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 Was Working on Video Conferencing in iPad?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Can you back up that figure of 90% with a statistically valid survey? Searches on Google do not count as they suffer from both the critic problem and self-sampling bias. Frankly, using phrases like 'worshipers' makes any valid points you might have sound shrill and cheap. If you really wanted to convince people, you'd use coherent and rational discussion with incontrovertible evidence.
I am fairly confident the market will respond appropriately. I do not presume to be so arrogant as to believe my needs are the same thing as the appropriate thing for the market.
No he can't.
I spent 15 years designing microprocessors for companies like AMD, Sun, and Exponential Technology. For the last few years I've been an attorney. My wife is a dean at a university that specializes in digital arts. So let's look at these markets:
1) engineering. Nope. If I was still an engineer, I'd have little use for iPad for sure. I couldn't use it at work, it can't replace my iPhone (not portable enough to carry everywhere, no phone). Can't replace my home PC's, which required me to do engineering gunk on them.
2) lawyer. Yep. I travel a lot, and when I do I need:
a) remote internet access. check.
b) web browsing, email. check.
c) MS word, powerpoint, excel viewing. PDF viewing. check.
d) light word, excel, PDF annotation/editing. check.
e) keynote (when I give presentations I currently use keynote on my 17" MBP). check.
f) ebook/movies/music for entertainment in the airport/on the plane. check.
g) GPS. check.
I currently carry an iPhone for f and g, and an MBP for the other things. I can replace the MBP with the iPad, save some battery on my iPhone, and get a better movie/ebook experience. All good.
3) higher ed. My wife is unimpressed, but she was unimpressed with the iphone before she got one, too (she now loves it). While at work, she carries a toshiba convertible tablet to meetings. The iPad can replace those functions for her. At home she plays a lot of flash games. So it can't replace her MBP which is a shame, because she uses about 30% of the capabilities of her MBP other than flash.
It's not a home run, but for a considerable number of people it makes great sense.
I loved the link to 2001
. I've never seen so many people who had to eat crow, except perhaps the iPad haters on this forum. We will have to wait and see. Is there a limit on how many crows you can eat in one day without a license?You can buy another one in 8 months with the functionality this one could and should have had from day 1... cool huh? But you seem like a big brain making the big bucks... no big deal...
Just a shame that withholding functionality gets rewarded... you could not reward apple for a pitiful effort by using the equipment you already have, waiting on a decent model (8 short months), and saving someone's life with the extra cash... perhaps making several micro-loans on Kiva...
You can buy another one is 8 months with the functionality this one should have had from day 1... cool huh? But you seem like a big brain making the big bucks... no big deal...
You miss the point. You seem focussed on comparing the iPad to some conception you had of what it should be. That is not a rational way of making buying decisions. I listed my requirements (for me now, as an attorney, not an engineer). Which of the "should have had" functions is something I should wait for? It does what I need *now* - at least as far as a MBP replacement on the road. I would probably use a camera once, just to play with it. I purposely disable flash on my MBP, so I don't need it on my iPad.
Sure, for other people, they should wait. But it isn't "rewarding" the "withholding of functionality" when people buy it. It's rewarding Apple for meeting THEIR needs. If Apple doesn't meet enough people's needs, it will rightfully be a failure.
Rational argument... but most people aren't very rational. They are emotional. They will buy it because they don't know what their needs are, or because of status, of just to get a rush off buying something. I'm emotional too... I won't buy it because my iphone does everything it will do and more, and because of the way it was presented to me. It was supposed to be "magical" and the most important thing steve had ever done. Turned out, it was nothing but a less functional, bigger iphone. I don't like propaganda... reeks of deceit. I despise being lied to. And the lack of flash on something that is supposed to be used for the best web experience ever is a joke, no matter how you try to argue it. Apple fanned the flames of expectation and woefully under-delivered. Nobody likes being promised a wonderful new gift and then getting an empty box. And, yes, the promise was implied (via. apple PR, statements, and media manipulation... including silence), but real, nonetheless...
You throw these statements out there without feeling the need to back them up. When it comes to spending >$500, people don't tend to do so based purely on emotion. They'll take intangible emotional benefits into account in determining a product's utility, but people aren't generally going to buy something that isn't more or less right for them.
Ooo, ooo, how about California cows are happy cows, moo.
Sorry, I couldn't resist. I like those commercials. I also like the iPad which is "my" decision, although I will wait to play with one before I make my mind up to order. I really do want a camera/webcam. I video chat with my children and grandchildren. I don't get to see them very often since they live so far away.People buy worthless pieces of plastic, figurines, and collectable trash on a massive scale every day. We waste electricity and poison the planet with waste just to leave the light on at night to feel safe. People's definition of utility is largely subconscious. Most people only consciously understand 50% of their own behavior (and I would say that is a rather high estimate... more like 30%). You are obviously more logic oriented... which shows in your choice of vocations.
Ooo, ooo, how about California cows are happy cows, moo.
Flash support and a webcam and I wouldn't say ANYTHING (really, probably just the cam would have done it).... wait for revision 2... it will probably have a cam... (see, I'm not anti-apple, just anti this pathetic, blind, oversized ipod touch)
It's worthless to YOU but not to THEM. You can't impose your needs and requirements on other people.
so sure hey? because 3G video calling has been out since 2004 and the iphone even after 3 revisions STILL does not have video calling.
Rogers in canada has supported video calling after 2008 and they are the slowest most non-up-todate network in north america
True... but I can despise them them for being ignorant, unintelligent, mindless organisms. (and from what I hear, I think steveo may think the same way). At least I don't try to take advantage of them by trying to sell them the garbage.
Ignoring all 8 pages of off-topicness, and only a handful are getting it.
It does not lack a camera because Apple is "purposefully withholding it."
It does not lack a camera because of cost, although that is certainly a helpful factor.
1) The iPad doesn't have a back-facing camera because Apple does not want to be the company that sells the world's largest, most awkward camera.
Seriously, do you ever take pictures of people with your laptop? "Here let me take your picture! Hold on..." and then you whip out this huge, 10" slab and start aiming it at them? Ridiculous. It reminds me of sidetalking with the N-Gage: it's just ridiculously awkward.
2) There's no frontfacing camera because there is no elegant way to videoconference with something this large that can't support itself other than lying flat on a desk.
Sure, you could do this with a cell phone because it weighs nothing and can rest cradled in the palm of your hand. But do you ever really videoconference holding a laptop in your hand? No, because it's awkward. And that would still be better than an iPad because it can at least rest flat in your hand while you do it. The iPad would have to be "pinched" by your fingers as you held it up vertical. This simply is not practical. There's no way Apple could even demo this without it looking idiotic.
The only answer for videoconferencing would be some sort of stand, but that's very inelegant. Look at Steve talking about the iSight in this video. Appreciate how much time he spends crapping on even desktop mounted cameras. Of course he's not going to allow a ridiculously awkward camera experience that requires an extra stand on his product. Steve couldn't have even DEMOED the videoconferencing if they had it because he only had a couch and would have needed some sort of desk just to do it, completely missing the point of the iPad (a computer that doesn't need a lap or desk).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFG7szWEuhk
Simply put, a camera makes little sense from an interface point of view so they did not include it until they can figure out how do it right (a la copy-and-paste). And it simply might not suit a device like this, ever. Not appreciating this is why none of you work for Apple.
It does not lack a camera because Apple is "purposefully withholding it."
It does not lack a camera because of cost, although that is certainly a helpful factor.
1) The iPad doesn't have a back-facing camera because Apple does not want to be the company that sells the world's largest, most awkward camera.
Seriously, do you ever take pictures of people with your laptop? "Here let me take your picture! Hold on..." and then you whip out this huge, 10" slab and start aiming it at them? Ridiculous. It reminds me of sidetalking with the N-Gage: it's just ridiculously awkward.
2) There's no frontfacing camera because there is no elegant way to videoconference with something this large that can't support itself other than lying flat on a desk.
Sure, you could do this with a cell phone because it weighs nothing and can rest cradled in the palm of your hand. But do you ever really videoconference holding a laptop in your hand? No, because it's awkward. And that would still be better than an iPad because it can at least rest flat in your hand while you do it. The iPad would have to be "pinched" by your fingers as you held it up vertical. This simply is not practical. There's no way Apple could even demo this without it looking idiotic.
The only answer for videoconferencing would be some sort of stand, but that's very inelegant. Look at Steve talking about the iSight in this video. Appreciate how much time he spends crapping on even desktop mounted cameras. Of course he's not going to allow a ridiculously awkward camera experience that requires an extra stand on his product. Steve couldn't have even DEMOED the videoconferencing if they had it because he only had a couch and would have needed some sort of desk just to do it, completely missing the point of the iPad (a computer that doesn't need a lap or desk).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFG7szWEuhk
Simply put, a camera makes little sense from an interface point of view so they did not include it until they can figure out how do it right (a la copy-and-paste). And it simply might not suit a device like this, ever. Not appreciating this is why none of you work for Apple.
Wow I mean WOW!
The sermon has started everyone gather around and listen to the wise words of ipadsad!
The sermon has started everyone gather around and listen to the wise words of ipadsad!
So, I'm ignorant, unintelligent and mindless for wanting a device which will let me do my academic research work in automated reasoning and information systems design in a comfortable fashion that stops me getting painful cramp? That's an interesting perspective. I don't need Flash (the only sites which I use which use Flash to carry significant content are YouTube, Vimeo and BBC iPlayer all of which have alternative interfaces for the iPhone) and I video called once in my life. The iPad, as it is now, meets my needs. Anything else might be a nice bonus. In fact, even assuming that in six months after release they brought out a new one I'd still have racked up over £2800 of extra value, as a conservative estimate (could likely be double that, but this is a nice, conservative lower bound).
Without a v1 product you'd never get the v2 product you desire - you should be falling at their feet thanking them for being satisfied with a v1 product to which new features can be added making it more appealing (perhaps) to you and others on here that keep screaming the same tune about what it lacks other than focusing on what it has and what will make it great (for you).
But a small mind and small person will go the easy route and choose the ad hominems instead and declare themselves to be greater than anyone who doesn't share their ideas about what makes life enjoyable.
if they dont want to add a video camera because of them being too big, they should make a connector at the top of the iPad that allows for a webcam to be attached, and maybe even have it to it will flip to face to front or back.
Apple hates connectors.
The good news is that it already has a dock connector, and apps are supposed to run in all orientations - you just flip the thing upside down, plug a camera into the dock connector, and you're good. I wouldn't be surprised to see a third party attachment. The question will be if the OS will recognize it across all apps, or whether it would only work with that third party's app.
I totally agree with the webcam and flash. It would be a no brainer however, for the past 4 days I've been restricted to the sofa recovering from oral and sinus surgery. During this time I have had my 17" MBP in my lap for 15 plus hours a day to occupy my time. I would love to have had the iPad even in it's currently announced configuration due to it's compactness and light weight. So, I may have to re-think my original decision.
I'm not really sure how that would work.
Maybe if somehow the pixels acted like a mirror?
the idea it's self is interesting so if anyone could comment on it please reply on how this would work.
Thanks,
iKor
I'm not really sure how that would work.
Maybe if somehow the pixels acted like a mirror?
the idea it's self is interesting so if anyone could comment on it please reply on how this would work.
Thanks,
First, the device doesn't have that capability, so forget about that patent.
The way it would work is that CMOS image sensor pixels would be interspersed in the interstices in the display array.