iPad is supercool
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: Wes Groleau on 31 Jan 2010 17:06 Nick Naym wrote: > In article jollyroger-29DF91.12175528012010(a)news.individual.net, Jolly Roger >> Apple). Even though my geek side > > You mean there's a _non_-geek side? ;P > >> would love to wait it out for the next revision, Obviously. A pure geek would pre-order this one AND the next one. -- Wes Groleau "It's all Geek to me."
From: Steve Hix on 31 Jan 2010 17:08 In article <droleary.usenet-9CE185.11580731012010(a)news.twtelecom.net>, Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet(a)1q2010.subsume.com> wrote: > In article <sehix-B069DD.14573930012010(a)5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>, > Steve Hix <sehix(a)NOSPAMmac.comINVALID> wrote: > > > In article <droleary.usenet-B27E72.12391230012010(a)news.twtelecom.net>, > > Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet(a)1q2010.subsume.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > And some might issue it in a corporate environment as a thin client. > > > There are plenty of ways I could *imagine* it being put to use, but > > > let's stick with common expectations, and all signs point to Apple > > > expecting there to be a computer to sync with. > > > > Granted. But it's not *mandated*. Some few luddite-ish types might > > choose to forego that capability, and they could do it. > > Could they? I don't know anyone who yet has the unboxing experience to > say it doesn't require syncing. If you have evidence to the contrary, > please say so. Otherwise, you're engaged in pure speculation (didn't we > get enough of that from the rumor mills prior to the announcement?). > > > I'm under no illusions that it would be common practice, but it would be > > possible. > > *Might* be possible. The specs page seems to list both Mac and Windows > system requirements, though. I see no indication from Apple that it was > designed to work as a completely standalone unit. "Possible" isn't the same thing as "recommended" or "expected", is it? The iPad isn't for sale just yet, but I seriously doubt that it wouldn't be able to do something that the iPhone and iPod Touch are currently able to easily do. Both existing devices can easily access the app store directly, downloading content. Both can sync to the cloud though MobileMe. How likely is it that the iPad will be restricted from doing the same thing?
From: Steve Hix on 31 Jan 2010 17:13 In article <droleary.usenet-336465.12261531012010(a)news.twtelecom.net>, Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet(a)1q2010.subsume.com> wrote: > In article <sehix-018B7D.14545630012010(a)5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>, > Steve Hix <sehix(a)NOSPAMmac.comINVALID> wrote: > > > Unless things have change significantly between the iPad and the > > iPhone/Touch, having a computer already is *hugely* more convenient and > > flexible, but you can very well use the device without access to any > > other computer. As long as you don't intend to update the OS or firmware. > > Or backup anything important. Or transfer music from a CD you already > own. Or pull a file off a thumb drive. Or any number of things a > computer user these days would take for granted. I might even grant you > that it's possible to *rarely* connect to a computer. But why is it so > difficult to admit you're probably going to need a computer for an iPad? Who said you wouldn't want to? There is a bit of a gap between "impossible" and "unlikely for the majority of users". There are any number of things that are possible, in any number of areas, that don't usually happen because they're inconvenient. Inconvenient doesn't mean impossible. Why do you have so much trouble admitting that something might be possible, even if almost nobody would be bothered to do it that way? It isn't the same thing as claiming that many people wouldn't normally use it with a computer.
From: Wes Groleau on 31 Jan 2010 17:17 Doc O'Leary wrote: > that it's possible to *rarely* connect to a computer. But why is it so > difficult to admit you're probably going to need a computer for an iPad? Because it's not true. Even with the iPod, I don't _need_ one. I use one because I have it, but I don't use it much, and I'd connect it even less if the iPod keyboard didn't suck so much. -- Wes Groleau Unusual ways of learning? http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=96
From: Jim Glidewell on 31 Jan 2010 17:29
Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet(a)1q2010.subsume.com> wrote: > Could they? I don't know anyone who yet has the unboxing experience > to > say it doesn't require syncing. If you have evidence to the contrary, > > please say so. Otherwise, you're engaged in pure speculation (didn't > we > get enough of that from the rumor mills prior to the announcement?). I thinks it's pretty clear that the iPad *will* require syncing at the product launch. To me, it is also pretty clear that the iPad will eventually stand on its own. The main thing that is required for daily use that requires another device is backup. At ship, you'll be able to pull your photos in, buy books, music, and video, etc. One thing that isn't clear is printing - but there are already third party apps that can print to a shared printer, so I assume Apple will address this issue. I can see Apple addressing backup, sharing, syncing, printing, and perhaps a few other interconnect issues with a modified Time Capsule-like device. Backups would be wirelessly and automatically. A printer could be hooked to the USB port. For iPad firmware updates and cases where the iPad needs a hard recovery, the iPad would get plugged in via USB. But I would expect that to be the exception - normal OS upgrades would be downloaded and applied on the iPad. I really don't expect to see an "iPad base station" until next year at the earliest. The form factor could just be a box, or it could be a shell with a larger screen that the iPad plugs into, like that Apple patent some time ago. I think the former. I think that Apple could address the basic requirements with a firmware upgrade to the existing Time Capsule. But they still have work to do on the iPad side to make it all work seamlessly. So I tend to think they'll offer a new device. Interestingly enough, there is one other device that has all the requisite hardware to serve as a base station for the iPad - that "hobby" project, the AppleTV. While folks might balk at spending a few hundred bucks on a device that just does iPad backups, a set-top box that addresses that need might be a much easier sell. And the iPad will make for one hell of a media remote... And thus further advancing Apple's move into the living room. |