1. No USB 3.0 support. I am surprised that no one is talking about this. This is actually important. It takes about 5-10 minutes to back up my iphone on itunes. How long will ipad take? Oh, that's right. The files are bigger on ipad because the apps are bigger. Go take a nap. Shit, it's still not done!
If that's the case, i'll just back mine up before bed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hcho321
2. Price. Apple says 499 dollars is cheap. Really? I disagree with that. I am 99% sure that apple will announce Wifi+3G model for 499 dollars around fall of 2010. Either that, apple will cut the prices on all models by 50-100 dollars. Also, if iphone is coming to Verizon, then we are definitely going to see this on Verizon as well. Are we going to see some crying babies this fall like we did with original iphone in 2007? History repeats itself.
Disposable income - it's a great thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hcho321
3. No camera. It's 2010. Someone forgot to include something. It's not 1910. Next one will have this for sure. When it does, then not all the apps are going to be compatible.
I actually wish the iPad had a camera. But considering I haven't used the camera on my MBP or MBA in ages... I don't think i'll miss it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hcho321
4. No flash. Sure, maybe we can live without flash. We can live with HTML 5. But, most of websites still use flash. Why buy this now? Let the websites convert to HTML 5 first. Apple shows about 10 websites that will convert to HTML 5. Well, I am sorry, but I go more than these 10 websites. I go more like hundreds...
1) I use clicktoflash on my computers, 2) I have an iPhone. It's safe to say I can live without flash.
wth, why would i want to take a picture with a friggin plank? stupid. i have a camera, an iphone with a camera....do i really need yet another stupid camera on a 10" device. dumb. i'm glad they left it off, it's ridiculous. now maybe a forward facing video isight, that might be useful. but a camera? no. no. no.
I don't understand why people think that some people who buy iPads will suddenly throw away their old computers. Everybody has a computer. Dependency on a computer is not a problem. Just like an iPhone.
Suffice to say, I find your definition of dependency to be entirely arbitrary, and consequently, unconvincing as a criticism. I did the last time I heard it, and I still do.
Your dismissal of it is arbitrary because I explain why it is a dependent device and list problem scenarios and you simply say it's an invalid criticism without explaining away the issues.
Why are the following issues irrelevant?
- you must own a computer for upgrades, backups etc, problem is cost and means the iPad is an accessory
- you cannot manage your content on the device, problem is convenience as you have to spend a long time using a standard computer
I am defining dependence to mean that you cannot do key tasks without depending on another computer to do it and I'm sure most dictionaries would agree with that definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
And then they could make their own minds up!
Sure but once I have to tell them they need to spend $500 on the pad and then $300 on the machine to manage it, they'll say 'so why not just get the controlling machine and I save $500?'. They say a similar thing about spending more for a Mac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
(300 million 'dependant' iPods/iPhones sold and counting)
But clearly there is a different perception of what the iPad should do - computers are typically categorized by their size/shape. iPad is in the laptop/netbook device class. Developers are taking advantage of this by charging more for their apps as people expect those apps to be more fully fledged. Now it's easy to say that people just need to change their perception of what devices should do based on form factor but that's just not going to happen when there's competition that meets the expectations.
The iPod market is different because mobile devices are expected to be accessories. The mobile phone is an essential device so the iPhone sales can be taken out of the equation. Slate devices are not essential devices. Nor are iPods but iPods start at a much lower price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton
Everybody has a computer. Dependency on a computer is not a problem. Just like an iPhone.
Not everybody has a computer. People don't buy games consoles or TVs or set-top boxes under the impression that computer ownership is a requirement. Some people actually live their entire lives without owning a computer in 2010. My Mum has a computer, an iPod (cheapest one - the shuffle) and a phone and she has no idea how to sync them up. She also hates using the computer and doesn't get the concepts of overlapping windows, docks, trackpads and makes so many mistakes clicking stuff. The iPad is a big improvement but paying double the price of her laptop for one when she has to keep the laptop is not going to happen. Plus she needs Flash for online TV shows for now but ask her what Flash is and she won't be able to tell you.
I'm not against the iPad concept, I think it's great but until it becomes a master device, it's only going to fit a certain smaller group of people. Being a master device means it can satisfy that group and people without a computer and people who hate the computer as it is and want to replace it with something simpler.
The fact the ipad is not a stand-alone computer is what makes the device so appealing. By not attempting to do everything, the interface and interaction paradigm could be taylored for the remaining functionality. Apple correctly realized that supporting only the tasks most suited to the tablet form and finger driven interface, allowed the interface to be more optimal for those tasks. I predict that the vast majority of people will agree after a year or so so when tablet usage finally becomes common and the masses gain real usage experience.
the fact the ipad is not a stand-alone computer is what makes the device so appealing. By not attempting to do everything, the interface and interaction paradigm could be taylored for the remaining functionality. Apple correctly realized that supporting only the tasks most suited to the tablet form and finger driven interface, allowed the interface to be more optimal for those tasks. I predict that the vast majority of people will agree after a year or so so when tablet usage finally becomes common and the masses gain real usage experience.
I recommend waiting for the 2nd or even 3rd generation of ipad. Here are the reasons why.
Ok, let's see your arguments. Let's see how good or weak they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hcho321
1. No USB 3.0 support.
So your saying the 2rd or 3rd generation iPad will get USB 3.0? Ok, weird.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hcho321
2. Price. Apple says 499 dollars is cheap. Really? I disagree with that. I am 99% sure that apple will announce Wifi+3G model for 499 dollars around fall of 2010.
Ok, that was just "made-up".
Quote:
Originally Posted by hcho321
3. No camera. It's 2010. Someone forgot to include something. It's not 1910. Next one will have this for sure. When it does, then not all the apps are going to be compatible.
We know apps that use a camera won't work on a device without a camera. The real argument for a camera is Skype and YouTube uploads, really. And although I never use the camera myself, "EVER", I can see why they should have included it. I don't know if they'll add it in iPad 2 though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hcho321
4. No flash. Sure, maybe we can live without flash. We can live with HTML 5. But, most of websites still use flash. Why buy this now? Let the websites convert to HTML 5 first. Apple shows about 10 websites that will convert to HTML 5. Well, I am sorry, but I go more than these 10 websites. I go more like hundreds.
Not sure what: "I go more like hundreds" means, but point taken overall. Flash is hardcore on the Mac, it does stuff, but there are emerging technologies that do all this stuff far more "efficiently". That's the key. No Flash didn't hurt the iPhone, and frankly I was pissed about that when I first got my iPhone, but then I got to understanding why it wasn't there, and now I'm glad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hcho321
5. What the hell is it? Seriously, what the hell is this thing and what am I going to use it for?
Apps, games, the web, books and textbooks. For some of these tasks it's faster than a computer in the traditional sense, it's much faster, and it is instant on and has a standby time of 30 days. It's a window to the world you hold in your hands. What you can do with it will change and evolve each time a cool new app comes out.
When I first saw the iPad I was disappointed, but it'll eventually hit you what's going on. While people like sit around and give out about the device, others, and I'm sure it'll be millions, will get on with using the iPad and getting on with their lives. Yes, there are tradeoffs with an iPad, but it's not for "the geek", it's for the "average consumer". The good thing for you is though - you won't be forced to buy it, and Apple and all these other companies still sell laptops.
If you wanted a device more like a laptop, you already have it, it's called a laptop.
The single reason I wouldn't recommend people I know to get one would be the dependence on a master device.
I'd say over 50% of my family would only require a 32GB device with basic functionality. The iPad is ideal but having to plug it in for a backup or update to get the latest apps is not something they'd cope with.
Not being able to manage/edit pictures on it or their music makes its uses few enough to avoid a purchase.
Imagine the following scenario:
Mum comes home after picking up the kids from school, starts to cook a meal. She picks up the iPad and opens a recipe. Finds that she doesn't have some ingredients so orders them online to be delivered the next day and makes a meal with what is there.
During the meal, she can have it on the table with the daily news or reminders of things to bring up in discussion or arranges events in the calendar around what the kids have on.
Meal is done, she puts the device on a dock to listen to music while cleaning up, being able to mark and delete songs that she doesn't like. The dock could have a CD tray to import a CD she got for a gift.
Then she gets the kids to do some homework and gets some educational app to help, can even play a game like Scrabble or Cluedo. Maybe imports the holiday snaps and gets the kids to help organize them.
Turns on the TV to relax and uses the iPad for the TV guide, possibly even remote. Can even get trailers of movies that are on from some sites although most official movie sites will be in Flash.
Once everyone is heading off to bed, take the iPad for some bed-time reading with the kids and on her own.
The iPad is almost perfect for this kind of usage but the necessary trips to the old beige tower in the tiny room upstairs to sync, update and manage content kills it. This lady doesn't want or need to go in there ever again and not be able to make sure her kids are ok.
Lack of Flash isn't a problem, publishers need to move away from it to wrench control over content from Adobe and share it with everyone but taking away control from the iPad owner of their own content is unworkable. Dad needs beige PC for work and his 200GB porn stash, Mum doesn't want to sit at a boring PC to manage her life and Dad doesn't want her finding the porn stash. Let them have their own devices and never have to sync - Mum finding the porn stash could break up a family. Is that what Apple wants? To break up people's homes? Why won't someone think of the children?
For the sake of the kids, make the iPad a master device.
Excellent post.
This is sort of how I feel. A time will come when the iPad is a master-less device. For now though having to dock it to update the OS and add all my music is a minor inconvenience most people will put up with. The fact that it doesn't have to have done that often at all is the reason Apple will get away with it, but it would be nice not to have to do it.
I think investing in a newer iMac and then also having a few iPads for the house it the way to go.
The fact the ipad is not a stand-alone computer is what makes the device so appealing. By not attempting to do everything, the interface and interaction paradigm could be taylored for the remaining functionality. Apple correctly realized that supporting only the tasks most suited to the tablet form and finger driven interface, allowed the interface to be more optimal for those tasks. I predict that the vast majority of people will agree after a year or so so when tablet usage finally becomes common and the masses gain real usage experience.
I'm sure there's a point in there somewhere. But saying:
"The fact the iPad is not a stand-alone computer is what makes the device so appealing."
….doesn't make sense.
Marvin's post on the other hand makes perfect sense. Whether you agree or disagree, I know some people his comment applies to pretty much exactly. It requires you to have access (and to use) a desktop or laptop computer to get the full use of the iPad, and some people would agree it's like having a ball and chain attached. Let's say you're away and have free WiFi access and only bring your iPad with you (not your Mac), and multi-tasking is just released. Even if you wanted to, you won't be able to try that out until you go home. That could happen in the first week, and you could have 2 weeks with the iPad knowing M-T is out, but you cannot try it. When you go home you have put turn on the desktop (or laptop) to download the update, connect your iPad and install it until you get to try it out.
It would be very handy if you could update the OS without the need for that master device. Who knows, perhaps that will be a feature in iPhone OS 4.0. Just like the way the Apple TV is becoming more independent with updates.
Nope I won't cry. By fall I'll have near 6 months of bliss. My iPad will be in a nice case and a bag with my CLEAR Spot 4G Wifi router.
The next iPad will be improved but I tend to like to skip a generation so If I can make my iPad last me a couple of years I'll be in line for the 3rd gen iPad and 5th gen iPhone.
It's just money...you can't take it with you to the Afterlife.
I agree with you money statement...however, 6 months of bliss? if you dont have an iphone i can understand. but once the new iphone 4 comes out, its going to make the ipad look like ancient tech. (if the rumors are true of video chat, better resolution/screen, etc).
i'll wait for the new iphone...ipad 2.0 will be much better than this
I agree with you money statement...however, 6 months of bliss? if you dont have an iphone i can understand. but once the new iphone 4 comes out, its going to make the ipad look like ancient tech. (if the rumors are true of video chat, better resolution/screen, etc).
i'll wait for the new iphone...ipad 2.0 will be much better than this
Perhaps, but iPhones aren't cheap and the screen is smaller than an iPad.
I don't get the video chat talk, video chat on mobile phones is a gimmick and barely gets used on computers, even in ideal settings.
Your dismissal of it is arbitrary because I explain why it is a dependent device and list problem scenarios and you simply say it's an invalid criticism without explaining away the issues.
No, I just think you are wrong for reasons I and others have explained at length, explanations which you have simply declared invalid. So when I say debating this point any further is futile, I mean that debating this issue any further is futile.
I'm sure there's a point in there somewhere. But saying:
"The fact the iPad is not a stand-alone computer is what makes the device so appealing."
?.doesn't make sense.
Marvin's post on the other hand makes perfect sense. Whether you agree or disagree, I know some people his comment applies to pretty much exactly. It requires you to have access (and to use) a desktop or laptop computer to get the full use of the iPad, and some people would agree it's like having a ball and chain attached. Let's say you're away and have free WiFi access and only bring your iPad with you (not your Mac), and multi-tasking is just released. Even if you wanted to, you won't be able to try that out until you go home. That could happen in the first week, and you could have 2 weeks with the iPad knowing M-T is out, but you cannot try it. When you go home you have put turn on the desktop (or laptop) to download the update, connect your iPad and install it until you get to try it out.
It would be very handy if you could update the OS without the need for that master device. Who knows, perhaps that will be a feature in iPhone OS 4.0. Just like the way the Apple TV is becoming more independent with updates.
It seems that you're refusing to even consider the appeal of limited (focused) devices.
You obviously disagree with Apple about the optimal trade-off, but it seems that you're refusing to even acknowledge that the trade-offs exist.
Perhaps, but iPhones aren't cheap and the screen is smaller than an iPad.
I don't get the video chat talk, video chat on mobile phones is a gimmick and barely gets used on computers, even in ideal settings.
I'd use the videoconf chat quite often -- but DON'T want the camera on the iPad capturing my image from down in my lap. (....skips rude anatomical joke)
I DO want a third party wireless/bluetooth video camera that I can stick up on my desk/wall/whatever to capture my WebEx video output through the iPad. (even, sigh, a 30-pin connected camera if we must)
Those women you see on Facebook taking pics of themselves by holding the camera up above looking down already know why Apple didn't include the camera in an iPad. They don't wanna' look fat and fugly.
While I"m not fat at all, I don't want to send video of the underside of my chin or the inside of my nose.
I expected either 256 or 512 and like I said a while back, although you can look at specs alone and draw wild conclusions, they do have real consequences. As I suspected, Apple had good reason to keep it quiet. Seems like the CPU is a single 1GHz Cortex A8 too.
Long story short, if it's a PowerVR GPU then the spec is pretty much a faster clocked 3GS. Now, if you imagine that the iPad isn't such a huge departure from the 3GS then I'd have to presume the 4G iPhone won't supercede the iPad but just match it.
This being the case, if they run the same OS then my suggestion of merely dropping the 4G iPhone in an IPS screen dock sounds like a much better solution and being able to have one data contract, especially if the 4G iPhone uses a 4G network.
It's only a better solution for end users though. There wouldn't have been such a huge gold-rush for devs as users would feel less inclined to buy separate apps and expect devs to make scalable apps.
I'm a bit disappointed to know the iPad has half the RAM of the Nexus One.
I expected either 256 or 512 and like I said a while back, although you can look at specs alone and draw wild conclusions, they do have real consequences. As I suspected, Apple had good reason to keep it quiet. Seems like the CPU is a single 1GHz Cortex A8 too.
Long story short, if it's a PowerVR GPU then the spec is pretty much a faster clocked 3GS. Now, if you imagine that the iPad isn't such a huge departure from the 3GS then I'd have to presume the 4G iPhone won't supercede the iPad but just match it.
This being the case, if they run the same OS then my suggestion of merely dropping the 4G iPhone in an IPS screen dock sounds like a much better solution and being able to have one data contract, especially if the 4G iPhone uses a 4G network.
It's only a better solution for end users though. There wouldn't have been such a huge gold-rush for devs as users would feel less inclined to buy separate apps and expect devs to make scalable apps.
I'm a bit disappointed to know the iPad has half the RAM of the Nexus One.
iFixIt was pretty definitive in the 512MB analysis-- based on chip markings that showed 256 per die, and Xrays that showed two dies. So I'm not sure I'd want to take the (apparently somewhat erratic) diagnostics of some dude on MacRumors over that.
"Lots of images" doesn't really accurately describe the "example" web site, either, since it has more images than 99% of the sites anyone would visit.
Comments
btw tell us about this 1910 tablet PC?
Did it run off valves or some type of mechanical gear arrangement?
I'm surprised they weren't used in WWI.
blah, blah, blah
Thanks for your comment. But, I don't care about what you think, either.
I don't care if you don't care
The single reason I wouldn't recommend people I know to get one would be the dependence on a master device.
And then they could make their own minds up!
(300 million 'dependant' iPods/iPhones sold and counting)
1. No USB 3.0 support. I am surprised that no one is talking about this. This is actually important. It takes about 5-10 minutes to back up my iphone on itunes. How long will ipad take? Oh, that's right. The files are bigger on ipad because the apps are bigger. Go take a nap. Shit, it's still not done!
If that's the case, i'll just back mine up before bed.
2. Price. Apple says 499 dollars is cheap. Really? I disagree with that. I am 99% sure that apple will announce Wifi+3G model for 499 dollars around fall of 2010. Either that, apple will cut the prices on all models by 50-100 dollars. Also, if iphone is coming to Verizon, then we are definitely going to see this on Verizon as well. Are we going to see some crying babies this fall like we did with original iphone in 2007? History repeats itself.
Disposable income - it's a great thing.
3. No camera. It's 2010. Someone forgot to include something. It's not 1910. Next one will have this for sure. When it does, then not all the apps are going to be compatible.
I actually wish the iPad had a camera. But considering I haven't used the camera on my MBP or MBA in ages... I don't think i'll miss it.
4. No flash. Sure, maybe we can live without flash. We can live with HTML 5. But, most of websites still use flash. Why buy this now? Let the websites convert to HTML 5 first. Apple shows about 10 websites that will convert to HTML 5. Well, I am sorry, but I go more than these 10 websites. I go more like hundreds...
1) I use clicktoflash on my computers, 2) I have an iPhone. It's safe to say I can live without flash.
- Love fanboi
Suffice to say, I find your definition of dependency to be entirely arbitrary, and consequently, unconvincing as a criticism. I did the last time I heard it, and I still do.
Your dismissal of it is arbitrary because I explain why it is a dependent device and list problem scenarios and you simply say it's an invalid criticism without explaining away the issues.
Why are the following issues irrelevant?
- you must own a computer for upgrades, backups etc, problem is cost and means the iPad is an accessory
- you cannot manage your content on the device, problem is convenience as you have to spend a long time using a standard computer
I am defining dependence to mean that you cannot do key tasks without depending on another computer to do it and I'm sure most dictionaries would agree with that definition.
And then they could make their own minds up!
Sure but once I have to tell them they need to spend $500 on the pad and then $300 on the machine to manage it, they'll say 'so why not just get the controlling machine and I save $500?'. They say a similar thing about spending more for a Mac.
(300 million 'dependant' iPods/iPhones sold and counting)
But clearly there is a different perception of what the iPad should do - computers are typically categorized by their size/shape. iPad is in the laptop/netbook device class. Developers are taking advantage of this by charging more for their apps as people expect those apps to be more fully fledged. Now it's easy to say that people just need to change their perception of what devices should do based on form factor but that's just not going to happen when there's competition that meets the expectations.
The iPod market is different because mobile devices are expected to be accessories. The mobile phone is an essential device so the iPhone sales can be taken out of the equation. Slate devices are not essential devices. Nor are iPods but iPods start at a much lower price.
Everybody has a computer. Dependency on a computer is not a problem. Just like an iPhone.
Not everybody has a computer. People don't buy games consoles or TVs or set-top boxes under the impression that computer ownership is a requirement. Some people actually live their entire lives without owning a computer in 2010. My Mum has a computer, an iPod (cheapest one - the shuffle) and a phone and she has no idea how to sync them up. She also hates using the computer and doesn't get the concepts of overlapping windows, docks, trackpads and makes so many mistakes clicking stuff. The iPad is a big improvement but paying double the price of her laptop for one when she has to keep the laptop is not going to happen. Plus she needs Flash for online TV shows for now but ask her what Flash is and she won't be able to tell you.
I'm not against the iPad concept, I think it's great but until it becomes a master device, it's only going to fit a certain smaller group of people. Being a master device means it can satisfy that group and people without a computer and people who hate the computer as it is and want to replace it with something simpler.
Not everybody has a computer.
Well, I'm sure the 1% of people under 70 who don't have computers should probably get one before they get an iPad. Apple is doomed!
the fact the ipad is not a stand-alone computer is what makes the device so appealing. By not attempting to do everything, the interface and interaction paradigm could be taylored for the remaining functionality. Apple correctly realized that supporting only the tasks most suited to the tablet form and finger driven interface, allowed the interface to be more optimal for those tasks. I predict that the vast majority of people will agree after a year or so so when tablet usage finally becomes common and the masses gain real usage experience.
+1
I recommend waiting for the 2nd or even 3rd generation of ipad. Here are the reasons why.
Ok, let's see your arguments. Let's see how good or weak they are.
1. No USB 3.0 support.
So your saying the 2rd or 3rd generation iPad will get USB 3.0? Ok, weird.
2. Price. Apple says 499 dollars is cheap. Really? I disagree with that. I am 99% sure that apple will announce Wifi+3G model for 499 dollars around fall of 2010.
Ok, that was just "made-up".
3. No camera. It's 2010. Someone forgot to include something. It's not 1910. Next one will have this for sure. When it does, then not all the apps are going to be compatible.
We know apps that use a camera won't work on a device without a camera. The real argument for a camera is Skype and YouTube uploads, really. And although I never use the camera myself, "EVER", I can see why they should have included it. I don't know if they'll add it in iPad 2 though.
4. No flash. Sure, maybe we can live without flash. We can live with HTML 5. But, most of websites still use flash. Why buy this now? Let the websites convert to HTML 5 first. Apple shows about 10 websites that will convert to HTML 5. Well, I am sorry, but I go more than these 10 websites. I go more like hundreds.
Not sure what: "I go more like hundreds" means, but point taken overall. Flash is hardcore on the Mac, it does stuff, but there are emerging technologies that do all this stuff far more "efficiently". That's the key. No Flash didn't hurt the iPhone, and frankly I was pissed about that when I first got my iPhone, but then I got to understanding why it wasn't there, and now I'm glad.
5. What the hell is it? Seriously, what the hell is this thing and what am I going to use it for?
Apps, games, the web, books and textbooks. For some of these tasks it's faster than a computer in the traditional sense, it's much faster, and it is instant on and has a standby time of 30 days. It's a window to the world you hold in your hands. What you can do with it will change and evolve each time a cool new app comes out.
When I first saw the iPad I was disappointed, but it'll eventually hit you what's going on. While people like sit around and give out about the device, others, and I'm sure it'll be millions, will get on with using the iPad and getting on with their lives. Yes, there are tradeoffs with an iPad, but it's not for "the geek", it's for the "average consumer". The good thing for you is though - you won't be forced to buy it, and Apple and all these other companies still sell laptops.
If you wanted a device more like a laptop, you already have it, it's called a laptop.
The single reason I wouldn't recommend people I know to get one would be the dependence on a master device.
I'd say over 50% of my family would only require a 32GB device with basic functionality. The iPad is ideal but having to plug it in for a backup or update to get the latest apps is not something they'd cope with.
Not being able to manage/edit pictures on it or their music makes its uses few enough to avoid a purchase.
Imagine the following scenario:
Mum comes home after picking up the kids from school, starts to cook a meal. She picks up the iPad and opens a recipe. Finds that she doesn't have some ingredients so orders them online to be delivered the next day and makes a meal with what is there.
During the meal, she can have it on the table with the daily news or reminders of things to bring up in discussion or arranges events in the calendar around what the kids have on.
Meal is done, she puts the device on a dock to listen to music while cleaning up, being able to mark and delete songs that she doesn't like. The dock could have a CD tray to import a CD she got for a gift.
Then she gets the kids to do some homework and gets some educational app to help, can even play a game like Scrabble or Cluedo. Maybe imports the holiday snaps and gets the kids to help organize them.
Turns on the TV to relax and uses the iPad for the TV guide, possibly even remote. Can even get trailers of movies that are on from some sites although most official movie sites will be in Flash.
Once everyone is heading off to bed, take the iPad for some bed-time reading with the kids and on her own.
The iPad is almost perfect for this kind of usage but the necessary trips to the old beige tower in the tiny room upstairs to sync, update and manage content kills it. This lady doesn't want or need to go in there ever again and not be able to make sure her kids are ok.
Lack of Flash isn't a problem, publishers need to move away from it to wrench control over content from Adobe and share it with everyone but taking away control from the iPad owner of their own content is unworkable. Dad needs beige PC for work and his 200GB porn stash, Mum doesn't want to sit at a boring PC to manage her life and Dad doesn't want her finding the porn stash. Let them have their own devices and never have to sync - Mum finding the porn stash could break up a family. Is that what Apple wants? To break up people's homes? Why won't someone think of the children?
For the sake of the kids, make the iPad a master device.
Excellent post.
This is sort of how I feel. A time will come when the iPad is a master-less device. For now though having to dock it to update the OS and add all my music is a minor inconvenience most people will put up with. The fact that it doesn't have to have done that often at all is the reason Apple will get away with it, but it would be nice not to have to do it.
I think investing in a newer iMac and then also having a few iPads for the house it the way to go.
The fact the ipad is not a stand-alone computer is what makes the device so appealing. By not attempting to do everything, the interface and interaction paradigm could be taylored for the remaining functionality. Apple correctly realized that supporting only the tasks most suited to the tablet form and finger driven interface, allowed the interface to be more optimal for those tasks. I predict that the vast majority of people will agree after a year or so so when tablet usage finally becomes common and the masses gain real usage experience.
I'm sure there's a point in there somewhere. But saying:
"The fact the iPad is not a stand-alone computer is what makes the device so appealing."
….doesn't make sense.
Marvin's post on the other hand makes perfect sense. Whether you agree or disagree, I know some people his comment applies to pretty much exactly. It requires you to have access (and to use) a desktop or laptop computer to get the full use of the iPad, and some people would agree it's like having a ball and chain attached. Let's say you're away and have free WiFi access and only bring your iPad with you (not your Mac), and multi-tasking is just released. Even if you wanted to, you won't be able to try that out until you go home. That could happen in the first week, and you could have 2 weeks with the iPad knowing M-T is out, but you cannot try it. When you go home you have put turn on the desktop (or laptop) to download the update, connect your iPad and install it until you get to try it out.
It would be very handy if you could update the OS without the need for that master device. Who knows, perhaps that will be a feature in iPhone OS 4.0. Just like the way the Apple TV is becoming more independent with updates.
Nope I won't cry. By fall I'll have near 6 months of bliss. My iPad will be in a nice case and a bag with my CLEAR Spot 4G Wifi router.
The next iPad will be improved but I tend to like to skip a generation so If I can make my iPad last me a couple of years I'll be in line for the 3rd gen iPad and 5th gen iPhone.
It's just money...you can't take it with you to the Afterlife.
I agree with you money statement...however, 6 months of bliss? if you dont have an iphone i can understand. but once the new iphone 4 comes out, its going to make the ipad look like ancient tech. (if the rumors are true of video chat, better resolution/screen, etc).
i'll wait for the new iphone...ipad 2.0 will be much better than this
I agree with you money statement...however, 6 months of bliss? if you dont have an iphone i can understand. but once the new iphone 4 comes out, its going to make the ipad look like ancient tech. (if the rumors are true of video chat, better resolution/screen, etc).
i'll wait for the new iphone...ipad 2.0 will be much better than this
Perhaps, but iPhones aren't cheap and the screen is smaller than an iPad.
I don't get the video chat talk, video chat on mobile phones is a gimmick and barely gets used on computers, even in ideal settings.
Your dismissal of it is arbitrary because I explain why it is a dependent device and list problem scenarios and you simply say it's an invalid criticism without explaining away the issues.
No, I just think you are wrong for reasons I and others have explained at length, explanations which you have simply declared invalid. So when I say debating this point any further is futile, I mean that debating this issue any further is futile.
I'm sure there's a point in there somewhere. But saying:
"The fact the iPad is not a stand-alone computer is what makes the device so appealing."
?.doesn't make sense.
Marvin's post on the other hand makes perfect sense. Whether you agree or disagree, I know some people his comment applies to pretty much exactly. It requires you to have access (and to use) a desktop or laptop computer to get the full use of the iPad, and some people would agree it's like having a ball and chain attached. Let's say you're away and have free WiFi access and only bring your iPad with you (not your Mac), and multi-tasking is just released. Even if you wanted to, you won't be able to try that out until you go home. That could happen in the first week, and you could have 2 weeks with the iPad knowing M-T is out, but you cannot try it. When you go home you have put turn on the desktop (or laptop) to download the update, connect your iPad and install it until you get to try it out.
It would be very handy if you could update the OS without the need for that master device. Who knows, perhaps that will be a feature in iPhone OS 4.0. Just like the way the Apple TV is becoming more independent with updates.
It seems that you're refusing to even consider the appeal of limited (focused) devices.
You obviously disagree with Apple about the optimal trade-off, but it seems that you're refusing to even acknowledge that the trade-offs exist.
Perhaps, but iPhones aren't cheap and the screen is smaller than an iPad.
I don't get the video chat talk, video chat on mobile phones is a gimmick and barely gets used on computers, even in ideal settings.
I'd use the videoconf chat quite often -- but DON'T want the camera on the iPad capturing my image from down in my lap. (....skips rude anatomical joke)
I DO want a third party wireless/bluetooth video camera that I can stick up on my desk/wall/whatever to capture my WebEx video output through the iPad. (even, sigh, a 30-pin connected camera if we must)
Those women you see on Facebook taking pics of themselves by holding the camera up above looking down already know why Apple didn't include the camera in an iPad. They don't wanna' look fat and fugly.
While I"m not fat at all, I don't want to send video of the underside of my chin or the inside of my nose.
256MB RAM
"iPad doesn't finish rendering websites with lots of images"
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=888675
I expected either 256 or 512 and like I said a while back, although you can look at specs alone and draw wild conclusions, they do have real consequences. As I suspected, Apple had good reason to keep it quiet. Seems like the CPU is a single 1GHz Cortex A8 too.
Long story short, if it's a PowerVR GPU then the spec is pretty much a faster clocked 3GS. Now, if you imagine that the iPad isn't such a huge departure from the 3GS then I'd have to presume the 4G iPhone won't supercede the iPad but just match it.
This being the case, if they run the same OS then my suggestion of merely dropping the 4G iPhone in an IPS screen dock sounds like a much better solution and being able to have one data contract, especially if the 4G iPhone uses a 4G network.
It's only a better solution for end users though. There wouldn't have been such a huge gold-rush for devs as users would feel less inclined to buy separate apps and expect devs to make scalable apps.
I'm a bit disappointed to know the iPad has half the RAM of the Nexus One.
I think I found one more reason:
256MB RAM
"iPad doesn't finish rendering websites with lots of images"
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=888675
I expected either 256 or 512 and like I said a while back, although you can look at specs alone and draw wild conclusions, they do have real consequences. As I suspected, Apple had good reason to keep it quiet. Seems like the CPU is a single 1GHz Cortex A8 too.
Long story short, if it's a PowerVR GPU then the spec is pretty much a faster clocked 3GS. Now, if you imagine that the iPad isn't such a huge departure from the 3GS then I'd have to presume the 4G iPhone won't supercede the iPad but just match it.
This being the case, if they run the same OS then my suggestion of merely dropping the 4G iPhone in an IPS screen dock sounds like a much better solution and being able to have one data contract, especially if the 4G iPhone uses a 4G network.
It's only a better solution for end users though. There wouldn't have been such a huge gold-rush for devs as users would feel less inclined to buy separate apps and expect devs to make scalable apps.
I'm a bit disappointed to know the iPad has half the RAM of the Nexus One.
iFixIt was pretty definitive in the 512MB analysis-- based on chip markings that showed 256 per die, and Xrays that showed two dies. So I'm not sure I'd want to take the (apparently somewhat erratic) diagnostics of some dude on MacRumors over that.
"Lots of images" doesn't really accurately describe the "example" web site, either, since it has more images than 99% of the sites anyone would visit.