I watch video on news sites every day. If the 'Pad can't handle daily web surfing tasks, it is fatally flawed. Indeed, for most non-geeks, the 'Pad will suck to surf the 'web.
"Honey, why can't I get that website?"
"Oh, that's not a bug, it is a feature. You don't want to see that website. They sholuld have used H.236XZ technology, but me and Steve don't like Adobe, so you're better off this way. We are fighting a holy war here against Adobe, because they are lazy!!"
"Ummmm, it works fine on Sally's HP tablet. I thought you made me get this one because it is indisputably better to surf the 'net with?"
"Naw, only geeks care about flash! You are better off without it!"
"This is the last time I ever let you talk me into getting an Apple anything..."
All you do is twist, twist, wriggle, and distort. I never said that the iPad was "indisputably better to surf the 'net with". That was what you said about the HP Slate, and the I would never say any of the drivel you made up to brush off my argument instead of actually addressing it. How does browsing the web on sites not using flash (which again is most of them) compare? I haven't seen a touch screen implementation that comes close to what Apple offers. Perhaps you need Flash, but that fact doesn't make browsing on the HP Slate indisputably better to everyone. Before Apple's war on Flash, web browsing was compared by means other than who has flash support and those means are still relevant today. Yes, there are Apple fanboys that are completely delusional, but that doesn't make your conclusions logical.
Edit: To be fair, i guess you weren't the original person to say indisputably better, although you have obviously taken up that flag.
Saying the iPad uses old technology simply because it happens to have a 4:3 aspect ratio screen is incredibly short-sighted. Which is better, create a multi-function device that uses a screen ratio that's better suited for the various things that device can do, or create a multi-function device with a screen ratio best suited for only one or two of it's multiple functions? I agree with Apple's choice of aspect ratio and that in no way makes it "old technology".
OK. So "old technology" cannot mean "better suited for various things".
Gotcha. I Love this forum. And if anybody want to know what the word "Love" means, throw away your dictionary.
All you do is twist, twist, wriggle, and distort. I never said that the iPad was "indisputably better to surf the 'net with". That was what you said about the HP Slate, and the I would never say any of the drivel you made up to brush off my argument instead of actually addressing it. How does browsing the web on sites not using flash (which again is most of them) compare? I haven't seen a touch screen implementation that comes close to what Apple offers. Perhaps you need Flash, but that fact doesn't make browsing on the HP Slate indisputably better to everyone. Before Apple's war on Flash, web browsing was compared by means other than who has flash support and those means are still relevant today. Yes, there are Apple fanboys that are completely delusional, but that doesn't make your conclusions logical.
I never said anything lie that about the HP slate.
Look a little closer. The HP is the normal aspect ratio, while Apple chose the outmoded 4:3 aspect ratio.
It always amuses me when I hear somebody talk about an aspect ratio as "outmoded." There are lots of different aspect ratios that are all quite common.
For example, these days movies are almost all either 1.85:1 or 2.4:1. Your HDTV at home is 1.78:1, which is equal to neither. Movies in 1.85:1 are typically cropped slightly when telecined to HD, while 2.4:1 movies are usually letterboxed.
(Oh, and computer screens? They're most often 1.6:1 these days, though you are starting to see 1.78:1 computer screens as economies of scale from HDTV LCD panel production start to really kick in.)
But the aspect ratio of a piece of paper is either 1.3:1 (for US letter-size) or 1.4:1 (for A4). Books aren't printed on either of those sizes, typically, but your average mass-market paperback has a ratio of about 1.75:1, while a hardcover has a ratio of about 1.5:1.
Apple chose a 1024x768 LCD, which has an aspect ratio of 1.3:1. This is about the same ratio as a standard sheet of letter-sized paper, and a close approximation of most printed materials.
It's also a very common size, which makes the LCD panel in the iPad inexpensive. That's part of why the iPad's entry price is half of what people expected it to be before it was announced.
OK. So "old technology" cannot mean "better suited for various things".
Gotcha. I Love this forum. And if anybody want to know what the word "Love" means, throw away your dictionary.
I wasn't trying to state what "old technology" could or couldn't mean but rather that your criteria for making the determination is flawed. Forget that the device has a highly responsive capacitive touch panel, it must be "old technology" because it's the wrong shape by your narrow definition. Hey, I don't agree with everything Apple does, but their choice for the screen ratio of the iPad seems logical enough.
It always amuses me when I hear somebody talk about an aspect ratio as "outmoded." There are lots of different aspect ratios that are all quite common.
For example, these days movies are almost all either 1.85:1 or 2.4:1. Your HDTV at home is 1.78:1, which is equal to neither. Movies in 1.85:1 are typically cropped slightly when telecined to HD, while 2.4:1 movies are usually letterboxed.
But the aspect ratio of a piece of paper is either 1.3:1 (for US letter-size) or 1.4:1 (for A4). Books aren't printed on either of those sizes, typically, but your average mass-market paperback has a ratio of about 1.75:1, while a hardcover has a ratio of about 1.5:1.
Apple chose a 1024x768 LCD, which has an aspect ratio of 1.3:1. This is about the same ratio as a standard sheet of letter-sized paper, and a close approximation of most printed materials.
It's also a very common size, which makes the LCD panel in the iPad inexpensive. That's part of why the iPad's entry price is half of what people expected it to be before it was announced.
It was also pointed out yesterday that IMAX is 22m x 16.1m for an aspect ratio of 1.37. An aspect ratio of 4:3 is 1.33. So according to iGenius IMAX is "antqiue" and an "1930s technology".
And to the person that said revenue meant nothing...I'm sorry, I disagree. .... Revenue shows the strength of your sales and the market reach you have.
GM had $145Billion in revenues when it declared insolvency. I can give you many more examples.
It was also pointed out yesterday that IMAX is 22m x 16.1m for an aspect ratio of 1.37. An aspect ratio of 4:3 is 1.33. So according to iGenius IMAX is "antqiue" and an "1930s technology".
But it isn't fully buzzword compliant, which is the main criterion.
It was also pointed out yesterday that IMAX is 22m x 16.1m for an aspect ratio of 1.37. An aspect ratio of 4:3 is 1.33. So according to iGenius IMAX is "antqiue" and an "1930s technology".
He'll probably reply that he saw Avatar in IMAX and that was 2.40:1.
GM has $145Billion in revenues when it declared insolvency. I can give you many more examples.
Now now, don't go clouding his reality with you little... facts!
Revenue is only interesting insomuch as tracking how it changes. Net Revenue is more interesting. Profit per diluted share would be nice. How about PPE?
[CENTER]There's a considerable difference between a fully-functioning capacitive touchscreen computer (the Hp Slate) and little more than a super-sized personal media player (the iPad), especially if they're priced similarly.
As someone who owns two Hp TouchSmart computers, I'm pretty confident that Hp will include an exceptional amount of touch-centric UI functionality over the already very well-implement touch features of Windows 7.
There's room for them all, but ultimately, a REAL computer makes much more sense for most people spending some US 500.00 to 830.00, especially given today's economy.
Apple does not nor does anyone have a patent on any kind of gesture. Apple does not even have a patent on pinch-to-zoom/open/close gesture. They have patents on certain touch screen UI mechanisms and designs.
Engage brain before speaking!
According to the US Patent Office Apple was awarded patent number 7,479,949 on January 20, 2009. The patent which was filed on April 11, 2008 covers multi-touch and all associated gestures such as pinch, swipe and rotation.
A computer-implemented method for use in conjunction with a computing device with a touch screen display comprises: detecting one or more finger contacts with the touch screen display, applying one or more heuristics to the one or more finger contacts to determine a command for the device, and processing the command. The one or more heuristics comprise: a heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a one-dimensional vertical screen scrolling command, a heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a two-dimensional screen translation command, and a heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a command to transition from displaying a respective item in a set of items to displaying a next item in the set of items.
It was also pointed out yesterday that IMAX is 22m x 16.1m for an aspect ratio of 1.37. An aspect ratio of 4:3 is 1.33. So according to iGenius IMAX is "antqiue" and an "1930s technology".
According to Wikipedia, Imax uses a 1.43:1 aspect ratio.
Also according to Wikipedia, the 'Pad uses the same aspect ratio as 16mm film.
[CENTER]There's a considerable difference between a fully-functioning capacitive touchscreen computer (the Hp Slate) and little more than a super-sized personal media player (the iPad), especially if they're priced similarly.
As someone who owns two Hp TouchSmart computers, I'm pretty confident that Hp will include an exceptional amount of touch-centric UI functionality over the already very well-implement touch features of Windows 7.
There's room for them all, but ultimately, a REAL computer makes much more sense for most people spending some US 500.00 to 830.00, especially given today's economy.
[/CENTER]
Except the current cheapest HP tablet starts between $50 and $170 more than the most expensive iPad.
The question is not, is the iPad a replacement for your notebook. If you need a full featured device, buy one. Me, I have a full functioning (more or less) notebook. But I can't comfortably use it as an eReader (to heavy) or watch Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (to little battery life) or play Civ Revolution (for $4.99).
[CENTER]There's a considerable difference between a fully-functioning capacitive touchscreen computer (the Hp Slate) and little more than a super-sized personal media player (the iPad), especially if they're priced similarly.
As someone who owns two Hp TouchSmart computers, I'm pretty confident that Hp will include an exceptional amount of touch-centric UI functionality over the already very well-implement touch features of Windows 7.
There's room for them all, but ultimately, a REAL computer makes much more sense for most people spending some US 500.00 to 830.00, especially given today's economy.
[/CENTER]
You really don't understand that many people don't want the 'real' computer of which you speak.
We want the simple, slick device that the iPad is.
He in lies the problem of Apple showing and telling long before sales started. IMHO Apple should have come out of the box with a ready to sell product. The developers could have been under NDAs or in the dark if Apple really wanted to be secret, the flip from iPhone to iPad development isn't hard and if Apple had all their apps such as iWorks ready plus the 2 x App feature there would have been enough stuff to start with to keep interest until developers got up to speed. Coming out early was a gift for the wannabes and copy cats to confuse the public. Hopefully Apple will be so differentiated by the interface and apps as to make all these worries moot.
It doesn't matter that all the copycats are coming. In these last two months, they can get pretty close at copying much of the hardware, but they can't create software or an ecosystem to match Apple's.
Amazon, Google, and Apple have shown that a key to success is usability, which includes convenience. Apple's iTunes, App Store, and soon-to-arrive iBookStore have provided a very easy 1-click way to access media - both content and apps. Retail Apple Stores have provided a friendly way to get accessories, and to access technical help and repairs. What do these others have? Amazon has a website (not an app) to purchase downloadable content (music, video, books). There's some smaller outfits but they're far from being in the game. Google has an App Marketplace but nobody else is relevant yet in the App game.
For OS/UI software, these other copycats will have to use Android, Chrome (not yet here), Windows 7, Windows Mobile 7 (not yet here), or create their own. Some of these will offer additional features, but none have the responsive multi-touch UI and ease of use of iPhone OS. Studies are already showing that the touch-sensing of the iPhone OS is better than other smartphones - part of this might be hardware, but a chunk of it is the software (or firmware).
Apple is also using its cost advantage for its in-house developed CPU chip, its component volumes (esp for Flash RAM), and its already-built Retail Stores to force competitors to either price their tablet about the same, or to generate very little profit if they aim to beat the iPad on price. Given Apple's brand reputation, they have to beat by at least $100 (or20%) for it to factor into a purchase decision.
Apple doesn't care that a consumer may first try one of competitor's products because they know that when the consumer becomes disappointed, he/she will turn to Apple.
Comments
I watch video on news sites every day. If the 'Pad can't handle daily web surfing tasks, it is fatally flawed. Indeed, for most non-geeks, the 'Pad will suck to surf the 'web.
"Honey, why can't I get that website?"
"Oh, that's not a bug, it is a feature. You don't want to see that website. They sholuld have used H.236XZ technology, but me and Steve don't like Adobe, so you're better off this way. We are fighting a holy war here against Adobe, because they are lazy!!"
"Ummmm, it works fine on Sally's HP tablet. I thought you made me get this one because it is indisputably better to surf the 'net with?"
"Naw, only geeks care about flash! You are better off without it!"
"This is the last time I ever let you talk me into getting an Apple anything..."
All you do is twist, twist, wriggle, and distort. I never said that the iPad was "indisputably better to surf the 'net with". That was what you said about the HP Slate, and the I would never say any of the drivel you made up to brush off my argument instead of actually addressing it. How does browsing the web on sites not using flash (which again is most of them) compare? I haven't seen a touch screen implementation that comes close to what Apple offers. Perhaps you need Flash, but that fact doesn't make browsing on the HP Slate indisputably better to everyone. Before Apple's war on Flash, web browsing was compared by means other than who has flash support and those means are still relevant today. Yes, there are Apple fanboys that are completely delusional, but that doesn't make your conclusions logical.
Edit: To be fair, i guess you weren't the original person to say indisputably better, although you have obviously taken up that flag.
Saying the iPad uses old technology simply because it happens to have a 4:3 aspect ratio screen is incredibly short-sighted. Which is better, create a multi-function device that uses a screen ratio that's better suited for the various things that device can do, or create a multi-function device with a screen ratio best suited for only one or two of it's multiple functions? I agree with Apple's choice of aspect ratio and that in no way makes it "old technology".
OK. So "old technology" cannot mean "better suited for various things".
Gotcha. I Love this forum. And if anybody want to know what the word "Love" means, throw away your dictionary.
All you do is twist, twist, wriggle, and distort. I never said that the iPad was "indisputably better to surf the 'net with". That was what you said about the HP Slate, and the I would never say any of the drivel you made up to brush off my argument instead of actually addressing it. How does browsing the web on sites not using flash (which again is most of them) compare? I haven't seen a touch screen implementation that comes close to what Apple offers. Perhaps you need Flash, but that fact doesn't make browsing on the HP Slate indisputably better to everyone. Before Apple's war on Flash, web browsing was compared by means other than who has flash support and those means are still relevant today. Yes, there are Apple fanboys that are completely delusional, but that doesn't make your conclusions logical.
I never said anything lie that about the HP slate.
Look a little closer. The HP is the normal aspect ratio, while Apple chose the outmoded 4:3 aspect ratio.
It always amuses me when I hear somebody talk about an aspect ratio as "outmoded." There are lots of different aspect ratios that are all quite common.
For example, these days movies are almost all either 1.85:1 or 2.4:1. Your HDTV at home is 1.78:1, which is equal to neither. Movies in 1.85:1 are typically cropped slightly when telecined to HD, while 2.4:1 movies are usually letterboxed.
(Oh, and computer screens? They're most often 1.6:1 these days, though you are starting to see 1.78:1 computer screens as economies of scale from HDTV LCD panel production start to really kick in.)
But the aspect ratio of a piece of paper is either 1.3:1 (for US letter-size) or 1.4:1 (for A4). Books aren't printed on either of those sizes, typically, but your average mass-market paperback has a ratio of about 1.75:1, while a hardcover has a ratio of about 1.5:1.
Apple chose a 1024x768 LCD, which has an aspect ratio of 1.3:1. This is about the same ratio as a standard sheet of letter-sized paper, and a close approximation of most printed materials.
It's also a very common size, which makes the LCD panel in the iPad inexpensive. That's part of why the iPad's entry price is half of what people expected it to be before it was announced.
Its not like the iPad is going to have a 10.5 hour battery life once you turn WIFI on.
Maybe it won't but Apple is specifically stating that it will: "Up to 10 hours of surfing the web on Wi-Fi, watching video, or listening to music"
Check for yourself at www.apple.com/ipad/specs
Since you'll point to the "Up to" let me add that Steve Jobs has personally responded to John Breeden at CIO that it will reach 10 hours.
OK. So "old technology" cannot mean "better suited for various things".
Gotcha. I Love this forum. And if anybody want to know what the word "Love" means, throw away your dictionary.
I wasn't trying to state what "old technology" could or couldn't mean but rather that your criteria for making the determination is flawed. Forget that the device has a highly responsive capacitive touch panel, it must be "old technology" because it's the wrong shape by your narrow definition. Hey, I don't agree with everything Apple does, but their choice for the screen ratio of the iPad seems logical enough.
It always amuses me when I hear somebody talk about an aspect ratio as "outmoded." There are lots of different aspect ratios that are all quite common.
For example, these days movies are almost all either 1.85:1 or 2.4:1. Your HDTV at home is 1.78:1, which is equal to neither. Movies in 1.85:1 are typically cropped slightly when telecined to HD, while 2.4:1 movies are usually letterboxed.
But the aspect ratio of a piece of paper is either 1.3:1 (for US letter-size) or 1.4:1 (for A4). Books aren't printed on either of those sizes, typically, but your average mass-market paperback has a ratio of about 1.75:1, while a hardcover has a ratio of about 1.5:1.
Apple chose a 1024x768 LCD, which has an aspect ratio of 1.3:1. This is about the same ratio as a standard sheet of letter-sized paper, and a close approximation of most printed materials.
It's also a very common size, which makes the LCD panel in the iPad inexpensive. That's part of why the iPad's entry price is half of what people expected it to be before it was announced.
It was also pointed out yesterday that IMAX is 22m x 16.1m for an aspect ratio of 1.37. An aspect ratio of 4:3 is 1.33. So according to iGenius IMAX is "antqiue" and an "1930s technology".
And to the person that said revenue meant nothing...I'm sorry, I disagree. .... Revenue shows the strength of your sales and the market reach you have.
GM had $145Billion in revenues when it declared insolvency. I can give you many more examples.
It was also pointed out yesterday that IMAX is 22m x 16.1m for an aspect ratio of 1.37. An aspect ratio of 4:3 is 1.33. So according to iGenius IMAX is "antqiue" and an "1930s technology".
But it isn't fully buzzword compliant, which is the main criterion.
It was also pointed out yesterday that IMAX is 22m x 16.1m for an aspect ratio of 1.37. An aspect ratio of 4:3 is 1.33. So according to iGenius IMAX is "antqiue" and an "1930s technology".
He'll probably reply that he saw Avatar in IMAX and that was 2.40:1.
What part of the web is the 'Pad superior at?
Have you used one yet? Held one yet? Heck, have you seen one yet?
GM has $145Billion in revenues when it declared insolvency. I can give you many more examples.
Now now, don't go clouding his reality with you little... facts!
Revenue is only interesting insomuch as tracking how it changes. Net Revenue is more interesting. Profit per diluted share would be nice. How about PPE?
As someone who owns two Hp TouchSmart computers, I'm pretty confident that Hp will include an exceptional amount of touch-centric UI functionality over the already very well-implement touch features of Windows 7.
There's room for them all, but ultimately, a REAL computer makes much more sense for most people spending some US 500.00 to 830.00, especially given today's economy.
[/CENTER]
Apple does not nor does anyone have a patent on any kind of gesture. Apple does not even have a patent on pinch-to-zoom/open/close gesture. They have patents on certain touch screen UI mechanisms and designs.
Engage brain before speaking!
According to the US Patent Office Apple was awarded patent number 7,479,949 on January 20, 2009. The patent which was filed on April 11, 2008 covers multi-touch and all associated gestures such as pinch, swipe and rotation.
A computer-implemented method for use in conjunction with a computing device with a touch screen display comprises: detecting one or more finger contacts with the touch screen display, applying one or more heuristics to the one or more finger contacts to determine a command for the device, and processing the command. The one or more heuristics comprise: a heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a one-dimensional vertical screen scrolling command, a heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a two-dimensional screen translation command, and a heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a command to transition from displaying a respective item in a set of items to displaying a next item in the set of items.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...&RS=PN/7479949
I never said anything lie that about the HP slate.
Yeah I forgot that they didn't originate with you, but you did support them.
Edit with quote:
It makes it better at surfing the web. "from a pure web surfing experience, the HP is indisputably superior." That is what was said.
Do you dispute that?
It was also pointed out yesterday that IMAX is 22m x 16.1m for an aspect ratio of 1.37. An aspect ratio of 4:3 is 1.33. So according to iGenius IMAX is "antqiue" and an "1930s technology".
According to Wikipedia, Imax uses a 1.43:1 aspect ratio.
Also according to Wikipedia, the 'Pad uses the same aspect ratio as 16mm film.
But it isn't fully buzzword compliant, which is the main criterion.
Please don't imagine that you know which words I find compliant.
you have amply demonstrated that the meanings you ascribe to words vary greatly from the meanings found in dictionaries.
[CENTER]There's a considerable difference between a fully-functioning capacitive touchscreen computer (the Hp Slate) and little more than a super-sized personal media player (the iPad), especially if they're priced similarly.
As someone who owns two Hp TouchSmart computers, I'm pretty confident that Hp will include an exceptional amount of touch-centric UI functionality over the already very well-implement touch features of Windows 7.
There's room for them all, but ultimately, a REAL computer makes much more sense for most people spending some US 500.00 to 830.00, especially given today's economy.
[/CENTER]
Except the current cheapest HP tablet starts between $50 and $170 more than the most expensive iPad.
The question is not, is the iPad a replacement for your notebook. If you need a full featured device, buy one. Me, I have a full functioning (more or less) notebook. But I can't comfortably use it as an eReader (to heavy) or watch Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (to little battery life) or play Civ Revolution (for $4.99).
[CENTER]There's a considerable difference between a fully-functioning capacitive touchscreen computer (the Hp Slate) and little more than a super-sized personal media player (the iPad), especially if they're priced similarly.
As someone who owns two Hp TouchSmart computers, I'm pretty confident that Hp will include an exceptional amount of touch-centric UI functionality over the already very well-implement touch features of Windows 7.
There's room for them all, but ultimately, a REAL computer makes much more sense for most people spending some US 500.00 to 830.00, especially given today's economy.
[/CENTER]
You really don't understand that many people don't want the 'real' computer of which you speak.
We want the simple, slick device that the iPad is.
He in lies the problem of Apple showing and telling long before sales started. IMHO Apple should have come out of the box with a ready to sell product. The developers could have been under NDAs or in the dark if Apple really wanted to be secret, the flip from iPhone to iPad development isn't hard and if Apple had all their apps such as iWorks ready plus the 2 x App feature there would have been enough stuff to start with to keep interest until developers got up to speed. Coming out early was a gift for the wannabes and copy cats to confuse the public. Hopefully Apple will be so differentiated by the interface and apps as to make all these worries moot.
It doesn't matter that all the copycats are coming. In these last two months, they can get pretty close at copying much of the hardware, but they can't create software or an ecosystem to match Apple's.
Amazon, Google, and Apple have shown that a key to success is usability, which includes convenience. Apple's iTunes, App Store, and soon-to-arrive iBookStore have provided a very easy 1-click way to access media - both content and apps. Retail Apple Stores have provided a friendly way to get accessories, and to access technical help and repairs. What do these others have? Amazon has a website (not an app) to purchase downloadable content (music, video, books). There's some smaller outfits but they're far from being in the game. Google has an App Marketplace but nobody else is relevant yet in the App game.
For OS/UI software, these other copycats will have to use Android, Chrome (not yet here), Windows 7, Windows Mobile 7 (not yet here), or create their own. Some of these will offer additional features, but none have the responsive multi-touch UI and ease of use of iPhone OS. Studies are already showing that the touch-sensing of the iPhone OS is better than other smartphones - part of this might be hardware, but a chunk of it is the software (or firmware).
Apple is also using its cost advantage for its in-house developed CPU chip, its component volumes (esp for Flash RAM), and its already-built Retail Stores to force competitors to either price their tablet about the same, or to generate very little profit if they aim to beat the iPad on price. Given Apple's brand reputation, they have to beat by at least $100 (or20%) for it to factor into a purchase decision.
Apple doesn't care that a consumer may first try one of competitor's products because they know that when the consumer becomes disappointed, he/she will turn to Apple.