or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › The Official Tablet Bitter Disappointment Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Official Tablet Bitter Disappointment Thread - Page 2

post #41 of 73
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

The browser is important to be able to easily open PDFs without having to figure out which App Store app lets you wirelessly sync and open them and it lets you sort those miscellaneous files where you want. It's also important for uploading to websites - say you want to insert a .gif into a forum post but can't hotlink it from the site it's on, you download it, put it on tinypic.com and insert it in the forum post.

It seems to me that for most users "putting files where you want" is just a hassle, especially if the relevant files are available to the relevant app. If all the PDFs I have on an iPad present themselves to whatever is being used as a PDF reader, why should I care where they "are"?

As far as stuff like downloading/uploading, Apple is using typical user scenario hooks to get around exposing file system structure. In your case, Safari gives you the option to download an image, and the image view app gives you the option to "share" an image to a given URL, both via the agency of in place modal "popovers" of the sort Apple is using for the new form factor.

Now, I'm not saying either of those strategies (app specific file database, modal in-app file moving) is ideal for every user. But it represents a new, appliance like way of making the vast majority of "computing" tasks dead simple for the average user, and I think it's a mistake to dismiss this strategy just because it fails to act like a hierarchical Finder. It's different, even radically different, and intended for a different relationship to computing-- not a broken version of anything.

Quote:
Multitasking is so that if you have an ebook reader app and you buy ebooks from Amazon, you don't have to reinitialize the ebook reader every time you jump between it and the browser. Plus you can listen to Spotify in the background while you do it. It means that if you have waited for a minute for a large web page to load over Edge and switch to a few apps, it doesn't refresh the page and start loading all over again

The streaming music in background case is legit, and almost certainly will be addressed at some point. The others, I'm not so sure. Especially with the greater hardware leeway, I would suspect that "app switching" (in which an app has its state saved, is closed, and another app is opened with a read of its saved state, if any) is close to instantaneous. Given that on a screen this size the one app at a time presentational scheme makes imminent sense, how different is that really from actual multi-tasking? Unless I want to use a device where I drag around tiny little windows, I'm only interacting with once app at a time, anyway (and I have to note here the sort of hilarious use cases that people keep coming up with, in which they are apparently surfing, working on a file and sorting their music literally [I]simultaneously[/I).]

Quote:
It doesn't have to be major multitasking but the Palm Pre can run 50 active cards side by side and it's so cool to see it playing NFS Undercover, switch out to another app quickly and jump right back into the game without starting the level over again. It's not necessary but it can be done and Apple's competition is doing it fairly well with few adverse side effects.

I haven't played that particular game but isn't the developer best practice to save state on quit? If it's starting the level over after being switched away from, it isn't very well written.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #42 of 73
I just came across this video that sums up the iPad disappointment perfectly. There's one with the same video about getting banned from XBox Live but this iPad version is very well written and timed too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQnT0zp8Ya4



Besides the product name, which I think is fine, it lists all the things wrong with it. I wanted OS X!

It's not the end of the world. Apple have introduced products before and admitted on stage that they misjudged the market. In a year or two, we can get an OS X slate.

The thing I'm most interested in right now is the iphone 4G. If it has a 1GHz CPU and an LED backlit IPS screen, that will be an absolutely awesome phone.
post #43 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

IIf all the PDFs I have on an iPad present themselves to whatever is being used as a PDF reader, why should I care where they "are"?

Think about your most common actions on the desktop. When you open an image in Photoshop, do you use the open file command and use the dialog or do you use the Finder and drop it on the icon/double-click the file?

There's something to be said for consistent file management. You would care about where they are in the interests of minimizing redundancy. If I transfer a PDF containing minutes of a business meeting to my iphone, I may want to view it in a PDF reader, I may want to attach it to an email and I may want to print it from my phone. If the PDF is not allowed to exist in its own space as an entity but merely as a part of an app then it's much harder to minimize redundancy and it decreases flexibility/synergy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

In your case, Safari gives you the option to download an image, and the image view app gives you the option to "share" an image to a given URL

Safari doesn't indicate where it put the image though and I the sharing feature doesn't do uploading to a standard upload page - you have to have your own flickr, facebook or mobileme account.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

I would suspect that "app switching" (in which an app has its state saved, is closed, and another app is opened with a read of its saved state, if any) is close to instantaneous. Given that on a screen this size the one app at a time presentational scheme makes imminent sense, how different is that really from actual multi-tasking?

Very different because actual multi-tasking doesn't reinitialize the app. In the example of a game, you don't have to start from your last checkpoint but you just start playing at the exact point you had to take a call or check your email.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

I haven't played that particular game but isn't the developer best practice to save state on quit? If it's starting the level over after being switched away from, it isn't very well written.

Not quite true, a game like NOVA has multiple character and vehicle positions that occur due to AI algorithms as well as current ammo, weapons, goals etc. A lot of information that can't easily be dropped into a temp file and then reloaded easily. Checkpoints are easy because all the AI and scenes are reset to a default state.
post #44 of 73
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Think about your most common actions on the desktop. When you open an image in Photoshop, do you use the open file command and use the dialog or do you use the Finder and drop it on the icon/double-click the file?

There's something to be said for consistent file management. You would care about where they are in the interests of minimizing redundancy. If I transfer a PDF containing minutes of a business meeting to my iphone, I may want to view it in a PDF reader, I may want to attach it to an email and I may want to print it from my phone. If the PDF is not allowed to exist in its own space as an entity but merely as a part of an app then it's much harder to minimize redundancy and it decreases flexibility/synergy.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "redundancy" in this case-- we're just talking about file linking, which doesn't take up any drive space. And as much as I generally appreciate your insights, "flexibility/synergy"? Surely not.

I do perfectly understand (as I said earlier) that this approach isn't for everyone. If you work with a lot of different file formats across different apps you'll want to be able to work file-centrically rather than app-centrically. For someone who's always knocking up against use cases that Apple didn't design for, it will fell grossly overdetermined and limiting.

But for everyone else (and if Apple has done its job well, that will be a lot of people), the ways that this tablet OS will seemingly anticipate what you want to do, and put the relevant options literally at your fingertips, may well seem "magical."

Quote:
Safari doesn't indicate where it put the image though and I the sharing feature doesn't do uploading to a standard upload page - you have to have your own flickr, facebook or mobileme account.

Perhaps not at the moment, but I'm sort of talking general OS philosophy here. There's nothing to keep Apple from adding a general URL sharing option, and as a way of managing file migration on a device like a tablet intended for general use, this kind of app specific hook scheme makes pretty good sense.

Quote:
Very different because actual multi-tasking doesn't reinitialize the app. In the example of a game, you don't have to start from your last checkpoint but you just start playing at the exact point you had to take a call or check your email.

Not quite true, a game like NOVA has multiple character and vehicle positions that occur due to AI algorithms as well as current ammo, weapons, goals etc. A lot of information that can't easily be dropped into a temp file and then reloaded easily. Checkpoints are easy because all the AI and scenes are reset to a default state.

I see. However, and again speaking sort of OS philosophy wise, that sounds like a memory/throughput issue rather than an actual shortcoming of the idea. For instance, given the iPad's all around more capable hardware, isn't it possible that even a complex game could save the entire state at one go, with very rapid reloading?

Just generally, if that were the case, would that satisfy your concerns, in the case of games (I realize there are other third party multitasking issues that saved state doesn't address)?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #45 of 73
I've been looking at videos of the Ipad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM8ia...eature=related
& noticed the flaw in the large flat design with no stand. Its harder to view flat on its back, so you have to:

1. Either hold it up with one hand, which means you can only type with 1 hand, which is fairly slow

(This may also affect game playing)

2. You would have to lift 1 or both legs high enough to hold it more upright for easy viewing, this is not so easy on a low seat on a tube. (Noticed on the ipad videos that some people had both legs up on a wall or on a chair to raise them high enough.

Or youre just stuck with it lying flat on your lap, or on a table which is not a great viewing angle

Why no stand? Surely a back attachment similar to those on picture frames , could have been used.

Perhaps the covers that open like books are strong enough to hold it upright, but I would be seriously worried about it falling off your lap etc, without something to hold up

Luckily you dont have this problem with notebooks. You can 2 finger type & balance a 10 inch laptop on your lap, desktop, with the screen upright , without having to use your hands.
post #46 of 73
Won't make me a sandwich on command! Faaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiil!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #47 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Won't make me a sandwich on command! Faaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiil!

Oh?

Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #48 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

But the iphone itself was compelling from launch, the iPad isn't. The iphone showed manufacturers how a phone should work. The iPad doesn't show how a slate should work, it shows how an ipod touch works on a big screen.

Yes and no. The iPhone was a much better phone, but it was prohibitively expensive and really didn't do that much in version 1.0. It really become the it device that man many copied until the app store and more aggressive pricing showed up.

I also agree with the iPad. So far, they've shown how a big screen MID works. They could have done something made for a touch screen with Mac like capabilities with the ease of use of an iPhone, but they played it safe and went to the low end.
post #49 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

But the iphone itself was compelling from launch, the iPad isn't.

Neither was 3G[s]. Original iPhone - not so much. Paradoxically, we're now quick to admit, we're underwhelmed, yet, we've got absolutely nothing serious with the iPad to whine about.

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply
post #50 of 73
I link to Pogue::
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/te...gue-email.html

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #51 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

If you work with a lot of different file formats across different apps you'll want to be able to work file-centrically rather than app-centrically.

That's exactly what I mean. It's a more productive workflow. App-centric has redundancy as each app has to have its own copy of the file you want without resorting to the file-centric workflow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Perhaps not at the moment... There's nothing to keep Apple from adding...

You could say this about anything though. I have to judge Apple by what they have done and not what they could do. They could have added some degree of 3rd party multitasking to the iphone but in 3 years they haven't. They could have added a flash and a great camera but they haven't - even the 3GS isn't that good quality in low light. They could allow interpreted tasks under approved VMs but they don't, except for Javascript. They could have added code to override the file upload button in safari to at least allow you to choose images from your photo app but they haven't.

They could have made the iPad what everyone wanted it to be - a revolutionary Mac - but they didn't, they made another ipod. No matter how you look at what an ipod could become, it's an inherently limited platform. Some will say they didn't want a Mac as it's understood but now the questions arise 'but can I do...' and those questions were pre-emptively answered by it being a Mac.

Yes you can upload, yes you can multitask, yes you can read ebooks in any format you want, yes you can watch movies in any format you want, yes you can watch Hulu or any other online TV and anything Flash, yes you can manage your itunes and photos and sync your phone without ever sitting at a standard computer again, yes you can do video chat. No matter what you ask, it's all yes, yes, yes. With the iPad, it's not because it's just another slave device that you have to manage using a traditional (to use the Segway reference) workflow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

isn't it possible that even a complex game could save the entire state at one go, with very rapid reloading?

Maybe but it would be a RAM dump and could be quite large so you'd put an impact on the flash memory, which is why they don't have a VM already:

http://www.funkyspacemonkey.com/ipho...ry-price-risks

It could also impact the smoothness of the device. If you do a write to storage, it generally impacts performance more than anything else. If they got the memory dumps down to under 10MB per app, it could be quite fast but you're still talking about over a second realistically to save and reload the apps, which is too noticeable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01

Original iPhone - not so much. Paradoxically, we're now quick to admit, we're underwhelmed, yet, we've got absolutely nothing serious with the iPad to whine about.

Yeah, I remember the iphone launch when they were going on about Web 2.0 and it was pretty underwhelming to some, me included and they turned it into something great. It's possible that for now, iphone apps are to the iPad what Web 2.0 was to the original iphone but the hardware limitations are still there.

We don't know the RAM yet nor if it's a dual 1GHz Cortex A9 i.e 2GHz. If it turns out to be dual 1GHz with 1-2GB RAM then the hardware has potential to do a lot more in future. If it's 1GHz with 512MB RAM, then it's no better than the Nexus One and Apple could easily go the one app at a time route with just iphone apps.

It's up to developers to make the iPad worth having but iphone OS is going to have to lighten up on some of the restrictions.
post #52 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

I link to Pogue::
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/te...gue-email.html

Excellent. Mandatory reading.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #53 of 73
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

That's exactly what I mean. It's a more productive workflow. App-centric has redundancy as each app has to have its own copy of the file you want without resorting to the file-centric workflow.

Yes, but it's a workflow, not the workflow. For people who need or prefer the former, then the iPad is at best an ancillary device. For people who don't, its shortcomings suddenly become assets.

Quote:
You could say this about anything though. I have to judge Apple by what they have done and not what they could do. They could have added some degree of 3rd party multitasking to the iphone but in 3 years they haven't. They could have added a flash and a great camera but they haven't - even the 3GS isn't that good quality in low light. They could allow interpreted tasks under approved VMs but they don't, except for Javascript. They could have added code to override the file upload button in safari to at least allow you to choose images from your photo app but they haven't.

Fair enough.

Quote:
They could have made the iPad what everyone wanted it to be - a revolutionary Mac - but they didn't, they made another ipod. No matter how you look at what an ipod could become, it's an inherently limited platform. Some will say they didn't want a Mac as it's understood but now the questions arise 'but can I do...' and those questions were pre-emptively answered by it being a Mac.

I disagree that "everyone" wanted a revolutionary Mac. I didn't, I know Solipsism didn't, any number of online tech pundits were expecting something based on the iPhone OS.

Why? Because "a Mac" implies something about desktop OS X, which is a terrible fit for a small, handheld device. The iPhone OS is the mobile version of OS X, and there's no reason it can't continue to be expanded and refined to fit more sophisticated devices than the iPhone (despite current naming conventions, which I'm convinced will change).

Quote:
Yes you can upload, yes you can multitask, yes you can read ebooks in any format you want, yes you can watch movies in any format you want, yes you can watch Hulu or any other online TV and anything Flash, yes you can manage your itunes and photos and sync your phone without ever sitting at a standard computer again, yes you can do video chat. No matter what you ask, it's all yes, yes, yes. With the iPad, it's not because it's just another slave device that you have to manage using a traditional (to use the Segway reference) workflow.

Right, but that's not what Apple wanted to make. They have MacBooks for all that. The iPad is an "appliance", which is arguably a new kind of device. It favors dead simple ease of use, very fast app launching and a touch centric UI over traditional computing virtues. Arguably, for where we're at now with general computing, the iPad does the vast majority tasks that the vast majority of people use their computers for, and does them with less "computing" overhead and cruft.

Now, of course, for the people who need to run Photoshop, FTP files to clients, or edit HD video, that's of little use. But most of the things you're insisting on as necessary virtues aren't, I don't think, for most people, most of the time. Apple is aiming at that demographic; we'll see if they're right.

Quote:
Maybe but it would be a RAM dump and could be quite large so you'd put an impact on the flash memory, which is why they don't have a VM already:

http://www.funkyspacemonkey.com/ipho...ry-price-risks

It could also impact the smoothness of the device. If you do a write to storage, it generally impacts performance more than anything else. If they got the memory dumps down to under 10MB per app, it could be quite fast but you're still talking about over a second realistically to save and reload the apps, which is too noticeable

I'll have to take your word for all that; I do think it's pretty likely Apple will introduce some form of third party multitasking fairly soon, at which point we can really focus on bitching about no Flash.


Quote:
Yeah, I remember the iphone launch when they were going on about Web 2.0 and it was pretty underwhelming to some, me included and they turned it into something great. It's possible that for now, iphone apps are to the iPad what Web 2.0 was to the original iphone but the hardware limitations are still there.

We don't know the RAM yet nor if it's a dual 1GHz Cortex A9 i.e 2GHz. If it turns out to be dual 1GHz with 1-2GB RAM then the hardware has potential to do a lot more in future. If it's 1GHz with 512MB RAM, then it's no better than the Nexus One and Apple could easily go the one app at a time route with just iphone apps.

It's up to developers to make the iPad worth having but iphone OS is going to have to lighten up on some of the restrictions.

The apps, again, are going to be a big deal. People are complaining about lack of functionality, but the device will ship with very robust versions of Safari, iTunes, Mail, Contacts and iCal (that a lot of people are saying is nicer than the desktop iteration), plus the iWork productivity suite (that reads and writes to MS formats).

There's no reason not to expect some pretty damn good image editing, music sequencing, data base, etc. software to show up quickly, at some point to have to ask "What functionality, compared to a Mac, am I actually giving up? There are some I/O issues to be hashed out, but WiFi and networks are ever more the default way of moving files around, and that's certainly covered. For the sneaker-net there's a USB adapter.

I don't think a nearly abstract sense of "workflows" and the need to look into a Finder to contemplate files are reasons enough to dismiss this device as somehow being a distant also ran, compared to "Mac" functionality. It's running a version of OS X with an excellent touch-centric UI. Apps (good, serious apps) will be plentiful. You can start doing real work out of the box.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #54 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Excellent. Mandatory reading.

It's always the wisest option to judge things once you have all the information but I think we have enough info now to determine roughly which direction this will go and to be honest it worries me about the state of the OS X desktop.

Apple have created an eco-system that is drawing in developers who would normally focus on substantial apps with the illusion of getting wealthier for doing less work. We then end up with 140,000 apps and not a single one with anywhere near the reputation of major desktop apps as being worthwhile.

This just drains innovation away from the more powerful OS X x86 system.

I think everyone expected the iphone to be a precursor for touch interaction with computers. Instead, what Apple has done is drawn a line that says touch is for entertainment and fun but to get real work done, it's mouse/keyboard time. This is just wrong. Touch is how we should interact with computers no matter what we do even if it's to complement other inputs. Apple could have done this on the iPad and it would have blown people away. I haven't seen anyone blown away by what was shown.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox

I disagree that "everyone" wanted a revolutionary Mac. I didn't, I know Solipsism didn't, any number of online tech pundits were expecting something based on the iPhone OS.

Expect and want are different. I expected the iphone OS too but I didn't want it. If you both expected and wanted the iphone OS fair enough but I think you wanted more than that and what I describe next would have satisfied what you wanted as well as what I did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox

Why? Because "a Mac" implies something about desktop OS X, which is a terrible fit for a small, handheld device. The iPhone OS is the mobile version of OS X, and there's no reason it can't continue to be expanded and refined to fit more sophisticated devices than the iPhone (despite current naming conventions, which I'm convinced will change).

Nope, a Mac implies x86 compatibility and multitasking. The only thing that seems wrong about making it a Mac is the UI. The UI is irrelevant though because you can interpret the programming calls to UI frameworks any way you want. If the menu is too small, make it do a dock zoom when you touch it. Force it to wait for a tap before activating instead of release so long menus can be scrolled. Force each app to maximize the window or center it and stack them and force expose to jump between them.

Not only does this mean an efficient touch device but it encourages Mac developers to adhere to framework guidelines and rules, which benefits everyone. Doubled Mac marketshare means more developers add support for games, apps etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox

They have MacBooks for all that.

But Macbooks aren't great for photos or ebooks. Like I've said, because this is a slave device, you are forced to manage music, photos and most things on your Macbook anyway so the iPad is reduced to an ebook reader with a color screen when books are black and white, a browsing device that's still cramped, a movie player that's not widescreen and very far from it and is restricted to apps that you have on your phone already and are optimized for.

Consider the markets:

people who only need a phone and don't like computers - the iphone is ideal as it does all the basic functions you need and is a phone that you'd be buying anyway. These people don't need an iPad as tech isn't important enough to spend that much on a non-essential device.

people who need a computer only - these people are either power users or not but both need flexibility and control. They need a master device which the iPad isn't - power users compromise on performance when mobile but need to do everything they do with the desktop, low performance users need to do it all too but are happy with average performance all the time.

people who need a computer and a phone - they use the phone to take over the role of a portable and the iphone is perfect for this. If they go for a portable, it can't just do what their phone does + a couple of apps, it needs to become their computer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox

There's no reason not to expect some pretty damn good image editing, music sequencing, data base, etc. software to show up quickly, at some point to have to ask "What functionality, compared to a Mac, am I actually giving up? There are some I/O issues to be hashed out, but WiFi and networks are ever more the default way of moving files around, and that's certainly covered. For the sneaker-net there's a USB adapter.

The apps are too sandboxed in the iphone OS but there could be a few great apps that work on their own given sufficient RAM. Without virtual memory, it's only going to have substantial apps with 2GB RAM.
post #55 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

It's always the wisest option to judge things once you have all the information but I think we have enough info now to determine roughly which direction this will go and to be honest it worries me about the state of the OS X desktop.

Yes and no. I think we've heard these concerns expressed before, as early in my recollection as the release of VirtualPC. It and the other virtual Windows applications were supposed to kill off the Mac software ecosystem. Didn't happen. The evidence suggest that it's a lot stronger than many believe.

We don't know yet how the iPad ecosystem will evolve, but I think it's still going to be horses for courses for many years to come. I for one would not be heartbroken if this new approach reinvented what we expect from an OS, if it did so on merit, and there's no reason to think it would do so for any other reason. The current OS paradigm is getting pretty old and threadbare. I think we might be ready for something new. Or not. We might be on the way to finding out, which I think is pretty exciting all by itself.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #56 of 73
Awesome article by Fraser Spiers on the iPad

http://speirs.org/blog/2010/1/29/future-shock.html

Quote:
There's another reality distortion field at work, though, and everyone that makes a living from the tech industry is within its tractor-beam. That RDF tells us that computers are awesome, they work great and only those too stupid to live can't work them.

C.
post #57 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

I think we've heard these concerns expressed before, as early in my recollection as the release of VirtualPC. It and the other virtual Windows applications were supposed to kill off the Mac software ecosystem. Didn't happen.

It wasn't really a platform though. When you are sitting on your sofa, you are 100% focused on the iPad environment. My main concern isn't about the iPad as I don't think it will sell well but that Apple is ignoring the Mac platform software-wise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

The current OS paradigm is getting pretty old and threadbare. I think we might be ready for something new. Or not. We might be on the way to finding out, which I think is pretty exciting all by itself.

I know but only if it has the benefits of the current system. You can't step computing back 10 years by removing multitasking, dropping to 1GHz with a poor GPU and redefine the OS.

Is this really going to lead to a touch Mac eventually? Is the future of all devices ARM in which case all apps have to be redeveloped? Apple haven't moved anything forward here, if anything they've hit a wall.

I just checked out that Hitler video again - 1.7 million views and over 10,000 ratings to reach 5/5 in just 2 days.

By contrast, a major news network posting of the iPad launch on Youtube got the highest views for an official iPad video and got 3/5 (1700 ratings) with just 730,000 views.

This to me suggests that by a 5:1 ratio, the mass public are disappointed by this.

Contrast with the most popular iphone video at launch of Phil Schiller - 4.5/5 (18,700 ratings) and over 11.5 million views - over 3 years I know but we're not off to a good start with iPad.

This is the first time I've watched an Apple event and felt that Steve wasn't up to the presentation too. I think we have seen Apple's Magnum Opus in the iphone. The promo video was painful. It's like watching those family videos where kids have to perform for their peers but in a rehearsed way.

Yes, iwork is cool to use on it and some other things but it doesn't mould touch into how we use computers, it tries to complement our computer use with another product.

This device should have replaced the white Macbook. 64GB SSD, 2GB RAM, Atom CPU (possibly dual core) with 9400M for $699 without 3G and $829 with. If you needed a keyboard fine. If you need a bigger display - Mini DP output.

People would then say ah but it's not cheap enough. But it's a computer so you sell it based on the fact that it does ebooks but it also replaces your netbook. iphone sells because it's not just a phone - it's an ipod + GPS + great phone + camera + internet + apps. iPad is not an ipod, not a GPS device (try strapping it to your dashboard), not a phone, not a camera device and the same at the rest of the functions as an iphone besides the screen. Add the 'but it's a computer' in there and we're all set. You want Modern Warfare in your lap, no problem, you want WoW, no problem, you want Windows, no problem, Powerpoint, Word, Photoshop, Maya, Sketchup, Transmit, Flash, widgets, iphone apps.

Then it's better than an iphone and a laptop as it does the best of both.

By Steve's own admission, it has failed:

It must be better at:

browsing
email
photos
video
music
games
ebooks

or it has no reason for being.

It's not better at browsing because it has no Flash and a small screen.
It's not better for email because a physical keyboard is better and no way to sync email to the desktop.
It's not better for sorting photos, only for viewing due to the IPS screen.
It's not better for video as it has a 4:3 aspect ratio and it only has restricted format support.
It's not better for music as it's still low capacity for the price and nothing beats an ipod for music as you can put it in your pocket.
It's not better for games as it just has a MALI GPU and it's way too big to be tilting with the accelerometer as well as tap the on-screen controls.
I think it will be about the same for ebooks as an ipod. You just have to turn the page more often.

As Steve rightly says, this device has no reason for being.
post #58 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

Awesome article by Fraser Spiers on the iPad

Same reasoning for accepting the dumbing down of the education system though.

Is it better to pull everyone down to a low common denominator or force people to learn something?

I'm not saying computers have to be complex but we shouldn't cater for people who are willfully ignorant in the face of technology, many of whom will sit in front of a mouse and complain that they keep forgetting if they should click the left or right mouse button. And yet those same people will get into a car and drive themselves and their family down a highway at 70mph relying on more or less the same principles.

Complexity and power shouldn't be compromised for the purposes of simplicity. Apple did that with OS 9 and it sucked big time. Jobs of all people should know this after leaving and basing Next OS on UNIX.

Masking that power is not quite as bad as not having it but it's still pretty bad. They may change this somewhat in their next iteration of the iphone OS so I can't be overly critical of that.
post #59 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Complexity and power shouldn't be compromised for the purposes of simplicity. Apple did that with OS 9 and it sucked big time. Jobs of all people should know this after leaving and basing Next OS on UNIX.

What I keep saying is that complexity and power have never been compromised. Users demanding complexity have always had the full attention of the computer industry - and every product has always catered for that audience. In many ways to the detriment of the industry.

Finally someone gets around to making a computer for a non-technical audience and there is this moral outcry of rage. How dare they?

Calm down! This product is simply not *for* you. Can you cope with that? We will continue to make products for you the same as always.

It's like raising an objection when the cosmetics industry woke up and started making cosmetics for black skins. How dare they?

Calm down! This product is simply not *for* you. Can you cope with that? We will continue to make products for you the same as always.

C.
post #60 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

WThis product is simply not *for* you. Can you cope with that? We will continue to make products for you the same as always.

But it is for me, I want a slate device and have done for the past 10 years.

All I really wanted at the very least was to be able to sort and edit/crop pictures, manage my music collection, watch movies and read some books on it but it doesn't even do those basic tasks.

Photos and music are consume-only, the screen is 4:3 so movies are severely cropped. Books are ok if there's a night-mode but a significant number of ebooks will likely be US-only.

The complexity argument is invalid for the same reason it's not what I want. You are saying this is a device for people who should be able to avoid complexity if they can't handle it. But they have to sync with a computer anyway and know how to do that.

You have to know how to set up iphoto, itunes, import music from CDs, setup an itunes account, know what a USB port is and where it is etc. What if you have a Windows PC - where to get itunes, how to install it, how to transfer music from what you're already using, how to get wma to work, figure out whether to use mp3 or aac?

The argument for simplicity works if and only if the device is the only one people need to use. You may say 'but they'll still need to import CDs', well Apple could offer a docking solution (or wireless CD use like MBA) - if they could do DVD ripping too with hardware encoding, it would have been great. Even if it was the case where they dock the machine, insert the DVD and itunes gives them a digital copy for a small fee.

Let's assume the same CPU/GPU, storage, etc. What I think iPad should have been at least capable of is the following:

720p screen - for movies, it has to be close to this, 16:10 is ok.
1-2Gb RAM - 3rd party multitasking is needed in some basic form just allowing up to 5 apps is enough.
photo and music apps on it need to manage collections and not just view them - they can cross-sync changes to the desktop if needs be but you should be able to manage music on it while lounging and sync to a phone directly. Even if you can reverse sync to the desktop, it's no good because you have to dock to a desktop, sync, dock the phone and sync again.
Needs a file storage app or at least file-centric categorization i.e all PDFs go in location A, all MP3s go in location B, all images go in location C. Any app that needs a PDF or ebook can just look in the designated location. This doesn't need to be hierarchical but it would be nice to be viewable and manageable.

If those above changes were made to the iPad then I would only be missing x86 compatibility, which is not the most crucial thing if developers step up and fill the gaps.
post #61 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

It wasn't really a platform though. When you are sitting on your sofa, you are 100% focused on the iPad environment. My main concern isn't about the iPad as I don't think it will sell well but that Apple is ignoring the Mac platform software-wise.

This is a distinction without a difference. The point was, the death of software development for the Mac was often predicted to be the result of "no longer having to use a Mac" for this or that function, and that did not come to pass -- even though the development of software for the Mac was at a very weak point then.

As for making predictions, I think you'd be better off using tea leaves or joss sticks than YouTube hits. The product won't even be available for purchase for another two months. I would focus more on the reactions of the few who've actually had an iPad in their hands, which seem to me to be very positive. Pleasure of use -- this is how the product will sell, not by virtue of an arbitrary feature list.

Seriously, hardly anybody even knows was multitasking is, let alone cares about multitasking as a must-have except geeks. You are right if you believe that the iPad fails on being fully geek compliant. Good. This is fine with me.

Your other critiques sound oddly similar to the criticisms we heard about the Mac from day one. I don't think a recitation is necessary. We should all know them by heart.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #62 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

If you can fit it into your shorts you're too fat to fit the pool.

Or have a really small wiener.
post #63 of 73
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Same reasoning for accepting the dumbing down of the education system though.

Is it better to pull everyone down to a low common denominator or force people to learn something?

I'm not saying computers have to be complex but we shouldn't cater for people who are willfully ignorant in the face of technology, many of whom will sit in front of a mouse and complain that they keep forgetting if they should click the left or right mouse button. And yet those same people will get into a car and drive themselves and their family down a highway at 70mph relying on more or less the same principles.

Complexity and power shouldn't be compromised for the purposes of simplicity. Apple did that with OS 9 and it sucked big time. Jobs of all people should know this after leaving and basing Next OS on UNIX.

Masking that power is not quite as bad as not having it but it's still pretty bad. They may change this somewhat in their next iteration of the iphone OS so I can't be overly critical of that.

Man, I bet you're a blast at parties when someone asks you about their confusing devices. You can hector them for being stupid and not living up to their moral obligation to master the shitty, poorly designed technology in their lives. It turns out that people feel alienated and overwhelmed by their drifting piles of gear, bristling with "features" that they'll never use, not because that gear was made by explicitly inhuman engineering and marketing teams, but because most people are lazy and wrong. And to cater to such people would damage the moral fiber of society.

[BEGINRANT]

Computer operating systems suck balls. Unfortunately, ball sucking or no they are also extraordinarily powerful manifestations of enabling technology, such that they have taken over the world.

Who designed that world? Our best, most fully alive, imaginative, morally engaged, life loving, expansive, emotionally articulate, loving stewards of what it means to be human? Oh hell no, it was designed by blinkered, emotionally stunted, semi-autistic people who happened to have been born with a talent for a certain kind of heavily codified, abstract reasoning, which neither requires or encourages anything like what we would generally regards as any kind of virtue at all.

And then they set about convincing everyone that the ghastly products of their labors are in fact things of great beauty, and to the extent that the citizenry failed to live up to its potential that was surely a failing of that citizenry, since technological felicity is the surest measure of worth.

At least the priesthoods of pre-technological cultures dealt in arcania that related to meaning and purpose. The best musings of the techoisie rarely rise above glib, information-theory derived observations about the "friction" of information and "emergent" cross-disciplinary "structures." In other words, mapping computer science onto every aspect of culture and deciding that it all looks like a big program, after all. How lovely for our deeply limited masters.

[/ENDRANT]

So I hope Apple gets some traction with their "don't think about it, just use it" notions. They appear to be the only company making computers that even cares about this stuff, and with any luck, they can begin the process of driving the IT crowd from their central position in so many walks of life. And, of course, they and their users will have to endure the hoots and ridicule of the "real" computer users, who are convinced that things like file management are actual skills of some sort that actually mean something. Who for my money are pathetic, broken, accidentally powerful pains in the ass.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #64 of 73
hahahaha!

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #65 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Seriously, hardly anybody even knows was multitasking is, let alone cares about multitasking as a must-have except geeks.

Example: playing a game and need to check out an online guide. Player jumps to Safari, goes back to the game and finds the progress up to the last checkpoint lost or at least has to navigate through the loading menus every time. I agree with you they may not know why it happens but they'll be annoyed by it.

Someone downloads Spotify and starts it streaming over the 3G connection they pay for and maybe decides to start making an iwork document while they listen to their playlist. Not going to happen.

If anything, multitasking is for non-geeks more than anyone because they're the only ones who will get frustrated by the lack of it, not knowing what causes the limitations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

You are right if you believe that the iPad fails on being fully geek compliant. Good. This is fine with me.

Check here for how a recent super-widescreen movie looks on a 4:3 aspect ratio (it includes the controls):

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3738173977/

You can't really crop it in scenes like the following so you're wasting about 50% screen space.



Half of all movies are 16:9 or less and 1/7th (contained in this half) are the above format. Half are 4:3 but those are old movies and it's much easier to crop 4:3.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox

It turns out that people feel alienated and overwhelmed by their drifting piles of gear, bristling with "features" that they'll never use

I don't hear that complaint about the iphone. The features mean they don't have to carry around an ipod + GPS + phone + laptop.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox

Computer operating systems suck balls.

The iPad runs mostly the same operating system. The flaw you're talking about is the UI again. I agree that the UI is best being optimized for touch, there's just no need to artificially limit what the back-end system does to the extent Apple do when it does no harm to the consumer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox

they and their users will have to endure the hoots and ridicule of the "real" computer users, who are convinced that things like file management are actual skills of some sort that actually mean something.

But when they inevitably start asking questions like 'so how do I send my 30MB Pages file to my friend from my iPad when I only have the 3G network (takes 20 minutes)?', who has really benefitted? The people who were already aware of how storage works (most people) and would use a USB thumb drive will be asking questions like this too.

Technology hasn't developed solely from a disconnect between anti-social nerds and everyone else. It comes about as efficient solutions to problems. When you start specializing technology to certain classes of user, it creates other problems like having to buy too many devices to cover basic tasks.

It all comes down to compromise and I'm willing to accept it within reason. When Apple make compromises that have no real benefit such as leaving out an SD card reader and throwing one on an adaptor, I think it's ok to pick up on it. If nobody ever complained about what they did, they'd just sell us empty boxes for $1,000 if they thought they could get away with it.

I will say that in comparison to a Kindle, iPad looks great even though it's twice the price. But nobody is buying the Kindle (2.5 million units since launch) so it's not a great benchmark. I just think that with some simple tweaks they could have crossed the line between slave and master device and changed the whole game - I'd personally make the compromise and leave x86 apps behind if it met this requirement. Surely given the fact most people have Windows PCs, giving them a device that lets them keep them switched off permanently would be better than one that forces them to use it more.
post #66 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


Nice choice of screenshot ...Not a great movie, but watchable, with a little bit of style.
post #67 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

720p screen - for movies, it has to be close to this, 16:10 is ok.

Movie History School.

Film used to be 4:3 ration. 4:3 is crude approximation of the golden mean and the same shape as a sheet of paper.

But in a movie theatre, such squarish images are unsatisfactory, because human vision is wider than it is tall. So modern movie formats moved to a wider frame shape.

2.35:1, 16:9 and so on are all hover around the 2:1 aspect ratio. Which approximates the shape of human vision at its full extent (ie. when it totally fills our field-of view)

Televisions too are moving towards a similar aspect ratios - mainly to accommodate movies that are formatted as wide. (Note that televisions rarely fill our field of view. Unless you sit 4 feet away.)

So according to Marvin a tablet computer should have a similar shaped screen

No!

No absolutely not. Because film-watching is not the primary use of a tablet. It's one of many uses. So the idea this one function should determine display shape is bizarre.

Unlike a television the tablet is used both in vertical and horizontal orientation. A 2:1 screen used in a vertical orientation produces a very un-natural shape. A tall narrow screen, utterly unsuited to web viewing, book viewing. It would just look odd.

The 4:3 aspect ratio makes sense because it mirrors the pad of paper you get at Staples. It is the same shape we have been been used to using for paper for a 4 or 5 centuries.

So a 4:3 shaped screen is ideal for a tablet, when we remember that the underlying metaphor is a piece of paper. It's called the iPad not the iMovieWatcher.

C.
post #68 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

Unlike a television the tablet is used both in vertical and horizontal orientation. A 2:1 screen used in a vertical orientation produces a very un-natural shape. A tall narrow screen, utterly unsuited to web viewing, book viewing. It would just look odd.

The 4:3 aspect ratio makes sense because it mirrors the pad of paper you get at Staples. It is the same shape we have been been used to using for paper for a 4 or 5 centuries.

So a 4:3 shaped screen is ideal for a tablet, when we remember that the underlying metaphor is a piece of paper. It's called the iPad not the iMovieWatcher.

Consider that the screen right now is 1024 x 768 and I'm suggesting 1280 x 720 (16:9), you don't really lose any width in the smallest dimension. An A4 page is 210mm × 297mm (1.41:1).

This means a fullscreen A4 page requires 768 x 1.41 = 1082 pixels to fit on a 4:3 screen. Being only 1024, it either crops it by 5% or scales it down with borders.

It also means that on a 16x9 screen, it requires 720 x 1.41 = 1015 pixels. Well look at that, you even have 265 pixels left over for your toolbars.

edit: I would say from a quick mockup that a 16:9 screen is a bit freaky but seeing the 16:10 screen you can see that the 4:3 one just looks plain fat



1280 x 800 = full A4 page + 152 pixels free for toolbars.
post #69 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Yeah, I remember the iphone launch when they were going on about Web 2.0 and it was pretty underwhelming to some, me included and they turned it into something great. It's possible that for now, iphone apps are to the iPad what Web 2.0 was to the original iphone but the hardware limitations are still there.
We don't know the RAM yet nor if it's a dual 1GHz Cortex A9 i.e 2GHz. If it turns out to be dual 1GHz with 1-2GB RAM then the hardware has potential to do a lot more in future. If it's 1GHz with 512MB RAM, then it's no better than the Nexus One and Apple could easily go the one app at a time route with just iphone apps.

Absolutely. We still don't know anything for sure and the best thing we can do is to speculate about the device. Apple knows how to surprise. At the iPad launch they're parting with many principles, which we thought were written in the Bible of their business and technical strategies. Yet, both Mac and iPhone --- to an extent --- hardware stood hands down several generations of the software in the past. We hope they won't drop at least that one...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

It's up to developers to make the iPad worth having but iphone OS is going to have to lighten up on some of the restrictions.

Very true. Nail is hit right on the head. It's clearly visible, iPad remains underinvested so far. Apple expects applications and 3rd party hardware vendors to bring whatever is missing.

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply
post #70 of 73
I'm with Carniphage on the screen ratio. There's nothing magical about 16:9, not even in film, which has hardly settled on one aspect ratio. In fact the display size chosen for the iPad is a standard, XGA -- which is relevant because it does video out for for things like presentations. If the display is 16:9 then it's got to letterbox vertically to output to the projector aspect ratio. The lesson is, no matter what you do, someone will find fault with it. So what else is new?

I also wonder about the future of the 16:9 standard. Watching what laughably passes for HDTV, I see a mishmash of content letterboxed (vertically and horizontally), stretched, and distorted images -- and even all three in various nauseating combinations. Neither broadcasters nor viewers seem to notice or care. So should Apple design all of their products around this so-called standard? That's certainly not a given.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #71 of 73
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

I'm with Carniphage on the screen ratio. There's nothing magical about 16:9, not even in film, which has hardly settled on one aspect ratio. In fact the display size chosen for the iPad is a standard, XGA -- which is relevant because it does video out for for things like presentations. If the display is 16:9 then it's got to letterbox vertically to output to the projector aspect ratio. The lesson is, no matter what you do, someone will find fault with it. So what else is new?

I also wonder about the future of the 16:9 standard. Watching what laughably passes for HDTV, I see a mishmash of content letterboxed (vertically and horizontally), stretched, and distorted images -- and even all three in various nauseating combinations. Neither broadcasters nor viewers seem to notice or care. So should Apple design all of their products around this so-called standard? That's certainly not a given.

The broadcast/cable HD thing is well and truly a mess. My favorite is the "SD material on an HD channel on a 4:3 screen" thing, wherein the HD signal is first letterboxed, then the SD material is horizontally barred, so that you end up with a miniature image with a big black frame around it.

I do a certain amount of home electronics consulting, and explaining to people what's going on with their expensive new HD rigs and when and how or if to zoom the image is a real party, I can tell you. Most people just do the modern living resignation thing, and end up watching whatever the station choses to throw up on the screen, hideous or no.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #72 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

The broadcast/cable HD thing is well and truly a mess. My favorite is the "SD material on an HD channel on a 4:3 screen" thing, wherein the HD signal is first letterboxed, then the SD material is horizontally barred, so that you end up with a miniature image with a big black frame around it.

I do a certain amount of home electronics consulting, and explaining to people what's going on with their expensive new HD rigs and when and how or if to zoom the image is a real party, I can tell you. Most people just do the modern living resignation thing, and end up watching whatever the station choses to throw up on the screen, hideous or no.

Oh, yes. Don't get me started. Too late!

The whole HD transition is a disgusting mess. My "favorite" botched broadcast method was (and maybe still is) from TBS. They were squeezing 16:9 HD content vertically and letterboxing it, taking something that would have looked good if they'd simply let it alone. Instead they went out their way to deliberately make it look retched. Who makes these decisions?
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #73 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

If the display is 16:9 then it's got to letterbox vertically to output to the projector aspect ratio.

Projectors can have a 4:3 resolution while the internal is 16:9. Some projectors are HD too.

My mockup above shows 16:9 to be a bit odd vertically but I like 16:10. 4:3 is just too close to a big square for my liking.

It would have to be taller of course for there to be any benefit, otherwise it's pretty much the same movie image you're looking at as the 4:3 one.

I imagine the display choice had a lot to do with manufacturing and cost. I don't think I've seen IPS displays in such small sizes before.

The following video walkthrough shows most of the display features - one I hadn't seen was landscape book mode. I guess it had to be 4:3 for that to work:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2358507,00.asp

There is quite a lot of letterboxing on the 16:9 video - 75% coverage vs 90% on 16:10 but it's watchable. I notice too that pixel-doubled iphone apps are letterboxed as they are a different aspect ratio again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

I also wonder about the future of the 16:9 standard. Watching what laughably passes for HDTV, I see a mishmash of content letterboxed (vertically and horizontally), stretched, and distorted images -- and even all three in various nauseating combinations. Neither broadcasters nor viewers seem to notice or care. So should Apple design all of their products around this so-called standard? That's certainly not a given.

They already have with the iMacs and they switched all products before that to 16:10. The old PPCs were mainly 4:3 until near the end. 16:9 is not ideal for everything. Obviously on the iPad it's too thin for viewing websites vertically. I have a tilting 16:10 screen though and it's fine for vertical content including portrait images and it shows vastly more of a movie than my old 4:3 CRT.

I certainly don't see a migration back to 4:3 anytime soon. I think the HP Slate is either 16:10 or 16:9.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/26/h...eo-appearance/

I see this as being the main iPad rival. The iPad has the IPS display going for it of course. A basic initial comparison of a few slates is here:

http://gizmodo.com/5459308/slate-sho...ndroid-tablets

Hackintoshing an HP Slate would be an interesting project to see how much touch capability has been put into OS X x86. If the HP Slate is cheap enough, I'll give it a go. It'll probably have a hard drive too so lots of space, maybe SSD but they were aiming for a low price point. If it has a 9400M that would be great. Modern Warfare, Left 4 Dead and even GTA 4 trumps any iPad game I'd say. They just need to develop custom keyboard segment overlays that are visible in front of the game. Plus you just plug in a wireless mouse if you need to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yvSyyVm3Dk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_ZuriEHYtc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G31W4cywkWA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g5Jqd9oWwo
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › The Official Tablet Bitter Disappointment Thread