While this is all true in theory, my experience is that low-usage proprietary formats have one huge usability disadvantage in practice: namely, it's expensive to produce content for them.

I think it depends on how you want the content to look and be interacted with. XML could easily be used to drive both -- that's what it's for.

Even the iPad 'showcase' version of Wired is basically just a bunch of high-quality image files with a small number of lame 'interactive' features.

That has been true of most demonstrations of multi-media for as long as we've had the term. Start out with loads of whiz-bang images and videos, and eventually realize that it's just extra space and it's really adding anything.

I'm betting that my Reuters and BBC apps are all pulling the same info from the same sources as the web versions, it's just about presentation and how the interface works.

Wait -- so the Web was a bad idea, we should abandon it, forget about HTML5 (more of the same), and go back to the days where every single information service ran on a proprietary client? I hope you're not being serious.

Did you read the whole comment, or just stop when your knickers got into a twist? Because I also said:

Personally, I don't see web pages going away, but I do see them not being the only way people get information or interact with software. This is just an example of that.

Of course the web isn't going to go away, and of course we shouldn't abandon HTML 5.

What I said is that a native application gives a better user experience than the web. Organizations that have the resources or the inclination will make native apps (for many devices) which allow for that. The web is ubiquitous, and I don't believe that I will be seeing it go away any time soon.

But, I can't tell you how many times I've found myself grumbling about crappy applications that run on the web that are slow and ugly.

I'm saying that an app is simply a better alternative when it is available. Touch screens are an advance in the way we interact with this stuff ... it would be moronic to still slavishly stick to the old paradigms; especially of mouse and keyboard.

that's when I started to agree with the folks at Research in Motion: this whole "apps" craze is a fad.

I'll be surprised if that turns out to be true. Personally, I find apps to be a huge improvement over the "everything is a web page" we've been stuck with for the last bunch of years.

Apps and touchscreens are the first time in about 15 years that we've moved forward on user interfaces and interacting with computers. The web has advantages of zero-footprint installs and all that, but I'd hardly call it the best set of user interfaces out there. And, with companies like Microsoft seeing an app-store model in their future, it's hardly going away.

The web wouldn't have succeeded if every site had to write a fscking application to present it's data. You are a typical Apple fanboy that cannot see beyond Jobs's anus. God forbid you grasp the benefits of hyperlinking.

Once again, I stand in awe of the master debaters and wordsmiths posting on Slashdot.

You've clearly run rings around me with your astute points and finely crafted logic.

You honestly believe that when Windows finally gets around to mimicking the iPad that someone will go and provide a "MS Tablet Only Newspaper"?

No, I honestly believe that when Microsoft finally mimics the iPad, this newpaper will be made available for it. Right now, as I understand it, neither enough people are running Windows Mobile 7, nor is the interface nearly good enough to do this.

yet someone has decided to try it out on an Apple product, all of which have a bad rap as being overpriced for what you actually get - the Hardware is never Earth Shattering enough to justify the price

The hardware? No. The software is actually some of the nicest I've used in years -- and that is worth the money. The iPad is some of my first exposure to Apple's stuff beyoind iTunes on my Windows machine -- and, I'm awfully tempted to add an actual Mac to the herd of computers. It's like the old pissing contest between Intel and AMD over processor speed -- if you don't write bloated software that doubles in size every year, you don't need to be constantly doubling hardware needs. It's not like I'm running a web server on the damned thing.

I just learned the other day that in some cases you can't even activate your new iPhone without hooking it up to a computer with your iTunes.

Can't speak to that -- in my experience, my iPods and my iPad all are designed to work with iTunes, and likely the iPhone as well. Since I've been using that for around 10 years, I actually find that convenient since all of my media is already in there. Plug it into the machine, and let iTunes sort out the intial setup -- 5 minutes later, I'm syncing music and movies.

If you don't like it, don't buy it. But the whole "zomg, teh stupid Apple users" is getting kind of old.

That and a non-Murdoch paper could sell me on a iPad.

BBC, Reuters and numerous others have news apps for the iPad that are free, and a fair few have subscription availability.

You can get also crossword apps, again, some free.

It's designed specifically for the typical Apple user.

You know, instead of the usual bitching and moaning about the "typical Apple user" like everybody else on Slashdot, why don't you try to actually think about this instead of just launching into the usual screed? That fact that you've been modded insightful for basically acting like a 4 year old kind of proves my point.

I have the free BBC news app on my iPad, as well as Reuters and several others. In fact, I've never paid for an app on my iPad (or a track from iTunes for that matter) -- there's so much free stuff out there it's amazing. It's so much nicer to use than a web page, because it's a user interface that takes into account the platform it runs on.

As I've pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the native interface of an iPad application (and, indeed I bet this would be true for an Android device or a Blackberry) is that the interface works the way you expect the interface to work on that platform. The web makes middling user interfaces at best -- a native app (for any platform) is simply going to be a better user experience.

This isn't even about the iPad -- it's about realizing that the 15 years we've spent using the web for everything has led to really crappy user interfaces, all bound to the HTML paradigm. I'm glad to finally see the web being eclipsed by actual applications and interfaces. This will happen on Android, Microsoft, Blackberry, and every new device that comes along.

If three months after this is released, and News Corp releases this for an Android tablet, will we be all saying how hip the Android users are because they can subscribe to the same content? Will it suddenly be cool?

Seriously, get over the whole iPad/Apple bashing thing, and recognize that tablets (of all forms) and the like are fundamentally changing the rules and the prevalence of everything being a frigging web page. You don't have to like the iPad, but you should recognize everything you've said will apply to all new touch screen devices as they come on line and available.

Personally, I don't see web pages going away, but I do see them not being the only way people get information or interact with software. This is just an example of that.

Seriously, dial back the bitching about this being about Apple, and start thinking about this in the broader context of what is going to be happening in the industry over the next bunch of years. Now that touch-screen technology is becoming prevalent, you will see this kind of thing on all platforms.

Me thinks we've broken the server already. :-P

How is this better than a web-based news source, even a paywalled one?

Because it will be a native app instead of the web, for one. The web is a reasonable "lowest common denominator", but really, it still sucks for UIs, no matter how many advances we've made.

The difference between a native app and a web-page on this kind of device is massive in terms of how much nicer the native interface is -- in part because it scales up things to be more "touchable" instead of "clickable". I'm glad to finally see a reversal of this trend of "everything as a web page" -- the usability of an app designed for the multi-touch is easily an order of magnitude better than a web page. It's a completely different kind of interface than one you'd do for the web.

They also get Apple as a distribution and billing mechanism. Which I'm sure will also benefit them. However, I don't expect that I'll be making use of the "push" subscriptions, and least of all, for anything from News Corp. There are plenty of *free* news apps that run native on the iPad (BBC, Reuters, and others). Though, I'm sure there will be a fair few people who actually subscribe to this.

I see lots of things on the app store which you could argue is largely the same as the content on a web page. The difference being, with an app instead of a web-page, it's a far better user experience overall.

You must still be using those last-gen TV remote apps, then.

*laugh* Actually, I have one of these.

It's a lot more programmable than even the manufacturer claimed -- you can have macros on any button if you know how to do it. It's served me well for about 8+ years. Once I discovered what all it could really do, it proved to be better than some more expensive remotes.

Of course, now I'm sure Logitech has a whole lot more features for a lot less than I paid.

Cheers

It seems hard to imagine that the woman expected her delicates to stay completely private when she hung them up for the entire world to see.

Completely talking out of my ass here, so take this with a generous bit of salt ...

Japanese culture has the concept of the public vs private face -- Omote (the public face) and ura (the private face). In this case, maybe the photos sort of publicly breech Omote in a way that wouldn't happen with day to day Japanese people.

I'm not saying I agree with all of her claims, and she might in fact be a little loopy. But, there does appear to be a very strong cultural basis for this -- from what has been explained to me, Japanese social interactions are incredibly complex. So much so that most Westerners would probably grossly offend almost everybody in the first few hours. :-P

What exactly do you think will be the problem if a slashdotter will get playful with his computer?

Hmmmm ... pale, sweaty, fat, naked geek in front of a computer doing god knows what.

You have to ask? The mind reels!!

It doesn't matter, you can just root the phone and install what you want.

I think that installing a new OS on my cell-phone is on my to do list ... right after getting a rectal exam from the TSA at an airport.

It's just not something I really care to do. I've never put new firmware on my TV remote either. :-P

Actually, I quite liked their seaweed burger

I have never heard of this one ... however, it would appear that we've each cited one of the top ten failed products from McDonald's, along with the GPs reference to McPizza. :-P

Clearly you've never eaten a McPizza.

*shudder* That stuff was nasty. Good riddance, I say. (Of course, I've not eaten McD's in over a decade).

Though, I seem to recall having some fond memories of the McDLT when I was much younger.

Because some bozo starts whining about fragmentation whenever Android is mentioned?

But, it seems to be a valid criticism.

I'm sure I've seen people saying they can't get the latest update because their carrier won't do it, or when they do get an update it breaks things and introduces even further lock down -- completely against the aims of the Android.

From what I've seen, fragmentation within Android is becoming a big deal as companies muck with it. Just how many flavors of the Android OS are there, and how much have the carriers/manufacturers been altering it to make themselves more money?