So, the long hyped Apple tablet has finally been announced. As expected, it very much resembles a larger iPod Touch. A single hardware button, minimal ports, and a screen which consumes most of the device's top surface. It's touted as a new platform, somewhere between the smartphone and the netbook, which is interesting. Of course, it's not exactly a new platform; Apple is essentially entering an existing one with their own offering. Android based tablets have been around for a while, and haven't really taken off. Regardless, there's been much excitement over this particular device for a couple of reasons. It was a long rumoured product, and it's from Apple. But will the hype pay off? Is the device compelling enough to warrant purchase? Let's find out.

Hype is a double edged sword. It can cause massive excitement for a product, but it can also cause over-expectation. The iPad copped both sides. People expected this thing to be the pinnacle of tablet innovation, with dual cameras, an OLED screen, stereo speakers/microphones, MacOSX, resistive and capacitive touch, the list goes on and on. When long time followers (read: enthusiasts) saw a mere extended iPod Touch, they weren't happy. On the other hand, this same hype generated enough momentum to get it aired on news services internationally. Good news, you ask? Yes and no. News reporters tend to be technically illiterate, and advertised the device as a 'large iPhone'. Who wants a large iPhone? It still impressed many people though, which is all that matters to Apple. The hype may have paid off after all.

The funny thing about hype, however, is that it's short lived. The iPad won't be released for a couple of months, probably more in Australia. Will the average consumer remember it by then? The iPhone made its success by a) being an innovation of an existing established market, and b) being portable enough that you could take it out, and people would say "hey, that's awesome, what is that?" The iPad doesn't really fit into any of these. It's too large to take with you, unless you're carrying some sort of bag as well, so you'd leave it at home in most cases. That can't be good for word of mouth, especially when the device is yet to prove itself. Should Apple have waited until the release date to announce it? I believe they should have.

Regardless of popularity, there's also a concern about the type of functionality this device offers. Now, let's think about what the average consume would want to use this device for:

e-book reader
The iPad has a nice large screen and a snazzy UI, which is a plus. However, the backlit panel is not suitable for reading large amounts of text. As much as people like to believe that this claim is a load of crud, reading off such a panel will give you eye strain, especially in low light. This is why devices such as the Kindle use e-Ink. Not because they like black and white images, but because it doesn't rely on additional lighting. I know I personally have to print off large documents to read them - LCD just doesn't cut it. Perhaps the self-illuminated OLED technology would have been a safer bet.

Web browser
Decent resolution screen, good UI and browser. But no Flash. That really kills it for me. Sure, you can blame Adobe for that until the cows come home, but in the end, no matter who's fault it is, it's still missing. And that sucks. There's also this Micro SIM business, which is annoying if you want to use an existing 3G SIM.

Music
The inbuilt speaker is mono. Sure that's adequate for an inbuilt sound solution, but it would have been nice to have stereo. That being said, with decent headphones, the audio aspect should be great.

Note taking
We know that this device uses a capacitate touch screen, I think that's quite obvious. But does it also have a resistive layer? I don't believe it has, which is a real downer for people who'd want to use this for uni. You can type notes, but you can't type equations and diagrams - you'd want to use a stylus. I realise there's styluses out there for capacitive screens, but the nature of the technology means the input wouldn't be as accurate, and by extension reliable, as a traditional resistive touch screen set-up.
For typing purposes, I can't see people using this for more than IM and quick blog posts. Virtual keys are very good for finger strain. Also, the iPad doesn't offer haptic feedback.

Picture viewer/frame
I think it's safe to say most people have a point and shoot camera of some kind. It'd also be reasonable to expect that said cameras use an SD card. Wouldn't it have been a good idea to include an SD card reader so that we could see our photos on a larger screen, without the hassle of hooking this thing up to iTunes on a PC/Mac? In fact, not just for photos. An SD card would be a great way to get any media on there quickly and easily.

Conferencing
The iPad would have made an awesome little Skype companion for the home. Unfortunately, the lack of a camera makes video conferencing a non-reality. Many people, including myself, thought that this would be an obvious inclusion. I guess not.

Watching movies
Apple touted the iPad's ability to watch HD movies. That's awesome and all, but the screen isn't designed to play widescreen video. I'm sure if you watched the announcement, you'd have noticed that the letterbox format rendered over 40% of the screen real-estate useless. It was literally a thin strip of your movie in the centre of the screen. Not impressive. However, I do understand that having a wide screen aspect ratio would have caused problems for the form factor. But, in the end, it's still an issue.

Multitasking
I think this one is self explanatory. People like doing many things at once. If the Nexus One smartphone can handle several applications simultaneously, I don't see why this, or the iPhone for that matter, can't do the same.

This all being said, I do see a future for this device. Maybe not this generation, or perhaps even the next, but it's definitely got a chance to do well. I just have this sneaking suspicion that Steve Jobs is omitting features on purpose, to keep costs down, and to leave an upgrade path for later revisions. People want this thing to work how they want it to now, not after buying five of them.

So, what does this thing do right for you? What will you use it for? Is it really worth the money for such a device? Leave your comments below. :)

• 480x272 3.3" OLED touch screen
• 16GB/32GB models
• HD radio
• Nvidia Tegra HD processor
• Slick Quickplay GUI

There's a few hands on videos floating around the net, too:

Unfortunately, there's no current talk about exports to countries other than the US. People who wish to obtain the device will have to import it themselves.

More information about this event can be found at Zuneinsider.com

A review of the new Zune software will be coming shortly. In the meantime, share your thoughts below!

Windows 7 boasts a faster, less resource intensive, and highly responsive upgrade from its predecessor Windows Vista. Whether its improved performance remains intact is another matter, especially once the OEMs get their grubby hands into creating custom images.

Microsoft blogger Brandon LeBlanc has confirmed that Windows 7 will indeed be offered with a family pack. This 'pack' allows home users to install Microsoft's latest OS on 3 PCs within a home. Home Premium is the only version involved with family pack licensing.


"I know there have been some rumors going around about a “family pack” for Windows 7. We have heard a lot of feedback from beta testers and enthusiasts over the last 3 years that we need a better solution for homes with multiple PCs. I’m happy to confirm that we will indeed be offering a family pack of Windows 7 Home Premium (in select markets) which will allow installation on up to 3 PCs. As I’ve said before, stay tuned to our blog for more information on this and any other potential offers."

This is great news for those with multiple PCs in their home. Note the 'in select markets', so there's still ambiguity regarding the matter.

Windows 7, as of the 22nd of July, is 100% complete. It's been officially signed off and will be available to the general public on the 22nd of October.

'iPhone killer', 'iPod killer', 'Mac killer', you name it, it's been used. It so happens that the term is often wielded by those who have a gripe with the Apple camp. And with this in mind, such activists insist on implementing it into any comparison between the two platforms. What makes this so intriguing is how counter-productive this is. Ignoring the fact that arguing in the first place is pretty petty, calling a device an killer is admitting that Apple have produced a superior product in the first place! Why would such a device need to be 'killed' if it posed no thread to the defending platform? The fact is, most of the time the product is a threat, and the PC zealots will find any way to undermine the opposition - even if they're clearly in the wrong.

What bothers me is not that there is feud between the two platforms, but the means of which arguments are constructed. Apple products are not made for top-notch performance. It's not what they're built for. Rather, they're designed to be compact, elegant, high quality, quiet and simple to use. Their target market differs - they're not aimed at enthusiasts. This applies to majority of their offerings. On the other hand, PCs are suited to those who require cost effective, modifiable performance machines. There are exceptions to this, but for the most part, these descriptions typically define each platform.

With this in mind, I find it almost humorous that people still use the 'killer' suffix. To be quite honest, the way the term is used merely draws attention to the silliness of the situation. For instance, "This product is a iPhone killer because it has a faster processor!" So what? Does the iPhone do what its users require? If not, is this the fault of the CPU? Doubt it. The device is perfectly capable of running applications developed for it. You also have to put it into perspective. Does this 'killer' device provide the same attributes, features, ecosystem and software range? It's important to make a decision on the product as a whole, not pin point a select few aspects that trump the opposition and flaunt them like a huge eWang. The only loser in that situation is the one who buys the inferior product, not the one who cops the most baseless tripe.

The same could be said in reverse, in particular with Windows Vista. The amount of rants that contributed to its ungodly reputation was (and still is) uncanny. The sad thing is, most of those people had never used it! Some of it was deserved initially, despite the fact that hardware vendors were too lazy to create compatible drivers. However it does become irritating when people regurgitate claims from its initial release and apply them to the current product. To a professional or informed enthusiast, such accusations immediately flag 'ignorant' in their minds and possible responses. It hardly makes you look any more informed - it achieves the complete opposite.

Then there's the journalists that use the term wherever they can. I asked myself, 'Why would a journalist resort to such a term?' The answer was clear, it's simply because it attracts people. The Apple guild will read it so they have ammo to bitch about it, and rest are there to fuel the flame. The result is a nice influx of hits to the site, which ultimately means an increase of ad revenue. Sneaky.

To conclude, I feel that the term is overused and too commonly wrongly implemented. If anything, even with the best of intentions, it's going to attract people who dedicate their lives to arguing for a side. I hear they call it 'brand loyalty'. But in reality, all these companies want to do is take you cash. They really couldn't care less about you. In short, get what suits your needs, rather than your allegiance.