Linked by Adam S on Mon 1st Feb 2010 18:19 UTC
Podcasts Back in August of 2009, the OSnews team spent 3 full hours discussing Apple. In the course of discussion, we spent some time talking about the then-mythical "Apple Tablet." So, 5 months later, how did we do? Were we accurate in our predictions? How did you envision the Tablet, long before the nonsensically named "iPad" became a reality? This clip, which I've called "Episode 20.x" and inserted into cannon retroactively, is pulled, unaltered, from the original podcast.
Order by: Score:
Nailed it
by Praxis on Mon 1st Feb 2010 21:44 UTC
Praxis
Member since:
2009-09-17

It seems like you guys did manage to predict the iPad well enough. About the only thing you got wrong was you assumed it would have more connectors than it did, but who would have thought it wouldn't even have 1 usb port. Though you accuracy is mostly due to Apple being really boring rather than superhuman powers of insight.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Nailed it
by Adam S on Mon 1st Feb 2010 22:07 UTC in reply to "Nailed it"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

Though you accuracy is mostly due to Apple being really boring rather than superhuman powers of insight.


Sadly, you're right.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Nailed it
by Kroc on Mon 1st Feb 2010 22:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Nailed it"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

I wouldn’t say it was boring, just simply the meeting of all Apple’s capabilities in one device.

iPhone OS, aluminium engineering, battery technology, PA Semi, webkit. Design.

Having met two regular, non-geek Mac users today, I can see easily how the iPad is going to change everything. _Only_ geeks get the full power and use out of Mac OS X.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Nailed it
by Praxis on Mon 1st Feb 2010 22:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Nailed it"
Praxis Member since:
2009-09-17

I wouldn’t say it was boring, just simply the meeting of all Apple’s capabilities in one device.

iPhone OS, aluminium engineering, battery technology, PA Semi, webkit. Design.

Having met two regular, non-geek Mac users today, I can see easily how the iPad is going to change everything. _Only_ geeks get the full power and use out of Mac OS X.


Its a logical progression I agree, but everyone always gets more excited about disruptive innovations rather than incremental evolutionary stuff. And given the amount of hype behind anything apple does everyone was hoping for a disruptive change even if what we actually got was fairly logical. The iPad ended up being not so different from what we saw a CES just a couple weeks before, in many areas apple was being the me too guy for once. At least for tech geeks who follow this stuff, the average person may be surprised about Apple's 'innovation'.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Nailed it
by Chicken Blood on Mon 1st Feb 2010 22:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Nailed it"
Chicken Blood Member since:
2005-12-21

The iPad ended up being not so different from what we saw a CES just a couple weeks before,.


Hardly. A lot of those devices at CES still ran what was basically the Windows desktop OS (i.e. something not specifically designed for multi-touch input). That's a huge difference.

[Edited for qualification]

Edited 2010-02-01 23:13 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Nailed it
by Praxis on Mon 1st Feb 2010 23:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Nailed it"
Praxis Member since:
2009-09-17

"The iPad ended up being not so different from what we saw a CES just a couple weeks before,.


Hardly. Those devices at CES still ran what was basically the Windows desktop OS (i.e. something not specifically designed for multi-touch input). That's a huge difference.
"

There were also android tablets present, those are very similar to the iPad in form and capabilities, since they run on Snapdragon or Tegra 2 processors, have access to an app store, multitouch capable, and multitasking capable.
Here is a chart breaking down features of several tablets compared with the iPad
http://gizmodo.com/5459308/slate-showdown-ipad-vs-hp-slate-vs-joojo...

And we will probably see even more tablets coming out this year in about the same range. The iPad is not alone

Reply Score: 2

Ogg Vorbis?
by big_gie on Mon 1st Feb 2010 23:49 UTC
big_gie
Member since:
2006-01-04

From: http://www.osnews.com/story/22812/MPEG-LA_Further_Solidifies_Theora...

In other words, h264 is simply not an option for Free and open source software. It is not compatible with "Free", and the licensing costs are prohibitive for most Free and open source software projects. This means that if the web were to standardise on this encumbered codec, we'd be falling into the same trap as we did with Flash, GIF, and Internet Explorer 6.
[...]
I'll be blunt and direct, and this most likely won't be appreciated by everyone, but I don't care: using h264 for HTML5 video is short-sighted, ignorant, and simply plain stupid. Every web developer choosing to use h264 has learned nothing from GIF, Flash, and Internet Explorer 6.

Even though <video> is different from a podcast, I cannot understand why can't there be an ogg of the podcast? Please add one! We need some content on the web using the free codecs!

Reply Score: 3

RE: Ogg Vorbis?
by darknexus on Tue 2nd Feb 2010 05:13 UTC in reply to "Ogg Vorbis?"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Have to agree here. MP3 is a universally readable format, not contesting this. However, if you're going to rant and rave about how we all need to switch to free codecs (a statement with which I also agree) then you need to walk the walk and not just pay lip service to that ideal.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Ogg Vorbis?
by Kroc on Tue 2nd Feb 2010 07:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Ogg Vorbis?"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

It’s down to workload, that’s all. Creating an OGGcast increases our workload at the moment, and that’s not an option. If we can do transcoding on the server side, then I’d be happy to include OGG files. We will get there when we get there, please be patient.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Ogg Vorbis?
by darknexus on Tue 2nd Feb 2010 15:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ogg Vorbis?"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Funny, but I can't shake how very similar that statement is to some of the reasons put out by big companies to stay with H.264. How exactly does creating an ogg file greatly increase your work load? It's simple enough to transcode and it's not as though it takes that long. Better yet just save as aiff (you use Garageband) and make an mp3 and an ogg from the same source material.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Ogg Vorbis?
by Kroc on Tue 2nd Feb 2010 15:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ogg Vorbis?"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Because unlike companies I’m not being paid to do this and my time is extremely limited. I work an insane amount of hours sometimes and I spend my day off doing the podcast. Uploading the files is slow, and using the back end to write and publish the podcast is also slow and clumsy. Producing an OGG alternative would add an hour to the turnaround time, and I’m not willing to add that when there simply isn’t the practical demand yet (I’ve yet to hear someone who physically has no access to any device capable of playing MP3), and that I will get the server to transcode and publish OGG with the OSn5 rewrite.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Ogg Vorbis?
by openadvocate on Tue 2nd Feb 2010 18:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Ogg Vorbis?"
openadvocate Member since:
2010-01-21

"Web developers, the choice is yours. Are you ignorant and short-sighted, or are you willing to make a stand for keeping the web open, and finally breaking video loose from its proprietary shackles?"

Sound familiar? I understand that you are volunteering and that time is limited but OSNews looks like its being run by hypocrites when rants are published about other websites using proprietary formats despite the fact the OSNews continues to do the same.

If time is short and you don't have time for both, why not publish Ogg Vorbis only? If you want to give users a cleaner way to transcode to something else you could publish FLAC only. It's getting tiresome to read the several articles dealing with Youtube ignoring patents when OSNews does the same.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Ogg Vorbis?
by Kroc on Tue 2nd Feb 2010 19:30 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Ogg Vorbis?"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

In reply to you and StephenBeDoper below:

I don’t own or run OSnews. I am not the developer for OSnews; Adam is (I am writing a new system from scratch). I am a volunteer who has put himself forward to help the site. I restarted the podcast with Thom as my own idea to help contribute. OSnews is not my personal website that has to uphold my personal views. I honestly don’t think you understand the limits on my time, nor how time consuming producing the show and publishing it is (it requires many steps, made complicated by our admin system).

We cannot publish OGG only, because iTunes is by far and away the most common podcast client.

Could you please respect that I am doing a huge amount for OSnews voluntarily including time and monetary outlay, and *my opinions do not reflect those of OSnews itself*.

It's getting tiresome to read the several articles dealing with Youtube ignoring patents when OSNews does the same.


It’s getting even more tiresome hearing demands for OGG audio when I haven’t seen any demonstrateable need for it, and I am already working to address the problem by producing a new HTML5 site that will include OGG support. Honestly; I’m giving that much, and still it’s not enough—I wonder why I bother sometimes.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Ogg Vorbis?
by darknexus on Tue 2nd Feb 2010 20:14 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Ogg Vorbis?"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

We cannot publish OGG only, because iTunes is by far and away the most common podcast client.


Not so easy when you're the one doing the web developing is it? You do realize how your statement could be applied to other situations, for example:
We cannot publish Theora only, because H.264 is by far and away the most common and hardware-supported codec.

I'm not downing the effort you're making, even though it might've come across that way. I'm an ass sometimes--no, scratch that, I'm an ass *most* of the time. But to see an article just a few days ago deriding proprietary codecs and, then, you giving the same justifications for doing the exact same thing... you do see how that comes across, right? I guess it struck a major nerve, you have no right to criticize other web sites for not doing what you're not doing. Sure, the next version of osnews will have ogg support and I believe you, but the fact is that you do not have it *now* and yet you, among others here, have the nerve to criticize Youtube *now* for doing precisely the same as you.
This isn't meant to be offensive even though I'm sure it sounds that way. I just don't know any other way to put it, to be perfectly honest.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Ogg Vorbis?
by openadvocate on Tue 2nd Feb 2010 21:34 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Ogg Vorbis?"
openadvocate Member since:
2010-01-21

Kroc,

My comments are directed at OSNews as a whole, not you personally. I understand that you are volunteering and I appreciate the work that you do. I also understand that you are not directly responsible for the current website.

That being said, OSNews as a whole has recently published several chiding articles pointing out that other websites are using patent-encumbered file formats. However, OSNews itself is using a patent-encumbered file format. My previous comment was merely to point out this hypocrisy. It was definitely not directed toward you personally, but towards OSNews as a whole. If OSNews as a whole is unable to provide its content in non-patent-encumbered formats, it seems incredibly hypocritical for OSNews articles to deride other websites for doing the same.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Ogg Vorbis?
by StephenBeDoper on Tue 2nd Feb 2010 18:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ogg Vorbis?"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

It’s down to workload, that’s all. Creating an OGGcast increases our workload at the moment, and that’s not an option. If we can do transcoding on the server side, then I’d be happy to include OGG files.


I'm no Ogg fanboy, but how much would that really increase the workload? I did a quick test, starting the download of them the MP3 right after hitting the reply button - and the conversion just finished as I type this. That's maybe 5 minutes effort, including the time necessary to upload and link to the file.

I also find that justification a little odd in light of your vocal opposition to Flash; developers who use Flash for video delivery could give the exact same justification, and it would arguably be more applicable/valid in that context (outputting two versions of the same video increases the workload much more than doing the same with an audio file of comparable length).

Reply Score: 2

My prediction:
by kragil on Tue 2nd Feb 2010 01:05 UTC
kragil
Member since:
2006-01-04

The Ipad will create a market for tablets, but I think that Android based
devices that have OLPC (Pixel Qi) screens without the need for backlight
like the Notion Ink Adam will be much more compelling to consumers.
They will offer a superior reading experience and probably have flash, add
to that all the services Google offers and you have a very compelling
device.
Competition will drive the prices down (399 will probably be the maximum
they can ask for).
My prediction:
Apple will sell lots of Ipads, but Linux will be on a lot more tablets.
PS. Google should have bought Lala.com. Music is important for such a
device.

Reply Score: 2

RE: My prediction:
by Praxis on Tue 2nd Feb 2010 03:20 UTC in reply to "My prediction:"
Praxis Member since:
2009-09-17

While I also have some degree of interest in the Notion Ink Adam and seems to my geek eyes that it could be a superior product, Apples marketing is a force to be reckoned with. No other hardware company comes close in the amount of excitement and interest they can generate in their products. The only way other products will really be able to break into the mainstream will be if they can take advantage of Apples strange attachment to making their products exclusive to att network by attaching themselves to the other carriers. The tablet that can make a deal with Verizon for 3g will probably be able to take second place in the market easy.

Reply Score: 1

Windows OS not designed for touch?
by cadrethree on Tue 2nd Feb 2010 01:16 UTC
cadrethree
Member since:
2010-02-02

I don't get the statment that windows isn't designed for touch. Windows 7 isn't a stripped down mobile operating system that is crippled with limited functions like the Iphone OS. It's a full operating that was designed with touch in mind. It's old thinking from the late 90's that mobile means one or two functions per device.
I personally hope the Ipad fails. It's one thing to choose Apple and pay more per features than a Microsoft product, but when Apple says E-books needs to be 5 dollars more and PC users are forced to pay this because Jobs says so is insane. Reminds me of the early 80's when PC's cost as much as car. Thank God Apple lost to Microsoft.

Edited 2010-02-02 01:18 UTC

Reply Score: 1

cb_osn Member since:
2006-02-26

I don't get the statment that windows isn't designed for touch. Windows 7 isn't a stripped down mobile operating system that is crippled with limited functions like the Iphone OS. It's a full operating that was designed with touch in mind. It's old thinking from the late 90's that mobile means one or two functions per device.

If at any point, I am expected to navigate through hierarchical menus, activate poorly spaced 16 pixel square buttons in a toolbar, or drag a scrollbar thumb control with my finger, then the OS has failed at touch.

Tacking touch support onto the standard Windows interface in 2010 is like trying to build a desktop UI on a character mode terminal in 1985. The model is entirely different.

It also goes deeper than just touch. Apple is banking on the idea that people prefer content and services over files and applications. The question isn't whether or not they are wrong-- they're not. The question is how long it will take everyone else to catch up.

Reply Score: 5