ps: also, read this.

I believe this idea has stemmed from two sources: (1) People are more narrow minded than they believe so. They are normally afraid of something new and different and by default, new things aren’t as good as the old ones (2) The operating system that originally shipped on the iPad was not as open as people would like to. This got perceived as Apple wanting to control everything that the device can do and imposing limits on being creative.

I won’t delve much into point number (1) as you can buy some books and read studies about all that. As far as (2) goes, a little bit of history can get us a long way. When the iPhone came out it had a very limited and crippled OS. I mean, there was no API. Apple themselves did not realize at the time what they had created and how to fully exploit in the apps that shipped with the original iPhone. They had no idea that developers would just make the iPhone what it is.

With this in mind, I think Apple also decided to thread lightly on the iPad front. They released the iPad – with a very mature API compared to the original iPhone mind you – but still don’t really know how to go at it as far as opening up the system to the outside. This is why there’s not a mature way to interface a bunch of external gadgets. This imposes limits on how much you can interface the iPad to other well known and established tools in the market.

My main interest on the iPad is two fold. Productivity: email anywhere, semi decent typing and ok sized reading for technical books and scientific papers. Creativity: I am always curious about the interplay between technology and creativity. I am specially curious when it comes to music. Music apps is where I’ve spent over 70% of my money on Apps.

As far as music goes, the iPad is now starting to become very interesting. There are native apps for it that are just mind blowing for anyone that has played with music and computers for last two decades. That is all good but what will catalyze the new wave of innovation is how you can interface it to not only already existing formats such as MIDI and Audio interfaces but also how to you can change the way to interface with them. My first example is interfacing a full blown software such as Max for Live Ableton and using the iPad to control it:

One can make the argument that it’s only a controller with virtual knobs and sliders. I would argue that first and foremost, it’s not one but many. Notice how he switches between different possible ways of controlling notes. My second line of argumentation would be that this is the first stage of using an iPad. We will very soon get rid of virtualizing instruments and controllers. Have a look at Jordan Rudess having fun with MorphWiz:

My last example (use headphones or a good sound system to appreciate the bass) is how you can control Electrify using an external controller, the APC 40 from Akai. This is the sort of interface ability that will push the iPad to a new level. It will stop being seen and perceived as a limited controller – it is after all, not very big. It won’t be anymore also just a target for simpler and more limited software beat boxes/synth but hopefully as serious target of software developers since you can now interface it with professional controllers ranging from Performance controllers like the APC 40 or custom made ones but also professional keyboards, drum modules, etc.

I’ve shared my ideas of what the iPad can currently do and some of the cooler and newer possibilities laying ahead. I’ve also shared some examples of the iPad in three different situations: As a pure controller (first), as a new way to create music using using a new way to interface with an instrument (second) and as the the brain of a music software being controlled by a hardware controller (third). This shows how versatile it is. If this can’t get you to be creative, then I’m not sure the iPad is the problem in anyone wanting to do music using new approaches.

As a full blown computer nerd, it’s not easy. It’s a paradigm shift. I used Gentoo at a point for byte’s sake. Maybe I’m getting old. Maybe I’m getting smarter.

The Economist photoshopped the picture from Reuters for their June 19 cover. I don’t think it’s a big deal, but the NYT has a big spiel about it.

I’ve been reading rants about the outcome of the Ghana-Uruguay game, the one where a Uruguay player got sent off on the last minute of overtime after stopping a ball from crossing the line with his hands. Here’s my take on it as I’m getting tired of reading a bunch of crap from people that have not even played the sport all of their life to be able to provide any interesting insight.

Soccer is a sport governed by rules. Breaking those rules is part of the game. Anyone that tells you otherwise is being cynical. Breaking the rules is part of any game. Watch the last three minutes of an NBA game and it becomes clear by what I mean by that. Watch the last fifteen minutes of a soccer match and observe that every team winning adopts a strategy that takes advantage of every trick in the book to keep the clock running towards their purposes.

Games are won by those that know the rules and play them to their advantage. Yellow cards and red cards can be used as tools by the brightest players and those that can’t tend to get angry for no reason. Most people that are playing the Soccer God and invoking ethics are so clueless about the sport that they don’t even realize how countless situations throughout the game are much more critical than stopping a ball from crossing the line. Games are not won by defending the ball from crossing the line, they’re won by the countless seemingly inoffensive rule-breaking that occurs throughout the entire game, team work and sometimes, individual talent.

Had that situation happened at minute 15 most likely than not the player would not have stopped the ball from crossing the line. At minute 120 in a world cup game playing for your own country when that is the only possible chance of saving your team from losing, are you fucking kidding me? If you aren’t nodding your head approving my outrage, chances are you’ve never cried after losing a game that you felt meant everything to you. Your own existence on earth.

Ghana can only blame themselves. They could have won on multiple occasions. They could have won at minute 120. They could have won after penalties. They didn’t. They didn’t have it in them that night. That’s the beauty of Soccer. That’s why the sport is King. The “Soccer Gods” don’t understand this. They haven’t played the sport enough or to such extremes to understand the sports’ inner game. The unwritten rules and essence that you learn going through pain and joy on the field.

These games make Soccer great. This game will go down in history as a great game. It represents what the sport is, oscillating between emotional quadrants within seconds. It teaches you never to give up and that sometimes you need to sacrifice a pawn to save the king and eventually win the game.

Tatte, a coffee shop in Brookline, MA. Good pastry, solid espresso :)