vs. netbooks, I think it makes a HUGE difference in a mobile setting to have the whole computer on a single table, rather than a monitor-keyboard set that opens up, and being able to position horizontally or portrait-style is something you couldn't do with laptops/netbooks. vs iTouch, from what I've read, it's lightening fast (and it's interesting Apple didn't hype their new CPU much). But otherwise, it doesn't seem to be much more than a iTouch with a bigger screen, but I think that's the point. It's backwards, but it might make more sense to think of iTouch/iPhone as iPad nanos, as in, books and movies and web pages are meant to be consumed on a tablet-sized device, but can be shrunk to fit on a palmtop device. But like I posted before, the meat isn't the device, but the software, and the idea of books and websites and apps as simply "content", as opposed to different media, that is accessed through a single device, and I don't think that blurring of the lines is possible with an iPod or a netbook.
Seems like most tech forums are really hammering away it this morning. Most people don't really know where it fits in and are criticizing it for not having the capability of a full netbook. It's not a netbook subsititute (although it can be used as such). It was launched as an ebook reader/media device. The stupidest criticism has to be the "I can already do all of this stuff on my iPhone" line. No shit. I've had an ebook reader on my iPhone from the day I got it, but its ridiculous trying to read an entire document on it. I travel regularly, and this is exactly the device I would need. I used to lug around my 10lb gaming laptop, but its incredibly inconvenient - tried a netbook, but it was annoyingly slow, lately I've resorted to just using my iPhone, but its uncomfortable using it for long periods of time. This is small enough to be very portable, but big enough to be comfortable for long periods of use. Not to mention it has the ability to play all the appstore games, which I love - and I can't wait to see the games that are developed for specifically for the tablet. It's not a perfect device, and there are several disappointing aspects, but for a media/gaming junkie who is always "connected" this will do just fine.
It may also be nice for older people who are not used and don't want to get used to keyboards/mouses as input devices. I for one love my MB pro for travelling, but then again there are electrical plugs and full size tables on most long distance trains in europe...
don't want to thread-jack, just a quick comment. on what basis should workplace PCs be removed from the calculation? there are very good reasons for companies to prefer PCs over Macs. ok, carry on.
I'm thinking a couple of reasons: * From a business standpoint, it's not something that Apple is concerned about, and something that clearly doesn't affect Apple's overall health as a corporation. Apple doesn't offer the same level of discounts on enterprise sales that their competitors do, because for better or worse, Apple isn't concerned with market share or pure revenue for their own sake. It's like a baseball player who doesn't hit for average. It would be a valid source of complaint if his team considered batting average a good measure of his value, but most teams care more about OPS+. * Because corporate purchases are often made with the price in mind, and not end user experience, it's not necessarily a good indicator of what people want or like. Now, look at retail sales, where people buy computers that they actually want, there's been tremendous growth. And if you narrow it down to the segment Apple actually competes in, premium PCs, Apple accounts for something like 2/3 of the market share and 90% of the revenue share.
I meant that when you want to find out what percentage of people buy a PC or a Mac for their own personal use, because it's the computer they prefer, then it doesn't really make sense to look at numbers that include workplace PCs that were bought en masse.
price is a major factor though for companies. another major one is flexibility. PCs are much easier configured to the particular needs of a company, and to reconfigure should the need arise at a certain point, than the one-fits-all Macs. which in turn pushes down purchase and long-term maintenance costs. another thing is, if your company is into R&D of most kinds, the open nature of PCs makes far more sense than a closed system like the Mac. if you need more than just a terminal, if you have to connect self developed hardware etc. that's also the main reason programmers much prefer PCs over Macs. I personally don't know a single programmer who uses Macs. a PC is like a Lego system, if you want to do things which require new or reconfigured hardware, it's simply the obvious choice. I can see private people preferring Macs, and don't have a problem with that as long as the smugness stays out, but I've worked in IT departments of medium sized companies, and there's no way we would have ever chosen a Mac system over a PC infrastructure. and really isn't just about the price.
yeah, well, it's no secret that Apple are brilliant at marketing. to what extend that constitutes as 'actually want' is another question. I can see the appeal of Macs to a lot of people, but let's be honest, it has a lot to do with 'looking pretty'. I use Ubuntu, which allows me to buy a far cheaper computer, gives me as much stability and security as a Mac, and a far bigger pool of free software to choose from. Linux is nowadays just as easily installed and to use as Windows, and looks just as pretty if you put a little bit of effort into it. now please tell me, what exactly does a Mac give you that you 'actually want', which Ubuntu can't provide. and I get a flexible piece of hardware on top of that, even though most people couldn't care less about it of course.
you prefer. I really don't like Macs that much. it's simply no good for what I need computers for. and the same is true for companies. as I've explained before, there's far more to them just buying the cheapest shit en masse, there are good reasons IT specialists buy PCs, and not Macs. you can of course exclude all the people from the market who have different needs for computers than you and then say 'look, everyone really actually prefers Macs'. but that's a bit silly, don't you think?
No disagreement on the first part, but it's not like Dell's corporate sales department is run by a bunch of trained chimps, you know? And you can argue whether Apple is luring people into deceiving themselves into wanting Apple products, they do "want". If looking good was a path to dominating the category, then I'd be seeing more Bang & Olufsen products out there. And I think the Palm Pre is a whole lot prettier than the iPhone. I think you answered your own question, partly anyway. Most people aren't tech people or programmers or engineers of Engadget commenters. People like what Apple sells, which isn't so much hardware or software, but a computing experience as designed by Apple. That includes, in no small parts, OS X and Apple's customer support system. Some people might not like it and might want more customization. And that's awesome. But that's not true for most consumers. I think, in a way, tech people have a harder time understanding or accepting Apple's popularity as anything more than irrational, because they're used to thinking about tech products in terms of specs and feature checkboxes and versatility. But consumers choose Apple the same way they choose cars or vacation packages or houses, pretty much anything of value.
Tech people have a hard time understanding why people like Apple computers so much because you don't get anything for the price premium. You are paying significantly more for something with less functionality and flexibility, roughly the same quality, and only better aesthetics. It's rare for people to spend more on something purely for the aesthetics. Designer clothes, cars etc. all offer something more than just aesthetics - ex. build quality, more functionality, quality of materials. That said, I do like the Apple mobile products because they are priced right in line with comparable devices, and what you lose in hardware functionality (camera etc.) is more than made up for with the variety of the apps on the app store.
I've been reading a lot of blogs and listening to tech pundits a lot, and many are saying that there are aspects of the iPad that will be available at launch that were not discussed yesterday. For example, the print content capabilities don't seem really fleshed out yet. Apple is no doubt working hard at this moment to forge agreements with more and more publishers. I wouldn't be surprised if, by the time of launch, there is an easy way to get paid subscriptions to print magazines on the iPad--much like what the Kindle has. Also, more publishers of newspapers and magazines are no doubt hard at work on iPad-specific programs. Only the New York Times was able to knock out a presentation-worthy version of an iPad app with only three weeks notice for yesterday's event. More is on the way. Also, the device does include a microphone, meaning that VOIP programs are certainly possible (and probably probable). Your skype won't include video, that's true, but so what? (I'm not a huge user of skype so maybe this is more of a problem to others) Also, we don't really know yet what other kinds of peripherals can be attached to the device--but assuming a camera could, through the dock-connector-turned-regular-USB-port, therein enters the video and photo taking capability. Maybe we'll see a device that allows video out--you can then use this device as a sort of light version of the Apple TV, so you can share photos, music and video on a big screen. Also, this is a great device if you have kids--this device theoretically could replace their portable gaming device and their portable DVD player, if you load it up with iTunes content. Plus it can have their textbook for school on it. There will also doubtless be professional applications for the device--as a tablet for doctors, for example. I don't think that this device will go crazy right away, like the iPhone did. There might be more of a "slow build" for its popularity and application among the public. We'll see. I, for one, won't be getting one right away. I already have an iPhone, and I'm not in the market for an eBook reader or a portable movie player. But I can definitely see how lots of folks who don't have an iPhone could be very interested. Also, above I started four paragraphs in a row with "Also." Go me.
have you tried Ubuntu, or was it another Linux distribution? Ubuntu is certainly as easy as Windows to install nowadays, no question. that might not mean that it's easy for a non-tech person, but it's no more difficult than Windows. non-tech friends of mine have often problems with Windows, they wouldn't dare a fresh full installation themselves, they usually ask me or someone other who knows. as they would with Ubuntu no doubt. but that doesn't make my claim invalid.
I really don't have a hard time understanding the appeal of Macs, and as I said before, they have a perfectly valid place in the marketplace. my point is really, as is yours, that everyone has different needs from a computer. I just didn't understand why companies should be taken out of the marketplace, to manipulate the statistics, to claim that Macs are really far more popular than they appear. they are just as popular as they appear, what the official market statistic shows. companies simply have different needs to a private consumer in most cases, but they are just as valid. PCs are very much needed for technical developments in the world, they offer things which Macs simply can't. and it really isn't just the price, there's a fundamental difference between the two. and that's why they are so far ahead of Macs in the market
My most recent Linux installation experience was installing Fedora 11 onto my laptop. For one thing, I had to do a bit of mucking around to get the built-in WiFi card to work. I got working eventually, but then, I've got a master's degree in computer science and I've been using *nix systems for 20 years. I'm the exceptional case. It's a lot better than five or ten years ago, but it's still a bit behind Windows in terms of ease of installation and ease of use. And Windows is well behind Mac. That being said, Windows (and Linux) gets a lot of stick, in large part because they do support all sorts of hardware from all sorts of manufacturers. When you have a closed architecture like Apple does, it does simplify your life as an OS developer quite a bit. In my own situation where I had to much around with Fedora to get my WiFi card to work, that would not have been a problem with an installation of MacOS onto a MacBook, because Apple would've known what would likely be in that MacBook from the get-go. On the one hand, that makes things a lot more user-friendly. On the other, it locks you into a relatively small set of hardware choices and the prices reflect that.
This is one of the most important aspects that people are overlooking. iPhone gaming has come a long way. More and more big gaming developers are porting games over to it, or developing games specifically for the iPhone. The iPad gives developers more horsepower to tap into, and more screen real estate allows games to have a bigger control hud or create new control schemes.
Bingo. Your thumbs are no longer going to be blocking 20% of the display. I can also see that strategy games like Civilization and similar games are going to be a lot better on the iPad.
Exactly. Does anyone remember the portable CD player that could play MP3 cds? That whole line of devices lasted what? About 2 years at most?
I'm not going to get involved with the general Apple debate this time around but the iPad gets a meh from me based on what I have seen thus far. I think it is too big and too limited to justify carrying it around everyday when I already have my smartphone (while Apple fans have their iPhone/iPod Touch) and I do not see any benefit over carrying it instead of a netbook or my ultraportable laptop. Despite what you are saying above Apple is asking the consumer to make a choice as you are not going to have one of each. It will be interesting to see how it is positioned against other options because at the moment even Apple fans are questioning where it fits. My main issues with the iPad are: Too big. Limited iPhone OS. No multitasking. Not an e-ink display. No Flash. No camera. No physical keyboard (accessory adds to lack of portability). Now I think there is a place for a device of this nature but it needs to be more portable and simply do more in order to make it a compelling option. Currently I think it appeals to casual consumers who just want a simple device to do the basics particularly if they do not currently have a smartphone or an iPhone/iPod Touch. It will be interesting to see how many of these I actually see out and about. I can see many people who buy one leaving it at home most of the time. Let's see what Android brings to the table.
I was on the fence about getting one, but have decided that yeah it works for me. I was looking at the Kindle DX which is $489 and the base iPad is only $10 more. Personally I want the 32GB so it's $110, but for me being able to watch movies, listen to music, surf the web, use a SHIT TON of apps, etc is worth it for me. eInk doesn't do squat for me considering I read books on my iPhone now while in bed and it doesn't bother my eyes. I want something that's small and I can do things while lying in bed with the lights out. I LOVE the fact that one of my favorite Mac apps, ComicBookLover, is now also available for the iPhone and will have its own iPad app. Now I'll be able to read all my digital comics whenever and where ever I want. Yes I have a laptop, but the iPad is more convenient for what I want to do. Besides, while it may not have multitasking and other features now you can bet that it will sometime this year. I can only imagine what developers will come up with in regards to iPad specific apps. Also, the no flash thing doesn't really bother me considering how craptastic Flash is. A lot of developers are moving away from flash to html5 (like Youtube) since it's far better.
The bezels are a little big, but overall the screen needed to be around 10'' to make reading worthwhile. It's incredibly limited, but those of us who have iPhone are aware of the variety of 3rd party apps that alleviates this issue (its why I waited a while to ditch my Nokia E90 communicator, which was the exact opposite, and pick up an iPhone) Another valid concern, but this is a software issue and a lot of sites are reporting this ability is coming in iPhone OS 4.0 Its a trade off you have to make if you want a full color screen and the ability to play video This is the biggest problem, and I'm not sure how why they would release a device that is supposed to provide a great web experience, without Flash support. Hopefully this will come in an update. This is something of an issue, but I don't mind not having a camera as you will mostly be using this device without a table in front of you, so video chat while having to hold it up to your face sounds uncomfortable and probably wouldn't be used a great deal. Still expect to see this in the second revision of the device. While this is a loss, I can understand the decision not to include it as you would have to sacrifice screen space or have a slide out keyboard which makes the device much thicker. It's an entertainment gadget, and you probably won't type on it any more than you do on your iPhone. In a pinch you could use iWorks and the accessory, but you would be better off carrying a full laptop in those situations. A less talked about issue if the odd screen resolution - 1024x768. You would think in 2010 that they would opt for 1280x720 so you can play HD/widescreen video.