The iPad sucks. The New York Times says so. http://www.nytimes.com/external/readwrit...vers-99098.html

They recommend instead to go out right now and nab yourself the excellent ChromeOS tablet. It's free and includes a bonus bag of pixie dust.

Yeah, you're right, Apple can never get any positive press or hype about its products, especially before they're released.

The author of that piece goes to great lengths to inform the reader that the Google device is vapor. From the very first sentence all the way into the fifth paragraph, there are several reminders and caveats about it being conceptual and how there are no official plans for Google to enter the tablet arena.

Your implication that they are favorably comparing the Google device to the Apple device, and suggesting that you can get it today, is completely off-base. I see the piece as simply a "what if" comparison that takes into account how the companies' very different philosophies and tendencies *might* manifest themselves in a *hypothetical* tablet device faceoff.

In other words, you should probably look elsewhere for a vast anti-Apple conspiracy. Nothing to see here at all.

The problem is, generally speaking, people don't want to pay more for a less capable device. If the iPad were $150, I would likely have none of these complaints. For that matter, it doesn't need anything more than a WebKit browser and an email client (well, these days, maybe a Facebook app makes more sense than an email client), rather than a stripped-down OS running applications that you just don't need on a device like this. I suppose, though, I've undermined my own argument. People might want a Twitter client or an RSS reader.

I suppose since they already had the iPhoneOS available, it made sense to use it, and it probably reduced development costs, but it engenders comparisons to the iPhone, which makes it look bad, and not only haven't they've done anything to discourage that, they explicitly did it themselves.

$500 may be the best price point they could make, but it's just still far too expensive for what it is.

Honestly, the thing that's going to make a device like this work is cheap ubiquitous data service. Right now, if grandma wants one as her first internet device, not only is she going to have to pay $500, she's going to also have to pay an additional $300 for the GSM version plus a $40 monthly bill for the service, or she's going to have to pay an additional $50 for a wireless router plus a $30 monthly bill for some sort of broadband service. That cost is $0 to you and me because we already have the infrastructure to support an iPad, but it's not insignificant to those that don't.

$500 to me doesn't seem unreasonable for what it does. Especially when compared directly against a Kindle DX at $490. $150 would mean it's $110 cheeper then the normal sized Kindle you own. Plenty of people are buying "less capable" devices like the Kindle or Nook to read ebooks on versus buying a cheep netbook. In time, it will probably drop in price a bit, but for the most part, having a high quality screen viewable at any angle (very important in a device usable in any orientation), along with the battery life and functionality is going to demand a certain price range.


$629-$499 = $130 for GSM (and GPS), not $300. And data plans are $15 or $30. Though your point does stand, internet access in the US is still stupidly priced compared to most other places in the world. However, that data price is going to be a constant, no matter what the base product is.

Oops. I didn't realize there were different options beyond GSM/not-GSM, so I was comparing the $829 64GB/GSM to the base unit.

$150 was a number just pulled out of my ass.

I'd be very curious, though, to see the statistics for people reading eBooks via the free Kindle applications versus the Kindle hardware devices. I strongly suspect that you'll find that even with the additional fiscal overhead of the device, there are far more people reading eBooks on the hardware than the software. Because actively lit devices suck ass for reading.

Optometrists constantly deal with people who have eye problems due to computers, to the point where they came up with a term for it. But I, at least, have never heard of Book Vision Syndrome.

Here's the crux of the situation. It's the freaking New York Times, not some random blog. This is hardly worthy journalism or even editorial.

There's no conspiracy. The author just has just been smoking *something* and someone at the Times should have known better than to let it run.

Actually, it looks like it's just syndicated content from ReadWriteWeb that appears on NYT's site:

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/googles_tablet_versus_apples_ipad.php

So, it is just "some random blog." (It's even got "external" in the NYT URL.)

The end of that article hints it's possible from a non computer source too.

It seems to be a problem with focusing on one thing at a fixed distance for too long. Desktop computers, especially with large monitors are likely to contribute to it due to the stationary nature of the display. A laptop/ebook reader/tablet is going to likely be moved, along with being small enough that people look away from time to time.

As far as the general eink vs LCD debate, I'm not sure what way to go. I'd have to try reading a book on my LED lit LCD laptop and compare it to the Nook sometime.

Anyone betting on the Kindle while betting against the iPad is going to find themselves deep in the proverbial hole. Double-time.

I'd love for the iPad to cost $5 and come with a free bag of chips (or crisps in the UK). Maybe then I'd actually get one. But that's not going to happen. But if you think a normal person is going to pay $250 for a device that has 16 shades of gray and can only read books from a single store (and really that's absolutely all it can do), you're out of your freaking mind. There will be more iPad devices in the market within the first month or two than there are Kindles. Give it a few months and there will be more iPads than all dedicated eBook readers from all sources combined. It's going to happen quickly.

The best selling eReader out there is probably the low-rent model they had at Costco over the holiday season. No one was buying the Kindle when it first came out and less people are buying it today with the Nook looking so much more attractive and other products looking so much cheaper. Not to say that any of these devices is selling stupendously.

A browser-only device would be a failure. No one wants a single-server device. I'm sure Apple could have pulled it off to some degree, but it's not what the general public would prefer. If you can relate that type of device to the iPad you're very far off the mark. The JooJoo type of device isn't what's going to make this form factor be taken seriously. The JooJoo isn't likely to see the light of day to even try.

Optometrists should be thankful of the iPad. They're going to have a lot more customers in the future. People don't give a rat's ass that something is potentially bad for them when it has other aspects that draw them in strongly.

re: NYT article re-run:

Tony, if it had also said in that article that African Americans weren't as smart as other Americans, would it still have been OK for the NYT to run it simply because it wasn't one of their in-house staffers that wrote it? That POS article is full of conjecture and misrepresentation of fact - some of it perhaps done purposefully. I'm trying to give its author some credit, but perhaps they are in fact just a dullard.

The very fact that you're making that analogy suggests that your outrage-o-meter is badly in need of calibration. Those don't even belong in the same conversation.

What exactly is so far off-base in that post, anyway?

You keep repeating that the Kindle does nothing but read books. Well, people bought it solely to read books, but it does/can do more than that, as I've pointed out several times before.

Built into the device is a dictionary, a web browser, and a dedicated Wikipedia application, not to mention the interface to the bookstore itself. It can also play audiobooks or even read your ebooks to you. Beyond that, they've recently announced a Software Development Kit.

Sadly, the Kindle doesn't support any DRM besides its own, but, guess what? Neither does the iPod. That's because both are intended to drive sales to their own stores. It does support other eBook standards, though, from TXT to HTML to Mobi.

Point of fact, though, is that it is unrelated to whatever an iPad is trying to be. It's an eBook reader, and it's dedicated to that purpose. The stuff they bundled with it is there specifically to enhance reading. I have no problem with adding features. But I doubt you'll be seeing Amazon say "look at how you can use your Kindle to control a Squeezebox!". It's just additional stuff that you might find useful if you happened to be out with it.

Sadly, Amazon refuses to provide actual sales numbers, which might indicate that you're right. I don't really know. They do provide sales numbers on the eBooks themselves, though, and they seem pretty significant.

As far as the "low-rent" eBook reader at Costco: well, I don't know what that was. They're currently selling Sony Readers. If people are buying those in numbers, that still supports my argument. I'm not touting the Kindle. I'm touting eBook readers over a device that claims to be an eBook reader that, I think, is half-assed due to its desire to be everything to everyone.

The only misrepresentation of fact in that article that I can see is the implication that Android/ChromeOS supports Flash. And that's only slightly misrepresentative, as I'm sure that the folks over at Google would be glad to include Flash support, whereas Apple has made it clear that they will not ever do that.

Also,


Holy crap, dude. But, okay, ignoring the gross incongruity of comparing Apple's closed development model to racist eugenics, you brought up an article critical of the iPad, were very mildly chastised for blowing the relevance of some random dude's opinion out of proportion, apparently went to find an article from a reputable source critical of the iPad, posted a link to said article that actually wasn't really critical of the iPad at all, then when it's pointed out that the reputable source didn't even author the content, you ask if it's okay for the reputable source to publish ideas that aren't its own.

This is pretty typical of your arguments. You constantly reframe the argument so that any point made by someone else isn't relevant, to the point that what you end up arguing has no relationship to what you started with. To elucidate this example, you basically went from "people have irrational opinions of the iPad" to "the New York Times shouldn't be allowed to republish syndicated content I don't agree with".

I'm not outraged, obviously my example is extreme, but I'm talking about fact checking and perhaps taking a quick read of the stupid-o-meter before deciding to reprint someone else's story.

Here's someone else's take on some simple factual errors such as "No YouTube" and "No CNN" - you can completely ignore the fact that the product isn't even out yet. WHo knows, by the time it is, maybe Hulu will be serving their video via HTML5 video tags without a flash wrapper.

The article ends with this choice bit:



Sure, maybe Google hosts services that pass a lot of information. Suggesting they're watching it all and watching all your activities is a little disingenuous. And to suggest that Apple wants to control what the web is? WTF is that supposed to even mean? Because their browser and OS doesn't permit the installation of a third-party plugin?

Flash is not a very big part of the web - that's content she's confusing Flash with. And anyone serious about reaching the most people with their content is going to make sure they cater to the audience regardless of delivery method. The biggest sites on the net to use Flash already support browsing without it.

To suggest that lack of support for Flash can affect at all how well a device or product does is asinine and not at all backed by any facts. If you want to look at it that way, you can actually argue that the lack of Flash is what has propelled the iPhone to the number one mobile internet device in the world. Also, how does this person know what a shipped Chrome OS product will support as far as Flash goes? Any particular product may not support Flash at all. The OS may not support Flash ever. There certainly isn't any Flash runtime on any Chrome OS I've seen at the moment.

She also claims that some fictitious, non existing products can be priced competitively with the iPad because Google is making the OS. WHAT? Let's forget the price of components and economies of scale and preferential pricing models. She's talking out her ass.

--------

The iPad already has "success" written all over it in my opinion. As gadgets go, only the iPhone has received even close to this amount of press, positive or negative. I'm like most people here, a techy. I believe this product is going to succeed and is the start of a revolution that's going to possibly bring profound change to general computing, despite you and me: iPads, Grandmas, technophobes and luddites.

Google makes money on ads. The ads are targeted based on what you're doing with their services. I don't see how saying they "watch over" your activities is disingenuous at all. Invoking "Big Brother" is a little bit over the top, but they are indeed watching what you and I are doing, it's just that they're using that information to make money, not to control our minds or keep us from revolting against a corrupt government.

The question is whether you think the "watching over" is pernicious or benign. Their "Don't Be Evil" slogan has been believable so far, but we're in trouble if the evil bit ever gets flipped, simply based on how much of our digital lives we're all handing over to them.

Re: Flash, the simple fact is that Apple is very anti-Flash, whereas Google is happy to work with Flash for now. There's a flash plugin for the Chrome browser, so it's logical to think one would end up in Chrome OS. Is it 100% guaranteed? No, but again, this was just a "what if" scenario, so you make some assumptions.

Re: pricing, she didn't say it was just Google making the OS that would make it competitive price-wise, she also cited a rumored connection to HTC, which certainly has the wherewithal to develop an affordable device. It's just a rumored connection, but again, this is all just a "what if" hypothetical exercise.

Anyway, the real flaw in your premise is the idea that the New York Times is somehow miles above your average internet blog. The bloom came off that rose a long time ago -- Judy Miller, Jayson Blair, William Kristol are just the higher profile examples.

There is a Flash plugin for Chrome on x86 (using the same NS compatible plugin that works for all other browsers), but not ARM. Google plans to target Chrome OS for both x86 and ARM, so they may run into an issue Apple has with the iPad/iPhone. So far, Adobe hasn't even released a real Flash version for ARM on any device. In theory, one is in beta for Android, but who knows how well thats going at this point. The whole "Open Screen" initiative hasn't produced anything yet for end users. So it's hard to judge how well it would even work at this point. I do side with saying it will likely happen, but it hasn't happened yet.

First, yay for anecdotal evidence.

It says that Grandma has "learned how to use email and a couple of other things on the Internet and that’s about it." That would imply that she has some sort of access to a computer now. How, exactly, is the iPad going to help her? It's not some magical device that makes using web sites (which I can guarantee is all she's ever used "on the Internet") easier. And it also refutes your notion that a more dedicated device is a bad idea.

Technophobe is excited about a "regular sized computer THIS easy to use". Does he have some notion that it's going to have more features than his iPhone? I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he got one and was disappointed that he could have done all of that without spending an additional $500.

Luddite thinks "it would work great for showing potential customers my work and for doing bids on." How is he going to show customers his work? By taking pictures with the built-in camera? Oh, oops; I guess not. He'll have to transfer them from his digital camera. That he probably doesn't have. And I'm just trying to think of the frustration of a person who's never used a computer trying to do a contractor bid on one. I dunno. Maybe there's a contractor bidding iPhone app. There may well be.

Anyway, it's three people who are probably under a misconception about what the iPad will be able to do for them. Especially since Apple announced the product seemingly months before it will be available for sale, I suspect that the shine will be well worn off of that Apple (pun not initially intended) before anyone can plunk down their money for it. And, if not, I suspect that there will be a good number of disappointed people. (Of course, that won't affect launch sales numbers, if that's all you're concerned about.)

More than that, it's a question of might-happen versus won't-happen. Again, Apple has pretty much explicitly stated at this point that if Adobe provided a perfect Flash implementation for the iPhone that they would refuse to accept it.

It is going to be easier. Even though my grandmother has been using a Mac for 6+ years, she still occasionally drags the Safari icon off the dock and doesn't remember how to get it back. Or she accidentally resizes the e-mail window to the point of uselessness. Or she stores documents in the wrong folder and forgets where they are. And she still doesn't really understand the difference between a single click or double click. All things that wouldn't be a problem on an iPad.



The iPad offers a bigger screen and a resolution that allows apps like the iWork suite to work better. Sure, the iPhone could do a lot of the same, but it's not the same experience.

I could be wrong about the specifics, but I still think there are going to be a lot of misapprehensions about what the iPad is among the people that Bruno thinks it's aimed at.

Forget the "aim" part for a second. Do look at what the simple announcement has done. Why are these people interested in this device at all? The bottom line is what's significant here. People are going to want this device. People are gong to buy this device.

The very same arguments were made against the iPhone by a lot of pundits, yet it's done well because people find it truly game changing. It has a lust factor that simply no other handset has. If they don't know any better and you show someone a Pre or an Android handset, they'll ask, "oh, is that an iPhone?"

You are significantly downplaying the importance of Apple's brand and reach. You're significantly downplaying the vast library of existing applications (yes, there are a load of apps geared toward contractors) and you're ignoring the eagerness with which current developers are embracing the iPad. Even if you take away all existing software that will run natively on the device, within a few short weeks of its release, it will already have more software written specifically targeting it than currently exists for Android and WebOS - combined.

I believe the examples from that blog I linked were extreme situations. You can't see how the significance of that extremity helps paint a picture of where this product is already reaching?


I suspect by the time we see a viable ChromeOS tablet, Flash will be next to irrelevant on the web. It seems to be the main point detractors have to hang on to, as useless and insignificant as it already is. Cool, Empire Strikes Back AT-AT done in CSS3

With regards to the iPad in other pursuits, Apple has already been able to complete upset Amazon's eBook business. On multiple fronts and multiple times. Yet they still don't have their product out the door. This shows that Amazon recognizes the significance of the product and so too do publishers. Now, I don't give these people much credit, so more than likely they simply recognize that Apple is a force to be reckoned with on this playing field rather than having an above-average ability to actually rationalize what makes the product so special.

Oh, I missed Bitt's edit of a previous message about the NYT being "allowed' to post someone else's story. They're allowed to do whatever they want. Should they publish such a crap piece? Does it further devalue their publication? Are people who think better of their publication going to be surprised when they read such tripe? Those are the points.

The article was fantasy on all grounds, not at all containing anything backed in enough research to be honestly considered real criticism. And that's a problem. People who aren't as up on technology won't see the problems. They'll take it at face value.

My position and your position have already been summarized some posts back in those two one-liners. This article doesn't change nor affect my position, but it's insightful regarding the state of the web and the state of some media outlets. Pulling stuff out of thin air for one and publishing fantasy as fact, perhaps without having even fully read the contents. Of course the point we've been discussing today, the arguable relevance of Flash - on the web and on a product that accesses the web. I'd expect this type of garbage from CNN, not NYT. And of course commenters on Gizmodo who are all about the Flash.

Less than 3 hours to go for the new season of Lost. I can blame that on any incoherence of the last few posts.

Followup to my earlier post about my HP Mini 1000 and Ubuntu Netbook Remix:

I found the time, got the proprietary Broadcom wireless drivers working, and installed Chrome with AdThwart. Now I'm sitting around using my netbook with the TV in the background.

For my admittedly geeky needs, the netbook does the "casual web browsing" job reasonably well, but it's hardly genius. The screen is just too small for many things, even with the optimizations that the Ubuntu Remix adds. I can't just rotate the screen 90 degrees, and several precious lines of screen real-estate are wasted relative to the full-screen view on an iPhone/iPad.

The stupid fan won't stop running, versus the dead quiet of something like an iPad. Also, the battery on this thing isn't good for all that long, while an iPad could run from the moment I get home to the moment I go to bed with charge to spare.

If I had my MacBook Air at home (it's back at the office), that would obviously be a huge improvement in every way, but I don't want to carry it back and forth every day, and I could never justify buying a second MBA, just to leave around at home on the off-chance I'd use it once in a while. Whereas a spare $300 Netbook, well why not? The keyboard is fine for writing this post, but for serious editing, it's far too cramped and uncomfortable, and the touchpad is maddening.


Back to the iPad:

I'm increasingly agreeing with the thought that this isn't a computer for us. It's an appliance for people who don't know their way around computers. Just like I've never felt a need to hack the software in my refrigerator or washing machine, the iPad customer base similarly doesn't want or care to have that extra flexibility or power. They just want something that "just works."

(What I'd really like to see are Apple or anybody else's private projections of the size and growth of this sort of web appliance market.)

Doesn't it whimper when you fail to carry it around for a bit?

It's a pretty stoic little thing.

Really? Over 26,000 apps in two months? That's on the order of a thousand apps a day. Apple doesn't currently come close to approving that many apps a day, and there are only about 150,000 apps total.


The only thing I've seen is that Amazon has restructured their payments. They're still making a good bit of money on it. Oh, and, MacMillan pulled out. I'm not sure how those are "complete upset"s.

Again with the NYT story. It's a speculative story about the different cultures between Apple and Google, using the iPad as an example. There's really nothing malicious about Apple in that story at all. Your perception of that story says more than the story itself does. Also, now you're talking about perception of the NYT. Your argument just keeps moving and moving and moving. The only thing that the story really said was that Apple is a closed shop and Google is an open shop. That is a fairly accurate assessment. It doesn't even place any particular value on one over the other.

Honestly, I'd be happy to see Flash go away. But it is totally relevant to today's Internet. I don't think Apple (or anyone else) is being intentionally disingenuous about the lack of Flash, but "Flash" doesn't mean a thing to the grandma/technophobe/luddite set. All they know is that when the go to Hulu or Fox.com or ABC.com or wherever to view the "whole internet", as Apple used to claim, it's not going to work, and they're going to be pissed.

And I'm not as sure as you are about Flash's demise. There will be entities that want people to be able to watch their video but not download their video. I don't think that there's any way to do DRM with HTML5 video. I could be wrong. But until there is, Flash, or some other extrastandard extension, will be required.

I didn't think MacMillan pulled out, they just demanded Amazon charge more for the ebooks. Amazon eventually had to cave in to their demands or they would've pulled out. It was a big deal because now publishers are using the iPad as leverage to make Amazon to charge more or they will pull out and go to Apple exclusively.

Developers are already working on ports today. Many apps will be in the submission queue before the iPad hits the stores, many of which will be live on the day it does. I was under the impression that the app totals were under 26k. I'll revise my estimate to a few months then, thanks for the specific number. There are some apps that aren't suited to the iPad, but a large number of existing apps will make very interesting ports once re-imagined for the larger screen and additional input methods.



They restructured their payments prior to Apple's announcement. That was huge, because Amazon was previously raping the publishers and authors, keeping 65% of the sale price for themselves. Based on publisher pressure due to Apple's impending announcement they basically reversed the shares, taking only 30% with the remaining 70 going to the publisher. I think without anything else, "upset" is already an understatement for this change.

Next we have Amazon pull MacMillan from their store because they wanted to discuss different book pricing arrangements. MacMillan didn't pull the books, Amazon did. 1/6 of all titles vanished from Amazon's site - that's not an upset? Yesterday NewsCorp announced that they don't like Amazon's model. They own HarperCollins, another of the big book publishers. Amazon's entire pricing scheme looks like it's about to fall apart.

You're reading far too much into the NYT re-published story. They could have framed it completely differently if it was about corporate culture. My point and argument on this subject has not changed one bit. I have always maintained that it was an irresponsible non-story for the NYT to run. The NYT angle was the primary reason for having even linked it and for my initial comment on it "NYT says..."



You are absolutely right in this regard. And I see custom applications coming in here to fill the web-enabled DRM void, outside the browser. Hulu's own Hulu Desktop for instance. It's probably still running Flash right now, but it doesn't necessarily need to. The majority of Flash content exists today for non-DRM video and advertisements - some with animation and some without it. Much of this can be replaced with straight streaming (maybe with some nice javascript controls) and CSS. The biggest hurdle in my opinion right now isn't DRM, but rather the pathetic state of licensing the best codec out there, H.264.

Of course, the DRM issue is rather moot for a large percentage of the population that would consider saving the streaming files. It doesn't take but a second or two to locate a torrent or the content for download elsewhere, usually on the same night it airs on TV. I don't think browser-based streaming is viable for high quality content anyway. The experience can simply be better architected within a custom application, leaving lower quality streams and previews for the web.

Wait, so you're counting apps that already exist but that developers will redesign? That's cheating a little I don't count that as "software written specifically targeting" the iPad. I call that REwriting.

Or porting, and depending on how well it is done, the port can suck complete ass. Take a look at some of the console->PC ports and how badly they were done.

I said targeting, which doesn't mean "only" for. Targeting means with iPad features, to differentiate from all the existing software, which for the most part already works on the iPad. There's no need to port, because it's the same platform. What we'll see is support for extra resolution and display format, with the inclusion of some new controls and views. It's refactoring and expansion rather than porting (which to me means trying to keep something the same on a different platform)

I hope that all software on the App store continues to support all the iPhone OS devices as much as possible, so that includes support for the lower resolutions on all new apps.

What this means is that the iPad is already getting the attention of existing developers in a big way. Apple mentioned at least a couple of times the term "gold rush" as in the second gold rush. An opportunity for developers to capitalize by being early adopters. The first out of the gate in other words.

Good iPhone software will feature good iPad expansion. Existing crap iPhone software will feature crap iPad expansion. The reason is because the makers of the highest quality apps really give a damn about design and implementation, so they'll try extra hard to provide a great experience on all the devices.

I think a separate application would make sense, but I'm not sure what the rank and file would think. Android, at least, does a good job of recognizing certain URLs as being handled (or being able to be handled) by an application other than the browser. For instance, if you surf to YouTube, it asks if you want to view it in the browser or in the YouTube application. I don't know if the iPhone has a similar feature.