I knew about the Gorillaz album. There are people who've recorded movie footage on an iPhone too, but there would have to be some specific reason to do so (like being able to claim you were the first), not because it's the best tool for the job. Outside of a publicity stunt I see no reason to rely on an iPad to produce an album.
Sales have nothing to do with it. When you have a range of tablets with varying screen sizes, resolutions, DPI, processors and graphics capabilities it makes it difficult to create a "high-end" App that runs properly on as many devices as possible. Oh, and then there's that little problem with different versions of Android on all of them. Android sales have long passed iOS, yet developers till favor iOS. I don't see that changing, especially in tablets where Apple is still dominant (as opposed to phones where Android has higher market share).
I do develop for Android. It is a pain. I understand that. Having to define three different screen sizes and hoping what you come up with works on all 10,000 different variations out there stinks. I think Tim Cook's recent statement that there might not be a big screen Apple product any time soon because Apple won't release it because there are 'too many tradeoffs'- that is one of the huge obstacles for Apple. Apple developers can use absolute references on UI's. That is 'super-easy' mode and terrific for them. When there was only one iPhone screen size pixel 200,400 was in the exact same spot on everyone's screen. If Apple releases a big screen phone their developers will need to learn the pain of relative UI's instead of absolute ones.
In short, I'm not even going to argue developing for Android has its challenges. Different versions/fragmentation are mostly a non-issue on tablets. Develop for ICS and you are going to reach 100% of the Android *tablet* market.
My point in saying developers will follow the market is still absolutely true. There are a *few* really good apps out there for Android. Nowhere near the amount on the iPad enjoys. Creative developers with super ideas really want to build those great apps. The high end ones take teams of people and thousands of people-hours to develop. The biggest barrier for the last few years has been that Apple has @80-85% of the user market share. Despite their desire to make a great product, nobody is going to go through that time and effort for 15% of the market. Call it inverse 'Mac in the 90's syndrome' With recent Android sales growth my point is that that barrier is gone. There are now tons of Android tablet users and the number is growing at a pace that should be alarming to Apple. Those developers who wanted to make a great Android app, but couldn't justify it financially because they'd only be reaching 15% of the market, are going to start building great Android apps. That is great for Apple users as the competition will drive improvements- but not so great for Apple itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
I don't know how you can say iPad Apps are "watered down versions" of PC/Mac software when so many iPad Apps are not available of PC's. Not because there aren't PC/Mac programs that perform similar functions but because the iPad versions take advantage of the interface to make something unique and useful.
I have owned numerous Nikon DSLR's over the years and have a significant investment in lenses. However, I still take a lot of pictures with my iPhone. I don't always need to carry around a full-frame sensor DSLR with a couple lenses and flash when an iPhone will suffice. Likewise, an iPad is very useful for many things in many situations. It allows a beginner to get into music recording (for example) for very cheap and yet have the ability to produce some great results. Nobody is going to release an album that was recorded/edited on an iPad, but many musicians will use them for demos or getting their ideas down.
The iPad gives you those options. Android doesn't.
I think the above actually kind of supports what I was saying. If you're an engineer designing a circuit you are going to use PSpice on a PC/Mac. Not a nifty tablet substitute. If your an architect or industrial engineer you might use an AutoCAD grade piece of software- not a tablet version. There are decent versions of those applications for tablets that are going to be fun to work with and good for convenience' sake. Maybe update an idea on your iPad during a flight- but for any serious computation work tablets are simply lacking in horsepower. That isn't Apple's or anyones fault- its just a current reality. It is a little like the early days of PC's where the hardware presented a barrier seemingly around every corner. PC's advanced amazingly fast and that is largely what is hurting their sales. The average PC has so much more computation power than most people need that, well, people are realizing they don't need that power. If they can do everything they want to do with *wwwwaaayyyyy* more ease and convenience- that's what they will pick. Tablets are going through the same thing and in another 2-3 years (maybe a little longer) they similarly are going to be far more capable and competent devices than today's tablets.
I agree with you that there are many dedicated apps that are better on a tablet. No arguments there. When your kids or friends are playing in your back yard, grabbing the iPad and snapping then editing pictures is both convenient and fun. When Sports Illustrated calls and tells you you're shooting the Wimbledon finals (or the swimsuit issue) I'm guessing your bringing the iPad for the flight and the DLSR for the serious work.
Also, when you say "... things like..." you're talking about precisely two attributes, 'performance' and 'ease of operation'. Many people will argue that they are the most important attributes in any product.
I would argue that each person should be able to decide what is most important to them, without JD Power or anyone else artificially skewing the results.
For example, many people would rank App choice as a higher priority than performance or looks, yet it's not even on the Power list of what is important.
Something else interesting in that report:
"The study finds that 51 percent of tablet owners share their device with at least one other person. While the incidence differs across brands, tablet manufacturers may benefit from promoting shared usage as a selling point, as satisfaction increases when more people use one tablet device. When a tablet is only used by one person, overall satisfaction is 824 (on a 1,000-point scale), 28 points lower than when a tablet is shared by four or more persons (852)."
In other words, if everyone in a four person family had to share a single tablet because it cost too much to get more tablets, that pumped up that tablet's score by 28 points. So which tablets got extra points for that?
Without one of us buying the full report, we'll only ever see the headlines, which like any of these reports, is intended solely to publicize the report company.
And how much did Samsung pay you from their marketing budget? What are you doing on AppleInsider?
For years, my parents wouldn't drive a Mercedes, BMW, or Lexus even if it were given to them. The were either rice burners or nazi mobiles. This is their way of thinking after growing up in WWII. After years and years, I finally talked my mother into trying a Honda Accord (made in America). Today, although neither drive much due to age, they both own Hondas.
I'm an Acura man myself, currently driving my fourth one {Japanese made) after many Hondas. But I'm not as rigid as my parents as this will probably be my last Acura (unless I can find the cabbage for the new NSX), because of the direction they are taking. I'm leaning towards the Cadillac ATS V series when released.
With that long rambling to provide some sort of context lost in translation, Samsung pays me nothing. As to your second question, I come here to look for tips, tricks, and updates to make my daughter's iPhone and my wife's iPad better. I didn't realize that indoctrination was required for the cult, and anything said against the church is blasphemy. Who knows. Five years from now, ever gadget I have may be Apple or XYZ. I simply don't compromise on buying what I like and serves my needs.
Outside of a publicity stunt I see no reason to rely on an iPad to produce an album.
Audio and audio apps on the iPad have come a long way since the first iPad was released, and I don't see why somebody couldn't record an entire band or orchestra straight into their iPad onto multiple tracks.
I wouldn't mix on an iPad just yet, as it is not yet powerful enough to handle many simultaneous plugins at once, but tracking audio on an iPad seems ideal and very convenient. So, I wouldn't rely 100% on an iPad to produce an album, but the iPad could certainly play an important role in the project, covering many tracking duties.
In short, I'm not even going to argue developing for Android has its challenges. Different versions/fragmentation are mostly a non-issue on tablets. Develop for ICS and you are going to reach 100% of the Android *tablet* market.
My point in saying developers will follow the market is still absolutely true.
I think the above actually kind of supports what I was saying. If you're an engineer designing a circuit you are going to use PSpice on a PC/Mac. Not a nifty tablet substitute. If your an architect or industrial engineer you might use an AutoCAD grade piece of software- not a tablet version. There are decent versions of those applications for tablets that are going to be fun to work with and good for convenience' sake. Maybe update an idea on your iPad during a flight- but for any serious computation work tablets are simply lacking in horsepower. That isn't Apple's or anyones fault- its just a current reality. It is a little like the early days of PC's where the hardware presented a barrier seemingly around every corner. PC's advanced amazingly fast and that is largely what is hurting their sales. The average PC has so much more computation power than most people need that, well, people are realizing they don't need that power. If they can do everything they want to do with *wwwwaaayyyyy* more ease and convenience- that's what they will pick. Tablets are going through the same thing and in another 2-3 years (maybe a little longer) they similarly are going to be far more capable and competent devices than today's tablets.
I agree with you that there are many dedicated apps that are better on a tablet. No arguments there. When your kids or friends are playing in your back yard, grabbing the iPad and snapping then editing pictures is both convenient and fun. When Sports Illustrated calls and tells you you're shooting the Wimbledon finals (or the swimsuit issue) I'm guessing your bringing the iPad for the flight and the DLSR for the serious work.
I still don't buy that Android will have better Apps because of market share. The developers are only one part of the equation. The other half is the consumer. Right now Android customers are not spending money on Apps or content. The most likely reason for this is people with low-end phones/tablets don't use them to their potential and don't spend money. It doesn't matter if the market share is higher if a large portion of that market would never spend real $$$ on a high-end App. iTunes is selling about 6X the digital content of Google despite Android having more devices. Developers gotta eat and they'll go where the money is.
I'm not sure why you're bringing up PSpice or AutoCAD in talking about tablets lacking the horsepower to do "high-end" work. Those are programs that an extremely small portion of customers would ever use. 99.99% of the population will never use that type of software, so why bring them up as an example of what tablets can't do?
I still don't buy that Android will have better Apps because of market share. The developers are only one part of the equation. The other half is the consumer. Right now Android customers are not spending money on Apps or content. The most likely reason for this is people with low-end phones/tablets don't use them to their potential and don't spend money. It doesn't matter if the market share is higher if a large portion of that market would never spend real $$$ on a high-end App. iTunes is selling about 6X the digital content of Google despite Android having more devices. Developers gotta eat and they'll go where the money is.
I'm not sure why you're bringing up PSpice or AutoCAD in talking about tablets lacking the horsepower to do "high-end" work. Those are programs that an extremely small portion of customers would ever use. 99.99% of the population will never use that type of software, so why bring them up as an example of what tablets can't do?
Look at Windows v Mac apps. It's hard to find a comparable Windows app that looks, feels, and runs with less total resources or crashes than on the Mac. The only such examples would be from developers that have cornered a market and have ignored Mac altogether, but that's not a fair comparison since that make it either a null comparison as they haven't ever supported the Mac or haven't done so in a long time, or they are only recently supporting the platform despite many years to decades supporting Windows.
The bottom line is Android's development platform simply isn't as nice, refined, or as well-rounded as Xcode, not to mention the App Store and its user base. It's much like Apple's brick-and-mortor stores compared to the old Gateway stores.
I still don't buy that Android will have better Apps because of market share. The developers are only one part of the equation. The other half is the consumer.
Again, I think you're partially making my point. Android tablet apps right now I would rate between 'fair' and 'good' I'd give Apple an 'excellent' rating. Android consumers don't spend as much as Apple consumers (they are not forced to shop in only one expensive store) Agreed. But it is exactly the consumer side of the equation that is currently growing rapidly. Even if they don't spend as much as their Apple counterparts, if the current Android ecosystem got to where it is now despite only having 15% of tablet users- it is going to get much much better as the numbers grow to beyond 50% of the market. I don't think Android apps are going to get better than Apple apps in the near future (maybe that's what started the confusion), I think Android apps are going to start getting much better than Android apps are currently. The consumer side of the equation is exploding- the developer side will follow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
I'm not sure why you're bringing up PSpice or AutoCAD in talking about tablets lacking the horsepower to do "high-end" work. Those are programs that an extremely small portion of customers would ever use. 99.99% of the population will never use that type of software, so why bring them up as an example of what tablets can't do?
I'm using those examples because they are the extreme cases to highlight the point. My original point was that if the iPad apps were so good that they could do those above things well and Android tablets could not do them- it would be absolutely crippling to Androids chances for success. A lot of people cite Apples 'killer tablet apps' as a reason Android tablets won't gain traction. I think there was a post where someone listed 15 or so killer iPad apps and challenged Android fans to come up with equivalents. I don't think there were many takers because Android currently doesn't have the equivalents. I think you'd have to be guilty of 'wishful thinking' to think that they won't be arriving soon. Of those 15ish Apps listed none really had any bearing on my tablet usage- I would not use the vast majority of them because while they are nifty and convenient, the PC versions of those Apps are dramatically superior.
I'm not saying that Android doesn't want or need those Apps, or to say that the Apple versions aren't pretty awesome. I'm just trying to come up with a reason why Android tablets are able to gain so much market share from Apple *despite* not yet having those apps. I'm not a big believer in the 'Android people are stupid' arguments that tend to gain a lot of traction here.
Why do you claim sound quality, when there are apps that work at 96khz,24 bit?
Did I miss something? Weren't we talking about using Garageband? But even assuming we include other software (which you're right, makes much more sense), there's a helluvalot more to sound quality than sample rate and word length. The analog design of the interface itself would probably rank Number 1, then probably the processing algorithms and summing math of the software.
While I suspect, admittedly without investigating, that most multichannel stuff for an iPad will fall into the M-Audio quality range, maybe there really are high quality interfaces and well-written software for the iPad. I haven't bothered looking because I can't imagine a scenario in which working that way seems desirable. YMMV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
And yes, somebody can track a whole band at once, or even just a drum kit into the iPad, using the right interface.
You're saying an iPad is capable of tracking 10-20 channels at once? Color me skeptical.
Even if it could, how are you going to provide monitor mixes to the musicians?
I'm sure there are lots of audio applications for which an iPad is an excellent choice. I just don't see tracking and/or mixing an album being one of them, but if it works for you and the talent are okay with it, screw what I think and do what makes you and them happy.
Did I miss something? Weren't we talking about using Garageband? But even assuming we include other software (which you're right, makes much more sense), there's a helluvalot more to sound quality than sample rate and word length. The analog design of the interface itself would probably rank Number 1, then probably the processing algorithms and summing math of the software.
While I suspect, admittedly without investigating, that most multichannel stuff for an iPad will fall into the M-Audio quality range, maybe there really are high quality interfaces and well-written software for the iPad. I haven't bothered looking because I can't imagine a scenario in which working that way seems desirable. YMMV.
You're saying an iPad is capable of tracking 10-20 channels at once? Color me skeptical.
Even if it could, how are you going to provide monitor mixes to the musicians?
I'm sure there are lots of audio applications for which an iPad is an excellent choice. I just don't see tracking and/or mixing an album being one of them, but if it works for you and the talent are okay with it, screw what I think and do what makes you and them happy.
The audio quality obviously depends on the interface, but the same is true if somebody is using a Macbook Pro or even a Mac Pro.
Yes, I'm saying that an iPad is capable of tracking 10-20 channels at once. Providing monitor mixes would be no different than when using a DAW on a desktop, external hardware would be required.
Here's a list of audio interfaces that all work with the best multitracking app for the iPad, which is called Auria. I have the app, and it's basically like having Protools on your iPad.
With the ability to play 48 mono or stereo 24bit/96 kHz tracks simultaneously, record up to 24 of those tracks simultaneously (through a supported USB multichannel audio interface), and edit and mix with familiar tools and full parameter automation, it’s clear Auria sets a new standard for iPad multitrack recording.
That's why I bought a BMW and not a KIA. That's why Apple is the best, better quality
I hope it wasn't one of those BMWs built in Spartanburg, SC, because you were duped. I have too many family, friends, and neighbors that work at that plant.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Outside of a publicity stunt I see no reason to rely on an iPad to produce an album.
I see no reason not to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Sales have nothing to do with it. When you have a range of tablets with varying screen sizes, resolutions, DPI, processors and graphics capabilities it makes it difficult to create a "high-end" App that runs properly on as many devices as possible. Oh, and then there's that little problem with different versions of Android on all of them. Android sales have long passed iOS, yet developers till favor iOS. I don't see that changing, especially in tablets where Apple is still dominant (as opposed to phones where Android has higher market share).
I do develop for Android. It is a pain. I understand that. Having to define three different screen sizes and hoping what you come up with works on all 10,000 different variations out there stinks. I think Tim Cook's recent statement that there might not be a big screen Apple product any time soon because Apple won't release it because there are 'too many tradeoffs'- that is one of the huge obstacles for Apple. Apple developers can use absolute references on UI's. That is 'super-easy' mode and terrific for them. When there was only one iPhone screen size pixel 200,400 was in the exact same spot on everyone's screen. If Apple releases a big screen phone their developers will need to learn the pain of relative UI's instead of absolute ones.
In short, I'm not even going to argue developing for Android has its challenges. Different versions/fragmentation are mostly a non-issue on tablets. Develop for ICS and you are going to reach 100% of the Android *tablet* market.
My point in saying developers will follow the market is still absolutely true. There are a *few* really good apps out there for Android. Nowhere near the amount on the iPad enjoys. Creative developers with super ideas really want to build those great apps. The high end ones take teams of people and thousands of people-hours to develop. The biggest barrier for the last few years has been that Apple has @80-85% of the user market share. Despite their desire to make a great product, nobody is going to go through that time and effort for 15% of the market. Call it inverse 'Mac in the 90's syndrome' With recent Android sales growth my point is that that barrier is gone. There are now tons of Android tablet users and the number is growing at a pace that should be alarming to Apple. Those developers who wanted to make a great Android app, but couldn't justify it financially because they'd only be reaching 15% of the market, are going to start building great Android apps. That is great for Apple users as the competition will drive improvements- but not so great for Apple itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
I don't know how you can say iPad Apps are "watered down versions" of PC/Mac software when so many iPad Apps are not available of PC's. Not because there aren't PC/Mac programs that perform similar functions but because the iPad versions take advantage of the interface to make something unique and useful.
I have owned numerous Nikon DSLR's over the years and have a significant investment in lenses. However, I still take a lot of pictures with my iPhone. I don't always need to carry around a full-frame sensor DSLR with a couple lenses and flash when an iPhone will suffice. Likewise, an iPad is very useful for many things in many situations. It allows a beginner to get into music recording (for example) for very cheap and yet have the ability to produce some great results. Nobody is going to release an album that was recorded/edited on an iPad, but many musicians will use them for demos or getting their ideas down.
The iPad gives you those options. Android doesn't.
I think the above actually kind of supports what I was saying. If you're an engineer designing a circuit you are going to use PSpice on a PC/Mac. Not a nifty tablet substitute. If your an architect or industrial engineer you might use an AutoCAD grade piece of software- not a tablet version. There are decent versions of those applications for tablets that are going to be fun to work with and good for convenience' sake. Maybe update an idea on your iPad during a flight- but for any serious computation work tablets are simply lacking in horsepower. That isn't Apple's or anyones fault- its just a current reality. It is a little like the early days of PC's where the hardware presented a barrier seemingly around every corner. PC's advanced amazingly fast and that is largely what is hurting their sales. The average PC has so much more computation power than most people need that, well, people are realizing they don't need that power. If they can do everything they want to do with *wwwwaaayyyyy* more ease and convenience- that's what they will pick. Tablets are going through the same thing and in another 2-3 years (maybe a little longer) they similarly are going to be far more capable and competent devices than today's tablets.
I agree with you that there are many dedicated apps that are better on a tablet. No arguments there. When your kids or friends are playing in your back yard, grabbing the iPad and snapping then editing pictures is both convenient and fun. When Sports Illustrated calls and tells you you're shooting the Wimbledon finals (or the swimsuit issue) I'm guessing your bringing the iPad for the flight and the DLSR for the serious work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Also, when you say "... things like..." you're talking about precisely two attributes, 'performance' and 'ease of operation'. Many people will argue that they are the most important attributes in any product.
I would argue that each person should be able to decide what is most important to them, without JD Power or anyone else artificially skewing the results.
For example, many people would rank App choice as a higher priority than performance or looks, yet it's not even on the Power list of what is important.
Something else interesting in that report:
"The study finds that 51 percent of tablet owners share their device with at least one other person. While the incidence differs across brands, tablet manufacturers may benefit from promoting shared usage as a selling point, as satisfaction increases when more people use one tablet device. When a tablet is only used by one person, overall satisfaction is 824 (on a 1,000-point scale), 28 points lower than when a tablet is shared by four or more persons (852)."
In other words, if everyone in a four person family had to share a single tablet because it cost too much to get more tablets, that pumped up that tablet's score by 28 points. So which tablets got extra points for that?
Without one of us buying the full report, we'll only ever see the headlines, which like any of these reports, is intended solely to publicize the report company.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dnd0ps
And how much did Samsung pay you from their marketing budget? What are you doing on AppleInsider?
For years, my parents wouldn't drive a Mercedes, BMW, or Lexus even if it were given to them. The were either rice burners or nazi mobiles. This is their way of thinking after growing up in WWII. After years and years, I finally talked my mother into trying a Honda Accord (made in America). Today, although neither drive much due to age, they both own Hondas.
I'm an Acura man myself, currently driving my fourth one {Japanese made) after many Hondas. But I'm not as rigid as my parents as this will probably be my last Acura (unless I can find the cabbage for the new NSX), because of the direction they are taking. I'm leaning towards the Cadillac ATS V series when released.
With that long rambling to provide some sort of context lost in translation, Samsung pays me nothing. As to your second question, I come here to look for tips, tricks, and updates to make my daughter's iPhone and my wife's iPad better. I didn't realize that indoctrination was required for the cult, and anything said against the church is blasphemy. Who knows. Five years from now, ever gadget I have may be Apple or XYZ. I simply don't compromise on buying what I like and serves my needs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Outside of a publicity stunt I see no reason to rely on an iPad to produce an album.
Audio and audio apps on the iPad have come a long way since the first iPad was released, and I don't see why somebody couldn't record an entire band or orchestra straight into their iPad onto multiple tracks.
I wouldn't mix on an iPad just yet, as it is not yet powerful enough to handle many simultaneous plugins at once, but tracking audio on an iPad seems ideal and very convenient. So, I wouldn't rely 100% on an iPad to produce an album, but the iPad could certainly play an important role in the project, covering many tracking duties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood
In short, I'm not even going to argue developing for Android has its challenges. Different versions/fragmentation are mostly a non-issue on tablets. Develop for ICS and you are going to reach 100% of the Android *tablet* market.
My point in saying developers will follow the market is still absolutely true.
I think the above actually kind of supports what I was saying. If you're an engineer designing a circuit you are going to use PSpice on a PC/Mac. Not a nifty tablet substitute. If your an architect or industrial engineer you might use an AutoCAD grade piece of software- not a tablet version. There are decent versions of those applications for tablets that are going to be fun to work with and good for convenience' sake. Maybe update an idea on your iPad during a flight- but for any serious computation work tablets are simply lacking in horsepower. That isn't Apple's or anyones fault- its just a current reality. It is a little like the early days of PC's where the hardware presented a barrier seemingly around every corner. PC's advanced amazingly fast and that is largely what is hurting their sales. The average PC has so much more computation power than most people need that, well, people are realizing they don't need that power. If they can do everything they want to do with *wwwwaaayyyyy* more ease and convenience- that's what they will pick. Tablets are going through the same thing and in another 2-3 years (maybe a little longer) they similarly are going to be far more capable and competent devices than today's tablets.
I agree with you that there are many dedicated apps that are better on a tablet. No arguments there. When your kids or friends are playing in your back yard, grabbing the iPad and snapping then editing pictures is both convenient and fun. When Sports Illustrated calls and tells you you're shooting the Wimbledon finals (or the swimsuit issue) I'm guessing your bringing the iPad for the flight and the DLSR for the serious work.
I still don't buy that Android will have better Apps because of market share. The developers are only one part of the equation. The other half is the consumer. Right now Android customers are not spending money on Apps or content. The most likely reason for this is people with low-end phones/tablets don't use them to their potential and don't spend money. It doesn't matter if the market share is higher if a large portion of that market would never spend real $$$ on a high-end App. iTunes is selling about 6X the digital content of Google despite Android having more devices. Developers gotta eat and they'll go where the money is.
I'm not sure why you're bringing up PSpice or AutoCAD in talking about tablets lacking the horsepower to do "high-end" work. Those are programs that an extremely small portion of customers would ever use. 99.99% of the population will never use that type of software, so why bring them up as an example of what tablets can't do?
Look at Windows v Mac apps. It's hard to find a comparable Windows app that looks, feels, and runs with less total resources or crashes than on the Mac. The only such examples would be from developers that have cornered a market and have ignored Mac altogether, but that's not a fair comparison since that make it either a null comparison as they haven't ever supported the Mac or haven't done so in a long time, or they are only recently supporting the platform despite many years to decades supporting Windows.
The bottom line is Android's development platform simply isn't as nice, refined, or as well-rounded as Xcode, not to mention the App Store and its user base. It's much like Apple's brick-and-mortor stores compared to the old Gateway stores.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
I still don't buy that Android will have better Apps because of market share. The developers are only one part of the equation. The other half is the consumer.
Again, I think you're partially making my point. Android tablet apps right now I would rate between 'fair' and 'good' I'd give Apple an 'excellent' rating. Android consumers don't spend as much as Apple consumers (they are not forced to shop in only one expensive store) Agreed. But it is exactly the consumer side of the equation that is currently growing rapidly. Even if they don't spend as much as their Apple counterparts, if the current Android ecosystem got to where it is now despite only having 15% of tablet users- it is going to get much much better as the numbers grow to beyond 50% of the market. I don't think Android apps are going to get better than Apple apps in the near future (maybe that's what started the confusion), I think Android apps are going to start getting much better than Android apps are currently. The consumer side of the equation is exploding- the developer side will follow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
I'm not sure why you're bringing up PSpice or AutoCAD in talking about tablets lacking the horsepower to do "high-end" work. Those are programs that an extremely small portion of customers would ever use. 99.99% of the population will never use that type of software, so why bring them up as an example of what tablets can't do?
I'm using those examples because they are the extreme cases to highlight the point. My original point was that if the iPad apps were so good that they could do those above things well and Android tablets could not do them- it would be absolutely crippling to Androids chances for success. A lot of people cite Apples 'killer tablet apps' as a reason Android tablets won't gain traction. I think there was a post where someone listed 15 or so killer iPad apps and challenged Android fans to come up with equivalents. I don't think there were many takers because Android currently doesn't have the equivalents. I think you'd have to be guilty of 'wishful thinking' to think that they won't be arriving soon. Of those 15ish Apps listed none really had any bearing on my tablet usage- I would not use the vast majority of them because while they are nifty and convenient, the PC versions of those Apps are dramatically superior.
I'm not saying that Android doesn't want or need those Apps, or to say that the Apple versions aren't pretty awesome. I'm just trying to come up with a reason why Android tablets are able to gain so much market share from Apple *despite* not yet having those apps. I'm not a big believer in the 'Android people are stupid' arguments that tend to gain a lot of traction here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Povilas
I see no reason not to.
...except possibly:
sound quality
reduced complexity at the expense of increased difficulty
lack of provision for monitor mixes
severely limited I/O (try tracking the whole band at once, or even just a drum kit)
imprecise editing
clumsy mixing interface
inability to conveniently integrate outboard
no comping tools
...but other than that, no reason not to. Except for the ones I didn't think of off the top of my head.
I can probably shoot and edit a movie with an iPad, too. I'm just really, really glad I don't have to!
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
...except possibly:
sound quality
reduced complexity at the expense of increased difficulty
lack of provision for monitor mixes
severely limited I/O (try tracking the whole band at once, or even just a drum kit)
imprecise editing
clumsy mixing interface
inability to conveniently integrate outboard
no comping tools
...but other than that, no reason not to. Except for the ones I didn't think of off the top of my head.
I can probably shoot and edit a movie with an iPad, too. I'm just really, really glad I don't have to!
Wrong. You obviously know very little about audio on the iPad since you're stating things that are flat out wrong.
Why do you claim sound quality, when there are apps that work at 96khz,24 bit?
And yes, somebody can track a whole band at once, or even just a drum kit into the iPad, using the right interface.
There are a number of audio interfaces available which can be used with the iPad, ranging from low end to high end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Why do you claim sound quality, when there are apps that work at 96khz,24 bit?
Did I miss something? Weren't we talking about using Garageband? But even assuming we include other software (which you're right, makes much more sense), there's a helluvalot more to sound quality than sample rate and word length. The analog design of the interface itself would probably rank Number 1, then probably the processing algorithms and summing math of the software.
While I suspect, admittedly without investigating, that most multichannel stuff for an iPad will fall into the M-Audio quality range, maybe there really are high quality interfaces and well-written software for the iPad. I haven't bothered looking because I can't imagine a scenario in which working that way seems desirable. YMMV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
And yes, somebody can track a whole band at once, or even just a drum kit into the iPad, using the right interface.
You're saying an iPad is capable of tracking 10-20 channels at once? Color me skeptical.
Even if it could, how are you going to provide monitor mixes to the musicians?
I'm sure there are lots of audio applications for which an iPad is an excellent choice. I just don't see tracking and/or mixing an album being one of them, but if it works for you and the talent are okay with it, screw what I think and do what makes you and them happy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
Did I miss something? Weren't we talking about using Garageband? But even assuming we include other software (which you're right, makes much more sense), there's a helluvalot more to sound quality than sample rate and word length. The analog design of the interface itself would probably rank Number 1, then probably the processing algorithms and summing math of the software.
While I suspect, admittedly without investigating, that most multichannel stuff for an iPad will fall into the M-Audio quality range, maybe there really are high quality interfaces and well-written software for the iPad. I haven't bothered looking because I can't imagine a scenario in which working that way seems desirable. YMMV.
You're saying an iPad is capable of tracking 10-20 channels at once? Color me skeptical.
Even if it could, how are you going to provide monitor mixes to the musicians?
I'm sure there are lots of audio applications for which an iPad is an excellent choice. I just don't see tracking and/or mixing an album being one of them, but if it works for you and the talent are okay with it, screw what I think and do what makes you and them happy.
The audio quality obviously depends on the interface, but the same is true if somebody is using a Macbook Pro or even a Mac Pro.
Yes, I'm saying that an iPad is capable of tracking 10-20 channels at once. Providing monitor mixes would be no different than when using a DAW on a desktop, external hardware would be required.
Here's a list of audio interfaces that all work with the best multitracking app for the iPad, which is called Auria. I have the app, and it's basically like having Protools on your iPad.
With the ability to play 48 mono or stereo 24bit/96 kHz tracks simultaneously, record up to 24 of those tracks simultaneously (through a supported USB multichannel audio interface), and edit and mix with familiar tools and full parameter automation, it’s clear Auria sets a new standard for iPad multitrack recording.
http://auriaapp.com/Support/auria-audio-interfaces
That's why I bought a BMW and not a KIA. That's why Apple is the best, better quality
I hope it wasn't one of those BMWs built in Spartanburg, SC, because you were duped. I have too many family, friends, and neighbors that work at that plant.
Sorry for the thread hijack.