Prev: Displaying stitched panorama photographs.
Next: there are 3-imager video cameras, are there 3-imager still cameras?
From: SMS on 29 Jan 2010 12:39
Bruce wrote:

> As an iPhone, Mac and MacBook user I must be in the target market, but
> there is no way I will be buying an iPad.

You're not the target market. First, as an iPhone owner, you're not
likely to be willing to pay a second 3G bill to AT&T every month.
Second, you have a MacBook and are likely not interested in another
portable device which will essentially cost you $1000 once you buy the
64GB 3G version with the necessary accessories.

The biggest selling point to the iPad (in the U.S.) is that you can get
unlimited 3G service for $30/month. If you wanted 3G service on your
MacBook you're going to pay $60/month for a paltry 5GB on AT&T, Sprint,
or Verizon unless you engage in tactics that violate the TOS. Of course
this is in the U.S., where a) you can't tether your non-jail-broken
iPhone because AT&T won't let you (don't blame Apple for this, other
than for making AT&T the sole carrier for the iPhone) and b) 3G data
service via a 3G USB dongle, CardBus card, or Express Card card, is
ridiculously expensive.

The iPad will sell well to those people that absolutely will not use
AT&T for cell phone service, but that are willing to use it for data
service if the price is right.

Flash and Java would be really nice though. The problem with Flash is
that it's a CPU hog (and hence a battery hog). It's almost certainly not
that the iPad processor can't do Flash, it's that the side effects have
been deemed unacceptable. Maybe rev 2, or a software upgrade, will add
these features eventually.

I can see photographers loving this device, especially since there's an
SD card reader attachment. Makes it really easy to use it to display
pictures, as well as e-mail or upload them (when you have unlimited
data, e-mailing 1000 8GB files off of a flash card is a lot easier than
backing them up to an external disk drive). I hope that AT&T gets its
act together on its 3G network very soon, because the data usage on the
iPad is likely going to be an order of magnitude greater than the iPhone.

Personally, I think the iPad will be a big seller. There are a great
many applications for it given the relatively low cost unlimited data
plans. Video and audio streaming are going to be very big if
applications allow it (I notice that Slingbox says that the app only
works over WiFi, and not 3G, though it does work over 3G on jailbroken
iPhones).
From: Savageduck on 29 Jan 2010 12:49
On 2010-01-29 09:12:25 -0800, "igotsaurus" <fac_187(a)hotmail.com> said:

> The Ipad is a large Iphone sans phone and camera locked to the Apple
> On-line store and lacking Adobe flash capability.

Actually the iPad is a large iPod Touch, and I will not be in line to
buy one for pretty much the same reason I didn't get an iPhone, AT&T
and lack of coverage for 3G or much of anything else where I live.
I do have an iPod Touch and a Macbook Pro, and that makes much more
sense for me.

....maybe sometime in the future???????

> It is Apple's next Newton.

....but the Newton was a pioneer device ahead of its time. It lead the
way to PDAs and the current Smartphones.

> The Ipod and Iphone are great devices and Apple deserves all the
> success they have had with these game changing devices.
> Apple all in one desktops are pretty, overpriced boxes that use
> obsolete hardware in order to run a niche Unix based OS that does
> absolutely nothing for the end user except restrict their choice of
> software and hardware. Imacs are nearly useless for digital image
> processing because their LCDs cannot be calibrated properly. The banner
> sales for these clunkers is a testament to the stupidity of American
> consumers and their susceptibility to television advertising.

However they do work, and I have never found myself longing for some
game or piece of software only available for a Windows or Linux
platform, there are Bootcamp, Parallels, VM ware, etc. if you actually
need to run any of that SW on a Mac.

....and you can run 3rd party monitors from any Mac.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

From: C J Campbell on 29 Jan 2010 13:31
On 2010-01-29 09:39:23 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> said:

> Bruce wrote:
>
>> As an iPhone, Mac and MacBook user I must be in the target market, but
>> there is no way I will be buying an iPad.
>
> You're not the target market. First, as an iPhone owner, you're not
> likely to be willing to pay a second 3G bill to AT&T every month.
> Second, you have a MacBook and are likely not interested in another
> portable device which will essentially cost you $1000 once you buy the
> 64GB 3G version with the necessary accessories.

I don't think I would get the 3G version at all. Wi-Fi is so ubiquitous
that 3G is really superfluous.

>
> The biggest selling point to the iPad (in the U.S.) is that you can get
> unlimited 3G service for $30/month. If you wanted 3G service on your
> MacBook you're going to pay $60/month for a paltry 5GB on AT&T, Sprint,
> or Verizon unless you engage in tactics that violate the TOS. Of course
> this is in the U.S., where a) you can't tether your non-jail-broken
> iPhone because AT&T won't let you (don't blame Apple for this, other
> than for making AT&T the sole carrier for the iPhone) and b) 3G data
> service via a 3G USB dongle, CardBus card, or Express Card card, is
> ridiculously expensive.

AT&T says they are going to offer tethering "soon." They have been
saying that for nearly a year, however.

>
> The iPad will sell well to those people that absolutely will not use
> AT&T for cell phone service, but that are willing to use it for data
> service if the price is right.
>
> Flash and Java would be really nice though. The problem with Flash is
> that it's a CPU hog (and hence a battery hog). It's almost certainly
> not that the iPad processor can't do Flash, it's that the side effects
> have been deemed unacceptable. Maybe rev 2, or a software upgrade, will
> add these features eventually.

Oddly enough, the pictures of the iPad on Apple's web site show the
thing using Flash. It did not use Flash during Jobs' presentation, just
showing the broken Flash icon, but it appears to be using Flash in the
demonstration video on the web site. So either Apple's web site is
being very misleading in its promo materials or Apple intends to allow
Flash to be used on the iPad.

Personally, I think the ad is just misleading. Apple has long hated
Flash. Of course, they used to hate multi-button mice and tablet
computers, too.

>
> I can see photographers loving this device, especially since there's an
> SD card reader attachment. Makes it really easy to use it to display
> pictures, as well as e-mail or upload them (when you have unlimited
> data, e-mailing 1000 8GB files off of a flash card is a lot easier than
> backing them up to an external disk drive). I hope that AT&T gets its
> act together on its 3G network very soon, because the data usage on the
> iPad is likely going to be an order of magnitude greater than the
> iPhone.

This is why I would get an iPad -- I think it would do a great job of
displaying my portfolio. AT&T is getting its act together on 3G, but it
is taking a lot longer than it should.

>
> Personally, I think the iPad will be a big seller. There are a great
> many applications for it given the relatively low cost unlimited data
> plans. Video and audio streaming are going to be very big if
> applications allow it (I notice that Slingbox says that the app only
> works over WiFi, and not 3G, though it does work over 3G on jailbroken
> iPhones).

I think the iPad will do very well as a presentation device in
corporate board rooms. The ability to connect to larger screens,
virtual laser pointer and ability to write on screen John Madden style
will be a big hit with the Death By Powerpoint crowd.

It will also be popular as an e-book reader. The base model is only $10
more than the Kindle DX, but offers a color screen, better interface,
and the ability to do thousands of useful things other than read books.

The iPad should also be a big hit as a game device. The larger screen
should make games like Sim City, the Sims, and racing games much more
interesting and easier to play with a lot more real estate for your
fingers. I do not see Blizzard supporting the platform with World of
Warcraft any time soon, but you never know.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

From: nospam on 29 Jan 2010 13:38
In article <hjv4tj$o39$1(a)adenine.netfront.net>, igotsaurus
<fac_187(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

> Apple all in one desktops are pretty, overpriced boxes that use obsolete
> hardware in order to run a niche Unix based OS that does absolutely nothing
> for the end user except restrict their choice of software and hardware.

nonsense. there's more choice of software for a mac than on other
platforms. they can run mac, windows and unix software.

> Imacs are nearly useless for digital image processing because their LCDs
> cannot be calibrated properly.

nonsense. they can be calibrated just fine. the displays are ips too.

> The banner sales for these clunkers is a
> testament to the stupidity of American consumers and their susceptibility to
> television advertising.

the only stupidity is your idiotic posts.
From: C J Campbell on 29 Jan 2010 13:39
On 2010-01-29 05:29:03 -0800, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> said:

> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 20:41:12 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> "It's not a phone, it's not a netbook, in fact, it can't do anything
>> substantive!" But the GEEKS will buy it because they need to to keep
>> their place in the Apple cult. So their guru, a gaunt and sickly-
>> looking Jobs pronounces it the Second Coming ,until the next
>> overpriced piece of Apple junk comes along. Or, the "upgrade" they'll
>> bring out in 3-4 months, whose components and design were available 2
>> years ago!
>
>
> When Steve Jobs unveiled the thing, I burst out laughing. I genuinely
> thought that the grossly oversized iPhone was a joke, and that he
> would go on to reveal the "real" new product a few moments later. Then
> I realised that it wasn't a joke, and this was it ...
>
> The iPad is notable because the list of things it cannot do is longer
> (and more significant) than the list of things it can. There is no
> camera, no phone, no Java, no Flash and no multitasking.

You want a 10 inch phone? Whatever for? Now, you could do VOIP phone
calling on the iPad -- Apple just put 3G support for VOIP into its SDK
-- so I suppose you could use it as a phone if you had a headset.

The iPad does allow multitasking with the built-in apps.

>
> I use an iPhone and am reasonably happy with it. A slightly larger
> version offering a bigger display would be welcome. What I definitely
> don't need is something that is so much larger *and* loses so much
> functionality.

It isn't supposed to replace your iPhone. It is supposed to replace
your Kindle.

>
> The iPad is also impractical. The screen is vulnerable and it will
> need a strong protective case that provides a lid over the display,
> making it just like a netbook, but bigger. What is the point?
>
> I use a Toshiba netbook and see absolutely no reason even to consider
> buying an iPad. After a succession of really cool products over the
> years, it is bizarre to see something so seriously uncool from Apple.

You know, I have an alarm clock on my nightstand. Why would I be so
stupid as to buy a watch that costs $100 more when the alarm clock
already does more than the watch will ever do and for far less money?
Obviously, the watch will never catch on except with geeks who are real
diehard clock fans.

>
> But Apple's diehard fans will see it as a must-have, so it will sell
> to them. The question is, who else will buy it?

Photographers who want a larger display device for their portfolios,
gamers, e-book readers, people who do not have a notebook

>
> As an iPhone, Mac and MacBook user I must be in the target market, but
> there is no way I will be buying an iPad.
>
>


--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Displaying stitched panorama photographs.
Next: there are 3-imager video cameras, are there 3-imager still cameras?