Talk:IPad/Archive 2

This section keeps getting added and removed. Can a consensus be found on this? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

See WP:NOPRICES. There is no encyclopedic reason for the prices to be included. ~ Paul^T+/_C 17:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is what WP:NOPRICES says:

In general, if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on the price of an object instead of just passing mention, this is an indication that its price may have encyclopedic significance.

The price has been discussed often in media sources. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess you have a source for the price in the media? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I can see this is going to require some discussion. The relevant section in full:

Product prices should not be quoted in an article unless they can be sourced and there is a justified reason for their mention. In general, if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on the price of an object instead of just passing mention, this is an indication that its price may have encyclopedic significance. Prices listed by individual vendors, on the other hand, can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to be used to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices of a single product from different vendors.

Just because the price has been discussed does not mean it belongs here, note the "may" in that sentence. Also, what discussion has there been other than a passing mention of how much it costs? I don't see what the controversy is... look at iPod and iPhone. There is no mention of prices except to show the massive price drop of the iPhone which caused major controversy. Is there anything even remotely similar for the iPad? ~ Paul^T+/_C 17:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The price is being discussed in the media: "The iPad's Biggest Innovation: Its $500 Price" (Fast Company) http://www.fastcompany.com/article/apples-tablet-introduced?page=0%2C0 ArtsMusicFilm (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

For posterity, here is the section under debate:

I've added a section break so the availability section is below the image of the iPad home screen, why does this keep getting removed? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I moved the picture so this break is no longer necessary. ~ Paul^T+/_C 17:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Though IMO in the process you've made the pictures less spread out through the article. What's the issue with having a manual break? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

In the first sentence, the article says that it is "similar in functionality to the iPod Touch." I feel this is a slightly biased view and it should be changed to "iPhone and iPod Touch" for clarity. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.238.125 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The Reception section has already turned into a (negative) criticism section dominated by technological bean counters. My personal impression however was that to a large extend, the reception circled around the cultural impact the iPad may or may not have, on the daily live of people and the fate of publishers. This is presently not at all reflected in the Reception section that instead tires the reader by listing personal opinions on technical features allegedly "missing" from some self proclaimed check list masters. Not encyclopedic. Thyl Engelhardt213.70.217.172 (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What content do you propose to add/change? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Reception section is overly Positive POV by most accounts and discsusion thusfar. There have been others to argue that the line should read "mostly negative" to accuratley reflect public/journalist/analyst reception.

The Criticism section should be *more* negative to be *more* accurate. Nwusr123log (talk) 04:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but at this moment, while the iPad isn't yet in peoples hands, there are no reliable sources yet that comment on the social impact the iPad will have/has on people. The impact it will have on publishers is also Dependant on the adoption rate of the future users, so on that too not much can be said with any reliability.

In fact there is something to say about renaming the "reception" section to "reception of the announcement", as the true reception still has to come, when people start using them. I suspect the reactions will be different from those of the "beancounters". Mahjongg (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of changing the title. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I feel obliged to point out that the above characterisation of the people who've expressed negative opinions of it is even more biased than the reception section. They're all "bean counters" and their opinions "tire the reader", missing features are "allegedly" missing and people who point out missing features are "self proclaimed check list masters". I agree we should be circumspect, but right now the section reflects accurately the balance of current notable opinions. When consumer preferences and direct reviews become known and sales figures are available, they will naturally be added and given appropriate weight. 203.217.150.68 (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Dont agree with changing to "reception of annoucnment". Many of the analysts have used the device. And, it is not in common wikipedia form to do as suggested. Nwusr123log (talk) 04:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That is correct, my statement was somewhat provocative. I have now done a more thorough review of the reception section and found 10 negative, 6 positive and 3 neutral statements (mostly statements = sentences). I counted the statement that most tablet PCs run Windows as neutral, though it is pretty meaningless in this respect, and might turn out to be negative when giving any meaning to it. The section starts with a positive statement (software) and ends with a positive one (about the GUI; i.e. again software). In between follows a mixture of missing hardware features and digital rights criticism. To most of the missing feature, there are different opinions; the digital rights stuff is old, as it also applies to the iPhone. However, while "it's about SW" certainly is correct, this statement applies to all devices. Whether a hardware feature is "missing" will depend on the usage of the device; something we cannot really tell at this stage, because we need to await what users will actually want to do with this new category of device. Stephen Fry's comment on usability finally is only his opinion, and does not necesarily represent a statistically significant perception. It is my personal opinon that the whole section is just a way for fans and foes to place their respective POVs camouflaged via statements from third parties that also have no clue yet. Thyl Engelhardt 213.70.217.172 (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A reception section doesn't mean anything unless there has been a reception, that is that the general public has has time to evaluate what they think of the thing, while in normal use, for an extended period. Until then there are many reasons to assume the many reactions are nothing more than expressions of the dissimilarities of what "fans" (or distractors) thought what the device "should have been", (regarding "technical specifications") and what the device in fact is. Its about what it does and means in practical use. And frankly the technical specifications do not say much about what the user experience will be, especially not when the "thing" has no comparison with what they are used to use. If you expect this to be a "PC" in a different form, then you simply will make the wrong conclusions, because it simply isn't what you already know, its something completely different. Only after you have really used it as what it is (not as what its supposed to be) you can qualify it. Then you might discover that some criticisms are valid, while others are simply caused by a lack of understanding of the nature of the beast, and -why- apple made certain decisions. Mahjongg (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Like: reception of the new Benz "Motorcar" was mixed. Horse breeder McDonald noted that there were no horses, while carriage builders criticised that only two persons could be carried. ;-) Thyl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.70.217.172 (talk) 10:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That comparison is way off, and only shows you are one of the "beancounters". I'm only saying that the initial reception by technical pundits may say nothing about the reaction of the public at large once they get their hands one one. Maybe the title should be "Initial reaction to the announcement". You could even say there that "the initial reaction of technical pundits to the technical specification of the iPad was often negative". Mahjongg (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

With my humoreous remark, I actually tried to second your position. The last time I counted my beans, I got 4281. Thyl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.70.217.172 (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I may have a defect in my "humoreous" receptors. sorry about that. Mahjongg (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What was wrong with rev 343941123 ? No content was removed in the revision, as mentioned in the undo summary. I am assuming that it was removed by mistake in good faith.122.177.210.131 (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought you removed completely the comment about NetBooks but you didn't and had just moved it to the end of the paragraph. Still that version doesn't read as well as the negative comment doesn't flow from the first sentence, and wouldn't without reworking. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

PS The Stephen Fry comment is at the end as that's how it flows chronologically but maybe that could be moved. On the POV there are two pretty negative subsections as well as a fair amount of negative criticism in the first part of the reception section. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

In a couple of days if there are no further challenges to say the Reception section is bias is it OK to remove the POV header on the section? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done and its gone. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The section has become vastly too positive. Every critical statement is surrounded by weasel words and editors effort to refute. The positive statements are presented without any caveats. 173.206.51.180 (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

What changes do you suggest? And what specifically is currently surrounded by weasel words? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

How is this related to the iPad (except that the iPad is briefly mentioned in the article)? Its about users being confused when using the internet, not specific to the iPad at all, not even specific to a browser. Mahjongg (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Its an ease of use thing and I thought it was worth including as a counter to the comments about the iPad being locked down. However it is borderline so if people want it gone, please remove it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the "Facebook Login" paragraph might be slightly mischaracterizing Gruber's intent.

Gruber's entire post:

‘Facebook Login’

Fascinating. ReadWriteWeb has a weblog post that ranks highly in Google’s search results for “Facebook login”. The comments on the post are filled with complaints from confused people who think that this is the new Facebook login page.

It’s funny, yes, but it’s a fascinating glimpse at just how confused many people are about how web sites and browsers work. [italics mine] They don’t use bookmarks, they don’t type “facebook.com” in the location field. They just Google for whatever they’re looking for and assume the first result is correct. All this argument over whether the iPad is too simple — if anything it’s probably still too complex.

The paragraph from the reception section:

On February 11, 2010, John Gruber said that even the easy-to-use iPad might be too complicated for non-technical people, noting that some users who performed a Google search for "Facebook login" were confused when they landed on an unaffliated blog post.

To me, Gruber's main point is the italicized line above. His post isn't really about the iPad. It's about the internet... and how some people are still confused by it.

His mention of the iPad at the end, seems to be a topical sarcastic quip, more than iPad commentary. He's actually mocking the people who are getting confused. Not really commenting on the iPad's design. And it's somewhat questionable if he was being serious at all... re the ipad or the entire post.

Maybe we should alter the paragraph, or possibly remove it, considering that Gruber appears to be joking and not really making a serious point about the iPad. What do you think? -- ArtsMusicFilm (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to do whatever you guys want to. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

User ArtsMusicFilm has worded my doubts about this paragraph perfectly. I don't think it has a place in this article. Mahjongg (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm removed it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"have listed features that are missing from the iPad that they believe customers expect. These include the lack of camera for video chat, no Adobe Flash support, that the screen's aspect ratio is 4:3, that it can not run multiple applications at the same time and that the device only has an iPod dock connector for wired data transfer".

O.K.; so there is the missing feature of a camera, and the missing feature of Adobe flash. But what exactly is the missing feature of the screen aspect? What would people expect from an eBook reader? And what is the missing feature in respect to the dock connector? Two dock connectors? Or ISDN, ATM, Ethernet, ADB, PCIexpress, an AC outlet, a connector for coupling a model railroad controller? Should be made a bit mmore logical;-) Thyl Engelhardt213.70.217.172 (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the screen aspect bit to "isn't widescreen" and the dock connector thing looks fairly clear to me as it says "the device only has an iPod dock connector for wired data transfer". Maybe you can clarify your concerns? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this covered by the original article cited? And why is this feature missing? I mean, "missing" means absence, and quite clearly, camera and Flash are absent. But a screen aspect is a different kind of breed, since you can only have one. If the aspect were widescreen, it would have the missing feature of 4:3. Mmh, strange. In respect to the other, the dock connector, I tried to elaborate, sorry. What is the missing feature? The Dock connector is not missing, it is there. What kind of connector for wired data transfer is missing? All other kinds that have ever been developped? Who would have guessed that! Thyl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.70.217.172 (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

with regards to data transfer, what about adding "such as USB" to it? With regards to the screen, most screens are widescreen these days, that's why its "missing". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that if the iPad's screen happened to be of a wide screen format people would also complain, because it would give the device an awkward to handle shape, on the iPad the screen == the device! People do not really know what they want, they think they want it, but if they are confronted with the reality of it they think otherwise. Regarding the fact that the USB cable must be plugged into a different connector than is usual, that in itself isn't a big deal, what a bigger deal is that the memory of the iPad cannot be extended with a cheap USB memory stick (or SD-cards), so if you buy the 16GB version you cannot easily add more storage later, such as is the case with most netbooks. I think that is the real reason behind the complaint. Also USB is used for a lot more things than just "wired data transfer". Mahjongg (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

With respect to connecting the device to a PC, the USB is not missing functionality, since it does have a USB connection in the dock connector, and a cable for connecting it to a USB interface on the PC is included (and why would anybody have a problem with using the included cable?). With respect to other devices, like printers, HDs etc., we are in a different field, because it will mean that there must be a USB _master_, not slave. Tablet PCs might have those, but then again, we cannot be sure yet wether the USB port included in the dock connector is USB master (the SD card interface does however imply that there is a USB master present). So, "no USB port" could really melt down to "no standard type A USB port with USB master function", or, in other words "a special cable is required". I however assume that the quoted article is not that smart, and hence, factually wrong. Maybe, it is better not to mention such factuallly wrong statement in WP. Pls check. Thyl Engelhardt213.70.217.172 (talk) 08:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears that there may in fact be a USB host, as jailbreakers seem to have found out. So, the reception might really be wrong in this respect. As I said before: statements by people who also have no clue yet. Thyl Engelhardt213.70.217.172 (talk) 12:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That the electronics inside the iPad support USB host mode may be, but as long as the iPad doesn't have an USB type A receptacle in which you can plug a memory stick, you gain nothing by that. You don't want to carry the dock with you just to watch a video on the USB stick. I mean, you still cannot extend the memory of the iPad in a useful way. Mahjongg (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

In any way, the "reception" expressed in the discussed passage gets increasingly -err- compromised. While we could probably find a wording that may correctly reflect the situation, it would no longer be the reception cited. Incidently, this is only a software problem. As soon as there is a SW function allowing the use of USB sticks, I am positive that there will be mechanical adapters or short adapter cables enabling the use of such sticks. If not, build your own. Thyl Engelhardt213.70.217.172 (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

We can only hope, perhaps someone will come with a "memory knob" that can be plugged in directly into the dock connector (with an interface cable to connect it to your PC/Mac for uploading stuff). Somehow I doubt Apple will allow a "software upgrade" to do this though. They probably will fight with nail and teeth to prevent it (ps, please use the indent function correctly, so add the right number of ":"'s). Mahjongg (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Oups, I need to correct myself. There evidently already is a mechanical adapter for USB. It's part of the camera connection kit. Sorry for any confusion caused. Thyl Engelhardt213.70.217.172 (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I was looking through the B class criteria and I noticed there are a few cases of AppleInsider being used as a source. Is it considered reliable? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it appears to me that appleinsider more or less downgraded to a news reporting site from being a rumor site. I would expect that the news portion of it is as realiable as other news sites. Just my opinion. Thyl Engelhardt213.70.217.172 (talk) 11:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about it I would say that it probably is reliable enough for now, its not just a self-published blog. Whether for FA it would be enough is another question, but that can be dealt with in due course. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I've looked through the rest of the criteria and this article looks like it meets all the B class criteria apart from possibly the sourcing of AppleInsider as mentioned above. Does anyone have any other objections? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence about FingerWorks since there is no proof its technology was used in the iPad, and replaced the other AppleInsider reference with a better one. So there are no AppleInsider references anymore. Mushroom (Talk) 18:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool, I'm changing the rating to B in that case. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Good. Mushroom (Talk) 18:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

is incomplete. This statement implies that the transfer of photos is exclusively done via PTP. However, the kit also comprises an SD card reader. May I suggest: "Camera Connection Kit including a USB Type A connector adapter and an SD card reader, for transferring photos (inter alia via PTP) and videos." Thyl Engelhardt213.70.217.172 (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a citation for PTP anyway? Or is that just an assumption? PTP appears so powerful that I am pretty sure that it could well be used for mass storage devices. So, I am doubtful at the present stage... Thyl Engelhardt213.70.217.172 (talk) 12:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done but I've removed the reference to PTP as its not in the source. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

agreed, but we still have to see how this all will work in practice, there may be unexpected pitfalls that make our assumptions fruitless. Mahjongg (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC).

You may be very right on this. Thyl Engelhardt213.70.217.172 (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

leads me to the question wether it really makes much sense to put in arbitrary reception quotation, no matter how incompetent those are. As has been extensively discussed here, the iPad does have a USB port, and it is pretty much irrelvant to the driver part of the OS how the contacts look on that port (dock connector versus type A/B USB). Further, since there is a USB port, there are drivers already installed, though I am not familiar with what kinds of hw are presently supported. This is all rubish. Thyl Engelhardt213.70.217.172 (talk) 06:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This comment is not "incompetent", but actually much more insightful than you give it credit for. Obviously the iPad does have some end-point drivers, for storage drivers, but USB can much more than transfer data to or from a memory stick. There are a gazillion USB devices out there that use a specific Device Class, and thus need installing those drivers. But on a device without external storage this is simply not practical, not even mentioning the ensuing stability issues. Also that the iPad does have all the USB Host/Slave signals on its dock connector doesn't at first help a user much, if it still not possible to easily add a storage system "on the road". True that might be solvable, but I think that Apple will "close that road" with a software blockade. Otherwise the iPad would have had an USB Host connector, or a Secure-Digital-card slot from the start. Its clear they don't want to support external storage systems at this point, or perhaps ever. Mahjongg (talk) 08:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

There is an adapter for SD cards announced. While at present we can only speculate, it might well be (and would be my educated guess) that this will in fact use the USB host functionality. Further, there are indications that a complete Bluetooth stack is present, but has been deactivated (on one version of iPhone OS, suddenly a function was made available that shouldn't, iirc. That was reverted with the next OS's release.) The same could be the case for USB. We just don't know which drivers there may be and which not. But to stand up and allege that there are no drivers, and no USB, while the latter is clearly there, and no information is available yet on the former, imho is incompetent. Incidently, for most of those gaillions of devices, a couple of standard USB drivers are used. I cannot remember ever having installed a USB driver on my MacOSX systems. For those, no additional driver would be required. Again, "A USB port would mean installing drivers" is highly incorrect. Thyl Engelhardt213.70.217.172 (talk) 11:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I read "A USB port would mean installing drivers" as "A USB port would mean the possible need to install drivers". You cannot (should not) support part of the USB specifications. Obviously the storage endpoint drivers will be built in, but if you have an USB port people expect to be able to use -any- USB gadget, thus they expect they can install the driver for their USB magnetic stripe card reader that needs an unique interface driver, or one of the other gazillion USB gadgets out there. Mahjongg (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

So, "A USB port would mean installing drivers" should more correctly read "A USB port would mean people will expect to be able to install all kinds of hardware, and will also expect to be able to install corresponding drivers"? That may well be, but it is evidently not what the quote states. Thyl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.70.217.172 (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree they worded a bit unluckily, but logically this is what they meant. Mahjongg (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

But since they didn't state it, the statement is highly misleading and should not be _cited_ in a Wikipedia. Thyl Engelhardt213.70.217.172 (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't concur with that, the actual sentence quoted is "A USB port would mean installing drivers for printers, scanners and anything else you might hook up", which is exactly right, especially the "anything else" part. What would be better is to cite the full sentence instead of the misleading abbreviation. Mahjongg (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I added the complete quote. When I originally added the CNN / Wired paragraph, I used the shortened version of the quote ONLY for the sake of brevity....NOT to mislead. I felt the abbreviated quote maintained the author's intent. If you all agree, then we can revert to the abbreviated quote. If not, then we can leave the full quote. -- ArtsMusicFilm (talk) 07:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

imho, the statement is not any more correct than it previsouly was. The question here really is wether we want to include quotes in the reception section even if the opinion is not factually valid, or not valid in the way it is stated. "USB port...would mean installing drivers for...(devices)" implies that this is unavoidable, at least to my best understanding of the sentence. I question the validity of that statement in respect to this anavoidability. It is Apple's decision what USB driver will be included in any version of iPhoneOS. Since most people do update their devices, the drivers may well automatically be present on the device. At least last time I installed a printer in my MacOSX network, none of the computers required installing a driver, since it was already there. That could well be the case for iPhoneOS. Speculative? Right, but not any more than the quote. Thyl Engelhardt213.70.217.172 (talk) 08:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That is the real problem, you don't like what is said, and think its "factually incorrect", and thus, according to you, it must be removed. But that isn't how Wikipedia works! WIkipedia will repeat the biggest lies, if the lies are what is getting published by reliable sources, no single editor gets to decide what is a "lie" and what is not on wikipedia, not you not me. So YES we will include quotes in the reception section even if the opinion is not factually valid. IMHO, In this case Apple made another conscious decision, which could be worded as "if we add a USB port people will also expect to be able to add drivers, and that is a big problem, so we wont allow that to happen", you may argue that reliable sources who reflect that argument are factually incorrect, or word it in a factually incorrect way, but that is simply irrelevant. Mahjongg (talk) 12:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Disregarding the obvious fact that running an invisible task in the background will drain your battery, I think the most obvious reason why the iPad doesn't support switching between applications, is that there are no buttons to switch with, its not that you can press alt-tab (command-tab for Mac users) to switch from one application to another on a device that doesn't have a keyboard! Perhaps Apple could have put a set of buttons on the device, but that would clutter the device and confuse the user. I have also heard people suggest that it could be done by holding the home (menu) button down for a longer time, but that would be even more confusing and may well be slower than task switching through the menu, and holding the menu button down may also be reserved for something else (resetting the device perhaps). I bet the most obvious things like playing music from your iTunes playlist while browsing the web may well be possible, there is no technical reason why it can't be done, but to control the volume, mute the sound, or skip to another song may be the problematic part. Mahjongg (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

An intersting idea, though I'm pretty sure that Apple would find a way. E.g., the API could be expanded to include a "To the Background" button in the menu portion of apps, so that when pressing this button, the user would end up on the main screen, just like he/she would when pressing the physical front buttom, but the app would still be running in the background. Or the same result could be achieved by e.g. a longer pressing on the phýsical buttom. Presently, when pressing longer than about two seconds, nothing happens. Thyl Engelhardt213.70.217.172 (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sending an application to the background isn't the problem! Controlling an application running in the background, and switching between applications is. The only way to control an application running in the background (or switch applications) is to reserve a bit of touch-screen estate for this purpose. Problem with that approach is that -every- application (including games and such, must then reserve screen estate for that purpose. That is just not acceptable. If it takes two seconds to switch an application, its much faster to simple use the menu button, and application icons in the normal way to switch applications. Mahjongg (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, understood, I think. Sorry. Is there a need to "control" an application running in the background? Could it not just being brought to foreground to control it? I thought the main reason for applications running in the background would be that they could continue to gather information that then, when being refocussed to foreground, would be recent, without a need for time consuming tasks being performed first. Prototypical example would be a GPS app that continues positional and navigational work even when relegated to the background. Thyl Engelhardt213.70.217.172 (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think applications like that will be supported in the future (from the app store). For a (more often mentioned) typical application running in the background I was thinking (for example) about a music player (or streaming radio application) that was playing in the background while you are using another application (such as the browser, or wordprocessor). If suddenly someone comes along and wants to converse with you you have do turn down the volume, then if you need to do a lot of actions to accomplish that it would be extremely awkward. My point is that running multiple applications is limited not because of techical limitations of the device, but of limitations imposed by the touch-pad only interface, and that it is thus inherent to this new class of devices. That is, unless you want to clutter up the interface, and that is IMHO an absolute no-no for Apple. Mahjongg (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I have come to realize my example isn't so good, because the iPad actually has buttons for volume and mute control. So no special interface is needed. A better example would be that you are listening to something you don't want to miss, so you want to pause the audio. Mahjongg (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said, this is an interesting point. However, iirc, there were statements by Apple to the effect that the decision not to allow user space multitasking for third party applications is also based on technical limitations of the iPhone range, namely battery drain and lack of CPU power (to maintain the GUI responsive even when several apps are running in the background turned out problematic, as anybody using a comparable device with third party app multitasking will probably confirm). Thyl Engelhardt213.70.217.172 (talk) 08:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That is why it isn't possible to run two "heavyweight" application (Safari plus iWorks) at the same time, the arguments against that (responsiveness, battery drain) are still valid. I'm talking about running a very light task (playing music) while doing one normal (heavyweight) task, I think the disappointment of people is mostly in not having that option. Mahjongg (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

yep, that may be right, though it will only concern non-"iPod" apps, since the iPod app from Apple will play in the background, as we know. BUt it would be nice to have playback of e.g. FLAC files as well. Thyl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.70.217.172 (talk) 08:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned in the Good Article criteria its possible the lists on hardware features should be re-written a prose. Is this a good idea? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Flash uses H.264 as well, iirc; it is just a matter of the container used. So, this statement will be wrong as well. Incidently, there is a very interesting article on www.roughlydrafted.com" (Feb 20, 2010), in which a Flash developper explains why Flash would really not make sense considering most current Flash progs. It has to do with the extensive use of the "mouseover" function that cannot be emulated in ANY real touch screen system. He furthermore also mentions that a lot of Flash stuff relies also on keyboard entry, something that also results in problems with an on-screen keyboard. Very good reading! Thyl Engelhardt 213.70.217.172 (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The difference is in the implementation of the H.264 codec. when using flash you are bound to using the decoder that is used by Flash, which for non-windows systems means its a (for ARM) un-optimized software based decoder (which eats battery life and may drop frames when it needs too much processing power), when a H.264 plugin is used the plugin can use hardware acceleration for the decoding, which is much more power efficient, and guaranteers faultless decoding at full frame-rate. I agree the mouse-over problem is interesting Slashdot has an interesting discussion about it. Mahjongg (talk) 08:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

One of the issues is that RoughlyDrafted is just an Apple fanboi site. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Fanboi or not he brings valid arguments --Aizuku (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and about calling RoughlyDrafted a "fanboi", three little words come to mind "pot", "kettle" and "black". Mahjongg (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL, fair enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is in the implementation, but the statement above is wrong nevertheless. It is like "who needs a car anyway. Most drivers have switched to combustion engines for travelling". Thyl 213.70.217.172 (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The point is, its not an oversight from Apple, Its a conscious decision made by Apple after perhaps much more deliberation than you can imagine. Plus I think the "need" for flash is highly overrated, (especially if you are not a flash games playing child) and Apple is probably also strategically planning to quicken the replacement by flash for something much more suitable for "webpads" (my generic name for iPad like devices), that or Adobe has to come up with a version of Flash that isn't as "windows centric" as it is now. If that happens there is still a chance future Apple webpads will use Flash. But again, a browser without Flash support is perfectly useable, especially if in the occasions where its used just for navigating (some professional websites) it is quickly replaced by something else (HTML5 in most cases, or Javascript in others). You can't compare that with a "car without an engine", seriously. Mahjongg (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I wonder what you are talking about. In fact, I do concur with you, and believe Apple's strategy is well considered. But you evidently did not understand my point which has nothing to do with Apple's decision, but only with the logic in the quoted statement. I was not talking about a car without an engine. If Flash is a car, H.264 is its engine. Stating that a car (with an engine) is no longer needed because most motorists have changed to an engine anyway, is rather stupid in this regard. The quoted article does compare apples with bananas, to say so. For displaying video content, two components are required:

-A video engine

-A front end

The above article compares one frontend (Flash) with a video engine (H.264), which is imho logically incorrect. The correct statement would probably have been something like "Who needs Flash, anyway? YouTube and Vimeo have both switched to HTML5 for video streaming", since then, one front end would have been compared with another frontend, not with the underlying engine which, as I tried to point out above, remains the same. However, the reference does not state this, but states logical nonsense, and should therefore be removed. Thyl Engelhardt213.70.217.172 (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with improving the article? A read appears to be that you're discussing the fineries of the article subject, rather than any improvements to the article. This is not what the talk page is for. It is for discussing improvements to the article only. Please see WP:NOTFORUM.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

True, but as thyl is arguing to remove a reference because he doesn't understand that an "engine" that is forced up on you (because its bundled with Flash) could be worse than an engine specially designed for you", it not about the "fineries" of the article, but about his argumentation supporting his argument that we should remove a valid reference. Mahjongg (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No, neither nore. Daedalus: Removal of a factually wrong citation will improve the article, I assume. Mahjong: MAybe I still wasn't clear enough, sorry. I am not at all discussing the merits of the iPad, or decisions on Apples part, just that there is a logical error _within_ the discussed quote. In fact, I do fully agree to what they _try_ to say; they just don't say it. Another approach to explain about what's wrong with that statement: It says that Youtube has "switched" to H.264. Since H.264 is also the underlying protocol of Flash, YouTube in fact did not "switch" to H.264; switching would mean that previously, YouTube did not use H.264; which they however did as part of Flash. Thyl Engelhardt213.70.217.172 (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)213.70.217.172 (talk) 08:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't argue that the wired/CNN section couldn't be improved by removing the typical "Wired" language that (for the reader of wired) uses oversimplification of facts, thereby removing factual errors. I resist removing the whole paragraph based on it being "nonsense". Obviously YouTube has not "Switched" to H.264, they just have added an option to directly offer it instead of only though a Flash front-end, which forces you to use their (Adobes) decoder. The wired article just words that into something people who are not intimately familiar with the technical details can understand. Thyl argues that its "nonsense" and "thus must be removed", I argue that there is a hidden truth behind it, that its an important statement from a reliable source and that it thus must stay. Mahjongg (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The decision to use or not to use Flash should be left to the customer. Apple has no right to keep Adobe from distributing a Flash player for the iPad. You'd expect something like this from the Chinese government, not an American corporation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.221.144 (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No! You are carried away a bit here. they can make what they want, your only "right" is to buy it or not. Apple thinks that the long term effect of this move will be that they will sell -more- iPad's, or they wouldn't have done this. The decision isn't as black and white in favor of using Flash as you think, there are big disadvantage to using the current implementation of Flash in an iPad like device, like very much decreased stability of the device, appearance of bad performance of the device (because Flash will perform very badly on this device in its current form), and a lot more battery drain, (even if Flash is just displaying advertisements). There is also a good chance they are trying to bring Adobe out of its habit to only really support the Windows version. If Adobe mends it ways there is still a chance (more a certainty) that Flash will end up in the iPad. There is also Apples wish to get rid of Flash in general, and to speed up the movement to replace it with something better. If websites, which only use Flash for navigation, discover that a part of their public can't use their site because of their use of Flash they probably will abandon it in favor of a better solution. Mahjongg (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. Apple has no right to limit what users can install on their iPads. The only way around this is to "jail break" your iPad. This is totally unacceptable and I think their customers should boycott the product until they change this policy. Make them sign a disclaimer if necessary, but customers should have the right to install whatever they want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.221.144 (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Apple only allowing third party software from the AppStore to be installed on the iPad is already mentioned (twice) in the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have a curious idea about what the "rights" of a commercial entity like Apple are. If you think you have the right to dictate them what they -should- make in your (not so humble it seems) opinion, then go ahead, and try to sue them for not obeying your wishes! "customers should boycott the product" is just another way of saying what I said, that if they don't like it they should not buy it! But I bet they will, and in huge numbers! Apple has every right to do with their product what they want, even if I (or you) don't like it. In the end the market will dictate what happens with the iPad, but enough of this nonsense, this isn't going to turn into a fruitful discussion to better the article this way! I'm already sorry for my rant. Mahjongg (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and if you are really interested about the real reasons behind Apples reluctance to use Flash, read this article from about 18 months ago, its enlightening. Mahjongg (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Conde Nast is bringing its magazines to the iPad from April - this needs adding to the article (source).-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I've started, but it needs further expansion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This topic has been deleted and the link should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brookscutter (talk • contribs) 04:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Good catch.  Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

According to what I read on the talk:tablet PC page (see Apple ? and Apple iPad sections), the iPad is not a propoer PC, and it's beeing removed from the tablet PC page...
I'm not qualified enougth to argue but I wanted to bring the discussion here. And may be help to clarify if this device is, or not a tablet PC. Bikepunk2 (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't be silly obviously the iPad is a personal computer of sorts. The argumentation used on the talk:tablet PC page is plainly very much concocted, the original definition was written this way to exclude mainframes that were operated by "men in white jackets" who you could give a stack of punch-cards to feed into the mainframe, and who gave you a stack of paper with the results later, they were the intervening computer operators mentioned. The iPad clearly falls under the denominator of "Personal computer", (the operator can install and use all available applications all by himself, "with no intervening computer operators" needed) , but I agree its a new subcategory of Personal computers, so it might merit a completely new category all of its own, it won't be the only one for long. It will fall into a new category of "ubiquitous computing". Remember the fictional computers (such as the LCARS systems) used in Star-trek, they didn't need complex management either. Mahjongg (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Apple update the page today, please update this article as well. There is no longer a "mute" button on the side. The side button is now labeled as "screen rotation lock" source: http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikelee626 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This appears to have already been  Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not able to edit this page, but i noticed that this link directs to http://www.ixtentia.com/, a third-party developer. The site offers no insight into iPad development, and appears to be a link spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgoliber (talk • contribs) 03:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Terrillja _talk 04:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I propose that the howto tag be removed, as the offending section has since been entirely fixed.(The section was the iPad Battery Replacement Program). I myself put that tag up but I don't want it to come back down without an agreement from around the table.

Thanks; -Erik 17:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik Le Mesurier (talk • contribs)

And its been  Done. Thanks :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

In the Product name section, it says "Others noted that "iPad" sounds like "iPod" in various regional accents, including Bostonian and the Irish accent." I'm from Ireland and nobody prononces iPad like iPod. Who said this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Farrelly-Spain (talk • contribs) 16:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It could be irish american that they sound similar - it should be reliable its the New York Times. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the product name section even notable to mention for this article? It's like criticizing a "Peacock" just because of the species' name. 70.156.151.124 (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

When several reliable sources talk about how Peacock contains the word 'cock' then we can include it in that article :p. With the iPad the "Pad" bit of the name was notable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it was notable in the US, and some other countries where woman's sanitary napkins are sold under the name of "Maxipads", but that is hardly the case worldwide!

For an example of how unlikely it is to find the term "pad" in a product objectionable, (in many places of the world) here is an anecdote:

Where I live "coffee pads" were invented and named as such. Nobody here is making jokes about those while linking a coffee pad and a maxipad in the mind is much more obvious than an iPad and a Maxipad. But when the coffee pad was launched in the US and some other English speaking countries the name had to be changed to coffee pods.

What I mean to say is that just as with the launch of the Wii worldwide most people around the world were impervious to the fact that some people thought the name was "funny", or even objectionable, and those people found all the fuss ridiculous.

My point is, Maxipad is simply NOT a term used around the world! So for a large part of the worlds population the name iPad doesn't extract giggles. Mahjongg (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The name for the item is a sanitary pad in the UK. Also the stuff about the Wii name having immaturity attached to it is in the Wii article and that is an FA. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The only remains of the "wii sounds like wee" meme in the Wii Article is The BBC reported the day after the name was announced that "a long list of puerile jokes, based on the name," had appeared on the Internet, and that is less than 5% of the "name" part of the article, I hope we can keep it to the same level here. Also, this may be an "English language" wikipedia, but it is still intended for a world-wide audience. Mahjongg (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've slimmed down the content so it only mentions the iPad and iTampon "jokes". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

March 6, 2010:

This phrase right at the beginning is deceptive: "running the same operating system (iPhone OS) and almost all of the same applications.". More specifically, the portion "and almost all of the same applications" completely ignores what should have been a sizeable amount of R&D to design and reimplement the new user interfaces of all those "same applications". Whether this is done on purpose (by clever Apple haters) or simply out of pure ignorance of the cost and time to redevelop even a single application's user interface, makes no difference, it should be fixed.

I can't seem to edit the page myself...

the phrase should end here "...running the same operating system (iPhone OS.)" and an additional phrase should add "The iPad runs updated versions of almost all of the applications as the iPhone that have been specifically adapted for use on the larger form factor."

Thanks. Odi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosmatos (talk • contribs) 14:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that they do run without a new UI, but you're right it should be clarified, maybe it should be removed from the lead and just included in the software section where a qualifier can be added. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the comment from the lead, and made minor changes to the software bit, can you confirm its OK now? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is much better now. Good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosmatos (talk • contribs) 00:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"R&D to design and reimplement the new user interfaces" - What "new interface"? The Touch/iphone/ipad UI are identical, and only scaled-up on ipad.

"The iPad runs updated versions of almost all of the applications as the iPhone that have been specifically adapted for use on the larger form factor." - This is 100% inaccurate. We have no idea if "almost all the applications" will be adapted. At all.

12.107.188.5 (talk) 07:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Quote "Display 1024 x 768 px, 9.7 in (25 cm), 132 ppi, 3:4 aspect ratio, XGA, LED-backlit IPS LCD display[5] "

It's either 1024*768 ratio 4:3 , or 768*1024 ratio 3:4

Not a combination of both. I'll leave this up for a bit , so ppl can contest this , but should be straightforward.

83.101.35.161 (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fair enough. PS Please don't remove it from the talk page, it'll get archived automatically after 14 days of inactivity. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Since The article is semi locked , would someone care to do it ? Let's assume the standard way of holding the thing is vertically (like the iphone , the design on the back implies it too imo), and have it say the display is 768 x 1024 , 3:4 throughout the article ? Thnx in advance.

83.101.35.161 (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, the term "4:3 aspect ratio" in reference to video is a rather common term, and is not intended to be expressed as 3:4.

From Wikipedia article Aspect ratio (image):

4:3 standard

The 4:3 ratio (generally named as "Four-Three", "Four-by-Three", "Four-to-Three", or "Academy Ratio") for standard television has been in use since television's origins and many computer monitors use the same aspect ratio. 4:3 is the aspect ratio defined by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences as a standard after the advent of optical sound-on-film.

The above article is actually linked to from the phrase "3:4 aspect ratio" in the right side column of the ipad article, but the aspect ratio article seems to contradict the use of it here in this one. In the aspect ratio article the term "4:3" is used 46 times, while the term "3:4" is never used (excuse my nerdiness...just tryin to make a point :). Anyway, bottom line is that I think 4:3 is considered the correct way to express this.

The ipad is intended to be used in both orientations. When held horizontally to view video it would be a 4:3 aspect ratio. Since "4:3" seems to be intended to express the device's video aspect ratio, I think it would be incorrect to express it as 3:4. --ArtsMusicFilm (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not Apples first tablet, there was the newton before it. Just bugged me :P Graymalkinwiki (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done in the lead. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Are we sure that the Newton was really a tablet computer? The definition at tablet computer doesn't seem to encompass the Newton and the Newton article itself called the device a PDA until Graymalkinwiki's recent change. The History section already provides a more nuanced reference to the Newton; I don't think we need to comment on what Apple's "first tablet" was in the lead. Npdoty (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Npdoty: the Newton was an early PDA, not an early tablet. Of course, neither term existed when the Newton appeared, but certainly it was known as a PDA for many years before someone thought to call it an early tablet.PRRfan (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I've found that the New York Times and Daring Fireball have both called the Newton a tablet: http://daringfireball.net/2010/01/the_original_tablet and http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/apple-rehires-newton-and-nike-marketing-whiz/?ref=technology, but admittedly those sources are both within the last year (though before the iPad's launch). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The missing features section has a paragraph about the opinions of Leo Laporte, problem is the reference that is given does not point to any proof of what's in the section, instead it points to a site with live web streams. According to the link it was added February 17'th, that is about 40 days ago, so I went to try to find the broadcast in which Mr Laporte may have said these things, problem is, I could not find it. Could anybody that knows more about this check this reference, and maybe clear it up with a direct link to the video stream. Mahjongg (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest removing the paragraph, that part of the article is getting rather long. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The article says: 4:3 aspect ratio, 9.7 inch diameter (20×15 cm) What does "diameter" mean for a rectangular display. Should it be "diagonal"? Fholson 18:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fholson (talk • contribs)

Good catch  Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I doubt the display is 9.7 inch thick. Mahjongg (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

To me this seems like probably the biggest flaw in the iPad, are there any reliable sources talking about it? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done I found an article on CNet talking about it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This might be a stupid question, but I've neither read nor seen any clear and certain proof from any source that the ipad does or does not have wireless sync capabilities. In the article referenced it appeared the only time the writer had spent with an ipad was the 10 mins they got after the announcement. But they do not explain exactly how they know the ipad has no wireless sync. Did the apple rep tell them?

Has anyone else read anything more concrete?

I really think this writer has no proof of this. Can anyone else say they have read this from a source who really has first hand knowledge that this is a capability that does not exist in the ipad? -- ArtsMusicFilm (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

From the event transcript on Engadget: "11:12AM "Isn't it great?" Some slight hesitation. "A few other things. I'd like to talk for a minute about iTunes. The iPad syncs over USB just like an iPhone or iPod." to me that makes it pretty clear. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are right, but formally that "The iPad syncs over USB just like an iPhone or iPod." does not prevent it to also "sync wirelessly". the one does not prevent the other. No -proof- is given here it won't. Also unlike the iPod, the iPad has iTunes built in, and traditionally you can use iTunes to download content directly from the net, not from another Mac/PC. I mean, there are still some questions to be answered. Mahjongg (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, shall we prevent this thread from being archived for the time being and see what happens after release? If there is a consensus to remove it until the situation is clarified go ahead. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I just added some remarks to this section, to make sure this isn't a hard fact at the moment, and that iTunes might be (should be) able to download stuff directly anyway. It would be a problem if there wouldn't be a way to download stuff without using the USB connector, especially as many older Mac's only have USB 1.0. Mahjongg (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think thiis is a good argument, the iPods have been USB only for years. The 5G iPod released in October 2005 was USB only and certainly my iMac G5 from 2005 had USB 2.0. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 01:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to express my personal disappointment if the iPad could only sync (upload data) through an USB connection. Not to really make a point, it was not meant as a real argument. I realize most people have computers with USB 2 now. Still wireless syncing would be "nice to have", nothing more. Mahjongg (talk) 12:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I'd definitely like to be able to sync wirelessly too :), I'm not sure its a more than a nice to have for consumers, but there are some big advantages for business in that they can sync/update all their users devices without them having to plug them in. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/laptops/0,39029450,49305388,00.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.24.190.203 (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please, update iPad's RAM amount with 512 MB as noted in: http://www.tuaw.com/2010/04/03/ipad-teardown-posted-at-ifixit/

Thnaks. Danielcbit (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Mahjongg (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The iPad is not a tablet, watch its announcement keynote video! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.46.167 (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I have seen the announcement keynote, but missed the part where Steve Jobs said "remember folks, the iPad is NOT a tablet", but maybe I missed it, and I have no desire to watch it again. Please clarify, also clarify why it matters, and isn't just a case of linguistics. Why isn't an iPad a (sub category of) a tablet?

iPad is not a tablet, it is a pad. A tablet is a computer with a touch screen. iPad is neither a computer nor a phone, but a new category. It is close enough to a tablet, however, it doesn't really matter.--Nickthegeek (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thats all mere semantics, there is no substance behind these words. Saying that the iPad is not a "computer" is really making me laugh, and then saying that because "its not a computer" it cannot be "a computer with a touch-screen", and thus "its not a tablet" is making me laugh even harder. Sorry, but obviously the iPad falls under the category computing devices (that is, "computers"), if that does not "compute" for you I'm sorry. although I do agree its a new subcategory of computers. I agree,that exactly because its all just semantics, it really doesn't matter, so lets stop with pretending it cannot be this or that. Its rather "all of the above". Mahjongg (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a tablet computer because it doesn't use a pen, and it lacks the functionality of other tablet computers. Think of it this way: Other than size, it's essentially an iPod Touch. Do you think the iPod Touch is a tablet computer? 72.88.38.53 (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong! according to wikipedia itself:

A "tablet computer", or simply "tablet", is a touchscreen-based computing device
similar in form factor to a clay tablet, wax tablet, or slate (writing).

And yes, even an iPod touch according to -this- definition is a "tablet computer" of sorts, but this is a pointless "discussion" about semantics. Mahjongg (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Erm... you can't use wikipedia as a source to prove anything (and that's ignoring the fact that that article is poorly written and still a stub. And the fact that all sentences in that article that would distinguish between a 'tablet computer' and a 'tablet pc' are suspiciously missing sources).

And no, it isn't a pointless discussion. You just admitted that the only way to call the iPad a tablet would be to call an iPod Touch one as well. So which is it? Are both tablets? Or is neither? It may seem like something small to nitpick over, but people come here for information, and spreading incorrect definitions and poor english are a terrible practice for what's supposed to be an encyclopedia. 72.88.38.53 (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry don't want to waste time with someone who just wants to make a nonNPOV point. Oh, and yes, depending on which definition you choose both the iPad and IPod may fall under that definition, or not. Depending on which definition of a "tablet" you choose. I gave you one example of a definition. But as I said it doesn't matter, as there is not (and cannot) be one "true" definition of "tablet computer" that isn't disputable. That makes the whole issue a non issue. The talk page is only for discussing things that can enhance the article, I fail to see how this "discussion" can do that, your opinion is just that. If you can find a reliable source that unequivocally states that the iPad is NOT a tablet, and why, then you might try adding that that particular source has that particular opinion. That is all. Mahjongg (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

First things first: Watch your tone.

I'm talking about a factual inaccuracy currently in the article that should not be. Do not characterize that attempt to improve the article as "someone who just wants to make a nonNPOV point". AGF isn't an option. Discuss politely and contribute, or shut up. Those are your options.

Second, I can't give you a reference off-hand that says the iPad isn't a trout. The notion that such an absence automatically proves anything is absurd. The only "definition" you found is a wikipedia article (not a valid source) that's full of "citation needed"s (particularly, citations needed on the only parts that could come close to supporting you). You don't get to say, "the iPad is X. Prove me wrong." for whatever X you like.

However, just to indulge your incredibly unfair request: HERE is a pcworld article, featuring an former Apple exec who definitively declared the iPad "not a tablet".

So, if you wish to continue in a civil tone and without anti-AGF personal attacks, then feel free to come up with a single valid reason why it should be considered a tablet (and why suggestions to the contrary don't even belong to be mentioned at all). If you can't, then I expect such references to be removed. 72.88.38.53 (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I have no desire to continue. Mahjongg (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Very well. You've elected to no longer object. Does anyone else object to removing/rephrasing texts within the article that refer to it as a tablet? I'll wait a bit before adding the edit request in case there's someone who objects. 72.88.38.53 (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Please see the OED:

tablet computer n. Computing a computer in the form of a flat tablet; esp. one that accepts input through a stylus or a fingertip.

Describing this device as a tablet computer is therefore proper English. Apple's usage of "pad" is a neologism in this context and so we should avoid it unless and until this term becomes well-established for this category of computer. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... works for me then. :)

Still a bit shaky on the idea of calling it a 'computer', but no more than I was about calling the iPhone a smartphone, so I'll gladly concede this one. :) I won't push this one any farther.

(Oh, but I don't think it's entirely a neologism. I think they also got the idea from the padds in star trek) 72.88.38.53 (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, as I said earlier here: it reminds me of Star Treks LCARS system. i fully expect you to consider LCARS to be a (fictional) computer, so it should not be hard to consider the iPad to be a computer too. I expect that future iPad like systems will be called "pads" too, but indeed at the moment its still a neologism.Mahjongg (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

According to iFixit's teardown and Samsung DRAM part numbers on the A4 chip, the iPad holds 512 MB of RAM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.4.128 (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(redacted see below) We have seen this here before, and previously they speculated that it was holding 512MB.

But okay, this IS a new article, with a real teardown of a production version of the iPos (those guys are FAST) I does indeed looks like the iPad uses just 512MB of RAM, embedded into the A4 processor! Mahjongg (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Not that it matters in the least for a user how much memory the iPad needs, as long as it runs its applications well. The iPad must be seen as an appliance, not as a generic Personal computer such as you have known until now. It only interesting for technicians how much memory is actually needed to run all iPad applications with the performance that they do with that amount of RAM. If they can run well, it only says something about the efficiency of the software, and hardware (more RAM than is necessary would also consume more battery power, so a device like this should have as little of RAM as is possible, not as much as you can fit in it). Its all about striking the right balance. Mahjongg (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually the article has been revised, and it now looks the iPad uses just 256MB of RAM. Mahjongg (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Iirc, ...recalled incorrectly, as it seems... Sorry, Thyl

"Graphics 1024×768 px (XGA), 132 ppi, 720p video"

This is incorrect; the iPad is not able to show video in 720p as that requires a horizontal resolution of 1280 pixels.194.255.1.225 (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is correct. 720p as a HiDef format only refers to the vertical resolution, not the horizontal. It's no different to the thousands of 1024x768 plasma 720p TV sets out there. 1280 is the widescreen format of 720p, but 960x720 would be the 4:3 standard format for 720p. Canterbury Tail talk 15:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Then you should probably go change "720p has a widescreen aspect ratio of 16:9, a vertical resolution of 720 pixels and a horizontal resolution of 1280 pixels, that is 1280×720, for a total of 921,600 pixels." on this page: 720p 194.255.1.225 (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Just now I added a bit about 180° Rotation Support, and hope it's considered a significant enough feature to remain noted in the article. I'm not certain if the way I phrased it was was best, but it'll do for now.

That also makes me wonder if once the iPad is out there if some folks will have fun playing around with that feature. I can already imagine a whole genre of YouTube videos featuring rotating iPads - An iPad somehow attached to a wall-mounted lazy susan, bicycle wheel, or slowly turning fan would be rotated while a video plays on it. And the video to playback during the rotation? Why, another iPad rotation video of course! Just you wait, we'll see a bunch of these shortly after the release. Klknoles (talk) 08:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It should be 360 degree rotation.... 24.128.142.145 (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

technically you are right of course, but calling it that doesn't help the understandability of the issue. Also remember that 360 degree rotation is the same as zero degree rotation, so that makes it even less sensible to use that term. I would prefer if it were called "any angle rotation support". Mahjongg (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

@ Any angle rotation support. Does it support viewing at 31.7 degrees? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we should be specific. 31.7° is pretty cold. Unless you meant Celcius. --Replysixty (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

When discussing angles, it doesn't make much sense to think 31.7 degrees means either celsius or some other temperature unit, particularly ancient ones which most of the world doesn't use. And Eraserhead had a relevant point, any angle rotation support would seem to imply it supports any angle. Yet I somewhat doubt it even supports 45°. Nil Einne (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I already solved this issue on March 30th, by mentioning that:

the iPad supports a screen rotation of any angle (in increments of 90°)

If you can word it better than that, please go ahead, I know that even in my native Dutch language I often write convoluted sentences. Mahjongg (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Apple's shipping date has slipped to the 12th April and they aren't offering reservations anymore, is this worth of including?

(source) -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

No. There is even greater numbers of reports of stock. Even with 300k sold, that is less than the 700k that apple told analysts it expected to sell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.23.48 (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Allo.
Currently, iTablet redirects here. The redirect was an entirely logical choice, as it was expected to be the device's name for some time. However, there's been quite a bit of coverage of an actual product with the name iTablet now. Examples can be found here, here, here, and here.
Of course, there's also more, but four seemed enough just to illustrate what I'm talking about.
Since there seems to be enough material to justify a separate article, it seems somewhat illogical to have a redirect to an article with a completely different name, when there really is a (notable) product with that name. 72.88.38.53 (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

IMO you should go ahead and change the redirect into an article, if you want add a see also link to iPad. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I've made a start: iTablet. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw that the "apple_ipad" was redirected to "ipad". Pardon me if i'm wrong, but the "ipad" page would be a branch page, wouldn't it? And the ipad would be refered as "apple_ipad"? There is other "ipad" on the market than Apples... Äggmackan (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Äggmackan (talk • contribs) 13:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No because this iPad is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Why hasn't the history section been expanded, especially after the retail debut? I would do it, but I want to leave it to someone else: I may make it sound like promotion, and that's a no-no. --Hpfan1 (talk) 11:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Be Bold :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have a source for the name of the LCD panel's manufacturer so that it can be added to this section? We have the manufacturers of the touchscreen components and the LCD driver components listed but not the supplier of the panel itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colecoman1982 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Does this help? --Jiang (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The article mentions Irish English as a language in which the iPod and iPad are indistinguishable. We should change that to just about every language in the world, really. American English is about the only major language in the world where an "A" constitutes that flat, honkey noise. Everyone else pronounces it as "ah." I have an account, I just can't be arsed to log in right now.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.183.57.227 (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

"That flat, honkey noise"

... yeah 72.199.100.223 (talk) 06:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Indistinguishable, you say? Maybe to outsiders 'A' and 'O' sound the same in particular accents but obviously they're still used and understood by those speaking. The Irish don't sit around asking, 'Did you say "Shot" with an "O" or were you saying "Shat," as in "S-H-A-T"?' While maybe you might mistake what is said, surely they don't. The situation is the same with everywhere in the world.--202.134.251.206 (talk) 06:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

And some languages are even tonal, in Mandarin Chinese ma means either mother and horse depending on exactly how it is pronounced. Therefore I think the sentence on pronunciation should be removed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

And in those languages, the "O" is pronounced "oh," not "ah," leaving the two perfectly distinguishable. 136.181.195.10 (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done, its gone. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The manufacturer of the iPad, as with the iPhone and iPod and other Apple products, is Foxconn. Some people might confuse the developer with the manufacturer, so please be vigilant that this stays in the article as such.--Jiang (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not how in most articles the "manufacturer" entry in the side bar is interpreted, even if it is "assembled" in a Chinese factory by the foxconn company, it is still the original designer of the equipment (Apple) under who's directions the equipment is assembled that is considered the true manufacturer. For example the Wii is also assembled by foxconn, but regardlessly the WII article states that Nintendo is the manufacturer. By the way, I was wrong calling your edit "vandalism", that was an initial misinterpretation of the nature of your edit, I still do think its an essentially wrong edit but I now think it was made in good faith, but I will leave it to other editors to decide what to do with it. Mahjongg (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

News articles refer to Foxconn as the manufacturer, and the definition of the term points more strongly to Foxconn than it does to Apple (the designer and marketer). I don't know if the other articles are simply a result of general ignorance (which according to the media is a deliberate effort by Apple) as they contain no information on the manufacture of the product. We should go by what outside sources call it, and these sources overwhelmingly point to Foxconn. See --Jiang (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I posted a question on the template talk page what the interpretation of "manufacturer in this context" should be. But overwhelmingly the (unwritten?) consensus seems to be that regardless who the stuff is actually putting together, the "manufacturer" is the organization who initiates that the product is manufactured. As I said, the Wii page (and many many others, like the iPod, and the Xbox360) also lists the Manufacturer to be Nintendo (or Apple, Microsoft), not Foxconn. If you want to change the public opinion on this issue I'm afraid you will have a long struggle at hand. But I see you are making inroads already. Well see what happens. Mahjongg (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Continued discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_information_appliance#manufacturer_.3D_assembler_.3F since this applies to multiple articles.--Jiang (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be a larger debate about whether the company that assembles a product should be listed in the info box or not on Wikipedia. While that conversation goes on @ the above linked page, how should the manufacturer be listed in this article? I suggest for the time being it be listed as Apple. —ArtsMusicFilm (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that, in the meantime, it really should list Foxconn as the manufacturer (since they're the one manufacturing it), and Apple as the developer (as nobody has ever claimed that they did more than designing and developing it). 209.90.133.123 (talk) 10:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that something be mentioned about the total manufacturing cost & components cost, compared to the retail price detailed by iSuppli. 173.63.180.227 (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if that's really a good idea. Even if the article didn't make it clear that they're using a lot of guesses and suppositions (and they do), what's the reliability of the site in general? Or notability, for that matter? It's really best to wait and see if any bigger names pick up the topic and post their own analyses. 209.90.133.123 (talk) 10:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Its getting pretty long now, so I think it should be spun off. Comments? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.23.48 (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Why? This is what is recommended in WP:SUMMARY. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Retracting as the hardware section is now just as long. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to explain my reasons for reverting the Digital Rights section to its previous form. The digital rights criticism is not, as has been claimed, a criticism merely of the iPhone OS, but is a criticism of the iPad as a product itself. The operating system is included as a base system for the iPad and is at present inseparable from the product. Terrillja's claim that "this is a criticism of the iphone os, not the device" is not quite right, as the iPhone OS is bundled in and can not be uninstalled. There is no doubt that the digital rights criticism in this section relate to the product as it is marketed and sold currently. If there were alternatives to the native OS, or even if Apple sold the OS without a locked-down device like the iPad/iPhone, Terrillja might have an argument that it is the OS itself that is under scrutiny, but because the iPad will not run without it, a criticism of the bundled OS *is* a criticism of the product, and vice-versa. It is clear from the cited sources that the objection is to the product as a whole, not merely the operating system. The iPhone OS is sold as a part of the iPad product, just like the screen, battery, or any other necessary component. --Replysixty (talk) 08:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it should be included and the length looks fine to me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"Critical reception to the iPad has been generally positive."

It is blatantly obvious to anyone spending a few minutes browsing the web that critical reception has been mixed, rather than positive. The introduction of such a device with so many standard computing features and functions omitted is a puzzle to many commentators. I won't re-list them, here, but the device seems to 'leap back' 10 or more years in technology provision, rather than being innovative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.29.198 (talk) 09:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The sentence in question is in reference to the recently posted (31 Mar 2010) hands-on full reviews by NYT, WSJ, USA Today, PC Mag, Chicago Sun-Times and TechCrunch that are all positive reviews. They all mention the complaints you refer to (no flash, no ports, etc.), but their praise of the device in all cases is quite high. The "critical reception" sentence is not summarizing the commentary that appeared upon the announcement of the device two months ago, which was based essentially on apple's description of the ipad's capabilities and possibly spending 15 mins with it post event. That reaction is already addressed higher up in the Reception section. So far, the intro sentence to the Reviews section is accurate. This of course may or will change in the future, but as of right now it is not biased. —ArtsMusicFilm (talk) 11:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There are plenty of negative reports about the Ipad, including its lack of multitasking which in this age is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.13.99 (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Really? What do you agree to? I think not to the reply that was given by ArtsMusicFilm. Because, contrary to your reaction to the article, ArtsMusicFilm said that yes, the reply to its (technical) introduction was mixed (because most technicians could not grasp why why Apple made the choices it made). But in contrast to that the reactions to the real launch, that is the actual reaction of reviewers who had a longer experience with real devices were, as you can read very positive, in fact almost overwhelmingly so.

Yes, for any PC in the classical sense the idea to disable running multiple big applications at the same time is ridiculous, but an iPad simply is not "any PC in the classical sense", and because it would offer almost no benefit for the intended user of the device if a second big application would continue running invisibly in the background, while at the same time it would greatly affect the battery duration of the device it makes perfect sense for the iPad. Please try thinking outside of the normal conventions. the iPad is a "game changer". Also switching to another application is only a fingertip away, Its not like a single tasking DOS machine. Also the few cases were the user -is- able to benefit form "multitasking" (listening to music while browsing) are already catered for. Others, no doubt, will be if there is truly a demand for. Mahjongg (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

A banner questioning the POV of this section has been posted by user Engerim. But it states clearly on Wikipedia's NPOV page that:

Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page [emphasis mine], pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.

Since the two users questioning this section's bias have not replied since their initial posts, and the user posting the banner hasn't pointed "to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies" here on the talk page, I'm going to undo the banner for now. —ArtsMusicFilm (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

That headline has been changed over-time from the original "mostly negative" to "mixed" to "Mostly positive" now. Clearly the reception has been mixed to negative. There has been a great effort on this page to disguise and deny this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.23.48 (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia just reflects the world, and indeed the reactions to the iPad have changed from mixed at the announcement to very positive now it is actually in the hands of people. A case in point is Leo Laporte, who in the missing features section is portrayed as a knowledgeable source who was strongly negative about the iPad, (shortly after its announcement) and lamented its shortcomings, but has totally changed its opinion now he has tried one over the Easter weekend. See his streaming video site (same site as the link in the missing features section) here: . Mahjongg (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The article currently says both of the things some of you say it should. Neither has been omitted. At the top of the Reception section it says:

Reaction to the announcement
Media reaction to the iPad announcement was mixed.

And at the bottom of the Reception section it says:

Reviews
In contrast to the initial mixed reaction to Apple's announcement of the iPad, the critical reception by reviewers who have been able to spend an extended period of time with the device has been generally positive.

The first quote is referring to the media's reaction two months ago to Apple's announcement. The 2nd quote is referring to the media's reviews this week AFTER having actually used the iPad. —ArtsMusicFilm (talk) 08:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This section is obviously overtly biased and should be changed to reflect a more neutral point of view, quite frankly. Right now, it reads like Steve Jobs wrote it himself. StartFromZero (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Again please find some reliable sources to back up this claim (its now in the FAQ). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Instead of removing uncited material (which is common knowledge anyway) how about finding a citation with a quick google search? or would that just spell even more trouble for the reputation of your precious ipad - Drthatguy (talk) 08:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Y +1 for you. I'm ok.

Lppa (talk) 10:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, as long at is a reliable source, that is not a blog or self published source. Also its better to tag it with a fact tag than to remove uncited material. Mahjongg (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything particular you have in mind that has been removed that shouldn't have been removed? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a look through the history, and I've readded "However, many USB devices^[which?] no longer require drivers to be installed manually, with both Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X handling driver installation automatically. ^{[citation needed]}" which was removed before and I think that is pretty uncontroversial.

The simple fact is that the iPad is NOT a classical general purpose computer, (as you seem to be under the impression) and it clearly seems that Apple is of the opinion that its too much of a hassle (and generates too many problems and pitfalls) to support all the many millions of different USB devices "out there", and their drivers, however they are installed. Also, unless this specific point has been raised by at least one reliable source as something that is significantly hindering the iPads utility (as the device it is intended, NOT as a PC) then this is clearly a case of Original Research, and as thus it has no place in the article. As we still have to see how this will play out for apple, I think its the wrong thing to complain about at the wrong moment in time, because its based on a mis-comprehension on what the nature of the iPad is. If there is a public backlash about this, there will be reliable sources to choose from, at the moment there are none AFAIK (blogs don't count, they are not reliable sources). So sources MUST be added, or this is considered OR, and it will be removed. Mahjongg (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

On your sentence addition on Flash, that was refactored (and its still there) as it contained a lot of weasel words and this article is nearing GA status so they needed to be changed/improved upon. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding #4? Not a chance. Not remotely. This article has been managed and massaged over time to it's obvious over-positive perspective. This article isnt remotely close to neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.23.48 (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

So come up with some specific actionable things that need to be changed in the article to establish neutrality. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Can these actually be substantiated? Its really getting quite annoying to see this bought up again and again and again with no evidence. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I belive the following sentence is misleading:

As Apple's first device to use its iBookstore service and companion iBooks ebook reading application, the iPad has been compared with Amazon's Kindle and Barnes & Noble's Nook.[13][14][15]

Specifically I feel the phrase "has been compared with Amazon's Kindle and Barnes & Noble's Nook" contains weasel words and gives the false impression that the iPad is an ebook reader. While it is certainly true that any computer can be used to read books, modern ebook readers use electronic ink and paper. The iPad has a backlit LED screen and is therefore not really comparable to the Kindle or Nook. I think this sentence should either be clarified or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.133.131 (talk • contribs) 08:00 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Where was it written in granite that an ebook reader MUST use e-ink technology. Comparable or not the iPad absolutely is in competition with e-ink using e-book readers, as obviously its designed to read e-books on it. The article itself is clear enough about the iPad using a backlit LCD. How well the reading experience compares to an e-ink using book reader remains to be seen. So the sentence certainly does not need to be removed, especially as it is supported by reliable sources. Mahjongg (talk) 10:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mahjongg. iPad has been compared on every tech site in the world to the Kindle and Nook. It can be comparable if it has technical differences! In the past, two devices have been compared even if they have different screens. iPad displays eBooks: lots of eBooks. Therefore, it's an eBook reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickthegeek (talk • contribs) 16:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Just because an iPad can be used to display ebooks does not mean it is an ebook reader, just like a table is not a chair just because you can sit on one. An iPad is not expressly designed to read ebooks, but is merely an electronic device that may read ebooks. Just like a PC, Play Station 3, Blackberry, and thousands of other devices. The Nook and Kindle have screens that are specifically designed to display ebooks. While they are capable of doing a few other things, they are primarily designed for reading ebooks. More importantly, they have features that are useful for reading books that the above mentioned devices lack. E-ink would be one specific example. This is why I don't think it is a good idea to compare the iPad with the Nook or Kindle in the introduction. The fact that the device has been compared to a Nook or Kindle is relevant, but because that has nothing to do with the device's function I don't think it belongs in the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.133.131 (talk) 04:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm Y. The iPad is not an e-book reader, you just can download the iBooks app on the App Store. Like a PC isn't a messenger, you just can download Windows Live or AIM or Yahoo! .

I think this § must be edited, or removed from the intro, if nobody do that, when my laptop is back home, I'll do.

Lppa (talk) 08:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"PC Magazine also praised the iPad" but if you read this article on pc mag website: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2358684,00.asp

Called : Apple's Good for Nothing iPad

you can have another opinion...

I tough wikipedia was less bias..

That articles written by Dvorak, he's generally inflammatory. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

PS See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMQv0j29WHA. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL ! Mahjongg (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Is a professional troll still a troll? Or.... :) —ArtsMusicFilm (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Here we are on an encyclopedia, not on a chat!

→ Kind Regards, Lppa ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that some of the people editing this page probably own an iPad - can someone upload a better photo than the one in the article? It's not very clear... Vl'hurg ^talk 12:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've no one, but I Agree.

Lppa (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I could be mistaken, but it seems that with the upcoming iPhone OS 4 true application multitasking will be introduced to iPhone OS using devices, which should mean the iPad also. Switching apps is done by pressing the home button twice. It was speculated in the past that this would be the only practical way to implement a transparent human user interface for task switching. Apple claims they have done it without triggering the usual penalties like impairing the speed of the applications, or lowering battery use time. Mahjongg (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That's the buzz I've been hearing as well, but I haven't found a particularly good source yet. Wouldn't surprise me if it were true, either, as others succeeded a long time ago for jailbroken iphones (and ipod touches). Works surprisingly well, so presumably Apple should have been able to catch up by now. Just haven't found anything better than a tech blog yet. 209.90.135.48 (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I should think that Wired is quite a good source, quoting the official announcement by Apple. This is probably very different from the multitasking done on a jailbroken ipod/iphone, which is classical multitasking (of the whole application). My understanding of Apples implementation of multitasking for iPhone OS 4 is this: This is multitasking of a primary front end application, and "dispatchers" (my term for it, meaning a miniature stripped down version of the application) of secondary applications. When a secondary application is "moved to the background" it is (unlike normal multitasking) almost completely removed from memory, leaving only its "dispatcher" in memory. The "dispatcher" then runs the basic engine that is needed to run in the background, that is for a music player just a small routine that plays a playlist, for an Instant Messenger program just the code that receives a new message, and prompts on-screen when one is received. etc etc. That way the user has the benefits associated with multi tasking, but not the memory and processor overheads. When pressing the home button twice the user gets to choose to which application becomes main, and then its fully loaded back into memory again, taking over from its dispatcher. Mahjongg (talk) 12:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Here, we are on an encyclopedia, not on a chat!

→ Kind Regards, Lppa ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagree actually as this is a clearly a conversation on how to improve the article the above tag isn't valid! This is an issue we will see in the article sooner or later. Mahjongg (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, I did a mistake. Excuse-me.

→ Kind Regards, Lppa ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you tether your iPhone to your iPad? The answer is yes. And below is a link to a step by step tutorial on how to jailbreak your iPhone with one step and then tether your iPad to your iPhone:

http://crazyedy.com/tech/?p=500 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyedy (talk • contribs) 18:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Here we are on an encyclopedia, not on a chat!

→ Kind Regards, Lppa ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia WON'T ever include material (how-to's) like this, as its against Wikipedia policies to do so, see WP:NOT Mahjongg (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to tell us here how to jailbreak our iPhone or iPad, it won't help to improve this article!

→ Kind Regards, Lppa ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Expected Features section indicates there is no USB port but the article references USB in a number of spots? Lrsears (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

That there is no USB port (connector) does not meant that the iPad does not use USB technology, it does! Only the USB signals are embedded into the iPad's single connector, and Apple does not support the installation of new USB drivers, only the drivers embedded into it operating system. One use for USB is to connect to its external keyboard, and other is for its "camera adapter", a third is to connect to a Personal computer to upload music etc, via iTunes. Mahjongg (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it meets the criteria of WP:LEAD, it has far too many technical terms so it isn't really accessible (such as HSDPA), also it goes into too much detail about the hardware specs. Probably only the memory and that one model is WiFi only and one is WiFi+3G is worth mentioning on that in the lead.

FWIW I don't have a problem with the first sentence is fine as is the overall length of the lead. I've tagged it so it can be improved. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

OK I've removed some of the technical detail. I've also not totally made it clear that it syncs with a cable, but if someone wants to add that feel free - I couldn't get the wording right. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

See http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/personal-tech/apple/israel-bans-the-ipad-in-clash-on-wireless-frequency-standards/article1535205/ --71.111.229.19 (talk) 08:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Y. Interesting! You can write a part in this article, citing as reference the link you gave us. Judge where to place this new section in the text, respecting a logical order.

→ Kind Regards, Lppa ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Their are an IP and the article is semi-protected, so they can't make the change in the article itself. Write the content here and I'll add it to the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with this thinking. It is a computer in the form of a tablet or slate. It seems both unnecessary and limiting to not label it as a tablet computer because it does things differently than tablet computers before it. The response from other computer manufacturers appears to be to make devices that compete directly with the device. Some seem to be emulating it outright. In both OS and form factor. Wouldn't that indicate that the definition of tablet computers is simply evolving? That the ipad is redefining what we and computer manufacturers think a tablet computer does and how it works? It seems we are limiting ourselves by what the label meant a year or two ago. Like everything, the definition of tablet computers is evolving.

Besides all the above, the media appears to be in near uniform agreement; almost all articles refer to the ipad as a tablet computer. Doesn't that mean that for now (and until another label appears) so should this article? As I understand it, as editors we are not here to define the device ourselves. That is for the media. We are simply meant to present what they're saying. —ArtsMusicFilm (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You are right, its a computer in the form of a tablet, and an evolution from earlier tablet devices, but at least the definitions here on wikipedia of tablet computer and tablet PC are (IMHO) unsuitable for the iPad. Specifically Tablet PC's are "pen based windows based tablet computers", and "tablet computers" are like ""tablet PC's", pen-based, but not necessarily windows based. So the main difference between a "tablet computer" and an iPad is that a tablet computer uses a pen, especially because it often depends on handwriting recognition. Therefore I think that although the iPad clearly falls in the category of "tablet computers" it is in a sub-category of them, all of its own (until other similar devices appear, and maybe the definition in peoples minds of "tablet computer" shifts more toward the iPad). In the mean time I propose calling it a "tablet shaped computer", or "tablet shaped computing device". Mahjongg (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is any precise or definitive definition of "tablet computer", "tablet PC", or just "tablet". However, on Wikipedia we rely on reliable sources, not our personal opinions or on other Wikipedia articles for definitions (especially ones like the current versions of tablet computer and tablet PC which could use some improvement...).

So let's see what some reliable sources say:

• PC Magazine taxonomizes the iPad under "laptops & notebooks > tablets"; and describes it at various times as a "tablet", a "slate", a "not-quite-computer", an "Internet tablet", etc.
• The New York Times calls it "a slender tablet computer", an "entry into the tablet computer market", etc.
• The Wall Street Journal (Walter Mossberg) calls it "a sleek, light, silver-and-black tablet computer called an iPad".
• CNet calls it the "Apple iPad tablet" and taxonomizes it as "... tablets > Apple tablets > Apple iPad".
• The Carrot clustering engine (not a reliable source in itself, admittedly) finds "iPhone" and "tablet" as the top two clusters in a sample of Web content about it. The Clusty engine finds "Apple iPad tablet" and "tablet PC" as common terms.

Does that mean it is identical in feature set to other tablet computers, or that it will be as unsuccessful as previous tablet computers? Of course not. After all, even you, Mahjongg, agree that it is "clearly...in a sub-category of" tablet computers. So what's the problem with saying that clearly? Surely not that Apple prefers to consider it a "magical and revolutionary product" and "an entirely new category of device" in its press releases. Apple's marketing spin is worth reporting on, but not accepting as gospel truth. Discussion of its market positioning (and its reception among commentators) is certainly interesting, but let's not confuse positioning with basic description. --macrakis (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

In response to Mahjongg:

The Wikipedia tablet computer article's primary definition makes no mention of pen or stylus input (and actually pictures a touchscreen device):

A "tablet computer", or simply "tablet", is a touchscreen-based computing device similar in form factor to a clay tablet, wax tablet, or slate (writing).

And your point that "'tablet computers' are like 'tablet PC's', pen-based, but not necessarily windows based" is referencing a citation-less sentence further down in the article that says tablet computers are "similar in input capabilities" to tablet pcs (meaning they use stylus input according to the referenced 2001 microsoft definition of tablet pcs). But with no citation actually defining the input of tablet computers, I don't think we should allow that part of the other article to influence this one.

PC Mag defines a tablet computer by actually using the ipad as an example of such a device:

A complete computer contained in a touch screen. Tablet computers can be specialized for Internet use only or be full-blown, general-purpose PCs. The distinguishing characteristic is the use of the screen as an input device using a stylus or finger. In 2000, Microsoft began to promote a version of Windows XP for tablet computers (see Tablet PC). In 2010, Apple introduced its tablet computer, culminating years of development (see iPad).

And dictionary.com defines a tablet computer as:

a type of flat graphics computer using a stylus, digital pen, or fingertip instead of a keyboard or mouse

It seems to me the shift has happened already. Everyone seems to be in agreement that a tablet computer can be a computer that uses fingertip or stylus input. And everyone seems to consider the ipad a tablet computer. I think we should label the ipad as a tablet computer as well in this article. —ArtsMusicFilm (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thats quite a long response for such a simple argument. It's quite simple, at the moment our readers will get the wrong impression following the link to the current tablet computer article. You are right, the term is already gaining a new meaning as we speak, but as long as people associate "Tablet PC" with pen computing, I say lets use "tablet computer like", not "tablet computer", and especially lets not link to it. Maybe the tablet computer article can be edited to reflect the new situation better, I see no mentioning of it there that you do not need a stylus there now, only that is has "similar" interface to a tablet PC. I do feel that its not a big deal, but if we have a choice in this lets avoid the tablet PC connotations. Anyway, I already had added information in the lead about the iPad's tablet shape, and even mentioned its like a tablet computer without needing a stylus, even before you published the above comment. Mahjongg (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that because the tablet computer argument article is not very good, we should not use the industry-standard terminology in the iPad article. The solution to that is to fix the tablet computer article, not to invent a novel description for the iPad. If I'm not mistaken, every editor here except for you agrees on this point. If you disagree, it is up to you to bring some reliable sources to the Talk page and convince the rest of us. --macrakis (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree - especially in light of ArtMusicFilm's sources. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I updated the tablet computer article referencing the more recent definitions above. This should also make it consistent with this article. —ArtsMusicFilm (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I was not "inventing a novel description", I was only trying to avoid the use of the link to tablet computer which IMHO is not quite fitting for the iPad. I can only hope the tablet computer article will improve. I do agree that generally the technical press still clings to the notion that the iPad is a "tablet computer", but obviously that is because there isn't a better term for it at the moment (except simply "iPad like"). At least we are not linking to Tablet PC. Mahjongg (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC) By the way, there are also many experts that argue that the iPad is NOT a tablet.

I don't want to search through all 673.000 hits for iPad "not a tablet", but for just a small example read this "A former Apple executive, Alexander Haas now at the helm of ModBook company Axiotron" claims Apple’s iPad is not really a tablet computer. Also on PC World

But many others also are of this opinion, just a few are , and

I don't think the last word is said on this in any sense. Mahjongg (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little new to all this and I don't mean to be argumentative, but are a former employee who makes a competing product and two blogs considered reliable sources? Here's an interesting indicator of whether the ipad is considered a tablet or not by the general public... type "ipad" into google and the number one search it suggests is "ipad tablet." That kinda seals to the deal for me. —ArtsMusicFilm (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Its not just these, (I just don't like to search for better examples) I'm just saying there is hardly universal agreement on that the iPad should be seen as a "tablet", but the future will tell what will happen with this. I resign it to others to do what they think best with my arguments, at the moment to me it seems that all the talk in the past that "apple will come out with a tablet" has stuck so much in the minds that its hard for people to accept that Apple did not do what they expected, and did not come out with a classical tablet. If they then insist to still call it a tablet, who am I to tell them otherwise, or to care that they do. Mahjongg (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC).

So maybe we need an RFC (as I've also discussed here) on whether the iPad is a tablet PC or not... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The current article says that Apple developed the iPad, and that Foxconn manufactures it, but bizarrely doesn't say who commercializes it. I had edited the text to read "developed and commercialized by Apple", but User:PRRfan removed the word "commercialized" as "needless". Really? The user who doesn't already know that Apple commercializes it is supposed to guess from the fact that Apple developed it? Developing something and commercializing it are quite different activities. --macrakis (talk) 03:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Both the ipod touch and iphone articles use the phrase "designed and marketed" in the lead. Would "developed and marketed" work here? —ArtsMusicFilm (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

@ ArtsMusicFilm, good idea. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why the lead says that the iPad has "introduced a class of devices between smartphones, and laptops". Yes, there is a cited source which makes this claim, but in fact, tablet computers have been around for some time. With the design and features of the iPad, Apple may well have greatly expanded the usefulness and appeal of tablet computers, but it has not created a new class of device. macrakis (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Tablets all failed to find much acceptance in the market, this thing seems not to undergo that destiny, as it is not a tablet in the classical sense. It isn't a "tablet computer", but its a media consumption device. That specifically has to do with the fact that it does not use a desktop operating system, but one specially geared for the iPad, and the fact that the hardware is stripped of everything that is superfluous for the end user, to maximize battery life, and to make the software and hardware more stable and suitable for such a device. I say it is therefore in a new category. Main indication that it IS a new kind of device is that already others (Google for one) are trying to copy it. i predict that precisely because its seen as a new category of device that it will inspire new such devices. Mahjongg (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding my choice to classify the "iPad" as a "computing device", I deliberately chose this "vague" term, instead of putting it in an already know category. Some people want to call it a "tablet computer", others want to call it an internet appliance or maybe a e-book reader, or perhaps a media player, all these things it is, but they do not define it. Mahjongg (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the few cases where it's unfortunate that we have rules against Synthesis. Because 'portable media appliance' would easily be the most descriptive. But I don't think any articles have referred to it as such. (Incidentally, 'real' tablets haven't failed at all. They're incredibly common in numerous industries) However, in terms of the original topic, I think it's a bit premature to say that it's introduced a class of devices. It's certainly inspired a number of clones (many of which are easily superior), but it'll take a little time to know for sure if we actually have a new 'class' here. 209.90.134.116 (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

By "failed" I mean they don't sell in the most consumer electronics shops. They might be sold by specialized shops, but for most users they are simply invisible. I agree that 'portable media appliance' would be a good descriptive term, summing up at least the most important (but not all) characteristics of the iPad. We will see if these "easily superior clones" of yours will capture the public's imagination (and wallet) better than the iPad will. In the mean time experts do indeed talk about the iPad as the first of a new class of devices. .

Also, "introduced a class of devices between smartphones, and laptops" should be rewritten as "smartphones and laptops." The comma is unnecessary. Would edit myself but it's locked. 69.118.202.168 (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This has been  Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I was looking at Comparison_of_netbooks and see the "Display" column giving resolution in DPI. I don't see that here for the iPad, can it be added? Benbradley (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Its already in the article as 132 PPI (pixels per inch) DPI (dots per inch) is actually a misnomer, as it most often describes a printer resolution, not as screen resolution. I changed the lower case "ppi" for to upper case "PPI" for better recognition. Mahjongg (talk) 08:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Does the 30-pin connector provide the same line level audio-out features as the iPod or iPhone? The answer could be worked into the connectivity or A/V sections. ---Ransom (--67.91.216.67 (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC))

Good point, I'd imagine so, but this probably should be in the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Very hard to find definitive answers on this technical question. This: is the definition of the iPOD and iPhone 30 pins connector, but it is too early yet for details on in how far the iPad and iPod connectors have the same pin definitions. I imagine that Apple has re-used the definition of the iPod connector, and I principle when it would have been physically possible to "dock" the iPad in a iPod speaker set we would know soon enough, but unfortunately its physically impossible. Have not found any info on this yet, will keep trying. Mahjongg (talk) 00:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The Reception - Response to the announcement section leads in with, "Media reaction to the iPad announcement was mixed," yet no negative reactions are mentioned in that section. I presume that "Expected features," "Product name," and "Digital rights" are subsections but it's not really clear in the current layout. UncannyGarlic (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I've made them subsections of the response to the announcement section, so  Done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The microphone and control capability are allowed by the 2nd ring conductor on the TRRS connector, it's not a standard 1/8" TRS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.61.193.128 (talk • contribs)

Sounds relevant and plausible, but I'd still like a source. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Some users have taken Apple's recent update of their web store's estimated ship dates to mean that all 3G-enabled iPad orders will ship on May 7. However, there has been no official announcement from Apple indicating a deviation from their late April time frame for older 3G orders, and no one has cited a source indicating that month-old orders will ship in May. Once credible source I found that outlines very clearly this change from Apple is InformationWeek at: http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/mac/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=224400726 . This article articulates this as follows: "The change appears to apply to pre-orders made on Monday or thereafter. Existing orders are expected to ship in late April, as previously stated by the company." Without objection, I am going to revert the edits that added May 7 as a launch date, and any disagreements can be hashed out here. TrufflesTheLamb (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Obviated--http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/04/20/apples_wi_fi_3g_ipad_models_available_in_us_on_april_30.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrufflesTheLamb (talk • contribs) 13:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The iPad 3G version was shipped this past weekend. We should include that in the article. Bossanueva (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

apple reports that it has just sold its millionth ipad, here is the link or source...http://www.cnbc.com/id/36911690 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.126.16 (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done, added to the lead. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"media consumption". How is listening to music or watching a video consuming it? Is it just this article, or is that term widespread throughout the whole wiki? --Kapitan Więcesław (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Normally we would use the term media player, which is correct for playing video's and music, but you can also consume other media's on the iPad, like reading books.

But yes the term "media consumption" is indeed a regular term, for example it is used in the article Media literacy, I cite:

by transforming the process of media consumption into an active and critical process,  .... 

Mahjongg (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

media playing and reading
Sleigh (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but why use two words where one will suffice, plus "media consumption" covers even more than just "playing and reading", even media we haven't thought of yet. Mahjongg (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

And is media "playing" equivalent to media consumption? I mean, if an iPad plays the audio of a tree falling to an empty room, is it really "consumed"? --Replysixty (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah a philosophical question along the lines of a "If a tree falls in a forest....". If there is nobody to consume the media, is the media consumed? (I think not). Mahjongg (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

In section "Review" second last reference says 90 but links to 89.

No it doesn't, and because references are managed by Wikipedia's wiki engine such a thing would be impossible, its not something you manage manually. May have been just a browser glitch. Mahjongg (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

My bad new to this Wiki stuff - the link has 89 in it, but reference 1 has 0, so it all makes sense!!!

That is still strange because both the labels and the numbered references start counting at 1, never at zero. Mahjongg (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Computers start counting at zero, people at one. This is a general thing and nothing to worry about. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

True, but the references are numbered starting from 1, and if you look at the article base, the reference tags start with 1 too, the only place where zero pops up instead of 1 is that some browsers show (part off) the url when hovering over a link, and then when hovering over reference link "1" it will show something like "cite_note-#0". I think that is what the original poster was referring to. Mahjongg (talk) 01:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Criticized by a foreign leader.

" iPods and iPads...none of which I know how to work...information becomes a distraction, ...it's putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ytech_gadg/20100510/tc_ytech_gadg/ytech_gadg_tc1973_1

This is odd. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like a comment that reflects more on the US political system than the iPad. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and more about all digital gizmo's and gaming systems than specifically the iPod/iPad. Mahjongg (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The reception section is so blatantly biased and obviously designed to dismiss any common criticism directed towards the ipad. Some of it even reads like an advertisement. - Drthatguy (talk) 10:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You are free to try and correct this instead of coming here and complaining about it. JeremyWJ (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

See the FAQ. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and not to forget, the archives of previous discussions about the subject. Mahjongg (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I gave up trying to fix it because it just gets reverted or minced by apple fanboys/employees. there needs to be a tag or something at the top of this article - Drthatguy (talk) 07:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd certainly like to see some more content you'd like to add before throwing up an "its just bias" claim... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I love that the DRM section spins negative critique of Apple's alleged paternalism, ending on a positive, upbeat note that Apple offers a "gated community", which many consumers will choose due to "fears about security on the Internet, viruses and malware". I'm not sure this fairly represents the digital rights concerns, but whatever. --Replysixty (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If it wasn't true they wouldn't have sold however many billion Apps that they have. That said maybe it should be in a different section. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but how many billion apps haven't they sold because people were concerned about DRM? --Replysixty (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It's true there are two camps in the media. There is certainly criticism of the ipad out there that reflects the negative comments posted by editors here on the discussion page. I think it's only fair to have the article reflect this. Since the device has been released, it appears much of the coverage has been positive, but I'm sure it has not been 100% positive. I suggest we make an effort to ensure both sides of the media's coverage—including negative commentary—are reflected in the article. It will only improve its credibility. What do you think? —ArtsMusicFilm (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree, if such coverage is backed up by reliable sources. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess my point is, since most of the people criticizing the ipad on the discussion page don't appear to be willing to locate the sources... why don't we? —ArtsMusicFilm (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added some criticism of iWork and file sharing/printing. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

What counts as a good source? Do these http://i.gizmodo.com/5458382/8-things-that-suck-about-the-ipad I've read it it all sound right, i haven't checked the next level sources yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derry.manley (talk • contribs) 14:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That article is already mentioned in the expected features section. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much ALL the Jan 27 articles about the ipad have been mined for every possible detail already for this article. But there are plenty of post April 3 articles with a lot of in depth and actual hands-on detail that are probably yet to be used. —ArtsMusicFilm (talk) 04:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there is plenty more in http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2010/04/ipad-review.ars/4 for starters... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The criticism should be quantified by the number of people making the criticism. Tech writers, bloggers, and commenters on the internet have disproportionally visible opinions. People who are content with the device simply don't comment or don't comment on the internet. It would be biased to not convey what proportion of people feel a certain way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.224.163 (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

What are you suggesting changing? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that this has been added and reverted, as its pretty short and is well sourced I think it has a place in the article - though if any more content is wanted I think that should go elsewhere. Does anyone have any thoughts? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If anything, it should be in with DRM issues, but once again, this is a criticism of the app store and iPhone OS, not the device. The device doesn't censor what people can get, the OS which is restricted to apps from the app store does. We are talking about a piece of hardware here, criticism of the included OS should be on the most relevant article, the one on the OS.--Terrillja _talk 18:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree but I'm tired and am busy for the next couple of days, but I'll reply in detail by the end of the weekend. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought I'd taken Terrija's objections into account, rewriting the section to focus on the fact that it is the launch of the iPad in the UK which is making this an issue of concern for publishers. Apple's policies certainly have nothing to do with the iPhone OS per se. This may also be relevant to App Store, but as I understand it, it is the size of the iPad that makes it an issue to book and magazine publishers. Wnt (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, it's larger than just the iPad. They have restricted what content they allow across all the devices that use the iPhone OS.--Terrillja _talk 19:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've since reorganized the "controversy" section at App Store to separate out functional restrictions on applications and censorship. It is now clear to me that the bit I sought to add was only the tip of an iceberg, and missed more notable examples. However, this section should be summarized and described here, as the App Store is integral to the iPad's expanded functions (as typically used). Wnt (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done I've readded the section to the article with a link to the main content on App Store. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where you read "consensus", but I have removed a bunch of tabloid cruft from your edit.--Terrillja _talk 14:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it seemed pretty clear from the above discussion and especially Wnt's final point that there should be some content on the issue of censorship in this article as its an important issue with the iPad - especially as there are regular complaints about criticism in the article. FWIW I think your changes to it today are an improvement. -- Eraserhead1 <talk>

{{editsemiprotected}} Under "Connectivity" there is some mis-information about compatability. They imply that Verizon could provide service but does not -- in fact Verizon is a CDMA provider, and GSM technology is incompatable preventing the iPad from working on the Verizon network.

Currently, it reads "and Verizon does not use world-standard GSM SIM cards" This statment is incorrect, it should either be removed or changed to read "and Verizon is not a GSM provider"

72.73.16.244 (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed it, because the refs didn't support the claim.

If you want to add an alternate (like your suggestion), please provide a reliable source to support it, and add another request. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  15:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done

{{editsemiprotected}} The ipad did not establish a market between smartphones and laptops. They are a late contributor.

75.73.88.25 (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Requests to edit semi-protected articles must be accompanied by reference(s) to reliable sources.

Currently, there are two reliable sources backing up that statement; therefore, can you please supply references to support any counter-argument?

I suggest you get an account, then you can help us improve articles.  Chzz  ►  02:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

As a side issue, does anybody know if there are real (electrical/computational) differences between mini-sim and micro-sims, or would it be enough to take a pair of scissors, and cut a mini-sim to micro-sim size. I ask because for some it seems to be an issue that the iPad uses micro-sims, This wouldn't be so much of an issue when the only difference is the mechanical size. I have seen punching machines that could punch a sim-card out of a (credit card sized) chip-card, so from a purely mechanical point of view it would be perfectly acceptable to cut away some plastic. Mahjongg (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well the differences of micro-sim in regards to the older mini-sim seem to be:

• a micro-SIM form factor (significantly smaller)
• allows for multiple simultaneous applications accessing the card through logical channels;
• introduces mutual authentication as a way to eliminate carrier spoofing by allowing the SIM card to authenticate the cell tower to which it is connecting;
• adds a new PIN protection with hierarchical PIN management with a universal PIN, an application PIN and a local PIN; and
• expands the phonebook storage of the SIM card with entries for email, second name, and groups.

But according to this: it seems to be possible and working to just cut up a mini-sim to micro-sim size, I would still recommend caution doing so, as you could damage the chip inside the SIM (underneath the contacts). Also any "how-to" info should not go into the article. Mahjongg (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence beneath the "Applications" heading reads "Apple developed the iPad with an improved functionality than an iPhone/iPod Touch.".

I suggest that the sentence instead read "Apple developed the iPad with an improved functionality over that of the iPhone/iPod Touch.".

~~SimonCann~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonCann (talk • contribs) 00:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

While it certainly isn't a good article yet I did take a look at the criteria (WP:GACR) while looking at the criteria for B class. But so progress can be checked.

1. Well-written: a) Spelling and Grammar are good. b) WP:LEAD - I think so, WP:LAYOUT - I think so, WP:JARGON - I think so, WP:AVOID I think so, WP:WAF N/A, WP:EMBED I think so.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable: a) References provided - Yes, b) Inline citations provided - Yes, c) No OR - Yes
3. Broad in its coverage: a) I think so. b) I think so.
4. Neutral: I think so
5. Stable: I think so
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: a) Images tagged correctly - They appear to be b) Images relevant and have suitable captions - Yes.

Please change the above as progress is made or as appropriate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

PS This section won't be archived automatically. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

As I think its probably good enough now I've nominated it for WP:GAR. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

i think the article is too long, indulgetn even, and it appears advertorial in places. Vertovian (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you suggest changing? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

iPad is assembled by Foxconn and not manufactured by it. This is mentioned incorrect in the information box. Kunaldeo (talk) 05:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The iPad, like the rest of Apple's products, is manufactured by Foxconn. Although Apple do refer to products as being 'assembled in China' on the reverse/base of the iPad, iPhone, MacBook, etc., it is used synonymously with the word 'manufactured'. I'd imagine this is more of a marketing stance from Apple, to avoid the word.

Recipe For Hate (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

"Controversy" may be too strong a word, when what is meant is "criticism." Controversy implies there is an actual passionate public argument or dispute, but as far as I can tell, there isn't. A couple of strident devotees of technical gear have decided they don't like Apple's position, and so they either jailbreak their phones or buy Android, but there's no "controversy" about it any more than there's controversy about Coke vs. Pepsi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CorbettGM (talk • contribs) 17:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree... not a controversy. it's very coke v pepsi-ish. —ArtsMusicFilm (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:CRITS, renaming it criticism would be discouraged, it is controversial as it is supported by some and not by others.--Terrillja _talk 03:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I can't agree that the word "controversy" is supportable. Technically, everything has to be presented in a balanced and neutral way, but that doesn't justify calling everything a controversy. The header below says Jailbreaking not Jailbreaking Controversy. It's already under the section Reception; just title the subsection Digital Rights. CorbettGM (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

So should we go for 'digital rights issues?' -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

"Issue" works for me. It's a neutral word; it doesn't inflate the situation to sound like a national crisis. CorbettGM (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, it isn't an "issue". It's DRM. The section should be DRM, then state the points and counterpoints.--Terrillja _talk 02:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what happened to this article. Some time ago it actually said the iPad was "tablet-like," but now it calls it a tablet computer outright (which is untrue...considering it can't multi-task yet, among other things). Also, it once again refers to the Newton Message Pad as "Apple's first tablet" (which I thought had been summarily dismissed as a claim just a month or so ago). This claim has two sources...one is someone's blog, the other actually refers to the Newton as a PDA!

What's the deal? Is there an edit war or something? 70.171.222.60 (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

No edit war, but did you note its called a Tablet computer, NOT a Tablet PC? Initially there was reluctance to call it a tablet-PC, there is much less reluctance to call it a tablet-computer. Mahjongg (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that a device couldn't be called a computer unless it supported specific multi-tasking features. The Difference Engine, ENIAC, a pocket calculator, and other similar one-task devices are computers; why can the iPad not be called a computer? It stores and manipulates data; it has an interface; it displays output. To me, the only reason one would not call it a computer was because of anti-Apple or anti-iPad bias. CorbettGM (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously (to me at least) the iPad is a computer, but that discussion is taken place in another thread, the "iPad a PC" thread. This is about why people working on this article didn't want the iPad to be called a "tablet". My analysis is that the problem was that a "tablet-PC" was a term invented by Microsoft for an Unmodified Windows-OS running tablet computer, and such tablet-PC systems have not been a success in the past. Obviously the iPad is a computer, and obviously it resembles a wax tablet or slate so calling it a tablet computer is a sensible name, without the stigma of the tablet PC. Mahjongg (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

O.K. That all made sense, what of the issue with the Newton Message Pad? Even the distinction between Tablet Computer and Tablet PC doesn't seem to apply. It was a PDA solely, wasn't it? I don't question that it may have laid a foundation, I just question that it itself was even an early "Tablet Computer." By that logic, even an iPhone is a Tablet Computer (and so is an iPod Touch). 70.171.222.60 (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The newton predated the whole PDA era, you could say it helped the PDA era come into existence, it certainly predated the Windows tablet-PC. However It did pioneer the pen computing idea that the tablet-PC took over, but it tried to rely on handwriting recognizing, with the help of a "pen" (stylus), and that simply did not work well. Because it predated all this it therefore also predated the terms you are trying to assign to it, (including the "PDA" term) which makes your question (if it was that) a bit pointless, if you ask me. Sorry, I guess I simply do not grasp where you are going with this. Mahjongg (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Pointless huh? Look, I am a fan of Apple products, but I am also a fan of wikipedia, and "the point" of my question is simply to strive for accuracy. Most debated concepts on wikipedia have to have sources right? The two sources provided for the Newton (as I mentioned above) include a personal blog, and a story explicitly calling it a "PDA." You mention that the Newton predated these concepts? Fine...it predated them. So then, why are we calling it "Apples first tablet?" Again, like I already said, I don't find the notion of calling it a predecessor troubling, it is labeling it something it is clearly not that bothers me. I don't understand what is so confusing about my concern. By the way, doesn't your line of reasoning make the iPhone "Apple's second tablet?" 70.171.222.60 (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Must be me, but I still don't get what point you are trying to make. That its inaccurate that somebody called "the Newton the predecessor of the iPod"? really, based on semantics? Whatever names you give them doesn't really matter, historically I can clearly see that The Newton "predates" the iPod. They have much in common, and both are from Apple. But if you think the wording with which this is stated is somehow wrong, then go ahead and write it with better wording. My comment on "pointless" meant the pointlessness of wrestling with semantics, not that your contributions per-se are pointless. I make no "line of reasoning". Mahjongg (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)