Official iPad Discussion Thread

[Bob]

With the launch of the long awaited Apple iPad 'tablet' device, what are your thoughts?

[DCJoeDog]

Very mad/sad it's just a HUGE iPod touch with 3G if you pony up some cash. I wanted at the very least flash support. The HP Slate is looking ALOT better now.

[AmazingDM]

A netbook looks better.

[EditingFX]

Very sad if indeed Jobs thought this was "his most important thing ever", as I've heard reported prior to the iPad's rollout. If the IPad ran a full version of OS X and had much more storage, I *might* consider buying one (if it was at the same price point). But it doesn't even have a webcam!?!?! Huh?

It gives me no reason to carry it AND an iPhone (which of course I own). And since I'm not carrying it, I'll sit on the sofa with a Mac Mini, wireless mouse & keyboard, hooked up to my HDTV.

The iPhone was, for lack of a better phrase, a true paradigm shift in our relationship with technology.

This.... is destined to be a novelty for rich kids.

MacPro quad core, G5 Dual, Mac Mini, iPhone, iTouch, iPod nano, iPod classic

[hamz9561]

I think it is a good idea that wasn't fully developed (Newton anyone?). Once again Apple has overlooked features that the users want. I think these are what Apple missed on their new device:

1. Webcam-This a no brainer. Every netbook that I have seen as well as almost every cellphone sold today has a camera.

2. Storage-How is this supposed to be a media device without a lot more storage? A relatively inexpensive net book has more storage. they should have at least doubled the capacity of the 3g Touch.

3. Display-They should have at least tried for 16:9 display since they are billing it as a media device.

4. USB Connectivity-Can anyone say read and write to a thumb drive? USB keyboard? EyeTV?

[OconRecon]

I think Apple misfired on the marketing a little bit. They should have presented this as a next-gen eReader, or an eReader "but more", or an eReader on steroids, or something, rather than a netbook competitor.

It may one day be preferred over netbooks, but its not there yet. Netbooks are vulnerable though. My son has a netbook and just doesn't use it. The screen is dim and dull. He'd rather ask to borrow his mother's regular laptop.

Prediction 1: This is getting a similar reaction the iPhone first had. "But it doesn't do this and it doesn't have that", but once people saw it, they really liked it. Those select few who were there and actually played with it are digging it. And it's v1.0. I'm betting this thing is closer to iPhone level of success rather than closer to AppleTV level of bust.

Prediction 2: This is where newspapers end up. It's established print media has seen its hay-day, and although newspapers will always be around, they're on a slow burn for sure. The NYT on the Kindle kind of stinks as it's too hard to navigate. Early buzz is the Times looked great on the iPad.

As far as price, the Kindle started at $399 with a black and white screen and one function. I think the price point of $499 is pretty impressive.

For what it's worth, I'm more of a PC than an Apple fanboi.

[kornchild2002]

I was initially not happy with the iPad. After all, it is commanding a (typical) high price especially when compared to more capable netbooks (ones that can play 1080p video, they aren't limited to 720p), it is running a modified version of the iPhone OS (no Mac OS X), it doesn't have a physical keyboard, the lack of Adobe Flash support is a big drawback (though the iPad has the necessary power to run it), the iPhone applications running at their native resolution is laughable, upscaled iPhone apps don't look quite as nice as they should, etc.

I already have a netbook that can playback full 1080p videos, run Windows 7, last for a little over 6 hours on a single charge, has a physical keyboard, has a 10" screen with a resolution of 1366X768, runs full blown Microsoft Office 2007, can playback Flash and Flash HD content, etc.

Then I started seeing the iPad in action. The photo viewing app is much better than what Windows 7 is trying to do and it runs smoother on the iPad than even on a dual-core tablet running Windows 7, YouTube HD playback was smoother than any netbook on the market with either an Nvidia ION or Broadcom Crystal HD chip, a 10 hour battery life for wi-fi surfing and video playback is something that no netbook can do (Asus often labels their Eee PCs as getting 10+ hours but that is with wi-fi off, screen brightness all the way down, bluetooth off, and working with basic office applications), Apple's iPad iWork applications run smoother than my netbook running Office XP/2007, the iPad's gaming performance is better than my netbook and current portable devices (Nintendo DSi and PSP), the iPad is able to obtain a longer battery life than my PSP with the extended capacity battery (it is about on par with my DSi, maybe a little less), and I could see myself using Keynote at the office. I could easily lay the iPad down on a podium and bring up the laser pointer all without having to turn my back to the audience. I also wouldn't be hiding my face behind a laptop/netbook screen. I could even publish the presentation files online and have people across multiple operating systems view the presentation as a simple web page, give them an option to download it as a PowerPoint file, PDF file, or even mpeg-4 AVC video. I realize that type of functionality is built into iWork for Mac OS X but I don't really want to spend $999 on a MacBook as that price would buy a whole lot more for a Windows 7 PC.

However, a $699 price is much better. I will definitely go down to my local Apple store to see it in action. I may end up coming back with one if I like it enough. Is this the revolutionary and magical device that Apple has been hyping? No. I believe that it would have to run a full fledged version of Mac OS X in order to do that. It does appear to be something that I might like though. Is this going to be the next iPod Hi-fi or AppleTV? Only time will tell. I already know that business centric users are going to like this as it will allow them to surf the net at the airport while having more than enough battery life for watching a video during the flight, surfing the net at the next airport, and watching video on their connecting flight. They can also open up presentations, spreadsheets, and documents for reviewing and editing.

[cxc273]

One of the hardest things with the iPad is to separate expectations with what Apple's actually delivered. I readily admit that I had some expectations that weren't met, but then again, those expectations sprung from the wild rumors over the past few years.

That being said, I think we can compare the iPad (circa Jan. 2010) to introduction of the original iPhone and touch. The touch and iPhone were very much 1.0 devices -- proto-devices that hadn't realized their full potentials until the introduction of the iPhone 2.0 firmware and more importantly, the App Store.

iPad's success or failure will hinge on developers' ability to create content that takes advantage of the iPad hardware, especially the larger screen. I think there's a lot of untapped potential with the iPad and how it can fundamentally change how we produce and consume traditional print media, especially newspapers and magazines.

Frankly, I was disappointed that Jobs didn't show off some kind of demo that revolutionized how a user could read 21st century magazine. I was hoping it would be akin to Time's device-agnostic Sports Illustrated tablet concept (you can find it on YouTube if you search "Sports Illustrated tablet"). I would love a device that replaces the magazines and newspapers I read, especially if I could quickly index my digital subscription to say, Gourmet magazine, and quickly find that recipe for glazed orange chicken I wanted to try out. That to me would be the killer app.

But I say that because of my background as a journalist and avid consumer of such media. I can only assume now that the SDK is available, Time and other media companies are working on new apps for the iPad.

The lack of a camera isn't a deal breaker for me, and I think the next version, whether that be later this year or next, will offer that feature. Maybe Apple will announce it if and when they do the same for the touch.

My biggest question is why Apple decided to offer an iPad version that is wi-fi only and one that includes both 3G and wi-fi. Wouldn't it have been easier to just have wi-fi and 3G standard, differentiating models solely on capacity? Maybe I'm naive, but does it really cost that much extra to add the 3G antenna? Does it really cost $130? Outside of Apple's computers, I can't think of any other products in Apple's line that offer six flavors of one product. It seems very un-Apple like to me.

I think that's going to be one of the most difficult decisions for me if and when I choose to buy one. I don't relish the idea of adding a $15 or $30 bill with my iPad, but I also don't like the idea of having to choose right now if I want a 3G-capable device. In this respect, I think Apple made a mistake.

My personal stance is going to be wait and see. Right now, the iPad doesn't fill a need for me that my touch doesn't do and I'm not going to invest the cash for a device seeking a mission. But if something like the Sports Illustrated concept comes to pass, then that changes everything.

[ipadsuperfan]

Apple is amazing. The new ipad isn't even out, and yet the've gotten me to go out and buy Goldspot's music. "Clap Clap" was just featured in the new ipad video at apple.com

[Code Monkey]

Originally Posted by kornchild2002

a 10 hour battery life for wi-fi surfing and video playback is something that no netbook can do (Asus often labels their Eee PCs as getting 10+ hours but that is with wi-fi off, screen brightness all the way down, bluetooth off, and working with basic office applications), Apple's iPad iWork applications run smoother than my netbook running Office XP/2007, the iPad's gaming performance is better than my netbook and current portable devices (Nintendo DSi and PSP), the iPad is able to obtain a longer battery life than my PSP with the extended capacity battery (it is about on par with my DSi, maybe a little less), and I could see myself using Keynote at the office.

Generally, I was interested in reading your about face, but you are assuming they're talking 10 hours with wi-fi and video. Full specs aren't out yet, but I'd eat a proverbial hat if the iPad gets more than 4 or 5 hours with wifi and/or video on. I'm confident once the "battle tests" are in, this thing's battery life is going to be a major downside if the best they could claim is "up to" 10 hours.

It's like my nano, sure, it gets "up to" 24 hours, but, in reality, with the video news podcasts I watch daily, it's a quarter to a third of that if I don't charge while I'm at my desk. Apple may not stretch things as far as some vendors, but they certainly never give real world use estimates.

It's probably 10 hours reading an eBook with dimness turned down and wi-fi off/on standby, and it just goes down from there.

Regardless, it's a concept that needs another four or five years to bake.

[jasoncordelle]

I'm with codemonkey here.

Currently, I see it as a lemon.

With 2-5 years under its belt, it could well turn out to be the next iPod for Apple. If you know what I mean.

[Code Monkey]

Originally Posted by jasoncordelle

With 2-5 years under its belt, it could well turn out to be the next iPod for Apple. If you know what I mean.

I've been thinking about that today.

Before I had an iPod, I had no idea just how much I "needed" an iPod. Still, the 1G was a ridiculously expensive device and Mac only. The 2G was equally expensive and MusicMatch Jukebox only. The 3G would only charge via firewire and was known for dying smack in the middle of a sync with USB only based PCs. Then, blammo, fourth gen and mini come out around the same time as a full blown Windows iTunes, I bit, and my media consumption has never been the same since.

I'm still highly skeptical of the whole paradigm, but with four more years of development on the OS, not focused on a tiny pocket device, but for a touch based tablet computer, who knows? Maybe by then we'll even be able to access Facebook by something other than a scaled down app since about 75% of its content is Flash based?

[tadad1]

During all the hype leading up to the event I pictured the iPad would be pretty much as it is with one exception. I can't understand why no front facing camera for video chat or an MMS style messaging service at the least.

What a convenient and brilliant device it would be for keeping in touch with family and friends, linking grandparents with grandchildren, conferencing, video reminders, messages or recording a video diary to share for special occasions, holidays or trips. For the sake of a $5 camera module similar to the one in the Nano I just think this one social networking feature alone would have been a huge selling point for the device, hell it had the potential to become a real game changer perhaps the greatest home based communication device of our time. As it stands now it's a nice gadget that I don't really need in an appealing form that offers me less than my current iDevice.

[jasoncordelle]

Originally Posted by Code Monkey

I've been thinking about that today.

Before I had an iPod, I had no idea just how much I "needed" an iPod. Still, the 1G was a ridiculously expensive device and Mac only. The 2G was equally expensive and MusicMatch Jukebox only. The 3G would only charge via firewire and was known for dying smack in the middle of a sync with USB only based PCs. Then, blammo, fourth gen and mini come out around the same time as a full blown Windows iTunes, I bit, and my media consumption has never been the same since.

I'm still highly skeptical of the whole paradigm, but with four more years of development on the OS, not focused on a tiny pocket device, but for a touch based tablet computer, who knows? Maybe by then we'll even be able to access Facebook by something other than a scaled down app since about 75% of its content is Flash based?

You've put it far more succinctly than I did, but that's exactly how I felt as I wrote my rather brief comment.

The iPod was nothing more than a flight of fancy as far as I was concerned at Gen1-4.

Now, several iterations later, I have had Nano, Classic and Touch and can see no reaon why I won't one day have whatever new version of large-capacity iPod comes next.
there was even a day when I swore I'd never need anything more than a tape-based walkman.

I still feel the current iPad is a lemon. A lemon in waiting...

[kornchild2002]

Originally Posted by Code Monkey

Generally, I was interested in reading your about face, but you are assuming they're talking 10 hours with wi-fi and video.

That is what Steve said along with the tech specs on Apple's website: "Up to 10 hours of surfing the web on Wi-Fi, watching video, or listening to music."

Apple's battery life estimates have been pretty accurate as of late so I think it is a pretty safe bet that people can watch videos for 10 hours straight, listen to music for 10 hours straight (I guess you can't turn the display off like you can with the iPhone or iPod touch), or surf the internet through wi-fi for 10 hours straight. Since the 10 hour estimate applies to all three, the conclusion is that someone could watch a movie for 2 hour, surf the internet for four hours, and then listen to music for 4 hours. So it sounds like their 10 hour estimate is a real number that can be achieved without really tweaking much (like their other battery life statements). Netbook manufacturers often play the numbers game, as Apple used to, with their battery life numbers. Someone will label their netbook as lasting a "little over 6 hours." You then find out that real world numbers are about 4 hours unless you turn wi-fi off (what would be the point of a netbook without the internet?), don't plug anything into the USB ports, don't use the on-board camera, make sure that bluetooth is off and never turned on, and the screen brightness is all the way down. That isn't a realistic way to use a netbook. So it appears that Apple's estimates are real world numbers that can be obtained when turning the brightness down to about 50%, turning bluetooth off, and turning on wi-fi when you are going to use it.

Originally Posted by cxc273

My biggest question is why Apple decided to offer an iPad version that is wi-fi only and one that includes both 3G and wi-fi.

The issue isn't with the price of 3G hardware. Sure that is added in the cost and the iPad is using a new micro-SIM card. However, it is mainly due to at&t. The iPad is a contract free device. This means that it will be more expensive when 3G is added. Think of it like buying a phone without a contract and buying a phone with a 2 year contract. You are easily going to spend $300 less on the 2 year contract phone (even though they are both the same) due to the contract. So at&t has to take the lack of a contract into account when allowing the iPad to connect to their 3G network. e-readers such as the Kindle and nook can get away with free 3G simply because their ebook files are in the 500k-2MB range. Verizon and at&t aren't going to get clogged when a thousand in a concentrated area all download a 500kb ebook file. However, the iPad can surf the internet, download from the iTunes Store, download apps, the ebooks are likely larger in file size, watch YouTube and YouTube HD videos, etc. People can easily go through 15MB of data when reading a single e-mail message. That is something that would take the nook and Kindle at least a month to obtain.

I have seen many people complain about the lack of a camera. Sure, you can find cameras on every netbook and cellphone under the sun these days. However, those cameras are crap. A 0.3MP camera (which is commonly used in netbooks) produces a 640X480 grainy picture that requires an immense amount of light. A 1.3MP camera (also used in many netbooks along with cellphones) is a little better but they are still crap. Even the 5MP cameras included with cellphones (like the one in my phone) produce terrible images. They are so bad that I always carry my digital camera. It is 10.1MP but that isn't really why it is better. The lens, hardware, flash, etc. are much better. A dedicated $100 digital camera will produce images that can run circles around any camera built into a netbook, notebook and 99.99999999999999999% of cellphones. So why include something if it is going to produce crap quality?