The iPad - Page 6

2016, I would imagine.

ETA: Whoops, sorry. Thought I was in the politics forum.

Maybe you guys should hold out for the iPad shuffle.

Oh my goodness... You mean that first gen expensive shitty 3D tvs that need glasses are not a hot item? Well surely this means that in the future home entertainment won't be in 3D. LOL

Gimmick? Does anyone honestly believe that? It's embarrassing to hear people talk the way. The future of entertainment is more immersion, not less. 2D now, 2D forever? In what universe does that seem likely to you?

If the tablet were designed solely for entertainment, you'd have a point (though a weak one at best). But how many uses of the tablet would 3D really be an advantage for? I don't need text jumping off the screen when I'm reading a book.

When the revolution comes, Greg, you will be the first against the wall.

Sorry, disagree. You can't compare 3D movies to 3D TV/computing/in the home. Will 3D in some form become the norm in personal computing and home "entertainment". Most likely. But that is going to take huge leaps of evolution from where the tech is today. I'm not saying 2D forever, that's silly. I am saying that the current version of 3D (glasses, mediocre immersion at best, a silly gimmick most of the time) is stupid and thinking an iPAD will adopt it any time in the near future is ridiculous.

And if you followed home theater/entertainment sales you would know that 3D outside the theater has been a huge disappointment and most TV manufactuerers are shitting bricks over it. It's all because they rushed it out and pushed it hard to make up for lost sales that have been decreasing since most consumers already bought their first HDTV and don't need to replace it. Sorry, but people don't want 3D (in its current state) at home and TV/BR manufacturers were dumb as shit to think that. Sorry, thread hijack complete.

Back on topic, from a CNN article posted today on the new iPad:

Apple's loose-lipped overseas partners are exchanging whispers about the next-generation iPad, claiming it will come in three different versions, one of which would work with Verizon's network.

The iPad 2 will support three different wireless configurations: UMTS, CDMA and Wi-Fi only, according to "industry sources quoted by DigiTimes" citing component makers.

That's up from the two versions Apple currently offers: UMTS plus Wi-Fi, and Wi-Fi only.

To explicate the alphabet soup, UMTS is the standard used by major 3G carriers such as AT&T and T-Mobile, while CDMA is compatible with Verizon and Sprint networks.

I think you're confused. I never said an iPad would adopt shitty 3D. I specifically said Jobs would want glasses free tech, which another Chewer said APPLE has been working on and has already perfected. Then you came in and said that because shitty 3D tvs are not selling well, to expect APPLE to do a 3D computer was unlikely

My post then in reply to your first one was replying to what I took to be a statement that home entertainment wasn't destined for 3D because the public had rejected it as a "gimmick". I thought you were attacking 3D. Of course all TV ETC in the future will be 3D within the next 15 years, but no, you're right that the future is not shitty gimmick TVs which no one wants

Anyway, glad we cleared that up

EDIT: I have to admire Patrick's Revolutionary spirit!

From reading the tech blogs, it seems Apple is taking this whole 3d thing seriously. They've been filing quite a few patents for 3d devices lately.

And this glasses free 3d that Apple developed is supposed to be a big deal. Its also better than 3d, more like holograms. You can actually walk around the objects in an image, whereas in regular 3d, the image just follows you.

I'm pretty mixed on 3d, but it's mainly due to the fact I don't think the tech is good enough. And anyways, this is all far off. Although, I did read they've already got 3 different movies working with the tech, one of them was Legends of the Guardian. So maybe not that far off. But man, Apple is always up to something.

And rest assured that once the technology is ready for the public, you will see none of that dirty, dirty homosexual content on it.

Using the Ipad too much does strain my eyes.  Whereas a laptop is far less harsh on my eyes.  Actually I don't think I've ever suffered eye stains.  The Ipad obviously forces one to be closer to the screen since it's the control input.  That small distance of extra seperation from the screen when using a lap top, makes a surprising difference.  I was using my ipad in place of the laptop more and more, so I was spending quite a bit of time on it.  But not so much for now.

 

Edited:  No problems with my eyes at all for a long time now.  I think I was actually just sick, and was very sensitive to light!!!!

Edited by Nabster - 1/17/11 at 4:00pm

So Hugh Hefner announced that there will be an uncensored Playboy app for the iPad available in March. I highly doubt that it will actually happen. There wont even be any discussion at Apple of whether to approve it or not. It will automatically be denied.

There's several way this could happen- it could be shepherded in among a new paradigm of subscription services. They could also be planning some kind of rock & roll web interface or something.

Yep, web interface. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/01/19/playboy-ipad-app-apple-porn/

Just downloaded and installed the Talkatone app (initially designed for iphones/itouches. Works just fine on the ipad which is great for conference calling folk back in Canada (while being able to type notes on my pc/laptop)...don't know if it's multitaskable, should try that later.

App works great, it uses google voice, and calls sound pretty damn clear. Love it.

Holy shit, that Motorola Xoom is supposed be $800.  Jeez, I can get a pretty good fucking laptop for that.  And isn't the Mac Air a grand?

Yeah.  In the tablet category, Apple is ironically the budget option.  The same component buying muscle that they used in iPods to drive down the price over time they're using here.  No one can buy flash memory as cheaply as they can.  No one can buy LCDs as cheaply as they can.  Cause they buy in BULK, securing contracts with manufacturers that not only get them better volume pricing, but also a lock on supply.

 

It will be interesting to see what happens with iPad 2.0.  If the most oft-repeated and reasonable rumors are correct, and it's primarily a spec bump [processor, ram] with a better display but not 2x the resolution [which, hey, would be awesome; but probably not until next year], with the exception of the forward and rear facing cameras- then I'm starting to wonder if we might see a price drop.  Apple could really undercut the market if they were to make the entry level iPad available for $449.  The other option, of course, is that they'll hold prices on the iPad 2, and offer the existing model in some configuration for less, like they do with the iPhone.  I don't think you'd see half price like the $199 iPhone4 vs the $49 iPhone3GS- those are in large part possible due to the subsidized price.  But maybe $100 less for a 16GB iPad 1?  $399 puts it into a whole new category of affordability.  And there's probably quite a few people who could care less about the hardware feature of cameras.

What is up with the crazy iTunes subscription news though.  I can't believe that Apple thinks that anything you sell anywhere else, they deserve a 30% cut of if you buy in iTunes, even if you're not buying it from them. And that they don't just let you mark it up the 30% for their ridiculous take, it has to be the same price or less than when they're not taking 30%.

I mean, I've been patiently waiting for the iPad 2 but the fact that they rejected the Sony Reader app the way they did and now this whole new requirement ... just straight up garbage. Are they trying to get everyone who likes their app store to jump ship to Android?

That's not what they're saying.  You can buy subscriptions from outside of iTunes for these services, and if you do, Apple gets NOTHING [like my subscription to Netflix, which I bought from Netflix's website].  BUT, if Apple has brokered the deal through iTunes [brought you the business], they want a commission.  And they don't want the customers to be gauged for that.  Sure, if Company X can make a direct sale, they make more money, but just because they make less off an iTunes sale doesn't mean it's not a business worth being in.  You can make money in volume too, and if iTunes subscriptions can open you up to 10x as many customers as you can via your own distribution, then it's worth it, isn't it?  

 

To the consumer this should be invisible.

 

Google take 30% of their appStore sales too, and they don't deal in subscriptions yet, so there's no sure way to know how they'll deal with it.

 

EDITED TO ADD-

 

You think Nike makes the same money off a shoe if you buy it at a Nike store as a Walmart?  I don't think so.  There's a cost to doing any business, and once intermediaries are involved your profits go down.  Why is this a surprise to anyone?

It's just software.  Apple doesn't deserve to make money off it unless it goes through their service.  It's like Microsft getting a cut of anything you use on your PC.  Since Apple only delivers the main app and then all IP communication then goes through your own network, there's no reason for Apple to inject itself into the customer/business relationship.

 

Instead, if you want to buy anything with any software that runs on the iPhone, you've got to give them 30%.  That seems like it would apply to anything like Amazon, eBay, Netflix, whatever.  You can try to justify it however you want but it's crap.

It's not the same as charging to put software on a PC.  In that instance Mac/Windows are only supplying the platform and you as the developer take on all responsibility [and cost] for marketing, delivery, hosting, etc.  On the iOS platform, the appStore is providing a chunk of those services.  It's not doing nothing.  Apple has costs associated with each transaction, and if they're not charging for them- what's the point?

 

Again, Apple only receives it's 30% if they broker the subscription.  If I join Netflix through netflix.com, then Apple gets nothing from that subscription.  But if the appStore is driving the subscribers to your product, how is it "evil" to want to take a percentage for the services you provide?  And as the fastest growing software platform ever, the appStore is absolutely brining something to the table.

 

Maybe 30% is too high for some companies, but if a company can only stay in business working on razor-thin margins, then this is absolutely going to cause problems for some companies.

 

And let's not act like there's no way to do a Amazon or eBay transaction outside the appStore.  Safari's right there.

It's annoying in that Apple is forcing you to not just sell your item at its regular price + whatever they are charging.  Instead you have to sell it at the same price inside sans 30% of the revenue as outside.  So either, you jack up your prices externally to cover the 30% Apple is going to take OR you take a 30% bath inside.  Obviously you could do some additional metrics to see what your sales load is and adjust accordingly but it's all crap.

 

And all Apple does is handle the software delivery.  All inbound/outbound communication from an App after that point doesn't necessarily go through Apple.  If Apple wants to charge for software delivery, then stop giving away free apps.  If Apple FORCES you to use their crap and then charges you saying, "You're using our crap." how is that not BS?

 

I would be a lot more OK with this if Apple didn't have the requirement that you had to list stuff at the same price in the app where they take 30% as you do on outside platforms.  OR if this was only a restriction on 'free' apps but that paid apps could do this.  I just don't think that Apple deserves 30% ongoing of any subscription that you utilize on an iPhone.

 

Apple has provided a central, categorized market for apps that has netted a lot of developers a lot of money.  Placement in the Top 20 is worth a shit-ton more in revenue than what tens of thousands could possibly net you in alternative marketing.  It's not just software delivery.

 

Ask the developers of something like Angry Birds what nets them more revenue, sales off the appStore or the small sliver of revenue from built-in ads they get from Google.

 

As for pricing, what's the alternative?  Buy though the appStore for  $1.29 or come to Company X's website and buy for $.99.  What would even be the point of that for Apple?  Selling through different retailers nets you less profit than direct sales, that's a fact in every business.  If a company like Amazon wants to opt out of the appStore, they can-  and let people know they can access their service through the web on iOS devices.  But don't expect Apple to build a market, bring eyes to the market, run the market, and work to improve it- for nothing... that's crazy.

 

I'm not saying that 30% is the perfect number, but honestly... do people think that getting product to market before this was free?  If you're not paying Apple 30%, you'd be spending some amount on marketing, shipping, printing, and all the other things that go into any given business.

I don't understand why you are rationalizing it so much.  A cell phone is a computer in your pocket.  Apple doesn't deserve to get a portion of any sort of commerce you then conduct on that computer in a way that doesn't interface with their network at all. The value of a service of being able to download your app from a centralized store just isn't worth 30% of all future revenues generated by that app.

 

And what I really don't understand is WHY you think Apple SHOULD get that money.  I mean, I really, really like Apple.  I love their stuff but this is crazy.  Why would I want to pay an Apple tax on everything I do with their device?  Essentially they're telling me, the consumer, that they want me to pay 30% tithe to them to buy anything through their store.  I mean, I understand why Apple wants that money ... it's MONEY and Apple is a company and loves MONEY.  I also see they're in such a position of strength that they think they can force it on the market (and I'm kind of getting the feeling that they said 30% just to get people freaking out and are actually willing to go to a much lower percentage for the subscriptions).  I just don't understand why anyone would say, "Hmm, I want to pay an extra 30% to Apple."

Haven't you read my last couple of messages?  I totally agree that if all Apple was doing was providing the iPhone as a platform, and charging developers to use it, it would be uncalled for.  But the appStore is a service and a benefit to the developer as much as it is to the consumer.  The've built the infrastructure and the ability for developers, large and small to get their product out in front of consumers easily and effectively.  They invest in it to make it better, even building the tools that makes making programs easier [Xcode].

 

When you can do business without going though the appStore, they get nothing.  But if you're going to USE and BENEFIT from that resource, then why the fuck shouldn't they get a percentage?

Really?  Isn't it more like if Valve took a percentage of the games they hosted?  Oh, wait... they do!

I think the thing to see here is that Apple isn't charging for digital shelf space anymore, they're saying: if you want to buy anything with your app once it's downloaded it must also include the option to buy through our payment service ... where we take a 30% cut AND you can't charge a different amount than you would for your regular payment service (which would normally take about 3%).

 

I understand that the digital shelving shouldn't be free, there is real value offered by what Apple does. But that value only goes so far and is only related to getting an app, and handling distribution of bug fixes.  And it's certainly not a one-way street.  The reason that the iPhone is still popular is because of its vast collection of apps.  Apple has made BILLIONS of dollars off the the iPhone already and a significant portion of that is due to the free apps it gives away.

 

And if this action is merely to cover the overhead of app delivery, they should structure it in a way that charges based on that.  Maybe the app publisher only gets 10,000 or 100,000 downloads before they start getting charged for bandwidth or something.  But saying that after the app has been delivered, any revenue generated by that app - 30% goes to Apple?  I find it outrageous and frustrating as someone who uses their products.

Is the app store/iTunes the only place that users can get apps for their iOS devices? If so, that add to the "unfairness" of the new policy because Apple controls the only "store" so they can do whatever they want, especially to their music and book competitors.

 

There are different places to get Android apps and blackberry I believe.

I'm totally not.  I'm being completely serious.  When a developer decides to use the appStore, they're receiving benefits far beyond just a hub for downloads.  Apple is providing marketing, tech support, and an update ecosystem.  And I think partly what's driven this is that most of the apps in question are free.  So companies like Amazon have been getting all the benefits of being on the appStore and paying nothing in revenue.  Maybe 30% is too high, but there has to be a middle ground.  Whether you want to believe it or not, Apple is providing an ongoing service to every developer on the appStore.

 

You're right, it is more like closed gaming systems, which developers are finding more and more attractive as cheap fuckers willfully pirate games.  A practice that's way more prevalent on Google's "open" ecosystem.

 

 

 

 

Here's an interesting and reasonably balanced analysis of the whole Apple subscription thingy.

 

http://www.cultofmac.com/why-apple-wont-kill-print-and-google-wont-kill-apple/82534

 

For the record, I don't think that Apple's solution is perfect, but I am confused that so many people think that they're asking for 30% for nothing.  The services they're providing, and the alternative distribution parallels they replace, have REAL $ VALUE.

 

Subscription services have been getting a free ride so far.

But it still misses the point.  If Apple wants to charge for those services, they're welcome to do so.  But structuring it in a way that's unrelated to app delivery or maintenance and instead taking it out of some subscription that no one was clamoring to get them involved with is the thing.  And I'm not going to argue that it's 'unfair' because it's their platform and legally they may or may not be able to do it. I'm going to say it's crap because I don't think that the justifications that Apple has given in any way cover them getting 1/3 of the price I pay for digital items I buy through my iPhone/iPod/iPad.

 

Like I said before, it's a two way street.  I own a Sony Reader eBook reader.  One of the reasons I was going to get an iPad was because Sony had announced that they were releasing an iOS version of their software to go with the Kindle/nook apps.  Now that they've rejected that app and will be rejecting the nook/Kindle apps as well if this policy stays in place, I'll strongly consider getting one of the new Honeycomb tablets instead.  That was unthinkable to me just a week ago.

 

So yeah, if they want to do the revenue calculus and determine that the increase in money is worth the loss in interest by consumers as companies remove their products from Apple's stores so their prices can remain competitive outside the iOS ecosystem that's their choice to make and my choice to make as a consumer.  It's just one more incentive to walk away from them and into the (in my experience so far at least) less satisfying world of Android.

Well, I think we've beat this to death.

 

But I will say this.  There may be a lot of noise now, but don't be surprised if a VAST MAJORITY of those complaining stick around AND Sony resubmits (they were likely ONLY turned down because their submission to the appStore came so close to the release of 4.3 and the enforcement of these new rules).  It's the same thing that happened (and continues to happen) on iTunes.  The labels and studio's will threaten to pull their content, but it's too large a market to ignore.  Stats indicate that iOS users spend more- so even if they're not making as much money per transaction, then in pure volume it's a revenue source they can't just toss aside.

 

But as a consumer, Apple's rules make that cost invisible to you, the buyer.  And if you DO have a moral/ethical problem with Apple making their 30%, then seek out the direct subscription channel from the developer and, voila! you can sleep at night knowing that Steve Jobs isn't pissing into the mouths of underage Taiwanese whores on your dime.

Appropos of nothing, I have a full-sized arcade cabinet of the 1984 laserdisk game Cobra Command in my garage. I also used to have cabinets of Dragon's Lair and Space Ace.

 

I now have all these games on my iPad.

 

I love technology.

The Star Trek PADD is really damn fun. Nerdy as hell? Shit yeah. Still fun though.

I think what would make the Star Trek PADD app better is if it completely redesigned the interface of the iPad to make it resemble the LCARS system. Now that'd be cool. Regardless, I still bought this app.

Got me one of these, mostly for development and presentations. Still, anything I should be looking at (besides the new game I'm working on).

Sairus,

Flipboard is a must for news feeds and Twitter.  Marble Mixer is a fun game if you have little kids in the house.  Even kind of fun for a couple of adults.  Need For Speed Hot Pursuit is pretty fun.

I just wanted to mention that as of my B-Day, I am the proud owner of an iPad 2, an orange SMARTCOVER, a clear SPECK SMARTSHELL, an olive STM SCOUT iPad BAG, and a clear glass iPad 2 display table. It's at my side all night long when I get home, and I usually go through one charging a day. It is nothing less than magical

 

PS I am also pleased to discover the CHUD CHAT can be accessed via iPad!

 

Made it myself. Yeah the flash makes it look scary, but whatever, it's my iPad stand. It lights up when the iPad is placed in (the floor and the back beam, as I embedded LEDs into the base).

 

Yes it looks extremely phallic when put on it's front pedals.

 

 

Great work! Would you post a photo of it lit up in all it's glory?

Yeah sure!

 

Portrait setup

 

Landscape setup - with charger

 

 

Landscape setup - from front

 

OooooOOoooh.... Nice! I am now wondering if my iPad 2 DISPLAY TABLE can be rigged with LEDs

 

PS: What is that on the screen there? Some sort of APP? Hrm....

 

EDIT: Nevermind, fixx0red.

Edited by Jacob Singer - 12/2/11 at 9:45am

So umm anyone getting the iPad 3?

I caved. (okay it's fun being a developer at times, you sometimes just have to have the latest equipment).

Not me. I've only had my iPad 2 for 2 1/2 months. But at some point I'd like to find out if it's posibble to replace the iPad 2 camera with an iPad 3 camera. That would be a dream because this bastard camera sucks ass.

I'm tempted, but can't justify it.

If I hadn't hackintoshed a dell netbook a year ago then I probably would take the plunge. As it is the netbook fulfills all my surfing and word-processing needs when I don't want to lug around my full macbook pro.

I said to myself in the weeks leading up to last week's event that I wouldn't be getting it.  I'm happy with the iPad 2, I don't have the money for an upgrade, when I upgraded from iPad 1 to iPad 2 it was a pain n the ass.  All that went out the window when they announced the thing, I instantly preordered it and started trying to find a way to sell my iPad 2. The good thing was I had just brought my iPad 2 to the Apple store on Monday and they replaced it with a new one. The smart cover had actually fucked my iPad 2 a lot.  The magnets came through the plastic and left some nasty markings on the back aluminum. With no need of arguing from me they replaced both.  Great customer service.  So now I have my "new" iPad 2 on Craigslist.  Had it on eBay as well (even though I hate their fees.). Started at 6button my 64gb wifi black but quickly dropped down to 500.  Someone agreed to that and is supposed to come today.  Then when I ordered my new 64 wifi black, I decided to order an additional 16gb.  Yes I'm going to try and bilk some sucker out of a few hundred dollars to offset my additional cost.  I'm a bit worried that the demand has gone down though.  Not as much excitement.  The preorders have sold out though, so that's a good sign.  Mine has already shipped.

Sold mine for $400 via craigslist. I'm pretty patient, and sometimes the right person will buy it.

Oh had a 16 gig WI-FI. I keep all my tech gear in pristine shape, so when he saw it, he was surprised it wasn't brand new (yes I even kept the plastic wrap).

Yeah I placed a pre-order pickup at the store. Last time I had it delivered, I couldn't work the last hour before it was supposed to come.

The new iPad is very nice… By the Way… I'm typing this with my voice