The other thing, too, is that eventually (and that means 2-3 years) what's available online for free will not be very good and will be very homogenous. Either you're trolling for eyeballs, and will thus go down the People/Big Three Networks route, or you're going for quality and will have to go to a pay route (either from subscribers or from charging an arm and a leg to an aggregator who may provide it free later on).
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Reportedly Tempering Expectations as iPad Content Deals Remain Unfinalized
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The other thing, too, is that eventually (and that means 2-3 years) what's available online for free will not be very good and will be very homogenous. Either you're trolling for eyeballs, and will thus go down the People/Big Three Networks route, or you're going for quality and will have to go to a pay route (either from subscribers or from charging an arm and a leg to an aggregator who may provide it free later on).
One thing worries me.
Are people who create news (in conjunction with Apple) as I guess there is an agreement in place between the publisher and Apple (money flowing both ways?)
Seeing how Apple (I mean Steve Jobs) is these days, Will Apple be able to control/censor content?
I mean, say we have major anti Apple new stories etc etc. if there going to be some (un-disclosed agreement) to be on the pro Apple side if the content is meant for the IPad?
That's my concern about any supplied to one device type of news content.
Are people who create news (in conjunction with Apple) as I guess there is an agreement in place between the publisher and Apple (money flowing both ways?)
Seeing how Apple (I mean Steve Jobs) is these days, Will Apple be able to control/censor content?
I mean, say we have major anti Apple new stories etc etc. if there going to be some (un-disclosed agreement) to be on the pro Apple side if the content is meant for the IPad?
That's my concern about any supplied to one device type of news content.
Most blogs have always been crap. Paying for them is not going to change that.
The advances made in information availability over the past 20 years have been nothing short of incredible, and the reason for it is that we now live in a "world of free crap." When you put content back in the hands of corporate producers, you'll get only the content that those corporate producers want you to have.
Yes, there's a lot of sludge to relatively few gems, but search technology has also advanced to keep pace. I usually need to search from seconds to minutes to find exactly what I'm looking for; rarely do I need to search for hours. Compare that to where we were 20 years ago, when information searches using the available resources could take days, weeks, or months, and very often the information was not available at all.
As for having to read 80 posts to find one insightful one, I'd say that's not bad, if it means everyone has a chance to express his or her own opinion, instead of having to pay to get opinions only from some appointed experts.
I agree, and I think most people -- even the freeconomists -- would flock to such higher-quality content. That's why I think it's a mistake for Apple to drag its feet on designing an innovative front-end/back-end approach to digital magazines, newspapers, and other published content on the iPad.
Imagine an "iNewsstand" section of iTunes with interactive publications featuring articles, video, image galleries, over-the-air subscription renewals, social media integration, etc. all packaged in an easy-to-use (standardized) touch user interface. An iPad digital publishing ecosystem could definitely be a "killer app experience" that would make iPads fly off the shelves 5x faster. And it would allow Apple to redefine the publishing industry with the iPad just as it did the music industry with the iPod. It should be Apple's priority one.
NY Times' iPhone app scaled up? Facebook's iPhone app scaled up? Um, not so much.
So I can't help but feel that Apple is rushing the iPad to market before it's content situation is fully baked. I know that can be Apple's M.O. sometimes with product ships, but the iPad strikes me as even more "beta" than usual.
I should be able to run four iPhone apps on a single screen, at the very least. Without this, I'm left thinking... why? What benefit does the 10" screen provide?
With a computer, the ability to have windows side by side increases roughly proportionately to the size of the display. Why should the iPad be any different?
While I agree anything under 17" is a bit difficult to use multiple full-sized windows on, I have had a FireFox window open next to a Word document countless times. I have chats and FireFox open side by side. I put iTunes behind where I'm working so I can easily check what song is playing. All of this would be useful on the iPad as well, plus the ability to use apps such as Pandora while in other apps.
I refused to by an iPod for the longest time due to the limited utility. I had video on a 3" screen two years before the first iPod Video came out. I had Wifi on a 4.2" touch screen a year before the first iPod touch came out. It wasn't until the second-gen iPT came out with the App Store that I decided to jump on the bandwagon because the App Store finally brought utility to the iPod. Unfortunately the App Store isn't a good enough reason to buy yet another device, since I already have App Store access on my Touch. The iPad needs some sort of special ability that nothing else has in order to make it more useful than a Touch-- and thus create a reason to buy one.
I used to be a pretty hardcore Apple fan, but they've made some pretty bad decisions lately... making enemies with Google, glossy displays, letting their relationship with Intel slip, the iPad, no new MacBook Pros, no FireWire or IR on the MacBook... you get the idea. I'm not going to love a product just because it has an Apple logo on it.
Do you really have to ask that? You honestly believe the only benefit of a larger screen is for multitasking? I think you are exaggerating it's importance quite a bit.
I don't think most people would multitask on the iPad in the manner you describe. I think it would be ugly, inelegant, and very unlike Apple.
I won't be surprised if Apple adds multitasking to iPhone OS 4.0, but it's not a deal breaker for me or anyone else I know. If they do, it will be a nice, simple, well-thought out solution, and I doubt it will be 4 apps running in windows on one screen.
I realize that solution is inelegant. That's why I said "at the very least."
But they ought to implement it in some way that you can see the status of background applications while in another app. That would certainly make good use of the screen size.
What makes a 27" iMac better than a 13" MacBook? Unless you for some reason full-screen your web browser on a 27" display, the main benefit is multitasking. You can have your web browser open next to a Word document next to chat windows next to a Terminal window next to iTunes. On the MacBook, you can only have one one application on the screen at one time in order to really use it. The only times where you need the full screen of an iMac (at least that I can think of) are for movies, games, and pro applications. The iPad won't do pro applications, and movies can be done just as well on either a laptop or an iPhone. So basically, as I see it, the only thing the iPad will have that nothing else will is optimized games that use multitouch or the accelerometer in some way. If the games don't use at least one or the other, it might as well be a PC game. The iPad is, then, a $500 casual gaming device that needs to be held with two hands and have a bag to be carried in.
No. The main benefit is being able to see more of a single document at once, for example having an entire page or two visible in Word and still being able to see the text.
Um, no. If that is what you want, even the iPad has too low of a screen resolution, seeing as even common web pages are 800px wide. You'd have either turn the iPad or zoom to see the text. And um, having two Word docs open at once is multitasking.
Seeing two pages of one word doc is not multitasking. Nor is having two word docs open at the same time.
Further, the questions was 27" vs 13", not iPad vs. iPhone. But if you are going to change the question, the primary advantage of the iPad's larger screen is that you can see much more of a page at once and still fit lots of controls and things so you don't have a hierarchical UI. Same principal as 27" vs. 13". It lets you get ONE thing at a time done much more efficiently.
I might have interpreted the original statement differently. I thought he meant having two separate documents open side by side. That's multitasking. Having a second document eats up more CPU cycles than having one open, meaning it is an additional task. Even if you think otherwise, I think we can agree that the point of a larger screen is to show more *stuff* at one time, true?
I'm sorry, I did not mean to change the question.
But more controls-- for what? When you say "controls," again the only things that come to mind are games and pro software. And if I want to run pro software, I have my laptop. So I miss out on a few games, but I save $500 and a lot of bulk. I'll take that.
And it's simply not the same principle as the 27" vs. 13"-- I can still get all the controls on a 13" display that I would on a 27" display. The only thing a 27" is better at than a 13" is multitasking-- or if you take offense at that term, "showing more *stuff* at the same time."
What if I need to have multiple *things* open side by side to get my task done? What if my task entails copying handwritten text from a PDF document to a Word document? Or reading a design spec from a PDF and creating it in a CAD program? "More efficiently," yeah right, because it's much more efficient to close whatever I'm working in, open another app/document, get the info I need, quit, reopen the other app, and input whatever I need to.
Yes. I nitpick only from a technical perspective - two documents generally occupy the same OS process.
On the iPhone, you frequently have to switch screens to do things. You press a button or swipe and a new screen or popup comes and gives you more controls. This is distracting. On the iPad it is unnecessary.
First, you can certainly have more controls on a 27" display, but even a 13" display is "big enough" to meet the "sane threshold number of controls." But seeing more stuff at once is not the same as multitasking. Being able to see an entire page or two of a document so that I can see how it all lays out without having to constantly scroll back and forth is not at all the same as multitasking.
I admire your tenacity...
Hi lifeinhd, still at the iPad bashing eh? I admire your tenacity and have thoroughly enjoyed reading your plethora of posts arguing your case. I think you must have been a debater in high school or college - one of those ones who will argue that the sky is actually not blue, but rather a particular shade of indigo simply because you love the joy of debate.
I think otherwise. The point of a larger screen, in my thinking, is to better see and/or interpret the what was already being shown on the screen. Two examples: 1) I much prefer looking at a 10" printed picture than a postcard. In the same way, I will much prefer to look at sites like flickr from an iPad instead of an iPhone because the pictures are easier to see - and therefore I can see more detail, more of the little things that make a picture beautiful. Yes, this can be taken to its logical conclusion and I prefer looking at pictures on my 24" screen than on a laptop. But I don't like carrying a 24" screen when I travel, and I'm also sick of traveling with my long in the tooth MBP. 2) I prefer reading text on a larger screen because I can see more and see it more clearly. In both of these examples the point of a bigger screen is a better visual experience, not there being more *stuff* on the screen.
Hi lifeinhd, still at the iPad bashing eh? I admire your tenacity and have thoroughly enjoyed reading your plethora of posts arguing your case. I think you must have been a debater in high school or college - one of those ones who will argue that the sky is actually not blue, but rather a particular shade of indigo simply because you love the joy of debate.
I think otherwise. The point of a larger screen, in my thinking, is to better see and/or interpret the what was already being shown on the screen. Two examples: 1) I much prefer looking at a 10" printed picture than a postcard. In the same way, I will much prefer to look at sites like flickr from an iPad instead of an iPhone because the pictures are easier to see - and therefore I can see more detail, more of the little things that make a picture beautiful. Yes, this can be taken to its logical conclusion and I prefer looking at pictures on my 24" screen than on a laptop. But I don't like carrying a 24" screen when I travel, and I'm also sick of traveling with my long in the tooth MBP. 2) I prefer reading text on a larger screen because I can see more and see it more clearly. In both of these examples the point of a bigger screen is a better visual experience, not there being more *stuff* on the screen.
Decent argument, but invalid as you've changed the parameters and are no longer dealing with the situation at hand. The iPad isn't advertised as a device for inputing design specs for a CAD programme, you're again trying to make it be as functional as a laptop for everything a laptop does, but it's not and it's not intended to be.
I should have been, I would have enjoyed it
Pictures, I can see how that makes sense. I don't like traveling with my MBP either, so the other day I ordered myself a Dell Mini 10V that I will be installing OS X on for an upcoming trip. Part of my problem is that because the iPad can't do so many basic tasks, I wouldn't want to take the chance that I'll be up against some task that the iPad can't complete because of its limitations. For example, if I find I need to reschedule my return flight for whatever reason, and the airline's website uses a heavy amount of Flash, I can still access it from my netbook. Or if I need to print boarding passes, I can find the hotel's printer, plug it into my netbook via USB, and print. I could never travel without a full desktop OS, because I never know what I'll be up against.
The iPad isn't advertised as anything, really. It's supposed to be a "magical and revolutionary device," but nowhere does it state what its intended use is. It kind of reminds me of the Apple "i". On the other hand, the iPod touch is advertised as a gaming device, but games are about 1% of what I use it for. If games were all that I could use it for, I never would have bought one, because it is useful to me in many more ways than just gaming. It, like the iPad, is supposed to be a multipurpose device; the problem is there needs to be something special about the iPad to make it worth it having a third device/shelling out the money for one.
I wonder if Apple would sell even more iPads is they'd released it before the iPhone/iPT. Part of me says no, because people wouldn't have understood what the iPhone OS *is* capable of if the iPad were the first device to run it, but part of me says yes because there would be nothing smaller that it has to compete with (at least from Apple) that does everything the iPad does. And then if they released the iPT and iPhone a year later, they could advertise that it's an "iPad in your pocket." /side note