Eh? I can totally understand a Laptop is not a tablet, just like I understand their should be a significant price difference between the two due to the vast performance difference and some functionality difference.
And why the hell would you be using an iPad you brought if you are in the military? Doesn't the military have something a bit more.... advanced and robust then an iPad? You know putting those tax payers dollars to good use?
You seemed to have made a rather odd point, it makes sense yes, just seems an odd way to make it? I'm not denying you aren't in the military and go romping around the mountains of Afghanistan chasing the Taliban and insurgence, but it's cool if you use an iPad to guide bombers in!
My point is about the pricing, yes a tablet computer, hell an iPad Mini, is better in some military personals back pack then a laptop, I'm not arguing that, I am just arguing about the silly price, Apple should really have scrapped the 16GB and lowered all pricing of the other models with the 128 replacing the 64 price ao it would be 32, 64, 128.
But hell if you use an iPad in a war zone and it survives, kudos to the iPad I say!!
My question is: why
should there be a price difference between the two? The unsubsidized price of an iPhone is like $800 or something. You're assigning value
merely to computing horsepower. It is in that very issue that we disagree, I think value (and therefore reasonable cost) should be assigned to more than that.
On a different note, military purchases are based on budget, like any other corporation. You present your use cases, cost analyses, and submit a proposal. But BYO devices can be used when cleared, as well.
In addition, I've found the iPad to be an extremely tough device (it is made of metal, vs plastic). The glass is tough, and with very basic protection (I use skins in front and back; that's it.) it is surprisingly robust. The use cases I presented were to contrast how much different a laptop is to a tablet; they just cannot be practical in the same situations. Tablets, especially ones following Apple's archetype, are limited only by the individual's vision. Combat situations are defined by flexibility: you need to adapt quickly, make fast decisions, and the equipment has to facilitate, not hinder this. With an iPad in the field a combatant could keep/team share mission charts, identify prisoners and/or confirm neutralized threats, forward and receive records (medical, maintenance, operational), photograph and forward battle injuries for medevac preparation, receive battlefield data securely, control remote operated equipment, etc, etc, from a single, light, hand-held device with a looong battery life. You just cannot multitask in the field, any field, as easily with a laptop. Not even close. You could apply this logic to firemen, medics, forward deployed construction workers, and anywhere people need to get work done and have access to information and data in all its forms
without a desk.
Hence, comparisons between laptops and tablets are not reasonable, unless the tablet will not ever, ever, ever be used as a field device. The primary use of the device must be taken into account.
Again, do I want a cheaper iPad? Yes. Do I think Apple should have eliminated the 16GB setup? Yes. But is a $1,000 iPad
unreasonable? I don't think so. Time will tell if other consumers feel the same way..