I have a desktop app for my Mac called ComicBookLover, which is an iTunes-eque app that lets me read/categorize all digital comics. There's a HUGE online scanning/sharing comic scene where you can get copies of comics the day/days after they're released on the stands. They use the cbr/cbz file format. I literally have over 100GB worth of comics that I've read that way. Now ComicBookLover has an iPhone app that lets you transfer any comic to their app and read it. It's free and in the alpha stage but still works well. The creators have already said that they're going to make an iPad app. For me that, and being an eBook reader, sealed the deal for me.
Any chance you could hook a keyboard and/or larger screen up to it? What about a world in which you could hook two iPads up to the same TV...that would be awesome where you could call plays on a videogame without your real-life opponent seeing it. (I think Nintendo had this with GameCube, right?)
Yes to the keyboard-- Apple will be selling a keyboard for the iPad, and I would think that third party versions would become available. As for a screen, it's unclear. The dock connector on the iPad is pretty much its only link to the outside world, so the question is how many different kinds of adapters and converters can be made for the dock connector. I have heard some speculate that, although the iPad doesn't have video out right now, it will pretty easily have video out through the dock connector. As for the video game idea, it sounds awesome, but I think it's getting a little far afield--maybe if Apple allowed developers to make iPad apps that then somehow synced up with your PS3 or XBOX.
Yeah, the video game idea probably is a bit far-fetched. Over/under on when Apple allows a synch to XBOX? The ability to hook it up to a larger screen would be nice in a classroom or home setting.
I think you can use a bluetooth keyboard with it. The Apple iPad keyboard has a dock built-in, though.
Chad's right, you can definitely use your Apple wireless keyboard with the iPad and I'm sure other wireless bluetooth keyboards.
this is a commonly held believe, but it's simply not true. people who believe that have clearly never worked in an IT department as decision makers. once you are forced to really think about it, the list of factors against an Apple hardware system is far far longer than the one against PCs. and why on earth should they switch to an Apple system? it's monopolised, therefore more expensive, and for what exactly? Apple fans like to think their machine is offering some kind of superior user experience. I personally have no idea what they are on about, so clearly it's a question of taste, and not some fact set in stone. so why should a company spend god knows how much money to throw out their entire existing system, buy something far more expensive, just to please a few people with a different user interface? it just doesn't make any sense. I doubt it. it will still make more sense to keep one system, instead of running what could be up to 3 different ones, with all the support it requires. and companies will still have budgets, they won't like spending 50% more an what is essentially just a terminal for some people just because of a personal preference.
So what are the technical things that PCs offer that Macs can't? Zero problems with viruses and spyware for me makes for a superior user experience - and something a lot of big companies would appreciate. I've been told that networking and rebuilding user accounts is simpler and easier - but I'll leave that to you to dispute. You can doubt it all you want but I can tell you it exists. Where do you get your 50% more figure?
Far far longer is a bit of a stretch, well not a bit, it is a stretch. I work in a company that employs over 300 people and in the past few years we've had entire departments convert from PC to Mac. Our Systems Dept., the IT guys, have all purchased Macs to compliment their PCs with some going Mac exclusive. Our servers are also XServe's. Patching PC's for exploits is an all too common occurrence lately, something they don't face with Macs. Some of the most common myths is that Mac's are too expensive, when you go toe to toe they're very comparable. Not to mention the maintenance factor. Speaking from personal experience, you're wrong. As I stated, my company is slowly making the transition to Macs in many areas. Granted, some areas will remain PC forever, unfortunately the department I'm in is one of them. Hell, our CEO switched to a Mac and iPhone, from his PC and Blackberry.
Because they haven't freaking seen or touched one yet. Once they do, recent company history suggests the outcome will be otherwise.
Here's a really interesting take by an Adobe Flash developer on why the iPhone and iPad will not have Flash. He argues that it really doesn't make sense, as the vast majority of flash applications would be rendered useless in a touch screen format: http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2010/02/20/an-adobe-flash-developer-on-why-the-ipad-cant-use-flash/ His argument is somewhat compelling, and it's a take I haven't heard before.
Im sure it will be, eventually... I was pretty close to buying a Kindle last Christmas, but when I got my hand on it I wasnt particularly impressed, I'll check the Ipad on the apple store before deciding.
I don't find it very convincing at all. he says himself that the mouseover events can be handled differently by the OS, but dismisses it as too complicated. I really don't think it is. it's straight forward, both from a programming, and user interface point of view. and are flash games really the thing people want most? I'd think it's more things like video and fancy stuff in general. and if flash were available on those platforms, games developers would take that into account and program accordingly. but I guess that would cut into the app store...
I've answered that in previous posts already. that there are less virus and spyware attacks on macs doesn't mean they are less vulnerable. first of all, if you want to spread a virus as fast and far as possible you'll obviously choose the OS which is most used. it's just common sense. that would be Windows then. if Macs were to be used in the same numbers as PCs, you can bet your ass off that they would be constantly under attack. and people would find a way past their security, no question about that. secondly, even then, it all depends on your system security. I've worked in one company for 5 years, and in all that time we've had exactly two viruses coming through our security. and neither were in any way dangerous. well, that might have been a bit too high, but they are more expensive.
well, things might be a bit different in the US, granted. but while I obviously see some companies over here with different OS, it's mainly small web companies. the designers usually like to work with Macs, the programmers often on Linux, and they have a need to test their sites on all platforms. I haven't seen a big company yet though which decided to switch to Macs in a big way. and things look even worst for Apple in countries like Russia or China. as for the security issue, again, if you only have a global market share of 5%, you are bound to be pretty much unaffected by that. I use Linux on a PC, and guess what, I don't have any problems with viruses or spyware either.
I didn't find anything very convincing that would apply to the average company but maybe I missed it. So you are saying they aren't less vulnerable? I thought you said earlier they were more stable and secure. And people love to repeat this theory for why Macs don't have these problems - which may or may not be true - but the number of Mac OSX users tripled in the last few years to something like 75 million and we still have zero problems of this kind. At this point, Macs are 100% safer than Windows computers regardless of what you believe may happen if they become more popular. Gee - only 2 viruses? And this was because you were competent? The incompetent companies are hosed? How about all the time and energy staying current on anti-virus software? And I don't believe you've only had 2 issues in 5 years - spyware is happening all the time and users are always clicking on crap - my company just last week was hit with some clever attack where users were prompted to open an attachment to track their Amazon order. Did anyone have their computer destroyed? Not as far as I know - but that doesn't mean it wasn't a headache to deal with. And at our company it isn't just the actual viruses that are a problem - every afternoon without fail my computer slow to a virtual crawl as it runs a virus scan. It's a big drain on productivity and just incredibly frustrating. When my coworker's computer was replaced recently she was told that it was slow slow because it was riddled with spyware. And I thought we were speaking generally of superior user experience - not just suitability for office use - I know more than a few friends who have had entire hard drives wiped out by viruses. One time is one too many. It isn't a superior user experience to be able to view porn without these kinds of concerns? And this is only one part of why I think the experience is superior - although I guess much of it you could chalk up to personal preference. For example, I find the search function on my Mac light years ahead of my work computer - which I find almost unusable. I also think the built in back-up program is simpler and better, and at some point I want to get a wireless airport base station with built in hard drive for wireless backups. Surely this is something you can do with Windows computers, but are they doing it this simply for average users? Many folks think this is largely a myth - see Dante's post earlier - but regardless, you get what you pay for. The refurbished Dell I bought cost me as much as any Mac I've paid for and didn't survive nearly as long as my Mac did - which I only replaced because I kept dropping it and screwed up the power supply - glad they have since replaced the way power cords are attached. I don't know if any Windows computers do this but the magnet method Apple uses is far superior to my Windows laptop.
Macs may be less prone to viruses/spyware but they aren't inherently more secure. Whenever they have those proof of concept white hat hacking conventions, Safari and OSX are the easiest, and fastest, to be breached. The safety really stems purely from the fact that the Mac userbase is still just too small to be targeted.
Fair enough - looks like we'll find out this year which does better: http://blogs.computerworld.com/15605/hacker_pwn2own_organizer_windows_7_is_safer_than_snow_leopard
exactly, and that was my point dark knight. if you want to spread a virus or spyware as far as possible before anti-virus software catches up with it, which system would you target, the one with a 92% market share, or the one with a 5% market share? Linux is probably the safest OS out there, but even Linux developers acknowledge that a big reason for that is it's obscurity.
Sure - and my point is as much as folks point this out, it doesn't change the fact that the reality is that they are more secure today. Maybe that will change, but it hasn't yet.
they are more secure because they are hardly targeted. they might be more stable, but that's because they are a closed system. it's a different philosophy which brings other draw-backs with it. that doesn't mean they are better though. switch the market share around, and it'd be the Windows PCs which are 100% safer. well, you can believe it. education plays a role there as well. keeping up-to-date anti-virus software is not time and energy intensive at all. all you need to do is to design a secure hard- and software architecture, implement it and run daily virus DB updates. it's not such a big deal as you are trying to make out. that's a bit of a problem, true, but again, can be easily minimised through smart scheduling. I know you won't believe me, but I don't know anyone. everyone I know is smart enough to back up all the important stuff. companies do that as a matter of fact. I can't comment on US prices, but over here it most definitely is not a myth. I've just had a look, the cheapest MacBook costs over £800, you can get a laptop PC for less than half that. I didn't check what you get for that price, but someone who really just needs a machine for surfing and typing will be far better of with a PC.
fair enough. but what's the point then of people switching to Macs if the end result will be the same once a critical mass is reached?