quik1987
Banned
- Apr 21, 2001
- 7,735
- 434
Apple Won.
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by eye see soles,
- Start date
- Sep 7, 2004
- 338
- 10
- Jul 21, 2006
- 393
- 21
not a apple fanboy
- May 18, 2009
- 5,215
- 118
What? I'm sorry, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
I don't know why you highlighted and underlined that particular part of what I wrote. Reading comprehension is key. What I was saying is that it doesn't matter why a person buy's the iPad. What matters to the developer is that people are buying the iPad.
Please explain the part I highlighted. What exactly do you mean by reasoning? I'm saying I could see the iPad used to better share and help visualize information in those professions.
ghenges
Supporter
- Jul 18, 2003
- 7,619
- 2,755
The fanboys are out of control. Seriously, your wives are going to cheat on you.
pltcsasusual
Banned
- Nov 27, 2009
- 757
- 10
The problem is, this is just not factually correct. As I said, my doctor carries a laptop w/him to every room and he has diagrams of the human body and a wifi connection on the laptop. If I want to read up on something @home, he just emails me a wikipedia page or w/e. How will the iPad change this? What, he's going to pinch-to-zoom on a diagram of a colon? Sure, some developer will come up w/a rich 3-D model of the human body and I'm sure it'll be on the iPad, but, again, that's not software that can't be implemented on a laptop. None of these innovations are iPad-dependent. What is an iPad capable of that current phones/laptops/tablets are not? Flipping the screen upside down to make Alice bounce on her head? Oooooh laaaaawd, I gotsta have that.
That doesn't make sense. Not to be a douche, but you can't flesh out potential because fleshed out potential would be a realization of potential. And even if you could flesh out potential, a week-old iPad is about as far from fleshed out as anything can be. Developmental potential? Sure, mostly as a result of the marketing and strong fanbase - which necessitates attention from all serious developers who wish to tap into a large segment of the consumer market.
Sure, the iPad will do some things better. But I don't see how the iPad justifies the time, labor and money that will have to be poured into these industries to accommodate it. Every year there are millions of cars produced that do some things better than the car you ride/drive. And, yet, you're probably not buying a dozen new cars every year. And none of the innovations you mentioned revolutionized anything. DVDs improved picture quality and saved space, but the real game changer was downloading/streaming and, arguably, HD televisions. Pens didn't change anything, they just allowed people to write darker and more consistently; but they still had to write w/their hands. Laptops allowed people to move around, I'll grant you that. The two big innovations there were in battery life and wifi. IPods didn't change anything about the technology or usefulness of mp3 players; Apple just marketed their product better than anyone else and had a hardcore following to eat it up and increase awareness about the existence of mp3 players. Mp3 players, in general, didn't revolutionize portable music, they just made it easier to bring more songs w/you. The real game-changer was peer-to-peer file sharing, which allowed one to expand a music library exponentially with little effort and virtually no physical limitations. The touch screen on the iPod is probably the greatest Apple innovation b/c it allowed users to have a keyboard and mouse that took up no physical space and made portable video in a non-DVD format a reasonable form of entertainment. I'm not trying to shoot down your examples b/c its easy to do so, I'm doing it to prove my point about the iPad. The iPad is a small Mac/large iPhone and therefore is similar it its revolutionary potential to the examples you mentioned, none of which were truly revolutionary. The technology needed to duplicate the video from OP on a laptop/phone/mp3 player is readily available, the only thing lacking is the Alice in Wonderland software. Sure, its a cute video. But its not groundbreaking. Its just a great job by Apple of demonstrating their technology to an audience that is not familiar with computer technology.
Perfect example of what Apple is great at: My mom has an Android phone. I loaded it up w/music for her. She still took her phone and iPod to the gym. Why? Because "you play music on an iPod." Conceptually, she did not understand that the phone was capable of playing music exactly like her iPod does. Portable music does not exist in a lot of people's minds if you take away their iPods. How many people own mp3 players that aren't iPods? And most of them refer to their mp3 players as iPods, anyway. Apple takes technology that already exists, bundles it into a slick package, demonstrates its capability while a catchy song plays in the background and charges more than its competitors. Simple as that. And they're better than anyone else at doing it. And thats why I buy Apple shares, not Apple products.
P.S. "Pens, pencils and cassettes" are not possessive nouns. Keep your apostrophes to yourself.
P.P.S. This is what innovative and revolutionary products look like: http://www.youtube.com/user/jcl5m
U mad?
- Apr 14, 2004
- 12,703
- 71
The iPhone was revolutionary to people who only know about Apple products. It brought touch screens to phones, that's about it. It wasn't the first internet-capable device, wasn't the first phone capable of storing music and wasn't the first phone capable of single-tasking. Let's not get too carried away. Its an iPod that can send and receive calls - when you have a signal.
it made a useable OS tho. as much as WinMo tried, it wasn't finger friendly. and not everybody likes taking care of an extra piece of hardware (stylus) for simple stuff. sure, you could do more in WinMo than you could on the iPhone.. but in typical apple fashion.. the iphone made it easier. then came android and made it the best of both worlds.
also, one could argue that the iphone brought out the app stores. sure you could get apps for windows and even palm OS.. but there was never a one stop shop like how apple's app store is (but with apple's tyrant attitude, u can only get so much). and once again, android made it better. app store, but still the ability to install apps off the net.
can i go to the mall and buy/use it right now?
/thread
you're not really going to compare a billion dollar company to smaller companies are you? the tablets are out there to the mass market. it isn't some secret club or anything.
- Mar 8, 2010
- 21,800
- 3,553
Sure, the iPad will do some things better. But I don't see how the iPad justifies the time, labor and money that will have to be poured into these industries to accommodate it. Every year there are millions of cars produced that do some things better than the car you ride/drive. And, yet, you're probably not buying a dozen new cars every year. And none of the innovations you mentioned revolutionized anything. DVDs improved picture quality and saved space, but the real game changer was downloading/streaming and, arguably, HD televisions. Pens didn't change anything, they just allowed people to write darker and more consistently; but they still had to write w/their hands. Laptops allowed people to move around, I'll grant you that. The two big innovations there were in battery life and wifi. IPods didn't change anything about the technology or usefulness of mp3 players; Apple just marketed their product better than anyone else and had a hardcore following to eat it up and increase awareness about the existence of mp3 players. Mp3 players, in general, didn't revolutionize portable music, they just made it easier to bring more songs w/you. The real game-changer was peer-to-peer file sharing, which allowed one to expand a music library exponentially with little effort and virtually no physical limitations. The touch screen on the iPod is probably the greatest Apple innovation b/c it allowed users to have a keyboard and mouse that took up no physical space and made portable video in a non-DVD format a reasonable form of entertainment. I'm not trying to shoot down your examples b/c its easy to do so, I'm doing it to prove my point about the iPad. The iPad is a small Mac/large iPhone and therefore is similar it its revolutionary potential to the examples you mentioned, none of which were truly revolutionary. The technology needed to duplicate the video from OP on a laptop/phone/mp3 player is readily available, the only thing lacking is the Alice in Wonderland software. Sure, its a cute video. But its not groundbreaking. Its just a great job by Apple of demonstrating their technology to an audience that is not familiar with computer technology.
Perfect example of what Apple is great at: My mom has an Android phone. I loaded it up w/music for her. She still took her phone and iPod to the gym. Why? Because "you play music on an iPod." Conceptually, she did not understand that the phone was capable of playing music exactly like her iPod does. Portable music does not exist in a lot of people's minds if you take away their iPods. How many people own mp3 players that aren't iPods? And most of them refer to their mp3 players as iPods, anyway. Apple takes technology that already exists, bundles it into a slick package, demonstrates its capability while a catchy song plays in the background and charges more than its competitors. Simple as that. And they're better than anyone else at doing it. And thats why I buy Apple shares, not Apple products.
P.S. "Pens, pencils and cassettes" are not possessive nouns. Keep your apostrophes to yourself.
P.P.S. This is what innovative and revolutionary products look like: http://www.youtube.com/user/jcl5m
U mad?
Yeah, he mad.
"Oh yea ya mom goin too"
- Sep 7, 2004
- 338
- 10
- Jul 9, 2008
- 2,390
- 17
Ipad is for tech noobs and rich blondes
- May 18, 2009
- 5,215
- 118
The problem is, this is just not factually correct. As I said, my doctor carries a laptop w/him to every room and he has diagrams of the human body and a wifi connection on the laptop. If I want to read up on something @home, he just emails me a wikipedia page or w/e. How will the iPad change this? What, he's going to pinch-to-zoom on a diagram of a colon? Sure, some developer will come up w/a rich 3-D model of the human body and I'm sure it'll be on the iPad, but, again, that's not software that can't be implemented on a laptop. None of these innovations are iPad-dependent. What is an iPad capable of that current phones/laptops/tablets are not? Flipping the screen upside down to make Alice bounce on her head? Oooooh laaaaawd, I gotsta have that.
That doesn't make sense. Not to be a douche, but you can't flesh out potential because fleshed out potential would be a realization of potential. And even if you could flesh out potential, a week-old iPad is about as far from fleshed out as anything can be. Developmental potential? Sure, mostly as a result of the marketing and strong fanbase - which necessitates attention from all serious developers who wish to tap into a large segment of the consumer market.
Sure, the iPad will do some things better. But I don't see how the iPad justifies the time, labor and money that will have to be poured into these industries to accommodate it. Every year there are millions of cars produced that do some things better than the car you ride/drive. And, yet, you're probably not buying a dozen new cars every year. And none of the innovations you mentioned revolutionized anything. DVDs improved picture quality and saved space, but the real game changer was downloading/streaming and, arguably, HD televisions. Pens didn't change anything, they just allowed people to write darker and more consistently; but they still had to write w/their hands. Laptops allowed people to move around, I'll grant you that. The two big innovations there were in battery life and wifi. IPods didn't change anything about the technology or usefulness of mp3 players; Apple just marketed their product better than anyone else and had a hardcore following to eat it up and increase awareness about the existence of mp3 players. Mp3 players, in general, didn't revolutionize portable music, they just made it easier to bring more songs w/you. The real game-changer was peer-to-peer file sharing, which allowed one to expand a music library exponentially with little effort and virtually no physical limitations. The touch screen on the iPod is probably the greatest Apple innovation b/c it allowed users to have a keyboard and mouse that took up no physical space and made portable video in a non-DVD format a reasonable form of entertainment. I'm not trying to shoot down your examples b/c its easy to do so, I'm doing it to prove my point about the iPad. The iPad is a small Mac/large iPhone and therefore is similar it its revolutionary potential to the examples you mentioned, none of which were truly revolutionary. The technology needed to duplicate the video from OP on a laptop/phone/mp3 player is readily available, the only thing lacking is the Alice in Wonderland software. Sure, its a cute video. But its not groundbreaking. Its just a great job by Apple of demonstrating their technology to an audience that is not familiar with computer technology.
Perfect example of what Apple is great at: My mom has an Android phone. I loaded it up w/music for her. She still took her phone and iPod to the gym. Why? Because "you play music on an iPod." Conceptually, she did not understand that the phone was capable of playing music exactly like her iPod does. Portable music does not exist in a lot of people's minds if you take away their iPods. How many people own mp3 players that aren't iPods? And most of them refer to their mp3 players as iPods, anyway. Apple takes technology that already exists, bundles it into a slick package, demonstrates its capability while a catchy song plays in the background and charges more than its competitors. Simple as that. And they're better than anyone else at doing it. And thats why I buy Apple shares, not Apple products.
P.S. "Pens, pencils and cassettes" are not possessive nouns. Keep your apostrophes to yourself.
P.P.S. This is what innovative and revolutionary products look like: http://www.youtube.com/user/jcl5m
So with all that being said, you're just not a fan of tablets?
- Sep 7, 2004
- 338
- 10
- Nov 23, 2008
- 1,071
- 10
never buy the first gen anything
- Dec 21, 2002
- 28,123
- 2,686
Pass
- Mar 31, 2006
- 2,631
- 218
I was at the apple store the other day to fix my iphone and the Ipad is definitely
but unnecessary. I rather just cop a macbook with the money.
- Jan 31, 2005
- 1,106
- 39
I don't see how that is even useful. Does anyone have a reason as to why I would need to shake something just to see images move when I could just be reading the book or watching the movie?
- Oct 24, 2007
- 4,298
- 367
I think its pretty cool *Kanye Shrug*
- Sep 17, 2008
- 14,892
- 2,382
I don't give a damn what yall haters or fanboys say. To stay on the original topic, that pop out book idea is pretty damn dope.
What product out RIGHT NOW does that besides the iPad? (still wouldn't buy one but I appreciate the effort)
What product out RIGHT NOW does that besides the iPad? (still wouldn't buy one but I appreciate the effort)
- Oct 6, 2003
- 6,241
- 10
I'd love to have an iPad a few years from now, I love toys. But I bought a Kindle because it does one thing and it does it well. I don't want to read books on the iPad. 800+ page novels without the digital ink is a pain on the eyes. It'd be cool for graphic novels I guess.
I'm reading Alice right now as they're free
I'm reading Alice right now as they're free
- Nov 1, 2006
- 2,865
- 12
- Apr 5, 2008
- 8,858
- 600
Originally Posted by Dips3tRydah
- Nov 8, 2004
- 378
- 36
Talking about the original post in this thread, how much is that Alice app going to cost? And how many times are you actually going to use it? Not more than a handful of times, thats for sure. i would rather wait for either of these:Courier
HP Slate
And Adobe showing off flash on the HP Slate.
HP Slate
And Adobe showing off flash on the HP Slate.
- Apr 12, 2008
- 366
- 13
Seems that some love it just cause its Apple and some hate it just cause its Apple.
Cant we just appreciate that it was a cool app that was posted and no other device right now can do that and most kids would love that app?
Also I talked about potential...check out this app and tell me that developers will not do AMAZING things with this device:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNOMpH4bWV8
Cant we just appreciate that it was a cool app that was posted and no other device right now can do that and most kids would love that app?
Also I talked about potential...check out this app and tell me that developers will not do AMAZING things with this device:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNOMpH4bWV8
- Sep 7, 2004
- 338
- 10
^ Its a cool app but proper utilization of existing technology does not make Apple the "winner" in the tablet market. I have an iPod touch, I understand the potential of a 10" iPod. Apple needs to show me something new. I appreciate the complexity of the original app and I appreciate the example above, but neither of them made my jimmy wiggle. Not even a little bit. Any device with a gyroscope can run the first app. Any touch screen device can run the elements app. Let's not get too excited about rocks spinning around in circles. Its showing you all 3 dimensions of a three-dimensional object, but that should not be confused w/thinking the iPad is a 3-D device. Even the Courier and Slate - both of which offer advantages over the iPad for a similar price - fail to bring anything truly revolutionary to the consumer.
Apple needs to stop ignoring Adobe. Adobe is going to bend over backwards to make other phones and tablets more appealing to consumers. You can talk til you're blue in the face about HTML5, but the fact of the matter is that Flash is here, its wildly popular and the entire internet is not going to change to accommodate an overgrown iPod. Another thought on competition: What if Google starts pumping out Android tablets and does not allow Apple products on its WiFi networks? Would mothers be willing to pay $360/year so their children could walk around w/an Apple on the back of their tablet?
The fact that we don't have any amazing multi-touch apps is somewhat disconcerting to me. I thought by now we'd have some great apps that utilize this technology. I suppose multi-touch will be easier on the iPad due to the larger screen, but that also makes it more difficult to hold so you'd probably be playing the game with the iPad sitting on a table. Seems like there's a lot of potential when you combine the gyroscope technology w/multi-touch but maybe the iPad should be 6-8" instead of 10"
Apple needs to stop ignoring Adobe. Adobe is going to bend over backwards to make other phones and tablets more appealing to consumers. You can talk til you're blue in the face about HTML5, but the fact of the matter is that Flash is here, its wildly popular and the entire internet is not going to change to accommodate an overgrown iPod. Another thought on competition: What if Google starts pumping out Android tablets and does not allow Apple products on its WiFi networks? Would mothers be willing to pay $360/year so their children could walk around w/an Apple on the back of their tablet?
The fact that we don't have any amazing multi-touch apps is somewhat disconcerting to me. I thought by now we'd have some great apps that utilize this technology. I suppose multi-touch will be easier on the iPad due to the larger screen, but that also makes it more difficult to hold so you'd probably be playing the game with the iPad sitting on a table. Seems like there's a lot of potential when you combine the gyroscope technology w/multi-touch but maybe the iPad should be 6-8" instead of 10"
- Sep 18, 2004
- 136
- 10
Isn't that the same way a pop up book works kinda?
