backtop


Print 128 comment(s) - last by Veerappan.. on Sep 28 at 10:27 AM


The iPhone 4 may be beloved by Apple fans, but its HTML5 is painfully slow, slower than Android HTML5 and far slower than Android's Flash 10.1, according to a recent benchmark.  (Source: Nick Ut/AP)

The iPod Touch 4G/iPhone 4 had trouble reliably rendering a bouncing ball in a simple test.  (Source: Chris Black/YouTube)
iPhone 4's HTML5 looks pathetic versus Android, even worse against Flash 10.1

Apple CEO Steve Jobs has committed to a long and vocal war against the internet multimedia platform Flash.  Mr. Jobs has banished Flash from his iDevices, contending that Flash kills battery life and delivers inferior performance.

A recent benchmark (video, text) by web developer Chris Black shows that quite the opposite might be true.  Mr. Black benchmarked the iPhone 4 running iOS 4.1 and Google's defunct Nexus One running Android 2.2 "Froyo".

What he found was that on the iPod Touch 4G (roughly identical hardware to the iPhone 4 sans 3G modem), a simple HTML5 canvas of a ball bouncing on a paddle rendered at a choppy 22 fps in Apple Mobile Safari browser.  What's worse, the animation stopped entirely when zooming out or in.

By contrast the Nexus One averaged around 40 fps when using HTML5 in its built-in Chrome-derivative browser.  The animation felt slightly sluggish, but was tolerable.  And zooming out and in no longer stopped the animation.

Finally, Mr. Black tested Flash 10.1 running on Nexus One (in-browser).  The results were a silky-smooth 57 fps, near the target of 60 fps.  What's more, after running the test for 10 minutes, the Flash animation consumed only half the battery that running the equivalent HTML5 animation did.

Mr. Black's overall conclusions are straightforward -- on Android phones HTML5 is a tough sell versus Flash 10.1, given the battery performance and slightly slower framerates.  And on the iPhone 4 it goes from okay to downright pathetic.  He concludes:
Keep in mind Flash Player 10.1 is relatively new. If Flash had been included with the original iPhone, you would have hated it. The new version, however, kicks ass. Would love to see some hacked iPhone Flash benchmarks to fill in the missing pieces on the above graph. If the iOS can’t render a little ball, HTML5 is going to be a hard sell for iDevices.
Mr. Black reminds us that Adobe Air, coming soon to Android as well, should deliver even superior battery life for Flash-driven apps, like games.

If Mr. Black's tests are a fair representation, there's not much "magical" about the iPhone 4's HTML5.  That does still leave Mr. Jobs with one valid complaint, though, that it's a closed, proprietary standard.  However, Apple's implementation of HTML5 uses a number of proprietary parts, including the H.264 video codec.

It's important to bear in mind that this is only one benchmark.  Mr. Black has been very open about his test code and testing procedures, but there are flaws in any benchmarks.  Hopefully this topic is further studied to determine whether Apple's HTML5 performance is as bad at this test paints it to be.

Update: Tuesday, Sept. 21, 2010 9:10 p.m.--

As some have pointed out, the iPod Touch 4G, on which tests were performed only had 256 MB of RAM.  So is HTML5 hitting a memory ceiling?  That remains to be seen.  Hopefully follow-up tests on the iPhone 4 will be performed to further test this possibility. 

Also it should be noted that on the Nexus One Flash beats HTML5 in batter life and performance -- so assuming it was a fair test, it appears that Flash would have the lead on either platform.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

LIES!
By Motoman on 9/21/2010 1:24:04 PM , Rating: 5
Clearly, more lies fabricated by the evil media to discredit the unerring ways of Apple. Everyone knows that Apple is perfection, and even if it isn't, it still is. Because the perfection of Apple is so perfect, that it is perfect even in it's imperfection.




RE: LIES!
By spread on 9/21/2010 1:26:57 PM , Rating: 5
You're benchmarking it wrong.


RE: LIES!
By quiksilvr on 9/21/2010 2:35:42 PM , Rating: 5
That's what she said.

Double rainbow.

Hide your kids, hide your wife and hide your husband.

I can't see anything.

Chocolate rain.

Series of tubes.


RE: LIES!
By chagrinnin on 9/21/2010 8:13:39 PM , Rating: 2
Stevie: "Leave us alone!" *sniff, sniff*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc


RE: LIES!
By chrish89 on 9/22/2010 12:26:48 PM , Rating: 4
iPhone 4 and all future iPhones suck.

Steve is a complete fu@ktard.

Apple is an epic fail.


RE: LIES!
By AstroGuardian on 9/24/2010 4:33:43 AM , Rating: 2
Thumbs up!


RE: LIES!
By bfellow on 9/24/2010 12:18:28 PM , Rating: 2
You need to put on the free Apple rubber before doing the test.


RE: LIES!
By msheredy on 9/21/2010 3:57:40 PM , Rating: 4
The iPod 4g (which was what was used on this test) has half the Ram as the iPhone and N1 so how is this a valid comparison?

I Love how the author says
quote:
(roughly identical hardware to the iPhone 4 sans 3G modem)

Sure half the ram is roughly identical when it comes to hardware LOL!


RE: LIES!
By morphologia on 9/21/2010 4:51:04 PM , Rating: 2
iPhone 4 = 512MB RAM
NexusOne = 512MB RAM

?????????????????????


RE: LIES!
By CowKing on 9/21/2010 5:21:20 PM , Rating: 2
yes he said the iPhone 4 and N1 have the same amount of RAM. He also said that the iPod 4G(which has half the amount of RAM) was used and not the iPhone 4. Brain Farts happen


RE: LIES!
By Alexstarfire on 9/21/2010 6:27:03 PM , Rating: 3
I agree. Plus, HTML5 is touted for video support at the moment, not animation. I'd be more interested to see HTML5 comparison between the iPhone 4 and Nexus One using video. I think Flash will still win but it won't be by such a large margin.


RE: LIES!
By B3an on 9/22/2010 1:45:16 AM , Rating: 5
Actually HTML5 should offer better video performance over Flash as it will simply use a codec to play the vid.
Flash on the other hard is a very complex plugin that supports a ton of stuff, there also has to be other layers running as video inside Flash can have animations on top of it and all kinds of other stuff running alongside the vid and interacting with it. Even if the vid dont have this, as most dont, the player still needs to have things running for these abilities. It's why Flash video even with GPU acceleration never runs quite as good as playing a vid in a simple software player.

And rant here on the old HTML5 vs Flash debate... the stuff in this article isn't remotely new... theres already many other tests and benchmarks on youtube or other sites by web devs like myself doing this - comparing HTML5 performance to Flash on devicess likes this. The one thing they have in common - Flash always wins, hands down.

Flash will always be better for animations, performance, development ease and what can be done. It was originally designed with animation in mind too and gone through 10 major versions. It gets near 60 FPS in these tests, the FPS counter is probably hitting the limit here with the ball and i know for a fact Flash 10.1 can run WAY more complex stuff, like a full featured game while getting the same FPS on Android. I work with Flash and HTML every day and making this ball animation in Flash can be done in literally 2mins with simple timeline animations - no coding needed.

I actually charge clients more to make boring static HTML pages than a fully interactive Flash site, as you spend ages messing around with multiple different coding languages in comparison to Flash's single powerful AS language, then trying to align images/text right when if Flash you literally just place it on the stage like an image in photoshop, then getting it to work well in each browser. Regardless of browsers all having better standards support, the way each of them decides to render something is not really improving.

HTML5 is extremely limited, it's has hardly changed over the years either. You wont get much more than a bouncing ball, fading, and slides out of it and even then you'll have to use another language like JS to do that.
When phone browsers start supporting the GPU like IE9 does, then these animations will run a LOT better. But HTML5 itself will always be limited and a poor choice for anything like this. Even for video, one of HTML5's strong points, Flash is capable of FAR more (some of it mentioned above). HTML does not get updated each year like Flash either. HTML4 was released a decade ago, and HTML5 isn't even finalised until 2012. Who knows when HTML6 will be out.

Adobe already have Flash 10.2 BETA out which supports IE9's GPU hardware acceleration, and a 64-bit version is also available (how about an article on this Jason??). Flash 11 will apparently be getting real 3D support. HTML5 cannot compete, they gap is just going to get wider and wider. Then HTML6 will come out in 10 years time (or however long) and we'll all go through argument again. Apple are massive fools to not allow Flash. When Air is released for android (basically Flash based apps/games) it's going to be another blow.


RE: LIES!
By pyrosity on 9/22/2010 7:57:49 AM , Rating: 2
I cannot believe I just found a knowledgeable, sensible person [making a comment] on the Internet.

HTML5 video controls, once the browsers settle on standards, should be pretty powerful for most general needs, but other than that Flash has a big upper hand everywhere else. It has helped the web into the "everyone can watch videos" era but now the question arises of how much it will continue to be used for full sites, and how much it will be used for applications down the road. For creating animated web videos/games, nothing comes close, really; I cannot see it being replaced any time soon for that particular function.


RE: LIES!
By bug77 on 9/22/2010 8:54:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
HTML5 is extremely limited, it's has hardly changed over the years either. You wont get much more than a bouncing ball, fading, and slides out of it and even then you'll have to use another language like JS to do that.


I'm sure you have seen showcases of HTML5 actually doing more than a bouncing ball, fading and slides.

True, implementations are probably not optimized yet. Why would anyone spend much time optimizing when the standard is not set in stone yet? But the potential is certainly there.


RE: LIES!
By Tony Swash on 9/22/2010 9:07:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm sure you have seen showcases of HTML5 actually doing more than a bouncing ball, fading and slid


Web comic implemented in HTML5, part of Microsoft’s “Beauty of the Web” campaign to promote IE9.

http://www.nevermindthebullets.com/strip.html#1-1


RE: LIES!
By bug77 on 9/22/2010 9:32:46 AM , Rating: 2
That's not very far from simple slides. But I have seen demos of video interacting with other events on page and stuff like that. Pretty incredible and not currently possible with Flash. I'll post a link if I can still find it.


RE: LIES!
By bug77 on 9/22/2010 9:40:14 AM , Rating: 2
Couldn't find the original, but this is pretty close: http://craftymind.com/factory/html5video/CanvasVid...


RE: LIES!
By B3an on 9/22/2010 11:22:51 PM , Rating: 3
Yep i've seen "HTML5" do more than just these kinds of simple animations, i've made it do them myself too, however it still cant compete with Flash for what can bo done and none of these examples on the web will be purely HTML5 - as on it's own it's just a very simple page mark-up language, it's not really good for anything but page layout... so things like this have to use JavaScript and other languages along with HTML5.

Now you could say these are part of the HTML5 sub set, but they're still completely different languages and technologies even though it's all often referred to as just "HTML5".

It's borderline ridiculous making a site make good use of this stuff too...
For example... if i was to make an interactive site, with advanced animations, video features, sound, and apps it can all be done in Flash using it's single ActionScript coding language. Now if i was to do this with HTML5, i'd have to use HTML5 + CSS + JavaScript + Canvas + god knows what else. I can already work with all this stuff, but for a beginner learning it all is hard to say the least, let alone actually getting really good at it all.
Then i'd have to have multiple files for it all, which complicates matter worse as they have to interact with one another, when with Flash it can usually be done in a single SWF file.

So as a web dev... why would i do this when theres already a better option, thats easier, quicker, better organised, has far better dev tools, and saves me time? This is why you wont see many HTML5 sites using advanced animations and the like.
It will be especially hard for smaller sites to have this stuff aswell because of the costs involved with all the time and skill needed.

Some things with HTML5 will improve - like Dev tools and HTML5 performance in browsers, but no matter how much dev tools improve i cant ever see it comparing to Flash's ease with creating more interactive/advanced content.


RE: LIES!
By bug77 on 9/23/2010 7:21:05 AM , Rating: 1
Why would you bother with HTML5? I'll give you a reason: SEO. One of the things I hate most about a site made entirely with Flash is that you can't have links to various pages. Because you don't have pages to begin with. And when your site won;t generate revenue because bots can't index it, then you'll see an incentive for learning HTML.

My other gripe with Flash is all sites are a butt-ugly rectangle somewhere on the screen. It won't scale to fit a larger screen.

Yes, Flash is easier to learn. But Visual Basic is easier to learn than C++ too. Does this make it the better language?


RE: LIES!
By B3an on 9/23/2010 11:36:13 AM , Rating: 3
You're not right about either of those things, like most people who say bad stuff about Flash it's either outdated or simple not true... you can use SEO with Flash: http://www.getelastic.com/seo-for-flash/

Search engines can now index text inside a SWF file too.

And i dont know why you think Flash content cannot scale to fit the screen... Flash is certainly capable of this and i've been making all my Flash sites do it for years. You can also do cool things like make the vector graphics enlarge and keep text the same size, and being as they're vector no pixelation appears when enlarged.

Flash isn't just easier to learn, its easier to work with, and the dev software is the best i've used. It also works extremely well with Adobes other software, importing Photoshop or Illustrator files will keep the layers and effects applied.


RE: LIES!
By Alexstarfire on 9/23/2010 3:19:01 PM , Rating: 1
Some people just like to bitch about Flash because it's the "it" thing to do. Only real complaint about Flash is video. Using Flash to play video isn't the best way to do it, but it's currently the easiest. The best part about HTML5 is the supposed audio and video standards it'll bring. With nothing being concrete I couldn't say how it'll turn out. Will be a big step forward if they actually implement audio/video web standards.


RE: LIES!
By B3an on 9/26/2010 12:26:02 AM , Rating: 3
...Even your complaint about video isn't valid... Flash can already play H.264 files ( m4v, mp4, quicktime, and others). It dont just play FLV video files like most people think.
It can play the same H.264 codec that HTML5 will use. But is already capable of doing way more than HTML5 can with video.

It will also soon have support for Googles open VP8 video codec.

So like i said before, this is nearly always the case with people saying anything negative about Flash... it's nearly always because they dont know anything about it, heard something from some random on the net, or it's something that was fixed years ago.


RE: LIES!
By bug77 on 9/23/2010 4:51:20 PM , Rating: 2
I'm glad to hear it's possible. But I've never seen it implemented.


RE: LIES!
By sprockkets on 9/22/10, Rating: -1
RE: LIES!
By Tony Swash on 9/21/10, Rating: -1
RE: LIES!
By AmbroseAthan on 9/21/2010 1:52:48 PM , Rating: 2
Just tested both on an HTC EVO (2.2) with default browser and Dolphin.

http://fatgr.in/jstest.html
EVO Default: ~56
EVO Dolphin: ~53

http://www.satine.org/research/webkit/hacks/ballbo...
EVO Default: ~26
EVO Dolphin: ~52

Not sure what the second test does, but the default browser does not like it much. Dolphin seems to just cruise right through both though.


RE: LIES!
By Chudilo on 9/21/2010 3:05:30 PM , Rating: 2
http://fatgr.in/jstest.html
Just ran it on my Original Droid
41.16 (all stock froyo)

http://www.satine.org/research/webkit/hacks/ballbo...
42.5

On Original Browser


RE: LIES!
By aebiv on 9/21/2010 4:20:15 PM , Rating: 2
~42

On Opera Mobile 10 on the HD2.


RE: LIES!
By aebiv on 9/21/2010 4:22:24 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting, on my PC I get:

IE9 -60
Chrome 6 -58


RE: LIES!
By Moishe on 9/23/2010 10:33:32 AM , Rating: 2
Palm Pre Plus on the stock browser

47 and 47 fps


RE: LIES!
By Dark Legion on 9/23/2010 1:10:28 PM , Rating: 2
Very interesting. On my DrInc (froyo), default browser is ~42, but skyfire browser does 58-60. And my PC is ~62.5. But it is very odd that there is that much of a difference just between browsers.


RE: LIES!
By Dark Legion on 9/23/2010 1:15:28 PM , Rating: 2
*facepalm* And right after I post too...Wifi makes a difference, with it turned on the default browser is just a couple FPS lower than skyfire.


RE: LIES!
By winterspan on 9/24/2010 1:48:06 PM , Rating: 2
I get ~48 on my iPhone 3GS. I would assume the iPhone 4 is even faster.


RE: LIES!
By kmmatney on 9/21/2010 3:29:36 PM , Rating: 1
Tested on my iPhone 3GS. I get 42 fps on the first one, and 42 fps on the second one. I would guess that teh iPhone 4 would be faster.


RE: LIES!
By Aloonatic on 9/21/2010 3:34:39 PM , Rating: 2
HTC Desire (so essentially Nexus 1 I guess) running froyo (eventually, thanks T-Mobile for taking an age, only got hte update this weekend believe it or not) I got about 54 (49-58) fps on both tests, just using the default browser.


RE: LIES!
By neutralizer on 9/21/2010 11:46:36 PM , Rating: 2
N1 here. 56 fps on both.


RE: LIES!
By Veerappan on 9/28/2010 10:27:38 AM , Rating: 2
iPhone 4. iOS 4.0.2

http://fatgr.in/jstest.html
Safari: 35fps, Opera Mini: 60fps, but not actually animated

http://www.satine.org/research/webkit/hacks/ballbo...
Safari: 36fps, Opera Mini: 60fps, but not actually animated


RE: LIES!
By Gio6518 on 9/21/2010 1:57:43 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Its always possible to write code that runs poorly on any platform.


The poor code is iOS


RE: LIES!
By spread on 9/21/2010 6:13:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The poor code is iOS


You're reading it wrong.


RE: LIES!
By chrish89 on 9/22/2010 12:05:02 PM , Rating: 2
Apple blows massive rhinoceros dongs.


RE: LIES!
By melgross on 9/22/2010 12:14:06 PM , Rating: 2
No. It's been pointed out in several places on the net that the HTML code used there is not very good. Gee, I wonder why that would be for this demo.

But it's been improved at least twice in the past couple of days, apparently pretty easily. Here's one result.

http://www.satine.org/research/webkit/hacks/ballbo...


RE: LIES!
By ninjaquick on 9/21/2010 2:10:42 PM , Rating: 2
59 FPS on my evo there.


RE: LIES!
By ninjaquick on 9/21/2010 2:12:21 PM , Rating: 1
and 60 flat on the second.


RE: LIES!
By chrnochime on 9/21/2010 2:49:54 PM , Rating: 2
I would down-rate you further if I could.

Just admit it aint as *magical* as SJ make it to be.


RE: LIES!
By Tony Swash on 9/21/10, Rating: -1
RE: LIES!
By Pirks on 9/21/10, Rating: -1
RE: LIES!
By inighthawki on 9/21/2010 6:27:29 PM , Rating: 5
Have you ever thought that maybe it's not about your post and links being rated down for validity, but that your post and it's presentation is Not Worth Reading ?


RE: LIES!
By Pirks on 9/21/10, Rating: -1
RE: LIES!
By inighthawki on 9/21/2010 10:37:40 PM , Rating: 2
As many people have told you before (and you REFUSE to accept as true) people generally don't like the way you present your argument with the bad attitude and the "i know better than you" mentality with insults and swearing. That isn't to say that there aren't a few people who likely rate you down just to start trolling you (to get you to complain) but most people have a good reason.

Again let me say it's not the validity of your post that is being disputed, it's that people don't think you present your argument in a very professional manner by any means.


RE: LIES!
By Pirks on 9/21/10, Rating: -1
RE: LIES!
By inighthawki on 9/21/2010 11:23:46 PM , Rating: 3
case and point


RE: LIES!
By weskurtz0081 on 9/21/2010 4:18:20 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, but where in that link did it show the results when being run on the iPhone 4? I ran both of those links on an iPhones 4 and only managed about 29-31 FPS on each.


RE: LIES!
By testerguy on 9/21/10, Rating: 0
RE: LIES!
By MoneyLoo on 9/22/2010 1:02:21 AM , Rating: 2
I honestly just did the first test on my iPhone 4 and initially I only got 29-31 same as the first guy. However it occurred to me that maybe I should check my background apps and sure enough I had a lot running. After closing all other apps and rebooting my iPhone I was still only able to get about 45 fps max on the first test. Didn't see a need to try the second link. The point is, instead of being so closed-minded and blindly accusing someone of being a liar or "bs'er", perhaps you should stop and take some time to think about what variables could be logically causing the fluctuations.


RE: LIES!
By Tony Swash on 9/21/10, Rating: -1
RE: LIES!
By bplewis24 on 9/21/2010 1:41:21 PM , Rating: 3
Sweet, so the improved version is still inferior. How is the battery life? What a shocker that you're going to bat for something that isn't even made by Apple, but is part of Apple's agenda.

Really, what stock do you have in HTML5's performance vs Flash? Why would you be against having the option for both?

Brandon


RE: LIES!
By menting on 9/21/2010 1:44:43 PM , Rating: 3
Because Steve Jobs says so!!
lol


RE: LIES!
By testerguy on 9/21/10, Rating: -1
RE: LIES!
By bplewis24 on 9/22/2010 12:01:11 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Now just because one USELESS example happens to against this TREND, doesn't mean anything.


Umm, a scientific study disproving a hypothesis actually means everything...or at least a lot. But I guess to somebody as ignorant as to believe that Steve Jobs has a valid point, it wouldn't matter.

Brandon


RE: LIES!
By chrish89 on 9/22/2010 11:34:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I guess to somebody as ignorant as to believe that Steve Jobs has a valid point, it wouldn't matter


Umm, yes Steve has track record of being wrong time and time again.


RE: LIES!
By Alexstarfire on 9/22/2010 1:00:07 AM , Rating: 2
Sigh, and some people wonder why we make fun of Apple followers. Yes, one example doesn't give a clear picture, but it's not painting HTML 5 in a good light. I would certainly like to see more, but I don't expect you to give a rats ass about what it would actually indicate.


RE: LIES!
By robinthakur on 9/24/2010 5:36:29 AM , Rating: 2
I think most of these arguments for or against are pretty moot given that neither platform is really optimised for HTML5 yet!

Yes its ridiculously naive of SJ to bluster about HTML5 being prefereable to Flash when IOS runs it so poorly or not at all currently. Clearly HTML5 has advantages in the future once the spec is agreed, but so does Flash right now, and its a shame that Apple is choosing to show its oposition in a way which inconveniences their customer base and makes iOS seem less capable than Android and prompts their proponents to take hardline and, frankly, silly views.

However, does anyone here believe that even Safari running on the iPod Touch 4 is incapable of rendering a bouncing ball animation if its properly optimised to HTML5? Should rendering a bouncing ball eat up 256MB of RAM? Whilst I do occasionally agree with Tony (i own an IP4) his agenda is blatantly biased ;-)


RE: LIES!
By Pirks on 9/21/10, Rating: 0
RE: LIES!
By omnicronx on 9/21/2010 2:11:25 PM , Rating: 2
Would be interesting to know the difference in battery life though.

Otherwise its irrelevent if the code was poor and someone else got it to run at the same FPS. (I'm just going to make a guess that that the coding error has little to no impact on battery life)

If it can only match the FPS but cant match the battery life, Apples statements are still bogus.


RE: LIES!
By FredEx on 9/22/2010 7:14:43 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with you.

Since doing tweaking increased the FPS on the device, would that possibly not help lessen the battery drain, but make it even poorer in comparison.

The increased FPS may have increased processor load.


RE: LIES!
By weskurtz0081 on 9/21/2010 3:38:40 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, that's strange! I just tested BOTH of those links on two different phones, an iPhone 4 and a Nexus One.

The iPhone 4 put up 29-31 FPS on BOTH of them.
The N1 was doing 50-52 FPS.

So, did you actually test an iPhone 4 with those links?


RE: LIES!
By menting on 9/21/2010 1:48:43 PM , Rating: 5
what are you talking about?
it ran so fast on iphone 4, that the counter overflowed, and displayed that low number. And that lagginess? that's not true. It's not the problem with the iphone 4, its a problem with the person doing the test.


RE: LIES!
By theapparition on 9/21/2010 3:40:05 PM , Rating: 4
Apparently, Apple designers were "shocked" when they found out they were counting wrong all along.


RE: LIES!
By Pirks on 9/21/10, Rating: -1
RE: LIES!
By marvdmartian on 9/21/2010 2:46:54 PM , Rating: 2
If Darth Steve says it's magical, you'd better believe him, or he might just force choke you!

I'm guessing that the excuse will be that the iphone's HTML5 ran it so fast, that it approached the speed of light, and only made it APPEAR to slow down. ;)

Oh yeah, and the slower speed and worse battery life? It's a FEATURE.


RE: LIES!
By AnotherGuy on 9/21/2010 5:43:59 PM , Rating: 2
lol this deserves a 10


RE: LIES!
By chrish89 on 9/22/2010 12:00:08 PM , Rating: 2
Apple blows massive elephant dongs.


Nothing
By Gio6518 on 9/21/2010 1:24:56 PM , Rating: 5
Nothing about the iPhone 4 is impressive or magical




RE: Nothing
By SAmely on 9/21/2010 1:57:54 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah, but we keep getting forcefed by the media/bloggers/spares that both the iPhone 4 and the iPad are magical, since Apple calls it that.

Vomit.


RE: Nothing
By chrish89 on 9/21/10, Rating: -1
RE: Nothing
By SAmely on 9/21/2010 2:38:34 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the completely useless response to what I had to say.

Your pretentious bias is a waste of my time.


RE: Nothing
By chrish89 on 9/21/10, Rating: -1
RE: Nothing
By Gio6518 on 9/21/2010 3:01:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apple sucks!!!


completely off topic ! ! ! ! ! !

that only proves that steve has great marketing skills and has complete mind control over the iDiots that keep buying their inferior products .......


RE: Nothing
By chrish89 on 9/21/10, Rating: -1
RE: Nothing
By Gio6518 on 9/21/2010 3:58:22 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Off topic? Apple sucking is the topic of every post otherwise its down rated


if it was about apples marketing skils or companies financial staus, then it would be relevant.

just to say apple doesnt suck by providing a stock quote, doesnt make a statement about the quality products.

if that were true than HTC must make better products since their stock is worth more.

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/...


RE: Nothing
By chrish89 on 9/22/2010 11:46:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
HTC must make better products since their stock is worth more


HTC stock price is 717.00 and has market Cap of 586B in Taiwanese currency . This is equivalent to $22 stock price with $18B Market Cap.

Currently Apple it $286 with $260B Market Cap.

And let the down rating begin...


RE: Nothing
By Alexstarfire on 9/22/2010 1:23:16 PM , Rating: 2
Lol, he failed hardcore by not noticing the differences in currencies.


RE: Nothing
By Tony Swash on 9/21/10, Rating: 0
RE: Nothing
By Spuke on 9/21/2010 3:29:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not according to the people who count - its customers :)
True, they prefer to take it in the ass.


RE: Nothing
By Tony Swash on 9/21/10, Rating: -1
RE: Nothing
By chrish89 on 9/22/2010 11:54:40 AM , Rating: 3
Apple blows massive donkey dongs.


RE: Nothing
By Motoman on 9/21/2010 3:56:28 PM , Rating: 5
...if you are an Apple customer, chances are that counting is not your strong suit...or math in general.


RE: Nothing
By Tony Swash on 9/21/10, Rating: 0
RE: Nothing
By Camikazi on 9/21/2010 6:11:27 PM , Rating: 3
You do realize that third link is talking about the LONG gone G4 Macs right and it's also an article from 2004. The student one from the second link can be explained pretty easy since Apple all but gives away iPods and Macs to students so of course starving students will pick the free or cheap stuff :P The first one, well the article it self says Apple commands a cult-like following, the iSheep as many call them, and as all know cults are such a logical thing and prove something is great. MS has to try to prove to people their upgrade is worth it, since MS users won't blindly follow, they need proof, Apple cultists just buy what Jobs says is magical. Good try but you need to find better articles.


RE: Nothing
By Tony Swash on 9/21/2010 6:20:43 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You do realize that third link is talking about the LONG gone G4 Macs right and it's also an article from 2004. The student one from the second link can be explained pretty easy since Apple all but gives away iPods and Macs to students so of course starving students will pick the free or cheap stuff :P The first one, well the article it self says Apple commands a cult-like following, the iSheep as many call them, and as all know cults are such a logical thing and prove something is great. MS has to try to prove to people their upgrade is worth it, since MS users won't blindly follow, they need proof, Apple cultists just buy what Jobs says is magical. Good try but you need to find better articles.


A more telling response would have been to post a link to a piece of market research that showed that Apple customers tended to be less numerate than average. I guess you couldn't find any actual - what's the word I am looking for - evidence.

quote:
A great many people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices.
  - William James


RE: Nothing
By Camikazi on 9/21/2010 6:31:20 PM , Rating: 2
I was just showing where your links were outdated or wrong, I never said anything else, don't confuse me with the person you originally responded too.


RE: Nothing
By Alexstarfire on 9/21/2010 6:42:52 PM , Rating: 1
His response to the second link didn't make sense anyway. By that logic PCs must only be popular because they are cheap. I'm sure it's probably partially true both ways since you can't buy what you can't afford. If Macs were the same price as PCs, at least in their laptop lineup, then they'd probably take over the market. It's not like most Apple products are downright shitty and not worth using period. They just usually aren't worth it for the amount of money you have to pay to get into them. That and fact that a lot of Apple products are only truly useful when used in conjuncture with other Apple products.


RE: Nothing
By Camikazi on 9/21/2010 7:58:57 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe I didn't state it right, but that graph showed students using macs more recently, and from what I have read Apple is giving big discounts or even free systems to students. That alone will make a HUGE difference, since most students don't have the money for expensive systems, so will go to the person giving a good cheap system (or free system) plus the whole "cool" factor Apple has with younger people helps.


RE: Nothing
By Alexstarfire on 9/22/2010 1:36:16 AM , Rating: 2
That's exactly what I thought you meant, but my point was that price vs marketshare isn't a good way to judge how good a computer system is. Unless something is almost completely unusable the lower priced product is going to have greater marketshare. That is very generalized of course since minor variations in price aren't going to mean much, but if a product is 20+% cheaper it's going to make a big difference.

I wasn't saying you were right or wrong either, just that you didn't make a very good argument against what he said.

Now, with the links he posted I'll say this. IDK where you got the G4 stuff from since it clearly talks about internet searches and the iPhone. IDK why he posted this link since it's mostly conjecture. Just because something was searched a lot, or a little for that matter, doesn't mean it'll be or not be a success. Not only that, but the iPhone was probably searched more since no one really knew anything about it pre-expo/conference. Lots of rumors, nothing specific. Vista, on the other hand, was pretty well known about for a long time. He might want links to prove him wrong, but there won't be any to prove him wrong on that link. Something of which he's probably well aware.

The second link, well you pretty much summed it up. Lower cost product gets more marketshare, the market being college students in this case. If you can get a Mac cheaper than you can get a PC, then why wouldn't you? Hell, I would. Haven't been at an institution that provided significant enough discounts and Apple only has a 10% discount for students IIRC. Not like the study can cover every college in the nation after all. Of course, they also looked at individual companies and not OSes. View that how you will. I see it as unfair since you have tons of companies competing fora piece of the Microsoft pie, but only Apple competing for the OSX pie. It's not entirely accurate no matter how it's looked at really. Apple only has slightly over a quarter of the college student market. It does mean that they prefer Apple computers over other brands, but it also means that they prefer PCs over OSX, almost 3:1 in fact. I don't think I need to post a link for that since you can deduce that from the very link already posted.

The third link.... IDK how else I can put it without saying how stupid that guy sounds. They want the most power.... but got Macs? That doesn't make sense. If Macs fit their needs before, that's fine. I don't know all of what they do at NASA. I couldn't since I don't work there. From what he said though, PCs are now equal to Macs except for "ease of use." Is this guy serious? Talking about ease of use of an OS at NASA? I think they have bigger problems, and certainly more complex ones, to worry about than any minor ease of use differences in the OS. PCs can be more powerful than any Mac and he says they always need more power. I don't see how Macs suit their needs anymore. Purely based on what he said of course. They could, and probably do, have other things to consider. If they are having problems using a computer then I don't think those people should be working there anymore. You have to get the right people for the job after all.


RE: Nothing
By chrish89 on 9/22/2010 12:09:24 PM , Rating: 2
Apple customers blow massive whale dongs.


RE: Nothing
By Pirks on 9/21/10, Rating: -1
RE: Nothing
By Tony Swash on 9/21/2010 6:59:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Yeah, but we keep getting forcefed by the media/bloggers/spares that both the iPhone 4 and the iPad are magical, since Apple calls it that.

Vomit.


Hold out for a Samsung Galaxy Tab it's bound to better than the iPad - oh wait a minute - er?

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9186998/Sam...

The absolute killer quote from this article has to be this

quote:
The problem appears to be limited to apps downloaded from the Android Market.


RE: Nothing
By Alexstarfire on 9/22/2010 1:44:14 AM , Rating: 2
Thought there was a serious problem for a second, but there isn't. When I started reading I thought that the affected programs would be unusable. In reality all it says is that the affected programs will be letterboxed to 800x400 resolution. I don't know what all is affected, but at worst that's a minor inconvenience. Not only that, but most devs will get it fixed fairly quickly. Some obviously won't care and probably won't be fixed until gingerbread comes out. Something Samsung might be counting on.

So basically, this is Tony trying to make something minor into something major. I don't know much about the Tab, since I'm not interested in tablets in the least bit.... yet, but hardware and battery life will be make or break, not this hiccup.


RE: Nothing
By SAmely on 9/22/2010 10:27:56 AM , Rating: 2
Tony, there's validity to what you're throwing out there, but I wasn't attacking the iPad or iPhone in my original post.

My problem was the use of the word magical , and how every article/whatever has to use it in reference to the device. I think it's so ridiculous that an elementary marketing ploy has been able to have some kind of tailwind because no one who writes about Apple wants to be wrong this time around.


RE: Nothing
By Mitch101 on 9/21/2010 3:21:40 PM , Rating: 4
What's Magical and Impressive about the iPhone4 is how they were able to sell so many defective devices and how their consumers accepted a rubber band as a fix.

How do you top that magic act? iPhone5 - Brick with a sticker of a display?


RE: Nothing
By chrish89 on 9/21/10, Rating: 0
RE: Nothing
By chrish89 on 9/22/2010 11:50:52 AM , Rating: 2
Apple blows massive donkey dongs.


My iPhone 4 gets 46fps
By Incinorator on 9/21/2010 3:19:02 PM , Rating: 2
I think there is a problem with this guy's device. My iPhone 4 gets ~46fps on both of the tests with the bouncing ball. I'm running iOS 4.1 and I'm not jailbroken.




RE: My iPhone 4 gets 46fps
By Alexstarfire on 9/21/2010 6:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
Doubtful since he didn't use an iPhone 4 to run the tests.


RE: My iPhone 4 gets 46fps
By testerguy on 9/21/2010 7:16:50 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I get 47 fps in first one and 48 fps in the second on my iPhone 4.


RE: My iPhone 4 gets 46fps
By IntelligentDave on 9/21/2010 11:19:17 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I got 69fps on both - its jailbroke and I downloaded iMeds to pep it a bit


RE: My iPhone 4 gets 46fps
By rhangman on 9/22/2010 3:14:03 PM , Rating: 2
Not possible unless something is broken.

The script is designed to update every 16ms, so 62.5fps is the MAX. On the most powerful PC you should still get ~60fps unless you edit the script and set a lower update value so it can achieve a higher fps.


Ouch
By bplewis24 on 9/21/2010 1:38:44 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Finally, Mr. Black tested Flash 10.1 running on Nexus One (in-browser). The results were a silky-smooth 57 fps, near the target of 60 fps. What's more, after running the test for 10 minutes, the Flash animation consumed only half the battery that running the equivalent HTML5 animation did.


That definitely hurts Jobs' entire (red herring) argument.

Brandon




RE: Ouch
By Gio6518 on 9/21/2010 2:00:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That definitely hurts Jobs' entire (red herring) argument.


i was leaning more towards straw man, but red herring works.


RE: Ouch
By testerguy on 9/21/2010 7:25:07 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, an isolated case where one technology is more energy efficient is almost meaningless, and doesn't hurt any argument, ever.

Like many half intelligent people have already pointed out, it is easy to create software which runs slowly on any platform.


Even HTC Hero beats iPhone 4
By zorxd on 9/21/2010 1:57:27 PM , Rating: 2
I just tried the HTML5 version on my HTC Hero (OC to 650 MHz, Android 2.2). This device was released in 2009.
I get about 24-25 fps.




RE: Even HTC Hero beats iPhone 4
By kmmatney on 9/21/2010 3:34:13 PM , Rating: 2
My iPhone 3GS (bought in ~June 2009) gets 42 fps in both benchmarks.


RE: Even HTC Hero beats iPhone 4
By kmmatney on 9/21/2010 3:39:08 PM , Rating: 2
I really don't mind the lack of flash support for the iPhone (although it would be good to have it, with the option of easily turning it off). I would want it for the iPad, though (again with the option to easily turn it off). I believe you can now do that once you jailbreak.


By Alexstarfire on 9/21/2010 6:45:59 PM , Rating: 2
I think the weird part is that people with Apple products aren't getting consistent results with the same products. iPhone 4 seems to range from 32 FPS to 45 FPS, 3GS is about the same range.

Official numbers for a range of devices would be nice.


Samsung wave
By rhangman on 9/21/2010 3:35:51 PM , Rating: 2
http://fatgr.in/jstest.html
60-61fps

http://www.satine.org/research/webkit/hacks/ballbo...
60-61fps

That is on a Samsung S8500 Wave with the default browser. Bada is a much newer OS than either iOS or Android to.




By Acanthus on 9/22/2010 3:20:42 AM , Rating: 2
Seriously, why no updates for the last 3 days?




problems
By mrfreeipodtouch4g on 9/23/2010 5:32:23 AM , Rating: 2
has anyone had any issues with their new ipod?

Free iPod Touch 4G at http://www.freeipodtouch4g.co.uk




hollom
By luop on 9/24/2010 12:10:21 PM , Rating: 2
3 Fashion Trends That We Love

O




Surprising results...
By Wolfpup on 9/27/2010 1:52:04 PM , Rating: 2
I would have thought battery life would be worse. Interesting ammunition for this idiot Apple fanboy I'm arguing with right now who's just spewing Jobs lines as fact.

I mean I assumed things WERE worse with Flash, but have been making the point that should be up to the individual user-not Apple. Now this...




Poor Test/Poor Article
By tk427 on 9/22/2010 8:10:35 AM , Rating: 1
I think what has everyone up in arms is that this is a very poor article with its main goal of inflaming readers. First, the quote under your picture says iPod 4G/iPhone 4... when it was only run on an iPod 4G, second it looks like they didn't run any tests themselves when everyone in the comments is posting that they ran it and got better results on actual iPhone 4 and even iPhone 3GS.

If you are going to post an article like this DailyTech, do some research yourself, it's not hard. Plus the fact that we decry that Apples HTML5 rendering good/bad based on ONE!!!! website. Wow talk about poor scientific experiment. You'd be laughed out of any respectable journal university if you tried to get away with this.

This is blatant sensationalism journalism.




DailyHate
By chrish89 on 9/21/10, Rating: -1
RE: DailyHate
By killerroach on 9/21/2010 2:23:55 PM , Rating: 2
Couldn't happen to a more deserving company, if I say so myself.

Cult of personality != business strategy.


RE: DailyHate
By Pirks on 9/21/2010 2:25:09 PM , Rating: 1
Mick also scours anything positive on Apple too, take for example his recent posting about iPad killing the laptop sales at BestBuy, the Mototroll was frothing at this one like there's no tomorrow! So don't be mad at Mick please.


RE: DailyHate
By Alexstarfire on 9/21/2010 6:48:53 PM , Rating: 2
I was about to post something similar. Honestly, most tech sites are just scouring for anything that mentions Apple. Apple articles are insanely popular.


RE: DailyHate
By Tony Swash on 9/22/2010 4:55:04 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I was about to post something similar. Honestly, most tech sites are just scouring for anything that mentions Apple. Apple articles are insanely popular.


Just like their products.


RE: DailyHate
By SunAngel on 9/21/2010 2:32:22 PM , Rating: 2
Its okay. After running Flash 10.1 Androiders have blistery hands for sure.


RE: DailyHate
By mixim on 9/21/2010 6:56:39 PM , Rating: 1
This article says absolutely nothing! First of all it was tested on the iPod 4... that has lower clock rates.. Second of all, it makes its claims for how flash works on android.. They are mixing oranges with melons here, that says absolutely nothing on how bad flash behaves in OSX and how bad it would be in iOS.... shit article


RE: DailyHate
By chrish89 on 9/22/2010 12:16:10 PM , Rating: 3
Android is superior.


"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet.  A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki