1. Welcome to the new Styleforum!

    We hope you’re as excited as we are to hang out in the new place. There are more new features that we’ll announce in the near future, but for now we hope you’ll enjoy the new site.

    We are currently fine-tuning the forum for your browsing pleasure, so bear with any lingering dust as we work to make Styleforum even more awesome than it was.

    Oh, and don’t forget to head over to the Styleforum Journal, because we’re giving away two pairs of Carmina shoes to celebrate our move!

    Please address any questions about using the new forum to support@styleforum.net

    Cheers,

    The Styleforum Team

    Dismiss Notice

iPad

Discussion in 'Entertainment, Culture, and Sports' started by Augusto86, Jan 27, 2010.

  1. gumercindo

    gumercindo Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,196
    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Location:
    DC Suburbs
    For me, the ipad would be much more tempting if it 1) had multitasking, 2) had built in capabilities to stream music to speakers wirelessly. Camera would be cool to video chat, but not essential and as far as multitasking goes, it's a "nice to ahve" as well. The music playing for me is a big deal. I don't want to need a long wire to go from my ipad to my speakers to play music. I imagine there will be new speakers being sold for this sort of thing. But at that point, I'm sure they'll be pricey, so i might spring for the sonos wireless system.
     
  2. aqhong

    aqhong Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,967
    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    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.
    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. Both the examples you stated are possible. Apple's iPod app can run in the background while you are using any other app, including games. Same for Mail; I do get notified whenever I receive emails, or even IMs (from the AIM app, which supports push notifications), while I'm in another app. In addition, save states make it so that when I leave that app (to browse through that music or read that email), it'll be exactly as I left it when I eventually return. The effect is not much different from simply minimizing/maximizing apps on a true multi-tasking OS; just that the app you're currently in is always fullscreen. 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.)
     
  3. breakz

    breakz Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,472
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    aqhong is right--the iPhone has pop-ups for new email, SMS, AIM, and Facebook messages. The big complaint people have about iPhone multitasking? They can't do things while listening to Pandora. [​IMG] Multitasking on iPhone isn't really a big deal. If multitasking were enabled people would move to complaining about short battery life ("I'm only running Pandora while playing a game!")
     
  4. holymadness

    holymadness Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,673
    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2008
    Location:
    Montreal
    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. Both the examples you stated are possible. Apple's iPod app can run in the background while you are using any other app, including games. Same for Mail; I do get notified when I receive emails, or even IMs (from the AIM app, which supports push notifications), while I'm in another app. In addition, save states make it to so when I leave that app (to browse through that music or read that email), it'll be exactly as I left it when I eventually return. The effect is not much different from simply minimizing/maximizing apps on a true multi-tasking OS; just that the app you're currently in is always fullscreen.

    Yes, it's true that you 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.)

    I'm basing my comments on what the tech blogs have said, since evidently none of us has touched an iPad. But if you like, I can elaborate the critique: why can't I work in splitscreen mode, with half the space dedicated to an IM conversation and the other half to watching a tv show? Why can't I use tabs (for instance) to swap between an e-mail I'm writing and a book whose passage I'm citing? Assuming they ever include a camera, why shouldn't I be able to video conference with someone while working on a shared file in Google Docs? It's pathetic and frustrating.

    You can split hairs all you want but you can't deny the point: Apple's approach to computing is regressive insofar as it eliminates everything that doesn't contribute to a simplified, stripped-down way of interacting with content. It is patronizing and paternalistic.
     
  5. aqhong

    aqhong Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,967
    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    You can split hairs all you want but you can't deny the point: Apple's approach to computing is regressive insofar as it eliminates everything that doesn't contribute to a simplified, stripped-down way of interacting with content. It is patronizing and paternalistic.
    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 may find that "regressive," "patronizing," and "paternalistic," and that's fine. All it means is you're not the target market. If you want to IM and watch video at the same time, or video conference while working on a document, don't buy an iPad. Buy a MacBook. Or a netbook. Or any of the myriad devices out there that can do these things. But taking away this "simplified, stripped-down way of interacting with content" from the iPad is ripping out its core, its entire reason for being. 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.
     
  6. audiophilia

    audiophilia Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2008
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    Don't need one, but I'll get one eventually. Good looking product.
     
  7. holymadness

    holymadness Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,673
    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2008
    Location:
    Montreal
    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 may find that "regressive," "patronizing," and "paternalistic," and that's fine. All it means is you're not the target market. If you want to IM and watch video at the same time, or video conference while working on a document, don't buy an iPad. Buy a MacBook. Or a netbook. Or any of the myriad devices out there that can do these things.

    But taking away this "simplified, stripped-down way of interacting with content" from the iPad is ripping out its core, its entire reason for being. 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 iPad (and iPhone and iPod touch) 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.

    Fair enough. We can agree that the issue exists but not that it's a virtue. I've already explained why I feel this way in an earlier post. To consider this only from the perspective of the 'target market' is to miss the big picture, and to ignore that Apple's goal is to command market share, not build niche devices for a technologically-incompetent generation that will die off in the next 25-35 years.
     
  8. holymadness

    holymadness Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,673
    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2008
    Location:
    Montreal
  9. donCarlos

    donCarlos Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    56
    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Location:
    Prague
    The picture says pretty much everything. I like the concept, but it is a typical late apple product - absolutely useless and overpriced, with smooth transitions, cool effects and nice design. The only thing I like is the long battery life. I have no idea how iPhone could have started such a mania all over the world (especially in the USA). Plus, Apple´s software policies are worse than Big Brother. BTW, I bought Acer Aspire One a few days ago and I can´t be more satisfied. [​IMG]
     
  10. breakz

    breakz Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,472
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    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.
     
  11. holymadness

    holymadness Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,673
    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2008
    Location:
    Montreal
    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. [​IMG]
     
  12. imageWIS

    imageWIS Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    20,008
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Location:
    New York City / Buenos Aires
    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.
     
  13. breakz

    breakz Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,472
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    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.
    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. [​IMG]
    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?
     
  14. aqhong

    aqhong Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,967
    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    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. [​IMG]
    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.)
     
  15. chorse123

    chorse123 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,448
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2004
    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.
     
  16. lefty

    lefty Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,569
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    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
     
  17. UnFacconable

    UnFacconable Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,172
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    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.)


    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.


    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 fucking 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.
     
  18. scb

    scb Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    943
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2008
    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 shit in the background, they don't allow it. Does it make sense to us? No. But it could be as simple as that.
     
  19. UnFacconable

    UnFacconable Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,172
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    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 shit in the 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.
     
  20. haganah

    haganah Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,351
    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Location:
    New York, NY
    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?
    1. It is a huge pain in the ass 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. [​IMG] 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.
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by