Apple is the last of the true PC companies left. Everyone else just makes half the widget and outsources the rest.
This is probably true, but it doesn't makes them any better. This just makes them oddly old-fashioned.
Their market success begs to differ. In fact, this is exactly the thing that enables them to be better, and among all things, the single greatest limitation of every other PC maker.
Apple is the market leader in handheld portables, and they lead all PC makers in terms of customer satisfaction.
They are also the largest PC maker on the planet, and the most profitable. This would absolutely *not* be the case if they didn't make the whole widget.
The only inherent strength that Android has over iPhone is tinkerability.
Apparently Apple believes that multitasking and folders are strengths...
Note the word "inherent". Multitasking is already a function of the iPhone, and folders are not something that's inherently Android but not iPhone.
The one thing that Android has, at its core, that the iPhone does not, is tinkerability. One of the fundamental design goals behind Android (after Google's acquisition of it) is that it be open (mostly) and hacker/tinker friendly. Cameras, folders, screens, multitasking, etc. None of these things are inherent to Android, but not to iPhone.
It is 100% obvious that the iPad was not created for Slashdotters. It was created for Slashdotters parents, grandparents and sisters or anyone else who has come to a Slashdotter wondering why "the internet doesn't work".
The way you phrase it, the iPad is only for old people, girls, and technologically dumb people.
The iPad is for people who want to do things with it, and not to it. That's what the entirety of your post preceding that last bit is about. By default, this covers all the people you listed (ignoring the blatant agism and sexism), but it also covers vast swaths of geeks, nerds, and otherwise technologically literate people who would rather have a portable device that works, tinker-free.
all the iSecurity features Apple hypes are just ActiveSync features and MS code
Screen lock (with device wipe upon repeated failure), encrypted filesystem, Find My iPhone... Which of these are based on ActiveSync?
Besides, it's extremely obvious that that's not what he's referring to. He's talking about MS devices (like the Zune). And he's right, MS *is* nowhere to be found, which is their business model. They are almost exclusively a software company, with hardware being a rare exception, based either on the need to break into a new market (Xbox) or to shore up a dying market (Zune). The fact that MS doesn't have an iPad competitor is noteworthy.
The same reason they released Zune, because nobody else has had success against Apple using MS supplied software.
Of course, the Zune failed, so you do kind of have a point.
The only way to compete (sans monopoly) with Apple is to control the whole widget. Unfortunately, that's not the whole equations (c.f., Palm, Zune).
It's kind of funny when you think of it, how MS does their best to make the best software out there, then leave it up to the PC manufacturers to complete the other half of the computer. Or looking at it in reverse, how the PC makers do their best to make a PC, but leave it up to MS to supply the OS. Apple is the last of the true PC companies left. Everyone else just makes half the widget and outsources the rest.
Apple is selling a phone with outdated hardware (screen size and type, low screen resolution, bad camera etc), while Android vendors continuously improve the hardware - look at Samsung Galaxy S specs, for example.
Yet iPhone dominates Android in the market. Why do you suppose that is? It's because people don't care about spec sheets as much as you might think. They care about the only thing that truly matters, and that's the experiences having the device brings. No Android device can compete with the iPhone in that aspect, outside of a geek niche, regardless of specs.
And your specific list is fairly suspect:
1. Screen size: Some Android phones have larger screens. But this also means larger phones. It's a trade-off and not a simple matter of one is superior to the other. 2. Screen type: I assume you mean OLED, which is, presently, inferior to LCD is most respects. And just like #1, this is only on some phones. 3. Low screen resolution: Again, like #1 and #2, only some Android sets are higher resolution. Do you see a trend here? Do you see a problem? But anyway, most people really don't care. Sure, they'll prefer the higher resolution, but it's rarely going to be a deciding factor. 4. Bad camera: All cell phones have bad cameras. Megapixels are already almost meaningless on compact P&S cameras, and are more so on the minute CCDs on cell phones. And, surprise, surprise, not all Android phones have superior cameras.
In other words, pretty much nobody cares. It's the experience that matters, and the experience with an Android, any Android, is inferior to that of the iPhone, excepting the case where a person places higher value on some of Android's strengths, none of which you actually listed. The only inherent strength that Android has over iPhone is tinkerability. The fact that this resonates so well with many here on Slashdot is no surprise, and I'm glad such a phone exists for them, but to mistake niche appeal for something more than it is is a big mistake.
It's clear you think you've made a logical point here, but really, there isn't one.
You have more fingers than mouse pointers, so you can more reasonably emulate a mouse with your finger (this is done indirectly with a trackpad). But you JUST CAN'T reasonably emulate 10 fingers with a single mouse, no matter what mouse you use.
Just because you don't like me calling him out on his idiocy, does not make him right, either.
He's wrong, wrong, wrong. And foolishly so. There's no way to mince words about it. To *not* call him an idiot is to give him too much credence. He's claiming vindication for his charge that Apple is going to lock down Mac OS X the same way the iPhone is locked down. THIS IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
And, apparently, you missed this gem from his post:
I swear to you by all that is holy, by the time this is over, we're going to regret having been in such an all-consuming hurry to suck the iDick.
There is no mouse possible to fully utilize multitouch because multitouch means touching multiple parts of the screen at the same time. There are games where you move a virtual d-pad with one thumb and have a few buttons that you can press with the other thumb, at the same time.
And multitouch is more than just two, it's all of your fingers. At the same time. Anywhere on the screen. The mouse cannot do that.
You can do the same thing (only different) in the iPhone simulator. The point is that you can't properly control an iPhone OS device with a mouse, but only simulate a subset of the device's interaction techniques, because the mouse is an inherently different input method. This is also why a Mac OS X tablet, which so many people seem to think they want, would have been a failure (just as so many tablet PCs have been).
We might just find that in the middle-distance future, MacBooks and iMacs will have iPhone OS instead of Mac OS
iPhone OS is a multitouch OS designed for limited devices. It does *NOT* support a mouse *AT ALL*. There is absolutely *ZERO* chance that Apple will replace Mac OS X with iPhone OS on their notebooks or their desktop computers.
This line of thought that is so prevalent amongst Slashdotters shows just how abysmally stupid far too many geeks are these days.
People are laughing at me when I suggest that future iMacs will have app store lockdowns and now will be "ad-supported" to boot. It's iPhone 4.0 today and OSX 11 tomorrow. And it will still be irresistibly shiny.
And we're still laughing at you, because it's an imbecilic notion. Apple is *not* going to lock down OS X any time soon. To think they are is to follow the same brain-damaged logic that the teabaggers follow when they say that government healthcare will lead to "death panels" and forced euthanasia.
No, you're missing the point I was making. An LED-backlit IPS display is not your "typical LCD".
When someone says, your "typical LCD", they mean, "like the one you are looking at right now", and the iPad's display compares far better against the Kindle's display than the display most people are looking at right now.
The iPad's display is both brighter, and viewable at greater angles, than most of the displays that are in use today.
And this is borne out by experience. When someone reads "typical LCD", and they recall how utterly useless their own LCD is outdoors, they will assume that the iPad is the same. It's not. It's very usable outdoors in broad daylight for reading.
And while TN is more frequent (possibly more than 10x more frequent these days), it's not like IPS is some kind of groundbreaking, completely different technology
And where did I say it was "groundbreaking, completely different"? I said it was not typical. And it's not. Unless your position is that it *is* typical, what is the point of your responses? No wonder you feel the need to put words into my mouth.
Having high quality panels in a mobile device is sort of rare, but IPS and other high quality displays are far from rare in "real" display devices; I'm looking at two.
Let's say I offered to pay you $10 for every IPS display in existence, the only condition being that you had to pay me $1 for every non-IPS LCD in existence. We'll limit this to any currently existing time frame of your choosing. The last 10 years. The last year. Yesterday. Your choice.
Who do you think will come out ahead? What makes you think such a disparity qualifies IPS as "typical"?
The main advantage of LED lighting seems to be the lower power draw
Which translates to brighter while still offering superior battery life. Brighter means more viewable outdoors.
I haven't really found any evidence that it's higher quality (really high end displays mostly still use CCFL) or longer life (other things tend to break before the backlighting
The most common failure in CCFL LCDs is the backlight system. Additionally, LED displays are thinner, lighter, and are instant-on at full brightness.
No he is not kidding. In the sun, the Kindle still has the 1:8 contrast ratio of a newspaper, whereas the iPad's contrast falls from 1:100 (?) to something close to zero (even apart from the glare problems of the shiny glossy screen). Don't take my word for it, go on Youtube and search for a comparison.
You're full of shit. The iPad's screen is not 1:100 indoors, and does not get "close to zero" in direct sunlight. I have an iPad and I *have* tested this myself, and iBooks is perfectly readable in full sunlight.
And, just to see what you were talking about, I *DID* do a YouTube search, and found the first video I could find showing iBooks on a sunny beach, and it perfectly matches my own experience.
Or via Safari on iPad: Free or Online + Printed: $2.99/week.
In other words, if people are using the iPad app over the cheaper alternatives, which the iPad supports, then that's because the iPad app experience is superior, and therefore reasonably can be considered to be worth more.
Personally, I find very little value in the WSJ itself, but unlike so many people on Slashdot, I don't have a problem with paying for something which provides a value to me. $3.99/week-even $0.99/week-is absurd to me, but if my living is based on being current on financial news, $3.99 sounds like a steal.
Apple is not really, in spirit, a tech company at all, or rather, its a unique sort of tech company, its a tech company in the tradition of Walt Disney 1955.
Apple is the world's most successful tech company.
So it is always thinking, how to use its tech position to control what customers do, think and read.
Apple has never, once, told me what to think, and I own plenty of Apple kit, so I speak with actual, first-hand experience. This is in stark contrast to the Free Software types who never tire of telling me to fear Apple because Apple wants to control everything I do. The current groupthink nonsense is that I'm supposed to boycott h.264 in favor of an inferior codec, and that I'm supposed to shun the iPad because... Well, the because here is never quite coherent. It's something along the lines of Apple will control my every thought, charge me for everything I do on it, and somehow it will prevent me from programming for it.
I read that you cannot activate the iPad from Linux. Now, why would that be, exactly....? Its because open source is the enemy for Apple, even more than for MS, because it represents intellectual freedom.
Apple hosts, contributes to, and has created, *tons* of Open Source projects. The reason they don't support Linux is because too few people use it.
Re:Sucks outside in bright light
on
iPad Progress Report
·
· Score: 1, Informative
The reason the iPad looks so poor outdoors is because it uses your typical LCD screen.
No it doesn't. It has an LED backlit IPS display. LED is becoming a bit more common these days, but IPS is still quite rare. The iPad's LCD is anything but typical.
The Kindle, on the other hand, uses the e-ink screens which have a much higher contrast ratio
Are you kidding? The Kindle has a dark grey font on a light grey background. The iPad's display has much greater contrast.
What I'm curious about is how many of those 300k people are people who are just going to buy the next Apple gadget on launch day vs. those who bought it out of genuine interest.
What makes you think that people buying Apple products on launch day aren't genuinely interested in them? It's actually a rather absurd stance you are taking by implying people would buy the iPad without actually wanting one.
Also, I'm curious if this will drive up the sales of iPod Touches when people go out to get an iPad but realize they can save a few hundred dollars and basically have the same functionality + portability.
No, the iPod touch is not equivalent to the iPad. Someone else made the point that the iPad is no more simply a big iPod than a swimming pool is just a large bathtub.
The iPad is a device unique unto itself. It's not a MacBook replacement, nor is it an iPod or iPhone replacement.
we don't need Apple dictating, shaping, and propriatizing yet another format...
Who buys the cheapest laptop they can find? Did you buy the cheapest laptop you could find? The cheapest TV? The cheapest car? Do you live in the cheapest house or apartment you could find? Do you wear the cheapest shoes?
As you point out, the iPad isn't for you. That's quite fine. But your point about it being the same price as a larger PC notebook isn't terribly important. What is important is whether the iPad is something one wants, and if so if the price is reasonable.
It's also silly to consider an iPad and a notebook as and either/or. They aren't, for the most part. What is an either/or is an iPad and a netbook. For most people, I think the iPad is a better choice, but I'm fully aware that for some the netbook will be better.
You also must be cognizant of the fact that your list of requirements for why the iPad isn't suitable for you is not terribly indicative of the needs and wants of the average person.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple is the last of the true PC companies left. Everyone else just makes half the widget and outsources the rest.
This is probably true, but it doesn't makes them any better. This just makes them oddly old-fashioned.
Their market success begs to differ. In fact, this is exactly the thing that enables them to be better, and among all things, the single greatest limitation of every other PC maker.
Apple is the market leader in handheld portables, and they lead all PC makers in terms of customer satisfaction.
They are also the largest PC maker on the planet, and the most profitable. This would absolutely *not* be the case if they didn't make the whole widget.
Apparently Apple believes that multitasking and folders are strengths...
Note the word "inherent". Multitasking is already a function of the iPhone, and folders are not something that's inherently Android but not iPhone.
The one thing that Android has, at its core, that the iPhone does not, is tinkerability. One of the fundamental design goals behind Android (after Google's acquisition of it) is that it be open (mostly) and hacker/tinker friendly. Cameras, folders, screens, multitasking, etc. None of these things are inherent to Android, but not to iPhone.
You were doing good up to this point:
It is 100% obvious that the iPad was not created for Slashdotters. It was created for Slashdotters parents, grandparents and sisters or anyone else who has come to a Slashdotter wondering why "the internet doesn't work".
The way you phrase it, the iPad is only for old people, girls, and technologically dumb people.
The iPad is for people who want to do things with it, and not to it. That's what the entirety of your post preceding that last bit is about. By default, this covers all the people you listed (ignoring the blatant agism and sexism), but it also covers vast swaths of geeks, nerds, and otherwise technologically literate people who would rather have a portable device that works, tinker-free.
all the iSecurity features Apple hypes are just ActiveSync features and MS code
Screen lock (with device wipe upon repeated failure), encrypted filesystem, Find My iPhone... Which of these are based on ActiveSync?
Besides, it's extremely obvious that that's not what he's referring to. He's talking about MS devices (like the Zune). And he's right, MS *is* nowhere to be found, which is their business model. They are almost exclusively a software company, with hardware being a rare exception, based either on the need to break into a new market (Xbox) or to shore up a dying market (Zune). The fact that MS doesn't have an iPad competitor is noteworthy.
Why would Microsoft release a Tablet PC?
The same reason they released Zune, because nobody else has had success against Apple using MS supplied software.
Of course, the Zune failed, so you do kind of have a point.
The only way to compete (sans monopoly) with Apple is to control the whole widget. Unfortunately, that's not the whole equations (c.f., Palm, Zune).
It's kind of funny when you think of it, how MS does their best to make the best software out there, then leave it up to the PC manufacturers to complete the other half of the computer. Or looking at it in reverse, how the PC makers do their best to make a PC, but leave it up to MS to supply the OS. Apple is the last of the true PC companies left. Everyone else just makes half the widget and outsources the rest.
Apple is selling a phone with outdated hardware (screen size and type, low screen resolution, bad camera etc), while Android vendors continuously improve the hardware - look at Samsung Galaxy S specs, for example.
Yet iPhone dominates Android in the market. Why do you suppose that is? It's because people don't care about spec sheets as much as you might think. They care about the only thing that truly matters, and that's the experiences having the device brings. No Android device can compete with the iPhone in that aspect, outside of a geek niche, regardless of specs.
And your specific list is fairly suspect:
1. Screen size: Some Android phones have larger screens. But this also means larger phones. It's a trade-off and not a simple matter of one is superior to the other.
2. Screen type: I assume you mean OLED, which is, presently, inferior to LCD is most respects. And just like #1, this is only on some phones.
3. Low screen resolution: Again, like #1 and #2, only some Android sets are higher resolution. Do you see a trend here? Do you see a problem? But anyway, most people really don't care. Sure, they'll prefer the higher resolution, but it's rarely going to be a deciding factor.
4. Bad camera: All cell phones have bad cameras. Megapixels are already almost meaningless on compact P&S cameras, and are more so on the minute CCDs on cell phones. And, surprise, surprise, not all Android phones have superior cameras.
In other words, pretty much nobody cares. It's the experience that matters, and the experience with an Android, any Android, is inferior to that of the iPhone, excepting the case where a person places higher value on some of Android's strengths, none of which you actually listed. The only inherent strength that Android has over iPhone is tinkerability. The fact that this resonates so well with many here on Slashdot is no surprise, and I'm glad such a phone exists for them, but to mistake niche appeal for something more than it is is a big mistake.
The same will hopefully be true for android MIDs
You are more correct than you realize.
Sure, if by "thousands of dollars" you mean, "$599 for a brand new one".
And a desktop computer can't have a touch screen.
Oh. Wait.
It's clear you think you've made a logical point here, but really, there isn't one.
You have more fingers than mouse pointers, so you can more reasonably emulate a mouse with your finger (this is done indirectly with a trackpad). But you JUST CAN'T reasonably emulate 10 fingers with a single mouse, no matter what mouse you use.
Just because you don't like me calling him out on his idiocy, does not make him right, either.
He's wrong, wrong, wrong. And foolishly so. There's no way to mince words about it. To *not* call him an idiot is to give him too much credence. He's claiming vindication for his charge that Apple is going to lock down Mac OS X the same way the iPhone is locked down. THIS IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
And, apparently, you missed this gem from his post:
I swear to you by all that is holy, by the time this is over, we're going to regret having been in such an all-consuming hurry to suck the iDick.
Magic Mouse
There is no mouse possible to fully utilize multitouch because multitouch means touching multiple parts of the screen at the same time. There are games where you move a virtual d-pad with one thumb and have a few buttons that you can press with the other thumb, at the same time.
And multitouch is more than just two, it's all of your fingers. At the same time. Anywhere on the screen. The mouse cannot do that.
You can do the same thing (only different) in the iPhone simulator. The point is that you can't properly control an iPhone OS device with a mouse, but only simulate a subset of the device's interaction techniques, because the mouse is an inherently different input method. This is also why a Mac OS X tablet, which so many people seem to think they want, would have been a failure (just as so many tablet PCs have been).
Exactly what I'm thinking. You'll have to pay >$3000 if you want to do what you want with your own system.
And you're an idiot. This is not going to happen. Period. End of story. Full stop.
Repeat: You are an idiot.
We might just find that in the middle-distance future, MacBooks and iMacs will have iPhone OS instead of Mac OS
iPhone OS is a multitouch OS designed for limited devices. It does *NOT* support a mouse *AT ALL*. There is absolutely *ZERO* chance that Apple will replace Mac OS X with iPhone OS on their notebooks or their desktop computers.
This line of thought that is so prevalent amongst Slashdotters shows just how abysmally stupid far too many geeks are these days.
People are laughing at me when I suggest that future iMacs will have app store lockdowns and now will be "ad-supported" to boot. It's iPhone 4.0 today and OSX 11 tomorrow. And it will still be irresistibly shiny.
And we're still laughing at you, because it's an imbecilic notion. Apple is *not* going to lock down OS X any time soon. To think they are is to follow the same brain-damaged logic that the teabaggers follow when they say that government healthcare will lead to "death panels" and forced euthanasia.
No, you're missing the point I was making. An LED-backlit IPS display is not your "typical LCD".
When someone says, your "typical LCD", they mean, "like the one you are looking at right now", and the iPad's display compares far better against the Kindle's display than the display most people are looking at right now.
The iPad's display is both brighter, and viewable at greater angles, than most of the displays that are in use today.
And this is borne out by experience. When someone reads "typical LCD", and they recall how utterly useless their own LCD is outdoors, they will assume that the iPad is the same. It's not. It's very usable outdoors in broad daylight for reading.
And while TN is more frequent (possibly more than 10x more frequent these days), it's not like IPS is some kind of groundbreaking, completely different technology
And where did I say it was "groundbreaking, completely different"? I said it was not typical. And it's not. Unless your position is that it *is* typical, what is the point of your responses? No wonder you feel the need to put words into my mouth.
Having high quality panels in a mobile device is sort of rare, but IPS and other high quality displays are far from rare in "real" display devices; I'm looking at two.
Let's say I offered to pay you $10 for every IPS display in existence, the only condition being that you had to pay me $1 for every non-IPS LCD in existence. We'll limit this to any currently existing time frame of your choosing. The last 10 years. The last year. Yesterday. Your choice.
Who do you think will come out ahead? What makes you think such a disparity qualifies IPS as "typical"?
The main advantage of LED lighting seems to be the lower power draw
Which translates to brighter while still offering superior battery life. Brighter means more viewable outdoors.
I haven't really found any evidence that it's higher quality (really high end displays mostly still use CCFL) or longer life (other things tend to break before the backlighting
The most common failure in CCFL LCDs is the backlight system. Additionally, LED displays are thinner, lighter, and are instant-on at full brightness.
No he is not kidding. In the sun, the Kindle still has the 1:8 contrast ratio of a newspaper, whereas the iPad's contrast falls from 1:100 (?) to something close to zero (even apart from the glare problems of the shiny glossy screen). Don't take my word for it, go on Youtube and search for a comparison.
You're full of shit. The iPad's screen is not 1:100 indoors, and does not get "close to zero" in direct sunlight. I have an iPad and I *have* tested this myself, and iBooks is perfectly readable in full sunlight.
And, just to see what you were talking about, I *DID* do a YouTube search, and found the first video I could find showing iBooks on a sunny beach, and it perfectly matches my own experience.
Wall Street Journal:
Online + Printed: $2.99/week
iPad only: $3.99/week
Anyone else see the problem here?
Or via Safari on iPad: Free
or
Online + Printed: $2.99/week.
In other words, if people are using the iPad app over the cheaper alternatives, which the iPad supports, then that's because the iPad app experience is superior, and therefore reasonably can be considered to be worth more.
Personally, I find very little value in the WSJ itself, but unlike so many people on Slashdot, I don't have a problem with paying for something which provides a value to me. $3.99/week-even $0.99/week-is absurd to me, but if my living is based on being current on financial news, $3.99 sounds like a steal.
Apple is not really, in spirit, a tech company at all, or rather, its a unique sort of tech company, its a tech company in the tradition of Walt Disney 1955.
Apple is the world's most successful tech company.
So it is always thinking, how to use its tech position to control what customers do, think and read.
Apple has never, once, told me what to think, and I own plenty of Apple kit, so I speak with actual, first-hand experience. This is in stark contrast to the Free Software types who never tire of telling me to fear Apple because Apple wants to control everything I do. The current groupthink nonsense is that I'm supposed to boycott h.264 in favor of an inferior codec, and that I'm supposed to shun the iPad because... Well, the because here is never quite coherent. It's something along the lines of Apple will control my every thought, charge me for everything I do on it, and somehow it will prevent me from programming for it.
I read that you cannot activate the iPad from Linux. Now, why would that be, exactly....? Its because open source is the enemy for Apple, even more than for MS, because it represents intellectual freedom.
Apple hosts, contributes to, and has created, *tons* of Open Source projects. The reason they don't support Linux is because too few people use it.
The reason the iPad looks so poor outdoors is because it uses your typical LCD screen.
No it doesn't. It has an LED backlit IPS display. LED is becoming a bit more common these days, but IPS is still quite rare. The iPad's LCD is anything but typical.
The Kindle, on the other hand, uses the e-ink screens which have a much higher contrast ratio
Are you kidding? The Kindle has a dark grey font on a light grey background. The iPad's display has much greater contrast.
What I'm curious about is how many of those 300k people are people who are just going to buy the next Apple gadget on launch day vs. those who bought it out of genuine interest.
What makes you think that people buying Apple products on launch day aren't genuinely interested in them? It's actually a rather absurd stance you are taking by implying people would buy the iPad without actually wanting one.
Also, I'm curious if this will drive up the sales of iPod Touches when people go out to get an iPad but realize they can save a few hundred dollars and basically have the same functionality + portability.
No, the iPod touch is not equivalent to the iPad. Someone else made the point that the iPad is no more simply a big iPod than a swimming pool is just a large bathtub.
The iPad is a device unique unto itself. It's not a MacBook replacement, nor is it an iPod or iPhone replacement.
we don't need Apple dictating, shaping, and propriatizing yet another format...
What are you talking about?
Yes, it is better than a normal LCD.
> N.B. The iPad is fully legible in full sunlight.
No it isn't. Neither is an iphone for that matter.
Fascinating claim coming from someone who has zero experience in the matter. Are you normally this prone to making up facts?
How are the photons that come out of an LCD any different from those that are reflected by a page of a book?
You call an LCD the same as a lamp, but I can turn my LCDs down far dimmer than any standard lamp.
And finally, there is the fact that millions, perhaps billions, of people read LCDs on a daily basis with no problem.
Who buys the cheapest laptop they can find? Did you buy the cheapest laptop you could find? The cheapest TV? The cheapest car? Do you live in the cheapest house or apartment you could find? Do you wear the cheapest shoes?
As you point out, the iPad isn't for you. That's quite fine. But your point about it being the same price as a larger PC notebook isn't terribly important. What is important is whether the iPad is something one wants, and if so if the price is reasonable.
It's also silly to consider an iPad and a notebook as and either/or. They aren't, for the most part. What is an either/or is an iPad and a netbook. For most people, I think the iPad is a better choice, but I'm fully aware that for some the netbook will be better.
You also must be cognizant of the fact that your list of requirements for why the iPad isn't suitable for you is not terribly indicative of the needs and wants of the average person.