5 Things Apple’s iPad Could Do Better

Copyright © 2010 Apple Inc.

On January 27th, Apple unveiled its “latest creation” – a tablet computer touted to be the missing link between the smartphone and the laptop computer.  While the hype reached near-frenzy levels leading up to the 1PM Eastern announcement event, reactions now that the details are out in the wild have been decidedly mixed.  Here’s what the Apple iPad needs to make it the netbook killer everyone thought it would be:

1. An integrated video camera. One of the most promising applications for the iPad was the possibility of video conferencing on-the-fly.  Tying people together and using technology to build dynamic, interactive communities is the wave of the future, and Apple has decided to pretend otherwise.  This oversight may be a strategic attempt to make later iterations of the device more attractive as an upgrade, or as part of their “landmark” agreement with AT&T so that the iPad doesn’t crash their 3G network entirely.  This leads me to…

2. Native chat or SMS application with Growl notifications. Again, this is an issue of interaction.  Part of the appeal that smartphones possess is the fact that they are constant communication hubs – with texts, chats, emails, MMS messages, and phones calls constantly coming in and going out, there’s rarely a dull moment.  The iPad lacks all of this dynamic appeal.

3. Multitasking. Without it, there is very little advantage to owning one of these over the iPhone or laptop that millions already use.  And because the iPad more than triples the screen real estate, it is uniquely suited to multitasking.  The 1GhZ processor seems more than adequate for the task, so I’m suspecting this is something Apple will remedy with a later software update.

4. A more accurate touch interface. Apple has already established its reputation for photo-editing and graphic software.  The iPad could be incredibly useful for the artist-on-the-go, or someone wanting to quickly manipulate a photo in the field.  But in order to do this, the touch interface that Apple already uses will need to become much more refined if it’s going to compete against established graphics tablet companies like Wacom.

5. Content. This one will, more than likely, fill itself out as time progresses and developers take advantage of the new processor and screen resolution.  The iPad faces a difficult journey in becoming a leading eBook reader, and not just because of the competition.  Availability of content has always plagued eReaders like the Kindle and the Nook, and a complicated copyright situation could well prove to be the minefield standing between Apple and eBook dominance. (Digital Trends has a good breakdown of the uphill battle Apple faces when it comes to making books available through their reader.)  On a related note, the half-sized original iPhone apps look ridiculous when played on the full-screen iPad, and are, at best, an acceptable temporary measure until developers get around to converting their apps.

Only time will tell if Apple delivers on these fronts or if they prove to be irrelevant to the tablet market as Apple defines it.

What would you like to see added to the iPad?

Thus concludes #airassicpark…for now!

Well, as you can tell, #airassicpark is officially over.  As I tweeted, however, I cannot share the details of my experience on Isla Nublar due to the terms of my Non-Disclosure Agreement.

I will say this: #airassicpark has already been nominated for the Gray Falcon Live Twitter Drama Award and the Guy Fawkes Alternate Fiction on Twitter Award, both of which I just made up.  Cash prizes are pending verification of my identity.

Thanks for following along.

#airassicpark begins on Twitter tomorrow at 11AM/10AM central time

Tune in here for the full experience.

I am flying tomorrow and decided to give an in-depth look at the new security procedures being employed at U.S. airports following the attempted underwear bombing this Christmas.  I call this simul-tweeting.

PREMISE

Jurassic Park was just an airport security screening procedure.

CHARACTERS

Follow these Twitter accounts for the full effect:

Tim Murphy          @bigtimtoast
Lex Murphy         @hackerlex
Dr. Alan Grant        @alangrant
Dr. Ian Malcolm        @malcolmchaos
Donald Gennaro        @donaldgennaro
John Hammond        @ingenhammond
Dennis Nedry        @dnedry
Henry Wu            @HenreallyWu
Robert Muldoon        @Robert_Muldoon
Ellie Sattler            @esattler

with guest appearances by

@jptrex

@mrdinodna

and

@onesicktrike

Advertising FAIL

There’s a very subtle error in this ad.  You may or may not see it.

…Yeah, that looks like your average motherly figure.  (?!?!)

Avatar pulls in more than $232 million worldwide in first weekend (paying for itself?)

Not surprisingly, Avatar made a killing in its first weekend, earning about $73 million domestically and another whopping $151 million internationally.  Most of these sales were in 3D theaters.

Most industry experts expected as much, even given the East Coast blizzard that managed to keep people at home.  The real question that lingers is how the movie will fare over the coming weeks.  Will it see the kind of repeat viewings that typically drive blockbuster sales?  Personally, I think that this week and next weekend will be very good to Avatar, as moviegoers who were holding off to see how it was received over opening weekend flock to the theaters to see what everyone seemed to agree was, as one Fox poll suggested, mostly “A”-worthy.

Cameron and others have stated many times that the movie’s official budget sat at around $240 million, which, if true, would put Avatar in a very comfortable position going into its second weekend.  Of course, we all know how ambiguous that “total” production cost has been over the past few months, so maybe Cameron and Co. may have a long way to go.

(On a related note, only in this strange blockbuster world we have created for movies could a $73 million opening weekend be considered a “flop,” as this site calls it.)

A good summary of the movie’s statistics, or watch its detailed performance.

Avatar: IMAX 3D or Digital 3D?

The brief: Brave souls should try the IMAX 3D Experience; if you’re worried about getting nauseous, opt for the RealD® screenings; and for the rest of us, there is always Digital 3D.  (You can also find it in Digital 2D, like every other movie, but few theaters will have this option available.)

I just got out of the last opening day screening of Avatar in the IMAX 3D theater here, and thought I’d post a quick response regarding the quality of the experience in that particular venue.  You don’t need to worry about spoilers here, because I am going to leave reviews of the plot to people better suited to cinematic criticism (see: people more interested).  I will put a warning out there, however, that this movie contains some pretty egregious cruelty towards animals, albeit animated ones, so keep that in mind.

I will say this: Cameron has really created a visually stunning piece of art here, and I was totally blown away.  The 3D aspect brought some scenes up from beautiful to truly stunning.  It is, however, rather understated, meaning that Cameron didn’t try to pull a bunch of cheap tricks to get you thinking that things are constantly flying at you, which I appreciated.

As I wear glasses, I was a little worried that they might interfere with the effect.  I’m pleased to report that, while it may have been an issue back in the day, this is no longer the case.  The only problem is that the 3D glasses have to sit over your lenses and therefore rest much lower down on your nose, which gives me the insanity-inducing feeling that my glasses are slipping down my nose (anyone who has had a bad-fitting pair of corrective lenses will understand).  Other than that, they were pretty comfortable, even during Avatar’s bladder-crippling three hour run time.

Probably my biggest fear going in, though, was that I would get dizzy or nauseous (like I did when I saw District 9) as a result of the 3D effect.  For once, I was not the person to get disoriented by the cinemetography.  Avatar was shot with rock-solid, professional steady-cams, and there is no weird wobbling.  I did go cross-eyed for a few brief scenes where the camera’s focus made it hard to know where to look, but these scenes are brief and interspersed enough that you can just close your eyes for a second and they’ll be gone.

If you’re trying to decide between which type of screening to go to, there are a few things to keep in mind.  First, the IMAX has a superior sound system, which is good as long as you enjoy feeling your seat vibrate like the window of a 747 every time a missile explodes on screen (I do).  The younger audience members in particular seemed to agree that it was a little too loud, which seemed a bit ironic.  Second, the larger screen didn’t seem to make much difference. It is perfect for someone who wants to go for the full-effect, and I really do recommend it, but I don’t think you’ll be missing out on anything grand if you opt for a smaller (and more affordable) screen.  I have also heard that RealD® technology is the wave of the future and reduces “ghosting” (which I never noticed in the IMAX version), and it is used solely on smaller screens, which might be a good option if one is airing near you.

Incidentally, you do get to keep the nifty IMAX glasses they give you, although there is a bin outside the theater to recycle them if you don’t want them.

These are just my first impressions.  Your mileage may vary, and the decision is ultimately yours.

I may go fact-hunting and give a more scientificaly-based interpretation later, when I am not groggy and movie-lagged.  In the meantime, you can find a good discussion of the movie’s finances here.  Sci Fi London has posted a good interview with James Cameron where he discusses the technological and political aspeects of Avatar.