Check out Part 1 of this article if you haven't already.
Lack of Multi-tasking(?)
While the iPad can't run multiple apps, you can certainly enjoy the ability to switch seamlessly between applications. It's not often you need something running in the background, unless it's Pandora radio being streamed at all times (which can't be done to begin with due to lack of Flash support).
If you can achieve virtually anything without forcing apps to stay running in the background, then what's the point of having it? I would just be glad that I know it's better for my battery life. I honestly can't think of any real effects of not being able to run multiple apps simultaneously, so please enlighten me in the comments section.
The Price is Right
Starting at $499, one can't really complain that it doesn't do what a MacBook does. It's already cheaper than what everyone expected (which is good!). While the iPad physically resembles the iPod Touch, it's just not the same. It's not released yet, but the fact is that apps won't be designed the same way as regular iPhone/iPod Touch apps - they will be customized to take full advantage of the bigger screen and faster processor. This is a huge part of the whole "experience" of the iPad. Read on for more...
What this means for the competition
My answer to this is: What competition? Apple created a new category of computing, remember? You can't really compare it to Netbooks or existing Tablet PCs. The purpose of the iPad is too different to compare.
Companies are going to wrestle with the idea releasing competitive products simply because there are easier alternatives, such as slapping a desktop OS on a 9 inch Netbook or Tablet. Would they try to create a custom OS designed to work with the screen size and hardware abilities? If they did, one would ask if it would even be worth it. We've seen how cellphone manufacturers have failed miserably when competing with the iPhone's level of usability.
A friend of mine told me that the likes of Sony will release a tablet that will be a REAL revolutionary product in comparison to the just "ok" iPad. Can they do it?
Loading ...
Lasha buddy,
While I agree that most multitasking issues are non-existant there are times when some apps need to run in the background to make life/work just a little easier. Chat apps for one are much better when you can leave it running. I agree that with push and such some of that is aleviated but here is another on, music. I rarely put music on my iphone. I personally would rather stream it from an app. For apple to make it so only the ipod ap can play in the background kinda ticks me off. They don't offer a built in solution to allow for streaming audio and then force you to keep another app open the whole time you listen. Now this complaint is easy for them to get rid of, just add the radio function of iTunes to the ipod. One can hope at least.
The other point I disagree on is the competition. Netbooks are the competition. While I like what I saw with the iPad, except the name, I can find a netbook that can do most of those things and more. Built in I can hook a netbook up to a projector. I can hook it up to a usb printer. I can slide in an SD card to load pictures. These are things that you can't do out of the box with the iPad. You have to buy dongles.
Now, if I had the money I would buy one in a heart beat because I don't want a windows netbook. However beautiful and functional it may be it really is only a glorified iPod Touch. I'm ok with that but there will be quite a few who aren't. Watch for Rev2 and see what's added and then we can see what a netbook killer really looks like.
Chris
Hey Chris, I completely agree about the streaming radio aspect as I mentioned Pandora radio in the article to exemplify it. The addition of radio would be cool to iTunes, but who knows when that'll happen.
The reason why I said that Netbooks can't really compare because somebody who NEEDS to do all the things a Netbook does WILL get a Netbook. The iPad is for those who know they won't need the features of a Netbook and prefer a dedicated device for the tasks they perform. Netbooks definitely do more than the iPad in every way, but the experience the iPad gives for the tasks it's designed to do is much different due to multi-touch, etc.
I already have a MacBook Pro so I would never rely on an iPad to do the tasks I do with it. I do, however, feel that the next version of the iPad won't be so "lacking."
I agree with ckuhner about multitasking: there are specific cases where it's really useful.
However, I disagree with this:
The other point I disagree on is the competition. Netbooks are the competition. While I like what I saw with the iPad, except the name, I can find a netbook that can do most of those things and more. Built in I can hook a netbook up to a projector. I can hook it up to a usb printer. I can slide in an SD card to load pictures. These are things that you can’t do out of the box with the iPad. You have to buy dongles.
I don't agree that the features you mention are hugely important. The iPad (and most Apple products) is a living embodiment of the 80/20 rule: It's designed for the 20% of the features in a laptop (or netbook) that 80% of the people use. Those extra features are nice (particularly the SD card slot), but are not critical to its primary uses.
Lasha,
I see a little bit of fanboism coming out. Are you actually arguing against multitasking? Isn't that the point of computing? To make performing tasks easier and isn't performing multiple tasks at once easier than performing one task at a time?
The truth of the matter is that Apple in all their wisdom thought they could put one over us consumers. Instead of truly innovating, they RE-release the iPod Touch with a bigger screen and slightly more powerful hardware.
I know you argue the merits of the iPad, it is what it is and it is for certain tasks. The question is why would ANYONE buy it if is only meant for certain tasks? Understand that the competition isn't as worried as some people make them out to be. Amazon, Sony and B&N all have eReaders priced below the cheapest iPad model and while you get much more with the iPad, if a consumer is in the market for JUST an eReader they are most likely going to go the cheapest route in this economy.
Here's a challenge to any Apple fan out there. Name ONE innovation the Apple iPad has over the iPhone/iPod Touch. You cannot mention the size of the screen nor its processor, as those are natural progression. It features the same multi-touch technology (albeit on a larger scale) as its siblings, the same OS (albeit on a larger scale). Other than the size, what advantages does it really hold over its siblings?
One more thing. I think Lasha is quoting me about Sony releasing a product that will compete directly with the Apple iPad. In order to defend that, I also said that the other competitors like Amazon and B&N will release new devices to tackle the iPad.
In the gaming market (which Apple is trying to enter) they have the biggest threat yet, Nintendo. In many ways Nintendo is the "Apple" of the gaming industry and I can't see an oversize iPod Touch compete with Nintendo's future heldhand never mind Nintendo's current champ - the Nintendo DS.
The future I see for the Apple iPad will be like the Sony PS3. The Apple faithful will eat it up during launch but the mainstream consumer (the ones that eat up the current iPods) will shun it for two reasons. First is its lack of a true identity compared to the iPhone/iPod Touch. In the eyes of the average consumer, why get a iPad when the iPhone/iPod Touch does almost everything it does.
The second reason is price. The Apple iPad is priced cheaper than what was rumored but is still out of the range of the average consumer. There is a reason why Netbooks are so popular, it lies within the magic numbers. Netbooks cost around $150 to $300. Anything beyond $300.00 and the average consumer WILL ignore it. You only have to ask Sony in regards to their PS3.
Hi Frank, thanks for taking your time to share your thoughts. You can call me a fanboy, but the difference with me is that I realize its full potential, as well as its faults.
While Apple may claim that it's revolutionary and innovative, the reality is like you said. The hardware is nothing amazing, it utilizes existing technologies in the iPhone and iPod Touch. What IS amazing is the software potential. As the App Store has proven, it can turn a device of mediocre hardware (iPhone) into the best device money can buy because of the software variety.
I believe we have reached the state where technology in our current time is great where it's at. The SOFTWARE is what's gonna drive everything forward. Software truly is the future, and if the iPad delivers in this category (which I don't doubt it will), it'll succeed.
You asked: "...why would ANYONE buy it if is only meant for certain tasks?"
You answered your own question by saying if people want an eBook reader (certain task), they will get an existing reader. If people want something that does a SET of certain tasks, they will get whatever device does it best, which, in this case I believe will be the iPad.
I acknowledge that this device isn't for everyone. I will write a separate post on multi-tasking and how it's not as GREAT as people make it out to be, and how most people do not multi-task even when they think they are.
I have to disagree towards the aspect of the iPad not being treated as a netbook competition. Whether Apple wants to or not it does not matter. In the public eye it's a netbook competitor and that is what counts. Now let's be honest and just say that the iPad does lack key features like multitasking, USB port ( w/o the dongle), a proper OS. It's just an oversized iPhone but without the phone. I also agree with the fact that screen size is not a feature that defines this device because in that case I just say "my macbook pro has a bigger screen thus it's better than the iPad" yeah it's bigger but so is the iPad compared to the iPhone.
I think that the iPad is a horrible device, just an oversized iPhone. Screw You Apple.
@Paul, I think you are missing the point about the bigger screen and the "proper OS" deal...
The bigger screen allows for a completely different level of user interaction that people can't get on an iPod Touch or iPhone. The apps that can be designed specifically for the larger screen will dramatically improve user experience. Designers can incorporate elements on the bigger screen that would generally be sacrificed on a smaller device.
The iPad's OS is a modified version of the iPhone OS, which has proven to be fast and versatile on mobile hardware. These two advantages will give the platform the upper edge as its stands on proven grounds. The iPhone and iPod Touch strive off of the Appe store, and so will the iPad.
If people want a desktop experience cramped into a 9 inch screen, they can get a Netbook. Those that want a completely customized experience can find it with the iPad. I mean, come on... would you REALLY want to run desktop apps like Photoshop on a 9 inch screen? Probably not.
Hey Chris, I completely agree about the streaming radio aspect as I mentioned Pandora radio in the article to exemplify it. The addition of radio would be cool to iTunes, but who knows when that'll happen.
The reason why I said that Netbooks can't really compare because somebody who NEEDS to do all the things a Netbook does WILL get a Netbook. The iPad is for those who know they won't need the features of a Netbook and prefer a dedicated device for the tasks they perform. Netbooks definitely do more than the iPad in every way, but the experience the iPad gives for the tasks it's designed to do is much different due to multi-touch, etc.
I already have a MacBook Pro so I would never rely on an iPad to do the tasks I do with it. I do, however, feel that the next version of the iPad won't be so "lacking."