Apple Introduces The Game-Changing iPad Discussion

Hmmm scaled up smartphone with associated functionality. Can't really see the point? iPhone functionality is targeted precisely to address the physical dimension and intended use of a mobile phone.

Now if they'd been a bit braver, gone for a beefier processor, stuck OS X on it and targeted it as a scaled down tablet MacBook it might have been a lot more interesting. Put it into the market as Apples netbook.

I can see a lot of iPhone users buying this, being wowed by the Apple design and slickness then wondering what exactly they do with it before simply going back to using their iPhones.

 

MacBook Touch is what Apple should have come out with.

 

I agree. a macbook touch would have gotten my interest.

 

Apple's marketing team may as well call it the iTampon if they use that name.

 

And DX is like 500$,right?

so it is like 200$ more then a basic ereader,and about 50-100 more then advanced ones, but it can do a lot more... So with proper multitasking, it will be quite an appealing device.Imagine this- WWDC 2010 keynote,SJ on stage "We sold x amount of iPads and we have y amount of great apps for it(once serious developers kick in, I am sure it will have some crazy apps) and now with iPhone OS 4.0, you can multitask!"

From what I understand, 3.2 version is "just" for developers, so apple can have a decent amount of iPad apps with new iPhone/OS release.

 

I will stick to Kindle... I support e-ink over all other fancy features...the title of the thread needs to be changed 'Game-Changing Pad' WoT

 

I have two words on the subject: EPIC FAILURE.

 

There is no real comparison between a true e-reader and this device. It happens to have an app that displays ebooks. That is it. It has a 10 hour battery life, no E-ink display and is much larger than many of the e-book options out there. My E-book can last about a month on a single charge, i can read it for 12 hours straight with no eye strain, its easily viewable in almost any lighting condition. It just looks like reading from a paperback. The ipad has none of these features.

And being that there are a number of fully featured e-book readers for $200.00 out there, its really more like $300 more than many readers.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsjU0K8QPhs

 

If *all* you want to do is E-read or optimal E-Reading is of the utmost importance, well, then the iPad makes no sense anyhow as a purchase option.

If E-Reader capability in addition to wanting many of the other abilities of the iPad is your criteria, then an E-reader makes no sense as a purchase option unless you want two devices.

I would never recommend purchasing an iPad solely as an E-Reader device and I don't think there really is any debate as to what device performs best as strictly a near perfect E-Reader.

I can see the usefulness of the iPad and its, "Jack of all trades master of none," approach to user functionality and for what a Netbook is meant to be , I would purchase an iPad before I purchased a traditional Netbook. If I'm going to contemplate a traditional netbook, then I am going to think about a real notebook like a Thinkpad x200 or greater.

 

I cannot see myself typing more than one email-worth of words on the iPad. I have an iPhone and while the lack of tactile feedback is fine when you're just using your thumbs, using all ten fingers is gonna be fail. Think about it: the iPad keyboard is gonna be comparable in size to the first generation of 7inch eeePCs, and without tactile feedback? Yeah right.

BTW, you know Apple's smart predictive/auto-correct spell check thing? Not so smart.

I'd pick a netbook with Moblin/Chrome OS (operating systems designed for netbook hardware) over the first generation iPad anyday for "netbook"-like tasks. I can see the worth of the iPad as a portable entertainment unit though.

 

I don't see how this would be game-changing for me in a positive way due to the 10-foot-pole I would need to keep around in order to touch it.

What does this do that a touch screen phone doesn't already do just as well, cheaper, and with less baggage? Heck I still have a Dell Axim x51v from 2005 that I use as a combination ebook reader and mp3/4 player for light duty that can pretty much do everything this does with 640x480 resolution included - from 2005. Anything else, I need to type and I can break out a netbook that will play some games and last a long time, a full sized dtp, or just use my main box.

I'm not sure what the draw is to these devices, other than drawing money out of your wallet to make a fashion statement.

 

If this thing was done right, it might just be that game changer. As it is.. it's a really big iPod Touch. That's it.
Multitasking? No.
Webcam? No.
SD card slot for memory expansion? USB port? Not so much.
I'd love to give it as much credit as the iPhone, but it can't make phone calls.

The processor looks interesting---even if it isn't strictly an Apple design---but this thing needs a few hardware upgrades and a proper operating system before I'd even consider it. Flash support would be nice too.
And it's got an ARM CPU, so it can't even run OSX or any other x86 operating system... this is just sad.

 

Agree, you don't buy this solely as ebook reader- you buy it for all it's features... for 100-200$ more, you are getting a lot more storage color screen, apps,inet,movies,etc.! Also, consider that you can always jailbreak and add multitasking yourself till "official release"

 

I am underwhelmed. I like Apple, honestly I do, but this isn't game changing in any shape or form. I admit, it's a niche that needed to be filled, but it's not redefining the landscape.

That, and the lack of multitasking is silly.

 

big fail nuff said

 

I agree. The iPad, though advanced in terms of UI and touch support, isn't adequately equipped with the software needed to do the things that consumers will expect.

 

I agree that this does not replace a netbook. But I would buy this at a much discounted price to do some lightweight tasks and for entertainment.

 

A disk jockey on the radio summed it up quite nicely.

It looks like a super big iPhone.

So when you walk around with one, you look like a midget with an iPhone

 

No USB or SD Slot?, Will the CPU & GPU be able to play back 720P H264/Quicktime HD files, otherwise what would be the advantage of the 1024*768 res.

I just see this as something to read PDF/Document Files on, due to the high res should be able to read a fully formatted A4 page on it without panning, something the ereaders except rex 1000 can't do.

People who do planning/construction this would be ideal for them.... be able to show your clients your designs/plans, annotate them on the fly, more targeted at industrial/business sector than general consumer.

They shouldn't promote it as a large Ipod touch, i.e who would want to scale up their apps by 3 times, listening to music on a device that big, also mp multitasking or USB host support is a big kick in the teeth

 

If there's no such thing as bad publicity then the iPad will sell like hotcakes, that's for sure, never has a gadget been so hyped and then so debated as this.

I have no idea how well this will sell, I'll buy one simply because I'm curious and can't resist, and then if I don't like it I'll sell it on eBay for little loss I'm sure. I have a Kindle but I like to read a lot of content on the web, but the Kindle is awful for that. If there are millions of other people like me with a bit of disposable income, curiosity, and an inkling it may be both useful and entertaining then the iPad will do ok. No one in this forum is average so we'll only know what the masses think once the data starts to roll in on sales, to be honest I think Christmas 2010 will be the big test on how many people really want to buy this and just need an excuse to splurge to do so.

 

Yes it can play 720p H264/Quicktime, but it's a 4:3 screen, not a widescreen, so you'll have the sides of the movie chopped off... or you may have the option of watching it letterboxed, but then the top and bottom of the screen are not in use so you're only really using 1024x576 resolution, and you have black bars above and below the picture.

This is one of the things I think is lame about the iPad. This, and the lack of a webcam.

ok... I can see why they did that now... the 4:3 screen ratio approximates the ratio of an 8.5 inch x 11 inch piece of paper... while a 16:10 or 16:9 ratio would be awkwardly long and narrow when using it in a vertical orientation... still sucks for movies though.

I do think they'll succeed in creating a new category of computing product... so I think it'll probably be a "game-changer" in that sense. But... I'm not too excited about the particulars of this model... I think I'll wait for the next version.

 

I would probably get one if it had flash. I like Hulu. What does Apple have against Adobe?
To be honest the only time I multitask is when I'm driving and eating a Whopper.

 

i personally do not like it. though hopefully it does start lowering broadband costs.

 

iMaxipad is fail

 

iFail. seriously Apple.

 

Iphone does not have widescreen either, even though theysay it does..

480*320 is more square than it is wide

i.e 320*240 = 1.33:1, 480*320= 1.5:1, 480*270 = 1.78:1

 

This isn't the first time I've heard that from other people before.

Honestly, I have read some articles that roundly criticize the iPad, the general idea of their arguments being that the iPad lacks functionality; either for video output, lack of Flash, or the absence of a webcam.

But in my opinion the greatest downfall of the iPad is that it isn't a tablet PC. It cannot multitask, nor can it run most of the software that previous failed (but true) tablet PCs have been able to run. While Apple has always specialized in tight hardware/software integration, that's not what is at stake here. For the price you pay, you get an enlarged iPod touch and that is all. Not only does it lack certain hardware functions that are continuously pointed out on technology news sites and blogs, but just as importantly the software is ill-equipped for what people will expect it to do.

 

I don't like Apple, but they do have a tendency to innovate and change things, move the market in a potentially better direction. While I vastly prefer my (now) old school 80GB Zune - better sound hardware by a mile than the iPod I had before it - that Zune wouldn't exist without the iPod.

The iPhone has also radically changed the American (the AMERICAN) cell phone market (Asia doesn't really care that much, we're a healthy step behind them when it comes to phones).

What does the iPad actually DO? Other than be a giant iPod Touch? There was an opportunity here for Apple to produce something really useful. It would've been cheap to integrate a webcam and a USB port or SD reader. Instead we get neither, and in my opinion not having the USB/SD is the real killer, even for Average Joe user. But I'm sure this functionality will materialize at some point in some overpriced accessory.

Even the MicroSIM instead of regular SIM - seriously, MicroSIM is needed in a device this large? - points to more vendor lock-in, overpriced peripherals.

If this thing ran OS X...if Apple somehow produced a dual-touchscreen notebook with some kind of tactile feedback...either one of these options would've been impressive, would've been a game-changer, would've pushed things forward.

The iPad is stunningly lazy. We grew the iPod Touch. Buy it.

...and you know they'll all drink the Kool-Aid anyhow, so I don't know why I bother.

 

Speaking of bad publicity, I saw two (read: two) separate stories about the iPad on CNN, full with commentary from "unbiased" contributors, all speaking very highly about it, just today.
Obviously Apple is aware that it hasn't been recieved in the most positive sense, and in some corners of the net is a laughing stock, so they are proactively trying to spin this thing in a positive light.
I have just one word; iTurd.

 

If only it could run 4 apps at once, it might be useful.

 

This seems like a downer. I was hoping Apple would use new technology like a color E-ink screen. I'm finding it hard to read the screen on my laptop after an hours as my eyes get tired. Oh well, next version please!

 

It can't do a lot more.
In fact, it can do less than a basic ereader by around 6 days and 14 hours worth of stuff.

 

Yeah, I know... but I see two significant differences. One is that the iPhone is 3:2 (or 1.5:1)... while the iPad is 4:3 (or 1.33:1)... so while the iPhone isn't fully widescreen (16:9 or 1.78:1), it's at least partly widescreen, that is, the iPhone is somewhere in between traditional and widescreen. So it's a compromise. The iPad is just the old traditional ratio... not widescreen, and not in between at all either.

The other difference is that it just matters more on the iPad... because I'm not really interested in serious movie viewing on a 3.5 inch iPhone screen (although I realize some people do)... but if I'm buying a 9 or 10 inch tablet, with higher pixel resolution, then movie viewing is one of the applications I'd be interested in using it for. So basically the iPad is otherwise better suited to movie viewing apart from the ratio issue... so that's why I think it's a bigger deal here.

 

I'd be interested in the iPad if it had a full copy of Mac OSX on board. Having the iPhone OS on something that has a lot more power isn't justifiable.

• Needs multi-tasking. All that power for what? Gaming only? Come-on.
• Is it boot-camp-able? Me thinks no, and will remain that way forever.
• The name is off-putting for a lot of people... the marketing division failed epically here.

 

Revamping OSX would be a very expensive undertaking and it would possibly require new code, so I'm wondering whether it would be possible to add multi-threading to the iPhone OS. This would be the only real option available to Apple.

 

If it could run OS X, I'd buy it, and put only windows on it and write up another how-to article.

 

It doesn't really have any "power" worth mentioning unless you're comparing it to an iPhone or something of the sort. A 1GHz ARM core is probably wimpier than any netbook.

No. The CPU is not x86 so no Windows -- but this is by design. Windows is not really suited to a touch interface.

Interestingly enough, the name is claimed by Fujitsu (which has made a pocket computer called that since 2002), some other electronics company which I forget and a company that makes bras. I wonder how they're going to deal with the Fujitsu claim. There's also a Mad TV sketch from a few years ago which makes the obvious joke (the interview with the people who made the sketch is on CNN).

 

Glorified, oversized Ipod Touch. And I'm completely satisfied with my 32GB plus my dv2.

Try again Apple

 

I like the iPad, and I'd buy one if I had the money laying around. It's an interesting device, but I'm with everyone else here: I like a full size keyboard equipped computer. My other peeve with it is it's iPhone derived OS and interface. While it isn't bad, I would've much preferred Mac OS 10.5/.6. That would afford the user true multitasking ability. Doing one or two tasks at a time isn't enough. I will applause Apple on using an ARM based processor to make pretty much everything usable on the iPhone compatible with the iPad, however, especially in graphics capabilities, Apple could've probably pushed the 3D capabilities much harder, and made the iPad a truly serious contender as far as gaming machines go.

 

Pretty hilarious link about the iPad:
http://www.joemonster.org/art/13297/iPad_co_o_nim_mysla_internauci_

 

The iPad doesn't change ANYTHING. All it does is make competors think they have to do something NOW or DOOM!!!

The iPad....


Has a locked down OS.

Only supports Apple store Apps

Doesn't support flash and knowing Apple will NEVER support it.

needs a multtude of adabters to extend its capability. (No USB port. BRILLIANT Apple!)

No user replaceable battery, but that is par for the course with Apple's products now a days.

No multitasking

No forward facing camera.

No Bluetooth (so forget about tethering)



No what this is, is NOTHING more then an overgrown iPod Touch....period. This whole marketing crap about most advanced tech. BS. I'm willing to bet 90% of the components in there are identical to the touch, other then the CPU and that was probably licensed by a third party. Apple does not do that kind of low level work anymore. They take a product that has been working and make it bigger or smaller and call it NEW! REVOLUTIONARY! GAME CHANGING! When in reality its the same damn thing they have been selling for years.
Move along. Nothing to see here until the HP slate comes out. Look you aren't being TOLD what to do what YOUR device. What an original concept. Don't like the browser? Load up Firefox and the touch extensions. Apple's touting a new word processor that you can load on the iPad. Woopty doo. The slate you can load MS Office or Open Office or any of a number of other solutions.
There is absolutely NOTHING to be impressed by with the Always iPad other then it has an Apple logo on it and its running a neutered OS. That last part is impressive in that users enjoy being shackled with the tech they use.

Oh and to counter the inevitable Apple user onslaught of yah but you don't need to load an AV package....I haven't run AV on ANY of my PC's for more then a decade now. Its not a matter of the software you run its a matter of who is behind the keyboard. A good reliable browser = a pretty secure OS out of the box. And with Windows 7. Meh. Even less of a reason to run AV software.

 

I wouldn't bother having a look at such a hastily cooked up fad to waste my money on. Maybe few years down the road when apple have something more capable and appropriate available, and is not trying to rob its customers with such exorbitant pricing; i may think about

 

How is this "the netbook replacement we have all been waiting for"? It doesn't have multitasking, it doesn't support most apps that netbooks do (only ones which go through the app store), it doesn't have a built in keyboard, it doesn't have any USB ports (how are you going to get files on and off?), it doesn't have as much disk space and it's more expensive.

I just don't see how it can be compared to a netbook, because it isn't one. It's a toy, as is the ipod touch and (arguably) the iphone. The only potential use I can really see is as a media player, but even then I can't imagine a time when I'd ever actually use it.