The iPad is innovating where the PC couldn’t

Jeff Atwood of Coding Horror on the Post PC era —really, the iPad era:

iPad 3 reviews that complain “all they did was improve the display” are clueless bordering on stupidity. Tablets are pretty much by definition all display; nothing is more fundamental to the tablet experience than the quality of the display. These are the first iPads I’ve ever owned (and I’d argue, the first worth owning), and the display is as sublime as I always hoped it would be. The resolution and clarity are astounding, a joy to read on, and give me hope that one day we could potentially achieve near print resolution in computing. The new iPad screen is everything I’ve always wanted on my desktops and laptops for the last 5 years, but I could never get.

There are other advantages to the iPad that made the two previous version worth owning. However, the sublime display in the new iPad really finishes the job. It’s hard to think where Apple will go with the next iPad —besides lighter and thinner. My bet is on software.

Something Better

Andy Ihnatko in his piece on the new iPad unveiling:

If Apple were to release a truly revolutionary new iPad, then that would indicate that there was something wrong with the last one. Clearly, there’s no need. And the new iPad — yes, that does indeed appear to be its real name: “The new iPad” — is a great update. It represents a much, much greater jump above the iPad 2 than the iPad 2 was over the original.

Jonathan Ive, in a recent interview with the London Evening Standard, on what his goals are when setting out to build a new product:

Our goals are very simple —to design and make better products. If we can’t make something that is better, we won’t do it.


A display that the iPad has always deserved —but that wasn’t economically (and technically) possible until now. 4G LTE support —a feature that didn’t mean much a year ago. And a battery that takes up roughly the same room but that has a 70% increase in power output.

This is only a disappointment if you are both visually challenged and live in a non-LTE area or prefer the WiFi version instead.

This Stuff Matters

Google on its blog, introducing the new privacy policy:

But there’s so much more that Google can do to help you by sharing more of your information with … well, you. We can make search better —figuring out what you really mean when you type in Apple, Jaguar or Pink. We can provide more relevant ads too. For example, it’s January, but maybe you’re not a gym person, so fitness ads aren’t that useful to you. We can provide reminders that you’re going to be late for a meeting based on your location, your calendar and an understanding of what the traffic is like that day.

Talk about sugarcoating. Google almost makes it sound like they are doing it all for you. That they are trying to make your life better by tracking you, everywhere you go. That heavily filtering your search results based on what they know about you —or what they want you to know about (it’s all pretty blurry from where I’m standing), is a good thing.

Why they are calling this a privacy policy is beyond me. People would actually see less of me and who I am, if I stopped wearing clothes to work, than what Google gets to see if I agree to this.

I haven’t actually agreed anywhere to this new anti-privacy policy, do I still get the chance to do that, or is the agreement implicit by continuing to use Google’s services?

This stuff matters.

Google. You. Are. Scaring. Me.