iPad 10 reasons why I'll be passing on the iPad

[jackau]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Perhaps Apple didn't get it? Such an OSX tablet would have been a greater hit than the iPad will ever be, is my guess. Looks like they have created another Apple TV. Not a total sales disaster, but no big hit either.

An OSX tablet require a lot more PC components, Not only it has to be bigger, it has to have intel CPU, this means more expensive for APPLE to make. At least 849 USD for the basic model.

I am sure they have tested the idea in the labs with prototype hardware, as we found native support for intel atom in the OSX code.

However, it is highly likely the idea does not fit Apple's business model plus a load of techical issues in the way for a useful Tablet only MAc. Therefore a Phone OS model got the green light, if it does well, OSX 12 inch plus model may be next...

[jackau]

Originally Posted by kjk

If its another AppleTV, it will be considered a total sales disaster.
I'm not betting on it being another AppleTV.

It is very hard to say, I can see a lot of use of the device if software catch up, especially in the education sector.

But on retail front, once the hype, the first batch such as the die hard Apple worms, got their hands on it, the mainstream may think again on if they are getting it or not. The shaky economy is another factor as buyers already own a PC (Mac) iphone or two. The ipad is not an essential device, it may not have competion in the form factor, it has competions from all the other devices that can do what claim to be able to do, some even does a lot better than the ipad.

At a time like this, 499 = a few good meal for a few weeks, let along 849! Will mainstream buyer buy it on impulse when they window shop in a Apple store? I think not.

I for one, would not want the Ipad turn in to Ibad, It would bring down prices and drive up technology with all other E-reader devices. It won't be another Apple TV, but I think the long term does not look rosy at the current pricing!

I willl line up to get one with 16G and 3G if it is 349 USD!

[kjk]

Originally Posted by jackau

I am sure they have tested the idea in the labs with prototype hardware, as we found native support for intel atom in the OSX code.

I think so too. The reality is, if this were so easy- you'd see a lot of high powered tablets running full fledged Windows 7, not Windows 7 Starter, and possibly a Mac OSX Tablet or two, as well.

I understand that some people WANT it all now...but to believe these companies are just holding back all this awesome technology from us on purpose, or because they are just shortsighted, is just baffling to me.

It is easy to accuse companies of "missing the boat" or not "seeing the big picture" when their products disappoint somehow. I see people blaming Amazon for not having a color screen for $100, and Apple for not providing a full OS for a product 1/2" thick and with 10 hours of battery life, and I just wonder where people get the idea they know so much more than anyone else in the actual business.

We are seeing just the beginning of some exciting new devices, not just Tablets, but eReaders too-and iPhone OS, Mac OS, Windows 7, WinMo 7, Palm, Android...its all coming. For now, I'll just enjoy what IS available now and soon, and not just complain about how everything falls so short of my prescient needs

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by jackau

An OSX tablet require a lot more PC components, Not only it has to be bigger, it has to have intel CPU, this means more expensive for APPLE to make. At least 849 USD for the basic model.

I am sure they have tested the idea in the labs with prototype hardware, as we found native support for intel atom in the OSX code.

However, it is highly likely the idea does not fit Apple's business model plus a load of techical issues in the way for a useful Tablet only Mac. Therefore a Phone OS model got the green light, if it does well, OSX 12 inch plus model may be next...

In my book a full OSX at $850 is a much, much better value than this iPad at $499! It wouldn't really have to be bigger or heavier -- see Apple, Dell, Sony, Toshiba laptops and many netbooks. My money is on "we don't want to spend that much time on revamping OSX to make it touch friendly" as to the reason why they took the easy way out and simply created a bigger iPod.

Well, I am just floating the idea that they have miscalculated again. This iPad is something that some people might want, but nobody really needs. A full tablet could replace a computer/netbook. Time will tell. A 12" is perhaps not as portable, I like the current format but am sadly disappointed by its lack of functionality.

[bobcdy]

Several years ago I bought an HP tablet, 10 inch screen, 60gig hd, 2.6ghz, usb slots, wireless, can use external keyboard and mouse, etc., etc. - I run Win XP Pro on it and use it for travel. I really like it for a portable pc but don't like the weight and the size. Not good for ebooks because too heavy & really too large except for pdf files. Apple has improved on its weight but to the detriment of everything else and doesn't even use e-ink. For one used to a computer os, a phone os is amusingly limited, and can you image holding that 10 inch tablet next to your ear for an extended conversation? There's no way I'd purchase such a system at any price.

I use a bebook I for my ebooks - e-ink that's great for extended reading in bright light more or less like a real book , nice size, sufficient speed and memory for many books. For a ebook reader I find it very satisfactory, but useless for anything except ebooks.

What I'd really like is a slate computer that's about the size (perhaps a little bit bigger) and only a bit heavier than the bebook, but a real computer with usb etc. and a screen that can mimic e-ink, perhaps with a special setting, and also great for high resol. color images at different settings. I'd purchase such an item in a minute if they ever are available at a reasonable cost (< about $600)
Bob

[kjk]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

. My money is on "we don't want to spend that much time on revamping OSX to make it touch friendly" as to the reason why they took the easy way out and simply created a bigger iPod.

"Revamping OSX to make it touch friendly". You make it sound so easy. But yeah, maybe they are just lazy...took the easy way out.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by kjk

"Revamping OSX to make it touch friendly". You make it sound so easy. But yeah, maybe they are just lazy...took the easy way out.

No, you misunderstood me. It is difficult, I realize that. But it would have been the right way. Instead of doing it they brought out a half baked product and disappointed a lot of people. Even those tech journalists who usually worship them.

[Yoshi 1080]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Perhaps Apple didn't get it? Such an OSX tablet would have been a greater hit than the iPad will ever be, is my guess.

Like Microsofts Tablet PCs have been such a great success.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

My money is on "we don't want to spend that much time on revamping OSX to make it touch friendly" as to the reason why they took the easy way out and simply created a bigger iPod.

Funnily enough, this is exactly what Apple did. iPhone OS is based on Mac OS X, thus shares the same core, many APIs and the same development suite. So in many ways Apple can explore the world of touch based computing on a casual handheld before migrating its (more conservatively marketed) productivity products (e.g. Macs) to it. The iPad is the first device that extends iPhone OS to a bigger device with more power and versatility, showcasing its fantastic scalability as well as marking the second step into a touch computing future. I believe the last step will be Mac OS 11, which will feature iPhone OS's multitouch interface while maintaining classic computer stuff such as multitasking, multi-windowing, open software sources, plugins, peripherals (Light Peak?) and so on.

The problem is that conventional operating systems and computing conventions are largely incompatible with this new art of input device and interface. Microsoft's Windows 7 expresses that beautifully by laying multitouch controls on top of a conventional operating system, hence leading to an inconsistent, unpleasing user experience. It's better than nothing for multimedia applications, but it's merely a start. We have to let go of most of our understanding about how an operation system is supposed to be and should rather begin from scratch.

[kilron]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Perhaps Apple didn't get it? Such an OSX tablet would have been a greater hit than the iPad will ever be, is my guess. Looks like they have created another Apple TV. Not a total sales disaster, but no big hit either.

no, i don't think the apple TV type outcome is possible. i always chuckle when people bring it up, its like they're trying to stick it to apple to point out how they're not perfect or something... the apple tv was never a major initiative for apple. even during the keynote where they introduced it, not only was it not the main part of the keynote, but steve jobs himself also called it a "hobby". a "hobby". do you think apple is crying about their "hobby" not taking off?? hardly... they have bigger fish to fry than the apple tv succeeding.

and OSX is as terrible for a tablet and touchscreen as Windows is as well. those operating systems are built around physical keyboards and mice interaction. without a mouse and physical keyboard always right there, those OS's are maddening and near impossible. why even go down that road? this point has been proven over and over again. you can take an operating system built from the ground up for mouse interaction and take away the mouse and expect everything to be perfect.

Originally Posted by CyGuy

I don't own any iDevice, I was hoping the iPad would be my first. However, my digital camera, camcorder, CyBook, laptop, netbook, PC, PDA, cell phone, digital picture frame, and my television all have SD card readers built-in. I can transfer media between any of these devices with ease. I have several 32GB cards with movies, pictures, eBooks, and music. I can have my entire media collection with me at all times if I wish, and read, watch movies, listen to music without any dependence on any kind of network connection. This is simply a must for any media device, especially a device that is supposed to be portable and versatile.

two points:
- first off, why don't you just load them all from your computer onto the iPad? you can certainly do that within iTunes. i do the same thing. only the largest iPod classic can hold all of my music, and even then it can't hold my entire iTunes media library of music plus movies and podcasts and tv shows. so i pick and choose. i KNOW i'm not going to want to watch everything, so i have certain things that i listen to most often and change when necessary.

- its a must have for YOU, but for the general public, how many people do you think walk around with SD cards with all of their stuff on it? i don't. i don't know anyone personally (friends, family, etc.) who does either. SD cards are great for digital cameras and smartphones that don't have enough built-in memory, but other than that, i don't have much use for them.

the fact is, with my huge music collection that is over 100 gigs in size, i'm definitely not a typical iTunes user. most users probably have 1/10 the size of a music collection. i know a ton of folks that have iPhones (probably 15 people) and besides me, only 1 other person has too much music so that it won't all easily fit on their iPhone's internal memory.

apple has always been about the integration of hardware and software to the point that the hardware gets out of the way and you can concentrate on the experience. putting every little bell and whistle on a product has never really been their emphasis. while an SD card reader would have been neat to have, i think for most people that its definitely not a must-have sort of thing.

Originally Posted by jackau

THe same goes for Apple, they dont want user to use the device to read anything you DOWNLOAD off YOUR PC / PHone or even another MAC. It is the business model.

read anything how? you can upload your own music and video to your devices via iTunes. iTunes music is also DRM free so it can be played elsewhere. when you buy stuff on the devices and then sync with iTunes it then transfers them back to your computer in an easy to find folder.

Originally Posted by bobcdy

Several years ago I bought an HP tablet, 10 inch screen, 60gig hd, 2.6ghz, usb slots, wireless, can use external keyboard and mouse, etc., etc. - I run Win XP Pro on it and use it for travel. I really like it for a portable pc but don't like the weight and the size. Not good for ebooks because too heavy & really too large except for pdf files. Apple has improved on its weight but to the detriment of everything else and doesn't even use e-ink. For one used to a computer os, a phone os is amusingly limited, and can you image holding that 10 inch tablet next to your ear for an extended conversation? There's no way I'd purchase such a system at any price.

for YOU its amusingly limited. considering what a major flop the microsoft tablet PC was (and bill gates was about as adamant about the windows tablet as jobs is about the iPad) do you think apple is going after those people who bought and liked the windows tablet? of course not! they're going after everybody else! that's the point.

What I'd really like is a slate computer that's about the size (perhaps a little bit bigger) and only a bit heavier than the bebook, but a real computer with usb etc. and a screen that can mimic e-ink, perhaps with a special setting, and also great for high resol. color images at different settings. I'd purchase such an item in a minute if they ever are available at a reasonable cost (< about $600)
Bob

ok, so you want a small screen, yet high resolution, color like e-ink and a full windows OS? somehow i don't see how e-ink displays would work well for video or photos. but yeah... that's never going to sell. you may want one, but i assure you there's no market for it. practically its just not something that would work or be attractive to the typical consumer.

[bobcdy]

I think that perhaps we should remember that this is MobilRead - the majority of participants are readers of text - that is, books. E-ink is the proven display for ebook readers because of its similarity to black ink on white paper, and is ideal for extended reading. There are a few ebook readers I've seen advertised on the net that use traditional computer displays, but none have caught on with the majority of those that read ebooks extensively. The ipad doesn't have a display similar to e-ink so I doubt if it has any chance of converting dedicated ebook readers from their e-ink display devices to the ipad. For tunes, photos, perhaps video, yes it looks ok, but of course there are traditional tablets or the upcoming slates with full computer os that will complete for that market. After all, the ipad is a tablet even though one with a phone os.
Bob

[kilron]

Originally Posted by bobcdy

I think that perhaps we should remember that this is MobilRead - the majority of participants are readers of text - that is, books. E-ink is the proven display for ebook readers because of its similarity to black ink on white paper, and is ideal for extended reading.

"proven" by whom exactly? popular consensus? i'm still waiting to read a study that says that reading a high quality e-ink screen is noticably "better" for your eyes than reading a high quality LCD screen. i look at an lcd screen for hours on end and my eyes feel the same way as when i read a book for hours. personally, i've always thought its the other things that matter more: easy-to-read type, proper lighting and contrast, etc...

There are a few ebook readers I've seen advertised on the net that use traditional computer displays, but none have caught on with the majority of those that read ebooks extensively.

you're making an assumption here that they haven't caught on because they're not as good. what makes you so sure it isn't other factors? i'm not saying it isn't, i'm just saying you can't reasonable conclude the assumptions your making without further proof.

i've asked this question in the past and no one has given me a reasonable answer to tell me its wrong. i've always thought the primary reasoning for e-ink displays was not its readability, but rather its battery life and supposedly cost. but they're too expensive any way you cut it right now. but the question is this: if amazon and b&n and sony could all produce dedicated eBook Readers that had color backlit LCD screens and the screens cost exactly the same amount as e-ink and had the exact same battery life, do you really think they would stick with e-ink? i think they wouldn't.

The ipad doesn't have a display similar to e-ink so I doubt if it has any chance of converting dedicated ebook readers from their e-ink display devices to the ipad.

again, an assumption based on speculation and non-facts. i think we have no idea at this point if it will convert dedicated ebook readers from their e-ink display devices. why? because none of us have actually tried it yet!

but that brings me to a second point: do you think apple really cares if they convert anyone? the dedicated ebook reader marked is so so small that i honestly don't think they care. they care about everybody else, which is to say, they care about the overwhelmingly vast majority of the population that occasionally reads but has never been interested in an eBook reading device (probably because they're too expensive for being single purpose devices).

For tunes, photos, perhaps video, yes it looks ok, but of course there are traditional tablets or the upcoming slates with full computer os that will complete for that market. After all, the ipad is a tablet even though one with a phone os.

you're selling something short that you've never seen in person. and there have been slates and traditional tablets out for years. have they ever caught on? nope. and there's still no proof that a tablet/slate with a full blown OS is something that anyone wants. they've never sold in the past, why would that be any different now?

IMO, you're looking at it the wrong way. please don't take this personally, but i think you don't quite "get it" (trust me, you're not alone, its not a dig, just different way of thinking). you're calling it a tablet with a phone OS, and that just sounds like you're trying to put it down which is pointless. what part of the iPad or its operating system looks "phone-like" to you? another pundit put it this way and i think it explains it well. don't think of the iPad as a super-sized iPod touch or super-sized iPhone - rather think of the iPod touch or iPhone as a shrunken-down iPad. if you look at it like that, it makes much more sense. the iPad is really the master device that can do so so much more and the iPod touch and iPhone are smaller, more limited devices due to their size constraints, etc.. the point is that even though though the iPod touch and iPhone came first, the iPad was really the device that the OS was designed for in the first place. think of the iPod touch as a mini-tablet and the iPhone as a mini-tablet with a phone app built in. to me it makes much more sense that way.

the iPad will most definitely be a very very popular eBook reader. it could very easily become one of the most popular eBook readers. the iPad opens up the eBook reader market for the enormous number of people that don't already own a dedicated ebook reader. so the average person who has an iPad and reads books on them, they probably won't read as many books as the average person who owns a kindle, but that doesn't the iPad any less of an eBook reading device.

[Jack Tingle]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

That's a fair point, and such a device wouldn't be for you. It's more for people who are streaming most of their media content.

Thank all the gods there's no Verizon version. My smartphone performance is safe for another few years.

Happily,
Jack Tingle

[HansTWN]

Of course tablets with a touch friendly, full featured OS haven't sold well in the past. That is because no such thing ever existed! They had some bulky and heavy compromise versions out there, with extremely short battery lives that also ran extremely hot.

Nobody expected a full OS from the iPad? Then where on earth are those price estimates of $1000 coming from? Not for a huge iPod!

And yes, I mentioned the AppleTV because there are a lot of people out there who do believe Apple can do no wrong.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Nobody expected a full OS from the iPad? Then where on earth are those price estimates of $1000 coming from? Not for a huge iPod!

Many were expecting a full OS.

I wasn't. I also didn't expect a $1000 price. I figured it would be $600-700--given that the high end iTouch's are $300-400 and this would be bigger and I expected more power, features etc.--just not a full Mac OS.

I didn't get why people expected $1,000 or a full PC. Full tablet PCs haven't done well. Yeah, they were poorly designed, but honestly they're just kind of pointless in the mainstream as most computing tasks need a keyboard and mouse and a touch screen can only efficiently replace the mouse portion of the equation.

I just don't see full tablet PCs ever being more than a niche item. Tablet devices geared more for reading and mark up and multimedia have more of a chance of catching on I think as they can be less powerful and priced lower and get to people who want something between a phone and laptop.

While full tablet PCs cost more and leave most people thinking they should just stick with a laptop.

[kjk]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Of course tablets with a touch friendly, full featured OS haven't sold well in the past. That is because no such thing ever existed! They had some bulky and heavy compromise versions out there, with extremely short battery lives that also ran extremely hot.

I'm still not buying the whole "full featured OS" as something that can be easily applied to any form factor. Why should it? Why should Microsoft or Apple or Google focus on making one OS to fit all? Then none of the form factors win. I certainly don't want iPhone OS on my Mac Pro workstation, and don't need Snow Leopard on my iPhone. Do I need an iPad, with what looks to be the iPhone OS but customized for a larger device? I am thinking, yes...it definitely is in my target usage.

I think its great that innovative companies are rethinking the whole OS idea anyways-I know some people still feel the need for existing OS's, and all they have to offer. And there will always be companies that will fill that type of need. I just wish they'd accept that Apple isn't that company-and Apple's approach isn't for them.

Fortunately, we now have this shiny APPLE forum for those of us who do believe that Apple's approach, in general, suits our needs-or rather, we have the open mind to accept the positives and negatives that Apple products always tend to have.

And the "Other Devices" forum has tons of interesting alternatives to Apple products. I hope many can find what they are looking for in that area-I think in the coming months a lot of new products are going to be released.

And hey, you can post over in the "Other Devices" forum about what other companies are offering you, rather than just being stuck in this forum complaining about what Apple won't