Taking a different tack... One must remember the audience! These are the same folks that willingly listen to MP3 on their iPods (and why I don’t own one). Apple figures if they’re already willing to accept dumbed down audio, whatever they give them for video will suffice. After all, they’ve already sold how many iPods and iPhones? None of which has anything to do with high-fidelity/high-definition. I’ve never been willing to spend lots and lots of money on my AV systems, but have usually ended up with something much better than the “all right.” Apple doesn’t even aim for “all right”, and they’ll get away with it. Obviously, I don’t plan to buy an iPad either.
Needless to say, if you want to have high quality reproduction in both audio and video, you’re in a small minority any more. The best you can hope for is the fact that minority doesn’t shrink to the point the makers of equipment can no longer stay in business. ...and I wonder about that.
HDTV Almanac - iPad Display: Flawed Picture
-
hharris4earthlink
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 8:08 pm
- Location: Pasadena, California
The iPad is not primarily, I repeat not, primarily a movie display device
I have to take exception to the complaint that the screen is 4:3 when everyone else is 16:9. You're not the first one to complain about this, but it's clearly wrong-headed. If this were a movie-watching device, I'd agree with you, but it's clearly not. It's a new type of device that supports many uses, only one of which is watching 16:9 movies. Watching a movie on the iPad is only a convenience, not the primary function of the iPad.
What we have here is a new, breakthrough concept that can't be compared with anything else on the market so reviewers are stuck with judging it on the merits of the device from first principles. Judging from the web reviews I've been reading, that is beyond many people's skill set.
Since this is an HD site, I'll refrain from commenting further, except to say that in my opinion this is another one of Job's brilliant strokes, brilliant because he has conceptualized a device to provide a solution in a case where most people haven't realized there could be one. He's that far ahead of the curve.
What we have here is a new, breakthrough concept that can't be compared with anything else on the market so reviewers are stuck with judging it on the merits of the device from first principles. Judging from the web reviews I've been reading, that is beyond many people's skill set.
Since this is an HD site, I'll refrain from commenting further, except to say that in my opinion this is another one of Job's brilliant strokes, brilliant because he has conceptualized a device to provide a solution in a case where most people haven't realized there could be one. He's that far ahead of the curve.
-
Shane
- Publisher / Author
- Posts: 1734
- Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 5:01 pm
- Location: Xenia, OH
- Contact:
Re: The iPad is not primarily, I repeat not, primarily a movie display device
True, but Alfred's article is focused just on the claims regarding the "video experience".[email protected] wrote:I have to take exception to the complaint that the screen is 4:3 when everyone else is 16:9. You're not the first one to complain about this, but it's clearly wrong-headed. If this were a movie-watching device, I'd agree with you, but it's clearly not. It's a new type of device that supports many uses, only one of which is watching 16:9 movies. Watching a movie on the iPad is only a convenience, not the primary function of the iPad.
- S
Publisher, HDTV Magazine
Your Guide to High Definition Television
Your Guide to High Definition Television
-
hharris4earthlink
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 8:08 pm
- Location: Pasadena, California
You’re right, of course, but it seems bizarre to me to criticize a design decision out of context of its primary objective. The site below illustrates this concept rather nicely:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/01/30/ipad-v-a-rock/
http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/01/30/ipad-v-a-rock/
-
gtyler
- Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 7:15 am
I don't like 16:9 ratio screens for my computer monitor
I have three iMacs and a Mac mini at home. Neither of them are the newest model. I tried a friend's 21.5" iMac for a little while and did not like it. I work with computers all day and I felt that it was very distracting to have such a wide field of view. I felt that my eyes were moving from left to right too often and too far. My poor eyesight may be a factor, but I am not sure I could get used to it.
The iPad will be a "convenient" way to watch video that you have ripped into your iTunes library from those free digital copies included with your Bluray discs, but it will not be the "best" way for sure. Even for a plane ride, there are stand-alone DVD players and widescreen laptops that would be better. But the iPad is what I will use on my next plane trip because of all the options that I will have at my fingertips - music, photos, games, video, and work. Admit it - we all have ADD!
Check out my Facebook fan page: http://theIPADisAwesome.com
The iPad will be a "convenient" way to watch video that you have ripped into your iTunes library from those free digital copies included with your Bluray discs, but it will not be the "best" way for sure. Even for a plane ride, there are stand-alone DVD players and widescreen laptops that would be better. But the iPad is what I will use on my next plane trip because of all the options that I will have at my fingertips - music, photos, games, video, and work. Admit it - we all have ADD!
Check out my Facebook fan page: http://theIPADisAwesome.com
-
Rodolfo
- Author
- Posts: 755
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:46 pm
- Location: Lansdowne VA
iPad for HT Controls
It is interesting to see that when a new product like the iPad comes out people compare to what they actually use to measure individual capabilities and price.
Book readers will look for their subject (proprietary service that cannot access Amazon, has problems with Adobe, etc).
Notebook users will find computing limitations (no multitasking, lack of connectors on the unit, etc)
Design conscious people find the screen space misused with a large bezel (could have a larger screen or a slimmer bezel).
Downloading video fans find a problem the lack of HDMI so they can connect to their HTs.
But when you offer a product that intends to offer a bit of all, as a manufacturer it could cost a fortune to include all of the features to the fullest of the individual products, so I assume is better to release a version 1, and pay attention to the feedback to find what are the most cost efficient features a large market would like to add.
For example, having the unit fully developed for computer use could make the price too high for those interested to have a book reader and some internet connectivity, with no multitasking, email, etc.
Let me introduce another twist: Home Theater Remote Control (activities and devices, lights, curtains, etc). Installers (and me) are looking for a large screen product that is capable to tailor touch screen buttons, and does not cost a prohibitive Creston or Control4 full blown system typically priced in the thousands, and I should add ironically: “when they work as they suppose to”.
The size of this screen would allow a user to include all the activity buttons and the most important buttons of the devices involved without having to scroll to secondary screens.
I am not talking about just learning the buttons of individual remotes, but about a comprehensive mix of functions that could be implemented by a new application designer ,or one of the 140,000 already available.
The iPad can use the iPhone applications and some already allow operability of HT systems, a very simple one is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqNBGvVR4W8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdddH6Pt ... re=related
http://www.unify4life.com/video/avshadow-demo
In other words, add the IR IF $50 adapter and the large touch screen becomes whatever a software developer wants to do. Is there a market for a $500 product to compete with the expensive Crestons and Control 4s, yes there is, and I would not be surprised they rethink their plans and pricing due to the potential of the iPad.
http://www.cepro.com/article/4_ways_app ... ectronics/
http://www.commandfusion.com/blog/
Additionally, places like Myer Emco in the East charge about $100 an hr to program them. A consumer has no access to the manufacturer DB and SW for the programming. Usually they charge about $600 for the setup of a $1000 Universal remote.
On February of 2009, I bought the $500 touch-screen Harmony 1100 when it just came out, a beautiful piece, lots of flexibility, devices DB for automatic learning, lights and curtains controls, very practical and powerful, although the screen size has no comparison to an iPad if an application is made so it can work that way.
The beauty of the Harmony 1100 is that I do my own programming with the laptop connected to the central Harmony DB, and modify as I want as many times I want, and I keep adding and changing equipment so I need the flexibility in the owner’s hands. I hope that the iPad would provide similar capabilities to a user if such application is implemented and if not someone is losing a great opportunity to make money.
Now, for the same $500 I spent for the Harmony, I can buy a multi function iPad that would allow me to control my HT (hopefully with the features I described), switch to internet, email, books, all from my same HT seat without having to go to my home office or laptop if I need instant access. It is not a replacement of the office power nor of its multitasking, but it is a complement that otherwise would force me to carry the laptop to places I do not want a laptop.
Could I criticize a product like this at this price having these capabilities and potential with some many third party applications and growing? Frankly no, and I am not an Apple customer, nor an AT&T customer, but it deserves to be given a chance to see if eventually fits my hope, and I do not see why not.
I would not be surprised if Steve, after analyzing the feedback, releases soon a version 2 with multitasking and/or the other hardware features (such as mini HDMI) offering a trade in policy for a modest price. However, even if he does not, the growing nature of the product provides hope for so many future applications, and without waiting until Apple does it, or be locked in one function, such as the HT touch screen remote units do.
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
P.S. I just realized that my coverage was longer than the column itself. Perhaps we should make an article if some of the above starts to happen.
Book readers will look for their subject (proprietary service that cannot access Amazon, has problems with Adobe, etc).
Notebook users will find computing limitations (no multitasking, lack of connectors on the unit, etc)
Design conscious people find the screen space misused with a large bezel (could have a larger screen or a slimmer bezel).
Downloading video fans find a problem the lack of HDMI so they can connect to their HTs.
But when you offer a product that intends to offer a bit of all, as a manufacturer it could cost a fortune to include all of the features to the fullest of the individual products, so I assume is better to release a version 1, and pay attention to the feedback to find what are the most cost efficient features a large market would like to add.
For example, having the unit fully developed for computer use could make the price too high for those interested to have a book reader and some internet connectivity, with no multitasking, email, etc.
Let me introduce another twist: Home Theater Remote Control (activities and devices, lights, curtains, etc). Installers (and me) are looking for a large screen product that is capable to tailor touch screen buttons, and does not cost a prohibitive Creston or Control4 full blown system typically priced in the thousands, and I should add ironically: “when they work as they suppose to”.
The size of this screen would allow a user to include all the activity buttons and the most important buttons of the devices involved without having to scroll to secondary screens.
I am not talking about just learning the buttons of individual remotes, but about a comprehensive mix of functions that could be implemented by a new application designer ,or one of the 140,000 already available.
The iPad can use the iPhone applications and some already allow operability of HT systems, a very simple one is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqNBGvVR4W8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdddH6Pt ... re=related
http://www.unify4life.com/video/avshadow-demo
In other words, add the IR IF $50 adapter and the large touch screen becomes whatever a software developer wants to do. Is there a market for a $500 product to compete with the expensive Crestons and Control 4s, yes there is, and I would not be surprised they rethink their plans and pricing due to the potential of the iPad.
http://www.cepro.com/article/4_ways_app ... ectronics/
http://www.commandfusion.com/blog/
Additionally, places like Myer Emco in the East charge about $100 an hr to program them. A consumer has no access to the manufacturer DB and SW for the programming. Usually they charge about $600 for the setup of a $1000 Universal remote.
On February of 2009, I bought the $500 touch-screen Harmony 1100 when it just came out, a beautiful piece, lots of flexibility, devices DB for automatic learning, lights and curtains controls, very practical and powerful, although the screen size has no comparison to an iPad if an application is made so it can work that way.
The beauty of the Harmony 1100 is that I do my own programming with the laptop connected to the central Harmony DB, and modify as I want as many times I want, and I keep adding and changing equipment so I need the flexibility in the owner’s hands. I hope that the iPad would provide similar capabilities to a user if such application is implemented and if not someone is losing a great opportunity to make money.
Now, for the same $500 I spent for the Harmony, I can buy a multi function iPad that would allow me to control my HT (hopefully with the features I described), switch to internet, email, books, all from my same HT seat without having to go to my home office or laptop if I need instant access. It is not a replacement of the office power nor of its multitasking, but it is a complement that otherwise would force me to carry the laptop to places I do not want a laptop.
Could I criticize a product like this at this price having these capabilities and potential with some many third party applications and growing? Frankly no, and I am not an Apple customer, nor an AT&T customer, but it deserves to be given a chance to see if eventually fits my hope, and I do not see why not.
I would not be surprised if Steve, after analyzing the feedback, releases soon a version 2 with multitasking and/or the other hardware features (such as mini HDMI) offering a trade in policy for a modest price. However, even if he does not, the growing nature of the product provides hope for so many future applications, and without waiting until Apple does it, or be locked in one function, such as the HT touch screen remote units do.
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
P.S. I just realized that my coverage was longer than the column itself. Perhaps we should make an article if some of the above starts to happen.
-
hharris4earthlink
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 8:08 pm
- Location: Pasadena, California
-
miller
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:07 am
-
Rodolfo
- Author
- Posts: 755
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:46 pm
- Location: Lansdowne VA
Video Only?
Miller,
Please read the column carefully, it included this text, and I quote:
-------------------
"And finally, from the text on the iPad Web site: “The best way to experience the web, email, photos, and video. Hands down.”
Well, in my opinion it’s “thumbs down” on these typically hyperbolic claims by Apple. Even a momentary consideration of the specifications makes these claims dubious at best."
-------------------
This is a general critique beyond the video functionality without actually supporting the "thumbs down" on the non-video subject.
The quote above and some responses motivated me to view this product with a wider perspective and an open mind, because of the uniqueness of the product, beyond its aspect ratio and the number of pixels on the screen.
As I said, one of the possible functions is actually related to what an HDTV needs to operate: a remote, a component that comes with an HDTV when you purchase it, and is especially useful if it can operate in a touch screen the whole HT (and HD video network on a house) with the features I described.
If that is what Joe needs but Joe does not need 1080p HD on the iPad, then so be it for Joe; Peter will use the web and email; Sam will use the book capabilities and rarely check email; and Dan will have a thick bank account because he developed the application for HT controls; they all win on what they need, and this is my understanding of what this product is about.
Regarding what you expect from a site like this (HDTV), I fully agree, I also not support non-HDTV material on this magazine, since 1998.
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
Please read the column carefully, it included this text, and I quote:
-------------------
"And finally, from the text on the iPad Web site: “The best way to experience the web, email, photos, and video. Hands down.”
Well, in my opinion it’s “thumbs down” on these typically hyperbolic claims by Apple. Even a momentary consideration of the specifications makes these claims dubious at best."
-------------------
This is a general critique beyond the video functionality without actually supporting the "thumbs down" on the non-video subject.
The quote above and some responses motivated me to view this product with a wider perspective and an open mind, because of the uniqueness of the product, beyond its aspect ratio and the number of pixels on the screen.
As I said, one of the possible functions is actually related to what an HDTV needs to operate: a remote, a component that comes with an HDTV when you purchase it, and is especially useful if it can operate in a touch screen the whole HT (and HD video network on a house) with the features I described.
If that is what Joe needs but Joe does not need 1080p HD on the iPad, then so be it for Joe; Peter will use the web and email; Sam will use the book capabilities and rarely check email; and Dan will have a thick bank account because he developed the application for HT controls; they all win on what they need, and this is my understanding of what this product is about.
Regarding what you expect from a site like this (HDTV), I fully agree, I also not support non-HDTV material on this magazine, since 1998.
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
-
hharris4earthlink
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 8:08 pm
- Location: Pasadena, California
I couldn't agree more. In my humble opinion, criticizing every video display device that doesn't support HD is a pointless exercise, unless, of course, the manufacturer falsely claims HD which was not the case in this instance. Apple has a long history of producing exceptional products and one might be tempted to assume that any modern video device they produce these days must be HD, but that's our problem, not theirs.