Just a big iPod touch? -- 480x320 3.5" vs. 1024x768 9,7" multi-touch screen

[Casiotone]

So the iPad is "just a big iPod touch?".

Can't some people see how going from a 480x320 3.5" to a 1024x768 9.7" multi-touch screen will make a world of difference when it comes to apps and their interfaces?

An average finger takes like 1/5th of the iPhone screen width in portrait orientation, it's the bare minimum size a touch screen can be before becoming extremely limited or unusable. Having a higher-res 3.5" or 4" screen wouldn't make much of a difference.

With the iPad screen, not only you get more than 6x the screen estate, but you also cross a threshold where multi-touch technology can blossom, where new kinds of interface are possible.

Oh and please, those who stated that the iPad was "just a big iPod touch?" when they actually meant "while the big screen will bring tons of new possibilities it, doesn't have flash and multi-tasking like the iPod touch", please don't waste time replying to this post.

If you're able to realize the possibilities that a multitouch screen 6x bigger than the iPod touch screen, I feel that it's misleading and deceiving to state that it's just a big iPod touch.

I guess that some anger from the disappointment that it wasn't as open as you wanted, or simply some Apple hatred can explain such a blanket statement, but it doesn't make it more logical.

Obviously, as more and more iPad-specific apps will make their way into the app store it will be harder and harder to state that.

 

[marksman]

Most people saying those things things a 7" screen is twice as big as 3.5" screen.

In other words they don't really understand what they are saying.

 

[Sketh]

In other words they don't really understand what they are saying.

Affirmative.

Even if the iPad was nothing more than a large iPod touch, that's what I've wanted since day one, really.

 

[bossxii]

So the iPad is "just a big iPod touch?".
<snip>
.

This is what their teachers told them...

 

[kernkraft]

So the iPad is "just a big iPod touch?".

Can't some people see how going from a 480x320 3.5" to a 1024x768 9.7" multi-touch screen will make a world of difference when it comes to apps and their interfaces?

An average finger takes like 1/5th of the iPhone screen width in portrait orientation, it's the bare minimum size a touch screen can be before becoming extremely limited or unusable. Having a higher-res 3.5" or 4" screen wouldn't make much of a difference.

With the iPad screen, not only you get more than 4x the screen estate, but you also cross a threshold where multi-touch technology can blossom, where new kinds of interface are possible.

Oh and please, those who stated that the iPad was "just a big iPod touch?" when they actually meant "while the big screen will bring tons of new possibilities it, doesn't have flash and multi-tasking like the iPod touch", please don't waste time replying to this post.

If you are smart enough to realize the possibilities that a multitouch screen 4x bigger than the iPod touch screen, it's misleading and deceiving to state that it's just a big iPod touch.

I guess that some anger from the deception that it wasn't as open as you wanted, or simply some Apple hatred can explain such a blanket statement, but it doesn't make it more logical.

Obviously, as more and more iPad-specific apps will make their way into the app store it will be harder and harder to state that, and unfortunately some people don't realize it either or don't want to admit it.

Well, it would be pretty awful to have the same screen resolution on a ten inch screen, wouldn't it? In fact, even the screen of the current iPod Touch is dated. Sadly, many apps have been made specifically for the iPhone's screen, so a larger screen will just larger appearance but not higher resolution.

So, in a way the iPad is an iPod Touch with a faster processor and bigger screen with higher resolution. Isn't it?

 

[MacAgnostic]

a multitouch screen 4x bigger than the iPod touch screen

Actually its over 7x bigger...

Most people saying those things things a 7" screen is twice as big as 3.5" screen.

In other words they don't really understand what they are saying.

Yes, that's how big it would be if it was only 4x bigger.

Just saying...

 

[Casiotone]

Well, it would be pretty awful to have the same screen resolution on a ten inch screen, wouldn't it? In fact, even the screen of the current iPod Touch is dated. Sadly, many apps have been made specifically for the iPhone's screen, so a larger screen will just larger appearance but not higher resolution.

So, in a way the iPad is an iPod Touch with a faster processor and bigger screen with higher resolution. Isn't it?

There's a big difference between stating a simple fact such as "the iPad is an iPod Touch with a faster processor and bigger screen with higher resolution." and saying "the iPad is just a big iPod touch" as something negative as if the screen size increase didn't bring anything substantial to the platform.

 

[IgnatiusTheKing]

Are you trying to convince us or your yourself?

 

[Casiotone]

Actually its over 7x bigger...


Yes, that's how big it would be if it was only 4x bigger.

Just saying...

In terms of pixels, it's 5.12x bigger, but considering the lower dpi (132 vs. 160) that would make it around 6x bigger... Anyway I edited my post to show a conservative 6x.

 

[MacAgnostic]

In terms of pixels, it's 5.12x bigger, but considering the lower dpi (132 vs. 160) that would make it around 6x bigger... Anyway I edited my post to show a conservative 6x.

Yes, I would have liked to have seen it done at 160 DPI (7 or 10 inch), but I suspect battery life goals prevented that.

 

[Casiotone]

Yes, I would have liked to have seen it done at 160 DPI (7 or 10 inch), but I suspect battery life goals prevented that.

It would've been nice, but I don't care that much about this relatively small difference. 132 DPI is almost twice as much as the original Macintosh B&W screen (at 72 DPI). People are so spoiled these days

 

[kernkraft]

There's a big difference between stating a simple fact such as "the iPad is an iPod Touch with a faster processor and bigger screen with higher resolution." and saying "the iPad is just a big iPod touch" as something negative as if the screen size increase didn't bring anything substantial to the platform.

I might be moaning about it, but I actually believe that the screen size and the faster, more appropriate processor will change a LOT of things. Games might be one of the areas, where serious potential might be found. Boardgames, racing games, action games, strategic games, puzzles and word games will be fantastic on the device. In fact, I would happily sell my iPhone just to get an iPad. I already know that I will be moaning about it on these pages. We know Apple. Some of the missing features are just so upsetting... Why? And why intentionally?

PS: Music applications will also suit the device much better.

EDIT: my Nokia 6300 is much better at making Phone calls and my Garmin GPS beats the hell out of the 3G either with TomTom or CoPilot.

 

[dave1812dave]

So the iPad is "just a big iPod touch?".

Can't some people see...

If you are smart enough to realize...

..., and unfortunately some people don't realize it either or don't want to admit it.

So basically what you are saying is that anyone who agrees with you is brilliant, and someone who doesn't must be a moron. What a great way to make an argument...you can now crown yourself King.

 

[Casiotone]

So basically what you are saying is that anyone who agrees with you is brilliant, and someone who doesn't must be a moron. What a great way to make an argument...you can now crown yourself King.

I didn't call anyone a "moron" nor did I call anyone "brilliant". And it's not a matter of agreeing with me or not. I think that it's a fact that going from a small palm-size touch-screen brings a lot of new possibilities that are not implied in the over-repeated phrase "it's just a big iPod touch." Some people might not see that fact, because they're less educated I guess, maybe "less smart", or blinded by anger from some disappointment.

Yeah, straw man, what a great way to make an argument.

 

[dave1812dave]

I didn't call anyone a "moron" nor did I call anyone "brilliant". And it's not a matter of agreeing with me or not. I think that it's a fact that going from a small palm-size touch-screen brings a lot of new possibilities that are not implied in the over-repeated phrase "it's just a big iPod touch." Some people might not see that fact, because they're less educated I guess, maybe "less smart", or blinded by anger from some disappointment.

Yeah, straw man, what a great way to make an argument.

ah, you didn't use the exact WORDS "moron" or "brilliant", but your tone WAS and IS totally clear.

 

[Casiotone]

ah, you didn't use the exact WORDS "moron" or "brilliant", but your tone WAS and IS totally clear.

Your whole premise is wrong and is typical of a straw man argument, you're trying to give me intentions that I didn't (and don't) have.

I stated what I think is a fact about the possibilities that a bigger touch screen brings, and said that some people might not be smart enough to realize that fact.

I never said nor did I want to imply that any people that didn't like the iPad were not smart or less smart. It's a matter of opinions and I don't think that people are morons or any less smart for disagreeing with me.

 

[dave1812dave]

Your whole premise is wrong and is typical of a straw man argument, you're trying to give me intentions that I didn't (and don't) have.

I stated what I think is a fact about the possibilities that a bigger touch screen brings, and said that some people might not be smart enough to realize that fact.

I never said nor did I want to imply that any people that didn't like the iPad were not smart or less smart. It's a matter of opinions and I don't think that people are morons or any less smart for disagreeing with me.

IF your last sentence was "fact", then you might want to rewrite your OP.

 

[Casiotone]

IF your last sentence was "fact", then you might want to rewrite your OP.

Done. Happy?

Edit: Oh and thanks dave1812dave for helping me improving my argumentation by avoiding unintended insults from crawling in my posts...

 

[UltimateSyn]

For a while there I thought I was the only one who realized this...

I can't wait to get my iPad on Day One!

Edit: I'm going to start linking this post to people who diss it for it being only a "larger iPod touch."

 

[vannibombonato]

Why is it so hard to accept it? It is a big ipod Touch, over.

Then some might like it and some might not, but avoid looking idiot trying to convince yourselve that "wow, that's incredible, look at what they've come up with, could've never imagine it, that's magical!!! A six-point-seven-dot-two larger device than my ipod touch!!! wow!!!"

Credit to Apple anyway, as far as i recall it's the only company for which consumers spends hours trying to find themselves ways in which they could use a product that, at first glance, looks useless. But no, hey, it must be our fault that we see it as useless...

So the iPad is "just a big iPod touch?".

Can't some people see how going from a 480x320 3.5" to a 1024x768 9.7" multi-touch screen will make a world of difference when it comes to apps and their interfaces?

An average finger takes like 1/5th of the iPhone screen width in portrait orientation, it's the bare minimum size a touch screen can be before becoming extremely limited or unusable. Having a higher-res 3.5" or 4" screen wouldn't make much of a difference.

With the iPad screen, not only you get more than 6x the screen estate, but you also cross a threshold where multi-touch technology can blossom, where new kinds of interface are possible.

Oh and please, those who stated that the iPad was "just a big iPod touch?" when they actually meant "while the big screen will bring tons of new possibilities it, doesn't have flash and multi-tasking like the iPod touch", please don't waste time replying to this post.

If you're able to realize the possibilities that a multitouch screen 6x bigger than the iPod touch screen, I feel that it's misleading and deceiving to state that it's just a big iPod touch.

I guess that some anger from the disappointment that it wasn't as open as you wanted, or simply some Apple hatred can explain such a blanket statement, but it doesn't make it more logical.

Obviously, as more and more iPad-specific apps will make their way into the app store it will be harder and harder to state that.

 

[Eso]

Can't some people see how going from a 480x320 3.5" to a 1024x768 9.7" multi-touch screen will make a world of difference when it comes to apps and their interfaces?

So What?

It is understood that iPad apps will be much more capable than standard apps. We have seen this demonstrated with the iWork suite of apps. The iPad, however, was expected to be a tablet computer. It was expected to be comparable to a netbook, which is exactly how Jobs introduced it. People call it a giant iPod Touch because of fact that the OS is crippled in the same way the iPod Touch is, especially when compared to a netbook OS.

No matter how capable an iPad app can be, it won't be as capable as an application for a full-fledged OS - the type you'd find on a tablet or netbook. The iPhone OS isn't as capable as a full-fledged OS - the type you'd find on a tablet or netbook.

Here's some examples of the limitations of the iPad compared to a tablet or netbook:

There are no windows (or multi-tasking). You can't have the browser open on one side of the screen and a little iPod or IM client (or both) open on the other side.

There is no access to internal storage or external media. You can't manage your documents or files. Even within an app you can only manage files for that particular app. You can't use any USB device beyond a camera. No external hard drives, no thumb drives, no CD drives, no printers, no wireless connect cards, no USB headsets, no webcam, no keyboard, no mouse, no external speakers, etc.

You can't install software outside of the app store. All available apps are sandboxed (isolated from one another) so one app can't use files or data from another. You can't receive an mp3 from an IM chat and play it with the iPod. You can't download a PDF from the web and open it with a PDF viewing app. If you delete an app it deletes all the user data with it. Imagine if you uninstalled iTunes on your desktop and it also deleted all your music

There is no desktop where you can create shortcuts, view widgets, or manage apps. The layout of the dock and home screen are even identical to the iPod touch! Despite the extra space, there is still the same grid of icons and 4 apps across the dock. What is that, a practical joke?

This is basic, basic stuff for a netbook.

So while a larger screen will make iPad apps more capable - who cares? It's still far less capable than any real tablet or netbook. And remember:

Any feature you use to argue that the iPad is better than a netbook is exactly what makes it a giant iPod Touch.

 

[yodaxl7]

This reply maybe a repeat, but a larger screen would open doors to new possibilities. For example, monopoly game on the iphone is ok. You tap to roll or shake the phone to roll the dice. On the iPad, you can do a gesture to roll a dice. You can drag your piece along the board, as oppose to letting the computer move it for you. You can tap on which property to build houses or hotels, etc. Another game, a tower defense, you can tap all over the screen to do whatever. A larger screen will more interactions. The calender would look less cramped and more detail. Developers can provide an actual replica of a reference book then abridged book to fit the screen of an iphone. There are so much opportunities!!

Who knows! Files can be stored in Mobileme cloud, stored in your email server, within the app itself. For example, note app will keep notes per page within the app. There is another app called amazing notes that have a folder style. Programs are coming from the app store. Iphone os is not a strip down of the full operating system. It is an entire different operating system. OS X on mac has no multi touch UI at all. Mac Os X is like window 7 but in the general sense of having folders and files,etc. Iphone os is totally different. I believe apple developed this "iphone os" for a tablet, but saw an opportunity for a phone. The phone was a trial for a tablet. It is a great success. It is a new mode of computing. We got here an application that has multi-touch interface as oppose to a mouse and drop down menus. We got internal iteration of filing as opposed to departmentalizing folders. It is all in one bubble if you will. You could export the file to an email, sms, or a separate app called photos.

So What?

It is understood that iPad apps will be much more capable than standard apps. We have seen this demonstrated with the iWork suite of apps. The iPad, however, was expected to be a tablet computer. It was expected to be comparable to a netbook, which is exactly how Jobs introduced it. People call it a giant iPod Touch because of fact that the OS is crippled in the same way the iPod Touch is, especially when compared to a netbook OS.

No matter how capable an iPad app can be, it won't be as capable as an application for a full-fledged OS - the type you'd find on a tablet or netbook. The iPhone OS isn't as capable as a full-fledged OS - the type you'd find on a tablet or netbook.

Disagree!

Here's some examples of the limitations of the iPad compared to a tablet or netbook:

There are no windows (or multi-tasking). You can't have the browser open on one side of the screen and a little iPod or IM client (or both) open on the other side.

There are minimal multi-tasking! You can listen to ipod and browse net. You can talk with someone and open notes or other apps. Iphone 4.0 may have multi tasking included.


There is no access to internal storage or external media. You can't manage your documents or files. Even within an app you can only manage files for that particular app. You can't use any USB device beyond a camera. No external hard drives, no thumb drives, no CD drives, no printers, no wireless connect cards, no USB headsets, no webcam, no keyboard, no mouse, no external speakers, etc.

Apple defining a tablet without have a tradition "computer" but have in-app savings, export via email,sms or save onto another app. There is a doodle app where you create a sketch and save it on the pic app.


You can't install software outside of the app store. All available apps are sandboxed (isolated from one another) so one app can't use files or data from another. You can't receive an mp3 from an IM chat and play it with the iPod. You can't download a PDF from the web and open it with a PDF viewing app. If you delete an app it deletes all the user data with it. Imagine if you uninstalled iTunes on your desktop and it also deleted all your music

There is no desktop where you can create shortcuts, view widgets, or manage apps. The layout of the dock and home screen are even identical to the iPod touch! Despite the extra space, there is still the same grid of icons and 4 apps across the dock. What is that, a practical joke?

This is basic, basic stuff for a netbook.

So while a larger screen will make iPad apps more capable - who cares? It's still far less capable than any real tablet or netbook. And remember:

Any feature you use to argue that the iPad is better than a netbook is exactly what makes it a giant iPod Touch.

The iPad is a good starter! Laptops used to be inferior to desktop!

The iPhone can already access files in users' mailboxes or stored on web servers; using Apple's free iDisk app, it can also access files from the WebDAV-based MobileMe cloud file server. The company is said to be creating a similar app to access standard local file shares within an office setting, which would be a rather trivial undertaking given the iPhone OS' existing savvy with reading iWork, Office, PDF, and other common file types.






The iWork apps Apple demonstrated each load their documents without needing a conventional file browser. Just like the iPhone's existing Photos, Notes, and iTunes apps, their documents are managed by the app itself, rather than being strewn around a filesystem for users to organize on their own. The iPad will sync documents with iTunes just like the iPhone currently does, in addition to accessing cloud, web, and local file shares.

 

[anthonymoody]

So What?

It is understood that iPad apps will be much more capable than standard apps. We have seen this demonstrated with the iWork suite of apps. The iPad, however, was expected to be a tablet computer. It was expected to be comparable to a netbook, which is exactly how Jobs introduced it. People call it a giant iPod Touch because of fact that the OS is crippled in the same way the iPod Touch is, especially when compared to a netbook OS.

No matter how capable an iPad app can be, it won't be as capable as an application for a full-fledged OS - the type you'd find on a tablet or netbook. The iPhone OS isn't as capable as a full-fledged OS - the type you'd find on a tablet or netbook.

Here's some examples of the limitations of the iPad compared to a tablet or netbook:

There are no windows (or multi-tasking). You can't have the browser open on one side of the screen and a little iPod or IM client (or both) open on the other side.

There is no access to internal storage or external media. You can't manage your documents or files. Even within an app you can only manage files for that particular app. You can't use any USB device beyond a camera. No external hard drives, no thumb drives, no CD drives, no printers, no wireless connect cards, no USB headsets, no webcam, no keyboard, no mouse, no external speakers, etc.

You can't install software outside of the app store. All available apps are sandboxed (isolated from one another) so one app can't use files or data from another. You can't receive an mp3 from an IM chat and play it with the iPod. You can't download a PDF from the web and open it with a PDF viewing app. If you delete an app it deletes all the user data with it. Imagine if you uninstalled iTunes on your desktop and it also deleted all your music

There is no desktop where you can create shortcuts, view widgets, or manage apps. The layout of the dock and home screen are even identical to the iPod touch! Despite the extra space, there is still the same grid of icons and 4 apps across the dock. What is that, a practical joke?

This is basic, basic stuff for a netbook.

So while a larger screen will make iPad apps more capable - who cares? It's still far less capable than any real tablet or netbook. And remember:

Any feature you use to argue that the iPad is better than a netbook is exactly what makes it a giant iPod Touch.

Letting alone the flaws in your logic, let me instead point out the myriad flaws in your statement:

1) "The iPad was expected to be a tablet computer." Oh yeah? By whom? You? And that makes it gospel? And...oh yeah, by the way, it is a tablet computer.

2) "It was expected to be comparable to a netbook." And isn't it? I think it's been made quite clear that what it is designed to do more than covers the standard 80/20 (80% of the people use 20% of the features/functionality). Said another way - most people spend 9x% of their time on email, web surfing, music, social networking, pix, etc. Pretty sure the iPad can handle all that with aplomb.

3) It's "crippled" like the iPod touch. Really? The same iPod touch that's sold in the tens of millions? Pretty sure most of those buyers have found some great things to do with their iPTs.

4) " it won't be as capable as an application for a full-fledged OS". Oh really? You do realize that "multi-tasking" will come don't you? There is nothing inherent in the hardware preventing this. Like cut and paste, this will come, mooting all of your already-weak arguments. Oh, and I put "multi-tasking" in quotes to distinguish b/t the functionality and the tech that underpins it.

5) "You can't have the browser open on one side of the screen and a little iPod or IM client (or both) open on the other side." See #4.

6) "There is no access to internal storage or external media. " There is access to internal storage. There is access to external media - ever hear of iDisk?

7) "You can't use any USB device beyond a camera. No external hard drives, no thumb drives, no CD drives, no printers, no wireless connect cards, no USB headsets, no webcam, no keyboard, no mouse, no external speakers, etc." To say this without mentioning that you *can* use a BT keyboard, print wirelessly, that it has built in wireless capability, that it can use an iPhone headset, that it has no need for a mouse, etc. is disingenuous at best.

8) "You can't install software outside of the app store." So? Gee so far the experience I've had is that there are a gazillion apps, the pricing is extremely low (almost preposterously so in many cases) and it's far more convenient and enjoyable to purchase and install apps this way than any other I've ever experienced.

9) "All available apps are sandboxed (isolated from one another) so one app can't use files or data from another. " For now it would seem that way. However, we don't know for sure as clearly within iWork apps there is a way to (easily) pass info - if not also full files - back and forth.

10) "You can't download a PDF from the web and open it with a PDF viewing app" Wrong. Downloading files from the web is something explicitly outlined in the iPad. And we know PDF viewing is already there from the iPhone.

11) "There is no desktop where you can create shortcuts, view widgets, or manage apps. The layout of the dock and home screen are even identical to the iPod touch! Despite the extra space, there is still the same grid of icons and 4 apps across the dock." Actually the SDK revealed a 6x grid, including in the dock.

Overall though, it's not the specifics of your notions, it's the logic and short sightedness that underpins them. It truly baffles how anyone can fail to see that by focusing on feature X or feature Y more or less misses the point.

The focus should instead be on the experience in actual usage and the possibilities that exist from software development (both applications and the OS). You're citing the "lack" of these features as if there are no better solutions, when we know from experience that that's not the case in almost all these areas. And when multi-tasking is finally introduced in OS4 then the last of your objections will have been addressed not by workarounds but by 'direct' solutions.

 

[dgree03]

Letting alone the flaws in your logic, let me instead point out the myriad flaws in your statement:

1) "The iPad was expected to be a tablet computer." Oh yeah? By whom? You? And that makes it gospel? And...oh yeah, by the way, it is a tablet computer.

2) "It was expected to be comparable to a netbook." And isn't it? I think it's been made quite clear that what it is designed to do more than covers the standard 80/20 (80% of the people use 20% of the features/functionality). Said another way - most people spend 9x% of their time on email, web surfing, music, social networking, pix, etc. Pretty sure the iPad can handle all that with aplomb.

3) It's "crippled" like the iPod touch. Really? The same iPod touch that's sold in the tens of millions? Pretty sure most of those buyers have found some great things to do with their iPTs.

4) " it won't be as capable as an application for a full-fledged OS". Oh really? You do realize that "multi-tasking" will come don't you? There is nothing inherent in the hardware preventing this. Like cut and paste, this will come, mooting all of your already-weak arguments. Oh, and I put "multi-tasking" in quotes to distinguish b/t the functionality and the tech that underpins it.

5) "You can't have the browser open on one side of the screen and a little iPod or IM client (or both) open on the other side." See #4.

6) "There is no access to internal storage or external media. " There is access to internal storage. There is access to external media - ever hear of iDisk?

7) "You can't use any USB device beyond a camera. No external hard drives, no thumb drives, no CD drives, no printers, no wireless connect cards, no USB headsets, no webcam, no keyboard, no mouse, no external speakers, etc." To say this without mentioning that you *can* use a BT keyboard, print wirelessly, that it has built in wireless capability, that it can use an iPhone headset, that it has no need for a mouse, etc. is disingenuous at best.

8) "You can't install software outside of the app store." So? Gee so far the experience I've had is that there are a gazillion apps, the pricing is extremely low (almost preposterously so in many cases) and it's far more convenient and enjoyable to purchase and install apps this way than any other I've ever experienced.

9) "All available apps are sandboxed (isolated from one another) so one app can't use files or data from another. " For now it would seem that way. However, we don't know for sure as clearly within iWork apps there is a way to (easily) pass info - if not also full files - back and forth.

10) "You can't download a PDF from the web and open it with a PDF viewing app" Wrong. Downloading files from the web is something explicitly outlined in the iPad. And we know PDF viewing is already there from the iPhone.

11) "There is no desktop where you can create shortcuts, view widgets, or manage apps. The layout of the dock and home screen are even identical to the iPod touch! Despite the extra space, there is still the same grid of icons and 4 apps across the dock." Actually the SDK revealed a 6x grid, including in the dock.

Overall though, it's not the specifics of your notions, it's the logic and short sightedness that underpins them. It truly baffles how anyone can fail to see that by focusing on feature X or feature Y more or less misses the point.

The focus should instead be on the experience in actual usage and the possibilities that exist from software development (both applications and the OS). You're citing the "lack" of these features as if there are no better solutions, when we know from experience that that's not the case in almost all these areas. And when multi-tasking is finally introduced in OS4 then the last of your objections will have been addressed not by workarounds but by 'direct' solutions.

First of all you need to look up what logic is... lol.. I dont think that dude was trying to say anything logical.. he was just stating some things he thought about in regards to limitations in the ipad...


Your seem to be going off thing "YOU KNOW" will be implemented, when there is no indication RIGHT NOW that they are going to be.

Lets talk about what the Ipad is, and not what YOU think it will be.

Ipad is not a tablet, it is a appliance. It is an accessorie. It is NOT a standalone computing machine.. no matter how much you try to convince yourself it is not that... it is not magical or revolutionary.

Ipad, just like an Ipod touch... needs to be connected to a computer to recieve software updates and to sync with you itunes library(and iphoto and contact if you dont use mobileme).

In order to delete files that where previously synced... you need to connect it to the laptop/desktop/netbook delete the files on the computer then sync again.

If you want to plug a USB stick in order to transfer file, YOU CANT...
You can only use a SD card when your transfers pictures and ONLY if you buy their proprietary adapter. Same goes for a external HD...

Ipad cant do ANY MORE than a ipod touch can... its just a bigger screen... period. you dont label something magical, revolutionary when its just a slightly bigger version of an existing product...

 

[samcraig]

And when multi-tasking is finally introduced in OS4 then the last of your objections will have been addressed not by workarounds but by 'direct' solutions.

Some people buy products on what they can do. Not with the promise or hope of what it might be able to do "in the future." I'm not arguing for or against anything written here by either party. Just stating that some people DO not care what might happen - only what they can do "out of the box."

Which is why I've said from the start that the iPad holds little interest to me AS PRESENTED at the keynote. When the device has other functionality/options/etc it's - what's the phrase we discussed in the other thread - oh yeah - "a game changer" for me.