Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: iPad  (Read 17413 times)
Bahi
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


WWW
« Reply #60 on: January 29, 2010, 03:12:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Wally
Or you could just run Flash which is used on millions of websites and has been around for a long time. (...) Of course in the USA Hulu is a major player supported by most of the major television networks, and it is all flash.

My guess is that we'll see a Hulu app on the platform soon, that all major online video providers who rely on Flash (including news organisations) will provide h.264 alternatives and that the absence of a Flash plug-in won't be seen as a problem for Apple in six months' time. Major content providers will be making their stuff look good on this device, either by avoiding Flash for the versions of their sites that this device loads or by providing apps. The widespread adoption of h.264 for video and standard AJAX/CSS solutions for simple interactive stuff, which may seem a long way off now, will be in place for key sites.

Photographers who are moving into video work won't have a problem getting their footage seen on the iPad.

Apple is definitely taking a risk—even the NYT home page in Jobs's demo showed the missing Flash plug-in symbol—but my guess is that its calculations are correct. (It wouldn't have been a bet worth placing 3 years ago, though.) The web is built on advertising and advertisers love sliding, whirling, blinking stuff that is currently completely dependent on Flash; if the iPad sells well, as I expect it will, to a demographic that advertisers find appealing (again, very likely) then the ad industry will lead the march to all-singing, all-dancing content that doen't require Flash and which just works on in modern browsers. Money talks.

I do agree, though, that this is going to pose a problem for photographers whose sites rely on Flash for their look and interactive content. Some will choose to move to CSS/AJAX solutions to get their sites onto these devices. Where there's a demand, there will be solutions and non-Flash sites already work quite well; I could certainly be wrong in believing that the solution won't be a Flash plug-in for the iPad and that the iPad will sell very well without it but only time will tell.

As for paying "megabucks", the Kindle DX (9.7") is $489 right now (29 Jan 2010) and the cheapest iPad (IPS screen, apps, iPod, video, games, great interface) is $499. No contest.
Logged
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #61 on: January 29, 2010, 04:02:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: feppe
All attempts at web subscriptions for newspapers and magazines have resulted in failure, often a miserable one. Not too many people are willing to pay for content which is available for free elsewhere, and the few sources which have tried subscriptions have failed to differentiate their content enough from those. Even if News Corp closes up entirely, there will be others who won't - and even if they do, there will be numerous free sources of news financed by taxes, such as BBC.

And what makes you believe that even if what you're saying is true, it is not applicable also to other forms of content delivery i.e. e-magazines? I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought.

What I'm trying to say is that charging for news or magazine content cannot be the differentiator which will make or break the ipad or similar content delivery platforms.You can do that on the www now using any of a number of web browser based devices for delivery.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2010, 04:04:44 AM by NikosR » Logged

Nikos
gguida
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


WWW
« Reply #62 on: January 29, 2010, 04:04:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Much as the iPhone before it, the iPad is having a disappointing launch but, as Stephen Fry puts it, it's not about the bells and whistles, it's about the interface. The iPad is about two years late because of last (long) minute tweaks that anybody else than Steve Jobs would have found completely irrelevant. They even paid several hundred million dollars for their own chip design company so it could be a few percent faster. But, of course, the difference between instant and even the slightest delay is huge in any interface (shutter lag anyone?) so microseconds count.

The CES show was full of eBooks but I have a strong feeling that they will be stillborn because we want more in our books than just black and white text. Many other tablets were presented but their interface was either Windows or inexistent. The iPad, for all its apparent simplicity is a quantum leap, a paradigm change, as an information access device. If I was slightly surprised at not seeing an iChat camera on it, I suppose it was tested to death and not found practical for some reason.

My only real disappointment was to not have a content SDK made available immediately. This is a publishing platform, but not for web content, it is for eBooks on steroids, with DRM and an online shop so you can actually sell them for real money rather than hypothetical advertising revenue. That is where the device is relevant to us because that is where all of our images will be in ten years time. As for the SDK, I guess Apple will do as with the iTunes LP and show us some fantastic examples with their publishing partners first before making it available to everybody else. As with the App store, the first ones to jump in will be in an excellent position. Magazines reborn. I worship books and have several thousands in my library but just can't deny the attraction of having them all at hand, being able to search through them, link between them and external sources, and have them enriched with multimedia. I loved having CDs and kept buying them long after I started using iTunes but I haven't touched one for years. Besides, they is no room for bookcases in our small european houses anymore.

Now a few more thoughts. The iPad comes in a few different flavours but the most attractive is actually the cheapest one and one doesn't actually need tons of memory for a device like that. Now imagine next year, a $300 or even $200 iPad. You won't have just one, they will be littering your house. They'll be strewn about like discarded magazines, ready to be picked up and displaying your information, pulled from the cloud in that huge billion dollar server facility Apple just built. Star Trek TNG indeed. I can also see a good use for a home media server now. As with the iPhone although it is having a very slow start, the iPad is the perfect device interface. If you are building a big industrial machine, developing a nice physical interface is going to take tons of development time and money and you may make only a few hundred of them at the end. Now, you just need to plug in an iPad, write a simple App and you are running with the best of them for peanuts. Also, as a pilot, I'd sell a kidney for Jeppesen plates on an iPad.

So, Michael, when do we see the first iPad LLVJ?
« Last Edit: January 29, 2010, 04:06:28 AM by gguida » Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #63 on: January 29, 2010, 06:31:21 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm looking forward to cheaper and simpler versions. Here is what I have in mind as a wedding photographer. I give the client a ipad type thingy. On it using a DVD type interface they click on either a slideshow of all the photos, the video and a fusion presentation of the video and stills. I don't need anything as 'advanced' as an ipad though to do that, all I need is a glorified digital picture frame looking like an ipad. When it does happen it will kill the proof book idea though, far more personal a presentation than a webpage with a slideshow.
Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #64 on: January 29, 2010, 06:52:58 AM »
ReplyReply

How this website for example will be display in order to view it properly with this media, as it has fixed dimensions? Re-programing html-css etc...that would work both in a normal computer and IPad? And how would be kept quality in image down-sized?
Logged
Peter Mellis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 95


« Reply #65 on: January 29, 2010, 09:15:34 AM »
ReplyReply

One of the large scale potential uses for a device of this type is as a platform for college level text books. A unit will have to be crafted for that application and delivered at a price that will make it attractive. The development and production costs of college texts have made them very expensive and there is a great deal of pressure to get the cost to students down. Electronic delivery, with a viable viewing/reading device would eliminate the manufacturing and distribution part of the publishers cost structure and significantly cut the cost to the student. The problem that remains to be resolved is the usual one as related to digital content; protecting the intellectual property rights of the publisher.
Logged
Moynihan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 118


WWW
« Reply #66 on: January 29, 2010, 09:30:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: PeterAM
One of the large scale potential uses for a device of this type is as a platform for college level text books. ...

Ah yes. Apple has a significant presence already, developed for the last 30 years, in the educational sector (at least in the U.S., don't know if elsewhere).
That was one of the first things i thought when i first saw the thing. Apple education presence is also in K-12. I would expect significant discounts for school purchase will appear.
The publishers in the ebook "alliance" for the device all have textbook divisions. The ebook format chosen by Apple is also not proprietary, which publishers really like.

Many students already have ipods. some have iphones. Now for school, an ipad? Talk about market development/brand loyality building?
« Last Edit: January 29, 2010, 09:37:21 AM by Moynihan » Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #67 on: January 29, 2010, 09:54:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NikosR
Well, what about subscription or pay to view web sites then? Limiting the content available for free doesn't necessarily mean a shift away from the www.
They are trying that too, but with mixed success. My guess is that the plan for downloadable "newspaper Apps" will try to add value over websites, and so make subscription more acceptable, in a couple of ways:
- by downloading in advance (maybe over night, with updates in the background), the content can be more substantial and yet without delays each time you click to new page.
- reading can be done away from a network connection: some of us do not want to pay for a monthly 3G data plan just to be able to read the newspaper when out of WiFi range; we want to download our reading matter from the internet, and then roam.

The best evidence though is the clear enthusiasm of magazine and newspaper publishers like the New York Times for selling Kindle and App versions. The NYT  failed in its previous attempt at selling a web service, Times Select.
Logged
Dansk
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


« Reply #68 on: January 29, 2010, 10:07:39 AM »
ReplyReply


 Apparently the ipad was launched last year....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L68aKVAzwQ4


Logged
Wally
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #69 on: January 29, 2010, 10:22:11 AM »
ReplyReply

After reading many articles with regard to iPad both pro and con, and reading many threads on various websites such as this one it seems there are two main camps.

The first camp (which I am in) thinks that the lack of flash support, a camera, and a host of other issues will relegate the current iPad to the same fate as every other tablet computer, which means it will be a niche player in a niche market.

The second camp thinks that issues like lack of flash support are not a big deal because at some point in the future there will be new HTML/CSS standards that will make flash no longer needed. Most in this camp also think that publishers will come out with tons of content for use on the iPad which will make it much more popular.

What we have here then is the classic "What Came First the Chicken or the Egg" scenario. I am sure Apple will sell a few million at launch. There are enough Apple Fan Boys who will camp out in front of an Apple Store and will quickly snap them up. Once they get one who else will? In order to drive more sales there will need to be a bunch of content. In order for there to be a bunch of content there needs to be a bunch of iPads out there.

This is very different from the iPhone launch because people carry cell phones anyway, and for the last decade people want to get a new phone every year or so anyway. Many people also carried an MP3 player most of which were iPods. So if you are getting a new phone why not get one that can play MP3s and Games and allow you to go online. So many people viewed the iPhone as an upgrade from their current cell phone and/or MP3 player. And went from carrying 2 devices down to one that was small and fits in your pocket with the added ability to have internet.

The iPad is different because most people do not allready carry a tablet. So you are asking people to carry something new in addition to their cell phone. You are also asking the millions of iPhone and iPod Touch users to buy another product and carry it with them. Many of the current iPhone users dropped big money on the first iPhone and then paid big money again for a new one with better features and more power. Many of these folks will not do that again and will wait for the iPad 2, after all they can already run everything in the App Store.

All of this means a  limited user base, which is waiting for content, and content creators waiting for a user base to sell to. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out. It is the Chicken and the Egg
Logged
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568


« Reply #70 on: January 29, 2010, 10:23:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Lol!

I admire Apple in some ways, I like their OS, but it has to be said..more often than not it's a case of style over substance. Don't get me wrong, they've done well with i pods (even if they are not great sound quality wise), they took the market for themselves. I don't see this as appealing as some previous products. As for their computers, really, we're just talking about the OS, because the unit is a PC inside..with a nice case and Apple logo on it. But then as a system builder I would say that. So in closing, I don't see this one really being a huge hit..it's too limited. I see Adobe are hammering it for lack of flash support.

http://www.itproportal.com/portal/news/art...flash-omission/

Oh and I bet you have to send it back to Apple to change the battery, as per i pod/i phone   , here is a nice video of all the hassle involved for an i phone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pr6HWZa0dGM

I dislike this type of lock in from any company. Cmon this is just poor basic design.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2010, 10:25:33 AM by barryfitzgerald » Logged
Wally
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #71 on: January 29, 2010, 10:36:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
They are trying that too, but with mixed success. My guess is that the plan for downloadable "newspaper Apps" will try to add value over websites, and so make subscription more acceptable, in a couple of ways:
- by downloading in advance (maybe over night, with updates in the background), the content can be more substantial and yet without delays each time you click to new page.
- reading can be done away from a network connection: some of us do not want to pay for a monthly 3G data plan just to be able to read the newspaper when out of WiFi range; we want to download our reading matter from the internet, and then roam.

The best evidence though is the clear enthusiasm of magazine and newspaper publishers like the New York Times for selling Kindle and App versions. The NYT  failed in its previous attempt at selling a web service, Times Select.

This then is a clear advantage for the Kindle over the iPad. With the Kindle you have free 3G to download content you don't need to be tethered to a computer. You can do that anywhere in the world that has 3G service. The interface to do so is very slick and very easy to use right out of the box. You just turn it on and away you go. If you see a book or newspaper that you want you just download it, no need to pay for 3G.

Then again for newspapers you can buy them for a quarter or 50 cents and read them on paper if you really wanted to. Also each morning when you head out the door the paper could be waiting for you on your front step. What is killing the Newspaper Business is not the fact that people do not want paper, it is that there are many outlets online that they can get their news from for free. As long as I can go to news sites for free, or flip on one of many news channels on TV I will never buy a newspaper in electronic form. If I am going to read the news electronically anyway why would I pay for it? That is the major issue that newspapers face.

I used to subscribe to a bunch of photography magazines as well. I let just about all of them run out. Why pay for Shutterbug when I can come to websites such as this one for free?

The biggest issues facing content providers is not that people want electronic over paper, it is that they want free over paid. The iPad does nothing to change that fact
Logged
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1616


WWW
« Reply #72 on: January 29, 2010, 11:30:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: barryfitzgerald
Oh and I bet you have to send it back to Apple to change the battery, as per i pod/i phone   , here is a nice video of all the hassle involved for an i phone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pr6HWZa0dGM

I dislike this type of lock in from any company. Cmon this is just poor basic design.
RFOL!  This video looks like a guarantee for sales of new I-Phones!  I just got my daughter a Droid phone from Verizon.  It took all of five seconds to put the battery in the phone (probably will take about the same time to remove it when it needs to be replaced).

With respect to the I-Pad; I commute via subway to DC (20 minutes each way) daily.  I have the original Kindle and for the type of reading I do, it's great.  I've grown accustomed to the slow page turn and now hit the turn bar when I'm about three lines from the bottom.  I don't find that bothersome.  I read the newspapers at breakfast in their original newsprint format.  I guess I'm old fashioned that way so my simple conclusion is that the $500 is better spent on photography supplies.
Logged

pschefz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 244


« Reply #73 on: January 29, 2010, 11:36:31 AM »
ReplyReply

here is a simple comparison between upcoming pads/tablets/....lack of flash and storage (64gb max) across the board....

and even the dell will run android....
Logged

schefz.com
artloch.com
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #74 on: January 29, 2010, 12:32:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Firstly, I agree that adding Flash support would be useful ... unless Apple and others succeed in breaking Adobe's stranglehold on that part of the web experience, through HTML5 and such. I hope they do succeed in cutting Flash down to size: I have had repeated frustrations when something breaks because Flash is not installed at all on the host computer where I am giving a presentation, or a newer version is needed, or Flash does not work right with my preferred browser/OS combination. Also, I like the Kindle and Kindle DX) for what they do very well: reading books, magazines and such in which the main content is the written word, not illustrations. But ...

Quote from: Wally
This then is a clear advantage for the Kindle over the iPad.
Only until the electronic newspaper or magazine or book includes color images and graphics, or embedded video.

Apparently, the Kindle DX ($489 with 3G connection, monochrome, proprietary book format, no video at all, so definitely no Flash) was tested in some US colleges for using electronic textbooks in class, and did poorly because of things like inadequate ability to add "marginal notes" and the fact that many modern textbooks rely heavily on color graphics. So the iPad could improve on Kindle with its full size (but virtual) keyboard. But it might be that the real breakthrough for highly portable electronic textbooks will involve adding a good hand-writing input system too. I have heard that screens which handle pen input and touch input and color output and are big enough for a good reading experience are, for now, too expensive for the $500 device price range.

P. S. Most of us can easily dock our devices to charge (and download newspapers or such) each night, so ten hours of continuous usage and several weeks of standby should be plenty.
Logged
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1616


WWW
« Reply #75 on: January 29, 2010, 02:29:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
P. S. Most of us can easily dock our devices to charge (and download newspapers or such) each night, so ten hours of continuous usage and several weeks of standby should be plenty.
Not if you are on a long transcontinental flight.  I had my Kindle on an overseas trip of 10 days and it was only down to 1/2 charge by the day I was scheduled to leave.  Charged it just to make sure.  If anything this is a big disadvantage of the I=Pad.
Logged

DiaAzul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 777



WWW
« Reply #76 on: January 29, 2010, 06:53:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
Firstly, I agree that adding Flash support would be useful ...

Apple will never allow flash or any other application environment to run on the iPhone/iPad which allows users to download applications around the Apple App store. Allowing flash, or any JVM type container would weaken Apples grip on their prime revenue steam, even if it is in the customers' best interest.

Apple has one goal and one goal only and that is to make money.
Logged

David Plummer    http://photo.tanzo.org/
Bahi
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


WWW
« Reply #77 on: January 29, 2010, 09:08:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DiaAzul
Apple will never allow flash or any other application environment to run on the iPhone/iPad which allows users to download applications around the Apple App store. Allowing flash, or any JVM type container would weaken Apples grip on their prime revenue steam, even if it is in the customers' best interest.
The app store for the iPhone and the iTunes store run a little over break-even for Apple, according to Peter Oppenheimer, Apple's CFO. If consumers had access to the same functionality through some other means and still bought the devices regardless, you'd think Apple would be fine with that. Apple cares about hardware sales and customer satisfaction with the device. My guess is that Apple has made a judgement about the dissatisfaction that will undoubtedly result from the absence of Flash on the iPad and decided that it's less than the dissatisfaction that would result from performance, stability and battery life issues that users would experience if Flash were present.

Apple's problem with Flash is long-standing and has to do with years of relatively poor Flash plug-in performance and stability on OS X compared with Windows, both before and after Apple moved to Intel CPUs. It's not that it's downright terrible or completely unusable—far from it. But as anyone with a MacBook will know, if you watch Flash content on a Mac, the computer's fans come on quickly, CPU use rockets and battery life suffers (compared with watching the exact same content, in the exact same resolution, in h.264 format using the QuickTime plugin rather than the Flash plugin). On a mobile device like the iPad, for which heat and battery life are critical, that sort of behaviour is a deal-breaker.

I haven't tried recently but a few years back, I found Flash performance on a GNU/Linux Gentoo distro pretty bad as well, while quick and slick on Windows using the same hardware. There are technical issues here potentially affecting performance Flash on OS X (Apple's API limitations, the fact that its browser is a 64-bit app and Flash code remains 32-bit and more) but today's round of articles on the web seem to suggest that Adobe suddenly cares about this issue in a way that it has never seemed to previously. (I'm speaking as an end user, not from knowing anyone at Adobe. That's just how it felt.) This seems like good news—Flash on the Mac has worked appeared to work relatively badly for as long as I can remember, one update after the next, despite the promises, and if the performance and particularly the stability problems suddenly go away, who knows what might happen?

I've used ClicktoFlash since its release—it allows you to automatically load the h.264 versions of all content on YouTube, for example, and the resulting absence of fan noise (and improved battery life) when browsing is very welcome.

Then there's stability. Flash was also named, somewhat obliquely, the single biggest source of all Mac OS X application crashes at the last Apple developer conference, based on the crash reports that Mac users submit to Apple. See Gruber's article here. My own experience is exactly in line with that (with some third-party widgets collectively coming in a close second).

Some people (including Gruber) suggest that keeping Flash off the Mac has become a control issue for Apple; that's certainly possible but my guess is that if the plug-in had shown great performance and stability for the last few years on OS X, it would have been on the iPad. Anyway, if Apple and Adobe can sort out their differences, all the better.
Logged
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1258


« Reply #78 on: January 29, 2010, 10:27:59 PM »
ReplyReply

If you want a laptop or a netbook, buy one, because an iPad isn't one. They are different machines for different purposes. I think the iPad is a game-changer because I think it's beginning to reflect a new, growing reality on the net, and that is, content actually does count. The Wall Street Journal already requires a subscription, and the New York Times is about to, and I expect other major media forms will begin requiring the same -- why should they give the content free to Google, and watch Google collect all the money for advertising? So, when the Times reports on a critical issue, you can either read the Times' version, or, a day later, read the version provided on Google, taken from the East Jesus Gazette-Advertiser. Lots of net people think all they need to know is to be found in blogs; but most of what is found in blogs is bullshit. Of course, if that's what you need... Every time I go to Europe, I would plan to pack along perhaps ten novels, a couple of dozen magazines, plus reference books travel guides, art history works etc. I believe they will quickly become available.

Vs. iPod and iPhone. Ever try to take four or five art reference books to Europe for your museum tour? Ever try to find an English-language version of a speciality art book in Munich? Ever try to read a novel on an iPod? Art's my thing, but the same would be true of anyone needing reference books, either for work or for pleasure -- car enthusiasts, pilots, historians, archaeologists...the possibilities are the same as the possibilities in your library.

Vs. netbook. Every try to read a novel on-line or with a laptop?

Vs. Kindle: Ever try to figure out the charm of a fauve painting in black and white?

One thing I wish they'd done is provided slots for flash memory - CF cards. 64 gigs may not be enough for everything I plan to do with it. It'd be nice to be able to jump up to another 64gigs whenever you needed it.

I travel a lot with a laptop. If my laptop gave me 10 hours of life, I'd be delighted -- but I've never had any problem charging it. Along with eating a couple of meals, taking a couple of leaks, etc., an iPad would cover a flight from London to Sydney, or Newark to Baghdad...and I expect you'll quickly be able to buy those little backup dev ices like they have for the iPod, batteries that will give you a boost for those times you can't get to an outlet...not that I've ever needed one.

So: I think it's a game-changer, although I'm also keeping an eye out for rumored Microsoft slate, which some say may actually fold like a book...

JC
Logged
Jeff Phillips
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #79 on: January 30, 2010, 08:25:41 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't think the iPad will replace any laptops.  Apple believes you will buy one in addition to the laptop you already have.  The same applies to Kindle.  I love my kindle and would keep it if I get an iPad.  Same applies to my iPod.  The iPad is designed to complement these devices, not replace them.  
   I was also intrigued with the Brushes demo during the unveiling.  I did not know Brushes could handle layers.  I would snap up an iPad if there were apps from Phase One, Lightroom or Photoshop.  Would they replace those versions on my laptop or desktop? No.  But they would be useful in the field for quick adjustments or as digital ground glass or as enhanced digital ground glass.  Checking and changing white balance.  Quick curves adjustments.  Quick sharpening actions.  The list goes on.  I would love to use the iPad in this fashion.  Since there is already a photoshop app for the iPhone it is obvious someone (more likely a group) over there has experience with the sdk.  Fingers crossed for Adobe and Phase One to join the party...
Logged

Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad