Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'iPad' started by paulisme, Apr 2, 2010.
CNet's playing it safe. You can tell from their conclusion that they want to be on the good side of both the iPad lovers and the iPad haters. They have no guts.
CNET's review is worthless. Same old story....no camera...no flash....blah, blah, blah. Yet another "tech" reviewer who doesn't get it. If the iPad does what I think it's going to do, it won't be long before the "traditional" IT reviewer is out of business.
Also, they've been complaining every day this week that they didn't have a review unit. Sour grapes.
Yeah. Ok. He doesn't get it? Or perhaps he is trying to write for the masses. Both techies and non-techies and state clearly for those NOT IN THE KNOW what the iPad can and can't do.
Not everyone reads MR or is well educated - yet wants to read reviews to gain more information about what a product they are thinking of buying can and can't do.
Doesn't get it? Pshhhhaw... Perhaps you don't get him.
That shows the failure of a reviewer. A good reviewer doesn't write reviews that people like to read, but ones that give a fair overlook of the device at hand.
Saying the iPad is good will certainly get on a lot of jealous people's nerves, but it it truly is, a good reviewer should have the guts to say it.
Huh what? I never said a reviewer should write reviews that people like to read. You missed my point. I was stating that people like to read reviews. And it's clear that the CNET Blogger was writing a review for the masses. Meaning it wasn't geared for the informed OR the uninformed.
And his review is a FAIR overview unless you consider not pointing out shortcomings fair. A good review will give both the positives and negatives. The comment I was responding to was from a poster annoyed that the reviewer didn't "get" the iPad because he pointed out no flash or camera. That doesn't mean the reviewer doesn't get it. And to a degree - it would be irresponsible for a reviewer to NOT point these things out.
I dunno about you guys, but I personally much prefer video reviews now over text.
hahahah oh, that's priceless.
Guess that shows you where they rank in the media. LOL
Ah yes, I get your point now, sorry I misunderstood what you were trying to say.
After reading through the review again, I think it's fair to say that even if the reviewer is playing it a lot safer compared to the other reviews we've read. He doesn't state his personal opinions in regard to whether the iPad is good or bad, and let the consumer decides.
I'm pretty sure he gets the point of the iPad though. He just didn't have the guts to take a side in his review.
What the CNET (and other tech reviewers) don't get is the iPad is a paradigm shift in computing. For most tasks the average user can use the iPad. No more complicated, buggy, expensive OS. No more mouse. No more keyboard (for most uses). A content "appliance" device that just works. Yes, there will always be a need for full OSX type laptops/desktops. But more of a niche product than a mass user product.
The average user doesn't care about USB ports, processor speeds, etc. They care that the product works. The same time, every time. And it's easy to use, not complicated.
We will watch as the iPad universe begins tomorrow and truly changes the face of computing as we know it. And most tech reviewers will fight it all the way.
I could argue that point. What's your basis for that generalization. Perhaps the masses won't USE the above. But they care enough to want to know if their device they are buying has it or not. I won't argue as to whether they think they want or need it.
But if I wasn't on MR and I was doing research on whether or not to get an iPad. I would want to know (and so would someone like my father) what accessories were in the box. What the device could and could not do. What ports/connections/power requirements. And that stuff. That's not being a techie (as my father isn't one) - those are things that people weighing the pros and cons of a purchase like to have at their fingertips. And if it's not online - it can be frustrating to try and find that info out.
So why begrudge reviewers when they list such things?
Plus no more file system that you need to interfere with. The iPad is going to be huge, but most people probably don't realize it yet. It will be the apps that will make the iPad into a true game changer. Not the USB port.
A Cnet review is worth zero, positive or negative. It's basically just a shill site pretending to be objective. At one time it was a good tech site but that came and went years ago.
Haven't been to Cnet in a long time before reading this article. This article is poorly written with no foresight. Historically they've always had a Windows bias and the same goes for Zdnet as well.
Um-m-m-m, no. Donald Bell, the author of this review is the kind of person who bets on both teams in the Super Bowl. He is playing not to lose. Rather than coming off as cautious, however, he comes across as foolish.
I had the good fortune this evening to see a video report of the iPad on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show. The reviewer showed an astronomy app that shows the sky in the direction that you are looking. Absolutely awesome.
Reasonable people can have differing opinions of the iPad--some, pro; others, con; and still others, ambivalent. Reasonable people can explain their reasons. In so doing, we all learn. What are we to learn, however, from Bell's comment that the iPad is an "unfortunately named thing"?
Well on one hand, you could call this a review. On the other hand maybe it isn't a review at all. Stupid cnet... take a stand for @#$@'s sake!
There seemed to be a lot of words there hashing what we already knew.
The iPad runs the same OS as the iPhone? Really???