iPad - Just a big iPod Touch? (Bad or good?)

[mtnDewFTW]

Many people have been saying that the iPad is just the iPod Touch on steroids. Well, that's not really the case in many ways, however, I do think that it's a good thing.

I mean, the iPod Touch is really am amazing MP3 player, and last time I checked, nothing has beat Safari yet. The App Store is where it really comes to life, and that's what keeps it going on and on.

Now, they implemented those key things into the iPad, but added a better and a bigger screen, put on 3G, and maybe even a camera. Plus redesigned all the core apps and added a whole new iBook Store.

I honestly don't see the bad in that. Yet, so many people say it in such a negative way, that it makes you think for a minute that it's a crappy device, just because it's based off of an amazing MP3 player, and a even more amazing phone.

What does the forum think? Is this good or bad?
How would you change the iPhone OS on the iPad?

 

[eawmp1]

Why don't you read the THOUSANDS of other posts on HUNDREDS of other threads on this topic?

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

It's bad for those who already have the iPhone/Touch, as there's absolutely nothing the iPad can do that the former can't. If they had added just one more thing to it (front-facing camera to make iChat possible), it'd completely change the equation. But that's coming in a 2nd revision, stay tuned.

It's good for those who don't already have the iPhone/Touch or can't have at&t due to poor reception.

 

[marksman]

iPod touch is awesome.

Bigger screen iPod touch is at least 500% more awesomer!

 

[marksman]

It's bad for those who already have the iPhone/Touch, as there's absolutely nothing the iPad can do that the former can't.

This is not true at all.

That is so weird that people can't comprehend what a significant difference a 9.7" screen is compared to a 3.5" screen.

Would you say there is "nothing" a 65" screen tv can do that a 20" tv can't do? I guess technically yes. However the experience between the two are not relative at all.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

This is not true at all.

That is so weird that people can't comprehend what a significant difference a 9.7" screen is compared to a 3.5" screen.

Would you say there is "nothing" a 65" screen tv can do that a 20" tv can't do? I guess technically yes. However the experience between the two are not relative at all.

If I need something bigger, I'd just go to the macbook or iMac.

Technically and functionally, there's still nothing the iPad can do that the iPhone can't. Both act as an ebook reader, a full word processor on the go, etc. Even though the experience between the two may be very different.

 

[Night Spring]

Technically and functionally, there's still nothing the iPad can do that the iPhone can't. Both act as an ebook reader, a full word processor on the go, etc. Even though the experience between the two may be very different.

Well, then, I suppose you'll also be happy watching the SuperBowl on a 20" tv, while I'll go kick back and enjoy it on my big 65" screen tv.

@marksman
Great analogy, and I suppose there's no help for those who don't get it, even with that analogy!

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

Well, then, I suppose you'll also be happy watching the SuperBowl on a 20" tv, while I'll go kick back and enjoy it on my big 65" screen tv.

@marksman
Great analogy, and I suppose there's no help for those who don't get it, even with that analogy!

No, think of it this way:
iPhone/Touch = 4" TV
iPad = 20" TV
iMac = 65" TV

I'll enjoy my SuperBowl viewing on the 24" iMac rather than the iPad.

 

[Hmac]

For printed or visual media and web browsing, the iPad will obviously be superior to the Touch or iPhone - more than enough reason to get it. Likewise video conferencing when the camera finally make its appearance. I can get rid of the Touch then and maybe get a Nano. Yeh, a Nano maybe then I can carry my MBP, a Nano, and my iPad - each for the purpose it does best -- computing, music, video/photos/print. All that in one bag instead of one device that's relatively lame at doing all three.

 

[eawmp1]

No, think of it this way:
iPhone/Touch = 4" TV
iPad = 20" TV
iMac = 65" TV

I'll enjoy my SuperBowl viewing on the 24" iMac rather than the iPad.

No, iMac = 65" TV/DVR/DVD player/recorder, complete audio/video editing station, full word-processor/presentation software/spreadsheet computer, etc.

Herein lies the problem...most people think of/desired the iPad to be a full-fledged computer. It was never designed to be this.

 

[d21mike]

If I need something bigger, I'd just go to the macbook or iMac.

Technically and functionally, there's still nothing the iPad can do that the iPhone can't. Both act as an ebook reader, a full word processor on the go, etc. Even though the experience between the two may be very different.

I think your question should be can the iMac do everything the iPad can do. Does the iMac allow you to run without a keyboard? Does the iMac support multi-touch? Does the iMac run all 140,000+ App Store Applications? With the last being the most important.

 

[Hmac]

If I need something bigger, I'd just go to the macbook or iMac.

Technically and functionally, there's still nothing the iPad can do that the iPhone can't. Both act as an ebook reader, a full word processor on the go, etc. Even though the experience between the two may be very different.

Size alone makes the iPod Touch or iPhone inadequate for reading and writing functions for many people, probably most.

 

[marksman]

I think some people think a 9.7" screen is only like 2.5x - 3x bigger than a 3.5" screen, but it is not.

http://www.displaywars.com/3,5-inch-4x3-vs-9,7-inch-4x3

This is the comparison of those two size screens in 4x3 ratio:

 

[kainjow]

I think this topic has already been discussed enough.