...and blogging about the iPad.
First of all, iPad. brb, loling forever.
Second of all, am I the only person who was tired of seeing news updates about it in every site she went to? I'm pretty sure I was. I'm still sick of all the news surrounding it (even if it did soften some of the Conan/Leno and SOTU drama).
As for the actual thing itself... guys. Seriously. It's just a gigantic iTouch. I'm living without an iTouch and plan to for forever. I'm not jumping on some technological bandwagon just because it has a little logo on it. As for the product it claims to be replacing, I have no use for a netbook when I already have a perfectly portable [for my needs] device that will check my e-mail given correct wi-fi. I'm one of those people who actually wants, I don't know, time to herself, and doesn't need to check a social networking site every five minutes [away from my computer] to feel loved.
Also, I'm going to reference a picture that Justin currently has on his Facebook wall to make a few points about why I'm going to be waiting for version 2.0 to see if I still want one or not. Steve Jobs, in a slide during his unveiling of the iPad (loling! loling forever!), made a comparison to netbooks. His three points against them were "Slow", "Low quality displays", and "PC Software".
Um, what? Steve Jobs, you are ridiculous in so many ways.
In my experience, what's slow about a netbook is how they load the Internet, which is what they're made for. (Hence the name 'netbook'.) That's not the computer's fault. That is, in fact, a network fault. As in, whatever network you're receiving your tubes from is clogged. Now, netbooks run on many different types of networks, including various cell phone carriers and personal wi-fi networks. The iPhone is currently officially married to the AT&T network, which has been notoriously disappointing its customers with its poor quality of service aimed at the iPhone users. Not only is the network overloaded during prime times (lunch hour, for example), but I've heard that it can be next to near impossible to actually, you know, use the iPhone as a phone. Because the network is crowded. Because, in effect, the device is 'slow.' Strike one, Steve Jobs. Strike one.
I'm unsure where he's coming from on the 'low quality displays'. As far as I know, things still run on itty bitty pixels. Including the iPad (lol). Yes, the graphics may be prettier, and you may be able to touch them, but there are still itty bitty pixels. And I also have trouble getting the icons on my dad's iTouch to work half the time when I touch them and he's only had the device for a year, so it's not solely an issue of graphics. Besides, this statement in itself is vague. Low in what quality?
Lastly, PC software. Is that supposed to be a recommendation for why I, as an avid PC user, should buy an iPad (lol, guys, lol)? It seems very exclusive of PC users, not trying to reach out to a new customer base, and instead drawing on Apple users who are already on board with "PCs suck". Justin made the point that he was probably reaching out to the people who prefer to have Apple applications on their devices, but I don't see how this is relevant, either. With Google's Droid and Droid Eros out now and the many, many applications for those devices, saying that apps are only applicable to Apple is just as redundant as the syllable 'app' has been in this sentence. Also, I want to point out that viruses are equal opportunity. There are just as many varieties that will eat an Apple OS as will eat a Windows OS. (Also, I don't believe there's been video game releases for Apple since the 1990s, though I may be mistaken.)
At this point, I want to mention a few of the things Steve Jobs should have mentioned in his 'cons' list for the iPad. (Loling forever, guys. Seriously.)
- It can't multitask. Yes, that's right. It can't multitask. Even a 'lowly' netbook can do that. In fact, I would require it out of a device like the iPad should I ever want to purchase one. It should work just like a computer, except as a tablet with a touch keyboard.
- It doesn't have support for Adobe Flash. You know, that browser plug-in that allows you to view embedded video and slideshows. The plug-in that drives shopping sites, news sites, and Hulu. Though Apple devices claim to put the entire Internet at your fingertips, there's a large chunk they're leaving out by not supporting this feature, and to tell you that you can still access everything out there is misleading advertising.
- If it was hoping to compete in the ebook business, it's out of luck there. Its apps for ebooks aren't supported in any country besides the US. As a current UK resident, where you can buy a Kindle and have it work in this silly country, I call massive fail. It is also significantly more expensive than most ereaders that are out there right now, and it's not like I want an ereader either.
- There's no camera. There's no camera on the front side and there's no camera on the back side. There is no way to video chat or take one's own pictures using this device. At least some netbooks have built-in webcams.
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe it currently has the port ability to connect to a television (or much of anything else). And why not? Their smaller devices can do that. Maybe this will be released on version 2.0, but if so, why didn't they just do it now?
- The device is actually a smidge more expensive than netbooks (though this would be par for the course with Apple products - since it costs more, it's better, right? Please hear my sarcasm through the internet). Paired with the network problems it's going to have, it doesn't seem like the data plan is going to be a great deal either.
Steve, Steve, Steve. Where did it all go so wrong? Maybe when you used three flimsy excuses to cover up the fact that your device will not live up to the hype you knew it would get.
I encourage debate over this, as my view is strongly colored by three facts: I am a PC user who considers herself 'too dumb' to use a Mac, I am unimpressed by Apple's brand-loyal fans, and I'm about 18 months behind technologically (seriously, my current saliva-inducing tech dream is a phone with a QWERTY keyboard).
- Jen -
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If it ran BSD Unix like the Mac computers and not whatever kernel (and interface) the iPhone/iPod Touch uses, I'd consider it. If it had any form of video out, it would be a great classroom tool. As it stands, it's nothing but an iPod Touch the size of your face. Surprising possible market, if they realize it: old people. Simple and large touch interface is perfect for those with a lack of fine motor skills and bad vision.
ReplyDeleteOK, now time to actually read the post.
A TABLET would have been nice. You know, something with full computing power. I heard somewhere that someone successfully installed Mac OS X onto a Lenovo tablet...
OK, back to reading the post again.
On the low quality display thing...he's talking about pixel resolution. Netbooks don't typically have high-resolution screens. Also, compare iPhone screens to Droid screens...roughly the same size, but the Droid's is far superior.
Actually, there are far fewer viruses for Mac OS than there are for Windows. Pre-OS X, there wasn't large enough of a target to make viruses worth it; OS X is based on the Unix kernel, which is built with security in mind. The Windows one is full of security holes. Also, I've never heard of an iPhone virus.
Yeah, there have been a few Mac games, and lots of ports. See Aspyr Media.
Oh, multitasking...I think that gets a separate comment. But, see above in this comment about wanting a tablet. Understand that this is NOT a tablet.
Doesn't have Flash now, or ever? I wouldn't expect it to have it right at launch -- there's a lot that needs to happen to make that work with new hardware.
Not really comparable to ereaders, really. But hey, it CAN show pdf's!
Again, NOT a netbook. Big iPod Touch. That's it. Does the iTouch have a camera? No. iPad doesn't either.
Again, no video out. Pissses me off.
Data plan? Um, it's not on 3G at all, is it? Thought it was wifi-only, like the iTouch. Maybe I wasn't paying attention.
OK, now for the multitasking thing...
The kernel for the iPhone and iPod Touch (and now iPad) does not support multiple applications running at once, yes. Droid advertising has been harping on this fact, trying to make people think that this was an idiotic, incompetent decision. Everything multitasks these days, and anything that doesn't is just behind the times, right?
ReplyDeleteNot really. Tons of devices out there don't multitask. Depending on just how you define "device," I'd actually say most of them don't. Most desktop, laptop, and server computers do, but not much else. Does your phone multitask? How about your Xbox, Wii, or PS3? Those only do one thing at a time. A TV/DVR will probably do at most two things at once. I don't want to get into the technical details of CPU scheduling and memory management (partly because I HATED my Computer Architecture class), but having multitasking is a royal pain in the ass, and causes massive performance hits, such that it's only worth it for larger machines. To expect a handheld device to do it (and do it well) at this point in the development of computer systems is asking too much. When did you ever hear about how WELL the Droid does multiple things at once? And when have you heard about games on the Droid?
Not allowing multiple apps to run at once was a carefully considered design decision. This allows Apple to promise third-party software developers that their apps have access to X amount of memory and Y processing power, and that they can take full advantage of it without having to share resources with anything. That's why you can have so many games, many of which are actually fairly high quality -- not to mention that the thing supports OpenGL, which is what we were using in my Graphics class last semester. (That Zombie game that Matt, Rachel and I did? We could totally port that onto an iPhone, as long as we optimized it to work within the limitations of the hardware.) A machine that runs multiple processes actually promises each one more memory than is actually available in the RAM, and hopes that the process doesn't actually use that much (page tables are often much larger than main memory). If overflow has to happen, stuff gets written to and read from disk, which is a heck of a lot slower. Memory and processing limitations on a such a small device make the problem a lot worse, and as such, not allowing multitasking solves a lot of problems and delivers much better performance. It actually makes a lot of sense.
OK, so, that rant was mostly considering the iPhone/iPod Touch. The iPad is physically large enough that they could have shoved an Intel processor in there and actually made the thing a (tablet) computer, running a version of OS X modified to use multitouch and an on-screen keyboard. Also, additional hardware for more memory, video out, USB, etc. Then it could be considered a computer, comparable to a tablet laptop or netbook. It would have been a heck of a lot thicker and heavier (which Apple doesn't like doing -- see MacBook Air (I have another rant about that one!)). Instead, they took the hardware and software of the iPod Touch and put a much bigger screen on it, and tweaked a few things. It's still a mobile device, not a computer. To expect it to be a computer or something with the name of "tablet" is expecting more than what it is -- it's a "pad." Seems to be a lot like a datapad in Star Wars (they were invented before computers were anything close to what we have now).
Anyway. Oh, technically, they do run more than one process at a time, but the other things (like the kernel itself, and the stuff that allows for push notifications, and the hardware management stuff, and the music player, etc) are limited in how much space and processing they take, so that the developer can be guaranteed a certain amount of resources, no matter what.
Heh, so I exceeded the 4,096 character limit.
ReplyDeleteYeah. So. No multitasking is a carefully considered design decision that has many advantages, but not ones that are easy for the typical user to understand.
If it had an Intel processor and ran on Unix, then I'd consider one. The iPod Touch in my pocket does enough for me that I have no reason to get an iPad.
Penny Arcade expressed it so well: here
Wow, I need to stop using the word "actually." Or proofread before hitting the "Post Comment" button.
ReplyDeleteI would write a comment, but I'm sure no one else will survive reading all of gangle's speach, so there is no need.
ReplyDelete