I confess: I bought an iPad (and so far I love it)

[Boz]

Certainly no web designer/developer I speak to care for it.

I guess you speak with the wrong ones.. It takes a lot of knowledge and effort to program in Flash..a lot of people who hate flash or developers who want it to go away are those who never bothered to learn it, then they became less relevant, much harder to market and now they have an opportunity to take it out of equation trying to get back to html and css because that's all they know.

I'll tell you one fact.. most people who work in Flash and Actionscript (developers) know JS, HTML, CSS and all that very well too.. While it's not really like that other way around..

I don't care if Flash lives or dies.. I develop in everything I want.. but I love Flash because there is simply NO EQUAL in delivering immersive interactive experiences..

I don't want every site to look the same like a web 2.0 blog ripoff or wordpress themes.

[BoDEAN]

Since a lot of flaming is going on in this thread, does anyone have a good website with resources/forum dedicated to the ipad / and its apps?

[Hell-In-A-Handbasket]

Since a lot of flaming is going on in this thread, does anyone have a good website with resources/forum dedicated to the ipad / and its apps?

Not that I'm area of other then ilounge.com and other iPhone/iPod sites. but literally you go there and there is just as much flaming. for somereason apple haters even go to Apple specific sites/forums in order to flame

[Matrix XII]

I have an iPad (3G 64GB) it's pretty cool, but it's not going to supplant anything I own. It's just a fun toy. I would way rather use a PC and have a mouse..

It's so advanced it doesn't need a USB port, or ANY OTHER port! lol :p

The only thing I'll give it, is it has VERY good battery life.

[Simon Veteran]

I guess you speak with the wrong ones.. It takes a lot of knowledge and effort to program in Flash..a lot of people who hate flash or developers who want it to go away are those who never bothered to learn it, then they became less relevant, much harder to market and now they have an opportunity to take it out of equation trying to get back to html and css because that's all they know.

I'll tell you one fact.. most people who work in Flash and Actionscript (developers) know JS, HTML, CSS and all that very well too.. While it's not really like that other way around..

I don't care if Flash lives or dies.. I develop in everything I want.. but I love Flash because there is simply NO EQUAL in delivering immersive interactive experiences..

I don't want every site to look the same like a web 2.0 blog ripoff or wordpress themes.

I think you're underestimating just what Javascript, HTML and CSS is capable of. You may not be able to do *absolutely every effect* Flash is capable of, but on those "immersive interactive experiences" you're talking about, there are considerably long loading bars in order to even see a bit of content. In that sense, the instant-on feel of most HTML websites is more beneficial than the fancy effect you get for switching a page. That vimeo video you linked was nothing more than a few fancy videos linked together; I can tell you that because it was recorded on a Mac, which doesn't have stable GPU support yet, and so that would be impossible to render on the fly. Videos are handled just fine by HTML5.

There are a few places where Flash has the upper edge. Right now, video is one of them for a few specific purposes, namely DRM-based content. However, I can do 95% of what you can do in Flash, in Javascript, HTML and CSS. And I bet it'll be more responsive, too. With WebGL and HTML5's canvas also picking up steam, web-based games will be better than what Flash is capable of.

[Boz]

I think you're underestimating just what Javascript, HTML and CSS is capable of. You may not be able to do *absolutely every effect* Flash is capable of, but on those "immersive interactive experiences" you're talking about, there are considerably long loading bars in order to even see a bit of content. In that sense, the instant-on feel of most HTML websites is more beneficial than the fancy effect you get for switching a page. That vimeo video you linked was nothing more than a few fancy videos linked together; I can tell you that because it was recorded on a Mac, which doesn't have stable GPU support yet, and so that would be impossible to render on the fly. Videos are handled just fine by HTML5.

There are a few places where Flash has the upper edge. Right now, video is one of them for a few specific purposes, namely DRM-based content. However, I can do 95% of what you can do in Flash, in Javascript, HTML and CSS. And I bet it'll be more responsive, too. With WebGL and HTML5's canvas also picking up steam, web-based games will be better than what Flash is capable of.

Oh I'm very well aware what I can do with JS, HTML, CSS.. I built the first mobile site in 3D for the movie The Fast and The Furious (the last one) for iPhone using hardware acceleration and CSS webkit transforms that are now part of CSS3.

The "instant" feel of html websites can be done just the same in Flash.. you can stream content in in Flash just like you can in HTML..no difference.. the reason people use preloaders sometimes is because they want to connect pieces inside the site to be more seamless as one experience.. not because they can't.

No you can't do 95% in Javascript, HTML and CSS (it's more likely 30%). You can't do a TON of things in JS/HTML/CSS. You can do most obvious ones like tween divs or just now getting some shadow capabilities in CSS3 (which you had to hack together with images previously), and you can try to hack some others to prove you can do them but the fact that it will take you several times longer, it will probably have issues with different browsers or it won't really look the same because each browser renders certain elements differently.

And no, it own't be more responsive because you don't have hardware acceleration in anything in HTML.. again your judgments are based on things YOU CAN do against things in Flash you can't do as being "more responsive" when in fact things you can do in JS/HTML/CSS are very simplistic..

You wouldn't have been able to do even those if you didn't have libraries like Jquery and similar that try to emulate a ton of things that Flash does with such ease and faster and better.

WebGL, Canvas and all that stuff which is being touted, is a pipe dream.. for it to be used on a larger scale you need to have tools, you need to have proper implementations and infrastructures.. There is NOTHING out there (and they are attempting to do some JS engines for making games like they are on Facebook in Flash but they are just ridiculous) like Flash. The fact you have socket connections, peer-2-peer networking and streaming capabilities, 3D, new physics and bones engine, tons of classes and libraries etc etc.. you will need at least 10 years for HTML5 with WebGL and Canvas to even come close.. and that's not even getting into Flash Media Interactive Server (or in open source world wowza server or RED5).

For you to achieve every single thing I can do in Flash in HTML/CSS/JS or HTML5 whatever will take you so long, you will have to use so many different technologies to make it all work, it's masochistic. And as the final product you will have nothing that even comes close to some rich interactive sites Flash is capable of.

And now, when Flash is coming to all mobile devices, has all new sets of APIs for touch interfaces, for geolocation and others and real 3D engine coming in with support for VP8 as well.. the difference will be even more noticeable.

There are tools for every task.. and to claim that HTML5 or even HTML/JS/CSS is going to be appropriate for everything is just as silly as saying Flash is appropriate for everything on the web as well.

As I said, JS/CSS/HTML sites suffer from many features Flash can do. They want to be Flash but they can't. They are clunky, divs are slow, there are limitations and hacks in how you have to layout content, it won't work the same on all browsers if you don't invest a lot of time in writing specific code and do error checking and so forth.

A good example is this site:

http://eu.wrangler.c...ll/#/collection

You will drop you testicles to code the amount of images and loading and interactions with divs to come even close to this.. it's just not smart to do it with JS/HTML/CSS..

HTML5 will be great for apps like Google Voice, for specific non-graphically interactive stuff, for better set of CSS3 with shadows and curved corners and so on. It will give much more freedom for developers to make prettier e-commerce sites, for blogs, for news sites..

But to go on and say how it will be a replacement for Flash is just nonsense sorry..

This wouldn't have been an issue at all if Steve Jobs, as always, didn't come out spouting nonsense and Apple driven agenda..

Also, there are many sites like Hulu and others who clearly stated why they can't use HTML5. They just don't have enough support to do things they are doing with Flash now..

Will HTML5 evolve? Sure.. I like it actually.. but it will take at least 5-10 years before we really see it as a mature replacement for HTML4. And in the meantime Flash will evolve even more, offer some crazy things (below is a hint of what's coming to Flash at this year's Adobe Max 2010)

What kind of API ? True textured z-buffered triangles ? GPU acceleration ? Even better ? What I can say is forget what you have seen before, it is going to be big

and APIs you will again not be able to do in HTML5 and the circle will continue..

[Simon Veteran]

But what's the point of a website that flash heavy, like the one you linked? Sure, it would be pointless to recreate that in HTML, CSS and JS, but it took me 20-30 seconds to even be able to see what the damn thing was. There is a point where practicality has to take priority. People want to click a link and see content. No matter how pretty you make something, it doesn't matter if the user waits 30 seconds to see that your website is about clothing.

On top of that, I don't see anything in that site that would be all that difficult to do using <video>. Like I said, Flash has its uses, but there's a reason you can use the web without Flash: because it's only needed in a few specific cases. In my honest opinion, no site should actually rely on Flash unless something functional needs it. It's not worth it for the sake of having something explode when you click a mouse button.

[vhane]

I guess you speak with the wrong ones.. It takes a lot of knowledge and effort to program in Flash..a lot of people who hate flash or developers who want it to go away are those who never bothered to learn it, then they became less relevant, much harder to market and now they have an opportunity to take it out of equation trying to get back to html and css because that's all they know.

I'll tell you one fact.. most people who work in Flash and Actionscript (developers) know JS, HTML, CSS and all that very well too.. While it's not really like that other way around..

I don't care if Flash lives or dies.. I develop in everything I want.. but I love Flash because there is simply NO EQUAL in delivering immersive interactive experiences..

I don't want every site to look the same like a web 2.0 blog ripoff or wordpress themes.

Knowledge of Flash has no bearing whatsoever on the skill of the developer. That's like saying that a ruby developer is better than a python developer (or vice versa).

[Boz]

But what's the point of a website that flash heavy, like the one you linked?

What's the point? Well brand immersion.. you know creativity in connecting your customers and prospects to get your products. What would you do for this site? Make a catalog with their products? How is this different than all other e-commerce or catalog sites? How are you differentiating Wrangler brand.. is the site experience memorable or not?

That site answers all those questions in a positive way for Wrangler.. it makes a fashion statement, it's creative and showcases their catalog in a memorable way.

That's what the point of it is. Will all sites needs this? Of course not, I would never recommend e-commerce sites to be built in Flash due to many obsticles but nonetheless it can be done of couse.. Nike did it in a very interesting way

Sure, it would be pointless to recreate that in HTML, CSS and JS, but it took me 20-30 seconds to even be able to see what the damn thing was. There is a point where practicality has to take priority. People want to click a link and see content. No matter how pretty you make something, it doesn't matter if the user waits 30 seconds to see that your website is about clothing.

Well you see, I know Jquery sites and HTML/JS/CSS sites that load quite a bit of content.. 20-30 secs is really nothing (and that server is in Europe) so it's probably slower than it should be.. I have HTML sites that need to load for 20-30 secs from european servers and they are plain.

So the argument against preloaders is silly to be honest. You have people making preloaders with HTML/CSS/JS as well.. nothing new there.

On top of that, I don't see anything in that site that would be all that difficult to do using <video>.

Interacting with video and exporting frames and so forth is not something you can do with video tag sorry. And again it would have to be housed in divs or similar and it would have to have a ton of screenshots and it would become a total disaster to build.

Like I said, Flash has its uses, but there's a reason you can use the web without Flash: because it's only needed in a few specific cases. In my honest opinion, no site should actually rely on Flash unless something functional needs it. It's not worth it for the sake of having something explode when you click a mouse button.

And I'm not disagreeing with you.. But here are a few facts.. Biggest innovations on the web have been done due to Flash.. Don't believe me? You wouldn't have Hulu, YouTube, Vimeo, Netflix (they replaced it with Silverlight due to better arrangements with MS but regardless Silverlight wouldn't be here if it wasn't for Flash) all network websites publishing TV shows and content, you wouldn't have MP3 players and liberation of music and services like Grooveshark, not to mention Amazon's DRM free store.

Now, HTML is slowly catching up in some aspects and now, even though it's not here, HTML5 will be the savior and killer of Flash? It's so hilarious it's not even funny.. and as I said, nobody would discuss this because it's really not that important. HTML5 won't replace Flash plugin and Flash plugin can't do everything or is not appropriate for everything. This whole thing start with Steve Jobs taking a dump on Flash because he doesn't want it on his platform because he can't make money then as much as he want or can't enslave developers for buying his computers and working with his tools and paying licenses to him etc..

I am strongly against dumbing down internet experiences. I want to see more interactive content, I want to see Flash pushed even further, mixing video with interaction, making standard cable TV obsolete but in a more interactive way. I am all for brands utilizing Flash to create rich immersive interactive experience for wanting their brands, movies, TV shows, games and so forth to stand out. With bandwith increasing I want to see crazy stuff being done.. not some dumbass, super plain, all look-alike sites. From creativity standpoint it's a DISASTER.

Both have their uses. I am building sites in HTML5 and regular HTML/CSS/JS aswell. I am not against it.. I just hope that tools start to arrive that will make creativity shine and not just make sites that all look alike with forum skins, wordpress themes etc.. That's not the future I want on the web, but that's me..

Will HTML5 allow us to make some great things... Absolutely! Will HTML5 replace Flash in many cases? Nope. Flash is great for many things, it's cross platform, no headaches, you can write one code and publish to desktop app, to web app, to mobile app.. That's power.. Sure HTML5 works in a browser so it covers similar things but without the benefits that Flash gives you by itself.

[Simon Veteran]

Alright, I know I'm not going to get anywhere with you on your other points - we'll agree to disagree. But I have a serious issue with you saying that Steve Jobs started all of this. I've been telling people that JS, HTML and CSS are capable web technologies for years, long before Steve came out with his vendetta against Flash. Not since I was a kid did I think those flashy websites were cool or worth it. Flash, for me, has always been slow, bulky, and unnecessarily resource intensive. There are some amazing sites out there done without Flash, and if I didn't have to go to work I'd go find them for you. But this wasn't Steve Jobs creation. He was just the catalyst for getting the ball rolling. I don't blindly follow what he says, because most of what he says is total bull ****.

And frankly, I'm a bit insulted that you think HTML developers have no originality, because I still believe I can do 95% of what you can do in Flash in a HTML site. That other 5% is a niche market, where advanced web applications may be needed, and most of the time that can be accompanied with Flash in the background, rather than in the foreground, much like what Facebook does for notifications. Flash doesn't make you more original, it gives you access to more stock effects you can use.

[UndergroundWire]

I'm waiting for an Android Tablet running Froyo. It will be better than an iPad in every way and it will play Flash (something Apple said would never allow).

I really hate my Windows Netbook. Microsoft's biggest failure in this arena was not righting a brand new OS for Netbooks. Once I get an Android Tablet, I will download LogMeIn Ignition ($29.99) so that I can connect with my always on Desktop PC.

[nub]

And its people trying to rain down on somebodys happiness, you don't like the iPad

Then get the hell out of the thread. You don't like apple, then Get out of the thread, just STFU about all YOUR negative things regarding it and get over it.

If somebody doesn't like PS3, or XBOX, or APPLE, or MICROSOFT they blast the crap through everybody's threads, if you want to have group therapy bashing somebody's stuff, go have a group orgy in a group session praising your product and bashing everything else.

These threads shouldn't be locked, it's people coming in raining on their stuff that should stay out

People said cars wouldn't be popular because of noise and smell, guess what happened, people said computers wouldn't be popular, guess what, people said we wouldn't fly, guess what.

If you don't like the iPad, then Get the F out, you don't like apple, then get the F out, thread started created thread cause he likes his iPad, WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE TO BASH HIM, HIS LIKES OR HIS OPINIONS, GET OVER YOURSELF

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=nT0OqHr3wHQ

Oh no somebody a different view invading your thread.

[Boz]

I'll just respond to this and we will agree to disagree because I dont' want to hijack the thread any more with this topic.

Alright, I know I'm not going to get anywhere with you on your other points - we'll agree to disagree. But I have a serious issue with you saying that Steve Jobs started all of this. I've been telling people that JS, HTML and CSS are capable web technologies for years, long before Steve came out with his vendetta against Flash.

And if Steve have wrote that there wouldn't have been any problems. But he banned and deliberately changed the developer agreement to specifically take off Flash compiler from his platform. Meaning, no matter what Adobe makes nor how good their new version of player and AIR support is.. you can't build it..

And it's a big deal to everyone because 90% of the web uses Flash and for good reason. This would make all our jobs much easier to port those into apps and optimize them for mobile without rewriting everything in cumbersome Objective-C and actually losing a ton of functionalities, because Steve Jobs wants to force people to develop for his platform.

Basically he started everything and declared war on Flash and gave a big F-U to all of us who have applications and sites we wanted to port to iPhone thanks to iPhone compiler because he doesn't like what Flash stands for, for his bottom line. But he actually let's others do apps with cross compilers only if it's not Flash. Not to mention the fact that his essay was complete nonsense. Flash has it's issues but the ones he highlights are just downright ridiculous and retarded, not to mention false in terms of that things could have been improved if they worked with Adobe and allowed them to access certain APIs they need, which they actually opened up a couple of month ago and now Adobe is releasing builds for the Gala version of Flash specifically for Mac.

There are some amazing sites out there done without Flash, and if I didn't have to go to work I'd go find them for you. But this wasn't Steve Jobs creation. He was just the catalyst for getting the ball rolling. I don't blindly follow what he says, because most of what he says is total bull ****.

Nor did I say you blindly follow.. I just said he started this crusade. There was no word of HTML5 "killing" Flash or Flash killing HTML5 prior to his remarks and actions. We all knew that HTML5 will be great it will bring long awaited revision to HTML standard and do some awesome things without plugins and allowing us to tap in hardware, to use Canvas and so forth which was way beyond anything that was possible so far.

I totally agree there are great sites built in JS/HTML/CSS.. but to an extent.. I have never seen a site built in JS/HTML/CSS that has the level of interactivity, animations, sounds, videos intermixed. It's all very flat for the most part and that's fine. You should use tools for the task, not stubbornly defend the fact (not you I mean but in general those who don't like or never wanted to learn Flash) that you can build some things in HTML/JS/CSS like Flash has done but it will take you weeks for it instead of building in a few hours in Flash. Just because you can replicate something doesn't mean it's the right tool for the job.

HTML/JS/CSS can do stuff well that Flash did maybe 5 years ago. It's in that stage right now with all nice libraries, JQuery, now new CSS3 etc.. finally Google FontAPI gave us custom fonts and so forth.. All of these things were possible in Flash 5 years ago.

Are there beautiful sites in HTML/JS/CSS? Sure.. are they immersive, highly interactive, fluid video/audio experience? Nope.. they are mostly flat with beautiful graphics made to scroll, slide, fade etc. That's not the same.. and for the record most sites that are HTML5 or HTML/JS/CSS these days look alike.. they all look similar to wordpress themes and stuff.. That's what simplification does it.

I would be genuinely interested to see example of the sites you think are creative and immersive that are done in HTML/JS/CSS.. I'm not trying to force you but I would really like to see them for my own purposes and ideas too.

And frankly, I'm a bit insulted that you think HTML developers have no originality, because I still believe I can do 95% of what you can do in Flash in a HTML site. That other 5% is a niche market, where advanced web applications may be needed, and most of the time that can be accompanied with Flash in the background, rather than in the foreground, much like what Facebook does for notifications. Flash doesn't make you more original, it gives you access to more stock effects you can use.

Well I do both, I pay developers, I do big projects, I have done every single piece of technology and have seen and dones sites on major platforms and I am certain you can't do 95% of stuff that Flash does in HTML/JS/CSS..

My intention was not to insult you really... so I apologize if you have been insulted but tweening divs or fading them out or applying graphics and screenshots by loading them consecutively is not what I call a solution and certainly not 95% of what Flash can do? I'm curious have you done Flash Actionscript development? Do you have a grasp of what Flash can indeed do? Not mean it as a dig, just curious. Because you can't control and edit audio or video with JS/HTML, you can't access live camera and microphone with JS/HTML and so many other things.

You can do some basic things and animations and that's fine.. AJAX/Jquery is a step in the right direction in terms of not reloading pages when you need data to be refreshed and so on, but it's a huge hassle to code and debug.

I'll tell you why I said HTML/JS/CSS developers are less creative..so you don't feel insulted.. When I build websites in Flash, I think how I'm gonna reinvent user interface, how I'm going to integrate live streaming into my animations and videos and allow users to interact with that in 3D for example.. these types of things you don't think about or you might think it's not great because all you have seen is probably some bad sites or you are just not interested in it because you can't achieve those things nicely with JS/HTML/CSS.. With Flash you can..

So it's about pushing the boundaries.. it's about reinventing what's out there.. creating immersion, mixing it with video, with audio, creating an experience that will define a brand or cause lust with the consumer. That's my job that companies pay me a lot of money. I can't give them that with JS/HTML/CSS and even I could it would take me so much time and debugging and hassle that I just couldn't justify budgets for it nor I could ask the clients to pay it.

I have received numerous awards for my work including prestigious Hollywood Reporter Key Art Award for New Media Home Entertainment for 300 website because I pushed boundaries. I have created an experience that described the movie and immersed the viewer. This is what I consider creativity with others.

To me creativity is not making a bunch of nice fonts, slap a few shadowy PNGs and make divs fly around on Timer event or click, but that's me personally. I am not saying they cannot be pretty or creative but they will eventually end up being what they are.. HTML/JS/CSS sites with only so many things this platform allows.

[evo_spook]

I'm waiting for an Android Tablet running Froyo. It will be better than an iPad in every way and it will play Flash (something Apple said would never allow).

I really hate my Windows Netbook. Microsoft's biggest failure in this arena was not righting a brand new OS for Netbooks. Once I get an Android Tablet, I will download LogMeIn Ignition ($29.99) so that I can connect with my always on Desktop PC.

Ok. without one being released, care to enlighten us all how the android tablet will be better in everyway? Please, otherwise its just the ramblings of an android fanboy.

Logmein is already available on the ipad.

[Boz]

Ok. without one being released, care to enlighten us all how the android tablet will be better in everyway? Please, otherwise its just the ramblings of an android fanboy.

Logmein is already available on the ipad.

The fact it will run Android is making it better right from the bat.. more open, better accessibility to information with widgets and live wallpapers and smart push notifications and so many other things underneath it (including wifi-hotspot and USB tethering). Of course, it will also support Flash and AIR so the number of applications you will be getting just out of all the millions of developers will make everyone tingle :)

They will come with 3G/Wifi support, camera and so forth. Samsung Galaxy tablet is coming out shortly it's all but here. That tablet is beautiful and definitely much nicer than iPad. At least IMO.. I like the fact that it's 7" screen.. much nicer to hold with one hand too.

[evo_spook]

The fact it will run Android is making it better right from the bat.. more open, better accessibility to information with widgets and live wallpapers and smart push notifications and so many other things underneath it (including wifi-hotspot and USB tethering). Of course, it will also support Flash and AIR so the number of applications you will be getting just out of all the millions of developers will make everyone tingle :)

They will come with 3G/Wifi support, camera and so forth. Samsung Galaxy tablet is coming out shortly it's all but here. That tablet is beautiful and definitely much nicer than iPad. At least IMO.. I like the fact that it's 7" screen.. much nicer to hold with one hand too.

just a pity theres so few decent android apps, so don't where your millions of developers tingle quote is from, as for the rest, Android better the ios is simply opinion, they are different but wouldn't say one is better then the other., so

[TheElite]

just a pity theres so few decent android apps

What?

Every "decent" app that's in the Apple App store is in the Android Market. If anything, there's more duplicate crap in the App store.

[DrewJW]

But can it make pie, while also serving you with a flashing image of a camel doing a tap dance on a plutonium cake baked by a mutant hedgehog.

[Petvas]

I don't think we are going to see official Android tablets any time soon. Even if that happens they won't be as polished as the iPad. At the end of the day having choices is a good thing for everybody.

[UndergroundWire]

Ok. without one being released, care to enlighten us all how the android tablet will be better in everyway? Please, otherwise its just the ramblings of an android fanboy.

Logmein is already available on the ipad.

1) An iPad is an oversized iPhone. Just like the Android Tablet will be an oversized Android Phone.

2) I never said Log me In wasn't available on the iPhone / iPad.

Knowing number 1, which is a big 1 for me, I prefer multi-tasking over what Apple passes off. And from what I understand, the iPad doesn't have iOS 4 on it which means no multi-tasking. Let's face it, the Android Tablet will not be different than an Android Phone other than no phone capabilities and a bigger screen. Plus you'll have more options by January/February 2011. Sorry if Android Phones are out performing the iPhone. It must hurt Apple fanboys like yourself. It puts a smile on my face.

Sorry everyone. I have low a tolerance for stupidity.

[UndergroundWire]

just a pity theres so few decent android apps, so don't where your millions of developers tingle quote is from, as for the rest, Android better the ios is simply opinion, they are different but wouldn't say one is better then the other., so

All the basic apps that exist for the iPhone exist for the Android. What iPhone has more of is games. It would be nice if Android got some game love but honestly, I don't play video games so I doesn't affect me. The only app for me that the iPhone has that I want for my Android is the NIN app. Other than that, there is no difference.

[vhane]

1) An iPad is an oversized iPhone. Just like the Android Tablet will be an oversized Android Phone.

That's an over simplification. Applications need to be built with the bigger screen in mind. Otherwise you might as well just use the phone. It makes a huge difference in day to day use. I do not use one single iPhone sized app on the iPad. All the apps on my iPad were purpose built for it.

What is going to be interesting is how developers manage to cater for all the different screen sizes that are likely to come out for the Android tablets - from 5 inches (Dell is calling the Streak a tablet) all the way to 12 or more inches. That's not a trivial undertaking. Screen sizes may differ, but the finger stays the same size. Mouse, and stylus driven interfaces can get away with shrinking the buttons. Not touch interfaces.

[Boz]

All the basic apps that exist for the iPhone exist for the Android. What iPhone has more of is games. It would be nice if Android got some game love but honestly, I don't play video games so I doesn't affect me. The only app for me that the iPhone has that I want for my Android is the NIN app. Other than that, there is no difference.

And NIN application is absolutely awful..

[Shadrack]

I've had my iPad since release, and I still use it every day. Awesome for magazines, books, email, and web surfing. People who keep shouting that iPad sucks don't seem to be able to slow down the rate these things are selling or change the mind of owners.

Taking a look at all the competition currently on the market, I think iPad has the edge and best price point. If you just want a light weight eBook reader, sure Kindle is a great device. My dad has one and loves it. But if you want an eBook reader on steroids, then the iPad is for you. The only downside with the iPad as an eBook reader is the direct sunlight issue (I guess if you want to read on the beach or something...????) and the fact that it is an LCD screen can be a turn off for hard-core readers that read hours upon hours on end. I read for about 2 hours straight and it doesn't strain my eyes.

[wellofsouls]

LOL.. responses like is what really gets me laughing.. How do you "not like Flash".. Technology that brought us ubiquity on the interent, unified videos and brought us free stuff.. It seems people forgot what web looked like prior to Flash?

The only reason a person can say a thing like "I don't like Flash" or "It needs to die", is the one who believes stupid Steve Jobs crap. But again, not really surprised people do.

or they are firm HTML5 believers and/or Open Web proponents.

Congrats, you win stupid quote of the month for that one.

I can tell you now, my Acer Ferrari One netbook although ?300+ is still half the price of an iPad, has more than TWICE the power, RAM and Storage.

I'm not sure what you mean by "power" here, if you mean the battery time (as what "power" usually means for portable devices), I highly doubt your netbook can last 20 hours (twice the iPad's battery time) while surfing the net and reading e-books.

To the OP, don't worry, one of my friends also got an iPad and loves it, and he's even a Google employee (or maybe it's because he's a Google employee, his high salary enables him to buy fancy things like iPad) :p