Slashdot Mirror


Has Apple Created the Perfect Board Game Platform?

andylim writes "recombu.com is running an interesting piece about how Apple has created a 'Jumanji (board game) platform.' The 9.7-inch multi-touch screen is perfect for playing board games at home, and you could use Wi-Fi or 3G to play against other people when you're on your own. What would be really interesting is if you could pair the iPad with iPhones, 'Imagine a Scrabble iPad game that used iPhones as letter holders. You could hold up your iPhone so that no one else could see your letters and when you were ready to make a word on the Scrabble iPad board, you could slide them on to the board by flicking the word tiles off your iPhone.' Now that would be cool."

531 comments

  1. Uh, no. They didn't. by Pojut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The perfect board game platform is cardboard.

  2. Sure thing by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So for only $499 + $299/phone, you can play a $75 board game electronically! No messy setup, and you don't have to worry about where to put that almost $1000 in cash you would still have!

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
    1. Re:Sure thing by boristdog · · Score: 5, Funny

      So for only $499 + $299/phone, you can play a $75 board game electronically!

      $75?

      Where the hell do you shop for board games?

      Here, I'll lend you a decimal --> .

    2. Re:Sure thing by simcop2387 · · Score: 1
    3. Re:Sure thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $75? Would that be for a gemstone-encrusted version?

    4. Re:Sure thing by bjk002 · · Score: 1

      My kingdom for a mod point!!!

      --
      Opinion:=TMyOpinion.Create(Me);
    5. Re:Sure thing by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      A kingdom filled with Anonymous Cowards is not worth a mod point or two. :P

    6. Re:Sure thing by travisco_nabisco · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of games that cost close to $75 Cnd. They are much more strategy based games with more mechanics that moving around a board in circles, or squares depending if you have the new Monopoly board or not.

      A lot of the games that I play are developed in Europe and are finally starting to get some real exposure to the NA market. It is about time us NA residents realize what a great hobby board games can be.

    7. Re:Sure thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Carcassone Big Box will run you $90.

    8. Re:Sure thing by spike2131 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      The Carcassone Big Box will run you $90. Worth it.

      --
      SpyDock: Scientific Python in a Docker container
    9. Re:Sure thing by weston · · Score: 2, Insightful

      $499 + $299/phone

      $299 phone?

      Well, assuming for some reason you've got an aversion against or unusual obstacle to using WiFi, you could use a phone that costs around $50. At least, that's what I do with my laptop and a Nokia 2865 (via bluetooth DUN). It's not 3G speeds, which means you don't want to be pushing video over it, but for sending model data between games it should work just fine.

      As for the rest of the economics... yeah, if you're just going to buy one board game, it probably doesn't make a lot of sense, to buy an iPad just to play it. The question is if you're going to do anything else... whether that's a handful of other games, or something else the device does (as well as whether game titles cost less or more than the equivalent board game). In other words, whether or not the iPad makes sense for games is probably going to a have a lot to do with whether the iPad makes sense in general for you.

      Personally, for me the bigger objection would generally have to be that it's a bit small for group board gaming.

    10. Re:Sure thing by GasparGMSwordsman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Napoleon in Europe cost me $80, Diplomacy cost me $60, Settlers of Catan with expansions cost me $180 ($45 x 3 + $15 x 3), Through the Ages costs $70 right now, History of the World was $65. Some of us like good board games. (I own all of those except Through the Ages and History of the World, which a friend owns).

      I have not even mentioned any games by Games Workshop. If you include them, the iPad + Phones would be cheaper...

      http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/3518/napoleon-in-europe

      http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/483/diplomacy

      http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/13/the-settlers-of-catan

      http://www.eaglegames.net/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=CBG001

      http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/224/history-of-the-world

    11. Re:Sure thing by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point.

      For $499 + $299/phone you can play every $75 board game electronically, and watch video in your lap, and surf the web, and take calls (though not conveniently), and control your other home devices.

      Ignore the cost of the phone. Everyone has a phone (well, everyone who counts, anyway, and soon that will be everyone for all practical values of "everyone"). Lets say $50 can be cut of the cost of the game by removing packaging and printing. Ten games at $25 each and you're ahead of the game. And it does not hog space on your shelf/closet.

      Crap, the idea of digital storage of licensed content was appealing to me in the 1980s when I had a custom-built oak cabinet built to hold my CDs and cassettes. The hassle is identification: needing to connect the repository to some kind of device to identify content stored. Permanent NFS-mounting kind of fixes this, but you can't take the repository with you for casual viewing. Tablets make that possible within the realm of your wireless network.

      Now, what if the tablet was the content repository? With local display? And portability? So, you could take all your movies, music, board games, class notes, etc. with you?

      Playback on the device, or UWB or 802.11n 'beam' it to the big honking TV hooked up to the surround sound system?

      I think there is a market for a device which is the place where I keep all my 'stuff' so I can take it with me and see what it all is: the PPCP: portable personal computing pad. Make syncing with phones, cameras, GPS devices easy. Have a bunch of flash ports for external data (USB and HDMI too).

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    12. Re:Sure thing by DavidD_CA · · Score: 1

      I always mess up some mundane detail. I hate it when that happens.

      --
      -David
    13. Re:Sure thing by node+3 · · Score: 1

      So for only $499 + $299/phone, you can play a $75 board game electronically! No messy setup, and you don't have to worry about where to put that almost $1000 in cash you would still have!

      +5 Insightful, but only if you only buy the iPad (and iPhone) to play one single game and that's it.

      How often do you think that's really going to happen?

      On the other hand, for everyone who will actually buy such a thing, they will be able to surf the web, listen to music, watch movies, read books, use numerous apps and games, etc., and (if they want), *also* play a $75 board game.

    14. Re:Sure thing by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right, because those guys are going to be rushing to give you the game for free. Somehow I think they'll find a way to make the cost of the digital version comparable with the boxed one, and you're right back where you started except gathering around a small screen with your friends instead of a big board. If you wanted to talk a platform for electronic board games, I'd go with something like MS Surface, which has a much larger available playing area.

    15. Re:Sure thing by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

      Yup. That's why I spent the $$$ to get an Android-based HTC2: Free Google Maps navigation with GPS (or a $10/month GPS data package from other providers). Beats having to buy a GPS device (and pay the per month map fees) as well.

      The bottom line, is that we are very quickly approaching the "sweet spots" in computationally expandable portable display and storage devices: pads, phones, watches. One should not have physical "stuff" to represent data, only to effectively store and display it, regardless of the nature of the data itself.

      We've been able to store digital representations of data for a long time, but display always required a clunky display device. As the amount of data stored increases, the marginal and amortized expense of including a display device with the storage unit drops, to the point that an e-book starts to look enough like a book that the shortcomings are overcome by the fact that it can look like all of your books.

      Granted, you can only view one at a time, and the display might not be ideal for all viewings (movies you want on a big screen), but it is not unreasonable to have a few such devices (say two or three eventually), if you want to compare multiple books side by side. The point is that you don't need as many as you have books, and the paper and transportation costs are eliminated.

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    16. Re:Sure thing by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      And you make it sound so FUN!

      Now I can't wait for iPad family game night, what a magical tradition that will be for the kids.

    17. Re:Sure thing by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Eh, I think you being overly optimistic that you will be able to buy the games electronically for less than you can buy they in cardboard.

    18. Re:Sure thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      There are a lot of board games that cost this much. Sure, monopoly, scrabble, et al don't, but there are other types of board games out there.

      Here are some examples of the cost of specialty board games:

      1) Short print run drives price up
      2) Imported from Europe
      3) Lots of quality bits

      Some specialty board game examples: Agricola, Twilight Imperium 3rd Edition, Runewars, Descent, Dungeon Lords, Space Hulk 3rd Edition

    19. Re:Sure thing by sarahbau · · Score: 1

      Yeah. It really is too bad that when buying the iPad, you have to state what one function you're going to use it for, which can't be changed through the life of the product. I checked the "Scrabble" option when buying mine, but at least I like Scrabble, and am fine with it only doing that.

      Or maybe, just maybe, no one is suggesting that people buy an iPad just to play board games. Maybe they're just saying if you are going to get one, it would work well for playing board games.....nah. That's silly. You're right. Your $800 vs $75 example is a fair and logical comparison.

    20. Re:Sure thing by filterban · · Score: 1
      Funny response, but unfortunately, iPhones and iPads are capable of other things, so your argument loses most of its luster.

      Did you have the following sentiment when Microsoft Word for Windows was announced in 1989?

      "So, for only $2000 (for the computer) + $500 (for the printer) + $500 (for the software) , you can use a typewriter electronically! You get a delete key, and you don't have to worry about where to put that $3000 in cash you would still have!"

      --
      rm -rf /
    21. Re:Sure thing by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      >At least, that's what I do with my laptop and a Nokia 2865 (via bluetooth DUN).

      The ipad wont let you do DUN. Apple's idea of bluetooth is wireless keyboards and headphoness. It would upset their partner AT&T and their own bottom line if they cant bundle a new iphone with the ipad.

    22. Re:Sure thing by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Don't forget you have to buy the aps as well.

      They'll just be $20 in the ap store. But you'll need the one for the ipad and then the one for the iphone. Well one for each player's iphone actually...

      Excuse me while I go and hack up a board game for the ipad, I have bills to pay.

    23. Re:Sure thing by Haeleth · · Score: 1

      Ignore the cost of the phone. Everyone has a phone (well, everyone who counts, anyway, and soon that will be everyone for all practical values of "everyone").

      Everyone has a phone. Relatively few people have iPhones.

      Do you really think Apple is going to let iPad apps interact with Symbian, Android, or Windows Mobile devices?

    24. Re:Sure thing by weston · · Score: 1

      The ipad wont let you do DUN. Apple's idea of bluetooth is wireless keyboards and headphoness. It would upset their partner AT&T and their own bottom line if they cant bundle a new iphone with the ipad.

      If it can't to bluetooth DUN with a generic phone, why would it be able to do it with an iPhone?

    25. Re:Sure thing by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

      Stonebridge Games in Longmont Colorado. Mainly a board game shop with a few RPG's and card games kicking around.

      Fantasy Flight Games has several board games that go up to $100 for just the one box and complete sets are a lot more. Arkham Horror is at about $325 now.

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    26. Re:Sure thing by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

      Ignore the fact that this garden is walled. The point is that unwalled equivalents are possible.

      Besides, all you need is a phone with a browser and wifi and an unlocked app on the tablet (ad hoc mode would be nice on the 802.11) -- you don't need ALL the hardware to be unlocked.

      Alternately, run the open game app on a server on a linux box somewhere in the room (or anywhere, for that matter) that talks to various displays via rendering inside a browser on each. It's not like imagemapping wouldn't be enough for the average board game.

      Crap. That's an idea I should've patented: "board game web applications delivered via non-uniform display browsers for the public board and private player data". Oh well.

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    27. Re:Sure thing by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Eh, I think you being overly optimistic that you will be able to buy the games electronically for less than you can buy they in cardboard.

      Wait, are you claiming that an electronic, cardboard-free version is not going to be cheaper than the cardboard version?

    28. Re:Sure thing by geekoid · · Score: 1

      He was talking about good high quality games for adults. Not that hasbro stuff that is an insult to anyone over 20.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    29. Re:Sure thing by ElSupreme · · Score: 1

      Um there were lots of companies that decided just that. To write a few hundred form letters, you would save tons of typing time.

      --
      My addiction: Arguing with idiots. AKA Slashdot!
    30. Re:Sure thing by Darth · · Score: 1

      not to say i agree with the premise of the article, but it would be saying for $499 + $299/phone you can play potentially hundreds of $75 board games electronically.
      And that still isn't accurate because the phone (and the iPad) is not used exclusively for playing board games, so some of the cost is defrayed by the additional usage of the devices involved.

      --
      Darth --
      Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
    31. Re:Sure thing by GasparGMSwordsman · · Score: 1

      Sometimes I wish you could Mod and talk. I agree with you entirely (maybe not on the MS Surface bit, but everything else).

      Just about the only advantage for a computerized version of a board game is to play against an AI when you don't have a human player(s) available.

    32. Re:Sure thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      try $99-$399.

    33. Re:Sure thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      here ..

      pass him on this spare word I have lying about -> 'point'

    34. Re:Sure thing by pjt33 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's one other advantage when you're learning a game, which is that the computerised one will enforce rules which you missed, or mis-interpreted. Of course, this becomes a disadvantage when you've played the game a few times and want to try some house rules.

    35. Re:Sure thing by ByteSlicer · · Score: 1

      For $499 + $299/phone plus $75/electronic game you can play every $75 board game electronically, and watch video in your lap, and surf the web, and take calls (though not conveniently), and control your other home devices.

      Fixed that for you. Or did you really think the electronic version of the game would come any cheaper?

    36. Re:Sure thing by Achoi77 · · Score: 1

      Heh, the first thing I was thinking of was "$750" and not "$7.50"

      Guess I know a lot of boardgamers

  3. Size by maxume · · Score: 2, Informative

    TOO SMALL!

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    1. Re:Size by citab · · Score: 1

      Now that you bring you "Size" ...

      The iPad opens a whole new world for porn!

      Who says you have to touch the screen with your finger!

      The iPud!

    2. Re:Size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Definitely too small. How are we going to be able to play Twister on this?

  4. Of course! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    None of that is possible with any other tablets or cell phones! Once again, Apple rules the world by being first at everything!

    1. Re:Of course! by Synkronos · · Score: 1

      Yes. I was flabbergasted by some listener phoning in to a radio station, and exclaiming about how WONDERFUL an idea the iPad was, thanks to the touch screen. She had obviously never been exposed to a tablet PC in her life. Seriously, if the iPad is even the slightest bit successful, I will hold Apple users in even more disdain than I do currently. Which is quite a lot.

      --
      Playing poker with a joker and some Uno cards
  5. Too Small by stoolpigeon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How is less than 10 inches perfect?

    I don't think I play a single board game with a board that small. Zoom in and out? Scroll around? Everything smaller? No thanks. A lot of my board game time is great just because I'm unplugged anyway.

    If I were alone, maybe then I could see it. The less than ideal experience would be o.k. compared to not being able to play at all. But to sit around with phones out to 'hold' tiles and play the game on a little screen doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    1. Re:Too Small by Sebilrazen · · Score: 5, Funny

      How is less than 10 inches perfect?

      That's what she said.

      --
      "There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.
    2. Re:Too Small by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Give me a 24"X24" one to play settlers of Catan on...

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:Too Small by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Depends how you do it, most board games don't require you to have both precision and wide view at the same time. But, until this sort of thing comes way under the $100 mark I can't imagine it catching on for that purpose. Sure it might be a nice added value, but definitely not a perfect board game platform.

    4. Re:Too Small by LordPhantom · · Score: 0, Redundant

      "How is less than 10 inches perfect?"
      That's what she said!

    5. Re:Too Small by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      They already have Catan on the iPhone (warning: link launches iTunes).

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    6. Re:Too Small by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1, Informative

      I know Scrabble is one where I certainly want to be able to take in the whole board at once. And I want to be looking at different parts than the other players, without them knowing what I'm focused on.

      The desire to keep what I'm looking at to myself is true of a lot of games.

      I'd like to see one of these table sized interfaces we've seen used this way. I know it's been done with d&d. That would be cool for board games.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    7. Re:Too Small by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are still very much "unplugged" since the retarded little device can only run one thing at a time. While you are playing that game, you won't be getting any music, popups, IMs, or email.

    8. Re:Too Small by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > How is less than 10 inches perfect?

      That's what she said.

      Modded informative? I'm sad.

    9. Re:Too Small by Sinning · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should look into plastic surgery?

    10. Re:Too Small by 2obvious4u · · Score: 1

      The average cervix is only 6 inches deep.


      So less than 10 inches should be more than enough for the average lady.

    11. Re:Too Small by Wiarumas · · Score: 1

      Bah! You beat me to it... :p

      --
      I will bend like a reed in the wind.
    12. Re:Too Small by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes! This will never fit a good game of beer-pong.

    13. Re:Too Small by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      Perfect is relative. If customers need to buy 4, 9, or 16 iPads to make a large enough screen, then that's perfect for Apple.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    14. Re:Too Small by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, too, find what she said informative.

    15. Re:Too Small by sean_nestor · · Score: 2, Funny

      The best part of this post:

      50% Informative
      30% Underrated
      20% Funny

      God bless the /. crowd :)

    16. Re:Too Small by node+3 · · Score: 1

      I don't think I play a single board game with a board that small. Zoom in and out? Scroll around? Everything smaller?

      Um, I'm pretty sure that's *exactly* how you play *every* board game. Take Monopoly as an example (for a point of reference, not because it's the best game out there or anything). When you look at the board, as a whole, your vision isn't zoomed in on any particular part. You are taking in how many groups of streets have houses and where you are, where you might land, if someone is in jail, are you about to pass go, etc.

      Then, when you want to take note of something specifically, like, what do you have to roll to land on Ventnor, or how much you will make if an opponent lands on St. James, etc., you zoom in on that thing (either leaning in and focusing on that particular area of the board or picking up and looking at that property card). You go from zoomed in to zoomed out all the time, panning around, the works.

      I'm not saying the iPad (or any touchscreen device) will be better at that aspect of game playing (in a way it is, in that you can have a really large board game that would be impractical in reality), just that you already do those things when playing a game.

      No thanks. A lot of my board game time is great just because I'm unplugged anyway.

      Of course, play the games the way you want. No one is saying you have to trade in your board games for computer games, just like Monopoly or Risk on your PC or Xbox 360 means you have to give up physical board games. It's just another way to play, and for me at least, sounds pretty cool.

      Another benefit, aside from games that are impossible/impractical to make in physical form, is being able to buy, download, and play the game right away, instead of having to run to the store (which might not be as easy as it sounds for a lot of the more obscure, but highly acclaimed, board games).

    17. Re:Too Small by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      And you can re-use those old Ms. Pac-Man tables from 80's cocktail lounges for the cabinets. :)

      Really, though, with the touch resolution required for a board game, most of the reject touch surfaces could be used. Create a per-unit defect map before shipping and just ignore those areas.

      If there were actually a market for such things, which there probably isn't.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    18. Re:Too Small by pmontra · · Score: 1

      A 10" board game is definitely not feasible. Not today's board games anyway, which require all players sitting around the same table and be able to study the board and move pieces around. It's too small. Maybe somebody will start designing board games for a 10" screen and remote players. But those won't be like what we use to play now with our friends. Conclusion: not a platform to replace board games as we know them. Maybe a competitor for PC games.

    19. Re:Too Small by maxume · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that the capacitive and resistive tech gets a bit hard to implement for larger screens, so they all use infrared in one way or another (a camera with a filter is pointed at the screen (the back or the front) and then various techniques are used to get brighter illumination at points where something is touching the screen).

      There is brief discussion of it here:

      http://wiki.nuigroup.com/Multitouch_Technologies

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    20. Re:Too Small by Nightspirit · · Score: 1

      If MS Surface came down to $1k this would be feasible (even better if it was holographic), but otherwise the ipad is a great boardgame platform: for one person.

    21. Re:Too Small by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > That's what she said.

      Actually, here's some input from an actual adult human female. FOR THE MOST PART only sluts love huge equipment. For the average woman well-endowed is just a different way of saying, "Ow, that fucking HURTS, and not a good hurt either, and this really isn't all that fun for me."

      Look at it this way. If you were going to have sex with another guy would you want him to be the size of a hot dog or a roll of cookie dough? Yeah, same for us.

    22. Re:Too Small by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey, FYI your RLZ is leaking.

    23. Re:Too Small by Reapy · · Score: 1

      The only surprising thing about this comment is it took someone 5 minutes to make it :) +1 !!

  6. ok ill bite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    get some cardboard, draw on it

    man was that cheap.
    now go pay apple

  7. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by poetmatt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    yup. This is just an attempt by apple to make this appealing. The answer is: it's not. There are other apple products more compelling at this price, iphone namely.

  8. Cool game of scrabble? by pympdaddyc · · Score: 1

    I'd hope a $1600 game of scrabble would be cool.

    1. Re:Cool game of scrabble? by Minwee · · Score: 3, Funny

      For $1600, I'd better be able to use words like "zoquou" and "ushnuu".

    2. Re:Cool game of scrabble? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hats off to you, sir, for the FT reference.

    3. Re:Cool game of scrabble? by sakdoctor · · Score: 1

      For $1600 I'd expect the scrabble to come with three hookers

    4. Re:Cool game of scrabble? by CRiMSON · · Score: 1

      And at least a pound of blow.. I mean coke doesn't snort itself off those hookers asses!

      --
      oogly boogly!
    5. Re:Cool game of scrabble? by DreadPiratePizz · · Score: 1

      What about 'qwyjibo' ?!

  9. Please Change The Title Of This Article by pandrijeczko · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...to "Ramming home the news that Apple have released a new product this week, Part 234".

    Thanks.

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    1. Re:Please Change The Title Of This Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Ramming home the news that Apple have released a shiny face on an existing product but removed a lot of its functionality and tripled the price this week, Part 234".

      Fixed that for you

    2. Re:Please Change The Title Of This Article by Knara · · Score: 0, Redundant

      ...to "Ramming home the news that Apple have released a new product this week, Part 234".

      Thanks.

      QFT

    3. Re:Please Change The Title Of This Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fun part of that statement is that they haven't released anything. They simply announced a physically bigger iPod Touch that will ship in limited quantities over then next few months.

      If they had released it then we would only have a week of talking about it. By having it be a not so secret secret, followed by a showy announcement, followed by a slow and limited release schedule, Apple has created a hype machine that will last just long enough to get to their next product launch.

      Disclaimer: I own several Apple products, including a Newton that I recently pulled out in the Apple store for shock/amusement purposes.

  10. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Pojut · · Score: 1

    Well, heavy cardboard wrapped in a plastic-like material...but you get my point.

    -1 for replying to myself.

  11. Uh huh. by squ3lch · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Or I could play a board game. I could buy all sorts of board games before I would come close to the price of the iPad + digital board game purchases.

    1. Re:Uh huh. by Sebilrazen · · Score: 1

      But then you'd need to have a closet or garage to store them.

      --
      "There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.
    2. Re:Uh huh. by polar+red · · Score: 1

      I guess there are enough people around here that own at least for a 1000 dollars (or euros in my case) in board games.

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
  12. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Problem is most "cardboard" games are getting nutty pricey. I have seen many new ones retailing for $100 or more.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  13. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For some board games it's often impractical to carry the whole board around. For example Carrom (http://touchcarrom.com), the board is big enough. This will indeed be an ideal platform for such games.

  14. Great! by TheRealFixer · · Score: 1

    Or, you know, you could get an actual Scrabble board, and not have to spend a couple thousand dollars to play to play a $20 game with three friends. You can even flick the tiles at the board, if you want. For free!

  15. it's not a big ass table, so no by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No... the "big ass table" that apple fans made fun of Microsoft for is the perfect board game platform.

    The iPad would maybe make a nice "private" board for keeping player information hidden. But a big ass table would be a lot better for a group to gather around to play a board game.

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    1. Re:it's not a big ass table, so no by minsk · · Score: 1

      Heck, my take is that even Microsoft's "big ass table" is too small and too low-resolution for complex highly-social board games. And they're the ones that could benefit most from adding a computer into the mix.

      Double the size and resolution, then we can talk about board games.

    2. Re:it's not a big ass table, so no by 2obvious4u · · Score: 1

      Was going to post about this too, here is the Microsoft link for it.

    3. Re:it's not a big ass table, so no by RazorSharp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The iPad would give me a chessboard I can carry around with me anywhere, and do other things on. The big ass table does everything the iPad does, but it's too freakin' big to take anywhere. I don't think the point of the article is "buy an iPad for a portable chessboard." But if you have an iPad, why would you take a chessboard anywhere? That's more space, pieces that can be lost, ect. The article doesn't suggest that the iPad is going to be pigeonholed into a digital board game market, but the fact that it can do those things too just adds value. It also probably has Parker Bros. et al rushing to Apple for their SDKs.

      The problems with the Surface are highlighted in the video you provided. "Instead of using one of today's more compact devices to get directions where you're going, why not use a device the size of a small car, to do the same job?"

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    4. Re:it's not a big ass table, so no by ElSupreme · · Score: 1

      Agreed almost-perfect board game table, beause it is really just a board you can use 'pieces' and the table will interact with them. You can use real dice.
      But house rules would still seem a problem.

      --
      My addiction: Arguing with idiots. AKA Slashdot!
    5. Re:it's not a big ass table, so no by Knara · · Score: 1

      It's pretty cool, though I'll hold out for the one that has freestanding holograms for the game pieces.

    6. Re:it's not a big ass table, so no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Microsoft Surface isn't perfect for it either. I recently had a chance to play around with one (they had several in Innovations in Disneyland). It's great in concept but the input on it needs some serious work. Input itself lagged fairly badly, often being a second or so behind but the computer itself didn't lag in the slightest. It also seemed as if the input was off by a fair amount though I'm sure it just needed to be calibrated.

    7. Re:it's not a big ass table, so no by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

      The iPad would give me a chessboard I can carry around with me anywhere, and do other things on.

      Good thing there's never ever been anything else that could do this. Nope. Nothing else. This is the first device ever that could display a chessboard and do other things. Yup.

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    8. Re:it's not a big ass table, so no by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

      The problems with the Surface are highlighted in the video you provided. "Instead of using one of today's more compact devices to get directions where you're going, why not use a device the size of a small car, to do the same job?"

      Right, but we're not talking about Surface's shortcomings for getting directions, we're talking about its suitability as a board game platform.

      As far as that goes, I don't generally take board games places with me a whole lot; I play them at home. And I usually play them right on top of a big-ass table. And if the big ass table is already there, then it might as well be a big ass computer-table. Maybe if I went somewhere, I'd take the game with my on a flash drive or SD card, and plug it into the big ass table at my destination.

      So, aside from taking it to the park and playing chess like some people do, I think I like Surface. Both have potential as game platforms, but if I had to pick one I'd go with Surface. Because it's larger, and therefore has more surface area to interact with.

      They make 13" TVs and 60" TVs, and for the most part I'd rather have a 60" TV, too. But that doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with a 13" TV. Just, most people would rather have a bigger screen.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    9. Re:it's not a big ass table, so no by maxume · · Score: 1

      Only if the programmers are lazy and user hostile.

      The computer should serve as an assistant, not as an adjudicator (so it should do obvious things automatically, and move the players through battles and stuff, but it should be really easy to change something if the players want to do so).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  16. Cardboard with OLED. by FooAtWFU · · Score: 2, Interesting
    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    1. Re:Cardboard with OLED. by the_other_chewey · · Score: 1

      Cardboard with OLED.

      Nope. Very misleading headline and cardboard under a projector.

    2. Re:Cardboard with OLED. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea here is "what could we do with cardboard and OLED?" and simulating it with a projector until you have cheap cardboard-backed OLEDs so you can see what you can do. It's called a "prototype".

  17. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'Imagine a Scrabble iPad game that used iPhones as letter holders. You could hold up your iPhone so that no one else could see your letters and when you were ready to make a word on the Scrabble iPad board, you could slide them on to the board by flicking the word tiles off your iPhone.' Now that would be cool."

    I'm surprised this wasn't in Back to The Future Part 2....along with all the other ridiculous "this is what the future will be like" crap in that film...

  18. I'll bite by snl2587 · · Score: 1

    'Imagine a Scrabble iPad game that used iPhones as letter holders. You could hold up your iPhone so that no one else could see your letters and when you were ready to make a word on the Scrabble iPad board, you could slide them on to the board by flicking the word tiles off your iPhone.'

    I'm imagining a large amount of wasted money for people who don't have at least one of the components...and if everyone has to be present anyway, why not just use a regulate board? Costs to develop the thing would be pointless as well.

    Just seems like a bad example...

    1. Re:I'll bite by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 1

      But it is hard to play a multiplayer board game if it is just you all by yourself. I think the place the iPad could be fun would be for games you can play across the network - be it a campus network or the whole of the Interwebs.

      If you are by yourself but playing with people across a network, some of the other negatives people have mentioned go away. Nobody else can see you scroll around on the game board or zoom in on specific locations. Also, the iPad has a 1024 x 768 resolution. Not amazing resolution but plenty to take in the whole of a Scrabble board.

      Since it has an 802.11a/b/g/n capability, it could also be fun for games and sims that would otherwise split the screen on a computer or TV display (like from a game console). A lot of possible functionality will depend on how fast it can draw on that screen and how much processing power it has. The CPU is a 1 GHz something or other, but if it and the graphics chip (if it has one) are up to it, with a fast wireless interface, you can give each player their own display into the game/sim from their own point of view. Then there is no "cheating" by looking over the split screen to see what the opponent is doing. Also, with the 802.11 interface, there is the possibility to have a dedicated server in your favorite OS doing a lot of the heavy hauling and the iPads connected to it just work on displaying things from their user's point of view. The networking aspect means not everyone has to be present. That's a big advantage over a cardboard game board. The big disadvantage would be that everyone would need an iPad or at least a computer running a version of the game that could use the same message passing protocol as the iPads.

    2. Re:I'll bite by snl2587 · · Score: 1

      I think you missed the point: of course the iPad would be fine for multiplayer games across the network. It is a computer, after all, and how many people on Slashdot do you think would be unaware of computerized board games?

      I was responding to the idea of using iPhones as essentially game controllers around a central iPad. Which seems like a pretty limited-market idea.

  19. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Pojut · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The most expensive "board" game (i.e. NOT a tabletop game) that I have bought was Hero Quest. It was worth every penny.

    I dunno...I mean, i could see how SOME board games might work ok on an iPad, and I could definitely see board games made specifically for it...but, much like reading digital comics isn't quite teh same as the real thing...

  20. solution in search of a problem by roman_mir · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    isn't that solution in search of a problem? Isn't the 'perfect' board game platform based on an actual physical board with physical elements present: cards, dice, tokens, whatever?

    I used to play a board game similar to Risk, that had tokens, little standing cards, the value of which were only visible to me. So you have an army and the opponent has an army, you see various soldiers, but you don't know what they are. Some tokens are soldiers, some are mines, there is one that is the flag. The idea is to capture the flag by 'attacking' it. When one player attacks the other, he challenges the opponent's token soldier with his own. Now the soldiers are compared, if one has a higher rank, he wins, the opponent's token is removed. If both are the same rank, both are removed.

    How do you do something like that on a screen? Do you put the actual tokens on the screen? Why not just a piece of cheap ass cardboard with a picture on it?

    This is amusing, maybe there are instances where this horizontal touch screen is better for some games, but really? How much does it cost compared with a few cardboard pieces?

    1. Re:solution in search of a problem by tepples · · Score: 1

      How much does it cost compared with a few cardboard pieces?

      That depends on how many board games you buy. It's similar to the value proposition with Kindle or Nook or any other e-book reader.

    2. Re:solution in search of a problem by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Ha, now I remember, it's called Stratego.

    3. Re:solution in search of a problem by jfim · · Score: 1

      I used to play a board game similar to Risk, that had tokens, little standing cards, the value of which were only visible to me. So you have an army and the opponent has an army, you see various soldiers, but you don't know what they are. Some tokens are soldiers, some are mines, there is one that is the flag. The idea is to capture the flag by 'attacking' it. When one player attacks the other, he challenges the opponent's token soldier with his own. Now the soldiers are compared, if one has a higher rank, he wins, the opponent's token is removed. If both are the same rank, both are removed.

      Are you talking about Stratego?

    4. Re:solution in search of a problem by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

      You must be describing Stratego? Great game! :D

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    5. Re:solution in search of a problem by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      But an eBook reader really provides convenience of having so many books in one single package that you can take anywhere and read. This pad as a board game, well, wouldn't you still have to at least bring various other game pieces with you, unless of-course, they all can be digital?

      Also, you know, you can gift board games to people, and it's not going to make you bankrupt.

    6. Re:solution in search of a problem by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Well with ebook readers they typically charge MORE for an ebook than an actual paperback. So your argument would be valid as long as the game apps cost less than the actual boardgame.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    7. Re:solution in search of a problem by ElSupreme · · Score: 1

      Stratego. I assume that you are talking about this game. And yes impossible to play without 2 individual and private screens. Because you have to watch the other player move, and still be able to see all your pieces.

      --
      My addiction: Arguing with idiots. AKA Slashdot!
    8. Re:solution in search of a problem by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 1

      The value-add of a Kindle or a Nook is the number of books you can carry, not the cost per se. As long as the cost and reading experience is close, they are useful just for that. (And, arguably, they improve on a paper book in some ways, without many new downsides.)

      I can see the value of interactivity here, but I don't seen the iPad as all that good at adding that value. A cheaper, larger device would work better. (As would one not locked down by the manufacturer, so that it's easier to get new games on to it.) Plus I don't see that level of interactivity as being all that great a value: It's basically a gimmick, and it's cheaper to use cutouts or die-casts, which will work almost as well for most uses.

      Being able to play a game of chess against someone on another continent would be something people would pay for, but you can already do that with a laptop or a desktop. (And I wouldn't be surprised if there were dedicated devices.)

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    9. Re:solution in search of a problem by toastar · · Score: 1

      God I love Stratego,

    10. Re:solution in search of a problem by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      well, my my, is it the Apple thought police or some other reason why the parent comment is moderated the way it is moderated? Whatever that comment is, I really need to find out why it is moderated 'Flamebait'?

    11. Re:solution in search of a problem by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      It is modded down because the author of TFA had some mod points.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  21. This is really starting to stretch it. by barfy · · Score: 0

    Look, it was a swing, and a miss. If it is about content consumption, it must, 100% must, have flash.

    If it is about content creation, it needs WAY better input and manipulation tools.

    I guess this is for my friends who always by BIG laptops, I have always bought small laptops.

    1. Re:This is really starting to stretch it. by catchblue22 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Look, it was a swing, and a miss. If it is about content consumption, it must, 100% must, have flash.

      Flash is awful. HTML5 will do all flash can do and more, without sucking my CPU cycles and battery life. My browser blocks flash. Whenever I open flash component, my browser with flash eventually goes to the top of my thread list in terms of processor usage. My CPU fan eventually whirs on.

      I think we should boycott flash. If enough people start blocking it, ad producers will be forced to change over to HTML5, which is an open standard.

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    2. Re:This is really starting to stretch it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Flash provides nothing that isn't available elsewhere. 90% of flash is either nav trash or a wrapper around MP4/H264. Both nav and MP4 and H264 work fine on Apple's mobile platforms, without Flash. Apple has no incentive to add Flash: the crash-prone runtime that is at fault in over half of all crashdumps submitted to Apple.

    3. Re:This is really starting to stretch it. by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      The concept of Flash is awesome, but it is a CPU hog and often abused in places it ought not be implemented. Good news however. Starting with Flash 10.1, it will be GPU accelerated for Windows, Mac, and Linux. So far the benchmarks have been very promising. Check out the following links for more info.

      http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3678

      http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/17/adobes-flash-player-10-1-beta-gpu-acceleration-tested-document/

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    4. Re:This is really starting to stretch it. by ByteSlicer · · Score: 1

      Good news however. Starting with Flash 10.1, it will be GPU accelerated for Windows, Mac, and Linux.

      I don't think that's such good news. It will create a direct path from the web to the video driver and hardware. I'm pretty sure there are all kinds of exploits waiting to be found there...

  22. Ugh, the hassle by mcsqueak · · Score: 0

    You could hold up your iPhone so that no one else could see your letters and when you were ready to make a word on the Scrabble iPad board, you could slide them on to the board by flicking the word tiles off your iPhone.' Now that would be cool."

    No, that doesn't sound cool... that sounds expensive, and hard to manage. Not to be a luddite, but I'll stick with traditional cardboard and wood Scrabble, thanks.

    HOWEVER, other board games may do better on the platform. Simple arcade games might be neat, too... such as Pacman, for example.

    1. Re:Ugh, the hassle by maxume · · Score: 1

      It certainly wouldn't be worth $500, but if there was a way to get the computer to recognize letter tiles, you could use the computer to save games, and to look back through games for strategic errors and such (by the end of the game, the computer would even know when each tile was actually drawn).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  23. Board game? Maybe. Audio Controller? Yes. by vitaflo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I can see people having fun with board games on the iPad but I'm not sure it really trumps a real board game. Most board games aren't overly expensive as it is.

    But what I do think the iPad could be really good at is custom audio controller interfaces. More and more of these interfaces are starting to show up on computers, but much of the mouse/keyboard input doesn't really match the real life use of tweaking knobs and levers. Multi-touch on a larger screen is a much better translation of this, and given how much physical audio controllers can cost, a few software reproductions of them could end up being a cost benefit for users.

    1. Re:Board game? Maybe. Audio Controller? Yes. by barfy · · Score: 1

      good idea too bad no firewire

    2. Re:Board game? Maybe. Audio Controller? Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all, it's never gonna be a custom audio controller interface, because it lacks an audio input channel.

      But as a custom midi controller (would still have to be midi via wifi which isn't great) it could provide interesting customization possibilities. I would love to have several different setups of midi knobs or whatever interface works best with touchscreen. Physical midi controllers don't have to be very expensive though, for $250 you own a velocity sensitive usb midi keyboard and a controller with enough buttons and knobs to map your ass of. The software for turning the iPad into something of a serious competitor for physical midi surfaces has to be really, really good to make up for the expensive tablet.

    3. Re:Board game? Maybe. Audio Controller? Yes. by glop · · Score: 1

      There is a proprietary port, so there is a business opportunity to make an adapter and sell it for 100$ ;-)

    4. Re:Board game? Maybe. Audio Controller? Yes. by Xiterion · · Score: 1

      While we're at it, can we convince the people that design audio interfaces that gui knobs don't work? They're a bear to run with a mouse and have next to no precision. I'd rather have a text box for the small, inexpensive, not written to often control. Sliders are fine though, and would totally rock on that interface.

    5. Re:Board game? Maybe. Audio Controller? Yes. by liquidsin · · Score: 1

      DSMI is a library for building midi apps on the Nintendo DS and the iPhone, and also a server for win/linux/osx machines to swap data with the apps over the network. Also supports the newly-emerging OSC. There are already a few apps for the iPhone, so getting them running on the iPad (worst. name. ever.) should be trivial. It's pretty much the only reason I want one.

      --
      do not read this line twice.
    6. Re:Board game? Maybe. Audio Controller? Yes. by CornflakeJustice · · Score: 1

      Actually, I saw this, and realized that the iPad might make a really useful DJing tool. Small, portable with internet connectivity, the touch screen would be great for interfacing, allowing you to fade between multiple songs. Though the output system might need a bit of adjusting. At least that's what I thought of immediately after reading your response.

  24. How is it perfect? by DrXym · · Score: 1

    Board games come with cards, dice, plastic & metal things and usually need more space than a small rectangle. Perhaps it does allow decent simulations of board games, but at $499 (+ whatever the app store slaps on top for a game) it bloody well ought to.

    1. Re:How is it perfect? by MistrBlank · · Score: 1

      Why should it? It's already does a multitude of things for $499. This is a bonus.

    2. Re:How is it perfect? by DrXym · · Score: 1

      A netbook costing half the price does a "multitude of things" too. It doesn't mean it is the "perfect board game" either.

  25. Manufacturing and distribution by tepples · · Score: 1

    So for only $499 + $299/phone, you can play a $75 board game electronically!

    That depends on how many board games you buy. If you buy specialty board games as apps on iTunes Store, it might be cheaper than buying them as cardboard on, say, MyAtomic.com. Notice how albums cost $9.99 on iTunes Store vs. $13.99 on CD at Walmart* because there's no cost of pressing, packaging, shipping, and retailing discs.

    1. Re:Manufacturing and distribution by ElSupreme · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lets say you save 5$ a game. You would have to purchase 100 board games to cover your costs, not to mention power and the fact that your iPad wont last 30 years. I have Risk, Monopoly, Scrabble, and Trivial persuit that are almost that old.

      --
      My addiction: Arguing with idiots. AKA Slashdot!
    2. Re:Manufacturing and distribution by travisco_nabisco · · Score: 1

      It also depends how many different friend groups you play the games with. If you have 3 or 4 different game groups are you going to buy enough iPhones that each person can have one? Or do you buy enough for your 6 player game and leave them on the shelf until you play the game? Myself, I will continue to buy the $50+ board games and play them with whom I like when I like without having to be interrupted by text messages or phone calls when making a critical move.

    3. Re:Manufacturing and distribution by tepples · · Score: 1

      If you have 3 or 4 different game groups are you going to buy enough iPhones that each person can have one?

      I think the idea is that the game publisher puts out a "controller" for Android and a "controller" for iPod Touch/iPhone, and you get whatever "controller" matches the handsets your players already have.

    4. Re:Manufacturing and distribution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tend to play less mainstream boardgames. If this played games like Titan (cheapest found $52.95) and Settlers ($50+ to get started) the potential savings for not having to produce and distribute adds up a lot faster.

      Factor in the ability to save the game so it can be played over 2+ sittings and it gets even more tempting. My PC cost me more the $600 in parts and 90% of its use is as a gaming rig as well.

    5. Re:Manufacturing and distribution by EvanED · · Score: 1

      I tend to play less mainstream boardgames. If this played games like Titan (cheapest found $52.95) and Settlers ($50+ to get started) the potential savings for not having to produce and distribute adds up a lot faster.

      I don't buy that the primary reason those are more expensive are because of production and distribution costs. Take Settlers. What does it have? A bunch of cardboard cutouts and some wooden pieces (on the same scale as a Monopoly set with wooden buildings). A couple dice. I mean, it's decent quality stuff: it's not just cardstock like chance/community chest cards or something, it's good, thick cardboard. But that's not enough for it to cost $20 or $30 more than stuff you can buy in WalMart. Scrabble has dozens of nicely crafted wooden tiles. Monopoly has the player tokens.

      IMO, the primary reason that they are expensive is that the companies can charge as much as they do, because people will pay it, because they're good games.

    6. Re:Manufacturing and distribution by Island+Admin · · Score: 1

      And don't forget the cheapest of the lot, as in Pen and Paper games, like tic tac toe, hang-man, etc. :P

    7. Re:Manufacturing and distribution by TRRosen · · Score: 1

      lets say you do purchase 100 board games.
      iPad cost $700 (some free some 2.99)
      cardboard cost $12,000 $2000 for the games and $10000 for the addition to your house.

      And what the hell makes you think a iPad wont last 30 years. you replace a few batteries by then but nothing else should ever wear out in your lifetime.

    8. Re:Manufacturing and distribution by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I have easily 50 board games. No one of which allow me to send email, play with someone who isn't physically there, watch video, or read books.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    9. Re:Manufacturing and distribution by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Also they don't ahve the power house of Hasbro behind them. If they hit that production levels, the cost would drop 40%, easy.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:Manufacturing and distribution by ElSupreme · · Score: 1

      You must be kidding. You think your iPad is going to last 30 years?
      I acutally have a 12 year old computer. It still works, but I am on power supply 4, motherboard 2, LAN card 3 (one upgrade was for speed), HDD 4 (ony one partial failure) and who knows what CD drive, probably 14. I realize you wont have moving parts in your iPad, but that thing will have a hard time lasting 5 years, without being dropped, or just failing. Are you sure you can change the battery? Is the DRM for your games still going to work? And is the NAND going to last 30 years?

      Looking at the board game boxes I have, I doubt a rock could take that much abuse combined over 30 years.

      And considering the number of iPods that don't make it 5 years, I am certain that I can count on both hands the total number of iPads that are still usable after 30 years use.

      --
      My addiction: Arguing with idiots. AKA Slashdot!
    11. Re:Manufacturing and distribution by TRRosen · · Score: 1

      Silly PC ....motherboards and power supplies aren't supposed to break every two weeks. I'm sure the Dell tech that visits you every month assures you that is perfectly normal, it is not. In 15 years of working on Macs as a Tech outside of the bad capacitors in the G5 imacs I've never replaced a power supply in a mac. You see there is this thing called QUALITY and in the Mac world we like it. I have tons of clients with 10 year old macs with no issues and no repairs. Outside of HDs and CDs i've never replaced anything on my systems and there pushed to the limit.

      Note I'm going to go out on a limb and say far fewer iPads will be flung across a room accidentally because the user forgot they still had the headphones on,

    12. Re:Manufacturing and distribution by cherokee158 · · Score: 1

      Nothing else will wear out in your lifetime? Really? You think their gonna still be making those batteries in thirty years? (The ones Apple won't let YOU replace, anyway) That screen will not break or fade in thirty years? Those lead-free solder points inside are not gonna get brittle or grow hairs and short out? That flash memory isn't gonna go wonky?

      How long have you been using computers?

    13. Re:Manufacturing and distribution by TRRosen · · Score: 1

      My still functional Apple IIe laughs at you silly PCer.

      Actually After the first 3 batteries (around 10-12 years) I figure the replacements will last 20 years or more with advancing tech.

      Oh and I didn't realize Apple had a paid enforcer following me around to stop me from replacing a battery. Anyone on this site can replace a iPod or iPad battery in less then 10 minutes no problem and Apple wont even care.

  26. We had created a solution by CSHARP123 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    but we didn't know the problem. Thanks for providing the problem

  27. Missing the point by dazedNconfuzed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or you could read a book. You could buy all sorts of books before you would come close to the price of the iPad + e-book purchases.

    Or you could listen to a CD. You could buy all sorts of CDs before you would come close to the price of the iPad + .MP3/AAC/whatever purchases.

    Or you could watch a movie. You could buy all sorts of DVDs before you would come close to the price of the iPad + digital video purchases.

    Funny thing is, a large and growing number of us have small music players, e-book readers, watch movies/TV on our laptops, play assorted multi-player games, etc. - all on hardware comparable in price to the iPad.

    Between a convenient play-everything device and some bulk storage to off-load under-used content, those of us realizing it's 2010 already LIKE the idea of replacing boxfulls of atoms with a few cubic inches of bits.

    Always amazes me how many /.ers exhibit Luddite tendencies.

    --
    Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
    1. Re:Missing the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DRM and walled-garden aside, right?

    2. Re:Missing the point by feepness · · Score: 1

      But the title says "perfect". The iPad is not a perfect MP3/Video/or book platform. Is it a more than decent substitute? Probably.

      It may or may not be a decent board game substitute. But it sure as hell isn't perfect.

    3. Re:Missing the point by uncanny · · Score: 1

      Or you could get a tablet with a real OS, does more,costs less, and lets the user have more control! You can love the shiny Mpad all you want though, I'm sure it will sell well with people thinking all the simple "innovative features" are somehow unique to this piece.

    4. Re:Missing the point by filterban · · Score: 1
      I agree wholeheartedly. Substitute "laptop" for "iPad" and I think people would find their statements stupid.

      "Why would anyone ever want to play Scrabble on a laptop? After all, that laptop costs over $1000, but I can get scrabble for $20!"

      And yet, Scrabble on Facebook is one of the most popular games on the internet.

      If you already have an iPhone and an iPad, the additional cost of Scrabble is very low. And Trivial Pursuit. And Risk. And Texas Hold 'Em. And Monopoly. And Fieldrunners. And the other 140,000 apps available.

      Personally, I'm extremely excited about the possibilities here, and discounting them because of the cost of the iPad/iPhone is definitely missing the point.

      --
      rm -rf /
    5. Re:Missing the point by Idbar · · Score: 1

      The nice thing about Apple and its fans is that they always find a way to market their devices. If some people here complain about how would you play scrabble with every one watching your letters, they will say that it's would be great to pair your device and play online naval battle.

      This will not be a geeky device until it's released and jailbroken. As soon as it gets rooted, more people here will start to think about getting it.

      I personally don't like Apple, and I think is overpriced. The people I work for gave me one iPhone (so I don't have to pay for it). It drops my calls quite often, it hangs sometimes when I'm trying to answer my calls or opening applications. I just don't like it, and I don't think (yet), that I would go ahead an pay premium ($499) for a crippled device.

      My MSI wind does just fine and runs what I want. I remember many people complaining about 9"-11" being too small for a laptop computer, and netbooks flooded the market with very affordable prices. I hope someone does the same for the tablet market, and I believe MSI will contribute as well.

    6. Re:Missing the point by ElSupreme · · Score: 1

      Well a 10" screen with abysmal pixel count is not a replacement for a board game. It is a simulation of such. Lots of games could be played acceptably on it. But it does'n not simulate everything. I hate pushing a 'roll dice' button, there is something to pushing buttons.

      I also tend to play with house rules that are not implemented on an electronic version then you don't get it. lots of people play free parking in monopoly, it is a recommended variation in the rules, but what if Apple doesn't think the house rule should operate the way I play? I can't do it. Shit we play house rules if your dice land cocked on the chance or community chest cards, or both your dice land on top of the card pile. If you knock over pieces in Risk you loose armies. If you roll the wrong color dice in risk.

      Not accepting modern simulations of old things is not luddite necessarily. There are things that a 2D screen can't replicate. Now I play some board games on my computer, but they are not substitutions, rather simulations, and lots of time that is fine.

      --
      My addiction: Arguing with idiots. AKA Slashdot!
    7. Re:Missing the point by murdocj · · Score: 1

      Funny thing, the books, games, CDs, etc aren't free on the IPad. It's a bit like going to Amazon and finding out that I have to buy a book holder for $500, and THEN I get to actually buy books. Funny thing is, that doesn't appeal to me.

      Always amazes me how many /.ers see something new and go "ooooo, shiny" without thinking it through.

    8. Re:Missing the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But my PSP/NDS does games better than the iPad. (controls that are responsive, games that arent all ripped off IP and dribble)

      But my real books / Kindle read books better than iPad (infinite / longer battery life, no eye strain of glossy + backlight)

      But my PSP/laptop/netbook/whatever watches movies better than an iPad (more portable/bigger screen/cheaper - take your pick, heck no WS or 720p even?)

      The iPad takes the place of many devices sure, but does all those jobs poorly.

      As a professional photographer, am I going to buy a Canon EOS 7D to take pictures faster for the 5% of the time that might be useful? No, I'll stick with my 5Dmk2 because I care about picture quality.

      As a driving enthusiast, am I going to buy a car with backseats and a big trunk for the few times my wife has her car and I need to haul around passengers? No, I'll stick with my 2-seater sports car.

      Now as a hardcore gamer, am I going to buy an iPad when a PSP has better games? God no. Insert argument for other 'task' the iPad can do, half assidly. Until the iPad can do something better than something else, its just one big compromise. Is your life full of compromise parent poster? Mine sure as fuck isn't.

    9. Re:Missing the point by wfolta · · Score: 1

      Always amazes me how many /.ers exhibit Luddite tendencies.

      I believe it's those who project "Status seeking" onto Mac, iPod, iPhone, and now iPad users. Interestingly, no Mac user would ever say "I'm a Mac", but a fairly significant number of people -- including corporation heads -- will say "I'm a PC", all the while projecting their identification with a product onto others. (And apparently not getting that the Mac/PC actors are actors playing anthropomorphic computers, not users of computers.)

      Similarly, if I view my self-worth in terms of mastering technology, bending it to my exacting specifications, having three more checkboxes and 20% more widgetness for 30% less money, I certainly will talk about how much the iPad lacks and how gimmicky it is. I'd view any computing experience in terms of a desktop computer with a mouse/trackpad, keyboard, and upright screen, and lots-o-configuration I can/must do. (Even if I shrink the desktop down and join it together with a hinge, then substitute a stylus or the ever-trendy touch screen for the mouse.)

      Most non-geeks look for an overall experience, including design, polish, "feel", perceived quality, etc, not just stats and checkboxes and an infinite variety of applications. We do it with cars, homes, clothes, watches, furniture, even things like what book we choose to read. Many geeks can also see that there are appliances and there are "computers" and not everything with a CPU in it needs to work like a desktop. The iPad will do well because of this, and we'll have fun someday posting these rants as you could do today with anti- Mac/iPod/iPhone rants from years gone by.

    10. Re:Missing the point by murdocj · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, no Mac user would ever say "I'm a Mac", but a fairly significant number of people -- including corporation heads -- will say "I'm a PC

      So you have really have heard someone say "I'm a PC"? If it's a significant number of people, perhaps you can cite someone? Anyone? Because that "I'm a PC" line has always sounded incredibly stupid and I can't imagine anyone saying it.

      As far as the worth of the IPad, it's a little early to tell yet. I tried a Windows Mobile device for about a year and finally gave up on the damn thing and switched to an ITouch, which is a far more satisfying and easy to use device. So I understand the "overall experience" argument. Whether the IPad has that "overall experience" is going to take some time to tell. It sure as hell looks like an ITouch that is too big to easily carry around, and it definitely isn't the fabled convergence device. Whether people want to lug it around in addition to everything else they have... we'll see.

    11. Re:Missing the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can drop a book, a CD, and a DVD down a staircase and they are still perfectly usable, and even IF they manage to break somehow, they are usually trivial in cost to replace.

      Reminds me of the old Army officer who said GPS units could never outright replace maps, because a map with a bullet through it is still a map.

    12. Re:Missing the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right because apple, again, is innovating, yielding wonderous new consumer technology the likes of which we have never seen. Their are no other tablets or similar products that do the same things. 18 open tablets were not introduced before IPAD. Tegra is made up architecture with made up specifications. Nor are there competent open source operating systems and open application ecosystems that run on these completely imagined, never before implemented tablets. Their cheaper price point is also a figment of my imagination.

      YOU completely miss the point. This has nothing to about rejecting technology. This has EVERYTHING to do with rejecting the closed systems that apple develops. You are completely naive if you accept that the computing platforms of the future can be closed behind a single corporate gateway. Get with the program, you tool.

      Funny thing is, a large and growing number of us have small music players, e-book readers, watch movies/TV on our laptops, play assorted multi-player games, etc. - all on hardware comparable in price to the iPad.

      Yeah anything else you want to pull out of your ass while your at it? Those nice ambiguous words really do well for your argument...... Why are you even arguing? Shouldn't be be off consuming something somewhere?

    13. Re:Missing the point by ricotest · · Score: 1

      The iPad isn't going to replace a music player, it's too large.

      It's not going to replace a movie player, it's too small. Unless you're watching something on your own? Can't imagine that the sound is too great either.

      It's not going to replace e-book readers, it doesn't use e-ink (iPad has a supposed battery life of "10 hours", Kindle is 7 days)

      It's not going to replace video games for anything but the casual market, the hardware isn't up to scratch.

      Plus it's completely locked-in and controlled by Apple, with proprietary formats, where you own nothing, only rent and agree to whatever terms Apple dictate. No thanks.

      No thanks.

    14. Re:Missing the point by CougMerrik · · Score: 1

      Well I'd like the concept anyway even if it wasn't 2010. However in my experience board games by and large just aren't as fun when you play them digitally. A lot of nuances of the experience are lost including the power to have really the final say over the rules of the game. Not being programmed into a box with one set of rules is a pretty big advantage for people who play board games and might evolve their own non-standard rulesets over time. It's the same reason why playing an online version of a tabletop roleplaying game isn't as fun as playing a tabletop version of a tabletop roleplaying game.

      I'm wary of using one product to get all of my digital media (books, games, music, video). I consider this the Wal-Mart of media devices. I am not okay with handing Apple a monopoly on my digital content.

  28. No magic by slantyyz · · Score: 1

    Part of the magic of meatspace board games is losing the bits and pieces.

    You can't do that on an iPad.

    1. Re:No magic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Part of the magic of meatspace board games is losing the bits and pieces.

      So what you're saying is that there is still room for Microsoft in the games-on-slate-computer market.

    2. Re:No magic by jarbrewer · · Score: 1

      Part of the magic of meatspace board games is losing the bits and pieces.

      You can't do that on an iPad.

      Well... you could; you just have to take a hammer to the iPad first.

    3. Re:No magic by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      What happens if Apple revokes your access to the bits? Afterall, you're only liscensing the software you paid for through the Apple store.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    4. Re:No magic by TRRosen · · Score: 1

      And why exactly would Apple do this you moron!! A you delusional enough to think that Steve Jobs hates you personally and is out to get you. The only reason Apple would want to disable a program is if it was found to be harmful after the fact like a number of android programs that were found to be trojans stealing personal information. Thats like saying the police shouldn't have guns because they my shoot you. They have no reason to and if they did they would be in big trouble.

  29. Not really... by minsk · · Score: 3, Funny
    The iPad: If you're too nerdy to attend the chess club in person.

    But, seriously, implementing board games well on a computer demands a lot more than a small touch-sensitive display. Simple non-social games are easier, but they work just fine on a traditional PC.

  30. A device looking for a purpose by syousef · · Score: 0

    I'd really like to see someone make a send up skit. It would involve some fanboi buying an iPad and trying to use it as a phone then getting very disappointed when he realises it can't be used as one.

    The iPad is a device looking for a purpose. The Apple designers built a beautiful little smart phone - so nice that people would work around their crippling it with nonsense like jailbreaking. So nice that they'd overlook basic missing functionality like MMS in the first couple of revisions. So nice that they'd pay through the nose and get into ridiculous contracts to own it. It wasn't even about the phone functionality but the accelerometer and touch screen that let you play games and enabled some interesting applets. So then they thought lets make it bigger - that small screen is limiting. And since people aren't buying it for the phone we can leave that functionality for the next generation.

    They forgot that laptops and netbooks already exist and are more versatile. So what you have is a turkey of a device. Crippled and limited. It's best use will be providing competition. Expect to see new laptops with accelerometers and perhaps touch screens built in. Apart from those two features and the ability to run iPhone apps, the iPad has NO advantages over a common laptop or netbook. As one reviewer said, it's an oversized iPhone without the phone.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:A device looking for a purpose by wfolta · · Score: 1

      p>They forgot that laptops and netbooks already exist and are more versatile. So what you have is a turkey of a device. Crippled and limited. It's best use will be providing competition. Expect to see new laptops with accelerometers and perhaps touch screens built in. Apart from those two features and the ability to run iPhone apps, the iPad has NO advantages over a common laptop or netbook. As one reviewer said, it's an oversized iPhone without the phone.

      "No advantages"? Hmm, let's see... add that nifty touchscreen and accelerometer to your netbook and you STILL have essentially a desktop form factor that's been shrunk down and then joined together with a hinge. Change the screen orientation? Nope. In addition, to keep costs down, you probably have a very poor off-angle viewing experience. Share the device with someone next to you? More like sharing a pair of binoculars than sharing photos. And that keyboard's SO useful while reading emails, browsing web pages, working on your calendar, working with photos, checking your stock prices, ...

      It's not your desktop computer -- or even your portable desktop computer (laptop, netbook). Since you cannot realize that, it has no advantages for you.

    2. Re:A device looking for a purpose by syousef · · Score: 1

      1) You've been able to change the screen orientation of a laptop for a very long time. Not the keyboard.

      2) A real keyboard is very useful while REPLYING to email

      3) Never had a problem showing photos on a laptop. Don't know what you're on about with that binocular comment.

      There's a reason I like my full sized laptop. I can do everything I want with it including play games(including reaslistic flight sims and chess since I have decent mobile graphics), watch movies, read and reply to email, browse the web, edit documents, run a development environment, view and edit photos, attach many devices, run CPU/FPU intensive math software, burn a DVD or CD. I can't do half of that with an iPad.

      I would love a touch screen and an accelerometer. (interestingly I could add them to my laptop, it would just be expensive and a little awkward). If my laptop hinged differently so I could hide the keyboard sometimes that would be a small plus. But I won't swap those things for my DVD drive, USB ports, processing power and ability to install whatever I like. I won't even downgrade to a netbook.

      Steve Jobs can keep his little fashion statement.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  31. I was exaggerating costs slightly by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 1
    Though Agricola is $55, and I think the expansion would kick it past $75.

    Race For The Galaxy + 2 expansions was in that neighborhood or higher.

    Euros trend expensive.

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
    1. Re:I was exaggerating costs slightly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are plenty of board games that are going for $75 or more!

      Tide of Iron
      Descent
      Space Hulk
      Twilight Imperium 3rd Edition
      etc

  32. Ah! Now I get it! by pandrijeczko · · Score: 0

    We're not allowed to compare the iPad's functionality to a netbook because we're told it isn't a PC...

    However, according to this article, it IS a games console. In which case, can we start speculating how that "hefty" 1GB A4 CPU copes with Call Of Duty Modern Warfare compared to the X-Box then?

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    1. Re:Ah! Now I get it! by salmonmoose · · Score: 1

      To be fair, you should compare it to a PSP or DS. In which case the CPU is fine, but the device is bulky, and has a very limited scope in the ways you can interact with a game. At best it's a mediocre board game platform, any game that requires any form of privacy (scrabble is a good example) is solved by adding extra devices. You could network them, but really, the point of board games is to be social, any get-together where people say "hey let's play monopoly" and everyone just pulls out their iPad finds a seat and starts clicking away is not a success.

    2. Re:Ah! Now I get it! by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

      I agree.

      But the whole point of the article seems to be to find possible uses for this product, in this case as a board game platform, which makes me wonder what usage it has in the first place.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    3. Re:Ah! Now I get it! by tftp · · Score: 1

      But the whole point of the article seems to be to find possible uses for this product, in this case as a board game platform, which makes me wonder what usage it has in the first place.

      Since the iPad is not the first tablet on the market, you should be able to just look around and see usage examples of other tablets. Here is the set that I know of: [ ]

      And that is because manufacturers of tablets are searching for many years for such usage. The only semi-alive example is hospitals, where nurses need access to patients' charts as they move from one patient to another. Well, of course the traditional way of doing it is just to hang the chart onto the patient's bed...

      But tablets aren't very popular in real world. Primarily because they limit the user too much. It is nice to have a tablet to read /. in bed at night, but are you willing to spend $800 on it? Note that the tablet won't be of any use beyond reading; its I/O functionality is minimal, on-screen keyboards are OK only for short messages, and the iPad will lack all the software that you find dear to you and that lives happily on your main computer. Other tablets haven't hurt themselves that way, and still they haven't found the customer.

  33. Back to the Future Part 2... by ThisIsAnonymous · · Score: 1

    Imagine a Scrabble iPad game that used iPhones as letter holders. You could hold up your iPhone so that no one else could see your letters and when you were ready to make a word on the Scrabble iPad board, you could slide them on to the board by flicking the word tiles off your iPhone.' Now that would be cool.

    Wasn't this in Back to the Future Part 2...along with all the other ridiculous, and pointless, "this is what we will have in the future" crap in that film.

  34. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by cormander · · Score: 0

    The perfect board game platform is cardboard.

    Yes, cheating is much easier to do with a cardboard game.

  35. COST?!?! by jsimon12 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So I have the choice of a buying a 10 dollar board game or spending thousands in on iPads and iPhones. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out.

    1. Re:COST?!?! by Grizzley9 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you're comparing a single use game with a multi-use platform capable of doing numerous other things with a changing interface to fit those things.

      Hmm, did you also make that decision when deciding on whether or not to buy a paperback or an iPhone?

    2. Re:COST?!?! by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      Your comparison doesn't seem to be accurate. The article is trying to promote ipad's use as a board game. The argument is more like the other way around. Why is someone saying that instead of x, we should buy y (not even remotely related product).

      This is like buying a ferrari as a day to day traffic car because the driver's seat is extremely comfortable

    3. Re:COST?!?! by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      My iPod does most of the things the iPad does, for the board game stuff it's indeed cheaper to go with real board games considering you can't buy that many anyway without ending up never playing them since you need multiple people.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    4. Re:COST?!?! by armyofone · · Score: 1

      No, but it might take a brain surgeon.

      --
      "A revolution without dancing is... a revolution not worth having"
    5. Re:COST?!?! by treeves · · Score: 1

      +1 excellent car analogy.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    6. Re:COST?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the iPad sucks shit and everyone knows it so now instead of a product that was supposed to be marketed with clear purposes, we have resorted to making the iPad fit solutions and stupid ones at that. Only apple fan boys.

    7. Re:COST?!?! by anaesthetica · · Score: 3, Funny

      I too carry around a Scrabble and Risk board with me everywhere I go. It may be a pain to carry the large boxes and bags of tiny pieces to work, out at a bar with friends, to the park, out on dates and whatnot. But at least I'm not one of those suckers with an iPad—they can play board games anywhere at any time with their friends, but they had to pay so much. They probably don't use their iPads for anything other than board games. Like yourself, I don't want to give up carrying around board game boxes everywhere just to look 'cool' or to 'fit in' like those Mac cultists.

    8. Re:COST?!?! by SethJohnson · · Score: 1

      Ten bucks? All the popular games at Target are $14.99 and up. I'm talking all the trivial pursuits, Apples to Apples, Scene It, Scattergories, PassPhrase, Boggle, etc.

      And NONE of those board games have a single player option. The iPhone / iPad versions do, and they usually have the ability to connect you with strangers of selective skill levels. Built-in dictionaries are especially helpful for word games, too.

      I bought Scrabble on the iPhone for $3.99. Can't get the actual board game at a store for that cheap. While it's a shitty port from some other platform, it's great practice for people who want to get better without having to always hassle people to play with you.

      Seth

    9. Re:COST?!?! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No, but it requires someone with two brain cells to realize the iPad does other thing beside play a single board game.
      Also, it isn't 'thousands'.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:COST?!?! by ElSupreme · · Score: 1

      How do you plan on playing Risk on a lunch break?

      I have brought Monoploy, and scrabble to a park before. Not to hard.

      And why would you not want to lure you date home to play yahtzee?

      Becides it isn't like you can carry around this thing, it is too big, you need a bag. Scrabble aint that big.

      --
      My addiction: Arguing with idiots. AKA Slashdot!
    11. Re:COST?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article is trying to promote the ipad's use as a board game medium. His comparison is entirely accurate. "Did you also determine that buying a paperback book, which can only have one set of defined words, is more effective than buying an iPhone which, for a larger upfront cost, can be constantly updated to have multiple books of various authors and various topics?"

      The car analogy is not accurate as a paperback book does not an equal relationship to an iPhone, where as a ferrari and a corolla have a near 1:1 relationship in terms of functionality. The latter choice in both scenarios is (arguably) a "better" choice, but the ferrari cannot do "More" in terms of functionality. They both drive on the road and consume gas.

    12. Re:COST?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comparison doesn't seem to be accurate. The article is trying to promote ipad's use as a board game. The argument is more like the other way around. Why is someone saying that instead of x, we should buy y (not even remotely related product).

      Stop pretending you read the article - else you would have noticed words like "Jumanji-style games" (in the fucking headline), "interactive features", "play games with friends and family across the world", "music-filled, fun-packed experiences that can be shared in a novel way".

      Fucking try that with your $10 cardboard game. Way to miss the point of the article - but then you didn't read it.

    13. Re:COST?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See the other threads; modern/new board games are regularly in the $100 range.

      If they're $10 each in the App store, you can buy 10 of them for the price of one analog game, and never lose the pieces and have to buy replacements. Plus, you can always have them with you instead of in a stack on your closet shelf waiting to kill you when you open the door.

      So: iPad: $500, 10 games: $100 for a total investment of $600.

      vs

      $1,000 for 10 games, plus $200 for replacement parts for a total of $1,200 -- twice the cost.

      Or, you can just play boggle on your iPhone, or spend your weekends and evenings playing Mastermind/Clue/Scrabble/Monopoly with your sibling, adapting for the missing pieces, and forget about modern board games.

    14. Re:COST?!?! by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      You jest, but had my car trunk half-full of games for several years. A couple of tackle boxes filled with games, and a half dozen in boxes. No, they weren't mint-condition, tradable quality after that, but when you're talking beer & snacks party games, they don't stay in mint condition long either.
       
      By dollar value, they'd have come in at about a base iPad price. But they didn't have any upkeep cost, and I could replace them piecemeal. And I wouldn't set my iPad on a table surrounded with drinks and snacks.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    15. Re:COST?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazing! Where can I get one of those 10 dollar board games that also browse the web and replace a Kindle??
      Perhaps you should get that rocket scientist to help you figure this one out after all, because on your own you're doing really poorly!

    16. Re:COST?!?! by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      A boardgame is only single use when you can't change the rules or reuse the pieces because they're hardcoded and sold through a proprietary store.

  36. iFail by mhajicek · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They're just desperate to find SOMETHING it'd good for.

    1. Re:iFail by BitZtream · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is modded funny, but funny is the fact that in the last 24 hours I've started 3 apps based loosely on ideas from slashdot alone that will be great on this device.

      I could give a fuck if you don't think its useful, I'm pretty sure its going to be the next addition to my iPod Touch/iPhone income source.

      Hell, theres another 4 or 5 in this article alone that can be good with some domain specific knowledge (which I don't have).

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    2. Re:iFail by anaesthetica · · Score: 1

      ...SOMETHING it'd good for.

      Looks like you accidentally the whole iPad.

    3. Re:iFail by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      I did say i fail, didn't i?

    4. Re:iFail by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      Oh I'm sure people will buy it, and I'm sure people will buy apps for it, but is there anything it can do that something else doesn't already do better?

    5. Re:iFail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      in the last 24 hours I've started 3 apps based loosely on ideas from slashdot alone that will be great on this device.

      And maybe when they finally get approved 16 months after you first submit them to Apple, you can submit a story about them to Slashdot.

    6. Re:iFail by Achoi77 · · Score: 1

      They're just desperate to find SOMETHING it'd good for.

      Up untill you read a future article about the millionaire developer that made his riches making the first Whoopee Cushion iPad app.

  37. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by sxedog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The perfect board game platform is cardboard.

    And cardboard games don't come with DRM or restrictive rights where you don't actaully 'own' it, rather rent it and rebuy it when you magically lose the rights to the game. No thanks.

    --
    If it ain't broke, DON'T fix it.
  38. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by kevingolding2001 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So what do you do with your cardboard monopoly or chess board when you are half way through a game and the captain says to return to your seats, place the tray tables in the upright locked position and prepare for landing? I guess it's game over.

    With an iPad, you could save the game, put it back in your hand luggage, then get it out and resume the game in the taxi to the hotel.

    I agree with the article. I think the iPad presents a great opportunity to play board games with friends in a more convenient way.

  39. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by jsimon12 · · Score: 1

    What board games are you buying and where are you shopping? Last time I checked Scrabble and Monopoly were still in the sub-20 dollar range. Even Axis and Allies is 40-50 bucks. Even if they were 100 bucks you could buy 10-20 of them for the cost of an iPad and 3 iPhones.

  40. Kind of. by josteos · · Score: 1

    I don't think it's a replacement for a multiplayer board game; the Family Game Night is in no danger But it would make a great platform for me to sit in my barcalounger and play Magic or Bloodbowl or Axis & Allies against my friends on the other side of the country. It's small enough to be portable and comfortable, but large enough to visualize the playfield manipulate the playing pieces. Smack talk would be a lot easier with a webcam, tho.

    --
    Save the Music; Save the World at http://www.TuneTriever.com (Our latest Android game)
  41. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by farble1670 · · Score: 3, Informative

    i just bought stratego and monopoly from target. they came in a wood box. all quality parts. $19.99.

  42. Larger than many chess travel sets ... by perpenso · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    The iPad is larger than many chess travel sets I've seen. Plus it can incorporate timers, single player, tutorials, ... I think its a little premature to rule it out for board game like use, especially when considering being on the move. Not only compared to travel sets but consider that you can effectively be carrying around multiple board games all the time.

    --
    Perpenso Calc for iPhone and iPod touch, scientific and bill/tip calculator, fractions, complex numbers, RPN

    1. Re:Larger than many chess travel sets ... by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      I'm ruling it out for stuff described in the summary. What you are saying makes sense but then it becomes something that already exists in a number of other formats. Me, I'll stick with my DS.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
  43. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wow, that would be the most expensive board game ever... no thanks. The cardboard works just fine and doesn't have a monthly fee.

  44. And here is what Apple does marvelously! by rehtonAesoohC · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    I have karma to burn, so what the hey.

    Apple doesn't create innovative products anymore. They've created a platform where they shift the onus of innovation onto their userbase, and then hope that people submit ideas and apps that are innovative, thereby reaping the benefit. Fairly genius move actually, but it reminds me of one of the best comedic movies ever: Tommy Boy.

    If you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will - I got spare time...

    Everyone, buy an iPad so we can all keep eating shit in a box from Apple!

    1. Re:And here is what Apple does marvelously! by cowscows · · Score: 1

      Isn't creating a platform and letting people develop for it pretty much the definition of a computer company? Or do you only use programs that are made by microsoft on your Windows computer?

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

  45. (no need) by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm already at +5 Insightful! I can't wait to tell my wife, ACTION FOR SURE!

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
    1. Re:(no need) by Spatial · · Score: 3, Funny

      You'll finally get to use that +5 Wand of Fucking.

      Let's hope it isn't cursed.

  46. Go by sqrt(2) · · Score: 0

    It looks like a nice device on which to play Go. You wouldn't have to worry about pieces being moved or storing the game and continuing later. Although playing with real stones on a real board is nice just because of the tactile experience.

    --
    If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    1. Re:Go by pmontra · · Score: 1

      It would be a very small board and there could be a lot of misclicks (mistouches?). A pen would help but we'll have to wait until the iPad gets its first client for a go server. Too bad it doesn't run Java: there would be a KGS client out of the box.

      On the read-only side, based on my experience a 2" phone screen is large enough for studying games.

    2. Re:Go by k2enemy · · Score: 1

      I think it will be great for playing go. I can place stones on my iphone pretty well and a 9.7" screen can only be better. Plus my main problem with playing on the computer right now is that I don't want to sit at my desk for hours at a time. With the iPad it would be easy to get up and move about the house while I play.

      I just wish KGS would open up the protocol and let third parties create clients. I may switch to IGS in order to play online with the iPad.

      Also looking forward to a version of SmartGo for the iPad.

    3. Re:Go by pmontra · · Score: 1

      I just wish KGS would open up the protocol and let third parties create clients.

      We could just wish that Apple opens up its products and let people run whatever they want on the iPhone and the iPad. KGS is very applish in its approach and Apple is very kgs-ish: both want total control on the user experience; you gain some polish but you lose flexibility and integration is often impossible.

  47. Cheating at Scrabble . . . ? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 0

    There's an app for that! It gives you whatever letter you need!

    Most of my childhood board games ended up with one of the kids throwing a tantrum and whacking the other kids over the head with the game board.

    Dad comes home now and wonders why there is a Shroud of Turin like indentation in his iPad, and why his sons' faces are all bandaged up.

    Isn't low tech good enough here . . . ? Cardboard is flimsy, but doesn't cause concussions.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  48. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Mr.+Sketch · · Score: 1

    Those expensive board games are not exactly Candy Land or Monopoly. My most expensive game is StarCraft: The Board Game which retails for $80 and after you add in the Brood War expansion, I'm out over $100 for that game, but it is worth every bit of it. I admit that I was hesitant at first to spend that much on game when my most expensive board game prior to that was maybe $10-$20. You get a whole lot in the game in terms of tokens, miniatures, cards, etc all very high quality, not to mention many, many hours of fun playing. It's always a blast to get 5 of your friends around the game for an epic 3-4 hour war where everyone has a great time.

  49. stupid, stupid, stupid by thedbp · · Score: 1

    Yeah, rich people with tons of cash to burn who care more about technology than connecting with family would see this as a great board game platform. The rest of us will continue to enjoy the company of our friends and family with decidedly low-tech but perfectly useful cardboard, and focus more on the interactions and fun than the tech and "ooh ahh" factor.

    This is really stretching. It seems people are going to obscene lengths to try to make the iPad look less ho-hum that it really is.

    Apple really failed on this one, HARD.

  50. No it's not. by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 1

    Although this will more likely be more expensive, it's a much better platform for games like that because of the larger screen. You can still use the iPad or iPhones for tossing out tiles though. I imagine the iPads would be better for that since they're a larger screen then the phones.

    http://www.microsoft.com/surface/Pages/Product/WhatIs.aspx

    --
    ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
  51. Case in point: Mayfair's The Settlers of Catan by tepples · · Score: 1
  52. yay by SeanFlotre · · Score: 1

    a 600$ board game! what fun! give me a break. reaching..really reaching.

  53. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by WinterSolstice · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But how does that compare to paying $9.99 each from the app store (and probably 99 cents for each player) and about $700 for the board and $200 for each player...

    but have MULTI-TOUCH!!!

    Ummm, yeah. That's my take on it too.
    The iPad just isn't selling itself to me yet. Maybe the iPad 3Gs Pro.

    --
    An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
  54. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This reminds me of the horrifying carnage of the train wreck that was the GameCube + GBA link cable.

    Remember Metroid Prime - you could get some bonus by just connecting Metroid Fusion. And Animal Crossing - just some minigame (again with a bonus incentive) that could easily be presented on the TV instead of on the GBA. Wind Waker - useless except for the ultra-die-hard 100% complete players. Four Swords Adventures or Crystal Chronicles? Yeah, go buy four GBAs, four GameCube link cables, plus the game itself. I bet like Nintendo Apple can't imagine how out of a set of four people one of them could not use an iPhone.

    Forgive me for being skeptical.

  55. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by QuelessQuest · · Score: 1

    Runewars $99.95

  56. Has Apple Created the Perfect Board Game Platform? by Phizzle · · Score: 2, Funny

    NO

    --
    I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
  57. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by node+3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    yup. This is just an attempt by apple to make this appealing.

    I didn't realize recombu.com was owned by Apple.

    The answer is: it's not.

    Oh, I disagree. I find it very compelling, and I suspect most people will as well, after using one for only a few moments. Whether that will translate into a sale ($499 is cheap for this type of product, but still a good chunk of cash) is yet to be determined.

    The problem right now is the geeks are looking at specs and keywords (multitasking? iPhone OS? No stylus? No e-ink?) and disliking the iPad that they imagine based on that. The trick with Apple is that their products are rarely what a geek-mind would imagine based on the specs. Apple doesn't look at making a product to meet some technological specs, they design them to end-user goals.

    That may not be your cup of tea. You, as a geek-type end-user definitely have different needs and wants than the standard person. So sure, this may not be compelling to you, and just like with the iPhone, since most people haven't used an iPad, they are listening to the geek-minded criticism (valid criticisms, to be sure, but not valid in relation to how most people will feel about this product), causing their imaginations are leading them astray.

    There are other apple products more compelling at this price, iphone namely.

    This isn't an iPhone. It's won't directly compete against the iPhone. The iPhone is a phone. The iPad isn't. You won't automatically exclude buying one because you bought the other.

    As for a direct comparison between it and the iPhone (or more reasonably, an imaginary 3G data iPod touch), I think the iPad offers a lot in terms of the much larger display. This won't just be a "big iPhone". Unlike a PC or Mac where larger screen and higher resolution simply means you can have larger windows, or more windows side-by-side, or whatever, software for the iPad will not simply be iPhone software scaled up (although that is one of the ways to use it), but will have software written with the larger screen in mind. Just look at the difference between the included apps on the iPad and the iPhone. Also, imagine doing something like the iWork apps on an iPhone! On the iPhone it would be something that, technically you could do, in a pinch, if needed. But on the iPad, the process looks actually enjoyable.

    In a lot of ways, the iPad isn't a big iPhone so much as the iPhone is a small iPad. Specifically in the sense that iPhone apps are pared down iPad apps more than iPad apps will just be zoomed in iPhone apps.

  58. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  59. This is exactly why it ISN'T a dumb product... by MistrBlank · · Score: 1

    This is why it's a fun product. Apple didn't show half, or a quarter or even 10% of the potential on Wednesday of this device.

    1. Re:This is exactly why it ISN'T a dumb product... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that Apple don't know how to market their products correctly because they have an inability to demonstrate the majority of its features at the product launch? Interesting...

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    2. Re:This is exactly why it ISN'T a dumb product... by pablodiazgutierrez · · Score: 1

      I see your point, but I agree with the OP: The beauty of the thing is that it's hard to foresee the nearly limitless possibilities. Much like the iPhone. Who would have predicted the huge variety of apps available?

    3. Re:This is exactly why it ISN'T a dumb product... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be the first time.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  60. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by ElSupreme · · Score: 1

    Except moving electronic representations of physical disks is not the same as sliding real disks over a real table.

    --
    My addiction: Arguing with idiots. AKA Slashdot!
  61. Private screen? Like GCN+GBA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was playing some stuff last week that had a main screen for the group and used private screens for some selections.

    (4)Gameboy Advance + (4)GBA-GCN link cables + Gamecube. (Which game? Well I've got Final Fantasy Chronicles, and Legend of Zelda: 4 Swords. Both have the common screen and have some user specific stuff on the GBA)

    I'm sure I've heard of this somewhere, just not sure if I can think of any games: Wii + 4 DSes. Wouldn't even need the link cables since they all do 802.11b.

    So, not exactly a new idea. And if you use a DS, you would have a (small) touch screen.
    (I looked at one of my saves for the 4 Swords game last night(testing out some new link cables), last played: 2004).

    1. Re:Private screen? Like GCN+GBA? by stillnotelf · · Score: 1

      One of the Crystal Chronicles sequels launched on both DS and Wii, but not like GC original. You could play with one person on the Wii with one game disc, and others on DSes with their own game cards, but it wasn't downloading the Wii "master copy" onto the DS - just using Wifi for a multiplayer game.

  62. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If they talk about "perfect board games" and then mention Scrabble, then

    THEY DO NOT KNOW A FUCKING THING ABOUT BOARD GAMES.

    --

    ---
    ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
  63. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love FtF games, and cardboard is cool, but there are a load of great board games I just can't sink 6-8 hours on. Being able to SAVE a game would be so great.

  64. Re:Microsoft Surface by lucifig · · Score: 1

    And you don't need Apple's (or anyone's) permission to play it.

  65. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Pojut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Disclaimer: I am not questioning your opinion, nor am I discrediting it. You are completely entitled to your own thoughts.

    No matter what you do, say, or show me, you will never convince me that buying a device as expensive as a full computer but with only half the functionality is a good thing. Paying more and getting less is not a good thing, even if it comes wrapped up in a pretty package.

  66. Too Small by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    a 27" glass touch screen built into a coffee table would be a much better board game, and a whole lot less expensive than MS Surface.

    --
    I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
  67. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by postbigbang · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sorry-- the iPad is a netbook wanna be with a business plan that aids Apple. It has a nice touchscreen, it's flat, and it connects to stuff. It's incapable of multi-task, multi-thread and uses nifty little programlettes from the iPhone. Well, iPhoey.

    iSorry. iThe iPad iS iSimply iNot iThe iUltimate iGame iPlaying iPlatform.

    Your Jedi Knight drivel changes nothing.

    --
    ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  68. This is an ironic article, right? by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

    Seriously - what has Apple "created"? You do know the concept of a Tablet PC was around for a long, long time before Apple "invented" the shit out of it.

    1. Re:This is an ironic article, right? by cowscows · · Score: 1

      yeah yeah, and there were a million mobile phones out there before the Apple got into that market, yet for some reason now anytime you read an article about a new phone it's always compared to the iPhone.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    2. Re:This is an ironic article, right? by kangsterizer · · Score: 1

      apple invented the phone didn't they?

      i heard they're working on iJesus now

    3. Re:This is an ironic article, right? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      they created a small light weights tablet. The created the chip, the form factor. No they didn't not create the idea of a tablet. They did invent this tablet device.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:This is an ironic article, right? by vcgodinich · · Score: 1
      what do you mean by form factor?

      A rectangle?

    5. Re:This is an ironic article, right? by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      The question is why is this tablet perfect for board games and the dozens of other tablets that have been around for years were not? Cheaper tablets that aren't locked down? That already have boardgame software written for them? That people have already been using to play boardgames?

  69. Perfect D&D tie-in with a multi-touch-table by Jabrwock · · Score: 0

    iPad for each player to use an app to display their character sheet/messaging between player/DM. Multi-touch table to display the world/battlefield... Cool

    --
    Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
    1. Re:Perfect D&D tie-in with a multi-touch-table by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      combine with beers, doritos, and VoIP - and voila - I can get back to the games that have been on hiatus since I got a job and had to move away from my D&D pack....my wife will love this!

  70. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The perfect board game platform is cardboard.

    Incorrect. "Hungry, Hungry Hippos" is made of plastic...not cardboard.

  71. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

    Even Agricola with its insane amount of material was about 40€ IIRC (may have been 30), what exactly are you buying, gold plated Monopoly? Some game with a novelty electronic thing like a card thrower?

    Speaking of Agricola, I don't think that'd work well on the iPad if you wanted more than one player on the device.

    --
    Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  72. It has a curved back... by swajr · · Score: 1

    Seriously? I hate to point out the elephant in the room, but the back on this thing is CURVED. This means that laying it flat on a table for board games is pretty much impossible. Any time you press the device while it's laying on its back, you'll make the device jump around....

    1. Re:It has a curved back... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      This means that laying it flat on a table for board games is pretty much impossible.

            Unless of course you buy the $5900 iPad Gaming Table (tm), available in chipboard covered in black laminate and with a precisely engineered depression to fir your iPad in the middle of the table. Optional power supply only $250!

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:It has a curved back... by TRRosen · · Score: 1

      boy you Apple haters are really desperate huh?
      The back is'nt spherical its rounded on the edges 80% of the back is completely flat.

  73. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Pojut · · Score: 1

    I agree with the article. I think the iPad presents a great opportunity to play board games with friends in a more convenient way.

    I also agree. I mean, who cares if the low end model only costs $500 and you are restricted to appstore applications? And who needs multitasking support? ::chuckle:: Do people actually use AIM and Safari at the same time? Pfft! I mean, come on...who wouldn't pay the price of a full computer for something that offers half the functionality.

    Wait...what?

  74. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by WaXHeLL · · Score: 5, Informative

    Most people who play board games really don't sit around and play Scrabble and Monopoly all the time.

    They play games like:
    Settlers of Catan
    Power Grid
    Runewars
    Puerto Rico
    Dominion

    etc

    All of those are not cheap at all.

    --
    The troll with karma.
  75. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by EvanED · · Score: 1

    Mass produced games are around that price, but wander around a specialty game store. Many (not all) of the games there will be quite expensive. E.g. Settlers of Catan lists for $50, though you can get it for the low-to-mid $30s.

  76. Touch based RTS by FictionPimp · · Score: 0

    I wouldn't mind a touch based RTS. Use the TV as a battle overview for all players, then each player has a small hand held device that is their 'commanders view' where they can scroll around and give units commands via a touch interface.

    It would be cool, but impractical.

  77. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by fructose · · Score: 1

    You also need all the small bits to go with it. Playing a board game on the computer is nothing like the real thing. Moving pieces, holding cards, rolling dice. The tactile part of playing a board game is a huge part of the game. Using all those things is also part of the strategy. Want them to know your loaded? Show your cash/resources. Want to look like you are down and out? Hide or minimize your stash.

    Playing on a computer works fine when I play by myself, but when I play with friends, I want to crack open a box, set up the game, talk a little trash and flaunt my moves to make it more fun.

  78. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Pojut · · Score: 1

    I know this isn't practical for a lot of people, but we have a small area designated for board games (usually, there is a Hero Quest game in progress. We modified it to makea Hero Quest/DnD hybrid, works great.)

    All joking aside, I know what the article is getting at (board games being just another reason to buy the thing). Of course, it is worth mentioning that you will be restricted to whatever Apple approves to go in the Appstore...whereas something like the Asus T91MT would cost the same (or less) and be completely unrestricted.

    It doesn't look as pretty, but it would still serve the same purpose...just with more functionality.

  79. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by alannon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ugg, I'm getting tired of hearing this misunderstanding. The iPhone OS is completely, 100% capable of full multitasking and uses multithreading extensively. Apple has chosen to restrict most of its own and all 3rd party applications to run only 1 at a time. Several built-in applications run in the background instead of exiting, such as Safari, Mail and the Phone applications. I do not agree with their decision to do this, however, but understand why they did. In a way, though, I should be thankful that so many people are complaining about this, even not entirely accurately, since I think the negative publicity might be enough to push Apple to change this. Apple isn't completely immune to consumer pressure.

  80. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good ones. You know, ones that were developed in the last decade or two...

  81. Pretty sure I'm not missing it by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I can play every board game that I've paid for and Apple's approved.

    In fact, everything YOU mentioned are things that Apple may or may not approve.

    My point was just that looking at it as a "board game player" is silly and unrealistic.

    Particularly with the whole "ooooh then you can link the iPhones to it!" line of reasoning - now everyone who comes over to my place to play games needs some sort of smart phone? Lots of my friends are broke mofos.

    I wouldn't trust any closed device as my content repository; too much about copyright is nebulous right now to trust any company to "look out for my interests" which is where Apple leaves you - Trust Me, Steve says.

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
    1. Re:Pretty sure I'm not missing it by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh sure, the closed source nature of it kills the utility, though I'm sure the DRM folks salivate at the thought of a ubiquitously accepted storage device that can be locked down.

      I was looking at the potential capabilities that the hardware offers.

      As for "broke mofos", I did note (sarcastically) that "everyone" will have a phone, for all practical values of "everyone". Crap, I know poor kids who have phones to keep in touch with their parents between home and school -- not iPhones, of course, but phones capable of display. In any case, I'm sure that private display devices for such "board game" applications could be produced relatively cheaply if that's all they did: LCD tethered to a USB port, maybe?

      I'm more intrigued by the possibilities offered by the technology and form factor, than present-day artificial encumbered.

      If you want to criticize the "walled garden", do so. I'd agree (which is why I have an HTC2 and not an iPhone). But do not criticize the notion of a garden just because some might be walled.

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    2. Re:Pretty sure I'm not missing it by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      I can play every board game that I've paid for and Apple's approved.

      Just to pick nits, for something as simple as a board game, you probably don't really need to use native APIs anyway. Just write it as a web app. At least on iPhone, you can save a web app to the home screen as a standalone app. I'm assuming that the iPad will probably have similar functionality.

      With an iPhone offline web app, when you launch it, it takes over the whole screen (minus the menu bar, IIRC). The HTML, CSS, JavaScript, etc. is cached locally on the device, so the app works even when you don't have access to a Wi-Fi or cellular network. It can even store data locally on the device (SQL storage, HTML5 local storage, cookies, etc.) and upload it later if/when a network connection becomes available. And you can use multi-touch events to interact much like you can with a native app.

      Of course, it's harder for the developer to make money with web apps, but not impossible. Web programming is certainly not sufficient for some types of apps, but for board games? Sure.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    3. Re:Pretty sure I'm not missing it by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      If the only garden is walled, and the walled garden is the topic of the discussion, I move that we save discussion of non-walled gardens until they're more than a theoretical, at least while discussing if the iPad is at all worth buying.

  82. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by sootman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > The perfect board game platform is cardboard.

    No, it isn't. Not for all situations. The iPad is a bit pricey at the moment but in the future when they're cheaper (and/or used) I could see this actually being quite good for the kids to play checkers in the backseat of the car or on a flight.
    1) No pieces to lose
    2) Bored of checkers? It can hold a few hundred other games.
    3) Related to #1: also no pencils/pens/crayons floating around/getting lost/poking people in tender places
    Honestly, I'd rather have the kids in the backseat playing games instead of watching movies the whole time.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  83. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by DJRumpy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From my perspective, owning an iPhone, the iPad is just 'meh' for me. I like the bigger display, but I work from home (telecommute), so I've already got a 27" screen for big stuff, and my iPhone for mobile work. No real need for anything in between.

    That said, pop an extra $250 bucks, and you get kindle capabilities + everything that the iPhone offers (sans the voice cell capabilities), meaning music, video, games, apps, location tools/utilities, etc. To my mind, that at least makes for an interesting combination. I think it's largest market will be in games, and books, and maybe a smattering of video and movies for those folks on the go (travelers or mobile babysitters to keep occupied on long trips). If board games become a common app for this, instead of paying $20-$99 bucks for them, you could easily end up with a $5-$10 dollar app store equivalent. Buy more than a few, and you've paid for your investment.

    It's just a more versatile than a piece of cardboard.

    Will I buy one? No (see above for 'meh' factor). I just don't have a need for it, but I can see the appeal.

  84. come on, you're not even trying! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    obviously, you store your collection of 327 musty old boardgames on the shelves in the basement, next to your bed.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  85. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by EvanED · · Score: 1

    So what do you do with your cardboard monopoly or chess board when you are half way through a game and the captain says to return to your seats, place the tray tables in the upright locked position and prepare for landing? I guess it's game over.

    You could use the time between when you drop below 10,000 ft (when you have to put away your iPad) and when you're on immediate approach and have to put up the tray tables to record the configuration of the game. ;-)

    (Not arguing that there's a convenience factor with the iPad, but it's not all win. For instance, you could even keep going with many games even after the tray tables have to go up. I'd guess that with something like this you could get around 30 minutes more playing time -- and even that could be low if you're stuck in a holding pattern below 10K feet or even spend a ton of time on the taxyways -- each flight than you could with an iPad simply due to legal constraints on when you can use electronic devices.)

  86. oh it's cursed alright by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 4, Funny

    I haven't been able to let go of it since puberty

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
  87. This article's intended audience was Slashdot. by L3370 · · Score: 1

    The author wanted to see how much nerd rage they could whip up.

  88. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

    You're missing the point. No one is trying to convince you that it's a good thing. You have made up your mind, and that's cool. The point is, your opinion isn't necessarily all that meaningful in the context of the use cases of this device.

  89. Here's a *CLASSIC* comment from the article.... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    and because the iPad is a computer it can store thousands of games and add a variety of interactive features.

    This is a great example of typical Fanboi "engage brain before mouth" syndrome. Let's look at this statement at bit more...

    Firstly, it doesn't support Flash so you can't download and play the thousands of Flash games on the Internet.

    Secondly, Apple doesn't make emulators available on the Apple store because of copyright restrictions - therefore there's no way of playing NES, Amiga, MAME or any other game ROMs on it, most of which would be tiny in size.

    Thirdly, the biggest iPAD is 64GB which means that to get a "thousand" games on it, each game would need to average no more than 65MB.

    Okay, I guess that's possible from a storage perspective, but how will that work from a UI perspective?

    If each game has its own icon to select in order to play it, how many screens are you going to need to need to scroll through to get to one of the last games in your list of "thousands". Does the UI actually *SUPPORT* having that many screens of icons?

    The author's comments just make NO sense...

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    1. Re:Here's a *CLASSIC* comment from the article.... by L3370 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "and because the iPad is a computer it can store thousands of games and add a variety of interactive features."

      No mention of flash in that sentence, or the entire article.
      No mention of emulators in the article.
      No mention of playing NES, Amiga, MAME games AT ALL in the article.
      Wild assumptions that the games have to be flash, or have to come from NES, Amiga, MAME emulators. You're assumptions are just as weird as this article. Yes I think the article is dumb too.

    2. Re:Here's a *CLASSIC* comment from the article.... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

      As I said, engage brain before mouth.

      Read what I wrote again... properly.

      If you do so you will see that I *WROTE* precisely what you said - namely that *BECAUSE* it cannot support Flash games or emulators, then it is quite impracticable to assume that it can support thousands of games - which presumably can only be downloaded from the Apple Store.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    3. Re:Here's a *CLASSIC* comment from the article.... by L3370 · · Score: 1

      I had no argument with the thousands of games part. While there are thousands of apps already available via the app store, I do not know the load the device can take.
      But I still think it was silly and presumptious of you to argue that having thousands of quality games available is unlikely because it lacks support for Flash (which sucks anyway) or games made available through emulators.

    4. Re:Here's a *CLASSIC* comment from the article.... by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      Thirdly, the biggest iPAD is 64GB which means that to get a "thousand" games on it, each game would need to average no more than 65MB.

      Oh, shit! The world is ending! How are we ever going to create a fun game that takes less than 65MB of storage space? It's impossible, I tell you! Any decent game must at least fill up a CD-ROM or it's no good at all!

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    5. Re:Here's a *CLASSIC* comment from the article.... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

      Did I not say that a 64GB iPad could hold 1000 games averaging 65MB each?

      Again, if you read my post properly, I commented on the capability of the UI to display that many pages of icons because, presumably, the interface is similar to the Touch where you just create game/app launchers on different pages, rather than being able to create folders to have more of a tree-like standard OS structure.

      My point being that if each "page" can display, say, 50 icons, having to scroll through up to 20 pages to find one of your "thousand" games would be fairly unmanageable.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    6. Re:Here's a *CLASSIC* comment from the article.... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

      Right, I want you to hold your breath, count to 10, then read my article again, this time properly.

      Now, can you please tell me, as the Apple expert you obviously are, how easy it would be to manage 1000 icons across multiple screens on the iPad such that the article author's statement of "thousands" of games can be deemed to be valid.

      I am making the assumption that, just like the iPod Touch, there is no way to physically group icons in logical folders - in which case each game would need its own icon somewhere on one of a multiple number of screens.

      Now that I've made it as simple as possible for you, either provide an intelligent answer or not comment at all - just please don't go flying off again at a tangent.

      Thanks.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    7. Re:Here's a *CLASSIC* comment from the article.... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      you need to take your own advice.
      The article talks about board games, and you complained about flash and emulators.

      I mean, really think for a bit. Du you really think all games are flash or emulators? I didn't think so.

      Just in case no one told you:
      There are thousands of games that don't require flash or anything emulated.

      Here is a few:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_board_games

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:Here's a *CLASSIC* comment from the article.... by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      See, you weren't talking about icon management (nor was the article), you were just saying that 64GB isn't enough space for thousands of games. I say it is. 64MB is bigger than most Nintendo DS games, and it's bigger than downloadable WiiWare or XBLA games. 64MB gets eaten up pretty quickly once you throw in a lot of media like video clips or even audio - but in terms of what kind of game you can make in 64MB, it's plenty...

      If you want to talk about how to organize a thousand game icons - it is not an insurmountable problem by any means. If you say the iPhone OS isn't up to the task... Well, I can't necessarily say you're wrong. I have a great deal of apathy with regard to the platform. :)

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    9. Re:Here's a *CLASSIC* comment from the article.... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

      Oh, now somebody is telling me what I wrote...

      I'm not going to repeat myself, please read my original post once again - I know what I said.

      And if you believe 1000 icons *ARE* manageable on an iPhone or iPad, then kindly enlighten me - as a techie, I am always interested in hearing how a problem is surmounted.

      But as I look at my iPod Touch now, one screen holds up to 16 icons (I assume it's the same for the iPhone). Therefore, to hold 1000 icons would need 62.5 screens - it would be quite a task to scroll through that many screens to get to a game near the end, and that does assume the Touch/iPhone can have that many screens.

      If there is an app to do some kind of folder management of icons, then that would make it much easier to organise.., plus I'm guessing the iPad screen holds maybe 50 icons per screen, but that would still need 20-odd screens for all of them.

      So if you believe I am wrong then I am more than happy for you to tell me how so - so please enlighten me.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    10. Re:Here's a *CLASSIC* comment from the article.... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

      How come you, like at least two other repliers to my comment, seem to have the capability of reading the original article but not my response?

      If you had read my posting correctly, you would have read into it that if it *WERE* possible for the iPad to support Flash games or emulators, then it would be a relatively *EASY* task of getting 1000 games onto an iPad. This is because you would not necessarily need an icon for *EACH* game because you would select the game you wanted from a pull down menu within the emulator or in the Flash tool.

      *HOWEVER*, because most games on the App Store are individual downloads (maybe with the exception of some card games that support multiple versions of solitaire, or something like that), then you would need a separate icon and screen space for it for each game.

      *THEREFORE* you would need to move across multiple screens, I suggest maybe as many as 20 for an iPad (because I guess one screen holds around 50 icons), in order to get to the game you wanted. This of course assumes there is no limit to the number of icons with apps you can display, or the number of screens they can be displayed upon.

      What I *DARED* to suggest to those of you living in your "Apple is perfection" world is that such a large amount of icons would be far more manageable if there is an app where icons can be grouped within folders - however, I am not aware of an app that does this, at least on the Touch.

      Therefore, I am stating that the author's statement of having "thousands of games" on one iPad, whilst feasibly possible from a storage perspective, would be incredibly slow to use because you would need to scroll through multiple screens to get to the game icon you actually wanted.

      Is that *NOW* clear enough for you?

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    11. Re:Here's a *CLASSIC* comment from the article.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spotlight. No one sane with a lot of apps uses the home screens to launch them, you just press the Home button twice to jump to Spotlight and enter the first 3 letters of the app name.

    12. Re:Here's a *CLASSIC* comment from the article.... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

      Thanks... it took a long time getting there but at last someone gives me a practical response.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    13. Re:Here's a *CLASSIC* comment from the article.... by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      Oh, now somebody is telling me what I wrote...

      It's not that complicated: If you write something and someone else reads it, that other person is perfectly capable of telling you what it was you wrote.

      If what you wrote isn't what you meant, that's your problem.

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
  90. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Laser_iCE · · Score: 1, Troll

    Thank you for speaking on behalf of me when I've never played any of those games. You know what I do like to play though? Scrabble and Monopoly. But then again, I don't "sit around" playing board games, they're more of a last resort kind of thing.

  91. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have created a pretty good board game platform. But the perfect platform (for board games or any other application, actually) would allow anyone who wants to, to implement whatever (board game) they want to, sell it, etc, without having to

    1. Get permission/approval from a totally unrelated party (such as Apple)
    2. Sell it without having to let a totally unrelated party (such as Apple)wet its beak

    Apple: better-than-average hardware, better-than-average software, somehow adding up to a worse-than-average solution. Good for them, bad for you.

  92. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by bracher · · Score: 1

    Exactly. If my aim was to "easily revive board game culture and introduce new generations to classic family games", then I'd got to Target and spend $20. And his scrabble idea would amount to one _expensive_ game of scrabble... $500 gameboard and $100+ for each players' letter holder???

  93. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has Apple created a perfectly boring platform? Yep.

  94. I just don't see it as a game platform by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 1
    I'm a very heavy board gamer with a lot of disposable income. I would be THE target market for it, and I can't even see it as practical. *shrug*

    I think the Surface is more practical for this than this device (if any) but the real device is probably already in most living rooms: XBox/PS3 with a marketplace.

    Even maintains purity of purpose, can serve content, and isn't at risk of spilling beer on it.

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
    1. Re:I just don't see it as a game platform by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yeah, but you can't take the XBox/PS3 with you so the kids can play in the back of the car on a long ride, or (realizing that some people have cars with TVs in them), over to grandma's, what with all the cables, controllers, disks, to hook up to her tv just when she wants to watch "The Andy Griffith Show", on a 13 inch screen, in black and white, complaining about the "DTV adapter" she had to buy.

      The utility isn't what you can do with it... it's that you can do it portably.

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    2. Re:I just don't see it as a game platform by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

      A Nintendo DS is far cheaper, and you can play it in the car or at Grandma's. You can get several for the price of the iPad, or one and some games.

      --
      SSC
    3. Re:I just don't see it as a game platform by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

      ... single player games.

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    4. Re:I just don't see it as a game platform by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

      There are turn based games that you can play, and with many games, multiplayer only needs one copy of the game. You also can get online play.

      --
      SSC
  95. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ugg, I'm getting tired of hearing this misunderstanding. The iPhone OS is completely, 100% capable of full multitasking and uses multithreading extensively. Apple has chosen to restrict most of its own and all 3rd party applications to run only 1 at a time.

    Which means that *functionally* it is not capable of multitasking. Apple is selling a device that is hardware+firmware+software. I couldn't care less what the hardware is capable of if the firmware does not allow me to make use of it.

    Analogy time: You can raise the tastiest pigs in the world, and cure the awesomest bacon ever known to man, but if I keep kosher, I can't eat it. See, Apple is rabbinical law, and the i~Device hardware is the bacon. Apple only wants you to eat Apple-cured bacon, which isn't made from pigs at all. It's made from hipsters in Apple's secret Cupertino rent-controlled hipster abbatoir. You can't have the regular bacon, which is unfettered hardware.

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  96. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    The upsides,
    * instantaneous setup times
    * correctly enforced rules
    * correct and fast update/maintenance costs.
    * instantaneous putup times

    The downsides,
    * DRM means you don't own the game. When the DRM approval engine expires, so does your game. (re: Divx DVD's & many others).
    * No house rules
    * No unapproved addon content
    * Possible restrictions on where and when you can play the game (i.e. We've detected you are in Belgium and are not licensed to play this game in that country).

    Peculiar up/downsides revealed by BSW.
    * Remote play with others.
    * Loss of social aspect of gaming when playing remotely.
    * Fast games takes away part of the human reason for boardgaming.
    * Some games are trivialized when the mechanics are automated.
    * "others" is increasingly dominated by master players over time (unlike your local gaming group).

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  97. Most-Expensive-Scrabble-Board-Ever by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

    They're really reaching for this one...

    1. Re:Most-Expensive-Scrabble-Board-Ever by TRRosen · · Score: 1

      sorry dude but you can't even win that one.
      Try Luxuo.com the $599 Scrabble set,

    2. Re:Most-Expensive-Scrabble-Board-Ever by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

      Hmm-- you can get an iPad and few iPhones for less than $599. Cheaper than I thought. My scrabble board cost me $0.99 at a local thrift store.

  98. multitouch + handheld game system by toupsz · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Our senior capstone students are working on a multitouch + handheld game system. http://ecologylab.net/courses/capstone/projects/multimodalMultitouchCardGame/index.html -Z

  99. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by EvanED · · Score: 1

    The iPhone OS is completely, 100% capable of full multitasking and uses multithreading extensively. Apple has chosen to restrict most of its own and all 3rd party applications to run only 1 at a time.

    "Incapable of" vs "capable of but disallows" seems to be a pretty pedantic difference. The one way it's not is that it means that if you jailbreak it, there's a chance that you can break that restriction too.

  100. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

    Okay, play monopoly on your cribbage board. How about Sorry! on your Chinese checker board. How about Chess on your poker table.

    I have a whole closet full of "Board Games" and their props and pieces.

    A reconfigurable game space would be nice.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  101. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Pojut · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You're missing the point. No one is trying to convince you that it's a good thing. You have made up your mind, and that's cool

    Oh, plenty of people on here have tried, lol.

    The point is, your opinion isn't necessarily all that meaningful in the context of the use cases of this device.

    That is not true at all. I was actually really excited about this thing, because I've been wanting a straight tablet with no keyboard for a while now. It would be quite handy for diagnostics in the garage, great for gaming/browsing the net while watching TV, double as an e-comic reader...pretty much everything I want in a tablet, the iPad offers.

    That being said, I'm not paying $500 or more for a locked down device with no expansion, no external ports, and no multitasking. I'll just wait for some other similarly priced (or cheaper!) tablet that doesn't require permission from the company that built it just so I can use whatever program I want.

    Am I the target demographic for the iPad? Not since it's details have been released, I'm not. I certainly was, but I'm not now.

  102. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    Digital comics on a 27" monitor are BETTER than physical comics. I've been giving my physical comics away to a couple friends who value that kind of thing. To me they are just clutter.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  103. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by alannon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    >And yet you correctly state that the iPhone OS (and the iPad version is the same) don't do multi-task/threading.

    Actually, I stated the exact opposite, that the iPhone OS is capable of and almost always has more than one application running at once. Additionally, almost every single app made for the iPhone is multi-threaded.

    >And it's one more reason why the iPad isn't even close any kind of ultimate game machine.

    Actually, I disagree with this. What benefit does it bring to a game to be running in an OS along-side other applications? Off the top of my head, I can't think of a purpose-built gaming machine that allows you to switch between multiple running applications.

  104. funny thing by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 1

    The Ignite piece on O'Reilly media from an app dev (I saw it last week I think) had a guy whip up a board game score calculator as his first failed app attempt.

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
  105. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

    You are stupid. Not incredibly so, as I am definitely not new here. I see a great deal of stupidity like yours every day.

    The iPhone OS does multitasking and multithreading. It's not just capable of it -- it does it every day for millions of users.

  106. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

    All but one of the games you mentioned are in the 30 Dollar range. Much cheaper than most videogames and a heck of a lot cheaper than an iPad.

  107. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Sorthum · · Score: 1

    I appreciate where you're coming from, but I'm not about to pay Apple $500 for a device I have to jailbreak to get what I want from it. At that point there's no warranty support anymore, and (according to Apple, anyway) I've broken the law.

  108. that old gag by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 1
    Yes, it can do other things. But I bet it can't do anything as poorly and expensively as play board games.

    It's simply the wrong tool. It's too tightly coupled to a secondary device for any game that has "secret" information.

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
  109. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by swarm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To be a perfect board game, it needs to have holographic pieces that project out of the screen.

  110. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by postbigbang · · Score: 1

    Hmmm. Exact opposite.

    >Apple has chosen to restrict most of its own and all 3rd party applications to run only 1 at a time. Several built-in applications run in the background instead of exiting, such as Safari, Mail and the Phone applications.....

    We'll have to disagree. I like its gaming CPU (the A4???) and its delicious nVidia or even ATI GPU subsystem.

    Maybe you were thinking of bored (sic) games.

    --
    ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  111. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by cexshun · · Score: 1

    Don't forget:

    Carcasonne
    Agricola
    Last Night on Earth
    Pandemic
    Ticket to Ride
    Steam
    and many more

    There are TONS of great board games out there that are fun to play and don't follow the "roll the dice and race to a finish line" concept.

  112. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by interploy · · Score: 1

    Exactly. It's hit and miss on whether a kid can handle a gameboy, and those things are renown for being able to take a beating. I don't think I'll be giving a bunch of kids $700 of hardware to play Monopoly on any time soon...

  113. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

    This is just an attempt by apple to make this appealing.

    It's a genius strategy really. What do rich hipsters want more than anything? Answer: board games.

  114. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Pojut · · Score: 1

    I dunno, there is just something about having the actual trade (I don't collect singles, only TPB and THB) that digital just doesn't do for me. Don't get me wrong, a well-fucntioning portable e-comic reader would be awesome for travel, but at home I still prefer the real thing.

    Strange...I don't feel the same way about books.

  115. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Threni · · Score: 1

    And you could buy pretty much every half decent board game out there for the cost of the iPad, and they won't stop working in 18-24 months either.

  116. Re:Oh no you didn't! by Tetsujin · · Score: 4, Funny

    Analogy time: You can raise the tastiest pigs in the world, and cure the awesomest bacon ever known to man, but if I keep kosher, I can't eat it. See, Apple is rabbinical law, and the i~Device hardware is the bacon. Apple only wants you to eat Apple-cured bacon, which isn't made from pigs at all. It's made from hipsters in Apple's secret Cupertino rent-controlled hipster abbatoir. You can't have the regular bacon, which is unfettered hardware.

    Wait... The iPad hardware is bacon, and the bacon isn't bacon, but bacon is hardware, and Apple wants you to eat kosher and...

    I think you lost me. Could you try this as a car analogy?

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  117. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by paeanblack · · Score: 1

    You know what I do like to play though? Monopoly. But then again, I don't "sit around" playing board games, they're more of a last resort kind of thing.

    I think you have your causality reversed.

  118. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    Backgrounder. I don't use it (anymore), but it works. And battery life suffers accordingly. Honestly the problem is that Apple refuse(s/d) to allow quick-swap of the battery, which is a feature common to almost every other phone that supports multitasking. It's the only thing I envy about the Palm Pre. Design simplicity is one thing, but it shouldn't come at the cost of removing features that would be beneficial to large segments of the customer base.

  119. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by sesshomaru · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think he meant to say, dedicated board gamers. The kind of people who go to boardgamegeek.com or hang out in the Fantasy Flight forums. People who know the difference between German style boardgames and American style board games.

    These are people for whom the board game is the first resort, not the last. People who will deliberately make time for board games. (Think John Locke on Lost.)

    Monopoly is a dreadful board game, and I don't understand why anyone ever plays it. Scrabble seems good though.

    But seriously, next time you are thinking of playing Monopoly, go out and buy a game of Cosmic Encounter. Then throw your copy of Monopoly in the garbage or the nearest compost heap.

    --
    "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
  120. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by ottothecow · · Score: 1
    Some of the boutique board games can get pretty pricey.

    Of course most of them are pretty complicated so unless you have dedicated board game playing friends (in which case $100 for a game probably doesn't phase you), the games will just sit on the shelves. Even games like risk (or even monopoly) stay on the shelves because people don't want to spend the time to play them through since the games can get extremely long if nobody fouls up at the start.

    I think most of the games I play with my friends came from ebay/thrift stores (although it explains why sometimes we don't get the pop culture trivia). Most of them are games that are easy to stop/start/change number of players (and usually explain the rules easily). Games like catch phrase, taboo, cutthroat uno, or pit win out over games with long setup times and rigid player structures (team games also help...since losing a teammate doesn't kill the game like losing a player in Risk might).

    Having an ipad or a multitouch tabletop could be a good way solve setup times, rules calls (only allow legal moves so no arguments about bad wording in the instructions) and missing players (subbing in a mediocre AI player if somebody has to go home). the ipad might not be big enough for this to be a great plan with more than a few people...but it might get developers thinking

    --
    Bottles.
  121. Have I missed something? by DiamondGeezer · · Score: 1

    I must have skipped the pre-worship but as far as I can see, the iPad is an iPod Touch with a bigger screen. Did I miss anything out?

    It's not a tablet computer because its been deliberately crippled, its an appliance just like the iPod Touch.

    If the fanboys want a real Apple Tablet then its already out there and its only partially made by Apple: the Modbook

    --
    Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
    1. Re:Have I missed something? by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

      I suspect no fanboi buys it for the simple fact that Axiotron won't be allowed to put an Apple logo on the back of it.

      After all, the whole purpose of the Apple logo is to position oneself in Starbucks in such a way as to use the logo to beam reflective light straight into the eyes of any customer walking into the establishment.

      This ensures that all customers exercise their best behaviour because they know they basque in the righteous glory of one of the "Elite Few".

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    2. Re:Have I missed something? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Basically you are correct. It's more powerful, and has the advantage of a larger screen. But it is kind of an appliances.

      there sin't anything wrong with that. In fact you probably own several appliances.

      However, I would love to know why, exactly, it doesn't have a video camera. I can only speculate that there just isn't a good video camera that can fit in the form factor. At this time.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Have I missed something? by TRRosen · · Score: 1

      Yes you have missed something.

      and yes it is a bigger faster higher resolution iPod touch.

      And yes it is an appliance. Thats what you missed. Its an Appliance you just pick it up and use it. you never think about how it works it just does, bread goes in, toast comes out. in general people (maybe not slashdoters) don't want to use a computer. they want to play a game. They want to watch a movie. they want to read a book. they want to surf the web. They do not want to operate a computer.

    4. Re:Have I missed something? by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      My toaster has a Bagel button.

      It confuses me.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    5. Re:Have I missed something? by TRRosen · · Score: 1

      Steve would add a bagel proximity sensor for auto-magical bagel settings.

      Lets face it ... he REALLY would!

  122. You're mamma's so fat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...she uses a iPad for an MP3 player.

    Seriously, who would use an iPad for playing music in lieu of an iPod or similarly small MP3 device?!

  123. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Asclepius99 · · Score: 1

    The problem I see with this is what very few games would make sense for one player on the device. And the article mostly focuses on everyone getting around an iPad at the table. Even their picture shows the board taking up an entire screen. Where are each player's cards and money count? You can't fit all the cards and be able to read them, so you need a pop up larger view. You'd also need a pop up menu for trading, building, and mortgaging. Also, the article tries to make it sound cool to integrate the iPhone to be able to hold your letters during a Scrabble game. But that's really just missing a larger draw back. Any game where you have to hide your cards is out unless you just pass around the iPad to however's turn it is. And I don't own an iPhone/iPod Touch and I'm not planning on getting one. Am I going to be expected to drop $300 for an iPod Touch if my friend buys an iPad and has people over to play it?

    Then the article goes on to talk about being able to play board games over the internet with people all over the world. I'd love to see it explain to me how the iPad is better than my lap at that. The only thing it seems to have me beat on is a touchscreen, and I'm not that impressed.

  124. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by mcvos · · Score: 1

    yup. This is just an attempt by apple to make this appealing.

    And it is appealing. In fact, I think it's the only area where the iPad has anything meaningful to offer over other products already on the market.

    The idea of a multitouch screen for automated boardgames isn't new, and it'd be incredibly powerful for automating the administration of complex boardgame. The only real problem is that the iPad is way too small for most complex boardames.

  125. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 1
    Hey Paean, are you the same Paean on BGG? I've been reading PR strategy for a few days now and your name keeps on popping up.

    (P.s. his causality is 100% wrong)

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
  126. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

    The kids won't have much to lose, but they will have a very expensive platform to break. A Game Boy was very rugged, probably for this reason. Somehow, I don't see the iPad surviving as well.

    --
    SSC
  127. I think the chances are slim... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that it would support Vassal, Cyberboard, or Aide de Camp, the utilites boardgamers use to play boardgames across the internet. More than likely, we'd have to settle for an App Store approved version of Monopoly.

  128. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In a lot of ways, the iPad isn't a big iPhone so much as the iPhone is a small iPad. Specifically in the sense that iPhone apps are pared down iPad apps more than iPad apps will just be zoomed in iPhone apps.

    That might make sense if the iPhone hadn't come first. Your fanboyism is strong though. Try much harder, Steve's cock won't come so easily.

  129. Of course, Apple invented the board game. by moxsam · · Score: 1

    They did, didn't they?

    1. Re:Of course, Apple invented the board game. by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

      I believe they are currently trying to develop a version of Monopoly that is even better than Microsoft's version.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  130. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

    Speaking of Fantasy Flight Games, I have Arkham Horror and the expansions. Each of the big boxes are $50 and the small ones are $25 I think. Roughly $325 for the set. So far.

    It's a fun cooperative game and the group enjoys it. But it's not cheap.

    [John]

    --
    Shit better not happen!
  131. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by BitZtream · · Score: 2, Insightful

    My god would you fucking let it go, not everyone gives a shit or at least point out someone who has 'lost rights' to something from iTunes.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  132. Can't play a boardgame that's can't lay flat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The iPad cannot lay flat on a table. It fails the single most important criteria for board games. If the game doesn't have a board that lays flat, it isn't a board game. If you cannot hold pieces in your hand, it isn't a board game.

    It *might* work for games that have you pass the device from player to player ala catchphrase.

  133. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

    So what do you do with your cardboard monopoly or chess board when you are half way through a game and the captain says to return to your seats, place the tray tables in the upright locked position and prepare for landing? I guess it's game over.

    You know, I can't say I know a good, non-electronic solution for Monopoly - but for Chess or Scrabble, you could buy a "travel" set - and when you've got to put it away, you just fold it up and put it away, and the game's still there when you come back to it.

    My mom had this great old travel Scrabble from the 1960s or something - letters were vinyl or something, it folded very thin. Main problem with it was the letters wouldn't always stick to the board, or (when folding the board) could stick to the opposite side of the board, upside-down. The current travel scrabble seems rather more reliable (if a lot larger) - the letter tiles pop into square recesses in the board surface...

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  134. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

    Actually I thought there was a new Board Game from FFG at $100. I forget the name and don't have access to look it up from work. I have Arkham Horror also from FFG. The whole set runs about $325.

    [John]

    --
    Shit better not happen!
  135. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by mcvos · · Score: 3, Informative

    What you're saying is: you're not a board gamer, you're not familiar with modern board games, the only board games you do know are old and tired, and you only play those as a last resort.

    Maybe you should have a look at BoardGameGeek. Several of the games he mentioned are in the top-10, and deservedly so.

  136. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

    Agreed. There is a whole other level of board games after Scrabble. (bofh on BBG :) ).

    [John]

    --
    Shit better not happen!
  137. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Yeah, it's almost like people have so deeply accepted the idea that Apple is a product/marketing genius of a company that it's hard for them to accept the idea that an Apple product would be lame (especially when it looks so pretty), so now they are trying to rationalize why it actually could be useful. Board games on an iPad is a stretch.

    Everyone I've talked to so far who think the iPad is really awesome tends to change their mind once they realize some of the limitations (admittedly I haven't talked to a significant portion of the population). If the iPad were a mini computer, it would be awesome. Instead it is a giant phone. If I got one I would feel like a dork carrying around a phone that I couldn't talk to anyone with, especially if I have to carry a laptop around with me at the same time. And imagine if you have to get another computer to sync it with all the time? That will be horrible.

    Computer replacement = cool.
    Giant (un-callable) phone = lame

    Most of the people who like it seem to think of it as a computer replacement. We'll see if they can actually do that.

    --
    Qxe4
  138. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

    I know the only reason I would ever play a board game is to have fun, and I know that I find Scrabble fun.

    Can you explain this logic of yours to me? Because I'm certainly not going to spend my time digging through some forum online to try finding out why somebody thinks that "perfect board game" isn't a subjective term.

    --
    "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  139. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by anaesthetica · · Score: 2, Informative

    Oh man, I didn't realize anyone else knew about Hero Quest. I just got incredible nostalgia from your post. I used to make all my non-nerd friends come over and play Hero Quest for my birthdays when I was a kid. Either that or the board game version of Civilization.

    Eventually the computer version of Civilization came out, but I still prefer the board game format to be honest. I'm not sure how well Hero Quest would survive the transition to an iPad, given that the plastic figurines were half the visual/tactile appeal of the game.

  140. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously? According to Hasbro, as of early 2008, more than 250 million copies of Monopoly have been sold worldwide. You mean to tell me there are more than that playing those games? You could say that they are not the only game but they still are the leading sellers so from a marketing perspective you are wrong.

  141. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Island+Admin · · Score: 1

    This is exactly the frustration I have with my Kindle. While everyone is happily reading their paperbacks, I have to sit staring at the back of the seat in front of me, waiting for the restrictions to be lifted.

  142. By Apple? by weston · · Score: 1

    This is just an attempt by apple to make this appealing

    By Apple?

    I read Andrew Lim in the byline.

    No relevant search results seem to pop up for "Andrew Lim Apple Flack" or "Andrew Lim Apple Shill," so it seems likely this was just a guy with a theory on the internet.

    Of course, it could be that Apple's PR and marketing tendrils are even more subtle, deep, and devious than we've ever suspected.

  143. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by geekoid · · Score: 1

    False comparison.

    You will never convince paying the say for a computer that isn't easy to lug around and weigh less then 1.5 pounds is a good thing.

    Depends on what you want to do. If you are talking about running Cad and high end games, then no the iPad is not a good value for the money.
    OTOH, if you want a color device you can easily carry around and share, then it is a good value for the money.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  144. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by mcvos · · Score: 3, Informative

    What board games are you buying and where are you shopping? Last time I checked Scrabble and Monopoly were still in the sub-20 dollar range. Even Axis and Allies is 40-50 bucks.

    Those are some pretty old games. True, there are also many recent boardgames are also in the $20-$30 price bracket, but there are also a lot that cost $50+ even for just the basic game. With expansions, many games can easily cost more than $100. Even good old Settlers of Catan can get close to $200 if you buy all the expansions.

    The basic ASL rulebook costs $100, and that's without any boards. Get Beyond Valor as well, and you're close to $200. I'm sure there are people who've spent more than $1000 on that game. (Hm... porting VASL to the iPad could be a very good idea.)

    Speaking of games that people spend $1000s on, what about Magic the Gathering? Playing that on a couple of automated boards so you don't have to buy all the cards, could save you a fortune.

  145. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Gruturo · · Score: 1

    Analogy time: You can raise the tastiest pigs in the world, and cure the awesomest bacon ever known to man, but if I keep kosher, I can't eat it. See, Apple is rabbinical law, and the i~Device hardware is the bacon. Apple only wants you to eat Apple-cured bacon, which isn't made from pigs at all. It's made from hipsters in Apple's secret Cupertino rent-controlled hipster abbatoir. You can't have the regular bacon, which is unfettered hardware.

    er, a little confusing :)
    Can we have a car analogy maybe? a bad analogy? PizzaAnalogyGuy can you help us?

    --

    Vacuum cleaners suck. Kings rule.
  146. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by EvanED · · Score: 1

    Oh, I fully agree with you (for other reasons too). I just appreciate that not everyone may agree with us, and for them, jailbreaking the iPhone to get multiprocessing might be a no-brainer.

  147. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by poetmatt · · Score: 1

    actually, he's quite accurate. You can use things such as a flat object as a gameboard if you are worried about it. Or you could copy the existing design by hand onto a new board for about $0, cost being time and very low material cost.

    Meanwhile, lots of people who are apple fans are seriously disappointed with this thing. As an apple hater, I'm not surprised, but I've heard of 1 out of maybe...85+ apple fanatics I know that actually wants the thing.

  148. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like to see what airline you're flying on where there's room/time enough for a monopoly game...

  149. Mod Up! We've got an A4 designer here! by weston · · Score: 3, Funny

    I know its processor capabilities well.

    That's interesting. I'd been given to understand that this was a proprietary processor. The only explanation I can think of is that you were actually part of the A4 or iPhone OS team.

    And yet you correctly state that the iPhone OS (and the iPad version is the same) don't do multi-task/threading.

    Okay, you weren't on the OS team, and you have some reading comprehension difficulties, otherwise, you wouldn't have said that, given that the GP actually went to some pains to point out the OS does do multitasking/multithreading, and he's correct. So, that leaves the A4 team.

    What can you tell us about the chip?

    1. Re:Mod Up! We've got an A4 designer here! by kangsterizer · · Score: 1

      apparently the chip is the one released in september by samsung, only called "apple" :p
      it makes complete sense also. its also an arm cpu so its likely to share a lot with other arm cpus anyway

    2. Re:Mod Up! We've got an A4 designer here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The A4 chip is the hottest thing on the market. And I do mean 'hot'! It's jalapeno flavored. And it has ridges, and a scoop design so that you can pack a whole mess o' salsa in there.

  150. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by mcvos · · Score: 1

    Will I buy one? No (see above for 'meh' factor). I just don't have a need for it, but I can see the appeal.

    Me neither. To me, the boardgame option is really the only thing the iPad has to offer over other devices on the market. But even then: it's too small and too closed. Give me something 2 - 4 times that size, with multitouch and an open interface, and we're talking. I'd love to develop some innovative games for a platform like that.

  151. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by poetmatt · · Score: 1

    It doesn't matter what the OS is capable of if apple has restricted it. These are the kinds of things which are the reason that developers, linux users, windows users don't like apple.

    To each their own, but I didn't buy a snazzy phone to be unable to do other things while listening to music (or running an application). It's actually kinda important to be allowed to multitask.

    The issue here is simple. It's not whether apple will eventually change this or not, it's about the fact that you're buying it knowingly screwed in the first place.

  152. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    I made the transition for books a while back. I still buy books but usually give them to a library after reading them. I used to have about 5,000 books and now I'm down to about 300.

    I don't buy single comics any more and rely on my buds to highlight anything good on TPB. I'm so overwhelmed by entertainment options these days that I can't keep up.

    And with all the reboots in the comic book universes, I lost connection to them as an ongoing coherent universe. I expect they will reboot again every 5-8 years now.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  153. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its just a game

  154. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Duradin · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually the music will quite happily keep playing in the background.

  155. iD&D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Board games? - what's the point - use a board or a computer.

    Now- making D&D games happen between me and my friends after we got all growed up and got jobs in different cities - now that could be useful.

  156. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with.
    The OS does allow multi-tasking. It's just locked down.
    That's a pretty simple fact.
    Unless you sit in the same building I do, you do NOT know the chip better then I do, and it can be used for multi-tasking.

    Why do you claim to know the chip in one post, then put question marks after the chip name in another?

  157. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by TRRosen · · Score: 1

    and cardboard games can't be magically used on 20 different devices. iPad games however can be used on every device you own. Two iPads three iPhones and a iPod touch no problem.

  158. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The one thing no one else has brought up is 'ignored rules'. We do this all the time with games. How many people have the jackpot rule in monopoly (which the rules explicitly say doesnt exist)? Or if you get stuck in a long game and everyone wants to end it faster you will accelerate some portion of the game to finish faster? Sometimes people like to change the rules to a game mid stream. With video games you can not do this. With board games people do it all the time. Like if you wanted to play the game of life backwards? Unless its coded in, wont work...

    Now many people dont stray from the rules. So its not that big of a deal to them.

    Really the problem here is the iPad is not hitting its demographic. The marketing message is wrong. People were expecting an OSX pad (with iTunes software that acts like the iPhone software) instead got a bigger iPod touch/iPhone. Apple is a marketing company of the first rate. This is a mega misfire on their part. The 'leaks' we were seeing for the past month were from Apple. No other way. If they did not want us to know about it we wouldnt know.

    They will sell a good stack of the things, no doubt about it though.

  159. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by mcvos · · Score: 1

    I think you grossly underestimate the number of half decent board games out there. BGG has 1396 games that rate a 6 or higher.

  160. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by mcvos · · Score: 1

    I think you've fallen for the "games are for kids" fallacy there.

  161. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by HockeyPuck · · Score: 2, Informative

    Runewars for the Casual gamer? Give me a fucking break. I've never heard of it, and when I looked at the # of pieces that comes with the game, I thought it made Axis and Allies look like Candyland.

    Runewars includes:

            * 40-page instruction guide
            * Nearly two hundred highly-detailed plastic miniatures
            * Over two hundred tokens
            * Over two hundred cards, both small and standard sized
            * 13 map tiles

    The contents of the box:

    192 plastic figures
    10 plastic mountains
    12 plastic dial connectors
    16 activation tokens
    1 battle marker
    7 city tokens
    26 damage tokens
    8 defeated hero markers
    20 development tokens
    35 exploration tokens
    4 home realm setup markers
    40 influence tokens
    13 large map tiles
    12 resource arrows
    38 rune tokens
    16 stronghold tokens
    24 training tokens
    4 faction sheets
    4 reference sheets
    32 order cards
    23 quest cards
    30 fate cards
    12 hero cards
    16 objective cards
    25 reward cards
    32 season cards
    50 tactics cards
    3 title cards
    1 40-page rulebook

  162. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by poetmatt · · Score: 2, Informative

    bacon is not kosher, and I am a jew who knows about keeping kosher. your argument is moot, you meshuguna.

    Let me try a spin at your bacon analogy. It's more like:

    you make awesome bacon, and you'd love to eat it how you want, but apple has said you may only eat tripe, and well...a lot of people don't like tripe.

    It doesn't matter what functionality exists if you cannot use it. Car analogy #2 today: Maybe my car can get 100 miles to the gallon, but only if I was capable to drive 100% downhill with the engine off. etc.

    Meanwhile, every other tablet AND netbook I know has a: multitasking, b: touchscreen, c: flash support and d: realistic battery usage as opposed to magic promises of 10 hrs of battery life that doesn't specify if it's under heavy usage or what. Factor in what battery life a 1.5lb device has, and it's super unlikely that it's more than 10 hours standby.

  163. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by geekoid · · Score: 1

    You will be able to read books, regardless of where you purchased, you will be able to play mp3, regardless of where you purchase them, you don't have to pay any monthly fee unless you want 3g.
    \
    Now so much as a walled garden as it is a picket fenced garden.

    Multi-tasking is irrelevant. What is relevant is can ti do what you need? If it doesn't multi-task, but you can get the use you need out of it, does it matter? It would be the first single tasking machine that can do different things at the "same time"

    "You can raise the tastiest pigs in the world, and cure the awesomest bacon ever known to man, but if I keep kosher, I can't eat it."

    Assuming you are referring to Jewish faith, you just need paper plates and plastic utensils. You don't violate the rule.

    If you don't know your own belief, why should anyoine expect you to know what the hell you are ever talking about?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  164. Re:Oh no you didn't! by oatworm · · Score: 1

    Perhaps I can help.

    Think of a car and its transmission. Transmissions require fluid changes from time to time. Many transmissions use fluid that conforms to certain industry standards (say, DEXRON, MERCON, ATF, various gear oils of varying viscosity, like 70W-90, etc.) - consequently, you can find fluid for these transmissions from a variety of brands at a variety of price points. Other transmissions, on the other hand, require specialty fluids that are only available from the manufacturer - ECVT transmissions, like the one used in the Nissan Murano, tend to be prone to this.

    In the case of a phone, think of Android as a standard-issue transmission that uses industry standard fluid - you can get Android apps from just about anywhere at varying price points, everybody is already kind of unwittingly making them anyway, etc. Meanwhile, think of Apple's iProducts as that fancy transmission that requires very specific fluid to operate. Just like that fancy transmission, there is a chance that Apple's iProduct does certain things that aren't possible or aren't easy to do with regular "fluids", which is why Apple insists on its special fluid - however, just like that fancy transmission, when it comes time to get more "fluid", you have to go through the manufacturer to get it and you're at the manufacturer's whims over whether or not it will continue to carry the "fluid" and at what price it will sell it to you.

    Does that help?

  165. Re:Oh no you didn't! by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Sure:
    The iPad is a mini cooper. Since it can't be used as a dump truck, it sucks.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  166. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by poetmatt · · Score: 1

    you can jailbreak (root, as I am implying) non apple devices to get more features for less dollars. This is why android is so much more popular lately. For technical people it's basically like the argument of windows vs linux.

  167. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would argue that they are cheap.

    Computer games sell for 60 bucks and can only be used by one person in a household at a time.

    Good board games, the Ticket to Ride, or settlers cost 60 bucks, but many people can play in your house at one time.
    The reasale of popular game sis also higher.

    Pay 10 bucks for a movie for 2 hours of entertainment per person. Thats 6 movies, or 12 hours. A board game can get 100's of hours.

    Also, cheap ass games as some excellent games.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  168. Laughable. by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The 9.7-inch multi-touch screen is perfect for playing board games at home....

    I guess if you just play Chess, Go, and maybe the occasional game of Monopoly, it might be perfect for you. Maybe. I'd hate to play Chess on such a small board and I would loathe to play Go. If you're really into board games it's obviously crap for most games. The big problem: "screen" size. Most board games use a play area that is significantly larger than the 10" diagonal that the iPad offers. I can see different parts of the board in detail with the fastest, most intuitive interface ever: my eyes. Other people playing with my in person can look at other areas simultaneously. If I have a hand of cards, I can see them without needing to simultaneously obscure the board. If I need to move a piece or set of pieces, a touchscreen isn't bad, but a tactile experience is superior and has zero learning curve.

    I can envision games that port reasonably well to the iPad. I can envision "board" games designed specifically for the iPad that rock. Something like Microsoft's Surface would really rock for many purposes, but the iPad has a clear portability win. (Of course, the iPhone is even more portable.) There may be merit to board gaming on the iPad. But as the "perfect" solution for playing board games it's laughable.

  169. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by mbourgon · · Score: 1

    I play Arkham Horror. Main game was $50. Optional expansions are $20 (card-only) and $40 (cards plus extra board pieces). We have 3 or 4 of the expansions now, and are trying to figure the best way to set it up, since it takes up most of a sheet of plywood.

    I'm about to buy a piece of melamine and put in metal stops, so that we can more easily keep track of pieces. It's the one down side to the game - so many moving parts. (that being said, the game itself is awesome - a cooperative lite-RPG game where you all work together. Like doing an old-school RPG, but not as deep and without a DM needed)

    --
    "Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
  170. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by geekoid · · Score: 1

    That's a shame. While there not bad games, there are some very good board games. Of course they require thinking.

    Monopoly would play great on the iPad. Scrabble could work, but you just pass the iPad to each player.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  171. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by geekoid · · Score: 1

    errr... I didn't mean to imply what ever else you do doesn't require thinking.
    Sorry about that. I meant you can't just 'sit around' and play. You need to pay close attention to other players and formulate strategies more complex then those of monopoly and scrabble.

    again, sorry for implying you don't think.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  172. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

    Hey, if it's fun, go right ahead. I've played a lot of Scrabble. However, I don't play it very much anymore. I've got about 3 dozen various board games, from easier multiplayer ones like Settlers of Catan and Ticket to Ride, to day-long war games like Axis and Allies and Risk. I've also got some "mainstream party" games like Pictionary, Scrabble, and UNO.

    Perfect is subjective, and depends on what you want to play at the time and how much time you have on hand. If you don't want to dig on the forums, you can look at the ratings for the games. Agricola, Power Grid, Puerto Rico are all very good games.

    For someone to say that they're an expert on board games and bring up Scrabble shows that they don't know what they're talking about. What if, for example, they said "This is the perfect Sci-Fi tablet -- you can get the complete works of L. Ron Hubbard." you'd wonder what, if any, credibility they had.

    By the way, EA will be the ones writing Scrabble (just ask Scrabulous how it worked out), so Have Fun.

    --

    ---
    ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
  173. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by WinterSolstice · · Score: 1

    Like the MS surface, but running BSD or Linux?

    That could be fun

    --
    An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
  174. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by geekoid · · Score: 1

    yes, and how much will you pay someone to put al those games into a small portable device?

    Why do you think they will stop working?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  175. hahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pathetic, stupid fan boys trying to polish a turd. What next, also going to be ultimate doorstopper too?

  176. Not totally, but... by wfolta · · Score: 1

    Given that you already have an iPad for other applications, and have it with you, it would be nice for games. I'd love to see Goban ported to the iPad. It's not full-on Go without the sound of polished slate/shell slapping onto a block of wood, but it'd be much better than a vinyl board and plastic stones for a game when you're on the go, or a quick net game after lunch.

  177. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by frogzilla · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Lots of people want to be able to use a computer without having to use one. They don't want to ever see the computer geek side of computer ownership. They only want the benefits. Access to the the content they consume etc. Non geek benefits are not the same as geek benefits. Geeks value multi-use, multi-configuration devices and software. Geeks may also value learning complex rituals that they have to use to get the computer to work. Non-geeks want to turn on the device and maybe change the channel. There are very many people who want an appliance not a computer. These are the people this type of device is designed for.

  178. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by ElSupreme · · Score: 1

    Yeah and you can't play stratego on a tablet, even with 2 iPhones.

    --
    My addiction: Arguing with idiots. AKA Slashdot!
  179. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    That may not be your cup of tea. You, as a geek-type end-user definitely have different needs and wants than the standard person.

    Are you suggesting that Apple targets their products to the end-user needs of the "standard person"?

    If so, their share of the market would seem to indicate that the "standard person" prefers other manufacturers' products.

    I don't think it's unfair to say that Apple is after a certain niche of consumers. There's nothing wrong with that. They have been very successful among a certain segment of the population and have created some iconic products. There are people out there who buy Van Dutch meshback caps for $90 and Ed Hardy bottled water. There are people who ran out and bought Segways. And there are people who will be happy to drop $800 for an iPad with all the options.

    If history is any guide, the "standard person" who believes he or she needs a tablet computer will more likely drop $300 for an Asus with practically all of the same features (plus a camera and SD slot and OS that allows you to run apps from more than one source, including your own if you want to.)

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  180. OR by sproketboy · · Score: 1

    You could just spend $20 on a regular Scrabble board game.

  181. obreply by cain · · Score: 5, Funny

    No dice. Less space than Monopoly. Lame.

  182. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by demonlapin · · Score: 1

    I imagine that it will become considerably more compelling, like iPhone and iPod, at around version 3.0. Wait, does that mean Apple is the new Microsoft?

  183. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Jake+Griffin · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile, every other ... netbook I know has ... touchscreen

    Ummm.... every? Did you mean just a few?

    --
    SIG FAULT: Post index out of bounds.
  184. The bit of this mess that I think is interesting.. by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

    Tons of comments here about how it's a waste to use a $500 computer to play a simple board game... And rightly so, I'd say. It seems like a real stretch, looking for a defense of the iPad. But... if you ignore the cost issue and look beyond traditional board games I think this is an interesting idea.

    Basically - you could play a "board-game" style game on just about any kind of computer - but some are better than others. If I play chess or scrabble with someone next to me, using my phone as the game board, then we pretty much have to switch back and forth - meaning that when one person is taking their turn, it's difficult for other people to think about theirs. A game console like the Wii or PS3 also works, but these tend to be fixed in location, which isn't ideal - plus everyone's focus is directed toward the single monitor, it diffuses the social aspect a bit, I think. A tablet-style machine like this presents a very tactile experience - a game board that's easy to gather around (as long as the display has a good viewing angle range), turn, move, etc. as necessary. In terms of how the interaction works, it is uniquely capable of presenting a game in the same way as a board game is presented.

    Where this could be really neat, I think, is in terms of how this could potentially lead to different kinds of board-game-style games... Things that still work kind of like board games but take advantage of the computer's involvement, too. It'd be interesting to see how that could play out.

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  185. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    The iPhone OS is completely, 100% capable of full multitasking and uses multithreading extensively. Apple has chosen to restrict most of its own and all 3rd party applications to run only 1 at a time.

    So, you're saying that the Apple iPhone could fully multitask and use multithreading if not for Apple?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  186. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    My GOD would you just let it go already? iTunes, technology, the internet, gadgets, the effects of transferring from an analog system to digital, that's all you guys ever fucking talk about on slashdot. JESUS! It's like a broken record.

    THAT'S IT! I'm getting my non-tech news from some other tech site!


    (Come on, he has a pertinent point here.)

  187. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except when you want to play a different game. It's really tough to play Scrabble on a chessboard.

  188. Re:Oh no you didn't! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    The iPad is a mini cooper. Since it can't be used as a dump truck, it sucks.

    It's not just that it's not a dump truck, but it won't even let you carry your own groceries home from the store.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  189. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by MeNeXT · · Score: 1

    for those folks on the go

    I'm on the go. Always on the go. While I have a main office I have several other satellite locations. I was hoping that my iPhone would replace my Nokia. It replaced some features, added a few but removed many more useful ones. I don't expect a device to meet my every need but I hope that it follows standards. I had come to associate Bluetooth to a standard that allowed me to interact with devices in an easy but yet simple way. My wife can send a file to my iMac with Bluetooth but not to my iPhone. iPhone broke the implementation that is (or I) associated with the word Bluetooth. I would expect a device that is designed for "on the go" would connect through various means and not just through iTunes like the iPhone. Before I got my iPhone I could not understand why people wanted to get rid of it, now I know.

    As for the iPad if it needs iTunes then its not a serious product.....

    --
    DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
  190. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by postbigbang · · Score: 1

    That's my point. It's locked down.

    I know the iPhone's processor. The iPad is said to use most all of the current software, so I'm clued into what the A4 is and what it does to be able to accomplish that feat.

    Therefore, if Apple doesn't lock down the OS running the A4, it'll get ringed by the first clever Rumanian that tries it.

    Worse, no one makes a decent power-saving GPU kit. So gaming is going to be tough-- this is a raster-rendering, not vector-rendering design.

    And if I worked near the same building as you, I'd be watching my stock price. It just started tilting south.

    --
    ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  191. It WAS cardboard, its now Siftables... by Ion+Berkley · · Score: 1

    This is your 21st century board game
    http://sifteo.com/

  192. I prefer the dead-tree version by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

    If you scratch the top of your scrabble board, you are not out $500.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  193. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by postbigbang · · Score: 1

    Mod parent up. He's orthodox, but he's right.

    Sorry for the meat metaphors, too.

    --
    ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  194. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

    I'm curious, why not just send it to your iPhone via e-mail? It's not overly difficult that way.

    As to iTunes, there are quite a few free OSS alternatives. Don't like iTunes, just use something else.

  195. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by hondo77 · · Score: 1

    ...lots of people who are apple fans are seriously disappointed with this thing.

    Ah but does the iPad appeal to people who are not Apple fans? I ask because there are a lot more of those people. Make a device that appeals to them and you'll make money as fast as it can be printed.

    --
    I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
  196. Also a multiplayer 'arcade/sports' game platform by master_p · · Score: 1

    Since it has a multitouch 9.7 screen, there are various cool applications that can be done on it:

    -2 player or 4 player pong, where each player controls his/her pad with his/her finger.
    -subbuteo (tabletop soccer)
    -soccer/football
    -pool (using a stylus in the role of the cue)
    -the old qbasic Bananas game with the two players throwing simultaneously

    Finally, there could be other uses for the iPad. For example, a digital turntable.

  197. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by IshmaelDS · · Score: 2, Informative

    If your going to quote someone, at least use the whole part of whatever they wrote/said that is in reference to what your trying to contradict seeing as how he wrote:

    "Ugg, I'm getting tired of hearing this misunderstanding. The iPhone OS is completely, 100% capable of full multitasking and uses multithreading extensively. Apple has chosen to restrict most of its own and all 3rd party applications to run only 1 at a time. Several built-in applications run in the background instead of exiting, such as Safari, Mail and the Phone applications."

    You seemed to miss the whole last line, as right there he is saying that it does have serveral built-in applications that run in the background, even naming them. Now if you had been saying that as a developer you want that capability that's one thing, but stating that it doesn't allow it at all is false.

    --
    letting an idiot know they are an idiot is not a game... it's a responsibility. - by Kristopeit, M. D. (1892582)
  198. Not the Point for Some by Minigun_Fiend · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I may be in the minority here, but one of the reasons I play board games is specifically because they *aren't* electronic. For once everyone has to use their brains - there's no computer to tell them the rules or make sure they play correctly.

  199. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    But only in the US. ^^

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  200. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only real problem is that the iPad is way too small for most complex boardames.

    I'm assuming you're talking about the screen size.

    The Mario Party franchise seemed to do video board games pretty well without the requirement of showing an entire, complex, and large play area when 75% of it is being unused at the current moment.

  201. Re:Oh no you didn't! by asylumx · · Score: 1

    And it costs as much as a dump truck...

  202. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by node+3 · · Score: 1, Informative

    To clarify what others have tried, but apparently failed, to inform you of.

    The iPhone OS, which is OS X with some differences here and there between it and Mac OS X, is quite good at multitasking and multithreading. The iPhone makes extensive use of this, as do its apps.

    What the iPhone OS disallows is running third-party apps *in the background*. Built-in functions, like iPod music playing, Mail checking, SMS and call receiving, etc., all run in the background just fine.

  203. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by dangitman · · Score: 1

    This is just an attempt by apple to make this appealing.

    But Apple didn't write this article, it's by "recombu.com" - a site that nobody has ever heard of and has nothing to do with Apple.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  204. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Playing that on a couple of automated boards so you don't have to buy all the cards, could save you a fortune.

    You HONESTLY this would happen? That you wouldn't need to buy the cards? CLEARLY you know NOTHING about the game industry, especially WotC/Hasbro/etc.

  205. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Minigun_Fiend · · Score: 1

    Depends on your definition of cheap. Certainly Settlers and Power Grid are pretty cheap (£20-£30, respectively). Much, much cheaper than a new video game, and a lot of board games are cheaper (Carcassonne can be picked up new for £15).

  206. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    4) One sore loser/clumsy child = $500+ down the drain, I definitely need to get one of these!

  207. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by node+3 · · Score: 1

    Disclaimer: I am not questioning your opinion, nor am I discrediting it. You are completely entitled to your own thoughts.

    And vice versa.

    No matter what you do, say, or show me, you will never convince me that buying a device as expensive as a full computer but with only half the functionality is a good thing. Paying more and getting less is not a good thing, even if it comes wrapped up in a pretty package.

    I'm not trying to convince *you* of this, just pointing out ways in which your opinion are not terribly applicable to most people.

    For example, your part about paying more and getting less is a bit absurd. I can buy a PC for less than my phone (a crappy PC, to be sure, but a PC that is more powerful none the less). But it would be ridiculous for me to *not* buy my phone (and while I have an iPhone, this could very well apply to pretty much any feature phone or smart phone).

    The same thing applies here. I'm not going to buy and iPad instead of a PC (or Mac). I'm going to buy it in addition to the computer I already have.

    But let's look at the possibility of buying an iPad instead of a PC. While I definitely wouldn't suggest this for most people, there are still cases where this makes sense. The obvious is people who won't take advantage of that extra power a general purpose PC provides. If all you do is email, listen to music, surf the web, view photos, then the iPad not only does those thing quite well, it does much more. If you don't want the complexities of a full PC, then the iPad may be a good choice.

    Not for you, of course, nor for me or for most people, but I just point this out to show that even your most ardently bold-fonted opinion isn't as universally applicable as the the heavy typeface may imply. And in spite of your disclaimer (which I accept at face value), your wording isn't in line with the "this is only my opinion for me" sentiment. You didn't state it in personal terms, you stated it in no uncertain, universal terms.

    You didn't say "Paying more and getting less is not a good thing for me, even if it comes wrapped up in a pretty package.", you just said, in bold, "Paying more and getting less is not a good thing, even if it comes wrapped up in a pretty package."

  208. The Anti-iPad by DrYak · · Score: 2, Informative

    That being said, I'm not paying $500 or more for a locked down device with no expansion, no external ports, and no multitasking. I'll just wait for some other similarly priced (or cheaper!) tablet that doesn't require permission from the company that built it just so I can use whatever program I want.

    Like me, you seem to be in the exact opposite demographics as the one targetted by Apple.

    So let me just drop a link about Always Innovating's Touch Book that I've found the other day on the web.
    It's a (non-capacitative) touchscreen tablet which can be docked into a keyboard to form a netbook.
    It's got plenty of USB ports, both outside (2 free) and inside (3 free) to be used the for modules (the things comes with an USB and a Wifi dongles you can put on 2 inside ports). It's powered by an ARM (the same as the beagle board) so it has a good battery life. And it's running Linux (their own distro, but compatible with Ubuntu, Android, etc.)
    On the down side : no built-in VGA out, nor webcam, nor GPS, though the USB ports are here for a reason.
    The price is acceptable given the openness of the device.

    It's not what I would buy for a Grandma, but if you want something hackable - this is hackable by design. It's the exact anti-iPad ("anti" in the meaning "opposite of")

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:The Anti-iPad by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      So let me just drop a link about Always Innovating's Touch Book that I've found the other day on the web.

      Though that screen is 1024 * 600, vs 1024 * 768 for the iPad.
      That has 8 GB vs 16 GB for the smallest iPad.

      It is cheaper, but it also comes with 'less' in some ways (for less money of course). ('More' in other ways too.)

  209. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by mvdwege · · Score: 1

    Your comment seems perfect to piggy-back on, so here goes.

    Funny that you mention VASL. It wasn't until I got my work laptop, with a 15" 1920x1200 widescreen, that I seriously considered going VASL. Given that a normal ASL board is 8x22", and that most scenarios are two or three boards, you can see that fitting a scenario on screen with the same amount of information preserved from the physical layout is impossible. Either you zoom out to see the entire board, losing counter detail (important in ASL), or you zoom in to 1:1 scale counters, losing your map overview at the same time.

    Now try that on a 9.7" screen. It's patently absurd to think that that is suitable for any but the most trivial board games.

    But the Apple fanbois are eating it up. Just like they are buying the new Macbooks with chicklet keyboards. I don't get it.

    Mart

    --
    "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
  210. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by ucblockhead · · Score: 1

    Not in the car.

    --
    The cake is a pie
  211. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by mvdwege · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why not mail it? Because he is used to using bluetooth, because just about every other device except the Jesusphone accepts bluetooth file transfer. Why should he have to change his habits and workflow because Apple decided to only implement a subset of a standard?

    Mart

    --
    "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
  212. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by node+3 · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile, lots of people who are apple fans are seriously disappointed with this thing. As an apple hater, I'm not surprised, but I've heard of 1 out of maybe...85+ apple fanatics I know that actually wants the thing.

    Same thing happened on the iPhone launch. First it failed to live up to the rumors, which have the benefit of being unhindered by practicality. Press reviews were mixed, with a lot of, "*this* is the iPhone?" Then the launch there were lines (there will be lines for this, have no doubt), but the press reviews were mostly positive (expect this as well) with the obligatory downsides (no exchange, no multitasking, no third party apps). Then the launch weekend sales where huge, but shy of the analysts rumors.

    Then it took off. Everyone wanted one. Sure, there were updates that helped (like the App Store), but it was already a success before that. The App Store was like the iPhone squared.

    So, here we have the exact same thing. Also, the number one complaint, no multitasking. Look for news later this year about that.

    As for no expansion, there are features in the iPad that address this also. The iWork suite, the camera reader, and the iDisk app are clues.

  213. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by M-RES · · Score: 1

    But it's NOT easy to carry around - it won't fit in a pocket, so it'll mean one hand always full, or carrying it in a bag. If you're going to do that then you may just as well carry a netbook or other small laptop or tablet with more functionality at a lower price point.

    If you want a device you can easily carry around and share (!?), then the it's overpriced and underspecced - bad value for money.

    At current exchange rates it's nearly 400 GBP. Alternatively I could buy a Dell Mini 10v for just over half of that and install OS X more or less without modification. And then I could run whatever software I like without Apple vetting it first to decide whether or not they deem it suitable for me to run that software. And that's the clincher - the software issue! Shame really...

  214. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can I re-sell an iPhone app? Like I can resell other software I purchased?

  215. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I take it you apply this to diamonds and peanut butter, wall clocks and designer wristwatches, Wal-Mart brand clothing vs. designer clothing?

    The package is part of the product -- and the functional aspects of the product are also part of the product (it accomplishes its defined tasks).

    I think the issue here is that Apple is creating two product lines; creative computing and appliance computing. the iPhone/iTouch/iPad are appliances, not general purpose computers (even though they include similar hardware).

    Nobody's up in arms about, say TiVo or cisco routers not having the same functionality as a desktop PC are they? And yet sometimes, they cost more.

  216. Re:Oh no you didn't! by rabiddeity · · Score: 1

    Wait... The iPad hardware is bacon, and the bacon isn't bacon, but bacon is hardware, and Apple wants you to eat kosher and...

    I think you lost me. Could you try this as a car analogy?

    Does this help?

  217. what if she.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    doesn't download?

  218. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The capability is there. If it is that important to the OP, he could always just jailbreak it and install iBluetooth or something similar. I would imagine it was disabled for security reasons.

    You seem to be a little stressed about the subject. Do you want to talk about it?

  219. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by yankeessuck · · Score: 1

    You might've had a valid argument if you specifically mentioned Mac instead of Apple as a whole. I JFGI and the iPod has a 73.8% market share. The iPhone went from 0% to 30% in two years. Certainly those aren't numbers one would expect from a certain niche of consumers.

  220. Re:Also a multiplayer 'arcade/sports' game platfor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Digital turntable would be a nice gimmick.

    As a musician I'd love a touchscreen Mac. I could run my music software (Reason, Ableton, Logic) natively without the need for additional midi controller devices. Can you imagine using the multi-touch screen to fade several tracks on a mixing desk? It'd be fantastic.

    But the iPad won't run any of this software and so it'll never be able to do the things I was looking for in a tablet computer from Apple. So I guess I'll have to look at alternative hardware to create a 'hackintosh' in order to run my software, because the iPad isn't a tablet Mac, it's just an iPod.

  221. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by ignavus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Monopoly is a dreadful board game, and I don't understand why anyone ever plays it.

    Monopoly isn't dreadful just because you don't understand its appeal to other people. Some games provide tense competition through skilled play, some provide social interaction through leisurely random or skill-less play. People who like the first may find the latter pointless and frustrating. So what? The reverse is probably true too.

    I cannot stand most games, but will play card or mah jongg solitaire games every day. They relax me. Hunt and shoot games bore me to tears. I have tried to play them, but they don't do anything for me. The only game I liked beside card and mah jongg solitaires and some tetris derivatives was Space Quest 2, and that was because it was funny. But after playing that, I found the rest of the genre boring - just more of the same.

    Different people, different games. I would probably throw all yours into the nearest compost heap.

    --
    I am anarch of all I survey.
  222. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by macinit · · Score: 0

    Yeah, but the bigger screen means you don't have squint to read things or scroll for an hour to see the whole game board like on the smaller iphone display. The bigger screen + the massive app library is the value. At any rate the thin clipboard like iPad is aimed primarily at what 95% of what the average person uses a computer for, reading information on the internet without lugging a boat anchor labop/netbook around which is, in my opinion, what people will be primarily using it for.

  223. The Game Crafter by PlainBlack · · Score: 1

    No Apple hasn't, The Game Crafter has created the perfect board game platform.

  224. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by DarkVader · · Score: 1

    What is it with Slashdot and Luddites? They post first, and always get modded up these days. It's depressing how many people on here seem to absolutely hate technology.

    Cardboard is inherently quite flawed, and this thing is a demonstrably better board game platform.

    If nothing else, you've got the fact that cardboard takes up a lot of space, and can only be used for one board game. You want another? You've got to have more cardboard.

    This device doesn't even take up as much space as one game box, let alone the 20 or so that you might want to have handy to play.

    Cardboard also has a setup and teardown time factor that's going to detract from the enjoyment of the game, this removes that.

    And cardboard doesn't do animation very well, and in many games, that would be nice.

    A slight jostle of the cardboard, and your game may very well be in ruins, not so with this.

    I'm not an iPad fan, I don't want one, I'm not happy about lockin, I'm not happy that you'd need to jailbreak this thing to run programs from any source than Apple. But to say that cardboard is better? Hogwash.

  225. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

    So what do you do with your cardboard monopoly or chess board when you are half way through a game and the captain says to return to your seats, place the tray tables in the upright locked position and prepare for landing? I guess it's game over.

    With an iPad, you could save the game, put it back in your hand luggage, then get it out and resume the game in the taxi to the hotel.

    For playing on an airplane, each player having their own netbook connected by cables is more practical for two player games, and price competitive, if you are into pressing expensive hardware into a gaming niche that's already well served by dirt cheap hardware. Plus, dirt cheap electronic travel games are readily available. An iPad doesn't add much new for portable electronic gaming except an awkward size -- inconveniently big for a travel game, small for a non-travel board.

    If an iPad falls into your hands, and you are using it anyway, you might as well get some use out of it for gaming, too, but it certainly doesn't seem to me -- as both an avid technophile and an avid player of everything from simple mass-market board games to fairly complex hobbyist board games -- that it offers anything particularly exciting for board gaming.

  226. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    iPad is just bullshit. What the hell was Apple thinking? ... Now i got nothing to go with my imac and iphone lol..

    Oh well, i could always buy another 3 iphones and glue them together and at least i'll achieve multitasking and have the same product ...with 4 cores!

  227. Daily Istale Stories, Here We Go by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

    And even for touch screen tablets, Apple did not invent this.

    I did wonder how long it would be before some clueless idiot claimed this as an "Apple first" - for heaven's sake, the thing hasn't even been released yet!

    It's bad enough that we get daily Iphone stories. Now I see that, even when the damn thing hasn't even been released, we're going to get daily stories about the Istale, or whatever it's called (it's hard to tell real news from vaporware). Meanwhile, actual tablets that have been released don't get a single story whatsoever!

    Slashdot was once a place for geeks who knew about technology. Now it's rumours and false claims hyping Apple.

  228. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by jackbird · · Score: 2, Insightful
    When dedicated boardgamers say Monopoly is "dreadful," they are referring to a few specific structural problems with the game:
    a) The limited opportunity for players to meaningfully influence the outcome of the game through their decisions (auction bids and house purchase timing is pretty much it)
    b) The very limited number of winning strategies (buy orange and build like crazy is pretty much it)
    c) the outcome is clear long before the win conditions are met, which makes for a dreadfully boring endgame.

    There are plenty of good economic boardgames, but Monopoly isn't one of them.

    PS - nobody else here is talking about video games.

  229. Price by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    I think your problem is that you are using PC prices. The iPad costs half as much as a Mac. So it's not paying more and getting less to us Mac users.

    Also, you probably don't realize it now, but multi-touch is the future of the computer interface. 5 years from now, that netbook or whatever you bought instead will be a piece of dated junk, but people will still be carrying around iPads.

    1. Re:Price by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      multitouch is the future of nothing. wireless (without physical contact) multitouch is more significant, and that will come in the next 5 years. Apple does not = multitouch, either. Lots of companies have done it in many ways well before apple simply put it in a device that gained popularity.

      5 years on an ipad? You think a device that has an internal battery that can't be replaced is going to really last 5 years?

      I'd like to introduce you to every device with a rechargeable battery that every existed on that one.

  230. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

    You can get a netbook for a fraction of the price - these are colour devices easily portable, that also are fully fledged computers, rather than the basic Islate which can't even master multitasking (is this the early 1980s, or something?), so I don't see how it's good value for money. Even if you prefer a tablet to a real keyboard, there are cheaper alternatives around.

  231. Oblig. iPod Quote by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    Don't forget the iPod: "No Wireless, less space than Nomad, Lame."

    That was then, now they've sold over 250,000,000 iPods. I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but you simply can not gauge how successful a brand new apple product is going to be by trying to compare it to existing products on the market.

    1. Re:Oblig. iPod Quote by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      The first three generations of iPod were hardly flying off the shelves. People always seem to forget that the other complaints in the article such as it being firewire only and using iTunes actually did hamper sales of the device and the latter still does. Even the messiah iPhone didn't skyrocket until the release of the 3G, fixing a complaint that had existed from launch.

      Will the Apple hype-machine of today be ok with waiting till 2013 to make a splash in the market, or will this end more like the Air with broad crippling issues and high price making it a pretty niche market?

  232. Re:Oh no you didn't! by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

    It's like a Vespa, except where every bolt on the thing is a different proprietary design.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  233. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by daveime · · Score: 1

    It's more difficult than it needs to be, I think that is his point.

    How many people in offices have PHBs who *still* send documents as email attachments, when there's a perfectly good LAN between the parties ? Now think of that irritation, but on a personal level.

    Apple is the iPHB.

  234. It is a computer, albeit a crippled one by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

    Lots of people want to be able to use a computer without having to use one. ... These are the people this type of device is designed for.

    This new device - if it's ever released - is a computer, so it fails your requirement.

    And there are other tablets already around that aren't vaporware, you just won't hear about them when places like Slashdot and the BBC are giving advertising to Apple (how much are they being paid, I wonder?)

  235. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

    No, it probably doesn't.

    The jury is out, of course.

    But the thing is sounding more like a turkey all the time.

  236. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

    The iPhone is an enhanced version of a device that everybody already knows of and has. There was already a place in every customer's life for an iPhone. It simply replaced their older cell phone. The same thing can not be said at all for this thing. It isn't powerful nor versatile enough to replace their computers. It isn't small or portable enough to replace their iPhone.

  237. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Certainly those aren't numbers one would expect from a certain niche of consumers.

    The iPod was certainly a big hit, although I don't think their current market share for all portable mp3-playing devices is still at 73%.

    The iPod broke some new ground and was substantially a "first of its kind" product.

    Most of the other Apple products since at least the mid-90's have been incremental improvements over products that already existed from other manufacturers. There were barely any portable mp3 players when the first iPod came out. I can't think of another recent Apple product that was really the first of it's kind. Yes, iPhone had a touch screen and has some features that weren't seen before (multi-touch) but there were already smartphones and PDAs. When the iMac came out, it certainly wasn't the first all-in-one computer/monitor. Same with macbooks/powerbooks, which obviously weren't the first laptops, same with the Air, and the Airport. Actually, besides the first iPod, I can't think of another Apple product that was the first of its kind.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  238. Travel Gameboard by cmholm · · Score: 1

    You've hit the nail on the head. With the appropriate s/w, travelers might love the pad. As it stands, my Gen1 Touch is usually a PDA at home/work, and a music/movie device while on travel.

    In tight and/or unsteady confines, the iPad could be a reconfigurable magnetic game board, potentially with a very large virtual gaming surface. I'd like hex-based strategy games (ie. OGRE & G.E.V., I'm dating myself), which wouldn't necessarily require an AI. If Steve Jackson isn't listening, this might be the excuse to update my SDK.

    --
    Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
  239. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about if it's much lighter? I would consider that getting more.
    Battery life? Yup, more of that too.
    Accelerometers? Digital compass? Not sure if your computer has'em, mine doesn't so I certainly wouldn't be getting less.
    Touch screen? Nah, none of my computers has ever had one of those, much less a multitouch one.
    Sure, you can call it "getting less", but in order to make your math work you have to purposefully ignore quite a few things. If you don't care about those then that's your loss (since obviously you won't be able to enjoy a product that offers precisely those features), but telling me that I'm getting less because I want'em is a)arrogant, and b)dead wrong. Why don't you go and tell Stallman that you don't care about his 'freedom' and therefore a computer with Linux is paying more to get less? Do you think your argument will fly??

  240. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by jo_ham · · Score: 1

    So, I can buy an minivan with 7 seats or a sports car with 2 seats.

    The minivan will probably be cheaper, so it must be better in every possible respect because I get more for less, right?

  241. yep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's gonna be a revolution in California at least. It will be used as a productivity tool. Artists and editors will use it to work. Engineers will use it. and most of all it's perfect for 2 players. There could be the retro return to table top games.

  242. Wrong way round by xyph0r · · Score: 1

    Well sure, let's invent a product and THEN come up with ideas for how to use it. That seems like a cool idea! It worked with the Wii after all...
    remind me again, what market does the iPad fill? Oh thats right, the 'I'll buy anything with an apple logo on it' market.

    --
    SQL programmer goes to a bar. Walks up to two tables and says 'Excuse me, may I join you?'.
  243. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just because you have given up on getting good service, doesn't mean everyone else should should shut up about it.

  244. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Kagetsuki · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The iPhone OS is completely, 100% capable of full multitasking and uses multithreading extensively.

    Yet

    Apple has chosen to restrict ... applications to run only 1 at a time.

    You nullify your own delusional argument with reality. I don't get why Apple fans are so into denying the fact that apple restricts, revokes, and limits the freedoms and abilities of users and developers. Particularly in the case of the iPhone it's easy to point out a myriad of instances in which Apple has done so and each case has been one which revoked the users freedoms and been inhibitive to the development or spread of new technology. Can't put a script interpreter in your code? Well we don't want you circumventing the App store! Can't use VoIP? Our carriers just wouldn't have that. Oh, you opened a terminal and now you can actually do productive things on the phone!? Update to a locked down version or we terminate your service.

    I expect to be flamed by a flood of Apple zealots, but just so you all know I won't be reading replies to this post so go nuts guys.

  245. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by suomynonAyletamitlU · · Score: 1

    I hate "No matter what"s. There's often a perfectly valid "what" that should be mattered. You're still entitled to do whatever you like, it just bugs me when people use absolute language on judgement calls.

    I have to say I disagree with your opinion. I haven't studied tablets extensively, but from everything I've read, they've been treated like existing computers, using existing OSes--and they shouldn't be, because existing window managers and other OS features just don't make the switch. When you come from a platform that starts explicitly with only the things the hardware is designed to be used for, you get something like the iTouch/iPhone, which is actually useful.

    You can say that they should have done exactly the same thing except [long list of changes] if you like, but in the end, they made it the way they did for a reason. Celebrating their genius and scoffing at their judgement in the same breath is a little bit suspect.

  246. the ipad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is going to take off not because it's another ebook reader. It is the first mass production device with multi-touch that is big enough to actually translate over to metaphors that we as humans are comfortable with. Graphic designers will benefit greatly from this.

  247. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Kagetsuki · · Score: 1

    What you mean like software! Software is magic! Shit, and here I was playing games with friends and my kids using physical objects, interacting freely and setting our own unique rules each time to make the game more interesting, doing things while we play and talking. But fuck that, I now I can pay a total sum of over $1000 for an iPad and an iPhone and sit at home quietly, playing with people I don't know over the internet on a flat 2d board with pieces I can't actually touch. Oh, but I can multi-touch them, I guess that's better! Hey, maybe I'll just buy two iPhones and an iPad and me and my wife can finally play scrabble without letting each-other make up funny words half way through the game because scrabble is so god damned boring - the game will check our spelling and words against an official dictionary automatically! Or maybe I can have some friends over and we can play cards without actually using cards! You know, playing cards, one pack is $.50. No no no, we'll buy an iPad and all get iPhones with restrictive and expensive 2 year contracts so we'll have spent a combined sum of thousands and thousands of dollars to play with non-tangible cards.

    TRRosen, I seriously hope you can pull your head out of your ass long enough to make a physical friend, such that you can play a physical game with them, such that you will realize the same game would be immensly boring and sterile when played on a bunch expensive screens.
    Oh, and there is board game software out there already, if you are going to play with something non-physical either way it seems somewhat pointless having the novelty of multitouch and bluetooth so you can clumsily flick letter tiles between screens or try and grab imaginary pieces.

  248. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Kagetsuki · · Score: 1

    I have monopoly on my notebook computer and I can put it on my Netwalker Z1 if I wanted to. There's also Monopoly on the DS. I don't need an iPad to achieve what you are suggesting.

  249. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Kagetsuki · · Score: 1

    I have kids, and we keep a variety of physical toys in the car for them to play with. We do have a TV on the navi and on our phones (Japan) but I can only think of a few occasions the kids watched TV in the car. As for board games, there is no way they would play board games on a tablet when they have DS games. Still, they tend to not bother with the DS in the car.

  250. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    It probably helps to have a table underneath as the actual platform.

  251. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by node+3 · · Score: 1

    The iPhone is an enhanced version of a device that everybody already knows of and has. There was already a place in every customer's life for an iPhone. It simply replaced their older cell phone. The same thing can not be said at all for this thing. It isn't powerful nor versatile enough to replace their computers. It isn't small or portable enough to replace their iPhone.

    It's not meant to replace either.

    This is just like the netbook, which also isn't meant to replace either of those. Instead, it's the computer device you take with you, leaving the notebook at home.

    As a computer, the netbook is better (and that's part of what has the geek crowd all up in a bunch), but as a device in between the smart phone and the notebook? The iPad wins hands down. All this nonsense about "it doesn't do this, it doesn't do that" is from those that want it to act like their notebook, only smaller, cheaper, and with multitouch.

    Were Apple to have released that, instead, it would fail. The geeks would have rejoiced, but just like the Tablet PCs before them, the general populace really doesn't want a touch (or stylus) screened PC.

  252. The perfect platform? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Or the most expensive. ~1500 bucks for 2 players..

    And you have to be worried about batteries.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  253. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by jo_ham · · Score: 1

    The people who will buy the iPad would spend the money on it.

    Look, we get it - you have posted in several iPad threads about how totally useless it is. What you miss out is that it is totally useless TO YOU. It doesn't mean that it can't be the perfect device to someone else.

    I personally have absolutely no use at all for a Netbook and after using one for a while decided it was totally not my cup of tea, but I don;t go around telling people who love using them that they are hopelessly awful, since they clearly are very useful to some people.

    The iPad's software model is the same as the iPhone's, and that seems to be doing rather well despite its totally closed, walled garden approach. If you want an open app store, wait for the Nexus Slate, which will doubtless come soon.

  254. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by SScorpio · · Score: 1

    There is actually a DOS version of Hero Quest and I'm not talking about Sierra's Hero Quest which was later renamed to Quest for Glory which you could track down and try.

    I still don't think the ipad would be great at board games. Microsoft Surface on the other hand makes me drool, especially after seeing what the students are doing with their D&D project.

  255. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by TRRosen · · Score: 1

    You forgot to say "And get off my lawn you damn kids"

    I'm betting your really glad they didn't put in one of those fancy cameras that steal your soul. Sorry Grampa but things change and if you think your any different than that old coot that complained about them fancy board games because "when I was young well only played with rocks and we liked it" sorry but you've become that old man.

  256. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To be a perfect board game, it needs to have holographic pieces that project out of the screen.

    Let the wookie win.

  257. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by indiechild · · Score: 1

    Not sure why you keep expecting Apple to make devices that suit you. You're never going to be in their target demographic for consumer appliances. iPhone and iPad are mass market devices, not traditional computers as such. As long as Steve Jobs is at the helm, this will remain true.

    Experienced Apple pundits like John Siracusa accurately predicted what the iPad was going to be.

  258. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A slab of cardboard, and a bunch of chunks of wood are not only infinitely multi-touch, they are textured, 3-D, and are set-up to provide a "real world" experience because the physics model is so well done. They don't require wi-fi, 3G, or even a battery recharger, though a pencil and the ability to add is useful for keeping score.

    I think I saw a chart showing that total cost of ownership of an iphone (including data plan etc) is around $3400 for 2 years. I would guess that you could get a data plan for your ipad for $50/month, that's $2400 plus ~$500 for the device. So two iphones and an ipad for two years will cost about $10,700. I'm convinced.

  259. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by intheshelter · · Score: 1

    You do realize this is a tech site, right? Don't answer right away, take some time, maybe hit your outhouse and do some thinking and then let us know if you are a complete Luddite trolling a tech site? Maybe you can send your next post in on a physical piece of paper?

  260. FRPG tablet by jsepeta · · Score: 1

    I'm considering getting an iPad to use with D&D. It would be neat to have an electronic character sheet + all the D&D references in electronic format. I still want to roll real physical dice, not have a computer throw random numbers around. Usually I roll crappy anyway which gives my characters a certain flavor. Yes I could bring my laptop but the battery life sucks and the screen gets in the way of seeing the miniatures on the table map. $500 is kind of a lot to spend just for D&D but if you add up all the crap I bought from Wizards last year, that adds up to well over $350 in books and subscription fees. And with the documentation in PDF format, it will be easier to search the content. I'll probably have to learn how to roll my own apps but I read that the iphone store has a client for filemaker - or was it bento? - so I'll probably start by developing in an app that I'm already familiar with.

    --
    Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
  261. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Enabling bluetooth in the system menus, waiting for it to discover the other phone, connecting, and then sending the file is more convenient than just e-mailing it? Let me guess, you used to walk 20 miles to school in the driving snow and you liked it? Sounds like some bizarre argument along the lines of "your printer doesn't use dot matrix printer paper, hence it sucks and is the devil".

  262. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You are correct that monopoly being a terrible game. But smoke-opoly is a freaking great game. First person to jail sparks the first joint, take a hit off the bowl when you pass go, etc. Play this the day after thanksgiving. It is mandatory.

  263. Not standby by nova_ostrich · · Score: 2, Informative

    When Jobs said it runs for 10 hours, he specifically gave an example of watching video on a flight from San Francisco to Tokyo. Like all battery numbers, I'd expect it to be a bit less than the amount stated, but he did talk about a real activity. Moreover, after making the 10 hours claim, he added that standby time is one month.

    --
    It's scary being a Flash and Flex developer on Slashdot. You guys are unnaturally rabid.
    1. Re:Not standby by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      It's like this. A battery that would be capable of the power draw of a 9.7" LCD for 10 hours, would weigh significantly more than a pound by itself, excluding weight for the materials of the device. I'm not saying you can't get a battery that can power a 1ghz processor and an LCD for 10 hours, I'm saying it'd be around 4 pounds or 5 pounds. To weigh 1.5 lbs including battery means this thing has maybe 3-5x the battery capability of an iphone, for comparison. Meanwhile, faster processor (double), significantly larger display (again more than double), both of these ensure it's going to draw a lot more power.

      I'll let the math kids focus on the specifics, but you'd be not get this to last even 1/3 of it's claim in real usage.

  264. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

    I'd argue it's closer to someone saying "This is the perfect Sci-Fi tablet -- you can get the complete works of Asimov". To the science fiction affectionado with very broad tastes, this statement might seem quite silly. To the average person though, it makes a lot of sense. Asimov is a big name that lots of people know as a pretty damned good author. Are there better authors? More modern and complex authors? Sure, but brand recognition counts for a lot.

    For what it's worth, I think that scrabble, or any other board game, on these devices seems like an absolutely dreadful idea. The idea of playing board games is to spend some quality time with good friends, not to stare at a cellphone, surfing the internet between turns.

    --
    "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  265. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by austinpoet · · Score: 1

    you won't be flamed... your response is much to deep in the tree.

  266. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by daveime · · Score: 1

    Way to oversimplify your side of the argument ... "just emailing it".

    Don't you mean creating a new email, asking the other party what his email address is and typing it in, creating an unnecessary subject and message, adding attachment and searching your filesystem for it, enabling your 3G connection, choosing which provider to use, and then clicking send ? And then of course either texting or otherwise communicating to the other party, "hey check your mail, I just sent you something".

    Not to mention the file goes all the way out to whatever SMTP provider you use, over N hops and then back through the recipient's POP server ... yes, way more convenient then just sending it person to person via bluetooth !

    When you put BOTH sides of the argument in real perspective, bluetooth doesn't seem quite so daunting does it ?

  267. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Penguinoflight · · Score: 1

    It'd be interesting to see the sources for your numbers. Ipod share is astronomical, but I doubt it's as high as 73% among all mp3 players. Any stats that put the iphone in 30% would have to be comparing from a "smart phone" perspective... while the iphone is in many ways not as "smart" as many dumbphones.

    Either way, people predominately buy the iphone not because it's a smart phone, but because it's an apple phone. The same thing goes for the ipod, it's popular because people buy it for the status or some perceived quality that it doesn't have. I suspect that Mac sales are still in niche numbers apart from the rest because it's a larger investment, and because Mac computers are such a horrible deal. The amount that somebody pays extra for a Mac over a comparable intel compatible PC is usually more than the total cost of an iphone, or ipod.

    --
    "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
    1 John 4:14
  268. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by LoverOfJoy · · Score: 1

    I don't have an iphone or even use email on my phone but don't they have limitations on attachment file size? Don't many providers charge more for data service such as email?

  269. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

    Scrabble: $20

    4x iPhone 3GS + iPad: $1300 (not including App)

    Is paying upwards of 50 times as much really worth the cool factor? What about that a lot of board games need more than one sitting? Good thing you can run apps in the background I guess.

  270. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

    Mario party also has less depth at the board level than most games you can buy at Target for $10, and good luck convincing Scrabble players that having to scroll around the board to trying to plan their strategy is an upgrade.

  271. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

    Now take something that is frequently at 27" (boardgames) and put them on a 10" screen.

  272. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

    And all of those games would be absolute hell to play on a screen the size of an iPad.

  273. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

    I'd like to point out that there's a difference between people who love boardgames and people who are unfun to play boardgames with because they go online and read the advice of people who sink 20 hours of math into calculating odds and value tables before coming over to your house for some casual fun on a Friday night.

    I don't find any game very fun if most of the people involved are just looking to have some fun and one person is looking to end the game in 30 minutes with the most technically sound crushing imaginable. I guess you find people like that in every hobby though.

    In the non-revised editions of Axis and Allies the Axis only had a 17% chance of winning because if they couldn't take London on the first turn the U.S. could land troops on the Eastern Front and the war was over. Tell that to people who have been playing it for years and they look at you in shock. Most of them would never have considered either move because what kind of WWII is that?

    All the competitive Monopoly I see nowadays is profit vs. time, 1 vs.1 since well played longer games would never end with even three players who were each convinced not to let the third fall to their opponent.

  274. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

    I'm glad that's a selling point.

    A cardboard game can be lent to absolutely anyone and played by anyone they know in any way they can imagine with no accounts, logons, or additional purchases. You can even change the rules on the fly, or switch players, or stop and do something else because RealLife can handle more than one App running at a time. Then you can take the pieces from that game and combine them with another and make a totally new game!

  275. Why not with older similar devices ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could be done with any big tablet/convertible device + bluetooth + any cellphone, but it's not newsworthy if the hardware is many years old...

  276. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Ma8thew · · Score: 1

    It sounds stupid when talk about it as if you are buying the iPods and the iPad only for use as a board game (and the cheapest iPad will be $499 by the way). But if each player already has an iPod touch or iPhone (not unlikely), and one of the them has an iPad then it would make for a good platform. You're not even considering the advantages, like the 'board' in Scrabble could check spellings and automatically keep track of scores.

  277. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The iPhone data plant is truly unlimited.http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1529900&cid=30960212#

  278. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

    To be fair, on an iPhone, you only need an e-mail address and a file to click with your finger. Most people don't walk around with a cell phone that has the 2G/3G radio disabled. Subjects are optional, and in both cases, the person would have to browse for the file. I'm not sure where you were going there with the smtp router path. You're talking milliseconds for each hop. Lets try to keep this little sub-topic in perspective.

    I was actually fine with the first response, although it was a bit snarky. If that person doesn't want to e-mail it, then that's a perfectly acceptable answer.

  279. Board Games the ONLY Reason to Get an iPad, Right by Wingsy · · Score: 1

    I knew it. Most of the anti-iPad slashdotters naturally assume the OP is suggesting that the ONLY reason to get an iPad is for board games (that don't even exist yet). Don't they realize that their anti-iPad rhetoric is simply their anti-Apple bias shinning brightly?

    If the iPad isn't for you, fine. You probably were never in Apple's sights anyway, and probably never will be. It does seem though that you can at least realize who it IS for. It's for my wife and people with her needs/wants, who lugs my MacBook off to work now & then to do some browsing, facebook, and email during the slow times. Who knows, when she gets her iPad she may even strike up a game of checkers with one of the other employees, over half of which own iPhones & iPods.

    --
    If I didn't have absolutely NOTHING to do, I wouldn't be here.
  280. Re:Oh no you didn't! by TempeTerra · · Score: 1

    ... Which doesn't matter much if it's cheap and it's your second (or third) car.

    --
    .evom ton seod gis eht
  281. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Kagetsuki · · Score: 1

    Actually I'm a software developer, primarily video games and media. I've even done some work for Nintendo, which by the way started out and still continues to make hanafuda (a type of card game). Representing things virtually can often have advantages, but there are inherent advantages to physical advantages to some things which can far outweigh any advantages to be gained through virtualization. Particularly in the case of board games and cards, a large part of playing the game is the communal constructs of how each player understands the rules; and especially in the case of children interaction and organization of physical pieces is a large part of playing these games and efficient manipulation of the pieces is a learned skill. Software however has a pre-defined set of rules which the users can not deviate from, the software handles most of the game so there is little to no need to really learn or understand all the rules, and with no physical pieces a lot is lost in how people interact with the game.

    I think you really need to think about what you find enjoyable about playing in general. When you play a video game you are thrust into being the player, your controls generally gave a direct effect on what is going on and the player is confined by the rules of the world which the programmer has set. However, when you were a child you most likely played with toys. Your toys were physical tokens you used to represent a world with constructs and rules you yourself defined. Your interaction with your toys was moving them around inside this world, and when your friends came to play it was a mish-mash of imaginations and physical objects. Board games in particular can be an extension to this for children, so revoking that and turning it into a very controlled set of numbers and images on a screen eliminates a large amount of value. More adult board games like Monopoly you'll note only have a suggested set of rules, the Monopoly rule book has list of rules you *can* use. I don't know about you, but I've played a lot of Monopoly and each time changing and adjusting the rules to the group you are playing with and the time frame you want to play the game in is a very large part of what makes it fun. Not to mention interacting with others and the game verbally and physically at the same time.

    So when you say that things change I certainly hope you realize that not all changes are beneficial. Computerized board games are fine in some contexts, but when it comes to playing with others there is an inherent and real value to playing with physical objects together.

  282. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Kagetsuki · · Score: 1

    I'm a software developer, and have done a lot of work in the game and media software industry. You could call me a game developer and that would be accurate, but I've done and still do quite a bit more than that - including hardware (device) development. I've worked a lot with other game developers at many different companies and a lot of the time at the end of the week we end up playing billiards or Mahjong or cards. Not on the computer, not on a game system, with real physical objects. On top of that within the video game making process it's not at all uncommon to make physical representations of things, including drawing out maps, making dioramas, using little figures to represent players, and generally using the physical world as an anchor in the creative process.

    If you are so determined to insist perfect virtual editions are just as good as the physical things they represent then that implies to me you do not truly understand their value to begin with. I can't wait to see how sterile and generic your kids turn out, perhaps unable to perceive the richness of the world around them and incapable of imagining with their hands, awkward in confrontation and communication with others. We are shaped by how we play, and learn how to enjoy the world around us by playing with it. Perhaps you didn't do enough of that, and that's why you enjoy the thought of having a bland, flat, streamlined analogue more than having the real physical set of objects.

  283. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Wovel · · Score: 1

    Link to 1/2" thich, 1.5lb computer with 9.4" 1024x768 touch screen for less than $499....

    Don't bother responding, there is no response.

  284. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shut the fuck up, Donny.

  285. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Wovel · · Score: 1

    And the people in Apples Economic demographic will pay the extra money for a much better engineered product. People who can not afford may well use the tablet with a lower quality touch screen and no applications designed to take advantage of it in a thicker heavier form factor because they can not afford the iPad. The people who can afford it and are looking for a mobile tablet device instead of some weird hacking platform will opt for the iPad.

  286. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by intheshelter · · Score: 1

    "If you are so determined to insist perfect virtual editions are just as good as the physical things they represent " -You idiot! I hope your software code is better than your reading skills. I neversaid that at all. I was making the point that your comment was a stupid one to make on a tech site, and my point still stands.

  287. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by namco · · Score: 1

    And don't forget

    "It's not wise to upset a Wookie!"

  288. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Jerry+Smith · · Score: 1
    --
    All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
  289. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by westlake · · Score: 1

    And cardboard games don't come with DRM or restrictive rights where you don't actaully 'own' it, rather rent it and rebuy it when you magically lose the rights to the game. No thanks.

    The cardboard game doesn't need DRM.

    Tokens are swept up by the vacuum cleaner. The board is stained. The spine is broken.

    The game is replaced.

    What do you think has kept the Bicycle playing card company in business for 120 years?

  290. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by westlake · · Score: 1

    With an iPad, you could save the game, put it back in your hand luggage, then get it out and resume the game in the taxi to the hotel.

    There are times when I think Wall-E had the future pegged just about right.

    It wouldn't hurt the geek to take his eyes away from the screen every now and again.
     

  291. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 1

    What the iPhone OS disallows is running third-party apps *in the background*. Built-in functions, like iPod music playing, Mail checking, SMS and call receiving, etc., all run in the background just fine.

    Right, so as long as you don't want to listen to Pandora or make a Skype call in the background, everything works fine. Well, you also can't watch Hulu in a window. Or watch Hulu at all. Or keep an SSH session open while you browse websites. Or download files using an SFTP client while you read your email.

  292. Fantasy Flight Ahoooooyyyyyy by Psyzygy · · Score: 1

    Sweet now I can play my Twilight Imperium and Fully Expanded Arkham Horror without getting out my 500 plastic pieces and 40 decks of cards and 10 trackers for various things and 20 bags of different kinds of chips! I'm all for this guise

  293. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by poetmatt · · Score: 1

    people are only happy with the simplicity aspect until the product they bought, with it's expectations to work as a normal computer, find out that it doesn't.

    What do you tell people about multitasking? What do you tell people about why it can't run certain things just because apple won't let it? Etc.

  294. Hello by Ethan66 · · Score: 1

    I am really not sure how to react to this. It sounds really exciting as one can carry around many board games in just one small screen. But who plays board games all day long. The only fun part I see in this product would be the multi-touch feature to drag on screen. Other than that, I think this device is pointless. (I don't like board games anyways. I play a lot of chess and have a chess computer for that.) :)

  295. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Penguinoflight · · Score: 1

    File this one under "why you shouldn't consider wikipedia a source.": The entry quotes specific numbers (which are years old, btw) and then cites an apple blog as it's only reference. The cited reference at http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/06/05/24/ipod_how_big_can_it_get.html only uses conjecture to come to the conclusion that 10% of computer users use 1 or more ipod, which isn't impressive at all. Appleinsider doesn't state any numbers comparing ipod sales to overall portable media player sales (a quantity which would be hugely difficult to estimate in any case).

    It would appear that wikipedia plagiarized their numbers and then cited a blog in lieu of the real source.

    --
    "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
    1 John 4:14
  296. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by interploy · · Score: 1

    On the contrary, I enjoy board games immensely. You seem to be forgetting the setting under which board games are usually played. Board games tend to come out at parties/family gatherings with kids present.

    People at all-adult parties (I won't mention teen parties. Let's face it, whatever they're doing, it's not board games.) tend to socialize more than play games, especially small parties because those are usually friends wanting to catch up. And since most board games are for 2-8 players, larger parties are limited to games that scale up well like Pictionary or Scattergories.

    Games tend to come out more when there are kids because kids need to be entertained or they get annoying, and they also tend to hate being left out of the group. And even excusing the tantrum throwers and mischief makers, kids are still kids. Greasy hands, spilled drinks/food, general clumsiness... Not good for an expensive electronic device.

    So, unless you happen to go to a lot of parties without kids where board games always take center stage, I don't see how it's worth it.

  297. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by mcvos · · Score: 1

    So, unless you happen to go to a lot of parties without kids where board games always take center stage, I don't see how it's worth it.

    Like I said, you've fallen for the "games are for kids" fallacy. I own a ton of board games for ages 12+, and most of my (age 30+) family and friends love to get together to play games. Games that are often way too complex for kids (not to mention that they're often in a foreign language).

    A lot of people get together with 4-6 people and play games. A lot of couples love playing games. If there's a market for expensive games (and there is), then there can also be a market for expensive toys to play games on.

  298. Pro/Cons by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Though that screen is 1024 * 600, vs 1024 * 768 for the iPad.

    In addition to being NON-capacitive (so sorry no multitouch) and having no native (non-USB) VGA-out to connect it to something bigger.
    (As I said before)

    That has 8 GB vs 16 GB for the smallest iPad.

    On the other hand, given the hackability of the device, this is hardly even a consideration :
    the flash memory is on a user accessible SD card, and today, even *class 10* 32gb sdhc aren't difficult to source.
    Or USB memory keys if you're ready to sacrifice one of the internal USB ports.

    I personally tend to immediately upgrade the flash of most devices I buy (smartphones, etc.)
    On the contrary, I was rather pleasantly surprised that this device comes with some usable amount of flash.
    (Most phones, cameras, etc. come packaged with something like 512 *me*-bibytes SD cards. Just in order to advertise that they packaged some memory. Hardly useful in practice)

    It is cheaper, but it also comes with 'less' in some ways (for less money of course). ('More' in other ways too.)

    Yup, and apparently Pojut and I happen not to value the same "mores" as Apple fan.
    Once more proof that diversity (instead of monoculture) is important in a market place to cater to the needs of *all* and not only *most*.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  299. Re:Oh no you didn't! by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

    Wait... The iPad hardware is bacon, and the bacon isn't bacon, but bacon is hardware, and Apple wants you to eat kosher and...

    I think you lost me. Could you try this as a car analogy?

    Does this help?

    Hmmm.. A wiener man. Does he own a hot dog stand?

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  300. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

    You seemed to miss the whole last line, as right there he is saying that it does have serveral built-in applications that run in the background, even naming them. Now if you had been saying that as a developer you want that capability that's one thing, but stating that it doesn't allow it at all is false.

    I didn't quote that because it's irrelevant to my point.

    Sure, those few items can run in the background... but if I want to run two apps of my own choice at the same time, I'm not able to. Hence, functionally it is not capable of multi-tasking to me.

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  301. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by zwei2stein · · Score: 1

    What is it with Slashdot and Technophiles?

    I would say, several decades in hitech society can also show you bad side of technology and, and this is most important, show you where technology is not apropriate. Tabletop gaming is situation where technology is not apropriate. There it becomes distracting toy.

    Anyhow

    1&2) Space is not a inssue. You are not going to play dozens of different games, and you can easily spread different games across whole group. You can end up with party where there are half a dozen games and where noone owns more than one.

    3) Setup/Teardown times is good. When you sit down with friends you are going to have smallchat while you sort pieces and setup board. If you are new to some group, it is time to get at ease. It is social activity that is not easily replaced by just starting program. Same goes for teardown.

    4) Animations schmanimations, pointless and distracting. Pieces and tokens are bet off being abstract.

    Blindly applying tech is not always an answer, especially when you deal with social stuff. You should learn that.

    --
    -- Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
  302. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by dwightk · · Score: 1

    Am I the target demographic for the iPad? Not since it's details have been released, I'm not. I certainly was, but I'm not now.

    The target demographic didn't change when you learned the details.

    --
    Like anyone can even know that
  303. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by dwightk · · Score: 1

    Apple isn't completely immune to consumer pressure.

    Which is precisely why they aren't allowing multitasking. Consumer pressure is for a stable platform with long battery life.

    --
    Like anyone can even know that
  304. iScrabble? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    Hmmm... let me think about this for a second... iPad - $600 4 iPhones (no contract) - $1600 Scrabble Board Game from Parker Bros. - $15 ... or, if you're one of those folks that absolutely has to go digital: Scrabble Flash game from Pogo.com - Free Something tells me that the only people willing to pay $2200 for a game of Scrabble will be Mac Fankids and other forms of idiot.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  305. Re:Uh, no. They didn't. by rjstanford · · Score: 1

    Cosmic Encounter rocks. The whole concept - a dead simple set of rules, with each player being able to break the rules - was innovative in its execution.

    Haven't had any expansion packs since the late 80s though. Didn't even know it was still around. I wonder what the new ones are like... Maybe I'll have to break my set out again.

    --
    You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
  306. The first board games app by JoeNoseblowr · · Score: 1

    board games for the ipad: www.gametableapp.com