- Finally someone trying to get tablet computing right, great first step
Dislikes:
Way too many corners cut:
- resolution should have been 1280x1024 to also best the Kindle DX
- every model should have been upgradable to GPS/3G, not a decision from the start
- missing 2. dock connector on the long side to use iPad as photo viewer when docked/charging, most photos are landscape and look silly in a portrait orientation
- missing SD slot for easier (dongle-less) photo transfer from camera, also as storage expansion
- missing built-in camera, not only for video conferencing, developers would have found many smart/fun uses
- Finally someone trying to get tablet computing right, great first step
Dislikes:
Way too many corners cut:
- resolution should have been 1280x1024 to also best the Kindle DX
- every model should have been upgradable to GPS/3G, not a decision from the start
- missing 2. dock connector on the long side to use iPad as photo viewer when docked/charging, most photos are landscape and look silly in a portrait orientation
- missing SD slot for easier (dongle-less) photo transfer from camera, also as storage expansion
- missing built-in camera, not only for video conferencing, developers would have found many smart/fun uses
Would you be happy with a starting price of 799? Cutting costs makes the base iPad a bargain, and still better than any other tablet or netbook at the same price.
That surely was the whole point Jobs wanted to make...
As for myself I'd pay $799 to get the extra specs I listed.
But that price won't nearly generate as much buzz.
And certainly less traction in the education and medical markets.
I just don't like the idea of an iPad 2 coming out in 2011 with those features added.
All developers who just scrambled to update their applications from iPhone to iPad resolutions have to go back to square one and do it all again for the iPad 2's new resolution.
Not so good IMHO.
Apple should at least have aimed for a higher resolution from the start and stick with that for a few years.
But perhaps the iPad's GPU part isn't up to sizes larger than 1024x768...
And who knows Apple might still stick to 1024x768 for a couple of years. Which would be lame too.
That's a pretty interesting image. It tells me two things:
--The widescreen format doesn't look useful for anything but video. I think Apple made a choice, here, to somewhat compromise video playback formatting in favor of the most all around useful size. Books, in particular I think, benefit from the 3:4 aspect ratio.
-- The bezel accounts for a surprising amount of real estate. If Apple made the middle device, they would lose a lot of room for componentry and the battery, resulting in either a thicker case or shorter battery life or both.
- missing iLife funcionality in apps such as iTunes (direct imports), Photos (management, book creation, ordering prints)
Things I'd like to know
- How will storage of documents be managed?
- How about multi-user support?
- What ports do the docs offer?
- Will you be able to print from the iPad?
- WIll Apple create some kind of home server / home cloud software that will allow you to store all your files in a central location (Mac mini server?) and make them accessible from every computer around the house?
While great for movies, it seems this version is a bit too small to read books/magazines comfortably.
The ideal aspect ratio would probably be more like A4 paper (roughly 7:5).
Otherwise 4:3 is probably better than 16:9.
Re Bezel:
Looking at these helpful pictures I think I actually like the bigger one better. It looks more balanced.
And is certainly easier to hold.
I actually like it with the bezel being 1/2 sized. That's what Apple shoulda done. Also, they shoulda debuted iphone OS 4.0 with the iPad. I think that would have made the difference.
I actually like it with the bezel being 1/2 sized. That's what Apple shoulda done. Also, they shoulda debuted iphone OS 4.0 with the iPad. I think that would have made the difference.
They probably couldn't as the software is not ready.
Jobs said many times that nowadays it's the software which makes new hardware a 'breakthrough' item.
And by the looks of it, the iPad just doesn't seem 'finished' software-wise.
So I wouldn't be surprised if the camera was planned but pulled last minute since the whole iChat/iMovie suite for iPad is not nearly finished yet.
Same with Garageband and OS 4.0.
So why not wait another 6-12 months and finish the OS and key software before releasing the iPad?
I think Apple was pushed to release it.
Too many competitors, especially Google, are gearing up and forced Apple's hand.
It's still an alright release. But seems it should have been more complete.
That's what it looks like to me.
Which means we'll see an iPhone style replay:
OS 2 (here 4.0) and iPhone 3G (iPad Pro?) will both arrive a year later and be the 'true' first release.
That's a pretty interesting image. It tells me two things:
--The widescreen format doesn't look useful for anything but video. I think Apple made a choice, here, to somewhat compromise video playback formatting in favor of the most all around useful size. Books, in particular I think, benefit from the 3:4 aspect ratio.
-- The bezel accounts for a surprising amount of real estate. If Apple made the middle device, they would lose a lot of room for componentry and the battery, resulting in either a thicker case or shorter battery life or both.
I could see the middle version being possible on the 2nd or 3rd generation iPad with chip
miniaturization & consolidation & new battery technology.
They probably couldn't as the software is not ready.
Jobs said many times that nowadays it's the software which makes new hardware a 'breakthrough' item.
And by the looks of it, the iPad just doesn't seem 'finished' software-wise.
So I wouldn't be surprised if the camera was planned but pulled last minute since the whole iChat/iMovie suite for iPad is not nearly finished yet.
Same with Garageband and OS 4.0.
So why not wait another 6-12 months and finish the OS and key software before releasing the iPad?
I think Apple was pushed to release it.
Too many competitors, especially Google, are gearing up and forced Apple's hand.
It's still an alright release. But seems it should have been more complete.
That's what it looks like to me.
Which means we'll see an iPhone style replay:
OS 2 (here 4.0) and iPhone 3G (iPad Pro?) will both arrive a year later and be the 'true' first release.
I hope your right. And I hope that iphone OS 4.0 is something special. The competition is going to be fierce by June and that's when the 3G version is coming out right?
As it is now though, competition or not, people are going to wait because of the rumors of a price drop for the 1.0 iPad. Customer's won't get suckered on the price like they did with the 1.0 iphone this time around.
Also, there is going to be a sizeable number that will wait till iPad 2.0 and that will include me as well.
Why would you "like" the omission of a camera? It's something you can choose to use, or not. At most the components and engineering combined cost Apple $5. You like that you save $5 for something that could prove useful for most users in many ways?
I think that the rumor that Apple is having camera supply chain problems might have some truth in them. There's absolutely no other reason the iPad shouldn't have a front-facing iSight. Or maybe the other rumor is true, that it's a 2.0 feature designed to get early users to double-dip.
I think that the rumor that Apple is having camera supply chain problems might have some truth in them. There's absolutely no other reason the iPad shouldn't have a front-facing iSight. Or maybe the other rumor is true, that it's a 2.0 feature designed to get early users to double-dip.
OK maybe I'm exaggerating, but those two seem the most likely to me. Cost savings really isn't a compelling enough reason.
You could be right, but I can think of another issue or two that might have prevented its appearance. The main question in my mind is about implementation. In their testing Apple may have found that cameras don't work very well in hand-held devices without some sort of image stabilization or other software solutions that they haven't developed yet. They won't want to include a major feature that will become the butt of jokes later. You can easily imagine the sniggering over how the iPad turns video conferences into the Blair Witch Project. I also wonder about the impact of a camera on battery life. Could be a combination of many factors. I suspect it is.
You could be right, but I can think of another issue or two that might have prevented its appearance. The main question in my mind is about implementation. In their testing Apple may have found that cameras don't work very well in hand-held devices without some sort of image stabilization or other software solutions that they haven't developed yet. They won't want to include a major feature that will become the butt of jokes later. You can easily imagine the sniggering over how the iPad turns video conferences into the Blair Witch Project. I also wonder about the impact of a camera on battery life. Could be a combination of many factors. I suspect it is.
The demand for features never seems to trouble itself much with the particulars of implementation. As you say, a front facing camera on a hand held device would have some real usability problems, but already the lack of a camera has ossified into a bullet point on the endlessly iterated "why the iPad sux" list.
The demand for features never seems to trouble itself much with the particulars of implementation. As you say, a front facing camera on a hand held device would have some real usability problems, but already the lack of a camera has ossified into a bullet point on the endlessly iterated "why the iPad sux" list.
These discussions remind me of the book written a number of years ago by Alan Cooper, "The Inmates are Running the Asylum." In short he says that one of the big problems with technology design is that it's too often about geeks making things that other geeks like. He suggests the process has to be reversed. The people who understand how to solve human problems should be in charge. I think somebody at Apple must have read this book, maybe even Steve himself. Apple is as close to implementing Cooper's advice as any tech company I can think of. Microsoft is definitely still doing it the old fashioned way.
These discussions remind me of the book written a number of years ago by Alan Cooper, "The Inmates are Running the Asylum." In short he says that one of the big problems with technology design is that it's too often about geeks making things that other geeks like. He suggests the process has to be reversed. The people who understand how to solve human problems should be in charge. I think somebody at Apple must have read this book, maybe even Steve himself. Apple is as close to implementing Cooper's advice as any tech company I can think of. Microsoft is definitely still doing it the old fashioned way.
Yep, and it's interesting how Apple's human-centric engineering riles up the geeks. They seem to actually take it personally, and regard "easy to use" as a terrible dumbing down of their precious tech that will lead to some kind of mass lowering of the ambient IQ.
I guess I've said this elsewhere, but I actually do believe that the rise of computer technology as a central aspect of our culture has in turn empowered people who were previously, and rightfully, somewhat marginalized. The borderline autistic, for whom the world is properly seen as a logical system within which the messiness of being human looks like "noise" and all problems yield to the rigorous application of statistical analysis or engineering are not really the people you want driving the car. Very useful, can lead productive and rewarding lives, but not good candidates to be the architects of society.
Comments
Likes:
- Finally someone trying to get tablet computing right, great first step
Dislikes:
Way too many corners cut:
- resolution should have been 1280x1024 to also best the Kindle DX
- every model should have been upgradable to GPS/3G, not a decision from the start
- missing 2. dock connector on the long side to use iPad as photo viewer when docked/charging, most photos are landscape and look silly in a portrait orientation
- missing SD slot for easier (dongle-less) photo transfer from camera, also as storage expansion
- missing built-in camera, not only for video conferencing, developers would have found many smart/fun uses
I actually agree with all of these.
Likes:
- Finally someone trying to get tablet computing right, great first step
Dislikes:
Way too many corners cut:
- resolution should have been 1280x1024 to also best the Kindle DX
- every model should have been upgradable to GPS/3G, not a decision from the start
- missing 2. dock connector on the long side to use iPad as photo viewer when docked/charging, most photos are landscape and look silly in a portrait orientation
- missing SD slot for easier (dongle-less) photo transfer from camera, also as storage expansion
- missing built-in camera, not only for video conferencing, developers would have found many smart/fun uses
Would you be happy with a starting price of 799? Cutting costs makes the base iPad a bargain, and still better than any other tablet or netbook at the same price.
Would you be happy with a starting price of 799?
That surely was the whole point Jobs wanted to make...
As for myself I'd pay $799 to get the extra specs I listed.
But that price won't nearly generate as much buzz.
And certainly less traction in the education and medical markets.
I just don't like the idea of an iPad 2 coming out in 2011 with those features added.
All developers who just scrambled to update their applications from iPhone to iPad resolutions have to go back to square one and do it all again for the iPad 2's new resolution.
Not so good IMHO.
Apple should at least have aimed for a higher resolution from the start and stick with that for a few years.
But perhaps the iPad's GPU part isn't up to sizes larger than 1024x768...
And who knows Apple might still stick to 1024x768 for a couple of years. Which would be lame too.
thick & a version where the screen is in the letterbox format:
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p...o/ee6a5688.jpg
Can someone post the pic in this thread? For some reason I can only get the link to show up.
Re Letterbox:
While great for movies, it seems this version is a bit too small to read books/magazines comfortably.
The ideal aspect ratio would probably be more like A4 paper (roughly 7:5).
Otherwise 4:3 is probably better than 16:9.
Re Bezel:
Looking at these helpful pictures I think I actually like the bigger one better. It looks more balanced.
And is certainly easier to hold.
--The widescreen format doesn't look useful for anything but video. I think Apple made a choice, here, to somewhat compromise video playback formatting in favor of the most all around useful size. Books, in particular I think, benefit from the 3:4 aspect ratio.
-- The bezel accounts for a surprising amount of real estate. If Apple made the middle device, they would lose a lot of room for componentry and the battery, resulting in either a thicker case or shorter battery life or both.
- Omission of camera
- Size and form factor
- iWork
Dislikes
- omission of USB ports and SD slot
- missing iLife funcionality in apps such as iTunes (direct imports), Photos (management, book creation, ordering prints)
Things I'd like to know
- How will storage of documents be managed?
- How about multi-user support?
- What ports do the docs offer?
- Will you be able to print from the iPad?
- WIll Apple create some kind of home server / home cloud software that will allow you to store all your files in a central location (Mac mini server?) and make them accessible from every computer around the house?
Nice job mello!
Re Letterbox:
While great for movies, it seems this version is a bit too small to read books/magazines comfortably.
The ideal aspect ratio would probably be more like A4 paper (roughly 7:5).
Otherwise 4:3 is probably better than 16:9.
Re Bezel:
Looking at these helpful pictures I think I actually like the bigger one better. It looks more balanced.
And is certainly easier to hold.
I actually like it with the bezel being 1/2 sized. That's what Apple shoulda done. Also, they shoulda debuted iphone OS 4.0 with the iPad. I think that would have made the difference.
I actually like it with the bezel being 1/2 sized. That's what Apple shoulda done. Also, they shoulda debuted iphone OS 4.0 with the iPad. I think that would have made the difference.
They probably couldn't as the software is not ready.
Jobs said many times that nowadays it's the software which makes new hardware a 'breakthrough' item.
And by the looks of it, the iPad just doesn't seem 'finished' software-wise.
So I wouldn't be surprised if the camera was planned but pulled last minute since the whole iChat/iMovie suite for iPad is not nearly finished yet.
Same with Garageband and OS 4.0.
So why not wait another 6-12 months and finish the OS and key software before releasing the iPad?
I think Apple was pushed to release it.
Too many competitors, especially Google, are gearing up and forced Apple's hand.
It's still an alright release. But seems it should have been more complete.
That's what it looks like to me.
Which means we'll see an iPhone style replay:
OS 2 (here 4.0) and iPhone 3G (iPad Pro?) will both arrive a year later and be the 'true' first release.
- The iPad itself…!
Dislikes:
- I don't have one yet…?
That's a pretty interesting image. It tells me two things:
--The widescreen format doesn't look useful for anything but video. I think Apple made a choice, here, to somewhat compromise video playback formatting in favor of the most all around useful size. Books, in particular I think, benefit from the 3:4 aspect ratio.
-- The bezel accounts for a surprising amount of real estate. If Apple made the middle device, they would lose a lot of room for componentry and the battery, resulting in either a thicker case or shorter battery life or both.
I could see the middle version being possible on the 2nd or 3rd generation iPad with chip
miniaturization & consolidation & new battery technology.
They probably couldn't as the software is not ready.
Jobs said many times that nowadays it's the software which makes new hardware a 'breakthrough' item.
And by the looks of it, the iPad just doesn't seem 'finished' software-wise.
So I wouldn't be surprised if the camera was planned but pulled last minute since the whole iChat/iMovie suite for iPad is not nearly finished yet.
Same with Garageband and OS 4.0.
So why not wait another 6-12 months and finish the OS and key software before releasing the iPad?
I think Apple was pushed to release it.
Too many competitors, especially Google, are gearing up and forced Apple's hand.
It's still an alright release. But seems it should have been more complete.
That's what it looks like to me.
Which means we'll see an iPhone style replay:
OS 2 (here 4.0) and iPhone 3G (iPad Pro?) will both arrive a year later and be the 'true' first release.
I hope your right. And I hope that iphone OS 4.0 is something special. The competition is going to be fierce by June and that's when the 3G version is coming out right?
As it is now though, competition or not, people are going to wait because of the rumors of a price drop for the 1.0 iPad. Customer's won't get suckered on the price like they did with the 1.0 iphone this time around.
Also, there is going to be a sizeable number that will wait till iPad 2.0 and that will include me as well.
Likes
- Omission of camera
Why would you "like" the omission of a camera? It's something you can choose to use, or not. At most the components and engineering combined cost Apple $5. You like that you save $5 for something that could prove useful for most users in many ways?
I think that the rumor that Apple is having camera supply chain problems might have some truth in them. There's absolutely no other reason the iPad shouldn't have a front-facing iSight. Or maybe the other rumor is true, that it's a 2.0 feature designed to get early users to double-dip.
I think that the rumor that Apple is having camera supply chain problems might have some truth in them. There's absolutely no other reason the iPad shouldn't have a front-facing iSight. Or maybe the other rumor is true, that it's a 2.0 feature designed to get early users to double-dip.
Absolutely no other reason is even conceivable?
Absolutely no other reason is even conceivable?
OK maybe I'm exaggerating, but those two seem the most likely to me. Cost savings really isn't a compelling enough reason.
OK maybe I'm exaggerating, but those two seem the most likely to me. Cost savings really isn't a compelling enough reason.
You could be right, but I can think of another issue or two that might have prevented its appearance. The main question in my mind is about implementation. In their testing Apple may have found that cameras don't work very well in hand-held devices without some sort of image stabilization or other software solutions that they haven't developed yet. They won't want to include a major feature that will become the butt of jokes later. You can easily imagine the sniggering over how the iPad turns video conferences into the Blair Witch Project. I also wonder about the impact of a camera on battery life. Could be a combination of many factors. I suspect it is.
You could be right, but I can think of another issue or two that might have prevented its appearance. The main question in my mind is about implementation. In their testing Apple may have found that cameras don't work very well in hand-held devices without some sort of image stabilization or other software solutions that they haven't developed yet. They won't want to include a major feature that will become the butt of jokes later. You can easily imagine the sniggering over how the iPad turns video conferences into the Blair Witch Project. I also wonder about the impact of a camera on battery life. Could be a combination of many factors. I suspect it is.
The demand for features never seems to trouble itself much with the particulars of implementation. As you say, a front facing camera on a hand held device would have some real usability problems, but already the lack of a camera has ossified into a bullet point on the endlessly iterated "why the iPad sux" list.
The demand for features never seems to trouble itself much with the particulars of implementation. As you say, a front facing camera on a hand held device would have some real usability problems, but already the lack of a camera has ossified into a bullet point on the endlessly iterated "why the iPad sux" list.
These discussions remind me of the book written a number of years ago by Alan Cooper, "The Inmates are Running the Asylum." In short he says that one of the big problems with technology design is that it's too often about geeks making things that other geeks like. He suggests the process has to be reversed. The people who understand how to solve human problems should be in charge. I think somebody at Apple must have read this book, maybe even Steve himself. Apple is as close to implementing Cooper's advice as any tech company I can think of. Microsoft is definitely still doing it the old fashioned way.
These discussions remind me of the book written a number of years ago by Alan Cooper, "The Inmates are Running the Asylum." In short he says that one of the big problems with technology design is that it's too often about geeks making things that other geeks like. He suggests the process has to be reversed. The people who understand how to solve human problems should be in charge. I think somebody at Apple must have read this book, maybe even Steve himself. Apple is as close to implementing Cooper's advice as any tech company I can think of. Microsoft is definitely still doing it the old fashioned way.
Yep, and it's interesting how Apple's human-centric engineering riles up the geeks. They seem to actually take it personally, and regard "easy to use" as a terrible dumbing down of their precious tech that will lead to some kind of mass lowering of the ambient IQ.
I guess I've said this elsewhere, but I actually do believe that the rise of computer technology as a central aspect of our culture has in turn empowered people who were previously, and rightfully, somewhat marginalized. The borderline autistic, for whom the world is properly seen as a logical system within which the messiness of being human looks like "noise" and all problems yield to the rigorous application of statistical analysis or engineering are not really the people you want driving the car. Very useful, can lead productive and rewarding lives, but not good candidates to be the architects of society.