Kleiner Perkins Doubles iFund to $200 Million, Focuses on iPad

[pcp_ip]

-1
Since 2002, you posted 85 times (minus deleted threads, I suppose). I can imagine that your rolleye has some big message. But what is it?

Not sure where your personal attack is coming from-- but I can look up profiles too!

I see you've posted 800 times in the 9 months you've been a member. I can imagine that either means you have a lot of free time or you don't have much of a life.

 

[Brometheus]

Haha! I know, I know. I just get a bit annoyed when people act like they were completely unable to function before the iPad came along. But Brom has a point, although it needs to be implemented carefully.
Anyway, sorry for disrupting your relaxation time!

Okay. Fair enough. Let's end this here. I could easily address your very reasonable objections about bacteria (MRSA is more worrisome to me than C. diff by the way), but let's not go into that. We have survived without the iPad and we'll survive with it. We will just smile a bit more often with it

 

[deconstruct60]

It's not like that at all. There are different settings in which doctors interact with their patients, and the iPad fits into some of them better than a laptop. The iPad is definitely not critical to these situations, because we've managed without it. It just gives us a tool that makes our work easier.

It that is what you had expressed earlier they'd be no problem. They aren't any new forms of communication. It is the same old ones in a perhaps more compact package. The declaration of "this will revolutionize everything..." is old. Hear it from doctors when the Newton showed up. Hear it again when tablet computers showed up in the Windows/TabletPC . The iPad is relatively more affordable ( in that specific eras dollars) so perhaps could be deployed more readily.

There is a difference between throwing out the constraints and putting new stuff on table and coming up with new ideas that work within the constraints have to pragmatically deal with. ( For example, the issue another poster brought up with encouraging large number of people in a hospital to all touch a common item. )


It is just a tool. It may be true that demographic X responds better to presentation A , demographics Y responds better to presentation B , and so on. The iPad would allow someone to perhaps storage presentation A , B , C, and D on the device ( there are many other capable devices). However, the critical issue is finding out if someone is an X, Y , or Z. That is the key issue in communicating better and the iPad does nothing to improve that. That critical diagnosis has to be done by the person, not the iPad.
[ very similar effects in education. Computers in classrooms without pedagogical changes typically isn't very revolutionary. Just same stuff as was being done before with incremental improvements in efficiency. ]

Similarly, Powerpoint or Keynote don't make people better presenters or communicators in and of themselves. Actually make some people worse because they just load up on disco to gloss over bad content.

An iPad allows for a new way of communicating using customized apps as well as files downloaded or streamed from a desktop computer.

No. This is where you start waving your hands. The Newton and TablePCs previously all had apps. They could get content from the internet (or modems circa Newton initial launch). There is little new or differentiating in these aspects between the iPad and not only its current com temporaries but predecessors from over a decade ago.

You are excited about an iPad. You want to rationalize buying one. If you like, buy it. As an informational too to keep you informed it has lots of benefits.

much more portable than a laptop and easier for teaching or explaining things than an iPhone. ...
an iPad is a superior option to a laptop for explaining what's going on.

So no new communication just lighter or has bigger screen for devices that already could be utilized.

The ability to show them pictures of bone marrow at the time of diagnosis and then when he is in remission makes it even more real to them, because there's often no outward sign of a response to treatment.

Now have medical records on the device. Or being streamed over the web?
Nothing before could do that, not. Like handing the patient two printouts. Or one printout with two pictures on it. They walk away with it (and not have to touch it after the other 20 patients on the floor. )


The primary differentiators on the iPad in your narrative is its form factor and weight (putting aside the premise that somehow folks could not write decent software for previous existing devices). For neither one of those have established how that changes communication. If having a color screen in front of folks was critically important to communication, the difference between 1.5 lbs and 3 lbs would not be at that much of a blocker. Especially for a device that many not even even leave a building nor needs to be held all day.

Don't really buy into the notion that weight and "the magical way it feels in your hands" were the primary blockers as to why folks are not already using computers in the way you describe inside of fixed clinical locations if the quality of care improvement effect was really as extremely dramatic as you attempt to make it out to be.

 

[Dooger]

Okay. Fair enough. Let's end this here. I could easily address your very reasonable objections about bacteria (MRSA is more worrisome to me than C. diff by the way), but let's not go into that. We have survived without the iPad and we'll survive with it. We will just smile a bit more often with it

Yet still you can't help lecturing. I'm perfectly aware of MRSA and the threat it poses but I chose C. diff as an example because it is a spore-former and has been found to resist the alcohol skin cleansers that have recently been so effective against MRSA. I just can't see how an iPad could be used safely in a clinical environment without hampering its "magical" interface.
We're flogging a dead horse here, not to mention boring the other geeks, so maybe we should just agree to differ and just move on. Enjoyed the debate though.

 

[Brometheus]

It that is what you had expressed earlier they'd be no problem. They aren't any new forms of communication. It is the same old ones in a perhaps more compact package. The declaration of "this will revolutionize everything..." is old. Hear it from doctors when the Newton showed up. Hear it again when tablet computers showed up in the Windows/TabletPC . The iPad is relatively more affordable ( in that specific eras dollars) so perhaps could be deployed more readily.

There is a difference between throwing out the constraints and putting new stuff on table and coming up with new ideas that work within the constraints have to pragmatically deal with. ( For example, the issue another poster brought up with encouraging large number of people in a hospital to all touch a common item. )


It is just a tool. It may be true that demographic X responds better to presentation A , demographics Y responds better to presentation B , and so on. The iPad would allow someone to perhaps storage presentation A , B , C, and D on the device ( there are many other capable devices). However, the critical issue is finding out if someone is an X, Y , or Z. That is the key issue in communicating better and the iPad does nothing to improve that. That critical diagnosis has to be done by the person, not the iPad.
[ very similar effects in education. Computers in classrooms without pedagogical changes typically isn't very revolutionary. Just same stuff as was being done before with incremental improvements in efficiency. ]

Similarly, Powerpoint or Keynote don't make people better presenters or communicators in and of themselves. Actually make some people worse because they just load up on disco to gloss over bad content.





No. This is where you start waving your hands. The Newton and TablePCs previously all had apps. They could get content from the internet (or modems circa Newton initial launch). There is little new or differentiating in these aspects between the iPad and not only its current com temporaries but predecessors from over a decade ago.

You are excited about an iPad. You want to rationalize buying one. If you like, buy it. As an informational too to keep you informed it has lots of benefits.





So no new communication just lighter or has bigger screen for devices that already could be utilized.




Now have medical records on the device. Or being streamed over the web?
Nothing before could do that, not. Like handing the patient two printouts. Or one printout with two pictures on it. They walk away with it (and not have to touch it after the other 20 patients on the floor. )


The primary differentiators on the iPad in your narrative is its form factor and weight (putting aside the premise that somehow folks could not write decent software for previous existing devices). For neither one of those have established how that changes communication. If having a color screen in front of folks was critically important to communication, the difference between 1.5 lbs and 3 lbs would not be at that much of a blocker. Especially for a device that many not even even leave a building nor needs to be held all day.

Don't really buy into the notion that weight and "the magical way it feels in your hands" were the primary blockers as to why folks are not already using computers in the way you describe inside of fixed clinical locations if the quality of care improvement effect was really as extremely dramatic as you attempt to make it out to be.

Much better reasoned than your initial dismissive post. That makes me happy. I am definitely enthusiastic about the iPad. I think that my perspective will prove to be correct over time. However, I am merely human. I could be wrong. I will send you a message in 2 years from now on the second anniversary of the iPad's debut. We may see enough of a trend to have some sense of which vision of the future appears to be correct.