![Media Media](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/media_64.png)
![Social Networks Social Networks](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/social_64.png)
![Youtube Youtube](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/youtube_64.png)
![Apple Apple](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/apple_64.png)
Facebook Is Transcoding Video For iPad 277
Stoobalou sounds another death knell for Flash video. He says "Another heavy user of Adobe's video streaming software Flash is now pandering to the all-powerful iPad. Everybody's favourite waste of time, social notworking monster Facebook, is now streaming user videos to Apple's second coming of the portable computer with no sign of Flash in sight."
Summary Is a Bit of a Stretch ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I just checked videos my friend put of me drunk out of my mind "singing" karaoke Killers songs (no, I will not provide a link) and sure enough they're in Flash player 10 through my Firefox browser. Since it's allegedly transcoding this real time from Flash to MP4 when it detects the mobile Safari browser, I would claim that Flash is not only very much in sight but it is the default encoding on Facebook -- keeping it very much alive. At least that's what I gather from my experience in my browser.
The decision to keep Flash off of some Apple mobile products was Apple's decision and Apple's alone. Do you think Facebook enjoys this overhead transcoding cost of its videos? I highly doubt it. I think this is a case of Facebook trying to building a unified cross platform experience for users (and I don't often speak kindly of Facebook) not their agreement to obsolete Flash video. I impatiently await HTML5 and more open video and audio codecs in all senses of the word 'open.'
Re: (Score:2)
That, and the "social notworking" commentary. Unless it was a typo. In which case, someone needs to add that to the entry's tag list.
Re:Summary Is a Bit of a Stretch ... (Score:4, Interesting)
social notworking
I propose the refusal of such tag in Slashdot, on the basis of ubiquity.
Re:Summary Is a Bit of a Stretch ... (Score:5, Informative)
Facebook may very well already be encoding its videos in H.264 (which is supported by Flash). In this case, all they need to do is to wrap the files into an MP4 container, with no transcoding necessary.
YouTube already supports this, and I imagine, will begin to do it by default in the near future.
Re:Summary Is a Bit of a Stretch ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Facebook may very well already be encoding its videos in H.264 (which is supported by Flash). In this case, all they need to do is to wrap the files into an MP4 container, with no transcoding necessary.
YouTube already supports this, and I imagine, will begin to do it by default in the near future.
Thanks for straightening me out. Well, I suppose that's what I get for reading the article:
So rather than using HTML5, Facebook is actually detecting that the iPad's Safari browser is in the mix, and is transcoding the original video format to MP4 on the fly.
I constantly forget about the container when dealing with video and audio file formats ... you would think I would have learned by now after using VLC so much to stream internet radio stations to both MP3 and Ogg formats for replay later with no internet connection. Could somebody explain to me what the container brings? I understand we gain compression and save space with the encoding of the material but why are there so many containers that describe how that encoding is stored? What trade offs do these containers bring and why are they so goddamn proprietary when they seem to provide little real value for the actual data being stored? It's simply some meta data about the actual data so why is it such a thorn in everyone's side? I don't develop in this realm so please tolerate my ineptitude and help me out here. It often confusese me [slashdot.org] relentlessly [slashdot.org] and I am dumbfounded at how these two things are mired in litigation.
Re:Summary Is a Bit of a Stretch ... (Score:5, Informative)
My understanding is that some containers bring features such as multiple audio tracks, multiple sub titles. The sound and video are stored separately inside the container (this is why sound can get out of sync sometimes, they are 2 separate streams of data playing simultaneously). Some containers like mkv can provide different auto streams for things like different languages, as well as subtitles and many many other different kinds of metadata. The container is almost like a zip archive with all the different parts living inside it with additional data storage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Summary Is a Bit of a Stretch ... (Score:4, Informative)
Basically, a container serves to package up multiple streams of data (H.264 video, AAC audio, etc.) into one file with an index (for jumping around and maybe indicating chapters), subtitles, etc. As for the “what's what” of containers, Wikipedia has a nice comparison table [wikipedia.org] available.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would claim that Flash is not only very much in sight but it is the default encoding on Facebook -- keeping it very much alive... Do you think Facebook enjoys this overhead transcoding cost of its videos? I highly doubt it. I think this is a case of Facebook trying to building a unified cross platform experience for users...
Right, so Facebook capitulating means they recognize the importance of reaching customers without Flash and will do what it takes to reach them. They cant enjoy the overhead or complexity, so this is sign that Facebook will quite likely move to HTML5 for video in the future. It's nice when Apple's business goals line up with the best interests of users in the long term by promoting adoption of open standards.
Re: (Score:2)
By "long term" do you mean after today's users are dead?
Re: (Score:2)
"Death gong?" "No sign of Flash in sight?" I don't quite see how this news equates to any such hyperbole. I just checked videos my friend put of me drunk out of my mind "singing" karaoke Killers songs (no, I will not provide a link) ...'
This is your boss, please see HR immediately.
I wouldn't quite call it transcoding... (Score:5, Informative)
The Flash video used on Facebook is already H.264 video and AAC audio, just in a FLV container. All they really need to do with these is remux everything. I'm assuming they'll just remux into an MP4 or MOV container.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing like a biased article summary on /. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Fear is the mind-killer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No! Say it isn't so!
I'm sorry but.... (Score:2, Insightful)
LMAO!
Re: (Score:2)
I've wondered about this... what's the point in watching movies in a resolution greater than the screen that you are watching them on?
To Kill Flash (Score:3, Informative)
MAYBE. Don't hold your breath.
News For Nerds: Taco Is Trolling His Own Website (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot hasn't been Taco's site for some time now. He's solely trolling for page hits for his superior's ad revenue.
Here we go again (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess this will be the solution for HTML5 (Score:2)
I can see this sort of solution work for HTML5 as well. Letting servers transcode video files will result in all users on all platforms having access to all video content, without the need for a default codec that everyone can agree upon. It will require massive computing power, but there are already services which provide this functionality, like Bits on the Run [bitsontherun.com].
Of course it would be a lot nicer if we could agree upon a codec, but I don't see it actually happening though.
Video-bah. Call me when they port Farmville (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
then I'll start to believe that Flash might die.
Time to start believing [joystiq.com]!
OK, yeah, it's not definitive, just speculation...
Re:Video-bah. Call me when they port Farmville (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/04/21/its-coming-farmville-heading-to-iphone-and-ipad/ [tuaw.com]
Ring Ring.
Why should they transcode the video? (Score:2)
Why should they transcode the video? I mean the flash plugin already play h264, and MP4 also contains use so no need to transcode. It is simply a case of serving the files directly to the browser, instead of having a flash plugin reading the file. (Been there, done that there is no reason to transcode anything)
Apple bashers or no... (Score:2)
This article summary is full of flamebait language. I could start getting into the flamewar but honestly I'd just rather point it out.
By the way, I find it amusing that everyone thinks Flash is God's child now. I thought we all hated flash? Isn't HTML 5 better?
Pander, much? (Score:5, Insightful)
A website implemented some UI changes to accommodate a popular mobile device. Stop the presses!
Re: (Score:2)
It's not even that. It's "A website implemented some UI changes which make its content more open and available to a wider range of devices, including several popular mobile devices."
The summary is just snarky flamebait.
Great excuse. (Score:2)
But I can not believe it is just for the iPad. OK it may sell well but overall it must be more of the iPad having a problem not being able to play video from Facebook than the other way around.
There will be more reasons behind it. The iPhone would be more reasonable already (many more sold). Or maybe Facebook themselves want to get rid of Flash but don't want to say it directly?
All and all it's a great excuse. The iPad is high in the minds of many people, so it's easy to ride the wave and to "blame the iP
Re: (Score:2)
Not called HTML 5? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why is Facebook's technique not called HTML5? I guess they're not serving it up to everybody, but when they detect an iPad, are they purposely avoiding the video tag and using the object tag instead?
Apple is a tool of the devil (Score:2, Offtopic)
Good riddance to Flash (Score:2)
Could be worse. Could be Real Media. (Score:2)
At least they're not using Real Media. Some Stanford lectures are in .rm format, probably because that seemed like a good idea back in 1998. Since Real Player is generally considered malware, I don't want to install it, and am slowly running lectures through a transcoder into .MP4 format.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
we would still be using floppy disks and parallel ports. Even if you don't like their products, or don't recognize this as progress, I see no reason to be so snide about it.
Agreed. I'm no Apple fanboy (only product I have is a five year old iPod) but I've been rather amazed by the depth and breadth of content free emotional invective we've seen surrounding the iPad launch.
Re:Were it not for Apple, (Score:5, Insightful)
I only recently purchased an iPhone (for overseas travel)--and am completely sick and tired of the Apple bashing, primarily for reasons that it doesn't work "for me" and therefore must not be good for anyone else.
I'd also note that if it wasn't for Apple, there would be a lot less pressure on Motorola, Nokia and Samsung to produce phones with a better user experience.
Apple is not the end-all, be-all of technology--but I personally have much to be grateful for.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just a bunch of Slashdot dummies who are doing the "bashing". Apple's tight integration of certain devices (iPhone and iPad, basically) with back-end services isn't right for them. Cool, buy something else and move on.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nope. Apple trying to turn back the clock to the 80s is not right for most people in the end.
The problem with nonsense like the iPad and MS-DOS before it is that few people understand the
broader implications of their particular tiny self-centered decision. That fact that Apple tries
to lock you out of much of the web, or lock your content to it's platform is nothing to be
trivially glossed over.
The nature of the walled garden needs to be repeatedly brought to light.
It's simply ensuring informed consent.
As a r
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope. Apple trying to turn back the clock to the 80s is not right for most people in the end.
You highly overestimate your similarity to "most people". Most people are served by simpler interfaces, not more complex ones. You think of this as "turning back the clock" because the things being given up along the way to a more usable device are things that are (presumably) important to you, but these things are meaningless to most people when compared to the benefit of being something they will more fully enjoy using. The counter to this is that the few people like yourself are in the opposite camp, and
drinking the kool-aid much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple forces technology to conform itself to humans
(rolling my eyes)
are you kidding? Apple is not "forcing" technology to do anything. They designed a pretty decent phone, but the iPhone is not the be-all-end-all of smart-phone technology. There was a point when the features of the iPhone made it somewhat unique. That moment has passed. Now it is one of a handful of well-designed phones that all do, essentially, the same thing.
Apple's brilliance is in marketing. They are able to market their products in such a way as to convince people, like you, that they have some magical powers that other companies don't have. The iPhone is still coasting on its reputation. The iPad is well on its way to doing the same thing (although the niche it fills is infinitesimal).
Exhibit A is this whole conversation. Apple has been able to spin the fact that its products are inferior (they don't play flash) into some kind of asset. FYI iPhone users really do want to watch video on their devices, just like they do on a regular computer. That the iPhone can't is a design flaw and a weakness of the phone. It's explicitly forcing users to conform to technology.
You want to watch video on a site that doesn't do special encoding for you phone? Apple says "Too f-ing bad. You don't need that anyway."
You want to run apps in the background? Apple says "Too f-ing bad. You don't need that anyway."
You want an app for hardcore pornography? Apple says "Too f-ing bad. You don't need that anyway."
just three examples off the top of my head of Apple technology forcing users to conform to their technology.
It's like car enthusiasts telling everyone that they must drive sticks because they are more powerful and more in line with the nature of the technology
This analogy makes me think you're missing the point. If the iPhone were a car, you wouldn't be allowed to open the hood, change your own oil, pump your own gas, or change the tires. you wouldn't be allowed to drive to certain places and you could only use your car for pre-approved purposes. independent mechanics would be forbidden to touch the car, etc...
so this is like a car enthusiast telling everyone to not buy that car with all those restrictions because when you buy something, you should have control over what you can do with it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
are you kidding? Apple is not "forcing" technology to do anything.
Apparently you've missed all the Slashdot stories and posts about the limitations placed on the iPhone and iPad. Those "limitations" are exactly this.
Even something as simple as using base 10 for filesystem information is an example of this.
They designed a pretty decent phone, but the iPhone is not the be-all-end-all of smart-phone technology.
Who said it was?
Apple's brilliance is in marketing.
Marketing without substance to back it up would not be enough to bring Apple to the level of success it has now. People would just buy one iPod, then never buy another, if that were the case.
Apple's marketing works because their products are things people
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Those "limitations" are exactly this.
And this is what I mean about taking what is actually a weakness and spinning it into a strength.
The iPhone is brilliant because it doesn't force people to conform to technology. It does this by limiting features?
have I got a phone for you!
http://www.jitterbug.com/ [jitterbug.com]
Nobody fucking cares
You make the same logical fallacy that you criticized the GP for. You don't care. You assume that nobody else cares.
Even accepting the premise that sales of the iPhone prove that nobody cares about openness. It doesn't mean that people wont c
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And this is what I mean about taking what is actually a weakness and spinning it into a strength.
Because it's *not* a weakness. It *is* a strength.
These "weaknesses" are deliberate, not simple limitations in design or components. Apple makes these choices *not* because they want to control you (really? this is one of the most idiotic lines of reasoning perpetrated on Slashdot in recent times). It's because they want to control the technology so that it's appealing to more people.
The iPhone is brilliant because it doesn't force people to conform to technology. It does this by limiting features?
Yes! Glad you finally understand.
You make the same logical fallacy that you criticized the GP for. You don't care. You assume that nobody else cares.
It's not an assumption if it's true. And before you get technical, I've made it clear that I
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This analogy makes me think you're missing the point. If the iPhone were a car, you wouldn't be allowed to open the hood, change your own oil, pump your own gas, or change the tires. you wouldn't be allowed to drive to certain places and you could only use your car for pre-approved purposes. independent mechanics would be forbidden to touch the car, etc...
While I understand what you're getting at (people have said exactly this about Linux vs. Windows), I think you're actually proving the PP's point if you put it this way. In general, people who drive cars just take them to the garage if there's something wrong with it, they don't fix their own cars, they don't put a bigger engine on a turbo on it, they just _drive_ it, that's what they bought it for. The same thing holds for phones and now thinks are starting to look like computers are more or less going the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
um... I honestly believe that the latest Android phones have comparable features to the latest iPhone model, yes.
like anything you buy, the competing products have various strengths and weaknesses. but they're all comparable and none is clearly superior to the rest.
google informs me that I am not the only one who thinks so
http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/devices/htc-incredible-vs-apple-iphone-3gs/ [digitaltrends.com]
http://www.pcworld.com/article/194464/droid_vs_iphone_3gs_an_update.html [pcworld.com]
http://www.ifixit.com/Misc/nexus_vs_ [ifixit.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
um... I honestly believe that the latest Android phones have comparable features to the latest iPhone model, yes.
Um, that's not the question he asked.
You seem to be frequently prone to using straw men to make your point. I suggest you heed Brannon's second sentence. The man speaks the truth.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If it makes you happier, I don't own any of those phones. So you won't be hearing any "Nokia is better than Apple" bashing from me because I just don't care. A phone is a phone is a phone.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My cell phone runs the same operating system and software that my computer does. Does that mean that my computer is just a phone too?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Were it not for Apple, (Score:5, Insightful)
The Apple bashing comes from Apple users being on their high-horse about their Apple products that they use... i.e., "you're still using windoze? why don't you just see the light and get a mac?"
"the iPad is going to be the biggest innovation of the decade!!1"
... and other examples of that sort of mentality. The iPad isn't particularly innovative, IMO; it's just likely well designed, well manufactured, well marketed, and has an extremely famous brand associated with it. Brand is an incredible motivator... and I think that is primarily what Apple-bashers dislike; brand loyalty. This or that is cool because it's Apple and this or that is not as cool because it's not Apple.
That said, most of the Apple-bashing that takes place is just as silly as the Apple-user mindset that it criticizes. So is most of the Microsoft bashing. And Google bashing. The main issue? People decide to bash the users rather than logically work through the mindset. I use Microsoft products, but that doesn't make me a shill. I use Google products, that doesn't mean I support the One Google Government... etc.
Re:Were it not for Apple, (Score:5, Interesting)
The iPad isn't particularly innovative, IMO; it's just likely well designed, well manufactured, well marketed, and has an extremely famous brand associated with it.
I'm no Apple fanboy and I don't own an iPad, but your analysis doesn't seem exactly fair. The iPad isn't purely a product of slick design and branding (though that sure hasn't hurt.) Remember that when the iPhone interface came out it revolutionized the mobile phone UI world. Since then nearly all of the major manufacturers have completely reworked their UIs to mimic the touch-based interface-- Microsoft even scrapped their existing Mobile OS and completely replaced it. Palm is about to go out of business. The idea of a capacitive, multi-touch based interface with software designed from the ground up may not have been strictly novel (i.e., the component pieces were all out there), but Apple's method of integrating them all was really was a huge advance.
Now it may seem reasonable to say that the iPad is just an iPhone scaled up to tablet size, so while the iPhone might count, the iPad is not a huge innovation. What this overlooks is that the iPad is just the second incarnation of the iPhone UI --- i.e., it's mostly the same innovation, but it's one that hasn't fully run its course. Taking that very successful UI approach up to tablet size may be an obvious step, but it's a worthy step that no competitors have been able to do convincingly. The tablet market was very close to zero right pre-iPad, and that's not all due to bad branding on the part of the existing tabletmakers. Mostly it's because the previous generation of tablets were very different animals and nobody wanted them (outside of a handful of specific fields). I'm guessing that if the iPad takes off (and a slew of Android/MS competitors succeed in its footsteps) it's not going to be due to good design and branding.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's the difference between a fanboy and a satisfied customer?
Re: (Score:2)
...and we all know how long it took the floppy drive to die, right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Um..... please explain how Apple is responsible for the progression from floppies to hard drives, or from parallel ports to USB ports. The former seems a natural event since programs/OSes could no longer fit on floppies. The second is a result of the USB Consortium. To give Apple credit for this seems disingenuous, (especially since Apple would have preferred to kill USB in favor of Firewire).
I'll give Apple credit for bringing GUIs to the home user in 1984, and a user-friendly alternative to the MS-DOS/
Re:Were it not for Apple, (Score:5, Funny)
Apple is responsible for ALL progress in PC's. Whether it is the Intel CPU, the Windows logo, or the Linux kernel. Apple invented them all.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when was the Linux kernel "progress"? /complete and utter troll ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple also created the Intellectual Property underlying Unix, allowing one of the greatest power players in the Unix community, SCO, to begin to take off and create quality products into the present day.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They don't deserve credit for killing floppies
I'm pretty sure the early Macs generated enough of a magnetic field to do just that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll give Apple credit for bringing GUIs to the home user in 1984, and a user-friendly alternative to the MS-DOS/windows from 1984 to 95, plus making MP3 players "cool" with the iPod, but that's about it. They don't deserve credit for killing floppies or parallel ports.
Even if you give Apple credit for any of the above, how does one rule out the possibility that soon after another player wouldn't have stepped up to fill the vacuum with another tool or technology that would better suit us today in openness, quality or usability? I will gladly give them credit for better user interfaces in 1984 and in regards to specific products at specific times. But to claim that today we would still be stuck using floppy disks and parallel ports just because Apple aided in the success
Re:Were it not for Apple, (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if you give Apple credit for any of the above, how does one rule out the possibility that soon after another player wouldn't have stepped up to fill the vacuum with another tool or technology that would better suit us today in openness, quality or usability?
One cannot rule out that possibility, but you seem to imply that innovators don't deserve some modicum of respect.
I guess Newton wasn't all that cool since "someone else would have discovered gravity," and Einstein is a yawner because "the theory of General Relativity would have eventually been worked out."
Re:Were it not for Apple, (Score:4, Insightful)
One cannot rule out that possibility, but you seem to imply that innovators don't deserve some modicum of respect.
I guess Newton wasn't all that cool since "someone else would have discovered gravity," and Einstein is a yawner because "the theory of General Relativity would have eventually been worked out."
Um, well, I didn't say "no modicum of respect" ... I said they should be given credit for specific products at specific times.
I guess Newton wasn't all that cool since "someone else would have discovered gravity,"
So you're comparing the iPad and Apple products with the "discovery" of gravity or the theory of general relativity? I recognize innovation and I recognize science ... while there's some crossover there, I fail to see you analogy but let's run with it. Something about Newton really annoys me and that's the crediting of solely him with infinitesimal calculus. Why am I annoyed? No one ever talks about Leibniz [wikipedia.org] who, by most accounts, deserves at least partial credits for this work. Why, just last night I read of Emil Post's slightly earlier paper on what are essentially Turing Machines [wikipedia.org] than Turing's own 1936 paper (although Turing's was peer reviewed before Post's). Should not Post deserve some credit or recognition? Could there have been Posts during Apple's UI revolution?
That's all I'm asking. Your analogy falls apart, of course, when we consider that Apple was the first to proliferate such a UI (not necessarily invent it) at which point we move further apart from science and into the denigrating worlds of marketing and business.
Congratulations on pushing my point to the extreme though so it was easily defeated, especially when I called for respect of Apple's specific products at the time of their release.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're comparing the iPad and Apple products with the "discovery" of gravity or the theory of general relativity?
No, he is not. The whole point of an analogy is to highlight some part of an argument by exaggerating its implication in another scenario.
And whether or not Leibniz and Post deserve any credit or not has no bearing on the fact that Newton and Turing do.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I guess Newton wasn't all that cool
Actually, Apple was responsible for the Newton as well, and it was hella cool, as any aging 1990's-era fanboy will tell you.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll need a lot of proof for me to agree that no one would have moved us to a better home computing UI at some point between 1984 and today had Apple not given the home user what it did.
Until recently, Apple was the only company that actually cared about the end user experience, and in making the GUI user friendly and attractive. Microsoft certainly didn't care up until Vista, and that was only in response to OS X. Linux had stuff before Microsoft did, but most of that was trying to implement something to show Linux could have as much eye candy as Apple. Linux might have still developed a level of eye candy, but its adoption would have been much less.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Microsoft certainly didn't care up until Vista
I would argue that the Commodore/Amiga company cared. They produced one of the most user-friendly OSes of the 1980s which allowed users to do virtually anything... including preemptive multitasking, which Mac could not do until 2000 and MS not until 98.
I'd even argue Microsoft cared about appearance. It's why they bent-over backwards to copy the Mac OS when they released Windows 95 (trashcan, shutdown procedure, and start/apple menu). It was their
Re:Were it not for Apple, (Score:5, Informative)
Simple. The iMac shipped with USB everything. No floppy disk. No legacy ports (ADB, RS232, etc). Hell, I don't think the original ones came with a CD burner!
Back then yes you had USB. But you had two measly ports that pretty much sat empty because all the peripherals you could get were cheaper and easier to get in other connection formats. A keyboard and mouse were PS/2 because you could get both cheaply (a cheapass USB one would run you $50, a PS2 version of same for $20 or less). Printers used the parallel port. Modems either plugged into a serial port or inside your PC. And hard drives you had to install 'em yourself. You could get external Zips and Jaz drives, but unless you used SCSI, you put up with parallel ports. You transferred data via sneakernet.
And hell, USB had been around for 3+ years and peripherals were hard to come by. They were expensive and no one wanted them. OS support was iffy, too. Windows 95 OSR2 had basic keyboard/mouse support. Windows 98 same, but you could get drivers for mass storage. Basically non-existent until Windows 2000.
The Apple releases the iMac and gets you USB only. All of a sudden, a flood of peripherals started coming out for USB, and prices plunged. USB floppies, USB printers, keyboards and mice under $10. USB didn't mean overpriced anymore. And I scoffed at USB devices because they were overpriced - the USB versions were always much more expensive.
And Apple did like Firewire, because well, you could stick a hard disk on it and not have ot wait all day to transfer files like USB. (Remember, the iPod used Firewire purely because USB 1.1 was pathetically slow, and USB2.0 was on the horizon but would take a few more years to become popular and standard on every PC)
Re:Were it not for Apple, (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, all the peripheral makers jumped on USB because they were afraid to lose that 5% market share that many had been ignoring for years.
Re: (Score:2)
as with the rest of the economy, it was a 5% with a disproportionate share of expendable wealth.
number of people matters less to a business. it's number of people with money.
In your world: (Score:2)
PC user: "I bought me a PC and Microthing Office but I just don't have me enough money to buy me a printer".
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard people say that accessories for Apple products tend to be a bit more expensive than no-name accessories, or that more
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
At some point some hardware company had to make the plunge, and in these cases it happened to be Apple.
Rather than it just "happened to be Apple", it was Apple for some very good reasons. Apple has a more loyal customer base for their PC's than other vendors because Apple has more differentiation, using a different OS. As such they can make more radical and major changes without losing as many customers to rival companies. Apple also spends more in R&D than most rivals PC makers because part of their business plan is to be more "cutting edge" and because they have the freedom to do so because they contro
Re: (Score:2)
> Sure, all the peripheral makers jumped on USB because they were afraid to lose that 5% market share that many had been ignoring for years.
[sarcasm] Yes. The fact that INTEL was bundling USB on all of it's motherboards despite lack of Windows support had NOTHING to do with it. [/sarcasm]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That AND because Microsoft had mandated back in 1996 that Firewire/USB/PCI was the future, and eliminate the old legacy busses. In a strange twist, it wasn't Apple that was innovating. It was Bill Gates. (Of course being Gates would could say he was actually "ordering" compliance.....)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Influential now, perhaps, but not so much back then.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Simple. The iMac shipped with USB everything
Yes but the floppy had already been obsolete at that point (1998) due to its small size... the floppy would have eventually disappeared of its own accord due to lack of use by users. So no great advancement there.
As for eliminating the parallel port, we technical folks usually call that "lack of usability". It really just meant you had to junk your printer and buy a new USB or Firewire-capable one. Wasteful. And finally this iMac couldn't ev
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ever heard of post hoc ergo propter hoc [wikipedia.org]?
Apple was first to deploy USB, but they didn't develop it, Intel did (primarily). Do you imagine the latter would have bothered if the Mac was the only target market? Apple wasn't even a member of the original USB consortium. Beyond keyboards and mice, Apple was far more interested in Firewire (which they developed) in any case, and for good reason.
Re:Were it not for Apple, (Score:5, Informative)
You certainly have a whitewashed view of history... Windows 98 had full USB support for any device built out of the box. First usb header (not even a port) I ever saw was on an ASUS motherboard in the mid 90's long before apple was using them.
Most PC companies are about gradual change - have both options on a board, then one option after the parts arrive - which is what Apple did until the iMac g3. One could easily argue what they did was a bit premature.
Interesting you mention floppies - I recall a lot of mac users being rather upset (this is long before CD-RW, or usb thumb drives were all that common). Many 3rd party companies made a lot of money selling after market USB floppy drives.
Apple did force the issue, but like I said - iMac came out in 1998 (there first all usb machine - no ADB) - by then Windows 98 had full USB support built into the OS. Microsoft's famous bluescreen error [youtube.com] while plugging in a USB scanner was demoing Windows 98, and yes that feature worked when it shipped. 95 OS-R2 had the same USB support via a patch, and no it wasn't just keyboard/mice.
In other words - by 1998 - USB was here probably because both Microsoft and Apple promoted it actively, but you have to remember Apple derided USB (even when 2.0 came out) as being too primative for anything hdd/camera/scanner related (yes there were firewire scanners made for the Mac).
Re:Were it not for Apple, (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll bite: I have owned precisely two Mac computers, both during the period between 1987 and 1993. And, the next time I've purchased an Apple product was a used iPhone from my friend about three months ago. I'm hardly what you'd call a loyal customer.
That said, I'm going to hazard a suspicion as to why we're crediting Apple for hard drives and use of USB: it'd be early adoption in the consumer market. Yes, hard drives have been around for a very very long time, but Apple likely deserves a lot of credit for packaging and integrating in a way that it had broad appeal.
Please keep in mind that this was in an era where some outfit named IBM questioned the need for a personal computer.
Re: (Score:2)
You are an EE, so you don't understand how markets work. Maybe you should go for a marketing degree instead.
Before Apple, there weren't a lot of mainstream PC makers that included USB. PS/2 and parallel were 'good enough'. Without a market, no peripheral manufacturer would make a USB peripheral; it would be a pointless waste of resources.
Once Apple introduced USB only Macs, it gave to segments of the industry (printers and scanners) a market...one that they've historically been a part of anyway. At that poi
Apple made USB happen with the iMac (Score:4, Insightful)
USB everything. No keyboard port, no mouse port. No serial ports. No slots. No floppy drive. It didn't even have Firewire, which Apple invented!
It just had USB, ethernet and audio out.
So suddenly peripheral makers started actually making USB peripherals. Serial ports, keyboards, floppy drives, mice, printers and a lot more.
Meanwhile over on the PC, PCs had USB but you didn't actually use it for anything. USB mice and keyboards didn't even work correctly in Windows 95 or 2000 (the keyboard didn't start working until late in boot so if you had a problem that required you to hit a key to type a path to find a driver you couldn't do it). Printers came after a while (parallel port connectors must have been expensive), widespread adoption of mice came a lot later and keyboards a long time after that.
Intel did invent USB, but its use on PCs was limited until after Apple had jumped in with both feet on the Mac side.
Apple was huge in pushing the floppy drive out the door, but it was really the USB memory stick that killed it if you ask me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple was huge in pushing the floppy drive out the door, but it was really the USB memory stick that killed it if you ask me.
Well, no. What killed the floppy drive was the fact that you started to need several dozens of disks to install anything relevant. I'd say "for example, Windows", but that could have been taken as a flamebait. Oops, I said it. I'm outta here!
Re: (Score:2)
Apple certainly didn't invent USB, but they were the first to make it "cool" to use USB for all of your peripherals.
Apple wasn't the first to realize that floppies were no longer meeting the portable storage needs of users, but they were the first to make it "cool" to stop using the technology during a time when floppies were still in widespread use.
Apple has now made it "cool" to hate Flash even though I, and many others, have hated Flash for many years now. Whether or not it will ultimately kill Flash rem
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Um..... please explain how Apple is responsible for the progression from floppies to hard drives, or from parallel ports to USB ports.
Well, Apple did play a role in both these technologies, although I think the previous poster overstates the case. Apple was probably the first major PC maker to stop including floppy drives by default on their machines. As such, they helped kill the floppy drive. Hard drives had long since been deployed widely at this point by everyone though, so they had little to do with the switch to hard drives. I suppose you could make an argument about the Mac classic being one of the first popular PC's with a hard dr
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has never tried to kill USB. They have always pushed it as the best way to connect low power peripherals like keyboards and mice. They deploy it in parallel with Firewire which they think is the best way to connect hard drives, video cameras, etc.
I absolutely agree. FireWire is overkill and expensive for low-bandwidth devices. Who wants to pay more for a keyboard with a FireWire controller? But it is absolutely essential in high-bandwidth devices such as the ones you mentioned.
Re:Were it not for Apple, (Score:4, Informative)
There was this computer you might have heard of, it was called the iMac.
When it came out, USB was around but there were very few peripherals and people were still using floppies rather than CDs for everything.
The use of floppies for software distribution was already on the decline (though in most cases you still needed a rescue floppy for a windows machine) the iMac certainly helped speed that up and showed that a computer could be successful without a floppy (many laptops still came with a drive at that time).
As for USB though, the iMac caused a huge increase in the number of USB peripherals and had a significant impact on the market. You may hate apple but thats no reason to ignore the impact they had on the industry.
Re: (Score:2)
I have an EE degree. What's a good 2nd degree to get? CMP ENG or Comp Sci? I can't decide.
Computer Science. You will learn things you never dreamed existed (by which I mean, I learned things I never dreamed existed). Computer Engineering is just practical application, and not nearly as impressive on resumes.
Re: (Score:2)
Or something like that...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
LOL, oh noes! 15 whole floppies! Do you remember what it was like to try and install the Lotus suite back then? Or even Office when it first came out?
IIRC, the Lotus Suite had something like 64 disks.
Re:Were it not for Apple, (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm still trying to figure out why a bunch of people who obviously loath Apple products spend so much time discussing them.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still trying to figure out why a discussion forum populated with a bunch of people who obviously loath Apple products keep getting presented with Apple stories.
Re: (Score:2)
it always seemed to be that a lot of discussion about apple products had the character of a lot of people who couldn't afford them trying to convince themselves that they didn't want the products.
there are similar conversations in other circles about BMWs and jewelry and such.
personally, I don't like everything apple does, but I prefer them to the alternatives.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but if he keeps doing it long enough, people will realize that he is right and that's how it should be done!
Re:Were it not for Apple, (Score:4, Funny)
"This post is written in English. Would you like to translate it into RDF?"