Steve Jobs at Apple Town Hall Meeting, Google, Adobe, Next iPhone, 2010 Macs and More

[ViViDboarder]

Flash CS5 has a feature to turn a flash application into an iphone compatible app

I also saw a demo where they made a flash animation and turned into a HTML5 canvas animation. I'm not sure yet if you can take a game and convert it though.

Needless to say a lot of things can be converted easily. And I am sure there will be more programs after CS5 releases that can do more.

But converting something to an "App" is not a very good solution for a webpage.

If you run a webpage and you want to make your app you gotta convert it to an App and then pay Apple $99/year to host it and then either take the hit or charge your users.

 

[Denarius]

Right, but again... you're looking at it from a technology perspective, and a bit of a political one too. This may be true, but what good is an open standard if the creative tools are not there? Flash is a great environment to work in. Whether you're a developer or an animator, the possibilities are endless. In order for the content producers to give up Flash, there would have to be a production environment that's as good as or better than Flash, and the end result must look as good as or better than Flash. If people were crazy about open standards/platforms and were keen on not giving up control to one company, they would all flock to Linux and avoid Windows and OS X like the plague.

Also, once the rich media content leaves the Flash sandbox and becomes one with the HTML, how will you guard yourself against it? How will you block that content? How many minutes of battery time will your iPhone have when all those animated banners that used to show up as blue Lego pieces will now be an inescapable part of the HTML?

Yes, I agree, Flash is useful, but the good of an open standard is that it is open and will remain so indefinitely. I was reading about the early days of MP3 and GIF, both of which are subject to IP rights (GIF has expired I believe). Initially, both owners were very generous with regard to licensing. As they became thoroughly embedded in the web, though, the goal posts were changed and the owners were raking in the royalties and they were well within their rights to do so because they owned the rights and weren't under any obligation to continue to give it away if they didn't want to. Everyone sleepwalked into a situation where any software developers that wanted to support those technologies, which was essentially a must for any credible piece of software, could be held to ransom by the IP owners.

I've no problem with using IPs to complement the web, but what I've outlined is why creating a web that is dependent on an IP should be avoided at all costs in my view.

 

[Anuba]

Yes, I agree, Flash is useful, but the good of an open standard is that it is open and will remain so indefinitely. I was reading about the early days of MP3 and GIF, both of which are subject to IP rights (GIF has expired I believe). Initially, both owners were very generous with regard to licensing. As they became thoroughly embedded in the web, though, the goal posts were changed and the owners were raking in the royalties and they were well within their rights to do so because they owned the rights and weren't under any obligation to continue to give it away if they didn't want to.

Yeah, those are two good examples of why proprietary formats are bad. But they're also examples of how difficult it is to kill a de facto standard, even if the alternative is both superior and an open standard. MP3 still rules supreme, even with superior alternatives like OGG and AAC. GIF and JPG still rule supreme, even though PNG is there for anyone to use and has been supported by browsers for ages. The MP3 codec is 16 years old. The GIF format is 23 years old. So why would the 14 year old Flash format go away any faster? Things that are as massively widespread and supported as Flash just won't die. Even a 2 year worldwide Flash boycott wouldn't kill it. But Steve thinks he can kill it with an oversized iPod Touch?

 

[HiRez]

uh.....my nokia e71 has had copy paste since day one. it allows multitasking. plays divx. flash works fine via skyfire. etc.

youre comments are untrue.

Sure, you can pick out a few features the iPhone does not or didn't have. Obviously I'm not saying it has every feature every other phone does. But it does what most people need their smartphone to do as good or better than competitors. Apple redefined what a smartphone is. If you think all these new phones by Palm, Google, RIM, etc. would be anything like they are without the iPhone, if you think they would have come up with all the things you take for granted (view-stack navigation, smooth flick/touch scrolling with "snap-back" overscrolling, pinch gestures, using the accelerometer, "visual" voicemail, actual usable apps -- especially web browsing -- with an on-phone app store, easy photo, music, and video management and syncing, etc.) by themselves, you're delusional.

As far as Flash, yeah, I haven't missed it.

 

[Denarius]

But Steve thinks he can kill it with an oversized iPod Touch?

lol, I suspect he's being a bit overoptimistic there as well. I do agree that nothing will kill off Flash any time soon and I'm content for it to be so, but I'll be happy to see the open video standard arrive.

 

[cmaier]

The aspect I immediately think of is the position with iTunes and the iPod where if you buy another music player then you're locked out of iTunes and if you want to buy your music elsewhere then it's at least a big faff to get your music on your iPod.

iTunes downloads no longer have DRM. I buy music from amazon all the time and it automatically is added to my iTunes library and synced to my iPod. If I choose not to use an iPod, all I have to do is point my non-Apple mp3 player at my music directory and use whatever software the mp3 player comes with/uses. I don't see an actual problem here, unless you think iTunes should mount all non-Apple mp3 players as if they are iPods.

 

[puffnstuff]

But converting something to an "App" is not a very good solution for a webpage.

If you run a webpage and you want to make your app you gotta convert it to an App and then pay Apple $99/year to host it and then either take the hit or charge your users.

Did you see the second part of my comment?

Yes you can take games and convert them into itunes store Apps. But you may also be able to convert them in HTML5 <canvas>. I only saw a demo where they took an animation and changed it so I am not sure if you will be able to do so with games. Games would be a lot more complicated but I am sure something is in the works and with Apple standing firm on the no Flash thing Adobe will try.

 

[fleggy]

Why would they be bothered about flash games when they have a huge app store full with games?

Your missing the point. I believe Apple are marketing the iPad between a cell phone and a laptop. Agreed?

The "best web browsing experience..." in SJ words.

This will attract A LOT of new Apple customers (the netbook market), which is folks who like social media, and yes...Facebook. FB is huge, and the games are huge too. Let's say this was a good solution for my parents (not tech minded). They would be VERY upset at not playing Farmville and the countless other "rubbish" games (IMHO). They would revert to netbooks.

That particular "market" will forgive shortcomings on an iPhone or similar device, because the mentality of the market is..."oh it's only small, it can't do the internet" (not tech savvy). The way iPad is being pitched? They simply won't forgive that "best experience" line.

Face facts: Flash is NOT going away because SJ says so. Whether we would all agree is again, irrelevant.

No developer is going to turn down a customers money until there is a viable alternative. Today...there is promise, but nothing "commercially" viable.

Hmmm. Spend a crazy amount of time figuring it out in HTML5 (limited in their creativity and would take longer), or knock up a Flash alternative (get the money in the bank and find next customer)?

I'm no developer (obviously - and I may be wrong), but hey! Money talks.

I AM a customer to a lot of developers and if they try to charge me MORE based on implementation of new technology, for which I (the customer) would see little to zero value...I would say no.

 

[Maserati7200]

The outrage over Apple's hardware prices comes from the fact that they feature *the same* components as regular PCs, the same CPU, the same GPU, the same hard drives -- not merely similar, but the same. You can't apply that to a software product because Office isn't made up of little Office bits manufactured by NVidia, Intel, LG and Fujitsu.

The thing is, people often say that Apple's are generally more expensive than their PC counterpart, even people who are pro Apple say that, expect the pro apple people justify paying more. But in reality, if you actually compare spec for spec, and compare computers in the same category, Macs aren't more expensive and sometimes a little cheaper. The reason people think Macs are more expensive is because they don't make computers that are low in price, while others do. For example, people may say that the iMac is overpriced because you could get those same specs on a $800 PC. But you haven't considered the fact that it's harder to make an all in one. And other companies such as HP's make all in ones too, and guess what, the iMac has better specs for a a better price.

And please watch these three videos that prove my point here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRb2hbK6eVc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2De6B0Vg_Z4&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEYqhrJD7zo&feature=channel

 

[Journojulz]

If someone loved farmville and had just bought an ipad - i reckon half would gladly pay 59p for the app.

And as there is a group of a million wanting an iphone farmville app, that is 500k x £.59 less apple's 30% - that is £206,000.

As you say - Money talks.

 

[scotteh]

light peak/ usb3 to be on a better mac of the next level?

 

[fleggy]

If someone loved farmville and had just bought an ipad - i reckon half would gladly pay 59p for the app.

And as there is a group of a million wanting an iphone farmville app, that is 500k x £.59 less apple's 30% - that is £206,000.

As you say - Money talks.

So why is that being left on the table then? Why have they not done it?

You quoted the revenue side, now tell me the cost side. How much will it cost from your initial thoughts, till the time you are breaking even? How long until you recognize that GBP 206K?

Perhaps they WILL create a "no flash" version when the iPad comes out - AND is apopted. From a consumer standpoint; why would I start paying for something that is free today? To justify my iPad purchase? I doubt it.

Oh - and how much revenue do they lose by not having ads?

 

[Journojulz]

So why is that being left on the table then? Why have they not done it?

Media piracy and competition for the app store. That's the sticking point.

When sites are streaming bootleg movies with flash - this hurts the distributors the itunes store needs.

If people can ply free apps - this hurts the app developers.

[/QUOTE]You quoted the revenue side, now tell me the cost side. How much will it cost from your initial thoughts, till the time you are breaking even? How long until you recognize that GBP 206K?[/QUOTE]

Flash now has an "export to app" button, do not very much.

From a consumer standpoint; why would I start paying for something that is free today? To justify my iPad purchase? I doubt it.

If you want a great gadget that reads your emails, lets you word process, watch your movies and browses the web smoothly with tons of great games - you are already in the habit of spending a quid here and there.

As i say - not everyone will put up with the lack of flash - but there is always another web page, another app

Oh - and how much revenue do they lose by not having ads?

None if they change to any of the alternatives like animated gifs etc.

The advertisers will choose whether iPad and iPhone customers are market they want to reach....

 

[AidenShaw]

blah, blah, blah

There's that background noise again....

 

[MorphingDragon]

There's that background noise again....

Must of left my two-tone white noise generator on again.

 

[BillyBobBongo]

None if they change to any of the alternatives like animated gifs etc.

I can't see advertisers going back to animated gifs. I think what you will see is more adverts before videos to ensure no loss of revenue. It's a simple piece of code that calls in a video advert before the video plays and it's highly lucrative.

Advertisers will always find a way to bombard you with their messages.

 

[MorphingDragon]

iTunes downloads no longer have DRM. I buy music from amazon all the time and it automatically is added to my iTunes library and synced to my iPod. If I choose not to use an iPod, all I have to do is point my non-Apple mp3 player at my music directory and use whatever software the mp3 player comes with/uses. I don't see an actual problem here, unless you think iTunes should mount all non-Apple mp3 players as if they are iPods.

Most MP3 players play AAC now and even OGG on occasion.

 

[Journojulz]

Advertisers will always find a way to bombard you with their messages.

Yes. They are always looking for that edge over the competition.

They know that is selling a lot of smartphones to people with disposable income, and know that the iPad is generating a lot of buzz and could be huge.

So will they be pitching flash ads to their clients?

Or will they be looking at all those blue lego bricks and planning how to capitalise on it?

Same with media streaming sites that need ad revenue.
Will they be looking at ways to tap into this new market with an app like youtube?

And as for the 2% websites that actually use flash to create innovative and beautiful sites?
They too will be asking if hitting the "export for App" button might be a way to move their businesses forward.

Businesses that survive do so by going where the markets are.

And those that decide they are more loyal to money than flash, will have definite advantage in reaching a rich market.

 

[xbjllb]

I have little question;

I am really want to know.... what do they mean by NEXT LEVEL??

Exactly what it's been since the day Jobs came back; LCD. Lowest Common Denominator. The quick cheap buck, only at an Apple premium based solely on momentum and not true innovation. C'mon, the iPod was nothing more than the 60's transistor radio fad of the last decade. Free music; Who knew?

Excellent rant.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be, is it?

Actually, it's much more profitable than it's ever been. But thanks.

Well done, sir. Agreed.

Thanks. Hopefully it will end up yet another memo at Cupertino; for Jobs to poop on.

HEY... LOOKIE WHAT I JUST BOUGHT!

http://www2.panasonic.com/consumer-electronics/shop/Video/Blu-ray-Disc-Players/model.DMP-B15K

More of my money NOT going to Apple. For an iPod, an iPhone, an iPad or any other iPOS, or a ludicrous 2005 technology Mac Pro.

 

[fleggy]

I can't see advertisers going back to animated gifs. I think what you will see is more adverts before videos to ensure no loss of revenue. It's a simple piece of code that calls in a video advert before the video plays and it's highly lucrative.

Advertisers will always find a way to bombard you with their messages.

Guys...I don't expect ANY ads, be it animated gifs or videos prior to loading my game if I have PAID for it (perhaps some cross selling from the production company). Developers will lose out on that thin slice of ad revenue in the iPad platform.

Revenue from ads is only for FREE games, where the consumer expects to see them.

So, a developer (let's continue with Farmville), will have to re-write it to get it on the iPad, and then start charging for it (with Apple's 30% or whatever hosting).

Then you have to get someone to buy it, that could, with another device....get it for free. The incentive is not great, is it?

If there is little to no incentive for developers, (and call me out if I am wrong), then the iPad experience will be lacking for this netbook market.

It may make the iPad less successful than it no doubt can be.

Whether that hurts Apple a little or a lot, only time will tell.

 

[cmaier]

Guys...I don't expect ANY ads, be it animated gifs or videos prior to loading my game if I have PAID for it (perhaps some cross selling from the production company).

I'm okay with ads in paid games if they're done cleverly. In a sports game, realistic billboards with real products, or in a FPS scenery that has real products in it. But, yeah, banners and splash screen ads and such in a paid game is a real turn-off. Just charge me the full price and ditch the ads.

 

[bolmsted]

Honestly I don't know why people want blu-ray in their notebooks so badly

With video streaming and downloading what is the point?

People such as myself are not buying/renting DVDs unless it is only available on BluRay and it would be good to be able to take a BluRay (that you may watch at home) with you on the go since DVD is going away.

Video stream/downloading of HD content isn't feasible at this point with the same quality (both video+sound) that BluRay provides.... a BluRay provides 25-30GB per movie for 1080p resolution + HD Audio Codecs (DTS Master Audio, Dolby TrueHD).

Also, I don't know where you live but here they charge for extra bandwidth consumed by most service providers and the independents that are buying wholesale from the big boys are going to be squeezed and limited bandwidth charges.

I for one want a physical copy of my favourite movies so I don't have to download (and pay for them) over and over again and the convenience of having it everywhere on the spot and not having to wait hours to download it and using electricity+bandwidth to do it.

When it is instantaneous for downloads it might be a different matter but again I don't want to have to have a huge hard drive with a single point of failure (unless I setup a raid drive setup for home purposes) to store my movies and don't want to have to redownload/repay for them..

Call me old fashion but I like to have the physical media to look at / feel.

 

[DMann]

There's that background noise again....

Yet, quite consistently, he who denies it, supplies it.

 

[charlituna]

I can't see advertisers going back to animated gifs.

lets really go old school. back to the days before all the annoying ads. especially the ones that take over your screen and make you hunt for the close button that they didn't put in the corner where it is expected just so you have to wait for them to expose it over half way through.

i particularly love the ones that sort of float over the page. those are soooo awesome.

 

[kobewankenobi]

Does anyone see why the investors booted him out of his own company the first time?

Because they are idiots?
enlighten us with your wisdom