So your point is a platform is free as long as there is enough malware, and Apple isn't free enough.
I don't recall anything saying anything about freedom.
Reread my post, it's mostly about how iOS also has malware and how iOS users should be aware of the problem. You know, so that they can be careful to avoid it. The false sense of security they have from the "Apple doesn't have malware" myth can be dangerous for them.
The Android way: There's an app we don't aprove of? Just download it from one of the other stores - where there is even more malware than on our store.
You know that Android isn't the opposite of Apple, right?
(There are more than 2 big players in the smartphone market. For example, RIM, according to the most recent Nielsen report, has as many post-paid subscribers as Apple!)
Additionally iOS isn't immune to malware -- and "apps" aren't the only attack vector smartphone users should be worried about.
Last August, for example, simply visiting a website was enough to jailbreak your iPhone. If that can be done by visiting a website, what can't be done?
The illusion of perfect security that Apple provides is really quite dangerous for their users. This becomes increasingly more important as Apple gains market share and becomes an larger/more attractive target for malware authors.
It's hard to believe that you're STILL upset! Seriously, you need to relax, it's really sad and pathetic.
Honestly, when I pointed out your gross incompetence, you should have just let it go.
You know what, here's some advice you could use: Stop advertising your mental failures on the internet. It would help you avoid situations like this which clearly cause you serious mental anguish.
It's hard to believe, but I'm actually *still laughing* about how pathetic you are!
But it is that you can't admit when you are wrong. And it means that *any* discussion with you is pointless. You're dishonest. You should be ashamed.
Ummm... I didn't lie. It's true that I should have put "'s store" in that sentence -- it would have been much clearer -- but I didn't realize I was dealing with someone of your... mental capacity.
I'm still waiting for the supposed advantage that the iPod had over competing players at the time it was released.
Again we both know I have answered that one with several points.
Have you? The closest you came was with your first answer:
They were clunky to use, had a one line LCD screen which made navigation hard, 32MB or 64MB of memory, and used a parallel port which took hours to fill that 64MB of memory with your 20 or so MP3s.
Which, of course, was 100% wrong. Which you refused to admit.
Since you can't admit when you are wrong, it means that *any* discussion with you is pointless. You're dishonest. You should be ashamed.
OK, enough of the tit-for-tat. It's getting tiresome. Lets cut to the chase with your obvious lie:
Yes, obviously I mean the store.
Okay, if you insist it's a lie, it's a lie. Of course, in context it should obviously meant the store -- you know, that thing to supposedly made the iPod easy for non-technical users to get music that came out long after the iPod. But it's a lie because you say so. Whatever.
So... I'm still waiting for the supposed advantage that the iPod had over competing players at the time it was released. Why is this such a difficult question for you to answer? Is it because you know the answer is "nothing" and just can't bring yourself to accept that?
You've only given your opinion. Nothing else. I've proved it. Despite your on-going efforts to save face.
Now THAT'S funny. I could *at my option* use any one of many music managers that are both smaller, faster, and more feature rich than iTunes. (Clearly, not an advantage to owning an iPod)
Complain all you want about how I choose to use my mp3 player -- but that doesn't make the iPod any better or iTunes suck any less.
Note that this sequence of steps still fails to do what you want if you've modified a music file, e.g. by changing the ID3 tags.
This shows how uninformed you are. If I modify the ID3 tags on a file, I just copy it over -- or hit "yes to all" Now, that's just for using something like Explorer -- a good file manager will handle that for me automatically.
Oh, your list of steps is ridiculous, I could do it with a single command in windows, linux, or macos -- I could even make a shortcut so that the whole thing happens in a single click -- AND handle the modified ID3 "problem" you listed earlier -- no need to open iTunes and wait for the giant bloated application to load.
I generally only copy new things to my player, so this has NEVER been an issue anyhow.
There's not millions like you. There's a few thousand (at most) on Slashdot.
Keep imagining that if it makes you feel better.
There's far more than have bought cheap MP3 players because they are cheap. But they wouldn't actually try to argue it's better than an iPod.
My experience tells a much different story. The iPod offers not advantage in terms of ease of use, function, or even style (in many cases). So... what makes the iPod better than the competition? Nothing. Are there reasons to pass it over in favor of other players? Yes!
Why pretend that Apples player special in some way? Honestly, iTunes alone is a major reason to avoid the iPod. You can get everything it offers *and more* from other players.
It looks like Linux is the bubble, and you're the one living in it. Again, the iPod/iPhone/iTunes combo is the most popular system in the world.
I've mentioned several Windows applications -- and your ridiculous list of steps were for windows -- were you not paying attention to either me or you?
That said popularity is not an indication of quality. Internet Explorer is the most popular web browser in the world -- and it's far from the best. Would you argue that it's popular because it's "the best"? I'll bet you would.
Copytrans? What the fuck? Are you serious?
Well, it is better than iTunes. That's why people use it for managing their iPod.
So... what is this magical advantage that the iPod has over other players? Seems like absolutely nothing to me. You know, as you can't seem to name even a single advantage.
On both, notice the clunky UI and buttons. You can't simply compare products by feature lists. Ease of use matters.
How can you possibly evaluate the ease of use of a device by looking at a 10 year old jpeg? Oh, that's right -- you can't. What a load of nonsense.
There is nothing in the iPod that other players hadn't already done -- Apple did absolutely nothing to make it easier to use than the alternatives.
Even the much-loved click-wheel wasn't an Apple innovation. Several other products also had very similar controls-in-a-circle long before the iPod.
Easier to use? That's your claim -- prove it. Oh, that's right, you CAN'T because it's a load of nonsense.
Wrong. iTunes (the app you've been talking about) was released before the iPod. It was the iTunes Music Store that opened some time after the iPod.
Yes, obviously I mean the store.
I bought a gen 2 iPod after having borrowed a friends gen 1 iPod for 2 days. I was blown away by it's utility and ease of use.
It's a real shame you didn't see any of the much better alternatives that existed at the time -- you may not have survived being been blown away by their utility and ease of use.
In other words, using the method you recommend, you can't do it.
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Of COURSE I can do it -- I've just never had the need to.
If I want all of my music on the player, that list is useless to me when I can just: crtl-a, ctrl-c, alt-tab, ctrl-v "no to all"
Oh, and I don't need a music manager to get that useless list either -- Winmerge or one of many linux tools will also tell you instantly -- as will any good file manager like TotalCommander
Nonsense. I know many Mac users. And all of them use iTunes, and never once have I heard any of them complain
Total nonsense. Everyone I know who's used iTunes hates it. Most of the iPod/iPhone users I know use copytrans as a replacement. iTunes is, quite possibly, the most hated Apple product ever made. You're living in a bubble.
Playlists is exactly for the thing you suggest. Swapping (and possibly losing) different media isn't a rational choice, it's an illiterate choice.
How is it illiterate? She can use playlists -- she just chooses not to. It's not like it's difficult or she doesn't understand. Her player even makes it easy to create playlists without needing a computer.
Do you hate choice? I guess so... See, for me -- and millions like me -- iTunes is the #1 reason we avoid iProducts. I don't know how many people I know, after struggling with iTunes, gave up and bought a cheap player like mine. The reason they bought Apple? Either 1) They genuinely didn't know you could buy anything else or 2) They thought that Apple made the best products -- that is, until they saw the alternatives.
Just one example, at the public lab I've got a kid about 19 who has an iPod Touch and a no-name $20 mp3 player. He uses the touch for games and facebook -- the mp3 player for listening to music. Why? iTunes is a giant pain to use.
But all of this is beside the point. You claimed that
the products that Apple makes are a genuine improvement over the rest of the industry
And... well, you've failed miserably in your efforts to prove that point. From what you've posted so far, it looks like you didn't even try.
Apple makes products, some good and some bad. I've yet to see one that is truly best in it's class or is "better" than competing products. Well, except when they're the only player in a market they created -- but those are very rare cases indeed.
Apple wasn't the first with a hard disk nor the first with a multi-line display or with a USB interface. They were, quite frankly, late to the game on that front -- the earliest examples (which include all three features) appearing as early as 1998.
So I ask again, what made the iPod EASIER to use use than competing players?
We know it wasn't iTunes -- it didn't exist until two years after the iPod was released.
(Hint: You'll find that the answer is 'nothing' -- it was just really stellar marketing on Apples part. They owe a lot of their current success to that campaign.)
If you really can't see that there's a significant difference in what you can do with a 10" touchscreen as opposed to a 3.5" touchscreen, then you've got way too much of a hard-on for Apple-bashing for anybody to take you seriously.
Well, what CAN you do on an iPad that you can't do on an iPhone? I already know what you CAN'T do -- but I'm apparently completely in the dark about what you CAN do.
Enlighten me. That is, if you can think of anything.
That's a ridiculous statement. iPod made MP3 players far easier to use. Right from the very first iPod, the experience was delightful.
Okay. Prove your case. What made the iPod easier to use than the existing players at the time it was initially released?
You mean you want the work of manually maintaining your music files, rather than having software to do it for you.
Have you used iTunes? It has a terrible reputation even among the Apple faithful. It's really pretty bad.
Manually maintaining my music is incredibly easy. Dare I say... WAY easier than using the bloated crap that is iTunes? Of course, as I write below, it's my choice to manually manage my music -- you have no such option.
Anyhow, if music management software is really that important to you, there are FAR better music management programs than iTunes. Of course, you use an iPod, so you're stuck at least installing iTunes even if you opt to use one of the few alternatives that actually work with the things (like copytrans).
How do you know quickly which music files you have on your computer that you don't have on your MP3 player?
Why would I ever want to know this? (Honestly, its not once been something I've wanted or needed to know.) Not that it matters, I can find that info in seconds.
Alternately, I could use one of the many better-than-iTunes music management programs. Being I have a non-Apple player, I have many options and can choose the one that works best for me. I could even use iTunes if I wanted to.
What's really cool about many inexpensive players is that there are many that have an SD or micro-SD card slot. (The last one I bought set me back all of $25) This is really cool -- my wife as a couple cards that she swaps in and out depending on what she wants to do -- she has a 'general' card, a 'work-out' card, a 'working around the house' card. Sure, she could use playlists -- but she prefers swapping cards. Of course, with Apple, she doesn't get that choice.
I have a Kindle 3. I would prefer that it had a user-replaceable battery and a micro-sd card slot. The lack of those features, however, did not prevent me from buying it or interest me in competing products which included those features.
Of course, in the world of Apple, not having features is consider good. So I can understand why you'd think that all 15 million users are just ecstatic about the fact that they can't replace the battery themselves.
The problem with your analogy is that, in the case of the pool, there is some additional functionality that the pool offers that can not be handled in any way by the cup or the bathtub.
How exactly does iPad "hav[e] the best price in the tablet market" again?
Well, see, the XOOM is more expensive than the lower-priced iPad's so that means that all other tablets are also more expensive and things will be that way forever.
Most people I know would just prefer a nice long lasting battery that is user-replaceable.
15 million people disagree with you. And going up quickly.
Wow, that makes absolutely no sense at all. Are you trying to say that no one who bought an iPad would prefer a user-replaceable battery? That's completely absurd!
the products that Apple makes are a genuine improvement over the rest of the industry
I'm going to call bullshit on this unless you have a really good example. Ah, here it is:
Yes, there are a lot of mp3 players, but the iPod made it simple and easy.
Yes and no. Apple did make mp3 players "legitimate" in the public eye, but they sure as hell didn't make them easier to use. Between the horror that is iTunes and their less-than-intuitive interfaces, Apple has had (and still has) some of the worst mp3 players on the market. (The iPod touch is a special exception, but it's not really a dedicated music player, now is it?)
Give me a no-name sub-$50 player any day. I'll enjoy the long battery life, upgradeable storage, and the ability to just drag-and-drop my music onto the thing -- with no extra software required. The ability to double it as a flash drive in a pinch is just an added bonus.
Have any other examples? Ah, thanks:
Similar, there are other tablets. They are irrelevant as they are crap
Yeah, there were quite a few crap tablets early on. Some of the new ones, however, destroy the iPad -- even the shiny-new iPad2. Take a look at RIM's Blackberry Playbook -- it makes the iPad2 look like... a $150 no-name Android 1.6 tablet. In terms of UI and features, Apple is about to find itself way behind the competition. It's no wonder that rumors of an iPad3 launch in September started before the iPad2 was unveiled -- Apple has a lot of catching up to do.
Slashdot Mirror
So your point is a platform is free as long as there is enough malware, and Apple isn't free enough.
I don't recall anything saying anything about freedom.
Reread my post, it's mostly about how iOS also has malware and how iOS users should be aware of the problem. You know, so that they can be careful to avoid it. The false sense of security they have from the "Apple doesn't have malware" myth can be dangerous for them.
The Android way: There's an app we don't aprove of? Just download it from one of the other stores - where there is even more malware than on our store.
You know that Android isn't the opposite of Apple, right?
(There are more than 2 big players in the smartphone market. For example, RIM, according to the most recent Nielsen report, has as many post-paid subscribers as Apple!)
Additionally iOS isn't immune to malware -- and "apps" aren't the only attack vector smartphone users should be worried about.
Last August, for example, simply visiting a website was enough to jailbreak your iPhone. If that can be done by visiting a website, what can't be done?
The illusion of perfect security that Apple provides is really quite dangerous for their users. This becomes increasingly more important as Apple gains market share and becomes an larger/more attractive target for malware authors.
Ha Ha!
It's hard to believe that you're STILL upset! Seriously, you need to relax, it's really sad and pathetic.
Honestly, when I pointed out your gross incompetence, you should have just let it go.
You know what, here's some advice you could use: Stop advertising your mental failures on the internet. It would help you avoid situations like this which clearly cause you serious mental anguish.
It's hard to believe, but I'm actually *still laughing* about how pathetic you are!
Are you seriously still obsessing over this? Wow, that's incredibly pathetic of you!
you always claim that your "conversation" partner can not read. And you always claim that he is an idiot.
Only an illiterate idiot would make such an absurd claim. I had a rather nice discussion with someone who wasn't an idiot not very long ago.
Since you're pathetically obsessed with me, you should go make an attempt to read it.
That quote is not from me. I didn't write it.
Hey, you're right.
If I was wrong in something I actually wrote, I'd admit it.
Really? Because you said, regarding the question you still haven't answered:
I have answered that one with several points.
Looking back through the comments shows that you haven't answered that question with even a single point.
You're such a pathetic little liar!
You can't admit when you are wrong; and that means that *any* discussion with you is pointless. You're dishonest. You should be ashamed.
But it is that you can't admit when you are wrong. And it means that *any* discussion with you is pointless. You're dishonest. You should be ashamed.
Ummm... I didn't lie. It's true that I should have put "'s store" in that sentence -- it would have been much clearer -- but I didn't realize I was dealing with someone of your ... mental capacity.
I'm still waiting for the supposed advantage that the iPod had over competing players at the time it was released.
Again we both know I have answered that one with several points.
Have you? The closest you came was with your first answer:
They were clunky to use, had a one line LCD screen which made navigation hard, 32MB or 64MB of memory, and used a parallel port which took hours to fill that 64MB of memory with your 20 or so MP3s.
Which, of course, was 100% wrong. Which you refused to admit.
Since you can't admit when you are wrong, it means that *any* discussion with you is pointless. You're dishonest. You should be ashamed.
OK, enough of the tit-for-tat. It's getting tiresome. Lets cut to the chase with your obvious lie:
Yes, obviously I mean the store.
Okay, if you insist it's a lie, it's a lie. Of course, in context it should obviously meant the store -- you know, that thing to supposedly made the iPod easy for non-technical users to get music that came out long after the iPod. But it's a lie because you say so. Whatever.
So... I'm still waiting for the supposed advantage that the iPod had over competing players at the time it was released. Why is this such a difficult question for you to answer? Is it because you know the answer is "nothing" and just can't bring yourself to accept that?
You've only given your opinion. Nothing else. I've proved it. Despite your on-going efforts to save face.
Now THAT'S funny. I could *at my option* use any one of many music managers that are both smaller, faster, and more feature rich than iTunes. (Clearly, not an advantage to owning an iPod)
Complain all you want about how I choose to use my mp3 player -- but that doesn't make the iPod any better or iTunes suck any less.
Note that this sequence of steps still fails to do what you want if you've modified a music file, e.g. by changing the ID3 tags.
This shows how uninformed you are. If I modify the ID3 tags on a file, I just copy it over -- or hit "yes to all" Now, that's just for using something like Explorer -- a good file manager will handle that for me automatically.
Oh, your list of steps is ridiculous, I could do it with a single command in windows, linux, or macos -- I could even make a shortcut so that the whole thing happens in a single click -- AND handle the modified ID3 "problem" you listed earlier -- no need to open iTunes and wait for the giant bloated application to load.
I generally only copy new things to my player, so this has NEVER been an issue anyhow.
There's not millions like you. There's a few thousand (at most) on Slashdot.
Keep imagining that if it makes you feel better.
There's far more than have bought cheap MP3 players because they are cheap. But they wouldn't actually try to argue it's better than an iPod.
My experience tells a much different story. The iPod offers not advantage in terms of ease of use, function, or even style (in many cases). So ... what makes the iPod better than the competition? Nothing. Are there reasons to pass it over in favor of other players? Yes!
Why pretend that Apples player special in some way? Honestly, iTunes alone is a major reason to avoid the iPod. You can get everything it offers *and more* from other players.
It looks like Linux is the bubble, and you're the one living in it. Again, the iPod/iPhone/iTunes combo is the most popular system in the world.
I've mentioned several Windows applications -- and your ridiculous list of steps were for windows -- were you not paying attention to either me or you?
That said popularity is not an indication of quality. Internet Explorer is the most popular web browser in the world -- and it's far from the best. Would you argue that it's popular because it's "the best"? I'll bet you would.
Copytrans? What the fuck? Are you serious?
Well, it is better than iTunes. That's why people use it for managing their iPod.
So ... what is this magical advantage that the iPod has over other players? Seems like absolutely nothing to me. You know, as you can't seem to name even a single advantage.
On both, notice the clunky UI and buttons. You can't simply compare products by feature lists. Ease of use matters.
How can you possibly evaluate the ease of use of a device by looking at a 10 year old jpeg? Oh, that's right -- you can't. What a load of nonsense.
There is nothing in the iPod that other players hadn't already done -- Apple did absolutely nothing to make it easier to use than the alternatives.
Even the much-loved click-wheel wasn't an Apple innovation. Several other products also had very similar controls-in-a-circle long before the iPod.
Easier to use? That's your claim -- prove it. Oh, that's right, you CAN'T because it's a load of nonsense.
Wrong. iTunes (the app you've been talking about) was released before the iPod. It was the iTunes Music Store that opened some time after the iPod.
Yes, obviously I mean the store.
I bought a gen 2 iPod after having borrowed a friends gen 1 iPod for 2 days. I was blown away by it's utility and ease of use.
It's a real shame you didn't see any of the much better alternatives that existed at the time -- you may not have survived being been blown away by their utility and ease of use.
Why would I ever want to know this?
In other words, using the method you recommend, you can't do it.
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Of COURSE I can do it -- I've just never had the need to.
If I want all of my music on the player, that list is useless to me when I can just: crtl-a, ctrl-c, alt-tab, ctrl-v "no to all"
Oh, and I don't need a music manager to get that useless list either -- Winmerge or one of many linux tools will also tell you instantly -- as will any good file manager like TotalCommander
Nonsense. I know many Mac users. And all of them use iTunes, and never once have I heard any of them complain
Total nonsense. Everyone I know who's used iTunes hates it. Most of the iPod/iPhone users I know use copytrans as a replacement. iTunes is, quite possibly, the most hated Apple product ever made. You're living in a bubble.
Playlists is exactly for the thing you suggest. Swapping (and possibly losing) different media isn't a rational choice, it's an illiterate choice.
How is it illiterate? She can use playlists -- she just chooses not to. It's not like it's difficult or she doesn't understand. Her player even makes it easy to create playlists without needing a computer.
Do you hate choice? I guess so... See, for me -- and millions like me -- iTunes is the #1 reason we avoid iProducts. I don't know how many people I know, after struggling with iTunes, gave up and bought a cheap player like mine. The reason they bought Apple? Either 1) They genuinely didn't know you could buy anything else or 2) They thought that Apple made the best products -- that is, until they saw the alternatives.
Just one example, at the public lab I've got a kid about 19 who has an iPod Touch and a no-name $20 mp3 player. He uses the touch for games and facebook -- the mp3 player for listening to music. Why? iTunes is a giant pain to use.
But all of this is beside the point. You claimed that
the products that Apple makes are a genuine improvement over the rest of the industry
And ... well, you've failed miserably in your efforts to prove that point. From what you've posted so far, it looks like you didn't even try.
Apple makes products, some good and some bad. I've yet to see one that is truly best in it's class or is "better" than competing products. Well, except when they're the only player in a market they created -- but those are very rare cases indeed.
Apple wasn't the first with a hard disk nor the first with a multi-line display or with a USB interface. They were, quite frankly, late to the game on that front -- the earliest examples (which include all three features) appearing as early as 1998.
So I ask again, what made the iPod EASIER to use use than competing players?
We know it wasn't iTunes -- it didn't exist until two years after the iPod was released.
(Hint: You'll find that the answer is 'nothing' -- it was just really stellar marketing on Apples part. They owe a lot of their current success to that campaign.)
If you really can't see that there's a significant difference in what you can do with a 10" touchscreen as opposed to a 3.5" touchscreen, then you've got way too much of a hard-on for Apple-bashing for anybody to take you seriously.
Well, what CAN you do on an iPad that you can't do on an iPhone? I already know what you CAN'T do -- but I'm apparently completely in the dark about what you CAN do.
Enlighten me. That is, if you can think of anything.
That's a ridiculous statement. iPod made MP3 players far easier to use. Right from the very first iPod, the experience was delightful.
Okay. Prove your case. What made the iPod easier to use than the existing players at the time it was initially released?
You mean you want the work of manually maintaining your music files, rather than having software to do it for you.
Have you used iTunes? It has a terrible reputation even among the Apple faithful. It's really pretty bad.
Manually maintaining my music is incredibly easy. Dare I say ... WAY easier than using the bloated crap that is iTunes? Of course, as I write below, it's my choice to manually manage my music -- you have no such option.
Anyhow, if music management software is really that important to you, there are FAR better music management programs than iTunes. Of course, you use an iPod, so you're stuck at least installing iTunes even if you opt to use one of the few alternatives that actually work with the things (like copytrans).
How do you know quickly which music files you have on your computer that you don't have on your MP3 player?
Why would I ever want to know this? (Honestly, its not once been something I've wanted or needed to know.) Not that it matters, I can find that info in seconds.
Alternately, I could use one of the many better-than-iTunes music management programs. Being I have a non-Apple player, I have many options and can choose the one that works best for me. I could even use iTunes if I wanted to.
What's really cool about many inexpensive players is that there are many that have an SD or micro-SD card slot. (The last one I bought set me back all of $25) This is really cool -- my wife as a couple cards that she swaps in and out depending on what she wants to do -- she has a 'general' card, a 'work-out' card, a 'working around the house' card. Sure, she could use playlists -- but she prefers swapping cards. Of course, with Apple, she doesn't get that choice.
You are so unimaginably pathetic! Are you still trying to defend your total incompetence?
Seriously, you need to relax. There's no shame in admitting your gross inadequacies. You may even learn to overcome them some day.
you should keep in mind that with insulting me every singel post you make, you undermine your reputation in this "forum" very badly
Yeah, the only thing undermining my reputation on this forum is arguing with an idiot like you.
That's the point, unlike the swimming pool in the example, the iPad /doesn't/ offer any additional functionality -- it actually offers less!
That's why I wrote "the problem with your analogy" ... It's like you didn't even read my post.
Okay, it seems that you need an example.
I have a Kindle 3. I would prefer that it had a user-replaceable battery and a micro-sd card slot. The lack of those features, however, did not prevent me from buying it or interest me in competing products which included those features.
Of course, in the world of Apple, not having features is consider good. So I can understand why you'd think that all 15 million users are just ecstatic about the fact that they can't replace the battery themselves.
The problem with your analogy is that, in the case of the pool, there is some additional functionality that the pool offers that can not be handled in any way by the cup or the bathtub.
How exactly does iPad "hav[e] the best price in the tablet market" again?
Well, see, the XOOM is more expensive than the lower-priced iPad's so that means that all other tablets are also more expensive and things will be that way forever.
Every day I'm forced to use Windows on a random job
That's EXACTLY what it means. I guess your English skills are on-par with your computer skills.
Like I said, I'm done with you. You're an sad and pathetic little illiterate liar. People like you disgust me.
I think you replied to the wrong comment.
But, yes, I have used a laptop on a plane recently and didn't have any trouble. Still, this really doesn't have anything to do with my comment.
Who is the illiterate here?
You are. I thought I had made this very clear to you. Oh, wait. You're illiterate so you probably didn't comprehend what I had written.
I dont use windows every day.
Well, then you're a LIAR because you said that you did. I quote:
Every day I'm forced to use Windows on a random job
I'm done with you. I have better things to do with my time that talk to an illiterate lying pathetic little German.
Yeah, I was totally going to buy that android tablet, but it had a USB port so I was like "no way".
It's why I love Apple so much -- Not having useful features is *awesome*
Most people I know would just prefer a nice long lasting battery that is user-replaceable.
15 million people disagree with you. And going up quickly.
Wow, that makes absolutely no sense at all. Are you trying to say that no one who bought an iPad would prefer a user-replaceable battery? That's completely absurd!
the products that Apple makes are a genuine improvement over the rest of the industry
I'm going to call bullshit on this unless you have a really good example. Ah, here it is:
Yes, there are a lot of mp3 players, but the iPod made it simple and easy.
Yes and no. Apple did make mp3 players "legitimate" in the public eye, but they sure as hell didn't make them easier to use. Between the horror that is iTunes and their less-than-intuitive interfaces, Apple has had (and still has) some of the worst mp3 players on the market. (The iPod touch is a special exception, but it's not really a dedicated music player, now is it?)
Give me a no-name sub-$50 player any day. I'll enjoy the long battery life, upgradeable storage, and the ability to just drag-and-drop my music onto the thing -- with no extra software required. The ability to double it as a flash drive in a pinch is just an added bonus.
Have any other examples? Ah, thanks:
Similar, there are other tablets. They are irrelevant as they are crap
Yeah, there were quite a few crap tablets early on. Some of the new ones, however, destroy the iPad -- even the shiny-new iPad2. Take a look at RIM's Blackberry Playbook -- it makes the iPad2 look like ... a $150 no-name Android 1.6 tablet. In terms of UI and features, Apple is about to find itself way behind the competition. It's no wonder that rumors of an iPad3 launch in September started before the iPad2 was unveiled -- Apple has a lot of catching up to do.
An e-reader is a lot cheaper, until you realize you can't do 99% of the things a tablet can do.
Except it's much, much, better for reading -- which is why they're selling like hotcakes.
Really, outside of reading books, what good is a tablet?