Apple's iPad Megathread

[silentsim]

Originally Posted by Roast Beef

That, and MyWi on jailbroken iPhones.

I prefer iTether Lets you use native BT tethering. iPad needs jail breaking, and not the iPhone in this case. And only 5$

However with iOS 4.3 personal hotspot, that's there too!

But BT is much better on the battery

[Flames0910]

TechCrunch was reporting today that Apple might do a quick turnaround for iPad 3 to realign it's release date to Christmas (and keep ahead of the swarm of tablets closing in all around them) - surprised nobody in here is talking about that!

[silentsim]

Personally I highly doubt Apple will break off from its 1 year cycle routine.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by silentsim

Personally I highly doubt Apple will break off from its 1 year cycle routine.

I think this is based on a guess from Daring Fireball's John Gruber saying that an update to the iPad with a product release in the spring didn't really fit into the best market scenario, where as a late summer/early fall launch along side the iPod updates so they're ready for the Christmas season.

That said, Gruber made a point of saying that it was a complete guess on his part. Though he is apparently in the know in some respects with Apple products.

[Russic]

I think Gruber made a guess and it's being picked up on because Apple news generates clicks. Apple is quite predictable so I think they'll stick to the yearly cycle. If they do want to release one at years end I think they just wouldn't release one in the spring. Highly unlikely imo.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Russic

I think Gruber made a guess and it's being picked up on because Apple news generates clicks. Apple is quite predictable so I think they'll stick to the yearly cycle. If they do want to release one at years end I think they just wouldn't release one in the spring. Highly unlikely imo.

I totally agree. I think it is more likely that Steve chokes to death on his sweater while on stage than they change the release cycle and release 2 iPads this year.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I totally agree. I think it is more likely that Steve chokes to death on his sweater while on stage than they change the release cycle and release 2 iPads this year.

I also don't see how they could manage two releases with the FCC regulations and certification process around wireless devices. Just seems like too quick a turnaround for one country, let alone multiple.

If there is anything to the hunch/guess/rumor, I'm going to say you'll see another form factor, not a third iteration of the same product.

[nickerjones]

just out of pure curiosity can you watch things like NHL Gamecentre or centre ice on the iPad?

[Devils'Advocate]

Yes, you can want things like NHL Gamecentre on the iPad.

What *I* want is the ability to watch past games on the iPad. Right now you can only watch live games. If I log into Gamecentre, I can watch the archive of this entire season, but on the iPad app you only get clips and highlights and what they call "condensed games".

[Russic]

The Canucks and Leafs have apps that let you stream from Sportsnet as long as they are within the proper region. If the flames have that deal I'll probably go GameCentre + Flames app and ditch cable completely. I hope the Flames go that route very very badly.

[nickerjones]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Yes, you can want things like NHL Gamecentre on the iPad.

What *I* want is the ability to watch past games on the iPad. Right now you can only watch live games. If I log into Gamecentre, I can watch the archive of this entire season, but on the iPad app you only get clips and highlights and what they call "condensed games".

HAHAHA should of quoted me now you look like a FOOL!!!!! HAHA but thanks for the info. I pay like 160 to watch NHL Center Ice on my cable but maybe 1 game a week is in HD . The Flames never get it , even though I know its being broadcast in HD in Calgary. I am betting the quality would better if I went GameCenter . I can use it on my Ipad and PS3 and I believe its cheaper than 160!

[Flames0910]

Originally Posted by Russic

The Canucks and Leafs have apps that let you stream from Sportsnet as long as they are within the proper region. If the flames have that deal I'll probably go GameCentre + Flames app and ditch cable completely. I hope the Flames go that route very very badly.

Want.

[nickerjones]

SO I really wanted to wait but I cant turn down free. My parents gave me the cash and told me to go and pick one of these up for me for my birthday last night. I opened it last night and I love it! They got me the 16gig w 3G. I think I am really going to enjoy using this and my PS3 to get the NHL games instead of using my Cable provider's NHL Centre ice which is never in HD and looks horrible in SD. I just need to find out how to get cheap or errrr **cough cough** Free **cough cough** newer ebooks on this thing. I hope to be able to play with it more today.

Also one cool thing I like is I am a HULU plus subscriber and you can watch all the tv seasons right on your iPad with the HULU app . Its pretty sweet and the picture is really good as well.

[kermitology]

The new update to Apple's terms of service regarding subscriptions and consumption of content within iOS devices is really, really bad news for other companies in my opinion.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...erve-a-cut.ars

A lot of big issues are being taken with this tactic. Readability for iOS for example could be killed by this. Since the 30/70 split for content that they provide is their entire business model. Apple's requirements means no revenue for Readability's developers to work with.

This could really impact the streaming of content to iOS devices from the telecom's here in Canada. It's worded in such a way that even if you changed VOD stuff from Shaw/Telus/Rogers/etc into a subscription that's a part of your wireless or home entertainment package, Apple wants 30%, and that's not going to be profitable for those companies.

[silentsim]

According to a new "email" from a dev to Steve, the in app subscription is only required for publishing, and not for software as a service based apps.

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/21/...-as-a-service/

[kermitology]

I just saw that as well. Extremely vague response from Jobs, and that's really unclear based on what the review guidelines say.

[photon]

"If you're offside our publishing rules, we'll tell you after we decide if it is in our best interests"

[Russic]

I'm still very unsure how I feel about this one. On one hand I'm all for it from a usability perspective. Standing in the shoes of my parents, a purchase from the kindle store is quite confusing when you aren't used to buying things online. This type of thing will be a god-send for consumers like them.

On the other hand it doesn't do a whole lot of good if these rules anger developers to the point that they just don't offer their service anymore. I get that Apple is saying "hey you can still sell from your website all you want", but they are fully aware that no consumer is going to bypass a "buy now" button in an app for a more cumbersome alternative (unless you choose to willingly avoid those to reward the dev).

I love Apple products and I see why they do a lot of the things they do (this included), but this is one of the first moves that feels a little much to me. It's a tough balance ... you want the experience to be entirely consistent across the apps, but you don't want devs to be forced into offering up something that they don't want to offer up.

[kermitology]

My big issue with it is still how much of a cut Apple wants. If you already have a purchasing eco-system that you can use, why should you be forced to use Apple's AND give them a cut just for providing an API.

I mean, the amazon solution on iOS devices is what it is simply because IAP exists in the first place. They can't do a one button solution because IAP exists, not because they aren't able to manage the backend practices.

IAP should be an option open to developers, but not the only option in my opinion. Apple's argument is that they're the ones enabling this portal as a revenue stream, so they deserve a cut, but 30% is probably more than the margin of most companies serving up content. So all this is going to achieve is higher prices for consumers to offset Apple's fingers in the pot, or complete removal of applications from the app store.

I don't see a way in which consumers aren't punished by this, and that bothers me more than how I'm annoyed as a developer.

[photon]

Yeah the 70/30 arbitrary split is workable in the software world where once you write something, the cost of providing each item is zero.. so 70% of a sale is more than 70% of nothing.

But in the content world where the content itself might have absolute costs, the arbitrary 30% is completely disconnected from the business reality.

Of course you could say that then that content provider just doesn't get to play in the Apple ecosystem, but that seems short sighted.

The option to negotiate a deal other than the 70/30 split should exist, so the developer can give Apple a fair cut of the profit from the added sales without having to view in app sales as a loss leader in some cases.

More resource intensive, but hey, Apple's the biggest tech company in the world, leading #2 by the entire size of HP! They can afford it.