iPad is like a very Hot Girl or Boyfriend you can’t have Sex With
February 8, 2010 50 Comments
by Elias Shams
Not yet!
If you are about to dump your Amazon’s Kindle for iPad, you may want to wait for a while – particularly if you are a non-AT&T customer. There are still three major obstacles about iPad to be resolved – wireless technology, wireless pricing, and of course the video functionality. Regardless, how pretty the iPad is, what are you going to do with it without these three? It’s like you are dating the hottest babe or honk in town, but you can’t even touch. Correction: you can touch, but can’t do anything. You know…
No doubt iPad has more goodies over Amazon’s Kindle and Barnes & Noble e-reader – from supporting apps, much nicer screen, the look, to its crazy battery life and etc. Literally, every site and blog I know of, they jumped on iPad and promoted it – iPad this, iPad that, iPad the killer, Gazillion reasons iPad will kill Kindle, etc. Frankly, they might end up to be right, but I think it is too early to jump to such conclusion.
Since the launch of iPad, I have been really trying to dig in to its wireless technology, the price to pay for the wireless, and of course the video functionality.
Starting with my gig, the wireless technology behind iPad, it is currently lacking big. Let me throw a few facts here. I let you do your own judgment and further investigation.
Apple has been saying for a while their exclusivity with AT&T is about to expire. Well, from a few sources I have talked to, it doesn’t look like that is the fact. But again, my sources have been wrong before a few times. So, this is something to be investigated.
Even if their exclusivity expires, similar to iPhone, iPad also has the 3G capabilities compatible with 850, 1900, 2100 MHz spectrum networks using GSM, GPRS, UMTS, and HSPA technologies only. Translation in English: domestic support for AT&T Mobility’s network only. Although Apple claims models shipping with 3G support would be unlocked allowing customers to swap out SIM cards for different carriers, but if you live in the US, your choice of carrier will still be only AT&T.
Therefore, if Apple does not come up with a different wireless plan for their iPad than their iPhone, this might turnout to be a major let down. I don’t know about the rest of our nation, but literally every AT&T customer I know in DC area, they are so frustrated by them and dying to dump AT&T immediately even for a carrier from Bangladesh if they offer service here in DC of course.
Assuming their exclusivity with AT&T expires, there is currently no plan for iPad to support those subscribers on the CDMA network from Verizon Wireless or Sprint Nextel. On top of this, both carriers are investing Billions on their next-generation networks – Verizon on LTE, Sprint on WiMAX technology. Not quite sure which one will ultimately wins. My guess is both WiMAX and LTE will end up serving global subscribers in parallel with LTE capturing more market share. Regardless, the fact neither of these two technologies are in Apple’s radar, this might be another reason, iPad might head south.
Pricing Factor
As for the wireless pricing for its 3G support, the only Wi-Fi version runs $499, $599 and $699 depending on the amount of embedded flash memory support of 16 gigabytes, 32 GB and 64 GB. The 3G version will have a $130 price tag more than the Wi-Fi only version. And the user will have to pay an additional $20 to $40 per month for service on 3G rather than just his/her monthly subscription for wireless internet access.
Lack of Adobe’s Flash Support
iPad currently does not support Flash. Apple and Adobe have been battling since the launch of iPad over this. With many video sites and online games most likely to be inaccessible to iPad users, this could be another let down. Given Safari supports HTML5 audio/video, maybe Steve Jobs is simply playing chess game here to encourage developers to drop Flash in favor of HTML5. Think about this. If this is really Steve Jobs’ plan and he succeeds, Apple simply makes it possible the embedding of these elements in a web site without depending on adobe proprietary plug-ins or software.
Not to mention the tough competition they have to play against Amazon’s Kindle and Barnes & Noble e-reader.
Listen to Charlie Rose interviewing The Wall Street Journal/All Things D’s Walt Mossberg, The New York Times’ David Carr and Michael Arrington of Techcrunch on his recent show talking about the iPad.
//
About Elias Shams
Elias Shams
Kamran Abdi
Leila Nouri
I don’t have a Kindle, and don’t depend upon Flash for any of my web experience, but, although I suspect I’ll be getting an iPad eventually, not this time, not the first iteration.
1 – wireless technology. You can use the WiFi card. I have wireless at my home and at work, so that covers about 95 percent of my time. And Apple said you could use your own sim with the iPad without a contract. Since they are still working on the 3G version of the iPad, all other comments on it are rumors.
2 – wireless pricing. AT&T has it starting for 15 dollars a month, or 30 for unlimited. If the iPad is open to other wireless carriers, then competition will make the prices competitive.
3 – video functionality. If by this you mean no flash, then I would say that stinks and I agree with you. HTML5 might replace flash, and I’ve heard that flash accounts for a good chunk of issues with existing browsers. Some think Apple is taking the lead, like when the iMac was sold with only USB, and it’s a sign that flash is on the way out. Who knows about this one…
Interesting, especially the Charlie Rose interview. Yes there are gaps, eg, wireless, and the lack of camera to make it useful for ‘presence’
It will be a huge hit because of video and games. Kids will demand the iPad.
It’s a no sale/recommendation from me on the first generation. Leaving out the webcam killed it
ah, Webcam. That too. I totally forgot about that one.
Sorry but I think it will kill the Kindle as a reader. I have a Kindle DX and it’s similar in size as the iPad and though WhisperNet is free (Sprint wireless), it has the same limitations as 3G on iPhone. In addition, the Kindle doesn’t remotely compare to the iPad which is much more than just e-reader. That alone is why some will NEVER purchase the Nook, Sony reader, the Kindle, or any other device that serves a single purpose. Amazon may have to kill the reader and just be an e-book provider. With their lower cost for books, I plan to use Kindle for iPhone, which should be ported to theiPad, and continue purchasing my books via Amazon Kindle bookstore.
I myself will not buy an iPad. While the iPad is another great product from Apple, I just don’t see myself paying for an iPad when I have PC’s all over my house and at my place of business. The iPad is limited to what it can do and it does not offer nearly as much as a regular PC can do. I just don’t think this product will sell as well as Apple’s iPod or their iPhone.
You really need to research for your articles a bit more.
AT&T is not that only HSPA/UTMS et. al. provider in the USA. The number of people who jailbrake their iPhone to use with T-Mobile and others is proof of that. At least the iPad will be unlocked, which puts an end to one of the biggest reasons to jailbrake.
A lack of support for Flash isn’t exactly a deal-breaker. My iPhone works great and I have never really missed not having Flash. I block most Flash on my primary computer anyway.
If Apple added a web cam, how would you use it? Holding the iPad up to my face doesn’t seem very realistic.
Wireless is a big issue if the iPad is viewed a big iPhone. I believe it is meant for imersive activiity such as games, reading, viewing videos, etc. Thus one only needs intermittent connectivity; no need for expensive data plan ($500 to $1000) over 2 years plus $130 purchase price; no need for webcam; no need for multitasking.
I respectfully disagree with Donn on item (2) above.
In today’s day and age of digital image stabilization, I see no reason why a web cam couldn’t successfully be implemented.
Bottom line, there’s a huge market of us out here who will not shell out the cash until a web cam is implemented.
1.Flash is dead and killing browsers across the board.
2.Webcam use would be quite shaky and cumbersome.
3.Pricing? wow you lost me on that one. Most of the mass media had a tablet machine from Apple pegged at 1000 bucks. Even the top end iPad falls short by 170 bucks. The pricing for the iPad is quite generous, plus they (as announced today on several sites) have room to move the price down as needed.
4. Wireless technology? As John Nicholson points out, the base model has wifi (actually 802.11n support!) which covers a large part of most peoples existence. I will agree that it seems odd that they would charge an extra 130 bucks for 3g. I for one do not see needing 3g for the iPad. I have an iPhone in case of emergency.
here are some thoughts: http://wp.me/ptSVP-1w (warning, it’s a long article.)
I know one of my friends will probably end up buying one so I’ll probably wait for them and then see what its like.
I think the reason the Kindle is pretty cool is that it has a built in sim which the use of is subsidised by the price of the book downloads. However this business model obviously won’t work with the iPad…
I think a lot of people will buy an iPad but only end up using it in their house until Apple launch an enhanced version 12 months down the line which they have had more time to think about the issues mentioned in the article you posted.
Just look at what they did with the iPhone to see how they quickly changed the model. Those people who bought the original iPhone must have felt pretty stupid considering the 3GS is so much better.
Maybe this will be the same for the people who buy the iPad at launch.
While wireless access and lack of webcam are two main areas of concern for the market, I think the larger question is if Apple can expand the AppStore / iTunes concept to a wider variety of applications and data sources. One of the market limiting factors to many eBook readers has been the proprietary restrictions on content – the Kindle tied to Amazon and the Nook tied to Barnes & Noble. On the other hand, Sony’s eReader’s are much more open but the Sony Store is more limited in content than Amazon and B&N.
The mobile phone market has a history of applications being restricted to one vendor, the carrier. AppStore has been a big improvement for phones. The slate market on the other hand has more in common with the PC market and the wide open softwaremarket. How popular would notebook computers be if you had to buy all of your software for your Dell laptop from Dell and your HP laptop from HP?
Many interesting capabilities in a slate computer are limited by Apple’s closed architecture. Adding IR and RF transmitters (cheap these days) opens up the universal remote control market. That market is used to paying $275-$500 for a device that could easily be implemented on a slate.
I’d wouldn’t bet against Apple, however, they need to build up serious momentum before Android powered slates hit the market.
Wow, there are some interesting comments here. I am not as technically savvy as you guys but had some observations about the iPad.
As a Kindle replacement, it is very expensive by comparison. So I get it for all the cool apps? Ok, but then how do I carry the iPad around? Won’t fit in my pocket. Can I use it riding in the metro standing up? Doesn’t seem like it’s a one-handed device like the iPhone.
Then if you add all the periphals to the iPad, isn’t that just like a laptop then?
Am I just simple minded?
I am guessing it will be carried the same way you carry Kindle. I am guessing Apple thought of that before building the iPad. But again, I have been wrong before.
The device has a lot of potential, but I think it’s capabilities will be slowly realized. I’m a photographer who would love to show off my work with the iPad instead of lugging a monitor and laptop around. But until there are some professional apps such as Adobe Lightroom instead of Apple’s novice programs, it is probably not worth it yet.
I know they are targeting a market of every day people and not heavy computer users, but I think that time will come once the momentum picks up. Heck, they are releasing iWork, which shows they expect it to be more than a book reader.
As for wireless, lack of camera, etc. The only reason I wouldn’t run out and buy one when it is released it you can expect, given past product releases, that by Christmas, a totally new iPad will be available. Cheaper, faster, more features, etc. They’ve done it with all their computers (many of us have bought an iMac only to have it antiquated the following month), the iPod, and the iPhone. So my guess is in a year, the product will still be around, cheaper and better, and I’ll have one…
I am moving 100% into iPad development. for me the iPad is not a beautiful piece of hardware but a new computing platform perfect for the type of software I often develop.
My perspective is that the new iPad is an entertainment device, primarily a content viewer and low end gaming device. It is not a smart phone or a personal computing device.
It’s too bad, that Steve missed including the “other two legs of the stool” in this product (personal communication and personal computing) in addition to the entertainment “leg”. The iPad has most of the components needed to be an innovative new portable computing/communication/entertainment device – with wireless access, memory, storage (limited), external and soft keyboard options, lightweight/thin, user-friendly screen size, operating system, etc.
But with no phone, camera, external storage or user acquired/developed apps, it is not even a netbook killer. It is sort of 1/2 phone + eBook/Video Reader+.
When Steve said in the launch that the iPad is a fantastic web viewing device, what he really meant was that smart phones are poor web viewing devices. So he fixed that problem. But why not take it to the next level rather than just fix what’s wrong with the existing technologies of iPhone and Kindle, etc? He referenced the netbooks being poor computing devices, but he didn’t try to address this with the iPad. Netbook still beats the iPad for personal computing, which is not saying much because the netbooks are still not getting the full user traction that they should have.
Within a year, I would expect another consumer electronics vendor to take this idea and turn it into something irresistable.
Regards, Michael
Michael, I really like your last comments about “when steve said in ……”. It makes all the senses.
I just have a hard time to believe a guy like Steve Jobs might have missed something like this.
Michael, I really like your last comments about “when steve said in ……”. It makes all the senses.
I just have a hard time to believe a guy like Steve Jobs might have missed something like this.
Oh my gosh, Pete, you can’t be further from the truth! I’m one of those original day iphone users and I’m extremely happy with my model that has worked beautifully all these years! I was just going to reply that Apple keeps their customers pretty satisfied. I never, EVER regretted buying an Apple product. On the first day (Mac 128/512, etc.) Not feeling stupid at all. A VERY happy camper here in Pittsburgh, PA, except for the snow! I love using it with all the many, many apps I have on it!
You’re so smart, Philippe, jumping right in. It will be another great boom to productivity levels, etc. What they are doing in England with the ipod in Education is rather amazing……. it’s a new world out there now!
I am buying one and for one simple reason. To reward Apple for being Apple. We need more companies like Apple.
More comments on the webcam… I don’t see why this is a deal breaker with people. I have a webcam on my iMac, and I’ve used it maybe 3 times in 5 years to do a video chat. Why is this such a desired feature?
These are only “obstacles” depending on how you define the iPad as a device. I look at it primarily as a content delivery vehicle. It’s a convenient package for consuming media like eBooks, music, movies, Internet video, and web pages. It adds the convenience of email, calendar and notes. For a lot of people that defines their whole life on the computer.
Apple’s decision to forgo the webcam doesn’t mean there will not be one. I’m sure Kensington, Logitech and others will come up with add-ons that will solve the issue. But if you think of video capture as content creation, again, that takes you into a different definition of the device. It’s not a laptop, and it’s not meant to have equivalent functionality. Think: Different. Think: content delivery vehicle.
Count me in as one of the people that can’t understand the desire for a camera. I can’t picture (pardon pun) any reasonable use case. Video chat with this in your lap would present the person on the other end a pretty unflattering view. Propping it up somewhere to provide a straight on head shot doesn’t seem feasible (plus, my computer is already perfectly configured for that use). And holding it up to take a picture of something would make you look like a dork. Seriously, what am I missing? What is the use case for a camera? Also, count me in as one who is happy to see Flash die.
John N., …I have a web cam on my iMac and MBP. I use them both daily, and have done so for the last 3-years now. That’s why it’s a deal breaker for a lot of us out here who use the technology on a daily basis. Having the iPad support it would be much easier than carrying around my MBP everywhere. Not everyone wants to communicate via email and instant messaging, and not all exec’s want to limit video teleconferencing to corporate offices. It’s simply too restrictive. Most exec’s I personally deal with prefer dealing in person, or at the very least video conferencing.
Dan G., …The only reason the web cam doesn’t currently exist in the iPad is because Apple is using the iPhone OS. There have been camera shots leaked all over the internet of iPad replacement parts being introduced into the Apple Support system, which show the iPad hardware is already manufactured to support the same web cam that the MBP currently uses.
The question is, what would it mean for Apple to allow the iPad to support video, and not the iPhone, when both of them use the iPhone OS?
Apple’s dilemma with the iPad is creating a new market that does not compete with its highly successful iPhone market. I’m sure the next gen will have a web cam, …they just bought themselves some time to figure out how to market a web cam on the iPad without upsetting people for not supporting it in the iPhone.
But then hey, …maybe the 4th gen iPhone is going to support it, which will resolve the dilemma for the next gen iPad.
My impressions are:
* complementary to the iPhone and iPod Touch
* usage model likely to be very different
* won’t replace computers or the phones
* it is good enough to get the market going and just like any other item, newer models will always have something extra. Waiting for perfection means people like Philippe and I would be out of business. So good is done and done is good
Mim, I would appreciate any pointers that you have wrt your education/UK comment.
Thanks,
Here’s what this young high schooler did listing Educational apps for the iphone. Be sure to keep scrolling down, down, down!
http://johnp.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/holmfirth-high-school-ipod-touch-apps/
Thanks – quite an impressive listing.
Huff – I work in technology in the mass media world (and before in the accounting world) and I don’t see a webcam in such demand as you do, I guess. It would be nice if it had it, sure, but it’s by no means a deal breaker.
Hey John N.,
I can totally understand that. If the environment I worked in didn’t use the technology, it probably wouldn’t be a deal breaker. However, in the environment I work in, it’s relied upon daily.
Besides, the idea of portable (in this case, iPad), video communications has been around for quite some time. They already use the technology heavily in Japan. It’s only a matter of time before it finally makes it’s way here to the U.S. Many of us thought Steve would make this happen via the iPad. When he didn’t, it was a huge let down. In addition to that, all the scuttlebutt around the web seems to clearly indicate the web cam to be in iPads future. As such, it economically doesn’t make since to invest in the first generation product, when most likely the second generation will incorporate what a lot of us are looking for. Hence, leaving the web cam out of the first generation being a deal breaker for a good majority of us out here.
Also, there have already been numerous talks throughout the U.S. of incorporating the iPad into the medical industry via hospitals, etc., With President Obama allotting billions to the medical industry to incorporate comprehensive electronic record keeping and updating, it seems the iPad would be a perfect fit. The only obvious thing missing of course, being the web cam for not only real time photo updates to the records, but also for consultations, etc.,
In closing, I can see how it would not be a deal breaker for people not currently relying on such technology. However, how would companies, or consumers for that matter, feel about investing so heavily in a product, and then having generation two come out less than a year later with the web cam technology?
I can understand corporate financial marketing strategies clearly. Intel is a perfect example of this. So can a lot of the exec’s I work closely with. So, rather than being milked financially so to speak, for a generation one and then a generation two. Quite a few of us out here have just decided to wait for generation two, and therefore declare the absence of the web cam in generation one, a deal breaker.
The obstacles mentioned are only problematic for those whose primary usage would require such features. Otherwise, it’s a killer device.
The iPad has the potential to resurrect “the paper.” If ads are included in digital versions that are read on an iPad (and they should be), every one of them can be interactive. They can link to more details, store availability, online ordering, virtual tours of rental property or cars for sale, loan calculators, and the like. Ads can even be sold on an optimized basis — targeted to readers who meet specific demographic criteria or who actually manage their preferences as their needs change: local restaurants when they want to dine out, specific cars when they’re shopping for a new one, outdoor gas grills, office apparel, whatever. When businesses know they’re reaching qualified, interested prospects, they’re willing to pay higher ad rates.
Meanwhile, the news stories themselves can, through links, provide additional features — at a different subscription rate — that incorporate related offers (as appropriate, of course). An article about the back roads of Scotland could include sponsored lodging and tourist information. A story about the dangers of travel near Kurdistan might have links to embassy contacts. A piece on commercial occupancy rates can link to properties with the best lease deals.
What devices like the iPad can do is to enable newsgathering organizations to retain their advertisers, reach a wider readership, provide video and audio in addition to print, and expand their roster of journalists and contributors rather than continue to reduce it.
Peter, I personally HATE all those ads, although I know someone must pay for the content. But the rural roads of Scotland story/lodging & tourist info is very acceptable as its helpful. But to have 10 ads on the screen is just too much. I shut off the radio if it has more than 4 ads in a row. Who needs it? And never watch TV because of the ads every few minutes. They’re killing the message!
That’s certainly an interesting way to look at the iPad and to be perfectly honest, it expresses my thoughts on the iPad very well.
Have you tried?
Yes, I did try. But, didn’t work
I have to admit I’m very interested in it, but not only from the immediate use point of view than what it – and products like it – will enable in the future. Eventually these type of devices will support 4G technologies and that will be a game changer for a lot of applications out there.
My 2 cents about this article:
1) When you compare the iPad to a Kindle or other eReader, in my opinion you touch only on part of what this machine can do. Even there to me it can do more than the competition, but it’s only part of the picture.
2) I don’t care at all about “phone network” connectivity for this machine. Now I see browsing as one of the key possibilities of this machine, but when it’s a similar speed experience to web browsing on the iPhone, then I’ll browse on WiFi, thank you. And then I pass on the fact that this is US only complaining about AT&T. Here in The Netherlands all 5 of our carriers have the latest network technology, including 3G for data.
3) To me, people that talk about Flash missing, don’t get it. Flash is a technology. What MAY be missing is showing video on webpages and some other things usually done with Flash. Now there are alternatives for that. Instead of complaining about Flash missing, you may complain to site owners using Flash instead of something that can be used on the iPhone or iPad. The thing plays High definition video!!!
And for the sex comparison, it’s plain childish.
I will buy the Ipad immediately, the only reason I own an Iphone was for the apps and its mobile capability. Once the Ipad is available I plan on canceling my Iphone, I will use a cell phone for what it was originally intended. I have been thinking about purchasing a kindle for sometime but the price was just way to high for its functionality for me, but I do find value in the Ipad with its ability to do everything the Kindle can do plus what my Iphone does. I am interested to see what the 2nd gen and 3rd gen Ipad will evolve to. I know many are waiting for the 2nd gen Ipad hoping to get the camera and multitasking, personally I want to wait until 2012 when the 4G Ipad will probably come out, since then it will be true 4G. I really do not have a need for a camera and well I can live without multitasking till then.
Ellias joon
This was good one , I like the part u say I had to spend $ 90
and now u have to spend $ 500 …….
I read your junk all the time . Will not all the time .
But keep up the good work.
Oh you know im only kiding cuise.
You are doing a great job.
Richard, …I just had to pipe in and say you hit the nail on the head so to speak with penny number 2!!! …hahaha
Sorry to jump on the conversation soo late, but here’s my two pennies worth;
The iPad will make a big splash in the younger generation simply because of the trends and fads rule. Beyond that will probably leave a loud thud. I can’t even imagine why apple left out the web cam but put in a gps and accelerometer. Why would they leave out flash but promote the idea of watching movies? Why would they make the same mistake Mac Air did and give it a built in battery so when the battery dies, you’re done. why on earth would they limit the activity on it.. I would love to listen to a stream of Coltrane while posting to blogs like this simultaneously. I’m holding out on this one… let the kids with rich parents help them with the first round of tweaks. and on a separate note (penny number 2)
I love Apple, but hate that they went with AT&T for their carrier. Now you can choose between an itouch, iphone or iPad.. they’re pretty much the same… you can’t make calls on any of them, lol
My concern is what will be the delta of changes from version 1 of the iPad to version 2? Look at the Macbook Air. Early adopters missed out on the new graphics chip and a more standard connector for the hard drive in the unit.
If the camera is not in the still to be shipped version, but comes in the next version and you get video chats et all in the next version that seems lame. At least put the camera parts in, and enable them in the next software release.
I’m truly interested in the iPad, just not sure I want to be burned by the next version in a year. Is that a good enough ROI for 1 year before I buy a new one?
If so, it appears I should be careful about not getting the 3G version now, given the increase in price. So, there are some things to consider here.
Once you buy it, there is no upgrade path, other than buying a new one. Same as the iPod marketing model. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve been waiting for Apple to deliver this product–just not sure of the rate of change and obsolescence that will come–as we saw with the iPhone->iPhone 3G->iPhone 3GS.
So I might get the low end one that is wifi only, and see what happens.
Elias, excellent question/post. I will absolutely get the earliest iPad I can get. As for why… I am posting a concept iPad use case everyday until launch. I have 14 done so far. Please take a peek, I would love to hear your thoughts. http://www.mindingthegaps.com/blog/
Thanks
Russ
Thanks Russ. Did you also cast your vote at the bottom of the article. I just added the poll to the article?
yep
I returned it shortly thereafter. The biggest annoyance: an imperfect bluetooth connection and oddly responsive keyboard