iPad roundup: New York Times and others get HTML5 video, iPad app store demo, and more
By Thomas Ricker 
posted March 29th 2010 2:11AM
posted March 29th 2010 2:11AM
Also rumored for launch is an iBookstore filled with 30,000 free e-Books courtesy of the Gutenberg Project. See the screengrab evidence after the break in addition to a purported video walkthrough of the iPad store. The video previews several new "HD" formatted iPad apps that we've already seen as well as a few new ones like Twitterific. Sorry, still no Hulu HD. The mouse pointer in the video, however, makes it clear that this is running on desktop somewhere, not on an iPad. Still, it definitely looks the part.
One proprietary standard or another.
Decisions, decisions.
@MarkAnderson How is HTML5 proprietary at all? It's freaking HTML!!!
@franktinsley HTML5 video, specifically it's implementation on Apple devices, uses h.264 encoding which is propitiatory but is remaining free to use until at least 2016.
@laxlaxlax .. Both Apple and Microsoft have H.264 licenses. So it is FREE for all Mac and Windows users. Chrome and Firefox just need to let the OS handle the video.
@MarkAnderson
+1 to what Atkins said and also, the issue isn't simply about the openness of the standard, it's also about stability and performance. If I'm browsing the web and see my CPU utilization jump to 100%, it's a safe bet that it's some web site running Flash.
@taligent Well, it doesn't work that way. If the video is decoded in the browser, the browser has to license the tech. If you want something else to decode it, that means a plug-in. As it happens, that wouldn't be HTML5 alone anymore.
Browsers having playback of video is ok. There are a lot of features that HTML5 does not support in the realm of video playback. Some of which, like DRM, is going to limit people like Netflix from delivering content over HTML5.
I do look forward to when HTML5 and beyond becomes a fully supported standard and runs well. (some benchmarks have shown HTML5 video playback to use more CPU power than the new Flash beta build!!), but I still am annoying at Apple's anti-Adobe stance. Or it is just Jobs and his piss-***-ego?
*sigh* I don't need protection from a corporate giant who care only for money, not about me. I want flexibility and choices.
@Anatidae .. so what you're saying is that Chrome/Firefox just need to write plugins to defer video decoding to the OS. Sounds fine to me. Actually it sounds great as you have greater ability to kill the plugin should it misbehave (as it will run in a separate memory space).
As for Job's ego. That isn't the reason. Apple approached Adobe early on during the development of the iPhone and gave them opportunity to get their shit into gear. They did nothing. Flash was still a disaster on the Mac during the period from 2005-2007. Only NOW are they getting their act into gear. But it is all too little, too late.
@taligent
Wait... are you trying to talk sense into Apple Haters?
When will you turn to iPad-friendly website, Engadget?
@MarkAnderson
Good job, man. First comment and you made an ass out of yourself.
@Wesscoast I don't hate Apple, but I hate Apple's false advertising. HTML5 =/= Flash. Frankly, I don't care what technology delivers the experience I develop for clients. Flash, Silverlight, HTML, whatever...
But as someone who has been trying for the last month to replicate our current client work to HTML5 and get it running on all browsers... nightmare and a waste of time and money. And I was doing this for my clients because I really like the idea of this new type of tablet device.
The pitch is that HTML5 can replace Flash (and even Silverlight). But it just isn't so. Maybe HTML6 will. I don't know. I can only speak for the browsers that exist today.
On a device like the iPad, what I want is Flash and Silverlight installed but a click-to-activate type implementation. A still image is dropped in place until I click on it. Still sucks for advertisers, but that would solve complaints about crashing, battery, slowness or whatever as Flash wouldn't load until you wanted it to. And yet, it would allow you to browse advanced media sites on the iPad that are using plug-in technologies.
Sad when a plea for freedom and the choice to "think different" on the iPad is converted to "anti-Apple". Come on. Apple is where I started designing with the Adobe tools and where I compiled my first Flash app. Apple + Adobe has been the win combination for years.
Remember guys, there's a Report button. Don't feed the troll.
@Sean Parker
Yeah. HighestRanked2 has become an abusive, passive aggressive troll. He was banned once, and should be banned again. Reported.
@Anatidae Nightmares, you wanna talk nightmares. Way back when non-linear video editing started, this little company called Avid used the Macintosh platform as their source for video editing. Granted back then you had to take the final cut, export and EDL and use the tapes to rework the show back to a linear editing system. Things were progressing well and Avid soon grew to be the de-facto video editing standard. Then MS stepped in and strong-armed Avid into using just the Windows platform. This is where the nightmare began. And by Now Steve Jobs was in exile from the company he created, so he went off to create two more companies, NEXT and Pixar. At first Avid wouldn't/couldn't use anything QuickTime. People went, "Whoa, WTF?", then the codecs used became very proprietary as did the drives. An off-the-shelf drive you could get for $500 (back then) was about $5k with the Avid name on it and a dongle was needed in order to edit with these drives. With all the people bitching, Avid relented and hobbled a newer Mac version of Avid but by then Apple bought out this little company called KeyGrip by Macromedia and developed Final Cut Pro. While an Avid system cost $130,000.00 and was hardware driven, FCP was mostly software driven and cost maybe $10,000.00 to put together a decent system. It took a while but if you notice that 9 out of 10 of the documentaries nominated for an Oscar® this year were cut on Final Cut Pro. Not to leave out people like Walter Murch, The Coen Brothers, Steven Soderbergh, etc... all use FCP, the nightmare is now over and Avid is scrambling to keep up. Most broadcast companies boast bout having 20 TB servers, well I have 11 TB on my home system using any kind of drives I want. To get back on topic, Apple chooses to use HTML5, to enhance the experience not at the expense of processor/battery power. Flash is like the dinosaur of web media interaction and like Avid, I'm sure Adobe will soon be scrambling to keep up. Maybe they should have listened to Steve Jobs? I don't believe Apple chose HTML5 to diss Adobe, they just want a better experience for their customers and when other companies don't play nice, Apple decides to do what they feel is best for their customers. I'm sure companies and people will adapt. If anyone finds any errors in this little history lesson, please correct me if I'm wrong. I just feel that Apple just brings fresher ideas to the user experience, people complain, companies adapt and everyone is happy.
@commonman
http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define:+paragraph
@commonman
PPL who are touting HTML 5 as the future of the web are probably the same ppl who havent a clue what RIA's actually are, havent used Silverlight, or Flex, or Air, or SVG, and are just parroting what El Jobso says because it runs crappy on 7-12% of all computers on the market (Macs, Linux, and netbooks). For the rest of us its running all great. HTML 5 can barely do what AS2 was doing years ago, and its still not a standard and wont be for a couple of years.
These are beta's, to test the waters. I think the future of the web will still have Flash applications similar to how there are still ActiveX/IE6 deployments, and AX/IE6 did waaaaaay more damage to net progress than Flash has ever done.
Here's a novel idea. Let's get rid of iTunes for the PC. It run's like a hog on way more machines than Flash does. Oh wait, that's right, people like me don't need to try to convince everyone that there is only one way of doing things.
@Andurilan Whether HTML5 has been officially declared a standard or not, isn't what makes or breaks the future of HTML5 video. Adoption of HTML5 video by the big browser makers, and website developers is.
Flash has never been declared an official standard for web video, but never the less it's been the de facto standard for streaming video on the web for almost a decade now. And Internet Explorer has always had a lot of non-standard-compliant HTML code in it, which practically forced web developers to adapt their code to this MS non-standard.
Speaking of MS and Internet Explorer; the news that IE9 will have support for HTML5 video (H.264) is probably what's going to tip the scale for HTML5 video and accelerate its proliferation.
@tonicboy
Or that you have a piece of crap computer that doesn't have GPU accelerated flash.
@Anatidae You realize that the spec isn't complete and the part of it that would allow htlm5 to replace flash is being blocked by Adobe.
@commonman The only correction to your story I'd add (very well reasoned) is that Steve Jobs didn't create Pixar. He bought it from George Lucas for $10 million. And now he's owns 16 percent of Disney thanks, in large part, to that investment - and a lot of imagination.
Sabatoging this thread with a question: Does iPhone's Safari actually support HTML5 video already? The only place I know to try it is YouTube's HTML5 beta, and trying that on the iPhone still brings up the dedicated YouTube player.
@Anatidae Looks like there might be some money in converting the millions of restaurant menus that are in flash. Time to start googling my local restaurants and see who needs my services!
@jimlivingston
As a web developer I'm still not convinced that all the technology that HTML5 brings can replace Flash/Silverlight. HTML5 with SVG, Canvas and video tags seems like like what Flash used to do 8 years ago.
@franktinsley Encryption only matters if it’s unencrypted only for the targeted client, like Adobe does for the Flash Player. The problem is that with an open browser, it’s hard to restrict the stream like Adobe can do with the Flash Player. In the past hackers have been able to reverse engineer Adobe’s efforts, but Adobe have plugged those holes in later Flash releases, working to stay one step ahead of hackers in new versions of Flash. Opinions: http://bit.ly/ipad-verdict-viewed
@commonman Funny you use the Final Cut Pro analogy. As an ex-Avid editor, a Final Cut Pro editor and a Smoke finishing editor, I went down the path of Avid.
Avid hurt themselves by forcing people to use their overpriced hardware, while other software packages offered more flexibility.
No one is forcing anyone to use Flash. Rather, Apple is forcing people to use the technology on their overpriced hardware. Apple could heed your Avid warning as well and consider the value of letting your customers have choices.
The Flash plugin is commonly used, but not forced. Not like Avid forcing you to use their drives. I get a better experience watching Netflix with Silverlight, so I use that there.
If Engadget was built entirely in Flash, I might go mad unless they did it incredibly well. Yet sites like http://www.thefwa.com show you can build elegant sites within Flash. Personally I wouldn't have.
HTML has its place. Flash picks up where the browser leaves off with a more powerful media display engine. ActionScript 3 is more developed than Javascript in the browser and the Flash platform offers a few great features that HTML cannot.
For instance, I can build a rich media app where people get to design the layout of their homes. Coloring the walls, placing furniture, etc... I can also wrap that into an AIR app very quickly. I can deploy it on mulitple platforms pixel perfect and bundle it into a self executable app to run on a CD for distribution. When connected to the internet, I can offer live video help of a costumer service representative and allow you to use your own webcam to have a face to face conversation.
I am not anti-HTML. But it does not cover every job. That is just a fact. Apple's war on Flash just serves to limit the experience on the iPad that otherwise could be perfectly fine. No argument has convinced me why we can't have it all? Who wants a cake they can't eat? Come on.
@VampireHunterZ - Neither am I. But, what decent restaurant would not want to be found by people using the iPad. I think I will solicit some and sell them on creating a separate streamlined site for iPhone and iPad users. A nice customizable template might make me some decent money this summer!
@Anatidae
"I am not anti-HTML. But it does not cover every job. That is just a fact. Apple's war on Flash just serves to limit the experience on the iPad that otherwise could be perfectly fine. No argument has convinced me why we can't have it all? Who wants a cake they can't eat? Come on."
Good points, no HTML isn't the fit for every situation. But in relation to how the content is processed, it clearly benefits portable devices with battery life to consider.
@franktinsley
And H.264 is a proprietary codec administered by MPEG LA. It may be free to end users - note that, end users, not developers - until the end of 2015 but after that...
Yeah. OK.
So what you have is Flash - which is proprietary but free to end users as a viewer and HTML 5 which is a framework dependent on codecs such as H.264 or, say, Ogg Theora to play video which is free to end users. Both have other licensing costs.
Something to bear in mind when hitting that downrank button or assuming someone is an ass.
@prodeziner "Good points, no HTML isn't the fit for every situation. But in relation to how the content is processed, it clearly benefits portable devices with battery life to consider."
I completely agree. Having Flash click-to-activate solves any battery issue, and it has already been shown the processing power between HTML and Flash video playback is about the same. But, I still want the *option* to visit a Flash app. Heck, Apple can even throw up a warning on how horrible my battery life will be if I continue to use it as a scare tactic to dissuade Flash if they feel the need.
@commonman
All your talk about editing software and you can't edit your own post into paragraphs.
I'm all for more video on my iphone. It's getting old seeing the flash logo saying SCREW YOU MAN! I hope HTML 5 catches on sooner than earlier.
@Scubasteve03
I'm viewing this article with my iPhone and I'm seeing the little blue lego I'm place of what I'm assuming to be pics. =\ sad face
sooner than later. wow, i need some coffee
@Scubasteve03
Heh, I loled.
Competition is always good because it means someone will strive to make a better product but it will take a while for HTML5 to cut a slice from Flash's pie.
My biggest concern for the iPad is that regular folks (which seems to be Apple's target market) will find the iPad too crippled, given it's lack of Flash. I've recommended it to some people, and I just wonder if it'll come back to bite me when they can't watch their favorite porn video on the thing.
In other news, according to Apple, my iPad has shipped. UPS, though—which begs the question "how?" AFAIK, UPS Saturday delivery only works with next day, or 2nd day (and worldwide shipments). I'll be a happy iPad lover if I get this bad boy sooner, I'll tell you that.
@byran
Time to find some HTML5-compliant porn sites.
@byran 75.000.000 iPhones and iPod Touches without Flash has been sold worldwide. I don't hear a lot of stories about people returning their iPhones because they find them "crippled", do you?
Not to worry.
i just came
@MarkAnderson HTML5 isn't proprietary.
@Scubasteve03 lol,you sure do :)
Pimpdoogal
"Also rumored for launch is an iBookstore filled with 30,000 free e-Books courtesy of the Gutenberg Project."
Hah, I'll believe that when Apple doesn't ask for my account information.
@Dante of the Inferno
Hey , if you don't like their free service to ask you create account info.
You can create fake one.
Or simply install ePub file directly from iTune like people do his own mp3 file.
I bet you never register gamil/yahoo mail . Oh wait...
Success or failure. The prospects are exciting.
@onlymyrailgun
The ipad is actually starting to look like a legitimate product. I think it is the multitude of professional quality, and nicely dressed apps I have seen for the ipad over the last few days that have persuaded me the most. .
@laxlaxlax Yes, but you are replacing Flash with HTML5. H264 would be a feature of HTML5. Also H264 is open (you pay licensing fees, of course), and it is the same for Mpeg2 (Mp3), and nobody is complaining about them. Also Flash too uses H264.
While abandoning Flash completely and suddenly is a horrid idea, a gradual move away from Flash is a welcome thought, I believe, to almost all readers of Engadget.
@3rdman Gradual change is always better, yet not always possible.
Brightcove was cool before they shut out regular users. Now I couldn't give half of one shit about them.