Apple event on Jan 27th, iSlate?

So invites are going out as expected for an Apple event on January 27th, to "Come see our latest creation". The odd part for me is why they sent one to Kotaku, a gaming news site. Makes me wonder if Apple is going to try and position the tablet as some sort of gaming device day one, or if they have other gaming related announcements. It would be nice to see Apple take gaming more serious then they have in the past, as OS X has shipped with some really nasty bugs in OpenGL over the years, hindering games on the platform.

If I were a betting type of person my only bet would be against what most pundits and blogs have been predicting. I really have no clue about what Apple will actually unveil, but I think everyone else is just as, if not more, clueless.

It's (historically) an appropriate time for multiple announcements, given that Apple no longer participates in anyone else's trade shows early in the year.

I'm also not sure about what all the rumour sites are saying, it could be just that I'm not interested in that type of product but I can't see the point of a slate, even if it's really pretty. I like the iPhone as it goes everywhere with me, all the mocks ups so far don't look that portable or practical to me.

I think it's a very good point about the gaming side of things. I would expect to see Apple trying to open up a market it has little share of at the moment. That makes much more sense to me, I just wonder what form it will take?

Cheers

Cris.

Apple's already in the handheld gaming biz with the iPhone and iPod touch. Seems like developers agree too.

They've already got more installed units than Sony and will likely eventually catch Nintendo - though that may be by the time Nintendo moves to a new platform. As far as gaming dollars it's a lot more difficult to calculate, even if I knew all the software numbers. Since the idevices aren't strictly gaming-related it's not fair to say unit sales are gaming hardware sales. But if you put that aside, and you listen to some analysts that are somewhat grounded and realistic, Apple is doing very well with unit profits. Much better than Sony, though I have no idea how much money Nintendo brings in from their handhelds. The App Store, again, not strictly games, is also booming and brings Apple an estimated 100-something million per month according to the last report I saw.

I also don't see a point in a tablet/slate general purpose computer with today's software. If Apple does move into this space, they'll bring along something completely new, unlike what's been mocked up so far. None of the iPhone mock-ups or predictions were even close to reality. The fact that Apple would turn the phone industry on it's ass wasn't expected by anyone. Today there's no arguing that Apple has created the de-facto "benchmark" in a hand-held platform. It's not quite ubiquitous, but it's the closest thing we've ever had and it's been changing "mobile" computing since its debut.

It's unwise to underestimate Apple as much as it is to overestimate. Thankfully for Apple, the people in the first camp usually belong to the competition and detractors while the second camp are the already locked-in fan-boys.

Let's see what happens in two weeks.

I can't imagine anybody on this bbs falling into that category.

Oh, wait...



tanstaafl.

Ya ya ya... I'm a fan, but I'm not a fan-boy (aka fanatic). Just like I'm a fan of Star Wars and Star Trek, but not a fan-boy of either of those either. A fan-boy doesn't criticize, and I'm very (and have always been very) critical of Apple. I don't think Apple is "all that" when it comes to design of hardware or software. They're just better than most. Including when it comes to releasing things that "wow" many people and set benchmarks. I'm not always wowed. See, another sign of non-fan-boy-ism.

Having worked so closely with Apple for a number of years I long ago learned not to overestimate. They do things at their own pace and by their own rules - it doesn't matter how many people (fan-boys included) are clamoring for this or that feature or bell or whistle.

eh ????????????????????????????????????????????

Cheers

Cris.

They're both over and underrated as well. But generally speaking, to see the best software you'll usually look to third parties. As far as hardware goes, they're usually the best of the common crowd, but they could be better. Design is all a compromise anyway, so I suppose you can never have a pinnacle, even if looking at a specific point in time.

With regards to the two comments, they have the benchmark retail product. It doesn't mean they have created the ultimate design nor function in every category for that product. They're also where the market is looking and what the market is targeting. The benchmark. I happen to think a lot of the platform can be better designed and implemented. I don't think anyone else will solve all the issues before (or instead of) Apple however. And even if they had a single product that was the absolute most perfect creation that would never be improved, that still wouldn't make the company nor everything else they do "all that."

"All that" = Always tops, without question or fail. Infallible. Always right. The only way. Can't be improved. etc..

Yeah, I don't agree with "all that."

So who exactly is "all that" in Apple's marketplace?

And remember the comparison, to keep it fair, should be made with another company that develops it's own software and hardware platform, operate and innovate in multiple emerging and established markets and hold the de-facto benchmark for a hand held device.

Oh, and they should also be brave enough to break away from the way things industry has always done things and centre on making what's there work rather than fill their devices with features that don't work.

I'm struggling to come up with someone better. Hmmm.......

I also think you need to add a 3rd category - Apple Fan Boy In Denial

Cheers

Cris.

I think his point is that there is no company that's "all that".

Apple's just closer than the competition in many metrics.

Perhaps, but we're grading on a curve. Apple is virtually the only company that you ever praise, and you do that frequently. Yes, you have had criticisms of them here and there, but, aside from Slim/Squeeze, I can't think of another product from any vendor that you've mentioned you liked; moreover, I can't think of one you didn't actively complain about.

Um...no. Nintendo has sold over 113 million DS units. Apple has sold a respectable 30 million iPhones and Touches, but there's a long way to go to get to 113 million, and the handheld game market is WAY less crowded.

If it's anything remotely like the tablet shapes being reported, I don't see how it will be a big gaming platform. The form factor just doesn't lend its self to it. It's not portable, and you have stuff at home that is going to be much more usable. That is the entire problem with tablets.

But, once again, we just don't know what they're going to come out with. I'll certainly be interested.

Whatever Apple's got up their sleeve, I don't see myself running out and buying it. I've got a brand-new Kindle, that I've been using quite successfully to read books, an iPhone 3G, which isn't out of contract until this summer, and an MacBook Air that's still doing it's job just fine. Any sort of slate-like device would need to obsolete one of the gadgets that I already use and am perfectly happy with.

The numbers I have seen are actually 70-something million and 45-50 million respectively (though I think 45m is low and the real figure is closer to 60m). Though more recently with some digging I have been able to find figures for the DS topping 105M, so I'll take your 113.

I believe the iPod Touch figure itself is close to 30 million units today. Combined sales were already over 37 million units in April of 2009. q3 and q4 2009 added another 13M iPhones and likely a similar number of iPod touches. Expect another 15M+ iPhones this year along with maybe 10M or more touches - it all really depends on what Apple does to refresh the line. Apple will catch the DS.

Neither sales stat is for currently active units obviously. Nintendo has sold a bunch of DS revisions that people have upgraded through and Apple has done the same with the iPhone and Touch. Apple has been doing amazingly well with hardware that costs a lot more than Nintendo's and sales policies on the iPhone that have dramatically restricted its adoption, especially in the US.

This launch date has been known since at least January 4th. How is this breaking news today? The Apple stock (AAPL) is up 4.4% today, mostly on earnings guidance, but people are also citing this release.

Too bad it was only yesterday that I heard the Jan 4th podcast with this info. I could have caught that stock move. Just like how I missed the Palm Pre and Moto Droid announcements by a week or two. It pays to stay on top of the news.

Up till January 18th, Apple hadn't said anything official, thus the date was still a rumor.

And they couldn't make wild predictions by parsing the press invitations 37 different ways.

It's worth noting that when someone buys an iphone or ipod touch, they may be buying a music player, a phone, an email device, etc. They're not necessarily going to be gaming on it.

When someone buys a Nintendo, they're buying a gaming device... hence the number of "apple devices used for gaming" (vs "apple devices capable of being used for gaming") is going to be way lower than the number of Nintendo's used for gaming.

Good point. I'd love to know what the numbers were for the most popular iPhone game, and then compare them to the most popular DS game.

Of course, the advantage of the iPhone is that it takes a lot less for a developer to get their game onto the device, but still, the audience might not be as big.

Bruno, apparently your prediction might be true, though. There are rumors of the next DS being announced and/or releasing this year.

This is the kind of douche you don't want to do business with: McGraw Hill CEO discloses Apple Trade Secret on national TV

Forget scammers in Nigeria, it's people like this that will ruin your day. Like Gordon Ramsay going mental on some muppet, I don't find it surprising that Steve Jobs flips his lid when idiots pull this kind of crap. I don't think he'll blacklist McGraw Hill from the event like he did with ATI back in the day though.

Some people speculate "controlled leak" - not a chance. A controlled leak doesn't come from some nerd CEO the day before a major press event.

There have been some big big payouts. That Dance Dance Revolution (err Tap Tap Revenge or something like that) and the DoCoMo guys seem to be banking large. All things considered once you file away all the ducats, I wouldn't be surprised to find they're more profitable than the big DS games.

BTW, this past quarter put at least another 18M iPhones and iPod touches in the hands of consumers according to the earnings report Apple released on Monday.

Here's a neat video from Apple in 1995 which, among other things, shows a couple of tablet devices. These devices would not have been able to be created with the level of performance shown in the videos at that time obviously. But I did find the video inspiring and would love to see some visionary concept work for enabling education through technology done today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPS1DMlzz0M

We'll see where the event tomorrow takes this, but I don't think we'll be seeing something as revelational as this video would have been in 1995.

Is someone saying the thing is great the day before they announce it going to hurt them somehow ? I could see being mad if he said it sucks.

It can hurt their stock price. Basically if he says something positive, and then tomorrows announcement is a letdown, the stock may take a hit. If he says something negative, the stock may take a hit now.

I would think more like someone said something positive today I wanna but stock today before the big announcement tomorrow and everyone hears about it. Plus even before this announcement it sounds like it was already well known it was coming anyway.

They should just stop with the big announcement crap and just start selling the thing when it's done.

It's all about marketing and developers. With the big announcement, they guarantee spots in every major newspaper, TV news show, internet site, and radio station without having to pay for advertising individually. And by pre announcing a device that will need developer support, they allow time for some apps to be made.

Great for them. I'm sure not a single Nintendo DS was sold in that time.

As for the games, you didn't address the issue at all. You just said something like "I heard the developers made a lot of money." That doesn't say anything. Do you have numbers of games sold? And really, that's hard to compare too. It's sort of apples and oranges across the board on this argument, really. I still don't think they have as much to stand on in the gaming area as they think they do, and that is to say that they think the iPhone is the greatest portable gaming platform around. Personally, for that to be true, I'd need to have more control input than just a touchscreen and accelerometer. Neither method is at all appealing to me as a primary control method on a portable gaming device.

It depends on what game. I could play peggle on there fine.

The most important thing that I garnered from that video is that Erin Burnett is hot.

Matt, I spend a lot of time on the board as it is. Use Google and you will find estimates of the sales of the two companies I mentioned. You can also find a lot of information about the distribution and licensing costs associated with creating Nintendo games. Those facts for the App Store are known - 30% off the top to Apple. You can also find a lot of information from developers on the ease of developing for various platforms. Another fact is that developers have been able to leverage their code base on the iPhone platform to release two, three or even four games.

As well, for a small company, it's really a no brainer. Most have little chance to ever release a Nintendo game, having to get past the licensing and development costs. Releasing one on the iPhone is pretty straight forward since there is a much lower barrier to entry.

Also, the unit stat was just to contribute additional data to the previous discussion. I don't have a DS stat but I was hoping someone else could add that later. BTW, personally, I think the DS is shite. Two super small screens is still two super small screens. BUt I do agree with you that the iPhone would be a nicer gaming rig if you had the ability to use some external buttons. A couple of people were working on cases sporting buttons and a dpad. Not sure where that's at right now, but from a feasibility perspective, it's at least possible now that Apple has an official API for the dock connector. You'd have to bake support for it directly into the titles though.

All the young kids I know who have them would strongly disagree with you. They love the things and had far less interest in playing games on my iPhone.

Between SWMBO and me, there 5 kids under the age of 12 in our families... and each one has a DS. Also, SWMBO has one and so does her 26 year old brother.

Compare that to the number of iPhones in the family which currently stands at 1.

"iPad"? Sounds like a tampon.

And only one vowel off from iPod.


Now to see how they are going to sell it. So far, it's just a bigger iPhone/iPod touch.

Price will be interesting. Nowhere as cheap as a netbook.

Wow... Steve Jobs has shrunk!

Rough specs / summary so far:

- 9.7" display
- .5" thick, 1.5 pounds
- Apple internal 1GHz CPU, ARM architecture
- 16-64GB of FLASH
- 802.11n + Bluetooth + optional 3G

- 10 hour battery ("months" of standby)

- runs all iPhone apps out of the box

- iBooks, lets you buy books from five major publishing houses at start, looks a whole lot like the App Store

- port of iWork (Keynote, Pages, Numbers)
- you could ostensibly use the iPad instead of a laptop to drive a Keynote presentation (presumably there's a VGA dongle for the port on the bottom, but they haven't said anything about it yet)

and $499 - $829

Steve Jobs: "We think we've got the goods. We think we've done it. Another thing we're excited about is that there's already 75m people who know how to use this because of how many iPhones and iPod touches we've shipped."

Problem: Those people already have iPhones and iPod touches.

Swing and a miss, Steve.

Geoff wins the Internet!

Yeouch.

And, according to one report I read:

Still no Flash in the web browser.

Yeah, no thanks.

I'd call it a single, but certainly no RBI. If you're the sort of road warrior looking to lighten the load, the iPad can do a Keynote presentation, so that's half the travel weight of a MacBook Air -- no small thing. I'd be tempted to leave one around at home for night-time web surfing, keeping up with mail, etc. -- all the things I presently do with my iPhone and/or Kindle.

Still, at least for me, I don't see myself buying it, largely because my MacBook Air and my iPhone, together, really do everything I need to do.

A feature, not a bug. Apple has single-handedly helped push back on the scourge of Flash-heavy web sites. 75M people out there in web-land don't and won't do Flash. That's enough to force web designers to pay attention to some of the newer HTML5 features that can replace things that you formerly needed Flash to accomplish.

(The never-ending list of Flash security flaws, alone, is reason enough to want it to go away.)

Or, for an equivalent weight savings, you could leave your left shoe at home.

Come on. 24 ounces is a huge deal? The road warrior's bottle of water is more than that.

Does Safari Mobile support HTML5 video?

TonyF: Gordon - An open source Flash runtime written in pure JavaScript with SVG. Supposedly works under Safari Mobile.

The iPad represents the ability to consolidate a laptop (3 pounds = 48 oz) and a Kindle (10 oz) into a single 24oz package. For the dedicated road warrior, two pounds is a big deal. I'm always making decisions on what to take or leave behind as a function of how much weight I want to lug around with me.

Does that, alone, give Apple a huge hit? No. Does that, alone, make me want to buy it? No. But don't discount the value of the weight savings.

I don't get it, what does it do that my iPhone doesn't do already. Apart from not fitting in my pocket.

This device doesn't replace a laptop on any level to me, can you imagine trying to use it on a plane or on public transport? You'd have to hold it with one and and type with the other.

And what was all the BS about the interface?

It also seems to be much bigger than it should be, ok it's thin but there is a clear inch around the screen on each side. I'd rather it be twice the thickness and be all screen on the front, with just a few mm making up the surround.

I think I'll give this one a miss thanks Steve.

Cheers

Cris.

The guy with the laptop and the Kindle can run real software on his laptop. The guy with the iPad is running iPhone apps on a bigger screen.

Also, the guy with the laptop has a device with a real keyboard. Throwing the keyboard dock into the weight and price equation is necessary for your comparison to be valid.

There are already Kindle applications for PC and iPhone, and announced ones for Mac and Blackberry. The advantage of the Kindle itself is that it has a passively lit screen. This makes it easier on the eyes and consume far less power. If you're going to get rid of that main feature, there's no particular advantage to it.

It's clearly useless as a phone; you can't keep it in your pocket, and there's no way to hold it to your head anyway. So you still need a phone, and if that's going to be an iPhone, the only thing you'd gain with the iPad is a bigger screen. Any "road warrior" worth his salt is already going to have a smart phone of some nature that he can email with and whatnot, so the iPad isn't really helping out there.

I dunno. I guess there is some benefit to a lighter device, but I'd say saving $500-$850, drinking from a water fountain, and being able to use real applications is the right choice.

Just being able to watch iPlayer without getting eye strain would be cool.

I'll reserve full judgement until I see what iWork looks like on it.

The product is very nice.

I still do not see how this creates a new category. Not at that price.

According to Jobs: "The problem is netbooks aren’t better at ANYTHING. They’re just cheap laptops." So, uh, they're better at being affordable. I know what he means, and I'm not going to claim that netbooks are better than the iPad, but they're certainly cheaper. And honestly I can do more with them because I'm not locked down by Apple.

I just can't see it being as big a product as the other Apple products.

I use my DS more for games than I do the iPod Touch. Something designed to do one thing and do it well will generally be better than something designed to do everything. Hell, look at the ergonomics of the i[Pod Touch|Phone] compared to the DS Lite. Night and day and guess which one is easier to play most of the games on.

Uh, sometimes Steve seems to make statements that he intends to be mocked.

What, exactly, is the iPad better at? Costing more than a netbook and doing less? I suppose it's better at running iPhone apps at pixel-quadrupled resolution.

Sometimes when I see an Apple product I just know I am going to end up owning one.

As soon as I saw the Mac Mini I knew it was for me, and I made the swap from Windows straight away. The iPhone was similar just not as quick, and when they announced the Mac Pro last year I got a little excited about it.

I am not getting that with the iPad. I am sure it's a marvel of technology inside, and I have no doubt when I see one I'll go "Nice!" but I will still be thinking it's not a product I will ever own unless it was very very cheap.

Cheers

Cris.

HELLO, YEA, I'M ON MY IPAD....

Just made me think of that

Cheers

Cris.

Ehh. If somebody gave me one I'd use it. Currently though I wouldn't go out and buy one.

The iPad would be a replacement for my iPod touch that lives in my house. I use it for random quick internet browsing, iPlayer and iPeng. If I need a bigger screen then I just go find my laptop or desktop.

As an on the road replacement for my laptop, I'll pass. I need a keyboard and the ability to run my own applications. Its got iWork inside it but you'd have to be insane to actually use it without the optional keyboard dock and you might as well get a laptop at that point and do more.

The iPad isn't aimed at me and I'm unsure of who exactly it is aimed for.

I can see definite uses at work for it, but personally? Probably not.

For an additional $10 per application, supposedly.

I think it has the potential to become a really good remote control and scheduling device for my MythTV system. Except it's rather expensive for that, and lacks tactile buttons.

-ml

Can I leave it where it is and visit on weekends?

Eww. Didn't know that.

Impressive. I'm curious to see just how much of Flash it really supports.

Also, I really do think it was the worst name they could have chosen.

I must be the only person who thinks that sketch is not funny, but actually so bad it makes me cringe. I had to close the browser window before it finished.

Yeah, I should have mentioned that I don't actually think the sketch is funny, but I still think it's a terrible name.

I also hadn't seen any MadTV sketches from the later years. It's sort of like they had a super-compressed version of SNL's timeline. Very funny in the beginning, fairly funny in the middle, and by the end there were only humorless actors and awful sketches...

I'm pretty certain I'm getting one, but not for myself. The iPad does everything my grandmother wants out of a computer (including allowing photos to be loaded on it), so it's an easy sell for me. Especially since I know she has been wanting a book reader as well.

The Kindle DX is dead at this point for a lot of markets Amazon wanted. A college student wanting all their textbooks on a device can pay $489 for a 9.7 inch eink display, or $499 for an LED lit IPS LCD, along with a more capable device.


That was probably intentional to allow easier handling of the device. All the ebook readers have similar borders.

As for myself, I'm still not sure. I'm going to have to hold one, and also see what apps come out. Up till now, developers were targeting the iPhone and making appropriate mobile apps. Now they have a much bigger target (screen wise), more desktop apps will likely come out.

There are still a lot of unknowns here too. Can it run apps in the background? Something tells me no at launch, but yes once 4.0 rolls out this summer.

I do think the device may become very popular around the office for producers. One of them perked up quite a bit when iWork was announced for it. Add in a good Remote Desktop/Screen Sharing app to get back to their desktop in their office, and it becomes very useful to just grab the iPad and have handy while talking to people.

Yeah. You don't need that border on the iPhone/iPod touch because you can generally hold the whole thing in your hand by gripping the sides. The iPad is too wide to do that and you'll need to grab an edge.

That is fair enough, but I would have thought the multitouch system would be able to cope with a bit of a thumb on the edge of the display. I would just want the screen and as little device as possible. Isn't that the whole point of the device in the first place?

I also find the lack of thickness to be a bit of a problem, the touch for me just seems too lightweight and when I go back to my iPhone it feels a much better thickness and weight for a device it's size, I would fear that the iPad would be just too thin not me to really trust myself using it.

I am confused by all the hype around this product, who are they aiming it at? People can read books on their laptop screens now but don't, so why do they think the iPad will make such a massive difference to the masses?

I suspect the Apple viral marketing dept has been working very hard behind the scenes to hype this product into a frenzy, to cover the fact that it isn't a brake through product at all. Just like with the iPod, it wasn't the first but if you listen to the hype it certainly was.

Cheers

Cris.

I've been out since lunch time but did manage to squeeze in a few minutes on the mother-in-law's computer to check Engadget. I've read only the headlines and some brief specs, plus now the posts in this thread.

When I first saw the details on Engadget, I just thought "meh" - I still haven't changed my opinion much. As I speculated earlier and we discussed here in the forum, this type of product is usually better suited for a vertical market. I can see some horizontal movement here because of the iPhone app support and the SDK, but it's not likely a device for me.

I still think it will do reasonably well. I'm completely confident it will be the best selling tablet device, bar none. I also think Amazon is a lot more concerned starting today than they were when they first found out about this device from their publishing partners. They've already significantly dropped their "commission" on eBook sales to Apple's level in anticipation. I'm pretty confident Apple is going to take away a lot of their business in this segment. I don't even know yet if the iBooks app is coming to the iPod and iPhone - if so, then it's really going to hurt Amazon. Unless they happen to be running Apple's books store. Which I somehow doubt.

I'm probably going to wait until tomorrow until I go and read more about the announcement. I have't charged my MBP in over 24 hours and it's only got about 34 minutes of charge left on it.

Its the exact opposite for me. I find find the iPhone bulky and cumbersome compared to my iPod touch. I'm hoping by the next iPhone release they might have thinned it down a little.

Hmmm the hands on videos make it look pretty cool to use. I like the way you hand the device to someone else and the image is always the right way up. That would be cool for me showing clients photographs.

It certainly looks very fast, but I still don't get why Apple want me to buy one. Where is that killer feature???

I think I was also totally wrong about them expending into the gaming market, I can't see one way that this device helps in that area, in fact I can imagine games on the device, unless written with the iPad in mind, would be very hard to play.

Cheers

Cris.

Interesting.

I don't feel the need for any form of case for my iPhone, it feels tough enough to be in my pocket all the time what ever I am doing. The touch feels like if I sat on it then it would just snap.

Cheers

Cris.

I have a silicone thing on the back but that's the stop the metal from getting too scratched.

I think in the 'sitting on' test you'd find that both units would probably fail in the same way, the glass screens would crack. Also, given the touch has a metal back, it's possible that it would be tougher than the iPhone with its plastic back.

Mmm... Thats not gonna be hard since nearly all other tablets have died a horrible lingering death or they're full laptop type tablets.

I can agree that it will do reasonably well for a tablet, because any success would qualify for that. I have no confidence that this will be considered a successful Apple product, though. Frankly, I think the AppleTV had a far clearer place in the world than this thing, and we can see how well that's done.

*edit*
I also agree with Tom that the Kindle DX is dead, but I never saw that doing well from the get-go.

The thing is, we're all geeks and this is certainly not the market this thing is aimed at.

I can already see that it could so very easily be sold to quite a few of my own family members, you know, those who own a computer which they bought cheap, because they didn't really need one and don't actually use it because it takes 5 to boot up and is slower than snail a to use and they're not particularly tech savvy.

What's easier than picking up a device where you click internet and up comes a nice fast browser (no flash, I know, yadda yadda boring. No flash is a good thing in my eyes). Wanna read a book? No problem, click on the book app...

I can see it has limited appeal in the geek world, but thinking outside the geek, I can see a whole load of people being sold on it.

So, it's the same thing Apple already make, only bigger and more expensive. That sounds like the sort of innovation more typical in the car industry (and look how well it worked out for GM and Ford) than in the IT industry, where making things smaller and cheaper is the usual path of innovation. If the Ipad had already existed when the Ipod Touch came out, everyone would have said "Oooh, look how cleverly they've miniaturised it" and never bought an Ipad again.

I suspect that much of the money Apple make out of releasing the Ipad will be on low-end Macbook sales, as it pretty much constitutes a final smackdown for any remaining hopes of a smaller or cheaper Mac portable.

Peter

Erm, my iPhone spends 90% of its time jammed into my jeans back pocket and I sit on it all the time. No cracked screen after 18 months of that sort of abuse.

When I first held my iPhone it felt so fragile, but I soon got over that (shortly after I dropped it from the second time).

Eryl would never dream of reading a book on her laptop. However she reads loads of books on her iPhone.

She'd love a iPad, but has already identified a problem with reading on it. She does lots of reading in bed and it is hard to see how holding it the same way as her phone is going to be comfortable.

Yes, it's bigger, that's a huge selling point.

I don't know how much you've used an iPod touch or iPhone, but we have both in our household when we're sitting on the sofa we hardly ever bring a laptop with us (means bringing the charger, plugging it in and having wires all over the place), if we want to surf the net we invariably use either the iPhone or the Touch and the only failing is the tiny screen, this device doesn't have this issue.

Like I said, I see a market for this in non geek circles, it's ideal for your user who does a little browsing and send emails.

I know we'll end up with one because it solves our sofa browsing issues.

I do use an Iphone, even sometimes for web browsing. In fact I used an Ipad for several years -- well, it was a Frontpath Progear, but that's the same thing (including even the keyboard dock) except much heavier and with less-good software. It scored an easy ten out of ten for Captain Kirkishness, but somewhat less than that for practicality. Once I had a laptop (which I needed for other things, like work travel, and so had to have a full OS), there seemed no need for two gadgets doing the same job, and the Frontpath went in the cupboard. The laptop sits charging next to the sofa, and whenever it's needed it gets unplugged from its trailing wire and handed over.

Peter

I can't even read a 40 page paper on the Touch because it is just... not right. I don't know if it is the ergonomics or having the tiny screen or what, but it is just painful for me to try to even get through a simple manual by reading it on the Touch.

Watch the Keynote video: http://events.apple.com.edgesuite.net/1001q3f8hhr/event/index.html

IMO, Steve doesn't seem very convinced about the device. At least comparing his demeanor with keynotes of the past. Audience reception was positive, but due to all the leaks it was distinctly subdued.

While the keynote shows some strengths, I can't say that the intended goal of the device (being BETTER at certain things than Notebook or iPhone) really comes to fruition. Steve actually demonstrates quite clearly some of the disadvantages, including holding and typing while sitting. When he does the "it's that simple to do email on the iPad" not even a peep out of the audience, because everyone can see how painful it was. His posture was a wreck, the iPad was precariously balanced on his legs and the typing was ultra slow and error prone (which I believe can be improved, but it won't match a physical keyboard).

This is a terrific vertical device. Unlike many other devices it actually has a tremendous number of vertical applications, which some people would consider enough to move it to a horizontal type device. It's just not general purpose enough for that however. I don't think there's anything here, problem wise, that realistic pundits and prognosticators didn't anticipate. What Apple has that no one else has even a clue about, is software. That's going to let Apple's device look better and likely perform better than everyone else, but as Matt mentioned, I can't see how this thing will be a runaway success. I do see it beating out the Apple TV however, if only because it's a more accessible device. Most people don't understand the concept of a settop box or connecting things to a TV.

I'm 1/3 of the way in to the presentation. Summary so far: Painful. I actually feel a bit sorry for Steve at this point.

For long-term reading, I would far rather have the eInk.


This part is fair, but it's still awfully limited compared to the things it's likely to be compared to by consumers.

My experience is that in-between products like this tend not to do very well, as people tend to focus on the drawbacks as compared to both products ("it's too big for an iPod; it's too limited for a laptop"), rather than focusing on the advantages from both products ("…" — I'm having a hard time here myself).

I know what you mean, when it comes to reading books. However I probably read more text on my iPhone each day than my wife does when reading her books. For some reason I feel perfectly happy reading websites, text in rss readers, twitter apps etc on it, but not happy with reading books.

Text isn't bad. I use it to check some websites while laying in bed occasionally. I'd much rather hold a book if I could, though. I was never interested in the Kindle, I only read a few things on the Touch (game manuals from Steam and it is easier to read those on a computer), and I find myself apathetic about the iPad.

Ahh, Adobe, bless your crooked blackened hearts:



Exactly. For Apple, that's a good thing. Why on earth would Apple want people to be playing free online games when they have their own store to run? The biggest video sites on the net can already be viewed without flash - YouTube for instance. Flash is gong away for video. YouTube is going HTML5 H.264 for everyone in their new beta. Vimeo is going the same way. How long until the others change over as well?

Adobe even mentions Disney. With Steve Jobs being the largest shareholder, I think they too may eventually leave Flash behind.

Adobe's argument is like Microsoft complaining that they can't install Internet Explorer or Windows on the iPad. If Adobe wants to make some cash, there's significant opportunities here for mobile versions/interpretations of their popular apps. Sounds like they're pissed that the primary reason for their acquisition of Macromedia is slowly sliding into the toilet.

Oh, if anyone watches the video you'll also notice something missing. No mention of McGrawHill. I wonder why?

But it automatically rotates when you turn it horizontally...

(ba-dum)

The iPad is not for me. My interest in it at this time is pretty much down to curiosity.

I can see the benefits in a number of singular tasks. They finally seem to have improved the iPod software so that it's more like iTunes in its navigation abilities. Coupled with the right software this can be a nice large-screened Squeezebox for instance. It can also make an amazing digital picture frame or remote control for your music collection (again, tied into SqueezeBox server this would be beautiful). But I don't really need that stuff, and for me, the notebook, (not some POS netbook) is still the ideal do-it-all device.

Interesting and perhaps typical blog comment:



My retort: Name one.

So, after watching the keynote last night, I figured I'd try to clarify this from Apple's point of view (but not necessarily defend it). Basically Apple is trying to justify this device as a 3rd category, between the iPhone and a MacBook. His point was that for a product to sit in that space, it has to be better at certain tasks then the phone or laptop. Netbooks are just cheep underpowered laptops running the same software, so they don't do anything better then a laptop, and don't create a third category. They instead cut into another category, and frustrate users who are trying to replace a laptop with a netbook.

I can see what they are trying to do, but for me, (and many of us here), that third category seems kinda pointless. We are all fine with keeping the laptop around the couch to surf, or using the iPhone in bed. The one part about the iPad that would be nice is the book reading. I can't stand reading on the iPhone, it's just too small. The laptop method is ok, but you have to deal with an L shaped device, and can't specifically curl up into comfortable reading positions like you can with a real book. So I can see the eBook angle, though I already bought a Nook for that.

Long term, what would sell me on an iPad would be better integration. It's really stupid that it has to sync over USB. I want to be able to pull media in from my desktop (or better, my home NAS) without having to go to the computer. This is already possible on the AppleTV, so it's really puzzling why the iPad can't just connect to a shared iTunes library. Beyond that, I want Avatar like computing. There was a scene where a scientist was working at a station, and transferred what he was monitoring to a pad like device. If I could do similar easily, even if the main computing was being run on the desktop, it would make the device so much more appealing. I want to take the IM conversation I'm having with me. I want to take the current game state of my SimCity on my iPhone and run it on the iPad. But neither is possible, even from a manual corded syncing route.

Apple built a really nice piece of hardware, but it needs software to really help it become a third category. It needs to allow me to move between any of the three categories and continue working. I'm already frustrated by the inability to sync my instant messenger state between computer and phone, adding a third device is just going to make it worse.

What Tom said. Perfect.

I do think this is a third category, but I feel that for me, this category is still not as well fleshed out as it could be. Some people complain because they want a whole Mac in a tablet format. I'd not advocate that. If someone wants that they can go ahead and pick up a ModBook or if they prefer Windows, one of those other random machines. I think a device like this needs to be purpose built, including from an OS POV, to truly define this third category.

Like Tom, I see a bunch of things missing. I'm actually sad they're missing from the iPhone platform as well and I've mentioned them here before, including the lack of a more versatile and centralized document storage area that can be used by multiple applications. Wireless connectivity for sync can probably chew through a ton of battery on a large transfer, but you don't have to sync everything all at once each and every time. Document hand-off is a great feature. I'm not sure Apple will get there in an appreciable amount of time.

Unfortunately I don't think the features we're talking about significantly enough affect the bottom line. I'm sure everyone would love them, but how many extra sales will they absolutely guarantee?

Well, the OS on the iPad is clearly not purpose-built. Are you saying that the iPad hints at a third category that it does not define?

How about any other tablet manufacturer versus the iPad. When *your* best ideas for using it are "nice large-screened Squeezebox", "amazing digital picture frame", and "remote control for your music collection", I think you've illustrated how narrow the market is for this overgrown iPod Touch.

And how about any major laptop manufacturer versus the current low-end laptop lineup? My wife needed a new computer, and when I was looking at a laptop for her, there was no question that I'd be buying a Mac. The cost of that requirement was several hundred dollars, and that allows for a couple hundred more in value assigned to higher quality hardware and nicer design. In terms of value to someone who doesn't care about the OS, the low end laptops are waaaay behind PC laptops. This is demonstrated by the fact that Apple's laptop market share growth has leveled off at a time when Microsoft has fumbled their entire OS strategy for a couple of years. Look, *I* value OS X and the Apple hardware very highly but most people don't value it at $400.

Only one at a time, though!

No, I'm saying that the iPhone/iPad OS is purpose-built for touch, regardless of screen size. There are limitations on interaction, but I think the additions to the SDK have done an adequate job of supplying developers with the tools they need to roll out some great new applications.

Tony, your points don't directly address the original comment I quoted. No one produces anything like this at any price. No one else can at this moment in time either. Even MSI has announced their tablet is going to cost $500 and it's not going to have jack for touch-enabled apps.

I don't see how someone buying any Apple product is getting robbed, let alone "these" Apple products mentioned in that quote, which infers iPhone and iPad. No one else makes anything remotely similar to the iPhone at a price that can be considered "much lower." No one else makes a tablet with this complete a feature set at any price.

So the iPhone defined (or at least solidified) a third category, and it happened to also be a member of the cellphone category. I can agree with that.

What is it that the iPad contributed? Lack of portability?

What? I'm not following any more. I thought the iPhone was category #2. The tablet is the third. But I suppose numbers don't matter.

This category has been around for a long time, but no one has managed to define it as well as Apple has. Even though most of us agree that it's not terribly well defined. It's still the best defined it's ever been. Well enough defined that no one (by this I mean the general public) is going to know any other tablets even exist.

Again, this device isn't for me, but I'm not going to argue nor bet against it doing well.

That's such a hand-wave. The comparison to be made is the form factor, and each side brings things to the table. The fact that Apple has multitouch and others don't does not mean you can't compare them to products that are similar in other ways -- you just need to assign value to the touch interface. And, just as a touch interface has a measurable financial value on a tablet, so does having a real operating system that can run real applications. So does handwriting recognition. So does the ability to run Microsoft Office instead of iWork. Etc. etc. etc. You can't just shrug off a comparison because Apple took a tablet form factor and added one feature (or really, just promoted that feature from its phone lineup and tried to convince everyone it was an innovation.)

What is it that this can do better than, say, a theoretical MacSlate Pro, or an iPod Touch?

If the iPhone is Cat2, Cat3 requires a purpose-built OS, and the iPad runs the same OS as the (Cat2) iPhone, how is it that the iPad can be Cat3?

Purpose-built versus a desktop OS. The iPhone OS is clearly suitable for both types of devices. Yes, I'd like to see some multi-taskign as well, but the OS is purpose-built for a touch UI. In fact it was first conceived of and tested not with the iPhone, but the precursor to a tablet computer.

You don't have to consider a Mac-Slate as theoretical. Here's one right here:

http://www.axiotron.com/index.php?id=modbook

It even has a pressure sensitive screen.

BTW, has anyone actually watched the keynote?

Tonyc: Again, name one (not five, not 3 not even 2, just one) product that offers what the iPad does at any price. Even 10x the price if it needs to extend out that far. The only stipulation is that the product has to be out now or have been announced/demonstrated as a real product. Even Microsoft's Surface costs more than 10x and it's not easily carried around without a pickup truck.

Anyway, I'm not here to argue. I won't be buying this product this year. Feel free to follow my lead. I'm not sure I know anyone that will buy this product either. But I do know that a lot of people I've never met or talked to will buy it. Could the keynote have been bigger and more exciting? Not with this type of product, IMO. A lot of people are let down due to unrealistic expectations, like believing Apple would talk about anything other than this product at this keynote.

Personally, I don't have an itch that this type/class of product can scratch/satisfy, but many others do. And I think it's well enough executed, even with its missing pieces, to do well enough to finally establish the category and make Apple enough money to warrant keeping it going and producing a myriad of revisions.

Yeah, they're pretty neat. Good luck getting an Apple Expert to look at one, though.

Any current-generation smartphone, basically.

Literally, the iPad's only advantage is that it's big.

That will be mitigated somewhat with the introduction of the iWorks tools, but there's still not apparently any video output. I can't imagine any "road warrior" is going to want to show his PowerPoint/Keynote by passing the iPad around.

That's not the point. The point is that if you want such a product, even if only to demo, test whatever, there's something there for you to do so with. The ultimate point is that this type of product is, like all other tablet PCs, a very niche product. Tablets in general are niche. The iPad is the first thing to potentially expand the market for this form factor.




I'm not familiar with that product. I took a look but couldn't find a match for brand nor model name for "any."

But... Maybe you're saying then that the iPad doesn't do anything that the iPhone doesn't already do? Did you watch the keynote?

Or are you comparing the iPhone to other Smart Phones? In that case what other remotely similar smart phones cost less? Have even 1/1000th of the quality app selection (ignoring the crap apps of which there are many)

Anyway, no one has named a single product yet. You know, actually name it. By name.

The iPad does do one thing better... it isn't slower than fucking evolution apparently.

The original quote that spawned this tangent asked for the names of companies who provide better value, not specific devices. So asking for specific products is moving the goalposts.

I don't follow the tablet market closely enough to name model numbers, but Dell, HP, and Lenovo all make capable tablet PCs. The screens are all larger, they often have a physical keyboard available, and they run a true multitasking operating system, so they cost more. Any of them, to me, would have more value because of those factors, despite my preference for OS X over windows.

In other words, the iPhone OS is so stripped down, I'd rather run Windows.

Now, your value equation and mine are obviously different, and neither of ours matches the "average consumer." But you seem to be saying that a touch interface and some smooth app integration outweighs all the negatives in comparison to a tablet or a netbook, and I think you've failed to make that case. I've mentioned several places where Apple's value equation is suspect for most people but you haven't responded to those points. If we're going to talk past each other, I'll move on to another conversation.

To answer your other question, I watched Engadget's liveblog of the keynote but don't have a full hour+ to dedicate to watching the same material in video form.

Tony (c), you're misquoting me and you're misquoting my pasted quote. No one's talking about value in any sense. That can be a very subjective thing to slice. The original quote was that there are multiple other companies producing devices which have both more technology and features/functionality and are cheaper than the iPod/iPhone and iPad. In fact, "far cheaper" to be exact. Here's the quote again. I posted it along with its context as well as my rebuttal.



This is just a typical BS commenter's remark because they don't know the industry (any industry) at all. They wouldn't be able to name a single product to back up their comment. I didn't even ask how they felt like buying an iPhone or iPad is getting "robbed."

You could take the iPad hardware, put a new logo on it (let's say HP) and load it up with Windows and sell it at the same price. Is it more functional than what was demonstrated yesterday? Fuck no.

Anyway proof is in the pudding. Let's see how well this obvious POS product does compared to the rest of the industry. My prediction? They'll outsell all other tablet computers combined. Likely in units and profit.

That is exactly what I'm saying. I've yet to see anything that indicates otherwise. Feel free to point out what those things are. The few new apps are nice, but they're still basically just iPhone apps.

There is a difference in form factor that is useful in certain situations, but it's not some mythical new category of device, whereas I would agree that the iPhone was, if not revolutionary, a huge evolutionary step.

I don't think either were revolutionary. Nor do I think mythical or magical. I'm far too jaded for that.

While I don't think either the iPhone/iPod Touch nor iPad are magical nor mythical, I do believe they are revolutionary. At least that the iPhone/iPod are and the iPad will be. I'm jaded, so I don't often say "wow" - but I can usually see the bigger picture. And as far as the iPhone goes, it's already recorded as part of history.

But seriously Bitt, you didn't watch the keynote, it's obvious. My impression was "meh" but even with all my jaded experience in these industries, I can clearly see where there are benefits and many obvious differentiators. Here's one morsel: None of the iPad versions of the default apps, other than Safari, look anything at all like the iPhone/iPod versions.

I took away a lot more from watching the keynote than any of the press or blog coverage I checked out this morning. And I completely trust that the device is even more impressive when used first-hand. I doubt I'd have to wipe any drool or lift my jaw from the floor, but I suspect I'd think the thing was marginally cooler than it seems to be via online keynote viewing. But again, that's just me. I'm confident many other people will be far more impressed.

BTW, did you take the same stand with the cornucopia of eBook readers?

There are going to be overlaps in the categories. But the best way to look at it is that the iPhone and iPod touch are less powerful scaled-down tablets. Not the other way around. It's not for me and it sounds like it's not for you. BUt it's for a lot of other people. Do I think I could come up with some stuff to make it even cooler? Sure. That doesn't matter though, lots of people can do that too. It won't detract from what it is today versus what else is out there (and coming in the next 6 months)

My biggest criticism of Apple for yesterday's announcement? The name of the product. It's already been trademarked by Fujitsu in 2002, including an application to register that mark. If Apple wanted to object to the mark on grounds it was to similar to iPod they should have done it years ago. But to object today is ridiculous. Everyone else noticed that Apple isn't claiming a trademark on iPad at the moment, right? Have the creativity to come up with something better and if you don't at least have the balls to just bloody pay Fujitsu a one-time license.

I don't need Steve blowing smoke up my ass to make a conclusion based on the device's specs.


But you apparently can't state them. I'm asking you to show me what situation would make an iPad worth $500 or more for any significant number of people.


I thought the hardware was neat, but there was very little point to them until the Kindle showed up. The fact that Amazon had a very large selection of books to purchase and the fact that it didn't need any sort of separate computer made it worthwhile. Unlike MP3 players, there was no practical way to get your existing library into digital form, which made the need for direct purchase of software a necessity.

The Kindle (and its successors) have the possibility of revolutionizing the book industry, and possibly saving it (not to mention a few billion trees). I don't know that it will, but it's caught on reasonably well so far. It's clearly not a failure.


Okay, so we're back to saying that the iPhone is in the same category as the iPad, which the iPad apparently invented, despite that the iPhone preceded it by several years.

Is my Nexus One a scaled-down not-less-powerful tablet?

To me, features divided by price equals value. "Features" includes things like "runs a real operating system." Netbooks run a real operating system. Not my favorite OS, but a legitimate OS that consumers enjoy using. For many consumers, that feature alone can outweigh out a lot of iPad's innovations. Same goes for the physical keyboard that netbooks and many tablets have.

You really seem to be setting the parameters of the debate to your liking here by refusing to acknowledge that a real multitasking operating system is, in fact, a "feature" that other netbooks and tablets have that certainly supports the position of the person you quoted. People out there like their Windows and they like their Office suite and they (guh) like their Flash. They like physical keyboards. They like multitasking. Do you think these things don't matter at all?

I've responded by pointing out where Apple is *not* providing value with this device, and where other notebook and netbook makers are. Does any one device from any one company match up with the iPad spec-for-spec? Of course not, if they did then they'd have already invented the iPad. The point is, the original quote is correct -- there are devices that have more to offer to most consumers and are cheaper.



Actually, you could sell it for more, because it would have a legitimate operating system on it that can run real applications, and multitask them. I hates me some Windows, but in a choice between an iPad and your theoretical WinPad, I'm taking the WinPad, and I'm sure I'd have plenty of company.

I didn't mean you should watch the keynote to listen to Steve. I've already mentioned that he wasn't his usual self anyway. You should watch it to see the device in use.

The iPad will allow you to buy books directly on the device. Those books can include color images, moving images, video. They can and will include text books, magazines and newspapers. We're in agreement that this is a nice feature that isn't currently terribly practical on the iPod/iPhone, right? I mean you said it already about the Kindle, a device that until recently cost $350, had a shit display, was slow, crippled with a small screen and lets Amazon delete your books at will.

This device will let people do whatever it is they want to do on a tablet that current tablets have been unable to do. YMMV

Seriously, to the lay person, this thing just looks cool and that's enough reason for at least some sales. Why does the iPhone completely dominate all Android phones and Palm in sales? What does it do? It's something different to different people and it's not only one thing.

A category of device doesn't mean that one category can't be based on another. You strip down a workstation computer to make a notebook computer, then you strip that down to make a tablet. You strip down a tablet to make a phone. Easy to say, easy to understand. Execution requires "the whole package" and I'm arguing that enough of the package is here this time that hasn't been here before, to make that critical difference. You'll need a spreadsheet to count sales, rather than your fingers.

For some people this will make an ideal way to surf the web. Being able to read a web page as if you're reading a magazine had its strengths. No input devices to worry about, no moving parts, super long lasting battery.

I can see some people putting together a presentation with this product where they can't with a computer. I'm talking about ease of use more-so than portability here.

Photo viewing will be a big deal for others. Could make a very nice machine to have kicking around as a photo album. Here's one of the places where it would be nice to have some streaming ability - but that can be added by third party viewers of course.

Apple as a company being the producer will automatically add to the bottom line. Not because of the "hey this device is cool" factor I mentioned before. Simply because of track record and reliability. Trust for many people.

When someone buys a netbook, they may think, wow, this this is a piece of shit notebook. When someone buys this thing, they're going to think, damn, I can't believe this thing only cost $500. Sure, I'd like to see it at $300, but that's totally unrealistic if Apple is to make a decent ROI.

This POS is going to do well. Not iPhone-well, but well enough. I think you need to realize that I'm not trying to sell it. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else to like it or buy it. I'm in the place of an anthropologist here observing the reactions from a wide variety of people and making some hypothesis. You're talking to a person who thought, and for the large part still thinks, that tablets are mostly useless. I'm attempting to remove my my personal opinion/bias when trying to look at this thing.

When you start a discussion on a particular point you can feel free to set the parameters. I set them true, so if you're gong to rebut, you should stay within them. I've stayed within the parameters set in the original quote. Name on device. Come on. Seriously, I'm not trying to get into some meta discussion here. I'm not yanking your chain, why do you continue to yank mine?

Take the iPhone - go: what other phone offers MORE for MUCH less price?

Take the iPad: What tablet computer offers more for much less price?

One of each, taking into account software and hardware. I don't care if the other devices have a desktop OS or not, it's all fair game. Just give me one device within each of the above categories that gives you MORE for LESS.



That has nothing to do with the point I proposed. Because there aren't devices that have those things in the category of the iPad or iPhone that cost less as the original quote stated.

As to how much they matter, which is a different topic, I propose that they matter a lot. But not in the way you're thinking. I think that had the tablet been a Mac, it would not sell as well. The proof will be in the sales. I can't think of a single existing or previous tablet computer that has done anything meaningful in volume sales. Nothing that has established a long-running brand. No one has had any success at tablet computing yet.

So if, as you say, all those things matter the most, we'll see the iPad fail and one or more other tablet products shine. Like I said, I stand by my hypothesis that the iPad will trump each and every other tablet device, even if you add all their totals and accomplishments together. I'll go one further. I'm including all devices that have existed in the past, have been announced and will be announced this year.



Other what? Don't you mean other tablet makers? We're not talking about disposable computers and notebooks.



You're trying to re-write the quote, even in spirit. All I've asked for is the name of one single product that matches up in capabilities in the appropriate category and is much cheaper. While you tell me there are devices out there, you still haven't mentioned a single one. Don't even write the name if you don't want to. you can paste a link to a product page or review.

You do know that you're trying to tell me that there are tons of colours and shades out there while I'm stating that "white is the brightest."



Regular desktop operating system on a tablet? Ask all the PC makers that have tried this recipe how it's worked out for them. Maybe I've already set the stage for the future products that will kill the iPad in the market place both in terms of sales and profits. We'll see how that plays out.

Shit because its eInk?

No, eInk has great promise and has come a long way. The first devices didn't have as many shades nor as high contrast as new devices. Plus they were slower at refreshing.

I'd love to have some color eInk action right now actually. In fact I'm hoping the technology will come sooner rather than later and we can see a nice color eInk picture frame. I think having an image without a backlight that needs no power to maintain would make the ultimate digital picture frame.

They'll also make great readers. The Kindle and related readers aren't going to be mass-market until they come well below $100. And even then... I don't think the iPad is mass-market like music or the iPod or even the iPhone btw.

I'm still unsure what specifically makes the Kindle display shit. There isn't a Kindle 3 with a newer eInk display therefore its shit?

Amazon has revised the screen of the kindle at least twice already since the original. Not including the larger DX model.

The original had only four shades. The Kindle 2 screen has sixteen. Four, and the original Kindle screen, is what I call "shit." The newer global revision of the Kindle has an even better screen with darker blacks and even greater contrast. It's not a Kindle 3, but it's the third revision of the Kindle product anyway.

Anyway... The global Kindle 2 is just about the best eInk reader out there right now, IMO. The Nook needs some updates, but I think it could be the best (if the updates it needs are possible in software).

I'm not sure how you define mass-market, but in my view anything that tops a billion dollars in sales and sells as many units as Apple did iPods ought to qualify.

Source

tanstaafl.

Doug, that article was written in 2008 and is stating one analyst's estimates of how many Kindle units he thinks Amazon will sell. If Amazon had done $1Billion in Kindle sales, they would have announced it.

Apple sold over 22 million iPods just this past quarter.

Mass-market sales for a book reader will be achieved when a significant proportion of book sales are digital. Right now it's a rather piddly number. I've seen figures ranging from 16M for one month to 35M for a quarter (2009 numbers). Physical book sales are many billions per year. It's amazing how difficult it is to find concrete numbers though.

Amazon may end up selling more books because of the iPad in the end. They currently have world-wide licensing in place and an app already for sale.

The value proposition for a device dedicated to reading books isn't there at this moment in time. And that was what my mass-market comment was aimed at. When you couple the price of the device with the price of content, the right numbers just haven't yet been reached to pull the elasticity to that mass-effect level.

I don't know too many heavy book readers, but I know a few. They're not currently interested in an ereader. The low-cost ones are really garbage and the half-decent ones are still too pricy. When these things hit the right price point I think we'll start to really see the balance tip in favor of digital delivery.

I don't think the iPad is going to be the device to do this either - thought I'd get this out there to make sure no one jumps on me for that. It could be the Kindle, but not the Kindle 2 at $250+

Of course it would be. It could run multiple programs at the same time. It could run Photoshop, or AutoCAD, or Allscripts, or SAP, or whatever other fill-in-the-blank application is needed. Or all of them. You're going to have a hard time convincing me, or, I think, anyone, that, even though there are a lot of iPhone apps, there are enough to seriously compete with the flexibility of Windows, or MacOS X, or even Linux. Or that there are applications available for the iPhone that aren't available on another platform.

Actually, what do I mean "would be"? I mean is.

Part of this argument is that while the convertible tablets from PC manufacturers, like, say, the HP TouchSmart tm2t, the Lenovo ThinkPad X200 Tablet, or the Dell Latitude XT2 may cost more (a lot in most cases), they are able to do basically everything that the iPad can, plus have very desirable features that the iPad is unable to replicate.

Almost the same argument can be made for netbook from the Asus EEEs to the Dell Minis to the Sony P-, W-, and X-series.

I came across an interesting quote from a few months ago:

And now Apple's released the iPad, which is the same price, and looks like it was cribbed off of the JooJoo. Yeah, there are some differences: the JooJoo has a slightly higher resolution screen, supports Java and Flash, can play videos from Hulu and Vimeo, and has a camera, for instance. (Okay, the iPad has iPhone apps, too.)

Also, you say that I needed to see the video in order to see it being used, but you earlier pointed how awkward it looked when Steve was using it, and how that contradicted what he was saying about it.

I think our whole point is, though, this is merely an embiggened iPod Touch. It has no additional features that aren't directly related to its bigness, and that bigness is frequently a drawback.

Finally someone mentions a product. But it's more expensive than the iPad, not much cheaper as that tool from the Giz comments claimed. It does have some different specs, but including a camera, but it lacks an accelerometer. A good try though, possibly one of the best examples out there in fact.



There's no argument about what they can do compared to a typical notebook. There's also no argument about how well they've done in the marketplace and how well other tablets have done. Later this year there will be no argument about how the iPad has stacked up.

There's no point in mentioning netbooks.

Perfect example quote from something I'd written earlier. I still stand by that. No one would buy this thing if it was only able to work as a web browser. This is a real platform based on a proven API however. With already more than 140k apps available. And is the iPad anything like the JooJoo? Yeah, it has a screen and is for the most part a tablet. That's about where the similarities end. I'm exaggerating slightly, but go read the specs. There's a lot more going for the iPad. And at the same price. And you know, the iPad is a real product and all, not just text on a web page.

Which brings me back to why I actually came online. I was going to quote myself and kick myself in the ass for something I said earlier - which I'm about to mark with a strike-through. I said just today that I didn't think the iPhone/iPod touch nor iPad were revolutionary. I suppose I wasn't thinking.

The iPhone 3G along with the app store have been a perfect example of a mobile revolution. But the spark for this obviously came with the first iPhone. A revolution doesn't start and end in an instant, and in terms of products one needs to trace back at least as far as the notable catalyst. The iPhone has changed the mobile landscape forever. Everything that has come since has been in reference and comparison to it. Trying very often to outright copy elements of it. Everyone wants an app store. Everyone is trying to emulate the iPhone's success. I believe while the iPad will likely start off a little slower, it can very well be considered revolutionary. We'll know more when we're able to look back rather that forward. It does have the potential to change the way many people interact with computers.

I won't ignore huge contributors at least in experimental efforts to this, such as Microsoft's Surface. But I think the iPad is the first real shot at really seeing the landscape starting to change.



Not that the JooJoo was cribbed off the iPhone version of Safari? Including some of its UI? And the fact it's not out yet? And you think for a second Apple started developing the product after the JooJoo was shown, even in CrunchPad form? Come on. Might as well say the iPad or any product is ripped straight from the wet dreams of fanboys who have been posting about this stuff for years. So many have even created amazing mock-ups. You know, pretty much what the JooJoo is. A fancy web mockup of a product that could have been. Because, if you think the JooJoo is going to ship, I have a bridge overlooking some swamp land to sell you.

Again, I freely admit that what first got a lot of people on the multi-touch and touch bandwagon was the Surface product from MS. Includng the two finger rotate, pinching, etc.

When I was referencing Steve earlier in the presentation I did mention some awkwardness with typing and he didn't look the most comfortable I've seen him look. It was also a little slow (the presentation not the device). Those aren't detractors to everything else though. Just go and watch the device being used so you have at least a bit of information about what it does. That's all.



No, not my point at all. Anyway, I'm done with this line of discussion since, though I'm not sure why, you want to turn it into an argument. I can't argue about facts when they're staring anyone who cares to look straight in the face*. You haven't seen the product nor the apps, how can you comment? You're really coming off as petty and uninformed as some of the people in the log comments, and frankly, I find it frightening that I'm even suggesting that of you.

* I will admit that sales projections or anything about the future is open for interpretation and argument, but above I'm talking about the simple facts regarding what the devices does with its default software and what that software looks like.

I agree with the whole rest of your post, but I still take issue with the rest of that first paragraph.

I think I should have separated those statements I made a little more. They were intended as two separate statements addressing two parts of the announcement. I was not at all claiming that netbooks were "the 3rd category." I was merely pointing out the immediate contradiction in Jobs' statement that "netbooks aren't good at anything; they're just cheap laptops." That statement alone is contradictory, as long as you define cheap as merely "less expensive."

But I get the impression that you don't. Well, then I have to ask: have you used a netbook? I mean, on a regular basis? I own an MSI Wind U100, about 13 months old now, and I think it's fantastic. All these claims that netbooks are slow is bullcrap. I'm running Windows 7 with zero speed issues, and my bootup time is short. I will agree that they are currently incapable of playing HD Youtube streams, but that's flash, and the iPhone/iPad can't do flash at all. They can play HD video, but it's specially formatted for that specific device (I can't exactly throw an HD MKV file on there, can I?).

Anyway, I'm rambling. I see no problems with netbooks in terms of speed. I will grant you, however, that the iPad improves on them when it comes to readability. I occasionally try to read digital comic books on my netbook, and it's a pretty miserable experience. But still, that's not something I'm going to spend $500+ for.

If your "facts" are that no one can provide a product beyond the iPad that is a slate tablet bigger than pocket-sized that can run third-party apps, but not have (from the user's perspective) a general-purpose OS, and cost no more than $500, then, yeah, okay.

I'm not sure what the point of that fact is, though. The iPad is not totally pointless. I'm sure that there are people out there who want all of those things in a single device, but there aren't many.

My point is that there is nothing that it can do that another device can't do just as well, if not better, often for a lower price, unless you absolutely want all of those exact features in a single device.

If you want an eBook reader, you can get a Kindle or a Nook for less, with a screen far more appropriate to that purpose and with a battery that will last an order of magnitude longer. And if you want to be able to download new books from anywhere (that is, have non-wifi data access), the Kindle or Nook is far cheaper. (As an aside, I have a first gen Kindle, and I'd far rather read lengthy things on it than on an actively screen any day. Okay, unless there was no other source of light. That would be tough. They should build a LightWedge-type light into the Kindle. Seems there was a good solution for the Sony Reader.)

If you want an iPhone, you can get an iPhone or an iPod Touch for less and have what's likely to be a more cohesive experience with the 3rd party apps, and be able to carry it around in your pocket. Or an Android or Blackberry or Palm smartphone, if the specific apps aren't what you're looking for.

If you want a digital photo frame, you can definitely get one of those for far less. (Though most of those, admittedly, seem to be absolute trash. I'm holding out for color ePaper, FWIW.)

If you want something that can run spreadsheet, presentation, and word processing software, you can get any of various computers that will do that undoubtedly better than the iPad will, with a real keyboard, and with video output.

If you really want something that can do all of those things, but only one at a time, and don't mind that it does each of them less well than the more appropriate devices, then, yeah, the iPad's your man. But who exactly is in that demographic?

The problem is, when you remove the first part of the statement trying to define the third product category, the second part is out of context. It was said to help define what a third category would be, and that (in Apple's eyes) a netbook fails to fill that role. If Apple released a MacBook Mini, it would just be a cheep laptop in their lineup that performed worse then a full laptop, and not a third product category they are trying to create with the iPad.


I nearly bought a netbook to be my only laptop, and did evaluate quite a few of them. Many of my coworkers have one, and my local Frys also has quite a few on display. So I had the ability to test drive quite a few and talk to owners. In the end, I bought a MacBook Air instead.

The reason I had considered one is that they are nice as far as size and weight. Since I have a beefy desktop (Mac Pro), I wanted a small and light system that could still meet my demands. In the end, the demands were too high for what netbooks can offer, due to the underpowered Atom and integrated graphics. The keyboards on nearly all of the ones I tried were terrible, with only a few that seemed ok. Many had weird quirks with the trackpad due to the layout (The HP on the top of my list had the buttons on the sides of the trackpad, not the bottom).

Basically, the problem with netbooks for me is that they do indeed try to be a cheap laptop, and if I'm going to buy a laptop, I want one that can meet my needs. They provide just enough to make you think it's a full computer, but when pushed, they give way too soon. The MacBook Air on the other hand offers a modern dual core processor and an NVidia 9400m, along with a full sized keyboard, bright and readable screen, and still a very slim and light form factor.

The iPad isn't trying to be a laptop, so up front my expectations are set on what it can do, instead of what it can't. Similarly I don't criticize my Nooks inability to browse the web or playback video because it isn't meant to. But a netbook is sold as a normal computer, and thus I'm critical of how well it does normal computing functions.

Mind you, I'm still not completely sold on the iPad concept for my personal needs. However, I do see potential in what Apple is trying to do. Instead of trying to shoehorn an existing setup into a smaller, cheeper package, they are trying to make an actual product with legitimate and unique uses.

Argh! They were two completely different observations! Don't read into it so much. I was analyzing a statement because I enjoy that kind of stupid thing. It nothing to do with categorization and everything to do with pricing! Sheesh!

And nowhere in your reasoned, logical explanation why you chose the Air over a netbook do you even touch upon the issue of spending FIVE TIMES as much money.

I value functionality and am willing to spend money to get what I want. The only reason I looked at netbooks is due to their size. I could have spent $325 on some cheep netbook (1/5th the price of my Air). Then I would have spent at least $1000 on a decent laptop to actually meet my needs, one that wouldn't be as slim or as light as what I got. Then I'd own two devices I wasn't fully happy with, and one likely to be sitting unused.

I also tend to look at things in a total cost of ownership method. I'm willing to pay more up front to ensure I also get a system that will meet my needs down the road. My MacBook Pro lasted me for nearly 3 years as my only system, including as my PC gaming machine. It now lives on as a family members machine, and will likely meet their needs for at least 3-4 more years. It's also running an operating system I trust for them to use online, reducing my time spent supporting their issues. Could I have bought a cheeper system? Sure. But it would have cost me more money in the long run.

It's got to have some kind of video out. During the demos every iPad had a 30 pin connector attached and the iPad's display was being projected. To be sure there was some kind of composition going on, that the display was inset into a virtual image of an iPad.

Unless or course there was some kind of MillyVanilly chicanery going on.

Anyone else notice that the iBook app seems to be a thinly veiled version of the Mobipocket reader.

See http://www.mobipocket.com/en/DownloadSoft/img/reader5/bookshelf.jpg

edit: That's kind of strange because Mobipocket is owned by Amazon, and while Amazon has released a Kindle app it hasn't authorized the mobipocket folks to release their iphone app.

It does. VGA (at 1024x768), composite or component out, via the dock connector. It's also got a dockable keyboard, or can pair to a bluetooth one.

Delicious Library has used the wooden bookshelf design for years now.

Probably the same composite/component video out cables with the authentication chip that the iPhone and iPod touch use. The VGA output is new though.

Yep, and a few ex Delicious Monster employees worked on the iPad, including a UI designer.

That looks exactly the same as the windows mobipocket software. The only difference seems to be the window decorations.

Apple seems to be ceding the eBook market to the various publishers. No iTunes kind of store for books.

Ahh. Interesting. Didn't know that Delicious Monster, Apple and the iPad were that closely related. I messed about with the original Delicious Library on my brother's Mac and it was quite a nice program especially with the iSight barcode reader system.

iBooks. Thats the app on the iPad to read books, and also buy books from Apple. It's launching in the US initially, while Apple works out deals elsewhere.

There's a 1024x768 VGA out adaptor listed on the website?

Absolutely not, speaking as someone who was deeply involved in hooking iPhones up to keynote video systems. That's live...

Okay, I missed the adapter somehow. It seemed like an awfully odd oversight.

Can you settle an argument I'm having elsewhere, can the SD adapter be used directly with the iPad or does it have to plug into the dock ? (the wording on the Apple site is a little ambiguous)

The SD adapter from what I can tell is a passive device that plugs directly into the iPad.

Bitt, you're arguing for nothing. You're trying to convince ME that the iPad isn't right. Trying to appeal to things that I, like you might value and see as a reason not to buy an iPad. I've already told you that I'm not interested in an iPad. Maybe for the exact same reasons as you. But that doesn't necessarily have any bearing on what will happen with the market at large. I still think we're going to see the iPad completely dominate the tablet category.

I'm not interested in going point for point again countering your claims. We should just watch over the next year to see how this all plays out.

I will say however that the most comparable Kindle, the DX model, is only $10 cheaper for the hardware. I don't think that product has any future after this week.

Now, if you'd like to see some criticism, my main gripe is that the iPad doesn't have a slightly higher density screen. I would have preferred to see 1280x800, a 16:10 aspect, or 1280x960 if they absolutely wanted a 4:3 aspect. Either of those would allow pixel-perfect 720p content. The next thing I might complain about is that with all the extra bezel, they could have put in an SD card reader. However, I recognize that it's a much more difficult process than just throwing in the connector. The functionality associated with it and how it possibly ties to the SDK would have been a decent challenge for quite a number of reasons, not the least of which is possibly making it easier for piracy or circumventing one or more of their revenue models. With the current adapter they may limit access to their photo app. Even if they don't it's probably limited to pulling photos or other documents, rather than being able to expand app storage, shared folder or anything of the like.

I'm really pleased to hear that the new SDK does create a shared folder as I've been advocating since the first release. This will allow multiple applications to access the same file storage area and let customers drag and drop files to the share when the device is connected to their desktop system. I hope we might see this share accessible over wifi in the future, because as previously discussed, attaching cables is kind of lame for a wireless device.

At first glance a USB port might be useful, but I honestly can't think of a reason to have one in addition to the dock connector. Connecting a camera directly to the iPad? I'd rather have WiFi in every camera. It would still be a huge revamp of the SDK and then having to provide drivers if you want any particular device or at least device classes to be supported. WiFi and BT are the solutions to most connectivity concerns here, they just need to be expanded to more uses. Their USB adapter obviously indicates they must support either USB Mass Storage or PTP, I wonder if they expose that in the SDK or if it's baked into their photo app.

The basic dock would have been a nice bundled accessory. It kind of sucks to have this nice display and then have to connect it to a wire on a regular basis to charge it. Dropping it into the dock is quicker and obviously neater.

GPS would be a killer thing to have in the iPad, but I'm really getting the impression that Apple sees this as a product that stays within the home. But how awesome would it have been to have a car dock for this thing? I suppose it's still possible with an externally linked GPS device (BT or dock connector).

As long as you dismiss mobile connectivity and the service for it. If you don't, it's $680 to $1220 cheaper, over three years, depending on which iPad service plan you get.

You're making me want to pull my hair out. Clearly I said "is only $10 cheaper for the hardware" - whether you pay $0 or $1000 per month for connectivity, the price of the hardware doesn't change. Should we get into what a mobile connection gains you on each of those devices?

You just seem determined to try and negate anything I write for some reason. It's strange because I've already admitted to agreeing with much of what you've mentioned in this thread. I just draw a different conclusion from the facts out there at this time as to how the market will play out. And as to whether anyone else offers any device with even close to the same specs for even close to the same money - which is a contention on facts and not interpretation.

Did you anticipate the iPhone would fail (or at the very least not do well) by any chance?

I was just there before typing that and didn't notice anything about GPS in the tech specs.

Aha... I looked under the incorrect heading. I should have scrolled the page a bit more. So that $130 buys you a little more than just 3G data modem. Shame it's not on the base unit, but I guess you can't have everything (that's an Apple mantra I believe). I wonder why they didn't mentioned it in the keynote, since they seemed to have a lot of time repeating so much else.

Yeah. It looks like it has a regular dock connector on it so should just plug in to the iPad or the dock itself. I don't think any other Apple iPod/iPad/iPhone adapter actually requires you to have a dock as well.

I guess it is AGPS without the ability to operate without a data connection since you need that 3G for it to be even present. No using the iPad as a huge GPS unit with no cell signal or abroad then.

That's not necessarily what AGPS means though. The "assisted" part goes over and above, giving you faster acquisition/startup times, it doesn't necessarily mean you need an active data connection present to use the GPS features. Even though WP does claim that some devices always need a data connection, I don't believe that's the case with the iPhone, so I don't expect it would be the case with the iPad.

What you won't be able to use without a data connection is Google Maps (the maps application built into the iPhone and iPad). But you should be fine using one of the third party navigation/map applications.

It just so happens that the GPS chipset is integrated into whatever they add to the devices when they add the cellular bits. Either another small SoC or daughter card or whatever.

BTW, data will also work everywhere in the world a long as you plug a micro sim in. I'm not sure why they didn't just use a regular sized sim though.

Yeah. I know. I was just speculating that the iPad has the needs a data connection variant.


Ah okay. I've not got an iPhone so can't tell.


I'm puzzled by the decision of Apple to use the micro SIM. It isn't like the unit is too small that they couldn't fit in a regular SIM. The iPhone can do it for one and thats tiny in comparison.

People have jokingly said that Apple doesn't need to lock these things because nobody will have a micro SIM to put into it anyway. Unless these micro SIMs really become popular, it is going to be a pain to get them on the network of your choice.

I've already read reports that 2 networks in the UK (as an example) already have micro SIMs on order. It's actually a useful form factor for really small phones the same way micro SD is. But how small do you want to make a phone? The micro variety seems to still be the same thickness.

Poor MSI. Not the greatest thing ever to be directly competing with Apple on a new product. Similar sized screen with capacitive touchscreen and apparently a roughly equivalent CPU for roughly the same price as well. The main differences are that it doesn't support multitouch with gestures and that its running Android.

You are doing a ton of arguing about this comment and the iPad. In the context you quoted, it looks like it is referring to the entire Apple line, not just the iPad. Are Apple computers more expensive than comparable PCs or laptops?

Not more (nor much more) than "comparable" notebooks, no. But I took this quote from a comment thread that was decidedly focused on the iPad. It would have been (more) pointless to be referencing only Apple Notebooks or Desktops. Even if they were adamant about applying the comment to all Apple products, it still doesn't change the fact that there's nothing comparable to the iPad at a lower, let alone "far cheaper" price. We can start another discussion (in another thread) about the comment and how it also doesn't apply to anything else Apple makes today, but that's been hashed to death so many times already.

That was my first assumption as well. The wording under the dock however caused some people I was talking to to claim that the dock was needed:

"The rear 30-pin connector lets you connect the iPad Dock to an electrical outlet using the USB Power Adapter, sync to your computer, and use accessories like the Camera Connection Kit."

I hope we are right and they are wrong...

We're right, they're wrong. That wording on the dock is just to let people know that they can still use accessories while using the dock. Otherwise there wouldn't be an easy way to have the device propped up (in portrait orientation) while the SD adapter is connected to it.

It's a feature of the dock, not a requirement of the SD (or other) adapter.

Now that I've had some time to digest this whole iPad announcement, I've got a handful of thoughts. In no particular order:

- I absolutely knew that I wanted an iPhone. I held off until they released the 3G model, I was in the queue (twice... arrgh) to get one, and no other gadget I've ever owned has had such a singular effect in changing the way I do what I do. I can say the same thing about the original empeg. It was a huge step up from the AM/FM/cassette radio that came in my BMW at the time. (Yes, a 2000 Z3 didn't even come standard with a CD player.) I feel no deep compelling need to get an iPad.

- I recently got the cheaper Kindle 2 as a holiday gift. I've so far read one book on it, with several more loaded up. I can see how it's far more convenient than hauling around hard-cover books, and I plan to use it mostly when I'm traveling. It's all about the weight savings. My only complaint about the Kindle is that readability isn't so good in typical indoor evening light -- the sort of light where it's still perfectly comfortable to read a printed book. Yes, I could buy a booklight, but this is one of the areas where some readers, particular older ones, may prefer an iPad.

- I've at various times considered buying a $300 netbook for the sole purpose of leaving it at home for casual web surfing at night. I now have one (an HP mini 110), which I got for work purposes (a cheap way to set up a demo). I haven't taken it home because we never managed to get the Ubuntu WiFi drivers working (ugly details). Even if it did actually work, I generally do casual surfing just fine on my iPhone, so I haven't been motivated to push harder on this. (I'll head upstairs and use my "real" desktop computer to do real work, if I need to work from home.)

My conclusion agrees with an argument I first saw expressed by Matt Welsh on his Facebook page (see his public rantings as well). In essence, Welsh argues that the iPad is the perfect machine for older users who've previously been disengaged from the Internet. Here's a device, that for $629 (with 3G) and $15/month, can offer a serious value proposition to somebody with zero prior training or experience. See the Web. Read books (in nice big text, which is good when your eyesight isn't so good any more). Email your grandkids and see their pictures. And do it all with radically better usability than anything else on the market. Most important, if you give this to one of your older relatives, you don't have to worry about them shooting themselves in the foot. They're not going to accidentally download viruses or other assorted malware. You can set it up, hand it to your grandparents, and you're done. What's that worth?

(The only drawback, in a scenario like this with no PC to tether to the iPad, is that all the data on it can be lost if the device is stolen or broken. Amazon got this right with the Kindle. It will be interesting to see if Apple truly lets you do everything, including over-the-air system software dates, without owning a PC.)

That would be nice. Or even keep it locally, allowing the iPad to sync via WiFi to a Time Capsule for backups/extra storage/updates. The only reason I'm considering one for my grandmother is that they will still have a Mac Mini in the house to sync to from time to time. The Mini will become the video conferencing system, and possibly be where she can print documents from if the iPad lacks an easy way to print.

Even if the consumer is not concerned about a significant monthly bill for the service, you still have to get the iPad with the GSM interface if you want to have the iPad be a replacement for the Kindle.

I did not think the iPhone would fail. I thought it was an excellent idea, mostly because of my experience with previous smartphones' applications, which were theoretically useful, but a pain in the ass from pretty much every aspect. I wanted one from the get-go, but I didn't want to pay $70-$100 a month for service. (As mentioned elsewhere, I got a Nexus One and put my company-provided Blackberry's SIM card in it. That's the first iPhone-generation smartphone I've had.) I think that Apple tends to do a great job with integration, consistency, and just generally making the damn thing work.

As far as the iPhone goes, people already had experience with PDAs, and, in some cases, PDA-phones, and also phones that had applications on them. I think people were generally frustrated with them. The main thing that made the iPhone work was the fact that applications were easy to find, and were, barring bugs, guaranteed to work with your phone and your carrier.

People were happy to replace their existing cell phones and PDAs with a combination device that did both things better. (Okay, the phone itself has had some problems, but half of those were AT&T's fault, and the Apple ones seem to have actually been worked on.)

On the other hand, the iPad combines a number of disparate devices that people aren't clamoring to consolidate, and which already work pretty well on their own. I see two possible markets: a toy for people who already own those devices that they want, and the sole device for people who currently have none of them.

Let me take a step back and try to detail my points without being argumentative.

First, let's detail the bullet points of the iPad.

• Portable, but not so portable as a PDA or smartphone
• Bigger/higher-res screen than a PDA or smartphone
• Runs iPhone apps and iWork, but no other apps
• No physical keyboard
• Not a phone

Let's look at potential consumers:

The person who only has a laptop: The iPad would give him somewhat more portability at the cost of some flexibility. This person would need to feel that the savings of a few pounds is worth limited function (in comparison to his laptop) and $500. Would it replace his laptop? If not, in what situations would one be used over the other? Would he carry both certain places? Why?

The person who only has a PDA: The iPad would probably give him some interface improvement, an eBook reader, and a portable semi-standard office suite, but he wouldn't be able to carry it around in his pocket. It also wouldn't replace his cell phone. It's probably not going to replace his PDA, as he probably has that because he can take it everywhere. If this person got one, it would basically be a limited netbook. Unless he was particularly enamored with the tablet UI, a netbook would be cheaper and have more features. Or he could get a smartphone with similar features and retire his PDA.

The person who only has a smartphone: The iPad would give him an office suite and a usable eBook reader. The outcome here is similar to the person with the PDA.

The person who only has an eBook reader: Gains an office suite and a semi-portable PDA. If they got a smartphone or PDA instead, they wouldn't get the office suite, but they would have a universally portable device.

The person who has a laptop and a PDA/smartphone: People are largely going to carry their pocket device everywhere. If the person takes their laptop, there's no point in taking the iPad. If they forego the laptop for the iPad, they save some in weight, and lose a significant amount of computing flexibility. They don't gain an office suite or eBook reader, because they could have had that with their laptop.

The person who has a laptop and an eBook reader: Gains a semiportable PDA. I guess there's something to be said for people who want to travel light, but want to do some minor computing beyond what their eBook can do.

The person who has an eBook reader and a PDA: Gains an office suite.

The person who has all three: Again, this is toy territory.

The person who has none of those: It might make sense here for a couch-side device. Some web surfing while watching TV or whatever, and go to the desktop computer for serious work. I think the price point is too high for that, though.

Ultimately, the iPad is only more portable than a notebook in situations where small differences in weight are significant. In most situations, that's really not the case. It is when traveling a distance, especially by plane, where bulk can be an issue. (I assume that the iPad charges off of USB current, so its charger is likely to be significantly less bulky than a laptop's brick. Or do you have to have the docking station? Tangentially, what is the Air's charger like?) But imagine you're going down to the coffee house. You can take your iPad or your laptop. What factors would lead you to take one over the other?

The tablet form factor is advantageous in a few instances, like eBook reading and as a remote control, but really not many. Does getting a $500 device for those instances make sense, when it's likely mediocre at those tasks? (I still claim that an actively lit screen for an eBook reader is bad.)

To reiterate, the iPhone made the smartphone non-irritatingly functional. It did everything that previous smartphones could do, and did it better, plus more. The Kindle made ubiquitous reading possible. There was no way before to be at the airport and decide that you wanted to read that book you just heard about, and do it immediately (unless it was one of the three stocked at the weird airport bookstore), or take your whole library with you because you didn't know what you might want to read once you got there.

The iPad, though, has some nice features, but a number of significant drawbacks. It kind of takes a smattering of the ideas from several different products and smashes them together in a way that's, I'm sure, functional, but just doesn't do anything that couldn't already be done better. It's kind of like the Swiss Army knife of electronics. It can do a bunch of stuff, but it doesn't really do any of it particularly well. The difference is that you can't take it everywhere; you have to make a conscious decision to bring it along. It's like a Swiss Army knife that's got a gas station bathroom key fob attached to it. (Actually, maybe this will be a bigger hit than I expect with women who carry those gigantic purses with them everywhere. I don't know what they have in them now. Maybe it would be lighter than that complete printout of the Internet that they could fit in there.)

Phew. I hope I was less argumentative this time.

iPad video mashup - watch it if only for the Goldfrapp soundtrack. The link is for Vimeo and can be played with Flash or H.264/HTML5 on decent browsers.

Here you have a bunch of touch-input devices from various movies mashed together with some video of the iPad being used in the second half of the video.

Yeah. What he said. There's a reason tablet devices haven't done well in the marketplace before this, and those are the reasons.

However: I won't underestimate the power of the Apple marketing machine to invent new market segments to populate. I just don't see myself as a member of that market segment, and the only people I know who I do see as its customers would only be buying it as a toy.

Easily the weakest track off of Black Cherry and 'so' overused.

What was the point in that video?

You were. And for the first time you've put forth some valid concerns. However, these are concerns that, in the past, I've already agreed with for the most part. I've already told you that I agree with most of your thoughts on the general un-marketability of a typical tablet device. You don't have to convince me of these points and it wasn't these points at all that I was trying to diminish nor convince you of otherwise.

Many people made similar points about the iPhone. I will argue that the iPhone was a success well before the app store and availability of any third party apps. That most of its customers did not have any previous smart phone nor PDA. That is last part is more true today than it's ever been.

I do think that in making your use-cases for the iPad you've gone a bit extreme. The points are still valid for the most part, but they are very specific. And I concede that there are other cases out there or within your specific outlines that will garner many customers. If anyone can make this form factor succeed, it's Apple. If Apple can't do it, I don't think anyone else is going to do it within the next 5 years. Within that time, Apple, regardless of how well it sells this device, will do better than anyone else.



It's interesting you've said that because that's generaly been the consensus about tablet PCs. However, this device is not a PC. And Apple's main proposition is exactly the opposite of your statement. They set out to make a device that was better than a smart phone at some things. Better than a notebook at other things. And better than both at some things. I believe they actually said better that both in the keynote and didn't differentiate, but IMO, not every default feature is actually better than the experience on both those other device classes. eMail for instance I believe to be far superior on a notebook.

You don't need anything but the low-end $499 device without any 3G data to be able to do what the Kindle does now. Yes, the stipulation is that you do need another form of connectivity, namely a wifi connection. But this device isn't really something I think everyone will carry around out of their homes. In the home or coffee house situation, or even the airport situation, for the majority of people it completely supplants the need for a dedicated eBook reader and offers the possibility of reading the web, newspapers, magazines and comics. You can't do those things on the Kindle devices, not even the DX which costs the same price.

It's not something I think I could use every day. I barely use my iPod touch frankly. And while I've used an iPhone quite a few times, like you I just can't get over the subsidies and crappy contracts to break down and get one for myself.

You're running into the same problem so many others are. You just can't see this for being the middle device class between a phone and notebook. I can clearly see that and while it's not a class of device I need, I can see how Apple are positioning and molding it like no one else has before. The biggest advantage to this platform is Apple. I'm not arguing for the device class in general and that's an important point. I'm saying Apple's devices are going to make an impact. Everyone else will likely try to offer some catch-up device, but no one has anything of significant value to drop into this space at the moment.

Sure, you could slap Android on that MSI machine. What does that buy you? It doesn't buy you a better OS environment and it certainly doesn't buy you even close to the same number of usable and quality applications. It's going to be interesting how many optimized iPad apps are available at launch - quite a number of developers have already publicly announced they're jumping in with both feet.

The point of the video, at least the reason for posting it here, was for Bitt (or anyone else) to quickly see some of the iPad's default apps in use, rather than still images.

BTW, I don't think Strict Machine is the weakest track from the album, but I'm not going to start a discussion on the merits of one song over another.

But you can see videos of it in action on a bunch of websites without the pointless preamble. There was nothing exclusive there at all.

Yeah, you can. I'm not sure about comics, but definitely newspapers and magazines, and the web, too, though the browser's nothing to write home about. (I think you can still do that. There was some vague indication that that was a feature that might not stay around, and I haven't used it in quite some time.)

Yeah, still unimpressed. It didn't change my opinion in the least.

A touchscreen is a nice interface when physical space is of utmost importance (like when you're going to be putting it in your pocket), and in gross movement of on-screen items, but as the sole text input for a device of that size? Nah. (And as soon as you add the dock and keyboard, it just gets that much less portable.)

What would make sense is a wireless keyboard that clipped to the back of the device. Leave it at home when you know you won't need it; have it at hand and recharging off the tablet when you do. Having a lightweight stand built in would help, too.

Honestly, the one thing that would have made this device awesome is a camera pointed at the user. A configurationless portable video chat device would be a winner, I think.

I haven't read anything to mention it specifically, but you might be able to fit the aluminum apple keyboard into the case. I'd be surprised not to see a third party case with this specific feature though, as well as a glut of third party stands. A built-in stand would have been nice too, but I didn't think that would happen. Apple's not really into appendages. The case does double as a stand though.

Anyway, just to set the record clear and straight and so we have something easily referenced in the future...

Me: Not impressed, but can see the benefit for a number of other people. Think it will do quite well in the market and be the first time this form factor or category does even reasonably well.

Bitt: Not impressed and can't see the benefit for anyone else either in this revision. Doesn't think the product will do well.

Let me know if that's correct.

As a side-note, I've had my MBP for almost a year now. I've used the built-in camera a total of zero times. If I keep the notebook for another 3 to 4 years, I intend to use the camera a total of zero more times. I do think the camera is a valuable addition though, and it would also have been valuable on the iPad (support is in the SDK for it). I don't think it's a tipping-point item that will drastically affect sales one way or the other at this point in time. The exact same which I can say of Flash in the browser, despite so many people on the interwebs screaming loudly the opposite. This dates back almost 3 years and we can see how it's made the iPhone such a poor seller over that period.

I've had mine longer and I've used it about three times, all of which was just me playing with it.

But I know people like the video chat, especially long-distance relatives. I have a friend who's spending about 2 years in Belgium with her (at the time) newborn, and they spend a lot of time doing the video chat with the grandparents.

But there are a lot of grandparents who simply aren't computer-savvy enough to be given a computer by someone who, by definition, won't be able to come over and fix it. An appliance would make a heck of a lot of sense for them.

Close. I'd say "can't see the draw (other than the Apple marketing machine) for any significant number of people."

Yup, I use mine constantly, but almost exclusively for Skype. My brother lived internationally for a number of years. I'm over 2000 miles from any other member of my family and I'm moving internationally myself in a couple weeks. Skype is really the only way my family gets to see each other.

I've also come up with a solution to this whole Flash problem Adobe keeps ranting about. I'm not sure why they haven't thought of it themselves. It's so simple.

If they publish full specifications for all Flash formats and release the source code for the flash plugin/runtime, I'm sure we'd see a lot more flash everywhere. Then it might actually be some kind of standard, with support baked right into browsers, just like JPG images. You know, once people at Google, Apple, and interested members of the public re-wrote the code so it isn't the hog it is now.

That way each party delivering a platform can have complete control of their own source tree without the need for external plugins to support what's supposed to be such a basic part of the web.

I'm giving that solution away for free. Just a small thank-you note and maybe my name in the source code somewhere will be fine.

Can I make a request from people on either side of this argument? We need to wait at least a year to judge its success. All the Apple faithful are going to buy it at first, and I think that hype will drive a lot of sales, but we'll need to be a little more patient before we analyze its success.

Ugh, I'm already dreading the incessant coverage of the lines outside Apple stores.


Oh, and I finally thought of one thing for which I'd like a tablet of some kind: reading "legally obtained" comics. I hate that I do it, but comics are absurdly expensive Anyway, I wish I could read them on something other than my computer monitor or my netbook held sideways. I read all of Preacher on my netbook, and that was an unfortunate way to experience it. Plus, I'd need a CBR reader, and I don't know if the iPhone OS has an app for that. Anyone? Regardless, if I don't have enough money to buy comics, I'm certainly not going to spend $500 for a device just to read them, as I wouldn't use it for anything else.

Anyway, to sum up all my thoughts on the subject: personally I have zero place in my life or in my family's home for the iPad, particularly at that price. As for how well I think it will do, I think it will be a minor hit, but I think Apple is expecting far more than that.

There's a question for those of you who think this will be a success. Would you care to offer a prediction of general sales numbers? I can't know, of course, but I suspect Apple expects to sell at least as many iPads as iPhones. I expect they'll sell as many as Airs. That's a decent number, but I think it would be a failure in Apple's eyes.

It appears that the micro-sim is just a std sim with some of the excess plastic trimmed away.

http://www.itwire.com/blogs/core-dump/the-apple-blog/30800-ipad-needs-a-micro-sim-no-problem

No one expects that, not even Apple. At least not in the first year. Mobile phones (in general) are one of the hottest and highest number, in unit sales, electronic products on the planet. If not THE highest.

I expect a few million by the end of the year. Some analysts are predicting 4 million+. I don't know if I'd go that high at the moment, but it very well could when we see the new landscape of the app store in March and May. I really don't know how many Apple is targeting and unless they make a public announcement, I don't think anyone will ever know or have even a remote chance of guessing (reasonably).

I do think that if 3 or 4 million units were sold, Apple would likely be "satisfied" if not outright happy. This isn't the AppleTV. They seem to actually be putting some effort behind this one. In the past week I've seen people mention three Apple failures: Mac mini (hardly), AppleTV (probably still sells more units than any other media streamer) and the HiFi speaker dock for the iPod (why bother even bringing this one up?)

I haven't heard a single person mention the Mac Mini as being a failure. Most of the people I've heard of bring up the cube.

As for the AppleTV, it's a failure because Apple hardly did anything with it. It should have been much bigger than it was, and had great potential, but they did nothing with it. It was also insanely difficult to get my own video onto it. I kept creating videos that would import into iTunes fine, but then not play on the AppleTV, and that is decidedly not what Apple is known for, or at least what they try to project.

As for the Hi-Fi, oh, I'm so very sorry that nobody is allowed to mention that. Are you seriously saying you're not an Apple apologist? We can't even mention the Hi-Fi? I think people are mentioning it because it was a big focal point of one of these big shows that Apple likes to put on, so if they're calling all the press to come see their products, there had better be something worth mentioning. Yet, he announces the Hi-Fi and iPod socks. Can't believe he touted iPod socks on stage at a press event.


And I do think that they expect this to be a giant success. I never said they'd sell as many iPads as iPhones in the first year (where did I say that?), but I do think they expect it to sell as well in the long run. Why else attempt to create a new category of devices? I do not think they'll be happy with 3-4 million.

An AppleTV currently costs $229. A Sony PS3 is $350. An Xbox 360 Elite is $280. A Nintendo Wii is $200. Windows Media Center Extenders are priced all over the place, and the Boxee Box hasn't been priced yet.

On the high end, the incremental value you get out of the PS3 or the Xbox makes it hard to justify the AppleTV. On the low end, I'd be curious if the various Windows Media Center Extender gizmos have gotten much market traction, and whether the Boxee Box will take off.

One thing's certain: if Apple were to build a brand new AppleTV, they'd probably use similar guts to what's in the iPad. I bet that would get their costs down. It would certainly get their power consumption down. And, who knows, maybe they'd come up with a migration path for all the iPhone apps and they could compete with the Wii for the casual gaming market.

Fair enough, but I have more information than most people on the subject of Apple, especially during the period of the cube, when the company I worked for was providing graphics chips for it. That system wasn't a failure. It didn't meet certain expectations and it had some issues that didn't warrant continuing the line. One thing was they wanted to make a smaller system.



The AppleTV is what I consider their biggest missed opportunity. I just don't think the top brass cares enough yet about TV on an actual TV. When it was released, for me, it was a big "meh" moment. I knew the market wasn't ready for this type of product and that Apple would have had to offer a lot more to try and establish the market themselves. I really have no clue why they released it when they did, without content deals for HD material in place, without the hardware/platform supporting HDCP, based on an NVIDIA chip that can't decode and play back 1080p.



What they "should" have done was wait two more years to release it. Then they could have done something that didn't entail essentially building a cut-down Mac, which is the primary reason keeping its costs high.

It has done and is doing exactly as well as one would expect given the attention Apple gives to it and the effort they expend on it as a platform, including marketing and promotion. It sells, but it will never be stellar because they're not pushing it to be. I don't really think they're that bothered with its sales, or they'd likely have developed something new or canned it entirely. I think they can still do damage in this market segment, but it won't be as easy to capture the "wow" factor as it would have if they hadn't yet released anything.



Handbrake. But yeah, that shouldn't be necessary. Apple just doesn't seem to give a rat's ass about doing video as well as they've done audio. But there's a reason. A very important reason. When they started with audio they wanted to make sure everyone could easily get their existing audio onto their hardware. Now one of their goals is selling you the video. Making it super easy to put other video on their device is somewhat contrary to their service/distribution goals. No one else has done demonstrably better in this hardware market. I do believe that 2010 is the year where this category will start to hit the mainstream however. Many eyes are on Boxee right now.



Mention it all you want, but it's silly and doesn't give any points to anyone who does. It's an accessory. Like the socks. It's not "worth" mentioning, thats why I said what I did. I doubt it lost Apple any money on its development and sales though. It was a stupid thing to release seeing as the accessory market was already quite well stocked. It's similar to BMW coming out with their own tires. Incidentally, it was announced along side the Intel Mac mini. It's hardly a fit comparison to a flag-ship product like the Mac, iPod itself or the iPhone.



We're talking 3-4 million by the end of this year. I can't see it possibly eclipsing iPhone sales in the short term (2-3 years). That device class is just a super high unit class. People will replace their phones yearly, even if those phones cost $500-700. They don't typically do it with a computer and I don't think they're going to be doing it with the tablet class of device either.

While I suspect Apple may do 3 million this year, I don't think anyone else will come even close to 1M. If the JooJoo comes out for instance, I'd be surprised if they sold 5000 units by December 31st.

Also, don't call me an Apple apologist. No one needs to apologize for Apple, including Apple themselves. They've consistently performed better than any tech company in the world quarter after quarter. They've got the highest stock price and highest market cap of any computer company (excluding Microsoft which is a software company). I mean, they're just doing amazingly well, period. They have enough cash to buy Adobe two times over and shove Flash up its collective asses.

The difference though is how fractured the markets are. Audio back when the iPod came out was MP3. One format was clearly working out well, with AAC on the horizon. Apple over time switched to AAC as their preferred format, and the success of the iPod helped carry it. WMA also existed, but hardly anyone used it compared to MP3.

On the video side, you have so many different codecs, and containers. Apple had already settled on MPEG4 based formats, as had many devices including the now current generation of disc based movie formats (BluRay). This ensured that MPEG4 would have support from a vide variety of decoding hardware. If they wanted to support other formats, they would have to start paying quite a bit to cover all the various licenses for Divx, Windows Video, and so on, and doing so would do nothing to solidify the video market behind one format.

Beyond the format issues, you also have bitrate issues. Go slightly too high, and you overwhelm hardware decoders. There are also a variety of resolutions, some that decoders might have trouble with. Audio with MP3 was much simpler.

And lastly, I think if Apple could have pulled off allowing users to import DVDs, they would have. Allowing people to rip their own CDs helped get peoples digital music collections started, but no mass market solution came along to do the same for DVDs, due to the legal threat of being sued out of existence. RealNetworks is facing this right now, with their RealDVD product pissing off the DVD Copy Control Association.

Video is just a mess across the board, and I think Apple is just trying to push forward with the digital only formats, but not gaining enough traction to help much. Just as the PS3/360 lack enough traction in the media side to push it forward, outside their own stores.

A few things to point out, with respect to the AppleTV:

An AppleTV, to an audio person, is only worthwhile if your only view to your music is through iTunes. If you're into Pandora, it can't help you. Similarly, to a video person, an AppleTV is painful to make work with content that you get any other way than through the iTunes Store.

Boxee and XMBC change all that. Suddenly, a hacked AppleTV is just all kinds of useful, but the software-based decoder can't keep up with HD.

The new Boxee Box (made by D-Link), combined with all the apps that it supports, looks to be a very attractive alternative to the AppleTV, at least for the collegiate BitTorrenting / Pandoraizing crowd.

Apple could counter this by bringing apps to the AppleTV, particularly iPhone game ports. That would let them take on the Wii. If they keep the price low enough, it could be a real winner.

I just can't see the appeal of a keyboard with an integrated dock. If the iPad is going to be propped up on a desk, wouldn't it be best that the keyboard be separated?

Anyone who wants a separate keyboard can just buy the standard dock and a separate keyboard. An unexpected case of Apple providing more than one choice...

Oh, I assumed that they were just showing the keyboard with the dock and then again without the keyboard. I didn't realize they were two different accessories. How weird. Wouldn't it have made more sense for there to be just one dock, and then get a keyboard if you wanted? Seems like an excellent use of MagSafe technology. Just make it a Bluetooth keyboard that can magnetically snap onto the dock for charging.

Being that the "mouse" is your finger touching the screen, the integrated keyboard seems like an ok choice. You wouldn't want the display that far away from your hands during active use.

Ok, that makes sense, especially if you take into account using the keyboard as a way to keep the display from tipping over when touched.

I'm sorry, but I see the iPad as an ergonomic disaster all around. The position that Steve demoed on stage is something that must terrify experts in that field. You're placing this thing on your lap and typing on it? So that means you're hurting your neck, eyes, and wrists all at the same time. Granted, you probably wouldn't do that for a long while, but it's still not a good idea.

Generally any accessory with a 30 pin connector can be used direct with the device OR through most docks (not necessarily all).

http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/ (bottom of page) Shows the sd adapter. Clearly it has a 30pin plug opposite the sd slot.

Hmmmm I wonder if that SD adapter will work with the iPhone at any point - I'd love to be able to upload photos from a camera when out and about. Anyone know if its a liklihood?

This is what a desktop OS looks and functions like on a tablet computer:

http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/01/eros-tablet-video-is-a-lesson-in-why-windows-7-isnt-strictly-me/

It's Windows 7 in this case, but Mac OS X wouldn't be much better with this form factor. I'm wondering why the handwriting recognition is so painfully slow? The Newton had much faster recognition back in 1996.

This is precisely the type of product I continue to believe no one is interested in.

Clearly, UI elements would have to be changed to make a slate function well, but that's no reason that it can't have a fully functional OS rather than the iPhone's stripped-down infra-OS.

Problem is, once you have redesigned the entire UI of a "fully functional OS" (aka a desktop OS) to be touch friendly, you still end up launching normal apps that aren't designed for touch. By presenting a "new" OS to developers, you force the apps to also be touch friendly right up front, instead of having them cludge together something on top of their existing application.

For Apple, going with the stripped down iPhone OS allowed them to use an ARM processor and hit 10 hours of battery life. This also ensured developers can't just bring over their desktop apps built around a mouse interface. This may be the right way to go in the end, as Microsoft already spent the past decade trying to get their desktop OS into tablets and UMPCs. It didn't work out well for them.

The only complaint I can see against the iPad OS method at this point is lack of 3rd party multitasking. It's a big gap Apple is going to have to address soon, since push notifications don't allow me to listen to Pandora while working on something else.

Unless the app is iPad specific, I'd expect it to read that gadget on an iPhone.

Exactly. While Apple's app may be iPad-only for that feature, with the SDK support for the dock connector, a 3rd party should be able to make their own software and/or adapter. I'm frankly surprised I haven't heard of one for the iPhone yet.

I'm very eager to see how the whole shared folder API plays out, since this is absolutely necessary for being able to use your files across multiple applications.

Apple's iPhone OS is fully-functional for the most part, but it has restrictions. I'd love to see some of them go away. But having the presentation designed specifically for touch input is what makes it work. And it's no small feat. It's something no one else has yet done as well. Microsoft is likely a long way away from anything comparative, yet it's what they need to have even a remote shot at anything tablet related.

MS developed and showcased Surface only to have it relegated to some passing curiosity and tech-demo. They might have sold a few of them, but the whole thing might as well have been a one-off. Fantastic opportunity staring them in the face, just to be ignored. Not to mention they clearly had the talented minds to be able to do something quite unique at the time.

But we all know what roads they've been plowing down. Maybe their hardware partners like it that way, I'm not sure. Most of those partners aren't dong so well and Microsoft, while still making some nice profits, is losing market share in a number of sectors, while in others, putting themselves in a position from which they can practically never hope to climb back to relevance.

The point is that you can't do a desktop OS on a tablet device. It's like running a car with horses instead of an internal combustion engine.

I didn't say that it had to be an existing OS. It's just that the iPhone/iPad OS is so restrictive as to barely be an OS at all. Maybe they'll implement a TSR system call. I think the name SideKick's already been reused, though.

I also believe it's a lot easier to start with a kick-ass OS and UI framework, plus a set of second-to-none tools and APIs specific to a touch device class, iterating changes from release to release and improving the various areas of concern. Rather than starting with a desktop OS and then trying to make it fit the touch paradigms.

I'm confident we'll see some form of third party app multi-tasking in the future. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it, but it's going to be necessary to continue to keep the platform shining. Every other platform, even with multi-tasking still has years to go before being anywhere near Apple's, so I'm not sure it's something they're concerned that they haven't yet implemented it. Supposedly some really big things are planned for the next revision of the iPhone. We'll have to wait and see until WWDC.

Incidentally, third-party app multi-tasking and shared storage space and management are my biggest criticisms of the platform. The solution however needs some serious thought and elegant implementation. Not like the disgraceful situation on some other platforms.

In a weird way, the new iPad is something of a reinvention of the PenPoint operating system, where apps had to be purpose-built to take advantage of all the clever gestures and whatnot. Of course, those guys were trying to do handwriting recognition on much slower CPUs. I wonder if any of the PenPoint people are rumbling about trying to resurrect their work.

What restrictions prevent it from being a "real OS" in your eyes? Beyond the lack of 3rd party multitasking anyhow.

Now I'm arguing semantics, but for me, a fully-functional OS (on any part) has to have multitasking. Otherwise I simply think it's impossible to be fully productive, and I do think a big focus of the release was touting the productivity uses of the device.

Meh, it's just not for me. I understand that. Whatever.

Ability to install applications of the users choice.
Ability to install peripherals without he manufacturer's blessing.
Ability to chose a programming language.
Ability to run any interpreted code. (other than javascript).
Ability to install a web browser of choice.

Is this the definition of a dim-witted fucktard? http://windows7news.com/2010/01/28/why-the-ipad-will-fail-and-help-windows-7-to-succeed/

I'm not sure whether to laugh at the lunacy or cry because the person is obviously not seeking the mental help they need.

You're complaining about a Windows fanatic site called Windows 7 News? What did you expect on there? There are plenty of Apple fanatic sites which are just as bad.

No, I'm complaining about the person writing the article and the contents of that article. There isn't one bit of sense in it, including anything about Windows or version 7 in particular. I didn't spend the time looking at their other articles but I can only imagine they're as inane and misinformed, even about the topic they base the site around.

I'm sure however, that his insightful analysis is close to the money and will provide the bedrock for the decisions investors everywhere will be making for the weeks and months to come.

You're going to be doing an extremely large amount of complaining then considering anybody anywhere can put up random crap on the internet. Take a few deep breaths and let them continue doing their own thing in their own little world :P

What Matt said.

I don't even need multiple processes to be doing in-depth number-crunching at the same time. I just want to be able to switch from my SSH app to my email app without having my SSH connection disappear.

1. Open SSH application.
2. Select connection and type in long passphrase.
3. cd /to/a/really/long/path/that/takes/minutes/on/this/tiny/keyboard
4. Crap. What was the rest of that path again?
5. Switch to email app, reread path
6. Switch back to SSH app
7. Motherfucker! My connection died!
8. Rinse and repeat.

Copy and paste would certainly help in this situation (did iPhoneOS ever implement that?), but even then, if I have to remember more than one long piece of text....

Part of the problem is that the web has taken over the internet so much that users don't expect long-term connections to work, and that lack of expectation has filtered back into development. Statelessness has become not only the norm, but the only. This is not uniquely Apple's problem, but it is Apple's problem when they think that's going to cut the mustard with a netbook replacement.

Bitt, you're preaching to the choir as far as I'm concerned. I can't say it's one of the reasons I don't use my iPod a lot more, but the situation you mentioned has always bugged the hell out of me. I think we'll eventually see a solution. The platform needs it for a number of application classes to really shine.

BTW, the iPhone does have Copy and Paste and it's apparently the best implementation among all handheld devices.

Na, I just like finding choice examples to ridicule. I just don't do it on my own site. I suppose I could dedicate one of my domains to that pursuit, but I just don't spend enough time on it to warrant it. No sense in having that type of site if I'm not able to post regularly to it.

Even directors of large multi-national corporations aren't exempt from talking with their heads up their arses. Courtesy of Sony's director of hardware marketing:

Copy and Paste (including of images, layout, fonts and such, something other phone OSes don't do) has been implemented as of 3.0, released mid last year, so thats covered.

(Again), I totally agree with the multitasking part. The OS is capable (and does it all the time), it's just not exposed in a way to allow a user to background any task they want. This has to be a feature they have in the works for 4.0.


I'm assuming you mean the ability to install applications outside of the App Store environment. Corporations can install anything they want via ad-hoc distribution. You are correct though that end users lack the ability to go to wherever.com and download app X directly. I see your point, but I don't think this is such a big deal for most people.


This is one of my concerns with the iPad as well, looking at it from the consumer prospective. How do you print for example? There are print apps on the iPhone that talk to WiFi or network shared printers, but are pretty limited. This may expand with 3.2 and the shared storage. Beyond that, a typical consumer would want to import photos (covered via USB or SD), attach a webcam (since it's missing from the hardware). I can't think of much beyond that, outside somewhat specialized devices. The 30 pin dock connector is pretty flexible, but I'm not sure how hard it is to make a device for it.


This is something consumers don't care about. Developers can do work in C++ or Objective C. Outside that, yeah, it's limited. (desktop) Windows and OS X have far more choices here. The question is what benefit does it actually bring to the platform?


Another item that consumers won't care about. Being a heavy scripter myself with python, perl and such, I can understand your point, but don't see the big use of them on a device like the iPad.


Already possible. The App Store has a number of alternate browsers, but the main caveat is that they all use the built in WebKit renderer. So it becomes "Ability to install a different web renderer of choice". I can see this point too, especially after the whole Internet Explorer issues years back. Hopefully in time Apple opens up here, just to help prevent stagnation. Overall something most consumers won't be bothered by.

OS wise, clearly the definition of a real one is going to vary by person. Ultimately, we are surrounded by devices running operating systems and general purpose CPUs, but many of these devices are consumer electronics with specific functions. The underlying OS is so abstracted away, consumers never interact directly with it.


The iPad isn't a full featured computer, nor is it trying to be one. It's trying to be a consumer electronics device that allows computing tasks to be completed. It's a companion device, allowing someone to just grab it and browse the web from the couch, without worrying about boot times, virus scanners, and so on. Long term, it may become the preferred platform for many people, who just want to get things done without worrying about maintaining a full computer system. Apple still has a bit of work to do to make it a fully standalone product, and in time I think it's the direction they will go. For the majority of computer users out there, they have no idea what C++ is, don't care what perl can do for them, nor do they want the headaches of cleaning up spyware that sneaks in because they user didn't know any better. Long term, I can see this type of device outselling general purpose computers in the consumer space. Is the iPad the device that will do this? Hard to say, but in time, some type of simplified consumer electronics computing device will.

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.

I'm pretty sure you can trigger at least some other applications from the iPhone's browser using URLs. For instance being able to bring up the app store with special links or the phone dialer. I don't know if this extends to the YouTube app, nor if it's possible to define your own custom URLs.

Yes, apps can be triggered from the browser. Clicking a link that goes to Google Maps opens the app, and YouTube embeds play the video full screen without leaving the browser. 3rd party apps can also register, either with a custom url (app://), or by a URL rule (http://app.com/redirect/to/app). Apple's own MobileMe Gallery app is a recent example of this. If I try to visit http://gallery.me.com/user, it opens the app.

Amazon loses pricing control over a third publisher

I'd say that 3 out of what Amazon calls the "big six" unquestionably classes this as an "upset." Especially when you consider the remaining publishers are likely days or weeks away from moving in the same direction.

An interesting thing to note is that Amazon can still work this to their benefit in so far as their core business goes - selling the media.

I'm more convinced now more than ever that what we're seeing, what we're going to see, with the iPad is the start of a revolution that has the potential to be much bigger (orders of magnitude bigger) than what we've seen so far with the iPhone. I also have a feeling we're in for a few more surprises regarding the iPad product (line) this year.

Uh...because a book publisher is taking back the rights to charge $15 for an ebook instead of $10?

Whatever, that statement is so ridiculous I can't stand it.

..which requires multiple tasks, unless you want the SSH session to timeout (missed keep-alives) and disconnect while you read your email.

Cheers

Two separate thoughts. The first about the publisher relates to Amazon. The Second comment about this being the start of a revolution is a big-picture one. I'm seeing the media start to come around, some interesting examples of some new apps and new app revisions and the general public's reactions to those.

I'm confident that this product will also make a bigger impact with regards to digital print consumption than Amazon has managed to attain with its Kindle. As a content retailer Amazon has a great opportunity here. With regards to possibly higher book prices, the market will determine how that all plays out.

It would be stupid for Amazon not to start selling books with Nook- and SonyReader- and iPad-compatible DRM.

Bitt, agreed, however, they also have their Kindle application, which I think can do very well on the iPad and iPhone. To further the process of selling onto other devices without Kindle software, they may consider changing the Kindle DRM.

I don't know how the formats are going to play out since it doesn't yet appear that there's a clear path to end segmentation, mostly due to DRM. Without the DRM concern it's not inconceivable for a reader application/device to support multiple formats and/or convert between formats. It's also going to be interesting to see how the publishers are going to feel about this segmentation while overall volumes are increasing.

I forgot to post this the other day. An author's account of the Amazon/Publisher pricing fight. It seems like Amazon's preemptive 70/30 arrangement came with some nasty fine print which seems to have put publishers on the fast-track to lacing up their boxing gloves.

Seems like the iPhone/iPod have helped to double the mobile games development share, from its previous 12 percent to its current 25. That is, of the game developers out there, previously 12% were developing for mobile platforms, while now 25% are doing the same. 19% of all game developers are currently developing for the platform, which is apparently two times higher than either the DS or PSP developer pool.

Source: http://www.electronista.com/articles/10/02/05/apple.catching.up.to.nintendo.in.dev.interest/

Getting the developers on board is a good way to get more customers on board. And if the developers are on board it means there's some money to be made.

Nice and light video of the Charlie Rose Show with David Carr, Michael Arrington, and Walt Mossberg on the iPad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ysq7mmGaWoU&feature=player_embedded

I watched the Flash version (embedded on another site), and it had the CPU on my MBP 2.8Ghz Core2Duo pegged at over 55% the whole time. The machine, which is normally cool to the touch, is smoking hot right now. The link is direct to YouTube where you can stream in H.264 if you've set that beta option.

I might be eating my words soon.

http://www.musicreader.net/ipad-version-musicreader.html

It's screen is too small unless you can do it in landscape mode and auto scroll or tap a footswitch. Wonder how that might work...

Yup Tony, this thing is going to excel in so many vertical markets that some people will invariably use it in multiple day to day. In the end, that really means it's not strictly a vertical device.

Operating off an external device would require using a wireless remote device operating on BlueTooth or Wifi, or using a wired controller developed using the dock connector.

Or, if they wanted to be crazy, they could sample audio through the mic and change the page when you've played up to a specific point on your instrument. Now how cool would that be?

Too cool. But if it wasn't flawless it would be less than useful.

Not so cool, actually, since when sight reading you read up to a few lines ahead of what you're playing. But if you could put the offset in, maybe.

I had this idea years ago, and I just imagined a built-in metronome with software clever enough to know the time signature and bar marks. Since you play the piece at a constant tempo, the music can be made to scroll at that tempo.

Yeah, it would be fairly easy to just make the page scroll when there was a certain volume level present, without any fancy note-matching. And each musical score would have a preferences/metadata associated with it to indicate the timing.

According to writer/director Kevin Smith, who I just saw Live this past weekend, the iPad is going to change film making.

..uh...I assume you're joking. I'm mostly just confused. He didn't really mention it that much...

It's such a versatile device.

How about an app that can let the iPad be used as a cheese platter? You put different cheeses on it and it shows a text label next to or under each piece, allowing you to swipe for more information, including nutritional and historical.

Yeah...I saw that...I can only assume you're trying to be funny here.

Nothing's lost on you Matt. Hehehe.

I think I'm going to have to license this thing after all.

If the iPad doesn't outsell most other companies' notebook and netbook computers I'll be *very* surprised.

Penguin Books: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdExukJVUGI&feature=player_embedded#

Wallstreet Journal: http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/03/murdoch-confirms-wsj-coming-to-ipad-device-kept-under-padlock/

A number of other notable mentions from other companies in the past week or two. Could these apps/books/publications be made for a different platform? Sure. But they won't be, and that's the important part and what's going to help drive sales of this thing. It may just be as big or bigger than the iPhone in less time than anticipated.

I'm not any more likely to buy one than I was when it was first announced, but I can see owning a future revision in a few years. Possibly a few of them actually, since as mentioned, I think they can make great single-pupose devices.

so who on here is going to buy an iPad on Saturday? i would, but can't afford it...

I won't be buying one - they're not available in Canada yet anyway. BUT.... I think I may pick one up for my mother later in the summer. I'll have to use one for a little while before I decide whether that's a solid idea or not. The motivation is to simplify her web and email use further, while also giving her the ability to "take it with her" around the house.

Does anyone watch the TV show Modern Family? This week's episode prominently featured the iPad as one of its main plot lines. I don't know any other consumer electronics company in the world that could pull that off. Actually, I can't think of any other company that makes anything that could pull that off.

Chevy does a lot of TV advertising like that. The last episode of Human Target had a lot of Chevy shots/dialog/etc. There were a few normal commercials for them also during the episode.

Wait wait wait...are you actually giving CREDIT to Apple for turning a 30 minute humorous sitcom into a 30 minute advertisement? This kind of thing is one of my least favorite things to happen to TV in the last several years, and it sure sounds like you're applauding them for it. (by the way, Phil is my least favorite part of that entire show. I find him horribly tedious).

But like Tim says, there are plenty of other companies that do this sort of crap all the time. Did you watch the full season of White Collar? The presence of Ford Sync in that show was nauseating. Eureka had a terrible commercial tie-in with a deodorant (Degree, I believe) a couple seasons ago, and this past season they wouldn't shut up about their damn new Subaru.


About the iPad: recently, I found myself actually wondering whether I'd like one. I read all my comic books on my computer, and I'd love to have a tablet to do that in bed or on the couch. But the problem is that that's the ONLY thing I'd do with it. Because of that, I'll wait until there's a super cheap knock-off that isn't tied to an app store controlled by tight-asses, and I'll be plenty happy with it. I don't need an app store anyway, just one app to do the one thing I want the device for.

And whatever tablet I got, whether it be a cheapo product or an iPad someone handed to me for free, neither has any chance whatsoever of replacing my netbook.

Anyway, I hope the iPad owners enjoy their devices and get a lot of use out of them. I do not argue that it's a bad product, merely that I have no use for it, particularly at that price.

I'll be picking up the WiFi model tomorrow morning and spending a month with it before shipping it off to the grandparents. If I find it useful, I'll be buying a 3G model to keep.

I'll save my judgements about it till later this weekend after some hands on time. I've seen some interesting use cases already, and will be bring it to work daily to see how it fits in there as well.

Already noticed about 6 of my iPhone apps are now updated to universal apps with iPad specific UIs. I'm really curious to see how many more come out over the next few weeks, and what apps intentionally stay separate to force me to buy them a second time.

Bruno, 2009-03-10, Re: the Palm Pre

Bruno 2010-04-02, Re: the Apple iPad

The Palm Pre segment was on a talk show, in a segment devoted to tech toys.

Modern Family is a sitcom.

Shorter Bruno: Only Nixon could go to ChinaOnly Apple can shamelessly pimp products on TV.

I just entered the 'tablet age' last week. I picked up a Samsung Q1-Ultra from a Craigslist ad for $250.
The seller had wiped the disk and installed Windows 7 Home Premium. It runs Win7 really well.

Fun little toy. I'm thinking about going SSD and adding another gig of RAM.

It runs everything for Windows that I could ever want to run on a big PC.

The modern Family incorporation of the iPad was however FUNNY. That's the point. It was actually well-integrated into the show and topical. Because what was shown in the sitcom is actually happening right now in real life.

I'm pretty confident the iPad is going to be bigger than the iPhone at this point.

Here's another interesting/useful function for an iPad... Secondary display for your computer:

http://www.tuaw.com/2010/04/02/first-look-idisplay/

Could be very handy for Photoshop (and similar) palettes.

Some recent buzz from the folks at Nintendo...





Seems like the NIntendo bosses disagree about the competitiveness of the iPhone and iPad... I'm quite sure that the iPod and iPhone have already affected Nintendo's sales in past quarters.



Source: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article7118570.ece

I also think the battle with Sony (or MS for that matter) is far from over. The PS3 still has a long life ahead of it by all accounts. Nintendo needs to start putting out some games people actually care about. Like another Zelda. It's the reason I bout the Wii in the first place, and I don't see myself spending much time gaming on it until the new installment hits the street.

I imagine they were referring to the portable market. I don't think anyone holds out much hope for the PSP any more, if they ever did. I think it's a good platform, but it does, or at least did, have a dearth of good games.

Maybe now that they've effectively deprecated the UMD … actually, I don't have any idea where that will lead.

I'm not sure how they can be referring to anything else. The iPad has some of the same interface features as the DS series, and nothing in commong with any other console. Where the iPad is portable, the PS3 and XBox360 are decidedly not. I don't know how that statement can be interpreted any other way than with the portable market.

Yeah, I was focusing on "war" instead of battle. In any case, the significance is Nintendo's position regarding Apple as legitimate competition.

If you want to stay in business you identify everything coming along that competes with your product as a threat and determine how to counter it. Boeing and Airbus are looking at the new Embraer and COMAC planes as threats to their smaller single aisle and are planning on doing something to make theirs more competitive (re-engining or redesigning depending on the article and day of the week). Those aircraft aren't even on paper yet, and that is a helluva lot more expensive than redesigning a gaming device.

You don't make mistakes like ignoring something that may turn into competition if you want to be in business as long as Nintendo. I don't think that statement means nearly as much as you are thinking it does.

It's significant in terms of showing "people" that Nintendo does see Apple on the radar. It's significant because Nintendo had previously poo-pooed the iPhone platform.

Should they be caught asleep, I have every confidence that the iPhone (which includes iPod and iPad in this context) can eat Nintendo's hand-held lunch long-term.