Die iPad, Die Die

[VetLegion]

It ain't perfect, but I like the developed ecosystem around it. I'm willing to pay
a premium for a tablet for which I know there will be plenty of good content.

I had an Android phone and I was less than happy. The Market for paid apps didn't
even work in my country. I don't want an Android tablet.

But sheesh, when I add shipping, customs and taxes, at the moment I'd need
to pay over $1000 for Ipad 2, which is waaay too much for something I can
live without

[Vanguard]

4:3

4:3 is better for everything except watching video. It is, after all, a multi-purpose device.

Lack of real multi-tasking

Multi-tasking is good enough for what most people use it for. Closing unused applications is pretty clunky however.

Lack of tabbed browsing

Yeah, this would be nice. Hopefully iOS 5 will have it.

Insane Apple tax on everything, including purchases direct from the publisher

Ok, trying to take 30% of subscription revenue for newspapers is insane. No argument. I don't think even Apple can make that stick.

Otherwise, I don't see the problem. Any physical retailer takes as big a cut from the retail price as Apple does (albeit with more risk). And it is not as if you have to buy music or video from iTunes. I have bought exactly 2 songs from them. I mainly buy cheap cds nowadays, believe it or not.

You do have to buy apps from Apple, if you are unwilling to jailbreak. But apps are cheap---- if not free. That seems unlikely to change within the expected lifetime of current devices, so why worry about it?

Curated/random denial app store

Yeah, there are only a few hundred thousand apps to choose from. Apple is really keeping the gates closed.

Heck, they even let VLC on until one of the developers complained about the licensing.

no VLC

I thought you didn't like 4:3 anyway. So why do you care about VLC? And you can stream from VLC to your iPad, with an app. Might as well let the desktop do the transcoding.


****tier cameras than my old RAZR phone [/QUOTE]

They are bad. Video is acceptable though, even by phone standards. You can't have everything. Personally I think they should have left the cameras off altogether and made it cheaper. This is a reader that can handle video and games. It is a multi-purpose device, not an all-purpose device. Don't make it better, make it cheaper.

But I guess cameras are a selling point for grannies who want to see the little ones on Facetime.

[Asher]

The hardware and software are inferior to the Tab 10.1 across the board. Only thing it has going for it is 100x more fart apps.

And I understand you don't really care about the restrictive nature of the app store until you actually try to publish apps on it. It's downright evil. I had to remove a feature that let consumers call long-distance, nation-wide, for free if they were calling a business listed in my company's directory. Apple blocked the publishing of the app until we removed it.

Apple also intentionally cripples javascript in its WebUI outside of Safari.app, which makes most browser frameworks useless. It's impossible to write truly native code on there, a la Firefox on Android.

Way too limiting. No point.

And I don't think 4:3 is better except for video. I like widescreen in every possible situation better than 4:3.

[Provost Harrison]

Personally I find I will always opt for the competition to Apple because something about them makes my skin crawl, and the way they pretend to be one thing and are really pretty evil. I was really hoping the emperor would've lost his new clothes by now.

Which reminds me, I do need to sort out getting a new laptop - but it won't be an Apple

[Robert]

That is good, I was afraid that Apple would dominate that market too.

too?
which other market is apple dominating?

[Fake Boris]

Apple can't be that stupid.

Their business model involves being a smaller player with higher margins. If your products are getting too popular, squeeze more juice from the consumer.

[Vanguard]

The hardware and software are inferior to the Tab 10.1 across the board. Only thing it has going for it is 100x more fart apps.

The specs are slightly superior. Slightly. Well done spec-writers, well done. But where is the hardware?

Even if Samsung does deliver the 10.1 in June, as promised, there is still the question of whether the total experience will be any better than the iPad 2 has now. I don't think it will be, though there is a lot to be said for not having to do everything through F-ING iTUNES.

And I understand you don't really care about the restrictive nature of the app store until you actually try to publish apps on it. It's downright evil. I had to remove a feature that let consumers call long-distance, nation-wide, for free if they were calling a business listed in my company's directory. Apple blocked the publishing of the app until we removed it.

You're right. I don't care. And neither does anybody who isn't submitting those types of apps.

Apple also intentionally cripples javascript in its WebUI outside of Safari.app, which makes most browser frameworks useless. It's impossible to write truly native code on there, a la Firefox on Android.

Native code? Are you joking? Is Java a low level language now? Maybe the Firefox developers did a few optimizations for Tegra, I don't know. But you can't let any app developer poke any register they want. I mean, why not just mail your credit cards straight to Uzbekistan and cellotape porn ads to your eyelids? Madness! Madness!

Regardless, Apple did not "cripple Javascript" for non-Safari browser apps. It simply improved Javascript for Safari itself. Presumably Nitro will make its way into third-party apps once security is locked down.

In the mean time, third-party browser apps are hardly useless. In fact, I use Firefox Home to come here and look for replies, since I have a bookmark there. It is not the same as Firefox, of course. But it is hardly useless. And the thousands of other browser types apps seem to be holding their own.

Apple just can't win here. First Apple haters claim that apps don't deliver the "real internet" and that the browser should do everything. But when Apple improves browser speed dramatically, they turn around and claim that Apple is crippling apps to keep the browser dominant.

And I don't think 4:3 is better except for video. I like widescreen in every possible situation better than 4:3.

On a 10" screen, 4:3 looks like a magazine page.

16:9 looks like a strip of paper upright and a half a magazine page when held sideways. For upright reading 16:9 either makes text too small or lines too short. For sideways reading, the lines are too long and the pages too short.

[Vanguard]

Personally I find I will always opt for the competition to Apple because something about them makes my skin crawl, and the way they pretend to be one thing and are really pretty evil.

Ooookay. So Apple, a granola-y Californian tech company, makes your "skin crawl" with their evil? Riiiiight. Paranoid much?

I'll let you in on a little secret. The tech company you really have to worry about is Motorola. According to these specs I am looking at, all their forthcoming devices have dual Selenium™ cores cold rivited to the frame. It looks to me that, theoretically, if you were to tether a Xoom tablet to a Gingerbread phone, it could open a dimensional gateway that would allow any number of hostile entities to travel to Earth.

And many of you Shuvs and Zuuls will know what it is to be roasted in the depths of Slor on that day, I can tell you!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Apple a "granola-y" company? Maybe their exterior face, but they are super locked down and willing to go after anyone that unlocks that. The granola-y behemoth company you are looking for is Google.

[Asher]

You're right. I don't care. And neither does anybody who isn't submitting those types of apps.

They will care as they increasingly use the inferior versions of the Apps due to Apple's restrictions.

Native code? Are you joking? Is Java a low level language now? Maybe the Firefox developers did a few optimizations for Tegra, I don't know. But you can't let any app developer poke any register they want. I mean, why not just mail your credit cards straight to Uzbekistan and cellotape porn ads to your eyelids? Madness! Madness!

There are two ways to develop apps for Android: via Dalvik (the common way, which is Java and since Android 2.2 is compiled only the first time -- after that it is native code), or the Native Development Kit (NDK), which is C/C++. Firefox uses the C/C++, as will VLC.

Regardless, Apple did not "cripple Javascript" for non-Safari browser apps. It simply improved Javascript for Safari itself. Presumably Nitro will make its way into third-party apps once security is locked down.

In the mean time, third-party browser apps are hardly useless. In fact, I use Firefox Home to come here and look for replies, since I have a bookmark there. It is not the same as Firefox, of course. But it is hardly useless. And the thousands of other browser types apps seem to be holding their own.

Apple just can't win here. First Apple haters claim that apps don't deliver the "real internet" and that the browser should do everything. But when Apple improves browser speed dramatically, they turn around and claim that Apple is crippling apps to keep the browser dominant.

They can very well win there. It's stellar that they introduced a real JS engine in their browser 1.5 years after Google did, but they intentionally only did it in the Safari.app itself and not the UIView or even from Safari as launched from desktop shortcuts. The technical reason given for this (ARM quirk with security that means it's risky to let any app use Nitro) is bunk, because somehow every other smartphone OS using the same CPUs can figure it out.

It's patently clear why only Safari itself got it. If developers start making Javascript-based apps (which, using Nitro, are pretty fast), they can easily make cross-platform apps. Apple hates the fact that people can do that -- give the same app on other platforms. They've intentionally made that against the terms of service for no technical reason, they just like being bullies about it. The implementation of Nitro in iOS 4.3 is no coincidence, it's Apple protecting their walled garden. They make $0 if you use a webapp, they get 30% of every App Store purchase.

On a 10" screen, 4:3 looks like a magazine page.

16:9 looks like a strip of paper upright and a half a magazine page when held sideways. For upright reading 16:9 either makes text too small or lines too short. For sideways reading, the lines are too long and the pages too short.

Nonsense. 1024px is too narrow for comfortable website viewing. 1280 is much better.

[Asher]

Ooookay. So Apple, a granola-y Californian tech company, makes your "skin crawl" with their evil? Riiiiight. Paranoid much?

You've no idea how evil Apple is.

We've had to re-implement how ****ing tooltips work on our app at work because Apple Legal has informed us that we were infringing on one of their patents. Similarly, we had to remove feedback when people used multi-touch gestures to zoom in and out of our page because Apple Legal says it violates one of their patents.

And it goes without saying how draconian the app store is. And the 30% subscription Apple tax. And the fact that they continually change screws to ones people don't have screwdrivers for, specifically so people stop self-servicing their phones.

Apple is extremely evil. They are inarguably the most evil out of the big tech companies these days. They're extremely restrictive and extremely arrogant.

[Jon Miller]

I like OS X, but now I am thinking to not buy other Apple products.

JM

[Vanguard]

They will care as they increasingly use the inferior versions of the Apps due to Apple's restrictions.


There are two ways to develop apps for Android: via Dalvik (the common way, which is Java and since Android 2.2 is compiled only the first time -- after that it is native code), or the Native Development Kit (NDK), which is C/C++. Firefox uses the C/C++, as will VLC.

If writing code in C to improve perfomance constitutes writing "native code", then surely iOS apps are all native code, since Apple's compiler is designed to write the best code for their own, highly specified, hardware.

It is only in Android, where apps need to work on hundreds of different hardware configurations, that optimization is necessary. Having to run fast just to stand still is not an advantage for Android.

They can very well win there. It's stellar that they introduced a real JS engine in their browser 1.5 years after Google did, but they intentionally only did it in the Safari.app itself and not the UIView or even from Safari as launched from desktop shortcuts. The technical reason given for this (ARM quirk with security that means it's risky to let any app use Nitro) is bunk, because somehow every other smartphone OS using the same CPUs can figure it out.

It's patently clear why only Safari itself got it. If developers start making Javascript-based apps (which, using Nitro, are pretty fast), they can easily make cross-platform apps. Apple hates the fact that people can do that -- give the same app on other platforms. They've intentionally made that against the terms of service for no technical reason, they just like being bullies about it. The implementation of Nitro in iOS 4.3 is no coincidence, it's Apple protecting their walled garden. They make $0 if you use a webapp, they get 30% of every App Store purchase.

This is self-contradictory. If they make money from App store purchases, then why are they hobbling apps?

Nonsense. 1024px is too narrow for comfortable website viewing. 1280 is much better.

More pixels is better, no question. But for aspect ratios, 4:3 is better (for reading) than 16:9. 16:9 wastes screen space by leaving much of the screen too far away from the center of vision.

[Asher]

If writing code in C constitutes "native code", then surely iOS apps are all native code, since the compiler is designed to write the best code for Apple's own, highly specified, hardware.

It is only in Android, where apps need to work on hundreds of different hardware configurations, that optimization is necessary. Having to run fast just to stand still is not an advantage for Android.

This is patently false. There are three distinct GPU architectures and three distinct CPU architecture on iPhone that need to be optimized. You'll find there's roughly the same number for Android. Even though there's many handsets, they're virtually all ARM Cortex A8s, A9s (both with the same PowerVR chips in the iPhones), or Snapdragons (with Adreno 200/205s).

iOS supports "native code" in that if you use Objective C with Apple's premade libraries, it's fine.

It most certainly does not support C++ or any arbitrary language like Android does.

This is self-contradictory. If they make money from App store purchases, then why are they hobbling apps?

It's not self-contradictory. They make 0% from webapps, 30% from App Store purchases. They're hobbling the capabilities of UIView because it's used as a way to get around the app store. Just like they banned using Flash-to-iPhone converters, JS-to-iPhone converters, and Flash.

More pixels is better, no question. But for aspect ratios, 4:3 is better (for reading) than 16:9. 16:9 wastes screen space by leaving much of the screen too far away from the center of vision.

I'm confused. Do you read by staring at the centre of a screen?

[Vanguard]

Apple a "granola-y" company? Maybe their exterior face, but they are super locked down and willing to go after anyone that unlocks that. The granola-y behemoth company you are looking for is Google.

Please. They have granola in the water coolers at Apple. That does not prevent them from being evil, of course. And I am no fan walled gardens. But I am not going to buy an inferior product based on paranoid delusions about corporate evil.