New Apple Tablet

[dirk digler]

Cool stuff. On Engadget live right now

http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/27/l...est&refresh=30

[Silock]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

FUTURE= 12 to 18 months or more

Okay . . . ? And . . . ?

h.264= proprietary... and if google releases V8 then maybe not even worth mentioning.... MOZILLA and OPERA won't play ball... REGARDLESS.

Browser market is still DOMINATED by IE. Add in Safari and you're looking at nearly 60% of the total browsing done by these two alone.

[irishjayhawk]

http://kobrien15.webfactional.com/DAVTAKE5.mov

I'm betting that it works on iPods/iPads.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by irishjayhawk

Actually, my points are still in tact. For example, H264 being served thru html4 was a point about you making a false point: HTML5 is needed to serve h264 content. That's not true as HTML4 can support H264 videos. The fact it needs a plugin is superfluous.

And you've been defending flash the whole time. That's been the argument.

At this point, V8 is meaningless. It doesn't have YT support, it doesn't have much ground in the web.

Please go cite your "false" assertions. Not that I believe 40% figure, but all you ever do is say "oh that's false" without actually backing anything up. Kinda like your "Jobs lies through the whole thing".

That's my goddamn point. Flash is irrelevant. Which is what Jobs is arguing. And that's why he says most video can be displayed on the iPad/iPhone.

Thank you for finally seeing my whole point.

What was my point as you saw it?

WOW... just wow. You are so out of your element Donnie...

#1 I was being sarcastic, I never "saw your point" because you never made a valid one... HTML4 CAN NOT SERVE VIDEO PERIOD. FLASH or QT or WHATEVER can serve video... so Jobs and his deuchey minions can WANT AND WISH AND HOPE for the iPad to be able to watch web video all they want... but it won't make it happen because the iPad doesn't support the necessary plugins... and HTML5 is NOT ****ING HERE YET.

I have not been defending Flash, I have been attacking a lack of Flash support as a good idea by Apple... BIG DIFFERENCE.

And don't comment on VP8.. what the **** is YT support? YouTube? You do realize Google owns YouTube and can convert the entire library over to VP8 in a matter of days, right?

Ok, I'm done, this has gotten silly, you clearly don't have a clue and at this point you are arguing based on the reality you WANT to exist not the observable one we actually are stuck with.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Silock

Okay . . . ? And . . . ?



Browser market is still DOMINATED by IE. Add in Safari and you're looking at nearly 60% of the total browsing done by these two alone.

AND.. if 12-18 months is how long it takes to get a majority of the web converted to a standard that AS OF RIGHT NOW has yet to be determined... why buy a device NOW that will be outdated by the time it is useful?

Also, I don't care if IE and Safari are 60 or even 80% of the browser market.. if Google decided to put it's weight behind VP8... either IE and Safari will support it as well OR Chrome, Mozilla and Opera will replace them... end of story.

People will use whatever browser supports the content .. and right now Google controls the lion's share of content.

[irishjayhawk]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

WOW... just wow. You are so out of your element Donnie...

#1 I was being sarcastic, I never "saw your point" because you never made a valid one... HTML4 CAN NOT SERVE VIDEO PERIOD. FLASH or QT or WHATEVER can serve video... so Jobs and his deuchey minions can WANT AND WISH AND HOPE for the iPad to be able to watch web video all they want... but it won't make it happen because the iPad doesn't support the necessary plugins... and HTML5 is NOT ****ING HERE YET.

Weird. iPad and iPod do support the plugins. I don't understand how you don't get this. You even prove it.

Flash or QT can serve video. HTML4 allows flash or QT. Thus, iPad and iPod can, in fact, view H264 video via QT at the very least.

I have not been defending Flash, I have been attacking a lack of Flash support as a good idea by Apple... BIG DIFFERENCE.

And you've completely proven MY point (technical points aside). Apple's products can use plugins outside of Flash to watch videos. Thus, sites with flash degrading pages and/or QT implementations of videos are available on their products.

That would account for "almost all video" as Jobs says.

And don't comment on VP8.. what the **** is YT support? YouTube? You do realize Google owns YouTube and can convert the entire library over to VP8 in a matter of days, right?

I said currently. Currently, it's basically the software equivalent of vaporware. It has no entrenchment yet. I never said it couldn't or wouldn't. But as it stands now, it has nothing to do with Apple's non-inclusion with Flash, which is what we're talking about.

Ok, I'm done, this has gotten silly, you clearly don't have a clue and at this point you are arguing based on the reality you WANT to exist not the observable one we actually are stuck with.

Is my video H.264? Yes.
Does my video play on an iPod touch? Yes.
Does my video play on an iPad? Yes.
Is my video flash? No.

Flash is important, for video, how?

[irishjayhawk]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

AND.. if 12-18 months is how long it takes to get a majority of the web converted to a standard that AS OF RIGHT NOW has yet to be determined... why buy a device NOW that will be outdated by the time it is useful?

The iPad is not useful now? Err what?

Also, I don't care if IE and Safari are 60 or even 80% of the browser market.. if Google decided to put it's weight behind VP8... either IE and Safari will support it as well OR Chrome, Mozilla and Opera will replace them... end of story.

Or, alternatively, sites will continue to support both by offering degrading pages, just like flash right now. It's not always white or black.

People will use whatever browser supports the content .. and right now Google controls the lion's share of content.

Man, I wish I had this black-white view you do.

[Silock]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

AND.. if 12-18 months is how long it takes to get a majority of the web converted to a standard that AS OF RIGHT NOW has yet to be determined... why buy a device NOW that will be outdated by the time it is useful?

It's already useful. Just not for you.

Also, I don't care if IE and Safari are 60 or even 80% of the browser market.. if Google decided to put it's weight behind VP8... either IE and Safari will support it as well OR Chrome, Mozilla and Opera will replace them... end of story.

People will use whatever browser supports the content .. and right now Google controls the lion's share of content.

If you say so. I disagree, but whatever. You obviously don't value my opinion, anyway.

[WoodDraw]

You guys are on fringe land. I get where both sides are coming from, but both your arguments are meaningless to end consumers.

Unless Google can make a hardware move that counters Apple on the smartphone and tablet market, they'll have to capitulate. They can play hardball, but google survives off of advertising, not people downloading Chrome.

**** Apple, and everything they've done with the iPad. I think it's a shit product, as far as anything I'd buy. But they've made a huge success out of the iPhone OS product. So more power to them.

Google, it's your turn.

[Silock]

Originally Posted by WoodDraw

**** Apple, and everything they've done with the iPad. I think it's a shit product, as far as anything I'd buy.

I just put 30 gb worth of comics on mine. Holy ****. AWESOME.

[WoodDraw]

Originally Posted by Silock

I just put 30 gb worth of comics on mine. Holy ****. AWESOME.

I don't know if you're being serious or not, but I agree that the iPad is awesome for certain situations. It's a dream travel companion. I'm tempted to buy it just for flights. Watch shows, movies, read, and so on. Incredible.

The closed architecture annoys the shit out of me. But that's how they make their money. At some point you get over it being a large iPhone and not an OS X tablet. Until someone creates something better, like I said, more power to them.

That's not to say I support them on Flash, or any of their other decisions. It's BS meant to support their bottom line. But that's what companies do. Apple doesn't give a **** about Adobe. With their consumer base, they don't have to.

But I don't get the anger either. It's Apple. Are people not used to this? They make a business off of pissing people off while still making a killing.

Google is the only company with the ability to counter Apple in this market, and we'll see what they do.

[Silock]

No, I'm serious! I really did. Of course, I use it for other things, but this is by FAR the coolest thing. I feel like a kid again. I put a bunch of eBooks on there, too, but they're all PDFs because Kindle books are too ****ing expensive.

[WoodDraw]

Originally Posted by Silock

No, I'm serious! I really did. Of course, I use it for other things, but this is by FAR the coolest thing. I feel like a kid again. I put a bunch of eBooks on there, too, but they're all PDFs because Kindle books are too ****ing expensive.

I just can't come up with a rational reason to replace my Macbook Pro with it.

I don't mean replace, but to compliment I guess. But why buy an iPad when I can carry around my Macbook? It does more, I have full control, and then what...?

I have my cellphone, and I have my laptop. Where does the iPad come in?

[Silock]

I dunno. I see how it's not at all useful for some people. But for me, I just toss it in my bag and take it to school without worrying about batteries because it lasts for damn near 12 hours. I can stream movies from my home computer over the internet to my iPad, as well as music. I can surf all the sites I need to. It's much easier to read PDF files that are thousand pages long with it than on a computer.

All of that stuff you CAN do on a computer, and more. But for me, it's pretty damn handy to have around. I totally get why other people wouldn't care for it, though.

[|Zach|]

The form factor is perfect for me personally.

[irishjayhawk]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

WOW... just wow. You are so out of your element Donnie...

#1 I was being sarcastic, I never "saw your point" because you never made a valid one... HTML4 CAN NOT SERVE VIDEO PERIOD. FLASH or QT or WHATEVER can serve video... so Jobs and his deuchey minions can WANT AND WISH AND HOPE for the iPad to be able to watch web video all they want... but it won't make it happen because the iPad doesn't support the necessary plugins... and HTML5 is NOT ****ING HERE YET.

I have not been defending Flash, I have been attacking a lack of Flash support as a good idea by Apple... BIG DIFFERENCE.

And don't comment on VP8.. what the **** is YT support? YouTube? You do realize Google owns YouTube and can convert the entire library over to VP8 in a matter of days, right?

Ok, I'm done, this has gotten silly, you clearly don't have a clue and at this point you are arguing based on the reality you WANT to exist not the observable one we actually are stuck with.

http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/01/h-2...8TechCrunch%29

Earlier this week, Steve Jobs kicked the debate about the need for Flash into high gear, especially for Web video. As he explained, Apple products like the iPhone and iPad don’t support Flash because although 75 percent of video on the Web is in Flash ” almost all this video is also available in a more modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones, iPods and iPads.” The next day, Microsoft weighed in, saying that Internet Explorer 9 would only support the H.264 codec for HTML video.

So how much video exactly is available in H.264? I asked Encoding.com, which has encoded 5 million videos over the past year for a variety of Websites and customers including MTV Networks, WebMD, Brightcove, Nokia, MySpace, and Red Bull. President Jeff Malkin sent me the chart above, which he believes is representative of the Web in general, including mobile. As the chart shows, in the past four quarters, the H.264 format went from 31 percent of all videos to 66 percent, and is now the largest format by far. Meanwhile, Flash is represented by Flash VP6 and FLV, which combined represent only 26 percent of all videos. That is down from a combined total of 69 percent four quarters ago. So the native Flash codecs and H.264 have completely flipped in terms of market share (Flash also supports H.264, however, but you don’t need a Flash player to watch H.264 videos)

Another data point that Steve Jobs mentions: All YouTube videos are available in H.264, which alone represents 40 percent of all videos on the Web. So these numbers from Encoding don’t seem so crazy.

All of these codecs and formats can seem like gobbledy gook. Malkin offers the following to explain the differences:

The formats can be confusing between containers and codecs. FLV is the Flash container with the old H.263 codec. Flash VP6 is the Flash container with the VP6 codec. H.264 is a codec that is utilized in a number of different containers (.FLV, .MP4, .MOV) and on Apple mobile devices and when deployed by browsers for HTML5. Microsoft just announced that IE will use H.264 as the default codec for HTML5. And, Google will be soon offering the VP8 codec as open source which will add another formidable flag in the format wars.

They make my exact argument and not only that but don't dispute the numbers you dispute with Jobs. I'm not saying TC is the end all be all, far from it, but I do know what I'm talking about - technicalities aside, which you've proven more knowledgeable on.

Originally Posted by WoodDraw

You guys are on fringe land. I get where both sides are coming from, but both your arguments are meaningless to end consumers.

Actually, I'm essentially making the consumers' argument. From a practical standpoint, they aren't missing much video purchasing an Apple device RIGHT NOW.

Unless Google can make a hardware move that counters Apple on the smartphone and tablet market, they'll have to capitulate. They can play hardball, but google survives off of advertising, not people downloading Chrome.

Actually, I'm not so sure about that. I think they can make Android a viable product. The main problem with it is fragmentation which I've mentioned in here or in another thread.

Yes, they won't make any money off Chrome but they do make boatloads off ads and they can make money off their OS if they play their cards right.

Having said that, if they took the vertical approach Apple has with the key difference being "open" on the app/software front, they'd have a considerable product. But google, thus far, hasn't been interested in that. They've outsourced the hardware building - HTC, for example.

**** Apple, and everything they've done with the iPad. I think it's a shit product, as far as anything I'd buy. But they've made a huge success out of the iPhone OS product. So more power to them.

Google, it's your turn.

What would have made the iPad better in your opinion?

As I've said numerous times, I don't think the current iteration is something that's for me. I just wonder what you wanted more of/less of, etc.