iPad - FineTunedMac

Originally Posted By: mneptok

I see this: This video has been removed due to terms of use violation.

And then i get a movie preview of "From Paris With Love".
[or did i miss something? -- there are a lot of vids and links there.]

--

Anyway, the name iPad kinda stinks methinks. One comment i read stuck with me:
â€œit sounds like womanâ€™s sanitary napkin.â€

[another poster said it sounds like some sort of Thai food.]

But the main point seems to be summarized in a 3rd comment:
â€œit has "classroom" written all over it.â€

--

I was hoping for a "one more thing" moment announcing the updated MacBook Pros (with Intel's latest Arrandale processors), but... i guess those are still a few days/weeks away. [rassin.frassin.grumble.mumble]

OKAY OKAY -- (your) LINK WORKING NOW.

EDIT: Same thing, slightly better video quality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK2drIylnDw
[i'm sure cyn and dianne must think we're all pigs here.]

Alas, I am bereft. No iPod, no iPhone. So how does one print from an iPad and the like?

To get a file off an iPad and on to a real computer, must the file be emailed?

Originally Posted By: Pendragon

Alas, I am bereft. No iPod, no iPhone. So how does one print from an iPad and the like? To get a file off an iPad and on to a real computer, must the file be emailed?

Got Wi-Fi network? (i.e., AirPort base station and/or Time Capsule)

--

And, to balance out the first 2 posts...
<Memo to Geek Dudes>: The Inevitable Maxi Pad Jokes About the iPad Are Lame (and Steve Jobs Doesnâ€™t Care Anyway)

I guess, it connects to the computer via USB (in the specs).

From The New York Times (online):
The iPadâ€™s Name Makes Some Women Cringe

Originally Posted By: macnerd10

I guess, it connects to the computer via USB (in the specs).

If you want to fiddle with wires (or don't have any routable Wi-Fi devices on your LAN), then yes... for an extra $30 an optional adapter/cable can be purchased to provide a USB connector. [at least that's what i've read elsewhere.] If that's true, probably someone like Belkin might come out with a dock that adds a USB connection (idunno). <-- EDIT: okay, that was wrong (and i blame the lame commenters at ars-technica for misleading me). Much like the iPhone and the iPod touch, the iPad comes with one of those thin little cables that connect to the bottom of the device (30-pin connector) and has a USB plug on the other end. I'm wondering now if it even provides the type of Wi-Fi file transfer ability i originally thought. Hmm, time will tell.

EDIT: Okay, according to MacRumors (who have studied the software developer kit):

Quote:

- File Sharing. A shared file directory is provided that will mount on your Mac or PC. This is presumably how files such as iWork documents will be transferred to and from the iPad. iPad applications will be able to access this shared directory.

So... it's not as if we can browse back and forth (like filesharing between 2 Macs), there's just a solitary shared folder for transfers. Period.

EDIT: no need for Belkin... looks like Apple's accessories have the dock/USB components (again, options at an extra cost):

Originally Posted By: Apple.com

iPad Keyboard Dock
The Keyboard Dock combines a dock for charging your iPad with a full-size keyboard. The dock has a rear 30-pin connector, which lets you connect to an electrical outlet using the USB Power Adapter, sync to your computer, and use accessories like the Camera Connection Kit. An audio jack lets you connect to a stereo or powered speakers.

iPad Dock
The iPad Dock lets you dock and charge iPad. The rear 30-pin connector lets you connect the iPad Dock to an electrical outlet using the USB Power Adapter, sync to your computer, and use accessories like the Camera Connection Kit. An audio jack lets you connect to a stereo or powered speakers.

Not sure what those two cost, but i'd guess around $100 and $50.

Originally Posted By: Hal Itosis

But the main point seems to be summarized in a 3rd comment:
â€œit has "classroom" written all over it.â€

After a second read, the actual phrase was "it screams school (any level)."

Check this out: Inkling Â (learn more).

Originally Posted By: grelber

From The New York Times (online):
The iPadâ€™s Name Makes Some Women Cringe

Just wondering: were you able to view any of those YouTube links (in post #1 or 2) with your OS9 + Mozilla browser?

--

Although my reaction to the name "iPad" was also initially negative (for different reasons), i can sorta see now where simple is better... especially for non-English users, who might mangle something like iSlate [ee-slah-tay] or iTablet [ee-tah-blay].

RE Just wondering: were you able to view any of those YouTube links (in post #1 or 2) with your OS9 + Mozilla browser?

Only once in a while do I bother to access YouTube stuff. My attitude towards it is pretty much the same as Facebook, namely, life is too short to waste on it.

So, no, I didn't bother; but I can access YouTube, albeit with dial-up access it's generally a pain. If I really want to see something, I usually wait until I have access to broadband elsewhere.

Originally Posted By: grelber

So, no, I didn't bother; but I can access YouTube, albeit with dial-up access it's generally a pain. If I really want to see something, I usually wait until I have access to broadband elsewhere.

Okay, then you may not know that: the name "iPad" (and the whole tampon twist thereof) originated in a sketch from Mad TV back in 2006:

http://www.tuaw.com/2006/06/16/mad-tv-apples-ipad/

[even i didn't realize that until i managed to follow the YouTube link in post 1.] And... since that info isn't included in the New York Times article you referenced, i figured if you haven't viewed the vid then you may not yet be aware of the full story.

--

My main question concerns the ergonomics of two-handed typing on the iPad *itself* (i.e., no accessory kybd.), what with the screen and keyboard "surface" being in the same plane. Seems like we'd need to be in a recliner (or couch plus footrest) with our knees bent to act as a backrest. EDIT: although, the optional iPad case might facilitate that some. [Also crucial is how large can we zoom the text, when typing an email for example. If we need to crouch and squint to see tiny text that would suck.]

Seems its forte is content consumption... and not so much content creation. [though, with the accessory keyboard dock and while seated at a desk it might be just fine.] I think i may like one (or maybe get one for my folks).

There are certainly plenty of love/hate reactions out there: http://gizmodo.com/

I'll check it out.

I used to get Mad TV up here in the Great White North, but I was never enthralled by it, because the humor/sketches seemed really forced.

And I'm a child of Mad (the magazine, before it became essentially a graphic 'novel'), as well as all the other E.C. mags (which were ultimately banned in the USA, ca 1954).

I still have (literally at hand) my membership certificate in The National E.C. Fan-Addict Club which reads:
"in solemn recognition of his/her/its stubborn, hopeless, and pitiful addiction to E.C. magazines, does hereby grudgingly bestow on [me] a Life Membership, together with such rights, privileges, and benefits (be they what they may) which ordinarily accompany such membership (be that what it may)."
Signed "Melvin", President, National E.C. Fan Addict Club, Room 706, 225 Lafayette Street, New York 12, New York.

I sold all my E.C. mags 20 years later and bought a Volvo 142E with the proceeds. (Had I waited another 20 years or so, that first issue of Mad magazine would have worth over $10,000. Hoo hah! [The latter also a reference to the first story in that first issue.])
(Too much information, I know, but how's that grab you?)

I don't get it. Why is this a "must buy"? On the front page of The Telegraph today, under a pic of Steve Jobs, it says it is "a cross between the iPhone and the MacBook laptop."

I have neither, so why would I want this? WHO are the target buyers? People who buy things just because they're new?

WHY would anyone want to lug this around to read BOOKS? Er......go and get the book, it will weigh less and won't run out of battery power either.

I must be very old-fashioned. I have desktops at work and a mobile phone which I hardly ever use: it has not been switched on for a month now.

Other people live on different planets, it seems. The last "must buy" in my household was a replacement washing machine. The last "must buy" in the office was sourcing better address labels/sheets.

Regarding different planets, I am amazed to read that someone here is still on dial-up.

Originally Posted By: Bensheim

WHY would anyone want to lug this around to read BOOKS? Er......go and get the book, it will weigh less and won't run out of battery power either.

Relax, it probably wasn't designed with you in mind. I bet it would be fun to get one... but it's not like anyone is forcing anyone. However...

Originally Posted By: Bensheim

>> go and get the book.

Go ahead. Don't download a book in 5 minutes while relaxing. Go ahead. Drive down to the mall, find a parking space. Walk around. Wait in line at the cashier. Pay $30 (or more) for a hardcover. Walk back to the car. Spend an hour (or more) just *getting* the book. Go ahead. No one's stopping you.

BTW, can you check your email while reading that book you just bought (sitting in the coffee shop)? Or google some info about the author? Should everyone be "old-fashioned"? No? So what's with all the questions then? I don't get it.

More? Can you search in that "book" you bought for every occurrence of the word "nostalgic"? How easy is that then?

Or, order it from Amazon and don't leave your chair.

And if you want to read the book you ordered with an incandescent light bulb, fine. Compact fluorescent? Fine. Candlelight? Fine.

Want to lend that book to a friend? Go right ahead.

What if, in six months, the publishing house changes the type of paper they use? Not a problem. Your book still works fine.

If you buy books on the iPad, they will only ever work an Apple-authorized devices. Apple is using their own DRM schema for the ePub open standard. Want to read that book you bought on a Kindle or a Nook? Tough luck, sucker. Can you lend books? I imagine not. What if Apple decides to close down their authentication server in a few years? Your book is unreadable and valueless. I have many books that are over 50 years old. Apple will NOT be running their same eBook authentication server and schema in 50 years.

The iPad does not do Flash. There goes 70% of all web video content, and 90% of all web games.

The iPad does not multitask. Say you're having a conversation over IM with someone and they send you a URL. "Hold on, I have to quit my instant messenger so I can use my web browser." A few minutes later, "Oh, that's a link to a Hulu TV show. I can't see Flash content."

The iPad is nothing more than a DRM-laden vending machine. As you may be able to tell, I'm unimpressed. The FSF is 100% right about DRM. I don't want some company telling me how and where I can use content I paid for.

Jobs describes the iPad as something between a cell phone and a laptop. Since it does not have a phone (or a camera) that means I'll still be carrying my cell phone everywhere.

Where will you use this device where you would NOT be carrying your laptop? A quick viewing of "Avatar" between the produce and cereal aisles at the grocery store?

I guarantee you, the more Apple gains market share, the more they will behave in the same anti-competitive and monopolistic way as Microsoft. The iPad and its associated lock-in and vendor control is a glimpse of that future.

While i agree that 100% of what you said is indeed factual, you might as well concede that over 50% of "people" ranging from geeks to technophobes (and -- by definition -- 100% of the target demographic) simply don't care. To them, none of what you said matters. Personally, i don't know what Hulu is, but -- if it's something that i discover to be worthwhile -- i'll always have a MacBook Pro (or some sort of 'real' computer) with which to access whatever it offers. I'm no fan of Flash... and it appears to be dying anyway.

I agree: the iPad is -- for the most part -- nothing more than a glorified iPod. [i'm thrilled with my iPod btw.] But the touch-and-lick-ability of the iPad will prove (i predict) to be irresistible to just plain folk: health club managers, real estate agents, plumbers, grandparents, kids, etc., etc., as a sort of "appliance". Not a real computer that does everything, but a simple device that does a few useful things... and looks gorgeous while doing it.

--

Back on the book business... i recall college (two in fact), lugging around my backpack with at least 10 to 15 pounds of textbooks. (Everyone remembers that... even in highschool). I can see that -- in the future -- those backpacks will get a lot smaller, as everyone will eventually be purchasing those bulky textbooks in electronic form. Perhaps the iPad is not quite ready for prime time... but, it's a good start.

--

>>The iPad does not multitask.

I think the current speculation is that: when the new iPhone gets released this summer, there will be an accompanying version 4.0 software update... and the iPad (as well as certain 3g iPod/iPhones ???) will be able to do some form of multitasking with that newer OS.

> [...] in the future -- those backpacks will get a lot smaller [....]

The backpacks I see in the NYC subways at school closing time are already miniscule; maybe all the kids have lockers these days, but how do they do homework without textbooks...pre-prints? (Jon?)

> i recall college (two in fact), lugging around my backpack with at least 10 to 15 pounds of textbooks. (Everyone remembers that... even in highschool).

You're younger than I am; backpacks had nowhere near entered into the picture when I was in high school, and I clearly remember my joy when rubber book straps (That's exactly what I said!) were introduced, 'round about when I was a junior or senior, and I no longer had to carry that huge pile of loose books under my arm.

Quote:

The iPad does not do Flash. There goes 70% of all web video content, and 90% of all web games.

Personally, I can't wait to see Flash fade from the internet. It's a buggy, intrusive, CPU-hogging piece of crap, IMO, but beyond that, I don't want 70% of the video content I watch and 90% of the web games I play to depend on one company's proprietary plug-in.

That would be so...Apple-like.

Continuing in the same vein, I just want to be certain that everybody is aware of ClickToFlash...probably the second most important piece of 3rd party software on my deuced Mac(hina).

The $6 minimum donation is one of the best six bucks I've ever spent!

Wah Haaa!

Originally Posted By: dkmarsh

Quote:

The iPad does not do Flash. There goes 70% of all web video content, and 90% of all web games.

John Gruber: Apple, Adobe, and Flash

John Welch on John Nack:

Click to reveal..

On a more constructive track, there's an interesting thread developing at ARS as we speak:
If Flash isn't supported on the iPhone/iPad, what are alternative technologies?
[though, posters at ars-technica also use colorful language at times... so, fair warning.]

Quote:

To them, none of what you said matters.

Until it affects them.

You yourself described sitting in a coffee shop, reading a book on the iPad, and then wanting to use Google to get more information about an author. Did you realize you'll have to quit the e-book reader to use the web? How long before this becomes an annoyance?

When Grandma decides she wants to lend the kids a book she bought on her iPad for use on the kids' Kindle, and she can't, will she start caring? It's a giant step backwards from the dead-tree version, and she paid, at minimum, $500 to take that step back.

Geeks *do* care. Otherwise, they're not really "geeks." Geeks do not like to be told how they can use their hardware or commodities they have purchased. Geeks value freedom.

Quote:

Geeks *do* care. Otherwise, they're not really "geeks." Geeks do not like to be told how they can use their hardware or commodities they have purchased. Geeks value freedom.

There was the same type of FUD about iTunes Music, but all along Jobs wanted the DRM stripped out... and he finally got his way. Perhaps i'm not a political geek, because i've got over 5,000 songs purchased from Apple. (maybe being an AAPL stockholder helps).

===

BTW, as an example of the cool stuff available for iPhone/iPod touch users, i must highly recommend Star Walk. (i'm not affiliated with the author in any way, so this isn't spam). This app is just amazing. I got it for 2.99 around December, and the price appears to still be 2.99 today... but it may not stay that low.

Just check out this demo video at YouTube (umm, Flash required):

VITO Technology for iPhone

On the iPad's large screen that will probably look incredible.

Quote:

There was the same type of FUD about iTunes Music, but all along Jobs wanted the DRM stripped out...

Let's be clear. Jobs wanted DRM free music. He's just fine with DRM for other media. A direct quote from Jobs:

â€œVideoâ€™s pretty different than music because the video industry does not distribute 90% of its content DRM-free â€” never have. So I think theyâ€™re in a pretty different situation.â€

Yup, that sounds like the single largest shareholder of Disney stock.

And the video industry has never distributed content DRM-free? Really? What about VHS? There's no DRM there at all, and it's still the biggest (by historical volume) video publishing format.

Steve's been living in his own RDF for too long.

Steve Jobs is against DRM as long as it politically expedient and does not affect his bottom line. He'll happily preach about the evils of DRM to the music industry so that Apple users will think "He's on our side!" but it's a whole different story for any other media.

If DRM is bad and evil, it's bad and evil for everyone. Not just the industries in which Steve Jobs is not a stakeholder.

Originally Posted By: mneptok

The iPad does not do Flash. There goes 70% of all web video content, and 90% of all web games.

This excerpt from today's Daring Fireball:

Originally Posted By: John Gruber

â€œAnd as for Flash games, isnâ€™t it utterly obvious that existing Flash games, which work via keyboard and mouse, wouldnâ€™t work at all on devices which lack both keyboard and mouse?â€

Seeing that the first accessory Apple lists for the iPad is a full-sized external keyboard dock, this is less an argument than it is an apologist's rationalization.

Get used to the blue Legos.

So...how do geeks feel about 70% of all web video content and 90% of all web games requiring a proprietary plug-in?

I'm puzzled that you can view the potential erosion of the Flash monopoly at the hands of HTML 5/CSS/JavaScript as a bad thing while simultaneously embracing open standards over proprietary formats elsewhere.

Uhhh ...

Where, exactly, did I say the potential erosion of Flash's necessity by HTML5 was a bad thing? I think you're misinterpreting, "Releasing a device for the web without Flash makes no sense," as, "Flash is a great platform."

Do I like Flash? No. Is it a necessary component in today's web experience? Sadly, yes.

And CSS and Javascript cannot replace Flash. The bit of HTML5 that will do so is the <video> tag. And the way that will happen is still very much up for debate. Apple and others are pushing for h264. Firefox and Free software folks would prefer something released under Free licenses (like OGV).

Quote:

Do I like Flash? No. Is it a necessary component in today's web experience? Sadly, yes.

Gee, I dunno. I use ClicktoFlash in Safari and the built-in Flash blocker in Camino. Yes, I sometimes do invoke Flash content when I can't get information I want in some other fashion, but I'd no more call it "a necessary component in today's web experience" than I'd call corn-fattened beef a necessary component in today's gastronomic experience. Ubiquity != necessity.

Quote:

And CSS and Javascript cannot replace Flash. The bit of HTML5 that will do so is the <video> tag.

Well, I was thinking also of sites whose navigation is Flash-based; CSS and JavaScript do, in fact, offer alternative means to a similar end there.

Quote:

I use ClicktoFlash in Safari and the built-in Flash blocker in Camino. ... Ubiquity != necessity.

And "Works For Me" != "Will Work For Everyone In The iPad's Target Demographic."

Originally Posted By: mneptok

And "Works For Me" != "Will Work For Everyone In The iPad's Target Demographic."

But this phenomena is not new. My 2008 iPod touch (and the other 4 billion* iPod/iPhones sold so far) doesn't have Flash either. I can surf to the places i *care* about, while sitting in the dentist's office. Can i get all the bells and whistles from every single web page in the world? No... but who cares? Apparently not me or the other 4 billion iPod/iPhone users either.

* not sure of the exact number, but it's HUGE. [edit: maybe 1/4 billion is more accurate.]

Originally Posted By: mneptok

Seeing that the first accessory Apple lists for the iPad is a full-sized external keyboard dock, this is less an argument than it is an apologist's rationalization.

Did you watch the event? Apple is the largest supplier of *mobile* devices in the world. Bigger than Sony, Nokia, Palm, etc. Docking the iPad up to a keyboard will be a minor part of its practical usage. Its main objective is to be mobile.

Quote:

Apparently not me or the other 4 billion iPod/iPhone users either.

Yes, but the iPad is not a mobile phone nor a music player. Take a look at the survey Ars Technica is running today. The current breakdown:

I'm interested in the iPad and I do not want Flash support 20% (3,326 votes)
I'm interested in the iPad and I do want Flash support 30% (5,194 votes)
I'm interested in the iPad and I don't care either way 12% (1,963 votes)
I'm not interested in the iPad but I would if it had Flash 20% (3,393 votes)
I'm not interested in the iPad and I still wouldn't be, even if it had Flash 13% (2,283 votes)
I am not interested in the iPad and I don't care either way 5% (888 votes)

So, currently 32% of people are interested in the iPad, and either don't want or don't care about Flash support.

50% of respondents are interested in the iPad and want Flash support, or would be interested if the iPad supported Flash.

Although not scientific, this poll makes it clear that people care about this subject. What they will tolerate on a mobile phone is not necessarily what they will tolerate on a device Apple is marketing as a transformational way of viewing the web.

Quote:

Apple is the largest supplier of *mobile* devices in the world. Bigger than Sony, Nokia, Palm, etc.

Apple is pretty fast and loose with numbers as regards this. They count laptops as "mobile devices" to get those numbers. They also define "largest supplier" by revenue. If you use the traditional, well-accepted definition of "mobile devices," and the more accepted metric of "total number of devices sold,' then Nokia is still in the lead by a large margin. Something Nokia addressed today.

Just 'cause Steve said it doesn't make it so.

Quote:

Did you watch the event?

I can't. It requires proprietary QuickTime codecs, and Apple does not make QuickTime available for Linux users. They also are extremely litigious toward anyone trying to reverse engineer their codecs.

This is why open formats on the web are important. Don't complain about Real or Microsoft's proprietary codecs that don't work on a Mac, because Apple is doing the exact same thing.

Quote:

And "Works For Me" != "Will Work For Everyone In The iPad's Target Demographic."

Quote:

What they will tolerate on a mobile phone is not necessarily what they will tolerate on a device Apple is marketing as a transformational way of viewing the web.

Quote:

I guarantee you, the more Apple gains market share...

Which is the problem, then? That Apple will fail to gain market share by misreading the desires of the market? Or that Apple will continue to gain market shareâ€”presumably, by making and selling devices that people want?

Seems to me that if all those unhappy over the iPad's shortcomings exercise their marketplace vote by simply not buying the product, the draconian future you fear will never arrive.

The more I gain weight, the less healthy I become.

This does not mean, "I will inevitably gain weight, and I am doing so right now."

YouTube - Apple iPad: Steve Jobs Keynote Jan 27 2010 Part 1 (Parts 2-8 also available).

Perfectly viewable via a proprietary format.

Quote:

Perfectly viewable via a proprietary format.

A proprietary format with a Free Software implementation that Adobe has not threatened with legal action.

OK, so I watched the first minute of the YouTube keynote.

"These devices are going to have to be far better at certain key tasks. Better than a laptop. Better than a smartphone."

And the first thing Jobs mentions is web browsing.

And it will do this better by not offering Flash? That's the same as an iPhone, which Hal says is OK with everybody. But that's not how Steve pitched it. He said it would be better. That's the whole point. It's better than an iPhone. It's a whole new product category.

And it's clearly not.

Check out this response. That pretty much sums up how a lot of people feel.

Think about this. If a week ago I had told you that Microsoft was introducing a tablet computer that they were saying was a transformational device, even "magical" (Steve's own word), but that the device could not multitask and had no support for Flash content, what would you have said? Never mind how you feel about Windows, what would you have said about these technological limitations?

If you won't say the same thing about Apple, I personally would question your ability to think critically. And many would label you a fanboy. I don't mean to be harsh, but it seems pretty obvious from the reviews, polls, and response that a LOT of people consider this device technolgically handicapped, and not at all the transformational device in a whole new product category that Jobs said it was.

I know a lot of FTM users love Apple. But don't love them blindly. Think different!

So I wonder how long it will take Apple to sell the first million of them? The release weekend or maybe a whole month?

Although it's been fun reviewing early iPhone reactions in iPhone Death Watch ("The iPhoneâ€™s willful disregard of the global handset market will come back to haunt Apple"), it's also kind of instructive to revisit the initial responses to Apple's New Thing (iPod) ("All this hype for something so ridiculous! Who cares about an MP3 player? I want something new! I want them to think differently!").

Originally Posted By: mneptok

Quote:

Apple is the largest supplier of *mobile* devices in the world. Bigger than Sony, Nokia, Palm, etc.

You're right.
The iPad is doomed.
Apple is doomed.
Doomed i say!

So why do you care?

[Nokia? Gimme a break. They could fall off the face of the Earth today, it wouldn't matter one whit.]

sundry links:

I love when people put words in my mouth.

These are my original points:

1). Having no Flash support and no multitasking is a technological limitation, and does not make the iPad a revolutionary, "magical," transformational device that does web surfing better than a smartphone.

2). DRM is bad for users as it limits their choice. The iPad is a DRM vending machine.

This has nothing to do with sales. I never, at any point projected success or failure of this device from a sales perspective. Granted, a non-scientific poll at Ars seems to back up my claim that missing Flash bothers a lot of people. But it's non-scientific, and Ars readers tend to be more inclined to think critically and value their freedoms.

Sure, Apple may sell a million iPads. That has absolutely zero bearing on whether the device is a technological milestone that redefines a product category and offers heretofore unseen features.

Hell, Apple will probably sell at least 100K units to people that have to have the latest and greatest Apple product just because they buy into the "Apple lifestyle" marketing ploys.

"This device has some pretty big limitations, and the DRM involved is pretty abhorrent," does not mean I am saying, "This device will be a commercial failure."

I never said Apple's market share would grow or shrink.

I never said, "Apple does not play any role in the mobile device market." I said that their figures were skewed. Mobile device market analysts are also puzzled by Apple's claims.

I never said, "Flash is a great content delivery platform."

I get it. You like Apple. I didn't expect much different from a forum like this. But has that so clouded your vision that you have to defend everything they do, even if you have to invent arguments from my mouth to do it?

Originally Posted By: Jeff Glueck

Many Flash applications use 50 megabytes or more of runtime memory. Thatâ€™s just too much for handhelds today.

There is only one â€œmobileâ€ device running native Flash in the world: the Nokia N900, a Maemo Linux device which is very close to a full computer with a 1 Ghz CPU, and retails for up to 700 Euros. In practice, even the N900 cannot deliver a useful Flash experience over a 3G connection. When we tried, it could only crawl to 1-2 frames per second with 100% CPU utilization. Thatâ€™s not a video. Itâ€™s a slide show.

See the article for more reasoned thoughts: The Flash is always greener: Why the iPhone wonâ€™t have Flash anytime soon

[edit: looks like Flash 10 has a ways to go yet: AnandTech Tests GPU Accelerated Flash 10.1 Prerelease]

So much for "point" #1.

>> DRM is abhorrent.

That's a popular opinion among pirates. I see nothing to argue about (or even discuss). If that's how you feel, fine with me.

Quote:

So much for "point" #1.

Ummm ... hardly. You are basically saying, "The point that you assert that the iPad is technically limited is made moot by the fact that the iPad is technically limited."

If Apple wants to not enable Flash on the iPad, fine. Just don't bill it as a revolutionary, indeed "magical," product that enables a web experience far superior to a smartphone.

Because that's exactly how Jobs described it. And it's simply not true. The reasons that it is not true have no bearing on the lack of veracity.

Quote:

That's a popular opinion among pirates.

So it's fine when Jobs calls for an end to DRM on audio files on the iTunes store, but anyone that then says that the same logic and ethics should be applied to other media is somehow a "pirate?"

I suggest you look at the Defective By Design website. It discusses the problems with DRM, and is most certainly not run by "pirates."

When I earlier complained about the DRM facets of Apple's business and products, your response was, While i agree that 100% of what you said is indeed factual ...

I'm a little confused that you would agree with my principles (although you say most people don't care) but then relegate them to the domain of pirates.

Originally Posted By: mneptok

Quote:

So much for "point" #1.

So -- unless something supports Flash -- it can't be revolutionary? Ha! I view it "differently". The fact that Apple *chose* to ignore the whole Flash paradigm *is* revolutionary, in-and-of itself.

As far as "magical" goes, i'm not here to defend Steve's marketing-speak. But, if this device manages to attract a new type of user (or create a venue toward which current users gravitate), and Apple's stock shoots up as a result... that will be magical enough for me. [cough*dividend*cough]

Originally Posted By: mneptok

Quote:

That's a popular opinion among pirates.

Technological facts are one thing, and "principles" are another. I really haven't judged anyone's principles... i merely stated another fact. [pirates hate DRM.] Draw whatever conclusion you desire.

--

I'm just trying to *understand* the iPad. If you can help with that endeavor, please do.

[Can we bury the Flash business yet? Given what i've read (and linked to), it makes perfect sense for Apple to ban it from products such as this. Perhaps you should wait a year, see how things go... and then pick up an iPad Pro.]

Quote:

So -- unless something supports Flash -- it can't be revolutionary?

That's hardly my point. I would be saying these exact same things if the iPad did not support Javascript, CSS, or other widely-used web technologies.

You cannot claim a product delivers a significantly better browsing experience than does a smartphone when that product fails to implement the same widely-used technologies as does a smartphone.

Jobs said the iPad delivers a significantly better web browsing experience than does the iPhone. It was among the first points he made in the product launch.

Simple question. How? "A bigger screen," ain't gonna deliver on that promise. And that's really the only difference I see. Am I missing something obvious?

Quote:

Technological facts are one thing, and "principles" are another. I really haven't judged anyone's principles... i merely stated another fact. [pirates hate DRM.] Draw whatever conclusion you desire.

It was pretty clear, at least to me, from your tone and context that you are now dismissing arguments against DRM as being a tempest in a teacup, and of concern only to those interested in engaging in intellectual property theft.

Whatever.

Originally Posted By: dkmarsh

....... it's also kind of instructive to revisit the initial responses to Apple's New Thing (iPod) ("All this hype for something so ridiculous! Who cares about an MP3 player? I want something new! I want them to think differently!").

I think that, with the iPod, Apple was marketing. i.e. recognizing and filling a market need as opposed to developing a product and trying to "sell" it.

When the iPod came along music downloading was very popular but it was illegal and it was done on players that were a bit complicated to operate. Apple was smart in concluding: "The market wants to get music from the internet legally and they want to do it simply."

I'm unconvinced that's entirely the case with the iPad, particularly the part about reading books on it. I cannot imagine reading a novel or any other lengthy book on a screen.

However, I can see a person getting their morning paper on an iPad, as they travel to work on a commuter train, because they can link to related news on video et cetera.

ryck

But the iTunes [Music] Storeâ€”the solution to "The market wants to get music from the internet legally and they want to do it simply"â€”wasn't launched until a full year and a half after the introduction of the iPod. (Heck, the App Store wasn't launched until a full year after the introduction of the iPhone, yet now is widely held to be the iPhone's raison d'Ãªtre.) So until the iPad has been upon us for awhile, I do think the current reactions can be seen as analogous to those experienced by the iPod.

As for the reading experience, I think there's a distinction to be made between the iPad and devices such as the Kindle which use e-ink technology. Any "brilliant" display is likely to be hard on the eyes when reading for an extended period of time, but the Kindle and other dedicated e-readers don't employ such displays. Would you disqualify those as well?

Or are you saying the "form factor" of a flat-screen-display housed in a rigid bodyâ€”however thin and lightâ€”doesn't comport with your sense of the novel-reading experience? I'm inclined to agree with you in specific regard to lengthy books.

Interestingly, though, my news and information gathering habits have evolved over the past eight or ten years to the point at which virtually all useful written data is acquired via the internet...and the experience of consuming it on an upright monitor while sitting in a desk chair is barely tolerable at best. A laptop would be somewhat better, but it'd be a lot easier to justify a $500 device I can hold in my hands than a $1000 device not designed for reading postures and needing to be charged every three hours.

And yes, if I were only interested in using an electronic device for reading, and someone's e-reader offered the ability to download newspapers, magazine articles, .pdf instruction manuals, blogs, forums, knowledge-base documents, and email in addition to books...then I'd probably prefer the e-ink solution.

Originally Posted By: mneptok

I love when people put words in my mouth.

These are my original points:

Actually your original point was to make another in a long string of banal juvenile jokes about the product name.

Who Can Do Something About Those Blue Boxes?

My actual concern about iPad is that it will finish the job of flushing AT&T's network down the head, by being too wildly successful too early like the iPhone was.

As Gruber indicates, the web will adapt if the market penetration of the platform forces it to do so. Who still has doubts about the market penetration of the platform?

Originally Posted By: ryck

I'm unconvinced that's entirely the case with the iPad, particularly the part about reading books on it. I cannot imagine reading a novel or any other lengthy book on a screen.

I'll first reiterate Dave's point: that we (millions of us) already read text on a screen many hours a day. Most of what i've learned about Unix (for example) has come from on-screen documents.

Have you experimented with the dark theme here at FTM? Try this: select "ubbthreads-dark" from the popup menu at the bottom of the screen... and then bump up the text size significantly with command+ Â Â Â ...that's pretty easy on the eyes, no?

Also... some users with *extremely* poor vision (my mom has macula degeneration) have to use screen-based devices. She has this "reading machine" that zooms her materials (novels mostly) up on a screen, and she does about 6 hours a day like that. (it's her only source of entertainment, as her hearing device's processor does not allow her to understand "fast" speech... so TV has been out of the realm of possibility for some years now). Like the dark theme here, her machine can do white text on black background... as well as various other shades and color combinations.

Anyway, part of my interest in the iPad is to see if she will be able to read from it. I'll need to investigate what options it has [text size, etc.] not just in the iBook area, but also with email. We have tried the "zoom" feature offered by Mac OS, but the laborious scrolling required has proven to be too disorienting for her to use.

Originally Posted By: dkmarsh

Who Can Do Something About Those Blue Boxes?

Thanks for that.

Pretty amazing, the iPad is practically 2 months away still... yet the level of buzz shows no sign of decline.*
*edit -- OTOH, this comment at Wired made me laugh: â€œOh look, another iPad articleâ€¦ Didnâ€™t see that one coming.â€

I've been leafing through Gruber's website lately (not one of my usual haunts), and ran across this one:

> The Tablet < [a bit long as well as old (dec. 2009), but surprisingly insightful.]

--

And now, a little gasoline for the fire: "Googleâ€™s mantra is BS" and "Adobe is Lazy"
Wow... welcome back Steve! [hard to believe a year ago the pundits were writing him off the page.]

The difference between the Firefox standards issue and Flash is that Firefox adoption happened across all platforms, and was not driven by a single niche market.

I'd imagine that if Firefox had never been offered for Windows, or if Windows users had not flocked to Firefox in droves, the "Requires IE" problem would still be much more a factor today.

Scoble also says

Quote:

But just a few years later and have you seen a site that doesnâ€™t work on Firefox? I havenâ€™t.

I have. The MLS site that every real estate agent uses. It's IE/Windows dependent, as it uses a nasty ActiveX control. If you're a real estate agent in the US, don't get rid of that Windows partition or VM just yet.

What drove the "Requires IE" issue was sheer numbers. When the German and French governments are recommending their citizens not use IE, it's a pretty good motivator.

The problem with Flash is that it's not just a few HTML tweaks to fix the issue. And, for most people, Flash "just works" on almost every browser on almost every platform.

I think it's going to take more than just Apple to fix this. Smartphone makers may be able to help. But the real impetus will be Microsoft. They have the majority of users. And their answer is almost certain to be, "Yeah, don't use Flash. Use Silverlight."

Originally Posted By: dkmarsh

I wonder if the timing (iPod a year earlier than iTunes Music Store) wasn't just one of the kind of things that happen when you manage huge things - in that case two huge things. Usually, no matter how much you consult and plan, a huge project has a good chance of not being quite the same as the vision, not ending with quite the planned cost, and possibly finished on a different date than planned.

With the iPod and iTunes the perfect result would have been a simultaneous release and, for all we know, that's what Apple wanted. However, they had much more control over the deadlines for the iPod than they would have had for iTunes (negotiations with third parties for content) and so the latter was forced to later.

Meanwhile they had an iPod ready, and an expectant market, so were forced to "get it out there" knowing they'll take a lot of flak. That also is something that happens when managing - sometimes you have to make a decision that you know will make people question your sanity and, although you know there is a logical answer, you just can't say anything. Do you recall if Jobs looked like he might have been biting his lip back then?

However, I speculate....and I guess we won't know for sure until somebody writes the "Behind the Scenes at iPod" book. I wonder if it'll only be released on iPad.

Originally Posted By: dkmarsh

As for the reading experience, I think there's a distinction to be made between the iPad and devices such as the Kindle which use e-ink technology. Any "brilliant" display is likely to be hard on the eyes when reading for an extended period of time, but the Kindle and other dedicated e-readers don't employ such displays. Would you disqualify those as well?

Or are you saying the "form factor" of a flat-screen-display housed in a rigid bodyâ€”however thin and lightâ€”doesn't comport with your sense of the novel-reading experience? I'm inclined to agree with you in specific regard to lengthy books.

It's more about the preference for holding a book than holding a rigid device with a screen and I'm not including the books (art, photography, et cetera) for which page size and paper stock are a part of the experience. Heck, I don't even want to look through my Don Martin Collection on anything other than the same layout as the original Mad. Sklorkle!! Thwak!! But, I digress.

If I take a paperback to the park I can fold a page corner and stick it in my pocket when I leave. And, I'm not going to worry too much if I forget it on a picnic table. If I'm reading on the deck and nod off, I'm not concerned that the paperback might slide off my lap.

I see Hal Itosis also wondered if I meant screen brightness and, although that's not the issue, he does make an excellent point about a market that wants and needs this kind of device just to be able to have the pleasure of reading.

ryck

I put it in context of remembering the first iPod, and that became the iPhone. so what will a future iteration of the iPad look like? v2 will have a camera. probably two, one facing forward and one on the screen side.

Originally Posted By: ryck

No. The iPod is a hardware device which mainly required manufacturing. Setting up the iTunes Store required tons of legal negotiations with dozens of record labels (and different nations with differing laws). At its release, the iPod was just a portable player for iTunes users (who had presumably ripped their existing CD collection onto their HDs).

Originally Posted By: ryck

With the iPod and iTunes the perfect result would have been a simultaneous release and, for all we know, that's what Apple wanted. However, they had much more control over the deadlines for the iPod than they would have had for iTunes (negotiations with third parties for content) and so the latter was forced to later.

No again. "iTunes" was an already-existing piece of software (SoundJam) which Apple simply grabbed up and changed the name. Sure, the iPod was probably a glimmer in Steve's eye at the time... but, there was no need for some simultaneous release of both iTunes and the iPod. In fact, many threads i've seen echo the sentiment that "too much too soon" is often a formula for failure. [else, maybe i'd be typing this message on a NeXT workstation.]

â€¢ Pee-wee Gets An iPad!

[that flash viddy looks/sounds a little choppy on my aged g4, hope it plays smoother on intel]

It plays really smoothly on my Intel.

Originally Posted By: roger

see, I told you!

Quote:

[that flash viddy looks/sounds a little choppy on my aged g4, hope it plays smoother on intel]

mumble ... mumble ... irony ... mumble ...

Originally Posted By: mneptok

Quote:

[that flash viddy looks/sounds a little choppy on my aged g4, hope it plays smoother on intel]

mumble ... mumble ... irony ... mumble ...

Amazing.

I just viewed that viddy on my (2008) iPod touch... and it played PERFECTLY!!! (it goes from Safari into some sort of background QuickTime player). I tried again with my (2004) PowerBook G4 and it's still a little choppy... the picture part anyway, the audio seems fine. Admittedly, i'm using ClickToFlash (on the PowerBook) to load that vid, and interestingly enough, it only offers Flash. [i.e., CTF doesn't see the QuickTime version that my iPod is managing to pull down.]

Anyway, please take your irony back... it appears i won't be needing it.

No problem viewing it on my Early 2009 White MacBook/2.0GHz Core 2 Duo/4Gb RAM/OS X 10.5.7 (Build 9J61) with ClickToFlash installed.

10.5.7

[try running software update

]

Originally Posted By: Hal Itosis

10.5.7

[try running software update

]

It brings Safari 4 and NO SnapBack; thanks, but I'll still pass.

Originally Posted By: artie505

Originally Posted By: Hal Itosis

10.5.7

[try running software update

]

It brings Safari 4 and NO SnapBack; thanks, but I'll still pass.
Â

I'll see your Safari 4.0.4 -- and raise you one Security Update (2010-001). [plus any future security update, which will also require 10.5.8 (or higher).]

And speaking of security, let's tie this back to the iPad (or its operating system anyway):

[Snapback, really? The functionality still exists in v.4 (as explained in another thread), but... it's not something needed very often. Anyway, it's still there artie... in fact, better because we can choose the best level to snap back to on the fly (i.e., without needing to "plan" ahead).]

some more links...

Adobe
1. Home / Technologies / Flash Professional CS5 / Packager for iPhone
2. Developing for the Apple iPhone using Flash [sic]
EE Times
1. Point/Counterpoint: Apple's iPad, dud or must-have? Â (wrong question, but good read anyway)

> I'll see your Safari 4.0.4 -- and raise you one Security Update (2010-001). [plus any future security update, which will also require 10.5.8 (or higher).]

Sounds like you're playing in a higher stakes game than the one I'm in...

First, I haven't noticed a whole lot of posters who are still running Tiger and earlier versions of OS X, let alone 10.5.7, falling victim to the vulnerabilities patched by the Security Updates they've failed to install.

And second, I do not visit untrustworthy websites; my Safaris do not take me into the lawless areas of the web, so I do not consider myself sufficiently at risk to need to downgrade my computing experience in order to upgrade my security.

> [Snapback, really? The functionality still exists in v.4 (as explained in another thread), but... it's not something needed very often. Anyway, it's still there artie... in fact, better because we can choose the best level to snap back to on the fly (i.e., without needing to "plan" ahead).]

I assume you mean here?

I'm afraid you're universalizing your computing habits, Hal...

Maybe you don't need SnapBack very often, but I need and use it a lot...it's something I'll not live without before it becomes overwhelmingly necessary that I do so.

And as for "better," I suppose Apple has imposed on the world what IT, in its imperial wisdom, thinks is better, but I hadn't realized that hubris is an ITD (Internet Transmitted Disease) that you've caught.

> And speaking of security [....]

I'm not certain of the significance of your links, but I have neither iPhone nor any use for or intention of getting an iPad.

Quote:

...I haven't noticed a whole lot of posters who are still running Tiger and earlier versions of OS X, let alone 10.5.7, falling victim to the vulnerabilities patched by the Security Updates they've failed to install.

How many posters running any version of OS X have you noticed falling victim to the vulnerabilities patched by Security Updates they've failed to install?

Quote:

I do not visit untrustworthy websites...

How would you know in advance to avoid, say, a "trustworthy" site which had been compromised?

Quote:

...I suppose Apple has imposed on the world what IT, in its imperial wisdom, thinks is better...

But Safari itself is an Apple product, which you seem happy to use as long as its feaure set is to your liking.

Since anecdotal evidence suggests that the vast majority of Safari users are untroubled by the loss of SnapBackâ€”if, indeed, they ever used it or even knew it existedâ€”equating the ongoing evolution of the product with corporate arrogance because your preference is no longer being served seems a tad arrogant in its own right.

Quote:

I'm not certain of the significance of your links, but I have neither iPhone nor any use for or intention of getting an iPad.

Well, Hal did say "And speaking of security, let's tie this back to the iPad," and the title of the thread is iPad.

The fact that Hal's post was made in reply to you doesn't mean that all of it was aimed at you. (Some might say that to believe so is, well, hubristic!)

Long-time MFIF/FTM members understand that you prefer to make separate replies to each individual poster to whom you're responding, but I think a majority of posters are inclined to address points touched on by multiple posters in a single reply, and I think Hal was simply attempting to return the thread to its original topic, on behalf of the nine other participants.

Originally Posted By: artie505

Sounds like you're playing in a higher stakes game than the one I'm in...

First, I haven't noticed a whole lot of posters who are still running Tiger and earlier versions of OS X, let alone 10.5.7, falling victim to the vulnerabilities patched by the Security Updates they've failed to install.

And second, I do not visit untrustworthy websites; my Safaris do not take me into the lawless areas of the web, so I do not consider myself sufficiently at risk to need to downgrade my computing experience in order to upgrade my security.

All perfectly good rationalizations (except for implying i visit lawless websites), but you're taking it too personally. I'm just trying to encourage all readers (you and others) to adopt the healthy practice of keeping current with OS versions and security updates.

Originally Posted By: artie505

I assume you mean here?

I'm afraid you're universalizing your computing habits, Hal...

Maybe you don't need SnapBack very often, but I need and use it a lot...it's something I'll not live without before it becomes overwhelmingly necessary that I do so.

I use the drop down menu (off the back-arrow key) to "snapback" several times a day. Have you even tried the menu method yet? [it's hard to tell, but it doesn't sound as if you have. The difference is so minuscule that there's no way you would get this worked up about it.] EDIT: either way, your pronouncement that Safari 4 has "NO" snapback is simply inaccurate. It has a slightly different snapback feature, that's all.

Originally Posted By: artie505

I'm not certain of the significance of your links, but I have neither iPhone nor any use for or intention of getting an iPad.

Besides being blissfully unaware of which thread you've posted in, you are missing out on some fun technology. [i don't have an iPhone, but my iPod does have Wi-Fi... so i can browse and get info from the web when i'm out and about (if a network is available). It's nice (not to mention having over 5000 of my favorite songs in my pocket). And that "Star Walk" app i posted on page one is just amazing, when gazing up at the night sky and wondering what the heck i'm looking at.]

idunno, that iPad looks awfully tempting.

Quote:

...that iPad looks awfully tempting.

It's a dud. Sales are down already.

I pretty much expect there will be a Super Bowl ad (a la "1984").

I've read that a Chinese company is pretty angry with Apple because they may have "stolen their idea". Interestingly, their product, although without a multisensor screen has a camera!

> How many posters running any version of OS X have you noticed falling victim to the vulnerabilities patched by Security Updates they've failed to install?

(That sounds like you're supporting my position!)

I can't begin to answer that question; I've seen some, but not many, posts by individuals who've been victimized by something or other, but I have no idea whether those something or others could have been avoided by the posters' having installed one Security Update or another. (The older the OS, though, the more telling the lack of victims.)

> How would you know in advance to avoid, say, a "trustworthy" site which had been compromised?

I wouldn't, obviously, but my browsing habits leave me with a generally warm and fuzzy feeling and, thus, a willingness to gamble.

> Since anecdotal evidence suggests that the vast majority of Safari users are untroubled by the loss of SnapBackâ€”if, indeed, they ever used it or even knew it existedâ€”equating the ongoing evolution of the product with corporate arrogance because your preference is no longer being served seems a tad arrogant in its own right.

The fact that so few people seem to be aware of SnapBack suggests to me that I might be part of a crowd, rather than a lone voice, had Apple publicized it better.

(I wonder how many of the hundreds of new features in each new OS X release come and go without ever being noticed by anybody? Somebody recently posted that se tries out each new feature at least once [Wow! What an endeavor!]; I wonder how many others do the same?)

The thing that rankles me is that so many apps, Apple and 3rd party, add eye-candy bells and whistles, even as they discard functionality, with each new release, and I concede that my frustration with that approach to innovation has put me in the position of an extremist.

> I think Hal was simply attempting to return the thread to its original topic, on behalf of the nine other participants.

You're a Mod, I suspect that you've got sufficient influence to have any branch of any thread relocated to its own thread on behalf of all FTM members and visitors if you think it appropriate, and I suggest that this is one such branch; many FTM posters are running behind-the-times versions of OS X and may find this discussion interesting if not invaluable.

> (except for implying i visit lawless websites)

Sorry about that; it demands clarification... "Lawless" was not meant to be taken literally, rather I used it to label those sites, social networking, torrent, porn, et al, that are known to be "drop boxes" for the sort of stuff that Security Updates address as well as other "bad" stuff.

> I'm just trying to encourage all readers (you and others) to adopt the healthy practice of keeping current with OS versions and security updates.

And I'm questioning the importance of not only the Security Update aspect of your post, but of your premise in general.

It is, perhaps, healthy, but, as I've pointed out, hardly necessary to jump on Security Updates, and what's so all-fired important about keeping current with OS X in general?

I've not run across even a single reason to regret never having run Tiger, and I don't feel any differently about Snow Leopard so far. (It's most useful feature, in my eyes, anyhow, is its compactness, and I have taken advantage of that to install it on an 8Gb flash drive.)

>I use the drop down menu (off the back-arrow key) to "snapback" several times a day. Have you even tried the menu method yet? [it's hard to tell, but it doesn't sound as if you have. The difference is so minuscule that there's no way you would get this worked up about it.] EDIT: either way, your pronouncement that Safari 4 has "NO" snapback is simply inaccurate. It has a slightly different snapback feature, that's all.

I haven't tried the "menu method," because I wasn't aware of it, and now that I am, I'm not certain how it works; I'm open to change, and clarification will be appreciated and may even be catalytic.

> EDIT: either way, your pronouncement that Safari 4 has "NO" snapback is simply inaccurate. It has a slightly different snapback feature, that's all.

Clarification, please... Is Safari 4's "slightly different snapback feature" a new feature or merely a resurgence of a Safari 2 feature that was perhaps meant to have been upstaged by SnapBack.

> Besides being blissfully unaware of which thread you've posted in [....]

I'm fully aware of both which thread I'm posting in and that it was you who prompted me to post with

Originally Posted By: Hal Itosis

10.5.7

[try running software update

]

> [...] you are missing out on some fun technology.

...none of which I even covet, let alone need; heck, I probably wouldn't even have a computer if my daughter hadn't knocked on my door one day and handed me a leftover PowerMac.

(To give that a bit of perspective I'll mention that I wear a mechanical watch, I write with a fountain pen, and, although I use a phone with a memory for dialing, I have an old rotary-dial job that does the ringing.

)

Quote:

I haven't tried the "menu method," because I wasn't aware of it, and now that I am, I'm not certain how it works; I'm open to change, and clarification will be appreciated and may even be catalytic.

Hal should have said, "I use the drop down menu (off the back-arrow button)"; you ought to be aware of it, since it was mentioned in the the very post you linked to. (Your take on it then: "Hmmm... I don't know about much better, but I'll play with it; thanks for the thought.")

Quote:

Clarification, please... Is Safari 4's "slightly different snapback feature" a new feature or merely a resurgence of a Safari 2 feature that was perhaps meant to have been upstaged by SnapBack.

Actually, pretty much every modern general-purpose browser for the Mac allows you to click-and-hold on the Back button to display a navigation menu comprised of all previous pages which have been loaded in the tab you're in (or window, if you're not using tabs).

I can't speak for when this feature was introduced or when it became universal, but it's available in all the browsers I have easily at hand (Safari 4, Camino 2, Firefox 3.5, iCab 4, OmniWeb 5.9).

Originally Posted By: artie505

And I'm questioning the importance of not only the Security Update aspect of your post, but of your premise in general.

My premise? I think that the merits of keeping our software up-to-date (especially where many security-specific fixes are part of the package) is a fairly universal premise. You are of course free to disagree... but, it's not only "me" with whom you'll find this particular disagreement. (Indeed your viewpoint is most certainly the minority).

So, i'll continue to encourage users to stay up to date, and leave you to set the counter example (extolling the virtues of running less secure systems). My objective was merely to serve notice, and that much seems to have been achieved.

Originally Posted By: macnerd10

I've read that a Chinese company is pretty angry with Apple because they may have "stolen their idea".

Well, that's certainly novel....coming from a company in a country that has little respect for copyright and is the home to a huge business manufacturing knock-offs.

ryck

Originally Posted By: ryck

Originally Posted By: macnerd10

I've read that a Chinese company is pretty angry with Apple because they may have "stolen their idea".

Well, that's certainly novel....coming from a company in a country that has little respect for copyright and is the home to a huge business manufacturing knock-offs.

ryck

Seems a little late in the game too. Arguably, all Apple has done is made their (Sept. 2007) iPod touch larger. [edit: and the iPhone started out (was announced) in Jan. 2007]

The main reason the Shenzhen Great Loong Brother Company is now making a stink is because they're already selling a tablet (the P88) that happens to be a design knockoff of the iPhone/iPod Touch: see Chinese â€˜iPadâ€™ Maker Threatens to Sue Apple for Plagiarism. I doubt theyâ€™ll get far should they decide to pursue this in court.

I agree that their chances are slim, but lack of a camera (cheap stuff) on iPad is really a turn-off. No Skype, guys...

Originally Posted By: macnerd10

I agree that their chances are slim, but lack of a camera (cheap stuff) on iPad is really a turn-off.

Camera? Maybe one will come. I've had a camera in my various cell phones since 1999 (i think) and probably taken less than 20 snapshots.The [current] lack of a camera is not something many people are concerned with (at least not in terms of complaints posted on the web so far). Although the iPad will undoubtedly get outdoor usage, i think the primary target areas intended are living rooms and offices. [and photography buffs probably have 3 cameras already.]

Originally Posted By: macnerd10

No Skype, guys...

I posted this link back on page 2: VoIP on iPad, iPhone, iPod touch?
Have you got any news which contradicts those expectations?

Originally Posted By: Hal Itosis

Originally Posted By: macnerd10

No Skype, guys...

I posted this link back on page 2: VoIP on iPad, iPhone, iPod touch?
Have you got any news which contradicts those expectations?

I believe he's referring to the video chatting feature of Skype. I suppose there might be a dock based camera for the iPad sometime. Maybe Logitech.

FWIW: Repair service finds iPad's camera slot

Like many people said: a fluke...
I did indeed mean video chat (thanks, Crarko), so standard these days on laptops. Pretty sure that a lot of folks would part with a hundred bucks more to get a fully functional internet machine. I may be wrong, but this looks like the first time that Apple's innovation did not go far enough to even be at the same level as the competition...

Um... it's not a laptop. It's a hand-held device.

I'd imagine that picture (video chat) will be bobbing around a bit, as the user moves the iPad around in their hands. But anyway... if that's a "must-have" for someone, then they "must-wait" i guess.

Originally Posted By: artie505

>And second, I do not visit untrustworthy websites; my Safaris do not take me into the lawless areas of the web, so I do not consider myself sufficiently at risk to need to downgrade my computing experience in order to upgrade my security.

Just as a side note, unrelated to the issue of whether or not modern Safari versions are lacking or security updates are important:

It used to be that most computer malware was spread through phony porn sites, and it was once true that by staying away from the "lawless areas of the internet" you were in fact a lot safer.

Today, this is no longer the case. The vast majority of malware is served up from big-name, reputable sites. The New York Times, Travelocity, Delta.com, Expedia, MSN, and other sites have ended up dishing out computer viruses and malware in the last year.

There are three ways this happens:

1. Organized crime gangs set up fake businesses, sometimes even with business licenses and the whole nine yards. They set up Web sites for these phony businesses, then buy banner ads from legitimate banner ad companies like Doubleclick. These ads are Flash, and contain hidden payloads; they usually go to the phony business site, but are rigged so that occasionally, or after a certain time, they start silently redirecting to malware sites instead. The malware sites attempt to use a cocktail of browser and Flash exploits to download malware.

2. Organized crime gangs probe large, popular, top-name Web sites searching for security vulnerabilities such as SQL injection vulnerabilities or the like. Surprisingly in this day and age, a lot of big-name Web companies that should know better, sometimes even including companies like credit card processors, do not have security auditing teams within the company and don't have programs in place to look for this sort of error. All it takes is one Web programmer making one trivial mistake. When the criminals find a vulnerability, they hack the site and place invisible, silent redirectors, or JavaScript or iFrame code, into the site. The site then attempts to silently download malware on anyone who visits it using various browser and plug-in vulnerabilities.

3. Organized crime gangs troll large, big-name Internet sites looking for user forums, customer service forums, and the like. They then register and create profiles on those forums. Some forum software allows users to type JavaScript, ASP code, or other forms of content into a profile or a user page, which is suicidally insane; it's hard to imagine that forum programmers are dumb enough to allow this, but they do. The criminals will then place hostile ASP or JavaScript code into the user profile that attempts to silently download and install malware. Then they seed the profile with popular Google keywords and attempt to lure people doing popular Google keyword searches to these rigged profiles. For example, in the last few weeks, these gangs have used Google keywords like "haiti earthquake" or "donate haiti charity" to lure users to rigged profiles that either redirect to malware sites or try to install malware directly.

So far, I have not seen Mac malware distributed using technique #1 or #2. I have seen Mac malware, specifically the DNSchanger Trojan, distributed using technique #3. In fact, there is an Intuit (the accounting software company) official online forum that has been compromised and is being used to spread malware to visitors, and is also using rigged Google keywords to lure visitors to booby-trapped profiles. I wrote an article about the Intuit hack recently, in fact.

So thinking that you're safe if you keep to the "right" part of the internet is actually a dangerous fallacy, I'm afraid.

Originally Posted By: tacit

I wrote an article about the Intuit hack recently, in fact.

Interesting exchange in the comments there too (i.e., quicktaxgeoff on Dec. 22nd, 2009 and later on Jan. 27th, 2010). Unbelievable. [Intuit pisses me off on so many levels.]

Great work man.

Some interesting insights into possible business uses for the iPad:

Apple's iPad for Business Is Being Underestimated.

What is a mobile phone? A hand-held device. And their cameras can do video for quite some time. Not really a camcorder, though, I agree. Still no excuse for Apple; besides, if your reference to the camera enclosure is right, even more weird. At least some competitors have it, like Nokia, with a smaller and probably even less functional gadget http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qojPvrOwI2c

I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that -- if/when a video option is finally included -- they'll sell more iPads without it than with. I mean, it might be a nice addition and all... but for living room, classroom, and/or office use... not vital by any means. [So why add more cost?]

Besides... if it had every single bell and whistle on day zero, where would they go from there? <--EDIT: to expand on that, it seems many folks are wanting (or expecting) the iPad to instantly be a "100%" device for "100%" of the people. I don't believe its current incarnation is even trying to be that. Can i get a command line terminal and look at all the hidden files like i do on a real Mac? I doubt it... it's not a computer. Nor a phone (yet), nor a camera (yet), nor (merely) an e-Reader. What will really determine its value are whatever "apps" people develop to make it do stuff. I could see users preferring to bring their iPad places where a MacBook might be more than necessary (coffee shop, a night on the town,Thanksgiving weekend at Grandma's, etc). There are many situations where it might be the perfect "in-between" machine for many different types of users. As i mentioned a few pages back: new venues as yet unexpected. It's small (but not too small), it's cheap (but not entirely unproductive).

Time will tell. [it's kind of tricky: Apple doesn't want to cannibalize either the MacBook or the iPhone entirely... but some users may eventually give up one of them. There are many ways this iPad thing can go, and Apple is smart by leaving it room to grow. If people demand video (and want to pay for it), i'm sure that's already part of the plan. Meanwhile, users who don't require that particular amenity are getting the first crack.]

Your reasoning is valid, of course, but lack of webcam has been cited so many times already that it seems a glaring omission. The iPad seems to be geared for Internet users and video chat is now very popular. Given Apple's innovative approach many are disappointed with this obvious glitch in forward thinking.

Originally Posted By: macnerd10

You assume it's a glitch of Apple's; I assume it's a 'Let's not take out the rest of AT&T's network while waiting for 4G do be deployed in 2011.'

It's OK to wait for next year's model.

You'd almost think Apple learned something from the me.com rollout.

Originally Posted By: macnerd10

Nah... that's overstating the importance of an expensive option which many will be glad not to be forced to pay for. If the iPad later offers video chat, are you gonna rush out and pick one up? Or are you merely a disinterested agitator?

+ FWIW, i've been using personal computers at an increasingly geeky level since 1989 (though actually, i did learn some BASIC back in 11th grade... c.a., 1972), and i've never done any video chatting. The first thing i'll do with my (soon-to-be-released) MacBook Pro is put some opaque tape over that iSight camera lens.

If there was an option to pay less and have no camera, i would probably do so (depending on the cost savings).

Guess i never was much of a "Dick Tracy" fan. (edit: oops, that wasn't video... was it?)

I use video chatting on Skype reasonably often. On a Mac with a broadband connection.

I would not like to have any more phone calls dropped because people are trying to do it over the 3G network of my dreams (sic), though.

You once wrote a piece on how to read the information following http:// correctly, to avoid being led to a nasty site. The piece may have been at your own website, I don't recall, but I do remember it was about checking the information before the first "/" slash.

This post reminded me of it, and that it's worth a re-read, but I can't find it. Is it still available? Perhaps it can be shared with the FTM family.

Thanks

ryck

For the first question, the answer is yes, I would get one. For the second question about iSight, even grant reviews are now done in the videoconferencing format. So some people like me need that for work (true, not necessarily all the time). But I imagine that the young buyers would have jumped on it if it had a camera. Our generation does not need it that much, there you are right.

> Hal should have said, "I use the drop down menu (off the back-arrow button)"; you ought to be aware of it, since it was mentioned in the the very post you linked to. (Your take on it then: "Hmmm... I don't know about much better, but I'll play with it; thanks for the thought.")

Aaah... The back-arrow button that never crossed my mind, because, having not had one in my Safari toolbar since day-one, Hal's "back-arrow" reference (in your linked post) misled me. (I did play with the back-arrow and, of course, found that it contributed no useful functionality.)

Since you posted your clarification, though, I restored the back-arrow button to my Safari toolbar and tried Hal's method for a while, and it still comes down to the same bottom line for me, i.e. "keyboard-centricity." SnapBack allows me to get to where I want to get without using my trackpad.

Thanks for setting me straight, though.

Originally Posted By: Hal Itosis

Originally Posted By: artie505

And I'm questioning the importance of not only the Security Update aspect of your post, but of your premise in general.

Your points are generally well taken despite my choosing to ignore them. (My bottom line remains actual, as opposed to perceived, risk.)

As for "(Indeed your viewpoint is most certainly the minority)", though, I couldn't find any stats on what percentage of Mac users is running which OS, so I wonder how telling the number of posts in FTM's Mac OS X 10.0 - 10.5.x Forum is? (Certainly not all of the posters to that forum are running OS X 10.5.8.)

Fascinating, tacit, as is your Intuit article; many thanks for making all of us more aware of the dangers lurking on the Internet!

(I'll mention, though, that I've used TurboTax on-line for a number of years [although I've never visited any of Intuit's related websites] with no repercussions.)

Just to be certain, though, which, if any, of your three "how-they-do-its" is vulnerable to an Apple Security Update?

Quote:

What will really determine its value are whatever "apps" people develop to make it do stuff.

See The iPad's secret sauce: it's the software, stupid. But note that this perspective still regards the iPad as a device solely for content consumption. There seems to be what I'll call a "geek rapprochement" of sorts going on: we first dismissed the device because it can't do anything a power user would want to do; now we acknowledge that most folks don't want to do such things but would rather just play games, read books, and listen to tunes. (The iPad as appropriately dumb device for a dumb audience.)

Missing, generally, is any mention of the possible development of whole new classes of "power users," those for whom a clipboard-style deployment of a large-screen multitouch device allows software to enter realms which have previously been limited to mechanical devices. And, as the iPhone has clearly established, if there's a useful application to be built, someone will build it.

(It would be fun to see someone develop a programmer-friendly text editor for the iPad, too, just as a way of saying, "see?")

Omni Group:

iPad or Bust! -- Jan. 29
iPad or Bust: 2 weeks later -- Feb. 11

__

Edit: seems it's about the GUI moving from 'point-and-click' to 'touch-and-pinch'...

Ars Technica: So what's the obsession? What if the iPad doesn't even succeed? Case isn't worried about it.

Originally Posted By: Ken Case

â€œWhether or not the iPad succeeds, multitouch is the future,â€ he said. He believes the iPad will be bigâ€”"this is the computer my dad should have had"â€”but says that if consumers don't pick up on it, all this effort put into iPad-specific apps won't be a waste.

â€œIn five to ten years, there will be really big multitouch screens, like on an iMac or something, and we'll be touching and moving things around instead of clicking and dragging,â€ Case said. â€œThis effort is an investment in the future. It's forcing us to look at our applicationsâ€”for the iPad and the Macâ€”in a completely different way and improve upon it as user interaction changes.â€

Â
Epocrates: One in Five Physicians Likely To Purchase an iPad

[Epocrates for iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad on the iTunes App Store]

Of course, they (Epocrates) are probably somewhat biased... but i don't doubt their veracity in this case. [Plus... doctors can easily afford it.

]

Big Blue launches Lotus software for the iPhone platform (2 pages)

Nuance Acquires MacSpeech Â (longer version) Â (mobile apps)

interesting (spot-on) blog: How to compete with iPad

Originally Posted By: Hal Itosis

interesting (spot-on) blog: How to compete with iPad

Mostly spot-on, anyhow. Matt's still guilty, I think, of thinking in primitive divisions: geeks who "get it," geeks who don't get it, and the vast legion of non-technical folks for whom the hiding of the under-the-hood stuff is a game-changer. (Among these geeks who "get it," every non-geek, apparently, is a grandmother who just wants to get the emailed photos of the grandkids.)

Personally, I think a lot of my friends and colleagues are neither geeks nor technophobes; they do understand enough to feel reasonably comfortable with desktop or laptop computers, and if they'd like an iPad, that has as much to do with its ability to address a different set of needs as with its "layer of abstraction" interface.

Still, the post is not only perceptive and articulate, it also offers that rarest of all internet experiences: a lengthy comment thread, composed almost entirely of equally perceptive and articulate viewpoints, which stays on topic throughout. (I didn't test for moderation by attempting a comment of my own, preferring to believe that communities of non-inflammatory discussers do occur in the wild, on occasion.)

Well said.

--

I find that recent Nuance (Dragon NaturallySpeaking) acquisition interesting (and hopefully promising). Speech recognition is something that's been around for eons, but never quite became a staple in userland. (i remember toying with it in System 8.5 i think). But, if we ever reach a point where the darn thing actually works and comes at a reasonable price... that will make a powerful accompaniment to the touchy-feely interface. I also think Jobs will leave any _stylus_ input up to 3rd-parties as well.

It's going to be fascinating to watch the iPad grow.

Misc links...

O'Reilly:
1. Tools of Change for Publishing Â (blog archive)
2. O'Reilly Ebooks Â (more info)
Pogue:
1. Free Speech (recognition) (Dec. 10, 2009)
2. Should E-Books Be Protected? (Dec. 17, 2009)

An Adobe Flash developer on why the iPad canâ€™t use Flash.

Hard to believe this point hasn't been given more prominent attention.

Originally Posted By: artie505

Just to be certain, though, which, if any, of your three "how-they-do-its" is vulnerable to an Apple Security Update?

I moved the reiteration of your question to tacit and the responses to it over to THE CYBER-SECURITY THREAD to avoid continuing the off-topic tangent here.

Thanks, cyn.

Interesting article by a different kind of developer:

Flash, Google, VP8, and the future of internet video

(source: i discovered that link in a post at MacInTouch)

some more about iPad and its comparison with competition:
http://gizmodo.com/5459308/slate-showdow...s--more-updated

Best sign of the potential ascendancy of the iPad? It's already got its own AAPLinvestors iPad Death Watch page ("Expect to hear a lot of: â€˜I spent a cold night in line for this?â€™â€â€”Scott Moritz, TheStreet.com, 9 March 2010)...

...and it's not even available to be ordered yet. (As of the time of this post, "We are busy updating the store for you and will be back shortly.")

<yawn> Oops, i mean... i guess we're all still on the edge of our seats here, right?

â€¢ New Survey Shows Huge Wave of Apple iPad Demand Striking Amazon

AppAdvice reports that OmniGraffle is already approved for the iPad App Store grand opening, and will be available April 3rd. Are you still sitting down? Price: $49.99. [well there's a bit of reality i guess.]

And here's another gallery of apps at some site called "BoyGeniusReport".

I confess that i have NOT pre-ordered... but no doubt i will pick up one of these puppies (sometime) in April to play around with. BTW, Macworld recently reviewed the iPhone version of Star Walk which i mentioned back on page 1 of this thread... and it's still listed at under 3 bucks (but i wonder if the iPad version will be that low).

+++

MacInTouch has a healthy looking "iPad FAQ" page.

+++

http://www.apple.com/ipad/guided-tours/ [Flash not required.

]

Reviews starting to trickle out...

Andy Ihnatko

Quote:
Well, Iâ€™m here to tell you that in fact, we havenâ€™t seen tablets before. And maybe the iPad is the only true tablet weâ€™ll get in 2010. The hardware weâ€™ve seen in years past, (and what weâ€™re likely to see in these Android devices) are laptop computers with the keyboard section broken off. Theyâ€™re not fundamentally touch-based computers, theyâ€™re the products of old thinking.
Quote:
Second most compelling: in situation after situation, I find that the iPad is the best computer in my household and office menagerie. Itâ€™s not a replacement for my notebook, mind you. It feels more as if the iPad is filling a gap thatâ€™s existed for quite some time.

Walter Mossberg

Quote:
I believe this beautiful new touch-screen device from Apple has the potential to change portable computing profoundly, and to challenge the primacy of the laptop.
Quote:
For my battery test, I played movies, TV shows and other videos back-to-back until the iPad died. This stressed the deviceâ€™s most power-hogging feature, its screen. The iPad lasted 11 hours and 28 minutes, about 15% more than Apple claimed.

David Pogue

Quote:
The iPad is so fast and light, the multitouch screen so bright and responsive, the software so easy to navigate, that it really does qualify as a new category of gadget. Some have suggested that it might make a good goof-proof computer for technophobes, the aged and the young; theyâ€™re absolutely right.

And the techies are right about another thing: the iPad is not a laptop. Itâ€™s not nearly as good for creating stuff. On the other hand, itâ€™s infinitely more convenient for consuming it â€” books, music, video, photos, Web, e-mail and so on. For most people, manipulating these digital materials directly by touching them is a completely new experience â€” and a deeply satisfying one.

The iPad is f***ing worthless until it can take the place of an Xserve.

Happy April 1!

In the spirit of "My child just beat up your honor student", I bring you

My iPad just DDOS'd your xserve

The requisite iFixIt article: iPad teardown

--

A few free apps you'll like:

Cool wallpapers for iPad
Shazam
NPR
USA Today
BBC News
AccuWeather
WunderMap

[posted from my iPad!]

Edit 2: oh, and the new (iPad-sized) version of Star Walk is simply breathtaking... for all of $5.

Edit 3: and who didn't see <this> coming?

[reportedly, Steve Wozniak is on the company's BOD.]

This is a test of the dragon dictation software
I must admit it is pretty darn cool [and amazingly accurate]

I should have said: "This is a test of the FREE dragon dictation software" !!!

Anyway, Dictation has earned a place on my dock at the bottom of the screen... amidst Settings, Safari, Calendar and iPod.

So how are you guys enjoying your iPad?
[that time I said "question mark" at the end, and it typed the "?"

Originally Posted By: Hal Itosis

This is a test of the dragon dictation software
I must admit it is pretty darn cool

And you dictated the font size, color, and bold tags via, what...inflection?

Nope... added those as usual via a few clicks . . . err taps.
Needed some way to dramatically portray the effect.

Note that (currently) we can't dictate directly into Safari... so there was more copy/paste than meets the eye perhaps. Stilll... For a long post it will be a fine assistant. [I was so excited I had to post something immediately.]

Will need to play with it some more later. (typed this by hand out of habit).

-&-

Adding to my list of recommended freebees mentioned earlier:
Dragon Dictation
Wikipanion
KAYAK Flights
QFolio HD [a slicker stock ticker I have never seen]

Originally Posted By: pbGuy

... I've expanded my patience by ordering an iPad today.

On 4/3, I picked up my reserved, 16GB WiFi iPad. (I didn't want to overspend my budget on version 1.) Although I'm patiently content with using a Mac mini (and my trusted, PowerBook G4), while waiting for the MacBook Pro refresh, I'm really having fun exploring the possibilities of the iPad.

This product has the potential to change how media is absorbed daily (starting with publications & web-based material). Given how the iPad's hardware supports software (a totally different, visual experience from an iPhone or iPod touch), this product is a media-delivery platform that happens to also be a web device.

It could become commonplace to pre-download media, not subsequently requiring web connection, and enjoy that media in different settings. (I've already watched a widescreen movie; and, that experience showed me the iPad will be a solid companion for traveling.)

The iPad has already shown me I will enjoy reading books on it (I'll still enjoy special hardbacks for my library). Newspapers & magazines will be more robust, since publications can nest all sorts of media & reference web links. [I really hope newspaper & magazine publishers reasonably set pricing; and if they do, I know I'll be subscribing all of my newspapers & magazines to the iPad.]

This device could also carry a student's complete year of text books, also more fully enriched with web links.

And eventually, I think this platform will have business applications since it's easy to carry and will no doubt become a robust tool as hardware and software advancements occur.

Watching the development arc of the iPad, and 3rd party apps, is going to be something to witness.

Misc. items:

Ars Technica review of the iPad
another free news source: Thomson Reuters News Pro
some specialized calculators...
1. powerOne
2. Retirement Dashboard
print to your iPad: iPrinter
print from your iPad: EuroSmartz
a handy (iPhone) tool: INet Pro

There are some odd things about this device, take Safari for example:

no tab key, so i can't type a tab in Safari (-Pages provides a special tool we select via menu to produce a tab character)
no option key, so i can't type a Ã§ with a cedilla or pi Ï€, (a special â‚¬ key is provided tho)
no arrow keys for cursor navigation (insertion point movement)
no way to type `back tics` (handy for posting Unix commands)
no way to search for a string on a web page, such as finding "Reuters" here (really strange)
no way to save a webpage file (be it in html, archive format, pdf or even a link), except only as a bookmark entry
basic text manipulation such as editing this post still feels awkward (and slow)

Must admit, it takes hutzpah on Apple's part to release a product which functions "as expected" with that list of handicaps. [And i'm surprised that more power posters such as myself haven't been highlighting those quirks (not that i've seen anyway).]

I hope tomorrow's version 4 announcement will change some of that.

Daring Fireball: The iPad

Right you are... I hadn't seen that. [fair to say that i list a few tidbits he doesn't]

I see that Gruber also links to an article by one "Ted Landau" ?

File Sharing with an iPad: Ugh! [sill reading that now]

--

Here's a curious bit: tracking iPad sales by ads served to IP addresses???
http://labs.chitika.com/ipad/

For a brief explanation, see this thread:
http://chitika.com/research/2010/meet-the-ipad-with-real-time-stats/

Originally Posted By: Hal Itosis

ii. no option key, so i can't type a Ã§ with a cedilla or pi Ï€

I saw this in iPademonium (continued), iPhone OS 4 (Small Dog's Tech Tails this week), under Tip of the Week: Special Characters on iPhone OS (including iPad):

Originally Posted By: Sebastian Massey

[...] the ability to type accent marks with the on-screen keyboard. This feature is part of the keyboard, not a particular app, so it can be used with Mail, Notes or even Pages.

To type a letter with an accent, simply hold your finger down on the letter for a second or two, and a number of options will appear. While still holding down your finger, just slide to the accented letter you want and release.

He doesn't mention Safari, and not having an iPad I can't test (this might be the "special tool we select via menu" you noted for Pages), but figured it was worth mentioning JIC it's useful.

My bad...

since I knew umlauts wÃ«re Ã¤lso pÃ¶ssÃ¯ble, I should have thought to hold down other keys as well.

There needs to be some indication of that... some sort of light grey marking on the key maybe. On a regular Mac, option-p does the pi symbol. I haven't found it on the iPad yet. [i guess it's here... But where?)]

Thanks!

In other news: MULTITASKING is here in the touch-OS 4.0 !!!

Think I saw that SKYPE is now official too.

Hmm, iPad owners will need to wait until the fall for 4.0

Originally Posted By: Hal Itosis

There are some odd things about this device, take Safari for example:

no tab key, so i can't type a tab in Safari (-Pages provides a special tool we select via menu to produce a tab character)
no option key, so i can't type a Ã§ with a cedilla or pi Ï€, (a special â‚¬ key is provided tho)
no arrow keys for cursor navigation (insertion point movement)
no way to type `back tics` (handy for posting Unix commands)
no way to search for a string on a web page, such as finding "Reuters" here (really strange)
no way to save a webpage file (be it in html, archive format, pdf or even a link), except only as a bookmark entry

Should have included this too, since perhaps it's not self-evident: Safari cannot download a file. At least not the gzipped item I just tried. And even if it can, it will probably go to some "sharing" area where it would then need conveying to an actual computer. I.e., the iPad has no Finder wherein we can dork around with physical files... at least not in the manner to which we have long been accustomed.

Quote:

vii. basic text manipulation such as editing this post still feels awkward (and slow)

That's still the one issue that really sticks out to me. Basic typing is no problem... but being able to swiftly rearrange blocks of text or quickly add various style tags is somewhat tedious. The selection tool seems to favor letters, and all those [ brackets ] in the UBB tags make speedy edits slow and clumsy.

[haven't found the back tic or pi yet either. Also, something tells me that a hard (non-breaking) space --usually entered via option-spacebar -- is also impossible.

Originally Posted By: dkmarsh

Daring Fireball: The iPad

Yesterday was huge...

New iPOS 4.0 SDK agreement blocks developers from using Adobe's (upcoming) Flash Professional CS5 tools to repackage games for the iPhone/iPad:

[no doubt this news will set The Lounge ablaze.

]

Are you measuring the import of that announcement by its direct effect on you (e.g. you won't be able to port your own games to the 'Pad, or won't be able to look forward to your fave Flash titles), or is "huge" just a gauge of the reverberations that are gathering in the canyons of ars and slashdot?

Nope (none of the above). I think its 'import' stands on its own merit, without me or any particular forum. [though, MacRumors has become my "MFI/Tech Issues" replacement.]

--

EDIT:

What may be missed in all this (if not by you, then perhaps others) is that â€” as i indicated on page 3 â€”Adobe was in the process of cozying up to the iPhone via some converter that would cross compile ActionScript code (Flash) into iPhone code (or something compatible to that, whatever)... and, all that was supposed to become official real soon now. [Adobe CS5 Global Launch will be April 12th]

The thrust of what happened yesterday was Steve saying (basically): eff that!

I.e., some serious hardball gamesmanship going on. You (personally) may not deem that as "huge", but i bet Adobe feels differently. [and what do you suppose their return volley will be?]

Some recent developments:

I guess we can just rename this thread "Hal's bookmarks" now.

[don't everyone talk all at once.

]

I'm already doing my iPhone OS development in Xcode.

And recent support experiences with Adobe have started to make Quark look good. Need I say more?

Hey look, the spiritual leader of the "Progressive Blogosphere" calls the iPad a tool.

Originally Posted By: dkmarsh

Hey look, the spiritual leader of the "Progressive Blogosphere" calls the iPad a tool.

Everyone says "kos" (cause)... but it's really "k-os" (chaos), isn't it?

[decent review btw]

Today's link: http://www.apple.com/iphone/preview-iphone-os/

Bookmarkables...

Mobile Multitasking

Edit: and another (similar) view on the SDK issue...
The Progress of the Platform
What the iPad is Missing (No, itâ€™s not a Camera)

Edit: and, another criticism of iPad's text display...
Anatomy of an iBooks page

â€¢ Israel confiscates visiting iPads -- Crackdown on Jobsian WiFi

Quote:

the iPad's "wireless technology is not compatible with Israeli standards."

Stranded leader runs country by iPad Â Â

Originally Posted By: Hal Itosis

â€¢ Israel confiscates visiting iPads -- Crackdown on Jobsian WiFi

Quote:

the iPad's "wireless technology is not compatible with Israeli standards."

I found this quote interesting: "American standards, with which the iPad does comply, allow for lower wireless power levels than do the European standards. Because of this, Haaretz quotes unnamed ministry officials as saying, "the broadcast levels of the [iPad] prevent approving its use in Israel.""

Why would they be concerned about lower broadcast levels? Do lower levels make it more difficult to detect and monitor (i.e. listen in on) the signals from the iPad?

ryck

How is it then that they don't confiscate ipod touches, or any other computer for that matter that has built-in wifi???

iggy investigates an ipad

Originally Posted By: ryck

I've heard two explanations, one non-cynical and one cynical.

The non-cynical answer is that Israeli bureaucrats are merely being pedantic. The iPad uses a less powerful WiFi signal than what the law requires, but it does not have an Israeli wireless certification, and they don't care why it doesn't have the certification--they simply won't permit it until it does, reasons be damned.

The cynical explanation is that the Israeli government monitors wireless devices of all types very closely, looking for both illicit communications from potential terrorists and for wireless signals that could be used to remote-trigger bombs--and that the lower power output from the iPad makes it more difficult to monitor.

Originally Posted By: dkmarsh

Excellent find!!! Mr. BeOS himself. Nice one... thanks.

Btw, that cat viddy runs better on my iPad than on my (Flash-endowed) PowerBook G4. Also, it would seem to confirm something I read somewhere else... about the iPad's screen being virtually impervious to scratches. [edit: i.e., much like grime and smudges, they are visible when the unit is off... but once the screen is turned on, practically unnoticeable.]

Originally Posted By: tacit

The cynical explanation is that the Israeli government monitors wireless devices of all types very closely, looking for both illicit communications from potential terrorists and for wireless signals that could be used to remote-trigger bombs--and that the lower power output from the iPad makes it more difficult to monitor.

A new wrinkle perhaps...

iPad/iPhone OS 3.2 Stops Renewing DHCP Lease, Keeps Using IP Address

[i haven't read it yet]

Played a little with iPad in BestBuy. It looks nice and has many useful features but the browser is slow and the unit is kind of big. Gizmodo, in its analysis of the lost/stolen iPhone 4G, mentions that the aluminum back of iPad reduces the reception strength. This has been apparently changed in the new iPhone prototype.
http://gizmodo.com/5520164/this-is-apples-next-iphone

Well... i must strongly disagree with both of those assessments. This iPad's browsing speed absolutely spanks my PowerBook G4. The feel is more reminiscent of a MacBook Pro (browser-wise). Maybe the store unit you tried had bloated cache & history files, which i usually clear daily (on any machine). Or, maybe the store's network was also simultaneously serving 60 other machines besides yours.

WiFi? Works great here. I think some units may have gotten shortchanged in that department... but the ones that work (made with a different part, or in a different factory?) have as good WiFi performance as any other device.

Maybe i (and most others i believe) just lucked out... and perhaps there are a few lemons out there, idunno.

Not here though. Truly satisfied impressed on both those scores.

Least common iPad complaints

Well, I decided to bite the bullet and buy an ipad today. I have a friend that had a brain tumor removed, had a stroke, and can't seem to make his fingers work well enough to work the keys on his iPhone. I thought the iPad would be the answer to allow him to surf the web and view his email while in the hospital. I went into the Apple store, looked/played with one and decided to buy the 16 gb model. They didn't have it, so I was upped to the 64 gb model. I specifically told the salesman that I was running 10.4.11, and that I had upgraded to iTunes 9.0.3 about 6 weeks ago when I got my iPhone 3Gs. He said it should work fine.
The first thing I found when I got it home (I live about 1 hour away from the Apple store) is that it won't even turn on without being connected to iTunes. Right out of the box you have to connect it to iTunes. Not a problem, got out the cable and plugged it into my USB hub. Then I find out iTunes 9.0.3 isn't good enough, I need to upgrade to 9.1. 20 minutes later I hook it up to 9.1 then is says The iPad cannot be used because it requires Mac OS X 10.5 or later.
I can't believe you can't even turn the thing on without hooking it up to a computer...it's supposed to be a stand alone device. Only Apple could get away with selling a device that requires you to upgrade your hardware, and your software in order to use it. I'm still trying to decide whether to return it, or let the Apple store get it up and running for my for my friend to use.

In BestBuy I was in, all iPads were standalone. Something is definitely wrong...

Originally Posted By: ...JER

I specifically told the salesman that I was running 10.4.11, and that I had upgraded to iTunes 9.0.3 about 6 weeks ago when I got my iPhone 3Gs. He said it should work fine.

That's a fascinating story... considering this is what it says right on the box:

Mac system requirements

Mac computer with USB 2.0 port
Mac OS X v10.5.8 or later
iTunes 9.1 or later
iTunes Store account
Internet access

Originally Posted By: ...JER

The first thing I found when I got it home (I live about 1 hour away from the Apple store) is that it won't even turn on without being connected to iTunes. Right out of the box you have to connect it to iTunes.

<snip>

or let the Apple store get it up and running for my for my friend to use.

Yes, if the required system, etc., is not available... then the Apple Store will set it up for you.

Originally Posted By: ...JER

I can't believe you can't even turn the thing on without hooking it up to a computer...it's supposed to be a stand alone device.

Originally Posted By: macnerd10

In BestBuy I was in, all iPads were standalone. Something is definitely wrong...

Once it's been set up, it works as a standalone. But surely you (as an iPhone owner) realize that the iPad is no stereotypical computing device. Any programs you add to it (and the programs are what define its capabilities) will need to [i.e., must] be purchased (or obtained free of charge) from the iTunes Store... which means that getting an account there is almost a necessity as well (unless Safari and Mail are enough to amuse one).

Originally Posted By: ...JER

Only Apple could get away with selling a device that requires you to upgrade your hardware, and your software in order to use it.

How old is Tiger... 6+ years? Leopard came out in 2007. Anyway, if your hardware can't run Leopard, then we're talking old (on the scale that computer ages get measured by).

As is typical for iPods and iPhones, an iTunes update is required. [e.g., iTunes 7 didn't know the iPod touch was going to arrive in 2008... so iTunes 8 was required. Similarly, iTunes 9.0.x wasn't fully up to speed for the iPad's arrival either.] I'd be amazed if other newly released mobile devices made by other manufacturers somehow worked their magic without an accompanying software update to the 'base' machine.

Hal,
Your link to what is on the box is totally inaccurate. on a 1-3/4 x 4-1/8 label on the back of the box printed in 6 pt gray type, it does say 10.5.8 on the second line after the windows OS requirements. and on the 3rd line it does say iTunes 9.1.

My iPhone was functional when I left the ATT store. And Yes, my computer is old...G4 that was originally 466 Mhz upgraded to 1 Ghz, 199? vintage. Suits my needs just fine. Several times a year I need to run some old programs under classic, so I haven't upgraded my system beyond 10.4.11. I no longer feel the need to stay on the bleeding edge of technology like I did in the 80's.

My rant was not that of the old technology not supporting the iPad so much as the iPad not being wifi capable and operational right out of the box. Apple's assumption that I need to sync up with iTunes is incorrect in my case. All I want at this juncture is for my friend to be able to surf the web and check his email. Had the salesman known his product, that could have been handled without a second trip to the Apple store.

I don't know what the iPad does when you first hook it up to iTunes, but it shouldn't be required for web surfing.

End of rant

Originally Posted By: ...JER

Had the salesman known his product, that could have been handled without a second trip to the Apple store.

I must admit, i would like to have heard his response to: â€œ hey... you told me this would work with Tiger.â€

Different salesman. Plugged it into an imac (I think), a couple of seconds the home screen came up and that was it. No input on my part, nothing, Looked to me to be a totally useless step.

Originally Posted By: ...JER

Plugged it into an imac (I think), a couple of seconds the home screen came up and that was it. No input on my part, nothing, Looked to me to be a totally useless step.

A number of thing were possible at that time... iTunes probably launched (and if connected to the Internet, the iPad would have been "registered" to your account). I believe hooking up to a Mac also provides an opportunity to copy our already-purchased iPhone/iPod apps over to the iPad (i.e., every app for those devices in our library can be transferred to and then run on our new iPad). It's also an opportunity to transfer some music over... as well as bookmarks, Address Book contacts, iCal events and Mail accounts (thereby making setting up the iPad for that user a piece of cake).

I think if the salesman had been aware that you were buying this iPad for someone else who doesn't have any computer, perhaps he may have suggested they activate it (on behalf of your friend) in the store at purchase time.

Even with the iPhone i believe, there must be some step which ties the device to a specific person (and most likely some credit-card account as well). Better check up on that... before your friend starts downloading $tuff like mad.

A mixed travel bag â€”

Testing the iPadâ€™s Trip-Worthiness by Bob Tedeschi in today's New York Times Travel section.

Israel lifts ban on imports of Apple iPad

I was just chatting with an old friend yesterday, he tends to buy new shiney things as much as I do. He's had a Kindle for quite some time, (he does a lot of long flights in his work) and loves it. He just bought an ipad, and loves it also, but says that there's definitely an eyestrain difference between it and the Kindle. After an hour of reading on the ipad, something about the backlight has the eyes aching much moreso than the kindle. Just something to consider. I was at first expecting him to ditch the kindle entirely, but he's keeping it for when he wants to read.

heh... i'm not even sure where to post this one:

iPad Users Targeted by Backdoor Dissembled as iTunes Update

[only Windblows users need worry (so far).]

--

Ever wonder what Steve Jobs really thinks about Flash? Well, wonder no more:

Thoughts on Flash

Apparently, this Danish guy is a GUI guru (and he contends that the iPad's interface still needs some work):

iPad Usability: First Findings From User Testing â€”Jakob NielsenÂ [May 2010]

nVidia: iPad Set Bar Too Low

<sigh>

I guess this should be bookmarked too: All-Out War: The Computing World's Battle Lines Are Drawn

Or this maybe: Dell Streak (Hmm, perhaps not: Psst: Dell's Streak Isn't an Android Tablet)

Apple Selling More iPads Than Macs (and approaching iPhone sales).

Aye Laddie, ewe dew av a wee bit of an accent... but we get the picture, thanks mate:

iPad as an External Display for your Mac

Air Display

Okay, so i bit.

Air Display does work... even functions within the "Spaces" context. Right now i have a terminal window (via space 1) on my iPad's screen [a dream come true... almost

], and i switched to space 5 and slid the Activity Monitor window over there. I can interact a bit with stuff in those windows by clicking on (beg pardon) by touching them on my iPad. E.g., *buttons* (or panels) behave well, such as those in Activity Monitor's main display. It's pretty strange, as soon as i touch something on the iPad, my mouse cursor flies off the MBP screen and becomes a cursor over on the iPad.

Blasphemy!

But i guess that's expected multi-screen behavior. However, the "interface" isn't all there (nor is it intended to be *yet* i'd imagine): single clicks err, touches work fine, and it seems i can move the windows with two fingers as well... but other stuff (selecting text for example) is simply too awkward. [and once selected, i'd need to do the copy part on the Mac, as there is simply no facility (that i can see anyway) within Air Display's uh... display. So hence the name "display" i guess (as opposed to 'screen share' or whatever).] Of course â€”from my MBP's trackpad and keyboard, i can manipulate everything (on the iPad's screen) as usual with multi-screen setups.

It's not without its quirks, but i haven't spotted anything to call a bug yet. It pretty much works as described, and fairly fast too. I had to back off my firewall settings a bit to allow its "ScreenCapture app" (inside an installed "Air Display" prefPane on the MBP) to permit communication to pass, and sometimes it still takes two or three tries for the connection to get properly initiated. But it performs well from that point on.

I'll have to find some truly "magical" purpose to put this to. But for right now, having a terminal window to glance over at (and type into from my MBP) is a pretty cool start.

& I guess the iPad display can be in another room? Does it work just over Wi-Fi, or 3G too?

From the looks of it they need to be on the same local subnet, where multicast and UDP work locally. It's almost certainly using UDP for speed's sake.

So for example, the ipad could be on your home airport, and your mac pro could be on the cat5 of that same network, and it would be fine.

Actually it probably works BETTER if your screen mac is on ethernet, because otherwise the two machines are both competing for traffic space on the wireless. In the demo we saw, I bet that alone would have almost eliminated the jitter he was getting.

But since 3G is not on your LAN, I doubt it will work anywhere. It'd probably also be much too slow.

Originally Posted By: Virtual1

Actually it probably works BETTER if your screen mac is on ethernet, because otherwise the two machines are both competing for traffic space on the wireless. In the demo we saw, I bet that alone would have almost eliminated the jitter he was getting.

Yes, for the tests i posted it was dueling WiFi (with the Time Capsule base about 30 feet away at the time), which might account for those "connection" initiation quirks i encountered.

In case anyone was not already aware: both Kindle and now Stanza are (freely) available for the iPad.

Hmm, there is no iPad-specific info at Lexcycle.com yet... so here's a CNet link:
Comics, PDFs, and more: Stanza for iPad is a universal (and free) killer e-reader

AT&T Is Said to Have Exposed iPad Ownersâ€™ E-Mail Addresses

The Aesthetics of the iPad
by Virginia Heffernan in The New York Times Magazine for July 4, 2010.

Despite only 256 MB of RAM, and no camera (or HDMI, USB, etc., etc), I'm really digging my iPad. Apparently i'm not alone...

iPad Tops in Consumer Satisfaction

Is it November yet???????

iOS 4.2 coming in November for iPad

Originally Posted By: Hal Itosis

Despite only 256 MB of RAM, and no camera (or HDMI, USB, etc., etc), I'm really digging my iPad.

Huh? 128MB of RAM?

Doesn't the model with the least amount of RAM hold 16GB?

I refer to "RAM" as in what the OS and apps run on... not the storage space. (9to5mac)

Ah! You had me worry for a moment

Some still worry about that small memory size. And true enough... if i have say more than 2 tabs open in Safari, and one sits in the background while i browse around in the others... then, returning to the neglected third tab may necessitate a refresh (page sometimes needs to be loaded again). it's not a frequent situation for me (as i typically use the iPad to look at one or two pages at most).

i suspect the next rev will get 512 MB anyway.

Originally Posted By: Hal Itosis

if i have say more than 2 tabs open in Safari, and one sits in the background while i browse around in the others... then, returning to the neglected third tab may necessitate a refresh (page sometimes needs to be loaded again).

With regard to that anemic caching behavior mentioned there: i have been seeing comments in various forums where iOS 4.2 beta testers opine that it's probably not a RAM issue after all. Some of those testers claim that iOS 4.2 (and the Safari which comes along for the ride) are performing admirably... and that the need to frequently reload when browsing with multiple open tabs (i believe 9 is the max on iPad) is gone.

If true, that is great news.

--

Meanwhile, CNBC continues its iPad adulation: iPad Adoption Rate Fastest Ever, Passing DVD Player

What if the iPad were a PC?

â€œIf you throw tablets in the mix, Apple just became the U.S.'s No. 1 computer makerâ€

Yeah, but then you can't count iPads in the iOS tally, so Apple goes back to abject failure in the smartphone business, because, after all, it's much better to lead in market share than it is to make more profits than all your competitors combined.

If you haven't checked out Horace Dediu's work at asymco, you might enjoy these:

Androidâ€™s Pursuit of the Biggest Losers
Can Android change the distribution of profit among phone vendors?
The symmetry of share shifts in mobile phones

Originally Posted By: dkmarsh

Yeah, but then you can't count iPads in the iOS tally,

Why not?... must we always be fair and/or consistent for some reason?

[point taken] EDIT: but let's not forget... the iPad is also magical.

Originally Posted By: dkmarsh

If you haven't checked out Horace Dediu's work at asymco

Wow, that's a pretty serious site!
I need to peruse it for a while.
[thanks]

Might be worth noting that today's two monumental product announcements came complete with these [insert appropriate adjective] slogans:

Mac OS X 10.7 Lion â€” â€œThe power of Mac OS X. Â The magic of iPad.â€
MacBook Air â€” â€œAdvanced technology from iPad. Â Taken to the air.â€

[having said that... the 11-inch MBA does look delicious.]

Have you seen the French answer to the iPad?
Here comes L'Ardoise Tactile!

Originally Posted By: _Mike_

Have you seen the French answer to the iPad?
Here comes L'Ardoise Tactile!

Hahahah.

It too appears to have shunned Flash Player as well.

Good move!

Speaking of which, we can manually transform YouTube links to point directly to the HTML5 player version, by appending &html5=True to the URL:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGpNCF1_ZtE&html5=True

Comparisons of the new MBA-11 with the iPad continue (e.g., Mossberg).

And here are a couple of interesting photos of the two side-by-side:

AnandTech's massive review of the new MacBooks Air here:
Apple's 2010 MacBook Air (11 & 13 inch) Thoroughly Reviewed

Cute!

(Is it only me, or does the HTML5 version load waaay faster than the regular one?)

Computerworld: Apple's iOS 4.2 a 'milestone' update for iPad, iPhone

â€œThe iPad gets the most changesâ€

Originally Posted By: Hal Itosis

not true

Well, if it was true for some 4.2 beta... it's certainly not true with Safari (mobile) in 4.2.1

This thing was just released apparently...

Infinity Blade ($6)

Infinity Blade: iPhone Trailer

Here are some HTML5 YouTube links that should actually play on iOS (sans Flash):

Predictable perhaps, but Merry Christmas anyway (no offense to anyone):

North Point's iBand

Mashable: Tech's Biggest Win, Flop and Surprise of 2010
Itâ€™s not just the fact that Apple single handedly created a new multi-billion-dollar revenue stream, but that itâ€™s redefining all of computing. Â

Tennessee school requires iPads of all 4th-12th grade students

Marathon for iPad - Classic Mac game coming to the tablet [?]

Originally Posted By: Hal Itosis

Marathon for iPad - Classic Mac game coming to the tablet [?]

I will absolutely get that. I so thoroughly enjoyed that game. Oh but it requires an ipad... bet it doesn't work on my iphone.

I wonder how the controls will work though? Back then nobody had joysticks or controllers, and only about 50% of us used the mouse. I used just keyboard, and I needed a lot of keys to control the game.

Originally Posted By: Virtual1

I used just keyboard, and I needed a lot of keys to control the game.

Agreed. I wonder how well it will play. Perhaps they could provide some decent custom controls (on-screen).

FAA allows one US air carrier begin using iPads in the cockpit

FAA approves iPads for pilots' electronic charts (CNN)

Jobs breaks from leave of absence to unveil the iPad 2:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4203/the-ipad-2-and-ios-4-announcement (3 pages)

Anyone want to buy my used 1st gen?

Originally Posted By: Hal Itosis

Anyone want to buy my used 1st gen?

If they do my wife has one for sale! At long last I am going to break down and be standing in line at the Apple Store long before 5:00PM on the 11th to get her one, one for myself, and one as a graduation gift for a friend of ours.

I may be in the market for a used 1st gen iPad, actually, depending on condition and price.

iPad Trade-in Economy Explodes, Portends Huge iPad 2 Sales.

Originally Posted By: tacit

I may be in the market for a used 1st gen iPad, actually, depending on condition and price.

Thanks tacit... alas i confess i was being semi-rhetorical there. (i'll probably just pass it along to my girl friend's 10 year old daughter).

Originally Posted By: dkmarsh

iPad Trade-in Economy Explodes, Portends Huge iPad 2 Sales.

http://www.usedipads.net/

[looks like folks are asking $500 for 64gig/wifi-only models]

This is getting ridiculous now (not to mention embarrassing):

Verizon iPhones Fell Back an Hour Instead of Springing Ahead

OTOH, both my iPad (1st gen) and iPod (4th gen) running iOS 4.3 did the right thing.

:shrug: [but apple needs to make those sorts of headlines go away once and for all]

McGraw-Hill and Pearson Education invest in Inkling.

[also see article at appolicious.com]

iPad becoming cornerstone in medical care

My son, a radiologist, called me yesterday all excited because he had just downloaded a two volume several thousand page comprehensive CT and MRI radiology reference manual to his iPad. He is so pleased that he can search the text, insert bookmarks, and highlight passages and it weighs almost nothing to carry around compared to the printed version's several pounds per volume. It is much faster and easier to use on the iPad. He does have one complaint, the electronic version costs as much as the printed version.

Originally Posted By: joemikeb

He does have one complaint, the electronic version costs as much as the printed version.

Does that surprise anyone? Nowadays the cost of things has little bearing on research/design/production costs, but more on "what they're willing to pay".

But that cost just gets passed on to the patients of course.

That doesn't work in larger markets however, where there's actual competition. I read recently on slashdot about how an author tried changing some of his online books from $7-10 ea to $0.99 ea and got something like several hundred times the sales, increasing his bottom line dramatically. And now he's fighting a losing battle with the publishers that still have electronic rights on the rest of his books, who refuse to drop the price on them despite reality being thrust in their face.

Originally Posted By: Virtual1

But that cost just gets passed on to the patients of course.

A common, but not necessarily valid assumption. My son works for a flat monthly rate with no benefits included. The cost of that book along with many others purchased every year comes directly out of his pocket as does the $5,000 to $10,000+ he spends each year in mandatory continuing education, add to that additional thousands of dollars in annual state medical license fees. All of that comes out of that same flat monthly paycheck.

Originally Posted By: joemikeb

He does have one complaint, the electronic version costs as much as the printed version.

Hopefully, any "updates" to such textbooks â€”i.e., containing corrections possibly â€”will be free.

Try that with a printed version.

. . . continued :

Yahoo: "Many US schools adding iPads, trimming textbooks"

Originally Posted By: Virtual1

But that cost just gets passed on to the patients of course.

It really doesn't.

One of the great secrets of our economic system is that the input cost--the cost it takes to produce a good or service--actually has absolutely nothing to do with the output cost--the price we pay for it.

The price we pay is set by whatever the market will bear. Businesses generally set this price as high as they can get it without hitting a point of diminishing returns.

The input cost is set as low as the businesses can get it. Everything between the input cost and the output cost is profit.

If it is possible for a business to raise the price of a good or service without hurting the profit, they'll do so. They don't need to justify it by passing along some of the input costs; if the market will bear the higher price, then they'll already have raised the price, regardless of expenses. You never take money off the table unless you have to. If the market won't bear the higher price, then they swallow the input cost and make slightly lower profits. The input cost bounces around all the time anyway, based on everything from labor shortages in Pakistan to oil prices in Dubai.

Originally Posted By: Virtual1

That doesn't work in larger markets however, where there's actual competition.

There are very few markets where there is actual competition. Markets maximize profit through collaboration, not competition. If you look at the store shelves and see Eveready batteries at one price and store-brand parties at another, that might look like competition, but the batteries are probably made in the same plant by the same company. The two price points represent two niche markets--the market that believes that the name brand represents superior quality, and the market that shops on price. These two markets don't actually compete with one another.

Same is true for everything from cars to hammers. Different price points don't necessarily represent competition, and different companies often choose not to compete on price. Even in commodities, where competition is more likely to occur, the presence of things like futures and derivatives end up blurring the competition. (Different oil companies will buy one another's futures, and even top off from raw gasoline from one another's refineries if they hit production snags.)

Originally Posted By: Virtual1

I read recently on slashdot about how an author tried changing some of his online books from $7-10 ea to $0.99 ea and got something like several hundred times the sales, increasing his bottom line dramatically. And now he's fighting a losing battle with the publishers that still have electronic rights on the rest of his books, who refuse to drop the price on them despite reality being thrust in their face.

I've been following that with some interest, since I'm now selling eBooks myself.

There is a caveat: This works only for popular, well-established writers with strong followings and large fan bases. If you're a small, obscure, or niche writer, it might not be *possible* to get hundreds of times more sales, no matter how low your price goes, simply because you don't have a following that's hundreds of times larger.

So small or not-yet-established writers can't follow that model--meaning they can either price their works cheap and starve, or set their prices higher and be utterly unable to compete with already-established writers.

The book retailers know this. They know that they could lower the prices on the super-popular writer's books and sell more books...but they would do it at the expense of gutting sales, or profits, or both from their less well-known writers. And since the writer's royalties are based on a percentage of the book's retail sale price, that means that less well-known writers are going to get screwed either way--they can take a larger royalty from smaller sales, or a smaller royalty from larger sales, but either way they lose money. The idea of drastically slashing book prices benefits popular, established mainstream writers at the expense of every writer who doesn't have a huge following.

(One of my sweeties is an editor for a large mainstream book publishing company; she and I have talked about this very topic in detail.)

Originally Posted By: Virtual1

Originally Posted By: Hal Itosis

Marathon for iPad - Classic Mac game coming to the tablet [?]

aHA... released on July 7th (no wonder i missed it): Marathon 1

...downloading now.

wooo, marathon was good! for it's day, it was utterly stunning, so many firsts all at once. I played m1 and m2 to death, m3 was also pretty good. too bad they sold out to ms at the last minute and then things took a quick turn downhill.

We played networked deathmatch games in the lab late at night, had an absolute blast.

Originally Posted By: Virtual1

Well beyond the trilogy there were many 3rd-party scenarios, most notably Siege of Nor'Kohr, marathon RED, Tempus Irae, and especially marathon EVIL. All one needed was the original engine (from either m1 m2 or mâˆž, depending on which was required).

BTW, the iPad app looks great and is free. [only need to pay if we want invincibility.]

iPad owners:

Today is the last day to get <PhatPad> for 99 cents.

It can convert scribbles and scrawls into editable text (amazingly well IMO). It does so either in real time (as you note-take), or on a selection (after the fact). More features as well (see link above). Not quite a Pages-killer, but i would think for 99 cents it's a steal. [normally 8 bucks]

Only hours left. You decide.

CBS techtalk: Oregon uses iPads to help disabled voters mark ballots

And 60 Minutes did a piece last weekend about iPads being used to help autistic people communicate. It was quite amazing to see these folks suddenly having a "voice" to get their thoughts out.

Apple Reinvents Textbooks with iBooks 2 for iPad
[an entirely new kind of textbook thatâ€™s dynamic, current, engrossing, and truly interactive.]
New iTunes U App for iPad, iPhone, and iPod touch
[design and distribute complete courses featuring audio, video, books, and other content.]

oh, one more thingâ€¦
marathon 2: Durandal
[not sure how long it's been out, but i only noticed it recently]

A young friend of mine, a student at Texas A&M University, was offered the choice of purchasing the Riverside Shakespear for $125 or renting it on her iPad for $5 for the semester. (That day seven of her friends went to the campus book store and purchased new iPads, convinced their savings on textbooks for a year would more than pay for their new iPad.)

Originally Posted By: Hal Itosis

oh, one more thingâ€¦
marathon 2: Durandal
[not sure how long it's been out, but i only noticed it recently]

I believe Durandal for iPad was released on December 15, 2011. The current version 2.3 appeared on January 7, together with the 2.3 update for Marathon 1.

And while we're on the Marathon topic, December also saw a major update for the Mac versions. Details HERE.

Bloomberg: Apple infiltrates $3.8 trillion market with iPad

Quote:

After years of being the also-ran to Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) in the workplace, Apple has seen its iPad become a standard business tool. According to an IDG Connect survey, 51 percent of managers with iPads say they â€œalwaysâ€ use the device at work, and another 40 percent sometimes do. Seventy-nine percent of the respondents use the iPad for business when outside the office.

Apple PR: Fair Labor Association Begins Inspections of Foxconn

BTW, let's not lose sight of the fact that many other companies use Foxconn for assembly (as well as other manufacturing steps probably), and that â€”contrary to media spin â€”Apple is not the "OverLord" of either Foxconn or the Chinese government:

(America)
Amazon.com
Barnes & Noble
Cisco
Dell
EVGA Corporation
Gateway
Hewlett-Packard
Intel
IBM
Microsoft
Motorola
Netgear
Vizio

(China)
Lenovo

(Finland)
Nokia

(Japan)
Nintendo
Panasonic
Sharp
Sony
Toshiba

(Japan/Sweden)
Sony/Ericsson

(South Korea)
Samsung

(Taiwan)
Acer Inc.
ASRock
Asus
MSI

iPad 2 trade-ins fetch up to $320 in Apple's official recycling program

Apple has expanded its official Reuse and Recycling Program to accept trade-ins of the iPad 2, which will net users gift cards valued at up to $320 in exchange for the most expensive model.

...and some have found even more uses. I don't understand the language but it seems it's probably pretty funny.

Dad, how do you like the iPad we got for you?