-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
Apple iPad
- Thread starter Jack Sparrow
- Start date
Really? How many sites use HTML5? Even AT&T uses flash on their homepage.
You CANNOT call this this a good browsing experience if you cannot render flash. PERIOD.
Nonetheless, I think it is a pretty sweet product and look forward to trying it. If it did flash I would probably get it. Being a web designer, I need to be able to see ALL web sites, not ones that Apple says I can.
There's alot of naysayers, just like when the iPhone was first introduced. "no physical keyboard, no mms, no flash(adobe), no flash (camera), no custom ringtones, no removable battery, no 3G, no multi-tasking, no wallpaper, etc... wah" "It's gonna fail"
Look at where the iPhone is at today. The iPad may or may not be as successful as the iPhone, but one thing it will NOT be, is a failure. Mark my words.
Look at where the iPhone is at today. The iPad may or may not be as successful as the iPhone, but one thing it will NOT be, is a failure. Mark my words.
The iPhone was a bit of a lucky shot. The iPhone filled a gap that had long been identified as such but had been executed improperly before (a useable smartphone). I have one and I can't wait to get rid of it for a Nexus One.
I don't think the iPad has such a gap to fill (unless it's actually some sort of feminine hygiene product). I think it will be a failure on Apple's terms.
It's really just another way to look like a huge douchebag in public.
roflmao
- Joined
- 18 November 2004
- Messages
- 120
"The best way to experience the web" - on a low res small screen with no flash support?? Right.
This thing is going to sell like hotcakes. You heard it here first.
If Adobe cant produce a version of Flash that's acceptable to Apple, this could be the beginning of the end for Flash. It's not like there aren't alternatives (HTML5, H264) that are arguably better.
I don't think it is a case of Adobe not making a version of flash that is acceptable to Apple, I think it is a case of Apple not wanting a bunch of free flash apps taking their money.
But you are right, new technologies are coming that might make flash a lot less relevant.
I think this is a pretty good explanation why Apple doesn't want Flash as it currently exists.
http://daringfireball.net/2010/01/apple_adobe_flash
http://daringfireball.net/2010/01/apple_adobe_flash
Bunch of haters. You're all probably the same people that said the iPhone was a failure and would not sell well.
Well flash video is already h.264 based, so that becomes a non-issue. I don't think Apple necessarily wants to stop flash games from making their way to the platform -- if anything, it further helps sell their platform.
For people like me, who make native iPhone apps it's a scary proposition because it opens up the platform to everyone so I actually like the fact that it doesn't support flash.
Regardless, Adobe's new version of flash will automatically generate iPhone native binaries so that barrier will be gone pretty soon too.
In terms of the iPad itself, I hate the name and I'm annoyed that it doesn't have GPS or camera on the higher end models, but I do understand that their margins are razor thin on these initial units and they had a very aggressive price point that they needed to hit. I'm sure rev2 will have a camera.
Personally, I think it will sell pretty well because it really dumbs down the computer experience which is what most people want. Something that does the basics (browsing, email, photos, casual games, books, movies, and simple applications), does it well and in an intuitive manner, and doesn't feel like a computer (with all its associated headaches). For most casual non-tech savvy users that's more than enough. Even for people like me who live on our laptops, I find myself often grabbing my iPhone to quickly look up something on the net or check my email because it's more convenient than pulling out the laptop. This device may have the same convenience appeal, even though it can't fit in your pocket.
I also see this as a great little gadget for those who take public transit into work or travel a lot, and need/want a persistent internet connection. I don't think Apple got it 100% on their first try, but I think a lot of the "ease of use" is there, and the integration with their mini/micro-transactions on the iTunes store is where the future is at.
I waited for this to come out before I pulled the trigger on a netbook. I'm still going with a netbook. More storage (250GB), functions closer to a computer than an iTouch, and a lot cheaper.
I'm going to order an Asus 1005PE-PU17. 14 hours of battery life as well and I can put Microsoft Office on it. $368 from Amazon.
I'm going to order an Asus 1005PE-PU17. 14 hours of battery life as well and I can put Microsoft Office on it. $368 from Amazon.
It will only be a matter of time before someone makes one of these that is actually more useful. It is still pretty cool and I look forward to trying one.
Last edited:
LOL I bet they were working on the script while the announcements were being made.
I think it's hard to judge this thing until you get to play with it for a while. I suspect it's more the experience of using it rather than specs and features that is the key. It seems like people who have played with it are more positive than people who have not. David Pogue had good comments on all the bashing going on--that people make up their own personal list of requirements and if there is no camera--it's crap. If there is no usb port and SD card port--it's must be crap. If there is no flash--it's going to fail. Part of this is that people are evaluating based on what they do with their netbook now. Or their laptop.
I imagine that things like multitasking will come to the iPad (and iPhone) in a software update. There is too much pressure not to do it. I also think that future iterations will have things like the built-in web cam. That's a no-brainer, and apple was really early with integrating web cams into their notebooks so no reason not to do it.
Pogue also noted that no one predicted what the iPhone would be 2-3 years down the road compared to what it was when it launched. No one imagined you could do dyno runs with the accelerometer. Or tune your guitar. Or play Assassin's Creed. So who knows what people will write for this thing.
So I will wait until I get to play with one before deciding.
Last edited:
You just named off every reason why I will likely get one of these. It probably won't be until next fall or so, but as a machine to browse the web the convenience factor is huge- just grab and go- no start up delays, and wirelessly compatable with my home network. If you just want to fire off a quick email, or kill a few minutes surfing then this is a good tool.
It's just "simple" and that is convenient. If we want to do any actual computing we would use our existing PC, or the Macbook.
Also- this is a lot more "baby safe" than the notebook- I can't tell you how many times Lila has tried pull the laptop off of the coffee table by grabbing the open screen. iPad would be flush to the table so she would be less likely to grab at it.
Phil
Last edited:
Look up "ice3" (ice cubed) as a front end for Mac car computers. Pretty nifty stuff.
As far as the new iPad... it's a more expensive, larger, and crippled iPhone. It doesn't have a camera (can't do video conferencing), aGPS (not true GPS), no USB for connectivity (only the dongle to connect it to a Mac/PC). WTF is this "powerful" machine not able to multitask?!
IMO, if this would have came with tablet style UI over OS-X, this would have been the release everyone expected.
If one has an iPhone/iPod Touch and a MacBook/Netbook/Laptop there really isn't a place for this.
The iPad, for me, is nothing more than this:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/L68aKVAzwQ4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/L68aKVAzwQ4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
:tongue:
Last edited:
They could call the 64GB version the MAX-iPAD
I should have been in marketing.........
I should have been in marketing.........
Well of course it can multitask -- Apple has chosen not to allow it to to preserve the best possible user experience. Given that it doesn't have a super powerful CPU or GPU in there, this is probably a good decision. Heck, even an iPhone can multitask if you jailbreak it, and this thing is more than 2x the performance of an iPhone.
Is multitasking useful? Absolutely. I've been a big proponent of it since the Amiga days in the 80's when Windows and MacOS couldn't multitask
Of course it would make the device better, but the question is whether it's perfectly usable for the things it's designed to do without that capability and if it means a better/more consistent user experience?Personally I'm glad they didn't do that. It would be the same as every other tablet out there but running OSX instead of Windows. Not particularly compelling. The idea is to make it an appliance... easy to use.. that anyone can pick up and use without instruction because it's intuitive.
I think a lot of people (including myself) would disagree with you. I think it adds to .. but doesn't necessarily replace any of the others.
Similar threads
- Locked
