iPad

[Ephesos]

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

So computing = typing?

No, this is just something I find irritating when people talk about new devices. "Oh, I wish it had the features of X, which already exists." Buy X.

...but watch out for anvils.

[Niemand]

Quote:

I find myself thinking "If what you want is a computer, get a computer."

This thing, whatever it is, is not a computer.

I think that I basically agree with this. No, computing isn't about typing, it's about having an adaptable tool; that is, it is a means, not an end in and of itself. It so happens that the computer has proven to be such an adaptable tool that it is typically used for all sorts of tasks which seem superficially bizarre: Why use a (very complicated) adding machine[^1] to store pictures, or send and receive messages?

Devices like the iPad are aimed at people who do not need or want a highly capable adding machine, but instead want to look at pictures, read text fetched from far away, listen to music, play interactive games, and maybe do some simple composition, storing a relatively small amount of simple data that they generate.

This is a very different use case from myself, my colleagues at work, and I think a lot of people around the forums here. To start with, I personally write a lot of little bits of software, just single or few use tools to get my work done. 'm constantly writing scripts that generate whitespace delimited data, which I check over in a text editor, and then turn into plots with another quick script. The point I'm getting at is that the way I use a computer involves a good deal of adapting the computer's behaviors so that I can generate and manipulate data that is often in forms that are directly meaningful only to me.

It seems to me that the iPad is geared towards people who are only interested in manipulating data the can be relatively narrowly categorized into forms that are common to all such users; web-pages, pictures, music, and so on. As a result it is both possible to treat each type of data largely independently, such as with a single dedicated program, and preferable (for these users) to do so, as the mechanisms which make current computers more flexible, like hierarchical filesystems, cause confusion by adding more choice than these people have a use for. Taking this idea to an extreme, I'd guess that a lot of users have virtually no use for the ability to put both pictures and music into a single directory.

Devices like the iPad do, frankly, worry me somewhat, in that I'm concerned that they will nontrivially displace the 'real' computers on which I consider myself dependent, for the simple reason that I suspect the number of people for whom such a device (suitably well refined, I don't claim the iPad's first incarnation or any other device in the immediate future is necessarily it) is really a better fit outnumber those of us who to some degree want to get our hands dirty using the computer as a for computing. However, it's not as though anything is going to happen overnight, and there are enough people who do 'serious' computing work that the capacity to do so certainly won't totally disappear, if nothing else, there has to be some way to program for iPad-like devices, given that they are not themselves suited to (and in Apple's conception do not allow) software development.

[^1]: I just want to note that I'm not happy with this sentence fragment. The parenthetical portion is supposed to be optional, such that its removal would leave a correct and meaningful sentence, so I can't put the article inside it. However, the presence of the parenthetical portion necessitates a modification of the article, specifically, making it shorter. There's no good way to specify that if the parenthetical portion is omitted, an 'n' should be appended to the preceding word. Argh!

[Nioca]

Originally Posted By: Niemand

[^1]: I just want to note that I'm not happy with this sentence fragment. The parenthetical portion is supposed to be optional, such that its removal would leave a correct and meaningful sentence, so I can't put the article inside it. However, the presence of the parenthetical portion necessitates a modification of the article, specifically, making it shorter. There's no good way to specify that if the parenthetical portion is omitted, an 'n' should be appended to the preceding word. Argh!

You could just remove the parentheses. Still seems odd, but it removes all the grammatical problems you just outlined.

[Locmaar]

Does anybody remember the first 'mobile' phones? Prime usage was to call your friends to ask for help lugging those beasts around. My, how we laughed at the very notion that anyone could be so presumptuous to believe they would need a mobile phone. Oh dear me.

 

People not understanding how a form factor might benefit a device that merely does things other devices can do as well should think why they are using cell phones instead of walkie talkies or flashlights for that matter.

 

In a nutshell: the iPad is not about all the things it can't do.

 

Whether it delivers on what it can do remains to be seen.

[Alorael at Large]

Yes to Niemand, but I don't think there's any cause for alarm. Power users aren't going to disappear. There may be a greater iPad-equivalent to real-computer ratio, but those computers have some longevity to them.

 

—Alorael, who alternately could accept an apt for little scripted applets. That would be nifty too.

[jecowa]

The iPad has the same screen resolution required for Avernum 6. If only it were as simple as adding buttons for moving the characters around. If only Steve would make us an iPad with a keyboard. He could call it an "iBook".

[Student of Trinity]

There is an external keypad available.

 

I saw an iPad at the airport yesterday. No, I did not have the nerve to bother the owner about it. But I noticed that it was smaller than I had expected, somehow. I don't doubt that the actual diagonal screen measurement of 9.7" is correct, but if I had been guessing I'd have said more like 8", because it just seemed small.

 

I'm happy about this, because I actually want something about this size, and had been concerned that the iPad would be too big, and annoyed to think that I might have to wait until the recently rumored smaller version came out. As it is I'll probably still wait until the second version of the current size model comes out, though. I'm also quite keen on being able to write notes on it with a stylus, so I can abandon paper for taking notes at meetings and the like. If the iPad can't do this, I might get some other brand of pad-device.

[Alorael at Large]

You can already buy third-party styli for the iPhone and iPad.

 

—Alorael, who hasn't tried any and can't make any recommendations or point out any caveats. Except emptor, of course. Caveat emptor always.

[jecowa]

Oh, wow! You're right! And it will work with the Keyboard I already have! This will make Avernum on iPad way easier to play. The trickiest part will be holding the iPad up while typing on the keyboard and managing the games inventory with the touch screen.

 

Is there some kind of stand for it to hold it up while I'm like riding in the car or whatever. I drew a picture of how it could maybe work, so you can see what I mean. Cause it would be hard to hold the iPad and type on keyboard at the same time. Also there is a close up picture to see better.

 

 

 

[Ephesos]

Oof... please, in the future, don't put such huge images directly into a thread.

[jecowa]

Thanks for fixing it.

[A less presumptuous name.]

I thought it came with a base for use at a desk or something.

[_Bunshichi_]

Getting back to the OP, I would target the iPad only, and skip trying to stuff things into the iPhone. If the game is 800x600, then this would leave room for other interface options in addition to just the touch gestures. The iPad also has a physical keyboard (but I would make it optional if at all possible).

 

Software/Technical: Depends a lot on the original development environment, and whether or not it used the OpenGL library (for the Mac OS version). I have no idea what Spiderweb uses now, but (I'm guessing here based on the age of the product line) the mostly straightforward (note I did not say easy) scenario would be if the current "game engine" is C based, uses some flavor of OpenGL, and is NOT based on the older CodeWarrior environment. Anything else will be problematic and of increasing difficulty. (If someone wants a more detailed opinion, PM me).

 

But these concerns all take second seat to the business ones. In my experience, game companies that can leverage an existing code base have a leg up on folks. If you have based your design to some common code base, then the cost for porting is divided over multiple products, and this is another plus. Looking over Spiderweb game library, I think that a price point between $5-$10 is possible and reasonable -- more than that will be a tough sell to the the target crowd I think. This is less an issue for the older games than for the newer games in terms of recouping your investment, as it may cannibalize sales.

 

Just my $0.02

 

- Bunshichi (an iPhone/iPad/Mac developer, with both itunes store and enterprise apps)