Simulator at least fits on the 30″, barely. twitter.com/tapbot_paul/st…

— Paul Haddad (@tapbot_paul) March 9, 2012

If you’re not familiar with iOS development, the Simulator is used to run an Xcode project on a Mac instead of waiting for the freshly compiled binary to sync to the device and then launch. (Also, sometimes you may not have an iOS device handy while you’re making a minor bug fix…or you might not have an iPad yet at all!)

I can’t be the only one to think it strange that Apple would, in the long term, make it difficult for developers to work on their apps on anything other than a desktop Mac driving a 30″ monitor. (That’s a surefire way to cut down on software for the new iPad!)

This, to me at least, seems like a strong suggestion that a refresh of the MacBook Pro line is on the way, bringing with it screen resolutions equal to or higher than the iPad’s. Maybe the iMacs will get a resolution bump, too.

Edit: Ars Technica is now reporting (it’s uncanny, they posted just a few hours after me…) that the latest Mountain Lion beta has double-sized graphic resources, indicating that this is something Apple is at least working towards.

I think mobile applications are as much apart of the field of webmastery as web pages are. Just as a web application can serve-up an HTML frontend or an RSS feed or a JSON result set, it can also have a mobile interface in “app form.” Modern websites generally separate the content from the business logic and the presentation layer, allowing for interface-agnostic systems like Twitter. I can use most of the functions of Twitter through the main website or through HootSuite or through one of the many iPhone apps.

True, mobile apps are not hypertext, but they’re yet another facet of the internet. Let’s face it, normal web pages don’t work terribly well on pocket-sized devices. The iPhone made it tolerable to browse the web on a mobile device, but it’s still not an optimal experience. Apps are the preferred interface, whether we all like it or not.

What do you think: is mobile app development as closely linked to web development as I consider it?

Thankfully, there’s a way to fairly easily support everything. You can offer HTML5 video in one or more formats and fall back on Silverlight or Flash if necessary.

MediaElement.js allows you to do that with a little bit of jQuery voodoo. After including all of the required files, you can serve-up an H.264 video for Safari and iPhone/iPad users like so:

<video src="myfile.mp4" type="video/mp4" width="640" height="360"></video>
<script>
jQuery(document).ready(function($) {
$('video').mediaelementplayer();
});
</script>

There is also a way to specify more than one video type in the <video> element, if you have re-encoded it into more than one codec:

<video width="640" height="360">
<source src="myfile.mp4" type="video/mp4" >
<source src="myfile.ogg" type="video/ogg" >
<source src="myfile.webm" type="video/webm" >
</video>

You will want to check it out if you’re interested in cross-browser compatible web video.

What’s so special about iAds? For starters, clicking on one of the small banners doesn’t take you out of your application. It just opens an overlay with an HTML5-powered “mini application” from the advertiser, which you can then exit at any time.

The page displayed when you tap an advertisement is very interactive. Video and sound can be streamed to you, freebies like iPhone wallpapers can be downloaded. You can even play little HTML5 games.

Another example Jobs showed-off a few times was using the location tools to help find nearby store or movie theater locations. Imagine clicking a Pizza Hut or Dunkin Donuts ad and having it show you where to find the nearest franchise location.

The interactivity is the key feature of the platform. Instead of being an annoyance, the ads are supposed to be useful and interesting to the end user. The HTML5 framework enables advertisers to build ads that look and act like native applications, even tying in to hardware APIs.

I think Apple has found the secret to modern advertising: shake things up. Do what “traditional” ad networks are afraid to, or just unwilling, to try. If they keep to a similar ethos as Fusion Ads, only serving-up the highest quality of advertisement, and in moderate quantities, they might push the entire industry in the right direction.

A lot of people commenting online seem to be under the impression that Apple is going to be displaying their ads everywhere around the phone and making billions of dollars. That couldn’t be further from the truth. The ads will only be displayed in applications where the developer specifically enables them, and the developer will receive 60% of the revenue.

I think that Apple’s revolutionary new ad platform is going to help give the industry a kick in the right direction. The best type of ads are a win-win-win scenario: the users find them useful and interesting, the publisher makes money, and the advertisers get their word across. (Contrary to popular belief, advertising is about informing people that something exists, not tricking them into buying it.)

Anyway, watch the keynote and see for yourself.

Precise details of the system and its features could not be discerned at presstime (and calls to Apple had not been returned), but it is believed to have been built on top of Quattro, the mobile advertising developer Apple acquired in January for nearly $300 million, and it is expected to be the first real battle of a Silicon Valley Holy War between Apple and arch frenemy Google that is shifting its front line to Madison Avenue.

I know, the idea seemed a little outlandish to me at first, too. After pondering the thought of an Apple ad network for awhile, it started to make sense.

Apple has two devices that are similar, but radically different in their intended usage, and they both are good candidates for an ad network.

The iPad is intended to be a media consumption device. It’s form factor is supposed to make it a device to read magazines, news and books on. With Apple pushing for publications to make their content available on the iPad and iPhone, doesn’t it make sense for them to provide a premium ad network to make the move more profitable for both parties. With a New York Times iPad application, a Wired app, and more on the way, doesn’t it seem like a comprehensive in-app advertising solution would be an attractive deal for publishers?

The iPhone is primarily used on-the-go. Its users pull it out to find nearby restaurants, check movie show times, buy train tickets, or make other informational or monetary transactions one does while out and about. Geolocation could really be a game-changer for some forms of advertising. Suppose you’re looking for a restaurant in the Yelp application. If you’ve enabled the app to have permission to geolocate you, it could forward your location to the Apple ad network and display ads for restaurants nearby.

Apple has a chance to build an ad network that does things differently. If they impose strict guidelines on the advertisers allowed in, so as to be useful to the user while not becoming too intrusive, they could have a hit. How often do you find ads to be useful? If Apple can break that paradigm, they’ll have done something truly revolutionary.

The integrated ebook store (or iBooks, as Apple prefers to call them…) places the device as a competitor to the Kindle, and already they have the support of several major publishers. The form factor makes it perfect for sitting in a chair and reading, whether your content be an ebook or a web page. It also has a version of the iWork suite available that takes advantage of the touch interface.

Already, there are predictions circulating that the device will be a miserable failure. I will tell you now, so we can all look back at this and decide who gets the last laugh, that my forecast is the opposite. Apple knows their market, and the iPad will sell.

Why? Isn’t it just an iPod Touch that doesn’t fit in your pocket?

At a glance, yes. However, each device has its own strengths — and the iPad’s give it a niche that will enable it to carve out a space between the laptop and the smartphone.

It’s not meant to be a primary computer for most people. It’s a device that you keep in your living room to check IMDB while you watch TV, a device you use to read books in bed, a device you use to read the news in the morning, a device you use to watch movies on a plane. It’s primarily a media consumption device, a digital magazine, newspaper, and book rolled into one.

I like to carry my iPod in my pocket, so I can hop on free WiFi hotspots and check in on my email and Twitter streams. It works wonderfully for web browsing, better than any device of comparable size, but the screen is small enough that it’s a pain to use for longer lengths of time. The iPad’s 10-inch screen is big enough that you could comfortably read longer articles on.

With the “iBook Store,” Apple is obviously trying to place the device as a competitor to a Kindle. While the Kindle’s E-Ink display must be easier on the eyes than a backlit LCD, it’s still a one-trick pony. I think most people will see the iPad as a better value, since they get a full web browser and the ability to run iPhone apps in the same package.

Watching the applications they demoed in the keynote, I’m more convinced that the iPad is the third classification of device that Jobs talked of. The New York Times app looked pretty good, and the Brushes painting software looked interesting. The MLB’s baseball application I found particularly intriguing, not for interest in the sport, but for what they did with it. They had it play archival clips from old matches, and the app was able to pull-up player’s statistics over the video with a couple of taps. Interactive video. Imagine Hollywood movies being encoded with metadata that would let you tap actors to run IMDB lookups while you watch. No more wondering, all the way through the film, who that familiar-looking actress is…

Apple redesigned the applications built-in to the iPhone to fit the new, larger display. In doing so, they made them that much more useful and easy to use. While the YouTube application on the iPhone is tuned to make video-watching possible on the small screen, the iPad version gives you a rich, full YouTube experience. The Calendar app is the same. Rather than simply presenting your appointments in a way suited to fit in your palm, the iPad version gives you a full-blown planner look. The added screen real estate gives applications room to do more.

I think we’ll soon start to see some killer applications developed specifically for this device. Can you imagine a touchscreen version of World of Warcraft? It seems like it would be a good candidate, game-wise. How about a MIDI sequencer, or a app/dock peripheral that turns it into a mixing board? I’m sure you can imagine an application that would be nothing short of spectacular on a large touchscreen.

The iPad will certainly be big in the game market. Journalists who got their hands on it for a few minutes have said that the A4 processor is very fast, far snappier than the iPhone’s. Coupled with the large screen, there are so many opportunities waiting. Flight simulators, FPS games, whatever you like. Surely a high-resolution 1024×768 display would make them that much more impressive and detailed than you would get on a pocket-sized iPod. Some games would be more apt for the iPhone (e.g. bowling games and quick puzzles), but the iPad seems like a better fit for others.

On the other end of the user spectrum, I think the iPad is a good device for those people who don’t really use computers. I’m sure you know someone who just reads their email, does some web browsing, and checks their Facebook feed. It seems like a good fit for them.

The iPad is an interesting device with a market that’s not quite apparent yet. It will become clear in the coming months, though. Between media consumption and yet-to-be-developed “killer apps,” the iPad will find its niche.