Apple had three problems. The first was it had to rely both on IBM and Motorola to develop the processors (the so called AIM alliance). The second was the Power PC processors worked differently and performed much better at lower specifications then Pentium processors. Intel, Microsoft, and the hardware manufacturers used this to their advantage by focusing on specifications. Those companies knew consumers generally don't understand technology and focus on the specification number. If something has a higher number, it must be better. That simply wasn't true when comparing RISC (AIM based) versus CISC (intel based) architecture.
The G3 grew a little long in the tooth at the end of its life before the G4s came out. The G4 and G5 processors were monsters. When the G4s first came out, they blew Pentiums with similar specfications away. I remember the Apple tank commercial. That wasn't advertising, but facts. The G4 temporarily jumped way ahead of Intel. Problem was Apple relied on Motorola to update the G4. Motorola was pissed off Apple revoked its license to sell Mac clones when Jobs came back, and Apple's sales were dropping. Motorola didn't' want to spend big bucks updating the architecture. Jobs to this day seems to bad mouth Motorola.
Apple had to turn to IBM to save the day. There was a lag before IBM was able to bring forth the G5 chip, again a great chip. I had a friend who makes his living doing video work. He had the last model G5 Tower Apple sold (still does), and the first generation Core Duo Tower Apple sold. He had both running OSX. The G5 tower often significantly bested the Core Duo tower in some functionality such as video encoding.
The third problem Apple had was the Power PC chips cost Apple more the Intel chips cost Apple's competitors. Intel had far more volume then IBM so the cost was way lower for Apple's competitors to buy the chips ultimately pushing the cost of Apple's products up. Moreover, Intel made a few questionable strategy decision for the Pentium. Consequently, AMD started kicking Intel's butt with its Opteron line of processors. Intel was having to pay manufacturers in the form of large secret kickbacks to not switch to AMD's offerings. That further reduced the cost of Intel chips in comparison to IBM's chips. I can't remember the exact number, but something like a quarter of Dell's profit was from Intel kickbacks.
When Apple decided to jump ship was when Intel came out with the Core Duo roadmap. Apple decided it was too much of a headache trying to compete with Intel on hardware specification numbers, and the Core Duo represented a significant step in the right direction by Intel.
Ironically enough Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo turned to IBM to develop game chips on Power PC technology. It seems to be working for them. Apple, however, doesn't want to fight the specification game again because numbers do not always tell the whole story. Performance is what matters. Consumers understand things like twice as fast or nine times as fast.
That is all true, but there were other factors, as well:
- Energy consumption. IBM never released a G5 chip that could reasonably be used in a portable. That time frame was when portables were getting to be powerful enough that many people used them as their primary computer, so this failure was important.
- MHz myth. Back then, AIM wasn't able to come close to Intel in terms of clock speed. The performance of the AIM chips was more than adequate, but then, as now (read this thread, for example), there were plenty of idiots who couldn't understand anything but simple specs that could be boiled down to a single number.
Note that I"m disagreeing with your last paragraph. While I agree with you that on CONSUMER devices (like xBox, Wii, iPad, etc), specs aren't that important and consumers care most about the results, we're talking about computers when discussing Apple's PPC-Intel transition. At the time (and to a lesser degree, even today), MHz was everything - and it was one of the main selling features for computers.
- Chipsets. Apple had to design its own chipsets whereas they can now use standard chipsets. Not only does that save money, but it allows them to incorporate new features more easily.
Apple should focus attention away from hardware, especially since they released an iPad 2 that was little more than a speed bump with a substandard camera and no retina display.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennywse
To shut people like you up.
Seriously, though, Apple added the camera's for one main purpose and it wasn't to shoot pictures while snowboarding in the Alps. Adding camera's was done primarily for Facetime chats ... mainly for front video chat, but adding the second camera so users can show their video guests what they are looking at.
Agree.
One thing that many are not considering is the added file size and bandwidths that a larger format utilize.
True the iPad's Wi-Fi feature tends to make everyone feel safe. But video conference via 3G would be expensive. In addition most countries are now putting caps on bandwidth.
My service was offering 60Gbs/month @ 10Mbs/sec download and I have had to go up to 80Gbs @30Mbs/sec since we add a couple of iPads and Netflix to go with our 5 Mac and 3 iPhones at home.
Another really big problem was that IBM could not come up with a G5 model that would keep down the power-consumption/heat for the laptops. To my mind, that was the PPC killer.
In the end, it was one of the best things Apple ever did, since it gave them easy co-habitation with Windows (boot-camp, virtualization) for the skeptical switchers.
BTW - there is one thing that Apple never gets credit for. They have pulled off something that is unparalleled in computer history. They have totally reinvented their OS not once - but three times - and in each case virtually without a hitch. To whit:
1- Moto 68xxx -> PPC
2- Mac OS -> OSX
3- PPC -> Intel
Because they all went off virtually flawlessly, no one gives them credit for what is an absolutely extraordinary task. In fact, this is one of the reasons for their success - their willingness and ability to reinvent if the situation calls for it.
(imho)
Four if you count the OS X 32 bit to OS X 64 bit transition - which was almost 100% transparent to users, unlike Windows, for example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmmx
You are right!
I have an M.S. in Computer Science, worked over 12 years in various aspects of programming from TCP/IP clients to databases. Have contracted in Unix, Windows, Macs. I have done a cold installation of Unix on a DEC Alpha sever when I had to (yeach!) At home I use my computer for research, writing, photography and occasionally video editing - working on average 14 hours per day.
My point:
I want an OS that GETS OUT OF THE F*@#KIN' WAY!
I don't have time to mess with it. I want it to work for me, not me work for it.
Been a Mac user from the 128K model. Have I screamed at Macs sometimes? You betcha! Would I ever even consider a switch? NEVER!
You've inadvertently pointed out a major factor that the Apple haters so often fail to admit:
Most Mac users have experience with one or more other operating systems and made a conscious decision to use Macs. They have evaluated the strengths and weaknesses side by side and made a rational decision.
OTOH, the majority of Mac bashers have never used a Mac (or an iPhone or an iPad) and seem proud of that fact (2 minutes of pretending to use someone else's doesn't count). They insist that their way (Windows, Android, Linux, whatever) is better, but have absolutely no basis to make that comparison (there are certainly exceptions, but they're rare).
I think that most of the Apple bashers have an inherent personality flaw. They feel that they must bash anyone who uses anything different than what they use and believe that whatever is most popular must be best - apparently due to the inability to evaluate options and rationally compare one product to another. That's why you get so many mindless idiots frothing at the mouth against Apple products when they clearly don't understand them. You also get so much noise about how Android outsells iPhone [sic] or, years ago, how few people bought Macs. Apparenlty, if you're incapable of logical comparison, the only thing you can do is fall back on "more popular" arguments.
It equals or betters 99% of the market of all tablets and smartphones.
A 10" tablet makes a ridiculous camera, Apple knows it, everyone with any sense knows it, Apple did more than enough to meet the requirements of tablet based photography.
the iPad 2 camera reaction is a perfect example of the stubborn and narrow-thinking spec head/gadget people/geek orientation of the blogsphere.
Apple added the cameras for the obvious purpose of video phone/web cam use - communication tools. of course the iPad's bigger screen provides much better viewing for this than a smaller smartphone can. so even if you have a phone with you, you'll use the iPad for it. they also are emergency backups for snapshots and video recording if you don't have anything else to use with you at some moment you need to ("the best camera is the one you have when you need it").
that's what they are. a good review would assess how good a job they do for that intended purpose. as such, they are mid-range quality:
- the VGA FaceTime camera is basic - obviously to conserve data plan use, which you have to pay for! (the review dummies almost never mention that overriding and crucial consideration).
- the 720p video cam is decent, but needs good lighting, which limits when it can be used.
- its still photos are low quality, to have quick fun with for texting/FaceBook and the new PhotoBooth app.
- FaceTime works good within the Mac ecosystem (other options? i dunno) which is still limited in number, but growing.
- the new iMovie app has an excellent UI and a lot of potential for broader use, but is not well integrated yet with the desktop iLife iMovie and importing video files from other hardware via the Camera Connection Kit dongle.
Overall, the cameras add a lot of potential enjoyment to the iPad - that's why they are there. iMovie may also grow into a powerful mobile tool for videophiles, allowing them to leave their laptop behind.
but instead of such a rational assessment, the blogsphere reviews carry on about what the iPad 2 cameras are not. it is a lousy snapshot camera - even though almost everyone has a phone with a decent snapshot camera with them all the time anyway, and that is much easier to use. it is not a good camcorder, even though those of us who really want to take video already have other very good equipment for that, and they are much easier to use too. and of course - megapixels! that's all that matters!
the new Apple ad opens with a video clip of kids at the seashore, presumably taken with the iPad's video camera. which moment Apple realizes is a million time mores important than a megapixel.
Then why did Apple put two of them on the iPad 2??
Heard about video calls? In my family we use it all the time to keep contact with our family at the other side of the Atlantic. Only reason we don't have any iPads in our household is that the original iPad had no camera, personally I am much better off with my MacBook Air and MacBook pro, but the iPad 2 can fully replace my wife's white MacBook, and soon will.
Ask not what you can do for your device - ask what your device can do for you.
It's all about your experience. The less there is between you and your apps, the better for you. That's iOS' great strength. It gets out of the way and iPad just becomes the app it's running. And guess what. Apple and thousands of other developers have some incredibly good apps.
Interesting ad. I get the impression this is aimed squarely at an older generation which surely would a first for Apple. Most average users don't care about specs much but this seems to go beyond that. It addresses the more techy elements but tells you its not important. The voice was that old reassuring one that makes you feel you are in safe hands (grandpa) There was nothing to wow you, nothing fancy or playful. Family and grand child related imagery mixed with what? medical looking images. It tells the viewer who no doubt has heard about the iPad but may not know what the hell it is - "The ipad, its a safe bet"
Apple should focus attention away from hardware, especially since they released an iPad 2 that was little more than a speed bump with a substandard camera and no retina display.
More like Apple shouldn't focus on hardware because it's a meaningless issue. You need software that can take advantage of the specs
I can put 64 GB of ram in my computer but if the software only knows how to read 8GB then I wasted my time and money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
The end part should say:
iPad 2
(if you can get one)
The issue isn't getting one. It's getting exactly the one you want at the time and place you want it.
And compared to the non iOS tablets that haven't even given a release date but just say "later this year" , waiting 4 weeks for one to be shipped isn't really that bad
Quote:
Originally Posted by REC
This ad seems like Steve Jobs directed it himself (which isn't true, but it's indicative of a company that is staying on message from the top down).
Given that none of us, yourself included, were there when it was written, cast, film or edited, how do you know that Jobs didn't. Or at least had final veto on all aspects. Which isn't much different than being the literal director when it comes to ads (and even sometimes movies)
I would so buy an iPad 2 if you didn't have to plug it into fucking iTunes to use it. If I could use it without having to have iTunes then I would be a convert. I use linux for my job and as my personal computer, I don't want to have to touch a mac or windows pc.
Apple sort it out. You can't call an iPad or any of your other devices 'post pc' products when they have to be plugged into a mac or windows pc to use them!
You will appreciate iTunes when your iDevice gets lost, stolen, or when you upgrade. My nephew dropped his iPhone at sea and when he got new one the next day the device restored to where the old one last synced. The same thing happens when you upgrade or buy new iDevice. Maybe there will no need to use iTunes when the iPad, iPhone, iPod can self backup to the cloud automatically. But until then, I think it is a plus not a negative.
You will appreciate iTunes when your iDevice gets lost, stolen, or when you upgrade. My nephew dropped his iPhone at sea and when he got new one the next day the device restored to where the old one last synced. The same thing happens when you upgrade or buy new iDevice. Maybe there will no need to use iTunes when the iPad, iPhone, iPod can self backup to the cloud automatically. But until then, I think it is a plus not a negative.
Let's examine the difference in marketing between this iPad 2 ad and the the Motorola Xoom ads which have constantly been running on my cable tv channels, and which I've unfortunately seen too many times. I've seen more Xoom ads than I've seen iPad ads on tv lately. Motorola is really trying to push the Xoom in what seems like a desperate effort.
No shit Red Ryder!
I get occasional advertising emails from outfits that I've done business with and one recently came from Adorama, a camera store that I like. This ad was for the Exhume (I mean Xoom). The ad states that they're "Xoom-ing out the door fast: Get one before they're gone!" Then a bullet list of specs, and finally "Our price: $599.00".
I called them to see how fast they were "xooming" out the door and the sales guy told me "Not as fast as the iPads." "Oh, you also sell iPads?" "Yes but not over the phone or by mail order. And we sell them as fast as our stock is replenished." Or words to that effect.
Consumers likely don't need to look at heart rate monitors or brain scans and the drawing inside the number 2 isn't really magical. Garageband is magical, being able to edit movies is powerful, being able to hook up 1080p games to a HDTV is a great feature and not mentioned, having better viewing angles than the Xoom means not only good for reading but better for reading.
To a parent with a young child -- drawing inside the number 2 speaks volumes.
Part of the magical-nicity-ness * of the iPad is that it draws out what's inside the mind of anyone from a toddler to a septagenarian (or even a pet).
* Been watching too many sports color commentators
If apple has any issue, the hardware specs are not that issue. The problem (assuming for the sake of conversation that there is a problem) seems to be that iOS is stuck with this insainly bad view of what a home screen can be, the grid of icons are kinda Apples identity at this point, but sheesh, give me widgets on the home screen - there is no reason on the ipad, or iphone 4 for that matter that I shouldn't be able to have a dynamically updating home screen showing me the local weather, latest twitter/FB updates, news, sports, whatever. There is a lot to not like ablout Android, but home screen widgets is something that Google got right big time. Why should I open an "app" to get the temperature or the CNN headlines that are available in RSS?
Comments
Power PC processors never sucked. If they did, Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony would not now be using them in X-Boxes, Wiis, and PS3s.
Apple had three problems. The first was it had to rely both on IBM and Motorola to develop the processors (the so called AIM alliance). The second was the Power PC processors worked differently and performed much better at lower specifications then Pentium processors. Intel, Microsoft, and the hardware manufacturers used this to their advantage by focusing on specifications. Those companies knew consumers generally don't understand technology and focus on the specification number. If something has a higher number, it must be better. That simply wasn't true when comparing RISC (AIM based) versus CISC (intel based) architecture.
The G3 grew a little long in the tooth at the end of its life before the G4s came out. The G4 and G5 processors were monsters. When the G4s first came out, they blew Pentiums with similar specfications away. I remember the Apple tank commercial. That wasn't advertising, but facts. The G4 temporarily jumped way ahead of Intel. Problem was Apple relied on Motorola to update the G4. Motorola was pissed off Apple revoked its license to sell Mac clones when Jobs came back, and Apple's sales were dropping. Motorola didn't' want to spend big bucks updating the architecture. Jobs to this day seems to bad mouth Motorola.
Apple had to turn to IBM to save the day. There was a lag before IBM was able to bring forth the G5 chip, again a great chip. I had a friend who makes his living doing video work. He had the last model G5 Tower Apple sold (still does), and the first generation Core Duo Tower Apple sold. He had both running OSX. The G5 tower often significantly bested the Core Duo tower in some functionality such as video encoding.
The third problem Apple had was the Power PC chips cost Apple more the Intel chips cost Apple's competitors. Intel had far more volume then IBM so the cost was way lower for Apple's competitors to buy the chips ultimately pushing the cost of Apple's products up. Moreover, Intel made a few questionable strategy decision for the Pentium. Consequently, AMD started kicking Intel's butt with its Opteron line of processors. Intel was having to pay manufacturers in the form of large secret kickbacks to not switch to AMD's offerings. That further reduced the cost of Intel chips in comparison to IBM's chips. I can't remember the exact number, but something like a quarter of Dell's profit was from Intel kickbacks.
When Apple decided to jump ship was when Intel came out with the Core Duo roadmap. Apple decided it was too much of a headache trying to compete with Intel on hardware specification numbers, and the Core Duo represented a significant step in the right direction by Intel.
Ironically enough Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo turned to IBM to develop game chips on Power PC technology. It seems to be working for them. Apple, however, doesn't want to fight the specification game again because numbers do not always tell the whole story. Performance is what matters. Consumers understand things like twice as fast or nine times as fast.
That is all true, but there were other factors, as well:
- Energy consumption. IBM never released a G5 chip that could reasonably be used in a portable. That time frame was when portables were getting to be powerful enough that many people used them as their primary computer, so this failure was important.
- MHz myth. Back then, AIM wasn't able to come close to Intel in terms of clock speed. The performance of the AIM chips was more than adequate, but then, as now (read this thread, for example), there were plenty of idiots who couldn't understand anything but simple specs that could be boiled down to a single number.
Note that I"m disagreeing with your last paragraph. While I agree with you that on CONSUMER devices (like xBox, Wii, iPad, etc), specs aren't that important and consumers care most about the results, we're talking about computers when discussing Apple's PPC-Intel transition. At the time (and to a lesser degree, even today), MHz was everything - and it was one of the main selling features for computers.
- Chipsets. Apple had to design its own chipsets whereas they can now use standard chipsets. Not only does that save money, but it allows them to incorporate new features more easily.
Apple should focus attention away from hardware, especially since they released an iPad 2 that was little more than a speed bump with a substandard camera and no retina display.
To shut people like you up.
Seriously, though, Apple added the camera's for one main purpose and it wasn't to shoot pictures while snowboarding in the Alps. Adding camera's was done primarily for Facetime chats ... mainly for front video chat, but adding the second camera so users can show their video guests what they are looking at.
Agree.
One thing that many are not considering is the added file size and bandwidths that a larger format utilize.
True the iPad's Wi-Fi feature tends to make everyone feel safe. But video conference via 3G would be expensive. In addition most countries are now putting caps on bandwidth.
My service was offering 60Gbs/month @ 10Mbs/sec download and I have had to go up to 80Gbs @30Mbs/sec since we add a couple of iPads and Netflix to go with our 5 Mac and 3 iPhones at home.
A single core iPad does as well as a dual-core/Nvidia tablet with twice the ram!
Actually Xoom has 4x the RAM of iPad1. 1GB vs 256MB. Now your point is twice as good. lol
Another really big problem was that IBM could not come up with a G5 model that would keep down the power-consumption/heat for the laptops. To my mind, that was the PPC killer.
In the end, it was one of the best things Apple ever did, since it gave them easy co-habitation with Windows (boot-camp, virtualization) for the skeptical switchers.
BTW - there is one thing that Apple never gets credit for. They have pulled off something that is unparalleled in computer history. They have totally reinvented their OS not once - but three times - and in each case virtually without a hitch. To whit:
1- Moto 68xxx -> PPC
2- Mac OS -> OSX
3- PPC -> Intel
Because they all went off virtually flawlessly, no one gives them credit for what is an absolutely extraordinary task. In fact, this is one of the reasons for their success - their willingness and ability to reinvent if the situation calls for it.
(imho)
Four if you count the OS X 32 bit to OS X 64 bit transition - which was almost 100% transparent to users, unlike Windows, for example.
You are right!
I have an M.S. in Computer Science, worked over 12 years in various aspects of programming from TCP/IP clients to databases. Have contracted in Unix, Windows, Macs. I have done a cold installation of Unix on a DEC Alpha sever when I had to (yeach!) At home I use my computer for research, writing, photography and occasionally video editing - working on average 14 hours per day.
My point:
I want an OS that GETS OUT OF THE F*@#KIN' WAY!
I don't have time to mess with it. I want it to work for me, not me work for it.
Been a Mac user from the 128K model. Have I screamed at Macs sometimes? You betcha! Would I ever even consider a switch? NEVER!
You've inadvertently pointed out a major factor that the Apple haters so often fail to admit:
Most Mac users have experience with one or more other operating systems and made a conscious decision to use Macs. They have evaluated the strengths and weaknesses side by side and made a rational decision.
OTOH, the majority of Mac bashers have never used a Mac (or an iPhone or an iPad) and seem proud of that fact (2 minutes of pretending to use someone else's doesn't count). They insist that their way (Windows, Android, Linux, whatever) is better, but have absolutely no basis to make that comparison (there are certainly exceptions, but they're rare).
I think that most of the Apple bashers have an inherent personality flaw. They feel that they must bash anyone who uses anything different than what they use and believe that whatever is most popular must be best - apparently due to the inability to evaluate options and rationally compare one product to another. That's why you get so many mindless idiots frothing at the mouth against Apple products when they clearly don't understand them. You also get so much noise about how Android outsells iPhone [sic] or, years ago, how few people bought Macs. Apparenlty, if you're incapable of logical comparison, the only thing you can do is fall back on "more popular" arguments.
lol on top of that iPad2 beats Xoom in every possible benchmark
Not true.
Xoom wins the ever-popular power consumption benchmark (using more power per hour than any iPad).
Xoom also wins the ugliness benchmark.
So 720p @ 30fps isn't enough?
It equals or betters 99% of the market of all tablets and smartphones.
A 10" tablet makes a ridiculous camera, Apple knows it, everyone with any sense knows it, Apple did more than enough to meet the requirements of tablet based photography.
the iPad 2 camera reaction is a perfect example of the stubborn and narrow-thinking spec head/gadget people/geek orientation of the blogsphere.
Apple added the cameras for the obvious purpose of video phone/web cam use - communication tools. of course the iPad's bigger screen provides much better viewing for this than a smaller smartphone can. so even if you have a phone with you, you'll use the iPad for it. they also are emergency backups for snapshots and video recording if you don't have anything else to use with you at some moment you need to ("the best camera is the one you have when you need it").
that's what they are. a good review would assess how good a job they do for that intended purpose. as such, they are mid-range quality:
- the VGA FaceTime camera is basic - obviously to conserve data plan use, which you have to pay for! (the review dummies almost never mention that overriding and crucial consideration).
- the 720p video cam is decent, but needs good lighting, which limits when it can be used.
- its still photos are low quality, to have quick fun with for texting/FaceBook and the new PhotoBooth app.
- FaceTime works good within the Mac ecosystem (other options? i dunno) which is still limited in number, but growing.
- the new iMovie app has an excellent UI and a lot of potential for broader use, but is not well integrated yet with the desktop iLife iMovie and importing video files from other hardware via the Camera Connection Kit dongle.
Overall, the cameras add a lot of potential enjoyment to the iPad - that's why they are there. iMovie may also grow into a powerful mobile tool for videophiles, allowing them to leave their laptop behind.
but instead of such a rational assessment, the blogsphere reviews carry on about what the iPad 2 cameras are not. it is a lousy snapshot camera - even though almost everyone has a phone with a decent snapshot camera with them all the time anyway, and that is much easier to use. it is not a good camcorder, even though those of us who really want to take video already have other very good equipment for that, and they are much easier to use too. and of course - megapixels! that's all that matters!
the new Apple ad opens with a video clip of kids at the seashore, presumably taken with the iPad's video camera. which moment Apple realizes is a million time mores important than a megapixel.
Then why did Apple put two of them on the iPad 2??
To hopefully shut-up people who whine, like you.
Personally I want a sub-woofer!
Shit, don't give them ideas! They're already screaming for "stereo" speakers in a unit <6" across!
Then why did Apple put two of them on the iPad 2??
Heard about video calls? In my family we use it all the time to keep contact with our family at the other side of the Atlantic. Only reason we don't have any iPads in our household is that the original iPad had no camera, personally I am much better off with my MacBook Air and MacBook pro, but the iPad 2 can fully replace my wife's white MacBook, and soon will.
It's all about your experience. The less there is between you and your apps, the better for you. That's iOS' great strength. It gets out of the way and iPad just becomes the app it's running. And guess what. Apple and thousands of other developers have some incredibly good apps.
Apple should focus attention away from hardware, especially since they released an iPad 2 that was little more than a speed bump with a substandard camera and no retina display.
More like Apple shouldn't focus on hardware because it's a meaningless issue. You need software that can take advantage of the specs
I can put 64 GB of ram in my computer but if the software only knows how to read 8GB then I wasted my time and money.
The end part should say:
iPad 2
(if you can get one)
The issue isn't getting one. It's getting exactly the one you want at the time and place you want it.
And compared to the non iOS tablets that haven't even given a release date but just say "later this year" , waiting 4 weeks for one to be shipped isn't really that bad
This ad seems like Steve Jobs directed it himself (which isn't true, but it's indicative of a company that is staying on message from the top down).
Given that none of us, yourself included, were there when it was written, cast, film or edited, how do you know that Jobs didn't. Or at least had final veto on all aspects. Which isn't much different than being the literal director when it comes to ads (and even sometimes movies)
I would so buy an iPad 2 if you didn't have to plug it into fucking iTunes to use it. If I could use it without having to have iTunes then I would be a convert. I use linux for my job and as my personal computer, I don't want to have to touch a mac or windows pc.
Apple sort it out. You can't call an iPad or any of your other devices 'post pc' products when they have to be plugged into a mac or windows pc to use them!
You will appreciate iTunes when your iDevice gets lost, stolen, or when you upgrade. My nephew dropped his iPhone at sea and when he got new one the next day the device restored to where the old one last synced. The same thing happens when you upgrade or buy new iDevice. Maybe there will no need to use iTunes when the iPad, iPhone, iPod can self backup to the cloud automatically. But until then, I think it is a plus not a negative.
You will appreciate iTunes when your iDevice gets lost, stolen, or when you upgrade. My nephew dropped his iPhone at sea and when he got new one the next day the device restored to where the old one last synced. The same thing happens when you upgrade or buy new iDevice. Maybe there will no need to use iTunes when the iPad, iPhone, iPod can self backup to the cloud automatically. But until then, I think it is a plus not a negative.
If only this worked in reverse...
Let's examine the difference in marketing between this iPad 2 ad and the the Motorola Xoom ads which have constantly been running on my cable tv channels, and which I've unfortunately seen too many times. I've seen more Xoom ads than I've seen iPad ads on tv lately. Motorola is really trying to push the Xoom in what seems like a desperate effort.
No shit Red Ryder!
I get occasional advertising emails from outfits that I've done business with and one recently came from Adorama, a camera store that I like. This ad was for the Exhume (I mean Xoom). The ad states that they're "Xoom-ing out the door fast: Get one before they're gone!" Then a bullet list of specs, and finally "Our price: $599.00".
I called them to see how fast they were "xooming" out the door and the sales guy told me "Not as fast as the iPads." "Oh, you also sell iPads?" "Yes but not over the phone or by mail order. And we sell them as fast as our stock is replenished." Or words to that effect.
Consumers likely don't need to look at heart rate monitors or brain scans and the drawing inside the number 2 isn't really magical. Garageband is magical, being able to edit movies is powerful, being able to hook up 1080p games to a HDTV is a great feature and not mentioned, having better viewing angles than the Xoom means not only good for reading but better for reading.
To a parent with a young child -- drawing inside the number 2 speaks volumes.
Part of the magical-nicity-ness * of the iPad is that it draws out what's inside the mind of anyone from a toddler to a septagenarian (or even a pet).
* Been watching too many sports color commentators