Outside of the publishing industry their reputation amongst Mac users is poor. Much like Microsoft, many Mac users today are actively looking to rid themselves of Adobe software.
I'm going with Aperture as soon as I get my Canon DSLR. Probably would never need Photoshop for my basic needs.
Check out the number of Mac users of Aperture v Lightroom:
I don't dispute the numbers. Adobe's been smart about running extended Beta for past version of LR which basically got Photogs hooked on their workflow. Couple that with Apple's silence on Aperture's future and voila.
Though Scott Bourne has restored my faith that Aperture is a worthy program. He's testing both LR and Aperture and will report his findings.
Jailbroken means that you remove the lock on the wireless carrier that the phone is locked down to. In Apple's case, that's AT&T.
The Nexus One, by the way, is only available through Google, and not through a wireless carrier. But, it currently only works with T-Mobile, which has a limited userbase in the first place.
So, stop spreading around lies.
In point of fact, Jailbroken means that you can load any software you like on your iPhone, rather than being restricted to software only sold by Apple. The term you are thinking of is "unlocked".
And the Nexus One is available for ATT as well as T-Mobile.
But when Apple needed Logic to be awesome they put forth the effort and now it is indeed awesome. They can do the same with Aperture but I wish they'd go even further and do something to take on Photoshop proper.
I think you misunderstood me. I think that people who are considering buying a phone often ask others if they are happy with their phone and if they recommend it for others. I know that I have discussed phone experience several times over the last ten years or so.
Understood. I will edit my other post if it will let me. We all type things too fast that others might misinturpret at times
Droid is the Creative Zen that competed with the iPod early on. I was once such user, who thought a more feature fitted device would trounce Apple's offering readily. When I finally sat down with an iPod, I then came around, soon after I made my / - and I never bought Creative again.
This is where Droid is eventually headed.
Maybe if Apple had come out on all major carriers out of the gate, this is the scenario we'd be looking at. However, they didn't. Not being on Verizon and the others gave Apple's competitors an opening. So in the last 3 years, the competition has been gaining ground, and I'd say the Droid has just about caught up.
According to Wikipedia: "In October, 2009, Gartner Inc. predicted that by 2012, Android would become the world's second most popular smartphone platform, behind Nokia's Symbian OS, which is very popular outside the US. Meanwhile, BlackBerry would fall from 2nd to 5th place, iPhone would remain in 3rd place, and Microsoft's Windows Mobile would remain in 4th place."
More than 50 different Android based phones are predicted to ship in 2010. That's the advantage of an open and free OS.
The iPhone is just one product in a crowded market. The Android platform is strong, and growing.
They can do the same with Aperture but I wish they'd go even further and do something to take on Photoshop proper.
Like, say, buying Adobe.
I don't think they would do that. It is not like when Adobe bought Macromedia. They killed Freehand because they had Illustrator and GoLive because they acquired Dreamweaver. If Apple bought Adobe they would have to do something with Flash and since they don't have anything to replace it they would have to support it God forbid, Right?
They might do better buying Pixelmator, Coda, Opacity, Elgato, first. That way they have the full publishing suite plus better TV support with eyeTV. After they get most of the creatives weaned off Adobe then develop something to take on Flash.
Please quote your source for Apple being the first. 1983 was a long time ago, and Apple Macintosh, Commodore 64, Commodore Amiga and the PC-DOS all received MIDI interfaces in 1983 after MIDI was standardized. However, there were computers prior to 1983 that were using non-standardized midi interfaces. I don't think you are going to find a pre 1983 source, sorry. As far as Firewire (Apple's name for IEEE 1394) it was a joint development with major contributions made by engineers from Texas Instruments, Sony, Digital Equipment Corporation, IBM, and INMOS/SGS Thomson (now STMicroelectronics). As an additional note, hardly anyone uses firewire. That is not something for Apple to hang their hat one. It was never that successful outside of niche markets. The same could be said for midi.
1) Apple sure did invent Firewire. Once they submitted it to IEEE for standards certification, those other companies joined the working group and helped to add to the standard.
2) Apple licensed the GUI from Xerox? You should tell Xerox because they tried to sue Apple for the GUI because it was unlicensed. But then Xerox lost that suit, IIRC, because Xerox had never used the concept outside of a lab and had never initiated any attempt to bring a product to market that used a GUI. Apple was obviously inspired by the very early and very rough work at Xerox and admit as much. But they were the first to bring a GUI to the PC market and all GUIs after were far more than inspired by the Mac implementation of a GUI. A GUI could have meant any virtual representation of a physical work flow. Stacks, tubes, cups and saucers. Instead, they all went with folders, files, icons, trash cans..essentially exactly what Apple pioneered with their specific GUI implementation of representing an virtual office space. This isn't really even in question anymore. Apple lost the lawsuit against MS because at the time the courts decided the look and feel (virtual office paradigm) could not be patented. Today would be a very different story if MS was a blatant with borrowing from Apple.
A couple other items Apple brought to market first (i.e. not developed in a lab and unreleased):
-The modern PDA and smartphones are directly descended from the Newton
-Digital camera. Kodak might have invented it, but decades later, Apple sold the first.
I don't dispute the numbers. Adobe's been smart about running extended Beta for past version of LR which basically got Photogs hooked on their workflow. Couple that with Apple's silence on Aperture's future and voila.
Though Scott Bourne has restored my faith that Aperture is a worthy program. He's testing both LR and Aperture and will report his findings.
I wanted to use Aperture but just finally gave up with it. I will go and take another look but LR works really well for me. I guess I was questioning the assumption that Mac users outside of the publishing industry are abandoning Adobe more than I was trying to promote the relative merits of Aperture vs Lightroom. I should have been more clear about that. Maybe Mac users outside of the publishing and pro photography realms are abandoning it but, without numbers to back it up, I suspect that in most creative studios and agencies you are still going to find a lot of Adobe products. What are viable alternatives to Photoshop (for more than photo retouching), Illustrator, InDesign (Quark is too expensive and the licensing issues were simply too frustrating to deal with), After Effects (Nuke starts at more than twice the price and has a very different node based workflow which while useful in some situations the keyframe approach of AE works better for a lot of our artists), Flash (I have yet to find a viable alternative that does everything Flash does), Acrobat Pro (yes, Preview is underrated but there are features in Acrobat Pro that preview does not have). Plus all of Adobe's products play nice with each other so it is easy to move stuff from one program to the next. We have looked at some of Corel's products and use Painter and have even looked at GIMP but for the immediate future, it will be CS4 from Adobe that will play a large part in our production pipelines and I am sure many other Mac based creative ad agencies as well. Other plusses for the use of Adobe software for us is that it is a lot easier to find people who are trained on Adobe software when we are hiring and there is a massive 3rd party plugin world out there for Photoshop and AE. Adobe is also ahead of Apple in making PremierPro 64 bit so, while we currently use FCP exclusively, I will be trying out Premier Pro CS5 to see if it can speed up our workflow. For us, it really is about which tools will give us the best ROI than asking if it was made by Apple or Adobe before making a decision.
The resources and processing power needed for media creation (At least business grade) is well beyond the abilities of the current iPad. You could be right about 2013. Technology changes at a rapid pace, and in 3 years. mobile technology should be catching up to what desktop technology is now. So I would have to say that by then, you could be right. Some competitors like HP though are already ahead of the game developing a product with a full OS on it. Other manufactures developing similar devices will also go the full OS route. This will trigger hardware developers to increase efforts on mobile technologies that drive slate devices and netbooks. It is already possible to get netbooks with power equal to entry level gaming machines, and the slates with tegra 2 processors that are coming out very quickly will already be powerful enough for the likes of Photoshop or CAD. It's going to get interesting.
OMG, you have now gone and shot yourself in the foot.
What a shame, I was interested and found it reasonable reading at first.
Tegra 2, running Android no less, will do Photoshop/CAD, hehe.
Do you think Apple has spent all this money and time on the SoC A4 combined with a PowerVR SGX GPU and are then going to sit on their hands while Google develops Android into a mystical OS that can run CAD?
1) Apple sure did invent Firewire. Once they submitted it to IEEE for standards certification, those other companies joined the working group and helped to add to the standard.
2) Apple licensed the GUI from Xerox? You should tell Xerox because they tried to sue Apple for the GUI because it was unlicensed. But then Xerox lost that suit, IIRC, because Xerox had never used the concept outside of a lab and had never initiated any attempt to bring a product to market that used a GUI. Apple was obviously inspired by the very early and very rough work at Xerox and admit as much. But they were the first to bring a GUI to the PC market and all GUIs after were far more than inspired by the Mac implementation of a GUI. A GUI could have meant any virtual representation of a physical work flow. Stacks, tubes, cups and saucers. Instead, they all went with folders, files, icons, trash cans..essentially exactly what Apple pioneered with their specific GUI implementation of representing an virtual office space. This isn't really even in question anymore. Apple lost the lawsuit against MS because at the time the courts decided the look and feel (virtual office paradigm) could not be patented. Today would be a very different story if MS was a blatant with borrowing from Apple.
A couple other items Apple brought to market first (i.e. not developed in a lab and unreleased):
-The modern PDA and smartphones are directly descended from the Newton
-Digital camera. Kodak might have invented it, but decades later, Apple sold the first.
Wow, ok the Xerox 8010, a.k.a. "Star". went on sale in 1979.
Texas Instruments patented a film-less electronic camera in 1972, the first to do so. In August, 1981, Sony released the Sony Mavica electronic still camera, the camera which was the first commercial electronic camera.
I wont even bother with the rest of what you said. Your credability is shot.
P.S. Microsoft Liscensed the GUI from Xerox too.... Nobodys perfect, but Apple surly dosn't deserve credit for that invention.
OMG, you have now gone and shot yourself in the foot.
What a shame, I was interested and found it reasonable reading at first.
Tegra 2, running Android no less, will do Photoshop/CAD, hehe.
Do you think Apple has spent all this money and time on the SoC A4 combined with a PowerVR SGX GPU and are then going to sit on their hands while Google develops Android into a mystical OS that can run CAD?
You're outta your psychological-tree.
Apple cannot compete with NVidia in processing and graphics. That is out of Apples element. History will repeat itself with Apple getting their hands in designing processors again. Apple has nothing on NVidia when it comes to that kind of hardware. Why do you think Apple changed to Intel hardware in their computers. They cannot match or keep pace with the rest of the industry.
The only people calling it a computer are those criticizing it. It's a media consumption device with a few "computer-like" features built in. If you want an Apple computer that is a computer be prepared to pay $1K.
You forgot the Mac Mini at $599 (or less if you buy refurb).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr_Wizard
I find that a very funny statement coming from Apple. Didn’t they just squelch a company for selling hardware with Apple OS on them. They also have no open market for software developers within the IPhone only what they approve of. Pot calling the Kettle black I would say...
Do you REALLY need someone to explain the difference between supporting open internet standards and being happy when someone steals your intellectual property?
Open standards is in no way inconsistent with intellectual property rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by druble
Meh, Adobe dosn't need Apple. They have over 90% of the computers in the world using Flash. They must be doing something right. Besides, there are many things you can do with flash that you won't be able to do with HTML 5.
I've been trying for weeks to get someone to say what can be done with Flash that can't be done with open standards. You keep making that statement - how about an example?
Oh, and before answering, look at the Toy Story iAd to get an idea of what html 5 is capable of.
Since no one has been able to give an example in spite of the fact that I've asked at least a dozen times on this forum in the past 2 weeks, I guess it's safe to assume that you're lying.
Comments
Outside of the publishing industry their reputation amongst Mac users is poor. Much like Microsoft, many Mac users today are actively looking to rid themselves of Adobe software.
I'm going with Aperture as soon as I get my Canon DSLR. Probably would never need Photoshop for my basic needs.
Check out the number of Mac users of Aperture v Lightroom:
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2009/09...erture_09.html
Check out the number of Mac users of Aperture v Lightroom:
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2009/09...erture_09.html
I don't dispute the numbers. Adobe's been smart about running extended Beta for past version of LR which basically got Photogs hooked on their workflow. Couple that with Apple's silence on Aperture's future and voila.
Though Scott Bourne has restored my faith that Aperture is a worthy program. He's testing both LR and Aperture and will report his findings.
http://photofocus.com/2010/03/27/ape...or-prime-time/
Jailbroken means that you remove the lock on the wireless carrier that the phone is locked down to. In Apple's case, that's AT&T.
The Nexus One, by the way, is only available through Google, and not through a wireless carrier. But, it currently only works with T-Mobile, which has a limited userbase in the first place.
So, stop spreading around lies.
In point of fact, Jailbroken means that you can load any software you like on your iPhone, rather than being restricted to software only sold by Apple. The term you are thinking of is "unlocked".
And the Nexus One is available for ATT as well as T-Mobile.
Check out the number of Mac users of Aperture v Lightroom:
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2009/09...erture_09.html
LOOL Apoorture.
But when Apple needed Logic to be awesome they put forth the effort and now it is indeed awesome. They can do the same with Aperture but I wish they'd go even further and do something to take on Photoshop proper.
Like, say, buying Adobe.
I think you misunderstood me. I think that people who are considering buying a phone often ask others if they are happy with their phone and if they recommend it for others. I know that I have discussed phone experience several times over the last ten years or so.
Understood. I will edit my other post if it will let me. We all type things too fast that others might misinturpret at times
Droid is the Creative Zen that competed with the iPod early on. I was once such user, who thought a more feature fitted device would trounce Apple's offering readily. When I finally sat down with an iPod, I then came around, soon after I made my / - and I never bought Creative again.
This is where Droid is eventually headed.
Maybe if Apple had come out on all major carriers out of the gate, this is the scenario we'd be looking at. However, they didn't. Not being on Verizon and the others gave Apple's competitors an opening. So in the last 3 years, the competition has been gaining ground, and I'd say the Droid has just about caught up.
According to Wikipedia: "In October, 2009, Gartner Inc. predicted that by 2012, Android would become the world's second most popular smartphone platform, behind Nokia's Symbian OS, which is very popular outside the US. Meanwhile, BlackBerry would fall from 2nd to 5th place, iPhone would remain in 3rd place, and Microsoft's Windows Mobile would remain in 4th place."
More than 50 different Android based phones are predicted to ship in 2010. That's the advantage of an open and free OS.
The iPhone is just one product in a crowded market. The Android platform is strong, and growing.
They can do the same with Aperture but I wish they'd go even further and do something to take on Photoshop proper.
Like, say, buying Adobe.
I don't think they would do that. It is not like when Adobe bought Macromedia. They killed Freehand because they had Illustrator and GoLive because they acquired Dreamweaver. If Apple bought Adobe they would have to do something with Flash and since they don't have anything to replace it they would have to support it God forbid, Right?
They might do better buying Pixelmator, Coda, Opacity, Elgato, first. That way they have the full publishing suite plus better TV support with eyeTV. After they get most of the creatives weaned off Adobe then develop something to take on Flash.
Check out the number of Mac users of Aperture v Lightroom:
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2009/09...erture_09.html
BTW, Lightroom is created using the Qt cross platform library.
According to Jobs this makes is a substandard product.
Apparently a lot of users disagree.
I'm real glad he can't control what I install on my Mac.
Please quote your source for Apple being the first. 1983 was a long time ago, and Apple Macintosh, Commodore 64, Commodore Amiga and the PC-DOS all received MIDI interfaces in 1983 after MIDI was standardized. However, there were computers prior to 1983 that were using non-standardized midi interfaces. I don't think you are going to find a pre 1983 source, sorry. As far as Firewire (Apple's name for IEEE 1394) it was a joint development with major contributions made by engineers from Texas Instruments, Sony, Digital Equipment Corporation, IBM, and INMOS/SGS Thomson (now STMicroelectronics). As an additional note, hardly anyone uses firewire. That is not something for Apple to hang their hat one. It was never that successful outside of niche markets. The same could be said for midi.
1) Apple sure did invent Firewire. Once they submitted it to IEEE for standards certification, those other companies joined the working group and helped to add to the standard.
2) Apple licensed the GUI from Xerox? You should tell Xerox because they tried to sue Apple for the GUI because it was unlicensed. But then Xerox lost that suit, IIRC, because Xerox had never used the concept outside of a lab and had never initiated any attempt to bring a product to market that used a GUI. Apple was obviously inspired by the very early and very rough work at Xerox and admit as much. But they were the first to bring a GUI to the PC market and all GUIs after were far more than inspired by the Mac implementation of a GUI. A GUI could have meant any virtual representation of a physical work flow. Stacks, tubes, cups and saucers. Instead, they all went with folders, files, icons, trash cans..essentially exactly what Apple pioneered with their specific GUI implementation of representing an virtual office space. This isn't really even in question anymore. Apple lost the lawsuit against MS because at the time the courts decided the look and feel (virtual office paradigm) could not be patented. Today would be a very different story if MS was a blatant with borrowing from Apple.
A couple other items Apple brought to market first (i.e. not developed in a lab and unreleased):
-The modern PDA and smartphones are directly descended from the Newton
-Digital camera. Kodak might have invented it, but decades later, Apple sold the first.
I don't dispute the numbers. Adobe's been smart about running extended Beta for past version of LR which basically got Photogs hooked on their workflow. Couple that with Apple's silence on Aperture's future and voila.
Though Scott Bourne has restored my faith that Aperture is a worthy program. He's testing both LR and Aperture and will report his findings.
http://photofocus.com/2010/03/27/ape...or-prime-time/
I wanted to use Aperture but just finally gave up with it. I will go and take another look but LR works really well for me. I guess I was questioning the assumption that Mac users outside of the publishing industry are abandoning Adobe more than I was trying to promote the relative merits of Aperture vs Lightroom. I should have been more clear about that. Maybe Mac users outside of the publishing and pro photography realms are abandoning it but, without numbers to back it up, I suspect that in most creative studios and agencies you are still going to find a lot of Adobe products. What are viable alternatives to Photoshop (for more than photo retouching), Illustrator, InDesign (Quark is too expensive and the licensing issues were simply too frustrating to deal with), After Effects (Nuke starts at more than twice the price and has a very different node based workflow which while useful in some situations the keyframe approach of AE works better for a lot of our artists), Flash (I have yet to find a viable alternative that does everything Flash does), Acrobat Pro (yes, Preview is underrated but there are features in Acrobat Pro that preview does not have). Plus all of Adobe's products play nice with each other so it is easy to move stuff from one program to the next. We have looked at some of Corel's products and use Painter and have even looked at GIMP but for the immediate future, it will be CS4 from Adobe that will play a large part in our production pipelines and I am sure many other Mac based creative ad agencies as well. Other plusses for the use of Adobe software for us is that it is a lot easier to find people who are trained on Adobe software when we are hiring and there is a massive 3rd party plugin world out there for Photoshop and AE. Adobe is also ahead of Apple in making PremierPro 64 bit so, while we currently use FCP exclusively, I will be trying out Premier Pro CS5 to see if it can speed up our workflow. For us, it really is about which tools will give us the best ROI than asking if it was made by Apple or Adobe before making a decision.
The resources and processing power needed for media creation (At least business grade) is well beyond the abilities of the current iPad. You could be right about 2013. Technology changes at a rapid pace, and in 3 years. mobile technology should be catching up to what desktop technology is now. So I would have to say that by then, you could be right. Some competitors like HP though are already ahead of the game developing a product with a full OS on it. Other manufactures developing similar devices will also go the full OS route. This will trigger hardware developers to increase efforts on mobile technologies that drive slate devices and netbooks. It is already possible to get netbooks with power equal to entry level gaming machines, and the slates with tegra 2 processors that are coming out very quickly will already be powerful enough for the likes of Photoshop or CAD. It's going to get interesting.
OMG, you have now gone and shot yourself in the foot.
What a shame, I was interested and found it reasonable reading at first.
Tegra 2, running Android no less, will do Photoshop/CAD, hehe.
Do you think Apple has spent all this money and time on the SoC A4 combined with a PowerVR SGX GPU and are then going to sit on their hands while Google develops Android into a mystical OS that can run CAD?
You're outta your psychological-tree.
1) Apple sure did invent Firewire. Once they submitted it to IEEE for standards certification, those other companies joined the working group and helped to add to the standard.
2) Apple licensed the GUI from Xerox? You should tell Xerox because they tried to sue Apple for the GUI because it was unlicensed. But then Xerox lost that suit, IIRC, because Xerox had never used the concept outside of a lab and had never initiated any attempt to bring a product to market that used a GUI. Apple was obviously inspired by the very early and very rough work at Xerox and admit as much. But they were the first to bring a GUI to the PC market and all GUIs after were far more than inspired by the Mac implementation of a GUI. A GUI could have meant any virtual representation of a physical work flow. Stacks, tubes, cups and saucers. Instead, they all went with folders, files, icons, trash cans..essentially exactly what Apple pioneered with their specific GUI implementation of representing an virtual office space. This isn't really even in question anymore. Apple lost the lawsuit against MS because at the time the courts decided the look and feel (virtual office paradigm) could not be patented. Today would be a very different story if MS was a blatant with borrowing from Apple.
A couple other items Apple brought to market first (i.e. not developed in a lab and unreleased):
-The modern PDA and smartphones are directly descended from the Newton
-Digital camera. Kodak might have invented it, but decades later, Apple sold the first.
Wow, ok the Xerox 8010, a.k.a. "Star". went on sale in 1979.
Texas Instruments patented a film-less electronic camera in 1972, the first to do so. In August, 1981, Sony released the Sony Mavica electronic still camera, the camera which was the first commercial electronic camera.
I wont even bother with the rest of what you said. Your credability is shot.
P.S. Microsoft Liscensed the GUI from Xerox too.... Nobodys perfect, but Apple surly dosn't deserve credit for that invention.
OMG, you have now gone and shot yourself in the foot.
What a shame, I was interested and found it reasonable reading at first.
Tegra 2, running Android no less, will do Photoshop/CAD, hehe.
Do you think Apple has spent all this money and time on the SoC A4 combined with a PowerVR SGX GPU and are then going to sit on their hands while Google develops Android into a mystical OS that can run CAD?
You're outta your psychological-tree.
Apple cannot compete with NVidia in processing and graphics. That is out of Apples element. History will repeat itself with Apple getting their hands in designing processors again. Apple has nothing on NVidia when it comes to that kind of hardware. Why do you think Apple changed to Intel hardware in their computers. They cannot match or keep pace with the rest of the industry.
Flash isn't going away but its best days may be behind it. 100 million Flashless devices will get advertiser attention.
Right on. You might even say, 100 million Flashless devices in the dream income segment to which Apple sells will get advertiser attention.
InDesign (Quark is too expensive and the licensing issues were simply too frustrating to deal with)
Prices are on par, actually, unless you buy an Adobe Design Suite. But Quark is also shitloads easier to pirate.
The only people calling it a computer are those criticizing it. It's a media consumption device with a few "computer-like" features built in. If you want an Apple computer that is a computer be prepared to pay $1K.
You forgot the Mac Mini at $599 (or less if you buy refurb).
I find that a very funny statement coming from Apple. Didn’t they just squelch a company for selling hardware with Apple OS on them. They also have no open market for software developers within the IPhone only what they approve of. Pot calling the Kettle black I would say...
Do you REALLY need someone to explain the difference between supporting open internet standards and being happy when someone steals your intellectual property?
Open standards is in no way inconsistent with intellectual property rights.
Meh, Adobe dosn't need Apple. They have over 90% of the computers in the world using Flash. They must be doing something right. Besides, there are many things you can do with flash that you won't be able to do with HTML 5.
I've been trying for weeks to get someone to say what can be done with Flash that can't be done with open standards. You keep making that statement - how about an example?
Oh, and before answering, look at the Toy Story iAd to get an idea of what html 5 is capable of.
Since no one has been able to give an example in spite of the fact that I've asked at least a dozen times on this forum in the past 2 weeks, I guess it's safe to assume that you're lying.
Oh, and Apple is doomed.
Jobs: "No - flarn filth flarn are better than yours so - flarn!"
Chambers: "I would flarn filth flarn , but i can't get over your god damned proprietary wall!"
Jobs: "Its your mouth that is proprietary otherwise i'd tear down this wall myself and filth flarn filth!"
Chambers: "filth flarn filth flarn filth flarn filth"
Jobs: "Just kiddin, flarn filth ls. Last time you did i nearly died from heat exhaustion."
Chamber turns away from the wall and grabs shmidts and balmers hand. He glares back up at Jobs: "I learned my lesson,flarn filth flarn filth."
Chambers looks back once more to see Jobs on top of his wall practicing yoga as he has for many years - flarn filth flarn filths.
Edit: Apple is doomed.
Flarn filth filleted.
What the Flarn.
You really don't get it do you?
By your definition the iPhone is also a computer, but then so is a Sony Playstation or an XBox or a Wii.
It is a computer in the sense it has some of the same components, but is purpose is defined by its USE, not by what it is made from.
Once you understand the difference between an iPad and the device that have come before it, you will probably have grown up.
My iPad and iPhone have HP48 GX emulators on them. They are computers. It is just that simple.