Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I totally and wholeheartedly agree. It seems that Apple are choosing to not support their own product, plus iOS 4 will not be available for the iPad for several months.
 
As for remote - the iPad is a rather large device. The idea of a remote is to be small and ultra-portable. I doubt too many people would use it but still there is no excuse to not have an iPad version.

iDisk - If apple thought enough about creating one for the iPhone, surely an iPad version should have been released. Perhaps they have realised that the iDisk app has not recieved many downloads and so leave it to other apps to do the same job.

Apple Store - It was just released and is not even available outside the US store so we will have to wait and see. We have a web browser which can view full websites with ease, including the store, and so an iPad version isn't really needed.
 
I also want a iPad version of the Gallery App. That one *screams* iPad release. What's even more a problem is that if you try using Safari to access the Gallery, you get the mobile version which is quite limited. And worse than using the Gallery App. I have plenty of pictures that would really use the iPad's better resolution, if only they released an iPad version. Plus, it could easily have an interface to rival the Gallery when a desktop accesses it.
 
I use QuickOffice to access my iDisk files. It works great, plus I can do edits if desired. But yes, I agree that I shouldn't have to pay for a third-party app to access them.
 
Well, the good news is that iDisk has been updated for iPad use (Universal client). It now has one of those nicer iPad-like GUIs when using on the iPad.

Now all we need is for the same thing to happen for Gallery. They got the resolution detection in it for iPhone 4, but now we need is that update for iPad resolutions and GUI like the iDisk.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.