Gee, can't talk about iHtml....... sounds like a NDA restriction controlling your Appleness. :-) the removal of HTML support from Cupertino's mobile Safari browser is outlined in the Developer Program License Agreement for the upcoming iPhone OS 4.0, to be used not only in the iPhone but also in the surprisingly popular iPod touch and the iPad.

"Perhaps Google and IBM can persuade them to go back to Flash? <sound of crickets>" hahaha.. Apple is mimicking IBM business about controlling customers operations option....... but IBM does not try to control customers "type" data nor its sources. Apple has been rolling in mobile profits, but Apple is not sharing or what other companies, in court will demonstrate, their share.

So, Apple "may" have or has pissed off google and a few other real players in the tele world. Google has already done its homework about starting its own mobile network but now is talking to other carriers( not att ). Google data centers are about ready for a global test for Internet and mobile tele test. Google has its on global net outside what you know as the Internet, similar to IBM's.

Google mobile will not be restricted in speed or mobile downloads compared to Atts, so guess who handset will rule..... in the future........


(check last post about April 1 Apple fools day joke)

...the removal of HTML support from Cupertino's mobile Safari browser

So you are saying that HTML support is about to be removed from mobile Safari?

the surprisingly popular iPod touch

You got that right. It turned out to be a stroke of genius (again! :O), and was very much a part of Apple's strategy.

IBM does not try to control customers "type" data nor its sources

:O) I'm sure they would if they could. They did it in the past with EBCDIC vs. ASCII for example.

Google mobile [network] will not be restricted in speed or mobile downloads compared to Atts

Wow! When that happens, I'll be stomping on my obsolete iPhone! Do you have any more details on how Google will remove these pesky bandwidth limitations? I suppose you're speculating that Google will be burying fiber to the about 250,000 cell towers in the U.S., most of them requiring a digging permit.

At this time, AT&T's network is the fastest 3G network by a factor of 3 in real-life testing in multiple cities. It doesn't have good coverage in remote areas, but when it is there it is really fast, and they are finally improving the capacity of the landlines that feed the cell towers. Most towers in the past were fed by a single T-1 line, and would have stayed that way if it hadn't been for the enormous popularity of the iPhone which took AT&T by surprise.

And having seen the future, they are boosting their cell tower feeder capacity immensely, also in preparation for their installation of LTE (Long Term Evolution, one of the several 4G standards), which has already started on a small scale (testing at this time, while waiting for handsets).

Look, let me just try to get this across one more time: I'm not pushing Apple's stuff over anyone else's.

If I see a product I like, I communicate that to people who may benefit from using it, should they have similar needs.

Apple is different, and there is room for differences in the various markets they are in.
This is the case even in the markets they create, like the new personal couch consumption market of the iPad (you have had your car serviced this week, so it won't fail tomorrow on launch day, right? :O).

[And lest anyone get it wrong: I have not pre-ordered an iPad. I have however pre-ordered one for my brother overseas, because his business is to advise some of the world's largest companies on video interaction with their customers and staff. Naturally I will have to do some extensive QC before passing it on :O).

I was raised Lutheran, where murder and blasphemy are forgivable sins but waste isn't, so I'll wait and see before making the leap. And I'll only make that leap if I see a use for it.]

"You got that right. It turned out to be a stroke of genius (again! :O), and was very much a part of Apple's strategy."

I said recently that my biggest problem with Apple has always been its annoying, arrogant users. Thanks for proving my point again and again.

This is a Vegas forum and Vegas runs under Windows. There is very little reason to discuss anything Apple here unless it's how Apple's QuickTime updates regularly break PC video applications or how to get the occasional file back and forth between Vegas and FCP. Otherwise, take your lunatic Apple ravings elsewhere.

Now here you go again John. What makes you the forum moderator here.
There is no reason for him to take his posts elsewhere.
I for one enjoy Bjorn's fanatic posts regarding his love of Apple products. I believe a preset in Vegas for delivery to iPad would be quite nice.

Remember you do not have to read his posts.

Ted

My post was about a tool for pro shooters that works regardless of whether they run Windows, Linux, or something else on their desktop/notebook computers.

Are you suggesting that a list of acceptable smartphone brands should be part of the Vegas System Requirements?

Other people here turned this tool post into a discussion about Apple vs. other companies.

Apple did not develop this professional tool. Panavision did, and their clients (not gear customers because they only rent out their cameras for $3,000/day before discounts) use Linux, OS X, and Windows all.

So I'll redirect your fury towards those who turned this non-OS tool recommendation for those who use Vegas for their end result editing into an unrelated platform debate.

Perhaps you want to make the point that Vegas editors don't shoot in 2.35:1, "so anything from Panavision is useless, even at $9.95." As seen in past posts, Vegas editors use all aspect ratios.

You could make a valid point that Vegas is not used by more than a small number of editors working with other people, the vast majority are lone wolves.

There is certainly some truth to that, but in the end this post was an April Fools post, as indicated by the Subject line.

Risky stuff, obviously!

Fortunately I have thick enough skin to put up with unnecessary personal attacks like being called "annoying, arrogant."

Let's stick to the facts: this was an April 1 joke about a professional production tool that had no connection with any kind of computer. Some people here read their own minds instead of the post, so they got off on a tangent.

I believe a preset in Vegas for delivery to iPad would be quite nice.

And there should be presets for the different Android resolutions too, and Blackberry, and the whole slew of public video sites.

Even professionals like to not have to research so much what's the latest settings recommended for this and that.

Ideally, Vegas should pick up the Sorenson Preset Exchange idea, getting users to contribute presets for all kinds of uses.

Take a look at http://presets.sorensonmedia.com/.

Very simple, very effective, and I can't imagine it's patented.

Look at the Categories, and check out the descriptions.

This is the bee's knees as far as I'm concerned. We should all press SCS at NAB to request this being put into Vegas.

There is a another reason why it makes sense to do this in Vegas right now. You may have heard about the massive layoffs at ABC News. They are asking their journalists to shoot video and handle the audio too, and even edit their work. That is a big step, and Vegas is uniquely suited to provide the right tools for this rapidly growing category.

Vegas has power and ease of use combined in a way you don't find in any other NLE I know of.

Putting in presets like this would make the product demo really well to this and many other customer categories, and would surely be used a lot.

At no time did I criticize Coursedesign for starting this thread and I thought his subject line was clever. A lot of Vegas users have iPhones and his link to the Panavision iPhone app was completely on-topic and appropriate. I can easily see the value in spending $9.95 for it.

However, it was only the fourth post in this thread where Coursedesign himself took the thread off-topic and turned it into an Apple advertisment for the "next category killer iPhone." At that point it ceased being about a useful video production tool that happens to run on an iPhone.

In that post I said not to buy the Apple product, and gave the reasons for it.

No good deed goes unpunished.

"Wow! When that happens, I'll be stomping on my obsolete iPhone! Do you have any more details on how Google will remove these pesky bandwidth limitations? I suppose you're speculating that Google will be burying fiber to the about 250,000 cell towers in the U.S., most of them requiring a digging permit." Gee, where have you been the last ten years? Appleland? ;-) Google has already brought about 90% of the buried fiber cable long ago, before it started trying to buy US air freq...
check the history outside Appleland...... like FTC,FCC filings..... Also, you should read up on cell tower signal management, especially routing and "connectivity".


"At this time, AT&T's network is the fastest 3G network by a factor of 3 in real-life testing in multiple cities" Only recently this is true, which I have been amazed how slow att was upgrading already paid for services. The commercial wars seems to help force att to improve services ;-)

"the removal of HTML support from Cupertino's mobile Safari browser" gee..... check out the developer's SDK for 4.0 OS for the new iPhone........



(check last post about April 1 Apple fools day joke)

Google has already bought about 90% of the buried fiber cable long ago

I'm aware of that, but 90% it ain't, not by a long shot, and not much of it is local. They bought a lot of dark (unused) fiber cheaply a few years ago in order to protect themselves against the local telecom monopolies/duopolies especially, avoiding the way John D. Rockefeller was held hostage by the railroads controlling the pricing for oil transport at a time when the highways were of limited utility for trucks.

Also, you should read up on cell tower signal management, especially routing and "connectivity".

What makes you think I don't know a lot about this, having had these carriers as my customers for datacom?

Btw, I just got word that AT&T's competitors have upgraded their networks, so that in a recent independent study of 51,000 locations across the U.S., AT&T's network was only twice as fast as the rest, but it also had higher reliability than Verizon.

"the removal of HTML support from Cupertino's mobile Safari browser" gee..... check out the developer's SDK for 4.0 OS for the new iPhone........

I don't have time. Since you have the SDK information, why don't you just tell us how the iPhone's web browser will display web pages without supporting HTML?

"What makes you think I don't know a lot about this, having had these carriers as my customers for datacom?" simply by your postings.


"Btw, I just got word that AT&T's competitors have upgraded their networks, so that in a recent independent study of 51,000 locations across the U.S., AT&T's network was only twice as fast as the rest, but it also had higher reliability than Verizon." mmmm, except for NYcity, San Francisco,etc.... ;-) att struggles in high density areas...... but some of that is to be expected, you can only time-slice soooo much.

"I don't have time. Since you have the SDK information, why don't you just tell us how the iPhone's web browser will display web pages without supporting HTML?"
Applevision in Appleworld...... What happened with Flash and Apple? Apple "seems" to be positioning itself to control content going to mobile devices. ..... ( guessing, but I think Steve is closing in on Bill's dream of a constant revenue stream based on use with no give aways)..............


(check last post about April 1 Apple fools day joke)

Can someone please translate the previous post for me?

Is that Canadian French?

????

"Is that Canadian French?" hahaha ;-) Great line!

Coursedesign, please don't insult the poor French Canadians! ;-) Don't they buy datacom cables and products too. ;-)


April fools joke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Started on April 1 to jazz Apple mobile users! Here's article!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apple drops HTML from iPhone and iPad

Jobs conjures iHTML

By Rik Myslewski in San Francisco

Posted in Music and Media, 1st April 2010 18:05 GMT


April Fools Apple will drop support for HTML in the upcoming version of its iPhone OS, slated for release this summer.

According to people familiar with the matter, the removal of HTML support from Cupertino's mobile Safari browser is outlined in the Developer Program License Agreement for the upcoming iPhone OS 4.0, to be used not only in the iPhone but also in the surprisingly popular iPod touch and the "magical and revolutionary" iPad, set for US release this Saturday.

Apple's License Agreement states that mobile Safari will only render pages coded in its own HTML variant - dubbed iHTML - and that all such pages must be first approved by Cupertino's App Store police before they will be allowed onto the iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch.

"Apple is again changing the way people interact with their devices and with the web," said longtime Apple-watcher Bob Wenderle.

Wenderle calls the removal of HTML support a "master stroke" and suggested that Apple's decision to supplant HTML with its own variant merely continues Apple's "long-standing practice of going its own way, leapfrogging traditional solutions and supplanting them with its own groundbreaking vision of improved interactive experiences."

A recent Netcraft survey reported that worldwide web hostnames peaked at 240 million in January 2010, but has since sunk to just over 200 million, prompting speculation that Apple has been working behind the scenes to begin the transformation of web properties from HTML to iHTML.

The License Agreement, according to people familiar with the matter, indicates that iHTML and HTML are substantially similar - the HTML5 <video> tag, for example, is supported - but the rendering engine is set to detect a metatag identification string that indicates whether the page has been approved by Apple.

In iHTML, such archaic tags as <marquee> and <blink> have been removed, but little else is mentioned in the License Agreement, according to people familiar with the matter. For more details, The Reg will have to wait until the iPhone 4.0 SDK is released, most likely in Q3 of this year.

Apple has received a fair amount of criticism for its arguably puritanical attitude to applications it allows into its iTunes App Store. Many observers have pointed out - and rightly so - that although the App Store police ban "overtly sexual content" from applications, such content is readily available on the web through the mobile Safari browser. Apple's iHTML effort may be seen as an end-run around such criticism.

While iHTML may solve the problem of objectionable content, it creates another one - one that may or may not be of concern to the Cupertinian brain trust: In a 2008 blog post, Google engineers Jesse Alpert and Nissan Hajaj estimated that the total number of web pages was in the range of one trillion. After the iHTML transition, only those pages that have been translated into iHTML and approved by Apple will be viewable on the iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch.

One analyst who declined to be identified told The Reg that Apple's switch to iHTML makes good business sense. "If, for example, Apple would require a license fee of a mere ten cents for each page converted into iHTML, Google's estimate of one trillion pages would constitute a potential $100bn income opportunity for Apple."

A spokeswoman for mobile ad broker Greystripe also sees a business upside for iHTML. Noting that her company had only yesterday announced its iFlash transcoder, which converts Flash-based creative into a form that can be displayed on Flash-less iPhones, iPads, and iPod touches, she told The Reg: "Greystripe sees a parallel opportunity in transcoding HTML into iHTML. We're already working on such technology, to be called iiHTML."

Norwegian browser developer Opera, who late last month submitted their Opera Mini app to the App Store, also sees an opportunity. Their spokesman told us: "Since Opera Mini doesn't render HTML on the mobile device, but instead relies on proxy servers to perform the rendering, which is then passed down to the device, we see no conflict with Apple's proposed iHTML standard."

The impact of Apple's iHTML effort is hard to forecast. With hundreds of millions of hostnames serving over a trillion web pages, the number of developers who will make the effort to convert their web offerings into iHTML to allow them to be viewed on Apple's industry-leading devices will be a telling measure of Apple's clout in the mobile market.

The Reg suggests that a good date to judge the success of the iHTML effort would be exactly one year from today: April 1, 2011. ®

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------