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.