Yes. Because then you’re talking about a device that needs drivers, and people would expect it to do all the things a USB port does, and you really don’t want to have to store drivers for fifteen thousand different devices on a device with limited memory capabilities. Folks want to use that storage space for their media, not for drivers for devices they’ll never use. And if you make them install the drivers with the device…well, then you’ve basically got a PC, and Apple’s just not going to open themselves up to that mess.
If you want to make something special-purpose (i.e. only support cameras), then you should not use a standard USB port, because people will have expectations that it’s actually a standard multi-purpose USB port. Instead, you should make a special-purpose connector to the device you want to support. You could call it, say, the Apple iPad Camera Connection Kit. Hypothetically.
I have an iTouch and it’s a great MP3 player, a decent gaming/surfing machine, and very portable. The iPad looks neat but it’s another $500 and not very portable.
What TimeWinder said. People forget that Apple got the way they are because they’re smart. Really REALLY smart.
Leaving out ports, or Flash, or some application, was done for a reason. They’re one of the few companies that makes something and then tests it like an end user would use it. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve picked up and electronic doodad and thought 'Did these people actually USE it? Or did they design, build, market, and ship without anyone actually trying to use it for it’s intended purpose?
There are some interesting exclusions (clock…calculator), but there’s also some interesting timing in other parts of the company (Version 4.0 is being announced Thursday) A major OS update announced the week after a new product? Yeah, if it meant getting a polished product out the door two months sooner. They can now concentrate on an OS update that now covers three major hardware platforms, rather than make an OS update AND get a new hardware product out the door.
Just got mine. Like a few other Dopers, I hadn’t signed up and wasn’t drooling with anticipation, but caved to impulse.
It’s cute. I’ve got a lot on my plate so I don’t see myself playing with it for a few weeks, though I did bring it out once and it was like having the world’s most gorgeous baby – everyone was cooing and wanted to hold it. The few, stupid games I’ve played on it (had them on my iPod) are amazing. At about $8 a pop, eBooks are a tad more expensive than I’d like, but I am planning on getting some in foreign languages to help me shape up (you can click for instant definitions… er, actually, I just realized they may only have this in English).
I find it disturbing that people can logically decide they didn’t want it, but then suddenly change their mind when they see it, to the point where they can’t make it out of the store without buying it.
If this is not a biased sample, then I would suspect something nefarious going on.
I just can’t imagine paying that much money for something on a whim purchase. Nothing is that good.
After looking at one today I’d like to offer up the first free kitchen app. (to hell with their closed architecture). To the world at large, I give you the Apple serving plate.
Correct, neither of these are included by Apple. An odd oversight. For calculators, there are a number of third-party options, even free ones. I haven’t looked for clock apps. (There’s a clock on the status bar, but there’s no alarm clock app).
My NDA forbids me from details, but there is actually a fair amount more work (more required functionality and more UI capability) required from developers to support the iPad, whether that’s done by making the existing iPhone app Universal (supports everything) or starting over. But not enough (IMHO) to justify the price increases. I think developers are just using this as an excuse to “reset” the expectations, since iPhone software sells for far less than equivalent computer software, but costs about the same to develop. (I’m always amused by app store comments that “This i great, and I’d have bought this app, but it’s way to expensive and needs to be cheaper” – on a $2 or $4 app. You couldn’t even buy the PACKAGE for a desktop app for that.).
Based on your post above, when you say “There are some interesting exclusions (clock…calculator)” do you mean
a) Apple has a specific reason for leaving out the clock app, but we just don’t know what it is, since you mention
"Leaving out ports, or Flash, or some application, was done for a reason. They’re one of the few companies that makes something and then tests it like an end user would use it "
or
b) Apple is just using triage to determine what gets on the iPad, since you mention
but there’s also some interesting timing in other parts of the company (Version 4.0 is being announced Thursday)
I assume the latter. If that’s the case, I’m curious as to how much of a delay would it have been to add a clock app to the iPad, since, you know, one already exists for the iPhone.
I thought looking at an actual unit would spike it up a notch on my desire list but the lack of USB port was a killer app. All I could do at the store was look at this USB portless wonder and then at the mini-laptops 10 feet away for the same money…
real computers… serving tray… real computers… serving tray…
It was lighter than I thought so it will make a nice ebook.
I dunno, and I’m not in a position to answer authoritatively. Perhaps they ran out of time. Perhaps it was one of priorities - get what they had ironed out.
iPhone apps that are scaled look like crap, I could see them not wanting to have any unpolished edges for the rollout. Do you send out a hack-job clock on your new finely polished device, or do you leave it for the next .1 version update?
Many reasons for Flash not being included have already been mentioned. Reasons for not having a USB port have been mentioned. Not having a Camera seems like a really stupid thing to leave out…unless they’re holding it back for next year’s model.
iPhone 1.0 didn’t have ANY 3rd part apps, didn’t have ANY cut and paste, didn’t have ANY bluetooth A2DP headphone support. The difference between my iPhone 1.0 and that same phone running the 3.0 OS was pretty significant. It’s a pretty typical Apple plan. Get it out, then add stuff as time permits.
Maybe I’m mistaken, but the reasoning sounded a little off. The piece of hardware that you’d connect to a USB port would have its own drivers that would be installed the first time you installed the device. There is no need to install thousands of different permutations on the Ipad itself and plug up memory.
“would be installed the first time you installed the device” How exactly? Using the non-existent DVD drive? Type in the binary? Have to go to a site or iTunes and download? That’s the sort of thing Apple has been trying for a decade to get away from even on its desktop computers.
Even if there was a seamless way to get them installed, drivers usually need kernel mode access, something Apple doesn’t allow third-party developers on the iPad – for good reason – badly written drivers (many of them) introduce instability, and take up resources on a resource-limited system. I’m not saying it wouldn’t be occasionally useful; but it’s not the trivial slam-dunk people keep saying. This device is meant as a media consumption and light document creation system, not a desktop computer replacement. And there exist supported, driverless APIs for talking to devices through the dock connector if people really want to build hardware for it.
This is something I’ve been wondering about. It’s like they’ve created the niche and the filling simultaneously. Nobody was clamouring for this device, until it was invented.
Whereas the iPhone was a true innovative step up on what already existed, the iPad is like a toy hoping to be promoted to a tool.