Just a big iPod touch? -- 480x320 3.5" vs. 1024x768 9,7" multi-touch screen

[BaldiMac]

Ipad cant do ANY MORE than a ipod touch can... its just a bigger screen... period.

It's a bigger screen, faster processor, and different software. It can do more than an iPod touch. For example, it can run the mobile version of iWork.

you dont label something magical, revolutionary when its just a slightly bigger version of an existing product...

You didn't really think this statement through, did you? I think history is full of industry revolutions brought on by making an existing product a little bigger or a little smaller.

I believe the revolution that Apple is referring to is the potential to move away from the desktop metaphor that has dominated computing for 25 years. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong. But the revolutionary potential is there.

 

[dave1812dave]

It's a bigger screen, faster processor, and different software. It can do more than an iPod touch. For example, it can run the mobile version of iWork.



You didn't really think this statement through, did you? I think history is full of industry revolutions brought on by making an existing product a little bigger or a little smaller.

I believe the revolution that Apple is referring to is the potential to move away from the desktop metaphor that has dominated computing for 25 years. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong. But the revolutionary potential is there.

Spoken with all the self-righteous conviction of a card-carrying Apple fanboi!!! Bravo!! (Not)

 

[BaldiMac]

Spoken with all the self-righteous conviction of a card-carrying Apple fanboi!!! Bravo!! (Not)

What exactly did I say that was self-righteous? I stated a fact and guessed at Apple's rationale behind their "revolutionary" comment. Even stated that I don't really agree with it.

Do you disagree with what I said, or is the "fanboi" card the only one you have to play?

 

[master-ceo]

This is a app, I currently use on my iphone with logic and protools. (Novation AutoMap)
If this app cannot be expanded, (to fit more controls on the ipad screen) with the ipads hardware/screen size, I will be pissed!
My wish is that apps like these will have a bigger and better control surface on the iPad.

 

[CylonGlitch]

This is a app, I currently use on my iphone with logic and protools. (Novation AutoMap)
If this app cannot be expanded, (to fit more controls on the ipad screen) with the ipads hardware/screen size, I will be pissed!
My wish is that apps like these will have a bigger and better control surface on the iPad.

As long as the developer updates the application to support the larger format, there is no reason why it can't take more space; but it will require an update.

 

[master-ceo]

As long as the developer updates the application to support the larger format, there is no reason why it can't take more space; but it will require an update.

I hope so. Thanks man.

 

[rayward]

This reply maybe a repeat, but a larger screen would open doors to new possibilities. For example, monopoly game on the iphone is ok. You tap to roll or shake the phone to roll the dice. On the iPad, you can do a gesture to roll a dice. You can drag your piece along the board, as oppose to letting the computer move it for you. You can tap on which property to build houses or hotels, etc. Another game, a tower defense, you can tap all over the screen to do whatever. A larger screen will more interactions. The calender would look less cramped and more detail. Developers can provide an actual replica of a reference book then abridged book to fit the screen of an iphone. There are so much opportunities!!

I am excited to imagine just how insane the iPad version of Fieldrunners will be.

 

[dave1812dave]

What exactly did I say that was self-righteous? I stated a fact and guessed at Apple's rationale behind their "revolutionary" comment. Even stated that I don't really agree with it.

Do you disagree with what I said, or is the "fanboi" card the only one you have to play?

First of all, iwork is as concession to the fact the iPad can't run OSX or Windows, so I wouldn't be thrilled that it runs iwork. the iPad SHOULD have been designed to run a real computer OS. period. It should have multitasking, which it would have had were it not for it running the iphone OS. Apple should stop bickering with Adobe over Flash.

 

[bossxii]

First of all, iwork is as concession to the fact the iPad can't run OSX or Windows, so I wouldn't be thrilled that it runs iwork. the iPad SHOULD have been designed to run a real computer OS. period. It should have multitasking, which it would have had were it not for it running the iphone OS. Apple should stop bickering with Adobe over Flash.

Ok since you are clearly in the full OS camp. I'll ask you a few questions. Maybe I'm missing something. Please help me understand a few things.

What would the full OS tablet run on hardware wise?

How much would it cost? (would this price appeal to the masses)

Would it cannibalize their MBP market share?

Will the developers redesign their desktop version to be more useful as a touch based solution?

Does Photoshop become better just because I use my finger vs a mouse and keyboard?

The same thing really applies to the OS, does OS X all the sudden become more useful and productive for no other reason than I now use my finger vs a mouse and keyboard?

I'm open to someone showing me how this all makes sense. Please explain.

 

[rayward]

First of all, iwork is as concession to the fact the iPad can't run OSX or Windows, so I wouldn't be thrilled that it runs iwork. the iPad SHOULD have been designed to run a real computer OS. period. It should have multitasking, which it would have had were it not for it running the iphone OS. Apple should stop bickering with Adobe over Flash.

With a full OS, there's no instant-on capability. The last thing I want to do, when grabbing a tablet to look up something on the web or check my email, is to wait for it to boot up.

I also don't want to try and run OS X and full applications through a 1GHz chip, nor do I want a device big enough to house (and cool) a bigger chip.

The machine you want is the Macbook Air. They already make it. Have done for a while.

 

[BaldiMac]

First of all, iwork is as concession to the fact the iPad can't run OSX or Windows, so I wouldn't be thrilled that it runs iwork.

What does that have to do with what I said? I'm not thrilled that it runs iWork. I simply said that an iPad runs iWork. An iPod touch doesn't. Simple.

the iPad SHOULD have been designed to run a real computer OS. period.

It is running a real computer OS. One with a GUI designed for a multitouch, finger-driven interface rather than a mouse.

I would prefer Apple advance the iPhone OS to add features that we expect on a PC with an interface optimized to work with touch, rather than try and shoehorn Mac OS X into a device with an input method that it was not designed for.

It should have multitasking, which it would have had were it not for it running the iphone OS. Apple should stop bickering with Adobe over Flash.

You seem to confuse the phrases "It should..." and "Apple should..." with "What I would like is..."

Personally, I would like third-party background apps. And I would like Apple to do everything it can to promote the use of Flash alternatives.

 

[dave1812dave]

Ok since you are clearly in the full OS camp. I'll ask you a few questions. Maybe I'm missing something. Please help me understand a few things.

What would the full OS tablet run on hardware wise?

How much would it cost? (would this price appeal to the masses)

Would it cannibalize their MBP market share?

Will the developers redesign their desktop version to be more useful as a touch based solution?

Does Photoshop become better just because I use my finger vs a mouse and keyboard?

The same thing really applies to the OS, does OS X all the sudden become more useful and productive for no other reason than I now use my finger vs a mouse and keyboard?

I'm open to someone showing me how this all makes sense. Please explain.

You REALLY want me to worry about Apple "cannibalizing" some market share of their Mac sales?? That's too funny for words. I don't care SQUAT about Apple's share price, sales, or success. All I care about as a consumer is getting value/performance/features in the products I choose to buy. When Apple is unable to fulfill my requirements, I don't buy--simple as that. Because I like iPods, my wife and I own 10 of them. Those are the ONLY apple products I've ever owned. The iPad likely won't be an addition to my stable of ipods.

I would be willing to pay MORE for a full fledged, tiny computer, rather than a gimped-down Flashless, non-multitasking "large Touch".

Sense?? I'm hardly the only potential customer who thinks the iPad is much ado about nothing.

 

[mullman]

Why is it so hard to accept it? It is a big ipod Touch, over.

Then some might like it and some might not, but avoid looking idiot trying to convince yourselve that "wow, that's incredible, look at what they've come up with, could've never imagine it, that's magical!!! A six-point-seven-dot-two larger device than my ipod touch!!! wow!!!"

And possibly 10x more convenient than a laptop for half of my needs.

So it's a win.

 

[dave1812dave]

What does that have to do with what I said? I'm not thrilled that it runs iWork. I simply said that an iPad runs iWork. An iPod touch doesn't. Simple.



It is running a real computer OS. One with a GUI designed for a multitouch, finger-driven interface rather than a mouse.

I would prefer Apple advance the iPhone OS to add features that we expect on a PC with an interface optimized to work with touch, rather than try and shoehorn Mac OS X into a device with an input method that it was not designed for.



You seem to confuse the phrases "It should..." and "Apple should..." with "What I would like is..."

Personally, I would like third-party background apps. And I would like Apple to do everything it can to promote the use of Flash alternatives.

Apple should (for once) capitulate on the issue of Flash. Their arrogance is what has kept their computer share to under 10%. However many iPads they DO sell, they could sell a heck of a lot more if they would provide more of a true "full internet experience". Swimming against the tide gets tiring and it's unproductive. Job's ego is what's holding us consumers back from far better Apple products. He wants to dictate to the world what the world "wants". Ever heard of a focus group evaluating a potential Apple product??

 

[4DThinker]

The OP is brilliant.

The larger screen of the iPad is better, assuming apps are written to take advantage of it.

Apple's gazillion app advantage over every netbook, non-apple smartphone, etc., just disappeared. All those apps are optimized for 3.5" screens.

I don't doubt developers will come to the rescue and regain the lead, but right now any Windows-based tablet has a tremendous app advantage, as apps already exist to take advantage of larger screens.

Again, seriously, the OP is brilliant! Well done!

 

[rayward]

I would be willing to pay MORE for a full fledged, tiny computer, rather than a gimped-down Flashless, non-multitasking "large Touch".

Macbook Air starts at $1500.

 

[mullman]

Macbook Air starts at $1500.

Actually, the refurbs currently start at $1099

 

[BaldiMac]

Apple should (for once) capitulate on the issue of Flash.

Why?

Their arrogance is what has kept their computer share to under 10%.

Okay. Nice opinion. I would argue that their business plan is what has kept their computer share under 10%. And they are very, very happy with it.

However many iPads they DO sell, they could sell a heck of a lot more if they would provide more of a true "full internet experience".

Again, valid opinion. But there is also the possibility that adding flash could degrade the internet experience to the point that they sell a heck of a lot less. And that ignores all the other reasons that some people hate flash.

Swimming against the tide gets tiring and it's unproductive. Job's ego is what's holding us consumers back from far better Apple products. He wants to dictate to the world what the world "wants".

It's also his "ego" that has led to the creation of the Mac, Pixar, OS X, iPod, and iPhone. You can't have one without the other. People that say Apple would be better if they weren't so controlling, ignore the fact that Apple would be Apple if they weren't so controlling. You would not get a better iPhone if Apple was less controlling. You'd get a better Motorola ROKR.

Ever heard of a focus group evaluating a potential Apple product??

"If I had asked my customers what they wanted," Ford said, "they would have said a faster horse."

 

[darbus69]

whiney babies...

i for one will be so happy to wake up in the morning and get ready for my day by checking my mail, MacRumors, google news and maybe even Letterman's Top Ten from the night before on MY iPad...It is the perfect device for so many functions...the rest of you whiners can go buy a crappy HP netbook and be miserable the rest of your life...

 

[Eso]

The topic isn't about whether or not the iPad does everything most users spend 90%+ of their time doing, but whether or not it should be considered more than an iPod Touch with a big screen. The OP says it should be because apps will be far more capable on the iPad. I say that it can't be because it still is far less capable than a full OS and it isn't a stand-alone computer.

1) "The iPad was expected to be a tablet computer." Oh yeah? By whom? You? And that makes it gospel? And...oh yeah, by the way, it is a tablet computer.

Based on the rumors of the last five years - everyone. It has a tablet-form factor, but it's not a tablet computer. It's not the same class of device as any other Tablet PC available on the market today.

2) "It was expected to be comparable to a netbook." And isn't it? I think it's been made quite clear that what it is designed to do more than covers the standard 80/20 (80% of the people use 20% of the features/functionality). Said another way - most people spend 9x% of their time on email, web surfing, music, social networking, pix, etc. Pretty sure the iPad can handle all that with aplomb.

That's great - the iPad can do what most people spend 90%+ of their time doing. It's irrelevant because I am not saying that it isn't useful for that. I'm saying it has a fraction of the capabilities of a full OS that you would find on a tablet or a netbook. It isn't comparable to them in features or function, so essentially it is a giat iPod Touch.

3) It's "crippled" like the iPod touch. Really? The same iPod touch that's sold in the tens of millions? Pretty sure most of those buyers have found some great things to do with their iPTs.

No one bought the iPod Touch because they thought it was a tablet computer.

4) " it won't be as capable as an application for a full-fledged OS". Oh really? You do realize that "multi-tasking" will come don't you? There is nothing inherent in the hardware preventing this.

The comment that you quote has no reference to multi-tasking (which isn't likely to come anytime soon either). Despite the added capabilities that iPad apps will have, they will still be less capable than an equivalent app on a full OS. Take iWork as an example. Pages for OS X can do anything the Pages app can do, plus more.

6) "There is no access to internal storage or external media. " There is access to internal storage. There is access to external media - ever hear of iDisk?

You can't browse, manipulate, copy and paste, edit, or delete files that are stored on the iPad. You "access" the internal storage only by connecting it to a real computer. iDisk is not External Storage. Furthermore, you can't download files from iDisk and browse, manipulate, copy and paste, edit, or delete them.

7) "You can't use any USB device beyond a camera. No external hard drives, no thumb drives, no CD drives, no printers, no wireless connect cards, no USB headsets, no webcam, no keyboard, no mouse, no external speakers, etc." To say this without mentioning that you *can* use a BT keyboard, print wirelessly, that it has built in wireless capability, that it can use an iPhone headset, that it has no need for a mouse, etc. is disingenuous at best.

I believe using a bluetooth keyboard requires a hack at the moment. You can print wirelessly - to a printer connected to a real computer, of course. Oh yeah, and it requires the separate support of each app from which you'd like to print - there is no native support for printing in the iPhone OS. Did I mention you can't connect a thumbdrive? The point is, a netbook or tablet can access USB devices. The iPad can't.

10) "You can't download a PDF from the web and open it with a PDF viewing app" Wrong. Downloading files from the web is something explicitly outlined in the iPad. And we know PDF viewing is already there from the iPhone.

I don't mean downloading pictures. You can't download a file (any file) in Safari, save it to the internal storage, and open it with any app. You can view PDF in safari, but you can't use any extra features of a PDF file such as bookmarks. You can't jump to a page, chapter, search for a word, or save your place. With third-party apps for PDF files you can, of course, but you can't open PDF files from safari in a third-party app.



The iPad isn't a stand-alone device. The larger screen will make apps for capable but that doesn't make it comparable in features or function to a tablet or netbook computer. It just makes it a giant iPod Touch.

 

[Carouser]

The topic isn't about whether or not the iPad does everything most users spend 90%+ of their time doing, but whether or not it should be considered more than an iPod Touch with a big screen.

If the iPad does everything I spend 90%+ of my time doing, and does what it says it does, then what difference does it make if a bunch of people consider it an iPod touch with a big screen? I seriously don't get what is at stake here.

 

[yodaxl7]

Example: Calender app on a full OS has samilar experience on the iPad but not on the iPhone. There is less space for view and function. Now, some programs require more robust computer, independent of the os. If the iPad has a better chip, more ram, effiecient hardware sys. then it can run software that require that much power. It does not matter on the os to a point. Ipad os provide a better experience for me except for typing.

 

[samcraig]

If the iPad does everything I spend 90%+ of my time doing, and does what it says it does, then what difference does it make if a bunch of people consider it an iPod touch with a big screen? I seriously don't get what is at stake here.

Well obviously something is at stake since people feel the need to defend the iPad as not just being a large iPod touch.

At the end of the day - who cares what it's called. Whether or not it's revolutionary, magical, evolutionary, etc.

If the iPad is something you want, can afford - then buy it. If not, don't. BOTH sides of the "argument" are futile as neither "side" is going to convince the other of anything.

 

[dave1812dave]

If the iPad is something you want, can afford - then buy it. If not, don't. BOTH sides of the "argument" are futile as neither "side" is going to convince the other of anything.

You got that right!!

 

[Eso]

If the iPad does everything I spend 90%+ of my time doing, and does what it says it does, then what difference does it make if a bunch of people consider it an iPod touch with a big screen? I seriously don't get what is at stake here.

Exactly. It is just important to be realistic about what the device does and what it does not.

Often the implication that it isn't just a big iPod Touch is that it is a fully-featured device. I've seen some go so far as to say that this is a "whole new method of computing", spouting off mult-touch interfaces, cloud storage, and all that.