[Hawkeye_a]

Since Apple announced the iPad, the net and most tech-sites have exploded with criticisms of this appliance.

Many sites post lists of what they dont like of the product, and more often than not, the general theme is, this appliance is not a full blown Mac running OSX. That mindset irritates me to the core.

These tech enthusiasts and technophiles are so incapable of thinking outside their "more is more" mentality. The general theme (and i get this from my PC-friends (who constantly bash Apple)) is that they want every possible feature from MacBooks with as many options(hardware & software), and unless the product is capable of running Windows7/Ubuntu, it's not worth consideration.

As a Software Engineer, the failure of the entire community to actually design products with suit a purpose, instead of making a jack-of-all-trades and master-of-none, with every feature and option possible, and leave it upto the end-user to decipher (thus spawning a fungal industry of support staff) really pisses me off.

A PC-fanboy friend of mine who has an iPod touch, constantly complains that Apple should put hardware play/pause next/previous buttons on the iPhone/iTouch that iPods should support dynamic "queues", have more check boxes here, more features there, etc....why ? because he sees a use for them, and that justifies why it should be done..... and people like that totally miss the amazing aspects of the products Apple delivers. These same folks b***h about lck of Flash, multi-tasking, etc....but fail to realize that everything the product does do, in it's category, is the best-in-class for a vast vast majority of end-users.

With the iPad, im sick of the there's no multi-tasking, no webcam, no stylus, no MacOSX, no GPU, etc. I personally like the product MORE for the things/features/options it leaves out to attain the goal of simplicity and clear-purpose.

While every uber-nerd is clamoring for more features, flash, floppy drives, more Mhz, more RAM, more ports, more options....i, as a nerd, am grateful for the simple, streamlined, optomized-for-purpose, products that only Apple seems capable of producing in this industry. My only disappointment since i switched in 1999 has been the AppleTV.

While i admit that the iPad will not necessarily fit into everyone's tech lifestyle, i for one am excited of this stripped-down-feature-specific subset of computing (media consumption & web), in a single device with this long a battery life, this simple a UI, secure, multi-touch and at this low a price point.

</end rant>

[Wiskedjak]

I agree with you completely. My only criticism, and it's pretty much a show stopper for me, is that I wanted it to be *more* stripped down.

By the way, I still enjoy my AppleTV. I think the design and idea is sound, I just wish Apple would give it more attention.

[imitchellg5]

More stripped down? Explain.

[11011001]

Wait, no GPU? I thought the GPU was part of the A4 system on a chip?

I agree with you for the most part. Software and hardware should have a clear focus, and should not try to be everything. However such focus can be taken to extremes. As with everything, there is a balance between the two. It takes an elegant design to find that balance. The iPad is close, but there are obviously some missing pieces that we'll probably see soon.

[Wiskedjak]

I was hoping for something that would completely redefine how I do a specific task, rather than something that will fit into my current lifestyle and support a multitude of tasks. Much as the iPod redefined how I listen to music and the AppleTV redefined how I watch video.

I think the iPad is still trying to be everything (ebook reader, web browser, music player, video player, picture viewer, office suite, etc), just through the slightly limited iPhoneOS.

[rickey939]

I'm only pissed it's called the iPad and not the iWalk.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by 11011001 

Wait, no GPU? I thought the GPU was part of the A4 system on a chip?

I guess what they want is an nvidia terga2 or whatever, a dedicated GPU i assume. my point being...it's never good enough cause it wont be able to play high-end games, apparently.

Originally Posted by 11011001 

I agree with you for the most part. Software and hardware should have a clear focus, and should not try to be everything. However such focus can be taken to extremes. As with everything, there is a balance between the two. It takes an elegant design to find that balance. The iPad is close, but there are obviously some missing pieces that we'll probably see soon.

Thats where i admire Apple... they strive for that balance, and probably sometimes cross-over to the overly simple. But I PREFER the overly-simple, as opposed to the over-complication of everything else out there.

Wiskedjak, i consider the iPad to be a content-consumption device(probably the best one) (content = music,movies, tv, books, games, books, email, net). The iWork bit was...."which one of these things just doesn't belong here" moment, solely because they are content creation apps. in fact i think the iWork for iPad should not have been presented, instead they should have just bundled it with the next version of iWork or just started selling it without promoting it, imo. but thats another discussion.

For this price, for the features, for the purpose, the execution(OS, boot-time, ease-of-use, bundled apps) the services (iTMS, iBooks, Apps).....this is an awesome general purpose computer, and imo will cannibalize netbooks and tabletPCs(as in overtake, netbooks will still appeal to the uber-nerds out there who crave "features and options", to solve problems that never existed)...the competitive advantage being the services, something no other competitor has....yet. Looking at the appliance for what it is, it's exactly tailored to what my mom uses a computer for, with the sole missing feature being IM(i think). Think about it.... no "install/uninstall" process for applications, no boot-up times, no hunting for applications on the web(it's all in one place), it's intuitive to the extent where it'll be simpler to 'learn' this device than a full OS, etc.

I dare say that this product's philosophy is the future, and we will probably see it's influences in notebooks eventually(integration, interface, etc) . Just my opinion.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by rickey939 

I'm only pissed it's called the iPad and not the iWalk.

Not iSteal ?

-t

[Sage]

Courtesy of John Gruber:

Fraser Speirs - Blog - Future�Shock
stevenf.com - I need to talk to you about computers. I’ve been...

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

The iWork bit was...."which one of these things just doesn't belong here" moment, solely because they are content creation apps. in fact i think the iWork for iPad should not have been presented, instead they should have just bundled it with the next version of iWork or just started selling it without promoting it,

That's exactly where I started feeling that they were going off-message as well. The other point was where they highlighted Brushes. It's as if, with iWork and Brushes, they were saying "and, you can create content with this thing as well".

I see what you're saying about it being a content consumption device, and how that's the purpose that most people use their laptops for most of the time. I think I was hoping that it would have been targeted to one specific type of content; like just ebooks, or just video

I'm really itching for Apple to revolutionize the video experience in the same way that it revolutionized the music experience.

[mdc]

I've read a few articles from the PC side talking about how Microsoft came out with tablet PCs years ago and how the iPad is them just catching up.
What bothers me about this -- and makes me agree with your post -- is that, in my opinion, there is a reason that Microsoft's tablet PCs (and Windows Mobile) have not taken off and done really well and that's because you can't shoehorn Windows (or Mac OS X) into a touch screen device and be done with it.

These HP Slate computers that are coming out seem to be touch screen Windows 7 computers and I think they'll do just as well as every other Windows tablet PC.

I think Apple has it figured out with iPhone OS and they did a really smart thing putting that onto the iPad and not Mac OS X which, in my opinion, would be a nightmare trying to operate with my fingers on a small screen.

At the end of every keynote the internet is always upset about the product Apple announced and when they finally get to use it they realize that they might have been a little premature with the complaints.

[OreoCookie]

I absolutely agree, mdc: there is a reason tablets aren't yet popular: it's the rather complete lack of a specialized UI and applications (there are a few which work, but not a lot). Some pundits reduce the iPad to `an iPod touch with a bigger screen, something evolutionary rather than something innovative.' Hawkeye nails it when he says that the big thing about this device is what it cannot do, the things it lacks. That somebody has the guts to build a device whose primary purpose is consumption of modern digital media.

If you think about it in terms of a TV, it makes sense to me: you don't complain that you have to spend a lot of money on a good TV -- even if your PC can do the same (just buy a cheap USB adapter). If somebody asks me whether this will be `the next big thing,' I don't know, but I think the chances aren't too bad that it is.

[Phileas]

The iPad will change the way we interact with computers. The current, first generation, device is lacking features that we have become used to.

But features aren't as important as vision, and the iPad has vision galore. I really don't understand how so many, supposedly intelligent, people are refusing to see this. To make a comparison, in a world that relies on the horse and cart for transport, the first car has just been released and people are complaining about the lack of a feedbag.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I was hoping for something that would completely redefine how I do a specific task, rather than something that will fit into my current lifestyle and support a multitude of tasks. Much as the iPod redefined how I listen to music and the AppleTV redefined how I watch video.

I think the iPad is still trying to be everything (ebook reader, web browser, music player, video player, picture viewer, office suite, etc), just through the slightly limited iPhoneOS.

The only dedicated "digital lifestyle device" you have from Apple is the pure iPod, and even the nano takes video now. Apple wasn't going to create its own take on the Kindle given that the Kindle hasn't exactly taken the world by storm, so the dedicated ebook option was out. A dedicated web browser could be done, perhaps, if you really wanted a completely scaled down, low cost and small margin device, but that would have very limited function and appeal. Music has already been done. Video is too narrow a focus on a small screen device. There are a million generic digital picture frames. Plus, Apple really loves the App Store, so any digital lifestyle device Apple creates going forward is most likely going to be App Store capable; that means multi-function iPhone OS based.

However, I don't see the revolutionary aspect of the iPad that others are perceiving, unless it's truly a netbook killer. It's not going to replace laptops for those who need or prefer them. It's not going to replace the iPhone or other smart phones. It could cannibalize the touch to some extent, but that doesn't help Apple. Sure, given money to burn I'd pick one up quickly, but I'm not entirely sure how useful it would be to me.

[torsoboy]

This thread seriously sounds like a bunch of mac fan boys trying to make each other feel better about a not-so-great product (not yet anyway). Mutual masturbation, I think it is called

You're right, everyone else is wrong. You are the only thinking people on the planet. Yay, all is well again!

(I think the iPad has great potential, as soon as it becomes multi-threaded, and supports flash. Until then, I'm most decidedly with the rest of the computer world about this.)

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

Mutual masturbation, I think it is called

You're confusing features with vision. Features without vision will always fail, whereas vision will aways attract features.

Look beyond the obvious, there's much to be learned.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by mdc 

... in my opinion, there is a reason that Microsoft's tablet PCs (and Windows Mobile) have not taken off and done really well and that's because you can't shoehorn Windows (or Mac OS X) into a touch screen device and be done with it.

These HP Slate computers that are coming out seem to be touch screen Windows 7 computers and I think they'll do just as well as every other Windows tablet PC.

I think Apple has it figured out with iPhone OS and they did a really smart thing putting that onto the iPad and not Mac OS X which, in my opinion, would be a nightmare trying to operate with my fingers on a small screen.

I disagree. The hesitation by the market to eagerly embrace tablet PCs (and even the OS X-based ModBook) has everything to do with cost. Had these been introduced at $499 (and mostly full-featured), I think we'd have seen a lot more of them in people's hands.

[Big Mac]

Relatively few would ever embrace the ModBook given that it's not a real Apple product. You're right, though, that cost is a major factor.

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

You're confusing features with vision. Features without vision will always fail, whereas vision will aways attract features.

Look beyond the obvious, there's much to be learned.

You're right, everyone else is wrong. You are the only thinking person on the planet. Yay, all is well again!

[11011001]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

This thread seriously sounds like a bunch of mac fan boys trying to make each other feel better about a not-so-great product (not yet anyway). Mutual masturbation, I think it is called

You're right, everyone else is wrong. You are the only thinking people on the planet. Yay, all is well again!

(I think the iPad has great potential, as soon as it becomes multi-threaded, and supports flash. Until then, I'm most decidedly with the rest of the computer world about this.)

Clearly you are the only thinking person on the planet. This seems a tad hypocritical.

Well, this was a nice thread. :/

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

While every uber-nerd is clamoring for more features, flash, floppy drives, more Mhz, more RAM, more ports, more options....i, as a nerd, am grateful for the simple, streamlined, optomized-for-purpose, products that only Apple seems capable of producing in this industry. My only disappointment since i switched in 1999 has been the AppleTV.

I don't know what you're reading, but most of the complaints seem more to have been that it doesn't actually do much more than an iPod touch or iPhone... so why get one if you already have one of those?

I agree a tablet needs a dedicated well-designed touch-based OS, and the iPad's OS is a good start. However, the issue here is just that: It's a start, but not some mind-blowing new revolutionary product.

The tech world is basically uttering a collective "meh" because it's so used to Apple wowing us... and when they offer just some evolutionary product that doesn't meet the hype, people are disappointed.

[11011001]

Originally Posted by Sage 

...
stevenf.com - I need to talk to you about computers. I’ve been...

Great link. I think it outlines Apple's strategy perfectly, and has an uncanny sense of truth about it.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

You're right, everyone else is wrong. You are the only thinking person on the planet. Yay, all is well again!

Either that (well, him and the hundreds of millions who will be using iPads and derivatives in the next years and decades), or you're right and Apple is stupid and has totally misjudged the market - just like they did with the iPod and the iPhone.

[Spheric Harlot]

Excellent analysis:

The iPad isn&#039;t a third device, but a third revolution | Laptop | iPhone Central | Macworld

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Either that (well, him and the hundreds of millions who will be using iPads and derivatives in the next years and decades), or you're right and Apple is stupid and has totally misjudged the market - just like they did with the iPod and the iPhone.

Or AppleTV.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Or AppleTV.

Apple never touted the ATV as a revolution or break-through device.

It's still a hobby.

-t

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Or AppleTV.

Apple TV is, or was, a toe in the water. A test product to see whether consumers would actually bother to plug a box that wasn't connected to the cable company into their TV. It was never an endgame, never intended to become a product line in its own right.

It was a seed planted, a virus released. We, my company, do this all of the time. We release stuff into the wold that we never expect to have any meaningful life expectancy or to be profitable. But it allows us to judge consumer behaviour and shape the market so it is ready for the stuff we really care about.

[Eug]

That's how I'm viewing the iPad, because the technology and its implementation is nowhere near a slam-dunk. Probably better than AppleTV, but not in the same class as the iPhone IMO.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Look it is $500. You get a lot for that money and you can't compete with something that cheap if Apple is always perceived as the best all round quality option.

They created and cornered the market with the first shot.

Years from now when laptops are fading we will get higher end iPads.

[Eug]

Years from now maybe. However, iPad version 1 isn't it. Like I said, it's a reasonable start, but it's by no means revolutionary. The revolution came with the iPhone, and the iPad is Apple putting its toes in the market to see if it can make the iTunes app store paradigm work with a bigger version of the iPhone/iPod touch.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Years from now maybe. However, iPad version 1 isn't it. Like I said, it's a reasonable start, but it's by no means revolutionary.

Do you also claim that the iPod Gen 1 wasn't revolutionary, but only a reasonable start ?

Fact is, the iPod Gen 1 was very expensive, and in many technical aspects not superior to other MP3 players.
Quite the same as today with the iPad and netbooks.

Yet, in retrospect, nobody claims that the iPod Gen 1 was NOT a revolution, because it would be even more silly to claim that only the iPod Gen 3 was a revolution.

-t

[Railroader]

All of this reminds me of the talk when the first iMac was released back in 1998.

[The Final Dakar]

All of this reminds me of the talk when Steve Jobs was conceived... whenever the hell that was.

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by 11011001 

Clearly you are the only thinking person on the planet. This seems a tad hypocritical.

I think you must not have read my post. The very large majority of the tech world thinks this thing is a stinker, as it currently stands. My comment was about the small minority that is claiming that everyone else is wrong, and that this thing is awesome (for some reason). It was directed at the few who believe that since Apple made it, it is the best thing around, no questions asked, no improvements needed.

Give it flash and multi-tasking, and I will jump in and buy one. Give it a more open OS (one that doesn't require iTunes' permission to download anything), and the flood-gates will open.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Do you also claim that the iPod Gen 1 wasn't revolutionary, but only a reasonable start ?

Fact is, the iPod Gen 1 was very expensive, and in many technical aspects not superior to other MP3 players.
Quite the same as today with the iPad and netbooks.

Yet, in retrospect, nobody claims that the iPod Gen 1 was NOT a revolution, because it would be even more silly to claim that only the iPod Gen 3 was a revolution.

Actually I think the real revolution was iTunes and iTMS, along with the iPod. You'll note that the iPod really started to take off once the iPod dropped in price, and the technology, both hardware and software, came to Windows.

However, with the iPad we already have iTunes and the iTMS, and we already have touch-screen devices that utilize it, with the same OS. The iPad is just a bigger version of those, with a few tweaks. I don't see this as being revolutionary for this reason. It's just a logical evolution, and one predicted by many people here. The point is that unfortunately this evolutionary device is not really that compelling at this point, even at that price point. It should become more compelling later with changing hardware and software features, but the disappointment comes in that the more compelling combination wasn't released on Jan. 27.

Like I've said before, I would never recommend one of these to grandma for 2010 usage. It's far too limited unless just used as an extra toy. That will change, but until then, we're stuck with a limited usage machine that even the Apple uber-zealots are disappointed with.

[Chuckit]

A limited-usage machine that even Apple uber-zealots are disappointed with? Oh, you mean like every hit Apple has ever had?

iPod: Limited-usage machine that even Apple uber-zealots are disappointed with
MacBook: Limited-usage machine that even Apple uber-zealots are disappointed with
iPhone: Limited-usage machine that even Apple uber-zealots are disappointed with

Do I need to trot out CmdrTaco's iPod review again? The objections to this are almost the same.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Actually I think the real revolution was iTunes and iTMS, along with the iPod. You'll note that the iPod really started to take off once the iPod dropped in price, and the technology, both hardware and software, came to Windows.

However, with the iPad we already have iTunes and the iTMS, and we already have touch-screen devices that utilize it, with the same OS. The iPad is just a bigger version of those, with a few tweaks. I don't see this as being revolutionary for this reason. It's just a logical evolution, and one predicted by many people here. The point is that unfortunately this evolutionary device is not really that compelling at this point, even at that price point. It should become more compelling later with changing hardware and software features, but the disappointment comes in that the more compelling combination wasn't released on Jan. 27.

Like I've said before, I would never recommend one of these to grandma for 2010 usage. It's far too limited unless just used as an extra toy. That will change, but until then, we're stuck with a limited usage machine that even the Apple uber-zealots are disappointed with.

I guess my point was: it's premature to judge now if the iPad is truly revolutionary.

All the people that applied the same rigor of judgement to the iPod Gen 1 also came to the conclusion that it was not revolutionary, and they were proven wrong by Apple.

Personally, I give Apple the benefit of the doubt, since they have a proven track record.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

A limited-usage machine that even Apple uber-zealots are disappointed with? Oh, you mean like every hit Apple has ever had?

iPod: Limited-usage machine that even Apple uber-zealots are disappointed with
MacBook: Limited-usage machine that even Apple uber-zealots are disappointed with
iPhone: Limited-usage machine that even Apple uber-zealots are disappointed with

Do I need to trot out CmdrTaco's iPod review again? The objections to this are almost the same.

Not to forget various iMacs.

-t

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

I think you must not have read my post. The very large majority of the tech world thinks this thing is a stinker, as it currently stands.

The very large majority of the tech world hasn't the *slightest* clue what the large majority of the population at large actually needs.

That the internet geeks have no clue at all about what the iPad is about is an excellent sign, as far as its success is concerned.

It means its appeal is aimed squarely at the people who deal with content and information, not technology.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I guess my point was: it's premature to judge now if the iPad is truly revolutionary.

All the people that applied the same rigor of judgement to the iPod Gen 1 also came to the conclusion that it was not revolutionary, and they were proven wrong by Apple.

The iPod Gen 1 alone was not revolutionary IMO. It was the software and content support AND the iPod. I've said this all along.

This is the type of stuff I was looking for with the iPad, but we didn't get it. Where is all the content? The magazine store? The full and instant newspaper access? Etc. Basically we just got iBooks.

In this context, the iPhone was the revolution, and Jobs is trying to extend the success to the evolutionary iPad.

Maybe next year when Apple releases all those killer apps, etc. then it will start looking a lot more like a revolution.

Personally, I give Apple the benefit of the doubt, since they have a proven track record.

Like the Cube. Like AppleTV. Like the Newton.

I think the iPad is an OK start. However, to assume it's gonna be a revolution just because you think Apple has a track record of infallability suggests the RDF is a little too strong in those parts.

[Chuckit]

Oh, I totally forgot that only Apple can make programs for the iPad. Here I was thinking that, just like on the Mac and even the iPhone, many of the most popular apps would be third-party.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Years from now maybe. However, iPad version 1 isn't it. Like I said, it's a reasonable start, but it's by no means revolutionary. The revolution came with the iPhone, and the iPad is Apple putting its toes in the market to see if it can make the iTunes app store paradigm work with a bigger version of the iPhone/iPod touch.

Sorry but just because it doesn't have all the tech specs to make it revolutionary to YOU don't mean it isn't. When was the iPod revolutionary to you? When it could hold all your 64 gigs of music but not before that?

Even without INSERT MISSING FEATURE HERE it is still a whole new category of device with huge software support before it ships and tons more on the way. Most of all it is affordable as hell and everyone is going to try to get into the same market and fail as it will have to small profits to bother trying.

Even if you say years from now it will be revolutionary makes no sense as this first model is what set the market for years to come.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Eug 

The iPod Gen 1 alone was not revolutionary IMO. It was the software and content support AND the iPod. I've said this all along.

This is the type of stuff I was looking for with the iPad, but we didn't get it. Where is all the content? The magazine store? The full and instant newspaper access? Etc. Basically we just got iBooks.

In this context, the iPhone was the revolution, and Jobs is trying to extend the success to the evolutionary iPad.

No, the iPhone was a complete flop because it came without content. (The address book was empty when I got mine.)

By the criteria you applied above, the iPhone wasn't revolutionary until it got the App Store. I hope you realize how ridiculous that assertion is - apart from the fact that iTunes (if not the store, which is a separate beast entirely) as management software was part of the iPod package/concept from Day One, and you make it sound like the iPod didn't matter until that happened.


The ONLY deal-breaker I can see on the iPad (apart from the fact that us handful of REAL computer users can't use it for our projects yet) is that it's as yet unclear whether it can be used without a "real" computer to connect to.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

By the criteria you applied above, the iPhone wasn't revolutionary until it got the App Store. I hope you realize how ridiculous that assertion is - apart from the fact that iTunes (if not the store, which is a separate beast entirely) as management software was part of the iPod package/concept from Day One, and you make it sound like the iPod didn't matter until that happened.

? Apple announced that the iPhone would support 3rd party applications before the iPhone was even released. But yeah, the App store is definitely a key part of the iPhone's success. The iPad came with no such significant announcement, except for maybe iBooks.

So again, in its current form the iPad is evolutionary.

The ONLY deal-breaker I can see on the iPad (apart from the fact that us handful of REAL computer users can't use it for our projects yet) is that it's as yet unclear whether it can be used without a "real" computer to connect to.

That's a significant limitation, one that I've mentioned before. If this true, it is problematic as an internet appliance. However, that's one thing I think Apple could work around. eg. Online backup/syncing (MobileMe for a fee), and redownloadable app purchases.

[Phileas]

Eug you're continuing to talk about features. That's not where the revolution is happening.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Apple announced that the iPhone would support 3rd party applications before the iPhone was even released.

No, they didn't. They said that third-party support for the iPhone would have to come in the form of Web pages. It's entirely possible that the iPhone might never have gotten the SDK (and thus any real third-party support) without the fit that application developers threw over being told to just make Web pages.

[Wiskedjak]

Yep, that's how I remember it as well. They even went so far as to say that 3rd party apps could destroy the wireless network.

[Phileas]

The only reason the app store exists in its current form is because people started hacking the iPhone.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No, they didn't. They said that third-party support for the iPhone would have to come in the form of Web pages. It's entirely possible that the iPhone might never have gotten the SDK (and thus any real third-party support) without the fit that application developers threw over being told to just make Web pages.

I looked it up, and it seems you are correct. I had mistakenly assumed Apple's 3rd party application support early on was for native apps. Nope, Apple only wanted the web interface. In that case, if Apple had stuck to its guns, it could have screwed itself over. I'm glad Apple saw the light, or else the iPhone would not have been as successful.

[11011001]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

I think you must not have read my post.

My reply was only in response to "You're right, everyone else is wrong. You are the only thinking person on the planet. Yay, all is well again!". Your other arguments/concerns are valid in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Eug 

I looked it up, and it seems you are correct. I had mistakenly assumed Apple's 3rd party application support early on was for native apps. Nope, Apple only wanted the web interface. In that case, if Apple had stuck to its guns, it could have screwed itself over. I'm glad Apple saw the light, or else the iPhone would not have been as successful.

I think it was their plan all along. I wrote some apps for the pre-SDK iPhone. The APIs were immature, and changed considerably by the time the official SDK was released. I think they just didn't have enough time to polish things. Likewise, the same is probably true with the software features that didn't make it into the 3.2 SDK for the iPad (like perhaps multitasking).