Tuesday
Apr062010
iPad to about 1500 words
![Date Date](/universal/images/transparent.png)
I don’t have an iPad.
Let me clarify, for those of you who have no real idea who I am, if there is anyone out there reading this who doesn’t know me personally. (There must be, otherwise who’s leaving those weird comments about penis enlargements and smuggling money out of Nigeria?)
I live in a small, inland city in Australia called Canberra. It happens to be the nation’s capital, but that’s not strictly relevant. I suppose neither is the name, but I just wanted to provide some context. Unlike those of you in the US (assuming you exist), the iPad hasn’t been released in Australia as yet.
The Apple Australia page lists it as being available in late April, which is not only vague, it’s also at least 3 weeks away. To date, no pricing has been announced, even for the WiFi version, which is presumably the version that will be available in late April. So I don’t know when it will be available, or how much I will have to fork over for it as yet.
The upshot of all this is that I am currently being bombarded with tech reports from the US about the pros and cons of the iPad, but can’t really verify any of them for myself. For instance, I was listening to one person complain about how heavy the device is (700 grams? Heavy?), while a friend has said it’s no heavier than a hardcover book.
In fact, the commentary, which is the only part of the iPad experience I’ve been able to share in, has been fascinating. Admittedly, it shares a lot with the commentary on the iPhone before its release, but it’s worthy of independent assessment.
Firstly, everyone is complaining again about Apple’s “walled garden”. I have to admit the App Store worried me when they recently got rid of all the content deemed “Adult” in nature. (Although, Wobble iBoobs doesn’t strike me as a very “Adult” concept.) I don’t want Apple telling me I can’t download porn on my iPhone any more than I want the Minister for Communications telling me I can’t download it on my computer. (Whether I actually do so or not is irrelevant.) Still, it’s their product, and their distribution system. In a capitalist society, that enables them to do what they like, and if people don’t like it, then they won’t buy the product. This isn’t a monopoly, there are other phones available. In any case, despite claims of vague criteria, and petty vindictiveness, it seems that in most cases, Apple has only stopped apps that either didn’t follow the developer guidelines, or would cause a problem for their US telecoms partner - AT&T.
Consider, for example, the news last week that the mobile version of the Opera browser had been submitted to the iTunes App Store. The general mood of the blogosphere and, more specifically, the punditsphere was that it would be rejected out of hand for “duplicating core iPhone functionality”. This is allegedly the excuse for banning Google Voice, and a few other apps. However, if Apple is so against other web browsers, why is iCab available in the App Store? In fact, do a search on “Web Browser” in the App Store, and you’ll notice a dozen or so browsers available, some of them for free. (There’s also some other apps that include browsing functionality while not actually being web browsers themselves.) Does this mean Apple will approve Opera? Not necessarily. They may actually find some other reasons for stopping it. Maybe it’s buggy, or leaks memory like Windows on a rainy day. In any event, it sounds more like people are assuming that Apple is being capricious because it suits their world view, rather than for any real reason.
This is possibly related to the surprise many expressed on discovering that the Kindle app was available on the iPad. I don’t see what the surprise is. Apple wants to sell iPads. Amazon wants to sell books. These two objectives are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, they each stand a better chance of succeeding if Kindle is available on the iPad. What you may not see any time soon is iPad books on a Kindle. At least not without a lot of fiddling.
Finally, there have been a lot of complaints, as per usual, about the perceived lack of features of the iPad. The iPad doesn’t run Flash. Personally, I could care less. Flash is overused, and, despite claims to the contrary, is a processor hog. However, a lot of people seem to think that Flash is vital for the device to be worthwhile. Meanwhile, content providers who previously used Flash to deliver their content, are moving towards HTML 5, and other alternatives. Including native Apps made available in iTunes. Personally, I see anything that moves us away from so-called “de-facto standards” which are actually proprietary formats (I’m looking at you, Microsoft Office) is a good thing. Having such a large amount of the internet dependent on the whims of a single company (yes, I appreciate that some of you see the way Apple is behaving as being exactly that) is a bad thing. Of course, Adobe still has a stranglehold on document formats with the widespread use of the Acrobat Portable Document Format (.pdf), but there are alternatives that will read and even create PDFs. With Flash, it’s a closed Adobe shop. (Remember how upset people were with Apple for that sort of thing?) I could be wrong, but I don’t know of an alternative to Adobe’s products for creating Flash content, or of alternative Flash runtime environments.
And then there are the perceived hardware deficiencies, like the lack of camera, USB ports, user-changeable battery, and even a kick stand. I’m not entirely sure why a device like an iPad needs any of these things, but there are people out there who seem to think it’s their God-given right to demand these things on Apple’s new device. I suspect, however, most of them haven’t given any real thought as to what they need them for, other than just because they “need” them. And they’re all rather self-defeating inclusions, anyway. A good camera would have driven the cost up. A cheap camera would be criticised for being a cheap camera. Anyway, people would no doubt complain that it was in the wrong place. Put it on the front of the device, and people will complain they can’t take pictures with it easily, put it on the back, and they’ll complain they can’t video conference with it. Put two in, and your nice, simple device just got a lot more complicated.
USB ports? Why? To connect peripherals that will drain the battery faster? The iPad, in many ways *is* a peripheral. You transfer files to and from it via iTunes on your computer. The Kindle doesn’t have a USB-out port, and no-one seems to mind. Admittedly the iPad is a bit more than a Kindle, but still, you have options.
Removable battery? Apple haven’t been putting removable batteries in anything for years. As has been pointed out elsewhere, a non-removable battery means a longer battery life, since there’s more space for actual battery. It also means the case can be slimmer, and stronger, since a large opening in the case would be a weakness in the structure. Also, the battery itself would need to be more rugged so that it wasn’t damaged when being removed or inserted.
Last of all, there’s the kickstand. Leaving aside why anyone needs a stand (there are legitimate reasons for it, I accept), why is $40 for a case that doubles as a stand such a big deal. Also, wouldn’t including one make it harder for case and accessory manufacturers? Trying to make a cover that fits over the stand, or even lets you use it without removing the cover would be awkward. Plus it’s preventing the accessory manufacturers from making money by supplying the stand for the people that feel they need it, and it would annoy the people who don’t want one. Again, I note no-one complains about the absence of a stand on the Kindle.
Anyway, the iPad is here. Well, not *here*, but over there. And it is what it is. There is no doubt that it will change the IT market in ways we don’t fully understand yet, just as the Macintosh did for computers, the iPod did for music players, and the iPhone did for phones. (Not to mention the Newton and the PDA market it created.) If there’s anything about the iPad you don’t like, then maybe you should wait for something else to come along. The great thing about IT is that it accommodates a wide range of people with different tastes. If one manufacturer doesn’t make what you want, someone else will. Complaining that the iPad isn’t exactly what you want just means you shouldn’t buy one. You should buy the one from Dell that comes out next year. Or the Chrome-based Google pad. Or maybe something else entirely. Meanwhile spare a thought for those of us who do want one, and are willing to live with its “shortcomings” but can’t get it yet. (If Apple Australia are looking for people to review it prior to release, I’m available. Although I would like to test the 64GB 3G version, if at all possible.)
Let me clarify, for those of you who have no real idea who I am, if there is anyone out there reading this who doesn’t know me personally. (There must be, otherwise who’s leaving those weird comments about penis enlargements and smuggling money out of Nigeria?)
I live in a small, inland city in Australia called Canberra. It happens to be the nation’s capital, but that’s not strictly relevant. I suppose neither is the name, but I just wanted to provide some context. Unlike those of you in the US (assuming you exist), the iPad hasn’t been released in Australia as yet.
The Apple Australia page lists it as being available in late April, which is not only vague, it’s also at least 3 weeks away. To date, no pricing has been announced, even for the WiFi version, which is presumably the version that will be available in late April. So I don’t know when it will be available, or how much I will have to fork over for it as yet.
The upshot of all this is that I am currently being bombarded with tech reports from the US about the pros and cons of the iPad, but can’t really verify any of them for myself. For instance, I was listening to one person complain about how heavy the device is (700 grams? Heavy?), while a friend has said it’s no heavier than a hardcover book.
In fact, the commentary, which is the only part of the iPad experience I’ve been able to share in, has been fascinating. Admittedly, it shares a lot with the commentary on the iPhone before its release, but it’s worthy of independent assessment.
Firstly, everyone is complaining again about Apple’s “walled garden”. I have to admit the App Store worried me when they recently got rid of all the content deemed “Adult” in nature. (Although, Wobble iBoobs doesn’t strike me as a very “Adult” concept.) I don’t want Apple telling me I can’t download porn on my iPhone any more than I want the Minister for Communications telling me I can’t download it on my computer. (Whether I actually do so or not is irrelevant.) Still, it’s their product, and their distribution system. In a capitalist society, that enables them to do what they like, and if people don’t like it, then they won’t buy the product. This isn’t a monopoly, there are other phones available. In any case, despite claims of vague criteria, and petty vindictiveness, it seems that in most cases, Apple has only stopped apps that either didn’t follow the developer guidelines, or would cause a problem for their US telecoms partner - AT&T.
Consider, for example, the news last week that the mobile version of the Opera browser had been submitted to the iTunes App Store. The general mood of the blogosphere and, more specifically, the punditsphere was that it would be rejected out of hand for “duplicating core iPhone functionality”. This is allegedly the excuse for banning Google Voice, and a few other apps. However, if Apple is so against other web browsers, why is iCab available in the App Store? In fact, do a search on “Web Browser” in the App Store, and you’ll notice a dozen or so browsers available, some of them for free. (There’s also some other apps that include browsing functionality while not actually being web browsers themselves.) Does this mean Apple will approve Opera? Not necessarily. They may actually find some other reasons for stopping it. Maybe it’s buggy, or leaks memory like Windows on a rainy day. In any event, it sounds more like people are assuming that Apple is being capricious because it suits their world view, rather than for any real reason.
This is possibly related to the surprise many expressed on discovering that the Kindle app was available on the iPad. I don’t see what the surprise is. Apple wants to sell iPads. Amazon wants to sell books. These two objectives are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, they each stand a better chance of succeeding if Kindle is available on the iPad. What you may not see any time soon is iPad books on a Kindle. At least not without a lot of fiddling.
Finally, there have been a lot of complaints, as per usual, about the perceived lack of features of the iPad. The iPad doesn’t run Flash. Personally, I could care less. Flash is overused, and, despite claims to the contrary, is a processor hog. However, a lot of people seem to think that Flash is vital for the device to be worthwhile. Meanwhile, content providers who previously used Flash to deliver their content, are moving towards HTML 5, and other alternatives. Including native Apps made available in iTunes. Personally, I see anything that moves us away from so-called “de-facto standards” which are actually proprietary formats (I’m looking at you, Microsoft Office) is a good thing. Having such a large amount of the internet dependent on the whims of a single company (yes, I appreciate that some of you see the way Apple is behaving as being exactly that) is a bad thing. Of course, Adobe still has a stranglehold on document formats with the widespread use of the Acrobat Portable Document Format (.pdf), but there are alternatives that will read and even create PDFs. With Flash, it’s a closed Adobe shop. (Remember how upset people were with Apple for that sort of thing?) I could be wrong, but I don’t know of an alternative to Adobe’s products for creating Flash content, or of alternative Flash runtime environments.
And then there are the perceived hardware deficiencies, like the lack of camera, USB ports, user-changeable battery, and even a kick stand. I’m not entirely sure why a device like an iPad needs any of these things, but there are people out there who seem to think it’s their God-given right to demand these things on Apple’s new device. I suspect, however, most of them haven’t given any real thought as to what they need them for, other than just because they “need” them. And they’re all rather self-defeating inclusions, anyway. A good camera would have driven the cost up. A cheap camera would be criticised for being a cheap camera. Anyway, people would no doubt complain that it was in the wrong place. Put it on the front of the device, and people will complain they can’t take pictures with it easily, put it on the back, and they’ll complain they can’t video conference with it. Put two in, and your nice, simple device just got a lot more complicated.
USB ports? Why? To connect peripherals that will drain the battery faster? The iPad, in many ways *is* a peripheral. You transfer files to and from it via iTunes on your computer. The Kindle doesn’t have a USB-out port, and no-one seems to mind. Admittedly the iPad is a bit more than a Kindle, but still, you have options.
Removable battery? Apple haven’t been putting removable batteries in anything for years. As has been pointed out elsewhere, a non-removable battery means a longer battery life, since there’s more space for actual battery. It also means the case can be slimmer, and stronger, since a large opening in the case would be a weakness in the structure. Also, the battery itself would need to be more rugged so that it wasn’t damaged when being removed or inserted.
Last of all, there’s the kickstand. Leaving aside why anyone needs a stand (there are legitimate reasons for it, I accept), why is $40 for a case that doubles as a stand such a big deal. Also, wouldn’t including one make it harder for case and accessory manufacturers? Trying to make a cover that fits over the stand, or even lets you use it without removing the cover would be awkward. Plus it’s preventing the accessory manufacturers from making money by supplying the stand for the people that feel they need it, and it would annoy the people who don’t want one. Again, I note no-one complains about the absence of a stand on the Kindle.
Anyway, the iPad is here. Well, not *here*, but over there. And it is what it is. There is no doubt that it will change the IT market in ways we don’t fully understand yet, just as the Macintosh did for computers, the iPod did for music players, and the iPhone did for phones. (Not to mention the Newton and the PDA market it created.) If there’s anything about the iPad you don’t like, then maybe you should wait for something else to come along. The great thing about IT is that it accommodates a wide range of people with different tastes. If one manufacturer doesn’t make what you want, someone else will. Complaining that the iPad isn’t exactly what you want just means you shouldn’t buy one. You should buy the one from Dell that comes out next year. Or the Chrome-based Google pad. Or maybe something else entirely. Meanwhile spare a thought for those of us who do want one, and are willing to live with its “shortcomings” but can’t get it yet. (If Apple Australia are looking for people to review it prior to release, I’m available. Although I would like to test the 64GB 3G version, if at all possible.)
![Author Author](/universal/images/transparent.png)
![Comment Comment](/universal/images/transparent.png)
tagged
Apple,
Stop whining you bastids!,
iPad in
Apple and its detractors,
Tech Media
![Tag Tag](/universal/images/transparent.png)
![Tag Tag](/universal/images/transparent.png)
![Tag Tag](/universal/images/transparent.png)
![Category Category](/universal/images/transparent.png)
![Category Category](/universal/images/transparent.png)