Reply to: iPhone 4

[chef]

You'll have to stay a while - it's not released until the 24th...

I'm leaving 2nd July

[Moscow Mule]

thanks but I'm back in the uk this Saturday so i'll collect them myself

You'll have to stay a while - it's not released until the 24th...

[chef]

Tell me how many you want, and I'll ship em out for you... Unit price + £50 + p&p.

thanks but I'm back in the uk this Saturday so i'll collect them myself

[Moscow Mule]

June 24th is release date, so who's buying one?

a little Plan B idea, Apple Uk sell them for £599, apple europe sell them for 1100EUR/ circa £910, at over £400 profit I'm seriously thinking of bringing 1 or 2 back with me and selling on ebay.de

Tell me how many you want, and I'll ship em out for you... Unit price + £50 + p&p.

[chef]

June 24th is release date, so who's buying one?

a little Plan B idea, Apple Uk sell them for £599, apple europe sell them for 1100EUR/ circa £910, at over £400 profit I'm seriously thinking of bringing 1 or 2 back with me and selling on ebay.de

[TheFaQQer]

If a site relies on Flash, they're doing it wrong. They should be using HTML. They can then use progressive enhancement to add Flash bells and whistles if they want to, but by getting the basics right it will be fully accessible to all (including the disabled and search engines). To say that they need to produce an app instead is nonsense.

They should, but many don't. If a site relies heavily on Flash, and they want iPhone users to use it then the developers either need to develop an App and hope that it meets the criteria of the day, or they need to redevelop the site. Since the site works on pretty much everything else, then most would produce an app which they might be able to charge for to fund the redevelopment effort.

Flash is a proprietary technology; relying on it is as idiotic as publishing your site in the form of a PowerPoint deck or a set of Word documents, thereby similarly restricting your audience.

It's a proprietary technology that provides a free plugin for most browsers (Jobsian crusade aside). The audience is only restricted to those browsers where there is no plugin available, so the analogy is not quite the same as publishing a website as a powerpoint.

I still find it ironic that despite the crusade against Flash and how everything should be HTML, the one part of CUK that runs "correctly" on my phone are the two Flash adverts - the rest of it doesn't look too slick

[NickFitz]

Is that the browser's fault or the number of websites which don't cater for phones? Serious question - I don't have an iPhone.

The iPhone version of Safari renders things identically to the desktop version, except it doesn't support plugins like Flash.

For YouTube - including YouTube videos embedded in a page anywhere - a simple tap on the YouTube still photo (which it serves in place of the Flash embed) will immediately switch to the YouTube app in fullscreen and play the video. Then, when it's over (or you've realised it's rubbish) you tap the "Done" button and it takes you straight back to the browser. This is actually a superior experience to that you would have if it played the video in the page, as you'd have to switch it to fullscreen manually anyway to see it properly.

[NickFitz]

A little from column A, a little from column B. If a site relies on Flash for whatever reason, then if a browser doesn't allow it to run then the site is useless. If that site then wants to be available on a device that doesn't allow Flash, then they need to produce an app that represents their site. With Apple, you could end up with a site that is unusable (because it needs Flash to be worthwhile) and an App that doesn't meet Apple's rules (whatever they may be) so can't be featured in the store.

Using my phone, I haven't found a site that is completely unusable. Plenty look rubbish (e.g. CUK) and have some minor problems (or even major ones!) but the content is generally readable.

If a site relies on Flash, they're doing it wrong. They should be using HTML. They can then use progressive enhancement to add Flash bells and whistles if they want to, but by getting the basics right it will be fully accessible to all (including the disabled and search engines). To say that they need to produce an app instead is nonsense.

Flash is a proprietary technology; relying on it is as idiotic as publishing your site in the form of a PowerPoint deck or a set of Word documents, thereby similarly restricting your audience.

[TheFaQQer]

Is that the browser's fault or the number of websites which don't cater for phones? Serious question - I don't have an iPhone.

A little from column A, a little from column B. If a site relies on Flash for whatever reason, then if a browser doesn't allow it to run then the site is useless. If that site then wants to be available on a device that doesn't allow Flash, then they need to produce an app that represents their site. With Apple, you could end up with a site that is unusable (because it needs Flash to be worthwhile) and an App that doesn't meet Apple's rules (whatever they may be) so can't be featured in the store.

Using my phone, I haven't found a site that is completely unusable. Plenty look rubbish (e.g. CUK) and have some minor problems (or even major ones!) but the content is generally readable.

[NickFitz]

Like, er, when the phone rings? You might want to input an address or some other info.

Bejaysus, some developers can't see beyond the end of their nose.

You can run an app whilst on the phone.

[Sysman]

How many hefty processing jobs do you do on your phone, compared with browsing the web and actually wanting the web page to display correctly?

I wandered slightly off topic there and was wittering about the laptop.

There's a reason that there are over 200000 Apps in the iPhone store - their browser is crap so you need to download something that does the job of the website.

Is that the browser's fault or the number of websites which don't cater for phones? Serious question - I don't have an iPhone.

[TheFaQQer]

Oh, Flash. Now that we have warm weather, my laptop fan goes full belt when I'm viewing that stuff. The hit on battery life isn't the only consideration here, as from time to time I run some hefty processing jobs, and Flash slows them down.

How many hefty processing jobs do you do on your phone, compared with browsing the web and actually wanting the web page to display correctly?

There's a reason that there are over 200000 Apps in the iPhone store - their browser is crap so you need to download something that does the job of the website.

[Sysman]

I would assume that apps that can benefit, such as apps that stream audio, have already been updated to take advantage of this. The developers of those apps aren't going to want to be left behind by their competitors, and Apple are accepting iOS 4 versions of apps now for release on the launch date. But the vast majority of apps have no need of multitasking: you leave them to switch to another app, and they save their state and shut down; when you go back to them, they restore their state and are back where you left them. Any app that isn't already doing that seamlessly isn't going to be successful anyway.

It's not a new concept. Back with VB3 you had to call something-I've-forgotten to allow Winders itself to update a progress meter you were displaying.

And with the transition to NT4, I had a few apps which polled the keyboard continuously, thus hogging the CPU, until they were updated to behave properly. Fortunately I had a twin CPU system at the time so I could put such baddies onto CPU 1.

Oh, Flash. Now that we have warm weather, my laptop fan goes full belt when I'm viewing that stuff. The hit on battery life isn't the only consideration here, as from time to time I run some hefty processing jobs, and Flash slows them down.

[Sysman]

Just think - once all the apps are rewritten, it'll multi-task as well! Linky.

From the article:

"Why would you want to multitask during a game," explained one.

Like, er, when the phone rings? You might want to input an address or some other info.

Bejaysus, some developers can't see beyond the end of their nose.

[NickFitz]

Just think - once all the apps are rewritten, it'll multi-task as well! Linky.

I'm not sure what point that article is trying to make. It stands to reason that apps written for an OS that doesn't allow them to multitask (iPhone OS 3) aren't going to have any functionality that takes advantage of multitasking capabilities in iOS 4. It's not as if iPhone developers had a time machine that allowed them to program against a future version of the OS before it was created. As it is, the SDK for iOS 4 has been available for a few months now.

I would assume that apps that can benefit, such as apps that stream audio, have already been updated to take advantage of this. The developers of those apps aren't going to want to be left behind by their competitors, and Apple are accepting iOS 4 versions of apps now for release on the launch date. But the vast majority of apps have no need of multitasking: you leave them to switch to another app, and they save their state and shut down; when you go back to them, they restore their state and are back where you left them. Any app that isn't already doing that seamlessly isn't going to be successful anyway.

And it still doesn't do flash.

Yes, that is a blessing