Normally I'd let a thread like this go but reading through this thread I'm pretty much convinced that iGenius is being beat up by a bunch of idiots. His only point is that design decisions by Apple make the iPad unsuitable for his usage or desires. They are completely valid concerns if your intentions are to watch movies on the thing.
I think it's good that you've made this comment. It's basically true for everyone. If one values a certain feature the most one should get the device that best serves that need.
But in this debate, it's pretty much implicit or explicit that were all playing arm chair CEO or designer, and with the iPad being a converged device everyone's favorite feature is going to be their hook. However, that is making a mistake in how Apple thinks. They don't think about features until until they really have to crunch numbers. At the beginning of the design process they start from the outside in and designed the computer around it. They try to get the innate human-interaction response to form, weight and materials first. They try to get the usage model of how a human will physically handle the device first. As long as as Jobs and Ive are there that's what I think they do. Once they get that done, they try to squeeze the computer in.
So, I think the iPad design started at a much more basic level then the must have feature list. What we're doing is simply arm chair CEO with our personal tastes adding color to the debate.
Quote:
Now the question becomes is that the best choice? Well it certainly isn't if the point of this thread is to be believed. Selling HD content for use on old 4:3 screens is difficult at best. In fact one could say that HD content drove the adoption of HD TVs. So in the context of this thread I don't believe the iPad will be generating that much revenue from conent sales. At least not movies. I do suspect that movies aren't even on Apples radar as far as iPad content goes.
I believe you are correct with the supposition that movies and TV will not drive iPad sales. If they really drive revenue, AppleTV wouldn't be a hobby, but a profit driving adventure. As long as Redboxes and the 1 dollar rental is available, movies and TV will not be driving AppleTV, iPad, iPhone and iPod sales.
Quote:
Would anyone want to watch the next Avatar or Hurt Locker as a 4:3 movie in a theater?
Actually, I watched Avatar in 3D IMAX. All in its glorious 72x53 aspect ratio, which is pretty damn close to 4:3 (standard IMAX is 1.36 while 4:3 is 1.33).
This comment is the real reason I'm replying. Just wanted to make a snarky, but perhaps relevant, comment. Everything else is gravy.
Quote:
So all of this together has me wondering just what is generating all these ignorant responses. It would be far better to simply say the iPad is not the video iPod device many of us where looking for. That would avoid all the ignorant attempts to justify a 4:3 device as a video delivery system. It isn't and frankly I don't think that was even Apples intention. Nor do I see the device generating the revenue this thread implies from movies. So it is entirely justified in being frustrated with Apples new iPad if your hopes where for a media consumption device with media being heavily weighted towards movies.
I agree with you on movies not driving revenue on the iPad. It'll be apps, magazines and books that'll make money.
But I think you are overreaching on the 4:3 comments. As an aside, Apple designed the iPad as an any orientation device. As long as they do that, I think they have to use 4:3 as that is close to the optimum aspect ratio for both vertical and horizontal usage. It's a basic human response mechanism. If it is 16:9, it just won't feel right in vertical orientation at 10 inch diag sizes. But back to 4:3 versus 16:9 and video. In the end I don't think it matters that much. People don't care that much. What they care about is being able to get it cheap, preferably free. As long as it is like that 4:3 on the iPad won't matter.
The right aspect ratio screen would be a secondary concern to this. And right now, Apple doesn't have the economics down for the first basic thing. Flash and Apple's strategic direction is maybe a separate matter. They know they need to get that content and they made a deal with Google to convert Youtube videos to H.264. They tried getting the 70 percent use case there. With vimeo seemingly doubling up with H.264, they are getting closer and closer.
But I think you are overreaching on the 4:3 comments. As an aside, Apple designed the iPad as an any orientation device. As long as they do that, I think they have to use 4:3 as that is close to the optimum aspect ratio for both vertical and horizontal usage. It's a basic human response mechanism. If it is 16:9, it just won't feel right in vertical orientation at 10 inch diag sizes. But back to 4:3 versus 16:9 and video. In the end I don't think it matters that much. People don't care that much. What they care about is being able to get it cheap, preferably free. As long as it is like that 4:3 on the iPad won't matter.
Absolutely correct in response to the proper aspect ratio debate.
Amazing how many people want multi-tasking/multi-use devices, and then go back and make their decision on only 1 or 2 things that the multi-use device doesn't do "ideally".
Regarding aspect ratio and some of the poster's wishes here, should all movie magazines now be printed and bound in landscape fashion, and also be 16:9... just because if they print a full-page preview shot, it will have to have a border at present aspect ratios of magazine print?
And what about working with apps, where a certain number of buttons and controls will be at the top of the screen. While yes, they could be put on the side of the screen when working in landscape, but isn't it better to have a choice at the top... or sides?
What about photos, X-rays, PDFs, etc.? These will all fit almost pixel-perfect edge-to-edge on the iPad.
So video will be black-barred. With the endless possibilities of this device, THAT is a minor "inconvenience" compared to everything else that the device will be used for and do... from Day 1!
Regarding Flash... just an observation.
IF Flash was available on the iPad, AND it was the same CPU-power-hungry, cooling-fan-blasting, plug-in that it is now on the Macs:
* would it burn a hole in the iPad?
* melt the internals and/or discolor the display?
* be used as a melted-chess sandwich press?
* would you sue Apple after skin-grafting your kid's burnt legs or hands?
... is Flash worth all of that? Or are open source/standards and nudging content creators to use them instead... a better fight?
I couldn't disagree more. Contrary to the naysayers, I think this product has real potential. I like the form factor, I love the apps that have been demo'ed, and I'll buy one in an instant. I think the win is the simplicity, the idea of making an appliance ... something one can leave around the house and just grab when you need it. The form factor, not to mention the interface, of a traditional computer is far less accessible.
There are lots of things I'd like it to do, but for a first flurry into this space, I think this is good. I'd like web-cam, of course; I hate the thick bezel; and whilst I like finger driven input, it would also be cool to be able to use a pen for drawing and taking notes --- perhaps with character recognition. At present, my impression is that the resolution of the touch sensing technology will not make pen writing feasible. I think they said something like a 1000 sensors on the glass ... that's ok for fingers but not for pens.
I also really wanted MacOS X, but in the context of an appliance the iPhone OS may make most sense. I like the idea of killing off general access to the file systems, and instead sharing data implicitly across compatible applications using some form of tagging. I would also have liked multi-tasking to be made generally available, and I'm not sure I understand the rationale for limiting this.
So ... roll on the launch, I think its a great product.
I agree with your thinking and here is my take.
I criticized the iPad at its introduction, and I was not impressed. However now that some time has gone by and I had time to digest it, and after I saw the TV commercial during the academy awards, I am not so sure I was right.
What Apple does well, is tastefully market and create excitement. They even incorporated something on my wish list that I would have liked to see on the Courier (just for effect), which is when they turn pages in a book, the front cover opens and it looks like a real page is turning. To my surprise, the commercial showed it. I didn't notice this feature in the keynote introduction with Jobs doing the demo. Perhaps if you buy the case or carrier along with the iPad, it all comes together and makes sense. That is an important part, which satisfies the practicality the device needs, the ability to carry it for convenience and for protection of the device.
The advertisement showed most of what it can do and what the interface would look like running the different apps or programs that are built in. I think it looks good now. I still don't like the thick bezel, but perhaps it makes it easier to hold and keep the screen free from obstruction. Maybe I was wrong. It doesn't have a stylus, you can't write on it with detail, nor does it open like a book or work like a small computer, but it seems good for everything else that it isn't.
It's not quite a small computer (netbook), but perhaps an appliance that does 4 different things well and those are the things that you need or would most likely do while being mobile for the majority of people, just perhaps not to the satisfaction of tech geeks.
It seems as if Amazon is worried about its Kindle now and are scrambling to come up with their own media device.
The iPad may effectively garner new market territory and not cannibalize its other products after all.
Comments
Normally I'd let a thread like this go but reading through this thread I'm pretty much convinced that iGenius is being beat up by a bunch of idiots. His only point is that design decisions by Apple make the iPad unsuitable for his usage or desires. They are completely valid concerns if your intentions are to watch movies on the thing.
I think it's good that you've made this comment. It's basically true for everyone. If one values a certain feature the most one should get the device that best serves that need.
But in this debate, it's pretty much implicit or explicit that were all playing arm chair CEO or designer, and with the iPad being a converged device everyone's favorite feature is going to be their hook. However, that is making a mistake in how Apple thinks. They don't think about features until until they really have to crunch numbers. At the beginning of the design process they start from the outside in and designed the computer around it. They try to get the innate human-interaction response to form, weight and materials first. They try to get the usage model of how a human will physically handle the device first. As long as as Jobs and Ive are there that's what I think they do. Once they get that done, they try to squeeze the computer in.
So, I think the iPad design started at a much more basic level then the must have feature list. What we're doing is simply arm chair CEO with our personal tastes adding color to the debate.
Now the question becomes is that the best choice? Well it certainly isn't if the point of this thread is to be believed. Selling HD content for use on old 4:3 screens is difficult at best. In fact one could say that HD content drove the adoption of HD TVs. So in the context of this thread I don't believe the iPad will be generating that much revenue from conent sales. At least not movies. I do suspect that movies aren't even on Apples radar as far as iPad content goes.
I believe you are correct with the supposition that movies and TV will not drive iPad sales. If they really drive revenue, AppleTV wouldn't be a hobby, but a profit driving adventure. As long as Redboxes and the 1 dollar rental is available, movies and TV will not be driving AppleTV, iPad, iPhone and iPod sales.
Would anyone want to watch the next Avatar or Hurt Locker as a 4:3 movie in a theater?
Actually, I watched Avatar in 3D IMAX. All in its glorious 72x53 aspect ratio, which is pretty damn close to 4:3 (standard IMAX is 1.36 while 4:3 is 1.33).
This comment is the real reason I'm replying. Just wanted to make a snarky, but perhaps relevant, comment. Everything else is gravy.
So all of this together has me wondering just what is generating all these ignorant responses. It would be far better to simply say the iPad is not the video iPod device many of us where looking for. That would avoid all the ignorant attempts to justify a 4:3 device as a video delivery system. It isn't and frankly I don't think that was even Apples intention. Nor do I see the device generating the revenue this thread implies from movies. So it is entirely justified in being frustrated with Apples new iPad if your hopes where for a media consumption device with media being heavily weighted towards movies.
I agree with you on movies not driving revenue on the iPad. It'll be apps, magazines and books that'll make money.
But I think you are overreaching on the 4:3 comments. As an aside, Apple designed the iPad as an any orientation device. As long as they do that, I think they have to use 4:3 as that is close to the optimum aspect ratio for both vertical and horizontal usage. It's a basic human response mechanism. If it is 16:9, it just won't feel right in vertical orientation at 10 inch diag sizes. But back to 4:3 versus 16:9 and video. In the end I don't think it matters that much. People don't care that much. What they care about is being able to get it cheap, preferably free. As long as it is like that 4:3 on the iPad won't matter.
The right aspect ratio screen would be a secondary concern to this. And right now, Apple doesn't have the economics down for the first basic thing. Flash and Apple's strategic direction is maybe a separate matter. They know they need to get that content and they made a deal with Google to convert Youtube videos to H.264. They tried getting the 70 percent use case there. With vimeo seemingly doubling up with H.264, they are getting closer and closer.
The point is that the iPad is a disappointment if you are interested in video playback.
Really? How long have you had your iPad?
Video on the iPad will look fantastic, even at 16:9 aspect ratio.
(And I'm just as qualified to make that statement as you are to make yours.)
But I think you are overreaching on the 4:3 comments. As an aside, Apple designed the iPad as an any orientation device. As long as they do that, I think they have to use 4:3 as that is close to the optimum aspect ratio for both vertical and horizontal usage. It's a basic human response mechanism. If it is 16:9, it just won't feel right in vertical orientation at 10 inch diag sizes. But back to 4:3 versus 16:9 and video. In the end I don't think it matters that much. People don't care that much. What they care about is being able to get it cheap, preferably free. As long as it is like that 4:3 on the iPad won't matter.
Absolutely correct in response to the proper aspect ratio debate.
Amazing how many people want multi-tasking/multi-use devices, and then go back and make their decision on only 1 or 2 things that the multi-use device doesn't do "ideally".
Regarding aspect ratio and some of the poster's wishes here, should all movie magazines now be printed and bound in landscape fashion, and also be 16:9... just because if they print a full-page preview shot, it will have to have a border at present aspect ratios of magazine print?
And what about working with apps, where a certain number of buttons and controls will be at the top of the screen. While yes, they could be put on the side of the screen when working in landscape, but isn't it better to have a choice at the top... or sides?
What about photos, X-rays, PDFs, etc.? These will all fit almost pixel-perfect edge-to-edge on the iPad.
So video will be black-barred. With the endless possibilities of this device, THAT is a minor "inconvenience" compared to everything else that the device will be used for and do... from Day 1!
Regarding Flash... just an observation.
IF Flash was available on the iPad, AND it was the same CPU-power-hungry, cooling-fan-blasting, plug-in that it is now on the Macs:
* would it burn a hole in the iPad?
* melt the internals and/or discolor the display?
* be used as a melted-chess sandwich press?
* would you sue Apple after skin-grafting your kid's burnt legs or hands?
... is Flash worth all of that? Or are open source/standards and nudging content creators to use them instead... a better fight?
Really? How long have you had your iPad?
Video on the iPad will look fantastic, even at 16:9 aspect ratio.
But it will be tiny. On the 4:3 screen, letterboxed, it will be the same size as a 9 inch screen of normal proportions.
But it will be tiny. On the 4:3 screen, letterboxed, it will be the same size as a 9 inch screen of normal proportions.
And a 9 inch screen positioned a couple of feet away is equivalent to a 50 inch PLUS screen that is 10 feet away.
Why is it that most of the portable DVD players have 7 or 8 inch screens?
I couldn't disagree more. Contrary to the naysayers, I think this product has real potential. I like the form factor, I love the apps that have been demo'ed, and I'll buy one in an instant. I think the win is the simplicity, the idea of making an appliance ... something one can leave around the house and just grab when you need it. The form factor, not to mention the interface, of a traditional computer is far less accessible.
There are lots of things I'd like it to do, but for a first flurry into this space, I think this is good. I'd like web-cam, of course; I hate the thick bezel; and whilst I like finger driven input, it would also be cool to be able to use a pen for drawing and taking notes --- perhaps with character recognition. At present, my impression is that the resolution of the touch sensing technology will not make pen writing feasible. I think they said something like a 1000 sensors on the glass ... that's ok for fingers but not for pens.
I also really wanted MacOS X, but in the context of an appliance the iPhone OS may make most sense. I like the idea of killing off general access to the file systems, and instead sharing data implicitly across compatible applications using some form of tagging. I would also have liked multi-tasking to be made generally available, and I'm not sure I understand the rationale for limiting this.
So ... roll on the launch, I think its a great product.
I agree with your thinking and here is my take.
I criticized the iPad at its introduction, and I was not impressed. However now that some time has gone by and I had time to digest it, and after I saw the TV commercial during the academy awards, I am not so sure I was right.
What Apple does well, is tastefully market and create excitement. They even incorporated something on my wish list that I would have liked to see on the Courier (just for effect), which is when they turn pages in a book, the front cover opens and it looks like a real page is turning. To my surprise, the commercial showed it. I didn't notice this feature in the keynote introduction with Jobs doing the demo. Perhaps if you buy the case or carrier along with the iPad, it all comes together and makes sense. That is an important part, which satisfies the practicality the device needs, the ability to carry it for convenience and for protection of the device.
The advertisement showed most of what it can do and what the interface would look like running the different apps or programs that are built in. I think it looks good now. I still don't like the thick bezel, but perhaps it makes it easier to hold and keep the screen free from obstruction. Maybe I was wrong. It doesn't have a stylus, you can't write on it with detail, nor does it open like a book or work like a small computer, but it seems good for everything else that it isn't.
It's not quite a small computer (netbook), but perhaps an appliance that does 4 different things well and those are the things that you need or would most likely do while being mobile for the majority of people, just perhaps not to the satisfaction of tech geeks.
It seems as if Amazon is worried about its Kindle now and are scrambling to come up with their own media device.
The iPad may effectively garner new market territory and not cannibalize its other products after all.