Apple iPad released - Whats your take?

[BobJones]

Yes but that's an artificial limitation. On the iPhone with the tiny screen it makes more sense to run 1 app at a time. Here with that 9.7 inch screen you won't be able to have your IM session while browsing for example.

How so? You make multi-tasking sound like some inalienable right.

Now that's cool if you're happy by that, but you're being limited. Apple could have made a much better product by not having that limitation or priced a $1200 model which runs full OSX functionality. I'd have bought one for sure.

Why? because of IM? For $1200 ur in MacBook, MBP territory. Who says that sticking with the laptop paradigm really is better?

 

[PeterCH]

How so? You make multi-tasking sound like some inalienable right.

Because most people do it on their computers. They watch a video in the window while checking twitter or listening to music while watching an rss feed or using IM or some game or IRC or even opening the calculator to do some calculations. The h/w is capable and Apple has shown that they can program a great BSD/NeXT based OS - called OSX. Also $829 is not cheap for a limited device. For a full featured machine priced in Tablet form - it's great - even at $1200.

Why? because of IM? For $1200 ur in MacBook, MBP territory. Who says that sticking with the laptop paradigm really is better?

Don't multitask if you don't want, but don't be limited because someone says you should only buy content from him. Remember it was Jobs who said that the iPad is a netbook killer.

Also I never suggested they should charge $1200 for multitasking. I said that if they made full featured OSX machine in high res tablet form, it could easily sell for $1200 and they'd still make money on iTunes content and book subs. They could put multitasking on this thing and prolly will in Rev B.

 

[PeterCH]

I'm not forcing my views on anyone - why would you think that? You're allowed to not like it, but I'm not even sure what your point is. You seem to dislike it because it's purely a gadget when you wanted a full OS in a tablet - which is naive at best.

Why is it naive?

The iPhone OS makes a LOT more sense from Apple's point of view and from the viewpoint of the end user who values simplicity over technical functionality.

OSX is just as simple to use. Until now OSX has been punted as just that in Mac vs PC ads.

I'm not defending iTunes either, I only use it as to sync with. Otherwise I never have to use Apple's ecosystem despite getting full use out of my iTouch. That's what I'm getting at.

So you see Apple could have been nicer to you and allowed you an alternative.

From my side, having OSX on a slate would be a nightmare - do I want to use Photoshop, Time Machine, Bootstrapper? OSX is designed as a full featured desktop/notebook OS.

Let's not kid ourselves here. To really use PS you need a high end MBP or Mac Pro. You need lots of RAM and a fast GPU/CPU. However, to suggest that OSX is too complex is bizarre. It's easier to use than Windows and millions use Windows every day - most people who use PCs use Windows. We're also in 2010, we've had personal computers since the late 80s. We've had affordable PCs at home since the 90s.

I suppose Apple could release a slate, or you could hackintosh one for yourself, but I think you'd find it cripplingly difficult to use with a multitouch tablet form factor

.

I have two main gripes. 1 is that as a Portable Media Player - the iPad could have been better by playing more open formats and having a better resolution screen with possibly an SD slot/USB port. The second gripe is that for $829 (3G and 64GB) that is almost as much as a Macbook and they could have made it a Tablet based Macbook - Macbooks have 8-10 hr battery lives already. It was Jobs himself who said that this will be a netbook killer.

And I think the potential end market for it would be multiples less than the iPad - which Apple's ability to monetize doesn't seem to bother you as they should simply create devices to suit your checklists.

Why should I be concerned about Apple's ability to monetize? I use a R45K Mac Pro. You could say that Apple is not making profits on these either - they need to R&D them and the h/w costs almost as much as from HP/Dell. They still churn these out.

I bolded your two statements which contradict each other.

 

[cerebus]

Sorry what contradicts what now? The second was my appraisal of your(rather petulant) views, not my own stance. From my viewpoint Apple should be allowed to go squarely after the profit within reason, and if it means alienating some fringe hardcore contingent it's their right as a conglomerate.

And we continually back and forth on this but I just have to reiterate that I don't want to use a Windows-based tablet and I certainly don't want to use an OSX based one either, and I would be willing to bet that I am in the majority in feeling so. I like iPhone OS, it has a brilliant already-existing app-store foundation so Apple doesn't have to splinter its marketplace, and it is designed around multitouch, not with multitouch as an experimental afterthought as it exists on OSX. Your view is naive precisely for these reasons. Apple would be out of their minds to use OSX - they would destroy their sales potential. OSX isn't too complex on a full notebook for business purpose, but as a media device yes it is far far too rich for most people's needs. Or should they have included OSX in the iPhone as well?

So you see Apple could have been nicer to you and allowed you an alternative.

They did - it's called the App Store.

 

[BobJones]

Funny how some posters can suck the life out of a thread!

 

[bwana]

The magic of the iPad lies in that you can buy stuff from iTunes. In SA we get no iTunes Store. You can load other files - eg video - but you will have to convert your DIVX, H264, etc to the specific subtype of H.264 the 1GHz Apple processor and chipset is optimised to play.

I'm not sure I would classify the iPad as magical myself but, as people who have used the iPhone or iPod Touch can attest to, loading the device with content from other sources is hardly a chore.

 

[cerebus]

Transcoding video is pretty commonplace - I have done it with every movie player I've owned. This is also a fairly petty issue.

 

[Synaesthesia]

Yeah but it's very time-consuming. Apple could be better WRT video file support.

 

[cerebus]

I suppose they could on one level - on the other hand it's nice to have iPhone's format universally accepted by pretty much every transcoder out there - format->iPhone/iTouch, bang off you go. VLC is being ported over as well for power users... http://www.zodttd.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1994

 

[PeterCH]

I suppose they could on one level - on the other hand it's nice to have iPhone's format universally accepted by pretty much every transcoder out there - format->iPhone/iTouch, bang off you go. VLC is being ported over as well for power users... http://www.zodttd.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1994

It takes long to transcode files and you need a computer. Besides why should you have to? Why can't the iPad be more open and play more formats if cheap players can? Well the reason is that Apple won't do it because it's in Apple's best interest to push iTunes purchased content rather than some video someone downloaded from the web (legally or not) or ripped themselves or made on their own camera.

As for VLC, it is not the best player for handling MKV files and secondly I wonder how well the Apple processor will handle software only decode - without chipset hardware acceleration - will battery life be also also good?

Hey if VLC works well and MKV, DV, other codecs work well I will be happy. Maybe I'll even buy an iPad or two myself (imported of course).

 

[PeterCH]

I'm not sure I would classify the iPad as magical myself but, as people who have used the iPhone or iPod Touch can attest to, loading the device with content from other sources is hardly a chore.

The allure of the iPad as typified in Steve Job's Keynote. You can get lots of content from Apple on a custom Apple device.

 

[bwana]

Yeah but it's very time-consuming. Apple could be better WRT video file support.

Not so time consuming. I press a button on my iphone, the file is added to the queue and less than 15 minutes later a 48min episode of whatever is converted. My hardware is pretty elderly so YMMV.

 

[PeterCH]

Not so time consuming. I press a button on my iphone, the file is added to the queue and less than 15 minutes later a 48min episode of whatever is converted. My hardware is pretty elderly so YMMV.

You must be running a new Mac Pro because my Mac Pro takes quite a while.

 

[bwana]

You must be running a new Mac Pro because my Mac Pro takes quite a while.

No - desktop mac's are a waste of time for me.

The test I did this afternoon was on a 3yr old MBP. I'm running the same test now (and my apologies it was a 43 min episode and not 48 as I stated earlier) on an even older 1.6ghz core duo mini and it's a 20 minute exercise.

 

[BobJones]

Great find by Gruber and a great read for these power users that just don't "get" the iPad.

 

[cerebus]

I don't know many open codec handheld devices. Everything I've owned has required some kind of fairly prescriptive transcoding to play video if only because of the multitude of resolutions on the marketplace. If a user can drag a video file into iTunes (for instance) and have it encode on the fly invisibly to one standard format, I would hazard a guess that this would be exactly what the majority of users, myself included, would be content with. I foresee alternative video players on the same device allowing the freedom for open codecs like divx but from Apple's pov it's far more intuitive to make their inbuilt video player single standard.

 

[PeterCH]

I don't know many open codec handheld devices. Everything I've owned has required some kind of fairly prescriptive transcoding to play video if only because of the multitude of resolutions on the marketplace. If a user can drag a video file into iTunes (for instance) and have it encode on the fly invisibly to one standard format, I would hazard a guess that this would be exactly what the majority of users, myself included, would be content with. I foresee alternative video players on the same device allowing the freedom for open codecs like divx but from Apple's pov it's far more intuitive to make their inbuilt video player single standard.

I own the 640x480 Creative Zen Vision 64GB - it can play all DivX, xVid, MP4, MP2, etc content without transcoding. Max res of 640x480 - however it is a 3-4 yr old device. My current Cowon A3 (2 yr old device) with
16.7 mil colour (not TN based but PVA or IPS based LCD) at 800 x 480 can play H.264 (higher profiles than iPod), DivX, xViD, MP4, MP2, MJPEG, etc at up to 720p (1280x720). It definately outputs 720p via component too. It has 80GB storage. Plays MKV, AVI, OGG, MP4 etc containers. Subtitle support.

The newer Archos players play even more formats.

So no, I didn't have to transcode stuff.

Apple just wants to push iTunes, that's all. You can get DivX, XVid, x264, etc encoders for the Mac, you can produce content, just not use Apple Apps to do it.

 

[cerebus]

The Zen Vision can handle that amount of formats? Odd I couldn't do more than basic AVI on the Zen. And it still needed transcoding to fit to the resolution size. But yeah...other vendors have always offered more flexibility than Apple even with the iPod vs everyone story - that's why I always went with everyone else - Apple always seemed too restrictive. But with the iTouch in the end it turns out the restrictions really don't matter all that much. The Cowons and Archos's are great and all but they are niche players for a reason. There will be tablets that will offer far more flexibility than the iPad - there already are in the works: check out the Notion Adam (pixelqi ftw) - I may even prefer one of those to the iPad. But you're missing what the iPad represents to the average user - who simply doesn't give a flying monkey's about codec wrappers. Apple isn't just being restrictive, they're aggressively simplifying the end experience. Drag, drop, play - transcode behind the surface if necessary.

 

[PeterCH]

The Zen Vision can handle that amount of formats? Odd I couldn't do more than basic AVI on the Zen.

It maxes out at 640 x 480 but four years ago, that was the best there was in terms of video resolution. 720p video only started coming fashionable about 2 yrs back.

And it still needed transcoding to fit to the resolution size. But yeah...other vendors have always offered more flexibility than Apple even with the iPod vs everyone story - that's why I always went with everyone else - Apple always seemed too restrictive. But with the iTouch in the end it turns out the restrictions really don't matter all that much. The Cowons and Archos's are great and all but they are niche players for a reason.

Have you tried to purchase an A3 at Makro or Musica? I got mine from B&H Photo Video NYC.

There will be tablets that will offer far more flexibility than the iPad - there already are in the works: check out the Notion Adam (pixelqi ftw) - I may even prefer one of those to the iPad.

Those screens are great for daylight viewing.

But you're missing what the iPad represents to the average user - who simply doesn't give a flying monkey's about codec wrappers

.

ONLY if he buys his video from Apple or has an iMac and converts all his cam footage to Apple iPod MOV. If he buys from other sites, uses other formats, etc - he will need to transcode. So all your Crunchyroll and Hulu videos, need that too.

Apple isn't just being restrictive, they're aggressively simplifying the end experience. Drag, drop, play - transcode behind the surface if necessary.

I don't think so. For one iTunes does not natively handle MKV and AVI containers. You'll need to transcode with 3rd party apps - on a Mac/PC.

The iPod is great because it is so easy to use and so ubiquitous but the video support on it sucks. In the US (UK, Japan, etc) they have the iTunes Store and can buy videos, TV series, music directly - we can only rip CDs. Apple doesn't even officially let you rip DVDs.

My point is that because the iPad is so dependent on the iTunes Store which we don't have, it is not the magical device Jobs makes it out to be. A more general player/computer is more worthwhile for users w/o iTunes shop access.

 

[bwana]

Apple doesn't even officially let you rip DVDs.

Why would they intentionally violate the DMCA?