You can't control how people feel towards a product and Apple has had its failures in the past. Recent successes don't mean they've figured out a formula for guaranteed success. Sometimes it works, like how the X-Factor has had the Christmas number 1 for a few years running but people tire quickly of formulaic success hence the rebellion against the X-Factor and the successful campaign to make Rage Against the Machine number 1 last Christmas.
OK, but the question at hand is about a gadget blog devoting a lot of space to the iPad. Given Apple's recent successes, in this very neck of the woods, there's no need for anyone to talk about guaranteed anything to conclude that, for a gadget blog, an Apple iPad was pretty big news and to want to give it a lot of play. It's just perfectly sensible.
Quote:
I think the iPad has hit a nerve because there was a progression that Apple hasn't followed.
First Mac - computers can be simple with a nice UI
iMac - appliance model for computers
Mac OS X - shows how a very powerful OS can be simple to use
iphone - very intuitive UI
netbook - realising most people only need a certain performance level and then it's about price
There were two ways to go - a big ipod or a small Macbook. I don't see people hacking iphones to be used in laptop or slate shells but I see people trying to run OS X on a netbook, even OS X on a Nokia ( http://www.pcworld.com/article/18827...okia_n900.html ). It's clear what people wanted and Apple failed to deliver. Instead, Apple went down the formulaic route - iphone design, iphone OS, iphone apps - basically capitalizing on the iphone success rather than redefining comfort computing.
Certainly the iPad has "hit a nerve" with a certain segment of the technorati, but that's not really the same thing as some kind of definitive verdict that it's a huge letdown, let alone unworthy of coverage or at even extensive coverage.
You (or I) really have no idea what the shipping iPad will be like, exactly, let alone what kind of apps might make what kind of use case for this device. I keep hearing people intone the phrase "big iPod Touch", as if that were all that needed to be said. But the iPhone OS is an intricately worked out thing, pitched to its particular hardware, not some contemptible leftover or also ran. It actually makes perfect sense for Apple to extend the iPhone idea, with format specific enhancements and extensions, in order to power a touch driven tablet. Much more sense than shoehorning a desktop OS on there, as MS has done to notably awkward effect.
At any rate, you and I can argue the merits of how Apple chose to proceed with the iPad, but that doesn't really have any bearing on the fact Engadget chose to give it a lot of play. What you're really saying is that the iPad as announced doesn't fit your needs, so that therefore it's outrageous that Endgadget would act like the device had any significance. I don't think that's a reasonable position, in that there are almost certainly a great many people who feel otherwise, and Endgadget is read by those people as well.
Quote:
I think it's about capability. Computers and devices are here to do tasks. The more they can do and the better they can do them, the better. I've listed as many things the iPad in its current form doesn't do.
I think we've reached the point that "doing tasks" is almost trivial and we're moving into a world where it becomes much more important how devices do tasks, and how easily they integrate into how people live. Apple is suggesting a narrative regarding how all that computing power can be comfortably integrated into everyday life, which necessitates certain adjustments to what we even mean by "computing." It's not because Apple is lazy or coasting or being somehow unserious or trivial, it's because that's what's required.
Of course the tech inclined are all bent out of shape by this, because part of what Apple is saying to them is "what you know isn't that important."
Quote:
They aren't alienating them, just annoying them. They know the fans won't go anywhere else because it's one of the best sites for tech news.
But again, it's unclear to me what you think motivates the Engadget editors. Why even "annoy" your customers?
Quote:
They only added that after the iPad fiasco and the commenters responded that it's not that they hate Apple at all, they just don't want to see so many posts about a single product:
My bad, Gizmodo has had that for a while; I assumed Endgadget did as well. But that does kinda raise an interesting question: how is it the two biggest gadget blogs are obliged to provide an Apple free track? For that matter, how is it that pretty much ever tech site gets hammered with accusations of being in the bag for Apple, every time they run Apple stuff. I mean Endadget, Gizmodo, Electronista, even Ars Technica has plenty of posters convinced that the place has turned into some kind of Apple-head haven, much to their dismay.
Are all the gadget blogs on the take? Easily impressed? Really, what?
Quote:
That's where the problem lies - treating Apple like they are more than just another manufacturer. HP have made good products too and have style, Sony have made some really great products and have been doing ultra-portables very well and long before Apple. They shouldn't be huddled into a mass of 'everyone else' with Apple on a pedestal by themselves.
That's not a "problem", that's a structural fact of the computer industry. Every computer that Sony and HP and the rest make run Windows. Every computer that runs OS X is made by Apple.
All of Apple's stuff is of a piece, part of a deliberate system. Apple has proffered a narrative about what this stuff is for, and writers love narratives. Any story about any Apple product is potentially a story about all of them. A story about HP's latest netbook is not.
Apple stands alone, not because they're being put on a pedestal, but because they're the only CE company that's vertically integrated this way.
Apple is a pretty polarising company, so love and hate are both pretty extreme.
That said Engadget were overdoing it on the tablet stories, pretty much becoming an Apple rumour site while dragging their feet in covering and reviewing already existing products (i.e. the N900). The editors should have pushed some of the less newsworthy stories to TUAW.
The more I think of it, the more I think you are seriously overplaying this point. Even based on what we know today (which is incomplete), how many of the iPad's basic functions are "dependent" on another computer?
Managing your music and photos, creating albums, correcting/cropping photos, batch uploading photos to websites like flickr, bebo. Syncing your mobile device. Syncing archived email (along with the email addresses picked up). Using eBay without it dropping you into the mobile version of the site.
I find it ludicrous that they would bundle an LED-backlit IPS screen with portrait mode at a low price to finally let consumers see the quality they are missing and then force them to manage the photos on the computer they already have.
Who honestly can say that they sit with their iphone for hours just looking at pictures? Nobody does that. But people do sit with iphoto to manage those pictures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Much more sense than shoehorning a desktop OS on there, as MS has done to notably awkward effect.
Desktop UI not desktop OS. Microsoft tried to put a desktop UI onto a tablet. It was mainly awkward because it looked like a blatant preemptive strike against Apple with no real effort to out-innovate them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Of course the tech inclined are all bent out of shape by this, because part of what Apple is saying to them is "what you know isn't that important."
As I've said, they still need to know how to manage music and photos and sync the device to the computer. Nobody is arguing that the iPad is flawed because it won't have problems that only experienced computer users can solve. OS X is a dream for IT techs because of the fact that they are still needed but their job is made easy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
But again, it's unclear to me what you think motivates the Engadget editors. Why even "annoy" your customers?
You could say why would Christians try to alienate or annoy their possible converts by telling them they are going to hell? It seems counter-intuitive but it happens. I imagine that the Apple-fans at Engadget just want the masses to see and admire Apple the way they do.
They've practically admitted their mistake though by barely running a single Apple article since the comments got shut down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Are all the gadget blogs on the take? Easily impressed? Really, what?
As I said, it's because they work on click-throughs and people comment more on things they disagree with. Tabloids work on the same principle and will try to print the most scandalous, enraging material so that people are more likely to pick it up. If you walked past a news stand and saw two papers, one with a headline "Microsoft introduces DirectX 11" and another with "Steve Ballmer calls all Mac users a bunch of wieners", which will grab your attention more?
The games industry has the same issue with the XBox 360 vs PS3 vs Wii articles. You could ask why would a games site ridicule the Wii for having crap games and being seriously underpowered when it sells more than the other consoles but they do it all the same because it generates rabid fanboy arguments. Check the Hitler banned from XBox Live video for evidence of the popularity of such discussions:
Imagine if a games site like IGN only pushed XBox titles to the front page and game them rave reviews. Would you say that fans of a games site have no right to complain if the editors unjustly favor just the XBox? It changes the identity of the site when they do that. As commenters joked, it should be renamed Applegadget.com.
Managing your music and photos, creating albums, correcting/cropping photos, batch uploading photos to websites like flickr, bebo. Syncing your mobile device. Syncing archived email (along with the email addresses picked up). Using eBay without it dropping you into the mobile version of the site.
I find it ludicrous that they would bundle an LED-backlit IPS screen with portrait mode at a low price to finally let consumers see the quality they are missing and then force them to manage the photos on the computer they already have.
Who honestly can say that they sit with their iphone for hours just looking at pictures? Nobody does that. But people do sit with iphoto to manage those pictures.
Now you're really reaching. By your definition, the iPad has to completely duplicate all of the functions of a desktop PC or be called "dependent" on a PC. To me it's perfectly obvious that the iPad is not meant to do this, and to say that it must is arbitrary -- just as arbitrary as those who've insisted that it must be able to edit video. With a maximum of 64 GB of mass storage, the iPad isn't designed to "manage" anything.
Syncing is syncing, no matter which two or more devices are involved. Syncing is done not because one device is "dependent" on the other, but because you want both devices to have the same data. If you're concerned about archived e-mail or any other class of data, the exact same syncing process would have to occur between another two or more devices, including your laptop and desktop. So again, arbitrary is the word. (Leaving aside for the moment the solution for accessing one e-mail account on numerous devices, IMAP.)
Offering up eBay as an example of "dependence" is just plain puzzling.
Yeah, I see them too. And I do think that lots of features are missing. But I do beleive that Apple will release upgrades to kick them out. Just as they are doing with iPhone. Moreover Apple iPad is really a gadget worth for its price which $499 (most probably the base price). But the thing that pains me most is the lack of flash support, Apple promises best browsing experience anyway
Desktop UI not desktop OS. Microsoft tried to put a desktop UI onto a tablet. It was mainly awkward because it looked like a blatant preemptive strike against Apple with no real effort to out-innovate them.
OK, so new UI. Except now the whole "thoughtful geeks demands full OS X on a tablet" thing is on a slippery slope, because once you've heavily modified the UI, and accounted for the non-Intel processors, and considered the actual mechanics of using a 10" touch tablet, you've found yourself a good way down the road to...... the iPad.
I think you're actually arguing the MS mindset here-- that a UI is just something you paste onto all your awesome powerfulness to placate your less gifted users. Whereas Apple seems to consider a UI just part of a highly integrated experience. The whole "the device becomes whatever app you're running" metaphor isn't an accident or a failure of nerve or something, it's a pretty innovative strategy for rethinking the "computing" experience. Desktop OS X isn't designed around that idea, because desktop OS X has never needed to run on a device that you hold in your hand for which the screen is the entire interface. It's a different object with a different relationship to our doings, therefore it's going to have a different philosphy. I realize such fuzzy thinking may be of little interest to you.
The irony here is that if Apple had just put OS X on a tablet and made all the menus and widget and buttons bigger to be "finger friendly" (and I've yet to see any explanation from the magic OS X crowd as to what else, exactly, "full OS X on a tablet" would have entailed), it would have been far less innovative. It would have been a cheap OS X machine with a slightly modified UI.
Whereas Apple has decided to completely rethink what a machine of this class might be for and how we might use it, and all the geeks start chanting "big iPod."
Quote:
As I've said, they still need to know how to manage music and photos and sync the device to the computer. Nobody is arguing that the iPad is flawed because it won't have problems that only experienced computer users can solve. OS X is a dream for IT techs because of the fact that they are still needed but their job is made easy.
Yes, Apple has failed to transform the entire computing ecosystem with a yet to be release 1.0 device. But once this thing syncs to the cloud? When you can stream your iTunes library? At any rate, there are a lot of people who seem to have been "managing" to sync and attend to their photos and music via iTunes, since Apple has made it pretty simple.
Quote:
You could say why would Christians try to alienate or annoy their possible converts by telling them they are going to hell? It seems counter-intuitive but it happens. I imagine that the Apple-fans at Engadget just want the masses to see and admire Apple the way they do.
Well, Engadget and pretty much every other gadget blog. Which leads one to ask: why are the editors of gadget blogs such big Apple fans? Or, I guess, why are they Christians? How come the faith?
Quote:
They've practically admitted their mistake though by barely running a single Apple article since the comments got shut down.
Thank God. You must be so pleased. I mean, what with the overload of Apple nonsense on the....Apple enthusiast site.......that you...... moderate.
Quote:
As I said, it's because they work on click-throughs and people comment more on things they disagree with. Tabloids work on the same principle and will try to print the most scandalous, enraging material so that people are more likely to pick it up. If you walked past a news stand and saw two papers, one with a headline "Microsoft introduces DirectX 11" and another with "Steve Ballmer calls all Mac users a bunch of wieners", which will grab your attention more?
Sure. But that's equally an argument for being a heavy Mac bashing site, see also Paul Thurrott et al. So again we're left to ponder why the people that run gadget sites seem to have this soft spot for all things Apple. As opposed to, you know, some kind of arbitrary rule that gadget blogs are required to attend to devices proportionately, or suffer the ire of nerd riots.
You seem to be determined to chalk this phenomena up to click whoring, even though it could just as easily work the other way. Because the idea that people who do gadgets for a living might actually like and be interested in Apple's stuff apparently hasn't occurred to you. Again, odd, given, you know, where we are.
Quote:
The games industry has the same issue with the XBox 360 vs PS3 vs Wii articles. You could ask why would a games site ridicule the Wii for having crap games and being seriously underpowered when it sells more than the other consoles but they do it all the same because it generates rabid fanboy arguments. Check the Hitler banned from XBox Live video for evidence of the popularity of such discussions:
Imagine if a games site like IGN only pushed XBox titles to the front page and game them rave reviews. Would you say that fans of a games site have no right to complain if the editors unjustly favor just the XBox? It changes the identity of the site when they do that. As commenters joked, it should be renamed Applegadget.com.
First, Engadget didn't and has never "only" pushed Apple stories and your thought experiment is telling. It doesn't take many Apple stories to convince some people that Apple has overrun the place, does it? There was a big uptick during the iPad announcement, because, as I have argued, perfectly nice broadminded people might conclude that what Apple is doing here is significant. The rest of the time? Not so much. Moreover, the rumblings from the peanut gallery start up each and every time they run more than a few Apple stories a week-- there is a sizable contingent that regards any Apple coverage at all, save of the "Ha Ha Apple Sux" variety, to be a terrible imposition and god they just want to tear their eyes out and shoot their computer etc. Not really what you'd call a fair minded demographic.
But anyway, I think the real analogy would be if one of the console manufactures announced something seriously different, and most of the game sites ran a lot of articles on that announcement, because, as game enthusiasts, they recognized new and interesting and possibly game changing when they saw it.
And then console partisans lost their shit and vociferously argued that said console was not, in fact, interesting or different at all, and that coverage of same was an insult to their sensibilities. And then attempted to bully these transgressing sites into correcting their trajectory, because your platform of choice hegemony is a fact of life that must be pandered to.
Now you're really reaching. By your definition, the iPad has to completely duplicate all of the functions of a desktop PC or be called "dependent" on a PC.
Managing pictures is hardly all the functions of a PC and something the iPad could easily do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
Offering up eBay as an example of "dependence" is just plain puzzling.
eBay gets about 6 million listings a day. It's one example of things people do that the iPad can't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
I think you're actually arguing the MS mindset here-- that a UI is just something you paste onto all your awesome powerfulness to placate your less gifted users.
Explain what Front Row is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Desktop OS X isn't designed around that idea, because desktop OS X has never needed to run on a device that you hold in your hand for which the screen is the entire interface.
Desktop OS X UI was never meant to run on it. You keep going back to the same point. Front Row wasn't meant to be run in the way the desktop UI is so it's designed from the assumption that you are sitting back from your screen but it still runs on the same OS X x86 core. The ATV has a Pentium chip inside it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
The irony here is that if Apple had just put OS X on a tablet and made all the menus and widget and buttons bigger to be "finger friendly" (and I've yet to see any explanation from the magic OS X crowd as to what else, exactly, "full OS X on a tablet" would have entailed), it would have been far less innovative. It would have been a cheap OS X machine with a slightly modified UI.
But that's what they've done - the Mail app has a popup menu - they could have modified system menus to work like that. The UI layer for the iphone (Cocoa Touch) just replaces Aqua on the desktop OS. The Darwin Core and system frameworks are the same.
Model View Control paradigm - leave the model the same but change the view (UI) and control (input). Beyond a menu system and drag/drop, tell me what apps on your desktop right now wouldn't work well on a touch screen?
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Whereas Apple has decided to completely rethink what a machine of this class might be for and how we might use it, and all the geeks start chanting "big iPod."
You haven't explained why it's not a big ipod. Same storage, similar price, same class of CPU & GPU, same OS. The only thing that differs is the screen and some custom APIs in the OS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
But once this thing syncs to the cloud?
Uh huh, and I suppose you will be uploading your 10GB music and photo collection. Apple isn't going to just look at your music library and provide downloadable versions under the assumption that you bought those tracks. No one is syncing to the cloud in the next 3 years at least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
why are the editors of gadget blogs such big Apple fans?
DTP is one of the few businesses where Apple is extremely popular. Journalists love using Apple computers:
You must be so pleased. I mean, what with the overload of Apple nonsense on the....Apple enthusiast site.......that you...... moderate.
You do know what the definition of moderation is? It's about keeping a balanced view of things. Just because I prefer Apple products doesn't mean that I want their competition to be unfairly treated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Sure. But that's equally an argument for being a heavy Mac bashing site
Kind of but annoyed PC users outnumber annoyed Mac users by 10:1. I've already said though that journalists tend to favor Apple products - it's part of their industry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
It doesn't take many Apple stories to convince some people that Apple has overrun the place, does it?
The reason is that they only have 10% marketshare at best. If they get 50% coverage, that's way too much. It's not Mac vs PC, it's Mac vs HP, Sony, Acer, Asus, Dell and so on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
But anyway, I think the real analogy would be if one of the console manufactures announced something seriously different
Only if people share your opinion that it's much more than a big ipod touch. That isn't the case:
Managing pictures is hardly all the functions of a PC and something the iPad could easily do.
Sorry but this makes no sense to me, if your argument is still about "dependence." It seems to me it's not about that at all, but about the iPad having to duplicate all of the functions of a PC, in your view. If that's what you really believe, then why not just come out and say so? I'm not going to agree with you, but at least I'd know why I don't agree.
Quote:
eBay gets about 6 million listings a day. It's one example of things people do that the iPad can't.
I don't know why you'd make the assumption that the iPad won't be able to do eBay, but even if it could not for some weird reason, this is still not a dependence argument.
Sorry but this makes no sense to me, if your argument is still about "dependence." It seems to me it's not about that at all, but about the iPad having to duplicate all of the functions of a PC, in your view. If that's what you really believe, then why not just come out and say so? I'm not going to agree with you, but at least I'd know why I don't agree.
I accept that there has to be compromises due to the lower power, price and need to maintain performance and that all that's really needed is to do a subset of key features well. That's what was pointed out in the keynote. For the iPad to be a success, it has to do some things better than a laptop and an iphone.
I think that one of the most important features is managing your content. If you have to do this from your normal PC anyway then it reduces the point in having an iPad. I don't just listen to music and look at photos, I sort them out while I enjoy them - this saves me going over everything twice.
I don't expect you to be able to store all your content on the device but you should at least get control over the subset on it and changes get synced back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
I don't know why you'd make the assumption that the iPad won't be able to do eBay, but even if it could not for some weird reason, this is still not a dependence argument.
The iphone can't. You can't upload anything because the HTML upload button is disabled. Also, eBay identifies iphone OS as a mobile OS so it drops you into the mobile site and you can't get to the full site. If you can't use some websites then you are dependent on another machine.
Funny, but I've never thought of the iPad as a content management device, and I don't think Apple conceived it that way at all. How it will sync content back and forth between it and a PC or via the cloud is a detail we've haven't seen explained yet. We've only seen some hints that it will have file sharing capability. I think we're kind of getting ahead of ourselves here since none of us have actually used an iPad and Apple clearly hasn't told us everything about how it will work.
As for eBay, if I understand what you are saying, I think this speaks of cluelessness on their part, not a problem that Apple can fix or should be expected to fix.
Comments
You can't control how people feel towards a product and Apple has had its failures in the past. Recent successes don't mean they've figured out a formula for guaranteed success. Sometimes it works, like how the X-Factor has had the Christmas number 1 for a few years running but people tire quickly of formulaic success hence the rebellion against the X-Factor and the successful campaign to make Rage Against the Machine number 1 last Christmas.
OK, but the question at hand is about a gadget blog devoting a lot of space to the iPad. Given Apple's recent successes, in this very neck of the woods, there's no need for anyone to talk about guaranteed anything to conclude that, for a gadget blog, an Apple iPad was pretty big news and to want to give it a lot of play. It's just perfectly sensible.
I think the iPad has hit a nerve because there was a progression that Apple hasn't followed.
First Mac - computers can be simple with a nice UI
iMac - appliance model for computers
Mac OS X - shows how a very powerful OS can be simple to use
iphone - very intuitive UI
netbook - realising most people only need a certain performance level and then it's about price
There were two ways to go - a big ipod or a small Macbook. I don't see people hacking iphones to be used in laptop or slate shells but I see people trying to run OS X on a netbook, even OS X on a Nokia ( http://www.pcworld.com/article/18827...okia_n900.html ). It's clear what people wanted and Apple failed to deliver. Instead, Apple went down the formulaic route - iphone design, iphone OS, iphone apps - basically capitalizing on the iphone success rather than redefining comfort computing.
Certainly the iPad has "hit a nerve" with a certain segment of the technorati, but that's not really the same thing as some kind of definitive verdict that it's a huge letdown, let alone unworthy of coverage or at even extensive coverage.
You (or I) really have no idea what the shipping iPad will be like, exactly, let alone what kind of apps might make what kind of use case for this device. I keep hearing people intone the phrase "big iPod Touch", as if that were all that needed to be said. But the iPhone OS is an intricately worked out thing, pitched to its particular hardware, not some contemptible leftover or also ran. It actually makes perfect sense for Apple to extend the iPhone idea, with format specific enhancements and extensions, in order to power a touch driven tablet. Much more sense than shoehorning a desktop OS on there, as MS has done to notably awkward effect.
At any rate, you and I can argue the merits of how Apple chose to proceed with the iPad, but that doesn't really have any bearing on the fact Engadget chose to give it a lot of play. What you're really saying is that the iPad as announced doesn't fit your needs, so that therefore it's outrageous that Endgadget would act like the device had any significance. I don't think that's a reasonable position, in that there are almost certainly a great many people who feel otherwise, and Endgadget is read by those people as well.
I think it's about capability. Computers and devices are here to do tasks. The more they can do and the better they can do them, the better. I've listed as many things the iPad in its current form doesn't do.
I think we've reached the point that "doing tasks" is almost trivial and we're moving into a world where it becomes much more important how devices do tasks, and how easily they integrate into how people live. Apple is suggesting a narrative regarding how all that computing power can be comfortably integrated into everyday life, which necessitates certain adjustments to what we even mean by "computing." It's not because Apple is lazy or coasting or being somehow unserious or trivial, it's because that's what's required.
Of course the tech inclined are all bent out of shape by this, because part of what Apple is saying to them is "what you know isn't that important."
They aren't alienating them, just annoying them. They know the fans won't go anywhere else because it's one of the best sites for tech news.
But again, it's unclear to me what you think motivates the Engadget editors. Why even "annoy" your customers?
They only added that after the iPad fiasco and the commenters responded that it's not that they hate Apple at all, they just don't want to see so many posts about a single product:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/30/d...te-apple-news/
My bad, Gizmodo has had that for a while; I assumed Endgadget did as well. But that does kinda raise an interesting question: how is it the two biggest gadget blogs are obliged to provide an Apple free track? For that matter, how is it that pretty much ever tech site gets hammered with accusations of being in the bag for Apple, every time they run Apple stuff. I mean Endadget, Gizmodo, Electronista, even Ars Technica has plenty of posters convinced that the place has turned into some kind of Apple-head haven, much to their dismay.
Are all the gadget blogs on the take? Easily impressed? Really, what?
That's where the problem lies - treating Apple like they are more than just another manufacturer. HP have made good products too and have style, Sony have made some really great products and have been doing ultra-portables very well and long before Apple. They shouldn't be huddled into a mass of 'everyone else' with Apple on a pedestal by themselves.
That's not a "problem", that's a structural fact of the computer industry. Every computer that Sony and HP and the rest make run Windows. Every computer that runs OS X is made by Apple.
All of Apple's stuff is of a piece, part of a deliberate system. Apple has proffered a narrative about what this stuff is for, and writers love narratives. Any story about any Apple product is potentially a story about all of them. A story about HP's latest netbook is not.
Apple stands alone, not because they're being put on a pedestal, but because they're the only CE company that's vertically integrated this way.
That said Engadget were overdoing it on the tablet stories, pretty much becoming an Apple rumour site while dragging their feet in covering and reviewing already existing products (i.e. the N900). The editors should have pushed some of the less newsworthy stories to TUAW.
The more I think of it, the more I think you are seriously overplaying this point. Even based on what we know today (which is incomplete), how many of the iPad's basic functions are "dependent" on another computer?
Managing your music and photos, creating albums, correcting/cropping photos, batch uploading photos to websites like flickr, bebo. Syncing your mobile device. Syncing archived email (along with the email addresses picked up). Using eBay without it dropping you into the mobile version of the site.
I find it ludicrous that they would bundle an LED-backlit IPS screen with portrait mode at a low price to finally let consumers see the quality they are missing and then force them to manage the photos on the computer they already have.
Who honestly can say that they sit with their iphone for hours just looking at pictures? Nobody does that. But people do sit with iphoto to manage those pictures.
Much more sense than shoehorning a desktop OS on there, as MS has done to notably awkward effect.
Desktop UI not desktop OS. Microsoft tried to put a desktop UI onto a tablet. It was mainly awkward because it looked like a blatant preemptive strike against Apple with no real effort to out-innovate them.
Of course the tech inclined are all bent out of shape by this, because part of what Apple is saying to them is "what you know isn't that important."
As I've said, they still need to know how to manage music and photos and sync the device to the computer. Nobody is arguing that the iPad is flawed because it won't have problems that only experienced computer users can solve. OS X is a dream for IT techs because of the fact that they are still needed but their job is made easy.
But again, it's unclear to me what you think motivates the Engadget editors. Why even "annoy" your customers?
You could say why would Christians try to alienate or annoy their possible converts by telling them they are going to hell? It seems counter-intuitive but it happens. I imagine that the Apple-fans at Engadget just want the masses to see and admire Apple the way they do.
They've practically admitted their mistake though by barely running a single Apple article since the comments got shut down.
Are all the gadget blogs on the take? Easily impressed? Really, what?
As I said, it's because they work on click-throughs and people comment more on things they disagree with. Tabloids work on the same principle and will try to print the most scandalous, enraging material so that people are more likely to pick it up. If you walked past a news stand and saw two papers, one with a headline "Microsoft introduces DirectX 11" and another with "Steve Ballmer calls all Mac users a bunch of wieners", which will grab your attention more?
The games industry has the same issue with the XBox 360 vs PS3 vs Wii articles. You could ask why would a games site ridicule the Wii for having crap games and being seriously underpowered when it sells more than the other consoles but they do it all the same because it generates rabid fanboy arguments. Check the Hitler banned from XBox Live video for evidence of the popularity of such discussions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfkDxF2kn1I
Imagine if a games site like IGN only pushed XBox titles to the front page and game them rave reviews. Would you say that fans of a games site have no right to complain if the editors unjustly favor just the XBox? It changes the identity of the site when they do that. As commenters joked, it should be renamed Applegadget.com.
Managing your music and photos, creating albums, correcting/cropping photos, batch uploading photos to websites like flickr, bebo. Syncing your mobile device. Syncing archived email (along with the email addresses picked up). Using eBay without it dropping you into the mobile version of the site.
I find it ludicrous that they would bundle an LED-backlit IPS screen with portrait mode at a low price to finally let consumers see the quality they are missing and then force them to manage the photos on the computer they already have.
Who honestly can say that they sit with their iphone for hours just looking at pictures? Nobody does that. But people do sit with iphoto to manage those pictures.
Now you're really reaching. By your definition, the iPad has to completely duplicate all of the functions of a desktop PC or be called "dependent" on a PC. To me it's perfectly obvious that the iPad is not meant to do this, and to say that it must is arbitrary -- just as arbitrary as those who've insisted that it must be able to edit video. With a maximum of 64 GB of mass storage, the iPad isn't designed to "manage" anything.
Syncing is syncing, no matter which two or more devices are involved. Syncing is done not because one device is "dependent" on the other, but because you want both devices to have the same data. If you're concerned about archived e-mail or any other class of data, the exact same syncing process would have to occur between another two or more devices, including your laptop and desktop. So again, arbitrary is the word. (Leaving aside for the moment the solution for accessing one e-mail account on numerous devices, IMAP.)
Offering up eBay as an example of "dependence" is just plain puzzling.
Desktop UI not desktop OS. Microsoft tried to put a desktop UI onto a tablet. It was mainly awkward because it looked like a blatant preemptive strike against Apple with no real effort to out-innovate them.
OK, so new UI. Except now the whole "thoughtful geeks demands full OS X on a tablet" thing is on a slippery slope, because once you've heavily modified the UI, and accounted for the non-Intel processors, and considered the actual mechanics of using a 10" touch tablet, you've found yourself a good way down the road to...... the iPad.
I think you're actually arguing the MS mindset here-- that a UI is just something you paste onto all your awesome powerfulness to placate your less gifted users. Whereas Apple seems to consider a UI just part of a highly integrated experience. The whole "the device becomes whatever app you're running" metaphor isn't an accident or a failure of nerve or something, it's a pretty innovative strategy for rethinking the "computing" experience. Desktop OS X isn't designed around that idea, because desktop OS X has never needed to run on a device that you hold in your hand for which the screen is the entire interface. It's a different object with a different relationship to our doings, therefore it's going to have a different philosphy. I realize such fuzzy thinking may be of little interest to you.
The irony here is that if Apple had just put OS X on a tablet and made all the menus and widget and buttons bigger to be "finger friendly" (and I've yet to see any explanation from the magic OS X crowd as to what else, exactly, "full OS X on a tablet" would have entailed), it would have been far less innovative. It would have been a cheap OS X machine with a slightly modified UI.
Whereas Apple has decided to completely rethink what a machine of this class might be for and how we might use it, and all the geeks start chanting "big iPod."
As I've said, they still need to know how to manage music and photos and sync the device to the computer. Nobody is arguing that the iPad is flawed because it won't have problems that only experienced computer users can solve. OS X is a dream for IT techs because of the fact that they are still needed but their job is made easy.
Yes, Apple has failed to transform the entire computing ecosystem with a yet to be release 1.0 device. But once this thing syncs to the cloud? When you can stream your iTunes library? At any rate, there are a lot of people who seem to have been "managing" to sync and attend to their photos and music via iTunes, since Apple has made it pretty simple.
You could say why would Christians try to alienate or annoy their possible converts by telling them they are going to hell? It seems counter-intuitive but it happens. I imagine that the Apple-fans at Engadget just want the masses to see and admire Apple the way they do.
Well, Engadget and pretty much every other gadget blog. Which leads one to ask: why are the editors of gadget blogs such big Apple fans? Or, I guess, why are they Christians? How come the faith?
They've practically admitted their mistake though by barely running a single Apple article since the comments got shut down.
Thank God. You must be so pleased. I mean, what with the overload of Apple nonsense on the....Apple enthusiast site.......that you...... moderate.
As I said, it's because they work on click-throughs and people comment more on things they disagree with. Tabloids work on the same principle and will try to print the most scandalous, enraging material so that people are more likely to pick it up. If you walked past a news stand and saw two papers, one with a headline "Microsoft introduces DirectX 11" and another with "Steve Ballmer calls all Mac users a bunch of wieners", which will grab your attention more?
Sure. But that's equally an argument for being a heavy Mac bashing site, see also Paul Thurrott et al. So again we're left to ponder why the people that run gadget sites seem to have this soft spot for all things Apple. As opposed to, you know, some kind of arbitrary rule that gadget blogs are required to attend to devices proportionately, or suffer the ire of nerd riots.
You seem to be determined to chalk this phenomena up to click whoring, even though it could just as easily work the other way. Because the idea that people who do gadgets for a living might actually like and be interested in Apple's stuff apparently hasn't occurred to you. Again, odd, given, you know, where we are.
The games industry has the same issue with the XBox 360 vs PS3 vs Wii articles. You could ask why would a games site ridicule the Wii for having crap games and being seriously underpowered when it sells more than the other consoles but they do it all the same because it generates rabid fanboy arguments. Check the Hitler banned from XBox Live video for evidence of the popularity of such discussions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfkDxF2kn1I
Imagine if a games site like IGN only pushed XBox titles to the front page and game them rave reviews. Would you say that fans of a games site have no right to complain if the editors unjustly favor just the XBox? It changes the identity of the site when they do that. As commenters joked, it should be renamed Applegadget.com.
First, Engadget didn't and has never "only" pushed Apple stories and your thought experiment is telling. It doesn't take many Apple stories to convince some people that Apple has overrun the place, does it? There was a big uptick during the iPad announcement, because, as I have argued, perfectly nice broadminded people might conclude that what Apple is doing here is significant. The rest of the time? Not so much. Moreover, the rumblings from the peanut gallery start up each and every time they run more than a few Apple stories a week-- there is a sizable contingent that regards any Apple coverage at all, save of the "Ha Ha Apple Sux" variety, to be a terrible imposition and god they just want to tear their eyes out and shoot their computer etc. Not really what you'd call a fair minded demographic.
But anyway, I think the real analogy would be if one of the console manufactures announced something seriously different, and most of the game sites ran a lot of articles on that announcement, because, as game enthusiasts, they recognized new and interesting and possibly game changing when they saw it.
And then console partisans lost their shit and vociferously argued that said console was not, in fact, interesting or different at all, and that coverage of same was an insult to their sensibilities. And then attempted to bully these transgressing sites into correcting their trajectory, because your platform of choice hegemony is a fact of life that must be pandered to.
Now you're really reaching. By your definition, the iPad has to completely duplicate all of the functions of a desktop PC or be called "dependent" on a PC.
Managing pictures is hardly all the functions of a PC and something the iPad could easily do.
Offering up eBay as an example of "dependence" is just plain puzzling.
eBay gets about 6 million listings a day. It's one example of things people do that the iPad can't.
I think you're actually arguing the MS mindset here-- that a UI is just something you paste onto all your awesome powerfulness to placate your less gifted users.
Explain what Front Row is.
Desktop OS X isn't designed around that idea, because desktop OS X has never needed to run on a device that you hold in your hand for which the screen is the entire interface.
Desktop OS X UI was never meant to run on it. You keep going back to the same point. Front Row wasn't meant to be run in the way the desktop UI is so it's designed from the assumption that you are sitting back from your screen but it still runs on the same OS X x86 core. The ATV has a Pentium chip inside it.
The irony here is that if Apple had just put OS X on a tablet and made all the menus and widget and buttons bigger to be "finger friendly" (and I've yet to see any explanation from the magic OS X crowd as to what else, exactly, "full OS X on a tablet" would have entailed), it would have been far less innovative. It would have been a cheap OS X machine with a slightly modified UI.
But that's what they've done - the Mail app has a popup menu - they could have modified system menus to work like that. The UI layer for the iphone (Cocoa Touch) just replaces Aqua on the desktop OS. The Darwin Core and system frameworks are the same.
Model View Control paradigm - leave the model the same but change the view (UI) and control (input). Beyond a menu system and drag/drop, tell me what apps on your desktop right now wouldn't work well on a touch screen?
Whereas Apple has decided to completely rethink what a machine of this class might be for and how we might use it, and all the geeks start chanting "big iPod."
You haven't explained why it's not a big ipod. Same storage, similar price, same class of CPU & GPU, same OS. The only thing that differs is the screen and some custom APIs in the OS.
But once this thing syncs to the cloud?
Uh huh, and I suppose you will be uploading your 10GB music and photo collection. Apple isn't going to just look at your music library and provide downloadable versions under the assumption that you bought those tracks. No one is syncing to the cloud in the next 3 years at least.
why are the editors of gadget blogs such big Apple fans?
DTP is one of the few businesses where Apple is extremely popular. Journalists love using Apple computers:
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/new...our-events.ars
You must be so pleased. I mean, what with the overload of Apple nonsense on the....Apple enthusiast site.......that you...... moderate.
You do know what the definition of moderation is? It's about keeping a balanced view of things. Just because I prefer Apple products doesn't mean that I want their competition to be unfairly treated.
Sure. But that's equally an argument for being a heavy Mac bashing site
Kind of but annoyed PC users outnumber annoyed Mac users by 10:1. I've already said though that journalists tend to favor Apple products - it's part of their industry.
It doesn't take many Apple stories to convince some people that Apple has overrun the place, does it?
The reason is that they only have 10% marketshare at best. If they get 50% coverage, that's way too much. It's not Mac vs PC, it's Mac vs HP, Sony, Acer, Asus, Dell and so on.
But anyway, I think the real analogy would be if one of the console manufactures announced something seriously different
Only if people share your opinion that it's much more than a big ipod touch. That isn't the case:
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-19512_7-10442751-233.html
Will you buy an iPad?
----------------
Definitely! My credit card is already out. 18% (11,094 votes)
Haven't decided yet. 22% (13,732 votes)
No way. It's not what I hoped/expected. 56% (34,225 votes)
Other (leave a comment). 3% (2,073 votes)
Total Votes: 61,124
http://crackberry.com/crackberry-pol...pples-new-ipad
As a BlackBerry owner, What do you think of Apple's new iPad?
------------------------------------------------
YES! Buy, Buy, BUY! Perfect compliment to my BlackBerry. 12%
It's pretty great, but nothing that will change my life. 19%
Don't need it. I already have a BlackBerry which does everything I need. 9%
Meh... it's just a big iPod Touch. *Shrugs* 47%
Apple sucks. Overhyped. 13%
Managing pictures is hardly all the functions of a PC and something the iPad could easily do.
Sorry but this makes no sense to me, if your argument is still about "dependence." It seems to me it's not about that at all, but about the iPad having to duplicate all of the functions of a PC, in your view. If that's what you really believe, then why not just come out and say so? I'm not going to agree with you, but at least I'd know why I don't agree.
eBay gets about 6 million listings a day. It's one example of things people do that the iPad can't.
I don't know why you'd make the assumption that the iPad won't be able to do eBay, but even if it could not for some weird reason, this is still not a dependence argument.
Sorry but this makes no sense to me, if your argument is still about "dependence." It seems to me it's not about that at all, but about the iPad having to duplicate all of the functions of a PC, in your view. If that's what you really believe, then why not just come out and say so? I'm not going to agree with you, but at least I'd know why I don't agree.
I accept that there has to be compromises due to the lower power, price and need to maintain performance and that all that's really needed is to do a subset of key features well. That's what was pointed out in the keynote. For the iPad to be a success, it has to do some things better than a laptop and an iphone.
I think that one of the most important features is managing your content. If you have to do this from your normal PC anyway then it reduces the point in having an iPad. I don't just listen to music and look at photos, I sort them out while I enjoy them - this saves me going over everything twice.
I don't expect you to be able to store all your content on the device but you should at least get control over the subset on it and changes get synced back.
I don't know why you'd make the assumption that the iPad won't be able to do eBay, but even if it could not for some weird reason, this is still not a dependence argument.
The iphone can't. You can't upload anything because the HTML upload button is disabled. Also, eBay identifies iphone OS as a mobile OS so it drops you into the mobile site and you can't get to the full site. If you can't use some websites then you are dependent on another machine.
As for eBay, if I understand what you are saying, I think this speaks of cluelessness on their part, not a problem that Apple can fix or should be expected to fix.