Because you're judging everyone else by YOUR needs. There are a lot of people out there who use phones and never upgrade the OS. The iPad is the same idea. They'll activate it for you at the Apple Store if you wish and then you can use it without ever connecting it to a computer.
You must be confusing me with someone else. I'm the one who is questioning the dependency argument, not making it.
I've got the standard 3G iPhone. Just came back from a trip to DC, when my real digital camera battery died, i ended up pulling out my iPhone to continue my barrage of photo snapping. Granted the camera on the 3G is not as Hi-Res as my 7Mpx Nikon 7800, but i did find in low-lighting situations (like in Museums) it did as good of a job or even better than my Nikon (just wish the iPhone had image stabilization). Granted i haven't figured out all the lighting options of the complex shooting modes of the Nikon, but in a pinch the iPhone worked very well.
Exactly. I'd love that camera in the iPod Touch, it's just not feasible at this time to include it while retaining the thinness.
I have had my iPad for over a month now and it does NOT replace a notebook computer. There are so many things that it can't do, or does poorly, that it is not a substitute for a computer by any stretch of the imagination. It does a few things well, but taking over the role of a computer is not one of them.
Katy "the worst Apple analyst" Huberty just doesn't get it again. You have to have a computer to use an iPad.
My guess: it may cannibalize a small fraction of iPod Touch sales, where Touch customers find they can do more with an iPad, but it will rebalance the desktop/notebook market towards the desktop. The iPad buyer gets great portability and may be equally happy with a desktop (which is more price efficient per feature) as their other machine.
Actually, you need a computer to activate the iPad. They will do that for you in the Apple store. The only thing you would have to have a computer for after that would be to update the firmware/OS or backup.
Of course, given the fact that most people are going to want to use WiFi while at home, it's hard to imagine too many people not having a computer at home.
I don't totally buy these numbers. The only way I can see an iPad replacing a notebook. Is if you have a desktop that's your primary machine and use the iPad as your portable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
That is exactly what I think many people will do. I plan on doing it. I much prefer to wok on a desktop when a t home, but I needed the portability of a portable so I went with a Mac Book Pro. I can do all the things I usually do when traveling with the iPad: namely emailing, web surfing, taking notes, etc. So why would I buy a more expensive laptop when I can get a fuller features iMac and iPad for about the same price?
I know a few people that have proposed that very thing.
I've been pleased with my iPad purchase so far. Watching videos on the iPad is great, playing games is great, reading comics is great, playing with touchscreen piano apps and in general "messing around" is really fun. As a result my desktop and laptop get a LOT less use.
Casual web surfing aka "couch surfing" is fine on the iPad. However, the second that Flash is needed or I need to do research that requires a lot of typing, I switch to a laptop or a desktop. The statement that the iPad is the best web browsing experience is exaggerated. It isn't, because of the limitations.
The iPad does not lend itself to proper neck and back posture, and this is another limitation to serious usage. If I was in fact doing serious long-term work, I'd use my more ergonomically friendly desktop. I think however a more powerful argument in the iPad vs Laptop debate is that the laptop has replaced the desktop. Just plug in a couple of cables and you are good to go.
Since buying my iPad, use of my iPhone and iMac has dropped off dramatically and I now use iPad 90% of the time. The iPhone is just a phone to me now and I haven't used an app or the data network since getting the iPad. My iMac gets turned on to sync my iDevices and occasionally surf the web but that's it. If it was possible to use iPad as my main/only computer, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
Give it 6 months and your patterns will spread out to all your devices after you find the best uses for them.
I think you see my point. You cannot initialize, update, or even store added files beyond the physical storage of the device without a computer. I agree that the iPad is 95% self-sustaining, but without the interface of a computer, you have to look for alternate devices, like a netbook. And this should (IMO) be addressed by Apple to open the market up even further. Why build a device as powerful as this and call it Niche, seems short sighted.
An accessible file structure should be implemented as well at the ability to initialize the iPad without a computer is (IMO) the next step to opening this device to people who don't need a full fuction computer/laptop. That's all i was arguing that Apple should address. I think this may be in the works; if you remember back last year AI posted that Apple is begining to look into an iTunes Cloud interface. That could solve the problem.
My idea of just including (or offering) a docking station specific to devices like the iPad or even iPhone could also be a solution; since neither device has a large enough drive space for large collections of movies, photos, iWork files and music to sync without some kind of sync storage. Perhaps if the Accessory keyboard had some storage space integrated and that could be plugged into the Time Capsule or connected directly to a modem/router, that could also be a solution.
And, since some people are tired of my arguement (see posts above) i will drop it here.
This is the same restriction more or less that you will have on any other type of computer. It's restricted to the storage capacity it's got unless it's connected to something else. The objection seems to be in actuality the lack of a conventional file system. This is a difference, which you are free to dislike, but it's not a dependency. If 64 GB isn't enough storage for your needs, I suppose you won't be buying an iPad, but my sense is that 16 GB is in fact enough for most people, for the uses they are likely to have for the iPad. (FWIW, the photo adaptor kit also serves as access to external storage on SD cards for some purposes.)
All this being said, I don't think at this point that Apple conceives of many iPad owners not owning any other computer, as witnessed by the fact that one is used to initialize it. The point I am making is that calling it a dependent device is an exaggeration of the actual situation. Beyond this exception, the iPad is no more dependent than a conventional PC.
I have had my iPad for over a month now and it does NOT replace a notebook computer. There are so many things that it can't do, or does poorly, that it is not a substitute for a computer by any stretch of the imagination. It does a few things well, but taking over the role of a computer is not one of them.
It's replaced mine. But I'm just an average user. Wait a minute SO IS THE VAST MAJORITY.
amazing how sadly mistaken you are, what limitations are you talking about on a PC, not making dinner for you, were refering to computing limitations, as far as computers go the iPad is very limited.
You want to believe that 16gb is enought, who is it enough for? Not me, you want to believe in the Apple hype then go right ahead, spend your money on pretty much useless and or limited devices and if they make you happy, great! But please don't go around saying stuff like the iPad is limited no more than any other computer, that 16gb is enough for most people, and other misleading opinions.
"To me it's a no-brainer: iPad, netbook, it's sort of 100 to zero," Cook said. "I can't think of a single thing the netbook does well,
Now that is just propaganda. The good ones do pretty much any "single thing" plenty well, including playing flash videos. They can even do several things at once.
The LAST thing Apple will allow is the touch to die on the vine. A pocket-sized music player that also runs Apps is one thing only - the touch. Look for it to gain features that differentiate it from the iPad.
The Touch gives Apple access to a whole different demographic of customers who can use it access the iTunes and the App Stores. I would expect it to be a category in its own right for a long time.
amazing how sadly mistaken you are, what limitations are you talking about on a PC, not making dinner for you, were refering to computing limitations, as far as computers go the iPad is very limited.
You want to believe that 16gb is enought, who is it enough for? Not me, you want to believe in the Apple hype then go right ahead, spend your money on pretty much useless and or limited devices and if they make you happy, great! But please don't go around saying stuff like the iPad is limited no more than any other computer, that 16gb is enough for most people, and other misleading opinions.
The point I am making is that calling it a dependent device is an exaggeration of the actual situation. Beyond this exception, the iPad is no more dependent than a conventional PC.
...and your 'point' is actually the true exaggeration here.
My iPads (yes I own the 64gb version of both the Wifi and the 3g), are peripherals in the same manner as any other media player/iPod/ZUNE HD/et al, and are in no way capable of the functionality of computers running full-featured/desktop operating systems.
To argue that "the iPad is no more dependent than a conventional PC", is to do nothing more than show just how little you really know about PCs.
I see the iPad also boosting desktop sales in that if the iPad does the trick re portability, why not invest in a good desktop, as opposed to spending at least as much if not more on a notebook.
A desktop for heavy lifting and an iPad for lighter duties away from the desk, seems like a very rational arrangement. I have a desktop set-up consisting of a Mac Mini and a Cinema Display. Soon I intend to invest in an iPad. Because I have tons of storage on my desktop (1T harddrive plus the Mini), I can get the base iPad and not worry about only having 16GB to work with. I don't think most consumers will be able to get everything they want out of a 16GB device with limited horsepower. The point isn't for them to.
What will happen, though, is that fewer folks will opt for a notebook over a desktop system with more bang for the buck. Right now some folks, thinking only of not spending money, are deluding themselves that the IPad will be a complete solution. It's not nor is it intended to be. And as for hurting iPod sales, folks will still want a pocketable device for many uses, which the iPad isn't. Good luck jogging with the iPad along for the ride.
...and your 'point' is actually the true exaggeration here.
My iPads (yes I own the 64gb version of both the Wifi and the 3g), are peripherals in the same manner as any other media player/iPod/ZUNE HD/et al, and are in no way capable of the functionality of computers running full-featured/desktop operating systems.
To argue that "the iPad is no more dependent than a conventional PC", is to do nothing more than show just how little you really know about PCs.
Childish Intimidation, Harassment, & Bullying Is Futile - Remember: Your View-Point Is Not The Only Perspective.
Childish Intimidation, Harassment, & Bullying Is Futile - Remember: Your View-Point Is Not The Only Perspective.
So is selective and out of context quotation for the purpose of "winning" an argument. If you hadn't quoted back this particular troll I suppose I would not have known that he was up to his usual tricks. Thanks.
Comments
Because you're judging everyone else by YOUR needs. There are a lot of people out there who use phones and never upgrade the OS. The iPad is the same idea. They'll activate it for you at the Apple Store if you wish and then you can use it without ever connecting it to a computer.
You must be confusing me with someone else. I'm the one who is questioning the dependency argument, not making it.
I've got the standard 3G iPhone. Just came back from a trip to DC, when my real digital camera battery died, i ended up pulling out my iPhone to continue my barrage of photo snapping. Granted the camera on the 3G is not as Hi-Res as my 7Mpx Nikon 7800, but i did find in low-lighting situations (like in Museums) it did as good of a job or even better than my Nikon (just wish the iPhone had image stabilization). Granted i haven't figured out all the lighting options of the complex shooting modes of the Nikon, but in a pinch the iPhone worked very well.
Exactly. I'd love that camera in the iPod Touch, it's just not feasible at this time to include it while retaining the thinness.
I have had my iPad for over a month now and it does NOT replace a notebook computer. There are so many things that it can't do, or does poorly, that it is not a substitute for a computer by any stretch of the imagination. It does a few things well, but taking over the role of a computer is not one of them.
Katy "the worst Apple analyst" Huberty just doesn't get it again. You have to have a computer to use an iPad.
My guess: it may cannibalize a small fraction of iPod Touch sales, where Touch customers find they can do more with an iPad, but it will rebalance the desktop/notebook market towards the desktop. The iPad buyer gets great portability and may be equally happy with a desktop (which is more price efficient per feature) as their other machine.
Actually, you need a computer to activate the iPad. They will do that for you in the Apple store. The only thing you would have to have a computer for after that would be to update the firmware/OS or backup.
Of course, given the fact that most people are going to want to use WiFi while at home, it's hard to imagine too many people not having a computer at home.
I don't totally buy these numbers. The only way I can see an iPad replacing a notebook. Is if you have a desktop that's your primary machine and use the iPad as your portable.
That is exactly what I think many people will do. I plan on doing it. I much prefer to wok on a desktop when a t home, but I needed the portability of a portable so I went with a Mac Book Pro. I can do all the things I usually do when traveling with the iPad: namely emailing, web surfing, taking notes, etc. So why would I buy a more expensive laptop when I can get a fuller features iMac and iPad for about the same price?
I know a few people that have proposed that very thing.
I've been pleased with my iPad purchase so far. Watching videos on the iPad is great, playing games is great, reading comics is great, playing with touchscreen piano apps and in general "messing around" is really fun. As a result my desktop and laptop get a LOT less use.
Casual web surfing aka "couch surfing" is fine on the iPad. However, the second that Flash is needed or I need to do research that requires a lot of typing, I switch to a laptop or a desktop. The statement that the iPad is the best web browsing experience is exaggerated. It isn't, because of the limitations.
The iPad does not lend itself to proper neck and back posture, and this is another limitation to serious usage. If I was in fact doing serious long-term work, I'd use my more ergonomically friendly desktop. I think however a more powerful argument in the iPad vs Laptop debate is that the laptop has replaced the desktop. Just plug in a couple of cables and you are good to go.
To me the iPad is an extremely expensive device for what it does and for what it is.
To me the ipad is very well priced. I'm getting a lot of bang for my buck.
Since buying my iPad, use of my iPhone and iMac has dropped off dramatically and I now use iPad 90% of the time. The iPhone is just a phone to me now and I haven't used an app or the data network since getting the iPad. My iMac gets turned on to sync my iDevices and occasionally surf the web but that's it. If it was possible to use iPad as my main/only computer, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
Give it 6 months and your patterns will spread out to all your devices after you find the best uses for them.
I think you see my point. You cannot initialize, update, or even store added files beyond the physical storage of the device without a computer. I agree that the iPad is 95% self-sustaining, but without the interface of a computer, you have to look for alternate devices, like a netbook. And this should (IMO) be addressed by Apple to open the market up even further. Why build a device as powerful as this and call it Niche, seems short sighted.
An accessible file structure should be implemented as well at the ability to initialize the iPad without a computer is (IMO) the next step to opening this device to people who don't need a full fuction computer/laptop. That's all i was arguing that Apple should address. I think this may be in the works; if you remember back last year AI posted that Apple is begining to look into an iTunes Cloud interface. That could solve the problem.
My idea of just including (or offering) a docking station specific to devices like the iPad or even iPhone could also be a solution; since neither device has a large enough drive space for large collections of movies, photos, iWork files and music to sync without some kind of sync storage. Perhaps if the Accessory keyboard had some storage space integrated and that could be plugged into the Time Capsule or connected directly to a modem/router, that could also be a solution.
And, since some people are tired of my arguement (see posts above) i will drop it here.
This is the same restriction more or less that you will have on any other type of computer. It's restricted to the storage capacity it's got unless it's connected to something else. The objection seems to be in actuality the lack of a conventional file system. This is a difference, which you are free to dislike, but it's not a dependency. If 64 GB isn't enough storage for your needs, I suppose you won't be buying an iPad, but my sense is that 16 GB is in fact enough for most people, for the uses they are likely to have for the iPad. (FWIW, the photo adaptor kit also serves as access to external storage on SD cards for some purposes.)
All this being said, I don't think at this point that Apple conceives of many iPad owners not owning any other computer, as witnessed by the fact that one is used to initialize it. The point I am making is that calling it a dependent device is an exaggeration of the actual situation. Beyond this exception, the iPad is no more dependent than a conventional PC.
44% of buyers are going to be disappointed.
I have had my iPad for over a month now and it does NOT replace a notebook computer. There are so many things that it can't do, or does poorly, that it is not a substitute for a computer by any stretch of the imagination. It does a few things well, but taking over the role of a computer is not one of them.
It's replaced mine. But I'm just an average user. Wait a minute SO IS THE VAST MAJORITY.
amazing how sadly mistaken you are, what limitations are you talking about on a PC, not making dinner for you, were refering to computing limitations, as far as computers go the iPad is very limited.
You want to believe that 16gb is enought, who is it enough for? Not me, you want to believe in the Apple hype then go right ahead, spend your money on pretty much useless and or limited devices and if they make you happy, great! But please don't go around saying stuff like the iPad is limited no more than any other computer, that 16gb is enough for most people, and other misleading opinions.
"To me it's a no-brainer: iPad, netbook, it's sort of 100 to zero," Cook said. "I can't think of a single thing the netbook does well,
Now that is just propaganda. The good ones do pretty much any "single thing" plenty well, including playing flash videos. They can even do several things at once.
His suggestion is just silly.
The LAST thing Apple will allow is the touch to die on the vine. A pocket-sized music player that also runs Apps is one thing only - the touch. Look for it to gain features that differentiate it from the iPad.
The Touch gives Apple access to a whole different demographic of customers who can use it access the iTunes and the App Stores. I would expect it to be a category in its own right for a long time.
DrMIllmoss:
amazing how sadly mistaken you are, what limitations are you talking about on a PC, not making dinner for you, were refering to computing limitations, as far as computers go the iPad is very limited.
You want to believe that 16gb is enought, who is it enough for? Not me, you want to believe in the Apple hype then go right ahead, spend your money on pretty much useless and or limited devices and if they make you happy, great! But please don't go around saying stuff like the iPad is limited no more than any other computer, that 16gb is enough for most people, and other misleading opinions.
Yeah, I'm just a loser. Good call.
The point I am making is that calling it a dependent device is an exaggeration of the actual situation. Beyond this exception, the iPad is no more dependent than a conventional PC.
...and your 'point' is actually the true exaggeration here.
My iPads (yes I own the 64gb version of both the Wifi and the 3g), are peripherals in the same manner as any other media player/iPod/ZUNE HD/et al, and are in no way capable of the functionality of computers running full-featured/desktop operating systems.
To argue that "the iPad is no more dependent than a conventional PC", is to do nothing more than show just how little you really know about PCs.
A desktop for heavy lifting and an iPad for lighter duties away from the desk, seems like a very rational arrangement. I have a desktop set-up consisting of a Mac Mini and a Cinema Display. Soon I intend to invest in an iPad. Because I have tons of storage on my desktop (1T harddrive plus the Mini), I can get the base iPad and not worry about only having 16GB to work with. I don't think most consumers will be able to get everything they want out of a 16GB device with limited horsepower. The point isn't for them to.
What will happen, though, is that fewer folks will opt for a notebook over a desktop system with more bang for the buck. Right now some folks, thinking only of not spending money, are deluding themselves that the IPad will be a complete solution. It's not nor is it intended to be. And as for hurting iPod sales, folks will still want a pocketable device for many uses, which the iPad isn't. Good luck jogging with the iPad along for the ride.
Katy "the worst Apple analyst" Huberty just doesn't get it again. You have to have a computer to use an iPad.
Actually, you could have it set up at the store, and never deal with another computer agai, if you're willing to forego syncing and firmware updates.
Not viable for most people, no, but for some it would be quite adequate.
...and your 'point' is actually the true exaggeration here.
My iPads (yes I own the 64gb version of both the Wifi and the 3g), are peripherals in the same manner as any other media player/iPod/ZUNE HD/et al, and are in no way capable of the functionality of computers running full-featured/desktop operating systems.
To argue that "the iPad is no more dependent than a conventional PC", is to do nothing more than show just how little you really know about PCs.
Childish Intimidation, Harassment, & Bullying Is Futile - Remember: Your View-Point Is Not The Only Perspective.
Childish Intimidation, Harassment, & Bullying Is Futile - Remember: Your View-Point Is Not The Only Perspective.
So is selective and out of context quotation for the purpose of "winning" an argument. If you hadn't quoted back this particular troll I suppose I would not have known that he was up to his usual tricks. Thanks.