iPad

Originally Posted by breakz

Click to expand...

Biggest revelation to come out of this thread:

The HP Slate looks like a sick piece of tech. It looks exactly like what you (and I) want, holy: camera, multitask, full OS for only $100-200 more.
Maybe. I have some reservations:

- lack of a well-developed app store
- price is still uncertain (I have heard estimates of up to $1,500!)
- No 3G is a dealbreaker in 2010
- questions about weight, battery life, touch keyboard, pen input, etc. are all still up in the air

I have a sneaking suspicion we are going to get a device that does most of what Apple's doesn't, but that is inferior at what Apple's does.

Originally Posted by holymadness

Click to expand...

Maybe. I admit I'm not as vehement about this point as the others. I have never used an e-reader for various reasons, so I can't speak personally to the advantages of e-ink. That being said, I definitely agree with those that reading for long periods of time on an LCD can be stressful on the eyes. Considering, therefore, that there is a device already in development which uses both, I don't see why Apple couldn't beat them to the punch.

I don't see how. There are millions of people watching TV / looking at their computers via LCD screens for hours at a time sans problems.

Originally Posted by imageWIS

Click to expand...

I don't see how. There are millions of people watching TV / looking at their computers via LCD screens for hours at a time sans problems.
How much of that time is spent concentrating or focusing, though? I know my eyes glaze over after about an hour of TV/computer time.

Originally Posted by holymadness

Click to expand...

Maybe. I have some reservations: - lack of a well-developed app store - price is still uncertain (I have heard estimates of up to $1,500!) - No 3G is a dealbreaker in 2010 - questions about weight, battery life, touch keyboard, pen input, etc. are all still up in the air I have a sneaking suspicion we are going to get a device that does most of what Apple's doesn't, but that is inferior at what Apple's does.

Ah, that price is waaaaay too high. I'm not hung up on 3G though, as that's another $30/month I'd have to pay...no thanks. Also, doesn't the presence of Windows 7 (and thus every app available for Windows) mitigate the absence of an app store?

Originally Posted by holymadness

Click to expand...

I have a sneaking suspicion we are going to get a device that does most of what Apple's doesn't, but that is inferior at what Apple's does.

This. I am a designer by trade, and I can tell you that user interface design—or rather, truly good UI design—is difficult. It'd be great if everything we used had unlimited power, unlimited flexibility, and unlimited ease-of-use... easier said than done, of course. Instead, we have compromise. Each company is going to make a different set of compromises based on their own values and priorities, and decide what to include or exclude, what to focus their development efforts on, what really needs to stand out and what can simply be "good enough" (if anything). HP will most certainly choose differently than Apple. You may prefer HP's choices. I will likely prefer Apple's. Life goes on. Also, remember when everyone was bitching and moaning about iPhone OS not supporting such a basic feature as copy/paste? It took them until 3.0, but now that it's here, is anyone going to argue that they didn't come out with the best implementation possible? Like it or not, Apple doesn't leave out features just to piss you guys off, lol. (And to your earlier post: I don't believe the iPad is a niche product. I also don't believe it's aimed solely at the baby boomer demographic. I guess only time will tell, though.)

Originally Posted by breakz

Click to expand...

Ah, that price is waaaaay too high. I'm not hung up on 3G though, as that's another $30/month I'd have to pay...no thanks.

That $1500 estimate is way off. This week one of the developers said they had waited to release it because they didn't want it to be that expensive.

I need to screen video for people on the road. My laptop can be awkward as hell sometimes and heavy. I'll wait for the next version but see myself grabbing a Pad.

lefty

Originally Posted by aqhong

Click to expand...

I do think people—and especially those who have never really used an iPhone / iPod touch—tend to overstate the importance of "true" multi-tasking. ...

Yes, it's true that you technically can't run multiple third-party apps simultaneously, but the fact that you chose two examples that are entirely possible and things that people do with their iPhones and iPods every day suggests to me a lack of familiarity with the iPhone OS and a severe underestimation of what it's capable of. I've never once felt the lack of "multi-tasking" limiting on my iPhone, mostly because good apps are programmed well enough that they never make this technical limitation obvious to the user. (And as for the apps that aren't, well, I'm not sure I would trust those to run in the background and have unchecked access to system resources in the first place.)

Originally Posted by aqhong

Click to expand...

You're right, I can't deny it. In fact, I absolutely agree. Apple's entire strategy here is to create a "simplified, stripped-down way of interacting with content."
...

You never have to wonder what app in the background is slowing down your system, because you can't run anything in the background. You can't misplace files or accidentally delete critical ones, because there isn't a visible filesystem in which to do this. The entire point of the iPhone OS is that user interface complexity is being abstracted away at the cost of pure power/efficiency.

If being able to do everything is more important to you than being able to do a few things very, very easily, the iPad is not for you. It's as simple as that.

AQH - to me you are just rationalizing away all of the iPad's faults. I don't for a second believe that multi-tasking is something that the designers didn't want, it's something they were not able to implement. It's insulting if Apple thinks they are doing users a favor by not allowing it, and hilarious for you to act like it's a feature not a bug. That's like saying that my new car doesn't need FM radio because FM radio often has bad songs. See, omitting FM is really a feature!

I guar-fucken-tee you that if the iPad could handle multi-tasking they would have implemented it. I don't know if it's a software limitation or a hardware limitation, but it is not a feature. You even acknowledge that the limited fake multi-tasking the iPhone offers is good enough. If you don't need multi-tasking, why would you need fake multi-tasking?

The reality is that you come across like an Apple apologist in the worst way. There's nothing wrong with noting the iPad's strengths, but when you attempt to rationalize away it's weaknesses, it's hard to take anything you say seriously. By the way, the poor design of windows devices is actually a feature, because it prevents the user from being distracted by the beauty of the design, and also makes the devices less likely to be stolen out of envy/lust. Sounds pretty ludicrous right? That is what your rationalizing sounds like to an impartial observer.

To take your argument to the logical extreme, if you didn't have a computer, you wouldn't need to worry about any apps crashing, so maybe that's the best solution.

Originally Posted by breakz

Click to expand...

Biggest revelation to come out of this thread:

The HP Slate looks like a sick piece of tech. It looks exactly like what you (and I) want, holy: camera, multitask, full OS for only $100-200 more.

I'm excited about the Slate. I want a couch/coffee table computer and if the iPad let me run all the ******* apps I wanted and ran standard OSX, it would be perfect. I don't care about the innovative way it runs a stupid spreadsheet program or word processor. It's not for real work and I won't pretend that it is. I don't need a gatekeeper telling me what apps I can or should be using. I don't mind choosing from an a la carte computing menu basically, and right now it looks like the Slate may be the first cheap device to do what I want, other than a netbook which is less desireable from a coffee table standpoint. It's interesting to me that so many people care about the lack of a camera, I don't know anyone who video chats but maybe if I had kids in college or was a kid in college, I would get it. Seems like phones work well enough for synchronous communication plus you can talk on the run.

Originally Posted by UnFacconable

Click to expand...

I don't for a second believe that multi-tasking is something that the designers didn't want, it's something they were not able to implement.

I don't for a second believe that people at Apple "were not able to implement" multitasking (especially since Apple apps actually use multitasking). Of course they are "able" to do it. You're ignoring the Steve Jobs factor, which throws rational thought out the window. If Steve says don't let 3rd party apps run *********** background, they don't allow it. Does it make sense to us? No. But it could be as simple as that.

Originally Posted by scb

Click to expand...

I don't for a second believe that people at Apple "were not able to implement" multitasking (especially since Apple apps actually use multitasking). Of course they are "able" to do it. You're ignoring the Steve Jobs factor, which throws rational thought out the window. If Steve says don't let 3rd party apps run *********** background, they don't allow it. Does it make sense to us? No. But it could be as simple as that.

That's probably what they said about cut and paste before there was a clamor and they figured out a way to do it. It's simply doesn't make sense to me to say that they choose not to allow people to have true multi-tasking for the reasons stated. If it was a third party app thing, why not allow "true" multi-tasking among Apple apps?

When I said "not able to implement" I didn't mean they couldn't do it at any cost. Of course they can, but the cost would be development time and money, having to throw more hardware at the problem and/or having to give up responsiveness. I'd rather spend more money for faster hardware to get multi-tasking. Everyone has their priorities though. If I didn't need to send emails from my mobile device as much as I do, I'd probably prefer an iPhone to my blackberry, but I know that giving up multi-tasking (and Opera's tabbed browser) would drive my crazy when making the switch.

It's 2010, every device should multi-task seamlessly.

1) Why can't you take the battery into a local shop? And most laptops that have batteries that crapped out, generally are at the replacement stage. Sure, it would be nice to have the extra feature, but if it means a bulkier device, I would rather not (personally). 2) What businessman is laying on his couch and holding his tablet in the air with one or two hands? Can you actually envision the video conferencing? 3) I would rather have a clean looking device than adding more bulk, like a kick stand. The device is meant to be lugged around. In my mind, I keep coming back to laying on a couch for some reason. Where would the kick stand be of use? 4) Yes multi-tasking would be nice, but what if it drains the batteries? All these things are a cost benefit analysis on some level. And according to aqhong, this does multi-tasking that you described. 5) In regards to not using e-ink and lcd in one device, pricing? Because maybe it's not a big deal (although it might be - but I don't see how anyone on here who's not an expert can claim it without even having used the product). 6) I would beat the crap out of my son for wanting to spend close to 1K on a device to write on instead of using a pad and paper for a couple of bucks. Really, poor college kids are not the ideal market for any high cost device. 7) The one comment you made that really bugs me is the one in regards to publishers. I am not sure how much you know about the business or if you have friends/family that work in it. They have really been getting screwed. Much of it is their own doing but if most of us want content, we have to be prepared to pay for it. This is like the people in NY protesting over a hospital closing because nobody could afford to pay their bills for the hospital - the protester last night said a lovely comment "some things are too important to be decided on the bottom line", meanwhile the hospital is closing because it can't pay. This device has attracted the publishing world because it allows them to really reverse the trend and I will benefit as a consumer because I continue to get the content knowing the publishers aren't going out of business. 8) Did he really demonstrate an excel spreadsheet? That has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard of doing on this. How the heck do you lay on a sofa and work on spreadsheets? Or maybe it's something I'm not understanding?

Originally Posted by holymadness

Click to expand...

1. It is a huge pain ********** to send your entire device back to Cupertino to get a battery replacement if it craps out, which it inevitably will 2. If I want to double the length of time I can use the device without charging, I shouldn't be forbidden to do so For businessmen who teleconference, it's nigh essential. For families who want to keep in touch with grandma, it'd be quite useful. For long distance relationships... well, you get the picture. Relying on the third party vendor is not only counter to the spartan aesthetic of the device (who wants a 1995-style webcam clipped to the top of their device in 2010?), it's also a poor excuse to charge people more money. Apple is already selling a protector which doubles as a kickstand, which tells you that even they recognize it's essential for watching movies. That you have to pay for the privilege of something that should be included is troublesome. Worst, most nonsensical dismissal ever. Look at one of the most significant developments in web browsing of the past decade: tabbed browsing. The whole point is that if I don't want to sit around and wait for a youtube video to buffer, I can do something else. Why shouldn't I be able to play music and games at the same time? Why shouldn't I be alerted that I got an e-mail if I'm reading an e-book? It's absurd. Maybe. I admit I'm not as vehement about this point as the others. I have never used an e-reader for various reasons, so I can't speak personally to the advantages of e-ink. That being said, I definitely agree with those that reading for long periods of time on an LCD can be stressful on the eyes. Considering, therefore, that there is a device already in development which uses both, I don't see why Apple couldn't beat them to the punch. A recent innovation (gorilla glass, iirc) has made scratch-proof screens a reality. Even keys won't leave a mark, so that's not an issue. Seriously, if you are going to market this thing as a textbook replacement to college kids (and let's not kid around, Apple's key demographic for computer sales is liberal arts majors), it's a major slap in the face not to enable note-taking capability. I've found the handwriting recognition of OneNote extremely useful, and I'm sure Apple could have developed an excellent input system. You are quite possibly right. But for now, at this price, I don't see what's worth getting excited about. I WANT this to eventually be a good device. I was in bed last night reading SF on my iPod and realized just how nice it would be to have an iPad to do the same thing, but better. But I'm not willing to drop $650-850 on something that'd be "nice to have", especially when what I already own does it already. I don't see what is different about this device compared to, say, an HP tablet in terms of technology. It doesn't guarantee innovation; that's up to the companies. Another pet peeve is that Apple is clearly trying to undercut Amazon's $9.99 pricing scheme for books by offering publishers the right to charge up to $15.99. Apple relies on its popularity to grab the market, then attracts the major publishers away from its competitors by essentially screwing the customer. Actually, some of us were saying that more than 5 years ago, when e-ink and flexible displays started to be tested in Japan.

What bugs me is that I could imagine everything that the iPad does five years ago. Apple's special virtue is not to be ahead of the absolute, technological curve, but ahead of its pathetic competitors. I suppose they should be lauded for that, but it's lazy and really only a victory by default. EDIT: Even Penny Arcade's Jerry and Mike, rabid mac fans, get in on the debate: That iPad presentation had to be the worst thing I've even seen on on the Apple stage. There is a part where they - I am not making a joke - there is a part where they try to make creating spreadsheets seem awesome. Jilted may be the word. Of course, we're at the second wave of commentary now, the reflexive defense phase, but I've seen this practiced arc too many times to feel its pull. Apple didn't make a case for the device. The end.

Originally Posted by UnFacconable

Click to expand...

If it was a third party app thing, why not allow "true" multi-tasking among Apple apps?
They do. Reread my post. All of Apple's own apps can run in the background: iPod, Mail, Safari, you name it. It's the third-party apps that can't do that. The idea that Apple wouldn't be able to just flick a switch to enable system-wide multitasking is laughable. As I'm sure you're well aware, plenty of devices do it, and you think Apple, of all companies, couldn't figure this **** out? "Hardware/software limitations"? You're talking about one of the only companies that exerts almost total control over all the hardware and software that goes into their products! It's what you people ***** about all the time! They just developed a completely proprietary CPU for the iPad fer chrissakes, and you don't think they could get this thing to multitask? LOL.

Hi haganah. I have the impression I didn't respond to an earlier post of yours but I have no idea where it is. I hope you were not slighted.

Originally Posted by haganah

Click to expand...

1) Why can't you take the battery into a local shop? And most laptops that have batteries that crapped out, generally are at the replacement stage. Sure, it would be nice to have the extra feature, but if it means a bulkier device, I would rather not (personally).
First point: I was alluding to something rather specific. I'm not sure if you recall, but several years ago there was an outpouring of complaints because the original ipod's batteries had started to degrade and would only hold a charge for 2-3 hours. After months of foot-dragging, Apple finally agreed to replace the defective units' batteries, but only if you actually sent your ipod to California to be serviced. Not cool.

Second point: let's say I am a travelling businessman flying from Seattle to Dubai. Ouch. Well, at least I have my iPad (weight: 1.5lb.). In a perfect world, I'd also have my spare battery (weight: much less than that; size: much smaller than the pad) so I could work during the entire flight.

But the real question is: why would you defend this decision by Apple? Why would you applaud your own inability to swap out a battery if yours broke or if you ran out of juice and couldn't recharge?

2) What businessman is laying on his couch and holding his tablet in the air with one or two hands? Can you actually envision the video conferencing?

Click to expand...

I imagined the pod on his desk, propped up with a kickstand. Seems fairly realistic to me.

3) I would rather have a clean looking device than adding more bulk, like a kick stand. The device is meant to be lugged around. In my mind, I keep coming back to laying on a couch for some reason. Where would the kick stand be of use?

Click to expand...

Come on, just because Steve-o used it while reclining in a leather armchair doesn't mean you're restricted to that. The keyboard attachment implies that it's meant to be used like a traditional computer while sitting at a desk. That being so, they should either have built a kickstand into the device, or else included the screen protector/kickstand in the purchase price. I find what Apple's done here to be in bad faith and quite cynical.

4) Yes multi-tasking would be nice, but what if it drains the batteries? All these things are a cost benefit analysis on some level. And according to aqhong, this does multi-tasking that you described.

Click to expand...

Let's say it drains the batteries. So what? Why do I not have the right, on my property which I paid for, to use it the way I like? If I'm plugged into the outlet at my desk, battery life isn't an issue. And if I want to use it a certain way while reclining on the couch, I shouldn't be forbidden by Steve Jobs because he thinks it makes his device look bad.

5) In regards to not using e-ink and lcd in one device, pricing? Because maybe it's not a big deal (although it might be - but I don't see how anyone on here who's not an expert can claim it without even having used the product).

Click to expand...

No idea. Honestly, I think e-ink is dead so I'm not going to belabour the point. Either projection screens will get easier on our eyes or we will all go blind.

6) I would beat the crap out of my son for wanting to spend close to 1K on a device to write on instead of using a pad and paper for a couple of bucks. Really, poor college kids are not the ideal market for any high cost device.

Click to expand...

You should visit a university campus sometime. At least half of my students brought laptops to class. I've read stories of some degrees where a laptop is mandatory.

7) The one comment you made that really bugs me is the one in regards to publishers. I am not sure how much you know about the business or if you have friends/family that work in it. They have really been getting screwed. Much of it is their own doing but if most of us want content, we have to be prepared to pay for it. This is like the people in NY protesting over a hospital closing because nobody could afford to pay their bills for the hospital - the protester last night said a lovely comment "some things are too important to be decided on the bottom line", meanwhile the hospital is closing because it can't pay. This device has attracted the publishing world because it allows them to really reverse the trend and I will benefit as a consumer because I continue to get the content knowing the publishers aren't going out of business.

Click to expand...

Print media is stuck in the same limbo as the music industry: halfway between adapting to the future and clinging to the past. Here's some food for thought: did you know that it would be 50% less expensive for the NYTimes to buy every single one of its subscribers a kindle than to continue printing newspapers for one year? Print media is haemorrhaging money for a lot of reasons, a large and overlooked one of which is its inefficiency. If pricing schemes like Amazon's force it to adapt to the realities of the new century, I'm all for it.

8) Did he really demonstrate an excel spreadsheet? That has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard of doing on this. How the heck do you lay on a sofa and work on spreadsheets? Or maybe it's something I'm not understanding?

Click to expand...

He demonstrated the iPod's version of the iWork suite. He filled some spreadsheets and made a powerpoint presentation. It was thrilling.

Originally Posted by UnFacconable

Click to expand...

That's probably what they said about cut and paste before there was a clamor and they figured out a way to do it.


Again, you're ignoring the Steve Jobs factor. I'm sure they had plenty of ways to implement Copy and Paste, but if Steve jobs says "not elegant enough" or "not Apple enough," it's not going in the finished product. While that might be ridiculous to believe, it's not like they had 2 years os horrible sales because the thing didn't have copy and paste. They still flew off the shelves

Originally Posted by UnFacconable

Click to expand...

It's simply doesn't make sense to me to say that they choose not to allow people to have true multi-tasking for the reasons stated. If it was a third party app thing, why not allow "true" multi-tasking among Apple apps?

Apple's apps can do multitasking. You can type an email while listening to music and receive an SMS message or Calendar alert at the same time.

Originally Posted by UnFacconable

Click to expand...

I'd rather spend more money for faster hardware to get multi-tasking. Everyone has their priorities though. If I didn't need to send emails from my mobile device as much as I do, I'd probably prefer an iPhone to my blackberry, but I know that giving up multi-tasking (and Opera's tabbed browser) would drive my crazy when making the switch.


Actually, the thing that's getting the best press in the tech world is the speed of this device and its new processor. Hardware doesn't seem to be an issue. I really think it's as simple as Steve saying "don't give 3rd party devs the ability to run *********** background" because he wants to keep it simple and avoid things like:

http://daringfireball.net/linked/201...ed-task-killer

And it doesn't really matter if we agree with the decision or not, because the people who care enough abut multitasking to make it a dealbreaker aren't the target audience anyway

In response to your typing comment, I think I can type faster on my iPhone than I can on my Blackberry. i don't think the keyboard really makes a difference

Originally Posted by holymadness

Click to expand...

First point: I was alluding to something rather specific. I'm not sure if you recall, but several years ago there was an outpouring of complaints because the original ipod's batteries had started to degrade and would only hold a charge for 2-3 hours. After months of foot-dragging, Apple finally agreed to replace the defective units' batteries, but only if you actually sent your ipod to California to be serviced. Not cool.
I'm not trying to defend anything and everything Apple here, but you always had the option to just open the iPod yourself and replace the battery for about 15 bucks. People just didn't know that it was a pretty simple thing to do

Originally Posted by holymadness

Click to expand...

But the real question is: why would you defend this decision by Apple? Why would you applaud your own inability to swap out a battery if yours broke or if you ran out of juice and couldn't recharge?
I'll defend the decision to make the batteries in the laptops non-removable simply because it allowed them to put much higher capacity batteries into the same size case as before. Switching to a non-removable battery basically double the battery life of the macbooks and macbook pros, so that seemed to benefit the consumer. They batteries are also supposed to last for many more cycles. if you need to replace it, you can easily do it by removing a few screws. So as a laptop owner, I'd gladly trade my removable battery for a non-removable one that gave me 2x the life.

Originally Posted by scb

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to defend anything and everything Apple here, but you always had the option to just open the iPod yourself and replace the battery for about 15 bucks. People just didn't know that it was a pretty simple thing to do



I'll defend the decision to make the batteries in the laptops non-removable simply because it allowed them to put much higher capacity batteries into the same size case as before. Switching to a non-removable battery basically double the battery life of the macbooks and macbook pros, so that seemed to benefit the consumer. They batteries are also supposed to last for many more cycles. if you need to replace it, you can easily do it by removing a few screws. So as a laptop owner, I'd gladly trade my removable battery for a non-removable one that gave me 2x the life.

How does that work? I've never heard of this. Also, if you could remove the case and replace the battery yourself, in what sense is it non-removable?