Before the App Store opened, any developer could test their iPhone apps on an iPhone. Sure, it wasn't the iPhone 3G but it was hardware that gave them a good idea of how their app would feel.
Obviously Apple can't send every developer an iPad or even do one of those tours where they go around the country letting developers try out the iPad. Totally understandable.
An alternative would be to delay iPad app approvals a week or so. This would limit the selection of day one apps to those that ship on the iPad but it would also mean the apps released—at least some of them—would be tested in more than just the simulator.
This likely won't be an issue a month after launch but in the first few weeks, it could taint users' opinions of iPad apps. Hopefully Apple's app reviewers will test these apps on the iPad.
Fortunately, third party apps aren't as important for the iPad as they are on the iPhone/iPod touch because many of the most popular iPhone apps are those that optimize web content for its small 3.5" screen. The iPad's much larger 9.7" screen means those apps aren't as necessary anymore because you can browse the Web without constant zooming in/panning/zooming out.
I predict the big system seller for the iPad will be its web browser. It was for me.
All of the developers use the SDK. It has a device simulator within it. It puts a full size ipad on your display (if you have a big enough screen) on which you run and fully interact with your application. Yes, having physical devices to beta test on makes things easier but until then the simulator does a good job.
I am buying an ipad on the strength of experience using the ipad in the simulator alone.
I'd actually prefer Apple delay iPad app approvals for a week or two post-launch. That would at least give developers a chance to test on real world hardware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
I'm not a developer nor do I plan to be.
Before the App Store opened, any developer could test their iPhone apps on an iPhone. Sure, it wasn't the iPhone 3G but it was hardware that gave them a good idea of how their app would feel.
Obviously Apple can't send every developer an iPad or even do one of those tours where they go around the country letting developers try out the iPad. Totally understandable.
An alternative would be to delay iPad app approvals a week or so. This would limit the selection of day one apps to those that ship on the iPad but it would also mean the apps released—at least some of them—would be tested in more than just the simulator.
This likely won't be an issue a month after launch but in the first few weeks, it could taint users' opinions of iPad apps. Hopefully Apple's app reviewers will test these apps on the iPad.
Fortunately, third party apps aren't as important for the iPad as they are on the iPhone/iPod touch because many of the most popular iPhone apps are those that optimize web content for its small 3.5" screen. The iPad's much larger 9.7" screen means those apps aren't as necessary anymore because you can browse the Web without constant zooming in/panning/zooming out.
I predict the big system seller for the iPad will be its web browser. It was for me.
I expect the apps submitted by the select group of developers given iPads to be good but I don't know about the rest. It's exciting both for us users and developers nonetheless.
Are you forgetting or ignoring that all of the apps submitted and approved for April 3rd will be tested on multiple iPads, by qualified iPad handlers, inside Apple?
No that doesn't replace the intermittent testing that should go on during development, but let's be honest, most Apps are simple enough to just follow the cookie cutter code, use the right interface elements, and they'll just work. The ones that DO just work, will get the thumbs up from Apple by the end of next week, and be tweaked and re-submitted for final approval and launch.
Between tekstud blatantly flaunting his ban and marvin the moderator spreading FUD about the iPad (the iPad has mobile phone level hardware and therefore won't be useful for artists looking for serious sketching/designing/layout/painting here) I'm starting to wonder what is up with this forum and what the heck the real admins are thinking.
Between tekstud blatantly flaunting his ban and marvin the moderator spreading FUD about the iPad (the iPad has mobile phone level hardware and therefore won't be useful for artists looking for serious sketching/designing/layout/painting here) I'm starting to wonder what is up with this forum and what the heck the real admins are thinking.
The frequency of trolldom has really lowered the level of discussion around here. It's unfortunate. It makes me wonder why so many Apple loathers hang around Mac/Apple discussion sites.
The frequency of trolldom has really lowered the level of discussion around here. It's unfortunate. It makes me wonder why so many Apple loathers hang around Mac/Apple discussion sites.
At least the political BS is low.
It's no better elsewhere. MacRumors is crawling with them. Unfortunately, they seem to want Mac/OS X's stability and feature set, but want the rest to be a Windows-like experience and can't seem to understand why it can't work that way.
It's no better elsewhere. MacRumors is crawling with them. Unfortunately, they seem to want Mac/OS X's stability and feature set, but want the rest to be a Windows-like experience and can't seem to understand why it can't work that way.
It's no better elsewhere. MacRumors is crawling with them. Unfortunately, they seem to want Mac/OS X's stability and feature set, but want the rest to be a Windows-like experience and can't seem to understand why it can't work that way.
Do the freaking MacRumors MODS spread FUD about Apple products? It's getting very silly around here.
I can be negative like the next person, but I can also be positive, unlike is possible for you.
Also Ireland is about a dozen times smarter and can write full sentences. That counts for a lot, emotional disposition aside. Nobody likes an angry dumbass.
Also Ireland is about a dozen times smarter and can write full sentences. That counts for a lot, emotional disposition aside. Nobody likes an angry dumbass.
And never forget: Ireland hung tough for a tablet, for years, and then when it finally arrived but turned out not to be what he had in mind, he evaluated it on its own merits rather than dismiss it as "wrong." Which actually counts for a lot, in my book.
And never forget: Ireland hung tough for a tablet, for years, and then when it finally arrived but turned out not to be what he had in mind, he evaluated it on its own merits rather than dismiss it as "wrong." Which actually counts for a lot, in my book.
And never forget: Ireland hung tough for a tablet, for years, and then when it finally arrived but turned out not to be what he had in mind, he evaluated it on its own merits rather than dismiss it as "wrong." Which actually counts for a lot, in my book.
Question?: will Apple release any unknown homegrown apps on April 3rd? So far they'll be releasing themselves:
iBooks
Keynote
Pages
Numbers
???
Will there be a new Remote app for iTunes, like they debuted when the App store opened?
Anything we haven't thought of?
Good question. Obviously you can use the iPhone/Touch versions of the current apps but making them Universal so they look and feel right on the iPad would be nice. Perhaps we'll know if they're updated just before the iPad release. I'm sure this opens up the door for more apps from Apple but I can't think of any at the moment.
Texas Hold'em might only need a couple minor changes due to scaling but otherwise still ideal for the iPad. Remote is only one I can see really benefiting from a completely redesigned iPad version that isn't integrated into another app. The three others likely could (and possibly should) be integrated into their respective apps instead of being separate.
Good question. Obviously you can use the iPhone/Touch versions of the current apps but making them Universal so they look and feel right on the iPad would be nice. Perhaps we'll know if they're updated just before the iPad release. I'm sure this opens up the door for more apps from Apple but I can't think of any at the moment.
Texas Hold'em might only need a couple minor changes due to scaling but otherwise still ideal for the iPad. Remote is only one I can see really benefiting from a completely redesigned iPad version that isn't integrated into another app. The three others likely could (and possibly should) be integrated into their respective apps instead of being separate.
This is a bit of wishful thinking on my part but I wish Apple would allow the Remote app to play your music from your itunes library right on the iPad. The Remote app already knows you are on the network. I would think it wouldn't be hard to play music on the iPad as a client of the network. That could save me from having to load my music on the iPad. I could save some of my precious Gb.
This is a bit of wishful thinking on my part but I wish Apple would allow the Remote app to play your music from your itunes library right on the iPad. The Remote app already knows you are on the network. I would think it wouldn't be hard to play music on the iPad as a client of the network. That could save me from having to load my music on the iPad. I could save some of my precious Gb.
I don't think that is too farfetched. Despite the popularity the iPad will have over every other tablet ever created it's still a device category that has much limited user interest than a smartphone or a PC. It also has limited storage and likely to be used in the home on a LAN. Because of these things, I'd think that allowing streaming from a local iTunes account Ã* la the AppleTV would be very likely.
You can already stream media from your iDisk account with ease, even over 3G, so all they really have to do is add the Sharing aspect of iTunes to the iPod app. I wouldn't be surprised if this was also part of the iPhone/Touch iPod app for v4.0.
Are you forgetting or ignoring that all of the apps submitted and approved for April 3rd will be tested on multiple iPads, by qualified iPad handlers, inside Apple?
No that doesn't replace the intermittent testing that should go on during development, but let's be honest, most Apps are simple enough to just follow the cookie cutter code, use the right interface elements, and they'll just work. The ones that DO just work, will get the thumbs up from Apple by the end of next week, and be tweaked and re-submitted for final approval and launch.
I think most people responding to my comments in this thread are taking my argument a bit too seriously. This isn't a big deal. It's a 'small deal' but an avoidable one.
Apps don't either work or not work. Most apps work. It's how well an app works that matters to users. I question whether Apple's app reviewers will block apps based on performance because only the developer knows how they want it to perform. And if the app reviewers do reject apps based on performance on real hardware, there's not much developers can do until they have hardware of their own.
Someone else argued that my suggestion to simply delay third party iPad apps a week or two would be "bad for business." Well, which is really worse: 1) users having to wait a week or two to download iPad-optimized apps or 2) getting to download potentially poorly-optimized apps that have only been tested in a simulator?
I think the latter is less desirable than the former. Apple surely doesn't want the same negative stigma the original iPhone App Store received in its first weeks, which was "there sure are a lot of flashlight apps."
Comments
I'm not a developer nor do I plan to be.
Before the App Store opened, any developer could test their iPhone apps on an iPhone. Sure, it wasn't the iPhone 3G but it was hardware that gave them a good idea of how their app would feel.
Obviously Apple can't send every developer an iPad or even do one of those tours where they go around the country letting developers try out the iPad. Totally understandable.
An alternative would be to delay iPad app approvals a week or so. This would limit the selection of day one apps to those that ship on the iPad but it would also mean the apps released—at least some of them—would be tested in more than just the simulator.
This likely won't be an issue a month after launch but in the first few weeks, it could taint users' opinions of iPad apps. Hopefully Apple's app reviewers will test these apps on the iPad.
Fortunately, third party apps aren't as important for the iPad as they are on the iPhone/iPod touch because many of the most popular iPhone apps are those that optimize web content for its small 3.5" screen. The iPad's much larger 9.7" screen means those apps aren't as necessary anymore because you can browse the Web without constant zooming in/panning/zooming out.
I predict the big system seller for the iPad will be its web browser. It was for me.
All of the developers use the SDK. It has a device simulator within it. It puts a full size ipad on your display (if you have a big enough screen) on which you run and fully interact with your application. Yes, having physical devices to beta test on makes things easier but until then the simulator does a good job.
I am buying an ipad on the strength of experience using the ipad in the simulator alone.
At the very least... minimally observant.
Hahaha!
I'd actually prefer Apple delay iPad app approvals for a week or two post-launch. That would at least give developers a chance to test on real world hardware.
I'm not a developer nor do I plan to be.
Before the App Store opened, any developer could test their iPhone apps on an iPhone. Sure, it wasn't the iPhone 3G but it was hardware that gave them a good idea of how their app would feel.
Obviously Apple can't send every developer an iPad or even do one of those tours where they go around the country letting developers try out the iPad. Totally understandable.
An alternative would be to delay iPad app approvals a week or so. This would limit the selection of day one apps to those that ship on the iPad but it would also mean the apps released—at least some of them—would be tested in more than just the simulator.
This likely won't be an issue a month after launch but in the first few weeks, it could taint users' opinions of iPad apps. Hopefully Apple's app reviewers will test these apps on the iPad.
Fortunately, third party apps aren't as important for the iPad as they are on the iPhone/iPod touch because many of the most popular iPhone apps are those that optimize web content for its small 3.5" screen. The iPad's much larger 9.7" screen means those apps aren't as necessary anymore because you can browse the Web without constant zooming in/panning/zooming out.
I predict the big system seller for the iPad will be its web browser. It was for me.
I expect the apps submitted by the select group of developers given iPads to be good but I don't know about the rest. It's exciting both for us users and developers nonetheless.
Are you forgetting or ignoring that all of the apps submitted and approved for April 3rd will be tested on multiple iPads, by qualified iPad handlers, inside Apple?
No that doesn't replace the intermittent testing that should go on during development, but let's be honest, most Apps are simple enough to just follow the cookie cutter code, use the right interface elements, and they'll just work. The ones that DO just work, will get the thumbs up from Apple by the end of next week, and be tweaked and re-submitted for final approval and launch.
And what are you then?
He is stubborn.
You are negative.
Between tekstud blatantly flaunting his ban and marvin the moderator spreading FUD about the iPad (the iPad has mobile phone level hardware and therefore won't be useful for artists looking for serious sketching/designing/layout/painting here) I'm starting to wonder what is up with this forum and what the heck the real admins are thinking.
Agree very much, I do.
Between tekstud blatantly flaunting his ban and marvin the moderator spreading FUD about the iPad (the iPad has mobile phone level hardware and therefore won't be useful for artists looking for serious sketching/designing/layout/painting here) I'm starting to wonder what is up with this forum and what the heck the real admins are thinking.
The frequency of trolldom has really lowered the level of discussion around here. It's unfortunate. It makes me wonder why so many Apple loathers hang around Mac/Apple discussion sites.
At least the political BS is low.
The frequency of trolldom has really lowered the level of discussion around here. It's unfortunate. It makes me wonder why so many Apple loathers hang around Mac/Apple discussion sites.
At least the political BS is low.
It's no better elsewhere. MacRumors is crawling with them. Unfortunately, they seem to want Mac/OS X's stability and feature set, but want the rest to be a Windows-like experience and can't seem to understand why it can't work that way.
It's no better elsewhere. MacRumors is crawling with them. Unfortunately, they seem to want Mac/OS X's stability and feature set, but want the rest to be a Windows-like experience and can't seem to understand why it can't work that way.
So true!
He is stubborn.
You are negative.
Hahaha!
Add "opinionatedly" before stubborn and add "repetitively" before negative
It's no better elsewhere. MacRumors is crawling with them. Unfortunately, they seem to want Mac/OS X's stability and feature set, but want the rest to be a Windows-like experience and can't seem to understand why it can't work that way.
Do the freaking MacRumors MODS spread FUD about Apple products? It's getting very silly around here.
And what are you then? .
I can be negative like the next person, but I can also be positive, unlike is possible for you.
Also Ireland is about a dozen times smarter and can write full sentences. That counts for a lot, emotional disposition aside. Nobody likes an angry dumbass.
Also Ireland is about a dozen times smarter and can write full sentences. That counts for a lot, emotional disposition aside. Nobody likes an angry dumbass.
And never forget: Ireland hung tough for a tablet, for years, and then when it finally arrived but turned out not to be what he had in mind, he evaluated it on its own merits rather than dismiss it as "wrong." Which actually counts for a lot, in my book.
And never forget: Ireland hung tough for a tablet, for years, and then when it finally arrived but turned out not to be what he had in mind, he evaluated it on its own merits rather than dismiss it as "wrong." Which actually counts for a lot, in my book.
Seconded.
And never forget: Ireland hung tough for a tablet, for years, and then when it finally arrived but turned out not to be what he had in mind, he evaluated it on its own merits rather than dismiss it as "wrong." Which actually counts for a lot, in my book.
Ditto
iBooks
Keynote
Pages
Numbers
???
Will there be a new Remote app for iTunes, like they debuted when the App store opened?
Anything we haven't thought of?
Question?: will Apple release any unknown homegrown apps on April 3rd? So far they'll be releasing themselves:
iBooks
Keynote
Pages
Numbers
???
Will there be a new Remote app for iTunes, like they debuted when the App store opened?
Anything we haven't thought of?
Good question. Obviously you can use the iPhone/Touch versions of the current apps but making them Universal so they look and feel right on the iPad would be nice. Perhaps we'll know if they're updated just before the iPad release. I'm sure this opens up the door for more apps from Apple but I can't think of any at the moment.
List of Apple's App Store apps:
- Keynote Remote
- MobileMe Disk
- MobileMe Gallery
- Remote
- Texas Hold'em
Texas Hold'em might only need a couple minor changes due to scaling but otherwise still ideal for the iPad. Remote is only one I can see really benefiting from a completely redesigned iPad version that isn't integrated into another app. The three others likely could (and possibly should) be integrated into their respective apps instead of being separate.Good question. Obviously you can use the iPhone/Touch versions of the current apps but making them Universal so they look and feel right on the iPad would be nice. Perhaps we'll know if they're updated just before the iPad release. I'm sure this opens up the door for more apps from Apple but I can't think of any at the moment.
List of Apple's App Store apps:
- Keynote Remote
- MobileMe Disk
- MobileMe Gallery
- Remote
- Texas Hold'em
Texas Hold'em might only need a couple minor changes due to scaling but otherwise still ideal for the iPad. Remote is only one I can see really benefiting from a completely redesigned iPad version that isn't integrated into another app. The three others likely could (and possibly should) be integrated into their respective apps instead of being separate.This is a bit of wishful thinking on my part but I wish Apple would allow the Remote app to play your music from your itunes library right on the iPad. The Remote app already knows you are on the network. I would think it wouldn't be hard to play music on the iPad as a client of the network. That could save me from having to load my music on the iPad. I could save some of my precious Gb.
This is a bit of wishful thinking on my part but I wish Apple would allow the Remote app to play your music from your itunes library right on the iPad. The Remote app already knows you are on the network. I would think it wouldn't be hard to play music on the iPad as a client of the network. That could save me from having to load my music on the iPad. I could save some of my precious Gb.
I don't think that is too farfetched. Despite the popularity the iPad will have over every other tablet ever created it's still a device category that has much limited user interest than a smartphone or a PC. It also has limited storage and likely to be used in the home on a LAN. Because of these things, I'd think that allowing streaming from a local iTunes account Ã* la the AppleTV would be very likely.
You can already stream media from your iDisk account with ease, even over 3G, so all they really have to do is add the Sharing aspect of iTunes to the iPod app. I wouldn't be surprised if this was also part of the iPhone/Touch iPod app for v4.0.
Are you forgetting or ignoring that all of the apps submitted and approved for April 3rd will be tested on multiple iPads, by qualified iPad handlers, inside Apple?
No that doesn't replace the intermittent testing that should go on during development, but let's be honest, most Apps are simple enough to just follow the cookie cutter code, use the right interface elements, and they'll just work. The ones that DO just work, will get the thumbs up from Apple by the end of next week, and be tweaked and re-submitted for final approval and launch.
I think most people responding to my comments in this thread are taking my argument a bit too seriously. This isn't a big deal. It's a 'small deal' but an avoidable one.
Apps don't either work or not work. Most apps work. It's how well an app works that matters to users. I question whether Apple's app reviewers will block apps based on performance because only the developer knows how they want it to perform. And if the app reviewers do reject apps based on performance on real hardware, there's not much developers can do until they have hardware of their own.
Someone else argued that my suggestion to simply delay third party iPad apps a week or two would be "bad for business." Well, which is really worse: 1) users having to wait a week or two to download iPad-optimized apps or 2) getting to download potentially poorly-optimized apps that have only been tested in a simulator?
I think the latter is less desirable than the former. Apple surely doesn't want the same negative stigma the original iPhone App Store received in its first weeks, which was "there sure are a lot of flashlight apps."
Again, though, not a big deal.