I don’t usually like to parrot somebody else’s comment but I can’t help it with this article on Mashable, AT&T: iPad Is a Wi-Fi Driven Product. Apparently, the CEO of AT&T said he didn’t expect most buyers of iPad, when it is introduced, will opt for the Wi-Fi only version.
I do not have an iPad or a Kindle though I would imagine it is true that you can live with Wi-Fi only if you use the iPad like a Kindle. However, if you want to use the iPad more like a computer, which I do with my iPhone, Wi-Fi only is unacceptable.
As the Mashable article said, you hardly find public access points that are open, and when you do, you can’t be sure somebody is not maliciously tapping into your data stream. Even if you are just looking for a restaurant on Yelp to have lunch after reading a book for a couple hours on your iPad in a park, you need a connection. Chances are you’d like to have 3G if nobody is giving you free Wi-Fi at the park.
As an iPhone owner who is already paying AT&T a handsome sum every month, I am glad that AT&T realizes that I am not inclined to pay them again if I ever buy an iPad. Sarah Perez on ReadWriteWeb, iPad Owners to Go Wi-Fi Only? AT&T CEO Thinks So (POLL). However, I also want to lobby as Stan Schroeder did on Mashable, to allow my iPhone to serve as a tethered modem to the iPad.
Apple and AT&T should listen – iPhone users are already unhappy with the quality of the data and phone service. iPad users should be allowed to connect to the 3G network without having to subscribe to another line.
Updated March 6, 2010: Turns out somebody asked Steve Jobs about tethering iPad to the iPhone and Jobs said, “No”.
Posted in New Venture
|
Tagged AT&T, iPad
|
If you have been following the popular press on Apple’s problems with Flash or if you own an iPhone, you know that Apple and Adobe have had long running arguments about Flash. Developers and tech geeks have been taking sides on this issues too. On the other hand, HTML5 technology that is supposed to replace Flash seems to be gaining acceptance. The question is, however, what difference will it make?
If you want to spend a leisurely Sunday afternoon reading up on the politics of HTML5 vs Flash, you can start with this article on the Mac Observer, The Lowdown: Technology and Politics of HTML5 vs. Flash.
This is the article from Gizmodo that talks about Vimeo now supports HTML5 video. In fact, you can access YouTube content in HTML5 format as well (remember that YouTube was probably the catalyst that spread Flash to most end user desktops). If you listen to the people who care about such things, a Mashable poll with the title HTML5 Knocks Out Adobe Flash in Reader Vote indicates that they prefer HTML5 over Flash 2 to 1.
As an observer from the sideline of this battle, I am interested in the outcome and I certainly have heard HTML5 being mentioned more. What Apple might or might not have considered is that, by actively promoting HTML5 and preventing Flash from being deployed on iPhone and iPad, Apple may help establish HTML5 as the standard not just for video streaming but also for mobile software development in general.
Most application developers would love to build a single mobile application and deploy it to iPhone, Android and Blackberry (I ignore Windows Mobile because Microsoft does not even support HTML5 on desktop IE yet). HTML5 might succeed but Apple might lose its dominance over mobile applications if developers can build once and deploy everywhere.
