Hot new toy from Apple

[Spinland]

Apple unveils the iPad

[Gare]

Doonesbury unveils Apple

Doonesbury.jpg

[Spinland]

Oh, that's priceless.

[Welles]

As an iPod Touch addict, I'll get one of the iPads the first week it is released. I expect it will become my new portable internet connection, media player and gaming platform.

[Gare]

The second part of your comment sort of explains the first, Welles!
But like any addict, you should pay heed to the quality of your score.

Gizmodo—the site that rolls around in any/every new piece of technology—trashed the iPad...most gracious comment they offered was that the version 2 will probably be up to snuff.

It looks like that wonderful toy I saw as a child and dreamed about from the other side of a storefront window. And I think wanting it was more the key than owning it.

[Spinland]

It's dead on arrival to me unless/until the browser supports Flash.

[Spinland]

That picture from Avatar opens up a whole 'nother avenue of speculation on where devices like the iPad might go in the future. In the scene were Sully is first "going in" the lab guy swipes an image of Sully's brain scan off a large screen and then swipes the feed onto a data pad he's holding. Now that's a buffer, and that's a touch screen!

[Welles]

Gizmodo, Engadget and a great proportion of the world of tech punditry has trashed the iPad. They trashed the iPod. They trashed the iPhone. Those who can't do, opine. Their history of prediction vs. mere opine comes down intensely on the side of opine which doesn't stand the test of time when it comes to Apple products. I used to check out both of them but the snark factor became tedious and they got dropped from my RSS aggregator.

As for Flash. I personally don't like Flash in general, although you do find the occasional wonderful site. (I use a Flash blocker on my computers) The ubiquity of Flash to provide video over the internet is seriously challenged by HTML5 and H264 which has been embraced by YouTube and Vimeo and will be rendering Flash to a historical remnant in few years. Among other reasons it requires constant tweaking for security, is only 32 bit in an increasingly 64 bit world but most important will be the realization of content providers that more and more people who actually pay money for their products and services use a platform which doesn't support flash. That's the iPhone OS. If anyone is interested in the anti-Flash bias of Apple and by extension many Mac users this article is excellent. http://daringfireball.net/2010/01/apple_adobe_flash

Another major quibble of the punditry is that there is no multitasking. These devices aren't computers. They rely on finite battery limits. As a result the best running time/battery charge value has resulted in a decision to treat them as appliances rather than computers. That means running one function rather than having a bunch of background processes going on. It is a strategic choice which works well when you use it. The deal is, when you wan't a different appliance you load a different app. These aren't intended to be major creative devices but more consumer devices.

One of the interesting things about all the negative punditry is that it is mostly based on speculation about personal likes and dislikes, comparisons of hardware specs and so forth. Without hands on experience those comparisons are useless. The thing which is almost all the people who actually used the iPad remarked upon was the wonder of the experience. The speed of processes was instantaneous. Multi-touch has been so enhanced that it seems totally normal for anyone who had use an iPhone/Touch. I can't wait. I expect iPad will become my traveling computer even without a camera and all the rest of the 'missing features.'

For anyone not enthusiastic about the device at present, I say keep an open mind and look at the second version closely. It will be significantly enhanced and by that time you will have had a friend allow you to see what you are missing...which might be an afternoon nap, of course.

[Gare]

Oh, I just knew the snarks in this area would draw you out, Welles!

;)

But you're right: the iPad is a large iPod Touch. It's not a personal computer, and as something it isn't, it falls into comparison with other home electronics.

For more than two decades, there hasn't been a more aggressive or successful marketing machine than Apple. I have to applaud this; Jobs has kept a second-running operating system alive and flourishing where other second-places such as Sony's beta videocassette withered off the tree. Without question, he and Apple invented a category of consumer electronics with the iPod. There was nothing like it, and still isn't. Microsoft is falling back on a predictable pattern of catch-up with Zune, but they don't have the navigation system or the caché.

Let's see how a non-innovative consumer electronic gains traction in the market, however. Tablet PCs aren't new: so, okay, this isn't a tablet PC. The iPad doesn't have the processor umph of many netbooks: so okay, it isn't a netbook.

In attempting to create a new category, I think the brunt of the explanation will fall on a buyer's need for the device: it's nice and portable to read the New York Times on the commuter train (a hard copy of the NYT is less expensive), you can watch movies if they're not Flash encoded, you can enjoy 140,000 apps as long as you download them from The Apple Store.

I disagree philosophically with such a novel device that's as pricey as it is, misses the mark especially for power-addicted technology users, and is as Black Box closed as the iTouch. Let's be honest: you can protect patents and other intellectual properties without locking something down tighter than Attica on a Friday night. What are the scores of Apple lawyers doing? :)

I'm quite surprised the G3 enthusiasts once again have their choice of: AT&T. And that Apple didn't learn and embrace all the hacks that were made to liberate the Apple mobiles. I hear a clear cry that the mass market wants an Apple product, but not entirely on Apple's terms.

I think Steve did a commendable repeat performance of his Reality Distortion Field in front of the cameras yeasterday; very few ringmasters can deliver, with a straight face, the "missing link between the iPod and the desktop" with what he had to show.

The rest of the consumer technology I've bought over the years had a more clearly defined mission statement, I knew what the thing was and what I wanted to buy, and I can think of a much more successful consumer appliance company in my life that delivered at an affordable price without the atmosphere of a gala Broadway opening.

G.E.

They weren't largely original, they had no "sexy" to sell, they were reliable and they're still a household name.

If I ever find the need to get mobile, I'll take a look at version 2, Welles. Apple has the same problem as Microsoft does with "getting it right" the first time out; they just spin it away, usually after Damage Control would have been an option.

-g-

[Spinland]

And not to pile on, but I don't see the iPad as becoming so powerful in the marketplace that it drives a mass exodus away from Flash. That's a de Facto standard for many reasons, not the least of which being it works. Right now if you want to reach a vast audience with web-based animation you'd better be generating it in Flash, and that is a massive amount of inertia. I don't see Apple budging that with their niche status in the computing world.

In my case, I have no use for a web-browsing device that can't even access whole portions of my own web site (which is Flash-based, of course). If somehow Adobe's stranglehold on animated web content is ever overcome, I'll shift to accommodate--after the fact. I have a nontrivial investment of time and money in tools that create Flash content, because that's where the action is. There's no percentage in making web content that's not directed at the largest potential user base, not unless you're in the business of being a crusader. I don't even own a cape.

I fear that Apple, despite the feelings of people such as the one who wrote that article, will either bend to meet the world as it is or will remain a niche commodity outside the realm of MP3 players. They got their tablet out essentially first, but there is a host of competition right around the corner--and I'll bet good money they're going to support Flash.

I'll certainly give iPad 2.0 a look, but if they don't meet my requirements it'll be only a quick glance. I have all the time in the world. I didn't get into the iPod craze until the 2nd generation Nano--there's also no percentage in being an early adopter of any tech, IMO. Let others pay good money to be field testers, and I might decide I prefer someone else's offering. Need to wait for the other choices to become available before jumping.

Besides, I just dropped a crazy amount of money on a new computer. I have to let the sticker shock subside for a while before I start yearning after more expensive toys.

[Gare]

You're right, Spinner.

You are piling it on.

[Welles]

Nah, Spinland isn't piling on, just expressing his perspective. There are three differing ones here, well 2.5 actually. I'll take mine. Your welcome to your's. Isn't that magnanimous of me!

[Spinland]

Heh.

Really, the idea of what the iPad represents IS really cool to me. My chief complaint about my Blackberry is the screen is too small, and even though my computer is a laptop it's still great to consider how conveniently-sized the iPad (and it's competitors) are. I mean, really, really cool.

I just can't get over the crippled web browser.

[Gare]

Hopefully, this captures the timbre of our discussion.

Netbooks just crack me up

[Spinland]

Crud, the firewall at work just slapped my wrist when I tried to follow that link.