PopCap: iPad "will change gaming"

By Robert Purchese Published 12 February, 2010

But not for three years, reckons publisher.

PopCap believes the iPad will need around three years and a hardware update before it will really impact the market.

But when that time does come, PopCap co-founder John Vechey told Eurogamer that Apple's new invention "will change gaming", be "phenomenally successful" and "fulfil a need consumers don't even know they have yet".

"The iPad's important but I think it's going to be more important in three years. Look how long it took the iPod to get the momentum where everyone has one. It's probably going to take the second generation [iPad] to make it really, like, 'Wow!'" Vechey told us.

"This is my opinion and I think it's going to be phenomenally successful. I really do. It's very simple; it's not like it has a magical set of features, just a great package. I know what I'm getting when I have to get my mum a computer now: an iPad. Because she can't screw it up, she can't download a bunch of stuff... That's the perfect mum computer, right? And it's the perfect computer for ten year-olds to play with.

"I think it will change gaming," he added. "Here's this new device that gets to more people with a really great e-commerce model attached to it. It's really easy to buy on the iPhone - that's part of what makes it successful."

Vechey was cagey about the company's plans for the iPad. "I believe so," he answered, when asked if PopCap was porting iPhone games to iPad. "I don't know," he followed, when asked what.

"I don't know if this is a PopCap position or my word, but we're certainly going to support it - I want to play Plants vs Zombies on that," he said. "It feels good to touch, right?

"The iPad would be perfect for real-time strategy. You can't have this really immersive gaming experience but it may actually be more fun than a lot of different game experiences you can get with a PC or console."

Exactly how PopCap will differentiate between iPhone and iPad games is another grey area.

"You know, we're still trying to figure that out," said Vechey. "It is a different thing but it's not that different. On iPhone we made the interface smaller and made touch controls. On iPad we've got the touch part down and now we need to make the UI better.

"I don't think it's going to be it's own thing separately, nor do I think it's just going to be what's on the iPhone. It's going to be, 'Oh, here's some more features for the iPad' - a little bit more cool, a little bit more immersion, but with the same core similarities."

"We're excited," he added. "The iPad's going to be awesome."

PopCap - maker of Bejeweled, Plants vs. Zombies, Zuma, Peggle, Bookworm and more - has big plans for the year ahead. Take a peek at Eurogamer on Monday for our full - and bloody long, actually - interview with John Vechey to find out what.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (85) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • mingster #1 2 years ago

    /gazes into crystal ball

  • Octoroc #2 2 years ago

    If only Plants Vs Zombies was available for iPod...

  • Shikasama #3 2 years ago

    So it'll change the face of gaming (eventually), although consumers don't know why they would need one (yet) and Popcap isn't sure what it is actually going to do on it.

    For fucks sake EG. For FUCKS sake.

  • homerramone #4 2 years ago

    I guess apple have contracted POPCAP to do som iPad games then :-)

  • Senate #5 2 years ago

    yawn

  • Syrette #6 2 years ago

    Well, he would say that wouldn't he?

    Someone wake me up when PopCap release a game that is new and innovative, please.

  • ps3owner #7 2 years ago

    if this truly takes off the it will spell the end of the free internet... may take some time yet, but it will happen. shit!

  • Pac-man-ate-my-wife #8 2 years ago

    If only Plants Vs Zombies was available for iPod...

    Out on the 15th, priced £1.79!

    :)))

  • X201 #9 2 years ago

    Or in another language "can we have a developer license please?"

  • Bertie Verified Senior Staff Writer, Eurogamer.net #10 2 years ago

    If only Plants Vs Zombies was available for iPod...

    Out on the 15th, priced £1.79!

    :)))

    YES! Organic news!

  • Cadence #11 2 years ago

    Who is this moron, he sounds like a 15 year old?

  • Vyggo #12 2 years ago

    Hey, I didn't think the iPod was that hot either, so I do not dare to speculate on the iPad beyond the fact that I am probably not the target audience.

  • AOFanboi #13 2 years ago

    People ridiculing the iPad for being a larger iPod Touch should also ridicule a 52" 1080p TV for being just a larger 15" 480i TV.

  • Lunatic4ever #14 2 years ago

    iPad wont change shit...that i promise

  • BabyJesus #15 2 years ago

    Pfft the world ends in 2012, I don't think Mars is a large market for Apple yet.

    *fades to black*

  • Bravestinsane #16 2 years ago

    @AOFanboi

    People ridiculing the iPad for being a larger iPod Touch should also ridicule a 52" 1080p TV for being just a larger 15" 480i TV.


    Don't be stupid, and use your fucking brain..

    People who buy a large TV buy them because they WANT a large TV, they know it's no different from a 40" or a 31" but they want a 52", (although quality differs from TV to TV)

    Steve Jobs et al are blowing the iPad out of their arses claiming it's even better than a netbook when all it is is an oversized iPod.

    If he said "This is a larger iPod/Phone" no one would give a shit and we wouldn't be complaining, it's the fact hes making all these sweeping statements that's all bullshit, with only the people who would graciously ram their cocks up Apples asking taking this thing seriously.

  • StooMonster #17 2 years ago

    X201: "Or in another language "can we have a developer license please?""

    Apple's Dev software is free, but they charge an annual fee of $99 to publish as many Apps as you like.

    I think PopCap can afford an Apple $0+ $99 Developer Licence in any language. ;)
    Edited by 1 at 12/02/10 @ 18:17

  • Ryze #18 2 years ago

    He's got a good point about it being a 'Mum' computer, though.

    The only issue is whether the thing will actually work, and allow anyone to do anything productive!

    Pour example:

    - printing documents. Will I be able to install a network printer on the thing? Hmmm...
    - Java based websites. Do these work? Flash doesn't, so will BBC iPlayer work?

    etc...

  • StooMonster #19 2 years ago

    BBC iPlayer works on iPhone, it's a trusted device and thus receives direct H.264 streams from BBC straight into it's QuickTime player; the iPad is bound to be the same.

  • smelly #20 2 years ago

    >Applegamer strikes again.

    Yeah.. how DARE they talk about a new machine which can be used for games? Whatever next? Talking about the ps3 and xbox?

  • smelly #21 2 years ago

    Im not convinced by the ipad though.. the best bit about the ipod/iphone for gaming is the tilt capabilities.

    On the ipad.. it just looks too big to use like that.. So you're just stuck with a touch screen..

  • Gastrian #22 2 years ago

    StooMonster, yes it may support the iPlayer but from the sounds of it that's custom made support. What about the BBC website which uses Flash for its news articles or the numerous smaller video websites which have cult followings that would run off a flash player?

    The iPad could in fact be the worst Mum's PCesque item on the market because of its lack of support. My mum has learned how to use the PC, after years of user-friendly applications and hardware she knows how to plug a camera or USB pen into a PC, get the photos off it and print it. Can she do that with the iPad? From current reports (including Eurogamer) that's a no, she'll need to sync it with iTunes. My mum loves her crafting, as does a large portion of QVC and Ideal World watchers, is my mum going to be able to watch the tutorial videos on the websites which are heavily advertised on these channels? Unless Apple the same as they have with the iPlayer then its a no.

    The iPad's main problem is its size, its not in the mobile/handheld market it fits in the portable PC market as its about the same size as a netbook and can fit into a handbag and there will be plenty more people who "use" a PC as opposed to "using" an iPod or iPhone. By this I mean casual users make more use of the features on a PC than they do on an iPhone, a huge amount of the non-tech savvy people I know don't even know you can email from an iPhone and those that do barely use it.

    If its the same size as a PC based item people will expect it to work like a PC item and its limitations will become more apparent. I'm not bashing the iPad, just the idea that it'll be a good "Mums" item.

  • StooMonster #23 2 years ago

    Gastrian: "but from the sounds of it that's custom made support"

    Nah, BBC present H.264 to 'trusted devices'; doesn't BBC present H.264 to PS3 rather delivering through Flash? Also, if you click on BBC clips in news papers I think they do the same.

    However, it is a tad annoying that iPad does not support flash, but then most Flash content is orientated for PCs and wouldn't work with finger control ... over reliance on Mouse_Over and not simply clicking, or maybe that's just 'punch the monkey' style adverts.

    In 3-years time Flash may not be quite so prevalent as it is and HTML5 could be doing much of this stuff straight in the browser -- advertisers will love that, as one won't be able to run a 'Flash Blocker'. :(

    Gastrian: "Can she do that with the iPad?"

    Yeah, there's an 'optional extra' dongle that lets you plug cameras or flash cards into the iPad to capture photos directly.

    As to "mum" computer, several friends and colleagues are buying them for their parents on launch day.

    Edit: missed a "not" out which mad sentence mad!
    Edited by 2 at 12/02/10 @ 20:17

  • sanctusmortis #24 2 years ago

    The lack of Flash is very much to force an external app to circumvent the issue, hence the talk of a Famville app at the launch.

    Why is that such a bad thing, though? I mean, yes it means free stuff now costs sometimes, but this way there should be no need for apps as you fund the dev direct!

  • Les #25 2 years ago

    "People ridiculing the iPad for being a larger iPod Touch should also ridicule a 52" 1080p TV for being just a larger 15" 480i TV."

    In a sense, yes. But the iPad's increased size allows for much different control options and applications versus the iPhone/Touch. Most morons fail to see that. But that's probably why they are morons.

    A bigger, better TV just gives you a bigger, better picture. You're still watching the same content.

    "Don't be stupid, and use your fucking brain.."

    Pot, kettle, black...

  • Les #26 2 years ago

    "If its the same size as a PC based item people will expect it to work like a PC item and its limitations will become more apparent. I'm not bashing the iPad, just the idea that it'll be a good "Mums" item."

    You've done nothing in the threads around here but trying to find reasons for why the iPad sucks. Which of course is your right. It's just that your arguments in general show a lack of imagination.

    I'm quite confident that consumers will see it's clearly not a PC (rather a big iPhone - there's absolutely nothing PC-like or netbook-like to the iPad) and thus won't expect it to act like one. Whether it can do things that they value enough to buy it is another thing. IMHO it's rather refreshing to finally see a portable computer with software and a digital infrastructure tailored to its purpose. The uninspired netbooks showed that people are willing to put up with a lot of crap for the sake of portability. Who knows how they will respond to a portable product to which' design was actually paid attention?

  • Les #27 2 years ago

    "Why is that such a bad thing, though? I mean, yes it means free stuff now costs sometimes, but this way there should be no need for apps as you fund the dev direct!"

    Because Apple is evil of course. After all, Apple forces developers to offer the 'free' games Facebook funded for a fee on its own platforms...

  • DaM #28 2 years ago

    He doesn't seem to mention Meat Ceiling...is this deliberate?
    Jobs, you can stick your Pad up your arse until you get Meat Ceiling on it, no matter what it costs!

  • ronuds #29 2 years ago

    Les is an Apple fanboy too? Oh dear God help us all.

    The iPad is pretty cool looking, but has to be one of the most useless devices ever imagined. All this nonsense about "the screen is bigger so it allows for more" is just a bunch of BS. The applications are the same as any old PC or Mac. Only difference is you use your finger to click icons instead of a mouse.

    In terms of gaming? I dunno...the thing will have to sell before it changes anything, and whether or not it sells is still one of the biggest question marks surrounding it.

  • SixFootHalfling #30 2 years ago

    "The iPad would be perfect for real-time strategy."

    No hotkeys, low res, small map size, low unit cap due to hardware
    Sounds perfect!

    I'm probably not the target audience, as I think the same about the iPod touch, but the iPad is just an overpriced, underspec'd, almost useless gadget, that, while not deserving failure, certainly shouldn't be the success it is.

  • axman303 #31 2 years ago

    People ridiculing the iPad for being a larger iPod Touch should also ridicule a 52" 1080p TV for being just a larger 15" 480i TV.

  • lssl17 #32 2 years ago

    iPad: better than a netbook?

    How can it be when you WILL need another pc/mac to sync things with? You can't plug in any external device, which means no uploading of photos from sd cards, no printer connection (not sure if it will connect via wifi) etc etc...

    They day it becomes an independant device, worthy of rivalling a netbook, I might consider one.

    And as much as I like my iPhone and find texting very intuitive and confortable, I doubt the writing experience on an iPad will be anywhere near as good as on a netbook. For anyone who does a bit of writing on the move, beyond facebook/twitter/text messaging, there will never be a better input device than a physical keyboard.

  • Sunyavadin #33 2 years ago

    Im not convinced by the ipad though.. the best bit about the ipod/iphone for gaming is the tilt capabilities.

    On the ipad.. it just looks too big to use like that.. So you're just stuck with a touch screen..

    I suppose if it does have the tilt, then it's got potential for racing games, using the entire thing as a wheel.

  • Bravestinsane #34 2 years ago

    @Les

    "In a sense, yes. But the iPad's increased size allows for much different control options and applications versus the iPhone/Touch. Most morons fail to see that. But that's probably why they are morons."

    You make a very good point there....

    After the bigger the screen the bigger the buttons you have to press, completely new applications with GIANT buttons ooo special.

    Seriously though you know that's crap put a pre order in and can't cancel it, i get the feeling you need to justify this device to suit your needs.

    I don't need to justify anything for me, no multi-tasking means instant no for me would be useless for me to use for university.

    "More control options"

    Again as you thought you would quote me ill say it back "Use your fucking brain"

    The controls wont be any different just bigger, rather than selecting a app on the iphone you will select it on the ipad you will still touch it to open it. How is that any different. The screen is the same just bigger so control methods will be the same, you can just fit more options to press on the screen.

    You can big it up all you want, im still amazed that at reveal Jobs got all excited about "being able to change the background" i thought of him as a bigger tit than i already thought of him you can do that on most modern day devices.

    Im not a apple hater as you obviously are a fanboy, in fact i really wanted to buy something like this, and was waiting in excitement for the announcement of this product. But it's useless and offers even less than a Netbook so i will be amazed and surprised at anyone foolish enough to buy this. If this was cheaper than a netbook it would be a different story, but paying more for something that does less, looks like apples found its selling point.

  • Les #35 2 years ago

    "They day it becomes an independant device, worthy of rivalling a netbook, I might consider one."

    You completely miss the point of the iPad. It doesn't want to be a cheap laptop ill-suited for the standard desktop software that it must run.

    If you want a ultra-light laptop, you are not (and likely will never be) in the target demographic for the iPad. But no worries, the product you want already exists: You can get a MacBook Air or one of the cheap (but ugly) 'alternatives' from the competition.

  • AOFanboi #36 2 years ago

    @ronuds:

    Spoken like someone who has not used touch-based applications. In particular multitouch (since you just talk about using your finger to click, as if that is the only use of a touch screen). And if touch devices are so meh, why are there Windows-based tablets on the market and in the making (hastily announced after the iPad announcement because so many manufacturers live off walking in Apple's footsteps)?

    The option of using drawing programs like Brushes or Renoir on the iPad's larger screen alone is a potential market. And there are other uses that you naysayers do not have the imagination to come up with. But you see, that is why you are just you and Steve Jobs is rich.

  • Les #37 2 years ago

    "completely new applications with GIANT buttons ooo special."

    What the fuck are you doing on a university... Guess these days with multiple choice exams dominating, luck can get you pretty far...

    Here's a hint: finger-size to screen-size ratio. Am just afraid you don't have a fucking brain to use. Hope you're following a harmless study like English literature or something... It scares me to think someone as close-minded as you might ever end up in business or government.

  • drxym #38 2 years ago

    PopCap makes great casual games but we'd be kidding ourselves to think they put any effort into porting the same game from one game to the next. Peggle, Bejeweled, Plants vs Zombies are practically identical from one platform to the next aside from minor tweaks to suit the controller & screen size.

  • drxym #39 2 years ago

    @Les, "If you want a ultra-light laptop, you are not (and likely will never be) in the target demographic for the iPad. But no worries, the product you want already exists: You can get a MacBook Air or one of the cheap (but ugly) 'alternatives' from the competition. "

    There are plenty of cheap and good looking netbook / laptop PCs that cost less than the MacBook Air and are just as functional. Apple gave up on making products that justified their high price a long time ago. The build quality of modern Apple devices is no better than any other consumer kit (as evidenced by a litany of product faults) but the Apple tax remains.

    If people want to buy Apple that's their own business, but don't pretend those devices are imbued with magical qualities because they aren't.

    As for the iPad in particular, it's a giant iPod Touch. It will probably be better for playing games that benefit from a larger display area - RTSs, puzzlers etc., and the GPS might allow some interesting features but then it loses out on immediacy and portability. People are far less likely to be hauling around an iPad and whipping it out to play a game on the bus. Unless Apple also fix the shortcomings of their OS to allow 40 year old innovations such as multitasking, I think it may also be quite infuriating to use for any length of time.
    Edited by 2 at 13/02/10 @ 10:23

  • eisenhorn666 #40 2 years ago

    or you could get a nokia n900 which has flash for your browser and has some good games on it and games developing, Ipad = yawn..... sheeple will give jobs money thats all he wants. Wait till they actually release something that actually reflects the hype apple give the Ipad which will prolly be the 3rd generation of the Ipad.
    The reason apple don't want flash on the imoan/ifad is that people won't pay for games/apps if you can play for free!

  • Les #41 2 years ago

    "If people want to buy Apple that's their own business, but don't pretend those devices are imbued with magical qualities because they aren't."

    I don't. In fact I pointed out that other manufacturers make similar, but ugly, products. If aesthetics aren't high on your priorities list those are valid alternatives.

    "Unless Apple also fix the shortcomings of their OS to allow 40 year old innovations such as multitasking, I think it may also be quite infuriating to use for any length of time."

    The device can multitask, it's just not open to 3rd party Apps. That's a design choice. Might not suit your needs but Apple bets that for all the non-geeks, multi-task is irrelevant or at least doesn't outweigh the downsides (slowing the machine down, increasing operating complexity). They may be right, they may be wrong. Hasn't hurt the Touch/iPhone much so far.

    Having a device do something just because it can, isn't design, that's just laziness.
    Edited by 1 at 13/02/10 @ 11:05

  • Les #42 2 years ago

    Oh the irony of people using "sheeple" blindly spouting anti-Apple rhetoric... Please take a few seconds to think. To really think. Guess not all of you are capable of doing so, but anyway, give it a try. It's the least you can do when you're sharing your ramblings with the rest of the world...

  • Highspeed123 #43 2 years ago

    It's never going to change the face of gaming unless they push an alternative control scheme. Touch controls just don't work well for many of the more complex games.

    To compete on the games front Apple need to have an official gaming pad or hand remote. The iPhone touchscreen is nice but for FPS and other action games touch controls are clunky and don't feel natural.

  • rich3423 #44 2 years ago

    I agree with Les,

    Why have people got this big problem with apple. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Simple.

  • Les #45 2 years ago

    "I can really see it being taken up and dominating the casual gamer space exactly as PopCap expects."

    Exactly, it might be a success in the casual gamer space. Of course it won't replace a 360, PS3 or high end gaming PC.

  • drxym #46 2 years ago

    @Les, "I don't. In fact I pointed out that other manufacturers make similar, but ugly, products. If aesthetics aren't high on your priorities list those are valid alternatives. "

    Except not all of them are ugly so your point is moot. In fact the vast majority look perfectly respectable and if you absolutely must have a nice looking laptop there are plenty of them too at all price points.

    "The device can multitask, it's just not open to 3rd party Apps. That's a design choice. Might not suit your needs but Apple bets that for all the non-geeks, multi-task is irrelevant or at least doesn't outweigh the downsides (slowing the machine down, increasing operating complexity). They may be right, they may be wrong. Hasn't hurt the Touch/iPhone much so far."

    Either the thing can multitask or it can't, you appear to be saying it does and it doesn't so which is it? Some lame state save / restore is not multi-tasking by the way.

    Multitasking is not a "geek" feature either. It doesn't take much visualize situations where someone wants to look up a map / address while speaking on the phone to somebody or texting or whatever. Or simply wants to take a break from one app to do something on another without closing the first. Or wants an app like an ebay sniper / monitor that runs constantly in the background. Someone might not know what the definition multi-tasking is by name but they sure as hell know a device which doesn't let them do it. Other phones manage it in a natural and simple way yet Apple, alleged masters of usability can't manage it.

    The issue of complexity has also been solved for years. Indeed other phones have solved it such as the Palm Pre, and those based on Android & Windows CE without complicating the UI in any way. Android pushes the concept further with things called activities, allowing apps to be chained together so (for example) a travel guide app could launch google maps to show restaurant locations.

    As for not hurting the iPhone, it's a constant source of complaint, and likely one that will increase until Apple fix the issue. It will certainly be a major source of irritation on the iPad unless / until they provide decent multitasking.
    Edited by 1 at 13/02/10 @ 11:46

  • Les #47 2 years ago

    "Except not all of them are ugly so your point is moot."

    IMHO they are. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so yeah, you can be of a different opinion. Nothing wrong with that.

    "Either the thing can multitask or it can't, you appear to be saying it does and it doesn't so which is it? Some lame state save / restore is not multi-tasking by the way."

    What kind of rubbish logic is that?! It's exactly like I said. Not going to repeat it again. Clearly you've never used an iPhone or otherwise you wouldn't be spouting so much nonsense.

  • Shikasama #48 2 years ago

    I've heard casual gamers are GAGGING to spend 400 quid on a device that lets them run games midly better than those on their mobile phones.

    Because casual gamers like nothing more than spending hundreds and hundreds of pounds on games and gaming devices. They can't get enough of that shit.

  • StooMonster #49 2 years ago

    lssl17: How can it be when you WILL need another pc/mac to sync things with? You can't plug in any external device, which means no uploading of photos from sd cards, no printer connection (not sure if it will connect via wifi) etc etc...

    Plenty of people use their iPhone without syncing it at all, why do you need to sync it (assuming you put photos directly on it, download music from iTunes, and Apps from App Store)?

    As mentioned above, Apple are selling an iPad to USB and iPad to MemoryCard connector at launch; which means you can connect cameras directly to the device. Third parties are selling stuff too, saw an iPad to RS232 yesterday believe it or not.

    For anyone who does a bit of writing on the move, beyond facebook/twitter/text messaging, there will never be a better input device than a physical keyboard.

    It's obviously not designed for doing anything beyond Facebook/Twitter/etc -- but perhaps that's what the target market wants? If you want to do real writing on the move, it looks like they want you to buy a notebook computer. Saying that, they have a dedicated keyboard for the iPad plus it connects with any Bluetooth keyboard.

  • StooMonster #50 2 years ago

    drxym: Multitasking is not a "geek" feature either. It doesn't take much visualize situations where someone wants to look up a map / address while speaking on the phone to somebody or texting or whatever ... Or wants an app like an ebay sniper / monitor that runs constantly in the background ... Other phones manage it in a natural and simple way yet Apple, alleged masters of usability can't manage it.

    iPhones (and iPads) can multi-task, for example you can look at maps whilst on a phone call or listen to iPod function whilst surfing the web.

    However, Apple have intentionally limited multi-tasking so that third-parties cannot use it because of concerns about battery life and network traffic (for their MNO partners); the eBay snipper is exactly the kind of thing that would do both.

    Whilst Apple have implemented their Alert service as a measure to address lack of third-party multi-tasking, and it works well for some Apps, it is rumoured that iPhone OS 4.0 allows third-party multi-tasking.

  • Les #51 2 years ago

    "Other phones manage it in a natural and simple way yet Apple, alleged masters of usability can't manage it. "

    * sigh *

    How thick can you be?! Apple doesn't want 3rd party Apps to multitask. It's a deliberate choice! If you don't like that, of course you'll get something else. Apple has lost you as a customer. They accept that. They just think they can reach and satisfy more customers without 3rd party App multitasking. Again, IT'S A DESIGN DECISION!!!!!!!!!!!!

    "As for not hurting the iPhone, it's a constant source of complaint"

    It's a constant complaint by geeks. The iPhone performs quite well in the market so apparently it's not that big of a deal for the people it's targeted at.

    There's a whole fucking world full of people that are not you. In fact there are about 6 billion more people that are not you than there are that are. That's a quite important fact and the earlier you can grasp that simple concept, the better life is in general.

    None of us know whether the iPad will be a success. And TBH I don't care much. Don't own Apple stock and am not really interested in the concept. However, I'm able to grasp how Apple is trying to position it and I know very well that in creative endeavors deciding what to leave out is as important as deciding what to put in. I'm quite allergic to people spouting nonsense that they read somewhere else on the internet without thinking things through themselves. Probably 90% of said posters are 13 year olds so I shouldn't really get worked up about it but as it's not always that easy to tell the age of a poster as well as for educational reasons, I'll keep combatting stupidity.

  • Les #52 2 years ago

    "it is rumoured that iPhone OS 4.0 allows third-party multi-tasking."

    Wouldn't bet on it though. Main sources of the rumour are the geek sites... ;)

  • Les #53 2 years ago

    "Because casual gamers like nothing more than spending hundreds and hundreds of pounds on games and gaming devices. They can't get enough of that shit."

    Which of course is why casual gamers in general tend to play their games on devices not dedicated to gaming... Think, man, THINK!

  • canIdoyabombsforya #54 2 years ago

    I'm not sure the masses are ready to replace a keyboard with folding screen, with a device designed for waitresses.
    The hype behind the 'Tablet PC' is clearly to rip more money from the consumer. There is no real innovation or potential increase in productivity.

    Netbooks and small laptops are going to evolve a lot faster than Apple seemed to have considered. You can already get a lower spec nettop (no screen)* for £139 that does 1080P over HDMI and runs XBMC. So already that's put paid to the PS3 as a media center.

    * Acer Aspire Revo R3600 Desktop PC, Atom 230 1.6GHz, 160GB HDD, 1 GB RAM, HDMI, nVidia GeForce 9400 ION, WIFI, Linux.
    £139.98

    Faster models are due in April, possibly looking at playing Half Life 2 in lower settings.

  • canIdoyabombsforya #55 2 years ago

    Also checkout the Alienware M11x 11.6 inch with GeForce GT335M, for not much more than the 64GB iPad. A fully functional small gaming computer versus a jazzed up MP3 player.
    Steve Jobs dig at netbooks was a tad premature.

  • Raiten #56 2 years ago

    Indeed, this will change the face of gaming.. instead of hammering and throwing our controllers out of frustration, we'll be hammering a screen out of frustration.

  • kwesleyb #57 2 years ago

    In 3 years time there will be something else to replace the ipad, so why is this even being discussed?

  • drxym #58 2 years ago

    @Les, "How thick can you be?! Apple doesn't want 3rd party Apps to multitask. It's a deliberate choice! If you don't like that, of course you'll get something else. Apple has lost you as a customer. They accept that. They just think they can reach and satisfy more customers without 3rd party App multitasking. Again, IT'S A DESIGN DECISION!!!!!!!!!!!! "

    Grow up. The OS is flawed and its that simple. It is not a design choice, it's a design flaw. It's not just "geeks" who want multitasking. Anybody who wants to do flip between multiple apps or run things in the background such as IM clients, ebay snipers, email clients etc. wants multitasking whether they know so by name or not.

    Single tasking might be acceptable in a phone, borderline acceptable in a smart phone, but it absolutely is not acceptable in anything larger whether its something made by your beloved Apple or not.

  • drxym #59 2 years ago

    @StooMonster "However, Apple have intentionally limited multi-tasking so that third-parties cannot use it because of concerns about battery life and network traffic (for their MNO partners); the eBay snipper is exactly the kind of thing that would do both. "

    The kernel can suspend tasks which are waiting on timers (e.g. a sniper) or listening sockets (e.g. email, im etc. ) so they don't even get a timeslice. A kernel could also drop the priority of background processes to keep the UI responsive. UI apps are also event based, so if they're in the background, most of the time they're not receiving any events and therefore again consume no CPU.

    I'm sure its possible to write an app that sits in an infinite loop and drains battery life, but kernels can deal with that too such as suspending misbehaved apps until they're in the foreground.

    Therefore I don't see any reasonable technical justification for crippling 3rd party application functionality.

  • Bravestinsane #60 2 years ago

    @Les

    "completely new applications with GIANT buttons ooo special."

    What the fuck are you doing on a university... Guess these days with multiple choice exams dominating, luck can get you pretty far...

    Here's a hint: finger-size to screen-size ratio. Am just afraid you don't have a fucking brain to use. Hope you're following a harmless study like English literature or something... It scares me to think someone as close-minded as you might ever end up in business or government."

    You have the nerve to insult me like that and call me closed minded. If you actually read my last post you wouldn't been such a dick... i clearly stated that i was "LOOKING FORWARD TO THE IPAD" i considered getting one up until i found out what it can or can't in this case actually do.

    I don't have a fucking brain jesus christ you can't even read a single sentence and then call people out on something that isn't true. Closed minded is extremely hypocritical coming from you, i considered this and was anticipating it since last year when i heard the first rumours, and actually put on hold getting a laptop solely for this device. Yet you call me closed mindind, i stopped being closed minded ages ago because i realised quite early on stubboness in these situations makes you loose out on the better product.

    However your so closed minded as you put it you can't even see reason that the iPad isn't all that it cracked up to be.

    [link url=http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/27/technology/ipad_appl e_stock/
    ]http://mo ney.cnn.com/2010/01/27/technolo...[/link]

    There you go PROOF, shares dropped 4% instantly after the product was unveiled, and only rising by 1% later, so 3% drop in all, it appear a lot more people are on my side than yours.

    Perhaps if you were less closed minded and apple obsessed you will be able to see reason.
    Edited by 1 at 13/02/10 @ 17:19

  • Les #61 2 years ago

    "Single tasking might be acceptable in a phone, borderline acceptable in a smart phone, but it absolutely is not acceptable in anything larger whether its something made by your beloved Apple or not."

    How can you make such silly claims?! I really don't care what your personal preferences are and I'm smart and modest enough to know that mine aren't what will make a particular product a mass market success or not. The iPhone sales numbers speak for themselves with regards to the priority consumers put on multitasking.

  • Les #62 2 years ago

    "You have the nerve to insult me like that and call me closed minded."

    Hate to break it to you but you started the name calling in this thread.

    "However your so closed minded as you put it you can't even see reason that the iPad isn't all that it cracked up to be."

    I never expected anything from the iPad as I don't see any reason to partake in the senseless hype machine. Now that the product is announced, I can see the sense in it. I don't know if it will resonate with consumers and I just say: wait and see. But please, don't go making silly claims like "ooh, it will only have bigger buttons" or "it will fail because it doesn't multitask and I love multitasking".

    I really don't understand how people can ever have thought that Apple's tablet would be a laptop replacement. Yes the netbook market consists of nothing but cheap, small laptops. But that should have been a clear pointer of where Apple wouldn't head for people with any business sense (not too common in the tech world). Apple's laptops are the strongest part of its computer lineup and they'd never release a product that would directly compete with it.

    "There you go PROOF, shares dropped 4% instantly after the product was unveiled, and only rising by 1% later, so 3% drop in all, it appear a lot more people are on my side than yours."

    Look at history. That's what happens with practically each and every Apple product announcement and the reason Apple stopped attending industry events like CES.

    The reason being that the stock market in general is the ultimate form of mass hysteria where 99% of idiots and a few smart (and generally wrong) people try to predict the future. Silly people build up ridiculous hype and whatever gets announced is bound to disappoint. Same thing happened with iPhone if I'm not mistaken and look how 'wrong' the markets turned out to be on that one. It's just how human psychology works: Give the markets more information and more realistic expectations of the future emerge. Give them something they just can't grasp and they'll underestimate it till it has proven itself. Just look at how long it took industry insiders to recognize the Wii...
    Edited by 1 at 14/02/10 @ 11:25

  • webcider #63 2 years ago

    What a lame industry if a oversized ipod is the tool to change gaming. whatever glad im not going to be part of that so called *cough* Revolution :D

  • nasanu #64 2 years ago

    So its going to have a userbase of mums and kids... I bet the games are going to be awesome.

  • drxym #65 2 years ago

    @frod_ , "moron, the OS is the OS X kernel. Of course it can multitask. Crack it and log in via ssh, run top and see all the daemons - http://i48.tinypic .com/2ytp4it.png as an example. "

    I think it's you who is the moron for conflating the operating system with the kernel. I'm more aware than most of what the Darwin kernel is capable of which makes the severe limitation on 3rd party apps all the more perplexing. It's simply a design flaw and Apple stuck with it. I wouldn't be surprised if they did allow multitasking that it would still be restricted to apps that explicitly declare multitasking compliance and all the legacy apps would have to behave like they do now.

  • Kerome #66 2 years ago

    Starting to get some hype fatigue now... May leave off buying ipad for a while until hype-gland recovers...

    And if you ask me, what will be successful on iPad will be casual stuff like Sims or a souped-up Farmville, or anything else that the hip consumer mum/dad/kids/dog connects with. I mean, it's perfect for RTS: please, there is no more hardcore genre than RTS, why would that do well on a casual consumer device. Just because the UI fits does not mean there will be a market.

  • Les #67 2 years ago

    "I'm more aware than most of what the Darwin kernel is capable of which makes the severe limitation on 3rd party apps all the more perplexing"

    Only to people like you who either:
    - Don't think;
    - Choose not to think because because of anti-Apple emotions and thus mindlessly keep on hammering on 'missing' features that so far have proven to be irrelevant to the consumers its devices are marketed at.

  • Les #68 2 years ago

    "Just because the UI fits does not mean there will be a market."

    Finally someone says something sensible again in this thread. :)
    Edited by 1 at 14/02/10 @ 13:35

  • ongjg #69 2 years ago

    I just can't see this going well for apple. The casual market already have ipods/ iphones, or at least wiis and laptops, so why would they need an Ipad? Techies won't bite cos it lacks power or value for money.
    The guy said it himnself - a need they don't even know they have yet. This will only do well if Apple marketing pull a blinder and make people believe they need this, otherwise people will just save their money.
    As for gaming, Apple would be better off with a HD console tbh, as portability and variety are clrealy in the nintendo's hands

  • Syrette #70 2 years ago

    Anyone know how much Apple are paying Les?

  • StooMonster #71 2 years ago

    drxym: Therefore I don't see any reasonable technical justification for crippling 3rd party application functionality.

    As I stated, my key point is that Apple have deliberately chosen to limit third-party multi-tasking when their OS is quite capable of it ... their justification being likes of memory space, CPU cycles, network traffic and the like. You make some fair technical points that their spin could have little technical basis, in which case they must have some rationale for this approach as they're not doing it simply to annoy "geeks". So, why?

  • StooMonster #72 2 years ago

    Bravestinsane "There you go PROOF, shares dropped 4% instantly after the product was unveiled, and only rising by 1% later, so 3% drop in all, it appear a lot more people are on my side than yours."

    That's far from PROOF of any argument, share prices move for all sorts of reasons. You'll notice that share prices often drop a few percent when companies announce stunning profits, one reason is profit-taking where the build up to an event (such as results or interim results) has driven the price high and the announcement acts as a trigger to sell and collect profits.

    Les Look at history. That's what happens with practically each and every Apple product announcement and the reason Apple stopped attending industry events like CES.

    That's a common misconception of Apple stock, but it's simply not true. Before this event I looked at the history of Apple's share price and the coincidence with news, in the hope of planning some shorting action but there was no definite trend ... sometimes it went down, other times it didn't. In this case I wish I had just shorted anyway, could've made a few quid.

  • ShinMegami08 #73 2 years ago

    so cool....a new flame war!
    Console fanboys vs Apple fanboys!
    Very amusing, keep on the amusement!

    Okays I'll continue: Only stupid morons wil buy an Ipad! Oooh!

  • alcides #74 2 years ago

    I'm a gamer. I want an iPhone. But I do not see it as a gaming device, and I don't want it to be one. Buttons and styluses FTW.

  • Velios #75 2 years ago

    Apple need to invent a Mass Effect style Omni-Tool.

  • darkmorgado #76 2 years ago

    In fairness, and I HATE Apple, I have been reliably informed this evening that it is not Apple who refuse to support Flash, but apparently Adobe refuse to let Apple have flash support. Wasn't given the reasons, but that is apparently how it is.

    Speculating it may have something to do with Apple's religiously closed attitude towards software?

    On topic though, I really don't see the iPad changing anything beyond being adopted by the diehards and people who are gullible enough to be taken into the marketing spiel. iPhone is underspecced, iPod is hardly the best MP3 player on the market, iMacs are only useful to a niche audience... what has this got going for it beyond its name, a marketing budget and dubious street cred of the Apple label?
    Edited by 1 at 15/02/10 @ 03:10

  • ignatiusjreilly #77 2 years ago

    I have been reliably informed this evening that it is not Apple who refuse to support Flash, but apparently Adobe refuse to let Apple have flash support.

    I really don't think that's right.

    Adobe: "Adobe is “ready to enable Flash in the browser on [Apple’s] devices if and when Apple chooses to allow that for its users, but to date we have not had the required cooperation from Apple to make this happen.”

    Apple: "Apple does not support Flash because it is so buggy. Whenever a Mac crashes more often than not it’s because of Flash. No one will be using Flash, the world is moving to HTML5.”

  • Les #78 2 years ago

    @StooMonster

    "That's a common misconception of Apple stock, but it's simply not true."

    You're right, it doesn't always goes down but there has been a lot of movement in share prince after their announcements in recent years and that is why they stopped attending the regular trade shows.

    "I have been reliably informed this evening that it is not Apple who refuse to support Flash, but apparently Adobe refuse to let Apple have flash support. Wasn't given the reasons, but that is apparently how it is."

    That's not true. Apple don't want Flash and Adobe is doing everything it can to have them use it. Apparently it even has offered Apple the 'source code' so that it has more control over it and can fix it when it causes crashes with OS X.

    "and people who are gullible enough to be taken into the marketing spiel. iPhone is underspecced, iPod is hardly the best MP3 player on the market, iMacs are only useful to a niche audience..."

    What a load of rubbish. Apple try to move away from the old spec marketing prevalent in the tech world. In the end every product is sold through marketing, whether you are aware of it or not. It used to be a Mhz and MB war between manufacturers and now we're starting to see some change. For many consumers that might be a good thing as functionality of a device will be much more relevant to them than raw power as they don't have the knowledge or wish to maximize their usage of it.

    "what has this got going for it beyond its name, a marketing budget and dubious street cred of the Apple label?"

    The hardest thing to achieve: usability and a well-integrated digital infrastructure.

  • UncleLou #79 2 years ago

    At the very least, it'll be a fantastic platform for multiplayer boardgame/videogame hybrids and turnbased mp games in general. Personally, I can't wait to see what developers will come up with.
    Edited by 1 at 15/02/10 @ 14:47

  • kangarootoo #80 2 years ago

    @Les

    I agree with most of what you've written. I can see you are a Mac-phile, and I get that. I'm a bit of one too, though I don't actually own any of their kit right at this precise moment in time. I do agree with you that their stuff looks nice, and their user interfaces are ahead of most of the competition in many areas.

    However, I have to take exception to two minor things you said a bit earlier regards good design.


    "The device can multitask, it's just not open to 3rd party Apps. That's a design choice."

    That it is a choice is neither here nor there. There may indeed be good reasons for restricting multi-tasking to 1st party apps only, they may be technical, they may be strategic (lets be honest, Apple is not beyond pitching things to make their products look better). However, simply stating that it is a choice is no defense. Everyso often in my job I hear someone defend against a game mechanic critisism by saying "its designed that way", as if that really means anything. If something has a problem, saying its designed that way" is no different from saying "its designed badly on purpose".

    I am pretty sure Apple don't design things badly on purpose, so you are maybe misrepresenting them by saying only "its a design choice".


    My second gripe (whilst I'm being all high and mighty on you).

    "Having a device do something just because it can, isn't design, that's just laziness."

    Some might call it versatility. The only reason to ever NOT include a feature imo is if its inclusion has a tangible negative impact on the overall experience OR if the cost isn't justified by the result. If the cost is ok, and there are no bad side effects, you should ABSOLUTELY have a device do everything it can do. The handful of users that end up benefitting will thank you for it with their money and their recommendations to others.


    Like I said, I totally understand that you love Apple stuff. Me too. But it feels a little like you are fighting the side so hard (understandable given the weight of negativity aimied at successful businesses that is common in some internet circles) that you are denying valid critisisms as well, which kind of undermines the whole effort.


    Cor, there is nothing like the smell of me being all superior and patronising in the morning. Sorry about that. I hope it was taken as well meaning (if misguided).


    P.s. as you are clearly quite connected with Apple info, do you know the actual reason WHY they don't want to support 3rd party app multitasking?
    Edited by 1 at 16/02/10 @ 09:39

  • Les #81 2 years ago

    @ kangarootoo

    "I can see you are a Mac-phile, and I get that. I'm a bit of one too, though I don't actually own any of their kit right at this precise moment in time."

    After trying pretty much all alternatives, it's the stuff that works best for me so far. It probably helps that my budget is a little less tight these days. If it was, I'd probably create my own PC again from cheap parts (1 to 2 years behind the curve) and use a couple of Linux distros.

    I would love it if the other hardware manufacturers adopted the Apple approach: control both hardware and software so that the actual user experience is as controlled as possible. You lose some freedom but you get a more stable system. Unfortunately, right now there's no real alternative.

    "If something has a problem, saying its designed that way" is no different from saying "its designed badly on purpose"."

    I have to disagree with you on that. There is a difference between making an informed choice and accept its associated drawbacks and not giving something enough thought (or other resources) and end up with the same flaws though unintended. To a specific end user that just can't live with the drawbacks of the design choice or design error it makes no difference. But in a mature discussion about product design it is relevant.

    To use a car analogy: say you love driving your car backwards. The fact that pretty much every factory car has only one 'reverse' gear must drive you mad. Is this poor design? Surely at the technical level it must be possible to add extra 'reverse' gears so that you can drive your car backwards as fast as you'd like. IMHO car designers made a deliberate choice to restrict the reverse gear to one level for safety considerations. That's different, definitely on a philosophical level, from deciding not to add the extra gears due to technical challenges.

    "The only reason to ever NOT include a feature imo is if its inclusion has a tangible negative impact on the overall experience OR if the cost isn't justified by the result."

    I think we don't disagree much. We both think including a feature must be given proper thought. My point is that much of the tech industry is still driven by the (imo) antiquated bullet point marketing approach: success of a product is linked to the number (and quality) of bullets on the box versus the competition. This has, in many cases, lead to future creep: things get added just because it's technically possible without giving enough consideration about their usefulness or their impact on the overall user experience. But as long as people keep seeing software and hardware as two different worlds we'll not get there.

  • kangarootoo #82 2 years ago

    @Les

    "Surely at the technical level it must be possible to add extra 'reverse' gears so that you can drive your car backwards as fast as you'd like. IMHO car designers made a deliberate choice to restrict the reverse gear to one level for safety considerations."

    Of course I agree, but in this instance the safety considerations were the actual tangible reason that the design decision was made.

    Put it this way, if the designer of said car was asked to explain to his boss why the car only had one reverse gear, and answer of "safety considerations" would seem valid and would probably be accepted. If the same designer had answered "I designed it that way", or "its a design choice", his boss would likely feel the question was being dodged and would be unhappy with such a response.

    My accusation is not that behind a defense of "it was designed that way" there must be no sound design reason for the given decision (I know my "its designed badly on purpose" comment suggested so, but what I should have actually said was that if the ONLY defense that can be given is "design choice" then poor design probably IS the underlying reason).

    My point is rather that almost certainly behind the "designed that way " defense there IS a sound design reason (certainly in the case of Apple, who its fair to say are pretty good at product design), and that in any good debate is more helpful to actually voice that sound design reason clearly rather than "avoid giving a straight answer to a straight question". Doing so often makes your 'case for the defense' appear weaker than it actually is.



    As for your final paragraph, I completely agree that poor features are sometimes included purely so that someone can "list more features" (I encounter it in my work on occasion, and it frankly makes me feel ill every time).

    But if the feature is poor, it falls into my category of having "tangible negative impact". If a great idea is included purely to up the numbers on the marketing chart, then that is still probably a good result for the wrong reasons.

    'If a feature is genuinely good (both in function and fit within the wider feature set) AND can be included within budget, it should be included' is still my mantra. And I think we probably agree on that.
    Edited by 1 at 16/02/10 @ 11:36

  • Les #83 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo 2

    "P.s. as you are clearly quite connected with Apple info, do you know the actual reason WHY they don't want to support 3rd party app multitasking?"

    What I gather from the internet is that it's mainly a user interface and performance issue: keep things as simple as possible. That's why they don't have problems with iTunes and phone function-multitasking: to practically every user it's obvious that multiple functions are working at once. And they reckon the save state functionality (that should work with every App if developers follow programming guidelines) combined with short loading times negates the need for true 3rd party App multitasking for most users.

  • Les #84 2 years ago

    "(I know my "its designed badly on purpose" comment suggested so, but what I should have actually said was that if the ONLY defense that can be given is "design choice" then poor design probably IS the underlying reason)."

    Fair point, but I don't think I used it in that way in this discussion. I stated that for as far as I can deduct from the available information Apple made a conscious decision to limit multitasking to (a selection of) its own Apps mainly out of performance and usability considerations and that it's not a feature they were not able to implement. For whatever that's worth, because if you miss it, it doesn't really matter to you why it's missing.
    Edited by 1 at 16/02/10 @ 12:21

  • Les #85 2 years ago

    For those interested in the iPad/iPhone and multitasking, the following article is quite interesting:

    http://ww w.roughlydrafted.com/2010/02/17...