• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Apple iPad revealed

Status
Not open for further replies.
Raistlin said:
Yeah, I'm looking forward to the web taking a step backwards. It'll be great!
Click to expand...
smh

mAcOdIn said:
Lol, seeing the whole, proprietary format controlled by a single company argument used against Flash but in defense of Apple really makes my day, guess it really comes down to brand loyalty, not openness or control.
Click to expand...
I'm talking in regards to internet standards. Apple has control over their devices, but online video is effectively reliant on Adobe.

Raistlin said:
While HTML5 is great for video (well, there still are issues with that ... but let's disregard it for a second), it does nothing for vector graphics. At this point, there is no open source spec that is remotely ready for primetime. SVG is the closest, and it ain't really close at all.
Click to expand...
Actually HTML5 does support it with Canvas, but even if it might not be as good as Flash in that regard, HTML5 explicitly makes room for SVG, which Google, Apple and Mozilla all support.
 
Ashes1396 said:
The Notion Ink Adam will live and die on industry support. I think.
Click to expand...

It should be able to piggyback Android to a large degree. I'm an Apple guy through and through, but I must admit the Adam looks tempting. The lack of eyestrain-saving tech in the iPad definitely takes away a lot of motivation to move away from my MBP.
 
peacebyanymeans said:
smh


I'm talking in regards to internet standards. Apple has control over their devices, but online video is effectively reliant on Adobe.


Actually HTML5 does support it with Canvas, but even if it might not be as good as Flash in that regard, HTML5 explicitly makes room for SVG, which Google, Apple and Mozilla all support.
Click to expand...
As opposed to video being reliant on Apple? It's a silly argument, all content relies on someone. With HTML 5 you're effectively banking on Apple supporting it in Safari, or some other Webkit developer supporting it, on Apple's Proprietary OS, how is that ANY different than flash? Standards are nice and all and I support HTML 5, but I don't see a lick of difference between an open standard and a closed standard because in the end all that matters is the content, the developers and the consumers and there's a shitload of flash content out there. Bitching about Flash support being offered is completely ridiculous in my opinion, if it sucks disable it, if not leave it on. We know that Flash CAN work, as it does just fine on other OS's so there's nothing stopping Apple from making it work on their system, they chose not to, that's fine, but defending that action that cuts the content available by a huge order of magnitude more than what's gained by replacing that functionality with HTML 5 is just plain being an Apple apologist.

Computers are not either or devices, they can have both you know and then we can let the community decide which lives.
Ninja Scooter said:
but how will you plug in all those things you don't need to plug into it?
Click to expand...
Who says they're not needed? Shit, I think a USB port for data makes a fuck ton more sense than a fucking keyboard dock, give me a break.

Edit: As far as computing goes I'm not opposed to Apples sandbox application route, but I do think their approach on the internet itself is completely wrong, if Apple is not going to support things they don't feel worthy and you have to rely on apps to access what everyone everywhere else does in a browser, they're really killing that experience.
 
At any rate, calling HTML an open standard is almost questionable to begin with. Its 'openness' extends pretty much only to the main 3 players on the web, and is essentially prevented from doing anything really innovative lest it upset the delicate balance one way or another.

I hate flash, but damnit HTML's evolution has been anything but saintly. Anyone who lived through the Netscape/IE days knows that, and is getting an eerie sense of deja vu right about now.
 
eznark said:
Huh, didn't know that. I just assumed they still didn't since Mozilla recently said there was no plans for firefox on i-devices.

I was using the nook in bed last night and it occurred to me, how much bigger is the ipad than a standard ereader? Anything bigger than a kindle/nook and I would think it would start to get uncomfortable. One of the reasons I have been reading on digital formats (pda back in the day, iphone, Droid and now the nook) is that I can't stand the bulk of a hardcover book . Obviously this device does a lot more than the ibook stuff, but it's something to consider as I debate picking one up.
Click to expand...

The nook is actually a bit smaller than the Kindle surprisingly yet has a significantly bigger screen. When it comes to the iPad though, I think the bigger issue is going to be the weight. The iPad is more than twice the weight of the a nook or Kindle and I think that's going to be a drawback to using it as an eReader on top of having a worse screen.
 
Marty Chinn said:
The nook is actually a bit smaller than the Kindle surprisingly yet has a significantly bigger screen. When it comes to the iPad though, I think the bigger issue is going to be the weight. The iPad is more than twice the weight of the a nook or Kindle and I think that's going to be a drawback to using it as an eReader on top of having a worse screen.
Click to expand...

It's going to be tough to read for extended times in bed lying down.
 
maharg said:
At any rate, calling HTML an open standard is almost questionable to begin with. Its 'openness' extends pretty much only to the main 3 players on the web, and is essentially prevented from doing anything really innovative lest it upset the delicate balance one way or another.

I hate flash, but damnit HTML's evolution has been anything but saintly. Anyone who lived through the Netscape/IE days knows that, and is getting an eerie sense of deja vu right about now.
Click to expand...
Agreed. This is beyond truth. Flash has advanced leaps and bounds above any W3C spec. Flash isn't controlled by a "consortium". It's controlled by the demands of artists/programmers. Adobe has consistently delivered the goods. They should be applauded.

Despite the current mood of internet nerds, Flash is not disappearing anytime soon. It'll be around for a long time. It will always be able to do something that HTML/Javascript/CSS/Canvas can't do.

And why would Adobe want to open-source the player? So the internet can be inundated with various swf-players that do a half-decent job? Or players that don't support some features? Or players that add support for features not in the spec? Hmmm. Sounds familiar. Sounds a lot like browsers. No thanks to that.
 
Tobor said:
This is the kind of statement that is impossible to make either way until we've held one ourselves.
Click to expand...
I have yet to find a single device/book that was comfortable to read in bed, whether on my side, stomach, back, they all get annoying after a while.
 
peacebyanymeans said:
smh
Click to expand...

smh

(see below)


Actually HTML5 does support it with Canvas, but even if it might not be as good as Flash in that regard
Click to expand...

Canvas is for procedurally generated bitmap graphics, not vector iirc.

HTML5 explicitly makes room for SVG, which Google, Apple and Mozilla all support.
Click to expand...

Until MS does (or inbred computer users that use IE actually switch to a different browser), it's not going to gain the traction it should unfortunately. It's too big of a market to ignore. This sort of shit situation is why Flash took off to begin with, and it seems the lessons haven't been learned.

All of this however, is before considering the fact SVG support is actually incomplete in the browsers that do support it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalable_Vector_Graphics#Support_for_SVG_in_web_browsers


Please understand, I'm not trying to promote Flash as a long-term solution. I'm simply saying if we were to just dump Flash support this second, like turning off a light switch, it would actually mean taking a step backwards. The replacement for everything it does simply isn't there yet.
 
Raistlin said:
smh

(see below)




Canvas is for procedurally generated bitmap graphics, not vector iirc.



Until MS does (or inbred computer users that use IE actually switch to a different browser), it's not going to gain the traction it should unfortunately. It's too big of a market to ignore. This sort of shit situation is why Flash took off to begin with, and it seems the lessons haven't been learned.

All of this however, is before considering the fact SVG support is actually incomplete in the browsers that do support it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalable_Vector_Graphics#Support_for_SVG_in_web_browsers


Please understand, I'm not trying to promote Flash as a long-term solution. I'm simply saying if we were to just dump Flash support this second, like turning off a light switch, it would actually mean taking a step backwards. The replacement for everything it does simply isn't there yet.
Click to expand...
MS just joined SVG group last week or something so they are on board.
 
rezuth said:
MS just joined SVG group last week or something so they are on board.
Click to expand...

That doesn't automatically mean anything. And even if they do decide to support it, the question is when and to what extent.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalable_Vector_Graphics
On January 5, 2010, a senior manager of the Internet Explorer team at Microsoft announced on his official blog that Microsoft had just requested to join the SVG Working Group of the W3C in order to "take part in ensuring future versions of the SVG spec will meet the needs of developers and end users," although no plans for SVG support in Internet Explorer were mentioned.
Click to expand...

Here's the blog in question: http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2010/01/05/microsoft-joins-w3c-svg-working-group.aspx



Certainly I hope they run with it, but the reality is we'll maybe see some incomplete support for it ... in IE9.
 
Raistlin said:
That's kind of a silly statement. It's like saying standard web interfaces are made with a kb/mouse in mind. Well no kidding! That has nothing to do with the underlying tech.




Yeah, I'm looking forward to the web taking a step backwards. It'll be great!
Click to expand...
Oh I agree, I just think that exsisting sites/applications developed in flash would have to be tweaked slightly if they are to work with a touch interface.

Like that really sweet HTML5 paint thing someone posted earlier, it was bad ass but pretty much unusable on an iPhone.

To me it seems even with "standards" you are still going to have to build sites with the iPhone/pad in mind, or a "mobile" version that targets smartphones... Question on my mind is will the ipad get enough marketshare to warrant it's own version, or will it just get served the iPhone version? Google seems to be kicking a lot of ass with it's mobile web apps, they actually all look like they scale well to the ipad.
 
http://www.macrumors.com/2010/02/10/opera-set-to-preview-opera-mini-browser-for-iphone/
Qeoia.jpg


Opera has developed a version for iPhone, not yet submitted to App Store.
Opera Software today announced that it will preview an iPhone version of its Opera Mini mobile browser at next week's Mobile World Congress in Barcelona.
"This is a unique opportunity to introduce the fast, feature-rich Opera Mini experience for the iPhone, and to showcase our latest beta releases of Opera Mobile and Opera Mini on other platforms and devices. Opera's mission is to bring the Web to the world, and by making Opera Mini available on yet another platform, we are one step closer."

According to Reuters, Opera Mini for the iPhone has not been submitted to Apple for review, and it remains unclear whether Apple would consider approving a direct competitor to the iPhone's included mobile version of Safari.
"We have not submitted it yet to the Apple App Store. However, we hope that Apple will not deny their users a choice in Web browsing experience," said Jon von Tetzchner, co-founder of Opera.

Opera's compression technology is also claimed to allow six times faster downloads and ten times smaller data traffic than Apple's Safari for iPhone.

In addition to Opera Mini for the iPhone, the company is also planning to show off beta versions of its existing Opera Mini and Opera Mobile products on a variety of other platforms.
Click to expand...
 
Boards of Canada said:
Agreed. This is beyond truth. Flash has advanced leaps and bounds above any W3C spec. Flash isn't controlled by a "consortium". It's controlled by the demands of artists/programmers. Adobe has consistently delivered the goods. They should be applauded.

Despite the current mood of internet nerds, Flash is not disappearing anytime soon. It'll be around for a long time. It will always be able to do something that HTML/Javascript/CSS/Canvas can't do.

And why would Adobe want to open-source the player? So the internet can be inundated with various swf-players that do a half-decent job? Or players that don't support some features? Or players that add support for features not in the spec? Hmmm. Sounds familiar. Sounds a lot like browsers. No thanks to that.
Click to expand...
*very, very slow golf clap*

unless you've been deeply entrenched in wintel land all these years, your post above is so comical it's just adorable.

flash has been little but hurt on anything but wintel. ultra-sluggish development cycle of the non-wintel SDKs and proprietary implementation of the engine have repeately caused people to drop flash development on embedded systems & non-wintel desktops.

the whole argument 'but it's a standard engine ensuring truthful content rendition' means nothing when you don't have the right SDK version (if any) on your platform.

why do you think all the big multiplatform web players are breaking away from flash, in the first place? out of hatered for adobe? come on. the answer is simple - because their market extends beyond wintel, and flash has been little but a source of trouble for them.

adobe have nobody but themselves to blame for the current situtation of flash losing ground - when everybody was begging them to come up with up-to-date SDKs and adequate engines for non-wintel, adobe were 'heh, we have windows, fuck off'. now windows is getting silverlight (oh, look, even ms don't want flash!) and everybody else is moving to open standards, and adobe are starting to feel like they missed a boat. cry moar, adobe.
 
Marty Chinn said:
The nook is actually a bit smaller than the Kindle surprisingly yet has a significantly bigger screen. When it comes to the iPad though, I think the bigger issue is going to be the weight. The iPad is more than twice the weight of the a nook or Kindle and I think that's going to be a drawback to using it as an eReader on top of having a worse screen.
Click to expand...
Forget the weight. The thing is going to strain your eyes just like any other screen.

Put the iPad in the "completely missing the point" category when it comes to e-books. It's simply a bullet point, nothing more.
 
Epic Tier 3 Engineer said:
Forget the weight. The thing is going to strain your eyes just like any other screen.

Put the iPad in the "completely missing the point" category when it comes to e-books. It's simply a bullet point, nothing more.
Click to expand...
I read entire books on my phone without issue. Down the brightness a bit sometimes.

Kindle has a better screen. The iPad does things besides books. There's your trade-off.
 
Kung Fu Jedi said:
Not going to happen. And the "public mind", outside of tech/nerd sites, doesn't give a damn.
Click to expand...
telecoms do care about decreased traffic, though (due to server-side compression).
 
Kung Fu Jedi said:
Not going to happen. And the "public mind", outside of tech/nerd sites, doesn't give a damn.
Click to expand...
I agree...but a man can hope!
 
Kung Fu Jedi said:
Not going to happen. And the "public mind", outside of tech/nerd sites, doesn't give a damn.
Click to expand...
Going on blu's point, in places with non-unlimited data plans, saving 10x data traffic is important to consumers. Think about the iPad and the $15/month data plan.
 
blu said:
telecoms do care about decreased traffic, though (due to server-side compression).
Click to expand...

Of course, but they are hardly the "public mind" either. That's a business decision, and the general public, ie the users of the phone or iPad, really won't take notice of this.

And I still say this will never show up in the app store.
 
Epic Tier 3 Engineer said:
Forget the weight. The thing is going to strain your eyes just like any other screen.

Put the iPad in the "completely missing the point" category when it comes to e-books. It's simply a bullet point, nothing more.
Click to expand...

Man, I had no idea LCD's were such a public nuisance. Clearly they should be banned. I play games on LCD screen handhelds for hours at a time, can I sue the manufacturers?
 
Shins said:
I read entire books on my phone without issue. Down the brightness a bit sometimes.

Kindle has a better screen. The iPad does things besides books. There's your trade-off.
Click to expand...

There was a recent study on the kindle. Users who bought the kindle had ridiculously high consumer satisfaction (greater than 90%), users who were given the kindle thought it wasn't very good at all. Basically proving that e-ink readers are for the avid reader and do not have appeal beyond this group.
 
Tobor said:
Man, I had no idea LCD's were such a public nuisance. Clearly they should be banned. I play games on LCD screen handhelds for hours at a time, can I sue the manufacturers?
Click to expand...
Pretty sure he's talking about reading on an LCD. I don't have much problem with it personally, but many people can't read for more than half an hour without eye strain.
 
dionysus said:
There was a recent study on the kindle. Users who bought the kindle had ridiculously high consumer satisfaction (greater than 90%), users who were given the kindle thought it wasn't very good at all. Basically proving that e-ink readers are for the avid reader and do not have appeal beyond this group.
Click to expand...

I saw this study too, and it can be interpreted a number of different ways. The Kindle does have very high customer satisfaction, and it mostly is indeed selling to avid readers at the moment, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have appeal beyond that group.

I've also seen some people suggest that those buying the Kindle are more well informed of the values of an e-ink screen over those who haven't researched or used one. I've also seen suggestions that those buying it for themselves have more invested in the device, so they value it more and there for get higher satisfaction from it.

Interpretation aside though, saying that e-ink is just for avid readers is wrong, they just happen to be the first to buy in and adopt it.
 
Sentry said:
Pretty sure he's talking about reading on an LCD. I don't have much problem with it personally, but many people can't read for more than half an hour without eye strain.
Click to expand...

Of course, and those people have purchasing options. I was responding sarcastically to Epic Tier 3 Trollgineer, who only pops in the thread every now and then to remind of us that the iPad isn't a "real" e-reader. Next time I'll drop in a "/rolls eyes" so it's clear.
 
http://www.macrumors.com/2010/02/10/disney-ceo-bullish-on-game-changer-ipad/

MarketWatch yesterday briefly noted comments from Disney CEO Bob Iger during his company's earnings conference that signaled his company's excitement over Apple's iPad and the possibilities for Disney's content on the device. According to the full transcript of the call, Iger was specifically asked about the impact of the iPad by analyst Doug Mitchelson of Deutsche Bank, and his responses indicated that Disney has already been thinking about how to take advantage of the platform.

We think it could be a game changer in terms of enabling us to create essentially new forms of content. Obviously it will be a great device to play games on and to watch videos because of the clarity of the screen. But the interactivity that it will allow on a portable device with such a high quality screen is going to enable us to really start developing products that is different than the product that you typically see on an internet connected computer or on a television set.
In addition to promoting possibilities for Disney eBook-like content, Iger also raised the possibility of television tie-ins, such the ability to create an interactive experience for shows from Lost to ABC News. And in particular, Iger pointed to Disney's ESPN ScoreCenter iPhone application and how the iPad opens up tremendous possibilities for enhancing the delivery of sports scores.

ESPN Score Center which is a great App on the iPhone and provides relatively rudimentary information scores basically suddenly we have an opportunity with a platform we can really make the scores come to life.
Apple and Disney have held a relatively close relationship in recent years, with Apple CEO Steve Jobs serving as a member of Disney's Board of Directors and largest individual shareholder by virtue of the company's purchase of Pixar in 2006. In recent months, Disney has been seen as a possible lead partner in Apple's rumored plans for a television subscription service, while Disney reportedly drew on Steve Jobs' and Apple's experience in developing plans for a makeover of the company's retail stores.
 
dionysus said:
There was a recent study on the kindle. Users who bought the kindle had ridiculously high consumer satisfaction (greater than 90%), users who were given the kindle thought it wasn't very good at all. Basically proving that e-ink readers are for the avid reader and do not have appeal beyond this group.
Click to expand...
Good point. iBooks will probably not be selling much at $15 (can't see anyone but "avid readers" paying that much).
 
Teddman said:
Good point. iBooks will probably not be selling much at $15 (can't see anyone but "avid readers" paying that much).
Click to expand...
It's just new releases at $15, right? And prices just set by publisher.
 
dionysus said:
There was a recent study on the kindle. Users who bought the kindle had ridiculously high consumer satisfaction (greater than 90%), users who were given the kindle thought it wasn't very good at all. Basically proving that e-ink readers are for the avid reader and do not have appeal beyond this group.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it proves anything other than E-readers are happy with what they have. You're assuming this translates to your conclusion, but it's not necessarily true.

I think the iPad will be a little heavy holding up while lying in bed, which is where I'm most likely to read. I prefer a backlight, as it's pretty dark in bed. I may actually find it to be a huge issue to read text on a backlit LCD in future, but I guess I'm just going to have to wait and see.

$15 sounds too expensive to get digital books, so I probably won't be buying many on the iBookstore.
 
giga said:
Opera is basically waiting to get rejected and then file an antitrust case in the EU. Not sure how successful they'll be given the iPhone's market share, but this should be fun.
Click to expand...
Opera is so pathetic. First they argue that they aren't doing well because Microsoft preloads IE onto every Windows PC, and that hurts them. But then you have Firefox and Chrome coming out of the gate kicking ass. Firefox is almost at 25% marketshare, last time I checked. And Chrome is taking off even faster than Firefox.

Opera needs to realize that most don't give a shit about their browser. It's not very interesting and if it does offer anything interesting to the table, they aren't advertising it correctly.

IE and Safari are the defaults on Windows and OS X, respectfully. Firefox is notable for it's customization and extensions, and Chrome is know for it's speed. I don't even know what Opera's selling point is, and you know what, I don't really care about finding out. Call me arrogant, fine. But concede the fact that Opera is incompetent.

---

Anyways about the iPad:

My thoughts on the ebook comparison with the Kindle is this; when it comes to straight up reading shit, the Kindle is the best option. And with the Kindle DX, about the same size as the iPad, the Kindle has the eink advantage, which gives it the edge in readability and longevity in regards to the battery.

However, the most important piece here is that the iPad is only an ebook reader, it's essentially a mobile computer, albeit limited, yes. That is true. However, the iPad can surf the web, write emails, play movies and music, download third-party apps and more in addition to just reading ebooks. And that, I think, is why the iPad will better than the Kindle. Solely for the fact that it does so much more, better.
 
Tobor said:
:lol An iPhone app has been rumored for quite a while, so I'm not surprised. Honestly, I'm more interested in how much Hulu will cost once it goes behind the paywall.
Click to expand...
Yup, but i'd hope that if there's a Hulu app it would be free.. they say everything we have on Hulu now will stay free. I'd love a dedicated app rather than a mobile/iPhone version of the site.
 
Tobor said:
:lol An iPhone app has been rumored for quite a while, so I'm not surprised. Honestly, I'm more interested in how much Hulu will cost once it goes behind the paywall.
Click to expand...

If they start behind the paywall on iPhone/iPad/Android/whatever then they don't have to switch to it. Maybe that's a possibility? Though...some of the comments on CNN's app being for-pay were not kind.
 
Sentry said:
Pretty sure he's talking about reading on an LCD. I don't have much problem with it personally, but many people can't read for more than half an hour without eye strain.
Click to expand...
How do those people tough it out to comment in topics they're reading on LCD screens? Do they just start going blind from the mix of rage and LCD-induced eye-strain?
hm.gif
 
Shins said:
How do those people tough it out to comment in topics they're reading on LCD screens? Do they just start going blind from the mix of rage and LCD-induced eye-strain?
hm.gif
Click to expand...
This has been discussed a bunch... In short, behavior of your eyes while browsing the web and reading a novel is very different. Continuous novel reading is more prone to iStrain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Apple Raises Prices...
48
685
Audiophile replied
Mayday - Apple TV movie
3
51
Spyxos replied
Cape Fear | Official Trailer | Apple TV
14
686
John Marston replied
Should I get Android tablet vs iPad?
14
1K
Meicyn replied
Apple is increasing prices due to the hardware crisis caused by the AI boom
News 
38
583
Dr.Morris79 replied
Top Bottom