No, it's not. Unless the term "DRM" becomes meaningless.
We make a great deal of fuss about the RIAA's attempts to brand copyright infringement as piracy, yet when it's us trying to apply terminology that does not apply then it's suddenly ok? It's hypocrisy if that's the case.
Tying the iPod to iTunes is vertical integration, it is not DRM.
Why can't I just drop my game's C code into an HTML wrapper and have it work? Is your "better" UI in flash better than a native widget set provided by the OS your app is running on?
Also, I assume your Flash app is going to "run" on those android phones with no flash support, right?
We're not arguing that Apple is strongly vertically integrated - this is clearly the case, but you data is free to move in and out.
Your core C code is portable - you can take it right over to Android, and just connect it up to native UI widgets. For your email you just take your mbox files with you if you don;t want to use Apple's Mail app any more (unlike, say Outlook.pst files). If you don't want to use iWork all your files are easy to convert since they are fully documented XML files (unlike, say.docx), if you don't want to keep using iTunes for your music you can just move it to any music software that supports AAC (an open standard that Apple does not control).
This HTML5 demo is DEMONSTRATING WHAT SAFARI CAN DO WITH HTML5, which is why YOU NEED TO USE SAFARI - it is not a generic HTML5 demo suite for your browser of choice - there are plenty of those out there. You're trying to equate this demo page with some overarching "Apple wants to close off the web" mantra, which is simply not the case.
You can view the page by changing the UA string, but some of the demos might break. That was not the intent of the demo - the purpose is to show what Safari can do with the state of it's HTML5 support to this point (as far as possible with the draft standard).
Other than the original iTunes music (which had DRM at the RIAA's insistence, but is now gone) and iTunes movies (with still have DRM due to the movie studios), Apple's data formats are open.
You have mbox for email, documented XML for their iWork and iLife apps, AAC for audio, H.264 for video,.ics for calendars, vcard for address book, human readable plist files, support for NFS out of the box, CUPS for printing, use of png for screencapture format by default...
I think your anonymous anti-apple nerd rage is blinding you to reality.
So, if you would like to attempt a proper response (and not posting AC is a good start - tends to look better), then I'd like to hear of some cases where Apple makes it hard to move your data into and out of Apple systems.
How do you read "not all browsers offer this support" as "no one else offers this support"?
Especially when the very next line reads "But soon other modern browsers will take advantage of these same web standards — and the amazing things they enable web designers to do."
It seems like your usual default hate position of anything related to Apple is clouding your comprehension.
The user agent sniffing was boneheaded, but let's not try to stir up FUD about the nature of the demo itself. It is obviously a promotional Safari thing, but they are not "offering the false impression that no one else supports this stuff". The words are right there in grey-on-white (which I assume could be easily changed via some HTML5 trick).
Nothing, but the demo was for Safari. You can get the benefits on Linux due to the engine - Webkit is GPL, and all the work done to make that demo work is going into Webkit. It does use some Webkit-specific CSS calls, but I am putting that down to the nature of the demo.
It was first and foremost a demo of Safari's (and by extension, webkit's) HTML5 support, rather than an HTML5 demo per se. The same demos are on Apple's dev site for other browsers to look at.
It was a demo designed to show off HTML5 and also promote Safari.
It was Webkit-specific CSS, which is a little funny in a demo designed to show off full web standards, but targeted engine CSS is not unique. One of the benefits of stylesheets is you can send specific CSS to different browsers. If the demo were tuned to Firefox, it would easily have delivered Gecko-specific CSS instead. As it is, they decided to use a user agent block, which was not all that great (the bulk of the talk is about the block, rather than the demo), when they should have just warned that the demos might fail on other browsers.
A properly designed website won't need to say "requires Safari or better" it'll just give the right stylesheet to the right browser. As long as they all support the (eventual) final HTML5 standard (and appropriate CSS), you can tailor a site to your browser.
Perhaps the ultimate goal is platform independence, but even with CSS2 and HTML4 that was just never on the cards.
Should there be engine-specific CSS? Ideally no, but all of the engines have it. It's up to the site designers themselves how they use the tools they have though - you don't have to use the specific stuff.
In the case of this demo, it might just be stopgap while they work on the generic html5 implementation - on the other demo someone posted below, Safari has some trouble with a couple of the generic ones, usually related to external borders. Who knows. It's all a bit up in the air until everything is finalised.
What part of "not Apple-only" do you not understand?
They used some Webkit-specific CSS extensions to deliver a site designed specifically for Safari. The beauty of CSS is that you can easily deliver specific stylesheets to each browser that comes along, so you can throw specific stuff at specific browsers.
Better lay off that Android phone then, which uses Webkit, or anything that uses CUPS, or storing your email messages in mbox format, or anything that is included in Darwin that is also used in other Unix and Unix-like OSes.
On second thought, better just avoid Unix altogether - better to be safe, eh?
And since you're avoiding HTML5, I assume you won't use Youtube any more.
-- Your criticism might be valid if they were pushing some proprietary Apple-only standard (like ActiveX with MS), but they are pushing HTML5 - a standard that they do not control (and as yet is still draft). While they very much want you to use Apple products to access your content, they have a history of making your *data* transparent and movable in and out of their ecosystem.
I think the user agent sniff is a little silly - I would have preferred a big warning page that stated that some of the demos would possibly fail in other browsers, but such is life.
Yes, it's hardly surprising that "reality" shows Android overtook iPhone in the last quarter, when Verizon were running a 2 for 1 on Android handsets, and the iPhone sales slumped because the new iPhone is coming out in June/July 2010.
I'm as excited as anyone else that Android is doing well, but you might want to check the reality that you are ignoring.
They used to be, but before the announcement of the UK election they made a big show of "flipping to Tory" (they like to think they personally control the outcome of the election, and thus were giving their readers the OK to vote tory). Since that time they have been much more right wing.
Yes, unfortunately you need to add a bundle to your contract to enable it, even with unlimited data. It's free on some of the business tarrifs... where the data is unlimited.
I just don't think they want you with unlimited data+tethering for "cheap".
In the UK you can tether the iPhone on O2, Orange and Vodafone, and have been able to on O2 for a very long time - at least as long as I have had my 3G.
The phone supports it by default, with no need for extra software. It's the carrier that controls whether it is switched on.
My iPhone has always had tethering, out of the box, no jailbreaking, on my carrier. Supported by Apple, in the iPhone OS. No need for an extra app.
Don't blame Apple for AT&T's decisions, except perhaps the exclusive supplier deal which will hopefully lapse soon and US customers can start to get the sort of options that most of the world had from launch day.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's not. Unless the term "DRM" becomes meaningless.
We make a great deal of fuss about the RIAA's attempts to brand copyright infringement as piracy, yet when it's us trying to apply terminology that does not apply then it's suddenly ok? It's hypocrisy if that's the case.
Tying the iPod to iTunes is vertical integration, it is not DRM.
Why can't I just drop my game's C code into an HTML wrapper and have it work? Is your "better" UI in flash better than a native widget set provided by the OS your app is running on?
Also, I assume your Flash app is going to "run" on those android phones with no flash support, right?
We're not arguing that Apple is strongly vertically integrated - this is clearly the case, but you data is free to move in and out.
Your core C code is portable - you can take it right over to Android, and just connect it up to native UI widgets. For your email you just take your mbox files with you if you don;t want to use Apple's Mail app any more (unlike, say Outlook .pst files). If you don't want to use iWork all your files are easy to convert since they are fully documented XML files (unlike, say .docx), if you don't want to keep using iTunes for your music you can just move it to any music software that supports AAC (an open standard that Apple does not control).
This HTML5 demo is DEMONSTRATING WHAT SAFARI CAN DO WITH HTML5, which is why YOU NEED TO USE SAFARI - it is not a generic HTML5 demo suite for your browser of choice - there are plenty of those out there. You're trying to equate this demo page with some overarching "Apple wants to close off the web" mantra, which is simply not the case.
You can view the page by changing the UA string, but some of the demos might break. That was not the intent of the demo - the purpose is to show what Safari can do with the state of it's HTML5 support to this point (as far as possible with the draft standard).
You mean a specific language like C or C++ - those are totally proprietary to Apple, right?
Citations please.
What makes it erroneous?
Other than the original iTunes music (which had DRM at the RIAA's insistence, but is now gone) and iTunes movies (with still have DRM due to the movie studios), Apple's data formats are open.
You have mbox for email, documented XML for their iWork and iLife apps, AAC for audio, H.264 for video, .ics for calendars, vcard for address book, human readable plist files, support for NFS out of the box, CUPS for printing, use of png for screencapture format by default...
I think your anonymous anti-apple nerd rage is blinding you to reality.
So, if you would like to attempt a proper response (and not posting AC is a good start - tends to look better), then I'd like to hear of some cases where Apple makes it hard to move your data into and out of Apple systems.
Those are pretty good in Safari.
The border radius one is interesting - it feeds webkit specific CSS to Safari in the demo, eg: -webkit-border-bottom-left-radius: 152px 152px;
How do you read "not all browsers offer this support" as "no one else offers this support"?
Especially when the very next line reads "But soon other modern browsers will take advantage of these same web standards — and the amazing things they enable web designers to do."
It seems like your usual default hate position of anything related to Apple is clouding your comprehension.
The user agent sniffing was boneheaded, but let's not try to stir up FUD about the nature of the demo itself. It is obviously a promotional Safari thing, but they are not "offering the false impression that no one else supports this stuff". The words are right there in grey-on-white (which I assume could be easily changed via some HTML5 trick).
Nothing, but the demo was for Safari. You can get the benefits on Linux due to the engine - Webkit is GPL, and all the work done to make that demo work is going into Webkit. It does use some Webkit-specific CSS calls, but I am putting that down to the nature of the demo.
It was first and foremost a demo of Safari's (and by extension, webkit's) HTML5 support, rather than an HTML5 demo per se. The same demos are on Apple's dev site for other browsers to look at.
It's called the iTunes Store.
Also, what?
You would have bought an iPad if it had flash, yet you won't buy anything Apple because Jobs is a narcissist?
He was a narcissist before flash was excluded from the iPhone OS for performance reasons, so what has changed? Or are you just trolling?
It was a demo designed to show off HTML5 and also promote Safari.
It was Webkit-specific CSS, which is a little funny in a demo designed to show off full web standards, but targeted engine CSS is not unique. One of the benefits of stylesheets is you can send specific CSS to different browsers. If the demo were tuned to Firefox, it would easily have delivered Gecko-specific CSS instead. As it is, they decided to use a user agent block, which was not all that great (the bulk of the talk is about the block, rather than the demo), when they should have just warned that the demos might fail on other browsers.
A properly designed website won't need to say "requires Safari or better" it'll just give the right stylesheet to the right browser. As long as they all support the (eventual) final HTML5 standard (and appropriate CSS), you can tailor a site to your browser.
Perhaps the ultimate goal is platform independence, but even with CSS2 and HTML4 that was just never on the cards.
Should there be engine-specific CSS? Ideally no, but all of the engines have it. It's up to the site designers themselves how they use the tools they have though - you don't have to use the specific stuff.
In the case of this demo, it might just be stopgap while they work on the generic html5 implementation - on the other demo someone posted below, Safari has some trouble with a couple of the generic ones, usually related to external borders. Who knows. It's all a bit up in the air until everything is finalised.
What part of "not Apple-only" do you not understand?
They used some Webkit-specific CSS extensions to deliver a site designed specifically for Safari. The beauty of CSS is that you can easily deliver specific stylesheets to each browser that comes along, so you can throw specific stuff at specific browsers.
See:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1676742&cid=32475812
That's not DRM.
The device is vertically integrated, and tied to iTunes, but DRM is a very specific term that relates to the "protection" of media content.
But it's ok, because copyright infringement is the same as piracy right? It's ok to play fast and loose with the definitions when it suits you.
That's a violation of the Temporal Prime Directive.
Please reverse the polarity of the deflector dish and press F1.
Better lay off that Android phone then, which uses Webkit, or anything that uses CUPS, or storing your email messages in mbox format, or anything that is included in Darwin that is also used in other Unix and Unix-like OSes.
On second thought, better just avoid Unix altogether - better to be safe, eh?
And since you're avoiding HTML5, I assume you won't use Youtube any more.
--
Your criticism might be valid if they were pushing some proprietary Apple-only standard (like ActiveX with MS), but they are pushing HTML5 - a standard that they do not control (and as yet is still draft). While they very much want you to use Apple products to access your content, they have a history of making your *data* transparent and movable in and out of their ecosystem.
I think the user agent sniff is a little silly - I would have preferred a big warning page that stated that some of the demos would possibly fail in other browsers, but such is life.
What DRM? Do you have movies on it from the iTunes store?
In the same way that Firefox was "created" from existing code.
It was called Netscape.
Shame they're stuck on 1.6.
*ducks*
Yes, it's hardly surprising that "reality" shows Android overtook iPhone in the last quarter, when Verizon were running a 2 for 1 on Android handsets, and the iPhone sales slumped because the new iPhone is coming out in June/July 2010.
I'm as excited as anyone else that Android is doing well, but you might want to check the reality that you are ignoring.
They used to be, but before the announcement of the UK election they made a big show of "flipping to Tory" (they like to think they personally control the outcome of the election, and thus were giving their readers the OK to vote tory). Since that time they have been much more right wing.
My choices for the iPad are Orange, Vodaphone, O2, Three and T-Mobile.
Where choice means the data plans aren't crazy expensive.
Yes, unfortunately you need to add a bundle to your contract to enable it, even with unlimited data. It's free on some of the business tarrifs... where the data is unlimited.
I just don't think they want you with unlimited data+tethering for "cheap".
AT&T's plan change affects Android phones too.
Pick your poison.
You know that the iPhone 3G tethers, right?
Mine does, and I don't need any extra software, it's built right into the OS.
In the UK you can tether the iPhone on O2, Orange and Vodafone, and have been able to on O2 for a very long time - at least as long as I have had my 3G.
The phone supports it by default, with no need for extra software. It's the carrier that controls whether it is switched on.
My iPhone has always had tethering, out of the box, no jailbreaking, on my carrier. Supported by Apple, in the iPhone OS. No need for an extra app.
Don't blame Apple for AT&T's decisions, except perhaps the exclusive supplier deal which will hopefully lapse soon and US customers can start to get the sort of options that most of the world had from launch day.