Technology Wait for Evo or go iTouch ?

[pianoman511]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Alrighty, looking for some opinions here. The new HTC Android phone for Sprint (the HTC Evo) is most likely coming out in the beginning of June, however it is still unconfirmed. If anyone isn't familiar with it...well..it's beautiful. 4.3" touch screen, Android 2.1 with HTC sense, 8 MP camera (rear) and front facing camera, 720p video output, 1GHz snapdragon...basically it one ups the Incredible (if rumors are to be believed).

Bottom line, go with the Evo for rotations (i.e. all the medical apps) or get an iTouch and if necessary tether to the Evo. Since battery life MAY be an issue with the Evo given the screen size and the amount of use it would be getting if used specifically for apps would getting the iTouch as a standalone PDA be a better option or are more people just combining the phone & PDA and praying for decent battery life ? (iPhone users are welcome to chime in - much love 😍 )

Thanks !

 

[JacobSilge]

I hate to say it, but without knowing enough about the battery life of the Evo this question can't really be answered. While it sounds like the battery life will take a hit, there have also been rumors that battery life will be comparable to the iPhone 3GS - there is no way to know right now. Unless I am misreading your post, it sounds like you are going for the Evo either way, so I say try it out. If the battery life isn't working for you, you can always buy the iPod Touch later. My projection will be adequate battery life for a regular day, but battery can be an issue for almost any phone during 30 hour on-call nights.

Regarding medical apps, though it is extremely useful to have a few (namely Epocrates and a solid medical calculator), you probably aren't going to be using them for a huge portion of the day, but rather for a few short spurts while pre-rounding or while writing notes.

 

[Paseo Del Norte]

You also have to consider the new OS update this summer that will open the iPhone up for multitasking. One of the biggest pitfalls of the iPhone may very well be sorted.

 

[Slevin]

Alrighty, looking for some opinions here. The new HTC Android phone for Sprint (the HTC Evo) is most likely coming out in the beginning of June, however it is still unconfirmed. If anyone isn't familiar with it...well..it's beautiful. 4.3" touch screen, Android 2.1 with HTC sense, 8 MP camera (rear) and front facing camera, 720p video output, 1GHz snapdragon...basically it one ups the Incredible (if rumors are to be believed).

Bottom line, go with the Evo for rotations (i.e. all the medical apps) or get an iTouch and if necessary tether to the Evo. Since battery life MAY be an issue with the Evo given the screen size and the amount of use it would be getting if used specifically for apps would getting the iTouch as a standalone PDA be a better option or are more people just combining the phone & PDA and praying for decent battery life ? (iPhone users are welcome to chime in - much love 😍 )

Thanks !

We've had this discussion in class, I say go with the iPod touch. The application ecosystem is HUGE and if you ever decide to get an iPad or iPhone you won't have to pay twice for the apps.

Currently there looks like there is more of a growth potential with the iPod touch, several Android devices running the 1.0 version of software have no way to upgrade the OS so they are stuck on 1.0, I'm not sure that sprint really cares about you being able apply software updates to your devices when they are released, I don't recall any manufacturer really caring about providing security updates and so forth prior to the release of the iPhone.

While I'll admit that an android device has the potential to be a good device companies will either include or remove features that they want the user to have some have touch screens, some don't, some have plastic keyboards others have virtual ones.

But I I've said it before I think an iPhone would be best for you but you complained about the price of the monthly contract. So i'll still suggest the iPod touch. Your best bet would be to buy the iPod touch from amazon and use it for 3 weeks, if you like it then keep it, if not then you can return it to amazon without any fees except for the shipping charge and go get the HTC.

BTW check out my post in the Psych forum, I'm trying to get a question dropped from the exam, let me know what you think.

 

[JacobSilge]

Currently there looks like there is more of a growth potential with the iPod touch, several Android devices running the 1.0 version of software have no way to upgrade the OS so they are stuck on 1.0, I'm not sure that sprint really cares about you being able apply software updates to your devices when they are released...

While I'll admit that an android device has the potential to be a good device companies will either include or remove features that they want the user to have some have touch screens, some don't

I just wanted to dispel some slight mischaracterizations here. The phones that can't upgrade to Android 2.0+ are primarily the older, underspec'ed ones - phones with better specs like the Motorola Droid have been upgraded to the latest Android 2.1. Caveat, HTC might be slower, I don't know.

Second, all Android Phones have touch screens, albeit some are of poorer quality.

As I mentioned above, I don't think you can go wrong here.

 

[GoodmanBrown]

Alrighty, looking for some opinions here. The new HTC Android phone for Sprint (the HTC Evo) is most likely coming out in the beginning of June, however it is still unconfirmed. If anyone isn't familiar with it...well..it's beautiful. 4.3" touch screen, Android 2.1 with HTC sense, 8 MP camera (rear) and front facing camera, 720p video output, 1GHz snapdragon...basically it one ups the Incredible (if rumors are to be believed).

Bottom line, go with the Evo for rotations (i.e. all the medical apps) or get an iTouch and if necessary tether to the Evo. Since battery life MAY be an issue with the Evo given the screen size and the amount of use it would be getting if used specifically for apps would getting the iTouch as a standalone PDA be a better option or are more people just combining the phone & PDA and praying for decent battery life ? (iPhone users are welcome to chime in - much love 😍 )

Thanks !

It sounds like you're going to get the Evo regardless, right?

So, essentially, the question is if you should get a Touch for PDA functions and medical apps, and keep the phone as a phone? Personally, I'd wait to buy the Touch. It seems like most people rely on 3-4 medical apps almost entirely, so if you can find those on Android, you're mostly set. Epocrates is already out, and Android keeps getting new programs every day. I'd bet you could find what you needed.

Regarding battery life, I guess you'd just have to wait and see. It seems crazy to carry 2 separate devices that overlap so much. At that point, you've got issues with syncing both devices for different aspects of your life.

 

[Slevin]

Regarding the updates for the Android platform.

I still maintain that it'll be difficult to upgrade the android platform because once the update is released by google, the various companies have to modify the code to fit their device since the platform is not uniform, so to make the update work with every different version of android device out there they have to custom engineer the OS, how long this takes who can tell. Finally they have to push it out to users. So updates to the device may take many months from the update by google to the implementation on the device by the end user. This does not take into account the time it takes google to correct the problem.

Apple on the other hand identifies the problem, fixes it and pushes it out via iTunes as soon as it is available, end user doesn't have to wait.

Apple News website FWIW

 

[JacobSilge]

Regarding the updates for the Android platform.

I still maintain that it'll be difficult to upgrade the android platform because once the update is released by google, the various companies have to modify the code to fit their device since the platform is not uniform, so to make the update work with every different version of android device out there they have to custom engineer the OS, how long this takes who can tell. Finally they have to push it out to users. So updates to the device may take many months from the update by google to the implementation on the device by the end user. This does not take into account the time it takes google to correct the problem.

Apple on the other hand identifies the problem, fixes it and pushes it out via iTunes as soon as it is available, end user doesn't have to wait.

Apple News website FWIW

Oh yeah, I definitely agree with you that apple will always have it easier since they control the hardware and the software. Only the Nexus One can have its updates pushed out directly by Google. Regardless, it seems that Google is working on ways of updating specific components like the browser through the Android Marketplace, so it might alleviate some of the fragmentation issues. Definitely advantage Apple.

 

[spo01]

OP, I'm in a similar situation but am deciding whether to get an Evo/PC combo or an Iphone/Mac combo.

I think the Evo 4g is going to be better than the new I-phone coming out. I'm not bashing the I-phone and I wanted one for the longest time and now that I am switching phone services I have a tough choice between Sprint and AT&T/Iphone. A larger screen with the Evo is a huge plus too and if some battery life goes down so be it, I will simply recharge it. I realize the new I-phone isn't even out but here are some advantages to an Evo that I don't think will be with the I-phone:

1) No insurance for the I-phone- This is a deal breaker for me. I've talked to several AT&T reps that said there will still probably be no insurance for the new I-phone. Evo on the other hand will have insurance and at under $10 a month.

2) Sprint is cheaper-A $69.99 unlimited plan.

3) Sprint is the only company capable of a true 4g phone- I am not sure if this is completely true but this is what I was told from several friends who are technology freaks.

4) No adobe with Iphone- This was also confirmed by Jobs with the new Iphones to come out.


Feel free to correct me or chime in on anything I've said.

 

[pianoman511]

OP, I'm in a similar situation but am deciding whether to get an Evo/PC combo or an Iphone/Mac combo.

I think the Evo 4g is going to be better than the new I-phone coming out. I'm not bashing the I-phone and I wanted one for the longest time and now that I am switching phone services I have a tough choice between Sprint and AT&T/Iphone. A larger screen with the Evo is a huge plus too and if some battery life goes down so be it, I will simply recharge it. I realize the new I-phone isn't even out but here are some advantages to an Evo that I don't think will be with the I-phone:

1) No insurance for the I-phone- This is a deal breaker for me. I've talked to several AT&T reps that said there will still probably be no insurance for the new I-phone. Evo on the other hand will have insurance and at under $10 a month.

2) Sprint is cheaper-A $69.99 unlimited plan.

3) Sprint is the only company capable of a true 4g phone- I am not sure if this is completely true but this is what I was told from several friends who are technology freaks.

4) No adobe with Iphone- This was also confirmed by Jobs with the new Iphones to come out.


Feel free to correct me or chime in on anything I've said.

Yeah, I pretty much feel the same way. Sprint has by far the most affordable pricing plans with unlimited data, they are expanding the 4G network by leaps and bounds, and the TEP (insurance plan) for phones is very affordable. The other big thing is the reliability of AT&T's network. Sprint basically has the same 2G and 3G coverage as Verizon (since it roams on verizon's network with no additional charges) and with the addition of 4G you can't go wrong.

Like I said, the big limiting factor for me would be battery life, but that has yet to be determined. Other than that - the screen is awesome (bigger is better - maybe not for battery life though) and I think most apps that I want are available for ipod and android.

 

[Slevin]

OP, I'm in a similar situation but am deciding whether to get an Evo/PC combo or an Iphone/Mac combo.

I think the Evo 4g is going to be better than the new I-phone coming out. I'm not bashing the I-phone and I wanted one for the longest time and now that I am switching phone services I have a tough choice between Sprint and AT&T/Iphone. A larger screen with the Evo is a huge plus too and if some battery life goes down so be it, I will simply recharge it. I realize the new I-phone isn't even out but here are some advantages to an Evo that I don't think will be with the I-phone:

1) No insurance for the I-phone- This is a deal breaker for me. I've talked to several AT&T reps that said there will still probably be no insurance for the new I-phone. Evo on the other hand will have insurance and at under $10 a month.

You can get insurance from places other than AT&T to protect your device in the event that it is damaged or whatnot

iPhone insurance

2) Sprint is cheaper-A $69.99 unlimited plan.

This is true, which is why I ask people who I talk to if they need the always on internet. If not then don't get the iPhone, I get a 20% discount on my service plan and I'm still paying about $80 for 450 min with unlimited MMS. I wish AT&T had a cheap plan like this

3) Sprint is the only company capable of a true 4g phone- I am not sure if this is completely true but this is what I was told from several friends who are technology freaks.

I'm not sure about Sprint's network capabilities, but I do know that AT&T and Verizon are working to deploy the 4G network over the next few years. But AFAIK the Sprint 4G service is only available in a few select areas but according the sprint website 4G network isn't available where the OP currently lives.

4) No adobe with Iphone- This was also confirmed by Jobs with the new Iphones to come out.

Big deal, you show me any other mobile phone that has a mobile version of flash. Adobe can't get their **** together to develop flash, doesn't really matter anyway according to CNN Money flash is dying, which it should. It's an outdated technology, there are better solutions out there but people are lazy and they don't want to reformat their websites. As it stands now Apple devices control a huge segment of the mobile web and eventually if content owners want to reach them they will use HTML 5 rather than flash because its unsupported. Over 10 years ago the first iMac was released, it had no floppy disk drive, people said Apple was crazy to do that, batsh**t insane even, now find me a computer on a store shelf that has a floppy drive. Technologies die and are replaced with better options, sometimes it takes an industry heavyweight to get the ball rolling even if people think it's an unpopular idea at the time. Besides not having flash hasn't hurt apple from selling over 85 million iPhone OS devices since it was released.

Feel free to correct me or chime in on anything I've said.

Will do, correct me if I'm wrong on any of my points

 

[spo01]

You can get insurance from places other than AT&T to protect your device in the event that it is damaged or whatnot

iPhone insurance

I do not want to go through a third party for several reasons. First off, I don't trust it. Second, it's an extra bill even if there is an automatic deduction. I have so many bills coming out my ass that I want one solid bill for a phone service.

This is true, which is why I ask people who I talk to if they need the always on internet. If not then don't get the iPhone, I get a 20% discount on my service plan and I'm still paying about $80 for 450 min with unlimited MMS. I wish AT&T had a cheap plan like this

The internet on the phone will be my primary source. I don't even have internet now and come to McDonalds to reply to these messages. So once I get the phone I will be tethering like a mad man. $40 is a huge jump, lucky for you on the 20% off, how did you get that?

I'm not sure about Sprint's network capabilities, but I do know that AT&T and Verizon are working to deploy the 4G network over the next few years. But AFAIK the Sprint 4G service is only available in a few select areas but according the sprint website 4G network isn't available where the OP currently lives.

Working on it yes, but right now Sprint is ahead of the market with it.

Big deal, you show me any other mobile phone that has a mobile version of flash. Adobe can't get their **** together to develop flash, doesn't really matter anyway according to CNN Money flash is dying, which it should. It's an outdated technology, there are better solutions out there but people are lazy and they don't want to reformat their websites. As it stands now Apple devices control a huge segment of the mobile web and eventually if content owners want to reach them they will use HTML 5 rather than flash because its unsupported. Over 10 years ago the first iMac was released, it had no floppy disk drive, people said Apple was crazy to do that, batsh**t insane even, now find me a computer on a store shelf that has a floppy drive. Technologies die and are replaced with better options, sometimes it takes an industry heavyweight to get the ball rolling even if people think it's an unpopular idea at the time. Besides not having flash hasn't hurt apple from selling over 85 million iPhone OS devices since it was released.

True, I mainly added this because it was on the front page of yahoonews earlier. However, I am a bit old school. I still type out all my html codes on my webpage and periodically use flash.


I am hoping that the Iphone will come to Verizon, but from what I'm told because of the operating systems and such it would be nearly impossible (or it would be a watered down version). I don't put anything past Jobs though. I can hardly keep up with technology. I know the second I purchase a 4g phone the next month there will be some phone that levitates, takes xrays, see's through people's clothing, and reads your mind so you don't even have to bother typing.

 

[Slevin]

I do not want to go through a third party for several reasons. First off, I don't trust it. Second, it's an extra bill even if there is an automatic deduction. I have so many bills coming out my ass that I want one solid bill for a phone service.

I think it's a one time payment, not a recurring monthly thing, that being said taking a quick look at the prices they are cheaper than the $120/year

lucky for you on the 20% off, how did you get that?

Previous employer and after I quit I never got it taken off

Working on it yes, but right now Sprint is ahead of the market with it.

Currently they are ahead, but just because a company had a lead doesn't mean it'll maintain that lead. Look at the iPhone 4 years ago Apple had zero market share, when it was announced everyone said it wouldn't gain traction. Palm's CEO and Ballmer both laughed at the notion of Apple coming up with a viable platform, now their market share is in the single digits. It's nice to be out front but they will have to innovate to stay ahead of the pack

True, I mainly added this because it was on the front page of yahoonews earlier. However, I am a bit old school. I still type out all my html codes on my webpage and periodically use flash.

Most people complain about it not supporting flash because they are reluctant to let go of old, dying technologies. Adobe wrote off the iPhone when it came out, they even shut down their mobile division and now they want to play but Apple doesn't care, you walk away from the table don't expect to be let back in. That's the same problem with MS, they have built their products around supporting technology that's more than 20 years old. The windows registry is archaic and totally unnecessary if they migrated to a modern way of dealing with files and what not. Just look at OS X, all the applications are individual files, most don't need to install support files over the entire system to work, just conveniently bundled together as one file, so most of the time you can just delete the application and be done with it, no need to search out for drivers the application installed, or DLL's, etc, just drag to the trash and you are done.

I am hoping that the Iphone will come to Verizon, but from what I'm told because of the operating systems and such it would be nearly impossible (or it would be a watered down version). I don't put anything past Jobs though. I can hardly keep up with technology. I know the second I purchase a 4g phone the next month there will be some phone that levitates, takes xrays, see's through people's clothing, and reads your mind so you don't even have to bother typing

I'm not sure that Verizon will get the iPhone until the 4G networks are deployed, maybe not even then. The rumor goes that Apple went to Verizon first and Verizon turned them down, they wanted too much control over the device, El Steve-O didn't like that, didn't like them taking away from the end user experience so he went elsewhere which is how Cingular (then AT&T) got the iPhone. Apple tends to reward loyalty and AT&T is loyal to Apple, they took a risk on a device that no one had seen or even used outside of Apple and they deserve to be rewarded for that.

 

[GoodmanBrown]

Most people complain about it not supporting flash because they are reluctant to let go of old, dying technologies. Adobe wrote off the iPhone when it came out, they even shut down their mobile division and now they want to play but Apple doesn't care, you walk away from the table don't expect to be let back in. That's the same problem with MS, they have built their products around supporting technology that's more than 20 years old. The windows registry is archaic and totally unnecessary if they migrated to a modern way of dealing with files and what not. Just look at OS X, all the applications are individual files, most don't need to install support files over the entire system to work, just conveniently bundled together as one file, so most of the time you can just delete the application and be done with it, no need to search out for drivers the application installed, or DLL's, etc, just drag to the trash and you are done.

I disagree that the hubbub about Flash is simply because people can't let go. Flash is still more broadly used than H.264 on the Internet. So, unpackaging your iPad and not being able to access websites is a legit complaint about the device. Instead, you have to go to the iTunes store and download special applications for each site you like (while hoping they have one out). That's a hassle. Not that Steve doesn't have some decent reasons for liking H.264 video which he outlined in his white paper. But, let's not pin a rose on a pig and call it pretty. Just the fact that it's such an issue shows that people are annoyed by the decision, regardless of the reasons.

As for Adobe walking away and now Steve's upset and won't let them back in, that'd be frankly concerning. To have the CEO of a company acting in such an immature, petty fashion should be worrying to anyone who has a vested interest in the company. Not that I'd be overly surprised. The man can design a nice mobile device, but it sounds like he's a real prick.

 

[pianoman511]

If you look at his speech where he criticizes Flash, one of his argument's is that it isn't completely open source for developers....uhhh....Steve....app approval process for iPhone/iPad and Mac OS ????

 

[Slevin]

If you look at his speech where he criticizes Flash, one of his argument's is that it isn't completely open source for developers....uhhh....Steve....app approval process for iPhone/iPad and Mac OS ????

He was actually talking about the web, not developed applications. Besides when you develop an application with flash or any other cross platform it's another layer between the user and device. Programs encoded with cross platform tools may not take advantage of all the abilities of the device if the cross platform tool doesn't implement them in their development tool.

The App store approval process is designed to make sure that an application will run correctly and doesn't have any malignant code embedded within it. It also serves as a filter to restrict content such as porn, now you may like porn but there are other places you can go to get porn if you would like. We don't see many people complaining that the Supermarket doesn't sell hustler along with the rest of the newspapers that they sell do we?

Ultimately it's the consumer that determines if a product is successful by spending their dollars on a product. If they like it they'll buy it, if not they'll go somewhere else and the developers will follow because that's where the money is.

If you read the whole thoughts on flash you'll realize that the open/closed model was only one point of the argument. Another point is that on OS X flash is a leading cause of browser crashes, why would apple want to incorporate a product that causes crashes on their desktop systems into a mobile device? You show me a cell phone that runs flash well with a native version of flash, because as of right now, there are none available. Adobe hasn't made a mobile version of flash yet.

But I do have this

Video of an Android tablet running Adobe flash... look it crashes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hqFT...layer_embedded

 

[Slevin]

Sixth, the most important reason.

Besides the fact that Flash is closed and proprietary, has major technical drawbacks, and doesn’t support touch based devices, there is an even more important reason we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. We have discussed the downsides of using Flash to play video and interactive content from websites, but Adobe also wants developers to adopt Flash to create apps that run on our mobile devices.

We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers.

This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor’s platforms.

Flash is a cross platform development tool. It is not Adobe’s goal to help developers write the best iPhone, iPod and iPad apps. It is their goal to help developers write cross platform apps. And Adobe has been painfully slow to adopt enhancements to Apple’s platforms. For example, although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X.

Our motivation is simple – we want to provide the most advanced and innovative platform to our developers, and we want them to stand directly on the shoulders of this platform and create the best apps the world has ever seen. We want to continually enhance the platform so developers can create even more amazing, powerful, fun and useful applications. Everyone wins – we sell more devices because we have the best apps, developers reach a wider and wider audience and customer base, and users are continually delighted by the best and broadest selection of apps on any platform.

 

[pianoman511]

He was actually talking about the web, not developed applications. Besides when you develop an application with flash or any other cross platform it's another layer between the user and device. Programs encoded with cross platform tools may not take advantage of all the abilities of the device if the cross platform tool doesn't implement them in their development tool.

The App store approval process is designed to make sure that an application will run correctly and doesn't have any malignant code embedded within it. It also serves as a filter to restrict content such as porn, now you may like porn but there are other places you can go to get porn if you would like. We don't see many people complaining that the Supermarket doesn't sell hustler along with the rest of the newspapers that they sell do we?

Ultimately it's the consumer that determines if a product is successful by spending their dollars on a product. If they like it they'll buy it, if not they'll go somewhere else and the developers will follow because that's where the money is.

If you read the whole thoughts on flash you'll realize that the open/closed model was only one point of the argument. Another point is that on OS X flash is a leading cause of browser crashes, why would apple want to incorporate a product that causes crashes on their desktop systems into a mobile device? You show me a cell phone that runs flash well with a native version of flash, because as of right now, there are none available. Adobe hasn't made a mobile version of flash yet.

But I do have this

Video of an Android tablet running Adobe flash... look it crashes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hqFT...layer_embedded

I don't know about flash on other platforms (never used them), but on WinMo 6.5 that I am using w/ my current phone (HTC Touch Pro) - Skyfire works fine for flash integrated browser and I have never had it crash. The problem overall is that (as stated above) Flash is everywhere on the web. It's fairly user friendly in terms of programming so a ton of people have utilized it both for business and personal websites.

It's great that the App store filters out apps that may not work well, but in the long run it screens out some apps for "other reasons". If they have so much of a concern about making sure everything works ok, then why not have a section of the app store that actually has a disclaimer "these may not work 100%) ?

 

[Slevin]

The problem overall is that (as stated above) Flash is everywhere on the web. It's fairly user friendly in terms of programming so a ton of people have utilized it both for business and personal websites.

It's not that it's utilized on the web in allot of places, its just a dying technology. If people kept that idea that something was ubiquitous we would still have floppy drives in our computers. Adobe does have a few good applications but flash isn't one of them, it's a processor hog which kills batteries. The joojoo, a tablet like device, had flash installed on it and it was clocked at having a 2.5 hour battery life when using flash, without flash the battery life was 5 hours.

Its great that the App store filters out apps that may not work well, but in the long run it screens out some apps for "other reasons". If they have so much of a concern about making sure everything works ok, then why not have a section of the app store that actually has a disclaimer "these may not work 100%) ?

Apple wants products to work, they don't want to say hey this might not work because in general people are not that computer literate and they'll blame the device maker more than the application maker. So why would Apple want to catch flack for an application that was programed poorly and ruined a consumers opinion of the device.

Again, like I've said before this argument only really applies to a small portion of the consumer market, most people don't care that the iPhone doesn't run flash and they'll probably never notice it on their devices. I dislike websites that run in flash, I find them to be a pain in the ass. My biggest pet peeve is that you can't use the back button otherwise you lose your place on the site.

With over 1 million iPads sold in under a month and 85+ million iPhone OS devices all running without flash, having flash on a device is a non-issue. The consumer market has spoken and what they are saying is that we don't care about flash, it's not important to us.

 

[Slevin]

Speaking of flash, they are scrapping flash for HTML 5

Scribd co-founder and chief technology officer Jared Friedman tells me: “We are scrapping three years of Flash development and betting the company on HTML5 because we believe HTML5 is a dramatically better reading experience than Flash. Now any document can become a Web page.

TechCrunch

 

[Slevin]

More issues with flash, ends up it’s a bad idea to bet your platform on a software dependency outside your control.

Smartbooks have failed to materialise due to delays in Flash optimisation, a lower-than-expected uptake of Linux on netbooks, and the sudden emergence of tablets, ARM's marketing chief has said.

Source

 

[Slevin]

Opera software vs Flash

"But at Opera we say that the future of the web is open web standards and Flash is not an open web standards technology.

"Flash does have its purposes and will have its purposes, the same as [Microsoft's] Silverlight and others, especially for dynamic content.

"But flash as a video container makes very little sense for CPU, WiFi battery usage etcetera - you can cook an egg on [devices] once you start running Flash on them and there's a reason for that."

Source

 

[Slevin]

Microsoft's take on flash

The future of the web is HTML5. Microsoft is deeply engaged in the HTML5 process with the W3C. HTML5 will be very important in advancing rich, interactive web applications and site design. The HTML5 specification describes video support without specifying a particular video format. We think H.264 is an excellent format. In its HTML5 support, IE9 will support playback of H.264 video only.

Hachamovitch goes on to acknowledge that video on the web today is primarily Flash-based, and while Microsoft continues to work with Adobe on Flash, he also notes that it carries some issues related to reliability, security, and performance.

Source

 

[Slevin]

Over the next few months to years you will see more companies develop ideas that flash isn't necessary. Even MS (and I almost never agree with MS) feels that flash's time is up and its time to make way for HTML 5.

You can try to argue that flash is necessary for the web, but it's really not 66% of videos on the web are encoded with H264. HTML 5 can be used to build rich interactive websites. People like using flash because it's easy, not because it's the best tool out there.

It'll take time and flash will never completely go away but it'll fade in importance and no one will really notice or care in five years.

 

[Slevin]

And another website that is moving away from flash. I know it's not a big website but just goes to show that as HTML 5 gets adopted more sites will let flash die.

I think I'll stop posting about the anti-flash revolution for now because I think I made my point

WFMU, a listener-supported, non-commercial radio station headquartered in Jersey City, New Jersey, broadcasting at 91.1 (and at 90.1 as WMFU) MHz FM, offering a free-form format, has begun testing live streaming audio in HTML5.

WFMU's test page states:

This demo of our live mp3 stream seems to work well on Chrome (Mac/PC) and Safari (Mac). No flash is being used.

 

[1UP]

...It'll take time and flash will never completely go away but it'll fade in importance and no one will really notice or care in five years...

The thing is five years in IT is basically equivalent to an eon.

 

[Slevin]

The thing is five years in IT is basically equivalent to an eon.

This is true, but someone has to get the ball rolling.


Oh and an update to the ScribeD website, allready using HTML5 instead of flash.

If you are using a browser that supports HTML 5 you can check it out here if not get a browser that does support HTML 5 like FF, safari, Chrome, Opera

 

[JacobSilge]

This is true, but someone has to get the ball rolling.

Someone has to start it, and I look forward to HTML5 replacing Flash. But it is a risky business strategy for mobile tech since that's over two contracts from now. Apple can weather this because there are enough people who are already invested in their ecosystem. For anyone else, the risk is far greater.

 

[Slevin]

Sorry, couldn't resist but again for all the flash supporters...

Here’s what happened: On his Mac, Ryan pulled up a site called Eco Zoo. It is, seemingly, a pretty intense example of Flash development — full of 3D rendering, rich interactions, and cute little characters. Then, he pulled up the same thing on his Nexus One. The site’s progress bar filled in and the 3D world appeared for a few seconds before the browser crashed. Ryan said (paraphrasing), “Whoops! Well, it’s beta, and this is an intense example — let’s try it again.” He tried it again and got the same result. So he said to the audience, “Well, this one isn’t going to work, but does anyone have a Flash site they’d like to see running?” Someone shouted out “Hulu.” Ryan said, “Hulu doesn’t work,” and then wrapped up his demo, telling people if they wanted to try more sites they could find him later and he’d let them play with his Nexus One.

Adobe is already way behind in shipping a full Flash player that works well on mobile. The natives are getting restless, as they say. A demo that crashes on everything it tries is not an effective way to gain confidence that you, as a company, are getting close to a polished product. The bottom line is that those of us who attended FlashCamp got a demo of Flash running on an Android phone, indeed — and it wasn’t impressive. We never saw an example of a site that worked without crashing under this beta version of Android

Source

BTW I'm still waiting on a reply from all those flash supporters out there

 

[GoodmanBrown]

Sorry, couldn't resist but again for all the flash supporters...

Source

BTW I'm still waiting on a reply from all those flash supporters out there

I don't really think there's much to argue. You keep posting individual experiences and using them to "prove" that Flash is dying. Maybe it is. Is anyone even arguing that?

My point was (and is) that in the current market, Flash is a handy thing to have on your computer/iPad/whatever because currently (i.e. today, right now) a decent number of sites use flash. So, having to download a separate app for the NY Times site and one for Hulu and one for Netflix is a pain in the ass. On my computer, I just click a bookmark, and I'm there.

You made a big deal about the floppy disk and how Apple helped kill that. And yeah, you're right, Apple did. But my whole point there is that for a year or so, a bunch of people with floppy disks were annoyed because they couldn't use them with Apple computers. Like flash right now...

 

[Slevin]

I don't really think there's much to argue. You keep posting individual experiences and using them to "prove" that Flash is dying. Maybe it is. Is anyone even arguing that?

My point was (and is) that in the current market, Flash is a handy thing to have on your computer/iPad/whatever because currently (i.e. today, right now) a decent number of sites use flash. So, having to download a separate app for the NY Times site and one for Hulu and one for Netflix is a pain in the ass. On my computer, I just click a bookmark, and I'm there.

You made a big deal about the floppy disk and how Apple helped kill that. And yeah, you're right, Apple did. But my whole point there is that for a year or so, a bunch of people with floppy disks were annoyed because they couldn't use them with Apple computers. Like flash right now...

NYTimes doesn't require a separate app, it codes all it's video via brightroom in HTML 5 for iPhone OS devices and the such, The website reads just like it would if you had it open in your browser besides the App itself is anemic, doesn't have the full content available due to a previous agreement with Amazon and the Kindle. Hulu doesn't have its own app out as of yet although it doesn't support HTML 5 yet, it will soon. Denying hulu the ability to stream content to the iPhone OS devices will just force them to switch over to using HTML 5 eventually, especially if they go towards a user pay site. I can browse the Netflix website and do everything that I can on my laptop without having to use the dedicated application without the exception of streaming video, however they can include that if they would like to stream video directly via the iPhone browser, I assume that they have a dedicated application to enhance the user experience. To take full use of all the API's that apple is providing them that aren't accessible via a web interface.

Continuing to provide support for Flash just acts like a crutch, eventually the web will feel the pressure to move away from it, it'll take time but by people will eventually move away. In the end it's all really semantics Apple and their ecosystem of mobile devices will move away from supporting flash if consumers continue to buy the devices, content providers will be forced to either support non flash methods for reaching end users or be locked out of a segment of the market. Collectively consumers will make the choice, just like when they chose USB over firewire in the 00's. If you don't like the options that Apple's products provide for you then don't use them and don't buy them because by doing both you are validating their position (either indirectly or directly) but look at it this way by the end of the year Apple will be the number 1 tablet manufacturer in the world, having sold over 1 million table devices at the end of one month within the USA only, wait till the foreign markets open up and the holiday season rolls around. I bet selling 5 million units is a low ball estimate.

 

[StatCoder]

Adobe has yet to release Flash for any mobile device, anyway, so it's not as if it would be currently available for any mobile user as of today. I would bet that websites will move away from Flash more rapidly than Adobe could actually implement a stable version of it for smartphones and iPads.

 

[1UP]

One thing being assumed by the anti-flash crowd is that Flash as we know it won't change once HTML 5 is the de facto standard. This seems like a logical fallacy. It is quite possible that Adobe is working on implementing new, revolutionary features in Flash that will make it as or more relevant to the marketplace than it is today. Adobe didn't get to be where they are by being blind to the future. I highly doubt they have been ignoring the writing on the wall with regard to HTML 5 even when the standard was in its infancy. Depending on what Adobe does with Flash could, in the end, make Apple quite sorry with regard to the position it has taken.

 

[GoodmanBrown]

Back on topic, the Evo does look like a pretty sweet phone, though the plan doesn't sound cheap by any means.

Link #1 - Some videos demonstrating download speeds and its video chat
Link #2 - Pricing info, tethering, Mobile Wifi hotspot

 

[JacobSilge]

Back on topic, the Evo does look like a pretty sweet phone, though the plan doesn't sound cheap by any means.

Link #1 - Some videos demonstrating download speeds and its video chat
Link #2 - Pricing info, tethering, Mobile Wifi hotspot

Eh, it might be expensive by Sprint standards, but $80/month for a phone with 4g and texting is still less than a 3g plan with texting from Verizon or AT&T. The real shame is that if you don't live where there is 4g coverage, you still have to pay for it.

 

[TMP-SMX]

Most people should be eligible for some kind of discount from sprint or AT&T on their plans through school/work. Not sure what verizon does.

 

[docss26]

Evo 4g comes out this Friday, I am switching from T-mobile to Sprint. My concern is the battery life. I have heard that HTC may offer a bigger battery that will last much longer than stock.