I totally agree with those saying that this is just the beginning. The number of addressable markets for this thing is huge.
The funny thing is that Bill Gates called this ten years ago, and of course John Sculley called it 10 years before that, and so on, and so on, and so on. It's taken a generation of failed efforts to develop a truly useful Star Trek style tablet, but I think we're finally here, thanks to a combination of Moore's Law and Steve Jobs.
I am not sure what you mean by this: "the costs of writing "proprietary software" in relation to the Citrix ecosystem.
Just simply that software specifically adapted to the strengths and weaknesses of the the iPad will allow more efficient, effective delivery and use of information. That this will require development effort above and beyond using Citrix to hook them up to existing software, and that it will be worth it in the long run because, as great as this might seem now, the software they are running remotely obviously was not designed for an iPad, and, although very useful, it's almost certainly not the optimal way to use an iPad for this purpose.
That's a very good point, I'd not thought of that.
Back in the day I wrote software in the aerospace industry (for cockpit displays and controls) and it was similar there - unless it absolutely definitely needed changing, it didn't get changed.
The doctors at my hospital can't stand the current laptop technology that we have deployed. They are a very powerful group when it comes to changing existing technology. I'm interested to see what the outcome will be at my hospital.
One of the challenges that will be faced is dealing with the FDA when writing native applications for mobile devices. Makes a big difference if it requires 510k clearance or is treated as a class III device.
I can see it as perfect for any place where you see 'officials' carrying any kind of clip board or where some kind of hand-held assistant may be utilized.
It depends upon that hand-held assistant. If such has two legs it is not likely the professional will trade her in for a tablet. There experience is significantly different than that of a computing device.
Quote:
Hotels, restaurants and hospitality management, building site management and architects, warehousing inventory, tour guide-ing and art galleries... Nothing like the scope of the general medical field but nonetheless.
Actually the medical field is tiny compared to some of those industries.
I can see it as perfect for any place where you see 'officials' carrying any kind of clip board or where some kind of hand-held assistant may be utilized.
My boss has been using them on set since they came out. Loves it.
On the medical front, there was a study done perhaps 10 years ago about fatal and near fatal errors in hospitals. Something like 85% of all drug errors were said to be due to one of two factors -- bad handwriting or overlooked drug interactions. The solution proposed was for computers to be used, either mounted by every bed etc or something hand held where doctors could access prior medical charts, TYPE in drug orders (which would validate the dosage and alert for potential interactions. Nurses could also have handhelds that would sound an alarm for dosage times etc. and then they could 'sign off' that they gave the meds, checked the vitals etc so all other nurses would know it was done (and who did it). etc.
at the time it was a big dream. But one that it was believed would save thousands of lives
I know and I agree completely. I was just making a sarcastic reference to all the idiot fanboys in here who think that Steve Jobs is doing them a favour by banning developers' use of intermediary layers to abstract their code away from the native APIs - and to Steve Jobs' own snowblinded rhetoric about how using these cross platform layers ultimately hurts the users.
I have thought about the issue for quite a long time myself. But, I could think of a number of reasons why Steve Jobs have gone that way.
First. For business reasons. Whether we like it or not the iPhone OS mobile devices are way ahead of the competition. True or not, Apple has developed the aura that they are consumer friendly -- the mantra "it just works" -- so that many people are willing to pay premium for Apple products.
Thus, if Apple can find away to differentiate its product, to retain its loyal customers, it must do so, if only for business reasons -- it must make a profit to survive. Apple does not have to capture the majority of the consumers, just the "cream of the crop" to survive and be very profitable -- just like many high-end products, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, etc.
The above perspective is one of the reasons why Steve Jobs (and Apple) has taken the "vertical integration" approach -- derisively termed "walled garden" -- to retain its loyal customers.
Second. For technical reasons. From past experience, as a minority in the computer "desktops", Apple and its customers, have been ignored or neglected by third party providers. Adobe is one of those who have not upgraded or have provided subpar versions of its products for the Mac computers. This is true also with Microsofts, e.g., MS Office. Some companies stopped providing Mac versions or did not even provided any version of their software.
Because of these dependence on third party sources, the success or survival of the Mac computer depended on the whims of other companies. For example, Microsoft might have dealt a death blow to struggling Apple in the mid 1990s, if it stopped providing the MS Office.
[This dependence on third party MS-centric softwares was solved partly with the Intel Mac, but it is not the best solution.]
Since Apple is currently in the driver's seat, when it comes to the most "sought after" and much copied mobile consumer devices, it is in a position to dictate the terms to limit its dependence on software technologies that can cripple its existing edge in mobile computing products.
If only for this reason, not only for Apple but also for its loyal customers, Apple must do what is needed to solve the aforementioned "Achilles heel".
Third. Optimized system. This is also a technical issue, but the simplest analogy I can use here is communication between two individuals speaking different languages. You will need an interpreter -- expert in both languages -- for them to communicate. More than likely, something would be lost in the interpretation because the interpreter is not truly immersed in the nuances of both languages.
In a sense, computing devices, that try to reconcile differing softwares is not the most optimized system, even if it works. This becomes even more problematic if the "Second reason" (stated above comes into play). For example, to use the case of Flash for the Mac, if the Flash customized for mobile computing is not updated promtly, no matter how advanced the other softwares, it will be the Flash that will impede the advancement of Apples iPhone OS products, as it has done in the Mac computers. This is referred to as the "least common denominator" limitation in the progress of technology.
Fourth. While Apple has its own proprietary technologies used in its products, the basic softwares they were based from are open source softwares (e.g., Unix for both OS X and iPhone OS) or based from accepted standard for the internet. From what I read, Apple is also a significant contributor to the standards used in internet technology, and provided for free use some of its proprietary technology.
Flash is proprietary and not free technology. I assume that companies have to compensate Adobe for the use of such proprietary technology.
Fifth. Is open source always the best? My answer here is qualified. I am a user of open source software technologies, but from experience they do not always meet my expectations. I use Joomla and some other CMS sotwares but until now, Joomla for example has not developed a very secure registration system, and it is not granular enough to allow more specific visitor access to information. There are more shortcomings. However, because the software is open source, the progress depends so much on the vision and the amount of time invested by the volunteer developers. Also, because the developers are volunteers the quality of the product and direction are decided usually by "committee" which in turn would be dependent on the expertise of the voluteers.
As a result, I desperately need an open source software that is as robust as the commercial or proprietary softwares used by news-magazine like NY Times, but I have not found one yet that satisfies many of the basic features I wanted.
Thus, if Apple and any other reputable company can provide the proprietary software I need, I do not mind paying them.
One request, I hope people stop disparaging others simply because of their preference for Apple products or those of other companies
That is what I'm wondering especially when it comes to more demanding native apps. Trying to implement a machine with only about 120MB of RAM available to user apps could be frustrating for many potential native apps. Maybe it isn't impossible to implement tools for high resolution images but I'd have to think the feature set would be limited.
However that doesn't mean iPad won't do a lot of things well now. It just means that Apple needs to manage expectations as the current model has limitations.
Oh one more thing, functionality wise it is a big iPod Touch. That isn't a bad thing if you understand Touch.
Heard Kaiser was looking into them large scale as well. That's a little over 14,000 physicians...
and then there's the patients. I heard our local Children's Hospital was looking into get 100 or so to use with the kids. imagine being 10 years old and you are having to spend all afternoon doing dialysis. Goes over a lot better when you can watch a movie, or play a game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
What about wiping down the device when it's traveling between patients? Most hospitals are meticulous about this, but I'm sure new procedures will need to be established. I wonder if Apple could coat the device with an anti-bacterial surface treatment?
Apple generally doesn't do that kind of limited audience stuff. and probably wouldn't recommend it being done since any liquid that got in the wrong place could damage the whole thing (and void the warranty).
all you need is a fully encompassing hard case that is lightweight. something like Nextware did for the iphone where even the front has thin plastic over it. You could wipe that off without fear of liquid getting into the device
I have thought about the issue for quite a long time myself. But, I could think of a number of reasons why Steve Jobs have gone that way.
First. For business reasons. Whether we like it or not the iPhone OS mobile devices are way ahead of the competition. True or not, Apple has developed the aura that they are consumer friendly -- the mantra "it just works" -- so that many people are willing to pay premium for Apple products.
Thus, if Apple can find away to differentiate its product, to retain its loyal customers, it must do so, if only for business reasons -- it must make a profit to survive. Apple does not have to capture the majority of the consumers, just the "cream of the crop" to survive and be very profitable -- just like many high-end products, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, etc.
The above perspective is one of the reasons why Steve Jobs (and Apple) has taken the "vertical integration" approach -- derisively termed "walled garden" -- to retain its loyal customers.
Second. For technical reasons. From past experience, as a minority in the computer "desktops", Apple and its customers, have been ignored or neglected by third party providers. Adobe is one of those who have not upgraded or have provided subpar versions of its products for the Mac computers. This is true also with Microsofts, e.g., MS Office. Some companies stopped providing Mac versions or did not even provided any version of their software.
Because of these dependence on third party sources, the success or survival of the Mac computer depended on the whims of other companies. For example, Microsoft might have dealt a death blow to struggling Apple in the mid 1990s, if it stopped providing the MS Office.
[This dependence on third party MS-centric softwares was solved partly with the Intel Mac, but it is not the best solution.]
Since Apple is currently in the driver's seat, when it comes to the most "sought after" and much copied mobile consumer devices, it is in a position to dictate the terms to limit its dependence on software technologies that can cripple its existing edge in mobile computing products.
If only for this reason, not only for Apple but also for its loyal customers, Apple must do what is needed to solve the aforementioned "Achilles heel".
Third. Optimized system. This is also a technical issue, but the simplest analogy I can use here is communication between two individuals speaking different languages. You will need an interpreter -- expert in both languages -- for them to communicate. More than likely, something would be lost in the interpretation because the interpreter is not truly immersed in the nuances of both languages.
In a sense, computing devices, that try to reconcile differing softwares is not the most optimized system, even if it works. This becomes even more problematic if the "Second reason" (stated above comes into play). For example, to use the case of Flash for the Mac, if the Flash customized for mobile computing is not updated promtly, no matter how advanced the other softwares, it will be the Flash that will impede the advancement of Apples iPhone OS products, as it has done in the Mac computers. This is referred to as the "least common denominator" limitation in the progress of technology.
Fourth. While Apple has its own proprietary technologies used in its products, the basic softwares they were based from are open source softwares (e.g., Unix for both OS X and iPhone OS) or based from accepted standard for the internet. From what I read, Apple is also a significant contributor to the standards used in internet technology, and provided for free use some of its proprietary technology.
Flash is proprietary and not free technology. I assume that companies have to compensate Adobe for the use of such proprietary technology.
Fifth. Is open source always the best? My answer here is qualified. I am a user of open source software technologies, but from experience they do not always meet my expectations. I use Joomla and some other CMS sotwares but until now, Joomla for example has not developed a very secure registration system, and it is not granular enough to allow more specific visitor access to information. There are more shortcomings. However, because the software is open source, the progress depends so much on the vision and the amount of time invested by the volunteer developers. Also, because the developers are volunteers the quality of the product and direction are decided usually by "committee" which in turn would be dependent on the expertise of the voluteers.
As a result, I desperately need an open source software that is as robust as the commercial or proprietary softwares used by news-magazine like NY Times, but I have not found one yet that satisfies many of the basic features I wanted.
Thus, if Apple and any other reputable company can provide the proprietary software I need, I do not mind paying them.
One request, I hope people stop disparaging others simply because of their preference for Apple products or those of other companies
For posts about how hospitals should use Flash for x-rays and diagnostic charts...and how the iPad is clearly a sub-standard mobile touch screen pad because it lacks the ability to run Flash for Medical Emergencies - which Adobe will provide export for from Flash CS19 - due sometime in 2025.
The premier application for viewing medical images is OsiriX - a DICOM viewer originally developed on the Mac under OS X. I am sure that the developers will have an iPad version out soon.
For other applications - we are developing an on-machine controller for industrial automation applications that will replace industrialized touch screens. The iPad is cheaper - and it a computer!! That will allow us to embed operating, maintenance, trouble shooting and repair manuals as well as instructional QuickTime Movies right on the machine. Minimal impact on network traffic and a hugh increase in functionality.
btw - did you say, ". . . the iPad is clearly a sub-standard mobile touch screen"? You must be living under a rock and clearly have never touched one. I suggest that you get down to an Apple Store and actually try one.
I know and I agree completely. I was just making a sarcastic reference to all the idiot fanboys in here who think that Steve Jobs is doing them a favour by banning developers' use of intermediary layers to abstract their code away from the native APIs - and to Steve Jobs' own snowblinded rhetoric about how using these cross platform layers ultimately hurts the users.
Cross platform means lowest common denominator output. How many write once run everywhere java programs have you seen that were worth a darn? Maybe you shouldn't be calling people idiots when you are the one who is wrong.
For posts about how hospitals should use Flash for x-rays and diagnostic charts...and how the iPad is clearly a sub-standard mobile touch screen pad because it lacks the ability to run Flash for Medical Emergencies - which Adobe will provide export for from Flash CS19 - due sometime in 2025.
The premier application for viewing medical images is OsiriX - a DICOM viewer originally developed on the Mac under OS X. I am sure that the developers will have an iPad version out soon.
For other applications - we are developing an on-machine controller for industrial automation applications that will replace industrialized touch screens. The iPad is cheaper - and it a computer!! That will allow us to embed operating, maintenance, trouble shooting and repair manuals as well as instructional QuickTime Movies right on the machine. Minimal impact on network traffic and a hugh increase in functionality.
One of the challenges that will be faced is dealing with the FDA when writing native applications for mobile devices. Makes a big difference if it requires 510k clearance or is treated as a class III device.
You're forgetting about that bed of roses other wise known as HIPPA, it's certainly no walk in the park either..
Comments
The funny thing is that Bill Gates called this ten years ago, and of course John Sculley called it 10 years before that, and so on, and so on, and so on. It's taken a generation of failed efforts to develop a truly useful Star Trek style tablet, but I think we're finally here, thanks to a combination of Moore's Law and Steve Jobs.
I am not sure what you mean by this: "the costs of writing "proprietary software" in relation to the Citrix ecosystem.
Just simply that software specifically adapted to the strengths and weaknesses of the the iPad will allow more efficient, effective delivery and use of information. That this will require development effort above and beyond using Citrix to hook them up to existing software, and that it will be worth it in the long run because, as great as this might seem now, the software they are running remotely obviously was not designed for an iPad, and, although very useful, it's almost certainly not the optimal way to use an iPad for this purpose.
That's a very good point, I'd not thought of that.
Back in the day I wrote software in the aerospace industry (for cockpit displays and controls) and it was similar there - unless it absolutely definitely needed changing, it didn't get changed.
The doctors at my hospital can't stand the current laptop technology that we have deployed. They are a very powerful group when it comes to changing existing technology. I'm interested to see what the outcome will be at my hospital.
http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/new...113619/1547114
Or - one of the 'first' areas...
I can see it as perfect for any place where you see 'officials' carrying any kind of clip board or where some kind of hand-held assistant may be utilized.
It depends upon that hand-held assistant. If such has two legs it is not likely the professional will trade her in for a tablet. There experience is significantly different than that of a computing device.
Hotels, restaurants and hospitality management, building site management and architects, warehousing inventory, tour guide-ing and art galleries... Nothing like the scope of the general medical field but nonetheless.
Actually the medical field is tiny compared to some of those industries.
Dave
Damn.....maybe they'll make an x-ray addon...
Already done. Osirix for iPad. I haven't used the iPad version, but the OS X version is simply awesome (and open source).
Or - one of the 'first' areas...
I can see it as perfect for any place where you see 'officials' carrying any kind of clip board or where some kind of hand-held assistant may be utilized.
My boss has been using them on set since they came out. Loves it.
On the medical front, there was a study done perhaps 10 years ago about fatal and near fatal errors in hospitals. Something like 85% of all drug errors were said to be due to one of two factors -- bad handwriting or overlooked drug interactions. The solution proposed was for computers to be used, either mounted by every bed etc or something hand held where doctors could access prior medical charts, TYPE in drug orders (which would validate the dosage and alert for potential interactions. Nurses could also have handhelds that would sound an alarm for dosage times etc. and then they could 'sign off' that they gave the meds, checked the vitals etc so all other nurses would know it was done (and who did it). etc.
at the time it was a big dream. But one that it was believed would save thousands of lives
I know and I agree completely. I was just making a sarcastic reference to all the idiot fanboys in here who think that Steve Jobs is doing them a favour by banning developers' use of intermediary layers to abstract their code away from the native APIs - and to Steve Jobs' own snowblinded rhetoric about how using these cross platform layers ultimately hurts the users.
I have thought about the issue for quite a long time myself. But, I could think of a number of reasons why Steve Jobs have gone that way.
- First. For business reasons. Whether we like it or not the iPhone OS mobile devices are way ahead of the competition. True or not, Apple has developed the aura that they are consumer friendly -- the mantra "it just works" -- so that many people are willing to pay premium for Apple products.
- Second. For technical reasons. From past experience, as a minority in the computer "desktops", Apple and its customers, have been ignored or neglected by third party providers. Adobe is one of those who have not upgraded or have provided subpar versions of its products for the Mac computers. This is true also with Microsofts, e.g., MS Office. Some companies stopped providing Mac versions or did not even provided any version of their software.
- Third. Optimized system. This is also a technical issue, but the simplest analogy I can use here is communication between two individuals speaking different languages. You will need an interpreter -- expert in both languages -- for them to communicate. More than likely, something would be lost in the interpretation because the interpreter is not truly immersed in the nuances of both languages.
- Fourth. While Apple has its own proprietary technologies used in its products, the basic softwares they were based from are open source softwares (e.g., Unix for both OS X and iPhone OS) or based from accepted standard for the internet. From what I read, Apple is also a significant contributor to the standards used in internet technology, and provided for free use some of its proprietary technology.
- Fifth. Is open source always the best? My answer here is qualified. I am a user of open source software technologies, but from experience they do not always meet my expectations. I use Joomla and some other CMS sotwares but until now, Joomla for example has not developed a very secure registration system, and it is not granular enough to allow more specific visitor access to information. There are more shortcomings. However, because the software is open source, the progress depends so much on the vision and the amount of time invested by the volunteer developers. Also, because the developers are volunteers the quality of the product and direction are decided usually by "committee" which in turn would be dependent on the expertise of the voluteers.
One request, I hope people stop disparaging others simply because of their preference for Apple products or those of other companiesThus, if Apple can find away to differentiate its product, to retain its loyal customers, it must do so, if only for business reasons -- it must make a profit to survive. Apple does not have to capture the majority of the consumers, just the "cream of the crop" to survive and be very profitable -- just like many high-end products, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, etc.
The above perspective is one of the reasons why Steve Jobs (and Apple) has taken the "vertical integration" approach -- derisively termed "walled garden" -- to retain its loyal customers.
Because of these dependence on third party sources, the success or survival of the Mac computer depended on the whims of other companies. For example, Microsoft might have dealt a death blow to struggling Apple in the mid 1990s, if it stopped providing the MS Office.
[This dependence on third party MS-centric softwares was solved partly with the Intel Mac, but it is not the best solution.]
Since Apple is currently in the driver's seat, when it comes to the most "sought after" and much copied mobile consumer devices, it is in a position to dictate the terms to limit its dependence on software technologies that can cripple its existing edge in mobile computing products.
If only for this reason, not only for Apple but also for its loyal customers, Apple must do what is needed to solve the aforementioned "Achilles heel".
In a sense, computing devices, that try to reconcile differing softwares is not the most optimized system, even if it works. This becomes even more problematic if the "Second reason" (stated above comes into play). For example, to use the case of Flash for the Mac, if the Flash customized for mobile computing is not updated promtly, no matter how advanced the other softwares, it will be the Flash that will impede the advancement of Apples iPhone OS products, as it has done in the Mac computers. This is referred to as the "least common denominator" limitation in the progress of technology.
Flash is proprietary and not free technology. I assume that companies have to compensate Adobe for the use of such proprietary technology.
As a result, I desperately need an open source software that is as robust as the commercial or proprietary softwares used by news-magazine like NY Times, but I have not found one yet that satisfies many of the basic features I wanted.
Thus, if Apple and any other reputable company can provide the proprietary software I need, I do not mind paying them.
CGC
However that doesn't mean iPad won't do a lot of things well now. It just means that Apple needs to manage expectations as the current model has limitations.
Oh one more thing, functionality wise it is a big iPod Touch. That isn't a bad thing if you understand Touch.
Dave
Actually the medical field is tiny compared to some of those industries.
Health care was 17% of GDP ($2.5 trillion) last I checked. A company could makes some money in that market.
Heard Kaiser was looking into them large scale as well. That's a little over 14,000 physicians...
and then there's the patients. I heard our local Children's Hospital was looking into get 100 or so to use with the kids. imagine being 10 years old and you are having to spend all afternoon doing dialysis. Goes over a lot better when you can watch a movie, or play a game.
What about wiping down the device when it's traveling between patients? Most hospitals are meticulous about this, but I'm sure new procedures will need to be established. I wonder if Apple could coat the device with an anti-bacterial surface treatment?
Apple generally doesn't do that kind of limited audience stuff. and probably wouldn't recommend it being done since any liquid that got in the wrong place could damage the whole thing (and void the warranty).
all you need is a fully encompassing hard case that is lightweight. something like Nextware did for the iphone where even the front has thin plastic over it. You could wipe that off without fear of liquid getting into the device
Can you use the touchscreen while wearing latex gloves?
http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/11/s...ld-weather-me/
I have thought about the issue for quite a long time myself. But, I could think of a number of reasons why Steve Jobs have gone that way.
- First. For business reasons. Whether we like it or not the iPhone OS mobile devices are way ahead of the competition. True or not, Apple has developed the aura that they are consumer friendly -- the mantra "it just works" -- so that many people are willing to pay premium for Apple products.
- Second. For technical reasons. From past experience, as a minority in the computer "desktops", Apple and its customers, have been ignored or neglected by third party providers. Adobe is one of those who have not upgraded or have provided subpar versions of its products for the Mac computers. This is true also with Microsofts, e.g., MS Office. Some companies stopped providing Mac versions or did not even provided any version of their software.
- Third. Optimized system. This is also a technical issue, but the simplest analogy I can use here is communication between two individuals speaking different languages. You will need an interpreter -- expert in both languages -- for them to communicate. More than likely, something would be lost in the interpretation because the interpreter is not truly immersed in the nuances of both languages.
- Fourth. While Apple has its own proprietary technologies used in its products, the basic softwares they were based from are open source softwares (e.g., Unix for both OS X and iPhone OS) or based from accepted standard for the internet. From what I read, Apple is also a significant contributor to the standards used in internet technology, and provided for free use some of its proprietary technology.
- Fifth. Is open source always the best? My answer here is qualified. I am a user of open source software technologies, but from experience they do not always meet my expectations. I use Joomla and some other CMS sotwares but until now, Joomla for example has not developed a very secure registration system, and it is not granular enough to allow more specific visitor access to information. There are more shortcomings. However, because the software is open source, the progress depends so much on the vision and the amount of time invested by the volunteer developers. Also, because the developers are volunteers the quality of the product and direction are decided usually by "committee" which in turn would be dependent on the expertise of the voluteers.
One request, I hope people stop disparaging others simply because of their preference for Apple products or those of other companiesThus, if Apple can find away to differentiate its product, to retain its loyal customers, it must do so, if only for business reasons -- it must make a profit to survive. Apple does not have to capture the majority of the consumers, just the "cream of the crop" to survive and be very profitable -- just like many high-end products, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, etc.
The above perspective is one of the reasons why Steve Jobs (and Apple) has taken the "vertical integration" approach -- derisively termed "walled garden" -- to retain its loyal customers.
Because of these dependence on third party sources, the success or survival of the Mac computer depended on the whims of other companies. For example, Microsoft might have dealt a death blow to struggling Apple in the mid 1990s, if it stopped providing the MS Office.
[This dependence on third party MS-centric softwares was solved partly with the Intel Mac, but it is not the best solution.]
Since Apple is currently in the driver's seat, when it comes to the most "sought after" and much copied mobile consumer devices, it is in a position to dictate the terms to limit its dependence on software technologies that can cripple its existing edge in mobile computing products.
If only for this reason, not only for Apple but also for its loyal customers, Apple must do what is needed to solve the aforementioned "Achilles heel".
In a sense, computing devices, that try to reconcile differing softwares is not the most optimized system, even if it works. This becomes even more problematic if the "Second reason" (stated above comes into play). For example, to use the case of Flash for the Mac, if the Flash customized for mobile computing is not updated promtly, no matter how advanced the other softwares, it will be the Flash that will impede the advancement of Apples iPhone OS products, as it has done in the Mac computers. This is referred to as the "least common denominator" limitation in the progress of technology.
Flash is proprietary and not free technology. I assume that companies have to compensate Adobe for the use of such proprietary technology.
As a result, I desperately need an open source software that is as robust as the commercial or proprietary softwares used by news-magazine like NY Times, but I have not found one yet that satisfies many of the basic features I wanted.
Thus, if Apple and any other reputable company can provide the proprietary software I need, I do not mind paying them.
CGC
+++ Very well thought out and expressed!
.
For posts about how hospitals should use Flash for x-rays and diagnostic charts...and how the iPad is clearly a sub-standard mobile touch screen pad because it lacks the ability to run Flash for Medical Emergencies - which Adobe will provide export for from Flash CS19 - due sometime in 2025.
The premier application for viewing medical images is OsiriX - a DICOM viewer originally developed on the Mac under OS X. I am sure that the developers will have an iPad version out soon.
For other applications - we are developing an on-machine controller for industrial automation applications that will replace industrialized touch screens. The iPad is cheaper - and it a computer!! That will allow us to embed operating, maintenance, trouble shooting and repair manuals as well as instructional QuickTime Movies right on the machine. Minimal impact on network traffic and a hugh increase in functionality.
btw - did you say, ". . . the iPad is clearly a sub-standard mobile touch screen"? You must be living under a rock and clearly have never touched one. I suggest that you get down to an Apple Store and actually try one.
I know and I agree completely. I was just making a sarcastic reference to all the idiot fanboys in here who think that Steve Jobs is doing them a favour by banning developers' use of intermediary layers to abstract their code away from the native APIs - and to Steve Jobs' own snowblinded rhetoric about how using these cross platform layers ultimately hurts the users.
Cross platform means lowest common denominator output. How many write once run everywhere java programs have you seen that were worth a darn? Maybe you shouldn't be calling people idiots when you are the one who is wrong.
For posts about how hospitals should use Flash for x-rays and diagnostic charts...and how the iPad is clearly a sub-standard mobile touch screen pad because it lacks the ability to run Flash for Medical Emergencies - which Adobe will provide export for from Flash CS19 - due sometime in 2025.
The premier application for viewing medical images is OsiriX - a DICOM viewer originally developed on the Mac under OS X. I am sure that the developers will have an iPad version out soon.
For other applications - we are developing an on-machine controller for industrial automation applications that will replace industrialized touch screens. The iPad is cheaper - and it a computer!! That will allow us to embed operating, maintenance, trouble shooting and repair manuals as well as instructional QuickTime Movies right on the machine. Minimal impact on network traffic and a hugh increase in functionality.
One of the challenges that will be faced is dealing with the FDA when writing native applications for mobile devices. Makes a big difference if it requires 510k clearance or is treated as a class III device.
You're forgetting about that bed of roses other wise known as HIPPA, it's certainly no walk in the park either..
http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?se...ogy&id=7371667
Also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdao4iPYczc
They who create a DICOM interface for the Ipad will be laughing all the way to the bank. You can Bank on that.
So when one hospital plans to buy a hundred of them, why is this news?
Aren't lots of hospitals and doctor's offices etc. all buying scads of them? No?