What amazes me as an apple fan who prefered when everything was put together here in the US, is that just a week ago everyone was pleading for a non large iPod and in a way, that's what we got. How can this be Job's greatest prized possession, no way, at least "as-is" which angers me as the underground crew will make it super cool I bet, even better if it were OSX lite and we all know Apple will release a better version down the road, and we'll spend for it
this time, I'm waiting until rev 3 at least or at least see what's in the works with other companies have coming. Looks like cool stuff coming this way. I still think the MacBook pro is a great machine (express slot version for esata or 3rd party plug INS).
Your not well informed.
1. No Apple product is made in the US
2. OS X runs on the iPhone, it has the same kernel, but the OS presentation layers and application software are adapted for the iPhone.
3. The difference between Apples iPad and future tablets of other manufactures is not hardware only. The most important factor is software, like iPad versions of iWork and iLive. On the hardware front some companies are able to compete after a while, but software is another matter.
4. The product (iPad) isn't as is. It is evolving via software updates. The same hardware will have a lot more features in the future
I don't really get the AppleTV thing either. I want to believe its some sort of placeholder for yet another revolutionary product that changes the way we use media.
I'm hoping this A4 chip makes its way to the AppleTV.
The iPad and AppleTV seem to have started a similar way. Apple demonstrated it before it was ready for release, and planned on getting content partners heavily involved.
Unfortunately the content partners came later. The AppleTV was released without much content (and wouldn't play .avi files), and when rentals came it had already lost its shine. They finally released movie rentals (and dropped the AppleTV price simultaneously) but it was too late, I think, to take advantage of the RDF and actually get noticed.
You don't actually cook, do you? From a cooks point of view, a microwave is still a rather limited speciality device even now more than 40 years later. The microwave hasn't swept away the oven or the stove. It's great for warming things up, but for actually making stuff: the old school devices still rule roost.
Oddly enough, the "food geeks" in 1967 were probably interested in what they might get out of the original radar range. They just weren't unrealistic about it. They certainly weren't Amana brand partisans.
Part of these results show people losing interest in the iPad after they realize that it's not going to be what they imagined of it. Whip up the hype machine too much and some people are bound to be dissapointed in the end.
Without realising it, I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head for the iPad.
You're right, the microwave hasn't replaced the oven or the stove. But pretty much every household has one. It does a few key things better than either a stove or oven (does 'a few key things' sound familiar?).
In the same way, the iPad is clearly stated to not replace the laptop (oven) or smartphone (stove); but to sit somewhere in the middle. It's the people that have the lack of imagination to see how an appliance device that does a few key things well -- key things that are important to the average consumer -- can bring a real benefit.
Microwaves -- despite their limitations, and initial high price -- have been wildly succesful. I think the iPad will be too.
"Your typical netbook" isn't what the OP was comparing with the iPad. He siad that the iPad is better than any netbook on the market. I was wondering why he thinks that.
Now normally saying something like "isn't better than any netbook on the market" means that it isn't better than the worst netbook on the market.
For somebody whoe calls himself iGenius, you're not very bright, are you?
The touch also fits in your pocket, allowing it to transparently go wherever you go. The iPad needs a bag to lug around.
Which is why I have been considering the iPad as a complimentary device, as opposed to one that replaces any particular product in Apple's current range. This is a good thing for Apple on account of they will not experience a drastic drop in sales of other products, per se.
This is certainly why Apple has priced this product so aggressively, by Apple standards, even at this early stage. There is no way that the iPad could effectively replace a MacBook or desktop system unless, of course, you're talking about someone who uses a computer strictly to access the Internet and other similarly rudimentary tasks, in which case you wonder why the person was buying an Apple in the first place.
The iPad is in no way a replacement for an iPhone/Touch in that, as you point out, you can't just slip it in your pocket. I take my Touch with me to work which gives me something to tinker with during breaks. Stuck in a waiting room? The Touch, yes, the iPad, no chance.
But, if I'm puttering around the house and I want to read the morning paper or whatever, now the iPad heads to the top of the list. If I'm in the medical profession, the iPad fits. If I'm doing a keynote presentation, the iPad makes sense. Want the kids in the back seat to be entertained on that long road trip? The iPad. Want to show off the latest pics of the little ones to the proud grandparents? Definitely the iPad. Travelling abroad? An iPad would make a better companion than a laptop assuming one isn't trying to get any demanding work done on account of the iPad is more portable than a laptop with better battery life.
So the goal, I suspect, is to have households that have an iMac in the den, an iPhone in every pocket, so to speak, and an iPad or two floating around to round out the picture. Maybe it's not an iMac. Perhaps it's a Mini or maybe a laptop or even somebody else's computer. Regardless, the iPad is being designed as a compliment.
It's not a go-anywhere, do-anything device on account of such a thing can't be done without serious compromises.
The Touch is a marvelous device. I own one and am delighted with it. But the screen is far too small for many activities. The iPad brings big-screen glory to the handheld realm and while some seem to think this is a very small thing, I believe this is a big deal. If this isn't revolutionary enough for many, too bad. Something truly revolutionary would be exceedingly expensive and unable to gain a foothold in the current weak economic climate. I'm sure Steve Jobs believes he is making a difference in people's lives but he's still responsible for ensuring Apple is making a boatload of cash. Besides, how do you change the world if the world doesn't buy in.
What amazes me as an apple fan who prefered when everything was put together here in the US, is that just a week ago everyone was pleading for a non large iPod and in a way, that's what we got. How can this be Job's greatest prized possession, no way, at least "as-is" which angers me as the underground crew will make it super cool I bet, even better if it were OSX lite and we all know Apple will release a better version down the road, and we'll spend for it.
The "large iPod Touch" argument totally misses what makes the iPod Touch a great devices as well as what will make the iPad a great device. You are strictly judging the form factor. The iPhone/iTouch are not popular simply because of the way they look, they are popular because of the software. Its software, software, software.
Did you notice Apple completely rewrote the applications and changed the user experience for the iPad, that is why its not a giant iPod Touch. Did you notice that the iPad had every app that comes with the iPhone/iTouch except weather, stocks, and clock? Its because Apple has made changes that reflect the size of the screen. That is why its not a giant iPod Touch.
Quote:
this time, I'm waiting until rev 3 at least or at least see what's in the works with other companies have coming. Looks like cool stuff coming this way.
The flaw in this argument is that technology used in rev 3 was likely not available for rev 1. The same as technology used in rev 5 would not have been available for rev 3. Unless you feel Apple has the ability to go into the future and bring technology back into the past.
I just think it's amazing an article about "consumers losing interest in iPad" has over 300 comments, making this the hottest thread at the moment. Clearly the fanbois and slamboys haven't lost interest yet.
I'm losing some interest in the iPad but only because I have to wait almost 2 more months before we even get a glimpse of shipping products.
I'm hoping this A4 chip makes its way to the AppleTV.
The iPad and AppleTV seem to have started a similar way. Apple demonstrated it before it was ready for release, and planned on getting content partners heavily involved.
Unfortunately the content partners came later. The AppleTV was released without much content (and wouldn't play .avi files), and when rentals came it had already lost its shine. They finally released movie rentals (and dropped the AppleTV price simultaneously) but it was too late, I think, to take advantage of the RDF and actually get noticed.
App Store for AppleTV? Too late for it now, perhaps... because it would be so mangled with all the content rights to deal with.
Imagine though some sort of SDK for AppleTV, without having to hack the AppleTV, playing Xvids and MKVs would probably be the very first apps churned out.
Imagine though an AppleTV that had a Bittorrent app that could run in the background. Mmm smell them unicorn tears...
I just think it's amazing an article about "consumers losing interest in iPad" has over 300 comments, making this the hottest thread at the moment. Clearly the fanbois and slamboys haven't lost interest yet.
I'm losing some interest in the iPad but only because I have to wait almost 2 more months before we even get a glimpse of shipping products.
Funny how the articles people claim are so bad are the most profitable for AI in ad revenue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
App Store for AppleTV? Too late for it now, perhaps... because it would be so mangled with all the content rights to deal with.
Imagine though some sort of SDK for AppleTV, without having to hack the AppleTV, playing Xvids and MKVs would probably be the very first apps churned out.
Imagine though an AppleTV that had a Bittorrent app that could run in the background. Mmm smell them unicorn tears...
I'm with GregAlexander on the A4 chip. The GPU in the iPad can push 720p and there isn't an underclocking low power issue with the AppleTV. Would be nice to get 1080p for graphics, but the A4 could still be used. The current one-off 1Ghz Intel chip has got to be more costly and doesn't offer many options.
Of course, they also need to make a new AppleTV OS that runs off the more efficient iPhone OS (as a base). It would be very distinct once you start building upon it, like with the "iPad OS". An App Store may work but iPhone and iPad apps won't work. Going touch to using a remote won't transfer.
The iPhone App Store doesn't have XviD codec or MKV container apps in the App Store. I don't see Apple changing their policy so long after XviD was a decent codec. Handbrake doesn't even support AVIs anymore. They are all MP4-based codecs. They do offer the MKV container, but don't expect Apple to support that.
If they don't offer apps at least offer widgets for weather, social media and many other things, but an SDK may make the AppleTV the killer product that will finally take some marketshare from PS3, TiVo, 360, and Popcorn Hour, all of which have trumped Apple since they've let the AppleTV stagnate. One this is certain, they can't give up on the living room.
Flash IS NOT BUGGY. I HAVE IT IN TIGER, LEOPARD AND SL ( and sl
is verry buugy), sl crashes many pro apps. Anyway some claim 90 percent of the web uses it, other, seventy five percent but for tv dhows, it's one hundered percent.
Aple WANTS YOU TO BUY what is offered free online so I fo not blame them for telling apple to take a hike with the all you can eat iTunes. Plus, let's forget about flash. Where is the support for xvid, mpeg, avi? It's not there for the same reasons. Buy what's offered free from websites. 100% if you are speaking of NBC, ABC, CBS,FOX, FOX KIDS, TNT and dozens of others. AS A FACT most sites out on the show THE FOLLOWING DAY of the broadcast and you can use a nin apple HDMI monitor. FACT most large screen monitors have hdmi wheras APPLE DOES NOT.
I love Apple gear but sometimes you either gave to buy non apple gear, jailbreak or go through hoops and barrels just to have a normal Web experience. This is called LOCKED DOWN so you buy from iTunes for shows that are free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper
Use GoogleVoice App perhaps? Like all the other phones can use?
I hear soap does a good job of getting the taste of foot out of one's mouth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alandail
the web and users of the web will be far better off when web sites no longer use flash.
Flash is buggy
Flash crashes browsers
Flash drains batteries
Flash is proprietary
The last one is the killer too - it means that Apple, Microsoft, Google, and Mozilla, etc. cannot fix the problems with flash. They are all dependent on another company to implement flash for them. Everything else they can do themselves.
And kids use flash primarily to play games. Why go to the web for games when you have the app store?
Flash games are free and that's the real reason it's not on the ipone or pad.
But try going to a network site to watch a tv show. 100% flash. Opps. Sorry. You have to buy it for something that's free.
It has nothing to do with kids but everything to do about iTunes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
The problem is that you have to make the future happen. If Apple hadn't produced a computer with that "slow" GUI, and that "almost useless" mouse, we would all still be using text based machines. If Apple hadn't been the first major computer manufacturer to move to 3.5 floppies, we still might be using 5.25 disks. If they hadn't been the first to move to CD players, we would still be using floppies, and the consumer computer would never have happened on a large scale.
If they didn't first go to CD-R, then we would still be saving to floppies, the same thing for DVD, and a whole lot of other things.
Someone must take that first step. It just so happens to be Apple most of the time.
It's always hard on the first adopters. There's no argument about that. But, truthfully, while I would prefer to have seen Flash on my iPhone, just so that we would have the choice, if it could be done that way (the way I use "Click to Flash on my Mac Pro), I haven't missed it either. Occasionally, I don't see something, but not nearly as much as I expected. A lot of sites are using alternative methods in addition to flash if they detect you don't have it. We're going to see that happening much more often over time.
Look, if this product lacks several features you think you need or want, then buy something else that has them. Or, you can wait for the next version. Flash will likely not happen, but in a year from now, it won't matter as much.
If you're buying this mostly for kids, then I don't know what to say other than ask why are they playing those mind numbing Flash games in the first place? There are pretty good learning games. I used to buy them for my daughter when she was young, and it helped her learn to read by the time she was three. Nobody benefits from those Flash kids games, especially kids.
Flash games are free and that's the real reason it's not on the ipone or pad.
But try going to a network site to watch a tv show. 100% flash. Opps. Sorry. You have to buy it for something that's free.
It has nothing to do with kids but everything to do about iTunes.
You saw this despite Apple allows devs to offer any app for free. Most Flash games won't work on a touchscreen with no physical keyboard.
Face the facts, Flash has its place, but running on phones is not one of them. This is Adobe's fault. If it's Apple fault waaaay back in 2007, then why doesn't Adobe have Flash on every other mobile OS now in 2010. "They're working it" yet it's Apple's fault from years ago that Flash never showed up.
You can't play videos on Flash Lite, and you can't even play videos on Flash 10.1 for mobiles because it's too resource hungry for the current HW. No one is to blame but Adobe!
I don't think we're arguing the same point. I don't deny for a second that there are other possibilities with respect to such a USB adapter, but Apple have clearly contemplated a specific use case for this adapter: that is as part of a camera connectivity kit.
I am reasonably confident that Apple's intention is not to have this adapter used as a generic way to connect USB devices to the iPad and I think the marketing is behind me on this point.
You originally said that USB is available with an adapter. This is not strictly correct. As of this very minute it is part of a camera connectivity kit. There is nothing but your conjecture that it can be used for other things.
Note carefully that I am not leaving closed the possibility that future functionality might be exposed but right now that USB "port" is merely being used to connect cameras to the ipad so that photos can be pulled from the camera.
It doesn't matter what Apple is selling it for when it can be used for other things.
The adapter that comes with the iPad, connects to your computer, as I've already said, using USB. I'm sure you're not dim, and understand what that means. Because the iPad connects using USB, it can, and does communicate both ways.
If you're afraid that the camera connection kit USB adapter is somehow crippled, though there is no reason why Apple could do that, then you can spend $5 for a male to female adapter for the end of the free computer connector which comes with the iPad.
You're being a very "the glass is half empty" kind of person here.
Since we know that USB will do as I say, there's no reason for you stating that you think it won't.
No, the debate is if it's the real internet without flash, and my assertion is that Steve Jobs is leading the web away from proprietary flash to HTML5. I used the example of YouTube moving towards an HTML5 solution as evidence of the web is moving towards standards, which ultimately is better for everyone as there will be better security, better performance, better reliability, and for mobile/portable devices, better power management.
If you look at the title of the thread, you will se what the discussion is about.
YOU may want to move the discussion in one way, but the rest of us don't have to follow.
Some of the rest of us, from the very beginning of this thread have been discussing how the lack of Flash affects Apples products, and why it may not matter. You, and a few others, want to move that to a broader discussion of Flash in general, but that's not where the discussion began.
Awful mean spirited post- so much rambling and such little sense. He and I are not the only ones who have little regard for this PAD. Have you read anywhere else besides the Mac websites?
And he's absolutely right. The locking out of everything else like what the AppleTV did - ruined it. It's basically dead.
I don't know anybody who wanted what's basically another extension of the iTunes Store except for yourself.
Since we never expect much from you, this post meets the standards of what we do expect.
For example, I'm happy with iPhone - it does most of the things I expect from handheld device. But. One of the most common things I'm using it for is reading with Stanza, and whenever I have to copy an old ebook from my PC to iPhone, I have to open ebook on desktop Stanza, "share" it and wirelessly transfer it to iPhone.
Is it really that bad? Well, no - I still need less than a minute to transfer a book that I will read for days, so I can't say that effort is not making it worth it. But would I like to be able to just drag and drop my books to iPhone? Hell, yea. Or at least to queue them in iTunes and transfer next time I do syncing.
So even if I can live with that, it is ruining my enjoyment in using iPhone. It is not simple and elegant. for people without wireless at home, it is also impossible.
There are other little things and perks that I don't like even if I can make it around them, but this one I face more often.
I use Stanza as well. It's slightly annoying, but not by much. I just added four books last night. It took no more than a few minutes in total. Not exactly much effort for hours of reading. Eliminating the books from the phone when finished just takes seconds.
It's not exactly "ruining" you use of the phone now, is it? Really? It's a minor annoyance. If I had to do it every day, or more than once a day, it might be different, but as it is, it's just only once every week or so.
The iPad may work differently. It looks as though Apple has expanded the methods by which files may be transferred. But until we read some reviews on how this works, we shouldn't be jumping to conclusions on how bad it will be.
If you look at the title of the thread, you will se what the discussion is about.
YOU may want to move the discussion in one way, but the rest of us don;y have to follow.
Some of the rest of us, from the very beginning of this thread have been discussing how the lack of Flash affects Apples products, and why it may not matter. You, and a few others, want to move that to a broader discussion of Flash in general, but that's not where the discussion began.
The significance of not having flash on iPhone OS devices is clearly related to the importance of flash itself. If the importance of flash overall is declining, then it becomes less important if the iPad has flash.
Flash IS NOT BUGGY. I HAVE IT IN TIGER, LEOPARD AND SL ( and sl
is verry buugy), sl crashes many pro apps. Anyway some claim 90 percent of the web uses it, other, seventy five percent but for tv dhows, it's one hundered percent.
Aple WANTS YOU TO BUY what is offered free online so I fo not blame them for telling apple to take a hike with the all you can eat iTunes. Plus, let's forget about flash. Where is the support for xvid, mpeg, avi? It's not there for the same reasons. Buy what's offered free from websites. 100% if you are speaking of NBC, ABC, CBS,FOX, FOX KIDS, TNT and dozens of others. AS A FACT most sites out on the show THE FOLLOWING DAY of the broadcast and you can use a nin apple HDMI monitor. FACT most large screen monitors have hdmi wheras APPLE DOES NOT.
I love Apple gear but sometimes you either gave to buy non apple gear, jailbreak or go through hoops and barrels just to have a normal Web experience. This is called LOCKED DOWN so you buy from iTunes for shows that are free.
Flash crashes Windows browsers as well, its not just a Mac thing. And while the Flash plug-in isn't any buggier than any other software, it's the interaction with much buggy code written for Ads, and video, and presentations on sites that's the problem.
I can isolate a buggy Ad on machines, whether PC or Mac, that have the browsers crashing easily. When the Ad is not in the browser window, the bowser doesn't crash, when the window is moved, or extended to encompass the buggy code, then within a few seconds, crash!
Some sites have buggy Flash in some pages. ExtremeTech has recently added some embedded Flash which will bring browsers to a halt for ten to fifteen seconds at a time, continuously, until you move to a different page.
And then there are the really annoying Flash Ads that move out of their bounding box to cover much of the text you are trying to read for up to 30 seconds, and there's no way to stop it, you just have to wait.
I'm not going to argue the rest of your specious argument. But you need to proof your posting. It's terrible!
Comments
What amazes me as an apple fan who prefered when everything was put together here in the US, is that just a week ago everyone was pleading for a non large iPod and in a way, that's what we got. How can this be Job's greatest prized possession, no way, at least "as-is" which angers me as the underground crew will make it super cool I bet, even better if it were OSX lite and we all know Apple will release a better version down the road, and we'll spend for it
this time, I'm waiting until rev 3 at least or at least see what's in the works with other companies have coming. Looks like cool stuff coming this way. I still think the MacBook pro is a great machine (express slot version for esata or 3rd party plug INS).
Your not well informed.
1. No Apple product is made in the US
2. OS X runs on the iPhone, it has the same kernel, but the OS presentation layers and application software are adapted for the iPhone.
3. The difference between Apples iPad and future tablets of other manufactures is not hardware only. The most important factor is software, like iPad versions of iWork and iLive. On the hardware front some companies are able to compete after a while, but software is another matter.
4. The product (iPad) isn't as is. It is evolving via software updates. The same hardware will have a lot more features in the future
J.
I don't really get the AppleTV thing either. I want to believe its some sort of placeholder for yet another revolutionary product that changes the way we use media.
I'm hoping this A4 chip makes its way to the AppleTV.
The iPad and AppleTV seem to have started a similar way. Apple demonstrated it before it was ready for release, and planned on getting content partners heavily involved.
Unfortunately the content partners came later. The AppleTV was released without much content (and wouldn't play .avi files), and when rentals came it had already lost its shine. They finally released movie rentals (and dropped the AppleTV price simultaneously) but it was too late, I think, to take advantage of the RDF and actually get noticed.
You don't actually cook, do you? From a cooks point of view, a microwave is still a rather limited speciality device even now more than 40 years later. The microwave hasn't swept away the oven or the stove. It's great for warming things up, but for actually making stuff: the old school devices still rule roost.
Oddly enough, the "food geeks" in 1967 were probably interested in what they might get out of the original radar range. They just weren't unrealistic about it. They certainly weren't Amana brand partisans.
Part of these results show people losing interest in the iPad after they realize that it's not going to be what they imagined of it. Whip up the hype machine too much and some people are bound to be dissapointed in the end.
Without realising it, I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head for the iPad.
You're right, the microwave hasn't replaced the oven or the stove. But pretty much every household has one. It does a few key things better than either a stove or oven (does 'a few key things' sound familiar?).
In the same way, the iPad is clearly stated to not replace the laptop (oven) or smartphone (stove); but to sit somewhere in the middle. It's the people that have the lack of imagination to see how an appliance device that does a few key things well -- key things that are important to the average consumer -- can bring a real benefit.
Microwaves -- despite their limitations, and initial high price -- have been wildly succesful. I think the iPad will be too.
"Your typical netbook" isn't what the OP was comparing with the iPad. He siad that the iPad is better than any netbook on the market. I was wondering why he thinks that.
Now normally saying something like "isn't better than any netbook on the market" means that it isn't better than the worst netbook on the market.
For somebody whoe calls himself iGenius, you're not very bright, are you?
The touch also fits in your pocket, allowing it to transparently go wherever you go. The iPad needs a bag to lug around.
Which is why I have been considering the iPad as a complimentary device, as opposed to one that replaces any particular product in Apple's current range. This is a good thing for Apple on account of they will not experience a drastic drop in sales of other products, per se.
This is certainly why Apple has priced this product so aggressively, by Apple standards, even at this early stage. There is no way that the iPad could effectively replace a MacBook or desktop system unless, of course, you're talking about someone who uses a computer strictly to access the Internet and other similarly rudimentary tasks, in which case you wonder why the person was buying an Apple in the first place.
The iPad is in no way a replacement for an iPhone/Touch in that, as you point out, you can't just slip it in your pocket. I take my Touch with me to work which gives me something to tinker with during breaks. Stuck in a waiting room? The Touch, yes, the iPad, no chance.
But, if I'm puttering around the house and I want to read the morning paper or whatever, now the iPad heads to the top of the list. If I'm in the medical profession, the iPad fits. If I'm doing a keynote presentation, the iPad makes sense. Want the kids in the back seat to be entertained on that long road trip? The iPad. Want to show off the latest pics of the little ones to the proud grandparents? Definitely the iPad. Travelling abroad? An iPad would make a better companion than a laptop assuming one isn't trying to get any demanding work done on account of the iPad is more portable than a laptop with better battery life.
So the goal, I suspect, is to have households that have an iMac in the den, an iPhone in every pocket, so to speak, and an iPad or two floating around to round out the picture. Maybe it's not an iMac. Perhaps it's a Mini or maybe a laptop or even somebody else's computer. Regardless, the iPad is being designed as a compliment.
It's not a go-anywhere, do-anything device on account of such a thing can't be done without serious compromises.
The Touch is a marvelous device. I own one and am delighted with it. But the screen is far too small for many activities. The iPad brings big-screen glory to the handheld realm and while some seem to think this is a very small thing, I believe this is a big deal. If this isn't revolutionary enough for many, too bad. Something truly revolutionary would be exceedingly expensive and unable to gain a foothold in the current weak economic climate. I'm sure Steve Jobs believes he is making a difference in people's lives but he's still responsible for ensuring Apple is making a boatload of cash. Besides, how do you change the world if the world doesn't buy in.
What amazes me as an apple fan who prefered when everything was put together here in the US, is that just a week ago everyone was pleading for a non large iPod and in a way, that's what we got. How can this be Job's greatest prized possession, no way, at least "as-is" which angers me as the underground crew will make it super cool I bet, even better if it were OSX lite and we all know Apple will release a better version down the road, and we'll spend for it.
The "large iPod Touch" argument totally misses what makes the iPod Touch a great devices as well as what will make the iPad a great device. You are strictly judging the form factor. The iPhone/iTouch are not popular simply because of the way they look, they are popular because of the software. Its software, software, software.
Did you notice Apple completely rewrote the applications and changed the user experience for the iPad, that is why its not a giant iPod Touch. Did you notice that the iPad had every app that comes with the iPhone/iTouch except weather, stocks, and clock? Its because Apple has made changes that reflect the size of the screen. That is why its not a giant iPod Touch.
this time, I'm waiting until rev 3 at least or at least see what's in the works with other companies have coming. Looks like cool stuff coming this way.
The flaw in this argument is that technology used in rev 3 was likely not available for rev 1. The same as technology used in rev 5 would not have been available for rev 3. Unless you feel Apple has the ability to go into the future and bring technology back into the past.
I'm losing some interest in the iPad but only because I have to wait almost 2 more months before we even get a glimpse of shipping products.
I'm hoping this A4 chip makes its way to the AppleTV.
The iPad and AppleTV seem to have started a similar way. Apple demonstrated it before it was ready for release, and planned on getting content partners heavily involved.
Unfortunately the content partners came later. The AppleTV was released without much content (and wouldn't play .avi files), and when rentals came it had already lost its shine. They finally released movie rentals (and dropped the AppleTV price simultaneously) but it was too late, I think, to take advantage of the RDF and actually get noticed.
App Store for AppleTV? Too late for it now, perhaps... because it would be so mangled with all the content rights to deal with.
Imagine though some sort of SDK for AppleTV, without having to hack the AppleTV, playing Xvids and MKVs would probably be the very first apps churned out.
Imagine though an AppleTV that had a Bittorrent app that could run in the background. Mmm smell them unicorn tears...
I just think it's amazing an article about "consumers losing interest in iPad" has over 300 comments, making this the hottest thread at the moment. Clearly the fanbois and slamboys haven't lost interest yet.
I'm losing some interest in the iPad but only because I have to wait almost 2 more months before we even get a glimpse of shipping products.
Funny how the articles people claim are so bad are the most profitable for AI in ad revenue.
App Store for AppleTV? Too late for it now, perhaps... because it would be so mangled with all the content rights to deal with.
Imagine though some sort of SDK for AppleTV, without having to hack the AppleTV, playing Xvids and MKVs would probably be the very first apps churned out.
Imagine though an AppleTV that had a Bittorrent app that could run in the background. Mmm smell them unicorn tears...
I'm with GregAlexander on the A4 chip. The GPU in the iPad can push 720p and there isn't an underclocking low power issue with the AppleTV. Would be nice to get 1080p for graphics, but the A4 could still be used. The current one-off 1Ghz Intel chip has got to be more costly and doesn't offer many options.
Of course, they also need to make a new AppleTV OS that runs off the more efficient iPhone OS (as a base). It would be very distinct once you start building upon it, like with the "iPad OS". An App Store may work but iPhone and iPad apps won't work. Going touch to using a remote won't transfer.
The iPhone App Store doesn't have XviD codec or MKV container apps in the App Store. I don't see Apple changing their policy so long after XviD was a decent codec. Handbrake doesn't even support AVIs anymore. They are all MP4-based codecs. They do offer the MKV container, but don't expect Apple to support that.
If they don't offer apps at least offer widgets for weather, social media and many other things, but an SDK may make the AppleTV the killer product that will finally take some marketshare from PS3, TiVo, 360, and Popcorn Hour, all of which have trumped Apple since they've let the AppleTV stagnate. One this is certain, they can't give up on the living room.
is verry buugy), sl crashes many pro apps. Anyway some claim 90 percent of the web uses it, other, seventy five percent but for tv dhows, it's one hundered percent.
Aple WANTS YOU TO BUY what is offered free online so I fo not blame them for telling apple to take a hike with the all you can eat iTunes. Plus, let's forget about flash. Where is the support for xvid, mpeg, avi? It's not there for the same reasons. Buy what's offered free from websites. 100% if you are speaking of NBC, ABC, CBS,FOX, FOX KIDS, TNT and dozens of others. AS A FACT most sites out on the show THE FOLLOWING DAY of the broadcast and you can use a nin apple HDMI monitor. FACT most large screen monitors have hdmi wheras APPLE DOES NOT.
I love Apple gear but sometimes you either gave to buy non apple gear, jailbreak or go through hoops and barrels just to have a normal Web experience. This is called LOCKED DOWN so you buy from iTunes for shows that are free.
Use GoogleVoice App perhaps? Like all the other phones can use?
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/a...4_SANFRA539309
I hear soap does a good job of getting the taste of foot out of one's mouth.
the web and users of the web will be far better off when web sites no longer use flash.
Flash is buggy
Flash crashes browsers
Flash drains batteries
Flash is proprietary
The last one is the killer too - it means that Apple, Microsoft, Google, and Mozilla, etc. cannot fix the problems with flash. They are all dependent on another company to implement flash for them. Everything else they can do themselves.
And kids use flash primarily to play games. Why go to the web for games when you have the app store?
But try going to a network site to watch a tv show. 100% flash. Opps. Sorry. You have to buy it for something that's free.
It has nothing to do with kids but everything to do about iTunes.
The problem is that you have to make the future happen. If Apple hadn't produced a computer with that "slow" GUI, and that "almost useless" mouse, we would all still be using text based machines. If Apple hadn't been the first major computer manufacturer to move to 3.5 floppies, we still might be using 5.25 disks. If they hadn't been the first to move to CD players, we would still be using floppies, and the consumer computer would never have happened on a large scale.
If they didn't first go to CD-R, then we would still be saving to floppies, the same thing for DVD, and a whole lot of other things.
Someone must take that first step. It just so happens to be Apple most of the time.
It's always hard on the first adopters. There's no argument about that. But, truthfully, while I would prefer to have seen Flash on my iPhone, just so that we would have the choice, if it could be done that way (the way I use "Click to Flash on my Mac Pro), I haven't missed it either. Occasionally, I don't see something, but not nearly as much as I expected. A lot of sites are using alternative methods in addition to flash if they detect you don't have it. We're going to see that happening much more often over time.
Look, if this product lacks several features you think you need or want, then buy something else that has them. Or, you can wait for the next version. Flash will likely not happen, but in a year from now, it won't matter as much.
If you're buying this mostly for kids, then I don't know what to say other than ask why are they playing those mind numbing Flash games in the first place? There are pretty good learning games. I used to buy them for my daughter when she was young, and it helped her learn to read by the time she was three. Nobody benefits from those Flash kids games, especially kids.
Flash IS NOT BUGGY. I HAVE IT IN TIGER, LEOPARD AND SL
I have SL on multiple machines. The only thing that ever crashes for me is Safari and the only reason it ever crashed for me is Flash.
The same thing happened in Leopard.
ClickToFlash exists for a reason, and it's not because people mind an animated ad here or there.
Flash games are free and that's the real reason it's not on the ipone or pad.
But try going to a network site to watch a tv show. 100% flash. Opps. Sorry. You have to buy it for something that's free.
It has nothing to do with kids but everything to do about iTunes.
You saw this despite Apple allows devs to offer any app for free. Most Flash games won't work on a touchscreen with no physical keyboard.
Face the facts, Flash has its place, but running on phones is not one of them. This is Adobe's fault. If it's Apple fault waaaay back in 2007, then why doesn't Adobe have Flash on every other mobile OS now in 2010. "They're working it" yet it's Apple's fault from years ago that Flash never showed up.
You can't play videos on Flash Lite, and you can't even play videos on Flash 10.1 for mobiles because it's too resource hungry for the current HW. No one is to blame but Adobe!
I don't think we're arguing the same point. I don't deny for a second that there are other possibilities with respect to such a USB adapter, but Apple have clearly contemplated a specific use case for this adapter: that is as part of a camera connectivity kit.
I am reasonably confident that Apple's intention is not to have this adapter used as a generic way to connect USB devices to the iPad and I think the marketing is behind me on this point.
You originally said that USB is available with an adapter. This is not strictly correct. As of this very minute it is part of a camera connectivity kit. There is nothing but your conjecture that it can be used for other things.
Note carefully that I am not leaving closed the possibility that future functionality might be exposed but right now that USB "port" is merely being used to connect cameras to the ipad so that photos can be pulled from the camera.
It doesn't matter what Apple is selling it for when it can be used for other things.
The adapter that comes with the iPad, connects to your computer, as I've already said, using USB. I'm sure you're not dim, and understand what that means. Because the iPad connects using USB, it can, and does communicate both ways.
If you're afraid that the camera connection kit USB adapter is somehow crippled, though there is no reason why Apple could do that, then you can spend $5 for a male to female adapter for the end of the free computer connector which comes with the iPad.
You're being a very "the glass is half empty" kind of person here.
Since we know that USB will do as I say, there's no reason for you stating that you think it won't.
No, the debate is if it's the real internet without flash, and my assertion is that Steve Jobs is leading the web away from proprietary flash to HTML5. I used the example of YouTube moving towards an HTML5 solution as evidence of the web is moving towards standards, which ultimately is better for everyone as there will be better security, better performance, better reliability, and for mobile/portable devices, better power management.
If you look at the title of the thread, you will se what the discussion is about.
YOU may want to move the discussion in one way, but the rest of us don't have to follow.
Some of the rest of us, from the very beginning of this thread have been discussing how the lack of Flash affects Apples products, and why it may not matter. You, and a few others, want to move that to a broader discussion of Flash in general, but that's not where the discussion began.
Awful mean spirited post- so much rambling and such little sense. He and I are not the only ones who have little regard for this PAD. Have you read anywhere else besides the Mac websites?
And he's absolutely right. The locking out of everything else like what the AppleTV did - ruined it. It's basically dead.
I don't know anybody who wanted what's basically another extension of the iTunes Store except for yourself.
Since we never expect much from you, this post meets the standards of what we do expect.
For some people, it is not that black and white.
For example, I'm happy with iPhone - it does most of the things I expect from handheld device. But. One of the most common things I'm using it for is reading with Stanza, and whenever I have to copy an old ebook from my PC to iPhone, I have to open ebook on desktop Stanza, "share" it and wirelessly transfer it to iPhone.
Is it really that bad? Well, no - I still need less than a minute to transfer a book that I will read for days, so I can't say that effort is not making it worth it. But would I like to be able to just drag and drop my books to iPhone? Hell, yea. Or at least to queue them in iTunes and transfer next time I do syncing.
So even if I can live with that, it is ruining my enjoyment in using iPhone. It is not simple and elegant. for people without wireless at home, it is also impossible.
There are other little things and perks that I don't like even if I can make it around them, but this one I face more often.
I use Stanza as well. It's slightly annoying, but not by much. I just added four books last night. It took no more than a few minutes in total. Not exactly much effort for hours of reading. Eliminating the books from the phone when finished just takes seconds.
It's not exactly "ruining" you use of the phone now, is it? Really? It's a minor annoyance. If I had to do it every day, or more than once a day, it might be different, but as it is, it's just only once every week or so.
The iPad may work differently. It looks as though Apple has expanded the methods by which files may be transferred. But until we read some reviews on how this works, we shouldn't be jumping to conclusions on how bad it will be.
Yes, we know, you are the purveyor of stupidity. You didn't need to make it any more obvious.
If you look at the title of the thread, you will se what the discussion is about.
YOU may want to move the discussion in one way, but the rest of us don;y have to follow.
Some of the rest of us, from the very beginning of this thread have been discussing how the lack of Flash affects Apples products, and why it may not matter. You, and a few others, want to move that to a broader discussion of Flash in general, but that's not where the discussion began.
The significance of not having flash on iPhone OS devices is clearly related to the importance of flash itself. If the importance of flash overall is declining, then it becomes less important if the iPad has flash.
Flash IS NOT BUGGY. I HAVE IT IN TIGER, LEOPARD AND SL ( and sl
is verry buugy), sl crashes many pro apps. Anyway some claim 90 percent of the web uses it, other, seventy five percent but for tv dhows, it's one hundered percent.
Aple WANTS YOU TO BUY what is offered free online so I fo not blame them for telling apple to take a hike with the all you can eat iTunes. Plus, let's forget about flash. Where is the support for xvid, mpeg, avi? It's not there for the same reasons. Buy what's offered free from websites. 100% if you are speaking of NBC, ABC, CBS,FOX, FOX KIDS, TNT and dozens of others. AS A FACT most sites out on the show THE FOLLOWING DAY of the broadcast and you can use a nin apple HDMI monitor. FACT most large screen monitors have hdmi wheras APPLE DOES NOT.
I love Apple gear but sometimes you either gave to buy non apple gear, jailbreak or go through hoops and barrels just to have a normal Web experience. This is called LOCKED DOWN so you buy from iTunes for shows that are free.
Flash crashes Windows browsers as well, its not just a Mac thing. And while the Flash plug-in isn't any buggier than any other software, it's the interaction with much buggy code written for Ads, and video, and presentations on sites that's the problem.
I can isolate a buggy Ad on machines, whether PC or Mac, that have the browsers crashing easily. When the Ad is not in the browser window, the bowser doesn't crash, when the window is moved, or extended to encompass the buggy code, then within a few seconds, crash!
Some sites have buggy Flash in some pages. ExtremeTech has recently added some embedded Flash which will bring browsers to a halt for ten to fifteen seconds at a time, continuously, until you move to a different page.
And then there are the really annoying Flash Ads that move out of their bounding box to cover much of the text you are trying to read for up to 30 seconds, and there's no way to stop it, you just have to wait.
I'm not going to argue the rest of your specious argument. But you need to proof your posting. It's terrible!