funny how the pi's monica guzman keeps on going on and on about how the "oddly named" iPad.
stupid bitch uses an iPhone already, so wtf?

http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/arc…

Does this screen even count as "big and gorgeous"? It's a 1024 x 768 display. That's...fine. Totally usable. But not exactly amazing.

But yes, the closed ecosystem is why this thing isn't really a practical device. If HP, Microsoft or somebody else has the balls, they can take down that ridiculous 140K number by pointing out that:

1) They'll mostly look goofy
2) The controls are going to be goofy
3) 30% of them are fart apps anyway
4) And, oh yes, Windows 7? 8 hojillion apps. There really is an app for anything you want to do on a Windows device in a way that isn't true of the closed App Store ecosystem.

There's no well in hell I'm going to be indebted to the biggest control freak company on the planet for a general purpose computing platform.

Just an oversized iPhone (without the calls) WTF. And missing basic stuff like multitasking.

They would have nailed it if they would've gone the other way around... A lighter version of a MacBook with no keyboard.

The name's the easiest part, judging by early tech5 moves. (God, he's depressed lately. Weather, scotch.)

So either the Stranger is convinced, or the Stranger is convinced and there's no other news, or the Stranger needs money? If you're just trying to create a valid discussion about a supremely relevant product, I apologize.

If there are few obvious topics lately, which has been my problem since Obama's election, what could we otherwise discuss? There are tons of things to straighten out, but shit got so simplified.

I will keep watching hi def movies from my computer, through my my 360, on my hi def TV, TYVM.

Dear dumfuk pundits and commenters: Its NOT A BIG iPhone, ITS A BIG iPod touch!! Jeezus fuking keerist HOW HARD IS THIS TO FIGURE OUT YOU DIMWITS???

Some rational commentary, with video-clips of it in use: Hands on with Apple’s iPad

I guess you don't know many people who use their computer as their primary television (like, with a tuner card and cable or an antenna, not via Hulu or Youtube or what have you). We care about aspect ratios. We care more about them when the display makes our TV/movie look a lot smaller instead of just a little smaller, and standard widescreen 16:9 on a 4:3 display looks puny.

We also care a lot about viewing angles- and Apple got that part right. But if they expect this thing to be a video-viewing device, then the aspect ratio really is a problem, as is the small amount of storage.

For me, the big picture here is that Apple's core strength is in User Interface design, but with a media-consumption device, you just don't do much interfacing-- mostly you just sit there and look at it. As long as I can turn pages and fast-forward videos easily, the rest of the interface doesn't matter-- or rather, doesn't matter as much as, say, viewing angles and aspect ratios.

@7 - You are in a tiny minority. Apple isn't targeting this product at tiny minorities, they're targeting it at the masses. I'm not saying the aspect ration point isn't valid, I'm just saying it doesn't matter.

This is the first version out of the gate. Changes will be made. Features will be added. I fully expect that if this device takes off as the iPod Touch did (remember they didn't really expect to sell the way it did. They were surprised by the gaming response.) features, like multitasking, will be added in.

I had a coworker who took a look at the SDK. There is potential for some really cool apps. Just give it time, to see how consumers take to it, and what develops.

Just like the iPhone, at launch, there wasn't anything like it on the US market. Right now, there isn't really anything like this on the market. All the other tablets are actual laptop systems. This one claims to be different... a whole new device.

Just take a wait an see approach. It could be a dud, or it could be the next thing that blows mobile media away.

A++, this thing is an expensive paperweight if I'm not able to watch a flash video (seriously apple?). I've seen phones with more capabilities than this junk, just because it has an apple logo on it does not mean it has a reasonable expectation to be cool, and I have never understood why everyone gets a massive erection every time apple speaks. This device looks like a giant iphone, and what I want is a laptop.

P.S. This may do wonders for mobile porn though, iphone porn that's 2-4 times as big? HOLY SHIT

@6... Not if you're talking about the 3G iPad version, which is an iPhone without the voice. Got it? Should we explain it a little slower?

I was like hey Apple... I like my iPhone but could I get a larger version that can't make phone calls, doesn't have a camera and can't fit in my pocket? And Apple was like yeah sure Andy, that sounds great... and just because you're such a loyal customer we'll give it a convex back so anytime you try to lay it on a flat surface and use it the entire thing will rock back and forth.

@7 - You are in a tiny minority. Apple isn't targeting this product at tiny minorities, they're targeting it at the masses.

I'm curious what planet you live on where "the masses" have an extra $500+ lying around to spend on an overgrown MP3 player.

Yeah, a few problems.

1) No camera (all you needed was a cheap front face vga webcam for video conferencing).

2) No SD/Flash Slot (youre tethered to the docking station).

3) No USB (even micro usb would have been useful)

4) Not widescreen (used to own a 4:3 PMP and yeah it was annoying, not that it matters since you have to jail break the device just to playback xvid, ogm, divx, mpeg2/vob, etc).

5) No wireless video output (Intel introduced this at CES, its pretty cool, works only with new TVs, but for old TVs, sure heres an expensive adapter).

6) No WiMax (offering an alternative to ATT would have been nice, lots of providers out there other than Clearwire and the modems are cheaper).

7) No flash or java support (standard web technologies that you have to jailbreak just to enable).

8) iPhone OS (should have gone with a stripped down version of OSX, like the AppleTV did, however few use it as they immediately install XBMC or Boxxee).

9) Video Playback (720p in h264 only, docking stations video output limited to 480p).

All that would have pushed the price to 1,000$ and at that point, you would have something to drool over, something really cool that sets the bar for all tablet producing companies.

So when you whip out your iPad in public and expect people to blush with envy. Seriously dont, anyone who knows half a shit about technology will probably condole you for buying such a craptastic product.

You can get a 7" touch pad tablet running Linux or Android with alot more features for 200$.

I think I'm gonna hold out until the iPon. Even if they have wings iPads always seem to leak when I'm sleeping!

The iPad may be able to run Flash, though maybe not right out of the gate: http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/01/27/ado…

UPDATE: Post edited and cleaned up, because I was drunk.

I hope to live to see the day I can read corrections like this on the New York Times and Washington Post web sites...

iDon'tgiveafuck

The concern about Flash is overheated. Flash may be common, but it isn't a very good product. Also, much of what it does can be done by the new HTML standard, which relies on H.264 video. So Apple rejects Flash because it doesn't work well, it bogs down the computer, and it can be replaced by an open standard.

By the way, @18, Adobe is not developing a way to run Flash on the iPad/iPhone. It's creating a way to write a Flash app that can be saved (and run as) as a non-Flash app. In other words, Adobe's caving.

The closed nature of the iPad, like the iPhone, is going to really simplify the type of computing most people do at home. Being tech savy as always meant that I have been the goto person from everything from blue screens of death to setitng up gmail accounts, to showing which dir their downloaded attachments are in. I can't tell you how many people age 40+ already engage with their computers as a closed type systems... Only clicking on desktop icons. That the iPad will allow the non ubernerds to not have to worry about accidentally downloading malware and worrying about reinstalling whole OSs is simply huge. It'll simply work. This is why the iPad will be sucessful. There is no question that the tight control apple has over the apps is troubling but the fast and loose manner that it seems most people approach password security/firewalls/patches is no less worrisome. There will always be desktop/ laptop computers in business enviroments and there usally will be an IT professional close at hand. But if I want to get my parents online, or let my kids surf the web the iPad is a great choice.

Note to self: get Anthony drunk, convince him to do foolish things via twitter and post pics.

@21 - I absolutely agree about Flash, I'm not a fan. The web is made of open standards, with the glaring exception of Flash, which has become the de-facto standard for video, and is closed and proprietary. Somewhat ironically, Apple is pushing for openness and standards on the web by not allowing Flash. HTML5's video support is coming along—both YouTube and Vimeo now have public betas—but it's no where near the standard yet. I'm certainly not holding my breath for IE to support it, and Firefox doesn't even get it right yet.

Anyway, the point isn't that the should allow Flash, but that I think the expectations will be higher for this thing. People will want it to be more computer-like, and could be pretty disappointed by its limitations, especially at those prices.

As I said, though, it's all about the apps. Apple has created a very viable economy for these things, and it's already massive. Many of the those limitations will be solved by third-parties.

@21 & 24

Flash bogs down the internet? Are you just talking about Banner ads? Last I checked Flash video was pretty fucking quick.

Apple is NOT pushing for openness and standards they pushing for control. Flash is the only other major program that can create rich, dynamic, and yes, fast applications that can compete against their "apps". Apple is simply looking to squash their competition, while providing their customers with access to only half of the internet.

No tablet is a laptop replacement. And it's not a phone.

So you either have a phone, a tablet, and a laptop, OR you somehow get by with just a phone and a laptop. Thus the tablet remains in the suck zone between two things you need, and nobody has yet answered the question of why you want to put something into the suck zone.

you guys just don't get it.

it's not for you.

it's for all the people who haven't bought iPod or iPhone yet.

They love it.

@27 ... why would people who haven't bought iPod or iPhone suddenly want to make the jump to Apple?

The iPad is a whore. It's so pretty, but it's really just trying to make you pay for something that ought to be free.