Me. I want one as a glorified e-reader. It’s also nifty that I can use it for other media applications. The iPhone can only do so much I am afraid. And when it comes to reading PDFs which is what I do most of the time it’s a nightmare.

http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/

Of course Apple didn’t bother with GPS in the WiFi-only version (it would be slightly useful but you’re hardly going to use WiFi while driving), but the 3G version clearly has Assisted GPS, which is “real” GPS, just like the iPhone 3G/S.

But if this hypothetical new crippled Mac gives some (or even most) people the ability to do everything they want to do, but with an advantage in some metric (easier/faster/less effort/cheaper/more interesting/cooler), and even if by some unlikely massive change in circumstance that crippled Mac becomes “the norm”, I can’t see whats wrong with that. I really don’t see it happening, but I don’t see what would be so wrong with it. So what, if the majority don’t want the flexibility and ability to tinker that we enjoy now, and are willing to sacrifice a file system or desktop or the ability to write their own non-App-store-compliant App, in order to get a benefit in another area? For those that want to tinker, or want more “computer freedom” than whatever is this unlikely hypothetical “norm”, there will always be a different device that doesnt have the kudos or whatever benefit “the norm” has.

I am not convinced that people need to be as steadfast in bartering with their “computing freedoms” as I think they should be in bartering with their basic freedoms. I can’t see what’s wrong with some people trading freedom of operating system for whatever benefit (real or imagined) they think is “worth it”. Of course if they make this trade without considering if it is “worth it”, that is their gaffe, but not one that I think the average computing punter will make, or one that the general punter needs to be protected from. I can’t say the same about basic freedoms, though, which I think should be protected much more staunchly. But I guess this is where we differ in opinion, which is fine with me.

I have to completely disagree with you there. I think it would be hugely successful. I keep going on about this, but the iPhone was the thin end of the wedge, the iPad is today’s test case, and the general apple computer line is (in my opinion) up next. This “simple and familiar” experience disguises what’s really going on. As you seem to say with the car analogy, people would buy anything if the imagined benefit outweighed the cost. And one of the biggest costs is the lack of Freedom, which, as we agree, most people aren’t even aware of, and wouldn’t care much if they were.

Anyway, we may have a test case even sooner than the next apple announcement. Google are working on their ChromeOS for netbooks, which consists of a whole OS that’s basically just a browser. That’s at least built on open source software. But can the iPhoneOS on macbooks be far behind?

I imagine the consumer that would buy the iPad will not be using USB except for the odd occasion when they whip out their USB accessory, and feels it is just as good being able to charge from USB (if they could ever find a USB port and one of those rare iPod/iPhone/iPad dock to USB cables) than it is to lug around a spare battery in their bag… Still not sure why you find it so hard to believe that such people might exist (and some very technical I’m sure, maybe even some of those people in the programming industry whose opinion you value so much).

- I think it’s definitely achievable, and may even be reasonable, but I don’t think it would be very successful, at all. And I certainly think that people would expect more flexibility out of a full-blown computer than iPhoneOS, so much so that I wouldn’t think many people at all would buy such a crippled machine. It is one thing converting someone from a PC to OSX, but I would imagine this would be almost impossible if the alternate to a PC was as inflexible as the iPhoneOS.

As I alluded to, I think the iPad is about as “general computing” as a device could go with having such a restrictive OS. But I think this OS is useful enough to achieve all the things Apple wants out of the iPad, with the bonus of being very simple and familiar, for a device that is championed on being simple and familiar.

“I bet they wouldn’t know or care what you were on about. This really depresses me.” - Me too, 100% behind you. I really hope it doesn’t come to that, but thankfully I think consumers are too demanding for that to become a reality. I am glad there is significant discussion about this though, because I do think it is an important issue.

“You wouldn’t buy a car with the bonnet welded shut after having signed an agreement that it’s illegal to drive it except on commodore approved roads. Would you? What’s the difference here?” - I wouldn’t, no. But my mum or my friends that aren’t interested in what’s under the bonnet might, if this car provided some benefit that offset that cost. For instance, if the car ran on water alone, or could “fold” down to the size of a wheelie bin for storage. I could see lots of people buying welded-shut, road restricted cars that provided some other large benefit they were after. I can’t see anyone buying them if they only provide the same experience as a car that could go anywhere or have it’s bonnet opened. I don’t think that is too ridiculous an answer given the question?

F**k me that’s a long slag off! Anyway I don’t really want to get into such a long discourse. It’s simple really. No USB means no standard connectivity. No camera means no Skype. No battery means … no back up and … throw it away. If you can tolerate this kind of mis-treatment then you should join the cast of Oz.

It should have been “take backsies”.

“…how does this differ from Kindle or any other eReader out there…”

It doesn’t much, I’m not at all keen on Kindles either, especially with their so called take backsides feature, scarily similar to the iPhone’s and, presumably, since they’re running the same OS and from the same store, the iPad’s killswitch. The biggest difference is that the Kindle is a very specialist device, whereas the iPad is positioning itself as a general purpose computer. Either way, these are really bad developments for the future of computing.

“I really don’t think you have a leg to stand on if you are trying to suggest Apple will force all Applications for OSX to be vetted by them in the future, or that they will restrict browsers etc in the same way they do for the iPhone or iPad. … I don’t think Apple can go much more “general computing” than the iPad (which isn’t very “general computing”) and be as restrictive as they are with Apps.”

Unfortunately this is almost exactly what I’m suggesting, and this is my main point. Perhaps not with OSX, but expanding this iPhoneOS to their computer line. They’ve proven this model is hugely lucrative for them in a phone, they’re now attempting it with a more powerful device, why would they stop there? They’ve proven it’s not an impossible task to vet x thousand apps for a phone, many gnu/linux distributions have repositories organised by small groups or companies, so in principal there’s no organisational reason they can’t do it. Why do you think it’s so unreasonable?

“I can’t see the average punter being any less computer savvy then they are now… Are you really worried that the success of the iPad might lead to apathy for computing freedom?”

They don’t need to be less computer savvy than they are now - this trend is already happening. And most people don’t care. Ask anyone about computing Freedom, and I bet they wouldn’t know or care what you were on about. This really depresses me.

“I definitely wouldnt want to live in a world where every device had to do everything that everyone wanted. Specialisation is not such a bad thing, afterall.”

Perhaps, but there should at least be the option to modify the devices that you own, or use them however you want within reasonable laws. This is about more than specialist devices. You wouldn’t buy a car with the bonnet welded shut after having signed an agreement that it’s illegal to drive it except on commodore approved roads. Would you? What’s the difference here?

I agree with Robert Collings that it is an underwhelming evolution, rather than a revolution. I think it’s an impressive package for the price, particularly for (but not limited to) those that have already adopted the media ecosystem of iTunes/iPhoto.

But, as I’ve already said, I don’t want one. If it had proper OSX and some USB ports, or if the A4 is abnormally quick and it’s easy to crack open the GUI, it might be a different story. Chances are I’ll never want one, unless it adds some more tricks to its repertoire. But I can certainly see the niche it will fit in the market.

Patrick, it will probably not surprise you how little your “locked to Apple” and “forced to” comments resonate with people who have actually used Apple products for what they are designed to do (whether they are Apple fans or not). I’m not the biggest Mac user because not a lot of my work can be done in OSX. I am not a Mac “fan” although I was given a Macbook pro (ironically, by work). When I get home from work of an evening I’ll boot to either Win7 or OSX and in both instances I’ll have the exact same (all non-Apple) programs available to me for surfing the net, editing photos/movies, watching movies, skyping, IM, torrenting, spotify-ing, etc etc everything that I do that is not work. I often find myself boothing to OSX to do something I can’t do in Win7, but rarely the other way around. Other people have different needs, and luckily, there are different options! I use iTunes for my music in both OSes (even before I had an iPod) and iPhoto for my photos (previously were sitting in nested folders), and often stream both (+movies) to non-Apple devices that I would consider to be the best on the market that I can afford or can justify the money for. Contrary to your implications, none of my media in OSX is hidden or restricted from being accessed/copied/moved, and if I wanted to adopt a different method for using my media, I’ll just move it all over to the alternate, no problems.

I can see where the “locked to Apple” and “forced to” comments come from (people who don’t need/use the products), but I really can’t see that they are justified. Even before I owned any Apple products I couldn’t see how they are justified. Say it’s the kool-aid if you want to feel warm and fuzzy, but maybe it’s more constructive to realise some people have different needs to you, and for some of those people, some Apple device may fill that need. Just like any other manufacturer or any other device.

So you say Apple aren’t innovators. That’s a fair enough opinion to have. I can’t really see it, but then again it’s not something I’ve really considered or cared about before. How do you think they stifle the “real innovators”. Sounds like a pretty shit thing to do if you ask me, stopping real innovations from surfacing. Or do you mean that because Apple are popular the “real” innovations don’t find room in the market? Isn’t that just the market? If you can’t convince someone to buy from you, they won’t, regardless of how innovative you are. Maybe it’s less of a poblem with Apple and more with the “real innovators”? And where does Microsoft fit into all this? I like some of their products too, but maybe I’ll have to rethink if they also stifle the “real innovators”. Maybe Apple and Microsoft should leave a gap in the market for the “real innovators” to fill with their innova(pour)tions?

I apologise for “arguments againt it” if it offended you. I meant it to mean “..points of criticism based on comparisons..”, but I can it was perhaps poorly worded.

As for “broaden you horizons”, “the lengths that you go”, “mindless defence”, “techo ignorant”, “your spiel”, “cheer squad”, “Apple booster”… I guess that’s where I’ll leave it then, lest this back-and-forth be reduced from a good enjoyable discussion of opinion to ad hominem.

The iPad is not revolutionary in any way whatsoever. Those of us who perhaps expected Apple to ‘change the game’ in this regard are more than a little disappointed. This is an evolution, not a revolution.

And if Apple is about to change the publishing industry it has *nothing* to do with the iPad! Apple could have announced the iBookstore sans iPad and the effect on the industry would be the same. It is an interesting change nonetheless.

Can I see myself buying one? Sure (but not 1st Gen). But that’s because it fits within my Apple/Mac/iPhone workflow and most of the world is very PC. It’s one thing to fork out a couple of hundred bucks on a pocket sized music player, but it’s another thing entirely to spend quite a few hundred on a rather large media player that may have an unfamiliar UI.

One of the advantages of the iPod/iTunes ecosystem is that it let people place their own music (i.e. CDs) on their device. That is a much more open system than users are likely to encounter when buying ebooks.

The iPad is hugely underwhelming and I find the post-launch hype surprising.

Yes well, perhaps you need to broaden you horizons a bit. One could easily point to the lengths that you go to to try and justify the lack of basic features the iPad exhibits and the mindless defence of Apples patent gouging of the techo ignorant. I mean your spiel about not buying the most “important accessory” for the iPad is nonsensical when you realise my point about these being standard kit for a netbook. And I thought the whole idea was to reduce clutter?

As you say the back and forth is pointless, Apple will continue to have a cheer squad. The real innovators will struggle and we’ll all be the poorer for it. And BTW these aren’t “arguments against it” they are points of criticism based on comparisons to existing devices and the value for money. It would be a breath of fresh air if the Apple boosters took the same approach.

NEV

This really twigged for me with the iPhone. As a phone, it’s… ok. However, for example, when you install the iTunes Remote app, tie it to your Mac (and I won’t even get into how easy this is compared to Windows) and then plug some speakers into an AirPort out on the balcony, it’s a joy. Complete control over your music library wherever you are (within WiFi range obviously).

Take your iPhone and connect it to your MacBook for Keynote presentations and you have a remote that shows you current, previous and next slides or current slide with presenter notes as well as timers and other useful information for presenters.

What Apple are all about is the ecosystem - no one device will do everything you want, but string a few together and you have the long promised digital revolution.

That said I would’ve love to have seen some extra hardware on the iPad (an ir port would’ve allowed the most fantastic home theatre remote), but as far as software goes, as the ad says, there’s an app for that. Or there will be.

On the one side, there seems to be a concentration on listing the features and specs. Yesterday Leslie Nassar referred to Nokia, for example, as building Homerphones — a reference to an episode of The Simpsons where Homer was asked to design a car and the random collection of must-have features resulted in an ugly, clunky mess. Microsoft can claim that for Windows 7 they listened to the customers. And they did. They had to after the disaster that was Vista. And while Windows 7 is still Vista, it’s still far more complicated than 90% of computer users need because everything has to be included to satisfy the other 10%.

Apple’s approach is instead to concentrate on user experience — to the point of control-freak obsessiveness — and to make the purchase choice simple. In the case of iPad, for instance, it comes in three capacities, with or without 3G. Take it or leave it. If there’s some specific feature missing, tough. But, because Apple obsessively controls the entire stack from hardware all the way up to packaging and in-store signage, if the product they’re selling is right for you then it all does tend to work smoothly.

I do get confused about the emotional level, though. If HP or Lenovo or Asus release a machine and it doesn’t match a specific person’s need, no-one has a go at them for “forgetting to include a Bliggo port”. They just don’t buy the product.

But I think we can split hairs on features. In the end, this is a phenomenon. It’s an Apple, and many people would buy it just because of that. Just like the iPod and the iPhone and all the other gadgets. There are better products on the market for any given purpose, but they are not Apples. They are not sexy and not so stylish.

Where did you find out the price of the USB adapter? Definite minus that a USB port was not included as standard. Imagine the touch-to-focus remote live view SLR shooting… mmmmm.

The iBookstore certainly won’t be live overseas at the US launch date, likely due to publishers demands, but there is nothing to suggest overseas iPads will not have iBook functionality. The contrary actually.

Apples will be everywhere because of the name and the prestige, because it won’t be because of the features.

As I think we both agree, the technical limitations are shit. Apps are a different (also shit) story, and you are right that some Apps in the past have had poor decisions made regarding classifications or outright bans, some for nothing more than what seems like business advantage.

The rest of your comment I think echos what I said above, that there is a difference between a (manufacturer imposed) technical limitation and content restriction. I think (you may have a different opinion) that a lack of “emulators, flash players, web browsers” is not based on a decision to block a certain type of information, but is either technical (CPU/battery life) or a transparent business decision. Luckily there are other products out there if we need flash, emulators etc etc.

As for books, I think you missed what I was getting at. You said books will be “mediated by an apple product. And only in apple approved formats” - how does this differ from Kindle or any other eReader out there… Apple approved format does not mean Apple controlled format. As I said, EPUB + PDF (at least) gives a lot of flexibility and restriction free viewing, even if it is in an Apple program that doesnt restrict what you view.

Totally agree that a “general purpose computing device” shouldnt have the limitations of the iPad. That is probably the reason most people don’t see it as a general purpose computing device. Jobs said that it should do SOME things better than a laptop (it does) and SOME things better than a smartphone (it does). But by no means was it implied it does ALL things better than either. That is why they both exist. He did quip that netbooks aren’t better at anything compared to a laptop or smartphone except price. He never implyed the iPad was better than a netbook at everything, and I’m not sure anyone really believes that. Simply put, I think the target market for the iPad overlaps with netbooks but they are not one and the same. For instance you seem like you could benefit from a netbook (and probably do?) but wouldn’t benefit from the iPad.

“is it so difficult to imagine that future iterations of apple laptops or desktops will run this operating system?” - I don’t think it’s as clear or dangerous as you make out. Why can’t the two (OSX lite and OSX) live side by side? Each taking from the other what it needs to in order to succeed? Bit of multitouch here, a bit of productivity suite there…. I really don’t think you have a leg to stand on if you are trying to suggest Apple will force all Applications for OSX to be vetted by them in the future, or that they will restrict browsers etc in the same way they do for the iPhone or iPad. Not unless you have no experience with Apple except for the iPhone and iPod.

“It already does what most consumers need from a computer” - Then is it so bad if people use it as their computer? Smugness aside, I couldn’t disagree more. It already does what most consumers need most of the time from a computer. I can imagine very few people who could totally replace their laptop with an iPad. But at 500 US I think a lot of people may try and find a reason to use it for something they currently do on their laptop.

“extending the control that apple exerts over their mobile devices into the broader computing market.” - I can see where you are coming from here, and I think it is a good argument. If the iPhone and iPad become ubiquitous, maybe Apple will turn their laptops into non-filesystem non-desktop App restricted devices too. And that would definately be a product that doesnt sell well. I don’t think Apple can go much more “general computing” than the iPad (which isn’t very “general computing”) and be as restrictive as they are with Apps.

“The problem is … And that’s why we need to be concerned.” - I can’t see the average punter being any less computer savvy then they are now, so unless I misunderstand what you are trying to say, I can’t see any reason to be as concerned as you ask. If by beholden you mean obliged to use only the Apple browser and Apple music player on your Apple device, perhaps that is the price to pay for the stability and snap of such a device. Luckily there are others out there are just different enough that you might find what you are looking for. There is no one right way to do anything, let alone one right way to build a restricted couch surfing device.

Are you really worried that the success of the iPad might lead to apathy for computing freedom? I definitely wouldnt want to live in a world where every device had to do everything that everyone wanted. Specialisation is not such a bad thing, afterall.