although, to be fair, I could not find contract-less purchasing for an iPad 2.
All iPads are contract-less. You are paying full price for the hardware, and own it outright. With a subsidized Xoom, you enter into a contract and are giving a discount in exchange for the promise of two years of payment or the payment of an ETF of $350.
tl;dr: XOOM is less expensive, spec-for-spec unless you're buying it without a contract.
So, the one case scenario where the Xoom is cheaper is if you compare the subsidized Xoom with the unsubsidized iPad (hardly fair, but at least subsidy is an option with the Xoom, so there's that for now). In every other scenario, the iPad is cheaper. If Verizon (or AT&T) were to offer a subsidized iPad, you'd find that iPad to still be much cheaper than a Xoom.
Because he's not an irrational Apple hater, and doesn't mind buying the best tool for the job?
What job, exactly, is the iPad the best tool for?
A portable computer that performs a requisite list of tasks. As long as it meets that standard, everything else is opinion. If it's the best tool for yog or me or anyone else, what's it to you? I don't care if it's not the best tool to you. If it's not, then simply don't buy one, and everyone's happy. Why butt yourself into other people's choices?
My challenge is not "iPad vs Android". It's "Why is the 2011 version of the underpowered PDA such a fascination when it still lacks many of the capabilities of a $99 netbook?
Because it has many capabilities that the imaginary $99 netbook lacks. I know you probably won't understand this, but not running a desktop OS is a *HUGE PLUS* for many people. Reading books and viewing photos and videos is far more enjoyable on an iPad than on a netbook. Not having to open a cumbersome clamshell is very nice.
Let's assume for the moment that you still aren't convinced. At least accept the fact that well over 15 million people chosen to buy an iPad, and millions more buy them each month. Clearly you don't agree with them, but they seem to really like their iPads, so there's obviously something there for many people that isn't there for you. Some people like vi, some people like emacs, and the other 99+% have no clue what vi and emacs are, and just use a GUI text editor or word processor. You remind me of an emacs graybeard who can't understand why anyone would use something as limited as notepad.exe instead of something as powerful as emacs. No need to change your opinion, just accept that not everyone shares your opinion, and that's not a bad thing.
If you can find a need (not a want) that is best filled by iPad-style tablets, then feel free to share. A good number of other slashdot users are legitimately interested.
I'm not sure why you think people should feel the need to justify their purchases to you. If you don't see the need, hooray for you. You're starting from a specific point of view with different needs and desires. You say I have to provide a "need (not a want)". Do you have a "need (not a want)" for running Linux (if you do)? Or a netbook instead of a tablet? Or a "need (not a want)" for a portable computer in the first place? Do you only buy things if they are a "need (not a want)"? I bet your desktop LCD is larger than what you specifically *need*. If you have dual monitors, that's even more true. Does your printer print in color? Do you actually *need* color? Shouldn't you just use a B&W laser printer? But then, who am I to suggest you justify your choices to me?
Tablets are still useless for anything other than dicking-around. They're toys -- not tools.
First off, "dicking around" is 90% of what people do on the computer. What do you think you're doing right now? You're definitely not doing something that requires a "tool" of any sort that isn't basically a "toy". (I'm using quotes because it's a stupid distinction meant to belittle anything the speaker doesn't find useful)
With an iPad, I can leave my notebook at home. Maybe that means I don't need a "tool" away from home, although I've done plenty of "tool" things with my iPad, including offloading and sharing of raw files from my dSLR while on vacation. I definitely could have done this with a notebook or a netbook, but why? The iPad is much more convenient.
But then, like I said, I have no need to justify myself to you. If you don't find an iPad (or tablet in general) to be useful, that's fine. I don't mind you presenting your opinion. I only ask you quit acting like *your* opinion is objective fact and anyone else with a different opinion should feel any need or desire whatsoever to defend theirs to you.
What does multitouch bring to web browsing? That is, how does multitouch make web browsing "better"?
You interact directly with the page, no mouse or keyboard in between you and the content. That makes it much more enjoyable, to me at least. You may be different. If so, no big deal. Don't get an iPad if you don't want, but don't act like people who buy them are trendy fools tricked by "coolness", only to discover the device is not terribly useful, as the person I was replying to did.
I doubt that your tablet would let you maintain the same level of Apple shilling you do on Slashdot
I'm giving my opinion. Just because it's not yours doesn't make me a shill. The only reason I post so much about Apple stuff here is that there is so much assholery here on Slashdot about Apple. I don't care if people don't like Apple or their products, but Apple on Slashdot is like Democrats on Fox News.
touchscreen keyboards are horrible.
I don't recall ever typing so much while using the web to care enough that the keyboard isn't as good as a physical keyboard. And if I did, I could just use any bluetooth or USB keyboard.
I'm seriously just trying to understand the urge for early adoption, when it's expressed in terms of "need" and the willingness to overpay for it. Not trying to boost any particular platform.
Everyone else's iPad works just like yours (well, iPad 2 is a bit more powerful with a few extra features, but it still works basically the same way). All those things you can do on yours? That's what we do with ours. The only difference is we enjoy it and don't believe it's overpriced. If you don't find yours worth the money, I'm not sure what you expect someone to be able to tell you to bring you to a different conclusion. It's not like there's some secret app or something that we are all running that you just haven't been told about or anything.
It's like baseball or rap or American Idol, or whatever thing you don't like that a lot of other people seem to. People are diverse and have diverse tastes, values, and opinions.
What percentage of those 15 million people had genuine needs to be fulfilled by the iPad, researched it and similar products, comparing specifications and capabilities, before finally deciding that it would provide the most value to them?
Had they bought an Android tablet, would you have derided them for not having a "genuine need" for one, or for not doing some arbitrary level of research? Or is it just that they have different needs and desires than you, so they must be stupid or otherwise irresponsibly frivolous?
Besides, who are you that people need to justify their purchases to you anyway?
Who says it has to completely replace something? Or has to bring new capabilities?
The iPad has replaced my need for a notebook. This is huge. Multitouch is a new way to interact with a computer. All the specific tasks tablets can do are essentially the same as with a traditional PC, but some tasks are much better suited for touch. GarageBand is one very good example of this. Even web browsing is better in multitouch.
But the most telling thing about your post is you start out saying that iPads or tablets in general aren't very useful (people don't know how to use their iPods (really?), people buy these things because "it's cool", that tablets don't do anything that other devices can do), then say you are tempted to buy an Android tablet. That sums up right there that regerdless of whether "new" or not, iPads are compelling products. And at well over 15 million sold in less than a year, it's hard to fathom how this was even a question in the first place.
Yeah, especially the parts where he said he would rather have an Android tablet, that he only ever had one iPod from Apple, and how he runs Linux and runs Windows in a VM. What a total shill! By which I think you mean, he said nice things about something you don't like.
While I agree that the iPad is a very interesting device, it is still terribly limiting in some respects. It is bound to increase the number of devices you lug around rather than decrease their number.
What does that even mean? If it replaces one's laptop, it doesn't decrease the number of devices, but it significantly decreases bulk. If he never really carried a notebook all that much, but brings his iPad with him more often, that increases devices, but this is not a negative. If he brings a notebook and his iPad, it seems a bit much (for me, an iPad greatly reduces the amount of times I bring my notebook with me, to almost nil), but if he finds value in carrying both, I still fail to see how this is a negative.
There's still the problem of doing everything that Apple refuses to allow. For a web tablet, you simply can't gloss over Flash being banned outright.
He didn't. He lamented it, but honestly noted that while he wished it was an option, its omission isn't all that bad. I.e., instead of blindly raging against Apple, he openly evaluated the impact this has actually had.
The fact that one is forced to run an OS not of one's choosing is also very problematic.
It's because you can only buy what actually exists, not what you wish existed. And your "overpay" comment is silly. Proper Android tablets can't even meet the price of the iPad, how is buying the cheapest tablet "overpaying"?
Had he bought the more expensive Xoom, would you have questioned his purchase?
I could ask, "Useful how?" but I'd just get a regurgitation of the advertising copy. So I'll just accept that there is something about his life that requires an iPad, and then a year later, an iPad2.
Hold on a sec... Just a moment ago you suggested he should have waited for an Android tablet, but now you disparage that he must have some inconceivable "requirement" in his life for an iPad. So one can buy an Android tablet for any reason whatsoever, and you're just fine with it, but if someone buys an iPad, you request they justify it to you?
I always assumed your nick was just a joke, but maybe you are the Pope of Android Fanboys? Infidel Apple customers will be confronted, Android will be praised, amen?
As much as I definitely have a preference (and make no attempt to hide it), I never tell anyone what they should buy, or question what they spend their own money on. Especially unbidden like this.
The best price is 30% more than it would be otherwise. There are apps and businesses who can't just can't afford 30% and will pull out because this is a forced thing and not an opt-in for the app developers.
That makes no damned sense. You even contradict yourself, if I'm reading you right, that they will raise their prices to cover the cost, but then they can't afford to pay that extra cost?
Those that can't afford it will raise rates, those that can won't. But clearly you have some examples in mind, and aren't just completely making shit up, right? Will Amazon, Hulu, Netflix, MLB... will any major service pull the plug? It makes no sense. There will be bitching and moaning, and there will be a few low-profile services that pull the plug, some to create buzz, others for actual financial reasons.
I don't see how this is great for the customer.
It's those anti-Apple blinders you are wearing. I already told you why it's great for the customer. It brings more options to me, easier, and with less privacy concerns. Win, win, win.
And because this is Apple, iFans will come out of the woodwork to do some absurd rationalizations about how it's good for the users and how it's not about filling the company coffers at any cost.
What's absurd about what I wrote? As far as "filling the company coffers", you arguing from ignorance here. Apple does not make much profit on their iTunes stores. Maybe down the road. But as long as it proves to be a great service, like the App Store has, and the other iTunes stores before it, I don't see why they shouldn't make money from it. That's how things work.
I like the new subscription rules. First off, it's far easier to use the same login and billing that I used to buy the app with, than it is to keep up with each and every subscription independently. Second, I can buy with the confidence that I am getting the best price, and not have to drop out of the app and load the site directly just in case there's a better deal elsewhere. Finally, I have go opt-in if I want to share my personal info with the publisher.
These are *all* great for the consumer. Apple treats its customers very well, and that's why they are so successful. Normally Slashdot would be in favor of this sort of thing, especially the opt-in feature. But since this is Apple, we are supposed to make up any reason whatsoever to hate them, even if the thing we are complaining about helps us.
Well, I guess time will tell. I hope Pixel Qi, or similar, becomes more common. It definitely has its use. If you want a display that is readily viewable outdoors, but is also better than e-ink indoors, it's fantastic. But if you want the best possible image, you will still want a proper, quality LCD.
But if you want to keep thinking Pixel Qi is superior to an unmodified LCD, be my guest. No skin off my back if you want to delude yourself.
Go see one in real life. Of course a video of a video isn't going to look good.
Adam doesn't exist yet, but you can see images in a video, and it was just awful. Can you point me to any existing products I can find in a store that uses Pixel Qi? If it was truly so good, it should be all over the place. But it's not. Wonder why?
I was being quite literal. I've tried to use an iPad in direct sunlight and you can't see a thing on the screen.
Bullshit. I have an iPad, and was skeptical of how it would look in direct sunlight. It is definitely much fainter than normal, but it's perfectly readable. You are lying either about having used it in direct sunlight, or not being able to see anything.
They just aren't well suited for that kind of environment.
No one said it was, but it's not "infinitely" worse than Pixel Qi, or anything else.
The Pixel Qi display, on the other hand, is perfectly readable in any lighting conditions.
I'm quite certain it's perfectly readable in most any lighting condition, but it's doubtful going to be as good as an LCD like found in the iPad in normal indoor lighting conditions.
It would be longer battery life with a superior display. Your idea that Pixel Qi is worse than the traditional LCD on the iPad is laughable.
Holy shit, you left the best part for last. You can't possibly expect anyone to believe that the Pixel Qi is a superior LCD.
Think about it. The e-ink part can clearly be superior outdoors, no question there, but how can the normal LCD mode be superior to an LCD without the transflective design, which, by definition, must make the LCD perform worse? The only way a Pixel Qi display could actually be superior is if the Pixel Qi's LCD is actually vastly superior to the iPad's LCD, so the degradation in quality caused by the transflective mode doesn't degrade quality enough to lower it below that of the iPad's LCD.
This is not laughable, it's reality. And, like I said, if Pixel Qi is so superior, why is it not being used? The phrase "snake oil" comes to mind.
Errr. Lifetime yes that is far worse, especially in blues, they have a tendency to reach half their brightness before other colours leading to colour shifting over the life. This can be solved by calibration making it just a life expectancy issue. But the colours comment is completely off base.
In theory, I'm talking about practice. Unless you expect people to calibrate their screens every X months.
So colour gamut wise it out performs even $1500 screens.
Gamut is just one part of it. Accuracy is another. What good is a wide gamut if your colors are off?
The technology may be inherently flawed, primarily by the 'O' in the name. Organic compounds tend to be problematic to work with reliably (which is why they are so great for life, very reactive). I do trust that technology will advance enough sometime relatively soon (3-10 years) to solve this issue, at least well enough that the screens can self-calibrate and lifespans can be extended to a reasonable length, but as it stands now, OLED is inferior for applications like the iPad (but fantastic for other applications).
Have you even seen a Pixel Qi display? They look just as good as the best LCDs with lighting on and infinitely better in direct light/sunlight with the lighting off.
I've seen videos of the Adam, and the screen is awful compared to a proper LCD, but nice for what it is. There are definitely applications for which it's the proper choice, but something like the iPad isn't it.
I realize you weren't being literal when saying "infinitely better", but the iPad is quite usable in direct sunlight. Worse than the Pixel Qi, I'm sure, but not close to infinitely, not even metaphorically.
The iPad's (or any tablet's) battery life could be at least doubled with Pixel Qi.
It gets ten hours now. I've *never* run out of battery on my iPad, and the only times I've ever run low is if I haven't charged it for a few days. Longer battery life is not worth gimping the display.
Maybe they should offer two models. One with and one without Pixel Qi to serve the high and low end respectively.
That would be interesting, but I don't see the point, unless the Pixel Qi is significantly better than the actual (not mock-up) videos showed.
I've not heard of any with better screens than the iPad. Usually they have smaller screens or widescreens (both of which are worse for a tablet). Maybe that's 'fancy'?
The memory and ports mean very little outside of the geek realm.
Out of curiosity, why is having a higher resolution screen like the Xoom worse for a Tablet?
Where did you get the idea I said that? The Xoom doesn't have a notably higher resolution display, it's a widescreen display. The short dimension is similar, the long dimension just adds more pixels to make it longer. The problem is that widescreen is worse for everything except viewing video on a tablet. Everything else is awkward.
Will you really be upset if they make a Retina display for the iPad 3 because having more pixels on a tablet sucks for some reason?
Again, I never said that. I said widescreen and 7" screens are bad.
In terms of RAM, it is really weird that Apple didn't release how much RAM the iPad 2 has. One theory is that they are incompetent, and omitted it by accident. Another theory is that they know that they can't compete with the specs of the Xoom, so they omitted it on purpose. A third possibility is that they planned to release it with 256/512 MB of RAM and are scrambling to change it to 1GB before launch to catch up with the superior specs of their competitors.
What a dumb set of theories. The actual answer is Apple has never publicly stated how much RAM is in any of their iOS devices. That's because it's completely irrelevant to the user. The only thing that matters is that it has enough to run well.
Any of these possibilities has Apple looking pretty bad... The amount of RAM will definitely have a pretty big impact on performance. People will care a lot about that when all the Android Tablets with Quad core Tegra chips come out.
The amount of RAM impacts operation (but no performance so much, iOS doesn't use swap), but there's no way for a user to know how much RAM is important to have. Is 512MB enough? Is 1GB more useful? It's like the RAM in a video game console. It just doesn't matter as long as there's enough. We'll find out in a few days if the iPad 2 has enough, which is something we couldn't know just from a published number (unless it was so absurdly high that it couldn't possibly be too small).
BTW, I especially liked your theory that they are scrambling to upgrade the RAM to 1GB. It's humorously absurd on many levels. Thanks for that.
They make more if you buy a Tab since they make the money from their components + the money from the sale of the Tab itself.
It's not that Samsung *won't* be price competitive with Apple, it's that they *can't*. It's silly to think Android tablets are being deliberately overpriced. Android tablet makers are having a hard enough time as it is convincing people to buy them, why would adding a higher price to the mix help with that?
I'd rather have a quality display. Pixel Qi is a great compromise if image quality isn't important. I don't know much about Mirasol, but it definitely looks more interesting to me for non-computer applications, but it's also worse quality than a good (or even poor) quality LCD.
Both would be nice for an eReader or low-end portable terminal. I wouldn't want them on something I intend to use a lot to browse the web, view video and view photos on. It would be like printing all your photos on plain inkjet paper instead of actual inkjet photo paper. You *can*, but it's not going to look nice.
Yes, the high tens of dollars, which is why you don't find it in $300 laptops.
As for OLED, the colors are usually worse, lifetime is worse, and power savings are variable. I really like OLED in some circumstances, but on a display that is meant to be general purpose, covering video and photography and general web browsing, they aren't as good as a good LCD display (at least, none that I've yet seen are).
Slashdot Mirror
Why butt yourself into other people's choices?
I didn't butt into anyones choice. I asked a simple question regarding your post which apparently you don't have an answer for.
When you ask someone to justify their purchase to do, butting in is exactly what you are doing.
although, to be fair, I could not find contract-less purchasing for an iPad 2.
All iPads are contract-less. You are paying full price for the hardware, and own it outright. With a subsidized Xoom, you enter into a contract and are giving a discount in exchange for the promise of two years of payment or the payment of an ETF of $350.
tl;dr: XOOM is less expensive, spec-for-spec unless you're buying it without a contract.
So, the one case scenario where the Xoom is cheaper is if you compare the subsidized Xoom with the unsubsidized iPad (hardly fair, but at least subsidy is an option with the Xoom, so there's that for now). In every other scenario, the iPad is cheaper. If Verizon (or AT&T) were to offer a subsidized iPad, you'd find that iPad to still be much cheaper than a Xoom.
Because he's not an irrational Apple hater, and doesn't mind buying the best tool for the job?
What job, exactly, is the iPad the best tool for?
A portable computer that performs a requisite list of tasks. As long as it meets that standard, everything else is opinion. If it's the best tool for
yog or me or anyone else, what's it to you? I don't care if it's not the best tool to you. If it's not, then simply don't buy one, and everyone's happy. Why butt yourself into other people's choices?
My challenge is not "iPad vs Android". It's "Why is the 2011 version of the underpowered PDA such a fascination when it still lacks many of the capabilities of a $99 netbook?
Because it has many capabilities that the imaginary $99 netbook lacks. I know you probably won't understand this, but not running a desktop OS is a *HUGE PLUS* for many people. Reading books and viewing photos and videos is far more enjoyable on an iPad than on a netbook. Not having to open a cumbersome clamshell is very nice.
Let's assume for the moment that you still aren't convinced. At least accept the fact that well over 15 million people chosen to buy an iPad, and millions more buy them each month. Clearly you don't agree with them, but they seem to really like their iPads, so there's obviously something there for many people that isn't there for you. Some people like vi, some people like emacs, and the other 99+% have no clue what vi and emacs are, and just use a GUI text editor or word processor. You remind me of an emacs graybeard who can't understand why anyone would use something as limited as notepad.exe instead of something as powerful as emacs. No need to change your opinion, just accept that not everyone shares your opinion, and that's not a bad thing.
If you can find a need (not a want) that is best filled by iPad-style tablets, then feel free to share. A good number of other slashdot users are legitimately interested.
I'm not sure why you think people should feel the need to justify their purchases to you. If you don't see the need, hooray for you. You're starting from a specific point of view with different needs and desires. You say I have to provide a "need (not a want)". Do you have a "need (not a want)" for running Linux (if you do)? Or a netbook instead of a tablet? Or a "need (not a want)" for a portable computer in the first place? Do you only buy things if they are a "need (not a want)"? I bet your desktop LCD is larger than what you specifically *need*. If you have dual monitors, that's even more true. Does your printer print in color? Do you actually *need* color? Shouldn't you just use a B&W laser printer? But then, who am I to suggest you justify your choices to me?
Tablets are still useless for anything other than dicking-around. They're toys -- not tools.
First off, "dicking around" is 90% of what people do on the computer. What do you think you're doing right now? You're definitely not doing something that requires a "tool" of any sort that isn't basically a "toy". (I'm using quotes because it's a stupid distinction meant to belittle anything the speaker doesn't find useful)
With an iPad, I can leave my notebook at home. Maybe that means I don't need a "tool" away from home, although I've done plenty of "tool" things with my iPad, including offloading and sharing of raw files from my dSLR while on vacation. I definitely could have done this with a notebook or a netbook, but why? The iPad is much more convenient.
But then, like I said, I have no need to justify myself to you. If you don't find an iPad (or tablet in general) to be useful, that's fine. I don't mind you presenting your opinion. I only ask you quit acting like *your* opinion is objective fact and anyone else with a different opinion should feel any need or desire whatsoever to defend theirs to you.
Even web browsing is better in multitouch.
What does multitouch bring to web browsing? That is, how does multitouch make web browsing "better"?
You interact directly with the page, no mouse or keyboard in between you and the content. That makes it much more enjoyable, to me at least. You may be different. If so, no big deal. Don't get an iPad if you don't want, but don't act like people who buy them are trendy fools tricked by "coolness", only to discover the device is not terribly useful, as the person I was replying to did.
I doubt that your tablet would let you maintain the same level of Apple shilling you do on Slashdot
I'm giving my opinion. Just because it's not yours doesn't make me a shill. The only reason I post so much about Apple stuff here is that there is so much assholery here on Slashdot about Apple. I don't care if people don't like Apple or their products, but Apple on Slashdot is like Democrats on Fox News.
touchscreen keyboards are horrible.
I don't recall ever typing so much while using the web to care enough that the keyboard isn't as good as a physical keyboard. And if I did, I could just use any bluetooth or USB keyboard.
I'm seriously just trying to understand the urge for early adoption, when it's expressed in terms of "need" and the willingness to overpay for it. Not trying to boost any particular platform.
Everyone else's iPad works just like yours (well, iPad 2 is a bit more powerful with a few extra features, but it still works basically the same way). All those things you can do on yours? That's what we do with ours. The only difference is we enjoy it and don't believe it's overpriced. If you don't find yours worth the money, I'm not sure what you expect someone to be able to tell you to bring you to a different conclusion. It's not like there's some secret app or something that we are all running that you just haven't been told about or anything.
It's like baseball or rap or American Idol, or whatever thing you don't like that a lot of other people seem to. People are diverse and have diverse tastes, values, and opinions.
What percentage of those 15 million people had genuine needs to be fulfilled by the iPad, researched it and similar products, comparing specifications and capabilities, before finally deciding that it would provide the most value to them?
Had they bought an Android tablet, would you have derided them for not having a "genuine need" for one, or for not doing some arbitrary level of research? Or is it just that they have different needs and desires than you, so they must be stupid or otherwise irresponsibly frivolous?
Besides, who are you that people need to justify their purchases to you anyway?
Who says it has to completely replace something? Or has to bring new capabilities?
The iPad has replaced my need for a notebook. This is huge. Multitouch is a new way to interact with a computer. All the specific tasks tablets can do are essentially the same as with a traditional PC, but some tasks are much better suited for touch. GarageBand is one very good example of this. Even web browsing is better in multitouch.
But the most telling thing about your post is you start out saying that iPads or tablets in general aren't very useful (people don't know how to use their iPods (really?), people buy these things because "it's cool", that tablets don't do anything that other devices can do), then say you are tempted to buy an Android tablet. That sums up right there that regerdless of whether "new" or not, iPads are compelling products. And at well over 15 million sold in less than a year, it's hard to fathom how this was even a question in the first place.
Sounds far too much like a shill.
Yeah, especially the parts where he said he would rather have an Android tablet, that he only ever had one iPod from Apple, and how he runs Linux and runs Windows in a VM. What a total shill! By which I think you mean, he said nice things about something you don't like.
While I agree that the iPad is a very interesting device, it is still terribly limiting in some respects. It is bound to increase the number of devices you lug around rather than decrease their number.
What does that even mean? If it replaces one's laptop, it doesn't decrease the number of devices, but it significantly decreases bulk. If he never really carried a notebook all that much, but brings his iPad with him more often, that increases devices, but this is not a negative. If he brings a notebook and his iPad, it seems a bit much (for me, an iPad greatly reduces the amount of times I bring my notebook with me, to almost nil), but if he finds value in carrying both, I still fail to see how this is a negative.
There's still the problem of doing everything that Apple refuses to allow. For a web tablet, you simply can't gloss over Flash being banned outright.
He didn't. He lamented it, but honestly noted that while he wished it was an option, its omission isn't all that bad. I.e., instead of blindly raging against Apple, he openly evaluated the impact this has actually had.
The fact that one is forced to run an OS not of one's choosing is also very problematic.
For 0.0X% of the population.
It's because you can only buy what actually exists, not what you wish existed. And your "overpay" comment is silly. Proper Android tablets can't even meet the price of the iPad, how is buying the cheapest tablet "overpaying"?
Had he bought the more expensive Xoom, would you have questioned his purchase?
I could ask, "Useful how?" but I'd just get a regurgitation of the advertising copy. So I'll just accept that there is something about his life that requires an iPad, and then a year later, an iPad2.
Hold on a sec... Just a moment ago you suggested he should have waited for an Android tablet, but now you disparage that he must have some inconceivable "requirement" in his life for an iPad. So one can buy an Android tablet for any reason whatsoever, and you're just fine with it, but if someone buys an iPad, you request they justify it to you?
I always assumed your nick was just a joke, but maybe you are the Pope of Android Fanboys? Infidel Apple customers will be confronted, Android will be praised, amen?
As much as I definitely have a preference (and make no attempt to hide it), I never tell anyone what they should buy, or question what they spend their own money on. Especially unbidden like this.
And you just couldn't wait another second because...?
Because he's not an irrational Apple hater, and doesn't mind buying the best tool for the job?
BTW, I still don't see you whining about Amazons subscription rules on the Kindle - why is that?
Clearly it's because Amazon isn't eeeeeeevvvviiill.
No, actually it's because if Apple succeeds, then somehow Android must fail, and we can't have that 'round here, can we?
/sarcasm
The best price is 30% more than it would be otherwise. There are apps and businesses who can't just can't afford 30% and will pull out because this is a forced thing and not an opt-in for the app developers.
That makes no damned sense. You even contradict yourself, if I'm reading you right, that they will raise their prices to cover the cost, but then they can't afford to pay that extra cost?
Those that can't afford it will raise rates, those that can won't. But clearly you have some examples in mind, and aren't just completely making shit up, right? Will Amazon, Hulu, Netflix, MLB... will any major service pull the plug? It makes no sense. There will be bitching and moaning, and there will be a few low-profile services that pull the plug, some to create buzz, others for actual financial reasons.
I don't see how this is great for the customer.
It's those anti-Apple blinders you are wearing. I already told you why it's great for the customer. It brings more options to me, easier, and with less privacy concerns. Win, win, win.
And because this is Apple, iFans will come out of the woodwork to do some absurd rationalizations about how it's good for the users and how it's not about filling the company coffers at any cost.
What's absurd about what I wrote? As far as "filling the company coffers", you arguing from ignorance here. Apple does not make much profit on their iTunes stores. Maybe down the road. But as long as it proves to be a great service, like the App Store has, and the other iTunes stores before it, I don't see why they shouldn't make money from it. That's how things work.
Xcode is still free. You just don't get the newer version free. This is for regulatory compliance.
I like the new subscription rules. First off, it's far easier to use the same login and billing that I used to buy the app with, than it is to keep up with each and every subscription independently. Second, I can buy with the confidence that I am getting the best price, and not have to drop out of the app and load the site directly just in case there's a better deal elsewhere. Finally, I have go opt-in if I want to share my personal info with the publisher.
These are *all* great for the consumer. Apple treats its customers very well, and that's why they are so successful. Normally Slashdot would be in favor of this sort of thing, especially the opt-in feature. But since this is Apple, we are supposed to make up any reason whatsoever to hate them, even if the thing we are complaining about helps us.
Well, I guess time will tell. I hope Pixel Qi, or similar, becomes more common. It definitely has its use. If you want a display that is readily viewable outdoors, but is also better than e-ink indoors, it's fantastic. But if you want the best possible image, you will still want a proper, quality LCD.
But if you want to keep thinking Pixel Qi is superior to an unmodified LCD, be my guest. No skin off my back if you want to delude yourself.
Go see one in real life. Of course a video of a video isn't going to look good.
Adam doesn't exist yet, but you can see images in a video, and it was just awful. Can you point me to any existing products I can find in a store that uses Pixel Qi? If it was truly so good, it should be all over the place. But it's not. Wonder why?
I was being quite literal. I've tried to use an iPad in direct sunlight and you can't see a thing on the screen.
Bullshit. I have an iPad, and was skeptical of how it would look in direct sunlight. It is definitely much fainter than normal, but it's perfectly readable. You are lying either about having used it in direct sunlight, or not being able to see anything.
They just aren't well suited for that kind of environment.
No one said it was, but it's not "infinitely" worse than Pixel Qi, or anything else.
The Pixel Qi display, on the other hand, is perfectly readable in any lighting conditions.
I'm quite certain it's perfectly readable in most any lighting condition, but it's doubtful going to be as good as an LCD like found in the iPad in normal indoor lighting conditions.
It would be longer battery life with a superior display. Your idea that Pixel Qi is worse than the traditional LCD on the iPad is laughable.
Holy shit, you left the best part for last. You can't possibly expect anyone to believe that the Pixel Qi is a superior LCD.
Think about it. The e-ink part can clearly be superior outdoors, no question there, but how can the normal LCD mode be superior to an LCD without the transflective design, which, by definition, must make the LCD perform worse? The only way a Pixel Qi display could actually be superior is if the Pixel Qi's LCD is actually vastly superior to the iPad's LCD, so the degradation in quality caused by the transflective mode doesn't degrade quality enough to lower it below that of the iPad's LCD.
This is not laughable, it's reality. And, like I said, if Pixel Qi is so superior, why is it not being used? The phrase "snake oil" comes to mind.
Errr. Lifetime yes that is far worse, especially in blues, they have a tendency to reach half their brightness before other colours leading to colour shifting over the life. This can be solved by calibration making it just a life expectancy issue. But the colours comment is completely off base.
In theory, I'm talking about practice. Unless you expect people to calibrate their screens every X months.
So colour gamut wise it out performs even $1500 screens.
Gamut is just one part of it. Accuracy is another. What good is a wide gamut if your colors are off?
The technology may be inherently flawed, primarily by the 'O' in the name. Organic compounds tend to be problematic to work with reliably (which is why they are so great for life, very reactive). I do trust that technology will advance enough sometime relatively soon (3-10 years) to solve this issue, at least well enough that the screens can self-calibrate and lifespans can be extended to a reasonable length, but as it stands now, OLED is inferior for applications like the iPad (but fantastic for other applications).
Have you even seen a Pixel Qi display? They look just as good as the best LCDs with lighting on and infinitely better in direct light/sunlight with the lighting off.
I've seen videos of the Adam, and the screen is awful compared to a proper LCD, but nice for what it is. There are definitely applications for which it's the proper choice, but something like the iPad isn't it.
I realize you weren't being literal when saying "infinitely better", but the iPad is quite usable in direct sunlight. Worse than the Pixel Qi, I'm sure, but not close to infinitely, not even metaphorically.
The iPad's (or any tablet's) battery life could be at least doubled with Pixel Qi.
It gets ten hours now. I've *never* run out of battery on my iPad, and the only times I've ever run low is if I haven't charged it for a few days. Longer battery life is not worth gimping the display.
Maybe they should offer two models. One with and one without Pixel Qi to serve the high and low end respectively.
That would be interesting, but I don't see the point, unless the Pixel Qi is significantly better than the actual (not mock-up) videos showed.
I've not heard of any with better screens than the iPad. Usually they have smaller screens or widescreens (both of which are worse for a tablet). Maybe that's 'fancy'?
The memory and ports mean very little outside of the geek realm.
Out of curiosity, why is having a higher resolution screen like the Xoom worse for a Tablet?
Where did you get the idea I said that? The Xoom doesn't have a notably higher resolution display, it's a widescreen display. The short dimension is similar, the long dimension just adds more pixels to make it longer. The problem is that widescreen is worse for everything except viewing video on a tablet. Everything else is awkward.
Will you really be upset if they make a Retina display for the iPad 3 because having more pixels on a tablet sucks for some reason?
Again, I never said that. I said widescreen and 7" screens are bad.
In terms of RAM, it is really weird that Apple didn't release how much RAM the iPad 2 has. One theory is that they are incompetent, and omitted it by accident. Another theory is that they know that they can't compete with the specs of the Xoom, so they omitted it on purpose. A third possibility is that they planned to release it with 256/512 MB of RAM and are scrambling to change it to 1GB before launch to catch up with the superior specs of their competitors.
What a dumb set of theories. The actual answer is Apple has never publicly stated how much RAM is in any of their iOS devices. That's because it's completely irrelevant to the user. The only thing that matters is that it has enough to run well.
Any of these possibilities has Apple looking pretty bad... The amount of RAM will definitely have a pretty big impact on performance. People will care a lot about that when all the Android Tablets with Quad core Tegra chips come out.
The amount of RAM impacts operation (but no performance so much, iOS doesn't use swap), but there's no way for a user to know how much RAM is important to have. Is 512MB enough? Is 1GB more useful? It's like the RAM in a video game console. It just doesn't matter as long as there's enough. We'll find out in a few days if the iPad 2 has enough, which is something we couldn't know just from a published number (unless it was so absurdly high that it couldn't possibly be too small).
BTW, I especially liked your theory that they are scrambling to upgrade the RAM to 1GB. It's humorously absurd on many levels. Thanks for that.
They make more if you buy a Tab since they make the money from their components + the money from the sale of the Tab itself.
It's not that Samsung *won't* be price competitive with Apple, it's that they *can't*. It's silly to think Android tablets are being deliberately overpriced. Android tablet makers are having a hard enough time as it is convincing people to buy them, why would adding a higher price to the mix help with that?
I'd rather have a quality display. Pixel Qi is a great compromise if image quality isn't important. I don't know much about Mirasol, but it definitely looks more interesting to me for non-computer applications, but it's also worse quality than a good (or even poor) quality LCD.
Both would be nice for an eReader or low-end portable terminal. I wouldn't want them on something I intend to use a lot to browse the web, view video and view photos on. It would be like printing all your photos on plain inkjet paper instead of actual inkjet photo paper. You *can*, but it's not going to look nice.
Yes, the high tens of dollars, which is why you don't find it in $300 laptops.
As for OLED, the colors are usually worse, lifetime is worse, and power savings are variable. I really like OLED in some circumstances, but on a display that is meant to be general purpose, covering video and photography and general web browsing, they aren't as good as a good LCD display (at least, none that I've yet seen are).