The Apple iPad...

ElDiabloConCaca said:
I firmly believe that the iPad is intended to replace a laptop in many situations as well as be a supplement to the iPod/iPhone platform.

Think about it: there is no comfortable position in which to use a laptop OTHER than having the laptop sit at a desk, and then it's just a small desktop machine. The portability of the laptop has been there -- but the usability has not.

You can't comfortably use a laptop on a couch (and anyone that claims to be able to would be under the age of 25 when your bones are still flexible and joints can be compressed for hours without soreness) in any position. If you sit with it on your lap, then you must keep your legs together to support the laptop and tilt your head downward. If you sit with it on the coffee table, then you're hunched over, extending yourself from the edge of the couch to the coffee table.

Even if you manage to find an acceptable position in which to use your laptop away from a desk-like surface, you're still stuck with a screen that is positioned both perpendicular to the keyboard and very close to the keyboard -- in other words, you have to basically look at your hands to use the machine. If you position the laptop ergonomically for your hands, then your head and neck suffer. If positioned ergonomically for head and neck, the hands and wrists suffer.

So, even though certain people can get past that, you're still stuck with a fragile piece of equipment that must be babied. The screen hinge is arguably the most fragile part of the laptop's structure, and, when in an open position, is extremely susceptible to being banged around and getting caught on stuff. The laptop, in other words, when open and in a "usable" state, is extremely unwieldy. It forms an odd shape that is neither portable nor easily moved.

There is no ideal way to actually use a laptop, other than in a desktop fashion.

The iPad solves this, and hence, I have dubbed it "The laptop for couch potatoes." It has no hinge and no fold-out or open-up parts, therefore it solves the unwieldy aspect of notebooks. While the "keyboard" is still situated close to the screen (well, it is the screen), you don't use it as you would a normal keyboard, and keyboard input as a whole has been reduced greatly with multi-touch gestures. It is lightweight and wouldn't strain the muscles of a 4-year-old when used for lengths of time. You still have to interact with your hands, but you're interacting in a much more natural way, and you can position the device relative to your hands, instead of positioning your hands to conform to the device.

This device also either supplements or can be used to completely replace a lot of multi-media products that have been shoehorned into vehicles in the last few years (portable DVD players/screens in the car to placate children, radios, CD players, etc.).

I sense a hit... not iPod-level nor even iPhone-level hit, but still a strong product (much stronger than the AppleTV).

I truly believe that Apple is going to have a decent hit with the lazy couch potatoes across the country and potentially the world. Oh, what I wouldn't have given when I was in college to be able to carry around something like this to watch a movie on between classes, or to just whip out and start word processing instead of pulling out a laptop, finding a table and waking it from sleep.
Click to expand...

I totaly agree! I tell people you must have a need for it in order to buy it or your wasting your money.I had a purpose(protable 720p video).All my videos ive converted for Appletv plays excellent on it.actually it plays it better than my appletv.Try lugging a mac book pro around with you in a nap sack for over a year,its no bargain.This mainly what i carried it around for.The ipad to me is perfect for what i use it for and believe its stronger than the appletv.The appletv cannot play 720p video at 29fps but the ipad can go figure.
 
he App Store isn't exactly the problem—it's the way Apple runs and limits the App Store. Let's say, for example, that Apple added one simple section to the App Store. I'll leave it to the Apple Geniuses to come up with a more marketable name, but for our purposes, let's call it the Restricted section.

Now let's say that Apple continues to run the App Store the way it always has, but rather than reject applications that it feels may confuse the user (like they claimed Google Voice* or Google Latitude might), or applications that allow users to access naughty pictures, or even applications that it hasn't had time to vet for the App Store proper, they put those applications in the Restricted section. Before a user is able to install applications from the Restricted section, that user has to agree that the application may confuse their feeble minds, offend their delicate sensibilities, or even slow down their device. Is this such a problem?

(*Incidentally, even if we accept Apple's reasons for rejecting the Google Voice application on the iPhone, what reason is there to likewise reject it for the iPod touch and, presumably, the iPad? Neither have phone functionality out of the box, and now the non-phone devices actually outnumber the iPhone.)

Even better, it could work like the package manager it actually is and allow users to add their own trusted repositories as sources for other applications. Same disclaimers apply, but Apple is even further removed from culpability—they're not even hosting the apps.

The point is, users should at least be allowed to flip some switch, somewhere on the machine, that says, "Hey computer, I'm an adult, and I take responsibility over how I use this machine."
==============
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Failing to understand why Apple doesn't want "unsupported" apps or "restricted" apps is failing to understand the vision of the entire App store.

Apple doesn't want their devices crashing or performing poorly, under ANY circumstances -- whether it's because of a bug in their software or a bug in someone else's software. Like it or not, but the contents of the App Store reflect directly upon Apple in most people's eyes, no matter where the app came from. Tech heads and geeks and extremely computer-savvy people are a small minority -- a mere and tiny fraction -- of the population of App Store users. Sure, we may like to think that we're a lot larger group than we actually are, but we're not, and failing to see that is simply pulling the wool over our own eyes. The large majority of App Store users don't even know what the hell a "repository" is, nor do they know that, in the case of repositories, some apps can come from one place while others come from a different place.

The argument could be made that, "Hey, non-tech people can just ignore or simply not use that section of the App Store!" Well, sure they could... but that goes back to the misunderstanding of what Apple's goals and visions are for the App Store. Apple does not want that. They want a seamless, error-free and slick implementation that anyone can wrap their head around without much guidance, and that no part of the device would be considered "off-limits" to someone who can't understand it. Implementing something that would make someone feel unsure of using just isn't in the cards... how stupid is grandma going to feel when she asks someone about the "restricted repository" and the answer is, "just don't use that because [I can't explain it] [You won't get it] [That's not for you] [There's nothing in there that you want anyway]?"

Apple is not in the business of catering to the 0.01% (my statistic, straight from my arse) of users that want some kind of completely open, transparent, modifiable, unrestricted, uncensored and limitless network-enabled, media consuming device.

You don't have to agree with Apple's App Store policies and methodologies and visions, but one needs at least to understand them before agreeing or disagreeing with them. One can't make a valid argument against Apple without having understanding first. That's like arguing against gravity or trying to make water flow uphill: a lack of understanding of basic physics means one cannot even be part of the discussion lest the things that come out of one's mouth have no bearing on the issue(s) at hand.

Once a person understands the theory behind a device, that device becomes much more usable and utilitarian. Instead of spending time trying to force it to do something it wasn't meant to do, one can use their understanding of the device to be productive. I am of the firm belief that a smart person can use the tools presented to them to conquer problems, while the opposite of a smart person is continually frustrated with the tools presented to them. Apple is making a killing by providing tools that do not befuddle many people at all, and the ones that are frustrated by those tools are the ones trying to implement them in situations where they were never meant to be used.

Instead of thinking, "Hey, why can't Apple just put something more complex in there to satisfy me," one should be thinking, "Hey, how can this complex thing be simplified so that the majority of people using this device could easily understand it?" I hardly think a disclaimer saying, "The following section of the App Store is for very smart people only. It is complex and contains stuff you have never seen before. It may crash your phone; it may not. If you are not a tech-head, geek, nerd, computer scientist or otherwise blessed with extreme understanding of complex things, you should stay out" would bolster the usability of the product.
 
Last edited:
Getting one? but a little over-price, yeah...
Can't decide yet, will need to see it go toe-to-toe with competition...
 
Over priced?

Before the iPad came out, people were speculating that it would cost close to $999.

$499 was a complete surprise, and anyone who says otherwise is lying.
 
bbloke said:
To be honest, I'm a little surprised by the hype in advance and I was assuming there had to be some major advances in features. Otherwise, I couldn't really understand the market for the product.

Personally speaking, if I want to have internet access in an extremely portable form, I'd use an iPhone or iPod touch. If I want more computing power but also whilst on the move, I'd use a laptop. The iPad seems bulky enough to not replace a laptop and yet not compact enough to totally replace an iPhone or iPod touch.

Steve Jobs did seem to suggest they needed to find the right niche, which was exactly my concern, but I'm still a little nonplussed by the iPad. At first glance, it looks like an enlarged iPhone/iPod touch, so, while the applications may look a little glossier, I can't quite understand why this is supposed to be the breakthrough that is being proclaimed; surely we've seen the technology before?

In my case, the iPad falls between the cracks but, for all I know, it could be exactly what others have been waiting for. That said, I'm not meaning to be too negative, I just feel like "I don't get it." I think I need to have a look at one in real life to judge for myself!
Click to expand...
Sharing publications should be the least of your concerns. You can share files between your iPad and Mac or Windows PC. Publications will be in the new opensource epub format. Sharing via the iBookstore may be allowed, but it will not be necessary.

I'm looking for the new authoring apps that will allow me to create my own publications. By the time the iPad hit the market, I presumed that authoring apps will be be available.

___________________
 
I just spent five days camping with my girlfriend. We both brought along our iPads. We had enough battery power for all five days, using mine mainly to watch some TV shows in the evenings, hers for playing some games and both for accessing the web, mail etc. through the day. Of course we didn't spend all of our time on the iPads, but it was great to have these devices with us without requiring a power outlet. We couldn't have done that with our notebooks, and the iPhones (which held up nicely as well when set to 2G and in flight mode as often as possible) wouldn't have been as great an experience for watching TV shows as well as accessing the 'net. The iPads made perfect sense.

The iPad also makes sense whenever you're out and about and don't _know_ whether you'll need a computer. You don't log along your notebook if you're unsure you'll ever use it, but you'll simply have the iPad with you, because it's much lighter and slimmer than a notebook or even a netbook.
 
You had me believing until "girlfriend." Then your story lost all credibility.

Everyone knows geeks can't get girlfriends.

;)

Nice story -- I experience the same thing... sometimes, even under medium to high use, I can get my iPad to last a full work week. The battery life is nothing short of amazing. I throw my iPad in the back of my car when out on tech calls for that "just in case" scenario. Coupled with Jaadu VNC and RDP apps, even if I need a full-blown computer, I can just remotely access and control any of my Mac, Windows or Linux computers from home.

A little ingenuity, creativity and a fast internet connection make up for the lack of a true filesystem and other "shortcomings" (for lack of a better term) or limitations of the iPad... however, I feel that the iPad has neither "shortcomings" nor limitations at all.
 
The one thing I _really_ don't get is that they don't push the use of MobileMe more. I'd love to be able to open and save RTF and Pages documents. Wouldn't need a file system other than that one.
 
Can't you get Pages on your iPad?
And if you download the iDisk app you can open, edit and save Pages documents.

Isn't that possible?
 
While you can open word processing documents with Pages from your iDisk (or Dropbox, etc.), you cannot "save" them back into your iDisk.

Pages and Numbers for the iPad have limited export capabilities. You can share documents via the iWork cloud-based service, or email them via Mail. You cannot, as far as I know, open a document from your iDisk, modify it, then save it back to your iDisk.

Essentially, once a document is "imported" into Pages or Numbers for the iPad, it's stuck there and is relegated to being "exported" in whatever export formats/methods those programs support (usually iWork and email).
 
ElDiabloConCaca said:
While you can open word processing documents with Pages from your iDisk (or Dropbox, etc.), you cannot "save" them back into your iDisk.
Click to expand...

That is really a major flaw in the iOS system, because why bother having iWork on your iPad if you can't even save your work back to your iDisk/dropbox or wherever.
 
It's not a major flaw (at least in my opinion), because it's not something that's inherently broken. It just requires a creative workaround.

I understand that true, collaborative editing can't take place with the iPad... yet. You can work around it, but you would be creating multiple copies of the document as collaborative (or sequential) editing took place -- your coworker writes a document and puts in on iDisk. You download from iDisk on your iPad and edit with Pages. You then send the edited document back to the co-worker via the "Mail" export function, who edits it again, and sticks it back on iDisk. You download... ad infinitum.

So, not "flawed," but definitely "kludgy" at the moment.
 
I haven't seen much from Apple in the way of marketing directly toward business -- while I've heard a lot of anecdotes and some interest from the business sector, I have yet to see a TV spot specifically aiming the iPad toward business use.

Apple does have a little page on business use:

http://www.apple.com/ipad/business/

It mainly focuses on Exchange compatibility and calendaring/contacts. There is a small blurb about the iWork suite on that page -- so I do understand where you're coming from.

Is the iPad's iWork suite the end-all, be-all of business productivity on the iPad? Not yet -- but what alternative is there at this point in time? Everything has growing pains, methinks.
 
I may be a little slow on the band wagon here but I have no problem opening pages, getting the document I want from iDisk, editing and sending it right back to iDisk with edits intact.
 
On the iPad? Oh, yeah, they changed that with some update. Nice. (Works only with documents saved in iWork '09, though. Older documents need not apply.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top