The Star Trek reference just confirms my original diagnosis.
I shouldn't really have expected more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
Calling the iPad a "slave device" is colorful, but not accurate, even knowing what we do about it today.
It's more accurate and less colorful than implying that everyone who's not impressed by it is a geek with unrealistic sci-fi fantasies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Humanity is all about conflict, opposing views and the struggle to maintain order amongst those conflicts and competing ideas.
Mainly opposing routes to the same goal. I don't think people are arguing against the examples I gave.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
The first reality is there is no such thing as renewable energy.
What reality would that be? Renewable energy is defined to be energy sourced from natural resources like the wind, sea and sun. I don't recall any warnings saying we're running out of wind. Not in this thread anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Something that has been demonstrated to not be exactly healthy.
A supermarket delivering fresh vegetables to your doorstep is unhealthy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
For example immersive entertainment might be find for some but I often prefer immersion in nature.
Do I have to explain this? If you have truly immersive entertainment then it's the same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
It might not be as great as an experience with larger devices. Frankly this sounds more like fantasy than anything based on concrete usage.
I wasn't saying that design is the goal btw, the point was about dependence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
SF doesn't predict the future anyway but projects the concerns of today into a futuristic setting.
Exactly and dismissing it so casually also dismisses every single person's own ideas for solutions to current problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
With the same software the PC is the same as the Mac and can do the same things. And yet they are significantly different are they not?
Nope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Other apps can leverage a common central user profile if they like.
Don't mention non-application-centric filesystems, people will start screaming 'geek, geek!'. All sorts of issues like multiple apps conflicting by using the same save file names, wasting space on the device by not cleaning up the shared profile space, one app deleting or modifying files/data belonging to another.
Partial implementations of multi-user profiles are useful solutions certainly but I don't think Apple want this level of functionality on the ipad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
I've gone weeks without syncing my iPhone.
I've done that too but not because it's any less of a dependent. It's just that I use my desktop for desktop-type tasks and my phone for phone tasks. iPad is trying to do some of each of those tasks (it doesn't really have a reason to exist of its own accord). If I want a song or picture deleted, I have to use my computer. If I want to make a call, I have to use my phone. There's nothing about the iPad that I require it for.
The problem with slavery is not the frequency of the dependence but the necessity of it. Frequency is an issue in critical areas like content management though.
What reality would that be? Renewable energy is defined to be energy sourced from natural resources like the wind, sea and sun. I don't recall any warnings saying we're running out of wind. Not in this thread anyway.
I'm against the concept of renewable due to the fact that energy derived from the wind, or sea is finite and not renewable as people think. In fact those source are only the physical manifestations of energy transfer from the SUN. Without the SUN you would not have a molten sea or even a gaseous atmosphere.
Even the SUN though has a finite life. It will soon burn up its fuel and grow cold and our solar system with it.
Exactly and dismissing it so casually also dismisses every single person's own ideas for solutions to current problems.
We're agreeing right?
Quote:
Nope.
Which part do you disagree with? That the Mac and PC are equivalent or that only software is the difference? Arguably the Mac is better than the PC despite largely the same hardware (and at higher price to boot).
Quote:
Don't mention non-application-centric filesystems, people will start screaming 'geek, geek!'. All sorts of issues like multiple apps conflicting by using the same save file names, wasting space on the device by not cleaning up the shared profile space, one app deleting or modifying files/data belonging to another.
What on earth are you talking about? We're talking about porting a simplified Keychain over to the iPad. Not discussing how to manage files. You do know what Keychain is right?
Quote:
Partial implementations of multi-user profiles are useful solutions certainly but I don't think Apple want this level of functionality on the ipad.
They can implement the whole enchilada if they really want. It's not like they don't have Mac OSX to steal from.
Quote:
I've done that too but not because it's any less of a dependent. It's just that I use my desktop for desktop-type tasks and my phone for phone tasks. iPad is trying to do some of each of those tasks (it doesn't really have a reason to exist of its own accord). If I want a song or picture deleted, I have to use my computer. If I want to make a call, I have to use my phone. There's nothing about the iPad that I require it for.
Mobile computing. The iPhone is good but the iPad will be much better at it because it allows for richer user interaction. At the same level as a desktop but given the limitations of the interface (touch).
Quote:
The problem with slavery is not the frequency of the dependence but the necessity of it. Frequency is an issue in critical areas like content management though.
All electronic devices are slaves to power sources. Plugging in your iPad to a Mac or other master device isn't much more onerous than plugging it into the wall. This is largely why I don't mind the iPhone's limited battery life. Most of the time it lasts the day and I plug it into the wall or the mac when I get home. I skip that if I've left it plugged in at work all day and it has pretty much a full charge.
I'm against the concept of renewable due to the fact that energy derived from the wind, or sea is finite and not renewable as people think. In fact those source are only the physical manifestations of energy transfer from the SUN. Without the SUN you would not have a molten sea or even a gaseous atmosphere.
Even the SUN though has a finite life. It will soon burn up its fuel and grow cold and our solar system with it.
Dave
Mkay. You really don't have to worry about that. Assuming the human race lasts even vaguely that long we'll figure something else out when the Sun goes kaput.
Oh...by the by yes we do have liquid oceans. But we'd be experiencing some serious global warming if we had molten seas. Yes, yes...technically molten only means melted but typically with high heat.
It's more accurate and less colorful than implying that everyone who's not impressed by it is a geek with unrealistic sci-fi fantasies.
Not a response to my point at all. FWIW, I'm not at all interested in trading insults. I am simply stating the difference between fictional ideas and real products that are designed by contemporary companies with the intention of making money. I didn't think this distinction would be so controversial.
Even the SUN though has a finite life. It will soon burn up its fuel and grow cold and our solar system with it.
Soon as in millions of years from now. Definitions within our realm of existence are still valid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
We're agreeing right?
Yup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Which part do you disagree with? That the Mac and PC are equivalent or that only software is the difference? Arguably the Mac is better than the PC despite largely the same hardware (and at higher price to boot).
I agree that the user experience is defined by the difference in software but running the same software on different (though compatible) hardware offers the same experience so I would disagree that a Mac differs from a PC when it runs Windows. The ipod is compatible hardware and the iPad software isn't a million miles away from the OS it runs given that the same apps run natively without recompilation. In other words they have the same APIs.
All they added to the iPad was additional APIs for popup menus and video output and a few others, which could be added to an ipod just the same and some will be. We'll be able to see this more clearly when both devices are upgraded to OS 4.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
We're talking about porting a simplified Keychain over to the iPad.
Current apps save files to disk for settings and game progress. In a system supporting multiple users, those files have to reside in a common profile filesystem location. I guess it depends how it's done but say that user A and B use an app and user A gets bored of the app and deletes it. It will take user B's data with it. Non-app centric storage maintains the information so that user B can put the app back in and have the data restored. Like I say though, this can leave data lying around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Mobile computing. The iPhone is good but the iPad will be much better at it
I should really have said laptop as that's the example Apple used. The one bonus over a laptop is portrait mode for pictures. This device would be awesome for pictures but you can't edit/manage pictures on it and sync them back to your machine. Of course, a 3rd party app might allow reverse sync.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Millmoss
I am simply stating the difference between fictional ideas and real products that are designed by contemporary companies with the intention of making money.
Ideas made in the context of fiction are not completely different from those made in the context of business as they both generate money. Star Trek and all sorts of other tech shows have gained popularity by selling an idea of a future that complies with that of their fans. That desire then gets filtered into consumer feedback and companies deliver it.
Apple haven't invented a new way to work with the iPad. I've wanted a slate ever since I tried using a laptop lying down and slate computers have been shown in science fiction many times.
Can I borrow your time machine so I can travel to the future and get my own iPad so I could be equally certain in my opinion that it sucks?
I think there is enough information out there on it for people to make preliminary estimation that the device does not serve their purposes. The only problem I've run into is that some of those folks think their assessment applies to all others too. Frankly it doesn't matter to me who doesn't like it, or if it serves their purposes or not, I suspect it will serve several purposes for me in a better fashion than the current hardware I have for those purposes. I've seen enough to know that I'll be getting one. I'm typically an 'early adopter', and very rarely have I been burned by such decisions. I have not problem taking some risks with my money because I'm generally the best person to decide what I like.
Ubergeeks and tech-heads may well know alot about hardware and software, and they certainly know alot about what they personally want out of their hardware and software, but quite frequently they do not have the best track record of determining what will thrive in the market when it doesn't fit into the realm of what they want.
The important thing to consider at this point is whether or not it serves your purposes.
What I can say with absolute certainty is that no slave device will ever change the way we use computers in any significant way while it remains as a slave device.
Perhaps, but how meaningful is this assessment as it applies to the iPad? I don't really know you, but you sound intelligent enough to recognize that many people out there use computers in different ways than you do. I think that for many people, the iPad hits the "sweet spot" of what many, many people use computers for on a daily basis. I think that many of those people will find that the iPad accomplishes those purposes in a manner that is very pleasing and user friendly.
When you say "we" in the above sentence, you are including a lot of people who do not think like you or make decisions based on the same criteria as you. Their values are different, their priorities are different, their uses for computers vary, their financial situations and life situations are different. etc. etc.
My bet is that the iPad has the "magic" to make it in the market. Time will tell.
I think there is enough information out there on it for people to make preliminary estimation that the device does not serve their purposes. The only problem I've run into is that some of those folks think their assessment applies to all others too.
You've nailed here. For years and years and years as a minority Mac user I've heard the attitude expressed from PC users, "if I don't want it, nobody should." This is the implicit logic behind most of the criticism of the iPad.
I think that for many people, the iPad hits the "sweet spot" of what many, many people use computers for on a daily basis.
That's what my assessment is based on. It certainly doesn't fulfill very much for me given that I have an iphone and a Mac but I was mainly thinking about average computer users I know. Having to manage content on a standard computer makes it a non-essential device. Let's not forget that it's not like a laptop/netbook where I can sync music to it, take it to work and transfer the tracks over. If I need a software update so I can download a recent app that requires it while I'm at work, it's a no go as you can only sync to one computer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern Stevens
Their values are different, their priorities are different, their uses for computers vary, their financial situations and life situations are different. etc. etc.
It's for people who can afford to have a computer and a $500 tablet accessory. This isn't a low cost computing solution for the masses - I think that would sell in great numbers - this is a big ipod to complement and is dependent on a standard computer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
You've nailed here. For years and years and years as a minority Mac user I've heard the attitude expressed from PC users, "if I don't want it, nobody should." This is the implicit logic behind most of the criticism of the iPad.
Same argument works in reverse though. Just because a minority wants it doesn't mean it will be a success.
It certainly doesn't fulfill very much for me given that I have an iphone and a Mac but I was mainly thinking about average computer users I know.
As am I, yet we come to differing conclusions.
Quote:
Having to manage content on a standard computer makes it a non-essential device.
So? The iPod is a non-essential device. TV's are non-essential devices. The internet is a non-essential service. With the availability of public transportation, a car is a non-essential device. If you have a computer a laptop may be a non-essential device or vice versa. Many people do not limit their purchases to essential devices.
Quote:
Let's not forget that it's not like a laptop/netbook where I can sync music to it, take it to work and transfer the tracks over.
Again, so? You seem stuck on considering issues that may bother some people but don't bother a lot of other people. It has DRM too. Many people don't care about that either. It doesn't support Flash. Many people don't care about that either. It doesn't have a camera. Many people don't care about that either.
Quote:
It's for people who can afford to have a computer and a $500 tablet accessory.
Okay, but you are stating the obvious. However, you are pointing to quite a viable market segment for success.
Quote:
This isn't a low cost computing solution for the masses.
Again, I have to say, so? That has very little to do with it having the chance to be a success in the marketplace. Most Macs in general are not low cost computing solutions for the masses, yet Apple seems to be quite healthy financially.
Quote:
Same argument works in reverse though. Just because a minority wants it doesn't mean it will be a success.
Only the reverse argument is not applicable in this case. As far as I've read, neither he nor I have claimed that it will be a success solely because a minority wants it. My claim is simply that it has enough appeal and functionality for what it does to enough people for it to be profitable. My claim is I think that Apple has the name, the form factor and the execution of this device to make it a very enjoyable experience using it's functionality, enough to make the product viably profitable for Apple. I think that is what Apple is going for, a profitable device in the marketplace. How profitable it will be will be told in time.
I'm not going as far as saying this will be a laptop killer or a notebook killer, but I think the netbook market will be affected.
Same argument works in reverse though. Just because a minority wants it doesn't mean it will be a success.
Not really. By definition, unless the product is food, water or air, the people who want a thing are a minority. So this is not even remotely a useful measure of success.
Mainly opposing routes to the same goal. I don't think people are arguing against the examples I gave.
Not in the least. I'm not sure how you could even have this opinion given world events.
Quote:
What reality would that be? Renewable energy is defined to be energy sourced from natural resources like the wind, sea and sun. I don't recall any warnings saying we're running out of wind. Not in this thread anyway.
It is not a renewable energy source. Nor is there really such a thing.
The natural energy sources (not by the way renewable) that you mention, wind, sea and sun are really just different physical manifestation of energy we get from the sun. There is no rational way you can call them renewable. At best they can be considered continuos source of energy around our current time frame. By the way some of that energy is also tidal but I will maintain that without the sun there isn't enough tidal energy to keep the earth warm enough for us to worry about.
Either way the fact remains the energy that we get from these sources is finite at any point in time and is not renewable. If we surrounded the entire planet with solar cells there is still a limit to how much energy that could be derived from such an installation. Even then the energy output of the sun is variable so your globe surrounding solar panel still wouldn't put out a constant amount of Power.
Quote:
A supermarket delivering fresh vegetables to your doorstep is unhealthy?
It very well can be. Especially if you don't know where those vegetables come from. In any case from the stand point of an impact on the environment it is a horrible approach to feeding oneself. people would be far better off growing what they need as much as possible.
This is not to say that everybody can feed themselves 100% off the land. What I'm saying is that relying upon the supermarket for ever calorie of your needs isn't exactly healthy either. The biggest factor there being the impact upon the environment of moving those good all over the globe.
Quote:
Do I have to explain this? If you have truly immersive entertainment then it's the same thing.
Have you ever left your house or apartment and spent real time in the wild? If you do you will realize just how truly stupid that statement is.
I wasn't saying that design is the goal btw, the point was about dependence.
[/QUOTE]
I'm not trying to be a pain here but the term renewable energy has become a buzz word that I'm no longer comfortable with. There is to much ignorance associated with it and frankly I'm no longer comfortable with it.
While it may currently be impractical to surround the globe with solar cells, there is not enough land area to supply our needs and not impact the environment. That doesn't mean we should dismiss the use of solar energy by the way, it is just that it won't in a practical fashion power our economy into the future. We need a more balanced approach.
This isn't a low cost computing solution for the masses - I think that would sell in great numbers - this is a big ipod to complement and is dependent on a standard computer.
I think it's time you put up some numbers Marvin.
How many is "great numbers"?
Which begs the question... how long before we can call the iPad, Apple's next cube?
Apple haven't invented a new way to work with the iPad. I've wanted a slate ever since I tried using a laptop lying down and slate computers have been shown in science fiction many times.
Apple has been successful (in part) for two reasons (IMO); 1) in some instances they have been innovative, and 2) in some instances they took existing ideas and made them into products people actually wanted to use when compared to previous attempts. It is not necessary for Apple to invent an entirely new way to work with the iPad, they need only find a way to make work something people want to do on the device when other such ventures fell short.
I think this is true in any market. Sometimes innovation is successful and sometimes mere implementation is successful. Apple has a way of making products that work the way that quite a few people want things to work where others have failed. I also think that Apple understands their products won't please everyone. Apple can withstand the naysayers as their track record taken in whole demonstrates.
One article I read that I tend to agree with is that many folks who look negatively at the iPad are focusing on the hardware and what they perceive as insurmountable deficiencies. What is more likely to be the key to the success of the iPad is the app development. One indicator to possible success in that area was the sharp increase in demand for the SDK after the iPad was announced. It would appear that many developers are very interested in what they can do with the "bigger Touch". I'm sure for the most part they are not doing this out of the kindness of their hearts, they are doing it because they smell scent of green paper in the air. While I concede this does not automatically spell success for the iPad, I am frequently more willing to put weight towards the judgment of those who are actually willing to risk something (in this case developing time and resources) rather than those who have nothing to lose.
I suspect that many people who are against or are reluctant to buy an iPad now may very well change their minds later when more apps are available to demonstrate whether or not it truly has broader practical uses.
The ipod is not a redundant device though as it fills the exclusive role of an MP3 player. The TV is for media content etc. Do you buy an iPad for computing? No, you have a computer. Do you buy it for music? No, you can't put it in your pocket. You have books and browsing but you get the former on the ipod/iphone (I read books on mine) and browsing is done on both.
As Jobs said during the keynote, it's only reason to exist is if it does things better than a mobile and a laptop.
It really just offers a different way to do the same tasks. Now you may say, well people have portable TVs and HDTVs at the same time; bicycles and cars. I would say, how many people use both to the extent it justifies having both?
Some people expect the iPad will draw people away from the traditional computer most of the time and that may well be. I think that if you have to manage the content on the computer anyway and be productive, the iPad has a much lesser role.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern Stevens
You seem stuck on considering issues that may bother some people but don't bother a lot of other people.
Every single person I've ever known with an ipod (and I'd like to be exaggerating here) has asked me how to get music off it onto another computer. A significant number of people I know upload content to the internet (which can't yet be done on iphone OS). Everyone I know manages their digital content and none sync photos to a slave device for the purposes of viewing (they share them online with others, which again you can't currently do with iphone OS and you can't compress/crop them either).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern Stevens
Okay, but you are stating the obvious. However, you are pointing to quite a viable market segment for success.
You could say that about the set-top box market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern Stevens
I'm not going as far as saying this will be a laptop killer or a notebook killer, but I think the netbook market will be affected.
I don't think so. A netbook is a slower computer (faster than a powerbook though) and an iPad is a faster ipod. You can't manage a mobile device or your content using an iPad. People buy netbooks as their only master device and it costs less than an iPad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
There is no rational way you can call them renewable.
There's also no rational way you can call a blowjob a blowjob but go figure. It's renewable (that is to say it won't run out) for as long as it needs to be, which is many thousands of generations away from us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
I think it's time you put up some numbers Marvin.
How many is "great numbers"?
Which begs the question... how long before we can call the iPad, Apple's next cube?
I did that in another thread. The netbook market is 35m units per year. The ebook reader market is 3 million. I'd say under 3 million in the first year is Cube status. The iphone only sold 6 million in the first year so the success rate has to be determined a long way down the line. If it replaced a netbook by being a master device, I think 15 million would be a reasonable target.
That's not really how I like to rate success though - I don't benefit from a company's profits so it doesn't matter how many they sell. Nintendo sell a lot of Wii's and DS's but I have no respect for the products. Microsoft sell a lot of copies of Windows but I have no respect for that product. Youtube and eBay are successful websites but I have little respect for them. This isn't just some ideological viewpoint, people have the same view without realising what it means.
If there was a product on Amazon and a product on eBay at the same price, which would you buy? Obviously the one on Amazon because you have more respect for that retailer. If you were asked to view either HBO or Youtube for an evening's entertainment, you'd go with HBO because you assume it has better content. Even if Apple sells 10 million+ iPads in the first year, if it fails to find a reason to be, it's not a respectable product.
Apple's view of success is wrong. Look at the App Store and you can see in the top 10 an app called Sex Positions (good job cleaning up the store) with over 10,000 ratings of 1/5 and Apple are putting this in their chart recommending it to people. It's popular but people aren't happy with it. Just because people buy the iPad and own it, if they don't find a use for it, then the product isn't a success. Taking the Wii as an example, people use it 30-50% as much as people use the XBox 360. That is a more important measure IMO than the Wii selling twice as much.
but a few things to note. Maps look cool but are mostly pointless because unless you get the 3G model (and pay another fee as well as your phone), you can't load them where you go. Photos look great on the IPS screen but if you can't just dump a folder on and arrange them and take them off again, it's a useless feature. People just don't sync albums to devices for viewing and the iapps sync uncompressed photos to the mobiles anyway so they waste tons of space (not to mention they aren't just copies of your original files). The browser is nice but why did they do a thumb view for multiple pages and not tabs like a desktop browser? Movies still won't be cached either so you have to start downloading the movie again once it's finished playing. Plus although I agree with removing Flash, there is a lot of Flash video online I'd be missing out on. There's loads of apps certainly but they are designed for the iphone so don't scale up well.
Despite the pixel-doubling graphics, I just don't think games are going to go over too well either. Here's Monkey Ball on the iPad. I think the controls are terrible:
Music maybe ok but your itunes library is on your computer and you can't rename, delete, sort your music. You can watch movies but itunes content only. Sure you can use iwork but everyone else uses Office and it will screw up the formatting in some documents.
It can be improved and it will be over time. I'm sure it will be a fun device to use and it's head and shoulders above ebook readers but I see no harm in it being a master device with a few tweaks and being the only computer a huge number of people will ever need. My grandparents and parents (in fact most of my computer illiterate relatives) would have loved this device but without a computer, it's worthless. They don't need a computer to use their TV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern Stevens
I suspect that many people who are against or are reluctant to buy an iPad now may very well change their minds later when more apps are available to demonstrate whether or not it truly has broader practical uses.
It runs iphone apps though so you're really just going to see the same limited apps with bigger interfaces. No doubt there will be one or two great apps for it. RAM is one aspect of the device that's important and still unknown. I'd guess 512MB and this will limit what apps can do.
I think the discussing has drifted off the original question about multiple log ins. However that is good because I think the discussing highlights a few issues that demonstrate a disconnect between what Apple thinks of the device and what a few here see.
First off; iPad is NOT a laptop replacement in any manner shape or form. It is very much a single person / user device. Pretty much in the mold of a Touch. Thus I highly doubt there will be multiple user support.
As to being a device that is only usable in conjunction with another PC or laptop it may look that way right now but long term it is not a given. A few more APIs and firming up rumors about current behaviour could change many opinions about the device.
Taking what we currently know though the device is more capable than many in this thread imply. The ability to create documents is there. Further smart integration with Mobile Me is likely to be more useful than people give credit to. For many people, far more than a small minority, the iPad could be a very useful primary computing device. Likewise I can see somepeople using it more than their current hardware.
It all depends upon the user. For people constantly on the go though iPad could end up being a revelation. Still there are many unanswered questions about iPads real capabilities thus to much speculation about it's potential for success. On the other hand peoplerun businesses on clearly less powerful devices so who knows.
All is not perfect though, one perplexing thing is the aspect ratio of the device and it's overall size. It is pretty clear that Apple doesn't see this device as a video iPod. Whatever Apples intended market it is clear that many want iPad to be a device that Apple isn't targetting. Once we understand better Apples marketing intentions we will be able to understand how it succeeds or fails.
The ipod is not a redundant device though as it fills the exclusive role of an MP3 player.
Actually, the iPod was a redundant device when it came out as there were other mp3 players on the market. However, mp3 players gained much greater popularity once the iPod hit the market. That was because Apple took an existing idea and executed it in a way that people came to really enjoy using it. It's still non-essential. That was the criteria you were using before, one that really doesn't matter. I'm good with you sticking to what is in your opinion "essential items", I'm just pointing out that other people do not.
I will buy an iPad because it appears that it is going to perform a number of functions, not just one role, in a form factor and execution that appears very enjoyable. I suspect that is also why others will buy iPads. I suspect that a broader range of apps will be available for the iPad that would not work at all well on the iPhone.
Quote:
It really just offers a different way to do the same tasks.
Interestingly enough, "better" falls into the category of different. However, "better" will be in eye of the user. I take your opinion that it is not better for you, but I'm also quite sure that others will find it a better way to do those same things it does.
Quote:
Now you may say, well people have portable TVs and HDTVs at the same time; bicycles and cars. I would say, how many people use both to the extent it justifies having both?
I would say that is for them to decide, not you or me. It's highly likely that don't care much whether or not you or I think their purchases were justified. But you rightfully recognize that people often buy "redundant non-essential" devices. Thank you for that.
Quote:
I think that if you have to manage the content on the computer anyway and be productive, the iPad has a much lesser role.
Okay, your opinion is noted. Soon, others will be able to decide for themselves if that is the case.
Quote:
Every single person I've ever known with an ipod (and I'd like to be exaggerating here) has asked me how to get music off it onto another computer.
I can't think of a single person that I know who has an iPod who has ever asked me that. so where does that get us? Oh yea, it gets us back to the point that some people care about certain features and others do not. So is it safe to assume that all the people who asked you this question promptly got rid of their iPods in exchange for another mp3 which could function in that manner? Or did they keep their iPods anyway?
Quote:
You could say that about the set-top box market.
Sure you can. You can say it about a multitude of things in the market that are not even made by Apple. That doesn't invalidate what you quoted, it merely points out that that market is not guaranteed, which wasn't something I claimed, so I'm not sure what your point is. I'm familiar with the lackluster interest in Apple TV if that is your point. I'm thinking the interested is considerably different for the iPad, but again, time will tell.
Quote:
I don't think so.
Okay, we have another point of disagreement then.
Quote:
People buy netbooks as their only master device and it costs less than an iPad.
This is a true statement only when qualified as such; "SOME people...." Just so you know, some people buy netbooks in addition to their desktops, and even in some cases, in addition to their laptops. I think there is enough of those some people that and iPad would be a preferable alternative to a netbook.
At any rate, I'm going to wait and see the outcome, with my iPad of course (when I can get it). You haven't provided a single argument so far that convinces me (admittedly not knowing if that is even one of your goals) that the iPad is going to be a failure. What many of your statements has suggested to me that you don't see the marketplace the same way I do, a way that recognizes that not all people buy or don't buy things according to my personal criteria.
Comments
The Star Trek reference just confirms my original diagnosis.
I shouldn't really have expected more.
Calling the iPad a "slave device" is colorful, but not accurate, even knowing what we do about it today.
It's more accurate and less colorful than implying that everyone who's not impressed by it is a geek with unrealistic sci-fi fantasies.
Humanity is all about conflict, opposing views and the struggle to maintain order amongst those conflicts and competing ideas.
Mainly opposing routes to the same goal. I don't think people are arguing against the examples I gave.
The first reality is there is no such thing as renewable energy.
What reality would that be? Renewable energy is defined to be energy sourced from natural resources like the wind, sea and sun. I don't recall any warnings saying we're running out of wind. Not in this thread anyway.
Something that has been demonstrated to not be exactly healthy.
A supermarket delivering fresh vegetables to your doorstep is unhealthy?
For example immersive entertainment might be find for some but I often prefer immersion in nature.
Do I have to explain this? If you have truly immersive entertainment then it's the same thing.
It might not be as great as an experience with larger devices. Frankly this sounds more like fantasy than anything based on concrete usage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfFwgPuEdSk
I wasn't saying that design is the goal btw, the point was about dependence.
SF doesn't predict the future anyway but projects the concerns of today into a futuristic setting.
Exactly and dismissing it so casually also dismisses every single person's own ideas for solutions to current problems.
With the same software the PC is the same as the Mac and can do the same things. And yet they are significantly different are they not?
Nope.
Other apps can leverage a common central user profile if they like.
Don't mention non-application-centric filesystems, people will start screaming 'geek, geek!'. All sorts of issues like multiple apps conflicting by using the same save file names, wasting space on the device by not cleaning up the shared profile space, one app deleting or modifying files/data belonging to another.
Partial implementations of multi-user profiles are useful solutions certainly but I don't think Apple want this level of functionality on the ipad.
I've gone weeks without syncing my iPhone.
I've done that too but not because it's any less of a dependent. It's just that I use my desktop for desktop-type tasks and my phone for phone tasks. iPad is trying to do some of each of those tasks (it doesn't really have a reason to exist of its own accord). If I want a song or picture deleted, I have to use my computer. If I want to make a call, I have to use my phone. There's nothing about the iPad that I require it for.
The problem with slavery is not the frequency of the dependence but the necessity of it. Frequency is an issue in critical areas like content management though.
What reality would that be? Renewable energy is defined to be energy sourced from natural resources like the wind, sea and sun. I don't recall any warnings saying we're running out of wind. Not in this thread anyway.
I'm against the concept of renewable due to the fact that energy derived from the wind, or sea is finite and not renewable as people think. In fact those source are only the physical manifestations of energy transfer from the SUN. Without the SUN you would not have a molten sea or even a gaseous atmosphere.
Even the SUN though has a finite life. It will soon burn up its fuel and grow cold and our solar system with it.
Dave
Exactly and dismissing it so casually also dismisses every single person's own ideas for solutions to current problems.
We're agreeing right?
Nope.
Which part do you disagree with? That the Mac and PC are equivalent or that only software is the difference? Arguably the Mac is better than the PC despite largely the same hardware (and at higher price to boot).
Don't mention non-application-centric filesystems, people will start screaming 'geek, geek!'. All sorts of issues like multiple apps conflicting by using the same save file names, wasting space on the device by not cleaning up the shared profile space, one app deleting or modifying files/data belonging to another.
What on earth are you talking about? We're talking about porting a simplified Keychain over to the iPad. Not discussing how to manage files. You do know what Keychain is right?
Partial implementations of multi-user profiles are useful solutions certainly but I don't think Apple want this level of functionality on the ipad.
They can implement the whole enchilada if they really want. It's not like they don't have Mac OSX to steal from.
I've done that too but not because it's any less of a dependent. It's just that I use my desktop for desktop-type tasks and my phone for phone tasks. iPad is trying to do some of each of those tasks (it doesn't really have a reason to exist of its own accord). If I want a song or picture deleted, I have to use my computer. If I want to make a call, I have to use my phone. There's nothing about the iPad that I require it for.
Mobile computing. The iPhone is good but the iPad will be much better at it because it allows for richer user interaction. At the same level as a desktop but given the limitations of the interface (touch).
The problem with slavery is not the frequency of the dependence but the necessity of it. Frequency is an issue in critical areas like content management though.
All electronic devices are slaves to power sources. Plugging in your iPad to a Mac or other master device isn't much more onerous than plugging it into the wall. This is largely why I don't mind the iPhone's limited battery life. Most of the time it lasts the day and I plug it into the wall or the mac when I get home. I skip that if I've left it plugged in at work all day and it has pretty much a full charge.
I'm against the concept of renewable due to the fact that energy derived from the wind, or sea is finite and not renewable as people think. In fact those source are only the physical manifestations of energy transfer from the SUN. Without the SUN you would not have a molten sea or even a gaseous atmosphere.
Even the SUN though has a finite life. It will soon burn up its fuel and grow cold and our solar system with it.
Dave
Mkay. You really don't have to worry about that. Assuming the human race lasts even vaguely that long we'll figure something else out when the Sun goes kaput.
Oh...by the by yes we do have liquid oceans. But we'd be experiencing some serious global warming if we had molten seas. Yes, yes...technically molten only means melted but typically with high heat.
It's more accurate and less colorful than implying that everyone who's not impressed by it is a geek with unrealistic sci-fi fantasies.
Not a response to my point at all. FWIW, I'm not at all interested in trading insults. I am simply stating the difference between fictional ideas and real products that are designed by contemporary companies with the intention of making money. I didn't think this distinction would be so controversial.
Even the SUN though has a finite life. It will soon burn up its fuel and grow cold and our solar system with it.
Soon as in millions of years from now. Definitions within our realm of existence are still valid.
We're agreeing right?
Yup.
Which part do you disagree with? That the Mac and PC are equivalent or that only software is the difference? Arguably the Mac is better than the PC despite largely the same hardware (and at higher price to boot).
I agree that the user experience is defined by the difference in software but running the same software on different (though compatible) hardware offers the same experience so I would disagree that a Mac differs from a PC when it runs Windows. The ipod is compatible hardware and the iPad software isn't a million miles away from the OS it runs given that the same apps run natively without recompilation. In other words they have the same APIs.
All they added to the iPad was additional APIs for popup menus and video output and a few others, which could be added to an ipod just the same and some will be. We'll be able to see this more clearly when both devices are upgraded to OS 4.
We're talking about porting a simplified Keychain over to the iPad.
Current apps save files to disk for settings and game progress. In a system supporting multiple users, those files have to reside in a common profile filesystem location. I guess it depends how it's done but say that user A and B use an app and user A gets bored of the app and deletes it. It will take user B's data with it. Non-app centric storage maintains the information so that user B can put the app back in and have the data restored. Like I say though, this can leave data lying around.
Mobile computing. The iPhone is good but the iPad will be much better at it
I should really have said laptop as that's the example Apple used. The one bonus over a laptop is portrait mode for pictures. This device would be awesome for pictures but you can't edit/manage pictures on it and sync them back to your machine. Of course, a 3rd party app might allow reverse sync.
I am simply stating the difference between fictional ideas and real products that are designed by contemporary companies with the intention of making money.
Ideas made in the context of fiction are not completely different from those made in the context of business as they both generate money. Star Trek and all sorts of other tech shows have gained popularity by selling an idea of a future that complies with that of their fans. That desire then gets filtered into consumer feedback and companies deliver it.
Apple haven't invented a new way to work with the iPad. I've wanted a slate ever since I tried using a laptop lying down and slate computers have been shown in science fiction many times.
http://www.itpro.co.uk/159879/scienc...deas-made-real
Science fiction tends to gloss over the practicality of the tech but that doesn't make it irrelevant.
Can I borrow your time machine so I can travel to the future and get my own iPad so I could be equally certain in my opinion that it sucks?
I think there is enough information out there on it for people to make preliminary estimation that the device does not serve their purposes. The only problem I've run into is that some of those folks think their assessment applies to all others too. Frankly it doesn't matter to me who doesn't like it, or if it serves their purposes or not, I suspect it will serve several purposes for me in a better fashion than the current hardware I have for those purposes. I've seen enough to know that I'll be getting one. I'm typically an 'early adopter', and very rarely have I been burned by such decisions. I have not problem taking some risks with my money because I'm generally the best person to decide what I like.
Ubergeeks and tech-heads may well know alot about hardware and software, and they certainly know alot about what they personally want out of their hardware and software, but quite frequently they do not have the best track record of determining what will thrive in the market when it doesn't fit into the realm of what they want.
The important thing to consider at this point is whether or not it serves your purposes.
What I can say with absolute certainty is that no slave device will ever change the way we use computers in any significant way while it remains as a slave device.
Perhaps, but how meaningful is this assessment as it applies to the iPad? I don't really know you, but you sound intelligent enough to recognize that many people out there use computers in different ways than you do. I think that for many people, the iPad hits the "sweet spot" of what many, many people use computers for on a daily basis. I think that many of those people will find that the iPad accomplishes those purposes in a manner that is very pleasing and user friendly.
When you say "we" in the above sentence, you are including a lot of people who do not think like you or make decisions based on the same criteria as you. Their values are different, their priorities are different, their uses for computers vary, their financial situations and life situations are different. etc. etc.
My bet is that the iPad has the "magic" to make it in the market. Time will tell.
I think there is enough information out there on it for people to make preliminary estimation that the device does not serve their purposes. The only problem I've run into is that some of those folks think their assessment applies to all others too.
You've nailed here. For years and years and years as a minority Mac user I've heard the attitude expressed from PC users, "if I don't want it, nobody should." This is the implicit logic behind most of the criticism of the iPad.
I think that for many people, the iPad hits the "sweet spot" of what many, many people use computers for on a daily basis.
That's what my assessment is based on. It certainly doesn't fulfill very much for me given that I have an iphone and a Mac but I was mainly thinking about average computer users I know. Having to manage content on a standard computer makes it a non-essential device. Let's not forget that it's not like a laptop/netbook where I can sync music to it, take it to work and transfer the tracks over. If I need a software update so I can download a recent app that requires it while I'm at work, it's a no go as you can only sync to one computer.
Their values are different, their priorities are different, their uses for computers vary, their financial situations and life situations are different. etc. etc.
It's for people who can afford to have a computer and a $500 tablet accessory. This isn't a low cost computing solution for the masses - I think that would sell in great numbers - this is a big ipod to complement and is dependent on a standard computer.
You've nailed here. For years and years and years as a minority Mac user I've heard the attitude expressed from PC users, "if I don't want it, nobody should." This is the implicit logic behind most of the criticism of the iPad.
Same argument works in reverse though. Just because a minority wants it doesn't mean it will be a success.
It certainly doesn't fulfill very much for me given that I have an iphone and a Mac but I was mainly thinking about average computer users I know.
As am I, yet we come to differing conclusions.
Having to manage content on a standard computer makes it a non-essential device.
So? The iPod is a non-essential device. TV's are non-essential devices. The internet is a non-essential service. With the availability of public transportation, a car is a non-essential device. If you have a computer a laptop may be a non-essential device or vice versa. Many people do not limit their purchases to essential devices.
Let's not forget that it's not like a laptop/netbook where I can sync music to it, take it to work and transfer the tracks over.
Again, so? You seem stuck on considering issues that may bother some people but don't bother a lot of other people. It has DRM too. Many people don't care about that either. It doesn't support Flash. Many people don't care about that either. It doesn't have a camera. Many people don't care about that either.
It's for people who can afford to have a computer and a $500 tablet accessory.
Okay, but you are stating the obvious. However, you are pointing to quite a viable market segment for success.
This isn't a low cost computing solution for the masses.
Again, I have to say, so? That has very little to do with it having the chance to be a success in the marketplace. Most Macs in general are not low cost computing solutions for the masses, yet Apple seems to be quite healthy financially.
Same argument works in reverse though. Just because a minority wants it doesn't mean it will be a success.
Only the reverse argument is not applicable in this case. As far as I've read, neither he nor I have claimed that it will be a success solely because a minority wants it. My claim is simply that it has enough appeal and functionality for what it does to enough people for it to be profitable. My claim is I think that Apple has the name, the form factor and the execution of this device to make it a very enjoyable experience using it's functionality, enough to make the product viably profitable for Apple. I think that is what Apple is going for, a profitable device in the marketplace. How profitable it will be will be told in time.
I'm not going as far as saying this will be a laptop killer or a notebook killer, but I think the netbook market will be affected.
Same argument works in reverse though. Just because a minority wants it doesn't mean it will be a success.
Not really. By definition, unless the product is food, water or air, the people who want a thing are a minority. So this is not even remotely a useful measure of success.
Mainly opposing routes to the same goal. I don't think people are arguing against the examples I gave.
Not in the least. I'm not sure how you could even have this opinion given world events.
What reality would that be? Renewable energy is defined to be energy sourced from natural resources like the wind, sea and sun. I don't recall any warnings saying we're running out of wind. Not in this thread anyway.
It is not a renewable energy source. Nor is there really such a thing.
The natural energy sources (not by the way renewable) that you mention, wind, sea and sun are really just different physical manifestation of energy we get from the sun. There is no rational way you can call them renewable. At best they can be considered continuos source of energy around our current time frame. By the way some of that energy is also tidal but I will maintain that without the sun there isn't enough tidal energy to keep the earth warm enough for us to worry about.
Either way the fact remains the energy that we get from these sources is finite at any point in time and is not renewable. If we surrounded the entire planet with solar cells there is still a limit to how much energy that could be derived from such an installation. Even then the energy output of the sun is variable so your globe surrounding solar panel still wouldn't put out a constant amount of Power.
A supermarket delivering fresh vegetables to your doorstep is unhealthy?
It very well can be. Especially if you don't know where those vegetables come from. In any case from the stand point of an impact on the environment it is a horrible approach to feeding oneself. people would be far better off growing what they need as much as possible.
This is not to say that everybody can feed themselves 100% off the land. What I'm saying is that relying upon the supermarket for ever calorie of your needs isn't exactly healthy either. The biggest factor there being the impact upon the environment of moving those good all over the globe.
Do I have to explain this? If you have truly immersive entertainment then it's the same thing.
Have you ever left your house or apartment and spent real time in the wild? If you do you will realize just how truly stupid that statement is.
{quote]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfFwgPuEdSk
I wasn't saying that design is the goal btw, the point was about dependence.
[/QUOTE]
I'm not trying to be a pain here but the term renewable energy has become a buzz word that I'm no longer comfortable with. There is to much ignorance associated with it and frankly I'm no longer comfortable with it.
While it may currently be impractical to surround the globe with solar cells, there is not enough land area to supply our needs and not impact the environment. That doesn't mean we should dismiss the use of solar energy by the way, it is just that it won't in a practical fashion power our economy into the future. We need a more balanced approach.
Dave
This isn't a low cost computing solution for the masses - I think that would sell in great numbers - this is a big ipod to complement and is dependent on a standard computer.
I think it's time you put up some numbers Marvin.
How many is "great numbers"?
Which begs the question... how long before we can call the iPad, Apple's next cube?
I think it's time you put up some numbers Marvin.
How many is "great numbers"?
Which begs the question... how long before we can call the iPad, Apple's next cube?
I thought the AppleTV was the next cube.
Apple haven't invented a new way to work with the iPad. I've wanted a slate ever since I tried using a laptop lying down and slate computers have been shown in science fiction many times.
Apple has been successful (in part) for two reasons (IMO); 1) in some instances they have been innovative, and 2) in some instances they took existing ideas and made them into products people actually wanted to use when compared to previous attempts. It is not necessary for Apple to invent an entirely new way to work with the iPad, they need only find a way to make work something people want to do on the device when other such ventures fell short.
I think this is true in any market. Sometimes innovation is successful and sometimes mere implementation is successful. Apple has a way of making products that work the way that quite a few people want things to work where others have failed. I also think that Apple understands their products won't please everyone. Apple can withstand the naysayers as their track record taken in whole demonstrates.
One article I read that I tend to agree with is that many folks who look negatively at the iPad are focusing on the hardware and what they perceive as insurmountable deficiencies. What is more likely to be the key to the success of the iPad is the app development. One indicator to possible success in that area was the sharp increase in demand for the SDK after the iPad was announced. It would appear that many developers are very interested in what they can do with the "bigger Touch". I'm sure for the most part they are not doing this out of the kindness of their hearts, they are doing it because they smell scent of green paper in the air. While I concede this does not automatically spell success for the iPad, I am frequently more willing to put weight towards the judgment of those who are actually willing to risk something (in this case developing time and resources) rather than those who have nothing to lose.
I suspect that many people who are against or are reluctant to buy an iPad now may very well change their minds later when more apps are available to demonstrate whether or not it truly has broader practical uses.
I thought the AppleTV was the next cube.
Nope that was and is AIR. For much the same reasons as The Cube too!
Dave
So? The iPod is a non-essential device.
The ipod is not a redundant device though as it fills the exclusive role of an MP3 player. The TV is for media content etc. Do you buy an iPad for computing? No, you have a computer. Do you buy it for music? No, you can't put it in your pocket. You have books and browsing but you get the former on the ipod/iphone (I read books on mine) and browsing is done on both.
As Jobs said during the keynote, it's only reason to exist is if it does things better than a mobile and a laptop.
It really just offers a different way to do the same tasks. Now you may say, well people have portable TVs and HDTVs at the same time; bicycles and cars. I would say, how many people use both to the extent it justifies having both?
Some people expect the iPad will draw people away from the traditional computer most of the time and that may well be. I think that if you have to manage the content on the computer anyway and be productive, the iPad has a much lesser role.
You seem stuck on considering issues that may bother some people but don't bother a lot of other people.
Every single person I've ever known with an ipod (and I'd like to be exaggerating here) has asked me how to get music off it onto another computer. A significant number of people I know upload content to the internet (which can't yet be done on iphone OS). Everyone I know manages their digital content and none sync photos to a slave device for the purposes of viewing (they share them online with others, which again you can't currently do with iphone OS and you can't compress/crop them either).
Okay, but you are stating the obvious. However, you are pointing to quite a viable market segment for success.
You could say that about the set-top box market.
I'm not going as far as saying this will be a laptop killer or a notebook killer, but I think the netbook market will be affected.
I don't think so. A netbook is a slower computer (faster than a powerbook though) and an iPad is a faster ipod. You can't manage a mobile device or your content using an iPad. People buy netbooks as their only master device and it costs less than an iPad.
There is no rational way you can call them renewable.
There's also no rational way you can call a blowjob a blowjob but go figure. It's renewable (that is to say it won't run out) for as long as it needs to be, which is many thousands of generations away from us.
I think it's time you put up some numbers Marvin.
How many is "great numbers"?
Which begs the question... how long before we can call the iPad, Apple's next cube?
I did that in another thread. The netbook market is 35m units per year. The ebook reader market is 3 million. I'd say under 3 million in the first year is Cube status. The iphone only sold 6 million in the first year so the success rate has to be determined a long way down the line. If it replaced a netbook by being a master device, I think 15 million would be a reasonable target.
That's not really how I like to rate success though - I don't benefit from a company's profits so it doesn't matter how many they sell. Nintendo sell a lot of Wii's and DS's but I have no respect for the products. Microsoft sell a lot of copies of Windows but I have no respect for that product. Youtube and eBay are successful websites but I have little respect for them. This isn't just some ideological viewpoint, people have the same view without realising what it means.
If there was a product on Amazon and a product on eBay at the same price, which would you buy? Obviously the one on Amazon because you have more respect for that retailer. If you were asked to view either HBO or Youtube for an evening's entertainment, you'd go with HBO because you assume it has better content. Even if Apple sells 10 million+ iPads in the first year, if it fails to find a reason to be, it's not a respectable product.
Apple's view of success is wrong. Look at the App Store and you can see in the top 10 an app called Sex Positions (good job cleaning up the store) with over 10,000 ratings of 1/5 and Apple are putting this in their chart recommending it to people. It's popular but people aren't happy with it. Just because people buy the iPad and own it, if they don't find a use for it, then the product isn't a success. Taking the Wii as an example, people use it 30-50% as much as people use the XBox 360. That is a more important measure IMO than the Wii selling twice as much.
The iPad hands-on demos look pretty good:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5GMlP326Vs
but a few things to note. Maps look cool but are mostly pointless because unless you get the 3G model (and pay another fee as well as your phone), you can't load them where you go. Photos look great on the IPS screen but if you can't just dump a folder on and arrange them and take them off again, it's a useless feature. People just don't sync albums to devices for viewing and the iapps sync uncompressed photos to the mobiles anyway so they waste tons of space (not to mention they aren't just copies of your original files). The browser is nice but why did they do a thumb view for multiple pages and not tabs like a desktop browser? Movies still won't be cached either so you have to start downloading the movie again once it's finished playing. Plus although I agree with removing Flash, there is a lot of Flash video online I'd be missing out on. There's loads of apps certainly but they are designed for the iphone so don't scale up well.
Despite the pixel-doubling graphics, I just don't think games are going to go over too well either. Here's Monkey Ball on the iPad. I think the controls are terrible:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cxs-yY0jRrc
Music maybe ok but your itunes library is on your computer and you can't rename, delete, sort your music. You can watch movies but itunes content only. Sure you can use iwork but everyone else uses Office and it will screw up the formatting in some documents.
It can be improved and it will be over time. I'm sure it will be a fun device to use and it's head and shoulders above ebook readers but I see no harm in it being a master device with a few tweaks and being the only computer a huge number of people will ever need. My grandparents and parents (in fact most of my computer illiterate relatives) would have loved this device but without a computer, it's worthless. They don't need a computer to use their TV.
I suspect that many people who are against or are reluctant to buy an iPad now may very well change their minds later when more apps are available to demonstrate whether or not it truly has broader practical uses.
It runs iphone apps though so you're really just going to see the same limited apps with bigger interfaces. No doubt there will be one or two great apps for it. RAM is one aspect of the device that's important and still unknown. I'd guess 512MB and this will limit what apps can do.
First off; iPad is NOT a laptop replacement in any manner shape or form. It is very much a single person / user device. Pretty much in the mold of a Touch. Thus I highly doubt there will be multiple user support.
As to being a device that is only usable in conjunction with another PC or laptop it may look that way right now but long term it is not a given. A few more APIs and firming up rumors about current behaviour could change many opinions about the device.
Taking what we currently know though the device is more capable than many in this thread imply. The ability to create documents is there. Further smart integration with Mobile Me is likely to be more useful than people give credit to. For many people, far more than a small minority, the iPad could be a very useful primary computing device. Likewise I can see somepeople using it more than their current hardware.
It all depends upon the user. For people constantly on the go though iPad could end up being a revelation. Still there are many unanswered questions about iPads real capabilities thus to much speculation about it's potential for success. On the other hand peoplerun businesses on clearly less powerful devices so who knows.
All is not perfect though, one perplexing thing is the aspect ratio of the device and it's overall size. It is pretty clear that Apple doesn't see this device as a video iPod. Whatever Apples intended market it is clear that many want iPad to be a device that Apple isn't targetting. Once we understand better Apples marketing intentions we will be able to understand how it succeeds or fails.
Dave
The ipod is not a redundant device though as it fills the exclusive role of an MP3 player.
Actually, the iPod was a redundant device when it came out as there were other mp3 players on the market. However, mp3 players gained much greater popularity once the iPod hit the market. That was because Apple took an existing idea and executed it in a way that people came to really enjoy using it. It's still non-essential. That was the criteria you were using before, one that really doesn't matter. I'm good with you sticking to what is in your opinion "essential items", I'm just pointing out that other people do not.
I will buy an iPad because it appears that it is going to perform a number of functions, not just one role, in a form factor and execution that appears very enjoyable. I suspect that is also why others will buy iPads. I suspect that a broader range of apps will be available for the iPad that would not work at all well on the iPhone.
It really just offers a different way to do the same tasks.
Interestingly enough, "better" falls into the category of different. However, "better" will be in eye of the user. I take your opinion that it is not better for you, but I'm also quite sure that others will find it a better way to do those same things it does.
Now you may say, well people have portable TVs and HDTVs at the same time; bicycles and cars. I would say, how many people use both to the extent it justifies having both?
I would say that is for them to decide, not you or me. It's highly likely that don't care much whether or not you or I think their purchases were justified. But you rightfully recognize that people often buy "redundant non-essential" devices. Thank you for that.
I think that if you have to manage the content on the computer anyway and be productive, the iPad has a much lesser role.
Okay, your opinion is noted. Soon, others will be able to decide for themselves if that is the case.
Every single person I've ever known with an ipod (and I'd like to be exaggerating here) has asked me how to get music off it onto another computer.
I can't think of a single person that I know who has an iPod who has ever asked me that. so where does that get us? Oh yea, it gets us back to the point that some people care about certain features and others do not. So is it safe to assume that all the people who asked you this question promptly got rid of their iPods in exchange for another mp3 which could function in that manner? Or did they keep their iPods anyway?
You could say that about the set-top box market.
Sure you can. You can say it about a multitude of things in the market that are not even made by Apple. That doesn't invalidate what you quoted, it merely points out that that market is not guaranteed, which wasn't something I claimed, so I'm not sure what your point is. I'm familiar with the lackluster interest in Apple TV if that is your point. I'm thinking the interested is considerably different for the iPad, but again, time will tell.
I don't think so.
Okay, we have another point of disagreement then.
People buy netbooks as their only master device and it costs less than an iPad.
This is a true statement only when qualified as such; "SOME people...." Just so you know, some people buy netbooks in addition to their desktops, and even in some cases, in addition to their laptops. I think there is enough of those some people that and iPad would be a preferable alternative to a netbook.
At any rate, I'm going to wait and see the outcome, with my iPad of course (when I can get it). You haven't provided a single argument so far that convinces me (admittedly not knowing if that is even one of your goals) that the iPad is going to be a failure. What many of your statements has suggested to me that you don't see the marketplace the same way I do, a way that recognizes that not all people buy or don't buy things according to my personal criteria.