What will the iPad do for musicians?

[oredon]

I'm interested in the iPad as a control surface, for instance running TouchOSC, as a kind of lower cost Lemur. But given that many companies are releasing tablets this year and next year, is this the right product for the job? Or, to put it another way: what is a musically useful tablet?

Obviously a multi-tasking device would be key, but should it have a full OS? How much storage is necessary?

I can see using a tablet as a control surface. I can also see a synth app on a tablet, for live play. I could see a multi-track recorder, for taking to a rehearsal space (what would the accessories look like on that?)

[whyterabbyt]

I'm interested in the iPad as a control surface, for instance running TouchOSC, as a kind of lower cost Lemur. But given that many companies are releasing tablets this year and next year, is this the right product for the job? Or, to put it another way: what is a musically useful tablet?

its 'a' right tool for that job, just as the Lemur is. im pretty sure that in a fairly short time the iPad wont be the only (other) thing in that niche. (Really, except for smaller twists, it isnt really the only thing there to begin with, I guess.)

[headquest]

As if that's any different from the current status quo. You get easy acces to the product the 'machine' (the corporate machine, that is) wants you to get. Anything outside of that is for you to search out and consume.

True for the most part, but most companies aim for a bit more compatibility with each other. Apple these days esepcailly seems to be moving away from compatibility with others.

And at any rate, there is a built in web browser... and filesharing... so you have access to whatever you want to read. You can load in all the Noam Chomsky PDFs you want... The same way you can put music that's not available in itunes into your ipod...

Not exactly the way it is though... and it would need to be in the Apple format to work with their reader. As for the freedom of information via the internet, the Chinese have proved that censorship can be done, and ISPs have been in negotiations for a while now regarding subscription services and limitation of content...

And who in the major business world hasn't? You're shooting at the underpinnings of capitalism... Which is fine by me, I don't really care for the system either, but please don't for one second think you couldn't replace 'Apple' in your rant with hundreds of other corporations...

Again, partly true. Actually what I am railing against is the sense of "monopoly" - I don't want to see Apple or any other company create a monopoly, especially in terms of freedom of communication or ideas or content. In any case, we're talking specifically about Apple here, and I do feel they are taking their closed system format to a new level. Love 'em or hate 'em, Microsoft currently offer a far more open computing approach.

[jones-y]

To the folks calling the iPad (and iPK25) a toy: I don't see what's wrong with that...

I personally can't wait for the Akai iPK61 with iPad docking capabilities... Seems the iPad would make one helluva sound module with the right apps. Heck I'm buying the iPK25 just as soon as I can use it with beatmaker, iDrum, iSyn and/or NLog. I believe Akai has hit on something there, and the iPK (and that line of thinking) may keep them relevant for another 25 years...

But really I think its way too soon to determine what the iPad will do for musicians, because its really up to third party developers to determine that (within the hardware limitations of the machine - for example, I'll assume you can get a MIDI signal into/out of it, but can you get a digital or high quality analog audio signal in/out?).

I'm gonna take a wait and see approach. I'll be waiting for a full blown sampling app to get ported over... Not too interested in sequencing on it, but moreso just using it as a sound source (hopefully with MIDI at some point soon), just like I do my iPhone.

[whyterabbyt]

iPad family speculation

[debra1rlo]

iPad family speculation

now THAT'S revolutionary!

[headquest]

iPad family speculation

[johnrule]

The most it could ever do for me is act as a remote monitor to my DAW (if it even does VNC). Maybe in a few years, when something like this has at least a 2.5 Ghz processor (and a full OS) I can do something, but right now it's really just a big iPhone.

I am sure many will find it useful for something though...not everyone needs loads of processing power to make music.

JR

[jones-y]

As if that's any different from the current status quo. You get easy acces to the product the 'machine' (the corporate machine, that is) wants you to get. Anything outside of that is for you to search out and consume.

True for the most part, but most companies aim for a bit more compatibility with each other. Apple these days esepcailly seems to be moving away from compatibility with others.

And at any rate, there is a built in web browser... and filesharing... so you have access to whatever you want to read. You can load in all the Noam Chomsky PDFs you want... The same way you can put music that's not available in itunes into your ipod...

Not exactly the way it is though... and it would need to be in the Apple format to work with their reader. As for the freedom of information via the internet, the Chinese have proved that censorship can be done, and ISPs have been in negotiations for a while now regarding subscription services and limitation of content...

And who in the major business world hasn't? You're shooting at the underpinnings of capitalism... Which is fine by me, I don't really care for the system either, but please don't for one second think you couldn't replace 'Apple' in your rant with hundreds of other corporations...

Again, true. But we're talking specifically about Apple here, and I do feel they are taking their closed system format to a new level. Love 'em or hate 'em, Microsoft currently offer a far more open computing approach.

I think we mostly agree headquest, and I will concede that Apple is into closed systems. But consider that they are, first and foremost, a hardware company, and secondly, that they tried opening up (Mac clones) and it almost killed them. I don't see why they would approach things any differently. Their closed system has proven to sell hardware. Consumers vote with their wallets...

IMO they are no more or less closed than they were five years ago. Now they just have much more visibility and market share/viability, and they now have news/media outlets and book publishers sitting at the table next to the music/movie industry to get a few crumbs.

As far as their reader being closed, I'll admit I haven't looked closely enough; is that really the case? I would think that, given the iTunes model, they wouldn't do that. Plenty of people have e-books/PDFs already... Why would Apple disable them from putting them into their shiny new iPad. Seems like a bit of shooting yourself in the foot for a company who mainly just wants to sell you a piece of hardware... Why would they care what you're reading on your iPad? as long as you're reading it on your iPad, they've already turned a profit... Makes no sense to me... That's why they de-dongled Logic Pro...

[jones-y]

iPad family speculation

And its funny because I caught myself thinking this morning that they'd somehow done it backwards... Like for some reason that makes sense to the cosmos only, the iPad should've preceded the iPhone.

[jones-y]

No, the apps are only one (major) part of the interface.

for the 'regular' consumer, yes. but since the thread relates to use for musicians, the 'interface and design' in question are more likely to be the remit of the app developer.

But its a system, the apps can't offer interfacing that the system itself doesn't support. So either way it all goes back to the entire system as a whole.

That may or may not be, and I can see arguments in both directions, but that is exactly what open competition promotes. Throw your ideas in the ring and see who wins...

I can't say that I like Apple's closed system of content approval, but if the market accepts it (which it undoubtedly has to this point) then I'm not sure how you are coming to that conclusion...

which conclusion? that the alternatives will become stronger? simply by observing that's what's happening with android phones and netbooks, that's how.

Yes that conclusion. We will have to wait and see what the market says, but as Jobs stated yesterday, Apple is, by income, the largest portable electronics company. Its hard to argue against results, and they are clearly winning at this point. To say that some other system/method offers the most likely path to future success (I hope I'm not mis-paraphrasing you) is IMO willfully ignoring past and present market trends.

[whyterabbyt]

they tried opening up (Mac clones) and it almost killed them

historically, thats not what actually happened. jobs was at the helm when there was a nosedive in the industry, and thats what 'almost killed' apple; jobs was ousted because his management style was seen as too erratic when the company was ailing.
it was after that when Apple opened the Mac up to cloning. And it actually generated decent revenue for them when they weren't getting enough from sales. When Jobs came back, (and wanted to re-architecture the Mac as a high-end workstation along the lines of the NeXT), one of the first things he did was renege on deals with the cloners. In fact Apple bought out one of the clone companies, for $100m, so I quite doubt the clones 'almost killed them'. It was a philosophical thing; control or market penetration. Jobs likes control, the board brought Jobs back, Jobs tightened Apple's grip again.

[jones-y]

they tried opening up (Mac clones) and it almost killed them

historically, thats not what actually happened. jobs was at the helm when there was a nosedive in the industry, and thats what 'almost killed' apple; jobs was ousted because his management style was seen as too erratic when the company was ailing.
it was after that when Apple opened the Mac up to cloning. And it actually generated decent revenue for them when they weren't getting enough from sales. When Jobs came back, (and wanted to re-architecture the Mac as a high-end workstation along the lines of the NeXT), one of the first things he did was renege on deals with the cloners. In fact Apple bought out one of the clone companies, for $100m, so I quite doubt the clones 'almost killed them'. It was a philosophical thing; control or market penetration. Jobs likes control, the board brought Jobs back, Jobs tightened Apple's grip again.

Oh ok, my bad. Thanks for the info.

[whyterabbyt]

But its a system, the apps can't offer interfacing that the system itself doesn't support.

That may or may not be true depending on the specific case of 'interfacing'. Assuming that 'interfacing' even means what spaceman was talking about when he said 'interface and design', which I actually doubt.

So either way it all goes back to the entire system as a whole.

No, I disagree. Its not the either/or proposition you present.

Yes that conclusion. We will have to wait and see what the market says, but as Jobs stated yesterday, Apple is, by income, the largest portable electronics company.

Apple's total income or their income just for portable electronics?

Its hard to argue against results, and they are clearly winning at this point.

Winning what, exactly? Something that stops other manufacturer's from competing in the same product space? Why, then, is there so much new competition in the 'smartphone' market?

To say that some other system/method offers the most likely path to future success (I hope I'm not mis-paraphrasing you) is IMO willfully ignoring past and present market trends.

I'm not ignoring anything. There was no iPod-with-touchscreen market trend two or three years ago. There wasnt a smartphone market. Would you be using that line if I'd said the iPod or iPhone might take off despite the lack of those prior trends?

[unpeople]

historically, thats not what actually happened. jobs was at the helm when there was a nosedive in the industry, and thats what 'almost killed' apple; jobs was ousted because his management style was seen as too erratic when the company was ailing.

Historically, that's not what actually happened. Steve Jobs was not "at the helm when there was a nosedive in the industry." He was ousted in 1985, at a time when both Apple and the computer industry at large were booming, and John Scully had been CEO of Apple for two years at that point, anyway. When Jobs returned in 1997, Apple was indeed in dire financial straits, having lost over a billion dollars that year, and much of their downturn was credited to the cannibalization of Mac desktop sales by the Mac clone vendors. Steve Jobs cancelled the clone contracts, trimmed the fat (ironically discontinuing the Newton), and turned Apple into the $50 billion company that it is today.