The Apple iPad

RobTang

Marty_J wrote: »

Flash is going the way of the dinosaur.

This article, from a year ago, sums it up.

So as long as everyone stops using their PCs and only starts viewing using their mobiles for websites, flash is dead.

The_Article wrote:

Slow-moving nature of proprietary software

except by de juer standards are even slower moving, what was it again 2022 ? for the html5 final realease.

exactly how long as the N wireless standard been in draft ?

and his whole argument was that because somthing doesn't support flash means its slow moving... my fridge doesn't support html 5 therefore its slow moving.

RobertoMoir

xycom1 wrote: »

Lack of Flash is a major fail IMO

I'm not so sure about that. A lot of sites have alternatives that work with the iphone, and these will work at least as well with the ipad. Youtube, for example, has an iphone app and html5 support.

RobertoMoir

Marty_J wrote: »

But he usually gives a reasoned argument for what he says.

He makes claims that superficially sound reasonable but are often based on a false starting point.

Marty_J wrote: »

It doesn't matter if he's a "foaming fanatic"; it's his arguments that should be refuted, not his fanaticism. Presenting an argument in an enthusiastic fashion doesn't render it moot.

Talking complete nonsense and sockpuppeting to support your own arguments does render them moot though. And he does that. Enjoy.

I wouldn't personally use the guy and his works as references for anything except possibly an essay on why believing your own self-publicity is a really bad idea.

Marty_J

RobTang wrote: »

So as long as everyone stops using their PCs and only starts viewing using their mobiles for websites, flash is dead.

Not quite. If enough people start using devices without Flash, then it will have a big impact. It's quite possible to own and use both a desktop computer and a mobile device.

except by de juer standards are even slower moving, what was it again 2022 ? for the html5 final realease.

I think it's 2012. But, it doesn't matter. You can use parts of it now. YouTube (probably the largest purveyor of Flash content on the internet) is moving to HTML 5. Other sites that want to maintain their competitiveness will follow suit.

exactly how long as the N wireless standard been in draft ?

It was proposed in 2007, and published last year.

As above though, people were using it long before it was finalised.

and his whole argument was that because somthing doesn't support flash means its slow moving... my fridge doesn't support html 5 therefore its slow moving.

That was not his whole argument.

Marty_J

RobertoMoir wrote: »

He makes claims that superficially sound reasonable but are often based on a false starting point.

In that case, his claims are what need to be dealt with, not whether or not he's a foaming fanatic.

Talking complete nonsense and sockpuppeting to support your own arguments does render them moot though. And he does that. Enjoy.

I wouldn't personally use the guy and his works as references for anything except possibly an essay on why believing your PR is a really bad idea.

He writes under a pen name for another website. I have no idea why, though it's pretty common knowledge among the readership of those sites.

RobertoMoir

Marty_J wrote: »

In that case, his claims are what need to be dealt with.



He writes under a pen name for another website. I have no idea why, though it's pretty common knowledge among the readership of those sites.

Having a "pen name" is fine. Using claims you made under one name to support an article you write under another as if the other person and article were separate things that supported your own argument is to say the least very unethical.

As such, I'm not interested in whether or not he's managed to make a good point this time, he has zero credibility. He's the Apple world's version of Paul Thurrott, which is not a good thing to be.

Marty_J

RobertoMoir wrote: »

Having a "pen name" is fine. Using claims you made under one name to support an article you write under another as if the other person and article were separate things that supported your own argument is to say the least very unethical.

But he didn't do that. He referenced that article as providing reasons "why developers are frustrated with Apple’s tight control over the iPhone platform". It's no different from typing out those reasons again on his own site.

He didn't present an argument and then present an AppleInsider article as corroborating evidence.

As such, I'm not interested in whether or not he's managed to make a good point this time, he has zero credibility. He's the Apple world's version of Paul Thurrott, which is not a good thing to be.

Paul Thurrott is very odd. Sometimes he's so reasonable and I find myself agreeing with a lot of the things he says, and other times he goes on and on about how much Apple sucks (all the while using Apple products every day).

He talks about Apple more than most Apple bloggers.

Timalay

Marty_J wrote: »

I think you're really missing the point. It's not intended to replace your desktop (or laptop) computer. Steve Jobs said at the start of his keynote:

Question about the 2nd pic up. How can the call a Netbook slow when there iPad only has 1Ghz CPU?

I mean ok i know doesn't a fully fledged OS to bog it down.

Marty_J

Timalay wrote: »

Question about the 2nd pic up. How can the call a Netbook slow when there iPad only has 1Ghz CPU?

I mean ok i know doesn't a fully fledged OS to bog it down.

That's a good question. I think the main thing is, as you say, it's not running a desktop OS. It's also running on an ARM processor as opposed to an Intel Atom, so the speeds aren't really directly comparable.

By all accounts, the iPad is a very fast machine.

RobTang

Marty_J wrote: »

Not quite. If enough people start using devices without Flash, then it will have a big impact. It's quite possible to own and use both a desktop computer and a mobile device.

I think it's 2012. But, it doesn't matter. You can use parts of it now. YouTube (probably the largest purveyor of Flash content on the internet) is moving to HTML 5. Other sites that want to maintain their competitiveness will follow suit.
It was proposed in 2007, and published last year.

As above though, people were using it long before it was finalised.

That was not his whole argument.

I was only really talking about the paragraph heading, but his argument really does hinge on mobile users affecting desktop users.

Even if it does, name a really really really good mobile formatted website.
and isn't the public preferd format for mobiles is a thick client platform specific application rather than a html5 page ? (all thanks to the iphone).

Why should I bother supporting mobile users with free website when they seem perfectly happy paying for the same content or even just offering a more controlled experience.