New here? Think Bizarro World from Superman. Some folks here are happy as pigs in muck that, for example, the iPhone will not multitask.
And other folks (like you, obviously) are content to blather about things they don't understand.
The iPhone (like the iPad) multitasks just fine. It is limited and will not multitask multiple third party apps, but no one has given a rational reason why it would be worth the sacrifice in performance and battery life to do so.
You can go on the web while talking on the phone (Unlike Verizon phones, for example). You can listen to music while browsing the web or checking your email. You can check your email while playing a game. The complaint that the iPhone won't multitask is absolute proof of your ignorance - and lack of ability to learn.
I think you are right for most of us its just not ready for primetime yet. At least for me and I would say for many others the lack of multi-tasking is a major issue.
The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced Apple will release an OS update with limited multi-tasking in March\\April. The iPad simply won't work for most people without it.
For example, who wants a rear-facing camera in a device that?s 8″ x 12″? Are you really going to take pictures with something that size?
Me and yes. There are stacks of good apps on the iPhone that would translate brilliantly to the larger screen that rely on the rear-facing camera. It's not required for core functionality though which is why it isn't in the beta iPad. There will be one in the Gen2 iPad.
Not to mention the price difference between the Kindle and the iPad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
Yes - try reading an LCD screen in direct sunlight vs e-ink.
Holy cow, have you ever used a Kindle? I demoed one for an hour and it refreshed every page like a 10 second train wreck. Amazon sure didn't solve that issue. My eyes yelled at me in five minutes. I'll take an LCD touch screen any day over that POS.
And people who need to chat, get email and read TMZ at the same time should just get an Asus. To be able to use a touch screen for graphics and audio editing will be fantastic, no matter how "lite" the software it uses is.
This is a really neat looking device. However, I've been scratching my head at the question: Who is the real intended target market for this thing?
It is not a kindle-killer, for two very simple reasons:
1) Battery life is far inferior;
2) This screen (LED backlit, high gloss) will not facilitate easy, comfortable and prolonged reading.
This is not marketed to the iPhone and iPod users/owners. In fact, maybe some people who own those devices will purchase this as a novelty, but for the most part people who own iPhones and iPods (assuming they also have a computer) can already do everything the iPad does, and more.
This will not be directly marketed to the dedicated businessperson. Maybe it can function as something for them to read the newspaper in the morning, but that's about it. From an ergonomic perspective, this device is meant to sit on your lap, not on a desk, because the screen is not tiltable. Thus, people in offices will not be working in droves on their iPads.
I think this device will most likely work to attract the niche who own desktops and have not yet migrated to laptops.
People who have a desktop to run their bulkier, more dedicated programs specific to their professional and personal needs will want a laptop-like device that is cheap, fast, and focused on the things they want to do on the go: Write emails, surf the web, watch videos, etc. The iPad is best for that.
I will be curious to see, once all the excited Apple faithfuls have purchased the first batch of these things, who will the iPad really be marketed to?
Whether you love the device or not, at this point I bet we can all reach a consensus that Apple is walking a very fine line with the iPad and their risk of failure is greater than it has been in a long time. I hope they market this thing well, and target the right people.
The iPhone (like the iPad) multitasks just fine. It is limited and will not multitask multiple third party apps, but no one has given a rational reason why it would be worth the sacrifice in performance and battery life to do so.
And no one has given a rational reason why it would not be worth the MINIMAL sacrifice in performance and battery life to multitask a couple of 3rd party apps.
More importantly no one has given a rational reason why it shouldn't be the user's choice. Let me decide what amount of trade off in battery I am willing to make to multitask some apps I feel the need to run simultaneously. Is that really that unreasonable a request?
I love the way the Nexus One multitasks, but I learned after just a few days what apps I need to not let run in the background on it. I'm smart enough to figure that out on my iPhone as well (jailbroken and multitasking a few 3rd party apps just fine with not big hit on battery).
Apple could easily make this an advanced option toggle deep inside settings, turned off by default. Mom and Pop wouldn't even look for it or miss it...geeks who want it can find it and turn it on. Everyone's happy that way. What's wrong with that?
Beyond a blind devotion with the attitude that Apple can do no wrong when it comes to decisions, I can't see anyone reasonably arguing that user choice isn't the best way to go if the hardware supports multitasking.
It is not a kindle-killer, for two very simple reasons:
2) This screen (LED backlit, high gloss) will not facilitate easy, comfortable and prolonged reading.
I don't buy that argument.
I stare at my glossy MacBook Pro screen up to 12 hours per day sometimes. Most of that time is spent doing guess what...READING. Reading blogs, reading news, reading forums, reading email, reading IM messages. Reading, reading, reading, and reading.
Doesn't seem to be a problem for me and millions of others reading/surfing the web on our MacBooks. I don't suffer eye strain or other discomforts.
edit: Okay, I'll admit that this type of reading probably has frequent breaks I don't even realize, unlike reading a novel which will be your main focus for extended time periods, but I still think the e-Ink vs backlit LCD display arguments are overplayed.
The iPhone (like the iPad) multitasks just fine. It is limited and will not multitask multiple third party apps, but no one has given a rational reason why it would be worth the sacrifice in performance and battery life to do so.
The iPhone can either multi-task fine or it can't, make up your mind.
Every time I listen to music whilst checking email I degrade performance and battery life. That is a choice I make and to me it is worth it.
Having a chat client, Pandora or Skype running in the background of the iPad whilst I browse the web or read a magazine would obviously degrade performance and battery life, but once again that is a trade off I would make to ensure the iPad is actually useful.
I think the entire argument is moot anyway. The ability to multi-task third party apps will be in the iPad. Maybe not on the release date but soon after. Is would just be too great a risk for Apple to leave it out.
There should probably be a moratorium on speculation about the "iPad vs. Kindle" battle until we all have the chance to read a 600 page book on both devices, and report back on our comfort levels.
I think Steve Job and company are master psychologists, and the most vocal critics fall prey to their ruse. First create hype which can not possibly be met. Second, make a product but hold back some key features (with the understanding that a even the most ?perfection? product will be met with harsh criticism). Third before the actual product release, or after the first generation product, reintroduce the most key features that critics have been most vocal about.
Critics become neutered. In fact with Apple style Jujitsu, the critics become ardent supporters because their ?voice? was heard. The critics have not yet realized that they are being played.
By the way, ipad looks great. It will become indispensable in the healthcare world as the government is mandating electonic medical records (multi-billion dollar business), both as hand held electonic chart and medical image viewing station. With modifications it can be ecg machine, and possibly sonography machine.
College students will demand it as a replacement for text books. It will also be the wireless passport to your home entertainment center to control TV and stereo. You will find it in restaurants, carried by waiters who put in your orders wireless. Military applications are obvious. Store clerks will complete your credit card purchase with a modified Ipads. Make a docking station for the car dash, plug it in the speakers and you have a music/video/GPS touchscreen device better than anything on the automarket at a fraction of the cost.
While not as powerful as a laptop, Ipad will be the blank canvas to do whatever you want with it. No opening laptops, waiting for it to turn on. No need for a desk or table to work the computer, it will be in your hand anytime with touch screen ready to go. It will be the interface between information/data and the user. The potential is there, it just need developers to see the opportunities to make a boat load of money. Get cracking.
This is a really neat looking device. However, I've been scratching my head at the question: Who is the real intended target market for this thing?
It is not a kindle-killer, for two very simple reasons:
1) Battery life is far inferior;
2) This screen (LED backlit, high gloss) will not facilitate easy, comfortable and prolonged reading.
This is not marketed to the iPhone and iPod users/owners. In fact, maybe some people who own those devices will purchase this as a novelty, but for the most part people who own iPhones and iPods (assuming they also have a computer) can already do everything the iPad does, and more.
This will not be directly marketed to the dedicated businessperson. Maybe it can function as something for them to read the newspaper in the morning, but that's about it. From an ergonomic perspective, this device is meant to sit on your lap, not on a desk, because the screen is not tiltable. Thus, people in offices will not be working in droves on their iPads.
I think this device will most likely work to attract the niche who own desktops and have not yet migrated to laptops.
People who have a desktop to run their bulkier, more dedicated programs specific to their professional and personal needs will want a laptop-like device that is cheap, fast, and focused on the things they want to do on the go: Write emails, surf the web, watch videos, etc. The iPad is best for that.
I will be curious to see, once all the excited Apple faithfuls have purchased the first batch of these things, who will the iPad really be marketed to?
Whether you love the device or not, at this point I bet we can all reach a consensus that Apple is walking a very fine line with the iPad and their risk of failure is greater than it has been in a long time. I hope they market this thing well, and target the right people.
My guess is that this will sell like hot cakes. I am what I consider a power user and I will not use this device to do my work. For that I require something much more powerful with lots of RAM and large HD. But at home, most of the computer use is surfing, games on the iphone / ipod touch, school work for the kids, reading (my wife has been wanting some kind of e-reader for ages), and emailing. All of which the iPad does beautifully by all accounts. This thing will live in the living room and will be used by everybody, all the time. My wife and kids have already started arguing about who is going to use it when and for what. Guess what will happen? When I finally get around to buying computers for the kids, why would I get anything else?
Everyone is dissing this thing for months yet everyone has been singing the praises of pc net books. Just view this as a net book that is also an oversize iPod Touch (I don't see that it is a large iPod Touch as a fault - on the contrary).
So who is this for? Everybody who uses a computer casually at home, to start with. As the product and apps mature it will wind its way into many situations where people have to walk and input data at the same time (eg hospitals). It is already featured in sail magazines - give it a gps and it will be a no brainer. 90% students? also a no brainer.
In my view, laptops and stationary computers are looking long in the tooth for digital media consumption and relatively light content input and creation. I think the concept of 'a computer' as perceived by tecnoheads is disappearing from 'normal' people's lives. The idea that the kids congregate around the the pc in the 'computer room' is going. crowding around a laptop with poor viewing angles and awkward mouse or touch pad input is going. It may not be the 'revolution' people here were after ('hello - earth calling!') but it will change the way we interact with digital media in the future. So, who is it for? The short answer is 'everybody'.
my 3 cts >> multi tasking in todays form is a battery killer and slows every thing down
apple wants a fast simple housewife proof device . people want what todays chips can't give us >>yet
if you want 5 things open and running at full speed at once then a MBP is for you
yet in the back ground all apple product multi task .. they also multi thread , in the dark thou
peace 9
But what if I want to have the browser open on one window and a notepad or game open on another? There's certainly more than enough real estate on the screen for both to be displayed at the same time.
Once you have a product with a screen large enough to comfortably display more than one application at once, it's almost a given need to be able to multitask or it's just a real waste. I don't think there's a single program out there in the App Store that requires the full attention of a 1 Ghz processor.
And multitasking is not as bad of a battery killer as you make it out to be. My BlackBerry, with is relatively smaller battery, has no problems making it through a full day of data intensive use. I regularily have 10 (give or take) apps open at any one time and some of these are BlackBerry OS native that I can't shut off. Are you telling me that the multitasking would bring the iPad, with its much bigger battery and better processor, to it's knees?
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity
Once again the forum is full of non believers. This thing is gonna sell like hot cakes. I have seen the future and it is pad shaped.
Good! That means that we won't be limited to just Apple's version of the tablet. I like choices.
Remember this is iPad beta, not a final product. The true kindle-killer screen may find its way into iPad gen 2 or 3.
That's right...every new hardware release by Apple is "beta"...NEVER buy a first run, first gen Apple product unless you're willing to put up with glitches and bugs and missing features.
Funny how so few other companies get a pass on this type of release plan.
It might still be. It might redefine the way people interact with their electronics in the home. As it is now, so many people have desktop computers capable of doing so much more than what they actually use it for & whenever they do, the form factor automatically puts them into an "office/work" mode - sitting at a desk/table staring at an immobile screen. And try curling up on the couch with a laptop - not comfy or intimate at all.
As I was saying to someone earlier - the revolution here is not in what this thing does, but how it does it. The iPhone was ground-breaking for the same reason: people love their iPhones because of the way in which they interact with them and what that means to their end-user experience. This is something that the Apple folks have always grasped much better than anyone else.
.
I think you hit the nail on the head. It's what it can do, it's how you interact with it.
Crap or not, there are a zillion sites using the plugin, and it's the best option available for 2d based webgames or interactive presentations. The only reason uncle Steve doesn't want Flash, is that he knows that a lot of videos and games will be available, bypassing his AppStore.
That's right...every new hardware release by Apple is "beta"...NEVER buy a first run, first gen Apple product unless you're willing to put up with glitches and bugs and missing features.
Funny how so few other companies get a pass on this type of release plan.
The reason some of us here call it a "beta" is that it seems to be Apple's way for the first generation of a product they make.
Take the iPhone for example. No 3G, no MMS, no multitasking of third-party apps, no copy/paste when it was first introduced in 2007. It wasn't until the 3G that most of these features were added. And the iPhone 3GS just made things better. Some would argue that iPhone OS 3.0 should have been what was available for the iPhone back in 2007.
Why do other companies get a "pass" on this? They generally don't, if the product is really, really bad. But it's mostly that they release them with all the features us consumers ask for from the get-go. Sure the equivalent features may not be implemented as nicely as on Apple products, but they do work. And for some, just having the feature working from the beginning is much more important than waiting for Apple to get around to creating a "snazzy" way of making it work.
In my view, laptops and stationary computers are looking long in the tooth for digital media consumption and relatively light content input and creation. I think the concept of 'a computer' as perceived by tecnoheads is disappearing from 'normal' people's lives. The idea that the kids congregate around the the pc in the 'computer room' is going. crowding around a laptop with poor viewing angles and awkward mouse or touch pad input is going.
Very interesting way to look at it. So much of computing is consumption rather than creation, it makes sense for the tools to be different. When I taught computer classes for seniors, I used to start with the Finder, organizing your files, etc. Then I realized, many users have nothing to organize because they aren't creating any files. Other users do create lots of things, but they aren't in "create" mode all the time. Anyway, I like the idea of computers becoming more integrated into daily activities and easier to share and interact with, as you describe.
It is limited and will not multitask multiple third party apps, but no one has given a rational reason why it would be worth the sacrifice in performance and battery life to do so
For all the same reasons you run more than one app on any computer. Is that irrational? Or not specific enough?
How's this: I want to surf the web while waiting for an IM to come in, or while downloading a movie. Is that irrational?
Comments
New here? Think Bizarro World from Superman. Some folks here are happy as pigs in muck that, for example, the iPhone will not multitask.
And other folks (like you, obviously) are content to blather about things they don't understand.
The iPhone (like the iPad) multitasks just fine. It is limited and will not multitask multiple third party apps, but no one has given a rational reason why it would be worth the sacrifice in performance and battery life to do so.
You can go on the web while talking on the phone (Unlike Verizon phones, for example). You can listen to music while browsing the web or checking your email. You can check your email while playing a game. The complaint that the iPhone won't multitask is absolute proof of your ignorance - and lack of ability to learn.
I think you are right for most of us its just not ready for primetime yet. At least for me and I would say for many others the lack of multi-tasking is a major issue.
The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced Apple will release an OS update with limited multi-tasking in March\\April. The iPad simply won't work for most people without it.
For example, who wants a rear-facing camera in a device that?s 8″ x 12″? Are you really going to take pictures with something that size?
Me and yes. There are stacks of good apps on the iPhone that would translate brilliantly to the larger screen that rely on the rear-facing camera. It's not required for core functionality though which is why it isn't in the beta iPad. There will be one in the Gen2 iPad.
Not to mention the price difference between the Kindle and the iPad.
Yes - try reading an LCD screen in direct sunlight vs e-ink.
Holy cow, have you ever used a Kindle? I demoed one for an hour and it refreshed every page like a 10 second train wreck. Amazon sure didn't solve that issue. My eyes yelled at me in five minutes. I'll take an LCD touch screen any day over that POS.
And people who need to chat, get email and read TMZ at the same time should just get an Asus. To be able to use a touch screen for graphics and audio editing will be fantastic, no matter how "lite" the software it uses is.
It is not a kindle-killer, for two very simple reasons:
1) Battery life is far inferior;
2) This screen (LED backlit, high gloss) will not facilitate easy, comfortable and prolonged reading.
This is not marketed to the iPhone and iPod users/owners. In fact, maybe some people who own those devices will purchase this as a novelty, but for the most part people who own iPhones and iPods (assuming they also have a computer) can already do everything the iPad does, and more.
This will not be directly marketed to the dedicated businessperson. Maybe it can function as something for them to read the newspaper in the morning, but that's about it. From an ergonomic perspective, this device is meant to sit on your lap, not on a desk, because the screen is not tiltable. Thus, people in offices will not be working in droves on their iPads.
I think this device will most likely work to attract the niche who own desktops and have not yet migrated to laptops.
People who have a desktop to run their bulkier, more dedicated programs specific to their professional and personal needs will want a laptop-like device that is cheap, fast, and focused on the things they want to do on the go: Write emails, surf the web, watch videos, etc. The iPad is best for that.
I will be curious to see, once all the excited Apple faithfuls have purchased the first batch of these things, who will the iPad really be marketed to?
Whether you love the device or not, at this point I bet we can all reach a consensus that Apple is walking a very fine line with the iPad and their risk of failure is greater than it has been in a long time. I hope they market this thing well, and target the right people.
The iPhone (like the iPad) multitasks just fine. It is limited and will not multitask multiple third party apps, but no one has given a rational reason why it would be worth the sacrifice in performance and battery life to do so.
And no one has given a rational reason why it would not be worth the MINIMAL sacrifice in performance and battery life to multitask a couple of 3rd party apps.
More importantly no one has given a rational reason why it shouldn't be the user's choice. Let me decide what amount of trade off in battery I am willing to make to multitask some apps I feel the need to run simultaneously. Is that really that unreasonable a request?
I love the way the Nexus One multitasks, but I learned after just a few days what apps I need to not let run in the background on it. I'm smart enough to figure that out on my iPhone as well (jailbroken and multitasking a few 3rd party apps just fine with not big hit on battery).
Apple could easily make this an advanced option toggle deep inside settings, turned off by default. Mom and Pop wouldn't even look for it or miss it...geeks who want it can find it and turn it on. Everyone's happy that way. What's wrong with that?
Beyond a blind devotion with the attitude that Apple can do no wrong when it comes to decisions, I can't see anyone reasonably arguing that user choice isn't the best way to go if the hardware supports multitasking.
It is not a kindle-killer, for two very simple reasons:
2) This screen (LED backlit, high gloss) will not facilitate easy, comfortable and prolonged reading.
I don't buy that argument.
I stare at my glossy MacBook Pro screen up to 12 hours per day sometimes. Most of that time is spent doing guess what...READING. Reading blogs, reading news, reading forums, reading email, reading IM messages. Reading, reading, reading, and reading.
Doesn't seem to be a problem for me and millions of others reading/surfing the web on our MacBooks. I don't suffer eye strain or other discomforts.
edit: Okay, I'll admit that this type of reading probably has frequent breaks I don't even realize, unlike reading a novel which will be your main focus for extended time periods, but I still think the e-Ink vs backlit LCD display arguments are overplayed.
The iPhone (like the iPad) multitasks just fine. It is limited and will not multitask multiple third party apps, but no one has given a rational reason why it would be worth the sacrifice in performance and battery life to do so.
The iPhone can either multi-task fine or it can't, make up your mind.
Every time I listen to music whilst checking email I degrade performance and battery life. That is a choice I make and to me it is worth it.
Having a chat client, Pandora or Skype running in the background of the iPad whilst I browse the web or read a magazine would obviously degrade performance and battery life, but once again that is a trade off I would make to ensure the iPad is actually useful.
I think the entire argument is moot anyway. The ability to multi-task third party apps will be in the iPad. Maybe not on the release date but soon after. Is would just be too great a risk for Apple to leave it out.
It is not a kindle-killer, for two very simple reasons:
1) Battery life is far inferior;
2) This screen (LED backlit, high gloss) will not facilitate easy, comfortable and prolonged reading.
I remember seeing an LCD that could flick between back lit (i.e. iPad) and front lit (i.e. Kindle) screen at CES.
Remember this is iPad beta, not a final product. The true kindle-killer screen may find its way into iPad gen 2 or 3.
Critics become neutered. In fact with Apple style Jujitsu, the critics become ardent supporters because their ?voice? was heard. The critics have not yet realized that they are being played.
By the way, ipad looks great. It will become indispensable in the healthcare world as the government is mandating electonic medical records (multi-billion dollar business), both as hand held electonic chart and medical image viewing station. With modifications it can be ecg machine, and possibly sonography machine.
College students will demand it as a replacement for text books. It will also be the wireless passport to your home entertainment center to control TV and stereo. You will find it in restaurants, carried by waiters who put in your orders wireless. Military applications are obvious. Store clerks will complete your credit card purchase with a modified Ipads. Make a docking station for the car dash, plug it in the speakers and you have a music/video/GPS touchscreen device better than anything on the automarket at a fraction of the cost.
While not as powerful as a laptop, Ipad will be the blank canvas to do whatever you want with it. No opening laptops, waiting for it to turn on. No need for a desk or table to work the computer, it will be in your hand anytime with touch screen ready to go. It will be the interface between information/data and the user. The potential is there, it just need developers to see the opportunities to make a boat load of money. Get cracking.
JoeG
JoeG
This is a really neat looking device. However, I've been scratching my head at the question: Who is the real intended target market for this thing?
It is not a kindle-killer, for two very simple reasons:
1) Battery life is far inferior;
2) This screen (LED backlit, high gloss) will not facilitate easy, comfortable and prolonged reading.
This is not marketed to the iPhone and iPod users/owners. In fact, maybe some people who own those devices will purchase this as a novelty, but for the most part people who own iPhones and iPods (assuming they also have a computer) can already do everything the iPad does, and more.
This will not be directly marketed to the dedicated businessperson. Maybe it can function as something for them to read the newspaper in the morning, but that's about it. From an ergonomic perspective, this device is meant to sit on your lap, not on a desk, because the screen is not tiltable. Thus, people in offices will not be working in droves on their iPads.
I think this device will most likely work to attract the niche who own desktops and have not yet migrated to laptops.
People who have a desktop to run their bulkier, more dedicated programs specific to their professional and personal needs will want a laptop-like device that is cheap, fast, and focused on the things they want to do on the go: Write emails, surf the web, watch videos, etc. The iPad is best for that.
I will be curious to see, once all the excited Apple faithfuls have purchased the first batch of these things, who will the iPad really be marketed to?
Whether you love the device or not, at this point I bet we can all reach a consensus that Apple is walking a very fine line with the iPad and their risk of failure is greater than it has been in a long time. I hope they market this thing well, and target the right people.
My guess is that this will sell like hot cakes. I am what I consider a power user and I will not use this device to do my work. For that I require something much more powerful with lots of RAM and large HD. But at home, most of the computer use is surfing, games on the iphone / ipod touch, school work for the kids, reading (my wife has been wanting some kind of e-reader for ages), and emailing. All of which the iPad does beautifully by all accounts. This thing will live in the living room and will be used by everybody, all the time. My wife and kids have already started arguing about who is going to use it when and for what. Guess what will happen? When I finally get around to buying computers for the kids, why would I get anything else?
Everyone is dissing this thing for months yet everyone has been singing the praises of pc net books. Just view this as a net book that is also an oversize iPod Touch (I don't see that it is a large iPod Touch as a fault - on the contrary).
So who is this for? Everybody who uses a computer casually at home, to start with. As the product and apps mature it will wind its way into many situations where people have to walk and input data at the same time (eg hospitals). It is already featured in sail magazines - give it a gps and it will be a no brainer. 90% students? also a no brainer.
In my view, laptops and stationary computers are looking long in the tooth for digital media consumption and relatively light content input and creation. I think the concept of 'a computer' as perceived by tecnoheads is disappearing from 'normal' people's lives. The idea that the kids congregate around the the pc in the 'computer room' is going. crowding around a laptop with poor viewing angles and awkward mouse or touch pad input is going. It may not be the 'revolution' people here were after ('hello - earth calling!') but it will change the way we interact with digital media in the future. So, who is it for? The short answer is 'everybody'.
nice post
my 3 cts >> multi tasking in todays form is a battery killer and slows every thing down
apple wants a fast simple housewife proof device . people want what todays chips can't give us >>yet
if you want 5 things open and running at full speed at once then a MBP is for you
yet in the back ground all apple product multi task .. they also multi thread , in the dark thou
peace 9
But what if I want to have the browser open on one window and a notepad or game open on another? There's certainly more than enough real estate on the screen for both to be displayed at the same time.
Once you have a product with a screen large enough to comfortably display more than one application at once, it's almost a given need to be able to multitask or it's just a real waste. I don't think there's a single program out there in the App Store that requires the full attention of a 1 Ghz processor.
And multitasking is not as bad of a battery killer as you make it out to be. My BlackBerry, with is relatively smaller battery, has no problems making it through a full day of data intensive use. I regularily have 10 (give or take) apps open at any one time and some of these are BlackBerry OS native that I can't shut off. Are you telling me that the multitasking would bring the iPad, with its much bigger battery and better processor, to it's knees?
Once again the forum is full of non believers. This thing is gonna sell like hot cakes. I have seen the future and it is pad shaped.
Good! That means that we won't be limited to just Apple's version of the tablet. I like choices.
Remember this is iPad beta, not a final product. The true kindle-killer screen may find its way into iPad gen 2 or 3.
That's right...every new hardware release by Apple is "beta"...NEVER buy a first run, first gen Apple product unless you're willing to put up with glitches and bugs and missing features.
Funny how so few other companies get a pass on this type of release plan.
It might still be. It might redefine the way people interact with their electronics in the home. As it is now, so many people have desktop computers capable of doing so much more than what they actually use it for & whenever they do, the form factor automatically puts them into an "office/work" mode - sitting at a desk/table staring at an immobile screen. And try curling up on the couch with a laptop - not comfy or intimate at all.
As I was saying to someone earlier - the revolution here is not in what this thing does, but how it does it. The iPhone was ground-breaking for the same reason: people love their iPhones because of the way in which they interact with them and what that means to their end-user experience. This is something that the Apple folks have always grasped much better than anyone else.
.
I think you hit the nail on the head. It's what it can do, it's how you interact with it.
Crap or not, there are a zillion sites using the plugin, and it's the best option available for 2d based webgames or interactive presentations. The only reason uncle Steve doesn't want Flash, is that he knows that a lot of videos and games will be available, bypassing his AppStore.
You might have a point there.
That's right...every new hardware release by Apple is "beta"...NEVER buy a first run, first gen Apple product unless you're willing to put up with glitches and bugs and missing features.
Funny how so few other companies get a pass on this type of release plan.
The reason some of us here call it a "beta" is that it seems to be Apple's way for the first generation of a product they make.
Take the iPhone for example. No 3G, no MMS, no multitasking of third-party apps, no copy/paste when it was first introduced in 2007. It wasn't until the 3G that most of these features were added. And the iPhone 3GS just made things better. Some would argue that iPhone OS 3.0 should have been what was available for the iPhone back in 2007.
Why do other companies get a "pass" on this? They generally don't, if the product is really, really bad. But it's mostly that they release them with all the features us consumers ask for from the get-go. Sure the equivalent features may not be implemented as nicely as on Apple products, but they do work. And for some, just having the feature working from the beginning is much more important than waiting for Apple to get around to creating a "snazzy" way of making it work.
In my view, laptops and stationary computers are looking long in the tooth for digital media consumption and relatively light content input and creation. I think the concept of 'a computer' as perceived by tecnoheads is disappearing from 'normal' people's lives. The idea that the kids congregate around the the pc in the 'computer room' is going. crowding around a laptop with poor viewing angles and awkward mouse or touch pad input is going.
Very interesting way to look at it. So much of computing is consumption rather than creation, it makes sense for the tools to be different. When I taught computer classes for seniors, I used to start with the Finder, organizing your files, etc. Then I realized, many users have nothing to organize because they aren't creating any files. Other users do create lots of things, but they aren't in "create" mode all the time. Anyway, I like the idea of computers becoming more integrated into daily activities and easier to share and interact with, as you describe.
It is limited and will not multitask multiple third party apps, but no one has given a rational reason why it would be worth the sacrifice in performance and battery life to do so
For all the same reasons you run more than one app on any computer. Is that irrational? Or not specific enough?
How's this: I want to surf the web while waiting for an IM to come in, or while downloading a movie. Is that irrational?