Footage of Crysis on an iPad. The graphics heavy lifting is outsourced to computers in the cloud.
Ladies and gentleman, this could change the face of computing forever. This is a brand new paradigm, completely changes the way I look at cloud computing.
This idea has been around for a while, and it has its own set of limitations.
Bandwidth being the major one.
1024 x 768 = 768432 pixels.
32 bits of colour information per pixel = 25,165,824 bits of information to show an image on the screen, or 3 Megabytes.
Now, you want to update the screen at a decent interval, 30 frames per second would be ideal.
That's 90MB per second. My Shaw connection maxes out at maybe 2MB per second.
So no matter what, the visual information is going to have to be compressed, and compressed a lot, which means it's not going to look like a game would if rendered locally on a computer with a display of the same resolution.
Latency will be the next issue.. multiplayer games do a lot of client side shenanigans to make it look like the game is seamless, but if you have no client side, even a single player game is going to be subject to significant lag for even the simplest inputs.
It's interesting stuff, but I don't think it'll really change much, at least not until we all have dedicated fiber internet.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Footage of Crysis on an iPad. The graphics heavy lifting is outsourced to computers in the cloud.
Ladies and gentleman, this could change the face of computing forever. This is a brand new paradigm, completely changes the way I look at cloud computing.
without reading anything before. what is the stupid hype about this stupid product?
all it is is a bigger iphone/itouch .. i would much rather spend money on a netbook instead of waste it on this thing.
I'm confused. You say you haven't read anything but then you go on to explain what it is? I'm not even annoyed, just perplexed by your logic. I understand it's fun to be a troll and all, but if you phrase your question in a less prickish way it would be much easier to have a dialogue.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Russic For This Useful Post:
The battery on this thing is pretty crazy. It'll be interesting to see how it holds up over time. I'm at 36% after around 12-13 hours of use. Not a lot of video though. Mostly just surfing, email and Twitter.
The Marvel Comics app is pretty cool. Tweetdeck is a great Twitter app. I'm still waiting to see how iBooks works out. I don't know why the app wasn't included on the iPad at launch rather than as something you have to download. It isn't available to Canadians yet. Im guessing they're still trying to get deals with the publishers finalized.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to KTrain For This Useful Post:
Can you let us know what reading books on the device is like when you get the app? I've been reading reviews but they haven't talked that much about reading books on it. I am very interested to hear what it's like. Same goes with trying to read outside and if the glare is a big factor or not.
As far as reading, I don't buy into much of the "LCD screens kill your eyes" thing, since you can turn down the brightness. Maybe E-Ink is better, but personally I prefer actual dead tree books anyway. The only thing I'd think, and a few reviews have mentioned it, is that holding a 1 pound book could get uncomfortable after a couple hours. Sadly though, I can't think of the last time I've sat and read a book for 2 hours straight.
Can you let us know what reading books on the device is like when you get the app? I've been reading reviews but they haven't talked that much about reading books on it. I am very interested to hear what it's like. Same goes with trying to read outside and if the glare is a big factor or not.
I tried using the iPad by the pool yesterday and found it difficult to see the screen in the bright sun. I had to move to the shade to view the screen. It worked fine then. I've never tried a reader in the bright sun before so I can't really compare it to them.
I'm sure the iBooks app works equally poorly in the bright sun.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to KTrain For This Useful Post:
As far as reading, I don't buy into much of the "LCD screens kill your eyes" thing, since you can turn down the brightness. Maybe E-Ink is better, but personally I prefer actual dead tree books anyway. The only thing I'd think, and a few reviews have mentioned it, is that holding a 1 pound book could get uncomfortable after a couple hours. Sadly though, I can't think of the last time I've sat and read a book for 2 hours straight.
There is no way to make this statement without sounding like a total wuss, but one of the biggest reasons I don't read a lot is that I get uncomfortable holding a book for too long. Perhaps my girlish arms can't handle the task, but if I read a book for any longer than 30 minutes I get into a never-ending cycle of rolling around in bed trying to find a comfortable position.
I'm looking forward to seeing if I can read off an ipad while it's in a case. The more I read about it, the more I'm starting to think the case is a necessary expense. I love that it stands the ipad up in 2 different ways and I've heard (much like the ipod) it can feel "slippy" in your hands. I surely don't want to watch a 2 hour movie holding this thing the whole time.
Not picking on you Flames0910 but there's a lot of bad information about what the Flash battle is all about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames0910
flash/html5 is kind of analogous to blu-ray vs hd-dvd. It's going to be a long drawn out fight but html5 will probably win.
Actually, Flash & HTML5 have almost nothing to do with one another. Flash is a multimedia development platform, HTML5 is a markup language standard. There's plenty of room for both, and they will coexist for many years.
Their functionality of course overlaps with streaming video, but there won't be any battle in that area. HTML5 will be the preferred standard for a lot of reasons (as soon as the W3C agrees on a format). But because users are awfully slow to upgrade their browsers, HTML5 sites will have to have Flash fallbacks to support older browsers (like the current version of IE).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames0910
To me it looks like the industry is probably pissed about adobe's stranglehold of an important internet technology. And it's becoming more important as online-video grows.
In a fight with Microsoft, Google and Apple all on the same side, I don't see how Adobe thinks it could possibly win this one.
-Microsoft is fighting for Silverlight and html5 is a blow to flash
-Google wants an open and fast internet
-Apple is mad at adobe for not properly optimizing flash for safari
-Linux users don't like that flash is a pain to use on their system
MS, Google, and Apple* aren't teaming up against Adobe really. All are pushing/supporting HTML5 but it's not because of Adobe's prominence in streaming video applications, it's because HTML4 was designed when the internet was a very different place and everyone's going to benefit from an updated standard.
*Apple is kind of against Adobe, but not because Adobe didn't optimizing Flash - from what I've heard Adobe did propose a low-power version for iPhones. The problem is that you can write rich client-side games & apps in Flash, but Apple would like you to get your client-side games & apps from their money factory - the App Store. They've correctly predicted that once HTML5 video streaming is standard, most people won't even miss Flash.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames0910
In the end it will come down to the developers. Will flash completely disappear? Probably not, but it likely won't be as prominent as it is right now.
Agreed. It will be years before all users are HTML5 compliant, so Flash is here to stay (for now). But in 5 years or so Flash will be dead as a video streaming medium and will be used only for animations, games, etc.
*Apple is kind of against Adobe, but not because Adobe didn't optimizing Flash - from what I've heard Adobe did propose a low-power version for iPhones. The problem is that you can write rich client-side games & apps in Flash, but Apple would like you to get your client-side games & apps from their money factory - the App Store. They've correctly predicted that once HTML5 video streaming is standard, most people won't even miss Flash.
Actually, they didn't propose a version for the iPhone. They proposed a general version for all mobile phones, and then expressed dismay at Apple for not adopting it.
What people seem to not appreciate is that OS X is not like other platforms, and the versions of Flash that continuously roll out on Macs are buggy, overly resource-intensive and is still the #1 reason for Safari crashes (according to automated crash-reporting).
If Adobe were to get their heads out of their asses and actually try to build something directly for the OS they're targeting, they would find Apple a lot more responsive to them. Hell even their production tools support 64bit Windows, while ignoring that Mac OS has been 64bit for a lot longer than Windows has.
Edit: I do agree with everything else you said though. Flash will die, but it will take some time for users to adapt.
OSX went to a 64 bit kernel with Snow Leopard (though it supported 64 bit apps since what, Tiger?), while there have been 64 bit versions of Windows since Windows 2000.
/derail
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
OSX went to a 64 bit kernel with Snow Leopard (though it supported 64 bit apps since what, Tiger?), while there have been 64 bit versions of Windows since Windows 2000.
/derail
Further derail...
Nobody is running a 64 bit kernel with Snow Leopard by default....although many of the apps are 64 bit of course.
In this regard Apple chose compatibility over 64-bit pureness, a decision that differs from the one Microsoft took. Different companies, different priorities.
