Apple CEO Steve Jobs introduced the tablet-format iPad to a group of journalists and media enthusiasts today.
Several thousand people tuned in to live blogs hosted by sites such as engadet or the New York Times, myself included. I was less than impressed.
The device sports a 9.7" screen, is .5" inch thick and weighs 1.5 pounds, according to Apple. Jobs described the iPad as being a mobile device meant to fill the gap between iPod's and Macbooks, but compared to Apple unveilings of the past, it didn't revolutionize anything.
The iPad has been described by onlookers as a "giant iPhone." But a better description would be a giant iPod touch. The ipad has no SMS text messaging and no off-line phone capabilities.
There were some nice features. The iPad can run any iPhone app unmodified out of the box. It will have its own version of iWorks for sell, has access to iTunes, the app store and a new feature called iBooks which seems to be Apple's attempt to break into the e-reader market.
However, it didn't show anything that hasn't already been done by other devices before--most of them from Apple. It does movies. So does the iPod. It does the Internet. So does the iPhone and iPod touch.
Like the iPhone, it still lacks Adobe Flash support. It also can't multi-task and has no slots for removable memory of any kind. Unlike the iPhone, it doesn't have a camera either.
The one thing that I do find impressive is the pricing. The iPad will cost $500-830 according to Jobs, depending on memory size and whether its 3-G capable. In addition an unlimited data Internet plan will be available from AT&T for $30 a month without contract.
The iPad probably has a future with people who use their iPhones for playing games and browsing the internet more than for a phone. I have no doubt that Apple fanboys will buy it, but I won't be lining up anytime soon.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Fanboys (and Apple stockholders) rejoice
Apple sent out invitations to reporters for a media event Wednesday, Jan. 27, in San Francisco.
The invitation says "come see our newest creation," according to a short New York Times article by Brad Stone.
Personally, I think its about time. The new product will almost certainly be the Apple tablet computer that has been the subject of every rumor-mongering web-site and Apple fan-boy for over a year, including one of my own.
I'll post again about this once I have a full features list and an idea on just what I think of this thing.
The invitation says "come see our newest creation," according to a short New York Times article by Brad Stone.
Personally, I think its about time. The new product will almost certainly be the Apple tablet computer that has been the subject of every rumor-mongering web-site and Apple fan-boy for over a year, including one of my own.
I'll post again about this once I have a full features list and an idea on just what I think of this thing.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
3-D T.V. Are you serious?
The 2010 Consumer Electronics Show which took place Jan. 7-10 in Las Vegas had a few interesting surprises, worst among them was the 3-D T.V.
There are a few reasons I believe this new platform won't work: timing, price and usability.
Timing:
Last year the government forced the switch to digital signal only broadcasts forcing many people to buy new T.V.'s or adapter boxes.
Not only will 3-D T.V.'s fail, but the move might doom other products that we're already enjoying some success such as Blu-ray players and high-definition (HD-T.V.'s).
Why would I buy a 3-D T.V. when I just bought an HD one in the last couple of years? High-definition televisions have only recently become popular and have yet to hit market saturation. On the other hand, why would I bother to buy an HD-T.V. if they're already obsolete?
Blu-ray players face a similar crisis. They survived the hurdles of coming shortly after the DVD players became popular, and competed with the now defunct HD-DVD format for use.
However, current Blu-ray players are will be replaced with 3-D capable ones by manufacurers such as Sharp leaving early adopters high and dry. This leads me to believe those same early-adopters may become angry and forego the upgrade.
Price:
High-definition T.V.'s have only recently come down to the $200 and up range. Now the manufacturers are expecting us to throw those still new boxes in the trash and spend yet more money for a 3-D upgrade. Samsung for instance quoted a price range of $7-12 thousand at the show.
As you will recall, the recession is still going on leaving few with that kind of cash.
Last week, the Associated Press reported that the unemployment rate was over 10 percent nation wide and closer to 17 percent if adjusted for the people who have simply given up on finding a job.
Usability:
Let's face it, this is where everything falls apart for this format.
3-D television sets will require glasses, several manufacturerers are working on proprietary designs, but they all work on the same basic principle--seeing an image with only one eye at a time to give the illusion of depth.
If you already wear glasses, like UGA student Jamie Diamond, 20, of Athens, Ga., this won't work.
"It would be horribly uncomfortable to wear 3-D glasses over my own," Diamond said. "I won't do it. It's stupid."
Another issue to worry about are epilepsy. The rapidly flashing images could lead to seizures, though the industry will probably find ways to make glasses that risk.
Finally, there is the vanity issue. How many americans will want to put on dorky head sets for a slightly better look at John Stewart's desk? I won't.
Whether the 3-D T.V. lives or dies will be determined in the next couple of years, but I wouldn't head to the store for one anytime soon.
There are a few reasons I believe this new platform won't work: timing, price and usability.
Timing:
Last year the government forced the switch to digital signal only broadcasts forcing many people to buy new T.V.'s or adapter boxes.
Not only will 3-D T.V.'s fail, but the move might doom other products that we're already enjoying some success such as Blu-ray players and high-definition (HD-T.V.'s).
Why would I buy a 3-D T.V. when I just bought an HD one in the last couple of years? High-definition televisions have only recently become popular and have yet to hit market saturation. On the other hand, why would I bother to buy an HD-T.V. if they're already obsolete?
Blu-ray players face a similar crisis. They survived the hurdles of coming shortly after the DVD players became popular, and competed with the now defunct HD-DVD format for use.
However, current Blu-ray players are will be replaced with 3-D capable ones by manufacurers such as Sharp leaving early adopters high and dry. This leads me to believe those same early-adopters may become angry and forego the upgrade.
Price:
High-definition T.V.'s have only recently come down to the $200 and up range. Now the manufacturers are expecting us to throw those still new boxes in the trash and spend yet more money for a 3-D upgrade. Samsung for instance quoted a price range of $7-12 thousand at the show.
As you will recall, the recession is still going on leaving few with that kind of cash.
Last week, the Associated Press reported that the unemployment rate was over 10 percent nation wide and closer to 17 percent if adjusted for the people who have simply given up on finding a job.
Usability:
Let's face it, this is where everything falls apart for this format.
3-D television sets will require glasses, several manufacturerers are working on proprietary designs, but they all work on the same basic principle--seeing an image with only one eye at a time to give the illusion of depth.
If you already wear glasses, like UGA student Jamie Diamond, 20, of Athens, Ga., this won't work.
"It would be horribly uncomfortable to wear 3-D glasses over my own," Diamond said. "I won't do it. It's stupid."
Another issue to worry about are epilepsy. The rapidly flashing images could lead to seizures, though the industry will probably find ways to make glasses that risk.
Finally, there is the vanity issue. How many americans will want to put on dorky head sets for a slightly better look at John Stewart's desk? I won't.
Whether the 3-D T.V. lives or dies will be determined in the next couple of years, but I wouldn't head to the store for one anytime soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)