Give me one good reason why I shouldn't sell my DX and buy an iPad ...

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by rhadin

One good reason not to buy an iPad: Steve Jobs, chief censor.

Jobs is much more of a feature than he is a bug.

But he's not a censor. You don't have to buy his product, as you implicitly acknowledge. Censorship occurs when you have no choice.

Personally, I'm happy that he won't let Apple sell porn apps. That shows some taste & adult responsibility that other companies, like for instance, Calvin Klein and Abercrombie, lack. Jobs has standards for his products. Good for him!

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Sischa

The other will tell you that they never read in direct sunlight. Fine. Good for the vampires between us but when there is good weather and i have much time for reading i don't want to sit inside the house cause of my super duper reader. Would be really ironic if after Steve Jobs tries to tell me what to read he now also should be able to tell me where and when to read

So the one thing which can not argued away is iPad outside + sun = no go.
...

But if i am honest, i like my iPad very much. So if you can afford the best will be keep your DX for reading and get a cheap 16GB Wifi iPad.

You don't understand. Steve is trying to tell you to avoid direct sunlight, which is bad for you! So he is using the iPad to help you do that. Clearly, e-ink readers increase your risk of skin cancer!

I do agree that the best solution is an iPad PLUS a Kindle. But I think the iPad should be a 32.

[pat.indie]

Originally Posted by Sheikspeare

Hi pat.indie. I guess, as is often said, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That aside, it's quite a bulky device to lug around with, no? Kinda' defeats the idea of portability. Further, I can't imagine battery life is great on it. Also, it folds just like laptop -- in which case why not just settle for a netbook! It's bit of an overkill...

I agree. it is not exactly portable. However, I bought the Edge for a specific reason.

I am a scientist and read a LOT of PDFs; both research articles and books. I have been a scientist for about 10 and 1/2 years (before which I was a clinician) and frankly speaking have grown seriously tired of reading off the bright LCD (I started with CRTs). I just love the idea of reading PDFs on a 9.7 inch e-ink screen. Also, for me the integration with LCD-android tablet is not just a fun gimmick. I do really need a real tablet computer attached the e-ink for browsing the scientific databases. Also, I receive a lot of work-related PDFs in e-mail (to edit/ review or just read). Usually I would print those out and write on those. This brings me to the second feature of the Edge I love. As an e-ink device the Edge is pretty advanced. The e-ink is actually a Wacom device and I can write on it directly.Also, I can draw diagrams/ cartoons/ flow charts. This is of massive importance for me. You see, suddenly the 3 lb weight is no big deal to me.

That said, I must point out that the Edge has been marketed precisely for a person like me. I am not sure it would have been so attractive to me had I not needed it for work.

The battery life is an issue only if you extensively use the LCD. Even then it lasts for 6-7 hours. However, it lasts longer on just the e-ink display (around 12-13 hours). basically you need to recharge every night, which is fine with me.

I looked really really hard at the ipad for this purpose. While it is a great multimedia tablet, it is after all an backlit LCD device, which is a deal breaker for me. If the ipad came with an e-ink display attached (like Edge), I would buy it that instance, even for a higher premium.

Also, I bought a netbook hoping it would fulfill the role of a portable reader for me, but has not done the trick (again for the lack of e-ink). Trust me, the Edge is nothing like a netbook (its instant-on etc). It is an android-based tablet with attached e-ink.

I do have Kindle 2 device too, which I am keeping. I love the little thing. I use my Kindle for all my recreational reading. I currently have 700 plus books loaded on it and I use it a lot. For me the wireless 3G integration of the Kindle device with Amazon storefront and also the WWW is a great feature.

Hope that was not too long winded

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by Harmon

But he's not a censor. You don't have to buy his product, as you implicitly acknowledge. Censorship occurs when you have no choice.

How many of his customers are even aware that certain software is banned? How many people actually are aware that such a thing as banning what you can do with something you bought is even an option?

Banning software for any reason other than legal reasons is anti-consumer, anti-free speech, and anti-technology. It's akin to burning books or rock and roll records.

Personally, I'm happy that he won't let Apple sell porn apps. That shows some taste & adult responsibility that other companies, like for instance, Calvin Klein and Abercrombie, lack. Jobs has standards for his products. Good for him!

Why should you or Steve Jobs have any interest or say in what others use their own gadgets for? If software exists that offends your sensibilities exercise your right to ignore it.

And Steve's concentration on porn is a smokescreen which he hides behind while banning apps such as Google Voice and controversial cartoons (i.e. apps which add functionality and exercise free speech). This has nothing to do with taste and responsibility. It is simply Steve Jobs enforcing his own values (e.g. he has a moral objection to any kind of sexual content) on his customers while also ensuring that Apple and its partners make as much money as possible (e.g. banning VOIP apps that allow users to bypass their phone carrier to make cheaper calls).

[darthjoey]

Besides, he didn't block Safari, which is access to the Internet, which has more free porn than could be viewed in a lifetime. So perhaps he's trying to save those customers money. Wait, no, he's just being stupid.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by djgreedo

How many of his customers are even aware that certain software is banned? How many people actually are aware that such a thing as banning what you can do with something you bought is even an option?

Probably most of us. But the more pertinent question is, how many would care? People who buy Apple products regard the integration of the software and hardware to be one of the things that's so great about it.

Here's the concept:

Google does not sell internet phones, and neither does Nokia or any of its competitors. It is only when you put Google software on a Nokia platform that you have a an internet phone. Apple actually sells internet phones. The hardware and the software are parts of a total product, and Apple customers are buying the total product.

People like you want to buy components and put the product together yourself. Okay, that's fine. Go ahead and do it. Nobody wants to stop you.

But notice that YOU don't want Apple to sell the product that the rest of us want to buy.

Banning software for any reason other than legal reasons is anti-consumer, anti-free speech, and anti-technology. It's akin to burning books or rock and roll records.

Now let's see:

How is it "anti-consumer" to sell people what they want, and make tons of money doing it? Apple is not the only place you can get a tablet based internet phone. In point of fact, every step that Apple has taken since Jobs took over again has had the effect of enlarging the market, and increasing overall consumer choice as other companies struggle to catch up.

What is "anti-free speech" about any of this? How has anyone's speech been curtailed? Do you think that your local newspaper has to publish any letter you write to it? Do you think I have to listen to you when you call me on my telephone? Are you unable to buy anything but an iPhone or iPad? Can't you get what you want on a different platform?

"Anti-technology?" It is to laugh. Apple takes existing technology and shows what can be done with it. Apple basically invented the consumer market internet phone, and it might have invented the consumer market internet tablet. How in the world is that anti-technology?

The truth is, your position is anti-free market. You want to say that the computer market must consist of a component based approach which requires everyone to be a computer junkie in order to build a functioning computer. Apple offers an alternative. It's called "choice."

Why should you or Steve Jobs have any interest or say in what others use their own gadgets for? If software exists that offends your sensibilities exercise your right to ignore it.

Two can play this rhetorical game. Why should Apple indulge your taste for porn? If you want software that craps up your phone, exercise your right to buy Android.

And Steve's concentration on porn is a smokescreen which he hides behind while banning apps such as Google Voice and controversial cartoons (i.e. apps which add functionality and exercise free speech). This has nothing to do with taste and responsibility. It is simply Steve Jobs enforcing his own values (e.g. he has a moral objection to any kind of sexual content) on his customers while also ensuring that Apple and its partners make as much money as possible (e.g. banning VOIP apps that allow users to bypass their phone carrier to make cheaper calls).

You can't have it both ways. Either Jobs is enforcing his own values, which means he believes in them, or he's throwing up a smokescreen, which means he doesn't believe in them.

As for making as much money as possible, I certainly hope so. A couple of my kids own Apple stock. Do you think that Apple could or should sell their products at cost?

If Apple owned 95% of the market, your arguments might make some sense, because in that context, what they are doing would be anti-competitive. But in the context of the market that actually exists, they simply represent your desire that Apple sell you what you can easily get somewhere else. It is you, perversely, who is being anti-competitive by wanting to destroy a particular configuration of the product that many other people actually value enough to pay a premium to get.

And the funny thing is, without Apple doing what it does the way it does, you would probably be unable to get much of what you want at all.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by darthjoey

Besides, he didn't block Safari, which is access to the Internet, which has more free porn than could be viewed in a lifetime. So perhaps he's trying to save those customers money. Wait, no, he's just being stupid.

Stupid all the way to the bank.

In point of fact, Apple's approach is pretty much in line with their history. On the one hand, they are not going to sell you a crappy product. On the other, they are not going to keep you from seeking out crap on your own time.

Apple takes the crap out of app. (Which would be their slogan, except Steve wouldn't like it.)

[Sheikspeare]

Harmon, contrary to popular belief technology is at its best when it's open source. When the pursuit for profits and market share constrain technological decisions, we get half-baked outcomes and silly preconditions. I mean, imagine if Steve Jobs was the guy who had invented the wheel. He'd be telling us where we could and couldn't go, and how many revolutions were permissible!

The world could be so much better if the hunt for profits could be subdued within reasonable limits. Which is why when the Amazon folk realise that they've reached a certain profit threshold, they might release some serious apps for the Kindle instead of this 2.5 crap they've been dangling at us.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Sheikspeare

Harmon, contrary to popular belief technology is at its best when it's open source. When the pursuit for profits and market share constrain technological decisions, we get half-baked outcomes and silly preconditions. I mean, imagine if Steve Jobs was the guy who had invented the wheel. He'd be telling us where we could and couldn't go, and how many revolutions were permissible!

The world could be so much better if the hunt for profits could be subdued within reasonable limits. Which is why when the Amazon folk realise that they've reached a certain profit threshold, they might release some serious apps for the Kindle instead of this 2.5 crap they've been dangling at us.

What you have written depends entirely on slippery concepts like "best" and "better" and "reasonable." These are value judgments, and people have different values and make different judgments.

The key issue in technology and market decisions, in my view, is maximizing choice. The question is, at what level does "choice" reside? If Apple could be forced to open its systems, this would actually REDUCE choice, because those of us who see value in closed systems would LOSE our ability to choose such a system.

Open systems may be "better" from the point of view of a geek for technological reasons, but from the point of view of many users, closed systems are better because closed technology is easier to use.

The simple fact of the matter is that millions of people who could choose otherwise pay a premium for Apple products. I've done it for over 20 years, and please understand that I'm the guy my friends call on when their non-Apple products fail and they can't fix them.

[Sheikspeare]

Originally Posted by Harmon

What you have written depends entirely on slippery concepts like "best" and "better" and "reasonable.

Don't really want to get into a pointless semantics debate here. But I think you get the gist when you talk about maximizing choice -- which I believe is "best" [sorry!] delivered in an open source technological environment.

You say "closed is better if it's easier to use". Well, you know what? Open is even better when it's easier to use... :-)

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Sheikspeare

Don't really want to get into a pointless semantics debate here. But I think you get the gist when you talk about maximizing choice -- which I believe is "best" [sorry!] delivered in an open source technological environment.

You say "closed is better if it's easier to use". Well, you know what? Open is even better when it's easier to use... :-)

"Open" requires more attention to the delivery system than "closed." There are people who like to work on cars (open) and people who just want cars that work (closed.) I can do open, but I prefer closed - so long as closed is done right. Apple, in my view, does "closed" right. Amazon, not so much. Sony is a little more open than Amazon but does a terrible job of it.

[Harmon]

KindleDX vs iPad review: http://ireaderreview.com/2010/06/06/...s-ipad-review/

[Sheikspeare]

Harmon, thanks for the link to the review. Some good points.

As for your point on the merits or demerits of closed and open systems, with respect, it's far too generalized for a meaningful discussion.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Sheikspeare

Harmon, thanks for the link to the review. Some good points.

As for your point on the merits or demerits of closed and open systems, with respect, it's far too generalized for a meaningful discussion.

What is meaningless is criticizing a closed system on the ground that it should be an open system. You might as well criticize someone for owning a cat rather than a dog.

[Sheikspeare]

Harmon, this is sounding really incoherent. Open and closed are relative terms. Things can be more or less open and more or less closed. Cats and dogs are absolutes. A meaningless analogy, I'm afraid.