Support NeoGAF

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

Really, I thought they were talked up pretty heavily in the several e-ink threads we've had at gaf

It's not like people were saying the lack of e-ink is a deal-breaker, they were pointing out that e-ink is better for actual books ... which it is. Where I think the iPad is superior is for smaller dosage content. Stuff like magazines, comics, newspapers, etc. will all be a superior experience on a tablet.




Huh? Reread the post. I was making multiple responses (3 to you, 2 to others)

The top and bottom ones to me I don't understand why you responded to me. One was out of context and cost of the 3g antenna or whatever you want to call it is irrelevant.

 

[neoanarch]

http://io9.com/5458822/why-the-ipad-is-crap-futurism

has this been posted yet?

Apple is marketing the iPad as a computer, when really it's nothing more than a media-consumption device - a convergence television, if you will. Think of it this way: One of the fundamental attributes of computers is that they are interactive and reconfigurable. You can change the way a computer behaves at a very deep level. Interactivity on the iPad consists of touching icons on the screen to change which application you're using. Hardly more interactive than changing channels on a TV. Sure, you can compose a short email or text message; you can use the Brushes app to draw a sketch. But those activities are not the same thing as programming the device to do something new. Unlike a computer, the iPad is simply not reconfigurable.

I like this article. Also it seems to argue the opposite of the new world vs old world article. The ipad being the resurgence of the old world device meant just for media consumption and not actual new world computing.

 

[Buckethead]

http://io9.com/5458822/why-the-ipad-is-crap-futurism
has this been posted yet?.

No and I was really grateful it hadn't.
Even if you don't like the iPad, that article is an abortion.

Of course, imo.

 

[wazoo]

About Flash : do we even know how flash would work on IPad ? on my macbook CoreDuo2, flash content make the computer warm, the fan starts and becomes mad, and now we are talking about a 1Ghz processor.

So, do we know how this would work on a non intel (ARM), quite slow (1GHZ), non windows (OSX Flash is terrible, and here it is not even OSX) ??

 

[wolfmat]

http://io9.com/5458822/why-the-ipad-is-crap-futurism

has this been posted yet?

That's a completely valid perspective.

 

[neoanarch]

No and I was really grateful it hadn't.
Even if you don't like the iPad, that article is an abortion.

Of course, imo.

haha no


But it does have plenty of reasons why the ipadshould be an abortion.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

haha no


But it does have plenty of reasons why the ipadshould be an abortion.

No it doesn't, that article is pretty awfully written.

 

[blu]

There is no such thing as 'background time'.

quite a few OSes have the concept of 'background time', actually. in unix it's called job control, usually used in combination with task priority control (AKA nice).

And of course there is already a system in place for the OS to manage which processes are using the resources. It's one of the most fundamental components of every OS. This is smh territory.

if you're referring to the process scheduler in every modern preemptive OS - that's not what was meant in the article (and of course, iphoneOS has a robust scheduler, like every modern preemptive OS). the task scheduler does not decide the inherent priority of the tasks - it just tries to make sure the already-established priorities are adhered to. other, meta-level scheduling agents decide what task should run at what priority level. such an agent could be the user himself, e.g. 'both my mp3 encoder and my dvd ripper run normally at the same priority, but right now i want the mp3 encoder to hurry up so i'll boost the encoder/demote the ripper' - this is not something a task scheduler could decide.

AAMOF, meta- (or macro-) level scheduling is one of the fundamental Achilles heels of today's preemptive OSes - the kernel's scheduler has no/insufficient knowledge of any meta-level priority dynamics. that's why we try to predispose the kernel scheduler toward one behavior or another, based on meta-scheduling concerns. eg. in linux there are different kernel-build-time settings that allow you to chose among a server-tuned scheduler, vs a desktop-tuned scheduler, etc - these are all things that only the human user can decide.

in this regard, an 'activity-oriented' platform can be a paradigm shift in the problem of task scheduling - something along the lines of implicit job control (i.e. the job control is done by the system, based on the fact that the user interest lies in known processes). a single-task platform is an example of such a 'activity-oriented' environment - the job control always knows what the user cares about.

 

[Hitokage]

5 years from now all those people on the gaming side bitching about 'waggle' and calling it 'tacked-on' will be having in-depth gestural command debates.

Sounds about as pointless as debating controller button mappings in an FPS.

quite a few OSes have the concept of 'background time', actually. in unix it's called job control, usually used in combination with task priority control (AKA nice).

Are we talking about process handling or terminal control?

a single-task patform is an example of such a 'activity-oriented' platform - the job control always knows what the user cares about.

Choices are easy when there's only one option.

 

[Reginald P. Linux]

This is nuts: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9150045/Apple_makes_208_on_each_499_iPad

As a hardware expert pointed out Wednesday, the iPad that can connect to the Internet via a 3G data network is even more profitable, since Apple adds a $130 surcharge for those tablets but incurs a very small hardware cost to add 3G.

By Marshall's estimate, the $629 16GB iPad with Wi-Fi and 3G costs Apple $306.50, just $16 more than the Wi-Fi-only model, giving the company a profit margin of 52%, a jump of nine percentage points.

 

[eggandI]

Nice Trolling. And notice how the ones with prices don't have 3g? But yet you want to use 3G compare prices instead of wifi vs wifi? Keep trolling. SMH.

What? no. All I'm saying is it's stupid for the iPad not have multi-tasking when other machines can easily do it at the same price point (and a lot lower) as the lowest iPad SKU. And no, don't try to fucking tell me multi-tasking is overrated or I'm not really multi-tasking or that single tasking is the way of the future. That's drivel.

 

[noah111]

No and I was really grateful it hadn't.
Even if you don't like the iPad, that article is an abortion.

Of course, imo.

Agreed, pretty distasteful.

Am I the only one who wants Apple to make something like the Lenovo U1? I could definitely see something like that with the iPad, where you literally plugin the monitor to a keyboard.

This is nuts: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9150045/Apple_makes_208_on_each_499_iPad

Wow if true, though I wouldn't expect the whole hardware extra piece/enclosure to be only $16 extra in manufacturing..

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

What? no. All I'm saying is it's stupid for the iPad not have multi-touch when other machines can easily do it at the same price point (and a lot lower) as the lowest iPad SKU. And no, don't try to fucking tell me multi-tasking is overrated or I'm not really multi-tasking or that single tasking is the way of the future. That's drivel.

Hehe....
I haven't said any of those. I hope it has at least some multitasking for simple things that you would want to multitask or at least some kind of other method that does the same thing.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

What? no. All I'm saying is it's stupid for the iPad not have multi-tasking when other machines can easily do it at the same price point (and a lot lower) as the lowest iPad SKU. And no, don't try to fucking tell me multi-tasking is overrated or I'm not really multi-tasking or that single tasking is the way of the future. That's drivel.

It's a design choice. The 360 is powerful enough to play last.fm while you play games, but you can't. Life goes on.

 

[Tobor]

This is nuts: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9150045/Apple_makes_208_on_each_499_iPad

It's facetious. Dell charges $125 for 3G on netbooks as well. The cost of the part is not the only expense.

 

[noah111]

What? no. All I'm saying is it's stupid for the iPad not have multi-tasking when other machines can easily do it at the same price point (and a lot lower) as the lowest iPad SKU. And no, don't try to fucking tell me multi-tasking is overrated or I'm not really multi-tasking or that single tasking is the way of the future. That's drivel.

Wait, isn't it entirely possible for them to add minimal multitasking via firmware update?

Honestly I don't understand the large appeal for multitasking, maybe for some stuff but if the app generally remembers where I was previously (ie the page I was reading in a book) then i'm ok.

 

[blu]

Are we talking about process handling or terminal control?

terminal control is part of process handling - the decision 'process A is on the background' (i.e. away from the terminal) vs 'process A is on the foreground' (i.e. on the terminal) is both related to the terminal output, and to what you can do with the process in terms of scheduling; in some unix environments background jobs can be automagically niced, or upon root's discretion.

Choices are easy when there's only one option.

of course. choices get harder proportionally to the number of options.

 

[Raistlin]

The top and bottom ones to me I don't understand why you responded to me. One was out of context and cost of the 3g antenna or whatever you want to call it is irrelevant.

If I'm understanding the posts correctly, in the top one you were arguing that people shouldn't compare the prices of 3G enabled tablets versus non-3G ones, implying it is unfair. So I responded by pointing out that the 3G hardware is relatively cheap, meaning that there really isn't a reason to avoid pricing comparisons of the tablets (within reason). Obviously yes, you should spot some money to the 3G ones, I'm just saying it's not a huge cost. Certainly nowhere near what the iPad margin implies.


I suppose the bottom one was out of context, but I could also argue that your post was irrelevant to Teddman's point. I was simply pointing out that either way, Netflix it isn't supported.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

If I'm understanding the posts correctly, in the top one you were arguing that people shouldn't compare the prices of 3G enabled tablets versus non-3G ones, implying it is unfair. So I responded by pointing out that the 3G hardware is relatively cheap, meaning that there really isn't a reason to avoid pricing comparisons of the tablets (within reason). Obviously yes, you should spot some money to the 3G ones, I'm just saying it's not a huge cost. Certainly nowhere near what the iPad margin implies.


I suppose the bottom one was out of context, but I could also argue that your post was irrelevant to Teddman's point. I was simply pointing out that either way, Netflix it isn't supported.

Ya, but like Tobor said other places have the higher prices for 3g also. It's also telling when the only ones with prices are non 3g devices and the cost of it is irrelevant because there isn't a certain mark up you have to charge per item in a device as previous devices have shown from every company. I was just responding to the guy saying it was a ripoff when it had an added feature that has always cost more.

 

[mrkgoo]

This is nuts: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9150045/Apple_makes_208_on_each_499_iPad

I never ever bought the arguments about the cost of a device. OF course, they were interesting in their own right, but they don't take into account R&D of the product, software development, the concept that a pricing structure is based upon ALL of the models in a lineup, aftermarket warranties, service, printing of the box or any other number of intangible costs.

So a 3G antenna costs $16. But what is going to pay for the software coder/debugger/tester who has to make sure it switches seamlessly between Wifi and 3G? What pays for the incorporation of a sim slot?

In actuality the price of a product is not set at the cost of the manufacture and then bumped up by a percentage. They calculate based on a whole range of factors based on R&D, which models they think well sell the most, and adjust the model lineup based on the other models.

To say that a $130 is being charged for a $16 part isn't the complete story. For example, they might predict that customers will pay $130 for the added functionality, and that part of this extra cost can subsidise the non-3G models which they can sell for cheaper than they intended (we don't make as much profit on this model, but we can make up for it by making extra profit on this one).

 

[maharg]

Jesus. The material cost of a product is absolutely and utterly irrelevant to its price. It never has been relevant and it never will be. The only thing that's relevant is whether it can be sold for a price that creates a a worthwhile profit from aggregate sales. Unit cost is a variable in that calculation, but the others do not revolve around it.

Nothing you've ever bought has been priced based on inane stacking of component material costs. The only thing that matters is what the market will bear.

 

[mrkgoo]

Jesus. The material cost of a product is absolutely and utterly irrelevant to its price. It never has been relevant and it never will be. The only thing that's relevant is whether it can be sold for a price that creates a a worthwhile profit from aggregate sales.

Nothing you've ever bought has been priced based on inane stacking of component material costs. The only thing that matters is what the market will bear.

Ugh, so much more eloquent than what I wrote.

 

[blu]

Jesus. The material cost of a product is absolutely and utterly irrelevant to its price. It never has been relevant and it never will be. The only thing that's relevant is whether it can be sold for a price that creates a a worthwhile profit from aggregate sales. Unit cost is a variable in that calculation, but the others do not revolve around it.

Nothing you've ever bought has been priced based on inane stacking of component material costs. The only thing that matters is what the market will bear.

well, apparently the common opinion among well-educated arm-chair specialists is that products are brought to the market by randomly picking components and stacking them in a paper bag. then you leave them overnight to osmosis and voila - you get the finished product at the next morning.

 

[Raistlin]

Jesus. The material cost of a product is absolutely and utterly irrelevant to its price. It never has been relevant and it never will be. The only thing that's relevant is whether it can be sold for a price that creates a a worthwhile profit from aggregate sales. Unit cost is a variable in that calculation, but the others do not revolve around it.

Nothing you've ever bought has been priced based on inane stacking of component material costs. The only thing that matters is what the market will bear.

I would hope most people realize that this is the case. I think people are simply a little disappointed. Even when taking the point into account, it seems quite likely the higher end models have larger margins than the base unit. In a perfect world (from a consumer's perspective), margins would stay linear ... obviously that doesn't typically happen.

Apple is free to price stuff however they deem fit. The market will determine whether it is acceptable or not.

 

[mrkgoo]

I would hope most people realize that this is the case. I think people are simply a little disappointed. Even when taking the point into account, it seems quite likely the higher end models have larger margins than the base unit. In a perfect world (from a consumer's perspective), margins would stay linear ... obviously that doesn't typically happen.

Apple is free to price stuff however they deem fit. The market will determine whether it is acceptable or not.

Heh, caught your stealth edit It's funny, just removing his first word completely changes the tone of the response.

 

[Raistlin]

Heh, caught your stealth edit It's funny, just removing his first word completely changes the tone of the response.

:lol Yeah it does

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

I would hope most people realize that this is the case. I think people are simply a little disappointed. Even when taking the point into account, it seems quite likely the higher end models have larger margins than the base unit. In a perfect world (from a consumer's perspective), margins would stay linear ... obviously that doesn't typically happen.

Apple is free to price stuff however they deem fit. The market will determine whether it is acceptable or not.

Says the guy who responded a couple pages after the fact to say how it's only a $16 adapter.

 

[mrkgoo]

:lol Yeah it does

It's so easy to misinterpret a tone in text. So many times people (including myself) will have read a response as being angry, when it wasn't or vice versa. Best to just take things at face value, I think

 

[HocusPocus]

Absolutely terrible name. I'll reserve comment on it until I try it out, but it doesn't look that appealing to me. I have an IPOD Touch, and I don't really feel the need to have a bigger one.

 

[Raistlin]

Says the guy who responded a couple pages after the fact to say how it's only a $16 adapter.

Well I did say in my second response that it actually costs more than that, just not how much we're being charged.

 

[Blackface]

Jesus. The material cost of a product is absolutely and utterly irrelevant to its price. It never has been relevant and it never will be. The only thing that's relevant is whether it can be sold for a price that creates a a worthwhile profit from aggregate sales. Unit cost is a variable in that calculation, but the others do not revolve around it.

Nothing you've ever bought has been priced based on inane stacking of component material costs. The only thing that matters is what the market will bear.

This isn't entirely true. Material cost of a product is irrelevant to some companies using specific business models. Apple doesn't use that business model. If they did they would sell the Ipad for $50 profit and rake in gigantic amounts of profit from increased sales of their DRM locked down multi-media.

Material cost is one of many factors in Apple deciding the price of their product. Another would be the uniqueness of a specific material or product within their product being used. If they can market it as "superior", even if it may not be, they will charge a premium. It always has been this way with Apple.

 

[tfur]

quite a few OSes have the concept of 'background time', actually. in unix it's called job control, usually used in combination with task priority control (AKA nice).


if you're referring to the process scheduler in every modern preemptive OS - that's not what was meant in the article (and of course, iphoneOS has a robust scheduler, like every modern preemptive OS). the task scheduler does not decide the inherent priority of the tasks - it just tries to make sure the already-established priorities are adhered to. other, meta-level scheduling agents decide what task should run at what priority level. such an agent could be the user himself, e.g. 'both my mp3 encoder and my dvd ripper run normally at the same priority, but right now i want the mp3 encoder to hurry up so i'll boost the encoder/demote the ripper' - this is not something a task scheduler could decide.

AAMOF, meta- (or macro-) level scheduling is one of the fundamental Achilles heels of today's preemptive OSes - the kernel's scheduler has no/insufficient knowledge of any meta-level priority dynamics. that's why we try to predispose the kernel scheduler toward one behavior or another, based on meta-scheduling concerns. eg. in linux there are different kernel-build-time settings that allow you to chose among a server-tuned scheduler, vs a desktop-tuned scheduler, etc - these are all things that only the human user can decide.

in this regard, an 'activity-oriented' platform can be a paradigm shift in the problem of task scheduling - something along the lines of implicit job control (i.e. the job control is done by the system, based on the fact that the user interest lies in known processes). a single-task platform is an example of such a 'activity-oriented' environment - the job control always knows what the user cares about.

I guess it all depends on how you define "background" time. There is no concept of background time in UNIX; there is priority and context switching. There is always something in the run queue, and the concept of background time does not fit into the UNIX infinitely looping scheduler construct.

There are modern UNIX operating systems that do have quite a bit of control for both kernel and user scheduling. Solaris 10 has nearly 200 different priorities for threads, that include "interactive" and "real time" scheduling.

In my opinion, there is nothing that the iPad does that requires a paradigm shift for task scheduling. The only reasons for single tasking at this point are: design choice, and memory constraints.

Does anyone know how much memory this device has?

 

[mrklaw]

I agree that it's a little half baked now, but I think I want to enjoy the ride. The underlying OS is very capable and I'm sure well see some good updates from apple, not to mention what 3rd parties do with it

I'll get the base wifi one and if they release a big hardware update next year with camera etc I'll still have had lots of fun with it.

 

[LiveFromKyoto]

http://io9.com/5458822/why-the-ipad-is-crap-futurism

has this been posted yet?



I like this article. Also it seems to argue the opposite of the new world vs old world article. The ipad being the resurgence of the old world device meant just for media consumption and not actual new world computing.

That guy is kinda talking nonsense. There is nothing about the definition of computers that says they're inherently reconfigurable or that "you can change the way a computer behaves at a very deep level." Not only have most computers throughout history been single-purpose, 99.99999% of modern computers are never changed "at a very deep level." Somebody slaps in an OS and futzes around with preferences/control panel. Yippee. Hardly anybody but the upper tier of developers really get down to the kernel level or deeper (this is where we argue about what "very deep level" means). Hardware reconfiguration is not part of what a computer is or isn't either.

His real problem with it seems to be that it's a closed device, which yes, stifles creativity, but also avoids the problems which have plagued other operating systems over the last three decades - compatibility, overall system functionality, viral infections. Eliminating those cannot be discounted as a serious step forward.

 

[Karma Kramer]

His real problem with it seems to be that it's a closed device, which yes, stifles creativity, but also avoids the problems which have plagued other operating systems over the last three decades - compatibility, overall system functionality, viral infections. Eliminating those cannot be discounted as a serious step forward.

OS X doesn't have these problems.

 

[mrkgoo]

OS X doesn't have these problems.

Of course it does. It suffers from compatibility and stability problems when you install third party stuff. Safari crashes and stutters due to flash. installing a bunch of extensions can cause kernels to panic, or things not to run well.

That's his point that a closed controlled environment has got to be bait better in operation than a free for all. The debate is simply that an open system, if you're careful, can net you more advantages.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Of course it does. It suffers from compatibility and stability problems when you install third party stuff. Safari crashes and stutters due to flash. installing a bunch of extensions can cause kernels to panic, or things not to run well.

That's his point that a closed controlled environment has got to be bait better in operation than a free for all. The debate is simply that an open system, if you're careful, can net you more advantages.

You sure are making OSX sound like how Mac owners describe Windows all these years.... It just sounds odd to hear OSX being declared problematic in thsoe areas.

 

[Spriig]

Sorry if this has been posted.
--

Confirmed: iPhone OS 3.2 has support for video calling, file downloads, and SMS (update: handwriting keyboard)

The iPad may not have a camera in its current incarnation, but Apple's at least laying the foundation for one: we just confirmed with extremely trusted sources that iPhone OS 3.2 contains rudimentary support for video calling, which could explain that mysterious space at the top of the device in our leaked pics. We're told that there are hooks to accept and decline a video conference, flip a video feed (which suggests a front-facing camera) and -- most importantly -- run the video call in either full screen mode or in just a portion of the screen. That means you'll be able to chat and do other things at the same time, which could mean there's at least some type of multitasking going on here.

We can also confirm that iPhone OS 3.2 supports file downloads and local storage in the browser, which means you'll be able to pull files off the web and use them in other apps, and there's at least the beginnings of SMS support buried within the code -- a fact we were able to verify with noted iPhone jailbreaker chpwn, who sent in the above screenshot from a hacked-up copy of the iPad simulator. (The simulator always says "iPhone simulator" in the menu bar, but that's the iPad.) chpwn also tells us he's found some inklings of actual phone support, there's a spellchecker, and that both the new landscape orientation for the homescreen and keyboard support appear to be destined for the iPhone itself when 3.2 comes out.

P.S.- chpwn was also able to port iPhone multitasking hacks ProSwitcher and Backgrounder to the iPad simulator, which is certainly going to be useful if an iPad jailbreak exploit is eventually discovered. Check out a shot of it going in the gallery below, along with some other settings panels the coder dug up.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/29/confirmed-iphone-os-3-2-has-support-for-video-calling-file-dow/

I'm going to wait for a couple of big firmware updates before I make a final decision on this thing.. I'm wanting to see it "evolve" so to speak. At the moment though I cant see my self making a purchase.

 

[WordAssassin]

I would love to see a bluetooth Gamepad released for this thing and games that support it.

They've been selling them for about three years now, they're called iPhones and iPod Touches.

Also, I was just gonna get the WiFi iPad, but the VoIP thing just sold me a 3G. I'll have an incredible mobile computer / multimedia tablet, with unlimited internet access AND free phone calls for only $30 a month? Yes. Sign me up. Hell, sign me up for 2 because as soon as my dad heard that he just about shit a brick. I could get rid of my phone and just have the iPad then. All it needs now is a damn camera...

 

[Hitokage]

Of course it does. It suffers from compatibility and stability problems when you install third party stuff. Safari crashes and stutters due to flash.

Strictly speaking, this is a problem with Safari and Flash alone, not OSX.

A program crashing is not the same as system instability.

 

[mrklaw]

You'd still need a phone though, unless you want to trump sidetalking in the 'absurd phone call' stakes

 

[WordAssassin]

You'd still need a phone though, unless you want to trump sidetalking in the 'absurd phone call' stakes

Yeah, I know. I love my iPhone too much, plus it has a camera. I could always just use a bluetooth headset for the iPad, though, and keep it in my backpack or a satchel or something.

Do they make a pay-as-you-go plan for the iPhone? Then I could just have the bare minimum payments for the voice plan on the iPhone, and use the iPad for everything else.

 

[mrkgoo]

You sure are making OSX sound like how Mac owners describe Windows all these years.... It just sounds odd to hear OSX being declared problematic in thsoe areas.

Meh, I've always had this stance. It's why I stay away from any crazy modifications. I've always maintained that the biggest advantage of the Mac environment is that the hardware makers are the software makers. It's why I stick with Safari, iTunes, Apple products. They were all designed from the ground up to work with each other in all aspects.

For sure, I'll break out if I see the need. I use Office over iWork, for example. But Office was broken after I went to Snow Leopard. Not unsurprising. NOthing major just an arbitrary crash on close. I expect that, even though the MS team should know what the Mac environment should be like. It's a third party App, so Apple didn't test it -it's not their responsibility.

As it turns out, I figured out the source of the bug. What was it? A thirdparty add-on for office. See how that works? It was something out of MS control. (for the record, I needed to have that add-on. When I found the problem, I disabled the add-on and will only enable it for when I need it - I know for a fact that they probably will never fix it).

Obviously, staying in the family doesn't always work either, and you can lose a bit of functionality too, but that's the risk I take, I guess. I can name a huge lists of faults with my favourite apps made by Apple.

 

[SnakeXs]

You sure are making OSX sound like how Mac owners describe Windows all these years.... It just sounds odd to hear OSX being declared problematic in thsoe areas.

Just my 2 cents, for a few weeks a few years ago, I had pretty common kernel panics. It freaked me out. I ran every diagnostic I could, and found nothing.

It turned out to be a fan controlling menu bar item I had installed.

Uninstalled it and since then I've had none.

Regardless of how common something is or not, or how stable the base platform, when you allow things to access deep into the OS, instability can happen. And instability is one of the most frustrating things in modern computing, when it does happen.

 

[mrkgoo]

Strictly speaking, this is a problem with Safari and Flash alone, not OSX.

A program crashing is not the same as system instability.

I know. I'm just using it as an example of a poorer user experience caused by an open environment - meaning it was something outside of safari which is causing a problem. If safari, in this case, where to be locked down and not allow flash, then it wouldn't have that particular issue (but obviously limits the experience in other ways). Perhaps a bad example, though, seeing as how it's currently a touchy subject, and we're talking about the OS more.

 

[mrkgoo]

Stolen from macrumors, reporting on Joe Hewitt's comments:

http://joehewitt.com/post/ipad/

I felt strongly that all Apple needed to do to revolutionize computing was simply to make an iPhone with a large screen. Anyone who feels underwhelmed by that doesn't understand how much of the iPhone OS's potential is still untapped.

The bottom line is, many apps which were cute toys on iPhone can become full-featured power tools on the iPad, making you forget about their desktop/laptop predecessors. We just have to invent them.

True, iPad 1.0 has a lot of limitations which make it hard to be compared to a laptop today. We're not there yet, people, but does it really take that much imagination to see how we will get there? Apple clearly wants to increase its investment in iPhone OS and reduce its investment in Mac OS X. At some point in the near future, Apple will adapt iPhone OS to even larger screens, add multi-tasking, and release something like a laptop or iMac with the OS.

Not to mention if you start now, you'll have an edge if this takes off.

iPad is an incredible opportunity for developers to re-imagine every single category of desktop and web software there is. Seriously, if you're a developer and you're not thinking about how your app could work better on the iPad and its descendants, you deserve to get left behind.

Yay, selective quoting ftw.

 

[Burger]

This is nuts: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9150045/Apple_makes_208_on_each_499_iPad

:lol :lol :lol

No it's not. Where did the millions of dollars spent on years of prototyping and development come from ?

What about the software team ? Did they work for free, in free offices, using free tools and free computers ? What about all the costs involved in marketing and sales, and shipping, and on and on and on...

Apple spent over quarter of a billion dollars just developing the iPhone. You can't complain that it costs less to manufacture the price you pay. That 51% number is in no way to be considered profit.

 

[Vennt]

Actually, you can count me among those that got rid of my iPhone because it just wasn't good enough at being a phone, when out on the move.

Utterly unacceptable battery life, one simple flaw that made it impossible for me to justify keeping, especially when I had a Touch for all the other purposes I used my iPhone for (Except GPS).

You'll pry my Touch out of my cold dead heads, at least until I replace it with something like an iPad, but the phone aspect of the iPhone really didn't win me over that much, in fact you won't pry the Touch out of my cold dead hands, because I'd kill you first if you tried, with fire if necessary .

 

[mrkgoo]

Actually, you can count me among those that got rid of my iPhone because it just wasn't good enough at being a phone, when out on the move.

Utterly unacceptable battery life, one simple flaw that made it impossible for me to justify keeping, especially when I had a Touch for all the other purposes I used my iPhone for (Except GPS).

You'll pry my Touch out of my cold dead heads, at least until I replace it with something like an iPad, but the phone aspect of the iPhone really didn't win me over that much, in fact you won't pry the Touch out of my cold dead hands, because I'd kill you first if you tried, with fire if necessary .

I was kind of opposite. I started with a gimped 1st gen touch, mostly because it came out before the iPhone *in NZ), and didn't immediately get an iPhone due to contract (I just don't use a phone enough to warrant a contract). When I learnt that a contract wasn't necessary, I bought a 3G straight away. I immediately enjoyed the device convergence. I don't use the phone app all that much, but love my phone. I use SMS, the camera the gps the mic. It's all good. And I'm in the US now on prepaid, cheap sm., and free data. Must kill me to get my phone!

 

[Mecha_Infantry]

Just seen the keynote presentation; I can't wait for this shit

The demo of iWorks is interesting, funny the lead for the iworks dev team said it's not possible for it to run on a mobile device