iPad, multiple accounts

I doubt it. I suspect there will be many limitations with the device and as soon as you come across a deal-breaker, you're not supposed to complain but simply say 'it's not for me' and move along.

No encryption, no media content control, no multiple accounts, I believe 3rd party multitasking is being worked on. We'll see when it comes out but if you think of it like an ipod touch, just bigger, you'll see what market it's aiming at (yeah it's quite a small market).

People don't share ipod touches, you get one each so it's really a device for your own personal content. The fact it's a slave device requires that because when you sync, it would have to let you choose which account to sync to and the audience it's aiming at apparently get confused easily by options so they'd probably have multiple accounts on one device and wonder why they can't find any music they've synced.

IMO the iPad is one of those close and yet so far products where you constantly think 'if only it could just... then I'd have a use for it' but it doesn't and Apple doesn't mind because they don't sell products at a loss so it will make a profit regardless.

Can I borrow your time machine so I can travel to the future and get my own iPad so I could be equally certain in my opinion that it sucks?

How about not complaining so vociferously before you even see the damn thing?

iTunes 9 added Home Sharing allowing sharing the same content across 5 devices. Obviously Apple is thinking more about how to use their devices across the whole family and given that the iPad isn't just a bit iPod touch (see, I can assert my opinion as fact too) there's no reason to just assume that it wont do multi-user relatively quickly if it's not available at launch. So I would tend to be more hopeful than a negative nanny.

How families use the iPad depends on many factors and I'm sure Apple is considering this. We have multiple TVs and computers in the house but it's not a 1-1 ratio so I would expect that the iPad will make some accommodation for multiple users and their email/facebook/etc accounts.

We have seen it though. Sure there will be some improvements but the iphone launched with the same features noted at the preview event.


Doesn't matter if you don't back it up though. My reasoning is it's the same OS with some additional APIs, same limitations, same sync setup, same ports, same design, same UI, same apps, bigger screen. Now you tell me why that makes it more than a big ipod.

Can you run the lite version of iwork on an ipod? No. Why? Because of the small screen. If you had a way to hook it up to a bigger screen, could you run it? Yes. Therefore iPad is an ipod with a big screen.

Say for instance Apple made a 10" capacitive IPS screen dock for the current ipod. Name just one thing the iPad does that a docked ipod couldn't do. If you name a single thing, I'll stop calling it a big ipod.


Other than the fact that no one has mentioned it or hinted at multi-user support and it hasn't been found in the SDK (unlike say the phone features). The questions posed now are about purchasing decisions not potential. The iPad has the potential to do a lot of things in future but if it doesn't happen and there's no suggestion it will happen what does it matter?

There's also the issue of how it would work during sync. If there are multiple targets on the slave device and multiple sources on the master device, it would have to let you choose during sync which profile to sync with. Then how does it deal with backups? It's a layer of complexity I doubt Apple want to impose on the target audience. Now if it was a master device...


Hey, you used my time machine without my permission. You must have gone a few years ahead of me. I only went to the launch event.

Because the user interaction and kind of apps are different.


Also because the interface doesn't have the resolution required to support richer UIs. This is how an iPod touch with just a bigger screen would operate:

http://www.appletell.com/apple/comme...creen-monitor/

That's very different from the way the iPad operates with iWork.


iWork. That was easy. A docked iPod can't support a 1024x768 display and allow for richer user interactions.

First, the 3.1.x OS is different without the SDK hooks to let you do so.

Second, adding a 10" capacitive dock is a significant NEW capability anyway. This is like saying "Well, I have a bathtub in my house so really a house with a pool is no different...they just have a bigger bathtub".

A bigger house is just a house that's bigger.

A house with a pool isn't just a house with a bigger bathtub.


Usable multi-user support can be done at the app layer with very minor enhancements. All they need to do is add the ability to keep multiple keychains protected via password and allow apps to access that shared data. You don't need to implement the full set of multi-user features (protection, roles, etc) to allow multiple people to access different gmail/facebook/etc apps.

That there are no hints in the current 3.2 SDK isn't that much of an indicator given it can be something developed completely independently and dropped into 4.0.


No it doesn't. It can just save and sync all user credentials which are password protected to each individual user. When you use the facebook or mail app it can prompt you for the keychain user and password if you haven't already logged into keychain before via another app. When you lock the device it can forget the credentials until you log into keychain again.

I don't think adding the capability for separate user accounts wouldn't be difficult. Vineas suggestions make a lot of sense.

I think that and at least limited multi-tasking will appear in the iPhone 4 update. I do wonder if phone OS will fork into iPhone OS and iPad OS. With different SDKs.

I also think that will see a new UI. The small icons on the larger desktop look totally out of place. I've seen someone at Ars suggest that apps be called up like dashboard widgets. I think that's a great idea. Hit an Apps button on the dock and all apps appear on the desktop. Then pick the app you need.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of these improvements take longer than some of us would like like, much like the copy/paste feature. But Apple will do it and get it right.

Marvin, the big problem with the iPad, besides the horrible name, is that there was no consensus of what people wanted it to be. For me, who basically wanted an iPod Touch on steroids, it's a home run. Obviously for you, who seemed to want a do-everything device, it's a strikeout.

Anyway, once the iPad finally shows up it's going to be fun to put it through its paces to see if it's what I want. I already have my pennies saved for the 64GB model.

If this is seem as a personal device like a Touch or iPhone then what would be the point? You don't see iPhones coming with multiple accounts for example. More so would that make sense?

As for mail on the thing if you must share just set up multiple acounts in mail. For a wife this should not be an issue. Or use a web mail client.

Considering the portable nature of the device, sharing is going to be a problem anyways.


Dave

You can have two mail accounts, just like an iPhone. And for agendas use Google Cal or something.

So if it didn't meet or exceed every wild and totally invented expectation that everyone has ever had -- that's a problem? It isn't Apple's problem that so many people fantasize so freely. Trying to fulfill those fantasies as a way of designing a product -- now that would be a problem.

"There is one guaranteed formula for failure, and that is to try to please everyone." -- Will Rogers

ipods have supported video output at a higher resolution than the internal screen for a while via TV output. There were additions to the OS for external screen support but it could easily have been added to the ipod - it's just a software update. Software updates don't count as a differentiating factor when both devices have the same architecture.

It's like saying that a Windows PC that supports a glasses-free 3D display with newer GPU drivers is so much more than a Mac system. It's not, you just add a new screen and software support. Nobody would say that it's no longer a Mac and is something else entirely. A new screen doesn't change anything about the hardware platform - that's defined by the OS and architecture.

iPad will also identify itself as a desktop OS but it runs mobile apps. You can see how ridiculous the iphone apps look running on the device in the little boxed window. Pixel-doubled games fine but everything else looks wrong. You just don't have that problem with a desktop UI framework because it's designed to be scalable to work on a huge variety of screen sizes.

The least they could do is have mobile apps running side by side in a grid or something.


It's semantics though. You're saying iPad is more than a big ipod because it's more functional than the current sized ipod due to the size. What I'm saying is that this doesn't change the fact it's a big ipod. With the same software, possibly updated specs and a screen dock the ipod could do the same things.


That can already be done by an app-developer though and most developers won't use it. Take for instance a game that tracks levels like Bloons. There's no reason to have multi-user support but if you share an iPad, someone else is going to be unlocking all the levels first and screwing with the high scores. Proper multi-user support is needed for it to be useful, everything else as I say can be done by individual devs.


I think I would have been content with a master device running iphone OS and way more enhancements than what it got. I really just wanted to be able to sort out all my media in comfort. If I can do it via VNC it might be ok but it's not ideal flipping through MBs of images over a network connection - if they can get some sort of 802.11n computer-to-computer setup going it might work but it's not much good when I take it away somewhere. Plus, there's not much data security on the device - same with the iphone.

Heavy productivity really wasn't a requirement because most people only use computers for media and I'm well aware of how some people have an inherent disconnect with computers as they are and the iphone UI fixes that. But if they have to use a computer anyway, what's the point? Instead of enabling an iPad owner like an elderly relative or computer illiterate to be an independent computer user, they are still relegated to dependency.


It's not about fulfilling wishes but pushing technology forward. The human race as a whole has pretty consistent views about where we want to be eventually. We want renewable energy, we want convenience in shopping and food consumption, we want good healthcare, efficient transportation, more immersive entertainment etc. It's all consistent. We've seen how great touch interaction with machines can be and people have been waiting for this since Minority Report or before. Apple finally deliver something with the iphone but the next step was to allow us to use this interface for 90%+ what we use a computer for. Instead, we get a device that requires the use of legacy computing hardware to control its contents.

It can be viewed as a first step in the right direction but it can be viewed as a first step in the wrong direction too - instead of going forward, they just went sideways and made largely the same product but for a different (smaller) audience.

I can't decide if this answer is excessively existential or just completely geeky.

From what I read of your answer, "pushing technology forward" is little more than a stand-in for fulfilling geek fantasies. What does this phrase mean, when it's defined strictly in technological terms? Nothing, really -- except to geeks. The distinction which gets lost is utility, what the thing actually does for people who have non-geek needs. That's the only meaningful definition of pushing technology forward I know about, at least if we're to think of technology as a form of progress. it's not about movies, that's for sure.

Does the iPad do that? I really have no idea, yet -- but I'm willing to give it some room to grow, to find out whether it fills the role Apple sees it filling. Maybe we'll find out when people can actually buy one.

+ one

Content control is a utility that is missing. The point about the movie reference has nothing to do with it looking cool or being some geek fantasy, it's clear that the machines shown offer a more intuitive interaction as does the iphone but it's also the only interaction required.

Nowhere in say Star Trek do you see them using the awesome UIs and slate devices and then 10 minutes later walking over to a bog-standard PC with a keyboard and mouse to sync the data to it.


Right but at this time, it can't be described as either a game changer or a failure. What I can say with absolute certainty is that no slave device will ever change the way we use computers in any significant way while it remains as a slave device.

Also, the feature set of the iPad has been described so we can comment on what's been revealed and while the features have every possibility of changing, all we can go on is what we know. If someone asks 'will I be able to run multiple apps on the iPad?', you could answer 'the iPad could run multiple 3rd party apps simultaneously in a future revision of the iphone OS',but a more accurate answer is still 'what we've seen of the iPad is that it has no multitasking'.

The Star Trek reference just confirms my original diagnosis. Protest all you like, but if you insist on using science fiction as your touchstone for what a real product should do in the real world, then you're going to get the same reaction from me every time. Calling the iPad a "slave device" is colorful, but not accurate, even knowing what we do about it today. This point has been debated ad infinitum here already so I don't want to restart it, but I think it's just too obviously inaccurate and exaggerated to warrant further debate.

That is totally irrational and certainly doesn't reflect the reality of current times. We are often at odds with each other sometimes violently so. In case you haven't noticed we are currently fighting multiple wars against people hell bent on making sure our views on how to live do not continue. Only the ignorant would call these conflicts with people observing consistent views and sharing common goals.

That is large scale world wide. Consider the local situation where we have terribly misguided people trying to steer the communities as a whole to their will. Be it some church preaching against the US wars or the idiot pursuing fake science to try to bend views about global warming. Or take the people who complain about cell towers one minute and then their cell phone connections the next. Humanity is all about conflict, opposing views and the struggle to maintain order amongst those conflicts and competing ideas.

The first reality is there is no such thing as renewable energy. Once you understand that you then will realize that energy is about trade offs and moving technology forward.

Something that has been demonstrated to not be exactly healthy.

Well that depends. For example immersive entertainment might be find for some but I often prefer immersion in nature.

We have seen nothing but really well done cell phones and a look alike tablet. It might not be as great as an experience with larger devices. Frankly this sounds more like fantasy than anything based on concrete usage.

I'd be the first to say that Apple could have done better here. On the other hand I don't think we have seen the whole works software wise yet. But yeah the hardware leaves a lot to be desired.

Well that is possible. It is to hard to comment in depth until one gets an iPad in his hands. When we al have access to them it will be worth discussing then. Right now though you have to look at iPad as a different approach to computing. One that sees the iPad as a terminal to the web for the most part. Yah in some ways that is sad, but I still think it will sell well even if it got a bunch of things wrong.


Dave

I'm not trying to support the other guy here as he certainly was geeky, but you seem to swing in the other direction. There is certainly a lot of bad science fiction out there but on the other hand there is much that has predicted where we are currently in our development as humans.

Take Star Trek for example. There was a reference once made to transparent Aluminum. something that at first sounds silly but then a month ago I was reading an article in NASA tech reports about the military using such materials in the next generation of bullet proof windows for planes and helicopters. If you ignore the issue of range modern cell phones have a eerie resemblance to Star Trek communicators. In fact the average cell phone has gone far beyond the concept.

I have a problem with that too. But the description is not entirely in-accurate. I don't consider my iPhone to be a slave device in the way I use it, but it obviously is. The problem of course is that it needs regular connections to a mac for updates and backups. Maybe slave isn't the right word, it is a system dependent device.

Maybe. It is funny how deeply he fell off the edge at the end of his original post.

Dave

I enjoy SiFi just about as much as the next person, but please let's not get too carried away with the ability of SiFI writers to predict the future. Often as not when they "get it right" they are merely reading what the scientists of the day are discussing, then treating it in fiction it as though it had already come true. Even so, for every hit is probably a thousand misses and nobody gets the really big things. Find someone who predicted the internet in 1950 and I'll be impressed.

If the iPhone is a slave device, then so is everything that needs to connect to something else to get something done. Like, what we're doing right now. In such a connected world, it's a completely artificial distinction.

1975 is the best I could do:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/034...SIN=0345467175

SF doesn't predict the future anyway but projects the concerns of today into a futuristic setting. The future is too complex to predict in any meaningful way.

Not from the perspective of UI design.


Except that software IS a differentiator. The current iPod touch software does not support the user interaction that the iPad allows. The hardware platform is more or less identical between a PC and a Mac. The primary differentiator is what the software can and cannot do.


Applications designed for the iPad will not be in a little boxed window. That's the difference between the iPad and the iPod touch.

In any case, apps meant to work on both iPod and iPad WILL be scalable to work at the different resolutions but the iPad will allow richer interaction because it does have more real-estate to work with. Work flow will be improved on the iPad.


With the same software the PC is the same as the Mac and can do the same things. And yet they are significantly different are they not?


The primary need is credentials for social apps. Other apps can leverage a common central user profile if they like. The shouldn't be difficult to use from a dev standpoint and a heck of a lot easier than rolling your own. There also no reason that apps can't stash their own info into the user profile since that's what the social apps are doing with user credentials. There may be size limitations but bit masks for levels and achievements is tiny.


I've gone weeks without syncing my iPhone. Yes, they'll still need a mac or pc for backing up and some tasks like updating the iPad OS but day to day they lose that dependency.

i don't think this will be implemented.

I shouldn't really have expected more.


It's more accurate and less colorful than implying that everyone who's not impressed by it is a geek with unrealistic sci-fi fantasies.


Mainly opposing routes to the same goal. I don't think people are arguing against the examples I gave.


What reality would that be? Renewable energy is defined to be energy sourced from natural resources like the wind, sea and sun. I don't recall any warnings saying we're running out of wind. Not in this thread anyway.


A supermarket delivering fresh vegetables to your doorstep is unhealthy?


Do I have to explain this? If you have truly immersive entertainment then it's the same thing.


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

I wasn't saying that design is the goal btw, the point was about dependence.


Exactly and dismissing it so casually also dismisses every single person's own ideas for solutions to current problems.


Nope.


Don't mention non-application-centric filesystems, people will start screaming 'geek, geek!'. All sorts of issues like multiple apps conflicting by using the same save file names, wasting space on the device by not cleaning up the shared profile space, one app deleting or modifying files/data belonging to another.

Partial implementations of multi-user profiles are useful solutions certainly but I don't think Apple want this level of functionality on the ipad.


I've done that too but not because it's any less of a dependent. It's just that I use my desktop for desktop-type tasks and my phone for phone tasks. iPad is trying to do some of each of those tasks (it doesn't really have a reason to exist of its own accord). If I want a song or picture deleted, I have to use my computer. If I want to make a call, I have to use my phone. There's nothing about the iPad that I require it for.

The problem with slavery is not the frequency of the dependence but the necessity of it. Frequency is an issue in critical areas like content management though.

I'm against the concept of renewable due to the fact that energy derived from the wind, or sea is finite and not renewable as people think. In fact those source are only the physical manifestations of energy transfer from the SUN. Without the SUN you would not have a molten sea or even a gaseous atmosphere.

Even the SUN though has a finite life. It will soon burn up its fuel and grow cold and our solar system with it.


Dave

We're agreeing right?


Which part do you disagree with? That the Mac and PC are equivalent or that only software is the difference? Arguably the Mac is better than the PC despite largely the same hardware (and at higher price to boot).


What on earth are you talking about? We're talking about porting a simplified Keychain over to the iPad. Not discussing how to manage files. You do know what Keychain is right?


They can implement the whole enchilada if they really want. It's not like they don't have Mac OSX to steal from.


Mobile computing. The iPhone is good but the iPad will be much better at it because it allows for richer user interaction. At the same level as a desktop but given the limitations of the interface (touch).


All electronic devices are slaves to power sources. Plugging in your iPad to a Mac or other master device isn't much more onerous than plugging it into the wall. This is largely why I don't mind the iPhone's limited battery life. Most of the time it lasts the day and I plug it into the wall or the mac when I get home. I skip that if I've left it plugged in at work all day and it has pretty much a full charge.

Mkay. You really don't have to worry about that. Assuming the human race lasts even vaguely that long we'll figure something else out when the Sun goes kaput.

Oh...by the by yes we do have liquid oceans. But we'd be experiencing some serious global warming if we had molten seas. Yes, yes...technically molten only means melted but typically with high heat.

Not a response to my point at all. FWIW, I'm not at all interested in trading insults. I am simply stating the difference between fictional ideas and real products that are designed by contemporary companies with the intention of making money. I didn't think this distinction would be so controversial.

Soon as in millions of years from now. Definitions within our realm of existence are still valid.


Yup.


I agree that the user experience is defined by the difference in software but running the same software on different (though compatible) hardware offers the same experience so I would disagree that a Mac differs from a PC when it runs Windows. The ipod is compatible hardware and the iPad software isn't a million miles away from the OS it runs given that the same apps run natively without recompilation. In other words they have the same APIs.

All they added to the iPad was additional APIs for popup menus and video output and a few others, which could be added to an ipod just the same and some will be. We'll be able to see this more clearly when both devices are upgraded to OS 4.


Current apps save files to disk for settings and game progress. In a system supporting multiple users, those files have to reside in a common profile filesystem location. I guess it depends how it's done but say that user A and B use an app and user A gets bored of the app and deletes it. It will take user B's data with it. Non-app centric storage maintains the information so that user B can put the app back in and have the data restored. Like I say though, this can leave data lying around.


I should really have said laptop as that's the example Apple used. The one bonus over a laptop is portrait mode for pictures. This device would be awesome for pictures but you can't edit/manage pictures on it and sync them back to your machine. Of course, a 3rd party app might allow reverse sync.


Ideas made in the context of fiction are not completely different from those made in the context of business as they both generate money. Star Trek and all sorts of other tech shows have gained popularity by selling an idea of a future that complies with that of their fans. That desire then gets filtered into consumer feedback and companies deliver it.

Apple haven't invented a new way to work with the iPad. I've wanted a slate ever since I tried using a laptop lying down and slate computers have been shown in science fiction many times.

http://www.itpro.co.uk/159879/scienc...deas-made-real

Science fiction tends to gloss over the practicality of the tech but that doesn't make it irrelevant.

I think there is enough information out there on it for people to make preliminary estimation that the device does not serve their purposes. The only problem I've run into is that some of those folks think their assessment applies to all others too. Frankly it doesn't matter to me who doesn't like it, or if it serves their purposes or not, I suspect it will serve several purposes for me in a better fashion than the current hardware I have for those purposes. I've seen enough to know that I'll be getting one. I'm typically an 'early adopter', and very rarely have I been burned by such decisions. I have not problem taking some risks with my money because I'm generally the best person to decide what I like.

Ubergeeks and tech-heads may well know alot about hardware and software, and they certainly know alot about what they personally want out of their hardware and software, but quite frequently they do not have the best track record of determining what will thrive in the market when it doesn't fit into the realm of what they want.

The important thing to consider at this point is whether or not it serves your purposes.

Perhaps, but how meaningful is this assessment as it applies to the iPad? I don't really know you, but you sound intelligent enough to recognize that many people out there use computers in different ways than you do. I think that for many people, the iPad hits the "sweet spot" of what many, many people use computers for on a daily basis. I think that many of those people will find that the iPad accomplishes those purposes in a manner that is very pleasing and user friendly.

When you say "we" in the above sentence, you are including a lot of people who do not think like you or make decisions based on the same criteria as you. Their values are different, their priorities are different, their uses for computers vary, their financial situations and life situations are different. etc. etc.

My bet is that the iPad has the "magic" to make it in the market. Time will tell.

You've nailed here. For years and years and years as a minority Mac user I've heard the attitude expressed from PC users, "if I don't want it, nobody should." This is the implicit logic behind most of the criticism of the iPad.

That's what my assessment is based on. It certainly doesn't fulfill very much for me given that I have an iphone and a Mac but I was mainly thinking about average computer users I know. Having to manage content on a standard computer makes it a non-essential device. Let's not forget that it's not like a laptop/netbook where I can sync music to it, take it to work and transfer the tracks over. If I need a software update so I can download a recent app that requires it while I'm at work, it's a no go as you can only sync to one computer.


It's for people who can afford to have a computer and a $500 tablet accessory. This isn't a low cost computing solution for the masses - I think that would sell in great numbers - this is a big ipod to complement and is dependent on a standard computer.


Same argument works in reverse though. Just because a minority wants it doesn't mean it will be a success.

As am I, yet we come to differing conclusions.


So? The iPod is a non-essential device. TV's are non-essential devices. The internet is a non-essential service. With the availability of public transportation, a car is a non-essential device. If you have a computer a laptop may be a non-essential device or vice versa. Many people do not limit their purchases to essential devices.

Again, so? You seem stuck on considering issues that may bother some people but don't bother a lot of other people. It has DRM too. Many people don't care about that either. It doesn't support Flash. Many people don't care about that either. It doesn't have a camera. Many people don't care about that either.


Okay, but you are stating the obvious. However, you are pointing to quite a viable market segment for success.


Again, I have to say, so? That has very little to do with it having the chance to be a success in the marketplace. Most Macs in general are not low cost computing solutions for the masses, yet Apple seems to be quite healthy financially.

Only the reverse argument is not applicable in this case. As far as I've read, neither he nor I have claimed that it will be a success solely because a minority wants it. My claim is simply that it has enough appeal and functionality for what it does to enough people for it to be profitable. My claim is I think that Apple has the name, the form factor and the execution of this device to make it a very enjoyable experience using it's functionality, enough to make the product viably profitable for Apple. I think that is what Apple is going for, a profitable device in the marketplace. How profitable it will be will be told in time.

I'm not going as far as saying this will be a laptop killer or a notebook killer, but I think the netbook market will be affected.

Not really. By definition, unless the product is food, water or air, the people who want a thing are a minority. So this is not even remotely a useful measure of success.

Not in the least. I'm not sure how you could even have this opinion given world events.

It is not a renewable energy source. Nor is there really such a thing.

The natural energy sources (not by the way renewable) that you mention, wind, sea and sun are really just different physical manifestation of energy we get from the sun. There is no rational way you can call them renewable. At best they can be considered continuos source of energy around our current time frame. By the way some of that energy is also tidal but I will maintain that without the sun there isn't enough tidal energy to keep the earth warm enough for us to worry about.

Either way the fact remains the energy that we get from these sources is finite at any point in time and is not renewable. If we surrounded the entire planet with solar cells there is still a limit to how much energy that could be derived from such an installation. Even then the energy output of the sun is variable so your globe surrounding solar panel still wouldn't put out a constant amount of Power.

It very well can be. Especially if you don't know where those vegetables come from. In any case from the stand point of an impact on the environment it is a horrible approach to feeding oneself. people would be far better off growing what they need as much as possible.

This is not to say that everybody can feed themselves 100% off the land. What I'm saying is that relying upon the supermarket for ever calorie of your needs isn't exactly healthy either. The biggest factor there being the impact upon the environment of moving those good all over the globe.

Have you ever left your house or apartment and spent real time in the wild? If you do you will realize just how truly stupid that statement is.
{quote]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfFwgPuEdSk

I wasn't saying that design is the goal btw, the point was about dependence.

[/QUOTE]

I'm not trying to be a pain here but the term renewable energy has become a buzz word that I'm no longer comfortable with. There is to much ignorance associated with it and frankly I'm no longer comfortable with it.

While it may currently be impractical to surround the globe with solar cells, there is not enough land area to supply our needs and not impact the environment. That doesn't mean we should dismiss the use of solar energy by the way, it is just that it won't in a practical fashion power our economy into the future. We need a more balanced approach.


Dave

I think it's time you put up some numbers Marvin.

How many is "great numbers"?

Which begs the question... how long before we can call the iPad, Apple's next cube?

I thought the AppleTV was the next cube.

Apple has been successful (in part) for two reasons (IMO); 1) in some instances they have been innovative, and 2) in some instances they took existing ideas and made them into products people actually wanted to use when compared to previous attempts. It is not necessary for Apple to invent an entirely new way to work with the iPad, they need only find a way to make work something people want to do on the device when other such ventures fell short.

I think this is true in any market. Sometimes innovation is successful and sometimes mere implementation is successful. Apple has a way of making products that work the way that quite a few people want things to work where others have failed. I also think that Apple understands their products won't please everyone. Apple can withstand the naysayers as their track record taken in whole demonstrates.

One article I read that I tend to agree with is that many folks who look negatively at the iPad are focusing on the hardware and what they perceive as insurmountable deficiencies. What is more likely to be the key to the success of the iPad is the app development. One indicator to possible success in that area was the sharp increase in demand for the SDK after the iPad was announced. It would appear that many developers are very interested in what they can do with the "bigger Touch". I'm sure for the most part they are not doing this out of the kindness of their hearts, they are doing it because they smell scent of green paper in the air. While I concede this does not automatically spell success for the iPad, I am frequently more willing to put weight towards the judgment of those who are actually willing to risk something (in this case developing time and resources) rather than those who have nothing to lose.

I suspect that many people who are against or are reluctant to buy an iPad now may very well change their minds later when more apps are available to demonstrate whether or not it truly has broader practical uses.

Nope that was and is AIR. For much the same reasons as The Cube too!


Dave

The ipod is not a redundant device though as it fills the exclusive role of an MP3 player. The TV is for media content etc. Do you buy an iPad for computing? No, you have a computer. Do you buy it for music? No, you can't put it in your pocket. You have books and browsing but you get the former on the ipod/iphone (I read books on mine) and browsing is done on both.

As Jobs said during the keynote, it's only reason to exist is if it does things better than a mobile and a laptop.

It really just offers a different way to do the same tasks. Now you may say, well people have portable TVs and HDTVs at the same time; bicycles and cars. I would say, how many people use both to the extent it justifies having both?

Some people expect the iPad will draw people away from the traditional computer most of the time and that may well be. I think that if you have to manage the content on the computer anyway and be productive, the iPad has a much lesser role.


Every single person I've ever known with an ipod (and I'd like to be exaggerating here) has asked me how to get music off it onto another computer. A significant number of people I know upload content to the internet (which can't yet be done on iphone OS). Everyone I know manages their digital content and none sync photos to a slave device for the purposes of viewing (they share them online with others, which again you can't currently do with iphone OS and you can't compress/crop them either).


You could say that about the set-top box market.


I don't think so. A netbook is a slower computer (faster than a powerbook though) and an iPad is a faster ipod. You can't manage a mobile device or your content using an iPad. People buy netbooks as their only master device and it costs less than an iPad.


There's also no rational way you can call a blowjob a blowjob but go figure. It's renewable (that is to say it won't run out) for as long as it needs to be, which is many thousands of generations away from us.


I did that in another thread. The netbook market is 35m units per year. The ebook reader market is 3 million. I'd say under 3 million in the first year is Cube status. The iphone only sold 6 million in the first year so the success rate has to be determined a long way down the line. If it replaced a netbook by being a master device, I think 15 million would be a reasonable target.

That's not really how I like to rate success though - I don't benefit from a company's profits so it doesn't matter how many they sell. Nintendo sell a lot of Wii's and DS's but I have no respect for the products. Microsoft sell a lot of copies of Windows but I have no respect for that product. Youtube and eBay are successful websites but I have little respect for them. This isn't just some ideological viewpoint, people have the same view without realising what it means.

If there was a product on Amazon and a product on eBay at the same price, which would you buy? Obviously the one on Amazon because you have more respect for that retailer. If you were asked to view either HBO or Youtube for an evening's entertainment, you'd go with HBO because you assume it has better content. Even if Apple sells 10 million+ iPads in the first year, if it fails to find a reason to be, it's not a respectable product.

Apple's view of success is wrong. Look at the App Store and you can see in the top 10 an app called Sex Positions (good job cleaning up the store) with over 10,000 ratings of 1/5 and Apple are putting this in their chart recommending it to people. It's popular but people aren't happy with it. Just because people buy the iPad and own it, if they don't find a use for it, then the product isn't a success. Taking the Wii as an example, people use it 30-50% as much as people use the XBox 360. That is a more important measure IMO than the Wii selling twice as much.

The iPad hands-on demos look pretty good:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5GMlP326Vs

but a few things to note. Maps look cool but are mostly pointless because unless you get the 3G model (and pay another fee as well as your phone), you can't load them where you go. Photos look great on the IPS screen but if you can't just dump a folder on and arrange them and take them off again, it's a useless feature. People just don't sync albums to devices for viewing and the iapps sync uncompressed photos to the mobiles anyway so they waste tons of space (not to mention they aren't just copies of your original files). The browser is nice but why did they do a thumb view for multiple pages and not tabs like a desktop browser? Movies still won't be cached either so you have to start downloading the movie again once it's finished playing. Plus although I agree with removing Flash, there is a lot of Flash video online I'd be missing out on. There's loads of apps certainly but they are designed for the iphone so don't scale up well.

Despite the pixel-doubling graphics, I just don't think games are going to go over too well either. Here's Monkey Ball on the iPad. I think the controls are terrible:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cxs-yY0jRrc

Music maybe ok but your itunes library is on your computer and you can't rename, delete, sort your music. You can watch movies but itunes content only. Sure you can use iwork but everyone else uses Office and it will screw up the formatting in some documents.

It can be improved and it will be over time. I'm sure it will be a fun device to use and it's head and shoulders above ebook readers but I see no harm in it being a master device with a few tweaks and being the only computer a huge number of people will ever need. My grandparents and parents (in fact most of my computer illiterate relatives) would have loved this device but without a computer, it's worthless. They don't need a computer to use their TV.


It runs iphone apps though so you're really just going to see the same limited apps with bigger interfaces. No doubt there will be one or two great apps for it. RAM is one aspect of the device that's important and still unknown. I'd guess 512MB and this will limit what apps can do.

I think the discussing has drifted off the original question about multiple log ins. However that is good because I think the discussing highlights a few issues that demonstrate a disconnect between what Apple thinks of the device and what a few here see.

First off; iPad is NOT a laptop replacement in any manner shape or form. It is very much a single person / user device. Pretty much in the mold of a Touch. Thus I highly doubt there will be multiple user support.

As to being a device that is only usable in conjunction with another PC or laptop it may look that way right now but long term it is not a given. A few more APIs and firming up rumors about current behaviour could change many opinions about the device.

Taking what we currently know though the device is more capable than many in this thread imply. The ability to create documents is there. Further smart integration with Mobile Me is likely to be more useful than people give credit to. For many people, far more than a small minority, the iPad could be a very useful primary computing device. Likewise I can see somepeople using it more than their current hardware.

It all depends upon the user. For people constantly on the go though iPad could end up being a revelation. Still there are many unanswered questions about iPads real capabilities thus to much speculation about it's potential for success. On the other hand peoplerun businesses on clearly less powerful devices so who knows.

All is not perfect though, one perplexing thing is the aspect ratio of the device and it's overall size. It is pretty clear that Apple doesn't see this device as a video iPod. Whatever Apples intended market it is clear that many want iPad to be a device that Apple isn't targetting. Once we understand better Apples marketing intentions we will be able to understand how it succeeds or fails.



Dave