4 ms·

> That the iPad is consistently classified as a media consumption device seems an attempt to trivialize its significance by people who consider themselves power

by crux_ 17y ago

> That the iPad is consistently classified as a media consumption device seems an attempt to trivialize its significance by people who consider themselves power users. Not really. It comes from an idealism that technology (especially the internet) would, speaking broadly, shift our society away from a centralized model where the many are beholden to the few and towards something more distributed and egalitarian. If you cherish that goal, you're fairly likely to see the iPad as a step backwards -- it is not about the size of the step ("significance") but its direction.

akadien 17y ago
For me, the iPad does not provide more utility compared to other devices I use to warrant carrying around and maintaining yet another device (Yad? iYad?). If it did or I thought it would, I would keep it. That it makes me physically uncomfortable is another factor. YMMV.
roc 17y ago
I'd think if you truly cherish that goal (as I do) you'd have noticed by now that no single device or technology represents a step of any significance in any direction. It wasn't the existence of the internet that changed the creator:consumer ratio for the better. It was the use of the internet as such. And that use exploded thanks to any number of consumption-focused technologies along the way. Consider that even if no-one creates long-form text on an iPad, it's existence as a consumption machine might re-popularize the format and draw more creators to write for digital bookstores, shifting the creator:consumer relationship thanks to the ease of entrance (compared to dead-tree publishing). Or for a more proven example: consider the App Store. Reviled-since-inception by techno-freedom purists, its net effect has been positive for entire classes of software that are as-of-yet implausible via the internet. Though the store serves only these consumption-focused devices, the audience those devices attracted and the comparative low barrier for entry by creators has drawn creators and been a huge step forward. Windows tablets have had more pure potential to push the creator:consumer ratio forward for a decade and they've done essentially nothing. How useful is a world-view in which they're viewed as a step forward and the iPad a step back? All that aside, the core argument is still bogus. The iPad is getting a rap as a media consumption device solely because it's bad at text input without peripherals. Well, guess what? Any form factor is bad at some Arts without peripherals. And peripherals often dictate ergonomics. Keyboard/Mouse PCs suck at digital painting, a/v capture, a/v editing and any number of disciplines without peripherals. We don't pan them for not being a creative panacea out-of-the-box. And we certainly don't begrudge laptops their convenience, even though a digital artist has to lug around a cintiq to do decent work on the road, and is thus limited in use cases.
- pyre 17y ago
  > its net effect has been positive for entire classes of software that are as-of-yet implausible via the internet. I'm curious as to what you're referring to here.
  - roc 17y ago
    Games. Art creation tools. Sound mixing. Musical creation tools. There are plenty of media-rich applications written by independents and minor players, enjoying far more success on the app store than they could via shrink-wrap channels or home consoles.
    - pyre 17y ago
      But that's due to a captive audience and a single channel of sales. You could make the same arguments for many things. Disney can turn a higher profit selling soda in their parks because they are the only ones selling soda in their parks and a 20oz bottle costs $2.00+. That doesn't mean this is a net win for anyone but Disney. If WalMart were the only retail store on the face of the planet, people that were able to sign deals with WalMart would also enjoy great success... The reason they wouldn't do as well in shrink-wrap channels is that they would have to have a larger marketing budget, and market to a wider audience at smaller returns. The audience of iPhone users is an audience with low barriers to impulsing purchases, and an audience of relevance (i.e. iPhone users going to the AppStore are all potential customers, random people in a B&M store may or may not be potential customers).
      - roc 17y ago
        If Apple only allowed in EA, Activision, Ubisoft, etc - you'd have a point with your captive audience analogy. The PS3, PSP, PSN, etc fit in great with your argument. But the App Store is different than that. More than just the big names are allowed in and are making money. And that's the net win. Apple delivered a massively lower barrier of entry (even if it's arguably higher than necessary and certainly higher than we might like) and they've gone out of their way to provide services that massively level the playing field: hosting, equal placement[1], cc processing, international support, etc. Even though it's still a closed platform, more creators are making a living by creating and that's a net win in my book. [1](Try getting a shrink wrap game on a shelf at Best Buy next to The Sims. Increased marketing/packaging/distribution costs aside: it simply does not happen unless you sign on with a publisher.)

by crux_ 17y ago

akadien 17y ago

For me, the iPad does not provide more utility compared to other devices I use to warrant carrying around and maintaining yet another device (Yad? iYad?). If it did or I thought it would, I would keep it. That it makes me physically uncomfortable is another factor. YMMV.

roc 17y ago

I'd think if you truly cherish that goal (as I do) you'd have noticed by now that no single device or technology represents a step of any significance in any direction. It wasn't the existence of the internet that changed the creator:consumer ratio for the better. It was the use of the internet as such. And that use exploded thanks to any number of consumption-focused technologies along the way. Consider that even if no-one creates long-form text on an iPad, it's existence as a consumption machine might re-popularize the format and draw more creators to write for digital bookstores, shifting the creator:consumer relationship thanks to the ease of entrance (compared to dead-tree publishing). Or for a more proven example: consider the App Store. Reviled-since-inception by techno-freedom purists, its net effect has been positive for entire classes of software that are as-of-yet implausible via the internet. Though the store serves only these consumption-focused devices, the audience those devices attracted and the comparative low barrier for entry by creators has drawn creators and been a huge step forward. Windows tablets have had more pure potential to push the creator:consumer ratio forward for a decade and they've done essentially nothing. How useful is a world-view in which they're viewed as a step forward and the iPad a step back? All that aside, the core argument is still bogus. The iPad is getting a rap as a media consumption device solely because it's bad at text input without peripherals. Well, guess what? Any form factor is bad at some Arts without peripherals. And peripherals often dictate ergonomics. Keyboard/Mouse PCs suck at digital painting, a/v capture, a/v editing and any number of disciplines without peripherals. We don't pan them for not being a creative panacea out-of-the-box. And we certainly don't begrudge laptops their convenience, even though a digital artist has to lug around a cintiq to do decent work on the road, and is thus limited in use cases.

pyre 17y ago
> its net effect has been positive for entire classes of software that are as-of-yet implausible via the internet. I'm curious as to what you're referring to here.
- roc 17y ago
  Games. Art creation tools. Sound mixing. Musical creation tools. There are plenty of media-rich applications written by independents and minor players, enjoying far more success on the app store than they could via shrink-wrap channels or home consoles.
  - pyre 17y ago
    But that's due to a captive audience and a single channel of sales. You could make the same arguments for many things. Disney can turn a higher profit selling soda in their parks because they are the only ones selling soda in their parks and a 20oz bottle costs $2.00+. That doesn't mean this is a net win for anyone but Disney. If WalMart were the only retail store on the face of the planet, people that were able to sign deals with WalMart would also enjoy great success... The reason they wouldn't do as well in shrink-wrap channels is that they would have to have a larger marketing budget, and market to a wider audience at smaller returns. The audience of iPhone users is an audience with low barriers to impulsing purchases, and an audience of relevance (i.e. iPhone users going to the AppStore are all potential customers, random people in a B&M store may or may not be potential customers).
    - roc 17y ago
      If Apple only allowed in EA, Activision, Ubisoft, etc - you'd have a point with your captive audience analogy. The PS3, PSP, PSN, etc fit in great with your argument. But the App Store is different than that. More than just the big names are allowed in and are making money. And that's the net win. Apple delivered a massively lower barrier of entry (even if it's arguably higher than necessary and certainly higher than we might like) and they've gone out of their way to provide services that massively level the playing field: hosting, equal placement[1], cc processing, international support, etc. Even though it's still a closed platform, more creators are making a living by creating and that's a net win in my book. [1](Try getting a shrink wrap game on a shelf at Best Buy next to The Sims. Increased marketing/packaging/distribution costs aside: it simply does not happen unless you sign on with a publisher.)