Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How the iPad Is Already Reshaping the Internet (Sans Flash)

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the all-3-flavors-of-ice-cream dept.

Graphics 532

The Internet's already starting to look different, says Gizmodo, in a piece of interest not only to everyone with an iPad floating around the UPS system, but also those of us thinking about some other kind of tablet in the medium-term future. As they put it, "The iPad doesn't run Flash. If your website uses Flash, it won't play well on the iPad. Turns out, a lot of people want their sites to look pretty on the iPad." And an anonymous reader adds this snippet from Webmonkey: "In anticipation of Saturday's release of the iPad — which doesn't run Flash — Apple has published a list of 'iPad Ready' websites. The sites are all big league sluggers like CNN, The New York Times, People Magazine and MLB.com. Surprisingly, there are also a few video-heavy sites in the mix (Vimeo, Flickr, and TED) which would traditionally rely on Flash Player for video playback."

cancel ×

532 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Not everyone is an Apple whore (2, Insightful)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705352)

Not all of us lay back and spread our legs for Apple, timothy.

Re:Not everyone is an Apple whore (4, Funny)

millennial (830897) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705370)

Wouldn't the iPad buyers be more like johns than hookers? Five-diamond girlfriend experience...

Re:Not everyone is an Apple whore (4, Interesting)

6031769 (829845) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705374)

s/Apple/Adobe/;

Re:Not everyone is an Apple whore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31705580)

s/Apple/Adobe/;

Yeah, problem with that? I can happily choose to not run Flash on my computer. With the iPad, I don't get the option.

Re:Not everyone is an Apple whore (5, Insightful)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705640)

Yeah, problem with that? I can happily choose to not run Flash on my computer. With the iPad, I don't get the option.

You can happily choose not to buy the iPad.

Re:Not everyone is an Apple whore (5, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705504)

Agreed.

My problem (at least at this point) isn't really with the iPad, but with people who are insisting the iPad is some kind of revolutionary device. It may do what it does very well, but it is hardly original.

Regardless, I still think it's overpriced, considering it's priced like a full-featured device yet only has half the functionality. yes, I'm aware of "small costs money, Apple tax, it's not for you, you just don't understand the device", and every other response. I don't care.

I still think it's overpriced.

Re:Not everyone is an Apple whore (2, Insightful)

Neon Aardvark (967388) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705698)

My problem (at least at this point) isn't really with the iPad, but with people who are insisting the iPad is some kind of revolutionary device.

It will be revolutionary to most people. Because most people have never owned a tablet PC, just like most people hadn't owned a smart phone before getting the iPhone.

Apple is refined and locked down revolution for the masses.

I'm more excited about the Microsoft Courier, which looks like a genuinely revolutionary (for everyone) form factor.

Re:Not everyone is an Apple whore (2, Interesting)

kklein (900361) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705716)

I use Macs for everything these days, have several iPods (contrary to what everyone claims, I can't seem to get them to die, so I end up accumulating them), and I'm constantly attached to my iPhone.

But I have to agree. For $500, I could get a perfectly serviceable netbook. I would be interested in the iPad if it were $199. Otherwise, I have a MacBook Air as my work machine, and I have the iPhone. The former does everything; the latter does everything I want when out and about. I just don't understand where the iPad is even supposed to go. I don't get it.

Not so bad (5, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705362)

It's stupid to do this just for the iPad, but if it helps to move more towards web standards then I don't care about the means to the end..

They are not... (5, Insightful)

denzacar (181829) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705432)

It is yet again a marketing ploy by Apple to make it look like the iPad is much bigger "player" than it is, while presenting its weakness as a strength.

Websites on the list are not bending over backwards to appease the mighty iPad.
They are either offering a "alternative solution" for portable devices that don't run Flash, while still keeping the Flash version running - OR simply trying to move away from Flash on their own.

It is not like they got together and said: "Hey, this new_thingyTM is coming out - we better change everything so that those couple of thousand users can use our site so that the new_thingyTM sells better and doesn't flop. Quick! To the HTML5-mobile!".

It is simply a list of "compatible sites" that will actually work with the new bigger iPod - unlike every other video site on the internets.
You know... It is not a bug that it doesn't run Flash. It is a feature. See - here is the list of sites that work just fine on it.

Re:They are not... (3, Informative)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705574)

Yes, I agree. The sale of 50,000 to 1,000,000 (initial) units is hardly enough to even make the internet blink, let alone take a dramatic turn away from a product that has been an internet changer for the past decade. Considering the lack of standard implementation of HTML 5 you won't see much impact for a long time to come. Flash has helped monetize the web and the investment is considerable. Nothing Apple will do will change that overnight, and attempts like this look shrill to the educated masses.

Any claim of an impact the iPad has (or will have for the next couple years) is an exaggeration.

Re:They are not... (5, Insightful)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705618)

It may only be 50,000 to 1,000,000 people, but you know each of those are people who spend a lot of money on stuff they do not need.

1 of them may be worth 1000 regular people to advertisers.

Just like mobile versions of websites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31705694)

Remember when Jobs claimed applications should be web based, then when they got their developer kit finished, suddenly the 'App' store was born?

Same thing, they obviously didn't get flash finished, so website that want to co-market with Apple have to make a flash free website, just as they made a mobile version for telephones.

However when the new Android flash supporting cheaper devices arrive Jobs will hope to have flash ready.

Re:They are not... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31705702)

Pretty much, yea. My first thought after reading the article was: This should be tagged "wishfulthinking".

Newgrounds (3, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705438)

if it helps to move more towards web standards then I don't care about the means to the end..

So what will replace Flash on sites like Newgrounds, which use Flash for vector animation? Will it be canvas or animated SVG? Let me know when badgers can dance [badgerbadgerbadger.com] on iPad; only then can Flash be obsolete.

2 Minutes of My Life I'll Never Get Back (3, Insightful)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705470)

OK, so I just watched that Badger-Dance thing, and have decided that if the presence of the iPad in the world will conclusively cause fewer of those... toons, animations, jumpy-things, whatever it was... to be created, I'll buy two iPads and a couple of shares of Apple stock, just on principle.

Flash is the white powdered wig of the Internet. Don't ask, "But what will replace it?" Just stop using it altogether.

Re:2 Minutes of My Life I'll Never Get Back (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705516)

Kongregate [kongregate.com] says hi.

Re:2 Minutes of My Life I'll Never Get Back (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31705548)

The badger dance is just a homage to one of da Vinci's [moonbuggy.org] early works, lighten up Francis!

Re:2 Minutes of My Life I'll Never Get Back (3, Funny)

OakDragon (885217) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705686)

It will be a return to the golden age of the animated GIF!

Re:Newgrounds (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31705512)

Here's DHTML Lemmings written six years ago:

http://www.elizium.nu/scripts/lemmings/ [elizium.nu]

Here's an HTML5 particle system:

http://www.mrspeaker.net/dev/parcycle/ [mrspeaker.net]

Here's Quake II running in your browser:

http://code.google.com/p/quake2-gwt-port/ [google.com]

Re:Newgrounds (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31705560)

Years ago, I had a 486. Today, in 2010, my computer has 8 times the processors, nearly 50 times clock speed, 250 times the RAM, and yet it still can't play these goddamn web-based games at a reasonable speed, even when using Chrome. Meanwhile, Quake II runs just fine on my old 486.

Browser-based "apps" are all about doing exactly the same stuff we could do 15 years ago, but doing it slower and shittier, although we have hardware that's literally hundreds to thousands of times more powerful.

Re:Not so bad (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705468)

It's stupid to do this just for the iPad

Why?

Re:Not so bad (3, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705522)

Because the iPad will never amount to more than 0.000001% of internet traffic? Millions of phones are online every day, and we're supposed to sit up because Apple has bought out the next piece of overhyped crap (how are you supposed to hold it again?)? I don't think so.

Re:Not so bad (4, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705474)

It doesn't help "move standards forward" or anything - it means that people will be asked to design for a specific resolution. We're going backwards - remember all those "Best viewed with Internet Explorer at 800x600"?

There are still too many sites out there that use a fixed-width table layout - on todays wide-screen monitors, all the content is in the left third of the browser.

Morons. (But what do you expect for people who "want their site to look good on a device that hasn't sold a single unit" - they've bought into the hype.

Re:Not so bad (4, Insightful)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705534)

I have to agree the view that the web is like a magazine where the author should control the layout is a broken idea. The entire point of the markup langague as was originally designed was so that the page could be flowed on the device. Web 2.0 is the worst of all badness with everyone using css to lay things out to the pixel.

If you can't make your app/site look good on a variety of screen shapes ( accepting there are going to be extreems that don't work perfectly ) you're a bad web developer. If your secret desire is to do Madison Avenue style layouts go get a job in desktop publishing and leave our WWW alone.

Column width (2, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705654)

There are still too many sites out there that use a fixed-width table layout - on todays wide-screen monitors, all the content is in the left third of the browser.

Then split your monitor into two windows, showing one web site on the left and another on the right. The eye is best at reading 60- to 70-column layouts anyway; otherwise, you're spending half your time hunting for the start of the next line. Why do you think newspapers are printed in five or six columns, not one wide column across the page?

Apple finally does something useful? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31705378)

If the iPad does actually kill off Flash, Steve Jobs will finally have given something worthwhile to the world of computing.

Re:Apple finally does something useful? (4, Insightful)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705424)

Steve also lured the entire RIAA into iTunes, cut the cost and made it DRM-free for the entire world to buy at less than one dollar per song. In the meantime when they did DRM-only the added a mechanism in iTunes to burn it to (re)writable media DRM-free and lossless and a mechanism to auto-RIP audiodiscs back to your computer.

If that wasn't enough for the world already, then what is? ;)

Re:Apple finally does something useful? (4, Insightful)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705484)

If you burn a lossy file to a CD, you can't really say the process was "lossless". There may not have been loss on your side, but there was when it was originally encoded, and to avoid additional loss when you rip it back you need to use a lossless file format. This results in your file being far larger than the original but having the same quality.

Besides that nitpick, I'll agree it was a pretty decent thing to do.

Re:Apple finally does something useful? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31705550)

"There may not have been loss on your side, but there was when it was originally encoded"

You mean like ANY music that has been recorded in the last 70 years???

As a former professional musician, I can safely say that what you hear on the CD is not what we heard in the studio. Or the stage. Or in our cars. Or anywhere else.

One of the reasons I got out and back into academia was that people were commodizing music much further than I could deal with...I know it was always, but there was a balance. In my youth, we'd trade tapes that had been transcribed from machine to machine several dozen times AND WE LOVED IT. I had tapes that were barely audible, but they are still my preferred listening media as they were just so perfect that it didn't matter that something was slightly or even significantly better. The fact that the kids complain about ripping a lossy format to another? Ohes Noes...we would have KILLED to have something as clean as this...but it didn't matter.

Again, what we hear in the studio will never be put down digitally as we hear it...you are hearing a pale imitation of what we heard. You are ALWAYS hearing lossy music unless you are there.

Not wanting to be pedantic, BUT this is one pet peeve I have when I hear people bitching about music quality and otherwise...people like you commoditize music far more than the labels ever did...it isn't about ones and zeros.

Re:Apple finally does something useful? (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705576)

Fact is you are getting a lossy file from itunes, unless you pay more for a lossless file. Whether or not you think it is worth it is really an opinion. The only thing that personally really bugs me is when I do the burn/rip trick, I either receive files that are far far larger (on the order of 20 or so megabytes, my harddrive is only so big...), or I receive small files that now have been encoded lossy twice. At that point it certainly makes some difference.

Anyways, all of this is why I prefer just going to shows...

Re:Apple finally does something useful? (0)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705644)

>>>Again, what we hear in the studio will never be put down digitally as we hear it...you are hearing a pale imitation of what we heard.

Perhaps but the CD format of said music is still closer to the studio than the MP3. And for those who claim, "You can't hear the difference," that is true with headphones but not when I'm playing it on my surround sound system. The CD preserves the rear "echo" while the MP3 produces weird sounds.

So the MP3 is "lossy" compared to the CD.

Re:Apple finally does something useful? (2, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705624)

Pretty sure he only did it because Amazon would have killed iTunes otherwise. I tried iTunes once when it had DRM, hated it (128kpbs or whatever AAC burned to a disc and then ripped again is pathetic quality), waited and waited and eventually they brought out the Amazon MP3 store here in the UK, DRM free from the start, have been using it ever since.

Re:Apple finally does something useful? (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705678)

No, they wanted to do it all along - the original stated goal of the iTMS from Apple themselves was no DRM, but they had no choice since the people providing the product would not play ball. Eventually they gave in (in exchange for variable pricing, so the net cost of the more popular stuff is more now than it was, while the total average price per song is approximately the same).

It wasn't part of some "do or die" strategy - it was in the business plan from day 1.

Re:Apple finally does something useful? (1)

JackDW (904211) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705684)

That's a bit revisionist, I think.

I find it really, really hard to believe this was the plan all along. I think it's a happy side effect of Apple's business: using DRM for platform lock-in, then attempting to use that lock-in to gouge a better deal out of the RIAA.

People say that His Holiness Steve Jobs always wanted to get rid of DRM, because he said so during the early days of iPod+iTunes. However, that was what people wanted to him to say, so did he really mean it? I doubt it. If he really hated DRM as a matter of principle, then I'd expect every iPhone to be sold with a jailbreak option as a built-in feature.

Ummm.. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31705380)

Flickr is not a video heavy site.

Re:Ummm.. (2, Informative)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705408)

yeah. The only video site in the list is vimeo. The rest are news sites.

For the smart people, you can read all the other websites via RSS. I'm amazed that a site that would be just fine being read via RSS is touted as special for being "ipad ready".

Ugh... (1)

ZDRuX (1010435) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705384)

The entire web is to give up flash because Apple said so? Really??!

Re:Ugh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31705556)

People will fall for it, though. El Jobbso has a reality distortion field rivaling that of Doctor Stephen Strange.

My money's on the internet (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31705388)

... reshaping the ipad.

Let's face it, aside from the hype this device is merely another tablet. So far none have made any sort of impression on the internet and I would fully expect that in a few months time, when all the buzz has died back all these ipads will be languishing in desk drawers and cupboards somewhere - when people discover that their old laptops are much more capable and less of a pain to use.

Nope, doesn't get it. (4, Insightful)

aussersterne (212916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705418)

The opposite will happen. They'll find their laptops and computer languishing in disuse, and their iPads carried with them around the house all the time. The era of the heavy, stationary computer needing a desk for hours-long use (whether you mean desktop or laptop) is over.

Re:Nope, doesn't get it. (4, Insightful)

PFactor (135319) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705434)

TBH I find my desktop at home is collecting dust already. I only use it when the pager goes off when I'm on call.

I do most everything else with my iPhone.

I wish I could say it is due to the superior experience I get on it but I can't. Instead I have to admit that the device's size and ease of use enables me to be an even lazier fsck than I was before. Now I don't have to get off the couch at all.

Re:Nope, doesn't get it. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31705582)

Until my mobile phone (or an iPad-alike solution) can replicate my three 23" wide screen multi-monitor setup, I'll keep my PC, thanks.

I love my mobile for quick emailing and texting and looking something up on the Internet when I'm arguing with friends over esoteric trivia at the pub. Now replace "mobile" and "at the pub" with "iPad" and "on my back patio" respectively and you see where the use case is for the iPad. Because it's too damn big to carry down at the pub and you'd be pretty well fscked if you had to do hours of serious work on that tiny ass screen using a shitty touch-screen "keyboard".

So it's essentially a mobile phone without the phone part and you can't just chuck in your pocket and take with you everywhere you go. Which limits its mobility to "around the house" and "anywhere you could just as well carry a laptop".

And even though I think Steve Jobs is a genius and a visionary, he's also a blowhard and I'm not sucking the Apple teat on this one.

iPad? iPass.

Re:Nope, doesn't get it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31705446)

The iphone Is better suited to carrying around the house as it fits in a normal sized pocket.

Re:Nope, doesn't get it. (2, Insightful)

FreonTrip (694097) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705476)

That's all well and good for passive internet viewing or jotting out a quick Facebook message, but for doing serious content creation that's a dubious assertion. Try running ArcGIS, 3Ds MAX, or any other high-end content creator on a netbook some time, let alone an iPad. You can get away with it on a higher-end laptop, but at the end of the day the best way to ensure that you have plenty of available horsepower for demanding applications is by entrusting it to a system designed for high workloads, and uncompromised by the concessions to power saving and heat generation necessary to carry the thing around with you all the time.

Statistically speaking, (5, Insightful)

aussersterne (212916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705502)

NOBODY does "serious content creation."

Literally nobody. A statistically insignificant portion of the global internet-using public.

I completely agree that people doing development, rendering, engineering, physics, authoring, or whatever other kind of creation you want to talk about will not do it on an iPad or other similar device. They will continue to have heavy, cumbersome, hot, unfriendly, complex devices somewhere in their office/workplace/house for accomplishing these tasks.

I concede that point.

And it absolutely nothing to do with mine.

Re:Nope, doesn't get it. (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705510)

you're right. But only 2% of internet users do that.

Re:Nope, doesn't get it. (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705614)

Try running ArcGIS,...

How about we get ArcGIS to install correctly instead of having to try 4-6 times for each component. Also, having to install everything under a user's profile who will not be admin on their machine is asinine. Add in that on four identical, freshly imaged machines you get a myriad of different errors and one has to wonder if the cost of the software is warranted.

ArcGIS might be decent software, but they need to get their act together when it comes to installing the stuff in the first place.

Re:Nope, doesn't get it. (5, Insightful)

TrekkieGod (627867) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705634)

The opposite will happen. They'll find their laptops and computer languishing in disuse, and their iPads carried with them around the house all the time. The era of the heavy, stationary computer needing a desk for hours-long use (whether you mean desktop or laptop) is over.

Do you know why you're wrong? Because nobody uses a computer for anything LESS than hours-long use. We've already switched to other devices for that. Just need to check your e-mail, do a quick wikipedia search? Pull out your smart-phone. The only thing we use computers for now are things that take a while...and you don't want to be there holding the ipad in your hand while you watch a movie because the desk is a better choice, leaving your hands free. You don't want to use the ipad to type up a report because a real keyboard is a better choice than the virtual one for anything that is more than one or two paragraphs.

The portable devices for quick use already exist, and they are way better than the iPad, because they're portable enough to fit in your pocket. For everything else you want a desk-bound (or lap-bound), full keyboard solution.

You misunderstood me. (3, Insightful)

aussersterne (212916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705722)

I meant to suggest precisely that hours-long use will now happen on the iPad.

And you're wrong about the desk; it's not a better choice. People want to integrate networks into their regular and social lives (carry it with them into the living room, sit on the sofa, etc.), not sequester themselves away so that they can connect.

The latter is the geek dream, but for most people, sitting at a desk for hours is the LAST thing they want to do when they get home. Right now they use the 'net in spite of the desk, not because of it.

Re:My money's on the internet (3, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705420)

"merely another smartphone", "merely another mp3 player", i think i heard that arguments before. And if well is all hype and little substance, still a lot of people will buy that hype.

Re:My money's on the internet (3, Insightful)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705440)

The iPad is primarely for being on your kitchen table or on the sofa, so that when you get home late and you lay down in your couch, you can grab the iPad, do a quick mail, listen to a relaxing song and put it away.

Or when your cooking (!=pizza) you can quickly grab it, browse for how to make your food and just cook while looking at it.

It's not designed to kill laptops/desktops. It is also not realy multi-tasking user-space apps...

Re:My money's on the internet (1)

RedK (112790) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705600)

I'm laying down on my couch right now and typing this post on my laptop, which I also use to look up nutritional information and recipes on the Internet while in the kitchen. The iPad is all hype if that's all it offers, laptops already offer that kind of portability. Not to mention I'm about 50 times more comfortable typing this post on a laptop then I would be on the iPad's screen in my current position.

Re:My money's on the internet (2, Interesting)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705708)

Hope it has some kind of stand otherwise it's going to be a real pain in the ass to get a good viewing angle without also getting it too near to messy ingredients while cooking.. a typical netbook or even a laptop would be good for these things (and in fact I have used a laptop or netbook for all of them in the last month), and has the added benefit of a decent keyboard.

I still think the iPad looks pretty cool and wouldn't mind trying one, but don't try to pretend like it has anything going for it other than a nice multitouch interface and the possibility of living out geeky Star Trek style datapad fantasies :P

The Internet's already starting to look different? (4, Funny)

Mystery00 (1100379) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705396)

*Looks closer* Oh yeah! Some of the pixels.... no wait that's just a bit of dust.

I've started making my site iPad-compatible. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31705398)

The first thing I did to make my site more iPad-friendly was to use nothing but different shades of pink. The green I used before is gone, along with the black. It's all pink.

The second thing I did was put penises all over the place. My site is actually about mobile homes, but erect penises are what really attract the iPad crowd.

The third thing I did was use words like "fabulous" and "super duper" all over the place.

The fourth thing I did was replace all 's's with 'th'. So now my site has text like, "This is the motht fabuloth mobile home you'll thee on the market today!"

The fifth thing I did was made my site navigable with nothing more than a flick of the wrist.

I'm sure with these changes that my site will become the premiere site for iPad-using mobile home enthusiasts.

Re:I've started making my site iPad-compatible. (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705454)

You forgot to add "Totally Hot (TM)" to the most expensive mobile homes and also that mobile homes are the latest trend.

Gizmodo? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705404)

At least the articles of the last few days suggest that it real name should be Ipadmodo. And hope that it dont happens here. "Ipaddot, news for ipad users, stuff that matters to Apple" just dont sound right.

Re:Gizmodo? (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705660)

At least the articles of the last few days suggest that it real name should be Ipadmodo. And hope that it dont happens here. "Ipaddot, news for ipad users, stuff that matters to Apple" just dont sound right.

Or Applemodo. Then again, when ever there is a lot of hype around something Gizmodo tends to over indulge, but if you are you are regular reader of Gizmodo you would known that ;)

Here we go again (5, Insightful)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705406)

This has nothing to do with the iPad. Once again, Apple is getting the credit for something that was already happening in the industry.

Flash started to get dropped when ad blocking systems became so popular which meant more people were blocking it by default. Also AJAX became the next big buzzword, which meant that a lot of things that people (necessarily) used Flash for could be done using standard Javascript. There just isn't the need for it anymore.

I'm not saying that having more systems that don't support Flash will not be a factor in the decision regarding what technology will be used on a website. But the writing has been on the wall for Flash for quite some time, at least for general website interfaces. Obviously it will still have a use for games (which is why Apple will never support Flash - it bypasses their strict controls).

Re:Here we go again (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705460)

Games will be replaced by WebGL and the like ;)

Re:Here we go again (2, Insightful)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705478)

Well, I wouldn't say 'nothing', but my first thought was that the iPad was just the latest in a long string of devices that didn't have Flash support. And we're seeing more all the time. If your company wants to be seen on those devices, your company needs to stop using Flash. It's just so simple.

Re:Here we go again (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31705486)

Yeah. I remember being asked to make a web site in Flash (since it couldn't possibly be done w/ HTML/CSS/Javascript). They gave me the requirements and I whipped up a site in no time using HTML/CSS/Javascript that fit those requirements. Oh, I loved the look on their faces when they found out it wasn't flash...

That said, I've actually played the iPhone card before, to get out of using Flash unnecessarily. A contractor wanted to use Flash, so I just informed the director the site wouldn't work on her iPhone. Problem solved!

Re:Here we go again (1)

Grizzley9 (1407005) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705514)

"This has nothing to do with the iPad."
"I'm not saying that having more systems that don't support Flash will not be a factor in the decision regarding what technology will be used on a website"

Disagree with yourself much?

Re:Here we go again (2, Insightful)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705584)

Disagree with yourself much?

No. "Systems that don't support Flash" have always been with us. Given the rise of mobile computing, they are more popular than ever. But to say that the move away from Flash can be attributed to just the iPad (which has only just been released) is stunningly stupid. If they had said it was due to the iPhone, then maybe they could argue the case. It would still be wrong, but slightly less so.

Re:Here we go again (2, Insightful)

Arkham (10779) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705630)

Honestly, aside from games, you can pretty much do anything nav-wise that you did in flash using DOM/html/Javascript these days. I'm not even talking about hand-coding anymore. Using things like GWT, SmartGWT, or one of the myriad of third party libraries (YUI, anyone?), you can do some amazing things without much hand coding at all. All of these things will work on the iPad, on your crappy smartphone, or on any future devices that use a modern web/js engine.

Honestly, Apple didn't invent this idea any more than they came up with removing floppy drives or adding USB, but as usual, Apple is the catalyst that starts a sea-change in an industry that was slow to happen on its own.

The arrogance !!! (1, Insightful)

CdBee (742846) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705414)

'iPad Ready' - my god, Jobs' jesus complex is getting worse if he thinks the internet has to prepare itself for a crappy, locked-down, crippled mono-window browsing device

Etiquette (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31705518)

How dare you use the Lord's name in vain!!

It's appropriate to use just 'J' or 'S' when referring to Him.

You were correct in spelling 'jesus' with a lower case 'j' when using him in reference with Him, 'J'.

I can't respond any further because I have to go to the Apple store and wait in line to get an iPad on Saturday - I'm late as it is for a spot in line.

Re:The arrogance !!! (1)

smchris (464899) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705554)

It's what Jobs does best. But to nit pick, he learned his chops at the free meals with the Hare Krishnas, not tent evangelists, right? So it's technically Krishna Komplex.

I'd buy one (4, Insightful)

milosoftware (654147) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705422)

If that's what it takes to ban Flash from the net forever, I'd buy one, just to sponsor that effort.

On the other hand, I'd be buying from the evil lords of quicktime, so now I have to decide which is worse: Apple or Adobe.

Can't we just put them in an arena, let them slug it out, and then cut the victor's throat and get rid of both evils and have some fun?

Can everyone just shut up about the I-Pad.... (1)

erikj3150 (1307165) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705448)

Talk about marketing having a genius plan. If this was something already happening, more websites will begin changing as time goes on. Additionally, with Jobs telling everyone "i-Pad" ready, users will think that their device is soooooo goooood that EVERYONE is conforming to it. Bravo, marketing team. I sure hope someone finds that thing useful. Because I must be getting old, since I just don't get it. I have a blackberry, a netbook, a large laptop, and a desktop.... What gap in my life is this supposed to fill? But apparently I will need one since I-Pad ready sites are already out there.... I sure hope my blackberry or computer can handle something like that.

Pad Ready (1, Funny)

AP31R0N (723649) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705450)

Just like my wife.

Pr0n? (1)

RevWaldo (1186281) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705452)

Despite Apple's ban on sexy apps [slashdot.org] , the iPad seems destined for pr0n and other lascivious uses. Which makes me wonder: if one were to develop a tablet specifically for that purpose, what features would you expect it to have in terms of video support, security, etc? (Not to dissuade musings on "special attachments" but it's already been done (pretty much NSFW) [ohmibod.com] .)

Geeks will never learn. (4, Insightful)

aussersterne (212916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705458)

Slashdot's record on understanding technology and society is embarrassingly bad and getting worse.

Linux is going to storm the desktop and Dean Kamen is a genius so Segway will revolutionize society, just wait, but the iPod is a lame device that nobody will buy, the iPhone is an undesirable, locked down, me-too phone with no important features and a lousy touchscreen, and iPad is just another crappy tablet that nobody will buy.

Forgive me for thinking that all of this iPad hate on Slashdot ought to be heard as "BUY APPLE STOCK."

Re:Geeks will never learn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31705592)

Thank you.

I can't believe the arrogance on this site - here, we have the a faceless, 'technical' crowd posting on a forum about what a multi-billion-dollar company is and isn't, should and shouldn't do. You people really need to get over yourselves. If any of you knew anything, you'd be running your own international companies and making billions of dollars, staying profitable and in the black during a recession, not wasting your employers' time on Slashdot.

Think about it.

Re:Geeks will never learn. (2, Insightful)

internic (453511) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705598)

The Seinfeld episode The Opposite [wikipedia.org] was not, in fact, a documentary on sound decision making. My suggestion would be that one's investments should be guided neither by Slashdot nor by blind devotion to Apple.

Re:Geeks will never learn. (1)

alen (225700) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705606)

everyone knows that everyone only wants to buy these devices to run arcane command line text commands and not have fun

Re:Geeks will never learn. (3, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705636)

I think you're missing a big thing -- a lot of Apple's offerings, while massively popular among "regular" people, are substandard for those with technical know-how.

The original iPod? It was lame indeed, for anyone who had technical ability and a lot of their music already ripped to mp3.

The iPhone? Lame also, for anyone on the bleeding edge of smartphones (which includes a large portion of slashdotters).

Here's the thing... this is a geek site. Geeks have different criteria for evaluating technology than regular people do. And as for the iPad -- no matter how popular/unpopular it proves to be... the general consensus on slashdot will hold true. The iPad is a sub-standard device compared to what else is out there at that price. Whether it gets massively adopted or not, we (the geeks) will be technologically poorer for it, since it lowers the bar for functionality of tablet PCs.

FWIW, I think if you expect slashdotters to have a good understanding of society in general, then you're a little off-base. This is not a sociology site. This is a geek site, and you should expect slashdot in general to understand geek stuff best. It's like doing evaluations of apps you're thinking of purchasing -- you usually don't have the same people evaluating the UI and the technical specs. If you want non-technical understanding, you're in the wrong place.

Of course geeks have different (5, Insightful)

aussersterne (212916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705692)

technical criteria. But what is passing over geek sites in waves the last six months is not:

"I really want different features. I wouldn't buy this."

But rather:

"Nobody will want this device. Apple is off base. The iPad will flop."

My point is to suggest that geeks stick to the former, which is justified (certainly it's easy to see how this device might not satisfy the desire for a general-purpose tinker-and-project machine), and steer away from the latter, which tends to increase the all too common marginalization and mockery of said geeks.

Re:Geeks will never learn. (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705642)

Agreed. It amuses me that the stories we saw for the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPod Touch are almost identical and we're getting very similar stories now with the iPad. You would think people would figure it out as history repeats itself but...

Re:Geeks will never learn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31705664)

The iPod and the iPhone were two completely different situations. In both those cases, there was already an emerging market for those types of devices and apple simply made a better device than their competition. Despite what everyone else around here was saying, I was NOT surprised to find those two devices wildly successful.

With the iPad, they are trying to create a new type of device that other companies have tried many times to market and have failed. Is it because they just weren't as sexy as the iPad? I doubt it, although it might have been a contributing factor. The fact of the matter is that there has never been any consumer demand prior to this point for such a device. It's too clunky for the sort of portable computing that people use their iPhones for, and it's too limited in functionality to replace conventional computing devices (no keyboard, no multitasking, and while the walled-garden approach might have worked with the iPhone, I don't think it can work for a general purpose computing device). And let's face it, when has ANYONE ever thought, "gee, this would be so much easier if only I had a tablet PC!"

My prediction is that the device will see good sales initially due to the large hype, but I think the excitement will die down significantly once people have had an opportunity to use it for a while.

iPad = business fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31705464)

So there are a bunch of business spending a non-trivial amount of money to get their websites up to a different spec for a few hundred thousand people on a device that can basically display most websites anyway? Talk about a waste of money. At least wait until you can see how many iPad users visit your site before spending your bucks. That is unless it's a marketing campaign. The logic behind the "race to who can go out of business first by wasting a bunch of money" seems idiotic to me.

Good (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705466)

Good. Now, as someone who periodically does web design during my day job, could the iPad set its sights on killing off IE6? That would make me a very happy designer. :)

The real problem is H.264 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31705494)

If H.264 were free to use in open-source browsers we wouldn't need to put up with Flash video in the first place.

There's an app for that! (5, Insightful)

internic (453511) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705496)

What I've noticed with the iPhone is that there are a number of sites that won't work well on the iPhone (usually due to flash content), and rather than making a general mobile version (or just a site based on HTML+Javascript) the company will release an iPhone-specific app. Case in point: Chipotle. Their site is entirely flash-based. There is also an app for the iPhone. But if you're on any other device that doesn't have flash you're SOL if you want to order a burrito online to carry out.

In the case of Chipotle, this hardly a tragedy, but it seems totally inane that they coded an iPhone-specific app rather than just, say, making a mobile site that every device would be able to use. It seems like it would be more work and worse for their business. Unfortunately, there are plenty of other website that have an iPhone-specific app that duplicates their site functionality rather than just making a website what it ought to be, a nearly universal interface.

As irrational as this seems (to me, at least), it looks like more popular Apple mobile devices could lead to an even less accessible and standards-compliant web.

Re:There's an app for that! (1)

alen (225700) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705602)

coding for mobile browsers is worse than IE/Firefox. too many differences. easier to just make an app that can be downloaded by 50 million some ifans

I'll wait for the upspec version.. (0, Redundant)

Junta (36770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705498)

I'm sure Apple will release an update of the product called 'Max iPad' that will *really* be interesting.

Re:I'll wait for the upspec version.. (4, Funny)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705536)

nope. They will release iPad nano, which will be a rebranded re-release of iPod Touch.

Re:I'll wait for the upspec version.. (1)

worldcitizen (130185) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705732)

What about the iPad shuffle? The first e-book reader with with no screen!

iMat. (1)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705566)

you can play twister on it [stylecowboys.nl]

But if i am link pics i think you will like This comic [ipad.org]

I am holding my breath... (2, Interesting)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705526)

...for the competitors.

iPad is an awesome idea poorly executed. The OS is poor. The hardware limitations are severe. The price is silly. The lockdown is a showstopper. But the idea of a small wireless touchscreen as a form factor for a computer is awesome.

First netbooks, with 8" screens, 2GB of flash and 512MB RAM were useless too. But I don't imagine myself without my eee900 now - it reached a very usable and perfectly adequate parameters for an attractive price, while retaining the basic form factor.

It will be the same with "pads", computers that look just like iPad, but can be used for photoshop (wireless, affordable Cintiq anyone?), can run any software you like (factory floor control or storage hall management anyone?), can be had for the same price as a netbook, can use 3G, can be used in bright daylight without backlight, have built-in SD reader, a camera and so on.

And just like the web only -somwehat- adapted to netbooks (they are what keeps 32bit software alive), but few sites care about the earliest of them, iPad influence on the net won't be very deep either.

Re:I am holding my breath... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31705572)

Quick question. Have you actually used an ipad yet? Thought not.

This is a typical post with the typical arrogance of the average slashdotter.

o' really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31705540)

apple creates a website of websites that dont use flash and its "CHANGING THE INTERNET"
ironically, only 2 are not "big, old corporations"

hrm, maybe if i go buy a domain and create a list of websites, i could change the internet too...
heh, ill just go play the ps3, it will affect more people

This is a good thing (1)

richman555 (675100) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705562)

I am glad that Apple is taking a stand with Flash especially now that with web standards it really isn't needed. I've never really thought flash would be so vital for video streaming as there were other video streaming applications out there such as windows media center, real networks player, and quicktime. HTML 5 is a step in the right direction and sadly I believe that without this pressure from Apple, most video sites will continue to use flash. As for internet marketing and advertising... I really hope they find a better tool other than Flash to use.

Apple is scared of write once run anywhere (4, Insightful)

alen (225700) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705590)

the strength of Flash is that it's like Java. you write once and the content will play anywhere with a flash plugin, which is almost every OS and soon to be device. Apple doesn't care about videos, they care about the flash apps and games. if they can lock people into the iTunes system to code for the iphone/ipod/ipad then developers won't code for another platform unless there is money to be made to recoup the investment. Flash makes it easier for a start up device maker to displace Apple's market dominance since it cuts the development time and cost.

WTF? (1)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705604)

Apple saving us from Adobe? Has Hell just frozen?

floating around the UPS system? (1)

newdsfornerds (899401) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705632)

I don't know what this means. Do people hang out near the uninterruptible power supply at work?
WAT

Re:floating around the UPS system? (1)

newdsfornerds (899401) | more than 4 years ago | (#31705674)

Or maybe he's talking about the people who have ordered iPads and are expecting a visit from United Parcel Service.
Awesome English composition, dude.

I guess they all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31705680)

suck iSteve's cock every morning before going to work.

Then WHY don't those sites work in Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31705714)

If these sites allegedly WORK with the iPad without flash, WHY, OH WHY don't they ALSO work right now with Firerfox with flash disabled? (Firefox versions that support HTML 5 features.)

*boggle*

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?