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:Were it not for Apple, (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.
I'm sorry but.... (Score:2, Insightful)
LMAO!
News For Nerds: Taco Is Trolling His Own Website (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Were it not for Apple, (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/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.
Re:Were it not for Apple, (Score:0, Insightful)
"The Universal Serial Bus (USB) is a standard for peripheral devices. It began development in 1994 by a group of seven companies: Compaq, DEC, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, NEC and Nortel."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Serial_Bus [wikipedia.org]
I have to strongly disagree with your assumption. Flash drives, burnable media, and USB-connected peripherals did away with floppies and parallel ports.
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:Nothing like a biased article summary on /. (Score:2, Insightful)
Fear is the mind-killer.
Here we go again (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Were it not for Apple, (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:Were it not for Apple, (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 successors to those many years ago is really quite laughable. In computers, everything transitions forward at some point. 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.
You can argue they've done specific things net positively but there are flaws in most of what they've done -- as with any solution.
Pander, much? (Score:5, Insightful)
A website implemented some UI changes to accommodate a popular mobile device. Stop the presses!
Re:Were it not for Apple, (Score:0, Insightful)
A phone is a phone is a phone.
Holy 1998 ignorance, batman! FYI, cell phones nowadays are much more than just "phones".
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: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)
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.
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: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:Were it not for Apple, (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:Were it not for Apple, (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 recent iphone user, I find the excitement over both the iphone and ipad unwarranted.
Apple's "tight integration" is more of a burden than anything. This point is especially germane in a discussion about what video containers that Apple will or won't support.
Apple forces you and the rest of the world to adapt yourself to them.
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:Apple made USB happen with the iMac (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:Were it not for Apple, (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 the things being gained do not make up for the things lost.
But above all you are in the minority. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but there is somethings wrong with mistaking your viewpoint with the viewpoint of others.
The nature of the walled garden needs to be repeatedly brought to light.
It is repeatedly brought to light, but no one cares. You know why that is? It's because, no one cares. By that I mean, sure, to a few it's important, but to most people, they really don't care, and in fact they gain far more than they lose in the bargain.
For those for whom this is important, they already know this. So, no, it doesn't need to be repeatedly brought to light. It's just a bunch of nerd rage that annoys everyone.
As a recent iphone user, I find the excitement over both the iphone and ipad unwarranted.
This is the part that should be the biggest clue to you that I'm right. The fact that there is so much excitement indicates that people really do like Apple products. That you cant see such excitement as warranted means that you don't like them, but the disparity should clue you into the fact that your opinion is in the minority, not that there's something out of whack between the excitement and the reality of the situation.
In other words, when everyone else seems to like something that you don't, it's time to consider that you're the odd one out.
Apple's "tight integration" is more of a burden than anything. This point is especially germane in a discussion about what video containers that Apple will or won't support.
Burden to a few, benefit to most.
Apple forces you and the rest of the world to adapt yourself to them.
Not quite. Apple forces technology to conform itself to humans, which benefits most people. The only ones really complaining, ironically, are those that prefer to adapt themselves to technology. It's those like you that seek to pose an imposition upon most people.
That adaption you make to conform yourself to technology feels so natural, and you find so enjoyable, that it's extremely difficult for you to understand how people can feel otherwise, unless they are either old or stupid. But the fact is that most people do feel the opposite of how you do on the matter, and it's not because they are old or stupid. They are people, and they have different interests than you do.
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, but most people overwhelmingly choose automatic transmissions because the loss in control and power is far outweighed for them by the increased ease of use, and more natural interface, of not having to deal with a third petal, keeping track of gears, and the constant focus dealing with all that implies.
Re:Were it not for Apple, (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.
Another Step Toward the Future! (Score:2, Insightful)
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:This is what is infuriating (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_iphone.html [ifixit.com]
Re:drinking the kool-aid much? (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 enjoy using.
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.
You are completely backwards. Apple's technology can play flash. It can run apps in the background. It can display hardcore pornography. That Apple limits the first two is an example of them placing limits on their tech, not on their users. The purpose of those first two are due to Apple's desire to make the iPhone (and iPad and iPod Touch) things that are enjoyable to use.
The third thing is outright false. Safari and the bundled media player (as well as third party browsers and media players) will display hardcore porn to your heart's content.
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...
Nerd rage hyperbole.
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.
Nobody fucking cares. That's my point. Do you think even 1/3 of all PC users have ever "opened the hood"? The only reason to open the hood in the first place (outside of enthusiasts) is because they have (either fix something that's gone wrong, or for maintenance).
Outside of the enthusiast crowd, every time someone has to "open the hood" on their computer, it's a failure on the part of the design or operation of the device, and not something that most people ever want to do.
And even more so on handheld devices.
Re:This is what is infuriating (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:drinking the kool-aid much? (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 care going forward. To be safer, you should say, "As far as I can tell, nobody cares at the moment"
Empirically, it can be said that Apple's platform is far more restrictive for developers and users than Android (or WebOS or even Windows Mobile).
All things being equal, closed/restrictive systems tend to attract fewer developers than open/permissive ones. Fewer developers means fewer applications, less innovation on the platform...
And historically, Apple has experienced the very same developer flight with Macintosh. They applied tight controls over their systems, charged boutique prices, and the result was that cheaper, crappier PCs dominated. Not because people loved them, but because that's where all the software was.
You act like there are only two options.
1. Let Apple decide what's best.
or
2. Have a terribly complicated experience that only a techie could love.
the GP and myself would like an option 3:
make the hardware and software as capable as possible and let the users/developers determine the boundaries of its capability.
p.s. "nerd rage"? you do know you're on Slashdot right? "News for Nerds" and all.
Re:drinking the kool-aid much? (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 same way. And you know what? I think that's a _good_ thing, and I'm saying this as someone who's been playing and working with computers his whole life and making a living writing software for it.
The problem with the whole 'technology is back to the 80's' or 'people will not be able to do this or that with their computer'-kind of arguments is that they're hyperboles, blowing things out of proportion. The fact that 99% of people will only be able to use technology as consumers, does not mean the 1% of people who like to tinker with it are automatically shut out. XCode and the iPhone SDK are still freely available so any one can write software for it, only if you get serious about it you will have to pay a small fee to test and distribute your stuff to actual devices. And if you want to experiment with stuff without any limitations, there's a million different ways to do that don't involve iPhones or iPods.
Warning people about the 'dangers' of closed or semi-closed platforms getting popular because it would stop the development of curious minds who want to learn about stuff and put them to their own use, it makes me think of the apocalyptic fear mongering I normally associate with religion. People really believe bad things will happen but reality and history don't offer any indication they will.