Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Graphics Handhelds Portables The Internet Apple

How the iPad Is Already Reshaping the Internet (Sans Flash) 532

Posted by timothy
from the all-3-flavors-of-ice-cream dept.
The Internet's already starting to look different, says Gizmodo, in a piece of interest not only to everyone with an iPad floating around the UPS system, but also those of us thinking about some other kind of tablet in the medium-term future. As they put it, "The iPad doesn't run Flash. If your website uses Flash, it won't play well on the iPad. Turns out, a lot of people want their sites to look pretty on the iPad." And an anonymous reader adds this snippet from Webmonkey: "In anticipation of Saturday's release of the iPad — which doesn't run Flash — Apple has published a list of 'iPad Ready' websites. The sites are all big league sluggers like CNN, The New York Times, People Magazine and MLB.com. Surprisingly, there are also a few video-heavy sites in the mix (Vimeo, Flickr, and TED) which would traditionally rely on Flash Player for video playback."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How the iPad Is Already Reshaping the Internet (Sans Flash)

Comments Filter:
  • by Gothmolly (148874) on Friday April 02, 2010 @08:13AM (#31705352)

    Not all of us lay back and spread our legs for Apple, timothy.

  • Not so bad (Score:5, Insightful)

    by somersault (912633) on Friday April 02, 2010 @08:14AM (#31705362) Homepage Journal

    It's stupid to do this just for the iPad, but if it helps to move more towards web standards then I don't care about the means to the end..

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 02, 2010 @08:17AM (#31705378)

    If the iPad does actually kill off Flash, Steve Jobs will finally have given something worthwhile to the world of computing.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 02, 2010 @08:19AM (#31705388)

    ... reshaping the ipad.

    Let's face it, aside from the hype this device is merely another tablet. So far none have made any sort of impression on the internet and I would fully expect that in a few months time, when all the buzz has died back all these ipads will be languishing in desk drawers and cupboards somewhere - when people discover that their old laptops are much more capable and less of a pain to use.

  • Here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gadget_Guy (627405) * on Friday April 02, 2010 @08:23AM (#31705406)

    This has nothing to do with the iPad. Once again, Apple is getting the credit for something that was already happening in the industry.

    Flash started to get dropped when ad blocking systems became so popular which meant more people were blocking it by default. Also AJAX became the next big buzzword, which meant that a lot of things that people (necessarily) used Flash for could be done using standard Javascript. There just isn't the need for it anymore.

    I'm not saying that having more systems that don't support Flash will not be a factor in the decision regarding what technology will be used on a website. But the writing has been on the wall for Flash for quite some time, at least for general website interfaces. Obviously it will still have a use for games (which is why Apple will never support Flash - it bypasses their strict controls).

  • The arrogance !!! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by CdBee (742846) on Friday April 02, 2010 @08:25AM (#31705414)
    'iPad Ready' - my god, Jobs' jesus complex is getting worse if he thinks the internet has to prepare itself for a crappy, locked-down, crippled mono-window browsing device
  • by aussersterne (212916) on Friday April 02, 2010 @08:26AM (#31705418) Homepage

    The opposite will happen. They'll find their laptops and computer languishing in disuse, and their iPads carried with them around the house all the time. The era of the heavy, stationary computer needing a desk for hours-long use (whether you mean desktop or laptop) is over.

  • by gmuslera (3436) on Friday April 02, 2010 @08:26AM (#31705420) Homepage Journal
    "merely another smartphone", "merely another mp3 player", i think i heard that arguments before. And if well is all hype and little substance, still a lot of people will buy that hype.
  • I'd buy one (Score:5, Insightful)

    by milosoftware (654147) on Friday April 02, 2010 @08:26AM (#31705422) Homepage

    If that's what it takes to ban Flash from the net forever, I'd buy one, just to sponsor that effort.

    On the other hand, I'd be buying from the evil lords of quicktime, so now I have to decide which is worse: Apple or Adobe.

    Can't we just put them in an arena, let them slug it out, and then cut the victor's throat and get rid of both evils and have some fun?

  • by V!NCENT (1105021) on Friday April 02, 2010 @08:27AM (#31705424)

    Steve also lured the entire RIAA into iTunes, cut the cost and made it DRM-free for the entire world to buy at less than one dollar per song. In the meantime when they did DRM-only the added a mechanism in iTunes to burn it to (re)writable media DRM-free and lossless and a mechanism to auto-RIP audiodiscs back to your computer.

    If that wasn't enough for the world already, then what is? ;)

  • They are not... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by denzacar (181829) on Friday April 02, 2010 @08:31AM (#31705432) Journal

    It is yet again a marketing ploy by Apple to make it look like the iPad is much bigger "player" than it is, while presenting its weakness as a strength.

    Websites on the list are not bending over backwards to appease the mighty iPad.
    They are either offering a "alternative solution" for portable devices that don't run Flash, while still keeping the Flash version running - OR simply trying to move away from Flash on their own.

    It is not like they got together and said: "Hey, this new_thingyTM is coming out - we better change everything so that those couple of thousand users can use our site so that the new_thingyTM sells better and doesn't flop. Quick! To the HTML5-mobile!".

    It is simply a list of "compatible sites" that will actually work with the new bigger iPod - unlike every other video site on the internets.
    You know... It is not a bug that it doesn't run Flash. It is a feature. See - here is the list of sites that work just fine on it.

  • by PFactor (135319) on Friday April 02, 2010 @08:31AM (#31705434) Journal
    TBH I find my desktop at home is collecting dust already. I only use it when the pager goes off when I'm on call.

    I do most everything else with my iPhone.

    I wish I could say it is due to the superior experience I get on it but I can't. Instead I have to admit that the device's size and ease of use enables me to be an even lazier fsck than I was before. Now I don't have to get off the couch at all.
  • Newgrounds (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tepples (727027) <tepples&gmail,com> on Friday April 02, 2010 @08:32AM (#31705438) Homepage Journal

    if it helps to move more towards web standards then I don't care about the means to the end..

    So what will replace Flash on sites like Newgrounds, which use Flash for vector animation? Will it be canvas or animated SVG? Let me know when badgers can dance [badgerbadgerbadger.com] on iPad; only then can Flash be obsolete.

  • by V!NCENT (1105021) on Friday April 02, 2010 @08:32AM (#31705440)

    The iPad is primarely for being on your kitchen table or on the sofa, so that when you get home late and you lay down in your couch, you can grab the iPad, do a quick mail, listen to a relaxing song and put it away.

    Or when your cooking (!=pizza) you can quickly grab it, browse for how to make your food and just cook while looking at it.

    It's not designed to kill laptops/desktops. It is also not realy multi-tasking user-space apps...

  • by aussersterne (212916) on Friday April 02, 2010 @08:38AM (#31705458) Homepage

    Slashdot's record on understanding technology and society is embarrassingly bad and getting worse.

    Linux is going to storm the desktop and Dean Kamen is a genius so Segway will revolutionize society, just wait, but the iPod is a lame device that nobody will buy, the iPhone is an undesirable, locked down, me-too phone with no important features and a lousy touchscreen, and iPad is just another crappy tablet that nobody will buy.

    Forgive me for thinking that all of this iPad hate on Slashdot ought to be heard as "BUY APPLE STOCK."

  • by RobotRunAmok (595286) on Friday April 02, 2010 @08:41AM (#31705470)

    OK, so I just watched that Badger-Dance thing, and have decided that if the presence of the iPad in the world will conclusively cause fewer of those... toons, animations, jumpy-things, whatever it was... to be created, I'll buy two iPads and a couple of shares of Apple stock, just on principle.

    Flash is the white powdered wig of the Internet. Don't ask, "But what will replace it?" Just stop using it altogether.

  • Re:Not so bad (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tomhudson (43916) <.barbara.hudson. ... bara-hudson.com.> on Friday April 02, 2010 @08:43AM (#31705474) Journal

    It doesn't help "move standards forward" or anything - it means that people will be asked to design for a specific resolution. We're going backwards - remember all those "Best viewed with Internet Explorer at 800x600"?

    There are still too many sites out there that use a fixed-width table layout - on todays wide-screen monitors, all the content is in the left third of the browser.

    Morons. (But what do you expect for people who "want their site to look good on a device that hasn't sold a single unit" - they've bought into the hype.

  • by FreonTrip (694097) <freontrip AT gmail DOT com> on Friday April 02, 2010 @08:43AM (#31705476)
    That's all well and good for passive internet viewing or jotting out a quick Facebook message, but for doing serious content creation that's a dubious assertion. Try running ArcGIS, 3Ds MAX, or any other high-end content creator on a netbook some time, let alone an iPad. You can get away with it on a higher-end laptop, but at the end of the day the best way to ensure that you have plenty of available horsepower for demanding applications is by entrusting it to a system designed for high workloads, and uncompromised by the concessions to power saving and heat generation necessary to carry the thing around with you all the time.
  • by Aladrin (926209) on Friday April 02, 2010 @08:45AM (#31705478)

    Well, I wouldn't say 'nothing', but my first thought was that the iPad was just the latest in a long string of devices that didn't have Flash support. And we're seeing more all the time. If your company wants to be seen on those devices, your company needs to stop using Flash. It's just so simple.

  • by Sir_Lewk (967686) <sirlewkNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday April 02, 2010 @08:46AM (#31705484)

    If you burn a lossy file to a CD, you can't really say the process was "lossless". There may not have been loss on your side, but there was when it was originally encoded, and to avoid additional loss when you rip it back you need to use a lossless file format. This results in your file being far larger than the original but having the same quality.

    Besides that nitpick, I'll agree it was a pretty decent thing to do.

  • by internic (453511) on Friday April 02, 2010 @08:47AM (#31705496)

    What I've noticed with the iPhone is that there are a number of sites that won't work well on the iPhone (usually due to flash content), and rather than making a general mobile version (or just a site based on HTML+Javascript) the company will release an iPhone-specific app. Case in point: Chipotle. Their site is entirely flash-based. There is also an app for the iPhone. But if you're on any other device that doesn't have flash you're SOL if you want to order a burrito online to carry out.

    In the case of Chipotle, this hardly a tragedy, but it seems totally inane that they coded an iPhone-specific app rather than just, say, making a mobile site that every device would be able to use. It seems like it would be more work and worse for their business. Unfortunately, there are plenty of other website that have an iPhone-specific app that duplicates their site functionality rather than just making a website what it ought to be, a nearly universal interface.

    As irrational as this seems (to me, at least), it looks like more popular Apple mobile devices could lead to an even less accessible and standards-compliant web.

  • by aussersterne (212916) on Friday April 02, 2010 @08:49AM (#31705502) Homepage

    NOBODY does "serious content creation."

    Literally nobody. A statistically insignificant portion of the global internet-using public.

    I completely agree that people doing development, rendering, engineering, physics, authoring, or whatever other kind of creation you want to talk about will not do it on an iPad or other similar device. They will continue to have heavy, cumbersome, hot, unfriendly, complex devices somewhere in their office/workplace/house for accomplishing these tasks.

    I concede that point.

    And it absolutely nothing to do with mine.

  • by Pojut (1027544) on Friday April 02, 2010 @08:49AM (#31705504) Homepage

    Agreed.

    My problem (at least at this point) isn't really with the iPad, but with people who are insisting the iPad is some kind of revolutionary device. It may do what it does very well, but it is hardly original.

    Regardless, I still think it's overpriced, considering it's priced like a full-featured device yet only has half the functionality. yes, I'm aware of "small costs money, Apple tax, it's not for you, you just don't understand the device", and every other response. I don't care.

    I still think it's overpriced.

  • Re:Not so bad (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Threni (635302) on Friday April 02, 2010 @08:53AM (#31705522)

    Because the iPad will never amount to more than 0.000001% of internet traffic? Millions of phones are online every day, and we're supposed to sit up because Apple has bought out the next piece of overhyped crap (how are you supposed to hold it again?)? I don't think so.

  • Re:Not so bad (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DarkOx (621550) on Friday April 02, 2010 @08:55AM (#31705534) Journal

    I have to agree the view that the web is like a magazine where the author should control the layout is a broken idea. The entire point of the markup langague as was originally designed was so that the page could be flowed on the device. Web 2.0 is the worst of all badness with everyone using css to lay things out to the pixel.

    If you can't make your app/site look good on a variety of screen shapes ( accepting there are going to be extreems that don't work perfectly ) you're a bad web developer. If your secret desire is to do Madison Avenue style layouts go get a job in desktop publishing and leave our WWW alone.

  • Re:Newgrounds (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 02, 2010 @09:02AM (#31705560)

    Years ago, I had a 486. Today, in 2010, my computer has 8 times the processors, nearly 50 times clock speed, 250 times the RAM, and yet it still can't play these goddamn web-based games at a reasonable speed, even when using Chrome. Meanwhile, Quake II runs just fine on my old 486.

    Browser-based "apps" are all about doing exactly the same stuff we could do 15 years ago, but doing it slower and shittier, although we have hardware that's literally hundreds to thousands of times more powerful.

  • by Gadget_Guy (627405) * on Friday April 02, 2010 @09:06AM (#31705584)

    Disagree with yourself much?

    No. "Systems that don't support Flash" have always been with us. Given the rise of mobile computing, they are more popular than ever. But to say that the move away from Flash can be attributed to just the iPad (which has only just been released) is stunningly stupid. If they had said it was due to the iPhone, then maybe they could argue the case. It would still be wrong, but slightly less so.

  • by alen (225700) on Friday April 02, 2010 @09:07AM (#31705590)

    the strength of Flash is that it's like Java. you write once and the content will play anywhere with a flash plugin, which is almost every OS and soon to be device. Apple doesn't care about videos, they care about the flash apps and games. if they can lock people into the iTunes system to code for the iphone/ipod/ipad then developers won't code for another platform unless there is money to be made to recoup the investment. Flash makes it easier for a start up device maker to displace Apple's market dominance since it cuts the development time and cost.

  • by internic (453511) on Friday April 02, 2010 @09:08AM (#31705598)

    The Seinfeld episode The Opposite [wikipedia.org] was not, in fact, a documentary on sound decision making. My suggestion would be that one's investments should be guided neither by Slashdot nor by blind devotion to Apple.

  • Re:They are not... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by characterZer0 (138196) on Friday April 02, 2010 @09:11AM (#31705618)

    It may only be 50,000 to 1,000,000 people, but you know each of those are people who spend a lot of money on stuff they do not need.

    1 of them may be worth 1000 regular people to advertisers.

  • by somersault (912633) on Friday April 02, 2010 @09:11AM (#31705624) Homepage Journal

    Pretty sure he only did it because Amazon would have killed iTunes otherwise. I tried iTunes once when it had DRM, hated it (128kpbs or whatever AAC burned to a disc and then ripped again is pathetic quality), waited and waited and eventually they brought out the Amazon MP3 store here in the UK, DRM free from the start, have been using it ever since.

  • by Arkham (10779) on Friday April 02, 2010 @09:13AM (#31705630)

    Honestly, aside from games, you can pretty much do anything nav-wise that you did in flash using DOM/html/Javascript these days. I'm not even talking about hand-coding anymore. Using things like GWT, SmartGWT, or one of the myriad of third party libraries (YUI, anyone?), you can do some amazing things without much hand coding at all. All of these things will work on the iPad, on your crappy smartphone, or on any future devices that use a modern web/js engine.

    Honestly, Apple didn't invent this idea any more than they came up with removing floppy drives or adding USB, but as usual, Apple is the catalyst that starts a sea-change in an industry that was slow to happen on its own.

  • by TrekkieGod (627867) on Friday April 02, 2010 @09:13AM (#31705634) Homepage Journal

    The opposite will happen. They'll find their laptops and computer languishing in disuse, and their iPads carried with them around the house all the time. The era of the heavy, stationary computer needing a desk for hours-long use (whether you mean desktop or laptop) is over.

    Do you know why you're wrong? Because nobody uses a computer for anything LESS than hours-long use. We've already switched to other devices for that. Just need to check your e-mail, do a quick wikipedia search? Pull out your smart-phone. The only thing we use computers for now are things that take a while...and you don't want to be there holding the ipad in your hand while you watch a movie because the desk is a better choice, leaving your hands free. You don't want to use the ipad to type up a report because a real keyboard is a better choice than the virtual one for anything that is more than one or two paragraphs.

    The portable devices for quick use already exist, and they are way better than the iPad, because they're portable enough to fit in your pocket. For everything else you want a desk-bound (or lap-bound), full keyboard solution.

  • by Red Flayer (890720) on Friday April 02, 2010 @09:13AM (#31705636) Journal
    I think you're missing a big thing -- a lot of Apple's offerings, while massively popular among "regular" people, are substandard for those with technical know-how.

    The original iPod? It was lame indeed, for anyone who had technical ability and a lot of their music already ripped to mp3.

    The iPhone? Lame also, for anyone on the bleeding edge of smartphones (which includes a large portion of slashdotters).

    Here's the thing... this is a geek site. Geeks have different criteria for evaluating technology than regular people do. And as for the iPad -- no matter how popular/unpopular it proves to be... the general consensus on slashdot will hold true. The iPad is a sub-standard device compared to what else is out there at that price. Whether it gets massively adopted or not, we (the geeks) will be technologically poorer for it, since it lowers the bar for functionality of tablet PCs.

    FWIW, I think if you expect slashdotters to have a good understanding of society in general, then you're a little off-base. This is not a sociology site. This is a geek site, and you should expect slashdot in general to understand geek stuff best. It's like doing evaluations of apps you're thinking of purchasing -- you usually don't have the same people evaluating the UI and the technical specs. If you want non-technical understanding, you're in the wrong place.
  • by Midnight Thunder (17205) on Friday April 02, 2010 @09:14AM (#31705640) Homepage Journal

    Yeah, problem with that? I can happily choose to not run Flash on my computer. With the iPad, I don't get the option.

    You can happily choose not to buy the iPad.

  • Column width (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tepples (727027) <tepples&gmail,com> on Friday April 02, 2010 @09:16AM (#31705654) Homepage Journal

    There are still too many sites out there that use a fixed-width table layout - on todays wide-screen monitors, all the content is in the left third of the browser.

    Then split your monitor into two windows, showing one web site on the left and another on the right. The eye is best at reading 60- to 70-column layouts anyway; otherwise, you're spending half your time hunting for the start of the next line. Why do you think newspapers are printed in five or six columns, not one wide column across the page?

  • by aussersterne (212916) on Friday April 02, 2010 @09:19AM (#31705692) Homepage

    technical criteria. But what is passing over geek sites in waves the last six months is not:

    "I really want different features. I wouldn't buy this."

    But rather:

    "Nobody will want this device. Apple is off base. The iPad will flop."

    My point is to suggest that geeks stick to the former, which is justified (certainly it's easy to see how this device might not satisfy the desire for a general-purpose tinker-and-project machine), and steer away from the latter, which tends to increase the all too common marginalization and mockery of said geeks.

  • by Neon Aardvark (967388) on Friday April 02, 2010 @09:20AM (#31705698) Homepage

    My problem (at least at this point) isn't really with the iPad, but with people who are insisting the iPad is some kind of revolutionary device.

    It will be revolutionary to most people. Because most people have never owned a tablet PC, just like most people hadn't owned a smart phone before getting the iPhone.

    Apple is refined and locked down revolution for the masses.

    I'm more excited about the Microsoft Courier, which looks like a genuinely revolutionary (for everyone) form factor.

  • by aussersterne (212916) on Friday April 02, 2010 @09:22AM (#31705722) Homepage

    I meant to suggest precisely that hours-long use will now happen on the iPad.

    And you're wrong about the desk; it's not a better choice. People want to integrate networks into their regular and social lives (carry it with them into the living room, sit on the sofa, etc.), not sequester themselves away so that they can connect.

    The latter is the geek dream, but for most people, sitting at a desk for hours is the LAST thing they want to do when they get home. Right now they use the 'net in spite of the desk, not because of it.

  • by peragrin (659227) on Friday April 02, 2010 @09:27AM (#31705748)

    While I agree with you on price apple has just undercut the rest of the market for that type of device by20-30%. It willtake every other company atleast a year to respond with competitive devices. All of which will fail to deliver a decent user experince. Everyone else will treat it as either a notebook or a desktop and add touch instead of creating a complete touch based user interface.
      I have said before apple doesn't innovate hardware apples true innovation is a complete user freindly package.

    I will not be surprised that if msft currier(spelled wrong) ever ships it will look more like windows 7 than the demos shown. Or as with windows tablet editions only one or two apps will be ported. Remember apple rewrote their office software for a touch based interface. Msft will never do that with ms office. Open source people will do a port of open office for maemo/andriod eventually in a couple of years as only two people will do it. Yet Apple is shipping it today.

    So for all the hate apple gets they are still ahead of the competition by a couple of years.

     

  • by kronosopher (1531873) <celeron@@@netolith...com> on Friday April 02, 2010 @09:28AM (#31705752) Homepage

    As irrational as this seems (to me, at least), it looks like more popular Apple mobile devices could lead to an even less accessible and standards-compliant web.

    Indeed. Standards-compliance is critical in establishing developer confidence by ensuring availability of services across multiple disparate platforms. To avoid doing that, Apple and M$ resort to tactics such as vendor lock-in or other artificial platform boundaries. Removing choice(or even the awareness of choice) from the market indicates to me both companies lack of faith in their own ability to engineer good hardware/software [linux.org], but hey, who [timesonline.co.uk] would [mac-sucks.com] want [wikipedia.org] that [wikipedia.org] anyway [wikipedia.org]?

  • by aussersterne (212916) on Friday April 02, 2010 @09:28AM (#31705756) Homepage

    What geeks call "sexiness" and "slick gloss" are for regular users actually "basic intelligibility" and "the possibility of use."

    Geeks routinely dismiss the user interface as epiphenomenal to the computing experience. The computer is real, the user is real, and the user interface is this accidental/interchangeable quantity that may be more or less cumbersome, but that is at the end of the day just a minor detail. No user interface actively prevents or determines use for a geek.

    NOT SO for the general public. For the general public, the user interface is the computer, full stop. There are no "features" apart from those they can immediately understand and use. There are no "capabilities" apart from those that they can see how to access.

    Contrary to Slashdotian opinion, the user interface is the thing of greatest substance in computing for most people, and that is why Apple has been a wild success since Steve Jobs came back, much to Slashdotters' chagrin.

    There has not yet been a tablet PC with this user interface. Despite Slashdotters assertions that the identity of a device is all about "features," the fact is that this is a substantively new device by virtue of its user interface, a user interface that has already been proven to be one of the most successful and highly regarded in all of technology and that will likely be the determining factor in the iPad's success... all while Slashdotters dance around saying "the stoopid public, they've been fooled by teh glossiness!"

  • Re:Not so bad (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ipquickly (1562169) on Friday April 02, 2010 @09:31AM (#31705764) Homepage

    And how many of those phones are iPhones?
    Why does my access_log show "iPhone OS" outnumbering all other mobile devices at least 2 to 1?

    While I agree with it being over-hyped, but people are listening, and they are voting with their wallets.

    So-far I can just hope that this bring benefits (more html5, less flash, - without having to change user-agents.) otherwise I'm indifferent.
    And the mac I'm writing this on is not the fastest, or the most robust. But it is much prettier than any other laptop I own.

  • Re:Not so bad (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AaxelB (1034884) on Friday April 02, 2010 @09:35AM (#31705792)

    It doesn't help "move standards forward" or anything - it means that people will be asked to design for a specific resolution. We're going backwards - remember all those "Best viewed with Internet Explorer at 800x600"?

    There are still too many sites out there that use a fixed-width table layout - on todays wide-screen monitors, all the content is in the left third of the browser.

    Morons. (But what do you expect for people who "want their site to look good on a device that hasn't sold a single unit" - they've bought into the hype.

    No, this is a good thing. No one is changing their site to look good exclusively on the iPad; they're changing their site to look good on a wider range of devices, including those without flash. That is good, and exactly the opposite of the "Best viewed with..." crap. The web moving in this direction urges developers (both of websites and of browsers) to adopt cross-platform open standards and reasonable industry best practices (which will hopefully finally kill many abhorrent things, like the fixed-width table layout you mentioned and sites written entirely in flash).

  • by alen (225700) on Friday April 02, 2010 @09:42AM (#31705812)

    like i said, Apple doesn't care about videos. they care about the ability to code a game or some other app with flash and have it run on OS X, Iwhatever, Windows, Android, Pre, blackberry, etc. this makes it easier to ditch the iWhatever when someone releases something better.

    But with over 50 million iWhatever's in people's hands and the only way to code applications and games is via the SDK it makes the risk/reward different. A lot of sucesses in the app store like Tapulous. Apple is courting developers even with their sometimes crazy stunts like banning apps when Steve wakes up with a hangover. There are even real studies out there that show that you get better monetization via the app store than on Android.

    Now say you want to port an app to another platform. you have to get the SDK, spend time to code, maybe pay people a lot of money to code it for another platform and then hope to make some money. If Apple supported Flash then you can just write your game in Flash and have it work on any device. but with no flash on apple devices you have to recode your iWhatever app and take a financial risk of losing money.

    Don't listen to Steve Jobs. he lies through his teeth every time he speaks. it's all about money and learning from history to protect your business.

  • by GrantRobertson (973370) on Friday April 02, 2010 @09:46AM (#31705842) Homepage Journal
    In hard economic times, the best way to make money is to cater to the wealthy. Often, the easiest way to do that is to simply A) make it pretty, B) jack up the price, and C) build the perception of exclusivity. This fits the Apple model pretty well. In fact, by not including Flash they are actually enhancing that perception of exclusivity. Soon, the web sites will be jumping on the same bandwagon. By promoting themselves as catering to the special needs and desires of those who can afford an iPad they will, as you suggest, attract the visitors who have money to burn. And the funny thing is that so many people who think they are smarter than everyone just because they have money are taking the bait, hook line and sinker.
  • by mrops (927562) on Friday April 02, 2010 @09:47AM (#31705852)

    Well, iPad and for that matter iPhone are more like strippers.

    Look pretty, but you can only do what they allow and every lap dance cost 20 bucks.

  • by JerkBoB (7130) on Friday April 02, 2010 @10:02AM (#31705934)

    I have heard the argument "Even if it is designed for 'normals' then they come to me about purchasing decisions and I will tell them to keep away, Apple needs to cater to the geeks or no one will buy it!" - so other than excluding products that may work for the person offering advice, and showing a huge lack of understanding about what other people might want from a device, it's really not working anyway. I wonder how many "don't buy an iPhone/iPad/iPod" geeks really affected the sales of those devices.

    The direction I thought you were going with this post but didn't, is that Apple has largely cut out the need for 'normals' to grovel for wisdom from geeks. What tech-savvy folks see has a restrictive, brain-dead set of choices and functionality is actually a carefully-chosen experience which is intended to satisfy the vast majority of Apple's target users. The end result is fewer opportunities for folks to get lost down ratholes of options which cause them to be overwhelmed and ask for help. Instead, they are able to figure things out fairly intuitively rather than needing to memorize paths or having to learn implementation details to understand why things are the way they are. They just are because The Jobs made them that way.

    Personally, as a certified geek who makes his living banging away in a shell all day, I am not at all threatened by this direction in personal computing. In fact, I find it highly refreshing to be able to see my friends and family using high technology without any need to constantly ask me how to do mundane tasks. My wife has been using macs for over a decade, as do both of her parents. I've gotten more phone calls for help with setting up and using the A/V equipment than computers (recently largely solved by getting them a Harmony remote).

    Love or hate Apple, one has to admit that they have set the bar quite high for making technology accessible to 'normals'.

    Now, to head off the trolls, yes I am now going to go put on a beret and fellate my Apple-branded pink unicorn while it sips a latte.

  • by trentblase (717954) on Friday April 02, 2010 @10:02AM (#31705936)
    I owned a smart phone before getting the iPhone, and the iPhone blew it away. That said, I'm not getting an iPad because the only advantage I see is the bigger screen, which is also a disadvantage in terms of portability. For me, the iPhone killed the iPad market.
  • Excuse me but (Score:2, Insightful)

    by unity100 (970058) on Friday April 02, 2010 @10:03AM (#31705940) Homepage Journal

    im not changing any of my websites for apple drones. also, im going to advise against it if any of my development clients ask me about it. its apple drones' problem if they lock themselves to apple into a narrow world.

    im all for proprietary technologies losing ground, but apple, in this fashion, wont be its instigator.

  • by Lumpy (12016) on Friday April 02, 2010 @10:09AM (#31705984) Homepage

    No but if apple is the catalyst that forces adobe to turn flash from a bloated piece of utter crap into something that actually runs right? I'm so for it' i'll bend over and provide the lube!

  • Re:Ummm.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by zachriggle (884803) on Friday April 02, 2010 @10:12AM (#31705998)
    All of these news sites also happen to provide video to go with their news. This video is now offered in HTML5 when browsed to by an iPad.
  • Re:They are not... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mongoose Disciple (722373) on Friday April 02, 2010 @10:13AM (#31706010)

    That I utterly disagree with. Not even close. It's misleading, almost laughable.

    Really? I would think "Everyone buying an iPad has some disposable income to burn" is just about a tautology.

  • by mikael_j (106439) on Friday April 02, 2010 @10:18AM (#31706054)

    Wait. You'll be able to buy 2 for the price of one iPad. = and they'll have more features...

    Price and features aren't everything (but those trying to sell you stuff would like to make you believe they are since they're easy to market). There's a swedish word that I think applies to most people when it comes to computers and related hardware, software and services: Dumsnål. This word could be freely translated to mean "Cheap to the point of being stupid" and is the reason so many people go out and buy whatever crap promises the most features per dollar only to be upset that the build quality is poor, the design is flawed and it appears to be incompatible with pretty much everything.

    Also, prior to the iPad announcement there were basically two types of "tablets" available on the market, the "executive/pro" laptop with a twist-around screen and 50% added to the pricetag and b&w ebook readers (yeah, there were a few others none that seemed very appealing to me).

    (And as I've stated elsewhere, I'm not buying an iPad either, but Apple isn't just selling on features and price)

  • by BrokenHalo (565198) on Friday April 02, 2010 @10:29AM (#31706162)
    Wouldn't the iPad buyers be more like johns than hookers?

    Quite probably, but for once, it might just be remotely possible that they'll be beneficial to public health. Adobe Flash is an infection I'd quite happily live without, and if it becomes unprofitable for developers to use it, then it's not outside the realms of possibility that might contribute to its demise.

    However, I'm not holding my breath. Either Adobe will step forward and come up with a solution, or Apple will come up with some sort of App that they'll try to shoe-horn everyone into. Whatever happens, the fanboys will be happy, while people like me who don't care for the walled-garden approach will look to other devices.
  • Re:Newgrounds (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MaWeiTao (908546) on Friday April 02, 2010 @10:30AM (#31706166)

    Let's see your average designer, who's the core user for Flash and responsible for the vast majority of flash-based content every be able to do anything using any of those platforms. Until something comes along that replaces Flash in terms of usability it's here to stay.

    And that HTML 5 particle system runs like crap for me. I've seen similar things done in Flash that run at a consistent 30fps.

  • by Pojut (1027544) on Friday April 02, 2010 @10:42AM (#31706266) Homepage

    That's for consumers (a lot of them) to decide. For me, I would not buy one. For my wife, I would. It's all about this interesting concept called "target market".

    ::gasp:: what is this "target market" you speak of? See, I've been living in a cave for the past 500 years, and I've never heard of such a thing.

    Thanks for assuming I'm a moron. I appreciate it.

    Does it matter that you don't?

    No. I was merely providing my opinion. I'm allowed to do that, right?

    That's fine and dandy so long as you understand that opinions are not fact, that yours is a subjective opinion

    Did I ever indicate, even just a little, in my original post that my opinion was the only right one? No. I was just throwing my opinion out there...you know, the sort of thing people do on forums like Slashdot.

    Actually, go back and read my entire post. The word 'fact' doesn't appear a single time.

    And that's all that matter. Market segment. Learn that concept. The device is not targeted for you

    Which is something I already said in my original post.

    Since it isn't targeted to you as a customer, it doesn't really matter if you care for it.

    I see. So because something isn't marketed towards me, I'm not allowed to express my opinion on it?

    Some of you people should learn a thing or two about economics.

    And you need to get off your soap box and stop assuming things about people you don't know. Just because I present my opinion doesn't mean I think it's the only correct one.

    It's just my opinion.

  • Re:Column width (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tomhudson (43916) <.barbara.hudson. ... bara-hudson.com.> on Friday April 02, 2010 @10:43AM (#31706290) Journal
    There's no reason why they can't use html for what it was supposed to be for - the semantic markup - and let the end user control the actual display format. The 800-pixel-wide website is an anachronism.
  • by Tetsujin (103070) on Friday April 02, 2010 @10:52AM (#31706380) Homepage Journal

    technical criteria. But what is passing over geek sites in waves the last six months is not:

    "I really want different features. I wouldn't buy this."

    I think what's going on is that a lot of people feel this way, but a lot of the people who do feel that way don't necessarily see the point in broadcasting their viewpoint. I mean, who cares how I feel about the iPad? Now, on the other hand, if I could take my opinion, extrapolate from it, and project it onto the entire world, then that makes my opinion relevant to everyone!

  • by Gadget_Guy (627405) on Friday April 02, 2010 @11:06AM (#31706518)

    Where in the story does it say these sites optimized away from flash solely for the iPad?

    You're kidding! Did you even read the summary, let alone the article? For starters, have a look at the title:

    How the iPad Is Already Reshaping the Internet (Without Flash)

    Or the first paragraph

    The iPad doesn't run Flash. If your website uses Flash, it won't play well on the iPad. Turns out, a lot of people want their sites to look pretty on the iPad. So the internet's already starting to look different.

    Or how about:

    They're launching iPad-tuned homepages that dispense with Flash entirely, with layouts designed to be held in your hand, like the front page of a newspaper, and they're coming out with iPad apps.

    And so on. And what of Apple's page on this subject [apple.com]? Well they say that the majority are iPad-ready because they use HTML5 video rather than Flash.

    Ask yourself, would the transition happen as quickly w/o Apple's influence, if at all? So it does have something to do with the iPad and part of that is Apples overall stance against Flash.

    Obviously I have asked myself that, otherwise I would not have written my original post. And with all the talk of people moving away from Flash, this is the first time I have seen it attributed to the iPad. I have yet to see anything to justify your assertion of the iPad's influence.

  • by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland @ y a hoo.com> on Friday April 02, 2010 @11:09AM (#31706534) Homepage Journal

    Yes, I agree. NPR came out with an iPhone only app, pissed me off to no end.

    It's is irrational. However I think it's just a temporary thing. The iPhone is cool, but other devices are doing it better.

  • by gilesjuk (604902) <.giles.jones. .at. .zen.co.uk.> on Friday April 02, 2010 @11:12AM (#31706562)

    Courier will probably never see the light of day. Even if it does then it will be years away.

  • Re:They are not... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Friday April 02, 2010 @11:33AM (#31706786) Homepage

    Well the iPad may well be why they're all pushing to get these projects done now rather than later. That's not too whacky an idea, since lots of sites went through the trouble of making iPhone-specific versions of their sites when the iPhone was released. I think some of these sites have even said themselves that they're making Flash-free versions specifically to be ready for the iPad.

    Now that's not the same as saying that they're *only* doing this to support the iPad. I expect that these sites wouldn't be making this change if it weren't also a move toward greater adoption of standards.

    But don't be a hater. Developers are working to support the iPad. It's not a coincidence. There's supposed to be a Netflix app at launch and a Hulu app on the way, and neither of those will have been created accidentally either.

  • by sean.peters (568334) on Friday April 02, 2010 @11:44AM (#31706900) Homepage

    ... are variations on the theme of "less capable than my netbook. No flash. Lame."

    Dude, the raw quantity of bits moved over the internet by these things is not the most important measure of their influence. Book publishers, game designers, newspaper publishers, etc, etc, are falling all over themselves trying to get their products into the iPad. I'm sort of lukewarm toward the device myself... but I can still see that it's going to be a huge deal.

  • by painandgreed (692585) on Friday April 02, 2010 @12:28PM (#31707374)

    It will be revolutionary to most people. Because most people have never owned a tablet PC, just like most people hadn't owned a smart phone before getting the iPhone.

    I slightly disagree. It will be revolutionary because most people have never had a book reader before. Just like how most people hadn't owned a mp3 player before the iPod. Tablets have their niche, but to be honest, it's less than that of book readers. They're not competing with MS tablets, they're competing with the Kindle and the Nook. They're going to try and show people that owning a book reader is useful and easy just like they did by using the iPod to show that mp3 players were a good thing. It's not going to be just a book reader just as the iPod didn't remain just an mp3 player. It's going to read books, magazines, video, etc. Once people realize they can get and use their media in digital form, if it's easier, cheaper, and more useful than physical form, they'll start switching to digital first just like people are switching to buying mp3s for music instead of CDs.

    I think Apple has learned their lesson with the Newton, their digital camera, the MacTV, and others. Don't try and push into an undiscovered field that needs creating. Instead wait for a market to develop that remains small because while functional, it is still a bit too technical or a hassle for the average person, and then develop an easy to use appliance that makes it work for the average person (and others who don't want to have to constantly tinker to get their stuff to work). Then constantly put out new versions with new features that actually work and are also easy to use (not just bullet points), to encourage new and old buyers to get the new version.

  • Re:They are not... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mongoose Disciple (722373) on Friday April 02, 2010 @12:29PM (#31707396)

    You make the incorrect inference that because someone is enticed into buying an Apple product that they have plenty of discretionary income, and that will result in an impacting influence in that and other markets well beyond that of what the rest of the world's purchasing influence would be.

    Well, let's be clear here:

    1) This isn't a logical proof. I'm not trying to demonstrate that everyone who buys an iPad has discretionary income to burn. I am trying to say that, probably, if you as an advertiser are trying to get people who have discretionary income to burn to see your ads, you'd be much smarter to put your ad in front of someone who just bought an iPad than some random person you know nothing about.

    2) While I'm sure there's some person out there for whom the iPad is exactly the tool they need to get their job done, for the vast majority of purchasers it's a fun toy that they don't genuinely need. Probably, most people who are out of work or who are afraid of losing their house are not buying an iPad.

    If you don't think those are fair statements, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

  • Re:Not so bad (Score:3, Insightful)

    by s73v3r (963317) <s73v3r AT gmail DOT com> on Friday April 02, 2010 @01:07PM (#31707788)
    Google is pushing for h264 too. Does that mean that they're pulling a Microsoft too?
  • by neuroklinik (452842) on Friday April 02, 2010 @01:13PM (#31707868)

    What an ignorant comment, especially coming from a Slashdot viewer.

    Would you spread your legs for open standards? Because that is what Apple is promoting.

    Now, if Apple were hawking their own proprietary Flash alternative, you'd have something.

    We should be applauding Apple for concentrating on html5.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 02, 2010 @02:56PM (#31708900)

    cater to the wealthy. Often, the easiest way to do that is to simply A) make it pretty, B) jack up the price, and C) build the perception of exclusivity.

    Real wealthy people, i.e. people that actually have lots of money vs. your distorted perception of what wealth means, i.e. new BMW every 2 years, inflated ARM mortgage and piles of debt, would laugh in your face.

There's a whole WORLD in a mud puddle! -- Doug Clifford

Working...