Feel free to waste more money on Apple’s brilliant marketing scheme of a glorified kindle with less functionality that the iPhone. Or –get a netbook that has twice the functionality and costs half as much. Cnet compare Old UT alumni offers this - camera, tv, gps Guess if touch screen is that important, you'll get the more expensive system and less storage.
It's a pretty toy. Nothing more. Whoever called it an oversized iPod Touch was spot on. Why would you want a iPod Touch that large? Throw this in the bucket with the Newton.
I apologize, I don't mean to be a naysayer... or at least, not strictly for the purpose of naysaying, anyway. My problem is I just don't get this device. I understood the iPhone (I was an early adopter), as a device it seemed like a slam dunk to me. It consolidated the function of several devices into a single form factor and offered it with a very approachable interface. It was a phone, productivity device, ipod and gaming device in one. The market for the gadget was clear and primed for its success. I felt similarly about the iPod (though I couldn't believe that came to market as a Mac only device). But I don't understand this one at all. It is an expensive device for what it does, and it doesn't seem to do anything in particular exceedingly well. I don't understand who this is intended for or what it is intended to do. If I seem persistent on this point, it is because I'm looking for someone to tell me that I'm overlooking a key use. Many of the problems the iPhone has as an internet browser or gaming device are easy to disregard because of value of the object as a consolidated device and the transportable form factor it offers. The iPad is NOT a device consolidator and it is not particularly transportable (it is both fragile and expensive), so what was given a pass at the smaller size seem like glaring problems all of a sudden. When I say "it doesn't do XXX" it is because I'm looking for someone to give me a reason why that isn't a deal breaker to anyone other than the people who will buy anything which is shiny and has an apple on it. This Onion video sums up my reaction to this device nicely.The Link
mia, here's what I'm looking for. I travel extensively, so I would love a eReader for books and magazines. The color display is attractive, and I like the multitouch ability to "flip" pages on the iPad. I also killed a netbook that I use to web surf via WIFI. So, I would love a device to combine the two. I'm not so sure whether the LCD display would bother me on the iPad. I have no experience with e-ink. The lack of multi-touch on the iPad though is a major detriment. Perhaps I'm dreaming to think I can get one device to do everything, and I'll simply spend more money buying a new netbook and getting a Kindle or Nook. I can wait 60 days to try the iPad in person though. Any thoughts?
I am psyched b/c we use a mac based program to manage my chiropractic office (they have md and dds versions too) and the ipad is going to be an excellent way to manage patient files. i can use it to take notes in and we can just hand one to patients to fill out their forms on. no more paper files
OK, y'all talked me into it. Initially I was infatuated with the glitz and glimmer of the iPad, but it's not going to do what I want. Ordered a Nook (tough choice between that and Kindle) which I will carry on the road along with my work laptop. I'll get a new netbook in the near future. The ASUS ones on Amazon seem to be getting good reviews and are reasonably priced.
Saw this. For those worried about lack of Flash, what's up with HTML5? Jobs had a handful of choice words for Adobe, calling the company "lazy" and claiming that "Apple does not support Flash because it is so buggy. Whenever a Mac crashes more often than not it's because of Flash. No one will be using Flash. The world is moving to HTML5."
there are many new things that html5 can do over its predecessors, its way more flexible. the real goal for html5 was to reduce the need for proprietary plug-in-based rich Internet application technologies such as flash, silverlight, and java. youtube is already experimenting with html5 here: The Link
Ill side with the group saying they dont see it... what does it do well and differently, to me the answer is nothing it does a lot of things that other devices do better
i probably wont get one, i would definitely if it had OSX running on it along with one usb. camera, i could take or leave although the built in isite would be awesome...
Netbooks are a flop? They are the only unit and size factor of computer which has seen a significant increase over the last three years. They walk a razor thin margin, which means their benefit to hardware producers is questionable, but the consumers have spoken loudly that the netbook is a desirable form factor and price model. If you think they are a flop then you are simply ignorant of trends in hardware sales. I agree that Flash is buggy as hell and a resource hog when it is working right. The problem is it has HUGE market share on the internet. HTML5 is almost assuredly going to replace Flash for active content... but the fact is that it hasn't yet. This means that right now, ignoring flash means ignoring many major websites, and 99% of all video available on the web. Ignoring flash means the device will be more stable, but to say that doesn't come at an enormous cost to content is simply to to put your nose up at how the internet works now. Saying that your browser won't support Flash or Silverlight in 2010 is to say that your browser won't support the internet. It is a freaking joke for a device which proports itself to be a web device. The reason why this ISN'T the "mom" device is because it requires another computer to function. Mom is still going to have to have all the headache of her regular computer, but now have to worry about this as well. If this device was a computer substitute, I might agree with you, but it is not that, it is a secondary device, which just means added complexity. Mom (meaning the not tech savy 50 yo) is going to enjoy the hell out of this until the battery drains and then she's going to forget about it until the next time you come to visit. If it had a forward facing camera (read that as a Skype device) I might see your point... but the is just one more thing for Mom to manage, and because of that it doesn't speak to her either. The only market I can see for this device is as an iTouch for the +50yo man. This is for a "hip trendy" gadget buyer with bad eyesight and little interest in tech so much as gadgets. He'll keep it around to show people on business trips, and will still use his Mac for 90% of his actual computing. Which is to say, this device is a "look at me" device, not a computing device.
I don't doubt there are people who will buy it. I'm just not sure there is a market for this once you've burned through the fanbois and the gadget hunters. Lets be clear, the reason why the iPhone and the ITouch were so successful is not because they revolutionized computing or even UI. Both platforms represent a pretty significant step backward from the computing world in regard to function. They succeeded because the are at a form factor which is not bound by typical computing constraints. Which is to say, at that size, we expect to have our features reduced. That said, a 10" screen device is different. This is not the first device in this size factor, and if the only innovation is a touch screen, then there is really no innovation here at all. At the price they are selling it, it is both significantly MORE expensive than a netbook, and considerably less functional. That is going to be a problem to the Joe Consumer when they start thinking about bang for their buck. The device is not competing in the tablet or netbook space, though, Apple has said as much. They don't see this as a computer, they are thinking of it strictly as an appliance device (which makes its price tag even more out of whack). The problem is they are more or less counting on 3rd party developers to define what that appliance does. I think the reality is they're are breaking even on iTunes store sales, but cashing in on gateway devices to that store. They are hoping that they can keep that trend up by releasing different form factors to the same user base over and over, and that well is eventually going to dry up. Look, I get that people are really excited about this device, but none of the advocates on this thread have offered any real specifics in any detail of where and how they think this device is going to succeed. I know I'm being tagged a naysayer, but my concerns are built on real tangible limitations of the product. I'm hoping someone can explain to me what I missed beyond "you aren't getting it" and visions of a future 4-5 years AFTER the success or failure of this product is already going to be in the book. There has to be a market for this device NOW for it to be successful. I believe that the AppleTV has averaged about 2mil units a year since release, the iPhone did 4mil (reportedly) in its first 200 days. I suspect that this device is going to be considerably closer to the former than the latter. I'm betting around 3 in the first year, and less than 2 in the second. Obviously that prediction would change if they introduce major revisions in the second cycle of the product.
Can I use it to change the channels on the TV? If I could browse the internet and change the channels on my TV at the same time, I might consider it.
mia1994, don't know if you own an iPhone and/or iPod Touch. I have both and find them to be incredible tools given the limitations their size imposes for some applications. The iPad fixes that limitation. The AppleTV is not limited by the product, but by the services available to it. The video media business is incredibly fragmented and will be for years while hopefully some form of consolidation occurs. Apple has been clear that the AppleTV is a hobby. They're basically keeping a finger in the pie while it all gets sorted out. The printed media business, on the other hand, is ripe for consolidation and the iPad intends to target that opportunity much like the iPod did for music.
I was an iPhone early adopter and then upgraded to the 3GS. Those are incredible devices, and personally I consider their size to be one of their greatest assets. They are truly everywhere devices, you put em in your pocket and the work where ever, when ever you need them. Their limitations are that the web is not fully functional, the exchange support is less than ideal, you can't tether the device, you can't multitask (every app must be started from scratch every time you load it), the iPod app has some serious deficiencies in regards to how it creates/syncs playlists, the podcast support is poor, that it requires syncing with iTunes on a computer is annoying and there are several preloaded apps which are just clutter, and this list is far from conclusive. All of which is to say that there are a lot of little problems, and some great big ones as well... most of which are forgivable because it is an everywhere device. I don't remember to have to pack something extra, just grab my phone and I have damn near everything I need. The iPad has ALL of the deficiencies of the iPhone/Touch but "solves" only one problem, screen size, which in my mind means it solved a benefit and replaced it with very little else. AppleTV is actually a pretty cool product, FWIW. That said, that it has been a failure in the market is not really disputable. The only reason why I am more hopeful for the iPad is that the physical hardware is portable, and therefor has higher "look at me" appeal. That said, the only way it differentiates itself from the Touch is that it requires you to bring a case with you if you are going anywhere. I'm curious, why did you find it necessary to purchase both an iPhone and a Touch? Do you use them in different place and for different reasons? Owning both seems redundant to me.
