gonna buy an islate/itablet?

[gta_bmx]

I hope Steve Jobs doesn't object (on aesthetic grounds) to it having some sort of prop/stand built into it. Users can prop it up for use with a keyboard and mouse (like when writing an email) if they had a stand. Or to view films.

If it had a stand, the stand could double as a carrying handle. And it could fold back into the body, out of sight.

[tokenuser]

I hope Steve Jobs doesn't object (on aesthetic grounds) to it having some sort of prop/stand built into it. Users can prop it up for use with a keyboard and mouse (like when writing an email) if they had a stand. Or to view films.

If it had a stand, the stand could double as a carrying handle. And it could fold back into the body, out of sight.According to rumours it is more like an oversized iPhone. No builtin handle/stand, but there are two docking options - horizontal (think "media viewing" / "terminal user" mode), and vertical ("doc editing" / "ebook reading") mode.

Also, Apple have (via shell companies) reistered the iPad name in the global market and are challenging Fujitsu's proposed ownership of the tradename in the US.

Looking forward to next week. I need to buy a new car ... and I hope my AAPL stock will get me there :D

[gta_bmx]

What kind of car? We are also looking for a new car. I was reading the fine print on the Consumer Reports reliability rankings. They make their ratings look so important, but there's not much difference between a car that gets "much better than average" compared to "average" and "worse than average". The difference is only a few percentage points difference. So out of 100 cars, the "much better than average" car will suffer 1 or fewer problems in a specific area, while the "average" or "worse than average car" will suffer 2 or 3 problems per car.

Our '05 Kia Sedona made their list of "used cars to avoid" due to "much worse than average" reliability, but it's only had one problem in 5 years -- power mirrors stopped working and were fixed under warranty. It always starts and everything works, no rust, and nothing's loose. Compare that to the vehicle my work gave me -- an '07 Toyota Sienna minivan that's already starting to rust and the metal is so thin you can flex it by touching it. In 2005, the Kia was $8000 cheaper than the Toyota and the Kia came with a 100K warranty.

I am looking at the Nissan Cube, and the Jeep Wrangler and Jeep Patriot. Or maybe a Chrysler Sebring convertible. Life's too short to drive boring cars. :)

[darknessgp]

I'll evaluate whether I can even consider getting it when I know what it actually is/does. Anything before they announce it is pure speculation, and you are only setting yourself up for disappoint if you believe any of the rumors.

... so, currently, no I do not plan on buying it.

[gta_bmx]

If it exists, then I think it's the first glimpse at the future of computing. A small but yet self-contained computer that's highly usable in its standard form -- to surf the web, do emails, run programs, etc.. But yet you can connect it to a larger monitor, mouse, keyboard to make it easier for you to use.

The current netbooks are almost at that point, but I think the touchscreen of the ipad or whatever it will be called will push it over the edge. If Apple loads it up with ports (graphics, USB, etc.), it could be a game changer. I hope Steve Jobs doesn't handicap it for aesthetic reasons.

Your FedEx delivery person may be carrying one of these in a year or two, for you to sign when you get a package.

[johnmac]

if this is Apple's color version of the Kindle, and it also plays movies and games, i think i would buy it. guess i'll know tomorrow after apple's announcement.

[davmoo]

If its a full-fledged general purpose Apple laptop computer in a tablet form, yes, I'd consider it, depending on price. If its a glorified upsized iPod that is locked down to Apple-approved apps (and this is what I'm predicting it is), not interested at all at any price over $100.

[rabidbadger]

I'll let you know in about half an hour. ;)

[gta_bmx]

Ah, I thought Apple might actually make a real tablet computer. This thing's just a big iPod Touch, albeit one with a larger screen.

[rabidbadger]

I was expecting just a bigger iPod Touch, so I like it. I just want something iPad size for wifi in the back yard, kitchen etc. Get me out of my cramped office. Use in a coffee shop with wifi without hauling around a macbook (which I don't have). I don't need 3G or large harddrive, and $ is an issue for me right now, so the 499 one fills the niche I need.

[davmoo]

Now that its "official", not a chance in Hell. The killer for me is AT&T. Same as with the iPhone. If they put them on a real network, like Verizon, I'd be interested.

[computoman]

Even though it is an overgrown ipod touch, I do hope it sells well. Might get people into computers that normally would not.

Still might be humorous after all these years:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsjU0K8QPhs&feature=player_embedded

[phatlip]

I'm incredibly disappointed. It feels like they threw this together. The hardware is ugly for one. It looks nice on a smaller device like an iPhone/iPod touch. But on a larger scale, I think it looks ugly and odd. The software is almost laughable. Did you see the lock screen? They didn't even bother making the slider larger. This seems like a prototype, not a finished Apple product. In my opinion, it's far below their typical standards.

Steve said their goal was to make it do some things better than your iPhone and laptop. How is that so when it's a giant iPod running almost the exact some OS the iPod touch has? "Better browsing the internet than your laptop". I laughed out loud when he said that. The last I checked, every computer I've had since I can remember could multitask and had support for flash. What is this, 1993? This is something I expect every computer has. A phone is one thing, and even then it's something I'm beginning to expect. But it's unacceptable to have a computer in the year 2010 that can't multitask and doesn't support flash.

Oh, and everyone keeps going on and on about it being an eBook reader. It's going to be a HORRIBLE eBook reader. The Kindle, Nook, and Sony eBook readers are great because of the screen. I played with a Sony eBook reader around the holiday. I forgot I was looking at a screen. It was extremely easy on the eyes, and I felt like I was reading a real book. Last night, I was reading an eBook for one of my classes on my Macbook Pro. I have excellent vision, but after about 30 minutes I had enough. There lies the problem. The iPad has the same screen a laptop has.

That and the price. I thought the pricing was fair at first. Then I heard that was only for the $499 version, and that you would have to pay $600+ for one with the capability to have 3G. Too expensive.

I just don't see the point. Maybe it will sell, I don't know. I just don't think it's for me and I think they could have done better.

[dan_hibiki]

Still might be humorous after all these years:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsjU0K8QPhs&feature=player_embedded

I'm sure the second generation iPad will be called the MaxiPad.

[rabidbadger]

I'm incredibly disappointed. It feels like they threw this together. The hardware is ugly for one. It looks nice on a smaller device like an iPhone/iPod touch. But on a larger scale, I think it looks ugly and odd. The software is almost laughable. Did you see the lock screen? They didn't even bother making the slider larger. This seems like a prototype, not a finished Apple product. In my opinion, it's far below their typical standards.

Steve said their goal was to make it do some things better than your iPhone and laptop. How is that so when it's a giant iPod running almost the exact some OS the iPod touch has? "Better browsing the internet than your laptop". I laughed out loud when he said that. The last I checked, every computer I've had since I can remember could multitask and had support for flash. What is this, 1993? This is something I expect every computer has. A phone is one thing, and even then it's something I'm beginning to expect. But it's unacceptable to have a computer in the year 2010 that can't multitask and doesn't support flash.

Oh, and everyone keeps going on and on about it being an eBook reader. It's going to be a HORRIBLE eBook reader. The Kindle, Nook, and Sony eBook readers are great because of the screen. I played with a Sony eBook reader around the holiday. I forgot I was looking at a screen. It was extremely easy on the eyes, and I felt like I was reading a real book. Last night, I was reading an eBook for one of my classes on my Macbook Pro. I have excellent vision, but after about 30 minutes I had enough. There lies the problem. The iPad has the same screen a laptop has.

That and the price. I thought the pricing was fair at first. Then I heard that was only for the $499 version, and that you would have to pay $600+ for one with the capability to have 3G. Too expensive.

I just don't see the point. Maybe it will sell, I don't know. I just don't think it's for me and I think they could have done better.

Not disagreeing , just thinking out loud about your points, and making my own.

making the lock slider bigger would just make you have to slide it further, Apple most probably measured for the easiest swipe, and found that size ideal. (and putting it at the very bottom is a a good use of Fitts Law.

mutlitask. I know. I wish they would at least let a minimum of apps run simo, say three? I want to browse and chat at the same time, because I usually chat about what we are browsing, or share links about what we are chatting about.

flash. Yesterday i was thinking that no flash is good, but then remembered how much I use it. One of the reasons I wanted this was to take it away from my desk, and watch/interact with live streams, (NSFWshow, BBlive, BeerDiplomacy, Halsparks, etc) And ustream uses flash for both the vid/aud AND the live chat. So that makes it useless for a large percentage of how I spend quite a few evenings.

eBook: Never used one, and I read stuff on a screen all day, so might not bug me, not having seen what's better. And backlit is more versatile. But we'll see. Apple has since 1984 put a huge emphasis on gorgeous type and fonts, it's the second main reason Macs pwned the graphic art industry since day one. (the first being true screen to printer WSYWG.)

3G is a nice if you travel, or are out and about a lot, but I'm not far from wireless that much, and if I am, it's not at a place I'd pull out a highly theftable, visible (read: get mugged) item. Still, the option for no contract 3G would be nice for the few times I do travel... Hmm.

Anyway, I still wanna see what Gruber and Ars says about it after it comes out before I even pretend to be all fanboi about it. ;)

I'm just glad Hitler never got the last word:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQnT0zp8Ya4

[ranron]

Yes I'm buying one. And I'm fine with AT&T; I hate Verizon, so it works out for me.

[phatlip]

I solved their multitasking problem. Run 4 apps at the same time!

http://i.imgur.com/oRffH.jpg

[computoman]

The cartoons get better and better.

http://media.economist.com/images/20100130/0510LD1.jpg

[rabidbadger]

Still, another well thought out reason why no flash on touchscreens. Mouse Over (http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2010/02/20/an-adobe-flash-developer-on-why-the-ipad-cant-use-flash/). Turns out it's more relevant than we may be conciouse of because it's absence on touch is not relevant on other computers.

[darknessgp]

Still, another well thought out reason why no flash on touchscreens. Mouse Over (http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2010/02/20/an-adobe-flash-developer-on-why-the-ipad-cant-use-flash/). Turns out it's more relevant than we may be conciouse of because it's absence on touch is not relevant on other computers.

I think it's a decent idea of why flash won't work with touchscreen only inputs... however, I'm highly doubtful that this is the reason why Apple has been avoiding it. If this was the only reason, why not just say it when you announce no flash?

[rabidbadger]

I think it's a decent idea of why flash won't work with touchscreen only inputs... however, I'm highly doubtful that this is the reason why Apple has been avoiding it. If this was the only reason, why not just say it when you announce no flash?

Oh, I agree. It's most probably just another "frustration" for Apple. But it's a huge frustration for users and flash programeres, for the reason that article articulates, er, articulately... ;)

[phatlip]

I'm incredibly disappointed. It feels like they threw this together. The hardware is ugly for one. It looks nice on a smaller device like an iPhone/iPod touch. But on a larger scale, I think it looks ugly and odd. The software is almost laughable. Did you see the lock screen? They didn't even bother making the slider larger. This seems like a prototype, not a finished Apple product. In my opinion, it's far below their typical standards.

Steve said their goal was to make it do some things better than your iPhone and laptop. How is that so when it's a giant iPod running almost the exact some OS the iPod touch has? "Better browsing the internet than your laptop". I laughed out loud when he said that. The last I checked, every computer I've had since I can remember could multitask and had support for flash. What is this, 1993? This is something I expect every computer has. A phone is one thing, and even then it's something I'm beginning to expect. But it's unacceptable to have a computer in the year 2010 that can't multitask and doesn't support flash.

Oh, and everyone keeps going on and on about it being an eBook reader. It's going to be a HORRIBLE eBook reader. The Kindle, Nook, and Sony eBook readers are great because of the screen. I played with a Sony eBook reader around the holiday. I forgot I was looking at a screen. It was extremely easy on the eyes, and I felt like I was reading a real book. Last night, I was reading an eBook for one of my classes on my Macbook Pro. I have excellent vision, but after about 30 minutes I had enough. There lies the problem. The iPad has the same screen a laptop has.

That and the price. I thought the pricing was fair at first. Then I heard that was only for the $499 version, and that you would have to pay $600+ for one with the capability to have 3G. Too expensive.

I just don't see the point. Maybe it will sell, I don't know. I just don't think it's for me and I think they could have done better.

This is how I felt up until yesterday. I was a HUGE iPad naysayer with ZERO intention to buying one. That all changed this morning when I got to see it in person. That says A LOT. Needless to say, I'm now saving my money for one. It truly is an awesome product. You can't fully appreciate it until you see it in person. That's all I can really say. Try one for yourself.

[gta_bmx]

I was looking at some demos of it on YouTube, and was surprised at all the people commenting saying that Apple is ripping off people, it's just a big iPod Touch, it's pointless, etc.. I think they aren't grasping the fact that having a MUCH bigger screen than an iPhone/Touch is an advantage and makes it much more useful and more enjoyable to watch movies on. And if they were going to buy a netbook or replace their current netbook with a newer netbook, then the iPad could be purchased instead. The iPad transcends the Touch and can be used in place of a netbook/laptop/portable movie viewer, so it will definitely be worth the price.

At first I was skeptical of it using the iPhone/Touch OS instead of the full Apple desktop OS, but really an operating system is mainly just a file manager. And these smartphone/PDA OS's like the iPhone OS are really similar to a desktop OS.

[computoman]

I'm sure the second generation iPad will be called the MaxiPad.

That gave me an idea for my next homemade tampon ipad. You can easily bend a coat hanger (or two) as an emergency stand.

http://photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs175.snc3/20237_1228334752919_1365579002_30558460_411606_n.j pg

[davmoo]

A few days ago I finally had time to play with an iPad at a Best Buy. The hardware really is slick and the people working on that half did a good job...although it would have been better if they included a USB port and a slot for an SD card.

But the fact that every other web site that I tried out, sites that I consider important for me to have access to, came up with words to the effect of "Pope Steve says you don't need Flash", really detracts from the device.

[computoman]

Reports say that adobe has given up on the ipad......

[davmoo]

Reports say that adobe has given up on the ipad......

I don't blame them. And until an alternative like HTML5 becomes as common as dirty I think the device is only going to appeal mainly to fanboys and the uninformed.

[tokenuser]

There are actually three wins in this:

1. No annoying flash ads. Seriously, how many people run flash blockers for ads?
2. Content provider will move to HTML5 (for video at least) a lot faster. They rely on eyeballs for revenue ... and the Appleverse provides a lot of those. They will not want to lose viewers/readers. You should not need third party plugins to use the internet. It should degrade gracefully. HTML5 allows for this.
3. Huge win for Android. Huh? One of the big problems for Android (like most Linux distros) is the expanding combination of hardware/firmware/carrier that need to be supported and (since these are cellular device whose main reason for being is making telephone calls) tested. They each come with their nuances that might break a developers code. Adobe turning its attention to a Flash to Android compile platform will abstract the code from the platform enough that apps should run across all hardware/firmware/carrier combinations without breaking.

[davmoo]

There are actually three wins in this:

I would agree with you if the lack of Flash support was *MY* decision. But its not left to me as a choice, its made for me by Pope Steve. That's why I object to it, and it's why I won't buy the piece of crap until its completely jailbroken and shown to support Flash in that form.

[tokenuser]

I would agree with you if the lack of Flash support was *MY* decision. But its not left to me as a choice, its made for me by Pope Steve. That's why I object to it, and it's why I won't buy the piece of crap until its completely jailbroken and shown to support Flash in that form.You are highlighting one of the issues I have with most of the iPad naysayers. It doesn't have flash. Flash is something you want. Therefore the iPad is not a device that will work for you. End of story.

The choice you have is to not buy an iPad and to get a netbook or some other device (or stick with a fully featured laptop). No one is forcing you to buy an Apple product. Pope Steve (does he have Bishops molesting children?) is not holding a gun to your head. You might have iPad envy, but don't complain that it doesn't do something you want it to do - because that is a well known (possible) limitation.

[phatlip]

You are highlighting one of the issues I have with most of the iPad naysayers. It doesn't have flash. Flash is something you want. Therefore the iPad is not a device that will work for you. End of story.

The choice you have is to not buy an iPad and to get a netbook or some other device (or stick with a fully featured laptop). No one is forcing you to buy an Apple product. Pope Steve (does he have Bishops molesting children?) is not holding a gun to your head. You might have iPad envy, but don't complain that it doesn't do something you want it to do - because that is a well known (possible) limitation.

I think the problem is people focus more on what the iPad ISN'T than what it REALLY IS. Is it a giant iPod Touch? Yeah, sort of. So what? You like the iPod Touch don't you? Yes? Then why wouldn't you enjoy having a similar device but with a larger screen? The bigger real estate on the screen allows for new possibilities with both existing and new apps as they can make use of having more room for user interaction.

Example:

While it's cool I can do so, I would never use my iPod touch for VNC. The screen is just too small to use efficiently. That's a different story with the iPad though. Citrix for the iPad looks pretty sick:

http://www.citrix.com/English/ps2/products/feature.asp?contentID=1864392


Ps. With all that said, I still truly feel it should be left up to the user when it comes to installing flash on the iPhone/iPad. I just think it's stupid not to allow it. I can't wait for HTML5 to take off, but Flash still dominates. So until HTML5 is the standard I'd like to have the option of having flash.

[tokenuser]

With all that said, I still truly feel it should be left up to the user when it comes to installing flash on the iPhone/iPad. I just think it's stupid not to allow it. I can't wait for HTML5 to take off, but Flash still dominates. So until HTML5 is the standard I'd like to have the option of having flash.Thats a different attitude. You recognise that it doesn't have Flash, but that is not a con that negates all the other pros. That Citrix solution is slick. Combine that with a terminal app, and you have a great remote management console. Read of a hospital deploying 100 of them for remote viewing of medical imaging files. I know of another organisation deploying <redacted> of them to <redacted> (sorry, huge project I know of that I am not supposed to know about that is awesome). None of these use Flash.

If Flash is imperative, Skyfire is an alternate browser with builtin Flash support popular on WinMob devices that is looking for iPhone approval (esp since Opera Mini got the Cupertino blessing). RipCode takes a proxy server style approach that renders the Flash content server side and pushes it to a browser (inc Safari).

[davmoo]

The choice you have is to not buy an iPad and to get a netbook or some other device (or stick with a fully featured laptop). No one is forcing you to buy an Apple product. Pope Steve (does he have Bishops molesting children?) is not holding a gun to your head. You might have iPad envy, but don't complain that it doesn't do something you want it to do - because that is a well known (possible) limitation.

Um...dude...have you looked at what the subject of this thread is? Its called "gonna buy an islate/itablet?". I'm not stomping my feet and wailing on the iPad just to hear myself bitch, and I know no one is forcing me to buy one...that's why I haven't bought one. But I thought that for the purpose of this particular topic, an explanation of why I'm not buying one makes for a hell of a lot better discussion than simply answering "no".

[computoman]

Soon there should be some alternatives that will make the market "very interesting" (said in a German voice like the old NBC show "Laugh in')

While it's cool I can do so, I would never use my iPod touch for VNC. The screen is just too small to use efficiently. That's a different story with the iPad though. Citrix for the iPad looks pretty sick:

That, I would have to admit could be an excellent use for the Ipad if it were more modestly priced. At least you get to be creative and or do real work. Plus you not have to worry about developing apps specifically for the ipad unless his holiness decided not to allow the vnc type app anymore because of falling ipad software sales. Software development could all be done on a more traditional platform. You can do the same thing with the sony psp or the nintendo ds, or even the lightweight eeepc. When a non-proprietary touchpad comes out I will definitely consider one.