Slashdot Mirror
How the iPad Is Already Reshaping the Internet (Sans Flash)
The Internet's already starting to look different, says Gizmodo, in a piece of interest not only to everyone with an iPad floating around the UPS system, but also those of us thinking about some other kind of tablet in the medium-term future. As they put it, "The iPad doesn't run Flash. If your website uses Flash, it won't play well on the iPad. Turns out, a lot of people want their sites to look pretty on the iPad."
And an anonymous reader adds this snippet from Webmonkey: "In anticipation of Saturday's release of the iPad — which doesn't run Flash — Apple has published a list of 'iPad Ready' websites. The sites are all big league sluggers like CNN, The New York Times, People Magazine and MLB.com. Surprisingly, there are also a few video-heavy sites in the mix (Vimeo, Flickr, and TED) which would traditionally rely on Flash Player for video playback."
what kind of status seeking fuckwit would drop $599 on that shit? oh wait these are APPLE USERS, my smugness alarm just went off.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Agreed.
My problem (at least at this point) isn't really with the iPad, but with people who are insisting the iPad is some kind of revolutionary device. It may do what it does very well, but it is hardly original.
Does it really f* matter that it is not? Does it really matter if some people insist it is? What are you, a history guardian? What matters is the impact is has (or can have) with consumers. Everything else is subjective.
Regardless, I still think it's overpriced, considering it's priced like a full-featured device yet only has half the functionality.
That's for consumers (a lot of them) to decide. For me, I would not buy one. For my wife, I would. It's all about this interesting concept called "target market".
yes, I'm aware of "small costs money, Apple tax, it's not for you, you just don't understand the device", and every other response. I don't care.
Does it matter that you don't?
I still think it's overpriced.
That's fine and dandy so long as you understand that opinions are not fact, that yours is a subjective opinion and that what matters is whether Apple can create a niche market for this device that is 1) substantial, and 2) economically viable. Observing the common markets based on netbook usage, it seems to be that 1 and 2 will be case.
To be honest, it really isn't overprice considering we are willing to pay a netbook for $300. This device goes up to $490.00 providing you perhaps less computing capabilities than a netbook (or a full-blown development laptop), but providing a more appealing platform for information consumers; people who only care (or need to care) about browsing the web, upload their pics, buy stuff online and pay their bills.
People will decide that it is not overpriced *for what it is* and will get it. And if we observe how people personalize their gadgets, they will learn (or even force themselves) to love it even with its limitations.
It is overpriced for you. It is *for me*. So what? It is not overpriced for me to buy for my wife. It will not be overpriced for many people (specially the Apple loyal customer base, which is their right to be if they choose like Apple stuff.)
And that's all that matter. Market segment. Learn that concept. The device is not targeted for you (who don't need it, don't like it, or cannot afford it.) Since it isn't targeted to you as a customer, it doesn't really matter if you care for it.
I know that the "concept" is used as a CYA excuse for failures by failures. "Oh, but we used industry best practices."
And the iPad is an attempt by Jobs to get more licensing fees for h264 codecs (he and his other buddies in MPAG-LA own patents on it) as the default codec for HTML5 video. This is a direct assault on open standards. ("standard" != "open standard").
Jobs is pitching the iPad at the newspaper industry - an industry that is dying because they can't understand anything except fixed formats.
The iPad is not a tablet computer, despite all the hype. It's just one step removed from the iPDA.
Look at Apple's recent history. Launch the iPod, then route people to iTunes. Launch the iPhone, then route people ONLY to the App Store. Launch the iPad, and then route people ONLY to specific restricted formats.
Each device is more encumbered and restricted than the last.
What next - the iBrick? It does nothing, but it does it really well?
So you spread them for Adobe Flash instead?
God, I love when Apple-haters get upset. Any piece of positive press coverage sends their reptilian brains into a frenzy.