Apple demonstration of ipad running an openGL game.

http://www.marketwatch.com/video/asset/apple-exec-demonstrates-ipad-games-2010-01-27/C590FBD6-871A-427A-B573-B195DB34613B?dist=countdown

Ken

I don't really see what market this thing is going for. It is far too large and bulky to function like a smartphone and too small and underpowered to be a sufficient laptop replacement. The memory sizes on them also more closely resemble old MP3 players than computers, ranging from 16gb ($500 for WiFi only and $630 for 3G), 32gb ($600 for WiFi, $730 for 3G) and 64gb ($700 for WiFi and $830 for 3G). I guess they are keeping the sizes small to make a 2nd generation in 6 months.

I just don't get it. What would someone want one of these for? Since they aren't phones, the consumer will have to shoulder 100% of the price on them, unlike the iPhone. For those prices, it looks even less worth it than usual, and that is saying a lot for an Apple product.

Rumor I've heard is that they will be tied to applications to read electronic distribution books, magazines and newspapers. Newspaper industry is failing big-time and is seeking alternative distribution. How this makes sense for either Apple or publishers is beyond me. Bundling content and hardware maybe?

The OpenGL support caught me by surprise, but then in looking briefly at dev info, it seems to be more of a glorified iPhone appliance without the phone. I'm not sure what to think. I'd rather have a notebook.

Ken

I wonder who came up with that name... surely iTablet would have been better? iPad sounds like a feminine product

ZOMG... that is funny! Yeah, I agree. I even see it referred to as a "tablet".

Ken

Yeah, it is pretty much being viewed (from what I have read online so far) as a large, gimped iPhone. I really don't know where this is going to fit into people's lives. It only has a 1.1Ghz processor and tiny storage space, so it will not really take the place of a portable computer, like you said it has no phone capability, etc. Attack of the Show on G4 also said it was very awkward to try to play games on it because you have the option to either play them in an iPhone sized display, reaching over the unused portion of the screen (about 60%) to touch the soft buttons, or you can make them go full screen which the iPhone games were not designed to run in, so they said the games would become pixelated and blurry. Due to the iPhone SDK, it is likely that two different versions of games wanting to play natively in full screen would have to be bought if the user wants to play on both their iPhone and their iPad at the correct resolutions.

Hmmm...

Looks like they have a lot of work to do before this thing is released if they don't want it to fail horribly. A lot of backlash coming out for this product and it should be interesting to see how that affects initial sells of the product. Looks like a glorified larger iTouch to me (and for all intents and purposes I believe it is, runs the same software and everything). Perhaps they should do something revolutionary like introduce a netbook and a headless desktop unit that people actually want and need. Not like they cannot slap an extra $200 on it and people will buy it anyway.

--Josh

That pretty much sums it up except for the "fail horribly" part. There are enough Apple Koolaid-drinkers out there who will buy the next Apple product no matter what it is or how much it costs. All I can really equate it to is the iPod, because before the iPod, Apple was a proprietary computer manufacturer on the edge of extinction. Nothing has really changed with the company, only people's perception of how "cool" Apple is now.

I just think the iPad would have been more of a winner if they had created a Mobile OSX for it, instead of basing it on the iPhone/iPod Touch. It is pitched as a tablet computer, but the user is limited to small, low-powered iPhone apps instead of full-scale desktop/laptop applications.

I think it's supposed to be a big internet browser. Obviously nicer to browse the web on a bigger screen than an Iphone. And this does make sense as more and more applications move to the "cloud" so you don't need memory or computing power, just a good internet connection.

But you do need a good internet connect.


Feds Worry iPad Could Clog Wireless Networks
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/201 ... ssnetworks

The Apple iPad received a lot of attention after its announcement last week, but not all of it was positive. One of the biggest complaints many people had was that Apple had chosen AT&T as the primary wireless 3G data provider for the tablet.

The reactions stemmed from AT&T's notoriously problematic coverage for iPhone users who want to browse the Internet on their phones. AT&T allows users to do so wirelessly through their 3G data network, but the network has been unresponsive or slow for many users, especially in large cities such as New York City and San Francisco.

Has anyone else seen the recent news that Apple has decided not to work with Adobe to develop a Flash player for the iPad? Considering that Flash can do almost everything that Iphone Apps do, I wonder why...

(And people say that Microsoft are the proprietary pirates...

There was this show on TV, apparently dubbed to be 'revolutionary' and 'potentially biggest gadget this decade'.
I don't see whats so new about it. Its like PC's, we don't see PC's being dubbed revolutionary desptie getting some of the biggest technology updates, possibly the most powerful machine some people even have in their homes. PC's tend to be upgrades to previous technology (not a bad thing, and I mean no huge leap in ways of 3d to holograms) and this ipad is no different. It's just a step up from the iphone or ipod.

3g has been out for some years now, my phone had 3g back in 2006, it can't just run 3d graphics, and the iphone did not even come with it, but they decide to release the iphone 3g just a year or less later, then the 3gs with better quality camera and performance. Everyone brought into it, and a show named its the gadget of the decade: http://fwd.five.tv/gadget-show/gadget-n ... -decade-is

So this ipad, I don't apples strategy is going to be too different, sell as low featured one then sell another version with more next year. Sure its for the average consumer so its got to be cheap enough, but its nothing remarkable beyond amazement. A step to the power of a full pc maybe, but I really think some of this stuff is getting a bit overrated. The gaming might not be too bad, but by the the time this things out, gaming will just have moved up another notch and so will computing power.

I just certainly hope people aren't buying this thing for gaming, considering that the DS and PSP already do a much better job

the video is terrible. All you see is some tool playing with a piece of plastic, then a quick shot to a screen with some crap graphic game.

Why the heck is most of the movie looking at the guy's legs while he plays the game instead of the actual game?

I love how Apple gets so proud of their selves over everything. "Hey guys, we made a new product, and guess what! It can play GAMES! Lets see your cell phones, PDAs, and calculators do that! Oh wait..."

Honestly, I really wouldn't hate the company so much if they:

A. ...hadn't started the Windows vs. Apple ads. The comparison is so wrong for so many reasons (not the least is the fact that "PC" doesn't mean Windows. You can have any one of thousands of OS, but you can only have one on the Mac).

B ...hadn't been so objected to allowing Mac clones. They could have licensed the technology to make it cheaper for the end-user to own a Mac, while basically pulling in money for nothing. It really wouldn't have taken much money away from their core sales, because many people who would buy a low-price system would have never bought a $2,500 name-brand Mac. But that is your only option now if you want a Mac. Sigh...


C ...didn't viciously fight against software rights of their users. While other providers make their devices more open to software development, Apple clamps down harder and harder. They make it known loud and clear that any applications developed for the iPhone must be approved by them, sold by them, they must get a cut, and they can remove it from sale any time they want, thus negating your effort of developing it.

D ...didn't restrict iPhone development specifically to Macs. Instead of seeing the potential in the app sales arena of allowing anyone to develop, they saw it as an opportunity to sell more Macs. This has driven out a large creativity pool from the potential developers, because your average coding enthusiast isn't going to spring for a $2,500 computer just for making iPhone apps. Microsoft has assisted the Mono project immensely in bringing the .NET runtime and compilers to every other platform. But Apple only released the iPhone SDK for Macs. And it doesn't require anything that only the Macs have. That is just the way they wanted it.