# How is the iPad NOT a big iPod Touch/iPhone?



## a7mc (Dec 30, 2002)

There are a couple (and really only a couple) of very vocal people who are adamantly stating that the iPad is not just a big iPhone/iPod touch. But honestly, it sure looks that way to me (and to 90% of the population). And yes, I watched the keynote. 

I'm guessing the vocal group stating it isn't a big iPod are just trying to defend their eventual purchase so they don't feel ripped off. Let's face it... it has pretty much the same OS (a teeny tiny bit fancier, but same limitations), pretty much the same apps (ooohhh they're prettier because of the bigger screen... but same functionality), similar looks, similar multi-touch, similar design. I've had ebooks on the iPhone for a year now... that's nothing new. Wifi, 3G, bluetooth... all there on my iPhone. 

But since I'm all about openness, I'd love to hear someone's argument as to how this is different than a big iPod Touch or iPhone?

A7


----------



## kevinkor99 (Dec 29, 2009)

I guess to start this argument off,

1.the iPad is inbetween and iPod/iPhone and the Macbook/Pros in terms of portability/productivity.
2.The price is also between the iPod/Mac Portables
3.The iPad is more productive than an iPhone (bigger viewing screen), iWork, Full screen Safari, etc but less productive than a Mac for lack of osx applications

To sum it up:The iPad stretches the capabilities of the iPhone. You can change the background anyway you want you can listen to music make slideshows etc... The iPad is basically just a cool new way of experiencing different forms of entertainment.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

Quite simply, the experience that you have on an iPad will not even be comparable to that of an iPhone, or iPod Touch. 

It's a completely new form factor for enjoying your media and entertainment. The extra screen real estate opens up beyond the boundries that are even possible on the iPhone. 

The new custom apps that are built for the iPad will have NO chance of running on the iPhone at all. (nor would you want to.)

I see the relation that people are making, but we have to remember that the potential for this device is in its infancy.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Some are saying that the iPod touch is a scaled-down iPad. 

In other words, the iPad is what they've been building up to, and the iPod touch was a placeholder product while they developed the capability.

And as a reasonably satisfied iPod touch owner, I have to admit that the potential benefits of having a bigger version generally outweigh the drawbacks.


----------



## jeepguy (Apr 4, 2008)

with the addition of iWork, this brings the the whole productivity side to the iPad, I think it would quite difficult to edit a spreadsheet on an iPhone/iPod, but because of it's larger form factor it opens the doors to more sophisticated software, that would be very hard or next to impossible to accomplish on a smaller screen.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

So what you're all apparently saying is that it's a big iPod Touch that can easily run certain Apps because it is bigger than an iPod Touch. Just takes a few paragraphs to get there.


----------



## jwootton (Dec 4, 2009)

When the iphone came out, there weren't 3rd party apps. Apple realized when they introduced the app store that this had a huge impact in iPhone sales. That is why they have made this iPad able to run all of these apps. This has led people to say that it is just a big ipod touch. Apple didn't want to release this device with limited apps available, but we will see over the next year that the iPad specific app section will grow very fast. There is so much more you can do with that much screen real estate. As soon as development gets strong, there will be few people using iPhone apps on their iPad, they just won't have the functionality that an iPad specific app can have.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

jwootton said:


> There is so much more you can do with that much screen real estate.


A big iPod Touch!


----------



## jwootton (Dec 4, 2009)

Macfury said:


> A big iPod Touch!


Fine, but people are saying that in a bad way, when I argue that a big iPod touch can actually be a quite capable machine


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I'm beginning to think Apple was using the iPod Touch as a pilot program to see how many people would be interested in such a device.


----------



## jeepguy (Apr 4, 2008)

jwootton said:


> Fine, but people are saying that in a bad way, when I argue that a big iPod touch can actually be a quite capable machine


I agree. My wife who is not tech savvy in any way wants one, she sees it as an internet appliance. A large portion of people who use computers at home, just do basic things like

- read mail
- surf the web
- look at photos
- watch movies/videos
- word processing
- play games

I think the iPad fits this quite nicely, at a very attractive price, the only think that I really see missing is a way to do backups without a computer.


----------



## friend (Nov 14, 2009)

It really doesn't matter, I think, what we call it.
It can probably be a lot of things to a lot of people.

If I had the money I would buy it primarily to surf on and
to use as an e-book. Do I need to call it a surf capable e-book? Nope.
To me the iPad is a mobile Apple device with quite a bit of computing options.
And, may I add, a very nice device.


----------



## thegoat54 (Nov 20, 2007)

I agree with the OP.

It is just a big Ipod touch. I just can’t see this thing being comfortable to use as a makeshift laptop. It is makeshift in sense that its not a replacement for a computer, but an "in between" machine. Meaning, you just use this thing instead of a _bulky _macbook when you’re too lazy to hold one of those?? Therefore makeshift!

But who would really want to use this thing to do any real work? 

I use my macbook on the couch, it sits on my lap all by itself (with a pillow for insulation to keep my boys cool ). I just don't see how holding this thing on an angle with one hand, while the bottom end digs into my thigh, while operating it with the other hand is going be comfortable.

And there is nothing great about the price either. You can get a $300 netbook (with 10 inch screen) and install OSX and have 160GB HD and not be limited by the app store.


----------



## a7mc (Dec 30, 2002)

Well I have to agree with MacFury. What everyone is describing is exactly what I'm saying. Of course it will have more capabilities... it has a bigger screen! It would be no different if they added a bigger screen to the Touch.



> Fine, but people are saying that in a bad way, when I argue that a big iPod touch can actually be a quite capable machine


I'm not saying it in a bad way. I'm just saying it factually for what it is, because there are some people who insist on saying it isn't (yet I haven't seen any valid arguments to the contrary).

I will however concede that iMatt's description seems more accurate: "Some are saying that the iPod touch is a scaled-down iPad." That is in fact a better description, it's just odd saying it that way because the Touch came first.

I think it will be more productive, clearly. And I think it has a lot of potential in the future. But it also has a LOT of limitations at the moment. I expected more "smarts" from Apple to make this product revolutionary instead of evolutionary.

A7


----------



## digitddog (Jul 5, 2006)

MannyP Design said:


> I'm beginning to think Apple was using the iPod Touch as a pilot program to see how many people would be interested in such a device.


I think of the iPod touch as a gateway drug, getting people to move from a device they were already enthusiastic about (iPod) to something more akin to a tiny computer. It induced people to consider the use of a touch screen as a full-blown input/navigation device. 

When I use my iPod touch, my biggest reservations are the size of the screen and the snail-like speed. The iPad addresses these concerns, so I'm happy if the iPad is merely a more-capable iPod touch. It still looks pretty damn awesome. Now, if only there were more connectivity options for peripherals...


----------



## Spacesurfer (Jan 29, 2010)

Personally, when I say it's a big iPod Touch, I mean that in a bad way. It is a larger, arguably more powerful device but is in a different category than the Touch. To have the same software limitations like no multitasking or only allowing "approved" apps is a killer. They can change both things but I only see the former changing, not the latter.

Plus, I don't see how comfortable it would be to read an e-book on a glossy screen like that. I would much rather go with the Touch Book. It's cheaper, comes with a keyboard, matte screen, and completely open!. Lenovo's new 
IdeaPad U1 looks pretty awesome as well but it suffers from the same thing as the iPad. Having a closed OS and seemingly glossy screen. 

I want something for reading e-books and surfing the web on my couch. I love my Touch and Macbook Pro (2008 non glossy) very much. I'll wait a year or two for the iPad to see where it is and if it's worth it for me.


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

It really has been interesting to see the reactions of people to this device outside on the mac forums. From what I have heard from people around the office, it appears that non tech savy people seem to be very excited by the ipad. The tech crowd see it for what it is, a big ipod touch that adds little in the way of productivity or new features. I've got an iPod Touch already, and am thinking that an iPad could replace that, as I only use it within my home. Only problem is it won't fit in my iHome


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*This is the best article ever*. Period. 

Also, LOVE this quote:



> “You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new.” - Steve Jobs


----------



## a7mc (Dec 30, 2002)

ehMax said:


> *This is the best article ever*. Period.


Not sure how that's relevant to my post. But whatever.

A7


----------



## jrichardson (Mar 9, 2007)

I can see a multitude of uses for the iPad. With the move to electronic patient records in doctor's offices and hospitals I can see the iPad being used as the electronic form of the patient's chart where everything about the patient can be accessed at the bedside or inthe nurse's station. I'm not in the hospital industry but just think of the possibility.

I know my wife would love one of these in the kitchen attached to a wall, or under the cupboard to call up recipes (she is an awesome cook), check email, play music, check her schedule. Sure, she's got an iMac to go sit herself in front of but this device simply complements the iMac. Enormous possibilities.

I like the device and even though I love to read and I love to hold a paper copy of a book in my hands, but think down the future as fewer trees will be required to produce the paper for the books we all want to read. This is the future. This and many other devices were all science fiction when we (some of us) were kids and now these things are here, now. Awesome, I think!


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

a7mc said:


> Not sure how that's relevant to my post. But whatever.
> 
> A7


Think the article couldn't be more relevant to your post. But whatever.


----------



## a7mc (Dec 30, 2002)

ehMax said:


> Think the article couldn't be more relevant to your post. But whatever.


How is it relevant? That article is blasting people for being upset rumours didn't come true, or having crazy lofty expectations. That's not at all what my post is about. I wasn't expecting 20 hours of battery. I wasn't expecting it to be thinner or lighter. I had no expectations whatsoever. After it came out, I saw it for what it was (though a front facing camera would have made the iPad the perfect video chat device, and adding Flash support might have made the "best Internet experience" claim actually real). 

I put out a very simple challenge: If you claim the iPad is revolutionary or different than a big iPod Touch, _prove it._ Not a single argument has been brought forth so far. And there's nothing about that in the article you linked to.

For some reason, a few people (you included ehMax) are vehemently defending the iPad as the greatest device ever. Yet, no factual information is ever provided to support your claim. You state things like "you just have to hold it to get it". Well guess what... none of you have held it either! What gives you the magical insight to know that holding one will make you want one?

The point my post is making is that there's no reason we shouldn't just call a spade a spade. No need to cry about it. It is what it is, and it doesn't make the device any more or less useful by calling it as such.

As soon as someone says "it's just a big iPod Touch" you all immediately think the person is against the device. That's not true. In fact, as a creative director at a creative company, I do see a LOT of value for me with this device. I may even buy one. I could show clients rough video drafts and design mockups on a nice screen without needing a laptop. I see the benefit of the nice new iCal app. I have a 50 minute bus commute 3 times a week, and this would certainly help pass the time.

But these are all things I do now... just on a smaller screen.

So let's stop the bickering and face the facts. The iPad is a big Touch, and that's ok.

A7


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

Couldn't agree more a7mc.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

andreww said:


> Couldn't agree more a7mc.


+1



> “You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new.” - Steve Jobs


That's what I want a company to do. In most cases I have no interest in paying the development cost of what the company may wish to sell in the future. I wanted the iPod Touch to have Flash support and was shocked when it didn't. I didn't care about any of the features that I didn't expressly hope to see. The same is true of the iPad (I'll get used to saying that name, I swear).


----------



## maguirer (Jun 28, 2003)

The iPad does look a lot like a big iPod Touch, but I look at it like a big iPod Touch with so much more. There's going to be apps for the iPad that you simply won't be able to use on the Touch/iPhone. iWork and that Brushes app are the most compelling things for me. Sure you could get office-like editors for the Touch/iPhone, but their functionality was novel at best. Really, the Touch and iPhone are just viewing devices. The iPad is something I see as being a device on which I can actually create things. I can easily see it replacing my MacBook which was 3x the price and 3x the bulk.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

a7mc said:


> How is it relevant? That article is blasting people for being upset rumours didn't come true, or having crazy lofty expectations. That's not at all what my post is about. I wasn't expecting 20 hours of battery. I wasn't expecting it to be thinner or lighter. I had no expectations whatsoever. After it came out, I saw it for what it was (though a front facing camera would have made the iPad the perfect video chat device, and adding Flash support might have made the "best Internet experience" claim actually real).
> 
> I put out a very simple challenge: If you claim the iPad is revolutionary or different than a big iPod Touch, _prove it._ Not a single argument has been brought forth so far. And there's nothing about that in the article you linked to.
> 
> ...


Fair enough. Saying the iPad is just a big iPod is an oversimplification. It's like saying hybrid cars are just cars that don't run as much gas. It's like saying the mini van was just a tall regular car. 
Both of those automobiles became a brand new class's of cars. 

People could say that internet advertising is just print ads on a web page. Google, Yahoo and Microsoft might disagree. 

The iPad is a new class of computing. It's a new way of interacting and using a computer. Its a new category of computer. Apple single-handely kicked off a flurry of new mobile device called the "smart phone". They've sold 40 Million.

I think that Apple again, just like Apple invented the laptop, that they have created a new class of computing. 

Sure, it leverages a lot of technologies of the iPhone / iPod Touch. If you really must, knock yourself out calling it a big iPod Touch.  But I really think that's missing the point.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

a7mc gets it. Too bad so many miss it. The iPad is not only a bad name, it is no where near a revolution in computing. It's a big iPod Touch, end of story.

I seriously doubt this thing will be a sales winner like the iPod Touch or the iPhone revolutionized mini computing and smart phone technology. I could be wrong of course, but I will bet money it fails.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

If it is not for you fair enough. So how will this change the world?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

SINC said:


> a7mc gets it. Too bad so many miss it. The iPad is not only a bad name, it is no where near a revolution in computing. It's a big iPod Touch, end of story.
> 
> I seriously doubt this thing will be a sales winner like the iPod Touch or the iPhone revolutionized mini computing and smart phone technology. I could be wrong of course, but I will bet money it fails.


It will go the way of the ATV, the G4 Cube, 20th anniversary mac, the Newton and that ugly looking cd player they made. It will be lauded by some as the greatest thing since sliced bread but Apple will soon see their mistakes and either change the design or can it completely.

It's a big iPod Touch, and people want things smaller not larger, otherwise we would still be using these:


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

We'll see.  

I'm making my bookmarks of threads now to bring back up later.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

You know that no matter how well the iPad does, the naysayers will compare it to the iPhone/iPod Touch sales (and cherry pick which data as they see fit) in order to illustrate how badly it's underperforming.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

JumboJones said:


> It will go the way of the ATV, the G4 Cube, 20th anniversary mac, the Newton and that ugly looking cd player they made. It will be lauded by some as the greatest thing since sliced bread but Apple will soon see their mistakes and either change the design or can it completely.
> 
> It's a big iPod Touch, and people want things smaller not larger, otherwise we would still be using these:


The Cube and TAM died because they were so bloody expensive.

But your notion about the iPad being too big illustrates that you (and others) don't get it. It's not a large iPod--it's a smaller portable that's in a whole new category right in the middle of smart-phones and laptops. And it's affordable.


----------



## rpalace (Sep 17, 2007)

I agree that it's like a big iPod Touch but that doesn't make it bad. It just doesn't fit in your pocket. If you're leaving the house with it, you'll need to carry it in something unless you're that proud of your new iPad that you go commando with it.

Revolutionary? Who cares right now, time will tell. I think the controlled "Steve Jobs is really excited about it" leak shows a bit of weakness but what do I know.

Also, I know it's off-topic but what's so bad about the name? It's the size of a note-pad, you can write on it (among other things) and it's one letter off from iPod. Are "pad" jokes really that funny? No. I can't wait until people realize how dumb they look making them.

I would love to see Apple casually release their next product without the fireworks. the iPad didn't really deserve it from what we've seen up to this point. The keynote was slightly embarrassing. You can't deny that it was simply Jobs sitting on a couch using a big iPod Touch with the re-imagined software. I think hype really messed up this one.

I'll probably get one as the line evolves because I would love to use it for reading newspapers, internet, email, books for around the house. At this point though I'll have to upgrade my iMac first.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

MannyP Design said:


> The Cube and TAM died because they were so bloody expensive.
> 
> But your notion about the iPad being too big illustrates that you (and others) don't get it. It's not a large iPod--it's a smaller portable that's in a whole new category right in the middle of smart-phones and laptops. And it's affordable.


Totally agree.

The iPad isn't for me, but I don't think it will fail as an Apple product.


----------



## classicbean (Jun 7, 2008)

This will be unsuccessful in the same way that the iPod was unsuccessful.

As in not unsuccessful.

As in wildly successful.

Everyone picking this thing apart, arguing that it's a useless toy, takes me back. Way back to 2001.

Apple's New Thing (iPod) - Mac Forums


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

classicbean said:


> This will be unsuccessful in the same way that the iPod was unsuccessful.
> 
> As in not unsuccessful.
> 
> ...


It's amazing how the more things change, the more they stay the same.


----------



## Cliffy (Apr 18, 2005)

I was wondering when this question would be asked, and A7 I agree. We have been waiting, what, close to 7 years for this announcement? I bought my iPod touch before the app store was even around. My main use was for showing photo albums to people and a little internet around the house. If I needed to replace it, sure this would be on my short list. But at the end of the day it already has a category it belongs to, a MID. Of course with the Steve Jobs personal attention, it will probably be the best looking one. I even think the price kind of sets it up as being a step up from the touch, expanding where the iPod line leaves off.

I don't see how just making something bigger makes it something different. Sure it will widen the usefulness and appeal of the device, but that is more to do with the size than anything else. One thing I hope is coming, are some truly innovative apps and not just giant flashlights and bubble wrap simulators. Of course Apple is going to put a device like this in the iTunes ecosystem. I do think it is a simple and easy way of getting content for mainstream audiences. As far as getting into e-books, that is a no brainer, why would Apple let Amazon have a revenue stream they didn't. 

I had thoughts the same as others said, maybe this was how the touch was originally envisioned, but with the costs of the screen and processor didn't make sense till now. It is not surprising that everyone is coming out with similar devices at the same time. The costs are within reason. Most of these machines we have seen shown off this year are powered by the same ARM Cortex A9 type Snapdragon/Tegra SOC that the A4 is. The hardware for all these tablets are very close in terms of specs, so it will be the battle between iPhone OS and Android/LInux that will make or break these.

Now as far as the iPad being "revolutionary"? I just have to look at the Lenovo U1 and ask myself, why didn't Steve think of that? Imagine a macbook with OSX and then pop off your screen and get the iPad!


----------



## Derrick (Dec 22, 2004)

Even though the personal computer has been around for decades and has capabilities far beyond what was first possible ... the fact is that many, many people are not comfortable using them ... they are intimidated and have no interest in learning ... they just want to perform basic tasks and not have to know how it works.

The purpose of the iPad is to provide a SIMPLE way for people to perform basic tasks ... it is the second serious attempt to make computers easy to use (the original Mac was the first).

I am sure there are many here that are tired of providing tech support for friends and family.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Here's an off-the-top-of-my-head list Why the iPad is Not a Big iPod Touch:

1. The iWork package turns it into a machine you can do serious office work on. This could not possibly work on an iPod Touch, not JUST because the screen is too small, but because your finger is too inaccurate at that size screen. At 10 inches, you have room to work more naturally (because your finger is taking up a much smaller portion of the screen, making it much more accurate) and the sensors embedded in the multi-touch screen are more precise.

2. Its size makes it a zero-config, zero-maintenance computer for average people (the Touch is too small for that job).

3. It does both VOIP and assisted GPS. Most models of iPod Touch can do neither, and even the newest one cannot do GPS in any form.

4. It has (in the states at least, probably coming to Canada this summer) pay-as-you-go 3G, making it way more useful than an iPod Touch.

5. It has a large IPS screen, making the sharing of videos and pictures with more than one person possible.

6. You can hook it up to a TV or projector, meaning you can both create and GIVE presentations on it (as you will likely see later this year at our General Meetings!) without a laptop in sight. Try that on an iPod Touch.

7. Try reading an entire book on the iPod Touch, then on the iPad, then get back to me.

8. Its size makes it far easier to play (and create) more complex games than the Touch is capable of -- the controls can be (relatively) much smaller, the processor is at least 4x more powerful, the graphics more advanced. From a game perspective, this is more like a Super Playstation Portable than an iPod Touch.

9. Speaking of this wholly new processor -- as iPad apps develop, we will see that leveraged in ways beyond just "faster." Did you SEE the maps demo at the keynote?! My 2.16GHz Blackbook about had a heart attack -- there's no way it could use that app that smoothly, nor can my iPhone. The chip may be rated at 1GHz, but I think that's a misleading indicator of what it can do.

10. It is fully outfitted for the vision- and hearing-impaired. By comparison, an iPod Touch is pretty useless.

11. Unlike the Touch or even the iPhone, this device is not primarily "an iPod that can do other things," nor is it "a crippled laptop." From presentations to textbooks to photographers, this thing has the power to change a lot of people's lives.

12. It revolutionizes magazine and newspaper-style content far more so than the Touch could do, due to a combination of its larger size and its greater power and capability.

In short, particularly after looking at the keynote and promotional videos, and in particular contemplating what developers will now do with this "expanded playground" -- it's my view that calling the iPad "just a big iPod Touch" is like saying that a car is "just a big bicycle."


----------



## classicbean (Jun 7, 2008)

chas_m said:


> ... calling the iPad "just a big iPod Touch" is like saying that a car is "just a big bicycle."


Genius.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with calling the iPad a "big iPod Touch". Because the iPod wasn't an MP3 player--it's an amazing piece of kit that shows how powerful and useful Apple can make a product in such a small space--it doesn't diminish the iPad's brilliance, in fact it shows why it's going to be a success.

You've seen what Apple can do with a handheld, now lets see what they can do when they turn it into a portable.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

If you listed the features of an iPod Touch/iPhone and an iPad, there aren't a lot of differences.

At all.

So the better analogy would be that calling a motorbike a big bicycle.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

The iPad IS just a large iPod touch. That is ALL that it is: an iPod touch for people with bad eyesight.

I wonder if those who disagree think that a size 52 jeans are "so much more" than just a larger pair of size 32 jeans.

Of course it will sell; a fool and his money are soon parted.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

a7mc said:


> ... I will however concede that iMatt's description seems more accurate: "Some are saying that the iPod touch is a scaled-down iPad." That is in fact a better description, it's just odd saying it that way because the Touch came first.
> 
> I think it will be more productive, clearly. And I think it has a lot of potential in the future. But it also has a LOT of limitations at the moment. I expected more "smarts" from Apple to make this product revolutionary instead of evolutionary.
> 
> A7


This is pretty much my feeling (aside from expecting more smarts from Apple) as well and what I had said in a post in another thread. I find the iPad an interesting development because it redefines/repositions an existing product in Apples lineup. The iPod is now a mini iPad... Typically we have larger versions first and then miniaturization follows, it is interesting that in this case the development was in reverse.

The iPad in it's current form is certainly not going to suit everyones needs/wants, but it is a first gen product and I for one am excited about its future development... "The furture's so bright I gotta wear shades"....


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

bsenka said:


> The iPad IS just a large iPod touch. That is ALL that it is: an iPod touch for people with bad eyesight.
> 
> I wonder if those who disagree think that a size 52 jeans are "so much more" than just a larger pair of size 32 jeans.
> 
> Of course it will sell; a fool and his money are soon parted.


You're making a big assumption that the iPad would be a waste of money.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Hello all: There is an interesting article in the National Post today on the iPad and how Apple grew their underwhelming products into industry leaders. Not sure if the iPad will change the print world but, as with all things Apple, they evolve and quickly..... to quote Dr. G, "we shall see".


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

bsenka said:


> The iPad IS just a large iPod touch. That is ALL that it is: an iPod touch for people with bad eyesight.
> 
> I wonder if those who disagree think that a size 52 jeans are "so much more" than just a larger pair of size 32 jeans.
> 
> Of course it will sell; a fool and his money are soon parted.


A few posts back, Chas_M laid out some significant differences. I wonder if you have specific disagreements there?

In any case, the bottom line is that because it's bigger, an iPad is capable of doing more things than an iPod and doing almost all the same things better, whereas a bigger pair of jeans is merely capable of holding a fatter ass.

It's surprising that some people (I am not referring to all critics here) are treating doing *more* things *better* as negatives, worthless frills, a con game to part the masses and their money. 

Pocketability is about the only advantage to the iPod -- it's a better portable music player, but it will come in a distant second in virtually everything else, and won't even be in the game in some things.

I probably won't be buying one just yet -- I plan to wait for just a bit more power and capability -- but this is more than just a toy for fools.

BTW, this thread has me wondering: how is an iMac NOT just a big MacBook?


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

bsenka said:


> The iPad IS just a large iPod touch. That is ALL that it is: an iPod touch for people with bad eyesight.
> 
> I wonder if those who disagree think that a size 52 jeans are "so much more" than just a larger pair of size 32 jeans.
> 
> Of course it will sell; a fool and his money are soon parted.


I guess one can also say, and adult is just a big child.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Touché.


----------



## a7mc (Dec 30, 2002)

chas_m said:


> Here's an off-the-top-of-my-head list Why the iPad is Not a Big iPod Touch:
> 
> 1. The iWork package turns it into a machine you can do serious office work on. This could not possibly work on an iPod Touch, not JUST because the screen is too small, but because your finger is too inaccurate at that size screen. At 10 inches, you have room to work more naturally (because your finger is taking up a much smaller portion of the screen, making it much more accurate) and the sensors embedded in the multi-touch screen are more precise.


In other words, if a Touch/iPhone had a bigger screen, it would be the same. Isn't that exactly what I'm saying?



chas_m said:


> 2. Its size makes it a zero-config, zero-maintenance computer for average people (the Touch is too small for that job).


In other words, if a Touch/iPhone had a bigger screen, it would be the same. Isn't that exactly what I'm saying?



chas_m said:


> 3. It does both VOIP and assisted GPS. Most models of iPod Touch can do neither, and even the newest one cannot do GPS in any form.


The iPhone can. I did mention the iPhone in my original post.



chas_m said:


> 4. It has (in the states at least, probably coming to Canada this summer) pay-as-you-go 3G, making it way more useful than an iPod Touch.


The iPhone can. I did mention the iPhone in my original post.



chas_m said:


> 5. It has a large IPS screen, making the sharing of videos and pictures with more than one person possible.


In other words, if a Touch/iPhone had a bigger screen, it would be the same. Isn't that exactly what I'm saying?



chas_m said:


> 6. You can hook it up to a TV or projector, meaning you can both create and GIVE presentations on it (as you will likely see later this year at our General Meetings!) without a laptop in sight. Try that on an iPod Touch.


This is the ONLY point you've made as to how the iPad is actually different than an iPhone/Touch with a big screen. However, the argument could be made that they could have added that to the Touch. It is after all just a dongle and an app update.



chas_m said:


> 7. Try reading an entire book on the iPod Touch, then on the iPad, then get back to me.


In other words, if a Touch/iPhone had a bigger screen, it would be the same. Isn't that exactly what I'm saying?



chas_m said:


> 8. Its size makes it far easier to play (and create) more complex games than the Touch is capable of -- the controls can be (relatively) much smaller, the processor is at least 4x more powerful, the graphics more advanced. From a game perspective, this is more like a Super Playstation Portable than an iPod Touch.


In other words, if a Touch/iPhone had a bigger screen, it would be the same. Isn't that exactly what I'm saying?



chas_m said:


> 9. Speaking of this wholly new processor -- as iPad apps develop, we will see that leveraged in ways beyond just "faster." Did you SEE the maps demo at the keynote?! My 2.16GHz Blackbook about had a heart attack -- there's no way it could use that app that smoothly, nor can my iPhone. The chip may be rated at 1GHz, but I think that's a misleading indicator of what it can do.


Fair enough, but one could assume the chip could have just as easily made it's way (and very likely will make it's way) into the next iPhone or Touch.



chas_m said:


> 10. It is fully outfitted for the vision- and hearing-impaired. By comparison, an iPod Touch is pretty useless.


In other words, if a Touch/iPhone had a bigger screen, it would be the same. Isn't that exactly what I'm saying?



chas_m said:


> 11. Unlike the Touch or even the iPhone, this device is not primarily "an iPod that can do other things," nor is it "a crippled laptop." From presentations to textbooks to photographers, this thing has the power to change a lot of people's lives.


In other words, if a Touch/iPhone had a bigger screen, it would be the same. Isn't that exactly what I'm saying?



chas_m said:


> 12. It revolutionizes magazine and newspaper-style content far more so than the Touch could do, due to a combination of its larger size and its greater power and capability.


In other words, if a Touch/iPhone had a bigger screen, it would be the same. Isn't that exactly what I'm saying?

Really, you're just pointing out things that are proving my point. Put a large screen on an iPhone and it's almost the same device. Thanks for confirming my thoughts. 

A7


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

a7mc said:


> In other words, if a Touch/iPhone had a bigger screen, it would be the same. Isn't that exactly what I'm saying?


I have to ask why you're saying it.

We can make all sorts of similar statements about other things in life... now ask yourself, how many of them are really knocks on the "bigger" or "smaller" thing? In most cases, both have their place.

If an APS-C SLR had a bigger sensor and lenses, it would be the same as a FF SLR.

If a 737 had a bigger body, more powerful engines and more seats, it would be the same as a 747.

...and so on. 

So I'm left asking... so what? 

Here we have two sister devices that happen to have a lot in common but are vastly different in size, and that difference in size leads to differences in how they can be used and surely how they will be used. Looks to me like both have a place and each of those places is different, largely because of size.

So what's the real point in pointing out that one is "just" a bigger version of the other? It may be true on some basic level, but it's not very illuminating.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

iMatt said:


> If an APS-C SLR had a bigger sensor and lenses, it would be the same as a FF SLR.
> 
> If a 737 had a bigger body, more powerful engines and more seats, it would be the same as a 747.
> 
> ...


Exactly. Their increased size is the only differentiation. So why the hype?


----------



## Bjornbro (Feb 19, 2000)

iMatt said:


> Looks to me like both have a place and each of those places is different, largely because of size.


I disagree and I'll quote myself from a couple of days ago...


bjornbro said:


> I predict the iPod Touch is dead in a year. After this year's back to school incentive and Christmas finished, next January Steve will say; Shuffle, nano, iPhone, iPad and no more iPod Touch.


----------



## Garry (Jan 27, 2002)

bsenka said:


> The iPad IS just a large iPod touch. That is ALL that it is: an iPod touch for people with bad eyesight.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Of course it will sell; a fool and his money are soon parted.


So, you are saying people with vision disabilities are fools.. thats really classy 

My parents in their 70's, total non tech-savvy people, don't have a need for a imac or mac mini.. and they don't like laptops.. They have been interested in the iphone and ipod touch.. but because their eyes aren't what they are used to, are really interested in the iPad for basic things like email.

I'm interested to see what kind of iPad specific apps will come out.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

[/B]


iMatt said:


> So what's the real point in pointing out that one is "just" a bigger version of the other? It may be true on some basic level, but it's not very illuminating.


The point is, that the Apple hype machine, many of it's sycophants, as well as several posters here seem to be under a delusion that the iPad is a new class of device. 

For those who think this is a challenge to the netbook market (as a lot of people seem to think), it's very much illuminating for them to realize that the iPad falls far short of the features and capabilities of even some of the least expensive netbooks, and that in reality it's just a bigger iPod Touch.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Exactly. Their increased size is the only differentiation. So why the hype?


It's only the "only differentiation" on a basic surface level. What's more important is that it's qualitatively different, because increased size opens up a slew of capabilities that are either minimally existent on the iPod, or not there at all.

As a result it's a fairly large step toward turning a successful but ultimately limited pocket-computing model (limited due to tininess) into a new form of general-purpose computing. This will do a very large proportion of what most ordinary folks use their computers for, and you just can't say that about an iPod.

It's surely not there yet as a fully fledged form of general computing, if only because you'll need to regular computer as a companion to it. But I'd bet we're just a couple of years away from seeing this type of device being fully usable as a primary computer for a good number of people.

I think that's worth some hype.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Bjornbro said:


> I disagree and I'll quote myself from a couple of days ago...


Quite possible. 



bsenka said:


> The point is, that the Apple hype machine, many of it's sycophants, as well as several posters here seem to be under a delusion that the iPad is a new class of device.
> 
> For those who think this is a challenge to the netbook market (as a lot of people seem to think), it's very much illunimating for them to realize that the iPad falls far short of the features and capabilities of even some of the least expensive netbooks, and that in reality it's just a bigger iPod Touch.


As you might guess I disagree. The size increase IMHO does make it a new class of device. Or, if you prefer, a new approach to an existing but essentially failed class of device (tablet computers, not netbooks).

The question is not whether it matches the capabilities of conventional computers of whatever class, but whether it does what people want and need. No doubt for you the answer is a resounding NO, and for me at the moment it's a more guarded no, but for many, many other people it'll be a great big YES.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

I just wanted to add that while i love my iphone, browsing the internet on it sucks compared to a laptop or desktop.

Don't get me wrong, it's a wonderful feature, but if i have the option to browse on a real computer that's what i'll do.

But the ipad looks like it'll be a great browsing experience (well besides the lack of flash support which is a bummer). I think thats where it will really shine...because honestly thats what 90% of computer use is these days.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> I just wanted to add that while i love my iphone, browsing the internet on it sucks compared to a laptop or desktop.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, it's a wonderful feature, but if i have the option to browse on a real computer that's what i'll do.
> 
> But the ipad looks like it'll be a great browsing experience (*well besides the lack of flash support which is a bummer)*. I think thats where it will really shine...because honestly thats what 90% of computer use is these days.


I wonder how long this will last... to me this is the iPad's biggest FAIL. I can't for the life of me understand why Apple would "disable" a major feature of the internet. There are ways for people who don't want to use up the the bandwidth that Flash consumes to disable it, so why not give people the option. I don't get it.


----------



## jeepguy (Apr 4, 2008)

screature said:


> I wonder how long this will last... to me this is the iPad's biggest FAIL. I can't for the life of me understand why Apple would "disable" a major feature of the internet. There are ways for people who don't want to use up the the bandwidth that Flash consumes to disable it, so why not give people the option. I don't get it.


My guess, is that flash doesn't run very well on the low power CPU's, some people have trouble running flash 10 on more powerful computers. this is just a guess and I don't have any concrete evidence.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jeepguy said:


> My guess, is that flash doesn't run very well on the low power CPU's, some people have trouble running flash 10 on more powerful computers. this is just a guess and I don't have any concrete evidence.


Could be... But to disable Flash completely doesn't make sense to me. I have Flash based galleries that I built for clients within an HTML web site and all they need to run perfectly is Flash Player 7... and I am sure I am not alone in this, there are tons of Flash based aspects of the web that don't require the latest and greatest Flash Player to perform perfectly well.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

jeepguy said:


> My guess, is that flash doesn't run very well on the low power CPU's, some people have trouble running flash 10 on more powerful computers. this is just a guess and I don't have any concrete evidence.


Depends on the processor. Flash runs really well on the Atom. My HP mini handles Youtube/Hulu/JustinTV/etc far better than my iMac does. Better than the Mac Pro I use at work even.


----------



## mjollymo (Dec 5, 2009)

Flash is a format in decline. I want nothing to do with it. Youtube and veemo have started to move away by allowing Chrome/Safari users the option to watch videos in HTML5.

I saw a great comparison to IE before the advent of third party browsers like firefox. Just because IE was mainstream and common place, doesn't mean it was any good. Everyone knew it was full of holes and a pain to use. Web designers would build their website features to only be compatible with IE. 

Now we have alternatives to IE, designers started opening features to be compatible with a variety of browsers. IE is losing market share like crazy cause everyone knows it's a horrible browser. 

The same situation is happening with Flash. It's a buggy resource hog that is will lose all it's market share as flash-less devices and alternative web video technologies come out.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

bsenka said:


> The point is, that the Apple hype machine, many of it's sycophants, as well as several posters here seem to be under a delusion that the iPad is a new class of device.
> 
> For those who think this is a challenge to the netbook market (as a lot of people seem to think), it's very much illunimating for them to realize that the iPad falls far short of the features and capabilities of even some of the least expensive netbooks, and that in reality it's just a bigger iPod Touch.


You are obviously one of the people are disappointed because you wanted a "Netbook". (IE: just a smaller MacBook). I'm sure if they released a "Netbook", I would of been one among many who dissed it as "just a smaller Macbook".  

Anyways, I've stated many times and I'll stand by it. This will be a new category of computer and many will buy. New category in that many other companies will come out with their own take on it and there will be a huge boon in "tablet computing" with Apple leading the way. 

And people will buy it because they find it useful and enjoy the technology, not because they are fools who like giving their money away.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

mjollymo said:


> Flash is a format in decline. I want nothing to do with it. Youtube and veemo have started to move away by allowing Chrome/Safari users the option to watch videos in HTML5.
> 
> I saw a great comparison to IE before the advent of third party browsers like firefox. Just because IE was mainstream and common place, doesn't mean it was any good. Everyone knew it was full of holes and a pain to use. Web designers would build their website features to only be compatible with IE.
> 
> ...


I hate flash. Hoping for it to die.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ehMax said:


> I hate flash. Hoping for it to die.


Flash has its place on the web. I hate Flash based websites, but it serves a purpose as a component of HTML web sites. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water...


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

how real is the presumption that html5 will replace flash in the NEAR future?

is html5 even ready for a full release? are all browsers ready to implement it? i understand that it can play video, but does it need special codecs? does the video have to encoded in a special way? is there a universal html5 video standard for EVERY browser out there?

what about flash animations and games? do they work in html5? thru canvas? isn't that inferior to flash?

i don't know the answers to the above, but if most of them aren't a resounding 'YES' in favor of html5 then flash will still play an important part on the web for a couple of more years (at least).


----------



## mjollymo (Dec 5, 2009)

Here are some numbers to back up my claims of Flash being in decline:

Flash’s Decline on Lifehacker, from 2006 to 2010 | Smarterware

These things don't happen overnight, and I am not saying flash is dead. The point I am trying to make is that more and more people are realizing that it is a sub-par standard that can be better achieved with newer, system friendly, standards. I use HTML5 as the example, as it seems to be the leading alternative. Apple and Google are pushing for HTML5 video with h.264, Mozilla wants to see something more open, such as OGG. 

IE currently does not support it, however, Microsoft has come out in support of HTML5, and will likely start adding support for it in future releases of IE. Once MS releases a browser that can support HTML5 video playback, I really think it's just a matter of time at that point.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

bsenka said:


> The iPad IS just a large iPod touch. That is ALL that it is: an iPod touch for people with bad eyesight......


....or for people with foresight, perhaps not for people with 20/20 hindsight.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

if I didn't already have a itouch I would buy the iPad as it is really cool and very functional. Yes it is ipod like which is a bonus for me but realistically it has way more functionality. I still use my ipod video way more for listening to music than the touch so when I am in a position I will sell the touch and get something more usable and portable without the price tag of a macbook.....the Ipad is for everything and everyone else that doesn't have or need an iphone or itouch.


----------



## iandesign (Jul 17, 2004)

*Surprisingly interesting thread...*

I've been reading a lot of the reviews and discussions around the web for the last few days now. Seems like about 95% of the people think of it as "just a bigger Touch". I work in an ad agency and even the creatives couldn't see any real significance to this product. This really amazed me to hear that even true creative pros can't see the benefits here. 

I read every single post before I jumped in here, and once ChasM gave his breakdown, I just thought, "Now _he_ gets it". Then, funny enough, the OP shot back and proved _both_ of their points perfectly. In it's simplest form, yes, it really is a bigger Touch. Almost all of ChasM's points really come down to bigger screen size... I agree. Think about it though, look at all the possibilities that just opened by simply increasing the screen size. Now put in a bigger battery, better screen, faster chip, etc., etc.

For the past few days, I've simply been telling people to consider this thing a magical box... that's empty. It will be up to all of us to dream up what we want to go inside it. 3-5 years from now, we'll all be amazed at what people are using these for. After reading this entire thread though, and hearing all the same points again and again, something just occurred to me. I think most of you are having a hard time grasping what's happening with personal computing nowadays. I think you also don't really understand Apple or Steve Jobs. We just spent the last 20 years getting our computers to the point where we can create anything and everything we'd imagined on them. I'm talking music, movies, games, curing cancer... whatever. Everyone keeps asking "will it run photoshop?" No. It won't. That's not the point. 

Way back when Apple first introduced the original Mac, it was to get computers into the masses. The GUI was supposed to make it easier for people to use and understand. Apple is all about the user experience. They want to make things easier, more enjoyable, more fun! The problem is that computers have gotten complicated again. We probably understand them a little more than ever before, but I really think what Apple is doing here is trying to get back to where they started. They want to make simple little devices that anyone can pick up and understand instantly. You do that by simplifying it all and making it completely natural. 

Those of us who are creative pros will still use the pro machines for all of our "creation", but those of us who have more simple needs will have our needs met more simply than ever before.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

Wow, how did I know this would start on here... haha... 

I'm with ehMax on this one. If I could find a post I made a few years back where I said something along the lines that the iPod Touch or iPhone was just a test for bigger things in the future from Apple, boy was I right. Apple likes to build things and test its customers. They made an iPad without a cam? or without an (fill in the blanks), well guess what? Apple now gets to hear and read all the complaining from its customers and future customers and the next iPad might have some of the things that customers want in it. 

Apple always has reasons for doing what it does to a new product. It's how they stay alive in the business. Apple is smart in design, business, marketing and sales. One of the best in the world. They rarely have to do advertising for any any of their products that they have ever produced. It's threads like this and mainly word of mouth and the media that does all the advertising for Apple. I find that Apple knows this well and they feed off of it each time. I mean, everywhere I looked, the media was talking the hype about this event before it even arrived. It was in major papers, free papers, online around the world, who else receives that much attention in FREE advertising for a product that hasn't even been mentioned or seen? Only Apple can do this and nobody else. 

The iPad is not a big iPod Touch, it may be close, but far from it. The iPad has a different touch screen, it has its own Apple processor that runs much faster, it doesn't fit in your pocket  Well you get the idea, but there is a difference here. 

My prediction will be that Apple will sell millions of these in the first year, why? Just like the iPhone and iPod Touch depended on the App Store to make them what they are today, the iPad will do the same. Think about it, without the Apple App Store, neither the iPhone or the iPod Touch would have sold so many. Everyone loves their apps on those devices. I hear it all day where ever I go, someone is always talking about the latest app they have on their iPhone or iPod Touch. The iPad is a different device with quite a few similarities of both the iPhone and iPod Touch. 

I see the iPad being used in Journalism, Police and other law enforcement agencies, fire departments, medical field, educational institutes, kiosks world wide, home users, students and the list goes on and on. The iPad is going to excel passed the iPod Touch once the apps are made for it in the App Store, and you can count on it right now that thousands are being made before the iPad even launches in stores for sale. But, the iPad is counting on success for Apple's next best thing, the iPad is and will be a test machine for something else that Apple is working on right now. You can count on that.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

CHasM...:clap::clap:

couple things

a travellers delight - 10 hour battery and light weight - bye bye ugly screens and ugly choices of movie on long hauls.

It's weight for it's screen size puts it an entire cut above anything else let alone Touch or iPhone and it should kill the Air.

How many recall the iPhone started at $599 US -


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> a travellers delight - 10 hour battery and light weight - bye bye ugly screens and ugly choices of movie on long hauls.


Too bad that grandma and grandpa won't be able to stick in a DVD to play that movie. However, they may get to learn how to order one through iTunes on their fixed incomes . The iPads' main purpose is play and sell iTunes content. Period. They threw in a couple features that try to blurr the lines a bit for fun. It is however, a very handsome iTunes device and I'm sure many people will get use out of it. Calling it an iPhone or a Touch really discredits the iPhone and the Touch IMO. The iPhone really elevated the capabilities and experience of a phone. And the Touch did the same for an MP3 player. Not sure what experience is the iPad supposed to enhance or transform aside from iTunes content delivery and surfing the internet (flash debate aside). And that could be good enough for a lot as the cost of entry to own a trendy, new, shiny Apple product is on the more affordable end. 

Tonights' SNL episode joked: 
"This week Apple released a thing that does stuff, that it's other stuff, already does".


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

To everyone who says that the iPad is "just a big iPod Touch":

The iPad's future shock | Laptop | iPhone Central | Macworld

Case closed.


----------



## pvrfan (Aug 3, 2009)

MacGYVER said:


> ...I see the iPad being used in Journalism, Police and other law enforcement agencies, fire departments, medical field, educational institutes, kiosks world wide, home users, students and the list goes on and on.


You really need to explain how it will be used.

To me, it seems the iPad can show/present stuff but has basically no ability to input/record. Journalists, police and medical folks need to be able to input, store, and/ or record information about their work; not just look up info. The touch screen keyboard is too big a compromise. 

The Newton MessagePad was mocked because the handwriting recognition was slow and error prone. At least it HAD handwriting recognition. What does the iPad have?

The iPod Touch is a success because it is small enough to be an iPod PLUS it has fun games that work with simple touch-screen controls. If the iPad succeeds, I would think it will be because does games/entertainment better (even though it is too big to be an iPod). I don't think it will be a workplace productivity tool outside of a few specific edge cases.


----------



## Bjornbro (Feb 19, 2000)

chas_m said:


> To everyone who says that the iPad is "just a big iPod Touch".


*I'll reiterate that it is in the absence of an iPod Touch a year from now.* 


chas_m said:


> Case closed.


We'll see...


----------



## mjollymo (Dec 5, 2009)

As Gruber stated on his site, the person in this link gets it completely. 

New World vs Old World

He tackles it not from the hardware perspective, as those things don't really matter in the bigger picture. This is from the software perspective, and where everyday computing is starting to evolve to.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

mjollymo:

I was JUST coming here to post that EXACT link!

Everyone in this thread -- *regardless* of your feelings about the iPad -- needs to read that essay! For quite a few people, that essay will do nothing less than CHANGE THEIR LIVES.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

chas_m said:


> mjollymo:
> 
> I was JUST coming here to post that EXACT link!
> 
> Everyone in this thread -- *regardless* of your feelings about the iPad -- needs to read that essay! For quite a few people, that essay will do nothing less than CHANGE THEIR LIVES.


Well chas_m, I read it and it didn't send any fireworks skyward. No hot flashes either so I guess it didn't cause me a change of life.

His crystal ball is as full of maybes and mights and a bit of horsepucky thrown in from his own jaundiced view as mine is when I think this thing will fail.

It does nothing that would allow me to drop my MBP or my Mini as backup anytime in the next 20 years or more by his own admission.

What are we who have used desktop based machines since the mid 80's supposed to do? Roll over and die waiting for some magical sky daddy to allow the iPad to do what our current desktop based machines can do TODAY? Are our desktops and CDs and DVDs and WORKABLE programs with real keyboards to be put in a corner to gather dust while we worship at the alter of the New World?

The guy's full of crap.

Now if you will excuse me, I have some ads to comp and a web site to update on a real computer with a real wireless cell modem that works for me pretty much anywhere I go, no WIFI needed.

You can stick with your overgrown iPod Touch for the next twenty years or more, but don't expect to make a dime using it in any commercial fashion.


----------



## ScanMan (Sep 11, 2007)

This guy never fails to crack me up.

Charlie Brooker | iPad therefore iWant? Probably. Why? iDunno | Comment is free | The Guardian


----------



## MapleLeafs (Feb 2, 2010)

I really feel that Apple has failed to innovate this time around as it really is too similar to the touch and I don't see it becoming the "third big thing" as Steve Jobs envisions it.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

MACinist said:


> Too bad that grandma and grandpa won't be able to stick in a DVD to play that movie.


Uhm... if grandma and grandpa are as computer-phobic as you imply, they aren't even using DVDs when they're out of the house and aren't the market for this thing. And if they are computer-savvy, they can rent a movie from iTunes or rip one at home first.

I don't understand the thinking that a product will fail if it isn't all things to all people.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

SINC said:


> Now if you will excuse me, I have some ads to comp and a web site to update on a real computer with a real wireless cell modem that works for me pretty much anywhere I go, no WIFI needed.
> 
> You can stick with your overgrown iPod Touch for the next twenty years or more, but don't expect to make a dime using it in any commercial fashion.


Really? I didn't know that any commercial fashion means "comping ads" and updating web sites. Thanks for enlightening us.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

jeepguy said:


> My guess, is that flash doesn't run very well on the low power CPU's, some people have trouble running flash 10 on more powerful computers. this is just a guess and I don't have any concrete evidence.


Exactly. Jees, I can't even run flash without my Macbook's fan going nuts. If Adobe spent any amount of effort actually making flash run efficiently, we'd probably all be seeing it on our iPhones, iPods, and iPads.


----------



## jeepguy (Apr 4, 2008)

imactheknife said:


> .....the Ipad is for everything and everyone else that doesn't have or need an iphone or itouch.


I don't know about that, I have an iPhone, and a 13" Macbook Pro, but I would love to have an iPad, if only to surf on the couch. I think once people get a chance to play with it, it will sell like hot cakes.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

hayesk said:


> Uhm... if grandma and grandpa are as computer-phobic as you imply, they aren't even using DVDs when they're out of the house and aren't the market for this thing. And if they are computer-savvy, they can rent a movie from iTunes or rip one at home first.
> 
> I don't understand the thinking that a product will fail if it isn't all things to all people.


My implication of a "computer-phobic grandma and grandpa" is a reference to the many people here and on other forums who use this as one of their reasons of the iPad being successful (due to it's ease of use) and a breakthrough. It was sarcasm on my part. I can't imagine the plus 60 population propeling the iPad into top sales. Nor even using the iPad at all. I would imagine grandma and grandpa being first enthused by it's ease of use but then being dimayed by it's shortcomings. A PC/Laptop (mac of course  ) is still good for grandma and grandpa. iPads are iTunes devices.

People tout the price... let's not forget... for $600 you can still get a decent mac in the used space that does all the iPad does and more with little drawbacks.


----------



## Garry (Jan 27, 2002)

Can anyone point out any spot on the keynote where Steve Jobs said "This is going to replace a laptop or desktop?" I'd love to have an exact TIME on the stream where he says this?

All I remember seeing (Correct me if I'm wrong) that he said this fits somewhere between a smart phone and a laptop.. it was never intended to be a replacement for a laptop as far as I can tell, unlike everyone saying it is

Maybe there should be a thread started that says "I got sucked in by reading rumour sites and using my imagination! Now I'm mad that I did so."

If you guys want a tablet that does what you imagine the iPad should do, convert a laptop

If apple didn't do what you want, do it yourself.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

MACinist said:


> I can't imagine the plus 60 population propeling the iPad into top sales. Nor even using the iPad at all.


Interesting you should bring this up.

I am a group leader and instructor with VMUG (Victoria Mac Users Group). Like most user groups, this is dominated by people we would call "seniors."

This was my first chance to interact with a group of what we here at ehMac would call "novice-level" but enthusiastic seniors -- your grandparents, metaphorically speaking -- since the iPad announcement.

Call it a "focus group" of about 50 people ages 50-80.

I have never, in over 20 years of being associated with MUGs, seen this group so excited about a product from Apple. EVER.

This is a group that largely yawned at the iPod (though a quarter of them have gotten into it now, nearly 10 years later) and the iPhone. Both devices are well beyond their needs.

They are ALL OVER this iPad thing with a million questions. Again, this is normally a very reserved group largely interested in going over the basics of email and surfing and perhaps a little iPhoto most of the time -- they generally have a very conservative (to the point of hostility in some cases) view of the flash-zoom-wow of the latest and greatest.

They are VERY excited about this product, to the point where I may have to push up my plans to acquire one as soon as possible. I have gotten requests for demos and info sessions from *all over my province,* almost entirely from seniors groups (not just Mac groups, we're talking Windows groups and non-computer seniors organizations). I plan to take full advantage of this.

Anecdotal evidence at this point, perhaps -- but something to think about, iPad bashers ...

ps. and before some troll comes along prattling about flash/facebook games ... do you actually _know_ how to convert a flash game into a paid iPhone-style app? I do. It's time-consuming, but its not that hard (and Apple -- I promise you -- is working to make it easier). If the herd moves towards iPads, so will the game devs.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Chas_M, I bet I could get a Flash game on the web a helluva lot faster than you can get an iPhone app on the Apple store.

By the way, iPad Basher ≠ Flash Zealot. Mmmkay?

Grow up. So far you're coming off more like a troll than anyone else.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jeepguy said:


> I don't know about that, I have an iPhone, and a 13" Macbook Pro, but I would love to have an iPad, if only to surf on the couch. I think once people get a chance to play with it, it will sell like hot cakes.


My feelings exactly....


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

chas_m said:


> They are ALL OVER this iPad thing with a million questions. Again, this is normally a very reserved group largely interested in going over the basics of email and surfing and perhaps a little iPhoto most of the time -- they generally have a very conservative (to the point of hostility in some cases) view of the flash-zoom-wow of the latest and greatest.
> .



This is a new low for you.

Question: "Mr. Chas_m, can this iPad thingy allow me to surf the internet like a normal computer can?"

Answer: yes, even better! BUT, you may not be able to play those free online games anymore. Nor see some websites. Nor send those free birthday cards to your grandson. However, this is good for you, because Apple says so. You don't need to waste your time on those games and everything else is just advertisements. nothing important. And if you want to play games, just buy it from iTunes. 

Question: "Mr. Chas_m, I can't really travel much these days, can this iPad thingy alow me to see my son and my grandkids who are across the country with Skype like my netbook can?"

Answer: no, but you can talk to them... probably? You will need a computer with a webcam to do that. Not to worry though, Apple may include this in future revisions. 

Question: " I have really bad back problems and arthritis in my hands, will this be comfortable for me to use without causing pain?"

Answer: well, you can buy Apple's keyboard accessory, wait, those aren't ergonomic. 

Question: "Mr. Chas_M, my eyesight is really weak, the screen size is a concern for me, does this iPad thingy have settings that I can adjust to be able to see better?"

Answer: no, but you can hold it really close to your face. 

Question: "mr. Chas_m, I want to load some pictures of me grandkids. Can I do so easily?"

Answer: Very EASY ma'am. All you have to do is buy another MAC computer, learn how to load them there, then sync them to the iPad. 

Question: "can I just plug this into my modem?"

Answer: Apple has made is so simple for you sir, this iPad has zero connections for any kind of external devices. Isn't it great?! Instead, please buy a wireless router, set up a wireless network, secure it and voila! easy as pie. 

Mr. Chas_m is being pelted with grapefruit. The Q&A has finished.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

hayesk said:


> Really? I didn't know that any commercial fashion means "comping ads" and updating web sites. Thanks for enlightening us.


Synonyms of verb fashion

Sense 1:

fashion, forge
make

 If you can't figure out what I meant, too bad.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

Garry said:


> Can anyone point out any spot on the keynote where Steve Jobs said "This is going to replace a laptop or desktop?" I'd love to have an exact TIME on the stream where he says this?
> 
> All I remember seeing (Correct me if I'm wrong) that he said this fits somewhere between a smart phone and a laptop.. it was never intended to be a replacement for a laptop as far as I can tell, unlike everyone saying it is
> 
> ...



I think the misunderstanding for me comes when he says the Netbook doesn't do anything better, then introduces the iPad. Don't see the logic if unrelated.


----------



## jeepguy (Apr 4, 2008)

MACinist said:


> I think the misunderstanding for me comes when he says the Netbook doesn't do anything better, then introduces the iPad. Don't see the logic if unrelated.


Well for one thing I have a netbook, with the 8.9 screen, and all it's good for is reading email and watching youtube, sure it can run just about anything, but the main problem is windows, it just sucks on a small screen. It was better when I was running Linux on it. Windows programs and windows itself are such bloatware that it just brings it down to a crawl. I found it painful to do anything meaningful with it.

P.S. it's still twice as thick as the iPad, not to mention that you have to run Virus software on it, that further degrades performance.

But hey that's just me, YMMV


----------



## twolf3232 (Jan 26, 2006)

Daniel Eran Dilger in San Francisco — RoughlyDrafted Magazine

I will admit that Daniel is a bit of an evangelist and tends to digress into unrelated, old disagreements, but he is addressing the issues successfully (5 as of this morning), most all of them I've seen in this thread:

1. Just a big iPod Touch
2. Needs Adobe Flash
3. It's ad-evil
4. Overhyped and Underdelivered
5. It's just a Tablet PC or Kindle


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

But if you visit Mark Fiore regularly (or Joe Cartoons, or Ninjai, or Homestar Runner, or John K, or... etc.) or if you want to view interesting infographics that just cannot be replicated with HTML5/CSS3 (like New York Times) I guess you're out of luck...

Or continue to use Flash the way we've always used and stop pretending the iPad is going to rule the world.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

jeepguy said:


> Well for one thing I have a netbook, with the 8.9 screen, and all it's good for is reading email and watching youtube, sure it can run just about anything, but the main problem is windows, it just sucks on a small screen. It was better when I was running Linux on it. Windows programs and windows itself are such bloatware that it just brings it down to a crawl. I found it painful to do anything meaningful with it.
> 
> P.S. it's still twice as thick as the iPad, not to mention that you have to run Virus software on it, that further degrades performance.
> 
> But hey that's just me, YMMV


Not sure where you are going with this but I think you just said, "hey, I like my netbook if it wasn't for Windows." Which is pretty relative to the disappointment of some towards the iPad and the more reason why some expected a low cost, ultra portable, do it all companion with OSX. No?


----------



## mjollymo (Dec 5, 2009)

Another well written article from someone who gets it. 

The Failure of Empathy


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

twolf3232 said:


> Daniel Eran Dilger in San Francisco — RoughlyDrafted Magazine
> 
> I will admit that Daniel is a bit of an evangelist and tends to digress into unrelated, old disagreements, but he is addressing the issues successfully (5 as of this morning), most all of them I've seen in this thread:
> 
> ...





> Well, obviously Adobe would like to have Flash on The Tablet, given how the iPhone made it clear that Flash was clearly unnecessary on a cell phone. How will we visit the websites of German discos or play really awful games targeted at children and neanderthals? Never mind that Adobe can’t manage to create a Flash client that actually works on anything but the 1990s Windows desktop, or that Flash itself is nothing but a crutch for Photoshop artists who can’t be bothered to learn how to create real web content.


Well since this amoeba doesn't live in the real world, I'll take a guess that the rest of his content is equally as moronic.

Plenty of other, more sane thought out there than to read this rubbish.



mjollymo said:


> Another well written article from someone who gets it.
> 
> The Failure of Empathy


Simple, but, very true.


----------



## John Pryor (Feb 13, 2008)

JumboJones said:


> It will go the way of the ATV, the G4 Cube, 20th anniversary mac, the Newton and that ugly looking cd player they made. It will be lauded by some as the greatest thing since sliced bread but Apple will soon see their mistakes and either change the design or can it completely.
> 
> It's a big iPod Touch, and people want things smaller not larger, otherwise we would still be using these:


Wow my Dad was still using a cell like this last year but it was bigger and it came with a 24" antenna for his truck. He is the kind of person who would like this best. Remember this is NOT A COMPUTER. It is a media device. iWork is just a bonus for the house wife/husband to do simple tasks like house budgets and family letters.


----------



## iMuck (Oct 15, 2007)

My prediction is that in the future, iMacs will become big versions of the iPad. The thing about the iPad is not "just a bigger screen" — it is the largest multi-touch screen available to the consumer at the moment, and that is the window to the future. Just wait for the versatility that new gestures on the larger surface will allow.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

iMuck said:


> My prediction is that in the future, iMacs will become big versions of the iPad. The thing about the iPad is not "just a bigger screen" — it is the largest multi-touch screen available to the consumer at the moment, and that is the window to the future. Just wait for the versatility that new gestures on the larger surface will allow.


Touch screen sounds like a great idea in theory, until you actually have to get down to work on it. My iPhone is a mess, I couldn't imagine if my monitor were like this too, I wouldn't get anything done, I'd be cleaning it every ten minutes.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

iMuck said:


> My prediction is that in the future, iMacs will become big versions of the iPad. The thing about the iPad is not "just a bigger screen" — it is the largest multi-touch screen available to the consumer at the moment, and that is the window to the future. Just wait for the versatility that new gestures on the larger surface will allow.


We have difficulties seeing outside the box. We like the box. The box is warm and comfortable and familiar. Most companies also seem to prefer the box. It's easier to be an imitator than an innovator. But His Great Steveness will show us the way.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

twolf3232 said:


> Daniel Eran Dilger in San Francisco — RoughlyDrafted Magazine
> 
> I will admit that Daniel is a bit of an evangelist and tends to digress into unrelated, old disagreements, but he is addressing the issues successfully (5 as of this morning), most all of them I've seen in this thread:
> 
> ...


As I understand it, Flash is one of the main causes for Mac computers to crash. Why would we want more of that? Especially if HTML5 is the next new big thing and will work better on this platform. No flash=no big loss IMHO


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

And most people use Flash to watch YouTube. And YouTube works via h264 on the iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad. 

I'd also bet that once the iPad starts to take off, most of the larger flash-based games (FarmVille) will also create Apps/Widgets that allow you to play on the iPad w/o Flash.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

fjnmusic said:


> As I understand it, Flash is one of the main causes for Mac computers to crash. Why would we want more of that? Especially if HTML5 is the next new big thing and will work better on this platform. No flash=no big loss IMHO


It's the main cause for _Safari_ to crash.


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

MannyP Design said:


> It's the main cause for _Safari_ to crash.


Haha - Chrome and FireFox too:

16 month-old bug continues to crash Flash


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> It's the main cause for _Safari_ to crash.


No, that's not the (second-hand) quote from Jobs via the "town hall" meeting.

Both Jon Gruber of Daring Fireball and Arnold Kim of Macrumors.com specifically quote Jobs as saying "*Whenever a Mac crashes more often than not it’s because of Flash*" independently of one another, using different "moles" who were at the meeting. That's good enough for newspaper work.

Admittedly, Safari is the _main_ path by which Flash could crash a Mac, but not the only one. Furthermore, as I mentioned previously, the Firefox developers for Mobile Firefox are quoted (this is straight from their blog) as saying *"The Adobe Flash plugin used on many sites degraded the performance of the browser to the point where it didn’t meet our standards.*"

That's a pretty damning indictment from a platform-neutral developer.

But then so is Jobs' lambasting of the Flash team at Adobe as "lazy." I wouldn't call taking 16 months to fix a major security issue "lazy," would you? :lmao:


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Apple's been known to drag their feet when issuing patches--including one's dealing with Safari's security issues.

But I guess it won't matter to you because anything less than 16 months will be considered reasonable.


----------

