It's a big deal because the iPod had all of this but its size meant the number of apps you could write lived in a small petri dish. The size of the iPad's petri dish is much larger, when compared to the iPhone.

For example as they showed: Keynote and iBooks.

And for us to design: Electronic Restaurant menus, interactive car manuals, Medical Industry, mapping/aviation, un-maned drone control (planes, vehicles, robots), and so on.

The above list are applications that neither the iPhone or a laptop can do. We are entrepreneur we should see this, we should not be the ones complaining iPad sucks because x or y.

Also, the AppStore means never having to worry about malware or viruses. That means no hesitation, if you see something you like, just get it, it's just a single click.

Fear of malware, viruses, or just accidentally changing some setting can be terribly paralyzing.

> Also, the AppStore means never having to worry about malware or viruses.

I've heard this idea over and over these past few days, and it really puzzles me. Do we really believe that the same App Store reviewers who are so incompetent that they can an e-reader because you could use it to read the Kama Sutra (or whatever your favourite ridiculous rejection of the day is) are, on the other hand, so competent that it is impossible to get malware by them? Or do we just believe that the iPhone/iPad/whatever is naturally resistant to malware, however cleverly written --in which case it doesn't matter what we install on it?

Has a single malware or virus made it passed them? Please provide sources for this if you have anything but a hunch.

Is it really the case that the burden of proof is on someone who thinks that a system might be vulnerable? Should we believe by default in the security of new cryptosystems because they haven't been cracked yet?

I am neither asserting nor implying that there is malware anywhere in the iPhone ecosystem at any point. I meant merely that

1. the reviewers wouldn't, and couldn't be expected to, catch it, unless it were very clumsy (do you check the sources of all the software you run? Even if you do, do you think that the reviewer does? Now consider how many more apps a reviewer must vet daily than you run);

and

2. that there are much cleverer things to do with malware than loudly announce your presence, such as quietly funnelling out interesting personal data, so that it is very dangerous to confuse a lack of reports of malware with a lack of malware.

To the last point it may rightly be objected that arguing something on the basis of “If it were there you wouldn't see it, and you don't see it, so it's there” is indulging in a particularly base sort of logical fallacy (identification of a statement with its converse). I emphasise again that I am in no way claiming that there is malware; merely that the belief that there isn't, can't be, and won't be as long as we stick with the closed model seems to represent an indulgence in a peculiar sort of optimism.

I think the burden of proof lies with the person claiming things that nobody has seen does in fact exist.

I am not making any claims about the actual, present presence of malware. My only claim is that it is unduly optimistic to believe that a vetting process offers a complete immunity from malware.

Maybe I mis-interpreted your position, and you meant only that malware is less likely in a ‘gated community’ such as that offered by the iPhone and pals. If that is what you mean, then I agree.

If you would like a more grandiose claim, then I am willing to strengthen it slightly by making the definite claim that, some time between now and the heat death of the universe, there will be malware on the iPhone. However, this statement, being (practically) unfalsifiable, isn't worth much, which is why I didn't make it originally.

It's not the reviewers, it's the fact that there is a paper trail between the malware author and the malware.

That's a good point.

The paranoid in me wonders whether a malware writer might then work on infecting an app-store developer's machine, to get the code in via such indirection; but I agree that seems like an awful lot of work when so many unsecured machines are out there for easy and anonymous direct picking.

It'll probably happen eventually, and I'm sure there are several app-store developers whose machines are already members of botnets.

From developing for the iPhone the most notable thing I have learned is that the relationship between UI ease of use and UI complexity is very different than for a desktop. A few touches and a swipe on the iPhone becomes a few clicks and a drag on the desk top. By increasing the screen size available for touch based UIs I think the iPad and its successors will eventually replace laptop and desktop computers for most people.

Very good point - especially for the first one. They won't need someone's help. Mainly, our help.

One could say Steve Jobs has "taken" the market from us, now controlling even the developers. Yet I believe, as the post pointed out, that theres an escape hatch through using the internet as a delivery mechanism. HTML5 and responsive web apps are truly the future there. Learn UNIX programming if you haven't.

This moves the developers, from say, GeekSquad and "Best Buy Optimization" rip-off services to productive application development. One could argue that this will make the smart smarter (as the barrier to entry is higher) and the "dumb" (less experieced a better word?) interested in something else.

I think the iPad is "meh" because to some degree we haven't seen what it will do to the landscape yet. We've been focusing on the technical aspects of the device - and putting up against a rubric we've built over the last 30 years. I believe Jobs aims to change that rubric.

Other people have said it - computers are complicated for laymen users and they want it to act like an appliance. Hes giving it to them.

I don't believe it has GPS, so not so sure about the locational awareness bit.

If I'm not wrong, I believe the 3g version has A-GPS.

You are correct: http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/ (left-most column under "Location")

It looks like both the wifi and 3g versions have a digital compass, as well.

Wow. I never even considered that they would differ on something like that.

That's a substantial hit on the "it just works" front. Some apps will not be able to do anything useful without this. Some people won't understand why.

The reason why is that Qualcomm and most 3G chip manufacturers bundle GPS, as it is required by federal law for 911 service. Just adding a standalone GPS module to the Wifi version would probably cost about as much as adding a 3G chip.

Btw, does anyone else find it striking how much patent licensing adds to the cost of a device? I'm pretty sure Apple is passing the $130 3G upgrade along at almost cost. These 3G chips have been out for years now and probably only cost about $10-20 to manufacture, yet every 3G cellphone manufacturer gets raped by patent licensing costs to the tune of $100+.

Given that Ericsson F3507g mini-pcie card is $80 give or take, I doubt that the $130 3G upgrade is at cost.

Does the Ericsson card have a GPS radio and quad-band G3 as well, or just 3G?

This is already the case with the iPhone vs. iPod Touch.

  Digital compass
  Assisted GPS (Wi-Fi + 3G model)

Looks like both models have A-GPS

They refer to the 3G model as the "Wi-Fi + 3G Model", so I believe that line item indicates that only the 3G version has GPS.

Ah, that makes sense now. Thanks!

Perhaps not in this 1st gen version, but if it proves to be a success then just give it (and the inevitable competing tablets) some time before it does.