Slashdot Mirror
Apple iPad Reviewed
adeelarshad82 writes "Since the iPad's initial introduction back in January, many of us still wonder why we should drop hundreds of dollars for what is termed as a large iPod. Missing features like support for multitasking, a built-in camera for video chats, and Flash support in Safari only add to the dilemma. However, a recently published review of the iPad starts to clear up these doubts. To begin with, the iPad is packing some real quality gear under the hood. Even though the in-house-designed 1GHz A4 chip got little official comment from Apple, the touch screen's instantaneous responses prove that it is outstandingly fast. Furthermore, the iPad runs iPhone OS 3.2, and is currently the only device that runs this version of the operating system. iPad's graphics capabilities come from a PowerVR SGX GPU, similar to the one found in the iPhone 3GS and iPod Touch. It can render about 28 million polygons/second, which is more powerful than the Qualcomm Snapdragon found in devices like the HTC HD2. Also, iPad's extraordinary battery life is not just a myth. According to the lab tests, the battery netted a respectable 9 hours and 25 minutes, very close to Apple's claims of 10 hours."
Let me ask you something in advance of the inevitable comments, for a chance: do you complain because the firmware in your TV set, microwave oven, and dishwasher is "locked down," too?
Andy Ihnatko's Sun Times review + Unboxing
Xeni Jardin's Boing Boing review
Goatberg's WSJ review
Baig's USA Today review
and Pogue's awkward review for NYT
In the realm of electronic music production, the iPad is showing a lot of promise.
This is sort of a big deal amongst electronic musicians, as before the iPad the only similar alternative was the US$2,000+ Jazzmutant Lemur.
What's that sound? It's a low rumbling.. oh now it's getting closer - is it a really big bird? Is it a plane? Oh, no, it's, it's..
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSHHHHHH!!
which is totally what she said
When you buy into closed systems, you put money into the hands of people who will perpetuate closed systems. As a result, more advertising, sneaky (I say that because its closed) innovation, and influence is produced and then the culture of computer use trends further in that direction...
Many forces right now are interested in producing limited/closed systems, and furthermore very thin 'clients' that would have the majority if the processing and data storage done in the cloud. Nevermind that you are limited by the permissions inherent to the construct of the closed system -- and subject to the inevitable "nickle and dime" pay/fees attached.
Buying into this junk is a way of voting with your money for a future that has more of it. I'm pretty happy with the freedoms I enjoy in computing. Right now, computing is still kind-of a 'wild west' of sorts, with many freedoms still open and available. As have many other aspects of life, the power of the susceptible consumer buying into bad ideas has led to the limitation of access to variety/possibilities/alternatives; that which is not mainstream loses its ground and at some point has no platform to present from.
Think for yourself. Do you want a 'computer' that only allows you to do what they want you to do? Do you want people who offer this to get your money and drive the market further in that direction?
If you can really look at the iPad and think Apple should have just shipped a netbook, then not only have you completely missed the point, but the next 10 years of computer industry evolution are going to be very confusing for you, as the mainstream market increasingly ignores the tech specs that geeks obsess over in favor of user experience considerations that are far more relevant to normal users.
This space unintentionally left unblank.
Hmm, I think this comparison of netbooks wants to disagree with your claims.
As listed in the table, most netbooks have substantially less than 10 hours of battery life, (indeed, only three entries out of 35 with published battery life estimates have an operational life of more than 10 hours), have a screen resolution of 1024x600 (which is *less* than the iPad's 1024x768), and, excluding the less-than-5" netbooks, weigh substantially more than the iPad's 1.5lb. Most are running 1.0 to 1.6GHz Intel Atoms, which aren't directly comparable with a 1 GHz ARM chip, so I can't comment on the "50% faster".
The iPad also doesn't use handwriting recognition for English (it's a standard QWERTY touchscreen keyboard), and you have the option of using a wireless Bluetooth (full) keyboard as well (this option doesn't even require any additional hardware beyond the keyboard).
So, I'd have to say that on several fronts, your argument about netbooks fails. Care to demonstrate what your "average" netbook looks like? Perhaps you'd also like to tell me how much it weighs, and what its actual battery life is like?
Think for yourself. Do you want a 'computer' that only allows you to do what they want you to do?
If you want a general purpose, programmable computer, don't buy an iPad. Nobody is forcing you. I see plenty of uses for one which don't involve running much beyond the standard software.
If I want to do more than that, I have a "real" Mac (something upon which the iPad also depends).
Now, the moment Apple try to "close" the Mac, I'll drop them like a ton of bricks for PC/Linux, but currently the Mac scores pretty high on openness.
Meanwhile, if you want to run your own software on the iPad its simple: forget the App store and code whatever the hell you like in loverly open standards-based HTML5/ECMAScript/SVG and host it on your Real Computer. Practical upshot: odds are your "cloud" apps will also be compatible with anything running a half-decent browser.
...and I love the way that the slashdot group mind treats Flash as the spawn of Satan and destroyer of worlds until Apple leaves it out (and, consequently, persuades a number of large video sites to switch to standards-based HTML5 video).
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
it's not so much about running multiple apps, as it is about having stuff running in the background. (non-apple stuff that is)
even on the iphone it would be usefull enough to have a chat app in the background while you are surfing (for people who chat, i dont). Or how about being allowed to chose your own music-streaming app, instead of the ipod app? (which doesnt do streaming). And i'm sure the app-writers out there can think of a bajilion other usefull, new, funny, cool or interesting things running in the background.
People, what a bunch of bastards
Is that they have a very clear idea of what their users do with their products. Not because they leave it up to their users to decide, but because they tell them.
Here is your powerbook.. with it you can videochat and edit your holiday photos.
They are doing the same with the ipad: http://www.apple.com/ipad/features/
They take the application and then very much optimize the hell out of the application until it fits perfectly to the device its running on.
Other manufactures just build a tablet. And this is why this product will be a success.
Please not i'm not an apple fanboi. I don't even own any of their products.
It's a real shame about the missing webcam. They'd make such nice portals if they had them:
Put two iPads back-to-back. You could see right through them.
Put two iPads on opposite sides of a wall. Instant window.
Mount an iPad in the kitchen; mail another to grandma and grandpa. An intergenerational wormhole for family to stay in touch.
Mash up a classroom full of iPads with chat roulette. Try to figure out who's match with whom. Turn to face a neighbor to make the longest continuous viewing path.
Two iPads, one bed. Fun views for you and your partner.