Please explain how a device that is not available for purchase is a total failure.
Hint. We won't know until the sales figures start rolling in in a couple of months from now.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPad will not see a redesign anytime soon. Here's why.
- Thread starter HiFiGuy528
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Hint. We won't know until the sales figures start rolling in in a couple of months from now.
1) Apple has asked developers to make their apps suitable for any screen size.
2) Only the Macs get a USB and SD card slot. I'm guessing the iPad is not counted as a Mac.
3) Correct. There won't be a camera anytime soon or it will become like an oversized iPhone. Right now, it's an oversized iPod touch.
4) Multitasking kills battery life. (That's what Steve says.)
5) The Flash debate is still ongoing and don't forget, the keynote showed many of the broken links that the iPad displayed due to lack of Flash. A lite version created by Apple would be certainly welcomed.
It already has oleophobic coating.
Huh? Most businesses I know would *prefer* single tasking. Your're only gonna be running IM clients and other time wasting things in the background, which are generally not work related.
Actually, this is more accurate. People are still not getting the iPad. A *handheld* computer that multitasks is going to be a pain to use. Actually, a handheld computer is an ergonomically compromised computer from the start. That form factor is simply not suitable for general purpose computing. Once you start propping it up and adding hard keyboards, well you might as well buy a notebook, and a profit maximising company such as Apple is surely acting reasonably to suggest that that is what you should be buying, if you need that level of activity and interaction with your computer.
The iPad is a *casual* computer. It is for armchair use, and yes, toilet use. It's for sharing photos at parties. It is for doing all the things your cramped iPhone does, but with a nice, decent size screen. If singletasking is OK on the iPhone, why do you suddenly need it on the iPad just because the screen is bigger.
I noted in another thread. Singletasking gives Apple much more flexibility. Multitasking would cause everyone to be hollering for ever faster and faster processors. With a single tasking environment, as technology improves, Apple can choose to either a) increase speed, b) increase battery life, or c) reduce cost. The win7 slate competitors will just be scrambling to keep their head above water by shoehorning bigger and faster processors in their slates, and all other concerns will be out the window (ahem).
Multitasking and the Lisa
The original Mac didn't have multitasking because they didn't want to cannibalize the $10,000 Lisa. Of course, the Lisa took 3 minutes to load an application the first time and even longer when you were running something else. I would suspect that, like the Mac, they'll have to add multitasking to the iPad.
The original Mac didn't have multitasking because they didn't want to cannibalize the $10,000 Lisa. Of course, the Lisa took 3 minutes to load an application the first time and even longer when you were running something else. I would suspect that, like the Mac, they'll have to add multitasking to the iPad.
With Flash 10.1 around the corner, Apple wouldn't have to create a lite version for the iPad. Adobe's been working with a large number of hardware and software teams currently making devices through the open screen project to get Flash running smoothly and efficiently on their devices.
They even demonstrated Flash 10.1 at the MAX conference in October, think of the improvements that have come since then. If Apple was ever going to include Flash in the iPhone OS (which will never happen), Adobe would know about it first, as they would be working with them to optimize the player for those devices.
Simply put, Flash isn't come to the iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad because it allows users, developers, and other companies to run Rich Internet Applications, without the consent of Apple. Some can even charge for these services on their own websites, bypassing Apples 30% cut. Apple will never include it, and the fact is with the predominance of Flash content on the internet, you will never get the full web experience on these devices.
You can bet this was intentional. He knew the question would raise if it supported flash or not so this was a quiet way of saying it instead of saying - unfortunately flash is not supported. As someone else metioned to me, these keynotes are scrutinized a million times over - it was intentional.
You're absolutely right. This demonstration was no mistake at all. But I wonder why. Steve shows the world that his device will not support Flash. He had to know the ramifications of this and what the complainers (like me) were going to say. There have already been lots of complaints about the iPhone not playing Flash. Does he want to judge the public opinion? Or does he simply want to show the world that it's going to be his way and you'd better conform? Don't like it, don't buy it.
Wow, I hadn't even thought that the demo was intentional, but now that I think about it, I suppose it is possible. When the missing plug-in icon came up he made no attempt to scroll it away, and later came back to it. Having said that, that whole sequence was quite surreal. It was very quiet, no movement on stage, Steve reclining in a chair, Steve playing with the websites, but in a seemingly chaotic and random way, like he was making it up as he went along. Sure it was "intimate"- a strong iPad theme- but it appeared amatuerish : unscripted, no effort to maximise the demonstonstration etc. In that context, the appearance of the missing Flash icon does seem to imply unintentionality.
But I agree that we would normally expect Apple to control these demos to the extent that you see only and exactly what is intended.
As to why, I agree with FCDP, this is a strategic decision more than a technical "user experience" choice.
Steve is Smart and knows Flash sucks.
He hopes those of you who don't understand that will wise up.
At least to the point to communicate your displeasure to your favorite websites and ask them to stop using sucky applications to make their web pages.
I think at this stage it is not decided. Apple is going to see how the tablet market plays out first. If we start getting much larger RAM capacities, then I agree that app *switching* (no background processing) could be added with minimal impact on user experience. BTW this is all the Mac had for many years anyway. Later they added "co-operative" multitasking, which was no better than Windows at the time. Both were well behind Unix, Linux and the home enthusiast (newer but niche) OSs such as Amiga OS which employed priority based multitasking.
I take liberty of being able to quote you on this board one year from now. Thank you.
Till then....
I almost agree with every single thing you have to say, especially about Flash.
OP, you are a smart man
You honestly believe that adding a camera to the iPad will somehow eat into iPhone and MacBook sales? I can't speak for everyone but I didn't buy my iPhone or my MBP for the camera is has.
If someone buys an iPad, does that mean they won't need a phone anymore? And if someone buys an iPad, does that mean they won't need a real computer anymore? Last I checked, music, contacts, videos and mail could be synced from a computer and I suspect that that's how 99% of the people who buy this thing will get the majority of their content on it.
If someone buys an iPad, does that mean they won't need a phone anymore? And if someone buys an iPad, does that mean they won't need a real computer anymore?
Last I checked, music, contacts, videos and mail could be synced from a computer and I suspect that that's how 99% of the people who buy this thing will get the majority of their content on it.
You honestly believe that adding a camera to the iPad will somehow eat into iPhone and MacBook sales? I can't speak for everyone but I didn't buy my iPhone or my MBP for the camera is has.
If someone buys an iPad, does that mean they won't need a phone anymore? And if someone buys an iPad, does that mean they won't need a real computer anymore?
Why would Apple care if it did? If they don't eat into their own sales, someone else will eventually. They know this. Steve said this re: iphone eating into ipod sales.
Absolutely, why should they care if it did? My point, though, was that putting in a camera will not eat into any of their sales.
it already does everything half assed.
can you even name one thing that the ipad does well? and by "well" i mean better than some other product i could buy instead.
Bitching about missing hardware features despite the $499 base price?
Yea, I think they are justified in bitching about there not being a $0.50 USB port. Wouldn't be surprised if there are solder points for the damn thing on the PCB when iPads ship and one gets cracked open.
The only reason Apple doesn't have USB or an SD slot is so that they can charge you $49.99 for a Universal Dock to USB adapter and $39.99 SD Card Reader.
Stop being an apologist.
Who is the iPad for?
Ok I see a lot of people questioning who will use the iPad, saying stuff like "it's not got a camera" or "it doesn't do multitasking". Well as I see it Apple have made a great e-reader that happens to do other stuff.
So who will use it? In my line of work (industry, R&D and academia) I have a lot of use for a decent e-reader. At the moment I have to either carry around loads of papers, documents, books, etc or my macbook pro. So I will definitely buy the iPad as it is the first e-reader that looks useful, and it's made by Apple so I know I can trust it to do stuff well. In addition, many of my colleagues and students will find a great deal of use for the iPad, particularly at $499!
All I need is an extra tough cover for outside work...
Ok I see a lot of people questioning who will use the iPad, saying stuff like "it's not got a camera" or "it doesn't do multitasking". Well as I see it Apple have made a great e-reader that happens to do other stuff.
So who will use it? In my line of work (industry, R&D and academia) I have a lot of use for a decent e-reader. At the moment I have to either carry around loads of papers, documents, books, etc or my macbook pro. So I will definitely buy the iPad as it is the first e-reader that looks useful, and it's made by Apple so I know I can trust it to do stuff well. In addition, many of my colleagues and students will find a great deal of use for the iPad, particularly at $499!
All I need is an extra tough cover for outside work...
I could definitely see an SD card slot being added, as well as a front-facing camera in the 2nd gen. Just my 2¢
Youre right....let's take it a step further to show how silly no multitasking is.....apple should make all computers unable to multitask as well for that same reason
regarding flash, it is reality. i dont care what the reason is for not having it but its pervasive on the internet and should be accounted for
seriously, how people defend apple's crap decisions amuses me
I'm so annoyed that my washer-dryer can't wash clothes, and simultaneously dry them.... And my WORD - the washing machines OS is totally locked down - it's like I can't even update the components...
Spam is pervasive on the interwebs. Should it be accounted for? It's Apple's choice. There are alternatives.