The rumours are old news. A million sites have been shown to have been liars. And the hype has given way to reality. The iPad doesn’t walk on water, hover like a board, or sing you sweet songs while you sleep. No, wait. It can do that last one.

For all the cries of ‘haters’ and ‘fanboys’, it’s hard to shake the thought that something about the iPad isn’t quite… perfection. Whatever you think of Apple and its products, it does a better job on the aesthetics of industrial design than anyone in the business. Keeping devices clean, simple and on target is their speciality. But the iPad seems a bit wrong for some reason.

For mine, that problem is the screen. There’s a few other niggles people are harping about (no multitasking, for one) but in the long game the screen is the most likely ‘miss’ to cause long term grief.

On the question of tasking, power, ports, services, software, or whatever else, these are easy adds. A firmware update here, a new app there, even a 2nd or 3rd gen product, and you have everything you need on almost every front.

But in the iPad context, the screen must remain a constant. Unlike a real laptop, Apple Apps are designed to suit a specific device resolution. Even moreso than resolution, the Apps are most specifically built to match a screen ratio. And the iPad’s 4:3 ratio feels like anything but ‘the future’.

Continue Reading…

As discussed on Byteside Tech #1, we recently conducted a series of network data tests using the iPhone’s Speedtest.net app.

We had concurrent access to four iPhone 3GS handsets, one on each of the four Australian networks — Telstra, Optus, Vodafone, and 3. Travelling around the Sydney CBD and Sydney suburban areas, we ran close to 150 individual speed tests. Tests ranged from Manly to Homebush, Annandale to North Sydney, and plenty in between.

At each location tested, we ran four tests in rapid succession to try and get a reasonably accurate data set at each location while still pushing onward with the test as quickly as possible. Rapid successive tests would also, in theory, minimise excuses for high latency due to packet connection initiation times.

UPDATE: One thing we forgot to mention is that everywhere we tested we only ran the test when we could find full bars of coverage strength for all networks. So we were never testing good signal versus bad. Data strength may have had its own fluctuations in availability, but for most purposes we felt watching the standard signal meter was the best way to ensure we aimed for a level playing field at all locations.

Continue Reading…