Flat on a table? Cross Legged? Getting something out of the way: the actual position of typing obviously is not necessarily as easy as using a desktop/notebook. There are some positions I think I could manage with the netbook that I couldn't replicate with the iPad. That being said, the reverse was also true. I couldn't grab my netbook by the sides, and still manage to type a message. If you wanted to do something like that, it's the one handed hunt and peck method, or the precarious balance the damn thing on your hand while typing. In some cases the iPad works akin to your phone/iPod, you can pick it up and type with your two thumbs. This will vary according to hand size, but I know for me it works.

I honestly had no intention of walking into the store on Saturday and ploppig down 600 bucks for an iPad. I had to be convinced to go look at in the first place, and even then I just wanted to see how it worked. Well it took about 5 seconds of watching others playing around with iPads before I fell, and fell hard for it. I'll admit it: I freakin love the iPhone. I love its implementation of design, ease of use, and functionality and in my mind is the best phone out there when you consider the extras that come to the table (App Store, iTunes, etc). So there is an Apple-slanted bias I suppose. But my point is that from the get go, I saw that the iPad just simply worked like my iPhone does. It has the interface I am familiar with, and an interface that shouldn't be hard for others to pick up. It's fast as hell, isn't terribly heavy, has a gorgeous screen, etc etc. Everybody can look at the specs and see what's under the hood. Again I repeat, the damn thing just works like it is supposed to.

What I've found myself using it for is admittedly some of the same things I would use the iPhone for, but the larger screen and better hardware allows Apple to make it different enough. Browsing the web, checking Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, those things are just flat out enjoyable with the iPad. The casual gaming, the PopCap gaming sort of stuff is even better. The iBook app looks amazing, the colors are so vivid but I have not done any sort of long term reading and can't tell you about eye strain potential.

I realize this was a rambling post of sorts: long day and didn't really have the energy to go through and solidify this thing. I just wanted to get my initial thoughts out there. I have a touch of the Apple whore in me, but again the iPad was a product I originally scoffed at, but upon seeing how I could actually use it in the real world I completely changed my tune. It's something I could recomend to Grandparents (like mine) instead of getting something like a netbook because it is the perfect device for what they want.

And for the record, you are aware of what a monopoly is right? I know Anti-Apple sentiment pulses within your veins, but to say there is no competition is, well, 100% inaccurate?

No flash on the ipad is stupid. Its now "The internet according to Steve Jobs." Sure Flash doesnt run well on OSX, but thats also because Apple wont let it. For example, flash has GPU access on PCs but not for OSX.

The other thing I oppose to is the App store and it's approval "process"

Oh yeah and apparently the iPad is not only 10% faster than the iPhone (more like 100% on average)

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/04/04/benchmarks_rate_apples_ipad_2x_as_fast_at_apps_as_iphone_3gs.html

Massassi should now be redesigned to incorporate as much Flash as possible.

100% faster than a phone! My goodness, can you handle that much speed?

It was just a note on CM's claim on the first page that it was only 10% faster

Let me know when the benchmarks are actually equivalent. They openly admit that they're comparing the two on different versions of the OS (3.2 vs 3.0).

Also consider the fact that the javascript performance is the lowest of the benchmark numbers, and those numbers stand to have the most improvement from a newer OS version. Since website rendering is probably the most noticibly slow thing on the iPad, it's important. Web pages do not render quickly, people. Especially not how they appear in the Apple ads.

Like I said before, I timed my phone against the iPad in Engadget's review of a website, and they tied. That doesn't exactly scream PERFORMANCE.

And for something that weighs 3x, has 3x the size, 2x the RAM, I sure would hope it would be at least a bit faster. But even if it IS 2x faster than the iPhone, that's not nearly significant enough to, say, outrun a laptop. Hell, a netbook would laugh in the face of that.



Uh, what? Might want to run that past me again. How does using HTML5 compete with Flash on any front besides video?

Hint: it doesn't. The only thing it does compete with is more native applications. Apple doesn't want to lose business to Flash websites, like addictinggames, etc.



You do realize Apple has a monopoly on iPhone applications, yes? That's what it means when you can ONLY use the iPhone app store. You play by their rules and only their rules. You have to jailbreak the phone (an operation Apple is vehemently non-supportive of, and continuously attempts to prevent) in order to install apps in other ways.

Also, the official numbers for sales of the iPad on Saturday is 300,000. Not a million. And that's counting preorders and every other form of sale (Best Buy, etc).

Doesn't seem that insane, considering the iPhone sold a million in its first weekend.

Only if it could run photoshop...

I don't know or really care; the fact that they openly admit that they're using two different OS versions seem to indicate that the testers believe the OS difference is either accounted for or irrelevant. In either case, the range of benchmarks they did do are there regardless of anecdotal evidence, and if you go by anecdotal evidence, it seems the most resounding sound-off is the vague that it is "really fast".




That's the definition of competition. Apple wants to push a standard(s) (HTML5, dedicated app model). Other standards (Flash, web apps) are in competition with these standard(s). Therefore, they try to overcome these other standards and establish their own standards as the accepted one(s).

No it doesn't?

Seriously, I tried to argue this, but there's nothing to argue, it's just all wrong.

They aren't attempting to overcome Flash and establish their own. They're ignoring Flash and FORCING their own. In order to have competition you actually have to be able to compete.

Again, you might as well drop HTML5 from your posts, because it cannot physically replace Flash at all.

Attempting to force their own standard = competing. This is almost a textbook case of a standards-dominance battle. Generally the victor in a standards battle is the one that can garner the most complementary technologies/applications and that can establish the greatest and most potent network effects first -- which Flash has done ("95% of the web uses Flash for ads or games or video etc etc), and which Apple recognizes is trying to displace because Flash doesn't fit into their model.

You were the first one to mention HTML5, not me. I responded to JM's post about flash competing with the App Store. The idea is that the app store's "dedicated app for certain task" model competes with Flash because Flash is able to provide similar functionality in the form of web apps. The first mention of HTML5 was when you said



The fact that you inferred or assumed that I was talking about HTML5 in particular suggests that HTML5 is commonly perceived as a Flash competitor in popular conversation and/or the internet (I'm extrapolating), in which case it by default becomes a Flash competitor even if its functionality overlap is limited to video, as it must compete for mindshare as the "accepted" standard amongst the public. I rolled with it because of this implication -- I would not have mentioned HTML5 if you hadn't.

The only reason the iPhone and iPad don't support Flash is because they'd have to open Safari up to plugin developers, which would threaten their lockdown on the platform. Period.

Apple doesn't care about Flash one way or the other. The only reason they're pushing for HTML5 is so they can fool idiot Mac fanboys into believing it's about engineering and not just about business.

My point is that it is about business and that's what competition is

Almost everything I argue is from a business perspective

Yeah it can. HTML5 is a lot better than Flash in a lot of ways, especially once you get Chrome speed Javascript going. (e.g. quake2-gwt-port)

But HTML5's strengths don't change the fact that Apple doesn't give a flying ****, as long as they have their ****ty little platform locked down like an electronic gulag.

I hate the stupid ****ing thing, but even I grudgingly admit that the iPad is an entirely new market. The only reason Flash isn't on the iPad is because Apple doesn't want competition in their new market, and allowing Flash would mean allowing a whole bunch of other similar apps and plugins that Apple's also banned.

Reality: if Flash went open spec today, Steve Jobs would be up on a stage tomorrow giving it a handjob. Because then Apple could write their own implementation, embed it in Safari and lock the whole thing down.

All you've said is that Apple is being a good little capitalist by trying to push their own standard on the market and blah blah blah, which is pretty much a deliberate lie unless you're high on some damn powerful painkillers.

I may be pedantic, but:

A. HTML5 is not Javascript. HTML5 adds storage, canvas, video and audio (among other minor things). But their implementations are VERY specific. Most importantly, audio is pretty much impossible to use for gameplay (buffering issues, playing multiple sounds can be a crapshoot, etc).
B. Javascript performance really ISN'T that fast. Seriously. The mere act of moving an image across the page can use significant amounts of CPU. I'm counting this under Chrome.
C. The quake system relies on WebGL which is not HTML5, but an extension upon its Canvas tag, which also uses GPU acceleration to achieve usable performance. It would also be interesting to see a quake 2 port running in GPU-accelerated Flash, and which would run better

It's not that I don't want HTML5, and I am excited for what it means for the net, but seriously, it is not prepared to take over Flash. They can't even finalize on codec support for audio and video.

Uh, yeah. I'm pretty sure everybody knows there's a difference between HTML and Javascript, CM. But you need Javascript to actually get your HTML5 to do anything interesting. That's like saying Flash isn't ActionScript.

I'll bet you p much anything that the CPU usage is because of browser rasterization and not because of Javascript.

quake2-gwt-port uses OpenGL being driven by Javascript, jitted into native code by Google's virtual machine.

A quake2 flash port would use OpenGL (optimally) being driven by a customized variant of Javascript, jitted into native code by Adobe's virtual machine.

I'm gonna put my money on quake2-gwt-port, sorry.

WebGL is an extension to canvas, but considering the fact that it's supported by Apple, Google, Mozilla, Opera (and IE's growing irrelevance) it's a pretty safe bet that WebGL's going to find its way into HTML5.1 or something.

You're right, it's not ready. Flash still has a major edge: development tools.

You can't blame them for not being able to settle on a video codec. Video is a patent minefield.

I wants me one.

The flash thing doesn't bother me - I rarely use flash video, and the handful of sites I get time to visit (let's face it, I spend most of my available online time here) don't use it, or it isn't critical.

I couldn't give a flying **** about Apple's reasons for not supporting Flash - the one that still strikes me is how you'd elegantly get round the mouseover/hover issue anyway.

But I care not. I just hope they don't botty-rape the UK on pricing. It's been long enough from the original keynote for everyone to forget that it was meant to be cheap...

I got an iPad on Saturday, and while I haven't really thought about assessing my thoughts on it, I do enjoy it.

The device itself essentially is a large iPod touch / iPhone, but where it shines is what developers will do with the larger screen real estate. Apps like Epicurious, USA Today, WeatherBug, GoodReader, and TweetDeck are really, really well done.

The lack of Flash has not really bugged me yet, I went to all my daily websites and found that the blue lego brick never appeared.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8603599.stm

Video of the first customers coming into the Apple Store. I don't understand the high fives. It's just a product? "You're paying hundreds of dollars for our product HIGH FIVE". Weird

Even if it is, it's still an issue. BTW, does that Quake2 even run on Safari on the Mac? I ask curiously since that would presumably require GPU access, that Flash can't get.




And when 5.1 comes out, then Apple would have a "stronger" case. But that's more my point, it's still highly in flux.


Like that



I can for audio.

I think you have a blatantly wrong idea of what a monopoly is. A basic business class would tell you what defines a monopoly. And you'll see that the features of a monopoly (barriers to entry in the market, natural barriers, etc) hardly exist in the App Store. Your mistake comes from thinking that the App Store is this third party external entity, instead of a feature of the phone like it actually is. Your definition of the market is COMPLETELY wrong. What you just said is like saying McDonalds has the monopoly on Big Macs. Well, um, no ****. That doesn't mean when analyzing market power and market definition that you limit the market to Big Macs.

None of these software developers are being forced by Apple to design programs for the iPhone. Apple isn't even involved in pricing the software, so markups are solely determined by the developer. The App Store is a feature of the device, that's the way it's marketed and the way it exists (Have access to *x* apps when you buy an iPhone!). The App Store is just a frontend basically. All those apps in the app store ARE competing, which is probably why the app store has been so wildly successful, because absolutely great **** has come out of it.

There are no natural barriers to entry into the smartphone market as the startup costs are INCREDIBLY low relative to startup costs of say a business. Anybody can make an app for it. The guys at Apple are not re-writing peoples code for their apps, only approving them, which they have full ability to do because hey, ITS THEIR HARDWARE and its a feature of THEIR device, not some third party. Should I be pissed at Droid and the open source community because their apps won't work on my iPhone? Of course not, it's ludicrous. A feature of the Droid is that as an open source platform I will have access to a lot of cool apps that won't work on iPhone. A feature of the iPhone is that you have access to a lot of cool apps through the App Store that won't work on Droid.

Think of the App Store basically as the government. You basically get taxed (whatever the rate they charge developers) for your income that you derive from your application. I don't see how the App Store is any different than the marketplace we live in today.

No **** opening things up would be awesome, but I'm also a realist. It's a standard platform war. These things happen all the time. In the end it'll probably be better for all of us, so I'd say let it ride out. If it wasn't for the iPhone and its App Store feature most likely these other awesome devices wouldn't have sprung up.

It's blocking developers who don't own Macs from entering the market.

Hahahaha, wouldn't it be funny if you could use that argument in actual antitrust cases.

That made absolutely no sense and had nothing to do with what I said.

Being a feature of the phone does not matter whatsoever. It's the fact that nothing can compete with the App Store, BY DESIGN.



Anyone except websites.



No, because they aren't writing the Droid's OS to specifically block such usage. It's not a matter of ensuring support, it's a matter of insisting on NO support. It would be as if Android was written that "You will never run iPhone apps on the Droid, even if you develop a way to do so, because we said so". I think quite a few people would be pissed at that.

It may not be a monopoly by the strictest definition, but if you can't see something wrong with that, well, I don't know what to tell you.

I wasn't aware that when you make a website nowadays that you have a gun pointing to your head about whether to make your site with Flash or HTML.

I mean, back in the old days, when I made a website, I made the conscious decision of "If I make this in HTML, it'll render and work well on the iPhone. If I don't, well I lose out on the iPhone people".

Inconvenience /= coercion (in most cases)