Doctorow on the iPad

[stustaff]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Actually, it's called bait. Which you just swallowed, hook line and sinker. Congratulations.

So by replying I fell for your bait? darn your so smart. by replying to me did you fall for my bait? Im sorry I dont get why you feel the need to put bait down in the first place to try and 'catch me', we were after all already discussing this.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

This is a lie. Apple change the rules on a regular basis without disclosing anything. They cannot know how the system works because Apple simply don't tell them!

Oh come on its not a lie! is that hard for you to understand? you keep saying that Apple do this and that and basically can refuse an app for any reason! THAT IS how the system works thats it exactly we just described Apples system. anyone developing knows tha THAT is the system "my app may be declined for any stupid reason"

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

No, the majority are - rightly - getting out of iDevice development. Including some people who have been Apple evangelists for years.

Great because rather than whining and carrying on developing THIS is the only thing that will cause Apple to change!

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Yes, becuase it's perfectly reasonable for a company to reject apps based on a super-sekrit system which changes on a regular basis according to their whims, rather than acting like a company in the modern era and actually telling people - like other devices which require approval - what the criteria are. Other devices have TRC's which are hundreds of pages long. Apple? Develop up front and then get screwed! What a wonderful developer-friendly business model.

of course its not developer friendly! but devs have the brains to know this and tomake a choice as to develop for Apple or dont!

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Remember, Apple prohibit you from submitting the same app elsewhere, even if it's rejected! Oh right, you'd need to know that in the first place to remember, sigh.

yet again you know it so why would a dev not know that? the dev has a choice to make they dont HAVE to develop for Apple.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Increasingly they're not. The Android store's rapid rise in apps - apparently nearly 7000 in the last month - is testament to Apple's utter incompetence on this, and that was before their amazing anti-dev actions of the past few days with changes which would reject 90%+ of apps if they were new (and will block those apps from being updated!) and blocking them from using common multi-touch functionality!

Great Competition is a good thing and whilst I think Apple will continue to lead the market again if they start to lose out maybe they will change how they operate.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Yea, insert adds into other people's content and screw actually letting them make money with targeted ads, they have to have generic adverts! It's not active yet (although of course you believe otherwise), so devs can actually still get reasonable ad revenue for a while.

"Freeing up dev time" by smashing advert revenue (generic adverts pay a small fraction on targeted ones, again), creaming 40% of advert revenue off the reduced revenue, and forcing intrusive adverts into inappropriate places is amazingly pro-dev. Oh, wait.

You dont have to use iAd! thats apples model and I imagine as its so awful and no one has to sign up for it then it will soon be appearing on 0 apps! or maybe some devs would like the opportunity to have apple manage their ads and are happy to pay 40%

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Sigh. You don't understand the basics of how it works. Of how ANY of this works. You're just blindly pushing the view that Apple's actions, however bluntly ridiculous, can do no wrong.

Yes i do understand! I just have a different opinion!

I understand that apples approval process can be ridiculous, COSTLY, unfair, etc etc for devs!

MY main point however is that we know that! so devs know that! and they dont have to choose to develop for apple so in my mind once they choose to develop for Apple knowing what we have just discussed then they made their bed and if they get rejected for some new made up reason well they will have to lie in it.

I defend Apples right to manage THEIR store and THEIR product however they want.
Try to remember Im not saying the way apple have managed the store and approval process are perfect or even great, what I will say is that so far they have been very sucessful and devs with good apps have made a lot of money and its up to apple what they do.

If I open a game shop and choose not to sell 18 rated games thats my choice If I decide not to sell games that I dont like for my own personel reasons that change each week then thats my choice! It should be no different for Apple.

[dmikov]

Originally Posted by stustaff

I defend Apples right to manage THEIR store and THEIR product however they want.
Try to remember Im not saying the way apple have managed the store and approval process are perfect or even great, what I will say is that so far they have been very sucessful and devs with good apps have made a lot of money and its up to apple what they do.

If I open a game shop and choose not to sell 18 rated games thats my choice If I decide not to sell games that I dont like for my own personel reasons that change each week then thats my choice! It should be no different for Apple.

Manage their store they can, but there is a limit to how you should do it legally and ethically. If in your hypothetical store you decide not to sell 18+ games you are in your right, if you choose to take pre-orders on that games and then tell customers that you rejected that game from your store and have a nice chunk of interest on their money - it's unethical. If you in your store decide not to sell games from and to certain ethnic groups - that would be illegal.
So what I am driving at Apple store is Apple store, but we can expect them to act ethically and legally. Otherwise those posts occur.

[stustaff]

Originally Posted by dmikov

Manage their store they can, but there is a limit to how you should do it legally and ethically. If in your hypothetical store you decide not to sell 18+ games you are in your right, if you choose to take pre-orders on that games and then tell customers that you rejected that game from your store and have a nice chunk of interest on their money - it's unethical. If you in your store decide not to sell games from and to certain ethnic groups - that would be illegal.
So what I am driving at Apple store is Apple store, but we can expect them to act ethically and legally. Otherwise those posts occur.

good I like that but your still missing the point! Assuming customers know what I do in my store(and it isnt racist or illegal and Apple arent) and STILL choose to pre order with me then they shouldnt be suprised that I never get the game in!.

Not sure where ethics comes into it Apple do whats legal and what they believe makes them the most money dont think they are well known for being ethical are they?

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by stustaff

so devs know that!

You can defend Apple's ridiculous decisions until you're blue in the face, it dosn't make them one bit less ridiculous.

if they get rejected for some new made up reason well they will have to lie in it.

Yes, because it's entirely acceptable to tell people they've wasted their time and that they can't take their idea elsewhere, shut up and make another app you peons and hope you don't hit the magic rejection criteria this time.

I defend Apples right to manage THEIR store and THEIR product however they want.

And I'll keep arguing for sane development practices which are fair to developers, and which are good for developers, publishers and the public alike. I also argue in favour of transparency and good corporate citizenship.

If they didn't insist on a monopoly on distributing apps, it'd be different. But they do.

devs with good apps have made a lot of money and its up to apple what they do.

Very few people have made a lot of money. A lot have made a little money, but the poor UX of the store obscures a lot of apps. Oh, it's not as bad as - say - XBLA but it's pretty bad.

There's a reason that some awfully good, experienced, devs are recommending that people take their small games to PSN and Android.

If I open a game shop and choose not to sell 18 rated games thats my choice If I decide not to sell games that I dont like for my own personel reasons that change each week then thats my choice! It should be no different for Apple.

You are not the exclusive distributor. Also, you won't have nearly as much choice as you think, you won't get a distribution contract without taking a range of games on.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by stustaff

Well firstly Apples iAd system hasnt launched yet so for that game you need to speak to the developer.

Flash I do understand that it is frustrating and lessens teh browsing exp-erience however at the moment the JooJoo takes a 50% cut in battery life when using flash!so I'm also understanding why it isnt in there.
I think due to the popularity of iPhone and iPad that Flash websites and systems will pretty soon all offer an alternative so their sites content will work on these device so its becoming a non issue to me gradually.

Well. it may be a test, or it may be something inserted by the developer. But it was indicative of the experience. Not a good one, IMO.

As to Flash-less versions of sites, these have been around since mobile browsers came to be. But saying it's a" non issue" is like saying that being banned from accessing regular books is a non-issue, because you can read the Cliffs Notes versions. Very 1984.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Your choice, personally I really like the Dell monitors though.

I actually went through a phase of buying Dell monitors for about a year, tempted by the savings. But, now I am replacing the 5 (non-IPS) I bought, because they really look cheap and a bit tacky, for my taste at least. The Apple design is really simple, sleek and much more timeless.

The Dell IPS monitors are not that far in price from the Apple ones, particularly if you go the refurb route. That's the route I take for most of my Apple purchases, or ebay deals with Bing discount

[stustaff]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Well. it may be a test, or it may be something inserted by the developer. But it was indicative of the experience. Not a good one, IMO.

It wasnt a test! Apples iAd system only works under software 4.0 which I doubt you have as its not released to the general public yet.

so your saying that based on an ad that had nothing to do with Apple that iAd adverts will be bad! your experience was no more indicative of what iAd ads will be like than me test driving a Toyota Corrola and saying ferraris are rubbish! or your just saying any adverts are bad?(I do tend to agree) maybe iAds will be less bad as Apple will regulate how intrusive they are and also regulate what they are adverts for. we dont really know yet except for the mock ups Apple showed which for an advert didnt look worse than anything else I have ever seen.

Originally Posted by Sonist

As to Flash-less versions of sites, these have been around since mobile browsers came to be. But saying it's a" non issue" is like saying that being banned from accessing regular books is a non-issue, because you can read the Cliffs Notes versions. Very 1984.

Yes they have but im not talking about mobile versions Im talking about the fact that many web sites are now starting to be EXACTLY the same either with flash or without(so more like reading exactly the same book on an ereader instead of on paper! or on recycled paper instead of new, nothing like a different version or cliff notes) once the vast majority of sites work like that well yes it will be a non issue. until then it is an issue.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Your choice, personally I really like the Dell monitors though.

Samsung makes them right? Or they just use Samsung glass.

BOb

[dmaul1114]

Yeah, there are ads currently. They're not iAds, just ads the developer put in their app.

For instance, I've gotten full page Chase Saphire credit card ads in the NY Times app that you have to touch "skip" to get to the story.

Not an iAd as those aren't out to OS 4.0, and that's not coming to the iPad until this fall! So ads are nothing new, iAds will no doubt make ads more common in apps though.

As I said elsewhere, I can live with iAds if it leads to more free and very cheap apps. I can't if we end up with adds in $5-10 apps.

For some app that I wouldn't use all that often I'd rather get it free or for a buck or two with ads than pay $5 for it with no ads personally.

But that's a very big assumption, and it will really suck if that app is $5 AND had ads.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by stustaff

It wasnt a test! Apples iAd system only works under software 4.0 which I doubt you have as its not released to the general public yet.

so your saying that based on an ad that had nothing to do with Apple that iAd adverts will be bad! your experience was no more indicative of what iAd ads will be like than me test driving a Toyota Corrola and saying ferraris are rubbish! or your just saying any adverts are bad?(I do tend to agree) maybe iAds will be less bad as Apple will regulate how intrusive they are and also regulate what they are adverts for. we dont really know yet except for the mock ups Apple showed which for an advert didnt look worse than anything else I have ever seen....

Again, the in-app ad behaved as I understand iAd works, and I was taken aback by it, since it was effectively a demo version of the game. I had to click on it to continue playing. Why do you think iAd is somehow so different - because I can be forced to watch the ad within the app, instead of out of it? Not an earth-shattering difference to me.

Originally Posted by stustaff

Yes they have but im not talking about mobile versions Im talking about the fact that many web sites are now starting to be EXACTLY the same either with flash or without....

Hm, where did you get this information? Because it's not true.

In a deal with Apple, there are a handful of sites which are developing content specifically for the iPad, such as the NYT.

But even those are not identical to their regular sites - the regular sites offer additional functionality through Flash - browse through the NYT Magazine section, for instance.

IMO, the iPad offers web browsing experience akin to that of the late '90s and the few sites which are agreeing to cater specifically to the format are hoping to exploit a captive market.

But, after the initial excitement, I am not certain it will work in the long run, since advertisers want the biggest bang for their buck, and I doubt iPad subscription rates will maintain the revenue needed to support such splintering of the web world.

Particularly because by the end of the year most mobile platforms will have full Flash support, including hardware acceleration, and there will be much less need for mobile versions of the main sites.

[stustaff]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Again, the in-app ad behaved as I understand iAd works, and I was taken aback by it, since it was effectively a demo version of the game. I had to click on it to continue playing. Why do you think iAd is somehow so different - because I can be forced to watch the ad within the app, instead of out of it? Not an earth-shattering difference to me.

well firstly because I watched the keynote and iAd didnt force you to click on anything to get your app, it was a bar at the bottom that IF clicked on brought up a full screen ad otherwise it just stayed at the bottom out of the way.

Originally Posted by Sonist

Hm, where did you get this information? Because it's not true.

In a deal with Apple, there are a handful of sites which are developing content specifically for the iPad, such as the NYT.

But even those are not identical to their regular sites - the regular sites offer additional functionality through Flash - browse through the NYT Magazine section, for instance.

IMO, the iPad offers web browsing experience akin to that of the late '90s and the few sites which are agreeing to cater specifically to the format are hoping to exploit a captive market.

But, after the initial excitement, I am not certain it will work in the long run, since advertisers want the biggest bang for their buck, and I doubt iPad subscription rates will maintain the revenue needed to support such splintering of the web world.

Particularly because by the end of the year most mobile platforms will have full Flash support, including hardware acceleration, and there will be much less need for mobile versions of the main sites.

What do you mean not true?(I wasnt stating this as an announced fact by every website in the world that runs flash). Many websites such as netflix or vimeo etc have already added the ability to view the full website on a device that doesnt use flash and apple are selling millions of devices that dont do flash it is MY opinion that soon it will be a non issue as sites will work fine on iPad.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Again, the in-app ad behaved as I understand iAd works, and I was taken aback by it, since it was effectively a demo version of the game. I had to click on it to continue playing. Why do you think iAd is somehow so different - because I can be forced to watch the ad within the app, instead of out of it? Not an earth-shattering difference to me.

It's not different. He and I were just saying that ads in Apps are around now, so they're not being introduced by iAds. What we'll see is if ads become a lot more prevalent when iAds launches with OS 4.0.

Hm, where did you get this information? Because it's not true.

Some sites have adapted. One example I found was ESPN.com--a site I visit a ton.

When I go there on my girlfriends iPad I get to choose the mobile or full site.

I pick the full site and initially in loading the front page video will display the "Install Flash Player" icon, but when it loads that goes away and then the video is available and does play fine. So I guess they have a hybrid Flash/HTML 5 system or something.

I want to say my g/f said the videos on CNN.com worked as well.

So some actually websites have adapted, probably not very many. But ESPN and the network streaming sites were all I use regularly that use flash, so the iPad's lack of flash didn't bother me nearly as much as I was expecting.

I considered it a major drawback until using my girlfriend's iPad. The ABC and Netflix app take care of most of my video, once Hulu app is out I'll be pretty set on that.

One thing I didn't check is ESPN360.com, I doubt that would work. But maybe they'd put out an app.

IMO, the iPad offers web browsing experience akin to that of the late '90s and the few sites which are agreeing to cater specifically to the format are hoping to exploit a captive market.

It's not nearly that bad. I was with you in the Apple forum before playing around with it. But as I said above, for my browsing habits the lack of flash turned out not to be the major hassle I was expecting.

And the browsing experience in terms of reading articles, blogs etc. on the iPad is fantastic as the scrolling is so much faster and smoother than with a mouse or touchbad or keyboard. And the pinch zooming is awesome for browsing as it's a great way to deal with text that's too small on many websites.

So I'd hardly say it's a late '90s experience. The touching, zooming etc. I found to be a big step forward. Lack of flash didn't bother me much--but that is the big drawback for people who use more flash heavy sites for sure.

I'd certainly prefer flash support, but it's not the deal breaker I thought it would be.

But still if Android apps can match the quality of the interface, screen, battery life etc. and add flash support, a file management system etc. I'd go with one of those over the iPad.

A related question, does Apple have a patent on the pinch zoom interface? That's been the thing I like the most, and would hope an Android or other tablet could mimic.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by stustaff

....
What do you mean not true?(I wasnt stating this as an announced fact by every website in the world that runs flash). Many websites such as netflix or vimeo etc have already added the ability to view the full website on a device that doesnt use flash and apple are selling millions of devices that dont do flash it is MY opinion that soon it will be a non issue as sites will work fine on iPad.

I believe you are confusing Flash video and other Flash functionality. I am not speaking of video (even though most web video is still Flash).

Go to the Disney site, for instance, and play around on your desktop browser, then look at it on your iPad. Then you'll see what I mean by Cliffs Notes version.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Sonist

I believe you are confusing Flash video and other Flash functionality. I am not speaking of video.

Go to the Disney site, for instance, and play around on your desktop browser, then look at it on your iPad. Then you'll see what I mean by Cliffs Notes version.

There's no doubt it's a limitation.

It's just not as widespread as I thought in terms of the websites I personally browse daily.

My main concern among sites I visit daily was ESPN.com, but it worked fine both in terms of all the menus etc., the videos played fine as I said above etc.

If someone visits a lot of Flash heavy sites it would be a huge drawback. But I was surprised that I didn't really run into any problems other than some flash facebook games of course not working.

In any case, the iPad will either sell like gangbusters and we'll see sites move away from Flash. Or it won't and other tablets that support Flash will be better web browsers in terms of being able to display any site fine.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

....
In any case, the iPad will either sell like gangbusters and we'll see sites move away from Flash. Or it won't and other tablets that support Flash will be better web browsers in terms of being able to display any site fine.

Given that Apple has a whole 8% of the computer market, I don't see it having much effect at all wrt Flash.

Source: http://www.mactropolis.com/apple-new...in-q1-of-2009/

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

A related question, does Apple have a patent on the pinch zoom interface? That's been the thing I like the most, and would hope an Android or other tablet could mimic.

Answered my own question. Looks like they do have a patent on the pinch to zoom interface and recently sued HTC over patent infringement from use of something similar in some apps or something.

That sucks, as that feature is one of the things that really makes the iPad click for me. If the Android tablets can't use it, hopefully they can be creative and come up with something that works just as well. Or win in court and get the patent tossed out!