Ah, but you'd be wrong. I have no idea how they do it, but it is being done, and has been worked on since 2005. The problem with it, for now, is cost, and of course the inherent drawbacks of an e-ink screen.
That does sound pretty awesome! I suppose people were saying the same thing as i was about colour television, back in the day!
The Apple iPad is a glorious toy for those who want to say the words "revolutionizing the battery world", "bring together hardware and software in one company", and "turtle-necks make even the most ridiculous products look sexy". I mean the commercial-7-minute video and the presentation was pretty slick, for something that doesn't do much more than an iphone 3gs, except boast a larger screen for all those data-input and slideshows you do everyday.
But you've got to admit, the calendar app that looks like a REAL CALENDAR BOOK is pretty revolutionary, I mean, why would I want to go to a dollar-store and buy myself a replaceable calendar when I can have one on an iPad?
Oh yeah and the fact that you can't do two things at once on it is pretty rad, because Apple's always about simplifying your life. Albeit, complicating your life with expensive pieces of hardware that really don't do a whole lot.
But in all seriousness, I'm personally disgusted at the fact they did not embrace Wacom's cintiq & bamboo like pen-interaction and sensitivity, or consider a better working surface. Sure, Brushes app is fun to play around with on my ipod touch, but I really can't see myself painting an entire image with my finger! I'd probably have finger-related issues after that. Ugh! Apple dropped the ball when they stopped considering the creative professionals that use their products daily.
I really hope a minimal amount of people actually buy this thing, as I see no real consumer market for this, let-alone the professional market. Yuck!
I really hope a minimal amount of people actually buy this thing, as I see no real consumer market for this, let-alone the professional market. Yuck!
There already is one consumer market for this and it guarantees that this thing will sell and that's the people who by anything with the Apple logo on it. And there's a hell of a lot of them.
The size (and power) of the iPhone/iPod Touch was a huge brake for gaming experience. Now, you can put a lot more things in the screen, and there is a lot more room for your fingers. Most of the iPhone apps are single finger. Because there is no space for more. No more. I talked about it here, there is huge possibilities. Not for crappy car games, for something else.
That person is just saying that they'll find games that take advantage of the "form factor". There is actually no technical difference other than size mentioned here, and then it's just conjecture that this will cause people to publish games on it. That's not really an announcement of iPad-specific gaming apps, or a technical reason that it's better at playing games than the iPhone/iTouch.
That person is just saying that they'll find games that take advantage of the "form factor". There is actually no technical difference other than size mentioned here.
Which is why this particular dev is getting all excited about it I assume, it would allow for better controls and different kind of games. All speculation but hardware isn't the be all and end all of gaming, in this case accessability. I'd rather play Chinatown Wars on an iPad than an iPhone here's an article on the possibilites frankly i'm not fussed though, it's still just a big-ass iPhone in my eyes
We shouldn't give the iPad too much credence, but also we shouldn't bash it too much.
Really, all it is is an improved version of a Tablet PC. They've done that before. They improved the MP3 player (which was previously crap) with the iPod, and now they're doing the same for Tablet PCs.
Really, all it is is an improved version of a Tablet PC. They've done that before. They improved the MP3 player (which was previously crap) with the iPod, and now they're doing the same for Tablet PCs.
Well, all they've done was to give the MP3 player devices a bigger storage space. Then you know, they milked this idea. To further support it, they advertised it to the people with lots of money and ego. It surprisingly became a success (Well, rich people was trying to squeeze some ego because they hadn't had their credibility for some years due to some political issues and so on). It's not really an "improvement", it was just about the storage space, and they attracted too many people. You may say things about the sound quality, but I think Sony is responsible about this, not Apple.
And I don't REALLY think Apple can improve tablet PCs more than they are. They can be improved, I mean, but not by Apple.
Well, all they've done was to give the MP3 player devices a bigger storage space. Then you know, they milked this idea. To further support it, they advertised it to the people with lots of money and ego. It surprisingly became a success (Well, rich people was trying to squeeze some ego because they hadn't had their credibility for some years due to some political issues and so on). It's not really an "improvement", it was just about the storage space, and they attracted too many people. You may say things about the sound quality, but I think Sony is responsible about this, not Apple.
Actually I would more attribute the success of the Ipod brand to a few other factors, which include the Styling and simplicity of the devices, as well as the first fully successful version of legal digital music and later multimedia distribution. Of course there were problems with Ipods which led me to not get one until the classic was released, namely the battery life being a lot lower than I would like. Apple may not have strictly innovated much, however they got it to the majority of people with a reasonably friendly piece of software, unlike the piece of C*** that Sony released, Sonic Stage.
iPad makes me excited for the future of computers for the first time in a long time. Modularity and recognition of different contexts one might be using it in -- "is it a desktop? a notebook? a tablet?... that depends!" -- is very cool. The idea of having a computer on your desk with a keyboard, from which one can just pick up the screen and walk around the house while continuing to use it uninterrupted, is crazy.
Also, seeing anyone seriously experimenting with something other than the Desktop metaphor (desktop, file folders which open windows, etc) in a very mainstream product is great. I'm tired of everyone attempting to make nothing but faster and smaller versions of what we already have, and while the specific specs of the iPad may not be to everyone's liking, the usability metaphors and ideas... the thinking behind it is very different from most things.
I think positioning it as "something between a smartphone and a laptop" is temporary -- it gives the product somewhere recognizable to slot in, in their minds. Really, though, if it takes off at all, I expect to see that modularity, and that "it's a multi function down to the hardware -- using it in different contexts are supported and bring the strengths of that context forward" attitude coming to the forefront of Apple's product line. Popping pieces off and on, setting your iPad down next to your iMac and having it take over the screen, or start to sync your data, being able to pair a Bluetooth mouse and do fine photo manipulation, etc, is exciting.
The idea of "a computer" being a box under your desk to which you connect a monitor and keyboard feels super outdated now. The technology distribution in one's house feels like it's going to change -- maybe we'll have a server in the closet, but maybe it'll be in the cloud. Will the TV have to actually get any smarter, or could it simply turn into an extension of whoever's modular tablet or phone is within proximity? I don't know if these ideas are good, but it feels like somewhere near all of this stuff, is a big, much needed change.
Freaking out about the tech specs, or the application suite, or the price, are fine, but at its core this is something different than what we've seen before. At least when it comes to actually bringing something to mass-market. Especially when you look at these.
Apple may not have strictly innovated much, however they got it to the majority of people with a reasonably friendly piece of software, unlike the piece of C*** that Sony released, Sonic Stage.
Agreed. Apple doesn't actually invent that many core concepts. They didn't invent text messaging. They didn't invent cameras on phones. They didn't invent web browsing on a phone. I'm sure someone thought up Visual Voicemail before they did. But... so what? Apple is made up from what seem to be some of the only people out there who can actually pick and choose the best and most relevant features, and then package (and polish) them up in a way that people actually want. You can have the most amazing feature list in the world, but if your features are obfuscated under a bunch of user interface and industrial design which people don't want to actually interact with, you're screwed. Apple is very smart about figuring out ways to totally cut that stuff out their designs. My mom and dad had mobile phones with cameras, text messaging, and calendars (even web browsers) for years, but weren't able to use any of them until they got an iPhone. Very few of the iPhone's features are new, but they're thought through, and built in a way which actually makes sense to people.
I believe the Ipad has alot of potential, but i feel that the technology isn't quit there yet. I'm going to wait a couple of years for the inevitable improved version, and see what thats like. I'm personally hoping for improved battery life & flash support. 10 hours just isn't enough to get decent use out of the e-book system.
I hate Apple's huge overheads, but there's no denying that they're able to design really user friendly products. I finally did some research and read what info is out there on the iPad, and I have to admit that it does seem quite promising and interesting.
I've been getting rid of my computers, laptops and generally all gadgets that require a lot of mainetance and are unwieldy to use. I've automated my torrent downloads straight to a media box that's hooked to my TV so that essentially I only turn on my TV and select what I want to watch. I have a Squeezebox attached to my stereos & my internet connection so I can access both my MP3 library and internet radio with the Squeezebox remote. I actually avoid turning on my PC at all unless I have something very necessary to do with it, and have found that I feel a lot better most of the time than what I used to, wasting a lot of time on the PC just surfing through the forums and news sites.
I just bought a Macbook Pro to get rid of all the upkeep I have to do with windows, long startup times etc, so that I can quickly turn on the computer, do what I want and be done with it, without worrying about updates and whatever problems come up next. I'm glad I've spent so much time with computers that I'm really good at using, building, maintaining, troubleshooting and doing pretty much anything you want with them. But I've realized that I don't have to spend that much time with them. I've come to the point that the "dumbed down" version that is quicker, easier to use and really just quite a bit more pleasant is actually much better for me than the traditional PC setup.
This brings me to Jake's point, that it's refreshing to see someone try to finally differentiate what an 'all purpose application' at home should look like and how it should function. I already got the Macbook Pro, but just as Jake said elsewhere, it's still a computer and it's nowhere near as flexible to use around the house and with friends as a tablet would be. Making everything wireless was huge to me - I've been using wireless keyboards and mice since who knows how long now. But getting rid of them altogether, getting rid of the physical monitor would be huge. It would be easier to use on a sofa, pass it on to other people, use it together with someone etc, but the other big thing is that I know at least my apartment would look aesthetically much more pleasant if I didn't have all the devices on my table, on the shelves and on the ground. I want to have as few cords as possible and small and/or good looking devices that take care of the things I want to do with electronics.
So yeah. The iPad is going to cost a gazillion dollars and the insurance premiums are sky high and you can't fix it at all by yourself, but once again I've got a feeling that the product is so much more complete, better thought out and functional than what people who claim it to fail realize. We'll see. I do hope there's going to be a lot of competition on this field though. But altogether I'm glad and excited after the initial "what the hell is this" reaction I got.
Agreed. Apple doesn't actually invent that many core concepts. They didn't invent text messaging. They didn't invent cameras on phones. They didn't invent web browsing on a phone. I'm sure someone thought up Visual Voicemail before they did. But... so what? Apple is made up from what seem to be some of the only people out there who can actually pick and choose the best and most relevant features, and then package (and polish) them up in a way that people actually want. You can have the most amazing feature list in the world, but if your features are obfuscated under a bunch of user interface and industrial design which people don't want to actually interact with, you're screwed. Apple is very smart about figuring out ways to totally cut that stuff out their designs. My mom and dad had mobile phones with cameras, text messaging, and calendars (even web browsers) for years, but weren't able to use any of them until they got an iPhone. Very few of the iPhone's features are new, but they're thought through, and built in a way which actually makes sense to people.
Exactly, my opinion on a lot of the Iphone is that while technically brilliant (I cannot fault that) it is not for me, every touch screen I have used doesn't have the tactile feedback I would need to use it, thus I haven't enjoyed any touch screen devices, with the exception of the DS, yet that gave a little flex with the screen.
Agreed. Apple doesn't actually invent that many core concepts. They didn't invent text messaging. They didn't invent cameras on phones. They didn't invent web browsing on a phone. I'm sure someone thought up Visual Voicemail before they did. But... so what? Apple is made up from what seem to be some of the only people out there who can actually pick and choose the best and most relevant features, and then package (and polish) them up in a way that people actually want. You can have the most amazing feature list in the world, but if your features are obfuscated under a bunch of user interface and industrial design which people don't want to actually interact with, you're screwed. Apple is very smart about figuring out ways to totally cut that stuff out their designs. My mom and dad had mobile phones with cameras, text messaging, and calendars (even web browsers) for years, but weren't able to use any of them until they got an iPhone. Very few of the iPhone's features are new, but they're thought through, and built in a way which actually makes sense to people.
Exactly, my opinion on the Iphone is that while technically brilliant (I cannot fault that) it is not for me, every touch screen I have used doesn't have the tactile feedback I would need to use it, thus I haven't enjoyed any touch screen devices, with the exception of the DS, yet that gave a little flex with the screen.
iPad makes me excited for the future of computers for the first time in a long time. Modularity and recognition of different contexts one might be using it in -- "is it a desktop? a notebook? a tablet?... that depends!" -- is very cool. The idea of having a computer on your desk with a keyboard, from which one can just pick up the screen and walk around the house while continuing to use it uninterrupted, is crazy.
Also, seeing anyone seriously experimenting with something other than the Desktop metaphor (desktop, file folders which open windows, etc) in a very mainstream product is great. I'm tired of everyone attempting to make nothing but faster and smaller versions of what we already have, and while the specific specs of the iPad may not be to everyone's liking, the usability metaphors and ideas... the thinking behind it is very different from most things.
I think positioning it as "something between a smartphone and a laptop" is temporary -- it gives the product somewhere recognizable to slot in, in their minds. Really, though, if it takes off at all, I expect to see that modularity, and that "it's a multi function down to the hardware -- using it in different contexts are supported and bring the strengths of that context forward" attitude coming to the forefront of Apple's product line. Popping pieces off and on, setting your iPad down next to your iMac and having it take over the screen, or start to sync your data, being able to pair a Bluetooth mouse and do fine photo manipulation, etc, is exciting.
The idea of "a computer" being a box under your desk to which you connect a monitor and keyboard feels super outdated now. The technology distribution in one's house feels like it's going to change -- maybe we'll have a server in the closet, but maybe it'll be in the cloud. Will the TV have to actually get any smarter, or could it simply turn into an extension of whoever's modular tablet or phone is within proximity? I don't know if these ideas are good, but it feels like somewhere near all of this stuff, is a big, much needed change.
Freaking out about the tech specs, or the application suite, or the price, are fine, but at its core this is something different than what we've seen before. At least when it comes to actually bringing something to mass-market. Especially when you look at these.
These are pretty neat concepts, yes. But I think people need to remember, when looking at the thing, is that it is not a concept. It is a thing, and an inherent aspect of going from an idea to an actual thing that a person can hold and use is getting defined in terms of parts. These parts have capabilities that can be measured in numbers, and they restrict the device as a whole. By "restrict", I more or less mean "define within the the perimeters between 'paperweight' and 'greatest technological ability possible in this day and age'."
Now, to evaluate something, I think we have to peel away layers of ideas and get to the point of what actually is there before us. Because the iPad is a device, and there are a great deal of numbers that can be used to define the device. Granted, there are a few things that can't be defined this way: Interface, software platform, inherent "coolness" value, aesthetics, etc.
But let's forget those for a moment, I'll get back to them. As a thing, defined by numbers and "stuff", it can be compared to similar things made up of stuff with comparable numbers. We have the amount of data the thing can store, paltry compared to things of similar costs. We can compare its ability to "think", the amount of things it can "think" of, the number of things it can connect to, and at what cost compared to the rest. The result is that this idea, forged by metal, plastic, and silicone into a working thing, becomes little more than a very large smartphone that happens to carry with it an exorbitant price and a large list of proprietary accessories, each carrying with it an undefined but "more than free" cost to the potential consumer investing in the platform.
Also, we have to look at the infrastructure it is using. There is a reason computers are generally big black towers under your desk with wires that connect mice, keyboards, monitors, modems, routers, etc. Our programs and websites are built with these in mind. Our keyboards make rapid data entry easier than tapping on glass without any/much tactile feedback. We need to enter usernames and passwords to verify identity, we need to enter large amounts of data to write an e-mail or to make a forum discussion post. These are things computers do well that smartphones do not. How many times have people seen short, rushed, ill-composed forum posts appended with the disclaimer "sory typed this on my iPhone/PSP/DS/etc"?
This is stuff we DO, and need to do, to interface with the things we have built. These are things we can't really work around, and these are the things we are accustomed to doing. When we look at what we expect a computer to DO, not just to look flashy but to accomplish what are essentially banal but necessary tasks, the argument for the big box under the table seems to make some sense in comparison to picking up your monitor that contains the power of a smartphone, and then carrying it away from an infrastructure that affords it the ability to do more, and do it comfortably.
I think Apple is looking to change the way we use computers, and I'm not sure how well that will work now that we have young adults that have grown up without being able to remember a time that personal computers did not exist, and in a form at least somewhat similar to the model we see now. What excites me more, personally, is what Google is planning to do with the ChromeOS. Again, ideas that must eventually be defined, but ideas that don't go up against and antagonize the structure that facilitates so much of our modern lives. I understand the ideas here, but I think Google's approach adds an easy to point to example of what I think Apple is doing wrong in terms of looking to the future. Because Google isn't attacking the infrastructure, but adapting to it. Stripping away the outdated aspects and getting straight to what we already do, what we need a computer to do in terms of a web-based machine. That excites me, though it still requires a change in infrastructure to work. The thing is, Google is banking on the trends that we already have in place(as you said, smaller and faster versions of what we already have), while Apple runs up to it and dares it to be cool. Some may not be swayed by the latter approach.
Maybe I'm too fond of my tower, but it affords me many benefits that something like the iPad inherently can't. It provides me with local processing power, it provides me with an amount of digital storage space that something like the iPad can't really hope to, and it provides me with a shell that can have pieces swapped out to improve one aspect without having to purchase an entire new machine. Maybe these aren't features the average consumer uses, maybe they aren't "necessary". It seems to me that the ideas Apple are bringing forward with the iPad are that you don't want those things, but you want to pay the price you pay for those things in order to get something that is shiny, something that is simple, and something that is safe through locking the user and content distributors out of the device itself. Now, this may be an incredible step forward for those that have never adapted quite that well to a computer. But I'm having trouble figuring out why people that know how to use these things that we already have and who utilize these tools every day find any level of comfort in these ideas. I don't like the idea of being babied by the only software I can run on what is, on a technical level relative to similar-cost options, pretty poor hardware.
So, we have a "thing", defined by numbers, and we have those things which are not quite as easily described. What we end up facing is a compromise, and I think anyone that says otherwise is being a fool. Do we trade higher numbers, which relate to capability, for those undefined aspects? The compromise will of course be easier to make for some people than others, and for some it won't have any effect at all. But it is still a compromise, an exercise in opportunity cost and evaluating what matters in a computer, and what a computer really "is", and what makes a computer worth the price we pay for it.
This thing is an answer for some needs. Not necessarly yours, but for needs. It matches mine, as I’m not comfortable with using laptops because I don’t find the user interface of standard OSes adapted to small screen. I’m working on 20 (then 24, now 27) inch screen, and that’s how, for me, these user interfaces are made for. It’s made for a lot of power. A lot of power for a lot of windows, a lot of programs running together, virtual desktops, programming, mouse and keyboard gaming. That’s what «*towers*» are made for. And it does it pretty well, yeah.
But for other utilization ? For example, within a month, I’m going to fly away from my country, from my life, from everything. The only thing I’ll need to do, is casual browsing, viewing the photos I’ll take, listening some music I have, write some short things in several languages, mail, and well… that’s it. When I see I can have a thing that can make all these tasks, easily, without spywares/viruses, taskbar, window managing, without ever think of compatibility of any software, without even need to seek through ten pages of google before finding the software I need, and, yes, with a fun interface that would make sci-fi movies real, well… I’m in.
And I know a lot of people who will be in once they’ll understand what it is (for now, it’s just mainly iDon’t bashing, Apple bashing, or iPhone bashing, like for every new Apple product). I also know a lot of people who will never match with the target of this product, and who will probably not buy one in their entire life. That’s the way things are. And that’s why choice is so great.
We should not underestimate casual browsing… you don’t even imagine the incredible amount of people who are buying a 600 $ laptop for just writing three Word documents by semester, watching Youtube, Facebook, and display their holiday photos. Even my parents are like that, what would they do else ? iPad is basically the PC For Dummies. And boy sometimes I appreciate to be a dummy and being far from any doubts. ^^
By the way, I played today the game 1112 on iPhone (it was free in France today), and… it’s just the kind of game that makes me believe in some gorgeous adventures on the iPad.
I was sceptical towards the Nintendo DS before that arrived. I was also sceptical towards the gaming abilities of the iPhone. Both have proven me wrong, and I'm not to make the same mistake again. I believe the iPad could become a great household accessory, exactly for the things Yohmi said in his post. It's not meant to replace your laptop or stationary PC. A lot of people buys a PC just for things like that, and it's totally overkill. I may get one, 'cause I'm sometimes away and would love a small unit like that to write my Word documents, play some simple games (adventure games are bound to be great), surf the web and check my mail. It'll be great for simple stuff like that. It's also pretty cheap, and I'll probably be getting the 3G one, once one of the phone companies support that.
From the tone of the above posts, I can definitely agree that consoles (and computers) can have a comeback, no matter how negative their reception is. Just look at PS3, the console launched with about two-and-a-half games, and now it's really catching up!
Comments
That does sound pretty awesome! I suppose people were saying the same thing as i was about colour television, back in the day!
But you've got to admit, the calendar app that looks like a REAL CALENDAR BOOK is pretty revolutionary, I mean, why would I want to go to a dollar-store and buy myself a replaceable calendar when I can have one on an iPad?
Oh yeah and the fact that you can't do two things at once on it is pretty rad, because Apple's always about simplifying your life. Albeit, complicating your life with expensive pieces of hardware that really don't do a whole lot.
But in all seriousness, I'm personally disgusted at the fact they did not embrace Wacom's cintiq & bamboo like pen-interaction and sensitivity, or consider a better working surface. Sure, Brushes app is fun to play around with on my ipod touch, but I really can't see myself painting an entire image with my finger! I'd probably have finger-related issues after that. Ugh! Apple dropped the ball when they stopped considering the creative professionals that use their products daily.
I really hope a minimal amount of people actually buy this thing, as I see no real consumer market for this, let-alone the professional market. Yuck!
There already is one consumer market for this and it guarantees that this thing will sell and that's the people who by anything with the Apple logo on it. And there's a hell of a lot of them.
Moreso apparently
Which is why this particular dev is getting all excited about it I assume, it would allow for better controls and different kind of games. All speculation but hardware isn't the be all and end all of gaming, in this case accessability. I'd rather play Chinatown Wars on an iPad than an iPhone here's an article on the possibilites frankly i'm not fussed though, it's still just a big-ass iPhone in my eyes
Really, all it is is an improved version of a Tablet PC. They've done that before. They improved the MP3 player (which was previously crap) with the iPod, and now they're doing the same for Tablet PCs.
iPad is not worthy enough for such a delightment.
Meh.
Well, all they've done was to give the MP3 player devices a bigger storage space. Then you know, they milked this idea. To further support it, they advertised it to the people with lots of money and ego. It surprisingly became a success (Well, rich people was trying to squeeze some ego because they hadn't had their credibility for some years due to some political issues and so on). It's not really an "improvement", it was just about the storage space, and they attracted too many people. You may say things about the sound quality, but I think Sony is responsible about this, not Apple.
And I don't REALLY think Apple can improve tablet PCs more than they are. They can be improved, I mean, but not by Apple.
Actually I would more attribute the success of the Ipod brand to a few other factors, which include the Styling and simplicity of the devices, as well as the first fully successful version of legal digital music and later multimedia distribution. Of course there were problems with Ipods which led me to not get one until the classic was released, namely the battery life being a lot lower than I would like. Apple may not have strictly innovated much, however they got it to the majority of people with a reasonably friendly piece of software, unlike the piece of C*** that Sony released, Sonic Stage.
Also, seeing anyone seriously experimenting with something other than the Desktop metaphor (desktop, file folders which open windows, etc) in a very mainstream product is great. I'm tired of everyone attempting to make nothing but faster and smaller versions of what we already have, and while the specific specs of the iPad may not be to everyone's liking, the usability metaphors and ideas... the thinking behind it is very different from most things.
I think positioning it as "something between a smartphone and a laptop" is temporary -- it gives the product somewhere recognizable to slot in, in their minds. Really, though, if it takes off at all, I expect to see that modularity, and that "it's a multi function down to the hardware -- using it in different contexts are supported and bring the strengths of that context forward" attitude coming to the forefront of Apple's product line. Popping pieces off and on, setting your iPad down next to your iMac and having it take over the screen, or start to sync your data, being able to pair a Bluetooth mouse and do fine photo manipulation, etc, is exciting.
The idea of "a computer" being a box under your desk to which you connect a monitor and keyboard feels super outdated now. The technology distribution in one's house feels like it's going to change -- maybe we'll have a server in the closet, but maybe it'll be in the cloud. Will the TV have to actually get any smarter, or could it simply turn into an extension of whoever's modular tablet or phone is within proximity? I don't know if these ideas are good, but it feels like somewhere near all of this stuff, is a big, much needed change.
Freaking out about the tech specs, or the application suite, or the price, are fine, but at its core this is something different than what we've seen before. At least when it comes to actually bringing something to mass-market. Especially when you look at these.
...
Agreed. Apple doesn't actually invent that many core concepts. They didn't invent text messaging. They didn't invent cameras on phones. They didn't invent web browsing on a phone. I'm sure someone thought up Visual Voicemail before they did. But... so what? Apple is made up from what seem to be some of the only people out there who can actually pick and choose the best and most relevant features, and then package (and polish) them up in a way that people actually want. You can have the most amazing feature list in the world, but if your features are obfuscated under a bunch of user interface and industrial design which people don't want to actually interact with, you're screwed. Apple is very smart about figuring out ways to totally cut that stuff out their designs. My mom and dad had mobile phones with cameras, text messaging, and calendars (even web browsers) for years, but weren't able to use any of them until they got an iPhone. Very few of the iPhone's features are new, but they're thought through, and built in a way which actually makes sense to people.
I believe the Ipad has alot of potential, but i feel that the technology isn't quit there yet. I'm going to wait a couple of years for the inevitable improved version, and see what thats like. I'm personally hoping for improved battery life & flash support. 10 hours just isn't enough to get decent use out of the e-book system.
I've been getting rid of my computers, laptops and generally all gadgets that require a lot of mainetance and are unwieldy to use. I've automated my torrent downloads straight to a media box that's hooked to my TV so that essentially I only turn on my TV and select what I want to watch. I have a Squeezebox attached to my stereos & my internet connection so I can access both my MP3 library and internet radio with the Squeezebox remote. I actually avoid turning on my PC at all unless I have something very necessary to do with it, and have found that I feel a lot better most of the time than what I used to, wasting a lot of time on the PC just surfing through the forums and news sites.
I just bought a Macbook Pro to get rid of all the upkeep I have to do with windows, long startup times etc, so that I can quickly turn on the computer, do what I want and be done with it, without worrying about updates and whatever problems come up next. I'm glad I've spent so much time with computers that I'm really good at using, building, maintaining, troubleshooting and doing pretty much anything you want with them. But I've realized that I don't have to spend that much time with them. I've come to the point that the "dumbed down" version that is quicker, easier to use and really just quite a bit more pleasant is actually much better for me than the traditional PC setup.
This brings me to Jake's point, that it's refreshing to see someone try to finally differentiate what an 'all purpose application' at home should look like and how it should function. I already got the Macbook Pro, but just as Jake said elsewhere, it's still a computer and it's nowhere near as flexible to use around the house and with friends as a tablet would be. Making everything wireless was huge to me - I've been using wireless keyboards and mice since who knows how long now. But getting rid of them altogether, getting rid of the physical monitor would be huge. It would be easier to use on a sofa, pass it on to other people, use it together with someone etc, but the other big thing is that I know at least my apartment would look aesthetically much more pleasant if I didn't have all the devices on my table, on the shelves and on the ground. I want to have as few cords as possible and small and/or good looking devices that take care of the things I want to do with electronics.
So yeah. The iPad is going to cost a gazillion dollars and the insurance premiums are sky high and you can't fix it at all by yourself, but once again I've got a feeling that the product is so much more complete, better thought out and functional than what people who claim it to fail realize. We'll see. I do hope there's going to be a lot of competition on this field though. But altogether I'm glad and excited after the initial "what the hell is this" reaction I got.
I can't wait to play SOMI SE on my paperback!
Exactly, my opinion on a lot of the Iphone is that while technically brilliant (I cannot fault that) it is not for me, every touch screen I have used doesn't have the tactile feedback I would need to use it, thus I haven't enjoyed any touch screen devices, with the exception of the DS, yet that gave a little flex with the screen.
Exactly, my opinion on the Iphone is that while technically brilliant (I cannot fault that) it is not for me, every touch screen I have used doesn't have the tactile feedback I would need to use it, thus I haven't enjoyed any touch screen devices, with the exception of the DS, yet that gave a little flex with the screen.
Now, to evaluate something, I think we have to peel away layers of ideas and get to the point of what actually is there before us. Because the iPad is a device, and there are a great deal of numbers that can be used to define the device. Granted, there are a few things that can't be defined this way: Interface, software platform, inherent "coolness" value, aesthetics, etc.
But let's forget those for a moment, I'll get back to them. As a thing, defined by numbers and "stuff", it can be compared to similar things made up of stuff with comparable numbers. We have the amount of data the thing can store, paltry compared to things of similar costs. We can compare its ability to "think", the amount of things it can "think" of, the number of things it can connect to, and at what cost compared to the rest. The result is that this idea, forged by metal, plastic, and silicone into a working thing, becomes little more than a very large smartphone that happens to carry with it an exorbitant price and a large list of proprietary accessories, each carrying with it an undefined but "more than free" cost to the potential consumer investing in the platform.
Also, we have to look at the infrastructure it is using. There is a reason computers are generally big black towers under your desk with wires that connect mice, keyboards, monitors, modems, routers, etc. Our programs and websites are built with these in mind. Our keyboards make rapid data entry easier than tapping on glass without any/much tactile feedback. We need to enter usernames and passwords to verify identity, we need to enter large amounts of data to write an e-mail or to make a forum discussion post. These are things computers do well that smartphones do not. How many times have people seen short, rushed, ill-composed forum posts appended with the disclaimer "sory typed this on my iPhone/PSP/DS/etc"?
This is stuff we DO, and need to do, to interface with the things we have built. These are things we can't really work around, and these are the things we are accustomed to doing. When we look at what we expect a computer to DO, not just to look flashy but to accomplish what are essentially banal but necessary tasks, the argument for the big box under the table seems to make some sense in comparison to picking up your monitor that contains the power of a smartphone, and then carrying it away from an infrastructure that affords it the ability to do more, and do it comfortably.
I think Apple is looking to change the way we use computers, and I'm not sure how well that will work now that we have young adults that have grown up without being able to remember a time that personal computers did not exist, and in a form at least somewhat similar to the model we see now. What excites me more, personally, is what Google is planning to do with the ChromeOS. Again, ideas that must eventually be defined, but ideas that don't go up against and antagonize the structure that facilitates so much of our modern lives. I understand the ideas here, but I think Google's approach adds an easy to point to example of what I think Apple is doing wrong in terms of looking to the future. Because Google isn't attacking the infrastructure, but adapting to it. Stripping away the outdated aspects and getting straight to what we already do, what we need a computer to do in terms of a web-based machine. That excites me, though it still requires a change in infrastructure to work. The thing is, Google is banking on the trends that we already have in place(as you said, smaller and faster versions of what we already have), while Apple runs up to it and dares it to be cool. Some may not be swayed by the latter approach.
Maybe I'm too fond of my tower, but it affords me many benefits that something like the iPad inherently can't. It provides me with local processing power, it provides me with an amount of digital storage space that something like the iPad can't really hope to, and it provides me with a shell that can have pieces swapped out to improve one aspect without having to purchase an entire new machine. Maybe these aren't features the average consumer uses, maybe they aren't "necessary". It seems to me that the ideas Apple are bringing forward with the iPad are that you don't want those things, but you want to pay the price you pay for those things in order to get something that is shiny, something that is simple, and something that is safe through locking the user and content distributors out of the device itself. Now, this may be an incredible step forward for those that have never adapted quite that well to a computer. But I'm having trouble figuring out why people that know how to use these things that we already have and who utilize these tools every day find any level of comfort in these ideas. I don't like the idea of being babied by the only software I can run on what is, on a technical level relative to similar-cost options, pretty poor hardware.
So, we have a "thing", defined by numbers, and we have those things which are not quite as easily described. What we end up facing is a compromise, and I think anyone that says otherwise is being a fool. Do we trade higher numbers, which relate to capability, for those undefined aspects? The compromise will of course be easier to make for some people than others, and for some it won't have any effect at all. But it is still a compromise, an exercise in opportunity cost and evaluating what matters in a computer, and what a computer really "is", and what makes a computer worth the price we pay for it.
But for other utilization ? For example, within a month, I’m going to fly away from my country, from my life, from everything. The only thing I’ll need to do, is casual browsing, viewing the photos I’ll take, listening some music I have, write some short things in several languages, mail, and well… that’s it. When I see I can have a thing that can make all these tasks, easily, without spywares/viruses, taskbar, window managing, without ever think of compatibility of any software, without even need to seek through ten pages of google before finding the software I need, and, yes, with a fun interface that would make sci-fi movies real, well… I’m in.
And I know a lot of people who will be in once they’ll understand what it is (for now, it’s just mainly iDon’t bashing, Apple bashing, or iPhone bashing, like for every new Apple product). I also know a lot of people who will never match with the target of this product, and who will probably not buy one in their entire life. That’s the way things are. And that’s why choice is so great.
We should not underestimate casual browsing… you don’t even imagine the incredible amount of people who are buying a 600 $ laptop for just writing three Word documents by semester, watching Youtube, Facebook, and display their holiday photos. Even my parents are like that, what would they do else ? iPad is basically the PC For Dummies. And boy sometimes I appreciate to be a dummy and being far from any doubts. ^^
By the way, I played today the game 1112 on iPhone (it was free in France today), and… it’s just the kind of game that makes me believe in some gorgeous adventures on the iPad.