Hahah, yes yes yes! I told you guys. Verizon is no where near Apple now. I believe this is the wiesist choice, and smartest. This is obviously a clue that iPhone isn't coming to Verizon! Happy birthcrap for you Verizon fan boys!! you can go suck it. And congratulations Apple, you now have my blessing!
I think it's still a good bet that Verizon gets in this fall, if they want to at the price Apple is asking. I believe Apple is waiting for availability of some recently announced chips that can handle CDMA and GSM. Apple finds the current method of making a worldwide phone to exceed the amount of space they want to allocate to it.
With the absolutely unusable (AT&T) 3G service in NYC I couldn't endorse either of these over 3G, and having my phone conversation die because I walked away from a WiFi hotspot is just unacceptable.
Also this device seems to be running iPhone OS -- no multitasking. Using Skype or Google Voice means I can't browse the web while on the phone. Another deal-breaker for me...
As an iPhone user, should I really have to pay another $30 for an additional device. This is getting ridiculous. I already pay AT&T for internet at home and on my iPhone. Now I have to pay another $30 a month for the iPad?
I order for people to afford buying these gadgets, there needs to be one plan for all you internet connected devices. Period.
So the family that has 6 wireless devices like the iPhone and iPad should pay no more than the person who has only one?
With the absolutely unusable (AT&T) 3G service in NYC I couldn't endorse either of these over 3G, and having my phone conversation die because I walked away from a WiFi hotspot is just unacceptable.
Also this device seems to be running iPhone OS -- no multitasking. Using Skype or Google Voice means I can't browse the web while on the phone. Another deal-breaker for me...
Isn't multitasking rumored to come in an (eventual) iPhone OS upgrade?
At least there's a wifi-only version. I see it as an around the house or school tool - where wifi is generally available. Still have the iphone for on-the-go connectivity.
As a shareholder, I can appreciate how Apple designed the iPad just so, so that people would still need an iPhone and a Mac, and still have a reason to buy another one next year. So no camera (back or front), no GPS, no 1080p HD (on screen or video out), no Mac apps, no third-party multitasking.
But as a consumer/user, I really wish Apple would put more stuff in it so I only need to buy one thing (or at most two).
I agree 100%. i'm in the same situation. ATT was complaining not long ago how the iPhone is a data hog. . . now the iPad. will they be able to keep up?
The iPad will not sell anywhere near as well as the iPhone. Not even close. As the iPad is not quite the "portable" device that the iPhone is I expect a larger percentage of iPad traffic will be over wifi (evidenced in part by the versions that don't even include 3g capabilities), as opposed to the carry everywhere use of the iPhone. I also expect many like myself will use the iPhone much less for data, deferring to the iPad.
This is just silly, I just read last week that AT&T was starting to quietly pass the blame on their terrible service to problems with the iPhone. The iPad looks pretty epic, I'd like to get my hands on one, but again... Apple has dropped the ball and missed out by going with AT&T over the big red V.
As an iPhone user, should I really have to pay another $30 for an additional device?
AT&T thinks so.
On another note, I'm kind of disappointed that the iPad isn't coming with a dual-band chip. That really would be the ultimate unlocked device. Although I own and use an iPhone, I am a fan of Verizon. For those here that are telling me to go suck it because Apple stuck with AT&T (or AT&T begged Apple to stay?), I find that amusing seeing as how it was AT&T that not oh-so long ago complained that iPhone users were hogging bandwidth and crippling its network due to so-called excessive 3G use. And now AT&T is throwing its arms open to yet another 3G intensive device from Apple. Hmmm.
I like the two plan option, one for rare often emergency use of only 250MB for $15 and another unlimited for $30. Think that is a good idea.
Me too. It's tempting me to buy the 3G version instead of the wifi version. Then it could be easily used by a passenger in a car. Altho it's possible to get a MiFi that could be shared among multiple iPad/iPod touch users in a car. Anyone have a MiFi who could report on how well it works?
Quote:
Also it seems Apple has introduced it's own processor and graphics chip, so this will be interesting. Also it gives Apple a very nice hardware lock, something they lost when they had to switch from hot PPC's to Intel processors.
The open question is how much better is the A4 than a Snapdragon or ARM. Does it use less power? Or is it faster? Or both? And in the longer run, can Apple invest enough resources to out-innovate others since its processors are being used by a limited set of products, though no doubt the next iPhone and iPod touch will use Apple Ax chips.
Quote:
Oh, no SD slot and no USB port. The only way to get content on it is from the device itself or via another computer.
No iSight cam or camera, means no video or taking pictures. No visible way to get the pictures to the device via a camera.
The Apple website shows an iPod camera connection kit that provides either a USB port or an SD slot. But yes, no taking pictures or video; Jobs probably thought it would look dumb for someone to hold this up to take a picture/video.
Quote:
I say this is a first test issue device, later ones will reveal what people are going to do with the device and more features added later.
Also it's a closed and limited box, people are going to have to accept that, a tough sell as well.
Apple left a lot to still be done - not sure if this is because they weren't ready or if they didn't sign up partners or what. As of today, they stayed within their lane (see apps including iWork) for the most part instead of getting into further innovation for newspapers and magazines. They used the open epub standard and provided an additional set of multitouch gestures; just the tools to let others (or Apple) to work out a better way to design "printed" media.
Also it seems Apple has introduced it's own processor and graphics chip, so this will be interesting. Also it gives Apple a very nice hardware lock, something they lost when they had to switch from hot PPC's to Intel processors.
Oh, no SD slot and no USB port. The only way to get content on it is from the device itself or via another computer.
No iSight cam or camera, means no video or taking pictures. No visible way to get the pictures to the device via a camera.
Also it's a closed and limited box, people are going to have to accept that, a tough sell as well.
This is not entirely accurate. First, Apple is a fab-less ARM design licensee. Their license grants them the write to make proprietary design changes to the reference ARM designs as is the case with many other developers, but the underlying core design and technology is very much ARM. Although Apple is calling their chip the "A4" it is likely based on a goosed-up version of the Cortex A8 (iPhone 3GS) or A9 (multi-core/multi-thread capable). Additionally, Apple holds a small but significant stake in PowerVR which makes the SGX graphics core for the iPod touch and iPhones. There is no reason for Apple to use anything else at this point. So we can also assume that a PowerVR graphics core (unmodified) is either integrated into the A4 SoC, or sits on its own on the board.
To the issue of camera connectivity, if you look at Apple's spec page for the iPad, you will see that they are offering a camera connectivity kit specifically to address the lack of USB and SD card slot. I can imagine plenty of people who will never have use for it on a mobile device and will simply wait to get home to load their photos on their computer. But for those who want that functionality, the kit provides two adapters that plug into the 30-pin dock connector in the iPad. One allows you to hook up a camera directly using its USB cable, while the other is basically an SD-card reader on 30-pin connector so that you can bypass the camera itself. Photos can then be transferred directly into the Photos app.
This is clearly an advantage of using OS X as the basis for the iPhone OS, since you don't need to re-engineer the functionality of camera connectivity. It's already there, and you avoid the complexities of needing to make specific drivers for every iteration of camera out there. My hope is to see Apple extend this adapter's functionality to the iPhone an iPod touch in the next software update. It only seems logical. But it should also serve as a reminder that there is a lot of untapped functionality that can be added to the iPhone OS should Apple decide to do so.
Finally, my $0.02 on this product is that Apple is on the right track. Yes, there was nothin earth shattering today, certainly not on the level of the original iPhone. However, if you pay attention to where Apple is going with this, they are focusing on the core mobile experience; NOT computing. It has a more than capable web browser and now in an easier to use 9.7" screen. It plays music and videos, reads newspapers and textbooks and novels, etc. None of these functions requires an optical drive, a physical keyboard, or a trackpad, or even a 13"/15"/17" screen. You just need something big enough to use for these purposes without the extra weight and heft of all the unnecessary "stuff" on a full funtion laptop/desktop. And Jobs is right, this is the job that netbooks attempted to accomplish, and in many ways, even the new slate (no pun intended) of tablet devices from other manufacturers are attempting to bring a desktop-like computing experience to a tablet form. But yet again, Apple has demonstrated that what people are looking for in the mobile space is a streamlined and highly focused device that handles the majority of core mobile functions exceptionally well.
I know some people disagree, but to me, this device really does make sense.
P.S. I don't recall a single mention of McGraw-Hill during the presentation. Hahahaha!
Are the micro-SIM's just the cut-down SIM cards that you use in the dual-SIM adapters? If so, you should be able to cut-down your SIM card yourself (say from iPhone), and just put it in one of the sleves to use in your phone. Makes purchase of the 3G iPad a no-brainer... just need a place to store the SIM-Removal pin.
The open question is how much better is the A4 than a Snapdragon or ARM. Does it use less power? Or is it faster? Or both? And in the longer run, can Apple invest enough resources to out-innovate others since its processors are being used by a limited set of products, though no doubt the next iPhone and iPod touch will use Apple Ax chips.
Actually the A4, like the Snapdragon is based on ARM processors which are licensed chip designs, I'm guessing Cortex A8. Apple used their in-house chip designers P.A. Semi which they bought a couple years ago to design the A4 to their exact specifications. So it is an ARM through and through, it's just got Apple's special sauce in there
Actually the A4, like the Snapdragon is based on ARM processors which are licensed chip designs, I'm guessing Cortex A8. Apple used their in-house chip designers P.A. Semi which they bought a couple years ago to design the A4 to their exact specifications. So it is an ARM through and through, it's just got Apple's special sauce in there
True. But do you think Apple is introducing a fork? Or is everything in that special sauce going to be as easily applied to the next major ARM update, let's say the A10? If it needs to be modified for an A10, I hope it doesn't take a long time.
Apple used to design many chips for its earlier Macs (that weren't used in PCs), but over time, they've moved away from that to take advantage of economies of scale.
Personally, on the surface, I like the PA Semi move for it allows Apple to differentiate and put more distance between them and competitors. But I don't know enough to know the full cost-benefit of this move.
How prevalent is Free WiFi in the US? Would one really need 3G data connection with a provider AT&T or otherwise?
MacDonalds, Burger King, Panera Bread, Starbucks, most public libraries, most turnpike rest areas, many other restaurants, some airports, Apple Stores, some shopping malls, Amtrak trains, a few airlines, some train stations.
I've found 3G useful when in a car (as a passenger), waiting in a car (for other passengers), waiting for performances/shows/movies to start (theatres, schools, conservatories, etc), waiting in airports/shopping malls (those that are not free).
Comments
Hahah, yes yes yes!
I think it's still a good bet that Verizon gets in this fall, if they want to at the price Apple is asking. I believe Apple is waiting for availability of some recently announced chips that can handle CDMA and GSM. Apple finds the current method of making a worldwide phone to exceed the amount of space they want to allocate to it.
So no to Skype or Google phone app?
With the absolutely unusable (AT&T) 3G service in NYC I couldn't endorse either of these over 3G, and having my phone conversation die because I walked away from a WiFi hotspot is just unacceptable.
Also this device seems to be running iPhone OS -- no multitasking. Using Skype or Google Voice means I can't browse the web while on the phone. Another deal-breaker for me...
Comes unlocked. Just put whatever SIM card you want in it and you're connected. Couldn't be easier.
(Oh and I think its just a regular SIM, not micro sim like this article claims)
Apple specifically referred to a GSM microsim. So for now, that's a barrier.
As an iPhone user, should I really have to pay another $30 for an additional device. This is getting ridiculous. I already pay AT&T for internet at home and on my iPhone. Now I have to pay another $30 a month for the iPad?
I order for people to afford buying these gadgets, there needs to be one plan for all you internet connected devices. Period.
So the family that has 6 wireless devices like the iPhone and iPad should pay no more than the person who has only one?
What if I live somewhere where there is no 3G will it run Edge then?
I believe it will. The specs specifically mention GSM/EDGE and UMTS/HSPDA.
With the absolutely unusable (AT&T) 3G service in NYC I couldn't endorse either of these over 3G, and having my phone conversation die because I walked away from a WiFi hotspot is just unacceptable.
Also this device seems to be running iPhone OS -- no multitasking. Using Skype or Google Voice means I can't browse the web while on the phone. Another deal-breaker for me...
Isn't multitasking rumored to come in an (eventual) iPhone OS upgrade?
Isn't multitasking rumored to come in an (eventual) iPhone OS upgrade?
I read that a week or so ago. Multitasking is really needed now, especially on the iPad...IMHO.
At least there's a wifi-only version. I see it as an around the house or school tool - where wifi is generally available. Still have the iphone for on-the-go connectivity.
As a shareholder, I can appreciate how Apple designed the iPad just so, so that people would still need an iPhone and a Mac, and still have a reason to buy another one next year. So no camera (back or front), no GPS, no 1080p HD (on screen or video out), no Mac apps, no third-party multitasking.
But as a consumer/user, I really wish Apple would put more stuff in it so I only need to buy one thing (or at most two).
I agree 100%. i'm in the same situation. ATT was complaining not long ago how the iPhone is a data hog. . . now the iPad. will they be able to keep up?
The iPad will not sell anywhere near as well as the iPhone. Not even close. As the iPad is not quite the "portable" device that the iPhone is I expect a larger percentage of iPad traffic will be over wifi (evidenced in part by the versions that don't even include 3g capabilities), as opposed to the carry everywhere use of the iPhone. I also expect many like myself will use the iPhone much less for data, deferring to the iPad.
As an iPhone user, should I really have to pay another $30 for an additional device?
AT&T thinks so.
On another note, I'm kind of disappointed that the iPad isn't coming with a dual-band chip. That really would be the ultimate unlocked device. Although I own and use an iPhone, I am a fan of Verizon. For those here that are telling me to go suck it because Apple stuck with AT&T (or AT&T begged Apple to stay?), I find that amusing seeing as how it was AT&T that not oh-so long ago complained that iPhone users were hogging bandwidth and crippling its network due to so-called excessive 3G use. And now AT&T is throwing its arms open to yet another 3G intensive device from Apple. Hmmm.
I like the two plan option, one for rare often emergency use of only 250MB for $15 and another unlimited for $30. Think that is a good idea.
Me too. It's tempting me to buy the 3G version instead of the wifi version. Then it could be easily used by a passenger in a car. Altho it's possible to get a MiFi that could be shared among multiple iPad/iPod touch users in a car. Anyone have a MiFi who could report on how well it works?
Also it seems Apple has introduced it's own processor and graphics chip, so this will be interesting. Also it gives Apple a very nice hardware lock, something they lost when they had to switch from hot PPC's to Intel processors.
The open question is how much better is the A4 than a Snapdragon or ARM. Does it use less power? Or is it faster? Or both? And in the longer run, can Apple invest enough resources to out-innovate others since its processors are being used by a limited set of products, though no doubt the next iPhone and iPod touch will use Apple Ax chips.
Oh, no SD slot and no USB port. The only way to get content on it is from the device itself or via another computer.
No iSight cam or camera, means no video or taking pictures. No visible way to get the pictures to the device via a camera.
The Apple website shows an iPod camera connection kit that provides either a USB port or an SD slot. But yes, no taking pictures or video; Jobs probably thought it would look dumb for someone to hold this up to take a picture/video.
I say this is a first test issue device, later ones will reveal what people are going to do with the device and more features added later.
Also it's a closed and limited box, people are going to have to accept that, a tough sell as well.
Apple left a lot to still be done - not sure if this is because they weren't ready or if they didn't sign up partners or what. As of today, they stayed within their lane (see apps including iWork) for the most part instead of getting into further innovation for newspapers and magazines. They used the open epub standard and provided an additional set of multitouch gestures; just the tools to let others (or Apple) to work out a better way to design "printed" media.
Also it seems Apple has introduced it's own processor and graphics chip, so this will be interesting. Also it gives Apple a very nice hardware lock, something they lost when they had to switch from hot PPC's to Intel processors.
Oh, no SD slot and no USB port. The only way to get content on it is from the device itself or via another computer.
No iSight cam or camera, means no video or taking pictures. No visible way to get the pictures to the device via a camera.
Also it's a closed and limited box, people are going to have to accept that, a tough sell as well.
This is not entirely accurate. First, Apple is a fab-less ARM design licensee. Their license grants them the write to make proprietary design changes to the reference ARM designs as is the case with many other developers, but the underlying core design and technology is very much ARM. Although Apple is calling their chip the "A4" it is likely based on a goosed-up version of the Cortex A8 (iPhone 3GS) or A9 (multi-core/multi-thread capable). Additionally, Apple holds a small but significant stake in PowerVR which makes the SGX graphics core for the iPod touch and iPhones. There is no reason for Apple to use anything else at this point. So we can also assume that a PowerVR graphics core (unmodified) is either integrated into the A4 SoC, or sits on its own on the board.
To the issue of camera connectivity, if you look at Apple's spec page for the iPad, you will see that they are offering a camera connectivity kit specifically to address the lack of USB and SD card slot. I can imagine plenty of people who will never have use for it on a mobile device and will simply wait to get home to load their photos on their computer. But for those who want that functionality, the kit provides two adapters that plug into the 30-pin dock connector in the iPad. One allows you to hook up a camera directly using its USB cable, while the other is basically an SD-card reader on 30-pin connector so that you can bypass the camera itself. Photos can then be transferred directly into the Photos app.
This is clearly an advantage of using OS X as the basis for the iPhone OS, since you don't need to re-engineer the functionality of camera connectivity. It's already there, and you avoid the complexities of needing to make specific drivers for every iteration of camera out there. My hope is to see Apple extend this adapter's functionality to the iPhone an iPod touch in the next software update. It only seems logical. But it should also serve as a reminder that there is a lot of untapped functionality that can be added to the iPhone OS should Apple decide to do so.
Finally, my $0.02 on this product is that Apple is on the right track. Yes, there was nothin earth shattering today, certainly not on the level of the original iPhone. However, if you pay attention to where Apple is going with this, they are focusing on the core mobile experience; NOT computing. It has a more than capable web browser and now in an easier to use 9.7" screen. It plays music and videos, reads newspapers and textbooks and novels, etc. None of these functions requires an optical drive, a physical keyboard, or a trackpad, or even a 13"/15"/17" screen. You just need something big enough to use for these purposes without the extra weight and heft of all the unnecessary "stuff" on a full funtion laptop/desktop. And Jobs is right, this is the job that netbooks attempted to accomplish, and in many ways, even the new slate (no pun intended) of tablet devices from other manufacturers are attempting to bring a desktop-like computing experience to a tablet form. But yet again, Apple has demonstrated that what people are looking for in the mobile space is a streamlined and highly focused device that handles the majority of core mobile functions exceptionally well.
I know some people disagree, but to me, this device really does make sense.
P.S. I don't recall a single mention of McGraw-Hill during the presentation. Hahahaha!
The open question is how much better is the A4 than a Snapdragon or ARM.
Who cares? At least they didn't call it US Letter ....
The open question is how much better is the A4 than a Snapdragon or ARM. Does it use less power? Or is it faster? Or both? And in the longer run, can Apple invest enough resources to out-innovate others since its processors are being used by a limited set of products, though no doubt the next iPhone and iPod touch will use Apple Ax chips.
Actually the A4, like the Snapdragon is based on ARM processors which are licensed chip designs, I'm guessing Cortex A8. Apple used their in-house chip designers P.A. Semi which they bought a couple years ago to design the A4 to their exact specifications. So it is an ARM through and through, it's just got Apple's special sauce in there
Actually the A4, like the Snapdragon is based on ARM processors which are licensed chip designs, I'm guessing Cortex A8. Apple used their in-house chip designers P.A. Semi which they bought a couple years ago to design the A4 to their exact specifications. So it is an ARM through and through, it's just got Apple's special sauce in there
True. But do you think Apple is introducing a fork? Or is everything in that special sauce going to be as easily applied to the next major ARM update, let's say the A10? If it needs to be modified for an A10, I hope it doesn't take a long time.
Apple used to design many chips for its earlier Macs (that weren't used in PCs), but over time, they've moved away from that to take advantage of economies of scale.
Personally, on the surface, I like the PA Semi move for it allows Apple to differentiate and put more distance between them and competitors. But I don't know enough to know the full cost-benefit of this move.
How prevalent is Free WiFi in the US? Would one really need 3G data connection with a provider AT&T or otherwise?
MacDonalds, Burger King, Panera Bread, Starbucks, most public libraries, most turnpike rest areas, many other restaurants, some airports, Apple Stores, some shopping malls, Amtrak trains, a few airlines, some train stations.
I've found 3G useful when in a car (as a passenger), waiting in a car (for other passengers), waiting for performances/shows/movies to start (theatres, schools, conservatories, etc), waiting in airports/shopping malls (those that are not free).