Oh, you are funny today. What exactly is this, "third party software needed that an Full OS can run"? Oh, stuff that developers wrote? Gee, maybe they can write stuff for the iPad too?
Please carry a half gallon of water around for a day (4lbs) and then come back and tell us about your gym membership.
Can I drink it first? I'm still carrying it around with me
Well, quoting the "Admittedly ..." remark while pretending that I didn't say anything else is a bit disingenuous, as is repeating the bit about a data plan without admitting that it's a monthly plan that you can sign up for and cancel as needed. So, no, it's not exactly your point, it's in exact contradiction to your point.
Your analysis and logic in the second paragraph are flawed. All you can conclude from that is that without 3G that's what most consumers are willing to pay. It doesn't say anything about how much they are willing to pay with 3G.
There wasn't anything "disingenuous" about my comments and I read your entire post just decided not to comment on the entire post. I simply stated an opinion regarding the release of the 3G model and you stated your opinion. I didn't say you were wrong we simply see it differently.
If you feel my logic is flawed I can honestly say I will not lose any sleep. Nor should you.
Education and medical are two potentially huge markets for the iPad, but in the latter case, someone needs to come up with a killer app that isn't available for any other platform.
Already under development, rumor is that it will be called iKevorkian.
Whenever I look at your posts, I regret it. A gym membership? What kind of comment is that?
I've discussed your other "point" above. To reiterate, a "full OS" (whatever that is) is not the issue. The OS needed is the one that runs the apps that do the job. Nothing more.
Comment was simply a joke. Something many here have trouble understanding.
As far as the iPad being a benefit to the education market. My wife is an AP with her doctorate in Curriculum and Instructional Leadership. Macbooks are oftened used in her school but she sees no value for the iPad in education because it simply does not have the ability to run the programs needed. Also they are switching over to Windows notebook because they are the only county not using MS office and it is creating a continued problem.
The fact is the Apps Store does not have the Apps to do the job in business.
There wasn't anything "disingenuous" about my comments.
Really, then how to do explain this comment?
Quote:
Adding an additional 130.00 in hardware costs plus and[sic] additional 360.00 a year for service
Here's a real world example for you. Bought an iPad 3G. It will be used for travel, maybe 3x a year. Based on computing needs it will only need the 250MB for $15 package. That is $45 not $360 which you claim will added per year for service. Do we need to discuss what contract free mean?
Because like all State governments they want to spend as little money as possible. Not only is the hardware more expensive for the school but they can get deals from MS on site licensing.
Also in our state (Georgia) the use of interactive white boards is extremely popular. If the iPad can not link to these interactive white boards then the education system here has no interest in them seeing they paid 8,000 per classroom to have them installed.
I do not think anybody has considered the demand from educational market - worldwide. In my line of work, when I went to university, I had to carry 10 lbs of books, starting with Gross Anatomy Text, Atlas, Histology Text + Atlas, etc, notes.
I'm anxious to see this open up as well. An app that allows for excellent markup, notes, bookmarking and search, for starters.
Apple has a camera in the iPhone. What expert did Apple use for that but couldn't use for the iPad? Did Apple fire him?
I didn't know putting in a camera entailed more then creating a place for it to reside (was there not an article showing the iPad internal guts and the place where a camera could reside) and purchasing from the camera manufacturer (wouldn't they use the camera being bought for this years iPhone or purchase from the camera manufacturer Apple intends to use next year) and doing whatever software work that needs to be done to bring the camera to life (like the software and apps they currently have in the iPhone OS for the iPhone)...
I know there is someone smarter than I out there in AppleInsider land... What am I leaving out? Why is Apple seeking to hire a camera expert for the iPad when they had some initial training from their iPhone camera efforts and experience?
Simple. Software controls the camera, so they are looking for someone that is an expert in that field so they can produce a good software app to control the camera. Currently the iPhone camera software is extremely basic. Perhaps they didn't have any type of expert when they wrote the iPhone camera app.
Here's a real world example for you. Bought an iPad 3G. It will be used for travel, maybe 3x a year. Based on computing needs it will only need the 250MB for $15 package. That is $45 not $360 which you claim will added per year for service. Do we need to discuss what contract free mean?
That isn't a real world example. Give me some stats on users that turn on and off their data plans. IF someone only needs to turn on their data a few times a year then clearly they will not feel the needs to buy an iPad with 3G because the need just isn't there.
. Last year, Apple planned to introduce a camera upgrade to its iPod touch line, but alleged technical issues led to the feature being scrapped.
The general attitude around here has been "We don't want a forward facing camera. It would show a view up the nose of the person using an Ipad."
And WRT the quoted line form the article, Steve addressed the situation already:
?Originally, we weren?t exactly sure how to market the Touch. Was it an iPhone without the phone? Was it a pocket computer? What happened was, what customers told us was, they started to see it as a game machine,? he said. ?We started to market it that way, and it just took off. And now what we really see is it?s the lowest-cost way to the App Store, and that?s the big draw. So what we were focused on is just reducing the price to $199. We don?t need to add new stuff. We need to get the price down where everyone can afford it.?
They were trying to hit a price point. So they left out the camera.
Right, the GPS is another good reason to go for the 3G.
Since it's a wifi device, and I use my iPhone for truly mobile reference, I haven't used the iPad outside of couch and office settings. The WiFi location based GPS works spooky well.
I'm not a fan of the camera on my laptop, so I'm not going to miss it. I'm getting some bluetooth headphones this week which also have a mic. If it works with skype - that's the only 2-way communication I'd consider for the iPad. To get a decent image of me for video conferencing, I'd have to hold the pad out at arms length level - that's an ergonomic ouch.
Otherwise, it's going to be nose-hair cam - or worse, if anyone's seen "cave dwellers" on MST3K - "Ator-cam" (I'm HUGE).
...Also in our state (Georgia) the use of interactive white boards is extremely popular. If the iPad can not link to these interactive white boards then the education system here has no interest in them seeing they paid 8,000 per classroom to have them installed.
I totally hear you on that. We've got a bunch of the SmartBoards here too and I don't think they'd be happy if we rendered them inoperable with incompatible hardware. That's not to say that Smart technologies couldn't come up with an app for the iPad that would allow the SmartBoard's touch surface to interact with it.
I'm not sure the 3G model is going to provide any major boost in sales. Without a doubt the biggest seller is the base model at 499.00. At this point we do not know if thats the case because thats all an user feels they need or if thats the max they feel this product is worth.
Adding an additional 130.00 in hardware costs plus and additional 360.00 a year for service, not sure thats going to generate a large number of 3G sales. Seeing most already are paying for a data plan on their smartphone.
This would mean just for the base model with tax you wouldn't get out of the store for less then 670.00 plus the added yearly data costs.
How in blazes do you figure $360.00 per year in service (assuming you simply multiplied 30USD x 12months??), for some yes, they could run constantly on 3G, but there is no well-defined datapoint that would allow you to make that assertion. The Average User (TAU) based on current reports of iPhone usage (ignoring for the moment the iPod Touch population entirely), "uses" 3G constantly because they are under contract for it, and the iPhone will only hop onto WiFi when it is available (or allowed). To use that paradigm or usage pattern as anything close to "on-demand" for the iPad has no basis in actual statistics now does it.
So make this a FAIL prediction/prognostication until you can come up with a reasonably defensible scenario, not this tripe.
Besides education, hospitals, and industry all could use the device. Instant access to EKGs, X-rays, lab results and even real time telemetry, medical records, etc. Health care is 17% of GDP... or at least, it was.
They already have powerful Windows laptops bolted to dedicated wheeled carts (like all the other equipment) for that. And lots of the diagnostic equipment is running Windows Embedded.
It would be a huge project to integrate iPads into that environment. And they would need to be bolted down.
I don't see that happening in large numbers anytime soon.
That isn't a real world example. Give me some stats on users that turn on and off their data plans. IF someone only needs to turn on their data a few times a year then clearly they will not feel the needs to buy an iPad with 3G because the need just isn't there.
Thats real world.
I have AAA year round, yet I only use it a few times a year, at most. That's the real world.
People know they'll be peripatetic a few times a year and would like to have internet during those few weeks. That is the real world.
Saying, "unless I plan on using 3G all-day-every-day, consuming more than 250MB a month in the process, is the only viable reason to consider buying an iPad 3G" is NOT the real world.
I know there is someone smarter than I out there in AppleInsider land... What am I leaving out? Why is Apple seeking to hire a camera expert for the iPad when they had some initial training from their iPhone camera efforts and experience?
All I can think of is that they want to incorporate motion-cancelling tech into an iPad camera. Given that it is handheld device, for video that would be a welcome improvement.
That's exactly what I'm planning on doing. I won't have a recurring data charge. I'll buy when needed. That and the fact the GPS seems like another compelling feature.
I think you are typical. I think that they left the GPS out of the base model on purpose, figuring that lots of people would buy the upgrade to get GPS, even if they care less about 3G.
Comments
Oh, you are funny today. What exactly is this, "third party software needed that an Full OS can run"? Oh, stuff that developers wrote? Gee, maybe they can write stuff for the iPad too?
Please carry a half gallon of water around for a day (4lbs) and then come back and tell us about your gym membership.
Can I drink it first? I'm still carrying it around with me
Well, quoting the "Admittedly ..." remark while pretending that I didn't say anything else is a bit disingenuous, as is repeating the bit about a data plan without admitting that it's a monthly plan that you can sign up for and cancel as needed. So, no, it's not exactly your point, it's in exact contradiction to your point.
Your analysis and logic in the second paragraph are flawed. All you can conclude from that is that without 3G that's what most consumers are willing to pay. It doesn't say anything about how much they are willing to pay with 3G.
There wasn't anything "disingenuous" about my comments and I read your entire post just decided not to comment on the entire post. I simply stated an opinion regarding the release of the 3G model and you stated your opinion. I didn't say you were wrong we simply see it differently.
If you feel my logic is flawed I can honestly say I will not lose any sleep. Nor should you.
Education and medical are two potentially huge markets for the iPad, but in the latter case, someone needs to come up with a killer app that isn't available for any other platform.
Already under development, rumor is that it will be called iKevorkian.
Whenever I look at your posts, I regret it. A gym membership? What kind of comment is that?
I've discussed your other "point" above. To reiterate, a "full OS" (whatever that is) is not the issue. The OS needed is the one that runs the apps that do the job. Nothing more.
Comment was simply a joke. Something many here have trouble understanding.
As far as the iPad being a benefit to the education market. My wife is an AP with her doctorate in Curriculum and Instructional Leadership. Macbooks are oftened used in her school but she sees no value for the iPad in education because it simply does not have the ability to run the programs needed. Also they are switching over to Windows notebook because they are the only county not using MS office and it is creating a continued problem.
The fact is the Apps Store does not have the Apps to do the job in business.
...Also they are switching over to Windows notebook because they are the only county not using MS office and it is creating a continued problem.
Why aren't they using Office for Mac?
There wasn't anything "disingenuous" about my comments.
Really, then how to do explain this comment?
Adding an additional 130.00 in hardware costs plus and[sic] additional 360.00 a year for service
Here's a real world example for you. Bought an iPad 3G. It will be used for travel, maybe 3x a year. Based on computing needs it will only need the 250MB for $15 package. That is $45 not $360 which you claim will added per year for service. Do we need to discuss what contract free mean?
Already under development, rumor is that it will be called iKevorkian.
Damn, I wish I'd thought of that.
Why aren't they using Office for Mac?
Because like all State governments they want to spend as little money as possible. Not only is the hardware more expensive for the school but they can get deals from MS on site licensing.
Also in our state (Georgia) the use of interactive white boards is extremely popular. If the iPad can not link to these interactive white boards then the education system here has no interest in them seeing they paid 8,000 per classroom to have them installed.
I do not think anybody has considered the demand from educational market - worldwide. In my line of work, when I went to university, I had to carry 10 lbs of books, starting with Gross Anatomy Text, Atlas, Histology Text + Atlas, etc, notes.
I'm anxious to see this open up as well. An app that allows for excellent markup, notes, bookmarking and search, for starters.
Apple has a camera in the iPhone. What expert did Apple use for that but couldn't use for the iPad? Did Apple fire him?
I didn't know putting in a camera entailed more then creating a place for it to reside (was there not an article showing the iPad internal guts and the place where a camera could reside) and purchasing from the camera manufacturer (wouldn't they use the camera being bought for this years iPhone or purchase from the camera manufacturer Apple intends to use next year) and doing whatever software work that needs to be done to bring the camera to life (like the software and apps they currently have in the iPhone OS for the iPhone)...
I know there is someone smarter than I out there in AppleInsider land... What am I leaving out? Why is Apple seeking to hire a camera expert for the iPad when they had some initial training from their iPhone camera efforts and experience?
Simple. Software controls the camera, so they are looking for someone that is an expert in that field so they can produce a good software app to control the camera. Currently the iPhone camera software is extremely basic. Perhaps they didn't have any type of expert when they wrote the iPhone camera app.
Really, then how to do explain this comment?
Here's a real world example for you. Bought an iPad 3G. It will be used for travel, maybe 3x a year. Based on computing needs it will only need the 250MB for $15 package. That is $45 not $360 which you claim will added per year for service. Do we need to discuss what contract free mean?
That isn't a real world example. Give me some stats on users that turn on and off their data plans. IF someone only needs to turn on their data a few times a year then clearly they will not feel the needs to buy an iPad with 3G because the need just isn't there.
Thats real world.
. Last year, Apple planned to introduce a camera upgrade to its iPod touch line, but alleged technical issues led to the feature being scrapped.
The general attitude around here has been "We don't want a forward facing camera. It would show a view up the nose of the person using an Ipad."
And WRT the quoted line form the article, Steve addressed the situation already:
?Originally, we weren?t exactly sure how to market the Touch. Was it an iPhone without the phone? Was it a pocket computer? What happened was, what customers told us was, they started to see it as a game machine,? he said. ?We started to market it that way, and it just took off. And now what we really see is it?s the lowest-cost way to the App Store, and that?s the big draw. So what we were focused on is just reducing the price to $199. We don?t need to add new stuff. We need to get the price down where everyone can afford it.?
They were trying to hit a price point. So they left out the camera.
The iPad is also designed to fit price points.
Right, the GPS is another good reason to go for the 3G.
Since it's a wifi device, and I use my iPhone for truly mobile reference, I haven't used the iPad outside of couch and office settings. The WiFi location based GPS works spooky well.
I'm not a fan of the camera on my laptop, so I'm not going to miss it. I'm getting some bluetooth headphones this week which also have a mic. If it works with skype - that's the only 2-way communication I'd consider for the iPad. To get a decent image of me for video conferencing, I'd have to hold the pad out at arms length level - that's an ergonomic ouch.
Otherwise, it's going to be nose-hair cam - or worse, if anyone's seen "cave dwellers" on MST3K - "Ator-cam" (I'm HUGE).
...Also in our state (Georgia) the use of interactive white boards is extremely popular. If the iPad can not link to these interactive white boards then the education system here has no interest in them seeing they paid 8,000 per classroom to have them installed.
I totally hear you on that. We've got a bunch of the SmartBoards here too and I don't think they'd be happy if we rendered them inoperable with incompatible hardware. That's not to say that Smart technologies couldn't come up with an app for the iPad that would allow the SmartBoard's touch surface to interact with it.
I'm not sure the 3G model is going to provide any major boost in sales. Without a doubt the biggest seller is the base model at 499.00. At this point we do not know if thats the case because thats all an user feels they need or if thats the max they feel this product is worth.
Adding an additional 130.00 in hardware costs plus and additional 360.00 a year for service, not sure thats going to generate a large number of 3G sales. Seeing most already are paying for a data plan on their smartphone.
This would mean just for the base model with tax you wouldn't get out of the store for less then 670.00 plus the added yearly data costs.
How in blazes do you figure $360.00 per year in service (assuming you simply multiplied 30USD x 12months??), for some yes, they could run constantly on 3G, but there is no well-defined datapoint that would allow you to make that assertion. The Average User (TAU) based on current reports of iPhone usage (ignoring for the moment the iPod Touch population entirely), "uses" 3G constantly because they are under contract for it, and the iPhone will only hop onto WiFi when it is available (or allowed). To use that paradigm or usage pattern as anything close to "on-demand" for the iPad has no basis in actual statistics now does it.
So make this a FAIL prediction/prognostication until you can come up with a reasonably defensible scenario, not this tripe.
Besides education, hospitals, and industry all could use the device. Instant access to EKGs, X-rays, lab results and even real time telemetry, medical records, etc. Health care is 17% of GDP... or at least, it was.
They already have powerful Windows laptops bolted to dedicated wheeled carts (like all the other equipment) for that. And lots of the diagnostic equipment is running Windows Embedded.
It would be a huge project to integrate iPads into that environment. And they would need to be bolted down.
I don't see that happening in large numbers anytime soon.
That isn't a real world example. Give me some stats on users that turn on and off their data plans. IF someone only needs to turn on their data a few times a year then clearly they will not feel the needs to buy an iPad with 3G because the need just isn't there.
Thats real world.
I have AAA year round, yet I only use it a few times a year, at most. That's the real world.
People know they'll be peripatetic a few times a year and would like to have internet during those few weeks. That is the real world.
Saying, "unless I plan on using 3G all-day-every-day, consuming more than 250MB a month in the process, is the only viable reason to consider buying an iPad 3G" is NOT the real world.
I know there is someone smarter than I out there in AppleInsider land... What am I leaving out? Why is Apple seeking to hire a camera expert for the iPad when they had some initial training from their iPhone camera efforts and experience?
All I can think of is that they want to incorporate motion-cancelling tech into an iPad camera. Given that it is handheld device, for video that would be a welcome improvement.
That's exactly what I'm planning on doing. I won't have a recurring data charge. I'll buy when needed. That and the fact the GPS seems like another compelling feature.
I think you are typical. I think that they left the GPS out of the base model on purpose, figuring that lots of people would buy the upgrade to get GPS, even if they care less about 3G.
"Admittedly, there's little reason to get the 3G if you never take advantage of it"
GPS is a very good reason to get the 3G, even if you seldom plan to use 3G.