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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • 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..

    • 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.

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

        by HermMunster (972336) on Friday April 02, 2010 @09:04AM (#31705574)

        Yes, I agree. The sale of 50,000 to 1,000,000 (initial) units is hardly enough to even make the internet blink, let alone take a dramatic turn away from a product that has been an internet changer for the past decade. Considering the lack of standard implementation of HTML 5 you won't see much impact for a long time to come. Flash has helped monetize the web and the investment is considerable. Nothing Apple will do will change that overnight, and attempts like this look shrill to the educated masses.

        Any claim of an impact the iPad has (or will have for the next couple years) is an exaggeration.

        • 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 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.
          • Actually... (Score:3, Interesting)

            by denzacar (181829)

            Advertising to THOSE people would be preaching to the choir for certain advertisers and meaningless to most others.
            So they are actually a waste of advertising money.

            Sure, you will be able to sell them every single shiny thingamajig by Apple or a lot of Starbucks lattes - but also only about zero items that are not "hip".

      • 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.

    • Newgrounds (Score:4, Insightful)

      by tepples (727027) <{tepples} {at} {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.

      • 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:Newgrounds (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 02, 2010 @08:50AM (#31705512)

        Here's DHTML Lemmings written six years ago:

        http://www.elizium.nu/scripts/lemmings/ [elizium.nu]

        Here's an HTML5 particle system:

        http://www.mrspeaker.net/dev/parcycle/ [mrspeaker.net]

        Here's Quake II running in your browser:

        http://code.google.com/p/quake2-gwt-port/ [google.com]

        • 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.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Skuld-Chan (302449)

            Not to mention Adobe ported Quake 2 to Flash back in 2007 using the Flash C compiler and it was about as fast - considering it was the most hacked together port on earth I thought its performance was ok.

            Also - Quake 2 might have run on a really fast 486 (like a 133 mhz one), but yeah it was designed for a low end Pentium with hardware acceleration.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by MaWeiTao (908546)

          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 osgeek (239988) on Friday April 02, 2010 @10:41AM (#31706262) Homepage Journal

        Stupid dancing badgers almost ate my soul. Pretty colors... they dance. But why do they dance? What are they going to do next? Mushroom? It's red. What is it doing? Oh... badgers... how you torment me so.

        SNAKE!

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

      by tomhudson (43916) <barbara...hudson@@@barbara-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.

      • 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.

      • Column width (Score:3, Insightful)

        by tepples (727027)

        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?

      • 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 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 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? ;)

      • by Sir_Lewk (967686) <sirlewk@nOSpAm.gmail.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.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by somersault (912633)

          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 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.

    • 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 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.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by FreonTrip (694097)
        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 unc
        • 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 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 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 whisper_jeff (680366) on Friday April 02, 2010 @10:04AM (#31705956)

          The portable devices for quick use already exist, and they are way better than the iPad...

          *YAWN*

          Sorry. You were saying something about it having less space than a Nomad and how lame it was. Well, that's what I heard, at least...

    • 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.
    • 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...

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by somersault (912633)

        Hope it has some kind of stand otherwise it's going to be a real pain in the ass to get a good viewing angle without also getting it too near to messy ingredients while cooking.. a typical netbook or even a laptop would be good for these things (and in fact I have used a laptop or netbook for all of them in the last month), and has the added benefit of a decent keyboard.

        I still think the iPad looks pretty cool and wouldn't mind trying one, but don't try to pretend like it has anything going for it other tha

  • by Mystery00 (1100379) on Friday April 02, 2010 @08:20AM (#31705396)
    *Looks closer* Oh yeah! Some of the pixels.... no wait that's just a bit of dust.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 02, 2010 @08:20AM (#31705398)

    The first thing I did to make my site more iPad-friendly was to use nothing but different shades of pink. The green I used before is gone, along with the black. It's all pink.

    The second thing I did was put penises all over the place. My site is actually about mobile homes, but erect penises are what really attract the iPad crowd.

    The third thing I did was use words like "fabulous" and "super duper" all over the place.

    The fourth thing I did was replace all 's's with 'th'. So now my site has text like, "This is the motht fabuloth mobile home you'll thee on the market today!"

    The fifth thing I did was made my site navigable with nothing more than a flick of the wrist.

    I'm sure with these changes that my site will become the premiere site for iPad-using mobile home enthusiasts.

  • 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).

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Aladrin (926209)

      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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Arkham (10779)

      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 mo

  • 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 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."

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by internic (453511)

      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.

    • 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 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.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Tetsujin (103070)

          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 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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by TheRaven64 (641858)

      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

      No, it makes sense. You can trivially package Flash apps as iPhone apps and put them in the iPhone store. If you already have a Flash-based site, popping it in an iPhone app can be done in a couple of hours. It's misleading when people claim 'Flash doesn't run on the iPhone' - it does, it just doesn't have a browser plugin.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by geekoid (135745)

      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 SharpFang (651121) on Friday April 02, 2010 @08:53AM (#31705526) Homepage Journal

    ...for the competitors.

    iPad is an awesome idea poorly executed. The OS is poor. The hardware limitations are severe. The price is silly. The lockdown is a showstopper. But the idea of a small wireless touchscreen as a form factor for a computer is awesome.

    First netbooks, with 8" screens, 2GB of flash and 512MB RAM were useless too. But I don't imagine myself without my eee900 now - it reached a very usable and perfectly adequate parameters for an attractive price, while retaining the basic form factor.

    It will be the same with "pads", computers that look just like iPad, but can be used for photoshop (wireless, affordable Cintiq anyone?), can run any software you like (factory floor control or storage hall management anyone?), can be had for the same price as a netbook, can use 3G, can be used in bright daylight without backlight, have built-in SD reader, a camera and so on.

    And just like the web only -somwehat- adapted to netbooks (they are what keeps 32bit software alive), but few sites care about the earliest of them, iPad influence on the net won't be very deep either.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by alen (225700)

      that's nice

      for us people that have procreated and have ankle biters there are cool apps like a Dora coloring book, board games and others you can run spending time with your kids. $500 upfront investment and a low per app price is pretty good compared to $30 for a physical board game where half the pieces will be lost and that will make a mess.

      and i bet once all the old classic geek board games start to hit the iPad, geeks won't care about it being locked down

  • 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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by ahankinson (1249646)

      You do realize the alternative to Flash they're proposing is HTML5 / h.264, right? Both open standards that anyone can use and write on any platform.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by alen (225700)

        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 ev

    • The weakness of Flash is that it's like Java. You write once and the content will suck anywhere with a Flash plugin.

  • by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland@@@yahoo...com> on Friday April 02, 2010 @10:45AM (#31706318) Homepage Journal

    almost every complaint about the iPad is exactly the same complaint people had about the iPod.

    For me, there are two deal killers:
    1: No built in video camera
    2: http://wepad.mobi/en [wepad.mobi]

"I have just one word for you, my boy...plastics." - from "The Graduate"

Working...