Apple's iPad

[onodera]

It is bad for your eyes to read computer screens (including phones) in darkness.

Too late for that useful piece of advice.

[rah]

Bingo. To say it does ANYTHING better than the competition is laughable. It, instead of doing one thing really well, which was the original principle for the iPod, fyi, it does a bunch of things far less than optimal.

Agreed.
I would need it to have much more functionality, (even if some of it was less than optimal), or to do the things it does do better.

But having said that, I expect that until a device is made that does do what I said, that the ipad will do quite well with all the drones that really don't need a computer but just need a portable entertainment center.

[Vanguard]

Nobody said that the iPad was supposed to make laptops obsolete. Just readers, tablets and netbooks.

Your laptop will be able to run video as well as an iPad. Who has ever said anything different? Your six pound laptop with its 4 hour battery life and screen that washes out if you move your head will, in fact, be able to run video as well as the 1.5 pound iPad. What a surprise.

I expect an HDMI output so I have the option of using THX, dual subwoofers and a 50 inch plasma screen. a $500 portable media device should have that. There are netbooks cheaper than the iPad that come with HDMI support, and even output 1080p (not 720p max like the iPad...

I can output to TV with my iPhone now, using an aftermarket cable. I'm sure there will be something even better for the iPad. Ok, it might not be able to output 1080p. Is that supposed to be a deal breaker now? The handheld only outputs 720p, not full 1080? That's your objection? Okay, noted.

Have you even taken a look at a picture of an iPad? You do realize that it is a 1.5 pound tablet, right? About the size of a Kindle DX but a little heavier. Well, a lot of people in this thread apparently believe the DX was worth paying $480 for.

So how come the Kindle DX's inability to output video at 1080p wasn't a dealbreaker for them? Or its inability to output video at 720p? Or its complete inability to play video of any kind at all? How about its inability to display.... color. Dealbreaker yet?

Apparently not. People are willing to pay $300-$500 for a Kindle, despite its extreme monofunctionality, because it does what it does in a hand held format. That is what the iPad does "better" than a netbook. It does everything a netbook does, but in a better form factor.

The processor has **** all to do with video -- that's all done via the graphics chip.

1. I did not say cpu. I said processor.

2. The iPad does not have a "graphics chip" since it is a system-on-a-chip. Which is why I said "processor".

3. Even using your own meaning, this is completely untrue. The central processor is fairly important in decoding high definition video, especially in portable devices.

But thanks for trying to BS us.

It is bad for your eyes to read computer screens (including phones) in darkness.

That's a joke, right? If so, Ha Ha.

If it isn't a joke, then Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.

[Jon Miller]

The iPad does not do what I want my tablet and netbook to do. It might do (although eink means probably not) what I would want a reader to do.

After jailbreak it might do some of what I want my netbook and tablet to do. Some.

I wrote a whole thesis on my netbook (well, I had some 60 pages I wrote on my tablet), by the way.

JM

[rah]

It all comes down to what you want to use if for.

[Fve Crathva]

I'm waiting for the IPed and IPud. I expect them to revolutionize... something.

Child pornography and cunnilingus, respectively.

SP

[Asher]

Nobody said that the iPad was supposed to make laptops obsolete. Just readers, tablets and netbooks.

It can't make readers and netbooks obsolete because it doesn't do what they do as well as they do. It can't make tablets obsolete because it is a tablet.

Your laptop will be able to run video as well as an iPad. Who has ever said anything different? Your six pound laptop with its 4 hour battery life and screen that washes out if you move your head will, in fact, be able to run video as well as the 1.5 pound iPad. What a surprise.

At least have an honest conversation. The screen does not wash out if your move your head, the viewing angle is something like 160 degrees. As luck would have it, when I'm using a laptop my head isn't bouncing around to extremes so this is, incidentally, not an issue. On the other hand, the last time I had to use a device with a res as low a 1024x768 was probably 7 years ago. Certainly a major degradation vs netbooks and notebooks.

I can output to TV with my iPhone now, using an aftermarket cable. I'm sure there will be something even better for the iPad. Ok, it might not be able to output 1080p. Is that supposed to be a deal breaker now? The handheld only outputs 720p, not full 1080? That's your objection? Okay, noted.

It doesn't support 1080 or surround sound. For a media device, that is essential for me. I do NOT watch SD anymore and I haven't for a couple years. It's 2010.

Have you even taken a look at a picture of an iPad? You do realize that it is a 1.5 pound tablet, right? About the size of a Kindle DX but a little heavier. Well, a lot of people in this thread apparently believe the DX was worth paying $480 for.

The eInk makes the world of difference. If you want an eReader, the Kindle DX is the top of the line and worth the money. It does what it does VERY well, which is the point.

So how come the Kindle DX's inability to output video at 1080p wasn't a dealbreaker for them? Or its inability to output video at 720p? Or its complete inability to play video of any kind at all? How about its inability to display.... color. Dealbreaker yet?

What do you not comprehend?

The Kindle is a success and people love it because it does one thing, and it does it REALLY well. The problem with the iPad is it does many things, none of them particularly well.

Apparently not. People are willing to pay $300-$500 for a Kindle, despite its extreme monofunctionality, because it does what it does in a hand held format. That is what the iPad does "better" than a netbook. It does everything a netbook does, but in a better form factor.

It does not do everything a netbook does and its formfactor is NOT arguably better. Typing on an iPad for extended periods of time would be incredibly uncomfortable, unergonomic, and undeniably less efficient than the netbook. This is 100% due to the form factor. How the **** do you think you'll be able to type using a "HAND HELD FORMAT" device? How many hands do you have?

The netbook has far more horsepower than an iPad, it can multitask, it can support better quality video, has better connectivity options, is cheaper, has higher resolution displays, run many more programs (free from the iron fist of the app store, too), etc.

1. I did not say cpu. I said processor.

You did say CPU when you said processor. It's implied. If you meant video decoding chip, you're still wrong anyway. The iPad has weaker a CPU and GPU compared to even netbooks.

2. The iPad does not have a "graphics chip" since it is a system-on-a-chip. Which is why I said "processor".

It does have a graphics chip. It is NOT unified with the CPU, they're just on the same socket. They're separate chips just in the same packaging.

3. Even using your own meaning, this is completely untrue. The central processor is fairly important in decoding high definition video, especially in portable devices.

But thanks for trying to BS us.

What you are saying right here is unabashed BS. Video decoding is 99% offloaded onto ASICs on mobile devices, the CPUs on these devices are NOT energy efficient at decoding.

This is what I have done for the past year, just so you know. I make mobile apps for iPhone/iPod Touch (and soon iPad), Android, Nokia, Windows Mobile, and WebOS. Our apps have video functionality. I also happen to be a hardware geek so I know exactly how the video is decoded.

That's a joke, right? If so, Ha Ha.

If it isn't a joke, then Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.

It is not a joke. Reading bright screens in dark rooms for extended periods of time causes eye strain. It is not recommended.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Vanguard apparently REALLY doesn't understand e-ink (or Kindles for that matter). It's the perfect electronic reading device. The only thing that can improve it is the addition of color, and that will probably be developed in the next few years (though its not that big of a deal, at least for me, at the present).

[-Jrabbit]

I'm really enjoying the whole "it doesn't do this/that well" vs "it effing rocks" arguments -- about a device that only a handful of people in the world (none of them on this forum) have ever touched.

[rah]

I don't think you need to touch it to know what kind of output it supports.

Me, I'm waiting for a tablet that will have the functionality of a good laptop, a phone, and an entertainment center. The question is how long before they resolve the battery issues and further miniaturization that would allow the full robust functionality that will make me actually want one of these.

[onodera]

I don't think you need to touch it to know what kind of output it supports.

Me, I'm waiting for a tablet that will have the functionality of a good laptop, a phone, and an entertainment center. The question is how long before they resolve the battery issues and further miniaturization that would allow the full robust functionality that will make me actually want one of these.

You'll be worm food long before they resolve the batterry issues.

[Nostromo]

Vanguard apparently REALLY doesn't understand e-ink (or Kindles for that matter). It's the perfect electronic reading device. The only thing that can improve it is the addition of color, and that will probably be developed in the next few years (though its not that big of a deal, at least for me, at the present).

I could think of a couple of other things that needs to be improved. Refresh rate, for one.

[-Jrabbit]

I don't think you need to touch it to know what kind of output it supports.

Judgments based on feature lists are pretty useless, on both sides. The naysayers will dwell on the "missing" functions, while the fan-bois will have faith in Apple's "user experience" magic.

It's easy enough to say that certain features are deal-breakers (whether by presence or omission), and that's perfectly fair. I know, for instance, that I won't be buying one. But whether Apple has hit the mark with this product won't be known for some time.

My point is that it's all about the individual user experience, so no one here really knows squat. Still, the commentary is fun.

[Asher]

There's not much unknown here. It's quite literally a supersized iPod Touch. Same OS, same features, same limitations. The SDK has been made public. We know what is possible and what is not. We know the specs. We know the UI. We know the OS. What do we not know?

[-Jrabbit]

The iPod was considered an idiotic "reach" for a nonexistent market.
The iPhone had tons of naysayers at its announcement.

Hundreds of millions of sales later, those products found success, deserved or not. As Mr. Colbert would say, the market has spoken.

Asher, I'm not saying you're wrong. Far from it. I'm just saying that your view, like those of many tech gizmo market analysts in the past, is not a reliable indicator of whether the iPad will be successful.

And enjoying the commentary along the way.