HP introduced their Slate before Apple. Which is far more powerful then the iPad.
It's not about power. It's about the User Experience.
You still don't seem to understand one of the keys to Apple's success. It's the same formula behind OS X, the iPod Touch, iPhone, etc. It's a main priority for Apple.
I'm sure Standard Slate from Generic Box Assembler will be quite powerful. And how about the OS? The UI? The touch implementation? The entire ecosystem? Why care about power when it's awful to use?
You can probably (by different means) manage to do most things on a generic slate that you can on an iPad. But *why* would people choose to do it on an iPad instead? Think about it.
ALL THAT MATTERS is that the iPad be able to easily run the apps that Apple and developers design for it and be able to run content at decent speeds. That's it.
iPod Touch cost $199 , iPad cost $499. You do the Math.
I not surprised that you didn't get my post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
+++
I would only add "A desktop OS is just foolish for that device type and size" and use.
*
A full desktop OS on a tablet has been around for years on both Windows and Mac (ModBook). What I don't get is why those who whine about the iPad lack of a desktop OS didn't buy one yet!
iPod Touch cost $199 , iPad cost $499. You do the Math.
Going by your yardstick . . . the iPad is over twice as large as an iPod Touch. You get *more* device (even just in terms of dimensions) with the iPad. Two iPod Touches are ~ $400. Add in 3G costs for the iPad, some updated materials here and there, a better processor, etc., and you've got your $499 Big iPod Touch that's a heck of a lot more machine than an iPod Touch.
The online investor guys are making up the numbers, their methodology is flawed, they are fan boys trying to drive the release of the iPad to success - because we all know the device is an abject failure.
The iPad suxxors majorly, it doesn't have:
42 UBS ports
a Blu-ray drive
removeable battery
a front-facing camera
a rear facing camera
a cell chip to make phone calls
GPS
support for 1080p
a real keyboard
a real processor
a real OS (just that stoopid pathetic mobile version of OSX)
enough memory
enough storage space
free unlimited 3G
release with Verizon, TMobile, Sprint, Alltel, Cellular One, Blue Wireless, Bluegrass Cellular, ad nauseam...
AND
there have been scads of tablet before the iPad
AND
all these early adopters are fanbois who spend too much money for glitzy tech that is just a toy, nobody besides them or the great unwashed masses of clueless consumers who don't worship at the altar of featuredom will buy this.
You forgot 2 side facing cameras (for improved peripheral vision), top facing camera (so that you can check on weather without turning your head) and down-facing camera (so that you don't step on small dogs while walking and reading).
A full desktop os on a tablet has been around for years on both windows and mac (modbook). What i don't get is why those who whine about the ipad lack of a desktop os didn't buy one yet!
A full desktop OS on a tablet has been around for years on both Windows and Mac (ModBook). What I don't get is why those who whine about the iPad lack of a desktop OS didn't buy one yet!
Going by your yardstick . . . the iPad is over twice as large as an iPod Touch. You get *more* device with the iPad. Two iPod Touches are ~ $400. Add in 3G costs for the iPad, some updated materials here and there, a better processor, etc., and you've got your $499 Big iPod Touch.
Going by display size the iPad has 8x more surface area.
This is an entirely new category midway between a computer and a smart phone. It's not intended to replace your computer. In fact, the iPad is designed to sync with your computer via iTunes on either your Mac or Windows computer.
Apple's betting that they can successfully establish a new category that won't cannibalize sales of their computer or iPhone product line. They don't want it to have all those ports, DVD player, etc.
This is a replacement for stand-alone devices like eBook readers, portable DVD players, portable voice recorders, digital photo frames, etc. It will be better than any laptop in certain situations like watching a movie on an airplane in the coach seats or making a one-on-one sales presentation over lunch at a restaurant.
The Windoze crowd will pan it until Microsoft copies it and put's their name on it. Then they'll want one. That's the way it works with that crowd.
Can it play DivX or XviD..? If not, I'm afraid netbook is still the best on-the-go video player...
Can it play DivX or XviD..? If not, I'm afraid netbook is still the best on-the-go video player...
Or anything else that plays DivX, not just netbooks.
What I don't get is why DivX-based codecs are still used. They are so old and weak and result in larger file sizes for the same relative quality over Ogg Theora or H.264. Sure, it takes more processing power to encode but with HW encoder/decoders for H.264 built into so many modern machines I wish this antiqued codec and container would just die.
PS: I also don't get why Apple can't allow other codecs to be accessed via iTunes since it is designed to be an audio and video organizer.
Or anything else that plays DivX, not just netbooks.
What I don't get is why DivX-based codecs are still used. They are so old and weak and result in larger file sizes for the same relative quality over Ogg Theora or H.264. Sure, it takes more processing power to encode but with HW encoder/decoders for H.264 built into so many modern machines I wish this antiqued codec and container would just die.
Yeah, well, I was thinking in terms of multifunctional device that can play media but also do emails, Internet... a few other things. Which both iPad and average netbook are capable of. Carrying dedicated DivX-enabled player plus another device for communications and images is a bit of an overkill.
There is another "issue" with iPad - carrying your music and movies (whichever format iPad does play) is a bit of a challenge with 16 or even 32GB storage on iPad... and 64GB is becoming pricey. Yes I know all the advantages of solid-state storage but at the end of the day, 160 (or 250)GB of storage is an advantage for video-watcher on the move.
I'm saying all this because I agree with you - I will very likely get one for my mother as soon as Skype application is available (or iPhone one confirmed working), but I still don't see a reason to get one for me. At present I'm much more inclined to replace my 15" notebook with something 12 - 13" for travels. I have big grunty desktop, iPhone, couple of consoles... with smaller, travel-friendly laptop, I just don't have real application for iPad at the moment, except for simple joy of having new gadget (which is not to be underestimated )
Does everyone know fully what they're even buying?
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
From the demo during the special event, the website and other news one can get a pretty good idea. Depending on your needs that may not be enough information, but for the one I'm buying, a mother's day gift, it's more than enough data to know this is a good fit for an occasional computer user who would like something simple when they are away from their iMac for several days at a time.
Beyond the demos people don't know what they are getting, but they see a lot of potential for fun and work.
Personally, I'm looking forward to some video board games.
And ModBook was released well before the HP Slate and is much powerful. That doesn't make it more ideal or a better choice than slower tablets.
Plus, there were a lot of tablets being announced at CES trying to get the announcement jump on the inevitable Apple tablet demo. Are any of the tablets from CES going on sale before the iPad. It seems they were less finalized than the iPad, had unknown specs and most had no price points, likely waiting to see what Apple had to offer before committing to anything.
HP, Asus, Samsung,fujitsu and many others have been making tablets for years. I know you dont like them but that doesnt take away the fact they have been on the market fo rmany years.
Never said it made it more ideal simply pointing out the the member that Tablets weren't exactly an Apple idea.
It's not about power. It's about the User Experience.
You still don't seem to understand one of the keys to Apple's success. It's the same formula behind OS X, the iPod Touch, iPhone, etc. It's a main priority for Apple.
I'm sure Standard Slate from Generic Box Assembler will be quite powerful. And how about the OS? The UI? The touch implementation? The entire ecosystem? Why care about power when it's awful to use?
You can probably (by different means) manage to do most things on a generic slate that you can on an iPad. But *why* would people choose to do it on an iPad instead? Think about it.
ALL THAT MATTERS is that the iPad be able to easily run the apps that Apple and developers design for it and be able to run content at decent speeds. That's it.
And for some the better user experience could be having a full OS. Its all based on need which in most cases it appears yours is always very basic.
Comments
HP introduced their Slate before Apple. Which is far more powerful then the iPad.
It's not about power. It's about the User Experience.
You still don't seem to understand one of the keys to Apple's success. It's the same formula behind OS X, the iPod Touch, iPhone, etc. It's a main priority for Apple.
I'm sure Standard Slate from Generic Box Assembler will be quite powerful. And how about the OS? The UI? The touch implementation? The entire ecosystem? Why care about power when it's awful to use?
You can probably (by different means) manage to do most things on a generic slate that you can on an iPad. But *why* would people choose to do it on an iPad instead? Think about it.
ALL THAT MATTERS is that the iPad be able to easily run the apps that Apple and developers design for it and be able to run content at decent speeds. That's it.
iPod Touch cost $199 , iPad cost $499. You do the Math.
I not surprised that you didn't get my post.
+++
I would only add "A desktop OS is just foolish for that device type and size" and use.
*
A full desktop OS on a tablet has been around for years on both Windows and Mac (ModBook). What I don't get is why those who whine about the iPad lack of a desktop OS didn't buy one yet!
iPod Touch cost $199 , iPad cost $499. You do the Math.
Going by your yardstick . . . the iPad is over twice as large as an iPod Touch. You get *more* device (even just in terms of dimensions) with the iPad. Two iPod Touches are ~ $400. Add in 3G costs for the iPad, some updated materials here and there, a better processor, etc., and you've got your $499 Big iPod Touch that's a heck of a lot more machine than an iPod Touch.
OK - let's get this out of the way:
The online investor guys are making up the numbers, their methodology is flawed, they are fan boys trying to drive the release of the iPad to success - because we all know the device is an abject failure.
The iPad suxxors majorly, it doesn't have:
42 UBS ports
a Blu-ray drive
removeable battery
a front-facing camera
a rear facing camera
a cell chip to make phone calls
GPS
support for 1080p
a real keyboard
a real processor
a real OS (just that stoopid pathetic mobile version of OSX)
enough memory
enough storage space
free unlimited 3G
release with Verizon, TMobile, Sprint, Alltel, Cellular One, Blue Wireless, Bluegrass Cellular, ad nauseam...
AND
there have been scads of tablet before the iPad
AND
all these early adopters are fanbois who spend too much money for glitzy tech that is just a toy, nobody besides them or the great unwashed masses of clueless consumers who don't worship at the altar of featuredom will buy this.
You forgot 2 side facing cameras (for improved peripheral vision), top facing camera (so that you can check on weather without turning your head) and down-facing camera (so that you don't step on small dogs while walking and reading).
This is a 21. century, after all.
For me, it was iWork. Keynote and Pages (for notes) in meetings, plus internet is all I need. The rest is gravy.
Should you not try typing first on it to see if it can do the job in meetings..?
i not surprised that you didn't get my post.
A full desktop os on a tablet has been around for years on both windows and mac (modbook). What i don't get is why those who whine about the ipad lack of a desktop os didn't buy one yet!
+++
*
And yet another useless Apple-bashing troll hits the ignore list. Good job, you're VERY effective.
Unless someone quotes them - WHICH THEY ALWAYS DO.
I not surprised that you didn't get my post.
A full desktop OS on a tablet has been around for years on both Windows and Mac (ModBook). What I don't get is why those who whine about the iPad lack of a desktop OS didn't buy one yet!
Exactly. Good post.
Going by your yardstick . . . the iPad is over twice as large as an iPod Touch. You get *more* device with the iPad. Two iPod Touches are ~ $400. Add in 3G costs for the iPad, some updated materials here and there, a better processor, etc., and you've got your $499 Big iPod Touch.
Going by display size the iPad has 8x more surface area.Going by weight the iPad is 4.5x heavier.
This is an entirely new category midway between a computer and a smart phone. It's not intended to replace your computer. In fact, the iPad is designed to sync with your computer via iTunes on either your Mac or Windows computer.
Apple's betting that they can successfully establish a new category that won't cannibalize sales of their computer or iPhone product line. They don't want it to have all those ports, DVD player, etc.
This is a replacement for stand-alone devices like eBook readers, portable DVD players, portable voice recorders, digital photo frames, etc. It will be better than any laptop in certain situations like watching a movie on an airplane in the coach seats or making a one-on-one sales presentation over lunch at a restaurant.
The Windoze crowd will pan it until Microsoft copies it and put's their name on it. Then they'll want one. That's the way it works with that crowd.
Can it play DivX or XviD..? If not, I'm afraid netbook is still the best on-the-go video player...
Can it play DivX or XviD..? If not, I'm afraid netbook is still the best on-the-go video player...
Or anything else that plays DivX, not just netbooks.
What I don't get is why DivX-based codecs are still used. They are so old and weak and result in larger file sizes for the same relative quality over Ogg Theora or H.264. Sure, it takes more processing power to encode but with HW encoder/decoders for H.264 built into so many modern machines I wish this antiqued codec and container would just die.
PS: I also don't get why Apple can't allow other codecs to be accessed via iTunes since it is designed to be an audio and video organizer.
e iPad suxxors majorly, it doesn't have:
Let's not forget that they recently banned the app iProstitute too.
Indeed.
Software designed for the device, not the other way around.
Just look at iWork.
Some people just won't get it. But they will in time. This is the future of computing.
Didn't do your post justice in my first response...
iWork on the iPad is the "breakout app".
Gee, this "iPad appliance" can finally do the things that separate a smart phone (and smart iPod) from a "real computer".
Funny thing... it prolly can do it better!
*
Or anything else that plays DivX, not just netbooks.
What I don't get is why DivX-based codecs are still used. They are so old and weak and result in larger file sizes for the same relative quality over Ogg Theora or H.264. Sure, it takes more processing power to encode but with HW encoder/decoders for H.264 built into so many modern machines I wish this antiqued codec and container would just die.
Yeah, well, I was thinking in terms of multifunctional device that can play media but also do emails, Internet... a few other things. Which both iPad and average netbook are capable of. Carrying dedicated DivX-enabled player plus another device for communications and images is a bit of an overkill.
There is another "issue" with iPad - carrying your music and movies (whichever format iPad does play) is a bit of a challenge with 16 or even 32GB storage on iPad... and 64GB is becoming pricey. Yes I know all the advantages of solid-state storage but at the end of the day, 160 (or 250)GB of storage is an advantage for video-watcher on the move.
I'm saying all this because I agree with you - I will very likely get one for my mother as soon as Skype application is available (or iPhone one confirmed working), but I still don't see a reason to get one for me. At present I'm much more inclined to replace my 15" notebook with something 12 - 13" for travels. I have big grunty desktop, iPhone, couple of consoles... with smaller, travel-friendly laptop, I just don't have real application for iPad at the moment, except for simple joy of having new gadget (which is not to be underestimated
Does everyone know fully what they're even buying?
From the demo during the special event, the website and other news one can get a pretty good idea. Depending on your needs that may not be enough information, but for the one I'm buying, a mother's day gift, it's more than enough data to know this is a good fit for an occasional computer user who would like something simple when they are away from their iMac for several days at a time.
Beyond the demos people don't know what they are getting, but they see a lot of potential for fun and work.
Personally, I'm looking forward to some video board games.
What's that old saying- "There's a sucker born every minute."
Steve Jobs is the PT Barnum of the 21st century.
iPad hasn't even been tested yet - what fools.
Of course it has, they call it the iPod touch and iPhone. Thought you had been banned for being a twat?
And ModBook was released well before the HP Slate and is much powerful. That doesn't make it more ideal or a better choice than slower tablets.
Plus, there were a lot of tablets being announced at CES trying to get the announcement jump on the inevitable Apple tablet demo. Are any of the tablets from CES going on sale before the iPad. It seems they were less finalized than the iPad, had unknown specs and most had no price points, likely waiting to see what Apple had to offer before committing to anything.
HP, Asus, Samsung,fujitsu and many others have been making tablets for years. I know you dont like them but that doesnt take away the fact they have been on the market fo rmany years.
Never said it made it more ideal simply pointing out the the member that Tablets weren't exactly an Apple idea.
Of course it has, they call it the iPod touch and iPhone. Thought you had been banned for being a twat?
It's really funny (read: pathetic) that he'll say that it's just a larger iPod Touch and then say it hasn't been tested without seeing the hypocrisy.
It's not about power. It's about the User Experience.
You still don't seem to understand one of the keys to Apple's success. It's the same formula behind OS X, the iPod Touch, iPhone, etc. It's a main priority for Apple.
I'm sure Standard Slate from Generic Box Assembler will be quite powerful. And how about the OS? The UI? The touch implementation? The entire ecosystem? Why care about power when it's awful to use?
You can probably (by different means) manage to do most things on a generic slate that you can on an iPad. But *why* would people choose to do it on an iPad instead? Think about it.
ALL THAT MATTERS is that the iPad be able to easily run the apps that Apple and developers design for it and be able to run content at decent speeds. That's it.
And for some the better user experience could be having a full OS. Its all based on need which in most cases it appears yours is always very basic.
A fool and their lame opinion are unfortunately mated for life - XTREME!!!!!
Don't be so hard on yourself your opinion may be lame but you can still have one.