patrick.net

I'd have preferred if they just started using the iphone OS on macbooks. For the tablet-style interface, maybe something like the swiveling tablet / laptop hybrids that toshiba has been making for a few years would be good.

Otherwise I don't see much of a point to the thing. It's too big to want to take with me when I'm running errands, and the lack of a real keyboard means I'm not going to use it for anything that requires interaction (email, message boards, etc.). On a bus or train or whatever, I'd prefer a proper laptop.

So that might leave "lying in bed", but, well...when I'm lying in bed I'm either watching TV (i'd MUCH rather do that on my 50" plasma, thankyouverymuch), or reading a book.

The book angle is interesting, but if all I wanted was an ereader I can get a kindle for $250 and not strain my eyes from the LCD screen (and not have to pay for wireless either)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/28/hitler-reacts-to-the-ipad_n_440265.html

This is awesome!

Honestly, I have serious doubts about the iPad. I say that as someone who couldn't live without my iTouch. Almost ever bar, restaurant and coffee shop around me has free WiFi, and the iTouch is perfect for simple web browsing and games. Battery life is good, portability is excellent, cost is fair, and you can find anything in the app store.

The iPad basically wants to be a netbook. For starters, it doesn't have an acceptable operating system. It can't really do anything my iTouch can't, except provide a bigger screen and a bigger virtual keyboard. If I'm going to get a carrying case and lug around a $500 tablet, I want it to be fully functional--spreadsheet capable, Flash-enabled and with full support for most desktop-replacement apps. It needs to support Java VM properly, and otherwise be able to interface with normal business systems.

If it had a stripped down OS-X, I would take the iPad about 10x more seriously. My prediction is that it will never approach the iTouch and iPhone in sales until they give it appropriate horsepower.

It's the same price as iPod/iTouches were when they first came out, and people bought plenty of those. More Americans are getting "over the hill". Hell, I'm in my 30's and find the iTouch/iPhone screen too small to read web sites on (and slow on the page loads, maybe iPad processor better for page loads?).

Of course, I thought the original iPod wasn't anything to get excited about as it was just yet another MP3 player. Shows what I know. Guess I'll wait and see what the sales numbers are rather than trying to guess about its future. For that matter, first version of the iPhone wasn't ALL that awesome but got better in the 3G and 3Gs models.

The ipod and iphone were really just introducing very high quality (arguably, at the time of introduction, the highest quality) devices into an already established market -- though it's important to note that both required significant price reductions and feature enhancements ($400 -> $300 and support for windows for the ipod, $600 -> $500 -> $200 [w/contract] + support for third-party apps in the case of the iphone) before they became successful.

The ipad is introducing a device into a market that doesn't yet exist. Tablets have been around for over a decade, and nobody is buying them. Compare that with MP3 players or smart phones at the time of apple's entry into the market, and it's a completely different story.

The ipad can't replace a laptop / desktop, nor can it replace a phone, and it can't do anything that those devices don't already do, and as such I'm skeptical that there's all that big of a market for the thing in the first place.

Everyone needs a computer, and everyone needs a phone. Paying $500+ for a big piece of glass is a luxury few can afford.

Kevin, you don't feel that the iPad is basically competing with stripped-down netbooks? Those are arguably mobile appliances as well, but with slightly different functionality sets.

Brand says

Kevin, you don’t feel that the iPad is basically competing with stripped-down netbooks? Those are arguably mobile appliances as well, but with slightly different functionality sets.

A netbook is just a small, underpowered laptop.

The tablet can't legitimately stand as a "third device". If someone chooses a tablet, it's going to be in place of a laptop / desktop / netbook (which all serve the same purpose).

I'm highly skeptical that people are going to choose a $500+ device with no physical keyboard and a small screen over their laptop.

Yeah, there will be people in silicon valley and manhattan who will buy the thing, mostly because it's apple, but partly because they have more money than they need.

I can see some possibilities in the healthcare field and EHR using a iPad.

I wasn't impressed with the original iPod and I thought those that spent 499 on them, had a distorted sense of value. Even though I bought my wife one for Christmas when the 30 gigers first came out. I had no interest in it. Being interactive with the internet through Wi-Fi, and being a functional device, even if you don't own one MP3 or any desire to plug it into iTunes.
Was the game changer for me, I don't need an MP3 player, I'm an audiophile and despise that format for personal listening. An interactive chameleon multi-use device, with a touch screen, I have use for.

Tot, I know what you mean. My 16 Gig iTouch has only 1 Gig of data, and that's mostly apps. I use my ancient iPod nano for working out, because I don't want to risk cracking the iTouch.

Actually, I've since watched the marketing intro for the iPad (the 90 minute one with Steve Jobs). Perhaps it's more solid than I anticipated. It runs iWork, and the A4 processor seems to have enough horsepower to make apps fairly snappy. You can buy an external keyboard---although to me that defeats the purpose of a tablet---but the interaction does seem better than a smartphone.

If anything, I think it might stick a dagger into Kindle, at least on the higher end.

" I mean, who would want an oversized Ipod Touch? If you have an Iphone already, I certainly don’t need this gadget. If I am going to carry something that big, I might as well carry a fully loaded laptop right?"

As an iPad developer on my lunch break, here's my take:

1. Ask your wife if almost 10" is better than 3.5".

As an app developer the difference is immense. Yet at 1.5lbs this weighs half what ultralight laptops weigh.

The bigger size will take the iPhone's media player to an actual useful level. The iPhone is OK for sitting, but just a bit too small for my main use, watching stuff while on the treadmill. The iPad is perfect for this (well, if it were a bit more 16:9 maybe).

If your eyes can handle IPS LCDs, it's a better eReader than the Kindle DX, so nobody in their right mind would buy a Kindle DX.

It's a better portable game platform than the Nintendo DSi XL. It'd be a credible Nintendo Wii competitor if Apple releases bluetooth controllers for it, believe it or not (it has 720p out).

Killer apps include wikipedia and anything else where HVGA is just too small to enjoy.

Apple had 99.4% of the mobile app download market last year and I expect the iPad to have a similar percentage of tablet app market this and next year.

Apple's secret sauce with this are the excellent native APIs, OpenGL ES 2.0, and the AppStore.

Google is trying to copy this, but they are pretty far behind in a lot of areas. Really haven't got off the ground, really.

I'm a naval warfare buff and the iPad reminds me of a battlecruiser -- it could outrun anything that could hurt it and instantly pound everything else (including other battlecruisers, LOL).

The iPad is more performant than anything smaller than it (though the latest Ion netbooks are closing the gap here), and cheaper & much more portable than anything heavier.

I don't know if this is a sweet spot or just trying to sit on two stools, but I think the iPad might do very well. The $500 pricepoint has excellent value -- $300 netbook replacement + $300 DSi XL game player + $300 webpad + $300 eReader + $300 application device + $300 media player -- for $500 + $130 for the WWAN option (which I will be getting).

It's weakest quadrant is the netbook replacement, since many apps need a good keyboard experience.

What Apple needs to do now is revisit the TRS-80 Model 100.

Ah, gotta go!

LOL!!! The TRS 80! I pounded code on that (my first system, actually).

The metaphor about 10" is perhaps a bit much, but the pad has style. I write this on my iTouch, after all. Is it a broad niche? Dunno. The (low) price point surprised me. I'm not totally impressed with open gl es, because it seems to suck a lot of battery life on the touch. It's a more serious appliance contender than I've ever seen, and after all, where Apple cornered music was on the whole product model.

No flash is a minus. But with a custom low end processor, a good Java VM looks very likely, and that would be a huge move forward. Sink or swim, this is the best shot at tablets I've ever seen.

^ I just get annoyed by "it's just a big iPod Touch" dismissive observation.

What it really is is the 2002 flat panel iMac:

without the 20lb base.

I've got a dozen apps on my plate to get out this year, none of them doable on the iPhone's HVGA screen.

I also don't understand the no flash argument. When I installed Windows 7 the new IE8 didn't support flash and I have kept it that way.

There will never, ever be a JavaVM on this device. If Apple had 10% of the tablet market then maybe, but coming into a virgin market it needs to establish its developer mindshare, and giving Java a free ride on its platform does not make any strategic sense (Google's Android platform is Java-oriented).

I also agree that the size of the niche is the big unknown here. Apple has learned the lesson from the G4 Cube and Macbook Air, not to premium price something that is trying to be different.

The developers (like me) will be there on day 1 for users. The question is will the users see sufficient value, compared to the Ion2 and other netbooks, not to mention competing tablets from Google and Nokia.

Troy says

The bigger size will take the iPhone’s media player to an actual useful level. The iPhone is OK for sitting, but just a bit too small for my main use, watching stuff while on the treadmill. The iPad is perfect for this (well, if it were a bit more 16:9 maybe).

You know what's even better for watching video? A televison.

Troy says

If your eyes can handle IPS LCDs, it’s a better eReader than the Kindle DX, so nobody in their right mind would buy a Kindle DX.

In what way is it better than e-ink? Perhaps if your reading material consists largely of magazines and comic books.

Troy says

It’s a better portable game platform than the Nintendo DSi XL.

Like hell. I can't put an ipad in my pocket and just take it with me wherever I want. I'll buy the argument that the iphone / touch is a better gaming device than the DS -- though of course that ignores the fact that a DS is only $120 and the DSi XL is only $300.

It’d be a credible Nintendo Wii competitor if Apple releases bluetooth controllers for it, believe it or not (it has 720p out).

It's $500 -- more expensive than an xbox or PS3 (and more than double the price of a wii). Do you think it's a credible competitor to either of those devices?

Aside from that -- why on earth do you think it has 720p out? It has no display port, HDMI, DVI, or any other sort of video output (read the specs http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/). You can't play it on your TV -- it's not going to compete with game consoles.

That said, the idea of "developer mindshare" is bullshit. Want to get developers to write software on your platform? Make sure that it offers economic potential greater than whatever else they have to consider.

And ordinary consumers aren't choosing between an ipad and a netbook or another tablet. That's more bullshit. Ordinary people don't have $500 to spend on a device that doesn't do anything that they don't already get out of their laptop. If they buy an ipad, it's going to be at the expense of desktops and laptops -- except the ipad assumes that you already *have* another computer. You can't even update the firmware without plugging it into a mac or windows computer.

I remember working in a room full of developers, when we heard the news that iPhone was coming out. We all laughed and thought it was over hyped Joke. If I remember correctly so did the Media. I'm still no iPhone fan, but I wouldn't give the media one ounce of credibility when it comes to knocking Apple products before they hit the market.

Ask your self, has Apple ever had a Lemmon?

Sure the iMac didn't get as big as thought it would, but I'm sure they made enough money to pay for R&D and Marketing. I'm not an Apple fan nor Mac for that matter, but I would never bet against them. They have a "CULT" following, that thinks Apple can't do wrong, and made the decision to be Apple owners.

Windows users are Windows users by default.

One more thing, then I'm done with this topic.

Consider this...

A device you can hook up to your television, that accesses any YouTube content, and displays it HD and can play through your Surround sound system. The iTouch is just that device. Now consider a device even bigger and easer to see, read and use.

That gizmo alone is worth 499 surely.

My wife has been using my iTouch watching every Latin music Video she ever seen or yearned to see, sine I got it. I've been watching alot of old classic rock videos as well. It blows cable away.

Now imagine a NetFlix app, pay your bills apps, banking apps, a useful atlas biger than car GPS display by far, apps for analyzing stock prices, Order groceries or take out. I can go and on but what's the point. you get the idea.

What computer makes all of these functions as easy as the iTouch and the subsequent technologies?

Sure a laptop or computer, but it's ten times easier just to flip the unlock on the iTouch OS and be in business, rather than wait for the computers boot sequence.

SF ace says

To me, 10′ and 1 or so pound is just too big for eveyday use. It takes me the same amount of effort to carry my laptop which does the sames thing as the Ipad and much much more. So from that perspective, the bigger and faster is more than offset by the inconvience.

This is a good point. Apple is directly competing with $500 netbooks that are getting pretty capable.

The iPad advantage AFAICT is half the weight, twice the battery life and as TOT says above an entire ecosystem of apps specifically designed for the iPads different capabilities.

Tenouncetrout says

Ask your self, has Apple ever had a Lemmon?

The G4 Cube from 2000 was the main one. Apple tried to charge more for less and fell flat on their face. (Going back in time, the Apple III, Lisa, Mac 128K, Mac Portable, IIvx/IIvi, Newton, plus many others . . .)

I think Apple has learned that lesson finally and the $500 price point is very, very aggressive. At $1000 the iPad would be a dud since it's hard for the average tech spender finding $500 worth of utility out of the device compared to netbooks, PSPs, Android devices, etc.

TOT, I like your stock trader app idea. Imagine being able to lay out stops and orders by touch on a chart on the beach. Killer app!

Troy said: I’ve got a dozen apps on my plate to get out this year, none of them doable on the iPhone’s HVGA screen.
Not asking you to bite the hand that feeds, but I'm curious if you think 800x480 would be sufficient.

losing 224 pixels one way and 240 the other is borderline. It's less than half the real estate as XGA.

Overhead perspective games like Civ work better with the squarer XGA, than HD.

Most of my utility ideas wouldn't fit well with 800x640. Some would be doable, and I did think Apple would make a 8" HD device, but I'm glad they didn't. Perhaps the rationale was if it can't fit in a shirt pocket then the next step up is the pocket of a backpack.

Tenouncetrout says

Ask your self, has Apple ever had a Lemmon?

Yes, almost every product they produced in the 1990s.

Also, The G4 Cube, Apple TV, .mac,

Tenouncetrout says

A device you can hook up to your television, that accesses any YouTube content, and displays it HD and can play through your Surround sound system. The iTouch is just that device. Now consider a device even bigger and easer to see, read and use.

That gizmo alone is worth 499 surely.

No it wouldn't be, and that isn't what the ipad is anyway. You can't watch HD content on your TV from an ipad.

Tenouncetrout says

Now imagine a NetFlix app, pay your bills apps, banking apps, a useful atlas biger than car GPS display by far, apps for analyzing stock prices, Order groceries or take out. I can go and on but what’s the point. you get the idea.

Holy crap the internet!

No, seriously -- I already have all of these things, right now, in front of my face on my laptop.

Tenouncetrout says

Sure a laptop or computer, but it’s ten times easier just to flip the unlock on the iTouch OS and be in business, rather than wait for the computers boot sequence.

The only situation I can recall dealing with a "boot sequence" in the last two years was for OSX upgrades. The same sort you'd have to deal with when upgrading ipad firmware.

If the battery is dead on the ipad, expect to deal with the same minute+ boot time as the iphone after you recharge it.

Kevin says

Yes, almost every product they produced in the 1990s.

Also, The G4 Cube, Apple TV, .mac,

Not for Mac person, they didn't mind those pitfalls, and their only alternative was Windows 95, and 3.1. It's easy to look back in retrospect and say "What a POS that was".

Look you obviously like your mouse and keyboard. Since having my iTouch I see a restructuring of how we use computers. Computers will be for production, and these devices will dominate the Infoscape, for quickly obtaining information or ordering and purchasing over the internet on a whim.

Here's the competition (as I see it).
1. Netbooks -- Already mentioned by others. More functionality, but different form factor.
2. Other tablets. Will The JooJoo beat the iPad to market? Higher res (1366x768) widescreen display.
3. Pocket computers with phone functionality. My current favorite in this space is the Nokia n900. Resolution of display is 800x480 (2.5 times that of an iPhone). This seems to be the mythical convergence device, but is it hampered by screen size? Remember, its Linux but spelled Maemo.

Kevin says

Yes, almost every product they produced in the 1990s.

The early 90s sucked for Apple, but of course Windows sucked more so it was a wash. I bought my IIcx in May 1989 and it was still "good enough" right through 1994.

Apple got its act together in the mid 90s with the PCI Power Macs. The 7500 was a must-upgrade for me -- just in time, since I was seriously tempted to get a 133Mhz Gateway box in late 95.

But yeah, Apple made tons of lame products in the 90s. And their 80s stuff was overpriced thanks to their monopoly on a usable desktop GUI + APIs. No denying that.

Apple again lost the plot in the late 90s, really slow keeping up with AGP 2X, 4X.

Kevin says

No it wouldn’t be, and that isn’t what the ipad is anyway. You can’t watch HD content on your TV from an ipad.

Actually it does 720P out.

Kevin says

No, seriously — I already have all of these things, right now, in front of my face on my laptop.

With an 11hour battery life & a form factor that weighs 18 ounces?

Laptops are fine for most situations. Right now I'm typing this on a MacBook in my lap. But I think the iPad has a niche for use outside the home, for people stuck places like on the train, etc. It's only a netbook replacement obliquely.

Tenouncetrout says

Computers will be for production, and these devices will dominate the Infoscape, for quickly obtaining information or ordering and purchasing over the internet on a whim.

yeah, that was my analogy, that laptops are frypans and tablets are serving plates -- designed for consuming not producing.

the keyboard experience is the weakest link for the iPad. I really thought Apple was going to do something cool like predictive layouts or something. But we just got a big iPhone keyboard. Hrrm.

Such tools married with information internal nets can be highly successfull commercially.
Companies spend/waste paper by the ton everyday. Portable devices can help
eliminate paper waste and reduce costs.

Apple found a great niche with broadcasters (video/audio/entertainment) in the past 5 years.
If you ever walk into a local TV/Radio Station, its mainly all Apple products.
Much of their broadcasting (commercial products) go unnoticed, but are doing a great job.

Rather amazing history how we got here...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablet_PC

1888: U.S. Patent granted to Elisha Gray on electrical stylus device for capturing handwriting.
1915: U.S. Patent on handwriting recognition user interface with a stylus.
1942: U.S. Patent on touchscreen for handwriting input.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynabook

Troy says

Actually it does 720P out.

Why are people claiming this? There is no video output on the device capable of HD output. No HDMI, no DVI, not even display port.

What there is as an add on VGA connector, which will output at a max of 1024x768 (i.e. the ipad's native resolution, 4:3 aspect ratio), or 480p with the component cables. It's right there in the tech specs. Neither of those are "HD", and the idea of using VGA for anything other than presentations is laughable.

The ipad itself does not display anything in HD. It will play back 720p (1280x720) video files, but they are fit into the 1024x768 resolution of the device by letterboxing them into 1024x576.

Troy says

With an 11hour battery life & a form factor that weighs 18 ounces?

About 8 hour battery life and about 30 ounces, which is perfectly fine for carrying with me wherever I go. I suppose those extra two hours might come in handy on some international flights, though I prefer having a swappable battery for such situations anyway.

I would have much rather they just put the iphone OS on macbook pros, dropping the touch pad entirely and making the screen a multi touch surface. That would be a genuinely better general purpose computing solution.

Kevin says

Troy says

Actually it does 720P out.

Why are people claiming this? There is no video output on the device capable of HD output. No HDMI, no DVI, not even display port.

hmm, I don't really see any publicly-available specs to confirm this for you. Never mind : )

With an 11hour battery life & a form factor that weighs 18 ounces?

About 8 hour battery life and about 30 ounces, which is perfectly fine for carrying with me wherever I go. I suppose those extra two hours might come in handy on some international flights, though I prefer having a swappable battery for such situations anyway.

OK, we've established you've got the typical crap netbook that is under three pounds . . . is it capable of actual usable 3D performance and ability to play HD? AFAICT without exception these don't go together in the netbook space; you've got to pick lightness + battery life or any sort of non-suck performance envelope, you can't have both.

I realize you were saying a netbook makes a good webpad, but I think the difference is in the details, how well the netbook functions. IME, there's just too many corners cut on the cheap-ass netbooks for me to want to use them. I read the customer reviews on newegg and just shake my head, eg:

"This is the first laptop I've owned that can reliably sleep and wake. Shut it down, it goes to sleep--open it up, press On, and you're back where you were in 15-20 seconds. Truly remarkable. Windows 7 is largely to thank for this."

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834115658

20 seconds to wake? Macs wake in 1 second, and I expect the iPad will wake instantly, like MacOS 9 used to do.

*that's* the advantage of the iPad -- just like the Mac in 1984, Apple is the only tech company able to innovate from the circuit board to the API (Google is coming close here with their Android platform).

Note, I don't think the iPad is a particularly *good* netbook -- the fake keyboard is a step backwards, and the $400-$500 netbooks with the 9400M have some decent graphics performance.

I would have much rather they just put the iphone OS on macbook pros, dropping the touch pad entirely and making the screen a multi touch surface. That would be a genuinely better general purpose computing solution.

Touch requires new UI. People thought Apple didn't need to make Macs, just port Quickdraw to the IIgs. The Apple way is to reinvent the future, ditching all backwards compatibility hassles that aren't important, before somebody else does.

The iPad functionality has a good value proposition at the $500 pricepoint (take your five favorite capabilities @ $100/each). At the $1000 pricepoint, maybe not, especially in this economy.

Troy says

OK, we’ve established you’ve got the typical crap netbook that is under three pounds . . . is it capable of actual usable 3D performance and ability to play HD?

It has "3D performance" as good as you're going to get on an ipad (and something packing an ion would blow it out of the water).

And it also has DVI out. The screen isn't big enough to due HD playback natively, but I can hook it up to a full size monitor with no problem.

...not that I'd use a device like this for that anyway. If I want to watch HD video, I'm not going to be doing it by hooking my computer up to the TV, I'm going to have a box sitting there all the time (currently my device of choice is an xbox).

And I certainly wouldn't use an ipad for anything that actually wants "3D performance", i.e. real games. People are still amazed that they can play games at all on crappy mobile devices that they forget that the games themselves suck, except for a small selection of really brilliant casual games (and these aren't graphically intense).

Troy says

I realize you were saying a netbook makes a good webpad, but I think the difference is in the details, how well the netbook functions. IME, there’s just too many corners cut on the cheap-ass netbooks for me to want to use them. I read the customer reviews on newegg and just shake my head, eg:

Fully functional, highly capable *laptops* are available for $500 that are vastly superior to the ipad. They aren't going to give you 11 hours of battery life and they don't weigh a pound and a half, but the difference isn't big enough to matter to anyone who actually has a life other than sitting on the couch reading digital newspaper. There just aren't enough situations where the typical 4-5 hour battery life you can get out of the machines that toshiba and asus are offering to matter.

Troy says

*that’s* the advantage of the iPad — just like the Mac in 1984, Apple is the only tech company able to innovate from the circuit board to the API (Google is coming close here with their Android platform).

Oh please. Apple is the only company able to innovate? That's exactly the sort of attitude that caused the company to nearly go bankrupt during the 90s.

And macs don't wake in one second. I have a current generation MPB and it still takes a good 5-10 seconds to wake from hibernation (which is *fine*).

Troy says

Touch requires new UI.

Yep. That's why I said they should have put their superior OS on the MPB form factor. In many ways OSX has fallen behind windows (because apple is focused on iphone / ipad), and they'd be better off just sticking with the ipad.

Of course, they won't do that because it means rewriting all of the apps that draw power users to macs, like protools and photoshop. Given hardware like the MPB, these would run fine, but a complete rewrite would be a very hard sell.

This is why the first companies to ship grown up sized form factor devices with useful touch UIs will be the people without a vested legacy. MS won't do it and apple won't do it.

Troy says

The Apple way is to reinvent the future, ditching all backwards compatibility hassles that aren’t important, before somebody else does.

Oh *please*. The whole reason that the ipad has 1024x768 resolution is so that iphone apps can be scaled up without breaking things. Ditching backwards compatibility my ass.

The whole reason that the ipad has 1024×768 resolution is so that iphone apps can be scaled up without breaking things. Ditching backwards compatibility my ass.
Well that IS interesting. I can't see how Apple can continue to thumb their noses at widescreen formats, but for now they do have the pull. That said, it was nice to see my personal (cheapskate) projection standard (576p) validated by the release of the iPad.

An iPhone or iPad would look a little strange with a 16:9 or wider aspect ratio, wouldn't it? It's got to fit in your pocket, after all. If you're going to watch widescreen video on an iPhone (or iTouch), you can live with the little black bars on the top, or else live with the crop.

An iPhone or iPad would look a little strange with a 16:9 or wider aspect ratio, wouldn’t it?
Here are some side-by-side shots with the Motorola Droid which has the much higher resolution 3.7″ 854×480 screen. I don't see why Apple couldn't do it; except for the, ahem, 4:3 legacy support.
you can live with the little black bars
Yes, but meanwhile all other modern smartphones allow you to watch a full res DVD (480p).

Brand says

An iPhone or iPad would look a little strange with a 16:9 or wider aspect ratio, wouldn’t it? It’s got to fit in your pocket, after all. If you’re going to watch widescreen video on an iPhone (or iTouch), you can live with the little black bars on the top, or else live with the crop.

Almost every other smartphone on the market (except those made by RIM) has a 16:9 aspect ratio, precisely for people who are watching video on it.

The iphone could be made the exact same size with a widescreen aspect ratio -- they'd just have to make the top and bottom bezels smaller, and probably modify the home button a bit. I wouldn't be surprised at all if a future iphone does exactly that once apple bites the bullet and implements proper resolution independent rendering.

Not that this has *anything* to do with the ipad, either. The ipad would have also worked perfectly fine in 16:9 (IMO it would actually be better, a lot like the screen portion of a MPB), but apple chose to stick with 4:3 because they wanted to allow iphone apps to scale up out of the box.

Kevin says

Troy says

OK, we’ve established you’ve got the typical crap netbook that is under three pounds . . . is it capable of actual usable 3D performance and ability to play HD?

It has “3D performance” as good as you’re going to get on an ipad (and something packing an ion would blow it out of the water).

Not after about 60 minutes . . . While I don't think the PowerVR renderer will be as performant as 9400M, it is no slouch. The purpose of the iPad is mobile computing w/o a power cord, and 9400M isn't exactly the right solution for that.

The first time I saw the Ion package I busted a gut:

http://www.pclaunches.com/motherboard/nvidia_ion_platform_with_9400m_graphics_and_atom_processor.php

Talk about an asymmetric system. The HP Mini 311 has a 65W draw, while the iPad draws 10W.

And it also has DVI out. The screen isn’t big enough to due HD playback natively, but I can hook it up to a full size monitor with no problem.
…not that I’d use a device like this for that anyway. If I want to watch HD video, I’m not going to be doing it by hooking my computer up to the TV, I’m going to have a box sitting there all the time (currently my device of choice is an xbox).

The whole point of the tablet as a media player is to provide media when one is on the go. My main use cases will be when I'm on the train (should I return to Tokyo this decade) and when I'm on the treadmill.

Granted, if one doesn't have a need to watch mobile media the iPad's value proposition drops substantially.

And I certainly wouldn’t use an ipad for anything that actually wants “3D performance”, i.e. real games. People are still amazed that they can play games at all on crappy mobile devices that they forget that the games themselves suck, except for a small selection of really brilliant casual games (and these aren’t graphically intense).

This strikes me as whistling past the graveyard. I think we'll find that some genres work and some don't with a touch, but my 3 game ideas are working great with this form factor.

Troy says

I realize you were saying a netbook makes a good webpad, but I think the difference is in the details, how well the netbook functions. IME, there’s just too many corners cut on the cheap-ass netbooks for me to want to use them. I read the customer reviews on newegg and just shake my head, eg:

Fully functional, highly capable *laptops* are available for $500 that are vastly superior to the ipad. They aren’t going to give you 11 hours of battery life and they don’t weigh a pound and a half, but the difference isn’t big enough to matter to anyone who actually has a life other than sitting on the couch reading digital newspaper. There just aren’t enough situations where the typical 4-5 hour battery life you can get out of the machines that toshiba and asus are offering to matter.

It comes down to weight, heat, battery endurance, and ease of use.

If you've got a $500 laptop and a $500 iPad, which are you going to grab to throw into your pack?

That is the question we're going to understand more this year.

Here's a $500 lenovo:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834146705

Oops, it's got a GMA 4500M and a commenter says, "not for gaming". 6 pounds! Half the battery life of the iPad (2-3 hrs tops).

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834107039

hot, noisy, also 6 pounds.

I'm sure the $600 - $800 Toshibas at newegg are fine laptops for the money. At 10W and 24 ounces, the iPad isn't really competing with them. As I said above, it comes down to why you are carrying the device around.

If it's keyboard-centric, then a netbook or laptop will win, hands down. In other areas, it depends on the app and whether the cut-down feature set of the iPad even supports the activity (eg burning CDs, etc).

Troy says

*that’s* the advantage of the iPad — just like the Mac in 1984, Apple is the only tech company able to innovate from the circuit board to the API (Google is coming close here with their Android platform).

Oh please. Apple is the only company able to innovate? That’s exactly the sort of attitude that caused the company to nearly go bankrupt during the 90s.

Like I said, innovate *from* the circuit board to the API. Windows OEMs are gated by Microsoft's one-size fits all offerings, and Microsoft is hobbled by having to support everything ever made, ever.

Google doesn't have this problem and they've brought in the smart Danger people (lots of General Magic/WebTV/Danger vets at Android).

Previous tablet efforts consisted of either chopping off the keyboard or putting the display on a swivel and calling it a day.

Apple's tablet runs at 10W, has an integrated hw renderer to support the slick UI (and demanding graphics).

Plus they own all the API and have been working on this OS for 25 years.

No other company other than Microsoft is able to create something like the iPad. The support for this statement is the past history of the industry over the last 10-15 years. Nobody came close.

And macs don’t wake in one second. I have a current generation MPB and it still takes a good 5-10 seconds to wake from hibernation (which is *fine*).

~4 seconds on my MBP, 1 second on the OG MacBook.

Troy says

Touch requires new UI.

Yep. That’s why I said they should have put their superior OS on the MPB form factor. In many ways OSX has fallen behind windows (because apple is focused on iphone / ipad), and they’d be better off just sticking with the ipad.

Then Apple would be competing with $200 netbooks and $500 Toshibas. I'm not entirely sure where OS X has "fallen behind" Windows given it's been ahead of it in the areas that matter to me since 2003 or so.

Granted, it could use a CLR and JIT stuff, and OpenGL is something of a hobble compared to Microsoft's control of DirectX.

Of course, they won’t do that because it means rewriting all of the apps that draw power users to macs, like protools and photoshop. Given hardware like the MPB, these would run fine, but a complete rewrite would be a very hard sell.

>

Touch only make sense on a lightweight tablet designed to be held in the hand. Not on the desktop.

Troy says

The Apple way is to reinvent the future, ditching all backwards compatibility hassles that aren’t important, before somebody else does.

Oh *please*. The whole reason that the ipad has 1024×768 resolution is so that iphone apps can be scaled up without breaking things. Ditching backwards compatibility my ass.

I spent a good amount of time in Photoshop last year trying to figure out the tablet's form factor. 16:9 was just too narrow.

16:9 is NOT a good aspect ratio for designing full-screen apps, square-ish is much better. Also, their are physical issues involved with chassis flex and handling stability. For a small screen this isn't present, but holding a 10" HD display horizontally in your left hand and touching on the right side of the display results in the touch having a relatively high lever-arm, making it problematic for the size.

The iPhone's HVGA doesn't scale cleanly into XGA so that's neither here nor there AFAICT.

Troy says

Not after about 60 minutes . . . While I don’t think the PowerVR renderer will be as performant as 9400M, it is no slouch. The purpose of the iPad is mobile computing w/o a power cord, and 9400M isn’t exactly the right solution for that.

It's not even in the same league as those GPUs...though with the cop out 1024x768 resolution I suppose they'll be able to get away with weak graphics power anyway.

The "purpose" of the ipad isn't mobile computing at all....it's computing for the type of people who type "facebook login" into google every day.

Troy says

Granted, if one doesn’t have a need to watch mobile media the iPad’s value proposition drops substantially.

I think it'll still do well with the previously mentioned group. People who actually know the difference between a search engine and an operating system would probably look at it this way though.

Troy says

If you’ve got a $500 laptop and a $500 iPad, which are you going to grab to throw into your pack?

The laptop, without a doubt.

I'd definitely never throw a 10" slab of unprotected glass in my pack, and if I was going somewhere that I actually felt compelled to bring something more versatile than my phone I'd rather have a complete solution.

Troy says

Like I said, innovate *from* the circuit board to the API. Windows OEMs are gated by Microsoft’s one-size fits all offerings, and Microsoft is hobbled by having to support everything ever made, ever.

Sorry, but you're wrong:

Every video game console (including Microsoft's)
RIM (still, far and away, the leading smartphone maker)
Nokia

Yes, the market for windows PCs is full of horrible crap, but that is hardly the only thing to look at for comparison.

Troy says

Plus they own all the API and have been working on this OS for 25 years.

That's a stretch. Aside from the obvious issue of major parts of the system not really being fully under apple's control (like darwin and webkit), "working" on an OS for 25 years is not an asset. Of course, the iphone / ipad OS isn't really the same thing as what's shipping in OSX. It has some things in common with it (so that developer tools work seamlessly), but it's got about as much in common with OSX as android has with ubuntu.

Troy says

No other company other than Microsoft is able to create something like the iPad. The support for this statement is the past history of the industry over the last 10-15 years. Nobody came close.

Nobody was really trying. Apple has refined an idea that other companies were contributing ideas to for years, and wrapped it up in a nice package. This is basically what they did with the original Macintosh, and what they did with the iphone. Apple has never launched a truly risky idea -- they've just figured out how to make really really good versions of things that other people are trying (and by "they", I mean "Steve Jobs", since Apple utterly failed to do anything interesting when he wasn't running the company).

Plenty of companies can and will do what apple has done with the ipad -- assuming it's successful. If people are willing to buy tablets, in a few years there will be $100 devices that are doing everything in an uglier package (see the typical HP / dell laptop vs. Macbook) and $500 devices that are basically the same (see high end Vaios vs MBP).

Troy says

Then Apple would be competing with $200 netbooks and $500 Toshibas.

They wouldn't be competing with those devices any more than they already are. The draw of the ipad is the simplified approach to computing, not the form factor. Taking out 99% of the OS is exactly what is needed in computing today, which is why it's the approach being taken by all new operating systems.

I’m not entirely sure where OS X has “fallen behind” Windows given it’s been ahead of it in the areas that matter to me since 2003 or so.
Granted, it could use a CLR and JIT stuff, and OpenGL is something of a hobble compared to Microsoft’s control of DirectX.

It's fallen behind because nobody is bothering to develop anything for it anymore. The era of the "traditional" desktop OS is coming to a close and only Microsoft is still investing in it. Windows has seen numerous improvements over the last 5 years that apple has been focusing elsewhere, and I would make the honest argument that my wife's Windows 7 laptop is a better overall experience than my MBP (except for the hardware, of course. Apple still makes the best laptop hardware by far).

The OS itself is not what matters, it's the apps that run on that OS. That is how it has fallen behind. Apple knows this, and I won't be at all surprised if OSX simply doesn't ship anymore in another 5 years.

Troy says

>

Touch only make sense on a lightweight tablet designed to be held in the hand. Not on the desktop.

That's absurd. I'd much rather touch my display than deal with stupid little track pads. Touch can and should replace mice entirely.

And, of course, that's missing the point. The "desktop" is dead. In a few years every "general purpose" computer that's sold is going to look like either the iphone / android model, or something like chrome OS. Mice just don't make sense in that world.

Troy says

16:9 is NOT a good aspect ratio for designing full-screen apps, square-ish is much better.

It makes little to no difference for "apps". 4:3 sure as hell isn't a square as is, and nearly 10 years of widescreen monitors have shown that the form factor is fine (although in all honesty most apps are better off in portrait display, because they're far taller than they are long -- further arguing for 16:9).

4:3 is all about backwards compatibility, not good design. A 16:9 ipad could be made with the exact same dimensions of the ipad -- the bezel would just be narrower on the short edges (if you have a MPB, imagine just holding the screen).

Also, their are physical issues involved with chassis flex and handling stability. For a small screen this isn’t present, but holding a 10″ HD display horizontally in your left hand and touching on the right side of the display results in the touch having a relatively high lever-arm, making it problematic for the size.

Again, the overall form factor wouldn't be much different. Handling stability is largely a function of the total size, not the dimensions. It's no mere coincidence that the ipad's total dimensions are very similar to that of a hardcover book or a standard sheet of paper. Centuries of print experience has pretty much ironed out the best dimensions for something you hold in your hands.

And, of course, you're not going to be holding it horizontally anyway. Horizontal is for watching movies, and maybe occasionally for maps. For reading text, for browsing the web, for using most apps, you're going to use it in the vertical orientation.

Horizontal is for watching movies, and maybe occasionally for maps. For reading text, for browsing the web, for using most apps, you’re going to use it in the vertical orientation.
Kevin, I've been enjoying your commentary. While I agree tablets are our best bet to finally go 'portrait', I'm not sure it's going to happen at current resolutions (iPad). I've got an old laptop (800x600 screen) and tablet (800x480) I use for web browsing and 800 pixels across is barely adequate. Most web pages seem happier at 1024. Once you go to 1080p, it becomes a bit more compelling to reorient from landscape to portrait. Then again, landscape (@1080p) allows two pages side-by-side, just like a book.

EBGuy says

Horizontal is for watching movies, and maybe occasionally for maps. For reading text, for browsing the web, for using most apps, you’re going to use it in the vertical orientation.

Kevin, I’ve been enjoying your commentary. While I agree tablets are our best bet to finally go ‘portrait‘, I’m not sure it’s going to happen at current resolutions (iPad). I’ve got an old laptop (800×600 screen) and tablet (800×480) I use for web browsing and 800 pixels across is barely adequate. Most web pages seem happier at 1024. Once you go to 1080p, it becomes a bit more compelling to reorient from landscape to portrait. Then again, landscape (@1080p) allows two pages side-by-side, just like a book.

Web pages are too information dense to work side by side, and I find it unlikely that future operating systems will retain the current windowing concepts that you see now. All of the major upcoming operating systems are moving in the direction of "one thing at a time" (with background updates) for simplicity's sake and battery life.

Actual resolution isn't that important for web pages anyway. Even the iphone's horribly low resolution browser does a good job of scaling things to make them usable, and 768px wide isn't too far off the mark for what you get in something like the droid.

Web pages are too information dense to work side by side
I don't disagree; I was thinking more about document editing or ebooks could still favor landscape (at 1080p). Then again check out TheJooJoo (see slide 4) for a (side-by-side) browser based paradigm.
I would bet against scaling (hence my bias to 800x480 screens on smart phones). But I would have also bet against tinny music and people voluntarily carrying a device that could track their every movement. :-)