OT: Apple Announcement

[Bridog6996]

Awesome. An iPod Touch, except bigger. Way to innovate, Steve-o.

 

Tablet PCs are nothing new, and the existing ones are seemingly much more versatile than this thing (although more expensive, granted).

 

I love how he said in the presentation that the faux touch keypad is a "dream to type on." RIIIIIIIIIGHT!

 

Youtube works because they've switched to H.264 for the most part. You don't need flash unless you're using a browser like Firefox that doesn't support H.264 streaming.

[FunkKeysStuff]

no doubt there will be a market for this if for no other reason than what I said earlier... because people want there to be one. Look at this thread, with guys trying to come up with useful solutions, having it do things less well that are already done by other tools, and using that as a good reson for the device to exist.

 

I think there's a legit market for this beyond people finding excuses to become one for the sake of coolness (though that is certainly a factor). There are those of us who had been hoping for something pretty much like this since well before the rumors started flying. Not long after I got my iPhone two years ago, I started thinking, "You know what would be really nice? Something like this, but bigger, and not a phone. Something I could put on a music stand to read charts from on gigs, use the web without having to squint, watch video at a reasonable size, read books, do email, and maybe have a functional word processor with a full-sized onscreen keyboard. Yeah, too bad that won't happen any time soon..." Of course maybe I'm in a tiny minority, but I can't believe I'm the only one who thought that.

 

Now that it's here, I'm still not sure if I'll get one right away, but it's nice to have the option.

[Bridog6996]

That's just the thing, though. It's been done. Tablet PCs already exist (have for a while now), and with more functionality than what Apple thought up.

[Jason Stanfield]

After talking to all the Mac geeks at work, we settled on "the iPad's a great product that could lead to some neat stuff down the road, but it's a one-trick-pony at best for pro computer users."

 

There are some neat synth and music production apps in the App Store, but since the iPad doesn't support any kind of peripheral sound device, you'd be stuck with 16/24 resolution sound.

 

I'd be interested, though, in seeing some of the iPad's (terrible name, IMO) tech integrated with music tech products in a couple of years ... imagine a compact, touch-screen softsynth player with a (musical) keyboard dock ....

[kanker.]

I think there's a legit market for this beyond people finding excuses to become one for the sake of coolness (though that is certainly a factor). There are those of us who had been hoping for something pretty much like this since well before the rumors started flying. Not long after I got my iPhone two years ago, I started thinking, "You know what would be really nice? Something like this, but bigger, and not a phone. Something I could put on a music stand to read charts from on gigs, use the web without having to squint, watch video at a reasonable size, read books, do email, and maybe have a functional word processor with a full-sized onscreen keyboard. Yeah, too bad that won't happen any time soon..." Of course maybe I'm in a tiny minority, but I can't believe I'm the only one who thought that.

 

Now that it's here, I'm still not sure if I'll get one right away, but it's nice to have the option.

Exactly. This is the market it's made for. What makes me scratch my head is the lack of a webcam. That is a glaring omission to this kind of product IMO.

[GovernorSilver]

That's just the thing, though. It's been done. Tablet PCs already exist (have for a while now), and with more functionality than what Apple thought up.

 

Except they cost more than the iPad. Are any of them multi-touch? The cheapest tablet PC I found online - the Samsung, is almost $900 ($400 more than the cheapest iPad) and its ad copy does not mention multi-touch.

[GovernorSilver]

I don't want an iPhone because it's "cool" or because I'm an "Apple fanboy" [i hate that term, BTW ]

 

Don't worry Joe. Guys who pull the fanboy card are just trying to look hip to the young honeys.

[Marzzz]

Funny thing is, for my day job the iPad will be a godsend and is what I have been waiting for. For music, I definitely would like to see the I/O necessary to play softsynths and manipulate sounds with the touchscreen. The device itself is not exactly revolutionary, but what that device may be able to do with content, etc. might be.

[kanker.]

That thing doesn't have enough processor for most of today's softsynths.

 

What I hope is that one day they make an Intel based version. Apparently Apple has a patent application out for a connector that would be able to hook up your computer to an external display, run data and peripherals, all the things we have multiple connectors for now in one cable. Make an Intel based tablet with that kind of connector. It can be used as a powerful standalone computer, or it can be attached to your laptop or desktop, used as a second monitor and an input device. Processing could be offloaded from the host to the tablet (ie Logic Node). Think about it - you could set up a screenset in Logic where the Mixer is on the tablet, use the touchscreen to mix your tracks while looking at the Arrange on your laptop screen. Edit softsynths on the tablet instead of with a mouse, stuff like that. Then you can disconnect the tablet, and take it to the gig or whatever. That's what I'd like to see in the next few years.

[GovernorSilver]

That thing doesn't have enough processor for most of today's softsynths.

 

Maybe not Ivory or some other multi-megabyte sample loading monster, but the iPad has more than enough power to run the softsynths that exist for iPhone/iPod Touch. These are just two of the many out there:

 

Jasuto

http://www.jasuto.com/site/wp-content/gallery/screenies/thumbs/thumbs_IMG_0147.PNG

 

http://teatracks.com/gliss/

[video:youtube]

[zephonic]

That thing doesn't have enough processor for most of today's softsynths.

 

 

That's debatable. I'm no hardware expert, but I'd venture to guess that modelling synths could easily be adapted for this platform. After all, there were some very decent software synths ten years ago (early NI or Arturia stuff) running on less powerful machines.

 

Bigger problem would be lack of connectivity, no USB to connect a pro audio/MIDI interface.

 

Still, I'm thinking that the next or 3rd generation iPad will be great. If it gets there, of course.

 

[kanker.]

Still, I'm thinking that the next or 3rd generation iPad will be great. If it gets there, of course.

Oh, it will get there. For all everyone is complaining about, this will be a runaway success. The iPhone and iPod Touch the proof of concept for this. People spent $5-600 or whatever on the original iPhone. They'll spend $500 on this.

[Bridog6996]

That's just the thing, though. It's been done. Tablet PCs already exist (have for a while now), and with more functionality than what Apple thought up.

 

Except they cost more than the iPad. Are any of them multi-touch? The cheapest tablet PC I found online - the Samsung, is almost $900 ($400 more than the cheapest iPad) and its ad copy does not mention multi-touch.

 

The Sahara Slate with multi-touch has been around for a couple years now I think:

http://www.doctorstabletpc.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/5e06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/i/4/i400k_front_left_2.jpg

 

HP has been making tablets with multi-touch as well, with a new model called the Slate pre-dating the iPad (albeit not by much) with a similar form factor.

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/bto/20100119/appletablet_600x375_270x168.jpg

 

Yes, more expensive, but you get what you pay for. You get all the same features as the iPad, plus the ability to multitask and run desktop level applications. A fully functional computer, rather than basically an iPod touch minus the convenient size.

[Mark Schmieder]

Now I just want them to build a regular computer that doesn't do Flash. ;-)

 

Flash is a bigger challenge to my ancient G4 iMac than multi-track audio, or even Photoshop. It is now the biggest reason I need to upgrade. It's become an epidemic on the web, and that's weird since people with computers older than mine might do nothing more than email and web browsing. Flash crashes all five of my browsers, more and more all the time. I wish it was banned.

[kanker.]

Mark, see if Click2Flash is compatible with your system. It disables Flash content, allowing you to click on any Flash content to activate it. http://rentzsch.github.com/clicktoflash/

[Mark Schmieder]

I guess now that I see what the competition is up to, I realise why iPad is drawing yawns. I don't pay attention to the consumer space as I only buy what is needed to get the job done vs. stuff for entertainment purposes or lifestyle choices or whatever. I didn't realise there were already a bunch of advanced touch tablets out there.

 

Hewlett-Packard is the way to go these days, it seems, in the Windows world. It's amazing how far they've come since their dark days a few years ago. They seem to really "get" what users need in terms of ergonomics, form factor, price, quality, etc.

[Mark Schmieder]

Kanker, thanks for the link. I hope it works with other browsers too. Safari is my browser of last resort, when I hit a website (often a payment site, which is scary as Safari is the least safe of Mac browsers) that won't behave on other browsers (Opera 10, Camino, Firefox 3).

 

Interesting how Apple did the workaround for Flash on YouTube and maybe a few other sites. I hope that starts to put pressure on web designers, who are moving in the wrong direction right now (case in point is Native Instruments' redesigned site, which is now almost impossible to navigate).

[GovernorSilver]

That's just the thing, though. It's been done. Tablet PCs already exist (have for a while now), and with more functionality than what Apple thought up.

 

Except they cost more than the iPad. Are any of them multi-touch? The cheapest tablet PC I found online - the Samsung, is almost $900 ($400 more than the cheapest iPad) and its ad copy does not mention multi-touch.

 

The Sahara Slate with multi-touch has been around for a couple years now I think:

http://www.doctorstabletpc.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/5e06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/i/4/i400k_front_left_2.jpg

 

HP has been making tablets with multi-touch as well, with a new model called the Slate pre-dating the iPad (albeit not by much) with a similar form factor.

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/bto/20100119/appletablet_600x375_270x168.jpg

 

Yes, more expensive, but you get what you pay for. You get all the same features as the iPad, plus the ability to multitask and run desktop level applications. A fully functional computer, rather than basically an iPod touch minus the convenient size.

 

Apparently the cheapest Sahara Slate is $1795. That does not look like a fair comparison to the $499 iPad, which I do agree is a larger iPod Touch.

 

 

[GovernorSilver]

Here is a tablet Macbook that is Apple-approved, though not Apple-made:

 

http://www.axiotron.com/uploads/pics/118_moya_tp_b.jpg

 

http://www.axiotron.com/uploads/pics/05x_moya_01.jpg

 

This Modbook Pro is a Macbook Pro converted to tablet device. Not cheap, and not multitouch, but it does multitask. It's price is more than high enough to give pro-Windows folks plenty of ammo...

[Bridog6996]

Apparently the cheapest Sahara Slate is $1795. That does not look like a fair comparison to the $499 iPad, which I do agree is a larger iPod Touch.

 

True, but again, you get what you pay for. You pay much less for the iPad, but you're extremely limited in what you can do with it compared to something like the Sahara or the HP Slate.

 

BTW, the $499 price is for the entry-level iPad, not counting your subscription contract. For a good model, you're looking at closer to $1k all told.

[kanker.]

BTW, the $499 price is for the entry-level iPad, not counting your subscription contract. For a good model, you're looking at closer to $1k all told.

It's $499 for a Wifi only model - no contract required

[Mark Schmieder]

The Modbooks have been out a few years now, but were kind of a hidden secret for awhile. I think also they've been going further with their mods and even taking on models other than Macbooks.

[zephonic]

Apparently the cheapest Sahara Slate is $1795. That does not look like a fair comparison to the $499 iPad, which I do agree is a larger iPod Touch.

 

True, but again, you get what you pay for. You pay much less for the iPad, but you're extremely limited in what you can do with it compared to something like the Sahara or the HP Slate.

 

BTW, the $499 price is for the entry-level iPad, not counting your subscription contract. For a good model, you're looking at closer to $1k all told.

 

Not true. Now you're just looking for stuff.

 

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

 

16GB 32GB 64GB

Wi-Fi $499 $599 $699

Wi-Fi + 3G $629 $729 $829

[GovernorSilver]

Apparently the cheapest Sahara Slate is $1795. That does not look like a fair comparison to the $499 iPad, which I do agree is a larger iPod Touch.

 

True, but again, you get what you pay for. You pay much less for the iPad, but you're extremely limited in what you can do with it compared to something like the Sahara or the HP Slate.

 

BTW, the $499 price is for the entry-level iPad, not counting your subscription contract. For a good model, you're looking at closer to $1k all told.

 

If I simply intend to use the iPad as a Bigger iPod Touch, I would not find it any more limited than an iPod Touch. I also would not pay a subscription contract, because I'd get the WiFi only version.

 

I would not compare the iPad to a Slate from Sahara or HP any more than I would compare an Asus EeePC to a $3000-ish Alienware laptop.

[FunkKeysStuff]

True, but again, you get what you pay for. You pay much less for the iPad, but you're extremely limited in what you can do with it compared to something like the Sahara or the HP Slate.

 

No argument there. My point is simply that there are people who neither need, nor want to pay for, the added benefits of those models. It's the same reason I didn't upgrade my digital piano for the last two years, even though I wanted to; I couldn't find one that came close to having everything I needed, and nothing I didn't. The models I found either didn't cut it, or had a bunch of crap that I'd never use and didn't want to pay for. Then the SV-1 came along, and boom, I'm a happy camper. Similarly, I think there's a market for what is essentially a bigger iPod Touch with a few significant additions. Yes, the hype has made it out to be much more than that, but that's not the issue. What it actually is, will be worthwhile to some people (possibly including me).

[GovernorSilver]

I guess now that I see what the competition is up to, I realise why iPad is drawing yawns. I don't pay attention to the consumer space as I only buy what is needed to get the job done vs. stuff for entertainment purposes or lifestyle choices or whatever. I didn't realise there were already a bunch of advanced touch tablets out there.

 

If it makes you feel better, I didn't know there was a market for $200-$400 netbooks until I went to Hong Kong and Manila on vacation in 2008. Asus Eee PCs were on sale in just about every consumer electronics store. People there buy them for casual web browsing at coffee shops and other hangout spots.

 

The iPad looks to me to be Apple's entry into the netbook arena, lack of multitasking and all. It seems a lot of people expected a full-powered laptop, not an iPodTouch-as-netbook device.

 

Another high end multitouch input device is the Jazzmutant Lemur. Not surprisingly, Lemur owners have been rising to the "defense" of their chosen device in light of the much cheaper iPad.

[Mark Schmieder]

Here's some mostly-negative reaction from some musicians and technologists, posted at Sonic State today:

 

http://www.sonicstate.com/news/2010/01/28/reactions-to-apples-ipad/

[GovernorSilver]

Here's some mostly-negative reaction from some musicians and technologists, posted at Sonic State today:

 

http://www.sonicstate.com/news/2010/01/28/reactions-to-apples-ipad/

 

These are better thought-out criticisms than the usual forum fare. Peter Kirn and Holmes Wilson are basically saying the same thing - and it's a legitimate concern.

 

There are two guys there though that see the same potential that some of us see.

[Mark Schmieder]

Yeah, I usually post such links sans commentary, but agree with you. I like the way Sonic State deliberately goes for balance, with intelligent sources on all sides. It helps make clearer that these are not black-and-white issues. But I have to admit I hadn't thought of some of the concerns raised by Kirn and Wilson.

[Bridog6996]

Apparently the cheapest Sahara Slate is $1795. That does not look like a fair comparison to the $499 iPad, which I do agree is a larger iPod Touch.

 

True, but again, you get what you pay for. You pay much less for the iPad, but you're extremely limited in what you can do with it compared to something like the Sahara or the HP Slate.

 

BTW, the $499 price is for the entry-level iPad, not counting your subscription contract. For a good model, you're looking at closer to $1k all told.

 

Not true. Now you're just looking for stuff.

 

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

 

16GB 32GB 64GB

Wi-Fi $499 $599 $699

Wi-Fi + 3G $629 $729 $829

 

That's exactly my point, actually. You'd need a 3G model for it to be worth your while I would think. After all, what good is an "on the go device" that seems to be so heavily marketed toward the internet crowd if you can't surf the web on the go? Plus, note the "data plan sold separately." There you have it: then entry-level model isn't worth it, and the decent models are significantly more expensive than the $499 number everybody's throwing around.

 

You're right in that perhaps "closer to $1k" is exaggerating, but it's relative. I know they don't actually cost $1k. The key part of the phrase was "closer to."