1) So far, Android is for phones, tablets, TVs, Blu-Ray players, and kitchen appliances. I'm sure plenty more is coming.TheBigChuckbowski wrote: Android is for phones.
Xbox 360 and PS3 are video game consoles and shouldn't be expected to have full browsers.
1) More like phones, tablets made by companies no one has ever heard of and e-readers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Android_devicesmean wrote: 1) So far, Android is for phones, tablets, TVs, Blu-Ray players, and kitchen appliances. I'm sure plenty more is coming.
2) Oh! So they are content consumption devices... I see...
1) Doing research on wikipedia?TheBigChuckbowski wrote:1) More like phones, tablets made by companies no one has ever heard of and e-readers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Android_devices
1) Considering HP and Microsoft just gave up on their slates, let's wait until they actually hit the market before we call them products.mean wrote: 1) Doing research on wikipedia?
Google: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/04/ ... -imminent/
Dell: http://www.androidcentral.com/dell-look ... gra-2-love
Asus: http://www.androidtapp.com/asus-android-eee-pad/
Acer: http://phandroid.com/2009/06/02/acer-an ... y-october/
MSI: http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/08/msi- ... a-chipset/
Sony: http://androinica.com/2010/04/29/rumor- ... on-may-19/
Market newbs, but it exists: http://www.peopleoflava.com/
Not yet on the market: http://nexus404.com/Blog/2010/01/04/and ... ppliances/
2) Video games are content.
That would be underselling, I believe the concern here is Apple's overselling.mean wrote: Would you also bemoan Pepsi lying about being the choice of a new generation because your grandma drinks it?
Well, over-controlling, of content... Apple makes China and the Vatican look anti-authoritarian.LenexatoKCMO wrote: That would be underselling, I believe the concern here is Apple's overselling.
1) I'm not arguing that Android isn't big. I'm just arguing that isn't much more than a mobile OS at this point.mean wrote: 1) Dell has already released several Android products, albeit not (yet) the tablet; certainly is possible that some of the products I mentioned won't come to market. Perhaps none of them will; but it is inevitable that some will. At least one TV is already on the market--if you want to spend something like $2500 on a TV, anyway. More stuff is coming.
Frankly, I'm not really sure why you seem to be arguing the point that Android is big and getting bigger, unless you just like to argue.
2) I'm not sure what you mean by "they're not the internet". If you mean they don't have access to every possible combination of services available online, sure, ok. I'm fine with that. I don't really need a gopher client on my Xbox. I don't really want an SMTP client, or IRC client either. But I like having access to Netflix and the Zune Video Store and the ability to video chat.
The point is that it does the stuff I want it to do. It allows me to consume the kind of content I want to consume on it. If someone wanted to run a web browser on their gaming console, I might point them to a PS3 or Wii instead. Similarly, iPad allows its users to consume the kind of content its users want to consume. If you want broader access to content, obviously it isn't for you.
If you have a problem with the way it is marketed, then fine, but to me that's pretty petty. It's not like Apple is fooling anybody, tricking them into believing this thing is a replacement for a computer to do work on--it's just marketing speak. Would you also bemoan Pepsi lying about being the choice of a new generation because your grandma drinks it?
Sure, but the point is that it's marketing speak. Apple's current marketing material claims iPad is "The best way to experience the web, email, photos, and video." This may not be an objective, literal fact, but neither is it an objective, literal fact that A-1 makes hamburgers taste like steakburgers. If anyone literally expects A-1 to make their ground round taste like a KC strip, they're liable to be sorely disappointed.LenexatoKCMO wrote:That would be underselling, I believe the concern here is Apple's overselling.
Sure, and as a voter-with-dollars, I'll not be casting mine toward their products because I don't dig that.ignatius wrote:Well, over-controlling, of content... Apple makes China and the Vatican look anti-authoritarian.
I'd go with "embedded", but fair enough.TheBigChuckbowski wrote: 1) I'm not arguing that Android isn't big. I'm just arguing that isn't much more than a mobile OS at this point.
The point is that what is or isn't a "good" device for either of those things is totally subjective and dependent upon the user's needs. Personally, most of my surfing is done on a Linux box without either Flash or Silverlight (or whatever Novell's port is called) and I only really notice when I visit a Flash-only site with no HTML alternative--which is about the quickest way possible to make me immediately dismiss the site as worthless anyway. I definitely don't miss being begged to punch the monkey, or having some random idiot voice blast unexpectedly from my speakers to announce that I just won a free iPod, or having some crappy Flash audio player start blaring a band's music as soon as I begin loading their site. I'd probably be all about the iPad if I didn't despise The New Apple.TheBigChuckbowski wrote:2) Yes, you like having those things as a bonus. It's not why you bought the device. MANY people are buying the iPad as a video viewing device and/or an internet viewing device. They're buying it as one or both of those things because that is how it has been marketed. However, it cannot be a good device for either of those things in 2010 without Flash, without Silverlight, without the ability to use different codecs and file types.
It just depends on how much video you watch. I have ad block plus so I don't have to worry about Flash for ads. I can't imagine trying to make it through the blogs I read during the day without watching at least one Flash video. Yes, some sites have video in HTML5 but not a whole lot and I use Firefox so I wouldn't be able to watch 99% of them anyway.mean wrote: The point is that what is or isn't a "good" device for either of those things is totally subjective and dependent upon the user's needs. Personally, most of my surfing is done on a Linux box without either Flash or Silverlight (or whatever Novell's port is called) and I only really notice when I visit a Flash-only site with no HTML alternative--which is about the quickest way possible to make me immediately dismiss the site as worthless anyway. I definitely don't miss being begged to punch the monkey, or having some random idiot voice blast unexpectedly from my speakers to announce that I just won a free iPod, or having some crappy Flash audio player start blaring a band's music as soon as I begin loading their site. I'd probably be all about the iPad if I didn't despise The New Apple.
H.264 is a standard, which is free. Encoding software that coverts video to H.264 is written by software companies and is not always free. If you want totally free H.264 encoding then write your own encoder. Then of course it's still not free because it cost you time, which in all likelyhood means you would charge anyone to use your encoder to recoup your cost. Just like the big boys.TheBigChuckbowski wrote: For those that think H.264 is open and think it will be free forever. It's not free now, it's not open now, and it could get worse.
http://gizmodo.com/5530873/is-h264-a-le ... video-pros
Stop trusting Steve Jobs. Kthx.
If people pay for your content and it's encoded in H.264, you are supposed to pay a licensing fee separate from the program you used to encode it.shinatoo wrote: H.264 is a standard, which is free. Encoding software that coverts video to H.264 is written by software companies and is not always free. If you want totally free H.264 encoding then write your own encoder. Then of course it's still not free because it cost you time, which in all likelyhood means you would charge anyone to use your encoder to recoup your cost. Just like the big boys.
VP8 will be free and open and already has the support of Chrome and Firefox. Internet Explorer and Safari will support it if it becomes more popular than H.264. It's supposedly 40% more efficient and a better codec overall so there's really no reason for it to not get very popular unless Apple/Microsoft and other big organizations don't want it to.mean wrote: Historically, media standards have rarely been free and open. Red Book, mp3, gif, AAC, WMA, ATRAC, etc come to mind. Usually the patent holders aren't draconian asshats, but you never know. Recently we've been lucky to get PNG, Vorbis, FLAC and other free alternatives. In that vein, the only free and open alternative to H.264 that I'm aware of is Theora, which is great (even if it doesn't benchmark as well as H.264), but here's a theoretical scenario of what might happen if it becomes popular.
1) Non-Apple devices take up the Theora banner and develop hardware decoders to use in embedded applications.
2) Theora receives broad support from media companies, who begin encoding all their content.
3) In a few years, once adoption is broad, MPEG throws down the patent hammer lawsuit, claiming Theora infringes on any number of its H.264 patents and demanding royalties from hardware manufacturers and content owners / providers.
4) Protracted legal battle occurs, during which everyone moves their content and devices to H.264 "just to be safe" regardless of whether there's an court-ordered injunction.
5) After years slogging through the courts, Theora will either win or lose; regardless, everyone is using H.264 and Theora is dead.
No, the H.264 standard, like some others I mentioned earlier, is patented, and MPEG can therefore demand royalties from anyone who uses it. Regardless of whether you write your own encoder or magical fairies encode your video to H.264 for free, you will need to abide by MPEG's rules, which can include (and in this case does include) paying royalties to them if you're selling the video.shinatoo wrote:H.264 is a standard, which is free.
Maybe... it isn't now, and I'm a little skeptical that Google will actually let it go. We'll find out in a couple weeks. If they do, and if they move YouTube exclusively to HTML5 / VP8, that's by far the best case scenario. Not sure what Apple would do. Steve Jobs would probably take the stage at an event and foam at the mouth about how Google is eeeeevil. That would make me giggle.TheBigChuckbowski wrote:VP8 will be free and open and already has the support of Chrome and Firefox.
