Talk:IPad

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?

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)

Acceleremotor

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" ????

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

According to PC World, Apple has announced that it's named the iPad.[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

iPad is also...

Let's prepare the disambiguation page :-)

• The name of a Dashboard Widget for MacOSX : iPad Widget. BlaF. (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• The name of a product of Fujitsu for point of sale applications : Fujitsu iPad.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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[2][3] 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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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".

Mono or Stereo Speakers

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)