Originally Posted by FreeRange
What absolute bullshit. If you want the full functionality of a compeer, then buy a fk'n computer. Like the brilliant MB Air. The iPad is a completely different device that serves to deliver digital content, along with apps, and do so at a specific price point. To load a full OS and do the work of a full computer, you would be at a totally different price point and user profile. The iPad is for people who want an easy to hold and carry, AND EASY TO USE, device for their iOS apps and digital content. It's also for people who don't want the hassles of a full featured computer yet can still access the internet and email, etc.
Who gave you the right to define what people should use their computers for? For many people, a tablet like the iPad will more than adequately handle their needs. Heck, I was just talking with someone yesterday who has a 5 year old Windows laptop and just saw my daughter's Touchpad. She made a list of the things she wanted to do and asked if the Touchpad would do them. The answer to every one was 'yes'. The iPad is even more capable.
Her needs were: email, checking her financial accounts online, managing digital photos, and doing Facebook and things like that. For her and millions of other people, they don't need a "fk'n computer". Not everyone has the same needs as you - that's a great lesson for you to learn.
Originally Posted by sdbryan
You just don't have a clue. Of course the initial iPad can and does multitask. If you knew how to look under the hood you would see that dozens of tasks are running at the "same" time. What it didn't and still doesn't do is allow more than one third party app to run. There are hooks that allow audio to run in the background but that was true from the beginning as Apple's "iTunes player" ran in the background since the original launch. That hook was exposed to third parties as Apple and third party developers had more time to tend to more finishing touches. But iOS has been multitasking since day 1.
That's an important point. The problem is that people have preconceived notions of something (like FreeRange above) and are incapable of understanding that the usefulness of a device is not all about the specs or meeting some arbitrary 'requirements'.
If FreeRange were to focus on what people want to do with a computer rather than his own definition of what constitutes a "real" computer, he might understand that the iPad is fine for what many people do.
Similarly, instead of focusing on some arbitrary definition of multitasking, people should be looking at what I want to do. For example:
- play music while browsing the web? Sure, iPad always did that
- check email while watching a movie? Sure, iPad always did that
- play ZombieFarm at the same time as you're playing AngryBirds? No, iPad won't do that - but why would you want to?
Originally Posted by acslater017
I'll be honest, I was initially pretty underwhelmed by the initial iPad launch. To be frank, it was one of Apple's/Jobs' most boring keynotes ever. I don't blame for Steve for not being a dynamo of energy at that point in time. But it lacked that usual Apple electricity.
To be clear, I think the iPad is a pretty cool product now - I have an iPad 2. I think part of the misunderstanding of it was that the iPad is so plain physically. Beautiful, slim, capable. But it's especially featureless without software
. After all, the iPad is essentially a portal to apps, games, websites, books, and other content. And that stuff did not quite appear to be there at launch.
Sure it was. Everything you mentioned was available on the iPad at launch. Sure, it has gotten better over time, but the iPad did all those things from day 1.