Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the 'The iPad gives you a phone's worth of features in a laptop size. No thanks.' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
The iPad gives you a phone's worth of features in a laptop size. No thanks.
Authored by: Raptor007 on Feb 02, '10 06:16:37PM

The iPhone's success does not justify the existence of the iPad. The iPhone gives you some of the features of a laptop, but in a size that fits in your pocket. It's a useful tradeoff.

The iPad gives you some of the features of a laptop, but with no extra portability. It doesn't fit in your pocket, so you're still going to carry it in your arms or in a bag of some sort. Thus, you'd be better off with a real laptop that isn't limited to App Store functionality.

The only market I see for this thing is people who are too incompetent to use a fully-featured operating system without screwing it up. Sadly, that's still a pretty big market.



[ Reply to This | # ]
The iPad gives you a phone's worth of features in a laptop size. No thanks.
Authored by: Makosuke on Feb 25, '10 01:46:50PM

it's not a pretty big market, it's 95% of the world's population, at MINIMUM. And there's nothing sad about it--Apple finally created something for the masses. The people who read this site happen to not be in the masses, from a technology standpoint, though obviously it still appeals to a decent number of them, as well.

Anyone who's run tech support for a while should be drooling over the prospect of the iPad, or a device like it, filling the need that the vast majority of computer users have been shoehorning professional OSes into for the entire time period between the Apple // and it's disk-is-the-program paradigm and today.

Me, I don't currently need one enough to justify the expense, but I expect I'll buy one for "laid back" browsing, a need that my MBP, or really any full-sized laptop, does not do at all well at.



[ Reply to This | # ]