Are you familiar with the evolution of the browser ?. Had developers decided to create based on "what's already there" we wouldn't even have flash in a browser. ANY kind of browser.
What we are witnessing is the evolution of browsing.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPad Promotional Video and Images Show Properly-Displayed Flash Content
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Are you familiar with the evolution of the browser ?. Had developers decided to create based on "what's already there" we wouldn't even have flash in a browser. ANY kind of browser.
What we are witnessing is the evolution of browsing.
Well you might be, but with Flash being such a ubiquitous part of the internet it is beyond comprehension as to why it does not work on this so called internet capable machine.
If Apple has indeed fudged the screen shots then this just makes the situation much much worse and shame on them for doing it.
Because when M$ does it, it's wrong, and people go insane about it. But when Apple does it, it's that they "are in business to make money". OK... Sure. Why does Apple LIE about Flash? Just say the truth, it will cut into our profit$. I don't think that would sound too popular now would it?
The 'flash image' in the advertisement has been edited. If you look at the real image located:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/travel/10places.html
the image is of much lower contrast and color saturation than the one show in the ad. That image was super imposed. What they probably did was save the page as HTML, replace the flash content with an edited JPG, then threw it on the iPad and filmed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/travel/10places.html
the image is of much lower contrast and color saturation than the one show in the ad. That image was super imposed. What they probably did was save the page as HTML, replace the flash content with an edited JPG, then threw it on the iPad and filmed.
Stop with the camera thing already! Just imagine yourself trying to hold this rather large device to take a picture. Ludicrous, ungainly, laughable! Get the "picture"? The iPad would be virtually unusable as a camera. Even with both hands.
What we are witnessing is Apple's forced way of making people follow their way of doing things. Sometimes it works for the best but when you have spent time and money on working with a standard this is nothing short of dictatorship. It's damn lame. Plus what the hell is so difficult about making these devices Flash friendly?
my point... bypass the first release of this pad... make it flop so they will do a decent job on rev. 2
Exactly. Maybe Apple wouldn't treat Adobe like a b**** if they hired some people who know how to write software. They've been shipping an unacceptable version of flash for Mac for what, ten years?
How powerful does a computer need to be to run a tiny video? It amazes me that I can run fluid HD fullscreen in Quicktime, or open a folder full of movies and play them all at once no problem, but a little 400px low-res movie on youtube is giving me about 8 frames/second, and firing up all of my fans.
Stop with the camera thing already! Just imagine yourself trying to hold this rather large device to take a picture. Ludicrous, ungainly, laughable! Get the "picture"? The iPad would be virtually unusable as a camera. Even with both hands.
front facing for vid. conferencing. being able to take pics of docs would be nice.... and there really is an app for that... makes them pdf's. not on the pad though... no cam.
Those complaining about lack of Flash remind me of the same people who complained when Apple stopped using the floppy drive, and when they went to USB as a standard.
Everyone on the forums was absolutely up in arms for a few months...
...until they realized it was all old technology that Apple was helping to push out the door for newer, better technology.
I use ClickToFlash on my MacBook to disable Flash in 99% of cases because it's slow, makes my computer heat up big-time (and gets the fans revving loud), and more often than not crashes my browser. You know what's most commonly blocked out by it? Annoying Flash ads.
In other words, Flash is a proprietary, cludgy solution for a problem that's being resolved by HTML5. Is everyone on board with HTML5 yet? Not quite, but the same way that Apple got everyone to stop using floppies, and to move over to USB, they're doing with HTML5 adoption.
Apple is NOT worried about competition from Flash apps digging into App Store revenue. Are you kidding me? Is there a such thing as well-built, nicely-interfaced Flash apps out there? They're usually clunky, SLOW, unstable gimmicks, rather than actual useful apps. Google doesn't even use Flash for their suite of web apps.
Apple is only concerned with pushing Flash out the door as a technology faster than it would be naturally, so that we can all move on to HTML5 a little sooner. And I'm more than happy to see it happen.
Everyone on the forums was absolutely up in arms for a few months...
...until they realized it was all old technology that Apple was helping to push out the door for newer, better technology.
I use ClickToFlash on my MacBook to disable Flash in 99% of cases because it's slow, makes my computer heat up big-time (and gets the fans revving loud), and more often than not crashes my browser. You know what's most commonly blocked out by it? Annoying Flash ads.
In other words, Flash is a proprietary, cludgy solution for a problem that's being resolved by HTML5. Is everyone on board with HTML5 yet? Not quite, but the same way that Apple got everyone to stop using floppies, and to move over to USB, they're doing with HTML5 adoption.
Apple is NOT worried about competition from Flash apps digging into App Store revenue. Are you kidding me? Is there a such thing as well-built, nicely-interfaced Flash apps out there? They're usually clunky, SLOW, unstable gimmicks, rather than actual useful apps. Google doesn't even use Flash for their suite of web apps.
Apple is only concerned with pushing Flash out the door as a technology faster than it would be naturally, so that we can all move on to HTML5 a little sooner. And I'm more than happy to see it happen.
Producing a device that isn't even compliant with today's media technologies isn't evolution. It's regression. Designing for the future is fine, but when this "magical" tablet can't display half the stuff already here, it's nothing short of embarrassing.
I guess a camera isn't in the evolution process either? You know, for like video chats? Or is that just too 2008 for you?
C'mon man, get real.Stop with the camera thing already! Just imagine yourself trying to hold this rather large device to take a picture. Ludicrous, ungainly, laughable! Get the "picture"? The iPad would be virtually unusable as a camera. Even with both hands.
What's with the camera? Well it's certainly not about taking photos
How about making this device useful for video conferencing and Skyping etc.
One of the big reasons I keep hearing that this "thing" has a purpose is for replacing Mums computer that she can't use or under uses, Well my mum would go for this if it had a camera so she can Skype with her grandkids. Without she loses one of her favorite reasons for even using a computer. I think the lack of a cam is a big deal indeed.
I thought the same a couple of times recently...
But many people don't like criticism on this site. And yes, there are quality problems. Apart from the flickering issues, the iMacs have been reported to suffer from a number of quality issues.
https://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/2...o-address-screen-flickering-on-27-inch-imacs/
I haven't got any iMacs, but I've had some issues with 2 Airs, a plastic MB, a 2.53 GHz unibody MB Pro and a couple of 13" MBs and MB Pros. Of course, people just take it for granted that Macs work. Poor Steve and his colleagues had to keep saying during the keynote: "It just works."
Well, they might do most of the time. But with high-pitched CPU whine, overheating and crooked keyboards - just to mention a few issues - it's annoying to constantly hear it that how good that equipment is for a shedload of money.
My experience seems to agree with you on performance.
I used to be able to watch YouTube on my G3 iBook under Flash 8, I think it was. The upgrade to Flash 9 ended that. But I could still watch YouTube on my G4 mini - until Flash 10, and now I can't.
That makes no sense—you’re taking Apple’s often-repeated reputation for greed (vs. Microsoft and Adobe?) and working backwards to make the facts fit. But Apple delivers tons of free video via YouTube, and other video sources do so via their own free apps. Apple serves up TONS of free games, and pays the server costs while getting none of the ad revenue! So Apple loses money when you play a free iPhone game vs. playing a free Flash game.
You're right, for Apple it's not about saving us from buggy, slow, battery-burning Flash to "save the Internet." It's about:
a) Making the user experience better to boost hardware sales. (For all the clamor in tech forums, the absence of Flash doesn't actually ruin Apple's sales. Not like crashes, slowdowns and dead batteries would.)
b) Keeping the OS under Apple's control so that Apple can fix problems, add features, and even innovate at the deepest hidden levels, without needing Adobe's cooperation and being dependent on Adobe's quality control. (Read up on the problem of Flash still being 32-bit while Apple was trying to move OS X to 64-bit. It matters.) You could say "make Flash optional then" but if tons of Web sites install it anyway, that solves nothing. It's still part if the system, and when Flash fails or runs slowly (seriously--spend time with it on other mobile platforms or OS X) most people won't say "Flash sucks," they'll say "my iPad sucks."
c) Many/most Flash games, menus, and even video players would not even WORK on a touch device. They are coded to use button down/up events and rollovers--like video controls that pop up when you mouse over--that simply have no equivalent in touch. (Imagine what happens when you click a video—it pauses. Versus when you mouse over it without clicking: controls appear. Versus when you right-click—you get a menu with security settings. How does touch distinguish those three? It doesn’t without the Flash content being completely re-done for multitouch—in which case, just re-do it with HTML 5 or as a native app.) Plus Flash games apps often expect a single-pixel mouse arrow, not a finger touch, so the while UI, when it does work, would feel imprecise and frustrating. Is every Flash site going to reprogram everything to no longer use mouse-over functions and small button areas? No.
Better (for Apple) to forget those few who NEED Flash (or think they do) and let them buy something else--like a MacBook.
Yes, both a) and b) come down to money. They're still good reasons, though, so I don't expect them to change. These iPad videos are just careless mock-ups, and an embarrassment for Apple.
I’ll change my mind when Flash becomes efficient and stable, and every major Flash site re-writes all their Flash for multi-touch instead of mouse-over. It won’t happen.
People who think they need Flash on the iPad would HATE it if they actually got what they’re asking for and tried to use it.
Instead of lobbying Apple to include Flash support in the iPad we should be lobbying Adobe to make Flash open source!
i think you are an apple plant trying to fight the bad pr on here... don't fight the truth....
I agree wholeheartedly. I do wish Apple would iron out whatever the issues they have with Adobe. So weird, Adobe comes on stage a couple of years ago at a WWDC keynote and stated, "Without Apple, there would be no Adobe". How come Adobe still treats Apple's customers like crap? Somebody was smoking something that day, because Adobe is now being hypocritical.
In regards to someone else saying that without Flash they won't buy the iPad? Really? You mean some useless animations on the internet a few videos (and I mean a few, because some Flash content does play on my iPod Touch) won't play it's a dealbreaker? Really? You mean, everything else it does and all of the thousands of software titles available for it aren't enough to overshadow some stupid Flash video content (that you may not be interested in watching anyway) is enough to keep you from buying a $499 device that creams the Kindle dx left right and sideways? Well, get a Kindle or a slow dragging Windows 7 HP tablet and move on.
They probably added everything in post. The screen does not look that nice in person from every angle. It's pretty clear that the image is simulated. You can look at any of the hands on videos to see the shift in brightness/color on the screen.
Seems strange. There seems to be a polarized argument here. There are those that are saying the iPad needs Flash support (I'd prefer it did have some support for it) and those that say it does not need it, Flash should be dead.
The UNDENIABLE FACT remains that if Flash really was so 'unimportant' to Apple then why have your promotional material featuring Flash content ?
Of course the answer is that without doctoring those promo images - the web pages on display would have gaping holes in them. Hardly enticing for promotional advertising.
Therefore one could easily argue a case of 'false advertising'.
The UNDENIABLE FACT remains that if Flash really was so 'unimportant' to Apple then why have your promotional material featuring Flash content ?
Of course the answer is that without doctoring those promo images - the web pages on display would have gaping holes in them. Hardly enticing for promotional advertising.
Therefore one could easily argue a case of 'false advertising'.