Countdown: Apple Tablet- What is it? Will you want it? - Page 7

This is specifically in regard to e-book as content. He's arguing that no one will pay $300 for a digital copy of a book.

So? Does Apple owe you anything?

I applaud your devotion to a cynical opportunistic company with a stated track record of under-performance and questionable preparedness upon market entry.

To be able to twist such malevolent practices into something noble and praise-worthy requires more moral and intellectual flexibility than most people see in the non-psychopathic.

So lucky we are.

No, Apple doesn't owe us anything, but there's a barely hidden arrogance about them.

Yeah, Nelson the iWhore, I was talking about the fact that no one will pay 300 dollars for a digital copy of a textbook that they can delete at any time, that you don't even own, just the licencing to, that you can't resell or share with somebody, or any of the many other things you can do with an actual textbook at that price.

Although I've heard that the iPad will in fact offer textbooks, but I haven't been following it too closely, and I haven't heard for which publishers and which subjects.

Devotion? How is understanding what Apple is doing and acknowledging that its a smart business decision devotion?

Again you call it malevolent, but the iPad is completely non-essential. If you don't buy one, you are missing absolutely nothing. Sorry that Santa ruined Tech-Christmas by taking a dump in your digital stocking.

"Does Apple owe you anything?"

Love this attitude. It's the "They're doing you a FAVOR" attitude. Utterly bonkers. You don't have this attitude about any other consumer good.

Of course they do. Just like anyone selling a product or providing a service. They owe us their best effort. This is just lazy.

Don't you get it? Their market surveys indicate people want lazy products! It's GOOD BUSINESS SENSE to half ass it!

It's not a "doing us a favor" attitude. It's they offering a completely non-essential item, take it or leave it. It's completely neutral.

There's zero innovation in this product, it's just a big iPod Touch. You can't use it to do work because it doesn't have multi-tasking, it's a poor e-book reader because it has a standard, eye-straining LCD display and you get gimped internet surfing because it doesn't support Flash. The people I can see really falling for it are Starbucks hipsters who want something to replace their MacBook Air with.

The only selling point seems to be that you can watch up to five movies in a large screen, non-stop, during a long flight.

The mere fact that they have to sell it as a "magical" and "revolutionary", instead of letting the damn thing speak for itself is revealing.

I understand Jobs' reasoning for many of the design and software decisions, I just have big problems with them.

The iPad is basically an excuse for the existence of the iPad-only apps store. Only I don't think the gold rush will be as big, this time.

-The iTunes/iBook "walled garden" ecosystem is GREAT - for Apple. For now. I don't see these things lasting for another decade though, because it's a bad deal for consumers. On a phone, we put up with it because it's convenient, and we don't want some app to crash our phone at a critical time. On a mobile computing device...not so much.
-Making this such a closed off, port free device with a phone OS on it just plain sucks. It should have been timed to release with a new touch-capable version of OS X. Call it OS X-Mobile, OS X-Touch, or whatever. Multitasking, access to the filesystem/finder, motherfucking FLASH, the ability to be a freestanding device - this should all be in there from the start. It should basically have all of the functionality of a laptop or netbook in a tablet/touch screen form factor. (And after typing that sentence, I begin to see a little bit of why it doesn't do all of that: Apple's not ready to kill their own laptops. Yet.)
-Ports. Give us at least a USB port. It's 2010. Christ.

The thing about it being a poor e-book reader though...I look at my LCD monitor and my tiny LCD iPhone for HOURS on end. I'm used to reading for long periods on LCD screens, it doesn't bug me or strain my eyes at all.

Don't believe the hype. Apple's battery claims are always suspect. This thing will get six hours TOPS. And since you can't trade out the battery, you'll only see diminishing returns over time.

I know, it was more of a snarky remark. You can buy a netbook and an extra battery anyway.

Apple has stabbed itself in the foot with the iPad. The only thing they've proven is that Chrome OS tablets can really take off, as long as Google gives you unlimited data for $30 or less per month.

By the way, e-ink is really that much better for reading. Not to mention that it's next to impossible to read an LCD screen outside in sunlight.

Why do you think that a file system is a plus? That's something I'd love to go away. The freestanding thing is resolved with the right case, you just don't have to buy it if you don't want it.

I wish it had mesh based iTunes syncing (if Apple could make their Time Capsule a seamless Windows Home Server-esque data collection/storage device or PC/Mac running iTunes) but besides that and a slightly improved multi-tasking capability it's very close to being everything I'd need out of a non-business tablet.

I just don't care enough about Flash besides embedded Flash video. And HTML5 should help make Flash video go away.

Embedded Flash video is why people are complaining. This is supposed to be an internet machine, but it can't show you a good portion of the best content on the internet.

And I don't NEED access to the file system, but it's nice to have. You wouldn't buy a car that had the hood fused shut so you could never access the engine, would you?

IE more money in Apple's pockets

Yeah, Apple sells one but there will also be approximately 8-billion cases for this thing. And if you don't need that functionality then you save money.



To say this is a huge flaw is just being contrary.

As a pale person of Irish/Scottish descent who, at 36, has already had one melanoma removed, I both fear and loathe the sun, so glare is not an issue. Most of my reading occurs in bed, at night. I acknowledge I'm not exactly the target market, though.

Question born of real ignorance: why is Chrome better suited for a tablet? My impression was that it was basically a cloud OS, and that it's not designed for touch. Outside of offering flash support, what advantages would chrome offer that the iPad does not? It certainly can't compete on the applications front.

You really think Apple will give HTML5 a high priority, or even provide first class support for it?

You know that HTML 5 is more than video right? It enables rich web apps (like Google Wave) to run in the browser without a plugin (Flash/Flex, Silverlight, JavaFX). Since Apple doesn't want you to use rich web applications (for free) online, I wouldn't hold my breath on great support for the latest and greatest from HTML 5.

Yes, but you also don't seem to realize that Apple needs to come up with a solution for streaming video on websites if it wants to remain competitive in the iPad/tablet browsing scene. Native handling of embedded video is definitely something that I expect would be within the range of what Apple would be willing to accommodate.

Will it support the <video> tag and also allow you to overlay HTML and SVG elements on top of the video while allowing you to control it via the Javascript API (ex: custom playback controls)?(ex: works in Mozilla/Firefox). Again, I wouldn't hold my breath for first class support in this area as user experience takes a back seat to vendor lock-in.

Ironically, it looks like I may be doing some work on an iPad soon :-)

Well, I'd argue that it's pretty clear that HTML5 doesn't provide quite as rich of an experience as a native app does. And that especially with multi-touch and touch gestures that aren't even a factor in the HTML5 spec I don't think Apple will feel all that threatened.

Also, if you look at how well Safari/Web Kit does with HTML specs so far I'd argue that there is a good foundation and history to build on for going forward.

Standards as they are now have been good enough for Google to circumvent the stupid decision by Apple to remove the application from their store. So, yeah I think they see these things as a threat, you think they're happy people are finding ways around their app store?

And that's the problem with Apple, their closed nature work for them when they had a niche computer business, but now that they have had better luck with other devices, their paranoia is going to cost them users if they keep blocking functionality and applications that people want.

BTW, I didn't say HTML 5 as specified replaces the need for a "native" app, but a HUGE number (way more than half) of the apps in the AppStore could be easily replicated with basic web applications and no need to access them via their proprietary store.

As always, different tools for different jobs.

Let the games begin.

I've actually heard that it doesn't work that great and it'd work a lot better if it were actually an app. As fro people making Google calls on it, I don't think Apple really cares except where they have to to keep their partner giving them lots of cash for the exclusivity.

I hope this will work out well for the consumer. I really, really don't wish to see Apple become the Walmart of technology, dominating over the competition and limiting our choices in the process.

What does this mean for the Kindle iPhone app?

This paragraph makes no sense whatsoever.

I read yesterday that MSI is releasing an iPad-type tablet using the Google OS. Which means that yes, it will work with Flash.

First, Amazon’s already capitulated, but to continue, imagine a supply chain that goes Author > Publisher > Wholesaler > Bookstore. Currently, Amazon acts as wholesaler and bookstore, treats these two functions separately, and demands the percentage that would normally go to both (they were taking up to 70% of each book sold). Apple has, basically, gone to every publisher and offered a flat rate of 30%, allowing the author & publisher to take far more in return and upending Amazon’s bottom line.

To counter this, Amazon has offered a similar cut to authors & publishers, but demands far more in return than Apple for it. Basically, publishers must give up the right to sell their libraries for less on any competitor's store, and give up their eBook licensing rights to Amazon directly.

If anything, Apple’s foray into this market has already set the ground work towards cheaper eBooks for everyone, as it establishes a viable competitor to Amazon.

As for the iPad itself, I imagine Apple is betting that the “open” personal computer’s time is coming to an end, and making a play for the task based computing “appliance” market that people have been predicting for at least a decade. Time will tell if they’ve jumped the gun, but I can’t count the number of people I’ve seen replace their basic computing functions with an iPod Touch.

Arguments for technologies like Flash or USB miss the point, as it’s not about interfaces or technologies, but uses. “Consumers” aren’t looking for USB ports, they’re looking for ways to get their pictures off of their camera. They don’t know what Flash is, they just want to stream video. The question isn’t whether or not Apple will capitulate in version 2.0 on either of these fronts, as they’re philosophically opposed to them both, it’s whether they’ve produced a product that does enough for parents to buy it for their kids.

Because for the first time in practically forever, overall Flash use is dropping, and most major sites are building content for these mobile devices rather than simply ignoring them. If iPads are hard to come by this fall, it’ll be more than YouTube, Vimeo, UStream & Stickam switching to h.264, and as a web developer, I hope to God they are.

It's worth mentioning that Steve Jobs gave major support to html5 over flash during the apple town hall the other day.

Apple, Google, Nokia & Palm are all pushing HTML5, and along with Microsoft, have zero interest in prolonging Flash’s business model.

An interesting blog post about Flash and the iPad.

It basically argues that the success of the iPad may kill Flash the way that Firefox's success forced the adoption of web open standards in the face of IE's then-dominance. I've also heard the analogy of the original Mac iBooks helping to kill floppy drives by virtue of eschewing them.

I dunno. Maybe?

But it’s not just the iPad, it’s the iPad, the iPhone & the iPod Touch. We’re talking about something close to a hundred million mobile devices out there that can view h.264 video and not Flash, and whether or not the iPad succeeds or fails, that number will only grow.

The good news about the iPad is that it’ll make h.264 video a more compelling distribution format, but it wont kill Flash, it’ll simply continue it’s inevitable decline.

The problem is that this is hardly a unified front. As Palm, Nokia and Google are pushing HTML5, they are also clamoring for mobile Flash 10.1 on their devices, and are working with Adobe feverishly to get betas on WebOS and Android ASAP. Symbian will come later this year.

And I think smartphones, moreso than tablets, will be the computing platform going forward. Adobe's got a shit of a lot of heavyweights involved with that Open Screen project, so I don't see Flash dying off soon.

Meanwhile, Microsoft is going to continue to push Silverlight.

HTML5 will continue to become more prevalent, but this makes almost no difference to the robustness of the first and probably second generations of the iPad. They'll be crippled in more than a few ways.

Dying off soon is a bit strong, but it’s certainly in decline, and I don’t believe that to be a minor blip. Developers don’t follow features, they follow the market, and Apple will not support Flash.

If you want a kick-ass Android, iPhone or WebOS application, you go native. If you want an appplication that’ll work on everything, you go HTML5, as every one of those platforms come with a WebKit based browser.

Flash’s only claim to fame was ubiquity, and until iPhone OS devices are rendered irrelevant, it will never have that on mobile devices.

Huh ... they do this for every single piece of popular hardware (like the XBOX, PS3, etc). It's not like they're picking on Apple, geez ...

Not the best examples. The Wii is currently the only console that turns a profit just on the console. The three console manufactures rely on accessories and software more than anything else. So yeah, $130 for a 120 GB HDD.

As for Apple, this probably isn't all that surprising. I'd imagine the gaps between manufacturing cost and retail price for the iPod or iPhone are about as similar.

iSuppli doesn’t even know what the components for the iPad actually are, so it’s pretty amusing to see them come up with a price in the first place, let alone one so precise.

And they are always just hardware prices. Even though there aren't a ton of obvious changes for the iPad vs. iPhone there were still probably a ton of hours of software development that went into it.