Why the iPad isn't for me
macworld.com
macworld.com
I think the majority of creative or power user applications will be for those with a complex control surface, such as the examples above. The large touch interface of the iPad is much simpler to use than a traditional mouse keyboard. Also when compared to Wacom drawing tablets http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ... it is competitive, at the iPad low end the iPad is about $200 more, though not quite as functional, the iPad does not have pressure or stylus tilt sensitivity but it is portable. If you are interested in developing these types of applications you have to have one. If you do not have one you will never see were the deficiencies are or know which problems to solve. The device as only been available for 10 days. I would expect it will take a year or two before the application space has been adequately sampled.
Another obvious short coming, or opportunity, is with file synchronization and management. I am currently using dropbox, https://www.dropbox.com/ with ReaddleDocs http://readdle.com/products/readdledocs, which works for reading. If documents are generated on the IPad you have to use iTunes, eMail or an application specific server for document synchronization. Neither of these is adequate.
The typing problem you mentioned can be solved by a case that holds it an an angle, such as http://www.goincase.com/products/detail/CL57512. The number of viewing and use positions for the device is greater than that for a laptop. Also heavy duty typing can be handled with a bluetooth attached keyboard though for my needs the the onscreen keyboard has been adequate.
Not really. It comes from an idealism that technology (especially the internet) would, speaking broadly, shift our society away from a centralized model where the many are beholden to the few and towards something more distributed and egalitarian.
If you cherish that goal, you're fairly likely to see the iPad as a step backwards -- it is not about the size of the step ("significance") but its direction.
It wasn't the existence of the internet that changed the creator:consumer ratio for the better. It was the use of the internet as such. And that use exploded thanks to any number of consumption-focused technologies along the way.
Consider that even if no-one creates long-form text on an iPad, it's existence as a consumption machine might re-popularize the format and draw more creators to write for digital bookstores, shifting the creator:consumer relationship thanks to the ease of entrance (compared to dead-tree publishing).
Or for a more proven example: consider the App Store. Reviled-since-inception by techno-freedom purists, its net effect has been positive for entire classes of software that are as-of-yet implausible via the internet.
Though the store serves only these consumption-focused devices, the audience those devices attracted and the comparative low barrier for entry by creators has drawn creators and been a huge step forward.
Windows tablets have had more pure potential to push the creator:consumer ratio forward for a decade and they've done essentially nothing. How useful is a world-view in which they're viewed as a step forward and the iPad a step back?
All that aside, the core argument is still bogus. The iPad is getting a rap as a media consumption device solely because it's bad at text input without peripherals.
Well, guess what? Any form factor is bad at some Arts without peripherals. And peripherals often dictate ergonomics. Keyboard/Mouse PCs suck at digital painting, a/v capture, a/v editing and any number of disciplines without peripherals. We don't pan them for not being a creative panacea out-of-the-box. And we certainly don't begrudge laptops their convenience, even though a digital artist has to lug around a cintiq to do decent work on the road, and is thus limited in use cases.
I'm curious as to what you're referring to here.
Disney can turn a higher profit selling soda in their parks because they are the only ones selling soda in their parks and a 20oz bottle costs $2.00+. That doesn't mean this is a net win for anyone but Disney.
If WalMart were the only retail store on the face of the planet, people that were able to sign deals with WalMart would also enjoy great success...
The reason they wouldn't do as well in shrink-wrap channels is that they would have to have a larger marketing budget, and market to a wider audience at smaller returns. The audience of iPhone users is an audience with low barriers to impulsing purchases, and an audience of relevance (i.e. iPhone users going to the AppStore are all potential customers, random people in a B&M store may or may not be potential customers).
But the App Store is different than that. More than just the big names are allowed in and are making money. And that's the net win.
Apple delivered a massively lower barrier of entry (even if it's arguably higher than necessary and certainly higher than we might like) and they've gone out of their way to provide services that massively level the playing field: hosting, equal placement[1], cc processing, international support, etc.
Even though it's still a closed platform, more creators are making a living by creating and that's a net win in my book.
[1](Try getting a shrink wrap game on a shelf at Best Buy next to The Sims. Increased marketing/packaging/distribution costs aside: it simply does not happen unless you sign on with a publisher.)
But the App Store is different than that. More than just the big names are allowed in and are making money. And that's the net win.
I don't entirely agree with that. The AppStore only allows in people that Apple 'likes.' Granted, this is a larger group than say the vendors at Disney's theme parks or Walmart's retail contracts, and maybe that is a net win. But it's still a captive audience. Apple could achieve the same effect with the AppStore + random apps installed from the internet.
The AppStore would still be the same integrated purchasing experience, and I'm willing to bet that most people would still sign up to be part of the AppStore. But this also leaves the avenue open for people that Apple "doesn't like" to create apps that target the platform.
What would you think if Ford Motor Co decided to make all their cars only accept tires make in a proprietary fashion that tire makers had to license from Ford Motor Co? They could make the same arguments as Apple. They could claim that they are only doing this to 'ensure the quality of the tires used on their cars.' It would be their right to do so, just as it's Apple's right to restrict their platform. But I think there would be a ton of people upset about the move.
> Even though it's still a closed platform, more creators are making a living by creating and that's a net win in my book.
I agree that it's a net win because it's 'better than what we had before.' The issue is that it could be even better but Apple is purposefully holding us back from that because we should 'just be happy' that things are 'better now than they were before.'
Though it's a flawed analogy, it's sort of like rescuing us from slavery to make us indentured servants instead of going the full monty and setting us free. Sure being an indentured servant is a hell of a lot better than being a slave, but we could have been set free at the same time. [ I realize that in reality indentured servants were little better than slaves of a different name. I'm going off the flawed picture that most children's history books paint for us to build this analogy. ]
The use of the internet is deeply intertwined with its form -- television could never, even if we worked incredibly hard at it, have been used in the same way. The message is the medium, and the form of the technology we adapt does, in fact, matter significantly.
Example: we would absolutely not be having this little debate if we only had iPads. :)
(And not to start a side debate, but I'm deeply sceptical of the app store being all that revolutionary; almost everything I've seen is a usability-tweaked version of software that already existed on the desktop or web. Further, it is absolutely against ideals of decentralization when it comes to the creation of software!)
That seems to be an extremely awkward angle for typing.
> Also heavy duty typing can be handled with a bluetooth attached keyboard though for my needs the the onscreen keyboard has been adequate.
Kinda ruins the mobility of the device compared with a lap top. You'll have to carry around the iPad, a stand, and a keyboard, which you could only reasonably use on some sort of table.
Didn't apple learn their lesson with the MBA? Get the air...and a USB hub...and an external DVD burner...and an ethernet dongle...and an external hard drive! Look at how portable it is! (especially when thin notebooks have all of these things built in).
For most uses I doubt you will need any attachments, with the exception of the case.
My irritation with the opinion expressed in the article and the general content consumption opinion is that the judgments are based on currently available software and hardware configuration and trying to use it like a laptop or phone. It is neither and will likely have new uses and assume some uses of these devices. Dismissing it after only a little more than a week seems unthoughtful and short sighted.
If you are interested in investigating applications for the new form factor the iPad will likely be the only game in town for a year or so and I would buy one. If you are looking to use it for something other than a toy I doubt I would buy it. It could be another few years before similar devices actually catch on with then obvious uses or it could fail and your money and time are wasted.
Now, I can turn a 10" screen into any imaginable control surface, including using all 10 fingers to move multiple objects at the same time. It's heaven. The iPad does what you would have had to spend $thousands for previously in the recording/mixing world.
As for the sound card - I agree, the DAC in the iPad is probably similar to the other iDevices in the past.. Pretty good for consumer standards, but poor by pro standards - not to mention multiple outs, ins, etc. Where the iPad stands to gain the most is as a remote controller for a larger rig running on a laptop - via Bluetooth or Wifi. Heck the audio jack could be used for modulated data and have it interpreted by the host machine as a control input, a la Serato et al. Ever since the $2k Lemur people have been hungering for this - it will happen sooner or later!
Consider that the passion of musicians to produce their music has led to eons of refinement in interface and design, A material technology which the hi tech world with its planned obsolescence paradigm does not often appreciate.
All innovation is welcome and exciting, few things in the world of a musician brings more joy then a discovery of a new sound, or a new technique he can learn.
but you know? that guitar interface? it just works.
... Of course the touch screen is exciting for musicians... check out Amit Pitaru/Zach Gage bring Sonic Wire Sculptor. its fun
Snobbish bullshit like this is a bigger threat to creativity than anything the iPad does or doesn't do.
More specifically, I'm saying I think doing so is a part of what keeps people out of making music--the idea that you have to be "serious" about it by spending a lot of money on recording gear or it somehow doesn't count. Far too often it's just the opposite: people just blow money on the gear because buying things is fun and they tell themselves they need it to make better music. And hey, maybe people will end up buying some iPads for that stupid reason, too. The point is that the cost of the gear and "seriousness" are not so directly related. I don't mean there is never a relation, only that you can't really draw this kind of generalized meritocratic conclusion about the art and artist from something so independent of their actual merit as the tools they use.
You may think it's snobbish, but that's reality in the pro music world.
Again, I wasn't saying that desiring the best sound quality is snobbish. What I think is snobbish is assuming that only professional musicians are serious, or that someone who involves an iPad in their musical process is somehow inherently less serious than one who doesn't.
EDIT: Here he is playing the iPhone in the middle of his keyboard solo, live: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONGpprZBkrs
Now, if you didn't know it was just another media consumption device - perhaps you thought you could also do some serious work on it - that would be different.
If I can do work on the iPad, does that mean my work isn't serious?
If you are creative person (musician, visual artist, designer, writer), the iPad might very well be the first usable digital sketchpad for your medium. I tire of people saying the iPad is primarily for consumption; it's simply not true. It may not appeal to the computer hacker, but it certain appeals to many other kinds of hackers.
I have no doubt that visual artists can create pretty good work with one, but I think they'll generally prefer pen based interfaces. Especially if they have giant sausage fingers. :)
I think what the iPad will do is move touch interfaces into the main stream for a much larger class of devices. What I doubt it will do is revolutionize very much.
It may still be less of a loss than Apple's restocking fee, though.
Her parents, definite technophobes, were intimidated by it. The first thing they wanted to look at was a slideshow on smugmug.com, some pictures of their granddaughter. Also Flash. They looked at me incredulously as I explained to them that you couldn't view the slideshow on the iPad. They tried to use the navigation on the website, but the navigation links were small and adjacent to the shopping cart link. At the height of their frustration, I pulled out my MBP so they could watch the slideshow on it. The thought of explaining to them how to set up their iPad to sync photos gives me chills.
OTOH, my 3-year-old LOVES it. She can use a mouse and a trackpad, but she has to concentrate and make deliberate movements. On the iPad, she flies. She can get to her favorite apps and watch her videos in a flash. There are lots of downsides to having this device in a toddler's hands, and I'd never let her use it unsupervised, but that's an aside from the usability issue.
I have a feeling that if the iPad sells well, the "why do it in HTML when we could do it in Flash" style of site will die out. It's no consolation right now, of course, but I wouldn't complain if that ends up happening (and, really? Flash just to show some pictures one after another?).
As it stands, the iPad exists in a state that makes it almost unusable for the overwhelming majority of web users (at least as anything more than a novelty, much like web browsing on the iPhone)
If mom's savvy enough to use a computer aside from her iPad then she can use that computer to get to the sites she wants to go to that her iPad doesn't support. If she's only savvy enough for an iPad, then she's still better off being able to get to the non-Flash parts of the web than nothing.
ECMAScript may be google's horse in the race, but it's still just an add-on.
Bottom line seems to be that people love the way Flash sites look. If we can achieve that differently, bully for us, but most people probably won't notice.
and watch her videos in a flash.
Delicious irony.
I am firmly against wooden toys and want to give my kid a computer asap (OK, nothing against wooden toys, but you get the idea).
So I wondered if the iPad is durable enough for a kid. Ultimately I expect cheaper variants to appear, with special kids durability (of course not from Apple, but maybe Android or sth like that).
Would be interested in hearing more stories about kids on pads.
Less chance of splinters.
I think it's interesting that kids take to the device more easily than adults. Part of that is simpler usage, but part of it is not having preconceived notions about how to use the device. It also makes me think that a certain class of users is going to have to take some time with the iPad. My wife hated our netbook when I bought it; now I have to pry it from her hands.
I'm not disappointed at all in the iPad, but then again my expectations weren't extremely high. I knew typing would be a chore. I knew that there were going to be ergonomic challenges. I wasn't expecting the browser to be on par with the desktop. Also, I mostly bought it to develop for.
I'm thinking that most of it is simpler usage. Unless you're qualifying "I can't access my favorite websites because they use flash" under 'preconceived notions.' At least for me, I would be disappointed where the functionality was lacking (i.e. "it can't be done" vs "it can only be done in a different way"), and that is something that a child wouldn't suffer from as much.
I don't know how it is with others, but my kid is fascinated with all my computers. My netbook, my MBP, my Droid, my Touch, and now my iPad. I don't discourage her curiosity. We had a VIC-20 when I was a kid and later a Commodore 64, and that's probably the reason I love programming to this day.
What she wants most of all is for her parents to sit with her as she discovers. The iPad is really good for that - the best computer I own for that use case, I think. I can't stand the Leapfrog for long, but watching her with the iPad is fun. It helps that I have the chops to build little apps to distribute on my own devices.
What I was saying was that if it was a disappointment for you, but your 3 year old loved it, it's probably not worth keeping. Child curiosity can be appeased for less than $500.
Now if you loved it as well, it's a different story.
Definitely. My daughter loves play-acting with her toys (most of which are just cheap plastic things from Toys R Us). Pencils and crayons with reams of paper last for quite some time. Blocks, balls, and mini versions of adult things (e.g., toy phones, kitchen appliances) that let them play pretend, are all great hits.
In my experience, the specific toys (i.e., the ones that have clearly defined "play" scenarios) are the ones that get great attention for an hour, and then are left at the back of the closet until we get rid of them.
Computer software is similar - my son loves any building/open world type game (simcity, bridge builder, the sims, harvest moon), but usually loses interest at games that have very specific goals (most platform type games, although mario and the lego games seem to be exceptions).
Seriously, my 2 year old kid enjoys my iPhone. I'm just annoyed that they don't support HTML5 audio to the degree that I (and others) could be building the type of simple interaction apps he enjoys with HTML.
The iPad will make a fantastic browser for the tablet web, if and when that web is built, but today it's a poor substitute for a mouse and keyboard when websites expect those.
Tabs are much more cumbersome. Instead of just clicking a tab, you've got to zoom out, pick your window and zoom back in. It's a lot more motion.
Scrolling, typing, copying and pasting are also not as simple. Touch scrolling is nice, but it's a lot more movement. Typing and copy/paste are just slower. I still type slower on the large iPad keyboard than on the much smaller iPhone keyboard.
Another problem I have with it is that if I'm filling out a form, for example a message on Facebook, and I need to switch to email to copy something and come back to Safari and paste it in, there is no guarantee that the Facebook message I started typing will still be there. It's a little frustrating.
I'm sure all these kinks will eventually be worked out, but as it is, I still find myself grabbing my Macbook Pro when I'm going to be any "serious" browsing or my iPhone when I'm just looking something up really quickly.
I really like the iPad for some things, but in my experience, browsing hasn't been all it was cracked up to be.
We have a wiki and I needed to move a bunch of comments to work items in our bug database. So on my desktop I would have just have two instances of the browser open and would literally read from the wiki and create new work items in the bug database.
On the iPad this was painful. There's no side by side view (that I could get to work at least), and it seemed to reload the bug database every time I'd toggle back to that page!!! I don't want a reload, just show me the page I was looking at 10 seconds ago!
Not a good experience.
However ... Remember all those Star Trek episodes with people sitting at a desk with _several_ pad like devices spread out in front of them; like a paper covered desk? Now imagine a similar situation with several tablet devices that have some type of screen bridging/device linking software. I can easily imagine scenarios where this will be useful. Now imagine combining that _with_ a desktop display.
Frankly, I think there is a big future in tablet and multi-screen devices as adjunct input and manipulation platforms. Dig up a copy of a short anime called _Pale Cocoon_ and watch what the people are doing with the computer interfaces in that show. Whether or not the UI concepts would actually work in real life, the ideas presented are _very_ much worth thinking about.
Pun intended?
Or, don't. The iPad goes with you into the seat. Apple's wireless bluetooth keyboard goes in your carry-on, and stays there until the hotel room desk where you might actually do some typing. The rest of your business trip, the iPad lets you reference things, make minor edits, show Keynote on a VGA projector, and keep up with email and news.
(And for printing at the client's location, you do the same thing with your iPad you do with your "real" laptop: email the client the file for them to print because their IT won't let your laptop see their printer queue.)
For anyone that travels a lot and writes, the iPad is a godsend. Please see http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/4/11/856114/-My-iPad-...
Price is a big differentiator though. It's hard to compete with $500 + whatever the keyboard costs.
Nice touch. I'd also like to hear it in Shatner.
It's all about expectations with the iPad. It's not going to be a pure laptop replacement if you do any "serious" work (don't even think about web dev for example, although it would be awesome if Panic released Coda for the iPad), but for about 80% of what I do (especially when traveling) it's absolutely perfect. Combine that with home use, coffee shops, and instant child entertainment and you have a device worthy of your $500.
If it doesn't fit into your life, don't get it! I still don't understand the point of the reviews where they try to do EVERYTHING possible on the iPad. It's clearly not meant for that, stop treating it like it is.
Would be a good bit cheaper too.
A netbook? I hope that's a joke. Why would I want a cheaply built, underpowered (I'll bet the iPad out performs most netbooks), mini laptop that doesn't run OSX or iPhone OS (as in I can't stand Windows or any linux distro)?
At risk of sounding like a fanboy I'm going to quote Steve Jobs himself: "We don’t know how to build a sub-$500 computer that is not a piece of junk,"
The iPad is underpowered in that it can't run Vim or emacs. If you are a developer, being able to run a text editor is the baseline for a device.
Why would you want a cheaply built laptop? So when your bag gets stolen or dropped or whatever, you lose a $200 netbook rather than a $500 iPad or a $1000 laptop.
As for not running OS X? Google 'hackintosh'.
Honestly, life is too short, I'm not going to sacrifice quality because of a fear that at any moment my bag may be stolen. It's also pretty easy to not, you know, leave your bag sitting somewhere in public? A $300 difference is worth it because of the upgrade in quality and less frustration.
Again, this all comes down to your personality and lifestyle. Steve Jobs did not get up on stage and say the iPad is a laptop replacement. It's a device meant to replace SOME, not all, of your daily activities (heck maybe they are not even daily, maybe it's your weekend only device or something). If you don't see it fitting into your life, don't buy one. That doesn't mean it doesn't work for someone other then you though!
'Piece of Junk' is in the eyes of the beholder. In my experience, a $300 netbook has been the most productive machine I've ever owned.
edit: Sorry about the dupes, for some reason my phone freaked out and sent this three times. Fixed now.
I also know that in a pinch, I can plug in a monitor and a usb keyboard and use it like a full machine (just with no 3d, and a slower processor). But for 95% of what I need (and I need some pretty processor intensive tasks, like photo editing, audio editing, etc.) it works "good enough". And it's unbeatable value for the dollar.
My thoughts exactly. Purely as a reading device, it will be fantastic for scientific papers which are usually in hard formatted PDFs. Reflowing them for a small e-ink device sucks and makes them hard to read. Having color is a huge bonus (10 shades of grey in a color coded graph is a royal pain). The iPad + the GoodReader app will let you take hundreds of papers and technical books with you. The fact that it has a pretty good web browser and email app with WiFi is an awesome bonus.
If you want a device to read PDFs, play some games, and browse the web it's fantastic.
iPad + GoodReader + 10 hour battery life is bliss.
Still pretty f'ing good.
This is going to be the biggest factor to determine if a tablet is right for you. I'm comfortable enough at my desk using my computer but I can only take so much of it. Most of my web browsing outside of work is entertainment or at least long form reading. Both areas I think the iPad excels at. I could use a laptop on my couch or in bed but I find that a bit awkward but, most importantly, the iPad blows it away on battery life and screen quality -- and for entertainment purposes it's just easier to do most stuff.
I wholly agree with the comments about Kindle too. I can see the benefit in having a Kindle, it offers a relaxing and focussed environment on which to catch up on the one thing I never have enough time - or am to distracted by web/mail/chat - to do, and that is READ.
I don't think it likely Apple will pay any attention to the AppleTV platform, its a dud.
This is the bit that scares me.
Clearly it should inform your purchase decision, but why should it be scary?
No one device is for all people to do all things. So why should a particular weakness inherent in this form-factor be scary?
Maybe 'scary' was a bit strong - I'm not exactly trembling under my bed ... yet.
Ergo, the machine that a hundred creators are most likely to have in common, is one that consumes well. It seems the only thing we should logically expect is consumption and popularity to go hand in hand.
But what exactly about the iPad acts as a break on creation?
It isn't suited to composing and editing large blocks of text out-of-the-box; but only a couple forms of Art require that.
Notably, the iPad is an arguably better machine for the creation of every art you explicitly called out, save coding.
Does a cook need a keyboard and mouse in the kitchen? Seems a quick-reference that can sit in a recipe-book-holder and doesn't require putting down the butcher knife would be welcome.
Wouldn't a dancer be better off with a machine that is easily picked up, put down, carried through a routine at half-speed and can naturally scrub through an instructional video? (My wife has already used my iPad to do exactly this.)
Wouldn't a singer suitably benefit from an iPad on a music stand, showing instant pitch-feedback (via its microphone) and live-scrolling note chart?
And clearly drawing is more-easily done on a tablet than with a mouse.
As a big fan of creation, I'm downright excited that such a device has come to market that gets more cruft out of the way and brings computing to the natural habitats of other artists.
That only developers with serious tools can code for it, and only at Apple's pleasure certainly isn't ideal. But that isn't so huge a roadblock and the up-side is that we're enabling all these other arts.
You mean like one of these? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book
But seriously, think about it. Why would a "media consumption" device become popular? It might be because "passive consumerism" is popular. The iPad does what most people already do with laptops and desktops, which they did before with TVs and VCRs and CD players and game consoles and newspapers and magazines and books.
It's just technology conforming to what people actually do, which historically seems to work out in everybody's favor--moreso than trying to change human nature to fit an ideal, at least--in the form of new capabilities and the cognitive surplus to use them.
When I get a device bundled with Windows 7, with the ability to run any windows application and not only Flash, it's just like tele-porting my computer to this little device.
The iPad OS is a phone OS, whatever powerful it is, it'll be always way behind any desktop OS.
Point 2 is multi-tasking. And about iPhone OS 4.0 multi-tasking, it just made me laugh, it just proved me Apple failed to support real multi-tasking.
The iPad OS is a phone OS, whatever powerful it is,
it'll be always way behind any desktop OS.
And about iPhone OS 4.0 multi-tasking, it just made
me laugh, it just proved me Apple failed to support
real multi-tasking.
Meanwhile enjoy your well thought multitouch suppor of Windows 7 on HP slate and the battery life with real multitasking.
So you can guarantee me that the iPad will without any doubt whatsoever 'take off' solely based on the fact that they sold a ton of product on the first day?
It is by no means a guarantee of anything. It's possibly indicative of a trend, but first day sales shouldn't mean anything other than how successful the product was marketed. How well the product takes off after that is a function of marketing, how well it meets consumer expectations (i.e. it could somewhat miss on consumer expectations, but be bolstered by an excellent marketing strategy), and how much of a market there is for it.
> A car, whatever poferful it is, it'll be always way behind any train. So?
Not everyone can afford to have a device for every purpose. Many people have to budget around getting a single device that can do as many things as possible.
> Meanwhile enjoy your well thought multitouch suppor of Windows 7 on HP slate and the battery life with real multitasking.
What are you trying to say here? That because he wants 'real' multi-tasking that he's an idiot and should be sent off to use Windows 7 and have poor battery life? Is it such a crime against humanity to want to have a decent multi-touch experience and 'real' multitasking?