SMELTN Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 iPad will not fail because Steve Colbert was using it on the Grammy's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the evn show Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 Yep, but the video element was the one being mentioned here, and unless they get some agreement on the codec, the spec would have to be ratified without the video element. The spec will go forward without defining required formats (just as IMG in every version of HTML and XHTML went forward without requiring or even recommending certain formats). Hixie (the current HTML 5 spec. editor) has written about it at length on the working group mailing list and on his personal site. Consensus on a list of required formats for encoded video is neither desired nor required for HTML5 to move forward with the video element. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMELTN Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 You know the more I think about it the more I am ok without Flash. Hell I think Apple is even ahead of the game here, with HTML5. Honestly I think multitasking COULD be there, but I think the problem is stability of apps and making the phone sluggish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 You know the more I think about it the more I am ok without Flash. Hell I think Apple is even ahead of the game here, with HTML5. Honestly I think multitasking COULD be there, but I think the problem is stability of apps and making the phone sluggish If there is one thing about the iPad that everybody seems to be in agreement over, it's the speed of the device. Multitasking is more of a case of when, rather than if. It's likely that iPhone (iOS?) 4.0 will launch in the summer, along with new iPhone hardware that is also capable of multitasking (probably powered by another Apple chip). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subject Delta Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 The spec will go forward without defining required formats (just as IMG in every version of HTML and XHTML went forward without requiring or even recommending certain formats). Hixie (the current HTML 5 spec. editor) has written about it at length on the working group mailing list and on his personal site. Consensus on a list of required formats for encoded video is neither desired nor required for HTML5 to move forward with the video element. Fair enough, thanks for the heads up on that. If there is one thing about the iPad that everybody seems to be in agreement over, it's the speed of the device. Multitasking is more of a case of when, rather than if. It isn't like a device with a 1GHZ CPU being fast is an achievement if it can only run a single app at a time, that would be like saying a go kart would go fast with a Formula 1 engine attatched to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*RedBull* Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Let's end this thread here. Plain and simple, the iPad is a failure from the get go. I mean only a freaking MORON would pay 500 for a device in this day and age that can do only a limited number of things, and then only one at a time. Whoever said that while using the iPad was a great experience, was smoking weed at the time. I don't think they do drug tests at Apple. :shiftyninja: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boz Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Let's end this thread here. Plain and simple, the iPad is a failure from the get go. I mean only a freaking MORON would pay 500 for a device in this day and age that can do only a limited number of things, and then only one at a time. Whoever said that while using the iPad was a great experience, was smoking weed at the time. I don't think they do drug tests at Apple. :shiftyninja: Well let's look at this way.. iPad will not be a failure. Here's how Apple operates and always have. 1. They think of a device. They take in consideration EVERYTHING that a device should do and what competition does and what they can do. 2. Then they see how fast others are progressing in this field (for example, PC tablets like iPad haven't really been on the market until a LOT of manufacturers started making them last year but still haven't released it they were all prototypes). So Apple saw them, and said, "Ok, this market will get saturated and we need to released this type of tablet first". 3. Now they know they don't have all the features in but that's their hook. They will be the first to the market, enough people will buy it to pay for the first round of hardware and costs of manufacturing and they will release and iPad 2nd Gen that will have most of the features they should have had and that those same tablet PCs that were in prototype will offer but they already got a certain piece of the market. 4. Keep in mind that most of the things people find unacceptable are software (multi-tasking, flash or whatever). The camera is really not such an issue for them because it adds almost nothing to production costs, I'm pretty sure they already planned for it but simply don't find relevant because the first wave of adopters (wives and Apple hardcore fans) will pick it up as it is and use it as an entertainment device (read books, magazine, run an app here and there and browse web). They don't care about the camera. What they do care about is taking the product out there first, claiming they invented this category and their marketing and PR will do the rest. And look what they are already doing. You have a bunch of bloggers who are in tech world already writing articles how iPad is the best thing out there, the future etc etc and completely dismiss Android and a plethora devices that will hit the market Q2/Q3/Q4 2010 that were in production for a longer time than iPad and have everything included that iPad doesn't have. 5. Since Apple is the first to the market the 2nd gen iPad will be a success and their real sales will take off but by that time it will cost them nothing. Pure profit and as an added bonus, they will have a bunch of iPad apps already built by the same devs that build software for iPhone/iTouch. These guys are not stupid. The company is not worth $178 billion for no reason. Whether what they are doing is good for consumers, that's another story but as a company they are very well calculated and know exactly what they are doing. Their biggest enemy and a company that Steve Jobs absolutely despises is Google. That's their REAL competitor and enemy because it's complete opposite of what Apple is doing (closed vs open platform) and the company is growing by leaps and bounds. This scares them. Damian and SMELTN 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argi Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 All they have to do is lift the restrictions on installing our own software and allow me to stream my Xvid and MKV files to it and I'd practically be sold on one, heh. ?Lock it down though and there's 0 interest from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliott Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Let's end this thread here. Plain and simple, the iPad is a failure from the get go. I mean only a freaking MORON would pay 500 for a device in this day and age that can do only a limited number of things, and then only one at a time. Whoever said that while using the iPad was a great experience, was smoking weed at the time. I don't think they do drug tests at Apple. :shiftyninja: I paid $300 for a device that can do one thing at a time and I love it. I looked at the other options (webOS and Android) and came to the consensus of "Meh". I consider myself a power user, but I love my iPhone, and I will probably get an iPad for the same reasons I love my iPhone. Sure, it's a big iPod touch, but that's exactly what I imagined in the first place. It gives you more room and lets you take advantage of a pretty large multitouch screen. The possibility for amazing apps on this thing is endless. Anybody who thought it was going to run a desktop OS was just deluding themselves. I think Apple will be able to do multitasking the right way whenever they release it, but I don't think it's even close to being a necessity. With the way iPhone OS apps are designed, and with how fast the iPad and iPhone 3GS are, you almost forget the thing isn't multitasking unless you're listening to Pandora or Spotify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMELTN Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Great wall of text +1 Rep for that. I agree with you 100% here. (Y) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 It isn't like a device with a 1GHZ CPU being fast is an achievement if it can only run a single app at a time, that would be like saying a go kart would go fast with a Formula 1 engine attatched to it. The chip was clearly designed with multitasking in mind. The iPad is blazingly fast, there's no way it'll stay limited to single processes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Well let's look at this way.. iPad will not be a failure. Here's how Apple operates and always have. 1. They think of a device. They take in consideration EVERYTHING that a device should do and what competition does and what they can do. 2. Then they see how fast others are progressing in this field (for example, PC tablets like iPad haven't really been on the market until a LOT of manufacturers started making them last year but still haven't released it they were all prototypes). So Apple saw them, and said, "Ok, this market will get saturated and we need to released this type of tablet first". 3. Now they know they don't have all the features in but that's their hook. They will be the first to the market, enough people will buy it to pay for the first round of hardware and costs of manufacturing and they will release and iPad 2nd Gen that will have most of the features they should have had and that those same tablet PCs that were in prototype will offer but they already got a certain piece of the market. 4. Keep in mind that most of the things people find unacceptable are software (multi-tasking, flash or whatever). The camera is really not such an issue for them because it adds almost nothing to production costs, I'm pretty sure they already planned for it but simply don't find relevant because the first wave of adopters (wives and Apple hardcore fans) will pick it up as it is and use it as an entertainment device (read books, magazine, run an app here and there and browse web). They don't care about the camera. What they do care about is taking the product out there first, claiming they invented this category and their marketing and PR will do the rest. And look what they are already doing. You have a bunch of bloggers who are in tech world already writing articles how iPad is the best thing out there, the future etc etc and completely dismiss Android and a plethora devices that will hit the market Q2/Q3/Q4 2010 that were in production for a longer time than iPad and have everything included that iPad doesn't have. 5. Since Apple is the first to the market the 2nd gen iPad will be a success and their real sales will take off but by that time it will cost them nothing. Pure profit and as an added bonus, they will have a bunch of iPad apps already built by the same devs that build software for iPhone/iTouch. These guys are not stupid. The company is not worth $178 billion for no reason. Whether what they are doing is good for consumers, that's another story but as a company they are very well calculated and know exactly what they are doing. Their biggest enemy and a company that Steve Jobs absolutely despises is Google. That's their REAL competitor and enemy because it's complete opposite of what Apple is doing (closed vs open platform) and the company is growing by leaps and bounds. This scares them. +1. Great post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digitalx Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 unlike portable mp3 player which at the time was unknown ground but paid off due to natural progression. ipad has no focus, direction or purpose in a minimal existing business/enterprise niche market and has been poorly implemented in more ways then one..the only way it would be a success if people wasted money for sake of sympathy or guilt for piece of useless crap which is the ipad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subject Delta Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 I paid $300 for a device that can do one thing at a time and I love it. I looked at the other options (webOS and Android) and came to the consensus of "Meh". Funny really, owning both I personally came to the other consensus, but then I guess a watered down, locked down, one dimensional piece of hardware isn't really something that sells itself to me as great. The chip was clearly designed with multitasking in mind. The iPad is blazingly fast, there's no way it'll stay limited to single processes. Personally I think the chip was designed to that Apple could gloss up the spec to make the device look more attractive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zagor Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 Funny really, owning both I personally came to the other consensus, but then I guess a watered down, locked down, one dimensional piece of hardware isn't really something that sells itself to me as great. Personally I think the chip was designed to that Apple could gloss up the spec to make the device look more attractive. Having seen what google has achieved with android, I don't think my next phone will be an Iphone. Thankfully, competition caught up with apple and even surpassed them. Now, I will wait to see what microsoft has to offer and make a choice between windows 7 mobile or android. I don't think I will go back to iphone. The whole apple business model is against consumers. PS: the A4 chip is not designed by apple from ground-up. Most probably, it is licensed and then modified to suit their needs. Besides, there are no benchmarks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_c_b Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 The iPad is an awful idea and Apple will relegate it to the "also ran" pile with the Apple TV and the MacBook Air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Growled Member Posted February 4, 2010 Member Share Posted February 4, 2010 The iPad is an awful idea and Apple will relegate it to the "also ran" pile with the Apple TV and the MacBook Air. You sure enough about that to bet all your money on it? I'm not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PreKe Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 Video, you mean that thing that's the reason why people are calling HTML5 a flash killer. No, HTML5 has more. Like Canvas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argonite Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 No, HTML5 has more. Like Canvas. HTML5 has more, but the video tag is the reason it's being hailed as a Flash killer. After all, with standardized video, why would YouTube have to use Flash anymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fix-this! Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 http://digg.com/apple/Why_the_iPod_will_fail_a_MacRumors_forum_thread_from_2001 We have an article on the main page saying the iPad will fail, but keep in mind almost everything that was released there was always speculation that the product will fail miserably. Look at that link and see for yourself on a bunch of pages people saying they wont pay $300-400 for just an mp3 player, etc and obviously you're well aware of how successful it really is now I just think its useless to argue about if a product will fail. In many things it's obvious such as that Sarcasm mark (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/6995354/Sarcasm-punctuation-mark-aims-to-put-an-end-to-email-confusion.html) anyways i think its just a waste of time to argue if it will fail, lets just wait and see how it'll do, failure isnt even viable for apple...and im a pure windows guy. a product will only fail in my opinion if something is wrong with it or is useless, both of things do not apply to the iPad (could possibly have a manuf defect but doubt?) What do you think? Won't it just succeed? Is it a waste of time to speculate "failure" sounds like something people do to get user participation/hits on websites etc. i think the ipad will most certainly fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zagor Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 The chip was clearly designed with multitasking in mind. The iPad is blazingly fast, there's no way it'll stay limited to single processes. how do you know the chip is blazingly fast? There are no benchmarks! And, in this day and age opening a web browser or a pdf file is hardly a difficult job for any low power processor. I know, some will claim that Ipad can do HD videos. 720P is hardly any news nowadays... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drshdw Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 how do you know the chip is blazingly fast? There are no benchmarks! And, in this day and age opening a web browser or a pdf file is hardly a difficult job for any low power processor. I know, some will claim that Ipad can do HD videos. 720P is hardly any news nowadays... The iPhone 3GS can do 1080p.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zagor Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 The iPhone 3GS can do 1080p.. well, it can not. I suggest you go back to those discussions and see what all it was about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drshdw Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 well, it can not. I suggest you go back to those discussions and see what all it was about. Work in progress? http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/20/iphone-3gs-totally-capable-of-1080p-video-playback/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts