The stats seem to support Steve Jobs' contention that Adobe's video format is fading fast

In the Thoughts on Flash essay that Steve Jobs posted last week, Apple's CEO took on Adobe's oft-repeated contention that Apple's (AAPL) mobile products — the iPhone, iPad and iPod touch — don't offer access to the "full Web" because they don't support Adobe's Flash format. 75% of the video on the Web, Adobe's supporters point out, is encoded in Flash.

"What they don't say," Jobs wrote, "is that almost all this video is also available in a more modern format, H.264" — which iPads and iPhones do support.

"Almost all" may be an exaggeration, but the chart above, posted Saturday by TechCrunch's Erick Schonfeld, suggests that the trends are headed Apple's way.

The chart was produced by Encoding.com, which does on-demand Web video encoding for a variety of clients, from MySpace to MTV Network. It encoded some 5 million videos last year, so it has a pretty good handle on which formats are up and which are down. Schonfeld explains:

As the chart shows, in the past four quarters, the H.264 format went from 31 percent of all videos to 66 percent, and is now the largest format by far. Meanwhile, Flash is represented by Flash VP6 and FLV, which combined represent only 26 percent of all videos. That is down from a combined total of 69 percent four quarters ago. So the native Flash codecs and H.264 have completely flipped in terms of market share (Flash also supports H.264, however, but you don’t need a Flash player to watch H.264 videos).

Once again, Apple may be skating not to where the puck is, but where it's going to be.

See also:

• Steve Jobs' Flash manifesto
• Has Steve Jobs gone mad?
• Why Is Steve Jobs Flash-obsessed?

The saga of Adobe and Apple or, more precisely, Flash app development for the iPhone, is drawing to its inevitable conclusion.

It all started with Apple’s change to its iPhone Developer Program License Agreement – the notorious article 3.3.1 – which banned the use of the Flash-to-iPhone converter. In the simplest of terms, the article makes it meaningless for developers to create Flash apps that target the iPhone because Apple can ban them at any time.

Now Mike Chambers, the principal product manager for developer relations for the Flash platform at Adobe, has put a full stop to the story from Adobe’s side. In a lengthy blog post, he calls for developers of Flash apps for smartphones to focus on Android and stop developing apps for the iPhone. He also announces Adobe’s intention to stop working on the Flash-to-iPhone converter.

“We will still be shipping the ability to target the iPhone and iPad in Flash CS5. However, we are not currently planning any additional investments in that feature,” Mike says. In the post, he also criticizes Apple’s treatment of developers. “If you want to develop for the iPhone you have to be prepared for Apple to reject or restrict your development at anytime, and for seemingly any reason,” he says.

So, that’s it for Flash apps on the iPhone. Apple may have won this round, but the wall around its garden just got a little bit taller.

[via mashable.com]

Don’t hold your breath waiting for the iPhone to support Adobe’s Flash software: Apple’s terms-of-service agreement prohibits it.

Although Adobe says it is working on a version of its popular Flash player for the iPhone, Apple is unlikely ever to permit it to appear in the handset’s App Store, no matter how much customers want it.

“I’m pretty skeptical that Flash could be implemented in a way that doesn’t violate the Terms of Service of the developer’s agreement,” said Bart Decrem, CEO of Tapulous, developer of the popular Tap Tap Revenge iPhone game.

Flash is Adobe’s highly popular platform for displaying interactive graphics, animations and multimedia within a browser. According to Adobe, 98 percent of desktop computers currently support Flash, which has led to its widespread use by web developers. Adobe’s recent announcement that it is working on a version of Flash for Windows Mobile has prompted speculation that an iPhone version might be coming soon. But the speculators may be waiting in vain, based on Apple’s TOS and the company’s history of tightly controlling applications for its smartphone platform.

Allowing Flash — which is a development platform of its own — would just be too dangerous for Apple, a company that enjoys exerting total dominance over its hardware and the software that runs on it. Flash has evolved from being a mere animation player into a multimedia platform capable of running applications of its own. That means Flash would open a new door for application developers to get their software onto the iPhone: Just code them in Flash and put them on a web page. In so doing, Flash would divert business from the App Store, as well as enable publishers to distribute music, videos and movies that could compete with the iTunes Store.

Apple’s well aware of these problems, which is why the company wrote a clause in its iPhone developers’ Terms of Service agreement (.pdf) that prohibits Flash from appearing on the iPhone:

“An Application may not itself install or launch other executable code by any means, including without limitation through the use of a plug-in architecture, calling other frameworks, other APIs or otherwise,” reads clause 3.3.2 of the iPhone SDK agreement, which was recently published on WikiLeaks. “No interpreted code may be downloaded and used in an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple’s Published APIs and built-in interpreter(s).”

This could come as major disappointment to iPhone owners, as the lack of Flash support has been a paramount complaint about the handset since its release. No Flash means that the iPhone browser is incapable of displaying a large portion of the internet. For example, free Flash games aren’t supported, videos can’t be streamed from the vastly popular television and movie site Hulu, and websites that use Flash to render content or navigation won’t work on the iPhone.

It’s no wonder Adobe is expressing reluctance about the prospects of Flash for iPhone. The company on Monday demonstrated a version of Flash for Windows
Mobile handsets. And all that product manager Michele Turner could say about iPhone was, “We are working on Flash on the iPhone, but it is really up to Apple.”

Adam Dann, CEO of Nullriver, agrees that Flash would take away some of Apple’s control. Apple eventually banned Nullriver’s application NetShare because it violated AT&T Terms of Service agreement by turning the iPhone into a wireless modem for tethering. If Apple introduced Flash to iPhone, it’s possible Nullriver could code a Flash version of NetShare, repeating that violation, Dann said.

Dann added that the only way Flash could ever appear on the iPhone is if Adobe offered an extremely stripped-down version of the software. But even if there is a “Flash Lite” for iPhone, that just reinforces the point that the handset’s owners still will not have a true Flash experience.

And aside from taking software control away from Apple, Flash would introduce a slew of other potential headaches as well. Flash apps could hurt battery life, suck up the graphics-processing unit’s power, use an inordinate amount of memory, or potentially introduce security risks. Apple has plenty of customer complaints to address about the iPhone; the last thing it needs is to add Adobe and Flash to the pile.

In August, Britain’s Advertising Standards Authority pulled an iPhone advertisement because the commercial said, “All the parts of the internet are on the iPhone.” The lack of Flash and Java support on iPhone were enough for the ad to be deemed misleading. And it’s looking like Apple won’t be able to air that ad again.

Apple did not return phone calls for comment.

[via wired ], [Download Apple iPhone SDK Agreement via wikileaks]

[QUOTE]
Apple's MobileMe and Google'sGmail online e-mail services suffered hours-long outages Monday, leaving millions of users unable to access their accounts.

Google restored service within about two and a half hours, but it took Apple approximately seven hours to restore full access to its online mail service.

Apple users first reported trouble accessing the service's servers from their desktop mail clients around 2 p.m. Eastern, and in the next several hours, posted several hundred messages on the MobileMe support forum about the outage.

A notice on the service's main support page acknowledged the problem. "MobileMe members are intermittently unable to access MobileMe Mail using a desktop e-mail application, iPhone or iPod touch," said Apple. "Access to www.me.com/mail is unaffected. Service will be restored ASAP. We apologize for any inconvenience."

By 9 p.m. Eastern that notice had been replaced with an all-clear indicator.

Google's Gmail, meanwhile, went offline around 5 p.m. Eastern, and greeted users with a message reading in part, "We're sorry, but your Gmail account is currently experiencing errors."

A little over two hours later, Google added a notice to its Gmail help page that attributed the outage to "the contacts system used by Gmail which is preventing Gmail from loading properly. We are starting to roll out a fix now and hope to have the problem resolved as quickly as possible."

Shortly after that, at about 7:30 p.m., Google declared the outage over. "Users who were temporarily affected by the 502 errors should now be able to access their account," read a message posted to the Gmail Help Discussion forum. "Thanks for your patience while we worked to resolve this issue for everyone."

Apple users were especially livid, in part because they, unlike Gmail's users, pay for their service, and also because of the multiple problems they had with MobileMe since its launch a month ago.

"I'm so disgusted with Apple right now I don't even know what to say," said a user identified as "Furi0us.Bee" in a message posted to the longest forum thread on the subject.

"This is crazy," said another user, "mac_wa," on the same thread. "I have had more down time with my mac/me mail than any other service I've had... and I pay for this."

But Owen Schultz had one of the best takes of any user. "Dear MS Outlook," Schultz started, "I am so sorry about our breakup several year ago. I have been thinking about you a lot since then. Will you please consider taking me back? Just one more chance? I'm sorry about all the horrible things I said about you and your operating system. You were the best I ever had! MobileMe and I are finished!"

MobileMe's travails -- ranging from an extended migration from its predecessor, .Mac, to an 11-day mail outage last month -- prompted Apple's CEO, Steve Jobs, to issue a memo to company employees last week in which he called the rollout "not up to Apple's standards."

Jobs shook up Apple's management team over the series of snafus, and handed responsibility for the service to Eddy Cue, who heads iTunes.
[/QUOTE]

Source: www.infoworld.com

For those who missed Steve Jobs WWDC keynote, here's a nice 60-second summarized version that basically shows everything you need to know about the iPhone 3G. 

Definition: Software Update =  A new release (or version) of a piece of software that is generally understood to be an error correction release and does not contain new functionality. (as opposed to Upgrade) Updates are usually numbered by a change in the digit after the decimal. eg: V1.1 to V1.2

So far so good .... but some companies are redefining this. Example Apple:

[QUOTE]
What Apple is doing now with their Apple Software Update on Windows is wrong. It undermines the trust relationship great companies have with their customers, and that’s bad — not just for Apple, but for the security of the whole Web. What they did yesterday was to use their updater for iTunes to also install their Safari Web browser –what follows is some background and analysis.

Keeping software up to date is hard — hard for consumers to understand what patches are for, how to make sure they’re up to date.

It’s also critically, crucially important for the security of end users and for the security of the Web at large that people stay current. If people don’t update software regularly, it is impossible for them to remain safe; good software developers are creating improvements constantly. That’s why Mozilla spends so much time making sure our own Automatic Update Service works, and why we spend so much time agonizing over the user interface for the updates. We look at the data every time we do an update; we obsess about what we call “uptake rates” — the percentage of Firefox users who are on the most current version of the browser a day or a week or a month after release. As a result, Firefox users are incredibly up to date, and adopt very quickly.

There’s an implicit trust relationship between software makers and customers in this regard: as a software maker we promise to do our very best to keep users safe and will provide the quickest updates possible, with absolutely no other agenda. And when the user trusts the software maker, they’ll generally go ahead and install the patch, keeping themselves and everyone else safe.

Anyone who uses iTunes on Windows has Apple Software Update installed on their machines, which does just what I’ve described above: it checks for new patches available for Apple-produced software on your Windows machine, alerts the user to the availability, and allows updates to be installed. That’s great — wonderful, in fact. Makes everyone more likely to have current, patched versions of Apple’s software, and makes everyone safer.

Here’s screen that comes up on Windows XP if you’ve got iTunes installed:

(photo credit CNET)

The problem here is that it lists Safari for getting an update — and has the “Install” box checked by default — even if you haven’t ever installed Safari on your PC.

That’s a problem because of the dynamic I described above — by and large, all software makers are trying to get users to trust us on updates, and so the likely behavior here is for users to just click “Install 2 items,” which means that they’ve now installed a completely new piece of software, quite possibly completely unintentionally. Apple has made it incredibly easy — the default, even — for users to install ride along software that they didn’t ask for, and maybe didn’t want. This is wrong, and borders on malware distribution practices.

It’s wrong because it undermines the trust that we’re all trying to build with users. Because it means that an update isn’t just an update, but is maybe something more. Because it ultimately undermines the safety of users on the web by eroding that relationship. It’s a bad practice and should stop.

(I’ll make 2 points that I want to make very clear: (1) this is not a criticism of Safari as a web browser in any way, and (2) I have no objections to the basic industry practice of using your installed software as a channel for other software. This is specifically a criticism of the way they’re using the updating system. I’d much prefer to be writing about Firefox, but this practice hurts everyone and is important to note.)
[/QUOTE]

Source: http://john.jubjubs.net/

[QUOTE]
Apparently, even subliminal exposure to the Apple logo can make you 'think different.' Researchers at Duke University subjected participants to subliminal images of the iconic Apple and IBM logos (during what subjects thought was a visual acuity test), and those who were shown the Apple logo generated more creative ideas after the test than did those who were shown the IBM logo. In a second test, subjects exposed to the Disney logo acted more honestly than those who saw an E! Channel logo.
[/QUOTE]

Here's a preprint of the paper (PDF) due for publication in the Journal of Consumer Research.

Source: http://apple.slashdot.org/

[QUOTE]
Previously, I looked at the Apple TV in isolation, to see how it fits as a digital hub. Apple isn't the only company that wants to have its device at the center of your home entertainment though, nor the only ones who want its storefront to be the one you use to download TV and movies. So in this next installment, I shall compare the Apple TV to what I think will be its closest rival, the Microsoft Xbox 360. Yes, you read that right. I am going to compare a game console with the Apple TV, but the comparison is not as far fetched as you might think. Both have storefronts where you can download TV episodes and movies. Both will rent you content in both HD and SD, and both will let you stream your own media through them to your TV and speakers.

Why the Apple TV is better:

• Cheaper than the Xbox 360
• Cheaper HD rentals
• Less restrictive licensing
• Build quality
• Better integration with the iTunes store
• Silent running
• Small form factor

Why the Xbox 360 is better:

• Lots of features when combined with Vista Windows Media Center
• Better picture quality (at the expense of file size)
• Plays games
• DVD drive (and the option of HD DVD)
• Includes cables

[/QUOTE]

Source: arstechnica.com (2 pages)

[QUOTE]

[...]
Q: What do you think about the regular hype about the release of a new version of Microsoft Windows or Apple OS X?

A: An o/s should never have been something that people (in general) really care about: it should be completely invisible and nobody should give a flying f*** about it except the technical people.

It's stupid - when you make a big deal about something like Vista or Leopard a lot of it is about things I don't consider to be the operating system. It's about the visual shell around it. The fact Microsoft tied the two together so much actually caused them problems, not just the legal problems. If you manage a thousand clients, or a hundred thousand

clients which is not at all unheard of, you sure as hell don't want to point and click at them. In many ways Microsoft has had to fix the design mistakes they made when they thought the graphical approach should be a very intimate part of (Windows).

To Microsoft and Apple the o/s is important as a way to control the whole environment, from a marketing and money-making standpoint, to force people to upgrade their applications, and your hardware.

Q. Do you have a favourite between Leopard and Vista?

A: I don't think they're equally flawed. I think Leopard is a much better system. On the other hand, (I've found) OS X in some ways is actually worse than Windows to program for. Their file system is complete and utter crap, which is scary. I think OS X is nicer than Windows in many ways, but neither can hold a candle to my own (Linux). It's a race to second

place!
[...]

[/QUOTE]

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/