Slashdot Mirror
How the iPad Is Already Reshaping the Internet (Sans Flash)
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."
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..
which is totally what she said
... 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.
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.
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).
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.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
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.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
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.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
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.
Living With a Nerd
Here's DHTML Lemmings written six years ago:
http://www.elizium.nu/scripts/lemmings/
Here's an HTML5 particle system:
http://www.mrspeaker.net/dev/parcycle/
Here's Quake II running in your browser:
http://code.google.com/p/quake2-gwt-port/
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.
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.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
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.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
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.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
What geeks call "sexiness" and "slick gloss" are for regular users actually "basic intelligibility" and "the possibility of use."
Geeks routinely dismiss the user interface as epiphenomenal to the computing experience. The computer is real, the user is real, and the user interface is this accidental/interchangeable quantity that may be more or less cumbersome, but that is at the end of the day just a minor detail. No user interface actively prevents or determines use for a geek.
NOT SO for the general public. For the general public, the user interface is the computer, full stop. There are no "features" apart from those they can immediately understand and use. There are no "capabilities" apart from those that they can see how to access.
Contrary to Slashdotian opinion, the user interface is the thing of greatest substance in computing for most people, and that is why Apple has been a wild success since Steve Jobs came back, much to Slashdotters' chagrin.
There has not yet been a tablet PC with this user interface. Despite Slashdotters assertions that the identity of a device is all about "features," the fact is that this is a substantively new device by virtue of its user interface, a user interface that has already been proven to be one of the most successful and highly regarded in all of technology and that will likely be the determining factor in the iPad's success... all while Slashdotters dance around saying "the stoopid public, they've been fooled by teh glossiness!"
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Jobs and Apple wouldn't be where they are today if they waited around for you to spread your legs. They have a history of throwing the consumer on the ground and mounting them while the consumer cries "No! Please! Not there! I've never done that before! I can't!... Oh! Oh! Yes! Yes! More! Please! More! Oh God! Yes! I never knew it could be so good!"
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
The portable devices for quick use already exist, and they are way better than the iPad...
*YAWN*
Sorry. You were saying something about it having less space than a Nomad and how lame it was. Well, that's what I heard, at least...