Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I never understand this kind of thing. It's like someone saying "I can never buy a Honda because it just can't tow all the things I tow on my farm, or drive through deep mud." But then he drives his F350 every day 30 miles and back from home to town to do errands and get groceries getting 12 miles to the gallon. Most people would (and do) get a efficient small car for that sort of thing.

The fact is, the iPad is mostly a content consumption product. It's REALLY REALLY good at being that. Sure you can get some things done on it, too, but that's clearly not the intent of this design. If you need power to crunch your data and be "300%+ more productive" then sure you need your F350 for the time and place where it's appropriate. The iPad isn't going to fully replace your desktop that you need to earn your living.

For a lot of people, this means they don't need the super expensive laptop to cover their bases. They can get the cheaper desktop, with more power and bigger screen, and then have an iPad to cover their mobile (and again 90% of the time doing content consumption) needs.

I suppose my post came off in the wrong way. I have nothing against the iPad per se, simply the concept of having it as a primary computing device. I have used one quite a bit, and it's a great device, however I would really rather not write long papers, do spreadsheets, etc with it. That's just not practical IMO. I do see your point of the full on computer not being fully necessary all the time though.

The average normal person should not be touch typing. Before computers, the majority of homes did not have a typewriter. Most businessman did not have a typewriter on their desk either (their secretaries did), and certainly not a keypunch machine. This keyboard everywhere UI has only been common for 3 decades and hopefully will be gone in a lot less than another 3 decades. The popular tablets (PalmPilot, iPad) are good first steps.

What's wrong with a keyboard or touch typing? I guess I don't see where you're going with this, as typing on a touch screen for long pieces of work or long periods of time is far less efficient. I see where the touch interface has its uses, but in some places it's just far less practical.
 
yeah I can see his point.
However there will be efforts to make it like a pc through accessorizing the device

Well said and that is a good thing, but at least not when it comes to UI. That is where to me Windows fails every time. :rolleyes:
 
I think Woz was trying to please the audience a little with that response as he was aware they are tech savy and knew he couldnt get away with praising it as a revolutionizing device. So i think his response was a good one.
 
This is what I've been saying: computer geeks design and market the stuff and it's like cutting themselves out of a potentially huge market. Jobs always understood the need to connect computers to people--non-computer-geek people... people that don't want to waste days of their lives just trying to figure out how to make their computer work so they can then do work.

Making it a limited or closed platform is part of the simplification needed for a successful device catering to almost everyone.
 
I felt the same way as Woz when the iPad was first announced. A great product for my wife but not for me, I need my macbook.

Then I was assigned to develop iPad apps and got one. My wife still doesn't have one, but I won't leave home without mine. I can remote into my home or work mac when needed, have all my music and video and docs with me always.

Sure, I won't write code on it but for pretty much everything else this is it. Basically it is a window into the world, erasable paper, portable media.

I've also got a blackberry, a windows phone, a Galaxy, a Dell Streak and a Xoom on my desk right now (and a Playbook on the way) and just can't understand how they all missed the mark when Apple has been showing them the way for the past year.

I've become a believer in the iPad.
 
I never understand this kind of thing. It's like someone saying "I can never buy a Honda because it just can't tow all the things I tow on my farm, or drive through deep mud." But then he drives his F350 every day 30 miles and back from home to town to do errands and get groceries getting 12 miles to the gallon. Most people would (and do) get a efficient small car for that sort of thing.

Many people can't afford to own two vehicles. Car payments, second registration, second inspection, and maintenance on that second vehicle will likely cost more money than just buying more gas.

I don't want to spend money on more than one computer or maintain more than one.
 
Has the Woz ever been wrong!

But he is absolutely right. It is perfectly useable without a base computer to sync with, too. Think of it this way, if one doesn't have a computer already, they won't have anything to sync. Then it's just on to the iTunes Store.

This is the right device for, say, my sister, who just wants to be able to browse the web, play some games, and watch some videos. And my guess is that's the target audience as well as the "normal" user.
 
This is not what you originally said. You said "unless every normal person has a tech friend/relative to keep the tablet working/updated" which is something else altogether, about personal ability. Why else would they have to be a "tech friend". If it was only about having one "period" then any dumbo friend/relative with a computer would do.
My argument wasn't changed, but it might have been misunderstood. If every normal person was using the tablet, it would only be their tech friends who had a true computer in addition to a tablet (my implication being that only techies maintain multiple personal computers). So all the normal tablet users would need tech friends for the occasional sync. Sure, any dumb friend with a reasonably modern computer would do, but the idea is that all these dumb friends have moved on to tablets as well. At some point, everyone has tablets, and only the techies have a second, "real" computer.


You can get apps without a computer. You can get music without a computer. You can get TV shows and movies without a computer. You can get mail without a computer. You don't actually need to sync anything. If you do not have anything to transfer over anyway (your "it's going to be the only one he's using" scenario), then you don't need a desktop.
I'm wondering if you've ever tried a "never synced" iOS device. It actually is limited in some fairly annoying ways. For "normal" people, one of the biggest is the inability to manage photos. You can import them with the photo kit, but you end up with one stupid huge mess of pictures until you use a real computer to rearrange everything. You also miss out on updates. And maybe you think that's not important, but it becomes a big deal when all the apps you want to download start requiring a newer iOS version than what you have. It might take a year, but you'll reach a point where not syncing ends up meaning you can't get apps either. There's also a different mindset around backups for a portable device vs. a desktop. Justified, too; it's a lot easier to lose or wipe out the data on an tablet than a desktop computer. It needs wifi or even cloud-based backup without having to first sync to a computer.
 
Many people can't afford to own two vehicles. Car payments, second registration, second inspection, and maintenance on that second vehicle will likely cost more money than just buying more gas.

I don't want to spend money on more than one computer or maintain more than one.

Definitely true. If you need 1 primary device, I can't imagine the iPad would be it. If you need to write long papers or do lots and lots of productivity work and you need 1 device to do it, it seems obvious that it's not going to be the iPad. What irks me is people writing posts about "well it can't be a primary computing device" and I really just want to say "WELL DUH!!"

The iPad has a HUGE market, but it isn't even going after the "primary computing device" market, so why complain or criticize it for not winning that market?
 
What's wrong with a keyboard or touch typing? I guess I don't see where you're going with this, as typing on a touch screen for long pieces of work or long periods of time is far less efficient. I see where the touch interface has its uses, but in some places it's just far less practical.

You *can* touch type on an iPad, though. I type long emails on it without looking at the screen. I wonder if people just assume you can't, so they don't try.
 
He's so right. I can't imagine how much of the older generation uses the Internet now because of the iPad.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

Really cant wait when the iPad will have serious processing power :).

It already has some serious processing power ;) It has the quad core i9 processor by schmintel with the new amd gfx99999 graphics chip for unquantative speeds that break the light barrier!

Oh no wait, that would be the atomic bomb... ;)
 
True. If only it supported reading usb flash drives, I could abandon my laptop except for syncing. So instead, I got an iPod.
 
yeah I can see his point.
However there will be efforts to make it like a pc through accessorizing the device

not really.

It is a PC … just the interface is changed.
RIM with QNX and their tablet "COULD" have the ability to distribute computing across them all over a wlan connection.
Apple could evolve the iPad to a central control for house appliances remotely and also become ubiquitous to anywhere we use paper! I'm hoping universities along with iTunes U consider this immensely - but with XServe gone on the back end with OS X Lion possibly also being dumbed down this may never happen. Tuition fees could drop considerably while students enjoy the work load … annotating the work, submitting documents in PDF digitally signed and on record via a local or wireless sync to an FTP site (GoodReader).
 
On the one hand he is right.
I work in IT, and the iPad to me is just a novelty toy.
I have one an use it for just 2 things(reading the newspaper and watching movies on the train to my work). And for just those 2 things it is rather expensive.
On the other hand the thing I liked the most about OS X, is that is able to be used hardcore-IT people(thanks to being a UNIX) and complete noobs. And this is something I miss in the iPad(for the iPhone I don't care, i have an SSH-app in case of emergency when I'm not near a computer and that's it.
Making couchbrowsers(cause thats what iPads are mostly used for) for non-tech people is good.
But I just hope they still care about tech-savy people in OS X.
 
This is the primary design flaw with the iPad. This tablet can't be the normal person's computer unless every normal person has a tech friend/relative to keep the tablet working/updated. So while Woz is correct that the tablet will be the normal person's computer, Apple's iPad is not yet that tablet.

I'd say that's also the primary design flaw of the PC, although it wasn't very hard to overcome. Every normal person DOES tend to have a tech friend/relative just to keep their PC working/updated. I'm that tech friend/relative in most of my social circles, and if you're posting here, you're sure to be one too.
 
Sorry Woz...but you arent an Orackle of computing truths (neither am I).

Im a Systems Engineer who *get ready for it* has an iPad. :eek:
But yes, of course iPad owner's use it for normal fun stuff...nobody codes on their iPad (cause ya cant), and I only know one person who uses it as a primary business machine...hes got one of the bluetoothe keyboard cases. LMFAO, we just tell him, "ya know, thats what we call a laptop"
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.