It looks like iAds might be coming to video, which could be another attack on Flash and a nice solution for free video content on the iOS. Right now, Flash is the main technology used to inject ads into video on the web. Since iOS does not have Flash, it is hard for the developers to make money on the video content on the iOS platform. With Apple entering the market place for video, it is just one more reason you don't need flash. It could also generate a large amount of cash for Apple and the content creators. If they can bring in the advertisers, it may really help bring more broadcast quality content to the iOS platform. The question I have is it only for iOS or is it for the internet as well?
At T-GAAP.com we like to have fun. And so we were bantering about what if Lion were the last of the CAT names for OS X?? And then if Apple were to roll to an OS XI (eleven) moniker, what if they used Pop Celebrity code names???
Here's who made our list:
For almost a year now there have been sightings of Macs running OS X 10.7 in web stats. And soon as Snow Leopard hit the streets, the speculation game began on the next cat-based name for OS X 10.7.
But as usual Apple was quiet.
Apple TV has landed, and evidently it is seeing strong sales. For now, the iOS platform has sprinted ahead of the phone-only based Android OS, and build a strong firewall to fend off future competition. But Apple's hardware competitors have no concern with the iOS itself, as they use whatever they get (Android, Microsoft something, etc...). Companies like Sony and Panasonic, their worries revolve around the question of price. Can these manufacturers price their product to sell -- and make money -- against Apple's offerings?
The short answer is no, but let's take a look at why. Hardware makers are likely to be very concerned with Apple's numbers:
Yes, you've probably seen this circling around the internet: Steve Jobs’ new house plans.
As a web developer I've had a love-hate relationship with Flash — and I'm not alone. In the beginning, when Macromedia brought this technology to the fore, it was simple, basic, but cool. A lot of things you couldn't do with HTML technologies were possible (animation, better fonts, better layout, better transitions, slide shows and then video). But over time Flash has become problematic not only from a consumer standpoint (What version do I have?" and this site doesn't work on the iOS?!?!") as well as a developer's point of view.
Three Quick Reasons Why Flash Failed
- Adobe didn't improve the codec. While changes have been made to the "Flash player" it is sitll riddled with bugs. Sometimes at night, I'll hear my wife's laptop's fan roaring away because she has gone to bed with a web page loaded that has some flash animation which is causing conniptions with the browser, sucking CPU cycles, causing the CPU to get hot and thus the fan to roar like a lion. Closing the page, fixes the problem... but this shouldn't be. I'm not the only one who thinks this. Reread Steve Jobs' open letter about flash if you need more details.
- Adobe went Left Brain instead of Right Brain. Adobe took Flash from Macromedia and instead of making it easier for right-brained graphic designers to use, they created a language called Action Script to take over for most of the cool functions the program now enjoys. The problem is most graphic designers don't like to program. This would be like Adobe adding some cool functionality to Photoshop CS6, but the only easy way to access those features would be through Action Script programming.
Today it takes both a left-brained person (programmer) AND right brained-person (designer) to product a sophisticated flash piece. If you don't think so, have your Flash artist create a button that links to a PayPAL shopping cart item, without using Action Script. Yeah. This simple little task that takes two seconds in HTML can take hours of research until someone who's done it before steps to the fore.
- Adobe didn't take the codec and embed it in hardware. For a long while Flash was a web-standard. Adobe should've used this advantage and worked with Intel and other chip makers to embed the codec in their chip designs, so the codec became far more efficient in running in hardware than as software. I'm not a chip designer so I'm sure there would've been hurdles but this would've paid off as we become more mobile device driven and therefore more battery conscious. Hardware and software Flash would be way more efficient than Software-Only Flash is today.
In summary, Adobe took a cool technology and did all of the wrong things to it. Now it's trying to make Flash a mobile development platform in a world where new mobile development platforms seem to be announced on a daily basis. Too bad.
If recent reports are to be believed, a new MacBook air from Apple is imminent. Information coming from the far east has proven to be anything but reliable, but the rumored number of screens on order is said to be up to 500,000 by year's end. If accurate, those volumes indicate Apple is looking to reposition the MacBook air within their portable lineup.
The current MacBook air's entry price point is $1,499. The air is positioned at being a fully-powered Core 2 Duo MacBook in a svelt package ideal for business salesmen on the go, photographers, and consumer enthusiasts. The air is amazingly rugged, relatively small and light, but push it beyond mundane tasks and the system comes to a crawl. Figure on going to lunch to finish rending that video, and the battery life is also lacking.
Looks like Blockbuster is finally going out of business as they filed for bankruptcy today. Some may be surprised that they were still in business.
In the vein attempt to slow iPad sales, tablet vaporware has become all the rage, and it appears Dell is back for more. Oh goodie!
According to the Wall St. Journal, a new 7" phone-thingy is coming from Michael Dell's juggernaut of a company. How much will it cost, when will it be available, what are the specs? Michael didn't didn't say, but Mr. Dell did give us two specifications:
In January 2010 the air was ripe with possibilities. Conventional wisdom (translation: a slew of rumors) told us the iPhone was now free to break the shackles of AT&T and roam amongst other US carriers. Apple's three years of bondage to AT&T was over. It's now September 22, 2010... guess again.
|Shackled to AT&T?|
|Apple is reaping great rewards in Europe and throughout the world with multiple carriers offering the iPhone, so why the lack of choice in the U.S.?|
A recent survey by ChangeWave suggests that at up to 53% of Verizon customers are somewhat, or highly likely, to acquire an iPhone if their carrier had the handset. Credit Suisse issued a report stating 23% of AT&T's iPhone users would defect to Verizon if they carried the device.