I'm just saying that Apple have a good reason to discourage people from using styli with their iPad, for reasons other than the new finger-based touch paradigm. (As it exposes inherent shortcomings.)
I don't fault Apple and Jobs for that, though; I am just bothered by Gruber's rather naïve praise and uncompromising defence of the iPad as a device for creation over consumption, an argument I think he more than Apple and anyone else champions.
I think you misunderstand the point that he is trying to make. Gruber's "iPad isn't for creation" jokes are purely a rebuttal to all the naysayers that repeated, ad nauseum, that iPads are only for consumption. iPads may not be the best drawing/production/editing/writing devices out there, but it's clear that people are using iPads for professional level work.
I don't get the sense that Gruber thinks the current incarnations of the iPad are even particularly good for much beyond gaming and reading.
The iPad is eminently mediocre for any principally visual task such as sketching or painting. The touchscreen, while highly responsive, simply lacks the resolution (even with a stylus) to do detailed work without a massive zoom ratio.
For things that don't require visual precision, such as music production or writing or concept diagramming, the iPad is highly capable. I look forward to the day its touchscreen can handle pen input to an equal degree.
Wow, you had better explain that to my brother - he just finished illustrating a children's book with beautiful water-colour style images - all done on an iPad. But maybe I imagined that...
People do great things with mediocre tools all the time, so that does not tell us anything about the quality of the iPad as a tool for this type of drawing.
They do. When they don't have access to better tools for one reason or another. This is not my brother's case though - he simply found the iPad to be a superior solution to the problem.
I agree. I've been doing professional illustration for print (among other things) since the late 70s. My most recent published project is a book cover illustration. I have access to a huge range of media - gouache, acrylics, oils, pastel, oil bars, inks, etc - as well as pressure sensitive graphics tablets and various painting and illustration software for desktop platforms.
I was free to choose any of these, but I chose to use an iPad because it allows the immediacy of sketching and painting with natural media and the significantly faster turnaround of digital image making.
Like any tool it takes some adjustment, but once it clicks, there is nothing more immediate than using your finger(s) to directly paint an image. The fat touch region is a non-issue once you've learned to use it - after all, there's nothing terribly immediate about flexing one's fingers and having a mark appear 2-10 cm away at the tip of a pencil, pen, or brush - we've just become so accustomed to it that it seems "normal." A bit of time with an iPad and tablet finger painting seems equally immediate and natural.
Speaking as someone who regularly sketches on his iPad, this is just wrong. You want to know what sucks for graphics work? A trackpad — it took me fifteen years before I could manage 3D and bezier manipulation with a trackpad as well as with a mouse. (I could draw freehand with a mouse within a day.)
I'll second that the ipad is a great creation device but just not for proper stylus based creation - some paint styles, most drawing, and any handwriting. But it is good for more common creative applications - a lot of photo apps, music, keyboard-based writing. If Apple also made a stylus-based product I'd get it in a heartbeat (because ironically it's weakest as a paper notebook replacement for meetings and sketching ideas), but if I had to choose between those types of creative applications, there's more mileage in the ipad.
