So what changed? I guess that my questions got answered and I worked out [...]]]> You would be forgiven given my post “Why I’m not buying an iPad, but don’t let that stop you” and the fact that I am writing this on my iPad that I am weak in my resolve and perhaps you may be right.

So what changed? I guess that my questions got answered and I worked out that while I may not need one sometimes wanting enough can be close to needing.

Reading Apple and tech oriented web sites all the time I have been bombarded with the iPad related news and information since its release. Countless times I read how using the iPad for activities like web browsing removed a layer between the user and the content. I also read that the iPad was truly a different paradigm of computing.

I think like most people it was actually using the iPad that settled it. Once I had one in my hands I began to appreciate that a small, light weight computer could replace a lap top or even a desktop for most common tasks. It was more than that. The iPad just felt right. Right size, right weight and the screen was gorgeous.

By this point my protestation that I didn’t need one was more of an excuse than a real objection. Last Saturday I guess I just cracked and took the plunge. So far, apart from at work, I have used it for everything that I normally use my computer for.

In a future post I’ll list my top ten iPad apps.

Now that real people (as opposed to technology journalists) have got their hands on the device we have [...]]]> According to reports coming in yesterday Apple sold 300,000 iPads during the weekend. An impressive quantity of units by anyone’s measure. While it stands to be seen how sales develop from here on in it is an encouraging sign.

Now that real people (as opposed to technology journalists) have got their hands on the device we have an opportunity to really gauge public reaction and observe the revolution that the iPad represents emerge. Like I have said in previous posts I don’t anticipate this iteration of the iPad to change the way that we use computers in any noticeable way, but the stage has been set and as other manufacturers seek to ape the iPads ease of use the paradigm shift will emerge.

Going forward the iPad will face competition from any number of sources. I anticipate that netbook sales will begin to decline over the long term, but will still represent a large volume of the portable computing device market for the foreseeable future. HP have just released specs for their upcoming Slate tablet computer and it is likely to lure users by offering the things that the iPad doesn’t i.e. full desktop operating system, expandable memory, USB port and camera. Their are a slew of other tablet computers on their way from manufactures like JooJoo and Adam. Throw in the hypothesised Google Chrome OS tablet and the mythical Microsoft Courier and the landscape is littered with tablets. Tablets are finally going to be big and they will provide a test for Apple’s vertically integrated paradigm – will customers choose Apple’s sleek, simplified iPad complete with integrated iPod and video playback or go for a web based OS, like the JooJoo’s or Google Chrome OS, or a full blown OS like Windows.

I believe that users are going to accept the limitations of the iPad as a trade off for a fantastic user experience. Devices limited to the web and web apps are unlikely to curry much favour with the majority of users since the iPad offers so much more. PC manufacturers like HP should remember the limited sales of tablet PCs through the early years of this century and reconsider if Windows is really an OS people want to use on a tablet. I might be wrong, perhaps they do, but  when it is necessary to run an extra software layer over Windows along with the requisite security software you wonder how great the experience will be. No, the iPad is going to be a winner.

It may be as much of a surprise to you as it was to me that I am not going to buy one. Up until yesterday I was all set to preorder as soon as they were available on the Australian Apple store and had they been in the shops yesterday I would have bought one. Then it hit me. I don’t actually need an iPad.

I was thinking about where I would use it. I pictured myself sitting on the couch browsing the web, but I can do that with my iPhone and if I want a bigger screen I can use my MacBook Pro. I pictured myself writing blog posts and essays and making work sheets using Pages, but I can do that on my MacBook or my iMac with a full size keyboard without the need for a keyboard dock. Then I started to wonder how likely was I to read books on it. When am I going to read these books? Why am I going to buy them rather than borrow them from the library. I don’t read magazines and I don’t read the newspaper.

Perhaps I would use it to watch movies? I like watching movies and TV series, but I like sharing them and a 10″ screen isn’t ideal for that. Much of You Tube is puerile rubbish and I never sit and sift through the dirt looking for diamonds. I might play games on it but I can do that on my Macs, my iPhone or on my Wii. So where exactly am I going to use the iPad and what am I going to use it for?

The only scenario where it makes sense is if I were to travel. I can imagine it coming into its own then. I can dump photos on to it. Create blog posts. Check my mail. Do my banking. Listen to music and watch movies. I travel a bit, but can’t see myself going anywhere for the next 12 months or so. Perhaps if I didn’t have a laptop then I might get one as a mobile device, but I need a laptop at work and I since I already have one that is spurious.

My iPhone is mobile computing. My laptop is portable computing and my desktop is serious computing. Perhaps when I actually hold an iPad and use it for a while everything will become crystal.

Should you get an iPad? Yes. Probably. Only you know that and you knew that before you read this. Do I still believe the iPad is revolutionary? Yes, without question. Will I buy one eventually? Yes, when I need one and have answered all my questions.

During the week reviews from some of the more well [...]]]> The iPad will officially reach the hands of consumers today and, boy, have the wires been abuzz with news surrounding Apple’s latest mobile device. So far there have been no announcements of an Australian launch date so in the meantime we can only wistfully watch from afar.

During the week reviews from some of the more well regarded American tech journalists (Pogue, Mossberg, Ihnatko, Baig) were released. Although acknowledging the previously understood limitations of the device (e.g. no camera) they were resoundingly positive recognising the iPad’s potential as a disruptor of existing technology and describing the speed of the device, the bright and colourful display and the highly tactile design.

My favourite reviews, however, come from Xeni Jardin at Boing Boing and Stephen Fry writing for Time. Xeni gives a well thought-out hands-on description of using the device while Fry effuses enthusiastically and gushes in his inimitable style.

Still the naysayers nay and while it is perfectly easy to be dismissive of their often shrill and poorly thought-out arguments I think that it is beneficial to have an open, rational discussion about the iPad. After all it is posited as a device that will change computing to the same degree that the graphical user interface did.

Some say the iPad  will not to be the game-changing device it is claimed to be are those who focus of specifications and particularly those that the iPad lacks. Apple have placed the iPad in direct competition to netbooks. Netbooks are pared down laptops with reduced processing power, smaller screens, diminutive dimensions and low price-tags. Most include a web-cam, Windows operating system (with the ability to multitask), USB ports and physical keyboards. The iPad, of course, lacks these features and to these people it makes little sense to purchase an over-sized iPod touch lacking in the features they deem necessary.

While being a valid argument to focus solely on the iPad’s lack of features is to ignore those things that the iPad does have and can do. Stephen Fry in his review of the iPad referenced Jonathan Ive as saying that it is what Apple chose to leave out that makes the iPad special. The device itself gets out of the way and lets the user interact with the content. It is a device that is flexible enough to change function as required. It’s on-screen keyboard is functional and easy to use and gets out of the way when not needed. The operating system doesn’t require complex task managers and functions like the iPod work in the background. Lack of a USB port isn’t quite so important as might be believed. Wireless connectivity allows the transference of files flexibly between the desktop computers and the cloud.

Netbooks, by many accounts, are really not a great experience. Many people who have purchased netbooks have experienced frustrations that their underpowered device is simply incapable of running anything more complicated than a web browser which is, after all, what these devices were intended for. They are still subject to viruses, complex file systems and complicated software. The iPad takes this away. What those who focus on specifications really fail to realise is that the iPad is about the software, not the hardware. It is about simplifying the operation of computers, not replicating the experience of a desktop.

Another group of people argue that the iPad is a big iPod touch. David Pogue recognises this in his review. Yes, the iPad is a big iPod touch, but this is a good thing. The same user interface that has sold 70 million iPhone OS devices powers the iPad, but the iPad offers a much larger screen and therefore more opportunities for app developers to create more complex, immersive applications that take advantage of the 500% extra pixels. The iPhone OS simplifies the user experience by hiding the filesystem and allowing one third-party app at a time. Instead of nested menus and hidden functions everything is there simplified. Anyone can use it from my Mum to a three-year old.

This simplified model of computing is considered a negative by another group. Simplification means that it is not possible to tinker and customise as some like to do and prevents users from hacking and creating their own software. How many users really want to do this? In fact how many users explore the OS X command line or make software for their desktop computers?

Corey Doctrow over at Boing Boing argues that the inability to tinker takes the magic out of the device and denies users the right to truly own their device. I understand that the ability to create software and hack a device is valuable, but the type of person who likes to develop their own software isn’t who the iPad is aimed at. However, should anyone want to make an app then they can download the developer tools from the Apple website and do so. Not only this but they can roll out the software to a number of iPads or submit to Apple to go to the App store. Nobody is trying to take away your right to tinker. As John Gruber points out in this piece the iPhone OS can be equally inspiring to budding hackers.

It is important to realise that while the iPad stands to change the face of computing things aren’t suddenly going to change. Computing will be simplified but Apple don’t intend the iPad to supplant your desktop OS, there will still be Macs and Windows PCs, but these will slowly become the province of enthusiasts freeing those who just want to get things done from the burden of managing a desktop operating system.

Since the App store first appeared some people have bemoan the “closed” nature of the iPhone OS ecosystem by which they mean that the only way to get software onto the iPad is through the App store relying upon Apple’s approval process. This also means that users can’t create and sell their own software for the iPad. Whilst it is true that software must be downloaded from the App store the diverse range of titles mean that it is hard to imagine a scenario where a desired piece of software cannot be found. Apple have so far made a couple of faux pas in their approval process, but have improved this process and  the walled garden nature of the ecosystem has served to keep out more nefarious software. The recent purge of “sexy” apps caused consternation among those who believed that Apple were limiting the right to free speech by removing titles of questionable value that were flooding the market and stopping genuinely valuable software from being visible.

Apple’s decision not to allow Flash on the iPad’s lack of Flash has become an issue for some people. As I pointed out in The Bell is Tolling for Flash Apple’s decision not to include Flash support is based not only on the lousy performance of Flash in OS X, but also on the fact that it is not a web standard endorsed by the W3C. Flash is proprietary and controlled by one company. In the same way that Microsoft was handed de facto control of web standards after its destruction of Netscape we know that is dangerous to have one company control the web. Flash is unnecessary because HTML 5 and CSS can replicate and improve upon anything Flash can do in a package that is far less intensive in its use of system resources.

The iPad can’t be all things to all people, but it does offer the best experience possible to a certain group of people. It is the nature of the beast that some people will love it, others will question its usefulness and actively dislike it and others still will remain oblivious to it. Regardless everyone will be effected by it.

Perhaps I don’t totally agree with all of his observations, but I love the fourth one. This seems to have a great deal of resonance with the profit versus market share theory that Apple applies to its products.

For example, among others John Gruber at Daring Fireball cites a report that [...]]]> Mike Elgan writing over at Computer World.

Perhaps I don’t totally agree with all of his observations, but I love the fourth one. This seems to have a great deal of resonance with the profit versus market share theory that Apple applies to its products.

For example, among others John Gruber at Daring Fireball cites a report that Apple made US$1.6 billion in the third quarter of this year versus Nokia’s $1.1 billion. Apple it should be recalled has 2.5% of the total handset market while Nokia has something like 35%.

Apple also makes a lot more money than many companies (Dell for example) who have a much larger market share. In other words Apple does very nicely thank you with its apparently tiny market share in computers and mobile phones. The only areas in which it does dominate are music and portable music players – another area where they saw an opportunity and like Elgan says made a “surgical strike” with great design.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/microsoft-store-viejo-2628335-mission-first

Whatever you might think of Apple fanboys at least they are queuing for the products and the company, not [...]]]> The OC Register reports that people were queuing to get into a new Microsoft store at an Orange County mall in order to get a show-bag containing free tickets to a concert my a Canadian pop star.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/microsoft-store-viejo-2628335-mission-first

Whatever you might think of Apple fanboys at least they are queuing for the products and the company, not for freebies.

It is [...]]]> Last week saw the release of Windows 7. It also saw Microsoft launch its new retail store strategy. Both events were covered widely by the tech media and rightly so since they are both worthy of note, but one really gets the feeling that both were further symptoms of the giant, Microsoft, stumbling further off kilter.

It is no news that Vista was a large scale failure. While some may argue that it wasn’t as bad as many made out and that it was a good deal better after the service pack the negative press it generated limited sales and had PC box assemblers begging Microsoft to let them continue to sell Windows XP. Apple capitalised on the negative press of Vista by suggesting the XP users move to a Mac instead. More damaging still to Microsoft businesses and corporations did not widely adopt Vista.  It was for these reasons that Microsoft had to get Windows 7 absolutely right.

From all accounts Microsoft has put a tick in all the boxes. I am still to use Windows 7 (and to be honest I never used Vista for more than five minutes), but I have read a multitude reviews and they all speak very positively about improved speed, better driver support, smaller memory footprint and improvements in interface. It would seem that Microsoft have a winner on their hands. And yet a few things trouble me.

Firstly, most reports I have read conclude with a sentiment akin to “It’s what Vista ought to have been” or they note Windows 7′s similarities to Vista and the areas in which it is better. While the Windows apologists are quick to argue that it isn’t “just a service pack” it certainly sounds like one in the reviews. At the very least it isn’t a new version of the operating system in real terms.

Which leads me to my second point, price, and it is here that I must finally raise Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard’s head. Windows enthusiasts are quick to point to Snow Leopard and gleefully jibe at the US$29 price for what they see as a service pack. Sure, Snow Leopard isn’t that different from 10.5. It isn’t the difference between 10.4 and 10.5 and the price reflects that. Mac OS X has been evolving since 2001. Its DNA has slowly altered and it has grown new features and become faster with each iteration.

What these same apologists seem to be blind to or ignore is that the cheapest version of Windows 7 costs $110. And Windows 7 is really just what Vista ought to have been. People who shelled out for Vista are going to have to shell out again just for fixes.

Windows 7 brings Windows more up to date, but according to two comparisons I have read, one being at CNET, Mac OS X is still better. This must be so galling to Microsoft and its captive audience. However, a large portion of the tech industry is beginning to realise what we have known for a long time. Microsoft doesn’t innovate it just copies. Naturally Windows 7 can’t be better than OS X if it is just a pale imitation of it. Sure there is Aero Peak, which looks unusable compared to Exposé, but other elements like the Dock like thing at the bottom of the screen are pure Apple.

At the end of the day Windows 7 is still Windows and it will be interest to see how long it takes before Windows 7 is the target of malware and viruses. Windows it notorious, also, for slowing down over time. I wonder if those shiny new test machines Microsoft have been sharing around are quite so nippy in 6 months time.

And while we are talking about Microsoft copying Apple they have just opened their first retail stores. From what I have seen so far they are essentially Apple Store like with light woods, lots of space and an attempt to be similarly hip. The stores apparently carry a multitude of brands. When Apple opened their first retail stores most of the industry thought that they were going to fail. Needless to say Apple’s retail stores have been a massive success  - the way that they showcase Apple products and the level of support that they offer to customers is outstanding in the industry. Enter Microsoft. I am not sure what Microsoft imagine the impact of their stores will be, but I am certain that it they will not succeed. Microsoft and their box assemblers compete on price not on features. These stores are doomed to become discount merchants in order to survive and will simply cannibalise sales from other outlets selling Windows computers.

Windows and Microsoft aren’t going anywhere, but Microsoft’s time as a power is over. They know it and so do we.