The Ipad came in very late in the market. Samsung cited that the technology is in the public domain since 1994. The fact that it was not common knowledge points at Ipad technology’s usefulness today. The downside is that during the 90s, internet technology expanded by leaps and bounds. However, during 1994, the internet was, as Michael S. Rosenwald’s article For tablet computer visionary Roger Fidler, a lot of what-ifs says in the dinosaur age. The internet was just coming into usages of video. If videos streaming would have existed during the time as it does today, the technology would have been picked up on. Instead, Rosenwald’s article asserts that the technology was not advanced enough to make the technology feasible then.
As a result, Moore’s law is expressed in this matter, because the fact that the tablet was makeable during 1994. Laptops existed well before tablets did. I had a Compaq laptop with a swappable CD-rom drive and a 3.5 floppy drive. The laptop could run windows 98 but came installed with 95. Perhaps, according to Moore’s law, the technology would have been more commonplace, better, and cheaper even today if it was developed more from back then.
The sheer price of the model could skew the thoughts of the early majority to the late majority in terms of adoption of technology. The early adopters in this case would save up the money and take in the technology as unique. Then, today, the Ipad would not be the same as it was then, it would be similar to a comparison between an Apple IIe and a modern IMac today. The same can be said of tablet computing and IMacs.
Web 2.0 or previous versions, allow the Ipad to be a beacon of producing content today. However, the tablet back then with Web 1.0 and the early emergent versions of passively read media, versus currently read media beg the point that the tablet technology proposed then in 1994 by Roger Fidler was pushing for an earlier emergent transition between web 1.0 and 2.0.
Marshall McClullen would consider the Table Newspaper of Fiddler’s as a medium for a message. The medium because of the fact that the content already existed in a form expressed by current media outlets. However, it was combining cutting edge technology and thought into a different expressed form. The medium favors the messenger then to be the content producer, thus going back to Web 1.0 to 2.0 differences.
The nagging revelation, when considering Arthur C. Clarke’s predictions about the internet and Fiddler’s misconceptions of timeline and infrastructure goes back to what he says in Rosenwalds article. He expresses prudence as a factor in emerging technologies and communications media. The concepts points at the fact that perhaps limiting factors need not be a deterrent when challenging and revamping current mediated expressions.