The thing is I'm the complete opposite of technologically averse. I have a powerful desktop and laptop for my business needs, and then other things like music mixing, music production, photoshop, and working on my website. I can build computers, and fix essentially any problem with them. And Apple has only build that equity for me in the past year since I've had the iPhone. It is the 2nd Apple product I have ever bought and used. The first being one those old school iPods about 7 years ago.
The ipad would make a great Home Control tool. I have invested in a home sound system. I have speakers in the corridors and outside in the patio. I'll use the ipad as a control for all of them. I have an apple tv and an imac. I'm even installing remote colled dimmers and lights. This thing will be epic.
You sound like a very technologically savvy person, so I am sure you know about some of the iPad's limitations that will soon be rectified by competing tablets. So with that in mind, I would like to pose the same question to you that I did to bobrek, why an iPad specifically over other soon-to-be-released tablet computers? Fair enough. I was not proposing an argument against tablet PCs, in general. I was proposing one about the iPad versus close substitutes (competing tablets and/or netbooks).
Maybe people just want the product... maybe they like the App Store, maybe they like the iPod, the surfing of the web on the iPad... maybe they just like the whole experience. I don't buy into that "show off" bull ****... that's just a load of ****. Nobody I've ever talked to in my LIFE has ever bought anything to show off... why would anyone want to? There is no marketing behind the iPod, the iPod was a great mp3 player, everyone loved how it looked, how it was built, how everything worked on it.
Actually there are people out there that buy stuff to show it off. They want to be the first to have it. The first to show it off. I wouldn't say a "Significant amount", but they are out there.
Well sure there are, I wasn't denying that there are people like that, and if I was, I'm sorry I worded it wrong. I'm saying, the majority of people don't buy stuff to show off.. they buy it because they want the product, they like the product. What's the point of owning something if you don't even like it... and if they didn't like it, they could return it... but you don't see a mass majority returning products.
I think you've ignored one of your own points. People prefer how it works, so much so, it's worth the trade off for them. Others may not think the trade off is worth it. Or they may not even prefer the iPad to start with, which makes it a real no-brainer. But it's why I use a Mac as my main machine for personal use. I can't run every program on it, and in that case it's a hassle to start up a virtual machine or go get my Windows machine. But I'm willing to put up with it because I like using OS X that much better. For others, they may not see any real difference, and that's totally up to the individual. People reduce computers to a utilitarian standard - hardware specs, price, a laundry list of functions...but often overlook other things like ease of use, form factor, comfort, etc in these discussions. All cars will get you from A to B, but people have preferences on handling, stick shift vs automatic, amenities, etc.
Donny - I have not read this whole thread - are you pro-Ipad? If so, why? I know you're a big mac user, so I'm curious. I love my mac, and I've been impressed with my wife's iphone, but I don't see any redeeming "must-have" quality in the Ipad. It suffers from the usual "tablet-crappiness" factor and is further limited by lame technical and/or software decisions. IMO. What do you think?
I can understand Franchise3. He obviously hates apple's simplistic closed platform. The fact is that most tech consumers are not as "skilled" as most of us that are even posting in here. I had an iphone and switched to an N900. N900 is sick, it's basically Linux based laptop and completely open. Maybe too open. Apples UI and structure is a whole lot easier to use though. Sometime less is more.
I was really anti-Pad at first. But over time, I've come to see where the purpose lies. The target market is that group of people who don't need a $1000 laptop, and yet want a more intuitive/user-friendly/media-rich experience than a netbook. (This might also include people who are not into smartphones) IMO this will bridge the gap between the iPhone and the MacBook beautifully. I hated it at first because I'm not the target market (my iPhone and MacBook are all I'll ever need, and I have no need for a "go-between" device), but now that my parents are itching to get one, I'm starting to realize what Apple is doing here.
This is pretty much how I was at first about it also. But, I agree with everything you said here... I'm also not in the target market because the iPhone and MacBook are pretty much all I use for daily life. I don't think I need another device.
I'm just not sure I buy this, or that I buy it as a sane business idea. My dad is a sysadmin (among many other things). He has two uber-powered desktops at home and usually 2 laptops lying around as well. He has no need for an iPad. But he still wants one. I think that's the far more believable target market - those who like the hip feel and "new gadget" mania. I don't see a rational person thinking that a iPad will outperform or out-media a (cheaper!) netbook. Now there's is nothing wrong with this - but to pretend it's something "groundbreaking" just does not make sense to me. As an e-reader the display is bad. As a laptop the OS is underpowered and cannot multitask (and no keyboard). As a media device or a web-browser it's no better (in fact, I'd argue worse) than a laptop, and a good number of those would be cheaper or similar in price. I don't get it.
Posting Dwight Silverman of the Houston Chronicle initial take on his iPad: http://blogs.chron.com/techblog/archives/2010/04/5_things_i_love_5_things_i_hate_about_the_ipad_1.html I love . . . 1. Its speed and fluidity. This is a very fast computer with smooth onscreen motion that makes it a joy to use. Everything happens quickly - from programs launching to screen transitions to software installations. There are a few exceptions I've found within third-party applications. For example, the iPad version of the Twitter app TweetDeck is a little sluggish, though that will likely be fixable with future updates. 2. Its intuitive interface. No one does interfaces better than Apple, and the iPad continues that tradition. Icons are perfectly sized for fingers; the dual-pane view for e-mail and other text-based apps is brilliantly designed; clever touches like the wooden bookshelf for the iBooks app makes it feel friendly and intimate. Combine this with the speed and fluidity detailed in item No. 1, and you have a device that feels very natural, like an extension of your hands . . . and brain. That's because it was built from scratch with touch in mind, compared to Microsoft's Windows-based touch interfaces, which are essentially desktop operating systems minimally tweaked to accommodate touch. 3. Its fast Wi-Fi. I've got an 802.11n-based wireless home network, and the iPad has an 802.11n adapter. This makes Internet access a breeze - particularly over a fast cable-modem connection. Again, combine this with items 1 and 2, and you have an unsurpassed online experience. (I'll be curious to see what the same experience is like for those who buy the 3G models, available later this month.) 4. Its beautiful display. The iPad's screen is crisp, bright and clear. Watching videos, playing games and looking at photos are some of my favorite activities on the device. Application developers are also taking advantage of the display, writing apps that look great. One of my surprise favorites: the IMDb (Internet Movie Database) app. It's smart that Amazon.com (which owns the IMDb) has released this right away, because I see the iPad as being a great living-room computer, perfect for trying to figure out the name of that character actor in the movie you're watching. 5. Its apps. I mentioned the IMDb app, and that's just one. There are already a slew of them, and developers of iPhone apps have done a great job of taking advantage of the extra screen real estate. There's been a lot of rethinking of interface design in the iPad - both on Apple's and developers' parts - and thus the whole "it's just a big iPod Touch" thing is fairly inaccurate. As time goes on, this will only get better, and the design philosophies developed here will ultimately affect portable computing on other platforms. Everybody wins. I hate . . . 1. The lack of multitasking. I never really minded the fact that my iPhone doesn't multitask. On such a small screen, it's not a deal-killer. But on a device of this size, it's extremely frustrating not to be able to have apps running in the background. Why can't I stream music from Pandora while I read Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter in the iBook app? I'm clinging to the hope that the next version of the iPhone OS, on which the iPad's operating system is based, will finally bring multitasking. The iPad feels broken without it. 2. The easily greased screen. Apple uses the same oleophobic coating on the iPad that it first introduced on the iPhone 3GS. But the iPad still greases up quickly. At least it cleans off easily with just a microfiber cloth, but it still becomes unpleasantly soiled in a short amount of time. 3. Its weight. The iPad weighs "only" 1.5 pounds, and that sounds light. But you begin to feel its heft after holding it in your hands for a while, particularly if you don't rest it on anything. While it may make the device feel more substantial, I suspect it's an illusion. I wouldn't want to drop this thing. 4. Syncing via cable. So Apple adds 802.11n Wi-Fi capabilities, but you still have to sync the iPad via a USB cable? Hold on, let me check the calendar . . . yeah, as I suspected, this is the 21st century. C'mon, Apple, get with the program - give us Wi-Fi syncing for this thing. Hey, even the Zune HD syncs via Wi-Fi. 5. Using iPhone apps on the iPad. Apple heavily markets the fact that there are 150,000 apps already available for the iPad, because it runs iPhone apps as well. You can run iPhone apps two ways - at the native size of 320-by-480, or you can tap a 2X button that uses pixel-doubling to display iPhone apps at 1,204-by-768. In heavily graphical apps, such as games, the effect is not bad - apps are not quite as sharp, but they're usable. But, if you are using a text-based app, the characters become fuzzy and terribly pixilated. For now, the pros outweigh the cons on the iPad, but this relationship is still evolving. I'll do a full review, with an emphasis on media content (because that's what I think the iPad is all about) in my Computing column on Tuesday.
I definitely think that is a valid point, and I partially addressed it in my reply to wakkoman. I corrected myself in saying that it was unfair to simply attribute the preference for the iPad's simplicity to those who are "technologically averse." But it really boils back to my initial assertion that the iPad's success is a textbook case study of marketing and brand equity. Frankly, it is quite fascinating that so many consumers have been able to overlook some glaring omissions in the iPad and will prefer it over similar substitutes at lower price points. Much of that success is due to the brand equity that Apple has built in recent years. Of course they like the product, or else, like you said, they wouldn't buy it. That's not at issue in the least. And it's so much more than just "showing off". That's certainly a factor for early adopters, but I am speaking more in terms of the marketing effects of Apple's brand as a whole. Brand awareness, recognition, association, perception, loyalty, and a host of other factors that go into measuring the equity of a brand. These are very real and measurable factors in forecasting the success of product lines.
HP Slate vs. IPad Found this interesting but you guys do with it what you will. I just dont see the logic if you are in the market for a "Pad" product why you would go with ipad over the Slate.
Fair enough. If I am wrong, tell me why I should value it over a laptop then. Assume I have a nice desktop and I am looking for a mobile device that is not a phone for home use. Why would I choose the iPad over a cheaper netbook? Why would I choose the iPad over a similarly priced full-blown pc laptop with far more functionality? Or why not pick up a macbook for only ~100 bucks more than the max iPad available?
Same reason I went with a MacBook when I was in the market for a laptop. And the same reason I went with an iPhone when I was in a market for a smartphone. I like Apple products and Apple service. And I'm willing to pay a premium to get what I like. This is like saying "why would you want a Wii when you could get a PS3?" You do know why people pick Wiis over PS3s, even though they're technically inferior, right?
