Familiar Arguments | Déjà vu | The iPod & The iPad

*goesbackto2001*

Uh, can the iPod multitask? I don't think so.
It doesn't run flash!
It doesn't have a USB port!
It looks like a big iPod Touch! Wait, what's an iPod Touch?

 

hahahah so in...9 years were gonna be happy with the then iPad and then Steve will announce something new?

 

LOL, thanks for posting that.

That iPod crap will never catch on, pfft

 

Apple's lost it

 

LOL. You didn't get what I was saying. I "went back" to 2001, and was complaining about ridiculous things that didn't matter.

 

This is different. Those people were complaining about a new product, now people are complaining about an old product... since the iPad does nothing new.

People never thought television would catch on either, but that doesn't mean you can't criticize TV stations or TV models these days and have a valid point.

 

Most of them i read were complaining that they weren't making anything new (digital music and MP3 players weren't a new concept) and it wouldn't catch on because it's "just another" device.

This is the same thing. I actually think it's a great idea. It's more of a niche market, but that's a good thing for a lot of people.

 

To be fair, the iPod didn't do anything new either. iTunes, maybe. The iPod essentially had a slicked up control interface for the mp3 player which had been already available for years prior. Apple did then what it always does. It takes someone else's idea, adds an excellent and sleek looking interface to it, then locks it in a closed system and sells it for a price higher than the competition to make people think it's elite.

The iPad is a take on the netbook's niche, but it uses the iPhone bedrock as the foundation to do so. It's smart because it's taking something people are infinitely familiar with and using it as a way to get around the inherent performance/spec limitations of devices in that category.

I have the same problems with the iPad that most do (ie., the name (TamPod), the lack of Flash (which is a very large hindrance to the device's ability to be the premier way to access the web today), the lack of multitasking (which is going to keep people from using it while listening to Pandora or answering IM's quickly while still browsing).

As a matter of fact, the iPad does nothing new, but what it does do is make something we do every day a bit easier and more streamlined. The weakness is that we expect it to do ALL the web and currently as presented, it does not. Even though the web video they made to show off the device is clearly showing the weakness with the NY Times website that HAS flash. They emulated it on the video to show how it WOULD be if it had flash, but since it doesn't... and you can go to the site to see for yourself how it looks without, it only shows the WEAKNESS of a browser without Flash.

Unfortunately, app makers have been making a living off of selling Flash games that are free online, so how likely is it Apple's going to suddenly cut the knees out from under these app makers and change course? I think it'd be in their best interests to do it now, but perhaps... just maybe... they wanted not to sour their initial take on the device by having dev's turning against it en masse because of a sudden presence of Flash? Perhaps they'll do it later when they can afford some negative backlash and it won't be in a public limelight?

Multitasking is almost certain to come. Apple's waaaaay behind here, behind Pre, behind Android, behind everyone. I am sure it will come with iPhone OS 4. I'd be shocked if many of the things iPad has don't show up on iPhone/iPod Touch 4. It is a lot of work to separate the codebases and a lot easier to maintain them as the same with different resolutions. Apple's not stupid. Showing off how an iPod Touch will be identical to an iPad, except for size, is a really good way to feed the pundits who already labeled the iPod Touch the iPad Mini.

The name sucks. I get that they had to change it when HP called their little tablet a Slate, but that's what Apple gets for sitting on their product for months rather than announce it when they were initially ready.

IMO, iPad does nothing new. The original iPod did nothing new. Both aside from interface. The interface is somewhat new in both cases, though clearly inspired from previous products in both cases. The iPad does not have the, "WOw, that's amazing and unlike anything I've ever seen" that the iPhone had and it also has some very entrenched competitors with products that are remarkably more capable in many ways, which is not a problem the iPhone had. The iPod had some significant problems (price, no Windows support, etc.) and those were taken care of before the iPod became a massive hit.

The iPad has some serious flaws showing right now and I expect those flaws to be taken care of before it becomes a MASSIVE hit. It'll do fine for a while, but like the iPhone where it sold and sold and then it stopped until they dropped the price dramatically, I expect the iPad to run aground until they fix these glaring problems.

If the iPad can only deliver half or less of the web as it's meant to be seen, it can't run HULU or youtube without specialized apps that take you out of the web, then it's going to look incomplete. People don't want to buy a device to browse the web while watching TV if the web it presents is incomplete. I'd be really surprised if Apple wasn't busy right now making Flash (even if it's just online video within Safari) a non-issue. I expect multitasking was already worked on and will show up either in March when the iPad launches or in June.

 

I suppose, but the iPod took an idea that was already good and improved upon it. To me the iPad doesn't seem to be improving enough at the moment, the only noticeable thing it's done is grow too big for your pocket. If they improve it in the ways you're predicting it'll get my interest back.

Nice post btw, welcome to TA.

 

Your 'point of view' remains invalid untill you've touched it. I find it amusing that you scold one f jef for forming opinions on apps he's never bought yet you feel justified to condemn a product you've never set your eyes on.

 

I didn't scold him for forming opinions, I scolded him for voting games down. He's entitled to dislike the look of a game, but actively punishing the developer with a bad rating isn't right.

So yes, of course we're allowed to form opinions on things we haven't touched. If they change when we get our hands on them then fair enough, I'm totally open to that possibility, but ideally a good device would impress people even before they've held it... and this one doesn't.

 

You can never underestimate the feeling of physical interaction.

Sometimes it's better to have a great UE rather than a big long feature list.

 

Fair enough, but if you're sticking to that rule then all positive reactions are also void until they've touched it, it's possible they'll be disappointed after a hands on session. Pretty much means none of us can discuss the thing at all.

 

It's one thing to base an opinion on some hands-on impressions, it's another to form one from a spec sheet. That's what I'm trying to say.

 

Lol. Maybe you're right. In the year 2019, people will look at the iPad announcement, and all our comments, and think : "WTF? This is the best invention EVER!"

And they will be disappointed by another new Apple invention, wich turns out to be awesome too.

E: BTW, the iPod was something whole different. It was the first mp3 player with a huge amount of memory, there actually was something innovative. The iPad only has a big screen, wich is not innovative at all, we all have screens bigger than the iPad.

We'll see if it will sell.

 

Well exactly, which is why I'm saying you can't go blindly praising it either. Telling people it'll be awesome and their negativity will disappear once they've touched it would just be hypocritical when you haven't touched it yourself.