You're not including the vast amount of free advertising and astroturfing that's been given to it, for months, by the media (of which Slashdot is included - how many Ipad stories have we had? There are three right now on the front page, alone). Even outside of the US, mainstream public-funded sources like the BBC are giving large amounts of coverage, when they hardly give any mention to any of the other tablets (similarly with phones - the BBC are all over the Apple Iphones, but rarely mention Nokia despite them having many times larger market share).
Apple don't need to spend as much money on marketing, when other people do it for them. Which yes, is something to their credit sure - but it's a marketing achievement, not a technological one.
Yes, everyone loves brick sized phones - whenever someone calls my slightly not up-to-date phone a "brick", I know it's a compliment. I can't wait to spend all that money to have a giant phone, like I'm back in the '80s. I'd much rather have an oversized phone, than a tiny phone and a powerful but small laptop.
I agree the Ipad is a consumer appliance - given that, I wonder why there's so much coverage here (if Apple started making an "iFridge", would Slashdot, "News for Nerds", start covering fridges and other kitchen appliances?)
And yes, the Iphone isn't really a general computing device like a smart phone, but a consumer feature phone.
But having said that, I'd like to see evidence that netbooks had this problem with consumers. They've still be more successful than tablets AFAIK. And any power limitations is going to be a short term thing, as computing power advances rapidly. In fact, I've already seen in the shops now "ultra mobile laptops" which are also small like a netbook, but much more powerful (fast CPUs, 3GB RAM etc). They're only slightly more expensive than netbooks (and way cheaper than a Islate or whatever it's called this week, anyway).
Whilst people might have lower expectations of tablets, the problem remains as to what they do expect to use them for - so it's not a computer, but it's also not a phone (calling it a large phone is hardly going to go down well - firstly, people already have a phone; secondly, who wants a brick sized phone? That's the kind of thing that people ridicule, if your phone is only slightly bigger than the latest model). So what is it? This is one of the many problems that tablets have had - they don't really fill a need, and it's especially a problem if they're so expensive. Something with limited use is only going to take off when the price is much cheaper.
I've yet to see an Ipad in stores, personally. Anyhow - there were daily stories about the Ipad months before it was released, and even when it was just rumours (in fact, the first Apple tablet rumour on Slashdot was in 2005). Yet when it's another company, we have to have the product in store, for you to see?
And just look how much coverage the Ipad is getting - I made a joke about how we'd have to put up with daily Ipad stories as well as daily Iphone stories, but I take it back: looks like we're now in store for an Ipad and Iphone story each every twelve hours.
Well indeed, I don't know why Opera wasted the time writing Opera Mini especially for the Iphone. I wished they'd focus efforts on either Opera Mini for the platforms that need it, or Opera Mobile for the smart phones that aren't locked down.
the IM protocol which you cannot easily use on a computer
This is a phone, for people not lugging their computer around with them.
has no support for status messages
But you can send them the text at any time, without worrying if they're online or not.
messages to 160 characters
Um, not it doesn't, not unless you have an ancient phone from 10 years ago.
and costs money to use?
Data costs money to use too. Depending on your plan, texts might be cheaper (for me on PAYG, a text costs 10p each, so per unit data it seems more expensive - but if I just use Internet, I get a flat 50p charge straight away. So if I'm only sending one message that day, it's still cheaper. For people who use it a lot, as pointed out, plans with lots of free texts may be cheaper than plans with free Internet).
I can use IM on my 5800 fine, but I still send texts, and have yet to use IM, in fact.
I know I'm going to get modded to hell for being a pedantic fanboi, but it's "iPhone" - lowercase "i", uppercase "P".
Well, since you ask, I'll explain my reasoning. It's a proper noun, and I'm writing English - so I write "Iphone". Write "iPhone" if you prefer, but that's a matter of preference. (I've also seen "IPhone" sometimes used by people.)
"iPhone" is the stylised trademark representation. Since I'm writing prose rather than an Apple advert, I don't write it that way, just as I don't write "Toys R Us" with a backwards "R", or sing "ding-dong-ding-dong" everytime I write "Intel".
I also note for other trademarks that have odd capitalisation, such as all lowercase or all uppercase, people tend to ignore these. E.g., "Adidas" rather than "adidas"; "Time" rather than "TIME". I'm not sure why an exception should be made for Apple.
Yes, I agree with the rest of your post. But I also don't see why it should simply be only revieweed "For Iphone", when it runs on all phones. It's inferior to the Iphone's browser - as well as Symbian's, and browsers for many other high end phone. But it's superior to browsers on a wide range of dirt cheap low end phones (at least, it was a few years ago, things have presumably improved - though I imagine Opera Mini still compares well to them).
There is a setting in Opera Mini for iPhone that lets you render the web pages in "Mobile view". I have never used Opera Mobile, but perhaps that is the same thing?
Nope - mobile view is simply a way of viewing the pages ( http://www.opera.com/mobile/help/faq/ ). Opera Mobile is a completely different browser, and with more features, and is a full browser rather than using server side processing.
Yes, I don't think it's controversial to say it's next to useless for expensive phones - I've never had to use it on my 5800. But those of us who have smart phones rather than the locked down Iphone can happily use Opera Mobile instead; and this review misses that Opera Mini's main purpose is to bring a better browsing experience to all phones, even the cheap low end ones that don't have a good browser as standard. Why not simply review "Opera Mini" instead of making it only "For Iphone"?
So you're saying it sucks as a browser, and it's unfair to review it as a browser, because it's not intended to be a good browser?
I'm not saying it sucks as a browser, I'm saying it's not as good as the browsers on high end phones (where you'd run Opera Mobile), but it is better than the browsers on a large range of cheap "feature".
The only platform that (a) has a decent browser but (b) can only run Mini and not Mobile, is the Iphone - and that's a limitation of the Iphone and its locked down nature, not Opera.
If I'm reading a review of a browser, then I expect to read a review about how good it is as a browser.
Sure, but this isn't a review of that browser. It's a "let's only compare it to the Iphone browser".
Three years ago the iTouch/iPhone were innovative. They created a whole new handheld app monopoly for Apple. That's a big, big deal.
Although even there, it's only innovative for Apple's benefit. There was no innovation for the consumer, who don't benefit from Apple having an app monopoly on their platform.
In your opinion. What does the Ipad do that no other tablets do, and why is this special enough that it means the Ipad should be the only tablet ever acknowledged to exist?
This should be an article for the WePad. There's no need to give an obligitary advert to Apple yet again. I mean come on, we've already had about three Apple stories today anyway, isn't that enough?
If this is what others have up their sleeves as competition
There are plenty of other tablets. You're a fool if you rely on Slashdot for your tech news, now that for mobile products like phones and tablets, they only cover Apple, and products that don't compare as well to it. Any company that beats them hands down (e.g., Nokia for phones) are simply never mentioned.
Not this myth yet again - it wasn't a prophecy, it was a comment. Just because something is popular, doesn't make it non-lame (is no one allowed to criticise Windows and IE?)
As for the phones - does it really not support any apps, even if via Java (even bog standard feature phones have had apps since at least 2005)? How much does it cost anyway - is it fair to compare this to expensive Iphones, or to lower end phones?
Not that running apps should be the be all and end all of phones. The Iphone has plenty of missing features such as Flash/Java, multitasking, ability to run any 3rd party app, and from the point of view of my 5800, it looks rather like a locked down feature phone too. Let's face it - if it was the Iphone that did other things, but not apps, you'd be all over yourselves claiming how revolutionary the Iphone was, but that apps were something you didn't need ("It does everything I want it to do already" etc).
Opera Mini is intended to run on all phones (even locked down feature phones... and the Iphone). A fairer review would simply review Opera Mini, and take this into account - but of course, it only gets coverage on Slashdot if it's "For the Iphone".
For smart phones, Opera have Opera Mobile which is an excellent browser. Will the Iphone be able to run it?
Even on smart phones, Opera Mini is useful sometimes if you need low bandwidth usage. But it's never intended to be a replacement browser for phones that already have a better browser.
Opera Mini runs on just about every phone on the planet (the exception being dirt cheap bottom of the market "dumb" phones) - yet if it runs on an Apple phone, it must be to "pick a fight with Apple"? Not everything revolves around Apple, you know.
"Even"? Doing a press release for new versions of a product is pretty standard for companies, I believe.
What does it bring to the table when you got something like Safari Mobile on the iPhone already?
Given that it was approved, this suggests Apple disagrees. But yes, I'm sure Apple are fine with this, as it doesn't allow users to run non-Apple approved code...
The main use of Opera Mini is that it reduces the bandwidth, which can be useful in some situations. It's not intended to compete with "full" browsers however - for that, there's Opera Mobile as I said.
Fair enough. And actually, this is how Opera Mobile works - the "tabs" is just referring to the feature, but it still has the same advantage of not taking up space. I don't think the implementation should matter (it reminds me of when people said that Opera on the desktop didn't used to have "tabs", because it wasn't implemented exactly the same way as Firefox, even though it still clearly had the feature).
No, they had a monopoly on operating systems, which is what the suit was about (and, before you reply - monopoly in antitrust cases is the practical definition, not the theoretical "only one supplier" which rarely happens in the real world; Apple is not remotely close to either in the mobile phone market).
You know, I would expect from a browser company that strives for openness and whatnot to at least include a browser capable of doing javascript properly.
They do - it's called Opera Mobile, which isn't on the Iphone. Opera Mini is written to run on all phones, even locked down feature phones. Their Opera Mobile for smart phones has full support.
Wait - surely the Iphone has a tabbed browser, right? This is an honest question - what with all the praise of the browser being the best ever, surely it at least has tabbed browsing? (The reason why I love Opera Mobile so much.)
Slashdot Mirror
You're not including the vast amount of free advertising and astroturfing that's been given to it, for months, by the media (of which Slashdot is included - how many Ipad stories have we had? There are three right now on the front page, alone). Even outside of the US, mainstream public-funded sources like the BBC are giving large amounts of coverage, when they hardly give any mention to any of the other tablets (similarly with phones - the BBC are all over the Apple Iphones, but rarely mention Nokia despite them having many times larger market share).
Apple don't need to spend as much money on marketing, when other people do it for them. Which yes, is something to their credit sure - but it's a marketing achievement, not a technological one.
Yes, everyone loves brick sized phones - whenever someone calls my slightly not up-to-date phone a "brick", I know it's a compliment. I can't wait to spend all that money to have a giant phone, like I'm back in the '80s. I'd much rather have an oversized phone, than a tiny phone and a powerful but small laptop.
I agree the Ipad is a consumer appliance - given that, I wonder why there's so much coverage here (if Apple started making an "iFridge", would Slashdot, "News for Nerds", start covering fridges and other kitchen appliances?)
And yes, the Iphone isn't really a general computing device like a smart phone, but a consumer feature phone.
But having said that, I'd like to see evidence that netbooks had this problem with consumers. They've still be more successful than tablets AFAIK. And any power limitations is going to be a short term thing, as computing power advances rapidly. In fact, I've already seen in the shops now "ultra mobile laptops" which are also small like a netbook, but much more powerful (fast CPUs, 3GB RAM etc). They're only slightly more expensive than netbooks (and way cheaper than a Islate or whatever it's called this week, anyway).
Whilst people might have lower expectations of tablets, the problem remains as to what they do expect to use them for - so it's not a computer, but it's also not a phone (calling it a large phone is hardly going to go down well - firstly, people already have a phone; secondly, who wants a brick sized phone? That's the kind of thing that people ridicule, if your phone is only slightly bigger than the latest model). So what is it? This is one of the many problems that tablets have had - they don't really fill a need, and it's especially a problem if they're so expensive. Something with limited use is only going to take off when the price is much cheaper.
I've yet to see an Ipad in stores, personally. Anyhow - there were daily stories about the Ipad months before it was released, and even when it was just rumours (in fact, the first Apple tablet rumour on Slashdot was in 2005). Yet when it's another company, we have to have the product in store, for you to see?
As opposed to all the Apple Astroturfers?
And just look how much coverage the Ipad is getting - I made a joke about how we'd have to put up with daily Ipad stories as well as daily Iphone stories, but I take it back: looks like we're now in store for an Ipad and Iphone story each every twelve hours.
Well indeed, I don't know why Opera wasted the time writing Opera Mini especially for the Iphone. I wished they'd focus efforts on either Opera Mini for the platforms that need it, or Opera Mobile for the smart phones that aren't locked down.
Yes, expensive is in there twice for a reason.
False. This depends on your price plan, and also other factors such as how many you're sending.
the IM protocol which you cannot easily use on a computer
This is a phone, for people not lugging their computer around with them.
has no support for status messages
But you can send them the text at any time, without worrying if they're online or not.
messages to 160 characters
Um, not it doesn't, not unless you have an ancient phone from 10 years ago.
and costs money to use?
Data costs money to use too. Depending on your plan, texts might be cheaper (for me on PAYG, a text costs 10p each, so per unit data it seems more expensive - but if I just use Internet, I get a flat 50p charge straight away. So if I'm only sending one message that day, it's still cheaper. For people who use it a lot, as pointed out, plans with lots of free texts may be cheaper than plans with free Internet).
I can use IM on my 5800 fine, but I still send texts, and have yet to use IM, in fact.
If you don't already own a Kindle and an iPhone, iTouch, Droid or Nexus One, the iPad is cool and you should get it.
You a far cheaper netbook...
As opposed to the rest of the Internet, including Slashdot?
I know I'm going to get modded to hell for being a pedantic fanboi, but it's "iPhone" - lowercase "i", uppercase "P".
Well, since you ask, I'll explain my reasoning. It's a proper noun, and I'm writing English - so I write "Iphone". Write "iPhone" if you prefer, but that's a matter of preference. (I've also seen "IPhone" sometimes used by people.)
"iPhone" is the stylised trademark representation. Since I'm writing prose rather than an Apple advert, I don't write it that way, just as I don't write "Toys R Us" with a backwards "R", or sing "ding-dong-ding-dong" everytime I write "Intel".
I also note for other trademarks that have odd capitalisation, such as all lowercase or all uppercase, people tend to ignore these. E.g., "Adidas" rather than "adidas"; "Time" rather than "TIME". I'm not sure why an exception should be made for Apple.
Yes, I agree with the rest of your post. But I also don't see why it should simply be only revieweed "For Iphone", when it runs on all phones. It's inferior to the Iphone's browser - as well as Symbian's, and browsers for many other high end phone. But it's superior to browsers on a wide range of dirt cheap low end phones (at least, it was a few years ago, things have presumably improved - though I imagine Opera Mini still compares well to them).
There is a setting in Opera Mini for iPhone that lets you render the web pages in "Mobile view". I have never used Opera Mobile, but perhaps that is the same thing?
Nope - mobile view is simply a way of viewing the pages ( http://www.opera.com/mobile/help/faq/ ). Opera Mobile is a completely different browser, and with more features, and is a full browser rather than using server side processing.
Yes, I don't think it's controversial to say it's next to useless for expensive phones - I've never had to use it on my 5800. But those of us who have smart phones rather than the locked down Iphone can happily use Opera Mobile instead; and this review misses that Opera Mini's main purpose is to bring a better browsing experience to all phones, even the cheap low end ones that don't have a good browser as standard. Why not simply review "Opera Mini" instead of making it only "For Iphone"?
So you're saying it sucks as a browser, and it's unfair to review it as a browser, because it's not intended to be a good browser?
I'm not saying it sucks as a browser, I'm saying it's not as good as the browsers on high end phones (where you'd run Opera Mobile), but it is better than the browsers on a large range of cheap "feature".
The only platform that (a) has a decent browser but (b) can only run Mini and not Mobile, is the Iphone - and that's a limitation of the Iphone and its locked down nature, not Opera.
If I'm reading a review of a browser, then I expect to read a review about how good it is as a browser.
Sure, but this isn't a review of that browser. It's a "let's only compare it to the Iphone browser".
If it sucks, then it sucks.
It doesn't suck.
Three years ago the iTouch/iPhone were innovative. They created a whole new handheld app monopoly for Apple. That's a big, big deal.
Although even there, it's only innovative for Apple's benefit. There was no innovation for the consumer, who don't benefit from Apple having an app monopoly on their platform.
In your opinion. What does the Ipad do that no other tablets do, and why is this special enough that it means the Ipad should be the only tablet ever acknowledged to exist?
This should be an article for the WePad. There's no need to give an obligitary advert to Apple yet again. I mean come on, we've already had about three Apple stories today anyway, isn't that enough?
If this is what others have up their sleeves as competition
There are plenty of other tablets. You're a fool if you rely on Slashdot for your tech news, now that for mobile products like phones and tablets, they only cover Apple, and products that don't compare as well to it. Any company that beats them hands down (e.g., Nokia for phones) are simply never mentioned.
Not this myth yet again - it wasn't a prophecy, it was a comment. Just because something is popular, doesn't make it non-lame (is no one allowed to criticise Windows and IE?)
As for the phones - does it really not support any apps, even if via Java (even bog standard feature phones have had apps since at least 2005)? How much does it cost anyway - is it fair to compare this to expensive Iphones, or to lower end phones?
Not that running apps should be the be all and end all of phones. The Iphone has plenty of missing features such as Flash/Java, multitasking, ability to run any 3rd party app, and from the point of view of my 5800, it looks rather like a locked down feature phone too. Let's face it - if it was the Iphone that did other things, but not apps, you'd be all over yourselves claiming how revolutionary the Iphone was, but that apps were something you didn't need ("It does everything I want it to do already" etc).
Opera Mini is intended to run on all phones (even locked down feature phones... and the Iphone). A fairer review would simply review Opera Mini, and take this into account - but of course, it only gets coverage on Slashdot if it's "For the Iphone".
For smart phones, Opera have Opera Mobile which is an excellent browser. Will the Iphone be able to run it?
Even on smart phones, Opera Mini is useful sometimes if you need low bandwidth usage. But it's never intended to be a replacement browser for phones that already have a better browser.
Opera Mini runs on just about every phone on the planet (the exception being dirt cheap bottom of the market "dumb" phones) - yet if it runs on an Apple phone, it must be to "pick a fight with Apple"? Not everything revolves around Apple, you know.
"Even"? Doing a press release for new versions of a product is pretty standard for companies, I believe.
What does it bring to the table when you got something like Safari Mobile on the iPhone already?
Given that it was approved, this suggests Apple disagrees. But yes, I'm sure Apple are fine with this, as it doesn't allow users to run non-Apple approved code...
The main use of Opera Mini is that it reduces the bandwidth, which can be useful in some situations. It's not intended to compete with "full" browsers however - for that, there's Opera Mobile as I said.
Fair enough. And actually, this is how Opera Mobile works - the "tabs" is just referring to the feature, but it still has the same advantage of not taking up space. I don't think the implementation should matter (it reminds me of when people said that Opera on the desktop didn't used to have "tabs", because it wasn't implemented exactly the same way as Firefox, even though it still clearly had the feature).
No, they had a monopoly on operating systems, which is what the suit was about (and, before you reply - monopoly in antitrust cases is the practical definition, not the theoretical "only one supplier" which rarely happens in the real world; Apple is not remotely close to either in the mobile phone market).
You know, I would expect from a browser company that strives for openness and whatnot to at least include a browser capable of doing javascript properly.
They do - it's called Opera Mobile, which isn't on the Iphone. Opera Mini is written to run on all phones, even locked down feature phones. Their Opera Mobile for smart phones has full support.
I take the point - but for antitrust issues to apply, Apple would have to have a monopoly on phones, which they most certainly do not.
Indeed - I just love that "Apple approves an application, when we thought they might not" is front page news. People are that thankful.
though it does give iPhone a tabbed browser now
Wait - surely the Iphone has a tabbed browser, right? This is an honest question - what with all the praise of the browser being the best ever, surely it at least has tabbed browsing? (The reason why I love Opera Mobile so much.)