Well, I'm sure you can do all those things on those other tablets, but are they anywhere near as great to use? From what I've seen, they're all just desktop OSes shoehorned into small screens. I want an OS designed from the ground up for a small, touchscreen-only interface.
No, it just doesn't ship with that sort of thing. That doesn't mean such devices and software won't be developed for it. Did you not see the demo of the drawing app, or the external keyboard dock?
Are you saying that reading is the same as watching TV? Are you also implying that Steve Jobs thinks that TV is awful and has absolutely no place at all in people's lives? Because otherwise I don't get your point.
I do get a bit tired of this idea that techies don't want simpler devices. The iPad is for anyone who wants a device that does some basic tasks really well. When I'm not at my desk in front of my main computer, I go back to being an average user. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Every time I sit down and use my iPhone to browse the web while on the train or in a cafe, I think "this is such a great way to do things compared to a clunky laptop. If only the screen was bigger..."
That's all the iPad needs to do; to be an iPod/iPhone with a bigger screen. That bigger screen is what makes it so much better. Aside from the obvious better browsing experience due to more space, the bigger screen allows interface possibilities that aren't possible on a tiny screen, without getting back into the desktop OS world. Just look at the redesigned Mail interface for an example.
Because laptops are big and heavy, which makes them awkward to use unless you have a desk with enough empty space to put them on. It also makes them more awkward to carry around. Even netbooks are awkward to use compared to a small tablet if all you want to do is spend most of your time browsing or similar activities that don't involve the keyboard much. As for the exposed screen, you can always get a case for it if you need protection.
Not being able to print out a file or web page again makes it an incomplete experience.
Maybe you still need to print stuff out, but I don't even own a printer.
Using an email client without the ability to deal with attachments is an incomplete experience.
Did you even watch the video?
Not being able to import photos from a digital camera makes it an incomplete experience.
Well, they sell an accessory to read SD cards and another to connect a camera via USB. So I'm guessing you can import photos.
Besides, it's not supposed to replace a desktop OS, so why does it need to be a complete experience? And 3rd party software might take care of many of your complaints.
Or they're both just doing what they're required to do if they want to keep their trademarks. Perhaps this your first time in a Slashdot discussion about trademark law?
Perhaps you are not the target market for this device? When I'm just out and about, I don't want all that stuff. When I travel, I have a laptop.
You really switch between reading recipes and reading books fast enough for multitasking to be a problem, and you need that ability so much that it's a deal-breaker? I think you are in a very small minority.
Reading a book and listening to music can be done, I'm guessing, just like the iPhone. Yes, you need to use iTunes, which is fine for most people most of the time.
The problem with designing software that takes every possible situation or eccentricity into account is that you end up with bloated apps that are horrible to use. This isn't as much of a problem on a desktop OS with a large screen, but it's critical on a small device like the iPhone or iPad.
It uses many of the same GUI elements, yes, but the interface for all the default apps have been redesigned. They are not simply the same apps scaled up to fill a larger screen.
I think you need to watch the video, because all the default apps have been redesigned to make use to the larger screen. It's pretty innovative stuff if you take the time to look at how they all work. Perhaps you can give some examples of what you thought would have been innovative?
As for no multitasking, this is actually quite a neat trick Apple has done. Developers are forced to make the apps load fast and save their state in a way that makes sense. It sure sucks for some things, and Apple should get around to addressing this, but most of the time I don't miss multitasking on my iPhone. And as the hardware improves, the loading speed is going to get even snappier.
The thing is, the iPhone is so great at browsing the web compared to any other pocketable device before it, that I actually spend time browsing the web with it. But that isn't to say that the experience is anywhere near idea -- the small screen is quite a big problem. This iPad may overlap in much functionality, but the sheer improvement from the bigger screen is reason enough for me to get one. As for the Kindle, I'm sure it has it's niche, but it isn't for me. Even though it does have it's advantages, it still lacks the functionality of the iPad. As for lack of camera, I always have my iPhone with me.
You say that like it's a bad thing. The iPhone is pretty successful, if you hadn't noticed. Many people like the interface because of it's simplicity. Ball's back in your court, I'm afraid.
Besides, it's more than just a giant iPhone. All the default apps have be redesigned to suit the larger display. It's right there if you watch the video, or visit their site.
After reading the comments here and on Engadget, it just confirms that your average techie doesn't know a great new product when he sees it. So many people seem to be complaining that it doesn't have some certain deal-breaking hardware feature, yet they haven't even noticed the most important innovation: The software. The greatest part of this device simply flies over the head of so many people here because they have no understanding about what makes a computer great to use.
This isn't insightful. It's generalised BS that only looks at one part of a complex topic. But hey, it seems to be fashionable to criticise religion these days, even if you don't have single rational thought about the topic in your head.
Exactly why is a tactical keyboard always faster? Where did you get this fact from? You haven't really given any reasoning or evidence, unlike the guy in the article.
I had a Treo 600 for many years, yet I find the iPhone faster, especially in landscape mode. It took me a while to get used to it, though. The other thing is that I can type reasonably well on the iPhone with one hand -- I couldn't do that with the Treo. Not sure how different the 600 is to the 755.
If the vehicle has enough propulsion from the motor to bother with, it's too heavy to want to ride it when the battery is dead.
Where's the evidence for that? People manage to ride bikes with panniers loaded with cargo. Rickshaws are even heavier when you have a passenger. And the idea is to assist, so you can't compare it to the range and efficiency of a Segway or an electric scooter. Why does it need to have the same range of an electric scooter, anyway? Doesn't that depend upon how a person plans to use it, how far they need to travel?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I'm sure you can do all those things on those other tablets, but are they anywhere near as great to use? From what I've seen, they're all just desktop OSes shoehorned into small screens. I want an OS designed from the ground up for a small, touchscreen-only interface.
No, it just doesn't ship with that sort of thing. That doesn't mean such devices and software won't be developed for it. Did you not see the demo of the drawing app, or the external keyboard dock?
Are you saying that reading is the same as watching TV? Are you also implying that Steve Jobs thinks that TV is awful and has absolutely no place at all in people's lives? Because otherwise I don't get your point.
What's awkward about the form factor? I think it's just the opposite.
Get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?
I do get a bit tired of this idea that techies don't want simpler devices. The iPad is for anyone who wants a device that does some basic tasks really well. When I'm not at my desk in front of my main computer, I go back to being an average user. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Every time I sit down and use my iPhone to browse the web while on the train or in a cafe, I think "this is such a great way to do things compared to a clunky laptop. If only the screen was bigger..."
That's all the iPad needs to do; to be an iPod/iPhone with a bigger screen. That bigger screen is what makes it so much better. Aside from the obvious better browsing experience due to more space, the bigger screen allows interface possibilities that aren't possible on a tiny screen, without getting back into the desktop OS world. Just look at the redesigned Mail interface for an example.
Because laptops are big and heavy, which makes them awkward to use unless you have a desk with enough empty space to put them on. It also makes them more awkward to carry around. Even netbooks are awkward to use compared to a small tablet if all you want to do is spend most of your time browsing or similar activities that don't involve the keyboard much. As for the exposed screen, you can always get a case for it if you need protection.
Not being able to print out a file or web page again makes it an incomplete experience.
Maybe you still need to print stuff out, but I don't even own a printer.
Using an email client without the ability to deal with attachments is an incomplete experience.
Did you even watch the video?
Not being able to import photos from a digital camera makes it an incomplete experience.
Well, they sell an accessory to read SD cards and another to connect a camera via USB. So I'm guessing you can import photos.
Besides, it's not supposed to replace a desktop OS, so why does it need to be a complete experience? And 3rd party software might take care of many of your complaints.
Or they're both just doing what they're required to do if they want to keep their trademarks. Perhaps this your first time in a Slashdot discussion about trademark law?
Perhaps you are not the target market for this device? When I'm just out and about, I don't want all that stuff. When I travel, I have a laptop.
You really switch between reading recipes and reading books fast enough for multitasking to be a problem, and you need that ability so much that it's a deal-breaker? I think you are in a very small minority.
Reading a book and listening to music can be done, I'm guessing, just like the iPhone. Yes, you need to use iTunes, which is fine for most people most of the time.
The problem with designing software that takes every possible situation or eccentricity into account is that you end up with bloated apps that are horrible to use. This isn't as much of a problem on a desktop OS with a large screen, but it's critical on a small device like the iPhone or iPad.
It uses many of the same GUI elements, yes, but the interface for all the default apps have been redesigned. They are not simply the same apps scaled up to fill a larger screen.
I think you need to watch the video, because all the default apps have been redesigned to make use to the larger screen. It's pretty innovative stuff if you take the time to look at how they all work. Perhaps you can give some examples of what you thought would have been innovative?
As for no multitasking, this is actually quite a neat trick Apple has done. Developers are forced to make the apps load fast and save their state in a way that makes sense. It sure sucks for some things, and Apple should get around to addressing this, but most of the time I don't miss multitasking on my iPhone. And as the hardware improves, the loading speed is going to get even snappier.
The thing is, the iPhone is so great at browsing the web compared to any other pocketable device before it, that I actually spend time browsing the web with it. But that isn't to say that the experience is anywhere near idea -- the small screen is quite a big problem. This iPad may overlap in much functionality, but the sheer improvement from the bigger screen is reason enough for me to get one. As for the Kindle, I'm sure it has it's niche, but it isn't for me. Even though it does have it's advantages, it still lacks the functionality of the iPad. As for lack of camera, I always have my iPhone with me.
You say that like it's a bad thing. The iPhone is pretty successful, if you hadn't noticed. Many people like the interface because of it's simplicity. Ball's back in your court, I'm afraid.
Besides, it's more than just a giant iPhone. All the default apps have be redesigned to suit the larger display. It's right there if you watch the video, or visit their site.
After reading the comments here and on Engadget, it just confirms that your average techie doesn't know a great new product when he sees it. So many people seem to be complaining that it doesn't have some certain deal-breaking hardware feature, yet they haven't even noticed the most important innovation: The software. The greatest part of this device simply flies over the head of so many people here because they have no understanding about what makes a computer great to use.
I don't understand how this is a paradox.
Or perhaps there are simply more openly gay people in the arts?
This isn't insightful. It's generalised BS that only looks at one part of a complex topic. But hey, it seems to be fashionable to criticise religion these days, even if you don't have single rational thought about the topic in your head.
I find my keys by sight unless I'm at a full size keyboard. Why is this always slower?
Plenty of comprehensive 3rd party manuals out there.
Exactly why is a tactical keyboard always faster? Where did you get this fact from? You haven't really given any reasoning or evidence, unlike the guy in the article.
I had a Treo 600 for many years, yet I find the iPhone faster, especially in landscape mode. It took me a while to get used to it, though. The other thing is that I can type reasonably well on the iPhone with one hand -- I couldn't do that with the Treo. Not sure how different the 600 is to the 755.
Apple has always been about making a simple UI on the surface, but providing more capabilities for those who care to learn more.
If the vehicle has enough propulsion from the motor to bother with, it's too heavy to want to ride it when the battery is dead.
Where's the evidence for that? People manage to ride bikes with panniers loaded with cargo. Rickshaws are even heavier when you have a passenger. And the idea is to assist, so you can't compare it to the range and efficiency of a Segway or an electric scooter. Why does it need to have the same range of an electric scooter, anyway? Doesn't that depend upon how a person plans to use it, how far they need to travel?