I'd be awfully surprised to see an update to the iPad in Q4 2010 when it's almost guaranteed to do incredible Christmas numbers without an update. I think the earliest Apple will possibly update the iPad is January 2011 and the latest is March 2011. The only possible exception is if they decide to push out an update in November with iOS 4.1 - I think they'd be wasting a lot of potential Christmas sales of the current model, but I know I'd sure be happy to see iOS 4.1 and a FaceTime model in the fall instead of having to wait for next year.
Agreed. I really wish they would have done the Retina display on the iPad as another potential update, but to release a huge update this early in the game would be un-Apple like.
Look at the Gen 1 iPhone, it was missing all sorts of things that post-ers were wining that it didn't have for years (i.e. forward facing camera, video, e-Books, Enterprise applications, App organization, etc.) Some of these feature are just NOW making it to the current iPhone, 4 GENERATIONS LATER. I think we have a long wait to get some of these "must have's" into the iPad. They may speed up some features over others, but if you look at Apple's upgrade history with device releases, it's been between 3-4 years for major updates.
This rumor will prove true once all those rumors about another iPhone form-factor prove true. They've got a winner on their hands, and if it ain't broke....
What would seem logical would be to increase the screen size of the Touch, in effect making it akin to an iPad mini, helping fill the void by upping screen real estate somewhat on the Nano, not to mention bringing in touch-screen tech for that model. Let's not forget there is a rather capable product already in the same range as the Touch we all know and love as the iPhone.
I have a Touch because I didn't want to spend a small fortune maintaining an iPhone. So I have a basic cell phone that I use to make phone calls (I'm not that young so texting and the like just isn't my thing) and the Touch to do all sorts of other stuff. But I would love to see Apple bring out a larger version of the Touch because what I do with the Touch can only be enhanced by more screen real estate. The key would be to keep the increase in size modest enough to allow the new Touch to remain pocketable.
By my calculations, you could have a device sporting a screen along the lines of about 5" X 3.5" (i.e. a 6" screen) and still have a pocketable device. Up the resolution, perhaps not to retina levels at this time, to enhance the value of such a Touch for e-reading purposes and you'd have quite a decent product, one better suited to browsing, reading, gaming, data input, and media playback than the current Touch. Keep the price in line with the upper range of the current Touch but retain a Touch at the entry price similar to the current Touch but with 16GB worth of memory. Combine that with upping the ante on the Nano, not to mention the iPhone, and you've got all the bases covered.
It's such a logical next step that I have to wonder why Apple would not go that route. Consider that if Apple is serious about bringing out a variation of the iPad with a smaller screen, the price point would be virtually the same as the space occupied by the current Touch. Here in Canada the 32GB Touch is $329 and the 64GB version is $429. The iPad starts at $549 with 16GB. But move ahead into early next year when the revised iPad is released. No doubt at that point the iPad will have a base model at the same price but with 32GB. So all Apple has to do is not increase the memory on the Touch, i.e. stay at 32GB for $329 and 64GB for $429 but dramatically increase screen real estate. There would likely be few, if any complaints, if you could have a 32GB Touch with a 6" screen. Offer a 3G (4G?) version for an additional $100. The difference in screen size would be such that both products would still have their following.
The key would be to offer more screen but not so much that you'd take the Touch out of the realm of being a pocketable device. Maybe I'm wrong and the size I outline is too large for a lot of consumers. I do believe, though, that the current Touch size is dictated by the ideal size for a smartphone which is not really the same space that the Touch is occupying. If you're talking a pocketable computer as opposed to a smartphone, you can go larger because a pocketable computer doesn't wind up being placed up to your ear to make calls. It can be designed to slip into a man's pant pocket or a woman's purse or handbag. I figure a device with a 6" screen could do that but if it turns out that it would have to be a device with a 5" screen or a 4.5" screen, whatever, the fact remains that the Touch would be enhanced with more screen real estate. Once you introduce a product with a screen slotted between the current Touch and iPad, in terms of price, the Touch pricing would be where this unit would make sense.
By the way, the iPhone has a resolution of 960X640 whereas the Touch right now is as 480X320. If you go from a 3.5" screen to let's say a 5" screen, you have less than doubled screen real estate, meaning that if the new Touch went to 960X640, the net result would be higher perceived resolution. Or you could opt for the same resolution as the iPad which is 1,024X768 which would further up the ante in terms of resolution on the new Touch. Who wouldn't welcome a Touch with a larger, high-resolution screen that you could still slip into your pant pocket. I don't see a downside.
Not really because when it comes right down to it Touch is mostly an MP3 player with a screen to small to accel at the uses that many of us have in mind. It is about remaining portable while providing for a far more readable screen. Portable in the sense of a paperback novel.
Dave
No, it is mostly an MP4 player, get your codecs correct.
It doesn't makes sense to switch to OLED technology. I expect however that Apple decides to release a Retina Display iPad in the near future.
In fact if we take iPhone 4 screen dimensions and resolution and double them, keeping the same dpi, we get the following:
A 6" x 4" screen
Meassuring 7.2" diagonal
At Full HD resolution (1920x1080 @ same iPhone 4 dpi)
This makes more sense to me (and would actually a dream come true). It would make the iPad more easy to handle (smaller) and the same awesome dot pitch as iPhone 4 Retina Display.
I agree. So *if* this rumor is true it means the iPod Touch will be discontinued and replaced with an expanded range of iPads.
That's not necessarily the case. Keep the Touch name but develop it more along the lines of a pocketable computer than a smartphone minus the phone. In addition, retain one model at a bargain price with minor tweaks (more memory), something Apple has done in the past with it's iPod line (ala the iPod Classic).
Initially Apple was worried about being cost effective, hence they were working with a Touch that shared hardware with the iPhone. Economies of scale and all that sort of stuff. Something similar is taking place with the Mac Mini, a desktop sharing hardware with a laptop model.
But as we've seen with the introduction of the iPad, clearly there is a big enough market for touchscreen devices to allow for a range of products filling different niches. Time for the Touch to be set free from smartphone constraints. Can't remember the last time I put my Touch up to my ear to make a call, hence size doesn't have to be limited to what makes sense in a phone.
Apple has changed specs on devices before yet retained the same name, so why would there be a need to call a significantly revised device something other than a Touch?
By the way, regarding OLED, not going to happen. IPS LCD for sure.
Not really because when it comes right down to it Touch is mostly an MP3 player with a screen to small to accel at the uses that many of us have in mind. It is about remaining portable while providing for a far more readable screen. Portable in the sense of a paperback novel.
Well, the iPod Touch is also not a small iPad because it doesn't run iPad software. I don't see the point of a device in between in size. It would offer none of the advantages of either and the disadvantages of both, and, frankly, I don't think either UI would be suitable.
Well, the iPod Touch is also not a small iPad because it doesn't run iPad software. I don't see the point of a device in between in size. It would offer none of the advantages of either and the disadvantages of both, and, frankly, I don't think either UI would be suitable.
And how difficult would it be to introduce a Touch model running iPad software. Give the device a screen resolution identical to the iPad and you've got an excellent high-res unit well suited to what people use the Touch for right now. Granted, some functions would be less enjoyable on the Touch than on the iPad but not many. Reading, media playback, gaming, browsing would be fine on the revised Touch with only minor sizing adjustments that could be easily built into the software.
Seems to me that if the iPad can run software designed for the Touch it would not be a stretch for a device in between the current Touch and iPad to run software designed for the iPad. Certainly the hurdles would not be so extreme as to be beyond Apple's software expertise to master.
I'd be awfully surprised to see an update to the iPad in Q4 2010 when it's almost guaranteed to do incredible Christmas numbers without an update...
True, but the iPod touch is due for an update soon. In the past, it made sense for Apple to keep the iPhone and touch the same size. They needed to keep the resolution the same for the sake of the apps, and if they made the touch any bigger but kept the same resolution it would be a pretty bad display (really big pixels).
But now Apple could make the touch a little bigger, keep the same resolution as the iPhone (or the iPad if they want to match that aspect ratio) and still have a high density ppi for good image quality. So instead of the 960x640/326 ppi display of the iPhone the touch could have a 960x640/275 ppi and be a little bigger. There'd be no impact to the apps or developers whatsoever because the resolution is the same.
And how difficult would it be to introduce a Touch model running iPad software. Give the device a screen resolution identical to the iPad and you've got an excellent high-res unit well suited to what people use the Touch for right now. Granted, some functions would be less enjoyable on the Touch than on the iPad but not many. Reading, media playback, gaming, browsing would be fine on the revised Touch with only minor sizing adjustments that could be easily built into the software.
Seems to me that if the iPad can run software designed for the Touch it would not be a stretch for a device in between the current Touch and iPad to run software designed for the iPad. Certainly the hurdles would not be so extreme as to be beyond Apple's software expertise to master.
Well, the issue with keeping the same resolution on a smaller screen is that app UIs are now, in many cases, designed for a certain physical size screen in the sense that a finger is a fixed size and control spacing is accommodated to that, and also as to what is readable in a certain area. Yes, the UI would display correctly on a smaller screen of higher resolution, but usability would likely be negatively impacted in many cases.
I thought I had just read a Microsoft article what with the 34 or so SKUs listed.
"And we're going to have a West Coast version, like a Cal King bed, that's 5.6" by 12.9", and also a Mexican version that's 1.4" by 35.1"," said a gesticulating Steve Ballmer at the Microsoft Partner Conference. "And wait until you see the ones with the foldable slideout keyboard with a 53-in-1 card reader and 17 USB ports. You asked, we listened!
"Oh, and one more thing: we're bringing back the floppy disk drive! We know some of you still have Microsoft Word 5 on 23 floppy disks, and we don't want to leave those of you in the dark."
I hope it is a phony rumor -- the current IPS LCD screen is bad enough in natural light. The last thing we want is a screen that will downright disappear in sunlight. Apple needs to be going in the opposite direction towards less glare and better performance in natural light.
OLED disappears in sunlight? Hyperbole much? Sure, it's harder to see, but so are most display technologies. You really have to crank them up. Pixel Qi seems pretty interesting, I don't know if the colors are as good outside of direct sunlight.
Quote:
No OLED ever, please!!!
That's a pretty myopic statement, it assumes technologies don't improve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1
that sounds like it would be a waste of time to produce (IMO, we already have the iPod touch guys!). If anything i could see a larger version of the iPad, not smaller.
For tablet use, it seems that the Touch and iPad are outside my ideal zone. There is a huge difference between a 3.5" and 7" screen. iPad's screen is a bit large to do thumb typing, I think 7" would be fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicolbolas
this does seem pointless, but if they do make it i hope it is i an odd ratio so i can watch all my 11:9 and 12:5 videos.
I hope that's a typo, what is in 11:9 that couldn't be reasonably well-served with a 4:3 screen? As for widescreen, I think it's a bad idea to have a general purpose device whose screen is optimized for one use but very poor for several other uses. I thought that 3:2 was a good balance, too bad they didn't do that with the iPad.
Quote:
as for the disappearing screen, maybe apple should OFFER CHOICES (wow Apple choices!) that are:
B- offer 3 kinds of screen IPS, OLED, and something with no glare (or an anti-glare coating)
Such a variety of choices would mean you would need something build to order.
For tablet use, it seems that the Touch and iPad are outside my ideal zone. There is a huge difference between a 3.5" and 7" screen. iPad's screen is a bit large to do thumb typing, I think 7" would be fine.
Yes, typing on the iPad is my #1 issue with the device. If you're on the couch or in a chair with no surface (other than your legs), typing sucks. The device slides around on your lap and is too low in your lap to comfortably type, one-hand typing is just not efficient, and the screen to face angle is uncomfortable. I tried one out for a day (a friend let me borrow his) and i found that anything other than twitter-style typing was just too compromising on a couch or in a coffee shop (or similar situations where you have no surface to place the device and the keyboard accessory is not present). Apple or other manufacturers need to address this somehow. Apple's keyboard accessory might work but not in your lap, and it only works in portrait mode anyway. There is one Manuf. that has this in the works, but i have yet to see a release yet.
Yes, typing on the iPad is my #1 issue with the device. If you're on the couch or in a chair with no surface (other than your legs), typing sucks. The device slides around on your lap and is too low in your lap to comfortably type, one-hand typing is just not efficient, and the screen to face angle is uncomfortable. I tried one out for a day (a friend let me borrow his) and i found that anything other than twitter-style typing was just too compromising on a couch or in a coffee shop (or similar situations where you have no surface to place the device and the keyboard accessory is not present). Apple or other manufacturers need to address this somehow. Apple's keyboard accessory might work but not in your lap, and it only works in portrait mode anyway. There is one Manuf. that has this in the works, but i have yet to see a release yet.
I use the Apple case and have no problem typing in my lap, in landscape (excellent, especially when angled) or portrait (good). One handed typing is not ideal, but I haven't had occassion to need to input large amounts of text while standing. Yeah, I know, we can get into the whole, "you shouldn't need a case," thing, a la iP4, but it's a pretty nice case that protects the screen when not in use and is actually quite functional.
Comments
I'd be awfully surprised to see an update to the iPad in Q4 2010 when it's almost guaranteed to do incredible Christmas numbers without an update. I think the earliest Apple will possibly update the iPad is January 2011 and the latest is March 2011. The only possible exception is if they decide to push out an update in November with iOS 4.1 - I think they'd be wasting a lot of potential Christmas sales of the current model, but I know I'd sure be happy to see iOS 4.1 and a FaceTime model in the fall instead of having to wait for next year.
Agreed. I really wish they would have done the Retina display on the iPad as another potential update, but to release a huge update this early in the game would be un-Apple like.
Look at the Gen 1 iPhone, it was missing all sorts of things that post-ers were wining that it didn't have for years (i.e. forward facing camera, video, e-Books, Enterprise applications, App organization, etc.) Some of these feature are just NOW making it to the current iPhone, 4 GENERATIONS LATER. I think we have a long wait to get some of these "must have's" into the iPad. They may speed up some features over others, but if you look at Apple's upgrade history with device releases, it's been between 3-4 years for major updates.
I have a Touch because I didn't want to spend a small fortune maintaining an iPhone. So I have a basic cell phone that I use to make phone calls (I'm not that young so texting and the like just isn't my thing) and the Touch to do all sorts of other stuff. But I would love to see Apple bring out a larger version of the Touch because what I do with the Touch can only be enhanced by more screen real estate. The key would be to keep the increase in size modest enough to allow the new Touch to remain pocketable.
By my calculations, you could have a device sporting a screen along the lines of about 5" X 3.5" (i.e. a 6" screen) and still have a pocketable device. Up the resolution, perhaps not to retina levels at this time, to enhance the value of such a Touch for e-reading purposes and you'd have quite a decent product, one better suited to browsing, reading, gaming, data input, and media playback than the current Touch. Keep the price in line with the upper range of the current Touch but retain a Touch at the entry price similar to the current Touch but with 16GB worth of memory. Combine that with upping the ante on the Nano, not to mention the iPhone, and you've got all the bases covered.
It's such a logical next step that I have to wonder why Apple would not go that route. Consider that if Apple is serious about bringing out a variation of the iPad with a smaller screen, the price point would be virtually the same as the space occupied by the current Touch. Here in Canada the 32GB Touch is $329 and the 64GB version is $429. The iPad starts at $549 with 16GB. But move ahead into early next year when the revised iPad is released. No doubt at that point the iPad will have a base model at the same price but with 32GB. So all Apple has to do is not increase the memory on the Touch, i.e. stay at 32GB for $329 and 64GB for $429 but dramatically increase screen real estate. There would likely be few, if any complaints, if you could have a 32GB Touch with a 6" screen. Offer a 3G (4G?) version for an additional $100. The difference in screen size would be such that both products would still have their following.
The key would be to offer more screen but not so much that you'd take the Touch out of the realm of being a pocketable device. Maybe I'm wrong and the size I outline is too large for a lot of consumers. I do believe, though, that the current Touch size is dictated by the ideal size for a smartphone which is not really the same space that the Touch is occupying. If you're talking a pocketable computer as opposed to a smartphone, you can go larger because a pocketable computer doesn't wind up being placed up to your ear to make calls. It can be designed to slip into a man's pant pocket or a woman's purse or handbag. I figure a device with a 6" screen could do that but if it turns out that it would have to be a device with a 5" screen or a 4.5" screen, whatever, the fact remains that the Touch would be enhanced with more screen real estate. Once you introduce a product with a screen slotted between the current Touch and iPad, in terms of price, the Touch pricing would be where this unit would make sense.
By the way, the iPhone has a resolution of 960X640 whereas the Touch right now is as 480X320. If you go from a 3.5" screen to let's say a 5" screen, you have less than doubled screen real estate, meaning that if the new Touch went to 960X640, the net result would be higher perceived resolution. Or you could opt for the same resolution as the iPad which is 1,024X768 which would further up the ante in terms of resolution on the new Touch. Who wouldn't welcome a Touch with a larger, high-resolution screen that you could still slip into your pant pocket. I don't see a downside.
Not really because when it comes right down to it Touch is mostly an MP3 player with a screen to small to accel at the uses that many of us have in mind. It is about remaining portable while providing for a far more readable screen. Portable in the sense of a paperback novel.
Dave
No, it is mostly an MP4 player, get your codecs correct.
In fact if we take iPhone 4 screen dimensions and resolution and double them, keeping the same dpi, we get the following:
- A 6" x 4" screen
- Meassuring 7.2" diagonal
- At Full HD resolution (1920x1080 @ same iPhone 4 dpi)
This makes more sense to me (and would actually a dream come true). It would make the iPad more easy to handle (smaller) and the same awesome dot pitch as iPhone 4 Retina Display.It's called an iPod Touch.
I agree. So *if* this rumor is true it means the iPod Touch will be discontinued and replaced with an expanded range of iPads.
I agree. So *if* this rumor is true it means the iPod Touch will be discontinued and replaced with an expanded range of iPads.
That's not necessarily the case. Keep the Touch name but develop it more along the lines of a pocketable computer than a smartphone minus the phone. In addition, retain one model at a bargain price with minor tweaks (more memory), something Apple has done in the past with it's iPod line (ala the iPod Classic).
Initially Apple was worried about being cost effective, hence they were working with a Touch that shared hardware with the iPhone. Economies of scale and all that sort of stuff. Something similar is taking place with the Mac Mini, a desktop sharing hardware with a laptop model.
But as we've seen with the introduction of the iPad, clearly there is a big enough market for touchscreen devices to allow for a range of products filling different niches. Time for the Touch to be set free from smartphone constraints. Can't remember the last time I put my Touch up to my ear to make a call, hence size doesn't have to be limited to what makes sense in a phone.
Apple has changed specs on devices before yet retained the same name, so why would there be a need to call a significantly revised device something other than a Touch?
By the way, regarding OLED, not going to happen. IPS LCD for sure.
Not really because when it comes right down to it Touch is mostly an MP3 player with a screen to small to accel at the uses that many of us have in mind. It is about remaining portable while providing for a far more readable screen. Portable in the sense of a paperback novel.
Well, the iPod Touch is also not a small iPad because it doesn't run iPad software. I don't see the point of a device in between in size. It would offer none of the advantages of either and the disadvantages of both, and, frankly, I don't think either UI would be suitable.
Well, the iPod Touch is also not a small iPad because it doesn't run iPad software. I don't see the point of a device in between in size. It would offer none of the advantages of either and the disadvantages of both, and, frankly, I don't think either UI would be suitable.
And how difficult would it be to introduce a Touch model running iPad software. Give the device a screen resolution identical to the iPad and you've got an excellent high-res unit well suited to what people use the Touch for right now. Granted, some functions would be less enjoyable on the Touch than on the iPad but not many. Reading, media playback, gaming, browsing would be fine on the revised Touch with only minor sizing adjustments that could be easily built into the software.
Seems to me that if the iPad can run software designed for the Touch it would not be a stretch for a device in between the current Touch and iPad to run software designed for the iPad. Certainly the hurdles would not be so extreme as to be beyond Apple's software expertise to master.
I'd be awfully surprised to see an update to the iPad in Q4 2010 when it's almost guaranteed to do incredible Christmas numbers without an update...
True, but the iPod touch is due for an update soon. In the past, it made sense for Apple to keep the iPhone and touch the same size. They needed to keep the resolution the same for the sake of the apps, and if they made the touch any bigger but kept the same resolution it would be a pretty bad display (really big pixels).
But now Apple could make the touch a little bigger, keep the same resolution as the iPhone (or the iPad if they want to match that aspect ratio) and still have a high density ppi for good image quality. So instead of the 960x640/326 ppi display of the iPhone the touch could have a 960x640/275 ppi and be a little bigger. There'd be no impact to the apps or developers whatsoever because the resolution is the same.
And how difficult would it be to introduce a Touch model running iPad software. Give the device a screen resolution identical to the iPad and you've got an excellent high-res unit well suited to what people use the Touch for right now. Granted, some functions would be less enjoyable on the Touch than on the iPad but not many. Reading, media playback, gaming, browsing would be fine on the revised Touch with only minor sizing adjustments that could be easily built into the software.
Seems to me that if the iPad can run software designed for the Touch it would not be a stretch for a device in between the current Touch and iPad to run software designed for the iPad. Certainly the hurdles would not be so extreme as to be beyond Apple's software expertise to master.
Well, the issue with keeping the same resolution on a smaller screen is that app UIs are now, in many cases, designed for a certain physical size screen in the sense that a finger is a fixed size and control spacing is accommodated to that, and also as to what is readable in a certain area. Yes, the UI would display correctly on a smaller screen of higher resolution, but usability would likely be negatively impacted in many cases.
I thought I had just read a Microsoft article what with the 34 or so SKUs listed.
"And we're going to have a West Coast version, like a Cal King bed, that's 5.6" by 12.9", and also a Mexican version that's 1.4" by 35.1"," said a gesticulating Steve Ballmer at the Microsoft Partner Conference. "And wait until you see the ones with the foldable slideout keyboard with a 53-in-1 card reader and 17 USB ports. You asked, we listened!
"Oh, and one more thing: we're bringing back the floppy disk drive! We know some of you still have Microsoft Word 5 on 23 floppy disks, and we don't want to leave those of you in the dark."
That opens the door for more detailed use (like imaging in medicine or better presentations of drafting papers.)
Smaller only counts if there is a major reduction in costs and the iPod touch is working well for that market.
Apple ain't the company to make a many versions of its products either.
Before more ipads Apple should make a non-smartphone iphone for the market that doesn't want or can't afford a data plan.
Phone, addressbook syncing, ipod, texting and camera with no 3g and no wi-fi. Smaller cheaper form factor.
Anyways, I do not see Apple coming out with smaller models anyways.
Coming out with??:?? but they already have.
Remember the ipad is "just a big ipod touch"
I hope it is a phony rumor -- the current IPS LCD screen is bad enough in natural light. The last thing we want is a screen that will downright disappear in sunlight. Apple needs to be going in the opposite direction towards less glare and better performance in natural light.
OLED disappears in sunlight? Hyperbole much? Sure, it's harder to see, but so are most display technologies. You really have to crank them up. Pixel Qi seems pretty interesting, I don't know if the colors are as good outside of direct sunlight.
No OLED ever, please!!!
That's a pretty myopic statement, it assumes technologies don't improve.
that sounds like it would be a waste of time to produce (IMO, we already have the iPod touch guys!). If anything i could see a larger version of the iPad, not smaller.
For tablet use, it seems that the Touch and iPad are outside my ideal zone. There is a huge difference between a 3.5" and 7" screen. iPad's screen is a bit large to do thumb typing, I think 7" would be fine.
this does seem pointless, but if they do make it i hope it is i an odd ratio so i can watch all my 11:9 and 12:5 videos.
I hope that's a typo, what is in 11:9 that couldn't be reasonably well-served with a 4:3 screen? As for widescreen, I think it's a bad idea to have a general purpose device whose screen is optimized for one use but very poor for several other uses. I thought that 3:2 was a good balance, too bad they didn't do that with the iPad.
as for the disappearing screen, maybe apple should OFFER CHOICES (wow Apple choices!) that are:
B- offer 3 kinds of screen IPS, OLED, and something with no glare (or an anti-glare coating)
Such a variety of choices would mean you would need something build to order.
For tablet use, it seems that the Touch and iPad are outside my ideal zone. There is a huge difference between a 3.5" and 7" screen. iPad's screen is a bit large to do thumb typing, I think 7" would be fine.
Yes, typing on the iPad is my #1 issue with the device. If you're on the couch or in a chair with no surface (other than your legs), typing sucks. The device slides around on your lap and is too low in your lap to comfortably type, one-hand typing is just not efficient, and the screen to face angle is uncomfortable. I tried one out for a day (a friend let me borrow his) and i found that anything other than twitter-style typing was just too compromising on a couch or in a coffee shop (or similar situations where you have no surface to place the device and the keyboard accessory is not present). Apple or other manufacturers need to address this somehow. Apple's keyboard accessory might work but not in your lap, and it only works in portrait mode anyway. There is one Manuf. that has this in the works, but i have yet to see a release yet.
Yes, typing on the iPad is my #1 issue with the device. If you're on the couch or in a chair with no surface (other than your legs), typing sucks. The device slides around on your lap and is too low in your lap to comfortably type, one-hand typing is just not efficient, and the screen to face angle is uncomfortable. I tried one out for a day (a friend let me borrow his) and i found that anything other than twitter-style typing was just too compromising on a couch or in a coffee shop (or similar situations where you have no surface to place the device and the keyboard accessory is not present). Apple or other manufacturers need to address this somehow. Apple's keyboard accessory might work but not in your lap, and it only works in portrait mode anyway. There is one Manuf. that has this in the works, but i have yet to see a release yet.
I use the Apple case and have no problem typing in my lap, in landscape (excellent, especially when angled) or portrait (good). One handed typing is not ideal, but I haven't had occassion to need to input large amounts of text while standing. Yeah, I know, we can get into the whole, "you shouldn't need a case," thing, a la iP4, but it's a pretty nice case that protects the screen when not in use and is actually quite functional.