or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple iPad to arrive in U.S. on April 3, preorders begin March 12
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple iPad to arrive in U.S. on April 3, preorders begin March 12 - Page 5

post #161 of 186
April 3rd is my birthday! I'm gonna surprise myself. hehe Can't wait!

anyway, I feel the iPad has a good chance mostly due to it's great starting price. To me, I think it'll be great, much more portable than a laptop for around the house to use on the couch, at the kitchen table, ah-hem in the bathroom -reading magazine sites, newspapers, or reading code. I also believe it'll make it's way into the school markets, and scientific and medical fields.
post #162 of 186
I think I want an iPad as soo as it is available here in the Netherlands (which it will be pretty soon after the US launch). But there is one thing stopping me. I am uncertain about security/privacy. How well protected is the iPad against use by others? If I read my mail on it, can anybody who has access to the device read my mail ((etc) without having to enter a password?

Thanks,
post #163 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Lastly, the iPhone itself is a much smaller device than the iPad and it has very narrow bezels on the sides. To argue that a larger device needs wider bezels seems a bit off to me. The idea that it works on the iPhone (and it does quite handily), but that scaling the device up to twice it's size leaves the side bezel as "too small," and necessitates making it wider doesn't make a lot of sense IMO.

The only possible argument in favour of that I can think of is that the weight of the thing precludes holding it in a similar manner to the iPhone (using the edge of your thumb), but it simply isn't that heavy. In fact it's one of the lightest computers out there.

Um, the center of gravity on an iPad relative to your palm is totally different from that of an iPhone. Yeah, you can hold it that way there but push on the screen with any bit of force and watch $500 fly quickly into the ground.
post #164 of 186
"At that price, I am going to buy one just to fool around with and it is more of a want than a need."

Nobody needs an iPad. You didn't need an iPad this time last year and you don't now. Advertising isn't about needs, it's about wants.

Having said that, I'll be popping out to buy one just as soon as I can but just remember why you're doing it. :-)
post #165 of 186
I'm getting used to the bezel from a practicality point of view, as you point out. You need to be able to grip it. Most of the science-fiction movies and Internet tablet mockups never really took into account "grip area" you need for holding it and manipulating it. In any case I won't see an iPad 'till maybe end of April or even May, in my country...

Quote:
Originally Posted by piot View Post

God I am fed up with all this BezelBullShit!

And have you even taken your "artist's eye" to an art gallery? Ever seen an oil painting in a big frame? Or a framed photographic print surrounded by ivory coloured mounting board?

I don't think the bezel is ugly. And the "practical" reasons for it far outweigh some people's artistic sensitivities.

How are you going to hold it? Remember, the screen is basically one giant button! How are you going to hold it when you turn it around? When you pass it to someone? When you pick it up from the coffee table?

How much "stuff" is inside an iPad. How much "stuff" will you have to remove if you lose 20% of the space by knocking a few millimetres from every side?

Are you making this up as you go along? The iPhone fits in one hand. In fact it' fits in the just the palm of your hand. It's really easy to hold the iPhone in one hand and not even touch the black bezel. Portrait and landscape. Try that with an iPad!

But the iPad isn't twice the size of the iPhone. It's about 6 times the size.... and 5 times the weight. It's a completely different ergonomic problem.

TRY THIS.

Hold an iPhone in both hands.
Landscape format with one thumb over the home button... and the other over the earpiece.
Hold it away from you... normal reading distance.
Now take one hand away.....
How far is your skin from the touch screen?

Now imagine your iPhone is much bigger and heavier.

In defence of the bezel police... I think people will need to hold the damn thing before they can understand what's going on. The pictures don't tell the whole story.
post #166 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronster View Post

With the WiFi+3G hardware being released in Canada, which Canadian network will support it? Does Rogers or Bell / Telus support the Micro SIM hardware?

I haven't seen any announcements from them on supporting the iPad 3G.

It wouldn't surprise me that they wouldn't.

I have found Rogers quite accommodating. Great service, speed and support.

Interesting, just got back from the U.S. and got this:

Quote:
New Rogers plan scraps data roaming fee in US

Rogers on Tuesday became a rarity among North American carriers by potentially eliminating roaming fees on its data plans. The North America One Rate plans treat all data usage on smartphones or modems in the US as though they were part of the customer's regular use in Canada; customers only pay for roaming if they go beyond the plan's existing transfer cap.

http://www.electronista.com/articles...ame.as.canada/

More info on Rogers Travel with Your Phone page: http://www.rogers.com/web/content/ad...0110-_-roaming
post #167 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

I'm getting used to the bezel from a practicality point of view, as you point out. You need to be able to grip it. Most of the science-fiction movies and Internet tablet mockups never really took into account "grip area" you need for holding it and manipulating it.(

They could have put a big honkin' handle on one corner I've seen it done that way in some movies but then it wouldn't be able to be turned in any direction you like.
post #168 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by yesiCan View Post

My hat gets tipped to anyone and everyone who buys a $500 16Gb Wifi iDevice.
May you not complain in 6 months when the price drops.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

It's 1024x768. Technically, HD is 720p or over, no?

It needs to be 16:9 to be HD. At that aspect ratio, the pad will not display 720p.
post #169 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius View Post

It needs to be 16:9 to be HD. At that aspect ratio, the pad will not display 720p.

It's funny how 'HD" slides so often.

I have a feeling that you don't actually mean 16:9, but a ratio that has at least 1280px on the horizontal line and 720px on the vertical. Meaning, I think you'd say a 16:10 ratio is also HD so long as it can fit a 1280x720 video onscreen without scaling down.

If we're going to start focusing on the display width perhaps we should start referring to the other value since having 720p or more pixels means nothing.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #170 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

It's funny how 'HD" slides so often.

As nearly as I can tell, there's no actual, official standard for HD. It's a rat's nest of different ratios and resolutions.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #171 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Personally the 3G models of the iPad mystify me. I just don't see the need for a device of this type to be always online considering the cost of the service. I'm already paying exorbitant cell fees for the phone, why would anyone pay an extra fifteen bucks a month just to be able to download the latest newspaper that one time they forgot to sync?

I suspect I represent less than 1% of the population (statistic pulled out of thin air), but I don't have a mobile phone and no plans to get one.

So, for me the 3GiPad is excellent providing the usefulness of on-the-go internet and I just keep my iPod touch in my jacket pocket. Brilliant.
post #172 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

As nearly as I can tell, there's no actual, official standard for HD. It's a rat's nest of different ratios and resolutions.

It really isn't. There are two sizes: 720p HD (1280x720) and 1080i/p HD (1920x1080). That's it, and they're both the same 16x9 ratio. Ideally, it would be more complicated than that, because compression type and bitrate makes more a difference than pixel resolution and content providers aren't held to anything beyond those two resolutions noted above when advertising their "HD" content.
post #173 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

It really isn't. There are two sizes: 720p HD (1280x720) and 1080i/p HD (1920x1080). That's it, and they're both the same 16x9 ratio. Ideally, it would be more complicated than that, because compression type and bitrate makes more a difference than pixel resolution and content providers aren't held to anything beyond those two resolutions noted above when advertising their "HD" content.

So you don't count the 27" iMac as HD?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #174 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

It really isn't. There are two sizes: 720p HD (1280x720) and 1080i/p HD (1920x1080). That's it, and they're both the same 16x9 ratio. Ideally, it would be more complicated than that, because compression type and bitrate makes more a difference than pixel resolution and content providers aren't held to anything beyond those two resolutions noted above when advertising their "HD" content.

That's three at least. I don't think anyone is held to anything, judging by what I see on the TV.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #175 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capnbob View Post

...
2) As a multipurpose device its aspect ratio is designed for other uses too - books - better in the paper 4x3 ratio, web pages also better
3) Most netbooks (the unnatural competition) have 1024x600 - some of the worst screens I have ever seen and an absolutely horrific ratio for looking at anything except a widescreen movie

Yes, about the only thing a 16x9 ratio is useful for is watching movies. For any type of actual computing, reading eBooks, and pretty much anything else I can think of it's a horrible aspect ratio, and it would have been utterly stupid for Apple to have made the iPad with a 16x9 aspect ration. The only reason this works on the iMac is that the screen is so large that it's like having two smaller monitors hooked up but without the division between them.
post #176 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Heck it wasn't even traditional Libertarian but simply modern economic Libertarianism. Try telling the average modern American "Libertarian" that true libertarianism involves embracing people's right to be gay, do drugs, and opt out of military duty and see what happens.

Libertarianism is the most convoluted, logically inconsistent political philosophy known to man. Following its basic premises to their logical conclusion leads to anarchy and a dissolution of all social contract, and a life for most that is as Hobbes pointed out, "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

To avoid these obvious and unpleasant consequences, libertarians begin making arbitrary exceptions and distinctions regarding when the state should and should not exert it's influence. A common one is defense against threats, external and criminal, but, oddly, their view of criminal always seems to favor the wealthy and threats of, for example, companies threatening the general populace with pollution or unsafe products are off limits for many libertarians. The whole libertarian "intellectual" edifice is nothing but an sophisticated sham aimed at protecting the rights of the powerful and wealthy against the "rabble".

No truly rational person can sincerely declare himself a libertarian, since the entire basis of libertarianism is entirely irrational. The teabaggers, many of whom are simply racists hiding behind the tea party so they can oppose Obama without being called out for their real reasons, and many who are simply so unintelligent that they think they can have a stable, functioning society without a sufficient tax base or a sufficiently empowered government, are "libertarians" devoid of all intellectual pretense, and devoid of all common sense.

But, are there not plenty of things to worry about in the US in regard to government power? There certainly are, but most of these things, like the trampling of constitutional rights by the patriot act and the pro-wealth/anti-individual leanings of the current supreme court are the legacy of the right wing over the last 30 years in this country. Socialism, is definitely not what we need to be worried about.
post #177 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

So you don't count the 27" iMac as HD?

You could say that the 27" iMac is capable of displaying full 1080p content since the screen resolution actually exceeds 1920x1080 considerably but that doesn't make 2560 x 1440 (the 27" iMac's screen resolution) an HD format.
post #178 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

You could say that the 27" iMac is capable of displaying full 1080p content since the screen resolution actually exceeds 1920x1080 considerably but that doesn't make 2560 x 1440 (the 27" iMac's screen resolution) an HD format.

You don't see how your definition of 'HD' is simply your definition and not an industry definition? How what you claim to be canon is simply what is the typical definition among HDTVs? Or how HD typically only refers to the vertical pixel count, not the ratio? You can make up new definitions that suit your needs but that does make them right.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #179 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You don't see how your definition of 'HD' is simply your definition and not an industry definition? How what you claim to be canon is simply what is the typical definition among HDTVs? Or how HD typically only refers to the vertical pixel count, not the ratio? You can make up new definitions that suit your needs but that does make them right.

Are you suggesting that the entire broadcast industry have based their specifications around my definition of HD?

720p and 1080p/i are broadcast standards. HD video/film is always produced and delivered in one of those two sizes. If the original content does not fit the 16:9 aspect, letterboxing or pillar-boxing is used so that it may still conform to those two — the only two — HD resolutions.
post #180 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

Are you suggesting that the entire broadcast industry have based their specifications around my definition of HD?

720p and 1080p/i are broadcast standards. HD video/film is always produced and delivered in one of those two sizes. If the original content does not fit the 16:9 aspect, letterboxing or pillar-boxing is used so that it may still conform to those two the only two HD resolutions.

You seem to be suggesting that, not me, with your rigid unwavering definition. You're also indirectly implying that if no "broadcast" that can be made to the display that it can't possible be HD. First you moved the 720p definition of 720 horizontal scan lines to actually refer to 1280 of vertical scan lines, that the ratio had to 16:9 9not less or more), and now you're saying that what broadcasters push is key. These are all factors to the image, but they not all included in the 720p definition.

I can find plenty of data that says 1024×768 is HD. I can also find info marketing plasmas with 1024x768 in both 16:9 using non-square pixels and 4:3 ratios as HD. As I stated previously, your definition is very limited and only correct within very strict confines. You've even stated that 27" iMac isn't High Definition, despite being considerably higher than your definition.

I think we should be using the definitions as they were intended without trying to complicate things. It won't be too long before 720p will be the low-end of TVs. It's unfortunate that the marketing term gets trumped up when it's so empty. Colloquially, you're right and that is what I'd expect from a non-technical discussion about '720p' but this isn't a non-technical forum about TVs.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #181 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You seem to be suggesting that, not me, with your rigid unwavering definition. You're also indirectly implying that if no "broadcast" that can be made to the display that it can't possible be HD. First you moved the 720p definition of 720 horizontal scan lines to actually refer to 1280 of vertical scan lines, that the ratio had to 16:9 9not less or more), and now you're saying that what broadcasters push is key. These are all factors to the image, but they not all included in the 720p definition.

I don't even know what you're blabbering on about. 720p is 1280x720, period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I can find plenty of data that says 1024×768 is HD. I can also find info marketing plasmas with 1024x768 in both 16:9 using non-square pixels and 4:3 ratios as HD. As I stated previously, your definition is very limited and only correct within very strict confines.

No, you can't. What you're looking at is cheap low-end televisions that stretch 1024x768 pixels to 16:9 and call it a 720p television. This doesn't mean that 1024x768 is HD; it means that cheap low-end "720p" televisions are deceiving, and cheap.


Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You've even stated that 27" iMac isn't High Definition, despite being considerably higher than your definition.

No, what I said was that the iMac could certainly display 1080p HD content, but you wouldn't advertise it as an HD screen because 2560x1440 is not one of the only two official HD resolutions. It's greater than HD. To call it an "HD" display would actually be underselling it's capabilities.


Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I think we should be using the definitions as they were intended without trying to complicate things. It won't be too long before 720p will be the low-end of TVs. It's unfortunate that the marketing term gets trumped up when it's so empty. Colloquially, you're right and that is what I'd expect from a non-technical discussion about '720p' but this isn't a non-technical forum about TVs.

720p is already reserved for low-end HDTVs, and has been for years. And again, 1280x720 is the only resolution that "720p" content can be. TV manufacturers being cheap and sneaky by stretching 1024x768 pixels into a 16:9 ratio and selling it under the guise of 720p doesn't change that.
post #182 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

I don't even know what you're blabbering on about.

Of course not, which is why you've failed to understand the problem of simply calling something 'HD' and thinking it has a specific, unwavering definition that is solely based on "broadcasters".
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #183 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Of course not, which is why you've failed to understand the problem of simply calling something 'HD' and thinking it has a specific, unwavering definition that is solely based on "broadcasters".

No, I don't understand what you're saying because you're not making any sense. I think you're trying to argue semantics with me now taking the "if something is larger than 1080p then it too is 'high' in definition" approach while I'm pointing out that High Definition®© as it pertains to film and video is only one of two possible resolutions. Like calling every MP3 player an "iPod", using High Definition as a broad general term referring to images and screens with a dense pixel resolution is incorrect.
post #184 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

No, I don't understand what you're saying because you're not making any sense. I think you're trying to argue semantics with me now — taking the "if something is larger than 1080p then it too is 'high' in definition" approach — while I'm pointing out that High Definition®©™ as it pertains to film and video is only one of two possible resolutions. Like calling every MP3 player an "iPod", using High Definition as a broad general term referring to images and screens with a dense pixel resolution is incorrect.

Again, you're focusing on content from television broadcasters as the only definition and usage for HD. It's been used for computer monitors and cameras for a long time and it's not a strict 16:9 ratio encompassing 1920x1080 or 1280x720. There are cameras, monitors and TVs(read: have tuners) that are 16:10 that are HD. And as I previously stated there are even plasma HDTVs that are 16x9 that are 1024x768 with non-square pixels and even 4:3 ratios with square pixels.

Back on topic, video compression techniques make the marketing term "HD" completely pointless. check out a 1080p video from YouTube and a 1080p Blu-ray movie on the same monitor and you'll see what I mean.

PS: I don't recall the "High Definition" being Registered & Unregistered Trademarks or Copyrighted.

edit: The first few pargraphs of this wikipage explain it nicely...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #185 of 186
The revolution is about to begin and you people are arguing over the definition of high definition. Ridiculous! The only thing that matters is this: Do your movies and pictures look good when you are looking at them on the display. That's it! The rest is just mental masturbation for geeks.

Let the revolution begin!
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
post #186 of 186
Agreed. Resolution Smesolution. Everyone runs around claiming 1080p as God, but the fact is that there is much more to the equation than that. Besides, most movies aren't shot or presented in pure 16x9 anyways. 16x9 = 1.78:1. Panavision is 2.2:1 and Cinemascope's Anamorphic Widescreen is 2.35:1. That's why you still get letterboxing on a 16:9 "HD" television.

Honestly, the quality of the image depends much more on the quality of the transfer and the encoding than on the number of lines of resolution on your screen. I've watched many 720p movies on my 50" 1080p plasma that blow the pants off of a poorly transferred or encoded 1080p film.

For a decent discussion of aspect ratios, read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

A real question: Do preorders start at midnight, or in the morning?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple iPad to arrive in U.S. on April 3, preorders begin March 12