4 ms·
I think the key difference there is that those are 'passive consuming', which is what tablets are excellent at. But those things are entertainment, not 'product
by Alexx 14y ago
I think the key difference there is that those are 'passive consuming', which is what tablets are excellent at. But those things are entertainment, not 'productive' in terms of output.
I don't agree with the authors conclusion, but I do agree that tablets aren't usually the right tool to efficiently be productive on. But they're great for consuming. I don't see a problem with that.
- InclinedPlane 14y agoI think that's actually more of an artifact of the nature of introduction of tablets than a fundamental limitation. Over time tablets will become much, much more powerful and standard peripherals (such as external keyboards) will become more refined and more commonplace. I don't see anything particularly odd about the notion that someone in, say, 2023 might use a stylus with a tablet to produce various graphic arts, or sit at a desk with a tablet on a stand and type on a keyboard to write, or code, or do any sort of creative endeavor that is now possible with a PC.
- phaus 14y agoThere have been artists who produce the majority of their work on a tablet PC for years. They aren't as thin or as light as an iPad, and none of them have been perfect, but they are incredibly well-suited for drawing. I just hope that Microsoft's efforts eventually cause Apple to implement a Wacom digitizer into the iPad.