I found that downloading a 3rd party utility named "Task Manager" has improved my battery life by allowing me to kill all my applications that insist on being in the background even though I'm not using them.
Yes, there are third party task managers, but they're essentially just placebos for people who feel the need to micromanage what their phone is doing. The OS will kill processes that are no longer needed when it needs to free up some memory. Killing tasks manually has little effect, other than introducing a small delay the next time you start those tasks.
I think you'll find that if you stop using the task killer, your battery life won't go down. What you see as "applications that insist on being the background" are almost certainly apps that have been stopped but not yet killed: they're using zero CPU, and the OS will kill them when it needs to reclaim their memory. Reclaiming it early doesn't help; this isn't a desktop system where extra RAM is used for disk caching.
The only time when a task killer actually helps is when you have a poorly written application that goes out of its way to keep running in the background even though you aren't using it. And in that case, it's better to just uninstall the bug-ridden app and replace it with something that works.
Since there are no legacy apps that actually run in the background, that API was in no way limited by existing applications at all
That's incorrect. Legacy apps lack the capability to run in the background, and that is what limits the API.
App lifecycle management that maximizes battery life and saves memory in a true multitasking environment would require apps to be divided up into separate parts that the OS can disable individually (as is done on Android). Since the fundamental design of iPhone apps is that they're not divided up that way, true multitasking cannot be achieved without a fundamental redesign, which would have required a compatibility layer for old apps.
and was designed to maximize battery life while still providing for 90%+ of the cases most people would use multitasking for.
Within the constraints imposed by the legacy API, this may have been a sensible compromise. But a real solution would have maximized battery life while providing for 100% of the cases people use multitasking for, whether they've been invented yet or not.
It's all about battery preservation and helping the user not have to manage tasks.
If that's true, then isn't it interesting that Android doesn't have a problem with battery preservation or task management? Android devices have comparable battery life to the iPhone, and tasks are managed automatically and transparently.
Apple would like you to think that allowing developers to run their own code in the background would lead to problems like this. But either there's a unique problem with multitasking on the iPhone OS, or they're just not telling the truth.
It's about design, not technical ability.
Now you might be on to something. iPhone applications were written with the assumption that they'd either be running in the foreground or not running at all. Now Apple faces the same sort of legacy problems that Microsoft has faced for years: they have to keep supporting those old apps, even though the underlying design is past its expiration date and really should be changed. It seems they've chosen to load the old design up with patches instead of biting the bullet, writing a compatibility layer, and moving on to a new, better design.
The big question is when "multitasking" is no longer the major difference between platforms
Well, that won't happen any time soon.
You do realize that the upcoming iPhone OS update doesn't add multitasking, right? What it adds is a limited set of background services that apps can ask the OS to perform. It will take some wind out of Android proponents' sails, because those background services are tailored to a handful of popular applications for multitasking -- playing internet radio, finishing downloads, etc. -- but while Android developers will be able to keep developing new uses for background code, iPhone developers will be stuck with the limited set of background operations that Apple has pre-approved.
what will be the next Android marketing slogan?
The ongoing circus that is the App Store approval process should provide plenty of slogans to come. How about "Android: the phone that doesn't block Pulitzer-winning cartoonists"? (OK, it needs a little polishing...)
... which is why they don't sell to teenaged kids... oh wait, they do.
He said "they want to sell to people with disposable income". Teenagers may not have much total income, but nearly all of it is disposable: that's why they're the ones buying all the ringtones and ringback tones. As a bonus, teenagers are also motivated by fashion and trendiness, which makes it even easier to sell them flashy, expensive Apple products.
Lots of brand new devices are sold _today_ that still have 1.5 and 1.6 (read: Sprint's Android phones). [...] If Flash only works on 2.1+ devices, and most existing devices are 2.0 and lower with no upgrade path in sight, Adobe has to wait for an entire generation of existing users to upgrade.
There's an upgrade path in sight, although it's taken longer than expected. Word on the street is the HTC Hero will get 2.1 in less than two weeks.
Almost all non-GSM phones become useless bricks outside the U.S., kinda pointless if you travel.
If you travel to Europe, yes.
If you travel to Asia, no: in fact, Asia has more CDMA subscribers than the US. There's some CDMA coverage in Japan, but no GSM coverage. My family and coworkers have also used their Verizon phones in China with no problem.
Look, I love my iPod touch, but it's a nice pocket computer/PDA, not a living-room web device. Why can't you understand that a larger, IPS screen alone is going to push the price up?
I understand that a screen that size is expensive. I don't, however, see how the cost/benefit comparison works out in favor of buying an iPad for the average consumer.
I'm sorry your iPod Touch isn't a satisfactory living-room web device. When I'm in the living room and I want to check something on the web, I reach for my Droid; I would've thought an iPod Touch would be equally good for that, but maybe not. I can understand how it'd be a nice luxury to have a bigger screen, but again, I have a hard time seeing how that's worth $500.
Fair enough, though the *really* cheap netbooks are slow, annoying to use on the web, ugly and un-aesthetic enough to not appeal nicely. [...] I havent really seen many cheap laptops that rival the looks and design.
Then you haven't looked lately. Go click twice on bestbuy.com, and you'll find good-looking netbooks for under $300.
And yet people buy many more expensive things as impulse buys all the time.
No, I don't think they do. Do you have an example in mind?
For that matter, an xbox or a ps3 near launch.....
Are you suggesting the people who spent $500+ on those consoles near their launch dates were impulse buyers? I think those were mainly hardcore gamers.
Besides, an Xbox 360 or PS3 does something that other consoles don't. It adds functionality. The iPad, on the other hand, merely duplicates the functionality of a phone or laptop: at best, it's an expensive deluxe version of a device you already own.
An even bigger step was the displacing of email by texting on cellphones. Show me the RFC describing how I can make my own texting client for my cellphone.
Compare this to windows where most of software installs are done by clicking a setup.exe file. Yes there is the.msi windows installer available, but not everyone uses that.
Actually, third party frameworks like InstallShield and WISE are now based on Windows Installer, so most of those setup.exe files go through the same API.
You ignoring one absolutely crucial option, ease of use! Anyone can pick it up and use it, in 5 seconds, it's drop dead simple.
Heh. It's the year 2010, who doesn't know how to use a computer by now? Infants?
But in any case, the iPad has no ease of use advantage over the less expensive, more convenient iPhone, or over competing tablets.
factor in service and the smartphone isnt less
It is if you're getting 3G service for the iPad too. If not, then you should be comparing it to something like the iPod Touch - the 64 GB iPod Touch is over $100 less than the 16 GB iPad.
and honestly, in terms of price, unless you spend your days popping onto slickdeals and waiting for sales and the like, a netbook and the ipad cost about the same
Have you not looked at prices lately? I went to bestbuy.com and with literally two clicks, I found 18 netbooks for under $300. The iPad starts at $500.
It's just barely cheap enough to be an expensive impulse buy
At $500? Maybe if you work on Wall Street.
And yes, it's also aesthetic enough to leave in your living room.
Take a look at some of those sub-$300 netbooks - they look just as slick. You don't have to buy Apple products to get attractive design anymore.
"Yeah, I asked for a shaggy dog, but I didn't mean that shaggy."
Come on. What do you think the iPad does when you "turn it off"? It goes to sleep, just like the iPhone and iPod (and Android devices, and most smartphones and PDAs). When it has to do a full reboot, it takes around 15 seconds, which is nothing special.
I have had countless times I've gone to boot a Netbook or Laptop that I left in sleep for a week only to find the battery had completely drained.
Heh, my Mac laptop did that even if I shut it down completely. I think that's a "feature" of the battery.
I have yet to find a Netbook with a 10 hour battery life
No, that's the opposite of what "objective" means.
Using your logic: An iPhone is pointless to me (using your logic). All I need is a simple cell phone for phone calls.
Again, that's the opposite of what I was saying.
The iPhone does things that a simple cell phone doesn't. Maybe you don't want to do those things, in which case the iPhone is the wrong phone for you, but it's an objective fact that it has more functionality than the simple cell phone you prefer.
But - in my view (using my logic), even though I have no use for an iPhone (for example) personally I can see the point of an iPhone and why people like them.
Yes, and that's what's missing from the iPad. It doesn't do anything that isn't already done by another (cheaper) device. That isn't a matter of personal opinion, it's not something that's only true for me -- it's an objective fact.
And it's not a tablet, either. It's not meant to be a tablet.
Wikipedia begs to differ: "The iPad is a tablet computer designed and marketed by Apple for Internet browsing, media consumption, gaming, and light content creation."
I think you'll find that most writers beg to differ as well. "Tablet" is the term that has been used to refer to devices like the iPad for many years.
All you can really say is that it is pointless to you alone.
Not quite. I can say it's pointless in all objective respects. It doesn't do anything that the iPhone doesn't already do, and it lacks the iPhone's advantages (i.e. portability). It does less than a netbook, and provides few relative advantages there (no more portable, and battery life isn't much better than a good netbook). Even sticking to tablets, the only advantages of the iPad over competing tablets are a slightly bigger screen (for now) and the fact that it runs iPhone apps.
Those aren't personal opinions. They're statements of fact, just as true for you or anyone else as they are for me.
The iPad may indeed be the best choice for many people, but it'll be best on subjective grounds: they like its color or shape, or the little picture of an apple, or the fact that it's trendy, etc. It'll be a better fashion accessory or a better toy, not a better computer.
You can't speak for other people (even though you apparently think you can/do).
I'm sorry you came to that mistaken conclusion. It's always embarrassing when you tell someone else what they're thinking and you turn out to be wrong, isn't it?
Dude, most people don't care. Maybe it would be better if everyone had the same concerns about OS openness that we do, but they don't, and that's unlikely to ever change.
I don't think that's entirely true. It's not hard to rattle off a list of things you can do on Device X but not on the iPhone/iPad, specifically because of the chip on Steve's shoulder.
"Check out this app I just got on my phone, it turns the ringer off automatically when I get to work and back on when I leave work. I know, cool, right? I'd send you the link, but there's no iPhone version..."
You don't even need to get into the technical explanation, because it's not just a technical problem. The end result is that users can't get certain applications.
For the record, I despise the walled garden that is Apple and have never once given them any money. Their products are not for me, and I don't like their corporate behavior. But to act like they don't know what they're doing is ludicrous.
Oh, I agree completely. They're making plenty of money, which is what they set out to do. But that's not really a point in the device's favor unless you own Apple stock.
Are you really that arrogant that you really think you know what is better for most people?
Arrogance has nothing to do with it. All you have to do is look at the capabilities of the iPad and compare that to the capabilities of other devices.
If you don't mind spending a couple hundred bucks extra for something that's trendy and new, don't let me stop you. There's nothing wrong with buying a toy. But don't pretend it's going to enable you to do something you couldn't already do better on another device.
The modern versions that run Windows are a pain to get applications on (most lack optical drives) and most run Windows poorly (in addition to not being instant on).
1. Download software from the internet.
2. Use sleep mode if you want instant-on.
Steve Jobs was dead on when describing Netbooks: there is not a single thing they do better than a laptop or desktop, they do the same things but do them worse. The only possible upticks of are a couple of pounds lighter, a few cubic inches less volume, and possibly better battery life.
He was dead wrong, and you prove it with your very next sentence. Added portability and longer battery life are the whole point of netbooks!
What he said is actually true of the iPad, though: there's not a single thing the iPad does better than a smartphone or netbook. It does the same things, but does them worse. It's no more portable than a netbook, and its battery life isn't much longer. It doesn't do anything the iPhone doesn't also do, it's just bigger.
You are essentially complaining about a device which clearly isn't suitable for your intended use.
You're missing the larger point: it's only suitable for a couple niche uses.
Busy doctor who wants to replace his clipboard? OK. Traveling chess player who wants to replace his board with a virtual one? I guess. But... who else?
That's the problem. For just about every "intended use", you're better off with something other than a tablet computer. And even in the rare cases where you need a tablet computer, it's hard to see how the iPad is better than competing tablets.
Can you point me an another IPS screen device under the 500$ mark?
Probably not, but at least one device has a screen that works better than the iPad's under diverse lighting conditions.
Flash: Get over it, flash is as good as VB6. Its time for evolve.
Tell that to the countless web sites that use Flash. Content has to evolve first, then it will be time for devices to stop supporting the old technology.
And content won't evolve until developer tools do. Flash has great developer tools, which is what made it popular in the first place. Where are the equivalents for HTML 5 (or whatever else you think should replace Flash)? Or are you somehow going to convince an artist to write a thousand lines of JavaScript instead of drawing a few keyframes in Flash?
What you can really do more on a Netbook?
Type blog posts and emails, edit documents (try OpenOffice or an older MS Office if you think the ribbon is too big), play thousands of popular Flash games and PC games, visit web sites and have them "just work" instead of showing blue squares where the unsupported plugins should be, watch DivX videos...
Your clearly on a rampage to try and convince people who like their ipads that they shouldn't.
Not at all! You seem to have misunderstood me.
If he likes his iPad and feels like he's getting his money's worth, good for him. But most people would be better off buying something else: everything the iPad does is done better by a different device.
Those other devices aren't always as shiny, cool, or new as the iPad, which suggests a reason that the iPad is selling well: novelty and marketing. There's nothing wrong with buying expensive toys. If you think the iPad is cool enough to justify spending the extra money for something less functional and convenient than the alternatives, I'm not going to talk you out of it -- but I won't recommend it either.
and yet, somehow, 1 million people and counting disagree with you...
Not really. As I was modded into oblivion for saying over here, people buy toys in large numbers too. The iPad is selling well because it's cool, shiny, and new -- not because the reasons people have been rejecting tablet computers for 15 years suddenly stopped being valid. When the novelty wears off, what'll be left is a device that combines the disadvantages of a smartphone with the disadvantages of a laptop, and few of the advantages of either.
It's an appliance that has just enough ability to be turned into something else to keep the "geek toy" crowd happy too, that's what you're missing.
A smartphone is an appliance too, but it fits in your pocket, doesn't tire your wrists out from holding it up, and costs less than an iPad. Even a netbook can be dumbed down into an appliance, if that's what you want.
It's like arguing that my freezer (no, you dont get a car analogy!) at home doesnt work like a commercial, programmable, walk-in unit.
I'd say it's more like arguing that your freezer at home costs more, does less, and is less convenient than other home freezers: that every requirement you have for a freezer would have been filled better by buying a different model.
Having typed SMSs on phones and having typed on an iPad - what the hell are you talking about? I wouldn't want to write a novel, but short emails, SMS, tweets, are much nicer on the iPad than any other non-laptop I've used.
Well, we've both typed on phones and on the iPad, and I don't understand your sentiment any better than you understand mine. I'd take the keyboard on the T-Mobile G1, the Samsung Alias, even the Motorola Droid over the keyboard on the iPad any day.
At least we can agree that opinions are divided as to the usefulness of the iPad's keyboard, right?
Enjoy browsing with Flash on and unblockable from comparable devices.
What do you mean, unblockable? The Flash-enabled Android devices we've seen so far have a switch to disable Flash, if that's what you want. Or you can install a different browser, since the Android Market has no policy against "duplicating the functionality" of built-in apps.
By "They" you must mean Adobe? Clearly, it's up to Adobe to fix all of the problems with Flash - which is why the technology got Steve'd from iPad/Pod/Phone.
That's what Steve would like you to think. When Flash for Android is released later this year, we'll see just how truthful Steve is. (My money's on "pants on fire".)
Slashdot Mirror
I found that downloading a 3rd party utility named "Task Manager" has improved my battery life by allowing me to kill all my applications that insist on being in the background even though I'm not using them.
Yes, there are third party task managers, but they're essentially just placebos for people who feel the need to micromanage what their phone is doing. The OS will kill processes that are no longer needed when it needs to free up some memory. Killing tasks manually has little effect, other than introducing a small delay the next time you start those tasks.
I think you'll find that if you stop using the task killer, your battery life won't go down. What you see as "applications that insist on being the background" are almost certainly apps that have been stopped but not yet killed: they're using zero CPU, and the OS will kill them when it needs to reclaim their memory. Reclaiming it early doesn't help; this isn't a desktop system where extra RAM is used for disk caching.
The only time when a task killer actually helps is when you have a poorly written application that goes out of its way to keep running in the background even though you aren't using it. And in that case, it's better to just uninstall the bug-ridden app and replace it with something that works.
Since there are no legacy apps that actually run in the background, that API was in no way limited by existing applications at all
That's incorrect. Legacy apps lack the capability to run in the background, and that is what limits the API.
App lifecycle management that maximizes battery life and saves memory in a true multitasking environment would require apps to be divided up into separate parts that the OS can disable individually (as is done on Android). Since the fundamental design of iPhone apps is that they're not divided up that way, true multitasking cannot be achieved without a fundamental redesign, which would have required a compatibility layer for old apps.
and was designed to maximize battery life while still providing for 90%+ of the cases most people would use multitasking for.
Within the constraints imposed by the legacy API, this may have been a sensible compromise. But a real solution would have maximized battery life while providing for 100% of the cases people use multitasking for, whether they've been invented yet or not.
Japan has very good GSM coverage from three large GSM providers.
Not quite. They have UMTS 2100, which is not the same as GSM, but is supported by many GSM 3G phones.
It's all about battery preservation and helping the user not have to manage tasks.
If that's true, then isn't it interesting that Android doesn't have a problem with battery preservation or task management? Android devices have comparable battery life to the iPhone, and tasks are managed automatically and transparently.
Apple would like you to think that allowing developers to run their own code in the background would lead to problems like this. But either there's a unique problem with multitasking on the iPhone OS, or they're just not telling the truth.
It's about design, not technical ability.
Now you might be on to something. iPhone applications were written with the assumption that they'd either be running in the foreground or not running at all. Now Apple faces the same sort of legacy problems that Microsoft has faced for years: they have to keep supporting those old apps, even though the underlying design is past its expiration date and really should be changed. It seems they've chosen to load the old design up with patches instead of biting the bullet, writing a compatibility layer, and moving on to a new, better design.
The big question is when "multitasking" is no longer the major difference between platforms
Well, that won't happen any time soon.
You do realize that the upcoming iPhone OS update doesn't add multitasking, right? What it adds is a limited set of background services that apps can ask the OS to perform. It will take some wind out of Android proponents' sails, because those background services are tailored to a handful of popular applications for multitasking -- playing internet radio, finishing downloads, etc. -- but while Android developers will be able to keep developing new uses for background code, iPhone developers will be stuck with the limited set of background operations that Apple has pre-approved.
what will be the next Android marketing slogan?
The ongoing circus that is the App Store approval process should provide plenty of slogans to come. How about "Android: the phone that doesn't block Pulitzer-winning cartoonists"? (OK, it needs a little polishing...)
... which is why they don't sell to teenaged kids ... oh wait, they do.
He said "they want to sell to people with disposable income". Teenagers may not have much total income, but nearly all of it is disposable: that's why they're the ones buying all the ringtones and ringback tones. As a bonus, teenagers are also motivated by fashion and trendiness, which makes it even easier to sell them flashy, expensive Apple products.
Lots of brand new devices are sold _today_ that still have 1.5 and 1.6 (read: Sprint's Android phones). [...] If Flash only works on 2.1+ devices, and most existing devices are 2.0 and lower with no upgrade path in sight, Adobe has to wait for an entire generation of existing users to upgrade.
There's an upgrade path in sight, although it's taken longer than expected. Word on the street is the HTC Hero will get 2.1 in less than two weeks.
Almost all non-GSM phones become useless bricks outside the U.S., kinda pointless if you travel.
If you travel to Europe, yes.
If you travel to Asia, no: in fact, Asia has more CDMA subscribers than the US. There's some CDMA coverage in Japan, but no GSM coverage. My family and coworkers have also used their Verizon phones in China with no problem.
Look, I love my iPod touch, but it's a nice pocket computer/PDA, not a living-room web device. Why can't you understand that a larger, IPS screen alone is going to push the price up?
I understand that a screen that size is expensive. I don't, however, see how the cost/benefit comparison works out in favor of buying an iPad for the average consumer.
I'm sorry your iPod Touch isn't a satisfactory living-room web device. When I'm in the living room and I want to check something on the web, I reach for my Droid; I would've thought an iPod Touch would be equally good for that, but maybe not. I can understand how it'd be a nice luxury to have a bigger screen, but again, I have a hard time seeing how that's worth $500.
Fair enough, though the *really* cheap netbooks are slow, annoying to use on the web, ugly and un-aesthetic enough to not appeal nicely. [...] I havent really seen many cheap laptops that rival the looks and design.
Then you haven't looked lately. Go click twice on bestbuy.com, and you'll find good-looking netbooks for under $300.
And yet people buy many more expensive things as impulse buys all the time.
No, I don't think they do. Do you have an example in mind?
For that matter, an xbox or a ps3 near launch.....
Are you suggesting the people who spent $500+ on those consoles near their launch dates were impulse buyers? I think those were mainly hardcore gamers.
Besides, an Xbox 360 or PS3 does something that other consoles don't. It adds functionality. The iPad, on the other hand, merely duplicates the functionality of a phone or laptop: at best, it's an expensive deluxe version of a device you already own.
An even bigger step was the displacing of email by texting on cellphones. Show me the RFC describing how I can make my own texting client for my cellphone.
How about source code?
Compare this to windows where most of software installs are done by clicking a setup.exe file. Yes there is the .msi windows installer available, but not everyone uses that.
Actually, third party frameworks like InstallShield and WISE are now based on Windows Installer, so most of those setup.exe files go through the same API.
You ignoring one absolutely crucial option, ease of use! Anyone can pick it up and use it, in 5 seconds, it's drop dead simple.
Heh. It's the year 2010, who doesn't know how to use a computer by now? Infants?
But in any case, the iPad has no ease of use advantage over the less expensive, more convenient iPhone, or over competing tablets.
factor in service and the smartphone isnt less
It is if you're getting 3G service for the iPad too. If not, then you should be comparing it to something like the iPod Touch - the 64 GB iPod Touch is over $100 less than the 16 GB iPad.
and honestly, in terms of price, unless you spend your days popping onto slickdeals and waiting for sales and the like, a netbook and the ipad cost about the same
Have you not looked at prices lately? I went to bestbuy.com and with literally two clicks, I found 18 netbooks for under $300. The iPad starts at $500.
It's just barely cheap enough to be an expensive impulse buy
At $500? Maybe if you work on Wall Street.
And yes, it's also aesthetic enough to leave in your living room.
Take a look at some of those sub-$300 netbooks - they look just as slick. You don't have to buy Apple products to get attractive design anymore.
For downloading I have no idea where I can download and install Office, Quicken, or TurboTax legally.
Office, Quicken, TurboTax. HTH!
And sleep is not instant on.
"Yeah, I asked for a shaggy dog, but I didn't mean that shaggy."
Come on. What do you think the iPad does when you "turn it off"? It goes to sleep, just like the iPhone and iPod (and Android devices, and most smartphones and PDAs). When it has to do a full reboot, it takes around 15 seconds, which is nothing special.
I have had countless times I've gone to boot a Netbook or Laptop that I left in sleep for a week only to find the battery had completely drained.
Heh, my Mac laptop did that even if I shut it down completely. I think that's a "feature" of the battery.
I have yet to find a Netbook with a 10 hour battery life
Try this one, this one, or this one.
Hell, even my full-sized laptop will run for 6 hours on a charge.
It's pointless in all objective respects to YOU.
No, that's the opposite of what "objective" means.
Using your logic: An iPhone is pointless to me (using your logic). All I need is a simple cell phone for phone calls.
Again, that's the opposite of what I was saying.
The iPhone does things that a simple cell phone doesn't. Maybe you don't want to do those things, in which case the iPhone is the wrong phone for you, but it's an objective fact that it has more functionality than the simple cell phone you prefer.
But - in my view (using my logic), even though I have no use for an iPhone (for example) personally I can see the point of an iPhone and why people like them.
Yes, and that's what's missing from the iPad. It doesn't do anything that isn't already done by another (cheaper) device. That isn't a matter of personal opinion, it's not something that's only true for me -- it's an objective fact.
And it's not a tablet, either. It's not meant to be a tablet.
Wikipedia begs to differ: "The iPad is a tablet computer designed and marketed by Apple for Internet browsing, media consumption, gaming, and light content creation."
I think you'll find that most writers beg to differ as well. "Tablet" is the term that has been used to refer to devices like the iPad for many years.
If sales of the iPad continue as they are, it appears to be filling a very big niche.
I don't know about that. Remember Furby? Tickle Me Elmo? Massive sales, store workers were trampled by mobs eager to buy them, but where are they now?
The niche they filled was "shiny new toy". By definition, nothing can fill it for long. I suspect the iPad is headed the same way.
All you can really say is that it is pointless to you alone.
Not quite. I can say it's pointless in all objective respects. It doesn't do anything that the iPhone doesn't already do, and it lacks the iPhone's advantages (i.e. portability). It does less than a netbook, and provides few relative advantages there (no more portable, and battery life isn't much better than a good netbook). Even sticking to tablets, the only advantages of the iPad over competing tablets are a slightly bigger screen (for now) and the fact that it runs iPhone apps.
Those aren't personal opinions. They're statements of fact, just as true for you or anyone else as they are for me.
The iPad may indeed be the best choice for many people, but it'll be best on subjective grounds: they like its color or shape, or the little picture of an apple, or the fact that it's trendy, etc. It'll be a better fashion accessory or a better toy, not a better computer.
You can't speak for other people (even though you apparently think you can/do).
I'm sorry you came to that mistaken conclusion. It's always embarrassing when you tell someone else what they're thinking and you turn out to be wrong, isn't it?
Dude, most people don't care. Maybe it would be better if everyone had the same concerns about OS openness that we do, but they don't, and that's unlikely to ever change.
I don't think that's entirely true. It's not hard to rattle off a list of things you can do on Device X but not on the iPhone/iPad, specifically because of the chip on Steve's shoulder.
"Check out this app I just got on my phone, it turns the ringer off automatically when I get to work and back on when I leave work. I know, cool, right? I'd send you the link, but there's no iPhone version..."
You don't even need to get into the technical explanation, because it's not just a technical problem. The end result is that users can't get certain applications.
For the record, I despise the walled garden that is Apple and have never once given them any money. Their products are not for me, and I don't like their corporate behavior. But to act like they don't know what they're doing is ludicrous.
Oh, I agree completely. They're making plenty of money, which is what they set out to do. But that's not really a point in the device's favor unless you own Apple stock.
Are you really that arrogant that you really think you know what is better for most people?
Arrogance has nothing to do with it. All you have to do is look at the capabilities of the iPad and compare that to the capabilities of other devices.
If you don't mind spending a couple hundred bucks extra for something that's trendy and new, don't let me stop you. There's nothing wrong with buying a toy. But don't pretend it's going to enable you to do something you couldn't already do better on another device.
The modern versions that run Windows are a pain to get applications on (most lack optical drives) and most run Windows poorly (in addition to not being instant on).
1. Download software from the internet.
2. Use sleep mode if you want instant-on.
Steve Jobs was dead on when describing Netbooks: there is not a single thing they do better than a laptop or desktop, they do the same things but do them worse. The only possible upticks of are a couple of pounds lighter, a few cubic inches less volume, and possibly better battery life.
He was dead wrong, and you prove it with your very next sentence. Added portability and longer battery life are the whole point of netbooks!
What he said is actually true of the iPad, though: there's not a single thing the iPad does better than a smartphone or netbook. It does the same things, but does them worse. It's no more portable than a netbook, and its battery life isn't much longer. It doesn't do anything the iPhone doesn't also do, it's just bigger.
You are essentially complaining about a device which clearly isn't suitable for your intended use.
You're missing the larger point: it's only suitable for a couple niche uses.
Busy doctor who wants to replace his clipboard? OK. Traveling chess player who wants to replace his board with a virtual one? I guess. But... who else?
That's the problem. For just about every "intended use", you're better off with something other than a tablet computer. And even in the rare cases where you need a tablet computer, it's hard to see how the iPad is better than competing tablets.
Can you point me an another IPS screen device under the 500$ mark?
Probably not, but at least one device has a screen that works better than the iPad's under diverse lighting conditions.
Flash: Get over it, flash is as good as VB6. Its time for evolve.
Tell that to the countless web sites that use Flash. Content has to evolve first, then it will be time for devices to stop supporting the old technology.
And content won't evolve until developer tools do. Flash has great developer tools, which is what made it popular in the first place. Where are the equivalents for HTML 5 (or whatever else you think should replace Flash)? Or are you somehow going to convince an artist to write a thousand lines of JavaScript instead of drawing a few keyframes in Flash?
What you can really do more on a Netbook?
Type blog posts and emails, edit documents (try OpenOffice or an older MS Office if you think the ribbon is too big), play thousands of popular Flash games and PC games, visit web sites and have them "just work" instead of showing blue squares where the unsupported plugins should be, watch DivX videos...
Your clearly on a rampage to try and convince people who like their ipads that they shouldn't.
Not at all! You seem to have misunderstood me.
If he likes his iPad and feels like he's getting his money's worth, good for him. But most people would be better off buying something else: everything the iPad does is done better by a different device.
Those other devices aren't always as shiny, cool, or new as the iPad, which suggests a reason that the iPad is selling well: novelty and marketing. There's nothing wrong with buying expensive toys. If you think the iPad is cool enough to justify spending the extra money for something less functional and convenient than the alternatives, I'm not going to talk you out of it -- but I won't recommend it either.
and yet, somehow, 1 million people and counting disagree with you...
Not really. As I was modded into oblivion for saying over here, people buy toys in large numbers too. The iPad is selling well because it's cool, shiny, and new -- not because the reasons people have been rejecting tablet computers for 15 years suddenly stopped being valid. When the novelty wears off, what'll be left is a device that combines the disadvantages of a smartphone with the disadvantages of a laptop, and few of the advantages of either.
It's an appliance that has just enough ability to be turned into something else to keep the "geek toy" crowd happy too, that's what you're missing.
A smartphone is an appliance too, but it fits in your pocket, doesn't tire your wrists out from holding it up, and costs less than an iPad. Even a netbook can be dumbed down into an appliance, if that's what you want.
It's like arguing that my freezer (no, you dont get a car analogy!) at home doesnt work like a commercial, programmable, walk-in unit.
I'd say it's more like arguing that your freezer at home costs more, does less, and is less convenient than other home freezers: that every requirement you have for a freezer would have been filled better by buying a different model.
Having typed SMSs on phones and having typed on an iPad - what the hell are you talking about? I wouldn't want to write a novel, but short emails, SMS, tweets, are much nicer on the iPad than any other non-laptop I've used.
Well, we've both typed on phones and on the iPad, and I don't understand your sentiment any better than you understand mine. I'd take the keyboard on the T-Mobile G1, the Samsung Alias, even the Motorola Droid over the keyboard on the iPad any day.
At least we can agree that opinions are divided as to the usefulness of the iPad's keyboard, right?
Enjoy browsing with Flash on and unblockable from comparable devices.
What do you mean, unblockable? The Flash-enabled Android devices we've seen so far have a switch to disable Flash, if that's what you want. Or you can install a different browser, since the Android Market has no policy against "duplicating the functionality" of built-in apps.
By "They" you must mean Adobe? Clearly, it's up to Adobe to fix all of the problems with Flash - which is why the technology got Steve'd from iPad/Pod/Phone.
That's what Steve would like you to think. When Flash for Android is released later this year, we'll see just how truthful Steve is. (My money's on "pants on fire".)