Linked by David Adams on Wed 7th Jul 2010 19:09 UTC
Apple A Forbes article notices that while the iPad's reception from the public and the mainstream press has been overwhelmingly positive, the prevailing sentiment among some alpha geeks has been negative to the extreme. The conclusion, of course, is that these people aren't reacting to what the iPad is, but rather what it represents: a violation of the ethos of the personal computer. The author of the Forbes article concludes that much of the anti-iPad vitriol is hyperbole, and doesn't help advance the cause. It's a thought-provoking question.
Permalink for comment 432963
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Not buzzword complaint
by robco74 on Fri 9th Jul 2010 11:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
Member since:

Bear in mind the cardinal rule - never buy the first version of an Apple product. Given the specs of the iPhone 4, I wouldn't be surprised to see the next version of the iPad have a camera, more memory and a faster processor.

As for ads, iAd is not the only conduit for advertising in apps. It's a way for developers who want to use ads to get revenue from Apple in a similar way they can with paid apps. Apple will not block third-party ad services. What they are blocking is sharing certain analytics with ad services that are also competitors to the iPhone/iPad - like Google and AdMob. You can still use AdMob, but there is some device information you won't have access to. From a business perspective, this makes sense. No reason for Apple to give one of its largest competitors inside information.

Apple doesn't allow Java, Python, Ruby or a host of other languages on iOS either. Perhaps this is them being jerks. Or perhaps they don't want a bunch of services running in the background on an embedded device. They don't block any of these on the Mac - hell, they include them by default. The iOS devices have much less memory and processing power, perhaps they really do want to make sure apps perform as optimally as possible.

As for content, Apple is beholden to the content providers. They can offer it, but only under the terms the record companies, studios and publishers will allow it. They were forced to use FairPlay when the iTunes Store was first launched, now pretty much all the music is free of DRM. Before the iPhone, carriers crippled built-in features and services. You were lucky to get OS upgrades. The iPhone changed that. Without the iPhone's success, I'm not sure many carriers would have warmed to Android. Apple is playing by the rules of the system, but has also worked to change it.

I personally don't have an iPad because I don't really know what I'd do with it. I already have a laptop and a smartphone, I don't see a need for a tablet. That's just me though. I just don't get the animosity toward Apple. I've usually found more than one app for functions I need. The vast majority are approved. They've had some high profile screw-ups, but have reversed decisions and approved "controversial" apps. They allow Amazon and BN to put up alternatives to iBooks. They have Hulu Plus and Netflix as alternatives to the iTS. You can import and add music from just about any other music store or rip CDs.

There are limits, but most users and developers never bump into them. Even Android is limitless only to the extent carriers allow it to be. People can complain about the closed nature of content, but the blame hardly rests squarely on Apple's shoulders. I suppose they could be accused of enabling, but aside from Disney, they don't really have much choice.

Reply Parent Score: 1