Daniel Eran Dilger in San Francisco
Random header image... Refresh for more!

Ten Myth of Apple’s iPad: 1. It’s just a big iPod touch

Daniel Eran Dilger

Apple’s unveiling of the iPad was guaranteed to do two things: temporarily tank the company’s stock price (just because) and, of course, generate a torrent of feigned outrage and righteous contempt from the usual suspects who always jump all over anything the company produces. As reader Jose Cerritelli points out, an Upton Sinclair quote is appropriate: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

Here’s the first segment in my series taking on iPad myths: no the iPad isn’t just a big iPod touch.

Ten Myth of Apple’s iPad: 1. It’s just a big iPod touch
Ten Myth of Apple’s iPad: 2. iPad needs Adobe Flash
Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 3. It’s ad-evil
Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 4. It was over-hyped and under-delivered
Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 5. It’s just a Tablet PC or Kindle
Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 6. It needs HDMI for HD video output
Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 7. It needs cameras
Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 8. It’s a curse for mobile developers
Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 9. It can’t multitask
Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 10. It needs Mac OS X
.
It really didn’t matter what Steve Jobs said, anymore than it didn’t really matter what President Obama said later that same day. The Tea Party of populist rabble rousers, carefully framed by their corporate sponsors, were poised to pounce. Obama could lay out plans to educate more Americans and provide better health care while also lower taxes for the middle class and reducing the national debt and he’d still be jeered for not being able to magically and instantly undo the last decade’s perfect storm of unregulated banking fraud, massive corporate welfare, and an irresponsible lack of investment in jobs, all within his first year.

Similarly, Jobs could unveil a blazing new mobile processor, a genius new expanded user interface for multitouch, a new SDK to make it immediately useful and supportable by third parties, a series of new business models created to support an historically lackluster form factor, and blockbuster pricing to make it affordable even to starving students… and the tech rags and online pundits would only crow about missing support for Flash games aimed at seven year olds. Who is generating the most inane nonsense about the iPad? Let’s take a look.

Dear underwhelmed: # 1 : It’s a myth the iPad is “just a big iPod touch.”

Everyone with nothing interesting to say is just chiming in to inform us that they were underwhelmed by the iPad. Yes, thank you for your arrogant indifference, it’s very impressive that you casually shrug off something nobody has been able to bring to market before. The thing is, nobody really predicted anything cool that Apple didn’t deliver. It’s all just the typical initial response to anything Apple introduces: waaa, I wasn’t sufficiently entertained.

Remember how excited many of these same tools were when Microsoft blew the vaporware smoke that was Courier? Yeah, nice looking renderings of an impossibly expensive concept that will never be delivered. Or how about that Surface? We couldn’t escape the excitement of a bathtub kiosk that people could touch to play what amounted to a visualization loop. Who cares that some hotels ended up installing these $10,000 do-it-yourself kits? And the Zune HD? It was tiny, unfinished and played an ad before opening Chess. Gadget morons loved it.

Apple throws out gold and everyone insists they must yawn before stooping to pick it up. The iPad isn’t just a big iPod touch; it’s a significant rethinking of a product category that melds the simple mobile interface created for the iPhone with a new layer of familiar conventions with the full sized sophistication of the Mac OS X desktop, pared to a multitouch user interface.

The only thing I predicted that didn’t get demonstrated was a VNC client for remote desktop sharing, but the fact is that there are already VNC third party apps for the iPhone, and the iPad will run them unmodified. It’s likely they’ll be enhanced to take full advantage of its full resolution. I also said that it “won’t run page layout apps,” and sure enough, it will. I played around with cropping and masking photos in a text-wrapped Pages document. So yeah, I’m impressed.
Why isn’t anyone articulating exactly why they weren’t impressed? Because they can’t. Everyone expected the thing to cost $800 and nobody suggested what it might actually do. Earlier this month, HP took to the stage at CES with Microsoft to show off a clunky thick device that didn’t really do anything apart from running a version of Windows 7, and didn’t have a clear price or any special features. Nobody was very impressed. Apple’s iPad is the opposite of that. If you’re not impressed, you’re simply not very intelligent.
Unless of course, you are the CEO of Nintendo and are shrugging off the iPad, not because you’re trying to look cool and ingratiate yourself with the Apple-haters, but because you realize that your own mobile AND console gaming platforms now look straight up ridiculous. And really, isn’t there some massive hubris involved with Nintendo blowing off the iPad as “just a big iPod touch” after it has only managed to rev the DS ineffectually and rebadge the GameCube as the Wii over the last several years?

121 comments

1 lmasanti { 01.31.10 at 7:23 pm }
2 Conrad MacIntyre { 01.31.10 at 8:17 pm }

I’m glad you’re doing this. I seemed to be the only person I knew who actually saw the potential awesome that is the iPad. I cannot wait for them to arrive at my local Apple store. If they are nearly as good as what I’ve heard then I’ll certainly be saving my pennies to get one.

Although I’ll probably wait until Canadian pricing structures (3G) are revealed. I’m guessing a $530 CDN price for the device itself.

3 ChrissyOne { 01.31.10 at 8:26 pm }

I liked the video, but I thought you didn’t want to type? The article was almost as long. >.<

But to the point – The iPad is a big iPod touch like the iPhone is an expensive cell phone. I think this knee-jerk reaction comes from the inherent conservatism that people feel for the way they currently use technology, and their inability to imagine new ways to accomplish the same tasks.

Take for instance, the charge that people "will either use a desktop or a smartphone to do anything the iPad can do."

What lack of vision! FIrst off, why should I be tied to a desk (or even a largish laptop) when 80% of what I do can be done on a device like the iPad? The only thing that prevented my from using my iPhone for blogging or other long document writing was the typing experience, which is good for a phone, but nothing as good as a real keyboard or even a full-size touch keyboard. This eliminates many of the reasons for buying a laptop, and had the advantages of a 3G connection and a much smaller profile. The iPad can go places the laptop can't, like in my camera bag.

But as always, give people a chance to actually touch one, and you'll see them change their tune.

I saw one comment comparing the iPad to the Cube, but we all knew the second Steve told us how much a Cube cost that it was too much. I don't think ANYONE expected a $499 entry price, or the top dog for $830.

4 ulicar { 01.31.10 at 8:31 pm }

“The iPad isn’t just a big iPod touch; it’s a significant rethinking of a product category that melds the simple mobile interface created for the iPhone with a new layer of familiar conventions with the full sized sophistication of the Mac OS X desktop, pared to a multitouch user interface.”

This is simply put not true. iPad does not and will not have full Mac OSX desktop power. Stop claiming something that is simply not true. Are you doing that because you don’t know better, or on purpose? You decide what is the reason.

iPad is not a big iPod touch, it is much worse.

[What are you basing your comments on? Are you upset that it doesn't run unmodified Carbon apps? - Dan]

5 Dmitri { 01.31.10 at 8:46 pm }

Dan, you are a breath of fresh air. Keep up the good work.

6 TheCrow { 01.31.10 at 8:53 pm }

ulicar – “iPad does not and will not have full Mac OSX desktop power.” do I really want a Apache server among other things on my iPad? Seriously, I think the iPad does exactly what it intended to. IT’S NOT A DESKTOP REPLACEMENT!

7 ulicar { 01.31.10 at 9:02 pm }

@Dan I am basing my comments partly on that, but also on missing JAVA which is AFAIK installed by default in Mac OSX. On the fact that I cannot run alternative browsers on iPad, while on OSX I can. The fact that I have multitasking in OSX and not in iPad. The fact…

There are so many missing features here, that claiming it is “full sized sophistication of the Mac OS X desktop” is simply put not true.

I love my iMac, my MacBook, my iPhone3GS, my iPhone3G, my iPod… I have probably more Apple gear and I have developed for Apple more commercial apps than most of your readers, but if something is not true, then something is not true. It is as simple as that.

8 ulicar { 01.31.10 at 9:04 pm }

@Crow I do not care what you want, I am saying that what Dan is claiming is simply put not true. If he sad you cannot run Apache on it, or access shel scripts, or whatever i would not say a word, but he claims “full sized sophistication of the Mac OS X desktop” and that is bit rich.

9 rabber { 01.31.10 at 9:04 pm }

I do not want a full blown notebook in the iPad – I want a product that starts off as a big iPod Touch. I like my iPhone, but, quite frankly, for a lot of the tasks I would like to do, the screen is far too small for me to use. For example, I would like to take it into customer meetings and show them product datasheets. I can’t do this on my iPhone, but I can do it on the iPad. Customers ask me for prices – I can’t look them up easily or quickly on iPhone, but I can on an iPad. Of course, I could use my MacBookPro to do this. However, it is much bigger, takes too long to start up, isn’t as easy to pass around and is a little intimidating for people.

I do not expect the iPad to completely replace my MacBookPro when it is first released. However, I expect it to work well enough so that I can replace my MacBookPro with an iMac and use the iPad for my mobility tasks.

10 nat { 01.31.10 at 9:14 pm }

Good myth to start with and the video was nice.

My reaction to this meme was exactly what you said in the video: “What’d you expect, a small iPod touch?” And they say it as if it’s a putdown? I’m pretty sure the iPod touch is gaining on the iPhone.

It’s the same thing every time, they fixate on the hardware form factor and completely blow off the software (except Flash of course, which all these tech sites and blogs use for their videos and ads).

@ ulicar,

Where in that (vaguely worded) quote from the article is the word “power” used at all?

11 gus2000 { 01.31.10 at 9:16 pm }

“If you’re not impressed, you’re simply not very intelligent.”

oh snap

12 ulicar { 01.31.10 at 9:18 pm }

@nat oh really? So, now we will go into the defition of ‘is”? That is the proof Dan was caught redhanded :)

13 nat { 01.31.10 at 9:33 pm }

ulicar,

Is that a euphemism for “look, over there!

On the fact that I cannot run alternative browsers on iPad, while on OSX I can.

Go into the App Store and search “web browser”. There are numerous alternatives to Apple’s bundled MobileSafari.

The fact that I have multitasking in OSX and not in iPad.

Apple gave out zero details on whether the iPad can or can’t multitask but considering it’s running OS X iPhone, which can multitask, it probably can. If you mean multitask third party apps, we won’t know until release day.

14 ludachrs { 01.31.10 at 9:36 pm }

Increasing the deficit by 30% in one year with the help of full majorities in both houses congress and 7 months of secret backroom deals (pork) to fail at a health care bill are certainly a great way to “lower taxes for the middle class and reducing the national debt”. I am pissed, I can’t believe I voted for this guy, I must be a religious fanatic to not see how he’s helping. what a joke.

15 gus2000 { 01.31.10 at 9:44 pm }

Ummmmm ulicar I think you are taking words out of context; the iPad clearly does not have the OSX desktop and there’s no reason for Dan to say that it does.

If you carefully read his run-on sentence, he basically says:

“iPhone + new gestures + desktop sophistication + multitouch = win”

Or something to that effect.

16 nsayer { 01.31.10 at 9:46 pm }

I’m willing to accept the closed software ecosystem on my phone for the sake of assuring me that it’s going to be as robust and reliable as possible. But for a device like this, that is much more like a laptop than a phone, I find the inability to run whatever software I want to run unacceptable.

Case in point: I like to play poker online. At the moment, online poker is in somewhat of a legal quagmire in the United States. Because of that, none of the poker sites out there can offer iPhone / iPad clients, even though they do offer them for the Mac (at least P*, FTP, Absolute, PokerRoom at last count). Apple would never be able to add their clients to the store without being dragged into court. Because they have editorial control over the contents of the app store, they cannot use any sort of common carrier defense.

17 ulicar { 01.31.10 at 9:48 pm }

@nat
All those alternative browsers are running THE SAME engine. Please get informed about the topic you would like to comment on.

iPad is running on the same software iPhone is running, and that one is not multitasking for the third party applications. Therefore, iPad is not capable to multitask except in very specific instances of running apps written by Apple. Therefore IT IS NOT ABLE TO MULTITASK.

18 stormj { 01.31.10 at 9:52 pm }

@ludachrs: Deficit hysteria. Check. “Full majorities.” Check. “Back room deals.” Check. You really voted for Obama? That’s hard to take serious since you are simply regurgitating so many RNC talking points. There certainly hasn’t been any tax increase on the middle class under Obama, so… I call bullshit.

As for the strange parallel between Jobs and Obama—both guys get branded with messianic hopes they never asked for and then the same people who gave them this mantle get freaked out when he turns out not to be Jesus—is shocking.

The iPad is probably not for me, but I think it has awesome potential and people that are trying to act like it won’t sell aren’t doing so for any other reason than the fact that they hate Apple.

And the fact that it doesn’t run Carbon apps (how much longer will even OS X support that relic?) or Flash…or whatever else that’s fast becoming a relic that will be associated with the last decade and not the next one, well, is more of a reason to think it will succeed than not.

The only people saying this crap are executives of competing companies and tech pundits who get readers for being “controversial” even if they’re just making it up.

19 miloh { 01.31.10 at 9:57 pm }

@ulicar — Dan did not say the iPad has the full Mac OSX desktop power. He said it is a hybrid of the iPhone interface and the SIZE of the OSX desktop.

20 ulicar { 01.31.10 at 9:58 pm }

@ gus2000 I actually did not pull it out of context. I decided to put more arround just in case somebody came up with that defense. Also, “desktop sofistication”? What do you mean by “desktop sofistication”? Are you talking about desktop that isn’t as if it actually is?

It does not have desktop sofistication the same way iPod touch doesn’t. It is not as sofisticated as desktop, not even close.

21 gus2000 { 01.31.10 at 9:59 pm }

@ludachrs, you should be made aware that the US Budget Deficit jumped by billions within a few days of Obama’s swearing in, but not due to any additional spending. He instead simply changed the policy of the previous administration that kept the Iraq/Afghanistan wars out of the budget calculations. The first step in correcting a problem is fully admitting it.

Much of the remaining deficit was the result of the Stimulus package, a one-time emergency expenditure to head off a worldwide financial apocalypse.

I share your concern over the deficit but I fully support where money is currently being spent, and no amount of “pork” can take us $1T into the red. Tough decisions must happen but not until the economy starts growing steadily.

What I want to know is: who is going to fix my iPad deficit? Hmmm? [taps foot impatiently]

22 ulicar { 01.31.10 at 10:03 pm }

@ miloh OS X does not have a SIZE. The screen has a size, and if you want to say this is an iPod with a big screen you say, this is an iPod with a big screen, not “full sized sophistication of the Mac OS X desktop” because it is missleading and not true, which is what Dan I guess was after.

23 gus2000 { 01.31.10 at 10:08 pm }

@ulicar, dude, I was paraphrasing Dan. And in any case, no one said iPad was a desktop. Quite the opposite, since using the desktop metaphor (keyboard/mouse/etc) is what made all prior tablet computers a Big Bag of Fail.

Just back away from they keyboard and chillax. You know, there exists on the market today decaf blends that are just as tasty as the regular coffees. You should try them out.

24 ulicar { 01.31.10 at 10:14 pm }

@ gus2000
“Just back away from they keyboard and chillax.”

I think I will :D

25 uberVU - social comments { 01.31.10 at 10:17 pm }

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by DanielEran: New: Ten Myth of Apple’s iPad: 1. It’s just a big iPod touch – http://tinyurl.com/ykke5to

26 miloh { 01.31.10 at 10:19 pm }

@ulicar — It’s called stylistic writing.

27 ulicar { 01.31.10 at 10:35 pm }

@miloh no, it is called misleading the audience and untrue reporting. If I said that my new design gumboots were able to cross the Channel, that would not mean they are waterproof. That would be misleading and untrue. The same applies here. If we are talking about the size of the screen, we do not use OS X “in stylistic”, because it is misleading and not true. If the author wanted to say, as what you are implying that iPad is iPod Touch with a big screen, then you say “iPad is iPod Touch with a big screen”, and then “the myth” actually becomes not myth at all.

28 bartfat { 01.31.10 at 10:41 pm }

I don’t think the iPad was meant to replace the current laptops and full power of Macs. It was meant to do meld more functionality into a tablet that’s also priced reasonably, so it approaches a desktop application’s functionality (more so than the iPhone anyway). Besides that, it is like an appliance, you turn it on, you turn it off. Almost as simple. So it’s not geared towards tech geeks or anything like that (although if they like it enough they’ll probably buy it in ADDITION to their macbook pro), but towards the “normies”, the people who have trouble saving files on anywhere other than their Desktop. My mom is one of those people, so is my dad. There’s alot more of non-geeks than there are with geeks, so if this device appeals to them b/c it has LESS features and therefore more simplicity, it’s going to be a hit. After all, the geek market is worth millions, but the non-geek market is worth billions ;)

29 bartfat { 01.31.10 at 10:41 pm }

btw looking forward to your other articles about myths, Dan :)

30 broadbean { 01.31.10 at 10:52 pm }

As per gus2000, who noted, “If you’re not impressed, you’re simply not very intelligent.”

You go girl!!

I think the Wii is doing rather nicely, thank you very much. Other than that, I’m rather astounded by the amount negativity around the iPad. Thankfully a lot more thoughtful articles are slowly coming out.

The further January 27th is in the past, the more I’m getting excited about the iPad (and of course future RD articles)!

31 penguinman { 01.31.10 at 11:40 pm }

If I could synch my iPhones, iPod Touches, and iPads over wireless G or N, then all I would need is a Time Capsule and a Mac Mini and my family would be set.

32 aznzofia111 { 01.31.10 at 11:42 pm }

I am of the impression that Dan was pointing to the capabilities of apps such as iWork when he was mentioning the “sophistication/power of Mac OSX”.

It may be important to devs, geeks, and pundits what the specs are, but to the end user it doesn’t matter what the processing capability is, or how “sophisticated” the OS is.

Flash and 3rd party multitasking do not matter in the end, because they are a means to an end. Steve knows what that end is. The pundits don’t.

If it can do what the common end user does on a PC, and it’s $500, that’s great.
If it can do what the common end user does on a PC *better than a PC*, well I’m sold. Boom.

33 miloh { 01.31.10 at 11:45 pm }

@ulicar — So you would have worded things differently. Great. What of it? This isn’t your site. The author is under no obligation to follow your personal rules. Based on the way you worded your argument, however, it seems you believe he should. Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way.

34 atawakkol { 01.31.10 at 11:52 pm }

First of all I like your video very much. It can be even better with a few small tricks and surely when you get more used to stand in front of a camera :) But that’s another thing, if you really need some advice on the video I think I can help, just drop me an email, I’ll be more than glad to help and we can take it out of the comments :)

Now back to the main point, the iPad. I have to admit that my very first 10 minutes of the event were not so good – specially just following the live blogging of the event – and I was slightly disappointed. Slowly as it progressed it became more clear till the moment he talked about iWork, and I was jumping off my chair in front of my MBP, then the eBooks part and …, and I was absolutely sure this is going to be a major game changer.

I do understand that a lot of people don’t get it, but I’ll give you a better example (or at least I think so) than comparing it with the first iPod; I ‘ll compare it to the iPhone itself. If we go back 3 years in time and remember the iPhone launch event, as Apple fans we were all impressed, but other than that – and this is a hefty 90% of the computer user market were not. All talked about how silly it is to loose a key pad and that it is not a smart phone and the fact that it really lacked some standard mobile phone features made them all predict it as a flop and on top of them was NOKIA. Well where do we stand now? The iPhone is the biggest CE adopted product in the History of CE and NOKIA lost – and will continue losing – market share to the iPhone and the other lower end imitations (if we can say that) that have seen Apple’s vision and followed course.

As a marketer and an Entrepreneur, I can immediately see the iPad potential for education and true mobile computing just to name a few to start with. And for myself, I can’t wait :) I’ll be getting one as soon as the 3G one is out. It will make my day more joyful and my work more lots of fun (that is already fun using my other Apple products) as I’ll no longer have to carry my MBP every where, simply pull my iPad out and get my work done! After all this is what really Apple products are good at, getting your work done.

35 nat { 02.01.10 at 12:22 am }

ulicar

1. You never specified what ”alternative browsers” you wanted to use. Considering BlackBerrys, Palm Pres, iPhones/iPod touches, Android phones, and some Nokia phones all make use of WebKit-based browsers—and factoring in the reality that Mozilla has yet to release a mobile version of Firefox—I made the crazy presumption that you wanted to run a WebKit-based alternative. But I guess that would make too much sense.

2. The iPad is running the same core OS as the iPhone/touch, I knew that. But it’s also v3.2, which has not been released except to devs, who are under NDA. Apple could likewise introduce new features between now and launch day.

3. Doing multiple things simultaneously is the definition of multitasking. The iPhone can browse the web while recieving text messages while playing music from the iPod app, all at the same time. If you want third party multitasking, that’s a valid topic for discussion.

36 joshdean { 02.01.10 at 12:27 am }

@ulicar. If we could maybe move away from this semantic bitch-slapping contest for a minute and address the heart of Dan’s post, what exactly do you think of the iPad? Lets say for the sake of argument that there are many productivity-intensive tasks which the iPad in its current incarnation simply cannot do. Put your little visionary hat on for a moment and tell us, do you consider the current device as a bare-bones first iteration of a game-changing new platform? In other words, would you agree with me if I were to argue that , given the relentless progress in miniaturization of technology and its ever-dropping price, coupled with the gradual move to the cloud, it is not unreasonable to predict that within a few years the touch-tablet form factor, and an accompanying mad rush by developers to optimize all manner of programs for gesture control, will supercede the laptop(perhaps a physical keyboard dock will still be needed for major typing needs, but so what)? And if this future does indeed come to pass, guess which humble, adequate little product will be given credit for jump-starting this whole transformation?

37 bartfat { 02.01.10 at 12:42 am }

@nat
I think he was wishing for a WebKit alternative, meaning a mobile Firefox or a mobile IE. But both of those browsers are inefficient at rendering stuff, which is why they haven’t gained much traction in the mobile space. Still, at least he’s not mad at Apple for delivering the sky ;)

38 El hipnosapo no entiende al iPad – Disruptive Sketchbook { 02.01.10 at 1:14 am }

[...] el amigo Eran no metía la pata tan tremendamente, pero es que lo de su artículo llamado “10 mitos sobre el Apple iPad: 1, es un iPod Touch más grande” es el colmo absoluto de la llorera, en vez de explicar los motivos por el cual el iPad es [...]

39 John E { 02.01.10 at 1:22 am }

well, let’s try to think clearly – and (almost) rhetoric-free:

Physically, the iPad has everything the touch does and adds a much faster processor, ‘n’ wifi, 3G connectivity and future 4G capability, higher quality LED display, a speaker, longer lasting battery, higher quality VGA output, bluetooth keyboard option, and of course a bigger screen. so you might reasonably say that physically it is a next-generation touch on steroids. that is definitely more than just a “bigger touch.” but not by an order of magnitude.

plus its 4:3 display is also an optimal format for web viewing compared to the 3:2 touch screen. that plus the 4x increased size (in screen area) certainly makes it an ideal web browsing appliance compared to the more constrained touch. the “bigger touch” comment kinda captures this, a prime purpose of the iPad.

the iPad’s UI certainly has more power and depth than the touch’s. but until we get to actually use one at length, we can’t assess the overall impact of that or compare the two. the same is true for the standard ‘native’ Mac apps for the iPad. the one new ‘feature’ is the picture frame option. nice, but not outstanding.

then there are the new Mac apps for the iPad only – iBooks with also a new Apple iBooks Store (which could evolve into something big), and the new iWorks productivity suite (which also might evolve into something big combined with more development of Apple’s MobileMe ‘cloud’ service).

calling it a “bigger touch” really does fail to capture both of these important new aspects of the iPad.

Then of course there are the third party apps. what developers will do with the increased power, size, and sophistication of the iPad compared to the iPhone and touch remains to be seen. but it could be sensational – and soon!

not to be ignored is the business deal. the iPad price is mid-range for internet appliances, and definitely low for this much power and capability. that is remarkable. but even more important is the unlimited $30 data plan, which will set a new and lower market benchmark that will benefit all consumers of data plans – a breakthrough.

calling it a just “bigger touch” totally fails to capture that last crucial new aspect of the iPad as well.

last but definitely not least is the impact the iPad might have on human behavior. will it be “revolutionary” in its own right like the iPhone proved to be – as Jobs claims? or will it just further enlarge the iPhone revolution like the touch did – and thus be just a “bigger touch”? have to wait and see.

So calling the iPad overall just a “bigger touch” is a bullshit throwaway line for hacks and fanboys. it has partial validity in a few specific categories, but is simply wrong in many others.

40 ulicar { 02.01.10 at 1:29 am }

@ miloh tnx a bunch for understanding that iPad is nohing but big iPod :) this is important time in history where we have a company creating a small device and then enlargeing it, while up untill now it was the other way arround.
@nat Mozilla, opera all mobile versions are better than mobile safari. Apple will not let them on, because they know every normal person would switch :) and they would support flash, java, html5 and so on… App store would probably go south.

@everyone it is just iPod enlarged. I know you can see it, but you will not accept the fault of the great one :) whatever :) it is funny watching you realizing that the whole article, from the title to the “support” is plain wrong :) me, off to BBQ have a good night :)

41 ObamaPacman { 02.01.10 at 1:58 am }

Thanks for the video Dan! It’s easier to digest for English speakers.

Oh about the Nintendo CEO, he’s a Mac / iPhone user. =)
http://obamapacman.com/2009/11/nintendo-ceo-satoru-iwata-uses-mac-iphone-apple-keynote-software/

42 bartfat { 02.01.10 at 2:47 am }

@ulicar
the mobile Mozilla you speak of doesn’t exist for even Android. show me a link where you can download one… for any popular phone (Windows Mobile is crap, so that doesn’t count). Honestly, I’d like to hear it. But it’s not like Apple has done anything badly with its browser, if anything it’s forced Opera to an even smaller niche, because what Opera does is render it on a server and then send it to the phone. Which is really kind of dumb, b/c then Javascript wouldn’t work, because that needs to run locally. So I dare you to try to find a better alternative than WebKit that runs on mobile.

Anyway, this is pretty much thread hijacking by ulicar. I shouldn’t be needing to point out the obvious, that the iPhone did web browsing much better than any other phone of its introduction. And the iPad borrows from that same strategy.

43 nabilahmad { 02.01.10 at 2:54 am }

Daniel, I trust you will get past all the trolling above to get to read this. BTW, i love the full archive of your articles, if you were to compile this site into a book, I’d buy it!

Myth #11 The iPad’s screen is too small for real productivity.

I do hope that among your myths to bust is the notion that the iPad’s screen real estate is no bigger than a netbook’s of similarel count and physical dimension. I have long been frustrated with the lost 15-20% of screen real estate to redundant or rarely useful UI elements. If you were to tack on the normal Windows XP/Vista/7 taskbar, statusbar, toolbar, address bar, menubar, and title bar, you would need a 12-13 inch screen to display this additional interface. Every time I scroll away the address bar of my iPhone, I breathe a sigh of relief that i can recover that screen real estate for CONTENT!!!

BTW, have you seen Word with the ribbon interface on a netbook? I feel sorry for the user/victim!

Myth #12 The touch screen is a handicap
Another angle for which the iPad absolutely decimates the netbook competition is touchpad size. Whenever I fiddle with the latest netbook to cross my path, I primarily take note of the usability of its touchpad. I’m repeatedly elated/disappointed by the multi-touch gestures they incorporate into their unusably small form factor. The real handicap is making three or four gestures to move a mouse across a 10″ screen!

Myth #13 It will never be a business platform and will strictly be delegated to casual home use
I have been waiting to see the iPad released for use as a replacement for cash registers (among other industries that it’ll obliterate). I am sure that the specialized boxes that are found in plentitude in all stores cost far more than the $499 base of the iPad. I hope to see someone develop that app to run on the iPad and the service to run on the Mac Mini server. Honestly, this is beyond my programming ability; otherwise I would do it myself and cash in on that gold mine. Bottom line is that this will be the new embedded systems platform. Everywhere you see a screen, you will see an iPad.

44 counterproductive { 02.01.10 at 3:10 am }

Well, ulicar, I know you could see it if you wanted to: the iPad displays levels of sophistication not present in the iPod. In fact, one might even say, it displays levels of sophistication heretofore associated with a desktop OS. Now that is not to say “sophistication” = “features” (which you seem unsuccessfully bent on trying to prove), nor power (as another commented pointed out).

However, Dan did go to some lengths in another article to elaborate on some of this apparent “sophistication” (in the “Hands-on” article I think). [i]I[/i] can see some “sophistication” here, and I was looking for just such an increase in, what I might on any given day of the week call, shall we say, [i]sophistication[/i]. To whit, extended menus, contextual menus and floating pallets (in fact they look to be how shall I put it, [i]more sophisticated[/i] than comparable ones on the desktop).

The fact that I am not constantly changing screens do perform different tasks within one app or to access secondary menus, displays I think a greater level of sophistication in the iPad that is not present in the iPhone/iPod, but approaches the sophistication we have come to rely on on the desktop. In fact, Apple has tailored some of these more sophisticated aspects of the Touch OS to this new Touch Device so that these more sophisticated features are much more natural than they would be if this was merely a cramming of a purely mouse-driven, desktop OS into a smaller Touch Device. In this (as evidenced by their characteristic restraint, creativity and innovation), Apple are themselves displaying a certain level of sophistication. And were one to compare Apple products (both software and hardware) to similar [i]types[/i] of products produced by other companies, why, the one word that comes to my mind, is [i]sophistication[/i].

Now, you might think you are the boy pointing out the Emperor’s nakedness, but it is a little rich to be equating everyone here with the crowd who felt like they had to imagine the clothes in their heads. That role is best reserved for pundits and Apple-nay-sayers who “see” amazing trappings on all the other crap on the market. Dan has in mind this crowd, and indeed they often prove to be unintelligent when the pudding is tasted. I wouldn’t count you as one of these, but you might want to lighten up anyway in case you say too much and remove all doubt.

45 counterproductive { 02.01.10 at 3:12 am }

Apparently I am not as sophisticated as I supposed, because I didn’t get my italics to work correctly above.

46 joshdean { 02.01.10 at 3:26 am }

@ulicar. If we could maybe move away from this semantic bitch-slapping contest for a minute and address the heart of Dan’s post, what exactly do you think of the iPad? Lets say for the sake of argument that there are many productivity-intensive tasks which the iPad in its current incarnation simply cannot do. Put your little visionary hat on for a moment and tell us, do you consider the current device as a bare-bones first iteration of a game-changing new platform? In other words, would you agree with me if I were to argue that , given the relentless progress in miniaturization of technology and its ever-dropping price, coupled with the gradual move to the cloud, it is not unreasonable to predict that within a few years the touch-tablet form factor, and an accompanying mad rush by developers to optimize all manner of programs for gesture control, will supercede the laptop(perhaps a physical keyboard dock will still be needed for major typing needs, but so what)? And if this future does indeed come to pass, guess which humble, adequate little product will be given credit for jump-starting this whole transformation?

47 Michel Coste { 02.01.10 at 3:30 am }

@ bartfat
“So it’s not geared towards tech geeks or anything like that (although if they like it enough they’ll probably buy it in ADDITION to their macbook pro), but towards the “normies”, the people who have trouble saving files on anywhere other than their Desktop. My mom is one of those people, so is my dad. There’s alot more of non-geeks than there are with geeks, so if this device appeals to them b/c it has LESS features and therefore more simplicity, it’s going to be a hit. After all, the geek market is worth millions, but the non-geek market is worth billions ;)”

EXACTLY!!!

This is the most important thing to notice from the iPad introduction. It is made first to meet the needs of these millions of people still using XP, a 8 years old system, not willing to upgrade to another PC and feeling that OS X makes no difference to them (because they don’t get it) so they’ll never switch!
They’ll never switch to OS X for Mac BUT they will ultimately switch to another device, an Apple device, the iPad!

I’ve written about this before the introduction of the iPad here:

http://www.micmac.com/2010/01/27/the-rest-of-them/

The iPhone showed the way: they will come by millions!
What’s more: there is NO competition at all and there will not be for years!
In the other camp I suppose it’s the desolation if they’re smart enough or more probably the most complete denial you can imagine (not the best way to win!)

48 liamh { 02.01.10 at 3:30 am }

Is it just me or do the haters not get that Apple does not make products with Ryan Block, Dave Winer and Rob Enderle in mind?

49 bartfat { 02.01.10 at 3:31 am }

nope, those formatting things don’t work like they do on other sites. preferably dan would get around to fixing that so we could get some rudimentary formatting for the comments :) Maybe an edit button too would be nice, in case you wanted to add something and didnt have to post all over again. Please, dan?

50 Michel Coste { 02.01.10 at 3:31 am }

Oops…
I forgot: the iPad will even convince many people that have NO computer at all!

51 bartfat { 02.01.10 at 3:33 am }

@counterproductive
btw, love your pudding analogy. haha :D

52 clochard42 { 02.01.10 at 4:04 am }

Compared to my RC car my “real” car is as well “only just bigger” – same technology, same principles. Alone the difference in screen size offers possibilities we can’t imagine yet. Apple delivers a new white sheet of paper and people complain there’s nothing written on it. They just don’t get it.

53 Jon T { 02.01.10 at 4:13 am }

@ulicar — the iPhone/iPad OS does multi-task, it is disingenuous of you to suggest it doesn’t. You may ask: ‘why doesn’t Apple allow 3rd party multi-tasking?

And it’s likely it will in due course, in a controlled, workable manner.

The power of the iPad appears to me to give it the sophistication of a desktop – as in for 99% of users’ desktop activities.

54 liamh { 02.01.10 at 4:17 am }

I love the netbook crowd, who never complain that with an iPad does not do this or that. Thank god. My mother in law bought an eeepc with some version of Linux installed….After a telephone call of nightmare proportions during which she had to use the terminal and jump through a gazillion hoops to just install Skype I would happily shove an Eeepc where the sun does not shine on any Linux fanboy. And the XP versions are no better – ever tried playing a DVD using an external drive on a netbook: “please upgrade your version of media player for $x”.

Most netbooks are a complete and utter scam played out on the unsuspecting.

55 pa { 02.01.10 at 4:23 am }

ulicar { 01.31.10 at 9:02 pm }

@ulicar,
@Dan I am basing my comments partly on that, but also on missing JAVA which is AFAIK installed by default in Mac OSX. On the fact that I cannot run alternative browsers on iPad, while on OSX I can. The fact that I have multitasking in OSX and not in iPad. The fact …
… if something is not true, then something is not true. It is as simple as that.”

I agree with you that the iPad is not “a significant rethinking of a product category that melds the simple mobile interface created for the iPhone with a new layer of familiar conventions with the full sized sophistication of the Mac OS X desktop, pared to a multitouch user interface” as Dan claims. It is a natural extension of the iPod Touch and the iPhone OS.
But, at the same time what your statement that “iPad is not a big iPod touch, it is much worse” is not true either. It is so much better. Ever since the iPod Touch was released, I was hoping for a bigger version on which one can develop some interesting applications. This product, the way it is right now, is so much more capable and in so many ways than any netback and laptop you can imagine. You just haven’t seen the applications. I think you will see that this device will save a ton of money for corporations and professionals compared to their existing special purpose devices. However, it also has the potential to completely change the notebook computer market. A lot of folk will realize that the combination desktop and iPad will be more capable and less expensive that purchasing a laptop. Of course, because iPad works with windows as well, this is a gamble by Apple that can result in the loss of sales in its notebook and desktop product categories. But it is a gamble that can pay off. The Mac mini is the device that can, in combination with iPad, completely transform the market share demographics. And if people choose to stick with
cheap Windows desktops and use those with iPads, that will be nice too. Netbooks make up over 20% of the market and they don’t sync as easily with PCs. That is very low hanging fruit. So between consumer netback market, opportunities in vertical market applications, and interest in ebook reader and mobile entertainment (playing movies for kids in the back of the car) there are huge sales potentials.

I was particularly impressed with the iWork apps. How can you say the iPad is worse than the iPod Touch with so much new functionality? You can develop apps that would not be possible on the Touch.

@ludachrs,
There are many others like you who feel letdown by our eloquent president. He seems to care more about how this crisis affects Goldman Sacks than how the economy is affecting most Americans. It is an insult to Steve Jobs to compare him to President Obama. Although it seems to me Obama knows he’s been had so he is just starting to fight back, or all this posturing could be just a show like his campaign was.

@gus2000,
Given the current state of the economy, the deficit, cuts in education, etc. it seems the correct and bold course of action is to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan immediately, and close as many overseas military bases as fast as possible, close Guantanamo, and cut all foreign aid, and all subsidies. Provide education funds only to states that have no teachers unions in public schools. Eliminate insurance companies and cover everyone under medicare.
Pointing fingers or admitting to thing won’t solve anything.

@John E,
Everything you say about the capabilities of iPad is correct, but there is still nothing wrong with calling it a big iPod Touch. That is actually a complement. No one expects that the iPhone OS should stay static. And iPad is just the evidence for this progress. Apple has done a phenomenal job with their idea and concept of what a tablet should be. And I think it is spot on. The iPod Touch was definitely a major step in this evolution.

56 jon_hall { 02.01.10 at 4:26 am }

Dan, Thanks for the great post (and book: got the book but not the server – it’s a long story).
Any thoughts on the future of pdf (on Mac OS X, or in toto)? pdf is Adobe, right, and Adobe are – now – officially lazy. From my perspective as a researcher, pdf is good for sharing, but doesn’t make me want to annotate it – the tools it provides look like, well, lazy bolt-ons. Only paper makes me want to write on it.
I can see the iPad becoming the scholar’s friend with Docs Everywhere And Easy To Share. But only pdf? Beware: with the difficulty of annotating pdf, that potential will probably go wanting. Any thoughts?

57 Berend Schotanus { 02.01.10 at 4:30 am }

I like the video. It makes you less hard, more friendly than in written text, even when you are basically saying the same. It is also worth a compliment that by doing so you are innovating your own platform, accepting there might be some trial and error and knowing you cannot be a video professional in one day, the hybrid form is just great.

58 weave { 02.01.10 at 4:59 am }

I understand your reasons for making the video, but I’m pressed on time to keep up with lots of news sources, and I can read a lot faster than listening to someone talk — hence I am typing this as I’m listening, will not complete the video, and instead stop it and jump into the shower.

I suspect your youtube stats will show not many people making it to the end. Have a look and please reconsider. I enjoy reading your columns.

59 Ianf { 02.01.10 at 5:07 am }

@”If you’re not impressed, you’re simply not very intelligent.”

Quite correct, Dan. Mac-commentariat wanted a Jesus-netbook, but had to settle for mere half-Jobsian tablet (half-, because, unlike previous occassions, Steve seemed unusually distanced from the hype surrounding the product this time…). I think Frasier Spears’ FUTURE SHOCK theory [ http://speirs.org/blog/2010/1/29/future-shock.html ] nails the warped public reaction pretty well.

Methinks we’re in for a repeat of the aftermath of iPhone’s introduction: initial wide-ranging dismissal from “industry pundits” and competitors alike followed by enthusiastic market acceptance and steadily growing sales,; followed by competitors all scrambling to come out with their own MeToo-models; followed by public admission that the iPhone did make a difference. Only now we’ll see that on so much vaster scale, because aping iPad’s key features and ease of use –with file system abstracted away, etc– won’t be an easy task for those relying on Win , Android or Linii [-ux pluralis] of any shape. A year from now there will be a plethora of iPad-lookylikes from other makers and some of them will have cameras, and SD-slots, and Flash. While the iPad –in whatever current or future configuration, still sans “multitasking” or Flash– will carry on gaining market share ;-))

60 overnightparking { 02.01.10 at 5:28 am }

Calling the iPad a big iPod Touch is like saying Mt Everest is a large hill. Well yes, but if you’d better be prepared for the differences that size brings.

I’m surprised that more people aren’t talking about the software that can and will run on the iPad. Apple has shown the way with iWorks. I’m not talking about pixeldoubling, I’m talking about the popup and drop down finger touch menus which allow for far more sophisticated apps. There are a gaggle of devs now working on software and the amount of bespoke software for iPad will only increase. Just as the app store made the iPhone a success and is still its major differentiator, so to will powerful unique apps for the iPad drive sales creating another virtuous circle which will drive other manufacturers to copy the general ideas behind iPad and probably even improve on iPad V.1 and within a few years we’ll all have a variation of the device lying on the sofa. That’s what “big” will bring IMO.

61 pedrocandrade { 02.01.10 at 5:30 am }

I think the whole subject of iPad bashing is quite interesting. In the end, my take is that most people are simply anchored at their own computing preconceptions while pretty much preferring to “reject” something for pure emotional reasons, rather than really thinking about how useful (or not) it could actually be.

So people look at the iPad and say: “Try fitting that in your pocket!” Or “Hey, that’l

62 bartb { 02.01.10 at 5:35 am }

@Dan, good video. I’m impressed. Although I also like the written text.

@ulica – I take it that you won’t buy an iPad then??

@”Therefore IT IS NOT ABLE TO MULTITASK”.
Define Multitasking! Three options:
1. Switching between apps so you can exchange info between them. (ie. copy text from a webpage and paste it in an email)
2. Running a process/apps in the background because you like to enjoy multiple outputs at once (ie. listen to music while surfing the web or watching a video while working in Keynote)
3. Running processes/apps in the background because the process takes a while to complete. (ie. ripping a dvd, or copying 8Gb of files).

Option 1. is possible on the iPhone OS…. if the developers follow the programming guidelines.
Option 2. is only possible for music (iPod app) on the iPhone OS, but I cannot think of any other TYPE of app you wan’t to run simultaneously*.
Option 3. is not really an issue on the iPad because the things it can do it does so immediately…. but perhaps I I’m forgetting something.

I think Apple does not open up the multitasking feature to third-party developers because a lot of developers think they are in category 2. or 3. when they are in fact fall into category 1. And category 2. and 3. are very battery draining features.

*Now that I think of it, using VNC or something similar would have a need for Option 2. But only the keep the session alive, not because the VNC client actually needs to do something when it’s inactive. So if you solve the keep-session-alive issue, you can put the VNC type of apps in category 1. (Namely, “persistent state”)

63 bartb { 02.01.10 at 5:44 am }

… just like Apple solved the “I need my app to run in the background because I need to update my app automatically, even when it’s not running”-issue, by giving developers the possibility to send a message to an inactive app with the Push Notification Servers.

Apple likes to think things through…

64 pedrocandrade { 02.01.10 at 5:46 am }

I think the whole subject of iPad bashing is quite interesting. IMHO, most people are simply anchored to their own computing preconceptions while pretty much preferring to reject something for purely emotional reasons (superiority high?), rather than really thinking about how useful or not it could actually be.

So people look at the iPad and say: “Try fitting that in your pocket!” Or “Hey, that’ll never replace my laptop!”. It’s either or. They seem to have entirely missed the point that this is not “same but better”. This is DIFFERENT. With whole new usage scenarios.

As much as the iPhone was bashed at its launch for lack of seemingly obvious features, it was a pretty straightforward sale to the masses. People know they needed a cell phone, so give them a better one and they’re all for it. Try to bring up a totally new category of devices and things are much harder.

It’ll take a wave of early adopting trend setters to show the way. After which, everyone else can get the point by imitation. It’ll be interesting to watch.

65 liamh { 02.01.10 at 6:24 am }

iPad bashing is all well and good as is being all pro the iPad, truth is we just don’t know how the market will take it.

However, here are somethings I do know:

Macbooks are, comparatively expensive. I know you can argue about the relative costs of iLife and bloatware and I know you might be getting a Celeron in your cheap laptop rather than a Core2Duo. But the fact remains that you can pick up a Dell or an Asus for cheap.

There are a lot of people, especially kids, who hang about Apple stores lusting after a Mac.
Now imagine that you could place in the hands of those people a relatively cheap Mac, that does most of what they want, is priced within their reach, has that cool Apple logo, and looks the business. Are some of them going to buy it? I think so. In fact I know someone who is going to: my sister in law drools after my Macbook but can’t quite justify the price for what she will use it for. She’s signed up for an iPad.

The only complaint that is missing from the iPad haters is: “it doesn’t have intel stickers all over it”. Fools. Or maybe we are for reading their twaddle.

66 liamh { 02.01.10 at 6:45 am }

Top selling Android app? A task manager, so much for running multiple applications in the background.

http://androidandme.com/2009/08/news/top-selling-android-apps-and-games-for-july-2009/

And below some extracts from the CNET review of the app that say it all when it comes to the real reason for the success of Apple in terms of usability and sensible well thought out design (http://www.cnet.com/8301-19736_1-10277198-251.html)

“Though Android can run multiple programs and close background processes as needed, there are times where the OS’ overall performance slows down. And during those times in particular it’s troubling that Android doesn’t let you close applications manually.”

“Regular use of Advanced Task Manager can identify pesky applications that slow down your phone and eat battery life. When I first used it, I discovered several older applications I no longer used that were still running as background processes.”

Who wants to be constantly having to drill down into an OS to tinker under the hood? Not me. I want to use my Mac/iPhone to do stuff not for the device to be the end in itself.

67 DesperateDan { 02.01.10 at 7:10 am }

I’m disappointed a bit in… people.
We’ve been shown a quite amazing product that has the potential to completely change the way we interact with the computer. And it’s not some tradeshow demo speculating what life will be like in 10 years time. It’s real and shipping in less than two months. Anyone who has used it is raving about how incredible it is etc… But, disaster, it doesn’t support Flash. So f**king what.
This whole thing is about making a new start. A clean break leaving behind as much of the complexity, clutter and crap as possible. And as the huge majority of Flash content is crap, it’s proprietary and a resource hog, then it goes too.
You have to take risks to move forward. Microsoft have taken very little risk and the result is that an entire industry has been hamstrung for years. I’m really surprised that neither HP, Dell or Sony haven’t developed their own, clean slate OS, based on Linux.
If only people would let their imagination run free for a bit. In 5 years time it’s likely that your desktop iMac will be a 30″ panel sitting flat on your desk. This changes everything. Sure there will still be a need for traditional workstations for applications that maybe won’t work well using touch, but this is pretty much a repeat of the 1980′s/90′s where average users got by fine using PC or Mac but if you were animating a movie or doing cutting edge printwork you used Silicon Graphics or Quantel Paintbox workstations.
In 10 years time 90% of people will be using touch interfaces with the rest on high-end workstations. And Flash will be long forgotten.

68 ChuckO { 02.01.10 at 7:14 am }

I’ve got the answer for both the iPad and Obama haters. Ipad haters – don’t buy one. Obama haters – sit for a while and think about a US with McCain as President. The guy who picked Sarah Palin as his running mate. Gov’t spending is ALWAYS the answer to these kind of crisis.Usually primarily on defense spending (WWII and Reagan) Japan spent ten (+) years stagnating because they didn’t have the political will to spend the money they needed too to get their economy going.

69 gus2000 { 02.01.10 at 7:15 am }

The video is great, but it needs MOAR LAZUR CATZ. In 3D.

Everyone here remembers that the first Macintosh computer was modal, right? That only 1 app would run at a time, that you had to quit to get to run a different app? At least, until “Switcher” arrived, and later “Multifinder”…but back then we measured RAM in K’s. Double-digit K’s.

Dan, from the comments I’m seeing around the internet, people seriously need to be educated on the meaning of “multitasking” and “multithreading”. Many actually believe that the iPhone’s so-called “lack of multitasking” means that it cannot take advantage of multiple cores!?!! I think the uninitiated are getting confused between the UI and the underlying architecture.

70 John { 02.01.10 at 7:49 am }

Daniel

I really liked the video approach. I read the text too! Donation on its way.

I appreciated @counterproductive’s play on the word sophisticated above. I presume you did too. I hope it went some way towards moderating @ulicar’s remarks. Your statement that “The iPad isn’t just a big iPod touch; it’s a significant rethinking of a product category that melds the simple mobile interface created for the iPhone with a new layer of familiar conventions with the full sized sophistication of the Mac OS X desktop, pared to a multitouch user interface” indicates that, by using the word “melds”, the iPad UI is somewhere between the iPhone and the desktop. I also got the impression that you hoped the iPad’s UI would be innovative and would actually be unlike the desktop paradigm.

All the best with your new hand.

John

PS Did you mean “pared” as in cut down, or did you mean “paired” as in linked or coupled? Of course, it could be both!

71 ludachrs { 02.01.10 at 8:05 am }

@stormj ask my independent friends in Mass. and he got my vote.

72 iEspen { 02.01.10 at 8:12 am }

Love the new direction you took with a video. It made it feel a whole lot personal than plain text. I really enjoyed it

-E

73 tundraboy { 02.01.10 at 8:44 am }

Dan, great article as usual. Most people don’t realize the effect that a simple change of scale can trigger. It’s like they’ve never watched television on a 21″ screen. Or did desktop work on a 640 screen. Actually, maybe they haven’t.

Can you remove the whole ulicar kerfuffle though? It just clutters up the comments.

74 ShabbaRanks { 02.01.10 at 10:01 am }

I like the iPad. I think it’s very clever and aimed at the guy who would love a big iPod touch. Extra power, screen real estate and, due to it’s size, ergonomics, makes it far more than an iPod and just enough less than a laptop.
A well positioned product. Very capable and at the right price.
I don’t see why there’s all the controversy.

75 ShabbaRanks { 02.01.10 at 10:25 am }

Can I just say, without sarcasm, that I love reading about peoples opinions on American politics. It seems like such a crazy setup that it fascinates me. More politics, perhaps in it’s own section though.

76 Ten Myth of Apple’s iPad: 1. It’s just a big iPod touch « iNewΙΤ { 02.01.10 at 10:30 am }

[...] Myth of Apple’s iPad: 1. It’s just a big iPod touch Ten Myth of Apple’s iPad: 1. It’s just a big iPod touch Jobs could unveil a blazing new mobile processor, a genius new expanded user interface for [...]

77 stefn { 02.01.10 at 10:50 am }

Love the video. Add a five minute sequence at the end, a dialogue with someone asking a couple follow questions. Add an advertiser and you will be rich, rich, rich!

78 John E { 02.01.10 at 11:26 am }

hey Dan, you used Flash for the YouTube vid, darn it! locked up my Safari of course when i tried to quit halfway through!!

79 bartfat { 02.01.10 at 11:51 am }

Actually, while you’re at it, you might want to show images of the products or events you’re talking about in the video :) of course, this means video editing, but this is something iMovie can easily handle. And yeah, for those people that are using Safari, search on google for ClickToFlash… it shows a H.264 video in place of the Flash one (only if you select the “Youtube: Play H.264 with Quicktime” in the ClickToFlash preferences in the Safari menu.

But for those who don’t want to install a plugin, you can always go to http://www.youtube.com/html5 and join the beta to use H.264 anyway. Of course, most videos that are displayed with ClickToFlash have a nice black interface and will display H.264 even if the actual video that Youtube displays if you’re in the Beta is Flash ;) So you’re at the mercy of Google’s decision for which videos need Flash or H.264 if you don’t install that plugin.

80 jfm0830 { 02.01.10 at 12:01 pm }

I enjoyed the video, but I think I enjoy your written articles more. The articles are broken up with graphics and links to other stories. This is harder to do with video. But if it is the difference between being able to get out a new article or not, keep the videos coming.

I have been reading RD since just before the iPhone came out. I would have been much more surprised by the reactions, if I hadn’t been reading RD all this time. In fact it is many of the same pundits and so-called tech writers coming out of the woodwork to pile on the iPad, just as they did the iPhone. How can they dis something that badly without even trying it out before they decide it is unworthy of them? I went back and reread some of Daniels articles following the intro of the iPhone and it is amazing how it is many of the same cast of characters.

It is a non-starter for John C Dvorak cause it doesn’t have a stylus. How he still gets anyone to read his drivel is beyond me. He is constantly wrong in a big way. I have ceased giving him clicks for a few years now. Paul Thurott is unimpressed and doesn’t like the black bezel. Perhaps if he had conceded to try the thing before spouting his opinion, he might have realized with a touch screen interface you need some place out of bounds to hold it. Then there was Dwight Silverman who was interviewed on TWIT.TV. He was not impressed and questioned who the user would be and he just couldn’t see a soccer mom at Wal-Mart being interested in it. Last time I checked nobody was saying a soccer mom shopping at WalMart was the iPads initial target audience.

The other problem with a lot of these tech writers or bloggers is they have a hugely exaggerated sense of self importance. They come up with these features that are important to they and a few of their friends, and then if the device in question doesn’t have those features it is a failure. They seem to forget that they are usually not the target audience. In the case of the iPhone they whip themselves into a frenzy about this or that thing that is missing, the platform isn’t open enough for some, the app developers are in an uproar. Once again the average non-geek user of the iPhone could care less about that stuff and most are blissfully unaware there is even a “problem”.

Now it’s the iPads turn. After reading Daniel’s articles for years I wasn’t surprised by the reaction. The surprise would have been if the reaction was different. I look at it as the birth of an exciting new platform. It has some of the features and simplicity of the iPhone and additional capabilities previously found only in a desktop computer. What I found exciting was the way they made an OS that was different from either the iPhone or the desktop. Features from the iPad will find their way into the iPhone or OSX, but I think each is their own distinct product. There will be things that each will be better or worse at than the others. After seeing iWork for iPhone I am very excited at the possibilities. This reminds me of iPhone OS2 at the start of the App Store: None of us (including Apple I’d guess) had any idea where the iPhone would be 1 year later. The people who are blasting it as an oversized iPod touch will ultimately be proven wrong. Just wait until you see all of the vertical markets that the iPad will open up with its bigger screen and special flavor of the iPhone OS it runs.

I am excited about the potential both now and in the future.

81 overnightparking { 02.01.10 at 12:11 pm }

I recently twittered half jokingly that a pundit is someone who can’t see the forest for the trees.

82 masternav { 02.01.10 at 12:43 pm }

Dan, of course ulicar and that ilk are wedded to the old paradigm. To a certain extent so am I – but then I was a motorhead as well when I was in high school so… But as folks like ulicar rant for “more power”, the average consumer is waking up to the fact that they have been successfully trained in the 21st century technology of multitouch, and now have a device, from the company that successfully trained them that will give them exactly what they want without be nailed to a desk, or toting a 5lb laptop with a short battery charge. Yeah all the browsing, photos, music and books they want at thier fingertips in a totally comfortable interface backed up by a high-powered new CPU. AND a newly multitouch-blessed productivity toolset to boot. It is a profound pardigm shift and it explains why geeks are made uncomfortable. We have spent years and bucks squirreling away special knowledge, demanding high-powered processing systems that we can modify to suit our needs. We are acolytes of the old order, which do not go quietly into that good night. Well done Dan.

83 nsayer { 02.01.10 at 1:09 pm }

@clochard42 “Compared to my RC car my “real” car is as well “only just bigger” – same technology, same principles.”

Really? So you mythbustered your car up with servos for remote control and put an internal combustion engine in your RC car?

84 miloh { 02.01.10 at 1:15 pm }

@jfm0830 — Self-importance does seem to be running rampant in nearly every iPad discussion I’ve encountered. For whatever reason, a lot of people seem to think their views are the correct ones and therefore anyone who thinks differently must be a zealot. The most common manifestation of this that I’ve seen is the argument that the iPad is useless/pointless, and thus anyone who thinks otherwise only does so because they’re a fanboy. They cannot comprehend how anybody might find value in the thing and so they think nobody does. It’s an inability or refusal to question the validity of their own position. In a sense, they are their own fanboy.

85 clochard42 { 02.01.10 at 1:26 pm }

@nsayer – Would like to RC control my car James Bond like with the iPad of course, but german TÜV doesn’t allow it – well just kidding. Second one: yep.

86 davebarnes { 02.01.10 at 1:58 pm }

@weave #58,
I agree 100%.
Way more eloquent than my planned comment.

87 Ten Myth of Apple’s iPad: 2. iPad needs Adobe Flash — RoughlyDrafted Magazine { 02.01.10 at 2:05 pm }

[...] Ten Myth of Apple’s iPad: 1. It’s just a big iPod touch Dear Adobe: 2. It’s a myth that the iPad needs Flash. [...]

88 Curated Stories Feb. 1, 2010 { 02.01.10 at 3:33 pm }

[...] Ten Myth of Apple’s iPad: 1. It’s just a big iPod touch Published: January 31, 2010 Source: RoughlyDrafted Magazine Daniel Eran Dilger Apple’s unveiling of the iPad was guaranteed to do two things: temporarily tank the company’s stock price (just because) and, of course, generate a torrent of feigned outrage and righteou… [...]

89 ArrowJ { 02.01.10 at 3:47 pm }

Greetings,

You made a lot of really great points, and some that weren’t so well thought out. But at the end of the day Apple could have done better, and they could have done much worse.

I am a huge Mac fan…a lot of people would classify me as a fanboy, but I would argue that I am not. One way to insure you are not falsely classified as a fanboy is to avoid statements such as, “…anyone who’s not impressed [with the iPad] is really being either ignorant or disingenuous…” These statements sound like something a televangelist would spew at his unsuspecting audience.

I enjoy your blog and have added it to Google Reader. The only thing I don’t like is that you don’t post enough!

Cheers,

ArrowJ

90 nonlinearmind { 02.01.10 at 4:45 pm }

Insightful article as always. I didn’t finish the vid because it was so boring and I figured I’d get more out of the article anyway.

I’ve been a video producer, shooter and primarily an editor for the past 14 years, so maybe I can help.

1. Keep your video under 3 min or so. Use it to cover the main points – the base of the inverted triangle, if you will. Use it to drive people to the article.

2. Use cutaways! Don’t kill yourself by sitting on camera for so long. It will only put too much pressure on you no to mess up, which will show in your neck and throat, making you look more nervous than you really are. Cut away to images of the iPad or whatever. It will let you shoot in short segments that you can string together to look like one take.

3. Use natural lighting if you don’t want to bring your own lights. Existing lighting in a building may be cool to look at, but usually looks like crap when a person is under them on video.

4. Less headroom. http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/articles/headnoseroom/index.htm

Hope these help.

91 shen { 02.01.10 at 5:06 pm }

Yes! And yes and yes and yes and thank you thank you and yes!

Every word of this article! From tech to politics, every word! Bravo! Well said! Nail head meet hammer and done!

Thank you Dan! Keep it up!

92 Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 3. It’s ad-evil — RoughlyDrafted Magazine { 02.01.10 at 10:31 pm }

[...] Ten Myth of Apple’s iPad: 1. It’s just a big iPod touch Ten Myth of Apple’s iPad: 2. iPad needs Adobe Flash Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 3. It’s ad-evil . Dear SAI: 3. It’s a myth that the iPad is ad-evil. [...]

93 Ianf { 02.02.10 at 6:00 am }

@jon_hall [http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2010/01/31/ten-myth-of-apples-ipad-1-its-just-a-big-ipod-touch/comment-page-1/#comment-23836]

Because so little is known of iPad’s software framework (other than common roots with iPhone OS) we are forced to speculate on hitherto undisclosed and/or future functions. You are right that PDF is only good for sharing for passive reading and fixed-area printing. It is a dog to highlight, and annotate persistently [these two are related, but different functions]. Apple knows that as well as anybody else. If it is in their plans to be a major player in the textbook market —for those outside academia the term usually means special compilations of study texts that most Western universities require its students to have read, and which the Unis produce for sale in ever-changing private editions— then Apple will need to provide such in some enhanced “annotation-friendly” format.

That practically rules out PDFs. I don’t know what format this might take, only that those annotatations would have to be a system-wide function rather than restricted to specific applications [iTextBookStore?]. Both highlights and annotations would have to be persistent across reboots and, being private content, exportable in some common interchange format.

During the keynote there was a curious omission, not a word uttered on stage, of iPad’s potential as a graphic tablet (akin to Wacom’s, etc.) Yet it is plain to see that, if it can be used for “finger-painting,” then it will also end being used for “finger-texting” in half-dark lecture halls as well, eyes glued to the lectern rather than to iPad in one’s iLap. For that reason alone I can not conceive of a future-with-an-iPad that does not involve ability to annotate anything, text and pictures, and retain that layer independently even after the rental period of eTextBooks from which it stemms has expired. Rentals? Yeah, they’re coming too.

94 RDM Covers Myth: Apple iPad is Big iPod touch | Obama Pacman { 02.02.10 at 6:06 am }

[...] Ten Myth of Apple’s iPad: 1. It’s just a big iPod touch [...]

95 gctwnl { 02.02.10 at 1:54 pm }

It seems to me the iPad *is* by and large a big iPod Touch, but that is not necessarily a bad thing given what markets they are going after with the new form factor and user interface changes.

Why is it a big iPod Touch? Well, for one, it runs iPhone OS and not Mac OS X. Hence all apps run as some sort of power user and protection is left to Apple vetting the apps before allowing them on. This also means it is not multi-user at the UI-level, even if the core iPhone OS technically is multi-user. The fact that it is not multi-user at the app level means there are limitations for the iPad being a ‘family device’ that rests on the coffee table for all to use. Limitations like one e-mail instance (all can see all e-mail), one set of bookmarks, etc.

So, while Daniel and Prince are almost always spot-on, describing the iPad as something running some sort of OS X is I think a mistake by Daniel.

The big difference is: you can share a Mac OS X setup, but it will be far more difficult to share a personal device like the iPad (or iPod Touch or iPhone).

96 gctwnl { 02.02.10 at 1:56 pm }

PS. What I would say is an iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch myth is that the devices are not multi-tasking.

97 eddieclay { 02.02.10 at 11:04 pm }

“describing the iPad as something running some sort of OS X is I think a mistake by Daniel.”

Uh…it is OSX under the iPad, you do know that?
On the other hand this is a new way of computing, major disruption that started with iPhone/iTouch. Its not a big bad myth to say this is a big iTouch, from that point of view. But yes, this is a not a desktop replacement, but it will supercede many things a desktop does, and for many, they won’t need a desktop at all with this. In fact that is true with some people and their iPhones.

98 Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 4. It was over-hyped and under-delivered — RoughlyDrafted Magazine { 02.03.10 at 12:17 am }

[...] Ten Myth of Apple’s iPad: 1. It’s just a big iPod touch Ten Myth of Apple’s iPad: 2. iPad needs Adobe Flash Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 3. It’s ad-evil Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 4. It was over-hyped and under-delivered . Dear People Who Didn’t See It: 4. It’s a myth iPad was over-hyped and under-delivered. [...]

99 gctwnl { 02.03.10 at 2:28 am }

This whole “iPhone OS” vs “Mac OS X” is confusing many. iPhone OS is by and large Mac OS X, specialized for iPhone use (I suspect changes having to do with wake/sleep/energy and things like not having too many daemons running in the background and kernel hooks to keep apps asleep unless they are ‘front’) and configured to be more or less single-user and with limitations of the multi-tasking at app level.

So, saying the iPad runs Mac OS X is both true and false. I would say, there is “OS X” and it branches into two specialized versions: “iPhone OS” and desktop/server “Mac OS X”.

100 Michel Coste { 02.03.10 at 2:32 am }

I’d say OS X for Mac and OS X touch…

101 gctwnl { 02.03.10 at 3:01 am }

The desktop OS might become more ‘touch’ too. Hah, I’ve got an idea (drum roll…) “OS X Mobile” ;-) (Please, please, don’t take this seriously. I am kidding!)

102 clochard42 { 02.03.10 at 3:39 am }

@99gctwnl: If I remember correctly, Steve said during the introduction of the iPhone: “iPhone runs OS X”. So your explanation hit the point.

103 SunnyGuy53 { 02.03.10 at 9:52 am }

To say the iPad is just a bigger iPod touch, is not true. Yes, it is a bigger iPod touch — but no, it is not “just” a bigger iPod touch. If that were so, then why bother with making it? In reality, it is yet another game-changer from a company that has become known for game-changers. Apple has been on a roll, ever since SJ returned. Like starting off on a bicycle, it takes time to get moving, and get your mojo. But once you do — the sky’s the limit. What Apple’s been doing since the first colorful iMac was released, no one in their right mind — even Apple fanbois — would have predicted. Apple’s been hitting on all cylinders for almost a decade now. Don’t expect them to ease off anytime soon.

Sunny Guy

104 Derek Currie { 02.03.10 at 11:58 am }

Much as I agree with Dan about FUD attacks against the iPad, I don’t go along with the concept that ‘It’s a BIG iPod Touch’ that does 3G being FUD. In fact, I’ve been using this explanation to help people understand that the iPad is NOT a computer as we think of them. It is instead a ‘Consumer Appliance’ and therefore has a very different feature set from a computer. The idea is SIMPLICITY. Therefore, the computer running the show is hidden and inaccessible to the user. This approach to computer enhanced devices is going to be MASSIVE in the future. It’s another step forward in user-friendliness.

Q: What current device most resembles the iPad? The iPod Touch. Why is this fact supposed to be FUD? I have no idea. Instead, pointing out that the iPad IS a BIG iPod Touch that does 3G helps people comprehend exactly what it does. I’ve found this explanation entirely helpful to people who’ve come up to me and asked about the iPad.

However, there is a lot more to the iPad than simply what you get with the iPod Touch. The larger size enables a lot of features the iPod Touch can’t pull off, including allowing it to be a great reading device. The iPad also has an incredibly beautiful and functional revamped user interface that no doubt will filter down to the Mac with time.

One prediction for the iPad that didn’t come true: No IR interface. I see the iPad as your house and shopping hub. IR allows it to be your Universal Remote for anything with an IR receiver/sender. I suspect this will happen, if only as an add-on gadget.

Also, the iPad already has an inner frame that is able to hold an existing iPhone camera. Watch this happen in v2.

105 gctwnl { 02.03.10 at 1:10 pm }

@sunnyguy53: Steve, though extremely good, is of course not perfect. Remember the Segway of which SJ predicted it would be the biggest revolution ever? Remember how the NeXT failed even if it was a technological masterpiece (and its failing was more a matter of Apple & Microsoft stifling the market for NeXT)? Remember the G4 Cube? (Actually, I own a G4 Cube and a NeXT Cube, so what does that say about me?)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gctwnl/sets/72157622973369487/

106 Understanding the iPad { 02.04.10 at 12:58 pm }

[...] picks apart negative rants about Apple  from tech pundits. He’s putting up a series called “Ten Myth’s of Apple’s iPad.”  It’s quite good and to the [...]

107 Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 5. It’s just a Tablet PC or Kindle — RoughlyDrafted Magazine { 02.04.10 at 3:50 pm }

[...] Ten Myth of Apple’s iPad: 1. It’s just a big iPod touch Ten Myth of Apple’s iPad: 2. iPad needs Adobe Flash Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 3. It’s ad-evil Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 4. It was over-hyped and under-delivered Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 5. It’s just a Tablet PC or Kindle. Dear old school pundits: 5. It’s a myth the iPad is just a Tablet PC or Kindle Microsoft’s apologists are desperately trying to give Bill Gates credit for the iPad by touting his unveiling of the failed Tablet PC nearly ten years ago, ironically unaware that Apple itself debuted a two tablet concepts a decade before that: the first was a PowerBook without a screen (pretty much Bill Gates’ Tablet idea) while the second was a more aggressively progressive tablet system designed to use a stylus and a sophisticated gesture and handwritten recognition engine. They might as well credit Microsoft with inventing the iPod by delivering the Zune five years afterward. [...]

108 Seth72 { 02.04.10 at 10:22 pm }

Good work and nice presentation. A few tips to improve your video.

1. Aim the camera lower, and position your head left of center.
2. Add some front lighting to brighten the picture.
3. Don’t try to fit in all your presentation into one clip. Get one or two minutes of video down at a time, and don’t be afraid to push clips together. If you stay in the same place, most people won’t notice the transition.

Anyways, good job and nice analysis of the iPad. Can’t wait for its release!

109 Is the iPad ‘just’ a large iPod Touch? - Take a Bite { 02.05.10 at 6:05 am }

[...] I don’t think so. Neither does Daniel Eran Dilger over at roughlydrafted.com. Pop over and read at least part one of his article where he asks the same [...]

110 Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 6. It needs HDMI for HD video output Daniel Eran Dilger Here’s segment five in my series taking on iPad myths: no the iPad isn’t just a Microsoft Tablet PC or Amazon Kindle copycat. Ten Myth of Apple’s iPad: 1. I { 02.08.10 at 12:56 am }

[...] Ten Myth of Apple’s iPad: 1. It’s just a big iPod touch Ten Myth of Apple’s iPad: 2. iPad needs Adobe Flash Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 3. It’s ad-evil Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 4. It was over-hyped and under-delivered Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 5. It’s just a Tablet PC or Kindle Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 6. It needs HDMI for HD video output . Dear home theater people: 6. It’s a myth the iPad needs HDMI Apple debuted new VGA-style video output for the iPad, quite clearly to target it at business people who want to do Keynote presentations using a video projector. Previous iPod and iPhone models only support the lower quality composite or slightly higher quality component video outputs, which both deliver a standard definition TV signal of about 480 lines. [...]

111 Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 7. It needs cameras — RoughlyDrafted Magazine { 02.09.10 at 2:08 am }

[...] Ten Myth of Apple’s iPad: 1. It’s just a big iPod touch Ten Myth of Apple’s iPad: 2. iPad needs Adobe Flash Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 3. It’s ad-evil Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 4. It was over-hyped and under-delivered Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 5. It’s just a Tablet PC or Kindle Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 6. It needs HDMI for HD video output Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 7. It needs cameras . Dear gadget spec people: 7. It’s a myth the iPad needs a camera and other peripherals built in. [...]

112 Shunnabunich { 02.09.10 at 4:01 pm }

I think the problem a lot of people have with the iPad is that, in the state in which it was shown to us, it isn’t a large enough step forward. No, I’m not talking about running desktop OS X on it — that’d be the same stupid mistake that caused Windows tablets to be an abject failure. But at the same time, if, say, the iPhone had been a similarly “small step” as the iPad, it’d be an iPod Classic that made phone calls, like all those silly fan mockups predicted it would be.

There’s no denying that the iPad has potential, especially now that developers simply have more room to play with, both on the screen and in the hardware. The problem is that it has almost nothing BUT potential at this point. It very much seems to have been introduced before the software was finished, so they hacked wallpaper support and floaty menus onto the existing iPhone OS and dumped it on the iPad just in time for the keynote. It’s nice that they made a bigger iPod touch for those who wanted one, but it just doesn’t seem like enough of a change to warrant its own separate product. The iPhone didn’t rely entirely on third-party apps to make it successful; it made its own way in the world first. In contrast, the iPad is going to need the charity of iPhone developers to give it anything resembling a “killer app” outside of the niche e-book market. The issue here is NOT, I think, that the iPhone OS isn’t good — because it absolutely is — but that the iPad doesn’t have anything new that makes it “special”.

Even third-party multitasking alone (or, alternatively, Apple-vetted third-party background processes that can be turned on or off by the user) would have accomplished this. It would’ve said, “hey, this is the same iPhone OS you already know and love, but grown up for a grown-up device”. Now, there’s a distinct possibility that this could show up in iPhone OS 4.0…but by then, the iPad will already have earned a reputation for being introduced without it. Apple could’ve avoided the damage and made themselves and the iPad look far better just by waiting until it was ready for prime time.

(As for background processes, I realize that sounds scary, but only if you think of them the same way you do on Mac OS X, as mysterious, invisible daemons or little icon gremlins sitting in your menu bar. What if Apple provided a visual, touchable UI space just for them, sort of like Dashboard? Perhaps you’d pull down on the status bar when you’re in the home screen, and unfurl a sheet of icons or very simple widgets that let you turn on your background IM service or background GPS navigator? There are plenty of use cases that are sorta-kinda covered by Apple’s PNS, but…well, to me at least, PNS has always seemed to be a kludgy stopgap measure at best.)

113 Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 8. It’s a curse for mobile developers — RoughlyDrafted Magazine { 02.11.10 at 1:14 am }

[...] Ten Myth of Apple’s iPad: 1. It’s just a big iPod touch Ten Myth of Apple’s iPad: 2. iPad needs Adobe Flash Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 3. It’s ad-evil Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 4. It was over-hyped and under-delivered Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 5. It’s just a Tablet PC or Kindle Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 6. It needs HDMI for HD video output Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 7. It needs cameras Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 8. It’s a curse for mobile developers . Dear WSJ: 8. It’s a myth the iPad will “curse” developers. Yukari Iwtani Kane, who is the same Wall Street Journal writer who announced that the iPhone was doomed in Japan because users there would not be likely to download apps or afford it or live without features common on other Japanese smartphones, has written up a similar hit piece on the iPad and its potential for interest among mobile app developers. [...]

114 marsviolet { 02.11.10 at 12:30 pm }

Ulicar doesn’t get it.

115 miloh { 02.11.10 at 1:47 pm }

@marsviolet

It’s always interesting to watch how different people respond to new information, particularly if it’s contrary to what they previously knew. Some are open to change and will say, “Oh? I didn’t know that. I wonder what else I don’t know. I’m going to go study it.” Others get defensive and occasionally hostile. They pride themselves on knowing and cannot bring themselves to admit (or even recognize) there are things in the world they do not understand.

116 10 Myths of the iPad… « iPad Watcher { 02.11.10 at 4:16 pm }

[...] February 11, 2010 Mauricio Longo Leave a comment Go to comments Today I ran into a series of interesting comments by Daniel Eran Dilger, in video format, titled “The 10 myths of the Apple iPad”. [...]

117 lpb2ha { 02.12.10 at 12:39 pm }

I agree with the author re the 8 myths listed so far. See also:
http://www.sharpbrains.com/blog/2010/02/11/apple-ipad-thums-up-brain-fitness-value-and-limitations/
it’s an interesting device, one could write about this for a long time.
Luc

118 Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 9. It can’t multitask — RoughlyDrafted Magazine { 02.17.10 at 12:50 pm }

[...] Ten Myth of Apple’s iPad: 1. It’s just a big iPod touch Ten Myth of Apple’s iPad: 2. iPad needs Adobe Flash Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 3. It’s ad-evil Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 4. It was over-hyped and under-delivered Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 5. It’s just a Tablet PC or Kindle Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 6. It needs HDMI for HD video output Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 7. It needs cameras Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 8. It’s a curse for mobile developers Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 9. It can’t multitask. Dear rubes: 9. It’s a myth the iPad doesn’t multitask. Okay, so this gets a bit tiring, but Apple didn’t design the iPhone OS “without multitasking capabilities.” The simple truth is that the iPhone OS inside the iPhone, iPod touch and the iPad explicitly multitasks all the time, using the same preemptively multitasking Mach/BSD kernel as the desktop version of Mac OS X. [...]

119 Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 2. It needs Flash, segment 2 — RoughlyDrafted Magazine { 02.19.10 at 6:35 pm }

[...] Ten Myth of Apple’s iPad: 1. It’s just a big iPod touch Ten Myth of Apple’s iPad: 2. iPad needs Adobe Flash Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 3. It’s ad-evil Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 4. It was over-hyped and under-delivered Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 5. It’s just a Tablet PC or Kindle Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 6. It needs HDMI for HD video output Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 7. It needs cameras Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 8. It’s a curse for mobile developers Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 9. It can’t multitask . Support RoughlyDrafted! [...]

120 Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 10. It needs Mac OS X — RoughlyDrafted Magazine { 02.26.10 at 3:18 pm }

[...] Ten Myth of Apple’s iPad: 1. It’s just a big iPod touch Ten Myth of Apple’s iPad: 2. iPad needs Adobe Flash Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 3. It’s ad-evil Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 4. It was over-hyped and under-delivered Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 5. It’s just a Tablet PC or Kindle Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 6. It needs HDMI for HD video output Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 7. It needs cameras Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 8. It’s a curse for mobile developers Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 9. It can’t multitask Ten Myths of Apple’s iPad: 10. It needs Mac OS X . Dear Mac enthusiasts: 10. It’s a myth the iPad needs Mac OS X. One of the first complaints about the iPad was that it was running the “simple” iPhone OS rather than packing the “full power” of Mac OS X. A lot of Mac users have expressed at least some disappointment that the iPad isn’t capable of running their existing software, and therefore can’t be used as a full replacement for carrying a MacBook. [...]

121 Neil Anderson { 04.07.10 at 9:10 am }

“Everyone expected the thing to cost $800…”

I expected it to be $999. And to think, the most expensive 3G model is over a hundred dollars less than that. Times, they are indeed a-changing.

You must log in to post a comment.