Steve Jobs unveils iPad 2 Apple unveiled its second-generation iPad on Wednesday morning, called simply the iPad 2. Apple chief executive Steve Jobs, away from Apple on medical leave, did the honors, as was rumored yesterday. According to live blogs from Macworld and ArsTechnica (for some reason, The Register is not invited to Apple press events), the …
they should now make the thing round and shaped like a frizbee. Maybe it's just the angle of the product shot but I can see it being thrown twixt iPadders like a frizbee - here catch! Or maybe broaden the customer base by making a Tea Tray version for the older generation ;-) (crumbs, what an idea)
On the one hand, the specs look pretty nice, and I am somewhat interested in experementing with something in a tablet format.
For me (and I freely admit, this is not a main-stream opinion. so-much-so that it makes little bussness sense for Apple to cater to it.) in experementing with different ways to use the form-factor. I want to hack the thing. I want to see if there are innovative ways we can use it. So to me, it's a non-starter. Too bad, but I want something that isn't so locked down, and it's not worth my time to work around it.
Looks like a nice redesign of the product. A bit less like just an oversized iPhone. I might drop down to Covent Garden and give it a little fondle when they're in.
I'm not sure I can justify the cost given that I've yet to find a compelling use case for my work. Perhaps this generation will fix the "forearms of steel" complaint which stopped me lusting after the previous lot.
Certainly a solid version 2.0.
Now, I'm used to being on the Daily Mail website and having my neo-liberal views on basic human rights like not being executed downvoted. But I'm desperately struggling to see what was objectionable about this post.
Was I not polarised enough? I'm failing to see how "Yes, this upgrade looks like an upgrade - I still can't find a useful niche for it in my household though" could cause two real, breathing, thinking human beings so much objection that their thumbs turned downwards in disgust.
Maybe I just don't understand how to comment on these apple articles yet.
I'd be very interested in seeing some breakdowns of markdown/markup ratio vs subject. The Registards could put a little graph next to the "Click to Comment" button so we can see a preview of the shitslinging in the monkey pit. This would be very helpful so we can come in and shake the tree in Global Warming and Apple conversations.
The $1 bn figure was deliberate as I seem to remember that the developer program will set you back $100 a year.
Now app store users vs devs? Well, given that the dev sets the price, and then Apple takes 30% of that, it's clearly the dev paying Apple. The user paying Apple would be Apple charging the user a fee on top of the price set by the dev.
It's an important difference for a few reasons. For example most user are not aware of that tax. And the burden of pricing the apps so that the store can function (i.e., calculating what the Apple tax should be to stay acceptable to the customer) falls to the dev, not to Apple. If Apple was charging the user, the devs would have to price their apps so that they sell, and that's it. Then Apple would have to set their tax so that the store does not get deserted by customers. With the current system the devs do all the work (and cannot even offer the apps at a lower price elsewhere, thanks to the new T&C).
So I still thing I'm right, the devs are paying Apple. But feel free to prove me wrong.
The developer programme — giving access to the App Store, amongst other things — does indeed cost US$100/year and is a direct charge to the developer. So it's probably a safe assumption that they've collected US$1bn though that route, that being just 10,000,000 developer subscriptions worldwide.
I don't agree with you otherwise though. The user gives their money to Apple. Apple gives some money to developers. So it's definitely not the developers paying Apple per application in any legal sense. Apple handle hosting, payment processing and provide a limited amount of publicity. That's the traditional role of a shop, and claiming that developers are paying Apple because of the 30% cut is like saying that anybody with any product in any shop is paying that shop. So, even if true by the test you're applying, it doesn't sound like there's any grounds on which to single Apple out as doing something wrong.
"It's an important difference for a few reasons. For example most user are not aware of that tax. And the burden of pricing the apps so that the store can function (i.e., calculating what the Apple tax should be to stay acceptable to the customer) falls to the dev, not to Apple."
Um...isn't that the way all stores work?
I'm sorry, did you think that if you buy a copy of Microsoft Office from Best Buy or Amazon or someplace, not all of the money goes to the developer, right? That's kind of the way stores work. You buy a product at a store, some of the money goes to the store and some of it goes to the developer. Stores have always worked that way, at least here in the Colonies. Isn't that the case in the UK?
I feel like I'm missing something. Every product you purchase at any store, be it software or bread or computers or cars or small remote-controlled toy aircraft, always has some percentage of the sale price go to the store. Why is it exactly that everyone complains about this when it's downloads but not when it's buttermilk pancakes?
No, it's not how all shops work. Shops buy stock from their suppliers at the price defined by the supplier (OK, it's a bit more complicated but let's simplify), then add their margin. So the customer pays for the margin, as the supplier can sell it's stuff through other channels, or direct, without the overhead.
Apple's T&C prevents the devs from selling their work without the Apple tax (i.e. direct, at a lower price). So indeed Apple insists that the dev pays the tax, not the customer. Let's suppose a dev wants to sell an app for, say, 1.30. Through the apple app store Apple gets 0.30 and the dev 1. But should the dev want to sell his app direct, he has to sell it for 1.30 or he's banned from the app store. So by selling direct he gets 1.30, and by selling through the store he gets 1. The customer pays 1.30 regardless of the channel. How is it not the dev paying the tax?
Also, keep in mind that Apple doesn't buy the app (as a brick-and-mortar shop does). They're just processing the payment on behalf of the developper. That's especially true for publishers, as in this case Apple's servers don't even see what is sold. For games and fart apps, at least Apple takes care of the distribution (i.e. hosting and bandwidth), so the 30% *might* be considered fair (although it's still paid by the dev, not the customer, due to the price-fixing). For publishers, Apple only hosts the app, the bulk of the hosting and half the bandwidth costs is paid by the publisher (the other half of the bandwidth costs is paid for by the carrier, i.e. ultimately the customer, but not Apple).
Analogies with Tesco are really really dumb.
Must take my words back, when, last year, I was musing about the uses for Ipads. Saint Jobs has pulled it off and in the process created a whole new industry based around these tablets. Imagine his contribution to the economy in a recession ridden world.
Hail the saint for such audacity and vision. Great marketeer in typically American fashion- Sure.
I still however wonder about all the poeple who are buying and bought tablets. What are they really using this for?
Glorifed Ipod/IIPhone? Cant impress a woman with the bulk. Far sexier models and handsets out there.
Glorified ebook reader? Many cheaper ones around.
Glorified MP3 player? Even cheaper ones around.
Glorified Photo Frame? Even more cheaper ones out there.
Or just a glorified wirless Internet access device with a high Data charge element with operators. And the snob value that goes with it?
Someone enlighten me please.
Flames welcome too!
It's an instant-on small computer which lives in the lounge. Great for:
- checking stuff on the internet
- games (lots, and many are very, very good)
- multiplayer games with the rest of the family (Marble Mixer is great fun for four)
- education (eg. helping kids with maths homework and need a graphplot: QuickGraph)
- music apps: some of the music apps use the multitouch interface in very imaginative ways
- excellent Apple TV remote app
(quick list off the top of my head)
Ok, most of this you can do with a laptop - but none of this requires a permanent, physical keyboard. And don't forget, this is about the size of a small magazine, is instant-on and has a battery life of over ten hours.
When I got ours there was an initial rush in using it, but it's settled down now to the point where it needs recharging every three / four days. It's just really, really useful.
I remember predicting that it would sell very well despite the lack of any compelling function. That's pretty much the definition of a gadget. People get it because it's cool, not because it does anything that cannot be done more efficiently and at a cheaper price by another device.
People do buy indoor miniature copters, too. And Bat'leth.
And cats. Cats are organic iPads. Good looking, cudly, expensive, and incredibly unnerving at times. And they do whatever they want regardless of what YOU want. iPads don't poop and you can chose your cat's colour, but that's about the only difference. Even the only discernible function is the same: lap warmer.
"I still however wonder about all the poeple who are buying and bought tablets. What are they really using this for?"
I can't speak for the great unwashed, but my girlfriend just got her doctorate in biophysics and is doing a postdoc in brain mapping and modeling. She uses her iPad to take data and to read scientific journals and texts--something that devices such as the Kindle are subpar at, because (or so she tells me) a lot of the material she needs to read contains color-coded information like charts and graphs that are virtually unreadable on a B&W screen. Apparently, from what she tells me, they're fantastically popular among grad students and postdocs in hard sciences.
And yes, she has a netbook (running Linux) as well. The iPad is easier to use in the lab, or so she says.
Me? I don't have an iPad *or* a netbook, so I can't tell you from personal experience.
Twas the day of the unveiling
And all through the hall
Not a fanboi was stirring
Anticipation grips them all.
The curtains were raised
His Jobness strides out
Fanboi leap skyward
Applause with joyful shouts
With smiles and waves
His Jobness greets the crowd
His smile subtle
The reaction quite loud
Then with a pause
the moment arrives
The lights dim
the buzzing subsides
The great one reaches out of sight
A pause as tension flows
The Fanboi know it is the end of the night
The new iPad emerges, heart rates soar!
Then his Jobness shows the crowd
just what it can do
The improvements, the efficiencies
The whole too-do!
So if you want the best IPad
Don't stop ye merry men
Start saving for August
Cuz the IPad 3 goes on sale then.
Profuse apologies to Clement Clarke Moore!
"One truly striking thing about the iPad 2 – available in both black and white "from day one" said Jobs – is how thin it is. At 8.8mm, it's slimmer than even the iPhone 4, which is a comparatively chunky 9.3. Its weight, however, hasn't dropped all that much: from 1.5 pounds in the original to a still somewhat hefty 1.3 pounds."
Could the Reg standardise on their units - other than multiples of 'wales' you seem all over the shop
It looks like a kitchen appliance. What's with the huge border? Ipad 1 is much nicer looking. Of course since you've never seen one it could just be a poor mockup.
Nothing compelling in the specs for me.. not worth it for dual core (the kindle app, which is 90% of my current use of the ipad, is plenty fast thanks, as is Safari which is most of the other 10% - if I want games I'll fire up the wii), and I'd look pretty silly taking pictures with something that big!
And what exactly has that got to do with the price of tea in China?
It's clearly not a problem for the 15+ million purchasers of the iPad thus far. Certainly never been an issue for me.
Actually I wouldn't want a wide screen display as this means that it's less useful in portrait mode -- by far the most common orientation for reading, emailing and browsing. In fact of the hundreds of hours of use I've put my iPad, I think I've probably watched less than 10 hours of films/vids.
OLED's still not practical for this size of screen and very expensive (you'd whinge at that too). With 64Mb, there's plenty of space and synching with my main machine isn't at all onerous.
How about because you could actually buy this before any Honeycomb tablets.
Can I buy a Xoom yet? No. Despite the fact that Motorola have been bleating about it for a couple of months now. You wont be able to get one in the UK until at best 3 weeks after the iPad. How about a TouchPad or PlayBook. Hmm, maybe not. I wish Apple's competitors would put up or shut up. Much like the anti-Apple brigade who feel the desperate need to comment on every single Apple story. Pathetic really.
Apple is on the brink. They don't seem to have realised it, but like Burberry and other blind fashon labels before them they've peaked.
In their right minds they should be cashing in as much as they can - they're headed back to minor player soon - nobody is going to buy their products in a few years time "because they were decent about it|".
Just run that past us again please - we missed your point...
Oh, you mean Microsoft are failing as they don't have products that people want and their brand is waaayyyy from kewel.
You can't be talking about Apple; the iPad created the tablet market: prior to which there was no such market sector (don't even think about mentioning the Windos keyboardless PC things that have no battery life, aren't optimised for tactile manipulation, are heavy, look revolting and are totally undesirable). Apple can't make enough of the iPads to satisfy worldwide demand.
They've produced a solid update in the iPad 2 which doesn't alienate the iPad 1 owners whilst making it an improvement on existing tech. Not a bad achievement really.
What exactly was your augment? For the evidence doesn't seem to support your assertions.
Cosmic Ordering has always seemed like the best way to direct the future of the IT industry. Keep writing it down and hiding it around the Internet, and either it'll turn true, in the end, or we'll have reached the heat-death of the Universe and it won't matter any more. What fascinates me, is you seem to think you can make this stuff happen, BY WRITING IT DOWN.
Sweet Jesus! Is there a drug, you can take, to achieve this state, or do you have to be born with it?
I bought an IPAD and have been sorry I did so. So many issues (all non technical) that I should have waited at least 6 months. Not to be meant as an all inclusive list and in no order.
1. IPAD is just to heavy
2. touch keyboard makes it useless (to me) I had to buy a real keyboard.
3. Trying to read anything on the IPAD is an exercise in pain. You cannot put it on a flat surface (lap desk) on a moving train, auto or other and expect to be able to read it. It needs to be put on a steady surface to be able to use it. Even then it is iffy.
4. Printed instruction on set up are in 5 point font and you will need a magnafying glass and plenty of patience *AND* have some knowledge of APPLE's way of thinking to install it.
Personally its the last piece of APPLE hardware I will ever buy.
I will not buy one. I don't like the closed system, I don't like the manufacturer telling me what I can and can't do with my device. I loathe having to connect it to iTunes to start it up for the first time and detest the need for Windows or OSX to do this) and I really can't abide the 60+ page EULA of the iTunes store. So, as nice as the actual product is, I'll not have one.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
