Survey Sees Pent-Up iPad Demand, Some Cannibalization of Other Apple Products

[blackcrayon]

Some are, some aren't. Take, for example, the Archos 9, which runs full Windows 7 (obviously not the first choice of either one of us, but at least it's proof that a full desktop OS can run on a tablet). At present, it costs $50 more than the iPad, but in light of the iPad pricing I expect to see that drop soon. Even so, it's certainly got the better feature list: 1GB RAM, 60GB hard drive, a USB port, and 16:9 screen, to name a few. The main drawback is the Atom Z510 processor, which does hog power more than the iPad's A4, but considering just how much more you can do with one of these it's a compromise I'm sure many people would be willing to make. Note that I'm not in any way implying that the Archos 9 is the perfect substitute for an iPad-- it isn't-- I'm just pointing out there are tablets that are already shipping that can be considered viable alternatives.

I did look at the Archos 9. Maybe you have a long list of others but that one basically proves my point. Better feature list? IMO it's inferior to the iPad in almost every way! The only major feature "advantage" (that many of us consider a disadvantage) is that you have a desktop OS running desktop applications (that is, ones programmed for a desktop environment) on a tablet computer.

16:9 screen? But it's lower resolution than the iPad- i'd rather have the iPad's additional 168 vertical pixels. What's the disadvantage of them being there? (I know Apple is going 16:9 way for their computer screens- but that's only after they reached the point where the vertical resolution was enough to reasonably accommodate apps- if you want to see what I mean, try running Garageband on a 16:9 1024 x 600 screen).
Resistive touch screen?
I don't think we know how much RAM the iPad has yet but 1 GB seems barely adequate for Windows 7.
60 GB *hard drive*? If I'm going to use a mechanical hard drive spinning around in something I'm tossing around all the time, it had better be at least 200 gigs.
It has 1/2 the battery life. It's thicker. It's heavier. Only has 802.11g. The Archos 9 even costs only slightly less than the 32 gb Wifi iPad version. It does have a bunch of ports but I have no intention of using any for the things I want to do on a tablet device (for example, i'm not going to tether it to an ethernet cable).

I don't consider the Archos 9 a viable alternative to the iPad at all unless you must run Windows apps on a tiny screen.

 

[charlituna]

I think you're missing my point. What is it about the iPad that makes it better than any other tablet on the market? Have you even looked at alternatives?

that isn't really your business. but yes. I have. what scant ones are on the market. and they don't work for my needs. they are all either

too large to hold in one hand
too heavy to carry around
battery life sucks (i'm on set as much as 16 hours a day often without the means to recharge more than once)
the price is too high even excluding that my company gets a nice discount from Apple due to large purchases every year.

and even if, in your opinion, every other tablet and/or netbook is better than the ipad I am the one that will be using it. so if i like it and feel it fits my needs it is what i'm going to buy. it is my money not yours. so get over it.

 

[Night Spring]

If you want a screen so large that you need a bag to carry it, what sense does it make to not go all-out and get a thin-and-light notebook?

Well, my main reason is NO KEYBOARD. Keyboards are just in the way when I just want to read ebooks or browse the internet.
And yes, I know there are convertible notebooks where the screen swivels to turn into a tablet, but none are as thin or light as the iPad. And please don't say that a heavier notebook is as easy to carry as an iPad because they both need a bag! A lighter bag is a lighter bag. Less weight is always easier to carry. It makees no sense to argue otherwise.

 

[lifeinhd]

I did look at the Archos 9. Maybe you have a long list of others but that one basically proves my point. Better feature list? IMO it's inferior to the iPad in almost every way! The only major feature "advantage" (that many of us consider a disadvantage) is that you have a desktop OS running desktop applications (that is, ones programmed for a desktop environment) on a tablet computer.

16:9 screen? But it's lower resolution than the iPad- i'd rather have the iPad's additional 168 vertical pixels. What's the disadvantage of them being there? (I know Apple is going 16:9 way for their computer screens- but that's only after they reached the point where the vertical resolution was enough to reasonably accommodate apps- if you want to see what I mean, try running Garageband on a 16:9 1024 x 600 screen).
Resistive touch screen?
I don't think we know how much RAM the iPad has yet but 1 GB seems barely adequate for Windows 7.
60 GB *hard drive*? If I'm going to use a mechanical hard drive spinning around in something I'm tossing around all the time, it had better be at least 200 gigs.
It has 1/2 the battery life. It's thicker. It's heavier. Only has 802.11g. The Archos 9 even costs only slightly less than the 32 gb Wifi iPad version. It does have a bunch of ports but I have no intention of using any for the things I want to do on a tablet device (for example, i'm not going to tether it to an ethernet cable).

I don't consider the Archos 9 a viable alternative to the iPad at all unless you must run Windows apps on a tiny screen.

Well, you do of course have other options. You could go for a Notion Ink ADAM, for example. It's not out yet, but considering you've waited 10 years for a tablet, a few more months couldn't hurt that badly, no? A mere .01" thicker than the iPad and between 600-650 grams (so either way, lighter than the iPad), Tegra 2 which is a much more efficient SOC than the Archos' Atom (not sure how it stacks up against the iPad's A4 admittedly), uses MMC cards so you can't run out of storage, Pixel Qi Display, multitouch, antiglare, 3.2MP camera, ambient light sensor, accelerometer, GPS, 2 USB Host, HDMI, SIM Card slot, 2 internal speakers (iPad has one), and so on. And while it doesn't mention battery life on its site, a Slashgear report claims 8 hours of HD video and 16 hours of web surfing. And it runs Android with a _modified_ UI that makes it a good fit for the screen size, but also allows you to run apps from the Marketplace.

 

[blackcrayon]

Well, you do of course have other options. You could go for a Notion Ink ADAM, for example. It's not out yet, but considering you've waited 10 years for a tablet, a few more months couldn't hurt that badly, no? A mere .01" thicker than the iPad and between 600-650 grams (so either way, lighter than the iPad), Tegra 2 which is a much more efficient SOC than the Archos' Atom (not sure how it stacks up against the iPad's A4 admittedly), uses MMC cards so you can't run out of storage, Pixel Qi Display, multitouch, antiglare, 3.2MP camera, ambient light sensor, accelerometer, GPS, 2 USB Host, HDMI, SIM Card slot, 2 internal speakers (iPad has one), and so on. And while it doesn't mention battery life on its site, a Slashgear report claims 8 hours of HD video and 16 hours of web surfing. And it runs Android with a _modified_ UI that makes it a good fit for the screen size, but also allows you to run apps from the Marketplace.

I looked at the Notion Ink Adam as well, and at this point there isn't much to look at. In fact they barely show it running much at all, except for some blurry videos showing a web browser and some laggy finger painting. Or maybe some circles animating on the screen. You would expect their website to have some high quality videos of the product- but it doesn't. The *photos* on their website showing images on screen look fake (but I don't know for sure). On some of the videos the guy from Notion Ink has to tap objects on the screen repeatedly just to get the thing to respond! When he does tap them you can see this weird rectangular flash around the icon (looks unfinished). While scrolling through ebooks the screen scrambles momentarily. They won't show a single real *application* running- I'm just supposed to go under the assumption that since it runs Android, it will have some apps... Eventually.

I agree that some of the hardware specs look better- namely the Pixel Qi screen (which doesn't look as vibrant in full color mode as the iPad's- but I'll give it the nod for having the super low power modes) and the swivel camera is a nice idea IMO. But the software looks WAY behind what Apple is showing with the iPad - it's unpolished and slow. It looks much more than a month or 2 behind it, like more of a concept product than something that's about to ship. It's like comparing an iPhone 3GS to a pre-release T-Mobile G1. In fact, i think Notion Ink may have a problem once one of the big vendors decide to make an Android tablet with the same "off the shelf" parts and then putting millions of dollars into the interface (like HTC has done with the Android phones).

So, not sure if you believe me yet, but i *have* looked at other options. Sure, you could say "well eventually someone might have something better!" but that's always the case with any tech. And I have never had a problem selling my old Apple hardware for new stuff.

I can't speak for everyone, but I want something like a futuristic spiral bound notebook. I want it to be simple and fast. I want it to be light weight and have reasonably long battery life. I want to browse the web, read reference books/PDFs, play some fun games, use remote desktop clients, take occasional notes, and watch the occasional movie. I want the touch screen to be as responsive as possible. I want a polished product that is fun to use. So far, the iPad is the only product I've seen that will meet *my* wants and needs, and it's almost here.

 

[lifeinhd]

They won't show a single real *application* running- I'm just supposed to go under the assumption that since it runs Android, it will have some apps... Eventually.

Well, let's be honest, the iPad is the same way really, until developers release their applications for iPad. Until then, yes you have 140k apps, but they're either tiny rectangles in the middle of the screen, or pixelated with huge buttons-- something you didn't seem to like about the ADAM (the unpolished look that comes with the pixelation, I mean).

[The software is] like comparing an iPhone 3GS to a pre-release T-Mobile G1.

Apple's had a bit of a head start, considering they've been doing this for 3 years. That being said, I have an Android phone and an iPod touch, and while the iPod crashes pretty regularly, I've never had such a problem with Android (besides Google Voice crashing when I first turn the phone on). Granted, your experience may have been entirely different. You may find the iPhone OS to be the most "amazing" OS, never crashes, very responsive, etc, but the issue remains that the iPad is fatally flawed. And I know that it will still outsell all the competition despite these flaws.

In fact, i think Notion Ink may have a problem once one of the big vendors decide to make an Android tablet with the same "off the shelf" parts and then putting millions of dollars into the interface (like HTC has done with the Android phones).

Very true. The only thing I'm worried about is vendors trying to go after the iPad market directly as opposed to tackling the "desktop-OS-in-a-pocketable-device-that-works-well" market, which is still in its infancy but has loads of potential.

I can't speak for everyone, but I want something like a futuristic spiral bound notebook. I want it to be simple and fast. I want it to be light weight and have reasonably long battery life. I want to browse the web, read reference books/PDFs, play some fun games, use remote desktop clients, take occasional notes, and watch the occasional movie. I want the touch screen to be as responsive as possible. I want a polished product that is fun to use. So far, the iPad is the only product I've seen that will meet *my* wants and needs, and it's almost here.

There are three distinct advantages a spiral bound notebook has over the iPad: a) it's flexible, b) it's very difficult to accidentally break (unless you accidentally drop it in a shredder), and c) it has pressure sensitivity. Its lack of a screen means you can toss it in an unpadded bag without worrying about the glass shattering, and it's not going to get scratches (despite what people say, it's nowhere near impossible to get scratches on an iPhone screen). Due to its flexibility, you can tear off pages and fold them into pocketable pieces, create paper mache, even fold up the whole pad and stuff it in a pocket. And because it has pressure sensitivity, you can draw detailed images on it, something Apple doesn't seem to understand.

By the way, out of the characteristics you listed, the only four a notepad has is simplicity, speed, light weight, and the "ability to take occasional notes." Fortunately, for everything else, there's a device that has all the above characteristics (only better), plus more. It has exactly the same level of simplicity of an iPad, a nice speed, an even lighter weight, and it takes notes even faster than an iPad despite the iPad's full-sized virtual keyboard. You may even already have one of these magical devices. It's called an iPod touch, and despite being more than capable enough to get through all the tasks you listed, it'll still fit in your pocket.

This is where iPad supporters really lose me. Most people already have a laptop and a smartphone. Why, then, shell out for another device that duplicates the functionality of their smartphone? They say that the screen is too small, they think it's worth spending $500 so they don't have to use side scrolling on their iPhones, etc. So what's wrong with the laptop? It's less "polished," perhaps, but when you really need the larger screen, it's available, and you probably even already own one.

 

[blackcrayon]

Well, let's be honest, the iPad is the same way really, until developers release their applications for iPad. Until then, yes you have 140k apps, but they're either tiny rectangles in the middle of the screen, or pixelated with huge buttons-- something you didn't seem to like about the ADAM (the unpolished look that comes with the pixelation, I mean).

i was referring to the general image quality of the interface and choppy looking graphics and animation in the "tech demo" apps they are showing. There were dozens of iPhone apps the day the App store launched, so I expect the same or more for the iPad (since there are many times more seasoned Cocoa Touch developers). Plus, Apple showed their updated built-in Apps plus a professionally done office suite. Notion Ink is showing comparatively nothing. Im guessing the iPad will have 500X as many native apps as the Adam within a month of its release. And like i already mentioned, at least one of the press reviewers said that some of the scaled up "iPhone" 3D games looked great on the iPad.

I don't mean to sound like I'm bashing Notion Ink's product, I hope it does well, I just don't think it's close to being finished when compared to the iPad.

You may find the iPhone OS to be the most "amazing" OS, never crashes, very responsive, etc, but the issue remains that the iPad is fatally flawed. And I know that it will still outsell all the competition despite these flaws.

My experience is different, my iPhones (i'm on my 3rd) have rarely crashed, and i've jailbroken every one. I'm not sure I get your statement that the iPad is "fatally flawed" - you think it's going to crash regularly like your iPod?

Very true. The only thing I'm worried about is vendors trying to go after the iPad market directly as opposed to tackling the "desktop-OS-in-a-pocketable-device-that-works-well" market, which is still in its infancy but has loads of potential.

Does it surprise you that even Microsoft seems to be backing away from that idea (being that Windows Phone 7 is much less "Desktop-like" than Mobile 1-6)? Maybe because it just can't work well.

This is where iPad supporters really lose me. Most people already have a laptop and a smartphone. Why, then, shell out for another device that duplicates the functionality of their smartphone? They say that the screen is too small, they think it's worth spending $500 so they don't have to use side scrolling on their iPhones, etc. So what's wrong with the laptop? It's less "polished," perhaps, but when you really need the larger screen, it's available, and you probably even already own one.

My point wasn't to compare the iPad exactly to a paper spiral bound notebook, hence the word "futuristic." Yes i know i can bend a spiral bound notebook in half and still read the contents later, etc. I guess this is where iPad "haters" really lose me. I don't understand the "big iPod Touch" argument except that it makes its user sound really unimaginative. My 42" LCD is just a big 15" LCD right? So why own both? What could you possibly do with 4X the resolution? Certainly a midpoint between a smartphone and a laptop isn't needed by everyone, but neither is having a laptop when you have a desktop and a smartphone. Everyone's needs are different, right? You won't be happy until I agree to carry a 5 pound $2500 laptop with me to do things that an iPod Touch can't, but a $500 device 1/4 the weight can.

 

[lifeinhd]

There were dozens of iPhone apps the day the App store launched, so I expect the same or more for the iPad

You're absolutely right, I wouldn't expect anything less. But in the case of the iPhone, the apps were what made the phone. In the case of the iPad, it's not so much the apps that will make the, erm, pad because most of the apps that people will run on their iPads were built for iPhone. I have no idea what it is that will make the iPad useful, but whatever it is, it's not there yet.

Also, on the subject of apps: I think it's pretty obvious what Apple's trying to do. They don't expect initial demand for the iPad to be strong. However, they'll make it somehow "better" for developers to make iPad apps as opposed to iPhone apps, so developers start making apps for the iPad that do more than the ones for the iPhone. In this way, they will effectively force iPod touch and iPhone owners to buy the iPad. "You want new iPhone apps? Ooh, yeah, well, after we let developers keep 80% profit on all paid iPad apps but kept iPad apps at 70%, they've stopped developing for iPhone for some reason. But for only $500, you can upgrade to an iPad and get all the great new apps that you can't get on your iPhones anymore!" That's borderline criminal, and I seriously believe this is where Apple is headed. After making some pretty stupid decisions, such as only offering glossy displays, not putting Flash on the iPad, etc, it's pretty evident Apple doesn't care about the consumer, or even about making the best product, but rather just putting more money in their pockets. They need something like the iPad to be a huge failure before they open their eyes and start listening to the customers again and making great products once more. /rant

Notion Ink is showing comparatively nothing. Im guessing the iPad will have 500X as many native apps as the Adam within a month of its release. And like i already mentioned, at least one of the press reviewers said that some of the scaled up "iPhone" 3D games looked great on the iPad.

Games, perhaps, but games are only a fraction of the App Store apps. Many have text, menus, buttons, etc and from what I've heard (from Engadget if I recall), those all looked pretty crap.

My experience is different, my iPhones (i'm on my 3rd) have rarely crashed, and i've jailbroken every one. I'm not sure I get your statement that the iPad is "fatally flawed" - you think it's going to crash regularly like your iPod?

No, I mean the idea of making a larger iPod touch and giving it hardly any differentiation from its cheaper sibling is a pretty severe flaw. Not figuring out a target market is a flaw. Making it so large that it has to have its own bag is a flaw.

Does it surprise you that even Microsoft seems to be backing away from that idea (being that Windows Phone 7 is much less "Desktop-like" than Mobile 1-6)? Maybe because it just can't work well.

I think it's mainly because M$ can't write a good OS, period

I don't understand the "big iPod Touch" argument except that it makes its user sound really unimaginative. My 42" LCD is just a big 15" LCD right? So why own both?

Not necessarily. You don't specify what types of LCDs you're referring to, so I'll make two cases. In the first case, I'll assume both are TVs. In the second, I'll assume the 42" is a TV and the 15" is a laptop.

TVs are not intended to be portable. So you would own two TVs to place permanently in two different parts of your house. In this scenario, yes, your 42" TV is just a big 15" TV, but you need both only because they're a) not intended to be portable and b) presumably the viewing distance varies. Remember, iPad and iPhone both are portable, and both will never be more than an arm's length away, meaning those two statements are untrue as they apply to the iPad/iPhone argument.

Assuming the second case, they serve very distinct functions. TV is meant to be viewed from a distance, and meant to show a large picture from a limited number of sources. Laptop is meant to be carried around, enable you to be productive, etc. In this case, the TV and the laptop serve very different functions, meaning you need both.

You won't be happy until I agree to carry a 5 pound $2500 laptop with me to do things that an iPod Touch can't, but a $500 device 1/4 the weight can.

I still don't feel you've explained what an iPad can do that the Touch cannot. Apps, sure; but are a few more apps really worth shelling out another $500 to Apple?

Also, I never said you needed to lug around a huge expensive laptop. Believe it or not, in the Wintel world, they make small, light, inexpensive notebooks that are _not_ netbooks. Take, for instance, the Dell Inspiron 11Z. Just over 3 lbs, 11" screen, 2GB RAM, 160GB drive, 1" thick, starts at $350. I bumped up the processor, moved to Windows 7, upped the battery, added a 250GB HD, and it was still only $514.

 

[Night Spring]

You're absolutely right, I wouldn't expect anything less. But in the case of the iPhone, the apps were what made the phone. In the case of the iPad, it's not so much the apps that will make the, erm, pad because most of the apps that people will run on their iPads were built for iPhone. I have no idea what it is that will make the iPad useful, but whatever it is, it's not there yet.

Also, on the subject of apps: I think it's pretty obvious what Apple's trying to do. They don't expect initial demand for the iPad to be strong. However, they'll make it somehow "better" for developers to make iPad apps as opposed to iPhone apps, so developers start making apps for the iPad that do more than the ones for the iPhone. In this way, they will effectively force iPod touch and iPhone owners to buy the iPad. "You want new iPhone apps? Ooh, yeah, well, after we let developers keep 80% profit on all paid iPad apps but kept iPad apps at 70%, they've stopped developing for iPhone for some reason. But for only $500, you can upgrade to an iPad and get all the great new apps that you can't get on your iPhones anymore!" That's borderline criminal, and I seriously believe this is where Apple is headed.

Wow. You've made up a scenario in your own imagination for which there is not one solid shred of evidence, and then you are getting upset over this imaginary scenario. Plus, you can't have it both ways. First you say iPad specific apps don't matter because people will be using mostly iPhone apps on the iPad at launch, and then you make up this elaborate imaignary scenario where users are forced to buy the iPad because iPad specific apps become mainstream and iPhone apps sort of fade away? Please make up your mind, which is it?

I still don't feel you've explained what an iPad can do that the Touch cannot. Apps, sure; but are a few more apps really worth shelling out another $500 to Apple?

For me, having a larger screen light-weight tablet-form computing device without a keyboard and with a OS that was built from the grounds up for multitouch is worth the $900 I'm planning to spend on the 64GB 3G iPad plus a case for it. iPad specific apps are a bonus. The touch is great, but I know I'll enjoy it more with a bigger screen. If you don't feel the need for a bigger screen, I suppose you must enjoy excellent eyesight, for which I am happy for you. But those of us with fading eyesight and weaker muscles love the idea of a bigger screen in a lightweight format.

 

[lifeinhd]

Wow. You've made up a scenario in your own imagination for which there is not one solid shred of evidence, and then you are getting upset over this imaginary scenario. Plus, you can't have it both ways. First you say iPad specific apps don't matter because people will be using mostly iPhone apps on the iPad at launch, and then you make up this elaborate imaignary scenario where users are forced to buy the iPad because iPad specific apps become mainstream and iPhone apps sort of fade away? Please make up your mind, which is it?

Both. I never said the scenario would happen at the launch of the iPad.

And actually, there is evidence to suggest that what I'm saying will happen. It's well known that Apple wants to sell hardware, and the only reason they have things such as the App Store or iTMS is to further their hardware sales. They already have a large iPod touch/iPhone user base, in fact sales are tapering off, so they feel now is a good time to release another hardware device. The only problem is convincing people to take the plunge for a device that already does most of what the iPhones/Touches people already own can do. The best way is to use apps as leverage. Without the iPad in the picture, developers would concentrate their efforts on the iPhone/Touch, and consumers would be happy because they're getting continuous, undivided support. With the release of the iPad, developers will stop work on iPhone apps and instead flock to support the iPad, since it has "more potential" then the iPhone. Then iPhone users realize very few new apps are coming out for their iPhones, and all the growth seems to be in the iPad sector. So they're pretty much forced into buying an iPad in order to retain access to the "latest and greatest new apps." Then in a few years when Apple releases their iPad Pro that has a 3D interface or whatever with "even more potential," developers will flock to that platform and abandon the iPad, and in this way Apple will keep consumers locked in to their closed system. For Apple, it's becoming all about sales, not what the customers want.

For me, having a larger screen light-weight tablet-form computing device without a keyboard and with a OS that was built from the grounds up for multitouch is worth the $900 I'm planning to spend on the 64GB 3G iPad plus a case for it.

The iPhone OS was built from the ground up for multitouch, sure, but it was also designed for a 3.5" screen. I realize the iPhone OS doesn't "get in the way" as much as a desktop OS, but look at the parts you can see: you've got the tiny slider on the home screen located right in the center (they could have, for example, put a quarter circle arc on either side, so you could hold the iPad with two hands and swipe in a natural way with either thumb). The icons have boatloads of space in between them (look at your computer. The icons are probably large enough to press with a finger, and look how little space there is in between them. The iPad icons don't use the space to its potential, which is what the iPad was supposed to be about). It really seems as though Apple didn't spend a lot of time on the OS itself, and rather put all their focus into making the keyboard look like one of their desktop keyboards, or making the Mail app show the preview bar when the iPad is turned sideways. It just seems like a really unfinished product.

If you don't feel the need for a bigger screen, I suppose you must enjoy excellent eyesight, for which I am happy for you.

I've been wearing glasses since I was 8 years old. And I know that didn't come from staring at small screens, because that was quite some time before handheld devices/iPods/small screens were the norm. I'm not saying I wouldn't enjoy a bigger screen. I would have absolutely no problem with a 5" iPod. It just barely pushes the envelope of what's truly "portable" (fits in your pocket), making it an optimal size.

But those of us with fading eyesight and weaker muscles love the idea of a bigger screen in a lightweight format.

Then the iPad isn't going to help you, because the resolution is higher than that of the iPhone. Assuming you're going to run iPad-specific applications, you'll still have tiny buttons, words and menus. Only if you plan to stick to iPhone applications (many of which could soon lose support) will you have the larger UI elements that you want.

 

[admanimal]

Then the iPad isn't going to help you, because the resolution is higher than that of the iPhone. Assuming you're going to run iPad-specific applications, you'll still have tiny buttons, words and menus. Only if you plan to stick to iPhone applications (many of which could soon lose support) will you have the larger UI elements that you want.

This is incorrect. A button with a given pixel dimension will be larger when displayed on the iPad than on the iPhone, because the iPad's screen has a lower pixels-per-inch count. Besides, the exact size of most interface elements is up to the developer, so they can make things as big as they want in their iPad-specific apps.

 

[lifeinhd]

This is incorrect. A button with a given pixel dimension will be larger when displayed on the iPad than on the iPhone, because the iPad's screen has a lower pixels-per-inch count. Besides, the exact size of most interface elements is up to the developer, so they can make things as big as they want in their iPad-specific apps.

A button has to have certain dimensions, not a certain pixel count. It only has to be large enough for a finger to (accurately) press it, meaning an iPad button can be the same physical size as an iPhone button while using fewer pixels. And while the second part of your statement is true, if developers simply made their UI elements larger, how does that take advantage of the iPad's extra screen real estate? May as well pixel-double an iPhone app.

 

[Night Spring]

Without the iPad in the picture, developers would concentrate their efforts on the iPhone/Touch, and consumers would be happy because they're getting continuous, undivided support. With the release of the iPad, developers will stop work on iPhone apps and instead flock to support the iPad, since it has "more potential" then the iPhone. Then iPhone users realize very few new apps are coming out for their iPhones, and all the growth seems to be in the iPad sector. So they're pretty much forced into buying an iPad in order to retain access to the "latest and greatest new apps."

I guess I just don't see things as pessimistic as you do regarding iPhone apps. I do partly agree with you about the possibility that developers could pour more of their efforts and resources into iPad apps, but the iPhone form factor does have an advantage over the iPad due to its "pocketablity," and therefore I don't think consumer interest and demand for apps that work on the smaller iPhone screen would go away. And if there is demand, someone would meet that need. Sure, there will be the "newest and latest" apps that only work on the iPad -- even among things demoed during the keynote, the Calendar app and iWorks suite looked great. But neither would be feasible on the iPhone's smaller screen. If you find yourself switching to the iPad to get the iPad apps, then it's probably more accurate to say that the iPhone wasn't completely meeting your needs in the first place.

The iPhone OS was built from the ground up for multitouch, sure, but it was also designed for a 3.5" screen. I realize the iPhone OS doesn't "get in the way" as much as a desktop OS, but look at the parts you can see: you've got the tiny slider on the home screen located right in the center (they could have, for example, put a quarter circle arc on either side, so you could hold the iPad with two hands and swipe in a natural way with either thumb). The icons have boatloads of space in between them (look at your computer. The icons are probably large enough to press with a finger, and look how little space there is in between them. The iPad icons don't use the space to its potential, which is what the iPad was supposed to be about). It really seems as though Apple didn't spend a lot of time on the OS itself, and rather put all their focus into making the keyboard look like one of their desktop keyboards, or making the Mail app show the preview bar when the iPad is turned sideways. It just seems like a really unfinished product.

The home screen did feel unfinished, but my theory is that Apple spent most of their time getting the hardware right, and didn't quite have time to polish up the OS. And I'm not a fan of using my thumb to interact with a device that big. The rectantular grid layout is fine, but it would be nicer if the icons were spaced closer together so you could fit more icons per page. But that's a minor software issue that can be cleared up in the next software upgrade, so I'm not too concerned about it.

I'm not saying I wouldn't enjoy a bigger screen. I would have absolutely no problem with a 5" iPod. It just barely pushes the envelope of what's truly "portable" (fits in your pocket), making it an optimal size.

Actually, when I first started using apps on the iPod touch, my thought was, like you, that a 5" screen would be optimal. And when rumors started surfacing about a 10" screen for the Apple tablet, I thought that would be too big. Like you said, 5" is still portable enough to fit in a large pocket, and I thought that pocketablity was something I wanted. But when I saw the keynote, it convinced me that the additional functionality provided by the larger screen was worth giving up the pocketablity. The Calendar app looked like a real desktop calendar, the documents in iWorks looked like real printed documents. A 5" screen would in fact be just a bigger iPod touch, but the iPad feels like it opens up a whole new world of possibilities. Of course, it's up to developers to take advantage of that possibility, and I really hope they don't just cram up the screen with impossible small details like they do for the iPhone. And no, the iPad isn't perfect -- like you pointed out, the home screen sucks, and they could do a lot more with the lock screen than just show a picture slideshow. Still, for what it is and can do right now, for me, it's going to be worth every dollar I pay for it. I understand not everyone will feel the same way, but I hope I've managed to explain why *I* am looking forward to having the iPad.

 

[gwangung]

A button has to have certain dimensions, not a certain pixel count. It only has to be large enough for a finger to (accurately) press it, meaning an iPad button can be the same physical size as an iPhone button while using fewer pixels. And while the second part of your statement is true, if developers simply made their UI elements larger, how does that take advantage of the iPad's extra screen real estate? May as well pixel-double an iPhone app.

Um, and you think that developers won't adjust for older users?

Riiiiiiigggghhhhhht.

 

[admanimal]

And while the second part of your statement is true, if developers simply made their UI elements larger, how does that take advantage of the iPad's extra screen real estate? May as well pixel-double an iPhone app.

A developer should have no trouble making a completely custom iPad interface AND making the buttons as large or larger than their iPhone counterparts.

 

[fox10078]

Developers won't kill their iPhone apps since there is still money to be made. They will just make new iPad apps.

 

[lifeinhd]

...even among things demoed during the keynote, the Calendar app and iWorks suite looked great. But neither would be feasible on the iPhone's smaller screen.

I'm still not convinced people would rather use their fingers on a touchscreen to make something like a Keynote presentation. Some things are simply better done on a computer with a real keyboard and mouse.

And of course, there's already a calendar app on the iPhone. However, I don't use it, so I won't pretend I know everything there is to know about it.

If you find yourself switching to the iPad to get the iPad apps, then it's probably more accurate to say that the iPhone wasn't completely meeting your needs in the first place.

I don't think that's quite it. It's like you buy a VW and VW decides to informally drop support for VWs and focus almost entirely on Audis, since they pull in more profit. Wouldn't you be upset?

The home screen did feel unfinished, but my theory is that Apple spent most of their time getting the hardware right, and didn't quite have time to polish up the OS.

Software and hardware are two different teams at Apple. Surely the software team had some spare time on their hands to improve iPhone OS for the iPad, seeing as they're not doing anything useful (such as bringing out OS 4.0).

But when I saw the keynote, it convinced me that the additional functionality provided by the larger screen was worth giving up the pocketablity.

Yeah, unfortunately the keynotes tend to have that effect on people

A 5" screen would in fact be just a bigger iPod touch, but the iPad feels like it opens up a whole new world of possibilities.

No, I mean having a 5" screen on the Touch _instead_ of the 3.5" screen. They could have made an 800x480 resolution which, if icon pixel dimensions were kept the same, means they could fit 10x5 apps on a home screen-- 50 apps. Even if they wanted to make the icons use more pixels (due to the higher ppi), they could easily manage much more than the current 5x4. With a resolution like that, you could view most web pages without the need for zooming or side to side scrolling, which would likely be one of the main benefits. I think the only problem may be the iPhone, since a 5" screen may be considered slightly large to hold up to your ear. Or maybe we'd all get used to it and not care.

I hope I've managed to explain why *I* am looking forward to having the iPad.

At the very least, you've done a great job convincing yourself why you need an iPad. What more can I say? You seem to have made your mind up, as have I.

 

[Night Spring]

I'm still not convinced people would rather use their fingers on a touchscreen to make something like a Keynote presentation. Some things are simply better done on a computer with a real keyboard and mouse.

I agree that a lot of things about how useful iWorks on iPad will be in actual use won't be known until people actually start using it. I don't have any opinion about Keynote as I've never made a presentation, even on a desktop. I do know that I've tried editing documents on the iPod touch, and managed to get a decent amount of work done, so I'm hoping that the larger screen on the iPad would allow me to be even more productive. But whether or not the on-screen keyboard on the iPad would be comfortable to use for extended periods of time is a big question mark.

And of course, there's already a calendar app on the iPhone. However, I don't use it, so I won't pretend I know everything there is to know about it.

Truth is, I don't have much use for a calendar myself, but when I saw the screen shot of the monthly calendar view on the iPad, it made me wish I used calendars more often! Just open up the calendar app on your iPhone, take a look at the monthly view, then compare to the monthly view for the iPad app -- I think it should be obvious what a huge improvement it is.

I don't think that's quite it. It's like you buy a VW and VW decides to informally drop support for VWs and focus almost entirely on Audis, since they pull in more profit. Wouldn't you be upset?

If that actually, happened, yes. But I'm not convinced that will happen.

Software and hardware are two different teams at Apple. Surely the software team had some spare time on their hands to improve iPhone OS for the iPad, seeing as they're not doing anything useful (such as bringing out OS 4.0).

They usually bring out the new iPhone OS in March, don't they? So IMO it's premature to accuse them of idling around doing nothing -- we can berate them if and when the iPhone OS 4.0 release is late and/or underwhelming.

Yeah, unfortunately the keynotes tend to have that effect on people

Jobs is a great salesman, I give you that. But the last time he wowed me like this was when he pulled the MacBook Air out of a manilla envelope; that time, after due consideration, I was able to decide that despite its sexy form factor, I had little actual use for an Air, and refrained from buying one. With the iPad, the more I imagine how I could use it in my life, the more it seems to fit.

No, I mean having a 5" screen on the Touch _instead_ of the 3.5" screen.

Hmmm, I wouldn't object to that myself, but like you say, the size of the iPod touch is dictated by the optimal size for a handheld phone, as Apple obviously doesn't want to bother with different screen sizes for the touch and the iPhone.

And even if we did get a 5" touch, we will still have the question left of whether Apple should make a larger-size tablet device, and if yes, what functions the tablet should have in order to be useful to the greatest number of users.

At the very least, you've done a great job convincing yourself why you need an iPad. What more can I say? You seem to have made your mind up, as have I.

Well, in the end, we all just need to convince ourselves -- if we are sure of what we think is right for us, then what others think doesn't matter. But it's always fun to exchange ideas with someone with a different point of view. So thanks for the engaging discussion. I've certainly enjoyed it!

 

[lifeinhd]

Developers won't kill their iPhone apps since there is still money to be made. They will just make new iPad apps.

Let's say you're a one man iPhone dev who works a 9-to-5 and codes on the weekends. You've already released several apps for the iPhone, and now there's an iPad that you can make even better applications on, thanks to the larger screen. Time is a limited resource, so are you going to concentrate on the more limited iPhone apps or focus on adding every feature you can think of to your iPad app?

Now, let's assume you own a large iPhone development firm, and you have the capacity to crank out both iPhone and iPad versions of your apps. All Apple would have to do is give you some sort of additional incentive to develop for iPad, say allowing developers to keep 80% revenue, and you're going to have your entire company concentrate on iPad apps. Sure, you may release small updates for bug fixes for your existing iPhone apps, but you're going to want to go where the money is.

As Shiller said, "It's a whole 'nother gold rush for developers." Why should the developers go where the gold is no longer?

A developer should have no trouble making a completely custom iPad interface AND making the buttons as large or larger than their iPhone counterparts.

Why do that when they have no need to? That just wastes real estate. May as well just make an iPhone app and allow iPad users to pixel double then.

Let's say you're making a web browser. You want to make the buttons, address bar, settings, etc. stay out of the way of the browsing area, so you're going to make them no larger than they need to be to use comfortably.

Just because you now have extra screen real estate doesn't mean you should waste it.

Um, and you think that developers won't adjust for older users?

Riiiiiiigggghhhhhht.

No, I don't. If a developer already has an iPhone app on the store, what sense does it make for them to rewrite the entire thing making no changes other than larger buttons when they hard-of-seeing people could simply get the iPhone app and pixel double? Developers will concentrate on making the most out of the real estate they're given, not wasting it with larger buttons/text.

 

[deckwalker]

You're still talking about CRTs! This is 2010, not 1990!

I record and play and rerecord my tapes all the time.

You're still talking about tapes! This is 2010, not 1980!

 

[blackcrayon]

You're absolutely right, I wouldn't expect anything

Games, perhaps, but games are only a fraction of the App Store apps. Many have text, menus, buttons, etc and from what I've heard (from Engadget if I recall), those all looked pretty crap.

by "fraction" i'll assume you mean "the largest percentage of apps in the store"... Come to think of it there might be as many books as games, but those would seem to be candidates for instant conversion anyway. I also mean that games are important to me on this device, and I like playing games on my iPhone. I expect I'll like them on the iPad even more. Of course pixel doubled "Regular" interface apps will look like crap. Luckily, if the developers aren't dead those will be the first to be updated.

Making it so large that it has to have its own bag is a flaw.

That's a lot of flawed devices out there. Not to mention the books and magazines the iPad wants to replace.

I still don't feel you've explained what an iPad can do that the Touch cannot. Apps, sure; but are a few more apps really worth shelling out another $500 to Apple?

I don't know how else to try to explain it. You don't seem to want to acknowledge that, for example, a 27" iMac allows using types of applications that are not practical on a 13" MacBook's screen.
Are more sophisticated, "full screen" apps with the same type of open-ended, fun, clever code behind them as those on the iPhone worth it to me? Absolutely. It's great that you can read books and edit iWork documents on your iPod Touch though.

Also, I never said you needed to lug around a huge expensive laptop. Believe it or not, in the Wintel world, they make small, light, inexpensive notebooks that are _not_ netbooks. Take, for instance, the Dell Inspiron 11Z. Just over 3 lbs, 11" screen, 2GB RAM, 160GB drive, 1" thick, starts at $350. I bumped up the processor, moved to Windows 7, upped the battery, added a 250GB HD, and it was still only $514.

But see, I have a big expensive laptop. And I know what it's like to lug it around. And i know what it's like to have a netbook, a Dell no less. (A 10v, so 1 size smaller than your 11z). Though it was OK, I think the iPad would be much more elegant (and in some cases, capable at all, since it has a touch screen) for doing what I want to do with it.
Is the Inspiron 11z good (i didnt say perfect) for reading books? Do games run on it at all? (I realize PC games are generally more sophisticated than what I would expect for the iPad- but that is what would be available for Windows 7). Does it get 10 hours of battery life? It's double the thickness and weight of the iPad.
But it runs Windows 7! But I don't want Windows 7 on my ultra portable device. I might ask is it really worth it to shell out $514 to be subject to Windows I'm looking forward to the simplicity and reliability of the iPad. I have my Macbook Pro and Mac Pro when I want to deal with a complex desktop OS.

 

[lifeinhd]

You're still talking about tapes! This is 2010, not 1980!

The switch to CDs removed some functionality (rerecording). The switch to LCDs removed no functionality (though professional photographers did reject early LCDs, claiming they didn't have as great color accuracy as CRTs).

by "fraction" i'll assume you mean "the largest percentage of apps in the store"

1/1000 is a fraction. 1/2 is a fraction. Hell, even 1/1 is a fraction, though of course the number of games on the App Store is less than 100%, so you can deduce that I wasn't referring to such a fraction.

I also mean that games are important to me on this device, and I like playing games on my iPhone.

So you want to spend $500 for a device that duplicates the game-playing functionality of your iPhone, is what you're saying.

I expect I'll like them on the iPad even more. Of course pixel doubled "Regular" interface apps will look like crap. Luckily, if the developers aren't dead those will be the first to be updated.

Note my prediction a few posts above. If I'm correct, iPhone apps will be "upgraded" to iPhone apps and we'll see very few iPhone app updates in the future.

That's a lot of flawed devices out there. Not to mention the books and magazines the iPad wants to replace.

Do you generally carry either one of those with you? Even if you did, books and magazines are less fragile, they're bendable, they're not as big a target for thieves, their batteries won't run out on the last page, and some people would argue that they're easier to read, since a glossy display is not something you want to use for prolonged reading.

I don't know how else to try to explain it. You don't seem to want to acknowledge that, for example, a 27" iMac allows using types of applications that are not practical on a 13" MacBook's screen.

That has to do with multitasking. I don't *think* most people would full-screen their apps on a 27" display (at least not their basics like web browsers, Word documents, etc). They want to display multiple Word documents side by side, have a video open while they browse the web, be able to see when they have an incoming chat while they're reading a PDF, etc. You can't do that on a 13" MacBook screen, since you kind of need to full screen all your apps. As we all know, the iPad lacks multitasking, meaning the larger screen is for nothing.

Are more sophisticated, "full screen" apps with the same type of open-ended, fun, clever code behind them as those on the iPhone worth it to me? Absolutely.

Sophisticated? Remember, these are still iPhone apps we're talking about, meaning they're still quite limited in functionality compared to desktop applications. And if you're planning on carrying such a large device for the slight bit of extra functionality you might gain by using iPad apps, why not just get an ultraportable notebook and get even more functionality?

It's great that you can read books and edit iWork documents on your iPod Touch though.

I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic. Ever head of Kindle for iPhone? Or B&N eReader? I damn well can read eBooks on my iPod touch if I wanted to, and I don't need to shell out another $500 for Apple should I want to.

As for iWork, I'd rather just use a laptop and get it done in half the time.

And i know what it's like to have a netbook, a Dell no less. (A 10v, so 1 size smaller than your 11z)

Not quite. See, the 10v is a netbook. The 11z is a full-featured notebook with a Celeron or a Pentium processor, 2GB RAM, and a 160GB hard drive.

Though it was OK, I think the iPad would be much more elegant (and in some cases, capable at all, since it has a touch screen) for doing what I want to do with it.

In another post, you said:

I want to browse the web, read reference books/PDFs, play some fun games, use remote desktop clients, take occasional notes, and watch the occasional movie. I want the touch screen to be as responsive as possible. I want a polished product that is fun to use.

I said:

Fortunately, for [all of that], there's a device that has all the above characteristics (only better), plus more. It has exactly the same level of simplicity of an iPad, a nice speed, an even lighter weight, and it takes notes even faster than an iPad despite the iPad's full-sized virtual keyboard. You may even already have one of these magical devices. It's called an iPod touch, and despite being more than capable enough to get through all the tasks you listed, it'll still fit in your pocket.

You have yet to acknowledge how my statement is untrue.

Is the Inspiron 11z good (i didnt say perfect) for reading books?

Have you ever read a long web page or a PDF on your computer? It's not much different. And of course, the screen is bigger than the iPad, with a higher resolution (1366x768 vs. the iPad's 1024x768) which can only add to the enjoyment.

Do games run on it at all?

Yes, remember, this is a full notebook we're talking about, just with a small screen, small size and low weight.

Does it get 10 hours of battery life? It's double the thickness and weight of the iPad.

No. You can't have it all, can you? And don't say the iPad delivers it all; it's a pretty well established fact that it doesn't. If you seriously think otherwise, I challenge you to replace your computer with one.

But it runs Windows 7! But I don't want Windows 7 on my ultra portable device. I might ask is it really worth it to shell out $514 to be subject to Windows

I've never used Windows 7, so I won't pretend I have, but from what I hear, it's actually not that bad. And it gives you many of the capabilities the iPhone OS lacks.

I'm looking forward to the simplicity and reliability of the iPad. I have my Macbook Pro and Mac Pro when I want to deal with a complex desktop OS.

Please tell me, how is OS X complex? They've dumbed it down quite a bit from, say, the command line interfaces from 30 years ago. If you can't figure out how to use something as simple as OS X, that's a problem. Imagine a future where *all* computers run iPhone OS. All tied into the Apple ecosystem, no getting at the Unix kernel, no complex operations, no apps Apple doesn't want you to have. Maybe this is what you want, but for most people this would be the ultimate nightmare. But I digress.

As for the reliability of the iPad... really? Have you never had an app crash on your iPhone? Or had mobile Safari close on you because you tried to load a page that was too big? Or had the whole thing lock up for a full minute when you tried to press the Home button? If not, you're one of a lucky few-- a "fraction," if you will.

 

[IamHermann0069]

Rule of Thumb. Never buy a new model of anything. Newbies are guinea pigs. Improvements ALWAYS come later, after the beta bugs are taken care of (maybe heat, screen problems, whatever). And what about Flash?

I do not agree at all. Look at the iPhone launch. How many people held off on purchasing the 1st generation iPhone because it was the "guinea pig?" With a company like Apple, I really do not think there is a guinea pig, especially with devices like the iPhone or iPad which Jobs has been preparing to release for 10 years.

I completely agree that improvements are going to come later, but most of these improvements come in the form of a software update. Jobs is a stubborn guy, and does not change much as far as the hardware of his prized devices. Granted I have owned all three iPhones, not a lot has changed from the 1st gen to the 3rd gen.

With something like iPad, either you like it or you don't. Both my girlfriend and myself are big fans of apple products, and I will be purchasing my iPad on launch day, but she has no interest in the device. She has no complaints with the product, and can't wait to get her hands on mine (that's what she said) but just simply does not think she would use it enough to justify buying her own. Personally I say if this looks like something you would want or use, just go out and buy it. You know it will be a great product with endless possibilities.

 

[blackcrayon]

1/1000 is a fraction. 1/2 is a fraction. Hell, even 1/1 is a fraction, though of course the number of games on the App Store is less than 100%, so you can deduce that I wasn't referring to such a fraction.

Thanks for helping me understand fractions However, usually when people use that phrase, they are implying that the percentage is comparatively small. Do you think someone would say "This application only runs on Microsoft Windows? Well that's only a fraction of installed operating systems!"?

So you want to spend $500 for a device that duplicates the game-playing functionality of your iPhone, is what you're saying.

I mentioned games as part of what I would like to do with the iPad. Though I would primarily be interested in iPad specific games, it's nice to know that I can play some of the nicer ones made for the iPhone as well.

Note my prediction a few posts above. If I'm correct, iPhone apps will be "upgraded" to iPhone apps and we'll see very few iPhone app updates in the future.

Where applicable I'm sure there will be a common engine with UIs specific to the 2 types of devices. I think it depends on the type of application you're talking about. I can't see iPad specific apps causing developers to completely abandon their "mini" versions on the iPhone.

That has to do with multitasking. (---snip---) As we all know, the iPad lacks multitasking, meaning the larger screen is for nothing.

Multitasking is one reason. Running Logic while showing a reasonable number of tracks on the screen and the mixing board is another. Or Final Cut Studio. Or any other number of applications that people actually do run full screen. You're making it sound like iPad apps *will* all just be exact copies of iPhone apps at twice the size

I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic. Ever head of Kindle for iPhone? Or B&N eReader? I damn well can read eBooks on my iPod touch if I wanted to, and I don't need to shell out another $500 for Apple should I want to.
As for iWork, I'd rather just use a laptop and get it done in half the time.

And the iPad is a much better device for reading an eBook than an iPod Touch. Just like a laptop is better for some functions (and it is) than the iPad. As for iWork, now you need your laptop where I can use my iPad. You're the one trying to convince other people they don't know what's good for themselves. I'm perfectly fine if you would rather use your laptop than something that *I* think would be better in many situations though.

Have you ever read a long web page or a PDF on your computer? It's not much different. And of course, the screen is bigger than the iPad, with a higher resolution (1366x768 vs. the iPad's 1024x768) which can only add to the enjoyment.

Actually I find that a touch interface like the iPhone is well designed for navigating content that is impossibly "large" for its small screen. I'm looking forward to the iPad's ability to do the same. It's rather clumsy on a lot of netbooks to navigate around content because all you have are arrow keys and scrollbars (and if you're lucky, a scrolling trackpad that's not awful). The fact that portrait mode on the iPad is similar to the dimensions of a sheet of paper is another advantage- On that 16:9 11" screen the text might actually be smaller if you intend to fit the whole page vertically.

No. You can't have it all, can you? And don't say the iPad delivers it all; it's a pretty well established fact that it doesn't. If you seriously think otherwise, I challenge you to replace your computer with one.

No one is saying it does it all. We're just saying it does what we generally want it to for our wants and needs.

I misread what you said earlier about Windows 7- i thought you meant that you had purchased an Inspiron 11z with Windows 7- but you were just using the configurator on Dell's website. I do use Windows 7 occasionally on my Mac Pro.

But since you mentioned it, the Inspiron 11z doesn't look all that great as a media playing device. According to at least one review it can barely play Youtube at standard definition and stutters badly on HD. It's also unplayable at all but old 3D games due to the poor (for games) intel integrated Graphics. The battery life is poor. The processor is slow for running its intended OS (Windows). The trackpad gets a bad review (dell mini 10v also had a horrifyingly bad trackpad so I believe them), and you need that since there's no touchscreen (advantage for me, disadvantage for you, right?).

Please tell me, how is OS X complex? They've dumbed it down quite a bit from, say, the command line interfaces from 30 years ago. If you can't figure out how to use something as simple as OS X, that's a problem. Imagine a future where *all* computers run iPhone OS. All tied into the Apple ecosystem, no getting at the Unix kernel, no complex operations, no apps Apple doesn't want you to have. Maybe this is what you want, but for most people this would be the ultimate nightmare. But I digress.

I don't find Mac OS X "complex" on its own, but obviously iPhone/iPad OS is much less complex. I didn't say I wan't Mac OS X to go away, I really like using it. I can use a lot of "complex" things but that doesn't mean I want them in every situation. I like simplicity on a small task-oriented mobile device. I welcome the middle ground between the iPhone and a MacBook in regards to that complexity *shrug*.

As for the reliability of the iPad... really? Have you never had an app crash on your iPhone? Or had mobile Safari close on you because you tried to load a page that was too big? Or had the whole thing lock up for a full minute when you tried to press the Home button? If not, you're one of a lucky few-- a "fraction," if you will.

Have you ever had your web browser crash on Mac OS X? Or Windows? Ever have Mac Safari pinwheel when a web page appears to be loaded? Ever hear of a laptop not waking from sleep? Ever see a Windows machine overrun with adware or spyware (important to note, since your iPad alternatives are mostly Windows machines). In general I find the iPhone to be extremely reliable and crash less than full desktop PCs. Of course it remains to be seen how reliable the iPad is, I'm just going by my experience with the iPhone.

 

[lifeinhd]

by "fraction" i'll assume you mean "the largest percentage of apps in the store"

1/1000 is a fraction. 1/2 is a fraction. Hell, even 1/1 is a fraction, though of course the number of games on the App Store is less than 100%, so you can deduce that I wasn't referring to such a fraction.

I also mean that games are important to me on this device, and I like playing games on my iPhone.

So you want to spend $500 for a device that duplicates the game-playing functionality of your iPhone, is what you're saying.

I expect I'll like them on the iPad even more. Of course pixel doubled "Regular" interface apps will look like crap. Luckily, if the developers aren't dead those will be the first to be updated.

Note my prediction a few posts above. If I'm correct, iPhone apps will be "upgraded" to iPhone apps and we'll see very few iPhone app updates in the future.

That's a lot of flawed devices out there. Not to mention the books and magazines the iPad wants to replace.

Do you generally carry either one of those with you? Even if you did, books and magazines are less fragile, they're bendable, they're not as big a target for thieves, their batteries won't run out on the last page, and some people would argue that they're easier to read, since a glossy display is not something you want to use for prolonged reading.

I don't know how else to try to explain it. You don't seem to want to acknowledge that, for example, a 27" iMac allows using types of applications that are not practical on a 13" MacBook's screen.

That has to do with multitasking. I don't *think* most people would full-screen their apps on a 27" display (at least not their basics like web browsers, Word documents, etc). They want to display multiple Word documents side by side, have a video open while they browse the web, be able to see when they have an incoming chat while they're reading a PDF, etc. You can't do that on a 13" MacBook screen, since you kind of need to full screen all your apps. As we all know, the iPad lacks multitasking, meaning the larger screen is for nothing.

Are more sophisticated, "full screen" apps with the same type of open-ended, fun, clever code behind them as those on the iPhone worth it to me? Absolutely.

Sophisticated? Remember, these are still iPhone apps we're talking about, meaning they're still quite limited in functionality compared to desktop applications. And if you're planning on carrying such a large device for the slight bit of extra functionality you might gain by using iPad apps, why not just get an ultraportable notebook and get even more functionality?

It's great that you can read books and edit iWork documents on your iPod Touch though.

I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic. Ever head of Kindle for iPhone? Or B&N eReader? I damn well can read eBooks on my iPod touch if I wanted to, and I don't need to shell out another $500 for Apple should I want to.

As for iWork, I'd rather just use a laptop and get it done in half the time.

And i know what it's like to have a netbook, a Dell no less. (A 10v, so 1 size smaller than your 11z)

Not quite. See, the 10v is a netbook. The 11z is a full-featured notebook with a Celeron or a Pentium processor, 2GB RAM, and a 160GB hard drive.

Though it was OK, I think the iPad would be much more elegant (and in some cases, capable at all, since it has a touch screen) for doing what I want to do with it.

In another post, you said:

I want to browse the web, read reference books/PDFs, play some fun games, use remote desktop clients, take occasional notes, and watch the occasional movie. I want the touch screen to be as responsive as possible. I want a polished product that is fun to use.

I said:

Fortunately, for [all of that], there's a device that has all the above characteristics (only better), plus more. It has exactly the same level of simplicity of an iPad, a nice speed, an even lighter weight, and it takes notes even faster than an iPad despite the iPad's full-sized virtual keyboard. You may even already have one of these magical devices. It's called an iPod touch, and despite being more than capable enough to get through all the tasks you listed, it'll still fit in your pocket.

You have yet to acknowledge how my statement is untrue.

Is the Inspiron 11z good (i didnt say perfect) for reading books?

Have you ever read a long web page or a PDF on your computer? It's not much different. And of course, the screen is bigger than the iPad, with a higher resolution (1366x768 vs. the iPad's 1024x768) which can only add to the enjoyment.

Do games run on it at all?

Yes, remember, this is a full notebook we're talking about, just with a small screen, small size and low weight.

Does it get 10 hours of battery life? It's double the thickness and weight of the iPad.

No. You can't have it all, can you? And don't say the iPad delivers it all; it's a pretty well established fact that it doesn't. If you seriously think otherwise, I challenge you to replace your computer with one.

But it runs Windows 7! But I don't want Windows 7 on my ultra portable device. I might ask is it really worth it to shell out $514 to be subject to Windows

I've never used Windows 7, so I won't pretend I have, but from what I hear, it's actually not that bad. And it gives you many of the capabilities the iPhone OS lacks.

I'm looking forward to the simplicity and reliability of the iPad. I have my Macbook Pro and Mac Pro when I want to deal with a complex desktop OS.

Please tell me, how is OS X complex? They've dumbed it down quite a bit from, say, the command line interfaces from 30 years ago. If you can't figure out how to use something as simple as OS X, that's a problem. Imagine a future where *all* computers run iPhone OS. All tied into the Apple ecosystem, no getting at the Unix kernel, no complex operations, no apps Apple doesn't want you to have. Maybe this is what you want, but for most people this would be the ultimate nightmare. But I digress.

As for the reliability of the iPad... really? Have you never had an app crash on your iPhone? Or had mobile Safari close on you because you tried to load a page that was too big? Or had the whole thing lock up for a full minute when you tried to press the Home button? If not, you're one of a lucky few-- a "fraction," if you will.