As Sheldon might say...
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg says the Apple iPad "is not mobile." Today, at Facebook HQ, as the company unveiled a handful of new mobile tools for developers and other partners, Zuckerberg was asked when the company would finally produce an iPad app. "So, the iPad has been out for a while. And this is a mobile event. Are …
Is that how one hails Zuckerberg, the king of narcissists and low-self-esteemers?
The iPad is clearly not 'mobile' in the sense of being a cellular phone or a pocketable device. However it clearly is a computer which is 'mobile.'
Ballmer seems to agree with him.
It's a bit disingenuous to say the iPad is not mobile, because that would also rule out virtually all laptops etc from being mobile devices. Mobile simply means it is easy to pick it up, move to another place, and carry on working without being chained to places that have a powerpoint. A 'desktop' is not mobile in that sense - they are generally awkward/heavy to move, and require an external power source.
What he could have said is that the iPad is not a phone. Clearly it is too large to use in that way. But the iPad is also clearly mobile - many businesses are rolling out iPads where they would previously have used laptops because iPads have an excellent battery life, are difficult to damage with spills/dust/etc, and are very lightweight.
"Ballmer seems to agree with him."
and this is a recommendation?
But what you all have to remember is that the naming is more significant than at first glance: Americans refer to mobile phones as Cell Phones, so by using the word 'Mobile' in the name of the show, it was a very clear marker that it was _meant_ to be about more than just phones.
He said "it isn't mobile" not "it isn't a Cell-phone", so there is no way this was just a minor bit of semantics.
@Ralph 5: Laptops are portable devices. Or lug-able as the older designs were known. You 'port' or carry, them from place to place. They are not really usable while you move, however, which is what Mobile infers.
You can walk around with an iPad while using it. Unless it's the 3G version, however, you're tethered to an open/authenticated wifi node if you want to access a network or the internet.
So to me, Zuckerberg is correct to an extent: His perspective is related to the internet. iPad's aren't mobile internet devices as 3G is not standard. He is wrong in that the iPad can be used while mobile. You just don't always have internet/network connection.
Ballmer, as any Microsofty knows, is an idiot, and needs to stop sucking up to Steve Jobs before Microsoft goes bankrupt.
If Ballmer says something is something, it isn't something.
To be honest it's touted (and used) as a way to check facebook and twitter on your couch during the commercials in your fave TV show. (and similar).
Compare the ads: mobile users are most often shown in motion, in the street, on the bus, in airports, etc, and the emphasis is on geolocation apps and other mobility-related stuff. The iPad ads show users wallowing in couches and using the device to read the newspapers, books, or similar "sedentary"activities. So it would seem that Apple doesn't think of the iPad as very mobile either.
As much as I dislike the brat, he is right on this one.
And, i see them on MUNI, almost every day. I don't own one, and i don't feel any compulsion to redirect my limited income to having one. Even if given one for free, i'd rather swap it or trade if for the HTC EVO 4G and a spare hard drive and any leftover cash for another LCD or $100 toward some software.
But, for Zuckerberg to try to explain it as not mobile, tell that to people who carry them around. Personally, however, i don' t know what it can or cannot do, since i've never touched nor operated one that i can recall.
But, these might be some interesting links about various users in WiFi vs 3G scenarios:
It's more mobile than a laptop given its long battery life and if a tablet is good enough then it's a lot less faff.
Given Facebook are trying to come up with their own phone and services it is no wonder he's talking down the competition.
I point you all to this:
Facebook eyes mobile domination.
That makes you a Bay Area resident, and has already been noted, (by many now-poorer tech investors) the behaviour and habits of SFians is highly unrepresentative of the vast majority of ordinary folks out there.
Us Yooropeans won't be toting our £700 treasures on the bus, I suspect.
I use mine on the train all the time, but then again, I tend to sit in the bit of the train where they serve wine in glasses. I've seen iPad density at >1 per table on some journeys
Well, On the bit of the train I passed through on my trip this morning to Reading (UK) I counted no less than six iPads. This was an early train from Paddington arriving in Reading before 07:00. I don't have one I might add.
On my journey from NE Lonodon, I use a Bus, two Tube Trains and a Conventional TRain
I see them on the London Underground every day.
I see them on Busses every day.
Lots of the users are reading online editions of the daily newspapers or sites like the BBC. Others are catching up on the previous nights' TV.
Mines the one without an iPad in the pocket.
Also, consider that the first iteration was WiFi only... something you can move around at home, or at a pinch take to the starbucks on Sunday morning to tweet while sipping your Venti half-caf soy no foam latte, not too hot, with a shot of vanilla and a dusting of nutmeg, freshly ground only.
That pretty much sets the scene, methink. And it looks deliberate, too (to avoid overlap with the iPhone/Pod range perhaps?).
...it is a small laptop, more mobile than a laptop but laptop none the less.
If a 10" screen is so good, and it has a browser why should it need an App?
maybe a 7" screen might...
... that a native app better fits the native user interface paradigms (eg, most iOS apps are navigated as a sort of branching decision tree, whereas web pages tend to have a much more vague hierarchy), and can make better use of local resources. Of course, the point is largely moot if the initial thing was a web page that already fits quite well on the screen.
Quite often they're just a bad idea though. For the worst of both worlds see the Ars Technica app that just launched (http://itunes.apple.com/app/ars-technica/id393859050?mt=8 — and don't worry, Apple don't springboard you straight into loading iTunes with links like that any more). It's basically an HTML viewer that justifies itself on its offline reading capabilities. However, it attempts to ape normal iPad controls in HTML (for portability to other future tablets) and gets most of them quite wrong while also performing very poorly. So the app is a lot worse than the web experience, giving it a 1.5 star average at present on the US store.
Deciding they need an app, doing it in HTML and making it a much poorer user experience than just using the device's web browser has to be the epitome of poor app strategy.
If I could upvote you 100+, I would. I too, don't understand the apparent need for any online portal to require an "app" version of their website. I'm pretty sure that web apps were conceived for their universal access, and websites were intended to be cross platform.
Apps can do this:
1. Show a notification that you have a new message or updates.
2. Use native features like taking a photo and easily uploading of photos.
3. Use native gestures, swipe to delete comments/messages.
The main thing that's tricky to do on the web is charge for access. But then free apps are a lot more popular than paid ones...
The point I'm trying to make is that most apps do stuff that can also be accomplished on the web, though to be as slick as an app on all the different browsers and devices is tricky. Nevertheless you'd think that the cross platform nature of web development would make it worth the effort. And it would mean I wouldn't have to listen to objective c programmers swearing and cussing all day.... (it would be web developers cussing at browser rendering differences instead!)
You know on Facebook when you hover the mouse over a comment or status update, and that little "Delete" button appears? You can't do that on an iPad. There is no hover, you're either touching the screen or not.
That's one of the reasons people would like an app.
And I thought the whole point of the iPad was that you could use normal websites?
Did not Jobs, at the launch, say that the iPad was the best web browsing experience available?
Therefore it shouldn't need an app.
Definitions to solve the issue...
Mobile Device: Battery operated, fits in a standard size pocket. Easily operated while walking.
Portable Device: Battery operated, too large to fit a standard size pocket. Not so easily operated while walking.
Jesus Phone = Mobile Device
Fondle Slab = Portable Device
Four "colour" CGA-compatible greyscale, 286 processor, 640K of RAM and two 720KB DD floppy drives. And space for 10 "C"-size batteries.
Think it'll run Crysis?
and I would be interested to know whether they run at all!
I seem to remember that they weren't the most reliable of devices when they were current! And that strange offset flip up screen and fixed keyboard.
I think that the term used for these and similar devices was 'luggable computers'.
My dad used to have one of these...
I wonder what happened to it?
Perfectly, for as far as a 286 can be said to run. I think "amble leisurely" would be more like it. They keyboard isn't fixed though. The whole thing folds up and you can carry the thing (or, er, heft it) with the handle at one edge.
If you're lucky, it might run Zelazny-Amber Angband. Not tried that yet though.
That's frigging awesome. I want one.
And possibly a warehouse to store all this old crap in.
Really - it's real-mode only. I've had mine to bits (to fit an 8087) and the 8086 is in the socket next door.
If it's good enough for the space shuttle, it's good enough for me!
Could there be a sadder life form than the person happily sitting in public with their Ipad browsing their facebook page.
I think I'd prefer being caught browsing nuns in chains fetish porn at work than that
Best. Quote. EVER!
Well, maybe a slight exaggeration, but you sir win my Laugh of the Day award!
At last, a comment that's made this semantic circle jerk worth reading (the comments that is, keep the "Zuckerberg makes a cock of himself" stories coming, Reg).
Shouldn't that be "CockBerg makes a Zucker of Himself"?
Using 3G the answer is clearly yes. Its moves, it can be used while moving, ITS MOBILE
Apple (read Jobs) must be laughing - who's the higher on the rich list now!
By that definition, my 13" Dell with a mini-PCI 3G card is a "Mobile device" as well. Is it at all sensible to suggest that there should be a specific facebook app for my laptop? I don't think so, and clearly anyone who disagrees with me is wrong and deserves to be mocked =)
"Don't you ever take that mic from me again...BITCH!"
That said...I agree with the posts already. If you cannot walk and operate it at the same time...it is not a mobile device. The iPad may very well be a highly portable device, but the form factor is too big to operate with one hand and the screen too large to require an App.
@FozzieBear, nuns in chains? Laughing. Pervert! :)
With a full battery and a 3g card i can use it walking, driving (but only as a GPS), so your definition is a little vague.
And to answer your next question: Yes, my left bicep is bigger than my right and I can touch-type with just one hand.
Thanks for the existential play-by-play, El Reg. I'm sure that a Kafka-esque version of the event will be forthcoming, by the sound of it - from some bright no-fanboi below the horizon?
Mine's the one that doesn't look like a beetle's bum
Having watched some texting fool emasculate himself on a sidewalk bike rack this afternoon I can safely state that facebook on a phone is no more mobile than facebook on an iPad. I have a 3g iPad and an HTC Incredible with Verizon. The facebook versions for BOTH really need improvement. Zuckerberg needs to stop with the juvenile semantic games and get on with figuring out mobile interfaces for a range of form factors and operating systems. Simple fact is facebook using Safari on an iPad is far better than facebook on a top of the line Android phone.
"Simple fact is I think facebook using Safari on a tablet PC is far better than facebook on a top of the line phone."
Who really cares?
...I have to. The definition of whether iPad and other tablets are mobile or not is a hot topic amongst rights holders in various categories. Most sports and music rights holders disagree with Mark Zuckerberg and regard it as a mobile device. Mainly for the obvious reason that there's potentially more money it for them if they take that approach.
The whole "mobile v. fixed" rights environment is a long way from being settled and its only going to get worse.
Is that an iPad in your pocket or are you just happy to see me? As one billionaire may say to another billionaire.
Why do we need it?
... and why does it have to be 'mobile'?