

iPad 2: Thoughts from a first time tablet user - PStamatiou
http://paulstamatiou.com/apple-ipad-2-tablet-thoughts

======
saidulislam
I just ordered mine. I am not so thrilled about it. I ordered it mainly
because I want to develop some apps for it. I did play with it few time at the
local BestBuy and at friend's. I don't see anything special in it besides
being a newer bigger iPod.

Graphics? Yes it's better (in fact better than all other tablets) but were you
really able to see the difference. What about the average folks? Do you think
they will be able to see the difference. I am picky but not that picky.

Duo Core? Big deal. Many other tablets are featuring the same. The one I
played with at Best Buy had all the popular apps loaded. Angry Bird was not so
smooth with swipe action. Home screen swipe was fine. Still not so buttery to
me.

Thinner? Yes but it's not as impressive as Kindle or Nook. If it was that
thinner I would be like oh yea.

2 cameras? Isn't this about time? Apple is behind on this. Most of the Android
tablets had them from day one.

Having said all that, it is still a nice toy. It definitely changed our mobile
experience. Netbooks look so dead or even Laptops look so outdated compared to
the tablets these days. I don't see it as a game machine. Instead, it will be
another entertaining in it's space. We will browse sites, take notes, look up
howtos, share stories, photos, videos, listen to audio books and read books to
our kids like never before. Android or something similar will lead the market
space eventually unless Apple becomes open. However, iPad will still be seen
as the trend setter for a while.

------
lg
Speaking of scroll speed, I didn't buy the first iPad because I mostly cared
about it as a pdf reader and the resolution sucked too much. w/the ipad 2 the
resolution still sucks so I figured it'd be no change. But when I used it in
the store yesterday, scroll and zoom were so fast and seamless (even on 70-odd
page pdf's in the browser reader) that I had no problem reading. Seriously
considering one now.

~~~
glhaynes
Yeah, I've found that the increased speed makes me more likely to [happily,
successfully] use it for more "laptop things" than I did the old one. Having a
Smart Cover that props it up well for typing sure doesn't hurt any, either.

------
mikeklaas
Pretty cool to see a screenshot of my app, Zite. Feel free to ask any question
or suggest areas to improve!

------
jokermatt999
The best way of thinking about it that I've found: Did Flash games kill the PC
gaming market? No. Will iOS/Android/etc games kill console games? No. Perhaps
they'll encroach on the handheld market (PSP, 3DS), but I don't think they've
got the same "depth" that most console and PC games do.

Don't get me wrong, it's a lucrative market to be in, and it seems much easier
to break into for most developers (although indie PC gaming is also a good
size scene) than traditional console/handheld development. I just really,
really am not convinced that they'll kill off console games. I've never heard
someone who's actually a more hardcore "gamer" entertain the notion, and that
makes me think that most people making these claims don't understand the
market for them whatsoever.

~~~
Stormbringer
Personally I think historically one of the problems with Flash games was
getting paid. Most people would love the revenue stream from an ad supported
version of Bejeweled... but what else in Flash games is there that makes
money?

There's farming games on Facebook I guess, but to read the devs blogs you'd
think it was a never ending series of the playing field being moved all the
time, and dodgy APIs.

To monetize their skills most of the Flash devs I know went to work for ad
agencies, or switched to a different language and Flash became a hobby.

I think this is one of the "eleven secret herbs and spices" of iOS
development, why they had an absolutely massive number of devs and apps,
because there was this pent up demand from the indie devs, and no really good
or easy way to fulfill it.

\--

You say "perhaps they (the iOS and Android games) will encroach on the
handheld market (PSP, 3DS)"

I'm confused, didn't that already happen? Haven't the handhelds been in a
death spiral since the iPod Touch took off big time?

------
cletus
I fully agree that the iPad will increasingly encroach on the console games
market. That may sound crazy but hear me out.

1\. Already the graphics on the iPad 2 are pretty good. I would argue they're
_sufficiently_ good and only getting better (with better software and
successive generations of hardware);

2\. 3D realism has I think overshot the mark. Nintendo has proven--and
continues to proven--that you don't need the latest and greatest 3D engine to
sell consoles and games. Remember too that many people are nostalgic about
arcade games and systems from the 80s and 90s;

3\. Increased realism in games has really blown out art costs. I would argue
that art now constitutes the majority of even big budget titles. The more
realistic games get the higher this cost. Improved tooling has mitigated this
somewhat but the cost continues to rise.

There is significant economic incentive for game producers to curtail art
costs by developing on lower-spec platforms.

3\. The iPad is a multi-purpose device so, ultimately, more people are likely
to buy it or devices like it than consoles (IMHO). Console makers continue to
stretch the capabilities of consoles (adding VoD services like Netflix, etc)
but ultimately it's still a TV. The iPad is a computer (albeit one with
limitations). This will however take time.

I've been saying for the last year--and I continue to say--Sony, Nintendo and
Microsoft should all be scared about the iPad.

~~~
kenjackson
You missed the biggest reason... cost of games is much cheaper. Even the Wii,
with lower end titles, still cost much more than iPad games.

The big problem with the iPad is that it is not an enjoyable multiuser
experience yet. Nothing beats having friends over and playing Madden on a big
TV. This is one reason why I think PC gaming never really took off in a big
way. Playing a game on a PC is basically an isolated experience (mitigated by
online play).

~~~
cletus
You raise two good points.

As for the cost, they are cheaper but I don't necessarily see that as being
structural. What I mean is that that there is that as capabilities expand, so
will what producers can do with that platform. The cost will go up with this.
This will, in part, be mitigated by increasing market size.

Or possibly publishers will finally learn that if games are cheap people will
buy more of them, a lesson that has been consistently proven true from Steam
price cuts (where selling a game for $5 made more than the original IIRC).

The second good point you make, which I missed, is the multi-user aspect of
games like Madden. This is mainly because I've never been this way inclined. I
haven't been much of a console gamer at all really. I'm more of a PC gamer
that likes turn-based strategy games.

But I have bought and played a plethora of "casual" games on my iPad (and now
iPad 2).

I see tablets as being fundamentally personal devices, not really something
you play a game on with multiple people (unless they each have their own).

Still I see a huge potential market for games like Madden where each person
has their own tablet as a control.

What about where the Apple TV (a future iteration) plays one view and each
player has their own control so it looks like a real football game?

~~~
bilbo0s
I know of several startups working on ipad 2 games that uses the ipod touch or
iphone as the other controller. Or even THE controller. It's actually pretty
cool.

The one I played made me think ... WOW ... goodbye console wars.

~~~
icefox
I was at an airport a few years ago and the plane was delayed. A mother pulled
out her iphone, gave it to her kid and said he if he wanted another game he
could only spend $1. The kid was entertained for the next hour while we all
waited for the plane. I knew then that dedicated portable consoles were dead.

------
joe_bleau
This site forces my browser (Opera) into a (roughly) 1Hz reload loop. Nasty.
No wonder I normally surf with javascript off!

~~~
PStamatiou
Hrm, any debug info would be helpful. I'm only running Disqus, analytics,
cabel's fancyzoom.js and typekit.

~~~
acqq
What more info do you need? If it wasn't obvious, you are supposed to open
your site in the Opera browser, making sure Javascript is turned on. You'll
see how it just can't load.

~~~
PStamatiou
I was asking for additional info because I can't reproduce the problem in
Opera (11/OS X).

~~~
acqq
Sitting in Europe (ping time 107 ms to your site), using Opera 11.01 on
Windows XP I see the behavior joe_bleau described -- in the URL bar there's
constant reloading visible when Javascript is turned on.

~~~
PStamatiou
is it disqus polling?

------
mariusmg
Replacement for consoles ? Come on...maybe only if you're a Sunday gamer.

~~~
dsplittgerber
Potential market for people willing to shell over $40 for a game?

Potential market for people willing to try on a whim that bird game the whole
office has been talking about?

Serious gamers will probably always stick with the most advanced gameplay and
technology. But there is a _huge_ market for people who have a few minutes to
kill on trips, during commute, in front of the tv etc. As games are
increasingly made with cognitive reward cycles in mind, one could argue, that
the percentage of people who never play will shrink ever more.

~~~
estel
But that (quite rightly) speaks of a new market for people willing to try some
bird game on a whim: not a replacement for other gaming experiences that
mobile is a long way from challenging.

It's Nintendo's hold of the portable market with this week's 3DS that seems
most tenable and vulnerable to the proliferation of gaming on phones and
tablets; I think we're a long way off of MSFT being worried about the 360.

------
geuis
Those big budget games also cost a gagillion dollars to _make_. My buddy
worked at EA for a year. He would tell me stories of how they can spend over
$50 million on a game and it makes $52 million worldwide. And EA is a billion
dollar company. They consider that at best a break-even game and possibly a
loser.

That same buddy now works at Microsoft. Do you realize that MS doesn't make
money on hardware, on the xbox units themselves? I think they just started
breaking even on the hardware in the last few months with that. That's _6
years_ of a top-selling product that they have lost money on. Meanwhile, they
make something like $1.5 billion a year just on Xbox Live subscriptions, and
more money on the licensing fees for games. I don't have any numbers for that.

Now also consider, as of April 2010 MS had sold 40 million Xbox 360's
(<http://kotaku.com/#!5522559/xbox-360-40-million-sold>). That's over the
course of 5 years. Meanwhile, Apple has sold at least 50 million iPhones in
2010 ([http://www.macstories.net/news/47-million-iphones-sold-
in-20...](http://www.macstories.net/news/47-million-iphones-sold-
in-2010-first-2011-shipments-to-include-cdma-iphone/)), 15 million iPads in
its first year (<http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/07/20results.html>) and
another 1 million iPad 2s in its first week.

There have been 47.9 million Playstation 3's sold since November 2006
(<http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/data/bizdataps3_sale_e.html>). Taken
separately, the 2 popular consoles have taken 5-6 years to rival the number of
units sold by Apple in a little over a year. If we take into account the
number of iPhones and iPod Touches sold in previous years, its a safe
comparison to say that Apple alone has an equal or larger number of units sold
compared to consoles, at least in shear numbers. To top that off, estimates
are that iPads alone will push 50 million by the end of the year, and who
knows how many iPhone 5's will sell when it launches.

So the market almost always wins. Developers go where the money is. On the one
hand you have the existing console market that has, for the sake of argument,
100 million units worldwide. On the other, you have the iOS combined platform
of roughly the same or more number of shear units.

Consoles:

1) Expensive games ~$60 USD

2) Locked into your house. e.g. You can only play in front of your tv.

3) Limited utility, games, movies 4) Better controls for first person
shooters. Crappy controls for Angry birds.

5) Amazing, if expensive, graphics. Sometimes. In fact, lots of $60 games kind
of look like crap.

iOS (iPhones, iPads, iPod touches):

1) Inexpensive games $0.99-$10 (averages)

2) Portable. Can take it anywhere

3) Lots of utility. Phone calls, text messages, games, camera, video, GPS,
shopping, movies, music, etc.

4) Crappy controls for first person shooters. Perfect controls for Angry
Birds.

5) Median graphics. Not Crysis or Farcry level. But high-level of quality
control and the best games look pretty good.

There's a lot of other reasons I can go into, but basically I'm trying to
demonstrate that "better controls" have _nothing_ to do with it. Better
graphics have little to do with it. You can buy like 10-20 games on your
iPhone and/or iPad instead of 1 game on your xbox or playstation. And you can
take them with you anywhere. And the market is a hell of a lot bigger, so you
can sell more $5 games than you can $50 games.

1) Its cheaper to develop for iPhones/iPads/Android devices than consoles

2) There's more iPhones/iPads/Androids out there to sell to. Lots of people
that aren't interested in consoles buy smart phones and tablets. Everyone
loves to play games.

3) MUCH lower barrier to entry to make apps and games for iOS and Android then
Xbox or Playstation.

~~~
joebananas
I though hardcore FPS players mostly uses high-end PCs rather than consoles.

~~~
6ren
I think that supports his point. PCs have better controls and (high end ones
have) better graphics than consoles. Despite this, more games are sold for
consoles, and developers target them.

The same effect can occur for iOS devices - and their graphics will get better
each year (9 times faster this year...)

------
Stormbringer
I think the moral of the story is that there is no point in going gaga over
the numbers that hardware manufacturers serve up unless and until you can get
your hands on the actual device (whether that be phone, netbook, CPU, GPU or
plain old desktop) and try it out for yourself.

I think this is a problem that has long been embedded in tech journalism. We
go all breathless over an extra 10% mega this or giga that, but 99% of the
time that extra 10% doesn't matter.

But if they weren't getting excited over the latest fraction of an increment,
what would they report on?

