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

[Piggie]

I agree about the NotePad Laptops, and always felt they were missing the mark.

When they very very 1st came out the dirt cheapest laptop was about £300 ish and the tiny netbook ones were SUPPOSED to be around £100 and just run a simple Linux front end for email, some web browsing and a few simple bits and bobs.

The price sneeked up a bitm and what did people do when they got them home? Try and get XP up and running on them.
Sometimes, opening them up to fit larger memory capacity.

Then the rot had set in. And you started getting higher and higher spec models at higher prices.

Not bad little machines at all, but seemingly missing the point that there were originally made for.

Personally I'd rather have a proper sized Laptop that strain on a small screen and keyboard of a netbook, even if the battery does not last as long.

But I know some people love them, so I guess it takes all sorts

 

[Mal]

Ok, I'll bite

I'll join, but I'm back and forth all over on this particular one.

I'd say a 1080p widescreen laptop with stereo speakers would be better in every way at watching a movie.

Actually, a 1080p widescreen HDTV (like my 42", or of course a larger one depending on room size) with a dedicated 7.1 Surround Sound System would be better. The advantage here might go to a laptop over an iPad, but the iPad scores in portability, so it depends on the use. However, the pixel density of just about any 1080p capable screen is going to be similar or slightly lower than the iPad most likely, so the video's not going to be any crisper on a larger screen with the same density (resolution is irrelevant unless you're comparing devices with similar or the same screen size). You might have a point with the speakers, but I've never heard very good laptop speakers and none of us have heard the iPad speakers, so it's hard to say.

Still, I can see the laptop winning for movies, I just don't see that being the main point of the iPad.

I'd say a Laptop with a dedicated graphics card would play games that the iPad can only dream of.

And the iPad with it's touchscreen, accelerometer, and custom interface can play games that a laptop can only dream of. See how it goes both ways? It's like PS3 vs Wii, to a point. The iPad allows more engaging and interesting games, while the laptop allows higher quality images. I'd go with the iPad anyday for that. However, I still prefer my Wii for gaming.

Music, well, anything can play an MP3 file (again, most laptops would have far better speakers than the iPad)

That's a bit premature to make that claim, but even if so, the iPad does get points for portability. Headphones are likely to be better on either, anyways, so the speaker issue might be a non-issue (unless you're playing music for multiple people, but a dedicated speaker system is better for that anyways, and an iPad docking to one would be better than a laptop there). The iPad also wins for interface, IMHO.

Browsing the web (Well, I have to say it...... All laptops will play back flash videos, animations and games)

The experience, however, will be more pleasant on most websites with the iPad. If the screen wasn't so small, I'd probably do most of my browsing on my iPod touch. The iPad obviously eliminates that issue. Once Flash is phased out, or if Apple caves (I expect the latter to happen only when hell freezes over), it'll be an even better web experience, but it's still more pleasant, even if there are limitations.

Email... Well, Email is Email, but to be fair, Email requires you to type in text, and everyone would agree, no matter how fancy an on screen keyboard may look, a real keyboard (boring as it may be) is better at actually typing more than a few works on.

Agreed, but for reading, the iPad does look nice. This one probably goes to the laptop for the dedicated keyboard, unless you only do short emails.

Viewing Photo's. Yeah, I'll give the iPad a point there. Despite the screen being very low res (by todays standards as it's the same res as an old 17" CRT monitor) it does handle Photo's in a quite pleasing to browse way.

Keep in mind that the "low res" screen is actually denser than most laptops, so images are going to be just as crisp. Remember again that resolution is irrelevant unless you're comparing similar screen sizes. For reference, the iPad is a similar relative resolution to a 13" MBP, which is more than fine.

Reading E Books, again, I'll give the iPad another point as it's more "book like" than a laptop and works nicer in portrait mode.

Agreed. Not much debate on this point.

I'm trying to be fair in my thoughts above.

As I say, it all depends how you define the word "Better"

Agreed again.

Sorry to jump in and debate points you didn't make aimed at me, just had some thoughts to share.

jW

 

[lifeinhd]

Your credibility: gone.

We can tell by your signature "I have a mac and an iPod, why would I need anything else?" that you are the kind of person that assumes every Apple product is targeted at them. The kind of person that says "What? No multitasking? The iPhone will never sell enough to make a profit."

First off, that was my signature long before the iPad was introduced, almost from the time I joined this site. I don't assume every Apple product is targeted directly at me; take the xServe for instance.

Second, I never leapt on the "iPod bandwagon" until Apple made an iPod that wasn't years behind the competition. In 2004, for example, I was watching movies on my RCA Lyra Jukebox with a 3" color screen, an 80GB hard drive, and DVR capabilities while Apple was still selling 20GB B&W iPod clickwheels. In early 2007, I was browsing the Web on my Archos 604 Wifi with its 4.2" touch screen, 30GB hard drive, open file system, and DVR capabilities (albeit with a dock). It wasn't until the addition of the App Store and the introduction of the 2nd generation iPod touch that I regarded iPods as more than mere toys.

So what will it take for me to get an iPad? I like to look at the motorcycle analogy. What motorcycles did was combine the small size and simplicity of a bicycle with the power and features of a car. The iPad, on the other hand, takes the worst of both worlds, by combining the large size of a computer and the limited operating system of a smartphone. What Apple has created then, in effect, is the "moped" of electronics. What they should have concentrated on making was a small device with the power and robustness of a computer. How they would accomplish this, I do not know, but that's where Apple's famous innovation comes in. Innovation isn't making a larger version of an existing product and slapping a slightly tweaked OS on it. Innovation isn't stretching a sheet of glass to extend to the edges of a monitor. The only remotely innovative product Apple has released lately has been the Magic Mouse, and even that's arguable.

One thing is for sure: Apple's certainly lost their touch.

Actually, a 1080p widescreen HDTV (like my 42", or of course a larger one depending on room size) with a dedicated 7.1 Surround Sound System would be better.

This is true, but changing the screen aspect ratio would make those 140k (135k after Apple pulled the sexual apps) on the app store look terrible. Weren't they trying to get rid of the black bars with the release of the 16:9 iMacs?

...the iPad scores in portability [over a laptop]

Not by much. 10" screen vs. say a MacBook Air's 13" screen. 0.5" vs. the MacBook Air's 0.76".

I can see the laptop winning for movies, I just don't see that being the main point of the iPad.

'Movies' was specifically written on Jobs' list of features a device between a laptop and a smartphone had to excel at. And movies don't ever look as good as they do on a 1080 screen. Which the iPad can't have because it has to be compatible with app store.

The experience, however, will be more pleasant on most websites with the iPad.

Except Flash sites, of course

Once Flash is phased out... it'll be an even better web experience, but it's still more pleasant, even if there are limitations.

Is it not still more pleasant to look at the even larger screen of the laptop that you likely already own?

Keep in mind that the "low res" screen is actually denser than most laptops...

Not really. I believe the main reason for making such a low-res screen was because, unlike a cursor that can be made to any size, fingers are all around the same size. If they're going to make finger-sized icons and buttons, the extra pixels serve no real purpose... except in movies, of course. Also, going with a higher-res screen may have put Apple over their $500 target price.

 

[lifeinhd]

Are you really that sure that these people who are 'interested' in the iPad are making a mistake?

Yes.

Do these devices you name -- "... that have the same form factor as an iPad (tablet, not necessarily the same screen size though), but do everything the iPad does-- plus more-- better..." -- really do it better?

Yes.

How do you know? Have you tried them?

I've used quite a few. My favorite was the Archos 604 Wifi, though I may be inclined to get an Archos 5 these days. I also own an iPod touch. The main draw of the Touch was the App Store (I would never have bought an iPod before the App Store). Using those same apps on a screen so large it doesn't fit in a pocket is not ideal, especially when I already have a device that will do just that.

If they really do it so well, why haven't they succeeded in over 10 years of trying?

Lack of advertising, perhaps? Had you heard of Archos before I mentioned it just now?

Or are you so caught up in the old "... a car is nothing more than transportation; you don't need all those fancy geegaws and horsepower or any of that stuff... " mindset that you can't see progress right in front of your nose?

Not at all! I know progress when I see it.

Progress is beautiful (let's see who gets the reference).

And yes, there's netbooks; underpowered, undersized and underperforming copies of notebooks that are little better than the desktop computer of 1990!

I beg to differ. Underpowered, not for the same tasks everybody will be doing on their iPads. Undersized... I'd prefer to say "appropriately sized." First off, their screens are about the same size of the iPad screen, and when closed, some models can be merely an inch thick (think Asus 1008HA (though that isn't by far the best netbook)). Considering you'd need a bag to tote around the iPad (preferably something with loads of padding, considering half of it is glass), it should not be a big deal to take up another half inch, considering all the extra features you get in that half inch.

You have to put the thing down to use it...

The same applies for the iPad, if you want to type on it. Except with a netbook, you can put it with a flat surface and stand up and type (not the best ergonomically, but hey, it works). With the iPad, you have to sit down, cross your legs, set it on your legs, and hutch your back to type on it, since you can't just place it on a table because of its curved back. It'd be sliding all over the place whenever you hit the space bar!

You can't walk down the street and use it as any kind of a GPS—enhanced or not—without looking just plain dumb...

True, and I have to say I've never seen the point of GPSes in netbooks. I believe GPSes are most often used in cars, where you want to mount it to the windshield. Of course, this is a less-than-optimal position for an iPad, since it would prove very difficult to see around it.

And simply put, the netbook simply cannot do what most people bought them for. The tiny screen is hardly big enough for old-style web pages, much less the high-res screen-filling sites of today...

Most web pages are 800 pixels wide. When held in the portrait orientation, the iPad is 768 pixels wide. Most netbooks today have this as the vertical resolution. When in landscape mode, the iPad is 1024 pixels wide, whereas the Dell Mini 10, a common 10" netbook, sports 1366 pixels across. And then there are some devices like the Archos 5 that is 800 pixels wide... on a 5" display. And then there's the Sony Vaio P, which has an 8" screen that is 1600 pixels wide. Of note, this is the vertical resolution of Apple's 30" cinema display.

...and honestly there are better and cheaper products if you're wanting to use them as DVD players (disregarding the fact that almost no netbooks carry an optical drive.)

Yes, but at least you can add one on a netbook if you so desire, thanks to USB.

All in all, the netbook is a Volkswagen Beetle trying to compete with a Porsche Boxter. Even a Karmann Ghia would stand a better chance, but there aren't all that many Karmann Ghias in the netbook world.

Hey, VW's are awesome, even the Beetle! The Boxster is a "tame" Porsche for people who can't handle the real thing (say, a GT3). But I digress.

The iPad's biggest advantage is that it's using an already well-established touch OS that now resides on something over 100 million iPhones and iPod Touch models, while Windows Tablet Edition might reside on some 50,000 PCs. It is able to compete in the same functional ballpark as netbooks and is both easier to use and more mobility oriented than the netbook.

Windows XP Tablet Edition is barely different from the ordinary Windows XP, save for a few extra drivers to make it compatible with a digitizer. So if you want to look at it that way, Windows XP has a userbase of 400 million... in 2006.

No, grandpa. A car is not merely transportation. How you get there is just as important as the getting there itself. If what you say were true, we'd still be driving model-T Fords.

I couldn't agree more. But if you already own a car and a bicycle, are you going to run out and purchase a moped?

A bleating we heard often back in 2001 when the iPod was introduced.

And it was true. Still is, with the exception of the iPod touch. And even the Touch is only an exception because of the app store.

Many of us ARE in Apple's target market. We DO want this thing. The difference is that WE can understand why somebody wouldn't find such a device useful and we don't judge them by our own needs. So, I don't think you are an idiot, nor do I think you are lying to yourself about it.

Are you sure you didn't have to invent needs that fit what the device was capable of, in order to convince yourself to buy it?

 

[Vulpinemac]

1. This is true, but changing the screen aspect ratio would make those 140k (135k after Apple pulled the sexual apps) on the app store look terrible. Weren't they trying to get rid of the black bars with the release of the 16:9 iMacs?
   
2. Not by much. 10" screen vs. say a MacBook Air's 13" screen. 0.5" vs. the MacBook Air's 0.76".
   
3. 'Movies' was specifically written on Jobs' list of features a device between a laptop and a smartphone had to excel at. And movies don't ever look as good as they do on a 1080 screen. Which the iPad can't have because it has to be compatible with app store.
   
4. Except Flash sites, of course
   
5. Is it not still more pleasant to look at the even larger screen of the laptop that you likely already own?
   
6. Not really. I believe the main reason for making such a low-res screen was because, unlike a cursor that can be made to any size, fingers are all around the same size. If they're going to make finger-sized icons and buttons, the extra pixels serve no real purpose... except in movies, of course. Also, going with a higher-res screen may have put Apple over their $500 target price.

To counter most of your points, consider this:

1. Neither the 16:9/16:10 aspect ratios are fully standardized yet. We really don't yet know where things will stabilize, and with today's new capabilities, the ability to automatically change aspect ratio to the broadcast/disk programming means that black bars will remain prevalent for at least another 10 years. After all, the average life of a CRT picture tube was almost 17 years—the electronics driving it tended to fail first, and they were relatively cheap to fix compared to the new wide-screen LCD and Plasma sets. However, this has little relation to the subject at hand which is the functionality and portability of the iPad vs Laptops. Yes, I might agree that the wide-screen layout of a laptop might be better, but that would make for an ungainly hand-held device unless you could fold it in the middle. The current iPad aspect ratio is similar to that of a conventional pen-and-paper notebook and is thus easy to carry while providing surprisingly good resolution for the physical size of the device.
   
2. Re the 10" screen vs. say a MacBook Air's 13" screen. 0.5" vs. the MacBook Air's 0.76", you ignore the fact that the physical size of the MBA is still roughly 1/3rd larger in height and width and once opened, more than 3x as large in overall size. After all, you can't use even an MBA without opening it. That's NOT very mobile.
   
3. You again refer to the 1080p screen resolution, which honestly is only valid when discussing television and movies formatted for television. In all honesty, the 720p is just as good if not better on a smaller form factor such as tabletop TVs, laptops and tablets. Nobody will really notice the difference.
   
4. Referencing Flash, to be honest to me this is a straw man type of argument. Personally, I use the "Click to Flash" plugin because I don't want to see all those moving Flash advertisements that sometimes even encroach over the text I want to read because of a Javascript app as well. With Flash blocked, I can either read through the greyed-out Flash or I can disable the Javascript as well and reload the page, avoiding the ad entirely. Yes, I do play Farmville on Facebook, but it's Flash that I want in that circumstance, not annoying advertisements.
   
5. Pleasant to look at? Honestly, most laptops are really hard to view in most places and downright uncomfortable to use unless you set it down on the tray table in front of you. I happen to like the deeper black of the iPhone/iPad design for making it easy to look at. This also means the colors are brighter and more accurate. People may complain about the reflectivity of the glass, but I find it easier to see, not harder, in bright-light situations.
   
6. I also note that you consider it a low-res screen, and yet in less than 10", you have the equivalent of a 17" CRT display, which was the standard until LCD displays became so common. In essence, you're talking about twice the resolution of any previous 10" CRT display in an LCD device you can carry around in your hand. It wasn't all that long ago when a 10" hand-held video device was completely unheard of.

To all intents and purposes, the iPad goes far beyond anything else currently on the market. It's far more capable than any of the dedicated ebook readers, even the newest ones; it easily does as much or more than any of the current netbooks, with the exception of Flash and Windows-specific applications; and can give you better mobility than any netbook or laptop on a regular basis, though admittedly without the normally unnecessary capabilities of a desktop OS in a mobile device.

I'll grant that it won't meet the needs of everyone, but it will probably meet the needs of the majority of netbook users and many laptop users as well. Depending on future interactivity, the iPad could end up being a perfect complement to a desktop computer—serving as an extension to the desktop rather than a separate device.

But if you already own a car and a bicycle, are you going to run out and purchase a moped?

Yup, because the MoPed can go faster than the bike when I need that speed.

 

[lifeinhd]

...As and for CDs -- the were vastly superior to tape. Not only were they easier to store and had wider dynamic range, but also they did not deteriorate quickly like tapes, especially in hot cars, and constant play. You also didn't have to constantly clean the clogged heads of CD players b/c they didn't have heads. All the CDs I bought in the mid 80s still play like they did when I bought them. My tapes from the late 70s/early 80s all squeak now and are unusable. So redundant I think not. But evidence you are a poor one to judge what's good technology, perhaps.

Um, CDs warp in excessive heat. I've never had a problem with leaving my tapes in the car on a hot day. Not to mention that CDs scratch fairly easily. If you happen to somehow scratch part of a tape, only that little bit is lost, since the scratch is contained. A scratch on a CD can easily affect the entire disk. I've never had to clean the heads of one of my tape players, and they still play flawlessly to this day. The only real downside is more mechanical parts.

I don't know how you treat your cassettes, but judging by the fact that they all squeak, I'd guess "not well." I record and play and rerecord my tapes all the time, and the worst I get is a tiny bit of hiss.

Also, cassettes lack this great little "feature" of many modern CDs known as DRM....

 

[ReyesJonathan]

i would definitely be in the "somewhat likely" category....

 

[lifeinhd]

Yup, because the MoPed can go faster than the bike when I need that speed.

Why not just grab the car then? And don't give me the gasoline cost/global warming excuse... while I acknowledge those as valid issues, if you're going someplace you can take a moped, chances are it isn't far away, meaning you'd never recoup the $1000-$2000 you spend on the moped in gas savings. And we all know the 2-stroke engines used by mopeds are not environmentally friendly, not to mention the annoying racket they make.

[*]Neither the 16:9/16:10 aspect ratios are fully standardized yet. We really don't yet know where things will stabilize, and with today's new capabilities, the ability to automatically change aspect ratio to the broadcast/disk programming means that black bars will remain prevalent for at least another 10 years.

We're pretty darn close to making 16:9 a standard. Yet the iPad is 4:3... this is last-millennium technology.

[*]Re the 10" screen vs. say a MacBook Air's 13" screen. 0.5" vs. the MacBook Air's 0.76", you ignore the fact that the physical size of the MBA is still roughly 1/3rd larger in height and width and once opened, more than 3x as large in overall size. After all, you can't use even an MBA without opening it. That's NOT very mobile.

What you say is very true. I suppose it would depend on how you define mobile. I would say a reasonable amount of portability, combined with the functionality to perform any task that may arise. A Swiss army knife, if you will. The iPad is more of a butcher's knife.

[*]You again refer to the 1080p screen resolution, which honestly is only valid when discussing television and movies formatted for television. In all honesty, the 720p is just as good if not better on a smaller form factor such as tabletop TVs, laptops and tablets. Nobody will really notice the difference.

True. So why can't the iPad play 720p movies... in full screen?

[*]Yes, I do play Farmville on Facebook, but it's Flash that I want in that circumstance, not annoying advertisements.

And it's Flash you're not going to get on your iPad.

[*]Pleasant to look at? Honestly, most laptops are really hard to view in most places and downright uncomfortable to use unless you set it down on the tray table in front of you.

I wouldn't say that. I've used my MBP on my knees plenty of times. And "hard to view?"

I happen to like the deeper black of the iPhone/iPad design for making it easy to look at. This also means the colors are brighter and more accurate.

You get this in a MacBook Pro.

People may complain about the reflectivity of the glass, but I find it easier to see, not harder, in bright-light situations.

I once needed to connect my laptop to my car to run some diagnostics. Because my laptop was busy, I took a spare Toshiba laptop with a semigloss display out to the car. No matter which way I turned it, there was absolutely no way to read the display. In the end I had to suck it up and grab my trusty matte MBP, install the diagnostic software on there as well (not a short process), and use it instead. I have no idea how you can say glossies are more readable in direct light.

[*]I also note that you consider it a low-res screen, and yet in less than 10", you have the equivalent of a 17" CRT display, which was the standard until LCD displays became so common. In essence, you're talking about twice the resolution of any previous 10" CRT display in an LCD device you can carry around in your hand. It wasn't all that long ago when a 10" hand-held video device was completely unheard of.

You're still talking about CRTs! This is 2010, not 1990! We've come to expect more from our "gadgets" since then! I have a friend who has 1920x1080 in his 15", just-over-$1000 Dell laptop. I think most of us would agree that that is a bit high, but there's no doubt Apple could've slipped a few more pixels into the iPad.

To all intents and purposes, the iPad goes far beyond anything else currently on the market. It's far more capable than any of the dedicated ebook readers, even the newest ones...

But it has an LCD. While I personally don't care, many people think LCDs are bad for prolonged viewing, thus rendering the iPad a poor eBook reader.

it easily does as much or more than any of the current netbooks, with the exception of Flash and Windows-specific applications...

Well, Windows-specific applications, yeah, since that's what runs on the vast majority of netbooks. But compared to OS X... I can't open iMovie, I can't use uTorrent, I can't run iChat, I can't run FireFox (I don't like being tied to Safari), I can't run my YouTube downloader, I can't print within an application, I can't export to PDF, I can't open CS4.... The iPad would be much, much more useful with OS X (_slightly_ modified for touch-based input, of course).

and can give you better mobility than any netbook or laptop on a regular basis, though admittedly without the normally unnecessary capabilities of a desktop OS in a mobile device.

Well, you still need a bag to carry it, since it's too large to fit in your pocket. And so long as you need a bag, you may as well carry a netbook which weighs only slightly more.

I'll grant that it won't meet the needs of everyone, but it will probably meet the needs of the majority of netbook users and many laptop users as well.

The reason I have a laptop as opposed to a tablet-- of any sort-- is the versatility. Don't want a small screen? Plug in a large one. Want to edit a video? Open iMovie, have fun. Need to transfer footage from that FireWire camera? No problem.

You get the idea.

Depending on future interactivity, the iPad could end up being a perfect complement to a desktop computer—serving as an extension to the desktop rather than a separate device.

How do you visualize this happening? Do you think people will let go of their keyboards and mice to grab a less powerful device that can't do anything their computer can't?

 

[Hmac]

And it was true. Still is, with the exception of the iPod touch. And even the Touch is only an exception because of the app store.

Right. App Store. Because the music download concept has been a real failure.

Are you sure you didn't have to invent needs that fit what the device was capable of, in order to convince yourself to buy it?

Well, I'm pretty sure, but you probably know my needs better than I do.

 

[admanimal]

How do you visualize this happening? Do you think people will let go of their keyboards and mice to grab a less powerful device that can't do anything their computer can't?

It's not about what can do more; it's about what can do the things you need to do most of the time with the least effort/best experience. The majority of computer users have a computer that is way in excess of what they really need.

Your reasons against the iPad being a good device are all about tech specs and 4:3, 16:9, 720p, LCD/CRT this or that, CS4, uTorrent , etc. Most people couldn't care less about any of those things! The iPad is not for people who worship feature checklists and tech specs. It's for people who want to have a simple device that does 80% of the things they ever need to do on a computer without having to worry about the mundane details of using a full size computer.

 

[blackcrayon]

We're pretty darn close to making 16:9 a standard. Yet the iPad is 4:3... this is last-millennium technology.

A screen aspect ratio is "last-millennium technology?"

I did think it was strange to have 4:3 at first, then I saw some demos of some of the other tablets (the 1024 x 600, 16:9 ones) and i realized they do look rather silly in portrait mode (tall and skinny). I'll deal with the horrors of black bars in videos if everything else is more convenient.

Well, you still need a bag to carry it, since it's too large to fit in your pocket. And so long as you need a bag, you may as well carry a netbook which weighs only slightly more.

Weighs only slightly more but takes up a lot more space, especially if you want 10 hours of battery life with one. I've owned a couple of netbooks, and I think I'll get much more use out of an iPad. I found web browsing pretty clumsy and everything feels like it's designed for a big screen but force fit into a tiny one (no surprise there).

The reason I have a laptop as opposed to a tablet-- of any sort-- is the versatility. Don't want a small screen? Plug in a large one. Want to edit a video? Open iMovie, have fun. Need to transfer footage from that FireWire camera? No problem.

We get the idea that a laptop running Mac OS X has more functions than an iPad running iPhone OS X. That doesn't mean the iPad isn't great for the things it *does* do. Hell, my Mac Pro is way more capable than my laptop. Plug in a PCI-e card? easy. Plug in 5 USB devices without a hub? got that. Render with 8 cpu cores? Does that too...

How do you visualize this happening? Do you think people will let go of their keyboards and mice to grab a less powerful device that can't do anything their computer can't?

If it does it in a visually pleasing, reliable, and fun way? Absolutely.
Anyway, he/she said "complement" the desktop mac. That's not the same as "letting go of their keyboards and mice".

 

[lifeinhd]

It's not about what can do more; it's about what can do the things you need to do most of the time with the least effort/best experience. The majority of computer users have a computer that is way in excess of what they really need.

Your reasons against the iPad being a good device are all about tech specs and 4:3, 16:9, 720p, LCD/CRT this or that, CS4, uTorrent , etc. Most people couldn't care less about any of those things! The iPad is not for people who worship feature checklists and tech specs. It's for people who want to have a simple device that does 80% of the things they ever need to do on a computer without having to worry about the mundane details of using a full size computer.

Would you consider it "hard" to browse the Web on your computer? Is it "hard" to play a song in iTunes? Or perhaps it's "hard" to watch a movie (in full HD, might I add) on a computer? Click vs. tap. In fact, I might argue that it's "harder" to use a touch screen than a mouse because I have to constantly lift my hand to touch, then move it out of the way to see the screen, then lift it back up to touch the screen again, whereas with a mouse I can leave my hand where it is the whole time.

When you have such glaring faults/omissions, they shouldn't be ignored. To do so would be beyond stupid. At that point, you're just buying it because it has an Apple logo on it.

A screen aspect ratio is "last-millennium technology?"

1990 is in the last millennium.

EDIT: I understand what you're saying. Yes, it is. Technology has a nasty habit of becoming obsolete, unfortunately.

I did think it was strange to have 4:3 at first, then I saw some demos of some of the other tablets (the 1024 x 600, 16:9 ones) and i realized they do look rather silly in portrait mode (tall and skinny). I'll deal with the horrors of black bars in videos if everything else is more convenient.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind black bars (in fact I specifically purchased a 16:10 monitor for my computer, since I'd rather have more pixels as opposed to no black bars), but I thought the iMac would mark the start of the shift to 16:9 for Apple products. Guess not.

Weighs only slightly more but takes up a lot more space, especially if you want 10 hours of battery life with one. I've owned a couple of netbooks, and I think I'll get much more use out of an iPad. I found web browsing pretty clumsy and everything feels like it's designed for a big screen but force fit into a tiny one (no surprise there).

You don't think the iPad will feel as though everything is designed for a smaller screen? I'd rather have "big-screen features" on a small-screened device, not the other way around.

We get the idea that a laptop running Mac OS X has more functions than an iPad running iPhone OS X. That doesn't mean the iPad isn't great for the things it *does* do.

Like playing Flash games on Safari... no wait.

Or opening an eMail attachment containing a Microsoft Office-- wait.

Well, at least you can use it to play pixel-doubled iPhone games. I'm sure those won't look blocky at all.

If it does it in a visually pleasing, reliable, and fun way? Absolutely.
Anyway, he/she said "complement" the desktop mac. That's not the same as "letting go of their keyboards and mice".

What do you expect it to do for the Mac, then? Graphics tablet? Not without pressure sensitivity. Trackpad for desktops (in case you can afford a $500 tablet for that purpose but not a $70 mouse)? Good luck with that curved back. Photo frame? Ooh, yesss....

Please, give me some ideas. I'd like to know, but I genuinely can't think of a way for it to complement a computer without having to be touched (or without it being a (poor) form of touch-based input).






Well, I suppose it *could* show you the weather, in case you can't hit F12 to open your widgets....

 

[blackcrayon]

Would you consider it "hard" to browse the Web on your computer? Is it "hard" to play a song in iTunes? Or perhaps it's "hard" to watch a movie (in full HD, might I add) on a computer? Click vs. tap. In fact, I might argue that it's "harder" to use a touch screen than a mouse because I have to constantly lift my hand to touch, then move it out of the way to see the screen, then lift it back up to touch the screen again, whereas with a mouse I can leave my hand where it is the whole time.

If you're going to go there, then isn't it "harder" to move a mouse forward and backward on a desk which in turn moves a pointer up and down on the screen, press down the mouse button, drag the mouse which moves the object in Keynote around, then let go, vs. just intuitively "moving" it with your finger like you would a piece of paper on a table?

When you have such glaring faults/omissions, they shouldn't be ignored. To do so would be beyond stupid. At that point, you're just buying it because it has an Apple logo on it.

You don't see a need for the product for your uses, and anyone that does is "beyond stupid." Nice.

1990 is in the last millennium.

I know when 4:3 screens were popular, I just don't consider the shape of the screen alone to be indicative of technological advancement one way or another.

You don't think the iPad will feel as though everything is designed for a smaller screen? I'd rather have "big-screen features" on a small-screened device, not the other way around.

Yes, I do think it will feel as if everything is designed for a smaller screen, rather than just crammed into one like it feels on netbooks. The iPad iWork apps for example are designed to work better with a smaller canvas, thus the lack of the big toolbar, etc of the desktop version.

Like playing Flash games on Safari... no wait.

What about the tons of games for the iPhone that are at least as good or better than most Flash games- that won't run on the MacBook?

Or opening an eMail attachment containing a Microsoft Office-- wait.

I expect you'll be able to open the applicable ones in iWork. You don't?

Well, at least you can use it to play pixel-doubled iPhone games. I'm sure those won't look blocky at all

Actually one of the reporters who tried a couple of (probably full screen 3D) unmodified iPhone games on the iPad actually thought they were enhanced in some way, they looked so good. But that's a silly one isn't it? It's backwards compatible with iPhone apps and that's a disadvantage?

Please, give me some ideas. I'd like to know, but I genuinely can't think of a way for it to complement a computer without having to be touched (or without it being a (poor) replacement for touch-based input).

Maybe we read that one differently. I took "complement" to mean that the general functionality of the iPad complements a more powerful computer. Edit and organize some photos in iPhoto, then sync them to the iPad for showing around- things like that. But for ways it can complement a computer while connected? I would kill (kill meaning pay a little for a live updating multi-touch mixing board for Logic. It could also make an impromptu input device for music entry (not pressure sensitive, but way better than using a QWERTY keyboard).

 

[lifeinhd]

If you're going to go there, then isn't it "harder" to move a mouse forward and backward on a desk which in turn moves a pointer up and down on the screen, press down the mouse button, drag the mouse which moves the object in Keynote around, then let go, vs. just intuitively "moving" it with your finger like you would a piece of paper on a table?

That's just it, see. "Harder" is subjective. For individual actions like that, I'd actually argue that it's easier to use a mouse, but my 90-year-old grandma might not. But overall, once you get past any learning curve, it's just as easy to use a computer as it is an iPad. And you won't get calls from relatives saying "Why won't this Hulu video play?"

You don't see a need for the product for your uses, and anyone that does is "beyond stupid." Nice.

That isn't at all what I said. I said it would be beyond stupid to not recognize all the omissions in something you're prepared to shell out a considerable sum of money for. And I might add to that, it's beyond stupid to not consider any alternatives, just because the product you want has a certain logo on it.

Yes, I do think it will feel as if everything is designed for a smaller screen, rather than just crammed into one like it feels on netbooks. The iPad iWork apps for example are designed to work better with a smaller canvas, thus the lack of the big toolbar, etc of the desktop version.

That isn't what I mean. I'm talking about everything being designed for an even smaller screen, an iPhone-sized screen. The icon size, the spacing between the icons, the size and position of the Unlock bar, etc.

What about the tons of games for the iPhone that are at least as good or better than most Flash games- that won't run on the MacBook?

Which, the ones you can't control well because they require the accelerometer? The accelerometer is grossly overused imho. The only game it's really good for is Labyrinth.

I expect you'll be able to open the applicable ones in iWork. You don't?

It's a possibility, I suppose.

Also note that if you already have a license of iWork, you'll still need to shell out another $10/application for the touch-based version.

Actually one of the reporters who tried a couple of (probably full screen 3D) unmodified iPhone games on the iPad actually thought they were enhanced in some way, they looked so good. But that's a silly one isn't it? It's backwards compatible with iPhone apps and that's a disadvantage?

Remember, this is designed to supplement an iPhone (and a MacBook), so it's not exactly an advantage.

I would kill (kill meaning pay a little for a live updating multi-touch mixing board for Logic. It could also make an impromptu input device for music entry (not pressure sensitive, but way better than using a QWERTY keyboard).

I could see how it could be useful in that respect, so long as you kept it on your lap so it won't slide around on its curved back. Maybe you've found a use!

The only use I could find is using the VLC app to connect to your computer.

Well, that, and a very, very large flashlight.

 

[Mal]

Before I begin here, lifeinhd, I just want to make clear that I consider what I say here merely an opinion, and no more or less valid than yours (unless they're better than yours ).

This is true, but changing the screen aspect ratio would make those 140k (135k after Apple pulled the sexual apps) on the app store look terrible. Weren't they trying to get rid of the black bars with the release of the 16:9 iMacs?

The app store apps are supposed to be redesigned for the iPad, so the pixel-double apps with black bars should just be temporary.

Not by much. 10" screen vs. say a MacBook Air's 13" screen. 0.5" vs. the MacBook Air's 0.76".

The size is less of a factor than the form factor when it comes to the portability here. The iPad can be used while being carried without much difficulty, and I would expect it to be better while sitting as well, though admittedly that's just conjecture. I doubt it'll get quite as hot while running too, considering the power consumption is far less.

'Movies' was specifically written on Jobs' list of features a device between a laptop and a smartphone had to excel at. And movies don't ever look as good as they do on a 1080 screen. Which the iPad can't have because it has to be compatible with app store.

My point was that I disagreed with him stating the movies were better on the iPad. I think it falls short, but a laptop also falls short of optimal.

Except Flash sites, of course

I think that's been beaten to death already.

Is it not still more pleasant to look at the even larger screen of the laptop that you likely already own?

Did you not notice I felt that the iPad would be more pleasant than a laptop? That response doesn't make much sense in that light.

Not really. I believe the main reason for making such a low-res screen was because, unlike a cursor that can be made to any size, fingers are all around the same size. If they're going to make finger-sized icons and buttons, the extra pixels serve no real purpose... except in movies, of course. Also, going with a higher-res screen may have put Apple over their $500 target price.

Definitely a good point. I agree fully with that reasoning.

RE: 4x3 aspect ratio, I think the experience when turned in portrait mode is the main point of 4x3, not the experience watching movies, since the screen is already small.

jW

 

[charlituna]

The point of us "iPad haters" coming here is to explain to people why they're making a mistake.

so you know what is best and right for everyone. Because something doesn't fit your design ideas or needs it is bad.

Sorry but no. Actually not no, hell no.

It's fine to say that you don't feel that the ipad is right for you. but you are not the god of the tech world so you don't get to control what the rest of us get etc.


Just as an example. I work in the film industry. I have a nice big 27 inch imac on my desk at the production office (and yes it was custom ordered and arrived without any issues at all despite those 'widespread major design flaws'). When I am on set I need access to my email, I need a screen larger than an iphone to read script pages, view costumes on the other unit etc. And I need something with serious battery and easy to haul around. I currently use a laptop and it is a pain in the butt. the ipad looks to provide exactly what I need and I can buy any one of a number of bags to stash it when I'm walking around, or tuck it in the pocket on my set chair etc. so yeah, I can even use it when we are in flight to watch movies, read a book or whatever. so yeah i'll likely get an ipad.

 

[Night Spring]

That isn't at all what I said. I said it would be beyond stupid to not recognize all the omissions in something you're prepared to shell out a considerable sum of money for. And I might add to that, it's beyond stupid to not consider any alternatives, just because the product you want has a certain logo on it.

Well, way to paint everyone with a single brush! I for one have considered all the omissions, and have also considered other alternatives, and have come to the conclusion that despite all the omissions and other alternatives, the iPad seems like the best fit for my needs out of all the available alternatives at this moment. I'm sure at least some of the people planning on buying the iPad have similarly performed due research and given the matter serious consideration. Why are you assuming that no one has done so?

 

[lifeinhd]

Well, way to paint everyone with a single brush! I for one have considered all the omissions, and have also considered other alternatives, and have come to the conclusion that despite all the omissions and other alternatives, the iPad seems like the best fit for my needs out of all the available alternatives at this moment.

What other devices have you considered and why did you reject them in favor of the iPad, may I ask?

I'm sure at least some of the people planning on buying the iPad have similarly performed due research and given the matter serious consideration. Why are you assuming that no one has done so?

Take, for example, every iPod up to the iPod touch. At any given time there was a better alternative out there, both in terms of simplicity and/or features, and often price as well. Yet iPods still sold well enough to become the dominant MP3 player in the world. Eventually, "iPod" effectively became another term for "MP3 player," it sold so well. If you told somebody you were buying a new MP3 player, they assumed you meant an iPod, because "iPod is the best!!11!!!!!1" Yet it never was. For this reason, I doubt many people who are in the market for the iPad have done much, if any research-- especially those that are willing to buy without even using one first.

 

[blackcrayon]

What other devices have you considered and why did you reject them in favor of the iPad, may I ask?



Take, for example, every iPod up to the iPod touch. At any given time there was a better alternative out there, both in terms of simplicity and/or features, and often price as well. Yet iPods still sold well enough to become the dominant MP3 player in the world. Eventually, "iPod" effectively became another term for "MP3 player," it sold so well. If you told somebody you were buying a new MP3 player, they assumed you meant an iPod, because "iPod is the best!!11!!!!!1" Yet it never was. For this reason, I doubt many people who are in the market for the iPad have done much, if any research-- especially those that are willing to buy without even using one first.

Again those are your opinions of what's best... Hell if you owned a Mac, the iPod was arguably the *best* because Mac support for a lot of other MP3 players has been pretty poor. There are alternatives to your MacBook. Did you consider alternatives before you bought it?

You sound a lot like people who argue against buying Macs in favor of Windows machines- ie the Mac is a lot of money, any feature the Mac has is a silly feature no matter what your preferences, and if you want it you're not thinking things through

I know you didn't ask me, but Ive owned netbooks running Windows and OS X so I've "considered" those. I have a 15" MacBook Pro so I'm very familiar with carrying it short distances and using it both for "work" and for light computing tasks (personal email, games, as a terminal client). I've also looked at other tablets coming out but most of those seem more like concepts than products that will be shipping any time soon. And I've owned the iPhones. It sounds like you just don't really like Apple's touch system and apps very much- which is fine... But I really like it, and scaling the apps up to a more powerful system with a bigger screen is a win to me.

 

[lifeinhd]

Just as an example. I work in the film industry. I have a nice big 27 inch imac on my desk at the production office (and yes it was custom ordered and arrived without any issues at all despite those 'widespread major design flaws'). When I am on set I need access to my email, I need a screen larger than an iphone to read script pages, view costumes on the other unit etc. And I need something with serious battery and easy to haul around. I currently use a laptop and it is a pain in the butt. the ipad looks to provide exactly what I need and I can buy any one of a number of bags to stash it when I'm walking around, or tuck it in the pocket on my set chair etc. so yeah, I can even use it when we are in flight to watch movies, read a book or whatever. so yeah i'll likely get an ipad.

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?

 

[imnew2hu]

Pre-Orders

Ok I know how all the hype works with apple around there products I work for AT&T at the retail level and have lived thru 3 launches of the Iphone.

But If apple is going to launch in 30 days or less why not let pre-orders go thru and fufill dreams.

Ok so dreams maybe is a little bit of a streach but damit I want a Ipad..

I have been bitten by the apple bug and I wand the device in hands so I can dump my hacintosh netbook that I wag back and forth everyday and so my presious macbook never has to leave the house..

led the pads begin..

 

[Night Spring]

What other devices have you considered and why did you reject them in favor of the iPad, may I ask?

Well, my first foray into mobile computing was with the PocketPC back in... I dunno, I think it was the early '90s. I've looked at and sometimes used many subnotebooks, light notebooks, netbooks, and ebook readers since then. I've also kept an eye on tablet computers, but they were always too expensive and heavy. All the subnotebooks/netbooks were too small to use comfortably, and the notebooks were too big to be truly portable. The PDA/ebooks were always too small and had too little function. The iPod Touch with the app store was revolutionary in terms of function in a portable format, and I haven't let go of it since I got it -- I literally have it with me 24/7. But alas, the screen is too small, and I'm spending half my time in Safari zooming in and out, many games have details that are too small for me to see comfortably, and ebooks only display one or two sentences at a time. A bigger Touch is exactly what I want, so the iPad is, for me, a dream come true. And yes, it's bigger than the Touch, so not quite as portable, but still small enough that it would be easy for me to carry it with me 24/7.

Take, for example, every iPod up to the iPod touch. At any given time there was a better alternative out there, both in terms of simplicity and/or features, and often price as well. Yet iPods still sold well enough to become the dominant MP3 player in the world. Eventually, "iPod" effectively became another term for "MP3 player," it sold so well. If you told somebody you were buying a new MP3 player, they assumed you meant an iPod, because "iPod is the best!!11!!!!!1" Yet it never was. For this reason, I doubt many people who are in the market for the iPad have done much, if any research-- especially those that are willing to buy without even using one first.

Well, I was never impressed with the iPods until the Nano. I thought they were too big, the click wheels scraped against my fingers, and I didn't want to use iTunes. But I tried several other mp3 players during the pre-Nano years, and they were okay, but they were also nothing special. Then someone gave me a Nano, and it was love at first sight. So small, sleek, fit in my hand just right, and the click wheel didn't grate against my fingers! But I've never found a use for any of the other ipod models -- the classic is still too big for me, and the shuffles are no go because they don't have a display. The touch, once again, was love at first sight, but I consider it to be more a portable computer than an iPod.

In any case, I think when a product becomes so popular that its name is used as a generic name for that product category, the way the Sony Walkman was for portable cassette players and the iPod is for portable digital players, I think it is because they hit the right combination of function, style and price that make them appealing to the greatest number of people. Sure, some mp3 players may be "better" than the iPod for some functions, but it turns out those are functions most people are willing to live without. Yes, some may just buy it without research because it is the product they hear about most often. But no product gets to that level of popularity without having some real significant advantages over the competition.

I also think that the very fact that posters in this forum are taking the time to read and post in this forum proves that they are at least giving some thought to the product before they buy. And frankly, I find it a bit insulting that you come in here assuming otherwise.

ETA: Oh, and I also did try a HP touch-screen computer running Windows Vista. Although that wasn't a portable, it is a Windows touch screen, and unless I hear otherwise, I'm assuming Windows tablets would have the same or nearly similar UI. And in that case, I find the iPhone/iPad UI to be vastly more usable than any Windows tablet.

 

[admanimal]

What other devices have you considered and why did you reject them in favor of the iPad, may I ask?

The ASUS T91MT looks like it should be a pretty good competitor. It has all of the "missing" features you want, I think. Let's see what it's like to use one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o20mUEpjxs&feature=player_embedded

 

[blackcrayon]

The ASUS T91MT looks like it should be a pretty good competitor. It has all of the "missing" features you want, I think. Let's see what it's like to use one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o20mUEpjxs&feature=player_embedded

Ouch. Pretty frustrating just watching that. Compared to that, the iPad *does* look "magical."

 

[lifeinhd]

Again those are your opinions of what's best... Hell if you owned a Mac, the iPod was arguably the *best* because Mac support for a lot of other MP3 players has been pretty poor. There are alternatives to your MacBook. Did you consider alternatives before you bought it?

You bet I did. When you're spending that much money on something, it's ridiculous not to.

You sound a lot like people who argue against buying Macs in favor of Windows machines- ie the Mac is a lot of money, any feature the Mac has is a silly feature no matter what your preferences, and if you want it you're not thinking things through

I doubt many of the Windows fanbois (I hate that term) know anything about OS X. They assume that since it lacks market share, it must be crap. They fail to realize that OS X offers the best combination of reliability and compatibility of any OS, and thus provides the best value.

But this is a bit different. None of those arguments really apply to the iPad. It's cheap (relatively), and doesn't provide any feature that's different/better than its main competition (the iPod touch) besides the larger screen. This isn't to say I can't see the benefit of a larger screen; I often find the screen of my iPT too small, but I put up with it due to its portability. 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?

I've also looked at other tablets coming out but most of those seem more like concepts than products that will be shipping any time soon.

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.

And I've owned the iPhones. It sounds like you just don't really like Apple's touch system and apps very much- which is fine... But I really like it, and scaling the apps up to a more powerful system with a bigger screen is a win to me.

The iPhone OS makes plenty of sense... on an iPhone. It was designed for a small screen, and it works great on the environment for which it was designed. But with the extra real estate afforded by the iPad, Apple could have done much, much better. Instead of enlarging a weak iPhone, they could have used their (admittedly nice) iPad hardware to be a shrunken powerful computer.