To clarify what others have tried, but apparently failed, to inform you of.
The iPhone OS, which is OS X with some differences here and there between it and Mac OS X, is quite good at multitasking and multithreading. The iPhone makes extensive use of this, as do its apps.
What the iPhone OS disallows is running third-party apps *in the background*. Built-in functions, like iPod music playing, Mail checking, SMS and call receiving, etc., all run in the background just fine.
I don't think I play a single board game with a board that small. Zoom in and out? Scroll around? Everything smaller?
Um, I'm pretty sure that's *exactly* how you play *every* board game. Take Monopoly as an example (for a point of reference, not because it's the best game out there or anything). When you look at the board, as a whole, your vision isn't zoomed in on any particular part. You are taking in how many groups of streets have houses and where you are, where you might land, if someone is in jail, are you about to pass go, etc.
Then, when you want to take note of something specifically, like, what do you have to roll to land on Ventnor, or how much you will make if an opponent lands on St. James, etc., you zoom in on that thing (either leaning in and focusing on that particular area of the board or picking up and looking at that property card). You go from zoomed in to zoomed out all the time, panning around, the works.
I'm not saying the iPad (or any touchscreen device) will be better at that aspect of game playing (in a way it is, in that you can have a really large board game that would be impractical in reality), just that you already do those things when playing a game.
No thanks. A lot of my board game time is great just because I'm unplugged anyway.
Of course, play the games the way you want. No one is saying you have to trade in your board games for computer games, just like Monopoly or Risk on your PC or Xbox 360 means you have to give up physical board games. It's just another way to play, and for me at least, sounds pretty cool.
Another benefit, aside from games that are impossible/impractical to make in physical form, is being able to buy, download, and play the game right away, instead of having to run to the store (which might not be as easy as it sounds for a lot of the more obscure, but highly acclaimed, board games).
So for only $499 + $299/phone, you can play a $75 board game electronically! No messy setup, and you don't have to worry about where to put that almost $1000 in cash you would still have!
+5 Insightful, but only if you only buy the iPad (and iPhone) to play one single game and that's it.
How often do you think that's really going to happen?
On the other hand, for everyone who will actually buy such a thing, they will be able to surf the web, listen to music, watch movies, read books, use numerous apps and games, etc., and (if they want), *also* play a $75 board game.
yup. This is just an attempt by apple to make this appealing.
I didn't realize recombu.com was owned by Apple.
The answer is: it's not.
Oh, I disagree. I find it very compelling, and I suspect most people will as well, after using one for only a few moments. Whether that will translate into a sale ($499 is cheap for this type of product, but still a good chunk of cash) is yet to be determined.
The problem right now is the geeks are looking at specs and keywords (multitasking? iPhone OS? No stylus? No e-ink?) and disliking the iPad that they imagine based on that. The trick with Apple is that their products are rarely what a geek-mind would imagine based on the specs. Apple doesn't look at making a product to meet some technological specs, they design them to end-user goals.
That may not be your cup of tea. You, as a geek-type end-user definitely have different needs and wants than the standard person. So sure, this may not be compelling to you, and just like with the iPhone, since most people haven't used an iPad, they are listening to the geek-minded criticism (valid criticisms, to be sure, but not valid in relation to how most people will feel about this product), causing their imaginations are leading them astray.
There are other apple products more compelling at this price, iphone namely.
This isn't an iPhone. It's won't directly compete against the iPhone. The iPhone is a phone. The iPad isn't. You won't automatically exclude buying one because you bought the other.
As for a direct comparison between it and the iPhone (or more reasonably, an imaginary 3G data iPod touch), I think the iPad offers a lot in terms of the much larger display. This won't just be a "big iPhone". Unlike a PC or Mac where larger screen and higher resolution simply means you can have larger windows, or more windows side-by-side, or whatever, software for the iPad will not simply be iPhone software scaled up (although that is one of the ways to use it), but will have software written with the larger screen in mind. Just look at the difference between the included apps on the iPad and the iPhone. Also, imagine doing something like the iWork apps on an iPhone! On the iPhone it would be something that, technically you could do, in a pinch, if needed. But on the iPad, the process looks actually enjoyable.
In a lot of ways, the iPad isn't a big iPhone so much as the iPhone is a small iPad. Specifically in the sense that iPhone apps are pared down iPad apps more than iPad apps will just be zoomed in iPhone apps.
But I did. Let X be the statement "netbooks were a factor in Apple's decision to introduce the iPad." Then exactly one of "X" or "not X" is true. No matter which one is true, you made a statement that contradicts the one of these two which is true.
Just so I'm clear, I said X. I later said Y. Then you come along and say "Not X" and demand I defend why *I* contradicted X?
You said, "Look, you're contradicting yourself." Then went through the whole X, Not X thing.
So, unless you can explain this colossal pile of nonsense, I'll assume you've conceded the point and are just throwing crap out there in order to confuse things and hide the fact that you've long since given up on trying to make an honest point that's either factually or logically sound.
Even in plain English, the statements "X" or "not X" cannot both hold, no matter what X is. Indeed, exactly one of the two is always true.
I didn't say "X" and then later, "Not X".
I stated (again):
1. Netbooks provided an example for Apple to look at. 2. iPad would have existed without netbooks.
#2 is not "Not #1".
If your argument is that your English is incapable of being translated into logic, then I am done with this discussion. I require logic as a condition of participating in a debate.
No, my argument is that your attempt to translate my English into logic was flawed.
Look, you're contradicting yourself. Either netbooks were a factor in Apple's decision to introduce the iPad, or they were not a factor. It is mathematically impossible for neither [sic] statement to hold.
I didn't make a mathematical statement. If you are having problems with my statements in a mathematical sense, the problem is your translation from English to logic.
To paraphrase the two statements of mine you quoted:
1. Netbooks provided an example for Apple to look at. 2. iPad would have existed without netbooks.
It is by no means "mathematically impossible for both statements to hold."
You mean the viruses for those people who were stupid enough to leave OpenSSH running on their iphone, with the default login/pw?
This isn't about people being stupid. The vast majority of jailbreakers have no notion of what SSH even is. The geeks know, and if they leave the default password, well, the charge of stupidity may be warranted. They're not like those of us who know how to edit the sshd.conf and how to send files and tunnel over ssh and all that, or even why ssh exists and how it compares with telnet.
These are people for whom ssh is just geek words in the instructions. It's like the ingredients in your food. You understand water and salt and such, but the chemistry names, for most people, are just words that mean "something strange, but whatever, it's something that must be needed". And dialog boxes and warnings in the how-to don't really count. Jailbreaking itself is just barely within their skill set. The "these are the things you should do" is extra credit.
But the average joe who keeps hearing the geeks talk of jailbreaking and how much better it makes the iPhone (it doesn't, really, except for the geeks, because it enables things that mainly geeks are concerned with). So the average joe barely has the knowledge to download the jailbreak kit and follow the instructions, and now they can pirate iPhone software and install various hacks and unapproved iPhone software. But in this whole process, they aren't being stupid. They are simply ignorant of the process.
The standard geek response here is, "then they shouldn't be doing things they don't understand". Perhaps. But when you harp on about how super awesome a jailbroken iPhone is, and how the iPhone is totally lame unless it's jailbroken, blah, blah, blah, you can't then put someone down for trusting your opinion and attempting to follow your advice.
Apple likes to be sure there's a market for something before releasing it. Netbooks have shown there's a market for cheap and small.
In that case, thank god for netbooks. Otherwise Apple never would have acknowledged the market for cheap small computers. And if every company behaved like Apple, no new market niches would ever be supplied.
You're still not understanding.
IT'S NOT NETBOOKS PER SE.
That means, it's not netbooks themselves. They are just a placeholder that could have been anything. There could have been no netbooks at all and even no middle-ground computers at all. All that was needed is for Apple to see that there's an actual market for the product.
Apple has been working on a tablet form factor since the '80s. They created that market with the Newton. Apple's recent tablet research pre-dates the netbook.
But until the iPhone OS, Apple didn't have the technology in place to create one that wasn't just a crappy MacBook.
So it's not the netbook. People aren't buying the netbook per se. They are buying a product in that category. And until yesterday, the only product that remotely filled that need was the netbook.
The point isn't that there had to be a netbook before an iPad. It's just that there *was* the netbook before the iPad.
But the iPad is no netbook, and that's both why it'll succeed, and why the geek patrol on the net is lambasting it.
I try to write correct grammar. I don't write the trademark logos, just as I don't write a reversed "R" when talking about Toys R Us, or sing "ding dong ding dong" when I mention Intel.
No, you use deliberately misspelled words to denigrate your adversary. This is just the same as those that use "Micro$oft".
And another fallacy: just because I don't like a product, or point out factual information about it, doesn't mean I hate them.
Your sole motivation on any story about Apple is to put down them, their products, and their users, etc. You truly can't believe that all you're doing is providing "factual information" about Apple, can you? I mean, what are the odds that every single thing about Apple is bad?
So, sure, *maybe* you don't "hate" them. But your bias is extremely evident. As is mine. The difference is I have a good handle on what's opinion and what's fact. If someone has a different opinion than me (like you do), no big deal. But conflating opinion with fact, you are little more than a Fox News "commentator" applied to Apple topics.
Don't you see yourself for the troll you are? You only enter Apple topics to put them down. There's *nothing* wrong with criticism, but when your sole purpose is to simply put them down, you've got a problem. Surely you must have some notion of this while you're typing out your posts?
Nonsense, plenty of people choose Windows PCs
I never said plenty of people don't. I said "most". And to be sure, *MOST* people *DON'T* choose a PC, they choose a COMPUTER. It's like if LG had 90% of the TV market. These people aren't going, "really want an LG!", they're saying "I really want a TV," and LG just happens to be the line that works with their cable boxes and what they use at work and what their friends use.
On the other hand, to chose a Mac, you pretty much have to specifically chose it. When you want a Mac, you go and buy a Mac. When you just want a computer, you go in and buy an HP or a Dell or whatever, and you really don't care specifically who makes your PC.
and if Apple can't be compatible with business, that's their issue.
I never said it wasn't. What's with your incessant need for straw men?
But I'm extremely confident that number is much lower than Windows' actual market share.
You could make the same vague untestable claim for Apple, and most other companies.
Shit, if "vague untestable claims" were not allowed, all your posts would end up quite anemic. But for my specific claim, when people buy a Mac, they specifically want a *Mac*. If they just wanted a computer, they'd most likely just buy a PC.
It's like when people buy an HP. It's usually not because they particularly wanted an *HP* over a Dell or whatever. That's just the one they bought. There are certainly some people who specifically wanted an HP, but most people just don't really care all that much. The same goes for Macs vs PC. Most people who buy a PC aren't buying it because they specifically prefer Windows over a Mac.
Apple's very aware of netbooks. They're also very aware that people don't want them.
If people don't want netbooks, then why do they buy netbooks? Are you suggesting that people are somehow buying netbooks against their will?
Your questions are strange. You seem to answer it with your quoting below. People don't want netbooks, they want portable, cheap computers. Until now, netbooks were pretty much it, so that's what the only thing that fits the bill. But it's not the netbook they wanted, it's the cheap portable they want.
It's like someone dying of thirst drinking from a mud hole. They don't want mud. They want water. Mud happens to fit the bill, but it's far from ideal. But if it's the only thing there...
What they want is low cost and portable. Until now, netbooks were pretty much the only product to fit that bill.
Is there some reason why Apple waited until now to make low-cost portables?
Again, I don't understand. Obviously the answer is yes. For everything that happens, there has to be a reason.
If what you're really asking is, "what is the reason", it's three-fold.
1. Apple likes to be sure there's a market for something before releasing it. Netbooks have shown there's a market for cheap and small. 2. iPads (or any product, for that matter) don't instantly materialize the moment you decide to create one. It takes a long time to make something like that, even if you do it poorly, which brings us to... 3. Apple puts a lot of effort into getting their products right on the first go. There's not a series of iterations of, "we'll try this, then we'll try that, then we'll try that". It's, "we think this product is a perfect embodiment of the market we are targeting". They surely do provide updates, and have practical considerations (i.e., 2G iPhone at first, 3G later), but this basic idea is evident in what they do.
So yeah, of course there's a reason. How could there not be?
You must live in one of those horrible European socialist countries where your markets aren't as free as in the US. I get the feeling that the only thing that's "free" in a "free market" is that corporations are "free" to fuck over consumers.
Hey, give them a break. Those corporations that you're dissing spend a lot of money bribing the congresscritters.
Not free at all....
You're thinking of free as in beer, but it's free as in speech. Just look at the recent Supreme Court ruling...
Oh I see, just like every other portable device for donkeys years. Great, but please don't pretend it's anything new.
The thing that's new about it is that, unlike all those "donkey's years" products, this is the first one that doesn't outright suck.
Those other products (aside from the Kindle) are aimed at geeks. You're clearly a geek, and you can't seem to see past your own prejudices. And the Kindle is an excellent point to bring up. It's got the specs (specifically, e-ink and long battery life), but those specs are just ingredients into making it what it is, which is a great ebook reader. Unfortunately, that's *all* it's good at. Ignoring those two aspects for the moment, the iPad is going to be a far superior ebook reader for most people (some will prefer monochrome e-ink no matter what). When you throw battery and e-ink back into the mix, while these count in the Kindle's favor, most people are not going to find those things to be as important as you may think. Bright backlit color screen, fast and responsive UI, multitouch? Those alone will sway all but the most ardent ebook reader. Throw in the rest of the device (web, photos, email, music, video, maps, apps, etc.) and it's no contest.
It's not about making the cheapest product, or making the product with the greatest specs. It's about making products that people want to use. The former is a geek's game, and you're more than welcome to play it. The latter is a human's game. Notice how Apple doesn't like the amount of RAM in the iPad (or iPod or iPhone, for that matter)? It's not because it's so low that they want to hide it. It's because the amount of RAM is completely unimportant in terms of a feature point. It's no more important than the voltage of the battery or the chipset for the WiFi.
Wow, Apple managed to invent the netbook only a couple years late for several hundred bucks more! Jobs' comments said that he wanted to establish a new class of device between smartphones and laptops. It's as though he was unaware that there's been such a category for years, and that it costs a lot less than $500, and that it doesn't lock you into one manufacturer's control so hard you can't even change the battery yourself.
Um, no. Apple's very aware of netbooks. They're also very aware that people don't want them. What they want is low cost and portable. Until now, netbooks were pretty much the only product to fit that bill.
Contrary to popular belief, people don't simply choose the cheapest item. If they did, there would only be one model of iPod, one model of HP notebook, etc. The iPad costs more than the base model of most netbooks, but it's also going to be exceptionally more useful for most people.
I'm highly confident that, placed side-by-side, people will prefer the iPad over any netbook. Specifications geeks, floss geeks, and people who need some particular program may choose the netbook, but the average person? Forget about it. The netbook is a dead end.
As are you. Just because you hate Apple, that doesn't mean people don't actually like their products.
However, you are correct. The Ipod, Iphone and Ipad do all suck. The iPod, iPhone and iPad, however. Well, the first two are great products and are doing quite well. The iPad looks to continue the trend. Only time will tell. One thing's for sure, however. And that is that your personal opinion is already at odds with the market, and the market shows no sign of re-aligning with you any time soon.
I'm sorry, how does its popularity negate criticisms of its functionality? Or are you saying that any criticisms of PCs, Windows and Internet Explorer are also ludicrous, because of their popularity?
People don't usually choose IE or Windows. It's the default. It's what they need to be compatible with the office. People chose the iPod when there were other players with greater features or lower prices, and they still do.
Or put differently, when people buy iPods, iPhones and Macs, it's because they specifically want those things in particular. When they run IE, or buy a Windows PC, it's not specifically because they particularly like Windows or IE, but that that's the default choice for a browser or a computer.
That's not to say there aren't people out there who actually want Windows. There definitely are. But I'm extremely confident that number is much lower than Windows' actual market share.
Yeah, how 'ironic' that Mac users get software that meets their needs. Idiots!
I'm going to assume, given your other posts on this story, that you're being sarcastic.
If so, I think you missed the point of the anecdote.
Not at all. She paid for a program she finds useful. She isn't a Unix nerd and doesn't want to learn vim or emacs (both of which come with every Mac, both of which can be run full-screen, on every Mac, for free). She doesn't want to fuck around with her computer. She'd rather spend $25 to have a program that works like she wants *without* the hassle.
Instead of being happy that she found a program she likes, you use her as the butt of your "Apple users are brainwashed idiots" rant. Don't you realize how arrogant that is?
The point is that my friend already had software that met her "needs."
Clearly she did not.
She could have spent three minutes customizing Word to achieve a similar result. If she didn't like that, she could have downloaded any of dozens of free text editors that "have less distractions" than Word and do exactly what this new "word processor" does for her.
Or she could buy Writeroom. What kind of madness is it that this offends you so much? She found a program that does what she wants and you piss all over it as though she's an idiot, as though what she spends *her* money on is any of your concern?
So, yes, I do find it "ironic" that Mac users would pay money for an interface that is readily available on their system and has been available on just about every computer for free for decades...
Including the very Mac she's using. The fact is she doesn't *want* to learn emacs or vim. If you mean running a regular word processor (like notepad.exe or TextEdit.app) fullscreen, then you are clearly missing the point of Writeroom. It's not about maximizing a window, it's about removing *all* distractions, including menus and other UI elements.
and they pay it because some corporation has convinced them that they shouldn't ever need to think to use their computer or ever explore their system beyond the options that readily pop up in front of their eyes.
?? They've been convinced they don't want something, so they go out and buy it?
Apple doesn't go around "convincing" people they don't want stuff. If that's what you think Apple is all about, you're sadly mistaken.
This isn't just Mac users, I know. Lots of computer users are like this with Windows and other OSes. But Mac actively encourages this mentality. And this Slashdot story is about how the average brainwashed Mac user mentality is created, and my anecdote does show some issues with that.
And here it is. Your whole preconception is extraordinarily self-centered and narrow-minded. You can't seem to understand people treating a computer differently than you do. They don't want to learn all the intricacies about their computer. And that's for *them* to decide. Who are *you* to make those decisions for them, or judge them inadequate if they make different choices than you? If they choose to spend money to buy a program that does what they want instead of learning how to do it themselves, that doesn't make them stupid, nor "brainwashed", nor anything else. It just makes them different than you. Quit acting like that's such a bad thing.
In other words, you took it upon yourself to insult everyone else in the meeting? It would be like a Mac user putting a lemming or a sheep over his Apple logo in a room full of PCs.
Just as these days we have people thinking the only mobile phones in the market are the Iphone and Android...
Funny, I find that there aren't really all that many people who think there's even such a thing *as* an Iphone, unless they are so rabidly anti-Apple that they resort to childish renaming tactics a la "Micro$oft".
Unless of course you're seriously going to tell me that you think all those damn hipsters at my coffee shop really sat down and did some comparative analysis and decided that a Mac would "serve their purposes better."
And you're going to tell me that those with Dells and HPs did some comparative analysis and decided that their choice would "serve their purposes better"?
They don't care if it's locked down because the default is exactly what they need
What's this nonsense all about? If you're talking about the UI theme (the only thing really "locked down" on a Mac), what you've stated defines *most* people, even though you state it as though they are a limited subset of people. Very few people theme Windows (not even the colors).
Or maybe you are talking about source code lock down? A significant portion of OS X is open source. Much more so than Windows, and given that around 90% of people are fine with Windows, I don't think people are going to find a *more* open system to be "locked down".
Or perhaps you mean locked down like the iPhone, where you can't run apps that aren't approved by Apple. This is not the case on the Mac.
Slashdot Mirror
To clarify what others have tried, but apparently failed, to inform you of.
The iPhone OS, which is OS X with some differences here and there between it and Mac OS X, is quite good at multitasking and multithreading. The iPhone makes extensive use of this, as do its apps.
What the iPhone OS disallows is running third-party apps *in the background*. Built-in functions, like iPod music playing, Mail checking, SMS and call receiving, etc., all run in the background just fine.
I don't think I play a single board game with a board that small. Zoom in and out? Scroll around? Everything smaller?
Um, I'm pretty sure that's *exactly* how you play *every* board game. Take Monopoly as an example (for a point of reference, not because it's the best game out there or anything). When you look at the board, as a whole, your vision isn't zoomed in on any particular part. You are taking in how many groups of streets have houses and where you are, where you might land, if someone is in jail, are you about to pass go, etc.
Then, when you want to take note of something specifically, like, what do you have to roll to land on Ventnor, or how much you will make if an opponent lands on St. James, etc., you zoom in on that thing (either leaning in and focusing on that particular area of the board or picking up and looking at that property card). You go from zoomed in to zoomed out all the time, panning around, the works.
I'm not saying the iPad (or any touchscreen device) will be better at that aspect of game playing (in a way it is, in that you can have a really large board game that would be impractical in reality), just that you already do those things when playing a game.
No thanks. A lot of my board game time is great just because I'm unplugged anyway.
Of course, play the games the way you want. No one is saying you have to trade in your board games for computer games, just like Monopoly or Risk on your PC or Xbox 360 means you have to give up physical board games. It's just another way to play, and for me at least, sounds pretty cool.
Another benefit, aside from games that are impossible/impractical to make in physical form, is being able to buy, download, and play the game right away, instead of having to run to the store (which might not be as easy as it sounds for a lot of the more obscure, but highly acclaimed, board games).
So for only $499 + $299/phone, you can play a $75 board game electronically! No messy setup, and you don't have to worry about where to put that almost $1000 in cash you would still have!
+5 Insightful, but only if you only buy the iPad (and iPhone) to play one single game and that's it.
How often do you think that's really going to happen?
On the other hand, for everyone who will actually buy such a thing, they will be able to surf the web, listen to music, watch movies, read books, use numerous apps and games, etc., and (if they want), *also* play a $75 board game.
yup. This is just an attempt by apple to make this appealing.
I didn't realize recombu.com was owned by Apple.
The answer is: it's not.
Oh, I disagree. I find it very compelling, and I suspect most people will as well, after using one for only a few moments. Whether that will translate into a sale ($499 is cheap for this type of product, but still a good chunk of cash) is yet to be determined.
The problem right now is the geeks are looking at specs and keywords (multitasking? iPhone OS? No stylus? No e-ink?) and disliking the iPad that they imagine based on that. The trick with Apple is that their products are rarely what a geek-mind would imagine based on the specs. Apple doesn't look at making a product to meet some technological specs, they design them to end-user goals.
That may not be your cup of tea. You, as a geek-type end-user definitely have different needs and wants than the standard person. So sure, this may not be compelling to you, and just like with the iPhone, since most people haven't used an iPad, they are listening to the geek-minded criticism (valid criticisms, to be sure, but not valid in relation to how most people will feel about this product), causing their imaginations are leading them astray.
There are other apple products more compelling at this price, iphone namely.
This isn't an iPhone. It's won't directly compete against the iPhone. The iPhone is a phone. The iPad isn't. You won't automatically exclude buying one because you bought the other.
As for a direct comparison between it and the iPhone (or more reasonably, an imaginary 3G data iPod touch), I think the iPad offers a lot in terms of the much larger display. This won't just be a "big iPhone". Unlike a PC or Mac where larger screen and higher resolution simply means you can have larger windows, or more windows side-by-side, or whatever, software for the iPad will not simply be iPhone software scaled up (although that is one of the ways to use it), but will have software written with the larger screen in mind. Just look at the difference between the included apps on the iPad and the iPhone. Also, imagine doing something like the iWork apps on an iPhone! On the iPhone it would be something that, technically you could do, in a pinch, if needed. But on the iPad, the process looks actually enjoyable.
In a lot of ways, the iPad isn't a big iPhone so much as the iPhone is a small iPad. Specifically in the sense that iPhone apps are pared down iPad apps more than iPad apps will just be zoomed in iPhone apps.
I didn't say "X" and then later, "Not X".
But I did. Let X be the statement "netbooks were a factor in Apple's decision to introduce the iPad." Then exactly one of "X" or "not X" is true. No matter which one is true, you made a statement that contradicts the one of these two which is true.
Just so I'm clear, I said X. I later said Y. Then you come along and say "Not X" and demand I defend why *I* contradicted X?
You said, "Look, you're contradicting yourself." Then went through the whole X, Not X thing.
So, unless you can explain this colossal pile of nonsense, I'll assume you've conceded the point and are just throwing crap out there in order to confuse things and hide the fact that you've long since given up on trying to make an honest point that's either factually or logically sound.
Even in plain English, the statements "X" or "not X" cannot both hold, no matter what X is. Indeed, exactly one of the two is always true.
I didn't say "X" and then later, "Not X".
I stated (again):
1. Netbooks provided an example for Apple to look at.
2. iPad would have existed without netbooks.
#2 is not "Not #1".
If your argument is that your English is incapable of being translated into logic, then I am done with this discussion. I require logic as a condition of participating in a debate.
No, my argument is that your attempt to translate my English into logic was flawed.
Look, you're contradicting yourself. Either netbooks were a factor in Apple's decision to introduce the iPad, or they were not a factor. It is mathematically impossible for neither [sic] statement to hold.
I didn't make a mathematical statement. If you are having problems with my statements in a mathematical sense, the problem is your translation from English to logic.
To paraphrase the two statements of mine you quoted:
1. Netbooks provided an example for Apple to look at.
2. iPad would have existed without netbooks.
It is by no means "mathematically impossible for both statements to hold."
You mean the viruses for those people who were stupid enough to leave OpenSSH running on their iphone, with the default login/pw?
This isn't about people being stupid. The vast majority of jailbreakers have no notion of what SSH even is. The geeks know, and if they leave the default password, well, the charge of stupidity may be warranted. They're not like those of us who know how to edit the sshd.conf and how to send files and tunnel over ssh and all that, or even why ssh exists and how it compares with telnet.
These are people for whom ssh is just geek words in the instructions. It's like the ingredients in your food. You understand water and salt and such, but the chemistry names, for most people, are just words that mean "something strange, but whatever, it's something that must be needed". And dialog boxes and warnings in the how-to don't really count. Jailbreaking itself is just barely within their skill set. The "these are the things you should do" is extra credit.
But the average joe who keeps hearing the geeks talk of jailbreaking and how much better it makes the iPhone (it doesn't, really, except for the geeks, because it enables things that mainly geeks are concerned with). So the average joe barely has the knowledge to download the jailbreak kit and follow the instructions, and now they can pirate iPhone software and install various hacks and unapproved iPhone software. But in this whole process, they aren't being stupid. They are simply ignorant of the process.
The standard geek response here is, "then they shouldn't be doing things they don't understand". Perhaps. But when you harp on about how super awesome a jailbroken iPhone is, and how the iPhone is totally lame unless it's jailbroken, blah, blah, blah, you can't then put someone down for trusting your opinion and attempting to follow your advice.
Apple likes to be sure there's a market for something before releasing it. Netbooks have shown there's a market for cheap and small.
In that case, thank god for netbooks. Otherwise Apple never would have acknowledged the market for cheap small computers. And if every company behaved like Apple, no new market niches would ever be supplied.
You're still not understanding.
IT'S NOT NETBOOKS PER SE.
That means, it's not netbooks themselves. They are just a placeholder that could have been anything. There could have been no netbooks at all and even no middle-ground computers at all. All that was needed is for Apple to see that there's an actual market for the product.
Apple has been working on a tablet form factor since the '80s. They created that market with the Newton. Apple's recent tablet research pre-dates the netbook.
But until the iPhone OS, Apple didn't have the technology in place to create one that wasn't just a crappy MacBook.
So it's not the netbook. People aren't buying the netbook per se. They are buying a product in that category. And until yesterday, the only product that remotely filled that need was the netbook.
The point isn't that there had to be a netbook before an iPad. It's just that there *was* the netbook before the iPad.
But the iPad is no netbook, and that's both why it'll succeed, and why the geek patrol on the net is lambasting it.
I try to write correct grammar. I don't write the trademark logos, just as I don't write a reversed "R" when talking about Toys R Us, or sing "ding dong ding dong" when I mention Intel.
No, you use deliberately misspelled words to denigrate your adversary. This is just the same as those that use "Micro$oft".
And another fallacy: just because I don't like a product, or point out factual information about it, doesn't mean I hate them.
Your sole motivation on any story about Apple is to put down them, their products, and their users, etc. You truly can't believe that all you're doing is providing "factual information" about Apple, can you? I mean, what are the odds that every single thing about Apple is bad?
So, sure, *maybe* you don't "hate" them. But your bias is extremely evident. As is mine. The difference is I have a good handle on what's opinion and what's fact. If someone has a different opinion than me (like you do), no big deal. But conflating opinion with fact, you are little more than a Fox News "commentator" applied to Apple topics.
Don't you see yourself for the troll you are? You only enter Apple topics to put them down. There's *nothing* wrong with criticism, but when your sole purpose is to simply put them down, you've got a problem. Surely you must have some notion of this while you're typing out your posts?
Nonsense, plenty of people choose Windows PCs
I never said plenty of people don't. I said "most". And to be sure, *MOST* people *DON'T* choose a PC, they choose a COMPUTER. It's like if LG had 90% of the TV market. These people aren't going, "really want an LG!", they're saying "I really want a TV," and LG just happens to be the line that works with their cable boxes and what they use at work and what their friends use.
On the other hand, to chose a Mac, you pretty much have to specifically chose it. When you want a Mac, you go and buy a Mac. When you just want a computer, you go in and buy an HP or a Dell or whatever, and you really don't care specifically who makes your PC.
and if Apple can't be compatible with business, that's their issue.
I never said it wasn't. What's with your incessant need for straw men?
But I'm extremely confident that number is much lower than Windows' actual market share.
You could make the same vague untestable claim for Apple, and most other companies.
Shit, if "vague untestable claims" were not allowed, all your posts would end up quite anemic. But for my specific claim, when people buy a Mac, they specifically want a *Mac*. If they just wanted a computer, they'd most likely just buy a PC.
It's like when people buy an HP. It's usually not because they particularly wanted an *HP* over a Dell or whatever. That's just the one they bought. There are certainly some people who specifically wanted an HP, but most people just don't really care all that much. The same goes for Macs vs PC. Most people who buy a PC aren't buying it because they specifically prefer Windows over a Mac.
Apple's very aware of netbooks. They're also very aware that people don't want them.
If people don't want netbooks, then why do they buy netbooks? Are you suggesting that people are somehow buying netbooks against their will?
Your questions are strange. You seem to answer it with your quoting below. People don't want netbooks, they want portable, cheap computers. Until now, netbooks were pretty much it, so that's what the only thing that fits the bill. But it's not the netbook they wanted, it's the cheap portable they want.
It's like someone dying of thirst drinking from a mud hole. They don't want mud. They want water. Mud happens to fit the bill, but it's far from ideal. But if it's the only thing there...
What they want is low cost and portable. Until now, netbooks were pretty much the only product to fit that bill.
Is there some reason why Apple waited until now to make low-cost portables?
Again, I don't understand. Obviously the answer is yes. For everything that happens, there has to be a reason.
If what you're really asking is, "what is the reason", it's three-fold.
1. Apple likes to be sure there's a market for something before releasing it. Netbooks have shown there's a market for cheap and small.
2. iPads (or any product, for that matter) don't instantly materialize the moment you decide to create one. It takes a long time to make something like that, even if you do it poorly, which brings us to...
3. Apple puts a lot of effort into getting their products right on the first go. There's not a series of iterations of, "we'll try this, then we'll try that, then we'll try that". It's, "we think this product is a perfect embodiment of the market we are targeting". They surely do provide updates, and have practical considerations (i.e., 2G iPhone at first, 3G later), but this basic idea is evident in what they do.
So yeah, of course there's a reason. How could there not be?
Not to rain on your parade, but...
e-ink is much better in direct sunlight than backlit screens (especially if they are shiny)
Not to rain on your parade, but you can turn away from the sun with an LCD, you can't turn towards a light in the dark with an e-ink display.
In more practical terms, my iPhone does just fine in the outdoors.
Hey, give them a break. Those corporations that you're dissing spend a lot of money bribing the congresscritters.
Not free at all....
You're thinking of free as in beer, but it's free as in speech. Just look at the recent Supreme Court ruling...
Oh I see, just like every other portable device for donkeys years. Great, but please don't pretend it's anything new.
The thing that's new about it is that, unlike all those "donkey's years" products, this is the first one that doesn't outright suck.
Those other products (aside from the Kindle) are aimed at geeks. You're clearly a geek, and you can't seem to see past your own prejudices. And the Kindle is an excellent point to bring up. It's got the specs (specifically, e-ink and long battery life), but those specs are just ingredients into making it what it is, which is a great ebook reader. Unfortunately, that's *all* it's good at. Ignoring those two aspects for the moment, the iPad is going to be a far superior ebook reader for most people (some will prefer monochrome e-ink no matter what). When you throw battery and e-ink back into the mix, while these count in the Kindle's favor, most people are not going to find those things to be as important as you may think. Bright backlit color screen, fast and responsive UI, multitouch? Those alone will sway all but the most ardent ebook reader. Throw in the rest of the device (web, photos, email, music, video, maps, apps, etc.) and it's no contest.
It's not about making the cheapest product, or making the product with the greatest specs. It's about making products that people want to use. The former is a geek's game, and you're more than welcome to play it. The latter is a human's game. Notice how Apple doesn't like the amount of RAM in the iPad (or iPod or iPhone, for that matter)? It's not because it's so low that they want to hide it. It's because the amount of RAM is completely unimportant in terms of a feature point. It's no more important than the voltage of the battery or the chipset for the WiFi.
Wow, Apple managed to invent the netbook only a couple years late for several hundred bucks more! Jobs' comments said that he wanted to establish a new class of device between smartphones and laptops. It's as though he was unaware that there's been such a category for years, and that it costs a lot less than $500, and that it doesn't lock you into one manufacturer's control so hard you can't even change the battery yourself.
Um, no. Apple's very aware of netbooks. They're also very aware that people don't want them. What they want is low cost and portable. Until now, netbooks were pretty much the only product to fit that bill.
Contrary to popular belief, people don't simply choose the cheapest item. If they did, there would only be one model of iPod, one model of HP notebook, etc. The iPad costs more than the base model of most netbooks, but it's also going to be exceptionally more useful for most people.
I'm highly confident that, placed side-by-side, people will prefer the iPad over any netbook. Specifications geeks, floss geeks, and people who need some particular program may choose the netbook, but the average person? Forget about it. The netbook is a dead end.
You are also committing a blatant fallacy
As are you. Just because you hate Apple, that doesn't mean people don't actually like their products.
However, you are correct. The Ipod, Iphone and Ipad do all suck. The iPod, iPhone and iPad, however. Well, the first two are great products and are doing quite well. The iPad looks to continue the trend. Only time will tell. One thing's for sure, however. And that is that your personal opinion is already at odds with the market, and the market shows no sign of re-aligning with you any time soon.
I'm sorry, how does its popularity negate criticisms of its functionality? Or are you saying that any criticisms of PCs, Windows and Internet Explorer are also ludicrous, because of their popularity?
People don't usually choose IE or Windows. It's the default. It's what they need to be compatible with the office. People chose the iPod when there were other players with greater features or lower prices, and they still do.
Or put differently, when people buy iPods, iPhones and Macs, it's because they specifically want those things in particular. When they run IE, or buy a Windows PC, it's not specifically because they particularly like Windows or IE, but that that's the default choice for a browser or a computer.
That's not to say there aren't people out there who actually want Windows. There definitely are. But I'm extremely confident that number is much lower than Windows' actual market share.
Yeah, how 'ironic' that Mac users get software that meets their needs. Idiots!
I'm going to assume, given your other posts on this story, that you're being sarcastic.
If so, I think you missed the point of the anecdote.
Not at all. She paid for a program she finds useful. She isn't a Unix nerd and doesn't want to learn vim or emacs (both of which come with every Mac, both of which can be run full-screen, on every Mac, for free). She doesn't want to fuck around with her computer. She'd rather spend $25 to have a program that works like she wants *without* the hassle.
Instead of being happy that she found a program she likes, you use her as the butt of your "Apple users are brainwashed idiots" rant. Don't you realize how arrogant that is?
The point is that my friend already had software that met her "needs."
Clearly she did not.
She could have spent three minutes customizing Word to achieve a similar result. If she didn't like that, she could have downloaded any of dozens of free text editors that "have less distractions" than Word and do exactly what this new "word processor" does for her.
Or she could buy Writeroom. What kind of madness is it that this offends you so much? She found a program that does what she wants and you piss all over it as though she's an idiot, as though what she spends *her* money on is any of your concern?
So, yes, I do find it "ironic" that Mac users would pay money for an interface that is readily available on their system and has been available on just about every computer for free for decades...
Including the very Mac she's using. The fact is she doesn't *want* to learn emacs or vim. If you mean running a regular word processor (like notepad.exe or TextEdit.app) fullscreen, then you are clearly missing the point of Writeroom. It's not about maximizing a window, it's about removing *all* distractions, including menus and other UI elements.
and they pay it because some corporation has convinced them that they shouldn't ever need to think to use their computer or ever explore their system beyond the options that readily pop up in front of their eyes.
?? They've been convinced they don't want something, so they go out and buy it?
Apple doesn't go around "convincing" people they don't want stuff. If that's what you think Apple is all about, you're sadly mistaken.
This isn't just Mac users, I know. Lots of computer users are like this with Windows and other OSes. But Mac actively encourages this mentality. And this Slashdot story is about how the average brainwashed Mac user mentality is created, and my anecdote does show some issues with that.
And here it is. Your whole preconception is extraordinarily self-centered and narrow-minded. You can't seem to understand people treating a computer differently than you do. They don't want to learn all the intricacies about their computer. And that's for *them* to decide. Who are *you* to make those decisions for them, or judge them inadequate if they make different choices than you? If they choose to spend money to buy a program that does what they want instead of learning how to do it themselves, that doesn't make them stupid, nor "brainwashed", nor anything else. It just makes them different than you. Quit acting like that's such a bad thing.
For years I've heard some of the Apple faithful response to condemnations of elitism with elitist responses.
For each one of those, there's a PC user using elitism in putting down a Mac owner. "Macs are overpriced", "are underpowered", "are dumbed down", etc.
Only on slashdot can a reply to a comment on a thread I started get marked redundant.
Well, are there other sites which have "redundant" moderation?
Dear moderator: I am the OP! I am the person the Parent was responding too. Should I not respond because someone posted the similar thoughts?
You weren't modded down for responding, you were modded down for posting the redundant nonsense about "the mouse".
Oh the irony....
Yeah, how 'ironic' that Mac users get software that meets their needs. Idiots!
In other words, you took it upon yourself to insult everyone else in the meeting? It would be like a Mac user putting a lemming or a sheep over his Apple logo in a room full of PCs.
Just as these days we have people thinking the only mobile phones in the market are the Iphone and Android...
Funny, I find that there aren't really all that many people who think there's even such a thing *as* an Iphone, unless they are so rabidly anti-Apple that they resort to childish renaming tactics a la "Micro$oft".
Unless of course you're seriously going to tell me that you think all those damn hipsters at my coffee shop really sat down and did some comparative analysis and decided that a Mac would "serve their purposes better."
And you're going to tell me that those with Dells and HPs did some comparative analysis and decided that their choice would "serve their purposes better"?
Apple actually sued Digital Research (and won) because it was such a blatant copy of the Mac's interface.
I don't know if Apple "won" as much as buried DR in legal fees. They lost the similar suit against Microsoft after all.
No, MS settled with Apple out of court.
They don't care if it's locked down because the default is exactly what they need
What's this nonsense all about? If you're talking about the UI theme (the only thing really "locked down" on a Mac), what you've stated defines *most* people, even though you state it as though they are a limited subset of people. Very few people theme Windows (not even the colors).
Or maybe you are talking about source code lock down? A significant portion of OS X is open source. Much more so than Windows, and given that around 90% of people are fine with Windows, I don't think people are going to find a *more* open system to be "locked down".
Or perhaps you mean locked down like the iPhone, where you can't run apps that aren't approved by Apple. This is not the case on the Mac.