iPad

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

The screen resolution isn't so great. 1024 x 768 or thereabouts, so it can't do top HD, only the lesser 720p HD for movies etc.

In fairness, at that size, anything better than 720p is irrelevant.

You can make a solid case based on the human eye at normal viewing distances that 1080 is entirely unnecessary until you hit something like a 36 inch screen. It's just window-dressing at smaller screen sizes.

I think the thing is wicked cool.... but put me firmly in the "waiting for 2nd or 3rd generation" camp.

 

[Sammael]

No camera. No multitasking. Ridiculously small memory (and yes, I know SSDs are still expensive; does it have USB support, at least?). Relatively poor battery life (Toshiba has netbooks that offer 12 hours already; MS is promising 2 days for its secret project). No GPS.

I really wanted to like this thing, but I'll wait for Microsoft's offering (likely before the end of the year). Sure, it won't be so sleek and sexy, but it'll probably have a crapload of features I'll use (instead of, say, the compass).

 

[DrunkDutch]

Then I would take alook into the Always Innovating Touch Book. Just google it and take a look, I think it might be what you need.

 

[Morrus]

That it doesn't multi-task is extremely limiting, but probably just an os limitation that can be corrected later.

It'll be jailbroken within a couple of days of release. Then you'll be able to multitask to your heart's content!

 

[Ktulu]

But most of the current tech is hardwire. Having it available over wireless will create the occasional conniption, I am sure. But it seems to me that it'll be so darned useful that they'll solve the problems involved.

Not really so; the company I work for is based entirely around this idea already. We supply an EMR/prescribing system for clinics all over the country that are directly interfaced to lab and radiology facilities, along with direct access to hospitals.

This can all be done from a wireless netbook/laptop system (PC only, because of the market share, obviously), and can be accessed from anywhere (i.e. you go to the ER in the middle of the night and the ER doc can pull up your chart from the heart specialist instantly).

While this isn't available everywhere (due to state requirements), washington has quite heavily adopted, as is Phoenix, California, and Ohio.

The market for something like an iPad would work for hospitals/clinics, but most would need a dual-boot to windows, as most EHR systems run in windows/Ie only.

 

[Kzach]

This can all be done from a wireless netbook/laptop system (PC only, because of the market share, obviously), and can be accessed from anywhere (i.e. you go to the ER in the middle of the night and the ER doc can pull up your chart from the heart specialist instantly).

I find it odd that you refer to market share for an essentially closed system. I don't see how market share would have any influence over something like this.

If you had said price, that would be different.

 

[kenmarable]

To be honest, it seems to me that home use is not where tablets will prove to be killer-useful. I'm thinking medical professionals will eventually find them key - access medical records over a clinic or hospital network, every staff member having one to carry around. Now that's valuable use.

I keep telling my boss that (I work in a university radiology department), but so far no go.

Ack! The HIPA ramifications of that are giving me convulsions. I'd hate to be InfoSec for the first hospital to adopt tablets.

Sorry, but it's too late. Hospitals and especially individual multi-doctor offices already started adopting similar technologies years ago. That genie is long out of the bottle. With the iPad (and eventual other similar products) you can just do this even more and better.

 

[im_robertb]

/yawn
*snip*

Yes yes this <insert gadget here> can save your life. But did one save those other 150,000 unfortunate humans or a few years back when the tsunami struck?

When these devices use a universal charger, the company has a policy to recycle their old products for new ones and humans don't feel tethered to objects then I just might take notice.

This, absolutely. We could fix many of the world's problems without much difficulty, but we'd have to give up our laptops, steaks, and waste of electricity. Someone should make us.

 

[kenmarable]

But not a textbook and the web at the same time.

For my own use, it's not remotely an issue. If I'm reading a journal article and need to look something up, I can go to the Home screen, fire up Safari, look up the web page, go back Home and load back into my PDF reader which saves my place and starts me back up where I left off. There's some extra navigational steps (going to the Home screen) that slows the process slightly from my desktop (although we're talking an extra second or two). But everything loads fast enough that not multitasking has had ZERO impact on my use. Loading a lightweight app can be almost as fast as switching windows on my Windows PC when it's having a bad day.

What, exactly, and how useful without multitasking?

I'm sure our usage is different, but really, it's not a big deal for me. I can see it being extremely useful without multitasking. Furthermore, concerning web apps, it can effectively multitask there with multiple tabs. So I can jump between various websites instantly.

But app to app to web page to app... yeah, that's not instantaneous, but for me it's a non-issue.

For gaming, I could see having open two or three books, an app to play sound effects, a dice roller, and so on.

Music playing is the one app that you can "multitask" (at least on iPhone/iPod Touch) and can jump in and out of while your other app is still running. I presume the iPad will work the same way. And, I love me some technology, but I'm a grognard when it comes to dice. Heck, I won't even let my wife or friends roll my dice, why should a computer!

You may very well be different in how you use devices, so all I'm advising it that folks give thought to the importance of multitasking for them.

This I certainly agree with. Sounds like it won't work for you, but it will work for me. And I'll certainly admit that multitasking would be an improvement. It's just not a show stopper for my use.

 

[Ktulu]

I find it odd that you refer to market share for an essentially closed system. I don't see how market share would have any influence over something like this.

If you had said price, that would be different.

Cost of systems isn't our issue. Our system was designed utilizing I.e. as the outlet, and many of our features function through .Net framework. Is it possible for our system to run on a Mac? Yes, technically. However, due to limitations on our end for having developers focusing on other browser and system configurations, we've limited ourselves to the most commonly purchased and used OS and browser.

That's where I was coming from in market share. Not an insult to the Mac, either, because things like the iPhone would be a nifty system to run our product off of, if we could right now.