Support NeoGAF

[Flying_Phoenix]

I thought Youtube didn't support true HTML5.

What's this then?


Also people are still arguing about Flash?

Christ. Look I know it's important but it's so buggy and far behind. It's as bad as the Flash Program (well for animating at least).

 

[Teddman]

Rhapsody and Spotify have apps.

Only streaming, not downloading. You can't download songs on Rhapsody via the iPhone as you can on their web store.

Basically, everything that doesn't compete with iTunes is allowed.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

So Apple is stubborn and want to use H264 at all cost. The last alternative is for Google to open a codec for free (They bought On2 like 6 months). But Apple could still veto it, leaving the video tag in shamble.

They are right though that Ogg Theora has poor hardware support and Google is right that it can't compress and handle video as well as h.264. Almost everything notable has an h.264 hardware decoder. The problem are the licenses.

So what we're waiting for is Ogg to improve and get the hardware support or for the h.264 license mess to just go away, and the safe bet is on h.264 getting its mess cleaned up faster than Ogg improving.

Only streaming, not downloading. You can't download songs on Rhapsody via the iPhone as you can on their web store.

Basically, everything that doesn't compete with iTunes is allowed.

Where the hell are you going to download it to? There is no visible file system.

Spotify supports downloading songs for Offline Playback. That's as close as it's going to get. It isn't Apple stifling download service competition, it's just that there's no place to download to.

Like I said, if Hulu ever makes an app and gets rejected, or even if Amazon's Kindle app disappears after the iPad comes out, you've got a case. As it is, you're being a conspiracy nut about this.

 

[DarkJC]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_Ogg_formats_in_HTML5



http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.html

So Apple is stubborn and want to use H264 at all cost. The last alternative is for Google to open a codec for free (They bought On2 like 6 months). But Apple could still veto it, leaving the video tag in shamble.

The video tag shouldn't specify a codec no more than an img tag should specify a certain type of image.

 

[Tobor]

Here's something else to consider in this equation. TV networks generally have different deals set up for their content on mobile devices. If you could watch flash video via Safari on the iPhone/iPad, that's basically taking a huge cut of what would normally fall under a mobile deal, AND it's making any content-over-web deal worth much more (more than they might be getting paid now without iPad/iPhone factored in).

If Apple were to allow Flash on the iPhone/iPad I think you'd see Hulu and the TV networks' sites disallowing those devices VERY quickly, just like Hulu is blocked on the PS3.

I hadn't even considered this. Excellent point.

 

[Schlep]

Wow I'm late to this. I Stopped liking Apple when my 4th gen iPod shit itself after the 3rd replacement. To me Apple has always come across as a fashion accessory 1st and a computer 2nd since anybody I know who owns or wants one has no real need for it. This iPad is nothing more than an iGimmick imo.

My use of Logic Pro as well as a couple photo and video editing solutions says you're wrong. Not to mention all the other tasks that I just prefer to do on a Mac on a daily basis.

Just because the people you know carry around Apple products as a fashion accessory doesn't mean there aren't people like me around who've been using Macs as a tool for over a decade, and others who have been for much longer than that.

 

[deadhorse32]

The video tag shouldn't specify a codec no more than an img tag should specify a certain type of image.

But it should use free codec that all the browser can implement and distribute freely. It's not the case of H264 that's why more people are supporting the less good but free Theora codec.

 

[SnakeXs]

My use of Logic Pro as well as a couple photo and video editing solutions says you're wrong, not to mention all the other tasks that I just prefer to do on a Mac on a daily basis.

Just because the people you know carry around Apple products as a fashion accessory doesn't mean there aren't people like me around who've been using Macs as a tool for over a decade, and others who have been for much longer than that.

Did you really feel that guy and his rock solid argument were worth responding to? Really?

 

[Schlep]

Did you really feel that guy and his rock solid argument were worth responding to? Really?

I dunno. What do you do when you're bored at work? :lol

 

[Gio_CoD]

I hadn't even considered this. Excellent point.

How is it an excellent point? Even if he's right, and Hulu did block access to it's website from mobile devices, why would that somehow justify the complete exclusion of Flash when it's used in so many other places?

 

[mrklaw]

Here's something else to consider in this equation. TV networks generally have different deals set up for their content on mobile devices. If you could watch flash video via Safari on the iPhone/iPad, that's basically taking a huge cut of what would normally fall under a mobile deal, AND it's making any content-over-web deal worth much more (more than they might be getting paid now without iPad/iPhone factored in).

If Apple were to allow Flash on the iPhone/iPad I think you'd see Hulu and the TV networks' sites disallowing those devices VERY quickly, just like Hulu is blocked on the PS3.

hmm. So will websites consider the ipad to be a big ipod (and serve up a custom page) or deliver the full web version (minus flash).

It has the screen size to suggest you'd want the full version, but lack of flash means any videos need to be served up in the same way they are for iphone.

 

[Teddman]

Where the hell are you going to download it to? There is no visible file system.

Spotify supports downloading songs for Offline Playback. That's as close as it's going to get. It isn't Apple stifling download service competition, it's just that there's no place to download to.

Exactly. Somehow iTunes purchases find a place just fine though, don't they?

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Jeffrey Zeldman nails it: http://www.zeldman.com/2010/02/01/flash-ipad-standards/

Exactly. Somehow iTunes purchases find a place just fine though, don't they?

Yep. But what you're trying to say now is that you want Apple to open the sandboxes. That's fine and I agree, but it doesn't support your conspiracy theories. Kindle purchases find their way into my Kindle app just fine. You can buy content for anything, but they need to work with the iPhone system, and that's a completely different argument than assuming Apple's trying to ban competitors.

 

[Teddman]

At this point, Apple has no competing product with the Kindle store.

When they do, Apple's taken steps to make sure Kindle and iBook prices will be the same. They're not going to outright ban a competitor--that would draw the Fed's attention as in the Google Voice scandal.

 

[Vennt]

Stanza allows ebooks and content to be downloaded and read offline too, in fact all apps have their own storage space that they can save files to, it's just that the FS is abstracted away from the user in such as way as to be seamless, therefore files are only really available to the app that downloaded them, and are lost if the app is deleted from the system.

There's no denying that Apple are designing such systems as closed eco-systems, but there's not really been any evidence so far of them tightening it up to the point that detractors claim, even Google Voice has been eventually approved, so whilst I can access free media content (BBC iPlayer, 4OD for instance) in addition to iTunes content I'm not going to take "Apple is taking over the world" style conspiracy theories too seriously, the distinction between locally stored and streamed really means nothing to me when I can run a media server on my desktop and stream any content I please to my devices at will.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

When they do, Apple's taken steps to make sure Kindle and iBook prices will be the same. They're not going to outright ban a competitor--that would draw the Fed's attention as in the Google Voice scandal. They're more creative than that.

I feel like I'm debating with a truther.

When this creative competition stifling actually happens, get back to us.

 

[MilesWebber]

Throwing my hat in here...

This device needs an apple version of One Note or Evernote foe students. That would make it indispensable.

 

[mrkgoo]

I find it hard to participate in this discussion ad I dint know much about it's implementation and also that it's absence has not affected my web experience whatsoever on the iPhone (I think).

Does not havin flash speed up websites and prevent system slow down? If so then that's a reason right there. Apple don't want to have the premiere feature of the ipad (or iPhone) to be one where the experience isn't good. When safari was first released on the iPhone, it crashed often enough without the help.

 

[SuperPac]

How is it an excellent point? Even if he's right, and Hulu did block access to it's website from mobile devices, why would that somehow justify the complete exclusion of Flash when it's used in so many other places?

Well I don't just mean Hulu but basically any Flash video site that provides licensed broadcast (non-user-generated or pornographic) content. If in their agreements they do not have rights to allow mobile devices to access it they'd have to block iPad/iPhone access. In much the same way Hulu is blocked on PS3.

So if you're not counting YouTube (because they have an app) and if Hulu and other broadcast copyright holders started blocking their flash video content from being viewed on mobile devices, what % of non-porn web video is left? My guess is you're getting pretty low in the numbers.

 

[Teddman]

There's no denying that Apple are designing such systems as closed eco-systems, but there's not really been any evidence so far of them tightening it up to the point that detractors claim, even Google Voice has been eventually approved.

No. They had to circumvent the App Store via a web browser approach.

Google Voice Comes to the iPhone

Apple told Google that its Voice app was not welcome in the App Store, to the chagrin of many users of the service. Google did not give up, it went ahead and developed a web app that works on any handset supporting HTML 5

Google Voice Web App Circumvents Apple’s Blockade

Apple may have blocked the Google Voice internet telephony app from its App Store, but Google has executed a nifty end-run around the blockade by releasing Google Voice as a web page that is accessible by any HTML5 web browser.

 

[Schlep]

This device needs an apple version of One Note or Evernote foe students. That would make it indispensable.

http://blog.evernote.com/2010/01/27/happy-tablet-day/

Evernote is going to support the Apple iPad. Oh Yeah. We’re gonna support the hell out of it. We’re glad to see that the current Evernote iPhone app will run on the iPad without modification, but we’ll be modifying it anyway to optimize the experience on the larger device. Oh how we’ll be modifying it! Expect rapid improvements to our iPhone app which will benefit all of our iPhone, iPod Touch and, now, iPad users in the near future.

 

[mrklaw]

I feel like I'm debating with a truther.

When this creative competition stifling actually happens, get back to us.

I thought they'd already done it, with Amazon accepting publisher pricing for books, taking an 'agency' role rather than a wholesale/retail role

 

[Vennt]

Throwing my hat in here...

This device needs an apple version of One Note or Evernote foe students. That would make it indispensable.

You mean like this?

You'd need a capacitive stylus to use it, which would be like writing with a felt tip pen, but it's doable with the right stylus, such as the Dagi.

 

[Tobor]

How is it an excellent point? Even if he's right, and Hulu did block access to it's website from mobile devices, why would that somehow justify the complete exclusion of Flash when it's used in so many other places?

Don't jump down my throat, dude. It's an excellent point that Flash on mobile effects licensing deals. Hulu has already blocked devices using flash, and there's no reason to expect they won't in the future.(Android) I'm not justifying anything, just reacting to a well reasoned thought from someone who actually has experience with moving Flash content to the app store.

 

[Gio_CoD]

Well I don't just mean Hulu but basically any Flash video site that provides licensed broadcast (non-user-generated or pornographic) content. If in their agreements they do not have rights to allow mobile devices to access it they'd have to block iPad/iPhone access. In much the same way Hulu is blocked on PS3.

So if you're not counting YouTube (because they have an app) and if Hulu and other broadcast copyright holders started blocking their flash video content from being viewed on mobile devices, what % of non-porn web video is left? My guess is you're getting pretty low in the numbers.

I don't think you'd be getting low in the numbers at all. Break? Metacafe? ESPN (they do convert some of their videos)? CNN? A bunch of streaming radio sites? Local news sites? There's tons of stuff, and again, this is making an assumption that all these content providers would ban it, for which we don't really have any reason to believe they would, other than Hulu removing the PS3 from it's supported devices.

Don't jump down my throat, dude. It's an excellent point that Flash on mobile effects licensing deals. Hulu has already blocked devices using flash, and there's no reason to expect they won't in the future.(Android) I'm not justifying anything, just reacting to a well reasoned thought from someone who actually has experience with moving Flash content to the app store.

How did I jump down your throat?

 

[Jill Sandwich]

http://blog.evernote.com/2010/01/27/happy-tablet-day/

Oh yes Evernote all over my face!

 

[Vennt]

No. They had to circumvent the App Store via a web browser approach.

Google Voice Comes to the iPhone

Google Voice Web App Circumvents Apple’s Blockade

Interesting, didn't realise they'd got it done that way, I guess we'll see Web App support removed in the next version of the OS then

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I don't think you'd be getting low in the numbers at all. Break? Metacafe? ESPN (they do convert some of their videos)? CNN? A bunch of streaming radio sites? Local news sites? There's tons of stuff, and again, this is making an assumption that all these content providers would ban it, for which we don't really have any reason to believe they would, other than Hulu removing the PS3 from it's supported devices.

CNN, ESPN, Metacafe, and even some local news places have iPhone apps.

I just checked Break and they have a mobile site that streams video just fine without Flash.

 

[Kung Fu Jedi]

Man, I can't wait until the iPad comes out so we can actually talk about it, and the apps, accessories, uses, etc. This Flash debate is stale, beat to death, and has so many ramifications that go well beyond Apple and their devices.

 

[Gio_CoD]

CNN, ESPN, Metacafe, and even some local news places have iPhone apps.

Which, again, don't feature all of the videos from the full-functioned website.

 

[SuperPac]

I don't think you'd be getting low in the numbers at all. Break? Metacafe? ESPN (they do convert some of their videos)? CNN? A bunch of streaming radio sites? Local news sites? There's tons of stuff, and again, this is making an assumption that all these content providers would ban it, for which we don't really have any reason to believe they would, other than Hulu removing the PS3 from it's supported devices.

I get that there are many other streaming video sites. But I'm saying licensed content from broadcast, all those shows and that content have different deals for web and mobile. With different payment structures. If suddenly the most popular mobile devices in the world play Flash Video, that changes those deals in a significant way.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Which, again, don't feature all of the videos from the full-functioned website.

Yes they do, especially when you note that CNN and ESPN also have fully functional mobile versions of their website that play video fine.

SuperPac is right: when you take out YouTube, and then consider all of these sites with mobile versions and applications, there's so little left to actually complain about. All of this back and forth going on forever really is almost entirely only about Hulu.

 

[Tobor]

Man, I can't wait until the iPad comes out so we can actually talk about it, and the apps, accessories, uses, etc. This Flash debate is stale, beat to death, and has so many ramifications that go well beyond Apple and their devices.

Two months. Things will pick up once we start to get more software announcements.

How did I jump down your throat?

You probably didn't, but you've been hostile in the thread and I read it that way. My apologies for that, at least.

 

[mrkgoo]

I don't think you'd be getting low in the numbers at all. Break? Metacafe? ESPN (they do convert some of their videos)? CNN? A bunch of streaming radio sites? Local news sites? There's tons of stuff, and again, this is making an assumption that all these content providers would ban it, for which we don't really have any reason to believe they would, other than Hulu removing the PS3 from it's supported devices.


How did I jump down your throat?

I think superpac's point isn't that it will or won't happen, but that there's more to consider than just absolute functionality.

Just more food for thought.

 

[Tobor]

Hulu is going behind a paywall this year, anyway. I have a feeling it won't be seen as such a dealbreaker once there's a subscription involved.

 

[SuperPac]

I think superpac's point isn't that it will or won't happen, but that there's more to consider than just absolute functionality.

Just more food for thought.

Yes. This is exactly it. People seem to think that if Flash was on the device, that solves everything. No it really doesn't.

Man, I can't wait until the iPad comes out so we can actually talk about it, and the apps, accessories, uses, etc. This Flash debate is stale, beat to death, and has so many ramifications that go well beyond Apple and their devices.

Agreed. The horse is long dead.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Man, I can't wait until the iPad comes out so we can actually talk about it, and the apps, accessories, uses, etc. This Flash debate is stale, beat to death, and has so many ramifications that go well beyond Apple and their devices.

Flash has been around for 15 years :lol

Adobe's real business is content creation tools. They are already adapting the flash dev environment to support mobile devices including the iphone/pad.

I wonder what would (never happen) happen if adobe all the sudden said "fine no more creative suite for mac" Bricks would be shit.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

I wonder what would (never happen) happen if adobe all the sudden said "fine no more creative suite for mac" Bricks would be shit.

People will be forced to use equal or far superior cheaper products?

 

[Kung Fu Jedi]

Flash has been around for 15 years :lol

Adobe's real business is content creation tools. They are already adapting the flash dev environment to support mobile devices including the iphone/pad.

I wonder what would (never happen) happen if adobe all the sudden said "fine no more creative suite for mac" Bricks would be shit.

Um... why are you quoting me? I'm so happy Flash has been around for 15 years. That doesn't change how I feel about this debate, which has been argued to death in this thread, multiple times over. Why don't we start an official "Deathwatch: Flash" thread or something to beat the dead horse a few more times. I'm just looking forward to when we can actually talk more about the iPad itself and the software that it CAN run.

And you don't see a huge difference in comparing Flash to Creative Suite? Really? On second thought, forget I asked. I don't want to open that can of worms too.

 

[Gio_CoD]

Yes they do.

No they don't. But alas, I do at least agree this argument is going nowhere fast.

I'll leave my final post in this thread at this:

I don't see how any reasonable person could possibly support the exclusion of the most widely available and most used video format on a device that (among other things) preaches it's media functionality as one of it's selling points. There is no reason that Apple couldn't choose to have Flash working side-by-side with other open standards. Defending their decision to sell a device where major functionality is purposefully locked out seems..... fanboyish... at best.

I'd be willing to bet very few people are going to admit it, but we all know that this device not supporting Flash was a major shock. The general consensus was that this device was going to be a little bit more PC like than it really is. The "giant iPod Touch" comparison is really pretty apt.

Not having the ability to work with multiple apps at once is also a huge letdown. I've heard people saying that functionality is coming, and I hope they're right, but if I were Apple, I wouldn't have bothered revealing this device until that functionality was already in it. Seems like it could have been a good conference to reveal new hardware with a new OS running on it. That being said, I'll bet my money that it doesn't come at all. I think this thing is strictly a big ass iPod Touch.

I predict this thing will flop. It'll sell a couple of million units to the Apple faithful, but I can't see how it could gain mainstream appeal. It's a big iPod Touch. It seems like this thing should have come first, and then the iPad that fits in your pocket (the iPod Touch) should have been the big technical revolution that got everyone excited. We'd be having conversations about taking our apps on the go and carrying it with us as a PDA like device to help organize our life. We'd marvel at Apple fitting it all into such a small, sleek, sexy package. .....

Asus or Acer or one of the big netbook companies will come out with a tablet PC that does what we thought this thing would do. It will be amazing. Apple will come out with an iPad 2 that is basically a Macbook with a tablet screen. That will be amazing too, but will cost $1500.

In 2 years I am going to bump this thread, and I will expect some major props from all of you.

 

[numble]

Bricks would be shit.

By Adobe stockholders, yes.

 

[kaching]

Jeffrey Zeldman nails it: http://www.zeldman.com/2010/02/01/flash-ipad-standards/

Eh, he's making a pretty arbitrary distinction between apps and extensions. Flash may be everybody's favorite bad guy to beat on right now but even iPads remain inherently extensible, extendable software environments, by design.

 

[SuperPac]

Asus or Acer or one of the big netbook companies will come out with a tablet PC that does what we thought this thing would do. It will be amazing. Apple will come out with an iPad 2 that is basically a Macbook with a tablet screen. That will be amazing too, but will cost $1500.

Guess what? Netbook Market Leader Acer Not Planning to Compete With iPad. Also, I don't see your predictions panning out. But good luck with bumping this thread in 2 years and proclaiming victory.

 

[Schlep]

Asus or Acer or one of the big netbook companies will come out with a tablet PC that does what we thought this thing would do. It will be amazing. Apple will come out with an iPad 2 that is basically a Macbook with a tablet screen. That will be amazing too, but will cost $1500.

In 2 years I am going to bump this thread, and I will expect some major props from all of you.

Acer has already said they will not be competing with the iPad. If Apple wanted to come out with a MacBook Air that has a touch screen, they could have done that last week. They didn't, though.

This thing is a giant iPod Touch in the same way a laptop is a giant netbook. Why do people buy laptops if netbooks are available?

 

[Burger]

People will be forced to use equal or far superior cheaper products?

Are there any alternatives to Illustrator and InDesign though ?

When most people list alternatives to Adobe apps they leave those ones out. There are many image editors to compete with Photoshop, Apple makes great video editors to compete with Premier, but as far as Illustrator and InDesign go, I don't see viable alternatives.

Don't say Inkscape, I've used it and while it's good for the price (free), it ain't superior.

 

[mrkgoo]

No they don't. But alas, I do at least agree this argument is going nowhere fast.

I'll leave my final post in this thread at this:

I don't see how any reasonable person could possibly support the exclusion of the most widely available and most used video format on a device that (among other things) preaches it's media functionality as one of it's selling points. There is no reason that Apple couldn't choose to have Flash working side-by-side with other open standards. Defending their decision to sell a device where major functionality is purposefully locked out seems..... fanboyish... at best.

I'd be willing to bet very few people are going to admit it, but we all know that this device not supporting Flash was a major shock. The general consensus was that this device was going to be a little bit more PC like than it really is. The "giant iPod Touch" comparison is really pretty apt.

Not having the ability to work with multiple apps at once is also a huge letdown. I've heard people saying that functionality is coming, and I hope they're right, but if I were Apple, I wouldn't have bothered revealing this device until that functionality was already in it. Seems like it could have been a good conference to reveal new hardware with a new OS running on it. That being said, I'll bet my money that it doesn't come at all. I think this thing is strictly a big ass iPod Touch.

I predict this thing will flop. It'll sell a couple of million units to the Apple faithful, but I can't see how it could gain mainstream appeal. It's a big iPod Touch. It seems like this thing should have come first, and then the iPad that fits in your pocket (the iPod Touch) should have been the big technical revolution that got everyone excited. We'd be having conversations about taking our apps on the go and carrying it with us as a PDA like device to help organize our life. We'd marvel at Apple fitting it all into such a small, sleek, sexy package. .....

Asus or Acer or one of the big netbook companies will come out with a tablet PC that does what we thought this thing would do. It will be amazing. Apple will come out with an iPad 2 that is basically a Macbook with a tablet screen. That will be amazing too, but will cost $1500.

In 2 years I am going to bump this thread, and I will expect some major props from all of you.

I'm going to have to disagree that no Flash was a big shock. Once everyone realised it was running iPhone OS, there was no shock to be had.

Also, I predict this will do well. It has Steve's full backing. He won't let it fail. The development of the platform is unequivocally tied in with development of the iPhone, and that is going nowhere.

I do think the device will change, however. People act as if this is the device is going to be how it forever and ever. The iPad is inherently a different device than a desktop-like computer. It's giving an experience that is at least different. And yes, I realise that an iPod touch is out there, but not everyone has one of those. People are still buying iPod touches today and being blown away, yet no-one cries foul and says, "pfft people were using these over two years ago".

I would very much like to see you come back in 2 years.


To be fair, is there honestly no value you see in this device? At all? Just because it has no flash and no multitasking? Rather than look at the device and what it can't do, can you not see anything that it can? Is there no function you'd see on a 10" multitouch device that would be kinda cool? (admittedly, "kinda cool" may not be enough to warrant a purchase)

 

[see5harp]

No they don't. But alas, I do at least agree this argument is going nowhere fast.

I'll leave my final post in this thread at this:

I don't see how any reasonable person could possibly support the exclusion of the most widely available and most used video format on a device that (among other things) preaches it's media functionality as one of it's selling points. There is no reason that Apple couldn't choose to have Flash working side-by-side with other open standards. Defending their decision to sell a device where major functionality is purposefully locked out seems..... fanboyish... at best.

I'd be willing to bet very few people are going to admit it, but we all know that this device not supporting Flash was a major shock. The general consensus was that this device was going to be a little bit more PC like than it really is. The "giant iPod Touch" comparison is really pretty apt.

Not having the ability to work with multiple apps at once is also a huge letdown. I've heard people saying that functionality is coming, and I hope they're right, but if I were Apple, I wouldn't have bothered revealing this device until that functionality was already in it. Seems like it could have been a good conference to reveal new hardware with a new OS running on it. That being said, I'll bet my money that it doesn't come at all. I think this thing is strictly a big ass iPod Touch.

I predict this thing will flop. It'll sell a couple of million units to the Apple faithful, but I can't see how it could gain mainstream appeal. It's a big iPod Touch. It seems like this thing should have come first, and then the iPad that fits in your pocket (the iPod Touch) should have been the big technical revolution that got everyone excited. We'd be having conversations about taking our apps on the go and carrying it with us as a PDA like device to help organize our life. We'd marvel at Apple fitting it all into such a small, sleek, sexy package. .....

Asus or Acer or one of the big netbook companies will come out with a tablet PC that does what we thought this thing would do. It will be amazing. Apple will come out with an iPad 2 that is basically a Macbook with a tablet screen. That will be amazing too, but will cost $1500.

In 2 years I am going to bump this thread, and I will expect some major props from all of you.

Also, it's a big ass iPod Touch.

 

[Gio_CoD]

To be fair, is there honestly no value you see in this device? At all? Just because it has no flash and no multitasking? Rather than look at the device and what it can't do, can you not see anything that it can? Is there no function you'd see on a 10" multitouch device that would be kinda cool? (admittedly, "kinda cool" may not be enough to warrant a purchase)

Sorry, I know I said I was leaving, but I wanted to respond to this.

Yes, I do see value in the device, but as somebody who already owns an iPhone, I don't see enough difference in the products to be considering purchasing this. It's gonna sound like I'm just talking shit, but if it had Flash support and multitasking, it very well might have gotten me to buy it. I've got two netbooks already because I love the idea of a small, internet-enabled device with a long battery life. Hell, it's why I love my iPhone (in spite of the Flash thing. But, for me, this iPad just doesn't seem to have a clearly defined market. The cool things it does I am already doing on my iPhone, and then the cool things my iPhone can't do.... this can't do either. I have to open one of my netbooks again.

I'll put it this way. If I didn't have an iPhone and you gave me the choice to have an iPod Touch or an iPad for free (taking money out of it), I'd choose the iPod Touch every single time. I think the iPod Touch (and iPhone) is an amazing, amazing product. I'm not some Apple hater. I think they knocked the ball WAY the fuck out of the park with the iPhone. They completely turned the cellular phone market (and the way apps are purchased) on its head. When my contract with AT&T is up, I'm getting whatever the newest iPhone is at that time even though I already have a 3G. The iPad just seems like a giant missed opportunity to me.

Anyway, that's it. Now I'm done.

 

[border]

I predict this thing will flop. It'll sell a couple of million units to the Apple faithful, but I can't see how it could gain mainstream appeal.

Probably because the mainstream doesn't care about the stuff people incessantly whine about on this and other forums. Throughout the history of the iPod and the iPhone there were people saying "Hey, wait! There's other cheaper devices that do the same stuff, and do stuff Apple doesn't do!" They were summarily ignored.

In 2 years I am going to bump this thread, and I will expect some major props from all of you.

:lol

 

[Schlep]

The cool things it does I am already doing on my iPhone

There are too many excited developers to believe that will be the case for more than a month or two after the iPad is released. I'm guessing it'll be more like a day or two.

Just looking at the iPad versions of YouTube, iPod, Calendar, and Mail show that there is a ton those apps do that the iPhone apps do not, or do in a way that is cumbersome. The iPhone before the App Store was a completely different beast than what it is today, after the App Store. Give developers a few weeks to start showing off what they're doing with the iPad before you just dismiss it outright as "a big iPod Touch".