Could flash memory replace DVD/Hard Drives if this pans out?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Dec 3, 2012.

  1. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <k9u54n$qvt$>, Mayayana
    <> wrote:

    > | > You shouldn't believe things just because Apple
    > | > marketing tells you so.
    > |
    > | they didn't. apple didn't tell me anything.
    >
    > No, you just happen to have adamant opinions
    > that are always in accord with the Apple view.


    not always, and if i do, it's not because they told me. it's because it
    mirrors reality.

    > Just as you push $300 SSDs over $50 HDDs as
    > the *only* way to go. Pure Apple fan logic.


    i don't push anything and you are also misrepresenting what i said.

    what i said was that ssd is replacing hard drives, and it is.

    a lot of computers now come with ssd standard. others offer it as an
    option. this trend is going to continue. however, hard drives will
    still be useful for large assets such as video, photo or music
    libraries.

    furthermore, your prices are wrong, but regardless, even though it is
    more expensive for the same capacity, it's also worlds faster. in other
    words, the extra money is a nice little upgrade in performance.

    > | adobe themselves announced mobile flash is dead, and that was nearly a
    > | *year* ago.
    > |
    > | flash is gone from android jelly bean
    > | ....performance was usually very poor.
    >
    > Mobile? The discussion was about computers and
    > the expected life of Flash, not just on mobile. All of
    > your references are to mobile.


    i said mobile flash is dead, which it is. adobe has ceased development
    on it. it doesn't get any deader than that.

    that's when you jumped in telling me how i am blindly following apple's
    mantra, even though adobe themselves have killed it off.

    i never said desktop flash is dead. desktop flash is not dead, *yet*.

    it will be soon, however. desktop flash *is* going away, whether you
    like it or not, and if you can't see that, then you are blind to what
    is happening in the industry.

    even adobe sees the writing on the wall, which is why they released
    html5 tools.

    <http://www.pcworld.com/article/237043/adobe_edge_what_you_need_to_know.
    html>
    Edge is a new web development tool from Adobe that makes it easy to
    create animations and interactive websites with HTML5, the latest
    revision of HTML. HTML5 tries to add the interaction and multimedia
    we've come to expect from the web without forcing users to download
    plug-ins such as Microsoft Silverlight or Adobe Flash.

    > Most video online uses Flash because it provides
    > a way to obfuscate the file source so that people
    > can't easily download the actual file.


    no, most video *was* flash because of the availability of tools to
    create flash content and to create flash based web sites.

    that's changed. html5 tools are available, including from adobe!

    it's also trivial to download a flash based video file. that's hardly a
    reason. there are even plugins to make it *very* easy.

    > IE 10 (Win8)
    > even has it built in.


    but only for windows desktop. metro doesn't, nor does windows phone.

    > Flash is also used a lot in
    > advertising animation.


    which means that not having flash blocks annoying ads. that's a plus!

    > Sites won't stop using Flash
    > to stream video unless they can hide the file path.


    i hate to break it to you but they *already* *have*, and started doing
    that long ago.

    > On mobile the situation is different. There's not only
    > limited processing power; there's also limited access
    > by the person using it, which will make it easier to
    > prevent people from downloading video directly.


    it's nowhere near as limited as you think. the cpus and gpus in mobile
    devices can handle video quite well, including 1080p.

    there are also numerous apps that can download videos on mobile devices.

    you are very out of touch.

    > | most sites these days offer an html5 version when
    > | there is no flash installed
    >
    > Most sites? I'm running late-model Mozilla with no
    > Flash. I can't see video unless someone offers the
    > file download. I can get YouTube videos only because
    > I have the DownloadHelper extension. I don't see
    > any HTML5 VIDEO tags on their site.


    then you're doing something wrong. youtube has supported html5 for a
    couple of years.

    youtube also works on iphones, ipod touches and ipads, from the very
    first one iphone june, 2007 and none of them have flash.

    > Maybe Flash will eventually be phased out. But it's
    > been an insecure problem for many years now and it's
    > still there. It seems rather glib to flaunt predictions
    > about how soon it's going to die.


    better tell adobe that. adobe has already ceased work on mobile flash
    and they are slowly moving away from desktop flash. as i mentioned
    above, they have their own html5 tools.
     
    nospam, Dec 8, 2012
    #61
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Mayayana Guest

    | > No, you just happen to have adamant opinions
    | > that are always in accord with the Apple view.
    |
    | not always, and if i do, it's not because they told me. it's because it
    | mirrors reality.
    |

    Spoken like a true Apple devotee. :)



    | > Just as you push $300 SSDs over $50 HDDs as
    | > the *only* way to go. Pure Apple fan logic.
    |
    | furthermore, your prices are wrong

    From Tigerdirect today:

    AT3-480G 480GB Solid State Drive
    $329.99 (currently with a $40 rebate)

    WD Blue WD5000AAKX 500GB Desktop Hard Drive
    $79.99, discounted to $59.99

    I'm sure there are other price ratios, but SSDs
    are clearly far more expensive.

    | even adobe sees the writing on the wall, which is why they released
    | html5 tools.
    |

    Adobe is hedging their bets. Personally I'd love
    to see Flash die. (For that matter, I'd love to see
    Acrobat Reader die, too.) But the other factor at
    play is that Adobe, Microsoft, Apple all do their best
    to get the biggest possible market and lock it in.
    Adobe has used both Flash and Acrobat Reader
    to establish their products as norms. Both products
    have been distributed so widely that it's allowed
    Adobe to render them as Web standards. They'll give
    that up if they have to, but only then. It was the
    same with MS and ActiveX, with competing office
    document formats, with competing audio/video formats,
    etc. The big operators all talk about cross-compatibility,
    but none really wants it.

    Fortunately, at least, Microsoft's Silverlight and Adobe's
    Air seem to be good and dead. Those were threatening
    to turn web sites into fullscale software.

    | > IE 10 (Win8)
    | > even has it built in.
    |
    | but only for windows desktop. metro doesn't...

    Actually, it does.
    It's built in to both. On Win8, if necessary, a page
    will be switched to the Win8 IE version instead of the
    Metro IE version. On WinRT, where there's only the
    Metro version, Flash is still there but sites have to
    apply to be whitelisted. That's not because Flash
    is irrelevant. It's because Flash is a threat to battery
    life on tablets.

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ie/jj193557(v=vs.85).aspx

    You have to see it in context. WinRT and tablets
    in general are running with limited processors and
    limited power. WinRT doesn't allow any compiled
    software at all. Windows Store "apps" are browser-
    based trinkets running with limited functionality in
    a sandbox. The fact that MS arranged to make an
    exception for Flash on WinRT is an indicator of just
    how disruptive it would be to remove it.

    | which means that not having flash blocks annoying ads. that's a plus!
    |

    As I said, I agree and I would never install Flash
    myself. But what will happen in the future is not
    subject to my opinion... or even yours. :)
     
    Mayayana, Dec 8, 2012
    #62
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    David Taylor Guest

    On 07/12/2012 23:03, Eric Stevens wrote:
    []
    > Windows is about once every two weeks on the average.
    >
    > Then there is Adobe with updates for PDF
    >
    > McAfee anti-virus.
    >
    > Firefox
    >
    > Java
    >
    > iTunes
    >
    > ... the list goes on.

    []

    Here, Windows is monthly. It's unusual to have updates between the
    monthly patch Tuesdays. My MSE anti-virus and Firefox updates happen
    transparently and don't require reboots.

    Sounds like you need software which is more update friendly!
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    David Taylor, Dec 8, 2012
    #63
  4. RichA

    David Taylor Guest

    On 08/12/2012 08:33, Eric Stevens wrote:
    []
    >> Here, Windows is monthly.

    >
    > It seems to depend on what version you have got. Come to think of it,
    > MS has been very quiet lately. Maybe they have been too busy with 8.
    >
    >> It's unusual to have updates between the
    >> monthly patch Tuesdays. My MSE anti-virus and Firefox updates happen
    >> transparently and don't require reboots.
    >>
    >> Sounds like you need software which is more update friendly!

    >
    > Don't we all?
    >
    > Last night I found there had been a new version of iTunes downloaded.
    > Not only did I have to install it but I had to work out how it worked.


    Yes, as we said before, Apple forces you to work its way. We already
    discussed this in relation to deleting multiple photo albums.

    What an awful piece of software iTunes is! I like the new interface
    even less than the old - too much is hidden - and the poor core
    functionality remains unchanged.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    David Taylor, Dec 8, 2012
    #64
  5. David Taylor <> wrote:
    >On 07/12/2012 13:39, Anthony Polson wrote:
    >[]
    >> The one that really annoys me is Adobe Flash. Updates seem to come in
    >> clusters over a few days with a longer gap to the next cluster.
    >>
    >> I guess that the second and subsequent updates in each cluster are to
    >> fix bugs in the first. The bugs seem to be many and Flash has to be
    >> the least stable piece of code that I have ever used.

    >
    >You will be pleased that HTML5 is gradually replacing Flash, then!



    Yes and no. Yes, because HTML5 will be more stable. No, because
    there are so many sites out there that still rely on Flash. I am glad
    that my smartphone runs Android OS because I can enjoy Flash sites
    that my partner's iPhone 4 will not display.
     
    Anthony Polson, Dec 8, 2012
    #65
  6. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <k9ufdu$ajt$>, Mayayana
    <> wrote:

    > | > Just as you push $300 SSDs over $50 HDDs as
    > | > the *only* way to go. Pure Apple fan logic.
    > |
    > | furthermore, your prices are wrong
    >
    > From Tigerdirect today:
    >
    > AT3-480G 480GB Solid State Drive
    > $329.99 (currently with a $40 rebate)
    >
    > WD Blue WD5000AAKX 500GB Desktop Hard Drive
    > $79.99, discounted to $59.99
    >
    > I'm sure there are other price ratios, but SSDs
    > are clearly far more expensive.


    you are picking one of the most expensive ssds.

    try a more common size, such as 128 gig, which is probably the current
    sweet spot. i also included 256 gig because it's not that much more
    money.

    don't forget you get *significantly* better performance with ssd. it
    boils down to speed versus capacity.

    from tiger direct:
    128 ssd, $114
    <http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?Ed
    pNo=2192690&Sku=S153-0121>
    256 gig ssd, $189
    <http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?Ed
    pNo=2983951&CatId=5300>

    160 gig hard drive, $54
    <http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?Ed
    pNo=1896551&CatId=2681>

    > | even adobe sees the writing on the wall, which is why they released
    > | html5 tools.
    >
    > Adobe is hedging their bets.


    no they're not. adobe knows flash is going away and that html5 is the
    future.

    > Personally I'd love
    > to see Flash die.


    then you should be thanking apple for being one of the first to say no
    to it and pushing for non-proprietary industry standards.

    by the way, there was no flash for mobile when the iphone came out, so
    apple couldn't have had flash on it even if they wanted to. mobile
    flash came out in 2010. the iphone came out in 2007.

    mobile flash was also 'shockingly bad' on a nexus one when it came out:
    <http://gigaom.com/video/video-flash-on-android-is-startlingly-bad/>

    > (For that matter, I'd love to see
    > Acrobat Reader die, too.)


    there's no need for acrobat reader. pdf is an open standard.

    pdf is also a native format in os x and many apps can read and write it
    directly. in fact, because it's a native format, it's trivial to add
    pdf support to an os x or ios app.

    > But the other factor at
    > play is that Adobe, Microsoft, Apple all do their best
    > to get the biggest possible market and lock it in.


    apple pushes open standards such as html5, mpeg 4, h.264, etc.

    compare that to microsoft and adobe, who push proprietary and closed
    standards such as windows media and flash.

    > Adobe has used both Flash and Acrobat Reader
    > to establish their products as norms. Both products
    > have been distributed so widely that it's allowed
    > Adobe to render them as Web standards.


    nope.

    pdf is an industry standard and has been for years. acrobat reader is
    not required.

    on the other hand, flash *is* proprietary.

    > They'll give
    > that up if they have to, but only then. It was the
    > same with MS and ActiveX, with competing office
    > document formats, with competing audio/video formats,
    > etc. The big operators all talk about cross-compatibility,
    > but none really wants it.


    see above.

    > Fortunately, at least, Microsoft's Silverlight and Adobe's
    > Air seem to be good and dead. Those were threatening
    > to turn web sites into fullscale software.


    silverlight is dead. air is not that dead but it is not exactly major
    growth either.

    > | > IE 10 (Win8)
    > | > even has it built in.
    > |
    > | but only for windows desktop. metro doesn't...
    >
    > Actually, it does.
    > It's built in to both. On Win8, if necessary, a page
    > will be switched to the Win8 IE version instead of the
    > Metro IE version. On WinRT, where there's only the
    > Metro version, Flash is still there but sites have to
    > apply to be whitelisted.


    in other words, it doesn't do flash, but there are a few exceptions. if
    a site isn't on the whitelist, you're stuck.

    > That's not because Flash
    > is irrelevant. It's because Flash is a threat to battery
    > life on tablets.


    that's not the only reason.

    <http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/09/14/metro-style-browsing-and-
    plug-in-free-html5.aspx>
    For the web to move forward and for consumers to get the most out of
    touch-first browsing, the Metro style browser in Windows 8 is as
    HTML5-only as possible, and plug-in free. The experience that
    plug-ins provide today is not a good match with Metro style browsing
    and the modern HTML5 web.

    > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ie/jj193557(v=vs.85).aspx
    >
    > You have to see it in context. WinRT and tablets
    > in general are running with limited processors and
    > limited power. WinRT doesn't allow any compiled
    > software at all.


    nonsense. it's compiled for arm, not x86.

    > Windows Store "apps" are browser-
    > based trinkets running with limited functionality in
    > a sandbox.


    nonsense. they are in a sandbox (a good thing) but they are not
    'browser-based trinkets.'

    > The fact that MS arranged to make an
    > exception for Flash on WinRT is an indicator of just
    > how disruptive it would be to remove it.


    it's not disruptive at all.

    > | which means that not having flash blocks annoying ads. that's a plus!
    > |
    >
    > As I said, I agree and I would never install Flash
    > myself. But what will happen in the future is not
    > subject to my opinion... or even yours. :)


    it's not opinion. flash is going away. that's the *reality*.

    if you can't see that then i don't know what to tell you.
     
    nospam, Dec 8, 2012
    #66
  7. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alfred
    Molon <> wrote:

    > > Flash needs to be killed.
    > > It hogs the CPU, poses security risks

    >
    > Why would HTML5 video not hog the CPU


    because it uses industry standard codecs that have hardware support,
    either by running on the gpu or with a hardware decoder.

    > and not pose security risks?


    because it's not proprietary and controlled by one company.

    > It would be nice if HTML5 was widespread because of all those additional
    > things you can do with it, but at the moment (and this has been going on
    > for years), browser support is very, very limited and the rate of
    > progress is painfully slow.


    it's not limited at all and browser support is very widespread. it has
    been for years and progress is not slow.

    according to this, all modern browsers support html5 video. that's
    about as widespread as it gets. the only browsers that don't are older
    versions of internet explorer (no surprise there).
    <http://www.longtailvideo.com/html5/>

    according to this, support for other aspects of html5 is also very good:
    <http://speckycdn.sdm.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/chart1.p
    ng>
     
    nospam, Dec 8, 2012
    #67
  8. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alfred
    Molon <> wrote:

    > The problem with HTML5 is poor browser support. Different browsers
    > supporting different, very limited HTML5 featuresets. No point adding
    > HTML5 elements to web pages right now, because you'd have to make non-
    > HTML5 alternatives available and check if the browser supports or not
    > specific features. Quite complicated and probably not worth the effort.


    completely wrong.

    html5 support is very widespread. even internet explorer supports it.
    see my other post for details.
     
    nospam, Dec 8, 2012
    #68
  9. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <k9uv7j$8uk$>, David Taylor
    <> wrote:

    > > Last night I found there had been a new version of iTunes downloaded.
    > > Not only did I have to install it but I had to work out how it worked.

    >
    > Yes, as we said before, Apple forces you to work its way.


    releasing a new itunes update is not forcing anyone to work its way any
    more than releasing a new update for any other app.

    microsoft forces you to work their way with internet explorer, office,
    etc.
     
    nospam, Dec 8, 2012
    #69
  10. RichA

    Mayayana Guest

    | > Flash needs to be killed.
    | > It hogs the CPU, poses security risks
    |
    | Why would HTML5 video not hog the CPU

    I think he's talking about hogging the limited
    power and battery life of tablets. But you make
    a relevant point in general. I recently updated
    Pale Moon, a "lightweight" version of Firefox. It's
    using 60 MB of RAM just to sit there.

    Extreme use of javascript in HTML for interactive
    pages and online services has made webpage
    rendering far more demanding than it used to be.
    That's the "big new" change, more so than HTML 5.
    HTML 5 is mainly the addition of tags to HTML for
    multimedia and changes to adapt to highly interactive
    pages:
    http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/single-page.html

    If you view the source code of a webpage and see
    this at the top: <!DOCTYPE html> then it's HTML 5.
    It won't look so different from HTML 4.

    There have been HTML methods to embed sound
    and video in the past. HTML5 just tries to integrate
    the whole thing better, with player plugins built into
    the browser.

    The big change, whether pre-HTML5 or post-HTML5
    has been heavy use of javascript for extreme
    interactiveness, with the ability to spy, track, display
    targetted ads dynamically, respond smoothly to user
    input without having to reload the page, etc. Commercial
    online services are stretching script to its limits, while
    browser makers continue to improve script parsing, in
    an attempt to make pages highly interactive. Many pages
    that used to be 40-60 KB might now be 200-300 KB.
    Jquery, a popular javascript library, is about 100 KB by
    itself. That is, the script has been getting so complex
    that people are using pre-written scripts of 100 KB, outside
    of the actual webpage, and then calling functions in those
    external scripts. When you go to Google it looks like a
    very simple webpage, but it's become closer to software.
    The HTML is minimal compared to the amount of script
    they're using.

    | ...and not pose security risks?
    |
    HTML 5 does pose security risks. But it's not really
    the HTML part that we're talking about. Flash, Acrobat Reader
    and Java have all been common security risks. In HTML 5,
    browser plugins provide video play. And as nospam pointed
    out, even Adobe is working on trying to package script and
    CSS functionality to mimic Flash cartoons, in case support
    for Flash sours. All of that is high risk. It all boils down to
    the same thing. Script is the main risk. Interactiveness is risky,
    because it requires some kind of executable software.
    Interactiveness almost always requires script. Flash just
    provides additional "attack vectors".

    No one wants to face those facts. Commercial websites
    want to provide a highly functional software interface. They
    want interactive-TV services that you'll pay for. Likewise,
    people want to shop, set preferences, Facebook, watch
    video in a webpage, etc. Security and privacy can *never*
    be adequate in that scenario.

    The original purpose of script was to do simple, dynamic
    things like making a button glow when the mouse is over it.
    (Much of that functionality is now possible with CSS.)
    Webpages were originally designed for static display. HTML
    has been stretched far beyond the original intention by
    stretching javascript to do things *it* was never intended
    to do.

    Java, Flash (and ActiveX controls...Flash is ActiveX in IE)
    were early attempts to embed software in webpages. People
    are still trying to do that in one way or another. Not to defend
    Flash, but it's been a problem for years and much of its use
    is for annoying animations that no one wants to see in the
    firs place. No one would be singling it out now if Steve Jobs
    hadn't publicly added the issue to his official religious doctrine.
     
    Mayayana, Dec 8, 2012
    #70
  11. RichA

    Mayayana Guest

    | > | > Just as you push $300 SSDs over $50 HDDs as
    | > | > the *only* way to go. Pure Apple fan logic.
    | > |
    | > | furthermore, your prices are wrong
    | >
    | > From Tigerdirect today:
    | >
    | > AT3-480G 480GB Solid State Drive
    | > $329.99 (currently with a $40 rebate)
    | >
    | > WD Blue WD5000AAKX 500GB Desktop Hard Drive
    | > $79.99, discounted to $59.99
    | >
    | > I'm sure there are other price ratios, but SSDs
    | > are clearly far more expensive.
    |
    | you are picking one of the most expensive ssds.
    |
    | try a more common size, such as 128 gig

    The creativity of your "logic" never ceases to impress
    me. But OK, I concede. If you want to compare an
    outdated hard disk of 1/3 the capacity of the 500 GB
    hard disk (despite the fact that both are almost the
    same price) then a comparable SSD is only 3-4 times
    more expensive, rather than 6 times more expensive.
    For that matter, an SSD would be an amazing bargain as
    compared to, say, a Saab, which doesn't even have 1 GB
    storage space.

    So I guess the moral of the story is that if you have
    a Mac that won't accept a hard disk, then you're better
    off buying a 256 GB SSD as an upgrade rather than a
    160 GB hard disk.... assuming, of course, that your Mac
    can actually hold two SSDs. :)
     
    Mayayana, Dec 8, 2012
    #71
  12. RichA

    Mayayana Guest

    |
    | The problem with HTML5 is poor browser support. Different browsers
    | supporting different, very limited HTML5 featuresets. No point adding
    | HTML5 elements to web pages right now,

    I was wondering about that. I see only Flash
    code at YouTube. Yet nospam claims he's getting
    HTML 5 VIDEO tags. If that's true then maybe
    they're serving a different page for Apple tablets.
    I'm tempted to visit with an iPad referrer to see
    what I get. I'd be curious to know how Google
    would hide YouTube video URLs in HTML 5.
    But perhaps they don't need to. It would
    only matter if iPad users are able to easily view
    the source code and then download the OGG,
    MP4, or whatever and easily copy it out.

    In any
    case, I can't see any of these sites (like network
    news, ComedyCentral, YouTube, etc.) switching
    to something like an HTML 5 VIDEO tag if they
    can't hide the source URL of the video. They all go
    to great lengths to prevent people getting a copy
    of video because it would allow people to see less
    ads and return to the site less often. Worse, perhaps,
    for them is that people would understand that the
    video is a file and not a broadcast.
     
    Mayayana, Dec 8, 2012
    #72
  13. RichA

    Mayayana Guest

    | Just for the record, I have no problem viewing HBO-GO, Netflix, ABC
    | News, NBC News, NBC Olympics, BBC News, CNN,The Weather Channel, AMC
    | Mobile, Speed, YouTube, TBS, ESPN3, NASA TV, and many more on my iPad &
    | iPhone without the benefit of Flash.
    |

    Interesting. I just tried loading a youtube video
    while pretending to be an iPad. Aside from Apple
    favicon code, the entire page was nothing but
    encrypted javascript. Since I don't enable javascript
    there was just a white screen. I'd be curious to
    know what the code is loading the video on the page.
    Perhaps they hide the video path through the layers
    of script obfuscation, but it would be interesting if
    they're actually using HTML 5 (VIDEO tag).
     
    Mayayana, Dec 8, 2012
    #73
  14. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <k9vlf1$s8k$>, Mayayana
    <> wrote:

    > So I guess the moral of the story is that if you have
    > a Mac that won't accept a hard disk, then you're better
    > off buying a 256 GB SSD as an upgrade rather than a
    > 160 GB hard disk.... assuming, of course, that your Mac
    > can actually hold two SSDs. :)


    your anti-apple bias knows no bounds.

    if a mac won't accept a hard drive, it *already* has ssd, such as the
    macbook air.

    also note that ultrabooks have ssd and cannot accept hard drives
    either, which you conveniently neglect to mention.
     
    nospam, Dec 8, 2012
    #74
  15. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <k9vm2e$vg4$>, Mayayana
    <> wrote:

    > | The problem with HTML5 is poor browser support. Different browsers
    > | supporting different, very limited HTML5 featuresets. No point adding
    > | HTML5 elements to web pages right now,
    >
    > I was wondering about that. I see only Flash
    > code at YouTube.


    as i said you're doing something wrong.

    > Yet nospam claims he's getting
    > HTML 5 VIDEO tags.


    i claimed no such thing.

    what i said was that youtube has supported html5 for a while. further
    investigation shows that it was about 3 years ago when they announced
    it.

    i also said that the first iphone in 2007 played youtube and that
    worked because youtube sends an h.264 stream to ios devices, which is
    handled in hardware.

    > If that's true then maybe
    > they're serving a different page for Apple tablets.


    they serve non-flash to devices that do not have flash installed. it's
    that simple. it has nothing to do with apple.

    maybe something on your system is reporting you have flash, so it sends
    you flash.

    > I'm tempted to visit with an iPad referrer to see
    > what I get. I'd be curious to know how Google
    > would hide YouTube video URLs in HTML 5.
    > But perhaps they don't need to. It would
    > only matter if iPad users are able to easily view
    > the source code and then download the OGG,
    > MP4, or whatever and easily copy it out.


    it's not just ipads.

    > In any
    > case, I can't see any of these sites (like network
    > news, ComedyCentral, YouTube, etc.) switching
    > to something like an HTML 5 VIDEO tag if they
    > can't hide the source URL of the video. They all go
    > to great lengths to prevent people getting a copy
    > of video because it would allow people to see less
    > ads and return to the site less often. Worse, perhaps,
    > for them is that people would understand that the
    > video is a file and not a broadcast.


    i don't know what you're doing but it's easy to get the source and the
    video file itself.
     
    nospam, Dec 8, 2012
    #75
  16. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <2012120808181475249-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > Just for the record, I have no problem viewing HBO-GO, Netflix, ABC
    > News, NBC News, NBC Olympics, BBC News, CNN,The Weather Channel, AMC
    > Mobile, Speed, YouTube, TBS, ESPN3, NASA TV, and many more on my iPad &
    > iPhone without the benefit of Flash.


    exactly. it's a non-issue.

    web sites have supported non-flash for quite a while.

    > The broadcasters have made the adjustment away from Flash for mobile
    > devices, both iOS and Android. They understand the roll the mobile
    > device is playing in today's World.


    exactly.

    apparently some people can't see that mobile is rapidly becoming
    dominant. desktop computers will soon be a niche.
     
    nospam, Dec 8, 2012
    #76
  17. RichA

    David Taylor Guest

    On 08/12/2012 11:57, nospam wrote:
    []
    > releasing a new itunes update is not forcing anyone to work its way any
    > more than releasing a new update for any other app.
    >
    > microsoft forces you to work their way with internet explorer, office,
    > etc.


    Whilst I don't agree with you about the Microsoft products (they seem
    much more customisable to me), at least there are many alternatives to
    Internet Explorer and Office you can use instead. With iTunes - no
    alternative - you are stuck with what Apple chooses to provide.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    David Taylor, Dec 8, 2012
    #77
  18. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <k9vsd6$783$>, David Taylor
    <> wrote:

    > > releasing a new itunes update is not forcing anyone to work its way any
    > > more than releasing a new update for any other app.
    > >
    > > microsoft forces you to work their way with internet explorer, office,
    > > etc.

    >
    > Whilst I don't agree with you about the Microsoft products (they seem
    > much more customisable to me),


    maybe so but itunes can be customized too. for instance, itunes 11
    hides the sidebar but it can be put back for those who want the
    sidebar.

    > at least there are many alternatives to
    > Internet Explorer and Office you can use instead.


    except when websites require internet explorer or companies require
    word/excel files. even though there are alternatives, they don't always
    work properly in all cases.

    > With iTunes - no
    > alternative - you are stuck with what Apple chooses to provide.


    sort of like the zune and the required zune software, you mean?
     
    nospam, Dec 8, 2012
    #78
  19. RichA

    David Taylor Guest

    On 08/12/2012 17:17, nospam wrote:
    > In article <k9vsd6$783$>, David Taylor
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>> releasing a new itunes update is not forcing anyone to work its way any
    >>> more than releasing a new update for any other app.
    >>>
    >>> microsoft forces you to work their way with internet explorer, office,
    >>> etc.

    >>
    >> Whilst I don't agree with you about the Microsoft products (they seem
    >> much more customisable to me),

    >
    > maybe so but itunes can be customized too. for instance, itunes 11
    > hides the sidebar but it can be put back for those who want the
    > sidebar.
    >
    >> at least there are many alternatives to
    >> Internet Explorer and Office you can use instead.

    >
    > except when websites require internet explorer or companies require
    > word/excel files. even though there are alternatives, they don't always
    > work properly in all cases.
    >
    >> With iTunes - no
    >> alternative - you are stuck with what Apple chooses to provide.

    >
    > sort of like the zune and the required zune software, you mean?


    Always right, as ever! LOL!
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    David Taylor, Dec 8, 2012
    #79
  20. RichA

    Mayayana Guest

    Sorry, Out of order post. My usenet host limits the
    number of Re's it will support in one subthread
    -------------------------------------------------

    "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    news:2012120810075443658-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    | On 2012-12-08 08:48:08 -0800, "Mayayana" <> said:

    | > Interesting. I just tried loading a youtube video
    | > while pretending to be an iPad.
    |
    | How do you pretend to be an iPad?

    The userAgent string that tells a website what the OS
    and browser is. Most browsers provide the ability to
    override the userAgent, which is sometimes handy.
    By using a typical iPad userAgent I can get a website
    to respond as they would to an iPad.

    |
    | ...and then there is this to consider.
    | You do know that there is an app for that?
    | < https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/youtube/id544007664?mt=8 >
    |

    You mean the iPad can't show youtube video until
    it has a special app? Perhaps some sort of QuickTime
    extension? Whatever it is, youtube is going to great
    lengths to hide their operation.
     
    Mayayana, Dec 8, 2012
    #80
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Chris

    Could hardware repeatedly knack hard drives?

    Chris, May 3, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    384
    =?UTF-8?B?UGFsaW5kcuKYu21l?=
    May 3, 2004
  2. habshi
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    2,181
    AZ Nomad
    Jan 30, 2007
  3. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    719
  4. Ian

    How often should you replace hard drives?

    Ian, Nov 2, 2007, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,277
  5. Frank

    Torvalds pans Apple with 'utter crap' putdown

    Frank, Feb 6, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    482
    Rev Turd Fredericks
    Feb 6, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page