Large Hadron Collider

http://www.macworld.com/article/145976/2010/01/ipadissues.html

The author of this article makes some very good points about the iPad’s capabilities, or, lack thereof.  In particular, the issue of multitasking.  As computers get sleeker, newer, faster, and processing power builds, we, as consumers, want computers that can do more and more things at once.  In this, the iPad is a colossal step back into the computer Stone Age with its limited multitasking capabilities.

I also agree strongly with what the author says about the lack of a video camera.  An overly gorgeous display, all but designed for video viewing, but no way to record, or even video chat?  The author offers the opinion that this is an intentional omission, something “held back” for iPad 2.0, and I couldn’t agree more.

Also, no Flash support?  Love it or hate it, Flash is a fairly common element on the Web today, and there are a great many sites that utilize Flash.  It’s not as bad as having a web browser that can’t handle html, but it’s not too far off.

I agree with the author of this article on almost every point he makes, with one exception.

He says, “with just a couple little tweaks, I can certainly see an iPad in my future.”  That’s the point upon which we differ.

Wired.com author Jon Stokes wrote an interesting article back in August about how the display screen industry was going to change (Wired.com). As consumers we are consistently becoming more obsessed with how clear the picture is on our TV screen, computer screen, or smart phone. Not an HDTV? Why buy it? Can’t see pictures and video crystal-clear on your cell phone? Get a new one!! The push for the better picture is constant and relentless.

The technology spoken of toward the end of Stokes’ article (Organic LED) is supposed by the author to be the next great thing in display technology.  OLED’s do not require the use of a backlight, like regular LED displays, and therefore can be extremely slim – as small as a couple of millimeters.  They also have much better contrast ratios, and run on less power than traditional LED displays.

So why haven’t we seen OLED large-screen TV’s? Why are we still using this sub-par technology? The answer (as always) lies in the cost.  Currently, it is not economically feasible to produce these displays en masse, nor is it feasible to produce them in large sizes.  This stems from the problem of making the substrate onto which the OLED pixels are printed.  The pixels must be printed on the correct substrate in order to perform correctly, and while the actual printing could hypothetically be done with an average laser printer, the substrate itself is much more complicated to produce.

If the problems with the production of this technology could be ironed out more effectively, I think it could easily outpace LED displays in no time.  Samsung has already presented a prototype of an OLED laptop.

Yes. It is translucent. Yet another use for this technology, as the author of the aforementioned article says, the pixels can be printed on completely transparent surfaces, enabling one to have a window in the house double as their TV.

The only area in which I disagree with the author of the Wired article is that OLED, LED, and E-Ink will coexist together in each household. I think it will take some time for OLED to catch on and be economically feasible for companies to produce, but once it does burst onto the market, I don’t think there will be much stopping it from taking over.  Better image quality than LED HD displays, no backlighting so the screen will be easier to read, I just don’t see where this technology can go wrong! Who knows, in 20 years we may be carrying around OLED computers the size of credit cards instead of our oh-so-indispensable smartphones.

I nearly passed out with disbelief when I read, “Apple introduces new US$499 iPad, says it’s more intimate than laptop”!

Steve Jobs, the CEO of Apple has now introduced the new Ipad, stating it’s more intimate than a laptop. The Ipad can be used as a device that would be useful for reading books, playing games or watching video. Jobs describes the Ipad as “so much more intimate than a laptop and so much more capable than a smart phone, as a 3rd kind of device, that is better than laptops in some points, like web browsing experience.”

But I have one question for Steve, “how exactly does something that doesn’t even support flash give advanced web browsing experience?” The pad can only run one application at a time and lacks key features such as an optical drive or USB port. The Ipad has no multi task features. One would think a device that aims to displace laptops and costs so much more, that the inability to run multiple applications at once is a major downside.

Apple also advertises the Ipad having a long battery life span of 10H battery life. Yet, why would one need a 10 hour battery life? But yet, Apple has not specified as to what functions will be able to run during those 10 hours. Skyping, for instance, would take much more battery than reading an e-book. Wonder if this is something Steve Jobs has even considered.

The Apple pad models are set to launch in late March of this year. Pricing starting at $500 for 16GB version, $600 for 32GB, and $700 for 64GB (US Dollars). Such an expensive device, during hard economic times, yet Jobs feels this is a big hit and yet even better than a netbook? IPad’s actual price compare to a netbook when a consumer can snag a better equipped netbook for a lower price. I don’t get it. The fact of the matter is that the pad is an overly expensive device. Had it been a few hundred dollars less, it might be something to consider. But for now, I’m sticking with my netbook.

Reading the Overclock review of Asus EEE-PC 1005HA Netbook, the author clearly falls firmly in the pro-Netbook camp, dismissing any suggestion that Netbooks will soon be obsolete (if they’re not already).

The problem with his logic though, is that he waxes poetic about why a factor, such as battery life, would make his beloved Netbook superior to a laptop without explaining why someone would want one in the first place. Just because you can use it for more hours than you can use a laptop, doesn’t mean you necessarily want to.

He is probably right in saying that the iPad won’t be the demise of Netbooks. Based on current consumer sentiment, it looks like the iPad may only manage to bring about its own demise. But neither the iPad nor Netbooks pack the same performance power as a laptop, giving both a ticking clock.

So, why would your average consumer want one? If you need an application-driven device while you’re on the go, you need something bigger with a laptop. If you need it only to operate web-based services, a smart-phone can do that while still fitting in your pocket. And if you’re looking for low-cost, although they seem like a lower cost option, Netbooks offer the least value dollar-for-dollar.

There are certainly reasons to use one, and in some circumstances they are preferable. Take for example the author’s trip to a bookstore cafe. I would want one too in that case–if I wanted a computer in that situation in the first place, that is. And, they are much easier to schlep around a college campus than a laptop, while being better suited to taking lecture notes on than an iPhone.

But the problem that I see that these pro-Netbook articles do not address is that you would still need a “real” computer back at home or in your dorm room to store your files and run more complex programs. And despite the flutters of gadget excitement that usually flare up right before the holidays and dissipate again in spring, the average American consumer has little need or desire to spend a few hundred dollars on something with such minimal practical value.

If the manufacturers can drop the prices while simultaneously increasing usability, they might talk Grandma into needing one. Until then, despite what this reviewer had to say, they are nifty toys that will indeed become obsolete.