Jump to content

Talk:iPad/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Speedy Delete

By popular demand, I've added a speedy deletion request. In light of the fact that we'll soon know for sure whether this is a case of WP:HOAX, I have also added a {{hangon}} request. See you at the live feed! Egnalebd (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I quote the definition of a hoax: "A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real." It is blindingly obvious that Apple are developing a tablet device! Whether the article should be deleted due to the fact that little information is held about the device is subject to debate, but the article is definitely NOT "a blatant and obvious hoax" - Speedy Deletion is not the appropriate action to be taken in this article's case. I am, obviously, leaving the normal deletion tag in place, but as this article obviously is not eligable for speedy deletion (at the moment), I am removing the speedy deletion tag. Unnachamois (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know where you got the information that made it "blindingly obvious" to you, but the community consensus seems to be that there is no consensus, and that there cannot be a consensus, until 18:00 GMT. I think it's pretty clear that the announcement will be something else entirely--perhaps OSXI--but you don't see me jumping the gun writing a page about it! Speedy delete restored. Egnalebd (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Please read WP:SPEEDY before tagging articles for speedy deletion. This article in no way falls under the criteria for speedy deletion. The points you have made above are relevant to normal deletion, make them on the discussion page for the article's deletion. Unnachamois (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I added my comment to the wrong discussion. As WP:SPEEDY makes clear, anyone except the article's creator can remove a Speedy template. It can't then be put back by the person who originally put it there. Speedy deletion is for deletions so uncontroversial that they do not need to be discussed in the normal way, which is blatantly not true in this case. Also note the WP:Speedy says: "If even only remotely plausible, a suspected hoax article should be subjected to further scrutiny in a wider forum. Note that "blatant and obvious hoaxes and misinformation" are subject to speedy deletion as vandalism."--Lo2u (T • C) 14:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Unnachamois claimed that "It is blindingly obvious that Apple are developing a tablet device!" You both seem to be having some trouble with WP:NPOV and the deletion policies. As I've pointed out elsewhere, all evidence in the article is the result of an echo chamber effect, and—intentional or not—this is indeed a blatant hoax. Egnalebd (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I have no opinion about whether this deserves to be deleted. Nor do I have any opinion about whether Apple is developing a tablet device. All I say is that it is Wikipedia policy that when a speedy template is removed, it stays removed. The page is now inelligible for speedy deletion, although it may be deleted through a more thorough process, such as the ongoing AFD. The Speedy template simply doesn't belong there. Your effort at speedy deletion has failed, best to leave it there. --Lo2u (T • C) 14:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Just as an aside: I apologies for saying "It is blindingly obvious that Apple are developing a tablet device!" Whilst this is my opinion, it was not appropriate here. Unnachamois (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

December discussion

Remember that the threshold for inclusion in the Wikipedia is notability, not truth. Please refrain from deleting items based on, for example, the belief that this is a "rumored" product. Already we have dozens of citations from reputable journalists who have gone on record as saying that the iSlate not only exists, but that they know the feature set of it. Likewise, if you wish to add something to the article, please include several citations. White 720 (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

>Already we have dozens of citations from reputable journalists who have gone on record as saying that the iSlate not only exists, but that they know the feature set of it.
This sounds exaggerated. Where are the dozen of references for this? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
On 28 DEC 2009, googling for iSlate returned 626000 results. I would assume that this qualifies as dozens. So, it's talked about ;-) Thyl Engelhardt 213.70.217.172 (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Google search counts are not a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Search_engine_test#Notability. Mdwh (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There are too many "facts" in this article and most can't be independently verified. In fact, many sources contradict each other so much that it seems silly to add them to the article for the sake of making it longer. 81.210.229.121 (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If you mean original research cannot be done, you are right, which is also in agreement with WP:NOR. However, there is more than enough reputable sources that have done the research, and if their 'facts' do not pan out in later time frames, then they will be replaced with ones that do. Hence the {{Crystal}} tag on the top of the article. LeyteWolfer (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
And this tag says something like "help improve this article by removing speculative content". If we do this, there will be not much left. This so-called article only repeats the rumours we have been hearing for so long in the press. What's its use? And I thought an encyclopdic article was about facts, not rumours ...--Sylvia Anna (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
This is not a site for "facts," Ms. Anna. This is a site for notable information. That Apple is introducing the iSlate is notable, even if it is not necessarily "true." Please stop modifying the article on the basis of trying to make it more "factual." That's not why it's here. 24.18.210.241 (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're just trying to wind people up, but you're really quite off the mark. This is absolutely a "site for facts" and Sylvia is right to be concerned about this article - it is highly speculative and is riding the knife's edge of being outright crystal balling. The only way it's acceptable is that it's (mostly) being phrased to comply with this sentence: It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.
First sentence of WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Many reliable sources have already commented that the iSlate is coming out soon, and as such this article includes reliable sources. 24.18.210.241 (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
For everyone getting more and more involved and more and more emotional about this article, I think it'd be good for you to remember that the announcement is going to be made in a couple of weeks and all of this will be cleared up. At that point 90% of the references in this article become pointless. If I were you guys, I'd just take a step back and wait for the official announcement, work done before that point is likely going to become obsolete immediately following it. TastyCakes (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
@24.18.210.241: I can't stop doing something I have not started doing so far.
I am very curious if the awaited announcement of this device will actually occur. And I am even more curious what will happen to this article if, on the 28th, we find out that it hasn't happened. A short notice about that in the article and more speculations? Well, I won't waste my time with working on an article about something that doesn't (yet) exist. And I won't spend more time with this discussion for now.--Sylvia Anna (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

iSlate Name is inappropriate

Since the iSlate is simply a speculative name theorized by some bloggers, it should not be the name of this page. Instead, it would be accurate and much less POV to call it the 'apple Tablet'. theBOBbobato (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Those "bloggers" have astutely pointed out that Apple owns the trademark and the domain name for iSlate. The device comes out in 24 days; is Apple really going to change the name of a product on such short notice? White 720 (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Pardon? As the article correctly says, the trademark belongs to another company. And islate.com, islate.net and islate.org also doesn't belong to Apple. So which islate domain to they supposedly own? And the claim that it will be presented on January 27 is only speculation.--Sylvia Anna (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
The domain islate.com is managed by markmonitor, which also managed iphone.com before apple officially released the iphone87.212.16.222 (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
And this proves what? It's only speculation like 99% of the article.--Sylvia Anna (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I also disagree. islate is the most likely name for this device. There are already referrals from 'Apple tablet' and 'itablet'. Nathanl1192 (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Reliable sources, not original research or speculation, please. Mdwh (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


To all the guys that thought calling it iSlate was ok since it was basically gonna be called that, HA ! Leprecon (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Proof?

I might have a bit of proof that it will be called iSlate. I emailed apple and they wrote back "As with any new product launch, the details are kept entirely confidential and Apple Store Staff are not made aware of this until launch day. It is Apple's policy not to disclose information on new products or pricing changes to staff and customers alike until the official product launch is announced." intreguing!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Farrelly-Spain (talk • contribs) 23:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice. Very nice. They wouldn't have said that were the iSlate "fake," as some would believe. White 720 (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Isn't this original research?
Isn't this original research? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.110.227.98 (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I just called Apple and they told me that they will bring out a refrigerator with an intigrated ipod and that all the iSlate talk is nonsense. --Blunt. (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

iSlateApple.org

A large number of references are from iSlateApple.org - what evidence is there that this constitutes a reliable source? This looks to be just a blog, maintained by a Steven Kane who does not appear to be an authority. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 - "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." Mdwh (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

And similarly for http://www.islate.org/, which is just a blog AFAICT. Mdwh (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
...and http://tastyslate.com/ . I think that most of the uses of these three blogs as refs are accompanied by other refs anyway, so we could easily remove them. Mdwh (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Lets Hold On For A While

Although all the information on this page may, for the present time be unverifiable, In a matter of days everything about Apples New Product will become obvious. Lets not delete and recreate this page 12 times between now and then. Leave the Speculation Tag and wait a few days. Once Apple comes out officially we can overhaul this page to fit everything real. I'm guessing that no one considers Apple to be a non-credible source. Utkarshshah007 (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how anything from this page could be kept, even if they do announce an ISlate, since it's currently all written as speculation? So we'll have to start from scratch whether the page is deleted or not. Articles should be written based on what's verifiable now, not on the promise that we'll find out in the future, honest. Mdwh (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I think I'm comfortable saying that despite the fact that you're right, if the page is deleted some hardcore Apple fans will re-create the page in a matter of seconds - might as well leave it alone. Random name (talk) 09:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps, but that's a poor reason! We should bend the rules because and change our decisions, because people might commit vandalism? If they recreate a deleted page, it can be speedy deleted. If they keep doing it, they get banned. Mdwh (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with both of you guys, but it seems to me the most practical (and least frustrating) thing to do is wait the two days or whatever until it's announced and then gut the article of all the garbage. TastyCakes (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Whatever the nature of rumours, this is certainly not a hoax page. It is well-sourced and not a candidate for speedy deletion - i.e. deletion without the usual AFD discussions. --Lo2u (T • C) 13:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
No one said it was a hoax, we said it was a bad article because all it was was a collection of rumours that barely stayed inside wp:crystal. TastyCakes (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, that was added to the end of the wrong section. It was in response to the readdition of the speedy template. --Lo2u (T • C) 19:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Accelerometer

Is this recorded to cut down on warranty costs, if its returned under warranty, they check the accelerometer history and say "its been dropped. no warranty" ????

AH, as well maybe its because the kindle dx has one too. "On May 6, 2009, Amazon announced the Kindle DX[21] which retails for $489.[22] It is the first Kindle model with an accelerometer, automatically rotating pages between landscape and portrait orientations if the device is turned on its side"

but still the warranty guys might like the idea of the accelerometer working even when the screen is off...


202.92.40.202 (talk) 07:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Images

Question on the images section. Well, two actually. First, since the "images" are just external links, shouldn't they be moved to the bottom of the page and called such? Second, one of them is a YouTube link; does't the external links policy generally frown on links to YouTube? Thanks. C628 (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

And...never mind. C628 (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Great minds think alike. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

iPad images for the media are available from Apple at http://www.apple.com/pr/products/ipad/ipad.html Whywhenwhohow (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Lack of multi-tasking?

one of the biggest shortcomings so far it the failure to demonstrate multi-tasking. Anyone have a reliable source echoing this concern? Ronnotel (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone rooted the phone yet? And the iPhone has lots of multi tasking, its just the users and the developers that don't have access to it. But Music and the Browser both run in the background. Mathiastck (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Where did you hear that the browser runs in the background? Tweisbach (talk) 08:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that this is one glaring omission in the article. It seems we do not have definitive sources which confirm whether the iPad will be able to multitask user-apps (like OSX) or not (like iPhone OS). --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Lack of multitasking is mentioned in these reliable sources[1][2] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Formatting

It's off. Mathiastck (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Page Move? Disambiguation?

Shouldn't it be at just Apple iPad and this as a disambig page? Consider that another company already released a device and trademarked the name previously? Fujitsu iPad (albeit lacks a wiki page) Uksam88 (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If Fujitsu's iPad is notable enough to get an article it can be disambiguated by adding a hatnote to the top of the page. Reach Out to the Truth 20:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Right; surely "iPad" will be referring to this Apple product than others for quite a while. Gary King (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Color or b/w screen

I assume it's color, but the article doesn't say anything. --RenniePet (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Really?? el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 20:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Really what?
Since I wrote my comment I can see that a picture has been added, which answers my question. The text still does not explicitly say "color", unless the various acronyms IPS, LCD or LED imply color, which is not obvious to me at least. --RenniePet (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone still make devices that are only black and white? I think my microwave has a colour screen. Maybe it should be mentioned for people reading this fifty years from now that don't know what our level of technology was. --174.91.8.92 (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Jeez, condescending know-it-alls, or what?
The Amazon Kindle, with which this device is being compared, has a b/w (grayscale) screen.
Never mind, I'll add the word "color" myself - for the sake of those 50 years from now.
--RenniePet (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
That's a good point, people were calling it a book reading device at first. Though I'm kind of disappointed to find out that I can't get colour picture books on a Kindle. --174.91.8.92 (talk) 04:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
That's because Kindle and the like don't have a "screen" at all. It is electronic paper. So dear Pet do us a favor, drop the irony and learn the difference between a computer, a book, and a brick before making such claims, ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.103.119.27 (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


youtube videos show it is Definitely colour —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.92.40.202 (talk) 07:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Why does user Lemery214 replacing the page with 'iPad is fail'? Do we need semi-protection for this page?EngineerFromVega (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No, the article does not need to be semiprotected if it's receiving vandalism primarily from a small number of users. That user that you are referring to has been blocked. Gary King (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

ARM?

Where is the evidence that the A4 is ARM based? If it's been made in house by PA-Semi won't it be Power based.. considering this is where PA-Semi's expertise are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.34.191 (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It runs existing apps which are ARM binaries, and software emulation would very likely degrade perf & battery life.

Agreed. It is ARM based. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.9.210 (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Column headers for Hardware table makes no sense

Every time I try to edit the article, I get an edit conflict. Anyway, the column headers (Model, Early 2010) for the table in the Hardware section don't describe the data contained in the columns. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I used the tables from Macbook, I think they make sense.--Terrillja talk 21:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
You're right. The Macbook article uses the same format. But it still doesn't make sense. The 'model' column doesn't contain a list of models. The "Early 2010" column doesn't contain anything related to dates. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
It makes sense once you have multiple models. You read it horizontally, the stats are in the column under the model and the models are the title for each column.--Terrillja talk 02:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Download Google Books?

EPUB is the format Google uses for its downloadable out-of-copyright books, so presumably they will be readable on the iPad.

MoreThings (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

SIM card or micro-SIM card?

Steve Jobs' presentation seemed to say that the 3G versions would use the micro-SIM card, but http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/ just says SIM card. Is there a reliable source for this yet? 79.65.8.58 (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Dates should in US form

The first reference/date use in the article used US date form, all other dates should use that same form for consistency (see WP:DATE). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The first in history or the first in article? if the seconds, it's irrelevant, as it's history that counts. →AzaToth 23:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah in history (the earliest dated reference), not the first date at the top of the article :p. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

iPad magic claim

Regardless of Apple's claim on their website that the iPad is "magical" the article shouldn't say that the iPad is a magical device because its just an advertising slogan that doesn't mean Apple think the device has magical powers. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, of course I agree with you. Is someone reverting you? (I can't find the edit that is adding this; just way too many edits to go through.) Gary King (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but its been re-removed so it should be fine. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
If Apple has found a way to contain sorcery in an electronic device, it is extremely notable. I say include. --174.91.8.92 (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) I just watched the video again. It doesn't claim that the device is magic. It does, however, allude to Arthur C. Clarke's third law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." —DoRD (?) (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Apple's statement of magic was properly sourced and should be readded to this article. Are there currently any other tablets that are willing to claim (and thus under penalty from false advertising laws if lying) they're magic? NOTE-AH-BULL. --208.38.59.163 (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Using apple's marketing language is not the purpose of an article. It should be removed. Unless it's included under "marketing" or "advertising".
Besides, "magical" is commonly used without implying actual magic (look it up). Seeing this as a "magical powers" claim is clearly absurd.Ashlandgeek (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2010 (UT

Article Protection

Can somebody who knows how to do it suggest that this article be semiprotected. This is not to guard against opinions, but to prevent the vandalism that's happening. People are very likely to be checking the article now for information on the iPad and the information has to be reliable and without the vandalism damaging it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varunpramanik (talk • contribs) 23:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism seems to be reverted very quickly, so semiprotection is not really needed. Some of these anonymous edits are helpful contributions. Gary King (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Not necessarily. I can't even revert the vandalism before more comes up. Yodaat (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Meh okay, I just came back after being away from this article for a few hours, so I see now that it's ramped up significantly. It looks like someone just semied it. Gary King (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


Can someone PLEASE unprotect this goddam thing. I was just about to make some EXTREMELY constructive edits that would really shape this article, had been doing so already, and then WHAM. THIS ARTICLE IS SEMI-PROTECTED. For fucks sake. This is a community hardly limited to you SPECIAL registered users. You think because a person is registered they aren't still vandals? Wikipedia, grow up and handle the onslaught of vandalism. This is obviously an important article that NEEDS the aid of it's top contributer. Also known as, ANONYMOUS. >=(—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.4.228 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

dear anonymous there are so many vandals that we cannot keep up. without semi protection the iPad would "run on MS-DOS and suck you off every day to make you whine like a sissy girl" there is a way to request that edits be made to the article called editprotected or something like that andyzweb (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
You may request changes here. In addition you could sign up for an account, it's free.—Totie (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Someone on WP:RFP questioned whether protection was appropriate, given that we typically don't protect the front page FA. But the edit volumes aren't in the same ballpark. Featured article, Marjory Stoneman Douglas got about 60 edits (including vandalism and reverts) in the day it was on the main page. iPad was getting up to nine edits per minute - that's about 500 times more activity. At that point the latencies inherent in the web interface mean the article disintegrates under the weight of vandalism and botched repair. Even semiprotected it's getting about one edit per minute, or 50 Stonemans. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 02:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 24h (for a start) and keep at least ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 Done--Oneiros (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I upped it to three days. Let's not disappear threads too quickly and fill the archives with duplicate topics. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 12:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

3G Plan Cost?

The article says it is $29.99/month for 1 GB, but the citation says it is $29.99 for unlimited data. Anyone want to fix the article, or cite the proper source if the current citation is wrong? http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/01/27/atts_no_contract_ipad_data_plans_run_15_mo_250mb_30_unlimited.html Trailmixjustin (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair use image

I'm pretty sure the image violates WP:NONFREE. "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created". The interface obviously has no equivalent, but for the device itself there defiantly will be. That the iPad hasn't been released yet doesn't matter according to the policy, especially since an iPad already exists. -- Austin512 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Other carrier

Can we use T-Mobile or other carrier? If not, then why is it still exclusive to AT&T when contract is not part of deal anymore? I would like to try Verizon since they have a better map coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.80.33 (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes you can, it is unlocked. Source: [3] Mushroom (Talk) 20:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Content mentioning Kindle

The following:

Rumors of Apple's introduction of a ebook device spurred Amazon to reduce prices of books sold to be read on their Kindle.http://www.macrumors.com/2010/01/20/amazon-tweaks-kindle-store-royalty-program-ahead-of-apple-tablet-launch/

Was removed from the page. What MacRumors says seems to be reasonable for inclusion. Thoughts? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 01:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, is macrumors.com a reliable source? If it is, surely it's at the lower end of the spectrum (it's hardly the New York Times). Secondly they only say it is "sparking speculation", and they don't say who is speculating. So it's an unsourced speculation reposted 2nd hand by a poor source. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 01:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Its one of the biggest Mac blogs so it is fairly reliable. And ArsTechnica are saying similar things and they are one of the most reliable tech sites (and probably are an NYT equivalent). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 01:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
They only say the Amazon change "comes just a week before the expected launch of an Apple tablet, which some believe may aim directly at the Kindle". The sentence you think is reasonable for inclusion says that rumours of iPad "spurred Amazon to reduce prices". Those two don't at all mean the same thing; the first is just them observing something, the second is a flat statement of why Amazon did what they did. We can, and probably should, add to the article that Amazon changed its pricing a few days before the iPad announcement, but claiming that iPad is the definite cause is pure, and unsourced, speculation. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 01:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah OK, I see you're point, they are different. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I've added some content to the article, which is (hopefully) clear to say that Apple didn't spur Amazon to change their prices. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Accessories list is incomplete.

The list of accessories does not mention the keyboard with dock, ability to use the Apple Bluetooth keyboard, VGA video adapter or composite video for TV adapter. 66.32.215.205 (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The "Reception" section cites Leo Laporte claiming a lack of video output. If indeed there is a VGA adapter that provides video out, this should be noted in that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.203.7 (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Memory upgrades

Would it be possible to buy a 16gb unit and upgrade it to 64gb at a later time? Either through Apple or some third party, doesn't matter. With the economy the way it is, I'm sure a lot of people would like to get in for as little as possible. Can the iPad be upgraded beyond 64gb when higher density chips become available? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.221.144 (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Of course not. Because this article is being written by the resident, unpaid apple sales team. Sick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.9.210 (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section

Do we really need a separate section for criticism? Can't it be worked into the rest of the article's text as required? That seems like a better way to do it personally (see WP:CRITS in the rules). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we're supposed to have a criticism section. It should be in the reception section or worked into the rest of the article's text. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Why dont we discuss about removing limitations section before removing it Sameerb (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You're adding new content that is controversial, so unfortunately you'll have to justify it before it is added. It hasn't been in the article long enough to have been accepted by default. The problem is the information should be covered in the "reception" section or elsewhere and there is a consensus not to have a criticism section.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The limitations of the ipad is being *widely* discussed in many reputable sources. It's not "controversial" just because you dont agree.

Okay amended limitations to comparison. Sameerb (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Then it needs to include which devices you are comparing the iPad against. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, done Sameerb (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There should be a seperate criticism section. There are plenty of other related (tech product) articles that have them. There certaily can be one here.

For instance, Information Week makes this criticism; http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2010/01/10_things_the_a.html;jsessionid=NVD0455JBDNHJQE1GHPCKH4

It's not "reception", but actual criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.29.168 (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Most articles that deal with something that has been criticized, have a criticism section. This page should not be considered "special."Halofanatic333 (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Yet, no criticism section has yet been added.
More clear critical sources:
http://www.defectivebydesign.org/ipad "iPad DRM endangers our rights"
http://www.maclife.com/article/feature/what_apple_left_out "7 Essential Features Left Off of the iPad"
Where is the neutrality in this article? It reads like marketing directly from apple.
So please be bold and add the content to the relevant section of the article. Or if you aren't able to do so due to the semi-protection write it here and someone else will add it. I don't see why criticism cannot be added in the appropriate place without a criticism section... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

New Articles for Inclusion in Criticism Section

http://www.maclife.com/article/feature/what_apple_left_out http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2010/01/10_things_the_a.html;jsessionid=NVD0455JBDNHJQE1GHPCKH4ATMY32JVN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.29.168 (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Dubious: iWork completely rewritten

Irrespective of Apple's advertising, I doubt iWork was completely rewritten; it was likely a port of the OSX version w/ a iPad UI & changes to make it more efficient with respect to memory and cpu time. Justin Ormont (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I have removed the word "completely". Mushroom (Talk) 22:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.38.28 (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I was about to suggest removing the word "completely" but someone beat me to it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 Done. Great minds think alike :D Mushroom (Talk) 23:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Mad TV parody

Apparently Mad TV did a parody some years ago and made up a product called the "iPad" from Apple, parodying the "iPod" apparently as a new feminine hygiene product. It does deserve a mention as it is prior mention of the name, could have legal ramifications, and is a very popular topic on youtube with well over 500,000 views on at least one bootlegged version of the video spoof. Mrrealtime (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that is necessary since it appears to be a complete considence. I also don't see how there could be any legal conquences. I can't see how Apple could sue Mad TV since the name iPad was not in use and unless MAD TV tradmarked the name for the spoff they could not sue Apple either.--76.66.180.98 (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I do think it should be included. The popular idea for "pad" (feminine hygene) sense is being widely discussed. The MADtv skit is evidence of this. This skit is being widely viewed as a result.
This user is not the first to suggest it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.38.28 (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Again, this seems like unnecessary trivia. Can we have a serious article, please? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I concur, there is no need to include it in the article. Mushroom (Talk) 02:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Many other articles, such as those dealing with films and books, have sections detailing the cultural significance of the topic of the article. I don't see why this should be any different, and the fact that the Mad TV item is retroactive is sort of interesting in itself. Kid Bugs (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
But there is nothing significant to say about it. It would at most be a single sentence. Mushroom (Talk) 03:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Disagree, in fact, the discussion around the name -- it's relation to a feminine hygene product -- is being very widely discussed; it's on twitter, in forums everywhere. It's _so clear_ that MADtv even made a skit *before* the product was announced. A few sentances about the popular term and the MADtv could be written thusly; "The similarity to a feminine hygene product, the maxi pad, is a widely used meme. MADtv had the forthought to make a skit X years before the product was announced." : ASg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.38.28 (talk • contribs)
Further evidence of the obviousness of the existing meme.
"_One day of period jokes later, the snickering over Apple's new iPad is hard to avoid._"
http://jezebel.com/5458596/will-period-jokes-hurt-the-ipad

Due to the fact that this is fast becoming a popular internet meme, I've added a link to the MADtv episode guide for the iPad parody skit to a 'see also' section. Any further mention will likely be reverted by the Wiki-Police, but I think this one reference is notable, relevant, and should be included. WTF? (talk) 04:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that a parody product shown on a comedy skit with an unfortunately coincidental name five years ago has any relevance to an article dealing with a consumer electronic product. I don't think MADtv was prescient in seeing the future of Apple, and I don't think a juvenile joke is "prediction". Remove it. Every stupid meme on the Internet does not need its own blurb on Wikipedia. This isn't a comedy club. Jparenti (talk) 06:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly. Mushroom (Talk) 06:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Then the deletionists really have won out, and obviously WP:OWN this article. WTF? (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Disagree, its extremely important and the product and skit are quickly becoming synonymous in popular culture at an almost unprecidented rate. Since the announcement, the MadTV video on youtube has received at least a million hits, probably much more, and bloggers, pundits, even Pee Wee Herman has made reference to this comparison in a funnyordie.com video that is rapidly becoming an extremely popular video itself. Fan or not of the product, the influence and use of the MadTV parody is extremely significant and bootlegged copies of it have actually eclipsed bootlegs of the official Apple iPad video on youtube in terms of popularity. Its important to use WIKI to provide useful information for people, flattering to the product or not, and in this case, one cannot fully understand the zeitgeist concerning this product without learning about this situation.Mrrealtime (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's official: iPad is the name (Why not hype-ad?)

According to PC World, Apple has announced that it's named the iPad.[4] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That prevents the 2nd version being called the i-maxi ..202.92.40.202 (talk) 07:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


iPad is also...

Let's prepare the disambiguation page :-)

Fujitsu's product is called iPAD, not iPad. This device looks more like a PDA, so in the name of this device, PAD here may be stand for Personal Assistant Device. --SH9002 (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, in the interest of neutrality, perhaps iPad ITSELF needs to be the disambiguation. The previous two iPad products have been in existence longer... And given that technically, right now, Apple is infringing on Fujitsu's trademark, it might wind up that Apple may, in fact, be forced to re-name their product. So making the predominant "iPad" article for the tablet PC might be a biased choice. Nottheking (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, PAD is not Pad. When i read that news, it's clear, PAD is an abbreviation, the iPAD stands much likely for i + Personal Assistant Device (PAD). --SH9002 (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The name of a corded data entry device made by MagTek, Inc. It is mostly used for the input of personal identification numbers at sales registers when paying by debit card. I also suggest that all instances of iPad (IPAD, iPAD, ipad ....) link first to the disambiguation page Christophercorn (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Screen resolution

Screen resolution isn't definite. It looks like it's a bit greater than 960x640. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JMS3072 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Just because he said 'double the pixels' of the iPhone's resolution, doesn't mean it is literally double. --TMC1221 (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

removed the section for now until a definitive source with the correct resolution is posted riffic (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Pixel doubling means exactly doubling. 1 pixel will be 4 pixels with doubling. At least iPad have the double of iphone screen, so 960x640 is a minimum `a5b (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I do believe that the doubling means doubling, but if you look at the demo images, there's a border around the "doubled" app that's used for statusbars, etc.JMS3072

Apple states that the display is 1024-by-768-pixel resolution at 132 pixels per inch Hybirdd (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Protection

Since the name is now confirmed perhaps the protection should be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.49.209 (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict) I honestly don't think so. The iPad will be pretty big in the press for a few days. I suggest a week at least, until all the hubble from today dies off. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree, the page needs protection from new users, because it is very hot device. `a5b (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

actually thinking about it you are right it will be a big mess if protection is removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.49.209 (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

too bad.. the typos will remain there then 78.54.11.63 (talk)

Protection should be reactive, not proactive. It should be unlocked until the vandalism is so bad that the dozens, if not hundreds, of editors that are watching this article are not able to contain it with rollbacks.—NMajdan•talk 19:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, well said. Now that there are actually articles available to use as references, we can keep the article unlocked until things get really bad. Gary King (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

disagree with move

All the crap on this talk page and the islate article are irrelevant now that it has been launched. Just creates a mess that should be deleted. What do you think? Do people need to be bothered that it was nominated for deletion twice? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

What move are you talking about? There is no ongoing AfD and the article hasn't been moved since the announcement. Gary King (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I assume he was referring to the previous discussion from before the move confusing people. But now that it's been archived and the AFD links moved into the "Article milestones" box, that shouldn't be an issue any more. All the discussion currently on the talk page is current discussion. Reach Out to the Truth 20:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Does the move have any benefit? The previous discussion is now hidden. The page history has rumor and speculation about islate. Messy in my opinion. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm, so what alternative are you suggesting? Creating a new page at iSlate containing the information found in the previous article? Why not just include any rumor information pre-release into the History section, if any of that is really notable? Gary King (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm suggesting: For future, don't move. Just create article from scratch, which is what essentially has happened, except now we have garbage history and garbage milestones in the discussion. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like a bad idea, creating attribution problems amongst other things. If you think it best, feel free to archive discussions which are no longer relevant Nil Einne (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Twitter jokes

I concur with 130.218.80.5 assessment: "I don't see how gossip from Twitter, less than 24 hours old no less, deserves a place on a Wikipedia entry. It's drivel." I don't want to edit-war over this but I think it's meaningless trivia. It should be deleted from the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hitting #1 as a trending topic seems kinda interesting and it has been picked up by the mainstream media but I see your point. If you want to remove it, maybe I was being overzealous with the revert to re-add it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
If the name "iTouch" isn't common enough to mention in the iPod Touch article, then the "iTampon" name for sure isn't common enough to mention here. --174.91.8.92 (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'll go with that, it should be removed then IMO. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Both decisions - to maintain apple branding w/r/t ipod touch vs. itouch and iTampon are a result of the POV:Positive nature of all things apple on wikipedia. It should be included in BOTH instances.
The extremely lame "iTampon" joke should be removed from the iPad article as soon as possible. Seriously, is this an encyclopedia or a middle school bathroom wall? Who gives a shit about a sophomoric joke that briefly "hit #1 as a trending topic" on Twitter? Obviously all the Twitter dorks that keep posting it here - but the rest of the world doesn't, and it just looks bad having silly content like this on Wikipedia where people expect to find factual articles. Hyperion395 (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I vote for removal too. It's idiotic. The word "pad" has dozens of other meanings (landing pad, brake pad, pad of paper, pads on a cat's paw, etc. etc.), so we should also cater to the snickering adolescent masses' opinions about those items? --RenniePet (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
We should remind ourselves that there is nothing non-factual about the existence of the jokes, and whilst it may detract from our morally perfect view of the world, it is nonetheless a real, valid, and noteworthy reaction. If appropriately reported, we can reflect the existence of the "humor" without censure or censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.197.55.16 (talk) 11:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
You should have learned by now WP users have no sense of humour. While "iTampon" is lame, there should be mention of the widespread jokes regarding the pad=feminine hygiene product and MadTV skit. It's gotten as much, if not more, media attention than the lack of flash or built-in camera. As person above says, if appropriately reported should be coolbeans. --208.38.59.163 (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not that Wikipedia users universally lack a sense of humour (though of course some do), it's that they want material in articles to be notable and recognized as such in reliable sources. I don't think twitter streams qualify as that, but as you say there are other more notable sources commenting on the name choice. The choice of including it or not is going to be a matter of notability, and I think it's too early to say if the "joke" has enough importance and sticking power to merit long term inclusion in the article. TastyCakes (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
References to this are widely spread -- beyond twitter, even MADtv anticipated this -- it is notable. Just because it is not flattering to the the product, doesnt make this not noteworthy. References to MADtv and others should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.9.210 (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the iPad skit from MADTv is notable. They came up with the name at least good three years before the product was released, with the joke that it served as a woman's portable menstrual control device, though it clearly parodied the iPod commercials. There is a video at YouTube for verification. Verification beyond that would need some additional stable source. -- Riffsyphon1024 (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Every source I have seen has stated something to the effect of the blogsphere went crazy, yada yada. Unreliable and generally insignificant. I fear that this will be a recurring problem as we have every 12 year old think it would be hilarious to add what they heard about on twitter though. Give it 1 week and no one will care.--Terrillja talk 21:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

What about just adding a link to Maxipad in a 'see also' section and be done with it? WTF? (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
And then people would wonder what that has to dow with anything. I think the best course of action is to stop and see what the reliable media says in a few days when they have their own impressions rather than reporting on "the blogsphere" (which is pretty general) and we can go from there.--Terrillja talk 22:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added the following information about the name to an 'in popular culture' section of the article. I believe that this is relevant, since it is the first use of the name (which originated in 2005). The information is also cited appropriately as well (additionally, numerous videos of the sketch are on Youtube). WTF? (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The name iPad was actually coined during the November 5, 2005 episode of MADtv starring Arden Myrin and Daniele Gaither, which featured a parody of an Apple product, similar to an iPod but with a similar function to a maxipad.[1]
I have removed the section since there is no consensus to include it. There is also no indication that MADtv coined the term. Mushroom (Talk) 02:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
It should be added back in. Most people coming to this article are expecting to see something about maxipads. Especially considering the Twitter thing. I think when the dust settles, this WILL end up back in. Just because you don't like the "joke" doesn't mean that it's irrelevant.
If anything, there should at least be an "other uses" link added to the top, with a link to the MADtv episode description. WTF? (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
As Terrillja said above, let's wait a few days. Mushroom (Talk) 02:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Mushroom, I'm glad to see that some maturity has been injected into this discussion. To all you iTampon fans out there... it's a lame joke for starters, secondly statements like "Most people coming to this article are expecting to see something about maxipads" sound flat out stupid and ridiculous. Perhaps what the user really meant is "Most prepubescent boys coming to this article..." or "When I come to this article...". The only way a maxipad is the first thing in your head when you hear the word "pad" is if you are a woman on the rag or a little boy obsessed with vaginas and anything related to them. What's next? Is Dick Armey's page going to have a caption that says "HAHA his name means an ARMY OF DICKS!!!" - seriously, there's already too many lame sex related jokes in real life, I don't need to see them on my Wikipedia when I'm trying to learn more about a new piece of technology. 24.126.131.145 (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up! Headed over to Dick Armey right now! ;-) WTF? (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
To me it's not about the joke, but about Apple's choice of names that triggered an unfavorable reaction. Since the product isn't released, popular responses online and in the press are relevant to the product. Jessamyncp (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a well-cited reference to the naming controversy should be re-added, given the notability of sources and the serious questions being raised about the positions (or lack thereof) of women among Apple's executives. As mentioned in sections below, we're no longer talking about adding direct references to Twitter trends and a MadTV sketch, but notable sources. I also don't see the need to wait multiple days to determine whether the questions being raised are notable; it seems at least as notable as individual columnists' reactions to the technical specs or likely sales. If the article has a section on "Reception", surely a distinct, wide-spread reaction like this one is important to include. Npdoty (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Added Features missing section

To provide readers with a more balanced view of the iPad, I think the iPad article should list features which are not included in the phone. With this they can better compare the iPad with other products like other products. It will allow them to better handle a feature-to-feature comparison with competing products, like other tablet computers, netbooks, eReaders and smart phones. Please add to the list and help format. Justin Ormont (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The following are absent features:

  • Camera
  • Video conferencing
  • Ability to run non-iPhone/non-iPad apps
  • Flash compatibility
  • OLED screen
  • USB
  • GPS
  • Multitasking
  • Built-in physical keyboard
  • 16:9 display aspect ratio for watching movies, etc
  • HDMI
  • Drag and Drop File Management (must use iTunes to manage content)
  • Removable battery
  • USB Port for accessories (with the exception of a limited camera connector)
  • Standard USB power connector
  • SD slot/expandable memory
  • 1080p Playback
  • An Open SDK (apps must be approved by Apple)
  • Standard SIM card support (one cannot take the SIM card from their iPhone and put it into the iPad)
  • Enhanced multi-touch support, like pressure sensitivity (supports only the multi-touch features in the iPhone)
  • WiFi syncing of content
  • Ability to run desktop applications
  • Tethering

References:

- Justin Ormont (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional References of Missing Features;
http://www.maclife.com/article/feature/what_apple_left_out
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2010/01/10_things_the_a.html;jsessionid=NVD0455JBDNHJQE1GHPCKH4ATMY32JVN
I'm sorry, but I don't think such a list is a good idea. Where does such a list end? "Can't make toast", "can't be used as hammer" etc? Better, I think, to have a criticism section (or the equivalent of) where reliable sources complain about the lack of one thing or another. Observing things to be "missing" is just projecting what we, as editors, think should be in the device, which I would say classifies as original research and isn't appropriate. TastyCakes (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Definitely not a good idea. I removed the section because it will never end. There will always be a device out there that has something the iPad does not. Essentially, the section is somewhere that lists all the things that people wish the device had, which of course will really never end. Also, you say that it's used to compare to other devices. I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not a shopping guide. Gary King (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I would rather we didn't have a criticism section and I see no reason we can't work criticism into the rest of the article, but I'd rather have a criticism section than this as as you guys say it'll go on and on. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
For sure criticism should be included in the article. However, it should only be from reliable sources (i.e. no blogs; use PC World, Macworld, New York Times, etc.) Also, criticism fits just fine in the Reception section; there is no need for a separate criticism section. Gary King (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

However, if Apple has continually brought out products with many of these features (USB's, camera's, application support and an SDK, etc.), why downgrade to what is essentially a big, crappy iPhone? I mean, to me, it just seems as though the iPad is a few years short of finished. There's just so much that we as consumers expect in a product these days, and it's up to the producer to meet those standards. Apple is a pretty reliable company, but I wouldn't expect a tidal wave of sales on the iPad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.57.109 (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I came to this article to see how "open" the ipad was going to be and this article gave me no clue, so I think that the bit about the non-open SDK should be included. I may add something myself if i get some time. -- 99.52.85.117 (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


IF not a "Features Missing", then a "Criticism" section is FINALLY due?
The reception section is POV:Positive, the iTampon meme is "not old enough", and all the reams of criticisms are barely mentioned, and yet the article grows and grows as an advertisement (yet again) for apple on wikipedia.

Missing Features / Criticism Table

The amount of criticism -- not merely "reception", but actual criticism -- is worthy of a Criticism (preferred) or Missing Features section (as justin said; to aid comparing "ipad like other products.", I'm sure there are additional equally worthy sources, but this table illistrates the need for a Criticism Section;

Criticism/Missing Feature CNN[5] Mashable[6] TUAW[7] ZDNet[8] MacLife[9] InformationWeek[10] Wired[11] CNet[12] Gizmodo[13]
No Flash x x x x x x x
No OLED x x
No USB x x x x x x x
No GPS x x x x x
No Multitasking x x x x x x x
No Keyboard x x x
No Camera x x x x x x x x x
No Verizon x x x x
No T-Mobile x
No 16:9 x x x x x x
No HDMI x x x x x x
No Drag 'n' Drog File Management x
No SD Slot x
No HD Playback x x
No Open SDK x
No Notifications x x
No Enhanced multitouch x x
No TV Content x x
No Connection Sharing x
No Voice Support x
No Textbooks x
No Background Applications x
No New OS x
No Tablet Innovation x
No Standard SIM x x
No OSX x x
No VoIP x
No Larger HDs x
No Removeable Battery x
No Netbook Competition x
No Narrow Bezel x
No Open Ecosystem x

Feminine Hygiene Product controversy / iTampon meme

"Will Period Jokes hurt the ipad?" "One day of period jokes later, the snickering over Apple's new iPad is hard to avoid" http://jezebel.com/5458596/will-period-jokes-hurt-the-ipad

"That Time Of The Month: The Best Period-Related iPad Jokes" "Like a Tampon. Only more expensive"[img] "From Twitter (for what it's worth, #iTampon is apparently the number three trending topic on the site.):" http://jezebel.com/5458338/that-time-of-the-month-the-internets-best-period+related-ipad-jokes

"The iPad’s Name Makes Some Women Cringe" "When Apple announced the name of its tablet computer today — the iPad — my mind immediately went to the feminine hygiene aisle of the drugstore. It turns out I wasn’t alone" http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/the-ipads-name-makes-some-women-cringe/

I propose a new section be added, "Name Controversy" with the following language;

"The name 'ipad' was seen by many as a puzzling choice. The name quickly draws to mind a popular feminine product, the MaxiPad. The name "itampon" quickly rose to prominence on twitter. In an act of premonition, MADtv made a skit on the idea X years ago." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.38.28 (talk) 05:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

and this has been noted as well by CNN - are there any reasons after all this attention to keep removing the bit about the name? riffic (talk) 06:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
There's no controversy -- just a lot of anti-Apple fanboys with dumb jokes. Do you giggle at the grocery store when you see melons on sale? Do you guffaw every time you use a pad of paper? Please tell me you don't head into the meat department and snicker when you see sausages in the deli case. Grow up. It's not notable that a comedy skit from 2005 "predicted" the name of a future Apple product. It's bias. Leave it out. Also, there are already two sections above this one that deal with this subject. Please add commentary to an existing section to avoid clutter and confusion. Jparenti (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Please, dont call names; assume good faith. You're talking about the NYT, CNN and Jezebel (Gawker) -- these are credible sources. It's not bias, it's genuine controversy. It's widely discussed, it is a popular meme. It should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.38.28 (talk) 07:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. And what about the ThinkPad? Is its name controversial? No, and so isn't iPad. Mushroom (Talk) 06:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
No one says that about thinkpad. Thinkpad is not relevant to this discussion. However, they *are* saying it about the ipad-- CNN, NYT and plenty others are discussing it -- why is it being suppressed?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.38.28 (talk) 06:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

MadTV and Twitter meme

I have removed the MadTV/Twitter meme paragraph again. There seem to be quite a few editors disagreeing with its inclusion, so if someone wants to add it back please make a proposal on this talk page before re-adding it, so it can be properly discussed. Thanks. Mushroom (Talk) 06:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

this is being widely reported, as seen at this cnn article. Please discuss why it should be removed before removing it. riffic (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
In the interest of time, I will direct you to read the sections above where this has been struck down multiple times.--Terrillja talk 06:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
If you had taken the time to read the talk page before adding that paragraph back, you would have seen that this issue has already been discussed. We shouldn't add everything that is reported, just what is encyclopedic, and the whole MadTV/Twitter meme story isn't. You can find the reasons above, both in my words and in those of other editors. Mushroom (Talk) 06:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I dont understand the logic in preventing it. It's a widely remarked meme, it is not "obscure". Perhaps not to some editors taste, it's factual. It even got an article in the NYT. That's not noteable enough? What's going on here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.38.28 (talk) 07:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
This from CNN:
"iPad name draws feminine hygiene jokes....New Apple product called the "iPad" is mocked online...Bloggers say the computer sounds like a feminine hygiene product...Punch lines about hygiene products flooded the blogosphere on Wednesday only moments after Apple Inc. announced it would call its new touch-screen computer the "iPad."
Without a -doubt- it is within Wikipedia standard to include this controversy in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.38.28 (talk) 07:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about notability, I just said that story is not encyclopedic and not relevant to the scope of this article. We're building an encyclopedia here, not a news wire service. We're not required to add a link to any CNN article that comes out. And even if we consider notability, do you think anyone will remember about this meme in a year's time? I don't think so. Mushroom (Talk) 07:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I do. Why? Because the MADtv forsaw it. It's clearly not going away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.38.28 (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Mushroom, you keep moving the target. the main objection in the various threads above was notability, so when sources were brought out your current objection is (the conveniently difficult to define) "unencyclopedic". what next, dude? riffic (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Nope, it's still the same argument, unencyclopedic information which is not directly relevant to the article should not be in. Wikipedia is not a tabloid.--Terrillja talk 07:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Citing from the policy:
While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.
And again:
Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Wikipedia and encyclopedias generally. A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article.
And again:
The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance. Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article.
There's a difference between what is notable for a newspaper and what qualifies for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Do you get my point now? Mushroom (Talk) 08:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Your argument seems to center around it _lasting_ to be included. Yet, the assocation and meme is so great that MADtv *predicted* it. It is such a clear and obvious idiom, that news coverate reports the _overwhelming and immediate_ association. It's very clear that his name will stick, and that it is significant concern (Wired asked "do any women work at apple?").
Yes, this is not a tabloid, but as time goes on, it's clear that the entire article is being massaged (as usual) (see reception, see the resistance to a criticism section) into an advertisement for apple. The exclusion of the (obvious) iTampon references are an attempt to save face for apple, and to keep the article POV:Positive.
I am firm, this should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.38.28 (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


  • Do not include MadTV or twitter but include the Naming controversy - I don't believe the 'MadTV and Twitter meme' is what is relevant here or that either of those things should be included. Instead what should be mentioned is that there has been considerable discussion/analysis regarding the name of the product by major tech sources. Some of the links provided, like the CNN one, have mentioned that the name has been linked to negative attitudes in women. -- GateKeeper (talk) @ 13:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I think that we should have MadTV and Twitter as evidence of the cultural significance, and evidence/elements of the controversy. The section name shouldnt say "madtv" or "twitter", but they should be mentioned in the section.

Regarding products reviews in the reception section

i am not sure if reviews in the reception section are applicable as of now, since this product has just been announced, and most of those so call "tech bloggers" have never even touch it yet. Therefore, i think we should remove all product reviews in that section for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.231.211 (talk) 07:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The media that were at the Apple event have had their hands on it...--Terrillja talk 07:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Official Image?

Hi there, I couldn't help but notice that Apple has "product information for media" on their website for each of their products. I hope I'm not making an obvious mistake, but are we allowed to use these images for the Wikipedia articles? It just seems to make more sense. Information for iPad

Karandr (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No we aren't. Those images are copyrighted and our fair use policy is very restrictive. Basically, if a free alternative can reasonably created we are not allowed to use them at all. In this case, we already have a few free ones and it will be very easy to take some more once the iPad goes on sale. Mushroom (Talk) 10:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

iPad (disambiguation) ?

Like iPhone (disambiguation) ... a pre-existing product used the name "iPhone", as here, a pre-existing product uses the name "iPad"... should a dab page be built?

70.29.210.242 (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Walt Mossberg quotation

The quotation by Walt Mossberg in which he says, "It's about the software, stupid," follows a paragraph discussing Leo Laporte's views. It reads as though Mossberg is calling Laporte stupid. If this isn't true, then could somebody rewrite it so that it doesn't seem that way? --Bando26 (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've improved it a bit. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


Mono or Stereo Speakers

(update: Single/Mono, officially stated by Apple) Various sources show only one speaker, but at http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/ it says "Built-in speakers". Ilounge had hands on and report a single mono speaker. The Apple.com site is wrong. http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/backstage/comments/first-look-in-progress-apple-ipad-and-tons-of-new-details-to-share/

Interesting...iLounge doesn't specifically say that it's stereo or mono, but does use the singular for speaker whereas Apple's site uses the plural (speakers). You might be right, I'm not sure. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It´s me again, JPR, the guy that started this section. I´ll get around to making a login soon. Apple just changed the tech page to reflect that it only has one speaker. See the changelog here: http://www.changedetection.com/log/apple/specs8_log.html The specs can now be changed on wikipedia to state "Built-in speaker" not "speakers". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.91.241.70 (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Reception, Leo Laporte

Leo doesn't stream just to uStream, he streams on his own site (using BitGravity) at live.twit.tv. Should be attributed as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.168.181 (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Instead, it should simply be said "streamed" - no tnecessary to list the available aggregators.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.38.28 (talk) 23:49, January 29, 2010
 Done. I have removed that part of the sentence. Mushroom (Talk) 00:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

In the reception section it claims that Leo Laporte said that Apple "has not yet cleared Skype", yet Skype has been available on the App Store for sometime. Perhaps Google Voice is what was intended. Tweisbach (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I have removed that claim too. Mushroom (Talk) 05:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Laporte also reportedly claims a lack of video out, but the specifications on the Apple site (not to mention the demo itself) show that 720p out is available with VGA adapter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.203.7 (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

iPAD redirection

I created the iPAD page to redirect to iPad (disambiguation) is this what should happen or should it redirect straight to the Fujitsu iPAD or even this article? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Well given the disambiguation name has been removed (as per WP:D I guess) that isn't an option, so for now iPAD redirects here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
The WP:D seems to direct the need for a disambiguation page. It should be re-added.  Not done
No, because there are currently only 2 articles. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I find the section Other products unnecessary, as it has nothing to do with the Apple iPad. It should either be moved to an disambiguation or removed. Since we already have a hatnote, I'm for the latter.—Totie (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This Wired article states that the reason it can't be preordered is that it isn't even legal yet. It hasn't been approved by the FCC. Though it's really just a technicality, and it most likely will be approved without any issues. But it's interesting nonetheless. WTF? (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Common with any electronic device pretty much. The FCC got a rep for leaking upcoming products, so now manufacturers announce and then get approval.--Terrillja talk 01:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Current comparison to Netbooks in Reception

Presently, the reception section, in comparison to netbooks says; "Others said the iPad would also compete with proliferating netbooks, most of which use Microsoft Windows.[20]"

I propose it be changed to say; "Others said the iPad would also compete with proliferating netbooks, most of which use Microsoft Windows.[20] Though, CNet lists the functional shortcomings compared to Netbooks as; lack of camera for Video chat, inability to run Flash, cannot upload photos from a camera, maximum of 64GB of data, cannot play Facebook games, cannot swap batteries, inability to install software from CD media (or any media), cannot type on your lap or Upgrade hardware.Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10443246-1.html?tag=smallCarouselArea.0

Sounds reasonable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Yet, it remains undone. Not done
Ok  Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Longer semi-protection

The semi-protection has expired a half-hour ago, and there has already been two vandals vandalizing the article. I think longer semi-protection may be necessary. --NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click here to talk to me) 00:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

unprotect: I think the sheer number of people watching this page is enough to not need protection for 4 vandals/hour. Justin Ormont (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
unprotect: as per Justin Ormont. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
oppose we had enough issues with vandalism to warrant the protection. If someone wants to add or change anything, they can propose it here using {{editsemiprotected}}--Terrillja talk 22:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
oppose as per Terrillja. The subject still gets a lot of attention and will therefore be a target of vandalism, especially considering the negative press and reactions (iTampon and such). It shouldn't harm to extent extent protection just a little longer.—Totie (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Pricing Caveat

Pricing should have an asterisk on the 3G-included units.

As such:

  • Model 16 GB 32 GB 64 GB
  • iPad Wi-Fi $499 $599 $699
  • iPad Wi-Fi + 3G $629* $729* $829*
  • *Prepaid data plans provided by AT&T optional for 3G+Wifi model at $14.99/month for 250 MB and $29.99/month for unlimited. Can be activated on iPad. Cancel any time.Boland6 (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.38.28 (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Someone has undone the changes to pricing. Please fix.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.38.28 (talk) 07:51, January 29, 2010
As the data plan prices are lower than those for the iPhone aren't they worth including in the article? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
We don't cite prices in the iPhone or iPod articles, and it is discouraged as per WP:NOPRICES.

Mushroom (Talk) 10:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The prices here are cited, yet they give a false impression because the changes (the asterisk / note) has been removed.
The prices should (again) be listed as suggested above.Nwusr123log (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Prices should not be listed, unless we can show the prices themselves to be somehow important to the existence of the product. We generally don't give prices for other products, and this should not be an exception. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 00:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ipad trade mark

Currently Apple and Fiji are having trouble because both companies have products that are named ipad. Should that be in the article.141.157.221.171 (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That content was removed earlier today, I'm tempted to say that change should be reverted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
There is already a hatnote to the unrelated product at the top. This is not a disambiguation page for every product that has ever been called iPad.--Terrillja talk 04:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I've slimmed down the section so some of the detail on the Fujitsu iPAD has been removed. Maybe it needs another name though... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Why is it relevant for this article to explain the other meanings of iPad? This article is about the Apple iPad, not engines or padded bras. The Fujitsu iPAD would be the notable exception, since there is a potential legal issue involved between both companies.—Totie (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
As WikiTangoFoxtrot said on Terrillja's talk page:

Sorry, I disagree. The article doesn't have to be a disambiguation page in order to list some of these other products. Those products are part of the story. Whether it effects the story positively or negatively, doesn't matter -- we're not here to write a press release from Apple on this thing. We're here to tell the story of the product. The fact remains that the name iPad is not original, and there are several products that came before it, and not just a Fujitsu device which seems to be in the same class of product as Apple's. So no, I don't think that it should be removed because it's sourced by a reliable citation and it's relevant to the story. For what it's worth, I have backed off on the Twitter/iTampon thing, which was getting a bit old. But I can't back off on these "other products" because I disagree with your logic on it. Sorry.

I think I agree with him. But if there is a consensus to remove it I'm happy to. What do other people think? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I think that it's absolutely irrelevant to the article and should be removed. Include somewhere (in prose) about the dispute with fujitsu, remove all the other unrelated stuff.--Terrillja talk 22:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I know :p, you've made that clear above ;). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Considering that there's a potential patent/trademark dispute with at least one of the companies involved (Fujitsu iPAD), I think it's absolutely relevant to include in this article, and should not be deleted. It's more relevant because both products are technological similar, in that they're somewhat in similar classes of electronic devices. As for the other two products (Siemens and the bra), the New York Times article didn't state that there were attorneys looking at potential legal action, however that's not to say that there aren't. It might just mean that they haven't reacted to the announcement yet.
Trademark disputes and naming issues are also nothing particularly new to Apple. If you recall, they were involved in a particularly long trademark dispute with Apple Corps, over use of their own name "Apple". So I think that any naming issues are very, very relevant to any article about Apple products. WTF? (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
There is one big problem with that. The Apple trademark dispute is mentioned since the Beatels sued Apple multiple times in a process that took years to resolve and that is clearly not the case here. Just because that dispute is notiable does not mean that this potential dispute (has the other company even made a statement?) is. At least not yet.--76.66.183.156 (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we could rewrite the section and just point out that there are other products with the name iPad and that so far Fujitsu is the only manufacturer who could engage into a legal dispute with Apple. There is no reason to list other products with the name iPad if that's the only relevant factor.—Totie (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
If I recall correctly there were some rumors about the name prior to the keynote. The possible release of an Apple tablet gained a lot of attention, and it was referred to as iSlate and iTablet. Perhaps we could expand the section with this information.—Totie (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
OK then what about the following - if required what the other unmentioned products are could be explained as a footnote:

Like the iPhone the iPad is also the name of several other products that already existed at the launch of Apple's product. The most serious risk of a trademark issue comes from the Fujitsu iPAD, introduced by Japanese company Fujitsu in 2002. This is a mobile multi-functional device sold to retailers to help clerks verify prices, check inventory, and close sales. Fujitsu is consulting attorneys over what, if any, action to take against Apple.Tabuchi, Hiroko (January 28, 2010). "IPad? That's So 2002, Fujitsu Says". The New York Times. Retrieved January 29, 2010.

-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
This is what I had in mind, so I'm okay with it.—Totie (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Accessories should be "Available Accessories" or "Options"

  • A) The current list of accessories may give the impression that they are included with the device. The section heading should read "Available Options", "Optional Accessories" or "Available Accessories".
  • B) The body of the section should have language to the effect of "Apple makes available the following optional accessories for purchase:" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.38.28 (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 Done. Mushroom (Talk) 00:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 Not done
PLEASE fix.
 Done. PS Please sign your comments with ~~~~ so the comments don't get auto-archived among other things. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, this has been removed again, if it is to be changed can it be discussed here first? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Misleading Memory

Memory is supposed to refer to RAM, not storage. In the article the flash memory refers to storage, not RAM use. RAM use is not specified in the article. The iPad does not come with 64 GB of memory. It comes with 64 GB of STORAGE. Huge difference. What is the actual RAM memory?

The above statement is incorrect. Memory (with regard to computers) is anything that can store information - be it Random Access (RAM), Read Only (ROM), Flash, solid state, spinning platters.. etc. Check out this article Memory_(computers). Also asking the question "what is the actual RAM memory" is like saying "what is the actual random access memory memory." The iPad likely has many types of memory including the solid state flash (non volitile RAM), standard volitile RAM, processor cache memory, and processor registers. The mass storage (the largest and slowest memory) on the iPad is Flash and comes in 16,32, and 64 gig varieties. To my knowledge information about the other memory in the iPad has yet to be released. Dotslashlycos (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
To keep consistent with the iPhone and iPod Touch articles, I would suggest that this be changed as follows: Storage -> Flash, Capacity -> 16/32/64GB, Memory -> Unknown. Dotslashlycos (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually if it can do virtual memory, then memory is RAM + virtual = RAM + Flash

And I see why they do not bother to say the RAM size... to the "Average Joe", if it can open 10 docouments/photo's/web pages at once, its opened all it needs to, if it can play a video as well, its done all it needs to, so apple could say "All the ram it needs". How much ram does your digital watch have ?? all it needs... ( then again... how much RAM does the IBM PC with Dos 3.3 have ? "All it needed" ????  :).. all that technology at the time provided and it was still *expensive*.. like a car )


202.92.40.202 (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

not exactly, VM is generally orders of magnitude slower than RAM, and can't be used the same way. That said, the OS has to be able to take advantage of it, and the iPhone OS is certainly very limited. This section probably requires an expert opinion. Mrrealtime (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
virtual memory uses mass storage (in the case of the iPad this is flash) to extend RAM through a technique known as paging. From an application perspective, there is absolutely no difference between writing to RAM vs. writing to VM.Since the iPhone OS (iPad OS) and OS X share the same kernel, both operating systems support virtual memory. It is left up to the operating system to determine how much VM is used and what should be stored there. Regardless, VM is something that is totally implemented in software and has no bearing on the hardware of the iPad. Doc on VM in iPhone OS/OS X Dotslashlycos (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible bias of the reception section

Jdtyler has asked for the reception section to be POV checked as it only contains links for mixed/negative reviews. And I'm adding this section to discuss it so it doesn't get lost among the other discussions. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It does seem that there has been a mostly negative reception to the product, though. However, I feel that most of the reviews from more mainstream publications were more positive to the product than those from bloggers and strictly online publications. Anyway, the Reception section is very short in general; I'm surprised it wasn't expanded on over the past 20 hours or so. Gary King (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Why would I make changes, when it is -very- clear that there is a over-ly positive spin being put on this article? I'm not going to waste my time fighting bias when it's clearly worthless.
I would argue that the reception section includes vastly too much positive review.
A section on criticism should be included (discussed elsewhere). But, there are many very scathing articles on reception;
http://www.maclife.com/article/feature/what_apple_left_out
http://gizmodo.com/5458382/8-things-that-suck-about-the-ipad
These are from MAC-ADVOCATE sources. The reception section is vastly *over* positive.
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/...ATMY32JVN
http://www.defectivebydesign.org/ipad "iPad DRM endangers our rights" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.9.210 (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
So what content would you add? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
PS I know its frustrating when you really think an article is bias and people ask you to have some content to add. Really you do need to write some content as well as to find source help improve it. Maybe a compromise would be to stick a POV header on the article? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is this section present at all for an unreleased product? A few hundred people have used them for a couple hours at most. Complaints about something that's not on the market aren't encyclopedic. 12.8.224.6 (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yet, look at the present state of the section. It is a list of positive, overly broad and general assertions "sell x million", "challenge ebooks".
Yet, no mention of the DRM complaints. None of the iTampon meme (CNN/Wired/NYT). None of other sources of complaint (engadget/CNET/Maclife/information week). The reception section is being written as a glowing and POV:Positive advertisement.
After the clear reaction that the press has had over this product, I thought "lets see if the POV:Positive-ness of apple on wikipedia will finally see a dose of reality". Yet, clearly, it's going to -- YET AGAIN -- violate Neutrality policy and join in as an unofficial arm of apple marketing.
Sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.38.28 (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
It doesnt matter that the product hasn't been released. The specifications are out, the idea is out, and most reviewers and the internet public in general is practically unified in their dislike of the product as presented. By the time its actually released, it could be entirely different from what has been presented, and that would necessitate further information but at the moment, I agree, the reception has not been "mixed" its been overwhelmingly negative, and the article needs to reflect the true nature of the reception, and not give equal credibility to a position held by an ever shrinking minority.Mrrealtime (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Just take a look at apple's share just after the announce ... does not seem mixed to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.77.100 (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Gary ("mostly negative reception") and Mrrealtime ("reception has not been "mixed" its been overwhelmingly negative").
As such, I propose the first line in the reception section be changed from "Media reaction to the iPad has been mixed." to "Media reaction to the iPad has been mostly negative".
Nwusr123log (talk) 03:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it's more correct to say that reception has been mixed: some have criticized the device for lacking Flash, a camera, being overly-closed; others have praised it for being fast, good software etc. I actually find it strange that the opening paragraph of the Reception section describes reception as mixed and then only has a single example which is negative. Maybe we should add Mossberg or some other positive reviewer to that same paragraph to show that reception really is mixed, rather than expecting readers to read to the end of the section. Npdoty (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 Done I've moved the Mossberg section to be the second paragraph. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A brand-labeled ARM SOC -- identical to Tegra and Snapdragon -- not "custom" or "proprietary"

"A4 is a System-on-a-Chip, or SOC, that integrates the main processor [ARM Cortex-A9, identical to ones used in nVidia Tegra and Qualcomm Snapdragon] with graphics silicon [ARM Mali GPU]," It is a licensed design. " A4 [A "Mali" GPU and ARM Cortex-A9 CPU core - is that really Apple IP or just a LEGO approach to building an ASIC?]"

  • A) The word "Custom" should be removed from "CPU 1 GHz Apple A4 custom-design[2][3]" Should read "CPU 1GHz Licensed CPU, branded "A4".
  • B) The "specifications" section, "1 GHz Apple A4 system-on-a-chip[2][3]" should read "CPU 1GHz Licensed CPU, branded "A4"."
  • C) The source of the IP should be clearly stated -- that this product is new, unique, exclusive, proprietary, custom or other such false language -- should be removed.
Custom has been removed, and the CPU the A4 is based on has been added. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Point A) Is not resolved. It still reads "custom-design", it is a licened reference design -- the same as others, nothing "custom" about it. This should read "CPU 1GHz Licensed CPU, branded "A4" or "CPU 1GHz Licensed CPU, called "A4". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.38.28 (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 Done. I have changed it to "1 GHz Apple A4" (there is no reliable source claiming it's a Cortex). Mushroom (Talk) 23:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Additional sources relating to licensing from ARM;
"it’s not like Apple actually invented the processor in-house...The A4 is a custom implementation of the ARM A9 processor, also found in Snapdragon (running the Nexus One) and Tegra (running the Zune HD)."[14]
"A4 is based mostly on intellectual property from ARM reference designs."[15]
Nwusr123log (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Misleading language in "history"

" and processor expertise from its acquisition of P.A. Semi in 2008.[10]" The CPU/GPU SOC is a licensed design (see above), their is no evidence of PA being involved in the design here. It's misleading to suggest that they "aquired CPU/GPU expertise", they have licensed this CPU/GPU.

That should be removed in total. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.38.28 (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Even though the chip is licensed PA semi still had to build it, which must have taken quite a bit of expertise, so IMO it should stay, though the sentence could be clarified to make it clear the chip was licensed. Add a new sentence here and assuming there is a consensus I'll add it in the morning. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
PA didnt "build" it. The design is licensed, and manufacture is contracted.
 Done. I have removed the entire sentence since its only source was a blog post, and it didn't even mention P.A. Semi at all. Mushroom (Talk) 23:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
"During the GlobalFoundries event in Las Vegas, we spoke with Warren East, CEO of ARM. We discussed many trends in the industry and also learned about the new member of the family, which we can now reveal as the Apple Inc" That is a first hand account. The source is the CEO of ARM saying that the Apple CPU is licensed from his firm. I cant see how it needs to be more clear...?
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2010/1/27/apple-a4-soc-unveiled---its-an-arm-cpu-and-the-gpu%21.aspx
I would say this is  Not done.
The CEO says that Apple is one of their licensees, not that the iPad CPU is ARM-based. It is very likely of course, but in the end it is just speculation. That blog is not a reliable source, and even Engadget puts a big question mark in the title of their post referencing it. There are no other sources independently confirming the story, so we should wait. Mushroom (Talk) 04:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
The story has been updated;
"We were told that the ARM licensed its CPU and GPU technology to Apple. That's it. Out of that technology, Cortex-A9 is intended for manufacturing in advanced manufacturing process such as 45nm, 40nm, 28nm and so on, while Cortex-A8 doesn't have advanced video processing capabilities that Cortex-A9 has. As the time progresses, we'll know more about what LEGO brick components did Apple use to create the A4. One thing is certain - it uses ARM IP throughout the silicon."
We'll learn what exactly it is shortly, but at this point, the CEO OF ARM said directly that that apple licensed the IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.38.28 (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't quite understand the problem here. First, it must be distinguished between design and chip. If the design is a normal ARM design, that will not be custom. If however, the chip would merely be a combination of such ARM design with another normal GPU design that in this combination nevertheless is not freely available on the market, the chip will still be custom. If a portion of the GPU design is from Apple, even if combined with a standard ARM design, it will be even more custom. Maybe, more information is required until a final wording can be settled upon. Thyl Engelhardt213.70.217.172 (talk) 15:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

3G, or "Wifi+3G"?

Apple themselves refer to the models as http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/

  • Wifi
  • Wifi + 3G

Although I think it makes more sense to call it "wifi" or "3G", shouldn't we use Apple's terms? Greg (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a marketing arm of Apple. Whatever is most clear should be used. Not whatever their marketing people wish to use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.107.188.5 (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I concur. Apple's own terminology is irrelevant to Wiki users. Once the article has mentioned that all iPad SKUs come with wireless enabled, mentioning "WiFi + 3G" is redundant, as the WiFi ability is already assumed. The only differentiating feature in the models is existence or lack of 3G. It is the same reason that we don't constantly need to mention the name as "Apple iPad", because once you mention that the iPad is made by Apple Inc., any subsequent references to iPad are quite clear.The Last Story (talk) 08:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Here they call it "3G model". Mushroom (Talk) 06:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Software Section - "only"

Currently the software section reads; "The iPad will run Apple and third-party software purchased through Apple's App Store just like the iPhone"

It should be changed to; "The iPad will only run software purchased through Apple's App Store just like the iPhone"

The source of the software (apple vs. third party) is made evident elsewhere in the section. And, the word "only" needs to be added because of the single-source nature of software installation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.26.201 (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it a Tablet or a Slate PC

As far as I know, most things are called Tablets when they have a keyboard attached, and a slate when they are just the screen. So, should this be called a Slate PC instead of a Tablet? The precedent is already there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.67.59 (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? That sounds like a good idea to change if that's true. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I have never heard such a distinction. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like pure semantics to me, and its not a "slate PC", and neither a "tablet PC", (it's not a piece of rock PC, or a pill PC) but it is a "Pad" (as in digital writing pad). I think it simply will be considered to be in a category all by itself, it doesn't help to paint it as if its in one of those older categories. Mahjongg (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Remote content removal

Perhaps I didn't read the article thoroughly enough, but I saw no mention of Apple's ability to remotely remove data from the iPads of individual users. The largest newspaper in Sweden, Aftonbladet, mentioned this two days ago: http://www.aftonbladet.se/pryl/article6516077.ab

I have found no credible English-language sources to corroborate this so far. - Zelaron (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If the foreign language source is credible it is allowed to be used, see WP:NONENG. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Problem is, the only thing the article says that some groups on the internet are "complaining" that apple can remotely sensor the contents of your iPad, it doesn't give any proof of the validity of the claim, or points to a reliable source that can validate the claim. So at best at the moment its hearsay that apple is able to do this, until the iPad is actually in peoples hands, and there is actual conformation that apple can and will do this. Mahjongg (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section

It's becoming clear that a criticism section is needed. The "reception" section is overly POV:Positive, and little is being done to correct it.

It would be home to the DRM complaints, closed-nature, Name Controversy, iTampon meme and Features Missing amoung other common criticisms.

The name controversy, closed-nature (though I had to re-add this to the reception section) and features missing are all already in the article, and a consensus is being built for adding information on the iTampon meme (see this). I'm not clear on what the DRM complaints are, as the apps from the AppStore are already protected with DRM as is all media apart from music. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
A Criticism Section is accepted form on Wikipedia, and the volume and breadth of criticism of the ipad certainly warrants it.
The DRM complaints are here; http://www.defectivebydesign.org/ipad "iPad DRM endangers our rights"
" The iPad's unprecedented use of DRM to control all capabilities of a general purpose computer is a dangerous step backward for computing and for media distribution"
Looking at Wikipedia:Criticism#Titling_evaluations and WP:CRITS and the essay WP:NOCRIT make it clear it is better to avoid a criticism section if at all possible, and the majority of your points are currently covered, or are coverable in other sections. PS Can you sign your comments with ~~~~? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll concur, it would only be fair to mention these (widely reported) issues, as well as the 'iPad' meme riffic (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree, we shouldn't sweep important information under the rug. Criticisms can be incorporated in the reception section or have a new section with "Critique" as the title. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Do you agree that something on the iTampon controversy should be added? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't all of this criticism be incorporated into the existing "reception" section? TastyCakes (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as how this is a pretty hot topic right now ([16] over 35.5k views every day since January 27), and is likely to remain popular for the foreseeable future, I would strongly discourage the addition of a 'criticism' section. Such sections are usually red flags for adding all sorts of "blog-like" material, and it's better if criticism is worked into other, more relevant, sections. WTF? (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

All of this criticism is now in the reception except for the DRM stuff. As the PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii articles don't mention DRM and they are equivalently locked down I don't see why this article needs to include complaints about that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Because iPad is more like a general purpose computer than these other devices. And because there have been much more complaints on this respect about iPad than about the other devices. See http://www.defectivebydesign.org/ipad . 187.91.67.150 (talk) 03:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
All of the criticism is certainly not in the reception section. See the table below. 173.206.26.201 (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I was a little unclear with my statement above :o. Apart from it only including a selection of the missing features what criticism is missing? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
PS see Talk:IPad#Changes_to_missing_features_part_of_the_reception_section for possible changes to the selection of missing features. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Reception Changes

I propose:

> "Media reaction to the iPad has been mixed. Technology weblog Gizmodo lists the drawbacks of the iPad as the lack of a camera, multitasking, Adobe Flash animation support and compatibility with T-Mobile 3G in the U.S.[20]"

be changed to;

> Media reaction to the iPad has been mixed. Technology weblog Gizmodo lists the drawbacks of the iPad as the lack of a camera, multitasking, Adobe Flash animation support and compatibility with T-Mobile 3G in the U.S.[20] Associated Editor of Engadget, Darren Murph, later said the device was "exceedingly underwhelming".

http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/31/sonys-john-koller-apples-entrance-into-gaming-market-drives-c/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwusr123log (talk • contribs) 09:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Why hasnt this been included? Comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwusr123log (talk • contribs) 00:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Its just pushing a POV. We should stick to the facts, and there is lots of negative coverage already included. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not "pushing a POV", it's presenting the POV in a neutral manner, as it is; which is (as is argued by others) "mostly negative" not "mixed". maintaining the "mixed" line is false, it's not mixed, it's mostly negative. See the evidence elsewhere in this discussion. 173.206.61.177 (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Changes to missing features part of the reception section

What about changing:

CNET lists ways the iPad compares unfavorably to a netbook, including no camera for video chat, no Flash, and the difficulty of typing on your lap.[2] The Seattle Post-Intelligencer noted that the iPad will only support installing software from the App Store.[3]

to

Many sources including CNET, CNN and Gizmodo have listed features that are missing from the iPad that you might expect. These include the lack of camera for video chat, no Adobe Flash support, that the screen isn't widescreen and that the device has no USB or HDMI ports - everything has to go through Apple's standard dock connector.[4][5][6] The Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Gizmodo noted that the iPad will only support installing software from the App Store.[6][7]

-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit misleading "virtual keyboard" in the abstract

{{editsemiprotected}} The abstract describes software features, then hardware features: "The device has an LED-backlit 9.7-inch (25 cm)[4] color LCD display and uses a virtual keyboard for text input". This might mislead readers into thinking the virtual keyboard is an actual hardware feature. The right wording would be "The device has an LED-backlit 9.7-inch (25 cm)[4] color LCD display", or if one really wants to emphasize the lack of a keyboard: "The device has an LED-backlit 9.7-inch (25 cm)[4] color LCD display and no keyboard" The virtual keyboard could be mentioned, but clearly as a software feature. Orasio (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

 Not done, "virtual" implies that it is a software feature. Samwb123Please read 00:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Ok, I was not clear enough. The sentence is not clear and need rephrasing. It's confusing because the sentence starts naming a hardware feature, so it would be clearer to speak about the keyboard from a hardware perspective, acknowledging the lack of it (it's not obvious for a tablet), or naming the use of the touch screen, or just not talk about the keyboard.

The "virtual keyboard" thing is probably the response to "does it have a keyboard?" . Saying "virtual keyboard" is marketing shorthand for "well, it doesn't have a keyboard, but it emulates one with touch+software", but that is not clear and neutral enough for wikipedia.

In the iphone article it's a lot clearer : "using the phone's multi-touch screen to provide a virtual keyboard in lieu of a physical keyboard." Orasio (talk) 13:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Self Confessed Apple Fanatic != "Some Journalists"

IN the reception section, we find this passage;

> Several days after the unveiling, some journalists said that the iPad's success will come only after developers have time to make it into the device that they want it to be. Stephen Fry said people must actually use the iPad to truly appreciate its purpose and quality and commented that common of the criticisms of the device fall away after use. Of particular note for Stephen was speed, the responsiveness, the smooth glide of it, the richness and detail of the display, the heft in your hand, the rightness of the actions and gestures that are employed.[28]

I propose it be changed to this;

> Self confessed Apple fanatic Stephen Fry wrote on his blog that people must actually use the iPad to appreciate its purpose and quality. Of particular note for Stephen was the responsiveness, the display, the weight and the multitouch gestures.[28]

But, honestly, I'd wonder the value at including the opinion of someone who described attending the press conference thusly; "This is the first time **I’ve joined the congregation at the Church of Apple for a new product launch. I’ve watched all the past ones, downloaded the Quicktime movies and marvelled as Apple’s leader has stood before an ovating faithful and announced the...But today I finally made it. I came to San Francisco for the launch of the iPad. Oh, happy man...In front of his family, friends and close colleagues stood the man who founded Apple, was fired from Apple and came back to lead Apple to a greatness, reach and influence that no one on earth imagined.[[17]]

I mean really, is this what wikipedia sees as "journalists"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwusr123log (talk • contribs) 00:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

FURTHER;

The link should be changed to the primary source; Fry's blog: http://www.stephenfry.com/2010/01/28/ipad-about/

Can you guys please sign your comments with ~~~~. Thanks. I have removed the Weasel sentence, but I've kept it linked to the Guardian (as that is the reliable source) and not included the "apple fanatic" stuff - Stephen Fry is intelligent enough to make his own mind up. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
A) It was The Guardian who thought it necessary to to include; "The self-confessed Apple fanatic" in the byline of the article. Fry's commentary is clearly biased (clearly a blog post from a fan, not an analyst/journalist), and frankly has no reasonable place here. At all. But, if it must be included -- and certainly if the link is made to The Guardian -- their description of him ("self confessed fanatic") is necessary for wikipedia readers to understand the nature of the comments.
B) Fry's blog post should be linked directly, not through the guardian (who merely republished it).
173.206.26.201 (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


Why hasnt this been done? It was The Guardian who found it necessary to say "self confessed Apple fanatic", it's clearly important to this article for it to be included in the reception section. Can this please be added? 173.206.12.96 (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

RESTORED: Added Features missing section

To provide readers with a more balanced view of the iPad, I think the iPad article should list features which are not included in the phone. With this they can better compare the iPad with other products like other products. It will allow them to better handle a feature-to-feature comparison with competing products, like other tablet computers, netbooks, eReaders and smart phones. Please add to the list and help format. Justin Ormont (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The following are absent features:

  • Camera
  • Video conferencing
  • Ability to run non-iPhone/non-iPad apps
  • Flash compatibility
  • OLED screen
  • USB
  • GPS
  • Multitasking
  • Built-in physical keyboard
  • 16:9 display aspect ratio for watching movies, etc
  • HDMI
  • Drag and Drop File Management (must use iTunes to manage content)
  • Removable battery
  • USB Port for accessories (with the exception of a limited camera connector)
  • Standard USB power connector
  • SD slot/expandable memory
  • 1080p Playback
  • An Open SDK (apps must be approved by Apple)
  • Standard SIM card support (one cannot take the SIM card from their iPhone and put it into the iPad)
  • Enhanced multi-touch support, like pressure sensitivity (supports only the multi-touch features in the iPhone)
  • WiFi syncing of content
  • Ability to run desktop applications
  • Tethering

References:

- Justin Ormont (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional References of Missing Features;
http://www.maclife.com/article/feature/what_apple_left_out
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/...ATMY32JVN
I'm sorry, but I don't think such a list is a good idea. Where does such a list end? "Can't make toast", "can't be used as hammer" etc? Better, I think, to have a criticism section (or the equivalent of) where reliable sources complain about the lack of one thing or another. Observing things to be "missing" is just projecting what we, as editors, think should be in the device, which I would say classifies as original research and isn't appropriate. TastyCakes (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Definitely not a good idea. I removed the section because it will never end. There will always be a device out there that has something the iPad does not. Essentially, the section is somewhere that lists all the things that people wish the device had, which of course will really never end. Also, you say that it's used to compare to other devices. I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not a shopping guide. Gary King (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I would rather we didn't have a criticism section and I see no reason we can't work criticism into the rest of the article, but I'd rather have a criticism section than this as as you guys say it'll go on and on. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
For sure criticism should be included in the article. However, it should only be from reliable sources (i.e. no blogs; use PC World, Macworld, New York Times, etc.) Also, criticism fits just fine in the Reception section; there is no need for a separate criticism section. Gary King (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

However, if Apple has continually brought out products with many of these features (USB's, camera's, application support and an SDK, etc.), why downgrade to what is essentially a big, crappy iPhone? I mean, to me, it just seems as though the iPad is a few years short of finished. There's just so much that we as consumers expect in a product these days, and it's up to the producer to meet those standards. Apple is a pretty reliable company, but I wouldn't expect a tidal wave of sales on the iPad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.57.109 (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I came to this article to see how "open" the ipad was going to be and this article gave me no clue, so I think that the bit about the non-open SDK should be included. I may add something myself if i get some time. -- 99.52.85.117 (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've clarified that the iPad is just like the iPhone with regards to software installation. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
IF not a "Features Missing", then a "Criticism" section is FINALLY due?
The reception section is POV:Positive, the iTampon meme is "not old enough", and all the reams of criticisms are barely mentioned, and yet the article grows and grows as an advertisement (yet again) for apple on wikipedia.

No multitasking?

I think that the often heard claim that the iPad doesn't have multitasking is factually incorrect. It should be "can't run multiple applications at the same time", which is not the same thing as not being based on an OS that does multitasking. In fact the OS of the iPad clearly does multitasking, as I understand its based on Mac OS X, which is based on a unix-like kernel which by design is doing multitasking. No modern OS can work without some form of multitasking. Also I understand that the version of the Safari browser does have tabs, so its possible to have a limited form of running several applications at the same time, (web-applications) for example under one tab you can have a streaming music site, or a chat session, while under another tab you can browse other web pages. Mahjongg (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I think the change should be made to the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Name controversy

* PeeWee Herman creates a new video about the meme;
* "The concensus on the internet is it's name closely resembles a feminine sanitary napkin"
* http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/f7a03edbd7/pee-wee-gets-an-ipad?rel=player —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.61.57 (talk) 07:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • SF Gate;
  • "Apple iPad tablet called iTampon...one problem is a glaring one: it's name. The Apple iPad tablet is called "iTampon"..The name "Apple iPad" name was around even before today's announcement of the Apple iPad. In 2006, Mad TV created a satirical skit around the then-new iPhone, calling it "iPad" and advancing it as a clear replacement for the 'common tampon'."
  • http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail??blogid=95&entry_id=56194
  • France 24;

"The iPad? Also available with wings?...pushing the phrase "iTampon" to a number two "trending" topic" http://www.france24.com/en/20100127-ipad-also-available-with-wings

The iTampon meme and the name controversy is broad and common, the evidence is every-where -- it's lack of inclusion is troubling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.61.57 (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Most of these are not notable, but Wired and WSJ are. It might be worth mentioning. HereToHelp (talk to me) 17:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
SF Gate and LA Times not notable?
  • I agree with IP 173.206.61.57, there's plenty of coverage and should at least be mentioned. Not doing so is omitting a huge part of the product's history and reception. -- GateKeeper (talk) @ 07:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, there are a lot of links here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Content is not encyclopedic. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
without pointing to a specific policy, calling something wp:unencyclopedic is a poor argument. You might as well just say "I don't like it" riffic (talk) 06:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
There are regular joke sites that make fun of every new popular product. Look up nexus one and you will find it. Jokes aren't encyclopedic even if the mainstream news picks up on it. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
OK as there seems to be a consensus on this, I've added a paragraph on this to the reception section only using reliable sources.  Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I think Apple should change its name. I think it should be iTab - Tab from Tablet PC, in order to avoid association with Feminine products. I want my $ for the suggestion. lol I am not sure whether the name jokes should be in the article though. 84.22.2.204 (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

First, whoever renamed this section to mention College Humor is LAME so I changed it to be descriptive of the issue and similar to the OT. Second, it needs to be mentioned that in certain accents (Boston, UK) it sounds too much like iPod as mentioned in this credible source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/technology/29name.html --208.38.59.163 (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The British Isles have loads of different accents, so it'll only sound similar in some of them (the NYT brings up Irish) - its definitely different in my accent :p. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Calling this a "controversy" is really out of proportion. People made fun of the name. So? Where's the "controversy" here? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you suggest calling the subsection? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

1024x768 and 4:3, or 768x1024 and 3:4?

Which should we use? I vote for the latter, as the primary orientation is portrait, just like with the iPhone. I know the iPad is less orientation-dependent than the iPhone, with all and every app rotating, even the SpringBoard, but just by looking at the image at the Apple site you can see the device is used in portrait most of the time. DouweM (talk) 09:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

According to the primary source, it is "1024-by-768-pixel resolution at 132 pixels per inch (ppi)", and it is wikipedia policy to "... not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source." riffic (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah you're right. Sorry, didn't see that one. DouweM (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Please include discussion about centralized control

{{editsemiprotected}}The issue of centralized control by Apple and its potential implications - ie stifling of inovation should be discussed in the article. One good source is this Guardian article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/feb/01/apple-ipad-choke-innovation 84.138.231.138 (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be mentioned in the iPhone article so I support it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I concur, a discussion about the centralized control should include these three ideas (amoungst others);
No Open Ecosystem; Mashable [18]
No Open SDK; Gizmodo[19]
And Digital Rights Management on Software; Defective by Design[20]; who called the centralized control via DRM "a huge step backwards in the history of computing".

All applications must be signed by Apple if they are to run, an unprecedented level of control for a general purpose computer. On top of this, Apple can push updates to the device over its wireless connection, letting them add or remove capabilities at any time.

173.206.12.96 (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that noting apps need to be approved by apple is enough. With the iPhone it was way different, jailbreaking was a big deal there and when the iPhone was released there was no app store.--Terrillja talk 16:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Terrillja, I don't see any valid reason for not including this criticism of the iPad. If the Guardian is a noteworthy source for Stephen Fry's ringing endorsement, then it's a noteworthy source for those expressing concern about it stifling innovation, right? "What's good for the goose is good for the gander," eh?... 84.138.214.85 (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not about not being a reliable source, it's about putting the information in the correct article. Stating that the only apps allowed have to be bought from the app store is sufficient, this article is about a piece of hardware, not the iPhone OS.--Terrillja talk 22:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The criticisms in the article linked to above have been made specifically about the iPad. I'm going to go ahead and include it in the article. Helvetica (talk) 10:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Being that the ipad isnt a computer, more a "appliance", discussion of the "OS" is not really material. It is a locked and intentionally closed device. It is absolutely relevant to point these facts out here.
There are thousands of appliances that run embedded operating systems, and this is no different. It's not really important in this context to discuss the appliance's OS independently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwusr123log (talk • contribs) 06:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the difference between the "thousands of other" appliances is that this one is being marketed as something which competes with computers - specifically netbooks. Note Jobs saying something like "netbooks can't do anything better." In any event though, this is really beside the point. The criticisms were made specifically about the iPad, and a major publication considered it relevant enough to publish. It's not up to Wikipedia to determine whether or not those criticisms are valid, but to report them, and the response from a reliable and noteworthy source (if any is made). Helvetica (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia's purpose isnt to reenforce marketing. It's important to discuss the device, not shuffle bits off to seperate articles and misrepresent reality. Nwusr123log (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

IBM/Lenovo "no pad comments" claim

Is there a source for this? If so can it be added to the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

PS I've had a quick look and while it doesn't seem controversial and it also adds to the article the only sources I can find are web comments on articles (though there are quite a few of them.). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
After all that effort to prevent the well cited iTampon meme, a non-cited at all reference gets added, with "citation needed" tag? What was all the arguement about iTampon not being included if a uncited remark can be included?
Why are the standards for inclusion so vastly different for embarassing mentions of Apple vs. IBM/Lenovo?
I propose that line be removed.
173.206.12.96 (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I think we can all agree the ThinkPad thing is stupid and random. Removed it. If someone thinks it is somehow relevant then please feel free to find a decent source. DtD (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
FWIW the reason the Thinkpad comment was included was to illustrate that noone criticised the Thinkpad for the pad part of its name. But I couldn't find a reliable source, so now I'm happy that its gone. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I suspect it's because the "think" part of the name pretty much kills any association, while "iPad" pretty much draws your attention to the pad. As well as thinkpad, consider notepad, bachelor pad, paddington bear... they all escape pad-related jokes because the pad doesn't take up a large % of the name. Just my personal theory. 203.217.150.68 (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I really don't get the hilarity about the name, its the same as when the WII was launched. Who now still giggles when mentioning the WII? Do people giggle when talking about a notepad? Okay, its worth a mention as a "local cultural phenomenon", just like in the WII article. Mahjongg (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Display area vs iPod Touch

The current article says four times the display area and 5 times the number of pixels. This doesn't seem right to me, since the ppi is lower for the iPad the display area multiple should be larger then the increase in pixels. I did some rough estimates and figure the display area should be closer to 7.8~7.9 times the area of an iPod touch. Method 1: ( Pixels of iPad × (PPI of iPod Touch)2 ) / ( Pixels of iPod Touch × (PPI of iPad)2 ) ≈ 7.8. Method 2: iPad display area is 300 cm2, and I believe iPod touch display area is 38 cm2, 300 / 38 ≈ 7.9. PaleAqua (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You may be right, I changed an edit that changed the display area is four times that of the iPhone, to five times on the ground that "it had five times as many pixels", which is clearly a nonsensical argumentation, as you cannot simply compare display area (which is expressed in centimeters (or inches) squared) to number of pixels. If I'm correct the iPad has double the number of pixels compared to the iPhone (for easy scaling), which means it has four times the number of pixels. But I might be wrong. I have not calculated the surface areas of the iPhone and iPad. If you can please edit in the correct surface area and pixels ratio's. Mahjongg (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
iPhone: 320*480=153600, iPad 768*1024=786432; ratio of pixel count: 5.12. Thyl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.70.217.172 (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Missing Features / Criticism Table

The amount of criticism -- not merely "reception", but actual criticism -- is worthy of a Criticism (preferred) or Missing Features section (as justin said; to aid comparing "ipad like other products.", I'm sure there are additional equally worthy sources, but this table illistrates the need for a Criticism Section;

Criticism/Missing Feature CNN[21] Mashable[22] TUAW[23] ZDNet[24] MacLife[25] InformationWeek[26] Wired[27] CNet[28] Gizmodo[29]
No Flash x x x x x x x
No OLED x x
No USB x x x x x x x
No GPS x x x x x
No Multitasking x x x x x x x
No Keyboard x x x
No Camera x x x x x x x x x
No Verizon x x x x
No T-Mobile x
No 16:9 x x x x x x
No HDMI x x x x x x
No Drag 'n' Drog File Management x
No SD Slot x
No HD Playback x x
No Open SDK x
No Notifications x x
No Enhanced multitouch x x
No TV Content x x
No Connection Sharing x
No Voice Support x
No Textbooks x
No Background Applications x
No New OS x
No Tablet Innovation x
No Standard SIM x x
No OSX x x
No VoIP x
No Larger HDs x
No Removeable Battery x
No Netbook Competition x
No Narrow Bezel x
No Open Ecosystem x


How exactly is that table NPOV? And there is lots of criticism already in the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


The current receptions section does a very poor job of describing the actual press, analyst and public reaction; the reaction (as argued elsewhere) is "mostly negative", not "Mixed" as described in the article.
The table above is an attempt to illustrate the need for a criticism section (which other's have agreed), by adding the criticism section -- and including more commentary from the articles listed above -- would help this artilce achieve NPOV. At present, it is overly POV:Positive.
173.206.26.201 (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


No! Just no! You can do something similar with any product out there, the fact that the iPad of all is being targeted is really ironic. --Aizuku (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
This is criticism of what the ipad is. Relative to it's marketing and price. No one expects a netbook to have a toaster, but they *do* expect -- as industry analysts and jouralists tell you -- a USB port (etc etc).
173.206.61.177 (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
But that the iPad lacks a USB port is in the article... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Ha. No, that's clear. Does the article also accurately protray the reaction? The littany of other criticism?
This article really needs to have the positive:POV removed, and the accurate mostly negative reaction correctly presented. Did you miss the table above?
173.206.12.96 (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
"Spec-oriented gadget people often really don't like Apple because the company doesn't cater to their specification numerology games....Apple relies entirely upon utility, not upon numerical puffery, to sell its products." [8]. Take care, Mr. Dilger is a radical ;-). Thyl Engelhardt213.70.217.172 (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
This table is really so weird that I like to provide a short comment.
No features of the iPad, and therefore not missing therefrom: Verizon, T-Mobile, VoIP, TV content, Open Ecosystem..
Factually wrong (and why): USB (in dock connector); GPS (in UMTS module), Multitasking/Background apps (e.g. ipod app), keyboard (on screen, attachable, Bluetooth), HD playback (plays 720p), Enhanced multitouch (new gestures); Textbooks (high interest in education will result in textbooks); New OS (3.2); Tablet innovation (five point multitouch), OSX (is variant of OSX).
The following are POV, since there are counter arguments that a decent number of people might actually make it prefer this way (and reasonable args): Flash (power consumption, buginess); OLED (price); camera (wrong form factor for use as camera, cameras banned from a lot of enterprise premises); 16:9 (wrong form factor for an ebook); HDMI (DRM, complexity, no use for presentations via projection); SD slot (error prone, not water resistent, plenty of internal RAM); Removable battery (dust protection, lid may detach).
Some further items, I did not even understand, like no narrow bezel (the size of the bezel certainly is correlated with what is inside the box?!), that it is no netbook competition (it is also no PC competition, no TV competetion etc.); no larger HDs (are there smaller ones, or does that refer to 1080p?), no connection sharing (?).
Thyl Engelhardt 213.70.217.172 (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
You don't understand why a pad like this per definition needs a substantial bezel? Its because otherwise you would obscure the display while you hold it in your hands. If it were a netbook you would hold it by the front of the keyboard (the front part that has no keys), but a pad like this has no parts where you can wrap your thumbs around to hold it steady, except for the bezel.
Ah, that makes sense. Otehrwise, one might touch the touch screen. So this is actually not a missing feature, but a feature present ("Bezel to hold device"). Thyl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.70.217.172 (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, as can clearly be seen in the picture on the front page [30] Mahjongg (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason for practically all the "missing features" can be summed up by "its a Pad, not a PC", or things directly correlating to that. Such as the need to be as frugal with the energy in the battery as possible (preferring hardware acceleration over using the CPU for example, or not using energy hungry display technology), or to the nature of the beast, for example it needs to be much more crash/virus/malware proof then a PC, hence the closed nature. The iPod demands a less anarchistic system where you cannot install whatever you like on it (so no removable memory support, which would open the device for corruption again). It's software will probably be structured much differently internally than more traditional systems. Some of the claims in the table also simply lack any base in reality. others are simply impractical (for example wide screen, which would mean a very wide and narrow device which wouldn't be pleasant to use). Mahjongg (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Upgradable?

Is it possible to upgrade a 16gb unit to 64gb (or more) and the improved wireless capability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.221.144 (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I double doubt it. Unless of course you have a hot air soldering station, a stereo microscope, and a very good ability to hack embedded systems (and a lot of luck while doing it) And then I'm not even talking about changing the firmware. You probably also need duct tape to close the case afterwards. LOL Mahjongg (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
There is always the possibility that some third party could offer professional installations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.221.144 (talk) 08:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
If you talk about upgrading to a 3G model, No there isn't. You do not understand the nature of what is needed for that upgrade, unless both models share the exact same PCB, which is highly doubtful there is no practical way to upgrade the hardware for this, and there is no legal way to upgrade the firmware. Again, it NOT a PC where you can add stuff yourself! Regarding upgrading the memory, it might be possible to change the flash chips used for ones with a higher capacity, but doing so would probably also remove the built in Firmware, and I doubt its possible (and/or Legal) to upload new firmware to the system. Mahjongg (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
What happens when the flash chips die? They get replaced with new ones. What's to stop someone from ordering a 64gb flash chip to replace a 16gb chip? Any authorized Apple dealer should be able to order them. I once bought a Mac ROM to use in my Atari ST (Magic Sack emulator). An authorized Apple dealer sold it to me, no questions asked. So I know from first hand experience that this is possible.71.243.221.144 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC).
You are not being very realistic, how many iPhones, or iPod touch systems have you heard of, on which the Flash chips "died", and were replaced by bigger ones, legally, with firmware in them? Its just "wishful thinking", but dream on! Mahjongg (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, according to Flash memory, "For portable consumer devices, these ((BBM) wearout management techniques typically extend the life of the flash memory beyond the life of the device itself", so Flash filing systems in modern portable systems simply do not wear our in the lifetime of the device. Mahjongg (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Digital Rights Criticism section

Isn't this section now rather over-sized? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That was my first thought too, but it remains an important issue. My idea is that Apples choice for a closed design has been made for the better, not for the worse though. But everything depends on how Apple will behave. The closed nature is a tool, it can be used to make the iPad a more reliable system, but can also be used to take away rights from the user. Its a two sided coin. That makes it all the more important not to sweep the matter under the carpet though. Still, it shouldn't be overbearing on the article. Mahjongg (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Once again, this is a criticism of the iPhone OS which has been directed towards the most recent device, but applies to all devices using it. The current section is ridiculously long, a few sentences is more than enough, the rest should be on the OS article.--Terrillja talk 19:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I shortened it some. Could probably remove the last paragraph on Apple defenders of DRM as it's only one guy too, but I'll leave for now --Replysixty (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I think there should be some content on this on this page, but Terrillja you are right that the majority of it should be in the iPhone OS article. Maybe give it two paragraphs here so it can have a subsection - and from that a see also link to the rest of the content in the iPhone OS article? Also you shouldn't need to have 8 sources for the first paragraph, surely you can just pick the 2-3 most reliable sources and remove the rest? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Guess my comment here didn't actually get posted so trying again. I agree section was too long. As Terrillja mentioned it seems to apply towards iPhone OS in general. Should probably be at most a summary of the issue here and then expanded on if needed at the iPhone OS, with a link from here to that section. It also seems to be overly cited, most of the citations on defective by design are about the same campaign or news articles talking about that campaign. Seems to be undo weight. PaleAqua (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've moved most of the content to the iPhone OS article and just left a summary here.  Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
PS My summary is a bit rubbish, so I'm sure it could be significantly improved. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Reordering of the reception section

I reverted this earlier, as if the first paragraph is the negative points then you lose the information about the netbooks which is bad. Additionally the Fry comment is at the bottom as it occurred later chronologically, maybe that could be moved earlier in the section if people think having the positive stuff first and last is making it non neutral. Though I think from previous discussions here the consensus is that the reception section is pretty neutral. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No mention of DRAM which makes a significant contribution to how the tablet performs or lack of performance thereof.

The iPad specifications and this wikipedia page fail to mention that there are only "512Mbytes of DRAM" as quoted from the iSuppli market website.

"Mid-Range iPad to Generate Maximum Profits for Apple, iSuppli Estimates" iSuppli Applied Market Intelligence 2010. iSupply Corporation. 11 Feb 2010 iSuppli estimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.9.244 (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Like an electric toothbrush, the iPad has exactly the amount of RAM that it needs, not more. Its another example of the mentality that tries to compare this to a PC. Its not a PC! Mahjongg (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not a computer, it's an appliance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.51.180 (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
You are talking about an estimate without them even looking at an actual unit. Pure crystalballery.--Terrillja talk 15:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree, the whole "teardown" is baloney, if they didn't have an actual unit to teardown, smells like a publicity stunt to me. Besides talking about "only having 512Mbytes" is nonsense if 512MB is actually the optimum quantity. You can't tell whether or not that is the case without actually having used a normal device, or one with more than that. Remember adding more physical memory chips also uses power, thus lowers use time. And its quite probable that you won't see much of a performance increase with more memory, (who says the software can even make use of more RAM) so 512MB may simply be optimal, again "its not a PC!", its an appliance! An electric toothbrush (another appliance, one often with a PIC microcontroller in it) only needs a few bytes of RAM, and an IPad only needs (if the quantity mentioned happens to be true) 512MB to function properly as designed.
This information is also contained in the articles of iPod touch and iPhone (128 to 256 MiB); imho it should also be included in this article; if verified. Thyl Engelhardt213.70.217.172 (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
If verified yes, but at the moment iSuppli is only guessing that this will be the amount used. Mahjongg (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
True. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing POV header from the reception section

Maybe this can be combined with the above discussion, but so it doesn't get confusing I'm doing them separately. But isn't the reception section neutral now, and therefore the POV header can be removed? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems too positive to me. Any idea why my edit was reverted. I felt that made it more neutral. Aniket Ray (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd forgotten there was already a section on this. Please discuss further above. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

See also section

Why has the JooJoo been deleted from the "See also" section? It is a very similar product, so Wikipedia readers might also be interested in this tablet PC. Lexischemen (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
See Also sections aren't really for related products, but for other encyclopedia articles related to the subject. In this case, articles about tablets in general, or tablet-technology would be appropriate. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't seem to be what WP:SEEALSO says. It makes it clear its up to editorial judgement, so if it is to be kept out (or in) a consensus much be built. And the JooJoo is a related product so should be included IMO. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so where do we draw the line? Anything tablet-like? eBook readers? Music players? That's why I'm against including competing products in here: there's no dividing line to say "this, but not this." — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Oppose adding in other products, or you have to include the Kindle, the B&N Nook, the Microsoft Origami, yada yada. See also will become a linkfarm. Liking to tablet computers or ebook readers as articles makes sense, but listing individual products would get silly long. --Terrillja talk 19:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I would like to have the JooJoo article in there, because it is almost the same product as the iPad. Your examples do not have much or as much to do/ in common with the iPad and i would like to draw the line for almost identical (not only similar) products. Also, if one is interested in the iPad and in reading about it, this person might probably be interested in this kind of product offered by another manufacturer.
If "See also" will become a "linkfarm", we might be able to summarize the links, for example if more only-touch-screen-products appear on the market, it would be cool to have an article about only-touch-screen-products and/or a list of only-touch-screen-products, including the JooJoo, iPad, etc. Hence, is it okay to include the JooJoo? Regards! :) Lexischemen (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
As long as there is only one other touch-only product on the market (the JooJoo) I don't see how Terrillja and HandThatFeeds arguments are particularly relevant so therefore I think it should be included for now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, except for its weight, it looks like an almost identical device, it an interesting counterpoint to the iPad. Mahjongg (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me try to explain again. Look at other articles: Mazda MX-5, Microsoft Windows, Tivo or TomTom. In none of those cases do the See Also sections include links to competing product's articles. Even if you want to narrow it down to "only touch screen products," that includes Toughbooks, oQos, Maemo products and so forth. Hell, how do you define "almost identical" products? Calling the JooJoo the "nly one other touch-only product on the market" is simply not correct in the first place. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 01:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

All the examples you give have significantly more direct competitors. If there are lots of competitors to the iPad then there can be a list article made which can be linked, like List of Operating Systems from the Windows article.
If you let the JooJoo get added and people add loads of other devices then you throw them all out into a separate article and just link that - its not exactly likely to cause any real problems. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
PS I certainly don't think the Kindle is similar enough to warrant inclusion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Given that the media has been comparing the two devices a lot, calling the iPad the kindle killer, etc, I would tend to disagree about them being competitors. Barnes & Noble Nook is another similar device, the Microsoft Origami is another ultra mobile PC, the HP slate is another similar device, netbooks as a class of products as well. So I think see also should contain links to tablet computers and ebook readers. People can look on those pages and find similar devices without listing the hundreds of somewhat related products here or on another separate list.--Terrillja talk 14:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
by making that judgement you're walking on the border line of original research and synthesis of facts - both prohibited by wp policies - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position. riffic (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a talkpage, not an article. Don't be ridiculous. --Terrillja talk 15:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
As the JooJoo is a tablet PC I'm OK with just linking to a list of tablet PC's - I think that was there before and has been removed temporarily at the moment. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, normally these things are solved with category lists, still I think the JooJoo tablet can be mentioned until there are many more other closely iPad (not simply tablet PC's) like systems, and they can all be connected to a category. Mahjongg (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Seems like there are people who do understand/ agree with my/ our point and some who do not. I think Mahjongg's last statement puts it right. Terrillja has got a point, but he is refering to media comparisons (seems like what riffic was criticizing), which are not based on facts but on opinions. However, the comparison between iPad and JooJoo seems very objective and a natural comparison when you look at both. If you look at the other listed products you immediately see a difference like the keyboard (Toughbook), that it is only a reading device like Barnes & Noble Nook or something else. Maybe the OQO can be used without a keyboard like the iPad, but it still features a keyboard, so that does make it different. Thus that still makes the JooJoo the only identical product, which is why I think it would be nice to have it in the see also list.

Still, The Hand That Feeds You has got a point, but only for the future and if there will be more devices like the iPad. Then, it would be cool to get a link to a list or an article about similar products. But as for now, Tablet PC is not such an article, you can't just see easily and fast which products are similar. If it is for the good of the Tablet PC article, it might be extended or changed so that you can easily see similar products and we could then put a link to this section of the Tablet PC article, with the Kindle, JooJoo, iPad, Microsoft Origami, etc in there.

Maemo is not a device but an OS. That gives me the idea that we could add a link to OS's like iPhone OS, JooJoo's OS, Maemo, etc, but there is no such section in the Operating System article. Maybe it would be cool to add this section!

The current solution is not too good, since comparison of e-book readers leads you to many products which are very different to the iPad in their display and other hardware. They are capable of much less than the iPad or JooJoo. Comparison of portable media players is also useful, but not that solution I'm looking for, because you get a huge list of products in which you are surely not interested if you want to read about iPad-identical-like products. --Lexischemen (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't mention anything irrelevant. Unless we have an article List of tablet computers then we shouldn't just go list every tablet in the See also.--Aizuku (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
How about Category: Tablet computers? seems most NPOV solution to me --Aizuku (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Both the JooJoo and iPad are already in Category:Tablet PC. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

iBookstore

The iPad is the first device with this? I've just reverted an edit saying it was the second... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Gizmodo noted that the iPad will only support installing software from the App Store

The wording "noted" implies a factually correct statement. However, considering that via jailbreaking, the iPhone and iPd touch allow installing sw from other sourses than the AppStore, I believe that they presently could "assume" at most. Thyl Engelhardt213.70.217.172 (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I would assume you could jailbreak the iPad too, but that does break the warranty. Maybe "allowed" would be better? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Jailbreaking is not an approved thing to do, and we don't base these articles on what you can hack the devices into doing. Either way, tehre is no iPad jailbreak right now, so we should be reporting on the legal methods to use the device.--Terrillja talk 16:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
What are "these articles"? From "iPod touch: "Shortly after the iPod Touch was released, hackers were able to "jailbreak" the device through a TIFF exploit. The resulting application enabled the user to download a selection of unofficial third-party programs. Some of these give the user more control over the iPod Touch than is officially available, and also make it possible to install Linux operating systems on the device. All officially released versions of the iPhone OS through 3.0 can be jailbroken,[24][25] but version 3.1 could not at the time it was released" From "iPhone": "This restriction can be overcome by "jailbreaking" the phone,[181] which involves replacing the iPhone's firmware with a slightly modified version that does not enforce the signature check. Doing so may be a circumvention of Apple's technical protection measures"; from "Jailbreak (iPhone OS)": "Jailbreaking is a process that allows iPhone and iPod Touch users to run any code on their devices, as opposed to only that code authorised by Apple. Once jailbroken, iPhone users are able to download many applications previously unavailable through the App Store via unofficial installers such as Cydia; Icy; and Installer, as well as illegal pirated apps. A jailbroken iPhone or iPod Touch is still able to use and update apps downloaded and purchased from Apple's official App Store." So, all previous versions have been jailbroken, and this has been widely reported in the WP. I correct my previous request to amend the sentence to "speculated" ;-) Thyl 213.70.217.172 (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


Oh, and one more thing: There is also no legal method to use the device, since it is not yet available, yet it is reported in WP. Thyl
Will the following do: "The Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Gizmodo noted that the iPad will only officially support installing software from the App Store."? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
PS I've changed the article text to what I've written above. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Voice capability section

On the 5th of February I added this section:

Although the iPad is not specifically designed as a cellphone replacement, it is capable of pairing with a Bluetooth headset.[citation needed] Therefore, utilizing WiFi or 3G and a VoIP service such as Vonage World Mobile allows unlimited domestic and international calls.[9]

Then PRRfan edited it to this: (Chiefly removing the citation)

Although the iPad is not designed as a cellphone replacement, a user can pair it with a Bluetooth headset and place phone calls using a VoIP application over WiFi or 3G.[citation needed]

Which Terrillja then said was "borderline original research" and deleted the entire section. I agree that without the citation it isn't proper, so why did PRRfan remove that citation? The section is valuable because it conveys a use for the iPad. I will therefore replace the section with a trimmed down version (similar to PPRfan's edit) including the original citation. If you feel you have found a more suitable citation, please replace my one but don't just delete the entire section. MammonLord (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Terrillja, it should be removed. Running VOIP software is trivial and not noteworthy.Nwusr123log (talk) 06:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the section, it and added the line to the software section. Nwusr123log (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
You're right, it does fit better in the software section. Also, thank you for locating the better reference. MammonLord (talk) 06:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Oops -- I didn't mean to delete the citation with my edit. I'm glad it's back. PRRfan (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Did Apple not know about this MadTV sketch before launching the iPad?". Punchline Magazine. January 28, 2010. Retrieved January 29, 2010. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  2. ^ Scott Stein (January 27, 2010). "10 things Netbooks still do better than an iPad". CNET. Retrieved January 31, 2010.
  3. ^ "iPad's downside is Microsoft's upside: third-party apps". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Retrieved February 1, 2010.
  4. ^ Scott Stein (January 27, 2010). "10 things Netbooks still do better than an iPad". CNET. Retrieved January 31, 2010.
  5. ^ Charlie Sorrel (January 28, 2010). "110 things missing from the iPad". CNN. Retrieved February 3, 2010.
  6. ^ a b Adam Ferruci (January 27, 2010). "8 Things That Suck About the iPad". Gizmodo. Retrieved February 3, 2010.
  7. ^ "iPad's downside is Microsoft's upside: third-party apps". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Retrieved February 1, 2010.
  8. ^ >[http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2010/02/09/ten-myths-of-apple's-ipad-7-it-needs-cameras
  9. ^ "Vonage World Mobile website".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IPad/Archive_1&oldid=1136270902"