[Eug]

Ouch.

AppleInsider | AT&T's international data plans for iPad start at $25 for 20MB



Which iPad 3G Data Plan Should You Buy? (AAPL, T)

The sad part is that it will most likely be even worse for Canadians for international data roaming.

[Simon]

International roaming is a huge scam. Always has been. Nothing about the iPad has changed anything about it.

In Europe the problem used to be rampant. Up to the point when (after lots of unanswered warning calls) the EU stepped in and capped ludicrous roaming rates. And big surprise all of a sudden roaming became affordable while still working as well as it always had. Duh.

It's still expensive, but it's become a lot better. Example: I pay $19/MB (seriously) to roam in the US or Japan with my European SIM. I pay $4/MB within Europe. There's ~ a factor five right there.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Simon 

It's still expensive, but it's become a lot better. Example: I pay $19/MB (seriously) to roam in the US or Japan with my European SIM. I pay $4/MB within Europe. There's ~ a factor five right there.

What ?

At least in Germany, it's still expensive, nothing has changed about rip-off data roaming rates.

Data roaming with my AT&T iPhone still costs EUR 20 / MB. Today. In all of the big German networks.

-t

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Simon 

International roaming is a huge scam. Always has been. Nothing about the iPad has changed anything about it.

In Europe the problem used to be rampant. Up to the point when (after lots of unanswered warning calls) the EU stepped in and capped ludicrous roaming rates. And big surprise all of a sudden roaming became affordable while still working as well as it always had. Duh.

It's still expensive, but it's become a lot better. Example: I pay $19/MB (seriously) to roam in the US or Japan with my European SIM. I pay $4/MB within Europe. There's ~ a factor five right there.

The iPhone at least changed the domestic rates for data usage, in Canada. I'm sitting in an office right now surfing on my laptop tethered to my iPhone, only because I'm on a 6 GB for $30 monthly data plan. Mind you, that's not a regular plan. We had to complain loudly before they offered it. Still, some of the other plans available are at least in a somewhat similar ballpark. I doubt these plans would have arrived when they did without the iPhone.

Also, I had hoped that roaming rates at least in the US would have also come down in price for Canadian carriers, but that didn't happen.

P.S. I'm constantly impressed at just how responsive tethered access is, cuz it's slow as molasses on the iPhone itself. The iPhone 3G is simply far too slow.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

At least in Germany, it's still expensive, nothing has changed about rip-off data roaming rates.

Data roaming with my AT&T iPhone still costs EUR 20 / MB. Today. In all of the big German networks.

Hehe, well it's cheaper for EU customers. The EU mandate obviously pertains only to European customers. German carriers can still charge an AT&T customer whatever they want. But they can't do that with an Orange customer from France or a Telia user from Denmark.

That's why you're still being ripped off.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Eug 

The iPhone at least changed the domestic rates for data usage, in Canada. I'm sitting in an office right now surfing on my laptop tethered to my iPhone, only because I'm on a 6 GB for $30 monthly data plan.

Same here. Thanks to the iPhone I can get unlimited 3G including tethering for ~ $20/month.

P.S. I'm constantly impressed at just how responsive tethered access is, cuz it's slow as molasses on the iPhone itself. The iPhone 3G is simply far too slow.

I also see that. I noticed the iPhone 3G didn't have enough RAM and horsepower when I started tethering and surfed the same websites I go to on my iPhone. I'm looking forward to the speed boost I'll get when I buy a new iPhone HD this summer.

Tethering rocks. My 3G network really shines over iPhone tethering. Until you start using stuff like Skype or you attempt to video chat with iChat. But for regular surfing tethering is great. I thought it was really disappointing when we heard the iPad's BT couldn't be used to tether it to a 3G phone.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

the 3Gs and iPad are actually faster than my mac surfing most of the time as it has a fast cpu (over the 3G) and since all the crap flash banners don't load you can easily save yourself 200kb of extra crap downloaded.

Congrats on getting your iPad 3G with data plan though Eug.

[Simon]

My Mac has ClickToFlash. It will easily beat any iPad or iPhone at rendering web pages.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Simon 

My Mac has ClickToFlash.

Same, I use ClickToFlash on my G4 Macs.

In the future, I wonder if we'll be able to get ClickToHTML5. My guess is no.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Simon 

My Mac has ClickToFlash. It will easily beat any iPad or iPhone at rendering web pages.

Doesn't that reinforce his point?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Doesn't that reinforce his point?

It does, but it just goes to show you the popularity of Flash, even if much of that popularity is with creators of annoying ads. The good news is that we can actually very easily control it.

I loathe to think of the future where it's all HTML5 ads if it can't be as easily controlled. Mind you, I'm sure someone will think of something like a ClickToHTML5 by then (2013?). In fact, maybe it will be built into some of the browsers. Probably not Safari though.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Doesn't that reinforce his point?

The point I was actually trying to make is that if your iPhone or iPad beats a state-of-the-art Mac at rendering web pages, you should seriously look into ClickToFlash.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I loathe to think of the future where it's all HTML5 ads if it can't be as easily controlled. Mind you, I'm sure someone will think of something like a ClickToHTML5 by then (2013?). In fact, maybe it will be built into some of the browsers. Probably not Safari though.

ClickToFlash is a webkit plugin. As long as Safari stays webkit it should work. Similarly, ClickToHTML5 should in principle be feasible.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Eug 

It does, but it just goes to show you the popularity of Flash, even if much of that popularity is with creators of annoying ads. The good news is that we can actually very easily control it.

Has anyone argued its popularity? You know what I bet isn't as common? People who actual use stuff like Clicktoflash.

Originally Posted by Eug 

I loathe to think of the future where it's all HTML5 ads if it can't be as easily controlled. Mind you, I'm sure someone will think of something like a ClickToHTML5 by then (2013?). In fact, maybe it will be built into some of the browsers. Probably not Safari though.

So now HTML5 is bad because in the future it hypothetically may be as widespread as Flash and hypothetically may not be blockable. FFS

[Simon]

It's not HTML5 that's bad. It's huge annoying animated ads that take over your screen that suck. On the Mac we have the choice to block that.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Simon 

The point I was actually trying to make is that if your iPhone or iPad beats a state-of-the-art Mac at rendering web pages, you should seriously look into ClickToFlash.

While I think that's good advice, if this ties back to the "Steve should give a choice" argument, I would posit that the average user doesn't know about it (or possibly how to use it), and that's exactly who Steve is focused on.

Now if we want to go all EU and give users a warning/option to install it on their browser on their first start-up that another can o worms...

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Simon 

It's not HTML5 that's bad. It's huge annoying animated ads that take over your screen that suck. On the Mac we have the choice to block that.

I feel like this is retreating to discussion had months ago. Is there a fresh point you're making here big thumb-o?

[Simon]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

While I think that's good advice, if this ties back to the "Steve should give a choice" argument, I would posit that the average user doesn't know about it (or possibly how to use it), and that's exactly who Steve is focused on.

Now if we want to go all EU and give users a warning/option to install it on their browser on their first start-up that another can o worms...

If that's really what you're worried about I'd suggest something like ClickToFlash that's on by default.

Anyway, this is entirely academic discussion since we have no reason to believe Flash is actually coming to iDevices anytime soon. In other words informed customers will not be given a choice while uninformed customers will be not be bothered by Flash. They'll also be wondering where the other half of their favorite web page went.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I feel like this is retreating to discussion had months ago. Is there a fresh point you're making here big thumb-o?

Actually, your "FFS" after Eug's level-headed post led me to believe you had misunderstood his argument. I attempted to rephrase. Pardon me if that upset you.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Actually, your "FFS" after Eug's level-headed post led me to believe you had misunderstood his argument. I attempted to rephrase. Pardon me if that upset you.

The FFS was there to indicate that I found his complaints about HTML5 based on a bunch of hypotheticals that could occur in a few years completely ludicrous.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Simon 

If that's really what you're worried about I'd suggest something like ClickToFlash that's on by default.

What are you talking about? What am I worried about?

Originally Posted by Simon 

Anyway, this is entirely academic discussion since we have no reason to believe Flash is actually coming to iDevices anytime soon. In other words informed customers will not be given a choice while uninformed customers will be not be bothered by Flash. They'll also be wondering where the other half of their favorite web page went.

Yes, this conversation has been academic for quite some time. The latter also seems to be an overblown concern given how things already look a month after launch.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Simon 

In Europe the problem used to be rampant. Up to the point when (after lots of unanswered warning calls) the EU stepped in and capped ludicrous roaming rates. And big surprise all of a sudden roaming became affordable while still working as well as it always had. Duh.

It's still expensive, but it's become a lot better. Example: I pay $19/MB (seriously) to roam in the US or Japan with my European SIM. I pay $4/MB within Europe. There's ~ a factor five right there.

Used to be? You're still paying 4x the above, absurd dates.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The FFS was there to indicate that I found his complaints about HTML5 based on a bunch of hypotheticals that could occur in a few years completely ludicrous.

You think it's ludicrous that HTML5 can provide as feature rich a multimedia experience as Flash? That's almost the whole point of HTML5, FFS. It's foolish to think the developers aren't going to latch on that for ads as soon as it makes financial sense to.

P.S. I guess you forgot that iAd is HTML5. IOW, Apple is essentially institutionalizing HTML5 as a Flash replacement for advertisements.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

What are you talking about? What am I worried about?

What I quoted. You mentioned opening a can of worms.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Used to be? You're still paying 4x the above, absurd dates.

Absurd dates? What are you talking about?

I pointed out in the very beginning already that roaming rates are a scam. However, in Europe European customers have seen roaming rates decrease by up to an order of magnitude after the EU added regulation to cap roaming rates. And roaming still works as well as before. Despite the FUD carriers had tried to spread back when the European Commission threatened to step in.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Eug 

You think it's ludicrous that HTML5 can provide as feature rich a multimedia experience as Flash? That's almost the whole point of HTML5, FFS. It's foolish to think the developers aren't going to latch on that for ads as soon as it makes financial sense to.

Its also foolish to think a developer won't give you a Click2HTML5, then too. But you seem to be hatin' on it with that feeble worry.

Do you realize that in a period of a few months you've gone from "HTML5 is stupid because no one will use it" to "HTML5 is stupid because everyone will use it"?

Originally Posted by Simon 

What I quoted. You mentioned opening a can of worms.

Oh jeezus. What am I worried about specifically. I'm not being obtuse, I don't recall saying I was worried about anything, so I want to know what you're think I'm worried about. A quote would be nice.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Ouch.

Isn’t that about the same as ATT’s iPhone roaming plans? They’re expensive, but tremendously less expensive than roaming without such a plan.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Its also foolish to think a developer won't give you a Click2HTML5, then too.

Not bloody likely. Click2Flash can work because Flash is a plugin. C2F loads first and actually pretends to be the Flash plugin, then passes it onto the real Flash plugin on demand.

HTML5 is a native part of WebKit, not a plugin, so there’s no clean way to intercept it. More likely, it’s impossible to do.

[The Final Dakar]

So we're all DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Its also foolish to think a developer won't give you a Click2HTML5, then too. But you seem to be hatin' on it with that feeble worry.

Err... I mentioned Click2HTML5 before you actually. In fact, I'd even suggested that some browsers (although probably not Safari) could have HTML5 blocking as one option built right into the app. No third party Click2HTML5 required.

However, yes I did fear the possibility it could be harder to block. It would seem that fear isn't without justification.

Originally Posted by tooki 

Not bloody likely. Click2Flash can work because Flash is a plugin. C2F loads first and actually pretends to be the Flash plugin, then passes it onto the real Flash plugin on demand.

HTML5 is a native part of WebKit, not a plugin, so there’s no clean way to intercept it. More likely, it’s impossible to do.

---

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Do you realize that in a period of a few months you've gone from "HTML5 is stupid because no one will use it" to "HTML5 is stupid because everyone will use it"?

I think you have me mixed up with someone else.

A) I have never said HTML5 is stupid. Personally I like the concept, although it would be better if they can get the video format squabbles under control.

B) I said that HTML5 will take years to dominate Flash in terms of numbers of sites utilizing it, but if/when it does, it will also be the format of choice of guys who like like to create annoying ads.

So, I'm not really sure what you're on about, but might suggest you reread the posts.

Originally Posted by tooki 

Isn’t that about the same as ATT’s iPhone roaming plans? They’re expensive, but tremendously less expensive than roaming without such a plan.

As others have said, these data roaming plans suck in general. Considering that the iPad has the potential to suck up way more data than an iPhone, I was hoping that the data roaming plans would get better, but it seems they haven't.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Err... I mentioned Click2HTML5 before you actually, so I really don't know what you're on about.

What I'm on about is you seem concerned that developers will latch onto HTML5 and inundate us with ads, but that's moot if they're smart enough to create a Click2Flash, right?

Originally Posted by Eug 

I think you have me mixed up with someone else.

I said that HTML5 will take years to dominate Flash in terms of numbers of sites utilizing it, but if/when it does, it will also be the format of choice of guys who like like to create annoying ads.[/QUOTE]Right. You downplayed its feasibility because of Flash's dominance. Now that it's exceeded expectations you seem to be taking the opposite tack and bemoaning a near future where it will be everywhere. So it was lose/lose?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Right. You downplayed its feasibility because of Flash's dominance. Now that it's exceeded expectations you seem to be taking the opposite tack and bemoaning a near future where it will be everywhere. So it was lose/lose?

Nope. You'd do well to reread my posts, cuz you're mistaken.

Specifically, I said in another thread that I don't expect HTML5 dominating Flash by 2012. However, in the very same post, I said that it may happen before 2015.

Originally Posted by me

If HTML5 is ahead of Flash by 2015, I wouldn't be that surprised. If HTML5 is ahead of Flash by 2012, I'll be absolutely shocked.

I still think that's true.

[The Final Dakar]

Fine. You're not downplaying it because it's going exactly how you thought it would.

But somehow you still find time to worry about the functionality of a format you think is five years off.

I think the conclusion I haven't been able to come to until now is you're quite the pessimist, if not a worrywart (yeah I went there).

[Simon]

Dakar, honestly no offense but I'm getting the impression you're trying to make this overly personal. Who cares if Eug is (or strikes you as being) pessimistic? He offered a thought worth considering for a moment IMHO. Of course your guess is a good as his, but why are you so defensive about it? Why can't we just settle on you not being worried about something Eug considers might happen? None of us really knows what will happen by 2015, let's keep that in mind.

How about we get back to discussing the actual topic instead of each other what the other guy supposedly thinks?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Dakar, honestly no offense but I'm getting the impression you're trying to make this overly personal. Who cares if Eug is (or strikes you as being) pessimistic? He offered a thought worth considering for a moment IMHO. Of course your guess is a good as his, but why are you so defensive about it? Why can't we just settle on you not being worried about something Eug considers might happen? None of us really knows what will happen by 2015, let's keep that in mind.

Honestly, I didn't care about what Eug thought, but since he felt so strongly as to comment on my reply to you and share those thoughts, I don't feel I'm off-base in returning the favor and giving my thoughts on his opinion.

Originally Posted by Simon 

How about we get back to discussing the actual topic instead of each other what the other guy supposedly thinks?

Does this mean you're not going to quote to me what I was supposedly worried about?