iPad

[Tokyo Slim]

So, 90 percent of the people in this thread feel about the iPad, the same way I do about EVERY apple launch. I feel so vindicated. I am basking in the glow of everyone remarkably waking up smarter a few days ago. Well, except a few of you. Even then. You are providing just enough fanboy to keep the breeze going in here. Wouldn't want it to get too stuffy.

5 star thread!

 

[Jumbie]

iPad is for old people This has been mentioned by a couple people in this thread and this post on Giz would agree. I honestly can't really argue with it despite what I feel are the many shortcomings of this device.

 

[laughwithm3]

http://gizmodo.com/5369493/leaked-co...?autoplay=true superior, /thread

 

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by edmorel

I don't understand the need for a removable battery.
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

I would not need/use a webcam, but I can see why someone would miss it (sounds like an opportunity for a 3rd party vendor),

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.

kickstand is silly, there will be a milllion products made for this thing, I'm sure some kind of kickstand will be a part if it.

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.

Multitasking is also rather silly but whatever.

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.

The Dual thing is a non starter as you know Apple wnats everyone to use what they have or hit the highway. It's worked for them so far.

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.

The handwritting thing, I can see why people would want it, but my experience is that handwritting software is not that useful and the screen takes a beating after extended use.

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.

The media thing, if Apple builds it, they will come. Disney is already talking about how they love the IPad.

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.

With a display device that is different than anything else out there, the media companies will most likely look to take advantage of this by offering exclusive (paid) content.

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.

5 years ago, very few here or anyone for that matter, would have said "yeah, I'd love to buy a device that I carry around to read books in black and white text". More likely than not, the response would have been, what is the point??

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.

 

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by breakz

On point one: the iPad doesn't change market demand--it simply addresses unfilled demand (tech-confused people). The iPad will hurt troubleshooters like Geek Squad, but customizable desktops/servers are going nowhere.
You underestimate the influence of Apple products. They are extremely seductive, even to the average consumer, which is why Apple's market share has been exploding recently. Secondly, you underestimate their influence on their competitors, whose unoriginality prompts them to follow as closely as possible in Apple's footsteps. Apple changes the paradigm of the market. By being a trendsetter, it creates the standard to which new technology adheres. That includes removing customizability from the consumer in exchange for ease of use.

Some food for thought: http://createdigitalmusic.com/2010/0...=Google+Reader

http://lifehacker.com/5458690/the-pr...=Google+Reader

http://io9.com/5458822/why-the-ipad-is-crap-futurism

From Slashdot: "FSF's John Sullivan launches the Defective by Design campaign and petition to rain on Steve's parade, barely minutes out of the starting gate. 'This is a huge step backward in the history of computing,' said FSF's Holmes Wilson, 'If the first personal computers required permission from the manufacturer for each new program or new feature, the history of computing would be as dismally totalitarian as the milieu in Apple's famous Super Bowl ad.' The iPad has DRM writ large: you can only install what Apple says you may, and 'computing' goes consumer mainstream — no more twiddling, just sit back, spend your money, and watch the show — while we allow you to."

On point two: the iPad can't cannibalize iPhone sales b/c it's a.) not a phone, and b.) not portable. It can't cannibalize laptop sales b/c it's not a full computer. The iPad is a luxury item for a frequent traveler or someone who isn't good with tech. So I don't think that's a concern.

It's made to be portable, so you don't know what you're talking about. And if there exists a device that does everything that the iPhone currently does (but better!) except making phone calls, and I own neither (but already have a cell), there is no more incentive for me to invest in an iPhone. That's cannibalism.

 

[gumercindo]

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.

 

[aqhong]

Originally Posted by holymadness

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.)

 

[breakz]

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.

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!")

 

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by aqhong

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.

 

[aqhong]

Originally Posted by holymadness

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.

 

[audiophilia]

Don't need one, but I'll get one eventually. Good looking product.

 

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by aqhong

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.

 

[holymadness]

For comparison purposes:

http://gizmodo.com/5459308/slate-sho...=Google+Reader

 

[donCarlos]

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.

 

[breakz]

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.