I think Apple has finally screwed up (err, since 2000)

GO TO ADMIN PANEL > ADD-ONS AND INSTALL VERTIFORO SIDEBAR TO SEE FORUMS AND SIDEBAR

DrawntotheMagic

New member
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
27
Points
0
Well, I for one, am not sold on this idea, and will definitely not consider buying until at least a 2gen or 3gen is released...and I'm pretty much crazy about all things Apple.

it looks half baked- to me, and lacks in so many ways.

If I could make changes, here's what I'd do:
1. Add a USB capability (To said print and connect to projectors)
2. an SD card reader (to upload directly to ipad on the go)
3. a front facing camera. for a mobile version of Photobooth (which I think would be pretty cool)


while it would make a hike in prices, at least being able to access files from an external drive and digital camera, with the addition of webcam, would make it more of the "netbook" they are trying to pass it off as. I like the screen, from what I can see...and Photobooth would appeal to me, greatly.
 

wyneken

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
857
Points
0
Age
66
Location
internal exile
I appear to be a minority, but the iPad seems to make sense for me. I mean in a practical nuts-and-bolts way, though it also looks like a fun and beautiful thing to own.

I need some kind of wireless device to shlep back and forth from home to a school where I teach part-time, where I have a desk but no computer. I don't really need (or want) a laptop because I've already got two desktop computers at home where I do most of my work, store my files, etc. But I would like a portable device of some kind that can handle rudimentary word-processing, provide e-mail and web access, and link to the local network at school.

I own an iPod touch. I've been using that for various school-related purposes, but as a practical matter it is too small for many of the things I'd like to do -- for example, I find the little keyboard perfectly usable but kind of a pain in the neck to type anything longer than a brief e-mail on. I can find information easily online but can't hold up, say, a painting or chart or photograph to show my students -- I have to physically pass the thing around. And there seems to be no app that serves as a real word processor (though in truth, with the tiny screen and keyboard, I'm not sure I'd use it even if there were.)

For me the iPad seems to make perfect sense. It would be easy to slip into the briefcase I use for carrying school stuff back and forth. I can set it up on my desk at school with the $69 keyboard/dock and bang out simple documents like class handouts, homework assignments and the like. I'm assuming the $9.99 Pages module will handle this kind of thing easily, and will allow me to set up templates for the kind documents I churn out regularly.

I'm concerned about having the ability to print directly from the iPad -- I haven't yet tried out the Print N Share app, which apparently can handle this on an iPhone. Hopefully this will work, or there will be another solution coming down the road (which would make sense given that Pages will be available).

The various "missing" features (like a camera) are essentially irrelevant in my situation, though I can understand why many other people want them.

Maybe I represent a relatively small niche, or maybe a larger niche than we are now assuming. I know a lot of people whose work is more or less mobile, including many (including my students) who are currently heavy iPod touch or iPhone users.

Another aspect of this -- which we've seen play out in the case of the iPhone -- is that we don't really know how the existence of this device might or might not change the way people work (and play). I don't think anybody really anticipated how many people would be using smart phones, especially the iPhone, as, in effect, tiny portable computers, doing all kinds of cool and useful things with them. This didn't really become evident until third-party apps began to proliferate and all kinds of nifty new possibilities suddenly opened up. I don't see any reason this won't happen all over again as developers begin to contemplate the potential of this new platform.

I see the iPad as hitting a kind of "sweet spot" between the iPhone and full-function computer.

It's also really cool looking and looks like it will be fun to use. I've been a sucker for that sort of thing since the original 128K Mac.
 

DrawntotheMagic

New member
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
27
Points
0
I do agree with you in many ways on this...to go between work and school, (and everywhere in between) it gets just about all I ever do done. Documents, presentations, and of course browsing facebook and such.

It has so much potential, I just think a few things (such as the ability to view videos and play games on sites other than youtube would be nice) there are a few FB apps I'd like to play, which aren't in the app store...etc. But that's something that could be done through a software update?

Cosmetically...the iPad is beautiful and something I've wanted for a very long time. i love how sleek it is...and how it could indeed, make a picture frame when not being used...I just hope the 2nd generation will have a few of the other things on my wishlist (being selfish, I know) but I think im maybe 50/50 on this...
 

nizzie

New member
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
2
Points
0
i totally understand why people have doubts about iPad. but it was just like what happened when they announced the iPod Shuffle. everyone thot it was going to be doomed. but it seems like it ended up ok. so i'm sure there's a niche market for this product. basically because of its low price, it will survive for a while.
 

ethan_hines

New member
Joined
Jan 30, 2010
Messages
1
Points
0
HP has long been innovating the tablet arena by ditching those pen stylus units (though they still offer them for people who are writing on the screen), allowing multi-touch, and packing in some capable hardware..
That's just it....how do you "Write" something on the iPAD you can't so unless they add voice recognition I'm out.
 

Code Monkey

New member
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
5,213
Points
0
Location
Midstate New York
i totally understand why people have doubts about iPad. but it was just like what happened when they announced the iPod Shuffle. everyone thot it was going to be doomed. but it seems like it ended up ok. so i'm sure there's a niche market for this product. basically because of its low price, it will survive for a while.
The shuffle has been Apple's lowest selling iPod line all along. It's only "successful" in that it costs them practically nothing to make, has a ridiculously high price compared to comparable products, and they provide virtually no aftermarket support for it. So, as long as it sells at all, financially it's a success, but, as you say, its performance is, at best, "OK". If there was no larger iPod and iTunes ecosystem to support the shuffle, the product would have been a dismal failure, it survives by riding on the coattails of better, more successful products.

That aside, where I totally disagree with you and so many others is the thinking the price of this thing is low. $500 and up for what it's trying to be is not a low price. Where I see so much praise is the Mac crowd talking about how they've still got their MacBook Pro and so this fits in nicely as a companion device; and that is true, for the MacBook Pro crowd who, for whatever their reasons, accept and even embrace Apple's asinine laptop prices. For the other 80+% of laptop users, $500 for such an anemic companion device is not going to seem like a low price at all. You can get full blown decent 15" screen laptops, not netbooks, actual full out laptops, for around $100 more than the entry iPad. For the cost of the "high end" iPad, $830, you're talking very nice laptops with 500GB hard drives, 4GB of RAM, 512MB video cards, etc. Sure, the laptop has a somewhat larger footprint and weights 5-6 lbs compared to 1.5 lbs, so there is that, but the point is that it's not low cost in any way. For the majority of laptop users, there's a very good chance that a first generation iPad as a "companion" device would actually cost more than their laptop itself, i.e., probably not going to happen for these people, which may explain why there was so much emphasis on the iPad interfacing tightly with Macintosh only software, i.e. it's being leveraged to the crowd who already buys into the price/value of Macs compared to everything else, because it simply doesn't make sense outside of that environment. Nor does it make sense to emphasize these Mac only features if everybody is your target consumer for the first gen. I hear how the iPad interacts so seamlessly with iPhoto and iWork and iLife and I say Idon'tcare.

Personally, I think even the iPod touch is ridiculously overpriced, but it at least has the excuse of being able to claim putting a mini-computer in your pocket, for the physical scale the iPad is built on, it's price should have been a lot lower for what it's doing. Basically, Apple added a good $200, maybe more, to the price tags just to avoid competing with the iPod touch, because, of course, if you've got a $300 iPod touch with 32GB, and a $349 iPad with 32GB, unless you really want the portability, the iPad becomes a no-brainer, so Apple, in typical Apple fashion, starts the initial price point way above where it ought to be so they can be seen as "lowering" it in successive iterations when, in reality, they'll still be keeping the price point far above where it needs to be to turn a respectable profit.
 
Last edited:

wyneken

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
857
Points
0
Age
66
Location
internal exile
You sound cranky, Code Monkey. Though, as always, you make many good points.

Speaking only for myself, I am willing and happy to pay a premium for elegant design. Maybe it's my bias as an arts-industry type of guy, but I've always found myself to be more productive when -- for example -- I'm working in a well-designed room with abundant natural light, or listening to beautiful music, or using a computer that is pleasurable to see and touch and interact with.

As a working writer, I've spent most of my adult life close to the poverty line, but I've never regarded buying an Apple product as an indulgence. For me it's a practical investment. It's like, when I built this house, I could have either spent or not spent the money to install extra-large windows facing the wetland behind my home office. From a strict dollars-and-cents standpoint, I made the wrong call. But I love it.

So this is a personal thing, ultimately. Apple products have never fared well in the spec game. The other guy's hard drive was always bigger than mine, his CPU speed was faster, and he'd gotten it all for $400 less. But for this dubious economy he was sentenced to sit every day in front of an ugly beige box with a user interface that looked like this:

>

Meanwhile I was turning out novels on a Macintosh that was underpowered and overpriced and an utter joy to use.

For me it's never been a close call.
 

kornchild2002

New member
Joined
Feb 21, 2004
Messages
12,203
Points
0
Location
Cincinnati
That's just it....how do you "Write" something on the iPAD you can't so unless they add voice recognition I'm out.
What is an iPAD? Apple has included a virtual keyboard with the iPad. It makes things rather simple. Apple is also coming out with a physical keyboard accessory and I am sure others will be releasing theirs. Someone could come out with a voice to text app but I am not sure how it would integrate itself into the Safari, Pages (Apple's "word" application for the iPad), etc. since the iPad doesn't support multi-tasking (hey, the processor clocks in at 1GHz, I don't know of any 1GHz processor that can multi-task).

Either way, the virtual keyboard will be the main way of "writing" something in the iPad (just as it is with the iPhone and iPod touch). It also supports hand writing input (it is part of iPhone OS 3.2) but I am not sure what Apple will do with that. A virtual keyboard may not sound like it would be a nice way to input text but I have been using virtual keyboards for years (about 6 years now) with various tablets.
 

Code Monkey

New member
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
5,213
Points
0
Location
Midstate New York
hey, the processor clocks in at 1GHz, I don't know of any 1GHz processor that can multi-task.
Oh, come on, now you've just gone full blown to the other side and sound silly. I've got a 100% perfectly functioning 1GHz P3 based computer sitting in my basement running WinXP. It may not run much in the way of current bloated software, but it multitasks just fine with its "archaic" CISC architecture. If that computer, with outmoded circuitry but the same general specs as an iPad can manage it, the "most advanced" technology of Apple ought to be able to manage it.
 

Stargazer2

New member
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
1
Points
0
A Different Early Adopter Perspective

I understand about holding off purchasing as technology matures, but here's a different perspective based on my life experience. I got into computing technology back in the early 80's with the Atari 2600. I was a manufacturing engineer just getting started and had no computing education, but this fascinated me. I jumped on the Atari 800 as soon as it appeared and got into BASIC and 6502 programming, enough to realize I was never going to be a programmer.

But people started looking to me as an expert on the technology and my boss got me into automation projects in our factory and my career direction was set. I was involved as a lead in a number of such projects with Data General minis. I came in weekends to play Adventure on the first Data General we got!! And as time went by, I bought numerous game consoles and early computers. When PCs appeared, I bought a 2-floppy drive IBM for home - wow it was expensive, but I learned from it. I played hour on hour with Visicalc. My boss and I were among the first in the company to get one and we became experts with Visicalc and then Lotus . Again, we became the folks people went to for all things computing. A results was that I became a charter member of the PC Standards Board for my company. This gave me all sorts of opportunites for work and career advancement.

I've continued to be an early adopter for a lot of tech stuff for 30 plus years. and I'll get an iPad when it first becomes available. I get burnt more than accastionally but it's always a learning experience that I apply to advantage. There is no doubt in my mind that my fascination for this technology and willingness to be an early adopter has cost a lot and wasted quite a bit, but I'm sure those costs pale into insignificance with my career, both monetarily and in job satisfaction. I'm still known as the gadget guy, but that is not a bad thing!
 

Code Monkey

New member
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
5,213
Points
0
Location
Midstate New York
You sound cranky, Code Monkey.
Cranky? Maybe, thought I prefer to think of it as just not wanting to deal in BS, which the promo video, keynote, and much of the positive reaction to the iPad is practically dripping with. Take away the price tag issue, and the iPad is an extremely cool piece of tech. Anybody who wants to give me one is free to do so :) However, for what they're charging, not cool enough for me.

Though, as always, you make many good points.
Thank you.


Speaking only for myself, I am willing and happy to pay a premium for elegant design. Maybe it's my bias as an arts-industry type of guy, but I've always found myself to be more productive when -- for example -- I'm working in a well-designed room with abundant natural light, or listening to beautiful music, or using a computer that is pleasurable to see and touch and interact with.
I've fully come to realize, that although I started out with Macs, preached their alleged advantages in the early 90s to my Windows using friends like a born again evangelist on meth, I really wasn't a Mac guy. Once I finally got fed up enough with waiting on software ports to buy my first PC in 1998 and finally see how bad it really was, I totally didn't miss using a Mac, at all. In 12 years of using PCs in my personal life instead of Macs, there isn't a second I've regretted making the switch.

What I learned is that for someone who, at their core, is a pragmatist and only cares about getting a job done efficiently, both computer platforms are effectively identical, only one charges a premium to do the same job the other one does for less. If someone cares about the glass trackpad and the unibody design and the transition effects and the "boingy boingy" dock and all those things to the point of appreciating the cost differential, hey, who am I to judge (that much ;)), but, for me, what it does is always going to be key.
 

kornchild2002

New member
Joined
Feb 21, 2004
Messages
12,203
Points
0
Location
Cincinnati
Oh, come on, now you've just gone full blown to the other side and sound silly. I've got a 100% perfectly functioning 1GHz P3 based computer sitting in my basement running WinXP. It may not run much in the way of current bloated software, but it multitasks just fine with its "archaic" CISC architecture. If that computer, with outmoded circuitry but the same general specs as an iPad can manage it, the "most advanced" technology of Apple ought to be able to manage it.
Right, you aren't talking about current software. Sure, it can run Windows XP, a web browser, and an older version of Word all at the same time but try running a modern OS (sorry, Windows XP is still solid but it is extremely dated and no longer considered to be a modern OS), the latest version of FireFox, and Word 2007 on it. The processor will struggle beyond belief. The iPad is running current software. Mult-tasking also eats away at the battery.

Some people think that multi-tasking is a killer feature. Well, I am not sold. Even something as simple as a netbook can run FireFox, Word 2007, and iTunes at the same time but that is it. Running Flash videos in FireFox means that you will have to close something (likely iTunes) for smooth performance. OK, you are now down to running two applications. Fire up an HD Flash video (for Nvidia ION and Broadcom Crystal HD equipped netbooks) and Word will have to close.

My point is that we are dealing with a greatly underpowered processor. Apple says that it "screams" simply because the processor and integrated graphics (I think the whole setup is a re-branded Tegra 2) run applications fast and can playback 720p video. It is powerful for a mobile platform. ANY Atom processor used in netbooks certainly won't run FireFox, IE, Opera, etc. as fast as the iPad running Safari and they definitely can't handle HD playback. Opening up a 1.5Mbps mpeg-4 AVC video in VLC will work but CPU resources will be stuck up in the 90% range and playback won't be smooth.

So no, I don't think it is silly to not expect multi-tasking out of this 1GHz processor. Even a 2GHz Pentium 4 processor (as what is in my really old desktop) is limited to two applications open at the same time with performance on par with the Atom N270 processor (except for the 720p stutter video playback, the old desktop won't even show a 720p video). Show me a 1GHz processor that can run the current version of iTunes, Word 2007, the latest version of FireFox, and an e-mail client all at the same time without a single performance hiccup in a modern OS. It just isn't going to happen.
 

Code Monkey

New member
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
5,213
Points
0
Location
Midstate New York
The iPad is running current software. Mult-tasking also eats away at the battery.
Sorry, I was using that computer full time until 2005 and it did just fine, and I guarantee that as sure as the sun is hot, desktop software in 2005 was miles beyond anything written for the cell phone OS the iPad is currently using.

I understand, it's not snappy, I was more than happy to give it up for the now nearly 5 y.o. computer I'm using daily now, but it did multitask just fine with software more demanding than stuff written for the iPad/iPhone (and, please, WinXP is 100 times the OS as the iPhone OS - I wasn't aware we could start calling single tasked push button interfaces more modern just because of their release date - may as well claim my DSi has a more modern OS than WinXP by that logic). As you yourself are happy to admit, the snappiness of the iPad comes from first, deliberately handicapping it through no major level of multitasking, and, second, only running software specifically coded to its hardware or below. This does not impress me, nor does it convince me that I should be forced to close out my web browser to write something in a word processor. Lag is acceptable while processes get written to the drive and loaded into RAM, of course, that's the probable 3rd handicap the iPad is working with, very low RAM. Apple has a history of being ridiculously cheap on the SDRAM components in the iPods and iPhones, no reason to think they suddenly stuck a few GB of RAM in there just because they're charging $500-$830 for a tablet.

I simply don't accept that we should be impressed by a $500 and up barebones tablet when all of its appearance of speed and modernity is actually achieved by rigging the race. For all the back and forth about netbooks and cheap laptops versus the iPad, the take away is that if we could rig their own performance just as much, we'd be right back at what is already said: you'd get a lot more performance for a lot less money. If being able to display 720p video without stutter is your main focus, you need some perspective because you can buy a portable DVD player for under $100 any more. I get it, priorities for different users are different, but the day getting few and simple things done quickly supersedes getting many and complex things done more slowly is a day I don't want to see.

It's cute, it's neat, but it's still ridiculously over priced for what it does. No matter what contorted logic people use to defend the iPad, it all comes down to some variation of, "Sure, I could get all this done for hundreds of dollars less, but it wouldn't be nearly as much fun for me to do that.", and I still haven't come across that giant duffle bag full of cash and a bunch of bodies from the drug deal gone bad yet to use such poor judgment when it comes to something as expensive as the iPad.
 

kornchild2002

New member
Joined
Feb 21, 2004
Messages
12,203
Points
0
Location
Cincinnati
I simply don't accept that we should be impressed by a $500 and up barebones tablet when all of its appearance of speed and modernity is actually achieved by rigging the race.
That is Apple though. They have defined their whole existence by releasing products that have never been performance powerhouses (at least when compared to the competition). Sadly, the Apple name carries a high cost. Look at the iPhone. There are other less expensive phones (like my HTC Droid Eris) that can do more than the iPhone. The same thing held true way back in the day when the iPod was released. Hardware wise, there was no reason for the iPod to succeed. Many of the arguments I am seeing against the iPad were made against the iPod touch and the original iPod back in the day. It is underpowered, doesn't have very many features, costs too much, etc. I can say the same things about the 4G and 5G iPod nano as well. That didn't stop them from succeeding. It is true that Apple hasn't done anything special with the iPad other than make a stylish product. However, I am not sure why people were expecting more. We were being fed the typical Apple slogans and keynote. The iPad, just like previous Apple computer releases, features underpowered hardware with an OS that can't run everything under the sun.

If being able to display 720p video without stutter is your main focus, you need some perspective because you can buy a portable DVD player for under $100 any more.
No, I don't need perspective. A portable DVD player displays 480p video and requires the purchase of a whole other device. Do I really want to buy an SD device to go along with my netbook, iPod, and notebook? No. I could instead buy another device that actually plays back 720p video (DVDs are not HD and neither are portable DVD players) while replacing many (if not all) tasks I conduct on my netbook. So sure, I can get a sub-par video quality device for less than $100 but I don't want to add a bulky gadget into my arsenal especially when it only does one task: DVD playback. 720p playback is actually rather important to many people. Most think that 10" screens don't need HD video playback. I have a 10" netbook capable of playing 1080p videos. It is important when my netbook has a screen resolution of 1366X768 and I sit about 1-2 ft from the screen. That is when HD is important (and also when hooking up to an external display).

I don't know of anyone who would take a 7" DVD player (which can output at 480p) over an HD device with a 10" that can output video in HD. To me, that doesn't seem product. It would be taking a step back into the days of 2004. It also doesn't help that the last time I purchased a DVD was in 2006. I made the switch to HD in 2006. Going back to 640X480 would be like going back to the dark ages.

Lastly, Windows XP is a dated OS. The firmware running in the DSi is more recent than Windows XP. That doesn't make it a more powerful OS and I never said that iPhone OS 3.2 was better than Windows XP. I just said that the iPhone OS is more modern than Windows XP. However, the iPhone OS has some features over Windows XP such as multi-touch screen (without running clunky 3rd party software) and a dead easy interface. That doesn't mean that it can do all around more than Windows XP though. That still doesn't stop Windows XP from being a dated OS. It is almost 9 years old. If it wasn't for the ever so crappy Vista, Windows XP would be dead. I am not bashing the OS or anything like that. I still use it on a daily basis. I am just saying that Windows XP is more dated than the iPhone OS.
 

Code Monkey

New member
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
5,213
Points
0
Location
Midstate New York
No, I don't need perspective. A portable DVD player displays 480p video and requires the purchase of a whole other device. Do I really want to buy an SD device to go along with my netbook, iPod, and notebook? No. I could instead buy another device that actually plays back 720p video (DVDs are not HD and neither are portable DVD players) while replacing many (if not all) tasks I conduct on my netbook. So sure, I can get a sub-par video quality device for less than $100 but I don't want to add a bulky gadget into my arsenal especially when it only does one task: DVD playback. 720p playback is actually rather important to many people. Most think that 10" screens don't need HD video playback. I have a 10" netbook capable of playing 1080p videos. It is important when my netbook has a screen resolution of 1366X768 and I sit about 1-2 ft from the screen. That is when HD is important (and also when hooking up to an external display).
No, just no. On the size screen of the iPad, with it's pixel size, the notion that there's a noticeable difference between being able to play back a DVD or a HD video's quality is like arguing you can hear the difference between FLAC and a 256kbps AAC file on an iPod. Please, save us the trouble of going there.

Here's what I take away from the rest of your post. When somebody posts they want to use 320 kbps or lossless on their iPod or in their car, you are usually the first poster to scream at the top of your internet forum "lungs" how such a practice is pointless, a waste of disc space, and a waste of battery life. Yet, here you are defending the notion that what people really need to spend more than even a portable blu-ray player costs on (yes, I get it, single task device ;)) is a 10" LCD screen that can show anything you want to throw at it video wise and output it to a 40" LCD while we're at it.

No matter how you want to twist it, that's simply a stretch at best, and more like a desperate grab for anything you can say the iPad does better than analogous devices in its price class. If you actually do have a 40" LCD flat screen HDTV or better, you've probably got something better than an iPad for supplying the picture, and if you're simply talking watching on a 10" panel, you simply do not need that sort of video rendering for portable use.

Sure, it's nice that it can do it, and I admit compared to a netbook at half the cost, it's better, but, let's also face it, for an actual lap top in the price range of the iPad you need to actually be able to take advantage of a bunch of HD videos, you could do it just as well, have your multitasking, and 200 GB of storage with 4GB of RAM and zero sacrifices.
 

kornchild2002

New member
Joined
Feb 21, 2004
Messages
12,203
Points
0
Location
Cincinnati
No, it is not along the same line. I can clearly see a difference between lower bitrate SD content and higher bitrate HD content on my netbook's 10" screen. Again, that is because the netbook sits in my lap. It is even more important when holding the device less than 1 ft from my face. Try turning your PC's output resolution to 640X480 while sitting about 2 ft from the screen. Yeah, same affect as when sitting 1 ft or less from a 10" screen. So there is no stretch about it. The difference between HD videos and SD ones is rather clear. This is mainly due to the increased bitrate that HD content uses. I am not sure if a 5Mbps 640X480 video would provide the same quality as a 5Mbps 1280X720 video but I don't see it doing that.

As per the HD video output of the iPad... I wouldn't use this to hook it up to my HDTV. I have an Xbox 360, netbook, and PS3 all capable of displaying full 1080p content. I don't need a 720p device when I have others that allow for better HD output. However, I do enjoy watching movies and that is something that the 10 hour battery life (lets wait and see) would offer. Again, 720p would just look so much better on a screen that size when it is 1 ft away from my face. Place it back by 4-5 ft and no, an SD video would likely look the same.

I would use the HD output when displaying presentations though. I am going back to Cincinnati where the engineers there made me give presentations on the project progress. The projectors there have a native resolution of 1024X768. Outputting a PowerPoint presentation at 640X480 looks like crap especially when using lower resolution images. Outputting at 1024X768 with pictures that have resolutions higher than 640X480 look much better.
 

melsmusic

New member
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
5,178
Points
0
I have to reserve my final judgement until I see one, and have a feel of it, which won't be for a while over here, but it's the first product Apple has introduced in a number of years that I'm actually very interested in.

I'm not a big phone user, so the iPhone was a non plus for me, and an iPod can only do so much, but having something I can throw on my car seat to take my spreadsheets etc along with me really has my interest. Especially if I can put it on my lap at lunch and take notes, or read up on some data that I'd usually have to boot a PC or netbook up for, and sit at a desk or table. You could put down a picnic rug and study your data at the beach! I think it looks rather cool though I haven't seen or read much about it.

It will depend on the price it lands in OZ for though. It would be an additional computer (is that what it's classed as??), to my already well stocked collection. :D
 

astroman33

New member
Joined
May 28, 2009
Messages
201
Points
0
Anyone know of any research that actually has compared people's reading preferences and experiences with optimized LCD screens vs. optimized e-ink devices? (And not sponsored by or conducted e-ink device companies? :))

I keep reading far too many sweeping generalizations about the advantages of e-ink over LCDs...

It may all be moot, however. I'll wager that most people will prefer a color device with the power, design, and versatility of the iPad for a host of reasons well beyond whether it is easier to read a novel on it than a b/w e-ink reader. Still, I'm also betting that most people will find it more inviting to read a novel on the iPad than on any b/w e-ink device.
 

Dyvim

Geek
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
182
Points
0
I've been sold on LCD readers for years for the simple fact that they allow me to read in the dark. i.e. I can be physically close to my wife and/or son without disturbing their sleep with my reading. I started reading on PocketPC devices and have since moved on to iPhone (iPhone readers are SO much better than the horrid Microsoft Reader on PocketPC) and am looking forward to trying the iPad. My other gripe about eInk readers are that they are mostly one trick ponies- I've got so many devices already that I'd like each device to be good at a few different things. e.g. I don't buy iPods (or other mp3 players) any more. I don't deny that the Kindle makes a good day-time reader- I'd just rather get a multi-purpose device and/or read an actual paper book instead.

But don't worry Amazon- if you port your iPhone app to the iPad, I'll keep buying Kindle books through you.
 
Top