First iPad Commercial Released - what do you think? | Hacker News Reader

First iPad Commercial Released - what do you think?

apple.com

32 pointsaresant54 comments

I would ask anyone who is criticizing the ergonomics of the iPad to think about how they interact with a book, magazine, or newspaper. None of those have what I would call a great analog UI, but they have stood the test of centuries.

The iPad is very similar. Yes you will not type a manuscript on the touch screen. Will people spend half an hour poking around links on Zappos while watching TV? I think so. Is it any harder to hold than a hardcover book? No. Will the occasional moments of interaction be any more burdensome than a large newspaper? heck no.

Think about how much navigation you can do without typing. I could plow through twitter, gReader, a couple news sites, an ebook chapter, all without needing to launch a keyboard. And thats what people will value.

I'd argue books have a great analog UI, but this probably wasn't always the case: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFAWR6hzZek

On a side note, books/magazines/newspapers have changed dramatically over the centuries. For example, until (relatively) recently, a lot of books required you to cut open each page, and bindings weren't that great until the 1800s or so.

edit: better YouTube link

Honestly, my biggest concern is that its form factor means I won't really able to take it places. Large clamshell devices transport easily and you don't have to worry about damage to them. The iPad seems like it's going to be a strictly bathroom-and-coffee-table device, which is great for what it is, but it feels like it should be so much more.

You could always just cover it in something protective? There is no doubt in my mind that someone is going to make it some "armor."

Yeah, certainly. I'd just feel really nervous about taking something with that large of an exposed screen anywhere. I'm already nervous enough as is about my phone. Seems like a recipe for scratches/cracks/destroyed screens. You could get a padded case with hard backing on one side, I suppose (effectively duplicating the clamshell protections). Still, though, where are you going to take it? Haul one of those out to dinner with you and folks are gonna be staring at you awfully fully.

Is the interface swift and responsive, or does the music trick the brain?

Gosh I wish my desktop at work were that slick.

It looks just as swift and responsive if you turn the sound off. And for those of us who have used iPhones, that's pretty damn swift and responsive.

Don't know about the music, but the quick cuts do. Especially in the first 30 seconds.

Yeah, interesting how everything in the clip suggest speed. The music, the quick cut, starship Enterprise hitting warp.

You can't judge how responsive it is based on the ad — Apple sometimes speeds up the performance of their apps/devices for commercials. This was especially obvious on the iPhone ads before the 3GS (and I believe they even added a small disclaimer on those ads). That said, everyone I've talked to who was at the launch event and actually tried it said it was very speedy.

Well it's not the first time I've heard that. A few people posting video reviews (earlier when they got to handle it) also commented on the speed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9KTnsGsd_0

(For those without Quicktime)

Maybe it's because I use Safari on Mac, but it actually uses the <video> tag so it's somewhat more portable.

Interesting. It bricked for me on not having Quicktime installed, so I hunted it down on YouTube. (Firefox 3.6 / Windows 7 PC).

Firefox only does Theora/OGG for HTML5 <video>. Safari only does H.264/mp4, and Chrome does both.

It works in FF 3.6 on Mac.

Using QuickTime.

It doesn't work without Quicktime on Chrome as well.

Interestingly, it doesn't work with Quicktime on Chrome either. At least, on OSX. I just get a black placeholder and music.

(I'm running the dev builds)

It plays in Linux Firefox using the totem plugin, but I get no sound. Thanks for the YT link.

I love the Gang of Four influenced Post-punk revival music, which I think was a great choice. It appeals to older guys like myself who are fans of the late 70s genre as well as teenagers like my nephews who are into the revival acts. I was pleased they didn't talk over it. I usually hate advertising, and go out of my way to block it, but I watched this a number of times.

Uncompelling. It fails to answer the question, "What can I do with this thing that I can't do right now with my phone or laptop?"

Compare it to the original TV ads for the iPhone, which were both beautiful and informative: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lfmlKYZ-vU

And you think that's what this is for?

The iPhone was a phone game-changer. Smart-phones had been around quite a while, but few did them very well at all, much less super-user-friendly. The tablet market, for comparison, has been languishing in cheap crap that barely works, or large, very expensive, poorly programmed (for tablet experience) laptop computers that swivel. Battery life has also typically been very short.

Now, what's the exact opposite of all those?

It's not meant to compete with a laptop or a phone, it's meant to open a new market, or at the least change the tablet market.

My counterargument to this has been that the iPhone succeeded so wildly because it was so many devices or references that you'd otherwise carry. Phone, camera, GPS, MP3 player, map, contact book, and who knows what else. It consolidated a lot of existing things-in-your-car into one pocketable device. The iPad (and tablets in general) don't do that. They are, at worst, really big iPod Touches, and at best, underpowered laptops that are relatively hard to type on. They don't really address any gaping holes in the user market, except "I'd like my phone to have a bigger screen when I'm reading a news article on the john", which is an awfully narrow use case for a device that expensive.

I'm sure it's going to sell decently, but I really don't think it's going to become integrated into our daily lives like the iPhone has. It'll sit on coffee tables and bathroom reading shelves and be useful there, but it's not going to become the extension of our connected lives like our smartphones are. Even if it's meant to be an in-between between a tablet and a phone, I'm not sure what problem they're trying to solve. It feels like they're inventing a problem, wrapping the solution in shiny Apple plastic, and marketing it as a world-changer. Remember the Apple TV?

The most revolutionary thing about it is the battery life for a device with a display of that size. It'll be interesting to see how it actually holds up in real-life usage; if Apple has managed to actually crush it out of the park like they're promising, that technology is going to get a lot of use. I don't think this application of it is going to be quite the revolution that some are hoping it'll be, though.

I've seen that side argued before, and it definitely has merit. I'll still disagree, especially as some phones did nearly all that anyway, but it is valid.

As to the AppleTV in particular, I'm not surprised it didn't do very well. DVRs have actually gotten pretty good, and they're usually bundled with your connection, so there's huge competition in that market. Also, most people aren't particularly interested in watching youtube on their TV, so the internet-capable side of it is largely wasted.

But I'm hugely interested in UI, so I probably see more influence than it actually has.

When you combine the super-fast UI with a 10 hr. battery life and a $500 price tag (not to mention a $15 / month data plan without contract), you get "compelling".

This ad is focused on speed and capability. Perhaps future ads will put it all together.

I think it's an interesting start. It shows off the UI of Apple's software quite well. It'll be very interesting to see the different interfaces from third-party developers that Apple will surely be showing off in their ads after the iPad ships.

When I watched the iPad "promo" on the Apple website, I noticed that it seems like it might be uncomfortable to hold in the upright position.I'm seeing this now in this TV ad as well (when the iPad is vertical, notice how the thumb and hand rest on it. I'm not sure what, but something makes it seem like a slightly uncomfortable position)

Obviously going to need to try it first hand

the video shows it used while propped against crossed legs or on your lap with both feet raised on an object (or sitting on the floor with knees up). I wonder how it feels otherwise?

It shows off some of the high-interest use cases, but it doesn't quite have that appeal that Apple's advertising usually does. Seems rather generic and unmemorable to me.

Reminds me of the first iPod commercial.

Which reminds me of how sad I am that the Propellerheads never made another album.

And now I'm sad too.

Generic and unmemorable, yet somehow catchy, like a bad pop song. I think this is going to be a flash in the pan. Bright hot for a fraction of a historical second, and then gone. The ergonomics of the physical thing (not the UI) just seem so terrible.

Courier seems like the way to go. It's like a DS without any of the buttons, just screen.

The ergonomics look a little forced - they show several positions of holding it, none look that comfortable.

about 22 secs in, they show the iPad being used to type something.

from what i can tell the iPad is being held by one thumb.

I cant see how you could type on a device resting on your legs at a 45degree angle, and hold it with just the end of your thumb. its not a recipe for a stable surface

iPad has IPS screen so you can pretty much hold it at any angle without losing quality of the picture.

Agreed, but I don't think you can draw any definite conclusions. I think the iPad has a blue screen behind it and they dropped in photos of people's legs, etc. The angle/ways people are holding the iPad is too perfect, the legs are perfectly still and the rotation at 0:17 is way too smooth to be done by hand- they must've had it mounted.

I'm not saying Apple's bad for blue screening, it would've been difficult to setup those shots in real life, but like the "big hand" and shortened sequences for the iPhone, it's basically bordering on false advertising from my point of view.

I think apple should port quicktime for linux if they want me to care.

They don't.

Well, I guess I am not buying an ipad then.

You weren't buying one anyway.

Wow, downmoded to negative 3 for merely asking for compatible player. You apple fan boys sure have thin skins.

Oh, and please down mod this comment as well. This will definitely prove your point.

The sad thing is that this is supposed to be Hacker news, not Apple fan-boy news.

Some can't admit Apple's drawbacks, some can't admit their strengths. Let's just call them all close-minded instead of "fanboys", then we don't have to come up with a 2nd lame insult only meant to dismiss someone without having to actually think about what they are saying.

No, downmoded for snide tone and no value. That's pretty frequent here.

I'd argue that it's pretty infrequent here, thankfully. Read a Reddit or Digg comment thread recently?

Referring to the downmoding, or the comment type? I was referring to the downmoding of snide / valueless, not the frequency of comments that fit those criteria.

Bad comments are refreshingly rare, in my experience. It's part of why I really like YC.

Would you please not do that?

Ok, sorry. No more complaints about moderation.

OSX runs Posix compliant core, so they can use programs made for Linux. They have collaborated in the past with Konqueror developing team to make Safari the browser it is. And yet they don't offer Quicktime for my Linux. They would surely get help from Linux community if it's too troublesome.

Then they make adds that are only on Quicktime format. To me this seems like Apple is admitting that Linux is superior to their operating systems, so why bother advertise to us.

The GPL (KHTML's licence) doesn't require releasing as GPL or porting to Linux other products of a company if it uses GPL code for one of its products. I don't think there's any moral/legal obligation for Apple to do so - otherwise, the authors of KHTML would have chosen a licence that made that compulsory.

They have, however, released WebKit as GPL (complying with the terms of KHTML's GPL licence) which can be easily built on Linux.

I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the iPad. Could anybody clarify?

Is it just a regular tablet? What OS does it run? Is it free? Can I change it to GNU?

No. Its. No. Gno.

Could anybody clarify?

You can find quite a bit of information about it here: http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/29/apple-ipad-the-definitive...

Is it just a regular tablet?

It's an iPhone with a huge screen, on steroids ;-)

What OS does it run?

As far as information like this is available before launch, it will probably run a custom version of the iPhone OS.

Is it free?

As you might understand, the iPad itself isn't free. The software on it is (very) probably propietary.

Can I change it to GNU?

In time, it will probably be possible to run a *nix distribution on the iPad, just as you can run these on playstations, xboxes, wifi routers etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com