iPhone is a great device to have and so was iPod when it was first launched. But I feel iPad is more of a fad or cool 'gizmo' to have than a necessity. What do u guys think?
iPhone is a great device to have and so was iPod when it was first launched. But I feel iPad is more of a fad or cool 'gizmo' to have than a necessity. What do u guys think?
It's definitely a non-essential item. A master controlling computer is generally essential to be able to manage content and devices. Mobile phones are essential for communication.
The iPad is of course neither as is the ipod touch. The ipod touch is quite popular because it's a great music player and gives you more or less the same experience as the iphone.
You could possibly say the same about the iPad so long as it fulfills a certain role for people.
Will it replace the desktop for some people? No because it can't manage content so to delete a song, you have to go to your main computer, delete it and sync again.
Will it be a great browser? I think it will be good but not great - mainly comfortable for browsing.
Will it be good for ebooks? If their reader allows inverted text (white text on black), maybe but Apple device are usually really bright.
Will it be good for music? I think people can put some tracks on it but you're probably just going to use an ipod/iphone for that.
Will it be good for movies? The display is nice quality. The format support will be poor like the iphone and the aspect ratio isn't ideal but not a huge deal if they intended that on being the height of the device anyway.
Will people use maps on this? Nope.
Will people be productive on it? I don't think so because the apps are too flimsy.
It will be one of those devices where people decide to buy either an iphone/ipod or an ipad and I think most people will opt for the mobile devices. If it was a device that I could give to my mum to use as a main computer for browsing, email, managing music, importing photos and small videos, writing letters and genuinely no more than that, I'd buy one myself. But she has a computer that's not intuitive for her to use and that's how it shall remain for the foreseeable future, plus she actually does rely on Flash a lot for online video without even knowing what Flash is.
I haven't really heard anyone say what they would actually use an iPad for most of the time nor any reason why the iPad is suddenly the device to do just that.
Will people be productive on it? I don't think so because the apps are too flimsy.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, or how you draw that conclusion sight unseen. Maybe you're just thinking of scaled up iPhone apps, but the iWork implementation looks pretty robust to me, and it seems certain that developers will be quick to exploit the iPad's capacities (the Omni people, for instance, have gone all in, and I expect Omnigraffle on the iPad will be great).
I also expect to see some apps that we hadn't anticipated, as smart developers figure out how to make innovative use of the form.
Will people be productive on it? I don't think so because the apps are too flimsy.
I haven't really heard anyone say what they would actually use an iPad for most of the time nor any reason why the iPad is suddenly the device to do just that.
Many language teachers around the world will use the iPad in class to show a variety of things, including maps. I live abroad (and have taught) and frequently use maps or Google Earth on my iPhone; it's a great conversation piece, but the iPhone is too small for a small class; the iPad will work fine for small groups.
I have been productive on my iPhone using Zeptopad, Sketchbook, ReelDirector, RectoolsPro and several other apps. Though not ideal, it worked while sitting on crowded trains and when ideas struck and I didn't have my MBA. Some music group recorded their entire CD on an iPhone. The cover art for one month's New Yorker was drawn on an iPhone. The iPad will make the work much easier, especially with iWork, which looks slick, and the added screen space.
For creative types, the iPad will be a great digital sketchbook for drawing, planning, recording and other tasks. I know I'm looking forward to it.
This app looks interesting, too, though I'll likely pass because I'll have iWork:
Though you might also want to consider that this is a new type of device too.
Your analysis focuses on the fact that the device will fulfill a role that current devices already cover.
If you only see it that way the iPad will have a hard time over all. You are spot on with that.
But the focus on solely a touch interface makes it different.
The iPad could literally be the first of a new breed of computing devices, which 10 years from now might be known as the one device that started a new era of computing: interactive personal computing.
- Consider that a device controlled by touch can be used instantly by anyone.
No need to learn how to use a mouse/keyboard/pen interface.
And as a touch device it can also be used in many more locations and situations, e.g. while standing, or flat on a table.
- Consider that the iPad is designed to be shared.
You can demonstrate something on it and quite a few others can view and interact together.
Imagine a board game like monopoly or chess, or even air hockey. With multitouch and the iPad's size several players can interact on one device at the same time. Particularly when placed flat on a table surface.
- Consider how often we just want to 'flick through data'.
Be it pages of a magazine, a book we read, photos from the last trip, web pages we regularly visit or emails.
Due to its touch nature the iPad is literally perfectly suited to 'flick' through that info and re-arrange it.
Much better than any laptop with keyboard and mouse.
- Consider that 'composing a document' can be much more 'hands-on'.
With a touch interface composing becomes interactive and fun.
Sure, if 'composing' just means entering text, then a keyboard is best. But many documents these days include a multitude of data: images, graphics, spreadsheet data, perhaps even movie clips and web links.
If you've watched some of the latest Microsoft Courier demos you get a good idea that 'composing' documents via touch is much more fun and interactive. It's preferable to a keyboard and mouse.
iPhone is a great device to have and so was iPod when it was first launched. But I feel iPad is more of a fad or cool 'gizmo' to have than a necessity. What do u guys think?
The fact of the matter that the iPad is locked down, requires another computer to operate and has limited capabilities, performance and storage suggests the device is a entry level, controlled computing device aimed primarily at the young teen market.
Although the iPad will find some use outside that primary youth market as a appliance, the bulk of more mature computer users will find using the dumbed down device instead of a real computer a insult to their intelligence. There will be no challenge to keep them interested.
It's understandable to use a simpler GUI on a smaller screen portable device as one needs are immediate and exact. But to extend that concept into a larger screen device to mimic a full fledged computer is something else entirely.
Apple is a company like any other designed to sell as much product as possible, and their primary markets are the United States and Europe. These two markets demographics are very interested in technology products as they have lower population growth percentages than other markets, thus more disposable income.
The fact Apple removed nearly all MacBooks and substituted a line of limited, controlled devices with a much simpler GUI goes to show the gradual decline of the intelligence level of these two primary markets that Apple believes they can't learn at a early age how to use a regular windows GUI.
Some may argue the touchscreen device demands a different GUI, which I agree. However one has to look at how the intended market interacts with a device first, then build the hardware around it second.
Could Apple have created a touchscreen version of the Mac windows based GUI in such a way (like everything a bit larger to accept the larger finger input) as to ease the transition for a young person from a iPad to a Windows PC or a Mac?
The answer of course is yes.
Apple has created a device that when used by the youth market, is going to hamper their ability to transition to a regular windows GUI based computer when they get older. Unless of course, Apple intends to eventually replace the windows based GUI for all their devices with a simpler interface to match the market it created.
And what does that say about what Apple thinks about those markets in general?
Many language teachers around the world will use the iPad in class to show a variety of things, including maps. I live abroad (and have taught) and frequently use maps or Google Earth on my iPhone; it's a great conversation piece, but the iPhone is too small for a small class; the iPad will work fine for small groups.
This. I'm a language teacher. This is a must-have device for my a small group or one-to-one teaching. Nothing currently available can compare. The apps, even the free apps, make it way better than any desktop OS based slate could ever be.
However one has to look at how the intended market interacts with a device first, then build the hardware around it second.
If that's true we'd all still be using green on black text with a keyboard-only interface navigating via cursor keys.
Just with a better keyboard than in the 1980ies.
From time to time engineers have to take a leap of faith and come up with new paradigms on how they think users could interact better - with no current interaction example.
The mouse was such a new paradigm. No one knew if people really would give up their cursor keys and constantly move their hands between keyboard and another input device.
I wager that a complete touch interface is a similar one. Whether people will accept it? We will see.
The dumbing-down argument only works when comparing the iPhone/iPod/iPad OS to a current desktop OS which I think is not warranted as it is IMHO the first device of a new breed of devices.
More appropriate is a comparison to an early Macintosh OS, for example Finder 6.0 of the mid to late 80ies.
By today's standard Finder 6.0 could be considered a major 'dumbing-down' step. You had a few black and white icons you could move around a bit on a tiny screen. Compared to that the iPad OS is far superior already.
If you look at how the Finder's UI evolved over the last 25 years, not only into OSX but also Windows 7 and all other windowing OSs, then you can only barely imagine how the iPad's baby steps of a first touch OS might evolve in the next 25 years.
If a touch OS caches on - and that's a big IF, we don't know the outcome yet - the touch OS and touch devices of 2035 will be far from 'dumb'.
As a first 'evolutionary step' I expect that a future iPad OS version (perhaps even 4.0 already) will remove the requirement of a primary computer.
It will soon function as its own truly independent device.
Oh, the mouse and its nay-sayers back in the day! What the heck is that???!!!! A year later, most computers sold with mice. It's only recently that we are starting to move away from mice in the mainstream.
I concur that the iPad will eventually go computer-free. Cameras and such can print directly to many printers over wifi; the iPad should soon be able to even set up its own wifi network (ie, control an Airport Express).
It's a handheld personal computer. How could that be a fad? I don't know if the iPad itself is the future, but tablets like it will be.
It may be ahead of its time. It's sort of one of those things that could either not go anywhere or literally be everywhere. I don't see it being a mediocre hit. It will either be a relative flop or a MEGA-HIT! The issue I have with it is that while I think it's very cool I don't need one.
When you think about it though there really is very little that one actually "NEEDS". I'd like to try one out.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, or how you draw that conclusion sight unseen. Maybe you're just thinking of scaled up iPhone apps, but the iWork implementation looks pretty robust to me, and it seems certain that developers will be quick to exploit the iPad's capacities (the Omni people, for instance, have gone all in, and I expect Omnigraffle on the iPad will be great).
I also expect to see some apps that we hadn't anticipated, as smart developers figure out how to make innovative use of the form.
Mainly I'm thinking about the inherent limitations on the device - the mobile architecture. There's no virtual memory so productive apps (especially visually creative apps) are limited in what they can feasibly do. Sketchbook apps are limited to 6 layers and fixed resolution on the iphone. If the iPad has at least 512MB RAM then there's less to worry about but there are additional constraints due to the sandboxing and lack of common data access (the recently shown 'open with command' may get round that to some extent even though it means jumping apps).
One thing for example would be trying to open and do minor edits to RAW HDR images (multiple open at once to compare them) from a 12MPixel+ camera on location. It seems like a high-end task but it's something the iPad really ought to be able to do to appeal to the Photography market and may not be able to do.
I don't want to place artificially high expectations on it to ensure it doesn't meet them but rather highlight areas where it just won't work well.
The iWork apps did look good from the demo but if you have the choice between your computer and iPad for this, I reckon people will choose to be productive on a computer with no real constraints.
I haven't found any iPhone apps to be particularly useful day to day like desktop apps are. iPad apps may well be different but there's a dangerous culture that's arisen in the app store that is essentially to get as many basic/throw-away apps out as possible to see if they make money and they rely on gimmicks to sell rather than usefulness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister
Many language teachers around the world will use the iPad in class
Quite possibly but will they carry a laptop as well as an iPad? People don't carry a laptop as well as an iPhone despite the dependence but it comes down to usage. Can the iPad replace the laptop so that the laptop isn't needed to be taken at all and if not, would the touch features be compelling enough to take both, especially if there are devices like the HP Slate offering both in one package?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister
I have been productive on my iPhone using Zeptopad, Sketchbook, ReelDirector, RectoolsPro and several other apps. Though not ideal, it worked while sitting on crowded trains and when ideas struck and I didn't have my MBA. Some music group recorded their entire CD on an iPhone. The cover art for one month's New Yorker was drawn on an iPhone. The iPad will make the work much easier, especially with iWork, which looks slick, and the added screen space.
For creative types, the iPad will be a great digital sketchbook for drawing, planning, recording and other tasks. I know I'm looking forward to it.
Sketchbook usage has some limits mentioned above but also no pressure sensitivity. Autodesk's app has a decent way of tapering the strokes but it's not quite right. People mention the cover art for the New Yorker a lot but it's not a great example. The artwork quality isn't great and would take longer to do than using a wacom. If that artwork was created on a Droid, I highly doubt it would have been used anywhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobBIT
The iPad could literally be the first of a new breed of computing devices, which 10 years from now might be known as the one device that started a new era of computing: interactive personal computing.
a device controlled by touch can be used instantly by anyone.
the iPad is designed to be shared.
With a touch interface composing becomes interactive and fun.
I agree that touch interaction is something worth pushing forward and if it's worth doing, it's worth doing well.
The iPad looks like a solid foundation, I was just hoping that it would have moved further from what we've seen on the iPhone already. If developers can do great things with it and not just see it as a new 'gold-rush', it could be a great platform.
I wouldn't deny that this is a precursor for how we eventually interact with most computers. I'm just not sure if Apple is tackling from the right side. Companies like HP are using it to add to the desktop experience whereas Apple are ignoring desktop usage and starting from the beginning, almost rewriting the rulebook.
In many ways, when you see Cocoa-Touch at work, you can see certain inefficiencies of legacy UIs but at the same time recognize other limitations that creep in. Sometimes it's good to have overlapping windows. Sometimes it's good to manage your own files and not have each app do it for you.
Apple most certainly are planning to extend this into other products and Ive said as much. So long as they don't remove absolute control from the user, I'm ok with it.
I think that the iPad won't be a surviving product though. The iPhone is Apple's Magnum Opus and what I think they should have done is make a 10" screen dock for the 4G iPhone. One day soon, mobile phones will be powerful enough to fill the role of a desktop for most people. A 64GB iPhone with 1GB RAM and a 1GHz CPU is almost there and it fits the idea of a modular device. You put it in your pocket to go out, put it in a 10" dock for comfort computing, plug it into a big screen for productivity and there is no syncing, you just have all the data all the time.
Sure you can lose the phone but it should have device encryption and backups. Obviously phones are not capable of this yet even with the previous spec but in a few years with dual 2GHz ARM, 2GB RAM and 256GB Nano SSD. What more do people need?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton
I'm a language teacher. This is a must-have device for my a small group or one-to-one teaching. Nothing currently available can compare.
Sure but the HP Slate will allow you to do everything the iPad can do and will be a much better teaching tool as it will support Flash-based interactive apps. The reason interactive media is done in Flash is because of the IDE as well as cross-platform support. As soon as a major publisher has a nice interactive learning tool in Flash, the iPad goes in the drawer and it's back to the old computer.
It's the age-old saying about having so many channels on cable and none you want to watch. Apple have 140,000 apps but as soon as there's one app you absolutely require, what do you do? If you run a flexible system, the situation doesn't come up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister
the iPad should soon be able to even set up its own wifi network (ie, control an Airport Express)
You can already configure routers other than the AE through the web interfaces. I realise I'm admitting to being productive with an iDevice here but I've configured routers from my iPhone. I'm not sure why Apple didn't make a web interface for theirs.
The iPad looks like a solid foundation, I was just hoping that it would have moved further from what we've seen on the iPhone already.
Great comments.
Fully agree. Also wish Apple would be bolder. Though recent years showed Apple is evolving in baby steps rather than big bold moves. More often than not.
Haven't seen the HP pad, but there must be a reason why tablets with Windows/Linux have not caught on in a big way yet - even though they've been around for so many years. IMHO two reasons:
1.) Accuracy
Most tablets I've used (with touch or pen) had really poor accuracy. You often needed to recalibrate and still would register clicks at the wrong location. Frustrating.
2.) OS
A desktop OS - no matter how many tablet extensions are bolted on - is still a desktop OS.
I understand when you say this can be a good thing. Because you can use the app you own/know or the environment you are used to.
Yet I feel both these reasons are ultimately wrong.
It will always be a compromise and in the end you'd rather want to go with a laptop directly.
And that's why a tablet needs a new OS, built from the ground up around touch.
If the touch UI is fun and the user is comfortable with it and assuming key productivity suites for normal home users are 'good enough' this will be the combination that will tip the scales.
A screen docking solution for the iPhone would ultimately be the same and is a great idea.
Yet I also see this as a chicken and egg situation.
People wouldn't want to buy a new phone (plus contract) or iPod just to get to use a tablet. Especially not professional niche markets like hospitals or surveyors. They want a cheap, simple single device.
So likely few people would 'upgrade' their iPhone/iPod with such a dock. And with such a fuzzy, fragmented market not enough developers would use the larger screen space for iPad apps - and consequently the whole UI idea will fizzle out. It will literally just be a bigger iPhone.
I think this 'stigmata' is what Apple needs to overcome ASAP. The bigger screen, cheaper price, and at least initially well defined use make all the difference. With all that the iPad's new UI paradigm has a much better chance of gaining traction.
With a reasonably well established tablet user base, with a device that has an accurate touch interface, lots of screen real estate and a reasonable price, developers for the first time have a real chance to try a new UI paradigm for a general purpose device.
It's a gamble, but the possibilities are vastly greater than on a phone-sized device.
And there will be uses we haven't even dreamed of in our wildest dreams.
I hope the iPad will be successful enough so we can see that day.
iPhone is a great device to have and so was iPod when it was first launched. But I feel iPad is more of a fad or cool 'gizmo' to have than a necessity. What do u guys think?
This iteration probably won't do it, but I believe it can eventually replace the laptop for me.
No, it can't be a main computer, but the MBP I carry around is actually a desktop replacement. It's a lot of functionality to carry, more than I need on the move.
I car foresee a future, where I have a desktop at home/office, and never lug any "real computer" around - just this tablet. Then I can do "serious computing" on the "real computer", and on the road, just light editing, browsing and reading. Then there's no need for a full-function laptop.
However, some things are missing to make that happen:
Easy synchronization with at least two "real computers" (one for home and one for work)
The ability to use this device for generic storage
Far better remote access VPN than is offered on iPhone - allow other VPN clients, and I don't mean Cisco's.
I can see carrying an iPad instead of a laptop, just not yet.
iPhone is a great device to have and so was iPod when it was first launched. But I feel iPad is more of a fad or cool 'gizmo' to have than a necessity. What do u guys think?
Really? did you miss the backlash against the iPod and iPhone when first introduced?
Well, I found out that evidently, the phone I want and most WiFi enabled phones, for that matter, cannot serve as mobile WiFi hotspots the way I intended. Bummer. (The iPhone can do it if your network allows -- and mine does -- but I don't want an iPhone).
So I just picked up a 3G/WiFi "egg" (Huawei e5830, marketed as "MiFi" by Three UK) for $60 and signed up for unlimited 3G data for ~US$25 a month. Not bad at all. I've already tested it with my iPod Touch and it works great. It is a far better solution than getting the 3G iPad, as I can use it with my iPod Touch, iPad, MacBook Pro, my wife's laptop and the SE J10 I'm still planning on getting.
It is a far better solution than getting the 3G iPad, as I can use it with my iPod Touch, iPad, MacBook Pro [...]
Depends on your needs.
Keep in mind that only the iPad 3G has GPS.
If you want location based services (maps, 'what's near me', etc.) then the WiFi model's triangulation may not be sufficiently accurate, or even available in your area.
If you want location based services (maps, 'what's near me', etc.) then the WiFi model's triangulation may not be sufficiently accurate, or even available in your area.
Thanks for the heads-up. However, I've used maps on my Touch all around Hong Kong and it's never been inaccurate, so I'm not too worried.
A limited comparison is OK but it is really a different product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Mainly I'm thinking about the inherent limitations on the device - the mobile architecture. There's no virtual memory so productive apps (especially visually creative apps) are limited in what they can feasibly do. Sketchbook apps are limited to 6 layers and fixed resolution on the iphone. If the iPad has at least 512MB RAM then there's less to worry about but there are additional constraints due to the sandboxing and lack of common data access (the recently shown 'open with command' may get round that to some extent even though it means jumping apps).
The RAM issue is very significant and Apples need to hide what the actual configuration is, is worrisome. In this regards I agree with you 100%. In fact I wouldn't even consider the iPad until solid information about it's internals are released. You are absolutely right in that RAM is a big factor in what can be accompilshed on a device with no virtual memory.
Quote:
One thing for example would be trying to open and do minor edits to RAW HDR images (multiple open at once to compare them) from a 12MPixel+ camera on location. It seems like a high-end task but it's something the iPad really ought to be able to do to appeal to the Photography market and may not be able to do.
Funny but I never imagined doing HDR on a tablet. I just don't see the small screen and touch interface being conducive to this. That doesn't even take into account the RAM problem.
Quote:
I don't want to place artificially high expectations on it to ensure it doesn't meet them but rather highlight areas where it just won't work well.
For any given technology there are places it won't work or work well. This is no big surprise. You have to judge a device based on it intended usage and like wise with iPad. It is sort of like using a Cessena to shuttle people to Vegas. Sure it might work but is it the right tool? IPad needs to be judged where a tablet is the right tool.
Quote:
The iWork apps did look good from the demo but if you have the choice between your computer and iPad for this, I reckon people will choose to be productive on a computer with no real constraints.
In this regards I think you are simply wrong. Having such apps, at such a low cost, means putting those capabilities into the hands of people that would find the use of a laptop cumbersome. The purpose if these apps on an iPad is not to replace a laptop but rather to provide a capability that isn't available via conventional laptops. We are talking about an entirely different set of usages.
Quote:
I haven't found any iPhone apps to be particularly useful day to day like desktop apps are.
To that statement I have to say you are being bull headed. Take that from somebody that is bull headed (the last girlfriend insisted that was the case). I have a handful of apps I use very often, certainly not all the time but enough to justify paying good money for them if they had a price on them.
Frankly I can't imagine anybody using an iPhone or a Touch not using apps on the thing.
Quote:
iPad apps may well be different but there's a dangerous culture that's arisen in the app store that is essentially to get as many basic/throw-away apps out as possible to see if they make money and they rely on gimmicks to sell rather than usefulness.
Oh come on you are trying to judge the entire library based on a few bad examples. Worst you don't even seem to consider the much larger screen apps have to play with on the iPad.
Quote:
Quite possibly but will they carry a laptop as well as an iPad? People don't carry a laptop as well as an iPhone despite the dependence but it comes down to usage. Can the iPad replace the laptop so that the laptop isn't needed to be taken at all and if not, would the touch features be compelling enough to take both, especially if there are devices like the HP Slate offering both in one package?
For many uses yes the iPad could completely replace a users need for a laptop. This us so obvious that I don't know why it is even a question. The combo of a iMac or Mini with an iPad will be very potent. I can actually see the iPad driving consumers back to desktop hardware instead of trying to make a laptop do everything.
Quote:
Sketchbook usage has some limits mentioned above but also no pressure sensitivity. Autodesk's app has a decent way of tapering the strokes but it's not quite right. People mention the cover art for the New Yorker a lot but it's not a great example. The artwork quality isn't great and would take longer to do than using a wacom. If that artwork was created on a Droid, I highly doubt it would have been used anywhere.
As to the Droid of course not. It wasn't the first graphics capable smart phone with an app to do that.
In any event you seem to focus on graphics production which I don't see being a big part of iPad. It certainly isn't a primary focus nor not likely a secondary.
Quote:
I agree that touch interaction is something worth pushing forward and if it's worth doing, it's worth doing well.
For certain things yeah. But it is not a direct neural link. In any event Touch does solve some issues with respect to small device interfaces.
Quote:
The iPad looks like a solid foundation, I was just hoping that it would have moved further from what we've seen on the iPhone already. If developers can do great things with it and not just see it as a new 'gold-rush', it could be a great platform.
I'm not going to even try to judge iPhone until we get more info about it's hardware and iPhone OS 4.0 comes out. If nothing else it should be obvious to everyone that iPhone OS 3.2 must be an interim release.
Note too without a gold rush you can't do great things.
Quote:
I wouldn't deny that this is a precursor for how we eventually interact with most computers. I'm just not sure if Apple is tackling from the right side. Companies like HP are using it to add to the desktop experience whereas Apple are ignoring desktop usage and starting from the beginning, almost rewriting the rulebook.
Did you really mean what you said above? I ask because I could swear that my MBP has multi touch features built in. The hump that Apple hasn't gotten over yet is the issue of the viabilty of Touch on the desktop. Without the ability to do voice input we aren't getting away from keyboards anytime soon.
Quote:
In many ways, when you see Cocoa-Touch at work, you can see certain inefficiencies of legacy UIs but at the same time recognize other limitations that creep in. Sometimes it's good to have overlapping windows. Sometimes it's good to manage your own files and not have each app do it for you.
Do you really believe there is a perfect OS. I could go into details about Linux and the things it dies well but what is the point. The only thing that is important with iPad is what it does well.
As to file management it looks like Apple agrees with you in part and intends for a common directory for app documents. Apparently OS 4 goes further with that.
Quote:
Apple most certainly are planning to extend this into other products and Ive said as much. So long as they don't remove absolute control from the user, I'm ok with it.
I think that the iPad won't be a surviving product though.
It is simply to early to say. There is to little information about the hardware for one. Further a rush of iPad specific apps must arrive to flesh out the app store.
Quote:
The iPhone is Apple's Magnum Opus and what I think they should have done is make a 10" screen dock for the 4G iPhone. One day soon, mobile phones will be powerful enough to fill the role of a desktop for most people. A 64GB iPhone with 1GB RAM and a 1GHz CPU is almost there and it fits the idea of a modular device. You put it in your pocket to go out, put it in a 10" dock for comfort computing, plug it into a big screen for productivity and there is no syncing, you just have all the data all the time.
Right now there are numerous products coming online that make it difficult to project into the future. For example at one time I was certain that I would get a new iPhone when they come out this year. However that might not be the best way to meat my mobile data needs. Especially with things like MiFi on the market. I'd much rather have AT&T allow Apple to open up the iPhone to tethering or 3G to WiFi bridging. A docking iPhone/tablet wouldn't solve much at all.
Quote:
Sure you can lose the phone but it should have device encryption and backups. Obviously phones are not capable of this yet even with the previous spec but in a few years with dual 2GHz ARM, 2GB RAM and 256GB Nano SSD. What more do people need?
They could need a lot. They are people after all with needs that vary from person to person. I understand what you are saying about smart phones though. I use mine more and more because of apps. It is not however a substitute for a good computer.
Quote:
Sure but the HP Slate will allow you to do everything the iPad can do and will be a much better teaching tool as it will support Flash-based interactive apps.
You sunk your own ship with this idea that Flash is a teaching tool.
Quote:
The reason interactive media is done in Flash is because of the IDE as well as cross-platform support. As soon as a major publisher has a nice interactive learning tool in Flash, the iPad goes in the drawer and it's back to the old computer.
I can't believe you said that. The same tools can be developed directly in the native SDK. IPhone already has such apps.
Quote:
It's the age-old saying about having so many channels on cable and none you want to watch. Apple have 140,000 apps but as soon as there's one app you absolutely require, what do you do? If you run a flexible system, the situation doesn't come up.
If there is an app you require you install it!!!! If it isn't there you write your own, it isn't that difficult. It doesn't require flash either.
Quote:
You can already configure routers other than the AE through the web interfaces. I realise I'm admitting to being productive with an iDevice here but I've configured routers from my iPhone. I'm not sure why Apple didn't make a web interface for theirs.
Now you seem to be rambling. Get a grip, the usefulness of the iPhone is entirely depedent upon how you use it. If you have mental blocks about apps, be it supplied apps like Safari or third party, you won be able to benefit from the platform. The same thing applies to the iPad, if all you see is bad you won't benefit from what the device can do.
To put it bluntly if you don't use your iPhone now then you really can't comment upon iPad.
I was just talking with a friend about this this weekend... we think it is way too early to say, but both of us hope it won't turn out to be an overprice e-reader.
I think Apple rolled the dice...
and they've been lucky more often than not in the past.
Comments
iPhone is a great device to have and so was iPod when it was first launched. But I feel iPad is more of a fad or cool 'gizmo' to have than a necessity. What do u guys think?
It's definitely a non-essential item. A master controlling computer is generally essential to be able to manage content and devices. Mobile phones are essential for communication.
The iPad is of course neither as is the ipod touch. The ipod touch is quite popular because it's a great music player and gives you more or less the same experience as the iphone.
You could possibly say the same about the iPad so long as it fulfills a certain role for people.
Will it replace the desktop for some people? No because it can't manage content so to delete a song, you have to go to your main computer, delete it and sync again.
Will it be a great browser? I think it will be good but not great - mainly comfortable for browsing.
Will it be good for ebooks? If their reader allows inverted text (white text on black), maybe but Apple device are usually really bright.
Will it be good for music? I think people can put some tracks on it but you're probably just going to use an ipod/iphone for that.
Will it be good for movies? The display is nice quality. The format support will be poor like the iphone and the aspect ratio isn't ideal but not a huge deal if they intended that on being the height of the device anyway.
Will people use maps on this? Nope.
Will people be productive on it? I don't think so because the apps are too flimsy.
It will be one of those devices where people decide to buy either an iphone/ipod or an ipad and I think most people will opt for the mobile devices. If it was a device that I could give to my mum to use as a main computer for browsing, email, managing music, importing photos and small videos, writing letters and genuinely no more than that, I'd buy one myself. But she has a computer that's not intuitive for her to use and that's how it shall remain for the foreseeable future, plus she actually does rely on Flash a lot for online video without even knowing what Flash is.
I haven't really heard anyone say what they would actually use an iPad for most of the time nor any reason why the iPad is suddenly the device to do just that.
Will it be good for ebooks? If their reader allows inverted text (white text on black), maybe but Apple device are usually really bright.
Universal Access supported on iPad.
Will people be productive on it? I don't think so because the apps are too flimsy.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, or how you draw that conclusion sight unseen. Maybe you're just thinking of scaled up iPhone apps, but the iWork implementation looks pretty robust to me, and it seems certain that developers will be quick to exploit the iPad's capacities (the Omni people, for instance, have gone all in, and I expect Omnigraffle on the iPad will be great).
I also expect to see some apps that we hadn't anticipated, as smart developers figure out how to make innovative use of the form.
Will people use maps on this? Nope.
Will people be productive on it? I don't think so because the apps are too flimsy.
I haven't really heard anyone say what they would actually use an iPad for most of the time nor any reason why the iPad is suddenly the device to do just that.
Many language teachers around the world will use the iPad in class to show a variety of things, including maps. I live abroad (and have taught) and frequently use maps or Google Earth on my iPhone; it's a great conversation piece, but the iPhone is too small for a small class; the iPad will work fine for small groups.
I have been productive on my iPhone using Zeptopad, Sketchbook, ReelDirector, RectoolsPro and several other apps. Though not ideal, it worked while sitting on crowded trains and when ideas struck and I didn't have my MBA. Some music group recorded their entire CD on an iPhone. The cover art for one month's New Yorker was drawn on an iPhone. The iPad will make the work much easier, especially with iWork, which looks slick, and the added screen space.
For creative types, the iPad will be a great digital sketchbook for drawing, planning, recording and other tasks. I know I'm looking forward to it.
This app looks interesting, too, though I'll likely pass because I'll have iWork:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6nDbE1CK3o
Though you might also want to consider that this is a new type of device too.
Your analysis focuses on the fact that the device will fulfill a role that current devices already cover.
If you only see it that way the iPad will have a hard time over all. You are spot on with that.
But the focus on solely a touch interface makes it different.
The iPad could literally be the first of a new breed of computing devices, which 10 years from now might be known as the one device that started a new era of computing: interactive personal computing.
- Consider that a device controlled by touch can be used instantly by anyone.
No need to learn how to use a mouse/keyboard/pen interface.
And as a touch device it can also be used in many more locations and situations, e.g. while standing, or flat on a table.
- Consider that the iPad is designed to be shared.
You can demonstrate something on it and quite a few others can view and interact together.
Imagine a board game like monopoly or chess, or even air hockey. With multitouch and the iPad's size several players can interact on one device at the same time. Particularly when placed flat on a table surface.
- Consider how often we just want to 'flick through data'.
Be it pages of a magazine, a book we read, photos from the last trip, web pages we regularly visit or emails.
Due to its touch nature the iPad is literally perfectly suited to 'flick' through that info and re-arrange it.
Much better than any laptop with keyboard and mouse.
- Consider that 'composing a document' can be much more 'hands-on'.
With a touch interface composing becomes interactive and fun.
Sure, if 'composing' just means entering text, then a keyboard is best. But many documents these days include a multitude of data: images, graphics, spreadsheet data, perhaps even movie clips and web links.
If you've watched some of the latest Microsoft Courier demos you get a good idea that 'composing' documents via touch is much more fun and interactive. It's preferable to a keyboard and mouse.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/05/m...ctures-and-de/
We don't know if users will jump onto this touch bandwagon. If it will catch on.
That's the big question mark.
But if it does, I can imagine the iPad to become a truly revolutionary device.
With many more to follow, in all shapes and sizes.
iPhone is a great device to have and so was iPod when it was first launched. But I feel iPad is more of a fad or cool 'gizmo' to have than a necessity. What do u guys think?
The fact of the matter that the iPad is locked down, requires another computer to operate and has limited capabilities, performance and storage suggests the device is a entry level, controlled computing device aimed primarily at the young teen market.
Although the iPad will find some use outside that primary youth market as a appliance, the bulk of more mature computer users will find using the dumbed down device instead of a real computer a insult to their intelligence. There will be no challenge to keep them interested.
It's understandable to use a simpler GUI on a smaller screen portable device as one needs are immediate and exact. But to extend that concept into a larger screen device to mimic a full fledged computer is something else entirely.
Apple is a company like any other designed to sell as much product as possible, and their primary markets are the United States and Europe. These two markets demographics are very interested in technology products as they have lower population growth percentages than other markets, thus more disposable income.
The fact Apple removed nearly all MacBooks and substituted a line of limited, controlled devices with a much simpler GUI goes to show the gradual decline of the intelligence level of these two primary markets that Apple believes they can't learn at a early age how to use a regular windows GUI.
Some may argue the touchscreen device demands a different GUI, which I agree. However one has to look at how the intended market interacts with a device first, then build the hardware around it second.
Could Apple have created a touchscreen version of the Mac windows based GUI in such a way (like everything a bit larger to accept the larger finger input) as to ease the transition for a young person from a iPad to a Windows PC or a Mac?
The answer of course is yes.
Apple has created a device that when used by the youth market, is going to hamper their ability to transition to a regular windows GUI based computer when they get older. Unless of course, Apple intends to eventually replace the windows based GUI for all their devices with a simpler interface to match the market it created.
And what does that say about what Apple thinks about those markets in general?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumbing_down
What is going to encourage the brilliant child when he or she is handed a iPad tethered to mom or dad's virus infected PC?
Many language teachers around the world will use the iPad in class to show a variety of things, including maps. I live abroad (and have taught) and frequently use maps or Google Earth on my iPhone; it's a great conversation piece, but the iPhone is too small for a small class; the iPad will work fine for small groups.
This. I'm a language teacher. This is a must-have device for my a small group or one-to-one teaching. Nothing currently available can compare. The apps, even the free apps, make it way better than any desktop OS based slate could ever be.
However one has to look at how the intended market interacts with a device first, then build the hardware around it second.
If that's true we'd all still be using green on black text with a keyboard-only interface navigating via cursor keys.
Just with a better keyboard than in the 1980ies.
From time to time engineers have to take a leap of faith and come up with new paradigms on how they think users could interact better - with no current interaction example.
The mouse was such a new paradigm. No one knew if people really would give up their cursor keys and constantly move their hands between keyboard and another input device.
I wager that a complete touch interface is a similar one. Whether people will accept it? We will see.
The dumbing-down argument only works when comparing the iPhone/iPod/iPad OS to a current desktop OS which I think is not warranted as it is IMHO the first device of a new breed of devices.
More appropriate is a comparison to an early Macintosh OS, for example Finder 6.0 of the mid to late 80ies.
By today's standard Finder 6.0 could be considered a major 'dumbing-down' step. You had a few black and white icons you could move around a bit on a tiny screen. Compared to that the iPad OS is far superior already.
If you look at how the Finder's UI evolved over the last 25 years, not only into OSX but also Windows 7 and all other windowing OSs, then you can only barely imagine how the iPad's baby steps of a first touch OS might evolve in the next 25 years.
If a touch OS caches on - and that's a big IF, we don't know the outcome yet - the touch OS and touch devices of 2035 will be far from 'dumb'.
As a first 'evolutionary step' I expect that a future iPad OS version (perhaps even 4.0 already) will remove the requirement of a primary computer.
It will soon function as its own truly independent device.
I concur that the iPad will eventually go computer-free. Cameras and such can print directly to many printers over wifi; the iPad should soon be able to even set up its own wifi network (ie, control an Airport Express).
The future is looking bright!
It may be ahead of its time. It's sort of one of those things that could either not go anywhere or literally be everywhere. I don't see it being a mediocre hit. It will either be a relative flop or a MEGA-HIT! The issue I have with it is that while I think it's very cool I don't need one.
When you think about it though there really is very little that one actually "NEEDS". I'd like to try one out.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, or how you draw that conclusion sight unseen. Maybe you're just thinking of scaled up iPhone apps, but the iWork implementation looks pretty robust to me, and it seems certain that developers will be quick to exploit the iPad's capacities (the Omni people, for instance, have gone all in, and I expect Omnigraffle on the iPad will be great).
I also expect to see some apps that we hadn't anticipated, as smart developers figure out how to make innovative use of the form.
Mainly I'm thinking about the inherent limitations on the device - the mobile architecture. There's no virtual memory so productive apps (especially visually creative apps) are limited in what they can feasibly do. Sketchbook apps are limited to 6 layers and fixed resolution on the iphone. If the iPad has at least 512MB RAM then there's less to worry about but there are additional constraints due to the sandboxing and lack of common data access (the recently shown 'open with command' may get round that to some extent even though it means jumping apps).
One thing for example would be trying to open and do minor edits to RAW HDR images (multiple open at once to compare them) from a 12MPixel+ camera on location. It seems like a high-end task but it's something the iPad really ought to be able to do to appeal to the Photography market and may not be able to do.
I don't want to place artificially high expectations on it to ensure it doesn't meet them but rather highlight areas where it just won't work well.
The iWork apps did look good from the demo but if you have the choice between your computer and iPad for this, I reckon people will choose to be productive on a computer with no real constraints.
I haven't found any iPhone apps to be particularly useful day to day like desktop apps are. iPad apps may well be different but there's a dangerous culture that's arisen in the app store that is essentially to get as many basic/throw-away apps out as possible to see if they make money and they rely on gimmicks to sell rather than usefulness.
Many language teachers around the world will use the iPad in class
Quite possibly but will they carry a laptop as well as an iPad? People don't carry a laptop as well as an iPhone despite the dependence but it comes down to usage. Can the iPad replace the laptop so that the laptop isn't needed to be taken at all and if not, would the touch features be compelling enough to take both, especially if there are devices like the HP Slate offering both in one package?
I have been productive on my iPhone using Zeptopad, Sketchbook, ReelDirector, RectoolsPro and several other apps. Though not ideal, it worked while sitting on crowded trains and when ideas struck and I didn't have my MBA. Some music group recorded their entire CD on an iPhone. The cover art for one month's New Yorker was drawn on an iPhone. The iPad will make the work much easier, especially with iWork, which looks slick, and the added screen space.
For creative types, the iPad will be a great digital sketchbook for drawing, planning, recording and other tasks. I know I'm looking forward to it.
Sketchbook usage has some limits mentioned above but also no pressure sensitivity. Autodesk's app has a decent way of tapering the strokes but it's not quite right. People mention the cover art for the New Yorker a lot but it's not a great example. The artwork quality isn't great and would take longer to do than using a wacom. If that artwork was created on a Droid, I highly doubt it would have been used anywhere.
The iPad could literally be the first of a new breed of computing devices, which 10 years from now might be known as the one device that started a new era of computing: interactive personal computing.
a device controlled by touch can be used instantly by anyone.
the iPad is designed to be shared.
With a touch interface composing becomes interactive and fun.
I agree that touch interaction is something worth pushing forward and if it's worth doing, it's worth doing well.
The iPad looks like a solid foundation, I was just hoping that it would have moved further from what we've seen on the iPhone already. If developers can do great things with it and not just see it as a new 'gold-rush', it could be a great platform.
I wouldn't deny that this is a precursor for how we eventually interact with most computers. I'm just not sure if Apple is tackling from the right side. Companies like HP are using it to add to the desktop experience whereas Apple are ignoring desktop usage and starting from the beginning, almost rewriting the rulebook.
In many ways, when you see Cocoa-Touch at work, you can see certain inefficiencies of legacy UIs but at the same time recognize other limitations that creep in. Sometimes it's good to have overlapping windows. Sometimes it's good to manage your own files and not have each app do it for you.
Apple most certainly are planning to extend this into other products and Ive said as much. So long as they don't remove absolute control from the user, I'm ok with it.
I think that the iPad won't be a surviving product though. The iPhone is Apple's Magnum Opus and what I think they should have done is make a 10" screen dock for the 4G iPhone. One day soon, mobile phones will be powerful enough to fill the role of a desktop for most people. A 64GB iPhone with 1GB RAM and a 1GHz CPU is almost there and it fits the idea of a modular device. You put it in your pocket to go out, put it in a 10" dock for comfort computing, plug it into a big screen for productivity and there is no syncing, you just have all the data all the time.
Sure you can lose the phone but it should have device encryption and backups. Obviously phones are not capable of this yet even with the previous spec but in a few years with dual 2GHz ARM, 2GB RAM and 256GB Nano SSD. What more do people need?
I'm a language teacher. This is a must-have device for my a small group or one-to-one teaching. Nothing currently available can compare.
Sure but the HP Slate will allow you to do everything the iPad can do and will be a much better teaching tool as it will support Flash-based interactive apps. The reason interactive media is done in Flash is because of the IDE as well as cross-platform support. As soon as a major publisher has a nice interactive learning tool in Flash, the iPad goes in the drawer and it's back to the old computer.
It's the age-old saying about having so many channels on cable and none you want to watch. Apple have 140,000 apps but as soon as there's one app you absolutely require, what do you do? If you run a flexible system, the situation doesn't come up.
the iPad should soon be able to even set up its own wifi network (ie, control an Airport Express)
You can already configure routers other than the AE through the web interfaces. I realise I'm admitting to being productive with an iDevice here but I've configured routers from my iPhone. I'm not sure why Apple didn't make a web interface for theirs.
The iPad looks like a solid foundation, I was just hoping that it would have moved further from what we've seen on the iPhone already.
Great comments.
Fully agree. Also wish Apple would be bolder. Though recent years showed Apple is evolving in baby steps rather than big bold moves. More often than not.
Haven't seen the HP pad, but there must be a reason why tablets with Windows/Linux have not caught on in a big way yet - even though they've been around for so many years. IMHO two reasons:
1.) Accuracy
Most tablets I've used (with touch or pen) had really poor accuracy. You often needed to recalibrate and still would register clicks at the wrong location. Frustrating.
2.) OS
A desktop OS - no matter how many tablet extensions are bolted on - is still a desktop OS.
I understand when you say this can be a good thing. Because you can use the app you own/know or the environment you are used to.
Yet I feel both these reasons are ultimately wrong.
It will always be a compromise and in the end you'd rather want to go with a laptop directly.
And that's why a tablet needs a new OS, built from the ground up around touch.
If the touch UI is fun and the user is comfortable with it and assuming key productivity suites for normal home users are 'good enough' this will be the combination that will tip the scales.
A screen docking solution for the iPhone would ultimately be the same and is a great idea.
Yet I also see this as a chicken and egg situation.
People wouldn't want to buy a new phone (plus contract) or iPod just to get to use a tablet. Especially not professional niche markets like hospitals or surveyors. They want a cheap, simple single device.
So likely few people would 'upgrade' their iPhone/iPod with such a dock. And with such a fuzzy, fragmented market not enough developers would use the larger screen space for iPad apps - and consequently the whole UI idea will fizzle out. It will literally just be a bigger iPhone.
I think this 'stigmata' is what Apple needs to overcome ASAP. The bigger screen, cheaper price, and at least initially well defined use make all the difference. With all that the iPad's new UI paradigm has a much better chance of gaining traction.
With a reasonably well established tablet user base, with a device that has an accurate touch interface, lots of screen real estate and a reasonable price, developers for the first time have a real chance to try a new UI paradigm for a general purpose device.
It's a gamble, but the possibilities are vastly greater than on a phone-sized device.
And there will be uses we haven't even dreamed of in our wildest dreams.
I hope the iPad will be successful enough so we can see that day.
iPhone is a great device to have and so was iPod when it was first launched. But I feel iPad is more of a fad or cool 'gizmo' to have than a necessity. What do u guys think?
This iteration probably won't do it, but I believe it can eventually replace the laptop for me.
No, it can't be a main computer, but the MBP I carry around is actually a desktop replacement. It's a lot of functionality to carry, more than I need on the move.
I car foresee a future, where I have a desktop at home/office, and never lug any "real computer" around - just this tablet. Then I can do "serious computing" on the "real computer", and on the road, just light editing, browsing and reading. Then there's no need for a full-function laptop.
However, some things are missing to make that happen:
- Easy synchronization with at least two "real computers" (one for home and one for work)
- The ability to use this device for generic storage
- Far better remote access VPN than is offered on iPhone - allow other VPN clients, and I don't mean Cisco's.
I can see carrying an iPad instead of a laptop, just not yet.iPhone is a great device to have and so was iPod when it was first launched. But I feel iPad is more of a fad or cool 'gizmo' to have than a necessity. What do u guys think?
Really? did you miss the backlash against the iPod and iPhone when first introduced?
So I just picked up a 3G/WiFi "egg" (Huawei e5830, marketed as "MiFi" by Three UK) for $60 and signed up for unlimited 3G data for ~US$25 a month. Not bad at all. I've already tested it with my iPod Touch and it works great. It is a far better solution than getting the 3G iPad, as I can use it with my iPod Touch, iPad, MacBook Pro, my wife's laptop and the SE J10 I'm still planning on getting.
It is a far better solution than getting the 3G iPad, as I can use it with my iPod Touch, iPad, MacBook Pro [...]
Depends on your needs.
Keep in mind that only the iPad 3G has GPS.
If you want location based services (maps, 'what's near me', etc.) then the WiFi model's triangulation may not be sufficiently accurate, or even available in your area.
Depends on your needs.
Keep in mind that only the iPad 3G has GPS.
If you want location based services (maps, 'what's near me', etc.) then the WiFi model's triangulation may not be sufficiently accurate, or even available in your area.
Thanks for the heads-up. However, I've used maps on my Touch all around Hong Kong and it's never been inaccurate, so I'm not too worried.
Mainly I'm thinking about the inherent limitations on the device - the mobile architecture. There's no virtual memory so productive apps (especially visually creative apps) are limited in what they can feasibly do. Sketchbook apps are limited to 6 layers and fixed resolution on the iphone. If the iPad has at least 512MB RAM then there's less to worry about but there are additional constraints due to the sandboxing and lack of common data access (the recently shown 'open with command' may get round that to some extent even though it means jumping apps).
The RAM issue is very significant and Apples need to hide what the actual configuration is, is worrisome. In this regards I agree with you 100%. In fact I wouldn't even consider the iPad until solid information about it's internals are released. You are absolutely right in that RAM is a big factor in what can be accompilshed on a device with no virtual memory.
One thing for example would be trying to open and do minor edits to RAW HDR images (multiple open at once to compare them) from a 12MPixel+ camera on location. It seems like a high-end task but it's something the iPad really ought to be able to do to appeal to the Photography market and may not be able to do.
Funny but I never imagined doing HDR on a tablet. I just don't see the small screen and touch interface being conducive to this. That doesn't even take into account the RAM problem.
I don't want to place artificially high expectations on it to ensure it doesn't meet them but rather highlight areas where it just won't work well.
For any given technology there are places it won't work or work well. This is no big surprise. You have to judge a device based on it intended usage and like wise with iPad. It is sort of like using a Cessena to shuttle people to Vegas. Sure it might work but is it the right tool? IPad needs to be judged where a tablet is the right tool.
The iWork apps did look good from the demo but if you have the choice between your computer and iPad for this, I reckon people will choose to be productive on a computer with no real constraints.
In this regards I think you are simply wrong. Having such apps, at such a low cost, means putting those capabilities into the hands of people that would find the use of a laptop cumbersome. The purpose if these apps on an iPad is not to replace a laptop but rather to provide a capability that isn't available via conventional laptops. We are talking about an entirely different set of usages.
I haven't found any iPhone apps to be particularly useful day to day like desktop apps are.
To that statement I have to say you are being bull headed. Take that from somebody that is bull headed (the last girlfriend insisted that was the case). I have a handful of apps I use very often, certainly not all the time but enough to justify paying good money for them if they had a price on them.
Frankly I can't imagine anybody using an iPhone or a Touch not using apps on the thing.
iPad apps may well be different but there's a dangerous culture that's arisen in the app store that is essentially to get as many basic/throw-away apps out as possible to see if they make money and they rely on gimmicks to sell rather than usefulness.
Oh come on you are trying to judge the entire library based on a few bad examples. Worst you don't even seem to consider the much larger screen apps have to play with on the iPad.
Quite possibly but will they carry a laptop as well as an iPad? People don't carry a laptop as well as an iPhone despite the dependence but it comes down to usage. Can the iPad replace the laptop so that the laptop isn't needed to be taken at all and if not, would the touch features be compelling enough to take both, especially if there are devices like the HP Slate offering both in one package?
For many uses yes the iPad could completely replace a users need for a laptop. This us so obvious that I don't know why it is even a question. The combo of a iMac or Mini with an iPad will be very potent. I can actually see the iPad driving consumers back to desktop hardware instead of trying to make a laptop do everything.
Sketchbook usage has some limits mentioned above but also no pressure sensitivity. Autodesk's app has a decent way of tapering the strokes but it's not quite right. People mention the cover art for the New Yorker a lot but it's not a great example. The artwork quality isn't great and would take longer to do than using a wacom. If that artwork was created on a Droid, I highly doubt it would have been used anywhere.
As to the Droid of course not. It wasn't the first graphics capable smart phone with an app to do that.
In any event you seem to focus on graphics production which I don't see being a big part of iPad. It certainly isn't a primary focus nor not likely a secondary.
I agree that touch interaction is something worth pushing forward and if it's worth doing, it's worth doing well.
For certain things yeah. But it is not a direct neural link. In any event Touch does solve some issues with respect to small device interfaces.
The iPad looks like a solid foundation, I was just hoping that it would have moved further from what we've seen on the iPhone already. If developers can do great things with it and not just see it as a new 'gold-rush', it could be a great platform.
I'm not going to even try to judge iPhone until we get more info about it's hardware and iPhone OS 4.0 comes out. If nothing else it should be obvious to everyone that iPhone OS 3.2 must be an interim release.
Note too without a gold rush you can't do great things.
I wouldn't deny that this is a precursor for how we eventually interact with most computers. I'm just not sure if Apple is tackling from the right side. Companies like HP are using it to add to the desktop experience whereas Apple are ignoring desktop usage and starting from the beginning, almost rewriting the rulebook.
Did you really mean what you said above? I ask because I could swear that my MBP has multi touch features built in. The hump that Apple hasn't gotten over yet is the issue of the viabilty of Touch on the desktop. Without the ability to do voice input we aren't getting away from keyboards anytime soon.
In many ways, when you see Cocoa-Touch at work, you can see certain inefficiencies of legacy UIs but at the same time recognize other limitations that creep in. Sometimes it's good to have overlapping windows. Sometimes it's good to manage your own files and not have each app do it for you.
Do you really believe there is a perfect OS. I could go into details about Linux and the things it dies well but what is the point. The only thing that is important with iPad is what it does well.
As to file management it looks like Apple agrees with you in part and intends for a common directory for app documents. Apparently OS 4 goes further with that.
Apple most certainly are planning to extend this into other products and Ive said as much. So long as they don't remove absolute control from the user, I'm ok with it.
I think that the iPad won't be a surviving product though.
It is simply to early to say. There is to little information about the hardware for one. Further a rush of iPad specific apps must arrive to flesh out the app store.
The iPhone is Apple's Magnum Opus and what I think they should have done is make a 10" screen dock for the 4G iPhone. One day soon, mobile phones will be powerful enough to fill the role of a desktop for most people. A 64GB iPhone with 1GB RAM and a 1GHz CPU is almost there and it fits the idea of a modular device. You put it in your pocket to go out, put it in a 10" dock for comfort computing, plug it into a big screen for productivity and there is no syncing, you just have all the data all the time.
Right now there are numerous products coming online that make it difficult to project into the future. For example at one time I was certain that I would get a new iPhone when they come out this year. However that might not be the best way to meat my mobile data needs. Especially with things like MiFi on the market. I'd much rather have AT&T allow Apple to open up the iPhone to tethering or 3G to WiFi bridging. A docking iPhone/tablet wouldn't solve much at all.
Sure you can lose the phone but it should have device encryption and backups. Obviously phones are not capable of this yet even with the previous spec but in a few years with dual 2GHz ARM, 2GB RAM and 256GB Nano SSD. What more do people need?
They could need a lot. They are people after all with needs that vary from person to person. I understand what you are saying about smart phones though. I use mine more and more because of apps. It is not however a substitute for a good computer.
Sure but the HP Slate will allow you to do everything the iPad can do and will be a much better teaching tool as it will support Flash-based interactive apps.
You sunk your own ship with this idea that Flash is a teaching tool.
The reason interactive media is done in Flash is because of the IDE as well as cross-platform support. As soon as a major publisher has a nice interactive learning tool in Flash, the iPad goes in the drawer and it's back to the old computer.
I can't believe you said that. The same tools can be developed directly in the native SDK. IPhone already has such apps.
It's the age-old saying about having so many channels on cable and none you want to watch. Apple have 140,000 apps but as soon as there's one app you absolutely require, what do you do? If you run a flexible system, the situation doesn't come up.
If there is an app you require you install it!!!! If it isn't there you write your own, it isn't that difficult. It doesn't require flash either.
You can already configure routers other than the AE through the web interfaces. I realise I'm admitting to being productive with an iDevice here but I've configured routers from my iPhone. I'm not sure why Apple didn't make a web interface for theirs.
Now you seem to be rambling. Get a grip, the usefulness of the iPhone is entirely depedent upon how you use it. If you have mental blocks about apps, be it supplied apps like Safari or third party, you won be able to benefit from the platform. The same thing applies to the iPad, if all you see is bad you won't benefit from what the device can do.
To put it bluntly if you don't use your iPhone now then you really can't comment upon iPad.
Dave
I think Apple rolled the dice...
and they've been lucky more often than not in the past.
Need any portable trade show displays?
For example, it would be great for teachers going out on a field trip with the whole class!