Apple iPad

dom: #apple_ipad That was a nice piece, Omar. You certainly know your stuff :-)

Now that iAds is going to be released, Apple will make their app ecosystem even more attractive to developers. I certainly understand the dynamics of that, and from the developer perspective it would be great if we had just one mobile OS.... but, I think the mobile OS space is actually in great shape considering how much competition we have there, and consumers are still spreading their money across platforms to quite a high degree (especially if compared to the desktop OS market). I really hope that the iPhone OS won't become the dominating sluggard of the mobile OS world as Windows has in the desktop OS world (any company can/will fall into that trap once given a quasi-monopoly).

However attractive the Apple ecosystem is in terms of money for developers and of user experience to the consumers, in the long run I really think openness is supreme and should win. Google might have their own questionable intentions of "spying" on user behaviors to cash in with advertising, but they've done an incredible job at keeping the user at the center and giving him/her the choice of how much should he/she wants to reveal. Instead of forcing things down a user's/developer's throat in an all-or-nothing approach as Apple does it, they appeal to the user in a way that says something like "won't you help us improve our products and services by submitting your information"? Google's philosophy of openness also gives me confidence in buying into their ecosystem - ironically, because I know it's going to be pretty easy moving back out of it and into something else, if I feel that Google has become less innovative/useful/affordable than someone else. My experience with Apple has been terrible in this respect.

It's really going to be a clash of the titans in the next few years with Apple vs Google, but it's going to be up to "the people" to decide who will win. Let's reward the one who shows more trust in their own ability to innovate by keeping things open. Apr 9, 10

Omar: #apple_ipad @dom:
I think that boat has sailed, crossed the ocean, and is now circling Fiji. Practically speaking what it all comes down to is marrying willing and paying customers with eager and enthusiastic developers. With the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad Apple has a metric ton of willing and paying customers. These are people that have already self-selected themselves that they're willing to pay a premium dollar for a 'premium' experience. Slick, functional and It Just Works.

The genius with Apple was giving those customers a dead-simple mechanism to find, load and play with new apps. The App Store is essentially a safe-zone, and while the quality of a ton of apps is suspect, if you go with the 'popular' you're pretty much guaranteed to get something decent. So Apple has the paying customers... and if you're a developer that's looking to make money, you have nowhere else to go. Are developers getting rich off of the Android Marketplace? What about the Blackberry App Store?

If the Apple App Store is the only store that developers are getting rich off if, then that's the one the best developers will be targeting. You might have functionally equivalent apps on competing platforms - similar to open source alternatives to popular commercial packages - but they'll be inferior in ways that mainstream customers care about.

So now you have great apps on the iphone/ipad platform which draws in even MORE paying customers and boom you have a virtuous cycle. Ideals, principals, fears of the future, vendor lock-in, closed platform, etc etc. All of those get washed away in an orgy of apps and money. For the past 8 years we've been living in a Google web world where openness reigned supreme.

Will open trump closed the same way that happened with the web?

That's the big question. Pundits are obviously claiming that it will, but I don't know if we can be so sure. Look at the iPod and iTunes. Obviously music is different than full fledged applications, but what people care about is the EXPERIENCE. As long as the experience the average person receives on the iPhone is superior to the competition, nothing else matters.

But that's going to be up to the developers. Do developers care more about money and getting users/traction or about jumping through restrictive hoops.

My prediction is that right now Apple wields the power, but it's really about the apps. And once the apps get enough traction the balance of power goes to the developers. For example, I have the Quicken app. It's awesome. Love it. Isn't available on other platforms. As soon as it is... well, one less + to Apple.

I guess a good way to think of it is like gaming consoles. Right now the iPhone OS is the SNES/PS2. It's got the audience, and has the most exclusive developers. But that doesn't mean you can't have somebody like Microsoft make a close copycat, woo developers, and make everyone go multiplatform... oh wait, MS is releasing Phone 7 in the fall. It won't be this year, but I'd put my bet on MS in competing the most with Apple, not Google. Apr 9, 10

dom: #apple_ipad @Yale: no seriously, the iPad display is OKAY. But as I was trying to explain, measured by the gigantic marketing claims and all the high expectations that so many people had, I mean, camping outside of stores for days and high-five'ing each other after a purchase etc.... measured by how it was going to be the "Messiah of tablet computing", this is just a disappointment. "Okay" becomes mediocrity.

Am I wrong in expecting a lot from Apple? I have owned Tablet PCs since 2005 and used them as my one and only computing device: ultra-portable/netbook, tablet for taking notes in class, couch surfing machine, e-reader, drawing toy for kids, desktop with the docking station & external peripherals & 26.5" display, DVD player, aaah, the list is too long! Anyway, the ThinkPad X61 Tablet (admittedly much more expensive than an iPad, but also that much more useful) that I've had for the past 3 years can definitely be improved in various ways, such as a better display, mobile-TV integration (the next iPhone is rumored to pick up mediaFLO), USB 3.0, or perhaps even LightPeak. I thought Apple could take up something really new and innovative and spark some new developments across the Tablet PC industry. But what did they do? It's "innovation recycling", which is, of course, an oxymoron.

At the end of it all I'm now expecting much less from Apple, kind of like the person who put that sarcastic CON into the review that reads "No built-in microwave oven, doesn't run Windows 3.1 and can not be used as a screwdriver". Of course I understand it's a sarcastic exaggeration that is trying to mock any criticism, but ironically, it implies that any high hopes for a "revolutionary" multi-purpose Apple tablet are unjustified.

@Omar:
You're right that the apps make a big difference. The "mindshare" among developers and the wooing visual effects of the UI (the engineers did an excellent job there, but again, it's little more than what we've already seen on the iPhone) is what can still drive the sales of even a bottom-third tablet as the iPad. But even the app ecosystem that Apple is expanding with the iPad concerns me. It's the same restrictive closed platform that rejected Google Voice on the iPhone. This Engadget article has it right - it shows where Apple is trying to move the industry to, and that is a place where we pay $10 or $15 for every little step that we take on the web. I think every consumer is well-advised to consider not being sucked into that. I'm not unwilling to pay, I just want choice, flexibility, and freedom. Apr 6, 10

dom: #apple_ipad Why the iPad display is disappointing:

For a long-rumored device as the iPad and all hopes that Apple will truly create something that's magical and revolutionary, as they market it, the display is quite a letdown. The screen is good for a laptop or a mobile phone measured by the standards set during the past roughly 10 years, and it has ample resolution for its size. Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that it won't work or that it won't be possible to get used to.

But if the iPad lived up to its hype, it would indeed feature a more modern display such as the AMOLED or Super-AMOLED displays more recently used by Samsung and HTC, for instance (those can already be found in products on ProductWiki). These display technology are impressively bright and clear - so much that IPS LCDs pale in comparison. Or, the iPad would use an actually revolutionary technology like mirasol.

Considering that the iPad's one and only serious application is that of an e-reader, it competes directly with the Amazon Kindle and the B&N Nook (and others from Sony, Samsung, etc.). The e-ink of these e-readers has at least two major benefits over LCDs: a) they require no power at all for preserving the pixel state and b) the e-ink's contrast and text quality is almost that of a real book and therefore much more relaxing to the eye. But, they do have a major disadvantage LCDs in this application: they are greyscale-only (4 or 16 level depending on Kindle version).

This is where Qualcomm's Mirasol comes in (helpful article on Wired dated Feb 04, 2010, can be found here). I've held a mirasol display in my own hands, and I can tell you that it really is even more impressive than AMOLED or Super-AMOLED screens. It combines the high resolution and color capability of an LCD with the power savings, contrast, and readability of an e-ink screen, while offering display refresh rates of 24fps.

Of course, one can only hope that this technology will catch on in e-readers and tablet computers, and it's possible that mirasol wasn't quite ready for a tablet/e-reader attempt as the iPad. But for now, I consider the iPad with its LCD screen nothing "revolutionary" or "magical", but even a downgrade from an e-book reader such as the Kindle. Apr 5, 10