<snip>
And if you research about the impact in population like that (population with ZERO probability of be a "iSheep") you can see clearly how truly good the thing is.
I completely agree, which is why my remarks are highlighted at
most consumers.
There are some very specific applications of the iPad that are quite spectacular, but that doesn't mean that everyone standing in line on Friday is going to use it that way. It also doesn't mean that the iPad is any better as a consumer device because it has certain uses in highly specialized areas. That only applies if the consumer is similarly benefited.
A tablet has made it so I don't need to travel with a laptop anymore for business or pleasure. It is wonderful as i no longer need to take it out at security and is thinner/weighs less making packing easier. It accomplishes everything I would use a laptop for while on vacation/business. Not only that I can control my computer with it remotely and access all my files.
If you don't mind me asking, what type of business are you able to do on it? By which I mean, do you transfer money, look into orders and accounts, etc, or do you do lots of writing or other analysis on it?
That doesn't explain all the big businesses (large banks, etc.) buying them, including many Fortune 100 companies.
AFAIK, tablets were already in use in a lot of those companies in some very particular ways. I don't reject the iPad as capable of doing certain tailored tasks well, I question what it can do for the typical consumer. A Fortune 100 company that uses iPads to augment an inventory system does not fit the bill of a typical consumer.
Generally speaking one wants the product that can do the best job, not the most mediocre job.
Any computer can be accused of the same thing. A custom built application-specific system would be much faster at performing any task that a computer can do, but one of the great advantages of a computer is that a single system can do so many things (games, word processing, taxes, web, etc.). Any custom system will be orders of magnitude faster, lower power, and smaller than a general purpose computer, BUT you have to buy a whole lot of custom systems to cover all the applications that a computer can perform.
Does an iPad have to be the world's fastest web browser to be useful? World's fastest game playing machine? World's fastest video player?
Indeed, but not only is the iPad slower (as you imply) it also has less desirable input methods for some tasks, and can only do tasks one at a time.
It's also questionable how "good" (I hate using that term but I couldn't think of another one) something is when it is a purely additional product. A computer is also a jack of all trades as you mention, but it does a lot more things than an iPad, and it does them very well in many areas. This makes it a necessity for almost everyone.
Conversely, an iPad does less and does it, at best, as well as a product people must have in the house already to even use the iPad.
You get hung up on the wrong points, such as "enumerate specific uses no other product can do or that the iPad can do better" (not a direct quote) For one, if you don't already see things the iPad can do better, and ways that businesses are using it for everything from inventory, menus, and hospital functions, then you are just choosing to troll, or you lack imagination. Try dropping a laptop off at a table for people to browse your menu, and see the result.
This is once again a business application, not a consumer one. Nor is it unique to the iPad. The idea of dropping a tablet off at a table started long before the iPad.
Unless individual consumers are running restaurants or hospitals, the uses you mentioned above don't constitute a use for a typical consumer who stood in line for hours on Friday.
A product like this is better suited for people with imagination and a willingness to step away from the conventional . . . clearly not a product for you.
I am quite the unconventional person in most respects, and I have a special fondness for gadgets (especially Apple gadgets), but I don't think the iPad is all that fantastic as a consumer device.
Maybe you could use some of that "imagination" to describe some
specific business uses. As I asked the other poster, do you manage accounts, schedules, etc, or do you do analysis and writing/drafting on your iPad? How do you interface with it for tasks that take a long time?
I hope you have the imagination to rise above petty name calling.
Possibly, but they wouldn't be particularly notable examples and I think they miss the point. The better question is, does the iPad make people want to use the device for something that they wouldn't have done before? It's the difference between "technically could have" and "actively want to". I resented carrying a cellphone for years, it was clunky, it was shoddy, the phone company was constantly trying to upsell me on photos and videos and data that were just obnoxious to use, if it even worked at all.
The iPhone 3G changed that for me completely, I now actively notice when I forget to take it with me. Did phones before that have cameras? Did they have GPS? Did they have games? Could I check my email? Of course they did. But the technical capability provided no value because it was painful and frustrating to use, and so I had no reason to want to use it.
The iPod also did not provide anything that was not already on the market. But I think we should have enough historical perspective this point to realize Apple did do *something* different more broadly than just technical specs to get Joe Consumer to want to have a portable disk-based MP3 player that simply didn't exist before the iPod. I would argue it's Apple's attention to usability, detail, and style. Apple detractors would say it's all about marketing and media manipulation creating artificial desire. They're probably both accurate.
To that end sometimes it's actually that Apple goes to market with fewer features that makes the device more attractive -- in that it makes the device more approachable, more stable, and more cohesive than its competitors.
As a very technical person who programs for a living and has 3 VMs running on their desktop at home, statements like these always surprise me. I had the choice between buying a laptop this year or an iPad, the budget I set for myself wouldn't allow me both. I chose the iPad 2 over a Macbook/Macbook Air. I readily acknowledge the laptop would afford me more options, not the least of which would be software development.
I did it because for what I would use the device for, mostly daily commuting, long distance trips, something I can use to take and refer to notes, etc, both of them easily do. The things I can't use a tablet for that I can use the laptop for, I didn't need the device for: programming for example. If I'm going to program, I will likely be at my home desk or work desk.
All things being equal the laptop would still win, but things aren't equal. The extra flexibility, which I don't need, comes at a cost. Battery life is halved, or less. Laptops are heavier and run hotter. The iPad that suits my needs is cheaper than the Macbook that suits my needs. The iPad is more convenient to handle in the situations I'm more likely to need it, like in a cramped commuter train.
And most importantly, when I'm not programming or writing long documents, I just don't want to not be sitting at my desk with a keyboard or hunched over a coffee table. I'm already find myself instinctively reaching for my iPhone for entertainment / consumption even though the screen is (relative to the computer) tiny. Similarly, I have successfully done charcoal-style drawings and other sketches on my desktop and (old) laptop, but it's not just all that gratifying to do. When I see people doing the same thing in the iPad I seriously get excited, removing the gap between my hands and the canvas is incredibly appealing.
There is a literal truth that you do not need the iPad to do anything in particular, but I think there's a gap between that and it being just a toy. I didn't pay an extra $500-$900 for an unnecessary toy, I actually have bought it in preference of and to the exclusion of the more expensive, more powerful, but less relevant to my uses laptop.
Thank you for this very insightful and productive post.
From my perspective, as a person who has to type a lot in a typical day and needs the iPad to do a smidge more things before it can become viable, the lacks of features seems like a prohibitive factor. It would probably still be a waste of money for me to get one even if it could do the things I'd like (a big one would be editing documents with a stylus as if you were writing on paper), it would just be easier to justify personally.
I disagree. For better than 90% of users, it does all they ever need to do on a computer. I think we will go from multi-PC families to families with one PC and multiple iPads or other tablets.
For me, I find many things that I prefer to use my iPad over my MacBook. Paying bills is easier and quicker through the Chase app than through their web site.
I've never been a gamer but use my iPad for several.
My DVR's interface was created by deaf and mute monkeys. Programming my DVR is easier and faster using Cablevision's app. That functionality doesn't exist on a PC.
Reading the news in the morning is far more enjoyable with iPad app than through web sites.
Those are but a few areas where I find an iPad to be better than a PC.
A lot of this I think is spot on, but I guess as someone who already has a Kindle and who doesn't have a DVR + works on a computer for a lot of hours in a typical day, the iPad always seemed like an extra thing that didn't add anything.
I can definitely see the iPad being a 2nd or 3rd PC replacement for a lot of people, especially for families with kids and grandparents around, but I wonder how many of those people are actually owners right now? Of all of the people I know who could actually make use of an iPad, none of them has one. In fact, everyone I do know with one is someone who already has a pretty good Mac and an iPhone.
Great 400-year old phrase to prop up your ignorance. What's "Jack" about any part of the iPad 2?
The phrase simply means that someone/something can do many things mediocrely but nothing well.
No one thing about the iPad has to be "bad" for it to be a jack of all trades; the only requirement is that nothing has to be particularly fantastic.
If you would like to learn more about this and other idioms and aphorisms, visit your local library or use a reference resource such as
Wikipedia.
What tablet do you own? It sounds like you have serious buyers remorse and are simply jealous.
I don't own a tablet, and my collection of Apple iToys would pretty much preclude the possibility of anything else.
Why should we step up to YOU? Who are YOU?
If you want to go on touting the inherent brilliance of the iPad, explaining what specifically makes it so fantastic shouldn't be a tall order for you.
I am the skeptic, and I've given my reasoning; I'll wait for yours to be free of mindless insults and blind fanaticism.
You obviously do not own an iPad and most assuredly have not used one for more than a few minutes in a Best Buy or Apple store. If you actually had one, you'd get it.
I've played with iPads several times for very long periods of time (on the order of hours at a time). I even helped a family set theirs up after they botched the original sync. Just because I don't hold some irrational reverence for it doesn't mean I haven't had the chance to objectively consider it.
Your cost comparison FAILS.
The cost comparison is accurate based on the features as listed by Apple. The intangible factors may be different, but from a pure feature set perspective, the $700 iPad can be compared to the entry level mba.
And it's not $930 -- it's $829. Why you tacked on an extra $101, is beyond me.
Simple mistake on my part. I had the pricing table wrong in my head. Anytime I wrote $930, it should read $830.
What you need to do is head over to iTunes and download the iPad introduction keynote from Apple. Steve said very plainly that the device between a cell phone and a laptop needed to do 7 key everyday things BETTER than a phone or laptop or it had no reason for being: internet, ebooks, photos, music, email, video and games I believe the iPad and now iPad 2 fills the bill. In fact, it does all of that and SO MUCH MORE. Apple never said it was trying to REPLACE anything and is quite happy to sell someone all three They work so nicely together ebooks instantly come to mind between Pad and Phone with round-tripping of your place, bookmarks and highlights all transferring to keep you right where you left off, now matter the device you grab and took with you that day.
I think what you're missing is that I've already seen every Keynote, every video of Johnny Ive going over the design, etc. I've already spent considerable time playing with the iPad. At this point, Apple's marketing isn't going to convince me like it has evidently convinced you.
You're just too biased against Apple as a whole to see the simple fact that the iPad is superior to it's competition. But we'll all see a little clearer in another few years when iPad is still reigning supreme.
How do you define "reigning supreme?" Sales rank? Market share?
In any case, I hardly have a negative Apple bias or I wouldn't have so many Apple products. You seem to take any criticism of the iPad personally and expand it to the company as a whole. No product and no company is infallible.
Oh I forgot it's just a "jack of all trades and a master of none" too. iPods, iPhones, iPads... when will people learn they've simply been wasting their money? I guess they're too busy using them in a billion different ways to be concerned about those like you.
Please, try to understand a cliche before railing against it.
The iPod is actually a master of one thing: playing music. The iPhone is not a jack of all trades because it added already existing features to a phone, a device that everyone already had in their pocket. The iPad represents an entirely additional product. The metrics are different.
