 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / General / General / February 2010iPad is supercool
http://www.apple.com/ipad/#video Okay, there is criticism and discussion about details, but nobody actually held one in their hands. Same as with the first iPod or iPhone. What is it for? What is an MP3? Where are the buttons? Now everybody uses those devices without thinking. The iPad looks very simple (to use) and you can do (almost) anything with it. Before long everybody will use one thinking how they could live without it. Moreover, like any Apple device it will evolve, becoming thinner, longer battery life, becoming lighter, newer technologies etc. Supercool. I'm sold...can't wait to get my HANDS on one... SK. > Okay, there is criticism and discussion about details, but nobody > actually held one in their hands. Same as with the first iPod or iPhone. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Supercool. I'm sold...can't wait to get my HANDS on one... > SK. No doubt that it's cool...I just can't figure out how useful it would be for me personally. > > Okay, there is criticism and discussion about details, but nobody > > actually held one in their hands. Same as with the first iPod or iPhone. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > No doubt that it's cool...I just can't figure out how useful it would > be for me personally. All I know for sure is that we are getting (at least) one. My wife, who looks askance at Apple, saw the blurb on the news, went online to find out more, and informed me that she wants one: eBook reader was far and away her #1 reason, but the calendar, maps, Safari, and email apps held strong appeal as well. She had been agitating for the top-of-the-line Kindle as a birthday present, but it has been replaced on the "wish list." The only other Apple product she has liked is the iPhone.  SignatureSpenser > All I know for sure is that we are getting (at least) one. My wife, who > looks askance at Apple, saw the blurb on the news, went online to find [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Kindle as a birthday present, but it has been replaced on the "wish > list." The only other Apple product she has liked is the iPhone. Yeh, I think Apple has a real winner here. (See David Pogue's comments about the naysayers which I posted elsewhere in this group.) For me, I think I'll wait until version 2. Because I purchase new hardware infrequently, I want a camera and a 128GB SSD. I figure these'll be in v2 which will be released in October for the Christmas buying season. That said, I feel like Dr. Strangelove, having to restrain one hand with the other so I don't reach for my wallet to buy one. Hmmmm, maybe I don't really need to wait... >> All I know for sure is that we are getting (at least) one. My wife, who >> looks askance at Apple, saw the blurb on the news, went online to find [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the other so I don't reach for my wallet to buy one. Hmmmm, maybe I > don't really need to wait... Ya don't need no steekin wallet! Just a keyboard and a CC number (which I've set up in Textexpander)(shhh, don't tell anyone). Very convenient.... Even moreso Amazon. It's frighteningly easy to order stuff online from them. Signaturejohn mcwilliams > > That said, I feel like Dr. Strangelove, having to restrain one hand with > > the other so I don't reach for my wallet to buy one. Hmmmm, maybe I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > convenient.... Even moreso Amazon. It's frighteningly easy to order > stuff online from them. Um, John, what did you say was the keyboard shortcut you use to invoke that paste? (I'm tunneling into your computer as we speak.) ;) >>> That said, I feel like Dr. Strangelove, having to restrain one hand with >>> the other so I don't reach for my wallet to buy one. Hmmmm, maybe I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Um, John, what did you say was the keyboard shortcut you use to invoke > that paste? (I'm tunneling into your computer as we speak.) ;) Yes, but you'll have to have a bit of other info, too, and there're a couple of decoys, both of which trigger Homeland security if you try to use them.... And the short cut is F5-0 o Cmd-Fn Rt Arrow Esc PR Option. Takes 3 hands. Signaturejohn mcwilliams > Ya don't need no steekin wallet! Just a keyboard and a CC number (which > I've set up in Textexpander)(shhh, don't tell anyone). Very > convenient.... Even moreso Amazon. It's frighteningly easy to order > stuff online from them. What a good idea! It hadn't occurred to me to put my CC number in TypeIt4Me. Amazon normally has a preorder option for almost anything Apple that hasn't yet come out, but (no real surprise!) if you try a search for iPad they just say, "Did you mean iPod?". I guess they're not too eager to push the Kindle's biggest competition. SignatureKathy > convenient.... Even moreso Amazon. It's frighteningly easy to order > stuff online from them. I'll say! Ordered a textbook from aLibris. Day or two later, an e-mail from Amazon thanked me for ordering something else. (Presumably fraud, as the actual item wanted was also acknowledged by aLibris.) SignatureWes Groleau ¡Qué quiero realmente hacer es comer un perrito caliente! 私が実際にしたいと思う何をホットドッグを食べることである! http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=463 >> convenient.... Even moreso Amazon. It's frighteningly easy to order >> stuff online from them. > > I'll say! Ordered a textbook from aLibris. Day or two later, an e-mail > from Amazon thanked me for ordering something else. (Presumably fraud, > as the actual item wanted was also acknowledged by aLibris.) I've seen a fair number of phishing bits "for" Amazon and eBay, none "from" Craigslist, though. SignatureJohn McWilliams > Yeh, I think Apple has a real winner here. (See David Pogue's comments > about the naysayers which I posted elsewhere in this group.) I could not find that post. SignatureWes Groleau Elevated pronunciation http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=994 > > Yeh, I think Apple has a real winner here. (See David Pogue's comments > > about the naysayers which I posted elsewhere in this group.) > > I could not find that post. Okay, here you go: The Apple iPad: First Impressions <http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/the-apple-ipad-first-impressio ns/> Today Apple finally unveiled its tablet computer, the iPad. Thus concludes Phase 1 of the standard Apple new-category roll-out: months of feverish speculation and hype online, without any official indication by Apple that the product even exists. Now Phase 2 can begin: the bashing by the bloggers who've never even tried it: "No physical keyboard!" "No removable battery!" "Way too expensive!" "Doesn't multitask!" "No memory-card slot! That will last until the iPad actually goes on sale in April. Then, if history is any guide, Phase 3 will begin: positive reviews, people lining up to buy the thing, and the mysterious disappearance of the basher-bloggers. > All I know for sure is that we are getting (at least) one. My wife, who > looks askance at Apple, saw the blurb on the news, went online to find [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Kindle as a birthday present, but it has been replaced on the "wish > list." The only other Apple product she has liked is the iPhone. Almost the same story with my wife (she has no such disapproval of Apple). Even though my geek side would love to wait it out for the next revision, which almost certainly will have lots more features I want personally, we may very well end up getting one right away because the features it does have (especially eBooks) are very attractive to her, and to me as well. SignatureSend responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR >> All I know for sure is that we are getting (at least) one. My wife, who >> looks askance at Apple, saw the blurb on the news, went online to find [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Almost the same story with my wife (she has no such disapproval of > Apple). Even though my geek side You mean there's a _non_-geek side? ;P > would love to wait it out for the next > revision, which almost certainly will have lots more features I want > personally, we may very well end up getting one right away because the > features it does have (especially eBooks) are very attractive to her, > and to me as well. SignatureiMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) OS X (10.5.8) > In article jollyroger-29DF91.12175528012010@news.individual.net, Jolly Roger >> Apple). Even though my geek side > > You mean there's a _non_-geek side? ;P > >> would love to wait it out for the next revision, Obviously. A pure geek would pre-order this one AND the next one. SignatureWes Groleau "It's all Geek to me." I'm thinking that many of the active people on this list are not the target market for the iPad. How many people here require a keyboard at leat 60% of the time, and I don't mean just to enter in minimal text, but really need the keyboard. For example, writing this note. Almost all of my work is keyboard-intensive (development & documentation). I have portable devices for watching movies (frankly, if I'm traveling, I'd rather sleep than watch movies), a cell phone and an iPod. There are some documents I use that would be very convenient on the iPad, but I don't see that app happening for at least a year. > I'm thinking that many of the active people on this list are not > the target market for the iPad. How many people here require a keyboard > at leat 60% of the time, and I don't mean just to enter in minimal text, > but really need the keyboard. For example, writing this note. For a message as short as that, the on-screen keyboard is more than adequate. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign > I'm thinking that many of the active people on this list are not > the target market for the iPad. How many people here require a keyboard [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > There are some documents I use that would be very convenient on the > iPad, but I don't see that app happening for at least a year. Hi Blanche, it's not targeted to replace your computer (or your iPhone). It a different 'appliance' all together which makes certain tasks VERY easy and enjoyable. I fall into the group you describe; and my only issue is like JR's: do I buy one now or wait till v2. Or both. > I'm thinking that many of the active people on this list are not > the target market for the iPad. How many people here require a keyboard > at leat 60% of the time, and I don't mean just to enter in minimal text, > but really need the keyboard. For example, writing this note. This might be an issue for someone who didn't have anything other than an iPad to use. Which pretty much counts out everyone here. > > I'm thinking that many of the active people on this list are not > > the target market for the iPad. How many people here require a keyboard [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Which pretty much counts out everyone here. It pretty much counts out everyone who will buy the device. I think it was a bit of a misstep for Apple to place it between an iPhone and a MacBook. It *needs* a computer to sync with, and while there may be some who will use their laptop to do that, my hunch is that it will be bought mainly by people with desktop systems who don't want to deal with a full-blown laptop. My guess is that Windows desktop users will be, or *should* be targeted as, the biggest market for the iPad. SignatureMy personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too. > > > I'm thinking that many of the active people on this list are not > > > the target market for the iPad. How many people here require a keyboard [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > It pretty much counts out everyone who will buy the device. Don't think so. We here aren't a very good proxy for the market as a whole. > I think it > was a bit of a misstep for Apple to place it between an iPhone and a > MacBook. Where else is there room in marketspace? They picked the biggest empty spot. > It *needs* a computer to sync with, That assumes one wants to sync it with anything. Granted, that makes things more convenient, especially as the total size of your content goes up, and it's what I intend to do with mine, but... It's not the only way to use it. For one, some might be happy enough to get by with what they can sync, say, through MobileMe. > and while there may be > some who will use their laptop to do that, my hunch is that it will be > bought mainly by people with desktop systems who don't want to deal with > a full-blown laptop. There will surely be those. There are more laptop buyers/owners than desktop these days, and the gap looks like it's going to continue to grow. > My guess is that Windows desktop users will be, or > *should* be targeted as, the biggest market for the iPad. They're a shrinking demographic, too. Still...they're covered too, according to Apple's iPad spec page. We haven't seen the ad campaign for the gadget yet. Who knows who'll be targeted by it. > > > > I'm thinking that many of the active people on this list are not > > > > the target market for the iPad. How many people here require a keyboard [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Don't think so. We here aren't a very good proxy for the market as a > whole. It has nothing to do with where we fit in the market and everything to do with the device itself. As I said, you *need* a computer already to use an iPad. So the only question to someone who already has a full size keyboard on their desktop or laptop is whether or not the iPad features offer them something useful during those times they don't need to do a lot of typing. > > I think it > > was a bit of a misstep for Apple to place it between an iPhone and a > > MacBook. > > Where else is there room in marketspace? They picked the biggest empty > spot. I already said where I think it fits in the market: desktop users who need some mobility but don't want to manage a laptop as a separate device. While it *physically* is between a smart phone and a laptop, they really need to better show it in use to highlight how it changes the game. I think Jobs flubbed the introduction, because most of it just seem to be a rehash of what an iPod touch could already do. > > It *needs* a computer to sync with, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It's not the only way to use it. For one, some might be happy enough to > get by with what they can sync, say, through MobileMe. And some might issue it in a corporate environment as a thin client. There are plenty of ways I could *imagine* it being put to use, but let's stick with common expectations, and all signs point to Apple expecting there to be a computer to sync with. > > and while there may be > > some who will use their laptop to do that, my hunch is that it will be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > desktop these days, and the gap looks like it's going to continue to > grow. But you haven't made a real case for people carrying around a laptop to also carry around an iPad. Of *course* Apple is aware of the migration to mobile computing, but I think they are also keenly aware of the trade-offs faced when you try to pack a desktop into a laptop. I think they're also keenly aware that there is a huge opportunity to tap the Windows desktop market, including businesses, with an "accessory" mobile device like the iPad. > > My guess is that Windows desktop users will be, or > > *should* be targeted as, the biggest market for the iPad. > > They're a shrinking demographic, too. Still...they're covered too, > according to Apple's iPad spec page. I'd wager the shrinking desktop market has been *because* people have been compromising to meet their mobile needs with a laptop. It'll be interesting to see how sales figures adjust themselves if the iPad catches on. > We haven't seen the ad campaign for the gadget yet. Who knows who'll be > targeted by it. Everyone. I already have an ad pictured in my head that shows how universally useful something like this would be. The key being that *what* it does is so much more important than *who* you might target as a user. SignatureMy personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too. > > > > > I'm thinking that many of the active people on this list are not > > > > > the target market for the iPad. How many people here require a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > do with the device itself. As I said, you *need* a computer already to > use an iPad. Unless things have change significantly between the iPad and the iPhone/Touch, having a computer already is *hugely* more convenient and flexible, but you can very well use the device without access to any other computer. As long as you don't intend to update the OS or firmware. You can certainly buy apps/music/movies/other content through a WiFi connection, and you can keep calendar, contacts, and browser bookmarks synced through MobileMe. It's less convenient, but it works. > So the only question to someone who already has a full > size keyboard on their desktop or laptop is whether or not the iPad > features offer them something useful during those times they don't need > to do a lot of typing. > Unless things have change significantly between the iPad and the > iPhone/Touch, having a computer already is *hugely* more convenient and > flexible, but you can very well use the device without access to any > other computer. As long as you don't intend to update the OS or firmware. Or backup anything important. Or transfer music from a CD you already own. Or pull a file off a thumb drive. Or any number of things a computer user these days would take for granted. I might even grant you that it's possible to *rarely* connect to a computer. But why is it so difficult to admit you're probably going to need a computer for an iPad? > You can certainly buy apps/music/movies/other content through a WiFi > connection, and you can keep calendar, contacts, and browser bookmarks > synced through MobileMe. > > It's less convenient, but it works. You honestly have no idea what is and isn't going to work until you've used an iPad for some length of time. I'll go even further with my hunch and say that not only does Apple expect you to have a computer to use an iPad, early adopters are probably going to have at least *two* computers that they're going to sync it with. SignatureMy personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too. > > Unless things have change significantly between the iPad and the > > iPhone/Touch, having a computer already is *hugely* more convenient and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that it's possible to *rarely* connect to a computer. But why is it so > difficult to admit you're probably going to need a computer for an iPad? Who said you wouldn't want to? There is a bit of a gap between "impossible" and "unlikely for the majority of users". There are any number of things that are possible, in any number of areas, that don't usually happen because they're inconvenient. Inconvenient doesn't mean impossible. Why do you have so much trouble admitting that something might be possible, even if almost nobody would be bothered to do it that way? It isn't the same thing as claiming that many people wouldn't normally use it with a computer. > > > Unless things have change significantly between the iPad and the > > > iPhone/Touch, having a computer already is *hugely* more convenient and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > There is a bit of a gap between "impossible" and "unlikely for the > majority of users". It's a gap you can't fill until the iPad goes on sale. Or you otherwise have some in-depth experience with the device. If you do, please state it directly. > There are any number of things that are possible, in any number of > areas, that don't usually happen because they're inconvenient. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Why do you have so much trouble admitting that something might be > possible, even if almost nobody would be bothered to do it that way? To the extent that I can know the possibilities, I actively explore them. That's why I see big potential as an enterprise thin client. But that doesn't mean I'm putting all my current equipment up on eBay. Unlike you, I'm going to wait for clear evidence before I start making proclamations on how possible certain things are. SignatureMy personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too. > that it's possible to *rarely* connect to a computer. But why is it so > difficult to admit you're probably going to need a computer for an iPad? Because it's not true. Even with the iPod, I don't _need_ one. I use one because I have it, but I don't use it much, and I'd connect it even less if the iPod keyboard didn't suck so much. SignatureWes Groleau Unusual ways of learning? http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=96 > > that it's possible to *rarely* connect to a computer. But why is it so > > difficult to admit you're probably going to need a computer for an iPad? > > Because it's not true. Even with the iPod, I don't _need_ one. > I use one because I have it, but I don't use it much, and I'd > connect it even less if the iPod keyboard didn't suck so much. That makes about as much sense as saying a car doesn't *need* gas because you only have to fill it up if you want to drive more than 200 miles. Like I said, it's possible to *rarely* connect these kinds of devices to computers. That doesn't change the fact that it seems like Apple *has* designed them with the intention of them being connected to a computer at some point. It may even be *required* as part of the unboxing/setup. Unless you can point to some statement by Apple that you can get by with *never* connecting to a computer, a reasonable person would admit they probably need one. SignatureMy personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too. > That makes about as much sense as saying a car doesn't *need* gas > because you only have to fill it up if you want to drive more than 200 > miles. Like I said, it's possible to *rarely* connect these kinds of > devices to computers. That doesn't change the fact that it seems like > Apple *has* designed them with the intention of them being connected to > a computer at some point. Jobs said that you can sign up for AT&T's data plan right from the iPad, and do not need a computer to do that. I can easily see using one without ever having to connect it to a computer, unless software upgrades can be done only via a computer, as with the iPhone. You can buy or rent movies, buy TV shows, buy music, get podcasts, and buy apps directly with it, and not have to synch that with a computer. You can enter contacts and calendar items without a computer. And you can sync it with MobileMe if you want to store a backup. So at this point it appears that you won't need to connect it to a computer. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign > > That makes about as much sense as saying a car doesn't *need* gas > > because you only have to fill it up if you want to drive more than 200 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Jobs said that you can sign up for AT&T's data plan right from the iPad, > and do not need a computer to do that. And? So it supports doing one thing without needing a computer. Hell, it supports *tons* of things without needing a computer; that's the whole point of something like an iPad! That is not the issue at hand. > I can easily see using one without ever having to connect it to a computer, > unless software upgrades can be done only via a computer, as with the > iPhone. You can buy or rent movies, buy TV shows, buy music, get podcasts, > and buy apps directly with it, and not have to synch that with a computer. > You can enter contacts and calendar items without a computer. And you can > sync it with MobileMe if you want to store a backup. Yes, I too can *see* many possible uses for such a device. But going on the evidence of past devices, I see no reason to believe that Apple has made the iPad not need a computer. Until they state something along those line, we have no reason to believe that an iPad will work any differently. > So at this point it appears that you won't need to connect it to a computer. No hard data exists to support that statement. SignatureMy personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too. > > So at this point it appears that you won't need to connect it to a > > computer. > > No hard data exists to support that statement. There is no hard data to support your belief that there will be a need to connect it to the computer. Your only rationale is "That's the way they've always done it." Well, if Apple had stuck to "That's the way we've always done it," we wouldn't have a Macintosh, iPhone, iPod, or iPad. So how about you providing some specific examples of necessary functions that would require that the iPad be connected to a computer? SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign Member Arizona Road Racers > > > So at this point it appears that you won't need to connect it to a > > > computer. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > So how about you providing some specific examples of necessary functions > that would require that the iPad be connected to a computer? It is not about laws of physics, it is about how Apple is choosing to support the technology. I have offered many lines of evidence (including, yes, past behavior) that indicate a master computer of some kind is necessary for an iPad. You haven't offered even *one* definitive statement that indicates that might not be the case. All you've been pushing is the crazy-obvious point that a mobile device like the iPad does indeed function as a mobile device. But until you can link to *anything* that indicates "no other computer required", you need to be silent for the sake of Lincoln. SignatureMy personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too. > > So how about you providing some specific examples of necessary > > functions that would require that the iPad be connected to a computer? > > It is not about laws of physics, I never said anything about the laws of physics; you're introducing a red hering. > it is about how Apple is choosing to support the technology. I have > offered many lines of evidence (including, yes, past behavior) that > indicate a master computer of some kind is necessary for an iPad. All you've offered is "That's the way it was done," but you didn't bother to consider the differences between the iPad and what has gone before. That does not constitute "many lines of evidence". > You haven't offered even *one* > definitive statement that indicates that might not be the case. On the contrary; I've shown that everything (with the possible exception of upgrading the OS/firmware) can be done either with the iPad by itself or with a moble-me account. > But until you can link to *anything* that indicates "no other computer > required", you need to be silent for the sake of Lincoln. On the contrary, unless you can link to something that indicates "computer required" (which you have adamantly refused to do), you are the one who needs to shut up. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign Member Arizona Road Racers > > > So how about you providing some specific examples of necessary > > > functions that would require that the iPad be connected to a computer? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I never said anything about the laws of physics; you're introducing a red > hering. No, I'm pointing out that just because something might be technically possible without violating the laws of physics means absolutely nothing when it comes to support by a product on the market. By your tortured logic, an iPad *must* be able to run Microsoft Office (and, indeed, all Mac OS X desktop software) because it is *possible* to do so, and Steve never said you couldn't! > > it is about how Apple is choosing to support the technology. I have > > offered many lines of evidence (including, yes, past behavior) that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to consider the differences between the iPad and what has gone before. > That does not constitute "many lines of evidence". Go back and re-read all my posts. I gave a number of "because" reasons I'm not going to bother repeating. Why is it so hard for you to admit that you're being unreasonable? > > You haven't offered even *one* > > definitive statement that indicates that might not be the case. > > On the contrary; I've shown that everything (with the possible exception of > upgrading the OS/firmware) can be done either with the iPad by itself or > with a moble-me account. Waving your hands is not evidence. Just give me one link to any statement by Apple that says "computer optional". That simple act would make you a real winner *now*, instead of crossing your fingers and hoping you'll be right when it ships. > > But until you can link to *anything* that indicates "no other computer > > required", you need to be silent for the sake of Lincoln. > > On the contrary, unless you can link to something that indicates "computer > required" (which you have adamantly refused to do), you are the one who > needs to shut up. I have refused no such thing. I have merely stated that Apple has *not* made a direct statement one way or the other, and that is why *you* are being a jerk when you insist on shoving your viewpoint around. As I said, all signs on the spec page point to a computer being needed: http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/ If you have anything other than hand waving and sophistry, show it or I'm done with you. SignatureMy personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too. > > > > So how about you providing some specific examples of necessary > > > > functions that would require that the iPad be connected to a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > possible without violating the laws of physics means absolutely nothing > when it comes to support by a product on the market. Yup, a red herring, because nothing was said about the laws of physics until you gratuitously introduced the matter. > By your tortured logic, an iPad *must* be able to run Microsoft Office > (and, indeed, all Mac OS X desktop software) because it is *possible* to > do so, and Steve never said you couldn't! thus proving that you have no concept of logic, or that you will say anything in order to admit that you were wrong about anything. > > All you've offered is "That's the way it was done," but you didn't bother > > to consider the differences between the iPad and what has gone before. > > That does not constitute "many lines of evidence". > > Go back and re-read all my posts. I gave a number of "because" reasons > I'm not going to bother repeating. The only reason you gave is "That's the way it's been done before." > Why is it so hard for you to admit that you're being unreasonable? Because of the two of us, I'm not the one who is being unreasonable. > > > You haven't offered even *one* definitive statement that indicates > > > that might not be the case. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Waving your hands is not evidence. I'm not the one who is hand waving. > Just give me one link to any statement by Apple that says "computer > optional". Just give me one link to any statement by Apple that says "computer required". > > On the contrary, unless you can link to something that indicates "computer > > required" (which you have adamantly refused to do), you are the one who > > needs to shut up. > > I have refused no such thing. You certainly have. > I have merely stated that Apple has *not* > made a direct statement one way or the other, Actually, I'm the one who has said that. You're the one who is adamantly insisting that a computer will be required. > and that is why *you* are being a jerk when you insist on shoving your > viewpoint around. *guffaw* That sentence describes you perfectly. > If you have anything other than hand waving and sophistry, show it or > I'm done with you. Same to you! I should have known that it's not possible to have a reasonable discussion with you; you never admit when you're wrong, and become belligerent whenever someone dares to disagree with you. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign Member Arizona Road Racers > Actually, I'm the one who has said that. You're the one who is adamantly > insisting that a computer will be required. Not blaming just you, Michelle, but... Lamest. Thread. Ever. :) > connect it to the computer. Your only rationale is "That's the way they've > always done it." Which is no rationale at all. Apple has never made anything resembling an iPad that _needs_ a computer. SignatureWes Groleau ¡Qué quiero realmente hacer es comer un perrito caliente! 私が実際にしたいと思う何をホットドッグを食べることである! http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=463 > That makes about as much sense as saying a car doesn't *need* gas There's a heck of a difference between saying a car can run without gas and saying an iPod can run without a desktop computer. The first one is false, the second one is true. SignatureWes Groleau Obama Changing “Latin” Policies http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=1515 > > That makes about as much sense as saying a car doesn't *need* gas > > There's a heck of a difference between saying a car can run without gas > and saying an iPod can run without a desktop computer. > > The first one is false, the second one is true. And yet not. The only truth is that we don't know how functional an iPod/iPad will be for anyone without a computer. The very fact that an iPad looks to be locked down and have limited functionality make it unlikely that it will be a replacement for Macs or PCs. In the same way, a car is not a replacement for a bike, even if you *could* put pedals in one an run it without gas. It's all about fit to purpose, and all sign point as much to an iPad needing a computer as a car needs gas, regardless of how imaginatively we think otherwise. As with Michelle, I'm going to ask you to point to any statement from Apple that indicates otherwise. If you can't, I'm not going to bother to get into it again. SignatureMy personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too. >>> That makes about as much sense as saying a car doesn't *need* gas >> There's a heck of a difference between saying a car can run without gas [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And yet not. ... OK, you win. There _are_ electric cars now. > .... The only truth is that we don't know how functional an > iPod/iPad will be for anyone without a computer. The very fact that an What do you mean "we," paleface? I, and any other iPod owner knows how functional it is for someone without a computer. And _you_ are the one claiming we should assume the iPad is similar. > iPad looks to be locked down and have limited functionality make it > unlikely that it will be a replacement for Macs or PCs. In the same Did anyone say it is a replacement? Is "functioning without" the same as "replacing" or are you trying to change the subject? SignatureWes Groleau Expert, n.: Someone who comes from out of town and shows slides. > > .... The only truth is that we don't know how functional an > > iPod/iPad will be for anyone without a computer. The very fact that an > > What do you mean "we," paleface? I, and any other iPod owner knows how > functional it is for someone without a computer. And _you_ are the one > claiming we should assume the iPad is similar. See, that's the problem with geeks who don't understand other people. When I say "we", I don't mean *me* and I don't mean *you*. I mean the general population that just uses the technology. So, yes, I absolutely *will* claim that most people find it necessary to sync their iPod, and likely expect to sync their iPad, with a computer. The bigger question is how Apple further designed/intends/markets the use of an iPad. That's a bit up in the air, but there is nothing I've seen that points to them not wanting to keep selling Macs along with iPads. Until you can show one affirmative statement that indicates they want iPads to run completely standalone, I don't see how you can expect your claims to be taken seriously. > > iPad looks to be locked down and have limited functionality make it > > unlikely that it will be a replacement for Macs or PCs. In the same > > Did anyone say it is a replacement? Is "functioning without" the same > as "replacing" or are you trying to change the subject? Yes, it *is* the same for all intents and purposes. If you can do everything you need with a $500 iPad, Apple loses out on selling you a $1000+ Mac. There is also the potential influx of Windows users, which I think will be the significantly larger base of iPad users. While they may *eventually* shift away from needing a computer to use an iPad, I see no indication that it will be introduced without *key* integration for the millions of users who are already using desktop computers for everything they do. I'm still waiting for you to point to *anything* from Apple to support your point. Idle speculation is tiresome. SignatureMy personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too. > Yes, it *is* the same for all intents and purposes. If you can do > everything you need with a $500 iPad, Apple loses out on selling you a > $1000+ Mac. and if you can do everything you need with a $500 mini apple loses out on selling you a more expensive model. > > Yes, it *is* the same for all intents and purposes. If you can do > > everything you need with a $500 iPad, Apple loses out on selling you a > > $1000+ Mac. > > and if you can do everything you need with a $500 mini apple loses out > on selling you a more expensive model. And if you get a $1200 iMac, Apple loses out on selling you a more expensive model. And so it goes. Apple would rather sell you a $500 computer or iPad than not sell you anything at all because you can't afford anything more expensive. But you already know that; it seems that some people don't. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign Member Arizona Road Racers > Apple would rather sell you a $500 computer or iPad than not sell you > anything at all because you can't afford anything more expensive. That is simply not true. Apple one of the few computer companies that doesn't rush to meet the needs the the lowest common denominator. They *don't* shovel out $500 systems like the Dells of the world do. Even for the iPad there was an expectation that it would be *much* more expensive than it was. There is plenty of room to speculate on what that all means, but there is no indication whatsoever from Apple that it means you won't need a computer to use an iPad. You might *like* for that to be the case, even *I* find the prospect interesting, but nothing really points to it. Why is it so hard to admit that? SignatureMy personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too. > > Apple would rather sell you a $500 computer or iPad than not sell you > > anything at all because you can't afford anything more expensive. > > That is simply not true. Apple one of the few computer companies that > doesn't rush to meet the needs the the lowest common denominator. They > *don't* shovel out $500 systems like the Dells of the world do. True, but they do have the Mac Mini (which, admittedly is $600, but they used to have a $500 model) and the iPad (which is $500). > There is plenty of room to speculate on what that all means, but there > is no indication whatsoever from Apple that it means you won't need a > computer to use an iPad. You might *like* for that to be the case, even > *I* find the prospect interesting, but nothing really points to it. Why > is it so hard to admit that? YOU STILL HAVE NOT SHOWN US A SINGLE USE OF THE iPad THAT WOULD REQUIRE A COMPUTER!!!! I, on the other hand, have listed a number of uses that can be done without a computer (although they can also be done with a computer). SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign Member Arizona Road Racers > > > Apple would rather sell you a $500 computer or iPad than not sell you > > > anything at all because you can't afford anything more expensive. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > True, but they do have the Mac Mini (which, admittedly is $600, but they > used to have a $500 model) and the iPad (which is $500). The iPad is not shipping and so we cannot say if it actually *will* function as a standalone computer for that $500. A Mac mini still needs a monitor and keyboard/mouse to be usable, so you need to tack on another $200+. In general, Apple has been about value and not the absolute lowest cost. They fill the lower price points with different products, like iPods, rather that more shoddy computer systems. The iPad is the latest entry that targets the midpoint. > > There is plenty of room to speculate on what that all means, but there > > is no indication whatsoever from Apple that it means you won't need a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > YOU STILL HAVE NOT SHOWN US A SINGLE USE OF THE iPad THAT WOULD REQUIRE A > COMPUTER!!!! No need to scream. It's not about how you want to use it, it's about following the evidence that Apple provides at this point. If you want to make the case that no computer is necessary, you still need to support your position with some evidence and not mere conjecture. SignatureMy personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too. > If you want > to make the case that no computer is necessary, you still need to > support your position with some evidence and not mere conjecture. > And you have provided no evidence that a computer is necessary, only your unsupported conjectures. SignatureLarry I. Gusaas Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada Website: http://larry-gusaas.com "An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese > > > There is plenty of room to speculate on what that all means, but > > > there is no indication whatsoever from Apple that it means you won't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No need to scream. Yes, there was, because you keep ignoring it. > It's not about how you want to use it, it's about > following the evidence that Apple provides at this point. It is exactly about how you use it. If you can do with it what you want to do with it without the use of a computer, then you do not need a computer to go with it. You do not need a computer to connect it to the internet via WiFi. You do not need a computer to connect it to the internet via 3G. You do not need a computer to buy and download music, video, or apps. You do not need a computer to import pictures from a camera or memory card. You do not need a computer to enter contacts, to-do's, etc. What do you need a computer for, with regards to the iPad? SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign Member Arizona Road Racers > > > > There is plenty of room to speculate on what that all means, but > > > > there is no indication whatsoever from Apple that it means you won't [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Yes, there was, because you keep ignoring it. I don't ignore it. I addressed it long ago, and I have grown tired of repeating myself because you can't remember why you're wrong and won't change your mind. The world is much nicer if you decide to be a rational, reasonable human being; give it a try. Once again: the burden is not on me to show how the laws of physics must be violated to use the iPad without a computer. The burden of proof *is* on you to show evidence that supports a computer not being necessary. I have show the things I've seen that support my case, and you continue to conveniently ignore them in favor of screaming. > > It's not about how you want to use it, it's about > > following the evidence that Apple provides at this point. > > It is exactly about how you use it. If you can do with it what you want to > do with it without the use of a computer, then you do not need a computer > to go with it. I want it to hold down papers on my desk, therefore . . . by your tortured logic and in your annoying writing style . . . AN IPAD DOESN'T EVEN REQUIRE ELECTRICITY TO OPERATE! I said I was done with you before, but then I saw a possible spark of logic, but now I'm left with the firm conviction that you'll never *start* with the evidence before coming to a conclusion or even *revisit* the evidence to change your mind. I have been well trolled; congratulations. SignatureMy personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too. > > > > YOU STILL HAVE NOT SHOWN US A SINGLE USE OF THE iPad THAT WOULD > > > > REQUIRE A COMPUTER!!!! [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > repeating myself because you can't remember why you're wrong and won't > change your mind. Baloney. > The world is much nicer if you decide to be a > rational, reasonable human being; give it a try. Take your own advice; you need it much more than I do. > Once again: the burden is not on me to show how the laws of physics > must be violated to use the iPad without a computer. This has nothing to do with the laws of physics; if you can't provide even one example of a function that would require that the iPad be connected to a computer, then just say so, and have the integrity not to introduce a red herring. > The burden of proof *is* on you to show evidence that supports a > computer not being necessary. As you yourself have said, you can't prove a negative. You are the one insisting that a computer will be necessary, so the burden of proof is upon you. > I have show the things I've seen that support my case, and > you continue to conveniently ignore them in favor of screaming. You have said that because Apple includes the cable, and because that's the way it has always been done. I have replied by saying that that's not adequate evidence. "That's the way we've always done it," is never adequate rationale for doing something. My refuting your argument is not the same as ignoring it; in fact, it is just the opposite of ignoring it. And the only time I screamed (which I did only once) was in frustration of your refusal to show any functions that would require a computer. > I want it to hold down papers on my desk, therefore . . . by your > tortured logic and in your annoying writing style . . . AN IPAD DOESN'T > EVEN REQUIRE ELECTRICITY TO OPERATE! Thus proving that you have no desire for any rational discussion. > I said I was done with you before, but then I saw a possible spark of > logic, but now I'm left with the firm conviction that you'll never > *start* with the evidence before coming to a conclusion or even > *revisit* the evidence to change your mind. I have been well trolled; > congratulations. No, you are the troll. Well, not really, but your insistence on always being right and your refusal to support your contentions makes you appear to be a troll. The difference is in motivation: a troll is deliberately disruptive; you disrupt because you can't stand to be wrong about anything. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign Member Arizona Road Racers > No, you are the troll. Well, not really, but your insistence on always > being right and your refusal to support your contentions makes you appear > to be a troll. The difference is in motivation: a troll is deliberately > disruptive; you disrupt because you can't stand to be wrong about anything. Michelle, the fact of the matter is that you dig in your heels on what you've stated and then you refuse to hear various people's opinions and logic for what they are. You engage in denial individually, but collectively we can all see you as obtusely close minded to the evidence presented. It shows that you are patently wrong in your evaluation of the iPad and its role in the world as well as its lost potential in some respects. This is your problem. We're all just chuckling. Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. > > No, you are the troll. Well, not really, but your insistence on > > always being right and your refusal to support your contentions makes [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > This is your problem. We're all just chuckling. My "problem" is people like you and O'Leary who think that your opinions are gospel, never to be questioned, and that any disagreements are personal insults. Fortunately, that problem doesn't affect my life whatsoever. And I take your opinions of me for what they are worth: nothing. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign Member Arizona Road Racers >>> No, you are the troll. Well, not really, but your insistence on >>> always being right and your refusal to support your contentions makes [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Fortunately, that problem doesn't affect my life whatsoever. And I take > your opinions of me for what they are worth: nothing. You really do not comprehend what is inconvenient to your "truth". Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. > You really do not comprehend what is inconvenient to your "truth". I'd say that's the well-used pot calling the brand-new kettle black. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign Member Arizona Road Racers >> YOU STILL HAVE NOT SHOWN US A SINGLE USE OF THE iPad THAT WOULD REQUIRE A >> COMPUTER!!!! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to make the case that no computer is necessary, you still need to > support your position with some evidence and not mere conjecture. You have to understand the following: (open the link before reading II). I) This is Steve: http://tinyurl.com/yknu4y2 "The Economist" cover II) Michelle is hysterical because she is a Bride of St-Jobs. The Bride of St-Jobs is unable to comprehend: 1) The iPad is in fact a computer. 2) That there are many applications available for the Mac under OS X (and other 'nix) that would be very suitable for the iPad physical format. Most of them are free, open source or shareware. Many even come free of charge from companies like Adobe (DNG converter being one of interest to me and likely many photographers). I've mentioned a variety of applications suited to the iPad and others have done the same for their needs. She attacks individuals without realizing the collective want. (eg: either it will all be available at the Apps store [some undoubtedly will] or it is NOT NEEDED BECAUSE APPLE SAYS SO. 3) That Apple deliberately crippled the iPad in order to boost sales via the Apps store. (aka "Walled garden"). Without great thought to the matter, she simply drinks the Apple brand Kool-Aid served from the Chalice of St-Jobs. She drinks deeply and is at peace with herself. (It's the rest of us she can't tolerate). She does not support an open environment, alas. Neither does Apple. Anymore. Pity. Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. > 1) The iPad is in fact a computer. And a car is a horseless carriage... > 2) That there are many applications available for the Mac under OS X > (and other 'nix) that would be very suitable for the iPad physical [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > collective want. (eg: either it will all be available at the Apps store > [some undoubtedly will] or it is NOT NEEDED BECAUSE APPLE SAYS SO. I have no idea what the collective wants and neither do you. Wait half a year and we may know it. > 3) That Apple deliberately crippled the iPad in order to boost sales via > the Apps store. (aka "Walled garden"). And you cripple your children by sending them to a walled kindergarten instead of right into the streets, do you? Have you *ever* lived outside a walled garden? Would you even dare? > Without great thought to the matter, she simply drinks the Apple brand > Kool-Aid served from the Chalice of St-Jobs. She drinks deeply and is > at peace with herself. (It's the rest of us she can't tolerate). The rest ist hundreds of millions of people and hardly anyone of these is present here. So please stop to summon them, will you? > She does not support an open environment, alas. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Pity. Last I looked you could still buy Macbooks and iMacs and Mac Pros. Jochem Signature"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery >> 1) The iPad is in fact a computer. > > And a car is a horseless carriage... Irrelevant. See below. >> 2) That there are many applications available for the Mac under OS X >> (and other 'nix) that would be very suitable for the iPad physical [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> 3) That Apple deliberately crippled the iPad in order to boost sales via >> the Apps store. (aka "Walled garden"). Irrelevant. See below. > And you cripple your children by sending them to a walled kindergarten > instead of right into the streets, do you? Have you *ever* lived outside [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The rest ist hundreds of millions of people and hardly anyone of these > is present here. So please stop to summon them, will you? Your word turning is evasive, non-engagement passive aggressive tripe. Have the last word. Or don't reply. Won't matter to me either way. Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. > Your word turning is evasive, non-engagement passive aggressive tripe. > > Have the last word. Or don't reply. Won't matter to me either way. Sorry for upsetting you. I would have liked to have some insight gained from this discussion. But maybe I have anyway. Jochem Signature"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery >> Your word turning is evasive, non-engagement passive aggressive tripe. >> >> Have the last word. Or don't reply. Won't matter to me either way. > > Sorry for upsetting you. I would have liked to have some insight gained > from this discussion. But maybe I have anyway. Oh crap. I can't resist that. You do not want insight. If you wanted insight you would not inject comparisons of horse drawn buggies and automobiles or turned a marketing notion of a walled garden environment into a discussion of kindergarden for children. Rational discussion is not defined by the injection of irrelevancies as you are wont to do in order to side track the discussion. That _was_ my last word. Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. > You do not want insight. Well, I already have some, but I can always use more ;-) > If you wanted insight you would not inject comparisons of horse drawn > buggies and automobiles or turned a marketing notion of a walled > garden environment into a discussion of kindergarden for children. This was just prompted by your allusion of "the iPad is a computer", you know. > Rational discussion is not defined by the injection of irrelevancies as > you are wont to do in order to side track the discussion. Side track? I think we still were spot on. > That _was_ my last word. OK, I'm also tired of this. Never mind, I don't mean to argue. Have a nice day, Jochem Signature"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery > You do not want insight. If you wanted insight you would not inject > comparisons of horse drawn buggies and automobiles or turned a marketing [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Rational discussion is not defined by the injection of irrelevancies as > you are wont to do in order to side track the discussion. OK, so you are too literal minded to understand analogies. Please don't let me interrupt your tantrum. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign Member Arizona Road Racers > Last I looked you could still buy Macbooks and iMacs and Mac Pros. You're trying to reason with him; you can't reason with a child who is throwing a tantrum. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign Member Arizona Road Racers > You have to understand the following: (open the link before reading II). > > I) This is Steve: http://tinyurl.com/yknu4y2 "The Economist" cover > > II) Michelle is hysterical because she is a Bride of St-Jobs. Apple didn't design the iPad to meet your specific needs, so you go bonkers screaming about Apple and anyone who disagrees with you about Apple. You really shouldn't be calling anyone hysterical; glass houses, and such, y'know. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign Member Arizona Road Racers > While they > may *eventually* shift away from needing a computer to use an iPad, I > see no indication that it will be introduced without *key* integration > for the millions of users who are already using desktop computers for > everything they do. I have not seen anything in any of Apple's documentation saying you need a another computer in order to use an iPad. > I'm still waiting for you to point to *anything* from Apple to support > your point. Idle speculation is tiresome. You made the statement "you *need* a computer already to use an iPad". You have not provided anything from Apple to support that statement. It is your responsibility to provide facts to support your statement. It is not the responsibility of others to disprove your idle speculation. As your said, idle speculation is tiresome, and your speculation has become very tiresome. SignatureLarry I. Gusaas Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada Website: http://larry-gusaas.com "An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese > I have not seen anything in any of Apple's documentation saying you need > a another computer in order to use an iPad. The Technical Specifications page <http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/> lists Mac and Windows system requirements, and includes iTunes Store account. I think that it is clear that while you can use an iPad without having another computer, normal usage by most people will involve synching the iPad with a Mac, probably to download music, videos, calendars, contacts, and documents from the computer to the iPad. That is certainly how I anticipate using my iPad. SignatureJim Gibson > > While they > > may *eventually* shift away from needing a computer to use an iPad, I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I have not seen anything in any of Apple's documentation saying you need > a another computer in order to use an iPad. I have not seen anything from NASA saying there aren't orbital teapots. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot> Like many here, you don't seem to be able to reason properly. The burden of proof remains on *you* to provide evidence to support your statement. I'm am simply taking the opposing position *because* you're failing to do that, and I have already listed evidence that points more towards a computer being necessary to properly use an iPad. > > I'm still waiting for you to point to *anything* from Apple to support > > your point. Idle speculation is tiresome. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is your responsibility to provide facts to support your statement. It is > not the responsibility of others to disprove your idle speculation. I have provided them, yet you conveniently choose not to quote them. Go back and respond to all my "because" points and we can go on from there. Look, I'll even make it easy for you to track them down: <droleary.usenet-19F7E4.12395801022010@news.twtelecom.net> <droleary.usenet-B047A0.12092201022010@news.twtelecom.net> > As your said, idle speculation is tiresome, and your speculation has > become very tiresome. It's cute that you think parroting my own words is all it takes to form a solid argument. Again, all you need to do to prove me wrong is show *one* bit of evidence from Apple indicating that no computer is necessary for normal iPad ownership. Just one. I'll freely admit to being wrong if you can do that, because I'm a reasonable person. Please show me you're a reasonable person, too. Just one. SignatureMy personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too. > Like many here, you don't seem to be able to reason properly. The > burden of proof remains on *you* to provide evidence to support your > statement. I'm am simply taking the opposing position *because* you're > failing to do that, and I have already listed evidence that points more > towards a computer being necessary to properly use an iPad. The only "evidence" you have listed is that a computer is necessary for the iPods and iPhones; in other words, "That's the way it's been done before." YOU keep saying that a computer is necessary, and then challenge us to prove you wrong. You have not presented a case to show why a computer will be necessary. > I have provided them, yet you conveniently choose not to quote them. Go > back and respond to all my "because" points and we can go on from there. > Look, I'll even make it easy for you to track them down: > > <droleary.usenet-19F7E4.12395801022010@news.twtelecom.net> > <droleary.usenet-B047A0.12092201022010@news.twtelecom.net> Wow, they provide a cable. That's it? > Again, all you need to do to prove me wrong is show *one* bit of > evidence from Apple indicating that no computer is necessary for normal > iPad ownership. There is no need to prove you wrong because you have done nothing to prove you right. > I'll freely admit to being wrong if you can do that, because I'm a > reasonable person. *GUFFAW* You say that a computer will absolutely be required; I say that it may not be required. Notice that we have not said that it definitely will not be required, just that it may be possible to use an iPad even without a computer. You are being very unreasonable. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign Member Arizona Road Racers > The only "evidence" you have listed is that a computer is necessary for the > iPods and iPhones; in other words, "That's the way it's been done before." other than initial activation (which can be done in a store), there is no need for a computer in order to use an ipod or iphone. although it might be easier to load it up with music and movies from a computer than buying it on the device itself, a computer is not *required* to do that. it's also possible that the user doesn't care about either of those, and wants it just for the apps, which also can be downloaded on the device itself. even the older ipods do not require a computer, other than a one time setup. after that, they don't need anything but a charging cable. > other than initial activation (which can be done in a store), there is > no need for a computer in order to use an ipod or iphone. You are right about using it but you also would need a computer to install operating system and security updates. Also to back up and restore. I have had to restore my iphone twice. SignatureCharles > > other than initial activation (which can be done in a store), there is > > no need for a computer in order to use an ipod or iphone. > > You are right about using it but you also would need a computer to > install operating system and security updates. although it's nice to be up to date, it's not *required*. > Also to back up and > restore. I have had to restore my iphone twice. backing up is also nice, but optional. a lot of people don't bother doing it with their desktop computer, why is an ipod any different? and what did you do that required it to be restored?? > and what did you do that required it to be restored?? I did not do anything to it. The first time I was updating to an updated version of the OS. It failed and hosed the phone. The second time it got stuck on a backup. After about nine hours of being stalled I called Apple for support. After they walked me through a bunch of that had no effect they had me do a restore. SignatureCharles > > and what did you do that required it to be restored?? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I called Apple for support. After they walked me through a bunch of > that had no effect they had me do a restore. both instances you were using a computer. that would be an issue for someone who wasn't using it with a computer. > You are right about using it but you also would need a computer to > install operating system and security updates. Also to back up and > restore. I have had to restore my iphone twice. It might be possible to install updates on the iPad directly over the WiFi connection. Also, you could possibly synch with mobile-me without connecting to a computer. It may be that O'Leary is right, and you will need a computer; we don't know yet. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign Member Arizona Road Racers > > You are right about using it but you also would need a computer to > > install operating system and security updates. Also to back up and > > restore. I have had to restore my iphone twice. > > It might be possible to install updates on the iPad directly over the WiFi > connection. that's *very* unlikely. the potential to brick it is very high if an update is done wirelessly, especially with updates weighing in at 200-300 meg (for the ipod, and the ipad is probably similar, if not bigger). > It may be that O'Leary is right, and you will need a computer; we don't > know yet. that's true, we don't, but if it's like an ipod, a computer is not required past the initial activation. > > It may be that O'Leary is right, and you will need a computer; we > > don't know yet. > > that's true, we don't, but if it's like an ipod, a computer is not > required past the initial activation. Jobs said, in his presentation, that you can activate the iPad directly over the air, without having to connect it to a computer. That's the reason I believe that there's a very good chance that a computer won't be needed at all. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign Member Arizona Road Racers > Jobs said, in his presentation, that you can activate the iPad directly > over the air, without having to connect it to a computer. That's the > reason I believe that there's a very good chance that a computer won't be > needed at all. i think that referred to the data plan, not the device itself, but again, nobody outside of apple knows until it ships. > Jobs said, in his presentation, that you can activate the iPad directly > over the air, without having to connect it to a computer. That's the > reason I believe that there's a very good chance that a computer won't be > needed at all. I still have the podcast of the presentation. Do you have a the time he makes that statement so that I can more easily review it? SignatureMy personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too. > > Jobs said, in his presentation, that you can activate the iPad > > directly over the air, without having to connect it to a computer. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I still have the podcast of the presentation. Do you have a the time he > makes that statement so that I can more easily review it? No, I don't know that time, and I don't have the time to review it myself. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign Member Arizona Road Racers >> It might be possible to install updates on the iPad directly over the WiFi >> connection. > that's *very* unlikely. the potential to brick it is very high if an > update is done wirelessly, especially with updates weighing in at Makes sense, but if a Mac or PC install screws up, the computer is not permanently hosed. You just start over. SignatureWes Groleau Opaqueness vs opacity - derivational confusion http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1017 >> > You are right about using it but you also would need a computer to >> > install operating system and security updates. Also to back up and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >200-300 meg (for the ipod, and the ipad is probably similar, if not >bigger). Updates can be done safely via wireless provided they are cached on the device rather than being installed as they are downloaded. SignatureThe problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need. > It may be that O'Leary is right, and you will need a computer; we don't > know yet. Finally. Was that so hard? That's exactly what I said countless posts ago. There is no direct statement to support either camp. Indirect evidence, by any reasonable measure, more strongly supports Apple's intent for an iPad owner to be a computer owner. I will be absolutely shocked if Apple pushes the iPad as the only product you need to buy from them. SignatureMy personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too. > > It may be that O'Leary is right, and you will need a computer; we > > don't know yet. > > Finally. Was that so hard? That is what I have been saying all along. > That's exactly what I said countless posts ago. No, you have been adamantly insisting that a computer will be needed. > Indirect evidence, by any reasonable measure, more strongly supports > Apple's intent for an iPad owner to be a computer owner. That is not the same thing. Nor is it the issue. > I will be absolutely shocked if Apple pushes the iPad as the only > product you need to buy from them. So would I, but that also isn't the issue. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign Member Arizona Road Racers > even the older ipods do not require a computer, other than a one time > setup. after that, they don't need anything but a charging cable. How do you get content onto an iPod without using a computer (except perhaps for the iPod touch with WiFi)? SignatureJim Gibson > > even the older ipods do not require a computer, other than a one time > > setup. after that, they don't need anything but a charging cable. > > How do you get content onto an iPod without using a computer (except > perhaps for the iPod touch with WiFi)? did you miss the part about a one time setup? load it up with music or movies and you're done. get a big enough ipod and there will be plenty of variety. i was in an apple store a year or two ago where someone was asking about an ipod he had loaded up with music and mailed it to his grandfather. something happened with the ipod so grandpa mailed it back to him to take to apple to be fixed. i assume that after it was fixed, he was going to fill it up with music again and send it back to his grandfather. > How do you get content onto an iPod without using a computer (except > perhaps for the iPod touch with WiFi)? iPhone and iPad have WiFi, too. So I would expect them to be able to get songs and apps without a computer just as my iPod did. SignatureWes Groleau Small class size and its opponents http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=992 > > How do you get content onto an iPod without using a computer (except > > perhaps for the iPod touch with WiFi)? > > iPhone and iPad have WiFi, too. So I would expect them to be able to > get songs and apps without a computer just as my iPod did. You can get them (definitely the songs, and I think the apps too), over the AT&T network also. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign Member Arizona Road Racers > other than initial activation (which can be done in a store), there is > no need for a computer in order to use an ipod or iphone. For that matter, I did not need any kind of "activation" to start using my iPod. SignatureWes Groleau He that complies against his will is of the same opinion still. -- Samuel Butler, 1612-1680 > > other than initial activation (which can be done in a store), there is > > no need for a computer in order to use an ipod or iphone. > > For that matter, I did not need any kind of "activation" > to start using my iPod. regular ipods don't. ipod touch & iphone (and presumably the ipad) do. > <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote: >> For that matter, I did not need any kind of "activation" >> to start using my iPod. > > regular ipods don't. ipod touch & iphone (and presumably the ipad) do. Sigh. OK, here's my clarification: I did not need any kind of "activation" to start using my eight Gig iPod touch. SignatureWes Groleau Cage Fights at South Oak Cliff High http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=1458 > > <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote: > >> For that matter, I did not need any kind of "activation" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I did not need any kind of "activation" > to start using my eight Gig iPod touch. Nor did our iPod Touches. > > <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote: > >> For that matter, I did not need any kind of "activation" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I did not need any kind of "activation" > to start using my eight Gig iPod touch. But I think that's missing the issue in the same way a statement like "I did not need any kind of "oil" to start driving my new car" does. It's about whether something (a computer, in the case of these touch devices) is designed in as a necessary part of long-term ownership. So the question is more to whether you can install a system update, or reinstall the OS from scratch, without any extras. I can do so for a Mac, but I don't believe it is possible with the current touch devices, and *nobody* here has any idea if the iPad improves the situation. SignatureMy personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too. > question is more to whether you can install a system update, or > reinstall the OS from scratch, without any extras. I can do so for a > Mac, but I don't believe it is possible with the current touch devices, It isn't > and *nobody* here has any idea if the iPad improves the situation. But one person seems obsessed with persuading us it won't. SignatureWes Groleau Pat's Polemics http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett > > question is more to whether you can install a system update, or > > reinstall the OS from scratch, without any extras. I can do so for a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > But one person seems obsessed with persuading us it won't. No, the only thing I'm obsessed with is critical thinking and an attenuation of the hype. As I have stated many times, I don't know what the iPad will do beyond what Apple statements point to. But at least that's evidence to start from rather than the wild speculation by some people of what is merely *possible*. SignatureMy personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too. > The only "evidence" you have listed is that a computer is necessary for the > iPods and iPhones; in other words, "That's the way it's been done before." Moreover, since it isn't true, it isn't evidence. SignatureWes Groleau Don't get even -- get odd! > > Like many here, you don't seem to be able to reason properly. The > > burden of proof remains on *you* to provide evidence to support your [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The only "evidence" you have listed is that a computer is necessary for the > iPods and iPhones; in other words, "That's the way it's been done before." And? Fossil records are valuable; history meaningfully informs the present. Evidence is evidence, even if it is not definitive. Like I said, Apple has made no direct statement either way. All we have to go off of is what little they *have* said, so I'll thank you to start citing what evidence supports your point. > YOU keep saying that a computer is necessary, and then challenge us to > prove you wrong. You have not presented a case to show why a computer will > be necessary. Because that is not my claim. I continue to maintain that all signs point to a computer being necessary. You don't seem to be able to dispute them, and you don't seem to offer anything pointing to a computer *not* being necessary, other than your finger-crossed hopes and dreams. > > I have provided them, yet you conveniently choose not to quote them. Go > > back and respond to all my "because" points and we can go on from there. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Wow, they provide a cable. That's it? If that's all you saw, you need to read one more time. Please reply to the posts directly and address what is actually said if dispute the lines of evidence. > > Again, all you need to do to prove me wrong is show *one* bit of > > evidence from Apple indicating that no computer is necessary for normal > > iPad ownership. > > There is no need to prove you wrong because you have done nothing to prove > you right. There is no "right" to be had here. Nothing will be "right" until Apple either makes a statement or ships a product. All we can do as *reasonable* people is show why we think what we think. I have shown what evidence leads me to think a computer will be necessary. You have not shown any evidence to support your thinking that a computer will not be necessary. Look, I'll even help you out because I'm such a standup guy: On the iPad spec page Apple list the 10W USB Power Adapter as included. The smaller touch devices only included a dock connector, so clearly Apple envisions some significantly more detached usage for the iPad. *That* is how you use evidence to support your point. If you actually were being reasonable about following the evidence, *you* would have pointed that out long ago. Since I did instead, it's my point; you still have yet to provide *one* shred of evidence to support your point. Can you do that? If not, why do you persist in championing a stance you cannot support rationally? SignatureMy personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too. > There is no "right" to be had here. Nothing will be "right" until Apple > either makes a statement or ships a product. All we can do as > *reasonable* people is show why we think what we think. I have shown > what evidence leads me to think a computer will be necessary. You have > not shown any evidence to support your thinking that a computer will not > be necessary. since a computer is not necessary for any shipping ipod, iphone or ipod touch, other than a one time setup, it's reasonable to conclude that the ipad will be the same. furthermore, the iphone is normally activated in a store and content can be added over the air, completely eliminating any need for a computer. > Look, I'll even help you out because I'm such a standup guy: On the > iPad spec page Apple list the 10W USB Power Adapter as included. The > smaller touch devices only included a dock connector, so clearly Apple > envisions some significantly more detached usage for the iPad. or that the battery is bigger and 2.5 watts from a usb port is insufficient. > > Look, I'll even help you out because I'm such a standup guy: On the > > iPad spec page Apple list the 10W USB Power Adapter as included. The [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > or that the battery is bigger and 2.5 watts from a usb port is > insufficient. Except that he's wrong about the iPhone not including a USB power adaptor: In the box iPhone 3GS Apple Earphones with Remote and Mic Dock Connector to USB Cable USB Power Adapter Documentation SIM eject tool Apparently, he is right about the iPod Touch not including one. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign Member Arizona Road Racers > Except that he's wrong about the iPhone not including a USB power adaptor: and that one is 5 watts. > > > Look, I'll even help you out because I'm such a standup guy: On the > > > iPad spec page Apple list the 10W USB Power Adapter as included. The [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Documentation > SIM eject tool I stand corrected. I did only check out the iPod touch specs, since that is the touch device I think more closely matches the iPad. Still, I do consider it evidence, including with the iPhone, of how autonomous Apple views the device in question. SignatureMy personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too. > > Except that he's wrong about the iPhone not including a USB power adaptor: > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I do consider it evidence, including with the iPhone, of how autonomous > Apple views the device in question. Except that the iPhone is less autonomous than the iPod Touch. The iPhone needs to be connected to a computer in order to be activated. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign Member Arizona Road Racers > > There is no "right" to be had here. Nothing will be "right" until Apple > > either makes a statement or ships a product. All we can do as [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > since a computer is not necessary for any shipping ipod, iphone or ipod > touch, other than a one time setup, Yes, yes . . . except for when it is *necessary* to use a computer to manage an Apple device, a computer is totally unnecessary! > it's reasonable to conclude that > the ipad will be the same. Thank you for supporting my point. > furthermore, the iphone is normally activated in a store and content > can be added over the air, completely eliminating any need for a > computer. So long as you neglect to mention the things you need a computer for. > > Look, I'll even help you out because I'm such a standup guy: On the > > iPad spec page Apple list the 10W USB Power Adapter as included. The [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > or that the battery is bigger and 2.5 watts from a usb port is > insufficient. Please provide evidence to support your claim. I don't see where Apple directly states the power draw is more than USB can supply. If anything, the indication is that it is sufficient ("25-watt-hour" / "Up to 10 hours" = 2.5W). Docked in a low-power mode (e.g., digital photo slide show) should draw less. Certainly you could charge the battery via USB with the iPad off, too. More to the point, I can't see Apple forcing users into an either/or choice between docking with the computer and plugging into the wall to get power. SignatureMy personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too. > > furthermore, the iphone is normally activated in a store and content > > can be added over the air, completely eliminating any need for a > > computer. > > So long as you neglect to mention the things you need a computer for. That's what I have been asking you to mention with regard to the iPad. > > or that the battery is bigger and 2.5 watts from a usb port is > > insufficient. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > forcing users into an either/or choice between docking with the computer > and plugging into the wall to get power. I agree with you on this. My guess is that the iPad has a higher wattage charger than the iPhone is in order to charge it faster than it could be charged with the iPhone's charger. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign Member Arizona Road Racers > > since a computer is not necessary for any shipping ipod, iphone or ipod > > touch, other than a one time setup, > > Yes, yes . . . except for when it is *necessary* to use a computer to > manage an Apple device, a computer is totally unnecessary! that's like saying an auto mechanic is required to use a car because it might need a repair once in a while. the ipod family does *not* require anything to be used, other than a one time setup. having a computer certainly makes it more useful and most people do use it with one but that's not the same as requiring it. > > it's reasonable to conclude that > > the ipad will be the same. > > Thank you for supporting my point. i don't. > > > Look, I'll even help you out because I'm such a standup guy: On the > > > iPad spec page Apple list the 10W USB Power Adapter as included. The [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Please provide evidence to support your claim. I don't see where Apple > directly states the power draw is more than USB can supply. why provide a 10 watt adapter if it is only going to use 2.5 watts? the iphone adapter is 5 watts and charges faster on the adapter than off usb. > the ipod family does *not* require anything to be used, other than a > one time setup. What is your definition of setup? As far as I can remember, I did a lot on my iPod touch before the first time I decided to hook it to a computer. SignatureWes Groleau Miss Universe had “lots of fun” in Guantanamo http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=1537 > > > since a computer is not necessary for any shipping ipod, iphone or ipod > > > touch, other than a one time setup, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that's like saying an auto mechanic is required to use a car because it > might need a repair once in a while. Yes, exactly right. How do you not see you're supporting my point? Oil changes are necessary to use a car. Insurance is necessary to use a car. There are *many* things that are involved in calculating the total cost of ownership for a product. > the ipod family does *not* require anything to be used, other than a > one time setup. You continue to make claims without supporting evidence. *Show* me where you gained that knowledge from, because I'm not seeing any statement from Apple saying that you can eBay your computer after you get an iPad. Just because *some* people choose to never update or backup their iPod touch, just like *some* people never bother to service their car in a timely manner, doesn't mean it was designed to function that way. > > > it's reasonable to conclude that > > > the ipad will be the same. > > > > Thank you for supporting my point. > > i don't. You do, but you see unwilling to admit it for some reason. Is it really so great a cost to say "Yeah, until Apple indicates otherwise, you're probably going to need a computer to support the new iPad"? > > > > Look, I'll even help you out because I'm such a standup guy: On the > > > > iPad spec page Apple list the 10W USB Power Adapter as included. The [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > iphone adapter is 5 watts and charges faster on the adapter than off > usb. Of course it'll charge faster if it has a more powerful adaptor. Having 10W also allows you to fully *use* the iPad while it charges in a timely manner. I'm not even claiming to know how an iPad could/would function when docked. My point is that Apple *directly states* "The iPad Dock lets you dock and charge iPad." That contradicts your statement, and is just another case of you ignoring easy to find evidence. Again, you people need to *start* with the evidence and *then* come to a conclusion based on it. SignatureMy personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too. > > > > since a computer is not necessary for any shipping ipod, iphone or ipod > > > > touch, other than a one time setup, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Yes, exactly right. How do you not see you're supporting my point? Oil > changes are necessary to use a car. no they're not. oil changes are necessary to make it last longer. with synthetic oils, the oil does not need to be changed very often at all. > Insurance is necessary to use a car. no it's not. millions of people drive without insurance every day, that's why there is an uninsured driver protection clause. if you don't get into an accident or get pulled over, nobody will ever know. > There are *many* things that are involved in calculating the total > cost of ownership for a product. nobody said otherwise. > > the ipod family does *not* require anything to be used, other than a > > one time setup. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > statement from Apple saying that you can eBay your computer after you > get an iPad. straw man. > Just because *some* people choose to never update or > backup their iPod touch, just like *some* people never bother to service > their car in a timely manner, doesn't mean it was designed to function > that way. but it *does* function that way. using an ipad without another computer may not be the best way to use it and it's certainly limiting, but it works. > > why provide a 10 watt adapter if it is only going to use 2.5 watts? the > > iphone adapter is 5 watts and charges faster on the adapter than off > > usb. > > Of course it'll charge faster if it has a more powerful adaptor. exactly. > Having > 10W also allows you to fully *use* the iPad while it charges in a timely > manner. I'm not even claiming to know how an iPad could/would function > when docked. My point is that Apple *directly states* "The iPad Dock > lets you dock and charge iPad." That contradicts your statement, and is > just another case of you ignoring easy to find evidence. it doesn't contradict anything i've said. > Again, you > people need to *start* with the evidence and *then* come to a conclusion > based on it. i did. > > > > > since a computer is not necessary for any shipping ipod, iphone or > > > > > ipod [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > no they're not. oil changes are necessary to make it last longer. with > synthetic oils, the oil does not need to be changed very often at all. Yes, yes . . . except for when it is *necessary* to change the oil to keep a car running smoothly, oil changes are totally unnecessary! You are showing unbelievable levels of intellectual dishonesty here. I think I'm done with you, too. SignatureMy personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too. > > The only "evidence" you have listed is that a computer is necessary for the > > iPods and iPhones; in other words, "That's the way it's been done before." > > And? Fossil records are valuable; history meaningfully informs the > present. Evidence is evidence, even if it is not definitive. Horses needed to be fed grain, and defecated on the ground, so therefore those newfangled automobiles would need to be fed grain, and they would defecate on the ground. Birds flap their wings, so these newfangled aeroplanes need to flap their wings. > > YOU keep saying that a computer is necessary, and then challenge us to > > prove you wrong. You have not presented a case to show why a computer will > > be necessary. > > Because that is not my claim. I continue to maintain that all signs > point to a computer being necessary. "All signs"? All you have said is that because that's the way it has been done, that's the way it will have to be done. Oh, and I presented evidence that the iPhone doesn't even require a computer once it is set up. My hairdresser uses an iPhone, and she doesn't even own a computer. She downloads her music and apps directly to the iPhone. > You don't seem to be able to > dispute them, and you don't seem to offer anything pointing to a > computer *not* being necessary, other than your finger-crossed hopes and > dreams. I listed (more than once) functions that can be done without a computer; you have failed to show even one function that would require a computer. > I have shown what evidence leads me to think a computer will be > necessary. True, and I have disputed that. > You have not shown any evidence to support your thinking that a > computer will not be necessary. First of all, I said *may* not be necessary. Secondly, I have most definitely shown my evidence, repeatedly. > Look, I'll even help you out because I'm such a standup guy: On the > iPad spec page Apple list the 10W USB Power Adapter as included. The > smaller touch devices only included a dock connector, so clearly Apple > envisions some significantly more detached usage for the iPad. Sorry, O'Leary, but you don't get to pick and choose what kind of evidence you will accept. Oh, and by the way, the iPhone and iPod Touch also included a USB power adaptor. So your example is like the waste products of that horse I mentioned. > *That* is how you use evidence to support your point. If you actually > were being reasonable about following the evidence, *you* would have > pointed that out long ago. No, that is how *you* use evidence to support your point, and how you refuse evidence that contradicts your point. If you were reasonable, you would have addressed my points. > Since I did instead, it's my point; you still have yet to provide *one* > shred of evidence to support your point. Can you do that? If not, why > do you persist in championing a stance you cannot support rationally? More horse excrement from you; your irrational refusal to recognize evidence does not mean that I did not present it. You are one of the last people to be accusing anyone else of being unreasonable. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign Member Arizona Road Racers > Oh, and by the way, the iPhone and iPod Touch also included a USB power > adaptor. Correction: the iPhone includes one. Apparently the Touch doesn't. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign Member Arizona Road Racers > Correction: the iPhone includes [a power adapter]. Apparently the Touch doesn't. But it can use them and they are available. SignatureWes Groleau "Ideas are more powerful than guns, We would not let our enemies have guns; why should we let them have ideas?" -- Jozef Stalin > Look, I'll even help you out because I'm such a standup guy: On the > iPad spec page Apple list the 10W USB Power Adapter as included. The > smaller touch devices only included a dock connector, so clearly Apple > envisions some significantly more detached usage for the iPad. > My cell phone has an USB Power Adaptor. It does not require having a computer in order to use it. There are no indications on the iPad specs that you will not be able to use it without a computer. SignatureLarry I. Gusaas Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada Website: http://larry-gusaas.com "An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese > > Look, I'll even help you out because I'm such a standup guy: On the > > iPad spec page Apple list the 10W USB Power Adapter as included. The [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > computer in order to use it. There are no indications on the iPad specs > that you will not be able to use it without a computer. Did you even read anything I wrote before? You can't prove a negative. There are an *infinite* number of things that the iPad specs don't indicate. Stick with what they do indicate. And, for the last time, it is downright stupid to yammer on about how a *mobile* device doesn't require a computer to *use* it. Of course it doesn't; it wouldn't be much of a mobile device if it did! That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not the unit was designed to be fully functional as a standalone unit. That includes system update/restore, which I believe still requires a computer for the iPhone. Correct me if I'm wrong. SignatureMy personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too. > And, for the last time, it is downright stupid to yammer on about how a > *mobile* device doesn't require a computer to*use* it. Of course it > doesn't; it wouldn't be much of a mobile device if it did! Wow! You are actually reversing what you have said previously. You previously stated "As I said, you *need* a computer already to use an iPad". Now you are saying "it is downright stupid to yammer on about how a *mobile* device doesn't require a computer to *use* it". I guess you are calling yourself stupid. > That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not the unit was designed to be > fully functional as a standalone unit. No. You stated "As I said, you *need* a computer already to use an iPad". Now you are changing your opinion. I've wasted enough time following this thread so I will say goodbye to you, w.nker. SignatureLarry I. Gusaas Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada Website: http://larry-gusaas.com "An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese > > And, for the last time, it is downright stupid to yammer on about how a > > *mobile* device doesn't require a computer to*use* it. Of course it > > doesn't; it wouldn't be much of a mobile device if it did! > > Wow! You are actually reversing what you have said previously. No, I simply used "use" in a previous context that gives it a meaning that differs from the use of "use" in your context. Or perhaps I've misread your context. See below. > You previously stated "As I said, you *need* a computer already to use > an iPad". Now you are saying "it is downright stupid to yammer on about > how a *mobile* device doesn't require a computer to *use* it". I guess > you are calling yourself stupid. Yes, I am. In fact, I willingly call myself Impossibly Stupid: http://www.impossiblystupid.com/ Doing so allows me to gracefully admit an error and correct myself. What do you think is a better position? What do you call yourself? > > That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not the unit was designed to > > be > > fully functional as a standalone unit. > > No. You stated "As I said, you *need* a computer already to use an > iPad". Now you are changing your opinion. Day-to-day "use" of an iPad, or any mobile device, is a *given* to not need a computer (provided you accept the inherent limitations of the device). I have never said that would not be the case, but my reading of your message was that *that* was what you were talking about. Lifetime ownership "use" is what I maintain you people have not provided evidence of Apple having designed for a standalone iPad. Until you do provide such evidence, the overwhelming evidence that *does* exist (based on iPad tech specs and the design of the iPod touch/iPhone) points to a high likelihood that Apple expects iPad owners to also be Mac or PC owners. Speculation of how things *could* be done without a computer is irrelevant. I mean, hell, they wouldn't even need to screw around with a Dock connector if they wanted to send the message that a computer wasn't required for an iPad. That's not what I'm seeing, and you have no reason to see differently. I'm still waiting for some solid evidence that you can cradle-to-grave an iPad perfectly fine, fit to purpose, without ever syncing it with a computer. If you can't supply it, you've adopted an unreasonable position. I can't imagine why, though. What investment do you have in needing to believe at this particular instant that you'll be able to have an iPad without needing a computer? Why feverishly defend it *now*, in the absence of any evidence, when you can just wait for a bit over a month and see what's what? SignatureMy personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too. > Speculation of how things *could* be done without a computer is > irrelevant. I mean, hell, they wouldn't even need to screw around with > a Dock connector if they wanted to send the message that a computer > wasn't required for an iPad. There's a difference between "not needed" and "not useful". > I'm still waiting for some solid evidence that you can cradle-to-grave > an iPad perfectly fine, fit to purpose, without ever syncing it with a > computer. And I'm still waiting for some evidence, even tenuous, that you would definitely, absolutely, have to sync it with a computer even once. You insist that it will have to sync with a computer. I say that it may not have to. I acknowledge (and always have) that there may be something that will require a sync, but I have not seen any evidence that there is anything that will require a sync. You, on the other hand, insist dogmatically that it will require a sync, but offer no evidence that it will. > What investment do you have in needing to believe at this particular > instant that you'll be able to have an iPad without needing a computer? > Why feverishly defend it *now*, in the absence of any evidence, when you > can just wait for a bit over a month and see what's what? What investment do you have in needing to believe at this particular instance that you will be required to sync an iPad with a computer? Why defend it feverishly now in the absence of any evidence? SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign Member Arizona Road Racers > And some might issue it in a corporate environment as a thin client. > There are plenty of ways I could *imagine* it being put to use, but > let's stick with common expectations, and all signs point to Apple > expecting there to be a computer to sync with. Granted. But it's not *mandated*. Some few luddite-ish types might choose to forego that capability, and they could do it. I'm under no illusions that it would be common practice, but it would be possible. > > And some might issue it in a corporate environment as a thin client. > > There are plenty of ways I could *imagine* it being put to use, but [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Granted. But it's not *mandated*. Some few luddite-ish types might > choose to forego that capability, and they could do it. Could they? I don't know anyone who yet has the unboxing experience to say it doesn't require syncing. If you have evidence to the contrary, please say so. Otherwise, you're engaged in pure speculation (didn't we get enough of that from the rumor mills prior to the announcement?). > I'm under no illusions that it would be common practice, but it would be > possible. *Might* be possible. The specs page seems to list both Mac and Windows system requirements, though. I see no indication from Apple that it was designed to work as a completely standalone unit. SignatureMy personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too. > > > And some might issue it in a corporate environment as a thin client. > > > There are plenty of ways I could *imagine* it being put to use, but [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > system requirements, though. I see no indication from Apple that it was > designed to work as a completely standalone unit. "Possible" isn't the same thing as "recommended" or "expected", is it? The iPad isn't for sale just yet, but I seriously doubt that it wouldn't be able to do something that the iPhone and iPod Touch are currently able to easily do. Both existing devices can easily access the app store directly, downloading content. Both can sync to the cloud though MobileMe. How likely is it that the iPad will be restricted from doing the same thing? > > > > And some might issue it in a corporate environment as a thin client. > > > > There are plenty of ways I could *imagine* it being put to use, but [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > "Possible" isn't the same thing as "recommended" or "expected", is it? Please don't dance around words. Either you *know* the details of how an iPad operates or you don't. If you do, state what *is* the case so that we can stop with the possible/expected/recommended speculation. If you don't, I highly recommend you not rush out and buy an iPad under the assumption that you can just kick your Mac or PC to the curb. SignatureMy personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too. > Please don't dance around words. Either you *know* the details of how > an iPad operates or you don't. If you do, state what *is* the case so > that we can stop with the possible/expected/recommended speculation. If > you don't, I highly recommend you not rush out and buy an iPad under the > assumption that you can just kick your Mac or PC to the curb. There is a big difference between needing (or not) to synch it with a computer (which is what we have been discussing) and replacing a computer with it (which is what it appears that you're trying to change the subject to). SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign > > Please don't dance around words. Either you *know* the details of how > > an iPad operates or you don't. If you do, state what *is* the case so [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > with it (which is what it appears that you're trying to change the subject > to). I'm not trying to change the subject. It started off fuzzy from the beginning due to wild speculation. I'll state flat-out that I don't believe *any* computer is perfect for every person, so I would never claim that an iPad will unilaterally replace a different computer. So the question remains on whether or not an iPad can be used without ever connecting it to a Mac or PC. You claim that will be the case, but offer no evidence, and I maintain that all prior evidence from Apple on similar devices points to the fact that you're probably going to need access to a computer of some kind in addition to having the iPad. SignatureMy personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too. > I'll state flat-out that I don't believe *any* computer is perfect for > every person, so I would never claim that an iPad will unilaterally > replace a different computer. We agree on that point. > So the question remains on whether or not an iPad can be used without > ever connecting it to a Mac or PC. Again, we agree. > You claim that will be the case, but offer no evidence, I have seen no evidence to the contrary. > and I maintain that all prior evidence from Apple on similar devices > points to the fact that you're probably going to need access to a > computer of some kind in addition to having the iPad. The only functions you need a computer for an iPhone are to start service, and to upgrade firmware. Everything else can be done via WiFi or AT&T with a mobile me account. In his presentation, Jobs said that you can establish data service for the iPad right from the iPad, right out of the box. So all that leaves is upgrading firmware, and what with the all the advances made, it is entirely possible that you will be able to be able to download the upgrade directly. The CPU is much faster than the iPhone's, which eliminates the need for the computer as an intermediary. And of course, it is not necessary to upgrade the firmware; highly recommended, but not necessary. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign Member Arizona Road Racers > > You claim that will be the case, but offer no evidence, > > I have seen no evidence to the contrary. Absence of evidence is not evidence of presence. > > and I maintain that all prior evidence from Apple on similar devices > > points to the fact that you're probably going to need access to a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and to upgrade firmware. Everything else can be done via WiFi or AT&T with > a mobile me account. And? How many times do I have to repeat that it is, of *course*, quite possible for an iPad to *rarely* be connected to a computer, just like the other iTouch devices? That *is* the point of having a mobile device! You're not being insightful when you keep beating that dead horse. > In his presentation, Jobs said that you can establish data service for the > iPad right from the iPad, right out of the box. So all that leaves is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > computer as an intermediary. And of course, it is not necessary to upgrade > the firmware; highly recommended, but not necessary. So, again, you're just yammering on without really *knowing*, right? You have no stake in being wrong, so you're just shoveling out nonsense that might end up costing people. Unless you're going to offer to *buy* people a "system requirements" computer should the iPad indeed need one, please stop pretending you know that it doesn't. SignatureMy personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too. > So, again, you're just yammering on without really *knowing*, right? And you are not? At least I have reasoning behind what I have been saying. All you have is your dogmatism that you are right. > You have no stake in being wrong, so you're just shoveling out nonsense > that might end up costing people. Bullshit. It won't cost anyone anything, nor is it nonsense. > Unless you're going to offer to *buy* people a "system requirements" > computer should the iPad indeed need one, please stop pretending you > know that it doesn't LOL. And exactly who will by an iPad on my say-so after reading this exchange? SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign Member Arizona Road Racers > > So, again, you're just yammering on without really *knowing*, right? > > And you are not? Nope. I'm saying we don't know. I'm saying that all indirect signs point to needing a computer. The difference is that your line of thinking might have people with only $500 to spend lined up to buy something cool that might just end up being a paperweight if they don't have a computer that supports it. I'm taking the more prudent approach and saying that if you haven't already dropped another $1000 on a Mac or PC, you better be prepared to do it after you get the iPad. > At least I have reasoning behind what I have been saying. All you have is > your dogmatism that you are right. I'm claiming to be right about anything. I'm just being rational about where the evidence leads us. You, on the other hand, are making the absurd claim that because it is technically *possible* to use a mobile device without a computer, it must be the case that the iPad requires no computer. The sad part is that you might even end up being right, but for the same reason a lottery player is a winner: sheer luck. > > You have no stake in being wrong, so you're just shoveling out nonsense > > that might end up costing people. > > Bullshit. It won't cost anyone anything, nor is it nonsense. Unless you're prepared to guarantee an iPad as an investment that will always go up in value, someone who buys one without a computer that can't use it will end up losing money in the resale. Or they'll have to sink extra money into a suitable computer to attach it to. Or they'll have to pay for some extra services to do the same task. Again, unless you're promising to cover those costs, nobody should listen to you. SignatureMy personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too. > And? How many times do I have to repeat that it is, of *course*, quite > possible for an iPad to *rarely* be connected to a computer, just like How many times do we have to repeat that it is quite possible for the other devices (that you claim to be extrapolating from) to _never_ be connected to a computer? How does the iPad's similarity to the iPhone force teh conclusion that it _has_ to be different on that particular point? SignatureWes Groleau Standards--a parable http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=145 > > And? How many times do I have to repeat that it is, of *course*, > > quite possible for an iPad to *rarely* be connected to a computer, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > How does the iPad's similarity to the iPhone force teh conclusion that > it _has_ to be different on that particular point? My hair stylist has an iPhone 3GS, and she has never synched it with a computer. She downloads music and apps from their respective stores right on the iPhone, and keeps her contacts and appointments in the iPhone. In fact, she doesn't even own a computer. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign Member Arizona Road Racers > In his presentation, Jobs said that you can establish data service for the > iPad right from the iPad, right out of the box. So all that leaves is > upgrading firmware, and what with the all the advances made, it is entirely > possible that you will be able to be able to download the upgrade directly. Most cellphones get upgrades via the cell network. iPhone and iPod can upgrade apps the same way, and Apple could have had them do O.S. upgrades that way. SignatureWes Groleau Hillary Insults Virgen de Guadalupe? http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=1531 > Most cellphones get upgrades via the cell network. some do. > iPhone and iPod can upgrade apps the same way, and > Apple could have had them do O.S. upgrades that way. pushing a 200+ meg firmware update over the air is not exactly efficient or smart. > Could they? I don't know anyone who yet has the unboxing experience > to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > we > get enough of that from the rumor mills prior to the announcement?). I thinks it's pretty clear that the iPad *will* require syncing at the product launch. To me, it is also pretty clear that the iPad will eventually stand on its own. The main thing that is required for daily use that requires another device is backup. At ship, you'll be able to pull your photos in, buy books, music, and video, etc. One thing that isn't clear is printing - but there are already third party apps that can print to a shared printer, so I assume Apple will address this issue. I can see Apple addressing backup, sharing, syncing, printing, and perhaps a few other interconnect issues with a modified Time Capsule-like device. Backups would be wirelessly and automatically. A printer could be hooked to the USB port. For iPad firmware updates and cases where the iPad needs a hard recovery, the iPad would get plugged in via USB. But I would expect that to be the exception - normal OS upgrades would be downloaded and applied on the iPad. I really don't expect to see an "iPad base station" until next year at the earliest. The form factor could just be a box, or it could be a shell with a larger screen that the iPad plugs into, like that Apple patent some time ago. I think the former. I think that Apple could address the basic requirements with a firmware upgrade to the existing Time Capsule. But they still have work to do on the iPad side to make it all work seamlessly. So I tend to think they'll offer a new device. Interestingly enough, there is one other device that has all the requisite hardware to serve as a base station for the iPad - that "hobby" project, the AppleTV. While folks might balk at spending a few hundred bucks on a device that just does iPad backups, a set-top box that addresses that need might be a much easier sell. And the iPad will make for one hell of a media remote... And thus further advancing Apple's move into the living room. In article <1963105894286664259.540562jim_glidewell-yahoo.com@eternal-september.org>, > I thinks it's pretty clear that the iPad *will* require syncing at the > product launch. Why? So long as you have a wireless router, you shouldn't need to sync the phone with a computer. Especially if you have a me.com account. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign > In article > <1963105894286664259.540562jim_glidewell-yahoo.com@eternal-september.org>, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > sync the > phone with a computer. Especially if you have a me.com account. Sorry - by "sync" I mean all the stuff that happens when I press the "Sync" button in iTunes. This includes media syncing from the Mac and backup. My contacts, etc. don't sync through iTunes. Of course, if I didn't have a Mac or PC, I wouldn't have to worry about media sync. That leave backups and OS upgrades. To the best of my knowledge, there is no way to do those things today for an iPhone or touch with a Mac or PC running iTunes. But backup to me.com does sound like a reasonable option - just not one that is available today for Mobile OS X devices. In article <860168959286676040.776876jim_glidewell-yahoo.com@eternal-september.org>, > That leave backups and OS upgrades. To the best of my knowledge, there > is no way to do those things today for an iPhone or touch with a Mac or > PC running iTunes. itunes makes a backup when you sync, and firmware upgrades are also done via itunes. In article <860168959286676040.776876jim_glidewell-yahoo.com@eternal-september.org> , > Sorry - by "sync" I mean all the stuff that happens when I press the > "Sync" button in iTunes. This includes media syncing from the Mac and > backup. My contacts, etc. don't sync through iTunes. Because you turned them off, not because it's not possible to do in iTunes, right? I mean, there's this entry in the iTunes help: "Syncing contacts, calendars, notes, bookmarks, and email account settings with iPhone". The which makes be feel a bit more confident that my memory isn't playing me false, since I recall syncing them through iTunes recently. > In article > <860168959286676040.776876jim_glidewell-yahoo.com@eternal-september.org> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Because you turned them off, not because it's not possible to do in > iTunes, right? That's correct - I use me.com to sync my iPod, but I could use iTunes instead. With multiple Macs and iPods in the house, I find using Mobile Me easier. > But backup to me.com does sound like a reasonable option - just not one > that is available today for Mobile OS X devices. Actually, quite a bit of important stuff gets backed nicely that way (calendar, contacts, etc). Plus if you use apps that deal with off-phone data, you're good to go there, too - dropbox, iDisk, Evernote, etc. SignaturePlain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed. Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow? http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting > In article > <1963105894286664259.540562jim_glidewell-yahoo.com@eternal-september.org>, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Why? Because Apple includes the cable for it. Because you can't point to anything from Apple even hinting at the possibility that it'll work without a computer. SignatureMy personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too. > > > I thinks it's pretty clear that the iPad *will* require syncing at > > > the product launch. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > anything from Apple even hinting at the possibility that it'll work > without a computer. And you can't point to anything from Apple that says it requires a computer. Just because Apple provides the cable doesn't mean that it is required. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign > > > > I thinks it's pretty clear that the iPad *will* require syncing at > > > > the product launch. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Just because Apple provides the cable doesn't mean that it is required. Occam's Razor puts the burden of proof on you. There are multiple lines of evidence that point towards needing a computer to go along with an iPad. Do you even have *one* statement from Apple indication "no computer required"? If not, please stop acting like you are an iPad expert. SignatureMy personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too. > > > > > I thinks it's pretty clear that the iPad *will* require syncing > > > > > at the product launch. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Occam's Razor puts the burden of proof on you. Actually, it puts the burden of proof on you; you claim that the computer is required. Therefore, you should be able to support that claim. > There are multiple lines of evidence that point towards needing a > computer to go along with an iPad. What are they? > Do you even have *one* statement from Apple indication "no computer > required"? If not, please stop acting like you are an iPad expert. Do you even have *one* statement from Apple indicating "computer required"? If not please stop acting like you are an iPad expert. Can you name even one function of the iPad that requires it be connected to a computer with a cable, and without which function, the iPad can't operate? SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign Member Arizona Road Racers In article <1963105894286664259.540562jim_glidewell-yahoo.com@eternal-september.org >, > > Could they? I don't know anyone who yet has the unboxing experience > > to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > product launch. To me, it is also pretty clear that the iPad will > eventually stand on its own. That may very well be true. But for the same reason that Apple never discusses future products, I never buy current products by speculating on what a future product *might* do. > The main thing that is required for daily use that requires another > device is backup. At ship, you'll be able to pull your photos in, buy [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > in via USB. But I would expect that to be the exception - normal OS > upgrades would be downloaded and applied on the iPad. Sure. Like I said, I could *easily* see an iPad taking over roles in the business world as a thin client. As such, it would rarely need to be directly connected to a computer except for updates (or maybe you could hub 1 computer to 8+ iPads for certain uses). There are *many* possibilities, but I'm not banking on anything until it ships and we can see what is and isn't in the package. SignatureMy personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too. > A printer could be hooked to the USB port. An iPad does not have a USB port. Or do you think of the camera connection kit with a 30-pin to usb adaptor? It might even be used to tethering with an iPhone in order to get access to the 3G net and GPS from an iPad without 3G. SignaturePer Erik Rønne http://www.RQNNE.dk Errare humanum est, sed in errore perseverare turpe > But you haven't made a real case for people carrying around a laptop to > also carry around an iPad. Who said anything about "also"? My main machine is a laptop, but I don't invariably carry it with me when I travel, the Touch may get hauled along. For that matter, even when I do have the laptop with me, the Touch usually comes along, too, for reading books in the evening, if nothing else. > Of *course* Apple is aware of the migration > to mobile computing, but I think they are also keenly aware of the > trade-offs faced when you try to pack a desktop into a laptop. They're also aware that a lot of laptops, particularly larger-display models, in practice never go anywhere; they get used as a desktop device with fewer cables snaking around the desk. > I think > they're also keenly aware that there is a huge opportunity to tap the > Windows desktop market, including businesses, with an "accessory" mobile > device like the iPad. Ya think? That might be why they listed both Mac and Windows requirements for syncing the iPad. By crackee, smart fellers there at Apple. > > I think > > they're also keenly aware that there is a huge opportunity to tap [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > By crackee, smart fellers there at Apple. "nothing to worry about, it's just a MP3 player" "nothing to worry about, it's just a phone" "nothing to worry about, it's just a mobile accessory device" "oops!" :-) > > But you haven't made a real case for people carrying around a laptop to > > also carry around an iPad. > > Who said anything about "also"? I did. Just look up a bit at the part of my post that you quoted. See it there? No, there . . . I'm pointing right at it! > My main machine is a laptop, but I don't > invariably carry it with me when I travel, the Touch may get hauled > along. For that matter, even when I do have the laptop with me, the > Touch usually comes along, too, for reading books in the evening, if > nothing else. You're making my case for me, even if you don't see it. Most people don't *use* laptops as mobile computers. They use them because they are easiest to lug around from place to place. You're sitting at somewhere with it, and then you pack it up and carry it until you're sitting somewhere else, rinse and repeat. The fact is that once you have something that *does* function as a mobile computer, a laptop becomes dead weight. For the longest time I've been *hoping* that the iPod would actually *become* what it was named: not just a music player but a "pod" for my digital life. It has slowly been moving in that direction. The iPad is the latest incarnation towards that, but only time will tell if people need the bigger screen more than they'd like other feature from something smaller like an iPod touch. Either way, these are devices that make the utility of a laptop increasingly more questionable. *That* is why I don't expect a lot of laptop owners to be iPad owners. Unless, of course, they're looking to eventually replace the laptops with the iPad. Once they stop lugging around the laptop, doesn't it just become a small desktop computer? > > Of *course* Apple is aware of the migration > > to mobile computing, but I think they are also keenly aware of the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > models, in practice never go anywhere; they get used as a desktop device > with fewer cables snaking around the desk. You support my point. > > I think > > they're also keenly aware that there is a huge opportunity to tap the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > By crackee, smart fellers there at Apple. Woosh! I don't just mean to sync, chum. I mean to replace full Windows desktops with an iPad in in corporate environments where you don't want or need a general purpose computer. I've worked in many places where you could easily save millions by doing that, tablet or not. SignatureMy personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too. > It has nothing to do with where we fit in the market and everything to > do with the device itself. As I said, you *need* a computer already to > use an iPad. Why? I can think of a dozen people right now who would drop their desktop/laptop computers for an iPad in a New York nanosecond. As long as they have a connection to the Internet via 3G or wifi, they could do any thing they do now on their 'real' computers, and do it more easily. Need storage space? Want to post family pictures? How about a Mobile Me or similar account. That's what the Cloud is for. Don't need a 'real' computer for that. If the announced iPad won't do what I just described, I guarantee you it will _very_ soon. Doc, think Star Trek form and function as an end point. The iPad is the next small step on that progression. Do you remember the Osborne 1 'the first commercially successful portable microcomputer'? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_1> It weighed in at 10.7 kg (23.5 pounds)! Ridiculously heavy by today's standards, but a hell of a lot more portable than an IBM 360 mainframe. Apple has defined a form factor for the future with the iPad. As the technology advances, the device will pack more and more tech punch. But there is a market for it _now_, and some of that market is people who would use it as there only computer. Now what I'm _really_ waiting for is a Dr Who physics discovery which will allow me to physically resize the screen at will depending on my needs at the moment. Need a blackboard-sized screen, grab opposite corners and pull. Need a cell phone, push 'em back together. ;) But there is also a market today, rather large is my guess, for people who have and will continue to use one or more desktop/laptop computers. Jim Glidewell summarized it better than I could. His post is worth repeating here: In article <825534236286593838.182070jim_glidewell-yahoo.com@eternal-september.org> , Jim Glidewell <jim_glidewell@yahoo.com> wrote: ... > The iPad is something I have been waiting for at least 5 years - the > coffee table computer. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > The extra month I'm going to have to wait to get a GPS+G3 equipped one > is gonna be really long... :-) > Why? I can think of a dozen people right now who would drop their > desktop/laptop computers for an iPad in a New York nanosecond. And there are those who have resisted buying a laptop, but who would buy an iPad. For those whose computer use is primarily browsing the web, exchanging email, viewing photos, watching video, listening to music, playing games, and reading eBooks, and maybe some light productivity work, I can envision them having and using an iPad and having no computer. But for me, an iPad would be an adjunct to my desktop, not a replacement for it. I can envision it replacing the non-phone portions of an iPhone, though, with someone having a plain, ordinary cell phone and an iPad. But there would be times where an iPhone would be more convenient than an iPad, so it would still make sense to have both. -- Michelle SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign > > It has nothing to do with where we fit in the market and everything to > > do with the device itself. As I said, you *need* a computer already to > > use an iPad. > > Why? There are many whys. Because that's the way Apple wants it. Because that's the early state of the technology. > I can think of a dozen people right now who would drop their > desktop/laptop computers for an iPad in a New York nanosecond. As long > as they have a connection to the Internet via 3G or wifi, they could do > any thing they do now on their 'real' computers, and do it more easily. Sure, we can all think of the "big" things we do that don't require a full computer, but the iPad would have to cover *every* thing we do in order to replace the need for a computer completely. I'm just saying that's a tall order for a device that hasn't even been released yet. > Need storage space? Want to post family pictures? How about a Mobile Me > or similar account. That's what the Cloud is for. Don't need a 'real' > computer for that. If the announced iPad won't do what I just described, > I guarantee you it will _very_ soon. You can't guarantee that, though. You need to step past the hype and the hope and deal with the reality of the device. We're all the better part of two months away from being able to say how an iPad can really be put to use. > Apple has defined a form factor for the future with the iPad. As the > technology advances, the device will pack more and more tech punch. But > there is a market for it _now_, and some of that market is people who > would use it as there only computer. But that is not the point I'm making. As I already said, I *absolutely* can see the iPad as being the primary computer for certain home (give each kid one) or business (from call centers to CEOs, many jobs don't require a general purpose computer) uses. But I do not *today* see Apple pushing them as being able to be used without a full computer of *some* kind to manage them. Unless something is said in the next 60 days, it is foolish to buy an iPad with the expectation that you can eBay your regular computer the next day. > But there is also a market today, rather large is my guess, for people > who have and will continue to use one or more desktop/laptop computers. All I'm saying is that *that* is what you need to focus on instead of the pie-in-the-sky future potential of the iPad. Even if some people *can* live in an iPad-only world, there is going to be a transition period to manage. Don't lose sight of that in all the hype. SignatureMy personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com, and probably your server, too. > I'm thinking that many of the active people on this list are not > the target market for the iPad. How many people here require a keyboard > at leat 60% of the time, The purpose of this device is to expand availability of data/media beyond your desktop. You want to read your newspaper/book in bed ? No need for a keyboard. Watch a movie ? listen to music ? No need for keyboard. I can see Apple's reasoning. the IpAd is an appliance, not a computer. It lets you access various types of media from the comfort of your seat without needing to be at some office with a desk and keyboard. Not too different form your satellite receiver. Inside is a computer probably running Linux with some hard disk drive, but to you, it is a simple appliance. >> I'm thinking that many of the active people on this list are not >> the target market for the iPad. How many people here require a keyboard [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > beyond your desktop. You want to read your newspaper/book in bed ? No > need for a keyboard. Watch a movie ? listen to music ? No need for keyboard. Agreed. It seems that Apple is targeting a new category of devices that is between a smart phone and a laptop but is primarily a distribution point for electronic media and Internet access. It includes some light weight apps but won't fully replace a laptop/desktop. It is also drop-in-your pocket replacement for a cell phone. It doesn't really compete with netbooks. We will have to wait a while to see if it catches on in the marketplace, but Apple has a pretty job track record in recent years. I haven't decided if I will get one or not, but if I do, it will be an addition to my current set of devices, not a replacement. > > The purpose of this device is to expand availability of data/media > > beyond your desktop. You want to read your newspaper/book in bed ? No [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > will get one or not, but if I do, it will be an addition to my current set > of devices, not a replacement. Exact same response here. I'm intensely focused on keeping all my data on _one_ machine, which means a laptop that mostly sits on my desk, connected to a big set of peripherals (external keyboard, scanner, big display), but occasionally gets unplugged and taken on trips. No synching, no wondering which gadget that file or email msg is on. But if I can also have an iPad-like device that can pull stuff off this primary machine wirelessly (can it?) and let me read, listen to, or view files elsewhere in the house -- e.g., in bed -- that's exactly what I'd want. >>> The purpose of this device is to expand availability of data/media >>> beyond your desktop. You want to read your newspaper/book in bed ? No [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > gets unplugged and taken on trips. No synching, no wondering which > gadget that file or email msg is on. Although I have a high end Mac Pro with a good amount of local storage (3.6 TB), I have started moving my media libraries to a networked storage device. With Gigabit Ethernet, performance is acceptable and the content can be shared through many devices. > But if I can also have an iPad-like device that can pull stuff off this > primary machine wirelessly (can it?) and let me read, listen to, or view > files elsewhere in the house -- e.g., in bed -- that's exactly what I'd > want. There are apps that do this on iPhone today so I would expect that it would be a natural for an iPad. Look for VNC or NTRConnect in the App Store. > But if I can also have an iPad-like device that can pull stuff off this > primary machine wirelessly (can it?) and let me read, listen to, or view > files elsewhere in the house -- e.g., in bed -- that's exactly what I'd > want. Very good question. Does the iPad have appleshare protocol capability ? AKA: if you are in bed or on a couch, can your ipad access your man systems to go and select a movie to view ? Or must you get up go down to the office and "synch" the ipad and copy the movie you want to it, and than go back up to your bed/caouc when you can finally view it ? On a laptop, you have AFS, and you can "stream" the movie that resides on another system by mounting its disk. > AKA: if you are in bed or on a couch, can your ipad access your man > systems to go and select a movie to view ? Or must you get up go down to > the office and "synch" the ipad and copy the movie you want to it, and > than go back up to your bed/caouc when you can finally view it ? iphone can do that now with any of several streaming apps. > But if I can also have an iPad-like device that can pull stuff off this > primary machine wirelessly (can it?) and let me read, listen to, or view > files elsewhere in the house -- e.g., in bed -- that's exactly what I'd > want. I downloaded free telnet, ssh, and VNC for my iPod that gets me into my non-portables. So I'm inclined to think there's nothing to keep someone from doing FTP, and others. It's basically OS X inside, so NFS ought to work--if Apple hasn't intentionally blocked it. And I can download PDFs from web pages to my iPod, so any reason I can't open lots of file directories to Apache on my big Macs? SignatureWes Groleau Free Reading in the FL Class http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=1559 > It's basically OS X inside, so NFS ought to work--if Apple hasn't > intentionally blocked it. P.S. If I were really desperate, I could set-up procmail or certain list-serv programs to let me fetch directory listings and files by e-mail. :-) SignatureWes Groleau Walls Around the Poor http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=1520 > > But if I can also have an iPad-like device that can pull stuff off this > > primary machine wirelessly (can it?) and let me read, listen to, or view [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > non-portables. So I'm inclined to think there's nothing to keep > someone from doing FTP, and others. Already out there with "FTP On the Go", "WiFi FTP", etc. > It's basically OS X inside, so NFS ought to work--if Apple hasn't > intentionally blocked it. > > And I can download PDFs from web pages to my iPod, so any reason > I can't open lots of file directories to Apache on my big Macs? >>> Okay, there is criticism and discussion about details, but nobody >>> actually held one in their hands. Same as with the first iPod or iPhone. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > All I know for sure is that we are getting (at least) one. My wife, who > looks askance at Apple, Grounds for divorce? ;P > saw the blurb on the news, went online to find > out more, and informed me that she wants one: eBook reader was far and > away her #1 reason, but the calendar, maps, Safari, and email apps held > strong appeal as well. She had been agitating for the top-of-the-line > Kindle as a birthday present, but it has been replaced on the "wish > list." The only other Apple product she has liked is the iPhone. SignatureiMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) OS X (10.5.8) > No doubt that it's cool...I just can't figure out how useful it would be > for me personally. Me too. However, I got an email from my daughter yesterday; she said she's drooling to get one. (Her husband turned her to the Windows dark side when they got married back in 1995.) I asked her why, and she said it looks much better than the Kindle, which is what she wanted until Tuesday. Personally, I prefer paper books to e-books, and especially since I didn't see any SF or Fantasy publishers on the list of publishers that Apple showed. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign > > No doubt that it's cool...I just can't figure out how useful it would be > > for me personally. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > see any SF or Fantasy publishers on the list of publishers that Apple > showed. Ah, apps to the rescue!!! You can get plenty of scifi & fantasy from lots of places already. fictionwise.com, manybooks.net (free older stuff), and others including Amazon and B&N. There are a few ebook reader apps already available for the iPhone/Touch and they are free. > > Personally, I prefer paper books to e-books, and especially since I didn't > > see any SF or Fantasy publishers on the list of publishers that Apple > > showed. > There are a few ebook reader apps already available for the iPhone/Touch > and they are free. Try Stanza by LexCycle: <http://www.lexcycle.com/> It has built-in access to several online repositories of books, both free and not-free. And, of course, we have yet to hear about any plans on Amazon's part (or Apple's, for that matter) with respect to the existing Kindle app for the iPhone. I've used it to buy and read, well, one book. It really wasn't bad at all. Had I not already gotten the rest of the series in question in paperback, I'd likely have bought the rest of them for Kindle and read them on my iPhone, too. If they scale up the Kindle app nicely for the iPad, and Apple doesn't block them from doing so (which, I suppose, they might want to do in order to get folks to buy book from their own bookstore. which would really suck), there'd be nothing stopping you from having access to a vast vast library of books out there -- all the existing EPUB stuff, anything you can get a PDF of (PDFs will be way more useful on the iPad than they are on the iPhone - I'm really looking forward to that), as well as the entire inventory of the Kindle store. The more I look at the possibilities, the more that it looks like there's an iPad in my future. SignaturePlain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed. Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow? http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting Anyone ever read the 1989 novel by ben Bova, "Cyberbooks"? hysterically funny, and oh, so relevant now. >> No doubt that it's cool...I just can't figure out how useful it would be >> for me personally. > > Me too. However, I got an email from my daughter yesterday; she said she's > drooling to get one. (Her husband turned her to the Windows dark side when > they got married back in 1995.) She married Darth Vader Gates? ;) > I asked her why, and she said it looks > much better than the Kindle, which is what she wanted until Tuesday. > > Personally, I prefer paper books to e-books, and especially since I didn't > see any SF or Fantasy publishers on the list of publishers that Apple > showed. SignatureiMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) OS X (10.5.8) > Personally, I prefer paper books to e-books, and especially since I didn't > see any SF or Fantasy publishers on the list of publishers that Apple > showed. I think this will be a big ergonomic test of tablet vs book. The IPad is light enough to hold (a laptop is way too heavy). And compared to a book, once you have it opened at a page, you don't need to hold the IpAd open like you do for a book. Whether the lighted background (as opposed to paper which reflects light) is good for reading so much text, I don't know. But the ability to resize the text is great. Can't do that with a paper book ! But the ipAD won't replace coffe table books with high quality images on glossy paper. > > Personally, I prefer paper books to e-books, and especially since I > > didn't see any SF or Fantasy publishers on the list of publishers that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > book, once you have it opened at a page, you don't need to hold the IpAd > open like you do for a book. I sometimes like to refer back to something earlier in the book; I'll remember that it was on a right page, about two thirds of the way down, so I'll flip the pages with my thumb, looking for the passage I'm searching for. Can I do that with an iPad, Kindle, Nook, or any other book reader, for that matter? If I have a book of short stories, I can check the table of contents to pick the story I want to read, and flip to the page where that story begins. Can I do that with an electronic book? (Probably can, but I don't know for sure.) SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign > I sometimes like to refer back to something earlier in the book; I'll > remember that it was on a right page, about two thirds of the way down, so [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Can I do that with an iPad, Kindle, Nook, or any other book reader, for > that matter? Not with a Kindle. Turning pages takes about 3 seconds each, and you can only turn one at a time. So no rapid "flipping". You can search for a specific term, however, which is something you cannot do with a p-book. > If I have a book of short stories, I can check the table of contents to > pick the story I want to read, and flip to the page where that story > begins. Can I do that with an electronic book? (Probably can, but I don't > know for sure.) Yes. All e-books (on the Kindle, anyway) have a table of contents. You can get to the TOC by clicking the menu button and selecting "Table of Contents". From there you can select any story or chapter and go directly to the page. You can also set bookmarks as you read and return to them later. SignatureJim Gibson > > > Personally, I prefer paper books to e-books, and especially since I > > > didn't see any SF or Fantasy publishers on the list of publishers that [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Can I do that with an iPad, Kindle, Nook, or any other book reader, for > that matter? One of the demo videos I saw for the iPad showed something akin to a horizontal scroll bar that indicated the relative position within the book. You could scrub that to the two-thirds point. > If I have a book of short stories, I can check the table of contents to > pick the story I want to read, and flip to the page where that story > begins. Can I do that with an electronic book? (Probably can, but I don't > know for sure.) The demo showed just tapping the TOC entry to go to that chapter. Probably wouldn't work for scanned books. SignatureTom Stiller PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF > > I sometimes like to refer back to something earlier in the book; I'll > > remember that it was on a right page, about two thirds of the way [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > horizontal scroll bar that indicated the relative position within the > book. You could scrub that to the two-thirds point. That won't do it. The text is two-thirds down the page, not two thirds of the way through the book. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign > > > I sometimes like to refer back to something earlier in the book; I'll > > > remember that it was on a right page, about two thirds of the way [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > That won't do it. The text is two-thirds down the page, not two thirds of > the way through the book. Oh! I misunderstood. SignatureTom Stiller PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF >>> Personally, I prefer paper books to e-books, and especially since I >>> didn't see any SF or Fantasy publishers on the list of publishers that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I'll flip the pages with my thumb, looking for the passage I'm searching > for. Watched a demo tape last night, she was doing exactly that. You can either tap on the outer edge of the page (left edge to go back a page, right edge to go forward), or even swipe across the page from the edge to the center, just like sliding a book page over! Really cool.) > Can I do that with an iPad, Kindle, Nook, or any other book reader, for > that matter? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > begins. Can I do that with an electronic book? (Probably can, but I don't > know for sure.) No problem, I think they all do that. > But the ipAD won't replace coffe table books with high quality images on > glossy paper. That's coming with Apple's planned iTable, a coffee table sized touch screen on which you'll be able to slide around several coffee table e-books at different orientations. SignatureDave >> But the ipAD won't replace coffe table books with high quality images on >> glossy paper. > > That's coming with Apple's planned iTable, a coffee table sized touch > screen on which you'll be able to slide around several coffee table > e-books at different orientations. It damned well better have Firewire! And 4000 x 3000 pixels. Signaturejohn mcwilliam > >> But the ipAD won't replace coffe table books with high quality images on > >> glossy paper. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It damned well better have Firewire! And 4000 x 3000 pixels. Are you kidding? Any iTable better be widescreen. Try 4800 X 3000 pixels. SignatureRemove blown from email address to reply. > Are you kidding? Any iTable better be widescreen. Try 4800 X 3000 pixels. What happens when you spill some Java powered iCoffee on the iTable ? Will you get some iStains ? Will Apple have iCleaner for its iTable ? Stay tuned for next week's episode of "As the iWorld turns" when these and questions will be answered ! > What happens when you spill some Java powered iCoffee on the iTable ? There's an app for that! SignatureDave > Are you kidding? Any iTable better be widescreen. Try 4800 X 3000 > pixels. Still not 16x9. How about 5760 x 3240 (although perhaps going 4X 1080 is better than 3X so maybe 7680 x 4320). Don't rest anything on it though or it will confuse the multitouch. When the cat walks across it englebert only knows what will happen :) Might make an interesting virutal air hockey table though... rick jones SignatureThe computing industry isn't as much a game of "Follow The Leader" as it is one of "Ring Around the Rosy" or perhaps "Duck Duck Goose." - Rick Jones these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :) feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... > > Are you kidding? Any iTable better be widescreen. Try 4800 X 3000 > > pixels. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it englebert only knows what will happen :) Might make an interesting > virutal air hockey table though... Does Apple make 16X9 monitors? I thought all Apple monitors were 16X10 so I chose 4800 X 3000 which would be a 16X10 configuration. Consider that the 30" Apple Cinema HD display is listed as providing a 2560X1600 display, a 16X10 configuration, not 16X9. Of course, I'd be CATatonic if Mr. Whiskers leaves his footprints on my iTable. SignatureRemove blown from email address to reply. >>> Are you kidding? Any iTable better be widescreen. Try 4800 X 3000 >>> pixels. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Of course, I'd be CATatonic if Mr. Whiskers leaves his footprints on my > iTable. Well, my iTable will recognize my touch or odor, via iSmell, and so cats, dogs and other human folk can't budge it. They can put hot coffee urns on the table, and no problemo, but pizza oils, esp. pepperoncini, need to be cleaned off . I want 4000 x 3000 so my Hi Rez digital images won't need a bit of cropping. I won't be watching movies on it, as it'd be too long to crook my neck down to watch a feature length film. Signaturejohn mcwilliams > >>> Are you kidding? Any iTable better be widescreen. Try 4800 X 3000 > >>> pixels. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > cropping. I won't be watching movies on it, as it'd be too long to crook > my neck down to watch a feature length film. I told you to buy the iEasel for the iTable which allows you to tilt the iTable to watch movies, but you just never listen. I don't know why I even bother. SignatureRemove blown from email address to reply. >>>>> Are you kidding? Any iTable better be widescreen. Try 4800 X 3000 >>>>> pixels. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > iTable to watch movies, but you just never listen. I don't know why I > even bother. It'd spill the coffee set up. Might start a fire if the samovar tips over. Bisquits and puddin' all over the place; not pretty. Besides, I have TVs for that function...... -- John McWilliams > Does Apple make 16X9 monitors? I thought all Apple monitors were 16X10 The new iMacs are 16X9. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign : > Are you kidding? Any iTable better be widescreen. Try 4800 X 3000 : > pixels. : Still not 16x9. How about 5760 x 3240 (although perhaps going 4X 1080 : is better than 3X so maybe 7680 x 4320). Don't rest anything on it : though or it will confuse the multitouch. When the cat walks across : it englebert only knows what will happen :) Might make an interesting : virutal air hockey table though... I'm imagining PONG in HD ... -- Non Illegitimi Carborundum > It damned well better have Firewire! And 4000 x 3000 pixels. And a camera. The iBall. SignatureVery old woody beets will never cook tender. -- Fannie Farmer >> It damned well better have Firewire! And 4000 x 3000 pixels. > > And a camera. The iBall. Oh, no, no camera!! Too much like the early days of Xerox machines: People sitting on them. Not attractive. Signaturejohn mcwilliams >> But the ipAD won't replace coffe table books with high quality images on >> glossy paper. > >That's coming with Apple's planned iTable, a coffee table sized touch >screen on which you'll be able to slide around several coffee table >e-books at different orientations. (*spit take*) Antique, cherry or modern styling? > Whether the lighted background (as opposed to paper which reflects > light) is good for reading so much text, I don't know. But the ability High contrast is good for readability. But I find that playing solitaire or reading e-mail in the dark, i.e., my wife is trying to sleep, tends to give me some ocular discomfort. Changing brightness/contrast would prevent that, but it's just enough screen-switching to make me not want top bother. Would be great if the iPad had easy access to settings as a pop-up, instead of going back to the top level and navigating down to them. SignatureWes Groleau A bureaucrat is someone who cuts red tape lengthwise. > > Whether the lighted background (as opposed to paper which reflects > > light) is good for reading so much text, I don't know. But the ability [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the iPad had easy access to settings as a pop-up, instead of going back > to the top level and navigating down to them. According to the tech specs on Apple's website, it has an ambient light sensor. SignatureTom Stiller PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF > According to the tech specs on Apple's website, it has an ambient light > sensor. Yes, but it doesn't work very well. I have seen the screen brightness suddenly change noticeably when the clouds caused some imperceptible change in ambient light. And the screen when there is almost no ambient light is too bright. SignatureWes Groleau Conservatives are funny … http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1543 > > Okay, there is criticism and discussion about details, but nobody > > actually held one in their hands. Same as with the first iPod or [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > No doubt that it's cool...I just can't figure out how useful it would > be for me personally. And the cool factor isn't enough for some of us. However, if I was looking at an ebook reader type thing this would be top of the list- competitive price and better specs than the Kindle and its ilk. And if I can find some useful reasons I may just snag one. I'm not convinced I need the 3G aspect, WiFi is probable enough for my needs. What I want is something I can use to read digitized lead sheets (music) so that I don't have to carry hundreds of pages of charts, but the readable area of the screen really needs to be 8.5 x 11 or A4 sized and this far tablet-like has that- since they are all designed for hand-held text reading that's no surprise. I need to be able to read it clearly at 3 feet away on a music stand. Signature"I wear the cheese, it does not wear me." > > > Okay, there is criticism and discussion about details, but nobody > > > actually held one in their hands. Same as with the first iPod or [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > text reading that's no surprise. I need to be able to read it clearly > at 3 feet away on a music stand. Like MusicPad or what I use for that, MusicReader on a HP Touchsmart 300. I had considered waiting for the iPad to do this, but I was sure the size would be much smaller than I wanted and I was right. * Tim McNamara [01/29/10 00:11 UTC]: > And the cool factor isn't enough for some of us. However, if I was looking > at an ebook reader type thing this would be top of the list- competitive > price and better specs than the Kindle and its ilk. And if I can find some > useful reasons I may just snag one. I'm not convinced I need the 3G aspect, > WiFi is probable enough for my needs. My problem is vendor lock in. I already have a Kindle with about 40 books. Apparently they're staying on the Kindle. I wish for some compatibility between devices, but that probably won't happen. Signature-=Elden=- http://www.moondog.org > * Tim McNamara [01/29/10 00:11 UTC]: > > And the cool factor isn't enough for some of us. However, if I was looking [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Apparently they're staying on the Kindle. I wish for some compatibility > between devices, but that probably won't happen. Currently on the iPhone/Touch for ebooks, there is support for various ebook formats via some different apps, so the lock in for ebooks isn't really there at all. I expect that to remain so, but with the addition of Apple's new ebook reader and data source. > * Tim McNamara [01/29/10 00:11 UTC]: > > And the cool factor isn't enough for some of us. However, if I was looking [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Apparently they're staying on the Kindle. I wish for some compatibility > between devices, but that probably won't happen. There is a Kindle app for the iPhone/iTouch and the announcement strongly implied (some might say "stated") that iTouch apps would be usable on the iPad. That being the case, I don't see vendor lock-in as an issue, so long as there is a way to move the content onto the iPad. SignatureSpenser > * Tim McNamara [01/29/10 00:11 UTC]: > > And the cool factor isn't enough for some of us. However, if I was looking [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Apparently they're staying on the Kindle. I wish for some compatibility > between devices, but that probably won't happen. You can't back them up to your computer? There's a Kindle app for the iPhone; does Amazon make you pay for each device on which you want to read a given title? Except perhaps for the DRM, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to read "Kindle format" ebooks on other devices. * Steve Hix [01/29/10 19:31 UTC]: >> Apparently they're staying on the Kindle. I wish for some compatibility >> between devices, but that probably won't happen. > > You can't back them up to your computer? I had not tried that. > There's a Kindle app for the iPhone; does Amazon make you pay for each > device on which you want to read a given title? Yes, there is a kindle app on the iPhone. It's free. AFAIK you do have access to all your books that way, without any extra charge. > Except perhaps for the DRM, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to read > "Kindle format" ebooks on other devices. Well I was assuming there would be DRM. I don't typically attempt to circumvent such things. Signature-=Elden=- http://www.moondog.org > My problem is vendor lock in. I already have a Kindle with about 40 books. > Apparently they're staying on the Kindle. I wish for some compatibility > between devices, but that probably won't happen. There's a Kindle iPhone app. Assuming Amazon doesn't discontinue it, and that Apple doesn't block it (because it competes with their new iBookstore), there's no reason to think you couldn't keep reading all your existing Kindle books on an iPad. I read a book on the iPhone Kindle app and it was surprisingly pleasant, actually. SignaturePlain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed. Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow? http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting >> > Okay, there is criticism and discussion about details, but nobody >> > actually held one in their hands. Same as with the first iPod or [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >text reading that's no surprise. I need to be able to read it clearly >at 3 feet away on a music stand. Yes! Let's add an attachment that "listens" (or just set the tempo) and turns the page when needed...tie it to the Wii and all of a sudden, a conductor's helper...or better yet, a training tool for conducting majors! > http://www.apple.com/ipad/#video > > Okay, there is criticism and discussion about details, but nobody > actually held one in their hands. Journalists at the presentation got a chance to play with them afterwards. Engadget and Gizmodo have already posted some hands-on commentary. They seem to like pretty well. > > http://www.apple.com/ipad/#video > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > They seem to like pretty well. I know, saw those. It just seems that people who haven't 'played' with the iPad are somewhat negative...if you read some comments on Mac sites. People want EVERYTHING, cables, multi this and that. With the iPad you get a very, very good deal, IMHO. If you want a Rolls Royce, you gotta pay for it. iPad gives you Rolls specs for the price of a Jaguar ;-) SK. > > Okay, there is criticism and discussion about details, but nobody > > actually held one in their hands. A Google search of "iPad hands on" turns up plenty of vids. Here's a good one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JPTaoDwOz4 > http://www.apple.com/ipad/#video > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Supercool. I'm sold...can't wait to get my HANDS on one... > SK. Meh - it's not a general use computer as I know them. Just another appliance like the PS3 or Nintendo DS. You can't run any software you like or configure it exactly how you want. I can't imagine preferring an iPad over a laptop, and certainly not over my desktop. An iPad would constrain me far too much. SignatureIf you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate. > I can't imagine preferring an iPad over a laptop, and certainly not > over > my desktop. An iPad would constrain me far too much. I can't believe the amount of either/or thinking here. I already prefer my iPod touch to my Macbook and netbook for _reading_ email, web, and Usenet. If I was going to live on a wifi-equipped desert island, and *had* to choose only one device, I'd pick the Macbook. But if I could pick *two*, I'd go with a nice big iMac and an iPad to use while lying in my hammock sipping Pina Coladas. Most people *don't* travel more than a few weeks a year and don't need a full featured computer that they can carry with them at all times. But most (USA) people do have a living room, and a couple of chairs and couches, and a coffee table. The iPad will sit nicely on my coffee table. I will pick it up when I want to check my email, or look at my favorite web sites, or perhaps read a book or magazine. I'll used it to control my stereo, by using the Remote app to pick what album or playlist I want to hear. I'll perhaps play a game or two on it (Angry Birds is awesome :-) I'll maybe look at some videos - YouTube or something I captured with my EyeTV tuner. I'll make sure I have some decent iPhoto albums on it to share when family or company stops by. Instead of retreating to the computer room, or using a laptop that is fairly awkward to use when not placed on a flat surface at waist height, I will be using a device that's comfortable to use and has a screen much bigger than my ever-present iPod touch. To do the kind of stuff I used to spend a lot of time on my computer doing. I'll live in my living room, instead of off by myself in front of the computer. This transition has already started with my touch, but the iPad will solidify it for me, and will make it an option for many folks for whom the iPod screen is way too small, as well as those who just aren't aware of how much a touch or iPhone can do. Will the iPad displace all other computers in my house? Hardly. Will it be the device I will choose first if the activity fits its capabilities? Hell yes. The iPad is something I have been waiting for at least 5 years - the coffee table computer. Right now it is being positioned as an additional device to supplement an existing Mac or Windows PC. But for many people, the iPad will be all they really need. It will draw more and more daily tasks away from the PC until the PC becomes little more than a backup and file server for the iPad. Not for everyone, and probably not for the majority of readers here, but for a lot of folks. I'm sure that Apple has work underway to allow an iPad to work "untethered" as a primary computer. Just as the iPhone set a benchmark for cell phones, the iPad will do so for "casual" computers. The self-styled "power users" will bitch and moan about missing ports and features, while the general public will snatch them up like mad. Especially after Apple gears up the ad campaign... This is the future of computing for "the rest of us", and Apple has an incredible head start on their competitors, with an OS that scales across the entire line and a huge base of great applications that are ready at launch day. The extra month I'm going to have to wait to get a GPS+G3 equipped one is gonna be really long... :-) > I can't imagine preferring an iPad over a laptop, and certainly not over > my desktop. An iPad would constrain me far too much. It all depends on what you want to use it for. I would definitely get an iPad instead of a laptop, but I wouldn't get rid of my iMac. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign > > I can't imagine preferring an iPad over a laptop, and certainly not over > > my desktop. An iPad would constrain me far too much. > > It all depends on what you want to use it for. I would definitely get an > iPad instead of a laptop, but I wouldn't get rid of my iMac. Somewhat echoing what Michelle wrote, but not completely... I use my MacBook a lot, but it isn't great for watching movies in bed or on the patio because a laptop gets warm on the lap. I prefer portrait layout for reading books, newspapers, and the like (maybe that's ingrained cultural behavior from what I'm accustomed to, but at my age that isn't going to change). On the other hand, the iPad doesn't appear to be that great for composing prose (letters, papers, notes) nor does there appear to be a convenient way to get physical printout from it, but I can use my MacBook for that. In short, my take is that the iPad does _some_ of the things I want in a portable device much better than a conventional laptop, but it isn't a replacement, merely a desirable augmentation. SignatureSpenser > On the other hand, the iPad doesn't appear to be that great for > composing prose (letters, papers, notes) nor does there appear to be a > convenient way to get physical printout from it, but I can use my > MacBook for that. Right now, I can print photos directly to my printer from my iPhone via WiFi. I can easily envision an app for the iPad to print via WiFi too. And, come to think of it, since most printers these days have a USB connection, I wouldn't be surprised to see printer drivers to print from an iPad that way either. > In short, my take is that the iPad does _some_ of the things I want in a > portable device much better than a conventional laptop, but it isn't a > replacement, merely a desirable augmentation. In my case, the things that an iPad doesn't do as well as a computer, can be done with my desktop. The iPad does everything I'd want in a mobile device. I just don't know whether I'd want to do them often enough to warrant the expense and the inconvenience of carrying the thing around. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.