45 replies to this topic

[Waser Lave]

Even thought they support HTML5, everything Apple does
is completely backwards for a company that tries to promote
some "innovation". They're just full of shit.

The problem with Apple is that when they do innovate (iPod, iPhone etc) they instantly become the market leader and because they have little competition they become lazy. We've seen it more recently with Google's Android which has been the underdog but some would argue has now surpassed the iPhone OS technologically. I, for one, hope that Android and Google does become the dominant player because they currently have the momentum and certainly seem to be much less dictatorial than Apple.

[kuwaz]

The problem with Apple is that when they do innovate (iPod, iPhone etc) they instantly become the market leader and because they have little competition they become lazy. We've seen it more recently with Google's Android which has been the underdog but some would argue has now surpassed the iPhone OS technologically. I, for one, hope that Android and Google does become the dominant player because they currently have the momentum and certainly seem to be much less dictatorial than Apple.

Google is just so open book and got such a non-corporate attitude,
where as Apple is just ran like a totalitarian institution.

Anyone who charges $1000 for 4 gigs of ram upgrade shouldn't be allowed to sell shit.

Edited by channel_49, 31 May 2010 - 05:01 PM.

[Waser Lave]

Google is just so open book and got such a non-corporate attitude,
where as Apple is just ran like a totalitarian institution.

Anyone who charges $1000 for 4 gigs of ram upgrade shouldn't be allowed to sell shit.

If you've got enough people willing to pay those prices then you'd be stupid enough not to charge that much tbh, I can't blame Apple for that. Some people just have more money than sense.

[iargue]

Even thought they support HTML5, everything Apple does
is completely backwards for a company that tries to promote
some "innovation". They're just full of shit.

"Apples are the best for graphics design"
"Macs are immune to virus's"
"Replacing your screen costs a thousand dollars"
"Jailbreaking on Iphone will crash cellphone towers"

I do love the things they claim, and are accepted, as being fact. They have great market control in their own little niche, but they cant break out of that.

I once spoke with someone who though Macs user 128 bit, not 32/64.

And, apple hopes that by being on the board of HTML5, they can make it how they want, and eventually control it. Thats their only reason for supporting "open" protocols.

[Waser Lave]

"Apples are the best for graphics design"
"Macs are immune to virus's"
"Replacing your screen costs a thousand dollars"
"Jailbreaking on Iphone will crash cellphone towers"

I do love the things they claim, and are accepted, as being fact. They have great market control in their own little niche, but they cant break out of that.

I once spoke with someone who though Macs user 128 bit, not 32/64.

And, apple hopes that by being on the board of HTML5, they can make it how they want, and eventually control it. Thats their only reason for supporting "open" protocols.

I liked something I read the other day which pretty much sums it all up:

Today the battlefield is mobile devices, and just as before, Apple jumped out to an early lead. And just as before, Jobs got selfish. He won't support Flash, or any cross-platform tools—because he wants developers locked into his platform, and his App Store, where he collects a 30 percent commission.

He's created his own advertising platform, and stacked the deck in his favor by refusing to share user data with other platforms. On that one he'll take a 40 percent slice, thank you very much.

He's even censoring content, ruling out material that he deems to be offensive. Not just porn, but anything that's racy or suggestive, or that "ridicules public figures."

What makes this even more insulting is that Jobs tries to dress up his selfishness as a kind of altruism. He says it's all about creating a beautiful experience, that while he may be selling you an intentionally crippled device, he's doing it for your own good.

Well, bull. The truth is, this is about Apple wringing every last dime out of its ecosystem and leaving nothing on the table for anyone else.

As sick as I am of my iPhone's dropped calls, I'm even more sick of Apple treating us all like a bunch of idiots, stonewalling and bullying and feeding us ridiculous explanations for the shortcomings of its products—expecting us to believe, basically, that its flaws are not flaws, but strengths.

Steve Jobs has created his own precious little walled garden. He's looking more and more like Howard Hughes, holed up in his penthouse, making sure he doesn't come in contact with any germs.

Now Google is saying, hey, nice garden, have fun sitting in it. By yourself.

http://www.newsweek....to-android.html

[iargue]

Google could, if they choose to. Kill the iphone. If they say, "No more youtube for iphone/ipad" apple will be fucked. More people use Youtube a day, then Apple products were purchased for the last year. Youtube is huge, and their advertisements bring in billions. Thats the only reason why google moved to html5 for the Iphone. They liked that money. But if Apple keeps up the war against Adope, how much longer will Google stay on the neutral side?

I do like that article too. 90% of the press are apple obsessed because A)Apple gave them free stuff. B)Apple wont let them review new products if they are badmouthing apple.

[kuwaz]

Google could, if they choose to. Kill the iphone. If they say, "No more youtube for iphone/ipad" apple will be fucked. More people use Youtube a day, then Apple products were purchased for the last year. Youtube is huge, and their advertisements bring in billions. Thats the only reason why google moved to html5 for the Iphone. They liked that money. But if Apple keeps up the war against Adope, how much longer will Google stay on the neutral side?

I do like that article too. 90% of the press are apple obsessed because A)Apple gave them free stuff. B)Apple wont let them review new products if they are badmouthing apple.

Its strange that Apple's product are sold as "well-designed"
As far as I can see, its an flat aluminum box with an apple printed
on it. I'm not sure how that looks good but apparently people think so.

Have you seen an iMac? Looks like shit. Mac Pro? Looks like shit.
The fuk do I want handles on my box anyways? How often do I actually
move that shit.

---

The idea of Apple for design work is outdated... Adobe develops their
programs on Windows first now... Is there x64 Photoshop on mac? Nope.

The only reason designers used Apple was because they were the first
PCs and its hard to swap the entire industry. Plus they "easier to use",
which is entirely not true. Firefox is firefox, doesn't matter which
OS... same goes for Chrome. I'm not sure what other functions "simple" users
would need other than a browser.

If you're stupid enough to be convinced to buy a mac, then you really deserve one.

Edited by channel_49, 31 May 2010 - 07:43 PM.

[artificial]

Google could, if they choose to. Kill the iphone. If they say, "No more youtube for iphone/ipad" apple will be fucked. More people use Youtube a day, then Apple products were purchased for the last year. Youtube is huge, and their advertisements bring in billions. Thats the only reason why google moved to html5 for the Iphone. They liked that money. But if Apple keeps up the war against Adope, how much longer will Google stay on the neutral side?

I do like that article too. 90% of the press are apple obsessed because A)Apple gave them free stuff. B)Apple wont let them review new products if they are badmouthing apple.

Suggestion is completely ridiculous. Not even mentioning the bad press Google would get, it would take a web developer all of 1-2 hours to build a workaround.

As for their advertisements bringing in billions of dollars, that sounds highly exaggerated. Last I read, the website is still in the negative as far as profitability is concerned. The amount of money it costs to maintain the site is absurd. And as for questioning Googles neutrality, I'd be surprised if they stuck with Flash as HTML5 gains industry momentum. Overall, there should be a great reduction in the amount of web applications that rely on Flash.

And lastly, your attack earlier on Apple and other sites presently catering for HTML5.. it's frustrating to read. I haven't personally looked too much in to those sites yet but, unless they really don't have a clue, the HTML5 components of the web page should only be rendered on those browsers with HTML5 capabilities. The golden rule of web development (and to the frustration of many), is that you have to cater for all technology. Websites should run smoothly, regardless on the user's browser, be it IE 6/7/8, FF, Safari, Oprah or Chrome.

[jcrdude]

Websites should run smoothly, regardless on the user's browser, be it IE 6/7/8, FF, Safari, Oprah or Chrome.

That talk show bitch made her own browser

On a related note, I remember Netscape Navigator. Lulz.

[kuwaz]

Oprah

Opera lol

[artificial]

Opera lol

JCR beat you to it.

[Kway]

Its strange that Apple's product are sold as "well-designed"
As far as I can see, its an flat aluminum box with an apple printed
on it. I'm not sure how that looks good but apparently people think so.

Have you seen an iMac? Looks like shit. Mac Pro? Looks like shit.
The fuk do I want handles on my box anyways? How often do I actually
move that shit.

I'm guessing you are one of those fancy people that would throw out $40 to get a different color?

[kuwaz]

I'm guessing you are one of those fancy people that would throw out $40 to get a different color?

Nope. I'm those ones who would pay $150 for a case that
actually looks good and functional. Macs case don't look good
nor do they function well. But I guess it offers all the basic needs.

[iargue]

Suggestion is completely ridiculous. Not even mentioning the bad press Google would get, it would take a web developer all of 1-2 hours to build a workaround.

As for their advertisements bringing in billions of dollars, that sounds highly exaggerated. Last I read, the website is still in the negative as far as profitability is concerned. The amount of money it costs to maintain the site is absurd. And as for questioning Googles neutrality, I'd be surprised if they stuck with Flash as HTML5 gains industry momentum. Overall, there should be a great reduction in the amount of web applications that rely on Flash.

And lastly, your attack earlier on Apple and other sites presently catering for HTML5.. it's frustrating to read. I haven't personally looked too much in to those sites yet but, unless they really don't have a clue, the HTML5 components of the web page should only be rendered on those browsers with HTML5 capabilities. The golden rule of web development (and to the frustration of many), is that you have to cater for all technology. Websites should run smoothly, regardless on the user's browser, be it IE 6/7/8, FF, Safari, Oprah or Chrome.

Are you. Stupid? If google says, "We wont support html5" No fucking web devoloper can make Youtube stream in fucking html5. Web devolopers have -nothing- to do with this at all. And press doesnt mean anything for Google. They dont sell products...


The second statement about google operating in the negatives is even more funny.

Revenue US$23.651 billion (2009)[2][3]
Operating income US$8.312 billion (2009)[2][3]
Profit US$6.520 billion (2009)[2][3]

According to Wikipedia, and the Fortune 500 companies. According to their latest filing report, Ninety-nine percent of Google's revenue is derived from its advertising programs. Html5 is a long way from being standard... Like 10 years at least.

And for your third comment. I have no ideal what your talking about. Quote it for me and I'll respond?

[artificial]

Are you. Stupid? If google says, "We wont support html5" No fucking web dent sell prodvoloper can make Youtube stream in fucking html5. Web devolopers have -nothing- to do with this at all. And press doesnt mean anything for Google. They doucts...

I was replying in response to:

Google could, if they choose to. Kill the iphone. If they say, "No more youtube for iphone/ipad" apple will be fucked.

When I was talking about a workaround, I was mainly referencing to a web programmer developing an external service that manually downloaded a video from Youtube and streamed in HTML5. Such a service wouldn't be too hard to offer, the only obstacle would be if Google implemented a daily max download limit. Seeing how you have large websites making an obscene amount of calls to their service each day through their API, this seems unlikely, or the limit quite large.

The second statement about google operating in the negatives is even more funny.

You seem to have gone and pulled results for Google's overall profitability; that has nothing to do with the profitability of a single venture, like Youtube. The reason the site has undergone huge changes in 2010 is for the sole reason that Google is trying to make it more profitable, since it isn't too much already (in fact, there has been a lot of speculation as to whether the site has, or has not turned a profit). When you list advertising as Google's key source of revenue, you have to understand that this mainly refers to advertising via their content/search network. i.e. Adwords/Adsense.

[iargue]

I was replying in response to:



When I was talking about a workaround, I was mainly referencing to a web programmer developing an external service that manually downloaded a video from Youtube and streamed in HTML5. Such a service wouldn't be too hard to offer, the only obstacle would be if Google implemented a daily max download limit. Seeing how you have large websites making an obscene amount of calls to their service each day through their API, this seems unlikely, or the limit quite large.




You seem to have gone and pulled results for Google's overall profitability; that has nothing to do with the profitability of a single venture, like Youtube. The reason the site has undergone huge changes in 2010 is for the sole reason that Google is trying to make it more profitable, since it isn't too much already (in fact, there has been a lot of speculation as to whether the site has, or has not turned a profit). When you list advertising as Google's key source of revenue, you have to understand that this mainly refers to advertising via their content/search network. i.e. Adwords/Adsense.

And? Apple would still be fucked. People know of youtube.com. They dont know of a site that streams youtube videos in html5. They are not going to go to that site. They are going to try and visit youtube, and get pissed.Plus, a program like this would have to spider the youtube website every second to get worth it, and be able to get the newest video. Not exactly an easy task, and Google would block you for ddosing their website. How how would this "1-2" hour project obtain the latest videos? And for it to work on the Iphone/Ipad, it cant be in flv format (Which is how flash works). So the website would have to download the entire video, convert it, then offer it in html5 streaming. Alot of work to target... a small percentage of devices?

The advertisement on Youtube is done from Google Adsense.... Googles profit comes from Google Adsense.... Hrm. The actually stopped advertising on the site for years due to fear of lawsuits for profiting from Copyrighted contect (FUCK YOU VIACOM). Google is prepared to say stfu to them now, and will be actually advertising on the site. This means, they will be making shittons of money from it too.... Which means its a good thing they kept YouTube as the best video site (Number 3 site overall). So yes. Before now, Youtube didnt make a profit. but Google doesnt need extra money. They got money in the bank.

[artificial]

First paragraph: script wouldn't have to pull every video off of Youtube. People search, you use the Youtube API to retrieve videos related to that search term. Downloading, converting and streaming wouldn't be too difficult, especially if your server ran on a flavour of linux.

Google makes most of its money from Adwords/Adsense, yes, that doesn't necessarily mean Youtube makes a lot of money. Youtube would make up only a small percentage of all page requests from their content network. Moreover, most money is made via their search engine as opposed to on their content network.

[iargue]

First paragraph: script wouldn't have to pull every video off of Youtube. People search, you use the Youtube API to retrieve videos related to that search term. Downloading, converting and streaming wouldn't be too difficult, especially if your server ran on a flavour of linux.

Google makes most of its money from Adwords/Adsense, yes, that doesn't necessarily mean Youtube makes a lot of money. Youtube would make up only a small percentage of all page requests from their content network. Moreover, most money is made via their search engine as opposed to on their content network.

especially if your server ran on a flavour of linux. I wasnt aware that Linux downloaded things instantly and converted them instantly. What I am aware of is that you have to download the file. Convert it. And then stream it. This would mean atleast a 5-10 minute wait for it. Given that youtube costs almost a million dollars a day in bandwidth.... Who can afford double the bandwidth?

Youtube is also the third most visited site. Even if they are not making money directly from it. They are getting money from it (For instance. The 3rd most searched item on google is Youtube....and the adwords for Youtube are priiiicy). Keeping Youtube as the biggest site in the world is big for google. That gives them 2 in the top 5. and almost 10 of the top 20.

[Waser Lave]

Youtube is also the third most visited site. Even if they are not making money directly from it. They are getting money from it (For instance. The 3rd most searched item on google is Youtube....and the adwords for Youtube are priiiicy). Keeping Youtube as the biggest site in the world is big for google. That gives them 2 in the top 5. and almost 10 of the top 20.

YouTube made a loss of around $500mil last year so we'll have to wait and see if they've turned that around this year and actually made any profit from it. I don't think it'll be long before we see pre-video advertisements showing up.

[iargue]

YouTube made a loss of around $500mil last year so we'll have to wait and see if they've turned that around this year and actually made any profit from it. I don't think it'll be long before we see pre-video advertisements showing up.

Its already at that....

[Waser Lave]

Its already at that....

I haven't seen any pre-video adverts, then again I don't use YouTube much. Either way my prediction was correct, lol.