# So, this iPad thingumy...



## drjam (Apr 7, 2006)

is it as revolutionary as you'd hoped?
Or just a less handy-sized iTouch with a sh*te name and presumably a big price tag?
I don't see why I'd need one myself, on top of a (smart)phone and a netbook, but I'm sure they'll sell gazillions.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

drjam said:


> is it as revolutionary as you'd hoped?
> Or just a less handy-sized iTouch with a sh*te name and presumably a big price tag?
> I don't see why I'd need one myself, on top of a (smart)phone and a netbook, but I'm sure they'll sell gazillions.


They'll sell one to me... I'll work out why I need it when I get it. :wink:


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Is it shiny, lights up and goes "beep"?


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Spandex said:


> Is it shiny, lights up and goes "beep"?


tick! tick! tick! Sold to the idiot with an Apple fetish and no common sense!

Seriously though, it seems like the kind of device no one _needs_, but most people will lust after. The main question will be, "can I justify the money?" not "what will I do with it?"


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Spandex said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > Is it shiny, lights up and goes "beep"?
> ...


Justify the money? It's a few quid not a mortgage. If it takes my mind off f*cking school fees for 10 minutes, it's a bargain.

Leg likey beep, lighty up, beep lighty up.


----------



## drjam (Apr 7, 2006)

cheaper than I expected (though I guess when it gets here, $ signs will jut become £s, so still pricey), but it can bling and pling as much as it wants - since it doesn't replace either my phone or proper netbook/laptop, it would need to persuade me why I need _another _bit of kit to carry round. 
So far it doesn't.
iDon'tgetit


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Leg said:


> Justify the money? It's a few quid not a mortgage. If it takes my mind off f*cking school fees for 10 minutes, it's a bargain.
> 
> Leg likey beep, lighty up, beep lighty up.


Don't get me wrong, when I said the "idiot with an Apple fetish and no common sense", I was talking about myself...

However, the top end one will be around £700, I reckon. Certainly enough for most people to have to justify the money (and more than most people spend on a laptop). Even the lowest spec one isn't exactly going to be what most people would call cheap. Add that to the fact that it does less than your laptop does, it just looks prettier doing it.


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Fair price for Apple I think.


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Spandex said:


> Add that to the fact that it does less than your laptop does, it just looks prettier doing it.


Like a TT over a Golf? :wink:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Leg said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > Add that to the fact that it does less than your laptop does, it just looks prettier doing it.
> ...


If only Apple made cars...


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Spandex said:


> Leg said:
> 
> 
> > Spandex said:
> ...


There's an app for that.


----------



## Smeds (Oct 28, 2009)

I want one built into my dash!


----------



## phope (Mar 26, 2006)

Why doesn't it have...

Multi-tasking
Hand-writing recognition
Forward facing camera for use with Skype, etc
Built in SD card slot
A slot for flash SSDs to expand memory
No voice calls over 3G - it has a SIM slot, so why not allow the use of a Bluetooth headset in combination with the iPad to make calls?
Flash support - what is taking Adobe & Apple so long to build & allow the use of Flash?


----------



## ecko2702 (Jan 26, 2009)

I might get one to replace my laptop but I need to see and use one as I don't think they are going to be as amazing as they're making it out to be


----------



## Guest (Jan 27, 2010)

phope said:


> Why doesn't it have...
> 
> Multi-tasking
> Hand-writing recognition
> ...


Because it's made by Apple, the masters of style over substance :lol:

This product is pretty much pointless. If you have a laptop, or a smartphone you do not need this device, don't waste your money


----------



## The Silver Surfer (May 14, 2002)

phope said:


> Why doesn't it have...
> 
> Multi-tasking
> Hand-writing recognition
> ...


Because it's an Apple!

Form over function.


----------



## phope (Mar 26, 2006)

oh, it doesn't have GPS either, unlike the iPhone, so can't be used with the sat-nav apps just launched

Disappointing device, IMHO - perhaps by the 2nd or 3rd generation, some of the obvious flaws will be fixed :?


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

phope said:


> oh, it doesn't have GPS either, unlike the iPhone, so can't be used with the sat-nav apps just launched
> 
> Disappointing device, IMHO - perhaps by the 2nd or 3rd generation, some of the obvious flaws will be fixed :?


It does have GPS (A-GPS to be precise, so the cold/warm start times should be faster).


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

phope said:


> Why doesn't it have...
> 
> Hand-writing recognition


It's a capacitive touch screen. The only thing (realistically) that works on it is your finger, so handwriting is a pointless notion.


phope said:


> A slot for flash SSDs to expand memory


Most laptops don't even have anything like this.


phope said:


> No voice calls over 3G - it has a SIM slot, so why not allow the use of a Bluetooth headset in combination with the iPad to make calls?


No one would carry around a 10" screen device instead of a phone, so if you have your phone on you as well as your iPad, why would you want to make calls on your tablet?

I don't think this is the most fully featured device ever made, but it's not supposed to replace your camera, phone, laptop and coffee maker... Apple want to sell you a phone, a laptop AND a tablet, they don't want to just sell you the tablet instead.

Anyone who thinks Apple have overlooked out a load of features doesn't really understand how they (and most sensible companies) do business. They believe they have identified a gap in their product range and the iPad is their attempt to fill that gap. They will have deliberately left out phone functionality and deliberately used a large enough form factor that they won't risk cannibalising iPhone sales. They will also have deliberately made sure they won't hurt their laptop sales either.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

I like it... but the feature list is just too short for me to be really excited.

The main issues for me are

lack of usb-hub - i.e. you can't just plug a pendrive, camera, iPhone (!) etc in like a "normal" computer
lack of HD/HDMI out - so you can get a VGA adaptor? WTF?
no multitasking - why make iWorks for it and pretend its a productivity device, if you can't switch between apps?
no handwriting input
poor screen choice for an ebook

I already have a Son PRS-505 which I absolutely love for trains, flights, holidays etc. The e-ink screen can be read at any angle, in any lighting conditions, there's no glare, it is easy on eyes (no strain) and it is simply excellent at what it does - replace books! No matter how flash iBooks (and the bookstore is) I can't see it bettering the Sony screen - which is ultimately the most important part of a "book replacement device", surely?

The iPad just isn't innovative enough for me. Just like the Macbook Air wasn't either.

It is just criminal to have a device capable of playing HD video, but not be able to output it properly to a larger screen.

And... stylus technology is capable of producing a "pen" which can write on a capacitive screen. Again, it misses a huge trick. With "Brushes", it could have been a half-decent artists "pad" - but as it only handles finger input, you're reduced to what... finger-painting? Hello? I'm not 5 years old, and nor is the target market! A capacitive touchscreen with pressure sensitivity (in the pen if nothing else) would have been a step forward at least.

I love the form factor and as I love my iPhone, I'm sure to love this as a device too. I'll probably even buy one... but I can't hide my disappointment. There's just nothing revolutionary about it. They just blew up an iPhone / iPod Touch, IMHO, yet they could have done so much more.

I wish it ran Android or Windows 7. (And had usb-host, a displayport or HDMI out, and they'd made some fancy screen tech which meant that the IPS panel would somehow work as an e-ink screen...)


----------



## drjam (Apr 7, 2006)

jampott said:


> I like it... but the feature list is just too short for me to be really excited.
> I already have a Son PRS-505 which I absolutely love for trains, flights, holidays etc. The e-ink screen can be read at any angle, in any lighting conditions, there's no glare, it is easy on eyes (no strain) and it is simply excellent at what it does - replace books! No matter how flash iBooks (and the bookstore is) I can't see it bettering the Sony screen - which is ultimately the most important part of a "book replacement device", surely?


Now an e-book reader is something I've been interested in and wouldn't overlap with netbook/phone, but this certainly isn't one. Screen being one reason, battery life the other (if I'm going on a long trip I don't want to have to pack yet another charger; assuming I even have access to power).


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

I think most of the complaints that people seem to have about the iPad is that it's not like a computer; it syncs with your proper computer like an iPhone does, it isn't expandable, it doesn't 'multitask' (well, it does, just not in the high level way you're used to on a full computer), etc. What I don't understand is why these same people don't own one of the hundreds of tablet PCs that have been around for years, if that's the form factor they think works for them.

No one bought tablet PCs. No one wanted a device that was basically a crap laptop (a UI that was designed from the ground up to work with a keyboard and mouse, running on a device that had neither of those things). And yet, as soon as apple release a tablet that actually differentiates itself from the crowd by offering a completely different experience to what you can get on a laptop or a phone, everyone throws their hands in the air and says "but I wanted a tablet PC!!". Well, if you want one, go and buy one. There's loads of them going cheap on eBay...


jampott said:


> lack of usb-hub - i.e. you can't just plug a pendrive, camera, iPhone (!) etc in like a "normal" computer


There is a dock connector to USB adaptor. It has USB-A on it, so that implies that the iPad would run as a USB host when it's connected.


jampott said:


> I wish it ran Android or Windows 7.


As I said, there are *loads* of tablet PCs available. Buy one and put Windows 7 on it and you'll have everything you asked for.


----------



## graTT58 (Jan 28, 2009)

Is it worth throwing a laptop away for? I dont think so.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Spandex said:


> I think most of the complaints that people seem to have about the iPad is that it's not like a computer; it syncs with your proper computer like an iPhone does, it isn't expandable, it doesn't 'multitask' (well, it does, just not in the high level way you're used to on a full computer), etc. What I don't understand is why these same people don't own one of the hundreds of tablet PCs that have been around for years, if that's the form factor they think works for them.
> 
> No one bought tablet PCs. No one wanted a device that was basically a crap laptop (a UI that was designed from the ground up to work with a keyboard and mouse, running on a device that had neither of those things). And yet, as soon as apple release a tablet that actually differentiates itself from the crowd by offering a completely different experience to what you can get on a laptop or a phone, everyone throws their hands in the air and says "but I wanted a tablet PC!!". Well, if you want one, go and buy one. There's loads of them going cheap on eBay...
> 
> ...


Everyone is waiting for someone to do the "Tablet PC" thing properly. Microsoft may actually nail it with their rumoured "Courier" device:

http://gizmodo.com/5365299/courier-firs ... ret-tablet

As it happens, I *do* already have a tablet of sorts. An Asus UMPC. 7" 800x480 screen, with Wifi, Bluetooth and (now) running Windows Vista. Way too chunky for the screen size - it was a fun toy, but ultimately the screen res is now bettered by a Smartphone - but I liked the idea and still do. The world wasn't really ready for the UMPC a couple of years ago. Now it is ready for a decent tablet. However, I (for one) don't want the tablet to replace a laptop OR a smartphone. Like Steve Jobs, I think there's a space inbetween, covering the digital publishing spectrum and especially ebooks. It is missing, however, the 1 key thing which makes it an ebook reader and that's an e-ink screen.

Now Windows 7 has been designed with multi-touch screens from the outset, there's a hope that a device that uses it PROPERLY won't just be a "crappy Laptop".

But as Smartphones get better, the iPad needs to be something "more" - but WITHOUT trying to be a PC replacement. It is a very small niche to aim for, but that's exactly what Apple do.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

graTT58 said:


> Is it worth throwing a laptop away for? I dont think so.


See above. It's not supposed to replace your laptop, it's supposed to work with it. I guess for a some people, when they're travelling (not business travel) or commuting a laptop is overkill and an iPhone isn't quite big enough to sit there surfing for any length of time. For these people, the iPad might be a nice device to fill that gap. Small enough to throw in your bag without worrying about weight/bulk, but big enough to watch a video, do some email and surf the net on a train journey or flight.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

jampott said:


> Everyone is waiting for someone to do the "Tablet PC" thing properly. Microsoft may actually nail it with their rumoured "Courier" device


I honestly don't think anyone is waiting for that. I think the tablet is an awkward form factor for anything other than casual 'lounging' use. Apple may have made a token nod to business users by offering iWork for the iPad (all these 'i's start to sound really stupid when you use them in the same sentence) but this is not a productivity form factor and it never will be. As such, there's no point trying to bolt every conceivable connector, slot and feature onto it (although the lack of HD video output will be more to do with the studios than Apple, I promise you).

It's an entertainment device. It gives you web, games, music and video. If Microsoft try to make a more computer-like (feature-wise) version of this, it will fail. I would put decent money on that and I'm not a gambler.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Spandex said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > Everyone is waiting for someone to do the "Tablet PC" thing properly. Microsoft may actually nail it with their rumoured "Courier" device
> ...


Even the INTERNAL screen res is a strange one for HD video playback - which tells us what?

I kinda like the Courier concept - just as I like the newer ebook reader(s) which have 2 screens - an e-ink one for reading, and a smaller LCD for buying/browsing. No reason why it can't work. The Nintendo DS models are arguably the largest selling handheld games devices, and they are dual screen.

I dunno - I think I'm just disappointed that there's no innovation. They scaled up the iPhone (and its OS) rather than scaling down a MacBook (with Snow Leopard).

I love my iPhone but I can't see that a bigger version is necessarily "better", or magical, or revolutionary.


----------



## GEM (Jun 21, 2007)

Looks like you're carry around a flatscreen portable tv 
IMO Jobs looked silly holding it in his hand :lol: 
Almost as big as a netbook/small laptop.
As mentioned...missing loads of spec. 
John.


----------



## Nem (Feb 14, 2005)




----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Oh - and for people who think "multitasking" is purely for business users...

I want to be able to continue listening to Spotify, or the audio channel from a Youtube video, whilst I quickly switch to the Facebook app to update my status, or the TT Forum to check for new posts, or to quickly read that email someone has sent me.

Can I do that? No.

That isn't TOO bad on an iPhone - although Apple clearly *can* multitask on this OS, since you can continue to play the iPod in the background, just not other apps. 

But on something you're expected to be able to sit and use for hours on end, to have to close one application (e.g. the game you're in the middle of, or the video you're watching) to check email / FB etc is pretty dumb, tbh.


----------



## pas_55 (May 9, 2002)

Nem said:


>


It will never catch on


----------



## drjam (Apr 7, 2006)

Spandex said:


> I think the tablet is an awkward form factor for anything other than casual 'lounging' use. Apple may have made a token nod to business users by offering iWork for the iPad (all these 'i's start to sound really stupid when you use them in the same sentence) but this is not a productivity form factor and it never will be.


Agree with this. For all that they were describing at as a "mobile" device, I can actually see more appeal for it as something that never leaves the home, but is used when lounging on the sofa (as per yesterday's demo). Maybe San Francisco is different, but I just don't picture many people here carrying it around with them and sitting on the tube or the bus, watching TV or whatever (without feeling self-conscious, a tw*t, or in danger of being mugged). 
It's definitely not something for working on, so if you need to carry something to work on out with you anyway, can't see why or when you'd carry this as well.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

jampott said:


> I dunno - I think I'm just disappointed that there's no innovation. They scaled up the iPhone (and its OS) rather than scaling down a MacBook (with Snow Leopard).
> 
> I love my iPhone but I can't see that a bigger version is necessarily "better", or magical, or revolutionary.


I agree, but I don't see it as a bad thing. I don't see much of a market for Apple with a scaled down Macbook/OS X tablet, as they already have the Macbook Air for that purpose (it's about as minimal as you can get with that UI). I have an Air and I have an iPhone, but I think now what I'd really like is to ditch the Air and get a 13" Macbook (I have a 17" one for work, so I can manage without the big screen on my personal one) and an iPad for all the times when I just want to do basic stuff like surfing and email, but my iPhone just isn't big enough.

The lack of storage might be the thing that stops me in the end. I just think that 64Gb for a device that's supposed to carry your photos, music and video around is bit limiting. The lack of (front facing) camera is also a surprise, although I personally wouldn't have a use for it. I'd have thought the iPad was an ideal iChat/Skype platform for a lot of people.

I think in the end, like the iPhone, it's the apps that will sell it. For all the nerd outrage being bandied round the net right now about missing features, etc. I think in 6 months time when a few killer apps have arrived that make full use of that UI, everyone will suddenly see that UX is more important than spec sheets. The same thing happened with the iPhone.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Spandex said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > I dunno - I think I'm just disappointed that there's no innovation. They scaled up the iPhone (and its OS) rather than scaling down a MacBook (with Snow Leopard).
> ...


Quite... but it took the seemingly "basic" addition of Exchange support before the iPhone was a device I would consider... and the support is still a little flakey / patchy, to be honest.

So maybe when there's something worth (me) getting the iPad for, I'll get one. Let's face it, they've got until AT LEAST June / July before the 3G ones are released (Wifi-only is practically pointless to me) in the UK, which gives plenty of time for the developers to get their software out... right now, "pixel-doubled" iPhone apps are all you could have, and they may not look that great. :lol:


----------



## Smeds (Oct 28, 2009)

I'm iSold, will be a great addition to my set up. Can already see how I will be able to use it in both my personal and work life.


----------



## drjam (Apr 7, 2006)

Smeds said:


> Can already see how I will be able to use it in both my personal and work life.


Can you elaborate how?
(not doubting or being sceptical, just genuinely interested as to how you plan to include it; I'm assuming you already have phone + laptop?)


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Tablet PCs didn't take off previously because the market was in a different place. Now touch-screen is a common thing, multi-touch (thank you Apple) is lusted over, and media is also now desired "on the move".

I want a tablet to sit next to my sofa. Something I can pick up and jab at to change what's displaying on my TV (maybe preview the video on the tablet, but not to watch video). To take into the kitchen and use as a recipe book, or at the same time do my Sainsbury's shopping online. To check the TV listings, or the weather forecast that sort of thing.

Like this:
http://www.stantum.com/en/offer/slatepc

I think people are going to struggle with the limitations of an already fairly limited phone running in a non-mobile environment (who's really going to lug one around with them?). Touch-screen *is* crap for data entry, it's just convenient when space is at a premium. People like tactile feedback when typing anything of length. When computer keyboards came out originally they were silent, but people expected to be able to hear the keys going down like a typewriter so the clackity nature of keyboards was introduced so people can hear when they are making a key press.

Will it be a failure? No, people will buy it because it's Apple. Apple Fanboi's are the most dedicated I've ever seen.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Hehe: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/28 ... tiny_ipad/
:lol:


----------



## Smeds (Oct 28, 2009)

drjam said:


> Smeds said:
> 
> 
> > Can already see how I will be able to use it in both my personal and work life.
> ...


Don't currently have a laptop, just iPhone and iMac. Then 2 PCs for work. I have to write and review lots of documents, will be great to be able to go out and work wherever I want. Will also use it to work when I'm at head office. I have never wanted a Laptop, the ones avalable to me at work are rubbish. Currently I use my iPhone to access work emails and I work for a Web company and do lots of Live testing, (I'm a tester), currently use my iPhone for that sometimes too. 
Truth is I'm a real apple fan, the whole experience of owning the iMac has been brilliant. I love it. With the price of the iPad I would have probably bought it anyway, but I've watched the keynote and can genuinely see how I'll use it.

At home, the uses will be endless. Can't wait to see what sort of apps come to the store.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Dash said:


> Tablet PCs didn't take off previously because the market was in a different place. Now touch-screen is a common thing, multi-touch (thank you Apple) is lusted over, and media is also now desired "on the move".
> 
> I want a tablet to sit next to my sofa. Something I can pick up and jab at to change what's displaying on my TV (maybe preview the video on the tablet, but not to watch video). To take into the kitchen and use as a recipe book, or at the same time do my Sainsbury's shopping online. To check the TV listings, or the weather forecast that sort of thing.
> 
> ...


But you've just described a load of things that the iPad would be perfect for, then linked to some chunky looking tablet running a UI that was never designed for that kind of input.

What Apple have done with the iPhone and now the iPad is brilliant, really. They've taken a form factor that they believe has some value to people and gone back to square one with it. They've rewritten every application to make the best use of the platform, rather than doing the usual PC thing of slapping the same OS and apps on anything that'll (just about) run them. It's not a patched, hacked and tweaked UI from their desktop machines, like the tablet editions of Windows.

If people want to just stick with what they know and fudge the same UI onto all their devices in the belief that this makes them more functional then they are the ones who'll be left behind. Windows Mobile has clearly shown that having a flexible, feature-packed UI running on powerful, expandable hardware means nothing to the average user. On paper, a fast HTC WinMo phone looks like the perfect device... But they hardly sell in great numbers because people just don't care. They want something that's simple, fun and cool to use.


----------



## drjam (Apr 7, 2006)

Smeds said:


> Don't currently have a laptop, just iPhone and iMac. Then 2 PCs for work. I have to write and review lots of documents, will be great to be able to go out and work wherever I want. Will also use it to work when I'm at head office. I have never wanted a Laptop, the ones avalable to me at work are rubbish. Currently I use my iPhone to access work emails and I work for a Web company and do lots of Live testing, (I'm a tester), currently use my iPhone for that sometimes too.
> Truth is I'm a real apple fan, the whole experience of owning the iMac has been brilliant. I love it. With the price of the iPad I would have probably bought it anyway, but I've watched the keynote and can genuinely see how I'll use it.
> 
> At home, the uses will be endless. Can't wait to see what sort of apps come to the store.


Cool. 
If you don't have a laptop, I can see it makes sense. And I'm sure it will work well, in that Appley way.
As you say at the end, I can actually see this being more a home device than a mobile, out-and-about one.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Spandex said:


> But you've just described a load of things that the iPad would be perfect for, then linked to some chunky looking tablet running a UI that was never designed for that kind of input.


Could be perfect, but I somehow don't think it will be that great. The lack of multi-tasking will be a killer for somebody like me, as well as the price. When netbooks come in so cheap. It's just waiting for a touch screen (see the HP Slate).

Windows Mobile is a good example, but it's the very same reason why I still clutch onto my slightly difficult to use phone. I've got the flexibility to do what *I* want. I'm shocked that Microsoft have landed themselves in the position of being the ambassador of openness.

I also think Windows 7 would work quite well in a touch environment. But a light-weight Linux distro will probably be the better platform. Again, all too much hassle for the average consumer.


----------



## head_ed (Dec 10, 2002)

I'll buy one.

Sadly I fall into the category that Apple target brilliantly. I love gadgets. Love 'em! I don't care that other products will do things better/faster/more affordably.

It will sit well with my G4, 2xG5s, Macbook Pro, i-mac, i-pod & i-phone - what will it do to enhance my life? I have no idea, but I am sure it will. :roll:


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

I watched the slot on Newnight last night about this new thing.

I realized at the end of the piece that they'd actually told me nothing about it whatsoever. There was some ill-informed fat bloke (read "technology expert") who criticized netbooks for being underpowered, lacking functionality, and generally towing an Apple line whilst conveniently ignoring the fact that laptops, netbooks et. al are all OPEN systems that you can do what you like with. Presenting the iPad, an underpowered device that does much less than a netbook! HUZZAH!

Giving up on Newnight's info-thin sales pitch, I turned to YouTube, to see what the gaunt messiah Jobs had to say for himself. It was distinctly uninspiring. He brings out this giant iTouch, leaving me wondering if the product has grown or if Jobs had shrunk. Certainly his clothes were looking a little baggy.

He says it's revolutionary but then the first thing he can find to say about it to tell the hordes who are waiting eagerly, is that you can change the background picture on it, that they supply a few pictures, but you can put any you like on. Go on Steve - blow me away with it's most killer feature! But cue the applause regardless! Huh? Are they actually listening to what he says, or have they been "re-educated" to applaud every time Jobs says "cool" or "revolutionary".

Still waiting for the revolution beyond one I experienced on PCs 20 years ago, I gave up and sought some real info.

While the rest of the world and their dogs have long-since progressed to widescreen formats, and my average netbook comes with a 1280x800 screen, Jobs has revolutionized widescreen displays by giving the iPad a 1024x768 4:3 screen. GENIUS! So not only can you watch films and TV on it, which are all wide-screen, but you can now do so WASTING most of the 9" screen to black borders. It's revolutionary I say.

There are no USB ports, no SD slots, so presumably the only way you'll be able to get anything on there is by buying it from Jobs' store, he says with a hint of cynicism.

Still waiting for the revolutionary device to deliver something approaching a revolution, I see that Jobs has taken the eBook concept which uses ePaper, no backlight for easy reading, and consequent massive battery life, and thrown this out of the window in favour of a backlit display with an ever-decreasing battery life. AMAZING! Most eBook readers are open, you can stick anything you like on them. Cue the revolution: Now you can only buy Apple-approved eBooks from the Apple store, a shopping environment that has already seen application developers subjected to inconsistent cencorship and approval processes.

Still waiting for the revolution, I remembered Jobs telling us that you can browse the web on this device, offering precisely zero advantage over any other computer. He says this ability is, and I quote, "amazing". What's amazing is that people will agree.

In fact, the iPod is just an media gizmo and half-assed book reader rather than a computer. It really doesn't matter what applications become available for it, none will achieve anything other than novelty status because they are all hosted on what is effectively a closed system that doesn't even allow multi-tasking.

I just don't know what niche they're trying to fill. People who want a computer that does less than their computer? People who want a machine that'll only play what Apple says you can play? If Microsoft behaved like this they'd be up before the EU on anti-trust and anti-competetiveness charges before your very eyes. Yet Apple only want you to use their media software their browser, on their hardware, on an OS where their applications can multitask but yours cannot, and where the only market to buy new media and applications is THEIR store.

But it doesn't matter... look at the shiny shiny!! Shiny! Look! It's shiny! Shh. Just buy one. It's shiny.

Will anyone be seen outside in public watching films on the thing? No, not unless they want to be mugged or break their new toy. So it'll be a largely home-only device where, if you wanted to watch videos, you'd do so on your massive WIDE telly not the paltry 4:3 screen in your lap with some tinny speakers.

If you wanted to listen to music and didn't want to use a decent stereo, and if you're that big a fan of Apple, you'll be using one of your Apple products that look like miniature versions of this one. If you want to read a book... well some already saying that you can pick up REAL books on offers in major bookshops for less than the cost of a single book from Apple's store. So just what is it for?!

The only conclusion I can reach is that it's to separate fools from their money, makes Jobs more money so that he can buy some clothes that fit, and all in exchange for further Apple lock-in and proprietary interfaces and applications that make it make different noises when you touch it, be they farts, Star Wars quotes, or whatever. Oh the hilarity. iFart on a big screen. How long til that tires? It has no role in a business environment, and doesn't offer anything new for the home user. And if you want to browse a Flash web site, which is pretty much a standard for media-heavy sites, you're screwed because it doesn't do Flash. A media device that doesn't support the main media delivery mechanism on the internet. :roll:

But it really doesn't matter. The Apple fan-boys will buy it just because St Steve tells them it's revolutionary even though it really does nothing new, and nothing better than other devices. It's a big iTouch. You know, the iTouch - the iPhone-iPod without the phone.

And what'll happen when anyone who's going to buy one regardless has bought one? Apple will add some miniscule feature to it that it should have had in the first place, call it a new model with a big fanfare (the iPhone 3G springs to mind), and they'll all go out and buy it again.

:roll: Wake me up when a decent product turns up. :lol: :lol:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

I've read a lot of comments on this device (not just on here) and there is a common theme that runs through any arbitrary attacks on new Apple products (not just the iPad). People seem to use the phrase "easy to use" as an insult. These are usually the types of people who have been using computers for the last 20 years... Could build a PC if needed... 'Understand' how PCs work (or at least think they do)... And they seem to resent any attempt to cover up this complex, obscure world of processor speeds, memory specs and incomprehensible acronyms. They think that the consumer electronics world should just keep on churning out hardcore, super-powerful devices that do absolutely everything and if they're the only ones who know how to set them up or make them do something useful then that's everyone elses fault for being too stupid. These people have spent so long battling with indecipherable software and hardware that they've started to think that's normal. They complain that OS X isn't as 'configurable' as Windows, as though sitting there configuring things is what they bought the computer for in the first place.

Apple have done something revolutionary with this thing... They've made mobile technology accessible. They've watched the market stagnate (tablet PCs? UMPCs? Archos style media players? Windows Mobile?) and realised that it's because no one has shifted the paradigms. Everyone else just took what people were used to on their desktop and tried to give them the same experience on the move... but Apple reworked everything to fit how they think people will use the device and they pared it down to the simplest hardware and simplest experience so there's nothing to battle with. It will just work perfectly out of the box. The iPad has a list of features. I guarantee it will do every single one of them very well, because that's what Apple are good at. Comparing it to your phone/computer/satnav/coffee machine and saying "the fools have missed off this feature!!1!" just means you have missed the point.

I might sound like an Apple evangelist, but I've worked in the CE/entertainment industry for a long time and I've worked on products like this before and I am genuinely impressed with what Apple have done with the iPhone and iPad.


----------



## WozzaTT (Jan 15, 2006)

http://www.stephenfry.com/2010/01/28/ipad-about/


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Steven Fry is clearly a buffoon. :lol: I particularly chuckle at him lauding the way Apple control absolutely everything about the device, and that everything has to come through their store giving all proceeds to ONE company. It the very antithesis of a free market. The man's an iDiot. :roll:


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

ScoobyTT said:


> Steven Fry is clearly a buffoon. :lol: I particularly chuckle at him lauding the way Apple control absolutely everything about the device, and that everything has to come through their store giving all proceeds to ONE company. It the very antithesis of a free market. The man's an iDiot. :roll:


I think you'll find the man is getting paid to back Apple (and Twitter) and being paid well. You think his image as a lover of technology is accidental? Dont be so naive, perfectly cultured image to ensure sponsorship deals such as these.

Wish I was that much of an iDiot. I too could winter in my private villa in South Africa. [smiley=bigcry.gif]


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Leg said:


> I think you'll find the man is getting paid to back Apple (and Twitter) and being paid well. You think his image as a lover of technology is accidental? Dont be so naive, perfectly cultured image to ensure sponsorship deals such as these.


As conspiracy theories go, this has to be one of the most obscure. Do you have any evidence, or is this just a case of 'anyone who publicly praises something I think is rubbish *must* be on the take'?


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

ScoobyTT said:


> Snip


I decided a couple of weeks ago that the Netbook market didn't promise anything "decent" still. I have a Vaio TZ which cost the proverbial packet a couple of years ago, but it is a purchase I've never regretted, and with a VERY good screen and built in 3G in a proper laptop the size of a netbook, it has been a great portable device - something I can work on, even on a train.

Looking forward? The market isn't Netbook, but it will be Smartbook.

Lenovo Skylight is quite a funky implementation, but it is unlikely to be the only one in the market.

http://www.hellosmartbook.com/index.php

http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/05/leno ... tbook-com/

At ~£400 it is overpriced, but at £250 this sort of machine starts to look quite nice indeed. Whole-day (12 hour) battery life, reasonable connectivity, and it won't take long before someone makes one that is pleasing on the eye.

Still no ebook reader though...


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

The iPad is very close, but it just lacks some key features to make it acceptable - especially at that price.

It will cause development in this product area - which is only a good thing. Perhaps, like the iPhone, it'll take a few generations before it gets it right.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Dash said:


> The iPad is very close, but it just lacks some key features to make it acceptable - especially at that price.
> 
> It will cause development in this product area - which is only a good thing. Perhaps, like the iPhone, it'll take a few generations before it gets it right.


I partly agree - although I think it is actually quite well priced, considering other items in Apple's range. It certainly makes the higher capacity iPod Touch begin to look a little expensive.

The problem is, the iPhone has stayed remarkbly unchanged (hardware-wise) throughout its entire life so far. Sure, they've added 3G, GPS, improved the CPU speed - but the form factor itself (screen resolution etc.) are obviously unchanged. The iPhone has evolved rather than changed - so we won't see the sorts of changes that people really want (save for things like multitasking which can be done in software) for a long while yet (if ever).


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Well if you have a laptop and an iPhone what would you really need this for?

Perhaps we're all missing the point.

I've just checked out the iPad pages on Apple's website and whilst it looks sexy in a typically Apple way I really can't see how it will provide me with anything I haven't already got.

You can get a case for this thing that instantly turns it into a traditional laptop form. It's poor connectivity means no HDMI is available and you need to use the ugly, plastic docking station with a built-in keyboard to connect it to your TV.

If you want to add photos you need yet another adaptor to read from an SD card - that really should have been built in. Then how about music? You can download from iTunes or any number of legal and illegal alternatives but how do you add it from your CD collection? Presumably you rip it on another machine and then download it wirelessly onto the iPad. Hardly a paragon of simplicity then.

And assuming you do download music, movies and photos to display on your iPad, just where will you store it all? 64GB of solid-state flash drive is not very capacious in this day and age - particularly for this type of media.

Without doubt it looks good for surfing and emailing and I should imagine the sight of a touch-sensitive, almost full-size keyboard appearing magically in front of you is jaw-dropping - but we've seen the prototype on the iPhone already.

So who will use it? Well the clue is the Appstore.

I can imagine an army of kids, students and people who don't use a computer for work or business buying this and filling it with pocket-money applications to play games, connect with social networking sites and exchanging low-res clips and images via email or wirelessly.

I don't think it is intended in any way as a replacement for a laptop or an iPhone. I think Apple are targeting a whole new genre of potential Apple users who so far may have used an iPod and perhaps an iPhone but baulked at paying a premium price for an Apple laptop. And for playing music, watching videos or viewing photos why would they shell out more for an Apple machine over a Windoze box that does much the same?

I believe there is a section of people out there who will buy this to sit on the sofa on a rainy day (let's face it, we have plenty of those), surf, email, download chunks of music and watch video. And downloading music and video (to buy or rent) from the iTunes Store is a nice little earner for Apple. Set up an account with a one-time input of credit card details and it's an impulse purchase for the user that doesn't hurt the wallet much.

Get millions doing it on a cheap cutdown version of your own hardware and you're onto a sure-fire winner.

Cheers

Rich


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

Maccrap if you ask me


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

rustyintegrale said:


> I believe there is a section of people out there who will buy this to sit on the sofa on a rainy day (let's face it, we have plenty of those), surf, email, download chunks of music and watch video. And downloading music and video (to buy or rent) from the iTunes Store is a nice little earner for Apple. Set up an account with a one-time input of credit card details and it's an impulse purchase for the user that doesn't hurt the wallet much.


Exactly... This is what it's for. Apple never said it was a tablet PC. They never said it would replace any of your other devices. What they said (and I've watched the presentation, unlike some people on here who claim to have (I'm looking at you, ScoobyTT)) is that it will replace a certain list of functionality and it will do it better than your phone or your laptop. If you look at that list, it's hard not to agree that this would be a nicer way of doing it:

Browsing
Email
Photos
Video
Music
Games
eBooks

Most of these things are already nicer to do on your iPhone than on your laptop, but they would all benefit from a bit more screen real estate.

When you realise that they're not actually trying to make a tablet PC, it becomes a little more obvious why most of the whining about the iPad is a little misplaced. No one complains about having to connect their iPod Touch to a computer to get content, so why is it an issue with this?


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Spandex said:


> No one complains about having to connect their iPod Touch to a computer to get content, so why is it an issue with this?


I don't think they even intend you to do that. I think it'll end up being marketed just as a portal to access Apple's media services. All you'll need is a 3G or a wireless internet connection (public or private) and an account.

This will allow you access to films, games, eBooks, films, TV and music all of which will be controlled and sold by Apple for viewing on the iPad. I think the only requirement for a 'base' computer is to backup the data you've downloaded although if my hunch about the target market is correct, I can't see them bothering to be honest.

Think of it as like a Sky+ box and not a PC and you might understand where Apple is aiming this. You watch, you erase or save, you listen and erase or save, you read and erase or save. I don't think anything will stay on there too long apart from maybe games, music and photos.

I have to say, I watched the keynote too and Steve Jobs did look a little uncomfortable with it. I think I'd need to play with one before making a decision - certainly not something I've done with an iPod, iPhone, MacBook Air, iMac or Mac desktop computer purchase before.

cheers

rich


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Have they announced a price for us in blighty yet? The Apple site said at an affordable price, but I couldn't actually see a price anywhere. I'm guessing WiFi will be available in all versions (otherwise what would it do?).

I've seen £700 banded around for the price of the 3G enabled one, but I think this is just speculation. If it is this price I find it hard to justify a touchscreen. When underneath it's running a poorly speced netbook. I haven't seen much information on their newly built 1GHz A4 processor. But is it any better than the Snapdragon or ARM's Cortex mobile processors? Can it compete with Intel's Atom (especially Pineview) netbook loving system-on-a-chip?

Until they are available to buy and put side-by-side to the competition (like the HP Slate) we can't really draw any conclusions.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Actually, I think that's it.

The Atom is a CISC x86 processor, whereas the A4 and others are RISC ARM v7 processors.

Making the iPad a jumped up phone instead of a pathetically slow PC.


----------



## drjam (Apr 7, 2006)

rustyintegrale said:


> I think it'll end up being marketed just as a portal to access Apple's media services. All you'll need is a 3G or a wireless internet connection (public or private) and an account.
> This will allow you access to films, games, eBooks, films, TV and music all of which will be controlled and sold by Apple


Sure, this is exactly the rationale for it (from their perspective) - sell as much content as possible, controlling what can be sold, how and for how much. Makes perfect sense as a company strategy - profits there could easily outweigh what they make on the hardware.
And while I personally don't see why I need one of these in addition to what I already have (small-screen & pocket=phone; big-screen=TV; mid-screen and portable work tool=netbook/laptop) I certainly wouldn't presume to tell others whether/why they should have one. And when I'm impressed when I see it in action I'm more than happy to change my mind. I'm up for new gadgetry as much as the next man.
Even then though, I doubt I'd buy the iPad though, simply because of that whole Apple "control all the content" thing. Luckily though, if it does prove to be a market success and show the way forward, there'll be a whole load of more open copycats along anyway. (In fact, I believe there are already various in the pipeline, even before this week's launch?)


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Dash said:


> I haven't seen much information on their newly built 1GHz A4 processor. But is it any better than the Snapdragon or ARM's Cortex mobile processors? Can it compete with Intel's Atom (especially Pineview) netbook loving system-on-a-chip?
> 
> Until they are available to buy and put side-by-side to the competition (like the HP Slate) we can't really draw any conclusions.


But this is the whole point. 'Better' in what way? Compete in what way? How are you going to compare two bits of silicon when they're doing two different things and running in two different devices?

The days of benchmarking every product to death and buying the one with the biggest numbers will hopefully be over soon. People will start to realise that the important thing is how well it does what you bought it for. No one cares what micro is in their washing machine... They just want to press a button and get clean clothes out the other end. Apple (and a few other companies) have realised that distancing the end user from all that complex, meaningless and, frankly, boring detail is what will make people want to use their products.

Oh, and for what it's worth, rumour has it that it's an Arm Cortex A9 chip... Not much detail available as the package is covered in Apple logos.


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

drjam said:


> rustyintegrale said:
> 
> 
> > I think it'll end up being marketed just as a portal to access Apple's media services. All you'll need is a 3G or a wireless internet connection (public or private) and an account.
> ...


The thing is, when Microsoft (who I have no fan attitude towards) bundle a media player with an OS that lets you play anything from anywhere, the EU objects and cries abuse of monopoly even though the OS is open enough that people can install any alternative they like so what comes bundled doesn't really matter.

Now compare to apple: you buy a product with a restricted OS that restricts what 3rd party developers can even do. It too comes with its own browser and media players, but unlike MS you have to consume content through the manufacturer's own store. If Microsoft had tried this they'd be hung out to dry with more fines, yet Apple can get away with it. Why?

On the netbook thing, my only point was that by criticizing netbooks Jobs invited comparison of the two himself. I simply think if you're going to compare something to a computer as he did, and say that the computer is inferior, you'd better make sure the device you're hailing as revolutionary actually does something more. You can change the picture you're viewing by tapping or by dragging an animation of the picture turning. Frankly, who cares? I press a key and it changes instantly without pointless novelty faff.

I can see the Apple adverts now... 
You want a real keyboard? There's a nasty-looking accessory for that.
You want to hook up your TV? There's an accessory for that. 
Want to get photos off your digital camera? There's an accessory for that. 
And all in a device that costs twice as much as a device with all these things and industry-standard ports built in.

I think this sums up Apple's attitude nicely:





:lol: :lol:


----------



## Smeds (Oct 28, 2009)

Found a blog with 10 problems with the iPad, I've got nowt else to do so I've given my two pennys worth on each point.

1. Flash. The Safari browser included on the iPad doesn't have Flash -- just like the iPhone. That's a huge hindrance. How does Apple think it can get away with no Flash? Did it bake HTML5 in and forget to tell us about it? Apple really don't like Flash, I've read a few articles and although I don't fully understand the full detail, they do seem to have some good reasons.  
2. No camera. A user-facing camera to enable video conferencing and/or video chats was high on the list of features expected. It doesn't have one. Yes a camera would have been nice for msn calls. But I've had phones with video calls and just never used them If I had it, I'd use it on occasion, but I don't think I'll miss it. Never really use it on my iMac. 
3. No multitasking. It appears that even though Apple has re-jiggered iPhone OS to work on this device, it still can't run background processes. That's a huge detractor. I don't really see this as an issue for me. If I'm working on a document or playing a game and I get an email, I'll read it on my iPhone and decide if I want to reply. Emails usually distract me from what I need to focus on and when I'm at work I close outlook and only open it every hour, deal with what is there and close it again.  
4. No Verizon. The 3G wireless service that comes as an option with the iPad is not being provided by Verizon Wireless. It is being provided by AT&T. Man, can AT&T handle it? We know the scorecard there. I guess this argument will come out about O2, they are pretty poor and I will be going to another carrier for my next iPhone contract. Hopefully don't win the contract, or upgrade their service if they do.  
5. No widescreen display. The 9.7-inch IPS display may be capable of showing HD movies, but it doesn't match the 16:9 standard screen dimension that many of today's devices conform to. The screen size seems pretty perfect, my 40" LCD often has the black lines and it's never distracting. Would a 16:9 tablet be an awkward size and impractical for other functions? 
6. No Mac OS. The iPad runs a new, in-house built processor that Apple calls the A4. It clocks in at 1GHz. That appears to be just fine for iPhone OS, but the iPad doesn't run the more capable, full OS X, which is what would have really set the device on fire. Damn you apple for designing and operating system purpose built for the Hardware you have built. If the iPad had the capability to smoothly run OSX, bigger and heavier. It appears to be a good marriage of hardware and operating system 
7. No GPS. The iPad has an accelerometer for a great gaming experience, but no GPS. That means Google Maps is going to have to rely on 3G and/or Wi-Fi to locate the iPad. So much for replacing your smartphone. I have no wish to replace my smartphone, til iPhone 3GS mk11 comes out. Don't feel the lack of GPS will hold it back.  
8. Enough storage. I realize that the iPad can sync content with iTunes and users can add/remove content at will, but 64GB (max size) is just not enough. Not enough for the games, movies and music I'd want to carry around. Without knowing how much of the 64gb will be taken up by the OS and standard app, it's hard to say. I won't be hoarding lots of data that's for sure, I regularly have a good clean up on both my iMac and iPhone.  
9. Removable Battery. The iPad follows the footsteps of Apple's iPhone and newer laptops in that it doesn't have a user-removable battery. So much for bringing a spare for flights that last more than the 10-hour rated battery time. The last thing I want to lumber round with me is another battery, the iPhones and iPads are a nice sealed units, why ruin them? 10 hours? Great!! 
10. No HDMI. How is it possible that Apple would skip an HDMI port for easy compatibility with today's HDTVs? Stunning, in my book. Why do I need HDMI? Everything that is on the iPad will be on my iMac, which I can watch via Apple TV. HDMI port would just get dusty and I'd have to carry an extra cable.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

The Verizon is an American thing. It's not a GSM network, which all the UK providers are - so not an issue here.

The removable battery thing is the the inevitable death of a battery's performance (even modern batteries) years down the line. Or - if something major goes wrong, being able to reset the device - hopefully this would never be required.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

ScoobyTT said:


> The thing is, when Microsoft (who I have no fan attitude towards) bundle a media player with an OS that lets you play anything from anywhere, the EU objects and cries abuse of monopoly even though the OS is open enough that people can install any alternative they like so what comes bundled doesn't really matter.


Well, by over-simplifying the EU case, you've managed to miss out the important points. It's not simply a case of saying Microsoft can't bundle software, as I'm sure you're aware (I don't remember the anti-monopoly case against Minesweeper, do you??). As for playing 'anything from anywhere', you probably need to look up the difference between codecs and DRMs. The only thing stopping Apple users from playing MS-DRM content is Microsoft themselves.



ScoobyTT said:


> Now compare to apple: you buy a product with a restricted OS that restricts what 3rd party developers can even do. It too comes with its own browser and media players, but unlike MS you have to consume content through the manufacturer's own store. If Microsoft had tried this they'd be hung out to dry with more fines, yet Apple can get away with it. Why?


I don't know if you are deliberately writing inaccurate things here, or if you have just read a few anti-Apple rants on the internet and believed them. OS X is restricted to Apple hardware (although, for the normal end user this is mainly through lack of support than through any real legal attempts by Apple themselves. I know quite a few people running it on non-Apple hardware) but the OS itself is not restrictive and is an excellent platform for developers (I work with many coders who use OS X by preference, Linux if they can't use OS X and Windows if they absolutely have to). As for the locking down of content, I can only assume you are unfamiliar with the massive number of content providers using MS-DRM (a DRM which is far from open and requires license fees paid to MSFT for its use). I guess you didn't buy any (ironically named) PlaysForSure content, only to find that the Zune wouldn't even support it.



ScoobyTT said:


> On the netbook thing, my only point was that by criticizing netbooks Jobs invited comparison of the two himself. I simply think if you're going to compare something to a computer as he did, and say that the computer is inferior, you'd better make sure the device you're hailing as revolutionary actually does something more. You can change the picture you're viewing by tapping or by dragging an animation of the picture turning. Frankly, who cares? I press a key and it changes instantly without pointless novelty faff.


If you watch the presentation you'll see that Jobs criticises netbooks by saying they're not a solution to the problem, which they're not. They are low powered, cheap laptops, but they don't do anything different to a normal laptop. He's saying that if you need laptop functionality, then buy a laptop. Buying something low powered, then sticking a resource hungry OS like windows on it is stupid. I'm sure, as a computer user you're happy with pressing a key to change photos... But if you handed your laptop (powered off) to someone else, would they be able to easily find the software you happen to use to manage your photos (or the folder you've stuck them in), and would they know how to start a slideshow in it? This is what Apple are trying to do. They're making a device that can do a load of things that used to be the preserve of the personal computer, but making it so simple a 5 year old or a 95 year old could understand it. Personally, I think this is a good thing.


----------



## drjam (Apr 7, 2006)

Spandex said:


> If you watch the presentation you'll see that Jobs criticises netbooks by saying they're not a solution to the problem, which they're not. They are low powered, cheap laptops, but they don't do anything different to a normal laptop.


I'd disagree that they "don't do anything different" - there are two reasons why I moved from laptop to netbook: 1. it doesn't weigh me down so much (I travel a lot) and 2. it allows me to take a smaller, not-built-for-purpose bag. Those attributes certainly _are _a solution to a problem - and, given they've made such a massive impact on the market, it seems plenty others think so too.
Now obviously the tablet has those two same attributes. Which is why, if people don't need the productivity and connectivity of a "cut-down laptop", or don't own one already, I can see the appeal. Especially for just at home.
But for me, when it's a choice of one or the other (because I don't have the cash to throw around on buying another gadget just because it's cool), the netbook wins because I need it to be productive as well as entertaining.
So for me: 
Laptop - too big, too heavy, and why pay for power & capability I don't need
Netbook - small, light, and good enough to surf, email, entertain and work
iPad - small, light, usual Apple usability & style, but twice the price and underpowered & unsuitable for work


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Nobody used minesweeper that's why :wink: What codecs does the iPad come with then? I'm betting on H264 in the guise of Quicktime and.... probably not much else since I'd wager that every video you can buy/download from iTunes is encoded in Apple's own Quicktime - naturally! Will it play DixX/Xvids and other common codecs? Just wondering. H264 is processor-intensive so it'd be nice if it's got wider codec support for less power-hungry decoding.

By playing anything from anywhere I wasn't referring to DRM at all, simply the most basic fundamantals of being able to put media on the device from a bunch of sources, whereas if you want to buy books, music, videos etc. you have only one choice - the iTunes store. That's pretty anti-competetive in my book. iTunes sell (or used to) DRMed stuff anyway. I can't remember what happened about that - didn't they offer non-DRMed media for a premium or something?

Zune... Zune...? Nope. I avoided PlaysForSure. If I want something that plays for sure, it's got no DRM In it  In any case, H264 is a codec in itself which requires licence fees to be paid; although I have to say I'm not sure if you need a licence for playback or just for content creation.

I'd say that if you hand an iPad, powered off, to a granny or other technophobe they would not instinctively be able to use it without some guidance, just like any other unfamiliar device. The first question would still be "how do you switch it on?" quickly followed by "what do I do now?". Granted once a few concepts are learned a touch interface will be generally easier to use than a full-blown PC, but basically you're still pressing buttons. They just offer no mechanical feedback 

I can't help thinking though that the iPad is a solution to a problem that really doesn't exist, but then I've just never really seen the point of watching a film on the go though headphones, and if I was at home I'd use a decent display device rather than something in my lap. That's just me though.

To pick up on Smeds' comments: true, although Flash has become somewhat ubiquitous I've heard some mutterings about it although not in sufficient depth to argue about it technically. I think the thing is though is that so many sites do now use it regardless, and it has become a significant means of delivering media in a browser. Perhaps Apple should just make a bomb proof implementation of it that they're happy with, and at least then iPad users can visit sites without discovering that they don't work on it 

I still reckon a 4:3 screen is a daft idea, but hey. And remember, a 9" 16:9 screen will give you a bigger image of letterboxed material than a 9" 4:3 screen which is what I would want out of a portable device - maximum image size relative to device size. A 4:3 screen will also waste more of its available area, which I reckon is a bad thing on a battery powered device - large areas of black are still going to be backlit. Yeah the 16:9 would still be using power of course, but at least it'd be wasting less with any material wider than 16:9


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

ScoobyTT said:


> Nobody used minesweeper that's why :wink:


No, that's not why. It's because the monopoly cases are about far more than simple bundling, which is why so far, Apple haven't been caught up in a similar situation despite bundling a whole suit of applications.


ScoobyTT said:


> What codecs does the iPad come with then? ...


You were talking about Windows Media Player on the PC, not portable devices so I responded by talking about media playback on OS X. The only portable device Microsoft make (and therefore the only one you can compare to the iPad from Microsoft) doesn't 'play everything' either.


ScoobyTT said:


> I can't help thinking though that the iPad is a solution to a problem that really doesn't exist, but then I've just never really seen the point of watching a film on the go though headphones, and if I was at home I'd use a decent display device rather than something in my lap. That's just me though.


It's a problem that doesn't exist for you, and that's fine. It doesn't really exist for me either except when I travel, although I'm sure I'll end up buying an iPad to play with. I'll get a couple for the office first though, so maybe I'll have got it out my system before the 3G one comes out.


ScoobyTT said:


> I still reckon a 4:3 screen is a daft idea, but hey. And remember, a 9" 16:9 screen will give you a bigger image of letterboxed material than a 9" 4:3 screen which is what I would want out of a portable device - maximum image size relative to device size. A 4:3 screen will also waste more of its available area, which I reckon is a bad thing on a battery powered device - large areas of black are still going to be backlit. Yeah the 16:9 would still be using power of course, but at least it'd be wasting less with any material wider than 16:9


Video playback is only one feature of the iPad. For all the other functions, having a 4:3 screen could be a good thing (for example, 4:3 is closer to the normal aspect ratio of printed material and photographs). As for wasted space, that's not really something you can argue. It has more to do with the overall dimensions of the device than the aspect ratio. If Apple decided that they didn't want the iPad to be more than a certain height, then making it 4:3 would actually give them more screen space for that height... Having that extra screen unused during video playback is hardly 'a waste' of anything.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

drjam said:


> I'd disagree that they "don't do anything different" - there are two reasons why I moved from laptop to netbook: 1. it doesn't weigh me down so much (I travel a lot) and 2. it allows me to take a smaller, not-built-for-purpose bag. Those attributes certainly _are _a solution to a problem - and, given they've made such a massive impact on the market, it seems plenty others think so too.


I'd argue that being smaller isn't the same as _doing_ something different. 17" laptops, 15" laptops, netbooks... They're all just different sizes (and subsequently weights) of the same thing. I'm not saying that makes them bad, but it doesn't change their function.

The reason netbooks took off also has nothing to do with the above. They sell well because they cost very little. The vast majority of people who buy them would probably take a 15" version if it was the same price. I know plenty of people who have them and they all got them because they didn't want to spend much money and they could *put up with* the small screen and low power...


----------



## drjam (Apr 7, 2006)

Spandex said:


> drjam said:
> 
> 
> > I'd disagree that they "don't do anything different" - there are two reasons why I moved from laptop to netbook: 1. it doesn't weigh me down so much (I travel a lot) and 2. it allows me to take a smaller, not-built-for-purpose bag. Those attributes certainly _are _a solution to a problem - and, given they've made such a massive impact on the market, it seems plenty others think so too.
> ...


Completely disagree - it's the combination of both, low price AND small size/weight - that's made them successful. One without the other, and they'd have had nowhere near the impact they have.


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Exactomundo I reckon. I had an old 12" Vaio from the early 2000s. Price then: phenomenal, but the reason I kept it was because it was wafer thin, only weighed a kilo and was great for sitting back on the sofa to do all those iPad things. Even better I could type out an email orders of magnitude more quickly and without taking up half my screen with a keyboard. I could have upgraded it to a 15" laptop, something big. I wanted something small and light. Netbooks have been incredibly popular and it's not just pricing, because actually a lot of them just aren't the SCCs they were meant to be and you can get full size laptops in the same price ranges.

For me, what would make the iPad a really killer device would be if it were opened up being being just a shop front for Apple's media, and into a truly open and integrating device that can interact with your home PC, media centre, TV, etc. etc. Being ablne to flick through your movies in your lap, tap one, and have your media centre play it on your big screen would be excellent. The same for music... I want to browse the music on my media PC. Flicking through albums stored on that instead of on the iPad, and having them play through the decent sound system rather than pretending that bass never existed with an iPad.

If it had an IR transceiver it could also learn IR commands for devices in your home (or better still download complete profiles for them from the net) so you could not only start your movie/music but have your TV change to the correct input, fire up the AV receiver, and change its volume with a slide of a finger in your lap, all without having to fumble for remotes or leave the chair. THAT would be cool.

Combine that IR functionality with the ability to browse EPGs in your lap rather than on the TV with a crappy controller, and again, THAT would be cool. Things could be so much richer and yet simpler. That would be revolutionary and bring something new to the home and to the way people interact with their devices. Tap it into home automation stuff too...

Want to show the family that funny YouTube clip? Slide it off onto the big screen so everyone can watch. Cool.

Browse photos on your big screen, sliding them on the small screen in your lap. THAT would be cool. An iPad that talks to other devices and interfaces with them in your home to make using everything easier and in an integrated fashion. That would be genuinely revolutionary. That's where devices like this need to get to, and frankly I hope it's someone other than Apple that does it just so that things aren't locked to one company.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

ScoobyTT said:


> For me, what would make the iPad a really killer device would be if it were opened up being being just a shop front for Apple's media, and into a truly open and integrating device that can interact with your home PC, media centre, TV, etc. etc. Being ablne to flick through your movies in your lap, tap one, and have your media centre play it on your big screen would be excellent. The same for music... I want to browse the music on my media PC. Flicking through albums stored on that instead of on the iPad, and having them play through the decent sound system rather than pretending that bass never existed with an iPad.


You need an Apple TV then - it does exactly that.

http://www.apple.com/uk/appletv/

Cheers

Rich


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

All that stuff will come in 3rd party apps. You could do it all in a webapp without even having to go through Apple at all if you wanted... I can already watch live Sky and browse Sky+ listings/set recordings on my iPhone and even more developers will get on board when the iPad launches.

As for IR support, I'd like that too, but it's not likely to be an interface that would be built into *any* phone/tablet/PC. It wouldn't take much to knock up an Ethernet to IR device to hang on the network though... Stick the IR code database in that and just send deviceID/keycode to it over WiFi. I'll let you know how well it works at the end of March :wink:


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

rustyintegrale said:


> ScoobyTT said:
> 
> 
> > For me, what would make the iPad a really killer device would be if it were opened up being being just a shop front for Apple's media, and into a truly open and integrating device that can interact with your home PC, media centre, TV, etc. etc.
> ...


Not quite... I like the idea though... but Apple TV only supports up to 720p, and is just another shop front to Apple so misses the criterion of being a system that allows you to obtain media without being locked to one outlet. Apart from the store bit, it doesn't do anything that my media system doesn't already do, except that with that I have total freedom rather than a fixed portal. :?

I take Spandex's point about apps. Hopefully someone will have the vision to produce something all-encompassing so you wouldn't have to flick between apps all the time. I reckon future devices would be missing a trick not having IR. Touchscreen remotes are available of course but are just that... a remote, and are static and unnetworked. Integrating that into a multifunction touch device, particularly one that's media-oriented would be cool.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

ScoobyTT said:


> rustyintegrale said:
> 
> 
> > ScoobyTT said:
> ...


But you're not limited to one outlet.

I use a USB TV tuner (Elgato Diversity) linked to my computer that gives me the facility to record any programme available on Freeserve and save it to no end of formats - including Apple TV. These are then transferable to the Apple TV. In addition you can add your own video content or any you download or rip from DVDs.

Likewise with music. Anything you can rip or source online can be added. And you can do the same with photos.

Cheers

Rich


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Looks rubbish, I wouldnt touch one.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Leg said:


> Looks rubbish, I wouldnt touch one.


Great review mate...


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

Lots of good debate and different views here, however, I'm I the only one who thinks the man in charge of one of the biggest, highest profile companies in the world should know that not wearing a belt is a cardinal sin? Don't get me started on the jeans and trainers <sigh>


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

John C said:


> ...am I the only one who thinks the man in charge of one of the biggest, highest profile companies in the world should know that not wearing a belt is a cardinal sin? Don't get me started on the jeans and trainers <sigh>


 :lol: :lol: :lol:

Well he is American and well - don't go there... :lol:

But you have to give the guy a break. He's been very ill recently and probably wouldn't look at his best in anything at the moment.

And what's wrong with jeans and no belt? You wouldn't see it on me anyway as I always have a shirt hanging out!

Cheers

Rich


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

rustyintegrale said:


> But you're not limited to one outlet.
> I use a USB TV tuner (Elgato Diversity) linked to my computer that gives me the facility to record any programme available on Freeserve and save it to no end of formats - including Apple TV. These are then transferable to the Apple TV. In addition you can add your own video content or any you download or rip from DVDs.


Hi Rusty,
Drifting off thread here somewhat but it was based on what I'd like a device like the iPad to really be able to do  AppleTV supports:
 * H.264 and protected H.264 (from iTunes Store): Up to 5 Mbps, Progressive Main Profile (CAVLC) with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps (maximum resolution: 1280 by 720 pixels at 24 fps, 960 by 540 pixels at 30 fps) in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats
* iTunes Store purchased video: 320 by 240 pixels, 640 by 480 pixels, 720 by 480 pixels (anamorphic), or high-definition 720p
* MPEG-4: Up to 3 Mbps, Simple Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps (maximum resolution: 720 by 432 pixels at 30 fps) in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats

A few things grab me about this: 
Maximum resolution 720p - sorry, not good enough. Why do Americans think 720 is high def.? Sorry, I just twigged... compared to NTSC, *anything *is high def. :lol: I see. 
If you're not using H264 the bit rate is effectively throttled to 3Mbps, and look at the crappy resolutions if you're not using H264. There is no need for these limitations.
Audio seems limited to AAC-LC.
No surround sound - according to a review I read.

All in all, Apple TV offers you nowhere near the freedom of video resolutions, codec combinations, etc. etc. 1080p is a glaring omission IMHO. Not supporting surround sound is just pants.

I think also you're missing a trick with your setup: you have a TV tuner for your PC; you the store shows off in Apple TV format on your Apple TV, and then play them. I'd cut out the middle man (Steve Jobs), hook the PC up to the panel directly, install MediaPortal and get all the same functionality with EPGs, recording etc., music, pictures, and more. Job done, and no need for a box that cripples your format choices, and no significant limit on storage.

You can buy a TB drive for £40-50, download some free codecs and play anything. Your PC is now better than Apple's offering for a fraction of the price. Apple are having an absolute giraffe sticking a 160GB drive in AppleTV. I see it comes with a 40GB option too. DId they just stock up on 40GB drives in 2005 and now think they're a serious option for high def storage?? Steve Jobs is a cult. I may have mistyped that.

I'd urge anyone to spend £200 making their PC silent and buying a TV tuner for it, rather than buy AppleTV .


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

ScoobyTT said:


> rustyintegrale said:
> 
> 
> > But you're not limited to one outlet.
> ...


Yeah, but you see I'm a lazy git. I just like to get my stuff out of the box, plug it in and have the whole thing work when I power it up. That way I get the pleasure of using it as intended rather than stressing myself out trying to bastardise another box with free codecs and having bits of PC infesting my living room.

The Apple TV just sits underneath my screen, is totally silent and has just one tiny white LED to tell me what I need to know. Everything I put on it is done wirelessly be it from Apple or my own iMac.

Simples.

Cheers

rich


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

ScoobyTT, I do understand where you're coming from, and I've probably used more media center and media players than you even knew existed over the years (and a fair few that never actually officially existed), so I'm very familiar with the pros and cons of Apple stuff compared to them. I'm not sure I could really recommend AppleTV to anyone (I've loaned them out to people in work to try out before they bought one and I'd say 90% of people decided against it when they experienced the limitations first hand (the hacked one with additional codecs installed faired a little better)).

That being said, your recommendation of things like MediaPortal is a sure sign that you're not really in touch with the market and you're allowing your knowledge of the technical side of things to blind you to how average users want to experience media. I'm sure, for you, MediaPortal (or, the one you *should* have recommended - XBMC) is absolutely fine, as you wouldn't be fazed too much by having to set up shares or having to browse filenames (rather than metadata) or tweaking settings to optimise it all. For the average Joe at home though, this isn't a device you put under your TV. They expect to come home from the shops, take their new toy out the box, plug it in and be using it in seconds. They don't expect to have to build it, install an OS, install some media center software and then tweak it for a few days till it's doing what they want.

Ultimately, I don't think a product exists yet that does this job properly. I think AppleTV has come the closest on almost all fronts, however the codec support and the fact that iTunes video importing and management is nowhere near as mature as the audio side of things are too big a deal to ignore. Most other systems go completely the other way - supporting every codec and protocol known to man, but doing it in such a poor way as to make them unusable for anyone but the person who set them up.

<edit>re-reading your post, through many lines of specs, codecs and acronyms, there is not one mention of usability or user experience. This is why your idea of what is good and desirable in technology will never work for most people and why it will ultimately fail in the market.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Spandex said:


> <edit>re-reading your post, through many lines of specs, codecs and acronyms, there is not one mention of usability or user experience. This is why your idea of what is good and desirable in technology will never work for most people and why it will ultimately fail in the market.


And that is the crux of the matter. :wink:

There were many MP3 players before the iPod came along - indeed I owned one that cost me over £500 and was a pig to load with music. I immediately bought an Apple iPod as soon as it was released and sold the other crock of shit on. The iPod by comparison was tiny, a cinch to set up and it just worked with my Mac.

Same thing with my wireless hub, my Time Capsule and now my Apple TV. It all just works and works well together. It means I can get on with what I want to do with minimal hassle and virtually no need for an instruction book. That's the way I like my tech and that's why I love Apple. :wink:

Cheers

rich


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

I think this thread is generally showing two types of people.

There are those, like me, who don't want to pay over-the-odds for a brand. And would rather put a bit of our own time and some head-scratching in to get an unrestrictive product.

Then there are those who are happy to pay that bit extra for a brand they'll know will "just work". They plug it in and it does the job, they don't care if it doesn't play these codec things, just that what they want is there. And as long as Apple and such provide the content for them to watch they don't care.

Most people are in the latter group, as most people don't have the time an inclination. I'm in the first group. I want to have complete control over everything I own. If that means I have to go to a bit of effort to get it working, then so be it (due to spending most of my spare time on here this generally means I do without).


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Spandex said:


> re-reading your post, through many lines of specs, codecs and acronyms, there is not one mention of usability or user experience. This is why your idea of what is good and desirable in technology will never work for most people and why it will ultimately fail in the market.


I see why you think that Spandex, but I can assure you that I want ease of use AND top spec. Ease of use is a given for me, and there are no tricky configurations to do with my setup. It's been pretty much fire-and-forget. There aren't bits of PC lying all over the place, just once discreet aluminium box with a very tasteful glass door, it runs silently because I chose for it to do so, but there are manufactuters who make dedicated HTPCs. I think the old adage is true though: you get out what you put in... if you just want to unpack a box and go, then you're going to run up against the limitations of that box quickly. If anyone wants to run 720p material on their 1080p screen and have all lines scaled by 1.5, and are happy with how that looks, good luck to them and they can enjoy the Apple TV, but I want ease of use and quality. If you put just a smidge more effort in and buy a better product, you can have a result that's so much better for very little extra effort 

I have tried XMBC. Personally, I didn't like it but I may give it another visit. I can't remember which one branched off of which - XMBC from MediaPortal or the other way. I don't have to browse lists of file names and folder shares in MediaPortal. All my films, music and TV are driven by metadata. I can use my laptop over wireless to tell it to download something, dump it in a folder, and know that it'll watch for changes and download the information, artwork, etc. etc. with no intervention from me - unless I want to. From my remote control I can change what it shows, read reviews of albums, read the news, weather, browse and download additional artwork for series and films. It's dead easy to use and seriously cool. What's more I don't have any of the limitations that had people returning AppleTVs to you and deciding they wouldn't get one 

Granted nothing is totally there yet, but I have to say that the free offerings are infinitely better than any of the commercial offerings. I dabbled with Windows Media Centre/Player. Heap o'cack. It promptly replaced all my nice highish resolution album covers with crappy small versions that it downloaded without my say so even though I had the option to download crap from the internet turned off [smiley=bomb.gif] I just want software that does what *I* want it to do, not what it thinks I'd like. MediaPortal, skinned up to look fabulous, and with all the meta data and artwork created by people with an eye for quality, downloaded for free, really is the best I've encountered yet. Browsing movies, programs etc. has a real "wow" factor. The AppleTV screens I've seen are just... lists. How bland. I've tried lots of media players, but yeah a lot of them are just that - players - not an accessible gateway to an entire media repository, TV tuners, etc.

At risk of sounding all hippy, in a lot of cases what groups of people write to fill their needs often turns out to be better or at least more innovative than commercial offerings. I think because they're trying to do what people REALLY want to do, and are unhindered as a result, rather than what some market researcher found out from a bunch of questionnaires or cynically, in Apple's case, trying to foist even more Apple onto its buyers.

I think the point about the hacked AppleTV faring better is a good one, but it does counter somewhat the argument of other systems being overconfigurable. People encounter limits with Apple products, and frequently go on to try and circumvent them, while Apple frequently continue to try and stop them doing that. If only they would give people genuine options... as it is, their products just can't be taken seriously because they're not overly interested in giving people real choice.

Remember how Apple like to say "there's an app for that" - for instance if you can't divide a restaurant bill between 5 people. It's a shame they don't say "there's an option for that".

If Apple fans are really after cool, which is really cooler? This:









Or this:









*Bingo!* We need a cool wall


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Dash said:


> Most people are in the latter group, as most people don't have the time an inclination. I'm in the first group. I want to have complete control over everything I own. If that means I have to go to a bit of effort to get it working, then so be it (due to spending most of my spare time on here this generally means I do without).


I spend my days in work playing with this stuff, bolting it all together to do various jobs, talking to the companies that make it. I have both the time and the inclination (I enjoy my job and I take things home to play with too) to make these things work how I want... But, what I *want* is to not *need* to do that.

I personally think that the people who spend their time tinkering with this stuff are actually treating it as a hobby (much the same as the home automation fans). This is all fine (quite a fun hobby to have, in my view), except it often leads them to spend way too much time on the net criticising products like the iPad, etc. when what they actually mean is "I don't like it because it's too restrictive to work with my hobby". The most vocal 'Apple-haters' are typically computer geeks who don't like the idea of anyone owning or liking simple, easy to use, configuration-free technology, purely because it doesn't fit with how they like to spend their time.

It's like a trainspotter telling me I'm an idiot for choosing the train with the most comfortable seats, when clearly the other train has a superior engine and a high tech glass cockpit for the driver.


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

I just want to watch stuff in the best quality... I don't really care what codec it's in as long as it looks perfect and I can play it at the touch of a button. I want to spend my time watching or listening to whatever it is, not configuring how it'll show, and I want it all done in one box, not one box hooked up to another box to back stuff up so I don't lose it if it breaks, and another box with a TV tuner to convert stuff into the configurationless box's format that I then choose to watch stuff off. That's more faff than I can be bothered with to have a configurationless box in my home. And frankly I don't want that many boxes in my house and the rats' nest of cables that goes with it. But that's just what works for me


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Looks good, think I'll get one.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

ScoobyTT said:


> If Apple fans are really after cool, which is really cooler? This:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, you've put up a slightly misleading pic of the AppleTV interface. Here is the one that's comparable to the Mediaportal one:










So, which is cooler? No idea. They're both doing much the same thing. But, with the AppleTV it did that without the user having to install Mediaportal, without having to download a nice looking skin, without having to scan IMDB or whatever it uses to get metadata and cover art and without having to build the PC in the first place.

During the XP era, Microsoft were actively pushing MCE computers as devices to be installed under the TV (which is why it wasn't built into the normal version of XP). They gave up for a reason. They eventually realised what everyone else already knew - not many people are willing to hook a PC up to their TV - and started focusing on the xbox as the way to control media consumption in the home...


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Following all the stuff about hacking I decided to have a go at modding my Apple TV so I could get BBC iPlayer and other stuff on it using Boxee and XMBC.

All was going well until I tried to find Apple TV firmware to backgrade my unit to 2.X. I got the hack installed on a USB key but the ATV reported that 'the mode was not supported'.

After an evening spent skimming around the internet following broken links I gave up. :roll:

My ATV is on version 3 I think, so does anyone know how I can simply hack it to receive BBC iPlayer? Anything else is a bonus!

Cheers

Rich


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

This article is a bit lengthy, but I think it's a fairly good explanation of why people will buy (and not regret buying) the iPad:

http://gizmodo.com/5458531/the-ipad-is-the-gadget-we-never-knew-we-needed


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Fraid not Rich, Apple hardware I'm not too hot on.

I just use my Wii. Although I find the iPlayer fairly useless as it only keeps things for a week, and I'm generally 3 or 4 behind!


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Spandex said:


> Well, you've put up a slightly misleading pic of the AppleTV interface. Here is the one that's comparable to the Mediaportal one:


Cheers. I couldn't find anything richer than the one I grabbed and nevertheless is IS a picture of the interface. Presentation aside, yeah they do the same thing. Personally I think Apple's interface is a bit too cartoony. Can it be skinned? 



Spandex said:


> But, with the AppleTV it did that without the user having to install Mediaportal, without having to download a nice looking skin, without having to scan IMDB or whatever it uses to get metadata and cover art and without having to build the PC in the first place.


It got its movie info from somewhere. iTunes store perhaps, where you were cajoled into buying your media from as soon as you opened the box.  And look what hassle Rusty's got trying to get beyond what Apple wants him to do. Install and go... it's the future! 



Spandex said:


> During the XP era, Microsoft were actively pushing MCE computers as devices to be installed under the TV (which is why it wasn't built into the normal version of XP). They gave up for a reason.


In my view everyone gave up with MCE because it's a steaming pile of dog turds! :lol: Microsoft totally missed the boat as to how to present media in an easy-to-use fashion and making it look like something you want to use. And of course, it wasn't cool. Also it was a closed system so you had no say in how it did things, such as trashing your album covers with its own :-| MCE sucks!



rustyintegrale said:


> Following all the stuff about hacking I decided to have a go at modding my Apple TV so I could get BBC iPlayer and other stuff on it using Boxee and XMBC.All was going well until I tried to find Apple TV firmware to backgrade my unit to 2.X. I got the hack installed on a USB key but the ATV reported that 'the mode was not supported'.
> After an evening spent skimming around the internet following broken links I gave up. :roll:


hehehehe... mods, hacks, firmware downgrades..... how's that whole ease of use thing coming along anyway? :wink: :wink: 



Spandex said:


> This article is a bit lengthy, but I think it's a fairly good explanation of why people will buy (and not regret buying) the iPad:


And in the interests of journalistic balance, here's a fairly good one explaining why it misses the boat. 
http://mashable.com/2010/01/27/apple-ipad-downsides/

 I'd like to try one out to have a play, I do like the idea in principle especially if it did more, but can't see myself owning one.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

How does MC in Windows 7 compare to XP? I never used the XP one, but I wanted to watch something on my TV the other day, so I plugged in my laptop to the S-Video on my TV and fired up MC. I told it where I wanted it to take videos from (network share), and it did the rest. It asked me things like how do I want my screen setup etc. Then I sat back with the cute little remote embedded in the side of my laptop and watch videos. Couldn't have been easier.

I'm currently looking at getting a Western Digital Live HD box thingy. Just a little box that plugs into my TV and network and/or USB drive. Doesn't record or anything, but until you can properly setup Sky on a computer then I'll use my Sky+ for TV, and that for anything off the Interweb. Supported DNLA servers so should be ok if I want to stream anything.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Dash said:


> Fraid not Rich, Apple hardware I'm not too hot on.
> 
> I just use my Wii. Although I find the iPlayer fairly useless as it only keeps things for a week, and I'm generally 3 or 4 behind!


Aha! Well I can download anything I want and have it for keeps - gotta love Mac... :lol:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

ScoobyTT said:


> It got its movie info from somewhere. iTunes store perhaps, where you were cajoled into buying your media from as soon as you opened the box.


Where do you get your video media from? I'm willing to bet that bittorrent or newsgroups are involved somewhere. It might surprise you to hear that the vast majority of people who use iTunes actually like it. They don't resent it or feel 'cajoled'. Again, like most things that Apple try to do, it's a pleasant and simple experience. The thought of trying to get content through filesharing would, at best, seem like too much effort to most people, while many simply wouldn't feel comfortable doing it.

Anyway, this could go on and on without us agreeing. I remember when I used to think like you (I have at least 3 old media center style PCs still scattered around the flat to prove it) but working in this industry over the years has changed how I see peoples interaction with technology. When you understand about technology, it's very easy to feel smug and imagine that everyone else would like the same things you like if only they knew what you know... But, they wouldn't. They genuinely don't care about all the things that annoy you about Apple. This is why the iPad will do well.


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Dash said:


> How does MC in Windows 7 compare to XP? I never used the XP one, but I wanted to watch something on my TV the other day, so I plugged in my laptop to the S-Video on my TV and fired up MC. I told it where I wanted it to take videos from (network share), and it did the rest. It asked me things like how do I want my screen setup etc. Then I sat back with the cute little remote embedded in the side of my laptop and watch videos. Couldn't have been easier.


Sounds easy! I'd only used the XP one as I've not really got any reason to upgrade to 7.

Spendexy, I think we actually agree on more than you think. I don't feel any sense of smugness for using a PC instead of an Apple TV. It's been years since I cared what graphics card I had. I want things to be easy and don't care for spending ages configuring stuff. What I do like though is something that's easy enough to change to work how I want it to. I like the ideas of the iPad, but I do think it's deliberately crippled somewhat - there's no reason why it couldn't do lots of other cool stuff. I like choice in where I buy stuff; and yeah lots of people like iTunes, but I want to be able to choose where I buy stuff rather than having one place with fixed prices - because there's no competition in that.

Really though, I don't see any difference between hacking your Apple hardware to do more of what you want it to do and installing a plugin on a PC. They're two sides of the same coin - people wanting their devices to work the way they want them to or to do things that they want to do. Some people like the defaults, but I think any device should give you the choice


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

ScoobyTT said:


> I've not really got any reason to upgrade to 7.


Pffff... yeah you do! It's much better to use than XP. It's what XP was to 2000. Few under-the-hood changes, instead subtle but significant changes (especially with resource management). I've got to fit in time to rebuild my workstation at work from 2003 to 7 - I'm hating the old school UI!


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Back on-topic; this might be a good use of an iPad if it's cheap enough:

http://community.citrix.com/pages/viewp ... =115343605

Simply a dumb terminal. Who needs processing power locally when you can use your remote power?


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Cool. Some mentions of it being useful in healthcare, and also this guy:


> hey guys.... This would be a great solution for my home theatre PC... it's running windows 7 right now... and I use media center to play all my videos in my database.... so what I see on the screen of the ipad... would also be shown on my 108" HD projector screen... This would in turn become the BEST remote.... I'll b coming back for an update


Now that's the kind of thing I'd want to be able to do with it.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

ScoobyTT said:


> Cool. Some mentions of it being useful in healthcare, and also this guy:
> 
> 
> > hey guys.... This would be a great solution for my home theatre PC... it's running windows 7 right now... and I use media center to play all my videos in my database.... so what I see on the screen of the ipad... would also be shown on my 108" HD projector screen... This would in turn become the BEST remote.... I'll b coming back for an update
> ...


I think the direction is fine, but the scope is too narrow.

If I was designing a system I'd want to move beyond what is essentially a posh remote desktop. With the Citrix thing, you're stuck controlling one device... With a decent app, you could control your whole home.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Spandex said:


> With a decent app, you could control your whole home.


Ever tried X10?


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Dash said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > With a decent app, you could control your whole home.
> ...


X10 is terrible. It's ancient technology that is only still around because it's open and cheap enough that hobbyists can easily play with it. I'm sure, for the casual tinkerer/nerd, it's pretty impressive to control your lights over the internet but really, the protocol is poorly designed (and implemented in most cases), with shockingly bad latency. Unfortunately, there isn't really an alternative right now. Certainly not one that's as prevalent.

On top of that, X10 is just a protocol. No one has wrapped it in an easy to use and easy to set up system. I think the biggest problem with home automation now is that to do it well, a company would need to put limits and boundaries in place, which is the opposite of what the hobbyists want. The openness and configurability that they demand is what makes it inaccessible to the average person... This is, of course, what Apple do too (see, we're still on topic :wink: ). The restrictions in Apples ecosystem aren't just there to force you into their market (although of course that's a factor).. They also allow Apple to ensure the quality of the user experience. For a lot of people (myself included), this is an acceptable compromise.

I love the idea of home automation, but I don't want it to be my hobby. A friend of mine wrote an interesting article on this topic a few years ago. If you're interested in home automation (and you have time. It's a big article) then I think it's worth reading:

http://www.automatedhome.co.uk/Announcements/Home-Automation-Laws.html


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

I've been tempted by X10 a number of times, but like a lot of things don't really have the time to invest. I can change light switches, and I can program computers - so theoretically I should be able to implement a system to do what I want.

I think the main issue that article encounters is the user identification. I can write a system that will turn the lights on during the hours I'm averagely at home, whether it's based on ambient light of sunset times. What I can't do is easily identify if I'm in the room to make use of that light. And the last thing we want to do is waste energy.

We are almost there with the technology but we need to implement and refine the face recognition software for it to work.

Edit: Looks like KNX is a better alternative to X10 - although I get the impression the available products use a separate wiring circuit which isn't very good for retro-fitting or being done on the cheap.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

Can't be bothered to trawl through all the pages to see if anyone's mentioned this, but I heard that the guys behind the Carling iPint (Trevor Bettie essentially) have come up with an app for the iPad. the iKeg.

It's simply a keg of carling, but can sync with your iPhone and refill your iPint.

Brilliantly pointless. Bit like the iPad. ANd it's exactly why people want it.


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Nope you're right, no-one's mentioned that. So you're saying that if I have an iPad, and an iPhone, I too can enjoy the unbridled satifaction of topping up my graphical pint using iKeg, and all I have to do is carry both devices around with me at the same time until all of my friends have got bored of seeing it? Sign me up!   

iPint: An application that draws a pint that tips when you tilt the phone. That's about the extent of the quality of most of the "applications". How many are there now, twenty-odd thousand? I'll wager right now that 99.5% of them serve no genuine purpose whatsoever and are just a simple gimmick along the lines of "look what happens when I tilt the phone" or "listen to what sound it makes when I touch it". You only have to look at the advertising to see just how banal most of them are.

Dictionary.com defines an application in the computing sense as "a type of job or problem that lends itself to processing or solution by computer: Inventory control is a common business application." I puzzled for ages to determine what job or problem 99.5% of iPhone "applications" provided a solution to. And then it occurred to me! It's to solve the problem of having bought an overpriced, underspec'ed (come on, no 3G in the first version!) device that has one trick up its sleeve and needing ever more vapid ways to use said trick so that you don't quite feel like you've completely wasted your money, whilst spending more money in the process. :?

I don't know whether to despair that people are so easily entertained, or to wish I'd thought of it first. :roll: :roll:

In other iPad-related fools-to-be-separated-from-money-really-easily news, I found this concept accessory:
http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/31186/i ... -accessory

The iPad steering wheel accessory! YES! For those who are REALLY serious about their iPad driving experience! Er... wouldn't you have to be on smack to buy that? Maybe it's just me, but I've seen driving game(s) on the iPad and iPhone and one slight flaw strikes me: when I'm driving in my real car, and I turn the wheel, my view of the road doesn't rotate correspondingly with the wheel. And when I've tried other driving games on other platforms, I've never had the accessory that rotates the entire TV when I turn the wheel. All these years I've been driving my car and I've been doing it wrong! I should have been tilting my head with the wheel so my whole view gets skewed :lol: :lol:


----------



## GEM (Jun 21, 2007)

*ScoobyTT*...Like it...Nice one. PMSL :lol: 
John.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

ScoobyTT said:


> iPint: An application that draws a pint that tips when you tilt the phone. That's about the extent of the quality of most of the "applications". How many are there now, twenty-odd thousand? I'll wager right now that 99.5% of them serve no genuine purpose whatsoever and are just a simple gimmick along the lines of "look what happens when I tilt the phone" or "listen to what sound it makes when I touch it". You only have to look at the advertising to see just how banal most of them are.


Or, in other words, "I've not used or even looked at any iPhone apps, but from my limited understanding of the subject, I'm going to make up facts then base the rest of my post on them".

That's some weapons grade whining you've got going on up there.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Spandex said:


> That's some weapons grade whining you've got going on up there.


 :lol: :lol: :lol:

What's wrong with a bit of fun? Even in an app? :?

Scooby it's obvious you're not in the market for an iPad but then again I doubt you'd buy anything from here either... 

http://www.agentprovocateur.com

Looks like a whole lotta fun... :wink:

Cheers

rich


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Or, actually in other words, "no I've not seen any genuinely useful applications for the Jesus Phone, and haven't researched it heavily enough because I don't want to spend the time researching a product I don't actually want because I can see from afar that it's of no Earthly benefit to my existence, but I remain content to lampoon it for the entertainment of others like GEM who find it amusing, under the concept almost universally known as satire."



Hey nout wrong with some fun Rich (even in an app) but I can make farty noises without handing a penny to Steve Jobs, for the amusement of myself and others. Free fart-related entertainment for all I say. Seriously though how much fun can iPint be? It tilts, it drains, you could pretend to drink it oooo maybe twice before it tired. I'm reminded of Homer Simpson's "tray goes in, tray comes out, tray comes in, tray comes out" kind of amusements for some reason  OK, so iPint is free. Free pint-related amsusement for all!

If you like to buy yourself lingerie, knock yourself out, but you're right I wouldn't buy anything from there unless it were for someone who'd look good in it


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

ScoobyTT said:


> I remain content to lampoon it for the entertainment of others like GEM who find it amusing, under the concept almost universally known as satire.


I find it amusing too, although possibly for different reasons. It's kind of like listening to my dad make fun of pop music or teenagers fashion...


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

I know, I laugh too when I hear people criticising the unabashed talent that is Jedward - they just don't get it, man.

And teenager's fashion? Surely you don't mean the art of wearing clothes that don't fit and applying makeup with all the dexterity of a plasterer? There's an app for that!  :lol: :lol:


----------



## WozzaTT (Jan 15, 2006)

ScoobyTT said:


> Nope you're right, no-one's mentioned that. So you're saying that if I have an iPad, and an iPhone, I too can enjoy the unbridled satifaction of topping up my graphical pint using iKeg, and all I have to do is carry both devices around with me at the same time until all of my friends have got bored of seeing it? Sign me up!
> 
> iPint: An application that draws a pint that tips when you tilt the phone. That's about the extent of the quality of most of the "applications". How many are there now, twenty-odd thousand? I'll wager right now that 99.5% of them serve no genuine purpose whatsoever and are just a simple gimmick along the lines of "look what happens when I tilt the phone" or "listen to what sound it makes when I touch it". You only have to look at the advertising to see just how banal most of them are.
> 
> ...


Couldn't agree more - there are some useful apps but the vast majority are banal, mindless shite. If I hear one more person refer to this or that app as 'cool' I'm going to ram my head through the wall in sheer frustration.

I don't really care that much of course but I do like to sneer and feel superior.


----------



## pas_55 (May 9, 2002)

Couldn't agree more - there are some useful apps but the vast majority are banal, mindless shite. If I hear one more person refer to this or that app as 'cool' I'm going to ram my head through the wall in sheer frustration.

I don't really care that much of course but I do like to sneer and feel superior.[/quote]

Just for you.
http://cool-app.blogspot.com/


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Hurrah! A competitor!

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2010/02/05 ... s_itablet/


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

ScoobyTT said:


> Hurrah! A competitor!
> 
> http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2010/02/05 ... s_itablet/


252 x 192 x 35mm and 1.18kg. I think a laptop might actually be smaller. In fact, a desktop might be smaller than that thing.

If that's the competition, Apple don't have too much to worry about. Hopefully, one day someone will actually do a little bit more than just rip the trackpad and keyboard off a cheap laptop running an OS that doesn't work too well without them. *Then*, maybe there will be some competition.


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

He's still not wearing a belt... :?


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

ScoobyTT said:


> And teenager's fashion? Surely you don't mean the art of wearing clothes that don't fit and applying makeup with all the dexterity of a plasterer? There's an app for that!  :lol: :lol:


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/18 ... app_store/


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

ScoobyTT said:


> Hurrah! A competitor!
> 
> http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2010/02/05 ... s_itablet/


The iPad is the competitor, this was announced first:

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2010/01/26 ... te_latest/


----------

