The Apple iPad: It's Just Ahead of its Time?

So far ahead of its time that its a pad you can't write on.

The iPad will do okay probably, but the device is garbage, hardware AND software overall, in terms of features. Sure, its a good touch screen device from a phone perspective. But as a more general purpose computing device why?

iPhone meets Giant iPhone. just give me a general purpose machine that ALSO touch enabled.
 
They are not saying it's ahead of its time technologically or feature wise, they're essentially saying that it was RELEASED ahead of it's time. Basically that this version one is not the one to buy and there is no real market for a device like this yet. When version 2 comes out, it will have alot of the missing features we expected, and there will be a much more defined market for a device like this.
 
MJZ said:
You would think these writers would know better.

Of course, you also get Anandtech articles talking about how Intel is "regulating AMD to the lower end markets". If you've misheard someone using the word "relegate", you shouldn't try it yourself without checking it up in a dictionary first.
Click to expand...

I think she is truly referring to the notion of ahead of its time. "But this is the concept design for the e-reader/media device we'll all own in three to five years" I know she elaborates on the shortcomings and how those will probably be worked out or added. If anything, she is guilty of placing that phrase in the wrong paragraph.
 
ALthough I love the slick looks and the and the interface and the accelerometer, but right after the list goes to crap, no flash support, I mean wow, half of the website I got to use flash in one way or the other, no multitasking, please? and I honestly love the imac that passed on to my dad a beautiful machine, but I am no apple lover and an apple lover will buy it regardless, and I do think it is overpriced, 499 for 16gb flash, the list just gets worse and worse, they have no sd card slot no usb ports and no webcam and a 1ghz cpu that is built by apple, not that I am saying it is not fast, all I am saying is that all that crap probably costs 250 to build for apple. I will shell out 500 bucks if they didn't just limit it to just an ipod on steroids with bigger screen, and a faster cpu. I usually like apple products and almost bought the 27inch imac but this goes down as a big fail in my book, bring on version 2, thats the next time I look at it.
 
D-OveRMinD said:
They are not saying it's ahead of its time technologically or feature wise, they're essentially saying that it was RELEASED ahead of it's time. Basically that this version one is not the one to buy and there is no real market for a device like this yet. When version 2 comes out, it will have alot of the missing features we expected, and there will be a much more defined market for a device like this.
Click to expand...

And there will be a LOT more of the devices out probably by then too.

HP Touchsmart Slate Or Bust
 
shurcooL said:
You could make the same argument about the Wii.

Except there's more of them than PS3 + Xbox360 combined.
Click to expand...

nah, the wii was actually fun to use, and had a good list of games, I doubt the iPAD has anything else ( seriously, an oversized iphone/ipod touch isnt pretty to look at apple)
 
the ipad is really a test of how many Apple fanbois and fangirls there really are.

cuz no one else will buy it.
 
While I think the ipad isn't what it should be, nor do I intend to buy one. however . there does seem to be a fair amount of incorrect information here.

Like the AT&T thing, the ipad is an unlocked 3g device, they setup a cheap no contract
service with at&t, however it is not required, nor is the ipad locked to at&t only.

also, since it is a arm device, there is no reason you could not install an arm linux distro
on it, and get the "full os" experience on it if one wished .

not to mention the fact that there in usb on the device via a dock adapter, as well as vga
via a dock adapter, and a real keyboard .

would I buy one ? no. but that is not the point.

I'll put the thing down for all the other reasons its a stupid bunch of fail, there is no need
to lie about the few things it can do.
 
wider aspect ratio, front facing camera with wifi video conferencing, nice voice recognition software, higher res.
if it had what it has plus that, id probably pay $1000 for it.

personally i think this is a gateway product, apple will make money and have incentive to improve the technology, all while getting people used to the inherent concepts of tablet usability, no kb, no mouse, alternate orientations.

i wonder if you can make an adapter to snap a camera onto the dock and flip it upside down for video conferencing?
 
As with most Apple products the iPad isn't ahead of the curve.

The thing I've noticed about Apple products (except for the higher-end stuff like the Powermacs) is that they invariably offer less powerful components and less customisation for the same or more money.

They have a peerless marketing department, though, which has given them an enormous userbase by making owenership of an Apple product seem like you're a member of a club; the fact that the products look so sexy and compromise internals for - often superfluous - external features like touchscreens that make the consumer feel like they're zooming into the future that every sci-fi film told them they'd see, oblivious to the fact that YOU CAN'T DO SHIT ON THE DAMN THING EXCEPT RESIZE THE WINDOWS LIKE THE SCREEN ON MINORITY REPORT HOLY SHIT COOL MAN
 
Guys, do you really think Apple went with a 4:3 screen to gain popularity? Obviously not. Was it to save money? No, because at the same diagonal size, widescreen is cheaper. Or perhaps they've considered using widescreen and realized its a poorer choice than 4:3? Widescreen sucks in portrait mode. I don't doubt they've made the best choice given the device requirements.
 
Zoogle said:
Too bad they'll still sell like hotcakes.
Click to expand...

And therein lies the irony. Every apple product is overpriced, underpowered, and locked down tight as a barrel, and they'll still sell.

BTW, is $839.00 really how much would this cost if it doesn't have a carrier? That would be cheap coz an unlocked 32GB 3GS here costs about $950.00.
 
No Multi-Tasking, No card reader, No camera, No USB, and Only 64gb of storage space. Umm, yea definitely not ahead of it's time.
 
Wow Molly Wood is an idiot, she does nothing to touch on it's limited features and lack of a real OS. And how is this "ahead of its time"?
 
Been reading some of the other forums and when i came across someone saying that taking out the camera is justifiable in order to bring the price down to an incredibly cheap $499.00, my jaw hit the floor. He wasn't being sarcastic btw.

Looks like the apple guys are still gonna bite.
 
Sly said:
Been reading some of the other forums and when i came across someone saying that taking out the camera is justifiable in order to bring the price down to an incredibly cheap $499.00, my jaw hit the floor. He wasn't being sarcastic btw.
Click to expand...

Why would he need to be sarcastic. Is he waiting for the Dell 5" Pad at $1000? ;)
 
shurcooL said:
Guys, do you really think Apple went with a 4:3 screen to gain popularity? Obviously not. Was it to save money? No, because at the same diagonal size, widescreen is cheaper. Or perhaps they've considered using widescreen and realized its a poorer choice than 4:3? Widescreen sucks in portrait mode. I don't doubt they've made the best choice given the device requirements.
Click to expand...

You're a bit off here. With IPS panels, widescreen is not cheaper at that screen size, namely because I am not aware of any widescreen IPS panels of that size being made. And if they didn't offer IPS at launch (which is Apple tradition), they'd get crucified by the graphic designers and such.
 
computerpro3 said:
You're a bit off here. With IPS panels, widescreen is not cheaper at that screen size, namely because I am not aware of any widescreen IPS panels of that size being made. And if they didn't offer IPS at launch (which is Apple tradition), they'd get crucified by the graphic designers and such.
Click to expand...

Were you aware of the 4:3 10" IPS before this? Likely not. Graphics designers really don't matter much for a web pad. Any tablet needs a non TN screen because of the multi-angle usage.

A 10" 4:3 screen has more area than 10" 16:9 screen and will thus cost more than a 16:9 screen of the same diagonal.

IMO a 4:3 is a better aspect for such a tiny screen in its main uses (web/e-reader). 16:9 in small sizes has less usable area for productivity.

4:3 here seems like logic driven choice here, rather than fashion driven 16:9 choice because that is what TV's are now.

Considering Apples relationship with LG and the fact that they are often the first user of many LG panels (like the new 27" 2560x1440 screen), I seriously doubt Apple isn't getting exactly the aspect and size they want.
 
computerpro3 said:
You're a bit off here. With IPS panels, widescreen is not cheaper at that screen size, namely because I am not aware of any widescreen IPS panels of that size being made. And if they didn't offer IPS at launch (which is Apple tradition), they'd get crucified by the graphic designers and such.
Click to expand...

Yeah because graphic designers are going to be all over a pad they can't write on.
 
computerpro3 said:
You're a bit off here. With IPS panels, widescreen is not cheaper at that screen size, namely because I am not aware of any widescreen IPS panels of that size being made. And if they didn't offer IPS at launch (which is Apple tradition), they'd get crucified by the graphic designers and such.
Click to expand...
I was cringing when I read this post. You're saying widescreen IPS is not cheaper because you are not aware of any widescreen IPS panels? Wow, I didn't know your knowledge of panels decided their prices.

I was gonna make a reply, until I saw this awesome post by Snowdog. He said everything I completely agree with.

Snowdog said:
Were you aware of the 4:3 10" IPS before this? Likely not. Graphics designers really don't matter much for a web pad. Any tablet needs a non TN screen because of the multi-angle usage.
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly! The multi-angle usage. :D

A 10" 4:3 screen has more area than 10" 16:9 screen and will thus cost more than a 16:9 screen of the same diagonal.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I meant.

4:3 here seems like logic driven choice here, rather than fashion driven 16:9 choice because that is what TV's are now.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more here!

I'd say 16:9 is a logic driven choice for TVs that are meant to display widescreen TV content and movies. Applying it to every other screen without thought is just a fashion driven choice indeed.

IMO a 4:3 is a better aspect for such a tiny screen in its main uses (web/e-reader). 16:9 in small sizes has less usable area for productivity.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Considering Apples relationship with LG and the fact that they are often the first user of many LG panels (like the new 27" 2560x1440 screen), I seriously doubt Apple isn't getting exactly the aspect and size they want.
Click to expand...
Yup.
 
shurcooL said:
I was cringing when I read this post. You're saying widescreen IPS is not cheaper because you are not aware of any widescreen IPS panels? Wow, I didn't know your knowledge of panels decided their prices.
Click to expand...

Nice mis-quote. I said I was not aware of any widescreen IPS panels in that size. In fact, I'd be willing to bet you $10 paypal that there are not any currently manufactured. I'll pm you my paypal addy if you'd like so you can pay men.

I was gonna make a reply, until I saw this awesome post by Snowdog. He said everything I completely agree with.

Yes, exactly! The multi-angle usage. :D
Click to expand...

Once again, this backs up my point further. A TN screen is not suitable for a tablet, hence they had to go for a IPS 4:3 screen unless they wanted to take a huge hit in pricing for a custom panel.

A 10" 4:3 screen has more area than 10" 16:9 screen and will thus cost more than a 16:9 screen of the same diagonal.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I meant.
Click to expand...

This is simply not true. It's ALL about supply and demand, it has very little to do with screen area size. This is why Lenovo keeps changing aspect ratios by the way - they even made a blog post about it showing the math and required orders that would break even on a custom screen.



Couldn't agree more here!

I'd say 16:9 is a logic driven choice for TVs that are meant to display widescreen TV content and movies. Applying it to every other screen without thought is just a fashion driven choice indeed.

IMO a 4:3 is a better aspect for such a tiny screen in its main uses (web/e-reader). 16:9 in small sizes has less usable area for productivity.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
Click to expand...

I don't know whether to laugh at you or to just cry. Did you really just use the word productivity in relation to a non-writing capable, non-multitasking capable, ultra low resolution, non-usb capable, non keyboard capable, and non mouse capable device? Really? LOL. And this device is not an e-reader, regardless of what Apple would like you to believe. A $300 kindle/sony/whatever is more capable as a reader and actually uses e-ink. This is a machine designed for two things - web and MULTIMEDIA use.

I'd say 16:9 is a logic driven choice for TVs that are meant to display widescreen TV content and movies. Applying it to every other screen without thought is just a fashion driven choice indeed.
Click to expand...

And guess what - this is a device that is market as a VIDEO and MULTIMEDIA device! It would have been a LOGIC driven choice to use a widescreen. Some of your logic is just incredible!


Considering Apples relationship with LG and the fact that they are often the first user of many LG panels (like the new 27" 2560x1440 screen), I seriously doubt Apple isn't getting exactly the aspect and size they want.
Click to expand...

Oh, they can get exactly what they want. So can Lenovo. But Apple sure as hell didn't want it - creating a custom panel is incredibly expensive, and they aren't going to custom produce a LCD that only apple can use. They would have to pay for design, tooling, etc. They have never done this before in any of their consumer electronics devices!

Seriously, get a grip.
 
honestly, I think it is a bit a head of its time in some aspects :)

If you watch the keynote and checkout the features and enhancements to this device, over an ipod or iphone, it's actually a really really nice device... it's miles beyond them, although they look similar. Some of the 3rd party developers showing off their software for it was really neat too... especially the painting program (brushes) and the iWork suite... if developers put as much effort into designing their software as the ones that demoed their work, it's going to be a great device.

It's extremely thin, extremely light, has great battery life, decent power and a huge software library. I'm not crazy about the fact that it's, more or less, a closed system... but as long as it does what it's supposed to and does it well, I'd entertain getting one.
 
computerpro3 said:
And guess what - this is a device that is market as a VIDEO and MULTIMEDIA device! It would have been a LOGIC driven choice to use a widescreen. Some of your logic is just incredible!
Click to expand...
Video and multimedia are just some of the things this device is meant for. If that's were all it was meant for, then 16:9 would've been the clear choice.

But it's also meant to be held in portrait mode. 9:16 is kinda too thin, I'm sure many people would agree. Just try rotating your LCD by 90 degrees and use that as your main and only monitor.

Books, newspapers, etc. are not 16:9 and no one complains.

Sure, they could've made this device 16:9 by using a subportion of the current screen. It would have 1024x576 resolution and it would be shorter [when held in landscape mode]. That's 25% less vertical pixels.

Instead, they made it 1024x768. You can still watch movies with black bars, and for everything else, you have a much better aspect ratio to work with.

Seriously, on a non-multitasking device, is there anything _BUT_ movies that 16:9 would be good for?

Anyway, I'm glad they went with 4:3 as it is a more reasonable compromise for a tablet device IMO.
 
computerpro3 said:
Once again, this backs up my point further. A TN screen is not suitable for a tablet, hence they had to go for a IPS 4:3 screen unless they wanted to take a huge hit in pricing for a custom panel.
Click to expand...

Again, there is no logic in that statement unless you can show prior existence of that particular screen. Can you?

Apple and LG have a very strong relation. Apple has exactly the form factor they want. The idea that apple wanted 16:9 screen but had to settle for 4:3 is ludicrous. Apple will be doing enough volume that specifying exactly what they want is a non issue.

this is a device that is market as a VIDEO and MULTIMEDIA device! It would have been a LOGIC driven choice to use a widescreen.
Click to expand...

You have it completely backwards. If you think this is primarily I giant iPod, meant to primarily watch movies on, then you clearly aren't paying attention. It can do that, but clearly that is not the primary intent. Go watch any of the Apple announcement Videos. The big sell is full page internet in your hands, not movie watching which barely gets mentioned.

The main use for this screen will Net Surfing/ book reading at your breakfast table or easy chair. Both activities are better with 4:3 than 16:9.

Watching movies/tv will be way down on uses, because this device is really intended to be used in the home, so why would you watch movies on it when you have a TV? If I owned one of these I would probably watch less than one movie/tv show per year on it, but I would use it every day to net surf. So why have a 16:9 screen that is weaker for the real usage when it is something that will seldom be done.
 
computerpro3 and Snowdog - you know... there are different preferences among peeps.
 
Koko56 said:
computerpro3 and Snowdog - you know... there are different preferences among peeps.
Click to expand...

Certainly people have different preferences, but that won't change what the device was designed and marketed for.

Computerpro was claiming it was marketed as Video/media player. It clearly isn't. He is complaining about something he isn't even informed about.

If you are primarily looking for a portable media player, this isn't your best choice and it isn't intended to be.
 
Snowdog said:
Certainly people have different preferences, but that won't change what the device was designed and marketed for.

Computerpro was claiming it was marketed as Video/media player. It clearly isn't. He is complaining about something he isn't even informed about.

If you are primarily looking for a portable media player, this isn't your best choice and it isn't intended to be.
Click to expand...

I think we got that memo, this device is being touted more as en eReader and in that capacity it's a great device. It'll no doubt be versatile with the iPhone software library and devs interested in the device.

It's just in the slate space I do think that this machine it going to face a challenge from the HP Windows 7 Slate which will be just as good of a reader, we have Kindle on Windows now, and even more versatile.
 
I'm still not convinced, but as I've said many times it will be up to third party developers to really decide if it is a hit or not. The excellent iWork demos have me thinking it could work if others step up as they did with the iPhone/iPod Touch.

The main thing that people are underestimating is the slickness of a well designed multitouch interface. We've all seen those amazing Microsoft Surface videos, right? Well, this is the first piece of hardware that makes that possible for the mainstream.

I personally would love Blizzard to port custom versions of Starcraft or Warcraft to it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtKkOhMqVhY
 
Serpico said:
I'm still not convinced, but as I've said many times it will be up to third party developers to really decide if it is a hit or not. The excellent iWork demos have me thinking it could work if others step up as they did with the iPhone/iPod Touch.

The main thing that people are underestimating is the slickness of a well designed multitouch interface. We've all seen those amazing Microsoft Surface videos, right? Well, this is the first piece of hardware that makes that possible for the mainstream.

I personally would love Blizzard to port custom versions of Starcraft or Warcraft to it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtKkOhMqVhY
Click to expand...

Actually this is not true. I have been enjoying a Windows 7 touch/multi-touch interface tx2 for a year now. A device that at the low end of its specs was in the same price range on the high end of an iPad.

Now admittedly these are two totally different form factors and the iPad is a device built from from the ground up as a touch device.

But touch in Windows 7 works better than many might realize. It its VERY dependent on the app in question just how touch friendly things are but web surfing in IE 8 is VERY touch friendly. In fact because of the size of the screen, its a FAR better touch experience than an iPhone/iPod. But IE 8 still zooms in and out with pinching, page back and forward with flicking, it works VERY well.

In fact when it comes to general web browsing, something like the Windows HP Slate is going to kick the crap out of an iPad because of no Flash support on the iPad.

We really are going to see just how good Windows 7 is. 7 is going to be going up against the iPad, the Dell Android device and others. This is why I am intrested in the outcome of the battle and how this is going to play out. If Windows 7 can find a home on slate tablets, that is that they sell well and dominate the market, Microsoft will have something to feel good about.

On the other hand, if the iPad and/or devices do well and/or dominate, that could mean a lot of trouble for Windows. I've always believed that Windows could find a home on a tablet device, it has for many years now. The question is with the iPad break out of that mold? It should. But does it really offer anything compelling. I have to say the answer to that is no. No more compelling than any of the other devices on the way.

The Apple brand as strong as it is isn't invulnerable. People are just going to buy $500 dust bunnies by the millions. There needs to something that the device is good at, better than the competition and actually one of the big competitors to this device is the iPhone and I feel its safe to say that the iPad's future is going to none where near as bright as the iPhone's history has been even if it does well.

So much to think about. A lot of stuff is going on this year.
 
heatlesssun said:
It's just in the slate space I do think that this machine it going to face a challenge from the HP Windows 7 Slate which will be just as good of a reader, we have Kindle on Windows now, and even more versatile.
Click to expand...

I never wanted a laptop as I prefer to leave the computer at home when I am out (PC at work, PC at home, more than enough), but as a home net/ereader device with a low enough price, I start to get interested. I could see using one of these from anywhere for casual surfing and leaving my main rig off a lot of the time.

If someone else could deliver the iPad form factor in as close to a slick design for a similar price, with more open featurs (SD slot) I would like that. But despite all the whining about Apple pricing, I don't see anyone else coming out with a slick $500 10" multi-touch tablet anytime soon.

Clearly the HP slate is biggest potential competitor. But I expect it will start at about $800. Or it was about to, until the Apple price bombshell. Perhaps now they are trying to figure out how much they can strip out to get the price down.

I expect the HP will be more versatile and do more, but the iPad will cost less and do the functions it does do, better.

The question will be how many people need/want it do more enough to pay more. But this is all speculation right now.

Apple may really have something here. I can't predict what other people want, but I know right now, that I would like to shut my desktop and pick this conversation up from my couch with a slick net pad. :D
 
Snowdog said:
I expect the HP will be more versatile and do more, but the iPad will cost less and do the functions it does do, better.
Click to expand...

Like web surfing with no Flash? I think you're giving the iPad too much credit. Sure, it will look slicker and have some things that work better, but web surfing won't be one of them for sure.
 
heatlesssun said:
But touch in Windows 7 works better than many might realize. It its VERY dependent on the app in question just how touch friendly things are but web surfing in IE 8 is VERY touch friendly.
Click to expand...

And that's the thing, EVERYTHING on the iPad is created for touch while everything on Windows isn't. Think of this from a developer's standpoint, are you going to want to devote time and resources and money towards making touch specific applications for a very small subset of Windows users using that interface? No, unless its a runaway hit you're probably going to hope that your standard application is acceptable enough using touch translations from the OS instead of building it for touch from the ground up.

If you make a touch application for the iPhone, of which there are lots of great apps for right now, then you'll also be usable on the iPad. This removes one barrier of entry for people on the fence to buy it. If you then decide make a touch app for the iPad, there is less risk involved since everyone using the device has the same touch-specific interface (aka - you aren't targeting a small subset of users that are otherwise using a mouse+keyboard), the development process is a familiar once since it uses the same SDK as the iPhone, and all users are plugged into purchasing your stuff from the App Store.

These are big advantages that more people aren't thinking about. My concern is when apps come out that I would want to use the iPad for. Not for me ATM but I see potential.
 
heatlesssun said:
Like web surfing with no Flash? I think you're giving the iPad too much credit. Sure, it will look slicker and have some things that work better, but web surfing won't be one of them for sure.
Click to expand...

You mean like I already do because I despise flash? Not a show stopper for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top