iPad

[mrcharly-YHT]

Here's one thing that makes it at least somewhat different from the iPod touch: it (optionally) has a built-it 3G radio, which makes it one of a rather limited range of devices which offer mobile internet connectivity without compulsory bundling of voice telephony.

I think you are confusing the iTouch with the iPhone.

iTouch isn't a phone, the lower range models don't even have a mike, but still have wifi connectivity.

[dasmoth]

Depends a bit on what Apple decides the exchange rate is this week.  But probably a bit cheaper, yet.

I've been put off the MiFi because it looks rather a lot like one of the USB dongles (which I already own), which seem to have stunningly lousy 3G reception in most of the places I'd actually be interested in using it.  But perhaps I'm not doing it justice.

[DuncanM]

Doesn't the iPad have a special SIM that isn't the same as a regular phone SIM?  A microSIM?

[dasmoth]

Here's one thing that makes it at least somewhat different from the iPod touch: it (optionally) has a built-it 3G radio, which makes it one of a rather limited range of devices which offer mobile internet connectivity without compulsory bundling of voice telephony.

I think you are confusing the iTouch with the iPhone.

iTouch isn't a phone, the lower range models don't even have a mike, but still have wifi connectivity.

But... in the iPhone/Touch range you either get the radio + voice telephony support (iPhone) or you get neither (Touch).  The range of devices which just have the radio is still limited: iPad (when it arrives) plus a few netbooks.

[Greenbank]

Here's one thing that makes it at least somewhat different from the iPod touch: it (optionally) has a built-it 3G radio, which makes it one of a rather limited range of devices which offer mobile internet connectivity without compulsory bundling of voice telephony.

I think you are confusing the iTouch with the iPhone.

iTouch isn't a phone, the lower range models don't even have a mike, but still have wifi connectivity.

Read his post again. It's about the fact that the iPad has Wireless and (optional) 3G but no GSM (i.e. voice calls), which is what he wants. Until now there hasn't been an Apple device with that combo...

iPod Touch: Wireless, No 3G, No GSM
iPhone: Wireless, 3G, GSM
iPad: Wireless, No 3G, No GSM (similar to the iPod Touch)
iPad 3G: Wireless, 3G, No GSM (unique)

[dasmoth]

Doesn't the iPad have a special SIM that isn't the same as a regular phone SIM?  A microSIM?

Bah, true.  I'd assumed that just meant the "small" SIMs that all phones have been using for the last 10 years (remember the original credit-card-sized things?).  But you're right, its an even smaller format which doesn't seem to be widely used yet.

I wonder why?  I can't believe it's just down to limited space in the device for a normal SIM holder.

[Charlotte]

I think that the factor which really stops me buying into any of the iThings is that if you want software for it, you can only get it from the monopoly that is Apple.

If I buy a piece of hardware - particularly a computer - I strongly resent the manufacturers telling me what I can and can't do with it.

Sure; it's okay to sell someone a computer and say "if you install unapproved apps, you'll invalidate the warranty".  It's also fine to try and regulate the way in which people use a device if they've bought it through some sort of subsidy (e.g. a subsidized mobile phone being locked to a network).

But bugger me, if I've paid full whack for a bit of kit, I'll be jiggered if I'm going to let anyone tell me what I can and can't do with it.  Look at what's just happened with the way in which Canadian Android users have just been shafted by their carrier.  If they don't run a firmware update to fix a bug that would allow them to gain root access and jailbreak their phone, then they effectively get cut off.

[andygates]

But that's just a policy statement, C.  If Apple provide exactly what you want, does it matter if they're not providing other stuff you don't want?

Anyway it'll be jailbroken in about ten days.  Betcha.

[Manotea]

I know I'm a bit slow, on the wong thread and a thoroughly brainwashed corporate slave but given my iPhone is on the network of my choice and I'm unlikely to add many new apps anyway, why would I want to jailbreak my iPhone?

About the most advanced thing I'm likely to want to do is use it as an untethered modem for my pc...

[Charlotte]

why would I want to jailbreak my iPhone?

You won't.  Most won't.  But I know many who have (incl. our very own Dez).

The thing is, it's like being sold a shovel, but being told that you can only use it to do tasks pre-approved by Spear and Jackson; digging, sod-cutting, shit shovelling and so forth.

But what if you want to *spang* someone in the face with it, inna fabulous homage to everyone's favourite Mayor?

Someone's worked out a terrific and really clever new thing you can do with this tool that the manufacturers didn't even think of and probably don't approve of anyway.

Why shouldn't you go and use it for this if you're prepared to accept the risks in so doing?

[DuncanM]

Why shouldn't you go and use it for this if you're prepared to accept the risks in so doing?

The corporate answer to this is "because it damages our business model". 

[Greenbank]

Exactly.

Jailbroken phones will stop getting apps or downloads from the App Store so Apple loses out on the cut they get for sales through the store.

They may lose some prospective sales because of this (like yours), but those lost revenues will be tiny compared to the amount they'd lose if jailbreaking was easy enough that it became widespread.

[dasmoth]

Someone's worked out a terrific and really clever new thing you can do with this tool that the manufacturers didn't even think of and probably don't approve of anyway.

Nice analogy, this is pretty-much exactly why someone with a saving-throw-vs-shiny¹ as weak as mine has managed to stay iPhone-less for so long.  With the iPad, the shiny is strong, though...

Must not order iPad.
Must not order iPad.
Must not order iPad.
Must not make plans to enter PBP, either.
Must not order iPad.

¹ credit to Charles Stross, I think.

[TimO]

...and even worse, it's essentially the thin end of the wedge towards Trusted Computing Platforms, which are about as well named as DRM.

They are all about locking the user out, "for their own protection", and coincidentally put you in the position where only approved software can be installed, which presumably you'll have to pay for, at a price set by the people who just sold you that TPM.  Call be old fashioned, but I like the ability to be able to download some random software for free, and try it out.  Yes it's risky, from a security perspective, but I'm reasonably competent to make that decision and deal with the issues if I get it wrong.  Others may not be, but I'd like to make this choice myself, not have it forced upon me by the manufacturers of the devices, and writers of the operating systems.

[dasmoth]

Why shouldn't you go and use it for this if you're prepared to accept the risks in so doing?

The corporate answer to this is "because it damages our business model". 

Is it a business model we should be encouraging, though?

I'm sure Spear and Jackson would love it if we had to pay a bit extra if we decide to dig a pond rather than a flowerbed.

[Greenbank]

It's more open than you think.

The simplest way to put what you want on the iPod-Touch/iPhone/iPad is to buy the SDK for US$99. Anything you write can be installed on your own device without having to go through the AppStore.

This also means that you can download apps from other people (as long as they give you the code) and install them.

You just never bother with the tricky/time-consuming process of submitting the apps for release to the AppStore.

You'll also need an Intel-based Mac running Leopard or later.

(Awaits "But I want all of that for free!!!!!" comments. Tough.)

[Valiant]

I've decided I want one, but only if it does screen sharing. Cos then I can do all that futuristic flying windows from my desktop/laptop to the pad fancy stuffs. But that's about it. It is an amazing bit of tech though when you think about it.

[DuncanM]

The simplest way to put what you want on the iPod-Touch/iPhone/iPad is to buy the SDK for US$99. Anything you write can be installed on your own device without having to go through the AppStore.
<snip>
You'll also need an Intel-based Mac running Leopard or later.

So $99 plus the cost of a computer (assuming you don't have a modern Mac already, which is the case for most of the population - even those with iPhones).  To put software onto a device that cost $200-$500 in the first place, and that you own.  And that doesn't include the cost of the software, because that's being given to you!

[Valiant]

Yebbut you can make a killing making apps at the moment.

[Attitudeless Badger]

No USB ports, No SD card or equivalent.  Seems to limit usability somewhat

[border-rider]

You'll also need an Intel-based Mac running Leopard or later.

Or it'll run in a VM

[Charlotte]

...and even worse, it's essentially the thin end of the wedge towards Trusted Computing Platforms, which are about as well named as DRM.

Although the concept's not new to me, I'd yet to read that Wiki page.

Holy shit.

[dasmoth]

No USB ports, No SD card or equivalent.  Seems to limit usability somewhat

Well, there's the camera connection kit at the bottom of this page:

          http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/

(May be locked down firmly enough that you can't do much except download your photos.  But it's a start...)

[andygates]

The iphone was a closed environment until they realised that the apps were what turned it from "shiny" to "epic".

Compare to the old Palm app mart or the current Maemo stuff: there's a lot of very amateur stuff out there, a lot of half-assed work, half-finished projects, and juts plain fugly.  And a lot of free.  But nasteh. 

A five-dollar app that's been through quality control is actually a pretty good idea.

Spanging someone in the face with a shovel?  There's an app for that.

[Charlotte]

Presumably you have to send your files back and forth over the wireless?