Slashdot Mirror
The iPad Questions Apple Won't Answer
snydeq writes "Apple's reticence to reveal details prior to a product's launch is legendary. But when Apple extends this silence beyond a product's unveiling, historically this has meant that the product cannot deliver the functionality that analysts and journalists are asking about. InfoWorld's Galen Gruman lists eight key questions for the iPad, about all of which Apple has kept silent. Can you save and transfer documents to the iPad? Does the iPad support Microsoft Exchange email? Does the iPad support VPN? Configuration management? 'I have no doubt the iPad will be compelling to some users. But I now have major concerns that it will fulfill the potential beyond being an iTunes delivery screen that I and other industry observers saw,' Gruman writes."
Seriously, the answer to that question is so obvious it really didn't need to be asked. There are two reasons for the tight integration between iTunes and the iPod/iPhone, and "end-user convenience" isn't the most important one for Apple.
Will Apple make it even easier for people to buy their music from a service other than iTMS? Why on Earth would that want to do that?
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Microsoft Exchange is supported on the iPad Nano (formerly known as iPod Touch), so I don't see why it shouldn't be supported on the big brother.
Sigh, when do people get it.
With the iphone, ipod and ipad, you do not buy a full fledged computational platform... you only rent a seat in a theatre.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
To sell more Ihardware.
It is to serve as a locked-down platform for sales of books, magazines, videos. Entertainment content.
Apple used to be a company that was all about content creation. Now, with the Adobe customers, etc. having mostly migrated to Windows, Apple is rapidly becoming a company that produces only content delivery hardware.
You know. Shiney plastic stuff.
More than "most likely". It's been said that the iPad has a "partition" that will be visible as removable storage from the computer, and accessible to all iPad applications.
Why no? iPhone/iPod Touch support it, and this is still iPhone OS.
Same as the last one.
Has the people making these questions read/heard anything at all about the iPad? I mean, there are unanswered questions, but most of the questions of the list only made sense a couple weeks ago... before the keynote.
I.-
The people like me who will buy the iPad are not looking for a device that is a computer. They're looking for a media access device that doesn't carry the drawbacks of a computer. If you still can't comprehend the iPad, you need to look at the Kindle DX and complain about how little that does and it's just ten bucks less than an iPad.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Can the iPad display 8 questions in HTML without having to spread them across 6 pages festooned with advertisements? Perhaps the object of the author's criticism is a more efficient content delivery platform than his employer's website.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Apple is rapidly becoming a company that produces only content delivery hardware.
Shit! They cancelled their "Macintosh" products?
Oh wait, I just checked their website and they all still seem to be there. It appears that Apple added some media-consumption devices to their lineup in the past decade or so, but their full-fledged-computer business also still seems to be going strong - and 90% of that product line is made of metal, not plastic. You had me worried there for a second!
It's not for you. It's for your Mom.
No filesystem, locked down OS, sandboxed apps = impossible for the average user to screw up.
The touch UI is stupid simple. My Mom still struggles with computers since she has trouble remembering UI conventions. I don't see that being a big problem with this device.
People need to stop comparing this to netbooks & other computers. It's a web appliance for people who don't want computers.
It sounds to me a bit like the author of that article is a little miffed that he's been disintermediated. He mentioned several times about how Apple PR hasn't gotten back to him on this or that, therefore these features must be absent. He also mentions how Apple views the press as an extension of their marketing arm.
It all smells a little like sour grapes to me. Boo hoo Apple won't tell *ME*, a member of the PRESS, things that I want to know! Therefore they must be absent! Yeah, that'll shame Apple into talking to you. Way to push them around.
My own take, which is just about as informed as the writer's, is that the iPad will include the same Microsoft Exchange, VPN, multitasking, document saving & transferring, etc. etc. capabilities as the iPhone or iPod Touch. And why not? It's the same OS? The only place they're likely to differ is if the iPad doesn't include a camera.
I can't understand why Apple would REMOVE VPN functionality from the iPad when it's there already. I suppose they might ship without Exchange support as it's a new mail client, but if that is the case I'll expect it in a forthcoming new version, just like what happened with the original iPhone.
www.clarke.ca
Apple excels at creating beauty, in both hardware and software (BTW, I'm using an Imac right now). This iPad is no exception.
My only question is: Will I be able to put my own Operating System on it?
The old G3,G4,G5 macs were open enough so that I could load my own OS on them (sometimes BSD, sometimes Linux).
The same goes with the current Intel macs.
While I sometimes marvel at the beauty of OS X and how Apple has created a user friendly UNIX, I want more freedom.
Unless Apple is open enough to let us (the minority) play and tinker with the internals so that we can install an OS that
might be visually inferior(to most) but is philosophically superior, unless Apple can allow us to do this - I will never buy one.
I will patiently wait until the other players create a tablet that will run x86.
All the other stuff in the article is not much use to me, all I need is make; make install.
"You're right about this one. Why was this even a question to begin with?"
Because 64gb isn't enough for everybody.
Particularly on a device which I'd imagine many people would want to use for watching movies.
The disk space is really quite a severe limitation of the device for many people.
Wrong. The Ipad isn't built for Apple's customers, it's built for Apple.
When you say it "doesn't carry the drawbacks of a computer", you're simply being dishonest: it would cost nothing in user experience to allow multitasking or free installation of software. A full OS X with the iPhone GUI would be fantastic, and relatively easily accomplishable. It would come with no extra draw-backs for the user whatsoever. And you know this perfectly well.
But this would cost Apple a lot, in that a user with choice wouldn't be tied to iTunes. The question is: why are you being dishonest? Apple probably doesn't pay you a cent for your work as a freelance advertising agent. And why is this bullshit so prevalent among Apple fanboys? There's a reason why you guys are called a cult: you are one.
"You're right about this one. Why was this even a question to begin with?"
Because 64gb isn't enough for everybody.
Particularly on a device which I'd imagine many people would want to use for watching movies.
You can store quite a lot of movies in 64GB. If one movie takes about 2GB, you can have about 30 movies with you. Or is this the case that the user needs to have every single movie he owns with him all the time? We had this same discussion when Apple started moving from HD-based iPods to flash-based iPods, and capacities went down. And some people whined because their entire library could no longer fit the device. Well, it doesn't seem that the move to smaller capacities has harmed Apple much. People complained, but they adapted and life went on. And people have grown accusotmed to carrying handful of movies with them on their iPhones/touches, so it's not like the iPad is going to be a step back when it comes to capacity (unlike how it was with iPod touch vs. iPod classic).
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
That's what I've been asking. What is it for? Seems like a simple enough question, but I see no answers.
You obviously haven't been looking hard. It's for
- websurfing
- email
- movies
- photos
- gaming
- music
- all those zillion apps that will be written for it
Now you are probably going to say "I can do those on a laptop/iPod touch, how exactly is iPad different?"... And that's a fair question which I'll try to answer now:
iPad is obviously quite different from a laptop. The UI is totally different and a lot more direct. It's smaller, has longer battery-life and is a lot simpler to use. What would it been like if Stepehen Colbert had whipped out a netbook as opposed to an iPad at the Grammys? Could you see someone using a netbook (or any other netbook) for something like that? Me neither. It would be awkward and clumsy.
And I bet that iPad is better at many key things than a laptop is. Things like watching movies or surfing the web. iPod touch is already my websurfer of choice, and iPad would be even better.
And the thing iPad has that a laptop does not have is simplicity. You can't hide one app-window behind another app-window. You do not have to worry about which app has focus when you try using keyboard-shortcuts. YOu do not have to worry which app is slowing the system down. You just have one app right in front of you. It's easy and it's simple. Some might find that too simple and too limiting, but fact remains that iPad offers simplicity and ease of use that does not exist in a laptop running traditional OS. And there are lots of people who will find that appealing. People want to do things with their computers, they shouldn't have to worry about cleaning up the filesystem or other crap like that.
Well, what about iPod touch/iPhone? It should be quite obvious that iPad offers possibilities that simply do not exist on those devices. Like iWork. Running an app like that is simply impossible on an iPhone. You could view a document, but editing a document would be very hard indeed. On the iPad it's perfectly doable. And that's just one example. The level of sophistication in the apps is simply a lot better on the iPad-apps than what is possible on the iPhone-apps. The big screen really changes things.
I bet that the device Apple introduced is just the tip of the iceberg. The key is the software. When we start getting news of iPad-apps that would simply not be possible on the iPhone, it will start making more and more sense. I mean stuff like this: http://blog.omnigroup.com/2010/01/29/ipad-or-bust/
We can't simply think that "I can do XXXX on my laptop, wo why would I want an iPad?", we need to think more about HOW we do those things. In theory I could surf the web with my Nokia-phone, so someone could say that iPhone has no advantage over Nokia when it comes to mobile websurfing. But anyone with any experience with websurfing on the two would say that Nokia is next to useless for web-browsing, whereas iPhone is perfectly capable websurfer.
With the iPad we are still stuck at the point where we stare at paper-specs and use them to determine the value and use of the device.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Nearly all Apple gear can be classified as "optional" in life and more often it is simply extravagant. PCs and (I can't believe I am saying this) and Windows is "necessary" in contrast.
I'll bite (and whoever modded this troll up should get his head checked).
What, pray tell, is the difference between one set of Intel CPU, Nvidia graphics card, some hard disk, display, etc. and the other set of practically the same things, with a different logo on top?
A PC is no more "necessary" in any sense of the word supported by a dictionary than a Mac is. Depending on your likes and environment, one or the other may be preferable for the tasks at hand, but "necessary" vs. "optional"? That's a strange world you are living in.
Apple is built around some pretty interesting ideas and concepts, but the moment they place limits on things, they immediately stop their growth and development.
Those "pretty interesting ideas" have turned Apple into one of the largest technology companies on the continent. I wonder who you are to pass judgement on that, do you even have 1% of the same success?
Not likely, because you are so far off the mark, you've probably hit the target of some other shooting range. See, Apple isn't built around "pretty interesting ideas". It is built around one concept - "design for the user". Almost all of those "limits" you and I and all the other geeks and nerds spot are most welcome by almost all non-techie customers. There is a tyranny in too much choice and options and configurability. And there are huge advantages in consistency and limitations in design. Ever asked yourself why no car manufacturer gives you the option to choose betwen 20 different steering wheel designs, 5 ways the doors could open and 200 different layouts of the console?
I wish Apple would change its ways before the larger consuming public sees Apple for what it is. It's not "exclusive" any more -- it's just limited.
Apple is extremely exclusive. And will remain as long as windos and Linux put the desires of the developers before those of the users (each in their own ways) and Nokia et al purchase the user-interface design of their phones at firesales.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
iPod touch is very succesfull product, and iPad is order of magnitude more capable than the touch is.
The mistake people are doing is staring at the hardware-specs, and proclaiming the iPad as "nothing but oversized iPod touch", when the key thing is the software. You can do things on the Ipad that would simply not be possible on the iPod touch.
You keep repeating this claim, but aside from having a larger screen real estate (which is hardware rather than software anyway), can you tell us just exactly what you can do with the iPad that you can't do on an iPod that justifies the claim "order of magnitude more capable"? As far as I can see, there's very little difference beyond the hardware. WikiAnswers claims the difference is that you can "browse the web and read ebooks" - I haven't used an iPod but I assumed you could already do those things, my GF can certainly do both on her iPhone and I read that the iPad uses the same OS and will likely run all the same apps.
It's also a massive strawman to say the iPod was successful and to extrapolate from that that because the iPad is a more "capable" version of the iPod that it will also be successful. Their key purpose is largely different. The iPod is a portable music player primarily and is priced much cheaper than the iPad. Making a bigger, more expensive version of it doesn't guarantee success as you lose all of the advantages of the small form factor, nobody's going to be at the gymn jogging with their iPad, or carrying it on the bus. That doesn't mean it won't be successful within its own market, I just think that market will be a very niche one, you can't even begin to compare it to the iPod in terms of potential customers.
It's no surprise that the people who complain about the iPad are people who haven't used one. The ones that have used one, seem to have an opposite opinion. And that's because you can complain about the specs even if you just saw them listed on a piece of paper, but in order to have an opinion regarding the software and actual use of the device, you have to actually USE the device, as opposed to stare at a bunch of specs in a website.
You may be right here, I can't say having not used one but I can say two things. Firstly there are as many people singing the praises of the iPad as there are people complaining, and the vast majority of both sections haven't had a chance to use one, the way you word it you make it sound like everyone's a non-believer until the second they put their hands on the device and go through a conversion of faith. Secondly, call me cynical but I'll wait until there are more of these in the wild before I listen to opinion - I have no way of knowing if the devices have been sent to reviewers more likely to give favourable reviews, or if other incentives have been offered to ensure favourable reviews, and for that reason I'll wait until I see the opinions of real end-users rather than trusting to these very early overviews (and the fact is, nobody's yet had a chance to spend any time living with the device, it's only after using it for a few weeks that you'll get a real view of what it's like).
If it's a lot more than an oversized iPod Touch, then it's also a lot less, because you lose functionality as well as gain by the form factor switch.
A full OS X with the iPhone GUI would be fantastic, and relatively easily accomplishable.
You've never designed any software have you?
What you are missing is that the hardest part is redesigning the interface of the OS for touch based input. This is what Microsoft never did and it's why Windows tablet PCs have always sucked.
The short answer is that there are two markets for the iPad.
First, there are folks like my parents. They have never really gotten into computers, and simply want to accomplish a few simple tasks in much the same way they would use a VCR, a microwave oven, or a car. Put an iPad dock in their living room and the iPad can sit there displaying photos like one of those electronic frames. Dad can grab it and take it into the Den to browse the web and read his newspaper. Mom could grab it and take it into the dining room and plunk it on a keyboard dock and can check email, etc. It just works. There are no CD's to install, no registration codes to remember, no visible OS to maintain.
Second, folks like me. I have a laptop and it's great: I have a dozen programming languages on it, email, multiple web browsers, even multiple OS's (via Virtualbox). But I have to interface with it in the classical computer posture: sitting in front of a screen, using a keyboard and fine-grained pointer, with a desktop OS and desktop GUI, with the machine held in the standard position (keyboard at bottom, screen in landscape orientation). But there are times when I want to interface with the machine more like a calendar, book, magazine, or piece of note paper, and the iPad allows this.
I also have an iPhone and like it a lot, but the screen is so small that I can only ever interact with bits and pieces of my data. I can't even see an entire day's activities at once. The iPad will let me see all of my data at once. The iPad will let me share information with someone else, much as I do in the physical world. Using a laptop/netbook is a lot like sharing a pair of binoculars, not like sharing photos or drawing on a piece of paper. The iPad can be used at any orientation, and consequently it is viewable from any orientation, and hence can be shared naturally.
When you say that a netbook is "much more capable", you have to consider "for what?". How you interface with it? No, you interface with it as a desktop, hands on a keyboard, screen oriented properly, not really shareable with anyone else -- especially with the cheaper, low-viewing-angle screens on netbooks. Writing a Python program or a thesis for school? Yep, netbook's better. Browsing through a boatload of research documents (say, using the unbelievable Papers app)? The iPad will win on that one. Sharing photos with a friend, watching a movie while relaxing, reading a magazine? The netbook can certainly do it, but only as a tiny desktop rather than as something like a photo or magazine.
Simple.
she remembers those tricks much better than where her files magically hide on her netbook.
This bit is key, and it's the paradigm shift few are seeing here.
The shift is from document centric computing to task centric computing.
Document centric computing got its start on command line interface machines as "files."
It was copied over unthinkingly to the first WIMP machines via the desktop and GUI folder concept.
Task centric computing has users do tasks via apps, each of which stores its associated data
however the app developer sees fit. The user is blissfully unaware of where or how the data is stored.
This is the part that surprises most /. readers:
For the overwhelming majority of users,
not knowing or having to know where data is stored is a huge improvement.
This is why old timers and tech geeks will be late to the party. Apple have already moved on.
For the vast majority of users, the future is a task-centric, cloud computing world,
and it will make their computing lives much simpler and easier.
I'm struggling to see why the iPad has any potential to be a popular product if its going to be so limited.
Go look at the Kindle DX. It's been flying off the "shelves" at Amazon.
It's bigger, the same thickness, the same price, the same weight, has less storage, is similarly non-expandable, and can't play video. Sure... it has e-Ink for a display... But really, why would you buy a Kindle DX when you can have an iPad for the same price? (The "free" wireless isn't a good reason. It's not really free when you dig in. Free wireless only if you're accessing paid content, essentially. I'd rather have the WiFi, personally.)
Now, I'm not sure why anybody would want a Kindle... But people have been buying them. And those type of people will be buying the iPad instead.
So these iPad dwarving devices are selling like gangbusters I suppose?
No? Let me guess. That's because they don't have Apple's slick marketing. That must mean slick marketing is the only way to sell a product, good or bad then, right? Then that must mean most of the public are a fools who will only buy what they are told?
Because the alternative conclusion is just too ridiculous, that Apple makes products millions of people find usable and enjoyable BECAUSE they are limited to basic well thought out feature sets, and you and the rest of the technogadget crowd are pissed that the exact product you want isn't made because there's no demand for/profit in it.
You mean it's half of what Apple told the WSJ it would be. Apple played you like a fiddle. They told the WSJ it would be $1000, and then when they officially announce that it's $500, everyone acts like that's an amazing deal.
Look up the EEE-PC T91. It has a touchscreen, and the keyboard can fold under the screen so that the whole thing operates just like an iPad.
...
By the way, assuming the rumored price is correct, the T91 costs the same as an iPad. I've been practicing my smugly superior laugh just so that I can use it on everyone who buys one of these "toys."
Of course the T91 is twice as thick, 1.4 times as heavy, has a smaller display with both lower resolution and larger pixels, has half the battery life, and doesn't come with a built-in compass, GPS, or 3G wireless connectivity. Then there's the ease-of-use of an "appliance UI" like an iPad when compared to something running a full-fledged operating system UI.
There's trade-offs on both sides. If the T91 is your thing then go for it but don't assume that your choice is better than someone else's. It may be better for YOU but other people have just as valid reasons for choosing an iPad over a T91. To say that you are "smugly superior" because you got a T91 just makes you a stupid git.
Sapere aude!
Not to mention being able to avoid page-flipping and use search instead.
Here I disagree... you'll still have to buy your textbooks, but you'll be getting a digital download... and what makes you think they'll be any cheaper? The iPad launch has already successfully allowed MacMillan and other publishers to negotiate prices increases on Amazon.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting