Much as I admire the iPad as a piece of technology I don't see it being terribly influential of itself (aside of sprouting a number of clones, that is). It's never going to sell in numbers big enough to influence the use (or otherwise) of Flash on the web beyond a few headline sites that 'have to' be seen to work. The iPhone has never supported Flash but I don't see the big brands adapting sites to work with the iPhone on any kind of large scale.
I was listening to this week's MacCast, and I respect the Mac Geek but he actually said "I've ordered an iPad but I don't know what I'm going to use it for yet". Which kind of sums up how I feel about it. There's no unique selling point (no, the iBook store isn't it). Everything you can do on an iPad you can do on something half the price (which by the way will also run Flash and JavaFX). The iPad is a rich man's electronic equivalent of a coffee table book. As a technophile I'd be happy to play with one but the thought of spending £450 or thereabouts for the base model appals me - my wife's Dell Inspiron 1525 cost less than that and it's not a 'closed shop' experience - however good that experience is. The iPhone has a clear purpose, does it well, and the walled garden is so big you don't really notice the walls. The iPad is a computer, not a phone, and the garden looks a whole lot smaller with something that powerful. If anything, the idea that Apple may try to control what we read could only have a negative impact. The company has already lost my respect with it's inconsistent approach to application approval and unilateral pulling of previously approved software. If there is even a whiff of censorship around the written word then people will turn on the company - an American company not defending free speech?!. An open device with parental controls (but not censorship) could have a rosy future, but handled wrongly the iPad could turn into another Newton. On Mar 26, 4:29 pm, OldFatGit <[email protected]> wrote: > "If Apple’s iPad has the effect on our print reading matter in the way > iTunes did on our music consumption, Apple could wind up the dominant > channel by which we get published “print” information. > > That’s why the issue of Apple picking and choosing what we can and > can’t read is so disturbing. If they’re forcing magazines to edit > their contents in order to get distribution, then whatever Apple’s > then-current (and thus far completely arbitrary) rules would determine > what you get to read. > > It might even determine the political, religious, or ideological slant > of what you’re permitted to read." > > read on here:http://government.zdnet.com/?p=8356&tag=wrapper;col1 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
