Apple iPad

Maikeru-sama

Mick Green 58
Messages
14,548
Reaction score
6
Just looking at more pictures of the iPad, I have to say it does look pretty sweet.

I recently started using a iPhone App called "Stanza" to download and read books on my iPhone. I am reading "The Count of Monte Cristo" (it's free) and the experience is pretty sweet and I wouldn't mind getting a bigger screen.

I wonder how long it will take for the price to come down?

Also, would you have to buy a new iPad if you want to get access to a faster network (3g, 4g etc etc) when those faster speeds become available, like you have to with the iPhone?
 

Hoofbite

Well-Known Member
Messages
40,870
Reaction score
11,569
Maikeru-sama;3259488 said:
Just looking at more pictures of the iPad, I have to say it does look pretty sweet.

I recently started using a iPhone App called "Stanza" to download and read books on my iPhone. I am reading "The Count of Monte Cristo" (it's free) and the experience is pretty sweet and I wouldn't mind getting a bigger screen.

I wonder how long it will take for the price to come down?

Also, would you have to buy a new iPad if you want to get access to a faster network (3g, 4g etc etc) when those faster speeds become available, like you have to with the iPhone?

Apple usually doesn't go for a lot of price drops. I think most of the time they offer the same price point but a much better product.
 
Messages
643
Reaction score
0
ConcordCowboy;3259071 said:
AppleDeathStar.jpg


I absolutely LOVE my iPhone.

But AT&T blows.

Not unlocking it for Verizon Blows.

Don't see the need for an ipad.

:hammer:

Love my iPhone too.
 

masomenos

Less is more
Messages
5,983
Reaction score
33
I love the idea and I really think that future generations of the product will improve upon the platform. However, no Flash, no multitasking and the lack built in USB/HDMI are huge turnoffs for me. Really, those are deal breakers. For now, I'll hold out until generation 2.
 

MrMom

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,959
Reaction score
1,541
masomenos85;3260122 said:
I love the idea and I really think that future generations of the product will improve upon the platform. However, no Flash, no multitasking and the lack built in USB/HDMI are huge turnoffs for me. Really, those are deal breakers. For now, I'll hold out until generation 2.

Pretty much sums it up for me. Gen 2 will knock it out of the park, until then my iPhone will do.
 

YosemiteSam

Unfriendly and Aloof!
Messages
45,858
Reaction score
22,189
CowboysZone LOYAL Fan
Adding multi-tasking isn't usually something you can just "snap-in" in five minutes.

I'm willing to bet the entire reason it doesn't have it now is because iPhone OS doesn't support it. Back in 2002 or when ever they started writing iPhone OS multi-tasking wasn't an issue. Shoot forward 8 years and embeded Linux is starting to show up in phones and it DOES support multi-tasking so the need is there. (Google's Android OS is Linux too for those that didn't know)

Now, there are several similar iPad type devices that are going into production. Apple had a choice. Use the current iPhone OS without multi-tasking, or be one of the last two the party. They choose to release the a handcuffed iPad and use their hype-machine and cult following to make it work.

Once the other "net-tablets" (I just made that up, since it's sort of what they are) start showing up and they "can" multi-task, Apple will lose a chunk of what they were hoping to have. Sure, they will still have the fanboy guys, but the bigger issue will be that the multi-tasking part will become very noticeable to those who do not have it.

The iPhone was revolutionary, while the iPad to some appears that way too since Apple was the first to market (though they weren't going to be) It is going to be exposed for what it is when the other options hit the market.
 

TheCount

Pixel Pusher
Messages
25,523
Reaction score
8,849
nyc;3260184 said:
Adding multi-tasking isn't usually something you can just "snap-in" in five minutes.

I'm willing to bet the entire reason it doesn't have it now is because iPhone OS doesn't support it. Back in 2002 or when ever they started writing iPhone OS multi-tasking wasn't an issue.

They've had plenty of time to add multi-tasking. If it's not on the iPad it's because they made a decision not to add it, not because of any technical limitation.

Apple does a lot of things, but rushing products out isn't one of them. If they wanted it to multi-task, it would.
 

Maikeru-sama

Mick Green 58
Messages
14,548
Reaction score
6
I can see nyc's point.

And as a Software Developer by trade, I can tell you if the core of portion of the Software didn't allow for Multi-Tasking, I think it would take quite a bit of time to update all the code to allow it.

But Count may be right in that multi-tasking could already be in the Software but it is disabled by Apple for business reasons.
 

YosemiteSam

Unfriendly and Aloof!
Messages
45,858
Reaction score
22,189
CowboysZone LOYAL Fan
TheCount;3260241 said:
They've had plenty of time to add multi-tasking. If it's not on the iPad it's because they made a decision not to add it, not because of any technical limitation.
You know not what you say. I'm guessing you do not work in an environment where you have software developers.
TheCount;3260241 said:
Apple does a lot of things, but rushing products out isn't one of them. If they wanted it to multi-task, it would.

There is a difference between rushing something out the door and possibly being dead last to market. Apple is a *hip* product, if it doesn't have a product on the shelves, it can't compete at all. That is at the absolute worst disadvantage. No product means no market share. No market share means no money. Apple could afford not to be first, but they couldn't afford to be dead last.
 

Oldschool7

Benched
Messages
431
Reaction score
0
TheCount;3257942 said:
The problem to me is that the iPad is answering a question NO ONE asked.

What "question" were people asking before they announced the first Mac? What question were people asking before they announced the iPod or iPhone? Visionaries don't follow. They lead. And no matter what you want to say about Jobs and Apole they have been ridiculously adept at seeing the future before anyone else does.

TheCount;3257942 said:
They could have made a wonderful device that ran OSX but instead, choose to have it run glorified phone software.

I might agree with you there. I think I would have preferred standard Mac apps with some adaptation for multitouch.
 

Oldschool7

Benched
Messages
431
Reaction score
0
Maikeru-sama;3260246 said:
But Count may be right in that multi-tasking could already be in the Software but it is disabled by Apple for business reasons.

That's clearly the case. The Mac had multitasking in 1986. It would be absurdly easy for Apple to feature multitasking in the iPhone/touch/pad. They are clearly choosing not to do so for strategic reasons.

I've never once wanted multitasking on my iPhone.
 

YosemiteSam

Unfriendly and Aloof!
Messages
45,858
Reaction score
22,189
CowboysZone LOYAL Fan
Oldschool7;3260327 said:
That's clearly the case. The Mac had multitasking in 1986. It would be absurdly easy for Apple to feature multitasking in the iPhone/touch/pad. They are clearly choosing not to do so for strategic reasons.

iPhone OS != Mac OSX. iPhone OS has a completely stripped BSD microkernel that was made for embedded systems.

MacOS on the other hand has a customized version of the FULL BSD microkernel and was NOT made for embedded systems. I'm willing to bet than the iPhoneOS kernel is proabably a quarter the size of the MacOSX kernel if not smaller!

What reason could they have had to disable multi-tasking? It damn sure isn't helping them at this point! :laugh2:
Oldschool7;3260327 said:
I've never once wanted multitasking on my iPhone.
You've just shown you're true colors. You're clearly a mac fanboy doing damage control. What you said is like saying, I never once wanted AC in my car. :rolleyes: Yeah right!
 

WoodysGirl

U.N.I.T.Y
Staff member
Messages
79,281
Reaction score
45,652
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Japan's Fujitsu says it made first 'iPad'

by Miwa Suzuki Miwa Suzuki – Fri Jan 29, 10:21 am ET

TOKYO (AFP) – Apple's new tablet PC is not the first product to be called the "iPad". Japan's Fujitsu says it launched one years ago, and the name has also been used for small engines and even bra inserts.

Amid the hype about Apple's latest offering, the device has been hailed as an "iPhone on steroids" and a "Kindle killer" that will upstage electronic book readers, but also mocked on chatrooms for evoking a feminine hygiene product.

Now it looks like Apple could have a trademark dispute on its hands.

Fujitsu Ltd. said its US subsidiary in 2002 launched the "iPad", a sleek handheld multimedia device with a 3.5-inch screen, used by retail store clerks to keep inventory data, scan barcodes and manage business operations.

Fujitsu's device has an Intel processor and a Microsoft operating system and supports both Wi-fi and Bluetooth connections.

In 2003, Fujitsu's US arm made a trademark application for the "iPad" name with the US Patent and Trademark Office, which is still pending and not yet registered, said Fujitsu spokesman Masao Sakamoto in Tokyo.

He said Fujitsu was yet to decide on how it may react to the launch of Apple's tablet computer, saying: "As we are now sorting out the facts, we have not decided on what action we may take."

A possible feud between Apple and Fujitsu has sparked debate on Japanese chatrooms, with one observer proposing: "Let's apply for as many 'i' such-and-such names as possible! We'll make money in the future!!"

Apple has been embroiled in trademark disputes with other companies before, including Cisco Systems, which launched its "iPhone" before Apple. The two companies settled the dispute in 2007, agreeing to share the name.

Professor Teruyuki Inoue, an IT sector expert at Daito Bunka University, said the "iPad" issue is unlikely to turn into a full-blown legal battle.

"They will probably have talks to settle this, given that the customers for their products do not overlap, and for the sake of their business ties in the future," Inoue told AFP by telephone.

He said he was not surprised the two companies had doubled up on the name, saying: "Everybody can think of an easy name like 'iPad.' It's not creative."

Indeed several other companies worldwide have had the same idea.

Germany's Siemens uses the trademark "iPad" for small engines and motors.

The Swiss-based microchip maker STMicroelectronics has reportedly also registered "IPAD", short for "Integrated Passive and Active Devices."

In Canada, the Ontario-based company Coconut Grove Pads Inc. has since 2007 made a line of bra inserts and shoulder pads called the "iPad", according to an online report by the Globe and Mail daily.

A Japanese company that makes a product of the same name -- pronounced "ai pad" when transcribed from the Japanese -- is Awaji-Tec, a manufacturer of adult nappies with a high-tech twist.

The company says its nappies feature an electronic device that can send a signal to a remote caregiver when it needs to be changed.

"We have been selling this elderly care product for the past five years, said Yasuaki Mori, who works at Awaji-Tec's special sensors division. "It would be regrettable if people thought we had copied the name."

Meanwhile in China, a company has used a different name -- the "P88" -- for an iPad look-alike, with a slightly larger screen, faster processor and larger memory but battery life of only 1.5 hours compared to the iPad's 10 hours.

It marks a new milestone by Chinese manufacturers -- cloning a product before it had even been announced -- mused Shanghaiist.com, a Shanghai city blog, and Shanzhai.com, a tech blog dedicated to Chinese copies.

But the makers of the P88, Shenzhen Great Loong Brother Industrial Co., said Apple appeared to be the copycats.

"We don't understand. Why did they make the same thing as us?" Huang Xiaofang, an executive at the company, told AFP. "We launched it earlier."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100129/tc_afp/usitcompanycomputermediainternetapplefujitsu
 

Maikeru-sama

Mick Green 58
Messages
14,548
Reaction score
6
Oldschool7;3260327 said:
That's clearly the case. The Mac had multitasking in 1986. It would be absurdly easy for Apple to feature multitasking in the iPhone/touch/pad. They are clearly choosing not to do so for strategic reasons.

I've never once wanted multitasking on my iPhone.

Why not?

Also, just thinking out loud, the iPhone does have one multi-tasking feature, which is when you are talking to someone on the phone, you can hit the center button to minimize the phone keypad and search for items on your iPhone and when done, hit said button again to bring up the phone keypad.

So if they can allow the biggest application on the iPhone, which is the phone itself to be minimized, so you can do other things, they should be able to allow applications from the app store to do the same thing.

Don't know.

However, I do believe the lack of flash support was a business decision. Most of the games and music sites are in flash. So a person may just decided to listen to music and games on the Internet as opposed to paying for an app or buying music on iTunes.
 

TheCount

Pixel Pusher
Messages
25,523
Reaction score
8,849
nyc;3260302 said:
You know not what you say. I'm guessing you do not work in an environment where you have software developers.

Sure. Why not.

nyc;3260302 said:
There is a difference between rushing something out the door and possibly being dead last to market. Apple is a *hip* product, if it doesn't have a product on the shelves, it can't compete at all. That is at the absolute worst disadvantage. No product means no market share. No market share means no money. Apple could afford not to be first, but they couldn't afford to be dead last.

Apple has never cared about being first or last to market, hip or not. They were pretty much dead last when it came to mp3 players and entering the phone business.

In Apple's perfect world, everyone has an iMac, an iPad, an iPhone and a Macbook AND they get content for all those devices from iTunes and their App Store. They aren't going to cannibalize their own business for the sake of "getting into the market".
 

Oldschool7

Benched
Messages
431
Reaction score
0
nyc;3260377 said:
iPhone OS != Mac OSX.

Duh. Let me me for explicit for you. If Apple could give a Mac the ability to multitask on a 512K in 1986 Mac they assuredly have ZERO issue making a far more powerful piece of hardware do it now.

In case you don't know OSX undergirds the iPhone, iTouch and iPad and it's Unix Kernel has zero issue with multitasking.

Maybe at some point I might pine for the feature. I've never once have missed it yet.
 

Oldschool7

Benched
Messages
431
Reaction score
0
Maikeru-sama;3260528 said:

That is pretty funny.

And I ADMIT IT!

I'd like to ADD an iPad even if it's ONLY feature was a screen 4 times as large and a processor twice as fast.
 
Top