4 ms·

Okay, what about a TV that can play Angry Birds, take a picture and send it via SMS or email, and let's you surf, chat, share your life, and meet new people. "

Okay, what about a TV that can play Angry Birds, take a picture and send it via SMS or email, and let's you surf, chat, share your life, and meet new people. "Most people in the world don't have any use for a computer" Wow, so short-sighted I don't even know where to begin. You must not know how deeply mobile technology has penetrated on earth. The fact that phones are now becoming small computers seems to completely escape you. "And even if they can afford the hardware, who do you suppose is going to pay for the wireless infrastructure, and why?" 3rd world countries have wireless coverage. There are villages in Asia and Africa where a kid comes through on a bike (or horse!) with a car battery to charge people's phones in the slums for around a US penny or thereabouts.

ajross 14y ago
I could play games, take pictures, send them to friends, surf the web, chat, "share my life" and meet new people with computers fifteen years ago. The iPad has made that process easier and better, and to some extent cheaper. And it's a great product. But that's not "disruption", it's just plain old improvement.
- maayank 14y ago
  "I could play games, take pictures, send them to friends, surf the web, chat, "share my life" and meet new people with computers fifteen years ago. The iPad has made that process easier and better, and to some extent cheaper." and more accesible to ordinary people.
  - ajross 14y ago
    "Ordinary people" weren't browsing the web 15 years ago? I have a truck full of AOL disks and one stock market boom/bust cycle that says otherwise.
  - saraid216 14y ago
    That seems to presume that ordinary people have static capabilities needing technologies to move them along. But a huge part of the reason ordinary people are doing these things more than they were 15 years ago is (1) the pervasiveness of those basic technologies has deepened, creating more exposure overall, and (2) people have had time to learn and to help others learn to use them. Neither of these can be directly linked to the iPad or any tablet as a primary cause.
- akgerber 14y ago
  People could do everything an Apple II or IBM PC could do fifteen years before those machines came out. But most people didn't, because it was extremely expensive and cumbersome.
  - ajross 14y ago
    Right, and that made the microcomputer a disruptive technology. Web browsing fifteen years ago wasn't "extremely expensive and cumbersome", it was cheap and pervasive. Ergo: the iPad is not a disruptive technology. It's just an improvement on existing stuff.
tsotha 14y ago
>Okay, what about a TV that can play Angry Birds, take a picture and send it via SMS or email, and let's you surf, chat, share your life, and meet new people. Yes, it's a great first-world toy for teenagers and young adults. >Wow, so short-sighted I don't even know where to begin. You must not know how deeply mobile technology has penetrated on earth. The fact that phones are now becoming small computers seems to completely escape you. Likely not, as I work for a wireless provider and know, up to the minute, what our customers are doing (in the aggregate, of course). Mobile phones penetrated the market because you can use them as phones. That's the killer app. Sure, they're little computers and can do other things too. But they'd have the same penetration as the old Palm Pilot if they didn't make calls. Tablets are too big to carry around with you everywhere. You might buy a phone and a tablet, but if money is tight you're not going to get both, and the phone is more useful. >3rd world countries have wireless coverage. There are villages in Asia and Africa where a kid comes through on a bike (or horse!) with a car battery to charge people's phones in the slums for around a US penny or thereabouts. Yes, but for what they pay they're not going to get the bandwidth you need to take advantage of a tablet. It makes perfect sense for people in far-flung villages to buy mobile phones - they can do things like arrange business transactions or check the latest prices for their crops. But they don't need an expensive data service to do it.

ajross 14y ago

I could play games, take pictures, send them to friends, surf the web, chat, "share my life" and meet new people with computers fifteen years ago. The iPad has made that process easier and better, and to some extent cheaper. And it's a great product. But that's not "disruption", it's just plain old improvement.

maayank 14y ago
"I could play games, take pictures, send them to friends, surf the web, chat, "share my life" and meet new people with computers fifteen years ago. The iPad has made that process easier and better, and to some extent cheaper." and more accesible to ordinary people.
- ajross 14y ago
  "Ordinary people" weren't browsing the web 15 years ago? I have a truck full of AOL disks and one stock market boom/bust cycle that says otherwise.
- saraid216 14y ago
  That seems to presume that ordinary people have static capabilities needing technologies to move them along. But a huge part of the reason ordinary people are doing these things more than they were 15 years ago is (1) the pervasiveness of those basic technologies has deepened, creating more exposure overall, and (2) people have had time to learn and to help others learn to use them. Neither of these can be directly linked to the iPad or any tablet as a primary cause.
akgerber 14y ago
People could do everything an Apple II or IBM PC could do fifteen years before those machines came out. But most people didn't, because it was extremely expensive and cumbersome.
- ajross 14y ago
  Right, and that made the microcomputer a disruptive technology. Web browsing fifteen years ago wasn't "extremely expensive and cumbersome", it was cheap and pervasive. Ergo: the iPad is not a disruptive technology. It's just an improvement on existing stuff.

tsotha 14y ago

>Okay, what about a TV that can play Angry Birds, take a picture and send it via SMS or email, and let's you surf, chat, share your life, and meet new people. Yes, it's a great first-world toy for teenagers and young adults. >Wow, so short-sighted I don't even know where to begin. You must not know how deeply mobile technology has penetrated on earth. The fact that phones are now becoming small computers seems to completely escape you. Likely not, as I work for a wireless provider and know, up to the minute, what our customers are doing (in the aggregate, of course). Mobile phones penetrated the market because you can use them as phones. That's the killer app. Sure, they're little computers and can do other things too. But they'd have the same penetration as the old Palm Pilot if they didn't make calls. Tablets are too big to carry around with you everywhere. You might buy a phone and a tablet, but if money is tight you're not going to get both, and the phone is more useful. >3rd world countries have wireless coverage. There are villages in Asia and Africa where a kid comes through on a bike (or horse!) with a car battery to charge people's phones in the slums for around a US penny or thereabouts. Yes, but for what they pay they're not going to get the bandwidth you need to take advantage of a tablet. It makes perfect sense for people in far-flung villages to buy mobile phones - they can do things like arrange business transactions or check the latest prices for their crops. But they don't need an expensive data service to do it.