3 ms·

I'm not so sure that's what the focus of the iPad naysayers is. It's more "why do I want this?". Nobody questioned why everyone would want a tiny, pocketable de

I'm not so sure that's what the focus of the iPad naysayers is. It's more "why do I want this?". Nobody questioned why everyone would want a tiny, pocketable device that held every song they would ever want. They questioned whether Apple's mp3 player would be the one people wanted (and, by the way, the first iPod was not, it took a few generations). Nobody questioned whether people would want a smartphone at all, they'd been popular for years, just where in the market the iPhone would end up. The iPad's a different animal because it's trying to sell people something they don't even know they want. It's more akin to the Apple TV than the iPod. Maybe they want something like this or maybe they don't, but it isn't the feature set that's worrisome, it's the fact that we all have a smartphone and a laptop, and do we really need something in between? Only time will tell.

n8agrin 17y ago
I agree with your premise. One thing I would add though, at least in my opinion, is that the iPad will likely be word of mouth experience. What I mean is that one of your friends will get an iPad, you'll use it and eventually you might see where it fits into your life. I see the Kindle falling into a similar category. I'm not arguing that the iPad is so revolutionary we cannot predict how it will be used, just that until people can get their hands on one it's hard for them to foresee how it will augment their life.
- mattmaroon 17y ago
  I think it's even hard for Apple to see. They didn't get what the iPhone or iPod touch really were at first either. Their party line of "all apps should be webpages" turned out to be clearly wrong, and now they realize that those devices are mainly mobile app platforms. The iPod touch, which, though you rarely hear anything about it, has outsold the iPhone by 2:1 and is arguably the most successful product in their lineup currently and maybe of all time, is viewed by them now as the cheapest route to the App Store they thought was unnecessary when they launched. The iPad platform does ensure that if there's a market for the form factor, someone will find it. Assuming it doesn't get rejected by an App Store intern :)
  - n8agrin 17y ago
    Again agree. I'll just add (again my opinion only) that I'm on the fence about the whole app store thing. I think if Apple had, at release, provided a comprehensive Javascript API that really allowed for very low level functionality on the iPhone we might all be happily making iPhone 'apps' as webpages. But we all know that didn't happen and opening the app platform may have revealed an unforeseen sweet spot of consumer software. One where the buyer no longer has to worry about installations, complex conflicts, software dependencies, drivers, etc. Consumer software may not be the same again. Who knows, perhaps this portends the downfall of the filesystem we all know and love.
    - mattmaroon 17y ago
      Well, that's what Palm did, and it did make for a lot of apps. They were slow about opening up the platform to the public, but the homebrew apps took off, and there are now something like 1,500 in the app store and hundreds in the homebrews. That's not insubstantial given how few users they have relative to the iPhone. But still, it felt like something was missing, because what these devices, like all sufficiently popular platforms, are really used for is gaming, and the quality of games you can write in C++ is still vastly ahead of what you can make in HTML/JS. I could see the iPad eventually being more of a gaming device than anything else.
gnurant 17y ago
That is simply not true. Not everyone has a laptop and a smartphone. The ipad is far more compelling than a smartphone for me, maybe not for you. I can think of a dozen innowative usas for it. If it lives up to the promise of 10 hrs battery that's amazing in itself. It ain't what you do it's the way that you do it. I see this as innovation rater than the last 10 years of immatation.
- mattmaroon 17y ago
  Maybe. I'm not sure you're wrong by any means. There could be people who don't have a smartphone or a laptop who would drop $500 on this. And, to be honest, it's not useful to focus on price. The original iPhone was priced out of popularity but it rapidly dropped. But the point is still valid, which is that it has to create a market. Apple is 0 for 1 at this in recent years. I consider the Apple TV the only real attempt at creating a market rather than launching a more compelling product in an existing one, and it's been a failure.
- DrJokepu 17y ago
  I agree with that. I don't own a notebook, and here's why: as a developer, I find it very hard to work on a laptop: I need two displays, a proper keyboard, a proper mouse and a powerful machine. It's question of taste, I suppose. For my "mobile communcation needs", my Android phone is satisfactory most of the times. However, for casual browsing / reading, the smartphone is too small / slow and the desktop computer is too big / uncomfortable. Laptops are way to big for casual browsing either in my opinion. I believe a tablet would be an ideal device for me. I don't know yet if the iPad will be the "one" for me, but right now I'm pretty much certain that I will purchase a tablet in the next few years.
diego 17y ago
I have a laptop, a smartphone and a Kindle. The smartphone screen is terrible for hours of reading. The laptop is too heavy and the battery doesn't last long enough. On the other hand, the Kindle's battery is as good as it gets. I hope to never be away from a power outlet long enough for it to run out of juice. It's very light and the screen size is perfect for reading. There will be many similar applications for the iPad that people don't even think about right now.
joe_the_user 17y ago
The critics of the iPad seem unfocused because they are in two contradictory camps. One side say "the ipad is a DRM platform, it's threatening to become the dominant consumer platform and that would be a nightmare. It may be super great but it will take away our freedom" The other side says "It's just a big iPhone, If a consumer was going to bother carrying something as big and expensive as an iPad, they'd expect to do extended data entry on it and that's just not possible, so it's not threatening to take over very much all. It's the computer for people who never use their computer". I think I've decided the second camp is right so there's less reasons for the first camp's worries.
- swernli 17y ago
  I think the first camp's worries are justified a bit by the second camp's perspective and mistake (at least the way you've phrased it). Yes, it may end up being the "computer for people who never use their computer," but by some estimates that is most people, which means it will take over for the content consumer majority and leave full-fledged computers to the content producers. It all depends on your definition of "use" since as netbook-crowd would argue, most people don't need beefy processor and lots of ram, just a way to get online and run some basic applications.
  - joe_the_user 17y ago
    There's more to a computer that you can use than a beefy processor. I'm not sure you could classify most people as non-content producers. A student that writes a paper needs a keyboard. An executive needs a keyboard and mouse to create presentation. Even more, I suspect our society is generating more, not less, content producer jobs and these content producers will want to be able to work at home.

n8agrin 17y ago

I agree with your premise. One thing I would add though, at least in my opinion, is that the iPad will likely be word of mouth experience. What I mean is that one of your friends will get an iPad, you'll use it and eventually you might see where it fits into your life. I see the Kindle falling into a similar category. I'm not arguing that the iPad is so revolutionary we cannot predict how it will be used, just that until people can get their hands on one it's hard for them to foresee how it will augment their life.

mattmaroon 17y ago
I think it's even hard for Apple to see. They didn't get what the iPhone or iPod touch really were at first either. Their party line of "all apps should be webpages" turned out to be clearly wrong, and now they realize that those devices are mainly mobile app platforms. The iPod touch, which, though you rarely hear anything about it, has outsold the iPhone by 2:1 and is arguably the most successful product in their lineup currently and maybe of all time, is viewed by them now as the cheapest route to the App Store they thought was unnecessary when they launched. The iPad platform does ensure that if there's a market for the form factor, someone will find it. Assuming it doesn't get rejected by an App Store intern :)
- n8agrin 17y ago
  Again agree. I'll just add (again my opinion only) that I'm on the fence about the whole app store thing. I think if Apple had, at release, provided a comprehensive Javascript API that really allowed for very low level functionality on the iPhone we might all be happily making iPhone 'apps' as webpages. But we all know that didn't happen and opening the app platform may have revealed an unforeseen sweet spot of consumer software. One where the buyer no longer has to worry about installations, complex conflicts, software dependencies, drivers, etc. Consumer software may not be the same again. Who knows, perhaps this portends the downfall of the filesystem we all know and love.
  - mattmaroon 17y ago
    Well, that's what Palm did, and it did make for a lot of apps. They were slow about opening up the platform to the public, but the homebrew apps took off, and there are now something like 1,500 in the app store and hundreds in the homebrews. That's not insubstantial given how few users they have relative to the iPhone. But still, it felt like something was missing, because what these devices, like all sufficiently popular platforms, are really used for is gaming, and the quality of games you can write in C++ is still vastly ahead of what you can make in HTML/JS. I could see the iPad eventually being more of a gaming device than anything else.

gnurant 17y ago

That is simply not true. Not everyone has a laptop and a smartphone. The ipad is far more compelling than a smartphone for me, maybe not for you. I can think of a dozen innowative usas for it. If it lives up to the promise of 10 hrs battery that's amazing in itself. It ain't what you do it's the way that you do it. I see this as innovation rater than the last 10 years of immatation.

mattmaroon 17y ago
Maybe. I'm not sure you're wrong by any means. There could be people who don't have a smartphone or a laptop who would drop $500 on this. And, to be honest, it's not useful to focus on price. The original iPhone was priced out of popularity but it rapidly dropped. But the point is still valid, which is that it has to create a market. Apple is 0 for 1 at this in recent years. I consider the Apple TV the only real attempt at creating a market rather than launching a more compelling product in an existing one, and it's been a failure.
DrJokepu 17y ago
I agree with that. I don't own a notebook, and here's why: as a developer, I find it very hard to work on a laptop: I need two displays, a proper keyboard, a proper mouse and a powerful machine. It's question of taste, I suppose. For my "mobile communcation needs", my Android phone is satisfactory most of the times. However, for casual browsing / reading, the smartphone is too small / slow and the desktop computer is too big / uncomfortable. Laptops are way to big for casual browsing either in my opinion. I believe a tablet would be an ideal device for me. I don't know yet if the iPad will be the "one" for me, but right now I'm pretty much certain that I will purchase a tablet in the next few years.

diego 17y ago

I have a laptop, a smartphone and a Kindle. The smartphone screen is terrible for hours of reading. The laptop is too heavy and the battery doesn't last long enough. On the other hand, the Kindle's battery is as good as it gets. I hope to never be away from a power outlet long enough for it to run out of juice. It's very light and the screen size is perfect for reading. There will be many similar applications for the iPad that people don't even think about right now.

joe_the_user 17y ago

The critics of the iPad seem unfocused because they are in two contradictory camps. One side say "the ipad is a DRM platform, it's threatening to become the dominant consumer platform and that would be a nightmare. It may be super great but it will take away our freedom" The other side says "It's just a big iPhone, If a consumer was going to bother carrying something as big and expensive as an iPad, they'd expect to do extended data entry on it and that's just not possible, so it's not threatening to take over very much all. It's the computer for people who never use their computer". I think I've decided the second camp is right so there's less reasons for the first camp's worries.

swernli 17y ago
I think the first camp's worries are justified a bit by the second camp's perspective and mistake (at least the way you've phrased it). Yes, it may end up being the "computer for people who never use their computer," but by some estimates that is most people, which means it will take over for the content consumer majority and leave full-fledged computers to the content producers. It all depends on your definition of "use" since as netbook-crowd would argue, most people don't need beefy processor and lots of ram, just a way to get online and run some basic applications.
- joe_the_user 17y ago
  There's more to a computer that you can use than a beefy processor. I'm not sure you could classify most people as non-content producers. A student that writes a paper needs a keyboard. An executive needs a keyboard and mouse to create presentation. Even more, I suspect our society is generating more, not less, content producer jobs and these content producers will want to be able to work at home.