Thursday’s “Charlie Rose Show” featured a discussion with Walt Mossberg, David Carr and Michael Arrington about the upcoming Apple iPad. Their wide-ranging discussion covered topics such as the surprising price point, the omission of Flash and Apple’s (AAPL) challenges in this new market.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Sign up here or log in below.
Comments posted on this site must be signed with your full, real name. Please see our Comments policy for details.
Walt Mossberg is the author and creator of the weekly Personal Technology column in The Wall Street Journal, which has appeared every Thursday since 1991. Read more »
Here is a statement of my ethics and coverage policies. It is more than most of you want to know, but, in the age of suspicion of the media, I am laying it all out.
Comments
At last. Some enlightened discussion on the iPad. Nice.
After the keynote, I was left thinking “where's the killer-app?” (iBooks? Meh. A necessary feature.). But the more I think about it, the more I realize that the killer-app is actually the foundation of programmers Apple has created. 140K apps. That's a lot of programmers. The chances that ONE of those will make a Killer is pretty big. Here's hoping that Apples' true “K-app” is a way for the App Store to bring the focus to the high-quality apps so they don't drown in the 140K “noise” up there.
Posted by thebrew at February 6th, 2010 at 3:23 pmCongratulations to Rose, Arrington, Carr, and Mossberg! This is the most entertaining and intelligent technology discussion I have heard in years. I've watched it twice, and I'll soon put it on my iPhone to watch some more. I'm asking myself now what does this discussion have that so many reads on technology lack? I'd say the appeal is in the rich imagination all four commentators bring to the table. You can see each of them digging deep, asking, “What have we really got here?” And while they give very intelligent initial answers to the question, at the same time their sense of being in the presence of something new — the presence of new possibilities — is palpable. The interview is a reminder that technology, while in part about engineering and hard facts, is also about imagination and wonder.
Posted by technohistorian at February 6th, 2010 at 5:55 pmGreat discussion guys. Thanks for putting it up here.
The Internet has had a dramatic impact on our lives. One of the main reasons it became popular so quickly would be the early emergence of ISPs like Earthlink who offered very low cost access at a fixed rate with no metered usage charges. Customers loved that model and flocked to it. Phone companies lamented the fact that they hadn't acted quickly enough to get control of it and to get their toll booths on every Internet entry point and node. Now we have the coming together of cellular phone networks and the internet. The phone companies want those toll booths. The customers want those low fixed monthly rates. The pricing model for the iPad's 3G data plan is a breakthrough for customers. Low priced 3G is a killer capability.
It's the killer combination of a great display, ease of use, and ubiquitous connectivity at a much lower cost than we've seen previously.
Every salesman who makes sales calls and presentations should want one of these. Every company employing salesmen or field service people should want an App that can access their corporate database. Every realtor should want to take one of these along when they're showing houses or office space to a client.
Posted by davesmall at February 6th, 2010 at 6:19 pmFlash is a battery hog. It is mainly a vehicle for distributing video advertisements.
There is a small application for Macintosh named ClickToFlash (http://clicktoflash.com/).
Excerpted from their website:
Ever wanted to get rid of the scourge of the web that is Adobe Flash, but still retain the ability to view Flash whenever you want? With ClickToFlash, you can! Using ClickToFlash, all of those icky Flash bits that have infected most webpages on the internets are replaced with a nice, smooth gradient and the word “Flash” set in a nice, pleasing font. When you want to view the Flash, just click on it!
The advantages of ClickToFlash are numerous. Since Flash isn't loaded until you specifically ask for it, your CPU usage will stay at normal levels when browsing the web. This has tons of benefits. We guarantee* that ClickToFlash will quintuple your battery life.
Why can't Apple use this technique? Authorize Flash and make it a user option to view each video individually.
Posted by davesmall at February 6th, 2010 at 6:25 pmIs it possible that Apple originally had a camera on the iPad, only to realize that a camera is impractical on it? How do you keep the tablet pointed where you want it. I know that mine would probably oscillate back and forth between my nostrils and my crotch. It would need really good face tracking software.
Posted by bjndlb at February 6th, 2010 at 6:42 pmCome on, Dave, you've posted the exact same text verbatim on the internet in at least three different conversations. Write something new for … pity's … sake.
Posted by demodave at February 6th, 2010 at 9:17 pmThis is some great commentary and it really is nice to see some rational discussion on the iPad.
I think that most of the problems that a lot of people are complaining about can be fixed with some software updates. After watching the keynote, I got the feeling that there were some things that Mr. Jobs and the others didn't tell us. That there were some things that they were still working on and simply couldn't divulge any info. I am planning on getting an iPad and if they announce any more features or software updates between now and its release…it will be icing on the cake for me.
Great discussion.
Posted by WadeBurrell at February 6th, 2010 at 10:44 pmThe Killer App is iTunes and The App Store. The distribution model is hard to beat, which draws the developers.
Posted by sean5155 at February 7th, 2010 at 12:48 amI felt the same way. I think Apple still has some cards they haven't shown us yet.
Posted by sean5155 at February 7th, 2010 at 1:22 amAll 3G models _are_ unlocked, as was announced in the keynote at about 1:14:30 when discussing plans. It's even written on the wall. ;-)
Both web developers and user interface designers have abhorred Flash because of the poor navigation (doesn't integrate with browsers), additional download (yet another test for an available resource), and awkward integration within websites for at least a decade. This has been a long grievance with Flash for developers and people viewing web pages. This isn't sudden, there are many other options besides Flash, and they have already been developed and have been in use for years.
Evidence of this can be seen from how quickly web sites that are known to use Flash have already adapted for use with the iPhone over just the past three years. The shift has been happening for a long while before then, it's just a matter of time before it's completed.
Thankfully, Flash advertisements are currently broken and the web has become a lot quieter by simply viewing on the iPhone and soon the iPad. Even with replacement ads, it's easy to avoid them with the double-tap zooming that resizes the tapped content to fit the screen. The byproduct of this is the shoving of all other content from view, including the banishment of advertisements outside the tapped content.
With the open-source Webkit as a part of many browsers, the advent of HTML 5 and CSS 3 will be available instantly to many browsers at once, even during development. In fact, it's already available to some degree right now as can be seen with You-Tube, Vimeo, and more notably SublimeVideo at jilion.com which itself has full-screen capabilities. The first two don't have that, but that's not holding them back as much as being able to overlay their ads onto the videos. The other suggestion that an app could be made is also very valid. So, suggesting a wait of two years is probably from not keeping up during the last week, and so is understandable.
I think it's also worth pointing out the recent software update for adding pinch-zoom to Android devices. It actually isn't available to all devices, and some exhibit poor performance in some apps (MacBreak Weekly 178). This division of “some phones have it”/”some phones don't” creates a very awkward selling point and for owner expectations. It makes the buying experience of such “smart” phones as formidable as buying a PC because of all the variations, and support is hampered by the unknowns, too.
Apple's devices have limited the variations and reputedly excel in customer support. When someone says something can be done on an iPhone, it's much more likely can regardless of the model compared to the inconsistent tech specs amongst Android devices.
Now, imagine how much that simplifies developing applications. Developers can depend on the hardware to exist, and therefore know their apps will be useful. Buyers have less disappointment because their devices do have the hardware used by the app.
Finally, Apple has made it look easy. They started over with a well refined OS at the turn of the century and gradually added to it while refining performance along the way. Then they took the same OS and trimmed everything off that wasn't needed in a device like the iPhone. IOW, Apple not only had something to start with, they had the experience of making the necessary modifications. With their experience of customizing software to hardware, and vice versa, more variables are eliminated or minimized.
Add to that their App store (based on the experience with iTunes Store) and it's easy to see nobody can simply jump in and do the same thing. It's too late. Apple is building on their own experience, and nobody else has those experiences. The Zune failed for that reason, the poorly named iTablet and other imitations will, too.
To make it clear why Apple is excelling: Apple does not compete. As for other companies they are failing because they are competing, particularly by coming up with similar devices that might as well be non-working Lego renditions intended to work with daydreams. If a company is going to succeed like Apple then they need to not imitate the products but instead imitate the direction: cross collaboration amongst various technologies. Apple does that with hardware, software, and personal desires to use the devices themselves. Anybody can do the same, but they have to do something new, not a me-too approach but a you've-never-seen-this-in-real-life-before creation. Don't compete, innovate.
It may seem odd that nobody gets it, but it makes sense to me. People go to work for their paychecks, and they try to have what other people have. Focusing on those two interests doesn't lead anywhere, but it does entrap people in predictable lives which help give a little security from having to face their dreams.
If they every questioned why they aren't doing something new, not thinking something different, they would break free and become innovators. But they don't, it's just another day to maintain the same circumstances and prevent change other than to spread more of the same.
Posted by thomqi at February 7th, 2010 at 7:47 amthis video is in flash
Posted by idiotekniQues at February 7th, 2010 at 10:21 amWhen was this conducted, a week+ after the keynote event, and Arrington hasn't yet noticed that the iPad comes unlocked? Any 3G provider can compete for that business from day one; the U.S.-AT&T connection here being neither obligatory, nor contractual for the user (whether other providers will want to match their terms/ undercut prices, is another matter). That, and his idiot complaint over lack of Flash, which he perfectly well knows is due to Apple's strategic decision. Just as going Flash-less will soon be Hulu's doing. Given his own SPECTACULAR FAILURE as wannabe-tablet maker, Arrington should have shown some humility in criticizing Apple for imaginary flaws and misdemeanors.
BTW, of the four talking heads –Rose couldn't find a single one of the female variety– David Carr seem to have gotten the device the most: it is a BIG DEAL to be able to lean back, and immerse oneself in the web, or an eBook, without distractions – be they sensory (overload due to multitasking), or physical (buttons/ controls vying for one's attention). And, because of the ensuing intimacy, the iPad will be a great content-creating device as well.
Posted by ianf at February 7th, 2010 at 12:45 pmI, too, have the feeling that there is some iPad KillerApp™ waiting in the wings. Apple will disclose it at an event just prior to the device's market entrance in April. Because iPod-as-personal-graphic-tablet wasn't even mentioned, I truly hope that that “one more thing” will be about artistic content creation; easy eBook-generation; infinitely-zoomable vector graphics editor or similar.
Posted by ianf at February 7th, 2010 at 1:05 pmI was planning to buy a touch screen Ipod, but now… I'm gonna buy a Apple IPad. Waiting for March…
by NilmaBostonRio
Posted by NilmaBostonRio at February 7th, 2010 at 4:20 pmThe Killer App is the instantaneous response of the UI.
Posted by ChKen at February 7th, 2010 at 9:15 pmI really do not think this is an objective discussion. To me it seems like three true believeers extoling the device based on faith…
Posted by Eric Fisher at February 8th, 2010 at 3:50 pmI believe that the iPad's true disruptive power is in bringing large screen multitouch computing to the masses. One place where this will have a great impact is healthcare. You can read more on my blog under
Posted by Sam Basta at February 8th, 2010 at 4:43 pmThe iPad: Changing Healthcare Conversations
http://www.sambasta.com/post/357777951/the-ipad...
Sam
Do you mean the art making capabilities of iPad weren't mentioned on Charlie Rose, or weren't mentioned by Apple?
Apple very definitely highlighted the iPad as art too. The iPad introduction feature Brushes running on iPhone, and the invitation and artwork at the theater were all splotches of paint on a canvas. iPad as an art tool was definitely covered. Brushes of course gets a larger canvas, but it can also play back paintings stroke-by-stroke on iPad, whereas on iPhone you had to play your paintings on Mac/PC.
I don't think there is any hidden killer app, or needs to be. The killer app is iPhone apps and App Store. The killer app is non-technical users installing a range of apps suited to their own work and tastes without I-T help or risk of viruses or malware. For example, one person will install iWork and Salesforce and be immediately productive, while for another it will be Brushes and other art apps, and for another it will be FourTrack and other music apps. The killer app is how flexible iPad is to become anything. There are credit card readers for iPhone … next time you see a Point of Sale terminal ask yourself if an iPad in a credit card reading dock wouldn't be better? None of this takes I-T to get done. It's all iPod-level technical expertise that so many regular people already have.
If I had to pick a specific killer app, though, it would be Safari. The iPhone browser has made me not want to use a mouse-based browser. Being able to surf the Web full-size with touch is worth $499 to me. It also causes my Mac to spend more time running Photoshop and Logic Pro if I'm browsing on iPad. iPad is like a second display where you run a browser, but with a computer in it, and you can pick it up and take it with you. Safari is going to spend a lot of time running on my iPad.
I can also say that many business people have asked me about the iWork apps on iPad. The demo that Phil Schiller gave really went over well with people who do a lot of office work. They see the advantages to that over what they're using now. I-T people are telling them they need to learn the Office Ribbon and Phil Schiller was like “you push this over here, this over there, drag this like so, and you are done” and it really impressed people. iPad has all these hidden business features also, like printing to Bonjour printers, showing its office documents as a file server, and more. It's going to make business people so productive. MS Office is like pulling teeth by comparison.
Posted by JohnDoey at February 9th, 2010 at 4:30 amThankfully, all participants were looking at things from the perspective of users, not I-T people. There is still way, way too much I-T perspective given on everything that has a computer in it. Most people not only don't care to know what CPU is in there, they actively do not what to know. They don't want to have to know. They want to know if this thing can help them in their work or play.
These days, it makes more sense to have a music reporter talk about the new iPod than an I-T reporter. I liked hearing from a business reporter on iPad.
Posted by JohnDoey at February 9th, 2010 at 4:53 amiPad was running iPhone OS v3.2 at the demo, while iPhone is currently running iPhone OS v3.1.1. iPhone OS v4.0 is expected in June … without a doubt it will have a bunch of new stuff for iPad.
Posted by JohnDoey at February 9th, 2010 at 4:57 am> which itself has full-screen capabilities
Full-screen in this case comes from the browsers themselves. The latest WebKit has it, but not the shipping versions of Safari. Soon enough, all the browsers will have this feature.
The most exciting thing about video escaping from Flash is that Web developers can not work with video dynamically within the page in the same way they work with images. The video can be fully interactive, not just a hole cut in the page to show Flash or QuickTime Player through.
Flash has never been part of the Web, it's always been a bolt-on to fill in for what the Web was missing. But now, HTML5 has video API's and almost all devices have a hardware ISO MPEG-4 H.264 player so it doesn't make sense to add the overhead of Flash. When you switch YouTube from Flash to HTML5 on your desktop you can see the CPU resources and battery drain being freed up. On mobiles this is even more important.
Native video in the devices and on the Web is a really exciting development. Video is finally truly part of the Web.
Posted by JohnDoey at February 9th, 2010 at 5:02 amThis video comes from Charlie Rose and is done in the Flash 7/8 format, FLV, which only plays in Flash. Once this video presentation is updated to the Flash 9/10 format, ISO MPEG-4 H.264, it will run not only in Flash but everywhere else also. Including iPad. Consider that YouTube has been running on iPod for 3 years. In 2007, YouTube switched from FLV to H.264. What is Charlie Rose's excuse?
Posted by JohnDoey at February 9th, 2010 at 5:35 am> That, and his idiot complaint over lack of Flash,
> which he perfectly well knows is due to Apple's
> strategic decision
It's a technical decision, not strategic. Video has been standardized for 10 years now as ISO MPEG-4 H.264, and for 2 years now that has been the standard video in Flash as well. There is a hardware H.264 player in every Apple product, including Macs, as well as in video players from hundreds of manufacturers, including all the smartphones. A software-only H.264 player is not a technical advantage in that case, it's a burden. It burns up the battery and slows performance for no benefit except you can say it “has Flash.”
The reason iPad can play video for 10 hours straight it because it doesn't have Flash, it has optimized video playback hardware. It has iPod video playback, not Flash video playback.
So it is a technical decision.
The one disadvantage is that there is still nonstandard Flash 7/8 (2005-2007) video on the Web. However there is less and less every day. YouTube has been standardized for 3 years now and has played on iPhone the whole time. In a few years we won't be able to explain what the sturm and drang was over there not being a FlashPlayer on mobiles. iPods play video! Think about it.
Adobe's PR war has been loud, but it doesn't change the technical facts. There is no strategic decision necessary from Apple. They support standards overwhelmingly, and have been selling ISO MPEG-4 H.264 out of iTunes Store for almost 10 years. There is no need to put FlashPlayer on iPhone with all its faults just to enable website publishers to continue to publish non-standard video in proprietary FLV format, which has already been deprecated by Adobe, and which has 4x the bandwidth requirements of H.264, and for which the encoder costs 20x what an H.264 encoder costs.
Posted by JohnDoey at February 9th, 2010 at 5:46 amExcept that the people in this discussion have all used an iPad. They are not basing their opinions on faith, but on actual experience with the device. You, however, are not basing your opinion on actual experience, but rather on cynicism.
Posted by JohnDoey at February 9th, 2010 at 5:48 amI have some doctor friends whose I-T just rolled out great big office PC's into every examination room. They said it would get in the way of the 1 on 1 with the patient, and the I-T said “just tell them to think of the PC as the 3rd person in the room.” Ha ha ha ha. Exactly wrong. There is not supposed to be a 3rd person. That's the whole point.
All the doctors are doing is checking boxes to enter data about the exam, but they are supposed to do it sitting at a keyboard, looking at a computer display, tabbing and mousing, while the patient looks in from the outside. Lame.
With an iPad, in many cases I bet the patient would not even notice the doctor was using anything other than a clipboard. So it is definitely cut out for healthcare. And there are hundreds of medical-specific apps for iPhone, reference tools, other things. And it is cheaper than PC's, especially when you factor in the I-T costs and configuration costs that go into a PC deployment.
Truly, if I went into an exam room with a doctor and they sat down at a PC, I would get up and walk out. The doctor is already occupying 60% of their brain with insurance, there is no way they're doing data entry with the other 40% while I'm the patient.
Posted by JohnDoey at February 9th, 2010 at 5:53 ambetter question, what's the ipad's excuse?
marketing itself as the simple easy to use internet device for your grandma – but meanwhile a ton of the internet worn't work on it. even in the apple iPad presentation, you saw a plugin icon missing.
listen apple fanboy, like most of them, you are confused. oh and more importantly, illogical.
Posted by idiotekniQues at February 9th, 2010 at 6:11 amWell Grandma is going to have to wait a couple years, because Flash is slowly, but surely on the way out. I expect a huge HTML5 push, with Google and Apple at the forefront. A Flash-less future is on the horizon, and it's beautiful. No major power usage, no buggy videos, no crashing. And as for now, I think NBC has a beautiful model of presenting shows online without Flash. I was ecstatic when I found out that I could watch 30 Rock on my iPhone.
Posted by Seth72 at February 10th, 2010 at 10:26 pmIt's good to see HTML5 is on its way. Can't wait to get rid of all flash. My web-apps run so much slicker without it.
Posted by guillone at February 18th, 2010 at 5:44 pmFlash is dead, long live HTML5. I love youtube without flash.
@Walter
Just watched the panel discussion regarding the iPad on Charlie Rose, and i agree with almost everything that was said. However, i do disagree with one of your points….
Regarding the 'existence' of a market for the tablet(device of the iPad's form factor), you mentioned that this will be the first time Apple will have to create a market. I disagree with that analysis.
Altairs existed before the Apple II, MP3 players before the iPod, smart-phones before the iPhone, and im sure that there have been “tablet” on the market for a good part of the last decade.
The problem with MP3 players before the iPod, computers before the Apple II and “smart-phone” before the iPhone, is exactly the problem with “tablet” in the pre-iPad era; they only appealed to a small niche (hobbyists).
The “value add” of Apple(in my opinion) has always been the ability to make the 'bits-n-bytes' meaningful/useful to ordinary people(the real market). Thats why the Apple II, iPod and iPhone took off with consumers. And if history is any indication, so too will the iPad.
But in a sense, the “market”(if you can call it that) for tablets is a lot smaller than what the market for MP3 players and smart-phones were where when the iPod/iPhone debuted.
It is my opinion that where the Acers/Dells/Microsofts have failed at shipping a meaningful product and convincing end-users of the value in this category, Apple will probably succeed.
Also…since you seem to have considerable leverage with Jobs…. Push him to include an iSight with iChat in the iPad :-)
Cheers
Posted by HawkeyeA at February 22nd, 2010 at 4:49 amI can't think of a more useless device. It won't replace my laptop, isn't portable (can't put it in my pocket and doesn't sit on the dash of my car) and is a closed architecture. It's just a big Iphone – what's so exciting?
Posted by jimcray at March 4th, 2010 at 5:44 pmAre you an avid fitness walker or looking for different methods for weight loss? Now nothing is better choice than theMBT shoes. Perhaps people know ttmore about the MBT Shoes,it includes MBT Chapa Shoes, MBT Lami shoes,MBT M.Walk shoes and MBT Sport shoes .MBT shoes definitely will improve your posture, strengthen many different muscle groups, and help to burn more calories.The great way to save money is to buy MBT shoes on clearance.
Posted by shaoming lv at March 20th, 2010 at 1:34 pmI hate it when people talk with their hands. C'mon, Moss, please, cut it out. I love to hear you, just hate to watch you. :)
Don Montalvo, TX
Posted by donmontalvo at March 30th, 2010 at 9:14 pm