Screen size is in opposition to portability. Show me the folding or pull-out screen, something like a windowshade. Is this technology anywhweres near production? Well, I guess I'll be waiting a while.
Not exactly. The iPad is thin and light. It can easily live in my backpack without taking up much space, despite having a 9.7" display.
Too big to watch movies on the train? Too small for me, if anything. I manage to use the iPad just fine on a packed commuter train. Certainly easier to use than a netbook.
Same here. I got the Apple case that folds into a stand. I've been surprised at how fast I can type on it, and it should get a bit faster once I'm used to it. It will never be as good as a traditional keyboard, of course, but it's more than enough for typing out a couple of paragraphs here and there.
Lasers were another solution looking for a problem. In the end, it turns out that it solved a lot of problems. The iPad (and similar tablets) will be the same. People with no vision will wonder what use such a device will have, but 5 years from now, people will wonder how they ever got by without them.
Hate to break it to you, but marketing isn't as nearly as magical as some people seem to think it is. Apple doesn't sell its products by good marketing alone. The iPad and iPhone sell well because they are good products. The reputation of the iPod as a good product would have helped, but that's not quite the same thing as riding the marketing success of the iPod.
That's because netbooks didn't have much of an advantage to begin with. Tablets will be more successful because for most people, they do properly what netbooks promised but delivered poorly.
when I pointed out he can't even figure out how to text with his Samsung and got him to admit what made the iPhone 4 so appealing to him, it was the other contractors have it and he doesn't want to be out of style.
That's a shame, because the SMS app is quite simple and intuitive, and better than anything else I've seen on a phone. Just because he wanted one to be in style, that doesn't mean he wouldn't have found it be a great phone to use, as well.
I swear that man could put a fricking brick in a box and have a million selling hit, give credit where credit is due.
It's only a media box if that is all you choose to do with it. The rest of us will find and develop all sorts of uses for the iPad. The iPad is a computer, after all.
You predicted that the Palm Pilot wouldn't catch on, so that suggests you will be wrong about the iPad. That sampling is certainly not large enough to establish a trend, either, but it is certainly within my expectations.
If it's about learning how to program, then there are more than enough languages for web dev. You don't need native iPad apps for learning and seeing the potential in software development.
How so? The power adapter for the iPad is small, universal, and feeds the iPad via USB. Even a low power USB port will still charge the iPad if you don't use it at the same time.
I keep seeing this argument and I have to wonder: do none of you guys have any vision? Don't blame the technology simply because it hasn't been utilized to its full potential.
Yeah, because a resource than can also show colour photos, graphics, play videos, and allows decent interaction would have no advantage in an educational setting, right?
I hate to point this out on a site like Slashdot, but the openness of a platform is not always the most important thing when buying a product like an iPad. And trendiness isn't why the ipad is so popular, either.
No way your average quadcopter controlled by an iPhone is going to be as maneuverable as the one in the video. The ones controlled by an iPhone use stability control and the pilot is simple telling it to move in a certain direction. It's very different to what you can do once you learn to fly manually, or in this case, an advanced auto pilot system.
I guess it depends if by usage, you also include sales of the product -- how much consumers are using. If you're savvy about the food you buy, you probably have better choices now. But for people who don't read the labels, there is probably still a huge number of highly processed products with HFCS in them. I know that McDonald's uses a lot of HFCS in its products, even internationally.
It's partly optics and the law of diffraction and it's partly because with current sensor technology, all other things being equal, a higher pixel count means more noise. MP count should be part of a design spec that takes into account other sensor variables, the lens to be used, and the environment/use of the camera. I'm not sure exactly what the limit is for most camera phones, as it would obviously vary, but it seems like 5MP is enough for the sensor size and optics than most camera phones use. There are many areas that image quality in small camera phones can be increased, but pixel count is one area we don't need to pursue any further for the moment unless there is a major change to the way cameras are designed.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, ignoring that I did only suggest it, why don't you think it will be a success?
Screen size is in opposition to portability. Show me the folding or pull-out screen, something like a windowshade. Is this technology anywhweres near production? Well, I guess I'll be waiting a while.
Not exactly. The iPad is thin and light. It can easily live in my backpack without taking up much space, despite having a 9.7" display.
Too big to watch movies on the train? Too small for me, if anything. I manage to use the iPad just fine on a packed commuter train. Certainly easier to use than a netbook.
Same here. I got the Apple case that folds into a stand. I've been surprised at how fast I can type on it, and it should get a bit faster once I'm used to it. It will never be as good as a traditional keyboard, of course, but it's more than enough for typing out a couple of paragraphs here and there.
Lasers were another solution looking for a problem. In the end, it turns out that it solved a lot of problems. The iPad (and similar tablets) will be the same. People with no vision will wonder what use such a device will have, but 5 years from now, people will wonder how they ever got by without them.
Hate to break it to you, but marketing isn't as nearly as magical as some people seem to think it is. Apple doesn't sell its products by good marketing alone. The iPad and iPhone sell well because they are good products. The reputation of the iPod as a good product would have helped, but that's not quite the same thing as riding the marketing success of the iPod.
iOS is a real operating system, I assure you.
That's because netbooks didn't have much of an advantage to begin with. Tablets will be more successful because for most people, they do properly what netbooks promised but delivered poorly.
when I pointed out he can't even figure out how to text with his Samsung and got him to admit what made the iPhone 4 so appealing to him, it was the other contractors have it and he doesn't want to be out of style.
That's a shame, because the SMS app is quite simple and intuitive, and better than anything else I've seen on a phone. Just because he wanted one to be in style, that doesn't mean he wouldn't have found it be a great phone to use, as well.
I swear that man could put a fricking brick in a box and have a million selling hit, give credit where credit is due.
That explains the success of the G4 Cube.
It's only a media box if that is all you choose to do with it. The rest of us will find and develop all sorts of uses for the iPad. The iPad is a computer, after all.
The question is does openness have important advantages over closed and the answer is yes.
Another question is: does closed have important advantages over openness? The answer is also yes.
You predicted that the Palm Pilot wouldn't catch on, so that suggests you will be wrong about the iPad. That sampling is certainly not large enough to establish a trend, either, but it is certainly within my expectations.
A smartphone? Screen is too small.
If it's about learning how to program, then there are more than enough languages for web dev. You don't need native iPad apps for learning and seeing the potential in software development.
How so? The power adapter for the iPad is small, universal, and feeds the iPad via USB. Even a low power USB port will still charge the iPad if you don't use it at the same time.
I keep seeing this argument and I have to wonder: do none of you guys have any vision? Don't blame the technology simply because it hasn't been utilized to its full potential.
Yeah, because a resource than can also show colour photos, graphics, play videos, and allows decent interaction would have no advantage in an educational setting, right?
I hate to point this out on a site like Slashdot, but the openness of a platform is not always the most important thing when buying a product like an iPad. And trendiness isn't why the ipad is so popular, either.
The government inserting money anywhere is a bad idea.
Only if your government is inept. Corporations can be just the same.
When a government builds a public hospital or school, that also creates jobs. Those sound more beneficial to society than a well-kept mansion.
Second, these people are the ones who are productive in this economy, they put their money to use in useful ways and many help create other jobs.
So does the government. Except they aren't designed to be driven by creating a profit for shareholders.
No way your average quadcopter controlled by an iPhone is going to be as maneuverable as the one in the video. The ones controlled by an iPhone use stability control and the pilot is simple telling it to move in a certain direction. It's very different to what you can do once you learn to fly manually, or in this case, an advanced auto pilot system.
I guess it depends if by usage, you also include sales of the product -- how much consumers are using. If you're savvy about the food you buy, you probably have better choices now. But for people who don't read the labels, there is probably still a huge number of highly processed products with HFCS in them. I know that McDonald's uses a lot of HFCS in its products, even internationally.
It's partly optics and the law of diffraction and it's partly because with current sensor technology, all other things being equal, a higher pixel count means more noise. MP count should be part of a design spec that takes into account other sensor variables, the lens to be used, and the environment/use of the camera. I'm not sure exactly what the limit is for most camera phones, as it would obviously vary, but it seems like 5MP is enough for the sensor size and optics than most camera phones use. There are many areas that image quality in small camera phones can be increased, but pixel count is one area we don't need to pursue any further for the moment unless there is a major change to the way cameras are designed.
Nutritionally devoid? What makes you say that?