...to me this sounds like some feminine hygiene product...
So, a portlier iPhone has emerged from Cupertino with typical fanfare and panache, but even the hardcore fans seem disappointed by what is essentially an iPhone with a mid-life crisis. The waistband has expanded, but in every other respect the iPad remains almost identical to its original form with all the omissions in place …
Flash is not allowed on the iPhone/iPad because of its excessive CPU drain and thus battery drain, not because of "customer lock-in." Maybe part of the reason is because Steve Jobs hates Flash, but that's the lesser part.
Maybe It's the onset of middle age, but I have ClickToFlash installed on my Mac so I don't have to look at every piece of Flash that web designers try to foist on me, and I don't want to play FarmVille!
"Not that it's all Apple's fault - the company has responsibilities too. Responsibilities to developers who don't want to rewrite their applications, responsibilities to shareholders who want to maintain the customer lock-in that iTunes represents (which is why Flash can't be allowed). "
Apple's responsibility is to get the best value for its shareholders, not just stick doggedly to the sales model it has. If they equipped the ipad with more capability, it may actually be useful and sell more units. Flash CAN be allowed, they just dont want to give people the option of running something non-apple authorised on the thing. Correct me if i am wrong but OSX runs flash doesnt it? I gather if they reduced the functionality of macbooks overnight, sales would fall of a cliff.
So an interesting observation, but just cupertino flavoured bollocks i am afraid.
Now, when Geohot has stopped dicking about with PS3s, maybe he can arrange for the iPad to actually be useful.
"Apple's responsibility is to get the best value for its shareholders," Fuck right off! Apple has no responsibility to their share holders whatsoever! That's like claiming a racehorse owner has a responsibility to the punters that bet on their horse. Investing is nothing more than a "respectable" form gambling - hence one "speculates". The responsibility is to it customers first and foremost. If more businesses understood this SIMPLE idea, then I doubt we'd be constantly in financial shit...
"If they equipped the ipad with more capability, it may actually be useful and sell more units." Based on what? Going by the recent financial report, the sales model it has is working just fine thanks very much! The lack of Flash is yet another strawman, much like "multitasking" - you people mean background tasks, which are a different premise. Incase you haven't noticed, or mores the point don't understand, Flash is not a fucking standard.
"Flash CAN be allowed, they just dont want to give people the option of running something non-apple authorised on the thing. Correct me if i am wrong but OSX runs flash doesnt it? I gather if they reduced the functionality of macbooks overnight, sales would fall of a cliff." Firstly, have the common decency to use capitals for the name of something or somebody. Have a read of Dan Gruber's excellent piece on the whys & wherefores of Adobe and Flash on Apple platforms; (http://daringfireball.net/2010/01/apple_adobe_flash). If Adobe could be arsed to write stable (ha!) and SECURE software, then things might be different. Much the same is true of Java. Apple ALWAYS intended the apps for iPhone OS to be web based. As for the device itself, it's not a computer in the terms YOU want or many other geeks want. It does everything that 80%+ of day-to-day CONSUMERS and USERS want! A lack of Flash hardly suggest that the device won't be "useful". In fact I'd argue the opposite. Thing's are moving away from the WIMP* based desktop GUI paradigm. It's old hat (conceived over 30 years ago) and things are moving on. For instance, why does a user need to see the file system? Surely the only place you need to see music files is where they can be played? Unles you what to able to "share" (pirate) them. Oh...
"So an interesting observation, but just cupertino flavoured bollocks i am afraid." Much like your ignorant, rhetorical Wintard bullshit then!
*_W_indows _I_con _M_enus _P_ointing device.
Directors of a company are obliged by law to primarily serve the shareholders unless established as a charity (in which case different rules apply). Hence, shareholders have the power to remove directors - they are the ultimate authority and the company belongs to them. Some companies (like Apple) belive that products and service that please customers results in more business that, in turn, results in better return for shareholders.
I agree with the rest of what's been said - the iPad would be an ideal device for my old mother to retrieve mail, go to URLs that a are publicised on the TV / in papers etc. The only problem is if there is a site that absolutely required flash. Teaching anyone over 65 how to use a mouse for the first time is hard, it's not natural. I don't think Apple designed this product for the average Register reader.
So a MASSIVE fail for not getting any correct facts in there.
Secondly, Since when does someone who says "fuck right off", followed by a load of old bollocks get to lecture me on my english.
All of my points stand and the lack of any cogent arguments by you (with your lack of understanding as to what makes the iPad so bloody pointless) just seems to prove a point. You dont like flash, you have no idea what responsibility apple have to its shareholders and you seem to think i am wintard, though none of my rhetoric even mentions any other system.
I have an iphone, and if it wasnt jailbroken it would be shite. It now is tolerable thanks to things like backgrounder. Flash is shit, but we dont get to rewrite other peoples websites that have flash on them. I would happily ignore flash if it werent so widespread. Apple's lock out of flash is not for the benefit of users though, is it!
Your comment of the ipad doing everything 80% of users want shows your lack of appreciation for the 20% of people who actually know what they are doing. I am sure 80% of people will like the iPad, but then they won't actually buy it will they? Apple dont market stuff for the average joe, they market for the upper end. Their stuff is built well, specced with the top end perirpherals and priced at a premium. The iPad is shit in comparison with what they could have done. And you are correct when you say it isnt a computer in the terms I want. I want a good computer, not a half-arsed attempt at one, which the iPad is!
So do me a favour and keep you blinkered comments to yourself.
Although the A4 is probably ARM based, I doubt its the same "spec" as that which is found in the HD2 (which is still Windows Mobile, still shit). Similar perhaps, defiantly not the same. TBH I'd be surprised if the next iPhone doesn't have something along the same lines.
I think this is a fair summary of the release. I'm a die-hard Mac guy (have been since the mid 80s) and I was royally disappointed that the new 'tablet' wasn't actually a tablet Mac. I could have really used a tablet with multi-touch screen running OS X, but I have no use for something as limited and locked down as the iPhone OS.
Sorry Apple... for me, it's definitely NOT halfway between the laptop and the iPhone.
Flash can't be allowed because, while a few people have done cool things with it (Everybody loves the Homestar Runner!), it is very often used badly and it sucks up processor power. I like 2D Portal, but I can only cope with my 2GHz C2D MacBook being in leafblower mode for so long. Even if there was a good implementation, I've seen enough bad Flash-y websites that it's almost not worth the flash RAM.
"Apple wanted to reinvent the iPhone"
No they didn't - they wanted to redefine what people wanted from a netbook. Time will tell whether they've achieved that or not. I already use my iPod Touch more than my netbook for the kind of things the iPad is designed for. I reckon Apple have got it pretty much perfect.
"responsibilities to shareholders who want to maintain the customer lock-in that iTunes represents (which is why Flash can't be allowed)"
And you haven't ever noticed the way that Flash is
b, only used for crap like Farmville
d, on the verge of being obsolete
My browser blocks Flash by default and I've never missed it...
* apart from it being an intergral part of some sites. Also, there is no other alternative that does work on an iphone or ipad (silverlight doesnt work either). You dont miss it because you dont know what it is that you are missing. Farmville is crap to most people, but some people actually like it (Shock horror, other people exist!)
restricting consumer choice was to help apple, not consumers.
Before I begin (again) "Shock horror, other people exist!" you might want to think about that yourself in the future, Tim.
"* apart from it being an intergral part of some sites." So? Perhaps the developers and owners of those sites shouldn't have bought into a proprietary technology. The fact that those site are not accessible to ALL in itself is bad, highlighting that everyone should adopt Flash because a few (stupid) devs like it kinda mitigates your point.
"You dont miss it because you dont know what it is that you are missing. Farmville is crap to most people, but some people actually like it..." have a look at (http://www.gesteves.com/experiments/starwars.html) and (http://www.romancortes.com/blog/pure-css-coke-can/). No Flash anywhere, all open standards. This isn't about consumer choice, so stop trying to introduce another strawman! Flash, like IE6 extension and ActiveX, is unstable and insecure and most importantly of all IRRELEVANT.
I dont expect everyone to want flash, but i do expect to be able to run it if I want, rather than if uncle steve lets me. Maybe they could put some kind of toggle on the settings?
And no thanks to your links. I am sure there is no flash on there, but then i am uninterested your advice thanks.
Fine by me.
I liked the Apple IIe and the new iMac all-in-ones look lovely but other than that I haven't been won over by any of their computers.
Until the iPod touch.
Which is great; genuinely easy to use and convenient - switches on and connects quicker than my phone, good enough email support, very good browser, some good news apps, social networking, a few games, streams media - all in all a near-perfect household gadget.
But a bit small.
So rigid brand loyalists might be disappointed but I'm delighted and I'd guess Apple won't actually *lose* any zealots with this product so they'll be pleased to pick up a few people who see this as something they'll actually use.
...Apple is the natural evolution of the "bubble wrap society’s" version of "the market." You are too stupid/lazy/uneducated/etc. to think for yourself, make your own decisions, or learn about the capabilities of the products you purchase that all such decisions must be made for you.
If you, or any other Mac fan honestly believes that it’s a good thing that [product/program/standard/interface/etc.] “can’t be allowed…” then you are each and every one of you mad. I’d dearly love to have someone explain to me how people who can legally vote, drive and have children need to be bubble wrapped for the stupendously world-ending decision that is “what programs should I be allowed to run on my phone?”
Next up: phones that won’t dial pizzerias, or adult lines. We’re going to replace cars with a complex rail system that can take you from your house to place of employment. (If you are good, it may allow you to travel to (select, carefully chosen) commercial establishments where you may spend the money you earned.) Also in the pipe: voting stations that remove the burden of learning about your political candidates and choosing which to vote for.
Or, to sum up my rant more bluntly: the lot of you man the *** up and take responsibility for learning about the world around you and making appropriate decisions.
So you've had a day to think about this and digest all the intelligent comment on the interwebs and come up with a reasoned analysis to address the possibility that this could be the biggest change to how we perceive computers in decades and you went with, "it's a fat iPhone".
An oversized iPhone without the phone, that's either genius or madness.
I'm still very skeptical over the iPad, especially as for the expected price you could get an Asus T91 (with change to spare) which gives you the ability to run almost any Windows/linux app you want depending on what OS(s) you install, as well as a swivel touchscreen to turn it into a tablet.
But who knows, a year from now the iPad price could be halved and someone will probably have worked out how to unrestrict it and it could prove a really neat bit of kit.
*shrug* it's going to be an interesting year for Apple and it's followers/haters :)
Just for a moment try to imagine a world without mobile devices from the Apple.
No iPhone, iPod, iPad and no influence upon wannabees to wannabee.
See the difference?
The remainder after subtracting contributions from the Apple is same ol' from the same ol' to the same ol' by the same ol' carried by the same ol' (notice any underlying trend in this view?)
Its a route to Mac ownership pitched at young(er) more mobile buyers, if you already have a laptop then your not likely to buy it, but it competes for a different market sector.
& as for multitasking, who cares if it switches from running one task to another quickly? Ive never really considered lack of it a deal breaker on an iphone.
Whats more, theres probably a contract to the US Army - for those who dont need MacBook pros although they may have to make the baseplate a tad thicker as they use them to complement body armour!
It's The Interface, Stupid.
A bigger screen offers much more space for UI elements and interaction. Macolytes have been screaming for a "Mac Tablet". Well, they've been carrying one around in their pocket since 2007. Now they've got a bigger one. Strange how *not one so-called "IT reporter"* managed to pick up on this. All those iPhones and iPod Touches? Guess which OS they're running.
That's right: OS X. A full-fat UNIX-based operating system. Right there, in your pocket, running your apps.
What were you expecting? A simple, dumb port of the 1960s-era desktop metaphor still used on Apple's Mac range? Why the hell do you think the Tablet PC hasn't caught on?
Here's a hint: Windows' GUI wasn't designed *from the gorund up* for touch-screen interaction; they just nailed something onto a completely unsuitable WIMP interface and hoped they'd get away with this half-arsed approach. And they got rightly burned for it.
*Of course* any tablet Mac would end up with a different GUI than a traditional Mac. The traditional WIMP metaphor hasn't been fit for purpose in years. The mouse moves a virtual finger around a screen. You don't need that interface design kludge on a proper, touch-screen interface. Take a look at how they've changed their iWorks apps to run on this new device.
Watch that entire Phill Schiller section *again* until it finally sinks in, because, believe it or not, that iWork for iPad demo is far more important than you (or any of your peers) seem to have realised: THIS is the beginning of the end of the laptop as we know it. For the vast majority of computer users, there's no need to have a keyboard and trackpad permanently welded onto a touch-enabled screen. Include support for virtual keyboards—again, look at that Numbers for iPad presentation—and produce an optional, physical keyboard accessory as Apple have done, and you're golden. (The iPad also has Bluetooth, so there's ample scope for alternatives to the Apple-designed Keyboard Dock.)
A physical keyboard is overkill for the consumption-focused market Apple are aiming at. It may be a requirement for *you*, but you're a *content creator*, not just a consumer.
The only thing left is to nail the ergonomics of the two physical devices. Jonathan Ive's team has clearly thought hard about this, hence the iPad's case accessory and the keyboard dock, but it remains to be seen whether they've got it all right first time. (The Keyboard Dock looks a little inflexible ergonomically, but I've only seen the same static photos everyone else has.) Apple already produce a Bluetooth keyboard, so it'll be interesting to learn if that's also supported.
As for this tiresome "no multi-tasking" bullshit: Have you *seen* how most people use their consumer electronics and computers? Give it a rest already. Task-switching will be just fine for most of the target market.
"That's right: OS X. A full-fat UNIX-based operating system. Right there, in your pocket, running your apps"
1. Why is it hobbled?
2. And it's hardly 'full'. Have you looked inside it?
I take your point about the UI, I cannot think of a better way to do a touch screen, but to say that there is a full-fat unix in it is stretching the truth by quite a bit, especially if the end-user doesn't own the system by default, and if it can't multitask end-user processes.
Did anyone view the keynote?
Apple is the world's highest turnover organisation of mobile devices.
So who is listening to what the public want in an anti-recession or recession turning way?
Maybe Adobe can licence an iPad from Apple that runs the way Adobe would like it to?
Adobe to do a google?
An iPad type device hardware configured to run AIR and Flash might actually bring some competition (realistic competition that is) to ever nascent iPad but that also takes commitment in sense that longterm planning needs to be evoked.
While the world is stunned, reeling or in awe of the iPad I bet the Apple is well on the way to planning iPad #2 and iPad#3?
This is the kind of computer that my mother/father in wifes, non-techies etc. will use. It's not really for 'power users' or geeks, it's for the great unwashed.
The time i've spent trying to get parents/oldies working on email. web etc. however let them use an iphone and they just get it, so much quicker, they don't have to deal with the abstraction of their hand in one place controlling a little thing on a screen in front of their face. Double click, single click, click hold and drag, computers are not easy to use!
iPhone; Point at what you want and press, drag, swipe, it's a lot more 'natural'.
As for no multitasking, as above, how many times have I had to deal with "the mail/web/Iwork window has disappeared! Where has it gone!!!" iPhone/Pad press the 'home button, press the mail picture on screen, 'boom' as the man would say.
I feel the iPad truly is the computer for the rest of us.
[ie not me and you who read the Register!]
I agree with all of what you say.
But this 'computer for the rest' space has had loads of people try to occupy it before, in various ways. Think of Amstrad's wierd emailling telephone, or even their cp/m based word processor. The maemo tablets from Nokia, the Texet webpad that Asda had last christmas, Datawind's Pocketsurfer... it goes on.
Apple has the marketing clout and UI design skills to do a better job than any of them. But I think there is a fundamental flaw in the whole idea.
'the rest' will want more from their 'computer for the rest' after a few weeks. If they havn't got one of us as a nephew, they will have watched CSI and want to do what they do with computers. The gloss is going to wear off far to quickly to be a succesful product.
No-one has beaten a path to the door of the predecessors. It doesn't sound like a better mousetrap to me.
I'm no Fanboi, and I'm wary of Apple's business model but even so, is it really fair to kick Apple when they've created something as dull as the iPad? I mean, it's not revolutionary like the hype would have you believe, but it does look like it could be intriguing. Reg, you're better than this, stop lavishing your hatred on such a mediocre product - it's not worth it!
Paris - because even she's more interesting that the iPad...
Billy, Billy, Billy, man... So you are trying your luck at predictions again, uh?
Let's see, you finally admit that Apple did innovate with the iPhone and set new trends, but you did refuse to acknowledge it back when it was first released. Why should we listen to you know when you say the same things about the iPad? "No, no, this time... this one's for real, guys!"
You and others keep asserting that the iPad is dissappointing because Apple set to "redesign the iPhone", only that it didn't: It set to create a new class of device, one that fits between the iPhone and a laptop. You know, what Netbooks have purportedly tried before, but failed; ending up being just cheaper and less-powered laptops.
To the majority of its users, the iPhone/iPod Touch does some things very, very well (in spite of it's lack of "multitasking", and its inability to play FarmVille). There is a general understanding that some things could be much improved by increasing the screen size, for instance, viewing movies, browsing the web and reading documents. So the iPad specialises in those particular functions. So, it's not just a "bigger iPhone" without the phone, it's an iPod Touch optimised for and dedicated to those tasks.
You also assert that "even the hardcore fans seem disappointed"; but you do not mention what is your criteria for a "hardcore fan". Is it the multitude of Apple-bashers in your discussion forum? Or perhaps it's the tech-pundits who have been predicting Apple's demise (quite exaggeratedly) ever since the dawn of personal computing?
I would imagine that people who routinely lambast against anything Apple does would hardly qualify as "hardcore fans".
But what do I know, right? I'm just a regular computer user, with some technical skills, but with no ability (or disposition) to predict the assured and imminent catastrophic failure of popular company. I'll be leaving that to the experts.
Clearly they're not attempting to replicate the iPhone. Firstly because they already have a very successful product in that, so why bring out their own competition, and secondly *because the iPad doesn't have a phone*. You'd be better off trying to make the case against the iTouch, since it's more akin to that particular product.
"Hardcore fans seem disappointed". Do they? I've seen plenty of articles where people are wetting themselves over this piece of kit, and I've seen people saying that it's going to kill the Kindle (which I think is quite likely), and that it's going to replace the PC (which is mild insanity).
I agree that it's missing functionality, but what interests me is why did they go to the extent of actually showing that it didn't work with Flash there and then on the screen? That's a more interesting question, because I don't think they did anything in their presentation that wasn't meant. They could add Flash, like they could (and finally did) add copy and paste. I suspect that this will either come later, or they're waiting until the new OS comes out to have something specific to announce there.
No multitasking - I wonder at the extent that most people actually are going to want it - other than to play music while they're working on something. I don't believe that the iPad is aimed at you, or me either, and for most people, this isn't going to be too much of an issue. Besides, if people want to listen to music they'll already have a music player of some sort.
Given the tenor of your article I'm suprised that you haven't mentioned the lack of a camera. I don't particularly think it needs one of those either - though a webcam is a different matter. Besides if people want to take photographs they'll already have a camera of some sort.
What about the potential as an eBook reader? I'd be interested in your opinion on that. And the keyboard issue, plus the requirement for associated add on kit. How about costs? How about 3G and how/if we're supposed to take out new contracts on top of iPhones and dongles. How about the potential or otherwise to knock out something like the EEE? How about the relationship between this and print media? I don't want to read about fat middle aged men, I want to read about your take on how this will change the industry (one way or another). Tell your editors to just leave you alone and let you write stuff!!
The only thing Apple do let you multitask on an iTouch or an iPhone?
And tbh - it's about the only thing I can see wanting to multitask, the iP* do sufficiently fast task switching that I couldn't care less.
Of course I like having skype in the background, but if I look at the task manager on my HTC hero it's mostly stuff I'd be happy to have hibernated in some fashion.
So long as it checks for mail every few minutes I'm fine and dandy...
Multi-tasking is important in a larger "mobile" device. It's supposed to be able to take you away from using either a desktop, a laptop or a netbook, and even (in this case) a mobile phone. Because of this the ability to run more than 1 task at a time is important, especially in a consumer based device.
You're sitting (laying) on your sofa, you've managed to load a HD movie onto your iTampax, but you want to also get some emails done at the same time as watching the movie. On a Windows (or Linux) based Tablet PC, no problem, you run WMP in a box and move it to the side, open up your email client (or browser) drag it to the right and it docks taking up half the screen for you to do your emails on whilst watching the movie on the left hand side.
You suddenly think "shoot, I need some more info about this email, I need to talk to Jed" so you fire up messenger, log in (over wi-fi) and start chatting to Jed whilst watching your movie and having your emails open. Jed gives you a link to a web address which has the information you need for the email you're writing, you click the link, Chrome/Firefox/Opera/Internet Explorer opens up and using Windows 7 Multitouch technology taken from "Surface" you have exactly the same experience in ANY browser as you do with the iPad, so that's 4 applications running at the same time.
You finish your email, say "cya Jed" shut down all but the movie and then continue to watch it.
The iPad *cannot* do that, if you're watching a movie, that is *all* you can do with the device for 1 1/2 - 3 hours, if you have an urgent need to use it for sending an email, so you shut down the movie, open your email, crap, you need something from the internet, shut down email, open browser, get the information you need, shut down browser, open email, finish email, shut down email, open movie, continue movie........
Its terrible and Windows based tablets totally and utterly destroy the iTampax.
There I am watching a movie, I press the big button on the bottom, touch the mail icon send my mail and then go back to itunes to carry on watching the movie with little delay and where I left it - what's the big deal or have I found a new way of using the iphone?
Surely the best way to solve this I WANT FULL FAT OS X ON THERE ranting is to simply offer the option of dual boot for those that want it. Some sort of press the on button normally and you get iPhone OS. Press and hold during boot and you get an option to choose a full OS.
Alternatively, some sort of base station to dock into that includes a keyboard and mouse etc, turning the thing into a desktop/laptop, and immediately switching it from iPhone OS to full OSX operation.
Oh... and by the way, all those people complaining that the storage options are pathetic, please try and remember this thing has been done to a budget. A 256gb SSD would have added a significant amount to the price, making it too expensive for the type of device that it is.
Its clearly not intended to be a new iPhone. or a new iPod. It's not a laptop. Its not a netbook either. It is what it is. Surely the best thing to do is either try it out and see if you like the idea, or just leave it alone and accept that some people will buy one - and if enough people buy one it'll probably be around for a long time.
Personally, i reckon it will sell really well. Maybe not iPod-like numbers, but well none the less.
If they manage to make a robust, hard wearing, spill resistant version, even more so, since it could find all sorts of custom app industrial uses. Wandering around a factory running SAP etc on something like this would be ideal.
Flash is about 15 years old, but only in the past five has it been a absolutely useful tool to the average user. The fact is that Flash resource intensive. Without horsepower and bandwidth it degrades the user experience. Everyone is complaining about how slow ATT in the US is. Just imagine what would happen if every flash entity on every web page were added to the mix. ATT would likely crash. Even over WiFi the iPhone would be unusable for web browsing. This does not even consider the security implications from accepting Flash from unknown sites.
Safari does not have default ability to turn Flash off, nor does it have the ability to only accept flash from certain sites. Flash does not have this ability either. Without it flash on mobile devices is not something I want.
A solution is to have have an app that will run Flash objects outside of the browser. This will work for content the user chooses to view, but of course this would not ordinarily include ads. Another solution is what MS is doing for Silverlight, which is decoding content on the server side and streaming it to the iPhone.
Who was it who wrote this at the end of 2006? (Hint: Scroll to the top of the page...)
"The Apple phone will be exclusive to one of the major networks in each territory and some customers will switch networks just to get it, but not as many as had been hoped.
As customers start to realise that the competition offers better functionality at a lower price, by negotiating a better subsidy, sales will stagnate. After a year a new version will be launched, but it will lack the innovation of the first and quickly vanish.
The only question remaining is if, when the iPod phone fails, it will take the iPod with it."
Yes, I know that it's easy to preach from the top of this mountain of hindsight, but my point is that Bill Ray is reacting, not thinking. Come on El Reg- you can do better than this empty-headed nonsense.
To the cultified Fanbois who get a thrill from defending this joke-piece:
Who would want to lug around an oversized phone when they can get the eternal flexibility of a laptop for the same price/size/weight?
Just stop staring at icons and go for a walk, see some real colours etc. Stop irritating people by talking into hands-free on crowded trains - you are inflicting your drivel conversations on oterhs and they are DULL.
Firstly, it's not a phone. Quite why you'd think it was a phone defeats me, since (and this is the crucial bit)... it doesn't have a phone attached to it. People who already have a laptop probably are going to have limited interest, I agree. But again, (and this is the crucial bit), it's not trying to be a laptop.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019