During Steve’s keynote in early September, he finally admitted that the AppleTV was no longer just a hobby; Jobs and the other folks at Apple finally felt as though they had figured out what consumers wanted in an entertainment companion. The AppleTV went from an expensive, lack-luster peripheral to a small, reasonably priced, internet streaming device. Now featuring $0.99 tv show rentals, streaming HD movies, Netflix and AirPlay, the AppleTV has been posititioned to finally take the world of “home entertainment” by storm. But, will it?
Earlier this summer Google announced ”GoogleTV.” While GoogleTV will offer similar features to Apple’s device, Google is hoping to infiltrate more consumer homes by building their “device/feature-set” into new consumer television sets.
While Apple has beat Google in getting their device to market (the AppleTV is available now, while GoogleTV devices and tv sets won’t start showing up until November 2010), the holiday season is still upon us; it will take a while to figure out exactly who’s winning/won the competition.
What i find interesting, in recent news, is that Google has started showing off their device integration AND their new “remote control” (pictured left). While Apple prides itself on simplicity (their remote has only 3 buttons), the Google device looks a lot like the massively advanced/complicated scientific calculator i used during the latter half of my high school career — the TI-92.
I still think the world is plagued by having “too many remotes” in their living room: there is one for the audio receiver, the tv, the cable box, the dv-r, etc. Who wants another remote? Further, how FEW people would NOT be intimidated by seeing a remote (for a TV) like this!?
I’m a little baffled surprised that Google thinks introducing this complex remote is a good and inviting idea.
What do you think?
Are you following MaximizeUrMac on Twitter?
Well, it looks like Apple has managed to surprise us, yet again. While iPhone 4 pre-order consumers went flocking to Apple’s website at midnight, tonight (June 15, 2010), tech fanatics were surprised. Twice.
First, when they realized they couldn’t pre-order the phone (yet) and then again when they noticed that Apple has quietly upgraded their Mac Mini.
And, it’s not just any upgrade…
Weeks before Jobs’ WWDC keynote, blogs and fansites had been gossiping that an upgrade to the AppleTV was imminent, particularly in the wake of Google’s recently announced “Google TV.” But, the keynote came and went and the iPhone stole the show. Jobs’ didn’t even mention the AppleTV. Now, we have this incredible upgrade to an already awesome little computer.
While the new, smaller, “Unibody” enclosure is remarkable, there are a few things that I think really make this overhaul standout:
-Apple has finally made the Mac Mini upgradeable. Prior to this model, opening up your mini was a chore…and often left to the experts. Now, you can easily slide off the bottom and make modifications (within reason, of course).
-Five words: The power brick is gone.
-But, the biggest change, in my opinion, is the addition of a new HDMI port. Connecting your mini to your home entertainment system is now one simple plug away. I currently have a mini connected to my system, but via DVI (video) and analog audio. HDMI would be the preferred method: crystal clear, digital picture & sound…and from one cable.
At this point, it looks like Apple could feasibly drop the AppleTV from its product grid. A more robust version of FrontRow (built into Mac OS X) could easily dominate the modified [FrontRow] version powering the AppleTV.
Price is always a factor; you can get your hands on an AppleTV for around $230 US, but the new Mac Mini will set you back about $700 US.
Personally, I’m impressed overall. I think the timing is genius: if Apple released the mini through traditional channels, it would have been completely overshadowed by iPhone pre-order news. Instead, millions will be heading online to pre-order their iPhones and will now stumble on and discover the beauty of the Mac Mini.
Perhaps in an impulse buy they’ll add the new Mac Mini to their entertainment center when they get themselves their new phone…
Are you following MUM on Twitter?
As if we needed another reason to validate our choice in computers…
Mashable & TUAW have both reported that Google (worldwide) has officially abandoned Windows within their workplaces.
Considering Google contributes 10′s of billions of dollars to the economy each year, this kind of snub shouldn’t go unnoticed.
Google has a powerful voice, and making a statment like this public will certainly have an impact.
As a few articles indicated, Google is planning to release it’s own Operating System (Chrome), later this year, however, this doesn’t feel like a strategic move to promote their unreleased OS. It sounds like they’ve just wised up, too.
Are you following MUM on Twitter?
If you aren’t aware, Apple’s World Wide Developers Conference (WWDC) begins in one week. This conference is significat to the public for a few reason:
1) This is a Mac/iPhone OS ONLY conference thrown by Apple themselves.
2) The conference is sold out.
And what’s most exciting…
3) Steve Jobs is opening the conference with a Keynote.
We’ve come to learn, from the past, that when Steve opens and addresses his legion of followers, new gadgets, software and other goodies appear. You may also be aware that Google recently made headlines with their developers “I/O” conference; they introduced many new things including the much bally-hooed “Google TV.” They also took a few shots at Apple. Will this be Steve’s chance to zing back? I’d bet on it.
In addition, there are tons of people speculating what may arrive during his keynote:
- The new iPhone OS 4.0
- a NEW iPhone (possibly the model that has been leaked all over the net?)
- a revamp (and maybe some REAL usability) of the AppleTV
- New MacPro Towers
- A revamp of the MacBook Air (when was that thing last upgraded!?)
- Details about the next major release of OS X
- iLife ’10 (let’s all hope it includes 64-bit versions of iTunes & iPhoto)
As always, only Steve and his tight-knit executive team know what he will present. Still, that doesn’t make it any less fun trying to guess what exciting new things are coming our way.
Expect a full debriefing report with opinions, from yours truly, that evening.
Are you following MUM on Twitter?
Well, his royal Steveiness has weighed in on all the Flash broo-ha-ha. I’m proud to say that he reaffirmed my earlier arguments, and has hopefully shed some light on the masses that might (GASP) not read this blog…yet.
via Apple (emphasis is my own):
“Apple has a long relationship with Adobe. In fact, we met Adobe’s founders when they were in their proverbial garage. Apple was their first big customer, adopting their Postscript language for our new Laserwriter printer. Apple invested in Adobe and owned around 20% of the company for many years. The two companies worked closely together to pioneer desktop publishing and there were many good times. Since that golden era, the companies have grown apart. Apple went through its near death experience, and Adobe was drawn to the corporate market with their Acrobat products. Today the two companies still work together to serve their joint creative customers – Mac users buy around half of Adobe’s Creative Suite products – but beyond that there are few joint interests.
I wanted to jot down some of our thoughts on Adobe’s Flash products so that customers and critics may better understand why we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. Adobe has characterized our decision as being primarily business driven – they say we want to protect our App Store – but in reality it is based on technology issues. Adobe claims that we are a closed system, and that Flash is open, but in fact the opposite is true. Let me explain.
First, there’s “Open”.
Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe’s Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system.
Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript – all open standards. Apple’s mobile devices all ship with high performance, low power implementations of these open standards. HTML5, the new web standard that has been adopted by Apple, Google and many others, lets web developers create advanced graphics, typography, animations and transitions without relying on third party browser plug-ins (like Flash). HTML5 is completely open and controlled by a standards committee, of which Apple is a member.
Apple even creates open standards for the web. For example, Apple began with a small open source project and created WebKit, a complete open-source HTML5 rendering engine that is the heart of the Safari web browser used in all our products. WebKit has been widely adopted. Google uses it for Android’s browser, Palm uses it, Nokia uses it, and RIM (Blackberry) has announced they will use it too. Almost every smartphone web browser other than Microsoft’s uses WebKit. By making its WebKit technology open, Apple has set the standard for mobile web browsers.
Second, there’s the “full web”.
Adobe has repeatedly said that Apple mobile devices cannot access “the full web” because 75% of video on the web is in Flash. What they don’t say is that almost all this video is also available in a more modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones, iPods and iPads. YouTube, with an estimated 40% of the web’s video, shines in an app bundled on all Apple mobile devices, with the iPad offering perhaps the best YouTube discovery and viewing experience ever. Add to this video from Vimeo, Netflix, Facebook, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ESPN, NPR, Time, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Sports Illustrated, People, National Geographic, and many, many others. iPhone, iPod and iPad users aren’t missing much video.
Another Adobe claim is that Apple devices cannot play Flash games. This is true. Fortunately, there are over 50,000 games and entertainment titles on the App Store, and many of them are free. There are more games and entertainment titles available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any other platform in the world.
Third, there’s reliability, security and performance.
Symantec recently highlighted Flash for having one of the worst security records in 2009. We also know first hand that Flash is the number one reason Macs crash. We have been working with Adobe to fix these problems, but they have persisted for several years now. We don’t want to reduce the reliability and security of our iPhones, iPods and iPads by adding Flash.
In addition, Flash has not performed well on mobile devices. We have routinely asked Adobe to show us Flash performing well on a mobile device, any mobile device, for a few years now. We have never seen it. Adobe publicly said that Flash would ship on a smartphone in early 2009, then the second half of 2009, then the first half of 2010, and now they say the second half of 2010. We think it will eventually ship, but we’re glad we didn’t hold our breath. Who knows how it will perform?
Fourth, there’s battery life.
To achieve long battery life when playing video, mobile devices must decode the video in hardware; decoding it in software uses too much power. Many of the chips used in modern mobile devices contain a decoder called H.264 – an industry standard that is used in every Blu-ray DVD player and has been adopted by Apple, Google (YouTube), Vimeo, Netflix and many other companies.
Although Flash has recently added support for H.264, the video on almost all Flash websites currently requires an older generation decoder that is not implemented in mobile chips and must be run in software. The difference is striking: on an iPhone, for example, H.264 videos play for up to 10 hours, while videos decoded in software play for less than 5 hours before the battery is fully drained.
When websites re-encode their videos using H.264, they can offer them without using Flash at all. They play perfectly in browsers like Apple’s Safari and Google’s Chrome without any plugins whatsoever, and look great on iPhones, iPods and iPads.
Fifth, there’s Touch.
Flash was designed for PCs using mice, not for touch screens using fingers. For example, many Flash websites rely on “rollovers”, which pop up menus or other elements when the mouse arrow hovers over a specific spot. Apple’s revolutionary multi-touch interface doesn’t use a mouse, and there is no concept of a rollover. Most Flash websites will need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices. If developers need to rewrite their Flash websites, why not use modern technologies like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript?
Even if iPhones, iPods and iPads ran Flash, it would not solve the problem that most Flash websites need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices.
Sixth, the most important reason.
Besides the fact that Flash is closed and proprietary, has major technical drawbacks, and doesn’t support touch based devices, there is an even more important reason we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. We have discussed the downsides of using Flash to play video and interactive content from websites, but Adobe also wants developers to adopt Flash to create apps that run on our mobile devices.
We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers.
This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor’s platforms.
Flash is a cross platform development tool. It is not Adobe’s goal to help developers write the best iPhone, iPod and iPad apps. It is their goal to help developers write cross platform apps. And Adobe has been painfully slow to adopt enhancements to Apple’s platforms. For example, although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X.
Our motivation is simple – we want to provide the most advanced and innovative platform to our developers, and we want them to stand directly on the shoulders of this platform and create the best apps the world has ever seen. We want to continually enhance the platform so developers can create even more amazing, powerful, fun and useful applications. Everyone wins – we sell more devices because we have the best apps, developers reach a wider and wider audience and customer base, and users are continually delighted by the best and broadest selection of apps on any platform.
Conclusions.
Flash was created during the PC era – for PCs and mice. Flash is a successful business for Adobe, and we can understand why they want to push it beyond PCs. But the mobile era is about low power devices, touch interfaces and open web standards – all areas where Flash falls short.
The avalanche of media outlets offering their content for Apple’s mobile devices demonstrates that Flash is no longer necessary to watch video or consume any kind of web content. And the 200,000 apps on Apple’s App Store proves that Flash isn’t necessary for tens of thousands of developers to create graphically rich applications, including games.
New open standards created in the mobile era, such as HTML5, will win on mobile devices (and PCs too). Perhaps Adobe should focus more on creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind.
Steve Jobs
April, 2010″
To see my original thoughts on the Flash debacle, check out this earlier post >>
Well some startling news hit the blog-o-sphere today: According to Adobe’s Principal Product Manager for Developer Relations for the Flash Platform (ummmmmm…is that REALLY his title?), Adobe no longer plans to fight with Apple —- they have given up trying to port Flash and Flash applications for use under the iPhone OS now that Apple has announced, with the iPhone OS 4.0 Preview, that ALL of the applications available within the App Store must be created with Apple’s own software developer kit.
This marks significant news since Adobe’s recently announced Flash CS5 contains a specialized compiling agent that can translate Flash applications (built with Adobe’s acquired ActionScript language) into applications that could run on the iPhone OS.
Some developers were thrilled to hear the news, while others barely batted an eye. It’s my opinion that the ballyhoo drummed up has been from Adobe’s PR machine and some critics —- specifically those that don’t understand technology and/or computers like some of the “rest of us.”
I first learned the Flash platform about 10yrs ago. I dabbled in ActionScript, but found it laborious and time consuming, so I spent most of my time focusing on other evolving web technologies like JavaScript, CSS, XML and the new JQuery. It was a smart move, I think, because Flash hasn’t really changed. In 10yrs, only minor strides have been taken to improve the platform. Most of the “refinements” have been cosmetic and allow developers to build with more intuitive ease, an admittedly important feature, but not the only one. Optimization is paramount in a world of technology and Adobe’s Flash platform is far from optimized. An overwhelming majority of known web browser crashes occur because of an error loading the flash player plug-in. This, so much so, that new browsers have developed ways to protect individual pages: Apple’s Safari will continue to load the page, even if the plug-in crashes, but will display a broken-link-icon over its expected placement to alert the user that it couldn’t be loaded. Google’s Chrome separates each tab/page into difference operational processes so that if a plug-in crashes one, it doesn’t bring all of your sites down. Both are smart options, but feel a little “backwards” to me. I believe that Adobe’s focus shouldn’t be on getting Flash on the iPhone OS, it should be on evolving Flash to take advantage of the next generation of web development technologies. It’s no longer King.
Flash Video did a great job of bringing “quick-loading” web videos to the masses. But, many of its early adopters have already abandoned it because its stayed stagnant for so long. Some of the biggest websites (that use to host Flash Video) have already converted (or are in the process of converting) to HTML5: YouTube, CNN, NYTimes.com, Vimeo, Netflix, ESPN, Flickr, CBS, ABC, etc.
Aside from websites (mostly portfolios) that are built in 100% Flash markup, I haven’t stumbled upon anything that I couldn’t see on my iPhone or iPad in the last year and a half. I actually pity those sites that are built in 100% Flash for two major reasons: for one, users get knee-deep while surfing a Flash site on their desktop computer and then hit the “back” button in their browser one time only to be stunned when they are forced to start over at the site’s homepage or “skip intro.” STUPID. Secondly, and as a web developer, I never recommend building a site that is composed of only 1 development language because no one language is without its flaws; I develop sites that utilize HTML, HTML5, Quicktime, RSS, XML, JQuery, JavaScript, CSS, etc. The design is more sophisticated and the user experience ends up being much cleaner. To boot, the site is more accessible whether it is being accessed on a desktop computer or any [of the many] smart phone/mobile options.
So after Adobe’s public tantrum today, am I the least bit worried about the iPhone OS’ future without Flash?
Am I the least bit disappointed that their compiler won’t work for the App Store?
Do I think the iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch are missing out because Flash won’t play on them?
No. And, I think an apple representative said it best when she commented on the news this afternoon:
“Someone has it backwards—it is HTML5, CSS, JavaScript, and H.264 (all supported by the iPhone and iPad) that are open and standard, while Adobe’s Flash is closed and proprietary.”
She’s 100% right.
an interesting news that our friends at Google have posted.
Could this solve all “mobile” printing issues, in the future? only time will tell. Read More >>
