• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

APPLE introduce NEW TABLET.....IPAD

Watchman

Alfrescian
Loyal
I'll pass on Mac mini, iPod Touch and this iPad, terrible products :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

The only product i want but cant get it is the desktop, bor lui.... too ex -_-""""

Not like Sam leong, collect pimp money, 1 month can buy 1 desktop, LOL

ipad_ipen_000_splash.jpg


Sam Leong's website, he can buy one every half an hour .
 

singveld

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Five Ways Apple Can Fix the iPad10:40 PM - January 27, 2010 by Tuan
The iPad, Apple claims, is revolutionary and even magical.

No it's not.

"The bar's pretty high. In order to really create a new category of devices. Those devices are going to have to be far better at doing some key tasks. They're going to have to be far better at doing some really important things. Better than the laptop, better than the smartphone." -- Steve Jobs.


It's got so many teething problems. Even the product name, in one day, has become the butt of jokes on the interweb.

I've had the opportunity to sit down and talk to several analysts and industry professionals about their thoughts on the iPad. Views seem to be split, but everyone appears to think the same: the iPad could have been so much more.

Some people say that perspective needs to be had: the iPad isn't supposed to be a full computing device, it's supposed to be an iPod Touch on stereoids. Um... no. Even Steve Jobs himself compared it to a laptop, and said that it's supposed to be better than a laptop at doing several key things, and is supposed to be better than an iPod Touch at doing everything.

So why then does the iPad fail miserably at doing some very fundamental things that even a cheap laptop, like a netbook, can do? I mentioned a few of those points in my previous iPad post, so let's get straight to what Apple can do to make the iPad what it should have been--and could be:

1. Enable multitasking

The iPad needs to have multitasking. It's practically begging for it. It's understandable that on a screen/device size like the iPhone and iPod Touch that they can only run one application at a time, but even competing devices like Android phones can multitask. A device like an iPad, with a screen size of 10-inches, should not be doing less than an Android phone. Period. Apple needs to enable this. There's no sense in not being able to have an IM application running while browsing webpages or reading an ebook.

The iPad has enough horsepower to support multitasking, so I'm sure that the limitation is merely in software. iPhone OS 4.0 is supposed to bring multitasking, and so this should be fixed by the time the iPad is actually available for purchase.

2. Open the OS / Make an iPad specific OS

Again, Steve Jobs compared the iPad to a smartphone and a laptop in his presentation. But developers are tied into the App store. If Apple wants to keep its app-ecosystem closed for the iPod Touch and iPhone to maintain "quality," then fine. But let's not gimp the iPad, eh? With Android devices on the rise, making an iPad specific OS that's open to developers will be seen as a competitive advantage. If it's going to be truly better than a netbook, then it's got to support development like a netbook. Users want to be able to install their own stuff, it's that simple.

Make the iPad support open software development, while still supporting the large number of App Store applications. What happens if you want to run Firefox or Chrome on your iPad? You can't.

But I fully understand why the iPad isn't going to support custom apps. Apple wants you to use their App store. It wants the App store to be the largest software distribution system in the world. It wants to take a cut of the money when you sell your iPad specific software too. It's a very succesful business model and I doubt this will change.

3. Enable the full web experience

Where's Flash support? Again, this is largely a software issue, and hopefully will be addressed down the line. Not everyone who uses a mobile computing device only cares about Flash for YouTube, and so many websites actually have Flash elements today. Perhaps HTML5 will change all that but that's yet to be seen. The funny thing? During Jobs's keynote where he demos viewing The New York Times website on the iPad, the areas with Flash showed an error box.

Jobs said that the iPad is the best web experience. It clearly is not. It doesn't even have tabbed browsing.

4. Enable HDMI output or DisplayPort

We have 2 full months before the iPad is supposed to be available for purchase. Apple needs to have some form of high resolution digital video output. Boasting how amazing the device is for video playback, it's criminal not to allow users to output video to their big screen TVs. Somehow we doubt this will get added before the iPad goes on sale.

5. Expandable memory

Why the iPad doesn't have an expansion slot for flash memory boggles my mind. It should at least have an SD card slot. The iPad supports high resolution video playback, is supposedly your ultimate tool for viewing photos with people. Yet, I can't stick in an SD card and see my photos.

Update: Users have commented that it should also have a built-in webcam. Apple just announced that it's allowing VOIP over 3G, and that makes Skype and other VOIP apps a must have for the iPad. Apple should have launched the iPad with a built-in webcam as well.

Source : Tom's Hardware US

they are right, the software is limiting it. no multitasking also bad, and no SD or CF slot, we need these. if only it run os x.
i guess, where is the US teenage hacker, we need him to turn it to an os x.
 

Microsoft

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
Actually... all the above are roadmap of Ipad frm 1st to 12th generation leh... else how they make u bbb n such u dry dry har? :biggrin::biggrin:
 

Alamaking

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
I dun understand this, of all my friends, a few of them actually wants the iPad, and all of them are girls!!! wtf.... they are morons!!!!!, LOL

Women's money easiest to earn, zzzzz
 

Ash007

Alfrescian
Loyal
I dun understand this, of all my friends, a few of them actually wants the iPad, and all of them are girls!!! wtf.... they are morons!!!!!, LOL

Women's money easiest to earn, zzzzz

And that my friend is why the iPad is going to sell. Its creating a new market for the mums/daugthers/grandmas that doesn't care if its multi-tasking, has a camera, or a USB/SD slot. As long as it looks fancy, easy to use, stylish, there is your market.
 

johnny333

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
I dun understand this, of all my friends, a few of them actually wants the iPad, and all of them are girls!!! wtf.... they are morons!!!!!, LOL

Women's money easiest to earn, zzzzz


Read that the MacBook Air is very popular with girls. Obviously they like lighter models. Not everyone likes to lug around unnecessary weight.

I was thinking of getting an iTouch but will now delay the purchase until I get a chance to try out the iPad. However I already have a PC & Mac so looking at an iPad as a portable web surfing/mail reading platform. Don't forget that it uses less power & more handy when one is travelling.
 

Shin Orochi

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
Tech and Science
Home > Breaking News > Tech and Science > Story
Jan 29, 2010

iPad disappoints

<!-- by line --> <!-- end by line --> <!--background story, collapse if none--> MIXED REVIEWS

* Reviewers were mixed on whether the iPad will be a smash hit like the iPod, which controls over 70 per cent of the market for MP3 players, or the iPhone, which completely transformed the smartphone arena.

* Gizmodo published an 'Eight things that suck about the iPad' story while rival Ubergizmo crowned the device 'the best tablet ever built.' Popular complaints included the lack of a camera, multi-tasking capabilities, a USB port, and support for videos made with Adobe Flash software.

* Enderle recalled that 'there is an extensive list of people who just pissed all over the iPhone when it launched. 'The iPad will advance a lot,' he said.
'Generation three will probably be the killer product.'

The tech blog of Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung said that after months of pre-launch hype, 'expectations for the new Apple product were so high they were difficult to fulfill.'

* Spain's El Pais said the iPad opens up a new avenue for content creators struggling to adapt to the digital era, while a Los Angeles newspaper referred to the device as a large iPhone without the phone.

* Om Malik of tech blog GigaOm said the iPad is 'made for the consumption of digital media: games, music, photos, videos, magazines, newspapers and e-books.' He called iPad the 'ideal device for today's world.'

* Claudine Beaumont, technology writer for Britain's Daily Telegraph, hailed the sleekness of the iPad, its reading software and virtual keyboard.
'It won't replace your laptop, but I think it may have sounded the death knell for notebook computers,' she wrote.

* MG Siegler of tech blog TechCrunch, after playing with the iPad, said 'it felt like I was holding the future' but may not be a 'must-have' device yet.

* 'The iPod Touch is a significant step toward finally making tablets respectable,' Forrester analyst James McQuivey said in a blog post.
'But making tablets respectable should have been the least of Apple's ambitions.'

<!-- end left side bar -->
tech-ipad-ap.jpg


Apple worked its marketing magic and built up hype and anticipation before the iPad unveiling. -- PHOTO: AP

<!-- story content : start --> SAN FRANCISCO - HEADY from the success of the iPhone and iPod, Apple is getting spanked with criticism, even mockery, by pundits who expected the company to change the world anew with its iPad tablet computer. Critics and fans were rushing on Thursday to fill the 60-day void between the unveiling of what Apple chief executive Steve Jobs hailed as a 'revolutionary' device and the time the first models will begin shipping globally.

While some heralded the iPad as a powerful 'Kindle killer' with multimedia capabilities that eclipse current electronic readers, others scoffed at adding to their lives a mobile gadget seemingly named for a feminine hygiene product. 'Clearly, women are not finding this name attractive,' said analyst Rob Enderle of Enderle Group in Silicon Valley. 'The name looks like a mistake a man would make. Steve should have spent more time talking to his wife and daughters.'

Reaction by women echoed a video clip from an old Mad TV comedy television show skit about a fictitious high-tech tampon called an 'iPad'. The video has gone viral since Mr Jobs uncloaked the iPad on Wednesday. The mixed reaction to the color touchscreen tablet was reflected in two of the most popular gadget websites. Apple worked its marketing magic and built up hype and anticipation before the iPad unveiling, but has left two months for pundits, bloggers and others to nitpick a device that Mr Jobs said must be held to be appreciated. Users eager to judge for themselves will have to wait two months before the first iPads are shipped worldwide at an entry-level price of US$499 . -- AFP

 

singveld

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
I dun understand this, of all my friends, a few of them actually wants the iPad, and all of them are girls!!! wtf.... they are morons!!!!!, LOL

Women's money easiest to earn, zzzzz

look like it going to be a success!!!

the name is very familiar to them, they used another type of pad since when they are 12.
 

Alamaking

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
iPad would be a success if they can add applications for working purposes, and using stylus pen as an optional navigation. Of course this will add extra memory, processor, graphic card, which = more $$$$.

I will consider buying it even it cost $2.5k, i think the size are ok, for the thickness, if they can make MacBook Air thin, they can make iPad as thin as Air too.

So i dun understand why they compromised this product, just to capture women/children market? thats shortsighted............ -_-"""
 

singveld

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
No flash?

how can something can sold for surfing the web have no flash support?

shake my head.



Adobe Slams Apple for iPad's Lack of Flash
Adobe says that the iPad, without Flash, will miss out on the majority of web games and video.


Apple may tout the iPad as the best web browsing experience, but what about Flash? Love it or hate it, you can barely go through a handful of clicks before running into an Adobe-flash powered element.


Flash has been an important part of the web, and it'll be something that iPad won't have out of the box when it ships in late March. While the omission of Flash was excusable on the iPod Touch and iPhone, competing devices today run Flash, which makes the iPad omission even more glaring.


Adobe's Adrian Ludwig, the company's Flash Platform Product Marketing Group Manager, wrote in a blog post:


It looks like Apple is continuing to impose restrictions on their devices that limit both content publishers and consumers. Unlike many other ebook readers using the ePub file format, consumers will not be able to access ePub content with Apple's DRM technology on devices made by other manufacturers. And without Flash support, iPad users will not be able to access the full range of web content, including over 70% of games and 75% of video on the web.


If I want to use the iPad to connect to Disney, Hulu, Miniclip, Farmville, ESPN, Kongregate, or JibJab -- not to mention the millions of other sites on the web -- I'll be out of luck.


Adobe and more than 50 of our partners in the Open Screen Project are working to enable developers and content publishers to deliver to any device, so that consumers have open access to their favorite interactive media, content, and applications across platform, regardless of the device that people choose to use.

Source : Tom's Hardware US
 
Last edited:

singveld

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
some said that ipad will be a hit, they may be right.

The iPad is the Gadget We Never Knew We

The iPad is no doubt, the biggest hype of the last six months. It's no secret then, that there was just no way that Apple could have done anything to meet the crazy expectations, set by the internet, for its tablet. Gizmodo managed to cut through all the hysteria and give not only a first hand account of the iPad, but also a forward looking perspective on what's to come.

Now that we've seen the iPad in the light of day, there's a lot of chatter about what it can't do. But Apple is now a massive threat to anything not a PC or smartphone. Here's why:

Generally speaking, the iPad's goal is not to replace your netbook, assuming you own and love one. It's not about replacing your Kindle either, assuming you cashed in for that as well. We have reviewed plenty of both, and know there's plenty to like. If you derive pleasure out of using either, then Apple might have a hard time convincing you to switch to the iPad. But for the millions of people who aren't on either bandwagon, yet have the money and interest in a "third" device between the phone and the computer, the iPad will have greater appeal.

250 Million iPods Earlier...

When the first iPod came out, its goal was not to grab the customers who Creative and Archos were fighting over, with their dueling 6GB "jukeboxes." It was to grab everyone else. I remember listening to arguments about why Archos had a better device than Creative or even Apple. Lot of good that early-adopter love got them in the long run. The pocket media player market exploded, with Apple eating over half the pie consistently for almost a decade.

When the iPhone came out, BlackBerry users were like, "No flippin' way." And guess what, those people still buy BlackBerries. (And why shouldn't they? Today's BlackBerry is still great, and hardly distinguishable from the BB of 2007.) The point is, the iPhone wasn't designed to win the hearts and minds of people who already knew their way around a smartphone. It came to convince people walking around with Samsung and LG flip phones that there was more to life. And it worked.

iPhones now account for more than half of AT&T's phone sales. You can bet that WinMo, Palm and BB combined weren't doing that kind of share pre-iPhone. Globally, the smartphone business grew from a niche thing for people in suits to being a 180-million unit per year business, says Gartner, eclipsing the entire notebook business—about 20% of which, I might add, are netbooks. The iPhone isn't the sole driver of this growth, of course, but its popularity has opened many new doors for the category. Just ask anyone in the business of developing/marketing/selling Droids or Palm Pres.



You could say, "Those were Apple's successes, what about their failures?" In the second age of Steve Jobs, there aren't a whole lot. Apple TV is the standout—quite possibly because Apple discovered, after releasing the product, that there wasn't a big enough market for it, or any of its competitors. Apple TV may be crowded out by connected Blu-ray players, home-theater PCs and HD video players, but Apple TV's niche is, to this day, almost frustratingly unique.

So how do you know if a market exists? You ask the "other" Steve, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer.

It's Business Time

There's a famous Ballmerism, one he's even said to me, that goes something like, "A business isn't worth entering unless the sales potential is 50 million units or more." 50 million. That's why Ballmer is happy to go into the portable media player business and the game console business, but laughs about ebook readers. Microsoft may not sell 50 million Zunes, but it's worth being a contender.

You can bet Apple thinks this way. You can easily argue that, despite its sheen of innovation, Apple is far more conservative than Microsoft. Apple TV is a bit of an anomaly, but with no major hardware refreshes and a few small-minded software updates, you can hardly accuse Apple of throwing good money after bad. Presumably Apple TV was a learning experience for Jobs & Co., one they're not likely to repeat.

With that in mind, let's look at these popular in between sized devices, particularly at netbooks and ebook readers.



Like Notebooks, Only Littler

Netbooks are cooking, but it's well known they're cooking because notebooks are not. A netbook was originally conceived as something miraculously small and simple, running Linux with a warm fuzzy interface that dear old gran could use to bone up on pinochle before Friday's showdown with the Rosenfelds. But instead of growing outward to this new audience (always with the grandmothers, it seems), it grew inward, cannibalizing real PC sales.

The Linux fell away, mostly because it was ill-conceived, and these simply became tiny, cheap, limited-function Windows PCs. They may have been a 40-million-unit business last year, according to DisplaySearch, but they only got cheaper, and the rest of the business was so depressed nobody was happy. (And just ask Ballmer how much he makes on those XP licenses, or even the "low-powered OS" that is Windows 7 Starter.)

Point is, nerds may love their netbooks, but the market that the netbook originally set out to reach is too far away, running farther away and screaming louder with every blog post about what chipset and graphics processor a netbook is rumored to have, or whether or not it is, indeed, a netbook at all. Clearly the audience is cheap geeks, and while that may be a good market to be in (just read Giz comments), it's definitively not Steve Jobs' market.

Easy on the Eyes

Now, about that Kindle. Best ebook reader out there. Every time we say that, we say it with a wink. We totally respect the Kindle (and I for one have hopes for Nook once it pulls itself out of the firmware mess it's in), but we think e-ink is a limited medium.

Its functionality is ideal for a very specific task—simulating printed words on paper—and for that I have always sung its praise. The Kindle is ideal for delivering and serving up those kinds of books, and as a voracious reader of those kinds of books, I am grateful for its existence. But there are other kinds of books of which I am a consumer: Cookbooks, children's books and comic books. (Notice, they all end in "book.") The Kindle can't do any of those categories well at all, because they are highly graphical. E-ink's slow-refreshing, difficult-to-resize grayscale images are pretty much hideous. No big deal for the compleat Dickens, but too feeble to take on my dog-eared, saffron-stained Best-Ever Curry Cookbook.



So, e-ink's known weaknesses aside, let's talk again about Ballmer's favorite number, 50 million. Guess how many Kindles are estimated to have been sold ever since the very first one launched? 2.5 million. Nobody knows for sure because Amazon won't release the actual figures. Guess how many ebook readers are supposedly going to sell this year, according to Forrester? Roughly 6 million. In a year. Compare that to 21 million iPods sold last quarter, along with 9 million iPhones.

I am not suggesting that the iPod or iPhone is a worthwhile replacement for reading, but I am saying that, for better or worse, there are probably at least 2.5 million iPod or iPhone users who read books on those devices.

Are you starting to see the larger picture here? I am not trying to convince you to buy an Apple iPad, I am trying to explain to you why you probably will anyway. As the Kindle fights just to differentiate itself while drowning in a milk-white e-ink sea of God-awful knockoffs, you'll see that color screen shining in the distance.

Sure the iPad may not be as easy on the eyes as a Kindle. But you will be able to read in bed without an additional light source. You will be able to read things online without banging your head against a wall to get to the right page. And, once the publishers get their acts together, you will be able to enjoy comics, cookbooks, and children's books, with colorful images. Even before you set them into motion, dancing around the screen, they'll look way better than they would on e-ink. (I haven't even mentioned magazines, but once that biz figures out what to do with this thing, they will make it work, because they need color screens, preferably touchscreens.)



Tide Rollin' In

So we have this new device, carefully planned by a company with a unique ability to reach new markets. And we have two types of products that have effectively failed to reach those markets. And you're going to bet on the failures? The iPad has shortcomings, but they only betray Apple's caution, just like what happened with iPhone No. 1. Now every 15-year-old kid asks for an iPhone, and the ones that don't get them get iPod Touches.

We can sit here in our geeky little dorkosphere arguing about it all day, but as much as Apple clearly enjoys our participation, the people Jobs wants to sell this to don't read our rants. They can't even understand them. My step-mother refuses to touch computers, but nowadays checks email, reads newspapers and plays Solitaire on an iPod Touch, after basically picking it up by accident one day. That's a future iPad user if I ever saw one.

Jobs doesn't care about the netbook business, or the ebook business. He's just aiming for the same people they were aiming at. The difference is, he's going to reach them. And the fight will be with whoever enters into the tablet business with him. Paging Mr. Ballmer...
 

johnny333

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Re: No flash?

how can something can sold for surfing the web have no flash support?

shake my head.

.......



Is Flash support really a good thing :confused:

Been reading some other Mac forum & they don't like flash. Can go read about the discussion

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=106685


I quote one of the anti-flash posts:

Flash kind of sucks if you have dealt with it in Linux or Mac OSX you would hate it... Even in windows it is buggy and its probably the biggest security risk to the machine after IE.

Here are the reasons why flash should be kept out the iPhone and iPad.

1. Performance hog
2. Security vulnerabilities
3. Crash prone
4. Flash games are not meant for a touch screen device

If the iPad or iPhone had flash it still wouldn’t be able to play most flash games because those games weren't designed for a touch interface.... Also most sites are moving to html5 to display video like YouTube and Vimeo. All we need is for Hulu to follow suit and end of flash to display video will happen soon after.

The iPad is directed at people that just want things to work and those individuals wouldn’t know that the reason why their experience isn’t perfect is because of flash and not the iPad. I read a post yesterday that stated that they were thinking about buying one for their kid but probably won’t because without flash the games on Disney won’t work. I normally just read and don’t post but what I did feel the urge to tell him that those games weren’t built for a touch interface so even if the iPad supported flash those games wouldn’t work.

And that is the core of the issue. Allowing something in your system that just play sucks is silly and shouldn’t be done especially when most people will blame the device not the software for the issue. Techies know the cause of the problem but most people don’t. Try to explain the difference between RAM and a Hard Drive and see how long it takes regular people to understand it (also see how many actually care how it works).
 

johnny333

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Re: No flash?

Interesting discussion on why Apple will not support Flash.


http://daringfireball.net/2010/01/apple_adobe_flash

Apple, Adobe, and Flash
Monday, 25 January 2010

In my “Tablet Musings” piece two weeks ago, I speculated that Apple’s imminent tablet probably won’t support Flash, for all the same reasons the iPhone doesn’t. Reaction to this was polarized — typically either “duh, of course it won’t” or “no way, it has to support Flash”. You can see both reactions represented in the thread on my piece at Hacker News. One group is going to be very surprised come Wednesday.

I’ve been writing about this saga for two years. My fascination with the subject is fueled by the fact that it’s so polarizing, and that it encompasses both technical and political issues.
On Flash and Mac OS X Application Crashes

Two weeks ago I wrote:

To my knowledge, Apple controls the entire source code to the iPhone OS. That’s not to say they wrote the whole thing from scratch. Many low-level OS components are open source. But they have the source. If there’s a bug, they can fix it. If something is slow, they can optimize or re-write it. That is not true for Mac OS X, and Flash is a prime example. The single leading source of application crashes on Mac OS X is a component that Apple can’t fix.

Several readers asked me for the source for my accusation contained in that last sentence, that Flash is the “leading source of application crashes on Mac OS X”. (And good for them for asking; I’m not sure what I was thinking including that without sourcing it.)

Here’s the deal. On stage at the WWDC 2009 keynote address last June, Apple senior vice president of software engineering Bertrand Serlet was explaining the new web content plugin mechanism for Safari in Snow Leopard. Rather than run within Safari’s application process, web content plugins now run in their own process, so if they crash, they (usually) don’t crash Safari itself. You get a broken little rectangle in the page where the plugin was executing, but the browser itself stays running.

Apple did this for two reasons. Serlet’s stated reason on stage was “crash resistance”, as mentioned above. As for why such crash resistance was worth implementing, Serlet explained that, based on data from the Crash Reporter application built into Mac OS X — the thing that asks if you’d like to send crash data to Apple after a crash — the most frequent cause of crashes across all of Mac OS X are (or at least were, pre-Snow Leopard) “plugins”.

Serlet didn’t name any specific guilty plugins. Just “plugins”. But during the week at WWDC, I confirmed with several sources at Apple who are familiar with the aggregate Crash Reporter data, and they confirmed that “plugins” was a euphemism for “Flash”.

In other words, in Apple’s giant pile of aggregate crash reports — from all app crashes on all Macs from all users who click the button to send these reports to Apple — Flash accounts for more of them than anything else. That doesn’t mean Flash somehow causes crashes in any various app. Presumably, most of the time it’s Safari or some other browser playing Flash content. And it’s worth noting that this doesn’t necessarily mean Flash is particularly crash-prone or poorly engineered. Think of it as a formula like this:

total crashes = (crashing bugs) × (actual use)

Flash’s number and severity of crashing bugs could well be somewhat low and it would still account for a large number of total crashes because it’s actually used all the time — by any Mac user with Flash content playing in a web page. And, if Flash Player for Mac OS X actually is poorly-engineered overly-buggy code, well, that’s even worse.

But there’s another reason why Apple created this new external process architecture for web content plugins in Snow Leopard: it was the only way they could ship Safari and the WebKit framework as 64-bit binaries. Flash Player is only available as a 32-bit binary. (This is true for other third-party web content plugins, like Silverlight, but Flash is the only one that ships as part of the system.) 64-bit apps cannot run 32-bit plugins. Apple doesn’t have the source code to Flash, so only Adobe can make Flash Player 64-bit compatible. They haven’t yet. So if Apple wanted Safari to be 64-bit in Snow Leopard (and they did), they needed to run 32-bit plugins like Flash in a separate process.

Maybe you don’t believe Apple that web content plugins are the most frequent source of crashes on Mac OS X. Maybe you don’t believe me and my unnamed sources at Apple that it’s Flash in particular that accounts for this. That’s cool, skepticism is good. So then in that case, maybe Bertrand Serlet blamed “plugin crash resistance” for political reasons, just to stick a knife in Adobe’s back, and the only reason Apple went with this external-process architecture was for the 64-bit/32-bit incompatibility.
 

johnny333

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Re: No flash?

cont'd

But that just shines a light on the fact that Flash is still a 32-bit binary despite the fact that Apple wants to go 64-bit system-wide. Flash remains 32-bit and there’s nothing Apple can do about it. Instead of being able to make Flash 64-bit themselves, Apple had to engineer an entirely new plugin architecture.

This is why Apple wants to control the source code to the entire OS. If they want to go 64-bit with iPhone OS, it’s entirely in Apple’s own control to do so. And what happens if Apple goes to a new CPU architecture? For the components Apple controls the source code to, they can recompile for the new architecture. If the entire system doesn’t recompile cleanly for the new architecture, they can work on it until it does. For a component like Flash, where Adobe controls the source code, Apple instead has to wait.

Which situation do you think Apple is happier with? Mac OS X, where they had to create a new web content plugin architecture because Flash crashes frequently and isn’t 64-bit? Or iPhone OS, where they control the source code to every single component, and can do whatever they want, when they want?

Point is, even if you think Flash Player for Mac OS X is the greatest piece of software in the world and that a Flash Player for iPhone OS would run just fine, too — there’s no denying that Apple executives have said and continue to say anti-Flash things publicly. Apple doesn’t say much about Flash, but what they do say doesn’t sound like the sort of things they’d say if they were looking forward to supporting it more rather than less.
The Proprietary Web

It’s probably pretty clear to regular DF readers that I don’t care for Flash, and that I’m hoping Apple never includes it in the iPhone OS. Might as well make my biases clear.

Why? At the core, because Flash is the only de facto web standard based on a proprietary technology. There are numerous proprietary web content plugins — including Apple’s QuickTime — but Flash is the only one that’s so ubiquitous that it’s a de facto standard. Flash is the way video is delivered over the web, and Adobe completely controls Flash. No other aspect of the web works like this. HTML, CSS, and JavaScript are all open standards, with numerous implementations, including several that are open source.

The simplest argument in favor of Flash support on the iPhone (and The Tablet, and everywhere) is that Flash is, by dint of its popularity and ubiquity, part of the web. But the best argument against Flash support is that it is harmful to the web as a whole to have something as important as video be in the hands of a single company, and the only way that’s going to change is if an open alternative becomes a compelling target for web publishers.

It’s a chicken-and-egg problem. Publishers use Flash for web video because Flash is installed on such a high percentage of clients; clients support Flash because so many publishers use Flash for web video. Apple, with the iPhone, is solving the chicken and egg problem. For the first time ever, there is a large and growing audience of demographically desirable users who don’t have Flash installed. If you want to show video to iPhone users, you need to use H.264.

Apple isn’t trying to replace Flash with its own proprietary thing. They’re replacing it with H.264 and HTML5. This is good for everyone but Adobe.

And yes, I know Flash does much more than just play video. But that’s the main thing everyone is talking about when they talk about Flash not working on the iPhone — video. And when you talk about other uses for Flash, you’re talking about serving as a software runtime, and whether you like it or not, Apple has a clearly stated opposition to third-party software runtimes for iPhone OS, and that policy seems to be working out pretty well for them.

Here’s an email I got from a DF reader:

I was in line waiting for a coffee on Christmas day. In front of me was a kid, about nine or ten, who had an iPhone. He clearly had gotten it that morning. He was pushing frantically at a white box on a web page with the broken plug-in symbol. He was squeezing it, swiping it. He was frustrated and on the verge of getting pissed with his new toy. It seemed like he was trying to hit an online game page, probably one he was used to playing on the family PC. Finally I couldn’t take it anymore. I leaned over and said, “It won’t load Flash. It won’t play your Flash games.” His mom, ignoring him up to that point, was triggered by a stranger talking to her kid. “That’s okay honey,” she said, “we’ll get you a game from the App Store.” His response to this? He started working that device even harder. He didn’t want an App Store game; he wanted his Flash game. And that iPhone suddenly took a huge dive in value to him.

Like it or not, Apple needs to come to terms with this. If only for the kids.

I think this anecdote, and this reader’s takeaway from it, accurately captures the feeling behind much of the “Apple has got to bend on this eventually” sentiment that’s out there.

But think about it from Apple’s perspective. How do you think this situation turned out in the long run? Do you think the kid told his mom to return the iPhone for a refund? Or, do you think they went home and started buying games from the App Store? That there was a period of initial frustration due to Flash games not playing doesn’t change the fact that they (a) bought an iPhone and (b) were set to buy games from the App Store.

I’m not arguing that Apple’s apparent executive-level antipathy toward Flash is about anything other than Apple’s own interests. (I do think, though, that Apple’s WebKit team is genuinely idealistic about helping the web as a whole.)

But while Apple may be acting spitefully, they’re not spiting themselves. The iPhone’s lack of Flash has not hurt it one bit. Perhaps that will change in the future, if Flash someday proves popular on other mobile platforms, but don’t hold your breath.
Flash Performance on Mac OS X

In addition to the principled concerns outlined above regarding Flash being proprietary, there are also practical issues. One, Flash’s aforementioned crashiness on Mac OS X. Second, crashiness aside, its performance on Mac OS X is not as good as it is on Windows. And for video playback specifically, Flash’s performance pales compared to H.264 played through QuickTime. This is not subjective. My machine is a two-year-old MacBook Pro. It plays full-screen H.264 video through QuickTime without problem. When I play full-screen Flash video, my fan kicks in within a few seconds, every time.

I’ve been hard on Flash Player for Mac OS X, but this performance situation is not entirely in Adobe’s hands. On Windows, Flash makes use of hardware decoding for H.264, if available. On Mac OS X, it does not. This is one reason why Flash video playback performs better on Windows than Mac OS X, and also why H.264 playback on Mac OS X is better through QuickTime (which does use hardware decoding).

According to Adobe, though, this is because they can’t. Here’s an entry from their Flash Player FAQ:

Q. Why is hardware decoding of H.264 only supported on the Windows platform?

A. In Flash Player 10.1, H.264 hardware acceleration is not supported under Linux and Mac OS. Linux currently lacks a developed standard API that supports H.264 hardware video decoding, and Mac OS X does not expose access to the required APIs. We will continue to evaluate when to support this feature on Mac and Linux platforms in future releases.
 

johnny333

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Re: No flash?

cont'd

Adobe platform evangelist Lee Brimelow recently posted a weblog entry addressing this:

But let’s talk more about the Flash Player on the Mac. If it is not 100% on par with the Windows player people assume that it is all our fault. The facts show that this is simply not the case. Let’s take for example the question of hardware acceleration for H.264 video that we released with Flash Player 10.1. Here you can see some published results for how much the situation has improved on Windows. Unfortunately we could not add this acceleration to the Mac player because Apple does not provide a public API to make this happen. You can easily verify that by asking Apple. I’m happy to say that we still made some improvements for the Mac player when it comes to video playback, but we simply could not implement the hardware acceleration. This is but one example of stumbling blocks we face when it comes to Apple.

I’m aware of no reason to dispute this. Windows is more hospitable to a third-party runtime like Flash than Mac OS X. I think most would agree that Apple is an opinionated company (to say the least), and they make opinionated products. The runtimes Apple cares about are Cocoa and WebKit. The Apple way to play H.264 is through the QuickTime APIs (and really, as of Snow Leopard the new QuickTime X APIs), not to write your own H.264 playback code that seeks to directly access hardware accelerators.

You can argue about why Apple has taken this stance. One could argue that it’s pragmatic — that Apple doesn’t allow third-party software access to things like hardware H.264 acceleration because it seeks to maintain a layer of abstraction between third-party software and the underlying hardware. One could argue that it’s political — that Apple is happy to make Flash look bad performance-wise because Flash is competitive with Apple products in several different regards. (E.g. you may wish that Hulu, which is entirely Flash-based, worked on your iPhone and worked better on your Mac. Apple wishes that Hulu’s content was going through the iTunes Store.)

I would argue that it’s both — that Apple’s distaste for Flash Player is both a matter of engineering taste (that third-party software should only have access to high-level APIs) and politics. But objectively, regardless of what you personally wish Apple would do with regard to Flash, if Adobe needs Apple to grant them further access to the hardware to make the Mac version of Flash Player better, what are the odds that they’d get that sort of low-level hardware access on the iPhone OS? (Hint: zero.)

I’ll leave the last word to Apple COO Tim Cook, who a year ago said, “We believe in the simple, not the complex. We believe that we need to own and control the primary technologies behind the products we make, and participate only in markets where we can make a significant contribution.”

Flash is owned and controlled by Adobe.
 

singveld

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
very simple for me - no flash no deal

there were be many people releasing similar product.

asus, msi, acer, toshiba, sony , dell.................................

i dun have to get the oversize itouch. if it does not have the mojo.
 

Alamaking

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Been a Mac user for 15 years, I'm still adamant that this is a failed product. No wow factors, lol :biggrin::biggrin:
 

singveld

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
13565_ipad.jpg


Internet reaction of the Apple's new tablet the iPad has featured many mocking remarks. Many say the device's name sounds like a feminine hygiene product.Many in public say the device's name sounds like a feminine hygiene product

On Wednesday Apple aired its long awaited tablet computer, which it dubbed the iPad. Basically an oversized iPhone/iPod Touch, the new device hopes to capitalize on the popularity of these smaller products, filling the same niche as more traditional netbooks and UMPCs.

Some Apple fans have indicated claimed the tablet will kill less full-featured e-Book readers like the Amazon Kindle or recent Sony Pocket Reader. If that's the case, these competitors sure seem unusually nonchalant.

Sony, which actually competes with the tablet in two arenas -- eReaders (Sony Reader series) and mobile gaming (PSP Go) -- says that it may actually get a boost from the iPad.

States Steve Haber, president of Sony’s Digital Reading Division, "The introduction of another mobile device, which includes digital reading as part of its functionality, is a good thing for the digital book business. Mobile devices with reading capabilities will play a key role in the paradigm shift from analog to digital content. At Sony, we’re focused on devices optimized for digital reading and believe that digital books sales will surpass print sales within five years, if not sooner."

Predicting the demise of print sales is certainly a bold move, but not a terribly new one; Amazon and Sony have been trumpeting that line for some time now. The more interesting tidbit is that Sony actually thinks the increased attention about tablets and digital books surrounding the iPhone will actually help Sony's sales.

Sony certainly has a lot of business savvy in the field of digital books. It is second only to Amazon in this arena, and it is estimated to own 35 percent of the market, selling an estimated 1 million units in 2009.

One advantage it has over its new Apple competitor is perhaps a less obtrusive name; since its announcement the iPad has been lampooned by many readers who say it sounds like a feminine hygiene product. Describes Annie Colbert on the blog "Holy Kaw!", "With "iTampon" quickly emerging as a trending Twitter topic, it's probably safe to say that many women found themselves cringing as they asked, 'Do any women work at Apple?'"

Ironically, the new Apple wonder-product shares its name with a fictional device devised in a MadTV skit -- an Apple feminine hygiene device called the iPad. Writes "Dontstealmypen" a particularly prolific Twitter, "Will women send their husbands to the Apple store to buy iPads?" and "The iPad—Another embarrassing topic I get to discuss with my kids."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Top