iPad is supercool
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: Doc O'Leary on 1 Feb 2010 13:09 In article <fmoore-774552.13301531012010(a)feeder.eternal-september.org>, Fred Moore <fmoore(a)gcfn.org> wrote: > In article <droleary.usenet-B27E72.12391230012010(a)news.twtelecom.net>, > Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet(a)1q2010.subsume.com> wrote: > > > It has nothing to do with where we fit in the market and everything to > > do with the device itself. As I said, you *need* a computer already to > > use an iPad. > > Why? There are many whys. Because that's the way Apple wants it. Because that's the early state of the technology. > I can think of a dozen people right now who would drop their > desktop/laptop computers for an iPad in a New York nanosecond. As long > as they have a connection to the Internet via 3G or wifi, they could do > any thing they do now on their 'real' computers, and do it more easily. Sure, we can all think of the "big" things we do that don't require a full computer, but the iPad would have to cover *every* thing we do in order to replace the need for a computer completely. I'm just saying that's a tall order for a device that hasn't even been released yet. > Need storage space? Want to post family pictures? How about a Mobile Me > or similar account. That's what the Cloud is for. Don't need a 'real' > computer for that. If the announced iPad won't do what I just described, > I guarantee you it will _very_ soon. You can't guarantee that, though. You need to step past the hype and the hope and deal with the reality of the device. We're all the better part of two months away from being able to say how an iPad can really be put to use. > Apple has defined a form factor for the future with the iPad. As the > technology advances, the device will pack more and more tech punch. But > there is a market for it _now_, and some of that market is people who > would use it as there only computer. But that is not the point I'm making. As I already said, I *absolutely* can see the iPad as being the primary computer for certain home (give each kid one) or business (from call centers to CEOs, many jobs don't require a general purpose computer) uses. But I do not *today* see Apple pushing them as being able to be used without a full computer of *some* kind to manage them. Unless something is said in the next 60 days, it is foolish to buy an iPad with the expectation that you can eBay your regular computer the next day. > But there is also a market today, rather large is my guess, for people > who have and will continue to use one or more desktop/laptop computers. All I'm saying is that *that* is what you need to focus on instead of the pie-in-the-sky future potential of the iPad. Even if some people *can* live in an iPad-only world, there is going to be a transition period to manage. Don't lose sight of that in all the hype. -- My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too.
From: Doc O'Leary on 1 Feb 2010 13:19 In article <hk4vim$k17$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Wes Groleau <Groleau+news(a)FreeShell.org> wrote: > 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. That makes about as much sense as saying a car doesn't *need* gas because you only have to fill it up if you want to drive more than 200 miles. Like I said, it's possible to *rarely* connect these kinds of devices to computers. That doesn't change the fact that it seems like Apple *has* designed them with the intention of them being connected to a computer at some point. It may even be *required* as part of the unboxing/setup. Unless you can point to some statement by Apple that you can get by with *never* connecting to a computer, a reasonable person would admit they probably need one. -- My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too.
From: Fred Moore on 1 Feb 2010 13:23 In article <hk4uho$8q9$2(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Wes Groleau <Groleau+news(a)FreeShell.org> wrote: > Fred Moore wrote: > > Yeh, I think Apple has a real winner here. (See David Pogue's comments > > about the naysayers which I posted elsewhere in this group.) > > I could not find that post. Okay, here you go: The Apple iPad: First Impressions <http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/the-apple-ipad-first-impressio ns/> Today Apple finally unveiled its tablet computer, the iPad. Thus concludes Phase 1 of the standard Apple new-category roll-out: months of feverish speculation and hype online, without any official indication by Apple that the product even exists. Now Phase 2 can begin: the bashing by the bloggers who've never even tried it: "No physical keyboard!" "No removable battery!" "Way too expensive!" "Doesn't multitask!" "No memory-card slot! That will last until the iPad actually goes on sale in April. Then, if history is any guide, Phase 3 will begin: positive reviews, people lining up to buy the thing, and the mysterious disappearance of the basher-bloggers.
From: Doc O'Leary on 1 Feb 2010 13:25 In article <sehix-7A8678.14131131012010(a)5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>, Steve Hix <sehix(a)NOSPAMmac.comINVALID> wrote: > 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". It's a gap you can't fill until the iPad goes on sale. Or you otherwise have some in-depth experience with the device. If you do, please state it directly. > 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? To the extent that I can know the possibilities, I actively explore them. That's why I see big potential as an enterprise thin client. But that doesn't mean I'm putting all my current equipment up on eBay. Unlike you, I'm going to wait for clear evidence before I start making proclamations on how possible certain things are. -- My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too.
From: Doc O'Leary on 1 Feb 2010 13:37
In article <1963105894286664259.540562jim_glidewell-yahoo.com(a)eternal-september.org >, Jim Glidewell <jim_glidewell(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. That may very well be true. But for the same reason that Apple never discusses future products, I never buy current products by speculating on what a future product *might* do. > 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. Sure. Like I said, I could *easily* see an iPad taking over roles in the business world as a thin client. As such, it would rarely need to be directly connected to a computer except for updates (or maybe you could hub 1 computer to 8+ iPads for certain uses). There are *many* possibilities, but I'm not banking on anything until it ships and we can see what is and isn't in the package. -- My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too. |