Recent Related Items:

  • @ madeup6 & Jason

    I don't really see the PS3 and the iPad competing for hardcore gamers - it's obvious that if someone wants a console gaming experience that the PS3 is a great deal and that the iPad wouldn't come close to meeting the gamer's expectations.

    The iPad is more than just an e-book reader that allows for casual games - i.e. document creation, mobility, etc; though it's true not many of these features overlap into the current hardcore gaming market. But just because a hardcore gamer would have better value in picking up a PS3 doesn't mean there isn't innovative and non-casual gaming opportunities on the device.

    My argument is centered around the idea that loads of people will buy an iPad for non-gaming reasons - developers will see the potential in the device, and like the iPhone, we'll see some really great, artistic, and innovative gaming experiences that can only be done on the iPad. As far as the price goes - most analysts expected the device to cost close to $1,000 and Apple delivered at $499 (or $629 with 3G). Sure, it's no cheap, but as mentioned, it's a third market device - it's not going to appeal to everyone.

    A lot of us dismissed gaming on the iPhone - in just over a year Tabulous, the makers of Tap Tap Revenge, is on track to rack up over $12 million in annual revenue. It's cynical to dismiss those kinds of numbers - especially when the apps the company distributes are either free or cost under $2.99.

    I'm a hardcore gamer but that doesn't mean that I'm not interested in experiencing new ways to engage gamers, offering different experiences, or finding an innovative way of telling a story. I play a lot of console games but that doesn't mean that I have to dismiss the creativity happening in iPhone/iPad game development.
  • Jason_Weissman
    Ben, I agree that app gaming, and the app business in general, for the iPhone is very lucrative. But lucrative doesn't necessarily mean good. Most of the games offered on the iPhone are very inexpensive and offer a rather shallow experience. This appeals to those with attention deficit disorder and non-gamers, but I want to see games that push the interactive experience to the next level. Recent game releases like Mass Effect 2, MAG, and Heavy Rain are all pushing the industry forward, even if the end result isn't always perfect. I have not seen the same progression with the iPhone-gaming market. I don't want to play a fancier version of Bejeweled on an iPad even if it does make a lot of money :)

    And frankly, there are better games available on Xbox Live and PSN.

    Lastly, I'm not convinced that non-gamers will buy this device in large enough quantities to make cutting-edge gaming developers interested.
  • Nice rant, I think compared to an eReader like the Kindle DX it is not expensive. Just $10 more, and you can play games, do video, read in off-light conditions and all that good stuff.
  • Jason_Weissman
    Yeah, but the $499 version is the "gimped" version of the iPad. Only 16 GB and no 3G coverage. While the Kindle DX has limited internet use, it does come with free 3G coverage. Plus, you can use the Kindle DX for up to a week on one charge with wireless enabled while the iPad has a battery life of up to 10 hours.

    You also can download the Kindle software to your laptop or iPhone for free even if you do not own a Kindle device.
  • What does the Kindle DX's free 3G really matter when you can't do anything but download books with it? It doesn't, unless you're one of those people living without internet.

    I guess we'll have to see, but $489, no web browsing whatsoever, no gaming, and no apps.. 499 and you get all of the above.

    16GB is plenty for hundreds of apps, thousands of songs etc... the only people buying those $400ish iPod Touches with 64gb are fools.
  • Jason_Weissman
    The Kindle does have a basic web browser that allows access to text-only versions of many websites. You can also read newspapers.

    But you are right about the rest...no gaming and no apps. I think the existence of the Kindle and other e-readers will just eat into iPad's marketshare too much for developers to want to invest much time and money.

    Plus, Apple is loved for many things. Their proprietary business model is not one of them. Many people would prefer to buy an e-reader from Amazon for this reason alone. The iPad just reminds me of Apple TV in that it is not necessary and there are better and cheaper alternatives.
  • True about Apple's business model, but with books unless something changes their model is rather open. There already is a kindle app so you can view your Kindle books on the iPhone/iPad. Also coming is the Blio Reader which again is iPhone/iPad and that is phenomenal for reading with a beautiful 3D display along with displaying associated video and other content.

    So the combination of iBooks/Kindle Reader/Blio Reader while the Kindle DX just has a basic reader.. well.

    I also know several people who have Kindles and have issues reading on them on the bus/train etc because of lighting conditions, and that seems to be the typical use for it.

    Anyways, I'm sure Amazon is happy they can sell Kindle books on the iPad.
  • zakizakaria
    Apple isn't the only company that will tablet (or slate?) gaming possible. Console makers like Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo etc. might compete with Apple to come up with their own 'Pad gaming console. Question now is: Will the PS5 or Xbox1080 be a 'Pad?
  • Jason_Weissman
    Interesting point. A Google Tablet is rumored to be in the mix as well.
  • zakizakaria
    Thanks for replying. Really, iPad isn't or shouldn't be the only tablet in market. There will be clones glutting the tablet, of course, but there will also far better alternatives to the iPad in the near future. At least, the iPad will challenge other companies to step up and create their own tablets.
    In terms of gaming, of course Apple won't concentrate much on that. For now. That should be in the hands of gaming console developers who see potential in making their own gaming tablet console.
    What do you think Jason?
  • Jason_Weissman
    I think you are exactly right. In addition to the rumored Google tablet, Microsoft will be moving into the tablet market with software for "Slate PC's." Say whatever you want about Microsoft, but they offer the platform of choice when it comes to gaming on a computer-like device. Developers already feel comfortable with Windows products and companies like Valve would likely support a Slate PC if the "tablet" market takes off.

    As for console developers, Nintendo is already a player in the touchscreen-gaming arena, so I wouldn't be surprised if they release something that is similar to a tablet but is more gaming-oriented. Nintendo is also smart enough to make sure that the touchscreen isn't the only interface.
  • zakizakaria
    Besides the companies you've mentioned, there will be others. Most likely:
    Sony:
    Sony might see their next Playstation not just as a new gaming tablet, but also a another form of multimedia player.

    Asus:
    Who's "credited" with starting the netbook trend, and may look to compete with Apple with their tablets

    HP:
    Well, they have done touchscreen PCs and smartphones, so tablets might be next.

    Dell:
    Possibly.

    Samsung:
    Can't think of any good reason, beyond that they've become Sony's big challenger, and anything Apple have done, Sony can, and Samsung will follow.

    Nokia:
    Their cell phones have fared well against iPhone.

    LG:
    They've done phones, TV, refrigerators and washing machines. Is there anything else they will conquer?
  • madeup6
    That was a fantastic review. It is 100% true. Why buy an iPad for $499 when you can get a ps3 for $299 and you get far more, minus the touch screen. Apple should look long and hard at their prices.
  • John Mattucci
    I believe the iPad would have shown way more promise if the touch screen incorporated a multi-touch system, instead of the same touch technology as the iTouch. As you said there are certain games that wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the iTouch technology. If they had taken that a step further it would have opened doors to weird tactile games that no one would have fathomed, and I think people would have been jumping at the iPad to get to experience "the future" first.

    I think the iPad has won at what Apple wanted to do, kill e-readers. Who is going to buy a kindle when they can get all the other features of an iPad? But for what we wanted it for, changing the way we play hardcore games, it failed. It will continue to play to the casual gamer.
  • the itouch is a multi-touch device. So is the iPad.
  • Eric Taylor
    Speaking of new technology, let's talk about the screen itself: yes, 9.7 inches. But the viewing dimension is 4:3 -- this is an old, old display type, harkening back to 14" CRT monitors, and even old TV sets. That is, the display is not widescreen. Some say this is because the iPad is a media reader -- think nytimes.com, iBooks, ePub (digital versions of newspapers and magazines). Bottom line: imagine your fave 1st-person shooter with the sides cut off.
  • I'm with Ben on this one. People complain about the iPhone OS's depth, I don't think it's been pushed to it's limits yet. Some of the games you can get on the iPhone are great, even if they are ported from larger consoles. With a bigger screen and stronger processor, we may not know the limits just yet.

    This is a new technology we aren't used to, so opinions flare. I'm sure a lot of us have seen the old forum posts from 2001 when they first announced the iPod and how many people knocked it. Guaranteed they all own iPod's now. It's been said a lot lately, and it sounds cliche (even cliche sounds cliche) but we are living in the future. We just don't quite know how to embrace it.
  • Jason rules, Ben drools.

    Or something like that.
blog comments powered by Disqus