Steve Jobs live from WWDC 2010(engadget.com)
engadget.com
Steve Jobs live from WWDC 2010
http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/07/steve-jobs-live-from-wwdc-2010/
203 comments
Re: iOS 4 upgrade price, "We finally found a way to get them for free to our iPod touch users."
I'd guess the GAAP changes Apple lobbied for [1] made the difference.
[1] http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/09/accounting-rules-c...
I'd guess the GAAP changes Apple lobbied for [1] made the difference.
[1] http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/09/accounting-rules-c...
This will probably get lost in the noise, but I want to make an important point about the WiFi issues: it's not because there were too many users, but rather that there were too many access points. There were _570_ access points in the room, probably the result of people bringing along their MiFis and similar devices. Running a 571th device would not have solved that problem.
Sounds like my apartment in San Fran at any given point in time = ) Included in the long list of wifi networks here are several by a company that spam advertises through SSIDs.
From their website: "Freedom of Expression"...
From their website: "Freedom of Expression"...
Video chat. It's been available in asia for ~5 years? yet no one uses it. Will it be different in North America?
Smart phones were available in the US for ages before the iPhone, yet Jobs' and Apple's star power helped them to become more widespread. The whole "reality distortion field" can be used for good if it's to help spread adoption of interesting technologies, imo. I think the fact that it's coming from Apple will help adoption, even if the implementation is the same or even worse.
Really? The iPhone success is a result of a "reality distortion field"? That is essentially what you are saying, that it has all been a result of smoke 'n mirrors and "star power". But it hasn't. For all of the criticisms you can throw and Apple decisions, the iPhone has been truly revolutionary, and the biggest revolution has been that it is a smartphone that doesn't make the average person want to cry when trying to use it, in fact, it makes the average person giggle with pleasure. That isn't hype, it isn't a reality distortion field, it is the result of real, hard, work.
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that it can help. Yes, the iPhone is a good product. I understand that's part of the reason behind the fervent love of it. I think that Apple's image can help things succeed.
Look at the iPod and the iPad. Who the hell had an MP3 player or a tablet before they came out? Not many people. Apple is good at creating needs and good products where products already existed. I'm not saying their design isn't part of that, I'm saying that their image can certainly help. We don't know enough about this new FaceTime to say it's instantly better than previous products other than the fact that it's free, and gong to be an open standard. Since we can't speak about the design of it, I chose to speak about another factor that could cause it to succeed.
Edit: "Reality distortion field" was a horrible choice of words on my part by the way. I meant that Apple's success at marketing would help this product succeed, no matter how the implementation was, not that their implementation will be or has been poor.
Look at the iPod and the iPad. Who the hell had an MP3 player or a tablet before they came out? Not many people. Apple is good at creating needs and good products where products already existed. I'm not saying their design isn't part of that, I'm saying that their image can certainly help. We don't know enough about this new FaceTime to say it's instantly better than previous products other than the fact that it's free, and gong to be an open standard. Since we can't speak about the design of it, I chose to speak about another factor that could cause it to succeed.
Edit: "Reality distortion field" was a horrible choice of words on my part by the way. I meant that Apple's success at marketing would help this product succeed, no matter how the implementation was, not that their implementation will be or has been poor.
it has all been a result of smoke 'n mirrors
The reasons a lot of things don't happen sooner are often "smoke and mirrors," so it's a fitting remedy.
The reasons a lot of things don't happen sooner are often "smoke and mirrors," so it's a fitting remedy.
It's not smart phones that do this legacy video chat, it's 3G feature phones, which are pretty much non-existent in NA. Pretty much every [candybar, flip] phone in asia has 3G and a front facing camera, so you can video call anyone, anytime. Part of the reason people don't is because it costs extra.
Actually since these phones were around before youtube and real mobile browsing, the main marketed reason to get a 3G phone originally was video chat.
Actually since these phones were around before youtube and real mobile browsing, the main marketed reason to get a 3G phone originally was video chat.
I honestly did not realize that the adoption of them was that widespread. Thank you for the correction, that definitely does make a difference to my post.
Still, don't you think that video chat at no extra cost will be a rather huge innovation? If part of the reason it isn't used is because of the cost, wouldn't make it free help that? I know that video calling isn't necessarily better in plenty of cases, so I don't think it will completely replace voice calls (at least not for a long, long time if at all), but the facts that it's
1) free and
2) has Apple behind it and
3) therefore tons of media hype behind it
will help usage (edit: changed from adoption make my meaning clearer) by a large margin?
Still, don't you think that video chat at no extra cost will be a rather huge innovation? If part of the reason it isn't used is because of the cost, wouldn't make it free help that? I know that video calling isn't necessarily better in plenty of cases, so I don't think it will completely replace voice calls (at least not for a long, long time if at all), but the facts that it's
1) free and
2) has Apple behind it and
3) therefore tons of media hype behind it
will help usage (edit: changed from adoption make my meaning clearer) by a large margin?
Yea, who knows. At least it'll set the trend to put front cameras in smart phones. Eventually the capability will spread enough that you can use it when you want, but I suspect that after the novelty wears off people will go back to regular calls, even if it's free.
Why? People are really good at perceiving presence even if we can't see someone. It's just not necessary.
Think about this: What fraction of time do you spend looking at a person's face in a casual conversation?
Why? People are really good at perceiving presence even if we can't see someone. It's just not necessary.
Think about this: What fraction of time do you spend looking at a person's face in a casual conversation?
Not to mention: Are you really going to do video chat while you're walking down the street? Driving in your car (god I hope not)?
The 'mobile' in 'mobile phone' seems directly at odds with the whole concept.
The 'mobile' in 'mobile phone' seems directly at odds with the whole concept.
I pretty much agree. With ease and ubiquity it will be very useful for some tasks ("hey honey, which of these lamps do you like better"), and for some "big moment" calls ("this is your new grandson"). So, it can be significant even without being a large fraction of overall calls.
Most people like being able to get away with all those little things that the other person can't hear over a phone. Being on camera would seem more stifling/restrictive than freeing in many situations.
Most people like being able to get away with all those little things that the other person can't hear over a phone. Being on camera would seem more stifling/restrictive than freeing in many situations.
"And you can use the rear camera, so they can see what you're seeing"
This really isn't that big of a shift from Skype et al. until it's available on 3G. And you know what? I haven't used a webcam in years. Not an extraordinarily useful piece of technology, and it's still not the best experience even on wired networks (because the wired networks have been frozen in time here in the States.)
And as for it being at normal data rates on 3G, I'll believe it when I see it. (It can't be free.)
And as for it being at normal data rates on 3G, I'll believe it when I see it. (It can't be free.)
Speaking of Skype, it's free to make calls over 3G now on the iPhone with (Skype v2). HOWEVER, that will change in September when at&t will start charging a monthly skype fee. I seriously doubt at&t will let anyone do videoconferencing without getting a piece of the pie.
I think people are underestimating how much of a barrier usability is w.r.t. making video calls. The reason people like voice calls is because it gets the job done quickly. I am not sure how Apple has implemented video calls. But imagine if their implementation is as follows:
1) You call somebody via a voice call
2) The call goes through and you start talking
3) The apple clients on both devices detect that they are connected to WiFi and they start setting up a video call connection in the background while you are still chatting
4) In about 10s after the conversation started, you start getting a video feed.
Wouldn't that be awesome? Wouldn't you use this free feature if it came at no cost? I know I'd LOVE it.
Other than the points highlighted above (and cost of video call), the big question is how are video calls done in Asia. Does it require the user to spend more than 3-4 secs to set up a video call (check if the other person has video call support, is he on the same network, do some prior WiFi settings, etc.). If so then that is a big barrier. And Apple definitely has the usability smarts to break that down.
Wouldn't that be awesome? Wouldn't you use this free feature if it came at no cost? I know I'd LOVE it.
Other than the points highlighted above (and cost of video call), the big question is how are video calls done in Asia. Does it require the user to spend more than 3-4 secs to set up a video call (check if the other person has video call support, is he on the same network, do some prior WiFi settings, etc.). If so then that is a big barrier. And Apple definitely has the usability smarts to break that down.
Normal 3G video chat has one disadvantage: the video quality is so bad it makes puppies weep. Most of the time you can't really see who you're talking to unless you already know who it is. It's probably mostly due to bad encoders, and partly lack of bandwidth.
Yeah, I wonder about this too. Granted, the existing technology for video chat is not very good and could certainly benefit from Apple's UI team... but I'm not sure it's something people even want. I'm not sure it's useful.
I have the ability to video chat with many of my contacts through Skype or Google Talk yet I pretty much never take advantage of it. Not sure adding that feature to my phone changes anything.
I have the ability to video chat with many of my contacts through Skype or Google Talk yet I pretty much never take advantage of it. Not sure adding that feature to my phone changes anything.
If Facetime comes to the iPad, ie. if/when it get's a camera. Then I think we'll see a many more people using video chat.
Market share: iPhone 28%, Android 9%
Mobile browsing: iPhone 58.2%, Android 22.7%
Looks like Android is edging the iPhone in mobile pageviews per user. Or am I thinking about this wrong?
Mobile browsing: iPhone 58.2%, Android 22.7%
Looks like Android is edging the iPhone in mobile pageviews per user. Or am I thinking about this wrong?
That seems right, but it's possibly because iPhone users are more likely to use the native-app version of popular websites.
Is that not true of Android users as well? Most of the sites I use on a regular basis have an Android presence as well (Facebook, Yelp, etc..)
I think the probable reason is that the web-browsing data tends to be a few months ahead of those gartner market-share estimates.
I think the probable reason is that the web-browsing data tends to be a few months ahead of those gartner market-share estimates.
Maybe. We have an analytics client for both platforms, though, and we just don't see the same level of application usage per user on Android. Why this is I'm not sure.
The Gartner market-share data is from Q1 2010 I thought. I guess that is a few months old now.
The FaceTime thing is epic. That said, it just gets more and more dangerous to go out and get hammered and start drunk-dialing people . . . The number of post-bender apologies that I usually have to make will probably go up by at least 50%.
The N900 has skype and google talk video calling already, and people don't call that epic. It also works on 3G, unlike the iphone.
You and many others are missing the point of why this is epic. When was the last time a device with so much market penetration and insane adoption rates allowed video chat in such a simple way?
The reason it is epic is because this is the first time it'll actually work. Who cares about N900s? Does my grandma know what an N900 is?
The reason it is epic is because this is the first time it'll actually work. Who cares about N900s? Does my grandma know what an N900 is?
Now you're missing the point.
When I was in Sweden last (some 5 years ago) I was blown away during a bus journey by watching a deaf person signing into a bog standard Nokia with her friend on the screen signing back.
Now that's epic.
5 years ago. Commodity mass-market phone. Watching a deaf person video conference on public transport.
When I was in Sweden last (some 5 years ago) I was blown away during a bus journey by watching a deaf person signing into a bog standard Nokia with her friend on the screen signing back.
Now that's epic.
5 years ago. Commodity mass-market phone. Watching a deaf person video conference on public transport.
My Nokia 6120 has video calls, and it's certainly not one of their really high end products. They're easy to set up, and work fairly well, but I have only ever really used it once or twice - it's honestly not that compelling a feature.
Likely, Apple will do a better job of it, but "first time it'll actually work" is hyperbole. For a bit of hyperbole of my own, let's try "first time Americans, who have been the laggards in the mobile phone space until the advent of the iPhone, will take note of it".
Likely, Apple will do a better job of it, but "first time it'll actually work" is hyperbole. For a bit of hyperbole of my own, let's try "first time Americans, who have been the laggards in the mobile phone space until the advent of the iPhone, will take note of it".
I agree with you -- that's a better way of putting it. Does it change anything? I'm American, a very large majority of the people I talk to on the phone use iPhones to do so. I suspect there are many others like me out there. That is why I am speculating this will "actually work".
Does your grandma have an iphone 4G hooked up to Wifi, and a friend that has an iphone 4G hooked up to wifi?
My father has an N900, and he video calls europe every day. I didn't need to show him how to use it or anything.
My father has an N900, and he video calls europe every day. I didn't need to show him how to use it or anything.
She doesn't, but I'm guessing she will as soon as she sees that nice commercial that shows grandparents talking to their grandkids.
Hooked up to Wifi? Is that hard to do? Or are you making the point that it's wifi only for now. Jobs specifically stated that they are working with carriers to support it. That means it's coming. Baby steps. This is what Apple does. We don't always get the full package with iteration 1, but when it does come they do it right (see copy/paste, see multi-tasking).
I don't know a single person who owns an N900, and I don't know a single person outside of a very small group of tech friends who knows what one is. I'd guess that 80% of the people in my friends/family/work circles have Apple devices, most of which are iPhones.
Hooked up to Wifi? Is that hard to do? Or are you making the point that it's wifi only for now. Jobs specifically stated that they are working with carriers to support it. That means it's coming. Baby steps. This is what Apple does. We don't always get the full package with iteration 1, but when it does come they do it right (see copy/paste, see multi-tasking).
I don't know a single person who owns an N900, and I don't know a single person outside of a very small group of tech friends who knows what one is. I'd guess that 80% of the people in my friends/family/work circles have Apple devices, most of which are iPhones.
I believe the answer to your question is "three years ago", except it wasn't a single device, it was most phones.
I've owned "dumb"phones that could do this five years ago as easy as regular calls.
I've owned "dumb"phones that could do this five years ago as easy as regular calls.
huh? I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or what. Hardly anyone has an iPhone in the real world. Most still have crappy Nokia thingys.
The iphone ecosystem is much larger, at least within the circle of people whom I will have to apologise to for dialing them up and showing them various parts of my body.
"FaceTime" is Apple's code name for video calls. We've had videocalls available in Eastern Europe for 4-5 years at least - on most phones. Nobody uses it. It eats the battery very fast and is more of an inconvenience than a feature.
Except for the father videocalling mother + baby use case I can't think of a single instance where I would want the other person to see what I am doing OR where I would want to see what they are doing.
Except for the father videocalling mother + baby use case I can't think of a single instance where I would want the other person to see what I am doing OR where I would want to see what they are doing.
It's only iphone 4 to iphone 4 so it's basically useless most of the time.
Jobs: "we’re going to make FaceTime an open industry standard."
Should be interesting.
Should be interesting.
That was easily the most interesting part of the keynote to me (Android user). I already assumed that video calling from Apple would push something similar forward in the rest of the phone community, but the fact that they're going to make it an open standard is phenomenal.
Of course, we'll see what they mean by "open standard" after the recent debacle with Safari's "HTML5 Demo", but I'd like to remain optimistic. Webkit was a nice gift, and hopefully this will be something similar.
Of course, we'll see what they mean by "open standard" after the recent debacle with Safari's "HTML5 Demo", but I'd like to remain optimistic. Webkit was a nice gift, and hopefully this will be something similar.
They have to. It will be dead otherwise, based on the current prerequisites (iOS4 to iOS4, only on wifi)
I seem to recall he said the "only on wifi" was a temporary thing - while "we work with cell carriers" (I noted the plural: carrierS).
I have to wonder how long it will take to work out with AT&T. Skype and tethering took a year for AT&T to get around to.
Hello from outside America; we don't have AT&T.
Hello from inside America; you don't really want AT&T.
It's actually based on already existing open standards, see http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2010/06/apple-...
True, but being based on open standards doesn't necessarily mean that the end result won't have anything proprietary in it. Jobs saying they are going to make FaceTime an open standard seems to imply that they are adding something of their own to the mix.
[deleted]
What have all the other video-calling capable phones been using thus far? Is there no existing standard?
There was a slide pointing out that it was based on existing technologies already.
like the MiniDisplayPort.
Worse that that, you have to be calling someone else with an iPhone, and you -both- have to be using wifi. Don't get me wrong, it is a step up from what they used to have available, but that is kind of a tall order for general consumption.
I can see it being useful for family stuff, "mom's on a business trip but she's going to read you a bedtime story, OK?" sort of thing. The limitations are going to go away pretty quickly I'd bet. Well, except for doing video over 3G but that's only because AT&T doesn't seem to understand how much hatred they are earning.
The only reason they are ignorant to how much people hate AT&T is because AT&T has the iphone.
The minute the iphone is available for tmobile, verizon, or sprint, AT&T will see how much people hate them.
Still more convenient than chat on net-books/laptops. Calling on a phone is very convenient and if you can, add video.
Except it's not hands free, laptops have the camera in a pretty good position without any additional effort.
But to be in that situation, you've already committed to sitting.
So yes, it will be perfect when I'm standing up near my WiFi hotspot and want to video chat with someone I know who has the same brand new phone as I do and is also standing up near their WiFi hotspot.
I'm quite surprised that it's not at least compatible with the video calls in iChat. 3G will definitely happen, but they have a built-in base of millions of users on iChat that could have helped kick things off.
I'm quite surprised that it's not at least compatible with the video calls in iChat. 3G will definitely happen, but they have a built-in base of millions of users on iChat that could have helped kick things off.
...or the cafe, or the coworking space, or at your friend's house. Since the call comes first, it's a fortuitous enhancement you sometimes add to an ordinary call. Your way, you are either already sitting and working, or you had to plan ahead. Big diffence.
For now. Looks like they want to push it as a video chat standard, so, it's gonna be on any Android phones with video camera capacities, front facing or not.
I'd say that iPhone users have many friends who are also iPhone users, anecdotally.
I wonder how the caller screen prompts you. It's not that I don't like talking to my friends, but I want to retain the option of faceless conversation---preferably without ending the call altogether.
I'll leave this chat to chummy family and spousal conversation and celebrities, because there are only so many times of the week where I look good.
I'll leave this chat to chummy family and spousal conversation and celebrities, because there are only so many times of the week where I look good.
Due to your comment I just registered FaceTimesFromLastNight.com
"With Farmville on the iPhone, you'll be able to farm anytime, anywhere."
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
"Its really going to piss me off that my phone call isn't going through because some jerkoff is harvesting virtual cabbage."
Whoever said that must not be able to talk & use the network at the same time?
No, you missed the point. The point was that the people farming are going to be taking up bandwidth and this will (further) degrade network performance for others. And so when the speaker has a call fail and this occurs to them, it will be annoying, presumably due to how frivolous a use of bandwidth that activity seems to the speaker.
AT&T will never be able to keep up with the crop production!
CNN is streaming the keynote 30 minutes behind real-time. http://www.cnn.com
Wow. You know you've got marketing down when CNN's top story is simply a feed of your product announcement.
I think that's more a reflection of CNN's lax journalism.
CNN is in the field of journalism?
The good news: A Netflix client!
The bad news: AT&T just cut your data plan...
I'm not sure I follow the "Retinal Display" name. Is this just branding on a 300dpi pixel resolution? Or is there something to do with multi-resolution support for apps (those coded in the old resolution will still get up-converted text resolution, it sounded like).
Let this be a lesson in marketing to all of you...
As geeks, we'd tend to say "New and improved screen resolution: 300 DPI!". Which doesn't mean anything to 99% of the general population. But "retinal display", withs its attached explanation, now that's really something.
Words matter.
As geeks, we'd tend to say "New and improved screen resolution: 300 DPI!". Which doesn't mean anything to 99% of the general population. But "retinal display", withs its attached explanation, now that's really something.
Words matter.
You see this all the time on everything from advertisements to infomercials. There are two simple templates for every feature you want to pitch:
Problem First:
Tired of text that looks like it was built out of lego blocks? iPhone 4.0 has a 300DPI Retinal Display, which is so sharp that the human eye cannot see individual dots on the screen.
Feature First:
iPhone 4.0 has a 300DPI Retinal Display, which means you will never see blocky pixels again: the display is so sharp that the human eye cannot see the dots.
...
Tired of working around the clock on a cool new feature only to have customers ask you "So What?" These two feature pitch templates explain why customers should care, which means more sales for you!
Or perhaps:
Reg Braithwaite's "World Of Go" uses gestures instead of buttons, which means the entire screen can be devoted to the board, making it look like a Go board instead of like a Go program.
Problem First:
Tired of text that looks like it was built out of lego blocks? iPhone 4.0 has a 300DPI Retinal Display, which is so sharp that the human eye cannot see individual dots on the screen.
Feature First:
iPhone 4.0 has a 300DPI Retinal Display, which means you will never see blocky pixels again: the display is so sharp that the human eye cannot see the dots.
...
Tired of working around the clock on a cool new feature only to have customers ask you "So What?" These two feature pitch templates explain why customers should care, which means more sales for you!
Or perhaps:
Reg Braithwaite's "World Of Go" uses gestures instead of buttons, which means the entire screen can be devoted to the board, making it look like a Go board instead of like a Go program.
It’s just a name for a 300+ ppi display. At that resolution and at the distances you usually hold a phone from the eye you shouldn’t be able to discern individual pixels. That’s it. The app things seems obvious, would be a serious oversight if they didn’t do that.
I wish it means this though - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_retinal_display
Typical marketer move - steal the term from even more advanced tech to hype an incremental, quantitative advance on current tech.
All I saw was an opportunity for fragmentation. If a developer wanted to make an iPhone app that took advantage of the new resolution - he'd either be limited to the original iPhone resolution, or to only the consumers that had the iP4.
In either case, I can't imagine games running their own UI would look better as the images are limited to their original resolution. Only the UIBuilder interfaces will look sharper.
What about battery life?
In either case, I can't imagine games running their own UI would look better as the images are limited to their original resolution. Only the UIBuilder interfaces will look sharper.
What about battery life?
the screen doubled on the x and y - not too hard for the developers - just have 2 version of your bitmaps or scale the higher rez down.
Two versions of the bitmaps - even scaling during run time - would increase the app image footprint by 4 as well. For a 10mb 3G download limit, making it that more difficult to fit the initial download in the small space they give you. Not to mention the high screen resolution doesn't give you 4 times the memory for native apps.
This will work great for the web - but when initial size is a factor (along with video memory that is still shared with the OS - is there more video memory in this version?) this actually creates more of a limitation as you could reach the ceiling quicker with no more functionality - just higher res images.
So two versions isn't likely - scaling down is time consuming, battery consuming, and a waste of space. For optimum distribution, you would need a 3G version, a 4G version, possibly an iPad (HD) version, and maybe even a lite version of all three. You now have six version on the App Store.
One compromise is to make a 3G version and a 4G retina display version - of which would probably look ok on the iPad because it has 78% of the pixels.
I've developed multiple graphical applications and games for the iPhone so my perspective comes only with experience. Textures were always a hardware/memory limitation (it also only accepts textures in the size of a power of 2 - meaning you will need a sprite sheet layer as well) which made development-for-delivery a little tricky.
I didn't hear anything about more on-board memory so despite my fragmentation comment this actually doesn't help much. a 300x200 transparent PNG takes almost a meg of RAM.
This will work great for the web - but when initial size is a factor (along with video memory that is still shared with the OS - is there more video memory in this version?) this actually creates more of a limitation as you could reach the ceiling quicker with no more functionality - just higher res images.
So two versions isn't likely - scaling down is time consuming, battery consuming, and a waste of space. For optimum distribution, you would need a 3G version, a 4G version, possibly an iPad (HD) version, and maybe even a lite version of all three. You now have six version on the App Store.
One compromise is to make a 3G version and a 4G retina display version - of which would probably look ok on the iPad because it has 78% of the pixels.
I've developed multiple graphical applications and games for the iPhone so my perspective comes only with experience. Textures were always a hardware/memory limitation (it also only accepts textures in the size of a power of 2 - meaning you will need a sprite sheet layer as well) which made development-for-delivery a little tricky.
I didn't hear anything about more on-board memory so despite my fragmentation comment this actually doesn't help much. a 300x200 transparent PNG takes almost a meg of RAM.
The antenna idea (the metal frame is divided, acting as multiple antennas) is really nice, and so obvious in retrospect. Yeah, everything's simple in hindsight. I wonder if Apple invented and thus patented that.
It has been done in laptops for wifi antenna for a while now. the macbook air uses its frame as a wifi antenna as well. I doubt you could patent it (or protect it)
Won't your body affect the antennae when you hold the device though?
If you touch the two parts, in theory you short the antenna to the ground and you absorb most of the radiated power. But I'm sure they have thought of that. You see, RF (radio frequency) waves behave quite differently than DC (direct current). Your skin must have a high enough impedance to RF that it does not affect the antenna.
But then, what happens if you short the gap with metal ? That sounds a lot less nice. I'm sure the RF power amp must be shortcut protected, so you don't risk damaging it, but if you short the gap, and thus the antenna, bye bye outgoing packets.
Maybe it's more complicated than that, and the other metal half is not the ground for the antenna, but it's insulated - floating - from the exposed antenna. Therefore shorting the gap would not short the antenna to ground but it would modify the physical characteristics of the antenna, therefore its impedance, therefore the radiating efficiency. This is all messy, as I have never practiced RF design, only took classes.
But then, what happens if you short the gap with metal ? That sounds a lot less nice. I'm sure the RF power amp must be shortcut protected, so you don't risk damaging it, but if you short the gap, and thus the antenna, bye bye outgoing packets.
Maybe it's more complicated than that, and the other metal half is not the ground for the antenna, but it's insulated - floating - from the exposed antenna. Therefore shorting the gap would not short the antenna to ground but it would modify the physical characteristics of the antenna, therefore its impedance, therefore the radiating efficiency. This is all messy, as I have never practiced RF design, only took classes.
[deleted]
Looks like it's the year of bombing demos...even Steve's has been hit!
Steve couldn't get on that vaunted AT&T network. Someone shouted "Verizon". Haha.
I thought for a minute that it was intentional, part of an announcement of new carriers/networks/etc.
...too bad.
...too bad.
Hurr Hurr but look at the pictures - it's on WiFi.
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2010/06/apple-...
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2010/06/apple-...
So the wifi is saturated because there are 500 people streaming photos and tweets from the hall.
C'mon. Can't Apple just live stream these keynotes from here on out? Everyone on all sides knows these announcements are in the public sphere 250 milliseconds after Steve says it.
For being so controlling of their media message, why let the bloggers run the final leg?
C'mon. Can't Apple just live stream these keynotes from here on out? Everyone on all sides knows these announcements are in the public sphere 250 milliseconds after Steve says it.
For being so controlling of their media message, why let the bloggers run the final leg?
It's a really nice way to get a lot of really influential people on your side I'd think. By letting the media outlets have control over the dissemination of information it gives them a lot of incentive to stay on your good side (see: gizmodo not being invited to the keynote).
But the media outlets that really matter to Apple (Newsweek or WSJ/Mossberg for example) get access way before the launch so they can write their articles.
I think it's to enhance the sense of exclusivity, to help people to get excited about it, to emphasize to people that important this is important. I mean, if people are scrambling to get live updates of something, then it must be important, right? This gives Apple two hours when, anywhere in the world, if someone is reporting on the proceedings, they are going to mention something about the difficulty of getting live updates. Man, what better way to show importance? Helpful isn't sexy.
In an era of easy video feeds of everything, the un-videoable seems far more valuable. Seeing photographs from pay-per-view events on the news gives that impression. Or think of the US Supreme Court. They only allow people to sketch the proceedings! Pencil drawings are the ultimate status symbol.
In an era of easy video feeds of everything, the un-videoable seems far more valuable. Seeing photographs from pay-per-view events on the news gives that impression. Or think of the US Supreme Court. They only allow people to sketch the proceedings! Pencil drawings are the ultimate status symbol.
They used to live stream them all the time, but this was many years ago. I don't think making the event more exclusive is part of it--there are already tons of reasons for Apple developers to go to WWDC.
Who would go there and pay to pay full attention to him speaking if they could watch him speak for free online while doing other things too?
I was more shocked that they didn't have a separate 'staff' AP setup on a different channel.
I'm not really clear on what the gyroscope adds that wasn't there before, can someone clarify?
Accelerometers can only detect orientation relative to gravity, gyros can detect it relative to themselves.
This is the same thing that Nintendo added to their controllers a few months ago.
For example I wrote an app that calculates Horsepower based on weight and acceleration, however it's hard to determine if detected acceleration is due to the vehicle or gravity (if the device tips or tilts during the test). By having the gyros available, I can detect and compensate for the error-inducing influence of gravity.
This is the same thing that Nintendo added to their controllers a few months ago.
For example I wrote an app that calculates Horsepower based on weight and acceleration, however it's hard to determine if detected acceleration is due to the vehicle or gravity (if the device tips or tilts during the test). By having the gyros available, I can detect and compensate for the error-inducing influence of gravity.
If you have ever used a wii remote, it's like the Wii Motion Plus add-on (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii_MotionPlus)
In short, the accelerometer detects movement the gyroscope detects exact direction.
In short, the accelerometer detects movement the gyroscope detects exact direction.
[deleted]
My guess is that it will improve the response of the compass. Really handy for navigation.
I think the accelerator can only pick up pitch, yaw and roll while the gyroscope might also be able to pick up left/right and up/down (or is it the other way around?). Not sure about that, though.
The G1 has one of these in. Not sure about other Android based phones, but I'm assuming it's going to be fairly common if it was available in the original Android phone...
[deleted]
Looks like we're not sparing any hits today. First a shot at Google Ads, followed by an indirect shot at Adobe.
Actually I found the shot at google ads amusing. The quip about how (Theo? I can't read his first name) Gray earned more money on the app store than in 5 years of operating Google ads on his website periodictable.com, appears to have taken down his site
(The slide I'm referring to is http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2010/06/apple-...)
Actually I found the shot at google ads amusing. The quip about how (Theo? I can't read his first name) Gray earned more money on the app store than in 5 years of operating Google ads on his website periodictable.com, appears to have taken down his site
(The slide I'm referring to is http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2010/06/apple-...)
I think those were fairly light shots, at least compared to what was said at Google I/O.
[deleted]
It looks like Apple now represents a very real and serious competitive threat to Google's #1 money maker: ads.
They now control a 3rd of the mobile market (iPads excluded) and are seemingly poised to continue this trend with the new iPhone packing several new and revolutionary killer features. Again this excludes the sold-every-3-seconds iPads. We all know that they'll get the lion's share of what's left of RIM and Windows mobile in a year or two.
Also, Jobs definitely didn't hold back when introducing Bing and iAds during the presentation.
I'm a little uneasy about all of this of course. I love the web and have devoted much of my career to building web apps that run on laptops and netbooks but I have to say, love it or hate it, Apple is bringing some serious game changing shit to the table and continues to iterate faster than anyone can catch up.
They now control a 3rd of the mobile market (iPads excluded) and are seemingly poised to continue this trend with the new iPhone packing several new and revolutionary killer features. Again this excludes the sold-every-3-seconds iPads. We all know that they'll get the lion's share of what's left of RIM and Windows mobile in a year or two.
Also, Jobs definitely didn't hold back when introducing Bing and iAds during the presentation.
I'm a little uneasy about all of this of course. I love the web and have devoted much of my career to building web apps that run on laptops and netbooks but I have to say, love it or hate it, Apple is bringing some serious game changing shit to the table and continues to iterate faster than anyone can catch up.
>We all know that they'll get the lion's share of what's left of RIM and Windows mobile in a year or two.
I disagree - I think Android devices will experience more growth than iPhone OS (or iOS) in a year or two.
I disagree - I think Android devices will experience more growth than iPhone OS (or iOS) in a year or two.
So with all this great stuff (amazing new features, great market share, etc.), I wonder how Apple doesn't open the iPhone to non-ATT carriers. That's the single reason I have been staying on my good ol'RIM BB. Any ideas?
There's an AT&T exclusivity agreement in place. It was for 5 years, set to expire in 2012.
Getting a device on Verizon's network is not a matter of the device vendor wishing it to happen.
The reason is simple; AT&T is paying them.
This was submitted here http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1410917, but I wanted to comment to mention that it automatically refreshes with good pictures.
ye I also prefer it because the site scrolls easier, comments are better and there are more/better pictures
iOS 4 - do I sense another Cisco trademark battle?
Jobs said that Apple had worked out "an arrangement" or some such with Cisco.
I can't believe that the demo isn't being run off of its own network. Seriously, if you can't get good reception inside, at least run your own dedicated wifi network. What were they thinking?
You don't understand WIFI. All WIFI devices share the same 2.4/5GHz bandwidth and thus if you have too many devices in one physical location you're screwed.
Sure, but why didn't they use directional antennas to get a demo-dedicated network on the stage? Which would be a good permanent feature for any big conference room come to think of it.
That doesn't eliminate the problem of interference from all of the other networks on the same channel (or on the neighboring channel that shares part of the spectrum), which are all using omnidirectional antennas. It can help, certainly, but 570 Wi-Fi networks in one ballroom is going to be hell on any network chip trying to sort through all the noise.
Clearly the solution is to stick a Faraday Cage in between the audience and the stage.
Seriously though, I know very little of these matters, but it does seem like there should be some sort of solution developed for them with the frequency that these issues keep cropping up in major tech demos. It seems embarrassing that companies that are supposed to be innovative and great with technology are being stymied by the lack of WiFi.
Seriously though, I know very little of these matters, but it does seem like there should be some sort of solution developed for them with the frequency that these issues keep cropping up in major tech demos. It seems embarrassing that companies that are supposed to be innovative and great with technology are being stymied by the lack of WiFi.
I am rather surprised that they (seemingly) didn't use a 5GHz 802.11n network. N suffers from some reliability issues as well, but the channels are much more spread out and much less utilized (the MiFi doesn't support it, last I checked), so it theoretically wouldn't have degraded nearly as much if they had used a high-mW antenna to try to cut the distance issues 5GHz suffers from.
Agreed, but 802.11n only works in the 2.4GHz range for iPhone 4: http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html
Well... that's useless. How disappointing.
No, I'm including all the antennas in that - why not use directional ones for all the networks in the room to keep the stage free of extra networks?
Because Apple had control over, maybe, 10-20 APs in the room (and those almost certainly only constituted one mesh network). The 569 other networks were from devices controlled by journalists and other attendees, the majority of which were MiFis (according to Jobs), which don't even have ports for external antennas.
There's an antenna in the iPhone too you know...
It's not that simple. The allocated spectrum is saturated so pointing a "loud speaker" at someone is not going to help if they can't hear anything in the first place.
[deleted]
There are three channels in 2.4GHz, so presumably Apple could have put Steve on one channel and everybody else on the other two. (This problem is not as bad in 5GHz, but AFAIK the iPhone doesn't support it.)
HD display and movies, 5MP camera, increased battery life, folders and multitasking, gyroscope... I have all this on the Nexus One and that is a 6 months old phone. I think this WWDC is signing the end of an era: jobs has lost his famous innovative advantage and now he is running behind. Android/HTC had these features in their last generation phones and with EVO coming out they are going to make the iPhone 4 obsolete already.
You left out all the things you don't have on your Nexus One. An HD video camera, or any camera at all that captures at 30 fps. The Nexus One's display is lower resolution than the announced iPhone display, and some of the Nexus resolution is fake resolution from the novel pixel setup. Video calling. Guitar Hero, Netflix, and Farmville. iAd (you know that is going to be a draw for some developers). Universal copy and paste.
I'm currently using a Nexus One as my primary phone, but let's please make honest comparisons.
I'm currently using a Nexus One as my primary phone, but let's please make honest comparisons.
3g video calling apps have been out for a little while for the Android platform (a coupla months). Most of the new apps have flash origins and are just trying to figure out ways around the artificial restriction.
HD video is "neat", 5MP camera on a phone is so last year though.
I'm actually more interested in the display than in the rest of the phone. It seems like a nice piece of tech. It's definitely a better sounding display than I've seen elsewhere.
HD video is "neat", 5MP camera on a phone is so last year though.
I'm actually more interested in the display than in the rest of the phone. It seems like a nice piece of tech. It's definitely a better sounding display than I've seen elsewhere.
N1 has hd video at 20fps. display is better, ok. guitar hero, netflix and farmville I would not call them innovations. farmville is a way to overcome flash of course.
> http://www.google.com/phone/static/en_US-nexusone_tech_specs...
Takes 480p video at maybe-20 fps. If 480p is HD, then my bad, but the iPhone 4 is doing 720p video at 30 fps.
Takes 480p video at maybe-20 fps. If 480p is HD, then my bad, but the iPhone 4 is doing 720p video at 30 fps.
In that case my current iPhone has hd video at 1 fp5s. If it isn't at least 23.976 fps then it isn't hd video. Period.
Let me be clear because here it seems I get a waterfall of downvotes for daring saying something against an apple product.
Multitouch = innovation
Apple store = innovation
GPS = innovation
UI thought for mobiles = innovation
Apple came out first with those things. Then people catched up. This time what is the innovation? A bit more pixels on the display and the farmville client? Are you kidding me?
Multitouch = innovation
Apple store = innovation
GPS = innovation
UI thought for mobiles = innovation
Apple came out first with those things. Then people catched up. This time what is the innovation? A bit more pixels on the display and the farmville client? Are you kidding me?
Your original claim was that it was obsolete on arrival and had little to do with innovation. You also claimed that Android had feature equivalency with the newly announced iPhone but were selective about the features that are equivalent. Finally, you claimed implicitly that the feature list is what makes the phone, which is obviously untrue. That's why you're getting downvotes.
My claim was that there is nothing innovative in the iPhone 4 compared to the N1 and that technically speaking EVO makes it look obsolete (EVO does 1280×720 @ 25 fps, front camera, hdmi output, supports SD card etc).
for the record. 720p is 1280 x 720. As you said, the evo is 25 fps
the iphone is at 30 fps, with the same resolution.
This is being pedantic, and doesn't really help the argument that the iphone 4 is better, but, at least one of your points is invalid.
This is being pedantic, and doesn't really help the argument that the iphone 4 is better, but, at least one of your points is invalid.
The EVO and all other Android devices hav stingy minimal built-in storage (originally 256mb, now 512mb since the OS didn't fit anymore). They all have SD card slots, but they need an SD card inserted at all times to not break apps.
They've all moved the slots to underneath the battery and given up the pretense of it really being removable storage.
They've all moved the slots to underneath the battery and given up the pretense of it really being removable storage.
You think the iPhone was the first phone with GPS...?
(there are two Guitar Hero games on Android, fwiw)
Apple has rarely done things first. They tend to just do things in a way that makes their customers really happy.
The iPhone has never had the competitive advantage based on it’s feature count.
Really? The original iPhone had a competitive advantage based on a "real" webkit-based browser, visual voicemail, a large multitouch display, on-screen keyboard with good auto-correction...etc, etc. What smartphones had those features before the iPhone?
Those features are why I picked the iPhone as my first smartphone. Other features are making me strongly consider switching to an Android phone. I know the mantra here is "design is everything, feature count is unimportant", but I think that is an oversimplification. Design (really, usability) is more important than features, but once two products are roughly as usable, well-implemented features make a big difference. Clearly, Apple thinks that these features are important, otherwise it wouldn't be choosing to showcase them.
Those features are why I picked the iPhone as my first smartphone. Other features are making me strongly consider switching to an Android phone. I know the mantra here is "design is everything, feature count is unimportant", but I think that is an oversimplification. Design (really, usability) is more important than features, but once two products are roughly as usable, well-implemented features make a big difference. Clearly, Apple thinks that these features are important, otherwise it wouldn't be choosing to showcase them.
The original iPhone had a competitive advantage
based on a "real" webkit-based browser,
visual voicemail, a large multitouch display,
on-screen keyboard with good auto-correction...etc, etc
It's not matter of features count. It's matter of innovative features. Hardly anything innovative in this product.
Why is the parent being downvoted? It's true! This are just evolutionary improvements for some things and playing catch-up with others. Doesn't stop it from being a great product, but it's not the aweomest thing Steve wants you to believe.
In what way isn't it awesome? It's faster, smaller, brighter, screenier, cameraier, videoier, batterier, storagier, more sensor laden, better looking, and runs better more useful software.
I agree that it's not spouting a coffee filter and electric razor, but strongly disagree that you can step to "not innovative" "meh, useless catchup".
One part of not being measured at features/$ checklist is not being measured at -$ per lack of never seen before feature.
You've seen the Netflix announcement, now take a look at this:
http://lonelysandwich.com/post/662129889/ipad-tv
1 day ago that was posted, today we have a HD camera, iMovie and videophone announcement on a device with an upgraded screen, and talk of working with carriers for videophoning (i.e. transmitting video over the cellular networks).
This "no innovation" device might not need a USB hoover attachment to be a cornerstone piece for turning another major industry upside down in a way that others could not mostly by virtue of lots of integration, evolutionary changes and a pleasant enough UI that people wont resist.
I agree that it's not spouting a coffee filter and electric razor, but strongly disagree that you can step to "not innovative" "meh, useless catchup".
One part of not being measured at features/$ checklist is not being measured at -$ per lack of never seen before feature.
You've seen the Netflix announcement, now take a look at this:
http://lonelysandwich.com/post/662129889/ipad-tv
1 day ago that was posted, today we have a HD camera, iMovie and videophone announcement on a device with an upgraded screen, and talk of working with carriers for videophoning (i.e. transmitting video over the cellular networks).
This "no innovation" device might not need a USB hoover attachment to be a cornerstone piece for turning another major industry upside down in a way that others could not mostly by virtue of lots of integration, evolutionary changes and a pleasant enough UI that people wont resist.
> In what way isn't it awesome? It's faster, smaller, brighter, screenier, cameraier, videoier, batterier, storagier, more sensor laden, better looking, and runs better more useful software.
It's about on par on quality as the HTC Evo or Droid Incredible, which is great, but not astoundingly spectacular in my opinion. And as we all know, two months from now HTC will probably be releasing some newer and better.
It's a competitive product, but in my eyes it's comparable to what's already out there, improving in the same way other products do when they're released (screen resolution, thickness, etc). It's just not worthy of getting your panties in a bunch, and certainly not worthy of migrating to it from a n Incredible, Evo, or Desire. Just not enough advantages to make it worth it.
It's about on par on quality as the HTC Evo or Droid Incredible, which is great, but not astoundingly spectacular in my opinion. And as we all know, two months from now HTC will probably be releasing some newer and better.
It's a competitive product, but in my eyes it's comparable to what's already out there, improving in the same way other products do when they're released (screen resolution, thickness, etc). It's just not worthy of getting your panties in a bunch, and certainly not worthy of migrating to it from a n Incredible, Evo, or Desire. Just not enough advantages to make it worth it.
It's better than iphone 3GS but this is not surprising. Hardware wise is catching up with some older HTC models for some features or lagging behind the newest models. High resolution display being the only thing really better than any other phones out there.
If the fight is on software, I put my money on android: big time! Android is quicker at introducing new OS features because it's open source. I am thinking wifi tethering, customization beyond folders, web integration... and it offers a more competitive and free app market.
If the fight is on software, I put my money on android: big time! Android is quicker at introducing new OS features because it's open source. I am thinking wifi tethering, customization beyond folders, web integration... and it offers a more competitive and free app market.
I don't know how many times this has to be said, but a product is more than the sum of it's feature-grid checkboxes.
I am a not criticizing the iphone 4 per se; just saying that for the first time apple is coming out with something that does not have that "wow" factor; in fact a "meh" factor if you ask me. I add that I own a MBP, 2 ipods and I found the iPad interesting (for its wow factor again).
This is an awful lot like Rob Malda's famous quote:
"No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame."
I'd go so far as to say that Apple never competes purely on features. They resisted putting features into the iPod (like an FM radio) for years and yet those devices still flew off the shelves. The iPhone 3GS screen is 1/4 the resolution of my now highly obsolete WinMo phone. Apple never rushes to add anything when they don't need to -- and that is not necessarily a bad thing.
I'd go so far as to say that Apple never competes purely on features. They resisted putting features into the iPod (like an FM radio) for years and yet those devices still flew off the shelves. The iPhone 3GS screen is 1/4 the resolution of my now highly obsolete WinMo phone. Apple never rushes to add anything when they don't need to -- and that is not necessarily a bad thing.
So Nexus One has 960x640 300+ ppi, IPS LED backlit display?
Its 5Mpx camer is with backside illumination?
How is Nexus One increased battery life compared to iPhone 4?
10 hours of video, correct?
I wasn't aware that the Nexus One had a gyroscope.
I don't know if it does through the same sensor but the
NEXUS one is aware of its absolute position, look for "google sky maps" on youtube for examples. It may be using magnetometer (digital compass) and 3 axis accelerometer.
It almost certainly is. Sky Map works well on my G1, and that definitely doesn't have a gyroscope.
I suspect the difference will be in both speed of updates and accuracy. It doesn't matter (in fact, you won't even notice) if the phone is a little "off" when pointed at the sky, but I can't see the compass+accelerometer trick providing accurate absolute positioning for a fast-paced game.
I suspect the difference will be in both speed of updates and accuracy. It doesn't matter (in fact, you won't even notice) if the phone is a little "off" when pointed at the sky, but I can't see the compass+accelerometer trick providing accurate absolute positioning for a fast-paced game.
The sky map app is and amazing piece of software.
This somewhat tangential, but I have to say that I've only seen one "live coverage" method that really worked well IMO: Lifehacker's LiveWaving of Google IO. I still haven't really used Wave at all, but that really seemed to work well for a live coverage event. It felt much less "hackish" than the auto-refresh and scroll down method.
Here's something I wrote back in December based on no info:
http://martin.drashkov.com/2009/12/iphone-4g-predictions.htm...
Not that it means very much - changes like the screen, storage and ram/cpu were pretty obvious.
Not that it means very much - changes like the screen, storage and ram/cpu were pretty obvious.
[deleted]
Ars Technica coverage: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/06/wwdc-keynote-steve...
MacRumours coverage: http://www.macrumorslive.com/
MacRumours coverage: http://www.macrumorslive.com/
no iPod touch update? I was hoping they will at least have a camera in the iPod touch added.
"Video calls" is one more thing of the day!
[deleted]
Please just say its coming to Verizon already.
I think AT&T giving discounted renewals six months in advance is good indication that they will be losing exclusivity early in 2011.
It is, or at least I thought was, well-known that the exclusivity agreement Apple entered into when developing/releasing the iPhone had a term of five years.
Interesting. Wouldn't it be an advantage for another network to leak that information to deter signing with att?
I would imagine there are HUGE penalties for this. Also, just because AT&T's exclusivity agreement expires in 2011, doesn't mean another carrier has agreed to carry the iPhone yet.
I am beginning to wonder whether iAds is the reason Apple don't want Flash on their mobile devices.
Actually, that makes sense. If Flash were on the iPhoneOS devices along with some kind of cross-compile dev environment, then Adobe could develop its own iAd clone. By controlling runtimes, and development environments, Apple makes it much harder for a competitor "ad within the app" framework to exist.
Thank you for at least entertaining the thought without reading all sorts of conspiracy theories into it.
How does banning Flash stop DoubleClick from releasing an Objective-C library which loads small ads from their servers for in-app display, and gives developers a cut of the revenue?
How many advertising agencies and marketing houses do you think have objective C programmers with experience in flash banners?
Right, so that undercuts Adobe's developer base. That's also consistent with a strategy of favoring HTML5 over Flash.
When half a dozen easy non-conspiratorial technical reasons just aren't enough, make up some unverifiable accusations of unfair play instead!
There aren't any technical reasons that can't be said to exist with HTML5. If you think so you obviously haven't looked at many of the HTML5 demos that are supposed to be as good as Flash.
Second of all. I am an Apple fanboy. I have more or less everything they do and don't care whether flash is on there or not.
That does not mean that I have to buy weak arguments just because they come from Jobs. And they are in my opinion weak I would gladly explain in further detail.
I call it as I see it and given that Apple has now both entered the ad space and is said to be developing a new framework for HTML5 I frankly don't see why that would be conspiracy theory.
Last but not least. I never ever talked about unfair play, so why you would claim such a thing is beyond meaning.
Second of all. I am an Apple fanboy. I have more or less everything they do and don't care whether flash is on there or not.
That does not mean that I have to buy weak arguments just because they come from Jobs. And they are in my opinion weak I would gladly explain in further detail.
I call it as I see it and given that Apple has now both entered the ad space and is said to be developing a new framework for HTML5 I frankly don't see why that would be conspiracy theory.
Last but not least. I never ever talked about unfair play, so why you would claim such a thing is beyond meaning.
I frankly don't see why that would be conspiracy theory. [..] I never ever talked about unfair play.
You suggest that Jobs' open letter to Adobe, and Apple's stance on Flash generally, is a deliberately deceitful and misleading cover story for some underlying real motive. Then suggest that the underlying motive is them conspiring to force Flash-using ad providers to move to iAd. Sounds like unfair play to me.
Specifically, I think Apple do want ad providers to move to iAd, but I don't think they are doing so by covering up a big plot with a stance of lies.
Adobe hasn't shown a stable mobile flash implementation yet. That sounds like a pretty convincing technical argument on it's own, and is the one I'm most interested in hearing about it's weaknesses.
Maybe the battery life / CPU use one is something Adobe can solve, maybe the security updates could be rolled into Apple's iOS updates, maybe Adobe could push for stability, maybe they could even come up with a way of mapping mouse/click/hover onto multitouch in a way that works usefully enough for many things without rewrites (though I have reservations that they could do that to Apple quality).
But to put them all together, mostly things which Adobe could have done over the years and haven't, which Apple could not do because of the closed nature of Flash... for what reward? Punch the monkey flashing ad banners filling the small iPhone screen? Games and all-flash websites stretching off the edges? Intro movies to websites? Scribd style "readers"? Flash DRM enforcers and downloaders? Clunky Flash recreations of common GUI elements? Not much reward for a lot of effort, is it?
Particularly when other platforms are trying to promote HTML5 and marginalise Flash, so they would want to support HTML5 anyway.
You suggest that Jobs' open letter to Adobe, and Apple's stance on Flash generally, is a deliberately deceitful and misleading cover story for some underlying real motive. Then suggest that the underlying motive is them conspiring to force Flash-using ad providers to move to iAd. Sounds like unfair play to me.
Specifically, I think Apple do want ad providers to move to iAd, but I don't think they are doing so by covering up a big plot with a stance of lies.
Adobe hasn't shown a stable mobile flash implementation yet. That sounds like a pretty convincing technical argument on it's own, and is the one I'm most interested in hearing about it's weaknesses.
Maybe the battery life / CPU use one is something Adobe can solve, maybe the security updates could be rolled into Apple's iOS updates, maybe Adobe could push for stability, maybe they could even come up with a way of mapping mouse/click/hover onto multitouch in a way that works usefully enough for many things without rewrites (though I have reservations that they could do that to Apple quality).
But to put them all together, mostly things which Adobe could have done over the years and haven't, which Apple could not do because of the closed nature of Flash... for what reward? Punch the monkey flashing ad banners filling the small iPhone screen? Games and all-flash websites stretching off the edges? Intro movies to websites? Scribd style "readers"? Flash DRM enforcers and downloaders? Clunky Flash recreations of common GUI elements? Not much reward for a lot of effort, is it?
Particularly when other platforms are trying to promote HTML5 and marginalise Flash, so they would want to support HTML5 anyway.
There you go again with the strawmen.
Who is talking about deceitful or lying?
I suggest no such thing. I actually believe that Jobs believes what he writes. I just think what he writes is wrong.
Regarding a stable mobile flash implementation. You are right they haven't.
But the same can be said about HTML5 convincingly showing that it can compete with flash on other than some video, without sucking up CPU.
Showing a slideshow or some simple transition simply isn't going to cut if if you want to talk about comparative experiences.
The whole multitouch argument is also misleading as there really isn't any reason why Flash wouldn't be able to work with that. The flash player would be written specifically for the iPad/iPhone anyway so that could be solved. And rollover isn't by any metrics a problem. That too can be easily solved.
If Apple really where serious about open standards why not disallow flash on the laptops? They have far less battery life than their mobile peers so the reason to remove it from there would be just as strong.
I don't really care whether you like the things that flash is being used for and there is absolutely no reason to believe that HTML5 wont be the exact same things happening. Whether annoying banner ads or clunky recreations of gui elements.
If HTML5 is better it will end up replacing Flash. But HTML5 has a very long journey before it's anywhere close to flash. At least if it was possible to opt in or out of flash in the setting people would have a choice and we would see a natural selection process taking place.
Instead what we have is a bunch of bad excuses for why Flash shouldn't be on the iPad and iPhone.
The only thing apple get out of that is going to be substandard flash emulation with JavaScript and Canvas. Surely not something to wish for.
Who is talking about deceitful or lying?
I suggest no such thing. I actually believe that Jobs believes what he writes. I just think what he writes is wrong.
Regarding a stable mobile flash implementation. You are right they haven't.
But the same can be said about HTML5 convincingly showing that it can compete with flash on other than some video, without sucking up CPU.
Showing a slideshow or some simple transition simply isn't going to cut if if you want to talk about comparative experiences.
The whole multitouch argument is also misleading as there really isn't any reason why Flash wouldn't be able to work with that. The flash player would be written specifically for the iPad/iPhone anyway so that could be solved. And rollover isn't by any metrics a problem. That too can be easily solved.
If Apple really where serious about open standards why not disallow flash on the laptops? They have far less battery life than their mobile peers so the reason to remove it from there would be just as strong.
I don't really care whether you like the things that flash is being used for and there is absolutely no reason to believe that HTML5 wont be the exact same things happening. Whether annoying banner ads or clunky recreations of gui elements.
If HTML5 is better it will end up replacing Flash. But HTML5 has a very long journey before it's anywhere close to flash. At least if it was possible to opt in or out of flash in the setting people would have a choice and we would see a natural selection process taking place.
Instead what we have is a bunch of bad excuses for why Flash shouldn't be on the iPad and iPhone.
The only thing apple get out of that is going to be substandard flash emulation with JavaScript and Canvas. Surely not something to wish for.
Who is talking about deceitful or lying?
You are. You suggest that their officially given reasons are not their true reasons. If they aren't the true reasons then they must inherently be false reasons. Lies. Falsehoods. Misleading. Deceitful. Dishonest.
I actually believe that Jobs believes what he writes. I just think what he writes is wrong.
And this is where it turns into proper conspiracy logic. Instead of banning flash because Jobs/Apple thinks it wont run well and provide a good user experience, as claimed, you suggest that:
Apple think they could provide a good flash user experience if they want to, but they would rather ban it to convert advertisers to their ad platform, but the CEO has no idea about either the possibility of making it work or the company's actual motives, and honestly believes his own claims that they are banning flash because it cannot be adequately fixed.
If Apple really where serious about open standards why not disallow flash on the laptops? They have far less battery life than their mobile peers so the reason to remove it from there would be just as strong.
No, because they can be plugged in more easily because of the limitations on where you can use them, they aren't carried around as often while in use, and they have historically had Flash so taking it away is different from never adding it, and they don't have an app store to remove it from and they don't have a precedent or a method for controlling / curating desktop software and their desktop software isn't running a DRM'd environment so they couldn't effectively enforce it and they can support open standards on their desktops by adding safari and let Adobe deal entirely with flash which they can't do on a mobile platform with a very restrictive constraints which they would have to ensure it met.
there is absolutely no reason to believe that HTML5 wont be the exact same things happening.
OK.
If HTML5 is better it will end up replacing Flash
Not true. Better is too vague and better doesn't always win anyway.
At least if it was possible to opt in or out of flash in the setting people would have a choice
People have a choice - Android. We'll see if Android sales skyrocket because of Flash support.
Instead what we have is a bunch of bad excuses for why Flash shouldn't be on the iPad and iPhone.
It's irrelevent whether they 'should', the iPhone is an Apple product and the only reason things get on it or not is because Apple want it that way. 'Should' doesn't come into it.
The only thing apple get out of that is going to be substandard flash emulation with JavaScript and Canvas.
Again, no. Apple get browser stability, reduced engineering costs, reduced support costs, more polished and more pleasant user experience - the main things they are selling.
You are. You suggest that their officially given reasons are not their true reasons. If they aren't the true reasons then they must inherently be false reasons. Lies. Falsehoods. Misleading. Deceitful. Dishonest.
I actually believe that Jobs believes what he writes. I just think what he writes is wrong.
And this is where it turns into proper conspiracy logic. Instead of banning flash because Jobs/Apple thinks it wont run well and provide a good user experience, as claimed, you suggest that:
Apple think they could provide a good flash user experience if they want to, but they would rather ban it to convert advertisers to their ad platform, but the CEO has no idea about either the possibility of making it work or the company's actual motives, and honestly believes his own claims that they are banning flash because it cannot be adequately fixed.
If Apple really where serious about open standards why not disallow flash on the laptops? They have far less battery life than their mobile peers so the reason to remove it from there would be just as strong.
No, because they can be plugged in more easily because of the limitations on where you can use them, they aren't carried around as often while in use, and they have historically had Flash so taking it away is different from never adding it, and they don't have an app store to remove it from and they don't have a precedent or a method for controlling / curating desktop software and their desktop software isn't running a DRM'd environment so they couldn't effectively enforce it and they can support open standards on their desktops by adding safari and let Adobe deal entirely with flash which they can't do on a mobile platform with a very restrictive constraints which they would have to ensure it met.
there is absolutely no reason to believe that HTML5 wont be the exact same things happening.
OK.
If HTML5 is better it will end up replacing Flash
Not true. Better is too vague and better doesn't always win anyway.
At least if it was possible to opt in or out of flash in the setting people would have a choice
People have a choice - Android. We'll see if Android sales skyrocket because of Flash support.
Instead what we have is a bunch of bad excuses for why Flash shouldn't be on the iPad and iPhone.
It's irrelevent whether they 'should', the iPhone is an Apple product and the only reason things get on it or not is because Apple want it that way. 'Should' doesn't come into it.
The only thing apple get out of that is going to be substandard flash emulation with JavaScript and Canvas.
Again, no. Apple get browser stability, reduced engineering costs, reduced support costs, more polished and more pleasant user experience - the main things they are selling.
It seems like you are very gung-ho about painting me as a conspiracy theorist without any real ground.
I don't know about you but in my world when someone say they wonder whether something is the case I would either ask the the reason for this or tell them why it can't be the case. I wouldn't lash out as you did and accuse them of putting forward conspiracy theories and saying other people are lying.
"And this is where it turns into proper conspiracy logic. Instead of banning flash because Jobs/Apple thinks it wont run well and provide a good user experience, as claimed, you suggest that: Apple think they could provide a good flash user experience if they want to, but they would rather ban it to convert advertisers to their ad platform, but the CEO has no idea about either the possibility of making it work or the company's actual motives, and honestly believes his own claims that they are banning flash because it cannot be adequately fixed."
That is you reading words into what I say, talk about conspiracy theories!
I am beginning to realize that I am speaking with one of Lenins "useful idiots" and that makes this conversation fruitless.
You know my opinion you haven't made any arguments to change that.
I don't know about you but in my world when someone say they wonder whether something is the case I would either ask the the reason for this or tell them why it can't be the case. I wouldn't lash out as you did and accuse them of putting forward conspiracy theories and saying other people are lying.
"And this is where it turns into proper conspiracy logic. Instead of banning flash because Jobs/Apple thinks it wont run well and provide a good user experience, as claimed, you suggest that: Apple think they could provide a good flash user experience if they want to, but they would rather ban it to convert advertisers to their ad platform, but the CEO has no idea about either the possibility of making it work or the company's actual motives, and honestly believes his own claims that they are banning flash because it cannot be adequately fixed."
That is you reading words into what I say, talk about conspiracy theories!
I am beginning to realize that I am speaking with one of Lenins "useful idiots" and that makes this conversation fruitless.
You know my opinion you haven't made any arguments to change that.
I repeated back what you said so I could point out how daft it was. Then you denied saying it.
I explained where I saw that and you denied saying it again.
I explained (again) precisely where in your comment I picked up what I said, and now again you say I have no ground and am lashing out and am one of "Lenin's useful idiots", whoever they are.
Meanwhile you haven't addressed the main question I was curious about - how could Apple practically have been pro flash on their mobile devices when there is no mobile flash, and wasn't several years ago when they were developing iPhone 1, 2, 3 and now 4.
That is you reading words into what I say, talk about conspiracy theories!
No, I'm just reading what you say, that's how reading works. What you say happens to include lots of weird inconsistencies that when you say them make you look odd and when I repeat them back you say they make me look odd.
I explained where I saw that and you denied saying it again.
I explained (again) precisely where in your comment I picked up what I said, and now again you say I have no ground and am lashing out and am one of "Lenin's useful idiots", whoever they are.
Meanwhile you haven't addressed the main question I was curious about - how could Apple practically have been pro flash on their mobile devices when there is no mobile flash, and wasn't several years ago when they were developing iPhone 1, 2, 3 and now 4.
That is you reading words into what I say, talk about conspiracy theories!
No, I'm just reading what you say, that's how reading works. What you say happens to include lots of weird inconsistencies that when you say them make you look odd and when I repeat them back you say they make me look odd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backside_illumination
At the bottom: "The new iPhone 4 uses this type of sensor in its camera."
I love the times we live in.