Technology iPhone OS 4 event April 8th

S. Fourteen · Apr 14, 2010

Can any of you actually provide me a link to a useful site instead of like GE site that has a cute scribble animation or the Mark Ecko site with pictures that move in response to my cursor?
I still haven't seen actual evidence of Flash content that I need like news, information, video -- all I'm getting is 'gaping holes' 'gaping holes' 'gaping hole'. Where are these must have Flash content that I can't get without Flash?

http://www.streethop.com/forum/technology-games/228918-unofficial-mac-thread-5.html#post1053929

masta247 · Apr 14, 2010

lies. At best you have to first download these (or stream) in some shitty 3gp/mp4 quality.

I already gave you a lot of links, blind man!

edit: The Iphone version of youjizz (the site you posted) requires paid subscription while a normal version is free lmfao

S. Fourteen · Apr 14, 2010

^ yes, streamed in mp4 - no lies about it - I mentioned it before. It looks fine on 480x320 - not that I wack off with my iPhone. It's a counter to your '99% of porn sites'.

You are correct, YouJizz is subscription - I posted it as a demo of how a flash video can be streamed in mp4. PornHub does this without subscription - I can search for more free porn sites if you wish.

The issue with the sites you posted is that - although, they look pretty, they're not really sites that I wish to go to or need to. They don't really mean anything to me.

It's a different story if Google search results were crippled or if I couldn't watch YouTube videos

I guess I'll take the time just for you

Streams of images and music based on my mood? What is this, and why do I need it? lol

Why do I want to do this?

Watching moves on the iPad is cool. So is the fluid navigation. Gaping hole? Not really.

Watch GAP app, that actually lets you shop. If I wanted to shop for Ecko, the link directs me to The Official Online Store for Ecko Unlimited, Marc Ecko Cut and Sew, Ecko Red, Marc Ecko Watches and Ecko Kids. which is fully accessible on the iPhone. Again, simple animation that can be done without Flash. No gaping holes here.

Why do I want to go to this site? What is the purpose? Am I supposed to drink more milk because the site is pretty? No hole again.

I would never have known about this site. It offers very little to me.
Plus one for promotion of art, but plenty of art can be found else where.
No holes here.

This is commercial for the studio. I have to sit there and wait for the animation to finish, then I'm looking at an animated office, wondering what I'm supposed to do with it. So much for simplicity. Why do I need it? The key word I mentioned is usefulness, and this is not useful to me.

Again, promotion of a studio. These are the kinds of sites that I go to once and never go back. No hole.

What is this? How is this better than Google Earth?

Umm… no. This is completely useless to me. And if the fans of 'I don't care about your farm' is any indication then many people would agree with me. You can claim that it's a hole, but it's a very small and shallow one.

So, there I am sitting, watching the crayon drawing a cat in a fish bowl. Really? This is the gaping hole that everyone is talking about? I feel so much better now. Thanks.

An assortment of shitty games that would never make it (succeed) in the App store.

Yeah, because I do floor planning every day. I might use it twice in my lifetime.

This is useful? Really?

It said enter search, so I entered Flash Sucks and got 12 images.
I have Flickr. thanks.

I looked at majority of them. They are pretty advertisements or just concepts. Again, you can claim the gaping hole here but I usually avoid advertisements if I can. The sites listed have very little use to me. Do you use them regularly? Why?

masta247 · Apr 14, 2010

Nobody cares about your internet preferences, fruitboy

You don't represent a casual user. You'd buy an Iphone even if they cut you off from the internet or disabled the "phone" app.

These are websites like millions of others using flash that people visit.

S. Fourteen · Apr 14, 2010

^ There's no doubt that people visit them. The question I keep asking is;

- is it useful
- do you use it
- why do you use it

so far, you are unable to come up with the answers and you result to calling me a fanboy and make accusations of what I would do if Apple did this and did that.

masta247 · Apr 14, 2010

yes, it is useful plus it looks very nice. By now websites with Flash are generally those that I love the most if it comes to design and creativity.

Yes I do use it. My internet experience would be much worse without flash. I also watch flash animations and play flash games when bored. Flash is actually one of my favorite design tools.
I also do regret that my phone still doesn't have flash support. Like I said, I wouldn't buy a tablet without flash support.

I use it because:
a) It looks good and makes websites way more interesting.
b) Most sites use it and it does its job great if you ask me
c) It uses vector graphics which I'm a huge fan of. You can zoom it million times and won't see any decrease in image quality, pixels etc. When I first saw this I thought it's pretty revolutionary.
It means basically no resolution limits and it works and looks very smooth and sharp.
d) there's no other good and popular alternative right now.

There's just something about flash that puts new life into a web design.

masta247 · Apr 14, 2010

Actually vector graphics in Flash would require a way longer post but I'm too busy atm.
It's really, really amazing and while performance of flash is not perfect it's hard to believe that they made it work that fast for what it does. It basically calculates all detail in all used images creating them on the go (and they're actually moving with high fps) instead of using pre-converted low-quality jpgs with traditional resolutions like we know it.

These are examples of vector graphics; sample images:

http://www.croczilla.com/bits_and_pieces/svg/samples/tiger/tiger.svg

http://www.croczilla.com/bits_and_pieces/svg/samples/lion/lion.svg

Feel free to zoom them as much as you like. Generally each part of this is a separate object so there are also various layers used meaning you could possibly see things in the background.

S. Fourteen · Apr 14, 2010

^ you're just defending the technology - that still doesn't answer the question of why the inability to watch pretty advertisement is a 'gaping hole' in my user experience.

I was looking for you to tell me why you think sites like Moodstream and Monoface are useful to a casual user.

When I think 'casual user', I think of sites like cnn, yahoo, ebay, amazon, ign, gamespot, youtube, facebook etc etc. and those popular sites are accessible on the iPhone platform.

So where's the gaping hole? You know - iPad looks good, it makes my life interesting, and Apple does a damn good job if you ask me.

masta247 · Apr 14, 2010

I don't visit any of these sites except of youtube and facebook occasionally. Facebook uses a lot of Flash for its apps. Youtube is made in flash too but you can overcome that. However popular sites are less than 1% of my time spent on the internet. I read the news on a news portal or two and then I go to my bookmarks. I won't lie that I also visit many Polish sites which are flash-heavy and very rarely there are any mobile versions of them. You should also know that it's true for any foreign sites - including Japanese.
Japanese people love creating sites that are entirely flash-based. That's because like i said - flash is a no.1 tool for great web design.

I already said numerous times why Flash is important. I can't even understand a mental process that could lead to "flash = advertisements". I'm already tired of just boosting post count in this pointless thread as it's getting way too abstract. It's too obvious that Flash is everywhere on the web, it's important and lack of it just cripples any device that is made to surf the web.

S. Fourteen · Apr 14, 2010

^ I was not even aware of any Flash apps on Facebook, at least I don't see any of them being blocked. I just use the iPhone Facebook app for the most part so that might be the reason.

We're at the turning point. Flash will not be important in the future and many smart minds know this, including the smart minds at Adobe.

S. Fourteen · Apr 14, 2010

Summary

There's Flash for end users - which is a tool for presentation and eye-candy. Some people think it's important, others can go about their lives with out it (some even want it to disappear)

Then there's Flash for developer - which gets a little more complicated and most people, myself included, gets lost in all the computer language talk. But the strategy to exclude the use of Flash is very important to Apple.

Here's a link to a short write-up I obtained from Daring Fireball

The Progress of the Platform

Casey · Apr 14, 2010

You're confusing two different arguments here.

Regarding Apple only allowing applications to be written in Objective C - I disagree with the approach (it's quite frankly elitist) but it's not surprising to me - Apple have always been elitist and closed-minded in their approach, as that article you posted points out. That's cool, as long as they realize that approach is what relegated them to less than 10% of worldwide computer market share, and the same will happen with their mobile devices.

Apple seem to think that they are going to force the developers to write in that language. Wrong. That will only happen with a small amount of developers. The vast majority simply won't code for Apple - they'll code for Android, Windows Phone 7....more open platforms. The platform with the most developers will have the best ecosystem, and ultimately that's where most end-users will go.

That is -----> E.X.A.C.T.L.Y <------ what happened in the 90's with Windows.

The second argument is to do with the iPhone/iPad not supporting Flash in it's browser. That's an entirely different argument. Apple simply have no reason for this - it's crippling the device capabilities as has been proven at this point (more so with the iPad than the iPhone), and there's no reason for it, other than Apple's claim that Flash is responsible for slowdown of CPU and crashes, etc.

Here's why that is:

Apple's "bespoke" operating systems are designed to work with very specific sets of hardware - Apple's hardware. Not only designed, but optimized. This is so that Apple can deceive it's end-users into thinking that the money they spent on their computer is worth it, when actually they are under-powered and over-priced.

There's better programs for doing every single task you could think of, than the ones that come packaged with a Mac. Every single task. But Apple wants you to use theirs, because they've optimised them for the hardware to trick you into believing that your computer is more powerful than it actually is. There's more profit to be made (in the short-term) by doing that.

Try running cross-platform software (like Flash) on a PC with the EXACT same spec as your Apple machine and I guarantee it works better on the PC. This is a fact.

Apple has pulled the wool over the eyes of it's army of fanboys with these (and other) methods. But most of them are too stupid to see it, which works perfectly for Apple.

S. Fourteen · Apr 14, 2010

It’s pretty evident that Apple isn’t wed to individual suppliers. Not only are they back to creating their own chips, but they are also one of the only 'compute' companies to have used each of the top 3 processor architectures over time—ARM, x86, and Power PC.

Apple's DNA in this area is untouchable, helping it to innovate at the confluence of software and hardware. There’s a reason why pinching and zooming on the iPad is snappier than anything people have ever seen, and it’s not entirely clear whether the software or hardware plays the larger part.

When a company decides to vertically integrate, as Apple has done with the iPad, it becomes subject to incredible pressure from outside. For example, how can Apple possibly stay ahead of the entire semiconductor universe, which will sell many more times volume than the iPhone and iPad.

Apple’s commitment to vertically integrate comes with a pressure to accommodate change—they simply can’t commit to one architecture for the long-haul. But changing puts strain on developers, since code must be recompiled and cross-compilers rarely maintain performance.

This week Apple confined developers to a specific set of tools (XCode). A lot of people think this is to kill Adobe Flash. Sure, that is a tactical reason, but there are much broader strategic reasons. By telling developers to move to XCode tools, Apple is setting the stage to potentially switch architectures.

History often repeats itself: In 2003, Apple advised developers to switch to XCode tools. This was not a coincidental move—2 years later Apple moved to Intel across its entire Mac line. Developers who complied could simply press a button and applications would run natively (full performance) on new Intel Macs.

Now consider this - Apple may have already switched without people knowing. Here’s an anecdote - the innards of Apple’s A4 (powers the iPad) have been speculated ad nauseum by experts, but the reality is no one knows what’s actually inside. This week, there was very surprising analysis that the A4’s die size far exceeds what it 'should' be (single core ARM Cortex A8 with a 64 bit memory bus and GPU).

This analysis is not yet mainstream, but will add tremendous fuel to the fire that perhaps the A4 is NOT an ARM architecture. In fact, it’s highly possible that the A4 is a dual core Power Architecture, which is what the PA Semi team worked with, prior to Apple buying them in 2007.

If this is indeed the case, then iPhone OS 4.0 would bring incredible speed improvements to the iPad, since it would no longer run applications on an ARM processor emulator. Can you imagine if OS 4.0 improved the iPad’s speed by 50% on day 1? Apple would be heralded as a software God. But in order for these speed improvements to be realized, apps would need to be written in objective C—which is exactly what Apple is now telling developers to do.

It’s clear from a strategic perspective that Apple has thought about vertical integration incredibly deeply. Their choice to enter the CPU business was not made lightly, and reflects a platform heritage and an ability to steer developers (afforded by huge network effects). We will likely find out what's really inside the A4 soon. But one thing is already clear: Apple is sewing the groundwork to make architecture changes seamless—developers will only need to flip a switch to give their apps blazing, native performance.

This incredible foresight will allow Apple to stay agile and maneuver in the face of what will be unrelenting competition from Intel, Qualcomm, and nVidia. Apple can essentially treat the CPU as a commodity—and this will enable them to continually adjust 'make vs buy' strategies, wield incredible power over suppliers, and build a long-term halo around their platform.

I find it fascinating that Apple has been so good at diverting attention to the Flash argument, that people don’t see the true genius behind Steve Job’s vision and moves. Apple is setting the stage to become one of the biggest winners in the storied history of vertically integrated companies.

The Genius in Apple's Vertical Platform - steve's blog

heh

3en · Apr 15, 2010

Casey Rain said:

I disagree but...

Out of interest what tablet device do you consider is the best on the market? (any tablet running windows is a fail)

Its funny how you and Masta throw round the term fanboy so easily when you two are the biggest Android fanboys and Apple haters lol. No hate just an observation.

masta247 · Apr 15, 2010

3en said:

You must be out of your mind. I have no idea why I even respond but to clarify - I'm in no way an Android fanboy. I just think it's by far the best mobile system to date just how Windows 7 is the best commercial desktop operating system - and I'm not a fan of Microsoft by any means either like I'm not a great fan of Google. I agree - I love what they're doing with some of their projects. They are indeed revolutionary and groundbreaking on many fields. I support great technology.
I can just appreciate great tech without taking sides that are not logical. I might have personal preferences that I know are not "the best". For example I'm an Opera fanboy because I love that browser but I know it's not the best because facts and benchmarks clearly say that it's not the best on many fields. But I do love it.
If it comes to Iphone OS and Android that's just a simple comparison of 2 operating systems and decisions made by companies behind them. I agree that Iphone OS is appealing to masses who are less tech-savyy - which unfortunately (or fortunately for me) means most of the world. However technically it sucks balls big time. A person that appreciates technical superiority or simply wants the best device for their money wouldn't ever buy this device because of major fails that come with it. Then it's taken to some even higher extreme with IPad. And it's also true for most Apple products - their strategy is to make them suck but appeal to fanboys and unconscious consumers. I'm 100% sure than in reality vast majority of Iphone users could use any other phone but a created, totally unjustified need to have an Iphone and primitive instincts of having what is "cool" won them over. Sad truth.

Windows tablets do not suck simply because one can do way more with them. I agree that tablets should be simple to use but still I think that Windows tablets are better than the Ipad because they allow for bigger functionality. And possibilities is what counts, not if you personally think that you won't need them. Even IF I was to rarely use flash I would feel a huge, rising discomfort knowing that if I will need or want to use it I won't be able to considering how widespread that technology is.

PS. Ironically I'm the only person quite "open" if it comes to Apple amongst people I know that are more "technologically advanced". I mean yeah, there's probably no Apple product yet I would like but I don't feel an urge to crash every Iphone on sight.
And all of them are extremely enthusiastic about Android. It's just a difference of opinions between people who are like "zomg it works and haz a flashing menu and apps!!1" to "I know what I'm talking about".

S. Fourteen · Apr 15, 2010

^ you're pretty good.. casey is the biggest Google whore and an Apple hater here. and when his wrongness is exposed, he backs off, calls his cousin at Google for some insight or lets you counter me and thanks whatever posts that suits his needs.

S. Fourteen · Apr 15, 2010

Remember what I said about freetard fantasies?

Dave Johnson is one

iPhone OS 4: Why It's Time to Choose a Different Phone | Business Hacks | BNET

Lets get the facts right. When I buy a FREE app, they're often supported by ads - that's just one of the ways developers make money and paid apps (at least the ones that I own) never have advertisements. When Steve spoke about the advertisements he said these free apps ads suck and he wanted to provide developers with a better means. There's absolutely no indication that Apple will "turn their mighty iPhone into a ghetto of banner ads and reduced usability" - that's freetard fantasy if you ever saw one.

[edit] taken from Engadget live cast of OS4 event

That means no shitty experience, no porn ads, means the same approval process we see today with apps. Time and time again it's been said that Apple is all about user experience so we either get more angry developers that lash out at Apple for not allowing their shitness or the app will fail due to their shitness.

Casey · Apr 15, 2010

S. Fourteen said:

Wrong. I've actually only had one conversation with my cousin since he started working on the Android team.

I haven't been wrong yet, and since you seem to be OK with masta's post, let me quote it again

I'm the latter. You are closer to the former.

I'm not a Apple hater either, I think some of their products are OK. I just think that with most of them, there are better alternatives. And my reasons for coming to those conclusions are perfectly valid, which I believe annoys you to no end.

S. Fourteen · Apr 16, 2010

Read first page about spec difference
Read my claim of how Flash sucks on Macs
Read links to opinions about why Flash sucks
Read about Adobe's CTO promising to improve Flash performance on Mac's through optimization

That is a fact, it's been repeated to be a fact. But you twist this to suit your needs by saying that it's a 'trick' and Apple optimizing their software for better performance is again a 'trick' for profits. Okay man

Do you know why Google can afford to allow their employees to spend 20% of the time working on independent projects? Because YOU, and their army of users including myself, make money for them.

It's these kind of things that annoy me.

Casey · Apr 16, 2010

S. Fourteen said:

...so? Sounds like a smart business plan to me.

What annoys you about it?

Technology iPhone OS 4 event April 8th

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Donate