Apple Event - January 27th

[GommeInc]

Depends how you look at it being cheap. For a new product of it's type, then cheap, but for what it does you could arguably say is quite expensive. All glam and no ham, as some may say :P

[xxMATTGxx]

http://theflashblog.com/images/ipud.jpg

Says it all really...

[kk.]

Flash to me really isn't a big deal. Ok it would be nice to see moving content etc etc. But on 3g, load times wil be increased.. A lot. And thing like farmville would be impossible to use, or very hard at least. If they end up including flash, they should have an option to turn it off when on 3G

[xxMATTGxx]

Flash to me really isn't a big deal. Ok it would be nice to see moving content etc etc. But on 3g, load times wil be increased.. A lot. And thing like farmville would be impossible to use, or very hard at least. If they end up including flash, they should have an option to turn it off when on 3G

Apple are also showing flash previews on their promo video. Showing "flash" content when really, it doesn't have flash at all. Tut tut.

http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/01/29/102339-nytimes_ipad_video_flash.jpg

iPad promotional video showing Flash content. When really it is:

http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/01/29/102338-jobs_flash_ipad.jpg

[StefanWolves]

Pointless without flash & multitasking, hopefully they will introduce it later on...

[HotelUser]

Maybe some of us (including myself) should take the advice of Chris Prillo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAKp-vxYsRE) and actually wait until this beast comes out before we bash it. We're starting to sound like the Microsoft kid who picked on the mac without using one himself.

[kk.]

So? Lol, maybe the NY times are planning on having a new website for iPods and iPads and that's it? But like I said, I don't get what your point is in those images lol

[xxMATTGxx]

So? Lol, maybe the NY times are planning on having a new website for iPods and iPads and that's it? But like I said, I don't get what your point is in those images lol

So? False advertising maybe? They like doing that though, they did it on the iPhone.

[QUOTE]"Finally, several readers have noticed that in many shots the URL shown in Safari on the iPad in Apple's promotional materials is actually an apple.com gallery page rather than the real New York Times page it appears to be at first glance."/QUOTE]

[Invent]

http://theflashblog.com/images/ipud.jpg

Says it all really...

Considering I don't use any of those sites and the only one I would ever use (Hulu) is blocked in the UK it's not really an issue for me and lots of other people :).


Pointless without flash & multitasking, hopefully they will introduce it later on...


I can sort of understand the issue with flash but why do you need multi-tasking SO much?..

[kk.]

It's not false advertising.. They havnt shown the new York times website? They showed a mirrored version apparently from your quote. Nowhere have they mentioned flash capability, or rather incapability. So they havnt advertised falsely.

[xxMATTGxx]

It's not false advertising.. They havnt shown the new York times website? They showed a mirrored version apparently from your quote. Nowhere have they mentioned flash capability, or rather incapability. So they havnt advertised falsely.

They never said it was a mirrored version and making it look real? Until people actually noticed it wasn't the real website at all.


Update: MacRumors has heard from a source that The New York Times itself generated high-resolution images of several of its pages, including Flash and ad content, in order to improve the look of the pages for Apple's use in iPad marketing materials.


Don't you think this is a bit wrong for them to do so? If it hasn't got flash, fair enough. But don't start pretending it has.

[kk.]

They never said it was a mirrored version and making it look real? Until people actually noticed it wasn't the real website at all.

Don't you think this is a bit wrong for them to do so? If it hasn't got flash, fair enough. But don't start pretending it has.

Which would mean you were wrong saying it was false advertising which was my point.

Tbh, people who would make a bog deal out of them showing a picture of a website with flash would know that it doesn't have flash, and those who would buy it wouldn't know that the video they saw actually should show a broken flash image, and probably wouldn't know what flash is. If that at all makes sense?

As I said, I really don't care if it has flash or multitasking.. I've coped for over 2 years without it now with my iPod touch and now iPhone, and I've never thought, DAMNIT! If only I had flash..

[xxMATTGxx]

Which would mean you were wrong saying it was false advertising which was my point.

Tbh, people who would make a bog deal out of them showing a picture of a website with flash would know that it doesn't have flash, and those who would buy it wouldn't know that the video they saw actually should show a broken flash image, and probably wouldn't know what flash is. If that at all makes sense?

As I said, I really don't care if it has flash or multitasking.. I've coped for over 2 years without it now with my iPod touch and now iPhone, and I've never thought, DAMNIT! If only I had flash..

I don't care if it has flash or not. I just feel its wrong that they should start pretending that it does. Maybe they just want to show the iPad has great and that people see bits of flash content. But really, it's not actually there on the true device. Although I do wonder why Apple have not let Adobe do flash for the iPhone, it has been out long enough.

[kk.]

Apparently it's something to do with apple not being able to control what's published. You know how they moderate every application. It's so they can keep there products maintained to a high standard. If they allowed flash, you could develop apps that run in web browsers that might not hve been approved.

[HotelUser]

its redmonds move http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/29/microsoft-cfo-says-well-have-much-more-to-say-about-winmo-7-i/