Apple releases iPad...

[Dee]

Interesting article here concerning flash and it's competitors... the chart in the article shows a devastating lose in encoded videos for Flash in less then a year:

H.264 Already Won—Makes Up 66 Percent Of Web Videos



by Erick Schonfeld on May 1, 2010

Earlier this week, Steve Jobs kicked the debate about the need for Flash into high gear, especially for Web video. As he explained, Apple products like the iPhone and iPad don’t support Flash because although 75 percent of video on the Web is in Flash ” almost all this video is also available in a more modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones, iPods and iPads.” The next day, Microsoft weighed in, saying that Internet Explorer 9 would only support the H.264 codec for HTML video.
So how much video exactly is available in H.264? I asked Encoding.com, which has encoded 5 million videos over the past year for a variety of Websites and customers including MTV Networks, WebMD, Brightcove, Nokia, MySpace, and Red Bull. President Jeff Malkin sent me the chart above, which he believes is representative of the Web in general, including mobile. As the chart shows, in the past four quarters, the H.264 format went from 31 percent of all videos to 66 percent, and is now the largest format by far. Meanwhile, Flash is represented by Flash VP6 and FLV, which combined represent only 26 percent of all videos. That is down from a combined total of 69 percent four quarters ago. So the native Flash codecs and H.264 have completely flipped in terms of market share (Flash also supports H.264, however, but you don’t need a Flash player to watch H.264 videos)
Another data point that Steve Jobs mentions: All YouTube videos are available in H.264, which alone represents 40 percent of all videos on the Web. So these numbers from Encoding don’t seem so crazy.
All of these codecs and formats can seem like gobbledy gook. Malkin offers the following to explain the differences:

The formats can be confusing between containers and codecs. FLV is the Flash container with the old H.263 codec. Flash VP6 is the Flash container with the VP6 codec. H.264 is a codec that is utilized in a number of different containers (.FLV, .MP4, .MOV) and on Apple mobile devices and when deployed by browsers for HTML5. Microsoft just announced that IE will use H.264 as the default codec for HTML5. And, Google will be soon offering the VP8 codec as open source which will add another formidable flag in the format wars.
​

Read more: http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/01/h-264-66-percent-web-video/#ixzz0mj29ezOc

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

You're mopping the floor with him Rumples...

Thanks, Dee, but really, he's making it awfully easy

Might get a 2nd generation iPad...

That was my initial thought, Dee, and then I decided it's $500 today. In a year or so when the second generation comes out, I'll still be able to sell my 1st generation for $300 and will have had the year of it for $200.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

The next day, Microsoft weighed in, saying that Internet Explorer 9 would only support the H.264 codec for HTML video.

So, what he's saying, Dee, translated into "Techmanspeak" is that IE 9 will be as useless as an iPad since it won't support Flash? Oh, me, oh, my. the poor guy's is running right out of lame rationalizations.

 

[Techman]

Here we go with another technical genius tossing in his two cents. Dee, for what it's worth no browser today natively supports Flash either. That's why you have to download a small application called a plugin to view Flash video in your browser. When the next version of browsers come around, there will also be a Flash plugin available for them and that isn't about to change anytime soon. Flash is also used for much more than displaying video, if you visit any escort websites you should know that many of them use flash for their animations and other graphics. I have a large number of clients who have rather extensive websites which use Flash encoding and none of them have any interest in spending money on re-coding their sites for non-flash capable devices. Many people who have their own personal websites also use Flash and will not change because they know Flash, it works for them, and they have already invested the time to learn it and spent the money for the program.

Will most if not all of the major commercial sites switch over or make their sites both HTML5 compatible and Flash enabled? Probably will given enough time. After all, corporate sites are there to sell you something and the best way to do that is to get the message out on the most platforms possible. But the web isn't only made of commercial sites and much of the most accurate and interesting information is found elsewhere.

By the way, from your oversized quote above " President Jeff Malkin sent me the chart above, which he believes is representative of the Web in general, including mobile. " This is one person's opinion with no facts to back it other than his own business stats and he also has a vested interest in making money encoding video for people. I'll wait for independant confirmation based on multiple sources before believing anyone who is making a one off statement. Don't forget that before the iPad was released it was said to have a wide screen high def display, USB ports, two cameras, run a full operating system, and on and on and on... Unfortunately none of those predictions turned out to be true.

By the way, have you heard the news? The sky is falling and there's a wolf going after the sheep!!!

PS: You guys should try actually reading the comments section to the articles you post. You might actually learn something about what you're posting about.

 

[Merlot]

Huh,

As far as Apple owning the tablet market, last I looked, they had a 100% share, which, of course, isn't hard when the only competition decides to not even hit the market since the operating system (Windoze 7) is too bloated to run it.

With a 100% share you mean that after just a few weeks of the iPad being on the market no other company is now able to sell a "tablet". Ridiculous! Only if you restrict the definition of a tablet to the precise specifications and options of an iPad.

You seem to be alone in this opinion. Here's PCWorld's take: http://www.pcworld.com/businesscent...ller_we_cant_even_get_an_ipad_challenger.html

By the way, can you give me the name of another tablet in mass circulation. You know, just to show that you're not entirely full of shit?

Of course, you could build a tablet based on a mobile OS and still provide a camera, or dual cameras, and Adobe Flash support, and perhaps even a USB port or SD memory card capabilities. There is certainly still room for HP and others to include features that can set their tablet devices apart from the iPad.

The article also lists it's familiar shortcomings. But then by your standards of anyone who doesn't worship the iPad 100% is full of shit.

There are three fairly new consumer products on the market, very different to be sure, but in some competition with each other: the netbook, the Kindle, and the iPad. For some reason, Techman seems insistent in comparing capabilities and functions of the iPad and the netbook, while ignoring the Kindle. In fact, the iPad has far more in common with the Kindle than it does with the netbook. I’d almost call the iPad a Kindle on steroids.

There was a time when Rumples would admit the devices he now wants to lock out of the tablet category were part if it.

BIB, the iPad was not designed to be a work computer or to replace yours. It's primary function is content delivery and it does that brilliantly.

He also seemed to agree at one time it isn’t a computer.

When did you and Steve Jobs get to decide what a tablet PC is? Jsut because something isn't an iPad, doesn't mean it isn't a tablet computer. sorry, but you lose. When the tech world decides that something has to be an equivalent size, shape and weight as an Apple product to qualify as a tablet then your arguement might hold a bit of weight. But as it stands, it has none.

Apple doesn't get to decide what is or isn't a tablet PC. They have been around for almost 10 years and just because Steve decides to come out with a new toy, it doesn't change the existing definition of the tablet category. And one more time, because maybe constant repitition will get through your aluminum sheilded brain, the iPad is not a computer. It is a content delivery system. I can do more actual computing on a 20 year old 8086 running DOS than I can do on an iPad. actually, I can do more computing on a slide rule than on an iPad.

Meanwhile, the Apple stock (AAPL) that I purchased about six years ago for $9.75 per share just cracked $220 for yet another all time high. And, yes, I'm ordering one myself.

Well Techman, this must be when Grumples decided only something with Apple specifications is a tablet. Did you really expect anything else from someone with such a huge conflict of interest.

Thanks, pal. You've just thrown me a couple of batting practice fastballs and now I'm going to post my final comment in this thread.

That was from post #172...lol.

Cheers,

Merlot

BTW...I think I counted Rumples telling everyone who disagrees they're "full of shit" at least 87 times. More to come.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Don't forget that before the iPad was released it was said to have a wide screen high def display, USB ports, two cameras, run a full operating system, and on and on and on... Unfortunately none of those predictions turned out to be true.

This might be a bit tough for you to comprehend, given the hate-haze clouding your vision, but there's a significant difference between rumours spread on the web and a statement from the the general manager for IE at Microsoft. And you're right about most of the iPad rumours being untrue; the lone exception is, of course, the HD display.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

With a 100% share you mean that after just a few weeks of the iPad being on the market no other company is now able to sell a "tablet". Ridiculous! Only if you restrict the definition of a tablet to the precise specifications and options of an iPad.

I'll try to explain this, though it might be diffcult given your challenges. No, Apple isn't the only one able to sell a tablet, but they are the only ones actually doing so. Two others on the drawing board were cancelled this week. I believe there is still one under development elsewhere with no "market" date.

There is certainly still room for HP and others to include features that can set their tablet devices apart from the iPad.

Yup, there certainly is still room for HP to include features that the iPad doesn't have and maybe they would if they hadn't canceled development of their tablet earlier this week AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN NUMEROUS POSTS IN THIS VERY THREAD IN THE LAST TWO DAYS.

He also seemed to agree at one time it isn't a computer.

Did you see the word "work" in there? That is what we call an "adjective," which in this case is modifying the word "computer." The iPad is not designed to be a "work computer." That doesn't mean it's not a "computer." What, by the way, is your native tongue, Merlot?

 

[Techman]

But, rumples, you seem to love quoting rumours about the demise of the HP Slate as fact, as well as that of a product called Courrier that was never announced or even talked about by anyone other than web bloggers. And if you actually looked at the Wikipedia link about tablet computing I posted, you would know that the iPad is not a tablet computer. But of course, the only thing that qualifies in your eyes would be a castrated device like the iPad.

You obviously know nothing about web browsers and also didn't read my post or the comments on the link that Dee posted. If you did you might realize that whatever a browser natively supports is totally meaningless when it comes to what it will be able to deliver. But of course I forgot that you are used to the iPad that can only display what Apple allows it to display. That doesn't apply to computers where users are able to actually install the software they wish and actually view videos using more than one codec or delivery method.

By the way...the main reason that Microsoft is pushing for H.264 as the standard is that Firefox doesn't support it and for FF to do so they would have to pay licensing fees in the area of $5 Million. As FF would have trouble doing so, the idea is that their browser share would decline. Both MS and Apple have a vested interest in promoting H.264 as the standard for HTML5 video.

Try getting your head out of Steve Jobs ass for a change and actually try to learn something about the world of computers, 95% of which doesn't have an Apple logo anywhere in sight.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to watch the Mayweather-Mosley fight on my Flash enabled browser. Try doing that on your iPad.

PS: for someone of your supposed intelligence, you should know that it is indeed 'your' not 'you're' limited intelligence.

 

[Merlot]

Hello Grumples,

Never let the fact that you admitted knowing nothing about the tech itself stop you from regurgitating articles hundreds of more times. You almost had an original thought somewhere...I think. Hmmmmm. But then, you do have that stock to pump up.

And don't worry, I won't be offended by your insults any more. After looking through many posts in this thread I can see you never learned...from anyone...to communicate without them.

Where's Below500K? Have to admit, from the Apple side he knows what he is talking about.

Cheers,

Merlot

 

[Techman]

This might be a bit tough for you to comprehend, given the hate-haze clouding your vision, but there's a significant difference between rumours spread on the web and a statement from the the general manager for IE at Microsoft. And you're right about most of the iPad rumours being untrue; the long exception is, of course, the HD display.

The iPad does not have a HD display. I challenge you to find me ONE website that claims it does or one site that states that 1024 X 768 is a high definition resolution. Just one. Apple's own sites do not qualify.

 

[Techman]

Oh, by the way...one of the main reasons I don't consider the iPad to be a computer is that it is not a standalone device. It requires a computer with iTunes installed to activate it and a computer with iTunes to update it. A true computer would be able to do both of those things itself.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

And don't worry, I won't be offended by your insults any more. After looking through many posts in this thread I can see you never learned...from anyone...to communicate without them.

You know, Merlot, Techman and I disagree on some substantive issues here, but at least wer're discussing the issues. You come here for no reason other than to hurl insults. You do it in numerous threads on two boards and, in doing so, you reveal yourself to be a person devoid of any redeeming character. Congratulations, you've managed to make yourself the most universally despised person on two boards. You can go away now.

BTW, while Techman, who is a friend of mine, and I may disagree on the issues here, we can at least treat each other with a modicum of respect.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Oh, by the way...one of the main reasons I don't consider the iPad to be a computer is that it is not a standalone device. It requires a computer with iTunes installed to activate it and a computer with iTunes to update it. A true computer would be able to do both of those things itself.

Techman doesn't consider it to be a computer, therefore it's not a computer. Is that from Descartes?

OK, that's it. I'm going to bed. I really should get laid, but between you and the Red Sox, I've lost my appetite for young flesh. At least for tonight. Bon soiree.

 

[Merlot]

Hello Rumples,

You know, Merlot, Techman and I disagree on some substantive issues here, but at least wer're discussing the issues. You come here for no reason other than to hurl insults. You do it in numerous threads on two boards and, in doing so, you reveal yourself to be a person devoid of any redeeming character.

BTW, while Techman, who is a friend of mine, and I may disagree on the issues here, we can at least treat each other with a modicum of respect.

Oh, so that filthy PM you sent, telling anyone who disagrees with you they're full of shit (your favorites habitual phrase), and making numerous other insults is your version of respect. Even after I apologized for getting carried away you still don't stop. I just got through reading many of your numerous different insults an hour ago and saw how you treat your friend. Congratulations, you're the crudest and the most universally despised person on two boards.

Cheers,

Merlot

 

[Mod 8]

Hello everyone,

Do I have to close yet another technology thread? I do not intend to spend any time cleaning this thread and the next time any intervention is required it will be followed by the closing of this thread. If you wish this discussion to continue, I expect it to do so with no further insults or personal attacks.

Dee, if you wish to participate in discussions here, it would be appreciated if you actually contributed your own opinions on the topic being discussed instead of simple cut and paste quotes from other websites. It seems that your only purpose for posting in certain threads is to stir things up. Continue this habit of hit and run posts and you will no longer be posting here.

To give everyone the chance to cool down, this thread is closed and will be re-opened tomorrow.

Last chance, gentlemen. Make the most of it.

Mod 8

EDIT: Thread is now open.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

This past weekend was the launch of the iPad 3G in the US and by Sunday 49 of the 50 Apple stores were sold out. It's estimated that 300,000 3G iPads were sold over the weekend. Apple is probably now over the million mark. Clearly, the iPad is the hottest tech product to hit the market since the iPhone.

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/05/03/ipad-3g-sold-out-in-49-of-50-stores/

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Clearly, the iPad is the hottest tech product to hit the market since the iPhone.

OK, I'm the first to admit when I'm wrong. The iPad is NOT the hottest tech product to hit the market since the iPhone. It took the iPhone 74 days to sell 1,000,000; it only took the iPad 28 days. I'm going to guess that the iPad is the hottest tech product EVER. Has any other sold this many this quickly?

http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/sto...tally.html?cm_ven=YAHOO&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA

Over one million happy people.

 

[Special K]

Over one million happy people.

That's still to be determined.

 

[Techman]

First of all, you should get your facts straight. It took 49 days, not 28 because the iPad went on sale on March 12. You have to count from the day it was available for purchase, not the day it was physically available. Let's wait and see how many it sells over the first 6 months once all the Apple fanboyz have bought their jumbo iPod and they have to sell it to regular folk.

It also looks like Apple may have some 'splainin' to do in the near future because the US FTC and DoJ are considering launching an anti-trust inquiry against Apple and their restrictive practices regarding their developer policies for the iPhone/iPad OS platform.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/03/apple-to-face-antitrust-inquiry-over-iphone-coding-restrictions
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/an_antitrust_app_buvCWcJdjFoLD5vBSkguGO
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=8213&tag=wrapper;col1

And here's a nice article regarding Microsoft's position on Flash. Not exactly as clear cut as some people would have you believe. This article includes a great explanation of the MPEG LA group which is responsible for licensing H.264 and as it turns out, neither MS or Apple stand to make any money at all from that codec being chosen as the standard for HTML5 video.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=2095&tag=content;col1

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

First of all, you should get your facts straight. It took 49 days, not 28 because the iPad went on sale on March 12.

Anything you say, Boss. Apple, however, considers the first day of sale to be April 3, the day you could walk in to Best Buy or an Apple store and pick one up. But who are they to argue with you?