Adobe went to Spain this week to try to get some love for its Flash software, the dominant platform for viewing Web videos and playing games online.
Flash took a hit in January when Apple CEO Steve Jobs unveiled the iPad tablet, billed as the ultimate multimedia device. Like the iPhone and iPod Touch, the iPad when it is released in March won't support Flash. So iPad owners won't be able to watch videos at popular sites such as Hulu, JibJab or Nickelodeon.
On Monday at the Mobile World Congress trade show in Barcelona, Adobe unveiled a beta version of a new mobile Flash Player for software developers and touted support from most of the wireless industry, including Google's Android operating system, Palm, Samsung and Research In Motion's Blackberry.
The Flash Player is on 98% of all computers, including Apple's desktops and laptops. But Adobe can't seem to get Apple support for mobile devices.
Apple declined to comment. Adobe says the conflict has to do with one thing: economics.
Even though the Flash Player is free, "Apple wants to move rich content off the Web and into the App Store, where they can monetize it," says David Wadhwani, vice president of Adobe's platform business unit, which includes Flash.
The App Store is where Apple sells (and gives away) software for the iPhone, iPod Touch and, soon, the iPad. Adobe profits from Flash by selling the software to create programs — and offers a free Flash Player for viewing Flash projects.
The absence of Flash on such high-profile devices doesn't help Adobe, which counts on new software sales and active developer support to keep what Piper Jaffray estimates to be a $600 million Flash business thriving.
Apple is urging developers to get video onto its mobile devices by encoding them in an up-and-coming competitor called HTML5 instead of Flash.
Adobe Flash is "yesterday's technology," says Richard Doherty, an analyst at The Envisioneering Group. He believes Flash is susceptible to hackers and says it hasn't had a major refresh in years.
The future for Flash
But switching is not easy for millions of websites that are created and presented in Flash.
"For a rich-media site like ours, Flash is the only option," says Gregg Spiridellis, a partner at JibJab Media, which makes online greeting cards. "We could support a second platform just to serve the Apple user base, but there are so many more opportunities to grow on the Web, it makes more sense to put our efforts there."
Google's YouTube video site and Vimeo, a competitor, recently opened up HTML5 support with test pages. "We did it as an experiment to see what the response would be," says Andrew Pile, vice president of products for Vimeo.
The pages load more quickly than Flash, but videos can be seen only in Google's Chrome browser and Apple Safari — not Internet Explorer, because it doesn't support HTML5.
"Right now, Internet video is about Flash. That's all there is to it," Pile says. "If you want to see video online, it's in Flash. It works on every kind of computer and browser. Bringing everyone around to HTML5 is going to be a huge leap. I don't see Flash going away any time soon."
In Barcelona, Adobe is showing its new Flash Player 10.1, which the company says is its most advanced yet.
But what took so long? Flash has been around for 13 years, why isn't it seen on many phones?
Wadhwani says computers have stronger processors and memory capacity and getting Flash to run effectively on mobile devices "has taken quite a bit of effort."
The current mobile version, Flash Lite, "could have worked on an iPhone," he says. "It plays most Web content but not all Web content."
Apple has survived consumer angst over the lack of Flash on the iPhone, but Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster isn't so sure it will have a clear ride with the iPad.
"For the first six months, it won't matter, because people will buy the iPad anyway," he says. "Then we'll see what happens."
Ross MacMillan, an analyst at Jeffries & Co., says the scuffle with Apple won't hurt Adobe in the long run, because the player is free. "Adobe will still sell its software to creative professionals to create for the Web," he says.
"Every person in the world would have to buy an iPad for Flash to go away," Munster says. "And we don't see that happening."
Source: usatoday.com
The more people know about the iPad, the less they want to buy one, according to a study released Friday. But, are we expecting too much?
The study seems to confirm the iPad as Apple's least exciting announcement in years. And the company is feeling the backlash that comes from not delivering on the hype.
Retrevo, an online marketplace for consumer electronics, surveyed 1,000 of its customers and found that the iPad's Jan. 27 announcement did more to snuff out customer interest than to spark it.
That's not surprising when all Apple introduced was just a supersized (and superexpensive at the high end) iPod touch. My friend and fellow pundit Larry Magid described as the iPad as "underwhelming."
I agree, the iPad is underwhelming, especially as a business device. And the more people heard about the iPad, the less they wanted one, according to Retrevo.
"The word definitely got out as the number of respondents saying they had heard about the tablet rose from 37% shortly before the announcement to over 80% after the media frenzy on January 27th," Retrevo said Friday in a blog post.
"Unfortunately for Apple, the number if respondents saying they had heard about the tablet but were not interested in buying one, doubled from 25% before the announcement to over 50% following the announcement."
Of course, that 50 percent who are interested is plenty to make the product a success, provided many of them actually become buyers. (Learn more about the study in this story by Greg Keizer).
I think we may be being a bit hard on the iPad. I still don't think it will become a big enterprise computing tool, even if it does "run" Windows 7 (as a virtualized desktop). I also don't think traditional mobile line-of-business applications--think your UPS driver--will start carrying iPads.
But, entertainment, gaming, and e-reading, especially in education, could still make the iPad quite a winner.
Apple already has the ecosystem in place--developers, content, shopping--to make the platform immediately useful when it arrives.
The iPad appears to be an excellent e-reader, though I said that about the Nook before it shipped, too. In this case, however, enough pre-production iPads have been around that I feel pretty confident.
I still don't feel the need for an iPad, but I do expect to invest in an e-reader soon and am glad I didn't get a Nook for Christmas.
Now, I want to wait a bit and see how the devices, content pricing, and content availability shake-out. At some future moment, the combination of e-reader features/content and interesting apps (not available on my iPhone) could convince me.
So, while I don't see an iPad in my immediate future, I am closer to buying one--or perhaps a competitor--than I was before the announcement. I still wouldn't say I want an iPad. But, I see how I might be convinced in the future.
David Coursey has been writing about technology products and companies for more than 25 years. He tweets as @techinciter and may be contacted via his Web site.
Source: news.yahoo.com
Read More Mobile NEWS About:
- HTC admits customers have Nexus One 3G trouble, no...
- Nokia Files ITC Patent Complaint Against Apple
- 2009 in Review: The Year in iPhone
- Apple censors Dalai Lama iPhone apps in China
- Apple Briefly Cuts Student Price of MacBook to $72...
- Apple blocking Dalai Lama, Kadeer, iPhone apps: re...
- Magento Module Development http://ping.fm/J2Dxm
Warning: I am about to say some critical things about a device that, according to its creator, is both magical and revolutionary. If you're the kind of person who thinks that Apple can do no wrong and that anyone who says otherwise is loco, proceed with caution.
Still with me? Good. Like most tech enthusiasts, I've been devoting a decent amount of thought to Apple's newly announced iPad over the past 24 hours. Maybe you've heard of it; from what I've read, it's already changed the world and broken the Internets -- no small feat for a product that's not even on sale yet.
The Web's fairly divided when it comes to opinions on the long-fabled Apple iPad. Analyses aside, I think it's pretty safe to say there'll be no shortage of folks lining up to buy the thing the night before its debut; I certainly wouldn't question its potential for appeal among the legions of Apple fanatics. For people not firmly in the Apple camp, however, I would question the value of the iPad over upcoming alternatives, given what we know so far.
Apple's iPad: A Question of Culture
Here's the thing: People who love Apple tend to be OK with certain things. They tend to be OK with the fact that their mobile devices don't allow for multitasking or Flash support; they tend to be OK with the fact that they can install only applications approved by Apple. The lack of a removable battery isn't necessarily seen as a significant issue. And that's fine -- hey, to each his own.
As an Android user, though, I value the freedom to use my device as I wish. I like knowing that I can install something like Google Voice or an NES emulator without my manufacturer's blessing; I like knowing that, if I so choose, I can install some random app a friend is developing without having to jailbreak my phone and void my warranty. I like being able to fully customize my phone -- and yes, I like being able to run programs like Pandora and Fring in the background while I use other features of the device.
In my eyes, the drawbacks of Apple's iPad are the drawbacks of Apple's overall philosophies. The company is all about closed-platformed, tightly controlled user experiences. Those principles can be very restricting on a smartphone. On a tablet PC, I suspect they would be even more blatantly confining for people not wholeheartedly committed to the Apple culture.
Apple's iPad and Tablet Competition
A slew of new tablets is on the way in 2010, including several running the Android operating system. (Does the design of this 10-inch MSI tablet shown at CES look familiar?) Compared to the iPad, these systems will allow you to run multiple applications at the same time, interact with Flash-driven Web sites, and install any program you want. Even if your primary goal with the tablet is to surf the Web and watch videos, don't you want to be able to use the apps of your choice to perform those tasks?
(Yes, Apple's App Store has many wonderful offerings -- but we all know there are also many things it doesn't and probably won't ever allow.)
Apple has a powerful brand, a brilliant knack for marketing, and a wildly devoted base of fans. And all of those factors will undoubtedly help maximize the iPad's reach. But I have to wonder -- outside of the hard-core Apple disciples -- if most casual consumers would be better served with a device that gives them the power to make their own choices.
To me, the shame of it is that Apple could probably build a near-flawless piece of technology; we all know the bright minds at Cupertino have more than enough inspiration and ability. But the company insists on maintaining such a tight grip on its users' experiences that people are forced to make significant sacrifices in order to reap the benefits the products provide.
JR Raphael is a PCWorld contributing editor and the co-founder of eSarcasm. He has his own theories as to how the iPad will change the world.
Source: pcworld.com