Sounds like they scrapped the built-in camera idea as an after thought. Perhaps they were trying to keep costs down, or make the Jan 27th deadline. It should be on the next version, I would guess.
I don't think it's a matter of not liking the iPad's design and features... it's the LACK of features that are turning people off.
I totally want one of these, once it has:
-a 16x9 1280x720 screen
-a built in SD slot
-a built in webcam
-IR and RF capabilities, so that in conjunction with it's bluetooth and a sweet app from someone like Logitech I can use it as a crazy awesome universal remote.
-software that supports multitasking, flash and VOIP.
-a quality DJing program has been written for it.
Originally posted Tuesday, February 2, 2010 (2 years ago)
Quote all the things the iPad already is
Yes, lets see now...the iPad already is:
A crappy web browser
A crappy email client
A decent photo viewer
A crappy video player
A decent music player
A horrid game system
A decent ebook reader
What really makes the iPad great however, is that it's the perfect size to rest your laptop on.
Originally posted Wednesday, February 3, 2010 (2 years ago)
Interesting Slate article discussing the iPad's inability to handle Flash. Apparently Jobs thinks Flash is responsible for about 1/3 of the crashes of Mac OS.
And the way Apple/Jobs responds is intriguing. Instead of making a better product that people will naturally like more then Flash, they've decided to try and kick Flash into a ditch without any realistic replacement.
Of course, maybe they learned their lesson with the epic fail that is Quicktime and have decided that they don't actually have the talent to write a better alternative.
Originally posted Wednesday, February 3, 2010 (2 years ago)
What would a "better product" be? Yet another incompatible flash-sort-of-thing like Silverlight? Do we really need three of these things or can we wake up and put this stuff in the wen standards like Apple is striving to do? Web developers all seem to want to ditch flash, they're just waiting patiently for HTML 5 to get off the pot. Using the iPhone and iPad's market muscle to make end-users switch to standards like HTML5 over flash is the "better product" as far as I can tell.
I would imagine if Apple wanted Flash, they would probably be better off taking Gnash and bringing it up to feature parity with Flash than to try to convince Adobe to make an iPhone/Pad port of Flash not suck. The Flash codebase is, apparently, kind of a steaming pile.
Quoted from mrz Web developers all seem to want to ditch flash, they're just waiting patiently for HTML 5 to get off the pot. Using the iPhone and iPad's market muscle to make end-users switch to standards like HTML5 over flash is the "better product" as far as I can tell.
The "waiting patiently" issue is the key. I read a thoughtful blog post recently about this Flash controversy that made an excellent point. Open standards are all well and good, but they take forever to get settled. There are still no standards in HTML5 for how to handle video, and different browsers handle it differently. Flash, with all its flaws, runs consistently on all browsers that support it. No need for coders to create different versions to run on different browsers. And it can evolve more quickly since Adobe can make determinations about it. No need for the governing body to arrive at consensus.
So, I think even if the momentum switches to HTML 5, Flash is still going to be around for a long time. And there are things that Flash does well that HTML 5 can't do. It's going to take time to hammer out the standards, for developers to start using it, and for sites to make conversions. Sudden switches in technology don't happen quickly, and legacy technologies linger much longer than we think.
So, I still think by totally leaving out Flash, Apple is doing customers a disservice. How hard would it be to put a quick button on Safari for enabling/disabling the Flash plugin, or for having a window pop up to confirm you want to run a Flash widget ?
Really, I think it's all about protecting the Apple's app and video selling business.
The video issue has more to do with supported codecs in browsers. Everybody except Firefox is basically happy to use H.264. I would suggest the solution here is a plugin that adds H.264 support to Firefox. Done.
The other big problem with HTML5, beyond standards, is a good development environment that everybody can agree on. But these things are coming. With the right dev tool, HTML5 development may explode. Maybe Apple is working on such a tool? Who knows.
In the end, though, I think it's clear that Apple wants Flash dead. They will use their market clout to do this. If you listen to devs, they will tell you that sites for things like restaurants that used to be flash heavy are desperately asking to be made standards compliant so people can see their sites on the iPhone. So the conversions are already starting to happen.
So I think Apple is taking the position that while users may be inconvenienced in the short term, they will be better off in the long term...and they'll ameliorate this slightly in the short term by offering things like the YouTube App, etc.
Now, as to why Apple wants to kill flash, I'm sure protecting the business model is part of it, though, I still don't think it's to the degree that you seem to think. After all, if HTML5 takes off, video players will work in Safari, undercutting Apple's video business through iTunes. So, either way, Apple loses on this front. So I have to conclude the problem is something else, like Flash being a hog/pile-of-junk, to Steve simply having a personal hate of Flash ruining the "pure Mac experience" or whatever.
Also, looks like Adobe is aware of the threat HTML 5 is to Flash. Thus, you see them coming out with the tool that allows developers to convert flash programs into native iPhone apps. There's talk that they will create a development tool for HTML 5 or built it into one of their existing tools. Their business after all is selling these tools, since they give Flashplayer away.
I agree. Steve Jobs doesn't like Flash and wants to kill it. It is a CPU hog, it is buggy on the Mac (but Apple could help Adobe improve it if it wanted to, but it doesn't). Jobs is throwing his weight around. But we forget that IPhones still probably constitute less than 2% of devices accessing the Web. There are something like 1.5 billion computers running machines whose browsers can support Flash. Only something like 50 million iphones/itouches out there. Yes the iphone has a disproportionate influence and mindshare, but most of the web is not going to be designed with the iphone in mind.
So, I still say leaving Flash out of iPad is doing consumers a disservice.
Finally, Flash is used for lots of things other than video streaming. Most animations on the web, banner ads, and webapps. Lots of corporate web apps are designed using it. And ironically, Conde Nast's magazine viewing program which would have made a lot of sense running on an iPad was built using Flash.
Originally posted Wednesday, February 3, 2010 (2 years ago)
If Apple really thinks HTML5 is going to be the replacement for Flash, they need to put into HTML5 that Adobe has into Flash, most especially on the dev tool side (but browser support is critical too).
When I said Apple needs to write something better, HTML5 is just fine if that's the route they want to take. But to try and kick Flash into a ditch while effectively not lifting a finger for HTML5...isn't going to get them far I think. Where are the fantastic HTML5 dev tools from Apple?!?!
Everyone knows mobile browsing is the next big thing. Anyone that didn't get around to building a mobile site before is scrambling now. Heck, the company I work for just launched our mobile version minutes ago. Will Flash be a part of this movement? Who knows. Adobe is a very smart company that has always been great at remaining relevant and typically dominate. Apple on the other hand, has always had trouble even just remaining relevant and has only ever been dominate with the iPod. Even the iPhone, as significant as it is, doesn't dominate anything but headlines. The iPad sure as hell will never dominate anything, at best it's the very embodiment of niche.
And of course there's the fact Adobe's software quality has always been wildly better then Apple's.
I'll bet on Adobe over Apple any day, there's just no contest.
Seriously, 7 years of technological advancement...a device billed as a revolutionary step forward...in most every way is the better part of a decade behind the times. The only reason this thing is getting anything more then a two line post on some obscure gadget blog is because Apple's name is on the back of it.
Every single item on the iPad's feature list is so badly implemented it needs a paragraph of excuses just to try and make it passable, and still comes up short. Even the most die-hard Apple apologists are having a hard time backing this turd.
Not only does the iPad lack a killer app, no app it does have even makes par with the current state of the art. Job's entire premise is that the iPad must do a number of key things better then anything else available and he listed off what they need to be. And to every single task he himself listed, he himself demanded the iPad must do better then anything else can do it...the iPad doesn't even make par. On most it doesn't even make it onto the green.
At least the iPhone's excuse for not making par was valid: So what, it can fit in your pocket.
I think we get that it doesn't do what you want it to do, especially the way you want it to do it... and it certainly doesn't do much of what I want it to do, yet... but for Joe Blow I think it does a lot, even in it current form. So, good luck with your preachin', but everyone's going to keep on sinnin'.
Originally posted Thursday, February 4, 2010 (2 years ago)
My prediction, and I say this with a heavy heart, is that in his late years, Zenin will end up an angry old man in a diner, yelling and ranting at the world. Can an intervention save him from this fate or is it too late?
CPU -- straight GHZ to GHZ between CPUs are meaningless, given different designs, architectures, etc... I think in 03 it'd have been some pentium (M?) that now would be absolutely blown away by the iPad cpu.
HDD -- iPad uses a flash drive. While I don't have details on the tc1100, you'd have to guess that in 03 it was using a standard hard drive(or was outrageously expensive).
Sound -- silly. Who knows how they actually compare until you hear them?
USB -- the iPad's lack of USB annoys me as well, but Apple's modus operandi (and key to success) is to simplify and keep "features" to a minimum -- most of the target audience isn't going to care.
SD Card / PC Card / Video out / etc... -- wat? Keep in mind that the pic is actually unfair because the tc1000 was attached to a standard laptop body; you could simply remove the screen portion. So all this junk that comes standard with a laptop; sure, the iPad doesn't have it, but so what? See above.
Here's a better comparison:
iPad -- HP tc1100
OS: iPhone based -- windows = fail
Speed: fast (according to all reviews) -- windows running on a pentium = fail
Mail client: enhanced iphone mail -- what, outlook express??? fail
Web client: safari -- IE 5.0? GMAFB
design elegance: win -- miserable fail
etc... etc... you can cherry pick any stats you want. The ones in the photo aren't even honest.
I wasn't going to bother, but since you started it, I'll continue, haha
$499 vs. $1799 base price
flash memory vs. 4200rpm platters
10 hours vs. 2.5 hours
1.5 pounds vs. 3.1 pounds
LED IPS screen vs. TFT display
multitouch vs. pen
a/b/g/n vs. a/b/g
3G option vs. what's that?
just about the right size vs. too big and bulky
sexy vs. ugly
The speaker comparison is hilarious. Like it makes a difference if you have one crappy speaker vs. two crappy speakers within inches of each other.
Other interesting false statements in the picture are that the iPad has no video out and no headphone jack.
So really, the only thing the HP HT 1100 has going for it are a couple USB ports and a built in SD Card reader.
Originally posted Thursday, February 4, 2010 (2 years ago)
I think I'm starting to see the benefits of having the iPad on the market.
Really it's not a lot different then the state lottery, heck it's even better. The lottery only taxes the stupid, while the iPad will tax the stupid AND the rich. It's a win-win, a great job creator when we could really use it, and especially fitting given Steve's last name is Jobs.
Apple's IPad Tablet Announcement?
It should be today. I'm really curious. Here is a leaked video of it. First Apple Tablet Review Get Live Updates Here
Page(s): < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... Next > (236 items total)
You can pay me $50 to not have to buy the iPad. It's a downright bargain! PM me for details.
Are you sure? Did Steve Jobs say so?
Expect a camera on the next revision:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/02/apple-ipad-rumor-roundup-abraham-zapruder-edition/
Sounds like they scrapped the built-in camera idea as an after thought. Perhaps they were trying to keep costs down, or make the Jan 27th deadline. It should be on the next version, I would guess.
$499. Checks payable to me.
Do I still have to use AT&T?
I don't think it's a matter of not liking the iPad's design and features... it's the LACK of features that are turning people off.
I totally want one of these, once it has: -a 16x9 1280x720 screen -a built in SD slot -a built in webcam -IR and RF capabilities, so that in conjunction with it's bluetooth and a sweet app from someone like Logitech I can use it as a crazy awesome universal remote. -software that supports multitasking, flash and VOIP. -a quality DJing program has been written for it.
And yes, I'd pay more for such a device.
Reuben Brown - www.JiveJunction.com - Southern California
Reuben - Lenovo X200t. shrug
You can leave AT&T for a $250 cancellation fee. Again, payable to me.
Um, no.
Reuben Brown - www.JiveJunction.com - Southern California
Why not? It does everything you asked for, except the IR transmitter.
I didn't think I needed to list all the things the iPad already is that the Lenovo isn't.
Reuben Brown - www.JiveJunction.com - Southern California
Ah. I see.
It doesn't make sandwiches either. So [bleep!]. I'm out.
Yes, lets see now...the iPad already is:
A crappy web browser A crappy email client A decent photo viewer A crappy video player A decent music player A horrid game system A decent ebook reader
What really makes the iPad great however, is that it's the perfect size to rest your laptop on.
Interesting Slate article discussing the iPad's inability to handle Flash. Apparently Jobs thinks Flash is responsible for about 1/3 of the crashes of Mac OS.
And the way Apple/Jobs responds is intriguing. Instead of making a better product that people will naturally like more then Flash, they've decided to try and kick Flash into a ditch without any realistic replacement.
Of course, maybe they learned their lesson with the epic fail that is Quicktime and have decided that they don't actually have the talent to write a better alternative.
What would a "better product" be? Yet another incompatible flash-sort-of-thing like Silverlight? Do we really need three of these things or can we wake up and put this stuff in the wen standards like Apple is striving to do? Web developers all seem to want to ditch flash, they're just waiting patiently for HTML 5 to get off the pot. Using the iPhone and iPad's market muscle to make end-users switch to standards like HTML5 over flash is the "better product" as far as I can tell.
I would imagine if Apple wanted Flash, they would probably be better off taking Gnash and bringing it up to feature parity with Flash than to try to convince Adobe to make an iPhone/Pad port of Flash not suck. The Flash codebase is, apparently, kind of a steaming pile.
If you ask Jobs, he'll say HTML5 is the replacement for Flash. Realistic? Clearly jury's still out.
The "waiting patiently" issue is the key. I read a thoughtful blog post recently about this Flash controversy that made an excellent point. Open standards are all well and good, but they take forever to get settled. There are still no standards in HTML5 for how to handle video, and different browsers handle it differently. Flash, with all its flaws, runs consistently on all browsers that support it. No need for coders to create different versions to run on different browsers. And it can evolve more quickly since Adobe can make determinations about it. No need for the governing body to arrive at consensus.
So, I think even if the momentum switches to HTML 5, Flash is still going to be around for a long time. And there are things that Flash does well that HTML 5 can't do. It's going to take time to hammer out the standards, for developers to start using it, and for sites to make conversions. Sudden switches in technology don't happen quickly, and legacy technologies linger much longer than we think.
So, I still think by totally leaving out Flash, Apple is doing customers a disservice. How hard would it be to put a quick button on Safari for enabling/disabling the Flash plugin, or for having a window pop up to confirm you want to run a Flash widget ?
Really, I think it's all about protecting the Apple's app and video selling business.
The video issue has more to do with supported codecs in browsers. Everybody except Firefox is basically happy to use H.264. I would suggest the solution here is a plugin that adds H.264 support to Firefox. Done.
The other big problem with HTML5, beyond standards, is a good development environment that everybody can agree on. But these things are coming. With the right dev tool, HTML5 development may explode. Maybe Apple is working on such a tool? Who knows.
In the end, though, I think it's clear that Apple wants Flash dead. They will use their market clout to do this. If you listen to devs, they will tell you that sites for things like restaurants that used to be flash heavy are desperately asking to be made standards compliant so people can see their sites on the iPhone. So the conversions are already starting to happen.
So I think Apple is taking the position that while users may be inconvenienced in the short term, they will be better off in the long term...and they'll ameliorate this slightly in the short term by offering things like the YouTube App, etc.
Now, as to why Apple wants to kill flash, I'm sure protecting the business model is part of it, though, I still don't think it's to the degree that you seem to think. After all, if HTML5 takes off, video players will work in Safari, undercutting Apple's video business through iTunes. So, either way, Apple loses on this front. So I have to conclude the problem is something else, like Flash being a hog/pile-of-junk, to Steve simply having a personal hate of Flash ruining the "pure Mac experience" or whatever.
Here's one of the more balanced discussions of Flash. Granted from an Adobe employee but not someone who works on the Flash team.
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/01/sympathy_for_the_devil.html
Also, looks like Adobe is aware of the threat HTML 5 is to Flash. Thus, you see them coming out with the tool that allows developers to convert flash programs into native iPhone apps. There's talk that they will create a development tool for HTML 5 or built it into one of their existing tools. Their business after all is selling these tools, since they give Flashplayer away.
I agree. Steve Jobs doesn't like Flash and wants to kill it. It is a CPU hog, it is buggy on the Mac (but Apple could help Adobe improve it if it wanted to, but it doesn't). Jobs is throwing his weight around. But we forget that IPhones still probably constitute less than 2% of devices accessing the Web. There are something like 1.5 billion computers running machines whose browsers can support Flash. Only something like 50 million iphones/itouches out there. Yes the iphone has a disproportionate influence and mindshare, but most of the web is not going to be designed with the iphone in mind.
So, I still say leaving Flash out of iPad is doing consumers a disservice.
Finally, Flash is used for lots of things other than video streaming. Most animations on the web, banner ads, and webapps. Lots of corporate web apps are designed using it. And ironically, Conde Nast's magazine viewing program which would have made a lot of sense running on an iPad was built using Flash.
If Apple really thinks HTML5 is going to be the replacement for Flash, they need to put into HTML5 that Adobe has into Flash, most especially on the dev tool side (but browser support is critical too).
When I said Apple needs to write something better, HTML5 is just fine if that's the route they want to take. But to try and kick Flash into a ditch while effectively not lifting a finger for HTML5...isn't going to get them far I think. Where are the fantastic HTML5 dev tools from Apple?!?!
Everyone knows mobile browsing is the next big thing. Anyone that didn't get around to building a mobile site before is scrambling now. Heck, the company I work for just launched our mobile version minutes ago. Will Flash be a part of this movement? Who knows. Adobe is a very smart company that has always been great at remaining relevant and typically dominate. Apple on the other hand, has always had trouble even just remaining relevant and has only ever been dominate with the iPod. Even the iPhone, as significant as it is, doesn't dominate anything but headlines. The iPad sure as hell will never dominate anything, at best it's the very embodiment of niche.
And of course there's the fact Adobe's software quality has always been wildly better then Apple's.
I'll bet on Adobe over Apple any day, there's just no contest.
That's a retarded comparison... I hope it was meant as a joke.
Reuben Brown - www.JiveJunction.com - Southern California
Yes, the iPad is a joke.
Seriously, 7 years of technological advancement...a device billed as a revolutionary step forward...in most every way is the better part of a decade behind the times. The only reason this thing is getting anything more then a two line post on some obscure gadget blog is because Apple's name is on the back of it.
Every single item on the iPad's feature list is so badly implemented it needs a paragraph of excuses just to try and make it passable, and still comes up short. Even the most die-hard Apple apologists are having a hard time backing this turd.
Not only does the iPad lack a killer app, no app it does have even makes par with the current state of the art. Job's entire premise is that the iPad must do a number of key things better then anything else available and he listed off what they need to be. And to every single task he himself listed, he himself demanded the iPad must do better then anything else can do it...the iPad doesn't even make par. On most it doesn't even make it onto the green.
At least the iPhone's excuse for not making par was valid: So what, it can fit in your pocket.
I think we get that it doesn't do what you want it to do, especially the way you want it to do it... and it certainly doesn't do much of what I want it to do, yet... but for Joe Blow I think it does a lot, even in it current form. So, good luck with your preachin', but everyone's going to keep on sinnin'.
Reuben Brown - www.JiveJunction.com - Southern California
My prediction, and I say this with a heavy heart, is that in his late years, Zenin will end up an angry old man in a diner, yelling and ranting at the world. Can an intervention save him from this fate or is it too late?
This picture is full of win!
This picture is so retarded it's not even funny:
CPU -- straight GHZ to GHZ between CPUs are meaningless, given different designs, architectures, etc... I think in 03 it'd have been some pentium (M?) that now would be absolutely blown away by the iPad cpu.
HDD -- iPad uses a flash drive. While I don't have details on the tc1100, you'd have to guess that in 03 it was using a standard hard drive(or was outrageously expensive).
Sound -- silly. Who knows how they actually compare until you hear them?
USB -- the iPad's lack of USB annoys me as well, but Apple's modus operandi (and key to success) is to simplify and keep "features" to a minimum -- most of the target audience isn't going to care.
SD Card / PC Card / Video out / etc... -- wat? Keep in mind that the pic is actually unfair because the tc1000 was attached to a standard laptop body; you could simply remove the screen portion. So all this junk that comes standard with a laptop; sure, the iPad doesn't have it, but so what? See above.
Here's a better comparison:
iPad -- HP tc1100 OS: iPhone based -- windows = fail Speed: fast (according to all reviews) -- windows running on a pentium = fail Mail client: enhanced iphone mail -- what, outlook express??? fail Web client: safari -- IE 5.0? GMAFB design elegance: win -- miserable fail
etc... etc... you can cherry pick any stats you want. The ones in the photo aren't even honest.
I wasn't going to bother, but since you started it, I'll continue, haha
$499 vs. $1799 base price flash memory vs. 4200rpm platters 10 hours vs. 2.5 hours 1.5 pounds vs. 3.1 pounds LED IPS screen vs. TFT display multitouch vs. pen a/b/g/n vs. a/b/g 3G option vs. what's that? just about the right size vs. too big and bulky sexy vs. ugly
The speaker comparison is hilarious. Like it makes a difference if you have one crappy speaker vs. two crappy speakers within inches of each other.
Other interesting false statements in the picture are that the iPad has no video out and no headphone jack.
So really, the only thing the HP HT 1100 has going for it are a couple USB ports and a built in SD Card reader.
Reuben Brown - www.JiveJunction.com - Southern California
I think I'm starting to see the benefits of having the iPad on the market.
Really it's not a lot different then the state lottery, heck it's even better. The lottery only taxes the stupid, while the iPad will tax the stupid AND the rich. It's a win-win, a great job creator when we could really use it, and especially fitting given Steve's last name is Jobs.
Go iPad!!
Page(s): < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... Next > (236 items total)
BBCode is no longer supported. Use Markdown instead: