Prior to iOS 5, the iPad was not a PC. Now that it can be set up and used as a standalone device without having to involve another computer at any point, I think it's legitimate to classify it as a PC.
That's the first thing that came to mind when someone mentioned the old "Is it really a PC" canard.
Now that the iPad can operated as a standalone device, it turns out that being a real PC requires, variously, being able to run some specific application that I like, being able to allow me to write new software for the iPad on the iPad, being able to hook up to any given peripheral with some arbitrary level of convenience, or some vague business about "walled gardens" and "openness", usually pertaining to access to the file system, being able to install "any" software I chose, customization of the user interface, or all three.
On the last point, no one ever seems to consider that every computer ever made is massively constrained compared to the set of all possible behaviors, and what people are calling "open" is in fact simply a very large walled garden that has become comfortable with familiarity. PCs can't run "any" software, they can't be setup "any" way you like and you can't supersede the many, many conventions that undergird the OS. If this illusory flexibility is a requirement for being a real PC, there are no real PCs.
On 'Morning Joe' this morning, someone asked the half dozen people sitting at the table, 'When is the last time anyone here bought a PC, or anyone in your family for that matter?'
There was a collective shrugging of shoulders, and a lot of mentioning of Apple products, all mobile.
That's something that gets lost in the discussion. People use their PCs longer than they used to. A decade ago, I found it painful to use a computer that was more than a couple of years old. Today, even my 6 year old MacBook Pro is fast enough for what I do. The push for 'newer, faster, greater' has lessened significantly.
OTOH, for a consumer electronic device like an iPad or iPhone, the replacement rate will be much higher.
And how many people want to do that? Do you really think a criteria that applies to 1% of computer users should dictate in what category a device should be?
Well using the same logic if a tiny fraction of a percent of devices in the history of personal computing cannot do the most basic fundamental tasks of computing, as we know it, why should it be considered in the same category as the ones that can do those traditional PC tasks?
Also if an iPad can be a PC why not make the iPhone a PC. Does screen size have anything to do with being a PC or not?
For that matter, why not an iPod Touch? Which was preceded by stuff like Palm Pilots. Those are all cool pocket computers, but PC means something different to many or most people.
So too tablets are cool computers and are very personal, but many or most people wouldn't call them a PC.
I mean, you COULD, but it is a bit of a stretch. We'll see over the next few years if people start calling an iPad a PC, but I doubt it will happen.
As of now, I think it safe to say that pretty much nobody says PC when they mean an iPad. If a kid wants an iPad for Christmas, they would not say they wanted a PC. And if they did, they would get a laptop under the tree.
If someone walked into an Apple store and said that they wanted to look at a new PC, they most certainly would not be steered to the iPads. The question would be whether the customer was interested in a Macbook or an iMac.
So yeah - anybody can call anything whatever they want. But as of now, calling an iPad a PC adds no clarity.
Well using the same logic if a tiny fraction of a percent of devices in the history of personal computing cannot do the most basic fundamental tasks of computing, as we know it, why should it be considered in the same category as the ones that can do those traditional PC tasks?
Because what a PC can and cannot do changed over history of computers. Every new device is a tiny fraction during its first years. This article shows that the iPad is no longer a tiny fraction of PC sold. The iPad is not a tiny fraction anymore.
So based on you definition you don't consider Chrome laptops PCs?!
IS THIS REPORT IN ERROR? It states: "They found that Apple shipped 18.7 million iPads".
However, the highest quarter shipment of iPads happened last quarter as stated in Apple's quarterly results: "Apple sold 15.43 million iPads during the quarter".
Because what a PC can and cannot do changed over history of computers. Every new device is a tiny fraction during its first years. This article shows that the iPad is no longer a tiny fraction of PC sold. The iPad is not a tiny fraction anymore.
If you want to call an iPad a PC, that suits me fine but it will be mostly confusing to everyone else. Talk about 1%, the only people who want to call an iPad a PC are the ones who want Apple to sell more PCs than every other manufacturer. Since they already sell the most tablets there is no reason mention it. Yeah, let's say they sell the most tablets AND the most PCs so we just count the iPad twice. No problem. You know what they say about statistics...
I should probably clarify that when I said I didn't think the iPad was a PC, I didn't mean it as a judgement of the iPad's capabilities, that it was lacking in some respect. Simply that it's different enough to perhaps have it's own category. And I don't necessarily think the goal should be to make the iPad more of a PC. Instead of expanding the definition of PC to fit the iPad, why isn't it it's own class of device?
When the client terminals of mainframes gained the functionality to operate independently and self-contained, we didn't continue to call them mainframes. They became a new class of device independent of the mainframe legacy, and we called them Personal Computers. So now that the iPad has done the same by cutting the dependence on the PC, why are we do we stick it with the legacy "PC" moniker? Even Apple says it's a "post-PC" device, ie, it's not a PC.
And back to the point of the article, combining the sales totals for PCs and tablets, and using the mainframe analogy, in the early days of personal computers, if a company such as IBM made both mainframes and PCs, where the sales lumped together to compare to other company's mainframe sales counts? That's a bit absurd, don't you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I also don't think that the Kindle Fire should be counted because it's really just an eReader that was given some multimedia HW and SW support and missing a lot of the aspects that would me a "PC" replacement.
True, but even if something is a PC replacement, does that make it a PC? Aircraft largely replaced boats as the main means of passenger transportation across the Atlantic, but we don't call them boats!
Such numbers are increasingly meaningless. Apple is at the top of the computing industry which has subsumed the smartphone sector, regardless of how numbers are sliced and diced. Even without counting iPads and iPhones, Apple is driving the portable computing market in terms of product design, business model and profits. There is simply no more need to juggle permutations and combinations of different product sectors to show their supremacy.
True, but even if something is a PC replacement, does that make it a PC? Aircraft largely replaced boats as the main means of passenger transportation across the Atlantic, but we don't call them boats!
But in the beginning they did call them airships. Maybe that is what is happening with personal computing. Eventually the tweener form factor known as laptops will fade away leaving mobile devices and desktop PCs as two different categories.
If you want to call an iPad a PC, that suits me fine but it will be mostly confusing to everyone else. Talk about 1%, the only people who want to call an iPad a PC are the ones who want Apple to sell more PCs than every other manufacturer. Since they already sell the most tablets there is no reason mention it. Yeah, let's say they sell the most tablets AND the most PCs so we just count the iPad twice. No problem. You know what they say about statistics...
I don't think not are trying to shoehorn Apple in a superior position. I think it's on consistenty and honesty. If we keep seeing the definition move to keep exclusing te iPad as iOS evolves is that being honest? I don't think so.
As for your definition it's certainly something that Windows and Mac OS have been able to do over the decades but I don't see why that is the definition of a "personal computer". To me being personal is squarely on the end user experience not how it can be used by programmers. I don't see minis being called personal because you can program on them.
I'm still not convinced that the iPad is a "PC", but rather a post-PC device. Still, Apple's market share of mobile computing devices is impressive.
I think all this is made worse due to the 'PC' v 'Personal Computer' discussion / misunderstanding, the latter being anything from Apple ][ to a new HP DEsktop whereas the former was a marketing term coined by IBM for the model it brought out before the XT but the term stuck to mean all IBM's offerings then Compaq etc. that ran Microsoft OS (and I assume it was trade marked although I must go look that up)
In support of the concept that 'Personal Computer' and 'PC' have different meanings: As well as the Apple marketing campaign "Hello I'm a Mac … Hello I'm a PC" there is this from Wikipedia ..
"The original line of PCs were part of an IBM strategy to get into the small personal computer market then dominated by the Commodore PET, Atari 8-bit family, Apple II, Tandy Corporation's TRS-80s, and various CP/M machines."
THis seems to support the notion that a 'PC' was different from those listed.
So I am saying, IMHO an iPad is a 'personal computer' but not a 'PC'.
They did a pretty good job of breaking out tablets vs laptops.
The tablet info is interesting. Apple 18.7 M, Amazon 5.3 M, Samsung 2.1 M. It would be interesting to know how they counted Amazon's products. The number appears to be too large for just Fire shipments, but too low for all Kindle products.
I'm not thrilled at the way they look at the numbers though. inventory should never be counted. It changes things to meaningless numbers. It isn't even a real number, but rather an estimated one.
Exactly. The iPad 2 is more powerful than PCs were not too long ago. Does that mean those weren't PCs?
If the iPad ran OSX instead of iOS, it would be an iMac Air.
The issue is not one of power. If that were what mattered, you could call your ipod Touch a supercomputer, because it is more powerful than supercomputers of yore.
That was certainly the leading argument as to why it's not a PC or a replacement for a PC, but since the iOS 5 betas first came out nearly a year ago the goal posts have moved.
Well, it seems to me that a personal computer is owned by one person, and does computing. How complicated does it have to get?
Comments
Prior to iOS 5, the iPad was not a PC. Now that it can be set up and used as a standalone device without having to involve another computer at any point, I think it's legitimate to classify it as a PC.
That's the first thing that came to mind when someone mentioned the old "Is it really a PC" canard.
Now that the iPad can operated as a standalone device, it turns out that being a real PC requires, variously, being able to run some specific application that I like, being able to allow me to write new software for the iPad on the iPad, being able to hook up to any given peripheral with some arbitrary level of convenience, or some vague business about "walled gardens" and "openness", usually pertaining to access to the file system, being able to install "any" software I chose, customization of the user interface, or all three.
On the last point, no one ever seems to consider that every computer ever made is massively constrained compared to the set of all possible behaviors, and what people are calling "open" is in fact simply a very large walled garden that has become comfortable with familiarity. PCs can't run "any" software, they can't be setup "any" way you like and you can't supersede the many, many conventions that undergird the OS. If this illusory flexibility is a requirement for being a real PC, there are no real PCs.
On 'Morning Joe' this morning, someone asked the half dozen people sitting at the table, 'When is the last time anyone here bought a PC, or anyone in your family for that matter?'
There was a collective shrugging of shoulders, and a lot of mentioning of Apple products, all mobile.
That's something that gets lost in the discussion. People use their PCs longer than they used to. A decade ago, I found it painful to use a computer that was more than a couple of years old. Today, even my 6 year old MacBook Pro is fast enough for what I do. The push for 'newer, faster, greater' has lessened significantly.
OTOH, for a consumer electronic device like an iPad or iPhone, the replacement rate will be much higher.
And how many people want to do that? Do you really think a criteria that applies to 1% of computer users should dictate in what category a device should be?
Well using the same logic if a tiny fraction of a percent of devices in the history of personal computing cannot do the most basic fundamental tasks of computing, as we know it, why should it be considered in the same category as the ones that can do those traditional PC tasks?
Also if an iPad can be a PC why not make the iPhone a PC. Does screen size have anything to do with being a PC or not?
For that matter, why not an iPod Touch? Which was preceded by stuff like Palm Pilots. Those are all cool pocket computers, but PC means something different to many or most people.
So too tablets are cool computers and are very personal, but many or most people wouldn't call them a PC.
I mean, you COULD, but it is a bit of a stretch. We'll see over the next few years if people start calling an iPad a PC, but I doubt it will happen.
As of now, I think it safe to say that pretty much nobody says PC when they mean an iPad. If a kid wants an iPad for Christmas, they would not say they wanted a PC. And if they did, they would get a laptop under the tree.
If someone walked into an Apple store and said that they wanted to look at a new PC, they most certainly would not be steered to the iPads. The question would be whether the customer was interested in a Macbook or an iMac.
So yeah - anybody can call anything whatever they want. But as of now, calling an iPad a PC adds no clarity.
Well using the same logic if a tiny fraction of a percent of devices in the history of personal computing cannot do the most basic fundamental tasks of computing, as we know it, why should it be considered in the same category as the ones that can do those traditional PC tasks?
Because what a PC can and cannot do changed over history of computers. Every new device is a tiny fraction during its first years. This article shows that the iPad is no longer a tiny fraction of PC sold. The iPad is not a tiny fraction anymore.
So based on you definition you don't consider Chrome laptops PCs?!
However, the highest quarter shipment of iPads happened last quarter as stated in Apple's quarterly results: "Apple sold 15.43 million iPads during the quarter".
Comments?
Is it a computer? Yes.
Is it a personal computing device? Yes.
Think of it as PC 2.0.
Exactly. The iPad 2 is more powerful than PCs were not too long ago. Does that mean those weren't PCs?
If the iPad ran OSX instead of iOS, it would be an iMac Air.
Exactly. The iPad 2 is more powerful than PCs were not too long ago. Does that mean those weren't PCs?
If the iPad ran OSX instead of iOS, it would be an iMac Air.
You will still get people who will tell you that PC need to come with a mouse and physical keyboard.
Because what a PC can and cannot do changed over history of computers. Every new device is a tiny fraction during its first years. This article shows that the iPad is no longer a tiny fraction of PC sold. The iPad is not a tiny fraction anymore.
If you want to call an iPad a PC, that suits me fine but it will be mostly confusing to everyone else. Talk about 1%, the only people who want to call an iPad a PC are the ones who want Apple to sell more PCs than every other manufacturer. Since they already sell the most tablets there is no reason mention it. Yeah, let's say they sell the most tablets AND the most PCs so we just count the iPad twice. No problem. You know what they say about statistics...
So based on you definition you don't consider Chrome laptops PCs?!
I've never seen one. I have no idea.
When the client terminals of mainframes gained the functionality to operate independently and self-contained, we didn't continue to call them mainframes. They became a new class of device independent of the mainframe legacy, and we called them Personal Computers. So now that the iPad has done the same by cutting the dependence on the PC, why are we do we stick it with the legacy "PC" moniker? Even Apple says it's a "post-PC" device, ie, it's not a PC.
And back to the point of the article, combining the sales totals for PCs and tablets, and using the mainframe analogy, in the early days of personal computers, if a company such as IBM made both mainframes and PCs, where the sales lumped together to compare to other company's mainframe sales counts? That's a bit absurd, don't you think?
I also don't think that the Kindle Fire should be counted because it's really just an eReader that was given some multimedia HW and SW support and missing a lot of the aspects that would me a "PC" replacement.
True, but even if something is a PC replacement, does that make it a PC? Aircraft largely replaced boats as the main means of passenger transportation across the Atlantic, but we don't call them boats!
You know what they say about statistics...
"If you torture numbers long enough they will confess to anything."
True, but even if something is a PC replacement, does that make it a PC? Aircraft largely replaced boats as the main means of passenger transportation across the Atlantic, but we don't call them boats!
But in the beginning they did call them airships. Maybe that is what is happening with personal computing. Eventually the tweener form factor known as laptops will fade away leaving mobile devices and desktop PCs as two different categories.
If you want to call an iPad a PC, that suits me fine but it will be mostly confusing to everyone else. Talk about 1%, the only people who want to call an iPad a PC are the ones who want Apple to sell more PCs than every other manufacturer. Since they already sell the most tablets there is no reason mention it. Yeah, let's say they sell the most tablets AND the most PCs so we just count the iPad twice. No problem. You know what they say about statistics...
I don't think not are trying to shoehorn Apple in a superior position. I think it's on consistenty and honesty. If we keep seeing the definition move to keep exclusing te iPad as iOS evolves is that being honest? I don't think so.
As for your definition it's certainly something that Windows and Mac OS have been able to do over the decades but I don't see why that is the definition of a "personal computer". To me being personal is squarely on the end user experience not how it can be used by programmers. I don't see minis being called personal because you can program on them.
I'm still not convinced that the iPad is a "PC", but rather a post-PC device. Still, Apple's market share of mobile computing devices is impressive.
I think all this is made worse due to the 'PC' v 'Personal Computer' discussion / misunderstanding, the latter being anything from Apple ][ to a new HP DEsktop whereas the former was a marketing term coined by IBM for the model it brought out before the XT but the term stuck to mean all IBM's offerings then Compaq etc. that ran Microsoft OS (and I assume it was trade marked although I must go look that up)
In support of the concept that 'Personal Computer' and 'PC' have different meanings: As well as the Apple marketing campaign "Hello I'm a Mac … Hello I'm a PC" there is this from Wikipedia ..
"The original line of PCs were part of an IBM strategy to get into the small personal computer market then dominated by the Commodore PET, Atari 8-bit family, Apple II, Tandy Corporation's TRS-80s, and various CP/M machines."
THis seems to support the notion that a 'PC' was different from those listed.
So I am saying, IMHO an iPad is a 'personal computer' but not a 'PC'.
Please see the original article:
http://www.displaysearch.com/cps/rde..._full_year.asp
They did a pretty good job of breaking out tablets vs laptops.
The tablet info is interesting. Apple 18.7 M, Amazon 5.3 M, Samsung 2.1 M. It would be interesting to know how they counted Amazon's products. The number appears to be too large for just Fire shipments, but too low for all Kindle products.
I'm not thrilled at the way they look at the numbers though. inventory should never be counted. It changes things to meaningless numbers. It isn't even a real number, but rather an estimated one.
Exactly. The iPad 2 is more powerful than PCs were not too long ago. Does that mean those weren't PCs?
If the iPad ran OSX instead of iOS, it would be an iMac Air.
The issue is not one of power. If that were what mattered, you could call your ipod Touch a supercomputer, because it is more powerful than supercomputers of yore.
The issue is instead one of form factor.
That was certainly the leading argument as to why it's not a PC or a replacement for a PC, but since the iOS 5 betas first came out nearly a year ago the goal posts have moved.
Well, it seems to me that a personal computer is owned by one person, and does computing. How complicated does it have to get?
I've never seen one. I have no idea.
It is a cheap laptop that boots up into, and only runs the Chrome browser. I would not call it a PC, but instead, at most, a thin client.