Apple announces iPad with larger screen

Its obvious that you have swallowed the coolaid but have you noticed that
many sites do in fact use flash, many also use java and many many use both.

and many sites have mobile friendly versions (not just for the iphone).

seriously, ask people who actually use the iphone how much they miss
flash. some will, but overall, it's not that high on the list.

It sucks......... The lack of Flash and Java is immediately
noticed. Most web pages that use Flash or Java do NOT
have a mobile friendly version of the same web page.

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Atheist Chaplain
wrote:

PDF's most definitely but then the Kindle isn't marketed as a net book
like
the iPad is,

the ipad is not marketed as a netbook

Direct quote from the Apple site "The best way to expeerience the web,
email, photos, and video. Hands down."
if its not marketed as direct competition for net books then I don't know
what is.

do you see the word netbook in there? the ipad is an alternative to a
netbook.


Alternative!! so your agreeing it is aimed at the netbook market then :-)

a lot of people buy a netbook for an easy to carry way to check mail
and surf. the ipad will work well for that. others buy a netbook for
having a laptop with them, but smaller. the ipad won't work so well for
that. it's a different product. choice is good.

and to be honest what's it going to be like at surfing the web
with no java of flash support when 99% of the web is flash and/or java
??

even adobe doesn't say it's that high.

WTF do Adobe know about Java.

duno but they do know a lot about flash. i think their estimates are
around 70-75%. i'm not sure how they measured it though.


OK so 75% of the web is inaccessible to an iPad, what does that leave, a
couple of hundred hand coded amateur home pages made in 1997 !!

Its obvious that you have swallowed the coolaid but have you noticed that
many sites do in fact use flash, many also use java and many many use
both.

and many sites have mobile friendly versions (not just for the iphone).

seriously, ask people who actually use the iphone how much they miss
flash. some will, but overall, it's not that high on the list.

then ask them about at&t, and stand back.

the lack of flash hasn't hurt iphone sales all that much and it's
fairly low on the list of complaints (at&t is tops). with roughly 100
million iphone/ipod touches out there, companies will be creating
mobile friendly sites, without flash.

instead web developers have to code sites for mobile devices, is that
where
all the ipad traffic will have to be sent as well ??

they have to code for internet explorer and other browsers with their
idiosyncrasies. mobile friendly web pages are a very good idea. the
cellular network is relatively slow and some people have bandwidth caps
per month. the less data the better.

mobile sites also load faster and are easier to use on a mobile device
too (no tiny buttons to hit with fat fingers). heck, i even visit the
mobile version of some sites on my desktop computer because it's often
much faster than a bloated flash/java laden site.

mobile users want info and they don't want to wait. the pretty eye
candy is a waste of time and bandwidth and probably doesn't look that
good on a tiny screen anyway.

because that would pretty much confirm that it is then nothing more than
an
over sized iPod touch.

in a lot of ways, it is. so what? the ipod touch is a very successful
product. the ipad only improves upon it (other than being easily put
into a pocket).

mobile safari is not crippled. it's exactly the same as the desktop
version, but with a touch interface.

and no flash and no java, do try and keep up.

neither of those are part of safari, desktop or mobile.

and yet my version of Safari that has not been updated in ages and neither
have I bothered to install any plugins, comes with both Flash (Shockwave
Flash 10.0 r42) and Java (Java Deployment Toolkit 6.0.170.4)
installed.............

and the Kindle and other e-ink readers are so much better for
actual reading than even the most crisp backlit LCD/LED screen. Been
there,
tried that !

so you were at the apple event and used an ipad to know how good or bad
its screen is?

didn't think so.

and you were ??

I, like you have never claimed that, its just a red herring thrown in to try
and discredit my arguments, the thing to remember is that just like every
other big Apple announcement it is live blogged to death and there is now
enough info out there on the web to base educated decisions on, so far in
comparing it to everything else in its market it falls way short. maybe if
it had a cut down snow leopard on it the story would be way different, but
as it stands with iPhone v3 on it, its a big loser, just gage the dissent
coming from the ranks in some of the stronghold fanboi forums.


i'm not the one who is saying the screen sucks, without ever having
seen it.


try this quick quiz Sherlock, where did I say the screen sucks, I said ALL
backlit LCD's and LED's suck for reading books ect compared to e-ink
screens, If comprehension was one of your strong suits then you would also
realise that I was referring to peoples claims/hopes that it would be a
great device for reading on the go. and at a 1024 resolution its not going
to bother even the cheapest e-ink reader regardless of the resolution they
use. don't take my word for it, do as I asked and beg/borrow a Kindle and
compare for yourself.

Did you know that the screen shots of the NY Times flashed up on the
screen
during the presentation, complete with in tact flash content in fact was
supplied to Apple by the NY Times as a high res screen shot. can you say
deceptive ??
As a matter of fact that same screen shot is on the Apple iPad page. What
I
want to know is how that page would load at all on an iPad when the NY
Times
front page has over 30 separate Java scripts running in it!

they fixed that. i don't know what the hell they were thinking.

anyway, there's a new york times native app that is far, far better
than trying to deal with the web site, mobile or otherwise. same for
cnn. *that* is a major benefit. it even won an award last year for best
news app.

No argument from me about the app, but that still doesn't negate the
deceptive practices used during the presentation about the abilities of the
device.
I just looked at the page for the iPad and there is still an image with the
front page of the NY Times emblazoned on an iPad.

At the end of the day I'm not impressed and neither are quite a few other
people, it seems that only the ignorant die hard fan bois are singing its
praises still.
--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi

"Atheist Chaplain" wrote in message
...


"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Atheist Chaplain
wrote:

PDF's most definitely but then the Kindle isn't marketed as a net
book
like
the iPad is,

the ipad is not marketed as a netbook

Direct quote from the Apple site "The best way to expeerience the web,
email, photos, and video. Hands down."
if its not marketed as direct competition for net books then I don't
know
what is.

do you see the word netbook in there? the ipad is an alternative to a
netbook.


Alternative!! so your agreeing it is aimed at the netbook market then :-)

It will obviously take a fair share of the netbook market. Those that have
netbooks
but don;t really use them as computers migth find that the ipads are lighter
to carry
and have a longer battery life. Everyone that I knows that has a netboko
uses them mainly
to surf, and email the siorts of things they could do withy a mobile phone
if they weren;t
put off by the small screen.



a lot of people buy a netbook for an easy to carry way to check mail
and surf. the ipad will work well for that. others buy a netbook for
having a laptop with them, but smaller. the ipad won't work so well for
that. it's a different product. choice is good.

and to be honest what's it going to be like at surfing the web
with no java of flash support when 99% of the web is flash and/or
java ??

even adobe doesn't say it's that high.

WTF do Adobe know about Java.

duno but they do know a lot about flash. i think their estimates are
around 70-75%. i'm not sure how they measured it though.


OK so 75% of the web is inaccessible to an iPad,
No it's not inaccessible.
Give me a few examples of what I'd miss out on.




I, like you have never claimed that, its just a red herring thrown in to
try and discredit my arguments, the thing to remember is that just like
every other big Apple announcement it is live blogged to death and there
is now enough info out there on the web to base educated decisions on, so
far in comparing it to everything else in its market it falls way short.

Doesn't that depend on the use your going to put it to.

maybe if it had a cut down snow leopard on it the story would be way
different,

Why a cut down snow lepoard ?

but as it stands with iPhone v3 on it, its a big loser, just gage the
dissent coming from the ranks in some of the stronghold fanboi forums.

Why would I do that, I'll complain that it doesn;t have a 20MB full frame
digital camera built in or it's not as good as my mates 50" plasma display,
or it's not as small as a notpad and pencil.

i'm not the one who is saying the screen sucks, without ever having
seen it.


try this quick quiz Sherlock, where did I say the screen sucks, I said ALL
backlit LCD's and LED's suck for reading books ect compared to e-ink
screens,

For me e-ink is crap because it doesn;t to video, if I want ink I;'d buy a
newspaper or too.
Or buy an actual book which is both smaller and lighter than any laptop or
netbook.

If comprehension was one of your strong suits then you would also realise
that I was referring to peoples claims/hopes that it would be a great
device for reading on the go. and at a 1024 resolution its not going to
bother even the cheapest e-ink reader regardless of the resolution they
use. don't take my word for it, do as I asked and beg/borrow a Kindle and
compare for yourself.

I've heard kindles aren't as good as the real thing i;e paper and ink.

At the end of the day I'm not impressed and neither are quite a few other
people,

I'm not impressed with iPods and MP3s in particular, but sales of 250
million are
more important I guess than my impressions. I can;t see why anyoen
want/needs
140,000 apps because I don;t need them.


it seems that only the ignorant die hard fan bois are singing its praises
still.

I think they just know that it'll be used despite your idea that it has no
use.
we'll just see how sales go. It'll be one of those things were people say
it's no good everyone's got one.
I haven;t got a mobile phone or a laptop or netbook because I don't need
one,
but I do reaslise thas others do.

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
whisky-dave wrote:

"Bowser" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 22:16:57 -0600, Rich wrote:

The Maxi-Pad.

Funny thing is that Mad TV, a comedy sketch show, beat Apple to the
name in 2005 with this sketch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L68aKVAzwQ4

How could Apple choose this name? Besides, the device is crippled. No
camera, no phone, no Java, no Flash. Who is this for? Is it just a
glorified reader?

If the iPad is just a glorified reader what is a Kindle ?

Kindle is designed for reading text. The iPad isn't.

right so the iPad isn;t meant to replace the kindle.
It's not meant to replace a home movie screen setup.
It's not meant to replace mobile communications.
It's not meant to replace desktop computers.
It's not meant to replace netbooks
It's not meant to replace a mobile phone.
It's meant to be a new kind of device

"John McWilliams" wrote in message
...
Rich wrote:
The Maxi-Pad.

It wasn't that funny a few days ago.

Sheesh.

Wasn't funny 5 years ago when MAD TV did their iPad sketch...

In article , Atheist Chaplain
wrote:

Direct quote from the Apple site "The best way to expeerience the web,
email, photos, and video. Hands down."
if its not marketed as direct competition for net books then I don't know
what is.

do you see the word netbook in there? the ipad is an alternative to a
netbook.

Alternative!! so your agreeing it is aimed at the netbook market then :-)

there's some overlap but it's not a direct competitor.

OK so 75% of the web is inaccessible to an iPad, what does that leave, a
couple of hundred hand coded amateur home pages made in 1997 !!

not quite. many sites with flash video, such as youtube, stream h.264.
other sites have mobile friendly versions and/or native apps.

it really isn't as big of a deal as people make it out to be, most of
whom never actually tried it to see just what works and what doesn't.

obviously, not everyone visits the same set of web sites, so some
people might find it to be a problem and others won't even notice it.
as i said before, the biggest complaint about the iphone platform is
*not* the lack of flash.

and yet my version of Safari that has not been updated in ages and neither
have I bothered to install any plugins, comes with both Flash (Shockwave
Flash 10.0 r42) and Java (Java Deployment Toolkit 6.0.170.4)
installed.............

safari 4.0.4 came out not that long ago (few months, if that). both
flash and java are non-apple products.

maybe if
it had a cut down snow leopard on it the story would be way different,

there have been windows tablets with windows on them for about a
decade. they haven't sold well. why would snow leopard on a tablet be
any different?

it has a touch based version of os x, a big difference.

but
as it stands with iPhone v3 on it, its a big loser, just gage the dissent
coming from the ranks in some of the stronghold fanboi forums.

people complain about a lot of things. the iphone and ipod touch have
sold quite well, with sales increasing. if it really sucked so much,
that wouldn't be the case.

try this quick quiz Sherlock, where did I say the screen sucks, I said ALL
backlit LCD's and LED's suck for reading books ect compared to e-ink
screens, If comprehension was one of your strong suits then you would also
realise that I was referring to peoples claims/hopes that it would be a
great device for reading on the go. and at a 1024 resolution its not going
to bother even the cheapest e-ink reader regardless of the resolution they
use. don't take my word for it, do as I asked and beg/borrow a Kindle and
compare for yourself.

how well does a kindle display colour photos and videos? any 3d action
games?

the ipad is not *just* an ebook reader.

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Atheist Chaplain
wrote:

Direct quote from the Apple site "The best way to expeerience the web,
email, photos, and video. Hands down."
if its not marketed as direct competition for net books then I don't
know
what is.

do you see the word netbook in there? the ipad is an alternative to a
netbook.

Alternative!! so your agreeing it is aimed at the netbook market then :-)

there's some overlap but it's not a direct competitor.

bull****, stop backpedaling If Apple wanted to introduce a game changer to
that market then the current offering has fallen flat on its face, so in
that regards I suppose you are right, its not a direct competitor.

OK so 75% of the web is inaccessible to an iPad, what does that leave, a
couple of hundred hand coded amateur home pages made in 1997 !!

not quite. many sites with flash video, such as youtube, stream h.264.
other sites have mobile friendly versions and/or native apps.


many of those sites use java to get those streams h.264 videos on the
screen, the iPad couldn't even render the Apple web site properly because
they use java.

it really isn't as big of a deal as people make it out to be, most of
whom never actually tried it to see just what works and what doesn't.

obviously, not everyone visits the same set of web sites, so some
people might find it to be a problem and others won't even notice it.
as i said before, the biggest complaint about the iphone platform is
*not* the lack of flash.

and yet my version of Safari that has not been updated in ages and
neither
have I bothered to install any plugins, comes with both Flash (Shockwave
Flash 10.0 r42) and Java (Java Deployment Toolkit 6.0.170.4)
installed.............

safari 4.0.4 came out not that long ago (few months, if that). both
flash and java are non-apple products.


Yet there it was, in my un tampered version of Safari ??

maybe if
it had a cut down snow leopard on it the story would be way different,

there have been windows tablets with windows on them for about a
decade. they haven't sold well. why would snow leopard on a tablet be
any different?


because it would be a dedicated OS for a real computer, not just an
overgrown iPod with pretentions of being a player in the market.

it has a touch based version of os x, a big difference.


the iPad is running iPhone OS ver 3, not OS X anything.

but
as it stands with iPhone v3 on it, its a big loser, just gage the dissent
coming from the ranks in some of the stronghold fanboi forums.

people complain about a lot of things. the iphone and ipod touch have
sold quite well, with sales increasing. if it really sucked so much,
that wouldn't be the case.


but the same people who praise the iPhone and iPod are the same ones now
voicing their dissatisfaction with the iPad, and I have to agree, it was
hyped up the wazoo before the release and all we get is some pathetic
attempt to pass a reject from weight watchers with nothing more innovative
than the guts of an iPod touch.

try this quick quiz Sherlock, where did I say the screen sucks, I said
ALL
backlit LCD's and LED's suck for reading books ect compared to e-ink
screens, If comprehension was one of your strong suits then you would
also
realise that I was referring to peoples claims/hopes that it would be a
great device for reading on the go. and at a 1024 resolution its not
going
to bother even the cheapest e-ink reader regardless of the resolution
they
use. don't take my word for it, do as I asked and beg/borrow a Kindle and
compare for yourself.

how well does a kindle display colour photos and videos? any 3d action
games?

the ipad is not *just* an ebook reader.

But everyone is saying how great it would be as one, I am saying that it
wont for the very reasons I pointed out earlier, how many novels do you read
with colour pictures in them ?


--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi

In article , Atheist Chaplain
wrote:

bull****, stop backpedaling If Apple wanted to introduce a game changer to
that market then the current offering has fallen flat on its face, so in
that regards I suppose you are right, its not a direct competitor.

impressive. it won't ship for two months, yet it has already fallen
flat on its face.

OK so 75% of the web is inaccessible to an iPad, what does that leave, a
couple of hundred hand coded amateur home pages made in 1997 !!

not quite. many sites with flash video, such as youtube, stream h.264.
other sites have mobile friendly versions and/or native apps.

many of those sites use java to get those streams h.264 videos on the
screen,

have you ever used an iphone or ipod touch? java is not required to get
an h.264 stream. for youtube, it's completely automatic, in both the
youtube app (obviously) and youtube links in safari.

the iPad couldn't even render the Apple web site properly because
they use java.

it renders just fine.

safari 4.0.4 came out not that long ago (few months, if that). both
flash and java are non-apple products.

Yet there it was, in my un tampered version of Safari ??

apple includes them. they didn't write them.

maybe if
it had a cut down snow leopard on it the story would be way different,

there have been windows tablets with windows on them for about a
decade. they haven't sold well. why would snow leopard on a tablet be
any different?

because it would be a dedicated OS for a real computer, not just an
overgrown iPod with pretentions of being a player in the market.

and historically, putting a desktop operating system that's designed
for a keyboard/mouse on a keyboardless and mouseless device has been a
market failure. not a good business plan.

it has a touch based version of os x, a big difference.

the iPad is running iPhone OS ver 3, not OS X anything.

iphone os *is* os x, but optimized for touch. other than the user
interface api, it's mostly the same, and even that is fairly close.

how well does a kindle display colour photos and videos? any 3d action
games?

the ipad is not *just* an ebook reader.

But everyone is saying how great it would be as one, I am saying that it
wont for the very reasons I pointed out earlier, how many novels do you read
with colour pictures in them ?

plenty of books have colour photos, as do newspapers and magazines.

whisky-dave wrote:

right so the iPad isn;t meant to replace the kindle.
It's not meant to replace a home movie screen setup.
It's not meant to replace mobile communications.
It's not meant to replace desktop computers.
It's not meant to replace netbooks
It's not meant to replace a mobile phone.
It's meant to be a new kind of device



I am still amazed how how deeply his Jobness and Apple have gotten into
the heads of the techo-savvy (which excludes only a few here), a lot of
whom are Mac haters, or trolls.

So much heat, and some light, over a device so many claim is wrong,
wrong, wrong, and they'll never buy- or it's the best thing since the
iPhone, etc. When none have ever laid a mitt on it.

How now?

--
john mcwilliams

In message hk93jg$bqc$1@qmul, whisky-dave
writes

It will obviously take a fair share of the netbook market. Those that have
netbooks
but don;t really use them as computers migth find that the ipads are lighter
to carry
and have a longer battery life. Everyone that I knows that has a netboko
uses them mainly
to surf, and email the siorts of things they could do withy a mobile phone
if they weren;t
put off by the small screen.

Netbooks have a real keyboard; the iPad doesn't. They all have wired
connectivity to USB devices and Ethernet, the iPad doesn't. Pretty much
all of them have built-in SD-card readers for memory expansion and
transferring image files, the iPad doesn't. I don't see anyone who
believes they need or want a netbook would necessarily decide the iPad
will do what they want instead.

I don't see the iPad as a traveller's computer, I see its use limited
to home and maybe school and college situations. It's too big to carry
around trivially as you would carry a phone or a PDA (the iPhone and
iTouch market). It's too limited when away from home to use as a
general-purpose computer because of all the things it's missing like a
keyboard, ports etc. Lugging a pile of plug-in devices and adapters to
make it into a general-purpose laptop is a pain; having to build your
computer like sticking Legos together is not the way people want to work
or travel never mind the extra luggage space and weight required.

The iPad might do well in the ebook-reader market but it is heavier
than virtually all the other e-ink readers around and its battery life
is terrible in comparison to the Kindle or the Sony devices and it
certainly costs a lot more.

OK so 75% of the web is inaccessible to an iPad,

No it's not inaccessible.
Give me a few examples of what I'd miss out on.

ESPN.com is one site I've heard mentioned. I think that's a biggie for
some folks. People punting h.264 video and HTML5 as the solution to the
iPad not being able to handle Flash don't seem to realise that they are
asking the entire Web community to change just so the iPad can display
the content nearly all other Web-savvy devices can already display and
without offering to pay for the changeover.

maybe if it had a cut down snow leopard on it the story would be way
different,

Why a cut down snow lepoard ?

The ability to run regular OS/X programs. Not going to happen for a lot
of reasons including battery life, marketing, heat dissipation, system
cost etc.

Why would I do that, I'll complain that it doesn;t have a 20MB full frame
digital camera built in or it's not as good as my mates 50" plasma display,
or it's not as small as a notpad and pencil.

A lot of folks are complaining that it doesn't have any USB ports; this
would have been a trivial addition to the iPad design. Ethernet and
SD-card readers are another technology people were expecting or at least
hoping for. Quite a few couch-potatoes are bemoaning the lack of native
720p video since Apple bought cheap 1024x768 TN displays rather than the
more expensive 1280x1024 devices on the market today (nobody was
expecting photographic-quality S-IPS or P-VA displays at the price point
Apple had to meet to sell these devices at all). Downsampling streaming
video to fit the sub-sized display on the iPad can be done but it
shouldn't have been necessary.
--
To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon