Posted at 12:45 on Friday, 05 February 2010
TECHNOLOGY
It’s Friday morning, I’ve had my coffee (chai latte, if you must know) so that must mean it’s time for the obligatory iPad article.
Let’s face it, in terms of generating hype this thing is a beast. Although product names, specifications and use case propositions have changed, if you date them all the way back, the rumours say the iPad has been in development for at least the past 8 years. On the morning of January 27th, I don’t think there was a self respecting tech-lover out there (from either the Apple loving or hating camp – it doesn’t seem like there’s anyone in-between) who wasn’t incredibly excited at the prospect of Steve Jobs finally unveiling a device of — quite literally — mythical proportions.
And then there was light. Unfortunately to most people, it was a dim, flickery light that couldn’t play videos on Hulu.
9.7" LED display framed with a whole load of bezel; 16, 32 and 64GB of flash storage; 1GHz custom Apple “A4” system-on-a-chip, most likely the work of their 2006 acquisition Palo Alto Semiconductor; and a whole bunch of other smaller things that comprise the familiar iPhone & iPod Touch experience.
Apart from the aggressive $499 entry point, there’s nothing too shocking at first glance about the iPad. It could be argued that the years of hype the device accumilated would have bolstered it’s reception, but I think that same anticipation has plagued media and consumers alike with unreasonably high expectations. They slate the iPad (pun definitely intended) as “just a big iPod touch”, as if that’s a bad thing. Don’t get me wrong, there’s plenty of things not to like about this device but looking like a larger iPod touch is not one of them — nor is it accurate, there are numerous nuances in design that makes the iPad categorically different to the Touch. The iPhone interface works fantastically on a 3-inch device, and it looks like this has been scaled up to 10-inches very well. Just because this doesn’t look like something from Minority Report, that doesn’t mean it’s not innovative or new.
Before I enumerate those ‘things not to like’ I mentioned, I should disclose the fact that I have not used this device yet and any criticisms I make, bad or good, are both as philosophical as possible and purely from anecdotal first impressions and marketing materials.
First, my pettest of peeves; the lack of multi-tasking. Well, that’s not entirely true, I can very easily browse the web while listening to music and have my mail app notify me when I get a new message from a friend sending me a remnant of last year’s meme, the Lolcat. When people say the iPhone, iPod touch and now the iPad lack multitasking, they mean no third-party application may run concurrently alongside any other third-party application — nor, indeed, a few Apple-packaged applications, but these are usually designed so that when you close one and open another the state of the application persists giving an acceptable illusion of multi-tasking. This is a restriction I can let happen, maybe even welcome, on the smaller devices but in this day and age it seems almost inexcusable on such a large screen. Alas, multi-tasking is something I am confident will appear in iPhone OS 4.0 (the iPad will ship with version 3.2, iPhones and iPods touch are currently at 3.1.3). I have no sources nor supporting evidence to speak of, I just don’t think Apple can go on much longer without this — and they must know it.
Also of note is the lack of support for the popular (as in “~95% of web clients” popular) Flash, Adobe’s rich-media platform. This is a result not of an incapability of the device, but of Apple’s apparent disdain for the technology itself. Steve Jobs has been very vocal about the irrelevancy of Flash and the company’s prospective favour of HTML 5. While I can see the drawback of the arrogant “build your web application for the iPad, we won’t build the iPad around your web application” philosophy, this isn’t a deal-breaker for me. I completely concur with the notion that Flash will be replaced, at least in the video-playback space (which is a major use for it), by HTML 5. However, although the anti-flash crusade began years ago with the iPhone, even today I feel that Apple is being far too hasty with it’s exclusion of the technology. They simply don’t have the market share or the industry clout to push it. Perhaps if they were to sway the development of the WebKit browser engine (used in Safari) to go in that direction; work with other WebKit collaborators such as Google (who also seem enthusiastic), Research in Motion and Nokia; it may be a different story. I’m sure supporting Flash is something neither Apple, RIM nor Google want to deal with.
“Apple does not support Flash because it is so buggy. Whenever a Mac crashes more often than not it is because of Flash. No one will be using Flash. The world is moving to HTML5”
Perhaps most importantly, though, a lot of people don’t think they actually want this device in their life, and this I can sympathise with. It’s certain that nobody needs this device as it doesn’t facilitate anything new and Apple are under no illusion that it does. The case they put forward is that for this device to even warrant space on their pristine, white Apple store shelves is that it must perform certain tasks better than either a laptop or a smartphone. Not both devices, as some pundits have been incorrectly harping on, but either. They claim it does this for web browsing, common email tasks, listening to music, watching video, reading books and playing games. For browsing the web (Flash support notwithstanding), consuming video and reading books, there’s very little doubt in my mind that the the iPad – nay, tablet computers in general – are superior. The entirely scripted monologue of Apple VP Scott Forstall in the official marketing video actually puts it very succintly and accurately; it seems you really do reach out and ‘touch the web’ on a brilliant display that is quite typical of Apple — creating a very intimate experience. Similarly, watching video and reading a book on the iPad also seems like a fantastic experience when compared to an awkwardly shaped laptop or squint-inducing smartphone.
The doors this device opens for third-party software is also a great boon for consumers, developers and Apple alike — although the inability to run more than one at any one time is, again, profoundly disappointing.
On the topic of books, I feel I should digress a little to point something out – e-Ink. Before the iPad, when Kindle clones were popping up left and right, e-Ink was the thing. There was much hooplah about how blacklit, LED and LCD screens would be brutal on the eyes for reading books for long periods and the much more subtle e-Ink devices were preferable. Now, suddenly, I see lots of the same people changing their tune – and rightly so. I know that I alone can stare at a computer screen reading web pages, documents and monospaced code for hours on end without any real trouble. I can’t see how this would be any worse on a kinder, 10 inch display.
Anyway, I’m also very much looking forward to games on this device, although claiming that it’s better than a laptop or smartphone for gaming is an unfair, broad statement. For some games, it surely will be, but cannot possibly replace either a smartphone or a laptop for this. I’ll need to see more than an iffy first-person shooter released for the iPad for them to convince me of that.
Music. The relative immobility of the iPad will turn the user’s preference to the smartphone for this, and the only advantage the iPad will have over a laptop is, again, the marriage of intimacy of form factor and Apple’s kind-of funky iTunes LP experience – something that is not really applicable to the laptop, where music consumption is more of an ambient, get-out-of-my-way affair.
In the spirit of turning frowns upside-down, however, I can’t leave out what I love about this device. For once, Apple cannot be faulted on price. Apple are a company that thrives on margin opposed to volume, and the $499 price point is a welcome break considering analysts were predicting a figure twice that. Wriggle room to make such an aggressive move is no doubt a consequence of Apple’s ability to now inexpensively build their own chips in-house at P.A. Semi — a trend I predict will apply across all of their mobile devices, which currently source chips from Samsung. Although I don’t see this extending to their laptop and desktop machines so soon after their very successful transition to Intel processors.
Couple the above with Apple’s unexpected success of their App Store and the entire speculative iTunes model they already know works well with the iPod and you’ve got yourself a device priced very well for mass-market consumption – at least on paper.
Apple, Inc are all about major change. With the iPod, they saved the music industry and made a nice little market for themselves in digital music distribution that no other player has managed to match. With the Mac they created the personal computer industry itself and, aligned with their new emphasis on being a ‘mobile devices’ company, continue to catalyse smartphone development. If anyone can make this product category viable, Apple can. Placed alongside many of the tablet computers available, such as the JooJoo (née CrunchPad) or the new HP Slate device running Windows 7, I’d say there’s very little to pursuade me to part with my cash on anything other than the iPad. It’s a tablet computer that has been executed very well and, should consumers discover a want for a slate computer in their gadget arsenal, the iPad will come out on top.
It’s unlike Apple to take a gamble on such a nascent genre of product; although even if they do succeed, I can’t expect the jackpot to be too extravagant for a few years because the device does miss some opportunities and it’s difficult to discuss them without mentioning the rumours surfacing recently.
Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but it’s almost a certainty that the iPad will have a front-facing camera, refreshing the as of late neglected iChat service. This is a device that my mother has already shown great interest in. I pursuaded her otherwise, but I doubt even I will be able to fight the ability to video call her son for free whenever she wanted in a package that is very friendly to her. The question is whether Apple will announce the camera in the device shortly before the launch to drum up more hype, or whether it’s just something that will appear in the 2nd generation product. Most likely the latter, but the former is still possible. Allow me to explain why.
The physical internal frames of the device given to Apple authorised repair companies include a distinct slot for a webcam atop the device, identical to that inside the MacBooks; there are more than few references to photo capabilities inside the iPad software that don’t seem to be simply risiduals from it’s iPhone bretherin (which I can confirm myself); and it’s also quite possible that the iPad Steve Jobs demonstrated on the 27th had a camera in it. Furthermore, since pulling out of MacWorld, Apple were given the opportunity to hold this event whenever they wanted and they chose a date 60 days before they are planning to sell the iPad. Two months is ample time for the interest in this device to decay enough for the actual launch to be fairly damply covered and a last-minute announcement of a camera for video conferencing would, of course, generate a shit load of news. They were under very little pressure from competition to announce the iPad this early, so it’s not inconceivable that this is their strategy — although there’s no reason why it couldn’t just be bad planning.
At the end of the day, the ultimate question is “will I buy an iPad?”. The answer, I’m afraid, is no, likely not until the second generation – although I am of course susceptible to gifts and my birthday occurs mere days after the expected release date. Mark your calendars, people.
And yes, I know “iPad” could be a name for a feminine hygiene product. It’s not funny. Grow up, Internet, and form an objective opinion. Thanks.
Side-note: I would like to divert your attention to this article by Kevin Fox who discusses the possibility of adding dashboard widgets to the iPhone OS — I completely agree. Check that out after you’re done here.
I had to convert a whole bunch of typical VIDEO_TS folders to watchable-on-a-DVD-player disk images for a family thing.
Microsoft yesterday unveiled the latest version of Windows Mobile – or should I say, Windows Phone – named, in typical confusing Microsoft product versioning fashion, Windows Phone 7 Series. With the exception of the needlessly verbose name, Windows Mobile 7 (as I shall henceforth be referring to it as) is a complete U-turn by the Windows Mobile team, which is a very good thing. The total tear-down and rebuild of Windows Mobile as we know it coupled with the team clearly going straight back to the roots of user experience design together comes together to make a smartphone OS from Microsoft that is actually worth a damn. No more are the days where mobile phones are likened to just ‘pocket PCs’, a time which Windows Mobile 6.x incorrectly suggested Microsoft was hoping to hold on to and – although 
The 550D, known as the T2i in the US, was unveiled by Canon today and I must say, it’s pretty attractive. It fits in somewhere between the 450D and the 50D, replacing the still fairly new 500D, bringing with it a higher resolution, some awesome new video features — including full 30fps 1080p or 60fps 720p capture — and an expanded 100-6400 (up from 3200) standard 
